Journal of Family Violence (2020) 35:603–618

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00082-y

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Sexual Victimization and Sexual Harassment

among College Students: a Comparative Analysis
Gillian M. Pinchevsky 1 & Amy B. Magnuson 2 & Megan Bears Augustyn 3 & Callie Marie Rennison 4

Published online: 9 July 2019

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
Sexual victimization, defined as non-contact unwanted sexual experiences (e.g., sexual harassment), unwanted sexual contact, sexual
coercion, forcible rape, or alcohol- or drug-facilitated assault or rape, is nontrivial among the college study population. This study explores
how the situational contexts, which include self-reported consequences and responses to victimization, compare between incidents of non-
contact sexual harassment (SH) and contact sexual victimization (CSV) (e.g., unwanted sexual contact, sexual coercion, and rape).
Conjunctive analyses compare the commonality and variation among situational contexts of incidents of SH and incidents of CSV from
a sample of survivors from 24 different colleges. Both forms of sexual violence negatively impact college students. Respondents who
experienced SH only (i.e., did not also experience CSV) in the past year and those who experienced contact CSV only (i.e., did not
also experience non-contact SH) in the past year both reported negative outcomes associated with the victimization, but it was more
common for survivors of SH only to report being intimidated and feeling uncomfortable in their environment at the college. The
implications of this study are twofold. First, scholars should ensure that research on the negative effects of CSV does not come at the
expense of other forms of sexual victimization. Second, practitioners, campus services, and prevention programs should acknowledge both
contact and non-contact sexual victimization in programming and services in order to buffer the negative effects resulting from
victimization.

Keywords Sexual victimization . Sexual harassment . College students

“Sexual harassment is a problem with a long past but a
short history” (American Psychological Association
1993, p.3)
Social movements, such as “MeToo” and “Time’s Up,”
reignited the national conversation surrounding sexual victim-
ization. The effects of these movements are not lost on college
communities, as sexual victimization experiences are com-
mon among students enrolled in institutions of higher educa-
tion (Cantor et al. 2015). Both within and external to the
* Gillian M. Pinchevsky
gillian.pinchevsky@unlv.edu
1
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 4505 S. Maryland Parkway, Box
455009, Las Vegas, NV 89154, USA
2
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA
3
The University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA
4 that non-contact SH is commonly experienced by college
The University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO, USA
college environment, sexual victimization experiences fall
on a continuum ranging from unwanted sexual comments
and invasions of space (e.g., looks, leers, or catcalls) to un-
wanted sexual contact (e.g., groping or fondling) and complet-
ed rape. Fisher et al. (2010) refer to sexual victimization on
three dimensions reflecting “type of contact, degree of
coercion, and degree of action” (p. 90; italics added here for
emphasis). Contact ranges from no sexual contact to penetra-
tion; coercion ranges from psychological coercion to physical
force; action ranges from words and threatened actions to
completed actions. Despite the acknowledgement that a con-
tinuum of sexual victimization exists (Kelly 1987), the bulk of
recent research on college students’ sexual victimization ex-
periences focuses on contact (i.e., physical) forms of sexual
victimization and in particular, attempted or completed sexual
battery and rape. While contact sexual victimization (CSV)
receives most attention, far less focuses on experiences of
non-contact forms of sexual victimization only, including sex-
ual harassment (SH). This is somewhat surprising considering
604
students (Cantor et al. 2015) and is a form of sexual miscon-
duct under Title IX, which provides protections against sex-
based discrimination in educational programs.
The examination of the nature and extent of all forms of
sexual victimization is necessary because non-contact SH is a
form of stealth gender-based abuse (SGBA; Belknap and
Sharma 2014), which is nonviolent gender-based abuse that
while common, frequently goes unnoticed by society, and is
vastly underreported and underacknowledged by victims.
SGBA is extremely damaging and traumatic to survivors.
According to Belknap and Sharma (2014, p. 182):
…many abusive tactics that qualify as SGBA are extreme-
ly dangerous, violating, humiliating, disempowering, and/
or threatening…Indeed, they can be some of the most
terrifying, intrusive, confusing, and demeaning GBA
behaviors.1
Therefore, it is important to study not only CSV but non-
contact types of sexual victimization as well.
Although SH is anything but harmless (e.g., Till 1980;
Cammaert 1985) and anything but rare (see Cantor et al.
2015), it is often misunderstood (e.g., Castillo et al. 2011;
Fitzgerald and Ormerod 1991; Gervasio and Ruckdeschel
1992; Malovich and Stake 1990; Rotundo et al. 2001). The
current study explores how the responses to and consequences
of non-contact SH (here defined by a lack of physical contact)
compare to incidents of CSV (here defined as completed or
attempted rape, sexual coercion, and/or unwanted touching).
Exploring potential similarities and differences between non-
contact SH and CSV is important because most college-based
prevention and intervention programming addresses CSV, not
non-contact SH. However, development and implementation
of prevention and intervention programming requires an un-
derstanding of the differences between these two forms of
gender-based abuse in order to reduce the incidence and con-
sequences of both non-contact SH and CSV.
To address our goal, data from undergraduate students en-
rolled in 24 U.S. college campuses were examined to compare
the situational contexts of non-contact SH and CSV using
Conjunctive Analysis of Case Configurations (CACC).
Specifically, this strategy allows for the comparison of situa-
tional contexts of victimization incidents among students who
experienced non-contact SH exclusively (and did not experi-
ence any CSV) to incidents among students who experienced
CSV exclusively (and did not experience non-contact SH).2 In
particular, we focused on victim characteristics (i.e., demo-
graphics), consequences (i.e., changes in routine activities,
emotional health and feelings of safety at the college) and
1 According to Fitzgerald et al. (1995), gender harassment and
GBA refers to gender-based abuse.
2
594 individuals in initial sample reported experiencing both SH and at least
one form of CSV.
J Fam Viol (2020) 35:603–618
individual responses (i.e., disclosure and help-seeking) asso-
ciated with these incidents. Arguably, this approach allows for
a better understanding of the current context of non-contact
SH experiences among college students and speaks to the
nuances, if any, in the consequences associated with the var-
ious behaviors on the continuum of sexual victimization.
Sexual Harassment
The development of SH definitions has arisen in response to
legal challenges in educational, military and workplace set-
tings. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) defines SH – a violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 – as:
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors,
and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature
constitute SH when this conduct explicitly or implicitly
affects an individual's employment, unreasonably inter-
feres with an individual's work performance, or creates
an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.
(https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/fs-sex.cfm).
This definition of sexual harassment includes discrim-
ination as a result of gender identity, including transgen-
der status, or sexual orientation in line with Title VII
(e.g., Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 523 U.S.
75, 1998). Within institutions of higher education set-
tings, SH is identified under Title IX:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex,
be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits
of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educa-
tion program or activity receiving Federal financial as-
sistance. (https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/
docs/tix_dis.html)
Scholars have also identified dimensions of SH (Adams et al.
1983; Gruber 1992; Till 1980). Summarizing these conceptuali-
zations, Fitzgerald and colleagues (Fitzgerald et al. 1988; 1995)
developed the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ) in order
to identify experiences of sexual harassment. Three dimensions
of SH are generally identified: sexual coercion (e.g., subtle and
non-subtle attempts or actions that punish someone if they do not
comply with sexual demands or requests), unwanted sexual at-
tention (e.g., unwanted discussion of sexual behavior, staring,
repeated requests for sexual attention that have been met with
rejection), and gender harassment (e.g., suggestive or offensive
comments; displaying unwelcomed, offensive materials).
unwanted sexual attention generally fall under the legal concept
of a hostile environment and sexual coercion falls under the legal
J Fam Viol (2020) 35:603–618
concept of quid pro quo; in instances where the victim complies
with the demands, the latter is considered a form of CSV.
Importantly, legal and conceptual definitions of SH do not appear
to have fully translated into public understanding and labeling of
specific behaviors as a form SH (see Rotundo et al. 2001;
Blumenthal 1998), particularly non-contact forms of SH. As a
result, individual acknowledgement and responses to this form of
sexual victimization are affected.
Sexual Harassment Experienced by College Students
Research from the 1980s and early 1990s on SH experienced by
college students established it as a problem experienced primarily
by female students (Fitzgerald et al. 1988; Lott et al. 1982;
Maihoff and Forrest 1983; Metha and Nigg 1982; McCormack
1985; Rubin and Borgers 1990). Male students were not exempt
from SH, though (Mazer and Percival 1989; Metha and Nigg
1982; Fitzgerald et al. 1988). Recent estimates of non-contact SH
indicate that is a common experience among college students
(Cantor et al. 2015; Coker et al. 2016; Hill and Silva 2005).
Although estimates vary, the recent Association of American
Universities Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and
Sexual Misconduct (hereafter referred to as the AAU survey)
reported that roughly 48% of students experienced non-contact
SH from another student, faculty or staff, or affiliated person with
the university since enrolling in college (Cantor et al. 2015).3 The
most common form of non-contact SH was someone making
“inappropriate or offensive comments regarding body, appear-
ance or sexual activity” (Cantor et al. 2015, p. 87). Fisher and
colleagues’ (Fisher et al. 2000) found that undergraduate women
experienced a range of unwanted verbal victimizations, includ-
ing, but not limited to, being subjected to sexist comments
(~54%), “cat calls” or similar behavior (~48%), inappropriate
sexual questions (19%), and exposure of body parts (~5%).
Incidents of non-contact SH are not evenly distributed among
college students. Although the aforementioned AAU study found
that experiences of non-contact SH were more prevalent among
female students (Cantor et al. 2015), Hill and Silva (2005) found
that male and female college students experienced a similar like-
lihood of being sexually harassed, but reported different types
of harassment (see also Chiodo et al. 2009 for a study on non-
college students). Specifically, while both male and female vic-
tims of sexual harassment reported experiencing sexually-based
"comments, jokes, gestures, or looks" (p. 18), these experiences
were more commonly experienced by women. Females were
3
Cantor et al. (2015; p. xv, 29) defined sexual harassment as experiencing any
of the following (1) made sexual remarks or told jokes or stories that were
insulting or offensive to you?; (2) made inappropriate or offensive comments
about your or someone else’s body, appearance or sexual activities?; (3) said
crude or gross sexual things to you or tried to get you to talk about sexual
matters when you didn’t want to?; (4) emailed, texted, tweeted, phoned, or
instant messaged offensive sexual remarks, jokes, stories, pictures or videos to
you that you didn’t want?; (5) continued to ask you to go out, get dinner, have
drinks or have sex even though you said, “No”?
605
also more likely to experience harassment that involved
being sexually touched, cornered, or brushed up against. On the
other hand, males were especially more likely to experience ho-
mophobic comments (Hill and Silva 2005). Researchers have also
examined the relationship between non-contact SH and sexual
orientation and sexual identity and found that those in the sexual
minority were more likely to report experiencing non-contact SH
compared to individuals identifying in the gender binary (e.g.,
Cantor et al. 2015) and those identifying as heterosexual (e.g.,
Cantor et al. 2015; Hill and Silva 2005; McGinley et al.
2016). Hill and Silva (2005) also found that students who iden-
tified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender reported being
sexually harassed often (see also McGinley et al. 2016).
Notably, there is not a clear pattern of non-contact SH victim-
ization across race/ethnicity (see Kearney and Gilbert
2012; McGinley et al. 2016; Yoon et al. 2010). Some research
found SH to be experienced more among non-White student
populations (e.g., Yoon et al. 2010), others found SH to be more
commonly experienced by White students (e.g., Hill and Silva
2005; Ho et al. 2012; Kearney and Gilbert 2012; McGinley
et al. 2016), and others found few differences across race and
ethnicity (e.g., Cantor et al. 2015).
Responses to and Consequences of Sexual
Harassment
Similar to other forms of victimization, non-contact SH is asso-
ciated with various consequences. However, how an individual
perceives the non-contact SH experience likely affects the re-
sponses to and consequences of SH. Differences in definitions
of non-contact SH exist (i.e., gender harassment and unwanted
sexual attention; Blumenthal 1998; Rotundo et al. 2001), partic-
ularly across gender, as women are more likely to label certain
behaviors as SH compared to men (Marks and Nelson 1993).
McGinley et al. (2016) found that experiences of non-
contact SH undermined the health of college students. Non-
contact SH is associated with decreased mental health (i.e.,
depression, anxiety) and increased health-risk behavior such
as substance use as a coping mechanism, particularly among
White females and sexual minorities (McGinley et al. 2016).
Paludi et al. (2006) identified other research that noted the
consequences of non-contact SH including changes in physical
and mental health. Additionally, victims of non-contact SH are
more likely to experience future SH (Petersen and Hyde 2009).
After taking into consideration prior research examining re-
sponses to sexual harassment, Knapp et al. (1997) proposed that
responses and coping strategies for SH fall into four categories
based on whether the focus is self- or perpetrator- in nature (e.g.,
addresses the perpetrator directly or not), and the degree of out-
side support sought: 1) advocacy seeking (both addresses the
perpetrator and seeks help), 2) social coping (does not address
perperator directly but does seek support from others), 3)
avoidance/denial (neither directly addresses the perpetrator nor
606
seeks help), and 4) confrontation/negotiation (addresses the per-
petrator directly but does not use outside support). The first two
forms of coping involve disclosure of one’s victimization.
Advocacy seeking or formal disclosure of SH victimization, par-
ticularly non-contact SH victimization, tends to occur infrequent-
ly (e.g., Adams et al. 1983; Cammaert 1985; Cantor et al. 2015;
Hill and Silva 2005). Moreover, sexually harassed victims tend to
"engage in a trial and error approach" (Cortina and Wasti, 2005,
p. 182), using a variety of individual coping responses (e.g.,
avoidance/denial or confrontation/negotiation) and social coping
through informal disclosure (Cantor et al. 2015; Hill and Silva
2005) rather than formal disclosure and help-seeking. The few
who do formally disclose victimization usually only do so after
the harassment has increased in frequency or individual function-
ing has greatly been compromised (Cortina and Wasti 2005).
Contact Sexual Victimization Experienced
by College Students
CSV includes unwanted sexual touching, oral sex, or pen-
etration. It can occur as a result of physical force or threats
of physical force, or it may occur while one is incapaci-
tated. It may also be a result of quid pro quo behaviors,
where a victim does not want to engage in sexual acts but
is forced to as a result of some ultimatum or threat (i.e.,
sexual coercion). Most estimates of the prevalence of CSV
focus on one specific type of SV: rape or attempted rape.
For instance, Kilpatrick and colleagues (Kilpatrick et al.
2007) reported that 11.5% of US college women had been
raped, including forcible, incapacitated, and drug- or
alcohol-facilitated rape (see also Krebs et al. 2007).
Similarly, the aforementioned AAU study reported that
almost 11% of undergraduate females reported experienc-
ing a behavior that would meet the legal criteria of rape
(i.e., penetration by force or threat of force or when the
victim was unable to consent due to incapacitation) since
they enrolled in college (Cantor et al. 2015).
Fisher and colleagues (Fisher et al. 2000) measured 12
distinct forms of CSV (including both attempted and com-
pleted acts); notably, 10 of these victimizations were sep-
arate from completed or attempted rape (e.g., completion
or attempted sexual coercion; completed or attempted sex-
ual contact with or without force). The prevalence rates
ranged from 0.18% (i.e., contact with force or threat of
force) to 3% of the sample (i.e., attempted sexual contact
without force). Moreover, Fedina and colleagues (Fedina
et al. 2018) noted that among college students, unwanted
sexual contact, sexual coercion, incapacitated rape, and
attempted or completed attempted forcible rape are all
commonly experienced forms of CSV.
The majority of the extant literature on college student
sexual victimization “sampled predominately White,
J Fam Viol (2020) 35:603–618
heterosexual, female students” (Fedina et al. 2018, p. 90)
thereby limiting our understanding of sexual victimization
experienced by students from other demographics.
However, we are slowly learning more about its preva-
lence across demographics. Women are more likely than
men to be victims of CSV (see also Cantor et al. 2015;
Koss 2018); moving beyond this traditional dichotomy
indicates that respondents who do not identify as male or
female and report a sexual orientation other than hetero-
sexual have the highest likelihood of experiencing a CSV
(Cantor et al. 2015). Cantor et al. (2015) also found slight
differences in victimization across race/ethnicity, but they
did not vary dramatically, as Black or African American
and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders reported
only a slightly higher rate of CSV than American Indian,
Asian and White students.
Responses to and Consequences of Contact Sexual
Victimization
In comparison to SH, there is more consensus regarding the
behaviors that constitute CSV. Nonetheless, there is still some
ambiguity among individuals with respect to the role of con-
sent when identifying incidents of CSV (i.e., there is a recog-
nition in legislation that without consent, unwanted sexual
behaviors are a form of assault, but half of the states in the
US do not define consent and there are state-level variations;
Decker and Baroni 2011), which ultimately affects the conse-
quences of and responses to CSV. For instance, the ambiguity
in perceptions of what legitimately constitutes CSV, as well as
fear, shame and embarrassment (e.g., Fisher et al. 2000; 2003;
Kilpatrick et al. 2007; Krebs et al. 2007) interact such that
contact forms of sexual victimization are the most under-
reported crimes to the police (Morgan and Kena 2017;
Tjaden and Thoennes 2006).
Advocacy seeking (see Knapp et al. 1997) in the form
of reporting CSV to law enforcement among college stu-
dents is extremely low and varies by study (see Sabina and
Ho 2014). According to Fisher and colleagues’ (Fisher
et al. 2000), less than 5% of completed or attempted
rapes perpetrated against college women were reported
to police. For other forms of contact (attempted or com-
pleted) SV, rates of non-reporting were similarly low, if
not lower (Fisher et al. 2000, 2003). Fisher et al. (2000)
found that not one of the completed and attempted sexual
coercions and threats of penetration without force ac-
knowledged by study participants were reported to law
enforcement. Formal reporting in the AAU study was also
low, ranging from 5% for incidents of sexual touching
while incapacitated to 26% of incidents with penetration
by force (includes reporting to police as well as other
campus agencies; Cantor et al. 2015). While some victims
of CSV (i.e., rape, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual
J Fam Viol (2020) 35:603–618
contact) reported the victimization to other campus author-
ities (e.g., professor, dean, residence hall personnel) or
university-based or community-based victim services or
health care centers, the overwhelming majority did not
(Fisher et al. 2003; Krebs et al. 2007). Sabina and Ho’s
(2014) review of the extant literature on college victims of
sexual assault and dating violence (with most of the re-
ported studies focused on sexual assault) noted “the reality
is that few college victims actually utilize campus or other
services” (p. 218; see also Stoner and Cramer 2017).
Notably, though, medical and mental health services
(e.g., counseling; Krebs et al. 2007) appear to be more
highly utilized than other services (Sabina and Ho 2014).
Instead of advocacy seeking through formal disclosure
and health care assistance – both physical and mental health
care – college victims of CSV are more likely to engage in
social coping (see Knapp et al. 1997) and disclose the vic-
timization experience to informal support systems, such as
friends (e.g., Cantor et al. 2015; Fisher et al. 2000, 2003;
Krebs et al. 2007). College students often employ addition-
al strategies to cope with the experience of CSV. These
include avoidance of the perpetrator (Krebs et al. 2007) or
moving residences (Krebs et al. 2007, 2016).
Related to responses to CSV are the consequences of CSV,
which are pervasive and affect physical and emotional health,
health-risk behaviors, employment performance, and interper-
sonal relationships (e.g., Jordan et al. 2014; Kilpatrick et al.
2007; Krebs et al. 2016; Leone and Carroll 2017; Thompson
and Kingree 2010; Turchik and Hassija 2014). Moreover,
CSV has been shown to disrupt one’s academic trajectory
(e.g., take time off from school, withdrawal, dropping
classes; Krebs et al. 2016). Additionally, female college stu-
dents who report CSV are at a considerably higher risk of
suicidality even after controlling for psychological health-
related variables (Leone and Carroll 2017).
Current Study
Little research has differentiated between the nature and
consequences of non-contact SH from CSV. Therefore this
research fills this gap and investigates differences in
victim/survivor demographics, responses to, and conse-
quences of these two related forms of sexual victimization.
Importantly, to remove overlapping or co-occurring expe-
riences, two mutually exclusive groups were compared:
those experiencing 1) non-contact SH alone (without
CSV) and 2) CSV alone (without non-contact SH).4
4
Although some individuals do experience both sexual harassment and CSV,
due to the nature of our analytic strategy, it is not possible to disentangle the
responses and consequences to each type of victimization among these indi-
viduals. As such, we focus only on the situational contexts reported by survi-
vors of one type of sexual victimization – sexual harassment or CSV.
607
Data and Method
Data
One academic year of the multi-college Bystander Efficacy
Evaluation (mcBEE) data were used for this research.5 These
data originate from a national study on violence prevention and
intervention education funded by the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC). Data collection efforts for the study –
which was developed and administered by researchers at the
University of Kentucky – began in January of 2016 and are
on-going (see Clear et al. 2019, Lessons learned in creating a
college consortium, this issue, for an in-depth discussion of these
data and data collection procedures). Data were collected via self-
administered online surveys from enrolled undergraduate stu-
dents (ages 18–24) attending at least one in-person class at 24
public colleges in the United States. All survey procedures were
approved by each institution’s Institutional Review Board as well
as the Institutional Review Board at the University of Kentucky.
In 2017 (data collected during the 2016–2017 school year), the
aggregate response rate was 13.4%, and response rates varied
from 2.7% to 22.5% across institutions.
Each student responded to a series of behaviorally-specific
questions (Rotundo et al. 2001; Blumenthal 1998) regarding
whether or not the individual experienced a variety of forms
sexual victimization in the past year, including non-contact
SH, sexual assault, sexual coercion, and attempted or complet-
ed rape (see Appendix for list of specific sexual victimization
behaviors and classification by physical contact status).6 This
series of questions regarding sexual victimization was follow-
ed by a set of questions particular to the most recent incident
of sexual victimization. For the purposes of this analysis, we
only include data on incidents of sexual victimization from
students who reported experiencing SH exclusively (i.e., stu-
dent did not experience CSV) or students who experienced
CSV exclusively (i.e., student did not experience non-contact
SH) in order to accurately speak to the similarities and differ-
ences between non-contact SH and CSV. In sum, all respon-
dents in this study experienced either non-contact SH only or
CSV only.7
5
These data were collected by a University of Kentucky based team, and
funds were provided by Bystander Program Adoption & Efficacy to Reduce
SV-IPV in College Community. Funding source: Department of Health and
Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center
for Injury Prevention and Control Cooperative Agreement U01 CE002668.
(Multi College Bystander Efficacy Evaluation). The team included Principal
Investigators Ann L. Coker, PhD, MPH and Heather M. Bush, PhD., as well as
Candace J. Brancato, Emily R. Clear, and Kelsey Rutherford.
6
We only include information from incidents that occurred within the previ-
ous year and not “ever” in order to capture experiences of students while
enrolled at the college.
7
594 students reported experiencing both sexual harassment and contact sex-
ual victimization. Unfortunately, we are not able to discern if the experience of
SH was related to CSV or if the perpetrator of SH also perpetrated an act of
CSV against the victim due to the structure of the interview schedule.
608
Analytic Strategy
Researchers are cognizant that context matters and outcomes are
frequently associated with multiple related variables. This study
used Conjunctive Analysis of Case Configurations (CACC)
which is not a variable oriented approach; rather, it is an analytic
technique that harnesses the power of these interrelated factors
and allows one to construct, examine, and compare the situation-
al contexts – created from variable attributes – associated with
particular outcomes. This exploratory technique is based on com-
parative approaches used in multivariate analysis of categorical
data (Miethe et al. 2008).
Unlike variable-oriented approaches, which focus on the
role of variables and how they are independently associated
with an outcome, CACC identifies situational contexts asso-
ciated with outcomes. Focusing on contexts enables the iden-
tification of variation (or lack thereof) among contexts of SH
(in contrast to CSV). In addition, CACC allowed us to high-
light common or normative contexts, as well as uncommon or
deviant contexts (Hart and Miethe 2008). Using CACC, situ-
ational attributes that underlie SH and CSV were identified
and the contexts were rank ordered allowing for the identifi-
cation of contexts that occurred most (to least) often. This
approach offers a visual presentation of case configurations
of SH, facilitating the understanding of the nature, diversity
and distribution of related situational contexts. We now de-
scribe the variables and attributes used to construct the situa-
tional contexts.
Situational Context Measures
The unit of analysis for this research was the violent incident
(and not the respondent/victim). We identified a sample of
3427 non-contact SH situational contexts and 397 CSV situa-
tional contexts, yielding a total of 3824 situational contexts of
SH or CSV. The outcome of interest in this research is whether
a respondent experienced non-contact SH only (coded as 1) or
CSV only (coded as 0; see Appendix for individual items used
to construct our measures of non-contact SH and CSV).
Situational contexts for the incidents in matrix form were
constructed from variables describing victim demographics,
responses to sexual victimization, traumatic outcomes, and
help-seeking behaviors resulting from the victimization. The
use of the word “trauma” in this study aligns with the survey
and data collection used in this research, which is meant to
reflect a distressing or disturbing experience. Other disciplines
may use a clinical definition that is not implied with our use of
the term trauma. Moreover, all variables are categorical in
nature per the requirements of the analytic strategy employed
(Hart and Miethe 2008). Nonetheless, we provide all available
response options in the data (some in parentheses) to assist the
reader in interpretation.
J Fam Viol (2020) 35:603–618
Three respondent demographics were included: gender iden-
tity, sexual orientation, and race/ethnicity.8 Gender identity was
measured using three categories: woman, man, and other (i.e.,
transgender woman, transgender man, genderqueer/gender non-
conforming, questioning, and identity “not listed”). Sexual
orientation was measured using a binary variable: heterosexual
and the reference group is other (i.e., gay/lesbian, bisexual, asex-
ual, questioning, and sexual orientation “not listed”). Finally,
race/ethnicity was included in the matrix with four categories:
non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic (any race),
and other (i.e., other option).
Additionally, we included two binary variables representing
responses to victimization: different and detached. Different indi-
cated whether or not the student self-reported that he/she ‘felt
different’ after the incident (Yes/No). Detached referred to wheth-
er or not the student self-reported that he/she felt detached from
others, activities or surroundings after the incident (Yes/No).
Traumatic consequences of sexual victimization were mea-
sured using victim responses: interfere, limited, and intimidating.
Interfere was measured as a binary variable based on whether or
not the sexual victimization incident interfered with the respon-
dent’s academic or professional performance (Yes/No). The bi-
nary variable limited was used to indicate whether the incident
affected the respondent’s ability to participate in college activities
or programs (Yes/No). Lastly, intimidating indicated whether the
sexual victimization incident created an intimidating or uncom-
fortable environment for the respondent (Yes/No).
Four binary variables are used to capture help-seeking actions
after the victimization: Bothered, talk/family, talk/counselor, and
leave. Bothered indicated whether or not the individual self-
reported that he/she was bothered by and tried hard not to think
about the incident after it occurred (Yes/No). Talk/family indicat-
ed whether or not the student self-reported talking to either
friends or family members about the incident (Yes/No). Talk/
counselor indicated whether or not the victim self-reported
talking to a counselor, therapist, or mental health professional
following the event (Yes/No). Finally, leave represents whether
or not the student thought about leaving college as a result of the
incident (Yes/No).
Additional Matrix Considerations
We recognize that the variables used are limited with respect to
the responses and outcomes associated with students’ experi-
ences. Additional post-incident feelings and behaviors were in-
cluded in preliminary analyses, but were excluded because there
8
The analyses originally included whether the student was full- or part-time.
Given the little variation in this variable (95% were full-time), it was excluded
from the analysis. The analyses also originally included respondent’s age and
year in school. Age and year in school were highly correlated (r = .80), and a
series of analysis demonstrated that year in school was unrelated to the out-
come. In the end, age was also unrelated so we opted to remove both from the
analysis to make the matrix easier to interpret.
J Fam Viol (2020) 35:603–618
was too little variation across contexts. More specifically, too few
incidents included a victim that reported talking to faculty or staff
at the college (0.9%), talked to a resident advisor (2.5%),
contacted a hotline or gathered data online (1.6%), or contacted
police (3.4%). As such, when implementing the “rule of ten”
(i.e., focusing only on those situational contexts that appear in
the data ten or more times), these variables dropped out of the
analysis as no dominant situational contexts exhibited variation
on these variables. Similarly, there was very little variation in
academic consequences, as few incidents involved victims who
reported missing class or work (11.0%), turning in assignments
late (7.7%) or getting worse grades (8.6%). As such, these vari-
ables were not included in our dominant situational contexts. We
note, however, that these exclusions should not be interpreted as
meaning no incidents of non-contact SH or CSV included a
victim who displayed these post-incident feelings or behaviors.
Rather, because of the methodology used in this study, they are
not included in our contexts as they are too uncommon to
analyze.
The Matrix of Situational Contexts
The situational context matrix is based on the identified
12 variables, indicating 12,288 possible situational con-
texts (combinations of the variables),9 however only 923
contexts actually occurred in the data. As is standard in
CACC, the next step was to implement the minimum
frequency “rule of ten,” (Hart and Miethe 2008; Miethe
and Regoeczi 2004; Ragin 1987) by focusing only on
those situational contexts that appear in the data ten or
more times. The use of the “rule of ten” minimizes con-
sideration of rare situational contexts in the data, and
focuses instead on common or dominant situational
contexts. Following this application of the “rule of ten,”
there remained 68 empirically-observed dominant situa-
tional contexts associated with SH outcomes. In total,
these 68 contexts accounted for 3824 of the actual con-
texts in the data (as situational contexts occurred in the
data multiple times). Our analyses focus on these
contexts.
Results
Basic descriptive statistics were provided for each vari-
able included in the full sample of situational contexts
(n = 3824) before focusing on the 68 identified dominant
situational contexts. Approximately nine of ten respon-
dents experienced SH only, as shown in Table 1.
9
12,288 = 3 [gender identity] * 2 [sexual orientation] * 4 [race/ethnicity] * 2
[interfere] * 2 [limit] * 2 [intimidate] * 2 [bothered] * 2 [detached] * 2 [talk/
family] * 2 [talk/counselor] * 2 [different] * 2 [leave].
609
Victims were primarily female (74%), non-Hispanic
White (70%), and self-identified their sexual orientation
as “heterosexual” (80%). More than 15% of victims re-
ported the incident interfered with their academics or job
(18%) or limited their ability to participate in school
activities (16%). More than half of the victims indicated
that the incident created an intimating or uncomfortable
environment at the college (57%). About one-third (30%)
of victims felt differently after that incidents, and 23%
reported feeling detached from others and activities.
About four in ten (44%) of victims reporting that he/
she was bothered by and tried hard not to think about
the incident. Related to disclosure, 41% of victims talked
to friends or family members and less than 10% of vic-
tims talked to a counselor or therapist. Finally, 10% of
victims thought about leaving the college.
When comparing the mutually exclusive non-contact
SH and CSV groups, the following differences were not-
ed (see Table 1). A significantly greater proportion of
men (35% vs 14%; p < .05) and respondents identifying
as non-heterosexual (21% vs 14%; p < .05) were includ-
ed in incidents of non-contact SH only versus CSV. No
differences by race/ethnicity were observed. Differences
in the traumatic consequences indicated less interference
in academic or professional performance (17%) in the
non-contact SH incidents relative to CSV victims
(30%). A similar pattern was observed for victims' ability
to participate in college activities or programs (16% v.
18%; p < .05).10 Furthermore, non-contact SH incidents
were associated with the victim being less likely to re-
port the range of responses to and consequences of vic-
timization, with two notable exceptions. Feeling different
was more common among victims in incidents of non-
contact SH and victims were more likely to report that
the victimization created an intimidating or uncomfort-
able environment in incidents of non-contact SH com-
pared to CSV (58% v. 51%).
Examination of Outcome Differences in Situational
Contexts with CACC
In order to assist in interpretation of the CACC, we briefly
describe the elements of Table 2. The first column in Table 2
offers identification numbers to facilitate the interpretation of
particular contexts. The next 12 columns identify the variables
included to create the matrix and the associated response cat-
egories. The “proportion experiencing sexual harassment on-
ly” column indicates (when multiplied by 100) the percentage
that a particular situational context is associated exclusively
with non-contact SH. The “n” column identifies the number of
times a particular context appeared in the data. The un-shaded
10
Differences noted in the text are statistically significant at the p < 0.05 level.
610 J Fam Viol (2020) 35:603–618

Table 1 Descriptives of variables

Total Percent/ Sexual Harassment Contact Sexual Victimization

Total Sample (SH) Only (CSV) Only

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Outcome Variable
Sexual harassment only 89.6 100.0 –
Sexual violence only 10.4 – 100.0
Gender identity
Woman 73.6 72.3 84.4 *
Man 23.6 34.7 14.1 *
Other 2.9 3.0 1.5 *
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual 79.6 78.8 85.6 *
Other 20.4 21.2 14.4 *
Race/Ethnicity
White, not Hispanic 70.0 70.0 70.0
Black, not Hispanic 3.6 3.6 3.8
Hispanic, any race 12.3 12.3 12.1
Other 14.1 14.1 14.1
Consequences
Interfered with academic or professional performance 17.9 16.5 30.0 *
Limited ability to participate in activities or programs at school 15.9 15.6 18.4 *
Created an intimidating/ uncomfortable environment 56.9 57.5 51.1 *
Responses to Victimization
Felt different 30.3 31.5 20.2 *
Felt detached from others, activities or surroundings after the incident 23.4 22.1 34.3 *
Help-Seeking Behaviors
Bothered and tried hard not to think about it 43.6 41.4 63.0 *
Talked to family or friends 41.2 40.0 51.1 *
Talked to counselor, therapist, or mental health professional 9.5 8.9 14.9 *
Thought about leaving the university 9.9 9.2 15.6 *
n = 3824 n = 3427 n = 397

*
Difference between SH only and contact SV only is significant at p < 0.05
SH sexual harassment, CSV contact sexual victimization

portion of the table identifies normative situational contexts,
which are dominant contexts found within one standard devia-
tion of the mean proportion. The shaded areas represent deviant
situational contexts,11 which are the dominant contexts that are
more than one standard deviation from the mean proportion. The
situational contexts found two or more standard deviations from
the mean (none are above the mean) are below the double thin
lines and, in this instance, represent the least common situational
contexts associated with exclusively non-contact SH.
Because of space considerations, all 68 dominant con-
texts are not presented in Table 2. Rather, the situational
contexts most associated with non-contact SH (i.e., con-
texts #1-#19), contexts least associated with exclusively
non-contact SH (#53-#68), and the modal context (#43)
are presented.12 The mean proportion for all contexts in
this table is 0.90 (sd = 0.11), indicating that on average,
90% of situational contexts in the matrix are characterized
exclusively by non-contact SH. This is not unexpected
11
This is the term used in CACC analyses and not a term chosen by the
authors. In this case, deviant does not indicate uncommon.
12
A comprehensive matrix of all 68 dominant contexts is available upon request.
given the greater proportion of non-contact SH situational
contexts in our sample.
The most common situational context (#43) involved a
heterosexual, non-Hispanic White woman, who indicated
the incident resulted in no traumatic consequences (see
Table 2). In this context, she did not talk to anyone about the
incident, she did not feel detached from others as a result of the
incident, her activities remained unchanged after the incident,
and she did not feel intimidated by her college surroundings
after the incident occurred. However, this modal context indi-
cated that she “felt different” following the incident. This par-
ticular context appears 179 times in the data, and 89% of the
times it occurred, non-contact SH was the type of victimiza-
tion experienced.
In the 19 exclusively non-contact SH contexts, con-
siderable variance was noted in the victim demographics.
These 19 contexts show that non-contact SH includes
men and women as victims, heterosexual and LGBTQ
victims, and persons who identify as various races and
ethnicities. On the other hand, these contexts are almost
universal as they were not associated with interference
with academics or work (in 18 of those 19 contexts),
Table 2 Select dominant situational contexts

Context Gender Sexual Race/ Interfere Limited Felt Felt Intimidate Bothered Told Friends/Family Told Thought to Proportion Experiencing n
J Fam Viol (2020) 35:603–618

Identity Orientation Ethnicity Detached different Counselor Leave the University Sexual Harassment Only

1 Man Heterosexual NH White Not interfered Not limited Not detached Not different Intimidated Bothered Did not tell Did not tell Did not think 1.00 27
2 Woman Heterosexual NH White Not interfered Not limited Not detached Not different Intimidated Not bothered Did not tell Did not tell Did not think 1.00 25
3 Man Heterosexual NH White Not interfered Not limited Not detached Felt different Not intimidated Not bothered Did not tell Did not tell Did not think 1.00 23
4 Woman Other NH White Not interfered Not limited Not detached Felt different Intimidated Not bothered Told Did not tell Did not think 1.00 22
5 Woman Other NH White Not interfered Not limited Not detached Not different Intimidated Bothered Did not tell Did not tell Did not think 1.00 19
6 Woman Heterosexual Hispanic Not interfered Not limited Not detached Not different Intimidated Bothered Did not tell Did not tell Did not think 1.00 18
7 Woman Heterosexual Other Not interfered Not limited Not detached Not different Intimidated Bothered Did not tell Did not tell Did not think 1.00 17
8 Woman Other NH White Not interfered Not limited Not detached Felt different Not intimidated Bothered Did not tell Did not tell Did not think 1.00 16
9 Man Heterosexual NH White Not interfered Not limited Not detached Felt different Intimidated Bothered Did not tell Did not tell Did not think 1.00 16
10 Woman Heterosexual NH White Not interfered Not limited Detached Felt different Intimidated Bothered Did not tell Did not tell Did not think 1.00 15
11 Woman Other NH White Not interfered Not limited Not detached Felt different Intimidated Not bothered Did not tell Did not tell Did not think 1.00 15
12 Woman Heterosexual NH White Not interfered Not limited Not detached Not different Intimidated Not bothered Told Did not tell Did not think 1.00 14
13 Man Heterosexual NH White Not interfered Not limited Not detached Felt different Not intimidated Bothered Told Did not tell Did not think 1.00 14
14 Woman Heterosexual NH White Not interfered Not limited Detached Felt different Intimidated Bothered Told Did not tell Did not think 1.00 12
15 Woman Heterosexual NH White Not interfered Limited Not detached Felt different Intimidated Not bothered Told Did not tell Did not think 1.00 12
16 Woman Heterosexual Other Not interfered Not limited Not detached Felt different Intimidated Bothered Told Did not tell Did not think 1.00 12
17 Woman Heterosexual NH White Interfered Not limited Not detached Felt different Intimidated Bothered Told Did not tell Did not think 1.00 11
18 Woman Other NH White Not interfered Not limited Not detached Felt different Not intimidated Bothered Told Did not tell Did not think 1.00 10
19 Woman Other NH White Not interfered Not limited Not detached Not different Intimidated Bothered Told Did not tell Did not think 1.00 10
43 Woman Heterosexual NH White Not interfered Not limited Not detached Felt different Not intimidated Bothered Did not tell Did not tell Did not think 0.89 179
53 Woman Heterosexual NH White Interfered Limited Detached Felt different Intimidated Not bothered Did not tell Did not tell Thought 0.82 11
54 Man Other NH White Not interfered Not limited Not detached Felt different Not intimidated Bothered Did not tell Did not tell Did not think 0.82 11
55 Woman Heterosexual NH White Not interfered Not limited Not detached Felt different Not intimidated Not bothered Did not tell Did not tell Did not think 0.81 64
56 Man Heterosexual Hispanic Not interfered Not limited Not detached Felt different Not intimidated Bothered Did not tell Did not tell Did not think 0.79 19
57 Woman Heterosexual NH White Not interfered Not limited Not detached Not different Not intimidated Not bothered Told Did not tell Did not think 0.79 14
58 Woman Heterosexual NH White Not interfered Not limited Not detached Felt different Intimidated Not bothered Told Did not tell Did not think 0.78 85
59 Woman Heterosexual NH White Interfered Limited Detached Felt different Intimidated Not bothered Told Did not tell Did not think 0.75 20
60 Woman Heterosexual NH White Interfered Not limited Detached Felt different Intimidated Not bothered Told Did not tell Did not think 0.75 12
61 Woman Heterosexual NH White Not interfered Not limited Not detached Felt different Not intimidated Not bothered Told Did not tell Did not think 0.74 46
62 Woman Heterosexual NH White Not interfered Not limited Detached Felt different Intimidated Not bothered Did not tell Did not tell Did not think 0.74 42
63 Woman Heterosexual NH White Not interfered Not limited Not detached Not different Not intimidated Bothered Told Did not tell Did not think 0.74 31
64 Woman Heterosexual NH White Interfered Limited Detached Felt different Intimidated Not bothered Told Did not tell Thought to leave 0.71 14
65 Woman Heterosexual NH White Not interfered Not limited Detached Felt different Intimidated Not bothered Told Did not tell Did not think 0.65 31
66 Woman Heterosexual NH White Interfered Limited Detached Felt different Intimidated Not bothered Told Talked Did not think 0.64 14
67 Woman Heterosexual NH White Interfered Limited Detached Felt different Intimidated Not bothered Told Talked Thought to leave 0.64 14
68 Woman Other NH White Interfered Limited Detached Felt different Intimidated Not bothered Told Talked Thought to leave 0.60 10
611
612
and the incident did not limit the respondent’s ability to
participate in college activities or programs (in 18 of the
19 contexts). Moreover, the contexts of these incidents
demonstrate notable traumatic consequences to the vic-
tim. Specifically, in 15 of the 19 contexts, the incident
created an intimidating or uncomfortable environment for
the victim. In 12 of the 19 contexts, the victim felt dif-
ferent as a result of the incident, although none thought
of leaving college. As such, these contexts clearly dem-
onstrate that non-contact SH is associated with traumatic
consequences regardless of other context characteristics.
Finally, it is notable that in 13 of the 19 contexts, victims
self-reported being bothered by the incident and tried not
to think about it after it occurred. In 9 of the 19 contexts,
the victim talked to friends and/or family members about
the incident and none (0/19) talked to a counselor or
other mental health expert.
Turning to the 13 deviant contexts (#56-#68) that are
least associated with non-contact SH, we found that
these contexts were dominated by women (in 12 of
the 13 contexts), heterosexuals (in 12 of the 13 con-
texts), and non-Hispanic Whites (12 of 13 contexts).
In terms of traumatic consequences, the deviant contexts
show great variation, such that 6 of the 13 involved
interference with academics or work, 5 of the 13 in-
volved a limited ability to participate in college activi-
ties or programs, and 9 of the 13 were characterized by
an intimidating and uncomfortable environment. An ex-
amination of help-seeking behaviors and responses to
victimization showed that 11 of the 13 deviant contexts
included respondents who were bothered by and tried
not to think about it, and in 8 of 13 deviant contexts,
the respondent felt detached as a result. All but 2 of the
13 deviant contexts involved respondents who talked
with friends and family members after the incident,
and 3 of the 13 contexts involved respondents who
spoke with a counselor or mental health professional.
Finally, 11 of the 13 contexts involved respondents
who felt different as a result of his/her victimization,
and 3 of the 13 contexts involved respondents who
thought about leaving college.
When we focused on the four contexts that were more
than two standard deviations from the mean context
(#65-#68; proportion = .60–.65), there was much less var-
iation. These deviant contexts involved respondents who
were women (4 of 4 contexts), heterosexual (3 of 4 con-
texts), and identified as non-Hispanic White (4 of 4 con-
texts). These contexts also involved respondents who in-
dicated that the victimization resulted in interference
with work and academics (3 of 4 contexts), limited one’s
ability to engage in activities (3 of 4 contexts), and cre-
ated an intimidating/uncomfortable environment (4 of 4
contexts). Within these contexts, respondents were
J Fam Viol (2020) 35:603–618
bothered by and tried hard not to think about the incident
(4 of 4 contexts), felt detached as a result of the incident
(4 of 4 contexts), talked to friends and family (4 of 4
contexts), talked to a mental health professional (3 of 4
contexts), generally felt different post-incident (4 of 4
contexts), and thought about leaving college (2 of 4 con-
texts). The situational contexts that were least associated
with non-contact SH were qualitatively different in terms
of universal traumatic consequences compared to the sit-
uational contexts associated with non-contact SH only.
These situational contexts demonstrate that traumatic
consequences associated with CSV are associated with a
varied assortment of contexts.
Another way to illustrate differences in contexts most
and least likely associated with non-contact SH is
shown in Table 3. We identified and compared the dif-
ferences in the prevalence of variables in situational
contexts most associated with non-contact SH (100%
of situational contexts are for exclusively non-contact
SH incidents, rows 1–19 in CACC matrix) and those
situational contexts most associated with CSV (rows
56–68 in CACC matrix) in order to facilitate compari-
son. These findings show that CSV was more likely
than non-contact SH to include women (roughly 92%
v. 79%), heterosexuals (roughly 92% v. 68%) and non-
Hispanic Whites (roughly 92% v. 84%). In addition,
contexts least associated with exclusively non-contact
SH were more likely to include traumatic consequences
in the form of interfering with activities (roughly 46%
v. 5%), limiting academic and work performance
(roughly 39% v. 5%) and thoughts about leaving college
(23% v. 0%). Interestingly, though, contexts most asso-
ciated with non-contact SH involved an intimidating and
uncomfortable environment after the victimization inci-
dent (roughly 79% v. 69%). In sum, both non-contact
SH and CSV result in traumatic consequences, however,
it appeared that non-contact SH was associated with
fewer traumatic consequences.
Discussion
Recent research has largely focused on CSV experienced
by college students; particular foci include rape and sex-
ual assault. As such, the consideration of non-contact SH
among the recent generation of college students has
largely been ignored in comparison. This study explored
how the situational contexts of non-contact SH incidents
vary from the situational contexts of CSV among a sam-
ple of college students from 24 institutions of higher
education in the United States. Using conjunctive analy-
ses, numerous patterns emerged, which we now discuss
in more detail.
J Fam Viol (2020) 35:603–618 613

The top of the matrix includes contexts #1-#19, and the bottom of the matrix includes deviant contexts #56-#68. Fractions shown in the columns indicate the number of contexts that have a particular characteristic. For
First, contexts associated with non-contact SH vary

Thought to

University
Leave the
greatly. In this study, the distribution of incidents across

example, 15/19 in the gender identity - woman column indicates that 15 of the 19 contexts involved a woman. The decimal in each column is simply the value of the fraction. For example, 15/19 = 78.9%
situational contexts ranged from 100% (i.e., particular

3/13
0/19

23.1
0.0
situations that only involve non-contact SH) to a low
of 60% (i.e., a situational contexts that involves non-

Counselor
contact SH less often because they also occur among
incidents of CSV). At most, 40% of these contexts in-
Told

3/13
0/19

23.1
0.0
volved contact SV. The most common non-contact SH
Help-Seeking Behaviors

situational context involved heterosexual women who

Friends/
Family
identified as non-Hispanic White and did not report any

11/13
Bothered Told

9/19

84.6
47.4
traumatic consequences associated with the incident of
non-contact SH. The breakdown of demographics in this
study are consistent with some prior research that finds
11/13
6/19
31.6

84.6

that non-contact SH is more common among non-

Hispanic White women, (e.g., Hill and Silva 2005; Ho
Different

et al. 2012; Kearney and Gilbert 2012; McGinley et al.

12/19

11/13

2016), which also may be a function of our sample.

Felt

63.2

84.6

However, this does not necessarily mean that rates of

Victimization
Responses to

victimization among non-Hispanic White females are

Detached

higher than other racial/ethnic and gender combinations.

Race/ Ethnicity - Interfered Limited Intimidated Felt

8/13
2/19
10.5

61.5

As such, these results do not stand in contrast to extant

research on non-contact SH experiences that shows var-
iation in rates of victimization across race/ethnicity. We
15/19

9/13
78.9

69.2

simply found that situational contexts with White non-

Hispanic victims were more frequent. Furthermore, it is
important to recall that this study compared those who
5/13
1/19

38.5
5.3
Consequences

experienced exclusively non-contact SH to those who

experienced CSV exclusively; therefore, we did not ex-
plore and cannot speak to the demographics of those
A comparison of contexts most and least associated with Sexual Harassment (SH)

6/13
1/19

46.2

respondents who experienced no forms of sexual vio-

5.3

lence or those who experienced both non-contact SH

non Hispanic

and CSV.
Second, both non-contact SH and CSV are associated
with notable – albeit somewhat different – post-incident
White

12/13
16/19

92.3
84.2

feelings, traumatic consequences, and help-seeking be-

haviors. Specifically, non-contact SH contexts were
Orientation –
Heterosexual

more likely to be associated with incidents where vic-

tims reported an intimidating or uncomfortable environ-
Gender Identity – Sexual

12/13
13/19

ment at their college, while CSV was more likely to

68.4

92.3

include incidents where the victim reported interference

with academic or professional performance and limited
Demographics

ability to participate in activities or programs at the

college. Interestingly, our analyses indicated that the
Woman

12/13
15/19

most frequent or dominant situational contexts associat-

78.9

92.3

ed with non-contact SH and CSV did not include vic-

Most Associated with Contact Sexual
Violence (SV: bottom of matrix)
Harassment (SH; top of matrix)

tims who engaged in help-seeking behaviors from fac-

ulty/staff, resident advisors, police or authorities. Recall,
Most Associated with Sexual

we were unable to include these variables in our situa-

tional contexts due to a lack of variation in dominant
situational contexts (i.e., no incidents included engaging
in these help-seeking behaviors). Moreover, our domi-
Table 3

nant situational contexts did not include incidents where

victims contacted hotlines or gathered information about
614
sexual victimization online, pressed charges against the
perpetrator, missed class or work, did not turn in assign-
ments or turned in assignments late, and received worse
grades. These consequences and help-seeking behaviors
tend to be rare in the sample of incidents as a whole.
However, it should be noted that a substantial percent-
age of victims of non-contact SH did indeed feel differ-
ent after the incident, were bothered by the incident,
and disclosed their experiences to friends or family,
suggesting that the incident certainly affected individual
functioning even if advocacy seeking and educational
performance were not affected.
Prior literature demonstrates that victims of SH, in
general, cope with their victimization in a number of
ways, including compromised mental health and in-
creased substance use (e.g., Knapp et al. 1997; Reilly
et al. 1986; Benson and Thomson 1982; Paludi et al.
2006). Based on this analysis, it is likely that responses
to victimization may be linked to the uncomfortable and/
or intimidating environment commonly associated with
non-contact SH (in contrast to CSV). Additionally, we
caution against the interpretation that the more frequently
noted disruptive consequences associated with incidents
of CSV, in comparison to incidents of non-contact SH,
suggest that non-contact SH does not result in any harm
to the individual. The common occurrence of an intimi-
dating and/or uncomfortable environment at the college
is cause enough for concern, as any form of SH, includ-
ing non-contact SH, is strictly prohibited under Title IX.
Additionally, the general lack of formal disclosure (in-
cluding police, counselors or other health experts) in
contrast to informal disclosure to family and friends
may suggest that while students are significantly both-
ered by their victimization, there is likely a feeling that
nothing can be or will be done to ameliorate the problem
by formal authorities and health providers. Such a toler-
ance or acceptance of the status quo for non-contact SH
is unacceptable. Furthermore, the rarity of formal disclo-
sure may reflect the misunderstanding and mispercep-
tions about the gravity of non-contact SH and/or behav-
iors that constitute any type of SH. Again, this misun-
derstanding can be addressed and should not be a con-
tinued reason for precluding help-seeking. Finally, it is
possible the revictimization through formal disclosure
(by having to relive the experience when disclosing and
then experiencing substantial questioning incurred after
formal disclosure) may be a concern of victims, imped-
ing their formal-help seeking behavior. Nonetheless, if
college and outside victim service providers are not
learning about experiences of non-contact SH experi-
enced by students (or CSV experiences for that matter)
because of lack of formal disclosure, it limits their ability
to potentially assist student victims and address service
J Fam Viol (2020) 35:603–618
provisions. Furthermore, one implication of the low prev-
alence of formal disclosure among frequent situational
contexts is that reliance upon formal sources for esti-
mates regarding the prevalence of non-contact SH (and
CSV more generally) is unwise as these estimates will
significantly underestimate the prevalence of SH and
CSV experiences.
A third point of discussion is that for many of the
variables included in this analysis, their association with
non-contact SH was highly contextual. For example,
victim demographics, an incident resulting in an intim-
idating environment, and an incident resulting in a vic-
tim feeling differently were found among situational
contexts most and least associated with SH. This type
of contextual variability in the association of particular
demographic and consequence of victimization would
not be captured in variable-oriented analyses such as
regression, which does not examine the commonality
of variables and the combination of variables among
incidents.
Overall, this analysis provides insight for college
campus officials and service providers regarding the
lived experiences of their students. Most importantly,
these findings indicate that both non-contact SH and
CSV occur among college-enrolled women and men.
This research also confirms that both non-contact SH
and CSV have negative consequences for the victim.
The belief that non-contact SH is not serious and does
not have the potential to compromise individual func-
tioning is erroneous and damaging. Students who feel
intimidated or uncomfortable on their campus may drop
out or not perform well academically (see Mengo and
Black 2016). Moreover, stress is continually cited as an
academic impediment for college students (ACHA
2017), and incidents of non-contact SH that create an
intimidating and uncomfortable environment certainly do
nothing to reduce a students’ stress level and may argu-
ably increase student stress levels. As such, the sum of
this research provides guidance for how college officials
might address and respond to non-contact SH and CSV.
For one, prevention programming aimed at preventing
all forms of sexual victimization among college students
should be required for all students and these programs
should include a component on non-contact SH and
how this behavior is not and will not be condoned or
tolerated. Moreover, information should be clearly pro-
vided to all students regarding their rights under Title
IX, and these efforts should be reinforced with policies
enforced at the institutional level in line with Title IX.
In general, colleges should do a better job of educating
all college community members (i.e., students, staff and
faculty) about non-contact SH, especially, with the goal
of increasing awareness, prevention, and openness to
J Fam Viol (2020) 35:603–618
advocacy seeking. For the college community at large,
this could be accomplished through mandatory SH train-
ing addressing non-contact and contact SH for all
employees.
Limitations
Although we believe this study extends the literature in many
ways, there are some limitations. First, the response rates
across the 24 public colleges – while varied – were low over-
all. Therefore, we run the risk that students who did not re-
spond to the survey have different experiences (and ultimately
incidents of victimization) than those who did. Unfortunately,
we have no way to speak to this potential sample bias.
Similarly, the data used by this study were only collected from
undergraduate students at public, 4-year colleges. As a result,
graduate students are excluded, as are students enrolled in
community or technical colleges. Although research suggests
that undergraduate students are more likely to experience the
types of victimization under study here, research also tells us
that some victimization experiences of graduate students may
be different in nature (situational context; see Cantor et al.
2015). Furthermore, it is possible that students in private in-
stitutions of higher education or those enrolled in non-four
year institutions of higher education may have different expe-
riences as well (Cantor et al. 2015).
This study also only examines those students who experi-
ence exclusively non-contact SH or CSV; it excludes those
students who experienced both types of sexual victimization
and students who did not experience either. Although our
approach in this study was purposeful to best isolate non-
contact SH contexts, it would also be fruitful to see the context
surrounding other victimization (or lack thereof) experiences.
For example, Kilpatrick et al. (2007) reported differences in
outcomes for college students who had and had not experi-
enced specific types of rape.
Lastly, this study only used data from the 2016–2017
academic year, and thus, only examined one cohort of
college students. As a result, the findings presented here
must be interpreted within the historical context in
which these victimizations occurred. For example, some
of these experiences occurred during the beginning of
the #MeToo13 and Time’s Up movements which may
have brought greater weight and consideration to non-
contact SH and forms of CSV.
13
We recognize that MeToo began long before 2016/17 with the work of Tarana
Burke in 2007. Of special interest in terms of data collection is the large attention
given to hashtag MeToo which commenced in October of 2017.
615
Future Research
Future research can build upon this study in multiple
ways. As mentioned previously, this study did not exam-
ine and compare the contextual differences between ex-
periences of college students who experienced more than
one form of sexual victimization and those who experi-
enced only one form. Therefore, future research should
consider exploring these differences, as it may impact
reporting, outcomes, and consequences associated with
victimization experiences.
Future research should also consider exploring the
victim-offender dyad and relationship dynamics for both
non-contact SH and CSV. Our decision to exclude these
variables from this study stemmed from space limita-
tions. Nevertheless, it is possible that the victim-
offender relationship may be differently associated with
varying situational contexts. For example, prior research
on college student SH experiences heavily focused on
power imbalances involving female students and male
faculty members (e.g., see Rubin and Borgers 1990 for
a review). It would be worthwhile for future research to
explore whether the traumatic consequences and post-
incident feelings and behaviors of non-contact SH are
dependent upon the victim-offender relationship.
Conclusion
It is clear that a nontrivial number of students experience
a range of sexual victimizations, including non-contact
SH and CSV. A comprehensive approach to student
well-being should include education and awareness that
any type of sexual misconduct is not tolerated and all
types lead to negative outcomes. Students should be edu-
cated on the college’s formal grievance procedures and
encouraged to not accept these behaviors. This may or
may not include encouraging students to report incidents
of sexual victimization and certainly includes providing
resources for victims to buffer the ill effects of sexual
victimization. Although the risk of secondary victimiza-
tion as a result of reporting cannot, unfortunately, be re-
moved completely, persons working on campus should be
trained to understand the motivations for and barriers
against reporting, and respond to such situations in a sup-
portive, trauma-informed, and victim-centered approach.
As additional work in this area is conducted, a greater
knowledge base will be developed that can assist with
prevention and response approaches to addressing all
forms of sexual violence including SH and CSV.
616 J Fam Viol (2020) 35:603–618

Appendix. Sexual Victimization Items

Non-contact Sexual Harassment (1 = responded at least one time to any item; 0 = responded 0 times to all items)
1. Since Fall (YEAR) while you were a student at (SCHOOL), how many times has a student or someone employed by or otherwise associated with
(SCHOOL)
a. Made sexual remarks or told jokes or stories that were insulting or offensive (Responses: 0, 1, 2, 3–5, 6–10, more than 10 times)
b. Made inappropriate or offense comments about your or somebody else’s body, appearance or sexual activities (Responses: 0, 1, 2, 3–5, 6–10, more
than 10 times)
c. Emailed, texted, tweeted, phoned, or instant messaged offensive sexual remarks, jokes, stories, pictures or videos that you did not want (Responses: 0,
1, 2, 3–5, 6–10, more than 10 times)
d. Harassed, insulted, threatened or intimidated you because they thought you might be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender (Responses: 0, 1, 2, 3–5,
6–10, more than 10 times)
Contact sexual victimization (1 = responded at least one time to any item; 0 = responded no to all items)
1. Since Fall (YEAR) while you were a student at (SCHOOL) has someone used physical force or threats of physical force to make you do the following
things:
a. Sexual penetration (Responses: 0, 1, 2, 3–5, 6–10, more than 10 times)
b. Oral sex (Responses: 0, 1, 2, 3–5, 6–10, more than 10 times)
2. Since Fall (YEAR) while you were a student at (SCHOOL) has someone used physical force or threats of physical force in an unsuccessful attempt to
make you do the following
a. Sexual penetration (Responses: 0, 1, 2, 3–5, 6–10, more than 10 times)
b. Oral sex (Responses: 0, 1, 2, 3–5, 6–10, more than 10 times)
3. Since Fall (YEAR) while you were a student at (SCHOOL), have either of the following happened to you while you were unable to consent or stop
what was happening because you were passed out, asleep or incapacitated due to drugs or alcohol
a. Sexual penetration (Responses: 0, 1, 2, 3–5, 6–10, more than 10 times)
b. Oral sex (Responses: 0, 1, 2, 3–5, 6–10, more than 10 times)
4. Since Fall (YEAR) while you have been attending (SCHOOL) has someone had contact with you involving penetration or oral sex by threatening
non-physical harm or promising rewards such that you felt you must comply (Responses: 0, 1, 2, 3–5, 6–10, more than 10 times)
5. Since Fall (YEAR) while you have been attending (SCHOOL) has someone had contact with you involving penetration or oral sex without your
active, ongoing voluntary consent? (Responses: 0, 1, 2, 3–5, 6–10, more than 10 times)
6. Since Fall (YEAR) while you were a student at (SCHOOL), how many times has a student or someone employed by or otherwise associated with
(SCHOOL)
a. Physically hurt you (including forced sex) because they thought you might be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender (Responses: 0, 1, 2, 3–5, 6–10,
more than 10 times)

Cammaert, L. P. (1985). How widespread is sexual harassment on cam-

References
Adams, J. W., Kottke, J. L., & Padgitt, J. S. (1983). Sexual harassment of
university students. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24(6),
484–490.
American College Health Association. (2017). Healthy Campus 2020.
Retrieved October 2018. https://www.acha.org/app_themes/
HC2020/.../HC2020_Student_Objectives.doc. Accessed 3 Mar 2019
American Psychological Association. (1993). In the supreme court
of the United States: Teresa Harris v. forklift systems, Inc.:
Brief for amicus curiae American Psychological Association
in support of neither part. Washington DC.
Belknap, J., & Sharma, N. (2014). The significant frequency and impact
of stealth (nonviolent) gender-based abuse among college women.
Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15(3), 181–190.
Benson, D. J., & Thomson, G. E. (1982). Sexual harassment on a
university campus: The confluence of authority relations, sex-
ual interest and gender stratification. Social Problems, 29(3),
236–251.
Blumenthal, J. A. (1998). The reasonable woman standard: A meta-
analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual ha-
rassment. Law and Human Behavior, 22(1), 33–57.
pus. International Journal of Women's Studies, 8(4), 388–397.
Cantor, D., Fisher, B., Chibnall, S., Townsend, R., Lee, H., Bruce, C., &
Thomas, G. (2015). Report on the AAU campus climate survey on
sexual assault and sexual misconduct. Rockville: Westat.
Castillo, Y., Muscarella, F., & Szuchman, L. T. (2011). Gender differ-
ences in college students’ perceptions of same-sex sexual harass-
ment: The influence of physical attractiveness and attitudes toward
lesbians and gay men. Journal of College Student Development,
52(5), 511–522.
Chiodo, D., Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C., Hughes, R., & Jaffe, P. (2009).
Impact of sexual harassment victimization by peers on subsequent
adolescent victimization and adjustment: A longitudinal study.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 45(3), 246–252.
Coker, A. L., Follingstad, D. R., Bush, H. M., Fisher, B. S. (2016). Are
interpersonal violence rates higher among young women in college
compared with those never attending college? Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 31(8), 1413-1429.
Cortina, L. M., & Wasti, S. A. (2005). Profiles in coping: Responses to
sexual harassment across persons, organizations, and cultures.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 182–192.
Decker, J. F., & Baroni, P. G. (2011). “No” still means “yes”: The failure
of the “non-consent” reform movement in American rape and sexual
J Fam Viol (2020) 35:603–618
assault law. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 101(4),
1081–1169.
Fedina, L., Holmes, J. L., & Backes, B. L. (2018). Campus sexual assault:
A systematic review of prevalence research from 2000 to 2015.
Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 19(1), 76–93.
Fisher, B.S., Cullen, F.T., & Turner, M.G. (2000). The Sexual
Victimization of College Women U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice.
Fisher, B. S., Daigle, L. E., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2003).
Reporting sexual victimization to the police and others: Results from
a national-level study of college women. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 30(1), 6–38.
Fisher, B. S., Daigle, L. E., & Cullen, F. T. (2010). Unsafe in the ivory
tower: The sexual victimization of college women. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
Fitzgerald, L. F., Gelfand, M. J., & Drasgow, F. (1995). Measuring sexual
harassment: Theoretical and psychometric advances. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 17(4), 425-445.
Fitzgerald, L. F., & Ormerod, A. J. (1991). Perceptions of sexual harass-
ment: The influence of gender and academic context. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 15, 281–294.
Fitzgerald, L. F., Shullman, S. L., Bailey, N., Richards, M., Swecker, J.,
Gold, Y., Ormerod, M., & Weitzman, L. (1988). The incidence and
dimensions of sexual harassment in academia and the workplace.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 152–175.
Gervasio, A. H., & Ruckdeschel, K. (1992). College Students' judgments
of verbal sexual harassment 1. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 22(3), 190–211.
Gruber, J. E. (1992). A typology of personal and environmental sexual
harassment: Research and policy implications for the 1990s. Sex
Roles, 26(11/12), 447–464.
Hart, T. C., & Miethe, T. D. (2008). Exploring bystander presence and
intervention in nonfatal violence victimization: When does helping
really help? Violence and Victims, 23, 637–651.
Hill, C., & Silva, E. (2005). Drawing the line: Sexual harassment on
campus. Washington DC: American Association of University
Women Educational Foundation.
Ho, I. K., Dinh, K. T., Bellefontaine, S. A., & Irving, A. L. (2012). Sexual
harassment and posttraumatic stress symptoms among Asian and
white women. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma,
21(1), 95–113.
Jordan, C., Combs, J., & Smith, G. (2014). An exploration of sexual
victimization and academic performance among college women.
Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15(3), 191–200.
Kelly, L. (1987). The continuum of sexual violence. In J. Hanmer & M.
Maynard (Eds.), Women, violence and social control. Explorations
in sociology (British sociological association conference volume
series). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kilpatrick, D.G., Resnick, H.S., Ruggiero, K.J., Conoscenti, L.M., &
McCauley, J. (2007). Drug-facilitated, incapacitated, and forcible
rape: A national study.
Knapp, D. E., Faley, R. H., Ekeberg, S. E., & Dubois, C. L. (1997).
Determinants of target responses to sexual harassment: A conceptual
framework. Academy of Management Review, 22(3), 687–729.
Krebs, C. P., Lindquist, C. H., Warner, T. D., Fisher, B. S., & Martin, S. L.
(2007). The campus sexual assault (CSA) study. Washington, DC:
National Institute of Justice.
Krebs, C. P., Lindquist, C. H., Berzofsky, M., Shook-Sa, B., & Peterson,
K. (2016). Campus Climate Survey Validation Study: Final
Technical Report. Bureau of Justice Statistics Research and
Development Series. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Kearney, L.K., & Gilbert, L.A. (2012). The role of ethnicity in Mexican
American and non-Hispanic White students' experience of sexual
harassment. Hispanic Journal of Behavoral Sciences, 34(4), 507-
524.
617
Koss, M. P. (2018). Hidden rape: Sexual aggression and victimization in a
national sample of students in higher education. In Rape and society
(pp. 35-49). Routledge.
Leone, J. M., & Carroll, J. M. (2017). Victimization and suicidality
among female college students. Journal of American College
Health, 64(6), 421–428.
Lott, B., Reilly, M. E., & Howard, D. R. (1982). Sexual assault and
harassment: A campus community case study. Signs: Journal of
Women in Culture and Society, 8(2), 296–319.
Maihoff, N., & Forrest, L. (1983). Sexual harassment in higher education:
An assessment study. Journal of the National Association for
Women Deans, Administrators, and Counselors, 46(2), 3–8.
Malovich, N. J., & Stake, J. E. (1990). Sexual harassment on campus:
Individual differences in attitudes and beliefs. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 14(1), 63–81.
Marks, M. A., & Nelson, E. S. (1993). Sexual harassment on campus:
Effects of professor gender on perception of sexually harassing be-
haviors. Sex Roles, 28(3–4), 207–217.
Mazer, D. B., & Percival, E. F. (1989). Ideology or experience? The
relationships among perceptions, attitudes, and experiences of sex-
ual harassment in university students. Sex Roles, 20(3–4), 135–147.
McCormack, A. (1985). The sexual harassment of students by teachers:
The case of students in science. Sex Roles, 13(1–2), 21–32.
McGinley, M., Wolff, J. M., Rospenda, K. M., Liu, L., & Richman, J. A.
(2016). Risk factors and outcomes of chronic sexual harassment
during the transition to college: Examination of a two-part growth
mixture model. Social Science Research, 60, 297–310.
Mengo, C., & 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.
Metha, A., & Nigg, J. (1982). Sexual harassment: Implications of a study at
Arizona State University. Women's Studies Quarterly, 10(2), 24–26.
Miethe, T. D., & Regoeczi, W. C. (2004). Rethinking homicide: Exploring
the structure and process underlying deadly situations. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Miethe, T. D., Hart, T. C., & Regoeczi, W. C. (2008). The conjunctive
analysis of case configurations: An exploratory method for discrete
multivariate analyses of crime data. Journal of Quantitative
Criminology, 24, 227–241.
Morgan, R. E., & Kena, G. (2017). Criminal victimization (p. 2016).
Washington DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Paludi, M., Nydegger, R., DeSouza, E., Nydegger, L., & Dicker, K. A.
(2006). International perspectives on sexual harassment of college
students: The sounds of silence. Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences, 1087(1), 103–120.
Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2009). A longitudinal investigation of peer
sexual harassment victimization in adolescence. Journal of
Adolescence, 32(5), 1173–1188.
Ragin, C. (1987). The Comparative Method. Berkeley: The University of
California Press.
Reilly, M. E., Lott, B., & Gallogly, S. M. (1986). Sexual harassment of
university students. Sex Roles, 15(7–8), 333–358.
Rotundo, M., Nguyen, D. H., & Sackett, P. R. (2001). A meta-analytic
review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 914–922.
Rubin, L. J., & Borgers, S. B. (1990). Sexual harassment in universities
during the 1980s. Sex Roles, 23(7), 397–411.
Sabina, C., & Ho, 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.
Stoner, J. E., & Cramer, R. J. (2017). Sexual violence victimization
among college females: A systematic review of rates, barriers, and
facilitators of health service utilization on campus. Trauma,
Violence, & Abuse. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1524838017721245.
618 J Fam Viol (2020) 35:603–618

Thompson, M. P., & Kingree, J. B. (2010). Sexual victimization, negative Yoon, E., Stiller Funk, R., & Kropf, N. P. (2010). Sexual harassment
cognitions, and adjustment in college women. American Journal of experiences and their psychological correlates among a diverse sam-
Health Behavior, 34(1), 54–59. ple of college women. Affilia, 25(1), 8–18.
Till, F. J. (1980). Sexual Harassment. A Report on the Sexual Harassment
of Students. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2006). Extent, nature, and consequences of jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
rape victimization: Findings from the National Violence against
Women Survey. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Turchik, J. A., & Hassija, C. M. (2014). Female sexual victimization
among college students: Assault severity, health risk behaviors,
and sexual functioning. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(13),
2439–2457.
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.