Does Athlete Status Explain Sexual Violence Victimization and Perpetration on College Campuses? A Socio-Ecological Study

Abstract

In the United States, college students have been identified as a high-risk group for sexual violence (SV) victimization and perpetration, with one in three women and one in four men experiencing SV in their lifetimes. Therefore, studies investigating both perpetration and victimization across genders are pertinent. Additionally, in the context of higher education, athletics is often viewed as a high-risk environment for SV. Despite established relationships between SV and intercollegiate athletics, research on this topic is not conclusive due to the heterogeneous nature of college sports, as well as a dearth of research on recreational athletes. The primary purpose of this study was to examine the differences in SV victimization and perpetration among intercollegiate, recreational, and non-athlete populations. Additional context was provided by exploring variables at multiple levels of the socio-ecological model for violence prevention, as these factors can be important aspects of a person’s development and may inform behavior. Utilizing a sample of 62,996 students from 199 institutions of higher education in the United States, multilevel logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess individual- (i.e., personal demographics), relationship- (i.e., athlete status), and community-level (i.e., institutional characteristics) predictors of SV victimization and perpetration. The results indicated that recreational athletes are the most at-risk group, experiencing and perpetrating SV at higher rates than non-athletes. Results on institutional status and individual characteristics, as well as implications for practitioners and future research is discussed.

Keywords

sexual violence intercollegiate athletics recreational sports college sexual assault

Introduction

Within the last decade, sexual violence (SV) has received national attention across the United States (U.S.), specifically within higher education, as college students have been identified as a high-risk group for SV victimization and perpetration (DeGue et al., 2014). According to the U.S. Department of Justice, there is an increased risk of SV victimization for women in college (Sinozich & Langton, 2014), particularly within the first few months of their first semester, often referred to as the “red zone” for victimization (Cranney, 2015). In 2011, the Office for Civil Rights issued a “Dear Colleague Letter” that urged institutions to decrease SV on college campuses through proactive steps such as promoting SV prevention education and investigating identified incidents of SV (Ali, 2011).

While there has been an increased emphasis on victimization studies, comparable studies on perpetration are deficient (Sutherland et al., 2014). Studies often place a heightened emphasis on gender (i.e., women as victims, men as perpetrators). However, statistics from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicate one in three women and one in four men in the United States will experience SV in their lifetimes (CDC, 2022a), demonstrating that women and men can both be victims or perpetrators (Black et al., 2011). Therefore, studies investigating perpetration, in addition to victimization, across genders are pertinent (Sutherland et al., 2014). As Banyard et al. (2006) noted, “prevention of victimization and its negative effects requires also understanding perpetration” (p. 1315).

Furthermore, in the context of higher education, athletics is often viewed as a high-risk environment for SV. Despite established relationships between SV and intercollegiate athletics (e.g., Navarro & Tewksbury, 2019; Sawyer et al., 2002; Young et al., 2017), research on this topic is not conclusive due to its heterogeneous nature (Beaver, 2019; McCray & Taylor, 2021b). Additionally, research on SV and athletics often overlooks recreational athletes, potentially due to the prominence of intercollegiate athletes on many campuses (Murnen & Kohlman, 2007). However, recreational athletes can experience strong group bonding and social identities around their sport participation (Lamont-Mills & Christensen, 2006), which may position them closer to intercollegiate athletes than non-athletes. The current study sought to expand SV literature by examining predictors of victimization and perpetration with a specific focus on athlete status.

Theoretical Framework

Individual predictors of SV perpetration and victimization are consistently included in SV literature. For example, attitudes toward women, adherence to traditional gender norms, and rape myth acceptance are heavily studied predictors of perpetration (Teten Tharp et al., 2013). However, SV research must also incorporate contextual variables to fully explain campus SV (Moylan et al., 2019; Moylan & Javorka, 2020). Basile (2015) advocated for a comprehensive, multi-level approach to SV prevention and noted the socio-ecological model is useful for understanding violence within the context of relationships, communities, and society.

Rooted in Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1994) ecological theory, the socio-ecological model focuses on relational and social interactions that influence an individual’s development and behavior. The human ecological environment consists of a distinctive set of nested subsystems that interact with one another and the individual at the center of the system. The innermost level, nearest to the individual, contains elements of a person’s social experiences and interpersonal relationships (e.g., family, peer groups). Organizational structures, community factors, and systems/policies are incorporated as the levels continue outward and have indirect influences on the individual (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1994). Several adaptions of the socio-ecological model have been applied to various contexts, including a violence prevention model which contains four levels—individual, relationship, community, and societal—that are used to understand factors that perpetuate violence (CDC, 2022b). This study considered predictive factors at several levels of the CDC’s socio-ecological model for violence prevention.

Individual Variables—Personal Demographics

Gender, sexual orientation, and race/ethnicity variables were analyzed. Studies have consistently demonstrated that undergraduate women are at heightened risk for SV compared to men (American College Health Association, 2014; Cantor et al. 2020; Krebs et al. 2016). However, Porta et al. (2017) noted the need to shed more light on non-male perpetrators since SV research historically focused on men as perpetrators. Sexual orientation and racial/ethnic identity also increase vulnerability to SV (Coulter et al., 2017; Rogers & Rogers, 2020). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people experience a greater risk for SV than heterosexuals (Blosnich & Bossarte, 2012; Johnson et al., 2016; Krebs et al., 2016). Similarly, transgender people are at higher risk for SV than their cisgender counterparts (Coulter et al. 2017; Krebs et al. 2016). People of color also experience a heightened risk for SV, especially Black women (Linder et al., 2020).

Relationship Variables—Athlete Status

Athletic teams are a focal point of some SV research due to the rape-supportive attitudes—such as rape myth acceptance, hypermasculinity, and adherence to traditional gender norms—that may be present in all-male groups (Franklin et al., 2012; Murnen & Kohlman, 2007; Seabrook et al., 2018). These attitudes are only some features of athletic teams that contribute to their identification as at-risk subgroups on campuses. Martin (2016) suggested that homogeneity of a group (e.g., gender, age, race/ethnicity), loyalty to teammates, and the prioritization of competition and conquests contribute to rape proneness within the athletic environment. However, research is beginning to suggest that characteristics of a sport or team may moderate the risk for SV perpetration, making specific team norms more important than athletic participation itself (Teten Tharp et al., 2013). As such, simply focusing on intercollegiate athletics as a risky community for SV is an oversimplification of factors that lead to victimization and perpetration (Evans et al., 2022). Furthermore, this perspective overlooks on-campus recreational sports which may display similar risk factors to intercollegiate athletics.

An estimated 8.1 million students participate in collegiate recreational sports (National Intramural-Recreational Sports Association, 2022). These programs are an opportunity for students to socially integrate into the college setting and develop a sense of belonging within the campus community (Sturts & Ross, 2013) as well as cope with feelings of loss related to their athlete role (Helms & Moiseichik, 2018). Even though commitment and visibility are lower, recreational sports can provide a social and competitive structure much like intercollegiate athletics. Despite these parallels to intercollegiate athletes, there is a dearth of research exploring SV among recreational athletes. Studies that have included the recreational population found that recreational athletes are more like “athletes” than “non-athletes.” Young et al. (2017) compared SV risk factors between intercollegiate and recreational athletes, finding no significant differences between the two groups. Evans et al. (2022) found recreational athletes were similar to intercollegiate athletes in terms of their attitudes toward SV, including personal and social norms and bystander efficacy. Considering these findings, and the potential for some recreational sport atmospheres to create an increased risk of SV violence (e.g., loyalty to teammates, competitiveness), it is important to treat recreational athletes as a distinct campus subgroup.

Community Variables—Institutional Characteristics

Several institutional variables require more attention, such as residentiality, type of institution, and geographic region (Moylan & Javorka, 2020). Given the array of institutional variables to explore, we controlled for characteristics that are associated with campus size and type of institution. Specifically, we assessed athletic division, university enrollment, and religious/public/private affiliation to understand the influences of institutional variation.

Some studies suggest that a stronger presence of athletic programs is associated with more reported instances of rape (Stotzer & MacCartney, 2016; Wiersma-Mosley et al., 2017). And one multivariate analysis indicated that National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I universities reported significantly higher SV than Division II or Division III institutions or those with no athletics (Wiersma-Mosley & Jozkowski, 2019). University enrollment was also included as NCAA Division I institutions generally have larger student bodies with a median enrollment that is approximately double the median enrollment of Division II and Division III schools combined (NCAA, 2021a).

The institution’s status as public, private, and/or religious was explored as there is minimal evidence regarding whether private or religious school attendance decreases the risk of SV victimization. Daigle et al. (2020) found that students attending private institutions were less likely to experience victimization, and they suggested the private institutions may have more policies implemented that reduce victimization. Similarly, less SV has been reported at Christian universities compared to secular ones, indicating that religious belief systems may protect against SV victimization and perpetration (Vanderwoerd & Cheng, 2017). Religious principles, such as the Bible’s command against SV (e.g., 1 Thessalonians 4:3–6), are taught and reinforced at private, religious institutions and can indirectly influence rates of SV perpetration. However, religiosity is often associated with the endorsement of traditional gender roles and patriarchal structures, where men are characterized as masculine, dominant, leaders and women characterized as feminine, pure, and in need of protection (Bryant, 2006; Glick & Fiske, 2001; Lidzy, 2005). Thus, men and women who are perceived to challenge traditional gender roles, such as individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer, can be treated with hostility which may manifest through SV (Giovannelli & Jackson, 2013).

Purpose

The primary purpose of this study was to examine differences in SV victimization and perpetration among intercollegiate, recreational, and non-athlete populations. We provided additional context by exploring variables at multiple levels of the socio-ecological model for violence prevention (CDC, 2022b) as these factors can inform a person’s development and behavior. The following hypotheses were tested:

H1: Recreational athletes will have higher probability of experiencing SV victimization than non-athletes.

H2: Recreational athletes will have a higher probability of perpetrating SV than non-athletes.

H3: Intercollegiate athletes will have higher probability of experiencing SV victimization than non-athletes.

H4: Intercollegiate athletes will have a higher probability of perpetrating SV than non-athletes.

Methods

Participants and Procedures

This study was part of a larger research partnership with Vector Solutions (previously known as EVERFI, Inc.), an education technology company that provides online training for SV prevention to more than 600 U.S. colleges and universities. Students took a survey to assess their attitudes and experiences regarding SV. Among the questions respondents answered were whether they have experienced SV and/or perpetrated SV during their time as a college student. They also reported campus organizational affiliations and demographic information including athletics participation (intercollegiate and/or recreational), gender identity, race/ethnicity, and sexual orientation, as well as psychographic measures about their bystander efficacy and personal social norms regarding SV (Evans et al., 2022). We also collected institutional variables on public/private status, religious affiliation, enrollment size, and athletics affiliation. Because the dependent variables measured experiences since arriving on their current campus, we used a subsample of 62,996 sophomore, junior, and senior students from 199 institutions. Of these, 2,809 (4.5%) reported experiencing SV since arriving on their campus and 285 (0.5%) reported perpetrating SV. Table 1 displays other relevant frequency statistics for individual- and institutional-level predictors.

Table 1.

Frequency Statistics for Categorical Variables.

Demographics	N	%
Level 1 (student)
Athlete status
College athlete	4,710	7.5
Intramural/club athlete	4,111	6.5
Non-athlete	54,501	86.5
Race or ethnicity
American Indian or Alaska Native	1,134	1.8
Asian	8,799	14.0
Black or African American	7,876	12.5
Hispanic or Latino/a/x	9,939	15.8
Pacific Islander or Hawaii Native	478	0.8
White	38,756	61.5
Race or ethnicity not listed	1,202	1.9
More than one race or ethnicity	5,030	8.0
Gender identity
Female	35,166	55.8
Gender nonconforming	277	0.4
Genderqueer	185	0.3
Male	26,125	41.6
Transgender female	75	0.1
Transgender male	113	0.2
Gender identity not listed	379	0.6
Sexual orientation
Asexual	3,438	5.5
Bisexual	3,933	6.3
Gay	1,112	1.8
Heterosexual or straight	49,828	79.1
Lesbian	634	1.0
Queer	453	0.7
Questioning	843	1.3
Sexual orientation not listed	817	1.3
Level 2 (school)
Institution type
Public	85	42.7
Private nonreligious	82	41.2
Private religious	32	16.1
Enrollment
Under 1,000 students	10	5.0
1,000 to 4,999 students	99	49.7
5,000 to 9,999 students	33	16.6
10,000 to 19,999 Students	30	15.1
20,000 or more students	27	13.6
Athletics affiliation
NAIA	8	4.0%
NJCAA	7	3.5%
NCAA Division I	71	35.7%
NCAA Division II	44	22.1%
NCAA Division III	69	34.7%

Note. NCAA = National Collegiate Athletic Association.

NJCAA = National Junior College Athletic Association.

NAIA = National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics.

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

Data Analysis

The two psychometric measures used (i.e., personal social norms and bystander efficacy) were validated via a combination of principal component analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and Rasch analysis (Evans et al., 2022). Next, we ran two multilevel logistic regression analyses to test the hypotheses above. This type of modeling is appropriate where the outcome is categorical or ordinal, with the desire to control for both individual- and group-level characteristics (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2001). Here, with two dichotomous outcomes and a nested data structure of students within institutions, we adopted the binary logistic regression model. We ran the model without predictors to evaluate the intraclass correlation, then added the level-one and level-two predictors (Sommet & Morselli, 2017). We evaluated both the statistical significance of the log-odds and practical interpretation of odds ratios (OR) for individual-level parameters; only the log-odds and their significance are available for the group-level variables.

Dependent variables

The dependent variables were binary categorical variables (1 = Yes, 0 = No) in which survey participants answered, since arriving on their campus, whether they had experienced SV, and/or perpetrated SV. The instrument defined sexual contact as “touching of a sexual nature, oral stimulation, sexual intercourse, anal penetration, sexual penetration with a finger or object,” and examples of unwanted sexual contact were if someone “used physical force or threatened to physically harm you; manipulated you through lies, threats, or pressure; took sexual advantage of you when you were significantly impaired or incapacitated by drugs/alcohol, etc.”

Independent variables

The primary independent variables of interest in the models were also binary categorical variables, that is, whether students were members of intercollegiate athletics teams and whether they participated in campus recreational sports. Specifically, students reported whether they were members of a “college athletic team” and “intramural or club athletic team.” Students could report whether they were members of one group, both, or neither. In this study, we chose to compare intercollegiate athletes and recreational athletes separately against a baseline group of non-athletes. Previous research in this area found no significant differences between intercollegiate and recreational athletes in prevalence of sexual coercion (Young et al., 2017). However, this is an area which may require further research.

Other control variables in the models included race/ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, bystander efficacy score, and personal social norms score. Institutional-level variables were institution type (i.e., public, private religious, and private nonreligious), enrollment size, and athletic affiliation.

Results

Experience of SV

The pseudo-R² was 0.256, indicating the model explained about 25.6% of the variance in likelihood of experiencing SV. After controlling for individual and institutional factors, participation in recreational sports was significantly related to experiencing SV (β = 0.491, p < .001, OR = 1.63). That is, recreational athletes were 1.63 times as likely (63% more likely) than non-athletes to experience SV. Intercollegiate athletes were not significantly different from non-athletes in their likelihood of experiencing SV.

Among the individual control variables, those who identified as American Indian or Alaska native or as more than one race or ethnicity were significantly more likely than White individuals to experience SV, while Asian and Hispanic or Latino/a/x respondents were significantly less likely. Those from minoritized gender identity groups and gender orientations were generally significantly more likely to experience SV than male and heterosexual/straight students, respectively. Higher bystander efficacy scores were associated with higher likelihood of experiencing SV, while higher personal social norms were associated with lower likelihood. None of the institutional variables were significantly related to the dependent variable.

Perpetration of SV

Intercollegiate athlete status (β = 0.511, p = .017, OR = 1.67) and recreational athlete status (β = 0.596, p = .001, OR = 1.82) were both significantly related to likelihood of perpetrating SV. In other words, intercollegiate athletes were 1.67 times as likely (67% more likely) to perpetrate SV as non-athletes, and recreational athletes were 1.82 times as likely (82% more likely) to perpetrate SV as non-athletes. Overall, the pseudo-R² was 0.149, suggesting the model explains approximately 14.9% of variance in the dependent variable.

Respondents who were Asian, Black or African American, and Pacific Islander or Hawaii native were significantly more likely to have reported perpetrating SV than the baseline group of White individuals. Transgender males, genderqueer or gender nonconforming individuals, and those who identified as having a gender identity not listed on the survey instrument were also significantly more likely than cisgender males to report having committed SV. Identifying as asexual, bisexual, gay, or an unlisted sexual orientation were significantly more likely than heterosexual/straight respondents to perpetrate SV. Higher levels of bystander efficacy and personal social norms were associated with decreased likelihood of committing SV. As with experience of SV, none of the institutional variables were statistically significant (Tables 2 and 3).

Table 2.

Multilevel Logistic Regression Results for Sexual Violence Victimization.

Predictors	β	p	OR
Level 1 (student) independent variables
College athlete	0.217	.173	1.24
Intramural/Club athlete	0.491***	<.001	1.63^
American Indian or Alaska Native	0.270*	.018	1.31^
Asian	−0.296***	<.001	0.744^
Black or African American	−0.123	.063	0.884
Hispanic or Latino/a/x	−0.198***	<.001	0.821^
Pacific Islander or Hawaii Native	0.191	.500	1.21
Race or ethnicity not listed	0.011	.922	1.01
More than one race or ethnicity	0.347***	<.001	1.41^
Female	1.38***	<.001	3.98^
Transgender female	1.31**	.002	3.70^
Transgender male	2.16***	<.001	8.64^
Genderqueer	1.61***	<.001	4.98^
Gender nonconforming	1.58***	<.001	4.84^
Other gender identity	0.757**	.003	2.13^
Asexual	−0.133	.461	0.875
Bisexual	0.781***	<.001	2.18^
Gay	1.34***	<.001	3.83^
Lesbian	−0.085	.608	0.919
Queer	0.873***	<.001	2.39^
Questioning	0.610***	<.001	1.84^
Other sexual orientation	0.533***	<.001	1.70^
Bystander efficacy	0.058***	<.001	1.06^
Personal social norms	−0.058**	.003	0.943^
Level 2 (school) independent variables
Private nonreligious institution	−0.143	.542	—
Private religious institution	−0.424	.181	—
Enrollment between 1,000 and 4,999	−0.194	.576	—
Enrollment between 5,000 and 9,999	−0.608	.143	—
Enrollment between 10,000 and 19,999	−0.645	.171	—
Enrollment greater than 20,000	−0.793	.110	—
NAIA athletics	−1.17	.050	—
NJCAA Athletics	−0.104	.821	—
NCAA Division II Athletics	−0.486	.058	—
NCAA Division III athletics	−0.280	.375	—

Note. NCAA = National Collegiate Athletic Association; OR = odds ratio.

^95% Confidence interval does not include 1.0.

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

Table 3.

Multilevel Logistic Regression Results for Sexual Violence Perpetration.

Predictors	β	p	OR
Level 1 (student) independent variables
College athlete	0.511**	.017	1.67^
Intramural/club athlete	0.596**	.001	1.82^
American Indian or Alaska Native	0.019	.963	1.02
Asian	0.695***	<.001	2.00^
Black or African American	0.547**	.004	1.72^
Hispanic or Latino/a/x	−0.159	.409	0.853
Pacific Islander or Hawaii Native	0.992**	.003	2.70^
Race or ethnicity not listed	−0.160	.680	0.853
More than one race or ethnicity	−0.271	.310	0.762
Female	0.180	.126	1.20
Transgender female	1.29	.057	3.64
Transgender male	2.63***	<.001	13.9^
Genderqueer	1.64**	.003	5.15^
Gender nonconforming	1.63***	<.001	5.10^
Other gender identity	1.05*	.025	2.85^
Asexual	0.725***	<.001	2.07^
Bisexual	0.890***	<.001	2.43^
Gay	1.31***	<.001	3.70^
Lesbian	0.475	.375	1.61
Queer	0.665	.092	1.95
Questioning	0.569	.244	1.77
Other sexual orientation	0.954**	.003	2.60^
Bystander efficacy	−0.172***	<.001	0.842^
Personal social norms	−0.308***	<.001	0.735^
Level 2 (school) independent variables
Private nonreligious institution	0.197	.110	—
Private religious institution	0.380	.231	—
Enrollment between 1,000 and 4,999	−0.071	.752	—
Enrollment between 5,000 and 9,999	0.006	.734	—
Enrollment between 10,000 and 19,999	−0.256	.970	—
Enrollment greater than 20,000	−0.356	.797	—
NAIA athletics	0.349	.405	—
NJCAA Athletics	0.517	.104	—
NCAA Division II athletics	−0.136	.732	—
NCAA Division III athletics	0.141	.361	—

Note. NCAA = National Collegiate Athletic Association; OR = odds ratio.

^95% confidence interval does not include 1.0.

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

Discussion

The primary purpose of this study was to consider the differences in SV victimization and perpetration among intercollegiate, recreational, and non-athlete populations. Our hypotheses focused on athlete status, which is reflective of the relationship level of the socio-ecological model, due to the characteristics and social dynamics prevalent in sporting environments that may make those engaging in college sports at risk for SV (Franklin et al., 2012; Martin, 2016; Murnen & Kohlman, 2007; Seabrook et al., 2018). In the discussion, we consider why the hypotheses for recreational athletes (i.e., higher probability of experiencing SV and perpetrating SV than non-athletes) were found to be true, whereas the results for intercollegiate athletes were mixed (i.e., more likely to commit SV, but similar rates of experiencing SV than non-athletes), as well as consider results for individual- and community-level variables. Implications will also be discussed.

Relationship Variables—Athlete Status

Recreational athletes were found more likely to experience SV and commit SV compared to non-athletes, suggesting this population is an at-risk campus community. The regulation, structure, and function of recreational sports may create an environment vulnerable to SV. While the activities of intercollegiate athletes on and off the field are closely monitored and regulated by an institution’s athletic department (NCAA, 2022), recreational sport departments allow student-run sport clubs to operate with little oversight over the athletes’ activities (Lower-Hoppe et al., 2021). Though intramural sports programming is more closely regulated (Mull et al., 2005), supervision of activities is limited to athletes’ on-field behavior and appointed to student employees to enforce student conduct policies (Stier et al., 2008).

Despite the highly regulated nature of intercollegiate athletics, results indicated that intercollegiate athletes are still more likely to be perpetrators of SV than non-athletes. One difference between intercollegiate and recreational sports is the prevalence of mixed gender (i.e., co-ed) teams, which offer an avenue for social interaction across genders (Mull et al., 2005). The NCAA does not have any mixed gender sport competitions, and few teams function as mixed gender in that they share the same head coach, train together, and often travel together. Comparatively, research estimates 50% of recreational athletes participate on a mixed-gender team (Artinger et al., 2006; Lower-Hoppe et al., 2020), which may give rise to incidents of SV and RA. Research has found greater social benefits (Sturts & Ross, 2013) and reduced gender stereotypes (Cohen et al., 2014) associated with mixed-gender teams than sex-segregated sports, but has also found continued prejudice toward women by men on the team (Cohen et al., 2014). Unlike intercollegiate athletics, many recreational sport departments do not require an institutional employee to travel with mixed-gender teams for out-of-town activities (Schneider et al., 2008), which may allow an environment susceptible to SV.

In addition, recreational sports serve a social function for students—similar to Greek life—through facilitating social events (Czekanski & Lower, 2019). While social activities can foster a sense of community (Warner et al., 2012), they can also turn into a risky environment. Allan and Madden (2012) found 7 to 10% of recreational athletes reported experiencing hazing behaviors specific to performing sex acts with the opposite gender, suggesting students participate in unacceptable, high-risk, and potentially illegal behavior to gain membership or acceptance with their team. Similarly, McGinely et al. (2016) found recreational sports provide opportunities to engage in problematic behavior, such as alcohol use, harassment, and SV.

While those engaging in recreational sports appear to be at risk for SV, there is a lack of SV prevention training. Within the sports club context, university training is only delivered to sports club officers (not all members) and predominately focuses on club operations and general risk management (Lower-Hoppe et al., 2021). Within the intramural sport context, Carr et al. (2012) found university training is delivered through captain’s meetings and focuses on sport rules, intramural policies, and sportsmanship. Unlike intercollegiate athletes, who are all required to complete SV education annually (NCAA, 2021b), recreational athletes have no required education to help reduce incidents of SV.

In 2017, the NCAA began requiring that its intercollegiate athletes, coaches, and staff be “educated each year on SV prevention, intervention and response” (NCAA, 2021b, p. 2), though the organization does not stipulate the specifics of such education. Thus, a wide variety of SV education may be offered to thousands of intercollegiate athletes across the three NCAA divisions. Although a “one-size fits all” educational approach is not desirable given the breadth of and depth of athletic institutions (McCray et al., 2018), the lack of specificity is alarming. However, when considering the differences in the perpetration of SV between non-athletes and athletes (e.g., intercollegiate athletes 67% more likely, recreational athletes 82% more likely), some education appears more desirable than none.

Intercollegiate athletes are not much different from non-athletes in experiencing SV, which may be due to the long-researched protective factors of the sporting environment (Raj et al., 2017). While athletes participating at the recreational level may have only recently joined a team, playing intercollegiate sports typically requires years of training that allow for protective factors (e.g., pro-social skills like self-control and confidence) to be reinforced. Further, research has shown that intercollegiate athletes spend upwards of 20 to 40 hours per week on their sport compared to the 2 to 7 hours per week of recreational athletes (Lower et al., 2015; Paule & Gilson, 2011), further bolstering the notion that sport’s protective factors may help keep victimization rates lower among intercollegiate athletes than recreational athletes.

Individual and Community Variables

Though our primary focus was athlete status under the relationship level of the socio-ecological model, it is critical to consider the impact of individual and community levels on SV. Results on race/ethnicity indicated some minoritized populations (i.e., Native American, Pacific Islander, more than one race) were more likely to experience SV than their White counterparts, but not all racial minorities reported this, contrary to literature suggesting racial minorities are at greater risk for SV victimization (Linder et al., 2020). Some historically marginalized racial/ethnic groups were more likely to perpetrate SV (i.e., Asian, African American, Pacific Islander) than others. More research is needed in this area, particularly considering the intersection of personal demographics and marginalized identities.

Results found that women were more likely to experience SV than men, supporting previous literature (Cantor et al. 2020; Krebs et al. 2016). In addition, results indicated that most sexual minorities were much more likely to experience SV than their heterosexual counterparts, confirming earlier research (Cantor et al. 2020; Coulter et al. 2017; Johnson et al., 2016; Krebs et al. 2016). Those who reported being asexual had lower rates of experiencing SV, suggesting more research is needed on this population. Further, rates of SV perpetration were higher across all marginalized gender identities (e.g., female, transgender, genderqueer, etc.). This is of particular interest given the call by Porta et al. (2017) for further exploration of perpetration by non-male individuals.

Two more individual variables, personal social norms and bystander efficacy, are critical to SV prevention education. Personal social norms included statements like, “I would never place blame on a person who told me that someone had sexually assaulted them.” Bystander efficacy included items like creating distractions, telling someone in authority, and other means of engaging as a bystander to intervene before SV occurs. Students who indicated higher personal norms and bystander efficacy were less likely to commit SV as these skills and values are necessary to prevent SV. For example, a student who says, “I would never place blame” on an SV victim demonstrates a lack of belief in the rape myth that “some victims ask for it.” This is heartening and reinforces the work done by SV prevention educators and bystander intervention programs in reducing SV on college campuses.

Findings related to the influence of institutional characteristics on students’ likelihood to experience SV and/or perpetrate SV were largely non-significant. Past research has also found community-level factors less influential on incidents of SV than individual- and relationship-level factors (Bhochhibhoya et al., 2021). In this study, institutional affiliation and enrollment size were predominately non-significant predictors, which is not surprising given the mixed findings in the literature. For example, scholars have found large, public schools are more likely to have sexual assault policies (intended to mitigate incidents of SV) compared to small, private schools (Graham et al., 2017). However, large schools are considered more susceptible to SV due to the greater number of available victims on campus (Stotzer & MacCartney, 2016). Similarly, when considering religious affiliation, private religious institutions have been identified as “moral communities” that reinforce prosocial behaviors which reduces the risk of SV (Burdette et al., 2009). However, scholars have also pointed to the lack of sexual education and endorsement of traditional gender norms at private religious institutions as risk factors of SV (Davidson et al., 2017; Giovannelli & Jackson, 2013).

Though prior research has consistently reported higher incidents of SV on NCAA Division I campuses compared to Division II and Division III (Blanchard et al., 2021; Stotzer & MacCartney, 2016; Wiersma-Mosley & Jozkowski, 2019), our study found no difference across NCAA divisions. While scholarship has predominately called out large, NCAA Division I schools as risky communities, our findings suggest all schools need SV prevention education, policies, and practices.

Implications

The study findings have implications for athletic administrators and SV prevention educators and practitioners. Within the context of college athletics, those engaging in recreational sports were identified as at risk for SV victimization and perpetration, with the de-regulated organizational structure a possible contributing factor. To maintain an autonomous environment yet ensure the safety of students on and off the field, recreational sport administrators may require participants complete an orientation on student conduct policies and additional targeted programming, such as hazing and SV prevention, for the most at-risk subgroups (e.g., mixed-gender sport clubs). As recreational sport clubs are classified as student organizations, and thus managed by students and not university staff, it would be prudent for recreational sport administrators to identify a club member (e.g., President) to supervise club activities and enforce institutional policies when a faculty advisor, paid/volunteer coach, or recreational staff member is not present.

While intercollegiate athletes reported similar rates of experiencing SV as non-athletes, they were more likely to commit SV. Therefore, we would like to suggest SV prevention education is needed at all levels of college sport, including a targeted team-level focus (Evans et al., 2022), as well as education for coaches and athletic trainers (Raj et al., 2017). Effective violence prevention education is comprehensive with sufficient dosage, utilizes well-trained educators, is theory driven and socio-culturally relevant, and includes varied teaching methods (Nation et al., 2003). Further, specifically to SV prevention, effective programming should reduce rape myth acceptance and hostility toward women, as well as increase bystander efficacy and empathy (McCray & Taylor, 2021a). As our study found students with higher personal social norms and bystander efficacy less likely to commit SV, practitioners should implement SV prevention training and education that increases personal social norms regarding SV as well as increases bystander efficacy behaviors (see Miller et al., 2020; Moynihan et al., 2010).

Previous research has found marginalized racial/ethnic, gender, and sexual identity subgroups at greater risk for experiencing SV (Coulter et al., 2017; Rogers & Rogers, 2020), while cisgender men have largely been identified as more likely to commit SV (Stemple, et al., 2017). However, our study found SV perpetration to be higher amongst students with marginalized gender identities (e.g., female, transgender, genderqueer, etc.) compared to their male counterparts. These results combat the rape myth that men are always perpetrators and victims are always women, reinforcing the need for effective SV prevention education with all subgroups and populations. Kaufman et al. (2022) recommends SV prevention initiatives—such as Fair Play: Sexual Violence Prevention for Athletes (McCray & Taylor, 2021a)—be offered at the organizational, community, and societal levels to increase reach for a wider preventative impact.

Limitations

Although we adopted a comprehensive approach, this study also has limitations. Our major focus was examining differences across recreational, intercollegiate, and non-athletes. However, the classification of “non-athlete” was not a survey response option, but rather determined based upon participants’ non-response to the athlete status options. Some classified as “non-athlete” may pursue external sport interests. Future researchers should consider providing a “non-athlete” response option and adding alternative sport involvements (e.g., community sport club) to accurately measure athlete status. Additionally, participants self-reported experiencing SV and/or perpetrating SV since arriving on campus. While self-report questionnaires can result in valid and reliable data (Zapp et al., 2018), there are also issues of dishonesty and recall bias (Bhochhibhoya et al., 2021). Additionally, self-report measures of SV victimization and perpetration vary, making it difficult to compare and build upon previous research. Future studies may systematically review the literature to identify prominent self-report measures of SV victimization and perpetration to increase consistency across SV research. There is also an opportunity to deepen our understanding of the predictors identified in this study by adopting a mixed-methods research design to explore SV protective and risk factors.

Conclusion

The CDC’s (2022b) socio-ecological model for violence prevention posits individual, relationship, community, and societal factors influence violence. To better understand SV within the context of the ecological environment, with particular interest in college athletics, we conducted multilevel logistic regression analyses to test individual, relationship, and community predictors of SV victimization and perpetration. As a whole, the findings indicate individual and relationship factors are greater predictors of SV victimization and perpetration among college students than community factors. When considering individual demographics, the findings were mixed, with some racial/ethnic, gender, and sexual minoritized populations reporting greater risk for SV victimization (supporting past research) but also greater rates of SV perpetration (contradicting past research), necessitating further exploration of intersectional identities. In relation to college athletics, recreational athletes were found at greatest risk for SV victimization and perpetration compared to non-athletes. Within college sport, only intercollegiate athletics requires annual SV prevention education for athletes (NCAA, 2021b). Our findings suggest SV prevention education be provided for all recreational athletes, not just subpopulations historically identified as at-risk for SV victimization (e.g., women, people of color) or perpetration (e.g., cisgender men). Though the community is hypothesized to have an indirect influence on individual behavior (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1994), our study found institutional characteristics, such as affiliation and size, largely non-significant predictors of SV victimization and perpetration among college students. Taken together, our findings support SV prevention education across universities and subpopulations, with initiatives facilitated at the individual (e.g., reported perpetrator), relationship (e.g., athletic team), and community (e.g., campus-wide) levels.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

ORCID iDs

Kristy L. McCray

James O. Evans

Author Biographies

Kristy L. McCray, PhD, is an Associate professor of sport management in the Department of Health and Sport Sciences at Otterbein University. Her research focuses on sexual violence prevention in sport, particularly through program design and implementation for intercollegiate athletes.

James O. Evans, PhD, is an assistant professor of sport management in the School of Marketing at the University of Southern Mississippi. His research primarily focuses on legal issues in college athletics, risk management and security in sport, and quantitative research methodology.

Leeann M. Lower-Hoppe, PhD, is an assistant professor of sport management in the Department of Human Sciences at The Ohio State University. Her research focuses on effectively designing and delivering evidence-based sport programs to promote health and human development through sport, especially for those from vulnerable populations.

Shea M. Brgoch, PhD, is an assistant professor of sport management in the School of Kinesiology, Recreation and Sport at Western Kentucky University. Her research primarily focuses on the dissemination and implementation of research findings into practice, specifically in the context of early sport specialization.

Ashley Ryder, PhD, is an assistant professor of sport management in the Department of Business Administration at Flagler College. Her research focuses on diversity, gender, and sport systems by examining the experiences of key stakeholders to identify areas of inequality amongst sport occupations and sport participants.

References

Ali

(2011, April 4). Dear Colleague letter [Memorandum]. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/dear_colleague_sexual_violence.pdf

Allan

E. J.

Madden

(2012). The nature and extent of college student hazing. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 24(1), 83–90.

American College Health Association. (2014). American College Health Association–National College Health Assessment (ACHA-NCHA) II: Reference group executive summary fall 2013. American College Health Association.

Artinger

Clapham

Hunt

Meigs

Milord

Sampson

Forrester

S. A.

(2006). The social benefits of intramural sports. NASPA Journal, 43(1), 69–86.

Banyard

V. L.

Cross

Modecki

K. L.

(2006). Interpersonal violence in adolescence: Ecological correlates of self-reported perpetration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(10), 1314–1332.

Basile

K. C.

(2015). A comprehensive approach to sexual violence prevention. The New England Journal of Medicine, 372(24), 2350.

Beaver

(2019). College athletes and sexual assault. Society, 56(6), 620–624.

Bhochhibhoya

Maness

S. B.

Cheney

Larson

(2021). Risk factors for sexual violence among college students in dating relationships: An ecological approach. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(15–16), 7722–7746.

Black

M. C.

Basile

K. C.

Breiding

M. J.

Smith

S. G.

Walters

M. L.

Merrick

M. T.

Chen

Stevens

M. R.

(2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

10.

Blanchard

Weinstein

Rojas

F. A.

(2021). Substance use, sexual violence, and the culture surrounding college sports: What can Clery data tell us? Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 14, 256–267.

11.

Blossnich

Bossarte

(2012). Drivers of disparity: Differences in socially based risk factors of self-injurious and suicidal behaviors among sexual minority college students. Journal of American College Health, 60(2), 141–149.

12.

Bronfenbrenner

(1979). The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press.

13.

Bronfenbrenner

(1994). Ecological models of human development. Readings on the Development of Children, 2(1), 37–43.

14.

Bryant

A. N.

(2006). Assessing the gender climate of an evangelical student subculture in the United States. Gender and Education, 18, 613–634.

15.

Burdette

A. M.

Ellison

C. G.

Hill

T. D.

Glenn

N. D.

(2009). “Hooking up” at college: Does religion make a difference? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 48(3), 535–551.

16.

Cantor

Fisher

Chibnall

Bruce

Townsend

Thomas

Lee

(2020). Report on the AAU campus climate survey on sexual assault and sexual misconduct assault and sexual misconduct. Westat.

17.

Carr

B. H.

MacGillivray

L. A.

Wallace Carr

Ham

L. L.

(2012). Intramural sportsmanship rating systems: A case study on participant knowledge and perceived effectiveness. Recreational Sports Journal, 36, 127–139.

18.

Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2022a). Preventing sexual violence. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/fastfact.html

19.

Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2022b). The socio-ecological model: A framework for prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/about/social-ecologicalmodel.html

20.

Cohen

Melton

E. N.

Peachey

J. W.

(2014). Investigating a coed sport’s ability to encourage inclusion and equality. Journal of Sport Management, 28(2), 220–235.

21.

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(6), 726–736.

22.

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(17), 3133–3145.

23.

Czekanski

W. A

Lower

(2019). Collegiate sport club structure and function. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(2), 231–245.

24.

Daigle

L. E.

Johnson

L. M.

Azimi

A. M.

Hancock

K. P.

(2020). Does college matter? Exploring college-level factors related to victimization risk for US and Canadian college students. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 1–35.

25.

Davidson

C. R.

Turner-McGrievy

G. M.

Hilfinger Messias

D. K.

Friedman

D. B.

Robillard

A. G.

(2017). Conversations about sexuality on a public university campus: Perspectives from campus ministry students and leaders. Sex Education, 17(1), 103–118.

26.

DeGue

Valle

L. A.

Holt

M. K.

Massetti

G. M.

Matjasko

J. L.

Tharp

A. T.

(2014). A systematic review of primary prevention strategies for sexual violence perpetration. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(4), 346–362.

27.

Evans

J. O.

Lower-Hoppe

L. M.

McCray

K. L.

Brgoch

S. M.

Ryder

Burkhard

(2022). Sexual violence prevention among intercollegiate athletes, recreational athletes, and non-athletes: Environmental considerations for program interventions. Sport Social Work Journal, 1(1), 136–162.

28.

Franklin

C. A.

Bouffard

L. A.

Pratt

T. C.

(2012). Sexual assault on the college campus: Fraternity affiliation, male peer support, and low self-control. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(11), 1457–1480.

29.

Giovannelli

T. S.

Jackson

(2013). Sexual violence perceptions among Christian college students. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 16(3), 254–272.

30.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

(2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118.

31.

Graham

L. M.

Treves-Kagan

Magee

E. P.

DeLong

S. M.

Ashley

O. S.

Macy

R. J.

Martin

S. L.

Moracco

K. E.

Bowling

J. M.

(2017). Sexual assault policies and consent definitions: A nationally representative investigation of U.S. colleges and universities. Journal of School Violence, 16(3), 243–258.

32.

Helms

Moiseichik

(2018). Collegiate recreational sports participation as an adjustment aid for former high school athletes experiencing athlete role exit. Recreational Sports Journal, 42(2), 160–173.

33.

Johnson

L. M.

Matthews

T. L.

Napper

S. L.

(2016). Sexual orientation and sexual assault victimization among US college students. The Social Science Journal, 53, 174–183.

34.

Kaufman

K. L.

Lee

D. S.

Milroy

J. J.

Yore

Sitney

Lipman

Glace

Kyler Yano

Raj

(2022). The role of theory in the prevention of sexual violence in sport. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(13–14), 10459–10511.

35.

Krebs

Lindquist

Berzofsky

Shook-Sa

Peterson

Planty

Langton

Stroop

(2016). Campus climate survey validation study final technical report. http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5540

36.

Lamont-Mills

Christensen

S. A.

(2006). Athletic identity and its relationship to sport participation levels. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 9(6), 472–478.

37.

Lidzy

S. D.

(2005). Gender role expectations of students at a Christian university: Cultural notions of masculinity and femininity. Christian Higher Education, 4, 317–332.

38.

Linder

Grimes

Williams

B. M.

Lacy

M. C.

(2020). What do we know about campus sexual violence? A content analysis of 10 years of research. The Review of Higher Education, 43(4), 1017–1040.

39.

Lower

L. M.

Turner

B. A.

Petersen

J. C.

(2015). Does greater opportunity for recreational sport involvement translate to greater degree of involvement. International Journal of Sport Management, 16, 62–76.

40.

Lower-Hoppe

L. M.

Beattie

M. A.

Wray

D. E.

Bailey

R. L.

Newman

T. J.

Farrell

(2020). The relationships between sport club activities and university and member attachment. Recreational Sports Journal, 44(1), 5–14.

41.

Lower-Hoppe

L. M.

Czekanski

W. A.

Marsh

J. P.

Petersen

J. C.

Brgoch

S. M.

(2021). The collegiate sport club model: Development of a conceptual framework. International Journal of Sport Management, 22, 241–271.

42.

Martin

P. Y.

(2016). The rape prone culture of academic contexts: Fraternities and athletics. Gender & Society, 30(1), 30–43.

43.

McCray

K. L.

Sutherland

S. L.

Pastore

D. L.

(2018). Creating change in intercollegiate athletics: The Sexual Assault Prevention Paradigm for athletic departments. Journal of Higher Education, Athletics, & Innovation, 1(4), 25–53.

44.

McCray

K. L.

Taylor

E. A.

(2021a). “I learned that sports teaches rape culture”: Assessing sexual violence prevention education for intercollegiate athletes. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 14(1), 46–65.

45.

McCray

K. L.

Taylor

E. A.

(2021b). Sexual violence in athletic organizations. In Geffner

White

J. W.

Hamberger

L. K.

Rosenbaum

Vaughan-Eden

Vieth

(Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal violence and abuse across the lifespan: A project of the National Partnership to End Interpersonal Violence Across the Lifespan (NPEIV). Springer Nature.

46.

McGinely

Rospenda

K. M.

Liu

Richman

J. A.

(2016). It isn’t all fun and games: Collegiate participation in extracurricular activities and risk for generalized and sexual harassment, psychological distress, and alcohol use. Journal of Adolescence, 53, 152–163.

47.

Miller

Jones

K. A.

Ripper

Paglisotti

Mulbah

Abebe

K. Z.

(2020). An athletic coach-delivered middle school gender violence prevention program: A cluster randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatrics, 174(3), 241–249.

48.

Moylan

C. A.

Javorka

(2020). Widening the lens: An ecological review of campus sexual assault. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(1), 179–192.

49.

Moylan

C. A.

Javorka

Bybee

Stotzer

R. L.

Carlson

(2019). Campus-level variation in the prevalence of student experiences of sexual assault and intimate partner violence. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 10(3), 397–421.

50.

Moynihan

Banyard

Arnold

Eckstein

Stapleton

(2010). Engaging intercollegiate athletes in preventing and intervening in sexual and intimate partner violence. Journal of American College Health, 59(3), 197–204.

51.

Mull

Bayless

Jamieson

(2005). Recreational sport management. Human Kinetics.

52.

Murnen

S. K.

Kohlman

M. H.

(2007). Athletic participation, fraternity membership, and sexual aggression among college men: A meta-analytic review. Sex Roles, 57(1), 145–157.

53.

Nation

Crusto

Wandersman

Kumpfer

K. L.

Seybolt

Morrissey-Kane

Davino

(2003). What works in prevention: Principles of effective prevention programs. American Psychologist, 58(6–7), 449–456.

54.

National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). (2021a). Our Division I members. https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/5/11/our-division-i-members.aspx

55.

National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). (2021b). Policy on Campus Sexual Violence. https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/ssi/violence/NCAA_CampusSexualViolencePolicy.pdf

56.

National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) (2022). Division I Manual. https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/reports/getReport/90008

57.

National Intramural-Recreational Sports Association. (2022). About NIRSA: Who we are. https://nirsa.net/nirsa/about/

58.

Navarro

J. C.

Tewksbury

(2019). National comparisons of rape myth acceptance predictors between nonathletes and athletes from multi-institutional settings. Sexual Abuse, 31(5), 543–559.

59.

Paule

A. L.

Gilson

T. A.

(2011). Does athletic participation benefit or hinder academic performance? Non-revenue sport athlete experiences. Journal of Contemporary Athletics, 5(3), 203–217.

60.

Porta

C. M.

Mathiason

M. A.

Lust

Eisenberg

M. E.

(2017). Sexual violence among college students: An examination of individual and institutional level factors associated with perpetration. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 13(3), 109–117.

61.

Raj

Yore

Lee

D. S.

McDaniel Mapp

Summerville

Rosenberg

(2017). How sport can end sexual violence in one generation (Raliance Report). https://www.raliance.org/sport-prevention-center/research/

62.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Bryk

A. S.

(2001). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Sage.

63.

Rogers

S. A.

Rogers

B. A.

(2020). Expanding our view: Demographic, behavioral, and contextual factors in college sexual victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(23–24), NP 13094–NP13120.

64.

Sawyer

R. G.

Thompson

E. E.

Chicorelli

(2002). Rape myth acceptance among intercollegiate student athletes: A preliminary examination. American Journal of Health Studies, 18(1), 19–25.

65.

Schneider

R. C.

Stier

W. F.

Kampf

Gaskings

Haines

S. G.

(2008). Club sport legal liability practices at NIRSA institutions. Recreational Sports Journal, 32, 62–76.

66.

Seabrook

R. C.

Ward

L. M.

Giaccardi

(2018). Why is fraternity membership associated with sexual assault? Exploring the roles of conformity to masculine norms, pressure to uphold masculinity, and objectification of women. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 19(1), 3.

67.

Sinozich

Langton

(2014). Rape and sexual assault victimization among college-age females, 1995-2013. (NCJRS Document No. 248471). https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf

68.

Sommet

Morselli

(2017). Keep calm and learn multilevel logistic modeling: A simplified three-step procedure using State, R, Mplus, and SPSS. International Review of Social Psychology, 30(1), 203–218.

69.

Stemple

Flores

Meyer

I. H.

(2017). Sexual victimization perpetrated by women: Federal data reveal surprising prevalence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 34, 302–317.

70.

Stier

W. F.

Schneider

R. C.

Kampf

Haines

Gaskins

(2008). Selected risk management policies, practices, and procedures for intramural activities at NIRSA institutions. Recreational Sports Journal, 32, 28–44.

71.

Stotzer

R. L.

MacCartney

(2016). The role of institutional factors on on-campus reported rape prevalence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 2687–2707.

72.

Sturts

J. R.

Ross

C. M.

(2013). Collegiate intramural sports participation: Identified social outcomes. International Journal of Sport Management, Recreation & Tourism, 11, 25–41.

73.

Sutherland

Amar

Sutherland

(2014). Victimization and perpetration of sexual violence in college-aged men and women. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 10, 153–159.

74.

Teten Tharp

DeGue

Valle

L. A.

Brookmeyer

K. A.

Massetti

G. M.

Matjasko

J. L

. (2013). A systematic qualitative review of risk and protective factors for sexual violence perpetration. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 14(2), 133–167.

75.

Vanderwoerd

J. R.

Cheng

(2017). Sexual violence on religious campuses. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 47(2), 1–21.

76.

Warner

Dixon

M. A.

Chalip

(2012). The impact of formal versus informal sport: Mapping the differences in sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology, 40(8), 983–1003.

77.

Wiersma-Mosley

J. D.

Jozkowski

K. N.

(2019). A brief report of sexual violence among universities with NCAA Division I athletic programs. Behavioral Sciences, 9(2), 17.

78.

Wiersma-Mosley

J. D.

Jozkowski

K. N.

Martinez

(2017). An empirical investigation of campus demographics and reported rapes. Journal of American College Health, 65(7), 482–491.

79.

Young

B. R.

Desmarais

S. L.

Baldwin

J. A.

Chandler

(2017). Sexual coercion practices among undergraduate male recreational athletes, intercollegiate athletes, and non-athletes. Violence Against Women, 23(7), 795–812.

80.

Zapp

Buelow

Soutiea

Berkowitz

DeJong

(2018). Exploring the potential campus-level impact of online universal sexual assault prevention education. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(5–6), NP2324–NP2345.