College Campus Sexual Assault: The Contribution of Peers’ Proabuse Informational Support and Attachments to Abusive Peers

Abstract

Since the mid-1980s, researchers across the United States have uncovered high rates of sexual assault among female college students. However, to advance a better understanding of this gendered type of victimization, and to both prevent and control this problem, the research community needs to identify its major correlates. One that is consistently uncovered in North American campus survey work is negative peer support, especially that provided by male peers. Yet, some earlier studies have found that mixed-sex negative peer support, too, contributes to campus sexual assault. Using recent data from the Campus Quality of Life Survey conducted at a large residential school in the South Atlantic region of the United States, the main objectives of this article are to examine the role of mixed-sex negative peer support in campus sexual assault and to identify the groups of women most at risk of having friends who offer such support.

Keywords

sexual assault negative peer support college women

Campus sexual assault survey research in the United States dates back to Kirkpatrick and Kanin’s (1957) study, but it was not until the results of Koss, Gidycz, and Wisniewski’s (1987) path-breaking nationally representative sample survey were published that this crime started to garner nationwide attention. Many surveys on violent behaviors experienced by female college students have since been conducted, including another national U.S. project and a Canadian national study (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 1998; Fisher, Daigle, & Cullen, 2010). Like their predecessors, many recent surveys show that approximately one out of four undergraduate women is victimized by some type of sexual assault (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 2013; Edwards et al., 2014; Richards, 2016). Moreover, the vast majority of perpetrators are not strangers. Rather, they are male acquaintances, classmates, friends, “hook up” partners, boyfriends, or former boyfriends (Krebs, Linquist, Warner, Fisher, & Martin, 2007; McOrmond-Plummer, Easteal, & Levy-Peck, 2014; Rennison & Addington, 2014).

There are a number of key risk factors associated with sexual assault among female college students. One that is repeatedly uncovered and discussed in the extant literature is alcohol and drug consumption by perpetrators and victims (Krebs et al., 2007; Mouilso, Fischer, & Calhoun, 2012; Richards, 2016). Another that is frequently found in self-report surveys completed by male undergraduates is negative peer support, especially that provided by male peers (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 2013). Following Hart (2009), this factor is defined here as “strong support that is hostile to women or is intimate partner violence espousing” (p. 3). The negative peer support empirical literature focuses almost exclusively on what DeKeseredy (1988a) defines as male attachments to male peers and the resources they provide that perpetuate and legitimate various types of woman abuse. However, there is a very small and dated body of survey work showing that college women who have patriarchal and sexually abusive male peers are at high risk of being sexually assaulted.

Gwartney-Gibbs and Stockard (1989) discovered that “the sexual aggression of males within a mixed-sex peer group appears to be an important determinant of the probability that females within the group will be sexually victimized” (p. 198). Consider, too, that Schwartz and Pitts (1995) found that college women who are sexually assaulted are more likely to have male friends who get women drunk or high to have sex with them. Using data generated from the Campus Quality of Life Survey (CQLS) administered at a large college in a South Atlantic region of the United States, the main objective of the study reported here is to determine whether the probability discovered by Gwartney-Gibbs and Stockard exists today. The second goal is to uncover the categories of women who are highest risk of having pro-abuse peers.

Method

Sample and Data Collection

The data presented here are derived from a Web survey of 30,470 students attending the aforementioned U.S. college in Spring 2016. This college is, according to the Princeton Review’s party school list, “a bona fide party school,” and Weiss (2013) found that the amount that some students drink there goes well beyond the common amount of alcohol consumed by binge drinkers. Furthermore, she uncovered that nearly half of the traditional students based at this school experience some type of crime during their college career.

A total of 5,718 students completed the questionnaire, which is nearly 20% of the entire student population. Described in Table 1, the self-selected sample is, for the most part, representative of the total campus population. Still, there are sex discrepancies in Table 1. Survey response and nonresponse studies show that trends in who answers surveys do follow a common pattern, with women typically being more likely to participate than men (Smith, 2008). What is more, the relevance of the survey topic also influences response rates (Groves, Singer, & Corning, 2000). Thus, because women are much more likely than men to experience the harms covered in this study, it is not surprising that the CQLS elicited a higher percentage of females than that of the school’s general population, as well as a lower percentage of men than that of the broader male student community.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of the Main Campus Population and the Campus Quality of Life Survey Sample.

Status	Population (n = 30,470)	Sample (n = 5,718)
Undergraduate	77.3	78.9
Professional	4.6	5.1
Graduate	18.2	15.9
Sex
Female	48.6	57.2
Male	51.4	37.1
Other	Not recorded	1.1
Race/ethnicity
Black/African American	6.7	4.4
White	86.5	83.8
Asian	6.4	6.0
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander	0.5	0.2
Native American	1.4	0.4
Hispanic^a	3.8	3.1
Other (including mixed race)	Not recorded	2.0
Age
Average age	23.3	22.1

The ethnic category “Hispanic” was considered separate from race in the population column and so the total exceeds 100%.

In sum, the sample is not unorthodox for this type of research. It should be noted, however, that the CQLS not only measured sexual assault, but also several other types of victimization (e.g., hate and bias crime), students’ perceptions of campus safety, and institutional responses to sexual assault. Still, for the purpose of this article, only female sexual assault and peer support statistics are reported.

The sample was recruited using a campus-wide publicity strategy that entailed:

Electronic advertisements on the school’s various news sites.

Posters about the study that were scattered throughout the campus.

Many faculty who encouraged students to participate in the study.

Affiliates of various campus resource centers (e.g., the Title IX office) who publicly encouraged students to complete the survey.

Members of the school’s athletics department, fraternities and sororities, and various other student organizations who encouraged students to participate in the study.

Interns affiliated with a social scientific research center who announced the survey in all of their classes.

The school’s president who sent out a campus-wide electronic message to all students requesting them to participate in the survey.

Another integral component of the publicity strategy was the inclusion of incentives. More specifically, every mode of publicity informed students of the opportunity to be randomly selected to receive one of 20 $50.00 VISA gift cards. This was also noted in the survey itself. The literature on Internet surveys shows that lotteries are widely used in Web surveys and are often more effective than other types of incentives (Couper & Bosnjak, 2010).

Email invitations to complete the survey were sent to 30,470 students, with the first of four weekly invitations sent out on March 28, 2016. Each email invitation included a link to the survey, which was administered using Qualtrics software. After clicking the link to the survey in the email invitation and then clicking a button to participate, respondents were then taken to a screen containing a consent form. Students who indicated that they did not want to participate were removed from the email reminder list.

Participants were asked to confirm that they were at least 18 years old and a current student. They were additionally informed that any information they provide will be kept completely anonymous. As well, it was made explicit that student confidentiality is a priority and that any information they share cannot be identified. Moreover, they were informed that the research team cannot access their IP address or link the survey to their names, student IDs, or email addresses. Furthermore, under the research protocol, students were told that participation in this study is strictly voluntary and that they can skip any question and stop at any time.

Regardless of what they chose, all participants were provided with information on free professional support from counseling services. Actually, every page of the survey that contained sensitive questions had a link to on-campus resources, including one at the close of the instrument. Located below the list of resources at the end of the survey was the option for students to enter their email addresses in a draw for a $50.00 VISA gift card. To further preserve students’ confidentiality, spreadsheets containing participants’ responses are securely stored by Qualtrics and are only accessed by the research team.

Following the first email invitation, three reminders were sent out (one a week) for a total of four weeks during data collection. Couper and Bosnjak (2010) contend that “much of the nonresponse occurs at the early stages before we have a chance to convince them of the importance of the study” (p. 539). This was not the case with the CQLS. In fact, close to 2,500 students completed the survey within 5 days of the first email invitation. As stated before, supplementing the reminders were those offered by colleagues affiliated with other academic departments and offices at the school.

Measures

Sexual assault of female students

The five items in Table 2 are modified versions of some of those included in Koss et al.’s (2007) Revised Sexual Experiences Survey (Cronbach’s α = .80). They were introduced with the following preamble and the response categories are “yes” and “no”:

The following questions concern unwanted sexual experiences that you may have had since you enrolled at XXX. We know that these are personal questions, so we don’t want your name or other identifying information. Your answers are completely confidential. We hope that this helps you feel comfortable answering each question honestly.

Table 2.

Female Sexual Assault Victimization.

Type of sexual assault	% yes	n	% no	n
Someone fondled, kissed, or rubbed up against the private areas of my body (lips, breast/chest, crotch or butt) or removed some of my clothes without my consent (but did not attempt sexual penetration)	29	860	71	2,009
Someone had oral sex with me or made me have oral sex with them without my consent	7	193	93	2,765
Someone put their penis, fingers, or other objects into my vagina without my consent	10	301	90	2,652
Someone put their penis, fingers, or other objects into my butt without my consent	4	121	96	2,831
Even though it didn’t happen, someone TRIED to have oral, anal, or vaginal sex with me without my consent	16	465	84	2,489

Peers’ proabuse informational support

This variable refers to guidance and advice that influences men to sexually, physically, and psychologically abuse their dating partners (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 1998). To measure it, we created an index by adding male and female respondents’ scores on seven slightly modified items developed by DeKeseredy (1988b) and presented in Table 3 (Chronbach’s α = .80). They are listed below, introduced as follows using a preamble that includes a statement included in the Administrator-Researcher Campus Climate Collaborative’s (ARC3; 2015) survey introduction to peer norms measures, and the participants were asked to answer either “yes” or “no”:

The next questions are about the information your current friends may have given you concerning how to deal with problems in intimate or romantic relationships. When the word date is used, please think of anyone with whom you have or have had a romantic or sexual relationship—short or long term. Please click the bubble which best represents your answer.

To the best of your knowledge, did any of your friends tell you that . . .

Table 3.

Proabuse Informational Support.

Type of informational support	% yes	n	% no	n
You should respond to your date’s challenges to your authority by using physical force, such as hitting or slapping?	3	85	97	2,938
It is alright for someone to hit a date in certain situations	7	208	93	2,813
Your dates should have sex with you whenever you want	4	117	96	2,906
When you spend money on a date, the person should have sex with you in return	5	157	95	2,866
You should respond to your date’s challenges to your authority by insulting them or putting them down	3	92	97	2,927
You should respond to your date’s sexual rejections by using physical force to have sex	1	26	99	2,991
It is alright to physically force a person to have sex under certain conditions	2	44	98	2,976

Attachments to abusive peers

To measure this variable, we used a slightly modified version of an index developed by DeKeseredy and Schwartz (1998). The response categories were none, 1 or 2, 3-5, 6-10, more than 10, and don’t know (Chronbach’s α = .81).

To the best of your knowledge, how many of your friends . . .

have ever made physically forceful attempts at sexual activity with dates which were disagreeable and offensive enough that the dates responded in an offended manner such as crying, fighting, screaming or pleading?

have ever used physical force, such as hitting or beating, to resolve conflicts with their dates?

Insult their dates, swear at them, and/or withhold affection?

Demographic characteristics

These demographic characteristics were collected for everyone in the sample, but only those of women were used in the data analysis: age; race/ethnicity; international student status; sexual orientation; and member of or participated in student clubs, organizations, or intramural or athletic team.

Results

Since they enrolled at the school examined in this study, 34% (n = 995) of the women in the sample experienced one or more of the sexual assaults listed in Table 2. This figure is higher than the often-stated “one in four” estimate. Most of the victims experienced unwanted sexual contact (29.1%), but 10% experienced someone putting their penis, fingers, or other objects into their vaginas without their consent, which is higher than many other prevalence estimates for completed rape among college students (Fedina, Holmes, & Backes, 2016; Richards, 2016). As well, this figure is slightly higher than the (9%) rape statistic uncovered by the Campus Crime Victimization Survey done at this school in the spring of 2009 (Weiss, 2013). Note, too, that 16% of the females in our sample reported that someone tried to have oral, anal, or vaginal sex without their consent.

Weiss (2013) found that rape is strongly associated with students’ drinking and party activities at our research site. What is more, Greek life is an integral component of student life at this school and there is a large literature demonstrating that pro-abuse peer support is strongly associated with both fraternity membership and campus sexual assault (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 2013). Perhaps, then, it is not surprising that 54% (n = 1,595) of the women in the sample had attachments to peers who engaged in one or more of the three behaviors listed in Table 4. In addition, 30% of the men in the entire sample reported having friends who committed at least one of the acts in this table.

Table 4.

Respondents With Attachments to Abusive Peers.

Type of abusive behavior	% yes	n	% no	n
Physically forceful attempts at sexual activity	20	572	80	2,351
Used violence to resolve conflicts	22	658	78	2,293
Insult, swear or withhold affection	48	1,404	52	1,554

Turning to peers’ pro-abuse informational support, 14% (n = 409) of the female sample stated that they had friends who told them one or more of the things listed in Table 3. As demonstrated in Table 5, women who received such support were 3 times more likely to have been sexually assaulted. Furthermore, Table 5 shows that women with attachments to abusive peers were nearly 3.2 times more likely to have been sexually assaulted. Clearly, mixed-sex negative peer support puts women at our research site at a high probability of being sexually assaulted.

Table 5.

Relationship Between Proabuse Informational Support, Attachments to Abusive Peers, and Sexual Assault.^a

	B	SE	Wald	df	Significance	Exp(B)
Proabuse informational support	1.075	.111	93.927	1	.000	2.929
Constant	−0.833	.044	362.323	1	.000	.435
Attachment to abusive peers	1.165	.086	182.673	1	.000	3.206
Constant	−1.359	.069	389.093	1	.000	.257

Bivariate test using logistic regression.

Which groups of women are most likely to receive informational support and to have attachments to abusive peers? The binomial logistic regression analysis presented in Table 6 shows that the following groups are most likely to receive informational support: sorority members, intercollegiate athletes, and members of political or social action coalitions. The binomial logistic regression analysis in Table 7 reveals that international students, sorority members, and members of political or social action coalitions are at the highest probability of having abusive friends. That sorority members stand out twice is not surprising given that they frequently associate with fraternity members who are at very high risk of engaging in various types of woman abuse (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 2013; Minow & Einoff, 2009).

Table 6.

Demographic Predictors of Proabuse Informational Support.

Demographic characteristics	B	SE	Wald	df	Significance	Exp(B)
Membership in student organizations
Honor society or professional group	−.06	.119	0.255	1	.613	0.942
Sorority	.451	.138	10.65	1	.001	1.57
Intercollegiate athletic team	.775	.233	11.02	1	.001	2.17
Intramural or club athletic team	−.197	.165	1.43	1	.231	0.82
Political or social action group	.852	.192	19.66	1	.000	2.34
Student government	−.144	.288	0.251	1	.617	0.86
Media organization	.020	.301	0.004	1	.947	1.02
Other student organization or group	−.122	.111	1.21	1	.271	0.88
Other demographic characteristics
International student (1 = international student and 0 = noninternational student	.053	.331	0.025	1	.873	1.05
Heterosexual (1 = heterosexual and 0 = nonheterosexual)	−.444	.181	6.08	1	.014	0.64
Race (1 = White and 0 = non-White)	−.173	.164	1.12	1	.291	0.84
Age	−.056	.016	11.50	1	.001	0.95
Constant	−.289	.783	0.136	1	.713	0.749

Table 7.

Demographic Predictors of Attachments to Abusive Peers.

Demographic characteristics	B	SE	Wald	df	Significance	Exp(B)
Membership in student organizations
Honor society or professional group	.159	.082	3.76	1	.052	1.173
Sorority	.519	.107	23.58	1	.000	1.680
Intercollegiate athletic team	.242	.208	1.35	1	.246	1.273
Intramural or club athletic team	.166	.111	2.26	1	.133	1.181
Political or social action group	.487	.172	8.01	1	.005	1.628
Student government	−.121	.201	0.36	1	.547	0.886
Media organization	.292	.222	1.73	1	.188	1.339
Other student organization or group	−.051	.077	0.44	1	.508	0.951
Other demographic characteristics
International student (1 = international student and 0 = noninternational student	.843	.240	12.33	1	.000	2.324
Heterosexual (1 = heterosexual and 0 = nonheterosexual)	−.185	.143	1.68	1	.196	0.831
Race (1 = White and 0 = non-White)	.035	.121	0.08	1	.774	1.035
Age	−.027	.009	9.84	1	.002	0.973
Constant	−.949	.531	3.20	1	.074	0.387

Discussion

The results of this study support what Gwartney-Gibbs and Stockard (1989) stated nearly 20 years ago: “[S]exual aggression and victimization may be a part of peer group culture. That is, the friendship networks from which individuals draw their . . . partners may allow, or even encourage, male sexual aggression and female victimization in different degrees” (p. 185). As uncovered by previous research at the school in which the students who participated in this survey were enrolled (Weiss, 2013), there is evidence of a patriarchal rape-supportive culture. Further empirical support for this claim is derived from two additional CQLS findings: (a) 40% of all the students (male, female, transgender) in the sample stated that they believed women on the campus experience discrimination, and (b) of those who responded to a question asking whether they agreed with the statement “The institution tolerates a culture of sexual misconduct,” 75% either agreed or strongly agreed.

Many sexual assault researchers in general devote much time and effort to studying the qualities of an actual or likely rapist, and college sexual assault researchers, too, have focused heavily on similar factors, such as students’ alcohol consumption and lifestyles (Martin, 2016). This is not to say that such work should be dismissed or abandoned. Rather, as Martin (2016) points out, equal importance should be placed on the broader social, cultural, political, and economic contexts of institutions of higher learning and to students’ social contexts that contribute to sexual assault, such as peer associations. Martin, in particular (and rightly so), is concerned about fraternities and athletic programs that facilitate a type of masculinity that makes their male members more likely to commit sexual assault. However, this study strongly suggests that it is also necessary to focus on patriarchal discourses and practices that exist in mixed-sex peer groups. Indeed, women in some such groups may contribute to their male friends’ belief that their hurtful behaviors and sexist attitudes are regularized parts of campus life (Gwartney-Gibbs & Stockard, 1989). Note, too, that there is a literature showing that women can be hostilely sexist toward other women (Glick & Fiske, 1996; Sibley, Overall, & Duckitt, 2007).

There is some empirical support for the above hypothesis, at least from Weiss’ (2013) study of students based at the same school. Consider the reactions to unwanted sexual touching uncovered by her interviews with undergraduates. Of all the students’ statements on this conduct, arguably, this 21-year-old female sophomore’s is most illustrative of common reactions to sexual grabbing or touching at this school:

Everyone at the club grabs someone at least once, and it is almost impossible to catch everyone. So you just have to accept it. It can be annoying at times, but it really isn’t so bad. Actually, it can be pretty funny just how pathetic some of these guys are. (Weiss, 2013, p. 90)

Weiss (2013) also found that types of unwanted sexual contact similar to what are presented in Table 2 constitute a “rather ordinary occurrence.” As she puts it, “Students get used to it, minimize it, and excuse the behavior. They know the risks going in, and apparently these risks are worth taking” (p. 91).

There are some limitations that warrant attention. First, given that the peer support questions are gender-neutral, we cannot discern how many male and female friends of the respondents provided informational support and engaged in abusive behaviors. Thus, it is impossible to determine how many women were in pro-abuse mixed-sex peer groups, but it is likely that a sizable portion of them were in such cohorts. Still, further research should ask respondents to identify the sex or gender identity of friends who provided them with informational support and who are abusive to dates.

Following Coker, Follingstad, Bush, and Fisher (2016), the self-selection of respondents, the potential loss of interested people who did not have access to a computer, and self-report of responses may bias our estimates of sexual assault (p. 1424). Somewhat similar to Coker et al. (2016), to address the issues of self-selection and the representation of our sample, again, we compared our sample with that of the school’s general population and Table 1 shows that it is similar. As well, all the students at this school are required to use a computer and, therefore, access was not a problem. With regard to the problem of self-report, as Coker et al. (2016) state, because we asked students about their experiences with various types of violence, peer associations, and other issues related to campus life, their own self-reports were the only available sources of such data.

We concur with Weiss’ (2013) call for a major cultural transformation at our research site because our data provide yet more support for an excerpt from a summary of her study of this “party school”:

Extreme drinking, drug use and bad behavior . . . have become all too common at the party school, endorsed by a prominent party subculture that encourages and rewards extreme routines, rituals, and risk-taking, while providing the rationales that defend it all. (p. 147)

Still, the above transformation is not likely to occur in the near future. Hence, some progressive initiatives are immediately warranted. Given that sorority members, intercollegiate athletes, and members of political or social action coalitions are at high risk of receiving informational support and having attachments to abusive peers, we recommend creating peer education and bystander intervention programs. One salient example is the Fraternity Peer Rape Education Program (Wantland, 2008). Fraternity members receive credit for training to become peer rape educators to their fraternity chapters. Another, more widely known strategy is the Green Dot Violence Prevention Program. This involves interactive training to become active bystanders. This approach asks people to visualize a map with green dots spreading across the United States, with each one representing an individual action. In the words of Greendot.etcetera (2012),

A green dot is any behavior, choice, word, or attitude that promotes safety for all our citizens and communicates utter intolerance for violence. A green dot is pulling a friend out of a high risk situation—a green dot is donating a few dollars to your local service provider—a green dot is displaying an awareness poster in your room or office—a green dot is putting a green dot message on your Facebook page—a green dot is striking up a conversation with a friend or family member about how much this issue matters to you. A green dot is simply your individual choice at any given moment to make our world safer. (p. 1)

The Green Dot strategy involves men and women from all walks of life and entails specific training on how to end sexual assault and other types of violence. At the University of Kentucky’s Violence Intervention and Prevention Center (2012), for example, men are trained to use the following Green Dots:

Tell a woman in your life that power-based violence matters to you.

Ask women in your life how power-based violence has impacted them.

Ask a man in your life how power-based personal violence has impacted him or someone he cares about.

Have one conversation with one male friend or relative about the Green Dot.

Ask a woman in your life what you can do to help take a stand against violence.

Ask one male friend or relative what he thinks about power-based violence and what men could do to help stop it.

Visit the Jackson Katz website (www.jacksonkatz.com/) and read “10 Things Men Can Do to End Gender Violence.”

Have a conversation with a younger man or boy who looks up to you about how important it is for men to help end violence.

Google “men against violence” and read what men around the country are doing.

If you suspect someone you care about is a victim of violence, gently ask if you can help.

Attend an awareness event with three male friends.

Organize a men’s event to raise money to support violence prevention.

Text your three best guy friends that you went to Green Dot training and you want to talk to them about it. (p. 1)

There is evidence that the Green Dot program works. For example, Coker et al. (2011) found that of 2,504 college undergraduates aged 18-26 years who completed their survey, 46% heard a campus Green Dot speech and 14% received active bystander training in the prior 2 years. These researchers also found that trained students had much lower rape myth acceptance scores than those who were not trained. In addition, trained students reported engaging in significantly more bystander intervention and witnessing more self-reported active bystander intervention than nontrained students.

After decades of studying peer support for sexual assault and other types of violence against women, it is safe to conclude that we still have a long way to go and much work to do before patriarchal peer support on campuses and elsewhere disappears. Hopefully, the initiatives suggested here will contribute to making a difference.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank William F. Flack Jr., Adam Pritchard, Martin D. Schwartz, and the two anonymous reviewers for their assistance.

Authors’ Note

This is a revised version of a paper presented at the November 2016 annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, New Orleans, LA. Amanda Hall-Sanchez is now at Fairmont State University.

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.

Author Biographies

Walter S. DeKeseredy is Anna Deane Carlson endowed chair of Social Sciences, director of the Research Center on Violence, and professor of Sociology at West Virginia University. He has published 23 books, 90 refereed journal articles, and 76 scholarly book chapters on issues such as woman abuse, rural criminology, and criminological theory.

Amanda Hall-Sanchez is an assistant professor of Criminal Justice at Fairmont State University. Her research and publications focus heavily on separation/divorce violence against women in rural communities.

James Nolan is a professor of Sociology at West Virginia University. His research focuses on violence against women on campus, neighborhood dynamics, police procedures, crime measurement, hate crimes, and equity and inclusion in higher education.

References

Administrator-Researcher Campus Climate Collaborative. (2015). ARC3 survey of campus climate regarding sexual misconduct. Atlanta: Administrator-Researcher Campus Climate Collaborative, Georgia State University.

Coker

A. L.

Cook-Craig

P. G.

Williams

C. M.

Fisher

B. S.

Clear

E. M.

Garcia

L. S.

Hegge

L. M.

(2011). Evaluation of green dot: An active bystander intervention to reduce sexual violence on college campuses. Violence Against Women, 17, 777-796. doi:10.1177/1077801211410264

Coker

A. L.

Follingstad

D. R.

Bush

H. M.

Fisher

B. S.

(2016). Are interpersonal rates higher among young women in college compared with those never attending college? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 1413-1429.

Couper

M. P.

Bosnjak

(2010). Internet surveys. In Marsden

P. V.

Wright

J. D.

(Eds.), Handbook of survey research (2nd ed., pp. 527-550). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

DeKeseredy

W. S.

(1988a). Woman abuse in dating relationships: The relevance of social support theory. Journal of Family Violence, 3, 1-13.

DeKeseredy

W. S.

(1988b). Woman abuse in dating relationships: The role of male peer support. Toronto, Ontario: Canadian Scholars’ Press.

DeKeseredy

W. S.

Schwartz

M. D.

(1998). Woman abuse on campus: Results from the Canadian National Survey. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

DeKeseredy

W. S.

Schwartz

M. D.

(2013). Male peer support and violence against women: The history and verification of a theory. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

Edwards

K. M.

Probst

D. R.

Tansill

E. C.

Dixon

K. J.

Bennett

Gidycz

C. A.

(2014). In their own words: A content-analytic study of college women’s resistance to sexual assault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 2527-2547. doi:10.1177/0886260513520470

10.

Fedina

Holmes

J. L.

Backes

(2016). Campus sexual assault: A systematic review of prevalence research from 2000 to 2015. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 19, 76-93.

11.

Fisher

B. S.

Daigle

L. E.

Cullen

F. T.

(2010). Unsafe in the ivory tower: The sexual victimization of college women. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

12.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

(1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512.

13.

Greendot.etcetera. (2012). The green dot etc. overview. Retrieved from www.livethegreendot.com/gd_overview.html

14.

Groves

R. M.

Singer

Corning

(2000). Leverage-saliency theory of survey participation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 299-308.

15.

Gwartney-Gibbs

Stockard

(1989). Courtship aggression and mixed-sex peer groups. In Pirog-Good

M. A.

Stets

J. E.

(Eds.), Violence in dating relationships: Emerging social issues (pp. 185-204). New York: Praeger.

16.

Hart

B. J.

(2009). Future directions for BIPs: Examining the power of male peer support and building alternative support communities. Minneapolis, MN: Battered Women’s Justice Project.

17.

Kirkpatrick

Kanin

E. J.

(1957). Male sex aggression on a university campus. American Sociological Review, 22, 52-58.

18.

Koss

M. P.

Abbey

Campbell

Cook

Norris

Testa

et al . (2007). Revising the SES: A collaborative process to improve assessment of sexual aggression and victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 357-370.

19.

Koss

M. P.

Gidycz

Wisniewski

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

20.

Krebs

C. P.

Lindquist

C. H.

Warner

T. D.

Fisher

B. S.

Martin

S. L.

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

21.

Martin

P. Y.

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

22.

McOrmond-Plummer

Easteal

Lewvy-Peck

J. Y.

(2014). The necessity of appropriate service response to intimate partner sexual violence. In McOrmond-Plummer

Easteal

Levy-Peck

J. Y.

(Eds.), Intimate partner sexual violence (pp. 18-29). London, England: Jessica Kingsley.

23.

Minow

J. C.

Einoff

C. J.

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

24.

Mouilso

E. R.

Fischer

Calhoun

K. S.

(2012). A prospective study of sexual assault and alcohol use among first-year college women. Violence and Victims, 27, 78-94.

25.

Rennison

C. M.

Addington

L. A.

(2014). Violence against college women: A review to identify limitations in defining the problem and inform future research. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15, 159-169.

26.

Richards

T. N.

(2016). An updated review of institutions of higher education’s responses to sexual assault: Results from a nationally representative sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0886260516658757

27.

Schwartz

M. D.

Pitts

V. L.

(1995). Exploring a feminist routine activities approach to explaining sexual assault. Justice Quarterly, 12, 9-31.

28.

Sibley

C. G.

Overall

N. C.

Duckitt

(2007). When women become more hostilely sexist toward their gender: The system-justifying effect of benevolent sexism. Sex Roles, 51, 687-696.

29.

Smith

W. G.

(2008). Does gender influence online survey participation? A record-linkage analysis of university faculty online survey response behavior. San Jose, CA: San Jose University. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=elementary_ed_pub

30.

University of Kentucky Violence Intervention and Prevention Center. (2012). Green dots for men. Retreived from http://www.uky.edu/vipcenter/content/green-dot

31.

Wantland

R. A.

(2008). Our brotherhood and your sister: Building anti-rape community in the fraternity. Journal of Preventions & Interventions in the Community, 36, 57-74.

32.

Weiss

K. G.

(2013). Party school: Crime, campus, and community. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.