Campus sexual assault

1. COLLEGE STUDENTS’ EXPERIENCES OF SEXUAL ASSAULT & STALKING: RECOGNIZING INCIDENTS, RESPONDING SENSITIVELYJennifer Katz and Hillary Rich Department of Psychology, SUNY Geneseo

2. Campus sexual assault

3. What is Campus sexual assault? • Unwanted, non-consensual sexual experiences on our campus/college community • Violates individual sexual autonomy • the right to refuse sexual activity with any person, at any time, for any or no reason (Schulhofer, 1998). • Sexual autonomy is generally not protected in either • state law (McGregor, 2005) • or college codes of conduct (Shapiro, 2010). • This absence both reflects & corroborates tendencies to minimize sexual assault and to blame victims.

4. Just Sex? • Collective beliefs about normative heterosexuality (Gavey, 2005) • Insatiable male sexual drive; “boys will be boys”(Weiss, 2009) • Sexual permissiveness • Sex, including forced sex, is “no big deal” • Stereotypes about sexual assault • “real” assaults involve violent strangers jumping from bushes • Commonly, there’s no obviousphysicalinjury On the back: “Just kidding”

5. Presumed sexual Consent & victim-Blame • Among “adults” sexual consent is presumed unless there’s “sufficient” evidence to the contrary • Promotes focus on victims: did s/he do enough to say “no”? • Obscures focus on offenders: did s/he act without an unequivocal (or even enthusiastic) “yes”?

6. Are sexual rights less important? • In medicine, the presumption is of non-consent. • Victims of property crimes are not blamed in the ways we blame victims of sexual assault: • if a drunk student can’t stop someone from taking her car, she isn’t seen as having “consented.” • if a student willingly lends someone $10, we don’t assume he’s willing to lend more. • Medical and property rights are largely gender-neutral; sexual violations are not. • Victims of sexual violations are often disparaged; accordingly, • women as “sluts”(Valenti, 2010) • men as “weak” or “fags” - regardless of the offender’s sex (Rogers & Davis, 2006)

7. JUST “BAD SEX”? • Victims of sexual assault tend to minimize their experiences, blame themselves, or both, especially if • Alcohol was involved (by self or offender or both) • decreases offender blame while increasing victim blame! • They know the offender or are romantically involved • Perpetration involved oral penetration or penetration by objects other than a penis (Kahn, 2004) • Most campus sexual assaults involve • Alcohol (Shapiro, 2010), • People who know each other – 80-90% (Karjane et al., 2005)

8. A Nationwide Problem • American College Health Association (ACHA) Projected that 20-25% of women experience attempted or completed rape in college and rates increase when including contact (sexual battery) (Carr, 2005). • National Institutes of Justice (NIJ) • 19% of women, 6% of men experienced attempted or completed rape since beginning college (Krebs et al., 2007) • Less then 5% reported sexual violations to any campus authority (Karjane, Fisher & Cullen, 2005).

9. Under-reporting: reciprocal Effects • Individual minimization • victims are often embarrassed, worried about privacy, & fear punishment for underage drinking (Karjane et al., 2005). • The Center for Public Integrity found US campuses • Often fail to document sexual assaults • In 2006, 77% of schools reported zero sexual offenses • Often fail to support victims; are “intimidating, unsympathetic or unlikely to result in punishment for the accused”(Lombardi, 2009) • From 1988-2009, SUNY New Paltz held 3 hearings; one student was found guilty and punished • Can improve their responses to victims, which decreases under-reporting(Lombardi, 2009)

10. Behaviorally specific questions • Neutral • Objective • Allow the student to focus on personal experience, not the match between their experience and stereotypes • In the Geneseo anonymous campus wide survey of 1701 students, we asked • Behaviorally specific questions from the Sexual Experiences Survey • “Have you been sexually assaulted at Geneseo” • Who did you tell?

11. SES: nonconsensual contact/battery Since starting college, at Geneseo, how many times have you been fondled, kissed, or touched sexually when you didn’t consent to it because 1. you were overwhelmed by another person’s continual arguments and pressure? • 20% overall, 24% of women, 10% of men 2. a person used a position of authority (your boss, teacher, counselor, supervisor) to make you? • 1% overall, no sex differences 3. a person threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc.) to make you? • 6% overall, 7% of women, 2% of men

12. Ses: Sexual Coercion at Geneseo 4. Since starting college, at Geneseo, how many times have you given into sexual intercourse although you didn’t consent to it because you were overwhelmed by a person’s *continual arguments and pressure*? • 9% overall • 11% of women • 4% of men 5. Since starting college, at Geneseo, how many times have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a person used a position of *authority* (as your boss, teacher, camp counselor, supervisor) to make you? • < 1 % overall • No sex differences

13. Ses: attempted rape at Geneseo Since starting college, at Geneseo, how many times has a person *attempted* sexual intercourse (but intercourse did not occur) when you didn’t consent to it….. 6. and the person was threatening or using some degree of force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc.)? • 4% overall • 5% of women • 1% of men 7. by giving you alcohol or drugs without your knowledge or consent? • 4% overall • 5% of women • 2% of men

14. SES: Rape Since starting college, at geneseo, how many times have you 8. had sexual intercourse when you didn’t consent to it b/c a person gave you alcohol or drugs w/o your knowledge or consent? (2% overall) 9. beenincapacitated due to alcohol or drugs (that is, passed out or unaware of what was happening) and were not able to prevent unwanted sexual intercourse from taking place? • 8% overall, 9% of women, 6% of men 10. had sexual intercourse when you didn’t consent to it b/c a person threatened or used some kind of physical force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc.) to make you? (2% overall) 11. had *sex acts* (e.g., penetration by objects) when you didn’t want to b/c a person threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc.) to make you? (1% overall)

15. Table 1: overall rates at geneseo(N = 1683a) ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Overall Women Men   (n = 1228) (n = 455) ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Any SES experience25.5 (429) 29.6 (363) 14.5 (66) (% yes, number of students) Any Sexual Contact 20.9 (352) 25.0 (307) 9.9 (45) (sexual touch w/o consent) Any Sexual Coercion 9.2 (155) 11.0 (135) 4.4 (20) (nonconsensual penetration) Any Attempted Rape 6.8 (114) 8.4 (103) 2.4 (11) (attempted penetration) Any Rape 9.4 (158) 10.0 (123) 7.7 (35) (penetration due to force or incapacitation) _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Notes: a Excludes those who didn’t indicate their sex (n = 14) and trans students (n = 4); 13.2% had > 1 type

16. Table 2: Students who self-identify as sexually assaulted after reporting behaviorally specific incident ________________________________________________________________________________________ Have you ever been sexually assaulted on campus or in the Geneseo community? % Yes % Unsure % No ________________________________________________________________________________________ Sexual contact 5.5 4.1 90.4 (n = 146) Sexual coercion 10.2 3.4 86.4 (n = 59) Attempted rape 28.3 11.7 60.0 (n = 60) Completed rape 30.4 10.8 58.9 (n = 158)  _________________________________________________________________________________________ Notes: 5% of the total sample (N = 1683) identified as sexually assaulted at Geneseo;. Row percentages are based only on students classified as to their most severe SES event.

17. TABLE 3: RATES OF DISCLOSURE TO CAMPUS PERSONNEL _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Any Assault Severe Assault Identified Assault(n = 366) (n = 213) (n = 79) % (n) % (n) % (n) _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Tell any staff? 8.2 (30) 12.7 (27) 17.7 (14) Tell > 1 office? 2.5 (9) 3.8 (8) 11.4 (9) Specific offices told Campus health 4.7 (17) 7.5 (16) 12.7 (10) Residence staff 4.1 (15) 6.1 (13) 10.1 (8) Dean of students 2.2 (8) 3.8 (8) 10.1 (8) UP/campus police 1.4 (5) 1.9 (4) 5.1 (4) Geneseo faculty 0 0 0 Other staff <.01 (1) .01 (1) 0 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Note: Sample sizes within each column vary based on prevalence rates and how many students responded to the question “If any of these experiences happened, who did you tell about what happened? Please mark all that apply.”

18. Campus stalking

19. What is stalking? • Use of pursuit behaviors: repeated, unwanted intrusions that present a threat and/or cause the victim fear or concern • Distinct from courtship or flirting • Stalker’s attempt to contact the victim or create a relationship ignores the rights and interests of the victim (Emerson et al., 1998) • Anyone can become a potential victim of stalking • Generally, an explicit threat is necessary for police involvement

20. Types of Stalkers • Erotomaniac stalker • Stalker believes s/he loves & is loved by the victim • No prior relationship between the stalker & victim exists • Love-obsessional stalker • Stalker recognizes that his/her love isn’t reciprocated • Stalker meets the criteria for a DSM diagnosis • Simple-obsessional stalker • Stalker pursues a victim with whom s/he has had a previous relationship • Most common form of stalking (Zona et al., 1993)

21. Simple-Obsessional Stalkers • Stalking often occurs after a romantic breakup • Although men & women can be targets, the typical profile is a women pursued by a male ex-partner (Jones, 1996) • Same-gender stalking is a relatively rare, understudied phenomenon • Ex-partner stalkersare more likely than others to exhibit threats and violence • Typically use multiple forms of harassment & intimidation • The more emotional investment, the more risk of violence • Stalking is part of the spectrum of domestic violence • Goals of stalking: revenge and/or reunification • Motives can evolve (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000)

22. Identifying risk for Stalking: Victim Experiences in the Relationship • Stalking may have occurred during the relationship • The victim may have reconciled before with the stalker • This may have inadvertently reinforced the stalker’s pursuit behavior (Fremouw et al., 1997) • Characteristics of the Ex-Partner: • Jealous • Possessive • Hypersensitive • Dependent on partner • Physically and/or emotionally abusive • Wanted to become too serious too quickly (Jason et al., 1984)

23. Effects of Stalking on the Victim • Victims of stalking often display reactions similar to other victims of trauma, including domestic violence • Stalking is an ongoing rather than isolated incident, creating protracted stress • Reported feelings of victims: • powerless • violated • a lack of control • apprehensive • severe emotional trauma (Jones, 1996) • These attitudes may potentially lead to victims to become socially isolated

24. Stalking as a National Problem • A national survey revealed lifetime prevalence rates of being stalked as • 8% of women • 2% for men • When participants were not required to experience fear, prevalence rates rose to 12% and 4%, respectively (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998)

25. Stalking on College Campuses • Rates of stalking on college campuses are much higher than in the general population • 30% of women & 17% of men reported being stalked • Only 1% reported perpetrating stalking (Fremouw et al., 1997) • Although common, students may not accurately recognize risk • Students are learning appropriate courtship behavior and how to navigate romantic relationships • College students are in a developmental stage characterized by beliefs of invulnerability • College students are less likely to report stalking • Stalking may be more of an issue than campus security realizes

26. Table 3: Student reports of experiencing stalking behaviors after a Romantic breakup (N = 137)

27. Cyberstalking on social media Twitter Facebook Foursquare Tumblr • Online pursuit allows a stalker to pursue a victim without his or her awareness & to make anonymous contact • The internet inhibits social anxiety • Stalkers may feel more confident online (Meloy, 1998) • Most state laws require in-person contact for behavior to be considered stalking • Cyberstalking can be psychologically damaging to the victim, even if the victim isn’t physically threatened (McEwan et al., 2007)

28. Commonalities Among Stalking Behaviors: Violating Boundaries • Stalking violates multiple rights & boundaries: • Right to romantic and sexual autonomy • A past relationship, regardless of its nature, does not entitle an ex-partner to future contact or access • Right to privacy, both in person and online • Right to feel (and be) safe • Even when stalkers don’t explicitly threaten victims, their controlling and persistent behaviors can be distressing • Some stalkers target friends & family members as well

29. Social responses

30. SOCIAL REACTIONS • Specific responses to disclosure or knowledge of an event, including sexual assault or stalking • Two primary types of social reactions • Positive AND negative

31. NEGATIVESOCIAL REACTIONS • Can be purposeful attempts to harm survivors • However, typically unintentional • Can also include lack of any response at all • The main categories include • Victim Blame • Distraction • Stigmatizing • Egocentric Responses • Controlling Responses

32. VICTIM BLAME • Blaming the survivor for being assaulted or stalked Behavioral Blame • Blame the survivor’s behaviors • “You were not careful” or “You drank too much” My parents said that the way I dressed and the friends I chose provoked the incident; I wasn’t careful enough • Characterological Blame • Blame on the survivor’s character or personality • “You are a weak person” or “You have bad judgment” My friends asked how I didn’t see it coming and how I could be so stupid

33. Distraction • Discouraging the survivor from talking about the assault or stalking • Includes avoiding the topic or changing the subject • May imply that the survivor is not coping adequately or is overreacting Someone told me that if I dwell on this, the person who did this to me is winning. My mom just wanted me to forget.

34. Stigmatizing • Reflect rejection of the survivor that is due to the stigma of sexual assault or stalking • Verbal or behavioral responses that treat the survivor differently or like “damaged goods” My brothers, who I told, handle me like I am about to break. • Show that survivors can lose relationships My mother disowned me

35. EGOCENTRIC RESPONSES • Responding in self-focused ways that reflect the responder’s concern about the effect of the assault or stalking on themselves • Often from family members or romantic partners • May deny the survivor’s immediate needs or impede his or her ability to receive support/help My boyfriend asked too many questions, asked for too many details; things I didn’t want to share at the time • Threatening the perpetrator may reinforce feelings of helplessness or fear My father said, ‘I’d like to kill the guy’

36. CONTROLLING RESPONSES • Trying to take control of the survivor or post-assault or stalking situation • Authority figures (parents, police, medical providers) may respond this way, includes • Treating the survivor like a child • Knowing “better than” they do • Over-ruling their decisions or wishes My father treated me as if I was 5 years old instead of 25

37. MORE NEGATIVE RESPONSES • Minimizing Response • Suggesting it wasn’t that bad; could’ve been worse, suggest the victim invited, enjoyed or caused it She said at least I didn’t have it as bad as other victims They said it was flattering to have all that attention • Disbelief/Denial • Suggest/imply it was “just sex” or “flirting” • Trust Violation • Betraying survivor’s trust via actions or statements

38. EFFECTS OF NEGATIVE SOCIAL REACTIONS • Increased psychological symptoms • PTSD, depression, guilt, anxiety • Poorer perceived health • Reluctance to seek appropriate help • May silence survivors

39. POSITIVE SOCIAL REACTIONS • support survivors with respect for their wishes (victim-centered); 3 main types • emotional support • listening respectfully, with care • support, validate the survivor’s feelings (then & now) you said no; that should’ve been enough • instrumental support/tangible aid • providing medical or counseling services such as HIV testing, emergency contraception • information support My counselor at college provided information and resources during my years in session with her

40. MORE POSITIVE REACTIONS • Non-blame • Stating that it was not the survivor’s fault • Listening • Taking time to pay attention, listen carefully gave me a change to talk, didn’t question me like an authority • Using survivors’ language • If s/he refers to “the incident,” you do so as well • Avoid labels, unnecessary questions • Not all survivors think of themselves as victims or their experiences as sexual assault or stalking

41. Sensitive Responding to stalking • Recognize the greatest potential danger: the ex-partner stalker who makes threats • Address safety concerns first • Until a victim feels safe, hypersensitivity & mistrust are adaptive • Ultimate goals: alleviate associated psychological distress, rebuild the victim’s trust and confidence • Advice for victims: • Tell friends and family to maintain a social network (may become additional targets) • Keep a log documenting all contact and surveillance • Seek police involvement • Avoid confrontations and do not engage with the stalker

42. Questions?