Risk Factors for Sexual Violence Among College Students in Dating Relationships: An Ecological Approach

Abstract

College students in dating relationships are vulnerable to sexual violence given that nine out of 10 acts of sexual violence are perpetrated by acquaintances, friends, or dating partners. Although past research has explored the risk factors for sexual violence, few studies have considered multileveled factors associated with sexual violence. This study uses the ecological model to investigate the risk factors for sexual violence among college students in dating relationships. Domains of individual, interpersonal, community, and societal levels were examined for their associations with sexual victimization. A prevalidated survey was conducted among 361 undergraduates in dating relationships from a public university in the south central United States. Chi-square tests and negative binomial regression analysis were conducted. Approximately 35% of the college students reported experiencing some form of sexual violence perpetrated by their dating partner including attempted and completed rapes. College women reported having experienced significantly higher rates of sexual violence in comparison with college men. On the contrary, this study documents the significant higher prevalence of sexual violence among heterosexual students than among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer college students for experiencing at least one type of sexual violence or unwanted sexual contacts in a dating relationship. Sexual victimization is associated with gender, sexual assertiveness, the frequency of hookups, peer deviance, parental involvement, and perceived discrimination. Participants’ gender, frequent hookups, and lower sexual assertiveness are positively associated with risk of sexual victimization across all types of sexual violence. Multilevel prevention programs and strategies are needed on campuses to reduce sexual victimization among college students in dating relationships.

Keywords

sexual assault LGBTQ anything related to sexual assault revictimization

Introduction

Sexual violence is a profound public health issue in the United States defined as penetrative or nonpenetrative abusive sexual contacts, which occur without the consent of the victim or when the victim refuses or is unable to give a consent due to intoxication or illness, using verbal or physical coercion (Basile & Saltzman, 2009). With increasing numbers of sexual assaults in U.S. college campuses, sexual violence is one of the common forms of violence among those attending educational institutions (U.S. Department of Justice, 2017). College students, especially undergraduates, engage in dating relationships while in college and explore their sexuality. Away from parental supervision and amid peer pressure, they engage in romantic relationships in these formative years of college life (Kaukinen, 2014). Whereas some youth may incorporate constructive communication skills to express their intimacy, some might involve risky sexual behaviors and various physical, sexual, and psychological coercion methods to validate their love and affection to their partners. Thus, this increases the risk of dating violence in college students, which includes physical assaults, sexual assaults, and psychological victimization. The magnitude of this violence is huge and affects every gender, race, ethnicity, and nationality.

The consequences related to sexual violence are severe. A wide range of physical, psychological, and reproductive health problems are experienced by victims of the sexual violence (Jina & Thomas, 2013). The direct consequences include physical injuries, gastro–anal trauma, severe depression, posttraumatic stress disorders, and homicide (Messman-Moore, Long, & Siegfried, 2000). Sexual violence has been documented to be associated with substance abuse (Turchik, 2012), unwanted pregnancies, problematic weight loss behavior, and suicidal ideation (Gidycz, Orchowski, King, & Rich, 2008).

In a systematic review conducted by Fedina et al. (2018), the prevalence rate of female sexual victimization and male sexual victimization has been documented to have an extended range of 6% to 44.2% and 1.4% to 3.2%, respectively, among U.S. college students. This variation is likely to be attributed to the methodological differences, different reference time periods, sampling methods, and target populations among college students. Recent research has also confirmed the alarming rates of sexual violence among college women with 72.8% reporting at least one experience of sexual violence since age 16 and 27.5% experiencing completed rape (Turchik & Hassija, 2014).

A number of previous studies have explored the associations between risk factors and sexual victimization in past few decades. A large number of research studies have investigated the correlational relationships between nonmodifiable individual-level factors (race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation) and sexual victimization among college students (Coulter et al., 2017; Dank, Lachman, Zweig, & Yahner, 2014; Griner et al., 2020; Reuter, Newcomb, Whitton, & Mustanski, 2017). College women experience a greater number of sexual victimizations on campus in comparison with male counterparts (Breiding, 2014; Campbell et al., 2021; Conley et al., 2017). A recent study also confirmed that gay and bisexual college males have almost 3 times the sexual victimization prevalence rate when compared with heterosexual men (Coulter et al., 2017). Similarly, bisexual women and lesbians have a significantly higher prevalence of sexual victimization than heterosexual women (Coulter et al., 2017). Alcohol intake and engaging in hook ups, both the significant part of campus culture, have been consistently associated with increased cases of sexual victimization (Ray, Tyler, & Gordon Simons, 2021; Tyler, Schmitz, & Adams, 2017). Frequent hook ups heighten the risk of being a victim of sexual assaults among both college men and women (Flack et al., 2007; Tyler et al., 2017). This study also agrees that alcohol plays a vital role in increasing the rates of unwanted sexual behavior. The higher odds of sexual violence victimization among non-White identifying undergraduates in comparison with White undergraduates confirms the discrepancy in sexual victimization across race/ethnicity (Coulter et al., 2017).

The socioecological model has been employed to assess various kinds of violence since this model was developed. Individuals’ well-being is based on complex relations of their immediate settings (home, school, workplace), formal and informal social structures, societal norms, and institutional patterns (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). Along with other key sexual violence organizations, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and World Health Organization (WHO) have also adopted and promoted the socioecological approach to better understand violence including youth violence, domestic violence, and sexual violence (CDC, 2018; McMahon, Wood, Cusano, & Macri, 2019). Both WHO and CDC endorse a four-level ecological model, which includes factors related to individual, relationship, community, and society levels. These incorporate their personal factors, personality, family backgrounds, friends, social relationships, and social and economic policies of the institutions (Alliance, 2018).

Sexual violence in dating relationships has established associations in areas that align with separate levels of the social–ecological model. At the individual level, significant risk factors for sexual victimization among college students include risky sexual behaviors (Gidycz et al., 2008; Ray et al., 2021; Turchik & Hassija, 2014), mental health status (Conley et al., 2017), sexual assertiveness (Conley et al., 2017; Kelley, Orchowski, & Gidycz, 2016), place of residence (Tyler et al., 2017), and year of schooling (Cranney, 2015; Flack et al., 2008). At the interpersonal level, sexual violence has been found to be associated with the influence of family and friends (Conley et al., 2017). In addition, witnessing family violence or experiencing abuse as a child intensifies the chances of victimization in early adult life (Tyler et al., 2017). Adequate social support also decreases the likelihood of revictimization (Conley et al., 2017; Ullman, Starzynski, Long, Mason, & Long, 2008). At the community level, participation in community groups has also been found to been negatively associated with dating violence in a study conducted among high school youth (Edwards & Neal, 2017). Although not studied among the college students, at the societal level, perceived discrimination has been found to be significantly associated with sexual victimization among sexual minority populations (Sabidó et al., 2015). However, little research has looked concurrently at multiple levels of risk factors based on an ecological model.

National-level planning and strategies on violence prevention are based on this overarching and comprehensive framework of the ecological model. This study selected areas from each level of the socioecological model, which previous studies found to be significantly associated with sexual violence in college dating relationships and analyzed them concurrently.

Terminology such as sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual victimization is used frequently to describe sexual violence. Due to its broad description, research includes a variety of categories of sexual violence. This study examines three types of sexual violence: unwanted sexual contacts, attempted rapes, and completed rapes based on conventional severity-ranking schemes (Davis et al., 2014). The purpose of the study was to document the prevalence rate of sexual victimization among college students across gender and sexual orientation on a single college campus, and to identify associations between risk factors at multiple levels of the ecological model and three major types of sexual victimization—unwanted sexual contacts, attempted rapes, and complete rapes.

Method

We conducted a cross-sectional study of undergraduate students from a large public university located in the south central United States. A total of 451 undergraduate students participated in this study out of 20,754 students who were enrolled in Spring 2018 at the university. G*Power analysis for F test with multiple regression, special(R² increase), and a priori computed sample size, given a power and effect size, were used to validate the sample size. Parameters used for estimating sample size were effect size f² = 0.02, an err prob = .05, power(1 − ß err prob) = .80, and number of predictors = 18. Computing G Power with these parameters provided a sample size of 395. To adjust for the incomplete survey, we collected 451 responses. Of 451 participants, 361 college students were our final sample after removing the data with a significant number of missing values (>15%) and outliers as presented in Figure 2. Missing values other than in our dependent variable were handled by imputing mean value. No values were inputted for missing values in variables related to sexual victimization considering the sensitivity of the topic; thus, 11 data have missing values in the items related to dependent variable.

Procedure

Students with an active email address associated with the university were eligible to take part in the study as they were approached with email invitations via mass emails. Undergraduate students enrolled in the university were sent email invitations to participate in the survey. The link to the Qualtrics survey was attached to the email along with an informed consent. Informed consent included risks and benefits, compensation, anonymity, and resources to contact if/when they needed counseling services. Students were asked for their consent to participate in the study at the beginning of the study. It was clearly stated that participation was voluntary, and they could skip the questions if they felt uncomfortable. A screener question was asked to confirm whether or not they were involved in any dating relationships while in college. It was explicitly specified that this does not include marriage relationships. A separate Qualtrics survey was used to collect the email address of the participants if they wanted to participate in a raffle for gift cards worth US$15. The study was approved by the University of Oklahoma Institutional Review Board. The survey was pilot tested with members of the target population prior to data collection. Changes were made based on the pilot study and data were collected through Qualtrics. The survey took 20 min on average to complete.

Measures

Sexual Victimization

Sexual victimization was assessed using a 14-item measure, which was devised and used to explore the perception of anger of women toward unwanted sexual advances in dating relationships (Jouriles, Simpson Rowe, McDonald, & Kleinsasser, 2014). This instrument had its items drawn from the Sexual Experience Survey (Koss, Gidycz, & Wisniewski, 1987) and the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (Wolfe et al., 2001). These items assessed the sexual assaults including unwanted sexual touching, sexual coercion (threats and arguments), attempted and completed rapes. Participants were asked the number of times they were victimized by their current or recent dating partner while in college. Items were stated like “a partner touched me sexually when I did not want him or her to” or “a partner got me drunk or gave me drugs to have sex with me.” All the items were gender neutral and had response categories from 0 = never to 4 = more than 4 times. The Cronbach’s alpha was found to be .92 for our sample including college men and women. For the analysis, the items were grouped first into six major categories according to the conventional severity ranking scheme. Then, these categories were combined to form three categories—unwanted sexual contacts, attempted rapes, and complete rapes. All the independent variables were studied by grouping them under the levels explained by the ecological model as presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Variables within each level of the ecological model.

Figure 2.

Study flowchart.

Drinking Behavior

Two items assessed the frequency of alcohol consumption and binge drinking among college students. Participants were asked “In the past 30 days, how many days did you use alcohol?” and “In the past 30 days, how many times have you had five or more (if you are a man)/four (if you are a woman) drinks in a single setting?” (Bhochhibhoya, 2017). The mean of the two items were calculated, so that a higher score would indicate more frequent heavy drinking behavior. The correlation between these items was .81.

Mental Health

The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6) was used to assess the incidence of serious mental illness among college students. K6 tool included items related to frequency of feeling nervousness, hopeless, restless/fidgety, sad, that everything was an effort, and worthless during the past 30 days (Kessler et al., 2002). The alpha reliability for the mental health scale in the current study was found to be .88.

Social Support

Social support was evaluated using the six-item Medical Outcome Study–Social Support Survey (MOS-SSS; Holden, Lee, Hockey, Ware, & Dobson, 2014). The sum of these six items was calculated with a continuous range from 6 to 30, with a higher score representing greater perceived social support (α = .88 for our sample).

Risky Sexual Behavior

Four items of Risky Sexual Behavior Scale were used to explain participants’ sexual risk–taking behavior (Baams, Overbeek, Dubas, & Van Aken, 2014). This scale was not found reliable with our sample population; thus, only one item was used for further analysis. No further analyses were done after the confirmation of poor reliability in our sample. Risky sexual behavior was examined using only one item, “Have you ever had sex without a condom?” because previous research has looked into the association of condom nonuse and sexual violence.

Peer Deviance

Peer deviance was assessed by four items derived from model risk measure (Vazsonyi et al., 2010). Participants were asked about their involvement in vandalism, major and minor theft, and assaults with their friends while in college in the score of 1 (none), 2 (some), and 3 (a lot). Responses were then dichotomized into “ever participated in deviant activities” (1) or “never participated in any deviant activities” (0), such that the highest cumulative score can be 4, whereas the lowest cumulative score can be 0. Higher score indicated higher level of peer deviance.

Sexual Assertiveness

Participants’ sexual assertiveness was assessed using an 18-item sexual assertiveness questionnaire, which consisted of eight items assessing communication about sexual initiation, five items assessing refusal of unwanted sex, and the remaining five items assessing sexual history communication skills (Loshek & Terrell, 2015). Cronbach’s alpha of these subscales were .82, .81, and .87, respectively, for our sample population. Responses were made on the Likert-type scale of 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree). Negatively worded items were reverse coded such that higher score would mean better communication skills and stronger refusal skills.

Relationships With Parents

The Parenting Styles Inventory was used to examine the parental involvement and autonomy granting of the participants’ relationship with their parents. The Cronbach’s alpha of parental involvement and autonomy granting were .85 and .88, respectively, for our sample population. This 18-item scale was assessed using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree) (Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992). Sum scores were calculated for each subscale, and the higher score for both subscales would mean greater parental involvement and autonomy granting.

Demographics

Participants were asked about their gender identity, sexual identity, race, country of birth, and year in school. Participants were asked to choose their gender identity from “agender,” “androgyne,” “demigender,” “genderqueer or gender fluid,” “man,” “trans man,” “trans woman,” “woman,” “questioning or unsure,” “prefer not to disclose,” and “additional gender category” with option to fill in their own response. Because of low participation of students representing other than male and female in our study, this item were categorized into “male,” “female,” and “nonbinary” for further analysis. Similarly, sexual orientation was assessed using one item question with options “asexual,” “bisexual,” “gay,” “queer,” “pansexual,” “questioning or unsure,” “straight,” “lesbian,” “same gender loving,” “prefer not to disclose,” and “identity not listed” with an option to fill their own response. Due to the minimal participation of the students identifying as other than heterosexual, we lumped all the other categories into “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer” (LGBTQ). Thus, we had two categories for sexual orientation for further analysis. To confirm participants’ race, they were provided with the following options: White, Black or African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Hispanic, and Other.

The respondents were also asked about their living situation in their current semester with options “residence halls/dormitory/student housing,” “fraternity/sorority house,” “off campus alone or with a friend/nonromantic roommate,” “at home with parents,” and “off campus with a romantic partner/spouse.” Furthermore, the participants were also asked about their length of the recent/current dating relationships while in college with options less than 6 months, 6 months to 1 year, 1 year to 3 years, 3 to 5 years, and more than 5 years. Their hooking up behavior was assessed by one item: “How many times in the past 12 months have you hooked up?” with options 0, 1 to 2 times, 3 to 5 times, 5 to 10 times, and 10 to more times. Specifically, for this study, hooking up was defined as any casual encounters that involves two people in a physical relationship outside a committed relationship (Sutton & Simons, 2015). Similarly, witnessing physical violence in their family, belonging to any nonprofit organization, and perceiving discrimination due to sexual orientation/race/nationality in past 12 months were assessed with “yes” and “no” options.

Data Analysis

The final sample included 361 undergraduate college students (261 females, 92 males, and eight nonbinary) after removing noncompleted questionnaires (>15% missing values) and outliers based on Mahalanobis distance (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).

Descriptive statistics were calculated for participants’ demographic characteristics to determine the prevalence of different types of sexual victimization by gender and sexual orientation. Due to a small number of events per cell, the association between victimization type and “nonbinary” gender was not included in the analysis. Because all the risk factors were considered for the final model, factors were grouped into their respective level for further regression analysis.

Negative binomial regression was used to find association between factors and three types of sexual victimization separately, specifically unwanted sexual contacts, attempted rapes, and completed rapes. Negative binomial regression was used because the dependent variable data were discrete counts of incidences of sexual victimization (not continuous), and were overly dispersed (Long & Freese, 2006). Statistical significance was defined as p < .05. Analysis was conducted in SPSS version 23.0 after the raw data were exported from the Qualtrics survey.

Results

Sample Characteristics

A total of 361 participants completed the survey among which 72.3% were females, 25.5% were males, and 2.2% identified as nonbinary. A majority of the sample were heterosexual (77.8%) and identified as White (77.6%). Approximately 23% of the sample identified themselves as LGBTQ. Similar percentages (around 20%) of participants were enrolled from each school year, whereas only 7.7% of the sample were seniors with 5+ years. Most of the students (90.9%) were born in the United States.

Characteristic Behaviors of the Sample

One in three students reported ever having had sex without condoms. Approximately 60% of the respondents had never hooked up while in college, whereas 17.7% have hooked up more than 10 times. Only 18.3% of the sample had ever witnessed family violence in their life. A significant percentage of the college students (35.5%) were in a relationship for 1 to 3 years, whereas 27.7% of them had/were in a relationship that was less than 6 months long. Almost one in two students lived off campus along with a friend or nonromantic partner. A majority of the sample (75%) were not affiliated to any voluntary groups including student groups including fraternity and sorority in campus. Almost 30% of the college students had felt perceived discrimination because of their race, nationality, or sexual orientation.

Prevalence of Sexual Victimization

While in college, 35.04% of the participants reported to have experienced at least one form of sexual violence perpetrated by their dating partners including attempted and completed rapes. Table 1 shows the prevalence of sexual violence and its types by sex. Significant differences in sexual violence victimization were seen between college males and females for all the types of sexual violence. Prevalence of sexual victimization was almost 5 times higher among women than among college men. For example, 28.0% of the females experienced unwanted sexual contacts in comparison with 4.2% of the college males (p ≤ .01). Similarly, almost 25.8% and 20.3% of the females reported experiencing attempted rapes and completed rapes, respectively, in comparison with 5.2% (p ≤ .01) and 4.3% of the college males (p ≤ .05).

Table 1.

Prevalence of SV and Its Types by Sex.

Incident	Men		Women		χ²	Total
Incident	n	%	N	%	χ²	N	%
At least one type of SV (N = 343)	18	5.2	102	29.7	11.51**	120	35.0
Unwanted sexual contacts (N = 353)	15	4.2	99	28.0	15.63**	114	32.31
Attempted rape (N = 345)	18	5.2	89	25.8	6.90**	107	31.0
Completed rape (N = 350)	15	4.3	71	20.3	4.60*	86	24.6

Note. SV = sexual violence.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Similarly, Table 2 shows the prevalence of varied sexual violence by sexual orientation of the college students. Significant differences were also found between heterosexual college students and LGBTQ college students with regard to experiencing at least one form of sexual violence and unwanted sexual contacts in dating relationships. The prevalence is higher in heterosexual students for both forms of sexual violence (χ² = 5.43, p ≤ .05) in comparison with LGBTQ students. No significant differences were found in the prevalence of experiences of attempted rapes and completed rapes between these groups.

Table 2.

Prevalence Rate of SV and Its Types by Sexual Orientation.

Incident	Heterosexual		LGBTQ		χ²	Total
Incident	n	%	n	%	χ²	N	%
At least one type of SV (N = 351)	87	24.8	36	10.03	5.43*	123	35.04
Unwanted sexual contact (N = 351)	87	24.8	36	10.03	5.43*	123	35.04
Attempted rape (N = 353)	79	22.4%	29	8.2	2.04	108	30.59
Completed rape (N = 358)	64	17.9%	25	7.0%	2.25	89	24.9

Note. SV = sexual violence; LGBTQ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer.

p < .05.

Factors Associated With Sexual Victimization

Table 3 shows three negative binomial regression models for the three types of sexual victimization: unwanted sexual contacts, attempted rapes, and completed rapes.

Table 3.

Negative Binomial Regression for Experiencing Unwanted Sexual Contacts, Attempted Rapes, and Completed Rapes Among College Students in Dating Relationships.

Variables	Model I: Unwanted Sexual Contacts			Model II: Attempted Rapes			Model III: Completed Rapes
Variables	B	SE	Exp B [95% CI]	B	SE	Exp B [95% CI]	B	SE	Exp B [95% CI]
Individual
Sexual orientation (reference: LGBTQ)
Heterosexual	−0.11	0.26	0.89 [0.54, 1.48]	0.18	0.28	1.20 [0.69, 2.08]	−0.07	0.32	0.93 [0.50, 1.74]
Gender (ref. male)
Female	1.15	0.29	3.15* [1.80, 5.51]	0.95	0.26	2.59* [1.54, 4.35]	1.60	0.77	4.93* [1.09, 22.36]
Nonbinary	1.59	0.65	4.90* [1.36, 17.68]	1.22	0.70	3.39 [0.86, 13.33]	0.84	0.34	2.31* [1.20, 1.48]
Year of schooling (reference: freshmen)
Sophomore	0.49	0.38	1.64 [0.78, 3.45]	0.33	0.40	1.39 [0.64, 3.04]	0.84	0.44	2.30 [0.97, 5.46]
Junior	−0.25	0.42	0.78 [0.34, 1.79]	−0.30	0.43	0.74 [0.32, 1.72]	−0.16	0.51	0.85 [0.31, 2.30]
Senior	0.38	0.41	1.46 [0.65, 3.28]	0.42	0.42	1.53 [0.67, 3.48]	0.53	0.50	1.70 [0.64, 4.54]
5+ senior	0.46	0.50	1.58 [0.59, 4.25]	0.36	0.52	1.43 [0.52, 3.95]	0.58	0.60	1.79 [0.55, 5.77]
Race (reference: White)
Black	−1.12	0.86	0.33 [0.06, 1.75]	−0.95	0.87	0.39 [0.07, 2.12]	−1.84	1.04	0.16 [0.02, 1.23]
American Indian	0.30	0.54	1.36 [0.47, 3.89]	−0.26	0.56	0.77 [0.25, 3.33]	1.0	0.60	2.71 [0.83, 8.79]
Asian	−0.14	0.35	0.87 [0.43, 1.73]	−0.71	0.38	0.49 [0.23, 1.03]	0.14	0.41	1.16 [0.51, 2.60]
Hispanic	−0.01	0.48	0.99 [0.39, 2.56]	−0.41	0.53	0.66 [0.24, 1.86]	−0.17	0.55	0.84 [0.28, 2.49]
Other	0.37	0.51	1.45 [0.54, 3.90]	−0.97	0.68	0.38 [0.10, 1.45]	0.89	0.61	2.44 [0.74, 8.08]
Drinking behavior	0.01	0.03	1.01 [0.95, 1.02]	−0.01	0.03	0.99 [0.93, 1.06]	0.05	0.04	1.06 [0.98, 1.14]
Mental health	−0.03	0.02	0.97 [0.93, 1.02]	−0.02	0.02	0.98 [0.93, 1.03]	0.00	0.02	1.00 [0.95, 1.05]
Risky sexual behavior (reference: no)
Yes	−0.24	0.27	0.79 [0.47, 1.35]	−0.20	0.27	0.82 [0.48, 1.40]	0.09	0.33	1.10 [0.57, 2.10]
Sexual assertiveness
Communication about sexual initiation	−0.04	0.01	0.96* [0.94, 0.98]	−0.03	0.01	0.97* [0.95, 0.99]	−0.04	0.01	0.96* [0.94, 0.98]
Refusal skills of unwanted sex	−0.11	0.02	0.90* [0.87, 0.93]	−0.13	0.02	0.88* [0.85, 0.91]	−0.12	0.02	0.89*[0.87, 0.92]
Sexual history communication	−0.01	0.01	0.99 [0.97, 1.02]	−0.01	0.01	0.98 [0.96, 1.01]	−0.00	0.02	1.0 [0.96, 1.03]
Relationship
Hooking up (reference: never)
1-2 times	0.98	0.32	2.67* [1.44, 4.97]	1.47	0.30	4.36* [2.41, 7.90]	0.53	0.39	1.70 [0.79, 3.62]
3-5 times	−0.36	0.40	0.70 [0.32, 1.54]	−0.19	0.40	0.83 [0.38, 1.82]	−0.64	0.50	0.53 [0.20, 1.40]
5-10 times	1.31	0.47	3.69* [1.47, 9.27]	1.95	0.48	7.03* [2.76, 17.92]	1.37	0.52	3.92* [1.43, 10.78]
10 or more times	0.84	0.28	2.31* [1.33, 4.01]	1.08	0.29	2.95* [1.66, 5.22]	0.99	0.33	2.69* [1.40, 5.18]
Witness family violence (reference: no)
Yes	−0.05	0.27	0.95 [0.56, 1.60]	−0.07	0.28	0.93 [0.54, 1.61]	−0.27	0.31	0.77 [0.42, 1.40]
Parenting style
Parental involvement	−0.06	0.03	0.94* [0.89, 0.99]	−0.06	0.03	0.94* [0.89, 0.99]	−0.04	0.03	0.96 [0.90, 1.02]
Autonomy granting	0.02	0.02	1.02 [0.98, 1.06]	−0.00	0.02	0.10 [0.96, 1.04]	0.00	0.02	1.00 [0.96, 1.06]
Peer deviance	0.28	0.26	1.33 [0.79, 2.24]	0.57	0.28	1.76* [1.01, 3.08]	0.54	0.31	1.72 [0.94, 3.15]
Length of relationship (reference: less than 6 months)
6 months to 1 year	−0.33	0.29	0.72 [0.41, 1.28]	−0.21	0.28	0.81 [0.46, 1.41]	−0.66	0.35	0.52 [0.26, 1.02]
1-3 years	−0.18	0.26	0.83 [0.50, 1.39]	−0.73	0.27	0.49* [0.29, 0.82]	−0.38	0.30	0.68 (0.38, 1.24
3-5 years	0.03	0.35	1.03 [0.51, 2.05]	−0.17	0.35	0.84 [0.42, 1.68]	−1.03	0.49	0.36*[0.14, 0.93]
>5 years	−0.66	0.89	0.52 [0.09, 3.00]	−0.74	0.91	0.48 [0.08, 2.87]	−29.0		2.43E-13
Social support	−0.04	0.03	0.97 [0.92, 1.02]	−0.01	0.03	0.10 [0.95, 1.05]	−0.02	0.03	0.98 [0.92, 1.04]
Community
Place of residence (reference: residence hall)
Fraternity/sorority house	0.05	0.61	1.06 [0.32, 3.51]	−0.31	0.63	0.74 [0.21, 2.52]	−0.56	0.71	0.57 [0.14, 2.29]
Off campus alone or with nonromantic partner	0.48	0.35	1.62 [0.82, 3.17]	0.38	0.37	1.46 [0.71, 3.00]	0.18	0.41	1.19 [0.54, 2.64]
Off campus with a romantic partner	0.09	0.46	1.10 [0.44, 2.72]	0.77	0.46	2.15 [0.87, 5.28]	0.04	0.56	1.04 [0.35, 3.11]
At home with parents	0.51	0.45	1.66 [0.69, 4.00]	0.20	0.49	1.22 [0.47, 3.19]	0.50	0.55	1.64 [0.56, 4.83]
Affiliation to fraternity/sorority (reference: no)
Yes	−0.03	0.24	0.97 [0.61, 1.55]	0.04	0.25	1.04 [0.64, 1.70]	−0.28	0.30	0.76 [0.42, 1.35]
Affiliation to NGO (reference: no)
Yes	−0.16	0.22	0.85 [0.55, 1.32]	−0.21	0.23	0.81 [0.52, 1.28]	−0.10	0.27	0.90 [0.53, 1.53]
Societal
Perceived discrimination (reference: no)
Yes	−0.30	0.22	0.74 [0.48, 1.13]	0.08	0.23	1.08 [0.70, 1.68]	−0.77	0.25	0.46* [0.28, 0.76]

Note. CI = confidence intervals; LGBTQ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer; NGO = non-governmental organization. Number with ‘E’ is a part of the analysis.

p < .05.

Unwanted sexual contacts

Model 1 from Table 3 shows the association between risk factors and discrete counts of unwanted sexual contacts among college students in dating relationships while in college.

Individual level

Being female (b = 1.146, SE = 0.286, p < .01) and identifying as “nonbinary” gender (b = 1.589, SE = 0.654, p < .05) were positively and significantly associated with the log counts of unwanted sexual contacts in dating relationships while in college. Better communication (b = −0.039, SE = 0.011, p < .01) and refusal skills of unwanted sex (b = −0.109, SE = 0.017, p < .01) were negatively associated with the log counts of unwanted sexual contacts.

Relationship level

Hooking up in college and parental involvement (b = −0.061, SE = 0.026, p < .05) of the participants were found to be significantly associated with the number of unwanted sexual touching.

Community and Societal level

No variables related to the community and societal level related to the ecological model were found to be associated with unwanted sexual experiences.

Attempted rapes

Model 2 shows the results of the negative binomial regression for experiencing attempted rapes both by verbal coercion and physical force for our sample.

Individual level

College women are more likely to experience attempted rapes (b = 0.951, SE = 0.264, p < .01) than college men. Under sexual assertiveness, having better communication (b = −0.031, SE = 0.011, p < .01) and refusal skills (b = −0.129, SE = 0.017, p < .01) are significantly associated with the log counts of attempted rapes perpetrated by their dating partners.

Relationship level

Frequency of hookup and peer deviance (b = 0.566, SE = 0.269, p < .05) were positively and significantly associated with the log counts of attempted rapes, whereas parental involvement (b = −0.063, SE = 0.284, p < .05) and being in a relationship for 1 to 3 years (b = −0.725, SE = 0.269, p < .01) had significant negative impact on the log counts of attempted rapes in dating relationships.

Community and societal levels

Similar to Model 1, no variables associated with community and societal levels were found to be significantly associated with attempted rapes.

Completed rapes

As in previous models, Model 3 presents the relation between counts of completed rapes and risk factors.

Individual level

Among college students in dating relationships, gender (female: b = 1.595, SE = 0.771, p < .05; nonbinary: b = 0.839, SE = 0.336, p < .05) stands out to have an association with the number of completed rapes. Sexual assertiveness (communication skills: b = −0.042, SE = 0.013, p < .01; refusal skills: b = −0.121, SE = 0.019, p < .01) of the participants act as a protective factor against increasing number of completed rapes among college students in dating relationships.

Relationship level

The number of hook ups the participants have during college was a significant positive factor associated with the log counts of completed rapes, whereas a relationship of 3 to 5 years (b = −1.031, SE = 0.487, p < .05) was negatively and significantly associated with the log counts of completed rapes.

Community and societal levels

Although no community-level variables were found to have significant impact, the participants’ perceived discrimination based on race/nationality/sexual orientation (b = −0.777, SE = 0.254, p < .01) was negatively associated with the log counts of the completed rapes in dating relationships.

Discussion

This study investigated the prevalence rate and ecological model–based risk factors associated with sexual victimization among college students in dating relationships. Because previous research has repeatedly documented dating partners as the prominent perpetrators of sexual assaults, it is deemed necessary to evaluate factors associated with sexual violence within dating relationships (Santos-Iglesias & Sierra, 2012). The results of our study confirmed that 35.04% of participants experienced at least one form of sexual violence in their dating relationship while in college. This prevalence rate is higher in comparison with other recent research conducted on sexual victimization among college students that used a similar definition of sexual violence because of two reasons (Campbell et al., 2021; Conley et al., 2017; Eisenberg, Lust, Mathiason, & Porta, 2021; Ray et al., 2021). First, we specifically included students who were in dating relationships, and because most common perpetrators of sexual violence have been documented to be victims’ friends or dating partners, this exclusiveness may have heightened the prevalence rate (Gidycz et al., 2008). Second, our study evaluated the prevalence rate of sexual violence victimization during college, whereas other recent research has considered a more constricted time period such as “in the past year.”

The etiology of the sexual violence in dating relationships can be complex as it involves partners who should protect, trust, and support each other. Given that this study was limited to examining sexual violence in dating relationships, the factors associated with sexual assaults contrasted previous research. Drinking behavior, sexual orientation, place of residence, and social support were not found to be significantly associated with sexual assaults, unlike previous studies (Conley et al., 2017; Mellins et al., 2017). However, gender, sexual assertiveness, hook ups, length of the relationship, and perceived discrimination were relevant factors associated with sexual violence victimization among college students in dating partners. Undeniably, gender was found to be the most prominent factor associated with every type of sexual violence. The results of this study show that female college students are significantly more sexually victimized than are college males with regard to all types of sexual victimization. Although a substantial rate of prevalence is reported among college men, the accepted concept of masculinity and gender roles could have played a role in underreporting of sexual assaults in their dating relationships (Mellins et al., 2017). In contrast to the earlier findings (Dank et al., 2014; Reuter et al., 2017), our results do not suggest a heightened risk of sexual violence victimization among LGBTQ college students in comparison with the heterosexual college students. The prevalence rate of experiencing at least one type of sexual victimization and unwanted sexual touching is almost double among heterosexual students in comparison with LGBTQ students. This variation in comparison with the previous studies could be due to the low sample size representing the LGBTQ community on campus. Further studies with equal representation of these subgroups could explain more about this discrepancy.

As stated earlier, this study also identified multiple influences associated with sexual assaults in dating relationships based on the ecological model. With regard to variables related to the individual level, participants’ gender and their sexual assertiveness skills were found to be the salient risk factors for all kinds of sexual violence. Sexual assertiveness skills include communication skills, refusal skills, and confidence of any person in confronting any unwanted sexual advances (Kelley et al., 2016). Although communication about one’s sexual history was not found to be a determining factor, communicating about initiation of desired sex and refusing unwanted sex in dating relationships were found to be significant protective factors against all kinds of sexual violence victimization. Situation-specific sexual assertiveness, self-efficacy, and sense of empowerment are the most relevant factors in sexual victimization occurring in dating relationships, given that these assaults are perpetrated by someone trusted by the victim. Consequently, lack of strong sexual assertiveness skills could repeatedly put a victim in danger as the victim may refrain from acting assertively as they believe that their efforts will be overlooked. Similar findings have been found in studies conducted among Spanish college women (Santos-Iglesias & Sierra, 2012). These findings suggest that universal sexual assault prevention programs should aim to encourage skills related to situational sexual assertiveness through self-defense trainings (Gidycz et al., 2015). These skills training programs are developed to be empowering without being victim blaming, and training to reduce risk for women should be co-occur with violence prevention for men. Qualitative research is needed to explore the complexity of sexual violence in dating relationships, given varied commitment levels and stage or length of the relationship. Universal sexual assault interventions across all sexual orientation, gender, and ethnic/racial subgroups tailored to their cultural beliefs and norms of the subgroups may be effective as sexual assault intervention. The main goal of the universal education approach should be providing harm-reduction strategies including condom negotiation, reduction of isolation, and breaking up safely if needed (Miller, 2017). To assist this process, college campuses should train staffs on varied issues related to sexuality, gender issues, and race/ethnicity (Coulter et al., 2017). Similarly, consuming alcohol may present women to be perceived as promiscuous and easy targets of unwanted sexual advances in social gatherings and parties, thus increasing the prevalence rates of sexual assaults on campus (Abbey, 2011). But, even though binge drinking and alcohol consumption have been repeatedly documented as important predictors of sexual assaults in college, it was not significant in our model among college students in dating relationships.

At the relationship level of the socioecological model, the frequency of hooking up stood as a significant factor in determining sexual victimization. Hooking up, regardless of the gender of a person, increases ones chances of being sexually victimized (Flack et al., 2007). Because this study only focused on sexual victimization perpetrated by dating partners, the possible causes of sexual victimization between partners because of hook ups is unknown. Future studies should seek explanations behind increased sexual victimization in dating relationships and associations with hook ups. Although parental involvement was not significantly associated with broad sexual assaults in campus in a similar previous study (Conley et al., 2017), our study supports that the way their parents raised them, supported them academically and financially, and spend time while they grew up determine how the youth handle their relationships and their sexual encounters such as sexualized touching and attempted penetrative coercions. Parental relationships can be an important aspect of social support to the young adult. Results also suggest that the involvement of youth in deviant behaviors assessed by a peer deviant scale increased the chances of being a victim of attempted rapes in dating relationships. More detailed studies need to be conducted to learn about the associations between antisocial behavior and sexual violence. Regarding the association between length of dating relationships and incidences of sexual victimization, our study does not find that the relationship length is uniquely associated with the sexual assaults. Interestingly, stable relationships of few years long act as a protective factor against sexual assaults when compared with a new relationship or relationships that have lasted more than 5 years. This result contradicts previous research, which showed that frequency of violence increases after the commitment has been established in dating relationships (Kaukinen, Gover, & Hartman, 2012).

The present study also explored variables related to community and societal levels of the ecological model. Prior research was consistent in its finding regarding higher incidences of sexual victimization among college women living in sorority houses than among women living in college dormitories, living with parents, and living off campus with a romantic partner (Minow & Einolf, 2009). However, no such association was found in our study between type of students’ housing and sexual violence victimization among college students. In addition, participants’ affiliation to voluntary groups such as LGBTQ support groups also had no association with sexual victimization as an outcome. Although this factor has been understudied, past research has found that belonging to an LGBTQ-focused organization is correlated with increased likelihood of sexual violence (Sabidó et al., 2015). Our study also supports that the perceived discrimination is negatively associated with penetrative sexual assaults. Perceived discrimination was assessed by only one item that vaguely asked participants whether or not they perceived any discrimination based on their race, sexual orientation, and nationality. Thus, this factor was inadequately captured in our study that limits further explanation.

Although this study is based on a comprehensive model, this study also has several limitations. Because the participants were enrolled only from one university, the findings may not be generalizable to other college students. Convenience sampling while recruiting the participants also limits the generalizability of the results. A representative sample could have generated more nuanced analysis. Our study being a cross-sectional study also comes with its own limitations. The directionality of relationships between variables cannot be assumed. Longitudinal studies focusing on the significant factors stated in our study with the sexual assault outcomes are critical to confirm directionality. On a different note, our study focused solely on sexual victimization among undergraduate students who are/were in a dating relationship while in college; thus, results might vary from studies that explored sexual violence in general in an educational setting. The data collection was conducted through a long self-administered survey, which increased the chance of dropping before finishing the survey. Risky sexual behavior was also not adequately measured because of the reliability issue. Sample and age-appropriate tools to measure risky sexual behavior may have found different results. In addition, issues of dishonesty and recall bias cannot be negated while using self-reported data.

Apart from these, exclusion of child sexual abuse construct, a major risk factor associated with adult victimization and consecutive revictimization, is a major limitation of this study. Because of the mandatory reporting policy of the university regarding child abuse and neglect to a proper authority, no questions related to abuse in the childhood were asked. The inclusion of this variable and the use of a shorter and succinct instrument could explain more about increased incidences of sexual victimization among college students in dating relationships. Alternative subjective measures and additional objective measures to assess societal-level risk factors to describe these factors would explain the relationship better than the use of only one proxy of “perceived discrimination” in future studies.

Our study contributes to the literature of sexual victimization on campus and sheds light on potential causes and risk factors associated with it among students in dating relationships. Furthermore, our findings also provide evidence for formulating multileveled prevention programs and strategies against sexual violence. Organizing interventions collaboratively in educational settings could increase awareness, reduce stigma, foster respectful dating relationships, and reduce sexual assaults among college students.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Graduate College, University of Oklahoma, and Gender and Equality Center (GEC), University of Oklahoma, for supporting and collaborating for this research.

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Sarah B. Maness

Author Biographies

Shristi Bhochhibhoya, MS, is a first-year doctoral student in the Department of Health and Exercise Science at the University of Oklahoma. She is interested in research exploring sexual health, adolescent health, and adolescent pregnancy among diversified population.

Sarah B. Maness, PhD, MPH, is an assistant professor in the Department of Health and Exercise Science at the University of Oklahoma. Her research interests include social determinants of health, health disparities, adolescent pregnancy prevention, and Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccinations.

Marshall Cheney, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Health and Exercise Science at the University of Oklahoma. She has worked as a program administrator in tobacco prevention intervention projects in the health department. Her research works mainly focus on tobacco use prevention, young adult health behavior, social marketing, and health disparities.

Daniel Larson, PhD, is an assistant professor at the University of Oklahoma. He mainly works in projects related to sport data analytics, participant sport events, economic theory, and sport coaching and instructions.

References

Abbey

(2011). Alcohol’s role in sexual violence perpetration: Theoretical explanations, existing evidence, and future directions. Drug and Alcohol Review, 30, 481-489.

Alliance

V. P.

(2018). The ecological framework. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/violenceprevention/approach/ecology/en/

Baams

Overbeek

Dubas

J. S.

Van Aken

M. A.

(2014). On early starters and late bloomers: The development of sexual behavior in adolescence across personality types. The Journal of Sex Research, 51, 754-764.

Basile

K. C.

Saltzman

L. E.

(2009). Sexual violence surveillance: Uniform definitions and recommended data elements. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Atlanta, GA.

Bhochhibhoya

(2017). Application of integrative behavior model to predict initiation or maintenance of stopping binge drinking among college students: A prospective study (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://shareok.org/handle/11244/51835

Breiding

M. J.

(2014). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence victimization—National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, United States, 2011. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 63(8), 1-18.

Bronfenbrenner

(1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513-531.

Campbell

J. C.

Sabri

Budhathoki

Kaufman

M. R.

Alhusen

Decker

M. R.

(2021). Unwanted sexual acts among university students: Correlates of victimization and perpetration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(1-2), NP504-NP526. doi:10.1177/0886260517734221

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018). The social-ecological model: A framework for prevention. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/overview/social-ecologicalmodel.html

10.

Conley

Overstreet

Hawn

Kendler

Dick

Amstadter

(2017). Prevalence and predictors of sexual assault among a college sample. Journal of American College Health, 65, 41-49.

11.

Coulter

R. W.

Mair

Miller

Blosnich

J. R.

Matthews

D. D.

McCauley

H. L.

(2017). Prevalence of past-year sexual assault victimization among undergraduate students: Exploring differences by and intersections of gender identity, sexual identity, and race/ethnicity. Prevention Science, 18, 726-736.

12.

Cranney

(2015). The relationship between sexual victimization and year in school in us colleges: Investigating the parameters of the “red zone.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 3133-3145.

13.

Dank

Lachman

Zweig

J. M.

Yahner

(2014). Dating violence experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 846-857.

14.

Davis

K. C.

Gilmore

A. K.

Stappenbeck

C. A.

Balsan

M. J.

George

W. H.

Norris

(2014). How to score the sexual experiences survey? A comparison of nine methods. Psychology of Violence, 4, 445-461.

15.

Edwards

K. M.

Neal

A. M.

(2017). School and community characteristics related to dating violence victimization among high school youth. Psychology of Violence, 7, 203-212.

16.

Eisenberg

M. E.

Lust

Mathiason

M. A.

Porta

C. M.

(2021). Sexual assault, sexual orientation, and reporting among college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(1-2), 62-82. doi:10.1177/0886260517726414

17.

Fedina

Holmes

J. L.

Backes

B. L.

(2018). Campus sexual assault: A systematic review of prevalence research from 2000 to 2015. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 19, 76-93.

18.

Flack

W. F.

Jr. Caron

M. L.

Leinen

S. J.

Breitenbach

K. G.

Barber

A. M.

Brown

E. N.

. . . Stein

H. C.

(2008). “The red zone”: Temporal risk for unwanted sex among college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1177-1196.

19.

Flack

W. F.

Jr. Daubman

K. A.

Caron

M. L.

Asadorian

J. A.

D’Aureli

N. R.

Gigliotti

S. N.

. . . Stine

E. R.

(2007). Risk factors and consequences of unwanted sex among university students: Hooking up, alcohol, and stress response. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 139-157.

20.

Gidycz

C. A.

Orchowski

L. M.

King

C. R.

Rich

C. L.

(2008). Sexual victimization and health-risk behaviors: A prospective analysis of college women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 744-763.

21.

Gidycz

C. A.

Orchowski

L. M.

Probst

D. R.

Edwards

K. M.

Murphy

Tansill

(2015). Concurrent administration of sexual assault prevention and risk reduction programming: Outcomes for women. Violence Against Women, 21, 780-800.

22.

Griner

S. B.

Vamos

C. A.

Thompson

E. L.

Logan

Vázquez-Otero

Daley

E. M.

(2020). The intersection of gender identity and violence: Victimization experienced by transgender college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(23-24), 5704-5725. doi:10.1177/0886260517723743

23.

Holden

Lee

Hockey

Ware

R. S.

Dobson

A. J.

(2014). Validation of the MOS Social Support Survey 6-item (MOS-SSS-6) measure with two large population-based samples of Australian women. Quality of Life Research, 23, 2849-2853.

24.

Jina

Thomas

L. S.

(2013). Health consequences of sexual violence against women. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 27, 15-26.

25.

Jouriles

E. N.

Simpson Rowe

McDonald

Kleinsasser

A. L.

(2014). Women’s expression of anger in response to unwanted sexual advances: Associations with sexual victimization. Psychology of Violence, 4, 170-183.

26.

Kaukinen

(2014). Dating violence among college students: The risk and protective factors. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 15, 283-296.

27.

Kaukinen

Gover

A. R.

Hartman

J. L.

(2012). College women’s experiences of dating violence in casual and exclusive relationships. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 146-162.

28.

Kelley

E. L.

Orchowski

L. M.

Gidycz

C. A.

(2016). Sexual victimization among college women: Role of sexual assertiveness and resistance variables. Psychology of Violence, 6, 243-252.

29.

Kessler

R. C.

Andrews

Colpe

L. J.

Hiripi

Mroczek

D. K.

Normand

S.-L.

. . . Zaslavsky

A. M.

(2002). Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychological Medicine, 32, 959-976.

30.

Koss

M. P.

Gidycz

C. A.

Wisniewski

(1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162-170.

31.

Long

J. S.

Freese

(2006). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using stata (2nd ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.

32.

Loshek

Terrell

H. K.

(2015). The development of the Sexual Assertiveness Questionnaire (SAQ): A comprehensive measure of sexual assertiveness for women. The Journal of Sex Research, 52, 1017-1027.

33.

McMahon

Wood

Cusano

Macri

L. M.

(2018). Campus sexual assault: Future directions for research. Sexual Abuse. 31, 270-295. doi:10.1057/1079063217750864

34.

Mellins

C. A.

Walsh

Sarvet

A. L.

Wall

Gilbert

Santelli

J. S.

. . . Benson

(2017). Sexual assault incidents among college undergraduates: Prevalence and factors associated with risk. PLoS One, 12(11), Article e0186471.

35.

Messman-Moore

T. L.

Long

P. J.

Siegfried

N. J.

(2000). The revictimization of child sexual abuse survivors: An examination of the adjustment of college women with child sexual abuse, adult sexual assault, and adult physical abuse. Child Maltreatment, 5, 18-27.

36.

Miller

(2017). Prevention of and interventions for dating and sexual violence in adolescence. Pediatric Clinics, 64, 423-434.

37.

Minow

J. C.

Einolf

C. J.

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

38.

Ray

C. M.

Tyler

K. A.

Gordon Simons

(2021). Risk factors for forced, incapacitated, and coercive sexual victimization among sexual minority and heterosexual male and female college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(5-6), 2241-2261. doi:10.1177/0886260518758332

39.

Reuter

T. R.

Newcomb

M. E.

Whitton

S. W.

Mustanski

(2017). Intimate partner violence victimization in LGBT young adults: Demographic differences and associations with health behaviors. Psychology of Violence, 7, 101-109.

40.

Sabidó

Kerr

L. R. F. S.

Mota

R. S.

Benzaken

A. S.

Pinho

Guimaraes

M. D.

. . . Kendall

(2015). Sexual violence against men who have sex with men in Brazil: A respondent-driven sampling survey. AIDS and Behavior, 19, 1630-1641.

41.

Santos-Iglesias

Sierra

J. C.

(2012). Sexual victimization among Spanish college women and risk factors for sexual revictimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 3468-3485.

42.

Steinberg

Lamborn

S. D.

Dornbusch

S. M.

Darling

(1992). Impact of parenting practices on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school involvement, and encouragement to succeed. Child Development, 63, 1266-1281.

43.

Sutton

T. E.

Simons

L. G.

(2015). Sexual assault among college students: Family of origin hostility, attachment, and the hook-up culture as risk factors. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 2827-2840.

44.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

45.

Turchik

J. A.

(2012). Sexual victimization among male college students: Assault severity, sexual functioning, and health risk behaviors. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 13, 243-255.

46.

Turchik

J. A.

Hassija

C. M.

(2014). Female sexual victimization among college students: Assault severity, health risk behaviors, and sexual functioning. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 2439-2457.

47.

Tyler

K. A.

Schmitz

R. M.

Adams

S. A.

(2017). Alcohol expectancy, drinking behavior, and sexual victimization among female and male college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32, 2298-2322.

48.

Ullman

S. E.

Starzynski

L. L.

Long

S. M.

Mason

G. E.

Long

L. M.

(2008). Exploring the relationships of women’s sexual assault disclosure, social reactions, and problem drinking. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1235-1257.

49.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2017). Protecting students from sexual assault. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/ovw/protecting-students-sexual-assault

50.

Vazsonyi

A. T.

Chen

Jenkins

D. D.

Burcu

Torrente

Sheu

C. J.

(2010). Jessor’s problem behavior theory: Cross-national evidence from Hungary, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, and the United States. Developmental Psychology, 46, 1779-1791.

51.

Wolfe

D. A.

Scott

Reitzel-Jaffe

Wekerle

Grasley

Straatman

A.-L.

(2001). Development and validation of the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 13, 277-293.