Sexual Minority High School Boys’ and Girls’ Risk of Sexual Harassment,Sexual Violence,Stalking,and Bullying

Abstract

We report the prevalence and number of violent events of sexual violence, sexual harassment, stalking, and bullying experienced among sexual minority girls, sexual minority boys, heterosexual girls, and heterosexual boys. We conducted covariate-adjusted analyses of variance on 16,243 high school youth from 13 schools in Kentucky. Sexual minority boys and girls and heterosexual girls had higher rates of all forms of violence compared with heterosexual boys, but rates of violence between sexual minority girls and boys were statistically equivalent. Prevention and intervention programs must incorporate elements of minority stress theory to disrupt heterosexist norms that contribute to violence.

Keywords

sexual minority youth victimization bullying sexual violence sexual harassment stalking gender

Introduction

Interpersonal violence (including sexual harassment, sexual violence, stalking, and bullying) is a common experience for youth. Rates of sexual harassment victimization are quite high, ranging from 30% (Clear et al., 2014) to 80% (Lipson, 2001), while 5-37% of students report bullying victimization, 17% of youth report being stalked (Fisher et al., 2014), and 7% of students report experiencing forced sex (Gruber & Fineran, 2016; Kann et al., 2016). Research indicates that sexual minority youth (those who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or queer or are sexually attracted to members of the same sex) are particularly at risk of victimization; however, more research is needed to understand these experiences. The purpose of this investigation is to describe victimization experiences for sexual attraction groups (sexual minority and heterosexual) boys and girls in a large cohort of young high school students. Specifically, 12-month prevalence and number of violent events were estimated by self-reported sex and sexual attraction groups (i.e., sexual minority girls, sexual minority boys, heterosexual girls, and heterosexual boys) for the following, frequently co-occurring, forms of violence: sexual harassment, sexual violence, being stalked, or being bullied. Victimization experiences are associated with a host of negative physical, psychological, and social outcomes (Reidy et al., 2016) and information gleaned from this investigation can be used to develop tailored prevention and intervention programming to mitigate the impact of violence, especially among young, vulnerable sexual minority youth.

Literature Review

Minority stress theory

Minority stress theory postulates that marginalized populations are at increased risk for chronic stressors that may lead to negative mental health outcomes, and is often applied to the experiences of sexual minority individuals (Meyer, 1995). Types of stressors for minority-identified individuals include internalized homophobia, stigma, and experiencing acts of prejudice or discrimination (Meyer, 1995). This framework has been applied to violence exposure for sexual minority individuals (e.g., Blosnich & Bossarte, 2012; Edwards et al., 2015; McCauley et al., 2018; Murchison et al., 2017). For example, Murchison et al. (2017) found that internalized homophobia led to an increased risk for unwanted sexual experience among sexual minority college students. This theoretical framework begins to explain findings of disparate exposure to multiple forms of violence for sexual minority youth.

Bullying

Bullying is often defined as a specific type of aggression in which the behavior is intended to harm or disturb, occurs repeatedly over time, and has an imbalance of power, with a more powerful person or group attacking a less powerful one (Nansel et al., 2001; Salmivalli et al., 1999; Swearer & Espelage, 2011). Same sex–attracted youth start experiencing peer victimization at higher rates beginning at age nine, and this gap continues over time (Martin-Storey & Fish, 2018). Sexual minority students report high rates of being bullied over the past year, ranging from 19-88% (Kann et al., 2016; Kosciw et al., 2012). These rates are nearly double that of their heterosexual peers (Desmet et al., 2018; Elze, 2003; Hightow-Weidman et al., 2011; Kann et al., 2016; Kosciw et al., 2012; Lock, 2002; Schneider et al., 2012; Sterzing et al., 2017; Williams et al., 2005). The intersection of gender and sexual identity appears to be important in understanding bullying among youth. Among males, mostly heterosexual males and gay males report more bullying than heterosexual males, whereas mostly heterosexual females, bisexual females, and lesbians report being bullied more than heterosexual females (Berlan et al., 2010; Goodenow et al., 2016).

Studies examining gender as a risk factor among sexual minority youth reveal mixed results. Some studies find that sexual minority males report the highest level of bullying, followed by heterosexual females and sexual minority females, then heterosexual males (Ash-Houchen & Lo, 2018; Dunn et al., 2017; Sterzing et al., 2017). Other studies find that lesbian and/or bisexual females are most at risk of bullying (Eisenberg et al., 2019; Kann et al., 2016). For example, Kann et al. (2016) found that lesbian and bisexual females are most at risk of bullying, with 31% reporting being bullied compared with 22% of gay and bisexual male students and 9% of heterosexual males. Other studies found that the interaction between sexual orientation and gender was not significant in bullying exposure (Desmet et al., 2018; Williams et al., 2003).

Sexual violence

Sexual violence is defined as any sexual act, attempt to obtain a sexual act, unwanted sexual comments or advances, or acts to traffic, or otherwise directed, against a person’s sexuality using coercion, by any person regardless of their relationship to the victim, in any setting, including but not limited to home and work (Krug et al., 2002). Trends emerge when examining sexual violence victimization among sexual identity groups by gender/sex. In a systematic review on the topic, sexual minority youth reported significantly higher levels of sexual abuse than their heterosexual counterparts in 13 studies (Mcgeough & Sterzing, 2018). There is little research exploring gender by sexual identity risk among youth; however, results from adult samples retrospectively recounting their childhood experiences reveal gender differences among sexual minority individuals. Rothman et al. (2011) summarized in a systematic review that a range of 4-60% of gay and bisexual men reported childhood sexual abuse (defined as sexual assault occurring before the victim was 18 years old or sexual contact between a youth younger than 16 years old and a person 5 or more years older), while the rate for lesbian and bisexual women ranged from 15-76%. Using the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey data, 75% of bisexual women, 46% of lesbian women, 43% of heterosexual women, 40% of gay men, 47% of bisexual men, and 21% of heterosexual men report sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, or non-contact unwanted sexual experiences. Much of these experiences happen during childhood, with almost half of bisexual women reporting this experience during ages 11-17 (Walters et al., 2013). Looking at sexual identity by gender, bisexual females appear to be the most at risk (Friedman et al., 2011; Pathela & Schillinger, 2010) and, in general, sexual minority girls report more childhood sexual abuse than sexual minority boys (Bos et al., 2016; Sterzing et al., 2017).

Sexual harassment

Guided by the work of Clear et al. (2014), sexual harassment is defined as a form of nonphysical aggression that incorporates a strong sexual component, on the continuum of sexual violence. Sexual harassment appears to be a very common experience for sexual minority youth. Over half (57.3%) of sexual minority youth report being sexually harassed in the past year at school (Kosciw et al., 2018). This rate appears to be statistically higher for sexual minority youth compared with heterosexual youth (Williams et al., 2003). Furthermore, other research indicates that gender and sexual identity matter, as lesbian/queer girls report the highest levels of sexual harassment (72%), followed by gay/queer boys and bisexual girls (66%), questioning girls (53%), bisexual boys (50%), questioning boys (47%), heterosexual girls (43%), and heterosexual boys (23%) (Mitchell et al., 2014).

Stalking

Stalking is conceptualized as a pattern of pursuit behaviors or tactics that elicit fear in the intended victim (Fisher et al., 2014). Much less research has been conducted on the experiences of stalking among high school youth. Research using the same data set as the current investigation found that girls report slightly higher rates of stalking than boys (19% for girls vs. 14% for boys; Fisher et al., 2014). To understand potential gender differences, adult samples reveal that bisexual women report higher rates of stalking (37%) than heterosexual women (16%) (Walters et al., 2013). No known research has examined the prevalence of stalking victimization by gender among sexual minority high school youth.

Purpose

The current prevalence for stalking experienced among high schoolers between sexual attraction groups (sexual minority vs. heterosexual) by self-reported sex (boys vs. girls) is unknown. Furthermore, information about the number of events of sexual harassment, sexual violence, stalking, and bullying experienced by self-reported sex and sexual attraction groups for youth in high school is unknown. The purpose of this investigation is to estimate the 12-month prevalence and number of events of sexual harassment, sexual violence, stalking, or bullying experienced by high schoolers between boys and girls by sexual attraction groups (i.e., sexual minority girls, sexual minority boys, heterosexual girls, heterosexual boys). Specifically, we aim to answer the following research questions:

Research Question 1 (RQ1): What is the 12-month prevalence of being sexually harassed, experiencing sexual violence, being stalked, or being bullied between sexual minority girls, sexual minority boys, heterosexual girls, and heterosexual boys?

Research Question 2 (RQ2): Among high school students who experienced interpersonal violence, do the number of violent events differ between sexual minority girls, sexual minority boys, heterosexual girls, and heterosexual boys?

Method

Study Design and Sample

The current article is a secondary analysis of survey responses from 13 high schools randomized to a control condition from the parent project (Coker et al., 2017). The parent project selected 26 high schools in Kentucky to participate in a randomized intervention trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a bystander intervention program, Green Dot, over 5 years (Coker et al., 2017). Half of the schools were randomized to the intervention while half were randomized into the control condition. Only control sites were used for this current investigation to get estimates of the prevalence of violence without the interference of the intervention (i.e., we hypothesized that the intervention sites would see reductions in these forms of violence over time). Surveys were anonymous; therefore, to avoid including data from the same student over multiple years, the sample was limited to all students from the control sites at baseline plus freshmen students at the sites in years one through four. Data were cleaned for missingness and mischievous responses (see Coker et al., 2017 for more detail), and the sample only included individuals who completed questions about self-reported sex and sexual attraction. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Kentucky (#13-0680-F1V).

Procedures

Primary data were collected by inviting all students to complete an anonymous survey in person from Spring 2010 through 2014. Researchers coordinated with schools to identify 2 days between February and April to come to the school and collect data. Parents could have their children opt out of the survey. Assent was gathered from the student before passing out the survey. The survey was a 99-item paper-and-pencil questionnaire administered by research staff, which took 20-45 min to complete.

Measures

Dependent variables

The following four related forms of violence victimization were selected as dependent variables: sexual harassment, sexual violence, stalking, and bullying. Constructs for these outcomes are described in Coker et al. (2017).

Sexual harassment

Three questions asked about sexual violence, including the following: tell stories or jokes that made you uncomfortable; make gestures, rude remarks or use sexual body language to embarrass or upset you; keep asking you out on a date or asking you to hookup even though you said “no.” These items were revised from the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (Fitzgerald et al., 1999). The internal consistency coefficient indicated that these items were acceptably stable (α = .69).

Sexual violence

Three questions were used to learn about the frequency of sexual violence, including the following: had sexual activities even though you did not really want to because they threatened to end your friendship or romantic relationship if you did not or because you felt pressured by the other person’s constant arguments or begging; had sexual activity when you did not want to because the other person threatened to use or used physical force (like twisting your arm, holding you down); had sexual activity when you did not want to because you were drunk or using drugs. These items were revised for high school populations from the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (Black et al., 2011). The internal consistency coefficient indicated that these items were acceptably stable (α = .80).

Stalking

Three questions asked about stalking, including the following: you were followed, spied on or monitored using computer software, cameras, listening tools, or global positioning system (GPS); someone showed up at your home, school or work or waited for you when you did not want them to; you received unwanted phone calls, gifts, emails, text messages, or notes/pictures posted on social networking sites for example, Facebook, MySpace, or Twitter. These items were revised based on the National Violence Against Women Survey (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). The internal consistency coefficient indicated that these items were acceptably stable (α = .68).

Bullying

For bullying, one item was used: “In the past 12 months, how many times have you been bullied by another high school student?” In the survey, bullying was defined as, “when students tease, threaten, spread rumors, hit, shove, or hurt another student over and over again. It is not bullying when students who are about the same size fight or tease each other in a friendly way.”

To estimate 12-month prevalence of violence victimization by form, experiences were dichotomized to indicate whether the respondent reported experiencing any of the events. To estimate the number of violent events among those experiencing a specific form of violence, the item frequencies were used. For all 10 victimization items, the response options were “0 times,” “1-2 times,” “3-6 times,” and “6+ times.” To create a sum of the number of violent events experienced, the minimum value was used to provide a conservative estimate of the number of events (i.e., 0, 1, 3, 6, respectively). The possible range for sexual harassment, sexual violence, and stalking events was 1-36, while the range of number of bullying events was 1-6.

Independent variables

Based on students’ responses to items assessing both self-reported sex and sexual attraction identities, the authors created the primary independent variable, self-reported sex by sexual attraction. Self-reported sex was measured using the question, “What is your sex?” with male and female response options. Given the age range of high school students and fluidity of sexuality during this timeframe, sexual orientation was assessed by asking students to report their sexual attraction, as opposed to behaviors or identities—a common measurement technique for high school youth (Saewyc et al., 2004). The question read, “People are different in their sexual attraction to other people. Which best describes your feelings? Are you:.” Responses included “only attracted to females,” “mostly attracted to females,” “equally attracted to females and males,” “mostly attracted to males,” “only attracted to males,” and “not sure.” For the purposes of this analysis, students were categorized as indicating heterosexual (including only attracted to females for the male respondents and only attracted to males for the female respondents) or sexual minority (including all the responses not captured in the heterosexual group). The combination of these dichotomous variables results in a four-category variable: sexual minority girls, sexual minority boys, heterosexual girls, and heterosexual boys.

Potential confounding variables

Demographic characteristics included in the survey and presented in Table 1 included grade in school (9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th grades), race (Non-Hispanic White and students of color [including American Indian or Alaska native, Asian, Black or African American, or Hispanic or Latino/Latina]), and receiving a free or reduced-price meal as a proxy for income (yes and no). Because prior analyses using these data with sexual harassment, sexual violence, and stalking as outcomes included these demographic characteristics as confounders (Clear et al., 2014; Fisher et al., 2014), these factors were included as confounders here.

Table 1.

Demographic Information and Confounding Variable Frequencies.

Student characteristics	Total sample, %(N = 16,243)	Heterosexual		Sexual minority
Student characteristics	Total sample, %(N = 16,243)	Girls, %(N = 7,403)	Boys, %(N = 6,713)	Girls, %(N = 1,536)	Boys, %(N = 591)
Grade in school^a
9th grade	64.4	65.3	63.9	63.9	60.1
10th grade	13.7	13.5	13.7	14.1	14.9
11th grade	13.2	12.5	13.8	3.0	16.4
12th grade	8.7	8.7	8.6	9.0	8.6
Race
White	84.1	85.2	85.2	78.5	73.8
Non-White^a	15.9	14.8	14.8	21.5	26.2
Free or reduced-price meal
No	54.2	55.0	56.3	42.8	50.9
Yes^a	45.8	45.0	43.7	57.2	49.1
Relationship in past 12 months
No	23.5	21.8	26.5	16.7	27.5
Yes^a	76.5	78.2	73.5	83.3	72.5
Parental IPV
No	76.2	75.6	81.5	60.5	65.5
Yes^a	23.8	24.4	18.5	39.5	34.5
Binge drinking
No	76.1	79.9	74.9	65.2	69.6
Yes^a	23.9	20.1	25.1	34.8	30.4

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence.

Correlation with biological sex by sexual attraction groups significant at p < .0001.

Current relationship status, binge drinking in the past month, and witnessing parental intimate partner violence (yes/no response options) were also included as confounders because of their established associations with victimization experiences for youth (David-Ferdon & Simon, 2014; Farrington, 2001; Halpern et al., 2009). Early onset and binge drinking among youth have been identified as risk factors for later violence victimization (Black et al., 2006; Eaton et al., 2007; Foshee et al., 2004; Miller et al., 2007; Swahn et al., 2008). Exposure to parental partner violence was included as a covariate because prior research has identified that children and youth who are exposed to such violence are also at increased risk of victimization (Hamby et al., 2010; Mitchell & Finkelhor, 2001).

Statistical Analysis

First, bivariate associations were explored between self-reported sex by sexual attraction groups and potential confounding variables. Subsequent modeling was conducted with confounders included. To answer the first research question, adjusted 12-month victimization prevalence (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) were estimated across the four forms of violence for all students and by self-reported sex by sexual attraction groups using generalized estimating equations (GEEs) to also account for school-level clustering; PROC GENMOD, LINK = LOG, DIST = BINOMIAL with a repeated effect for school and TYPE = EXCH. To demonstrate the relative relationships in prevalence, prevalence ratios were provided by self-reported sex by sexual attraction groups.

To address the second research question, GEEs were also used to estimate the mean number of events among those who experienced the specific form of violence, and differences between self-reported sex by sexual attraction groups were tested using PROC GENMOD, LINK = IDENTITY, DIST = NORMAL with a repeated effect for school and TYPE = EXCH. Similar to the estimation of prevalences, differences in number of events were compared by self-reported sex by sexual attraction groups. Given the large sample size and potential number of comparisons, a two-sided significance level of 0.01 was used for all statistical tests. SAS v9.4 was used for all data management and statistical analysis.

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Analyses

The final analytic sample included 16,243 students. Because the baseline sample was augmented with incoming students in subsequent study years, ninth graders make up the majority (64%) of the sample (see Table 1). The majority of the students in this sample identified as being White (as is representative of Kentucky; Kentucky Department of Education, 2019), heterosexual, and in a relationship in the past 12 months. Nearly half the sample identified as female (55%) and indicated they received a free or reduced-price meal (54%). A quarter of the sample reported binge drinking in the past month or witnessing parental intimate partner violence (IPV) during their lifetime. Being a student of color, receiving a free or reduced-price meal, binge drinking, being in a relationship in the past 12 months, and witnessing parental IPV were correlated with self-reported sex by sexual attraction groups (Table 1) and were therefore included as confounders in subsequent modeling.

RQ1: Prevalence of Violence Among Sexual Minority Boys and Girls

In Table 2, the adjusted prevalence rates and rate ratios (aPRR) by self-reported sex by sexual attraction group comparisons are presented for each of the four forms of violence. For all four forms of violence evaluated, the prevalence rates were lowest for heterosexual boys. Among heterosexual students, 12-month violence prevalence rates were higher for girls relative to boys by 70% for sexual harassment (aPRR = 1.70, 95% CI: [1.64, 1.76]), 93% for sexual violence, (aPRR = 1.93, 95% CI: [1.69, 2.19]), 56% for stalking (aPRR = 1.56; 95% CI: [1.48, 1.65]), and a 42% for bullying (aPRR: 1.42; 95% CI: [1.32, 1.53]). Among sexual minority students, 12-month violence prevalence rates did not differ by self-reported sex across all four violence forms. Among girls, rates of violence were higher among sexual minority girls relative to heterosexual girls for bullying (aPRR = 1.22), sexual violence (aPRR = 1.18), and stalking (aPRR = 1.09), but significantly lower for sexual harassment (aPRR = 0.95). Among boys, rates of violence were consistently higher for sexual minority boys relative to heterosexual boys for all forms of violence, sexual harassment (aPRR = 1.54), sexual violence (aPRR = 2.42), stalking (aPRR = 1.62), and bullying (aPRR = 1.83).

Table 2.

Adjusted* 12-Month Violence Prevalence Rate by Form, 95% Confidence Interval (CI), and Self-Reported Sex by Sexual Attraction Groups.

	Prevalence, %	95% CI	Prevalence rate ratios (95% CI)
Group	Prevalence, %	95% CI	Heterosexual: girls vs. boys	Girls: SM vs. heterosexual	Boys: SM vs. heterosexual	SM: girls vs. boys
Sexual harassment ^a
Heterosexual
Girls	66.66	[64.31, 69.10]	1.70 [1.64, 1.76]	0.95 [0.92, 0.98]	1.54 [1.45, 1.64]	1.05 [0.97, 1.12]
Boys	39.18	[37.43, 41.02]
SM
Girls	63.23	[60.26, 66.36]
Boys	60.50	[57.30, 63.87]
Sexual violence ^b
Heterosexual
Girls	14.66	[13.08, 16.44]	1.93[1.69, 2.19]	1.18[1.09, 1.29]	2.42[2.23, 2.63]	0.94[0.87, 1.02]
Boys	7.62	[6.70, 8.65]
SM
Girls	17.37	[16.04, 18.81]
Boys	18.45	[16.23, 20.96]
Stalking ^c
Heterosexual
Girls	39.36	[37.86, 40.93]	1.56[1.48, 1.65]	1.09[1.00, 1.18]	1.62[1.49, 1.76]	1.05[0.94, 1.17]
Boys	25.17	[23.70, 26.74]
SM
Girls	42.85	[39.86, 46.07]
Boys	40.87	[37.47, 44.56]
Bullying ^d
Heterosexual
Girls	29.11	[26.92, 31.49]	1.42[1.32, 1.53]	1.22[1.13, 1.31]	1.83[1.68, 2.00]	0.94[0.84, 1.06]
Boys	20.46	[18.35, 22.81]
SM
Girls	35.41	[32.28, 38.84]
Boys	37.48	[34.02, 41.30]

Note. CI = confidence interval; SM = sexual minority; IPV = intimate partner violence. ^an = 16,090, F test statistic = 854.66, df = 3, p <.0001. ^bn = 16,090, F test statistic = 547.87, df = 3, p <.0001. ^cn = 16,090, F test statistic = 322.90, df = 3, p <.0001. ^dn = 16,037, F test statistic = 390.26, df = 3, p <.0001.

Models were adjusted for calendar year, grade in school, race, free or reduced lunch, being in a relationship, witnessing parental IPV, binge drinking.

RQ2: Number of Violent Events among Sexual Minority Boys and Girls

Table 3 presents the adjusted number of violent events with 95% CI by self-reported sex by sexual attraction groups among those experiencing the form of violence (victims). The mean number of violent events for heterosexual girl victims for sexual violence was 3.11, 5.21 for sexual harassment, 3.83 for stalking, and 2.46 for bullying. Among heterosexual victims, girls reported significantly fewer violent events relative to boys for all violence forms except sexual harassment (aPRR = 1.20). Among boy and girl victims, sexual minority status was associated with reporting more violent events relative to heterosexual victims. The only significant difference that emerged among sexual minority victims was girls reported 0.75 fewer stalking events than males.

Table 3.

Adjusted* 12-Month Number of Violent Events** by Form of Violence, 95% Confidence Interval (CI), and Self-Reported Sex by Sexual Attraction Groups.

	Number of events	95% CI	Difference in number of events (CI)
Group	Number of events	95% CI	Heterosexual: girls vs boys	Girls: SM vs. heterosexual	Boys: SM vs. heterosexual	SM: girls vs. boys
Sexual harassment ^a
Heterosexual
Girls	5.21	[4.97, 5.45]	1.20[0.93, 1.47]	0.58[0.28, 0.87]	1.48[0.91, 2.04]	0.30[−0.15, 0.76]
Boys	4.01	[3.76, 4.26]
SM
Girls	5.78	[5.57, 5.99]
Boys	5.48	[5.00, 5.96]
Sexual violence ^b
Heterosexual
Girls	14.66	[13.08, 16.44]	−0.66[−0.93, −0.38]	1.20[0.79, 1.62]	1.20[0.22, 2.18]	−0.66[−1.65, 0.34]
Boys	3.77	[3.12, 4.42]
SM
Girls	4.32	[3.79, 4.84]
Boys	4.97	[4.08, 5.87]
Stalking ^c
Heterosexual
Girls	3.83	[3.40, 4.25]	−0.23[−0.39, −0.07]	1.00[0.67, 1.33]	1.51[0.99, 2.04]	−0.75[−1.25, −0.24]
Boys	4.05	[3.60, 4.51]
SM
Girls	4.82	[4.24, 5.40]
Boys	5.57	[5.02, 6.12]
Bullying ^d
Heterosexual
Girls	2.46	[2.27, 2.66]	−0.25[−0.37, −0.12]	0.64[0.49, 0.79]	0.31[−0.01, 0.63]	0.08[−0.23, 0.40]
Boys	2.71	[2.57, 2.85]
SM
Girls	3.10	[2.90, 3.31]
Boys	3.02	[2.74, 3.29]

Note. CI = confidence interval; SM = sexual minority; IPV = intimate partner violence.

n = 8,985, F test statistic = 154.38, df = 3, p <.0001 ^bn = 2,649, F test statistic = 77.96, df = 3, p <.0001 ^cn = 5,567, F test statistic = 63.47, df = 3, p <.0001. ^dn = 5,061, F test statistic = 94.51, df = 3, p <.0001.

Models were adjusted for calendar year, grade in school, race, free or reduced lunch, being in a relationship, witnessing parental IPV, and binge drinking. **Total score only computed for those indicating violence in the category.

Discussion

These findings reveal important patterns of victimization experiences for young high school youth. Answering the first research question, and in alignment with minority stress theory, sexual minority boys and girls and heterosexual girls reported higher prevalences of sexual harassment, sexual violence, stalking, and bullying than heterosexual boys. Analyses used to answer the second research question revealed that heterosexual girls reported the lowest number of events of sexual violence, stalking, and bullying relative to all other groups, whereas heterosexual boys reported the lowest number of sexual harassment events relative to all other groups.

Importance of Sexual Attraction

This investigation underscored previous findings that sexual attraction is an important factor in understanding victimization experiences for young high school youth. With the exception of sexual harassment, sexual minority boys and girls had higher prevalences of victimization than their heterosexual counterparts, and across all categories of victimization sexual minority boys and girls reported the highest frequencies of victimization compared with heterosexual boys and girls. This aligns with minority stress theory, which suggests that minority-identified individuals are at greater risk for negative outcomes such as victimization because of differential exposure to stressors such as internalized homophobia, stigma, and discrimination (Meyer, 1995). This is a particularly important finding in this sample, as the majority of the students were freshmen, suggesting that minority stress influences negative outcomes even for young sexual minority boys and girls. Furthermore, across all the forms of violence, the prevalence of victimization was statistically equivalent between sexual minority girls and sexual minority boys. This could indicate that sexual minority youth are being targeted for victimization because of their sexual identity regardless of their sex/gender.

Results of this investigation have meaningful implications for prevention and intervention programs. Prevention and intervention programs historically have focused on girls as potential victims and boys as potential perpetrators. This research reveals that sexual minority boys are as at risk of victimization as are sexual minority girls, and are often more at risk of victimization than heterosexual girls. Prevention messaging needs to proactively identify boys as potential victims in addition to girls, as well as comprehensively represent, protect, and support sexual minority youth. While discussions about sexual identity among high school students have become less taboo in recent years (Ahuja et al., 2015; Graybill & Proctor, 2016), this largely depends on the region and political climate. Beyond tolerance of diversity in sexual identities, violence prevention programs must focus on disrupting homophobia and providing comprehensive support services for these vulnerable youth.

Limitations

The present study has several limitations, one of which is that the present sample exclusively came from Kentucky, a politically conservative state that has enacted several notable anti-LGB policies (Taylor et al., 2012). Due to sampling and adjustment procedures, we have confidence that the results are generalizable to high school youth in Kentucky; however, our confidence in generalizing to students from other states is limited. Relatedly, working within this politically conservative environment shaped several key items used in this survey. Notably, the way that sex and sexual attraction were measured are far from ideal. Providing only two categories for sex (male/female) and not asking about gender identity did not allow us to account for the experiences of trans* youth. In addition, considerable research demonstrates important variance in the experiences of sexual minority individuals, with bisexual women being most at risk of victimization (Ford & Soto-Marquez, 2016). Based on the measurement of sexual attraction, we were not able to align response options with typical sexual identity categories. We considered youth who were not exclusively attracted to members of the other sex to be sexual minorities, which may not be an accurate categorization or reflect their sexual identities and behaviors. In addition, anonymous self-report measures have inherent limitations, the likes of which could impact confidence in these findings. It is possible that students did not complete the survey truthfully by overreporting, underreporting, and randomly reporting victimization or social identities. Finally, because bullying victimization was measured as a single-item indicator unlike the other forms of violence, differences in prevalences and frequencies could be a product of systematic measurement error and not be reflective of true differences.

Future Research

Future research should investigate why sexual minority youth are so at risk of victimization, using minority stress theory as a framework. In addition, more research needs to be conducted to understand the number of events of victimization among sexual minority girls and boys. The current project revealed that among victims of violence, heterosexual girls experienced the lowest number of violent events. Heterosexual boys experience violence at a lower prevalence, but there may be something important about males who are victimized which should be explored. Furthermore, future research should use an intersectional approach to explore how systems of oppression interact to influence risk for and experience of victimization. Future research could also investigate the experiences of polyvictimization among sexual minority youth.

Conclusion

Taken altogether, this research highlights the importance of considering sexual attraction in research on victimization experiences among high school boys and girls. While self-reported sex was an important risk factor for victimization, these findings reveal that sexual minority girls and boys are at high risk for victimization. Furthermore, the results of this investigation indicate that high school youth are experiencing stalking at high rates. Prevention and intervention programs in high schools should focus on comprehensive violence prevention campaigns that aim to disrupt sexist and heterosexist social norms that allow for sexual harassment, sexual violence, stalking, and bullying to flourish.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Samuel Bell and Noah Granade for their assistance in locating relevant articles for the literature review.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Data collection was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Cooperative Agreement 5U01CE001675. Manuscript preparation was supported, in part, by the National Center for Injury and Violence Prevention and Control of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under award number K01CE003160.

ORCID iDs

Annelise Mennicke

Ann L. Coker

Author Biographies

Annelise Mennicke, PhD, MSW, is an Assistant Professor in the School of Social Work at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Her research focuses on reducing the prevalence of interpersonal violence and its detrimental impacts for marginalized high school and college students.

Heather M. Bush, PhD, is a Professor and Chair of Biostatistics in the College of Public Health at the University of Kentucky. Her current research focuses on utilizing statistical methodology and data visualization to better understand complex relationships.

Candace Brancato, MS, is a Data Scientist in the Department of Biostatistics in the College of Public Health at the University of Kentucky.

Ann L. Coker, PhD, MPH, is a Professor of Epidemiology in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology in the College of Medicine at the University of Kentucky. She holds the Verizon Wireless Endowed Chair in the Center for Research on Violence Against Women. Her current research focuses on prevention of partner and sexual violence and interventions to reduce the impact of these forms of violence.

References

Ahuja

Webster

Gibson

Brewe

Toledo

Russell

(2015). Bullying and suicide: The mental health crisis of LGBTQ youth and how you can help. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Mental Health, 19(2), 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/19359705.2015.1007417

Ash-Houchen

(2018). Intersections of gender and sexual minority status: Co-occurring bullying victimization among adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 262–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.023

Berlan

Corliss

Field

Goodman

Bryn Austin

(2010). Sexual orientation and bullying among adolescents in the Growing Up Today study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 46(4), 366–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.10.015

Black

Noonan

Legg

Eato

Brieding

(2006). Physical dating violence among high school students—United States, 2003. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 55(19), 532–535.

Black

M. C.

Basile

K. C.

Brieding

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. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf

Blosnich

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2011.623332

Bos

Haas

Kuyper

(2016). Lesbian, gay and bisexual adults: Childhood gender nonconformity, childhood trauma, and sexual victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(3), 496–515. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516641285

Clear

E. R.

Coker

A. L.

Cook-Craig

P. G.

Bush

H. M.

Garcia

L. S.

Williams

C. M.

Lewis

A. M.

Fisher

B. S.

(2014). Sexual harassment victimization and perpetration among high school students. Violence Against Women, 20(10), 1203–1219. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214551287

Coker

A. L.

Bush

H. M.

Cook-Craig

P. G.

DeGue

S. A.

Clear

E. R.

Brancato

C. J.

Fisher

B. S.

Recktenwald

E. A.

(2017). RCT testing bystander effectiveness to reduce violence. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 52, 566–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2017.01.020

10.

David-Ferdon

Simon

T. R.

(2014). Preventing youth violence: Opportunities for action. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/pdf/opportunities-for-action.pdf

11.

Desmet

Rodelli

Walrave

Soenens

Cardon

Bourdeaudhuij

(2018). Cyberbullying and traditional bullying involvement among heterosexual and non-heterosexual adolescents and their associations with age and gender. Computers in Human Behavior, 83, 254–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.02.010

12.

Dunn

Clark

Pearlman

(2017). The relationship between sexual history, bullying victimization, and poor mental health outcomes among heterosexual and sexual minority high school students: A feminist perspective. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32, 3491–3519. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515599658

13.

Eaton

Davis

Barrios

Brener

Noonan

(2007). Associations of dating violence victimization with lifetime participation, co-occurrence, and early initiation of risk behaviors among U.S. high school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 585–602. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260506298831

14.

Edwards

K. M.

Sylaska

K. M.

Barry

J. E.

Moynihan

M. M.

Banyard

V. L.

Cohn

E. S.

Walsh

W. A.

Ward

S. K.

(2015). Physical dating violence, sexual violence, and unwanted pursuit victimization: A comparison of incidence rates among sexual-minority and heterosexual college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(4), 580–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626051453526

15.

Eisenberg

Gower

Rider

McMorris

Coleman

(2019). At the intersection of sexual orientation and gender identity: Variations in emotional distress and bullying experience in a large population-based sample of U.S. adolescents. Journal of LGBT Youth, 16, 235–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2019.1567435

16.

Elze

(2003). Gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths’ perceptions of their high school environments and comfort in school. Children & Schools, 25(4), 225–239. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/25.4.225

17.

Farrington

(2001). Key results from the first forty years of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. In Thornberry

Korhn

(Eds.), Taking stock of delinquency: An overview of findings from contemporary longitudinal studies (pp. 127–183). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

18.

Fisher

Coker

A. L.

Garcia

L. S.

Williams

C. M.

Clear

E. R.

Cook-Craig

P. G.

(2014). Statewide estimates of stalking among high school students in Kentucky: Demographic profile and sex differences. Violence Against Women, 20(10), 1258–1279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214551574

19.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

Magley

V. J.

Drasgow

Waldo

C. R.

(1999). Measuring sexual harassment in the military: The sexual experiences questionnaire (SEQ-DoD). Military Psychology, 11, 243–264. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327876mp1103_3

20.

Ford

Soto-Marquez

J. G.

(2016). Sexual assault victimization among straight, gay/lesbian, and bisexual college students. Violence and Gender, 3, 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1089/vio.2015.0030

21.

Foshee

Benefield

Ennett

Baquman

Suchindran

(2004). Longitudinal predictors of serious physical and sexual dating violence victimization during adolescence. Preventive Medicine, 39, 1007–1016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.04.014

22.

Friedman

Marshal

Guadamuz

Wei

Wong

Saewyc

Stall

(2011). A meta-analysis of disparities in childhood sexual abuse, parental physical abuse, and peer victimization among sexual minority and sexual nonminority individuals. American Journal of Public Health, 101, 1481–1491. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.190009

23.

Goodenow

Watson

Adjei

Homma

Saewyc

(2016). Sexual orientation trends and disparities in school bullying and violence-related experiences, 1999-2014. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 3, 386–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000188

24.

Graybill

Proctor

(2016). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth: Limited representation in school support personnel journals. Journal of School Psychology, 54(9), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2015.11.001

25.

Gruber

Fineran

(2016). Sexual harassment, bullying, and school outcomes for high school girls and boys. Violence Against Women, 22, 112–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215599079

26.

Halpern

Spriggs

Martin

Kupper

L. L.

(2009). Patterns of intimate partner violence victimization from adolescence to young adulthood in a national representative sample. Journal of Adolescent Health, 4(5), 508–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.011

27.

Hamby

Finkelhor

Turner

Ormrod

(2010). The overlap of witnessing partner violence with child maltreatment and other victimizations in a nationally representative survey of youth. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34(10), 734–741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2010.03.001

28.

Hightow-Weidman

Phillips

2nd. Jones

Outlaw

Fields

Smith

J. C.

, & YMSM of Color SPNS Initiative Study Group. (2011). Racial and sexual identity-related maltreatment among minority YMSM: Prevalence, perceptions, and the associations with emotional distress. AIDS Patient Care STDS, 25, S39–45. https://doi.org/10.1089/apc.2011.9877

29.

Kann

Olsen

McManus

(2016). Sexual identity, sex of sexual contacts, and health-related behaviors among students in grades 9-12—United States and selected sites, 2015. Surveillance Summaries, 9, 1–202.

30.

Kentucky Department of Education. (2019). Kentucky education facts. https://education.ky.gov/comm/edfacts/Pages/default.aspx

31.

Kosciw

Greytak

Zongrone

Clark

Truong

(2018). The 2017 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer youth in our nation’s schools. GLSEN. https://www.glsen.org/sites/default/files/2019-10/GLSEN-2017-National-School-Climate-Survey-NSCS-Full-Report.pdf

32.

Kosciw

Palmer

Boesen

Bartkiewicz

Greytak

(2012). The 2011 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. GLSEN.

33.

Krug

E. G.

Dahlberg

L. L.

Mercy

J. A.

Zwi

A. B.

Lozano

(2002). World report on violence and health. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/42495/9241545615_eng.pdf; jsessionid=4E5B55DE5F54773FD602C3BE9621BE40?sequence=1

34.

Lipson

(2001). Hostile Hallways: Bullying, teasing, and sexual harassment in school. American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.

35.

Lock

(2002). Violence and sexual minority youth. Journal of School Violence, 1(3), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1300/J202v01n03_05

36.

Martin-Storey

Fish

(2018). Victimization disparities between heterosexual and sexual minority youth from ages 9 to 15. Child Development, 90(1), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13107

37.

McCauley

H. L.

Coulter

R. W.

Bogen

K. W.

Rothman

E. F.

(2018). Sexual assault risk and prevention among sexual and gender minority populations. In Orchowski

Gidycz

(Eds.), Sexual assault risk reduction and resistance: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 333–352). Elsevier.

38.

Mcgeough

Sterzing

(2018). A systematic review of family victimization experiences among sexual minority youth. Journal of Primary Prevention, 39(5), 491–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-018-0523-x

39.

Meyer

(1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36(1), 38–56. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2137286

40.

Miller

Naimi

Brewer

Jones

(2007). Binge drinking and associated health risk behaviors among high school students. Pediatrics, 119(1), 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2006- 1517 2006

41.

Mitchell

Finkelhor

(2001). Risk of crime victimization among youth exposed to domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(9), 944–964. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626001016009006

42.

Mitchell

Ybarra

Korchmaros

(2014). Sexual harassment among adolescents of different sexual orientations and gender identities. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38(2), 280–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.09.008

43.

Murchison

G. R.

Boyd

M. A.

Pachankis

J. E.

(2017). Minority stress and the risk of unwanted sexual experiences in LGBQ undergraduates. Sex Roles, 77(3-4), 221–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0710-2

44.

Nansel

T. R.

Overpeck

Pilla

R. S.

Ruan

W. J.

Simons-Morton

B. G.

Scheidt

(2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychological adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 16, 2094–2100. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.285.16.2094

45.

Pathela

Schillinger

(2010). Sexual behaviors and sexual violence: Adolescents with opposite-, same-, or both-sex partners. Pediatrics, 126(5), 879–886. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-0396

46.

Reidy

D. E.

Smith-Darden

Kernsmith

(2016). Behavioral and mental health correlates of youth stalking victimization. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 51(6), 1007–1014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.08.035

47.

Rothman

E. F.

Exner

Baughman

(2011). The prevalence of sexual assault against people who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual in the United States: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 12(2), 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838010390707

48.

Saewyc

E. M.

Bauer

G. R.

Skay

C. L.

Bearinger

L. H.

Resnick

M. D.

Reis

Murphy

(2004). Measuring sexual orientation in adolescent health surveys: Evaluation of eight school-based surveys. Journal of Adolescent Health, 34, 345.e1–345.e15.

49.

Salmivalli

Kaukiainen

Kaistaniemi

Lagerspetz

K. M. J.

(1999). Self-evaluated self-esteem, peer-evaluated self-esteem, and defensive egotism as predictors of adolescents’ participation in bullying situations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1268–1278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299258008

50.

Schneider

O’Donnel

Stueve

Coulter

(2012). Cyberbullying, school bullying, and psychological distress: A regional census of high school students. American Journal of Pubilc health, 102(1), 171–177. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300308

51.

Sterzing

Gartner

Goldbach

Mcgeough

Ratliff

Johnson

(2017). Polyvictimization prevalence rates of sexual and gender minority adolescents: Breaking down the silos of victimization research. Psychology of Violence, 9(4), 419–430. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000123

52.

Swahn

Bossarte

Sullivent

(2008). Age of alcohol use initiation, suicidal behavior, and peer and dating violence victimization and perpetration among high-risk, seventh-grade adolescents. Pediatrics, 121(2), 297–305. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2006-2348

53.

Swearer

S. M.

Espelage

D. L.

(2011). Expanding the social-ecological framework of bullying among youth: Lessons learned from the past and directions for the future. In Espelage

D. L.

Swearer

S. M.

(Eds.), Bullying in North American schools (2nd ed, pp. 3–10). Routledge.

54.

Taylor

Lewis

Jacobsmeier

Disarro

(2012). Content and complexity in policy reinvention and diffusion. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 12(1), 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532440011433589

55.

Tjaden

Thoennes

(1998). Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

56.

Walters

M. L.

Chen

Breiding

M. J.

(2013). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Findings on victimization by sexual orientation. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/183781.pdf

57.

Williams

Connolly

Pepler

Craigh

(2003). Questioning and sexual minority adolescents: High school experiences of bullying, sexual harassment, and physical abuse. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 22(2), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.7870/cjcmh-2003-0013

58.

Williams

Connolly

Pepler

Craigh

(2005). Peer victimization, social support, and psychosocial adjustment of sexual minority adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34(5), 471–482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-005-7264-x