“Why Should I,the One Who Was Raped,Be Forced to Take Training in What Sexual Assault Is?” Sexual Assault Survivors’ and Those Who Know Survivors’ Responses to a Campus Sexual Assault Education Program

Abstract

This study critically examines sexual assault survivors’ (people with histories of sexual assault) and those who know survivors’ (those who know and/or who are close to people with histories of sexual assault) responses to a mandatory online campus sexual assault education program using both quantitative survey data (N = 1,899) and qualitative narratives (n = 41) from a sample of students at a large southern university with special attention to gender, sexual identity, race, ethnicity, college group affiliations (student athletics, fraternities/sororities, LGBTQ [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, queer] ally programs), and the intersections between these identities and affiliations. The quantitative findings show that knowing/being a woman survivor is positively related to supportive attitudes toward the sexual assault education program and inversely, knowing/being a man survivor is negatively related to support of the program. In addition, being a woman, being gay/lesbian, being Black/African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American/Alaskan Native, or another race, and being a sorority member are all significantly related to supportive attitudes toward the sexual assault education program. Furthermore, qualitative analyses revealed that the majority of personal survivors’ narratives indicated traumatic/triggering responses whereas most of those who provided narratives about knowing survivors(s) indicated praiseworthy reactions. Overall, the current study offers empirically driven sexual assault education program implications that acknowledge survivors’ and those who know survivors’ experiences with the ultimate goal of determining how to best meet students’ needs.

Keywords

campus sexual assault survivors rape victims gender gay lesbian heterosexual bisexual race/ethnicity fraternity/sorority athlete LGBTQ ally college university

American universities first began to develop education programs focused on sexual assault in the 1980s (e.g., Briskin & Gary, 1986) but programming became much more popular on college campuses following the passage of the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act of 1990, now known as the Clery Act (20 U.S.C.A., § 1092) and is now mandated under the Campus Sexual Violence Elimination (SaVE) Act (H.R. 2016, 112th Cong. 2013). The SaVE Act instructs colleges and universities to provide education programming for students and employees that includes primary prevention and awareness, safe and positive options for bystander intervention, risk reduction strategies, as well as ongoing prevention and awareness efforts (Thomas-Card & Eichele, 2016). As a result of these efforts, hundreds of campus sexual assault education programs have been developed and implemented. Studies indicate that college sexual assault education programs have significant effects on (a) reducing rape myth acceptance, the behavioral intent to rape, and the actual incidence of sexual aggression; (b) improving attitudes toward women and empathy for sexual assault survivors; (c) increasing factual knowledge about sexual assault and the willingness to report sexual assault; (d) adopting bystander intervention strategies, (e) understanding privilege; and (f) reduced associations with sexually aggressive peers (Anderson & Whiston, 2005; Barone, Wolgemuth, & Linder, 2007; Bradley, Yeater, & O’Donohue, 2009; Foubert & Newberry, 2006; Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Foubert, Brasfield, Hill, & Shelley-Tremblay, 2011).

However, student opinions about campus sexual assault education are less understood. The bulk of past studies show that student responses to sexual assault education differ by gender (Berkowitz, 2002; Brecklin & Forde, 2001; Breitenbecher, 2000; Heppner, Humphrey, Hillenbrand-Gunn, & DeBord, 1995; Holcomb, Sarvela, Sondag, & Holcomb, 1993; Holcomb, Sondag, & Holcomb, 1993) and others show that racial/ethnic identity (Foubert & Cremedy, 2007; Foubert, Godin, & Tatum, 2010; Worthen & Wallace, 2017), sexual identity (Rothman & Silverman, 2007; Worthen & Baker, 2014; Worthen & Wallace, 2017), college Greek affiliation (Anderson & Whiston, 2005; Foubert & Newberry, 2006; Worthen & Wallace, 2017; Yeater & O’Donohue, 1999), and the intersections among these identities and affiliations (Worthen & Wallace, 2017) are associated with different responses to sexual assault education. What is missing is a critical examination of how survivors (people with histories of sexual assault) and those who know survivors (those who know and/or who are close to people with histories of sexual assault) are responding to sexual assault education. This is particularly important because under the mandates of the SaVE Act, all colleges and universities must require their students to participate in mandatory sexual assault education programs (Thomas-Card & Eichele, 2016). Thus, many survivors and those who know survivors are being forced to endure education experiences that may be problematic and traumatic to them because of their personal histories with sexual assault. In addition, it is likely that both survivors and those who know survivors have different reactions to sexual assault education (as compared with those who do not have personal experiences with sexual assault), although no previous studies have demonstrated such differences on college campuses. This is surprising given that the importance of trigger warnings¹ has been emphasized in strategies for teaching about sexual assault in the classroom (e.g., Branch, Hayes-Smith, & Richards, 2011; Byron, 2017; Carter, 2015; cf. Boysen, Wells, & Dawson, 2016). Without a clear understanding of student responses to campus education that acknowledges survivors’ and those who know survivors’ experiences, we are unable to establish empirically driven programs that could contribute to very real changes on college campuses. As a result, it is important to critically examine how survivors and those who know survivors are responding to sexual assault education.

An intersectionality paradigm (e.g., Collins, 2000; Crenshaw, 1991; Davis, 2008) takes into consideration how our social positions in society, including how our gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, and victimization experiences (among others) shape our perspectives and life trajectories. The intersectionality framework utilized here acknowledges the power imbalances embedded across these identities and the ways multiple marginalized identities interact to situate certain individuals (i.e., survivors and those who know survivors, see Rae, 2016) as particularly disadvantaged and overlooked in sexual assault education programs. Thus, our approach to understanding student responses to campus sexual assault education investigates how identities and affiliations converge and differentially situate individuals’ experiences while emphasizing the significance of being and/or knowing a survivor of sexual assault as an experience that shapes potential for revictimization during compulsory sexual assault education.

The purpose of the current study is to utilize an intersectional framework to critically examine how students’ intersecting identities and experiences, including past victimization, relate to their responses to a mandatory campus-wide sexual assault education program. This is particularly important because no research in this line of inquiry has focused on survivors or those who know survivors and their intersectional lives. Thus, this study contributes to gaps in the literature and provides empirically driven campus program suggestions by utilizing an intersectional mixed methods framework that acknowledges personal histories with sexual assault (being/knowing a survivor), gender, sexual identity, race, ethnicity, college group affiliations (student athletics, fraternities/sororities, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, queer [LGBTQ] ally programs), and the intersections between these identities and affiliations as they relate to student perspectives about campus sexual assault education.

Campus Sexual Assault Survivors and Intersectionality

Despite the growing attention from university administrators, student-led initiatives, and various media outlets, sexual assault remains a serious issue on college campuses. The vast majority of published reports about campus sexual assault indicate that college women are significantly more likely to experience sexual violence when compared with college men (Fisher, Daigle, & Cullen, 2009; Krebs, Lindquist, Berzofsky, Shook-Sa, & Peterson, 2016; Krebs, Lindquist, Warner, Fisher, & Martin, 2007). For example, the Association of American Universities Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct (AAUCCS) provides data gathered from over 150,000 students enrolled in 27 universities (Cantor et al., 2015). Among these college students, about one in four women (23.6%) and one in 17 men (5.8%) experienced nonconsensual sexual contact during college. Among those who identified as transgender, genderqueer, nonconforming, questioning, or as something not listed on the survey (henceforth, TGQN), nearly one in three (27.8%) experienced nonconsensual sexual contact during college. Among heterosexual and lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) students, about one in four bisexual students (25.3%) and one in seven gay/lesbian students (13.7%) experienced nonconsensual sexual contact since entering college, whereas heterosexual college students were less likely to report nonconsensual sexual contact (10.8%). Moreover, bisexual women were significantly more likely than any other group to experience nonconsensual sexual contact during college (31.7%) whereas heterosexual men were least likely to have these types of experiences (3.6%; Cantor et al., 2015). Overall, there is strong evidence that college students are at risk of sexual assault (Fisher et al., 2009), and this risk is especially high for heterosexual women, LGB, and TGQN college students (Cantor et al., 2015; Martin, Fisher, Warner, Krebs, & Lindquist, 2011).

Race and ethnic identity are also essential to examine as they relate to campus sexual assault. For example, the AAUCCS found that substantially fewer Asian American students experience nonconsensual sexual contact (7.7%) as compared with other racial/ethnic groups (e.g., 13.0% of White students report nonconsensual sexual contact) whereas American Indian/Alaskan Native students experience the most nonconsensual sexual contact (15.1%) among the racial/ethnic groups examined (Cantor et al., 2015). Other research finds marked differences between White and Black/African American undergraduate women. Indeed, in a study of 935 undergraduate women, a significantly higher percentage of African American women (36%) compared with White women (26%) reported unwanted sexual experiences (Gross, Winslett, Roberts, & Gohm, 2006). Additional explorations reveal mixed results related to Hispanic ethnicity. Some find that White non-Hispanic women are significantly more likely than Hispanic women to experience sexual victimization (Arellano, Kuhn, & Chavez, 1997), whereas others find no differences between these groups (Relyea & Ullman, 2017). Still other research with college students finds that compared with non-Hispanic undergraduate women, Hispanic undergraduate women are less likely to experience sexual coercion, more likely to experience attempted rape, but similarly likely to experience completed rape during college (Kalof, 2000).

Some university affiliations are also associated with college sexual assault. For example, belonging to a Greek organization and attending fraternity parties substantially increases the likelihood of sexual assault among college women (Krebs et al., 2007). Indeed, sorority members have been found to experience sexual assault at 4 times the rate of nonsorority members (Minow & Einolf, 2009). In addition, compared with college athletes, nonathlete students are more likely to report sexual victimization (Fasting, Brackenridge, Miller, & Sabo, 2008). Moreover, first years and sophomores are significantly more likely to experience sexual assault when compared with juniors, seniors, and graduate students (Cantor et al., 2015; Gross et al., 2006). Thus, overall, it is clear that gender, sexual identity, race, and ethnicity, as well as college affiliations and characteristics (e.g., Greek life, athletics, student classification) contribute to the risk of experiencing sexual violence on campus and elsewhere.

Knowing a Survivor and Intersectionality

The vast majority of research indicates that most (66%-87%) sexual assault survivors disclose their assault to someone, most commonly a friend or family member (e.g., Ahrens, Campbell, Ternier-Thames, Wasco, & Sefl, 2007; Banyard, Moynihan, Walsh, Cohn, & Ward, 2010; Fisher, Daigle, Cullen, & Turner, 2003). Indeed, knowing a survivor is a common experience reported among undergraduate students (Streng & Kamimura, 2017). For example, in their stratified random sample of 1,285 undergraduate students from a large Northeastern university, Sorenson, Joshi, and Sivitz (2014) found that two out of three (65%) undergraduate students indicated knowing a woman sexual assault survivor (if the student was a woman, she could include herself and/or other women in her response). In addition, women were significantly more likely than men to report knowing a woman sexual assault survivor (72% of women indicated as such compared with 55% of men), and Black and Hispanic students were significantly more likely than Whites and Asians to report knowing a woman sexual assault survivor (80% of Blacks and 73% of Hispanics indicated as such compared with 68% of Whites and 52% of Asians). Furthermore, nearly all (90%) of Black women undergraduates reported knowing a woman sexual assault survivor whereas only 44% of Asian men indicated similarly (Sorenson et al., 2014). No studies could be located that examined knowing a survivor by sexual identity and we found no research regarding knowing a survivor among sorority/fraternity members, student athletes, or LGBTQ ally program affiliates. In addition, we found no studies that specifically inquired about knowing men sexual assault survivors. Thus, the current study is among the first to examine these patterns.

Intersectionality and Responses to Campus Sexual Assault Education Programs

Overall, the effectiveness of college-based sexual assault education varies depending on the type of audience and facilitator as well as the content and format (e.g., online, in person, workshop; Anderson & Whiston, 2005; Vladutiu, Martin, & Macy, 2011). In particular, men and women have been found to respond differently to sexual assault education programs in part because programming for men typically focuses on reducing the likelihood that that they will sexually assault others whereas programs for women often prioritize strategies to avoid sexual victimization (Berkowitz, 2002; Brecklin & Forde, 2001; Breitenbecher, 2000; Heppner et al., 1995; Holcomb et al.,1993; Holcomb, Sondag, & Holcomb, 1993). Studies investigating fraternity/sorority members (Anderson & Whiston, 2005; Foubert & Newberry, 2006; Yeater & O’Donohue, 1999) and male college athletes (e.g., Foubert & Cowell, 2004) also demonstrate gender differences in responses to sexual assault education and emphasize the need to develop specialized college sexual assault prevention programs that address the uniqueness of Greek life and athletic culture. In addition, being an LGBTQ ally program participant has been found to be related to more awareness and knowledge about campus sexual assault (Worthen & Wallace, 2017).

Additional research about race/ethnicity and sexual assault program effectiveness is rather limited. A handful of studies have examined Black, Latino, and Asian college men, and such findings show that although the majority (72%) who participated in a rape prevention program agreed that their attitudes on rape had changed and also believed that their behaviors would change in the future, only one third of participants indicated that the program increased their rape awareness and some found the program of little value mostly because they were already aware of the issues presented in the training (Foubert & Cremedy, 2007; Foubert et al., 2010). Thus, sexual assault programs may not be effectively addressing Black, Latino, and Asian college men. In contrast, however, Worthen and Wallace (2017) found that Black/African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American/Alaskan Native, and those students indicating “Other” races were significantly more supportive of mandatory sexual assault education when compared with White students.

In one of the few studies that has examined sexual identity and sexual assault education, Rothman and Silverman (2007) found that exposure to a sexual assault education program significantly decreased the odds of experiencing sexual assault for all college students, and this was especially true for LGB students. Although such results are promising, Worthen and Baker (2014) found that compared with heterosexual and gay/lesbian students, bisexual students were least supportive of a mandatory campus-wide online sexual assault education program with nearly one third of bisexual students indicating that the program had “no impact.” Furthermore, compared to heterosexual and bisexual students, gay and lesbian students were significantly more likely to indicate that the program was “biased and impersonal” (Worthen & Baker, 2014). Another college study with close to 15,000 respondents determined that compared to LGB students, heterosexual men were more likely to think that their university was successfully educating students about sexual assault (Krebs et al., 2016). Thus, sexual assault education programs may not be adequately reaching LGB audiences in part because the programs feel “biased and impersonal” and are more likely to be geared toward heterosexual audiences (Krebs et al., 2016; Worthen & Baker, 2014; Worthen & Wallace, 2017).

Scholars note that survivors’ experiences are important to consider in education settings, especially in regard to campus programs and policies (e.g., Bordere, 2017). Indeed, compared to those who have not experienced sexual assault, sexual assault survivors report significantly lower ratings of campus leadership (Krebs, Lindquist, Planty, Langton, & Berzofsky, 2017). One study focused on compulsory military sexual assault education found that survivors (both men and women) were significantly less likely than nonsurvivors to believe that the military education program was effective at reducing/preventing sexual assault (Holland, Rabelo, & Cortina, 2014). However, no studies could be located that specifically examined sexual assault survivors’ or those who know sexual assault survivors’ responses to participating in college sexual assault education programs. This is especially surprising for at least two reasons. First, as reviewed above, research indicates differences in responses to sexual assault education by gender, race/ethnicity, and sexual identity. Given that some groups (e.g., LGB people) are likely to be survivors of sexual assault and to know survivors, it stands to reason that these personal histories with sexual assault might be driving some of these differences in responses to sexual assault education. Yet these relationships remain unexplored. Second, research indicates that university professors recognize the importance of utilizing trigger warnings in classroom discussions of sexual assault. In particular, many professors give a warning prior to their discussion of sensitive material to potentially alleviate the possibility of revictimizing/traumatizing their students (Branch et al., 2011; Byron, 2017; Carter, 2015). Thus, teaching practices utilizing trigger warnings to protect rape survivors and those who know survivors are established, yet a critical examination of the effects of mandatory sexual assault education on survivors remains absent from empirical research. Because discussions of sexual assault (which are now compulsory in American colleges under the SaVE Act, Thomas-Card & Eichele, 2016) have the potential to be revictimizing and traumatizing to survivors, we believe it is essential to explore sexual assault survivors’ and those who know sexual assault survivors’ responses to sexual assault education. Furthermore, to best understand their experiences, it is necessary to examine the intersecting and interacting identities among survivors and those who know survivors as they relate to responses to sexual assault education.

Current Study

Research Question 1: How does knowing/being a survivor relate to student responses to campus-wide sexual assault education programming?

Research Question 2: How do these responses to campus-wide sexual assault education programming vary by identities and college group affiliations?

Overall, the purpose of the current study is to provide empirically driven sexual assault program implications that take into account survivors’ and those who know survivors’ experiences. This is particularly important because without recognizing students’ victimization experiences, we are left with an incomplete understanding of campus sexual assault and we are left without the proper tools to make changes on college campuses that address survivors’ and those who know survivors’ diverse needs. Thus, the current study’s intersectional approach centers college students’ unique lived experiences and personal histories with sexual assault; recognizes how gender, sexuality, race, and other structural forms of oppression and privilege shape student responses to education programming; and offers empirically driven program implications.

Method

Data and Sample Characteristics

The data set was derived from student responses to an online survey written by the lead author and distributed by mass email to all students enrolled in a large southern university (~24,000). Respondents were offered a recruitment incentive (the chance to win an iPad). The survey was comprised of closed- and open-ended questions about campus sexual assault as well as affiliations with college groups and other demographics. Students were also asked about the newly instituted campus-wide online mandatory² sexual assault education program in which students view a 45-slide PowerPoint learning module about consent, sexual harassment, sexual violence, nonconsensual sexual contact, stalking, and sexual coercion.

The quantitative study sample included all survey respondents (N = 1,899). It was 58% women, 76% White, and 80% heterosexual. The average age of respondents was 24.6 years and 72% were undergraduate students. More than half (52%) reported knowing/being a woman survivor of sexual assault and 19% indicated knowing/being a man survivor of sexual assault. Although all respondents provided open-ended responses, due to the current study’s focus on survivors’ experiences, only those students who explicitly mentioned personal experiences (either their own or others) with sexual assault in their open-ended responses were included the qualitative study subsample (n = 41).³ It was 61% women, 78% White, and 78% heterosexual. The average age of these respondents was 25.5 years and 73% were undergraduate students. More than half (54%) reported knowing/being a woman survivor of sexual assault, 22% indicated knowing/being a man survivor, and 24% did not state the gender of the survivor they were referring to in their open-ended response. See Table 1 for more details.

Table 1.

Sample Characteristics by Know/Are Survivor.

	Quantitative Sample				Qualitative Subsample
	Range	Full Sample	Know/Are Woman Survivor	Know/Are Man Survivor	Full Subsample	Personal Survivor Narrative	Know Survivor(s)’ Narrative
	Range	N = 1,899	n = 1,098	n = 410	n = 41	n = 23	n = 18
Know/are survivor
Know/are sexual assault survivor	0-1	58%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%
Know/are woman sexual assault survivor	0-1	52%	100%	89%	54%	74%	28%
Know/are man sexual assault survivor	0-1	19%	33%	100%	22%	26%	17%
Gender of known sexual assault survivor not stated	—	—	—	—	24%	0%	55%
Gender and sexual identity
Woman	0-1	58%	67%	55%	61%	74%	44%
Heterosexual (reference)	0-1	80%	74%	63%	61%	52%	72%
Mostly heterosexual	0-1	11%	15%	21%	17%	17%	16%
Bisexual	0-1	4%	5%	6%	7%	13%	0%
Gay/lesbian	0-1	5%	5%	10%	15%	17%	11%
Racial and ethnic identity
Caucasian/White (reference)	0-1	76%	72%	72%	78%	83%	72%
Black/African American	0-1	5%	4%	4%	2%	4%	0%
Asian/Pacific Islander	0-1	7%	4%	3%	5%	4%	6%
Native American/Alaskan Native	0-1	5%	5%	5%	5%	0%	11%
Other race	0-1	7%	5%	6%	10%	9%	11%
Hispanic/Latino	0-1	8%	7%	7%	12%	13%	11%
College group affiliations
Student athlete	0-1	2%	2%	2%	0%	0%	0%
Fraternity (all male)	0-1	7%	5%	8%	5%	4%	6%
Sorority (all female)	0-1	8%	11%	5%	7%	4%	11%
Campus LGBTQ ally program participant	0-1	6%	7%	9%	2%	4%	0%
Student characteristics
First years (reference category)	0-1	12%	10%	7%	2%	0%	6%
Sophomore	0-1	14%	13%	10%	17%	13%	22%
Junior	0-1	19%	19%	17%	12%	13%	11%
Senior	0-1	27%	28%	33%	42%	39%	44%
Graduate/law student	0-1	28%	30%	34%	27%	35%	17%
Social sciences major	0-1	32%	40%	42%	44%	39%	50%
Sociodemographics
Age, M	18-65 years	24.61	25.31	26.45	25.49	25.65	25.28
Married	0-1	18%	18%	18%	12%	13%	11%
Have children	0-1	14%	17%	19%	15%	17%	11%
Grew up in the Southern U.S.	0-1	69%	71%	68%	68%	70%	67%
Total high school size, M	1-5	3.55	3.55	3.46	3.39	3.43	3.33

Note. The qualitative subsample includes only those who discussed being or knowing a survivor of sexual assault in their open-ended responses. LGBTQ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer.

Closed-Ended Measures

Dependent variable

Attitudes toward campus-wide sexual assault education program

Principal components analysis was conducted using seven statements (e.g., “Overall, I found value in [this University’s] online sexual misconduct training program”) with response options on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree; see the appendix for all statements in the scale). Because this analysis revealed one factor with an eigenvalue greater than 1 (eigenvalue = 4.23), the items were summed to create the Attitudes Toward Campus-Wide Sexual Assault Education Program Scale. This scale was developed by the lead author for the purposes of this study and other closely related projects (e.g., Worthen & Wallace, 2017). Higher scores indicate more supportive attitudes toward the program (α = .89, M = 23.58, SD = 5.80, range = 7-35).

Independent variables

Know/are sexual assault survivor

Students were also asked to respond to the following two statements on a 5-point Likert-type scale⁴ ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree): “In my opinion, I know a woman who has been a victim of sexual assault” and “In my opinion, I know a man who has been a victim of sexual assault.” Those responding with 4 (agree) or 5 (strongly agree) were coded as 1, respectively, for know/are woman sexual assault survivor and know/are man sexual assault survivor, all others (those responding with 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, or 3 = neither agree nor disagree) were coded as 0. Another dummy variable was created for those who reported know/are sexual assault survivor such that those who indicated knowing/being a woman survivor, a man survivor, or both were coded as 1, all others were coded as 0. It is important to note that the way these survey items were phrased allowed students to include themselves and/or others they know as survivors when responding affirmatively. Thus, these variables include both survivors and those who know survivors and are referred to as “know/are” survivors.

Students were asked to provide their gender (man or woman) and their sexual identity (exclusively heterosexual, mostly heterosexual, bisexual, mostly homosexual, and exclusively homosexual). Those identifying as “mostly homosexual” (n = 31) and “exclusively homosexual” (n = 64) were collapsed into the two categories of “gay” or “lesbian” in accordance with gender identities of “man” and “woman,” respectively. “Mostly heterosexual” was kept as a distinct category for four reasons. First, college is a place of new personal discovery as well as newfound freedom, and many college students are exploring their sexual identities while having diverse sexual feelings and experiences. Thus, especially for college students, “mostly heterosexual” may reflect a new set of sexual interests that have not been solidified into a sexual identity such as “bisexual.” Second, and related, there is likely a qualitative difference between those who identify as “bisexual” and those who identify as “mostly heterosexual.” Indeed, “bisexual” is an identity label that can carry palpable stigma (Worthen, 2013); however, indicating on a survey that you are “mostly heterosexual” may not be associated with as much stigma. Third, a large number of students in the current study identified as “mostly heterosexual” (n = 222) but this group is often neglected in previous literature. Fourth, some past work indicates that “mostly heterosexual” women are at higher risk of sexual victimization when compared with “heterosexual” women (Austin, Roberts, Corliss, & Molnar, 2008). Together, this demonstrates that examining “mostly heterosexual” as a distinct category is an interesting and potentially fruitful line of inquiry (Savin-Williams & Vrangalova, 2013). Students were also asked to provide their race (Caucasian/White, Black/African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American/Alaskan Native, or Other race), and their Hispanic/Latino identity regardless of race.

For Greek affiliation, students were asked if they were a member of an all-male fraternity on campus (“yes” responses coded as 1 for Fraternity) or an all-female sorority campus (“yes” responses coded as 1 for Sorority). Students were also asked if they were a member of a university-sponsored athletic team (“yes” responses coded as 1 for Student Athlete) and if they had participated in the campus LGBTQ ally program, an optional cultural awareness workshop that students can attend to learn about LGBTQ people (“yes” responses coded as 1 for Campus LGBTQ Ally Program Participant).

Control variables

Previous research has indicated that younger students and those early in their student career respond to sexual assault education differently than older students and those later in their tenure at a university (Foubert et al., 2010). Thus, we include student classification (first years [1], sophomore [2], junior [3], senior [4], graduate or law student [5]), and age [in years]). In addition, because social science majors are more likely to be exposed to a wide variety of courses about sex and sexuality that may address issues such as rape and sexual assault, we include majoring in a social science (e.g., sociology, criminology, psychology, anthropology, history, social work, and international studies) versus other majors (social sciences major = 1, others = 0). Furthermore, because married students are less likely to experience sexual assault as compared with never married students (Cantor et al., 2015), we include marital status as a control (married =1, others = 0). We also examined having children (1 = yes, 0 = no) as a control variable because being a parent may also relate to perspectives about sexual assault education (Byers, Sears, & Weaver, 2008). Finally, because some previous work (e.g., Worthen, 2011) has found that growing up in the Southern U.S. (1 = yes, 0 = no) and graduating from a small high school (Total high school size: 1 = <100; 2 = 100-300; 3 = 301-500; 4 = 501-1,000; 5 = 1000+) relate to overall less liberal perspectives and perhaps also less support of sexual education, we include these as controls.

Open-Ended Measure

Students were given a textbox with unlimited characters to respond to the open-ended question, “Overall, what reactions do you have to [this University’s] online sexual assault education program?” Most students provided one to three sentences, though responses ranged from a few words to multiple paragraphs.

Analytical Approach

Quantitative analyses

Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models were conducted with the Attitudes Toward Campus-Wide Sexual Assault Education Program Scale as the dependent variable. Model 1 examined the effects of know/are a survivor and controls. Model 2 examined the effects of know/are a woman survivor, know/are a man survivor, and controls. Model 3 added gender, sexual identity, race, Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, and college group affiliations. The full model, Model 4, added interaction effects generated by multiplying know/are a woman survivor and know/are a man survivor by all 13 identities and affiliations resulting in 26 interaction effects. A variance inflation factor (VIF) check was run following each regression. Chatterjee, Hadi, and Price (2000) suggested that multicollinearity may exist when the largest VIF is greater than 10 or the mean of the VIF is considerably larger than one. Using these criteria, none of the regressions presented problems with multicollinearity.

Qualitative analyses

We use Charmaz’s (2014) approach to grounded theory to code students’ open-ended textbox responses. The unit of analysis was the individual student. This approach requires building and learning from each stage of analysis, where findings emerge from researchers’ interpretation of comparisons in the data. Specifically, we engaged in six steps of analysis. First, all student responses were read to gain an overall sense of the data, and if the student response was entirely comprised of nonsensical and irrelevant information (i.e., nonpertinent words and/or unintelligible streams of letters), the student was dropped from further analyses (n = 71). Second, we limited our analytical sample to only those students who explicitly mentioned either their own or others’ experiences with sexual assault (n = 41). Individuals who described personal experiences of sexual victimization including sexual assault and rape were coded as providing a personal survivor narrative (n = 23). Individuals who described knowing a survivor were coded as providing a know survivor(s)’ narrative (n = 18). Third, we wrote “memos” about preliminary data trends in which we identified frequent discussions of acts of sexual assault (e.g., rape), reactions to the education program (e.g., positive, supportive), and emotional responses (e.g., triggering, revictimization, reliving trauma). Fourth, we analyzed responses using “line-by-line” coding to identify theoretical categories (Charmaz, 2014, p. 140). Fifth, we used advanced memos with rich quotes to “bring raw data into the memo” and support our codes (Charmaz, 2014, p. 171). Sixth, the ideas that emerged in the previous steps of analysis were used to engage in theoretical coding, which allows for an integrative approach that generates an analysis of patterns within the data. Our findings emerged during this final step of analysis and are described further below.

Results

Quantitative Results

In Table 2, four OLS regression models examine the Attitudes Toward Campus-Wide Sexual Assault Education Program Scale. In Model 1, know/are sexual assault survivor is not significantly related to attitudes toward the sexual assault education program. However, in Model 2, significant results emerged when separating this into know/are woman survivor and know/are man survivor. Specifically, know/are woman survivor is positively and significantly related to supportive attitudes toward the sexual assault education program and inversely, know/are man survivor is negative and significant. In Model 3, the effect of know/are man survivor is no longer significant (although at the p < .094 level, it is approaching significance) but know/are woman survivor remains positive and significant. In addition, being a woman, being gay/lesbian, being Black/African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American/Alaskan Native or Other race, and being a sorority member are all significantly and positively related to supportive attitudes toward the sexual assault education program. In Model 4, among the interaction effects, only one is significant: The interaction effect between know/are woman survivor and being a student athlete is positively related to attitudes toward the sexual assault education program. In addition, neither know/are woman survivor nor know/are man survivor is significantly related to attitudes toward the sexual assault education program but being a woman and being Black/African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, or Other race are all significant and positive whereas being Native American/Alaskan Native is no longer significant in Model 4. In addition, being a student athlete is negative and significant but being gay/lesbian and being a sorority member only approached significance in Model 4 at the p < .099 and p < .072 levels, respectively. Among the controls, student classification is consistently negative and significant across all models. Age is positively related to support of the program in the first two models whereas total high school size is negatively related to program support in the first two models. No other demographic controls are significant.

Table 2.

OLS Regression Results Estimating Supportive Attitudes Toward the Campus-Wide Sexual Assault Education Program with Interaction Effects by Know/Are Survivor (N = 1,899).

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
Know/are survivor
Know/are sexual assault survivor	.33
Know/are woman sexual assault survivor		.85**	.64*	.48
Know/are man sexual assault survivor		−.85*	−.60^†	−.08
Gender and sexual identity
Woman			1.37***	1.25**
Mostly heterosexual			−.63	−.86
Bisexual			−.58	−.11
Gay/lesbian			1.56*	1.58^†
Racial and ethnic identity
Black/African American			2.41***	3.06***
Asian/Pacific Islander			1.88***	2.16***
Native American/Alaskan Native			1.29*	.80
Other race			1.53**	2.15**
Hispanic/Latino			.66	.64
College group affiliations
Student athlete			−1.57^†	−3.24*
Fraternity member			−.38	.38
Sorority member			.98*	1.46^†
Campus LGBTQ ally participant			.61	.00
Interaction effects by know/are survivor
Know/are woman survivor*student athlete				4.34*
Controls
Sophomore	−1.35**	−1.34**	−1.12*	−1.11*
Junior	−1.44**	−1.42**	−1.36**	−1.39**
Senior	−2.59***	−2.55***	−2.32***	−2.39***
Graduate/law student	−1.76***	−1.72***	−1.69***	−1.74**
Social sciences major	.31	.28	.15	.17
Age	.05*	.06*	.05*	.05*
Married	.20	.14	.64	.60
Have children	−.65	−.69	−.75	−.72
Grew up in the southern U.S.	.23	.21	.20	.21
Total high school size	−.20*	−.21*	−.16	−.18
Adjusted R²	.02	.03	.06	.05

Note. Model 4 also included 26 interaction effects created by multiplying gender (woman), sexual identity (mostly heterosexual, bisexual, gay/lesbian), race (Black/African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American/Alaskan Native, Other race), ethnicity (Hispanic/Latino), and college group affiliations (student athlete, fraternity member, sorority member, campus LGBTQ ally participant) by know/are woman survivor and know/are man survivor. The single significant interaction effect is presented here. OLS = ordinary least squares; LGBTQ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Qualitative Results

To offer further contextualization to our quantitative findings regarding the effects of knowing/being a survivor on attitudes toward the sexual assault education program, we examined a subsample (n = 41) of respondents’ open-ended responses. Using a grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2014) outlined above, our analysis revealed that personal survivors’ narratives and know survivor(s)’ narratives regarding sexual assault education are informed by their personal histories and experiences with sexual assault. In addition, the overall patterns in this subsample demonstrate that personal survivors’ narratives and know survivor(s)’ narratives are evenly split between two categories. Half (49%, n = 20) indicated traumatic/triggering responses, which included recalling past trauma and/or articulating current distress, anguish, and anger in regard to their experience with the education program. The other half (51%, n = 21) indicated responses which included happiness, satisfaction, and approval of the education program. However, when examining personal survivors’ narratives and know survivor(s)’ narratives responses separately, a different pattern emerges whereby most personal survivors’ narratives (70%, n = 16) indicate traumatic/triggering responses and inversely, most know survivor(s)’ narratives (78%, n = 14) indicate praiseworthy reactions (see Table 3). Furthermore, these reactions are built from students’ unique lived experiences informed by their gender, sexuality, race, and other structural forms of oppression and privilege. Below, personal survivors’ narratives and know survivor(s)’ narratives in regard to sexual assault education are discussed and illustrative quotes are provided.

Table 3.

Percentages by Identities in the Spectrum Categories of Reactions to the Campus-Wide Sexual Assault Education Program by Survivor Narrative Provided (n = 41).

	Personal Survivor Narrative (n = 23)		Know Survivor’(s) Narrative (n = 18)
	Traumatic/Triggering(n = 16)	Praiseworthy (n = 7)	Traumatic/Triggering(n = 4)	Praiseworthy (n = 14)
Gender
Woman	75	71	25	50
Man	25	29	75	50
Sexual identity
Heterosexual	50	57	50	79
Mostly heterosexual	19	14	25	14
Bisexual	19	0	0	0
Gay/lesbian	13	29	25	7
Racial and ethnic identity
White	81	86	75	71
Black/African American	6	0	0	0
Asian/Pacific Islander	6	0	25	0
Native American/Alaskan Native	0	0	0	14
Other race	6	14	0	14
Hispanic/Latino	13	14	25	7

Note. All percentages are rounded to the nearest percent; thus, some columns may not add to 100%.

Personal survivors’ narrative responses (n = 23)

Among our subsample, most personal survivors’ narratives included negative responses to the education program. Only 30% (n = 7) had positive praiseworthy reactions whereas the majority (70%, n = 16) described intensely traumatic and triggering responses to the education program including feeling revictimized.

Praiseworthy (n = 7)

Among personal survivors’ narratives, most praiseworthy reactions came from heterosexual students (71%, n = 5) who all agreed they were happy that awareness was being brought to the issue of sexual assault. Most personal survivors’ narratives with positive praiseworthy reactions to the education program were from women (71%, n = 5), undergraduates (71%, n = 5), non-Greek affiliated (57%, n = 4), unmarried (57%, n = 4), White (86%, n = 6), and non-Hispanic (86%, n = 6) respondents. They were generally pleased about the particulars of the education program itself and praised the university for its efforts. For example, one straight White undergraduate woman survivor who identified as “separated/divorced” reports, “As someone who has been a victim of past sexual misconduct, I was happy to see that attention was being brought to the issue. I also hope that it gives victims strength to not feel ashamed.” Also indicating her praise for the program, a married lesbian White woman graduate student mentioned how she was pleasantly surprised by the education program when she stated, “It wasn’t triggering, like I expected it to be.” These survivors situated their own experiences with sexual assault in their praiseworthy responses to the education program demonstrating how their own lived experiences affected their responses to mandatory sexual assault education.

Traumatic/triggering (n = 16)

In stark contrast to the praiseworthy survivors, the majority of personal survivors’ narratives in our subsample (70%, n = 16) described strongly negative reactions to the education program. Most survivors with traumatic/triggering reactions to the education program were women (75%, n = 12), heterosexual (69%, n = 11), undergraduates (63%, n = 10), non-Greek affiliated (94%, n = 15), unmarried (81%, n = 13), White (81%, n = 13), and non-Hispanic (88%, n = 14). These survivors describe the program as “triggering,” “offensive,” “revictimizing,” “traumatizing,” “unrealistic,” and “insensitive.” Some explicitly noted that their experience with the program brought up extreme distress. For example, one bisexual White unmarried undergraduate woman disclosed,

I am a former sexual assault victim, . . . I began having post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms and flashbacks [during the training]. Clearly [the training] brought out some deep-seeded memories I was perfectly content in not visiting again. . . I felt. . . outrage at how useless and insensitive the training was to sexual assault victims.

The intensity of this student’s emotional responses to the program (“post-traumatic stress disorder,” “flashbacks,” “outrage”) and her description of the program as “useless” and “insensitive” to victims are disturbing. Unfortunately, this was not an isolated response. Nearly three quarters (70%, n = 16) of personal survivors’ narratives in our subsample indicated that the education program was triggering to them in some way. Overall, the distress level of this small group of survivors in response to the education program is concerning.

Survivors were also frustrated that they were forced to endure a mandatory program that they perceived to be problematic. For example, one unmarried straight White undergraduate sorority member indicated, “Why should I, the one who was raped, be forced to take training in what sexual assault is?” Survivors also described how their personal experiences with sexual assault made them acutely aware of the flaws of the program and as a result, they were especially critical of it. For example, one straight White unmarried woman graduate student stated the following:

I was very disappointed. It is an issue that really needs to be addressed but as a victim it only made me skeptical at the efficacy of the program. In particular I was worried about the lack of sensitivity displayed for those who have already been victims or know victims.

In particular, this student noted her concern about the “lack of sensitivity” in the program. This was a common theme among survivors’ responses. Others brought up specific biases and inefficiencies in the program. For example, one unmarried gay undergraduate man who identified as “Other Race” and as Hispanic noted as follows:

“I felt invisible. . . it was. . . hetero normative. . . I was raped by another man when I was drunk at a party. The next morning he told me that he didn’t think it was sexual assault because I was aroused and didn’t say no, even though under any sober [circumstances] I wouldn’t have had sex with him. . . Nobody can understand consent through a thirty minute online training program. . . Overall I was unhappy and even offended by the training.

This student keenly acknowledges the “heteronormative” biases in the program as well as its formatting inefficiencies (“a thirty minute online training program”). In conjunction with his own criticisms, the complexities of this student’s own rape experiences suggest that the education program would be much more effective and informative if it addressed nonheterosexual sexual assault.

In addition to the obvious duress and frustration that the education program caused, survivors with negative and traumatic reactions to the program also reveal an urgent need for alternative education options for survivors. For example, one unmarried bisexual White undergraduate woman asserts, “I feel like there needs to be a different route for people who have experienced sexual assault.” In doing so, this survivor stresses the importance of education programs that are sensitive to survivors’ experiences.

Overall, personal survivors’ narratives in this subsample were likely to express frustration about the program because it did not do the subject matter justice, diminished victims’ experiences, and/or did little to change (or contributed to) the culture surrounding sexual assault. One unmarried White bisexual undergraduate woman even discussed how the education initiative may have provoked her assailant:

The man who committed the assault [against me] had commented earlier in the evening . . . that programs such as the sexual misconduct training program . . . basically told guys how many drinks they needed to give a girl in order to get away with raping her. I. . . never imagined that he himself was planning to take advantage of me . . . scenarios used in the online training can not only inspire potential rapists, but also make victims feel as though their situations “don’t count.”

This student believed the education program not only “inspired” her assailant, but also left her feeling like her own experiences as a survivor were not acknowledged nor were they important. Such poignant and personal responses indicate the inherent problems and potential aftermath of an education initiative that fails to capture the depth and severity of sexual assault and also fails to recognize the impact such experiences can have on survivors.

Know survivor(s)’ narrative responses (n = 18)

In stark contrast to personal survivors’ narrative responses, those who provided know survivor(s)’ narratives had overwhelmingly positive responses to the education program. About three quarters (78%, n = 14) of those who provided know survivor(s)’ narratives in our subsample described the program as praiseworthy and very few indicated negative/traumatic reactions (22%, n = 4). Unlike personal survivors’ narratives, those who provided know survivor(s)’ narratives tended to have shorter and less vivid, detailed responses, perhaps because their responses were not as emotionally expressive as personal survivors’ narrative responses were.

Praiseworthy (n = 14)

Among those who provided know survivor(s)’ narratives, praiseworthy reactions were especially common. Praiseworthy respondents were evenly split by gender (50% women, n = 7 and 50% men, n = 7). Most were heterosexual (93%, n = 13), undergraduates (86%, n = 12), non-Greek affiliated (79%, n = 11), unmarried (64%, n = 9), White (71%, n = 10), and non-Hispanic (93%, n = 13). They praised the university’s efforts to address sexual assault. For example, one White married heterosexual undergraduate woman stated as follows:

I like that it’s there because it makes me think that if I did ever have a related issue, there are steps in place to resolve said issue. . . So, I really appreciate that [the University’s] administration has set up the program.

They also explained how the existence of the sexual assault education program demonstrates the university’s clear interest in accurately addressing campus sexual assault. For example, one White unmarried heterosexual undergraduate woman student stated, “I appreciate the University’s willingness to get involved and shed light on the issue. I thought the information was up-to-date and reflected many interactions on college campuses.”

Some of those who provided know survivor(s)’ narratives explicitly described what they learned from the program. For example, one unmarried straight undergraduate Native American woman stated as follows:

[the education program] did answer some of my questions. I have a friend who thinks she might have been raped at a party because she was taken advantage of while drunk. The program helped me realize that she was assaulted.

Clearly, this student found value in the education program and learned more about the relationships between alcohol and sexual assault as a result of it. Overall, half (50%, n = 7) of those who provided know survivor(s)’ narratives who were praiseworthy of the program indicated that they personally benefited from the program in some way.

Traumatic/triggering (n = 4)

A minority (22%, n = 4) of those who provided know survivor(s)’ narratives described negative reactions to the education program. Most respondents in this category were men (75% men, n = 3), heterosexual (75%, n = 3), undergraduates (75%, n = 3), non-Greek affiliated (100%, n = 4), unmarried (75%, n = 3), White (75%, n = 3), and non-Hispanic (75%, n = 3). They explicitly noted that they were upset by the program’s potentially negative effects on the survivors they know. Specifically, they described the program as “problematic” because they believed that it required the survivors they know to relive their assault. In particular, they state that they believe that survivors would be “upset” by the education program. For example, one unmarried heterosexual White undergraduate man clarifies as follows:

an acquaintance of mine. . . found that many of the scenarios and images included within the training to be upsetting. . . I do not personally feel that a student who may have been raped or otherwise sexually assaulted has a way to easily avoid exposure to this content.

Through his own awareness of the traumatic effects of the education program on participants who have experiences with sexual assault, this student suggests that the mandatory nature of the program is inherently problematic because there is not a way for survivors to “avoid exposure to this content.” Overall, three quarters (75%, n = 3) of those who provided know survivor(s)’ narratives in our subsample who described the program as traumatic/triggering for survivors indicated concern about the potential negative impacts the education program may have on survivors.

Discussion

The current study examined personal histories with sexual assault (being a survivor and/or knowing a survivor), gender, sexual identity, race, ethnicity, college group affiliations (student athletics, fraternities/sororities, LGBTQ ally programs), and the intersections between these identities and affiliations through the following research questions:

Research Question 3: How does knowing/being a survivor affect student responses to campus-wide sexual assault education programming?

Research Question 4: How do these responses to campus-wide sexual assault education programming vary by identities and college group affiliations?

Overall, the current study showed that knowing/being a survivor informs student perspectives about sexual assault education. Results are not surprising given that scholars recognize that survivors’ experiences are important to consider in education settings, especially in regard to campus programs and policies (e.g., Bordere, 2017; Branch et al., 2011; Carter, 2015). However, the patterns revealed in the relationships among knowing/being a survivor and student perspectives about sexual assault education were somewhat surprising. In particular, the quantitative models showed that knowing/being a survivor was not significantly related to attitudes toward the program. Such findings contrast with military research that indicates that survivors are significantly more likely than nonsurvivors to have negative perspectives about sexual assault education (Holland et al., 2014).

However, significant effects did emerge when differentiating between knowing/being a woman survivor and knowing/being a man survivor, in line with intersectional approaches (e.g., Collins, 2000; Crenshaw, 1991; Davis, 2008) that center the importance of examining multiple interlocking identities (i.e., gender and experiences with victimization). In particular, knowing/being a woman survivor was related to supportive attitudes toward the sexual assault education program and inversely, knowing/being a man survivor was negatively related to support of the program. There are three likely reasons for this difference. First, the sexual assault education program itself includes heterosexual examples of sexual assault situations (i.e., men as perpetrators and women as victims). As a result, those who can relate to these hypothetical situations (as know/are woman survivors) tend to believe that this sexual assault education program is helpful, informative, and beneficial. In contrast, those who may not as easily relate to these hypothetical situations (as know/are man survivors) tend to think negatively about this sexual assault education program. In other words, the students who find value in the program tend to be those who have experiences and/or awareness with the types of situations used as examples in the education module. Second, among those who indicated that they know/are a man survivor, 89% indicated they also know/are a woman survivor (see Table 1). In other words, the group responding affirmatively to “know/are a man survivor” is mostly comprised of those who responded that know/are both a man survivor and a woman survivor. Thus, the majority of this group (those who indicated know/are man survivors) has knowledge and awareness of situations described in the education program (women victims) as well as those who are not (men victims). It appears that this heightened knowledge and awareness of the complexities involved in sexual assault relates to negativity toward the education program and that asking students if they know/are man survivors may operate as a proxy that taps into this heightened knowledge and awareness. Third, it is likely that those who indicated knowing/being man survivors are also likely to view the examples in the education module as inherently problematic due to their restrictive heteronormativity. Indeed, the qualitative results demonstrated this frustration among some survivors. Thus, criticisms of the heteronormativity in the education module likely led to negativity toward the program itself in the current study. Together these results demonstrate the importance of understanding survivors’ and those who know survivors’ intersectional lives when investigating responses to sexual assault education.

Furthermore, in line with past research (Anderson & Whiston, 2005; Foubert & Cowell, 2004; Rich, Utley, Janke, & Moldoveanu, 2010; Worthen & Wallace, 2017; Yeater & O’Donohue, 1999), the current study’s quantitative findings showed that being a woman (compared with being a man), being gay/lesbian (compared with being heterosexual), being Black/African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American/Alaskan Native or another race (compared with being White), and being a sorority member (compared with not being in a sorority) were all significantly related to supportive attitudes toward the sexual assault education program. As noted in the literature review, these groups are all significantly more likely than their counterparts to be victims of sexual assault (e.g., Cantor et al., 2015; Gross et al., 2006; Minow & Einolf, 2009) and as found in the current study and partially evidenced elsewhere (Sorenson et al., 2014), these groups are also more likely to know survivors of sexual assault. Thus, those who are most likely to be survivors and/or know survivors were most supportive of the sexual assault education program. Because these groups are cued into the realities and complexities of sexual assault due to their heightened likelihood of being victimized, they may have a specialized set of knowledge that situates their support of sexual assault education. However, with the inclusion of interaction effects in Model 4, being Native American/Alaskan Native was no longer significantly related to attitudes toward the campus education program and no Native American/Alaskan Native students provided personal survivor narratives in our subsample. Other studies show that Native American/Alaskan Native college students are at a higher risk of sexual assault and are also at a greater lifetime risk of sexual violence as compared with other racial groups (Bachman, Zaykowski, Lanier, Poteyeva, & Kallmyer, 2010; Cantor et al., 2015). Such findings suggest that Native American/Alaskan Native students may have unique experiences with sexual assault that inform their perspectives about sexual assault education, although much research is needed to continue to tease out these relationships.

In contrast, being a student athlete was related to negativity toward the education program in the current study. This is not surprising given that previous work has shown that male athletes have higher levels of rape myth acceptance than nonathletes do (Suarez & Gadalla, 2010); thus, it stands to reason that student athletes may also be relatively unaware of the importance of addressing campus sexual assault through education efforts. However, the interaction effect of being a student athlete and know/are woman survivor resulted in supportive attitudes toward the sexual assault education program in Model 4. Thus, taking into consideration the interaction effect between being a student athlete and knowing/being a survivor flipped the negative effects of being a student athlete on attitudes toward the program. Although this is the only significant interaction effect found in the current study, it continues to demonstrate the significance that knowing/being a woman survivor has on support of campus sexual assault education and the importance of examining these relationships through an intersectional lens that accounts for multiple interlocking experiences with oppression and privilege (e.g., Collins, 2000; Crenshaw, 1991; Davis, 2008).

The qualitative findings revealed additional complexities that provide richness to the quantitative results. In particular, among the subsample, those who provided know survivor(s)’ narrative responses tended to have positive and praiseworthy reactions whereas personal survivors’ narrative responses tended to convey negative and traumatic reactions to the program. In particular, personal survivors’ narratives described highly problematic side effects including feeling revictimized (e.g., posttraumatic stress disorder) as well as troubling responses to the program such as feeling “invisible.” In addition, all bisexual respondents in the qualitative subsample were survivors, and they all indicated experiencing traumatic/triggering responses to the sexual assault education program (see Table 3). With one in four bisexual women experiencing nonconsensual sexual contact in college (Cantor et al., 2015) and their discomfort with mandatory sexual assault education evidenced here and elsewhere (Worthen & Baker, 2014), this demonstrates a clear need to consider survivors’ intersectional lives as they relate to participation in education programs and perhaps especially, bisexuals’ experiences.

In contrast, those who provided know survivor(s)’ narratives tended to praise the education program. In particular, they noted that they were glad that a program like this existed and that the university was requiring participation in it. This finding continues to demonstrate the significance that experiences with assault have on significantly shaping reactions to sexual assault education. Thus, it is essential that programs consider students’ experiences with victimization as they relate to campus sexual assault education initiatives.

Overall, the current study’s focus on intersectionality (e.g., Collins, 2000; Crenshaw, 1991; Davis, 2008) provided a unique vantage point that revealed important nuances. By highlighting the power imbalances embedded across identities and the ways multiple marginalized identities interact to situate survivors and those who know survivors as particularly disadvantaged and overlooked in sexual assault education programs, our intersectional approach to understanding student responses to campus sexual assault education demonstrates three important contributions. First, no past studies could be located that have specifically examined how survivors and those who know survivors are responding to college sexual assault education, thus, the current study is the first to do so and fills this gap in the literature. Second, this study is unique in that it explored the effects of knowing/being a man survivor and in doing so, our findings revealed nearly opposite effects of know/are a woman survivor and know/are a man survivor on attitudes toward campus sexual assault education. This underscores the significance of incorporating an intersectional framework into explorations of student responses to campus sexual assault education that highlight both victimization experiences and gender (see also, Holland et al., 2014). Third, our results allow us to offer important campus sexual assault education policy implications regarding sexual assault education (discussed below) that center the voices and experiences of survivors and those who know survivors.

Campus Sexual Assault Education Policy Implications

The findings of the current study support the purposeful incorporation of survivors’ and those who know survivors’ needs into campus sexual assault education programs. There are multiple ways that this can be accomplished. First, it is essential that programs consider the potential for trauma/revictimization that mandatory sexual assault education programs may have. This can be achieved through providing trigger warnings prior to the start of the education program so that survivors and those who know survivors are alerted to the potential possibility of distress the program may cause (Branch et al., 2011; Byron, 2017; Carter, 2015; Rae, 2016). But beyond only offering trigger warnings, sexual assault education programs should be designed to be in-person interactive workshops led by highly trained individuals and/or licensed counselors. This can allow survivors and those who know survivors to process their victimization experiences with help from those who can offer counseling both during and after the education program (Murphy-Geiss, 2008). Students overwhelmingly agree that online education modules are insufficient to cover issues as complex as campus sexual assault (Worthen & Wallace, 2017), thus in-person workshops not only offer a more substantial level of information about these topics, but also, create the opportunity for trained individuals and counselors to lead the workshops and navigate the mental health needs of students participating in the education program (Rae, 2016).

Second, it is essential that programs consider the identities of survivors and those who know survivors. For example, the current study found that survivors and those who know survivors were critical of the heteronormative biases in the education module. As a result, education programs should incorporate specific examples of LGB experiences as well as scenarios with gender neutral names and pronouns to allow students to feel that their experiences are represented in campus sexual assault education (Rothman & Silverman, 2007; Worthen & Baker, 2014; Worthen & Wallace, 2017). This is especially important because LGB people, TGQN-identified people, and men victims are severely underrepresented in campus sexual assault education programs (Worthen & Baker, 2014; Worthen & Wallace, 2017). Furthermore, the results of the current study showed that people who are highly likely to be survivors and to know survivors (i.e., women, lesbians, sorority members) were supportive of the campus sexual assault education program. Thus, campus programs might incorporate reflexive exercises that encourage students to think about how their past experiences with victimization, gender, sexual identity, and Greek membership as well as their racial/ethnic background, socioeconomic status, age, and other personal experiences shape their understandings of campus sexual assault. Overall, centering survivors’ and those who know survivors’ voices, concerns, and desires can help us develop effective campus sexual assault education program content and thus, boost its overall effectiveness.

Limitations and Future Research

The current study is limited by the use of one predominately White heterosexual sample at one university located in a southern U.S. state with students who recently participated in a newly instituted mandatory campus-wide sexual assault education program. Given the current study’s low response rate and lack of generalizability, future studies would benefit from larger cross-national investigations at multiple universities with more diverse populations and various types of campus sexual assault education experiences (e.g., in-person, workshops, etc.). In addition, we were limited in our abilities to capture survivor status in both the quantitative and qualitative data. In line with previous research that indicates that White women are likely to disclose relational trauma (Sylaska & Edwards, 2014), our small qualitative subsample (which was constructed based on disclosure) was biased toward these types of respondents as compared to the larger University composition (respectively, 61% compared with 49% women; 78% compared with 60% White) and thus, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Future studies with larger, more representative samples utilizing in-person qualitative interviews designed to investigate survivors’ and those who know survivors’ responses to sexual assault education would be beneficial. It would also be valuable to examine survivors’ and nonsurvivors’ reactions to participation in the sexual assault research process itself. Such findings could underscore the personal benefits of participating in sexual assault research as seen in previous work (e.g., Edwards, Kearns, Calhoun, & Gidycz, 2009; Edwards, Sylaska, & Gidwycz, 2014). Furthermore, the measurements of gender, sexual identity, race, and ethnicity are limited. Thus, future work might incorporate more response options and/or offer fill-in response options to better capture these identities. Moreover, although the current study included age and student classification as control variables, there might be important ways in which student responses to sexual assault education vary over their time spent in college and as they age that deserve further investigation, especially if multiple sexual assault education programming efforts are implemented throughout the student career. Finally, it is important to note that due to the convenience sample utilized in current study, the findings cannot be generalized; thus, the provisional findings presented here serve as a springboard for future researchers to continue to explore these complexities.

Concluding Remarks

Scholars have certainly acknowledged that “Sexual assault survivors are among the most disenfranchised populations” (Bordere, 2017, p. 29) and that survivors are often coming from a place of trauma, disadvantage, and oppression due to their experiences with victimization (Rae, 2016). However, a critical examination of how survivors and those who know survivors are responding to sexual assault education has been missing from previous work. This is particularly important because the group of people who know/are survivors of sexual assault is quite large on college campuses (as evidenced here, 58% of students know and/or are survivors). This means that due to the mandates of the SaVE Act (Thomas-Card & Eichele, 2016), large numbers of survivors and those who know survivors are participating in compulsory sexual assault education. Thus, it is essential to continue to underscore the significance of survivors’ and those who know survivors’ experiences in examinations of student responses to mandatory campus sexual assault education. Overall, the intersectional framework (e.g., Collins, 2000; Crenshaw, 1991; Davis, 2008) utilized in the current study centered the experiences of sexual assault survivors and those who know survivors as well as their intersectional identities and affiliations as they related to attitudes toward campus sexual assault education. In doing so, we recognize that the trauma of sexual assault is related to oppressive life experiences, including those that involve potentially reliving past victimization through compulsory sexual assault education.

Footnotes

Appendix

Attitudes Toward Campus-Wide Sexual Assault Education Program Scale.

	M	SD
I learned new information from [this University’s] online sexual misconduct training program.	3.04	1.18
I believe that [this University’s] online sexual misconduct training program will positively impact students’ experiences at [this University].	3.34	1.05
[this University’s] online sexual misconduct training program was not relevant to me. (reverse coded)	3.08	1.12
I am glad that [this University] has instituted this mandatory online sexual misconduct training program.	3.66	1.06
[this University’s] online sexual misconduct training program shows that the University administration cares about the safety of its students.	3.80	1.00
I don’t believe that [this University’s] online sexual misconduct training program will result in more awareness of sexual misconduct issues at the University. (reverse coded)	3.23	1.07
Overall, I found value in [this University’s] online sexual misconduct training program.	3.44	1.03

Note. Principal components analysis reveals one factor > 1, eigenvalue 4.23, α = .89, M = 23.58, SD = 5.80, range = 7-35.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors would like to acknowledge funding from the University of Oklahoma, Department of Sociology, for assistance with this project.

Notes

Author Biographies

Meredith G. F. Worthen is as an associate professor of sociology and elected faculty member of the women’s and gender studies program at the University of Oklahoma. She is interested in the sociological constructions of deviance, stigma and sexualities, LGBTQ identities, as well as feminist and queer criminology.

Samantha A. Wallace is a PhD student at the University of Oklahoma in the Department of Sociology. Her research interests include sexuality, gender, and the family.

References

Ahrens

C. E.

Campbell

Ternier-Thames

N. K.

Wasco

S. M.

Sefl

(2007). Deciding whom to tell: Expectations and outcomes of rape survivors’ first disclosures. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 38-49.

Anderson

L. A.

Whiston

S. C.

(2005). Sexual assault education programs: A meta-analytic examination of their effectiveness. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 374-388.

Arellano

C. M.

Kuhn

J. A.

Chavez

E. L.

(1997). Psychosocial correlates of sexual assault among Mexican American and White non-Hispanic adolescent females. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 19, 446-460.

Austin

Roberts

Corliss

Molnar

(2008). Sexual violence victimization history and sexual risk indicators in a community-based urban cohort of “mostly heterosexual” and heterosexual young women. American Journal of Public Health, 98, 1015-1020.

Bachman

Zaykowski

Lanier

Poteyeva

Kallmyer

(2010). Estimating the magnitude of rape and sexual assault against American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) women. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 43, 199-222.

Banyard

Moynihan

Walsh

Cohn

Ward

(2010). Friends of survivors: The community impact of unwanted sexual experiences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 242-256.

Barone

R. P.

Wolgemuth

J. R.

Linder

(2007). Preventing sexual assault through engaging college men. Journal of College Student Development, 48, 585-594.

Berkowitz

(2002). Fostering men’s responsibility for preventing sexual assault. In Schewe

P. A.

(Ed.), Preventing intimate partner violence: Developmentally appropriate interventions across the lifespan (pp. 163-196). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Bordere

(2017). Disenfranchisement and ambiguity in the face of loss: The suffocated grief of sexual assault survivors. Family Relations, 66, 29-45.

10.

Boysen

G. A.

Wells

A. M.

Dawson

K. J.

(2016). Instructors’ use of trigger warnings and behavior warnings in abnormal psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 43, 334-339.

11.

Bradley

A. R.

Yeater

E. A.

O’Donohue

(2009). An evaluation of a mixed-gender sexual assault prevention program. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 30, 697-715.

12.

Branch

K. A.

Hayes-Smith

Richards

T. N.

(2011). Professors’ experiences with student disclosures of sexual assault and intimate partner violence: How “helping” students can inform teaching practices. Feminist Criminology, 6, 54-75.

13.

Brecklin

Forde

(2001). A meta-analysis of rape education programs. Violence and Victims, 16, 303-321.

14.

Breitenbecher

K. H.

(2000). Sexual assault on college campuses: Is an ounce of prevention enough? Applied & Preventive Psychology, 9, 23-52.

15.

Briskin

Gary

(1986). Sexual assault programming for college students. Journal of Counseling & Development, 65, 207-208.

16.

Byers

E. S.

Sears

Weaver

(2008). Reports of sexual communication with children in kindergarten to grade 8. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 86-96.

17.

Byron

(2017). From infantilizing to world making: Safe spaces and trigger warnings on campus. Family Relations, 66, 116-125.

18.

Campus Sexual Violence Elimination (SaVE) Act, H.R. 2016, 112th Cong. (2013).

19.

Cantor

Fisher

Chibnall

Townsend

Lee

Bruce

Thomas

(2015). Report on the AAU Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct. Rockville, MD: Westat.

20.

Carter

A. M.

(2015). Teaching with trauma: Trigger warnings, feminism, and disability pedagogy. Disability Studies Quarterly, 35(2). Retrieved from http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/4652/3935

21.

Charmaz

(2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

22.

Chatterjee

Hadi

Price

(2000). Regression analysis by example. New York, NY: John Wiley.

23.

Clery Act (1990). Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act of 1990. 20 U.S.C.§ 1092 (f).

24.

Collins

P. H.

(2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

25.

Crenshaw

K. W.

(1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241-1299.

26.

Davis

(2008). Intersectionality as buzzword: A sociology of science perspective on what makes a feminist theory successful. Feminist Theory, 9, 67-85.

27.

Edwards

Kearns

Calhoun

Gidycz

(2009). College women’s reactions to sexual assault research participation: Is it distressing? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 225-234.

28.

Edwards

Sylaska

Gidwycz

(2014). Women’s reactions to participating in dating violence research: A mixed methodological study. Psychology of Violence, 4, 224-239.

29.

Fasting

Brackenridge

Miller

Sabo

(2008). Participation in college sports and protection from sexual victimization. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6, 427-441.

30.

Fisher

B. S.

Daigle

L. E.

Cullen

F. T.

Turner

M. G.

(2003). Reporting sexual victimization to the police and others: Results from a national-level study of college women. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 6-38.

31.

Fisher

Daigle

Cullen

(2009). Unsafe in the Ivory Tower: The sexual victimization of college women. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

32.

Foubert

J. D.

Cowell

E. A.

(2004). Perceptions of a rape prevention program by fraternity men and male student athletes: Powerful effects and implications for changing behavior. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 42, 1-20.

33.

Foubert

J. D.

Cremedy

B. J.

(2007). Reactions of men of color to a commonly used rape prevention program: Attitude and predicted behavior changes. Sex Roles, 57, 137-144.

34.

Foubert

J. D.

Godin

E. E.

Tatum

J. L.

(2010). In their own words: Sophomore college men describe attitude and behavior changes resulting from a rape prevention program 2 years after their participation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 2237-2257.

35.

Foubert

J. D.

Newberry

J. T.

(2006). Effects of two versions of an empathy-based rape prevention program on fraternity men’s survivor empathy, attitudes, and behavioral intent to commit rape or sexual assault. Journal of College Student Development, 47, 133-148.

36.

Gross

Winslett

Roberts

Gohm

(2006). An examination of sexual violence against college women. Violence Against Women, 12, 288-300.

37.

Heppner

Humphrey

Hillenbrand-Gunn

DeBord

(1995). The differential effects of rape prevention programming on attitudes, behavior, and knowledge. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 508-518.

38.

Holcomb

D. R.

Sarvela

P. D.

Sondag

K. A.

Holcomb

L. C.

(1993). An evaluation of a mixed-gender date rape prevention workshop. Journal of American College Health, 41, 159-164.

39.

Holcomb

D. R.

Sondag

K. A.

Holcomb

L. C.

(1993). Healthy dating: A mixed-gender date rape workshop. Journal of American College Health, 41, 155-157.

40.

Holland

K. J.

Rabelo

V. C.

Cortina

L. M.

(2014). Sexual assault training in the military: Evaluating efforts to end the “invisible war.” American Journal of Community Psychology, 54, 289-303.

41.

Kalof

(2000). Ethnic differences in female sexual victimization. Sexuality & Culture: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, 4(4), 75-97.

42.

Krebs

Lindquist

Berzofsky

Shook-Sa

Peterson

(2016). Campus climate survey validation study final technical report. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

43.

Krebs

Lindquist

Planty

Langton

Berzofsky

(2017, November 16). Sexual victimization among LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ college students: Victimization, risk, context, and disclosure. Presentation at the American Society of Criminology Annual Meetings, Philadelphia, PA.

44.

Krebs

Lindquist

Warner

Fisher

Martin

(2007). The Campus Sexual Assault (CSA) study: Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

45.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling

Foubert

J. D.

Brasfield

H. M.

Hill

Shelley-Tremblay

(2011). The men’s program: Does it impact college men’s self-reported bystander efficacy and willingness to intervene? Violence Against Women, 17, 743-759.

46.

Martin

S. L.

Fisher

B. S.

Warner

T. D.

Krebs

C. P.

Lindquist

C. H.

(2011). Women’s sexual orientations and their experiences of sexual assault before and during university. Women’s Health Issues, 21(3), 199-205.

47.

Minow

Einolf

(2009). Sorority participation and sexual assault risk. Violence Against Women, 15, 835-851.

48.

Murphy-Geiss

(2008). Bringing the facts to life: Facilitating student engagement with the issue of domestic violence. Teaching Sociology, 36, 378-388.

49.

Rae

(2016). Re-focusing the debate on trigger warnings: Privilege, trauma, and disability in the classroom. First Amendment Studies, 50, 95-102. doi:10.1080/21689725.2016.1224677

50.

Relyea

Ullman

S. E.

(2017). Predicting sexual assault revictimization in a longitudinal sample of women survivors: Variation by type of assault. Violence Against Women, 23, 1462-1483.

51.

Rich

M. D.

Utley

E. A.

Janke

Moldoveanu

(2010). “I’d Rather Be Doing Something Else:” Male Resistance to Rape Prevention Programs. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 18, 268-288.

52.

Rothman

Silverman

(2007). The effect of a college sexual assault prevention program on first-year students’ victimization rates. Journal of American College Health, 55, 283-290.

53.

Savin-Williams

Vrangalova

(2013). Mostly heterosexual as a distinct sexual orientation group: A systematic review of the empirical evidence. Developmental Review, 33, 58-88.

54.

Sorenson

Joshi

Sivitz

(2014). Knowing a sexual assault victim or perpetrator: A stratified random sample of undergraduates at one university. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 394-416.

55.

Streng

T. K.

Kamimura

(2017). Perceptions of University Policies to Prevent Sexual Assault on Campus Among College Students in the USA. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 14, 133-142.

56.

Suarez

Gadalla

T. M.

(2010). Stop blaming the victim: A meta-analysis on rape myths. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 2010-2035.

57.

Sylaska

Edwards

(2014). Disclosure of intimate partner violence to informal social support network members: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15, 3-21.

58.

Thomas-Card

Eichele

(2016). Comprehensive college- or university-based sexual violence prevention and direct services program: A framework. In Wooten

Mitchell

(Eds.), The crisis of campus sexual violence: Critical perspectives on prevention and response (pp. 149-168). London, England: Routledge.

59.

Vladutiu

Martin

Macy

(2011). College- or university-based sexual assault prevention programs: A review of program outcomes, characteristics, and recommendations. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 12, 67-86.

60.

Worthen

M. G. F.

(2011). College student experiences with an LGBTQ ally training program: A mixed methods study at a university in the southern United States. Journal of LGBT Youth, 8, 332-377.

61.

Worthen

M. G. F.

(2013). An argument for separate analyses of attitudes toward lesbian, gay, bisexual men, bisexual women, MtF and FtM transgender individuals. Sex Roles, 68, 703-723.

62.

Worthen

M. G. F.

Baker

S. A.

(2014). Consent is sexy? University student reactions to a mandatory online sexual misconduct training program. Sexual Assault Report, 17(5), 65-75.

63.

Worthen

M. G. F.

Wallace

S. A.

(2017). Intersectionality and perceptions about sexual assault education and reporting on college campuses. Family Relations, 66, 180-196.

64.

Yeater

O’Donohue

(1999). Sexual assault prevention programs: Current issues, future directions, and the potential efficacy of interventions with women. Clinical Psychology Review, 19, 739-771.