Citation
Alcohol and sexual aggression on campus

Material Information

Title:
Alcohol and sexual aggression on campus
Creator:
Johns, Tracy L
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
vi, 174 leaves : ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Alcoholic beverages ( jstor )
Alcohols ( jstor )
Coercion ( jstor )
College students ( jstor )
Fraternities ( jstor )
Men ( jstor )
Sexual aggression ( jstor )
Sexual assault ( jstor )
Universities ( jstor )
Women ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Sociology -- UF ( lcsh )
Sociology thesis, Ph.D ( lcsh )
City of Gainesville ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2001.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 165-173).
General Note:
Printout.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Tracy L. Johns.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact the RDS coordinator (ufdissertations@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
026987406 ( ALEPH )
47291886 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text










ALCOHOL AND SEXUAL AGGRESSION ON CAMPUS


By

TRACY L. JOHNS


















A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2001














ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


I would like to thank my mother and grandparents who have tirelessly and

enthusiastically supported my educational endeavors. Without them this opportunity for higher education could never have been realized. I also offer grateful appreciation to all of the members of my committee for their insight, invaluable commentary, and assistance. I also extend special thanks to committee member Michael Scicchitano for his support of this project, and for bolstering my growth as a researcher and academic. I also thank Dr. Jacqueline Hart, whose office supported this research. I appreciate the time and effort of the students who participated in this study and the instructors who allowed me into their classrooms.














TABLE OF CONTENTS
pge

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................... ii

A B ST R A C T ........................................................................................................... v

CHAPTERS

1 IN TRO D U CTIO N ..................................................................................... 1

2 CRIME ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES ....................................................... 8

The Changing Climate on Campus ............................................................ 8
C am pus C rim e .......................................................................................... 9
Responses to Campus Crime and Violence ............................................... 15

3 SEXUAL ASSAULT ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES ............................... 19

Incidence and Characteristics of Rape on Campus ................................... 20
Structural Context .................................................................................... . 29

4 ALCOHOL USE ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES ...................................... 34

Incidence ................................................................................................... 35
Sociocultural Characteristics of Drinkers ................................................. 36
Situational and Contextual Factors ........................................................... 38

5 ALCOHOL USE AND SEXUAL ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS .... 46

A lcohol and Sexuality ............................................................................... 46
Alcohol as a Risk Factor for Sexual Victimization .................................. 47

6 THEORIES ON ALCOHOL AND SEXUAL AGGRESSION ............... 53

Social Learning ......................................................................................... 54
R outine A ctivities .................................................................................... . 61
Integrating Theories .................................................................................. 65

7 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION.. 68








Sampling Design ...................................................................................... 68
The Sample .............................................................................................. 69
Data Collection Procedures ..................................................................... 72
Concepts Under Study ............................................................................ 73
Hypotheses .............................................................................................. 77
Coding and Sample Characteristics ....................................................... 79

8 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS: ALCOHOL USE ....................... 81

Theoretical Explanations for Alcohol Use ............................................ 81
Univariate Distributions .......................................................................... 83
Bivariate Relationships .......................................................................... 92
M ultivariate Analysis .............................................................................. 103

9 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS: SEXUAL AGGRESSION ....... 108

Theoretical Explanations for Sexual Aggression .................................. 108
Univariate Distributions ........................................................................ 110
Bivariate Relationships ......................................................................... 123
M ultivariate Analysis ............................................................................ 134

10 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS ......................... 147

Discussion of Results ............................................................................. 147
Conclusions ............................................................................................ 153

APPENDIX RESEARCH INSTRUM ENT .................................................... 159

REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 165

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................................. 174













Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

ALCOHOL AND SEXUAL AGGRESSION ON CAMPUS By

Tracy L. Johns

May 2001

Chair: Michael Radelet, Ph.D.

Major Department: Sociology

This research study assessed what factors contribute to higher frequencies of

alcohol use on campus, whether particular group affiliations affect levels of drinking, and whether alcohol use/abuse contributes to commission of sexual aggression and sexual victimization. A primary focus was placed on assessing whether alcohol use directly predicted sexually aggressive behavior, or whether a similar set of variables was related to each. Structural factors, measured as perceptions of the campus climate related to drinking and sexual behaviors, were also of chief concern.

The primary sample for the study, gathered as a multi-stage stratified cluster sample from all undergraduate courses at a large state university, consisted of 1,519 undergraduate students. Survey instruments containing questions about alcohol use, sexual offending and victimization, perceptions of alcohol use and sexual aggression, and sociodemographic variables, were completed in classrooms. Ten in-depth interviews were also conducted with students of the same university. Questions probed perceptions









of the social climate on campus, views of alcohol use and sexual offending and victimization.

Fraternity and sorority membership was related to drinking and binge drinking. Frequency of binge drinking was correlated to belief that the university is a "party school." Fraternity members, especially those that live in fraternity houses, were more likely to report committing acts of sexual coercion and assault than other men were. Alcohol use was a predictor of sexually aggressive behavior. Drinking, binge drinking, frequent binge drinking, believing that alcohol use is central to the social life of female students, and believing that sexual assault happens frequently on campus were all significantly correlated with forms of sexual coercion. Both macro-level learning concepts and elements of routine activities theory were supported.

In sum, this research reveals the on-going problem of sexual aggression on

campus. The use of alcohol and drugs as a sexual strategy, particularly by men living in fraternity houses, persists. Women who drink, especially those who drink heavily, and/or in the context of fraternity parties, may be at particular risk for sexual victimization.













CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION


As institutions dedicated to a higher order of human endeavor, colleges and universities once were presumed to be immune from the violence that permeates virtually every aspect of American life. One author characterized colleges and universities as "sedate ivory towers, sanctuaries apart from the larger society and places where crime and criminal justice do not intrude." He was referring, however, to pre-1960s institutions of higher learning. Decades later, this
characterization no longer holds true. (Nichols, 1995:1)



Campus crime, and, more specifically, campus violence, is often mentioned in the nightly news, television newsmagazines, and talk shows. Once assumed to be bastions of serenity and intellectualism, college and university campuses across the country experienced sweeping economic, political, and social changes in the past three decades. While the campus upheaval of the 1960s and 1970s is still a fresh memory for many, today's campus "crime" is much changed from those days of protest. Unlike general crime rates, and especially violent crime rates, which have been dropping across the country and in America's largest cities, increasing rates of crime and violent crime have been reported to the police on college campuses throughout the United States since the early 1980s (Engs and Hanson 1994) and into the 1990s (Lederman 1995; Lively 1998). It should be noted that increases in crime reported to police might not necessarily mean that actual crime is increasing, but compelling evidence suggests that crime is indeed a problem on college campuses. Testimony before Congress in 1990, in fact, revealed that campus crime steadily increased from 1985 to 1989 (Sloan 1994). Security reports from








four-year institutions with more than 5,000 students posted increases in rates of murder, forcible and non-forcible sex offenses, and alcohol/drug violations (Chronicle of Higher Education 1998). In fact, alcohol-related arrests on college campuses jumped 24.3 % in 1998, the largest increase in seven years (Dizon 2000). The focus of this study is on alcohol use and its impact on sex offenses on college campuses.

Over 70% of college and university presidents rank alcohol abuse as the number one issue on their campus (O'Dell 2000; Wechsler 1996). A 1990 study reported that college students spend $4.2 billion annually on alcohol. By 1994 that number had increased to $5.5 billion annually or about $446 per student (Adler and Rosenberg 1994; Monroe 1996; O'Hare 1990). On average, each student drinks 34 gallons of alcoholic beverages each year (Monroe 1996). Overall consumption of alcohol by college students rose through the 1970s and then appeared to flatten out. Many recent studies reported a slight decline in student drinking (Rosenberg 1990; Wechsler 1996; Wechsler 2000). It seems, however, that while absolute numbers of drinkers may be declining compared to previous years, the still large percentage of heavy drinkers among the college ranks has remained constant with at least half of all college students falling in the moderate (from one to three drinks once per week or four to sixteen drinks twice per month) to heavy drinker (five drinks once per week to 16 or more drinks more than seven times a week) category (O'Hare 1990). Since the mid-1960s, studies have consistently reported at least occasional use of alcohol for over 90% of college students (Berkowitz and Perkins 1986). The most recent comprehensive study of drinking on college campuses, the 1999 iteration of the Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study, surveyed 14,000 students








enrolled in 119 different four-year colleges. During the school year 81% of respondents reported drinking (Wechsler 2000).

College students drink more and are more likely to "binge" drink than their noncollege-enrolled counterparts of the same age group in the general population (Hingson 1998; Wechsler et al. 1994). In general, the literature shows that most students drink, primarily for social purposes, on at least a weekly basis (Berkowitz and Perkins 1986). This is true on the campus of this study as well, with 76.5% of a campus-wide sample of undergraduates reporting the use of alcohol in the 30 days before the survey, 79% of them to "facilitate fun," 54% to "ease social interactions," and 15.1% to "enhance sex" (CADRC 2000).

While alcohol abuse is problematic in its own right, a greater problem lies in the impact that alcohol use has on crime in general, and on sexual offenses in particular. An estimated 95% of all violent criminal offenses committed on college and university campuses involved the use of alcohol and drugs (Nichols 1995; O'Dell 2000; Sloan 1994). More specifically, numerous studies have shown that alcohol use is highly related to incidents of sexual aggression and assault, both in the general population and on college campuses (Engs and Hanson 1994; Koss and Gaines 1993; Ward et al. 1991). A recent survey of undergraduates at the University of Florida revealed that nearly 12% of male and female respondents perceived having been "taken advantage of sexually" as a consequence of alcohol/drug use, and another 24.3% reported having "unexpected sexual activity" as a consequence of alcohol/drug use (CADRC 2000). Several studies have shown that 75% of men and over half of all women involved in acquaintance rape had been drinking or taking drugs before the incident (Adler and Rosenberg 1994; Koss 1988;








Ward et al. 1991). And, the U.S. Department of Education's Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention reports that 90% of all campus rapes or sexual assaults involve alcohol (O'Dell 2000). The Alcohol and Drug Education and Policy Committee of the university under study reports in their minutes that a high percentage of cases handled by Judicial Affairs involve alcohol abuse. Moreover, "police, counselors, and others who deal with sexual assault and date rapes report that alcohol is almost always involved" (2000:1).

It seems clear that use of drugs/alcohol and crime/delinquency are highly related (Akers 1992). Generally, both alcohol/drug use and criminal acts, such as sexual assault, may be related to the extent that they result from a common set of factors such as age, sex, race, socio-economic status, religion, family, and peer groups (Akers 1992). Many studies have focused on the influence of peer groups, such as fraternities/sororities or athletic organizations, as establishing both patterns of excessive drinking and contexts favorable to acts of sexual aggression and coercion (Boeringer et al. 1991; Copenhaver and Grauerholz 1991; Koss and Gaines 1993). These studies, either directly or indirectly, tend to focus on what may be best described as "social learning" variables-incorporating the attitudes and behaviors of perpetrators and their peers.

Structural effects of the "campus climate" may also play a part in this

relationship. Several studies examined the unique environmental norms of some colleges and universities that make both drinking and sexual aggression more permissible (Perkins and Wechsler 1996; Wechsler 1996). The situational and opportunistic elements of the deviant behavior become the focus in these cases. These studies, however, rarely examine formal criminological theories or offer interaction variables to test mitigating








factors between alcohol use and sexual aggression. Routine Activities Theory, for example, emphasize the influence of everyday activities and lifestyle (Cohen and Felson 1979), and Social Learning Theory posits that behavior is acquired and sustained through both direct conditioning and modeling of others' behavior (Akers 1985). Only a small handful of studies has ever attempted to empirically test these theories in relation to sexual assault. Additionally, past research has rarely collected data from women (victimization data) and men (perpetrator data) on the same campus to illustrate the role of social context for both groups (for an exception see Boeringer 1992).

This study expands the current literature on the relationship between alcohol use and sexual aggression on campus by examining important relationships between alcohol use and sexual aggression in three key dimensions. First, are the correlations between alcohol abuse and sexual aggression merely the result of common contributing factors? Or, is a more direct causal relationship evident? For example, does alcohol use/abuse by persons involved contribute to incidence of rape on campus, or are those who are most likely to use or abuse alcohol also those who are most likely to rape or be raped?

Second, while past research has primarily focused on only alcohol use/abuse or sexual aggression, the two variables are rarely incorporated into one study. Prior research has focused on either male offenders or female victims. This study addresses both.

Third, very few studies have attempted to measure the "campus climate," or

structural factors contributing to norms about alcohol use and sexual aggression. This study addresses this central structural issue of campus climate. For example, students often overestimate both the acceptability and the actual drinking behavior of their peers.








If students perceive themselves to be on a campus that is a "party school," or extremely supportive of excessive drinking and sexual aggression, then they may incorporate these definitions into their behaviors. "Students' beliefs that extreme norms exist may serve to justify and explain extreme behavior and may influence students to engage in heavy drinking" (Wechsler 1999:247).

This study examines peer group involvement and demographic factors that may affect frequency of drinking and alcohol/drug related unwanted sexual encounters. First, what factors contribute to higher frequencies of alcohol use on the campus under study? Do particular group affiliations affect levels of drinking? Additionally, does alcohol use contribute to commission of or victimization by sexual aggression? Do the same variables contribute to both phenomena or are the two directly related?

The data for this research project are from undergraduate students at a large

university in the South. In cooperation with a "campus climate" study being funded and conducted through the Office of the Vice Provost of Affirmative Action, 1519 questionnaires that address the variables detailed above were completed in November and December 2000. The sample is drawn as a stratified-cluster sample from a pool of all undergraduate courses at the University. This method insures that a variety of different class sizes is included in the sample. Survey instruments were distributed and voluntarily completed by students in the classrooms of the selected courses for which instructors agreed to participate.

The survey instrument addresses "campus climate," including student perceptions of level of acceptance of drinking and sexual aggression; group memberships, including social fraternity/sorority, service fraternity/sorority, groups centered on race and








ethnicity, religious groups, groups based on sexual orientation, and academic groups; and, demographic characteristics, including race, age, year in school, GPA, major, and living situation of both males and females.

In an effort to assess the influence of social learning variables and routine

activities components, a series of questions addressed both student perceptions of alcohol use and abuse on campus and actual levels of use for the individual respondents. Another series of questions addressed both student perceptions of sexual assault on campus and actual levels of victimization and perpetration for the individual respondents. If students indicated that they were involved in acts of sexual aggression, questions about the location of these incidents and perceived guardianship in the setting were further posed. The survey responses were reduced to an ASCII data set and analyzed with the SAS data analysis package. Univariate, bivariate and multivariate regression analyses were used.

Additionally, qualitative data were gleaned from interviews conducted with ten current undergraduates from the same university at which the quantitative survey data were collected. These data addressed the longitudinal component lacking in the crosssectional survey data, speaking to the perception shifts that may follow throughout the students' college careers and the effects of retrospective reinterpretation that may cloud some survey response data.














CHAPTER 2
CRIME ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES


The Changing Climate on Campus

If we are to fully understand crime and violence on campus, we must first

understand today's typical college and university campus community. It seems fair to call campuses "communities." Traditionally, communities are held to have three basic components: geographic location, common ties among people, and social interaction. A community could be conceptualized as a group of people living in a particular geographic area who operate in their life activities and share a sense of belonging (Gusfield 1975). Campuses present a distinct type of community, however. Some of these characteristics that distinguish college and university campuses from larger communities may also be factors contributing to violence and crime.

First, the campus population is primarily composed of young adults, ages 18 to 22. This is one of the most concentrated populations of young, and primarily single, people to be found anywhere. The young and the unmarried are statistically more likely to be both victims and perpetrators of conventional crime according to both reports to police and victimization surveys (BJS 1996; FBI 1996). Additionally, as more women than men now attend college, there is also a concentrated population of young, single women age 17 to 24, those most likely to be victims of rape and sexual aggression. Although young men are more likely to be victims of crime than women are, women tend to fear crime more, which may have policy implications on college campuses.








The "open campus" concept may also foster criminal activity. Here, the work of ecological sociologists may be of particular interest, especially when considering criminological theories that place "routine activities" at their core. Traditionally, many college campuses were closed communities, immune to outside influences, environmental hazards, and "locals" (Nichols 1995). Today, however, most campus boundaries are barely distinguishable from the surrounding community. This is of particular note in terms of theft and burglary on campus, as these crimes tend to be committed by "outsiders" rather than students.

When considering crimes such as sexual assault and alcohol violation, other forms of control may be important. Today, there are few barriers, such as gates, curfews, and other student restrictions, to control influences that may contribute to campus crime: "The hours that students keep tend to increase their exposure," notes Douglas Tuttle, director of campus safety at the University of Delaware and president of the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (Lederman 1995:32).

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, is the predominant social life characteristic of most college and university campuses (especially at residential campuses) across the country. "Fraternity and sorority functions, parties, athletic events, rock concerts, and other activities create a unique social atmosphere, often resulting in problems related to alcohol use, misconduct, and criminal activity" (Nichols 1995:1).



Campus Crime

As one may expect, all types of crime occur on college campuses, just as they do in the world at large. Some crimes, however, are perpetrated at a much higher rate than








others are. Fortunately, the Campus Security Act (CSA) of 1990 now allows researchers to examine crime reported on campuses. This act requires participating institutions (those that receive any type of Federal funding) of higher learning to disclose crime statistics in the following categories: murder, sex offenses (forcible/non-forcible), robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft, manslaughter, and arson. It also requires that these schools provide information for arrests and referrals for liquor law violations, drug abuse violations, and weapons possessions. In 2000, the Education Department put these campus crime statistics for 6,700 colleges and universities on the Internet, but the possibility of making realistic comparisons among schools may be "nearly impossible" because schools often compile the statistics and define them in different ways (Gainesville Sun 2000).

On one hand, these data suffer the same problems that all UCR-FBI data do; they are only the crimes reported to the police or other authorities. Unfortunately, there is a compound issue for campus crime data. Though the law technically stipulates that crimes reported to "local police agencies or ... any official of the institution who has significant responsibility for student and campus activities" be included in the institution's annual report, few colleges and universities specify crimes reported to officials other than police (Carter 1997). For example, only 29 colleges indicated on their 1996 crime reports that they had included sex offenses reported to people outside the police department (Lively 1998). Thus, researchers must be careful to examine both officially reported data and victimization data collected from college populations.








Reported Crime

A recent study by Sloan (1994) examined crime on nearly 500 campuses that had at least 3,000 students and on-campus housing available for the 1989-1990 academic year. For this sample, there were more than 195,000 total offenses reported most of which involved burglary and theft (64%). Vandalism accounted for nearly 19% of reported crime, drug and alcohol offenses for 11.3%, and violent offenses for around 6% of the crime reported. This is important, as it reveals that most of crime reported on campuses involves theft, rather than serious, violent crime. Again, though, one should remember that there might be discrepancies between reported crime and actual victimization.

Index crime data were listed for 467 campuses in the 1997 Uniform Crime

Reports. Unfortunately, this reflects crime on only about 15% of the 3,218 2-year and 4year campuses nationwide (Fisher 1996). Samples collected by various agencies and researchers, then, may present more complete and accurate data than "official" national reports.

The Chronicle of Higher Education has also been tracking campus crime since the CSA went into effect. Their most recent reports (1998), which include information from 487 four-year institutions with more than 5,000 students, reveal that campuses are generally in line with national trends for many offenses. There are, however, some noticeable differences. While national rates for violent crimes - including murder, rape, aggravated assault, and robbery - decreased by 6%, on average, from 1995 to 1996, murder rates on campus jumped by 26.7%, rates for forcible sex offenses increased by 14.6 %, and rates for non-forcible sex offenses rose by a dramatic 61.2% on large








campuses during this time period (Lively 1998). It should be noted, though, that in the case of murder, numbers are very low. There were 19 reported murders on campuses in 1996 and only 15 reported in 1995. The statistics for sex offenses, however, may be more telling, and are discussed in the following section.



Arrest Rates

Larceny theft is by far the most common crime on most college campuses

(Lederman 1995). In addition, over 15,000 arrests for burglary were reported in 1996 on large campuses (as stipulated above) across the country (Chronicle of Higher Education 1998). Total property crime greatly outnumbers total violent crime at universities and colleges according to 1997 UCR data (FBI 1997). In 1996, drug and alcohol arrests combined to constitute over 23,000 arrests on campuses (Lively 1998). In 1998, alcoholrelated arrests on college campuses increased by 24.3% and drug arrests rose 11% (Dizon 2000). There was also a 11.3% jump in campus arrests for forcible sex offenses (Dizon 2000).



Underreporting

Also of particular interest are unreported or under-reported crimes on campus. Perhaps the most notable of these crimes is acquaintance rape (forced or coerced unwanted intercourse with a person known to the victim) one of the most common types of sexual violence on campus. The range of estimates for the percentage of college women who have experienced any type of sexual aggression is broad, given that many behaviors may be encompassed as "sexual assault": courtship violence, sexual








aggression, sexual coercion, and rape (Boeringer et al. 1991; Kalof and Cargill 1991; Makepeace 1981; Messner 1994; Ward et al. 1991). The estimates range from a low of 15%, for rape, to a high of 78% for sexual aggression, of college women having been victimized (Ward et al. 1991). Reporting rates of rape on campus appear to be even lower than those for the population at large. A study by Koss (1988) found that 15.4% of college women had been raped, while only 5% of these women reported the crime to police.

In 1996, 1,161 forcible sex offenses were reported to authorities on large

campuses, along with 137 non-forcible sex offenses (Lively 1998). While these statistics do reflect some offenses reported to rape-crisis workers and other campus officials, along with those reported to police, they still appear to be much lower than the total number of offenses estimated by victimization studies by campus researchers. Sexual assault is discussed in detail in Chapter 3 of this work.



Reporting Increase or Crime Increase?

Readers should be wary of noted increases in crime statistics for any given category. Increases in "crime" may simply be a reflection of increases in reports to police, or increased police "crack-downs" in certain areas, rather than changes in rates of criminal behavior. As comparable victimization information (such as that provided by the NCVS) is not readily available for most campuses, it is difficult to ascertain the scope of this problem for campus crime data, or to compare different campuses. Also, longitudinal trends that can examine a much broader span of time will be more effective








tools for studying crime on campus. This data, of course, will become available only as time passes.



Correlates of Campus Crime

Very little academic research is related to campus crime. One of the largest

groups of studies centers on sexual violence and aggression, a topic that is explored in this study. Only three published studies involving a general analysis of campus crime appear in the literature, one in each of the past three decades. McPheters (1978) conducted an econometric analysis of campus crime at 75 colleges and universities, concluding that the proportion of students living in dormitories and the proximity of the campus to urban areas with high unemployment were strong predictors of campus crime. Ten years later, Fox and Hellman (1985) examined crime on over 200 college and university campuses. Their regression analysis showed that campus size and low academic quality were strongly correlated to campus crime, and location of the campus was related to the proportion of violent crime.

The most recent study by Sloan (1994) used factor analysis and multivariate analysis. These analyses reveal that the school's "setting" (rural, small town, city, or metropolitan) is significantly related to violent crime, drinking/drug offenses, and total crime. The percent of minority students on campus, while not related to thefts/burglaries or total crime, is related to violent crime rates, drinking/drug offenses, and vandalism. The "size" (including factors related to total enrolment, on-campus housing, total number of faculty, number of fraternities/sororities, and total number of students and faculty) is directly related to both thefts/burglaries, and total crime rates but inversely related to








drinking/drug related offenses and vandalism. These findings, among others, reveal that ecological theories and community factors may be of particular interest in studying campus crime reported to the police.

As previously noted, over 95% of all offenses committed on college and

university campuses involve alcohol or drugs (Sloan 1994). Crimes such as rape and assault are not exempt from this relationship. Several studies have shown that 75% of men and over half of all women involved in acquaintance rape had been drinking or taking drugs before the incident (Adler and Rosenber, 1994; Koss 1988; Ward et al. 1991).

Another study by Rickgarn (1989) reported that 81% of violent acts against persons or property in residence halls on campus were alcohol-related. Similarly, researchers from Towson State's Campus Violence Prevention Center report results from a study of 1,800 college students nationwide that show that alcohol abuse was heavier among victims and perpetrators of crime than the rest of the college population. These results were corroborated by a follow-up study of 13,000 students, and also note that perpetrators were more likely than victims to use intoxicants (Siegel 1994).



Responses to Campus Crime and Violence Two categories of crime responses must be considered in dealing with campus crime. On the one hand, the way in which the college or university deals with the students who are victims and perpetrators of crime and violence must be taken into account. On the other hand, the college or university's overall plan for campus safety and dealing with crime must be examined.








Dealing with Student Victims and Perpetrators

Many minor assaults, vandalism, and violations of campus drug and alcohol policies are simply written up as code infractions and forwarded for administrative action; few, if any students are arrested (Siegel 1994). Thus, small numbers of arrests may not mean that a college is crime-free. Many institutions prefer to send offenders, especially those with an otherwise clean record, through counseling or campus judiciary proceedings rather than arrest them (Lively 1998). Many institutions may even discourage victims from reporting crimes, even to campus police. A 1992 survey of campus police and security personnel conducted by the Campus Safety and Security Institute found that students who were victims of reportable violent crimes were encouraged not to report the crimes to campus security/police (Gearey 1997). College administrators may fear that crime reports will have a negative impact on alumni donations, or that the school will be named as a third party defendant in lawsuits (Bohmer and Parrot 1993).

If the attacker is another student, the victim is encouraged to use the campus judicial system where standards are much different from criminal courts (Bohmer and Parrot 1993). Such is the case at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The Chapel Hill Honor Court, like most other campus disciplinary systems, was originally set up to preside over academic crimes such as plagiarism and cheating. The system is run by students, and penalties include censure, probation, suspension, expulsion or referral to campus or town police for prosecution. The system has recently come under fire from students and the campus newspaper, however, as they have increasingly been asked to manage cases that involve theft, robbery, drugs, arson, and rape (Wolper 1996). Recent








cases of sexual assault on campus, along with cases involving theft of student publications by fraternity members, have led to several lawsuits by the campus newspaper. The 21 -year-old Honor Court chairwoman had this to say: "A university is distinct from a town or community. The Honor Court is about integrity. It is about fostering an intellectual climate" (Wolper 1996:13).

Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any academic research available on this problem facing campuses around the country in increasing numbers. A 1992 clarification to the "Buckley Amendment," or the "Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act," stipulates open access to campus law enforcement records, but not to disciplinary hearings involving criminal allegations. Thus, university disciplinary boards remain "the only closed courtrooms in America" (Carter 1997). Restrictive interpretations of the Buckley Amendment leave little information available for researchers interested in the legal ramifications of campus crime.



Campus Security, Programs, and Police

The Campus Security Act of 1990 mandates that post-secondary institutions

receiving federal aid report specific crime statistics on an annual basis. Additionally, the act requires that these institutions develop educational programs for safety and security, and establish policies and procedures for notifying the proper authorities when a crime does occur (Sloan 1994). A recent addendum to the act requires that these same colleges and universities must develop programs aimed at reducing incidents of sexual assault on campus (Nichols 1995). To meet this requirement, most campuses have established








committees on sexual assault, sexual assault awareness programs, and centers where women who have been assaulted can seek counseling and other services.

In response to rising crime rates throughout the 1980s and these recent legislative changes, many colleges and universities have established campus-policing agencies. Most of these agencies are well-developed and effective organizations, and on many campuses, the implementation of community-based policing programs (such as bicycle patrol officers and specific officers assigned to specific quads or dorms) has dramatically reduced crime rates (Nichols 1995).

Administrators are also instating more subtle changes. Macro-level

characteristics of institutions that affect larger patterns of behavior are being re-examined (Sloan 1994). For example, security controls now limit access to many buildings, especially residence halls, which are also restricting visiting hours. Guard posts at entrances and more restrictive security at campus events are other visible "ecological" changes used at campuses across the country. Neither these changes, nor those noted above seem to lower the incidence of sexual aggression and sexual assault on campus, however.














CHAPTER 3
SEXUAL ASSAULT ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES



College women are in a high-risk group for sexual assault. The highest rape

victimization rates in the general population are among 16- to 19-year-old women. The 20 to 24-year-old age group has the second highest rate of victimization (Ward et al. 1991). "Sexual assault" is itself difficult to conceptualize. The literature encompasses a wide range of behavior that could be classified as sexual assault: courtship violence; sexual aggression; sexual coercion; and rape (Boeringer et al. 1991; Kalof and Cargill 1991; Makepeace 1981; Messner 1994; Ward et al. 1991). The range of estimates for the percentage of college women who have experienced any type of sexual aggression, then, is understandably broad, and therefore, the proportions of reported cases of sexual victimization can drastically expand or contract simply by modifying the definition. This is the principal reason that the estimates range from a low of 15%, for rape, to a high of 78%, for sexual aggression, of college women having been victimized (Ward et al. 1991). Of course, the definition of what constitutes rape must be considered as well.

Generally, a distinction is made between "stranger" rape and "acquaintance" or "date" rape. Acquaintance rape is when someone a person knows, whether they are friends, spouses, lovers, or people who just know each other slightly, forces her or him to have sexual intercourse against her or his will-whether she or he is passed out, too drunk to refuse, too scared to argue, or for some other reason does not give free consent








(American College Health Association 1992; Bohmer and Parrot 1993). Date rape may refer to a similar instance, but generally occurs during or after a "date" that the people have agreed to. Some researchers illustrate this spectrum of behaviors constituting sexual victimization as a continuum from coercion, on one end, to force, on the other (Belknap and Erez 1995). An example of sexual coercion is victimization of a person who is too drunk or high to knowing consent to sexual activity while physically pushing someone down or using a weapon to make someone have sex is an example of force (Belknap and Erez 1995).

The legal stipulations of rape, however, remain the same no matter the label applied. Sexual relations obtained against a person's will or without her or his freely given consent constitute rape regardless of the prior relationship between the victim and the perpetrator (Bohmer and Parrot 1993; Florida Statutes 2000; Ward et al. 1991). The Florida Statutes on sexual battery specify that "consent" must be "intelligent, knowing, and voluntary" and do not include "coerced submission." Additionally, the statutes state that anyone "mentally incapacitated," due to narcotics or alcohol or other ailment, or "physical helplessness," unconscious, asleep, or passed out, cannot freely consent (Florida Statutes 2000).



Incidence and Characteristics of Rape on Campus

Sexual assault on college campuses is not a new phenomenon. What we currently call acquaintance rape, for example, occurred with great frequency in England during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Belknap and Erez 1995). The first academic study of acquaintance rape on a U.S. campus was conducted by Kirkpatrick and Kanin at








Purdue University in 1957. Interviews with victims from decades before, however, illustrate the lengthy history of the problem (Bohmer and Parrot 1993). It was not until the late 1970s and early 1980s that rape among college students began to receive much attention (Belknap and Erez 1995). Estimates of the incidence of sexual assault on campus before this time period, then, are difficult at best. The early work of researchers such as Makepeace (1981), Malamuth (1981), and Koss and Oros (1982) began a trend toward solid empirical investigation of rape at college.

Recent national studies indicate that 20% to 28% of college women have

experienced forced sex during college (Bohmer and Parrot 1993; Koss et al. 1987; Koss and Oros 1982). Other self-report victimization studies show that between 8% and 15% of college women have experiencedforced intercourse, while reports of coerced intercourse are much higher (Belknap and Erez 1995). A national study by Koss, Gidycz, and Wisniewski (1987), for example, found that while 28% of college women reported experiencing an act that met legal definitions of rape, 54% of the women report being victims of sexual aggression. Another large study found that 34% of a sample of college women experienced unwanted sexual contact; 20% experienced unwanted attempted intercourse; and 10% experienced unwanted completed intercourse (Ward et al. 1991). Dozens of other studies found similar rates of victimization for women. During the 1996-1997 school year alone, the Justice Department estimates that 1.7% of college women were raped, another 1.7% were coerced into unwanted sex, and 1.1% were the victims of attempted rape (Fisher et al. 2000). Estimates from Fisher, Cullen, and Turner's (2000) national survey of college women show that for every 1,000 women attending a given institution, there may be 35 incidents of rape in an academic year.








Research on sexual assault by college men, again, using self-report data, generally confirms the frequency of rape, but at a somewhat lower rate than women report (Belknap and Erez 1995; Koss 1988). This may be due to a small number of men committing rapes against multiple women, or because men and women may differentially define behavior as "force" or "rape." Some men's perceptions of what constitutes rape differ from the legal definition of rape. For example, while 4.4% of men in a national survey admitted to behaviors that are classified legally as rape, only 1% of the same men believed that they did anything wrong (Koss 1988).

While women are more often the victims of sexual assault and coercion, some recent studies have also focused on male victimization. As is the case for women, the incidence of sexual assault of men by acquaintances is much higher for college populations than the community at large. A summary piece on "Male Victims of Acquaintance Rape" by Struckman-Johnson (1991) concludes that between 12% and 16% of male students have been forced into sexual intercourse by dating partners, most often via verbal pressure. The range of men reporting physical coercion by women is considerably smaller, from less than 1% to 7% (Struckman-Johnson 1991). While these rates of male victimization illustrate a real problem affecting the welfare of college men, these rates are not nearly as high as comparable assault rates for women, which are often double those of men.



Characteristics of Campus Rape

A study by Ward and colleagues (1991) suggested that college women are most at risk of unwanted sexual contact (including rape) by male acquaintances or friends,








followed by boyfriends, and least at risk of victimization by strangers. Past national studies estimate that in between 77% and 84% of rapes, the perpetrator is someone known to the victim, usually a close acquaintance (Ciotola 2001; Koss 1988). A national study conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics supports these conclusions as well: women were most likely to be victimized by "classmates" (35.5% of completed rapes and 43.5% of attempted rapes), followed by "friends" (34.2% of completed rapes and 24.2% of attempted rapes), and then "boyfriends/ex-boyfriends," "acquaintances," and "others" (Fisher et al. 2000).

Research documents that much of the sexual aggression that college women experience occurs during fraternity, dormitory, house and apartment parties, and not necessarily on a date (Belknap and Erez 1995; Erhart and Sandler 1985; Martin and Hummer 1989; Ward et al. 1991). Thus, unwanted sexual experiences are more likely in the context of "normal" social settings. Sexual assault on campus usually happens to women early in their college careers and frequently takes place after a party, especially one held in a fraternity house and where alcohol is served (Bohmer and Parrot 1993). When the rape does occur on a date, it tends to happen on the first, second, or third date (Erhart and Sandier 1985).

Most college women are victimized at off-campus locations. While most of offcampus assaults occur at residences, victimization is also common at bars, nightclubs or dance clubs, and work locations (Fisher et al. 2000). The vast majority, 60%, of oncampus assaults occur at the victim's residence while an additional 31% of assaults occur at other living quarters on campus and just over 10% occur at fraternity houses (Fisher et al. 2000). As one might expect, given the relationship to parties and social activities,








most cases of sexual victimization occur at night. Nearly 52% of campus rapes happen after midnight, and another 36.5% happen between six o'clock p.m. and midnight (Fisher et al. 2000).



Underreporting

Underreporting is also a problem related to rape on campus. Even though sexual assault is relatively common on many college campuses, very few cases are ever reported to the authorities, and even fewer of those cases are referred to the criminal justice system or campus judicial affairs (Bohmer and Parrot 1993). In a study of students on 32 college campuses, Koss (1988) found that 15.4% of college women have been raped. In 84% of those rapes, the perpetrator was a close acquaintance or date. Only 58% of victims reported the rape to anyone and only 5% reported the rape to police (Koss 1988). This rate is even lower than national rates of rape reporting. National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data reveal that there are nearly twice as many attempted and completed rapes as are reported to police (Ward et al. 1994). Some researchers estimate that less than 1% of acquaintance rape victims report the crime to police (Bechhofer and Parrot 1991; Miller 1999).

Underreporting by the police to the public may also be an issue. Rapes may be

reported to victims' advocates and other campus authorities, but not directly to the police. On the campus of the University of Florida (UF), for example, only 12 rapes were reported to university police between 1996 and 1998 - these were published in UF's official crime statistics. In 1999, however, the university revealed that an additional 35 rapes were reported to the University Police Department's victims' advocate during this








time frame (Miler 1999). The "official" numbers also did not include off-campus rapes involving UF students. An additional 53 off-campus rates were reported to advocates in this same three-year span (Miller 1999). Given estimates that as few as one in ten rapes are ever reported to anyone, knowledge of rape reports from all sources is key to understanding the scope of this problem. It also reminds us that the reliability and validity of statistics on rape, and studies they are applied to, should be viewed carefully.



Victims

As previously stated, girls and women are significantly more likely to experience sexual aggression and assault than are men and boys (Harney and Muehlenhard 1991). While men or women of any age can be victims of rape, victims are usually females between the ages of 15 and 24 (Bohmer and Parrot 1993; Ehrhart and Sandler 1985; Harney and Muehlenhard 1991). Multiple studies using probability samples have found equal prevalence rates of rape between white and black women (Harney and Muehlenhard 1991; Koss et al. 1987). College women, the focus of this study, are at a roughly three times greater risk for sexual victimization than are women in the general population (Koss et al. 1987).

On college campuses, those in their first year of school are most likely to become victims of sexual assault (Koss et al. 1987). In fact, Bohmer and Parrot (1993), in their book Sexual Assault on Campus, describe a "typical" victim of campus sexual assault: "...she was female, a freshman in college, and had been drinking alcohol" (1993:18). They go on to note that the two most important determining factors of whether a date rape will occur are the number of men a woman dates and the degree of intoxication of








those men. The first point is related to exposure. Researchers suggest that the likelihood of rape increases with the amount of exposure a woman has to potential perpetrators. In fact, several studies have found that victimized women tend to have a greater number of dating and sexual partners (Koss 1988; Koss and Dinero 1989). As to the second factor, the greater a man's level of intoxication, the greater the likelihood that he will ignore a woman's protests or be unable to correctly interpret her words and actions as she intends them (Bohmer and Parrot 1993). A recent national study identified four main factors that increase a women's risk of sexual assault: 1) frequently drinking enough to get drunk; 2) being unmarried; 3) having been the victim of sexual assault before the start of the current school year; and 4) living on campus (only for on-campus victims) (Fisher et al. 2000).

These factors may also contribute to the high rates of victimization among

sorority women. Sorority women are not only at a higher risk relative to non-college women, but to college women whose socializing involves low alcohol consumption (Copenhaver and Grauerholz 1991; Nurius et al. 1996). A study by Copenhaver and Grauerholz (1991) found that almost half of the sorority women studied had experienced some form of sexual coercion, 24% experienced attempted rape and 17% were victims of completed rape. These rates are higher than are those for college women in nationwide surveys, such as those by Koss (1988). Additionally, it should be noted that almost half of these rapes occurred in a fraternity house, and over half either occurred during a fraternity function or was perpetrated by a fraternity member (Copenhaver and Grauerholz 1991). [See "Structural Context," below for more information on fraternities and rape culture.]








Assailants

Men are more likely than are women to be the perpetrators of sexual assault, both on campus and off. The data described above, which present much higher rates of women reporting victimization by men than vice versa, demonstrate this point. Selfreport data from male samples also illustrate their proclivity to sexually aggressive behavior against women. Early studies of sexual aggression among college males in the 1960s revealed that about one-quarter used force in an attempt for sexual intercourse against a woman's wishes (Kanin 1969). Neil Malamuth's (1981) landmark research on the rape proclivity of males revealed that 35% of college men indicated some likelihood that they would rape if they could be assured of getting away with it. A smaller-scale replication over a decade later found that a remarkably similar percentage (34%) of men admitted to some proclivity to rape (Osland 1996).

Comparative studies focusing on men and women also illustrate the point that men are more likely than are women to force unwanted sexual activity. A study by Larimer and colleagues (1999), for example, used gender neutral questionnaires for a sample of male and female students and found that around 21% of men and 28% of women reported being the recipients of at least one type of unwanted sexual contact. However, just over 10% of men, compared to roughly 5% of women, reported instigating one or more types of unwanted sexual contact and none of the women surveyed reported using force or drugs or alcohol to promote intercourse (Larimer et al. 1999).

Characteristics of Assailants. While particular demographic differences in age or race between perpetrators and non-perpetrators are difficult to single out, several patterns in attitudes and group affiliations are notable. Studies comparing the incidence








of sexual assault among various groups of men indicate that fraternity men are significantly more likely to force sexual intercourse (35%) than members of student government (9%) or men not affiliated with organizations on campus (11%); the men who are most likely to rape in college are fraternity pledges (Bohmer and Parrot 1993).

Self-report data also indicate sexually coercive males tend to act impulsively, irresponsibly, and, at times, aggressively (Rapaport and Posey 1991). Men who report proclivities toward rape show higher acceptance of interpersonal violence, greater belief in the traditional roles of women and higher rape myth acceptance than those who report no such tendencies (Lackie and Man 1997; Osland 1996). Male students who are sexually aggressive also tend to be physically aggressive, masculine, and members of fraternities (Lackie and Man 1997). Of those who do rape, between five and 8% do so knowing that is wrong, while 10% to 15% commit rape without knowing that what they are doing is wrong (Bohmer and Parrot 1993; Koss et al. 1987).

Athletes, Fraternity Members, and Sexual Assault. Researchers at

Northwestern and the University of Massachusetts, in a study released in 1994, studied 107 cases of rape, attempted rape, and fondling at 30 NCAA schools between 1990 and 1993. Though male athletes made up only 3.3% of the male student body, they were involved in 19% of the reported assaults. The researchers concluded that male studentathletes commit a "significantly higher percentage" of sexual assaults than male students not involved in varsity sports (Trammel 1995). In fact, between 1983 and 1986, a U.S. college athlete was reported for sexual assault on an average of once every 18 days (Messner 1994).








Constance Johnson reported in 1991 that over half of all reported campus

acquaintance rapes are perpetrated by fraternity members or athletes. Additionally, the Project on the Status and Education of Women at the Association of American Colleges reports that 90% of all gang rapes reported to their office involve fraternity members (Collison 1988). Other studies have found that a disproportionate number of gang rapes are committed by male athletes who participate in team sports such as football and ice hockey (Kane and Disch 1993). The National Institute of Mental Health reported similar findings. Their nationwide survey showed that male athletes were involved in nearly one-third of 862 reports of sexual violence towards women (Kane and Disch 1993).



Structural Context

The structural context of the college campus, and specific groups therein, is an integral component of making sense of the data described above. We cannot merely present statistics about rape on college campuses. We must also examine the context in which these acts take place. The extent of the aggression levied against women on campus is not surprising given social science findings that that male violence against women is related to broad cultural attitudes, the power relationship between men and women, the social and economic status of women relative to men in their group, and the amount of other forms of violence in our society (Belknap and Erez 1995). Colleges and universities, far from being immune to these influences of the larger U.S. culture, may actually promote sexually aggressive behaviors.








Collegiate Rape Culture

Although there has been considerable attention paid to incidence of rape by researchers, relatively little notice is given to the context or the "rape culture" that surrounds this behavior (Boswell and Spade 1996). Rape culture is a "set of values and beliefs that provide an environment conducive to rape" (Boswell and Spade 1996:133). Rather than referring to the specific settings in which rape may occur, the concept is better understood as a generic culture that surrounds and promotes rape. For example, rape-supportive attitudes are often interwoven with support for traditional gender scriptsrape culture is based on the assumptions that men are aggressive and dominant and women are passive and acquiescent (Herman 1984). Concepts of power and dominance shared by fraternity members, athletes, and other men on campus; discourse that promotes sexual conquest as the goal of sexual expression; and, men's privileged status on university campuses are all part of the social construction of a particular campus lifestyle (Sanday 1990). Fraternities and all-male athletic organizations may be particularly "rape-prone" in their practices and values.



Fraternities and Athletic Teams

A question may exist as to whether the high percentage of fraternity men and athletes involved in rape is influenced by the organizational and group context of the fraternity or team, or by prior socialization experiences that predisposed certain men to join the organization. Nonetheless, it is appropriate to question what aspects, if any, of fraternal and athletic life may increase tendencies toward sexual aggression (Boeringer et al. 1991). The social environments of fraternities and men's athletic teams stress









restrictive norms of a distorted view of men and "macho" masculinity and a narrow and stereotyped conception of women and femininity (Belknap and Erez 1995; Martin and Hummer 1989; Messner 1994).

Concepts of power and dominance abound in fraternal and athletic life. Both

types of organizations have a history of violence toward, and use of force against, pledges and rookies and members of other fraternities and athletic teams (see Longino and Kant 1973; Martin and Hummer 1989; Messner 1994; Nuwer 1990). Commodification of women is also common to both groups. Studies of locker room discourse show that, for athletes, male bonding often takes the form of constructing women as outsiders and inferiors by making them the objects of sexual talk and practice (Kane and Disch 1993). Sports metaphors such as "scoring," "getting to first base," "hitting a home run," and making a "pass" permeate the language of sexual conquest for both athletes and fraternity men (Messner 1994). Conversations and jokes between the men in these groups communicate expected sexual behavior, with a focus on potency and virility (Sanday 1990).

Additionally, women are often used as "bait" to attract new members to

fraternities and recruits to varsity athletic teams, and sexual access to women is often a presumed side benefit to group membership (Benedict 1998; Martin and Hummer 1989). Excessive alcohol use, competitiveness, and normative support for secrecy within these groups further facilitate coercive sex and the treatment of rape as a sport or contest (Belknap and Erez 1995). One professor provided the following descriptive quote: "Fraternities are sporting clubs, and their game is women" (Erhart and Sandler 1985).









Many researchers have also suggested that there is little fear of punishment for crimes committed by fraternity members or athletes. Some university administrators "shrug off responsibility" on the grounds that fraternities are private clubs over which they have no control (Sanday 1990). There is also a historical perspective to suggest that "good-old-boy" networks remain intact on many campuses and serve to protect fraternities and other all-male groups that victimize women (Sanday 1990). Even when law enforcement is brought into the picture, fraternities often refuse to cooperate. Protection of the fraternity, in the minds of many members, takes precedence over what is ethically or legally correct. In a gang rape investigation at Florida State University in the mid-i 980s, for example, fraternity officers broke appointments with law enforcement officers, refused to give police a membership list, and refused to cooperate with police and prosecutors (Martin and Hummer 1989). The lack of repercussions for athletes is also apparent. As the executive director of the Women's Sports Foundation notes, "...they [student athletes] don't think the rules apply to them. No matter what they do, they think their coach will pull some strings and get them out of trouble" (Trammel 1995:4G).

Are these beliefs and practices limited to the small number of men who are

members of the Greek system and varsity athletic teams? The widespread acceptance of these norms by the larger university population is also key to understanding rape on campus. As Erhart and Sandler (1985) caution, "...fraternity parties can become a model for students' social life, i.e., large group functions with alcohol, loud music, etc., although in some instances they may lead to vandalism and sexual abuse" (1985:5). Campus climates that re-enforce restricted norms of masculinity, such as those that place






33

extreme emphasis on men's athletics, and environments that promote and normalize heavy alcohol use and male dominance also promote rape culture.














CHAPTER 4
ALCOHOL USE ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES


Numerous surveys conducted on college campuses across America document extensive alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems among college students (Abbey 1991; Berkowitz and Perkins 1986; Engs and Hanson 1994; Wechsler 1996; Wechsler 2000). Since the mid-I 960s, studies have consistently shown at least occasional use of alcohol for over 90% of college students (Berkowitz and Perkins 1986). Overall, the rate of consumption of alcohol by college students increased through the 1970s and then appeared to peak, with recent studies indicating a marked decline in student drinking (Rosenberg 1990; Wechsler 1996).

Nationally, America's 12 million undergraduates consume 4 billion cans of beer a year, an average of 55 six-packs apiece, and spend $446 a year on alcoholic beverages more than they spend on soft drinks and textbooks combined (Cohen 1997). The problems associated with alcohol use and abuse on campuses are myriad. While no official statistics are kept, Wechsler (1996) estimates that 50 college students die nationwide each year from alcohol poisoning. Another study of 330 campuses revealed that alcohol is involved in 65% of residence hall problems and 58% of incidence of campus property damage (Scrivo 1998). In addition, the U.S. Department of Education's Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention (HEC) (2000) chronicles the following: 95% of violent crimes on campus are alcohol related; 90% of all









campus rapes or sexual assaults involve alcohol; and, alcohol is associated with 28% of all college drop-outs.



Incidence

A 1999 survey of over 14,000 students found that 81% of respondents reported drinking during the school year (Wechsler 2000). Additionally, the most recent studies indicate a polarization effect is occurring, resulting in two sizable groups of students on campus, those who do not drink at all (19%) and "frequent binge drinkers," those who binge drink (consume five or more drinks in a sitting for men and four or more for women) three or more times in a two-week period (23%) (Wechsler 2000).

College students drink more and are more likely to binge drink than their noncollege-enrolled counterparts (Hingson 1998; Wechsler et al. 1994). Between 75% and 96% of college students report having consumed alcohol during the past year, compared with only 68% of the general population, and about 20 % of college students are problem drinkers compared to 10% of the general population (Abbey 1991). While 44% of college students report binge drinking, only 36% of same age non-students and only 28% of graduating high school seniors do so (Hingson 1998). The average number of drinks consumed per week by all students, regardless of drinking status, is one and a half: less than one for those who do not binge drink, 3.7 for those who infrequently binge drink, and 14.5 for those who frequently binge drink [see "Binge drinking" below] (Wechsler 1999). In general, the literature shows that most students drink, primarily for social purposes, on at least a weekly basis (Berkowitz and Perkins 1986).








On the campus of this study, nearly 89% of students report drinking in the past year and about 75% report drinking in the past 30 days (CADRC 2000). During that 1999 school year, 375 students at this campus were cited for alcohol-related offenses (O'Dell 2000). This university has a "parental notification" policy that parent(s) of students who must be transported for medical treatment, who have multiple offenses, or who are charged with DUI on campus must be notified. Parents of 21 to 22 students were notified of a child's behavior in the last semester of 2000 (UFADEPC 2000).



Sociocultural Characteristics of Drinkers


Sex

Several recent studies report a significant narrowing of the once apparent "gender gap" between levels of drinking for collegiate men and women (Friedman and Humphrey 1985; Gross 1993; O'Hare 1990; Wechsler 1996). These statistics should be viewed with caution. Many researchers find that significant gender differences still persist in most aspects of drinking (Berkowitz and Perkins 1986). For example, while comparable proportions of collegiate men and women drink, men are often twice as likely to be "heavy drinkers" and to consume more alcohol per drinking episode than women (Gross 1993; O'Hare 1990). A study by Gross (1993) also showed this effect to be mediated by age: underage men (under age 21) started to drink at a high consumption/frequency rate that increased as they came of legal age while underage women started drinking at a high consumption/frequency rate that decreased as they came of legal age.









Race

All studies of collegiate drinking consistently report that white students drink the most, and are the least likely to abstain from drinking (Friedman and Humphrey 1985; O'Hare 1990; Wechsler 1996; Wechsler 2000). One study showed that white male undergraduates were twice as likely as black male undergraduates to be frequent heavy drinkers, and white female undergraduates were three times as likely as their black counterparts to be frequent heavy drinkers (Friedman and Humphrey 1985).



Age and Year in School

Although the legal drinking age in the United States is 21, being underage does not seem to affect the drinking levels of college students according to a study by O'Hare (1990). A national sample used by Engs and Hanson (1989), however, revealed that 81.2% of underage college students drink compared to only 75.3% of students of legal age. Regardless, the legal drinking age does not seem to be deterring most underage students from drinking.

There are variations, however, by year in school, though these effects may be mediated by gender. O'Hare (1990) reports that the percentage of abstainers declines over each year of college, and that there is an overall increase in heavy drinkers in upperschool-classes. A cohort study by Wechsler et al. (1994) seems to confirm this. They studied students in their first and second years of college, noting that 97% of those who drank during their first year continued to do so in their sophomore year, and that one third of the men and half of the women who abstained their first year began to drink in their








second year. Additionally, a study by Carey (1995) showed that 45% of college seniors consume alcohol once a week or more.

Gender differences and age, however, may mediate these effects. A study by

Klein (1994) found that women mature, with regards to alcohol consumption, throughout their college years. Women gradually change both their attitudes and behaviors towards drinking. As their year in school increases, there is a decrease both in the amount of alcohol consumed per drinking occasion and in likelihood to tolerate alcohol abuse. Men, however, showed no significant changes in proportions of drinkers, amount of alcohol consumed, or attitudes toward drinking as they moved through their college years.



Situational and Contextual Factors

Drinking is a social event on college campuses. Among most students, heavy

drinking occurs in interpersonal contexts, with environmental and social cues (such as a "bar atmosphere") enhancing the desire to consume alcohol (Carey 1995). One study reported that while only 15% of the sample preferred to drink alone, 59.9% preferred drinking in small mixed sex groups, 54.3% in large groups, 40.1% with a small same sex group, and 47.4% with family (O'Hare 1990). The same sample also reported that they were most likely to drink at parties (65.4%) at other social gatherings (54.9%) or while dating (48.2%). Additionally, a study by Carey (1993) revealed that, compared to light or moderate drinkers, heavy drinkers were more likely to report excessive drinking in situations involving social pressures to drink, pleasant times with others, pleasant








emotions, and physical discomfort. It should be noted that weekends and the occurrence of social events on many college campuses might influence these frequencies.

At many colleges and universities, social activities typically revolve around

alcohol-saturated parties at fraternities and sororities, off-campus bars and tailgate parties before athletic events (Cohen 1997; Scrivo 1998). Bars that cater to students often aggressively promote themselves on school grounds - college newspapers, which get 35% of their advertising revenues from alcohol-related ads, are full of come-ons for nickel pitchers, ladies' nights, and "all-you-can-drink" specials (Cohen 1997; Scrivo 1998). All of this serves to reinforce notions of heavy drinking as normative.



Peer Groups

The influential role of college peers in the development of alcohol abuse patterns is significant and increases, relative to family influence, with age (Berkowitz and Perkins 1986). These effects, too, may be mediated by gender differences. Valliant (1995), in a study limited by a small sample size, found that men were more influenced by their friends to consume alcohol than women (42.9% vs. 23.8%). Berkowitz and Perkins (1986) report that women's drinking may be more influenced by environmental factors than men's. They give the example, however, of group alcohol use norms in dorm environments, which speaks to the influence of peers.

Berkowitz and Perkins (1986) also caution that problem drinkers may be integrated into peer social networks in which patterns of problem consumption, motivations, and consequences are considered normative. These differential associations among drinkers may serve both to establish definitions about appropriate drinking








behavior and give positive and negative reinforcements for drinking behaviors. Two of these networks are Greek-letter societies (fraternities and sororities) and athletic teams.

Alcohol use by fraternity and sorority members and athletes is normative. The "party atmosphere" that surrounds fraternity and sorority members and athletes on many campuses involves heavy drinking. The most eagerly sought after men during rush are those who "are willing to drink alcohol," "who drink socially," or "who can hold their liquor" (Martin and Hummer 1989). "Excessive drinking" is also common among male athletes (Snyder 1994), and Constance Johnson (1991) reports that male athletes and fraternity members have much higher levels of drinking than other males on campus.

At many of the social functions attended or sponsored by sorority members, there is a social atmosphere where alcohol use is encouraged (Copenhaver and Grauerholz 1991). Many joint sorority-fraternity functions may encourage women to model men's drinking behavior. Of women who did not binge in high school, three out of every four became binge drinkers while living in sorority houses (Wechsler 1996). In fact, Wechsler (1996) reports that the single strongest predictor of binge drinking is residence or membership in a fraternity or sorority.



"Binge" Drinking

The phenomenon known as "binge" drinking has several definitions, depending on the study in question. The most common definition, popularized by Harvard researcher Henry Wechsler, is consuming five or more drinks during one drinking episode. Often this criterion is made gender specific, with consumption of five or more








drinks applied as the definition for men and four or more drinks for women; this is referred to as the "five-four definition" of binge drinking.

Recently, a debate has emerged over use of the term "binge" drinking. Many students, administrators, and prevention professionals are quick to note that the "fivefour" binge drinking definition does not account for body weight, time elapsed while drinking, or food eaten during the drinking episode (HEC 2000). These practitioners couple the issues above with the sensationalistic headlines that were built on the catch phrase and conclude that the word "binge" should be rejected altogether. For example, the HEC, the National Institute of Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse (NIAAA) and the Journal of Studies on Alcohol never use the term "binge." Their primary arguments are that there are no scientific grounds for issuing a "five-four" drink cut-off and that many binge drinkers do not reach blood alcohol concentrations high enough to cause impairment (HEC 2000).

Wechsler (2000b) contends, however, that the term "binge" drinking, as well as the "five-four" definition, are used and supported by the U.S. Surgeon General, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The "five-four" measure, Wechsler says, is not intended to determine legal intoxication but rather to "track how many students on college campuses nationwide are drinking at levels high enough to significantly increase the risk of problems for themselves and for those around them" (2000b:B12). This term will be used throughout this paper, as it is the most common term in the literature and lexicon, though the arguments presented by the HEC are duly noted.









No matter the definition, bingeing has quickly become the issue de jour among

administrators on college campuses. Binge drinking is regularly cited as both the number one health problem for students today (Monroe 1996) and as the number one problem facing campuses today (Wechsler 1996). This is not surprising considering that binge drinking is associated with substantially higher risks of acute health problems and injury to self and others; unplanned or unsafe sex; assault and aggressive behavior; and other drinking-related social and psychological problems (Wechsler et al. 1995).

In the 1999 iteration of the national study conducted by Harvard researchers, about two of five students' self-reported drinking behaviors met criteria (five-four definition) for binge drinking (Wechsler 2000). This overall rate has remained fairly consistent throughout the three waves of the study in 1993, 1996, and 1999. The 1999 survey did find a significant increase in the number of "frequent" binge drinkers, those who binge three or more times in a two-week period (Wechsler 2000). Another national study of more than 400 public and private four-year universities found that 41% of men and 34% of women were self-reported binge drinkers (Gainesville Sun 2000b). On the campus of this study, just over 46% of students reported at least one episode of binge drinking in the two weeks before the 1999 survey (CADRC 2000).

In the Harvard study, the highest levels of bingeing were reported by white males (54%), the lowest by black females (12%). Half of all college bingers were also engaged in similar drinking behavior in high school, and age had virtually no impact on bingeing. Commitment to a lifestyle in which "parties" were deemed important was also a major determinant of binge drinking (Wechsler et al. 1995).









Sorority women are nearly twice as likely to binge as other collegiate women

(62% vs. 35%), and fraternity men also binge more than do other men on campus (75% vs. 45%). Residence in a social Greek-letter society is particularly important: 80% of women living in sorority houses are binge drinkers, and 86% of men living in fraternity houses are binge drinkers. Also important is the fact that 91% of women and 78% of men in the Harvard study who binge think that their drinking is light to moderate (Wechsler 1996). And, 65% of students in another national poll believed that they would have to consume at least eight drinks in one sitting to be a binge drinker (Gainesville Sun 2000b). Peer definitions of what constitutes "normal" drinking patterns seem quite influential in this regard.

In summary, the characteristics typical of a college binge drinker are being male; being white; having parents who were college educated; majoring in business; being a resident of a fraternity; engaging in risky behaviors; being involved in athletics; indulging in binge drinking as high school seniors; and, most importantly, viewing parties as very important (Wechsler et al. 1995).



The "Social Norms" Approach and Environmental Management

This information about the social context of drinking and student perceptions of drinking behavior is not lost on those attempting to prevent and/or manage alcohol use on campus. A new wave of researchers and practitioners are following what they call a "social norms" approach. They work on the assumption that people's perceptions of norms (beliefs about attitudes and behaviors that are normal, acceptable, and expected in particular social contexts) greatly influence behavior, even when those perceptions are








inaccurate. Thus, people may engage in behaviors that are in sync with false norms (HEC 2000). Some prevention specialists argue that it is an overestimation of peer drinking that drives greater alcohol consumption by many on campus.

A study by Perkins and Wechsler (1996) suggests that perceiving a permissive

environment encourages students to drink more heavily than they would otherwise based on their personal attitudes. In other words, independent of the influence of actual local campus norms, a student's perception of the campus norm significantly contributes to his or her own drinking behavior (Perkins and Wechsler 1996). So, if a person believes that heavy drinking is normal and expected on campus, that person is more likely to use alcohol. Thus, the visibility level of problem drinking behavior like tailgating, public drunkenness, or binge drinking may influence misperceptions of actual drinking behaviors.

Grounded in this idea that the physical, social, economic and legal "environment" surrounding drinking behavior is the HEC prevention approach dubbed "environmental management" (HEC 2000). Under this plan, one frequently used method for correcting misconceptions about drinking on campus is "social norms marketing," a method which uses mass marketing techniques to disseminate accurate information about drinking behaviors. Longitudinal studies of these campaigns on several campuses have proven effective in lowering drinking rates (HEC 2000). One such marketing campaign is underway at the university under study in this project.

Other researchers, though, argue that students are actually more likely to

underestimate the level of binge drinking on their campuses. Wechsler (2000b) finds that 47% of students underestimate the level of binge drinking on campus, while only 29%






45

overestimate. Only 13% of bingers overestimate levels of binge drinking (Weschsler 2000b). If this is true, then management plans that focus attention only on student perceptions of peers' drinking may neglect other important influences such as availability of alcohol, marketing promotions by bars and manufacturers, and fraternity and college "traditions" that promote alcohol consumption.














CHAPTER 5
ALCOHOL USE AND SEXUAL ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS



Alcohol and Sexuality

In American society, drinking and sexuality are often linked, especially for men (Abbey 1995; Norris 1994). Alcohol is consumed in situations that might involve sexual interaction, perhaps because people expect alcohol use to enhance their sexual encounters (Richardson and Hammock 1991). People consistently report that alcohol enhances sexuality, with men expecting greater sexual enhancement after drinking than do women (Abbey 1995). A study on one campus revealed that 15.1% of students surveyed used alcohol or other drugs with the specific intent of enhancing sex (CADRC 2000). The validity of this popular public perception, as well as assumptions that alcohol disinhibits sexual feelings, that drinking generates the expectation that sex will occur, and that, in general, alcohol consumption indicates sexual permissiveness, is not supported by data from popular surveys (Norris 1994).

In fact, there is no simple correlation between alcohol consumption and sexual behavior in women, though is has been shown that alcohol negatively affects female sexuality by leading to sexual dysfunction and sexual victimization (Norris 1994). These assumptions, though unfounded, persist in shaping expectancies about sexual behavior. "Alcohol consumption is such an integral part of the college dating scene, that it may be








strongly associated with sexuality for male and female college students" (Abbey 1995:492).

Abbey (1995) had college students read several vignettes which varied only in the type of beverage consumed by the male or female in the story (either alcoholic or soft drink) to assess the role of participants'gender, rape supportive beliefs, and target's alcohol consumption on participants' perceptions of target's sexual intent. The female target was rated as being more sexual when her male companion consumed alcohol than when he did not. The female target received the highest sexuality ratings when both the man and woman drank alcohol, and the lowest sexuality ratings when neither drank alcohol (the same was true for the male target). Men who drank alcohol were also perceived as being more sexual, and were perceived as being most attracted to the woman in the story when both drank alcohol (and least attracted when neither drank alcohol). The woman's alcohol consumption was deemed more appropriate when the man drank alcohol as well, and alcohol consumption was considered most appropriate for both men and women when both were drinking alcohol (and least appropriate when only the woman drank alcohol).

Alcohol use is linked not only to sexual perceptions, but to behaviors as well. Alcohol and other drug use is correlated to risky sexual behavior and poses a serious threat to the health of young people (NCADI 1995). At the University of Florida, for example, a 1999 survey showed that over 16% of students surveyed had unprotected sex at least once in the past year due to alcohol or drug use-3% had done so 10 or more times. Just over 24% of students reported having unexpected or unplanned sex at least once in the past year due to drinking or drug use (CADRC 2000).









Alcohol as a Risk Factor for Sexual Victimization

Alcohol use may also be linked to increased risk of sexual assault. As noted in the introduction, it is difficult to establish a causal link between alcohol/drug consumption and acts of sexual aggression. However, much documentation of the association between alcohol/drug use and sexual aggression exists, in terms of both attitudes and beliefs and actual behaviors.


Attitudes and Beliefs

The findings above, which indicate that shared alcohol consumption is perceived as a sexual cue, may result in the misperception of drinking as sexual intent (Abbey 1995). Differential social meanings are ascribed to men and women who drink (Harney and Muehlenhard 1991). An alcohol-consuming female in the company of a male drinker is perceived to be more sexually disinhibited, more sexually available, and more likely to be seduced than a cola-drinking counterpart (George et al. 1988; Norris 1994). This misperception can put women at risk for unwanted sexual advances (Norris 1994). Another study showed that a rape victim was seen as significantly more "provocative" when she was "drinking in a bar alone" than when she was "studying in the library alone" (Harrington and Leitenberg 1994). Male sexual offenders are frequently attributed less responsibility for sexual aggression when they are drunk, while female victims are often ascribed more responsibility when they are drunk (Harney and Muehlenhard 1991; Richardson and Campbell 1982). Intoxication of a rapist and a victim influences both the degree to which they are considered to be responsible and blameworthy and observers' general evaluations of them (Richardson and Hammock 1991).








Jeffrey Bemat (1998) examined the judgments of sexually aggressive and nonaggressive college men about when to terminate unwanted advances depicted in an audiotape rape dialogue. He found that the sexually aggressive men were nearly six times more likely than non-aggressive men to allow the date rape encounter to continue to the point of verbal threats, and were over eight times more likely to do so when the couple was portrayed as drinking alcohol. Sexually aggressive men provided with a permissive alcohol cue exhibited the longest latent tendencies to terminate sexual advances of any group (Bernat 1998). Thus, it appears that alcohol may disinhibit impulses toward sexual aggression, but perhaps only in men predisposed to committing such acts.

There may also be distinct pharmacological effects on judgment brought on by alcohol consumption. When a sample of undergraduates was asked to judge behavior in eroticized rape depictions, those who had consumed a moderate amount of alcohol were more likely to perceive the assailant as using less force and as exhibiting more acceptable behavior than respondents who were sober (Norris 1994). Although alcohol may have physiological disinhibiting effects, results from recent research have shown that alcohol expectancy heightens aggression and sexual aggression over and above the effects of actual alcohol content (Hamey and Muehlenhard 1991).



Behaviors

In addition to the experimental data cited in the preceding section, survey data also illustrate the associations between drinking and sexual aggression. Alcohol consumption by men and women is one of the most frequently cited risk factors in studies








of rape. A study by Koss and Dinero (1989) found that alcohol consumption by women at the time of the attack was one of the four strongest predictors of likeliness of being raped. Survey data has shown that among men who admit to committing a sexual assault on a date, 55% were under the influence of alcohol at the time (Muhlenhard and Linton 1987). A study by Koss (1988) also found that among men who admitted to behavior meeting the legal definition of rape since the age of 14, 75% reported being under the influence of alcohol when the rape occurred.

A study by Ward et al. (1991) produced similar results, the percentages for male and female alcohol use were very high for all three types of unwanted sexual experiences studied. The women sampled reported male use of alcohol for over 75% of all types of experiences, and they report their own use of alcohol in over 50% of experiences (Ward et al. 1991). Other research shows that 55% of victims indicate that they were at least somewhat drunk at the time of the sexual aggression (Harrington and Leitenberg 1994). Drinking by the victim may also prove to be important because these acts are more likely to result in completed, rather than just attempted, rape due to the resistance capabilities of the victim (Abbey 1991; Harrington and Leitenberg 1994; Norris 1994).

Once again, membership in a social Greek-letter society may provide a higher risk for both sexual victimization and assault. All male fraternities often wield much control over party life on many campuses since they are more numerous than sororities, and there are usually few other places to party on campus. Admission is often a dollar or two for men and nothing for women. Many times the implication is that women "pay" for their liquor with sex (Sanday 1990). Alcohol, then, becomes a weapon for use in sexual coercion. A study by Boeringer et al. (1991) found that fraternity members' actual use of








nonphysical coercion and use of drugs or alcohol to obtain sex was significantly higher than for non-members. Additional studies show that fraternity men are more likely than other groups of men on campus to report having at least one friend who has used alcohol or drugs to obtain sex against a woman's will, or, in other words, to differentially associate with men who rape (Johns 1997).

Perhaps due to their contact with fraternity men, sorority women have also been shown to be at higher risk for sexual victimization than other collegiate women are. In Copenhaver and Grauerholz's (1991) study of sorority members, 12% reported that, since the age of 14, they had had sexual intercourse when they did not want to because a man gave them alcohol or drugs. Of these women, 75% reported that this act happened during their college years. Wechsler (1996) notes that sorority members' high rates of binge drinking also put them at exceptional risk for the "secondhand" binge effect of unwanted sex.

Thus, many studies have provided background about variables such as drinking that appear associated with increased risk of sexual aggression. But, as many of these variables are also associated with contemporary norms of dating and socializing among college-age people (noted above), perceptions of risk and response are often nested within an ambiguous social context "requiring conflicting cognitive orientations"pursuing entertainment and socializing versus safety and protection (Nurius et al. 1996:437). Clearly, the consumption of alcohol by both men and women "works in conjunction with a multitude of other, socially constructed factors to facilitate sexual aggression," especially between acquaintances (Harney and Muehlenhard 1991:168).








We must further examine the context, then, to fully understand where the

intersection of alcohol use and sexual aggression lies. A context that places emphasis on the college experience as a "last bash" before entering responsible adulthood may act to impede warning signals of aggression for women and may impede detection of resistance cues for men (Nurius et al. 1996). These social expectations and social climates may be especially prevalent in fraternities and sororities, but also on campuses that promote a "party" atmosphere and "traditional" college norms about drinking and sexuality. Thus, in these contexts, we would expect higher rates of sexual aggression and assault.














CHAPTER 6
THEORIES ON ALCOHOL AND SEXUAL AGGRESSION



Many researchers propose a social explanation for the relationship between alcohol and crime, especially violent crime. Given that violence and drinking most commonly occur among acquaintances, it seems plausible that some type of association between the two would exist regardless of the chemical effects of alcohol (Johnson et al. 1978). Links between alcohol use and crimes like rape will likely include both physiological and social factors. For example, studies have found that intervention by a third party can reduce the aggressive behavior of intoxicated subjects-illustrating that any effects alcohol has on aggressive behavior appear to be socially mediated (Johnson et al. 1978).

Few studies of alcohol use and sexual aggression, however, purport to test or

apply any particular theory to explain or analyze this relationship-much of the literature is descriptive, rather than explanatory. Past research seems to fall into two, not altogether distinct, camps. The few studies that deal directly with testing a theory (see Boeringer et al. 1991), and much of the other indirect research, focus on social learning variables which incorporate both attitudes and behaviors of perpetrators. Several other studies follow a theoretical perspective that the role of alcohol use in rape is more situational. Routine activities theory and similar victimization theories profess that "victimization risk increases where there is a convergence of risky situations (e.g., structural








opportunities), potential victims (e.g., attractive targets), and motivated offenders, occurring in the absence of capable guardians (e.g., social control agents who might intervene to stop victimization from occurring)" (Ullman, Karabatsos and Koss 1999:605).



Social Learning

Social learning, as proposed by Akers, states that behavior is acquired and

sustained through both direct behavioral conditioning and modeling of others' behavior (Akers 1985). Behavior is strengthened through positive and negative reinforcement and punishment. Individuals learn normative attitudes toward certain behaviors as good or bad, right or wrong through interaction (or identification) with significant groups in their lives. Sutherland termed this process by which people interact with others and are exposed to positive or negative norms, "differential association" (Sutherland and Cressey 1978).

Thus, the theory suggests that alcohol use and sexual aggression can be expected to the extent that one is differentially associated with others who are prone to alcohol use and sexual aggression, that one is exposed to alcohol use and sexually aggressive models, that alcohol use and sexual aggression is (or is expected to be) differentially reinforced over non-aggressive sexual behavior, and that one does not define alcohol use and sexual aggression as wrong and/or believes that it is sometimes justified and acceptable behavior (Boeringer 1992).

While social learning has a very broad scope in that it purports to be a general

processual explanation of criminal and delinquent behavior, it does not include a general








explanation of laws, criminal justice, or the structural aspects of society that have an impact on crime. The theory is capable, however, of explaining how the social structure shapes individual behavior (Akers 1997). This is its usefulness to the study of campus climate and drinking and sexual aggression on college campuses.



Macro-level Learning Influences

At a structural level social learning is "hypothesized as the behavioral process by which the variables specified in macro-level theories induce or retard criminal actions in individuals" (Akers 1999:70). Integrating these structural theories with social learning, though, has not yet been accomplished by Akers or other learning theorists. This possibility for integration will be discussed at the conclusion of this section, but the overall view that social-structural factors influence social learning variables (differential association, differential reinforcement, definitions, and imitation), which in turn affect deviant or conforming behavior in individuals is critical to this research. Akers modeling of these effects are illustrated in Figure 1.

The "societal" influences in this case are found in the norms about drinking and sexuality common in American society (previously detailed). The "community" influence in this instance is the campus climate toward alcohol use and sexual aggression. The president of the University of Virginia referred to this as "a culture that too often considers alcohol abuse a normal stage of growing up" (Scrivo 1998:249). Students often overestimate both the acceptability and the actual drinking behavior of their peers. If students perceive themselves to be on a campus that is a "party school" or extremely supportive of excessive drinking and sexual aggression, then they may incorporate these








definitions into their behaviors. "Students' beliefs that extreme norms exist may serve to justify and explain extreme behavior and may influence students to engage in heavy drinking" (Wechsler 1999:247). A study at Northern Illinois University showed that student drinking decreased by a third when students learned that most of their classmates, in fact, were not heavy drinkers (Scrivo 1998).



Social Structure and Social Learning

Social Structure -- Social Learning -- Criminal/Conforming Behavior Society Age Family Differential Association Community Sex Peers Differential Reinforcement
Race School Definitions Individual Behavior
Class Others Imitation
Other Learning Variables
(Akers, 1999:70)
Figure 1: Social Structure and Social Learning



Societal and community definitions of how alcohol consumption may affect

sexual situations also come into play. Most of acquaintance rapes are planned in advance by the perpetrator, especially when alcohol is involved (Belknap and Erez 1995; Martin and Hummer 1989; Sanday 1990). Many male college students drink alcohol purposely to experience the sense of disinhibition, power, and sexuality they have learned to associate with drinking (Abbey 1991). Studies have shown that men were more likely than women to assume that a woman who drank alcohol with her date was interested in having sex with him, and 40% of these men thought it was acceptable to force sex on a drunk date (Abbey 1991). The campus climate promotes an atmosphere in which students learn to see alcohol as a vehicle of friendship, social activity, and sexual opportunity (Cashin et al. 1996).









Micro-level Learning Influences

While the society and community, along with race, gender, religion, class and

other social structures, provide general learning contexts for individuals, smaller groups, such as peer groups (like a fraternity or sorority or athletic team), often provide the more immediate contexts that promote or discourage the criminal or conforming behavior of the individual (Akers 1997). Therefore, differences in the rates of sexually aggressive behavior for certain groups of men may be a function of the extent to which cultural traditions, norms and social control systems of the smaller group provide socialization, learning environments, and immediate situations conducive to committing or not committing acts of sexual aggression.

Age, major, GPA, race, class, and other characteristics indicate an individual's

place in the social structure of the university setting. These characteristics, in turn, relate to the groups of which people are likely to be members, with whom they interact and how those around them respond to their behavior. Thus, one can examine the structure of organizational contexts like fraternities/sororities and athletics and the beliefs and actions of their members that relate to drinking and sexually aggressive behaviors.

Fraternities and athletic teams promote both direct behavioral conditioning of their members and encourage members to model the behaviors of other members. "Pledges," non-initiated fraternity members, and "rookies," first season members of athletic teams, are taught what is proper behavior for men in their organizations; they are continually socialized. This takes both covert and over forms. Physical violence may be encouraged or used by those already "initiated" into the group. The pledging experience for fraternity members can entail "physical abuse; harsh discipline; and demands to








subordinate, follow orders, and engage in demeaning routines and activities" (Martin and Hummer 1989:462). Fraternity members feel that these experiences tend to unite pledges into a group, teach them to rely on each other, and join together against outsiders. Fraternities, through these activities, also promote toughness, and the ability to withstand pain and humiliation. They emphasize using physical force to obtain compliance; they stress the masculine. Intragroup solidarity is fostered, but sensitivity is often lost (Martin and Hummer 1989). Indeed, a study by Michael Hughes and Roger Winston, Jr. (1987) revealed that after completing their pledge program, new members came to value leadership in relationships, defined by the Survey of Interpersonal Values as the ability to exercise power and influence over others, more highly than independents (non-Greeks). Thus, as fraternity brothers, these men came to value power and influence.

A similar phenomenon occurs within the realm of athletics. Don Sabo (1994:87) argues that "when men compete for prestige and status in sports (or elsewhere), they identify with the relatively few males who control resources and are able to bestow rewards and inflict punishment." Male athletes learn from other men, both coaches and players, how to behave. Their behavior, on the field and off the field, is sanctioned through rewards and punishments from coaches, teammates, fans, and often the media. Men, however, are not only taught how to behave around other men, they are also taught how to behave around women. Through locker room discourse, and coaching instruction, men learn how to treat women.

Social learning theory holds that individuals learn attitudes toward certain

behaviors as good or bad through group interaction and identification, and that behavior is strengthened through positive and negative reinforcement. Just as pledges and rookies








learn from behavioral conditioning, they also learn from watching "brothers" and older team members. The behaviors of these group members are often set forth as examples of expected behavior. Kalof and Cargill (1991:418), in fact, note that peer group cultures, such as Greek letter organizations, can provide environments in which "gender stereotyping, sexual aggression, and/or victimization are learned and legitimized."

Alcohol use by fraternity members is normative. The most eagerly sought after men are those who "are willing to drink alcohol," "who drink socially," or "who can hold their liquor" (Martin and Hummer 1989:460). "Excessive drinking" is also common among many male athletes (Snyder 1994), and Constance Johnson (1991) reports that male athletes and fraternity members have much higher levels of drinking than other males on campus. Indeed, fraternity and sorority leaders drink more than other students on campus: "In other words, the leaders are participating in setting the norms of heavy drinking and behavioral loss of control" (Scrivo 1998:249).

Practices associated with fraternity life that can contribute to the sexual coercion of women include a preoccupation with loyalty, group protection and secrecy, use of alcohol as a weapon, involvement in physical violence and force, and an emphasis on competition and superiority (Martin and Hummer 1989). Students who have traditional sex role attitudes show greater acceptance of use of physical coercion as well, and fraternity members and athletes show higher rates of acceptance of traditional gender roles than other students. Fraternities influence their members' interpersonal values over time by decreasing the value placed on independence and increasing the value placed on the exercise of power and influence over others (Kalof and Cargill 1991).









And so, an indirect focus by researchers on the four main concepts of social learning theory, differential association, definitions, differential reinforcement, and imitation, seems to provide a logical explanation of how fraternities and athletic teams transmit beliefs that support sexual victimization of women. But, what does the empirical data say?



Empirical Tests

The only direct studies were conducted by Boeringer, Shehan, and Akers (1991) and Boeringer (1992), showing that fraternity members were more likely to report that their friends have gotten a woman drunk or high to obtain sex. In terms of differential reinforcement, fraternity members were more likely than independents to be positively reinforced for engaging in acts of sexual aggression; they were significantly more likely than independents to feel that their friends would approve of them having sexual intercourse with many women during the school year, and they were less likely than independents to feel that their friends would disapprove of their getting a women drunk or high in order to have sex with her (Boeringer et al. 1991). Recent research also confirms that men who abuse women are seldom shunned by their peers. Some research shows that men who participate in courtship violence and date rape often receive peer support from their male friends, who may even encourage the abuse (Belknap and Erez 1995; Martin and Hummer 1989). On many counts, then, this research confirmed what others have speculated on indirectly. However, more needs to be done-including work at the macro-level--before conclusions can by clearly drawn.








Routine Activities

Theories of crime that focus on the influence of lifestyle or routine activities may also present an important analytical tool for this study. Routine activities theory proposes that likelihood of victimization is heavily influenced by a person's daily activities which affect his or her opportunities for victimization (Cohen and Felson 1979). There are four concepts central to the theory: exposure of one or one's property to potential offenders, guardianship over one and one's property, target attractiveness, and proximity to offenders (Cohen and Felson 1979). Greater exposure, less guardianship, more attractive targets, and closer proximity to offenders should correspond to increased likelihood of victimization.

Empirically, relatively little attention has been paid to using routine activities

theory to study individual offending, but it does seem very much applicable. A general study by Osgood and colleagues (1996) examined a broad range of deviant behaviors using a routine activities approach to assess whether unstructured socializing with peers in the absence of authority figures presents opportunities for deviance. They found that participation in unstructured social activities by 18- to 26-year-olds was strongly associated with criminal behavior and heavy alcohol use, among other types of deviance (Osgood et al. 1996).

A study by Wooldredge and colleagues (1995) examined the likelihood of faculty victimization on campus. Two of their findings are of particular interest to this study. First, they note the importance of interactions of individual demographic characteristics with routine activities in studies of personal victimization. Demographic characteristics may interact with routines to produce significant differences in the likelihood of








victimization. Second, it is possible for individual demographics to play an important role in predicting personal victimization in the context of particular limited routine activities (Osgood 1995). Thus, a given setting, in interaction with demographic characteristics, may affect crime. Thus, studies that examine the context of victimization on campus are also valuable in routine activities analysis.

Social context, a key element of routine activities theory, is often a focus of the literature on alcohol and rape on campus. For this reason, routine activities theory seems to hold a plausible explanation for this behavioral deviance, given some of the variables measured and conclusions drawn from research by Ward et al. (1991) and Boswell and Spade (1996). Though neither set of authors specifically mention routine activities, their focus on the environment surrounding rape on college campuses, particularly at fraternities, points in this direction. A recent study by Ullman, Karabatsos and Koss (1999) also lays out some of the key points that relate routine activities theory and alcohol and sexual aggression on campus:

Alcohol use by offender or victim may interact with other risky, unplanned social situations (e.g. parties) resulting in more severe assault outcomes. Recent theorists of victimization have argued that victimization risk increases where there is a convergence of risky situations (e.g. structural opportunities), potential victims (e.g. attractive targets), and motivated offenders, occurring in the absence of capable guardians (e.g. social control agents who might intervene to stop victimization from occurring). Drinking in risky situations, such as parties, may expose potential targets to motivated offenders in situations lacking adequate guardianship, resulting in increased risk of attack and severe assault outcomes.
(Ullman et al. 1999:605)


Much research has focused on the individual characteristics that are common of fraternity members and athletes, including, most notably, high rates of alcohol use. The question must be asked whether certain individuals are more drawn to joining these









groups, or whether these groups elicit these characteristics (see "Social Learning"). Regardless of which came first, the trait or the membership, motivated offenders can be found both in fraternities and on athletic teams. And, because of the college social setting, with parties frequently occurring at fraternity houses, available victims are readily found.

At many schools, social activities typically revolve around alcohol-saturated

parties at fraternities and sororities, off-campus bars and tailgate parties before athletic events. In addition, local bars cater to students with drink specials and drinking contests and even shuttle buses to round up students (Scrivo 1998). This "party atmosphere" that surrounds students on many campuses often involves heavy drinking. Alcohol consumption frequently occurs in social settings (on or near campus) in which sexual activity is a possible, and often desired, outcome of interaction. Alcohol use impairs cognitive processing and increases feelings of sexual disinhibition and arousal, even if only perceived. This heightened sense of sexuality, coupled with a short-term, narrow cognitive focus, increases the likelihood that acquaintance rape will occur (Abbey 1991).

In this setting, motivated offenders and suitable targets abound. All-male

fraternities, for example, often wield much control over party life on college campuses since there are usually few other places to party on campus. Excessive alcohol use in this environment may lead to more motivated offenders and more available victims. Several studies show that 75% of men and over half of all women involved in acquaintance rape were drinking or taking drugs before the incident (Koss 1988; Ward et al. 1991). A "drunk or drinking victim may be targeted by the offender who sees an opportunity to








commit sexual assault without engaging in other coercive [physical] behaviors" (Ullman et al. 1999:604).

A study by Ward et al. (1991) of incidence of unwanted sexual contact on one

campus revealed that fraternities were an especially likely site for this unwanted contact. Their work additionally showed that alcohol was an important component of the student lifestyle and that unwanted sexual experiences were a product of that lifestyle. They concluded that unwanted sexual encounters are more likely to occur in the context of "normal" social settings; they are "culturally normative" (Ward et al. 1991). Boswell and Spade (1996) make similar conclusions in their study using participant observation of different social settings (fraternity and bars) on a college campus and interviews with students. They find that a "rape culture" exists, particularly at certain fraternities. One fraternity member, when asked about definitions of rape, said, "Girls get so drunk here and they come on to us. What are we supposed to do? We are only human" (Boswell and Spade 1996:143). Motivated offenders and available victims are obvious.

Additionally, the use of alcohol by potential victims may add a physiological

dimension to becoming a suitable target. Alcohol use by victims may be associated with less forceful resistance (Ullman et al. 1999). A study by Harrington and Leitenberg (1994) showed that when sexual aggression occurs among more casual relationships, the encounter often begins at a party or in a bar where drinking is more likely. So, setting contributes to offenders and victims.

Lack of guardians is also apparent. Reports have also noted that sanctions are

rarely placed on date or fraternity rapists, sexual harassers, or men who physically abuse their girlfriends (Belknap and Erez 1995; Sanday 1990). This failure to sanction









violators is partly due to victims' unwillingness to report, but also to the University authorities' and the criminal justice system's reluctance to take action against offenders reported to them. "One answer, then, to why men rape, abuse, and sexually harass women on campus is because they can" (Belknap and Erez 1995:166). In addition, the official patrolling and regulation of fraternity parties is fairly lax on many campuses; rules prohibiting drinking are frequently ignored (Sanday 1990; Martin and Hummer 1989).



Integrating Theories

An integrated theory combining both social learning and routine activities might also prove effective in explaining alcohol use and sexual aggression on campus. Social learning provides a sound, logical explanation of how offenders become motivated, and why victims are seen as vulnerable and guardians lenient. Many studies that focus on learning, after all, routinely discuss the "social context" surrounding fraternities and athletes on college campuses.

Based on the research and literature reviewed in the preceding chapters and the

expectations of structural-level social learning theory and routine activities, I hypothesize the following. I anticipate that students who are members of the Greek system, white, athletes, and male (variables that mark a student's place in the social structure) will have higher levels and frequencies of alcohol use than other students. Students who perceive the university to be a "party school" will have higher levels and frequencies of alcohol use than other students. Those who believe that the social atmosphere on campus promotes alcohol use and who believe that excessive alcohol consumption is a frequent








occurrence for students (variables that assess the norms about drinking on campus) will have higher levels and frequencies of alcohol use than other students. Students who perceive the enforcement of drinking regulations to be less strict (variables related to the social control system and guardianship) will have higher levels and frequencies of alcohol use than other students. Students who live-off campus or in fraternity houses and/or are of legal drinking age (variables that assess situations conducive to deviance and exposure and proximity) will have higher levels and frequencies of alcohol use than other students.

I hypothesize that those men who are members of fraternities and/or athletes

(variables that mark a student's place in the social structure and exposure and proximity to targets) will be more likely to commit acts of sexual coercion and aggression than other men. Men who perceive the university to be a "party school" and/or perceive sexual assault or date rape to be a more frequent occurrence for students at the university (variables that assess norms about sexual aggression on campus and attractiveness of targets) will be more likely to commit acts of sexual coercion and aggression than other men. Men who perceive enforcement of laws and regulations about sexual assault to be less strict (variables related to the social control system and guardianship) will be more likely to commit acts of sexual coercion and aggression than other men. Men who live off-campus or in fraternity houses and/or who drink alcohol frequently and heavily (variables that assess situations conducive to deviance and exposure, proximity and target attractiveness) will be more likely to commit acts of sexual coercion and aggression than other men. Men who perceive alcohol use to be central to the lives of women on campus









(variables related to women as attractive targets) will be more likely to commit acts of sexual coercion and aggression than other men.

I hypothesize that women who are members of sororities and/or athletes

(variables that mark a student's place in the social structure and proximity and exposure to offenders) will be more likely to be victims of acts of sexual coercion and aggression than other women. Women who perceive the university to be a "party school" and perceive sexual assault or date rape to be a more frequent occurrence for students at the university (variables that assess norms about sexual aggression on campus) will be more likely to be victims of acts of sexual coercion and aggression than other women. Women who perceive enforcement of laws and regulations about sexual assault to be less strict (variables related to the social control system and guardianship) will be more likely to be victims of acts of sexual coercion and aggression than other women. Women who live off-campus or in sorority houses and/or who drink alcohol frequently and heavily (variables that assess situations conducive to deviance, exposure and proximity to offenders and target attractiveness) will be more likely to be victims of acts of sexual coercion and aggression than other women.

Noting the overlap between the variables used to assess the social learning elements of norms, place in the social structure, perceptions of social control, and situations conducive to deviance and the variables used to assess the routine activities elements of exposure, proximity and guardianship, I further hypothesize that the most predictive multivariate models will include these "overlapping" variables. Thus, a theoretical model integrating elements of social learning and routine activities would be supported.














CHAPTER 7
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION Sampling Design

The population of interest for this study is undergraduate students in the

university setting. The literature review presented evidence that dating and sexual situations are conducive to incidents of sexual aggression, and given the percentage of undergraduates who are simultaneously unmarried and sexually active, colleges present one of the most appropriate settings in which to study sexually aggressive behavior (Shively and Lam 1991). In addition, college students drink more and are more likely to "binge" drink than their non-college-enrolled counterparts in the general population (Wechsler et al. 1994). Thus, college settings are also particularly appropriate for investing secondary effects of problem drinking.

To test the proposals set forth in the Introduction, data was collected using a

survey that assessed perceptions of campus norms regarding drinking and sexual assault; personal experience of drinking and sexual assault by respondents; and an array of variables pertaining to campus climate and respondent demographics and memberships. A new instrument was constructed as no existing questionnaire fully captured the variables under study, within the spatial framework of the broader research project (see below). Several questions from the survey questionnaire used in that larger study were also included for analysis along with the questions on the instrument described above.








The researcher chose to use a quantitative survey as the primary mode of data

collection for a number of reasons. Foremost was the ability to obtain information from a large number of students. Due to time and financial constraints, large-scale, in-depth interviewing would preclude obtaining information from a substantial number of respondents. A large, representative sample is best suited to testing the theories outlined in the literature review and the hypotheses detailed below. Additionally, had the data been obtained through interviews, the sensitive nature of the subject matter could pose problems of reliability and validity in the respondents' answers, given that the researcher is a woman. Thus, a written survey presents the best means for gleaning pertinent information from a wide array of students.

Surveys do have drawbacks, however. This data is cross-sectional rather than longitudinal. It will not encompass how perceptions or behaviors have changed in a given span of time (such as time in college). Additionally, survey data collected with questionnaires only provides a "surface-level" view of any issue.

Hence, I also conducted a series of in-depth interviews. To further explore

perceptions of campus and to compensate for the some of the deficiencies inherent in the cross-sectional quantitative data, 10 interviews were also conducted with male and female students on campus. This sample was a convenience sample, gathered through general announcements in sociology classes and at several campus locations. Interview questioning allowed the researcher to glean some background on students' perceptions of the campus social atmosphere and to flesh-out some to the "whys" behind the quantitative survey data.








The Sample

The larger quantitative sample was quelled in cooperation with a "campus

climate" study being funded and conducted through the Office of the Vice-Provost of Affirmative Action. Approximately 1500 students completed questionnaires in November and December 2000. Given the undergraduate population of the university (31,329), this completion rate insures a +/- .03 error rate for a 95% confidence interval.

The sample was a multi-stage stratified cluster sample. A predetermined number of classes were randomly chosen from all undergraduate courses at the University. Cluster sampling is a very effective means of reaching large populations cost effectively. In this process the population is broken down into groups of cases (clusters) and a sample of clusters is selected at random (Singleton et al. 1993). In the first stage of the sampling process, a list of all undergraduate courses for Fall 2000 was obtained from the Office of the University Registrar, and each course was assigned a number.

In stage two, the courses were stratified into four groups based on course

enrolment. Given that there were multiple sized sampling units within the clusters, strata were established by marking off equal intervals on the cumulative square root of the frequency scale. Thus, beginning with a class size of 15 and using three strata (an effective number given the variety of class sizes) this scheme produces the following strata: those with fewer than 15 students, those with 15 to 32 students, those with 33 to 77 students, and those with 78 or more students. Stratifying the clusters is very important, as it ensures that all groupings are represented. A simple random sample, for example, runs the risk of not including the smallest group and over-sampling the most populous group. Stratified random sampling can guarantee that viable categories with small proportions of









cases in the population are adequately represented (Singleton et al. 1993). In the case of this university, class size is sometimes related to the level of the course-general education, freshman-level courses are often very large, while college courses for majors are usually medium- to small-size classes. In order to ensure that students in large courses were included and that students in medium and small courses were not oversampled, an equal number of courses from each strata were chosen.

Courses in the smallest group, those with fewer than 15 students, were excluded from the sample as most are "individual work" or "study-group" course headings, instances where an actual "class" does not meet at a set time. The researcher randomly selected 11 courses from each stratum using a computer generated random number list. The instructors for each of the selected courses were sent a letter from the Provost's Office explaining the broader research project and asking if surveys could be administered in their classes. A total of nine professors refused to participate in the study. Those who agreed to participate were assigned a date of their preference for survey administration. If an instructor refused, the next course from the random number list for the strata was selected, a letter sent, and the process repeated. Finally, within each participating course students were given the option of whether or not to participate in the survey. Those who agreed to participate completed questionnaires in the classrooms of their respective courses.



Surveying in Classrooms

Research has shown that classroom surveying provides higher response rates and more valid responses to questions related to sexual aggression than other research








locations. Shively and Lam's research (1991), "Sampling Methods and Admissions of Sexual Aggression Among College Men," compares self-reports of male sexual aggression from studies of college men using a random mail sample to those using classroom volunteers. They note the benefit that in classroom situations "where the responses cannot be linked to the respondent, more men may be willing to respond honestly" (Shively and Lam 1991:355). To the contrary, when people are confronted with a questionnaire that has been directly mailed to them, and with non respondents receiving follow up mailings, which alert them that the missing questionnaire was noticed, and which must be returned to an institution that wields power over them, "it is likely that people will either not respond or will underreport their sexual aggression" (Shively and Lam 1991:355). Koss and Gidycz (1985) also noted a tendency among male participants to deny behaviors during interviews that they revealed on self-report questionnaires administered during regularly scheduled university classes.



Data Collection Procedures


Quantitative Survey

Representatives of the University Research Center (where this researcher is

employed) overseeing the larger campus climate project administered the surveys in the chosen courses. The representative entered the classroom at a time chosen by the instructor (either the beginning or 30 minutes before the end of class) and briefly explained the project. Students were instructed to carefully read the Institutional Review Board statement on the front page of the survey instrument. This statement noted that participation was voluntary and that participants did not have to answer any questions








that they did not wish to answer. Respondents were instructed in how to complete the "Scantron" bubble sheet, not to include their names or other identifying information, and to return their packets to the Research Center representative when they were finished. The completed surveys were coded and entered into an ASCII data set for analysis.



Qualitative Interviews

The researcher met the interview respondents at a location on campus and they were given an Institutional Review Board statement to read detailing the interview process and their rights as participants (see description above). After agreeing, respondents were asked a series of broad, open-ended questions about their perceptions of the social atmosphere on campus, whether they had any preconceptions about the university or college life before coming to school, how those ideas may have changed given their actual experiences on campus, and their perceptions of alcohol use and sexual assault on campus. Interviews were tape recorded and then transcribed and analyzed for content.



Concepts under Study

It should be noted that the space allotted for questions relevant to this project (on alcohol use and sexual aggression) was extremely limited within the confines of the broader campus climate study. A minimum number of questions could be added. Therefore, many questions that were included in the larger study are incorporated for use in this research. While they may not be the most appropriate measures for a given








concept, they are the best measures available within the breadth of the larger study. These limitations are discussed further in the concluding comments of Chapter 10.


Dependent Variables

There are two sets of dependent variables-one pertaining to alcohol use and one pertaining to sexual assault. Two questions assess respondents' use of alcohol. The first asks "how often, if ever, [the respondent] drink[s] alcoholic beverages" (see Appendix). The second question evaluated binge drinking by inquiring how many times in the past two weeks the person had five or more drinks at a sitting. While these measures are not ideal, in that they do not evaluate frequency and quantity together, they are the best available measures from the survey at hand.

A series of questions, roughly modeled on questions from the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES) (see Koss and Gidycz 1985), were used to assess whether male respondents had ever perpetrated acts of sexual coercion and/or sexual assault. The questions here are more limited in scope than those used in the SES. The first question asked if, during his time at the university, he had ever obtained or attempted to obtain sexual intercourse with a woman by giving her alcohol or drugs. A set of follow-up questions were designed to obtain additional information about the nature of the incident, including location, alcohol use, and law enforcement involvement. Similarly, men were asked if, during their time at the university, they had ever obtained or attempted to obtain sexual intercourse with a woman by using pressure, coercion, or non-physical threats (with the follow-up questions noted above), and whether, in their time at the university, they had ever obtained to attempted to obtain sexual intercourse with a woman when she didn't want to by threatening to use force (holding her down, twisting her arm, etc.) if she didn't cooperate.








Female respondents were asked a parallel set of questions, again, modeled on those in the SES (but more limited in content and scope), to assess whether they have ever been victims of sexual coercion or sexual assault. Women were first asked if, in their time at the university, they had ever had a man obtain or attempt to obtain sexual intercourse with them by giving them alcohol or drugs. Women were also asked if, in their time at the university, they had ever had a man obtain or attempt to obtain sexual intercourse with them when they didn't want to by threatening to use force against them (holding them down, twisting their arm, etc.). Again, follow-up questions were asked about the incidents in each section regarding location, alcohol use, and law enforcement involvement.



Independent and Control Variables

Many socio-demographic variables were included as independent variables in the study. Those variables found to be significant in previous studies of campus alcohol use and/or sexual assault are included here as well: gender, race, group memberships (fraternity and sorority membership, participation in collegiate athletics, participation in student government, etc.), and living situations. These variables are also used to measure aspects of the two theories emphasized in this project (see below). Alcohol use and binge drinking will also serve as independent variables in the models that analyze sexual assault as a dependent variable.

Social Learning Variables. As this research applies the theoretical principals of social learning at the macro-level, a series of questions was designed to assess respondents' places in the social structure, their perceptions of campus traditions and








norms about drinking and sexual aggression, their views of social control on campus, and their involvement in immediate situations and contexts in which are conducive to alcohol use and/or sexual aggression. The basic socio-demographic questions on gender, age, race, group memberships, and living situations are used to assess a respondent's place in the social structure of the university. To evaluate norms and traditions about alcohol use and sexual aggression, the survey asked whether alcohol use was supported by the university as whole, whether alcohol use was normative for various groups on campus, and how common respondents' felt heavy alcohol use to be for most students on campus. In addition, to better gauge the combined affect of multiple norms about drinking and "partying" on campus, a scale variable, PARTYNRM, was created from the two dichotomous variables described above. Respondents were also asked how common they felt "date rape" and "sexual assault" were for students at the university. To examine perceptions of social control, questions regarding respondents' perceptions of rule enforcement by university administration were included (in relation to alcohol violations and sexual assault).

Routine Activities Variables. Exposure to opportunity was assessed by

variables related to respondents' living situations, age, and drinking patterns, as well as membership in fraternities and sororities and athletic teams. Perception of guardianship was assessed with variables related to perception of leniency of law enforcement and university. Target attractiveness was assessed through variables related to alcohol consumption, acceptance of a campus "party" atmosphere, and perceptions of the centrality of alcohol use for various groups on campus. For victims, proximity to









offenders was evaluated with variables related to group memberships, drinking patterns, and being of legal drinking age.


Hypotheses

Based on the prior research reviewed in the preceding chapters and the

expectations of structural-level social learning theory and routine activities, I offer the following hypotheses. I expect that students who are members of the Greek system, white, athletes, and male (variables that mark a student's place in the social structure) will have higher levels and frequencies of alcohol use than other students. Students who perceive the university to be a "party school" and believe that the social atmosphere on campus promotes alcohol use and who believe that excessive alcohol consumption is a frequent occurrence for students (variables that assess the norms about drinking on campus) will have higher levels and frequencies of alcohol use than other students. Students who perceive the enforcement of drinking regulations to be less strict (variables related to the social control system and guardianship) will have higher levels and frequencies of alcohol use than other students. Students who live-off campus or in fraternity houses and/or are aged 21 or older (variables that assess situations conducive to deviance and exposure and proximity) will have higher levels and frequencies of alcohol use than other students.

I hypothesize that men who are members of fraternities and/or athletes (variables that mark a student's place in the social structure and exposure and proximity to targets) will be more likely to commit acts of sexual coercion and aggression than other men. Men who perceive the university to be a "party school" and/or perceive sexual assault or date rape to be a more frequent occurrence for students at the university (variables that








assess norms about sexual aggression on campus and attractiveness of targets) will be more likely to commit acts of sexual coercion and aggression than other men. Men who perceive enforcement of laws and regulations about sexual assault to be less strict (variables related to the social control system and guardianship) will be more likely to commit acts of sexual coercion and aggression than other men. Men who live offcampus or in fraternity houses and/or who drink alcohol frequently and heavily (variables that assess situations conducive to deviance and exposure, proximity and target attractiveness) will be more likely to commit acts of sexual coercion and aggression than other men. Men who perceive alcohol use to be central to the lives of women on campus (variables related to women as attractive targets) will be more likely to commit acts of sexual coercion and aggression than other men.

I hypothesize that women who are members of sororities and/or athletes

(variables that mark a student's place in the social structure and proximity and exposure to offenders) will be more likely to be victims of acts of sexual coercion and aggression than other women. Women who perceive the university to be a "party school" and perceive sexual assault or date rape to be a more frequent occurrence for students at the university (variables that assess norms about sexual aggression on campus) will be more likely to be victims of acts of sexual coercion and aggression than other women. Women who perceive enforcement of laws and regulations about sexual assault to be less strict (variables related to the social control system and guardianship) will be more likely to be victims of acts of sexual coercion and aggression than other women. Women who live off-campus or in sorority houses and/or who drink alcohol frequently and heavily (variables that assess situations conducive to deviance, exposure and proximity to









offenders and target attractiveness) will be more likely to be victims of acts of sexual coercion and aggression than other women.

Noting the overlap between the variables used to assess the social learning elements of norms, place in the social structure, perceptions of social control, and situations conducive to deviance and the variables used to assess the routine activities elements of exposure, proximity and guardianship, I further hypothesize that the most predictive multivariate models will include these "overlapping" variables. Thus, a theoretical model integrating elements of social learning and routine activities would be supported. We now turn our attention to the data.



Coding and Sample Characteristics

After the data were entered into an ASCII computer file, they were analyzed using the SAS data analysis system. First, the data were examined for irregularities. Twelve respondent's answers were removed from the data set in their entirety because they either failed to answer more than half of the questions on the survey or because their answers did not correspond to possible answer choices. The total number of respondents in the data set is 1,519. Any non-responses to a given question were coded as missing data for further analysis.

Univariate frequencies were produced for the 52 questions on the survey

instrument. After that process, the nominal variables were divided into dummy variables based on the categorical responses given for each. To insure that the sample was representative of the larger campus population, comparisons were made between the frequencies for the primary sociodemographic variables and university statistics. Table 1








presents the results of this comparison for selected variables relevant to the analysis. The sample slightly over-represents women, fraternity and sorority members and those under the age of 21. All sample characteristics are within a reasonable comparison margin for the university as whole, however. Most of the sample is white (the percentage distribution for the sample slightly under-represents the categories "white" and "black" do to inclusion of the category "biracial/multiracial") and lives off-campus. The sample should allow for generalization to the university as a whole.



Table 1: Percentage Distributions of Selected Sociodemographic Variables
Variable Sample % University Undergraduate Population %
Female 57.6% 52.0% Male 42.4% 48.0% White 70.5% 73.9% Black 5.7% 6.5% Fraternity/Sorority Member 17.1% 15.0% Under Age 21 65.0% 50.9% Age 21 and over 35.0% 49.1% Live Off-campus 69.5% 79.0% Live On-campus 25.1% 21.0% Source: University Office of Student Affairs 1999



The qualitative sample was composed of four white women, two African

American women, two African American men, and two white men. Three of the students interviewed were 21-years-old; the other seven were under age 21. Two of the students were seniors, two were juniors, two were sophomores, and four were freshman.

The results of the data analysis will be presented first for alcohol use, and then for sexual coercion and assault. The discussion of these results and the conclusions drawn from the data will follow.














CHAPTER 8
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS: ALCOHOL USE


This chapter presents the results of the data analysis of the first set of dependent variables-those related to frequency of alcohol use and binge drinking. The results of the quantitative analysis are submitted along with relevant quotations and analyses from the qualitative interviews. As indicated in the previous chapters, two theoretical frameworks will be used to explain drinking behaviors.



Theoretical Explanations for Alcohol Use

In using social learning theory to explain deviance at a macro-level the goal is to explain how the social structure shapes individual behavior. Thus, for the first dependent variables of this study, the goal is to explain what characteristics of the social structure of the university affect frequency of alcohol use and binge drinking. The university provides a learning environment for its members. It is an immediate context that may promote or discourage behaviors and beliefs. Differences in rates of alcohol use for students are a function of the extent to which "cultural traditions, norms, and social control systems provide socialization, learning environments, and immediate situations conducive to conformity or deviance" (Akers 1997:69). Thus, at a univariate level of analysis, we must first establish what the norms and traditions are about alcohol use and what the students' perceptions are of drinking behaviors and the social control system of the university.








Characteristics such as age, sex, race, and year-in-school indicate where an

individual is situated in the social structure of the university. These characteristics also influence group membership in organizations such as sororities and fraternities, student government, or athletic teams. Given prior research, the individual characteristics and memberships hypothesized to correlate to increased alcohol use are being white, male, a fraternity or sorority member, an athlete, and/or living in a fraternity or sorority house. At the bivariate level of analysis, we can examine whether correlations exist among rates of drinking and binge drinking and the variables noted above. This level of analysis can also establish whether correlations exist among drinking behaviors and perceptions of the cultural traditions, norms, social control system, and environment of the campus. In other words, we can begin to establish whether correlations exist between the social structure and the individual behavior of alcohol use. This analysis can be taken a step further at the multivariate level by using multiple regression techniques to find the combination of structural factors that best explain alcohol use.

While the routine activities approach is more appropriate in analyzing the sexual coercion and aggression examined in the next chapter, elements of the theory are useful in explaining alcohol use on campus. Routine activities theory supposes a convergence of motivated offenders, suitable targets and lack of capable guardians. Extrapolating, we can say that the likelihood of drinking increases when one or more persons is present who is motivated to drink, when alcohol is present, and when guardians who would deter drinking are absent. At the bivariate level, analyses examine whether students who have more exposure and proximity to alcohol (those who are old enough to go to bars or who live in settings where alcohol possession is not restricted) and those that perceive lenient









enforcement of drinking regulations will have higher levels of alcohol use. Again, these correlations are explored further with multivariate regression to establish what combination of variables may affect alcohol use. As noted in Chapter 7, one of the primary expectations of this research is that measures shared by the two theoretical frameworks will be of great explanatory value in the multivariate analyses.



Univariate Distributions


Dependent Variables

The two primary dependent variables for alcohol use were frequency of alcohol use and frequency of binge drinking. Table 2 presents the results of the first question that measured frequency of alcohol use: "Please approximate how often, if ever, you drink alcoholic beverages." Consistent with expectations based on findings of other campuswide surveys, approximately 21% of respondents indicated that they never drink. The remaining 79% breaks down as follows: about 27% drink once a month, 27% drink once a week, 22% drink two to three times a week, and about 2% say that they drink every day. Mirroring these findings, only two of the 10 students who participated in the indepth interviews reported that they do not drink at all and one reported that she rarely drank. The remaining seven respondents were drinkers.


Table 2: Percentage Distribution of Drinking Behavior Response N % Never 303 21.1% Once a month 393 27.3% Once a week 397 27.6% 2 to 3 times a week 319 22.2% Every day 27 1.8% Total 1439 100.0%








The next survey question assessed frequency of respondent binge drinking. The question asked: "Over the past two weeks, how many times have you had five or more alcoholic drinks at a sitting? (A drink is a bottle of beer, a glass of wine, a wine cooler, a shot glass of liquor, or a mixed drink.)" Table 3 presents the results of this question. Again, consistent with other campus-wide surveys of alcohol use, about 56% of the respondents reported that they had not engaged in binge drinking in the two weeks before the survey, while about 44% had. Just over 18% of the respondents fell into the "frequent" bingeing category, having consumed five or more drinks in a sitting three or more times in the two-week period preceding the survey. (For the bivariate analyses, a dichotomous variable of those that frequently binge was created.)


Table 3: Percentage Distribution of Binge Drinking Frequency Response N % None 801 55.8% Once 226 15.7% Twice 146 10.2% 3 to 5 times 190 13.2% 6 to 10 times 53 3.7% More than 10 times 20 1.4% Total 1436 100.0%



Independent Variables

The univariate distributions for the independent variables measured by sociodemographic characteristics that mark a student's place in the social structure of the university are presented in Table 4. These variables (measuring gender, race, age, number of years at the university, living situation and group memberships) will appear throughout these analyses. With the exception of number of years at the university, which is a continuous variable, all of these variables have been reconstructed as








dichotomous variables (a coding of"" indicates possession of the specified trait). To

assess norms, cultural traditions, and perceptions of social control/guardianship a series

of questions asked respondents about of the social climate surrounding drinking on

campus, laws and regulations related to alcohol use, and their perceptions of other

students' drinking behaviors.


Table 4: Percentage Distributions of Selected Independent Variables Variable Sample % Female 57.6% Male 42.4% White 70.5% Black 5.7% Fraternity/sorority member 17.1% Member of Student Government 5.1% Under Age 21 65.0% Age 21 and over 35.0% First year at the university 38.3% Second year at the university 31.9% Third year at the university 17.0% Fourth year at the university (or more) 12.8% Live Off-campus 69.5% Live On-campus 25.1% Live in fraternity or sorority house 4.1%



Independent variables measuring the norms and traditions related to alcohol use

and "partying" on campus were assessed by two questions about the campus as a whole

and a third question evaluating perceptions of alcohol use by various groups on campus.

The results of these questions are presented in Table 5 and Table 6. The first question

asked if "the social atmosphere on campus promotes alcohol use" and the second asked if

recent magazine articles were correct in designating the university as a top "party

school." Approximately 72% of respondents felt that the social atmosphere on campus

promotes alcohol use and that this university is correctly designated as a "party school."








In addition, a scale variable, PARTYNRM, was created from the two dichotomous variables described above. When combined, only 14% of respondents disagreed with both statements about the social atmosphere surrounding drinking at the university. About 28% of respondents agreed with one of the two statements and 58% agreed with both statements. One interview respondent, an 18-year-old white female, succinctly described her initial image of the university: "I expected it to be what it is, a party school."


Table 5: Perceptions of the Social Atmosphere on Campus and Alcohol Use Yes No Does the social atmosphere on campus promote alcohol use? 72.2% 27.8%

Recent magazine articles have identified [the university] as a top "party school," do 71.8% 28.2% you agree with this designation?


Many interview respondents also discussed the "tradition" and norms of college drinking. The overwhelming sentiment was that college is a time of free activity before the responsibility of the "real world" sets in. Drinking is part of that experience. "There is a lot of partying, a lot of drinking, a lot of promiscuous ideas about sex and a lot of dislike of anything that is in any way didactic or structured," said one 18-year-old white female respondent. Another respondent said, "...there's people [sic] who are here to get an education, but they still want to have some fun-they don't want to be like bookworms. You know, you're allowed to have fun while you're young" (19-year-old black female). This sentiment was mirrored by another respondent who noted a that there is a "general idea of what is to be 18 to 22-partying, having as much fun as you can








before you settle down" (18-year-old white female). One woman summed up her beliefs about college drinking norms as follows:

Just by being at the university, you're probably drinking, because everyone has in
their state of mind, if you're in a college town, you're supposed to drink. Like,
that's anywhere, that's not just at [this university], it's everywhere. I don't know how much they could do to promote not drinking, just because the institution of a
four-year university is to drink. (21-year-old white female)


It is not surprising, given these norms, that most survey respondents felt that alcohol use was central to the social lives of most groups of students (see Table 6). Students were asked whether they "believe that drinking alcohol is central to the social life of the following groups: male students, female students, athletes, fraternities, sororities, white students, African American students." Overall, respondents felt that alcohol use was most central to the social life of male students (77.4%), fraternity members (89.2%), sorority members (79.0%), and white students (64.9%). Given the most common characteristics of drinkers found in the national Harvard study of alcohol use on campus (Wechsler 2000), and the results of the bivariate analyses of this study (see below), students seemed to have a fairly accurate picture of those who are most likely to be heavy drinkers.



Table 6: Perceptions of Centrality of Alcohol Use to the Social Life of Campus Groups On this campus, is drinking alcohol central to Yes No the social life of the following groups?
Male Students 77.4% 22.6% Female Students 56.2% 43.8% Athletes 46.7% 53.3% Fraternities 89.2% 10.8% Sororities 78.6% 21.4% White Students 64.9% 35.1% African American Students 47.4% 52.6%









Another independent variable measured participants' perception of alcohol

consumption by students at the university. The question asked, "In your opinion, to what extent does excessive alcohol consumption happen to students at [the university]?" The possible responses were "not at all," "rarely," "occasionally," and "frequently." Respondents overwhelmingly felt that excessive alcohol consumption was a frequent happening for students at the university. Despite the fact that only 44% of students reported binge drinking behavior, nearly 23% of respondents believed that excessive drinking happens at least occasionally and over 69% believed that this is frequent behavior for students at this university. Many interview respondents also felt that binge drinking was a significant problem, both at this university and elsewhere. One respondent offered this description of drinking norms at the university:

I don't think college students know how to socially drink. I don't. I don't
socially drink. I mean I don't just drink to have a drink, you drink to get messed
up, and so you keep drinking until you're messed up, 'cause that's what you're
supposed to do [her emphasis]. (21-year-old white female).


Table 7: Perception of Frequency of Excessive Alcohol Consumption Not at Rarely Occasionally Frequently all
To what extent does excessive alcohol 3.3% 4.8% 22.6% 69.3% consumption happen for students?


If comparisons were made strictly to the percentage of students who drink at all, these views would seem fairly accurate. But, compared to the much smaller percentage of students who are moderate to heavy drinkers or frequent binge drinkers, it appears that students may be exaggerating levels of drinking, an important element of the "social norms approach" described in Chapter 5. A 20-year-old white male interview respondent








said, "...it seems like everybody drinks, only obviously not everybody does." Visibility, it seems, may be an issue. If drinkers are more visible, then others (especially those not engaged in the behavior) may overestimate the normality of the activity. Another respondent added, "the people that's [sic] out drinking are the people they [sic] gonna see 'cause they're the people that are out-the people that don't go out, you can't see them" (21-year-old white male). One woman, who is not a drinker, noted that there was "no way of telling who's like minded and not in the party scene" (18-year-old white female). Only one of the 10 people interviewed, when shown an advertisement indicating that less than half of the student body engaged in binge drinking, agreed with the idea, saying that the ad was "a reaffirmation of something you really already knew if you sat down and thought about it-most people probably don't binge and that kind of stuff' (18-year-old white female).

Another independent variable measured respondents' perceptions of their own drinking behavior. Students were asked to describe their drinking behavior by choosing one of the following descriptions: "abstain from drinking," "light drinker," "moderate drinker," or "heavy drinker." The results of this question are presented in Table 8. About 44% of respondents described themselves as "light drinkers" and another 28% described themselves as "moderate drinkers." Only 4% of those responding described themselves as "heavy drinkers."

To further evaluate the issue of overestimating or underestimating drinking

behavior, a dichotomous variable was also created to measure a discrepancy between a person's self-description of their behavior and their reported frequency of drinking. Response categories for the question asking how often, if ever, respondents drink








alcoholic beverages was collapsed into four categories (never, once a month, once a week, two or more times a week) which roughly corresponds to the descriptive designations detailed above. Respondents whose answers to the descriptive category did not match their frequency of drinking were coded as "1" for the variable WRONGDEF. This measure is far from ideal, but does allow for some level of assessment of those students whose self-descriptions may depart from the definitions of practitioners and scholars. Over half (52%) of the respondents gave a description of their drinking behavior which did not match their response for drinking frequency. This variable will also be used as an independent variable in the higher-level analyses.


Table 8: Self-described Drinking Behavior Abstain from Light Moderate Heavy drinking drinker drinker drinker How would you describe your 24.0% 44.1% 28.0% 3.9% drinking behavior?



To assess respondents' views about social control and guardianship, students were also asked a set of two questions about their perceptions of rules and punishments related to drinking on campus. The first question asked: "Would you say that the administration and law enforcement on this campus are too strict, appropriate, or too lenient in their regulation of drinking on campus (in residence halls, at fraternities and sororities, at oncampus restaurants, etc.)?" The second question asked: "Would you say that the administration and law enforcement on this campus are too strict, appropriate, or too lenient in their punishment of students who violate laws and regulations about drinking?" The results of these questions are presented in Table 9. About 13% of respondents believed that the administration and law enforcement on campus are too








lenient in their regulation of drinking on campus. Over 23%, however, took the opposite stance, saying that the regulation of on-campus drinking was too strict. The vast majority, about 64%, thought that the regulations were appropriate. The distribution of responses about the administration's punishment of students who violate those regulations was parallel. When asked about the administration's stance toward regulating drinking by students, one interview respondent said that it [the administration] "subliminally supports the basic tendencies that people have at that age; that everything is permissible-I haven't heard of too many rules that sort of hold people back [from drinking]" (18-year-old white female). Several interview participants also noted the relatively strong influence of the lack of social control by parents more so than the control imposed by the university administration. A respondent explained that "some kids just go, and they've been controlled all their lives, and they seem, especially in the Fall [term], you just see kids go nuts" (21-year-old white female).


Table 9: Perceptions of Regulations and Punishments Related to Alcohol Violations Would you say that the administration and Too Lenient Appropriate Too Strict law enforcement on this campus are too
strict, appropriate, or too lenient in their... Regulation of drinking on campus 12.8% 63.8% 23.4%

Punishment of students who violate laws
and regulations about drinking 12.9% 63.0% 24.0%


Thus, at the univariate level of analysis, we find that respondents in both the

quantitative survey and the in-depth interviews perceive the norms and traditions of the university to be supportive of alcohol use. Most respondents to the survey rated the level of social control/guardianship of university administration and police to be "appropriate,"








and the literature review reveals these punishments to be fairly lax. The univariate distributions reveal that the majority of students use alcohol, and a large percentage of those respondents binge drink. Respondents to the survey overwhelmingly felt that heavy alcohol consumption was a "frequent" occurrence for students at the university. In addition, respondents in the in-depth interviews described their perceptions of a social "party scene" on campus that involves heavy alcohol use for the majority of students.



Bivariate Relationships between Dependent and Independent Variables

Table 10 presents crosstabulated data for three levels of drinking behavior (any drinking, any binge drinking, and frequent binge drinking) by various independent variables that denote placement in the social structure of the university, and, in the case of age and living situation, exposure and proximity to alcohol. The results are very much in-line with other research on collegiate drinking and generally supportive of the hypotheses. Men, collegiate athletes, members of the Greek system, white students, and students who live in fraternity or sorority housing are more likely to drink than their counterparts. Consistent with Wechsler's (2000) findings, members of the Greek system, and in particular, those members who live in Greek housing are much more likely to binge and binge frequently than other students on campus. The survey reveals that students aged 21 or older are more likely to drink, binge drink, and frequently binge drink than students who are not of legal drinking age.

Data from the in-depth interviews provide interesting similarities and

contradictions to these findings. Though many interview participants did not believe that members of the Greek system were more likely to drink or binge drink than other








students, they did describe a unique culture that included heavy drinking at its core. One person said that "people know-boom-if you're in a fraternity or sorority, a lot of it revolves around drinking" (20-year-old white male). Another student described the social scene of the Greek system: "Like, every social they have revolves around alcohol and, like, you have tons and tons of socials... if you're in a fraternity or sorority you drink more" (21 -year-old white female). When asked if she could identify people on campus that are part of what she described as the "party scene," one woman said that "there's some people that scream it [party scene membership], like people who are in the Greek system" (18-year-old white woman).

The two respondents who indicated that they did not drink, both African

American students (one female and one male), and one white female who indicated that she rarely drank, were the only interview participants who felt that drinking and binge drinking were more common for white students than black students.

Contrary to the findings of the survey, many interview respondents felt that

drinking decreased as students got older or moved out of the dorms. "My freshman year, I thought I would just go out every single night... but, school got harder and harder, and this year [junior year] I'm starting to realize that I'm not going out every single night" (21-year-old white female). Another participant expressed a similar sentiment:

People in the dorms probably go out more. By the time you get out of the dorm,
you don't want to go out every night, 'cause it gets old. But when you first get
here, that's when you want to go out. (18-year-old black female)


For most interviewees, the question of who drinks more seemed to boil down to educational goals, although these goals were sometimes associated with other demographic characteristics in respondents' minds. One man noted that "there's, like,








people here from other countries that don't even drink, that are here just to do school and that's all they do. . . they're in the library 24-7 [sic] and they don't ever drink" (20year-old white male). Another person said that "it [whether people drink] depends on what they're here for-like, if they're here to get an education, or a diploma, or if they're here for high school: part two-more partying, more beer" (21-year-old white male).



Table 10: Drinking Behaviors by Sociodemographic Variables Drink Binge Binge
Frequently
Male Students 77.3% 49.6% 26.0% Female Students 75.4% 37.5% 17.2% Collegiate Athletes 78.7% 50.8% 18.9% Non-athletes 74.5% 41.0% 17.2% Greek Students 87.2% 59.5% 25.2% Non-affiliated Students 72.4% 38.5% 15.8% White Students 80.9% 46.7% 19.2% Non-white Students 62.9% 32.4% 13.7% Students age 21 and older 84.1% 47.6% 23.0% Students under age 21 70.1% 38.9% 14.4% Students living off-campus 79.7% 44.6% 19.4% Students living on-campus 66.8% 35.8% 13.7% Students living in Greek housing 86.4% 61.0% 27.1%



Table 11 presents the results of Pearson correlations for the dependent variables on drinking and the sociodemographic variables. Only significant correlations are presented. The strongest correlations to being a drinker were being white, a member of the Greek system, living off-campus, and being age 21 or older. The strongest correlations to not drinking were being African American and living in an on-campus




Full Text

PAGE 1

ALCOHOL AND SEXUAL AGGRESSION ON CAMPUS By TRACY L. JOHNS A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2001

PAGE 2

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my mother and grandparents who have tirelessly and enthusiastically supported my educational endeavors. Without them this opportunity for higher education could never have been realized. I also offer grateful appreciation to all of the members of my committee for their insight, invaluable commentary, and assistance. I also extend special thanks to committee member Michael Scicchitano for his support of this project, and for bolstering my growth as a researcher and academic. I also thank Dr. Jacqueline Hart, whose office supported this research. 1 appreciate the time and effort of the students who participated in this study and the instructors who allowed me into their classrooms. ii

PAGE 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS gage ACKNOWLEDGMENTS " ABSTRACT v CHAPTERS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 CRIME ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES 8 The Changing Climate on Campus 8 Campus Crime 9 Responses to Campus Crime and Violence 15 3 SEXUAL ASSAULT ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES 19 Incidence and Characteristics of Rape on Campus 20 Structural Context 29 4 ALCOHOL USE ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES 34 Incidence 35 Sociocultural Characteristics of Drinkers 36 Situational and Contextual Factors 38 5 ALCOHOL USE AND SEXUAL ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS .... 46 Alcohol and Sexuality 46 Alcohol as a Risk Factor for Sexual Victimization 47 6 THEORIES ON ALCOHOL AND SEXUAL AGGRESSION 53 Social Learning 54 Routine Activities 61 Integrating Theories 65 7 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION .. 68

PAGE 4

Sampling Design 68 The Sample 69 Data Collection Procedures 72 Concepts Under Study 73 Hypotheses 77 Coding and Sample Characteristics 79 8 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS: ALCOHOL USE 81 Theoretical Explanations for Alcohol Use 81 Univariate Distributions 83 Bivariate Relationships 92 Multivariate Analysis 103 9 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS: SEXUAL AGGRESSION 108 Theoretical Explanations for Sexual Aggression 108 Univariate Distributions 110 Bivariate Relationships 123 Multivariate Analysis 134 10 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 147 Discussion of Results 147 Conclusions 153 APPENDDC RESEARCH INSTRUMENT 159 REFERENCES 165 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 1 74 iv

PAGE 5

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy ALCOHOL AND SEXUAL AGGRESSION ON CAMPUS By Tracy L. Johns May 2001 Chair: Michael Radelet, Ph.D. Major Department: Sociology This research study assessed what factors contribute to higher frequencies of alcohol use on campus, whether particular group affiliations affect levels of drinking, and whether alcohol use/abuse contributes to commission of sexual aggression and sexual victimization. A primary focus was placed on assessing whether alcohol use directly predicted sexually aggressive behavior, or whether a similar set of variables was related to each. Structural factors, measured as perceptions of the campus climate related to drinking and sexual behaviors, were also of chief concern. The primary sample for the study, gathered as a multi-stage stratified cluster sample fi-om all undergraduate courses at a large state university, consisted of 1,519 undergraduate students. Survey instruments containing questions about alcohol use, sexual offending and victimization, perceptions of alcohol use and sexual aggression, and sociodemographic variables, were completed in classrooms. Ten in-depth interviews were also conducted with students of the same university. Questions probed perceptions V

PAGE 6

of the social climate on campus, views of alcohol use and sexual offending and victimization. Fraternity and sorority membership was related to drinking and binge drinking. Frequency of binge drinking was correlated to belief that the university is a "party school." Fraternity members, especially those that live in fraternity houses, were more likely to report committing acts of sexual coercion and assault than other men were. Alcohol use was a predictor of sexually aggressive behavior. Drinking, binge drinking, frequent binge drinking, believing that alcohol use is central to the social life of female students, and believing that sexual assault happens frequently on campus were all significantly correlated with forms of sexual coercion. Both macro-level learning concepts and elements of routine activities theory were supported. In sum, this research reveals the on-going problem of sexual aggression on campus. The use of alcohol and drugs as a sexual strategy, particularly by men living in fraternity houses, persists. Women who drink, especially those who drink heavily, and/or in the context of fraternity parties, may be at particular risk for sexual victimization. vi

PAGE 7

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION As institutions dedicated to a higher order of human endeavor, colleges and universities once were presumed to be immune from the violence that permeates virtually every aspect of American life. One author characterized colleges and universities as "sedate ivory towers, sanctuaries apart from the larger society and places where crime and criminal justice do not intrude." He was referring, however, to pre1960s institutions of higher learning. Decades later, this characterization no longer holds true. (Nichols, 1995:1) Campus crime, and, more specifically, campus violence, is often mentioned in the nightly news, television newsmagazines, and talk shows. Once assumed to be bastions of serenity and intellectualism, college and imiversity campuses across the country experienced sweeping economic, political, and social changes in the past three decades. While the campus upheaval of the 1960s and 1970s is still a fresh memory for many, today's campus "crime" is much changed from those days of protest. Unlike general crime rates, and especially violent crime rates, which have been dropping across the country and in America's largest cities, increasing rates of crime and violent crime have been reported to the police on college campuses throughout the United States since the early 1980s (Engs and Hanson 1994) and into the 1990s (Lederman 1995; Lively 1998). It should be noted that increases in crime reported to police might not necessarily mean that actual crime is increasing, but compelling evidence suggests that crime is indeed a problem on college campuses. Testimony before Congress in 1990, m fact, revealed that campus crime steadily increased from 1985 to 1989 (Sloan 1994). Security reports from 1

PAGE 8

four-year institutions with more than 5,000 students posted increases in rates of murder, forcible and non-forcible sex offenses, and alcohol/drug violations (Chronicle of Higher Education 1998). In fact, alcohol-related arrests on college campuses jumped 24.3 % in 1998, the largest increase in seven years (Dizon 2000). The focus of this study is on alcohol use and its impact on sex offenses on college campuses. Over 70% of college and university presidents rank alcohol abuse as the niunber one issue on their campus (O'Dell 2000; Wechsler 1996). A 1990 study reported that college students spend $4.2 billion annually on alcohol. By 1994 that nimiber had increased to $5.5 billion armually or about $446 per student (Adler and Rosenberg 1994; Monroe 1996; O'Hare 1990). On average, each student drinks 34 gallons of alcoholic beverages each year (Monroe 1996). Overall consimiption of alcohol by college students rose through the 1970s and then appeared to flatten out. Many recent studies reported a slight decline in student drinking (Rosenberg 1990; Wechsler 1996; Wechsler 2000). It seems, however, that while absolute numbers of drinkers may be declining compared to previous years, the still large percentage of heavy drinkers among the college ranks has remained constant with at least half of all college students falling in the moderate (from one to three drinks once per week or four to sixteen drinks twice per month) to heavy drinker (five drinks once per week to 1 6 or more drinks more than seven times a week) category (O'Hare 1990). Since the mid-1960s, studies have consistently reported at least occasional use of alcohol for over 90% of college students (Berkowitz and Perkins 1986). The most recent comprehensive study of drinking on college campuses, the 1 999 iteration of the Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study, surveyed 14,000 students

PAGE 9

3 enrolled in 1 19 different four-year colleges. During the school year 81% of respondents reported drinking (Wechsler 2000). College students drink more and are more likely to "binge" drink than their noncollege-enrolled counterparts of the same age group in the general population (Hingson 1998; Wechsler et al. 1994). hi general, the literature shows that most students drink, primarily for social purposes, on at least a weekly basis (Berkowitz and Perkins 1986). This is true on the campus of this study as well, with 76.5% of a campus-wide sample of undergraduates reporting the use of alcohol in the 30 days before the survey, 79% of them to "facilitate fun," 54% to "ease social interactions," and 15.1% to "enhance sex" (CADRC 2000). While alcohol abuse is problematic in its own right, a greater problem lies in the impact that alcohol use has on crime in general, and on sexual offenses in particular. An estimated 95% of all violent criminal offenses committed on college and imiversity campuses involved the use of alcohol and drugs (Nichols 1995; O'Dell 2000; Sloan 1994). More specifically, numerous studies have shovra that alcohol use is highly related to incidents of sexual aggression and assault, both in the general population and on college campuses (Engs and Hanson 1994; Koss and Gaines 1993; Ward et al. 1991). A recent survey of undergraduates at the University of Florida revealed that nearly 12% of male and female respondents perceived having been "taken advantage of sexually" as a consequence of alcohol/drug use, and another 24.3% reported having "unexpected sexual activity" as a consequence of alcohol/drug use (CADRC 2000). Several studies have shown that 75% of men and over half of all women involved in acquaintance rape had been drinking or taking drugs before the incident (Adler and Rosenberg 1994; Koss 1988;

PAGE 10

4 Ward et al. 1991). And, the U.S. Department of Education's Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention reports that 90% of all campus rapes or sexual assaults involve alcohol (O'Dell 2000). The Alcohol and Drug Education and Policy Committee of the university under study reports in their minutes that a high percentage of cases handled by Judicial Affairs involve alcohol abuse. Moreover, "police, counselors, and others who deal with sexual assault and date rapes report that alcohol is almost always involved" (2000:1). It seems clear that use of drugs/alcohol and crime/delinquency are highly related (Akers 1 992). Generally, both alcohol/drug use and criminal acts, such as sexual assault, may be related to the extent that they result from a common set of factors such as age, sex, race, socio-economic status, religion, family, and peer groups (Akers 1992). Many studies have focused on the influence of peer groups, such as fraternities/sororities or athletic organizations, as establishing both patterns of excessive drinking and contexts favorable to acts of sexual aggression and coercion (Boeringer et al. 1991 ; Copenhaver and Grauerholz 1991; Koss and Gaines 1993). These studies, either directly or indirectly, tend to focus on what may be best described as "social learning" variables-incorporating the attitudes and behaviors of perpetrators and their peers. Structural effects of the "campus climate" may also play a part in this relationship. Several studies examined the unique environmental norms of some colleges and universities that make both drinking and sexual aggression more permissible (Perkins and Wechsler 1996; Wechsler 1996). The situational and opportunistic elements of the deviant behavior become the focus in these cases. These studies, however, rarely examine formal criminological theories or offer interaction variables to test mitigating

PAGE 11

5 factors between alcohol use and sexual aggression. Routine Activities Theory, for example, emphasize the influence of everyday activities and lifestyle (Cohen and Felson 1979), and Social Learning Theory posits that behavior is acquired and sustained through both direct conditioning and modeling of others' behavior (Akers 1985). Only a small handful of studies has ever attempted to empirically test these theories in relation to sexual assault. Additionally, past research has rarely collected data from women (victimization data) and men (perpetrator data) on the same campus to illustrate the role of social context for both groups (for an exception see Boeringer 1 992). This study expands the current literature on the relationship between alcohol use and sexual aggression on campus by examining important relationships between alcohol use and sexual aggression in three key dimensions. First, are the correlations between alcohol abuse and sexual aggression merely the result of common contributing factors? Or, is a more direct causal relationship evident? For example, does alcohol use/abuse by persons involved contribute to incidence of rape on campus, or are those who are most likely to use or abuse alcohol also those who are most likely to rape or be raped? Second, while past research has primarily focused on only alcohol use/abuse or sexual aggression, the two variables are rarely incorporated into one study. Prior research has focused on either male offenders or female victims. This study addresses both. Third, very few studies have attempted to measure the "campus climate," or structural factors contributing to norms about alcohol use and sexual aggression. This study addresses this central structural issue of campus climate. For example, students often overestimate both the acceptability and the actual drinking behavior of their peers.

PAGE 12

6 If students perceive themselves to be on a campus that is a "party school," or extremely supportive of excessive drinking and sexual aggression, then they may incorporate these definitions into their behaviors. "Students' beliefs that extreme norms exist may serve to justify and explain extreme behavior and may influence students to engage in heavy drinking" (Wechsler 1999:247). This study examines peer group involvement and demographic factors that may affect frequency of drinking and alcohol/drug related unwanted sexual encounters. First, what factors contribute to higher frequencies of alcohol use on the campus under study? Do particular group affiliations affect levels of drinking? Additionally, does alcohol use contribute to commission of or victimization by sexual aggression? Do the same variables contribute to both phenomena or are the two directly related? The data for this research project are from undergraduate students at a large university in the South. In cooperation with a "campus climate" study being funded and conducted through the Office of the Vice Provost of Affirmative Action, 1519 questionnaires that address the variables detailed above were completed in November and December 2000. The sample is drawn as a stratified-cluster sample from a pool of all undergraduate courses at the University. This method insures that a variety of different class sizes is included in the sample. Survey instruments were distributed and voluntarily completed by students in the classrooms of the selected courses for which instructors agreed to participate. The survey instrument addresses "campus climate," including student perceptions of level of acceptance of drinking and sexual aggression; group memberships, including social fraternity/sorority, service fraternity/sorority, groups centered on race and

PAGE 13

7 ethnicity, religious groups, groups based on sexual orientation, and academic groups; and, demographic characteristics, including race, age, year in school, GPA, major, and living situation of both males and females. In an effort to assess the influence of social learning variables and routine activities components, a series of questions addressed both student perceptions of alcohol use and abuse on campus and actual levels of use for the individual respondents. Another series of questions addressed both student perceptions of sexual assault on campus and actual levels of victimization and perpetration for the individual respondents. If students indicated that they were involved in acts of sexual aggression, questions about the location of these incidents and perceived guardianship in the setting were further posed. The survey responses were reduced to an ASCII data set and analyzed with the SAS data analysis package. Univariate, bivariate and multivariate regression analyses were used. Additionally, qualitative data were gleaned from interviews conducted with ten ctirrent undergraduates from the same university at which the quantitative survey data were collected. These data addressed the longitudinal component lacking in the crosssectional survey data, speaking to the perception shifts that may follow throughout the students' college careers and the effects of retrospective reinterpretation that may cloud some survey response data.

PAGE 14

CHAPTER 2 CRIME ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES The Changing Climate on Campus If we are to fully understand crime and violence on campus, we must first understand today's typical college and university campus community. It seems fair to call campuses "communities." Traditionally, communities are held to have three basic components: geographic location, common ties among people, and social interaction. A commimity could be conceptualized as a group of people living in a particular geographic area who operate in their life activities and share a sense of belonging (Gusfield 1975). Campuses present a distinct type of community, however. Some of these characteristics that distinguish college and university campuses from larger communities may also be factors contributing to violence and crime. First, the campus population is primarily composed of young adults, ages 18 to 22. This is one of the most concentrated populations of yoimg, and primarily single, people to be found anywhere. The young and the unmarried are statistically more likely to be both victims and perpetrators of conventional crime according to both reports to police and victimization surveys (BJS 1996; FBI 1996). Additionally, as more women than men now attend college, there is also a concentrated population of young, single women age 1 7 to 24, those most likely to be victims of rape and sexual aggression. Although young men are more likely to be victims of crime than women are, women tend to fear crime more, which may have policy implications on college campuses. 8

PAGE 15

9 The "open campus" concept may also foster criminal activity. Here, the work of ecological sociologists may be of particular interest, especially when considering criminological theories that place "routine activities" at their core. Traditionally, many college campuses were closed commimities, immune to outside influences, environmental hazards, and "locals" (Nichols 1995). Today, however, most campus boundaries are barely distinguishable from the surrounding commimity. This is of particular note in terms of theft and burglary on campus, as these crimes tend to be committed by "outsiders" rather than students. When considering crimes such as sexual assault and alcohol violation, other forms of control may be important. Today, there are few barriers, such as gates, curfews, and other student restrictions, to control influences that may contribute to campus crime: "The hours that students keep tend to increase their exposure," notes Douglas Tuttle, director of campus safety at the University of Delaware and president of the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (Lederman 1995:32). Finally, and perhaps most importantly, is the predominant social life characteristic of most college and university campuses (especially at residential campuses) across the country. "Fraternity and sorority functions, parties, athletic events, rock concerts, and other activities create a unique social atmosphere, often resulting in problems related to alcohol use, misconduct, and criminal activity" (Nichols 1995:1). Campus Crime As one may expect, all types of crime occur on college campuses, just as they do in the world at large. Some crimes, however, are perpetrated at a much higher rate than

PAGE 16

10 others are. Fortunately, the Campus Security Act (CSA) of 1990 now allows researchers to examine crime reported on campuses. This act requires participating institutions (those that receive any type of Federal funding) of higher learning to disclose crime statistics in the following categories: murder, sex offenses (forcible/non-forcible), robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft, manslaughter, and arson. It also requires that these schools provide information for arrests and referrals for liquor law violations, drug abuse violations, and weapons possessions. In 2000, the Education Department put these campus crime statistics for 6,700 colleges and universities on the Internet, but the possibility of making realistic comparisons among schools may be "nearly impossible" because schools often compile the statistics and define them in different ways (Gainesville Sun 2000). On one hand, these data suffer the same problems that all UCR-FBI data do; they are only the crimes reported to the police or other authorities. Unfortunately, there is a compound issue for campus crime data. Though the law technically stipulates that crimes reported to "local police agencies or . . . any official of the institution who has significant responsibility for student and campus activities" be included in the institution's annual report, few colleges and universities specify crimes reported to officials other than police (Carter 1997). For example, only 29 colleges indicated on their 1996 crime reports that they had included sex offenses reported to people outside the police department (Lively 1998). Thus, researchers must be careful to examine both officially reported data and victimization data collected fi-om college populations.

PAGE 17

11 Reported Crime A recent study by Sloan (1994) examined crime on nearly 500 campuses that had at least 3,000 students and on-campus housing available for the 1989-1990 academic year. For this sample, there were more than 195,000 total offenses reported most of which involved burglary and theft (64%). Vandalism accounted for nearly 19% of reported crime, drug and alcohol offenses for 1 1 .3%, and violent offenses for around 6% of the crime reported. This is important, as it reveals that most of crime reported on campuses involves theft, rather than serious, violent crime. Again, though, one should remember that there might be discrepancies between reported crime and actual victimization. Index crime data were listed for 467 campuses in the 1997 Uniform Crime Reports. Unfortunately, this reflects crime on only about 15%) of the 3,218 2-year and 4year campuses nationwide (Fisher 1996). Samples collected by various agencies and researchers, then, may present more complete and accurate data than "official" national reports. The Chronicle of Higher Education has also been tracking campus crime since the CSA went into effect. Their most recent reports (1998), which include information fi-om 487 four-year institutions with more than 5,000 students, reveal that campuses are generally in line with national trends for many offenses. There are, however, some noticeable differences. While national rates for violent crimes including murder, rape, aggravated assault, and robbery decreased by 6%, on average, fi-om 1995 to 1996, murder rates on campus jumped by 26.7%, rates for forcible sex offenses increased by 14.6 %, and rates for non-forcible sex offenses rose by a dramatic 61 .2% on large

PAGE 18

12 campuses during this time period (Lively 1998). It should be noted, though, that in the case of murder, numbers are very low. There were 19 reported murders on campuses in 1996 and only 15 reported in 1995. The statistics for sex offenses, however, may be more telling, and are discussed in the following section. Arrest Rates Larceny theft is by far the most common crime on most college campuses (Lederman 1995). In addition, over 15,000 arrests for burglary were reported in 1996 on large campuses (as stipulated above) across the country (Chronicle of Higher Education 1998). Total property crime greatly outnumbers total violent crime at universities and colleges according to 1997 UCR data (FBI 1997). In 1996, drug and alcohol arrests combined to constitute over 23,000 arrests on campuses (Lively 1998). In 1998, alcoholrelated arrests on college campuses increased by 24.3% and drug arrests rose 1 1% (Dizon 2000). There was also a 1 1.3% jump in campus arrests for forcible sex offenses (Dizon 2000). Underreporting Also of particular interest are unreported or under-reported crimes on campus. Perhaps the most notable of these crimes is acquaintance rape (forced or coerced unwanted intercourse with a person known to the victim) one of the most common types of sexual violence on campus. The range of estimates for the percentage of college women who have experienced any type of sexual aggression is broad, given that many behaviors may be encompassed as "sexual assault": courtship violence, sexual

PAGE 19

13 aggression, sexual coercion, and rape (Boeringer et al. 1991; Kalof and Cargill 1991; Makepeace 1981 ; Messner 1994; Ward et al. 1991). The estimates range from a low of 15%, for rape, to a high of 78% for sexual aggression, of college women having been victimized (Ward et al. 1991). Reporting rates of rape on campus appear to be even lower than those for the population at large. A study by Koss (1988) found that 15.4% of college women had been raped, while only 5% of these women reported the crime to police. In 1996, 1,161 forcible sex offenses were reported to authorities on large campuses, along with 137 non-forcible sex offenses (Lively 1998). While these statistics do reflect some offenses reported to rape-crisis workers and other campus officials, along with those reported to police, they still appear to be much lower than the total number of offenses estimated by victimization studies by campus researchers. Sexual assault is discussed in detail in Chapter 3 of this work. Reporting Increase or Crime Increase? Readers should be wary of noted increases in crime statistics for any given category. Increases in "crime" may simply be a reflection of increases in reports to police, or increased police "crack-downs" in certain areas, rather than changes in rates of criminal behavior. As comparable victimization information (such as that provided by the NCVS) is not readily available for most campuses, it is difficult to ascertain the scope of this problem for campus crime data, or to compare different campuses. Also, longitudinal trends that can examine a much broader span of time will be more effective

PAGE 20

14 tools for studying crime on campus. This data, of course, will become available only as time passes. Correlates of Campus Crime Very little academic research is related to campus crime. One of the largest groups of studies centers on sexual violence and aggression, a topic that is explored in this study. Only three published studies involving a general analysis of campus crime appear in the literature, one in each of the past three decades. McPheters (1978) conducted an econometric analysis of campus crime at 75 colleges and universities, concluding that the proportion of students living in dormitories and the proximity of the campus to urban areas with high unemployment were strong predictors of campus crime. Ten years later, Fox and Hellman (1985) examined crime on over 200 college and university campuses. Their regression analysis showed that campus size and low academic quality were strongly correlated to campus crime, and location of the campus was related to the proportion of violent crime. The most recent study by Sloan (1994) used factor analysis and multivariate analysis. These analyses reveal that the school's "setting" (rural, small town, city, or metropolitan) is significantly related to violent crime, drinking/drug offenses, and total crime. The percent of minority students on campus, while not related to thefts/burglaries or total crime, is related to violent crime rates, drinking/drug offenses, and vandalism. The "size" (including factors related to total enrolment, on-campus housing, total number of faculty, number of fraternities/sororities, and total number of students and faculty) is directly related to both thefts/burglaries, and total crime rates but inversely related to

PAGE 21

15 drinking/drug related offenses and vandalism. These findings, among others, reveal that ecological theories and community factors may be of particular interest in studying campus crime reported to the police. As previously noted, over 95% of all offenses committed on college and university campuses involve alcohol or drugs (Sloan 1994). Crimes such as rape and assault are not exempt from this relationship. Several studies have shown that 75% of men and over half of all women involved in acquaintance rape had been drinking or taking drugs before the incident (Adler and Rosenber, 1994; Koss 1988; Ward et al. 1991). Another study by Rickgam (1989) reported that 81% of violent acts against persons or property in residence halls on campus were alcohol-related. Similarly, researchers from Towson State's Campus Violence Prevention Center report results from a study of 1,800 college students nationwide that show that alcohol abuse was heavier among victims and perpetrators of crime than the rest of the college population. These results were corroborated by a follow-up study of 13,000 students, and also note that perpetrators were more likely than victims to use intoxicants (Siegel 1994). Responses to Campus Crime and Violence Two categories of crime responses must be considered in dealing with campus crime. On the one hand, the way in which the college or university deals with the students who are victims and perpetrators of crime and violence must be taken into account. On the other hand, the college or university's overall plan for campus safety and dealing with crime must be examined.

PAGE 22

16 Dealing with Student Victims and Perpetrators Many minor assaults, vandalism, and violations of campus drug and alcohol policies are simply written up as code infractions and forwarded for administrative action; few, if any students are arrested (Siegel 1994). Thus, small numbers of arrests may not mean that a college is crime-free. Many institutions prefer to send offenders, especially those with an otherwise clean record, through counseling or campus judiciary proceedings rather than arrest them (Lively 1998). Many institutions may even discourage victims from reporting crimes, even to campus police. A 1 992 survey of campus police and security personnel conducted by the Campus Safety and Security Institute found that students who were victims of reportable violent crimes were encouraged not to report the crimes to campus security/police (Gearey 1997). College administrators may fear that crime reports will have a negative impact on alumni donations, or that the school will be named as a third party defendant in lawsuits (Bohmer and Parrot 1993). If the attacker is another student, the victim is encouraged to use the campus judicial system where standards are much different from criminal courts (Bohmer and Parrot 1993). Such is the case at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The Chapel Hill Honor Court, like most other campus disciplinary systems, was originally set up to preside over academic crimes such as plagiarism and cheating. The system is run by students, and penalties include censure, probation, suspension, expulsion or referral to campus or town police for prosecution. The system has recently come under fire from students and the campus newspaper, however, as they have increasingly been asked to manage cases that involve theft, robbery, drugs, arson, and rape (Wolper 1996). Recent

PAGE 23

17 cases of sexual assault on campus, along with cases involving theft of student publications by fraternity members, have led to several lawsuits by the campus newspaper. The 2 1 -year-old Honor Court chairwoman had this to say: "A university is distinct from a town or community. The Honor Court is about integrity. It is about fostering an intellectual climate" (Wolper 1996:13). Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any academic research available on this problem facing campuses around the country in increasing numbers. A 1 992 clarification to the "Buckley Amendment," or the "Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act," stipulates open access to campus law enforcement records, but not to disciplinary hearings involving criminal allegations. Thus, imiversity disciplinary boards remain "the only closed courtrooms in America" (Carter 1997). Restrictive interpretations of the Buckley Amendment leave little information available for researchers interested in the legal ramifications of campus crime. Campus Security, Programs, and Police The Campus Security Act of 1 990 mandates that post-secondary institutions receiving federal aid report specific crime statistics on an annual basis. Additionally, the act requires that these institutions develop educational programs for safety and security, and establish policies and procedures for notifying the proper authorities when a crime does occur (Sloan 1994). A recent addendum to the act requires that these same colleges and universities must develop programs aimed at reducing incidents of sexual assault on campus (Nichols 1995). To meet this requirement, most campuses have established

PAGE 24

18 committees on sexual assault, sexual assault awareness programs, and centers where women who have been assaulted can seek counseling and other services. In response to rising crime rates throughout the 1980s and these recent legislative changes, many colleges and universities have established campus-policing agencies. Most of these agencies are well-developed and effective organizations, and on many campuses, the implementation of community-based policing programs (such as bicycle patrol officers and specific officers assigned to specific quads or dorms) has dramatically reduced crime rates (Nichols 1995). Administrators are also instating more subtle changes. Macro-level characteristics of institutions that affect larger patterns of behavior are being re-examined (Sloan 1994). For example, security controls now limit access to many buildings, especially residence halls, which are also restricting visiting hours. Guard posts at entrances and more restrictive security at campus events are other visible "ecological" changes used at campuses across the country. Neither these changes, nor those noted above seem to lower the incidence of sexual aggression and sexual assault on campus, however.

PAGE 25

CHAPTER 3 SEXUAL ASSAULT ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES College women are in a high-risk group for sexual assauh. The highest rape victimization rates in the general population are among 16to 19-year-old women. The 20 to 24-year-old age group has the second highest rate of victimization (Ward et al. 1991). "Sexual assault" is itself difficult to conceptualize. The literature encompasses a wide range of behavior that could be classified as sexual assault: courtship violence; sexual aggression; sexual coercion; and rape (Boeringer et al. 1991; Kalof and Cargill 1991; Makepeace 1981; Messner 1994; Ward et al. 1991). The range of estimates for the percentage of college women who have experienced any type of sexual aggression, then, is understandably broad, and therefore, the proportions of reported cases of sexual victimization can drastically expand or contract simply by modifying the definition. This is the principal reason that the estimates range from a low of 15%, for rape, to a high of 78%, for sexual aggression, of college women having been victimized (Ward et al. 1991). Of course, the definition of what constitutes rape must be considered as well. Generally, a distinction is made between "stranger" rape and "acquaintance" or "date" rape. Acquaintance rape is when someone a person knows, whether they are friends, spouses, lovers, or people who just know each other slightly, forces her or him to have sexual intercourse against her or his will-whether she or he is passed out, too drunk to refiise, too scared to argue, or for some other reason does not give free consent 19

PAGE 26

20 (American College Health Association 1992; Bohmer and Parrot 1993). Date rape may refer to a similar instance, but generally occurs during or after a "date" that the people have agreed to. Some researchers illustrate this spectrum of behaviors constituting sexual victimization as a continuum from coercion, on one end, to force, on the other (Belknap and Erez 1995). An example of sexual coercion is victimization of a person who is too drunk or high to knowing consent to sexual activity while physically pushing someone down or using a weapon to make someone have sex is an example of force (Belknap and Erez 1995). The legal stipulations of rape, however, remain the same no matter the label applied. Sexual relations obtained against a person's will or without her or his freely given consent constitute rape regardless of the prior relationship between the victim and the perpetrator (Bohmer and Parrot 1993; Florida Statutes 2000; Ward et al. 1991). The Florida Statutes on sexual battery specify that "consent" must be "intelligent, knowing, and voluntary" and do not include "coerced submission." Additionally, the statutes state that anyone "mentally incapacitated," due to narcotics or alcohol or other ailment, or "physical helplessness," unconscious, asleep, or passed out, cannot freely consent (Florida Statutes 2000). Incidence and Characteristics of Rape on Campus Sexual assault on college campuses is not a new phenomenon. What we currently call acquaintance rape, for example, occurred with great fi-equency in England during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Belknap and Erez 1995). The first academic study of acquaintance rape on a U.S. campus was conducted by Kirkpatrick and Kanin at

PAGE 27

21 Purdue University in 1957. Interviews wdth victims from decades before, however, illustrate the lengthy history of the problem (Bohmer and Parrot 1993). It was not until the late 1970s and early 1980s that rape among college students began to receive much attention (Belknap and Erez 1995). Estimates of the incidence of sexual assault on campus before this time period, then, are difficult at best. The early work of researchers such as Makepeace (1981), Malamuth (1981), and Koss and Oros (1982) began a trend toward solid empirical investigation of rape at college. Recent national studies indicate that 20% to 28% of college women have experienced forced sex during college (Bohmer and Parrot 1993; Koss et al. 1987; Koss and Oros 1982). Other self-report victimization studies show that between 8% and 15% of college women have experienced forced intercourse, while reports of coerced intercourse are much higher (Belknap and Erez 1995). A national study by Koss, Gidycz, and Wisniewski (1987), for example, found that while 28% of college women reported experiencing an act that met legal definitions of rape, 54% of the women report being victims of sexual aggression. Another large study found that 34% of a sample of college women experienced unwanted sexual contact; 20% experienced unwanted attempted intercourse; and 10% experienced unwanted completed intercourse (Ward et al. 1991). Dozens of other studies found similar rates of victimization for women. During the 1996-1997 school year alone, the Justice Department estimates that 1 .7% of college women were raped, another 1.7% were coerced into unwanted sex, and 1.1% were the victims of attempted rape (Fisher et al. 2000). Estimates from Fisher, Cullen, and Turner's (2000) national survey of college women show that for every 1,000 women attending a given institution, there may be 35 incidents of rape in an academic year.

PAGE 28

22 Research on sexual assault by college men, again, using self-report data, generally confirms the frequency of rape, but at a somewhat lower rate than women report (Belknap and Erez 1995; Koss 1988). This may be due to a small number of men committing rapes against multiple women, or because men and women may differentially define behavior as "force" or "rape." Some men's perceptions of what constitutes rape differ from the legal definition of rape. For example, while 4.4% of men in a national survey admitted to behaviors that are classified legally as rape, only 1% of the same men believed that they did anything wrong (Koss 1988). While women are more often the victims of sexual assault and coercion, some recent studies have also focused on male victimization. As is the case for women, the incidence of sexual assault of men by acquaintances is much higher for college populations than the community at large. A summary piece on "Male Victims of Acquaintance Rape" by Struckman-Johnson (1991) concludes that between 12% and 16% of male students have been forced into sexual intercourse by dating partners, most often via verbal pressure. The range of men reporting physical coercion by women is considerably smaller, from less than 1% to 7% (Struckman-Johnson 1991). While these rates of male victimization illustrate a real problem affecting the welfare of college men, these rates are not nearly as high as comparable assault rates for women, which are often double those of men. Characteristics of Campus Rape A study by Ward and colleagues (1991) suggested that college women are most at risk of unwanted sexual contact (including rape) by male acquaintances or friends.

PAGE 29

23 followed by boyfriends, and least at risk of victimization by strangers. Past national studies estimate that in between 77% and 84% of rapes, the perpetrator is someone known to the victim, usually a close acquaintance (Ciotola 2001; Koss 1988). A national study conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics supports these conclusions as well: women were most likely to be victimized by "classmates" (35.5% of completed rapes and 43.5% of attempted rapes), followed by "friends" (34.2% of completed rapes and 24.2% of attempted rapes), and then "boyfriends/ex -boyfriends," "acquaintances," and "others" (Fisher et al. 2000). Research documents that much of the sexual aggression that college women experience occurs during fraternity, dormitory, house and apartment parties, and not necessarily on a date (Belknap and Erez 1995; Erhart and Sandler 1985; Martin and Hummer 1989; Ward et al. 1991). Thus, unwanted sexual experiences are more likely in the context of "normal" social settings. Sexual assault on campus usually happens to women early in their college careers and frequently takes place after a party, especially one held in a fraternity house and where alcohol is served (Bohmer and Parrot 1993). When the rape does occur on a date, it tends to happen on the first, second, or third date (Erhart and Sandler 1985). Most college women are victimized at off-campus locations. While most of offcampus assaults occur at residences, victimization is also common at bars, nightclubs or dance clubs, and work locations (Fisher et al. 2000). The vast majority, 60%, of oncampus assaults occur at the victim's residence while an additional 31% of assaults occur at other living quarters on campus and just over 10% occur at fraternity houses (Fisher et al. 2000). As one might expect, given the relationship to parties and social activities.

PAGE 30

24 most cases of sexual victimization occur at night. Nearly 52% of campus rapes happen after midnight, and another 36.5% happen between six o'clock p.m. and midnight (Fisher et al. 2000). Underreporting Underreporting is also a problem related to rape on campus. Even though sexual assault is relatively common on many college campuses, very few cases are ever reported to the authorities, and even fewer of those cases are referred to the criminal justice system or campus judicial affairs (Bohmer and Parrot 1993). In a study of students on 32 college campuses, Koss (1988) found that 15.4% of college women have been raped. In 84% of those rapes, the perpetrator was a close acquaintance or date. Only 58% of victims reported the rape to anyone and only 5% reported the rape to police (Koss 1988). This rate is even lower than national rates of rape reporting. National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data reveal that there are nearly twice as many attempted and completed rapes as are reported to police (Ward et al. 1994). Some researchers estimate that less than 1% of acquaintance rape victims report the crime to police (Bechhofer and Parrot 1991; Miller 1999). Underreporting by the police to the public may also be an issue. Rapes may be reported to victims' advocates and other campus authorities, but not directly to the police. On the campus of the University of Florida (UF), for example, only 12 rapes were reported to university police between 1996 and 1998 these were published in UF's official crime statistics. In 1999, however, the university revealed that an additional 35 rapes were reported to the University Police Department's victims' advocate during this

PAGE 31

25 time frame (Miler 1999). The "official" numbers also did not include off-campus rapes involving UF students. An additional 53 off-campus rates were reported to advocates in this same three-year span (Miller 1999). Given estimates that as few as one in ten rapes are ever reported to anyone, knowledge of rape reports from all sources is key to understanding the scope of this problem. It also reminds us that the reliability and validity of statistics on rape, and studies they are applied to, should be viewed carefully. Victims As previously stated, girls and women are significantly more likely to experience sexual aggression and assault than are men and boys (Harney and Muehlenhard 1991). While men or women of any age can be victims of rape, victims are usually females between the ages of 15 and 24 (Bohmer and Parrot 1993; Ehrhart and Sandler 1985; Harney and Muehlenhard 1991). Multiple studies using probability samples have foimd equal prevalence rates of rape between white and black women (Harney and Muehlenhard 1991; Koss et al. 1987). College women, the focus of this study, are at a roughly three times greater risk for sexual victimization than are women in the general population (Koss et al. 1987). On college campuses, those in their first year of school are most likely to become victims of sexual assauh (Koss et al. 1987). In fact, Bohmer and Parrot (1993), in their book Sexual Assault on Campus, describe a "typical" victim of campus sexual assault: "...she was female, a freshman in college, and had been drinking alcohol" (1993:18). They go on to note that the two most important determining factors of whether a date rape will occur are the number of men a woman dates and the degree of intoxication of

PAGE 32

26 those men. The first point is related to exposure. Researchers suggest that the likelihood of rape increases with the amount of exposure a woman has to potential perpetrators. In fact, several studies have found that victimized women tend to have a greater number of dating and sexual partners (Koss 1988; Koss and Dinero 1989). As to the second factor, the greater a man's level of intoxication, the greater the likelihood that he will ignore a woman's protests or be unable to correctly interpret her words and actions as she intends them (Bohmer and Parrot 1993). A recent national study identified four main factors that increase a women's risk of sexual assault: 1) frequently drinking enough to get drunk; 2) being unmarried; 3) having been the victim of sexual assauh before the start of the current school year; and 4) living on campus (only for on-campus victims) (Fisher et al. 2000). These factors may also contribute to the high rates of victimization among sorority women. Sorority women are not only at a higher risk relative to non-college women, but to college women whose socializing involves low alcohol consumption (Copenhaver and Grauerholz 1991; Nurius et al. 1996). A study by Copenhaver and Grauerholz (1991) found that almost half of the sorority women studied had experienced some form of sexual coercion, 24% experienced attempted rape and 17% were victims of completed rape. These rates are higher than are those for college women in nationwide surveys, such as those by Koss (1988). Additionally, it should be noted that almost half of these rapes occurred in a fraternity house, and over half either occurred during a fraternity function or was perpetrated by a fraternity member (Copenhaver and Grauerholz 1991). [See "Structural Context," below for more information on fraternities and rape culture.]

PAGE 33

27 Assailants Men are more likely than are women to be the perpetrators of sexual assault, both on campus and off. The data described above, which present much higher rates of women reporting victimization by men than vice versa, demonstrate this point. Selfreport data from male samples also illustrate their proclivity to sexually aggressive behavior against women. Early studies of sexual aggression among college males in the 1960s revealed that about one-quarter used force in an attempt for sexual intercourse against a woman's wishes (Kanin 1969). Neil Malamuth's (1981) landmark research on the rape proclivity of males revealed that 35% of college men indicated some likelihood that they would rape if they could be assured of getting away with it. A smaller-scale replication over a decade later found that a remarkably similar percentage (34%) of men admitted to some proclivity to rape (Osland 1996). Comparative studies focusing on men and women also illustrate the point that men are more likely than are women to force unwanted sexual activity. A study by Larimer and colleagues (1999), for example, used gender neutral questionnaires for a sample of male and female students and found that around 21% of men and 28% of women reported being the recipients of at least one type of unwanted sexual contact. However, just over 10% of men, compared to roughly 5% of women, reported instigating one or more types of unwanted sexual contact and none of the women surveyed reported using force or drugs or alcohol to promote intercourse (Larimer et al. 1999). Characteristics of Assailants. While particular demographic differences in age or race between perpetrators and non-perpetrators are difficult to single out, several patterns in attitudes and group affiliations are notable. Studies comparing the incidence

PAGE 34

28 of sexual assault among various groups of men indicate that fraternity men are significantly more likely to force sexual intercourse (35%) than members of student government (9%) or men not affiliated with organizations on campus (1 1%); the men who are most likely to rape in college are fraternity pledges (Bohmer and Parrot 1993). Self-report data also indicate sexually coercive males tend to act impulsively, irresponsibly, and, at times, aggressively (Rapaport and Posey 1991). Men who report proclivities toward rape show higher acceptance of interpersonal violence, greater belief in the traditional roles of women and higher rape myth acceptance than those who report no such tendencies (Lackie and Man 1997; Osland 1996). Male students who are sexually aggressive also tend to be physically aggressive, masculine, and members of fraternities (Lackie and Man 1997). Of those who do rape, between five and 8% do so knowing that is wrong, while 10% to 15% commit rape without knowing that what they are doing is wrong (Bohmer and Parrot 1993; Koss et al. 1987). Athletes, Fraternity Members, and Sexual Assault. Researchers at Northwestern and the University of Massachusetts, in a study released in 1994, studied 107 cases of rape, attempted rape, and fondling at 30 NCAA schools between 1990 and 1993. Though male athletes made up only 3.3% of the male student body, they were involved in 19% of the reported assaults. The researchers concluded that male studentathletes commit a "significantly higher percentage" of sexual assaults than male students not involved in varsity sports (Trammel 1995). In fact, between 1983 and 1986, a U.S. college athlete was reported for sexual assault on an average of once every 1 8 days (Messner 1994).

PAGE 35

29 Constance Johnson reported in 1991 that over half of all reported campus acquaintance rapes are perpetrated by fraternity members or athletes. Additionally, the Project on the Status and Education of Women at the Association of American Colleges reports that 90% of all gang rapes reported to their office involve fraternity members (Collison 1988). Other studies have found that a disproportionate number of gang rapes are committed by male athletes who participate in team sports such as football and ice hockey (Kane and Disch 1993). The National Institute of Mental Health reported similar findings. Their nationwide survey showed that male athletes were involved in nearly one-third of 862 reports of sexual violence towards women (Kane and Disch 1993). Structural Context The structural context of the college campus, and specific groups therein, is an integral component of making sense of the data described above. We cannot merely present statistics about rape on college campuses. We must also examine the context in which these acts take place. The extent of the aggression levied against women on campus is not surprising given social science findings that that male violence against women is related to broad cultural attitudes, the power relationship between men and women, the social and economic status of women relative to men in their group, and the amount of other forms of violence in our society (Belknap and Erez 1995). Colleges and universities, far from being immune to these influences of the larger U.S. culture, may actually promote sexually aggressive behaviors.

PAGE 36

30 Collegiate Rape Culture Although there has been considerable attention paid to incidence of rape by researchers, relatively little notice is given to the context or the "rape culture" that surrounds this behavior (Boswell and Spade 1996). Rape culture is a "set of values and beliefs that provide an environment conducive to rape" (Boswell and Spade 1996:133). Rather than referring to the specific settings in which rape may occur, the concept is better understood as a generic culture that surrounds and promotes rape. For example, rape-supportive attitudes are often interwoven with support for traditional gender scriptsrape culture is based on the assumptions that men are aggressive and dominant and women are passive and acquiescent (Herman 1984). Concepts of power and dominance shared by fraternity members, athletes, and other men on campus; discourse that promotes sexual conquest as the goal of sexual expression; and, men's privileged status on university campuses are all part of the social construction of a particular campus lifestyle (Sanday 1990). Fraternities and all-male athletic organizations may be particularly "rape-prone" in their practices and values. Fraternities and Athletic Teams A question may exist as to whether the high percentage of fraternity men and athletes involved in rape is influenced by the organizational and group context of the fraternity or team, or by prior socialization experiences that predisposed certain men to join the organization. Nonetheless, it is appropriate to question what aspects, if any, of fraternal and athletic life may increase tendencies toward sexual aggression (Boeringer et al. 1991). The social environments of fraternities and men's athletic teams stress

PAGE 37

31 restrictive norms of a distorted view of men and "macho" masculinity and a narrow and stereotyped conception of women and femininity (Belknap and Erez 1995; Martin and Hummer 1989; Messner 1994). Concepts of power and dominance abound in fraternal and athletic life. Both types of organizations have a history of violence toward, and use of force against, pledges and rookies and members of other fraternities and athletic teams (see Longino and Kant 1973; Martin and Hummer 1989; Messner 1994; Nuwer 1990). Commodification of women is also common to both groups. Studies of locker room discourse show that, for athletes, male bonding often takes the form of constructing women as outsiders and inferiors by making them the objects of sexual talk and practice (Kane and Disch 1993). Sports metaphors such as "scoring," "getting to first base," "hitting a home run," and making a "pass" permeate the language of sexual conquest for both athletes and fraternity men (Messner 1 994). Conversations and jokes between the men in these groups communicate expected sexual behavior, with a focus on potency and virility (Sanday 1990). Additionally, women are often used as "bait" to attract new members to fraternities and recruits to varsity athletic teams, and sexual access to women is often a presumed side benefit to group membership (Benedict 1998; Martin and Hummer 1989). Excessive alcohol use, competitiveness, and normative support for secrecy within these groups further facilitate coercive sex and the treatment of rape as a sport or contest (Belknap and Erez 1995). One professor provided the following descriptive quote: "Fraternities are sporting clubs, and their game is women" (Erhart and Sandler 1985).

PAGE 38

32 Many researchers have also suggested that there is little fear of punishment for crimes committed by fraternity members or athletes. Some university administrators "shrug off responsibility" on the grounds that fraternities are private clubs over which they have no control (Sanday 1990). There is also a historical perspective to suggest that "good-old-boy" networks remain intact on many campuses and serve to protect fraternities and other all-male groups that victimize women (Sanday 1990). Even when law enforcement is brought into the picture, fraternities often refuse to cooperate. Protection of the fraternity, in the minds of many members, takes precedence over what is ethically or legally correct. In a gang rape investigation at Florida State University in the mid-1980s, for example, fraternity officers broke appointments with law enforcement officers, refused to give police a membership list, and reftised to cooperate with police and prosecutors (Martin and Hummer 1989). The lack of repercussions for athletes is also apparent. As the executive director of the Women's Sports Foundation notes, ". . .they [student athletes] don't think the rules apply to them. No matter what they do, they think their coach will pull some strings and get them out of trouble" (Trammel 1995:4G). Are these beliefs and practices limited to the small number of men who are members of the Greek system and varsity athletic teams? The widespread acceptance of these norms by the larger university population is also key to understanding rape on campus. As Erhart and Sandler (1985) caution, "...fraternity parties can become a model for students' social life, i.e., large group fimctions with alcohol, loud music, etc., although in some instances they may lead to vandalism and sexual abuse" (1985:5). Campus climates that re-enforce restricted norms of masculinity, such as those that place

PAGE 39

33 extreme emphasis on men's athletics, and environments that promote and normalize heavy alcohol use and male dominance also promote rape culture.

PAGE 40

CHAPTER 4 ALCOHOL USE ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES Numerous surveys conducted on college campuses across America document extensive alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems among college students (Abbey 1991; Berkowitz and Perkins 1986; Engs and Hanson 1994; Wechsler 1996; Wechsler 2000). Since the mid-1960s, studies have consistently shown at least occasional use of alcohol for over 90% of college students (Berkowitz and Perkins 1986). Overall, the rate of consumption of alcohol by college students increased through the 1970s and then appeared to peak, with recent studies indicating a marked decline in student drinking (Rosenberg 1 990; Wechsler 1 996). Nationally, America's 12 million undergraduates consume 4 billion cans of beer a year, an average of 55 six-packs apiece, and spend $446 a year on alcoholic beverages more than they spend on soft drinks and textbooks combined (Cohen 1 997). The problems associated with alcohol use and abuse on campuses are myriad. While no official statistics are kept, Wechsler (1996) estimates that 50 college students die nationwide each year from alcohol poisoning. Another study of 330 campuses revealed that alcohol is involved in 65% of residence hall problems and 58% of incidence of campus property damage (Scrivo 1998). In addition, the U.S. Department of Education's Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention (HEC) (2000) chronicles the following: 95% of violent crimes on campus are alcohol related; 90% of all 34

PAGE 41

campus rapes or sexual assaults involve alcohol; and, alcohol is associated with 28% of all college drop-outs. Incidence A 1999 survey of over 14,000 students found that 81% of respondents reported drinking during the school year (Wechsler 2000). Additionally, the most recent studies indicate a polarization effect is occurring, resulting in two sizable groups of students on campus, those who do not drink at all (19%) and "frequent binge drinkers," those who binge drink (consume five or more drinks in a sitting for men and four or more for women) three or more times in a two-week period (23%) (Wechsler 2000). College students drink more and are more likely to binge drink than their noncollege-enrolled counterparts (Hingson 1998; Wechsler et al. 1994). Between 75% and 96% of college students report having consumed alcohol during the past year, compared wath only 68% of the general population, and about 20 % of college students are problem drinkers compared to 10% of the general population (Abbey 1991). While 44% of college students report binge drinking, only 36% of same age non-students and only 28% of graduating high school seniors do so (Hingson 1998). The average number of drinks consumed per week by all students, regardless of drinking status, is one and a half: less than one for those who do not binge drink, 3.7 for those who infrequently binge drink, and 14.5 for those who frequently binge drink [see "Binge drinking" below] (Wechsler 1999). In general, the literature shows that most students drink, primarily for social purposes, on at least a weekly basis (Berkowitz and Perkins 1986).

PAGE 42

36 On the campus of this study, nearly 89% of students report drinking in the past year and about 75% report drinking in the past 30 days (CADRC 2000). During that 1999 school year, 375 students at this campus were cited for alcohol-related offenses (O'Dell 2000). This university has a "parental notification" policy that parent(s) of students who must be transported for medical treatment, who have multiple offenses, or who are charged with DUI on campus must be notified. Parents of 21 to 22 students were notified of a child's behavior in the last semester of 2000 (UFADEPC 2000). Sociocultural Characteristics of Drinkers Sex Several recent studies report a significant narrowing of the once apparent "gender gap" between levels of drinking for collegiate men and women (Friedman and Humphrey 1985; Gross 1993; O'Hare 1990; Wechsler 1996). These statistics should be viewed with caution. Many researchers find that significant gender differences still persist in most aspects of drinking (Berkowitz and Perkins 1986). For example, while comparable proportions of collegiate men and women drink, men are often twice as likely to be "heavy drinkers" and to consume more alcohol per drinking episode than women (Gross 1993; O'Hare 1990). A study by Gross (1993) also showed this effect to be mediated by age: underage men (under age 21) started to drink at a high consumption/frequency rate that increased as they came of legal age while underage women started drinking at a high consumption/fi-equency rate that decreased as they came of legal age.

PAGE 43

Race All studies of collegiate drinking consistently report that white students drink the most, and are the least likely to abstain from drinking (Friedman and Humphrey 1985; O'Hare 1990; Wechsler 1996; Wechsler 2000). One study showed that white male undergraduates were twice as likely as black male undergraduates to be frequent heavy drinkers, and white female undergraduates were three times as likely as their black counterparts to be frequent heavy drinkers (Friedman and Humphrey 1985). Age and Year in School Although the legal drinking age in the United States is 21, being underage does not seem to affect the drinking levels of college students according to a study by O'Hare (1990). A national sample used by Engs and Hanson (1989), however, revealed that 81.2% of underage college students drink compared to only 75.3% of students of legal age. Regardless, the legal drinking age does not seem to be deterring most underage students from drinking. There are variations, however, by year in school, though these effects may be mediated by gender. O'Hare (1990) reports that the percentage of abstainers declines over each year of college, and that there is an overall increase in heavy drinkers in upperschool-classes. A cohort study by Wechsler et al. (1994) seems to confirm this. They studied students in their first and second years of college, noting that 97% of those who drank during their first year continued to do so in their sophomore year, and that one third of the men and half of the women who abstained their first year began to drink in their

PAGE 44

38 second year. Additionally, a study by Carey (1995) showed that 45% of college seniors consume alcohol once a week or more. Gender differences and age, however, may mediate these effects. A study by Klein (1994) found that women mature, with regards to alcohol consumption, throughout their college years. Women gradually change both their attitudes and behaviors towards drinking. As their year in school increases, there is a decrease both in the amount of alcohol consumed per drinking occasion and in likelihood to tolerate alcohol abuse. Men, however, showed no significant changes in proportions of drinkers, amount of alcohol consumed, or attitudes toward drinking as they moved through their college years. Situational and Contextual Factors Drinking is a social event on college campuses. Among most students, heavy drinking occurs in interpersonal contexts, with environmental and social cues (such as a "bar atmosphere") enhancing the desire to consume alcohol (Carey 1995). One study reported that while only 1 5% of the sample preferred to drink alone, 59.9% preferred drinking in small mixed sex groups, 54.3% in large groups, 40.1% with a small same sex group, and 47.4% with family (O'Hare 1990). The same sample also reported that they were most likely to drink at parties (65.4%) at other social gatherings (54.9%) or while dating (48.2%). Additionally, a study by Carey (1993) revealed that, compared to light or moderate drinkers, heavy drinkers were more likely to report excessive drinking in situations involving social pressures to drink, pleasant times with others, pleasant

PAGE 45

emotions, and physical discomfort. It should be noted that weekends and the occurrence of social events on many college campuses might influence these frequencies. At many colleges and universities, social activities typically revolve around alcohol-saturated parties at fraternities and sororities, off-campus bars and tailgate parties before athletic events (Cohen 1997; Scrivo 1998). Bars that cater to students often aggressively promote themselves on school grounds college newspapers, which get 35% of their advertising revenues fi^om alcohol-related ads, are fiill of come-ons for nickel pitchers, ladies' nights, and "all-you-can-drink" specials (Cohen 1997; Scrivo 1998). All of this serves to reinforce notions of heavy drinking as normative. Peer Groups The influential role of college peers in the development of alcohol abuse patterns is significant and increases, relative to family influence, with age (Berkowitz and Perkins 1986). These effects, too, may be mediated by gender differences. Valliant (1995), in a study limited by a small sample size, found that men were more influenced by their friends to consume alcohol than women (42.9% vs. 23.8%). Berkowitz and Perkins (1986) report that women's drinking may be more influenced by environmental factors than men's. They give the example, however, of group alcohol use norms in dorm environments, which speaks to the influence of peers. Berkowitz and Perkins (1986) also caution that problem drinkers may be integrated into peer social networks in which patterns of problem consumption, motivations, and consequences are considered normative. These differential associations among drinkers may serve both to establish definitions about appropriate drinking

PAGE 46

behavior and give positive and negative reinforcements for drinking behaviors. Two of these networks are Greek-letter societies (fraternities and sororities) and athletic teams. Alcohol use by fraternity and sorority members and athletes is normative. The "party atmosphere" that surrounds fraternity and sorority members and athletes on many campuses involves heavy drinking. The most eagerly sought after men during rush are those who "are willing to drink alcohol," "who drink socially," or "who can hold their liquor" (Martin and Hummer 1989). "Excessive drinking" is also common among male athletes (Snyder 1994), and Constance Johnson (1991) reports that male athletes and fraternity members have much higher levels of drinking than other males on campus. At many of the social ftinctions attended or sponsored by sorority members, there is a social atmosphere where alcohol use is encouraged (Copenhaver and Grauerholz 1991). Many joint sorority-fraternity functions may encourage women to model men's drinking behavior. Of women who did not binge in high school, three out of every four became binge drinkers while living in sorority houses (Wechsler 1996). In fact, Wechsler (1996) reports that the single strongest predictor of binge drinking is residence or membership in a fraternity or sorority. "Binge" Drinking The phenomenon known as "binge" drinking has several definitions, depending on the study in question. The most common definition, popularized by Harvard researcher Henry Wechsler, is consuming five or more drinks during one drinking episode. Often this criterion is made gender specific, with consumption of five or more

PAGE 47

41 drinks applied as the definition for men and four or more drinks for women; this is referred to as the "five-four definition" of binge drinking. Recently, a debate has emerged over use of the term "binge" drinking. Many students, administrators, and prevention professionals are quick to note that the "fivefour" binge drinking definition does not account for body weight, time elapsed while drinking, or food eaten during the drinking episode (HEC 2000). These practitioners couple the issues above with the sensationalistic headlines that were built on the catch phrase and conclude that the word "binge" should be rejected altogether. For example, the HEC, the National Institute of Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse (NIAAA) and the Journal of Studies on Alcohol never use the term "binge." Their primary arguments are that there are no scientific grounds for issuing a "five-four" drink cut-off and that many binge drinkers do not reach blood alcohol concentrations high enough to cause impairment (HEC 2000). Wechsler (2000b) contends, however, that the term "binge" drinking, as well as the "five-four" definition, are used and supported by the U.S. Surgeon General, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The "five-four" measure, Wechsler says, is not intended to determine legal intoxication but rather to "track how many students on college campuses nationwide are drinking at levels high enough to significantly increase the risk of problems for themselves and for those around them" (2000b:B12). This term will be used throughout this paper, as it is the most common term in the literature and lexicon, though the arguments presented by the HEC are duly noted.

PAGE 48

42 No matter the definition, bingeing has quickly become the issue de jour among administrators on college campuses. Binge drinking is regularly cited as both the number one health problem for students today (Monroe 1996) and as the number one problem facing campuses today (Wechsler 1996). This is not surprising considering that binge drinking is associated with substantially higher risks of acute health problems and injury to self and others; unplanned or unsafe sex; assault and aggressive behavior; and other drinking-related social and psychological problems (Wechsler et al. 1995). In the 1999 iteration of the national study conducted by Harvard researchers, about two of five students' self-reported drinking behaviors met criteria (five-four definition) for binge drinking (Wechsler 2000). This overall rate has remained fairly consistent throughout the three waves of the study in 1993, 1996, and 1999. The 1999 survey did find a significant increase in the number of "fi-equent" binge drinkers, those who binge three or more times in a two-week period (Wechsler 2000). Another national study of more than 400 public and private four-year universities found that 41% of men and 34% of women were self-reported binge drinkers (Gainesville Sun 2000b). On the campus of this study, just over 46% of students reported at least one episode of binge drinking in the two weeks before the 1999 survey (CADRC 2000). In the Harvard study, the highest levels of bingeing were reported by white males (54%), the lowest by black females (12%). Half of all college bingers were also engaged in similar drinking behavior in high school, and age had virtually no impact on bingeing. Commitment to a lifestyle in which "parties" were deemed important was also a major determinant of binge drinking (Wechsler et al.l995).

PAGE 49

43 Sorority women are nearly twice as likely to binge as other collegiate women (62% vs. 35%), and fraternity men also binge more than do other men on campus {75% vs. 45%). Residence in a social Greek-letter society is particularly important: 80% of women living in sorority houses are binge drinkers, and 86% of men living in fraternity houses are binge drinkers. Also important is the fact that 9\% of women and 78% of men in the Harvard study who binge think that their drinking is light to moderate (Wechsler 1996). And, 65% of students in another national poll believed that they would have to consume at least eight drinks in one sitting to be a binge drinker (Gainesville Sun 2000b). Peer definitions of what constitutes "normal" drinking patterns seem quite influential in this regard. In summary, the characteristics typical of a college binge drinker are being male; being white; having parents who were college educated; majoring in business; being a resident of a fraternity; engaging in risky behaviors; being involved in athletics; indulging in binge drinking as high school seniors; and, most importantly, viewing parties as very important (Wechsler et al. 1995). The "Social Norms" Approach and Environmental Management This information about the social context of drinking and student perceptions of drinking behavior is not lost on those attempting to prevent and/or manage alcohol use on campus. A new wave of researchers and practitioners are following what they call a "social norms" approach. They work on the assumption that people's perceptions of norms (beliefs about attitudes and behaviors that are normal, acceptable, and expected in particular social contexts) greatly influence behavior, even when those perceptions are

PAGE 50

44 inaccurate. Thus, people may engage in behaviors that are in sync with false norms (HEC 2000). Some prevention specialists argue that it is an overestimation of peer drinking that drives greater alcohol consumption by many on campus. A study by Perkins and Wechsler (1996) suggests that perceiving a permissive environment encourages students to drink more heavily than they would otherwise based on their personal attitudes. In other words, independent of the influence of actual local campus norms, a student's perception of the campus norm significantly contributes to his or her own drinking behavior (Perkins and Wechsler 1996). So, if a person believes that heavy drinking is normal and expected on campus, that person is more likely to use alcohol. Thus, the visibility level of problem drinking behavior like tailgating, public drunkenness, or binge drinking may influence misperceptions of actual drinking behaviors. Grounded in this idea that the physical, social, economic and legal "environment" surrounding drinking behavior is the HEC prevention approach dubbed "environmental management" (HEC 2000). Under this plan, one frequently used method for correcting misconceptions about drinking on campus is "social norms marketing," a method which uses mass marketing techniques to disseminate accurate information about drinking behaviors. Longitudinal studies of these campaigns on several campuses have proven effective in lowering drinking rates (HEC 2000). One such marketing campaign is underway at the university under study in this project. Other researchers, though, argue that students are actually more likely to underestimate the level of binge drinking on their campuses. Wechsler (2000b) finds that 47% of students underestimate the level of binge drinking on campus, while only 29%

PAGE 51

45 overestimate. Only 13% of bingers overestimate levels of binge drinking (Weschsler 2000b). If this is true, then management plans that focus attention only on student perceptions of peers' drinking may neglect other important influences such as availability of alcohol, marketing promotions by bars and manufacturers, and fraternity and college "traditions" that promote alcohol consumption.

PAGE 52

CHAPTER 5 ALCOHOL USE AND SEXUAL ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS Alcohol and Sexuality In American society, drinking and sexuality are often linked, especially for men (Abbey 1995; Norris 1994). Alcohol is consumed in situations that might involve sexual interaction, perhaps because people expect alcohol use to enhance their sexual encounters (Richardson and Hammock 1991). People consistently report that alcohol enhances sexuality, with men expecting greater sexual enhancement after drinking than do women (Abbey 1995). A study on one campus revealed that 15.1% of students surveyed used alcohol or other drugs with the specific intent of enhancing sex (CADRC 2000). The validity of this popular public perception, as well as assumptions that alcohol disinhibits sexual feelings, that drinking generates the expectation that sex will occur, and that, in general, alcohol consumption indicates sexual permissiveness, is not supported by data from popular surveys (Norris 1994). In fact, there is no simple correlation between alcohol consumption and sexual behavior in women, though is has been shown that alcohol negatively affects female sexuality by leading to sexual dysftinction and sexual victimization (Norris 1994). These assumptions, though unfounded, persist in shaping expectancies about sexual behavior. "Alcohol consumption is such an integral part of the college dating scene, that it may be 46

PAGE 53

strongly associated with sexuality for male and female college students" (Abbey 1995:492). Abbey (1995) had college students read several vignettes which varied only in the type of beverage consumed by the male or female in the story (either alcoholic or soft drink) to assess the role of participants' gender, rape supportive beliefs, and target's alcohol consumption on participants' perceptions of target's sexual intent. The female target was rated as being more sexual when her male companion consumed alcohol than when he did not. The female target received the highest sexuality ratings when both the man and woman drank alcohol, and the lowest sexuality ratings when neither drank alcohol (the same was true for the male target). Men who drank alcohol were also perceived as being more sexual, and were perceived as being most attracted to the woman in the story when both drank alcohol (and least attracted when neither drank alcohol). The woman's alcohol consumption was deemed more appropriate when the man drank alcohol as well, and alcohol consumption was considered most appropriate for both men and women when both were drinking alcohol (and least appropriate when only the woman drank alcohol). Alcohol use is linked not only to sexual perceptions, but to behaviors as well. Alcohol and other drug use is correlated to risky sexual behavior and poses a serious threat to the health of young people (NCADI 1995). At the University of Florida, for example, a 1999 survey showed that over 16% of students surveyed had unprotected sex at least once in the past year due to alcohol or drug use-3% had done so 10 or more times. Just over 24% of students reported having unexpected or unplanned sex at least once in the past year due to drinking or drug use (CADRC 2000).

PAGE 54

48 Alcohol as a Risk Factor for Sexual Victimization Alcohol use may also be linked to increased risk of sexual assault. As noted in the introduction, it is difficult to establish a causal link between alcohol/drug consumption and acts of sexual aggression. However, much documentation of the association between alcohol/drug use and sexual aggression exists, in terms of both attitudes and beliefs and actual behaviors. Attitudes and Beliefs The findings above, which indicate that shared alcohol consumption is perceived as a sexual cue, may result in the misperception of drinking as sexual intent (Abbey 1995). Differential social meanings are ascribed to men and women who drink (Harney and Muehlenhard 1991). An alcohol-consuming female in the company of a male drinker is perceived to be more sexually disinhibited, more sexually available, and more likely to be seduced than a cola-drinking counterpart (George et al. 1988; Norris 1994). This misperception can put women at risk for unwanted sexual advances (Norris 1994). Another study showed that a rape victim was seen as significantly more "provocative" when she was "drinking in a bar alone" than when she was "studying in the library alone" (Harrington and Leitenberg 1994). Male sexual offenders are frequently attributed less responsibility for sexual aggression when they are drunk, while female victims are often ascribed more responsibility when they are drunk (Harney and Muehlenhard 1991; Richardson and Campbell 1982). Intoxication of a rapist and a victim influences both the degree to which they are considered to be responsible and blameworthy and observers' general evaluations of them (Richardson and Hammock 1991).

PAGE 55

1 49 Jeffrey Bemat (1998) examined the judgments of sexually aggressive and nonaggressive college men about when to terminate unwanted advances depicted in an audiotape rape dialogue. He foimd that the sexually aggressive men were nearly six times more likely than non-aggressive men to allow the date rape encounter to continue to the point of verbal threats, and were over eight times more likely to do so when the couple was portrayed as drinking alcohol. Sexually aggressive men provided with a permissive alcohol cue exhibited the longest latent tendencies to terminate sexual advances of any group (Bemat 1998). Thus, it appears that alcohol may disinhibit impulses toward sexual aggression, but perhaps only in men predisposed to committing such acts. There may also be distinct pharmacological effects on judgment brought on by alcohol consumption. When a sample of undergraduates was asked to judge behavior in eroticized rape depictions, those who had consumed a moderate amount of alcohol were more likely to perceive the assailant as using less force and as exhibiting more acceptable behavior than respondents who were sober (Norris 1 994). Although alcohol may have physiological disinhibiting effects, results from recent research have shown that alcohol expectancy heightens aggression and sexual aggression over and above the effects of actual alcohol content (Harney and Muehlenhard 1991). Behaviors In addition to the experimental data cited in the preceding section, survey data also illustrate the associations between drinking and sexiial aggression. Alcohol consumption by men and women is one of the most frequently cited risk factors in studies

PAGE 56

50 of rape. A study by Koss and Dinero (1989) found that alcohol consumption by women at the time of the attack was one of the four strongest predictors of likeliness of being raped. Survey data has shown that among men who admit to committing a sexual assault on a date, 55% were under the influence of alcohol at the time (Muhlenhard and Linton 1987). A study by Koss (1988) also found that among men who admitted to behavior meeting the legal definition of rape since the age of 14, 75% reported being under the influence of alcohol when the rape occurred. A study by Ward et al. (1991) produced similar results, the percentages for male and female alcohol use were very high for all three types of unwanted sexual experiences studied. The women sampled reported male use of alcohol for over 75% of all types of experiences, and they report their own use of alcohol in over 50% of experiences (Ward et al. 1991). Other research shows that 55% of victims indicate that they were at least somewhat drunk at the time of the sexual aggression (Harrington and Leitenberg 1994). Drinking by the victim may also prove to be important because these acts are more likely to result in completed, rather than just attempted, rape due to the resistance capabilities of the victim (Abbey 1991; Harrington and Leitenberg 1994; Norris 1994). Once again, membership in a social Greek-letter society may provide a higher risk for both sexual victimization and assault. All male fraternities often wield much control over party life on many campuses since they are more numerous than sororities, and there are usually few other places to party on campus. Admission is often a dollar or two for men and nothing for women. Many times the implication is that women "pay" for their liquor with sex (Sanday 1990). Alcohol, then, becomes a weapon for use in sexual coercion. A study by Boeringer et al. (1991) found that fraternity members' actual use of

PAGE 57

51 nonphysical coercion and use of drugs or alcohol to obtain sex was significantly higher than for non-members. Additional studies show that fraternity men are more likely than other groups of men on campus to report having at least one friend who has used alcohol or drugs to obtain sex against a woman's will, or, in other words, to differentially associate with men who rape (Johns 1997). Perhaps due to their contact with fraternity men, sorority women have also been shown to be at higher risk for sexual victimization than other collegiate women are. In Copenhaver and Grauerholz's (1991) study of sorority members, 12% reported that, since the age of 14, they had had sexual intercourse when they did not want to because a man gave them alcohol or drugs. Of these women, 75% reported that this act happened during their college years. Wechsler (1996) notes that sorority members' high rates of binge drinking also put them at exceptional risk for the "secondhand" binge effect of unwanted sex. Thus, many studies have provided background about variables such as drinking that appear associated with increased risk of sexual aggression. But, as many of these variables are also associated with contemporary norms of dating and socializing among college-age people (noted above), perceptions of risk and response are often nested within an ambiguous social context "requiring conflicting cognitive orientations"pursuing entertainment and socializing versus safety and protection (Nurius et al. 1996:437). Clearly, the consumption of alcohol by both men and women "works in conjunction with a multitude of other, socially constructed factors to facilitate sexual aggression," especially between acquaintances (Harney and Muehlenhard 1991:168).

PAGE 58

52 We must further examine the context, then, to fully understand where the intersection of alcohol use and sexual aggression lies. A context that places emphasis on the college experience as a "last bash" before entering responsible adulthood may act to impede warning signals of aggression for women and may impede detection of resistance cues for men (Nurius et al. 1996). These social expectations and social climates may be especially prevalent in fraternities and sororities, but also on campuses that promote a "party" atmosphere and "traditional" college norms about drinking and sexuality. Thus, in these contexts, we would expect higher rates of sexual aggression and assauU.

PAGE 59

CHAPTER 6 THEORIES ON ALCOHOL AND SEXUAL AGGRESSION Many researchers propose a social explanation for the relationship between alcohol and crime, especially violent crime. Given that violence and drinking most commonly occur among acquaintances, it seems plausible that some type of association between the two would exist regardless of the chemical effects of alcohol (Johnson et al. 1978). Links between alcohol use and crimes like rape will likely include both physiological and social factors. For example, studies have found that intervention by a third party can reduce the aggressive behavior of intoxicated subjects-illustrating that any effects alcohol has on aggressive behavior appear to be socially mediated (Johnson et al. 1978). Few studies of alcohol use and sexual aggression, however, purport to test or apply any particular theory to explain or analyze this relationshij>-much of the literature is descriptive, rather than explanatory. Past research seems to fall into two, not altogether distinct, camps. The few studies that deal directly with testing a theory (see Boeringer et al. 1991), and much of the other indirect research, focus on social learning variables which incorporate both attitudes and behaviors of perpetrators. Several other studies follow a theoretical perspective that the role of alcohol use in rape is more situational. Routine activities theory and similar victimization theories profess that "victimization risk increases where there is a convergence of risky situations (e.g., structural 53

PAGE 60

54 opportunities), potential victims (e.g., attractive targets), and motivated offenders, occurring in the absence of capable guardians (e.g., social control agents who might intervene to stop victimization from occurring)" (Ullman, Karabatsos and Koss 1999:605). Social Learning Social learning, as proposed by Akers, states that behavior is acquired and sustained through both direct behavioral conditioning and modeling of others' behavior (Akers 1985). Behavior is strengthened through positive and negative reinforcement and punishment. Individuals learn normative attitudes toward certain behaviors as good or bad, right or wrong through interaction (or identification) with significant groups in their lives. Sutherland termed this process by which people interact with others and are exposed to positive or negative norms, "differential association" (Sutherland and Cressey 1978). Thus, the theory suggests that alcohol use and sexual aggression can be expected to the extent that one is differentially associated with others who are prone to alcohol use and sexual aggression, that one is exposed to alcohol use and sexually aggressive models, that alcohol use and sexual aggression is (or is expected to be) differentially reinforced over non-aggressive sexual behavior, and that one does not define alcohol use and sexual aggression as wrong and/or believes that it is sometimes justified and acceptable behavior (Boeringer 1992). While social learning has a very broad scope in that it purports to be a general processual explanation of criminal and delinquent behavior, it does not include a general

PAGE 61

55 explanation of laws, criminal justice, or the structural aspects of society that have an impact on crime. The theory is capable, however, of explaining how the social structure shapes individual behavior (Akers 1997). This is its usefiilness to the study of campus climate and drinking and sexual aggression on college campuses. Macro-level Learning Influences At a structural level social learning is "hypothesized as the behavioral process by which the variables specified in macro-level theories induce or retard criminal actions in individuals" (Akers 1999:70). Integrating these structural theories with social learning, though, has not yet been accomplished by Akers or other learning theorists. This possibility for integration will be discussed at the conclusion of this section, but the overall view that social-structural factors influence social learning variables (differential association, differential reinforcement, definitions, and imitation), which in turn affect deviant or conforming behavior in individuals is critical to this research. Akers modeling of these effects are illustrated in Figure 1 . The "societal" influences in this case are found in the norms about drinking and sexuality common in American society (previously detailed). The "community" influence in this instance is the campus climate toward alcohol use and sexual aggression. The president of the University of Virginia referred to this as "a culture that too often considers alcohol abuse a normal stage of growing up" (Scrivo 1998:249). Students often overestimate both the acceptability and the actual drinking behavior of their peers. If students perceive themselves to be on a campus that is a "party school" or extremely supportive of excessive drinking and sexual aggression, then they may incorporate these

PAGE 62

56 definitions into their behaviors. "Students' behefs that extreme norms exist may serve to justify and explain extreme behavior and may influence students to engage in heavy drinking" (Wechsler 1999:247). A study at Northern Illinois University showed that student drinking decreased by a third when students learned that most of their classmates, in fact, were not heavy drinkers (Scrivo 1998). Social Structure and Social Learning Social Structure Social Learning -> Criminal/Conforming Behavior Society Age Family Differential Association Community Sex Peers Differential Reinforcement Race School Definitions Individual Behavior Class Others Imitation Other Learning Variables (Akers, 1999:70) Figure 1 : Social Structure and Social Learning Societal and community definitions of how alcohol consumption may affect sexual situations also come into play. Most of acquaintance rapes are planned in advance by the perpetrator, especially when alcohol is involved (Belknap and Erez 1995; Martin and Hummer 1989; Sanday 1990). Many male college students drink alcohol purposely to experience the sense of disinhibition, power, and sexuality they have learned to associate with drinking (Abbey 1991). Studies have shown that men were more likely than women to assume that a woman who drank alcohol with her date was interested in having sex with him, and 40% of these men thought it was acceptable to force sex on a drunk date (Abbey 1991). The campus climate promotes an atmosphere in which students learn to see alcohol as a vehicle of friendship, social activity, and sexual opportunity (Cashin et al. 1996).

PAGE 63

57 Micro-level Learning Influences While the society and community, along with race, gender, religion, class and other social structures, provide general learning contexts for individuals, smaller groups, such as peer groups (like a fraternity or sorority or athletic team), often provide the more immediate contexts that promote or discourage the criminal or conforming behavior of the individual (Akers 1997). Therefore, differences in the rates of sexually aggressive behavior for certain groups of men may be a function of the extent to which cultural traditions, norms and social control systems of the smaller group provide socialization, learning environments, and immediate situations conducive to committing or not committing acts of sexual aggression. Age, major, GPA, race, class, and other characteristics indicate an individual's place in the social structure of the university setting. These characteristics, in turn, relate to the groups of which people are likely to be members, with whom they interact and how those around them respond to their behavior. Thus, one can examine the structure of organizational contexts like fraternities/sororities and athletics and the beliefs and actions of their members that relate to drinking and sexually aggressive behaviors. Fraternities and athletic teams promote both direct behavioral conditioning of their members and encourage members to model the behaviors of other members. "Pledges," non-initiated fraternity members, and "rookies," first season members of athletic teams, are taught what is proper behavior for men in their organizations; they are continually socialized. This takes both covert and over forms. Physical violence may be encouraged or used by those already "initiated" into the group. The pledging experience for fraternity members can entail "physical abuse; harsh discipline; and demands to

PAGE 64

58 subordinate, follow orders, and engage in demeaning routines and activities" (Martin and Hummer 1989:462). Fraternity members feel that these experiences tend to unite pledges into a group, teach them to rely on each other, and join together against outsiders. Fraternities, through these activities, also promote toughness, and the ability to withstand pain and humiliation. They emphasize using physical force to obtain compliance; they stress the masculine. Intragroup solidarity is fostered, but sensitivity is often lost (Martin and Hummer 1989). Indeed, a study by Michael Hughes and Roger Winston, Jr. (1987) revealed that after completing their pledge program, new members came to value leadership in relationships, defined by the Survey of Interpersonal Values as the ability to exercise power and influence over others, more highly than independents (non-Greeks). Thus, as fraternity brothers, these men came to value power and influence. A similar phenomenon occurs within the realm of athletics. Don Sabo (1994:87) argues that "when men compete for prestige and status in sports (or elsewhere), they identify with the relatively few males who control resources and are able to bestow rewards and inflict punishment." Male athletes learn from other men, both coaches and players, how to behave. Their behavior, on the field and off the field, is sanctioned through rewards and punishments from coaches, teammates, fans, and often the media. Men, however, are not only taught how to behave around other men, they are also taught how to behave around women. Through locker room discourse, and coaching instruction, men learn how to treat women. Social learning theory holds that individuals leam attitudes toward certain behaviors as good or bad through group interaction and identification, and that behavior is strengthened through positive and negative reinforcement. Just as pledges and rookies

PAGE 65

59 learn from behavioral conditioning, they also learn from watching "brothers" and older team members. The behaviors of these group members are often set forth as examples of expected behavior. Kalof and Cargill (1991 :41 8), in fact, note that peer group cultures, such as Greek letter organizations, can provide environments in which "gender stereotyping, sexual aggression, and/or victimization are learned and legitimized." Alcohol use by fraternity members is normative. The most eagerly sought after men are those who "are willing to drink alcohol," "who drink socially," or "who can hold their liquor" (Martin and Hummer 1989:460). "Excessive drinking" is also common among many male athletes (Snyder 1994), and Constance Johnson (1991) reports that male athletes and fraternity members have much higher levels of drinking than other males on campus. Indeed, fraternity and sorority leaders drink more than other students on campus: "In other words, the leaders are participating in setting the norms of heavy drinking and behavioral loss of control" (Scrivo 1998:249). Practices associated with fraternity life that can contribute to the sexual coercion of women include a preoccupation with loyalty, group protection and secrecy, use of alcohol as a weapon, involvement in physical violence and force, and an emphasis on competition and superiority (Martin and Hummer 1 989). Students who have traditional sex role attitudes show greater acceptance of use of physical coercion as well, and fraternity members and athletes show higher rates of acceptance of traditional gender roles than other students. Fraternities influence their members' interpersonal values over time by decreasing the value placed on independence and increasing the value placed on the exercise of power and influence over others (Kalof and Cargill 1991).

PAGE 66

60 And so, an indirect focus by researchers on the four main concepts of social learning theory, differential association, definitions, differential reinforcement, and imitation, seems to provide a logical explanation of how fraternities and athletic teams transmit beliefs that support sexual victimization of women. But, what does the empirical data say? Empirical Tests The only direct studies were conducted by Boeringer, Shehan, and Akers (1991) and Boeringer (1992), showing that fraternity members were more likely to report that their friends have gotten a woman drunk or high to obtain sex. In terms of differential reinforcement, fraternity members were more likely than independents to be positively reinforced for engaging in acts of sexual aggression; they were significantly more likely than independents to feel that their friends would approve of them having sexual intercourse with many women during the school year, and they were less likely than independents to feel that their friends would disapprove of their getting a women drunk or high in order to have sex with her (Boeringer et al. 1991). Recent research also confirms that men who abuse women are seldom shunned by their peers. Some research shows that men who participate in courtship violence and date rape often receive peer support from their male friends, who may even encourage the abuse (Belknap and Erez 1995; Martm and Hummer 1989). On many counts, then, this research confirmed what others have speculated on indirectly. However, more needs to be done-including work at the macro-level—before conclusions can by clearly drawn.

PAGE 67

61 Routine Activities Theories of crime that focus on the influence of lifestyle or routine activities may also present an important analytical tool for this study. Routine activities theory proposes that likelihood of victimization is heavily influenced by a person's daily activities which affect his or her opportunities for victimization (Cohen and Felson 1979). There are four concepts central to the theory: exposure of one or one's property to potential offenders, guardianship over one and one's property, target attractiveness, and proximity to offenders (Cohen and Felson 1979). Greater exposure, less guardianship, more attractive targets, and closer proximity to offenders should correspond to increased likelihood of victimization. Empirically, relatively little attention has been paid to using routine activities theory to study individual offending, but it does seem very much applicable. A general study by Osgood and colleagues (1996) examined a broad range of deviant behaviors using a routine activities approach to assess whether unstructured socializing with peers in the absence of authority figures presents opportunities for deviance. They found that participation in unstructured social activities by 1 8to 26-year-olds was strongly associated with criminal behavior and heavy alcohol use, among other types of deviance (Osgood etal. 1996). A study by Wooldredge and colleagues (1995) examined the likelihood of faculty victimization on campus. Two of their findings are of particular interest to this study. First, they note the importance of interactions of individual demographic characteristics with routine activities in studies of personal victimization. Demographic characteristics may interact with routines to produce significant differences in the likelihood of

PAGE 68

62 victimization. Second, it is possible for individual demographics to play an important role in predicting personal victimization in the context of particular limited routine activities (Osgood 1995). Thus, a given setting, in interaction with demographic characteristics, may affect crime. Thus, studies that examine the context of victimization on campus are also valuable in routine activities analysis. Social context, a key element of routine activities theory, is often a focus of the literature on alcohol and rape on campus. For this reason, routine activities theory seems to hold a plausible explanation for this behavioral deviance, given some of the variables measured and conclusions drawn from research by Ward et al. (1991) and Boswell and Spade (1996). Though neither set of authors specifically mention routine activities, their focus on the environment surrounding rape on college campuses, particularly at fraternities, points in this direction. A recent study by UUman, Karabatsos and Koss (1999) also lays out some of the key points that relate routine activities theory and alcohol and sexual aggression on campus: Alcohol use by offender or victim may interact with other risky, unplanned social situations (e.g. parties) resulting in more severe assault outcomes. Recent theorists of victimization have argued that victimization risk increases where there is a convergence of risky situations (e.g. structural opportunities), potential victims (e.g. attractive targets), and motivated offenders, occurring in the absence of capable guardians (e.g. social control agents who might intervene to stop victimization from occurring). Drinking in risky situations, such as parties, may expose potential targets to motivated offenders in situations lacking adequate guardianship, resulting in increased risk of attack and severe assault outcomes. (Ullmanetal. 1999:605) Much research has focused on the individual characteristics that are common of fraternity members and athletes, including, most notably, high rates of alcohol use. The question must be asked whether certain individuals are more drawn to joining these

PAGE 69

63 groups, or whether these groups eHcit these characteristics (see "Social Learning"). Regardless of which came first, the trait or the membership, motivated offenders can be found both in fraternities and on athletic teams. And, because of the college social setting, with parties frequently occurring at fraternity houses, available victims are readily found. At many schools, social activities typically revolve around alcohol-saturated parties at fraternities and sororities, off-campus bars and tailgate parties before athletic events. In addition, local bars cater to students with drink specials and drinking contests and even shuttle buses to round up students (Scrivo 1998). This "party atmosphere" that surrounds students on many campuses often involves heavy drinking. Alcohol consumption frequently occurs in social settings (on or near campus) in which sexual activity is a possible, and often desired, outcome of interaction. Alcohol use impairs cognitive processing and increases feelings of sexual disinhibition and arousal, even if only perceived. This heightened sense of sexuality, coupled with a short-term, narrow cognitive focus, increases the likelihood that acquaintance rape will occur (Abbey 1991). In this setting, motivated offenders and suitable targets abound. All-male fraternities, for example, often wield much control over party life on college campuses since there are usually few other places to party on campus. Excessive alcohol use in this environment may lead to more motivated offenders and more available victims. Several studies show that 75% of men and over half of all women involved in acquaintance rape were drinking or taking drugs before the incident (Koss 1988; Ward et al. 1991). A "drunk or drinking victim may be targeted by the offender who sees an opportunity to

PAGE 70

64 commit sexual assault without engaging in other coercive [physical] behaviors" (Ullman etal. 1999:604). A study by Ward et al. (1991) of incidence of unwanted sexual contact on one campus revealed that fraternities were an especially likely site for this unwanted contact. Their work additionally showed that alcohol was an important component of the student lifestyle and that unwanted sexual experiences were a product of that lifestyle. They concluded that unwanted sexual encounters are more likely to occur in the context of "normal" social settings; they are "culturally normative" (Ward et al. 1991). Boswell and Spade (1996) make similar conclusions in their study using participant observation of different social settings (fraternity and bars) on a college campus and interviews with students. They find that a "rape culture" exists, particularly at certain fraternities. One fraternity member, when asked about definitions of rape, said, "Girls get so drunk here and they come on to us. What are we supposed to do? We are only human" (Boswell and Spade 1996:143). Motivated offenders and available victims are obvious. Additionally, the use of alcohol by potential victims may add a physiological dimension to becoming a suitable target. Alcohol use by victims may be associated with less forceftil resistance (Ullman et al. 1999). A study by Harrington and Leitenberg (1994) showed that when sexual aggression occurs among more casual relationships, the encounter often begins at a party or in a bar where drinking is more likely. So, setting contributes to offenders and victims. Lack of guardians is also apparent. Reports have also noted that sanctions are rarely placed on date or fraternity rapists, sexual harassers, or men who physically abuse their girlfriends (Belknap and Erez 1995; Sanday 1990). This failure to sanction

PAGE 71

65 violators is partly due to victims' unwdllingness to report, but also to the University authorities' and the criminal justice system's reluctance to take action against offenders reported to them. "One answer, then, to why men rape, abuse, and sexually harass women on campus is because they can" (Belknap and Erez 1995:166). In addition, the official patrolling and regulation of fraternity parties is fairly lax on many campuses; rules prohibiting drinking are frequently ignored (Sanday 1990; Martin and Hummer 1989). Integrating Theories An integrated theory combining both social learning and routine activities might also prove effective in explaining alcohol use and sexual aggression on campus. Social learning provides a sound, logical explanation of how offenders become motivated, and why victims are seen as vulnerable and guardians lenient. Many studies that focus on leaming, after all, routinely discuss the "social context" surrounding fraternities and athletes on college campuses. Based on the research and literature reviewed in the preceding chapters and the expectations of structural-level social leaming theory and routine activities, I hypothesize the following. I anticipate that students who are members of the Greek system, white, athletes, and male (variables that mark a student's place in the social structure) will have higher levels and frequencies of alcohol use than other students. Students who perceive the university to be a "party school" will have higher levels and frequencies of alcohol use than other students. Those who believe that the social atmosphere on campus promotes alcohol use and who believe that excessive alcohol consumption is a frequent

PAGE 72

66 occurrence for students (variables that assess the norms about drinking on campus) will have higher levels and frequencies of alcohol use than other students. Students who perceive the enforcement of drinking regulations to be less strict (variables related to the social control system and guardianship) will have higher levels and frequencies of alcohol use than other students. Students who live-off campus or in fraternity houses and/or are of legal drinking age (variables that assess situations conducive to deviance and exposure and proximity) will have higher levels and frequencies of alcohol use than other students. I hypothesize that those men who are members of fraternities and/or athletes (variables that mark a student's place in the social structure and exposure and proximity to targets) will be more likely to commit acts of sexual coercion and aggression than other men. Men who perceive the imiversity to be a "party school" and/or perceive sexual assault or date rape to be a more frequent occurrence for students at the university (variables that assess norms about sexual aggression on campus and attractiveness of targets) will be more likely to commit acts of sexual coercion and aggression than other men. Men who perceive enforcement of laws and regulations about sexual assault to be less strict (variables related to the social control system and guardianship) will be more likely to commit acts of sexual coercion and aggression than other men. Men who live off-campus or in fraternity houses and/or who drink alcohol frequently and heavily (variables that assess situations conducive to deviance and exposure, proximity and target attractiveness) will be more likely to commit acts of sexual coercion and aggression than other men. Men who perceive alcohol use to be central to the lives of women on campus

PAGE 73

67 (variables related to women as attractive targets) w^ill be more likely to commit acts of sexual coercion and aggression than other men. I hypothesize that women who are members of sororities and/or athletes (variables that mark a student's place in the social structure and proximity and exposure to offenders) will be more likely to be victims of acts of sexual coercion and aggression than other women. Women who perceive the university to be a "party school" and perceive sexual assault or date rape to be a more frequent occurrence for students at the university (variables that assess norms about sexual aggression on campus) will be more likely to be victims of acts of sexual coercion and aggression than other women. Women who perceive enforcement of laws and regulations about sexual assault to be less strict (variables related to the social control system and guardianship) will be more likely to be victims of acts of sexual coercion and aggression than other women. Women who live off-campus or in sorority houses and/or who drink alcohol frequently and heavily (variables that assess situations conducive to deviance, exposure and proximity to offenders and target attractiveness) will be more likely to be victims of acts of sexual coercion and aggression than other women. Noting the overlap between the variables used to assess the social learning elements of norms, place in the social structure, perceptions of social control, and situations conducive to deviance and the variables used to assess the routine activities elements of exposure, proximity and guardianship, I further hypothesize that the most predictive multivariate models will include these "overlapping" variables. Thus, a theoretical model integrating elements of social learning and routine activities would be supported.

PAGE 74

CHAPTER 7 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION Sampling Design The population of interest for this study is undergraduate students in the university setting. The literature review presented evidence that dating and sexual situations are conducive to incidents of sexual aggression, and given the percentage of undergraduates who are simultaneously unmarried and sexually active, colleges present one of the most appropriate settings in which to study sexually aggressive behavior (Shively and Lam 1991). In addition, college students drink more and are more likely to "binge" drink than their non-college-enrolled counterparts in the general population (Wechsler et al. 1994). Thus, college settings are also particularly appropriate for investing secondary effects of problem drinking. To test the proposals set forth in the Introduction, data was collected using a survey that assessed perceptions of campus norms regarding drinking and sexual assault; personal experience of drinking and sexual assault by respondents; and an array of variables pertaining to campus climate and respondent demographics and memberships. A new instrument was constructed as no existing questionnaire fully captured the variables under study, within the spatial framework of the broader research project (see below). Several questions from the survey questionnaire used in that larger study were also included for analysis along with the questions on the instrument described above. 68

PAGE 75

69 The researcher chose to use a quantitative survey as the primary mode of data collection for a number of reasons. Foremost was the ability to obtain information from a large number of students. Due to time and financial constraints, large-scale, in-depth interviewing would preclude obtaining information from a substantial number of respondents. A large, representative sample is best suited to testing the theories outlined in the literature review and the hypotheses detailed below. Additionally, had the data been obtained through interviews, the sensitive nature of the subject matter could pose problems of reliability and validity in the respondents' answers, given that the researcher is a woman. Thus, a written survey presents the best means for gleaning pertinent information from a wide array of students. Surveys do have drawbacks, however. This data is cross-sectional rather than longitudinal. It will not encompass how perceptions or behaviors have changed in a given span of time (such as time in college). Additionally, survey data collected with questionnaires only provides a "surface-level" view of any issue. Hence, 1 also conducted a series of in-depth interviews. To further explore perceptions of campus and to compensate for the some of the deficiencies inherent in the cross-sectional quantitative data, 1 0 interviews were also conducted with male and female students on campus. This sample was a convenience sample, gathered through general announcements in sociology classes and at several campus locations. Interview questioning allowed the researcher to glean some background on students' perceptions of the campus social atmosphere and to flesh-out some to the "whys" behind the quantitative survey data.

PAGE 76

I 70 The Sample The larger quantitative sample was quelled in cooperation with a "campus climate" study being fiinded and conducted through the Office of the Vice-Provost of Affirmative Action. Approximately 1 500 students completed questionnaires in November and December 2000. Given the undergraduate population of the university (31,329), this completion rate insures a +/.03 error rate for a 95% confidence interval. The sample was a multi-stage stratified cluster sample. A predetermined number of classes were randomly chosen from all undergraduate courses at the University. Cluster sampling is a very effective means of reaching large populations cost effectively. In this process the population is broken down into groups of cases (clusters) and a sample of clusters is selected at random (Singleton et al. 1993). In the first stage of the sampling process, a list of all undergraduate courses for Fall 2000 was obtained fi-om the Office of the University Registrar, and each course was assigned a number. In stage two, the courses were stratified into four groups based on course enrolment. Given that there were multiple sized sampling units within the clusters, strata were established by marking off equal intervals on the cumulative square root of the frequency scale. Thus, beginning with a class size of 1 5 and using three strata (an effective number given the variety of class sizes) this scheme produces the following strata: those with fewer than 15 students, those with 15 to 32 students, those with 33 to 77 students, and those with 78 or more students. Stratifying the clusters is very important, as it ensures that all groupings are represented. A simple random sample, for example, runs the risk of not including the smallest group and over-sampling the most populous group. Stratified random sampling can guarantee that viable categories with small proportions of

PAGE 77

71 cases in the population are adequately represented (Singleton et al. 1993). In the case of this university, class size is sometimes related to the level of the course-general education, freshman-level courses are often very large, while college courses for majors are usually mediumto small-size classes. In order to ensure that students in large courses were included and that students in medium and small courses were not oversampled, an equal number of courses from each strata were chosen. Courses in the smallest group, those with fewer than 15 students, were excluded from the sample as most are "individual work" or "study-group" course headings, instances where an actual "class" does not meet at a set time. The researcher randomly selected 1 1 courses from each stratum using a computer generated random number list. The instructors for each of the selected courses were sent a letter from the Provost's Office explaining the broader research project and asking if surveys could be administered in their classes. A total of nine professors refused to participate in the study. Those who agreed to participate were assigned a date of their preference for survey adminisfration. If an instructor refused, the next course from the random number list for the strata was selected, a letter sent, and the process repeated. Finally, within each participating course students were given the option of whether or not to participate in the survey. Those who agreed to participate completed questionnaires in the classrooms of their respective courses. Surveying in Classrooms Research has shown that classroom surveying provides higher response rates and more valid responses to questions related to sexual aggression than other research

PAGE 78

locations. Shively and Lam's research (1991), "Sampling Methods and Admissions of Sexual Aggression Among College Men," compares self-reports of male sexual aggression from studies of college men using a random mail sample to those using classroom volunteers. They note the benefit that in classroom situations "where the responses cannot be linked to the respondent, more men may be willing to respond honestly" (Shively and Lam 1991 :355). To the contrary, when people are confronted with a questionnaire that has been directly mailed to them, and with non respondents receiving follow up mailings, which alert them that the missing questionnaire was noticed, and which must be returned to an institution that wields power over them, "it is likely that people will either not respond or will underreport their sexual aggression" (Shively and Lam 1991 :355). Koss and Gidycz (1985) also noted a tendency among male participants to deny behaviors during interviews that they revealed on self-report questionnaires administered during regularly scheduled university classes. Data Collection Procedures Quantitative Survey Representatives of the University Research Center (where this researcher is employed) overseeing the larger campus climate project administered the surveys in the chosen courses. The representative entered the classroom at a time chosen by the instructor (either the begirming or 30 minutes before the end of class) and briefly explained the project. Students were instructed to carefiiUy read the Institutional Review Board statement on the front page of the survey instrument. This statement noted that participation was voluntary and that participants did not have to answer any questions

PAGE 79

73 that they did not wish to answer. Respondents were instructed in how to complete the "Scantron" bubble sheet, not to include their names or other identifying information, and to return their packets to the Research Center representative when they were finished. The completed surveys were coded and entered into an ASCII data set for analysis. Qualitative Interviews The researcher met the interview respondents at a location on campus and they were given an Institutional Review Board statement to read detailing the interview process and their rights as participants (see description above). After agreeing, respondents were asked a series of broad, open-ended questions about their perceptions of the social atmosphere on campus, whether they had any preconceptions about the university or college life before coming to school, how those ideas may have changed given their actual experiences on campus, and their perceptions of alcohol use and sexual assault on campus. Interviews were tape recorded and then transcribed and analyzed for content. Concepts under Study It should be noted that the space allotted for questions relevant to this project (on alcohol use and sexual aggression) was extremely limited within the confines of the broader campus climate study. A minimum number of questions could be added. Therefore, many questions that were included in the larger study are incorporated for use in this research. While they may not be the most appropriate measures for a given

PAGE 80

74 concept, they are the best measures available within the breadth of the larger study. These limitations are discussed further in the concluding comments of Chapter 10. Dependent Variables There are two sets of dependent variables-one pertaining to alcohol use and one pertaining to sexual assault. Two questions assess respondents' use of alcohol. The first asks "how often, if ever, [the respondent] drink[s] alcoholic beverages" (see Appendix). The second question evaluated binge drinking by inquiring how many times in the past two weeks the person had five or more drinks at a sitting. While these measures are not ideal, in that they do not evaluate frequency and quantity together, they are the best available measures from the survey at hand. A series of questions, roughly modeled on questions from the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES) (see Koss and Gidycz 1 985), were used to assess whether male respondents had ever perpetrated acts of sexual coercion and/or sexual assault. The questions here are more limited in scope than those used in the SES. The first question asked if, during his time at the university, he had ever obtained or attempted to obtain sexual intercourse with a woman by giving her alcohol or drugs. A set of follow-up questions were designed to obtain additional information about the nature of the incident, including location, alcohol use, and law enforcement involvement. Similarly, men were asked if, during their time at the university, they had ever obtained or attempted to obtain sexual intercourse with a woman by using pressure, coercion, or non-physical threats (with the follow-up questions noted above), and whether, in their time at the university, they had ever obtained to attempted to obtain sexual intercourse with a woman when she didn't want to by threatening to use force (holding her down, twisting her arm, etc.) if she didn't cooperate.

PAGE 81

75 Female respondents were asked a parallel set of questions, again, modeled on those in the SES (but more limited m content and scope), to assess whether they have ever been victims of sexual coercion or sexual assault. Women were first asked if, in their time at the university, they had ever had a man obtain or attempt to obtain sexual intercourse with them by giving them alcohol or drugs. Women were also asked if, in their time at the university, they had ever had a man obtain or attempt to obtain sexual intercourse with them when they didn't want to by threatening to use force against them (holding them down, twisting their arm, etc.). Again, follow-up questions were asked about the incidents in each section regarding location, alcohol use, and law enforcement involvement. Independent and Control Variables Many socio-demographic variables were included as independent variables in the study. Those variables found to be significant in previous studies of campus alcohol use and/or sexual assault are included here as well: gender, race, group memberships (fraternity and sorority membership, participation in collegiate athletics, participation in student government, etc.), and living situations. These variables are also used to measure aspects of the two theories emphasized in this project (see below). Alcohol use and binge drinking will also serve as independent variables in the models that analyze sexual assault as a dependent variable. Social Learning Variables. As this research applies the theoretical principals of social learning at the macro-level, a series of questions was designed to assess respondents' places in the social structure, their perceptions of campus traditions and

PAGE 82

76 norms about drinking and sexual aggression, their views of social control on campus, and their involvement in immediate situations and contexts in which are conducive to alcohol use and/or sexual aggression. The basic socio-demographic questions on gender, age, race, group memberships, and living situations are used to assess a respondent's place in the social structure of the university. To evaluate norms and traditions about alcohol use and sexual aggression, the survey asked whether alcohol use was supported by the university as whole, whether alcohol use was normative for various groups on campus, and how common respondents' felt heavy alcohol use to be for most smdents on campus. In addition, to better gauge the combined affect of multiple norms about drinking and "partying" on campus, a scale variable, PARTYNRM, was created from the two dichotomous variables described above. Respondents were also asked how common they felt "date rape" and "sexual assault" were for students at the university. To examine perceptions of social control, questions regarding respondents' perceptions of rule enforcement by university administration were included (in relation to alcohol violations and sexual assault). Routine Activities Variables. Exposure to opportimity was assessed by variables related to respondents' living situations, age, and drinking patterns, as well as membership in fraternities and sororities and athletic teams. Perception of guardianship was assessed with variables related to perception of leniency of law enforcement and university. Target attractiveness was assessed through variables related to alcohol consumption, acceptance of a campus "party" atmosphere, and perceptions of the centrality of alcohol use for various groups on campus. For victims, proximity to

PAGE 83

offenders was evaluated with variables related to group memberships, drinking patterns, and being of legal drinking age. Hypotheses Based on the prior research reviewed in the preceding chapters and the expectations of structural-level social learning theory and routine activities, I offer the following hypotheses. I expect that students who are members of the Greek system, white, athletes, and male (variables that mark a student's place in the social structure) will have higher levels and frequencies of alcohol use than other students. Students who perceive the university to be a "party school" and believe that the social atmosphere on campus promotes alcohol use and who believe that excessive alcohol consimiption is a frequent occurrence for students (variables that assess the norms about drinking on campus) will have higher levels and frequencies of alcohol use than other students. Students who perceive the enforcement of drinking regulations to be less strict (variables related to the social control system and guardianship) will have higher levels and frequencies of alcohol use than other students. Students who live-off campus or in fraternity houses and/or are aged 21 or older (variables that assess situations conducive to deviance and exposure and proximity) will have higher levels and frequencies of alcohol use than other students. I hypothesize that men who are members of fraternities and/or athletes (variables that mark a student's place in the social structure and exposure and proximity to targets) will be more likely to commit acts of sexual coercion and aggression than other men. Men who perceive the university to be a "party school" and/or perceive sexual assault or date rape to be a more frequent occurrence for students at the university (variables that

PAGE 84

78 assess norms about sexual aggression on campus and attractiveness of targets) will be more likely to commit acts of sexual coercion and aggression than other men. Men who perceive enforcement of laws and regulations about sexual assault to be less strict (variables related to the social control system and guardianship) will be more likely to commit acts of sexual coercion and aggression than other men. Men who live offcampus or in fraternity houses and/or who drink alcohol frequently and heavily (variables that assess situations conducive to deviance and exposure, proximity and target attractiveness) will be more likely to commit acts of sexual coercion and aggression than other men. Men who perceive alcohol use to be central to the lives of women on campus (variables related to women as attractive targets) will be more likely to commit acts of sexual coercion and aggression than other men. I hypothesize that women who are members of sororities and/or athletes (variables that mark a student's place in the social structure and proximity and exposure to offenders) will be more likely to be victims of acts of sexual coercion and aggression than other women. Women who perceive the university to be a "party school" and perceive sexual assault or date rape to be a more frequent occurrence for students at the university (variables that assess norms about sexual aggression on campus) will be more likely to be victims of acts of sexual coercion and aggression than other women. Women who perceive enforcement of laws and regulations about sexual assault to be less strict (variables related to the social control system and guardianship) will be more likely to be victims of acts of sexual coercion and aggression than other women. Women who live off-campus or in sorority houses and/or who drink alcohol frequently and heavily (variables that assess situations conducive to deviance, exposure and proximity to

PAGE 85

79 offenders and target attractiveness) will be more likely to be victims of acts of sexual coercion and aggression than other women. Noting the overlap between the variables used to assess the social learning elements of norms, place in the social structure, perceptions of social control, and situations conducive to deviance and the variables used to assess the routine activities elements of exposure, proximity and guardianship, I further hypothesize that the most predictive multivariate models will include these "overlapping" variables. Thus, a theoretical model integrating elements of social learning and routine activities would be supported. We now turn our attention to the data. Coding and Sample Characteristics After the data were entered into an ASCII computer file, they were analyzed using the SAS data analysis system. First, the data were examined for irregularities. Twelve respondent's answers were removed from the data set in their entirety because they either failed to answer more than half of the questions on the survey or because their answers did not correspond to possible answer choices. The total number of respondents in the data set is 1,519. Any non-responses to a given question were coded as missing data for further analysis. Univariate frequencies were produced for the 52 questions on the survey instrument. After that process, the nominal variables were divided into dimmiy variables based on the categorical responses given for each. To insure that the sample was representative of the larger campus population, comparisons were made between the frequencies for the primary sociodemographic variables and university statistics. Table 1

PAGE 86

80 presents the results of this comparison for selected variables relevant to the analysis. The sample slightly over-represents women, fraternity and sorority members and those under the age of 21 . All sample characteristics are within a reasonable comparison margin for the university as whole, however. Most of the sample is white (the percentage distribution for the sample slightly under-represents the categories "white" and "black" do to inclusion of the category "biracial/multiracial") and lives off-campus. The sample should allow for generalization to the university as a whole. Table 1 : Percentage Distributions of Selected Sociodemographic Variables Variable Sample % University Undergraduate Population % Female 57.6% 52.0% Male 42.4% 48.0% White 70.5% 73.9% Black 5.7% 6.5% Fraternity/Sorority Member 17.1% 15.0% Under Age 21 65.0% 50.9% Age 21 and over 35.0% 49.1% Live Off-campus 69.5% 79.0% Live On-campus 25.1% 21.0% Source: University Office of Student Affairs 1999 The qualitative sample was composed of four white women, two African American women, two African American men, and two white men. Three of the students interviewed were 21 -years-old; the other seven were under age 21. Two of the students were seniors, two were juniors, two were sophomores, and four were freshman. The results of the data analysis will be presented first for alcohol use, and then for sexual coercion and assault. The discussion of these results and the conclusions drawn from the data will follow.

PAGE 87

CHAPTER 8 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS: ALCOHOL USE This chapter presents the resuhs of the data analysis of the first set of dependent variables — those related to frequency of alcohol use and binge drinking. The results of the quantitative analysis are submitted along with relevant quotations and analyses from the qualitative interviews. As indicated in the previous chapters, two theoretical frameworks will be used to explain drinking behaviors. Theoretical Explanations for Alcohol Use In using social learning theory to explain deviance at a macro-level the goal is to explain how the social structure shapes individual behavior. Thus, for the first dependent variables of this study, the goal is to explain what characteristics of the social structure of the university affect frequency of alcohol use and binge drinking. The university provides a learning environment for its members. It is an immediate context that may promote or discourage behaviors and beliefs. Differences in rates of alcohol use for students are a function of the extent to which "cultural traditions, norms, and social control systems provide socialization, learning environments, and immediate situations conducive to conformity or deviance" (Akers 1997:69). Thus, at a univariate level of analysis, we must first establish what the norms and traditions are about alcohol use and what the students' perceptions are of drinking behaviors and the social control system of the university. 81

PAGE 88

82 Characteristics such as age, sex, race, and year-in-school indicate where an individual is situated in the social structure of the university. These characteristics also influence group membership in organizations such as sororities and fraternities, student government, or athletic teams. Given prior research, the individual characteristics and memberships hypothesized to correlate to increased alcohol use are being white, male, a fraternity or sorority member, an athlete, and/or living in a fraternity or sorority house. At the bivariate level of analysis, we can examine whether correlations exist among rates of drinking and binge drinking and the variables noted above. This level of analysis can also establish whether correlations exist among drinking behaviors and perceptions of the cultural traditions, norms, social control system, and environment of the campus. In other words, we can begin to establish whether correlations exist between the social structure and the individual behavior of alcohol use. This analysis can be taken a step further at the multivariate level by using multiple regression techniques to find the combination of structural factors that best explain alcohol use. While the routine activities approach is more appropriate in analyzing the sexual coercion and aggression examined in the next chapter, elements of the theory are useful in explaining alcohol use on campus. Routine activities theory supposes a convergence of motivated offenders, suitable targets and lack of capable guardians. Extrapolating, we can say that the likelihood of drinking increases when one or more persons is present who is motivated to drink, when alcohol is present, and when guardians who would deter drinking are absent. At the bivariate level, analyses examine whether students who have more exposure and proximity to alcohol (those who are old enough to go to bars or who live in settings where alcohol possession is not restricted) and those that perceive lenient

PAGE 89

83 enforcement of drinking regulations will have higher levels of alcohol use. Again, these correlations are explored fiirther with multivariate regression to establish what combination of variables may affect alcohol use. As noted in Chapter 7, one of the primary expectations of this research is that measures shared by the two theoretical frameworks will be of great explanatory value in the multivariate analyses. Univariate Distributions Dependent Variables The two primary dependent variables for alcohol use were frequency of alcohol use and frequency of binge drinking. Table 2 presents the resuUs of the first question that measured frequency of alcohol use: "Please approximate how often, if ever, you drink alcoholic beverages." Consistent with expectations based on findings of other campuswide surveys, approximately 21% of respondents indicated that they never drink. The remaining 79% breaks down as follows: about 27% drink once a month, 27% drink once a week, 22% drink two to three times a week, and about 2% say that they drink every day. Mirroring these findings, only two of the 10 students who participated in the indepth interviews reported that they do not drink at all and one reported that she rarely drank. The remaining seven respondents were drinkers. Table 2: Percentage Distribution of Drinking Behavior Response N % Never 303 21.1% Once a month 393 27.3% Once a week 397 27.6% 2 to 3 times a week 319 22.2% Everyday 27 1.8% Total 1439 100.0%

PAGE 90

84 The next survey question assessed frequency of respondent binge drinking. The question asked: "Over the past two weeks, how many times have you had five or more alcohoHc drinks at a sitting? (A drink is a bottle of beer, a glass of wine, a wine cooler, a shot glass of liquor, or a mixed drink.)" Table 3 presents the results of this question. Again, consistent with other campus-wide surveys of alcohol use, about 56% of the respondents reported that they had not engaged in binge drinking in the two weeks before the survey, while about 44% had. Just over 1 8% of the respondents fell into the "frequent" bingeing category, having consumed five or more drinks in a sitting three or more times in the twoweek period preceding the survey. (For the bivariate analyses, a dichotomous variable of those that frequently binge was created.) Table 3: Percentage Distribution of Binge Drinking Frequency Response N % None 801 55.8% Once 226 15.7% Twice 146 10.2% 3 to 5 times 190 13.2% 6 to 10 times 53 3.7% More than 1 0 times 20 1.4% Total 1436 100.0% Independent Variables The univariate distributions for the independent variables measured by sociodemographic characteristics that mark a student's place in the social structure of the university are presented in Table 4. These variables (measuring gender, race, age, number of years at the university, living situation and group memberships) will appear throughout these analyses. With the exception of number of years at the university, which is a continuous variable, all of these variables have been reconstructed as

PAGE 91

85 dichotomous variables (a coding of "1" indicates possession of the specified trait). To assess norms, cultural traditions, and perceptions of social control/guardianship a series of questions asked respondents about of the social climate surrounding drinking on campus, laws and regulations related to alcohol use, and their perceptions of other students' drinking behaviors. Table 4: Percentage Distributions of Selected Independent Variables Variable Sample % Independent variables measuring the norms and traditions related to alcohol use and "partying" on campus were assessed by two questions about the campus as a whole and a third question evaluating perceptions of alcohol use by various groups on campus. The results of these questions are presented in Table 5 and Table 6. The first question asked if "the social atmosphere on campus promotes alcohol use" and the second asked if recent magazine articles were correct in designating the university as a top "party school." Approximately 72% of respondents felt that the social atmosphere on campus promotes alcohol use and that this university is correctly designated as a "party school." Fraternity/sorority member Member of Student Government Under Age 21 Age 21 and over First year at the university Second year at the university Third year at the university Fourth year at the university (or more) Live Off-campus Live On-campus Live in fraternity or sorority house Female Male White Black 57.6% 42.4% 70.5% 5.7% 17.1% 5.1% 65.0% 35.0% 38.3% 31.9% 17.0% 12.8% 69.5% 25.1% 4.1%

PAGE 92

86 In addition, a scale variable, PARTYNRM, was created from the two dichotomous variables described above. When combined, only 14% of respondents disagreed with both statements about the social atmosphere surrounding drinking at the university. About 28% of respondents agreed with one of the two statements and 58% agreed with both statements. One interview respondent, an 1 8 -year-old white female, succinctly described her initial image of the university: "I expected it to be what it is, a party school." Table 5: Perceptions of the Social Atmosphere on Campus and Alcohol Use Yes No Does the social atmosphere on campus promote alcohol use? 72.2% 27.8% Recent magazine articles have identified [the university] as a top "party school," do 7 1 .8% 28.2% you agree with this designation? Many interview respondents also discussed the "tradition" and norms of college drinking. The overwhelming sentiment was that college is a time of free activity before the responsibility of the "real world" sets in. Drinking is part of that experience. "There is a lot of partying, a lot of drinking, a lot of promiscuous ideas about sex and a lot of dislike of anything that is in any way didactic or structured," said one 18-year-old white female respondent. Another respondent said, "...there's people [sic] who are here to get an education, but they still want to have some fun — they don't want to be like bookworms. You know, you're allowed to have fun while you 're young" (1 9-year-old black female). This sentiment was mirrored by another respondent who noted a that there is a "general idea of what is to be 1 8 to 22 — ^partying, having as much fun as you can

PAGE 93

87 before you settle down" (18-year-old white female). One woman summed up her beliefs about college drinking norms as follows: Just by being at the university, you're probably drinking, because everyone has in their state of mind, if you're in a college town, you're supposed to drink. Like, that's anywhere, that's not just at [this university], it's everywhere. I don't know how much they could do to promote not drinking, just because the institution of a four-year university is to drink. (21 -year-old white female) It is not surprising, given these norms, that most survey respondents felt that alcohol use was central to the social lives of most groups of students (see Table 6). Students were asked whether they "believe that drinking alcohol is central to the social life of the following groups: male students, female students, athletes, fraternities, sororities, white students, African American students." Overall, respondents felt that alcohol use was most central to the social life of male students (77.4%), fraternity members (89.2%), sorority members (79.0%), and white students (64.9%). Given the most common characteristics of drinkers found in the national Harvard study of alcohol use on campus (Wechsler 2000), and the results of the bivariate analyses of this study (see below), students seemed to have a fairly accurate picture of those who are most likely to be heavy drinkers. Table 6: Perceptions of Centrality of Alcohol Use to the Social Life of Campus Groups On this campus, is drinking alcohol central to Yes No the social life of the following groups? Male Students 77.4% 22.6% Female Students 56.2 % 43.8% Athletes 46.7% 53.3% Fraternities 89.2% 10.8% Sororities 78.6% 21.4% White Students 64.9% 35.1% African American Students 47.4% 52.6%

PAGE 94

88 Another independent variable measured participants' perception of alcohol consumption by students at the university. The question asked, "In your opinion, to what extent does excessive alcohol consumption happen to students at [the university]?" The possible responses were "not at all," "rarely," "occasionally," and "frequently." Respondents overwhelmingly felt that excessive alcohol consumption was a frequent happening for students at the university. Despite the fact that only 44% of students reported binge drinking behavior, nearly 23% of respondents believed that excessive drinking happens at least occasionally and over 69% believed that this is frequent behavior for students at this university. Many interview respondents also felt that binge drinking was a significant problem, both at this university and elsewhere. One respondent offered this description of drinking norms at the university: I don't think college students know how to socially drink. I don't. I don't socially drink. I mean I don't just drink to have a drink, you drink to get messed up, and so you keep drinking until you're messed up, 'cause that's what you 're supposed to do [her emphasis]. (21 -year-old white female). Table 7: Perception of Frequency of Excessive Alcohol Consumption Not at all Rarely Occasionally Frequently To what extent does excessive alcohol consumption happen for students? 3.3% 4.8% 22.6% 69.3% If comparisons were made strictly to the percentage of students who drink at all, these views would seem fairly accurate. But, compared to the much smaller percentage of students who are moderate to heavy drinkers or frequent binge drinkers, it appears that students may be exaggerating levels of drinking, an important element of the "social norms approach" described in Chapter 5. A 20-year-old white male interview respondent

PAGE 95

89 said, "...it seems like everybody drinks, only obviously not everybody does." Visibility, it seems, may be an issue. If drinkers are more visible, then others (especially those not engaged in the behavior) may overestimate the normality of the activity. Another respondent added, "the people that's [sic] out drinking are the people they [sic] gonna see 'cause they're the people that are out — ^the people that don't go out, you can't see them" (21 -year-old white male). One woman, who is not a drinker, noted that there was "no way of telling who's like minded and not in the party scene" (1 8-year-old white female). Only one of the 1 0 people interviewed, when shown an advertisement indicating that less than half of the student body engaged in binge drinking, agreed with the idea, saying that the ad was "a reaffirmation of something you really already knew if you sat down and thought about it — ^most people probably don't binge and that kind of stuff (18-year-old white female). Another independent variable measured respondents' perceptions of their own drinking behavior. Students were asked to describe their drinking behavior by choosing one of the following descriptions: "abstain from drinking," "light drinker," "moderate drinker," or "heavy drinker." The results of this question are presented in Table 8. About 44% of respondents described themselves as "light drinkers" and another 28% described themselves as "moderate drinkers." Only 4% of those responding described themselves as "heavy drinkers." To further evaluate the issue of overestimating or underestimating drinking behavior, a dichotomous variable was also created to measure a discrepancy between a person's self-description of their behavior and their reported frequency of drinking. Response categories for the question asking how often, if ever, respondents drink

PAGE 96

90 alcoholic beverages was collapsed into four categories (never, once a month, once a week, two or more times a week) which roughly corresponds to the descriptive designations detailed above. Respondents whose answers to the descriptive category did not match their frequency of drinking were coded as "1" for the variable WRONGDEF. This measure is far from ideal, but does allow for some level of assessment of those students whose self-descriptions may depart from the definitions of practitioners and scholars. Over half (52%) of the respondents gave a description of their drinking behavior which did not match their response for drinking frequency. This variable will also be used as an independent variable in the higher-level analyses. Table 8: Self-described Drinking Behavior Abstain from Light Moderate Heavy drinking drinker drinker drinker How would you describe your drinking behavior? 24.0% 44.1% 28.0% 3.9% To assess respondents' views about social confrol and guardianship, students were also asked a set of two questions about their perceptions of rules and punishments related to drinking on campus. The first question asked: "Would you say that the administration and law enforcement on this campus are too strict, appropriate, or too lenient in their regulation of drinking on campus (in residence halls, at fraternities and sororities, at oncampus restaurants, etc.)?" The second question asked: "Would you say that the administration and law enforcement on this campus are too strict, appropriate, or too lenient in their punishment of students who violate laws and regulations about drinking?" The results of these questions are presented in Table 9. About 13% of respondents believed that the administration and law enforcement on campus are too

PAGE 97

91 lenient in their regulation of drinking on campus. Over 23%, however, took the opposite stance, saying that the regulation of on-campus drinking was too strict. The vast majority, about 64%, thought that the regulations were appropriate. The distribution of responses about the administration's punishment of students who violate those regulations was parallel. When asked about the administration's stance toward regulating drinking by students, one interview respondent said that it [the administration] "subliminally supports the basic tendencies that people have at that age; that everything is permissible — 1 haven't heard of too many rules that sort of hold people back [from drinking]" (18-year-old white female). Several interview participants also noted the relatively strong influence of the lack of social control by parents more so than the control imposed by the university administration. A respondent explained that "some kids just go, and they've been controlled all their lives, and they seem, especially in the Fall [term], you just see kids go nuts" (21 -year-old white female). Table 9: Perceptions of Regulations and Punishments Related to Alcohol Violations Would you say that the administration and law enforcement on this campus are too strict, appropriate, or too lenient in their. . . Too Lenient Appropriate Too Strict Regulation of drinking on campus 12.8% 63.8% 23.4% Punishment of students who violate laws and regulations about drinking 12.9% 63.0% 24.0% Thus, at the univariate level of analysis, we find that respondents in both the quantitative survey and the in-depth interviews perceive the norms and traditions of the university to be supportive of alcohol use. Most respondents to the survey rated the level of social control/guardianship of university administration and police to be "appropriate,"

PAGE 98

92 and the literature review reveals these punishments to be fairly lax. The univariate distributions reveal that the majority of students use alcohol, and a large percentage of those respondents binge drink. Respondents to the survey overwhelmingly felt that heavy alcohol consumption was a "frequent" occurrence for students at the university. In addition, respondents in the in-depth interviews described their perceptions of a social "party scene" on campus that involves heavy alcohol use for the majority of students. Bivariate Relationships between Dependent and Independent Variables Table 1 0 presents crosstabulated data for three levels of drinking behavior (any drinking, any binge drinking, and frequent binge drinking) by various independent variables that denote placement in the social structure of the university, and, in the case of age and living situation, exposure and proximity to alcohol. The results are very much in-line with other research on collegiate drinking and generally supportive of the hypotheses. Men, collegiate athletes, members of the Greek system, white students, and students who live in fraternity or sorority housing are more likely to drink than their counterparts. Consistent with Wechsler's (2000) findings, members of the Greek system, and in particular, those members who live in Greek housing are much more likely to binge and binge frequently than other students on campus. The survey reveals that students aged 21 or older are more likely to drink, binge drink, and frequently binge drink than students who are not of legal drinking age. Data from the in-depth interviews provide interesting similarities and contradictions to these findings. Though many interview participants did not believe that members of the Greek system were more likely to drink or binge drink than other

PAGE 99

93 students, they did describe a unique culture that included heavy drinking at its core. One person said that "people know — boom — if you're in a fraternity or sorority, a lot of it revolves around drinking" (20-year-old white male). Another student described the social scene of the Greek system: "Like, every social they have revolves around alcohol and, like, you have tons and tons of socials ... if you're in a fraternity or sorority you drink more" (21 -year-old white female). When asked if she could identify people on campus that are part of what she described as the "party scene," one woman said that "there's some people that scream it [party scene membership], like people who are in the Greek system" (18-year-old white woman). The two respondents who indicated that they did not drink, both African American students (one female and one male), and one white female who indicated that she rarely drank, were the only interview participants who felt that drinking and binge drinking were more common for white students than black students. Contrary to the findings of the survey, many interview respondents felt that drinking decreased as students got older or moved out of the dorms. "My freshman year, I thought I would just go out every single night . . . but, school got harder and harder, and this year [junior year] I'm starting to realize that I'm not going out every single night" (21 -year-old white female). Another participant expressed a similar sentiment: People in the dorms probably go out more. By the time you get out of the dorm, you don't want to go out every night, 'cause it gets old. But when you first get here, that's when you want to go out. (1 8-year-old black female) For most interviewees, the question of who drinks more seemed to boil down to educational goals, although these goals were sometimes associated with other demographic characteristics in respondents' minds. One man noted that "there's, like.

PAGE 100

1 94 people here from other countries that don't even drink, that are here just to do school and that's all they do . . . they're in the library 24 — 7 [sic] and they don't ever drink" (20year-old white male). Another person said that "it [whether people drink] depends on what they're here for — like, if they're here to get an education, or a diploma, or if they're here for high school: part two — more partying, more beer" (21 -year-old white male). Table 10: Drinking Behaviors by Sociodemographic Variables Drink Binge Binge Frequently Male Students 77.3% 49.6% 26.0% Female Students 75.4% 37.5% 17.2% Collegiate Athletes 78.7% 50.8% 18.9% Non-athletes 74.5% 41.0% 17.2% Greek Students 87.2% 59.5% 25.2% Non-affiliated Students 72.4% 38.5% 15.8% White Students 80.9% 46.7% 19.2% Nonwhite Students 62.9% 32.4% 13.7% Students age 2 1 and older 84.1% 47.6% 23.0% Students under age 21 70.1% 38.9% 14.4% Students living off-campus 79.7% 44.6% 19.4% Students living on-campus 66.8% 35.8% 13.7% Students living in Greek housing 86.4% 61.0% 27.1% Table 1 1 presents the results of Pearson correlations for the dependent variables on drinking and the sociodemographic variables. Only significant correlations are presented. The strongest correlations to being a drinker were being white, a member of the Greek system, living off-campus, and being age 21 or older. The strongest correlations to not drinking were being African American and living in an on-campus

PAGE 101

95 residence hall. The strongest correlations to being a binge drinker were being white, male, and a member of the Greek system. The strongest correlations to not bingeing were being African American and living on-campus. The strongest correlations for being a frequent binge drinker were being male, age 21 or older, and being a member of the Greek system. All of these correlations were expected based on previous research studies, and all relationships were in the anticipated direction. Table 1 1 : Pearson Correlations for Dependent Variables on Alcohol Use and Sociodemographic Variables Drink Binge Binge Frequently Male Students Female Students 0 133**** 0 193**** 0 174**** Collegiate Athlete 0.054* Member of Student Government 0.055* Greek Students 0 124**** 0.156**** 0.091*** White Students Black Students 0 196**** 0 1 12**** 0.137**** 0 112**** 0.069** 0.062* Students age 21 and older 0.151**** 0.084** 0 107**** Students living off-campus Students living on-campus Students living in Greek housing 0 154**** -0.103**** 0.054* 0.077** 0.068** 0.078** 0.076** 0.053* 0.052* *P<0.05 **P<0.01 *** P< 0.001 **** P < 0.0001 Pearson correlations were also performed for all independent variables related to perceptions about alcohol use on campus and the dependent variables related to frequency of alcohol use and binge drinking. The results of these analyses are presented in Table 12.

PAGE 102

96 Table 12: Pearson Correlations for Dependent Variables on Alcohol Use and Independent Variables Related to Perceptions of Alcohol Use and Campus Climate Surrounding Drinking Binge Binge Frequently Social atmosphere on campus promotes alcohol use n.s. n.s. The university is a "party school" 0.068** 0.101**** Perception of frequency of excessive alcohol ^ ^^^^ consumption for students 'J_ ' *P<0.05 **P<0.01 ***P< 0.001 ****P< 0.0001 n.s. = not significant The negative correlation between being a frequent binge drinker and the perception of increasing frequency of excessive drinking was unexpected given the theoretical framework. Those who are frequent binge drinkers were more likely than others to perceive lower frequencies of excessive alcohol consumption for students at the xmiversity. This may reflect a definitional issue. Those who are most likely to binge drink or frequently binge drink, may not define this behavior (having five or more drinks in a sitting) as "excessive." For example, many of those interviewed disagreed v^dth the "five — four definition" of binge drinking. One respondent said, "five drinks, that's not a lot, especially not to college students . . . they don't care, five or six drinks, that's nothing — once you're drunk you probably have another five just because you're drunk" (20-year-old white male). Another person said, "I had eight drinks last night and I wasn't even drunk; everybody's different" (18-year-old black male). When asked to describe "binge drinking," one woman said simply, "drinking until you're sick" (18-year-old white female). Frequent binge drinkers may also realize that despite their involvement in excessive drinking, this is not a frequent activity for most students. Thus, more frequent

PAGE 103

I 97 or heavy drinkers may hold more accurate perceptions of overall levels of student drinking. These correlations did, however, reveal that having the perception that the university is a "party school" was significantly positively related to being a binge drinker and being a frequent binge drinker. Here we see a clear relationship between a behavior and expectation of social behavior on campus. Correlations were also performed for perceptions about the centrality of alcohol use to the social life of various groups on campus and the dependent variables on alcohol use. Being a drinker was significantly positively correlated to holding a perception that alcohol is central for male students, athletes, fraternity members, and African American students. Being a binge drinker or frequent binge drinker was significantly positively correlated to holding a perception that alcohol is central for male students, female students, white students and African American students. Overall, respondents were less likely to perceive alcohol use to be central to the social life of their own demographic groups, and more likely to perceive alcohol to be central for other groups. There may be several reasons for this. Part of this may be a "social desirability" bias; groups want to maintain a positive image for themselves and others in their social groups and may give answers that reflect this (Singleton et al. 1993). For example, the previous behavioral questions clearly showed that members of the Greek system were more likely to drink, binge drink, and frequently binge drink, but Greek membership was negatively correlated with a perception that alcohol is cenfral for these groups. This may be a protective measure to guard the reputation of the group, or it may reflect a certain group understanding of the role alcohol plays in their social lives.

PAGE 104

98 To further analyze the relationship between drinking behaviors and perceptions of drinking, the dependent variables for frequency of drinking behavior and frequency of binge drinking were crosstabulated by the independent variable which assessed how the respondent described their own drinking behavior. The results are presented in Tables 1 3 and 14. All of those who never drink, or almost never drink, assessed their drinking behavior as "abstain from drinking" or "light drinker." Of those who drink about once a month, 13.3% felt that they abstained from drinking, over 79% felt that they were light drinkers, and 7% felt that they were moderate drinkers. Of those who reported that they drink about once a week, 63% would consider themselves light drinkers and 36% would consider themselves moderate drinkers. Nearly 1 8% of respondents who drink two to three times a week feel that they are light drinkers, 69% feel that they are moderate drinkers, and about 13%» say they are heavy drinkers. Of the people who report drinking everyday, 20% would classify themselves as light drinkers, 36%i as moderate drinkers and 44% as heavy drinkers. Table 13: Drinking Behavior by Self-Classification of Drinking Behavior Drinking "Abstain from "Light "Moderate "Heavy Frequency drinking" drinker" drinker" drinker" Never 95.6% 4.4% 0.0% 0.0% Once a month 13.3% 79.4% 7.0% 0.3% Once a week 0.0% 63.2% 36.2% 0.5% 2 to 3 times a week 0.0% 17.7% 69.0% 13.3% Every day 0.0% 20.0% 36.0% 44.0% It would seem that some important variations exist between people's drinking behaviors and their definitions of that behavior. Studies of alcohol use usually classify people who have not had a drink in the past year as "abstainers," those who have one

PAGE 105

99 drink less than once a month to two drinks twice a month as "Ught drinkers," those who have between one to three drinks once a week or four to 16 drinks twice a month as "moderate" drinkers, and those that have from five drinks once a week to 16 or more drinks more than seven times a week as "heavy drinkers" (O'Hare 1990). Applying these categories requires a more restricted time frame not available in this study, but, in general, it appears that those who drink less often do a better job of classifying their behavior. Many of those who drink quite often (two to three times a week or more) seem to underestimate their behavior. A similar analysis for reported binge-drinking behavior provides more insight since a restricted "two-week" time frame was placed on this variable (see Table 14). Here, we can clearly see a distortion between actual behavior and self-classification of drinking. Table 14: Binge Drinking Frequency by Self-Classification of Drinking Behavior Binge Drinking "Abstain from "Light "Moderate "Heavy Frequency (past 2 drinking" drinker" drinker" drinker" weeks) Never 42.1% 50.3% 7.4% 0.3% Once 0.0% 68.2% 31.8% 0.0% Twice 0.0% 31.9% 64.5% 3.5% 3 to 5 times 0.0% 16.3% 71.6% 12.1% 6 to 1 0 times 0.0% 7.6% 60.4% 32.1% More than 1 0 times 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% The vast majority of binge drinkers (67% of those that reported binge drinking once in the past two weeks, 3 1 .9% of those that binged twice in the past two weeks, 16.3% of those that binged three to five times, and 7.6%i of those that binged 6 to 10 times in the past two weeks) described themselves as "light" drinkers. Very few fi-equent binge drinkers described themselves as "heavy drinkers." Thus, there is clearly a

PAGE 106

100 difference between most students' definitions of "heavy" drinking and many researchers' definitions. This is consistent with a recent survey that revealed that most students thought that a person would need to consume at least eight to ten drinks in a sitting to be "binge" drinking (Gainesville Sun 2000b). Further analysis of the variable WRONGDEF (those whose description of their behaviors and fi-equency of drinking differ) revealed that about half of these people who drink frequently but rarely, if ever, binge drink. Thus, students who drink fi-equently, but not heavily, had a harder time categorizing their drinking behavior than did other drinkers. Of the 348 respondents who reported consuming alcohol at least once a week, but bingeing only once or not at all in the two weeks preceding the survey, 21 1 (60%) were females. Respondents who drink, binge drink, and/or fi-equently binge drink also had different perceptions of the regulations and punishments associated with alcohol on campus than other students. Table 15 and Table 16 show the dependent variables for respondents' drinking behavior crosstabulated with the independent variables of their perceptions of campus alcohol regulation and punishment. Students who drink, binge drink and/or frequently binge drink were much more likely than other students to say that campus laws and pvmishments related to alcohol violations are "too strict." Those who do not drink or binge-drink were much more likely to say that these laws and punishments are "too lenient." This is contrary to the routine activities perspective of lax guardianship increasing drinking, as well as the social learning assumption that perspectives of more lenient social control increases drinking. However, it can be noted that the majority in each group felt that regulation and punishment related to alcohol use

PAGE 107

101 on campus were "appropriate." Given the information presented in the literature review illustrating the relative lack of enforcement of weak regulations related to alcohol use at this university and elsewhere, this data may actually be supportive of a tacit belief that social control related to drinking on campus is not overly zealous. We should also be careful to recollect the comments in the preceding section made by interview respondents concerning perceptions of social control. The relative lack of parental control may be more influential for some students (particularly those new to campus) than their perceptions of control enforced by the university administration or campus law enforcement. Table 15: Perceptions of Campus Alcohol Regulation by Drinking Behavior Drinking Behavior Too Lenient Appropriate Too Strict Do not drink 35.5% 59.0% 5.5% Drink 6.6% 65.1% 28.3% Do not binge drink 20.5% 66.5% 13.1% Binge drink 3.2% 60.4% 36.4% Do not binge frequently 15.5% 66.0% 18.5% Binge frequently 1.2% 53.8% 45.0% Table 16: Perceptions of Campus Punishment of Alcohol Regulation Violators by Drinking Behavior Drinking Behavior Too Lenient Appropriate Too Strict Do not drink 32.7% 61.0% 6.3% Drink 7.5% 63.5% 29.0% Do not binge drink 20.3% 66.2% 13.5% Binge drink 3.5% 58.8% 37.7% Do not binge frequently 15.5% 65.3% 19.2% Binge frequently 1.2% 52.2% 45.6%

PAGE 108

102 Pearson correlations were also performed for all independent variables related to alcohol use to ascertain whether there were significant correlations that might effect multivariate analysis. As expected, there were correlations between some variables that measure similar concepts. For example, a correlation between those who say that the social atmosphere on campus promotes alcohol use and those that think the university is a "party school" would be expected. In fact, there were correlations between these two questions and each of the seven questions related to perceptions of centrality of alcohol use for various groups on campus. None of the correlations observed, however, present a particular issue of multicollinearity for the multivariate regression analysis. Thus, the bivariate analyses confirm several of the hypotheses set forth. Correlations were observed between being white and higher frequencies of drinking and binge drinking; being male and higher frequencies of drinking and binge drinking; being a member of the Greek system and higher frequencies of drinking and binge drinking; being a collegiate athlete and higher frequencies of drinking and binge drinking; and, living in a fraternity or sorority house and higher frequencies of drinking and binge drinking. Significant correlations were also foimd between binge drinking and perceptions that the cultural traditions and norms of the university are supportive of alcohol use. Variables associated with proximity and exposure to alcohol (being at least 21 -years-old and living off-campus or in Greek housing) were correlated with higher frequencies of drinking and bingeing. Student perceptions of social control, however, may be out of line with theoretical assumptions. Few students perceive campus regulation and punishment of drinkers to be "too lenient." The large percentage of students who see these rules and enforcement as "appropriate" may speak to a belief that

PAGE 109

103 social control is not very strict given that the rules currently in place are not very stringently enforced. Multivariate Analysis While the information provided by the bivariate analysis is strong evidence of the interrelationships between perceptions and behaviors, it cannot fully illustrate the combination of independent variables that best explain the dependent variables. To further analyze the relationship between the variables at hand, and to test the usefulness of social learning variables and routine activities variables, multivariate OLS regression analyses were also performed. Models predicting frequency of drinking and frequency of binge drinking were tested. As noted in the chapter on methodology, all variables used were not the most ideal measures for every key concept of the theories at hand. Thus, the predictive value of the specific models may not be as robust as expected if the most appropriate measures were available. Table 17 shows the models predicting frequency of alcohol use. Only significant variables are included. The model that best predicts the behavior is shown. The sociodemographic variables that were most associated with drinking in the bivariate data were also predictive of drinking in the multivariate models. The model was improved, however, by the addition of variables related to perceptions of norms and drinking traditions on campus—macro-level learning variables. Holding the views that drinking laws were too strict and enforcement related to alcohol was "too strict" were also significant variables in the model. While this may seem contradictory from a routine activities approach, which suggests that a perception of leniency should facilitate

PAGE 110

104 deviance, from a social learning perspective, this may be illustrative of holding favorable perceptions of drinking (positive views of drinking may reflect as negative views of regulation). The scale variable PARTYNRM, representing agreeing with either the statement that the university is a "party school" and/or that the social atmosphere on campus promotes alcohol use was also significant in the model for frequency of drinking. Here we see a clear relationship between views of the campus social scene as a whole and personal drinking behavior. By far, the most predictive explanatory variable in the model, however, is the constructed variable WRONGDEF, indicating that respondents' perceptions of their own behavior (even if inaccurate) had the strongest relationship to their actual frequency of alcohol use. Table 17: Regression Model for Frequency of Alcohol Use Independent Variable Parameter Estimates White 0.208**** Greek 0.233**** Male 0.172**** Live Off-campus 0.136** Age 21 or over 0.193**** PARTYNRM ("party school'Vatmosphere promotes alcohol use) 0.078* * Perception of regulation of drinking on campus 0.304* * * * Perception of punishment for drinking violations 0.306**** WRONGDEF (self-description does not match frequency) j Qy* * * * Adjusted R-square 0.501 _F 151.5**** *P<0.05 **P<0.01 ***P< 0.001 ****P< 0.0001 As hypothesized, several variables that "overlap" between the two theoretical paradigms are evident in the model. Both questions about perceptions of social control (social learning) or guardianship (routine activities) appear in the model, although both

PAGE 111

105 have positive directional influence. Frequency of drinking increases with an increasing perception of strictness of regulations and punishments. Several variables that mark a student's place in the social structure of the university, being age 21 or over, being in a fraternity or sorority, and living off-campus are also indicative of proximity and exposure to alcohol. Table 18 presents two models predicting frequency of binge drinking. The first model presents the significant independent variables for the most predictive model without the variable measuring frequency of alcohol use. As frequency of alcohol use is the strongest predictor of frequency of binge drinking, models are presented both with and without this variable entered. The sociodemographic variables that were most associated with binge drinking in the bivariate data were also predictive of drinking in the multivariate model that excludes frequency of alcohol consumption. Being male, a member of a fraternity or sorority, and being age 21 or over were all significant in this model. Additionally, the variable assessing drinking norms and atmosphere (PARTYNRM) was also included, as were the variables assessing social control. The measure of student grade point average (GPA) also appeared (an increasing value for GPA indicates a lower GPA) in this model. Again, the hypothesis that shared theoretical measurements will be present was supported by both models, although Model 1 includes more of the independent variables that were shown to be correlated to binge drinking in the bivariate analyses. A variable related to placement within the social structure and exposure/proximity (Greek membership) was again evident, as were variables related to social control and guardianship. Variables measuring perceptions of the campus norms related to drinking

PAGE 112

106 are also present in the models. Measures of frequency of alcohol use and self-definition of drinking behavior, however, were the strongest predictors in the model. The appearance of the variable measviring GPA may actually confirm the perceptions of several of the interview participants who noted that those who were most involved in the "education" side of college were least likely to be in the "party scene." Table 18: Regression Models for Frequency of Binge Drinking Independent Variable Model 1: Model 2: Parameter Parameter Estimates Estimates Frequency of alcohol use 0.482**** Greek 0.296*** Male 0.413**** 0.210**** GPA 0.122*** 0.086** Age 21 or over 0.125 PARTYNRM ("party school'Vatmosphere 0.190**** promotes alcohol use) Perception of regulation of drinking on campus 0.378**** 0.093* Perception of punishment for drinking violations 0 349**** WRONGDEF (self-description does not match 0.501**** frequency) Self-definition of drinking behavior 0 549**** Social atmosphere promotes alcohol use 0.240**** Adjusted R-square 0.22 0.48 F 45 3**** 149 4**** *P<0.05 **P<0.01 ***P< 0.001 ****P< 0.0001 Overall, the multivariate analyses confirmed the hypotheses about the characteristics, beliefs and behaviors that are most related to frequency of alcohol use and frequency of binge drinking. The variables shared by the two theories at hand appeared in the models and generally promote the value of integrating the theoretical concepts. We now turn our attention to the analysis of the dependent variables related to sexual

PAGE 113

107 assault, and the possible affects that frequency of alcohol use and frequency of binge drinking may have on sexual aggression and sexual victimization.

PAGE 114

CHAPTER 9 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS: SEXUAL AGGRESSION This chapter presents the resuhs of the data analysis of the second set of dependent variables — those related to sexual coercion and assault. The results of the quantitative analysis are submitted along with relevant quotations and analyses from the qualitative interviews. As indicated in the previous chapters, two theoretical frameworks will be used to explain sexual offending and victimization. Theoretical Explanations for Sexual Aggression and Victimization In using social learning theory to explain deviance at a macro-level the goal is to explain how the social structure shapes individual behavior. Thus, for the second set of dependent variables in this study, the goal is to explain what characteristics of the social structure of the university affect whether or not men sexually coerce or assault women and whether or not women are sexually coerced or assaulted by men. The university provides a learning environment for its members. It is an immediate context that may promote or discourage behaviors and beliefs. Differences in rates of sexual offending and victimization for students are a function of the extent to which "cultural traditions, norms, and social control systems provide socialization, learning environments, and immediate situations conducive to conformity or deviance" (Akers 1997:69). Thus, at a univariate level of analysis, we must first establish what the norms and traditions are about sexual coercion and assault and what students' perceptions are of 108

PAGE 115

109 sexual coercion and assault, as well as their perceptions of the social control system of the university. Characteristics such as age, sex, race, and year-in-school indicate where an individual is situated in the social structure of the university. These characteristics also influence group membership in organizations such as sororities and fraternities, student government, or athletic teams. Given prior research, the individual characteristics, memberships, and behaviors hypothesized to correlate to increased rates of sexual aggression for men are being a fraternity member and/or an athlete and higher frequencies of alcohol use and binge drinking. Characteristics, memberships, and behaviors hypothesized to correlate to increased rates of sexual victimization are sorority membership, being an athlete, and higher frequencies of alcohol use and binge drinking. At the bivariate level of analysis, we can examine whether correlations exist among rates of sexual offending or victimization and the variables noted above. This level of analysis can also establish whether correlations exist among rates of sexual offending or victimization and perceptions of the cultural traditions, norms, and environment of the campus. In other words, we can begin to establish whether correlations exist between the social structure and the individual behavior of sexual aggression. This analysis can be taken a step further at the multivariate level by using multiple regression techniques to find the combination of structural factors that best explains alcohol use. A routine activities approach can also prove useful in explaining rates of sexual coercion and assault. Routine activities theory supposes a convergence of motivated offenders, suitable targets and lack of capable guardians. Thus, we can say that the likelihood of sexual aggression increases when one or more persons is present who is

PAGE 116

110 motivated to commit an act of sexual coercion or assault, when suitable targets are present, and when guardians who would deter sexual aggression are absent. At the univariate level of analysis, we can assess whether students perceive sexual assault and date rape as frequent occurrences on campus (assess attractiveness of targets). We can also assess perceptions of social control and guardianship. And, as routine activities is a theory predicated on opportunity, the locations where acts of sexual aggression occur is particularly important. At this level, we can examine where these acts occurred and whether or not alcohol was involved. At the bivariate level, analyses can examine whether women who have more exposure and proximity to offenders and who are more suitable targets (sorority women, women who live off-campus, women who binge drink) are more likely to be victimized. These analyses can also examine whether men who perceive lower levels of guardianship and live in less guarded settings (fraternity houses and off-campus), who perceive women as attractive targets (think alcohol use is central to the lives of women on campus) and who are motivated to offend (binge drinkers, fraternity members, athletes) are more likely to sexually coerce or assault women. Again, these correlations are explored further with multivariate regression to establish what combination of variables best explains rates of sexual aggression on campus. As noted in Chapter 7, one of the primary expectations of this research is that measures shared by the two theoretical frameworks will be of great explanatory value in the multivariate analyses. Thus, variable measures that "overlap" between the social learning and routine activities frameworks are expected to appear in the best multivariate models.

PAGE 117

Ill Univariate Distributions Dependent Variables There are two parallel sets of dependent variables assessing sexual aggression. One set measures sexual offending by male students, the other measures sexual victimization for female students. Within each grouping, multiple questions evaluate increasing levels of aggression. The univariate distributions for the questions assessing perpetration of sexual coercion and assault are shown in Table 19. As expected, the percentage of men who reported engaging in acts of sexual aggression during their time at the university was fairiy low. The first dependent variable in this series measured sexual coercion by asking men: "During your time at [the university] have you ever obtained or attempted to obtain sexual intercourse with a woman by giving her alcohol or drugs?" (Alcohol Coercion). Just over 3% of men said that they had used alcohol to coerce, or attempt to coerce, a woman into having sexual intercourse. As Table 20 shows, most of these incidences occurred at off-campus residences, which was expected given that most students live offcampus and most assaults occur at students' residences. Table 19: Percentage of Respondents Committing Acts of Sexual Coercion and Assault Type of Sexual Coercion # of Male Respondents % of Male Respondents Committing Coercion Committing Coercion Alcohol Coercion 20 3 3% Non-physical Coercion 24 4 0% Physical Coercion 5 0 9% The second dependent variable in this series measured sexual coercion by asking men: "During your time at [the university] have you ever obtained or attempted to obtain

PAGE 118

112 sexual intercourse with a woman by using pressure, coercion, or non-physical threats?" (Non-physical Coercion). Pressure, coercion, or non-physical threats were used by 4% of male respondents to obtain, or attempt to obtain, sexual intercourse with a woman. The last dependent variable in this series measured sexual coercion by asking men: "During your time at [the university] have you ever obtained or attempted to obtain sexual intercourse with a woman by threatening to use force (holding her down, twisting her arm, etc.) if she didn't cooperate?" (Physical Coercion). Nearly 1% of male respondents said that they have threatened to use force in order to obtain, or attempt to obtain, sexual intercourse with a woman. While acts of non-physical coercion were, again, most likely to occur at off-campus residences (see Table 20), acts involving physical threats were equally likely to occur at off-campus residences (40%) and fraternity houses (40%). Given the low number of responses in this category, however, caution should be used in extrapolating from the answers, but the relationship is notable. Table 20: Location of Acts of Sexual Coercion and Assault Committed by Male Respondents Type of Sexual Coercion Off-Campus On-Campus Fraternity Other Alcohol Coercion 75.0% 10.0% 10.0% 5.0% Non-physical coercion 70.8% 12.5% 8.3% 8.3% Physical Coercion 40.0% 20.0% 40.0% 0.0% Given the importance of alcohol use and sexual behavior detailed in the literature review, and the role that alcohol may play as a learned cue for sexual aggression (social learning) or as a motivating factor in offending (routine activities) it is important to note whether these men were using alcohol at the time of the incidents. Table 21 illustrates the distribution of men reporting alcohol use at the time they committed sexual coercion.

PAGE 119

113 Of the men who said that they have engaged in alcohol-related coercion, 85% reported that they were drinking at the time of the incident. This is consistent with previous studies. Additionally, almost 63% of men using non-physical coercion reported that they were drinking at the time of the assault. Table 21 : Percentage of Men Reporting Alcohol Use when Committing Sexual Coercion Type of Sexual Coercion % of Perpetrators Using Alcohol Alcohol Coercion 85.0% Non-physical Coercion 62.5% One respondent noted the increased levels of aggression that he perceived to go hand-in-hand with heavy drinking: "People are much more explosive with their temper and their attitude when they're drunk than when they're not. . . . There's probably people that won't rape somebody unless they're drunk" (20-year-old-white male). This sentiment was echoed repeatedly throughout the interviews and supports the idea that alcohol use lessens perceived levels of guilt and responsibility for male offenders. When asked about the role that alcohol use might play in instances of rape on campus, one woman gave this reply: "I think a majority of people would have a basic problem with rape unless there was something inhibiting their behavior" (18-year-old white female). Respondents who reported committing acts of sexual aggression were also asked about the outcome of the incident. Only 10% of the men who engaged in acts of alcoholcoercion said that the incident resulted in any type of problem for them with the university police or administration. Table 22 shows the distribution of men who reported having any problems with university police or administration as a result of committing an act of sexual coercion or assault. None of the men who reported acts of non-physical

PAGE 120

114 coercion cited any problems with university authorities a result of the act. Only one of the five men who reported engaging in physical coercion noted a resulting problem with university authorities. Given information about low reporting rates for rape these statistics do not seem surprising. This does, however, contribute to our understanding of guardianship on campus. Table 22: Percentage of Perpetrators Reporting Problems with University Authorities Type of Sexual Coercion % of Perpetrators Reporting Problems with Authorities from Incident Alcohol Coercion 10.0% Non-physical Coercion 0.0% Physical Coercion 20.0% A similar set of questions assessed women's victimization. The distribution of women who reported being sexually coerced or assaulted in their time at the university is presented in Table 23. As expected, most women had not been the victims of sexual coercion or attempted coercion. Also as expected, a much greater percentage of women reported being coerced with alcohol than physically threatened by men who obtained or attempted to obtain sexual intercourse with them. The first dependent variable in this set measured sexual victimization by asking women: "During your time at [the university] have you ever had a man obtain or attempt to obtain sexual intercourse with you by giving you alcohol or drugs?" (Alcohol Coercion). Table 23 shows the results of this question. Nearly 1 1% of the women who responded said that they have had a man give them alcohol or drugs in order to have, or attempt to have, sex with them. The other dependent variable in this set measured sexual victimization by asking women: "During your time at [the university] have you ever had a man obtain or attempt

PAGE 121

115 to obtain intercourse with you when you didn't want to by threatening to use force (holding you down, twisting your arm, etc.) if you didn't cooperate?" (Physical Coercion). Almost 3% of female respondents reported having been the victims of men who obtained, or attempted to obtain, sexual intercourse with them by threatening to use force against them during their time at the university. Table 23: Percentage of Women Victimized by Acts of Sexual Coercion or Assault Type of Sexual Coercion # of Women Reporting % of Women Reporting Victimization Victimization Alcohol Coercion 89 10.6% Physical Coercion 23 2.7% Both of these percentages are substantially higher than the rates of offending reported by the men in the sample. This is in-line with the findings of the studies detailed in the literature review. Exact correspondence between the responses given by men and women would not be expected given the perceptual differences of definitions of rape and sexual behavior previously noted; the fact that there is only a general correspondence between the men and women included in the sample (it is not a matched sample); and, given that one male could have multiple victims. Table 24 shows the reported locations of the incidence of victimization. Again, most acts of sexual coercion and assault occurred at off-campus residences. Consistent with the most recent victimization studies, the data showed that a roughly equivalent percentage of rapes happened at on-campus residence halls as the percentage of people who live on-campus (see Fisher et al. 2000). The percentage of alcohol/drug related coercion was expectedly lower at on-campus living quarters since alcohol use is

PAGE 122

116 prohibited there and is strictly monitored; alcohol is less readily available in these locations than other sites. From a routine activities perspective, we can suppose that these sites had lower rates of sexual aggression because they had more guardianship, fewer suitable targets, and fewer motivated offenders. Table 24: Location of Sexual Victimization Type of Sexual Coercion Off-campus On-campus Fraternity Other Alcohol Coercion 59.6% 5.6% 16.9% 1.1% Physical Coercion 56.5% 26.1% 8.7% 4.4% About 1 7% of reported alcohol-related coercions, and nearly 9% of physical coercions occurred in fraternity houses. Another 1 7% of alcohol-related acts of coercion, and about 4% of physical coercions, reportedly happened at "other" locations, the vast majority of which were clubs or bars. In this case, we see higher rates of sexual aggression at locations with less guardianship, more suitable targets, and more motivated offenders. Table 25 displays the distributions of alcohol use by victims and offenders at the time of the incident. The question of victim use was given in the case of alcohol-related coercion, as, by definition, the women were given alcohol as part of the coercive act. These women report, however, that in the vast majority of cases the offenders were also drinking. Consistent with the answers given by male respondents, nearly 81%) of female victims of alcohol-related coercion said that their assailant was drinking at the time of the incident. About 70% of the women who reported being physically coerced said that they were drinking at the time and 61% said that the offender was also consuming alcohol.

PAGE 123

117 This is consistent both with self-reports made by the men in this study as well as results in other rape studies. Table 25: Percentages of Victims and Offenders Consuming Alcohol Type of Rape % of Victims Drinking % of Offenders Drinking Alcohol Coercion (Given) 80.9% Physical Coercion 69.6% 60.9% In addition to lessening guilt and responsibility attributed to offenders, interview respondents also described drinking as placing more of the onus of responsibility on female victims. This is consistent with the literature previously cited (see Abbey 1995; Bemat 1 998). Ignoring the fact that the majority of women are raped by someone they know, respondents often cited an implied link between alcohol use and "going home" with a man unknown to the victim. One woman said that "you should drink around your friends because people you know won't let something [rape] happen to you" (19-year-old black woman). Another woman felt that "you shouldn't go home with someone—who's gonna rape you sitting on a bar stool or in a club?" (1 8-year-old white female). Alcohol as a disinhibiting factor also appeared in the comments of many interviewees. One man gave this explanation: If people don't want to get raped, they should think more about what they drink — that's just the way it is. I'm not saying that it's right to rape someone, that's horrible, but at the same time, it's, like, if you don't want to get mugged, don't go in a back alley. It's the same thing. (20-year-old white male) Another interview respondent explained that: "Alcohol makes you lose all your inhibitions. Along with losing all your inhibitions, you don't care what happens

PAGE 124

118 afterwards. You don't think about it . . . you just think about that moment" (21 -year-old white female). Finally, women were asked if they reported the incident to university police or administration and whether the man was sanctioned or punished by university administration or the criminal justice system. Table 26 shows the results of these two questions. Table 26: Percentage of Victims Reporting the Incident to Authorities and Results of that Reporting Type of Rape % of Incidents Report to % of Offenders Punished by Authorities University or CJ System Alcohol Coercion 3.4% (n = 3) 0.0% (n = 0) Physical Coercion 13.0% (n = 3) 33.3% (n= 1) As expected, only a small percentage of these incidents were ever reported to university authorities. Generally, one would expect higher rates of reporting for physically coercive rapes than alcohol-related coercions, which is true of this sample. Only three of the 89 women who reported being coerced with alcohol reported the act to university authorities, and the university punished none of these men. Of the physical coercions, 13%, or 3 of 23 cases, were reported to university authorities, and one of these three men was punished by the university or criminal justice system. Independent Variables The univariate distributions for the independent variables measured by sociodemographic characteristics that mark a student's place in the social structure of the university are presented in Table 27. These variables (measuring gender, race, age.

PAGE 125

119 number of years at the university, living situation and group memberships) will appear throughout these analyses. With the exception of number of years at the university, which is a continuous variable, all of these variables have been reconstructed as dichotomous variables (a coding of "1" indicates possession of the specified trait). Table 27: Percentage Distributions of Selected Independent Variables Variable Sample % Female 57.6% Male 42.4% White 70.5% Black 5.7% Fraternity/sorority member 17.1% Member of Student Government 5.1% Under Age 21 65.0% Age 21 and over 35.0% First year at the university 38.3% Second year at the imiversity 3 1 .9% Third year at the university 1 7.0% Fourth year at the university (or more) 12.8% Live Off-campus 69.5% Live On-campus 25.1% Live in fraternity or sorority house 4.1% Drink alcohol 78.9% Binge drink 44.2% Binge drink frequently 18.3% For the purposes of analyzing the sets of dependent variables that deal with sexual aggression, frequency of alcohol use and frequency of binge drinking were also included as independent variables. A series of questions was used to measure the independent variables for respondents' perceptions of the social climate surrounding sexual aggression on campus. One question asked if recent magazine articles were correct in designating the university as a top "party school." Approximately 72% of respondents felt that this university is

PAGE 126

120 correctly designated as a "party school" (see Table 28). Given the information presented in the literature review regarding connections in popular American (and college) culture between alcohol use and expectations for sexual activity, this variable speaks to the traditions and norms on campus. The interview respondents also took note of the cultural norms and expectations that surround alcohol use and sexual behavior and aggression. One respondent explained the atmosphere: The reason that people will drink is to, number one, to get messed up. And also, like, in a party situation, if they want to hook-up [engage in sexual activity] then alcohol will give them a little bit of bravado so they can feel more amorous. But, alcohol is really a mind-altering drug, you can really get messed up and so when it comes to that and hooking-up, I think that the two don't mix that way. (21 -yearold white male) Table 28: Perceptions of the Social Atmosphere on Campus Yes No Recent magazine articles have identified [the university] as a top "party school," do 71.8% 28.2% you agree with this designation? The survey questionnaire also asked respondents the extent to which "sexual assault" and "date rape" happens to students at the university. Table 29 shows how the respondents answered this question that measured the independent variable for perceptions of frequency of sexual assault on campus. Only 6% of respondents thought that sexual assault "never" occurred on campus, while another 36.8% felt that sexual assault "rarely" occurred. Over 40% thought that this was an "occasional" happening and 15.4% thought sexual assault happened "frequently." In comparison to the results of this and other surveys, it appears that most students had a fairly good understanding of the level of sexual assault on campus. The terminology "date rape" was also included to

PAGE 127

121 evaluate whether there was a perceptional differentiation between the two legally identical terms. Overall, the distribution of responses for the variable "date rape" was very similar to that for "sexual assault." Respondents were more apt to think that date rape is a frequent occurrence for students than sexual assault and less likely to believe that date rape is a rare occurrence. Respondents overwhelmingly felt that excessive alcohol consumption was a frequent happening for students at the university. Despite the fact that only 44% of students reported binge drinking behavior, 22.6% of respondents believed that excessive drinking happens at least occasionally and 69.3% believed this to be a frequent behavior. Table 29: Perceptions of Frequency of Sexual Assault and Date Rape for Students at the University To what extent do each of the following happen to students? Not at all Rarely Occasionally Frequently Sexual Assault 5.9% 36.8% 42.0% 15.4% Date Rape 6.9% 33.4% 40.9% 18.9% To measure the independent variable of perception of social control and guardianship, students were also asked a question about their perception of the administration's enforcement of rules and punishments related to rape and sexual assault on campus. The results of this question, as well as the results for the questions related to social control of alcohol use, are presented in Table 30. In Chapter 8 we saw that the majority of students rated rules and punishments associated with alcohol use as either "appropriate" or "too strict." The distribution of responses about punishment of students who violate laws and regulations related to sexual assault, rape, and date rape, though, was much different.

PAGE 128

122 Nearly half (45%) of respondents believed that the university's punishment of rapists is too lenient while 52.4% believed it is appropriate. Only 2.6% of the respondents felt that punishment for these students is too strict. This may reflect, in part, a tendency toward providing socially appropriate responses, but the wide variation between beliefs about punishment of alcohol violations and sexual assault violations likely reflects norms about the acceptability of drinking. Several highly publicized rape cases on campus in which alleged offenders were not severely punished may also reflect in these responses. Table 30: Perception of Regulations and Punishments Related to Alcohol Violations and Sexual Assault Violations Would you say that the administration and law enforcement on this campus are too strict, appropriate, or too lenient in their. . . Too Lenient Appropriate Too Strict Regulation of drinking on campus 12.8% 63.8% 23.4% Punishment of students who violate laws and regulations about drinking 12.9% 63.0% 24.0% Punishment of students who violate laws and regulations related to sexual assault 45.0% 52.4% 2.6% Thus, at the univariate level of analysis, we find that respondents in both the quantitative survey and the qualitative interviews perceived an atmosphere on campus in which sexual assault date rape are occasional to frequent happenings. Many interview participants discussed norms and cultural expectations that link alcohol consumption and anticipation of sexual activity. A majority of respondents felt that the university administration's punishment of sexual offenders was either "appropriate" or "too lenient," showing weaker perceptions of social control and guardianship. As expected, rates of alcohol-related coercion were much higher than rates of physical coercion.

PAGE 129

123 Consistent with a routine activities approach, fewer acts of sexual aggression occurred in settings with more guardianship — in on-campus residence halls — and, more acts of sexual aggression occurred in settings with less guardianship — in off-campus residences, fraternity houses, and bars and clubs. Bivariate Relationships between Dependent and Independent Variables Table 3 1 presents the crosstabulated breakdown of sexual offending (alcoholrelated coercion, non-physical coercion, and physical coercion) by the independent variables related to sociodemographic characteristics, as well as the independent variables related to alcohol use. The most pronounced differences were those between men in fraternities and those who are not affiliated with the Greek system. Over 7% of fraternity men reported engaging in alcohol-related sexual coercion compared to only 3% of other men on campus. Over 14% of men living in fraternity houses have committed alcohol coercion, 19% have committed non-physical coercion, and 14% have committed physical coercion. Athletes were also more likely to report committing acts of physical coercion than other men were, although it should be noted once again that a very small number of men fall into this category (physical-coercion offenders). To fiirther elaborate the relationship between sexual offending and the variables in the study, Pearson correlations were also performed for the dependent variables, the sociodemographic variables, and the independent variables related to alcohol use. The results of these analyses are presented in Table 32. There was a significant positive correlation between: committing acts of alcohol-related sexual coercion and being a drinker; committing acts of alcohol-related sexual coercion and being a binge drinker;

PAGE 130

124 committing acts of alcohol-related sexual coercion and being a frequent binge drinker; committing acts of alcohol-related sexual coercion and being a fraternity member; committing acts of alcohol-related sexual coercion and being a member of student government; and, committing acts of alcohol-related sexual coercion and being living in a fraternity house. Table 3 1 : Sexual Offending by Independent Sociodemographic Variables and Drinking Variables (Male Respondents) % Committing % Committing % Committing Alcohol Non-physical Physical Coercion Coercion Coercion uoiiegiate Atnietes 4.0% 4.7% 1 .6% Non-athletes 3.1% 3 9% 0 8% Fraternity Members 7.4% 6.3% 2.5% Non-affiliated Men 2.7% 3.6% 0.6% White Students 3.4% 4.4% 0.8% Non-white Students 3.1% 3.1% 1.1% Students over age 21 4.2% 5.0% 0.4% Students under age 21 2.6% 3.2% 1.2% Students who drink 4.2% 5.1% 1.1% Students who binge drink 5.2% 6.8% 1.0% Students who frequently binge drink 6.8% 9.3% 1.3% Students living off-campus 3.5% 4.2% 0.5% Students living on-campus 1.6% 1.6% 0.0% Students living in fraternity housing 14.3% 19.1% 14.3% Significant positive correlations were also evident between: committing acts of non-physical sexual coercion and being a drinker; committing acts of non-physical sexual coercion and being a binge drinker; committing acts of non-physical sexual coercion and being a frequent binge drinker; committing acts of non-physical sexual coercion and

PAGE 131

125 being a member of student government; and, committing acts of non-physical sexual coercion and living in a fraternity house. Living in a fraternity house and/or being a member of student government were also correlated with having committed acts of physical coercion. Table 32: Pearson Correlations for Dependent Variables on Sexual Offending and Independent Sociodemographic Variables and Drinking Variables (Male Respondents) Alcohol Coercion Nonphysical Coercion Physical Coercion Member of Student Government 0.157**** 0.096* 0.085* Fraternity members 0.090* Students who drink Students who binge drink Students who frequently binge drink 0.095* 0.107** 0.119** 0.146** 0.148*** 0.165**** Students living in fraternity housing 0.117** 0.146*** 0.282**** *P<0.05 **P<0.01 ***P< 0.001 ****P< 0.0001 Several interview respondents discussed their views on fraternity membership and sexually aggressive behavior. One woman said this: "I think it [sexual aggression] might, within the fraternity, be reinforced. There's intense camaraderie with other males of a like mind, more pleasure seekers — 1 think they might reinforce the permissiveness of rape or violating women" (18-year-old white female). Another person said, "once you're in the fraternity, you're subject to the communal view of how things should be" (20-yearold black male). These findings support the hypothesis that members of fraternities are more likely to commit acts of sexual aggression than other men, but only peripherally support the

PAGE 132

126 expectation that participants in collegiate athletics are more likely to commit acts of sexual aggression. The hypotheses that men who live in fraternity houses and/or who drink heavily will be more likely to sexually coerce or assault women is also supported, though merely living off-campus did not appear to be correlated to rates of these sexually aggressive behaviors. Table 33 presents the crosstabulated breakdown of the dependent variables of sexual victimization (alcohol-related coercion and physical coercion) by the independent variables related to sociodemographic characteristics and the independent variables related to alcohol use. There were very few noticeable differences between demographic groups in the sample. Women who live in sorority housing were more likely than other women on campus to be victims of both alcohol-related sexual coercion and physicalcoercion. White women were more likely to be victims of alcohol-related coercion than African American women, which was expected given that white students are more likely to drink. Further clarification of the relationship between sexual victimization and the independent variables in the study was sought through Pearson correlations, which were performed for the dependent variables, the sociodemographic variables, and the independent variables related to alcohol use. The results of these analyses are presented in Table 34. There were significant positive correlations between: being the victim of alcohol-related sexual coercion and being a drinker; being the victim of alcohol-related sexual coercion and being a binge drinker; being the victim of alcohol-related sexual coercion and being a frequent binge drinker; being the victim of alcohol-related sexual coercion and being white; and, being the victim of alcohol-related sexual coercion and

PAGE 133

living off-campus. There was a significant negative correlation between victimization and living on-campus. Given the univariate distributions of drinking patterns and locations of victimization and the assumptions of a routine activities framework, this result was expected. Table 33: Sexual Victimization by Independent Sociodemographic Variables and Drinking Variables (Female Respondents) % Victimized by Alcohol Coercion % Victimized by Physical Coercion Collegiate Athletes 12.5% 1.8% Non-athletes 10.5% 2.8%) Sorority Members 10 10/ 12.1% 3.6% Non-affiliated Women 10.3% 2.5% White Students 12.3% 2.6% Non-white Students 7.1% 3.0% Students over age 21 13.9% 2.6% Students under age 21 9.4% 2.8% Students who drink 12.9% 3.0% Students who binge drink 18.9% 3.8% Students who frequently binge drink 24.7% 4.1% Students living off-campus 12.3% 2.1% Students living on-campus 6.6% 3.5% Students living in sorority housing 13.9% 8.3% There were far fewer correlations between physical victimization and the independent variables. Only two of the independent variables for sociodemographic characteristics and drinking behaviors were significantly related to being the victim of a physically threatening sexual coercion, living in a sorority house and being a member of student government. Again, the number of responses in this category is low, and may be affecting outcomes.

PAGE 134

128 Table 34: Pearson Correlations for Dependent Variables on Sexual Victimization and Independent Sociodemographic Variables and Drinking Variables (Female Respondents) Alcohol Physical Coercion Coercion Member of Student Government 0.097** White 0.079* Students who drink 0. 1 30*** Students who binge drink 0.210**** Students who frequently binge drink 0.166**** Students living on-campus -0.080* Students living off-campus 0.070* Students living in sorority housing 0.073* *P<0.05 **P<0.01 ***P< 0.001 ****P< 0.0001 So, the hypothesis that sorority women are more likely to be victims of sexual aggression was supported while the expectation that collegiate athletes would also be more likely to be victims was not supported. The hypothesis that women who live in sorority housing or in off-campus housing will be more likely targets of sexual aggression was also generally upheld, as was the idea that women who drink heavily are more likely victims of coercion than others. Binge drinking does not appear correlated to physical-coercion. The two independent variables that assess perceptions of frequency of sexual assault and date rape for students were crosstabulated by the dependent variables related to sexual offending. The data are presented in Tables 35 and 36. Although the fairly low number of offenders warrants caution in interpreting these results, pronounced differences were apparent between the perceptions of men who are sexual offenders and those who are not. Men who reported engaging in acts of sexual coercion were more

PAGE 135

129 likely than other men to perceive sexual assault and date rape to be more frequent happenings for students at the university. Table 35: Perceptions of Frequency of Sexual Assault by Dependent Variables on Sexual Offending Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Alcohol-coercion offender Not an alcohol-coercion offender 5.0% 8.9% 65.0% 49.2% 10.0% 33.6% 20.0% 8.4% Non-physical coercion offender Not a non-physical coercion offender 0.0% 8.8% 45.5% 49.9% 31.8% 33.0% 22.7% 8.3% Physical-coercion offender Not a physical-coercion offender 0.0% 8.7% 60.0% 50.2% 0.0% 32.6% 40.0% 8.5% Table 36: Perceptions of Frequency of Date Rape by Dependent Variables on Sexual Offending Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Alcohol-coercion offender Not an alcohol-coercion offender 20.0% 9.3% 35.0% 47.5% 30.0% 33.6% 15.0% 9.6% Non-physical coercion offender Not a non-physical coercion offender 4.4% 9.7% 43.5% 46.6% 34.8% 33.9% 18.0% 9.7% Physical-coercion offender Not a physical-coercion offender 20.0% 9.6% 40.0% 46.9% 20.0% 33.4% 20.0% 10.1% Perception of frequency of sexual assault and date rape were also crosstabulated for the dependent variables related to sexual victimization. The results of these analyses are presented in Tables 37 and 38. Again, there were differences, though not as pronounced, between the perceptions of women who reported being sexually coerced or assaulted and other female respondents. Victims were more likely than other women to believe that sexual assault and date rape are more frequent occurrences for students at the university.

PAGE 136

130 Table 37: Perceptions of Frequency of Sexual Assault by Dependent Variables on Sexual Victimization Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Alcohol-coercion victim 3.5% 14.0% 50.0% 32.6% Not an alcohol-coercion victim 3.8% 28.2% 48.7% 19.2% Physical-coercion victim 0.0% 23.8% 42.9% 33.3% Not a physical-coercion victim 3.9% 26.8% 49.1% 20.3% Table 38: Perceptions of Frequency of Date Rape by Dependent Variables on Sexual Victimization Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Alcohol-coercion victim 2.3% 18.4% 35.6% 43.7% Not an alcohol-coercion victim 4.7% 22.9% 48.8% 23.6% Physical-coercion victim 0.0% 13.6% 40.9% 45.5% Not a physical-coercion victim 4.5% 22.6% 47.5% 25.4% Pearson correlations were also performed for all questions related to perceptions about sexual assault on campus and the dependent variables for sexual offending and victimization. The results of these analyses are presented in Tables 39 and 40. The correlations reveal very few significant relationships between the dependent variables on sexual offending and the independent variables on perception of sexual assault or date rape. A weak positive correlation was found to exist between engaging in acts of nonphysical coercion and a perception that sexual assauh is a more frequent occurrence on campus. Reported victimization by alcohol-coercion was positively correlated to the perception that sexual assault and date rape are more frequent happenings on campus, although these relationships were not very robust. Being physically-coerced was also positively correlated the perception that date rape is a more frequent happening on campus, but, again, this was a fairly weak relationship.

PAGE 137

131 Table 39: Pearson Correlations for Dependent Variables on Sexual Offending and Independent Variables Related to Perceptions of Sexual Assault and Date Rape on Campus Alcohol NonPhysical Coercion physical Coercion Coercion Perception of frequency of sexual assauh for students n.s. 0.090* n.s. Perception of frequency of date rape for students n^s^^ n^s^ n.s. *P<0.05 **P<0.01 ***P< 0.001 ****P< 0.0001 n.s. = not significant Table 40: Pearson Correlations for Dependent Variables on Sexual Victimization and Independent Variables Related to Perceptions of Sexual Assault and Date Rape on Campus Alcohol Physical Coercion Coercion Perception of frequency of sexual assault for students 0.111** n.s. Perception of frequency of date rape for students * D ^ n ** rt ^ f\ f\1 ik±ik n ^ n nnt ikibik^ •-» 0.119** 0.076* *P<0.05 **P<0.01 ***P< 0.001 ****P< 0.0001 n.s.not significant The hypotheses about perceptions of sexual assault and offending were supported to some degree. Crosstabulated data revealed that men who engage in sexually aggressive behavior were more likely to perceive sexual assault and date rape as more frequent happenings, but this relationship was not borne out in the correlations. The hypothesis that women who perceive sexual assault and date rape to be more frequent will be more likely to be victims was generally supported by the findings. Crosstabulations and correlations were also performed for the independent variable about perception of punishment of sexual offenders by university authorities and the dependent variables for sexual offending and victimization. The crosstabulated data appear in Tables 41 and 42. Men who had engaged in acts of sexual coercion or assault were more likely than other men to perceive punishment of sexual offenders by the

PAGE 138

132 university to be "too strict." In general, most men rated punishments as "appropriate," although over 40% of men who did not report engaging in acts of non-physically coercive behavior felt that punishments for sexual offenders was "too lenient." Table 41 : Perception of Punishment of Sexual Offenders by Dependent Variables on Sexual Offending Punishment "Too Lenient" Punishment "Appropriate" Punishment "Too Strict" Alcohol-coercion offender Not an alcohol -coercion offender 22.2% 39.7% 61.1% 56.4% 16.7% 3.9% Non-physical coercion offender Not a non-physical coercion offender 23.8% 40.5% 66.7% 55.4% 9.5% 4.1% Physical-coercion offender Not a physical-coercion offender 25.0% 39.9% 25.0% 56.1% 50.0% 4.0% Table 42: Perception of Punishment of Sexual Offenders by Dependent Variables on Sexual Victimization Pxmishment "Too Lenient" Punishment "Appropriate" Punishment "Too Strict" Alcohol-coercion victim Not an alcohol-coercion victim 63.2% 47.8% 35.6% 50.8% 1.2% 1.4% Physical-coercion victim Not a physical-coercion victim 66.7% 49.0% 28.6% 49.7% 1.2% 1.3% There was less variation in women's responses. Women who did not report being victimized were almost evenly divided in their perception of punishment as "appropriate" or "too lenient." Women who had been victims were more likely than other women to perceive punishment of sexual offenders to be "too lenient." Table 43 and Table 44 present the data for the corresponding correlations for these variables.

PAGE 139

133 The correlations revealed a positive relationship between the perception that punishments are more strict and engaging in alcohol-related coercion or physical coercion. Alcohol-related victimization was negatively correlated to perception of punishment, which indicates a belief that punishments for sexual offenders are too lenient. While this finding is consistent with the hypotheses, the findings for offenders seem contrary to the hypothetical supposition that perceptions of lenient guardianship should relate to motivated offenders. Table 43: Pearson Correlations for Dependent Variables on Sexual Offending and hidependent Variables Related to Perceptions of Punishment of Sexual Offenders Alcohol NonPhysical Coercion physical Coercion Coercion Perception of punishment for sexual offenders 0.095*. n.s. 0.094* *P<0.05 **P<0.01 ***P< 0.001 ****P< 0.0001 n.s. = not significant Table 44: Pearson Correlations for Dependent Variables on Sexual Victimization and hidependent Variables Related to Perceptions of Punishment of Sexual Offenders Alcohol Coercion Physical Coercion Perception of punishment for sexual offenders -0.094** n.s. *P<0.05 **P<0.01 ***P< 0.001 ****P< 0.0001 n.s. = not significant Thus, the bivariate analyses showed support for some of the hypotheses while seemingly refuting others. While fraternity membership was correlated to offending and sorority membership was correlated to victimization, no such relationships were found for collegiate athletes. These correlations illustrate the effects of placement within the social structure and exposure and proximity to offenders (women in sororities, for

PAGE 140

134 example, are more often exposed to social settings involving heavy drinking and motivated offenders). A positive relationship between sexual offending and perceived frequency of sexual assault and date rape was also revealed, illustrating a relationship between beliefs about campus norms about sexually aggressive behaviors. Offending was correlated to perceptions of strict law enforcement, in contrast to the hypothesis that more lenient views of guardianship should lead to increased rates of sexual offending. Heavy drinking, however, was correlated to both sexual offending and victimization. Multivariate Analysis While the information provided by the bivariate analysis is strong evidence of the interrelationships between social perceptions and actual behaviors and drinking behavior and several forms of sexual aggression, it caimot illustrate the combination of independent variables that best explain the dependent variables. To further analyze the relationship between the variables at hand, and to test the usefiilness of social learning variables and routine activities variables (and the variables they share), multivariate OLS regression analyses were also performed. Models predicting the three types of sexual offending (alcohol-coercion, nonphysical coercion, and physical coercion) and two types of sexual victimization (alcoholcoercion and physical coercion) were tested. As noted in Chapter 7, all of the variables used in the survey were not the most ideal measures for each of the key concepts for the theories at hand. Given this fact, the predictive value of the specific models may not be as robust as we might expect if the most appropriate measures were available.

PAGE 141

135 Models Predicting Sexual OfTending To provide the most complete picture of the phenomena under study, the two best models for each dependent variable are shown. Only significant variables are included. The first model is the model that best predicts the type of offending, without including the variables for other types of sexual offending as independent variables. The second model presents the best model, with the variables for other types of sexual offending included as independent variables. As the variable that is most predictive of one type of sexual offending is often whether one participates in other types of offending (or has engaged in the same behavior before), it is important to examine the impact that these variables have in a multivariate model. It is also important, though, to view the explanatory models without these variables present in order to assess what factors may be impacting a particular type of offending, irrespective of the influence of similar behaviors. Alcohol Coercion. Table 45 shows the models predicting the first type of sexual offending, alcohol-related coercion. In Model 1 , several sociodemographic variables marking location in the social structure are present — being black, being a member of student government, and living in fraternity housing. The strong influence of variables measuring membership in student government and being black is somewhat unexpected. The presence of the latter may simply be a result of the relatively small number of black men in the survey coupled with the relatively small number of men reporting sexual offending. The presence of the former may relate to any of a number of characteristics related to membership in student government (power, drinking behaviors, fi-atemity membership, etc.). This variable remains significant in the second model of alcohol-

PAGE 142

136 related coercion, and warrants future study. As expected, the independent variable assessing frequency of binge drinking was significant in both of the models for alcoholcoercion. It is important to note that this is not merely a reflection of drinking at the time of an incident, but of higher frequencies of binge drinking by students influencing rates of sexually aggressive behavior. Table 45: Regression Models for Alcohol-Coercion Offending Independent Variable Model 1: Model 2: Parameter Parameter Estimates Estimates Frequency of binge drinking 0.015** 0.011** Live in fraternity house 0.098* Black 0.124** 0.092** Member of student government 0.151**** 0.067* Perception that alcohol use is central for women 0.035* Perception of punishment for sexual offending 0.024* Non-physical coercion offending 0.237**** Physical coercion offending 0.507**** Adjusted R-square 0.10 0.25 F 39 g**** *P<0.05 **P<0.01 ***P< 0.001 ****P< 0.0001 Holding a perception that alcohol use is central to the social lives of women on campus also appeared in the first model. This variable speaks to the "suitability" of female students as targets — if alcohol use is thought of as central for women, then using alcohol to coerce them seems an affective means to an end. Being in settings were alcohol use is supported (fraternity housing, for example) in conjunction with a perception that alcohol use is central for women may also "motivate" certain men to offend. Living in a fraternity house may also mark greater proximity and exposure to suitable targets. The shared independent variable used to assess perceptions of social

PAGE 143

137 control and guardianship was also significant in the first model, although it is positively correlated (signifying increasing offending and increasingly strict perceptions of punishment). This is contrary to the expectation that more lenient views will lead to higher rates of offending. By far, the two most powerful variables in the models for alcohol-related coercion were those that assessed engaging in acts of non-physical coercion and engaging in acts of physical coercion, both of which appeared in Model 2. This may reflect the issue noted in the introduction to this section (that often the best predictor of a behavior is engaging in the same or similar behaviors before) or it may reflect a shared set of beliefs not examined by this research (such as belief in "rape myths"). This may be illustrative of men escalating their sexually aggressive behaviors and/or participating m multiple forms of coercion. Non-physical Coercion. Table 46 shows the models predicting the second type of sexual offending, non-physical coercion. These models are very similar to those for alcohol-coercion. In Model 1, fewer sociodemographic variables were present than in the model for alcohol-coercion. Only being a member of student government and living in fraternity housing were significant. Again, the strong influence of the variable measuring membership in student government stands out. This variable was not significant, however, in the second model, dropping out when other types of sexual offending are added to the model. Despite the fact that this form of coercion is not necessarily predicated on alcohol, the independent variable assessing frequency of binge drinking is significant in both of the models for non-physical coercion.

PAGE 144

138 Holding a perception that alcohol use is central to the social lives of women on campus also appeared in the first model for non-physical coercion. Again, this variable speaks to the "suitability" of female students as targets and may also "motivate" certain men to offend. Living in a fraternity house was present in the first model for this form of coercion as well. This setting likely provides a social setting conducive to deviant activity — it provides both a learning context in which exaggerated norms about masculinity, femininity, and sexual behavior as well as an opportunity structure with lax guardianship, suitable targets, and motivated offenders. Table 46: Regression Model for Non-Physical Coercion Offending Independent Variable Model 1: Model 2: Parameter Parameter Estimates Estimates Frequency of binge drinking 0.022**** 0.017*** Live in fraternity house 0.093* Member of student government 0.110** Perception of frequency of sexual assault 0.029** 0.018* Perception that alcohol use is central for women 0.037* Perception of punishment for sexual offending 0.028* Alcohol-coercion offending 0.297**** Physical coercion offending 0.715**** Adjusted R-square 0.82 0.32 F g 9] **** 66.2**** *P<0.05 **P<0.01 ***P< 0.001 ****P< 0.0001 The shared independent variable used to assess perceptions of social control and guardianship is also significant in the first model, although it is positively correlated (signifying increasing offending and increasingly strict perceptions of punishment). This was contrary to the expectation that more lenient views will lead to higher rates of

PAGE 145

139 offending. The hypothesis predicting the importance of perceptions of frequency of sexual assault on campus, though, was supported. A perception of higher frequencies of sexual assault on campus was significant in both of the models predicting non-physical coercion. As was the case for alcohol-related coercion, engaging in other types of sexually aggressive behaviors was key. The two most powerful variables in modeling non-physical coercion were those that assessed engaging in acts of alcohol-related coercion and engaging in acts of physical coercion, both of which appeared in Model 2. Physical Coercion. Table 47 shows the models predicting the third type of sexual offending, physical coercion. In Model 1, the same sociodemographic variables that appeared in the alcohol-coercion model were once again present. Being black, a member of student government, and living in fraternity housing were significant. Only living in the fraternity house remained significant in the second model, the other two dropped out when other types of sexual offending were added to the model. None of the independent variables assessing frequency of binge drinking was significant in either of the models for physical coercion. The shared independent variable used to assess perceptions of social control and guardianship was also significant in the first model, although it is positively correlated (signifying increasing offending and increasingly strict perceptions of punishment). This is contrary to the expectation that more lenient views will lead to higher rates of offending. The hypothesis predicting the importance of perceived frequency of sexual assault on campus, though, was supported. A perception of higher frequencies of sexual assault on campus was significant in the first model predicting physical coercion. As was the case for alcohol-related coercion and non-physical coercion, engaging in other types

PAGE 146

140 of sexually aggressive behaviors was important. The two most powerful variables in modeling physical coercion were those that assessed engaging in acts of alcohol-related coercion and engaging in acts of non-physical coercion, both of which appeared in Model 2. Table 47: Regression Model for Physical Coercion Offending Independent Variable Model 1: Model 2: Parameter Parameter Estimates Estimates Live in fraternity house 0.095**** 0.100**** Member of student government 0.044* Black 0.040* Perception of frequency of sexual assault 0.009* Perception of punishment for sexual offending 0.013* Alcohol-coercion offending 0.134**** Non-physical coercion offending 0.153**** Adjusted R-square 0.07 0.31 F g g**** 86.1**** *P<0.05 **P<0.01 ***P< 0.001 **** P< 0.0001 Thus, we can say the following about the primary models (Model 1) for sexual offending. Frequency of binge drinking was significant in the model for alcohol-related coercion, as we would expect given the use of alcohol involved, but was also significant in the model for non-physical coercion. This suggests that heavy alcohol use is a predictor of sexually aggressive behavior beyond behavior that directly involves alcohol. Living in a fraternity house was also significant for all three types of coercion, alcohol-related, non-physical, and physical coercion, suggesting that the fraternal environment may provide a unique context for sexually aggressive behavior. It may provide a setting in which social learning about sexual aggression takes place or, from a routine activities approach, it may increase exposure to attractive targets (at parties.

PAGE 147

141 socials, etc.). There is also less guardianship present at fraternity houses than on-campus residences. Being a member of student government was also significant in models for all three forms of offending. This relationship bears further exploration in future studies. Again, several learning variables were significant in the various models. Perception of high frequency of sexual assault on campus was significant in the model for non-physical and physical coercion. Holding a perception that punishments for rape were "too strict" was a significant predictor in models for all three categories of offending. From a routine activities perspective, it was notable that holding a belief that alcohol use is central to the social life of women on campus was a significant component of the models for alcohol-related coercion and non-physical coercion. Assuming that women value alcohol use may imply "target attractiveness" from a routine activities approach. Models Predicting Sexual Victimization To provide the most complete picture of the phenomena under study, the two best models for the dependent variable on alcohol-related victimization are shown. Only significant variables are included. The first model is the model that best predicts the type of victimization, without including the variables for other types of sexual victimization as independent variables. The second model presents the best model, with the variable for other types of sexual victimization included as an independent variable. It is important to view the explanatory models without these variables present in order to assess what factors may be impacting a particular type of victimization, irrespective of the influence of similar incidence.

PAGE 148

142 Alcohol Coercion. Table 48 shows the models predicting the first type of sexual victimization, alcohol-related coercion. In Model 1 , only two sociodemographic variables marking location in the social structure were present — ^number of years at the university and grade point average (GPA). Being at the university longer and having a lower GPA were predictive of victimization. Table 48: Regression Models for Alcohol-Coercion Victimization Independent Variable Model 1: Model 2: Parameter Parameter Estimates Estimates Frequency of binge drinking 0.050**** 0.026* GPA 0.024* 0.023* Number of years at the university 0.030** 0.028** Perception of frequency of sexual assault -0.047** -0.053** Perception of frequency of date rape 0.055*** 0.051*** Self-definition of drinking behavior 0.049** Physical coercion victimization 0.595**** Adjusted R-square 0.08 0.16 F 21 3*+** *P<0.05 **P<0.01 ***P< 0.001 **** P< 0.0001 Number of years at the university may be present in the model due to the question wording ("during your time at the university"), although this was the only model or correlation that showed any significant relationship to this variable. Perhaps a unique relationship exists for alcohol-related coercion and time at the university. Women who have been at the university longer may simply define incidents differently than other women, or they may have had more opportunity to be victimized (although the literature suggests that sexual victimization usually occurs early in a college tenure). As expected, the independent variable assessing fi-equency of binge drinking was significant in both of

PAGE 149

143 the models for alcohol-coercion. It is important to note that this was not merely a reflection of drinking at the time of an incident, but of higher frequencies of binge drinking by students influencing rates of sexual victimization. Women who binge drink may be more suitable targets for sexually aggressive men than other women because they may be less able to resist advances, they may have greater exposure to men who are motivated to offend (recall the descriptions of the relationship between drinking and sexual expectations from the interviews), and they may be in social settings more conductive to deviance (bars, fraternity houses, party situations, etc.). Two variables about perceptions of sexual aggression appeared in the models. The first, showed that holding the perception that sexual assault is a less frequent occurrence on campus is predictive of alcohol-related victimization. The second showed that holding the perception that date rape is a more frequent occurrence on campus is predictive of alcohol-related victimization. This was an interesting result. Women who were victimized in acts of alcohol-related coercion showed differences in their perceptions of sexual assault and date rape. This both supports and reftites the hypotheses that perceived frequency of sexual assault and rape on campus would relate to higher rates of victimization. This may, however, reveal interesting dimensions of how women define "date rape" and "sexual assault." By far, the most powerftil variable in modeling alcohol-related victimization was being the victim of physical coercion, a variable that appeared in Model 2. This may reflect the issue noted in the introduction to the previous section (that often the best predictor of a behavior is engaging in the same or similar behaviors before) or it may

PAGE 150

144 speak to the elements that influence victimization. Routine activities theory would suppose that people who are in a social setting of greater exposure to motivated offenders and more lenient guardianship and are more suitable targets, will likely be victimized more often if they remain in that setting. Physical Coercion. Table 49 shows the model that best predicts victimization by physical coercion. As so few variables are significant, only the single best model is shown. Only three independent variables were significant predictors in the model for physical victimization: living in a sorority house, being a member of student government, and having been a victim of alcohol-related sexual coercion. Here we can clearly the see the importance of placement within the social structure. Women who live in sorority houses and who are members of student government were particularly at risk for sexual assault. This is an interesting finding given the importance of student govenunent membership in the models on offending. Perhaps there are distinct norms and learning mechanisms at work for those involved in student government. Or, as student government is so influential in offending, female members of this organization may be more likely to be in the presence of motivated offenders than are other women on campus. Table 49: Regression Model for Physical Coercion Victimizafion Independent Variable Parameter Estimates Live in sorority housing 0.047* Member of student govenmient 0.060** Alcohol-coercion victimization 0. 1 44* * * * Adjusted R-square 0.09 F 27.8****

PAGE 151

145 Again, being a victim of another type of coercion, alcohol-related coercion, was the most powerfial predictor of physical coercion — even though none of the independent variables measuring drinking were present in the model. Thus, we can say the following about the models for sexual victimization. The mdependent variables under study had little predictive power for the models on sexual victimization. As expected, binge drinking frequency was a significant predictor in the model of alcohol-related victimization, though not in the model for physical coercion. From a routine activities perspective, it is notable that living in a sorority house was significant in the model for physical coercion, suggesting that women in this context may be at unique risk for victimization. Women who participate in student government may also be in a unique context for victimization. Being a member of student government was significant in the model for physical victimization, and was significant in the models for male sexual offending. While the predictive power of the models on sexual offending and victimization were fairly limited, the models for drinking behavior were adequate. The models illustrate a relationship between drinking behavior and sexual aggression that goes beyond that of alcohol-related coercion. Binge drinking was a significant variable in models other than those for alcohol-related acts of coercion, suggesting a link between heavy alcohol consumption and sexual offending. Macro-level perceptions were also clearly related to respondents' behaviors in all three sets of models for drinking, offending, and victimization. Perceptions of excessive drinking, fi-equency of date rape, and frequency of sexual assault each appeared as significant independent variables in several models. Perceptions of social control and guardianship were also significant.

PAGE 152

though not always in the direction predicted. These perceptions are indicative of components "shared" by both social learning theory and routine activities theory.

PAGE 153

CHAPTER 10 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Discussion of Results This research study set out to assess what factors contribute to higher frequencies of alcohol use on campus, and whether particular group affiliations effect levels of drinking. Also under investigation was the question of whether alcohol use/abuse contributes to commission of sexual aggression and sexual victimization. A primary focus was placed on assessing whether alcohol use was directly predictive of sexually aggressive behavior, or whether a similar set of variables were related to each. Structural factors, including perceptions of the norms and traditions (campus climate) related to drinking and sexual behaviors, sociodemographic variables related to location within the structure of the university, and variables assessing perception of social control and guardianship were also of chief concern. The analyses showed that drinking is common for most students at the university; over half of the students in the sample reported that they drink at least once a week. Consistent with other campus-wide studies, the data showed that nearly half of students surveyed had engaged in binge drinking in the two weeks preceding the study. Respondents in both the quantitative survey and the in-depth interviews perceived the norms and traditions of the university to be supportive of alcohol use. The vast majority of students surveyed felt that it was appropriate to describe the university as a "party school" and large majority felt that students fi-equently participated in "excessive alcohol 147

PAGE 154

148 consumption." Most respondents rated the level of social control/guardianship of university administration and police to be "appropriate" in regards to alcohol use, which may indicate a lenient perception of enforcement given that the literature review reveals the punishments for alcohol violations to be fairly lax. The respondents in the in-depth interviews described a social "party scene" on campus that involves heavy alcohol use for the majority of students. The analyses further revealed that group affiliations were, in fact, related to levels of drinking. Men, collegiate athletes, members of social fraternities and sororities, white students, and students that live in fraternity and sorority housing were each more likely to drink than other students on campus. Being a member of the Greek system and, in particular, living in Greek housing, were also significantly correlated to binge drinking and frequent binge drinking, as was participation in student government. There was also a significant correlation between frequency of binge drinking and belief that the university is a "party school," illustrating a link between behavior and perception of the campus climate. People who reported drinking and people who reported binge drinking were more likely than non-drinkers and non-bingers to believe that campus laws and punishments related to alcohol violations are too strict. The multivariate analyses corroborate these findings. Significant predictors of drinking frequency were being white, male, a member of a social fraternity or sorority, living off-campus, being age 21 or over, holding a belief that drinking laws are too strict, holding a perception that the social norms on campus support alcohol use, and having an inappropriate self-definition of drinking levels. These variables explained over 50% of the variance in frequency of drinking. Being male, a member of a social fraternity or

PAGE 155

sorority, age 21 or over, believing that the university is a "party school," and believing that drinking laws are too strict were all significant predictors in the model for binge drinking frequency, explaining about 22% of the variance. Adding an independent variable for frequency of alcohol use created a model that explained nearly half of the variance in frequency of binge drinking. The demographic variables that appeared in the models were not surprising, but the significance of the campus climate variables is interesting. The perception of a "party school" atmosphere was a predictor in models of binge drinking, as hypothesized. Given that drinking and belief that laws are too strict were related, it was not surprising that this was also related to bingeing. Perceiving laws and enforcement related to alcohol use as strict may also be spurring a "rebellion against authority" effect — increasing use of alcohol by people who perceive these laws as unjust. More investigation of this correlation is warranted. As expected, very few men reported perpetrating various types of sexually aggressive behaviors and very few women reported being victims of sexually.aggressive behaviors. Reported rates of victimization were considerably higher than reported rates of offending, particularly for alcohol-related coercive acts. Rates of alcohol-related coercion were much higher than rates of physical coercion. Most of the offenses occurred at off-campus locations and fraternity houses. This is consistent with a routine activities approach; fewer acts of sexual aggression occurred in settings with more guardianship — in on-campus residence halls — and more acts of sexual aggression occurred in settings with less guardianship — in off-campus residences, fraternity houses, and bars and clubs. A majority of offenders reported that they were using alcohol at the

PAGE 156

150 time they committed the offense, and most victims also reported using alcohol at the time of their assaults. Very few women reported these incidents to university officials or police and few of offenders who were reported were punished for their acts. These findings were very much in-line with general expectations, given the prior research detailed in the review of literature. Fraternity members, especially those that live in the fraternity house, were more likely to report committing acts of sexual coercion and assault than other men were. In fact, living in a fraternity house was significantly correlated to all forms of offending (alcohol-related coercion, non-physical coercion, and physical coercion) detailed in the survey. While fraternity membership was correlated to offending and sorority membership was correlated to victimization, no such relationships were found for collegiate athletes. A positive relationship between sexual offending and perceived frequency of sexual assault and date rape was also revealed, illustrating a relationship between beliefs about campus norms and sexually aggressive behaviors. Offending was correlated to perceptions of strict law enforcement, in contrast to the hypothesis that more lenient views of guardianship should lead to increased rates of sexual offending. Heavy drinking, however, was correlated to both sexual offending and victimization. Drinking frequency and binge drinking frequency were both significantly correlated with alcohol -related coercion, as was expected. But, binge drinking was also significantly correlated with non-physical sexual coercion (though not for physically threatening acts) which shows a relationship between drinking behavior and a form of sexual aggression that is does not directly require alcohol as a tool of coercion. A clear relationship between alcohol use and sexual aggression is revealed. Differences were

PAGE 157

151 also apparent between men and women on campus in their perceptions of sexual assault. Women were much more likely than men were to believe that sexual assault and date rape were frequent occurrences on campus. At the multivariate level, frequency of binge drinking was significant in the model for alcohol-related coercion, as we would expect given the use of alcohol involved, but was also significant in the model for non-physical coercion. This suggests that heavy alcohol use is a predictor of sexually aggressive behavior beyond behavior that directly involves alcohol. Living in a fraternity house was also significant for all three types of coercion, alcohol-related, non-physical, and physical coercion, suggesting that the fraternal environment may provide a unique context for sexually aggressive behavior. It may provide a setting in which social learning about sexual aggression takes place or, from a routine activities approach, it may increase exposure to attractive targets (at parties, socials, etc.) in an environment with low guardianship and motivated offenders. Being a member of student government was also significant in models for all three forms of offending. This relationship was unexpected and bears fiirther exploration in fiiture studies. Several learning variables were significant in the various models. Perception of high frequency of sexual assault on campus was significant in the model for non-physical and physical coercion. Holding a perception that punishments for rape were "too strict" was a significant predictor in models for all three categories of offending. From a routine activities perspective, it was notable that holding a belief that alcohol use is central to the social life of women on campus was a significant component of the models for alcohol-

PAGE 158

152 related coercion and non-physical coercion. Assuming that women value alcohol use may imply "target attractiveness" from a routine activities approach. The independent variables under study had little predictive power for the models on sexual victimization. Despite this limited explanatory power (the most variance explained by any of the models is 16%) there were some interesting and important independent variables in the models. As expected, binge drinking frequency was a significant predictor in the model of alcohol-related victimization, though not in the model for physical coercion. From a routine activities perspective, it is notable that living in a sorority house was significant in the model for physical coercion, suggesting that women in this context may be at unique risk for victimization. Women who participate in student government may also be in a unique context for victimization. Being a member of student goverrmient was significant in the model for physical victimization, and was significant in the models for male sexual offending. Again, the routine activities of these women may place them in context of motivated offenders, but the guardianship for this group needs to be examined fiirther. So, while the predictive power of the models on sexual offending and victimization was fairly limited, the models for drinking behavior were reasonably robust. The models illustrate a relationship between drinking behavior and sexual aggression that goes beyond that of alcohol-related coercion. Binge drinking was a significant variable in models other than those for alcohol-related acts of coercion, suggesting a link between heavy alcohol consumption and sexual offending. Macro-level perceptions were also clearly related to respondents' behaviors in all three sets of models-for drinking, offending, and victimization. Perceptions of excessive drinking,

PAGE 159

153 frequency of date rape, and frequency of sexual assault each appeared as significant independent variables in several models. Perceptions of social control and guardianship were also significant, though not always in the direction predicted. These perceptions are indicative of components "shared" by both social learning theory and routine activities theory. Conclusions This study was undertaken to fill-in several gaps in the literature on alcohol use and sexual assault on university campuses. While many previous studies have intimated a possible connection between alcohol use and sexual aggression, or extrapolated an association from indirect testing, this research project set out to test whether or not drinking was a predictor of sexual aggression or sexual victimization. The findings indicate that alcohol use, particularly heavy alcohol use, was predictive of sexually aggressive behavior. This study also included both male and female respondents. Though the sample was not a matched set comparison sample, including respondents of both genders allowed for general comparisons of behaviors and perceptions between men and women. There were key differences in the views held by male and female students. A higher percentage of women than men, for example, believed that sexual assauh happens frequently on campus. This study also placed an emphasis on examining structural factors of the "campus climate" that may relate to alcohol use and sexual aggression. Many of these perceptions of the social atmosphere on campus proved to be significantly related to both drinking behaviors and sexually aggressive behaviors. While there remains some question as to whether perceptions affect behaviors or behaviors affect perceptions, the

PAGE 160

154 significance of variables measuring perceived behavior of others in the regression models speaks to the influence of these variables. Concepts central to macro-level learning theory and routine activities theory were significant in the analyses. There are several notable conclusions related to the primary theories used in this study. Variables measuring structural-level social learning components and routine activities concepts were significant in this research, as were "shared" variables that measured similar concepts Irom both theories. Thus, there is support for an integrated theory that uses social learning concepts to underscore routine activities. How do certain men become motivated offenders? This study suggested that men who live in fraternity houses and men who are members of student government are disproportionately likely to report engaging in acts of sexual aggression. Social learning can supply the background for contextual learning of sexually aggressive norms (see Boeringer 1992; Johns 1997). Which women are suitable targets? This research showed that men who have learned that alcohol is central to the social lives of women are more likely to be sexually aggressive. The potential for an integrated theory is bolstered by this work. This study also recorded and examined information about the specific incidents of sexual offending and victimization (alcohol use, location, outcome)-a recommendation of the recent national study of victimization of college women conducted by the BJS (see Fisher et al. 2000). The data fi-om these survey questions fiirther illustrate the impact of alcohol use and sexual coercion; the majority of men and women involved in these incidents were drinking at the time of the act. The information gathered about the incidents also show the importance of examining particular contexts in which assaults occur disproportionately — fraternity houses and off-campus residences.

PAGE 161

155 Policy Implications The emphasis that university administrators have been placing on the issue of binge drinking does not appear to be off-track given the relationship between bingeing and sexual coercion illustrated by this study. The approaches they are using to combat the problem, however, may be misguided. While the fact that many students misperceive levels of excessive alcohol consumption seems to generally support a social norms and management policy, further analysis refiites this approach. In this study, the students who drink the most (frequent binge drinkers) had more accurate views of the levels of excessive drinking by students at the university and often, if they were inaccurate, underestimated their own and others' levels of drinking. Interview respondents also lent little support to the social management ads currently circulating in the campus newspaper. "I look at the ad and I laugh," said one man (20-year-old white male). Another respondent summarized some of the issues detailed by opponents of the social norms approach. When asked if the ads were effective, he said: Not at all. Because, if they want to make a change, then they have to capitalize on the commercialization of it [alcohol] and the way that it is presented and sold. Because these little ads in the [school newspaper] are totally after the fact, you know, it's ingrained in the society. Those ads are gonna do nothing. (21 -year-old white male). In terms of policies, most interview respondents advocated acceptance of the fact that a majority of students are drinkers, and, concomitantly, felt that spending more university ftinds on responsible management of drinkers (free rides home from bars, for example) was the best solution. Indeed, policies that seek to manage and reduce the occurrence of "secondary" drinking effects (drunk driving, violent assaults, missed class, etc.) may be a more prudent course of action than attempting to eliminate or greatly reduce drinking.

PAGE 162

156 Policies that address broader cultural issues of drinking may also be important. While running social management ads may be one aspect of a program, seeking to limit advertising by local bars and clubs in campus newspapers may be equally as important. Interview data reveal that one social management ad surrounded by multiple advertisements for "ladies night," "happy hour," and "beat-the-clock" lacks persuasive power in the eyes of students. Universities must address the inherent conflict between receiving advertising funds from bars, clubs, and alcohol vendors and their stated policy of reducing problem drinking. Expressing the exasperation of many administrators and researchers, one respondent said this: "It'd be better if I didn't drink. It'd probably be better if nobody drank, but what are you gonna do?" (20-year-old white male). Limitations and Future Research There were recognized limitations to this study. The variables available were limited due to the spatial constraints of the broader study. Future research should add variables to allow for better modeling and testing of theories. This study established the importance of macro-level learning influences. Future research should measure these variables along with micro-level learning variables (differential association, definitions, differential reinforcement, imitation) and behaviors. Path analysis could then be used to establish Akers' hypothesized pattern of learning (see Figure 1). This would also allow for a more developed integrated theory coupling social learning theory and routine activities theory.

PAGE 163

157 This sample was large and well-crafted and was representative of the university as a whole, but may not reflect other universities. Thus, the results here are only generalizable to this campus. Establishing the social climate of each campus, however, lies at the heart of establishing links between macro-level influences and behaviors. The study was also limited by relying primarily on cross-sectional data. A longitudinal study that assessed in-coming freshmen's perceptions of campus and behaviors in high school, and then re-assessed student beliefs and behaviors throughout their college careers, would be ideal for studying macroand micro-level influences on drinking and sexual behavior. In sum, this research revealed the on-going problem of sexual aggression on campus. The use of alcohol and drugs as a sexual strategy, particularly by members of student government and men living in fraternity houses, persists. This analysis showed that women who drink, especially those that drink heavily, and/or in the context of fraternity parties, may be at particular risk for sexual victimization. Until the climate on campus becomes less supportive of excessive alcohol use and until the use of alcohol as a sexual strategy is minimized, it seems imlikely that the problem of alcohol-related sexual coercion at universities will be curtailed.

PAGE 164

APPENDIX SURVEY INSTRUMENT

PAGE 165

159 Please answer this set of questions by circling the appropriate response on this sheet. Does the social atmosphere on this campus promote alcohol use? Yes No Recent magazine articles have identified UF as a top "party school," do you agree with this designation? Yes No On this campus, do you believe that drinking alcohol is central to the social life of the following groups? Male students Female students Athletes Fraternities Sororities White students African American students Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Would you say that the administration and law enforcement on this campus are too strict, appropriate, or too lenient in their regulation of drinking on campus (in residence halls, at fraternities and sororities, at on-campus restaurants, etc.)? Too strict Appropriate Too lenient Would you say that the administration and law enforcement on this campus are too strict, appropriate, or too lenient in their punishment of students who violate laws and regulations about drinking? Would you say that the administration and law enforcement on this campus are too strict, appropriate, or too lenient in their punishment of students who violate laws and regulations related to sexual assault, rape, or date rape? Too strict Appropriate Too lenient Too strict Appropriate Too lenient Please approximate how often, if ever, you drink alcoholic beverages. Never Once a month Once a week 2 or 3 times a week Every day Over the past two weeks, how many times have you had five or more alcoholic drinks at a sitting? (A drink is a bottle of beer, a glass of wine, a wine cooler, a shot glass of liquor, or a mixed drink.) None Once Twice 3 to 5 times 6 to 10 times More than 1 0 times How would you describe your drinking behavior: Abstain from drinking Light Drinker Moderate Drinker Heavy Drinker

PAGE 166

160 MEN should complete the next section of the survey. Women should skip to the last section on this page. During your time at UF have you ever obtained or attempted to obtain sexual intercourse with a woman by giving her alcohol or drugs? Yes No IF YES: Where did this incident take place? Off-campus On-Campus Fraternity House Other residence residence (please describe) Were you drinking at the time of the incident? Yes No Did this incident result in any problems with University administration or police? Yes No During your time at UF have you ever obtained or attempted to obtain sexual intercourse with a woman by using pressure, coercion, or non-physical threats? Yes No IF YES: Where did this incident take place? Off-campus On-Campus Fraternity House Other residence residence (please describe) Were you drinking at the time of the incident? Yes No Was she drinking at the time of the incident? Yes No Did this incident result in any problems with University administration or police? Yes No During you time at UF have you ever obtained or attempted to obtain sexual intercourse with a woman when she didn't want to by threatening to use force (holding her down, twisting her arm, etc.) if she didn't cooperate? Yes No IF YES: Where did this incident take place? Off-campus On-Campus Fraternity House Other residence residence (please describe) Did this incident result in any problems with University administration or police? Yes No

PAGE 167

161 WOMEN should complete this final section of the survey: During your time at UF have you ever had a man obtain or attempt to obtain sexual intercourse with you by giving you alcohol or drugs? Yes No IF YES: Where did this incident take place? Off-campus On-Campus Fraternity House Other residence residence (please describe) Was he drinking at the time of the incident? Yes No "Don't Know Did you report this incident to University administration or police? Yes No Was the man punished or sanctioned by the University administration or the court system? Yes No During you time at UF have you ever had a man obtain or attempt to obtain sexual intercourse with you when you didn't want to by threatening to use force (holding you down, twisting your arm, etc.) if you didn't cooperate? Yes No IF YES: Where did this incident take place? Off-campus On-Campus Fraternity House Other residence residence (please describe) Were you drinking at the time of the incident? Yes No Was he drinking at the time of the incident? Yes No Don't Know Did you report this incident to University administration or police? Yes No Was the man punished or sanctioned by the University administration or the court system? Yes No Thank you for completing this section of the survey. If you have questions or concerns about this research, please contact T. Johns at 392-3475.

PAGE 168

162 Questions Taken From Campus Climate Survey: In your opinion, to what extent do each of the following happen to students at [the uiii V ci &i ly J i Not at All Rarely Occasionally Frequently Sexual Assault 1 2 3 4 Date Rape 1 2 3 4 Excessive Alcohol Consumption 1 2 3 4 Which category to the right best represents 1 o 1 .... 1 your age? 19 2 20 3 23 to 25 5 26 or over 6 Which category at the right best represents Freshman 1 your classification at [the university]? Sophomore .... 2 3 A How many years have you been at [the 1 1 university]? 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 More than 5 6 Which category at the right best represents Female 1 your gender? Male 2 Which category at the right best describes American Indian/Alaskan Native 1 your racial or ethnic identity? Asian/Pacific Islander 2 Biracial/Multiracial 3 Black/African American 4 Hispanic/Latino 5 White/European 6

PAGE 169

163 1 vnnr livincr <;itiiatiOTi fnr tHp piirrpnt y\j\4J. 11 viii^ oitudiiiJii lui 111^ v^uii^iii 7 /I Which category at the right best 4.0 to 3.51 1 anrtroximfltp'; vniir nimnlati'vp CiPA'^ 5 tn 01 9 3 0 tn 7 5 1 /I Are vou a member of anv of the followinp campus groups? Yes No Intercollegiate Athletics 1 2 Fraternity or Sorority 1 2 Student Government 1 2

PAGE 170

164 Protocol Guiding Qualitative Interviews: • How old are you? How long have you been at the university? • What were your initial perceptions of the campus social scene? [Probe if needed: What did you think people did for fun? Did you think that most people here were drinkers? Do you drink? Did you then? A lot of magazines rate "party schools" did you know that this university was on that list when you came to school here? Had you heard stories from other people that you knew?] • And, what are your perceptions of the social scene now? [Probe if needed: Do you drink? How often do you go out? What kind of things do you do for fim? What do you think others do?] • Do you think the school term (Fall, Spring, or Summer) makes a difference? • Are you a member of a fraternity/sorority? Why or why not? • IF YES: Do you think that joining effected your expectations or perceptions? How so? Do most of the people in your chapter drink? Can you describe a typical social event? • IF NO: What do you think of the Greek system? Can you describe what you think the social scene is like for Greeks? Do you think they drink more than other students? • Do you think that most students at the university drink? How often? How much? Do you think certain groups drink more than others [gender, race, age]? • Have you heard of "binge drinking"? IF YES: Do you think that binge drinking is a problem here? Other places? How would you describe "bingeing"? • Do you think that rape is a problem at this university? Why or why not? Can you describe what you think a typical rape case on campus involves? • If I told you that 90% of campus rapes involve alcohol use, would that surprise you? Why or why not? • Do you think that alcohol effects people's expectations about sexual encounters? How so? • Do you think that certain men on campus are more likely to assault women? What groups are those? Why? • The university is trying to work on issues of alcohol abuse and its effects by running ads about how much people drink have you seen these ads? What do you think of them? Do you think they are effective? Why or why not? What would you do to manage or control drinking and sexual assault on campus? • Is there anything else you'd like to add or questions that you have for me?

PAGE 171

REFERENCES Abbey, Antonia. 1991. "Acquaintance Rape and Alcohol Consumption on College Campuses: How Are They Linked?" American Journal of College Health. 39:165-169. Abbey, Antonia. 1995. "Perception of Sexuallntent: The Role of Gender, Alcohol Consumption and Rape Supportive Attitudes." Sex Roles. 32:297-3 14. Adler, Jerry and Debra Rosenberg. 1994. "The Endless Binge." Newsweek. 124:72-74. Akers, Ronald. 1985. Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Perspective {3'^ Edition). Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth. Akers, Ronald. 1997. Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation (2"*^ Edition). Los Angeles, CA.: Roxbury Publishing Co. Akers, Ronald. 1999. Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation (3"'' Edition). Los Angeles, CA.: Roxbury Publishing Co. American College Health Association. 1992. Acquaintance Rape. Baltimore, MD. Bechhofer, Laurie and Andrea Parrot. 1991 . "What is Acquaintance Rape?" Pp. 9-25 in Acquaintance Rape: The Hidden Crime, edited by Andrea Parrot and Laurie Bechhofer. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Belknap, Joanne and Edna Erez. 1 985. "The Victimization of Women on College Campuses: Courtship Violence, Date Rape, and Sexual Harassment" in Campus Crime: Legal, Social, and Policy Perspectives. Bonnie Fisher and John Sloan, III, Eds. 156-178. Benedict, Jeffrey. 1998. Athletes and Acquaintance Rape. Thousand Oaks, C A.: Sage Publications. Berkowitz, Alan and Wesley Perkins. 1986. "Problem Drinking among College Students: A Review of Recent Research." Journal of American College Health. 35:21-28. Bemat, Jeffrey. 1 998. "Sexually Aggressive Men's Responses to a Date Rape Analogue: Alcohol as a Disinhibiting Cue." The Journal of Sex Research. 35:341-351. 165

PAGE 172

166 Boeringer, Scot. 1992. "Sexual Coercion among College Males: Assessing Three Models of Coercive Sexual Behavior." Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Boeringer, Scot and Constance Shehan and Ronald Akers. 1991. "Social Contexts and Social Learning in Sexual Coercion and Aggression: Assessmg the Contribution of Fraternity Membership." Family Relations. 40:58-64. Bohmer, Carol and Andrea Parrot. 1 993. Sexual Assault on Campus: The Problem and the Solution. New York: Lexington Press Books. Boswell, A. Ayres and Joan Spade. 1996. "Fraternities and Collegiate Rape Culture: Why Are Some Fraternities Dangerous Places for Women?" Gender and Society. 10:133-147. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). 1996. National Crime Victimization 1996. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Campus Alcohol and Drug Resource Center (CADRC). 2000. "University of Florida Alcohol and Other Drug Use." University of Florida. (http://vvww.health.ufl.edu/shcc/cadrc.htm). Carey, Kate B. 1 993. "Situational Determinants of Heavy Drinking among College Students." Journal of Counseling Psychology. 40:217-220. Carey, Kate B. 1 995. "Heavy Drinking Contexts and Indices of Problem Drinking among College Students." Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 56:287-293. Carter, Daniel S. 1997. "The Campus Security Act: A Tool to Involve the Campus Community in Crime Prevention." Campus Law Enforcement Journal. JulyAug. Cashin, Jeffrey, Cheryl Presley, and Philip Meilman. 1996. "Alcohol Use in the Greek System: Follow the Leader?" Journal of Studies on Alcohol. Jan 91 :63-70. Chronicle of Higher Education. 1998. "Crimes on 487 Campuses v^th more than 5,000 Students." The Chronicle of Higher Education Information Bank. http://chronicle.com/data/infobank.dir/factfile.dir/crime.dir/98crime/lyear.htm Ciotola, Kathy. 2001. "Student Reports Rape on Campus." Gainesville Sun. 1/27/2001. IB, 5B. Cohen, Adam. 1997. "Battle of the Binge (Drinking at American Colleges)." Time. 150:54-57. Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson. 1979. "Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activities Approach." American Sociological Review. 44:588-608.

PAGE 173

167 Collison, Michelle. 1988. "Members' Abusive Sexual Conduct Seen Jeopardizing Fraternities." Chronicle of Higher Education. 35:25-28. Copenhaver, Stacey and Elizabeth Grauerholz. 1 991 . "Sexual Victimization among Sorority Women: Exploring the Link Between Sexual Violence and Institutional Practices." Sex Roles. 2A:3\-A\. Dizon, Nicole. 2000. "Alcohol Arrests Increase." Gainesville Sun. 6/4/2000. lA, 9A. Engs, Ruth and David Hanson. 1994. "Boozing and Brawling on Campus: A National Study of Violent Problems Associated with Drinking over the Past Decade." Journal of Criminal Justice. 22: 1 7 1 -1 80. Erhart, Julie and Bemice Sandler. 1985. Campus Gang Rape: Party Games? Washington, D.C.: Project on the Status and Education of Women. Federal Bureau of hivestigation (FBI), U.S. Department of Justice. 1996. Crime in the United States, 1996: Uniform Crime Reports. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govememnt Printing Office. Federal Bureau of hivestigation (FBI), U.S. Department of Justice. 1997. Crime in the United States, 1997: Uniform Crime Reports. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govememnt Printing Office. Fisher, Bonnie. 1 996. The Extent and Patterns of Compliance with the Crime Awareness And Campus Security Act of 1990 Among Post-Secondary Institutions: A National Study. Executive Summary, August 1996. (http://campussafety.org/STUDIES/fisher.html) Fisher, Bonnie and Francis T. Cullen and Michael G. Turner. 2000. "The Sexual Victimization of College Women." Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice. Florida Statutes. 2000. Full Volume: Chapter 794: Sexual Battery. Fox, J. and D. Helhnan. 1985. "Location and Other Correlates of Campus Crime." Journal of Criminal Justice. 1 3 :429-444. Friedman, Jennifer and John A. Humphrey. 1985. "Antecedents of Collegiate Drinking." Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 14: 1 1 -21 . Gauiesville Sun. 2000. "Web Site Offers Data on Campus Crimes." 10/25/2000. lA, 5A. Gainesville Sun. 2000b. "33 Percent of Students in State Say They 'Binge' " 9/15/2000 1 A, 9A.

PAGE 174

168 Gearey, Robyn. 1997. "College Cop-out: Closing the Books on Campus Crime." The New Republic. 217:21-23. George, W. H. and Goumic, S. J. and M.P. McAfee. 1988. "Perceptions of Postdrinking Female Sexuality: Effects of Gender, Beverage Choice, and Drink Payment." Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 18:1295-1317. Gross, William. 1993. "Gender and Age Differences in College Students' Alcohol Consumption." Psychological Reports. 72:211-216. Gusfield, J. R. 1975. Community: A Critical Response. New York: Harper and Row. Harney, Patricia and Charlene Muehlenhard. 1 991 . "Factors that Increase the Likelihood of Victimization." Pp. 159-175 m Acquaintance Rape: The Hidden Crime, edited by Andrea Parrot and Laurie Bechhofer. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Harrington, Nicole Turillon and Harold Leitenberg. 1994. "Relationship Between Alcohol Consumption and Victim Behaviors Immediately Preceding Sexual Aggression by an Acquaintance." Violence and Victims. 9(4):3 15-324. Herman, D. 1984. "The Rape Culture." In^ Feminist Perspective, edited by J. Freeman. Mountainview, CA.:Mayfield. Higher Education Center (HEC). 2000. "Note to the Field on Binge Drinking." 10/20/2000. (http://www.edc.org/hec). Hingson, Ralph. 1998. "College-age Drinking Problems." Public Health Reports. 113:52-55. Hughes, Michael and Roger Winston. 1987. "Effects of Fraternity Membership on Inteqjersonal Values." Journal of College Student Personnel. 28:405-41 1 . Johns, Tracy. 1997. "The Effects of Male Athletic Participation and Fraternity Membership on Sexual Aggression." Master's Thesis, Department of Sociology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Johnson, Constance. 1991 . "When Sex is the Issue (Sex Crimes, Fraternity Membership, and College Athletes)." U.S.News and World Reports .111 :34-36. Johnson, Stuart, Lome Gibson, and Rick Linden. 1978. "Alcohol and Rape in Winnipeg, 1966-1975." Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 39(11): 1887-1 894. Kalof, Linda and Timothy Cargill. 1991 . "Fraternity and Sorority Membership and Gender Role Dominance Attitudes." Sex Roles. 25 :4 1 7-42 1 .

PAGE 175

169 Kane, Mary Jo and Lisa J. Disch. 1993. "Sexual Violence and the Reproduction of Male Power in the Locker Room: The Lisa Olson Incident." Sociology of Sport Journal. 10:331-352. Kanin, Eugene. 1969. "Selected Dyadic Aspects of Male Sexual Aggression." Journal of Sex Research. 5:12-28. Kirkpatrick, Chfiford and Eugene Kanin. 1957. "Male Sexual Aggression on a University Campus." American Sociological Review. 22:52-58. Klein, Hugh. 1994. "Changes in College Students' Use and Abuse of Alcohol, and in Their Attitudes Toward Drinking over the Course of Their College Years." Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 23:251-269. Koss, Mary. 1 988. "Hidden Rape: Sexual Aggression and Victunization in a National Sample of Students in Higher Education." hi A. Burgess (Ed.), Rape and Sexual Assault. New York: Garland Pub. Koss, Mary and T. E. Dinero. 1989. "Discriminant Analysis of Risk Factors for Sexual Victimization among a National Sample of College Women." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 57:242-250. Koss, Mary and John A. Gaines. 1 993 . "The Prediction of Sexual Agrression by Alcohol Use, Athletic Participation, and Fraternity Affiliation." Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 8:94-108. Koss, Mary and Christine Gidycz. 1985. "Sexual Experiences Survey: Reliability and Validity." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 53:422-423. Koss, Mary and Christine A. Gidycz and N. Wisniewski. 1987. "The Scope of Rape: Incidence and Prevalence of Sexual Aggression and Victimization in a National Sample of Higher Education Students." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 55(2): 162-1 70. Koss, Mary and Cheryl Oros. 1982. "Sexual Experiences Survey: A Research histrument hivestigating Sexual Aggression and Victimization." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 50:455-457. Lackie, Leandra and Anton Man. 1 997. "Correlates of Sexual Aggression among Male University Students." Sex Roles. 37:451-458. Larimer, Mary and Amy Lydum, K. Britt, and Aaron Turner. 1999. "Male and Female Recipients of Unwanted Sexual Contact in a College Student Sample: Prevalence Rates, Alcohol Use, and Depression Symptoms." Sex Roles 40:295-304.

PAGE 176

170 Lederman, Douglas. 1995. "Colleges Report Rise in Violent Crime." The Chronicle of Higher Education. 2/3/95 : A3 1 -34. Lively, Kit. 1998. "Alcohol Arrests on Campuses Jumped 10% in 1996; Drug Arrests Increased by 5%." The Chronicle of Higher Education. 5/8/98: A48-56. Longino, Charles F. and Cary Kart. 1973. "The College Fraternity: An Assessment of Theory and Research." Journal of College Student Personnel. 14: 1 1 8-124. Makepeace, J. 1981. "Courtship Violence Among College Students." Family Relations. 30:97-102. Malamuth, Neil. 1 98 1 . "Rape Proclivity among Males." Journal of Social Issues. 37: 138157. Martin, Patricia and Robert Hummer. 1989. "Fraternities and Rape on Campus." Gender and Society. 3:457-473. McPheters, L. 1978. "Econometric analysis of factors influencing crime on campus." Journal of Criminal Justice. 6:47-52. Messner, Mike. 1994. "Riding with the Spur Posse." hi M. Messner and D. Sabo (Eds.), Sex, Violence, and Power in Sports. Freedom, Ca.: The Crossing Press. Miller, Carrie. 1999. "UF Crime Figures Increase." Gainesville Sun. 9/19/99. 1A,6A. Monroe, Judy. 1996. "Binge Drinking (Alcohol Use among College Students)." Current Health. 22:26-29. Muhlenhard, Charlene and Linton, M. 1987. "Date Rape and Sexual Aggression in Dating Situations: Incidence and Risk Factors." Journal of Counseling Psychology. 34:186196. National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information (NCADI). 1995. "Sex Under the Influence of Alcohol and Other Drugs." (http://www.health.Org/govpubs/m 1 005/index.htm). Nichols, David. 1995. "Violence on Campus: the intruded sanctuary." The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. 64: 1 -5 . Norris, Jeanette. 1994. "Alcohol and Female Sexuality: A Look at Expectancies and Risks." Alcohol, Health, and Research World 18:1 97-202. Nurius, Paula and Jeanette Norris, Linda Dimeff, and Thomas Graham. 1996. "Expectations Regarding Acquaintance Sexual Aggression among Sorority and Fraternity Members." Sex Roles. 35:427-444.

PAGE 177

171 Nuwer, Hank. 1990. Broken Pledges: The Deadly Rite of Hazing. Atlanta: Longstreet Press. O'Dell, Liesl. 2000. "Changing Attitudes: UF Committee and Administrators Address Alcohol Issues on Campus." University of Florida: Today. 25:18-21. O'Hare, Thomas. 1990. "Drinking in College: Consumption Patterns, Problems, Sex Differences and Legal Drinking Age." Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 51 :536-541. Osgood, D. Wayne and Janet Wilson, Patrick O'Malley, Jerald Bachman, and Lloyd Johnston. 1996. "Routine Activities and Individual Deviant Behavior." American Sociological Review. 61 :635-655. Osland, Julie. 1996. "Likelihood to Rape in College Males." Sex Roles. 35:171-184. Perkins, H. Wesley and Henry Wechsler. 1996. "Variation in Perceived College Drinking Norms and Its Impact on Alcohol Abuse: A Nationwide Study." Journal of Drug Issues. 26:961-974. Rapaport, Karen and C. Dale Posey. 1991 . "Sexually Coercive College Males." Pp. 21 7-228 in Acquaintance Rape: The Hidden Crime, edited by Andrea Parrot and Laurie Bechhofer. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Richardson, Deborah and Campbell, J.L. 1 982. "Alcohol and Rape: The Effect of Alcohol on Attributions of Blame for Rape." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 8:468-476. Richardson, Deborah and Georgina Hammock. 1 991 . "Alcohol and Acquaintance Rape." Pp. 83-95 m Acquaintance Rape: The Hidden Crime, edited by Andrea Parrot and Laurie Bechhofer. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Rickgam, R. 1989. "Violence in Residence Halls: Campus Domestic Violence." In J.M. Sherill and D.G. Siegel (eds.). Responding to Violence on Campus: New Directions for Student Services. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rosenberg, Debra. 1990. "Bad Times at Hangover U." A^^ew^eeit. 11/19/90. Sabo, Donald. 1994. "Pigskin, Patriarchy, and Pain." In Sex, Violence, and Power in Sports, M. Messner and D. Sabo, Eds. Freedom, CA.: The Crossing Press. Sanday, Peggy. 1990. Fraternity Gang Rape: Sex, Brotherhood, and Privilege on Campus. New York: New York University Press. Scrivo, Karen Lee. 1998. "Drinking on Campus." CQ Researcher. March 20 1998-243251.

PAGE 178

172 Siegel, Dorothy. 1994. "What is Behind the Growth of Violence on College Campuses?" USA Today Magazine. 122:32-35. Shively, Michael and Julie Lam. 1991. "Sampling Methods and Admissions of Sexual Aggression Among College Men." Deviant Behavior. 12:345-360 Singleton, Jr., Royce A. and Bruce Straits and Margaret Miller Straits. 1993. Approaches to Social Research (2^ edition). New York: Oxford University Press. Sloan, John. 1994. "The Correlates of Campus Crime: An Analysis of Reported Crimes on College and University Campuses." Journal of Criminal Justice. 22:51-61. Snyder, Eldon E. 1994. "Interpretations and Explanations of Deviance among College Athletes: A Case Smdy." Sociology of Sport Journal. 1 1 :23 1 -248. Struckman-Johnson, Cindy. 1 99 1 . "Male Victims of Acquaintance Rape." Pp. 1 92-2 1 3 in Acquaintance Rape: The Hidden Crime, edited by Andrea Parrot and Laurie Bechhofer. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Sutherland, Edwdn and Donald Cressey. 1978. "The Theory of Differential Association." In Criminology (10* Edition). New York: Harper & Row Publishing. Trammel, Barry. 1995. "Does Athletes' Violence Merely Reflect the Times?" The Gainesville Sun. September 24: 1 G, 4G. Ulhnan, Sarah, George Karabatsos and Mary Koss. 1999. "Alcohol and Sexual Assault in a National Sample of College Women." Joumal of Interpersonal Violence. 14(6):603-625. University of Florida Alcohol and Drug Education and Pohcy Committee (UFADEPC). 2000. "Minutes of Meetings." (http://www.ufl.edu). Valliant, Paul. 1995. "Personality, Peer hifluence, and Use of Alcohol and Drugs by FirstYear University Students." Psychological Reports. 77:401-402. Ward, David A. and Timothy Carter and Robin Perrin. 1994. Social Deviance: Being, Behaving, and Branding. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Ward, Sally K. and Kathy Chapman, Ellen Cohen, Susan White, and Kirk Williams. 1991. "Acquaintance Rape and the College Social Scene." Family Relations. 40:65-71. Wechsler, Henry. 1996. "Alcohol and the American College Campus: A Report from the Harvard School of Public Health." Change. 28:20-27.

PAGE 179

173 Wechsler, Henry. 1999. "College Alcohol Use: A Full or Empty Glass Journal of American College Health. 47(6):247-253. Wechsler, Henry. 2000. "College Binge Drinking in the 1990s: A Continuing Problem. Journal of American College Health. 48(5): 1 99-2 1 1 . Wechsler, Henry. 2000b. "Should We Attack the Name or the Problem?" The Chronicle of Higher Education. 47 :B 1 2. Wechsler, Henry and George Dowdall, Andrea Davenport, and Sonia Castillo. 1995. "Correlates of College Student Binge Drinking." American Journal of Public Health. 85:921-926. Wechsler, Henry and Nancy Isaac, Francine Grodstein and Deborah Sellers. 1994. "Continuation and Initiation of Alcohol Use from the First to the Second Year of College." Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 55:41-46. Wolper, Allan. 1996. "Private courts face public scrutiny: college-run courts dealing with campus cases." Editor and Publisher. 129:12-14. Wooldredge, John and Francis CuUen and Edward Latessa. 1 995. "Predicting the Likelihood of Faculty Victimization: Individual Demographics and Routine Activities." Pp. 123-155 in Campus Crime: Legal, Social, and Policy Perspectives, edited by Bonnie Fisher and John Sloan, III. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas Publishers.

PAGE 180

BIGRAPHICAL SKETCH Tracy Johns is a native Floridian who grew up in Jacksonville, Florida. She attended the University of Florida, where she graduated Phi Beta Kappa with a bachelor's degree in sociology in 1995. She went on to earn a master's degree in sociology from the University of Florida in 1997. Tracy is presently the Research Director of the Florida Survey Research Center at the University of Florida. 174

PAGE 181

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree Doctor of Philosophy. Michael Radelet, Chair Professor of Sociology I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree Doctor of Philosophy. Ronald Akers Professor of Sociology I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree Doctor of Philosophy. Research Professor, Sociology I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree Doctor of Philosophy. Marian Borg Q Associate Professor of Sociology

PAGE 182

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree Doctor of Philosophy. ^ Michael Scicchitano Associate Professor of Political Science This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of Sociology in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirement of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. May 2001 Dean, Graduate School