Commuter Students’ Readiness to Help in Incidents of Campus Sexual Violence

Abstract

The present study examines commuter students’ readiness to help in incidents of sexual violence. Participants included 1,366 students, the majority of whom (79%) were commuters. Structural equation modeling was used to examine commuter status on readiness to help in incidents of sexual violence and the effect of awareness of sexual violence resources and sense of community on readiness to help. The results demonstrate that commuter students are less ready to help in incidents of sexual violence compared with non-commuters. These results suggest that those looking to engage students in sexual assault prevention efforts need to increase efforts to engage commuters.

Keywords

prevention awareness of resources sense of community

Campus sexual violence is exceedingly common; 20% of undergraduate women report experiencing an incident of sexual violence before graduating college (Cantor et al., 2015; Krebs et al., 2016). Survivors of sexual violence experience a range of negative consequences, including posttraumatic stress disorder and suicide (Peter-Hagene & Ullman, 2016; Ullman, 2004) and, for those who are in school, negative academic outcomes including lowered grade-point average and school dropout (Jordan et al., 2014; Mengo & Black, 2016). Both the high prevalence rate of campus sexual violence as well as the negative effects on survivors indicate that it is a pressing issue for campuses throughout the country.

While many institutions of higher education have taken steps to address and prevent sexual violence, these efforts are often focused on the student body as a whole. Scholars have suggested that prevention programs should account for demographic variation among students who may receive prevention messages differently and experience varied levels of engagement with prevention more generally (Banyard, 2014; Breitenbecher, 2000; Tharp et al., 2013). Commuter students differ from non-commuter students in demographic factors such as age, first-generation status, income, and race/ethnicity among other factors (Horn et al., 2006). These demographic factors may lead to varied uptake, engagement, and attention to campus prevention messages. For example, commuter students are more likely to work (Horn et al., 2006), and thus are less apt to be on campus and present for campus sexual violence prevention programming. If these students cannot attend programming during working hours due to scheduling, they will have reduced exposure to such messaging and ultimately be less informed on how to prevent sexual violence.

In addition, scholars contend that effective prevention efforts should engage all members of the campus community and frame sexual violence as an issue in which everyone has a role to play (Banyard, 2015; McMahon et al., 2021)—even those who might be disconnected from the campus community. One sizable group of students with differing needs are commuter students. The majority of students on college campuses throughout the country now live off-campus (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019). Research demonstrates that commuter students are typically less engaged on campus compared with residential students (Alfano & Eduljee, 2013; Kirk & Lewis, 2015) and thus, may differ in terms of their engagement in campus sexual violence prevention efforts. This is critical because all students, regardless of commuter status, may be able to help prevent campus sexual violence if properly equipped with the needed information and skills. Despite this, the experiences of commuter students regarding their involvement in sexual violence prevention efforts have received almost no attention in the research literature. This study will address this gap by examining commuter students’ readiness to help in sexual violence prevention and variables that may impact this outcome.

Campus Sexual Violence Prevention Efforts

Although the issue of campus sexual violence has been documented for decades, it was only recently that significant attention was paid to preventing campus sexual violence at the federal level. These efforts included legislative measures such as the Campus SaVE Act, the Dear Colleague Letter, and the Cleary Act which mandate that institutions of higher education take steps to prevent sexual violence on their campuses (“The Campus Sexual Violence Elimination (SaVE) Act,” 2019; “Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act of 1990,” 2018; U.S. Department of Education, 2011). Campus prevention efforts can take many forms, including awareness campaigns, bystander education, and social norms campaigns (DeGue et al., 2014; Orchowski et al., 2018). In addition, risk reduction programming such as self-defense classes (Senn et al., 2017) is frequently offered. Many of these efforts require students to be physically present on campus. While their methods vary, the ultimate goal of these programs is the same: To prevent incidents of campus sexual violence from occurring and lower rates of victimization overall. For these programs to successfully achieve this goal, they must not only reach students (including those who live off-campus or commute to class), but also engage students and promote readiness to help (RTH) on the issue of sexual violence.

Limited research explores the experiences of commuter students with sexual violence. In 2015, Tsui and Santamaria conducted interviews and focus groups with students from an urban commuter college and found the risk of experiencing dating violence may be exacerbated by attending college for these commuter students. Also, in 2015, Cares and colleagues examined the effects of a bystander intervention program on two campuses, one comprising a mix of commuter and residential students. The effects of the program were found to be largely negligible at follow-up for men, but not women, on this campus. The authors of the study do not directly attribute their results to commuter status; however, they suggest that future research should examine commuter status and its effect on sexual violence prevention efforts. In another study, in focus groups with students at a commuter school, the authors found that participants had little exposure to sexual violence prevention messages and a majority did not know about on-campus programs. Finally, Casey et al. (2019) conducted qualitative research at three commuter colleges with both campus personnel and students regarding their experience with sexual violence prevention programming. They suggest that the issue lacks prominence on commuter campuses and that tailored prevention efforts are needed for commuter students.

No studies, to the authors’ knowledge, have examined differences between commuter and residential students regarding sexual violence prevention programs. This is important because, as Casey et al. (2019) points out, prevention efforts on “traditional campuses” tend to focus on residential students whose daily activities are centered on campus, as opposed to commuter students, who live in the wider community. As an example, many prevention efforts on campus address risk factors such as alcohol use in traditional settings, (e.g., campus parties). Yet, commuter students are less likely to drink in typical college settings (National Survey of Student Engagement, 2011). To understand if and how sexual violence prevention efforts are reaching commuter students, we need to investigate how commuter and residential students differ on important constructs related to reducing campus sexual violence.

Risk Factors for Campus Sexual Violence

Risk for campus sexual violence victimization has been examined at the individual level (i.e., students’ behaviors that increase risk for victimization) and to a lesser extent, at the institutional level (i.e., institutional factors that raise rates of victimization on some campuses compared with others). Almost none of this research accounts for differences between commuter and non-commuter students; however, the findings of the larger body of research on campus sexual violence can be used to inform our understanding of risk factors that differ for commuter students or institutions largely made up of commuter students. Overall, research finds that most incidents of sexual violence (67%) occur off-campus (Krebs et al., 2016), and one study found that just under a third of campus sexual assaults are committed in fraternity houses with another 47% occurring in off-campus housing (Minow & Einolf, 2009). This indicates that while the prevalence of sexual violence among commuter students is unknown, many students are victimized while off-campus.

In terms of individual factors associated with campus sexual violence victimization, two of the major factors include gender and alcohol use. Research on multiple campuses demonstrates that the majority of campus sexual violence victims are women, the majority of those who perpetrate are men, and one in five women will be victimized before graduation (Cantor et al., 2015; Koss et al., 1987; Krebs et al., 2016). Another factor highly associated with campus sexual violence is alcohol use by the victim and/or the perpetrator. In at least half of campus sexual violence incidents, either the victim, the perpetrator, or both were using alcohol (Abbey, 2002) with 59% of campus rape victims reporting the perpetrator was under the influence of alcohol, and 25% of victims were assaulted while unable to provide consent due to incapacitation (Krebs et al., 2016).

Similarly, alcohol use policies and the presence of Greek organizations and male athletes on campus, at the institutional level, is associated with increased levels of sexual violence (Lippy & DeGue, 2016; Stotzer & MacCartney, 2015; Wiersma-Mosley et al., 2017). Armstrong et al. (2006), in her ethnographic observational study of campus sexual violence, examined how gender dynamics intersected with alcohol use and policies, such as male fraternity members acting as gatekeepers for women’s access to alcohol through policies that limit on-campus parties with alcohol, to create environments that foster sexual violence. Similarly, risk factors for perpetration, including joining all-male peer groups, such as fraternities or athletic teams (Murnen & Kohlman, 2007; Schwartz & DeKeseredy, 1997), indicate that institutions with these types of all-male peer groups may be creating environments where sexual violence is more prevalent (Sanday, 1990).

In terms of commuter students and these risk factors, generally commuter students are less likely to attend fraternity parties (National Survey of Student Engagement, 2011). However, researchers also point to the importance of off-campus parties in students’ social life and drinking (Lin et al., 2014) and a relationship between off-campus drinking (at off-campus parties and/or bars), binge drinking, and sexual violence (Ehlke et al., 2021). Indeed, research indicates that women who reported spending time at bars are twice as likely to experience repeat physical attacks and unwanted sexual contact (Weiss & Dilks, 2016). This research suggests that while commuter students might be less likely to engage in aspects of campus life that would increase their risk of sexual violence–for example, attending a fraternity party–there might be other aspects of campus life that occur off-campus and are also factors for increased risk of victimization (e.g., off-campus drinking locations). While no known research has examined rates of sexual violence among commuter students, at least one study found that community college students, who are traditionally commuter students, have similar rates of sexual violence when compared with students who attend 4-year institutions (Howard et al., 2019).

Commuter Students

Traditionally, college life is perceived to center on residential campuses with students living in dorms, eating in college cafeterias, walking to class, and attending fraternity parties. However, approximately 85% of college students in the United States live off-campus, meaning they commute to campus for class (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019). In addition, research into commuter students, when compared with more traditional students, is lacking (Jacoby & Garland, 2004; Melendez, 2016). Indeed, a systematic review of research on campus sexual violence victimization found that nearly all of the studies were conducted at 4-year residential colleges (Fedina et al., 2016).

Sense of Community

Because they do not live on campus, commuter students may differ from non-commuter students in many ways, including a sense of connection to campus and awareness of resources to address sexual violence. Sense of community as a construct indicates the extent to which students may or may not feel connected to the campus as a whole (as well as to their peers). Several studies indicate that sense of community is lower among commuter students than on-campus students (Alfano & Eduljee, 2013; Kirk & Lewis, 2015) and that commuter students identify less with their institution (Newbold et al., 2011). Similarly, students who commute to campus are less likely to have friends on campus and struggle with developing close connections compared with their peers (Alfano & Eduljee, 2013; Buote et al., 2007). In interviews with commuter students, Holloway-Friesen (2018) found that time limitations, commuting issues, and problems maintaining relationships were barriers to developing a sense of community on campus. Finally, a limited but growing body of research suggests that sense of community is important for students in preventing sexual violence on campus, including intervening in incidents of sexual violence, helping a friend, and reporting a peer’s threats (Banyard, 2008; Bennett et al., 2014; Sulkowski, 2011).

Awareness of Resources

Another aspect of campus climate that may differ for commuter students is awareness of resources for both the prevention of sexual violence and for survivors seeking help. Research with college students as a whole shows that many students are largely unaware of the resources their campus offers (Banyard et al., 2007; Cantor et al., 2015; Hayes-Smith & Levett, 2010; Walsh et al., 2010). For example, one study found that among a random sample of students, only one in two (46%) knew where the center for survivors of sexual violence was located on campus (Walsh et al., 2010). Another found that rates of institutional resource utilization (students seeking help from university systems such as Title IX offices) are low on campus (Sabina & Ho, 2014). The lack of awareness may be exacerbated for commuter students. For example, focus groups with students at a commuter college found that one in two students reported never accessing support services throughout their lifetime (Donne et al., 2019). Similarly, half of the participants admitted that they did not know where to receive services, on or off-campus, for an incident of sexual violence should the need arise (Donne et al., 2019). Of those students in the study who reported that they did know where to receive help, only 22% (n = 2) cited the campus counseling center as an option. In another study of urban commuter students, Tsui and Santamaria (2015) found that none of their participants suggested a campus resource as a place to seek help for dating violence. When specifically asked about campus resources, respondents suggested the counseling center; other campus resources were not widely known. Although the research is lacking and mainly exploratory, the two qualitative studies cited here (Donne et al., 2019; Tsui & Santamaria, 2015) indicate that commuter students may be less aware of sexual violence resources when compared with students who live on campus—perhaps because they spend less time in the environment where these resources exist and have fewer opportunities to learn about them.

RTH

Levels of RTH may be associated with commuter students’ engagement in prevention work on campus, but there is no existing research examining this relationship. RTH helps measure individuals’ awareness, willingness, and motivation to engage in either preventing incidents of sexual violence or assisting or intervening in incidents that have already occurred. To engage students in prevention efforts, they must be at an appropriate stage of readiness. The “readiness to engage” construct is based on the transtheoretical model of change, which contends that there are several stages individuals traverse to develop an awareness of a problem, a sense of responsibility, and the ability to take action (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983, 1984). This construct has been applied to numerous behavior change programs, including understanding how people become involved in addressing the issue of sexual violence through prosocial bystander interventions, in which bystanders respond to prevent or disrupt sexual violence from occurring (Banyard et al., 2010, 2014). Using the transtheoretical model, Banyard and colleagues (2010, 2014) developed the RTH model which proposes that individuals move through a series of stages in addressing sexual violence (Banyard et al., 2010, 2014): (a) No Awareness, in which an individual is not aware of sexual violence and hence is not planning to take action to address it; (b) Taking Responsibility, during which the individual acknowledges the issue and starts to take responsibility; and (c) Action, in which the individual is acting to address the issue.

Banyard’s RTH model has been used by a handful of researchers to examine university students’ readiness to engage in sexual violence prevention. For example, Christensen and Harris (2019) examined a number of intersecting factors, including gender, race, class level, college major, and history of experiencing sexual harassment on campus, and their impact on RTH in sexual violence prevention. This study found that overall, women had higher levels of RTH than men, but these results were modified by several other factors such as race, college major, and experiencing sexual harassment. Other studies have examined how measures related to sexual assault prevention were related to RTH and demographic factors (Hoxmeier et al., 2018; Tredinnick & McMahon, 2021). Hoxmeier et al. (2018) found that increased RTH was related to gender, as well as with prosocial bystander behaviors performed in the past. Tredinnick and McMahon (2021) examined a sample of athletes and discovered that those whose coaches discussed sexual violence with them had increased RTH on the Action subscale, indicating increased readiness to take action to address sexual violence. Finally, Cares and colleagues (2015) employed RTH measures in an evaluation of a bystander intervention program on two campuses and found that, generally, RTH increased among those who participated in the bystander intervention program compared with those who did not. Although these studies have researched a variety of demographic factors in relation to RTH (Cares et al., 2015; Christensen & Harris, 2019; Hoxmeier et al., 2018; Tredinnick & McMahon, 2021), none of them has examined the impact of commuter status on RTH.

Conceptual Model

Given the unique barriers commuter students face, it is likely that they will have less of a sense of community on their campus, be less aware of resources, and be less ready to help in incidents of sexual violence. The conceptual model for this study (see Figure 1) is informed by preliminary evidence suggesting that both sense of community and awareness of resources are essential for commuter students (Banyard, 2008; Bennett et al., 2014; Donne et al., 2019; Sulkowski, 2011; Tsui & Santamaria, 2015) and, furthermore, may affect RTH in incidents of sexual violence. The model proposed here suggests that sense of community will mediate the relationship between commuter status and RTH such that commuter students are expected to have decreased sense of community at their university, which will in turn lower RTH in incidents of sexual violence. Awareness of resources may also be an important mediator because such awareness is important for students to feel equipped in aiding those who experience sexual violence. As commuter students are expected to have lower awareness of resources compared with non-commuter students, this may in turn decrease their engagement with sexual violence issues. Although RTH is an important construct, ultimately it is expected that those with higher levels of RTH will then participate in increased bystander behaviors to disrupt sexual violence.

Figure 1.

SEM model with standardized estimate.

Based on the research reviewed here, this study addresses the following research questions:

Research Question 1: Does commuter student status predict RTH in an incident of sexual violence?

Research Question 2: For commuter students, does awareness of campus sexual violence resources and sense of community impact RTH?

Research Question 3: Does sense of community and awareness of resources mediate the relationship between commuter status and RTH?

Methods

Participants

The data used for this study come from an online, anonymous campus climate survey conducted at a public, Mid-Atlantic university in 2016. All research methods were approved by the university’s institutional review board prior to commencing research. The survey was open to all students on campus and was confidential and voluntary. Recruitment of students was conducted through emails to the entire student body from both university administrators and student leaders as well as announcements on listservs and social media. At the time of the data collection, the university was active in engaging students in sexual violence prevention efforts including tabling with prevention messages during a universal free hour to catch off-campus students while they were on campus, a university website for students on the topic, and other programming addressing related issues such as consent.

A total of 1,627 students took the survey and the majority were women (65%) as is expected for surveys dealing with sexual violence, which disproportionately impacts women. Most students (55%) were White, 16% were African American, 13% Hispanic, 11% Asian American, and 6% were another race/ethnicity. Some participants were removed for missing data on variables used in this analysis (n = 261). The final analysis sample consisted of 1,366 students, and most were commuter students (79%).

Measures

Commuter status

Commuter status was assessed through two questions. First, students were asked where they lived through a series of predetermined categories (e.g., “On-campus housing,” “At home with parent(s) or guardian(s)” etc.). If participants indicated that they lived off-campus, they were then asked if they commuted to campus. A commuter status variable was created for students who (a) lived off-campus, and (b) commuted to campus.

RTH

RTH was measured via a 12-item validated scale (Banyard et al., 2014). Each question was measured on a 1- to 5-point agreement scale with 1 = Not at All True and 5 = Very Much True. The RTH scale has three subscales. (a) No Awareness: this subscale demonstrates students’ lack of awareness of sexual violence on campus (α =.62). An example item is, “There isn’t much need for me to think about sexual violence at the University.” (b) Taking Responsibility: this subscale establishes whether students are taking some measure of responsibility for sexual violence through statements such as, “I think I can do something about sexual violence” (α =.69). And (c) Action: this subscale indicates if students are acting on the issue of sexual violence (α =.88). An example statement reads, “I have been or am currently involved in ongoing efforts to end sexual violence.”

Sense of community

Sense of Community was measured through an eight-item scale measuring connection to the university (α = .93). This scale included statements such as, “I feel like a member of this campus community.” Students rated these statements from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree. For this study, a validated Sense of Community scale (Peterson et al., 2008) was adapted for the university environment.

Awareness of resources

Awareness of Resources was measured through a list of nine campus and community resources for sexual violence. Students rated their awareness of these resources from 1 = Not at All Aware to 5 = Extremely Aware. Resources listed on the scale included the campus health center, campus police, community sexual violence services, Title IX office, and so on. A mean Awareness of Resources score was calculated across all the items, with higher scores indicating greater awareness of resources. This scale was created for the purpose of this study to highlight resources particular to the campus under study.

Analysis Strategy

Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to determine whether commuter status, Awareness of Resources, and Sense of Community predicted RTH subscales and whether the impact of commuter status on RTH was mediated by Awareness of Resources and Sense of Community. AMOS 25 (Arbuckle, 2007) was used for analysis. After running the first model, based on the modification indices, several residual terms were correlated with each other (see Figure 1) to improve model fit. In assessing model fit, the following fit indices were used: chi-square (χ²), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) (Steiger, 1990) with 90% confidence interval, the incremental fit index (IFI) (Bollen, 1989), Tucker Lewis index (TFI) (Tucker & Lewis, 1973), and the comparative fit index (CFI) (Bentler, 1990).

Results

Model Fit

The tested model (see Figure 1) fit the data well based on the fit indices examined. First, a nonsignificant chi-square, χ²(1) =2.47, p=.12, indicates a good model fit for this study. The RMSEA value was less than .05; RMSEA = .03 (90% confidence interval = [0.00, 0.09]) indicating a good fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1992). The other fit indices likewise demonstrate that the data fit the model well with values above .95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Vandenberg & Lance, 2016): IFI = 1.00, TL1 .97, and CFI = 1.00.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Table 1 shows the means or percentages, standard deviations, and correlations between all variables included in this study: commuter status, Sense of Community, Awareness of Resources, RTH No Awareness, RTH Taking Responsibility, and RTH Action. A significant but weak negative correlation was found between commuter status and Sense of Community (r = −.06), Awareness of Resources (r = −.11), and RTH Taking Responsibility (r = −.10), while a moderate negative correlation was found between commuter status and RTH Action (r = −.22).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Between Commuter Status, Sense of Community, Awareness of Resources, and RTH.

Variables	Commuter	Sense of community	Awareness of resources	RTH No Awareness	RTH Taking Responsibility	RTH Action
Commuter	—
Sense of community	−.06*	—
Awareness of resources	−.11**	.25**	—
RTH No Awareness	0.04	−.11**	−0.04	—
RTH Taking Responsibility	−.10**	.26**	.19**	−.27**	—
RTH Action	−.22**	.18**	.35**	0.10	.34**	—
M or %	79%	3.55	2.55	2.49	3.25	2.02
SD		.76	.94	.65	.81	.85

Note. RTH = Readiness to Help.

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

Research Question 1

The first research question asked whether commuter status predicts level of RTH in an incident of sexual violence. The SEM model indicates that for two of the three RTH subscales, commuter status predicted students’ RTH with a negative relationship (see Figure 1 and Table 2). Specifically, commuter status predicted lower scores on the RTH Action subscale (β = –.18, p > .001) and the RTH Taking Responsibility subscale (β = –.07, p > .05) but not on the RTH No Awareness subscale (β = .03, p = .29), although this path was in the expected direction such that commuter status increased RTH No Awareness. For both RTH subscales that indicate greater involvement on the issues of sexual violence (Action and Taking Responsibility), commuter status decreased RTH.

Table 2.

Relationship Between Commuter Status, Awareness of Resources, Sense of Community, and RTH.

			Unstandardized β	Standardized β	SE	p
Sense of community	<---	Commuter status	−0.10	−0.06	0.05	*
Awareness of resources	<---	Commuter status	−0.27	−0.12	0.06	***
RTH No Awareness	<---	Awareness of resources	−0.01	−0.01	0.19	.75
RTH Taking Responsibility	<---	Awareness of resources	0.12	0.12	0.02	***
RTH A ction	<---	Awareness of resources	0.10	0.31	0.02	***
RTH Action	<---	Sense of community	0.11	0.09	0.03	***
RTH Taking Responsibility	<---	Sense of community	0.24	0.22	0.03	***
RTH No Awareness	<---	Sense of community	−0.09	−0.11	0.03	***
RTH No Awareness	<---	Commuter status	0.05	0.03	0.04	.29
RTH Action	<---	Commuter status	−0.37	−0.18	0.05	***
RTH Taking Responsibility	<---	Commuter status	−0.15	−0.07	0.05	**

Note. RTH = Readiness to Help.

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

Research Questions 2 and 3

The second and third research questions addressed Awareness of Resources and Sense of Community and if these constructs predict RTH and mediate the relationship between commuter status and RTH. Awareness of Resources was found to predict two of the three RTH subscales, namely Taking Responsibility (β = .12, p > .001) and Action (β = .31, p > .001), while Sense of Community predicted all three RTH subscales (see Table 2). For all of these pathways, the significant relationships were in the expected direction such that Awareness of Resources and Sense of Community increased RTH Action and Taking Responsibility, while Sense of Community also decreased RTH No Awareness. As these two variables predicted RTH along with commuter status, the results indicate that Awareness of Resources and Sense of Community partially mediated the relationship between commuter status and RTH.

Discussion

While no prior studies, to our knowledge, have examined commuter student status on RTH or awareness of resources for sexual violence, such research can guide efforts to engage commuter students; these students might be targeted with prevention programming seeking to raise awareness of campus resources and increase students’ RTH in incidents of sexual violence. This study indicates that commuter students are less ready to help in incidents of sexual violence and feel less of a sense of responsibility to participate in community prevention efforts (Research Question 1). In addition, both Awareness of Resources for sexual violence and Sense of Community partially mediated this relationship, indicating that as students’ Awareness of Resources and Sense of Community increase, so does their RTH (Research Questions 2 and 3).

While overall the model put forth in this study was confirmed, not all paths on the model were significant. Awareness of Resources and commuter status did not predict the lowest stage of the RTH Scale (No Awareness); however, it is associated with the higher RTH stages of Taking Responsibility and Action. Moreover, the paths with the largest magnitude were between Awareness of Resources, Sense of Community, and RTH (Action and Taking Responsibility subscales), perhaps indicating that awareness of campus resources and sense of community are important for all students’ RTH in incidents of sexual violence, not just commuters. The findings regarding this relationship are aligned with other research that maintains that community connection is a critical protective factor for sexual violence, as it engenders a sense of responsibility and can lead to a greater willingness to intervene in prosocial ways to disrupt situations leading to sexual violence (Banyard, 2015; Bennett et al., 2014; Burn, 2009; Sulkowski, 2011). Further inquiry is needed, however, to better understand ways to strengthen students’ sense of connection and community, for both non-commuter and commuter students.

Implications

As students increasingly take classes online and live at home, they will not have access to prevention programming that is offered solely on campuses. Many institutions of higher education are turning to online sexual violence prevention programming. While these online programs are cost-effective, not all are created equal in terms of curriculum and quality; and not all have demonstrated effectiveness across all prevention indicators (O’Brien et al., 2021; Zapp et al., 2021). However, these programs may create a unique opportunity to help equalize the playing field when it comes to educating commuter students on resources for sexual violence and working to increase RTH in incidents of sexual violence. To our knowledge, no research has specifically examined the effectiveness of online sexual violence programming upon commuter students, but limited research demonstrates the positive impact of participating in online-bystander education programs (Jouriles et al., 2016, 2018; Kleinsasser et al., 2015). This preliminary evidence suggests that online trainings may provide necessary prevention education for commuter students. Further research is needed to understand how commuter students respond to and engage with this type of online training.

Another implication suggested from these findings involves the types of sexual violence programming commuter students might need. As commuter students have lower Sense of Community, Awareness of Resources, and RTH, they may need additional or specialized training to increase their engagement on campus and with sexual violence prevention. Studies have suggested that prevention efforts should be tailored to meet unique commuter students’ needs (Casey et al., 2019; Donne et al., 2019; Tsui & Santamaria, 2015). Furthermore, Donne and coauthors (2019) suggest that prevention efforts must address the intersecting identities that commuter students inhabit. One approach might be the use of “passive programming” such as posters and flyers to provide information to students while they are on campus, even if for a short time, without attending a program. Evidence suggests that social norm campaigns around sexual violence, including promoting prosocial attitudes and bystander interventions, can be effective in changing students’ norms through such passive means (Mennicke et al., 2021; Potter et al., 2009). The findings from the current study also suggest that Awareness of Resources and Sense of Community are important predictors of RTH, particularly the subscales that measure higher levels of engagement (Taking Responsibility and Action), indicating that these constructs are key to students’ RTH. Thus, it is important that institutions of higher education focus not only on sexual violence prevention programming but also on increasing students’ sense of belonging within their campus, both for students who commute and those who do not, and work to ensure that all students are aware of resources for sexual violence response and prevention.

Limitations

While the results of this study point to important areas to consider in campus sexual violence prevention efforts, this study is not without limitations. First, the results are only indicative of the single university where data were collected, limiting our understanding of commuter students at other institutions. Likewise, the measures used in this study are self-reported and do not reflect actual behaviors in the real world. This is especially true for the subscales of the RTH scale which may be somewhat reflective of students’ desire to present themselves in a good light as compared with actions they have performed. Likewise, RTH is the outcome of this study and it is hypothesized to ultimately lead to prosocial bystander behaviors (Banyard et al., 2010); but without measuring bystander behaviors, the conclusions from this study can only be applied to RTH. We cannot assume that increased RTH would result in increased prosocial bystander behaviors, although other scholars have demonstrated RTH is a moderator for bystander behavior within a university setting (Moynihan et al., 2015) and is associated with past bystander behaviors (Hoxmeier et al., 2018). Further research is needed to extend our conceptual model to include the critical outcome of bystander behaviors. Finally, an assumption of this study is that ultimately bystander interventions will lead to reduced campus sexual violence and while some studies have demonstrated this association (e.g., Coker et al., 2015), further rigorous studies are needed to understand their impact (DeGue et al., 2014). In addition, bystander intervention should be regarded as only one part of a comprehensive approach to prevention that includes institutional responsibilities, such as having proper policies and resources in place (Banyard, 2015; McMahon, 2015). While prevention efforts are important, it is also essential for campuses to ensure that they have mechanisms in place to respond in supportive and effective ways to sexual violence that occurs to mitigate its impact (McMahon et al., 2018). This includes the provision of services tailored for commuter students who may experience sexual violence, which might include offering appointments for clinical support, advocacy, and reporting in the evening or even virtually to accommodate their schedules.

Next, while the model tested within this study was largely confirmed, the magnitude of the paths explored was small. This indicates that although commuter status, Awareness of Resources, and Sense of Community are significantly associated with RTH, other variables should be considered in future research in relation to RTH. In addition, the measurement of commuter student status within this study (and others) is overly broad. This study did not distinguish between students who live near campus and those who commute from much farther distances and live in other types of communities. This distinction may be important in understanding factors that impact students’ lives, engagement within their community, and RTH. For example, students who live near campus and socialize daily within the campus community, even while not directly living on-campus, may differ from students who live at home with their family and commute to campus only once a week. Further research is needed to better understand differing typologies of commuter students, their unique needs, and engagement in sexual violence prevention on their campus and the communities in which they live.

Conclusions

This study indicates that commuter student status, Awareness of Resources, and Sense of Community affect students’ RTH in incidents of sexual violence. These findings suggest important factors to be considered when designing and implementing campus sexual violence prevention programming, including understanding students’ involvement and connection to their campus as well as baseline awareness of resources for sexual violence incidents. By enhancing sense of community and awareness of resources for all students, campuses can enhance students’ readiness to help their peers if they experience an incident of sexual violence.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Jennifer Perillo for her editing assistance.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iDs

Julia O’Connor

Sarah McMahon

Author Biographies

Julia O’Connor, PhD, MSW, MPH, is an Assistant Professor at the University of Central Florida in the School of Social Work with a secondary appointment in the Department of Population Health Sciences and a member of the Violence Against Women faculty cluster. Her practice experience includes many years as a domestic and sexual violence advocate. Her research interests center on violence against women, namely, primary prevention and perpetration.

Sarah McMahon, MSW, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor at the Rutgers University School of Social Work and Chancellor’s Scholar for Violence Prevention. She also serves as the Director for the School’s Center on Violence Against Women and Children, and Special Adviser on Campus Climate to the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs. Her research focuses on using ecological, social-justice–based frameworks to examine the prevention of interpersonal violence, as well as mechanisms for engaging individuals, communities, and institutions in social change. Her work also explores the ways in which participatory, collaborative processes can enhance the translation of research to practice in community settings.

References

Abbey

(2002). Alcohol-related sexual assault: A common problem among college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63(Suppl. 14), 118–128.

Alfano

H. J.

Eduljee

N. B.

(2013). Differences in work, levels of involvement, and academic performance between residential and commuter students. College Student Journal, 47, 334–342.

Arbuckle

J. L.

(2007). Amos (Version 7.0) [Computer program]. SPSS.

Armstrong

E. A.

Hamilton

Sweeney

(2006). Sexual assault on campus: A multilevel, integrative approach to party rape. Social Problems, 53(4), 483–499.

Banyard

V. L.

(2008). Measurement and correlates of prosocial bystander behavior: The case of interpersonal violence. Violence and Victims, 23(1), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.23.1.83

Banyard

V. L.

(2014). Improving college campus–based prevention of violence against women: A strategic plan for research built on multipronged practices and policies. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15(4), 339–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014521027

Banyard

V. L.

(2015). Toward the next generation of bystander prevention of sexual and relationship violence: Action coils to engage communities. Springer International. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23171-6

Banyard

V. L.

Eckstein

R. P.

Moynihan

M. M.

(2010). Sexual violence prevention the role of stages of change. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(1), 111–135.

Banyard

V. L.

Moynihan

M. M.

Cares

A. C.

Warner

(2014). How do we know if it works? Measuring outcomes in bystander-focused abuse prevention on campuses. Psychology of Violence, 4(1), 101–115.

10.

Banyard

V. L.

Ward

Cohn

Plante

Moorhead

Walsh

(2007). Unwanted sexual contact on campus: A comparison of women’s and men’s experiences. Violence and Victims, 22, 52–70. https://doi.org/10.1891/088667007780482865

11.

Bennett

Banyard

V. L.

Garnhart

(2014). To act or not to act, that is the question? Barriers and facilitators of bystander intervention. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(3), 476–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513505210

12.

Bentler

P. M.

(1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238

13.

Bollen

K. A.

(1989). Wiley series in probability and mathematical statistics. Applied probability and statistics section: Structural equations with latent variables (p. 514). John Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118619179

14.

Breitenbecher

K. H.

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

15.

Browne

M. W.

Cudeck

(1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21, 230–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005

16.

Buote

Pancer

Pratt

Adams

Birnie-Lefcovitch

Polivy

Wintre

(2007). The importance of friends: Friendship and adjustment among 1st-year university students. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22, 665–689. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558407306344

17.

Burn

S. M.

(2009). A situational model of sexual assault prevention through bystander intervention. Sex Roles, 60(11-12), 779–792. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9581-5

18.

The Campus Sexual Violence Elimination (SaVE) Act, S. 834. (2019). https://clerycenter.org/policy-resources/

19.

Cantor

Fisher

Chibnall

Townsend

Lee

Bruce

Thomas

(2015). Report on the AAU campus climate survey on sexual assault and sexual misconduct. https://www.aau.edu/uploadedFiles/AAU_Publications/AAU_Reports/Sexual_Assault_Campus_Survey/AAU_Campus_Climate_Survey_12_14_15.pdf

20.

Cares

A. C.

Banyard

V. L.

Moynihan

M. M.

Williams

L. M.

Potter

S. J.

Stapleton

J. G.

(2015). Changing attitudes about being a bystander to violence: Translating an in-person sexual violence prevention program to a new campus. Violence Against Women, 21(2), 165–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214564681

21.

Casey

E. A.

Hampson

S. C.

Ackerman

A. R.

(2019). Sexual and relationship violence prevention and response: What drives the commuter campus student experience? Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519888188

22.

Christensen

M. C.

Harris

R. J.

(2019). Correlates of bystander readiness to help among a diverse college student population: An intersectional perspective. Research in Higher Education, 60, 1195–1226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-018-09544-6

23.

Coker

A. L.

Fisher

B. S.

Bush

H. M.

Swan

S. C.

Williams

C. M.

Clear

E. R.

DeGue

(2015). Evaluation of the green dot bystander intervention to reduce interpersonal violence among college students across three campuses. Violence Against Women, 21(12), 1507–1527. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214545284

24.

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.05.004

25.

Donne

M. D.

DeLaCruz

Khan

Diaz

Salcedo

English

, et al. (2019). Urban commuter campus students’ perspectives on sexual violence: Implications for response and prevention. Journal of Urban Health, 97, 137–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-019-00361-5

26.

Ehlke

S. J.

Kelley

M. L.

Braitman

A. L.

(2021). Weekly drinking and binge drinking mediate the association between drinking location and sexual coercion. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(19–20), NP10843–NP10862. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519879239

27.

Fedina

Holmes

J. L.

Backes

B. L.

(2016). Campus sexual assault: A systematic review of prevalence research from 2000 to 2015. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 19, 76–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838016631129

28.

Hayes-Smith

R. M.

Levett

L. M.

(2010). Student perceptions of sexual assault resources and prevalence of rape myth attitudes. Feminist Criminology, 5(4), 335–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085110387581

29.

Holloway-Friesen

(2018). On the road home: A content analysis of commuters’ sense of belonging. College Student Affairs Journal, 36(2), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1353/csj.2018.0017

30.

Horn

Nevill

Griffith

(2006). Profile of undergraduates in U.S. postsecondary education institutions, 2003–04: With a special analysis of community college students (Statistical Analysis Report, NCES 2006-184). National Center for Education Statistics.

31.

Howard

R. M.

Potter

S. J.

Guedj

C. E.

Moynihan

M. M.

(2019). Sexual violence victimization among community college students. Journal of American College Health, 67(7), 674–687. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2018.1500474

32.

Hoxmeier

J. C.

O’Connor

McMahon

(2018). Readiness to help: How students’ sexual assault awareness, responsibility, and action correlate with bystander intervention behavior. Violence and Gender, 5, 233–240. https://doi.org/10.1089/vio.2017.0054

33.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/1080/10705519909540118

34.

Jacoby

Garland

(2004). Strategies for enhancing commuter student success. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 6(1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.2190/567C-5TME-Q8F4-8FRG

35.

Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act of 1990, 20 U.S.C. §1092(f) Cong. Rec. (2018).

36.

Jordan

C. E.

Combs

J. L.

Smith

G. T.

(2014). An exploration of sexual victimization and academic performance among college women. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 15(3), 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014520637

37.

Jouriles

E. N.

Krauss

N. L.

Banyard

V. L.

McDonald

(2018). Bystander programs addressing sexual violence on college campuses: A systematic review and meta-analysis of program outcomes and delivery methods. Journal of American College Health, 66(6), 457–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2018.1431906

38.

Jouriles

E. N.

McDonald

Rosenfield

Levy

Sargent

Caiozzo

Grych

J. H.

(2016). TakeCARE, a video bystander program to help prevent sexual violence on college campuses: Results of two randomized, controlled trials. Psychology of Violence, 6(3), 410–420. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000016

39.

Kirk

C. M.

Lewis

R. K.

(2015). Sense of community on an urban, commuter campus. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 20(1), 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2013.763833

40.

Kleinsasser

Jouriles

E. N.

McDonald

Rosenfield

(2015). An online bystander intervention program for the prevention of sexual violence. Psychology of Violence, 5(3), 227–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037393

41.

Koss

M. P.

Gidycz

C. A.

Wisniewski

(1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55(2), 162–170. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3494755

42.

Krebs

C. P.

Lindquist

Berzofsky

Shook-Sa

B. E.

Peterson

Planty

M. G.

Langton

Stroop

(2016). Campus climate survey validation study final technical report. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/understanding-campus-climate-survey-validation-study-final-technical-report

43.

Lin

C. A.

Harris

Lagoe

(2014). Formative research on identifying and promoting responsible party-hosting skills among college students. Journal of Communication in Healthcare, 7(4), 272–284.

44.

Lippy

DeGue

(2016). Exploring alcohol policy approaches to prevent sexual violence perpetration. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 17(1), 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014557291

45.

McMahon

(2015). Call for research on bystander intervention to prevent sexual violence: The role of campus environments. American Journal of Community Psychology, 55(3–4), 472–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-015-9724-0

46.

McMahon

Steiner

J. J.

Snyder

Banyard

V. L.

(2021). Comprehensive prevention of campus sexual violence: Expanding who is invited to the table. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22(4), 843–855. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838019883275

47.

McMahon

Wood

Cusano

Macri

L. M.

(2018). Campus sexual assault: Future directions for research. Sexual Abuse, 31(3), 270–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063217750864

48.

Melendez

M. C.

(2016). Adjustment to college in an urban commuter setting: The impact of gender, race/ethnicity, and athletic participation. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 18(1), 31–48.

49.

Mengo

Black

B. M.

(2016). Violence victimization on a college campus: Impact on GPA and school dropout. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 18(2), 234–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025115584750

50.

Mennicke

Kennedy

S. C.

Gromer

Klem-O’Connor

(2021). Evaluation of a social norms sexual violence prevention marketing campaign targeted toward college men: Attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors over 5 years. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(7–8), NP3999–NP4021. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518780411

51.

Minow

J. C.

Einolf

C. J.

(2009). Sorority participation and sexual assault risk. Violence Against Women, 15(7), 835–851.

52.

Moynihan

M. M.

Banyard

V. L.

Cares

A. C.

Potter

S. J.

Williams

L. M.

Stapleton

J. G.

(2015). Encouraging responses in sexual and relationship violence prevention: What program effects remain 1 year later? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(1), 110–132.

53.

Murnen

S. K.

Kohlman

M. H.

(2007). Athletic participation, fraternity membership, and sexual aggression among college men: A meta-analytic review. Sex Roles, 57(1–2), 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9225-1

54.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Profile of undergraduate students: Attendance, distance and remedial education, degree programs and field of study, demographics, financial aid, financial literacy, employments, and military status: 2015-16. U.S. Department of Education.

55.

National Survey of Student Engagement. (2011). Fostering student engagement campus wide—Annual results 2011. Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED527089

56.

Newbold

J. J.

Mehta

S. S.

Forbus

(2011). Commuter students: Involvement and identification with an institution of higher education. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 15(2), 141–153.

57.

O’Brien

K. M.

Sauber

E. W.

Kearney

M. S.

Venaglia

R. B.

Lemay

E. P.

(2021). Evaluating the effectiveness of an online intervention to educate college students about dating violence and bystander responses. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(2), 206–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519829769

58.

Orchowski

L. M.

Edwards

K. M.

Hollander

J. A.

Banyard

V. L.

Senn

C. Y.

Gidycz

C. A.

(2018). Integrating sexual assault resistance, bystander, and men’s social norms strategies to prevent sexual violence on college campuses: A call to action. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21, 811–827. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018789153

59.

Peter-Hagene

L. C.

Ullman

S. E.

(2016). Longitudinal effects of sexual assault victims’ drinking and self-blame on posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33, 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516636394

60.

Peterson

N. A.

Speer

P. W.

McMillan

D. W.

(2008). Validation of a Brief Sense of Community Scale: Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology, 36(1), 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20217

61.

Potter

S. J.

Moynihan

M. M.

Stapleton

J. G.

Banyard

V. L.

(2009). Empowering bystanders to prevent campus violence against women: A preliminary evaluation of a poster campaign. Violence Against Women, 15(1), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801208327482

62.

Prochaska

J. O.

DiClemente

C. C.

(1983). Stages and processes of self-change in smokers: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 390–395.

63.

Prochaska

J. O.

DiClemente

C. C.

(1984). The transtheoretical approach: Crossing traditional boundaries of change. Dorsey.

64.

Sabina

L. Y.

(2014). Campus and college victim responses to sexual assault and dating violence: Disclosure, service utilization, and service provision. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15(3), 201–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014521322

65.

Sanday

P. R.

(1990). Fraternity gang rape: Sex, brotherhood, and privilege on campus. New York University Press.

66.

Schwartz

M. D.

DeKeseredy

W. S.

(1997). Sexual assault on the college campus: The role of male peer support. Sage.

67.

Senn

C. Y.

Eliasziw

Hobden

K. L.

Newby-Clark

I. R.

Barata

P. C.

Radtke

H. L.

Thurston

W. E.

(2017). Secondary and 2-year outcomes of a sexual assault resistance program for university women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41(2), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684317690119

68.

Steiger

J. H.

(1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4

69.

Stotzer

R. L.

MacCartney

(2015). The role of institutional factors on on-campus reported rape prevalence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(16), 2687–2707. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515580367

70.

Sulkowski

M. L.

(2011). An investigation of students’ willingness to report threats of violence in campus communities. Psychology of Violence, 1(1), 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021592.supp

71.

Tharp

A. T.

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838012470031

72.

Tredinnick

McMahon

(2019). College coaches’ influence on student-athlete engagement in sexual violence prevention: Promoting readiness to help and awareness of campus resources. Sport in Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2019.1624723

73.

Tsui

E. K.

Santamaria

E. K.

(2015). Intimate partner violence risk among undergraduate women from an urban commuter college: The role of navigating off- and on-campus social environments. Journal of Urban Health, 92(3), 513–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-014-9933-0

74.

Tucker

L. R.

Lewis

(1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291170

75.

Ullman

S. E.

(2004). Sexual assault victimization and suicidal behavior in women: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9(4), 331–351.

76.

U.S. Department of Education. (2011). Dear colleague letter. https://www2.ed.gov/print/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.html

77.

Vandenberg

R. J.

Lance

C. E.

(2016). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002

78.

Walsh

W. A.

Banyard

V. L.

Moynihan

M. M.

Ward

Cohn

E. S.

(2010). Disclosure and service use on a college campus after an unwanted sexual experience. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 11(2), 134–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299730903502912

79.

Weiss

K. G.

Dilks

L. M.

(2016). Intoxication and crime risk: Contextualizing the effects of “party” routines on recurrent physical and sexual attacks among college students. Criminal Justice Review, 41, 173–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016816634784

80.

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.

81.

Zapp

Buelow

Soutiea

Berkowitz

DeJong

(2021). Exploring the potential campus-level impact of online universal sexual assault prevention education. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(5–6), NP2324–NP2345. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518762449