Campus Sexual Assault: A Qualitative Review and Meta-Synthesis of Students’ Experiences of Campus Prevention Initiatives

Dichotomous Perceptions of SV Initiatives

Students had mixed experiences regarding SV programs and services to prevent SV on campus. While many of the studies identified student perceptions of shortcomings in existing programs and services, some praised the university for bringing attention to the issue of SV and taking prevention efforts seriously. Participants who valued university initiatives indicated that learning about SV assisted them in recognizing and reporting sexual victimization and accessing resources (Voth Schrag et al., 2024). For example, an Asian heterosexual female participant who attended mandatory online sexual assault education stated, “I’m glad they finally implemented a mandatory thing like this that covers [sexual assault]. . . I feel like this program will make students realize how serious this issue really is” (Worthen & Wallace, 2017). Another participant who was a white undergraduate woman survivor of SV commended the university for their mandatory online sexual assault education program, “As someone who has been a victim of past sexual misconduct, I was happy to see that attention was being brought to the issue” (Worthen et al., 2021). Overall, students appreciated prevention programs that were both relatable and realistic (Christensen, 2014), thereby providing students with increased opportunities to intervene in potentially unsafe situations. One undergraduate Native American woman expressed the value she attributed to a university initiative by stating, “I have a friend who thinks she might have been raped at a party because she was taken advantage of while drunk. The program helped me realize that she was assaulted” (Worthen & Wallace, 2021). The outcomes that participants attributed to the learning demonstrate students’ perceived value of SV prevention programming on campus.

In contrast to the positive attributes of university SV initiatives, many participants expressed dissatisfaction with the programs and services. Some students disclosed that programming perpetuates rape myths such as “all perpetrators are men” and that perpetrators of sexual assault are “strangers.” These narrow perceptions of sexual assault did not reflect participant’s realities. In a study with women of color, one participant stated,

I don’t remember any space in terms of classroom or educational, institutionalized space where they talk about, oh, okay, what if it happens from someone you love, someone like a partner, domestic partner kind of thing. It was always talked about like, some random stranger is going to come for you. Not that that doesn’t happen, but I think it’s more often the case, these people who are in your life, like your close network kind of thing, how do you deal with that? (Karunaratne & Harris, 2022)

Given that participants’ experiences with SV often included a partner or acquaintance, the education was lacking in relatable content.

Most university communities include student representation from diverse groups inclusive of race, sexuality, gender, ability, and various backgrounds and experiences. However, many participants noted that the campus SV programming neglected the needs of the diverse student body. This led to decreased student comfort, and they perceived programming as less reflective of their identities and therefore ineffective. A male undergraduate student who attended an SV bystander program expressed the intersectional issues for black males, “All the time, every time; black men can never be the victim, they are always the aggressor. They can be tied up, bound up within an inch of their life and somehow, they’re still wrong” (Hammock et al., 2022). The perceptions identified by this participant reflect some of the challenges for black men to intervene when there is a risk of SV. They expressed that existing programming failed to address the negative current and historical perceptions of black men from society and the police, making intervention in SV risk scenarios personally dangerous. Overall, some diverse participants whose identities are not represented in campus programs and services may disengage or disconnect from the initiatives. Thus, students spoke of the need for diverse representation in campus services:

I think more counselors, a diverse set of counselors, is really important. I just don’t feel comfortable telling a white woman my problems. There is only white and Black—just get more diversity and have options for people so they can feel comfortable with someone who may look like them (undergraduate student). (Bloom et al., 2022)

In addition to diverse programs and services, participants also expressed the importance of campus-based initiatives that are realistic to student’s realities and are less absolute in their approach. For instance, some campus messaging included statements about the inability of someone to consent to sex while they were consuming alcohol. As the use of alcohol is a part of campus culture, students expressed that this is too “black and white,” and a harm-reduction approach is preferred. For example, a student with a disability disclosed their perception of alcohol and SV prevention programming on campus:

Everything felt way too absolute. I’m not necessarily in the agreement that, if someone has been drinking, they can’t consent to sex. I don’t think that that makes that much sense. I think it depends on the context. When a statement that’s just like, no, this is always wrong is made, if I don’t agree with it, it makes the whole thing less effective (Chugani et al., 2021)

Similarly, a student expressed the unrealistic messaging around consent, “The program effectively made men feel as though there is no way to ascertain consent without a notary present and a signed consent form” (Worthen et al., 2017). Participants called for a harm-reduction approach in campus SV initiatives that focus on safety in a realistic university context.

Participants also spoke about flipping the script with less focus on “not getting sexually assaulted” to a focus on “how not to sexually assault someone.” They also recommended developing comprehensive programming that explores healthy sexuality, and healthy relationships alongside issues of consent, bystander intervention, and a broad focus on sexual health and life skills, “I think our programs spend so much time telling people what sex shouldn’t look like. I think it would help if we discussed what sex should look like. Sex should hit these three boxes: was it enjoyable, mutual, and consensual” (woman, 21 years old) (Hubach et al., 2019). Finally, students disclosed that for content to be taken seriously, programming delivered by their peers (Greek life, athletes, etc.) would increase the relevance and “break down barriers” to receiving the message and accessing services.

Need for Enhanced Awareness

Despite an abundance of SV programs and services available on campuses, there was a general lack of awareness among students of existing initiatives to prevent SV and support sexual assault survivors. In an Australian study that evaluated an online SV prevention and response initiative, half of the students who participated in the study were unaware that a module existed on campus until they saw the poster advertising the research opportunity (Heard et al., 2024). Furthermore, once they became aware of the module, they found it difficult to access it on the university’s system. Similarly, in another study that evaluated US college students’ perceptions of mandatory reporting policies for sexual assault, only 10% of research participants could correctly identify and provide details of the existing policy (Holland et al., 2021) suggesting that there is a general lack of awareness of services on campus. These findings are consistent with findings from Marques et al. (2020) who indicated that 11/15 students were unaware of their university’s policies and procedures. Across various studies, students made statements such as “the services are very limited” or “I don’t know” or “gosh, I’d have to google it” when discussing their awareness of existing campus-based SV prevention programs and services. One female participant articulated the lack of awareness of their campus’s initiatives in SV, “I actually don’t know anything about it. . .I don’t know [how] the procedure works or what they do, or the help number. . .I don’t know how they handle it. . .how they run things. . .I don’t know anything about your policies” (Marques et al., 2020). Some students suggested that there is so much information given at once when they first attend college, that it is difficult to remember everything, while others simply stated that they genuinely did not know any campus-based SV initiatives existed.

Despite the overall lack of awareness, some participants appeared to know that programs and services existed on campus, but they lacked knowledge of the details of services. Incidentally, one female participant stated that their awareness is perceived rather than based on actual acquired knowledge, “I don’t know about it. I know there is something in place just because I assume. . .but I don’t know the exact details” (Holland et al., 2021). Students provided several suggestions for increasing awareness of campus-based programs and services including an increased social media presence, utilizing University learning services, and advertising through online outlets. A student (Charli) highlighted the existing outlets for raising awareness “a bigger social media presence would be a good thing, because you know [the University] has such a big [online] presence and it has like a few thousand followers” (Irvine-Collins et al., 2023). Participants in other studies also expressed the benefits of increasing awareness through social media, but they also promoted the use of courses (lectures), events, billboards, and posters to increase awareness of existing programs and services. In a study that explored student’s perceptions of a marketing campaign for the prevention of SV on campus, one focus group participant indicated that the campaign’s visibility and messaging, “increased my likelihood to refer someone [to campus support services]” (Irvine-Collins et al., 2023).

Modality Matters

Participants across the various studies had mixed feelings about the modality of delivery of SV prevention initiatives within the college/university. While some found the delivery of campus-based programming to be engaging, others described it as ineffective and constraining. Ultimately, despite mixed reviews, it was apparent that the modality of prevention initiatives was important to students and either enhanced or inhibited their level of engagement and learning.

In-person campus-based initiatives received mixed reviews from students. Some participants spoke of the constraining format of in-person programming, indicating that programming is often presented to large groups of students, thereby inhibiting participation and student’s ability to pose questions and clarify content. One South Asian female student described their dissatisfaction with the way the program was delivered, “it was so many people, I didn’t feel safe enough to react to what was going on, to process or to ask questions” (Karunaratne & Harris, 2022). Another student (male) felt that “a person is way more apt to pay attention when they have people presenting in front of them, rather than when they’re just sitting in front of a computer” (Philyaw-Kotov et al., 2023). Students also found in-person prevention programming to be superficial, and lacking attention to the identities and needs of a diverse student body, “all of the [actors in the videos] were white. All of them were heterosexual. And [they] spoke in a way that assumed everyone was just like them” (Erika, Indian woman) (Karunaratne & Harris, 2022). These barriers prevented students from fully engaging in the content as it did not reflect their realities. Other students noted that their failure to attend campus SV prevention programming was related to a sense of shame due to the social stigma of attending, and their priority of maintaining friendships or maintaining their masculine image. For example, Graham et al. (2021) conducted focus groups or individual interviews with students who attended an SV prevention workshop or those who had an opportunity to attend and did not. A female participant who did not attend the SV prevention initiative described her rationale for the decision, “You kind of don’t wanna like, I dunno, kill your chances of making friends and getting relationships by going to this kind of stuff.” As such, these in-person initiatives were deemed ineffective for some students who expressed that an open conversation that is less restrictive with a free-flowing dialogue and a small group format is preferred to the constraining nature of the program.

Though some students recounted the barriers of in-person programming, others indicated that participating in programming in person would make it easier to pay attention and focus on the content when compared to online. Participants indicated that program delivery that is co-constructed with students, engaging and realistic is preferred over the typical didactic initiatives that are common in campus settings. One student commented about the importance of engaging in programming, with a harm-reduction focus,

He’s very funny, he makes the conversation very relatable, and very casual. Not like, we’re telling you to never drink or never have sex, we’re just trying to tell you that if you’re gonna do it, we really want you to be safe about it. It’s a really nice perspective, cause obviously these things happen on a College campus. (Chugani et al., 2021)

Participants emphasized the value of peer-led initiatives that address holistic sexual health issues. Peer-led programming is believed to be more engaging and relevant and reflects students lived-experiences,

If other fraternity guys or sorority girls came to us as members of the Greek community and said, here’s what we should be doing. Or, if its athletes, people who are athletes at the same University. . .or graduate students who have been in our shoes. That would be a lot more effective. . .I feel comfortable to speak with you all because I know we’ve had similar experiences. That shared experience helps break down barriers on campus. (male, 18 years old) (Hubach et al., 2019)

In addition to in-person programming, many campus-based initiatives occurred through online formats and had the same mixed reviews from students. Some students indicated that the benefits of online programming are the accessibility, privacy, and convenience of the modality. However, other students described the modality of program delivery as not engaging or important, and the content as “frustrating,” “dumb,” and not worth their time. A white bisexual female student who participated in a 45-slide online campus SV prevention module noted, [the program] has “valuable information presented in an ineffective medium.” Some students disclosed that mandatory online programming is perceived as simply a “check box” or “a necessary hoop to jump through” before partaking in their studies. Therefore, when left to their own devices to complete the training online, many participants did not perceive the training as an immediate need and therefore did not take it seriously. While participants urged the institutions to “deal with” sexual assault on campus, one female student stated, “sexual assault is a problem at all Colleges and I think Colleges should deal with that. Because I mean, we have online training now for everyone, but. . .is that really effective” (Hubach et al., 2019)? Ultimately, students expressed that when they are attending university and leaving their family homes for the first time, they have other, more pressing issues on their minds that take priority for them. They suggested that campus programs should consider a “life skills course” during orientation week that includes diverse topics that are beneficial for starting a new chapter of their life but also includes issues of sexual assault,

I know there was some sort of course when we were a freshman that teaches you how to take notes and stuff and that doesn’t make any sense to me why there is a course on how to take notes and there isn’t one on, “your life is about to be completely different, you aren’t living at home anymore. This is a part of adulthood and part of adulthood is you having a voice and saying yes and no”; like a life skills course but have a large portion of it be sexual assault based (Charlie, graduate student). (Acquaviva et al., 2023)

Intended and Unintended Outcomes

Many participants who attended campus-based programs expressed positive outcomes from the training. This included an increased awareness of SV, which precipitated greater self-reflection of issues such as the language they use, or the assumptions they make about rape. For example, a female student (South Africa) who attended an SV risk reduction and self-defense program, expressed a change in their attitudes toward sexual assault following completion of the program, “Before coming here [workshop] I thought that women are raped because of how they dress, now I know, that is not the case” (Mahlangu et al., 2022). Another participant stated, “I learned that I retain misinformation and attitudes about rape that I need to work to fix” (McMahon et al., 2021). The programs helped students to self-evaluate their values, morals, and beliefs related to SV and fostered a sense of empathy. A participant who attended a theater-based bystander intervention program reflected on changes in their beliefs and views following completion of the program:

I try not to use the words “bitch” or “slut.” In terms of criticizing other people, I try not to think a girl is a slut because she’s dressed provocatively—it’s her right to dress however she wants, and it doesn’t necessarily mean she acts a certain way because of it. (McMahon et al., 2021)

In addition to changed attitudes, participants were empowered to act in situations of SV following the completion of the campus-based program. These actions included such things as intervening when they perceived someone was at risk of sexual assault, effectively using assertive communication regarding sex in intimate relationships, and utilizing physical and verbal resistance strategies when they were at risk of victimization. They became more vigilant to the risks of sexual assault and developed more confidence in creating boundaries, using physical self-defense, and becoming pro-social bystanders who intervene rather than ignore (Machisa et al., 2022). A male undergraduate student who completed bystander intervention programming on campus explained his intention to intervene when risks of SV were perceived, “We have people in our house, people we don’t know and they’re creeps. I spend half my night distracting and all that. Just to protect girls, we do that. That’s what we do whenever we throw parties” (Hammock et al., 2022). Another student who completed bystander intervention programming at a different College stated, “I try to keep my eyes peeled for any suspicious behavior going on to ensure that rape does not occur.” Not only did students feel empowered to intervene when others were potentially at risk of SV, but they also turned this learning inward and committed to participation in campus-based violence prevention initiatives to demonstrate their support and commitment to the importance of SV within the campus community.

Despite the positive gains following prevention programming, some student survivors who participated in the programming disclosed that the SV prevention programming was harmful. These students experienced flashbacks or intense memories of the assault and found the programming to be insensitive and triggering. One bisexual female survivor of SV stated,

I am a former sexual assault victim, . . .I began having post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms and flashbacks [during the training]. Clearly [the training] brought out some deep-seeded memories I was perfectly content in not visiting again. . . I felt. . .outrage at how useless and insensitive the training was to sexual assault victims. (Worthen et al., 2021)

In addition to programming that was harmful, many students identified mandatory sexual assault reporting through Title IX to be harmful in various ways. In several universities, sexual assault prevention services included mandatory reporting if a member of the campus community became aware that a sexual assault had occurred. Participants expressed that there was a sense of institutional betrayal when a mandatory report was made as they felt pressured to disclose when they were not ready to do so, and the institution failed to provide adequate support (Sall & Littleton, 2022). For example, a student stated, “what happened with Title IX, I would say was just as bad, if not worse, than the traumatic event itself” (Keres) (Lorenz et al., 2022). Students felt dismissed, blamed, and unsupported. Furthermore, they expressed that they experienced financial, emotional/psychological, interpersonal, and academic harm as a result of the mandatory reporting policies in effect in their university. A student expressed her dissatisfaction with the Title IX office following a sexual assault,

I spent the rest of my time in College fearing that I would run into my rapist, and they [Title IX] did literally nothing. They provided no protective measures or anything to make sure I could still continue my education. Basically, what I did was take a lot of online classes to make sure I wasn’t having to be on campus. . . I definitely didn’t get the full scope of my educational experience (Bia). (Lorenz et al., 2022)

These negative experiences led students to drop out of school, fail or fall behind in course work, lose scholarships or grants, lose their jobs or work fewer hours, and lose trust in the academic institution and the services that are alleged to offer to support to survivors. Students also disclosed that the timeline of the investigative process and the limited access to services resulted in increased harm rather than promoting recovery. Some students expressed that student-directed reporting is preferred.