Verbal, Physical, Sexual Victimization 1 Running Head: VERBAL, PHYSICAL, SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION Verbal, Physical, Sexual Victimization and Stalking Among College Females and Males

Existing research shows that many university students will be the victims of interpersonal violence at some point during their college experience. Often, these acts occur between individuals that not only know one another, but are romantically involved. With that in mind, the present study had two specific goals. The primary goal was to examine the prevalence of verbal, physical, sexual victimization and stalking within a sample of college females and males attending the same university using behaviorally-specific, gender-neutral questions. The results indicated that both females and males had experienced various forms of aggression at the hands of an intimate partner. In general, milder forms of aggression were more common than severe forms of aggression, but the direction of the gender difference varied across specific forms of aggression. Females were significantly more likely than males to experience stalking and eight of the nine forms of sexual aggression examined. The secondary goal of the current study was to test for the possible association between various forms of victimization. The results showed that sexual and nonsexual victimization was more strongly associated for females than for males. Verbal, Physical, Sexual Victimization 3 Verbal, Physical, Sexual Victimization and Stalking Among College Females and Males Research suggests that university students may experience several forms of interpersonal aggression during their college years, including verbal and physical aggression, sexual aggression, and stalking. Such acts can occur between complete strangers, but many times they occur between acquaintances (i.e., non-strangers). The degree of relationship may range from those that met one another only briefly before the act of aggression (e.g., “hook-up” at a party or “brief encounter” assault) to those in an established romantic partnership. Makepeace (1981) was among the first to show that verbal and physical aggression are not uncommon in dating relationships between college students. He found that 61.5% of respondents knew someone who had been involved in at least one instance of “courtship violence” (e.g., pushing, slapping, punching, striking with an object, assaulting with a weapon) and 21.2% had direct personal experience with acts of this nature. The most common forms of aggression between dating partners were slapping (12.9%) and pushing (13.9%). The most common reasons cited for the use of violence included: “jealousy of one partner in the relationship over the real or perceived involvement of the other with a man or woman,” “disagreements over drinking behavior” and “anger over sexual denial” (Makepeace, 1981, p. 98-99). These general findings have been supported by others. A 1989 review of the literature on intimate partner aggression indicated that approximately one third of college students engaged in aggression against their dating partners at some point during their relationship (Sugarman & Hotaling). In fact, more than 50 studies published since the 1980s have demonstrated that “dating couples are even more likely to be violent than married couples” (Straus, 2001, p. 791). A large national survey of college students (approximately 2,600 women and 2,100 men) Verbal, Physical, Sexual Victimization 4 reported that 88% of the women and 81% of the men had been either the perpetrator or victim of some form of verbal aggression in the 12 months prior to the study (White & Koss, 1991). Lower percentages reported either sustaining (32% of women and 39% of men) or inflicting (35% of women and 37% of men) some form of physical aggression (White & Koss). Stacy, Schandel, Flannery, Conlon, and Milardo (1994) found that 21% of their respondents admitted to having committed at least one act of aggression (e.g., slapping, kicking, threatening with a weapon) against their partner during their most recent romantic relationship. A more recent comprehensive international study further confirms the high rate of intimate partner aggression in that “29% of students [had] physically assaulted a dating partner in the previous 12 months (range = 17% to 45%) and 7% had physically injured a partner (range = 2% to 20%)” (Straus, p. 790). In addition to verbal and physical aggression, numerous studies have shown that college students may experience some form of sexual aggression during their college career. This is particularly true for females. It is estimated that the incidence rate for sexual assault among college females ranges from 15% to 25% at U.S. institutions of higher education (Finley & Corty, 1993; Fisher, Cullen & Turner, 2000; Frintner & Rubinson, 1993; Humphrey & White, 2000; Malamuth, Sockloskie, Koss, & Tanaka, 1991; Schwartz & DeKeseredy, 1997). Again, the perpetrator of such acts may be a stranger, but in many cases, the victim and aggressor know one another at least minimally. Koss, Gidycz & Wisniewski (1987) were among the first to report this reality. Of the college women in their sample that had experienced some type of unwanted sexual experience since the age of 14 (53.7%), 84% knew their aggressor and just over half of the assaults (57%) occurred while the victim was on a date. More recently, Fisher et al. (2000) reported that 2.8% of the 4,446 college women they sampled had experienced either Verbal, Physical, Sexual Victimization 5 completed (1.7%) or attempted rape (1.1%). In approximately 90% of these cases, the victim knew her attacker. Though less attention has been paid to the sexual assault and coercion of males, there is evidence that males may also be sexually victimized by an acquaintance. For example, Fiebert and Tucci (1998) found that 20% of male respondents said that a female had coerced them into having sexual intercourse without a condom and 20% indicated that they felt that a female had “taken sexual advantage of them” on at least one occasion. Studies attempting to compare the prevalence of sexual victimization for college females and males have produced mixed results. Although most suggest that the risk of sexual victimization is lower for college males, there is considerable variability in the size of the gender difference. For example, Poppen and Segal (1988) found that 74% of college females and 44% of college males reported being the victims of at least one form of sexual coercion. Likewise, Struckman-Johnson (1988) found that 13% of college females, but only 9% of college males, indicated that they had been forced to have sexual intercourse while on a date in college. Finally, Stets and Pirog-Good (1989) found that 36% of the college females and 22% of the college males indicated that they had been sexually abused by at least one romantic partner during the past year. Still other research has shown that male victimization may be similar to, or higher than, that of females when gender-neutral measures are used and participants are asked about forms of sexual aggression involving verbal coercion. For example, Larimer et al. (1999) found that 13.4% of males and 8.4% of females indicated that they had sexual intercourse with someone when they did not want to because the person became so sexual aroused that they felt it was useless to try to stop them. Likewise, 7.9% of males and 6.1% of females reported that they had been verbally pressured into having sexual intercourse when they did not want to do so. This Verbal, Physical, Sexual Victimization 6 same study found, however, that females (4.6%) were more likely than males (0.61%) to report that someone had used physical force to make them have sexual intercourse against their will. One final form of interpersonal aggression that may occur between college students is stalking. Relative to verbal, physical and sexual aggression, stalking has received little empirical investigation. In one of the few studies to examine the topic, Coleman (1997) asked female undergraduate students about their experiences with stalking by a former romantic partner. She found that approximately 9% of her subjects described behaviors that met the legal definition of stalking. An additional 27.9% described behaviors Coleman labeled “harassing” (e.g., following, making hang-up phone calls, coming to work/school). Fisher et al. (2000) found that 13.1% of college females said “yes” when asked “has anyone – from a stranger to an exboyfriend – repeatedly followed you, watched you, phoned, e-mailed, or communicated with you in other ways that seemed obsessive and made you afraid or concerned for your safety?” (p. 27). These findings are somewhat higher than those found among the general population. For example, Tjaden and Thoennes (2000) conducted phone interviews with 8,000 women and 8,005 men. Among those surveyed, 8.1% of females and 2.2% of males indicated that they had been stalked at some point in their lives. In general, work on verbal, physical, sexual aggression and stalking among college students has represented different bodies of research. Although a few studies have addressed both verbal/physical aggression and sexual aggression (e.g., Stets & Pirog-Good, 1989; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), and a few have addressed sexual aggression and stalking (e.g., Fisher et al., 2000; Tjaden & Thoennes), no single study, to our knowledge, has examined all of these forms of interpersonal aggression within the same college population of females and males. In addition, when studies have examined more than one of type of aggression, very few (e.g., Stets Verbal, Physical, Sexual Victimization 7 & Pirog-Good, 1989) have tested for a potential association between different forms of aggression. Such a comprehensive examination of interpersonal aggression among college students appears warranted for several reasons. First, although there is an extensive literature on the sexual victimization of college females, considerably less is known about males. Cross-study comparisons like those mentioned previously are problematic due to varying methodologies. Likewise, studies that have examined both females and males have produced mixed results, perhaps due to some of the same issues (e.g., small sample size, gender-biased questions, the range of experiences examined). Second, some researchers have argued that all forms of aggression, whether sexual or nonsexual, should be viewed as related (Kurz, 1998) and there appears to be some empirical data to support this position, at least for females. For example, when Stets and Pirog-Good (1989) examined both sexual and nonsexual physical abuse among college dating couples (169 females and 118 males), they found that 27% of the females and 17% of the males in their sample had been physically abused by at least one dating partner during the past year. In addition, 36% of the females and 22% of the males had been sexually victimized by at least one dating partner during the same time frame. Being a victim of both physical and sexual abuse within the same relationship was weakly correlated for females, but unrelated for males. Examining different forms of aggression, Coleman (1997) reported that women who were stalked by a former romantic partner following a breakup were also more likely to report experiencing verbal and physical abuse prior to the breakup than women who did not experience stalking behavior. In light of these findings, the present study had two specific goals. The primary goal was to build on previous work in this area by creating an instrument that allowed us to access both Verbal, Physical, Sexual Victimization 8 female and male college students’ experiences with a range of aggressive acts in a non-biased manner. To do this, we developed a questionnaire that included behaviorally-specific, genderneutral questions about verbal aggression, physical aggression, sexual aggression and stalking. The questions were modeled after items taken from the most respected instruments in the current literature, most notably Straus’s (1979) Conflict Tactics Scale, Tjaden and Thoennes’(2000) National Violence Against Women Survey and Fisher et al.’s (2000) National College Women Sexual Victimization study. In addition, we used an online format to collect our data. Most studies on sexual and nonsexual aggression ask participants to report on their experiences in a classroom or lab setting, in the presence of an experiment and other participants. A few have utilized a phone interview format (e.g., Fisher et al.; Tjaden & Thoennes). In all of these arrangements, it is possible that some participants are reluctant to participate and/or accurately report their experiences due to the sensitive nature of the questions. The current study attempted to reduce this problem by giving participants the freedom to choose the conditions (e.g., time, location) under which they accessed and completed the questionnaire. Fisher et al. (2000) has suggested that using computers to conduct surveys may be a valuable new medium by which to collect data on interpersonal aggression, particularly sexual aggression. The secondary goal of the present study was to test for the possible association between various forms of aggression. Although Stets & Pirog-Good (1989) reported an association between sexual and nonsexual victimization for college females, this study had a number of limitations. It had a relatively small sample (169 females; 118 males). The items referring to unwanted sexual behavior were not behaviorally-specific and somewhat ambiguous (i.e., “genital fondling”). Finally, participants only reported on their experiences with “up to four dating partners within the past year” (Stets & Pirog-Good, p. 66). It is possible that all of these Verbal, Physical, Sexual Victimization 9 procedural details affected both the likelihood of finding an association between physical nonsexual aggression and sexual aggression and the strength of that association. The current study attempted to correct for these limitations by sampling a greater number of participants, using behaviorally-specific questions similar to those already found in the literature, and allowing participants to report on experiences occurring within a wider variety of contexts (e.g., inside and outside a romantic relationship; longer time frame). In addition, it examined the possible association between a wider range of aggressive acts. Methods Participants Seven thousand undergraduate and graduate students enrolled at a large northwest public university were randomly selected for participation in the current study. Variables such as race/ethnicity, gender, class-standing and age were measured to ensure a representative sample. Materials & Procedures Participants were initially contacted using a postal letter mailed in the spring of 2005. This letter explained that the student had been selected for participation in the university’s “Survey of Campus Safety Attitudes and Behavior” study. It explained that the study was designed to collect information about students’ attitudes regarding personal safety on campus and their experiences with various forms of interpersonal aggression as a student at the university. The letter also indicated that the study had been approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board and that participation was voluntary. Each letter contained the URL for the study’s website as well as a personalized access code that each participant could use to gain access to the survey from this site. These codes were non-sequential and were used to protect participants’ personal identities. Once a code was used to access the survey and the Verbal, Physical, Sexual Victimization 10 survey was completed, the code was no longer effective. The letter also informed participants that, upon completion of the survey, they would have the opportunity to enter a drawing for one of ten monetary awards. As many as three additional contacts were made at one week intervals to either thank those that had responded or to encourage those that had not responded to still do so. Once participants used the URL address to find the study’s website, they were presented with a cover letter that again briefly explained the nature of the study. At this point, each participant was instructed to enter her/his personalized access code and then indicate her/his consent by clicking on “I Consent” or “I Do Not Consent.” Entering an active access code and clicking “I Consent” allowed the participant to enter the survey. Entering an active access code, but indicating “I Do Not Consent” resulted in a brief thank you message. The questionnaire began with a series of general questions about students’ opinions regarding interpersonal aggression. These questions were intended to gradually ease the participants into the questionnaire. Following the opening questions, participants were asked whether or not they had been involved in at least one dating/romantic relationship while attending the university. If they responded “no” to this question, they immediately moved to the section of the questionnaire addressing sexual aggression and stalking (explained below). If they responded “yes,” they were then presented with a list of aggressive acts and were asked to indicate whether they had experienced any of those acts at the hands of a romantic partner since becoming a student at the university. Participants were also asked to estimate how many times they had experienced each type of aggression using “Never,” “Once,” “2-5 Times” and “>5 Times” options. A total of 26 items addressed various forms of aggression, including examples of verbal abuse/threats, controlling behavior, physical aggression and sexual aggression. The content and wording of specific items were modeled after previously developed measures, Verbal, Physical, Sexual Victimization 11 including Straus’ (1979) Conflict Tactics Scale, Tjaden and Thoennes’ (2000) Violence Against Women Survey, Shepard and Campbell’s (1992) Abusive Behavior Inventory, Marshall’s (1992) Violence Against Women Scale and James, West, Deters and Armijo’s (2000) Youth Dating Violence Survey. All items were presented in gender-neutral terms. Upon completing the section on intimate partner aggression, participants were asked to specify whether they were male, female or transgender. Based on their response, participants were asked nine questions about specific forms of sexual aggression and one question addressing instances of stalking. The questions were detailed and behaviorally specific. Their content and wording were modeled after previously developed instruments, particularly Fisher et al.’s (2000) The Sexual Victimization of College Women, Tjaden and Thoennes’ (2000) Violence Against Women Survey, and Koss & Oros’ (1982) Sexual Experiences Survey. The only difference between the male and female versions of the questionnaire was the wording that referred to specific genitalia. Individuals who identified themselves as transgender were presented with a statement explaining that the authors of the study acknowledged that sex is not a dichotomous variable, but because the questions referred to specific genitalia, participants were being asked to designate themselves as female or male based on the appearance of their external genitalia. Participants answered the sexual aggression and stalking questions using “yes” or “no” options. At no point in the questionnaire were the terms “sexual coercion,” “sexual assault,” “rape” or “stalking” used to label specific experiences. After completing these questions, participants were asked to identify their “most distressing” experience of sexual aggression/stalking and were then asked a series of follow-up questions about that single experience. The results of the “most distressful” and follow-up questions will not be discussed in this paper. The final questions of the survey addressed demographic variables. Verbal, Physical, Sexual Victimization 12 At the end of the questionnaire, participants received a brief message acknowledging that reading and/or responding to some questions on the survey may have caused some emotional discomfort for some participants. Contact information for the university’s counseling services was provided in the event that a participant wanted to talk to a professional. Participants were also given contact information for the two principle investigators for the study (the first and second authors) in the event that they had questions about the study. Finally, they were thanked for their participation and presented with a list of links to resources with information about intimate partner aggression, sexual aggression and stalking. They also had the option of entering the drawing for one of ten monetary rewards. Security and Data Management Internet access to the website was monitored via firewalls at the university hub to reduce unauthorized access to survey pages. In addition, steps were taken to minimize the chances of the survey site being listed on Internet search engines since access was only intended for project researchers and individuals selected as part of the sample. All responses made on the web survey were collected and stored in a protected database. If a participant changed his/her response to a specific survey item, the last response made was always the one included in the final dataset. Results Sample Of the 7,000 individuals selected for participation, 2,551 participants completed the entire survey (36.4% completion rate). An additional 117 participants completed part of the survey and those data were included in the final analysis. The final sample (N = 2629) was 57.1% female (n = 1501), 42.8% male (n = 1125), and 0.001% transgender (n = 3). Thirty nine subjects did not Verbal, Physical, Sexual Victimization 13 identify their sex and those data were not included in the analysis. Participants were distributed across class standing in the following manner: 19.8% freshman; 27.1% sophomore; 23.1% junior; 21.9% senior; 16.2% graduate/professional; and 1.7% other. The majority of the sample identified their sexual orientation as heterosexual (96.0%) with equal percentages selfidentifying as homosexual and bisexual (2%). Consistent with the racial/ethnic composition of this university’s campus, the sample was predominately Caucasian/White (72.9%), followed by Asian/Pacific Islander (5.0%), Latino(a)/Chicano(a)/Hispanic (3.9%), African American/Black (1.6%) and American Indian/Alaskan Native/Aleut (1.1%). Approximately 15% did not indicate their race/ethnicity. Intimate Partner Aggression Just over 76% of females (n = 1150) and 69% of males (n = 781) indicated that they had been in at least one dating/romantic relationship since coming to the university. The results of the intimate partner aggression questions are presented in Table 1. It shows the number and percentage of females and males reporting various forms of interpersonal aggression and the frequency of those experiences. To simplify the presentation of the data, the categories of “2-5 Times” or “>5 Times” were combined to create the “>Once” category. Because only three participants self-identified as transgender, their results were combined with the results for males (n = 1) and females (n = 2) based on how these participants designated themselves for the sexual aggression and stalking questions. Percentages were calculated by dividing the number of females and males that reported experiencing each level of frequency (e.g., “Never”) for a particular type of aggression by the total number of participants that responded to that item (i.e., form of aggression). The “At Least Once” column was calculated for females and males by summing the percentages in the “Once” and “>Once” columns for the females and male, Verbal, Physical, Sexual Victimization 14 respectively. Forms of intimate partner aggression were ranked in order from the largest to the smallest gender difference. “Difference” values were calculated by subtracting the percentage of males from the percentage of females that experienced each form of aggression “at least once.” Positive values indicate that more females than males reported a particular form of aggression; negative values indicate that more males than females reported a particular form of aggression. Table 1 indicates that both females and males reported experiencing a range of aggressive acts at the hands of a romantic partner. In fact, the three most frequent forms of aggression were the same for females and males (i.e., partner accused them of paying too much attention to someone/something else; partner brought up something from the past to hurt them; partner said something to intentionally hurt them when other people were not around). A greater percentage of females than males reported experiencing 14 of the 26 forms of aggression. A greater percentage of males than females reported experiencing the remaining 12 forms of aggression. However, the forms of aggression associated with a higher percentage of females were generally associated with larger difference scores than those associated with a higher percentage of males. To determine if there was a statistically significant difference between females and males for various forms of aggression, Chi-square analyses were performed on the raw data in the “Never” and “>Than Once” columns for each form of aggression, starting with the form of aggression with the largest gender difference (top of table) and working down the table to the point at which no significant difference was found between females and males. These analyses revealed significant gender differences for the first ten forms of aggression (indicated by an asterisk next to the difference score in Table 1) (Hit or kicked a wall, door or furniture, χ(1) = 82.7, p < 01; Initiated sexual touching against your will, χ(1) = 67.1, p < 01; Drove dangerously with you in the car, χ(1) = 33.6, p < 01; Threw, smashed or broke an object, χ(1) = 26.9, p < 01; Slapped, Verbal, Physical, Sexual Victimization 15 scratched and/or bit you, χ(1) = 39.8, p < 01; Attempted sexual penetration (oral, anal or vaginal) against your will, χ(1) = 44.4, p < 01; Kicked you and/or hit you with firsts, χ(1) = 45.9, p < 01; Stopped you, or tried to stop you, from going to work/school or something else you wanted to do, χ(1) = 12.2, p < 01; Brought up something from the past to hurt you, χ(1) = 6.7, p < 01; Succeeded in sexual penetration (oral, anal or vaginal) against your will, χ(1) = 22.3, p < 01). Of these 10, 7 involved forms of aggression for which the percentage of females was higher than males. Sexual Aggression The data from the nine sexual aggression questions and one stalking question are summarized in Table 2. Each question appears in abbreviated form. Table 2 presents both the number and percentage of females and males that indicated that they had experienced some form of sexual aggression and stalking while enrolled at the university. Percentages were calculated by dividing the number of females and males that responded either “Yes” or “No” to each experience by the total number of females and males, respectively, that answered each question. As with the intimate partner aggression questions, the data from the three transgender participants were combined with the results for males (n = 1) and females (n = 2). “Difference” values were calculated by subtracting the percentage of males that experienced each from of aggression from the percentage of females that experienced the same form of aggression. The experiences have been ranked in order of difference scores. A higher percentage of females than males indicated that they had experienced some form of sexual aggression while attending the university. This was true for all nine forms of sexual aggression as well as stalking (i.e., being repeatedly followed, watched, phoned, etc). Chi-square analyses conducted on the raw data for females and males revealed significant gender Verbal, Physical, Sexual Victimization 16 differences (indicated with an asterisk next to the difference score in Table 2) for all forms of sexual aggression except one (i.e., “Promises of Rewards for Sex”) (Forced, unwanted sexual touching, χ(1) = 138.8, p < .01; Attempted, but unsuccessful sexual touch, χ(1) = 190.9, p < .01; Overwhelmed by constant pestering, χ(1) = 124.2, p < .01; Attempted, but unsuccessful, oral/vaginal/anal sex, χ(1) = 80.0, p < .01; Forced vaginal sex, χ(1) = 43.1, p < .01; Forced oral sex, χ(1) = 15.5, p < .01; Threats of nonphysical punishment for sex, χ(1) = 8.9, p < .01; Forced anal sex, χ(1) = 6.7, p < .01; Promise of rewards for sex, χ(1) = 0.8, p > .05). Likewise, a significant gender difference was found for the one item referring to stalking (Repeatedly followed, watched, phoned, etc, χ(1) = 104.6, p < 01). Factor Analysis To explore the possible relationship between intimate partner aggression, sexual aggression and stalking, we began by examining the underlying structure of the intimate partner aggression data using exploratory factor analysis. Before the analysis began, certain criteria were established for factor definition: 1) eigenvalues had to be greater than one (Zwisk & Velicer, 1986); item loadings had to be greater than 0.5; and secondary item loadings had to be minimal (< 0.40)(Harmon, 1967) to insure good discriminative validity. Using these criteria, factor analyses were conducted separately on the data for females and males, beginning with all of the items listed in Table 1. If an item failed to meet any of the criteria listed above, it was subsequently removed and the remaining items were re-factored. The results of the exploratory factor analysis are presented in Table 3. For both females and males, the analyses resulted in a four-factor solution (accounting for 62.6% of the total variance for females and 57.9% of the total variance for males). Factor 1 for females loaded 6 items (34.5% of the variance), factor 2 loaded 5 items (11.8% of the variance), and factors 3 and Verbal, Physical, Sexual Victimization 17 4 loaded 4 items each (10.1% and 6.2% of the variance, respectively). Based on the interpretation of the items associated with each factor, factors 1 through 4 were labeled “Physical Aggression,” “Threat of Harm,” “Sexual Aggression,” and “Control.” For males, factor 1 loaded 8 items (32.2% of the variance), factor 2 loaded 6 items (11.2% of the variance), factor 3 loaded 5 items (9.6% of the variance) and factor 4 loaded 3 items (4.9% of the variance). Although the specific items that loaded on the four factors differed for males and females, the same general themes appeared to exist. Based on the interpretation of the items associated with each factor for males, factors 1 through 4 were labeled “Control,” “Threat of Harm,” “Sexual Aggression,” and “Physical Aggression.” After the factors were identified for females and males, the items associated with each factor were summed together to create a single factor value for each participant on each of the four factors. Pearson correlations were then conducted on the new factor values and the data from the sexual aggression and stalking questions listed in Table 2. Table 4 presents the results of those correlations. Due to the large sample size, correlations equal to or larger than 0.20 (indicated by an asterisk in Table 4) were considered significant. For both females and males, the results indicate that “sexual aggression” within the context of a romantic relationship was the factor most highly correlated with sexual aggression and stalking. However, the association between these variables was stronger for females. That is to say, sexual aggression within the context of a romantic relationship was significantly correlated with eight of the nine forms of sexual aggression examined for females as well as the one item referring to stalking. For males, the “sexual aggression” factor was significantly correlated with only three of the nine forms of sexual aggression and unrelated to stalking. Verbal, Physical, Sexual Victimization 18 For the remaining three factors, correlations between intimate partner violence, sexual aggression and stalking were generally stronger for females than for males. For females, “physical aggression” was significantly correlated with 2 forms of sexual aggression, “threat of harm” was significantly correlated with 5 forms of sexual aggression, and “control” was significantly correlated with 5 forms of sexual aggression. Both “threat of harm” and “control” were significantly correlated with stalking for females. For males, “control” was significantly correlated with 2 forms of sexual aggression and “threat of harm” was significantly correlated with 1 form of sexual aggression. Neither of these factors was significantly correlated with stalking for males. “Physical aggression” was not significantly correlated with any form of sexual aggression for males and unrelated to stalking. Discussion The current study adds to a growing body of literature on interpersonal aggression among university students by providing an examination of verbal aggression, physical aggression, sexual aggression and stalking within a single college sample. In doing so, it avoids the problems associated with cross-study comparisons and provides a picture of the relative prevalence of these forms of aggression among females and males attending the same university. It also provides a preliminary analysis of the possible association between various forms of aggression. The current results show that both female and male college students experience a range of aggressive acts at the hands of a romantic partner. Overall, “milder” forms of abuse (i.e., saying something hurtful) were more likely than threats of harm or actual physical aggression. This general pattern has been reported by others (Arias, Samios, and O’Leary, 1987; Lane & Gwartney-Gibbs, 1985; Makepeace, 1983; Straus, 2001; White & Koss, 1991). The direction of the gender difference varied across different forms of intimate partner aggression. A higher Verbal, Physical, Sexual Victimization 19 percentage of females experienced 14 of the 26 forms of aggression investigated; a higher percentage of males experienced the remaining 12. However, of the 10 forms of aggression for which a significant gender difference was found, 7 were instances in which females were at greater risk than males. Finding that females, in general, are more likely to be the victims of intimate partner aggression is consistent with other studies (Bernard & Bernard, 1983, Billingham and Sack, 1987; Lane & Gwartney-Gibbs, 1985; Makepeace, 1983; Marshall, 1987; Marshall & Rose, 1987; O-Keefe, Brockopp, & Chew, 1986). On the other hand, finding that males can also be the victims of such aggression is consistent with the work of others (Stets & Pirog-Good, 1987; Straus, 2001; White & Koss). An exploratory factor analysis further elucidated the gender differences for intimate partner aggression. Four factors were identified for both females and males: “control,” “threat of harm, “physical aggression,” and “sexual aggression.” Although the same factor labels were used for females and males, the factors differed across gender in terms of the specific items that defined each factor, the number of items associated with each factor and the ranking of each factor. For females, “physical aggression” was the first factor and “control” was the fourth factor. This order was reversed for males. This suggests that intimate partner aggression against females is defined more in physical terms than aggression against males, which is defined more in terms of verbal abuse or controlling behavior. These results are consistent with the assumption that the use of physical aggression is generally more effective for males than for females, due to average gender differences in size and strength. In contrast, females may use forms of control with their male partners because the effectiveness of these behaviors is influenced less by those same physical differences. These findings are also consistent with data indicating that females Verbal, Physical, Sexual Victimization 20 are more likely to sustain serious physical injury as a result of intimate partner aggression (Makepeace, 1986; Sugarman & Hotaling, 1989) “Threat of harm” and “sexual aggression” were the second and third factors, respectively, for both genders in the factor analysis. “Sexual aggression” was the factor that showed the greatest similarity across gender in terms of its defining items. Three items loaded on this factor for both males and females (i.e., initiated sexual touching against your will, attempted sexual penetration again your will, succeeded in sexual penetration against your will). The only item that differed across gender was “tried to choke me,” which loaded on this factor for females, but did not load on any factor for males. For the three items that were the same across gender, the percentage of females that experienced each item was significantly higher than the percentage of males. This finding is consistent with Stets & Pirog-Good (1989) who also found that being the victim of sexual aggression within the context of a romantic relationship was more common for females than for males. The results of the current study confirm the claim that university students, especially females, are at risk of sexual aggression. Females were significantly more likely than males to experience all forms of sexual aggression except those in which the aggressor promised rewards for sexual intercourse. These results are inconsistent with studies that have reported gender similarities in the prevalence of specific forms of sexual aggression when gender neutral measures are used and forms of verbal coercion for sex are investigated. For example, Larimer et al. (1999) found that 6.1% of college females and 7.9% of college males claimed that they had sexual intercourse with someone when they did not want to because they “felt pressured by their continual arguments.” In the current study, 21% of females, but only 5.4% of males, indicated that they had unwanted sexual intercourse because a person “overwhelmed them with continual Verbal, Physical, Sexual Victimization 21 pestering.” The reason for these differences in verbal coercion is unknown, but at least three differences between the current study and Larimer et al. may have contributed. First, the slightly different wording (e.g., “arguments” versus “pestering) may have prompted reporting about different experiences. Second, the current study involved a much larger sample. Third, participants in the current study were asked to report about their experiences since enrolling at the university; Larimer et al. asked students only about their experiences during the past year. Despite the overall percentage differences for sexual aggression, a similar pattern of victimization was found for males and females. That is to say, both genders were more likely to experience attempted or successful unwanted sexual touching than forms of verbal pestering for sex. Experiences of verbal coercion for sex (e.g., promises of reward for sex; threats of nonphysical punishment for sex) were more likely for both genders than forced oral or anal sex, but not more likely than forced vaginal sex for females. Others have reported similar trends (e.g., Larimer et al., 1999). Although the rate of sexual victimization was greater for females than males in the current study, our findings still support the claim that men can be the victims of sexual aggression. Our results may also challenge some of the beliefs frequently associated with male victimization. For example, 1.3% (n = 15) of males responded “yes” when asked, “Has anyone, by force or threat of harm, made you have vaginal sex? Vaginal sex means that your penis was put in someone’s vagina (e.g., a female aggressor on top, forcing the male to penetrate her vagina with his penis).” Although it is possible to interpret this question as a situation involving a third party (i.e., a male forcing the participant to have sex with a female), the specific example provided at the end of the question was intended to evoke the recall of an experience in which the aggressor was female. If we assume that this was how most participants interpreted the Verbal, Physical, Sexual Victimization 22 question, this finding challenges the widely held assumption that all men welcome sexual encounters with women and cannot be forced by a woman to have vaginal sex against their will. In addition, it may raise important questions about how male victimization is affected by legal definitions of sexual assault. For example, “rape” is often defined in terms of forced penetration of the victim. It would appear that a situation in which a female forces a male to have vaginal sex against his will would not quality as rape according to this definition since his is not the body that is penetrated. The present study extends previous work regarding the possible relationship between verbal, physical and sexual victimization (e.g., Stets & Pirog-Good, 1989). Of the four factors identified for intimate partner aggression, “sexual aggression” was the factor most strongly correlated with the nine specific acts of sexual aggression listed in Table 2. This was particularly true for females. That is to say, “sexual aggression” within the context of a dating relationship was significantly correlated with eight of the nine forms of sexual aggression in Table 2 for females, but only three forms of sexual aggression for males. These data, however, are somewhat difficult to interpret. Because the items listed in Table 1 referred to experiences that occurred within the context of a dating relationship, but the items in Table 2 were not restricted to those occurring outside a dating relationship, a participant who had experienced sexual aggression within a dating relationship may have been referring to the same experience in her/his responses to the items in Table 2. Having said that, a comparison of the data in Tables 1 and 2 suggests that at least some of the sexual experiences reported in the two tables represent different events. For example, in Table 1, 17.5% of females and 4.9% of males indicated that a dating partner had “initiated sexual touching against [the participant’s] will”, but in Table 2, 31.9% of females and 9.1% of males reported that someone had used “force or threat of harm, to touch Verbal, Physical, Sexual Victimization 23 [the participant] in an unwanted and uninvited sexual manner.” Likewise, 6.1% of females and 1.6% of males reported that a dating partner had “succeeded in sexual penetration (oral, anal or vaginal) against [the participant’s] will” in Table 1. If the data for the three categories referring to forced penetration in Table 2 are combined (i.e., “forced oral sex,” “forced vaginal sex,” and “forced anal sex”), 8.5% of females and 1.8% of males reported that they had experienced at least one form of forced penetration. In both cases, the percentages for Table 2 are higher than those in Table 1, suggesting that at least some of the experiences reported in Table 2 occurred outside the context of a dating relationship. It should be noted, however, that this pattern was not observed for the data referring to “attempted sexual penetration.” In Table 1, 10.1% of females and 2.3% of males indicated that a dating partner had “attempted sexual penetration (oral, anal or vaginal) against [the participant’s] will”, but in Table 2, only 9.7% of females and 1.2% of males reported that someone had “attempted, but not succeeded in making [the participant] have oral, vaginal or anal sex.” The reason for this discrepancy is unknown. One possibility is that the more detailed wording of the item in Table 2, particularly the addition of “but not succeed”, caused participants to categorize certain experiences slightly differently than they did in Table 1. Another possibility is that participants that reported an experience for the question in Table 1 did not refer again to the same experience in Table 2 because they felt it was redundant to do so. Overall, the current results tentatively suggest that there is an association between sexual victimization within a dating relationship and sexual victimization outside a dating relationship for females, but additional work will be needed to determine if these preliminary findings are valid. The remaining three factors identified for intimate partner aggression (i.e., “Control,” Threats of Harm, “Physical Aggression”) were also more strongly correlated with sexual Verbal, Physical, Sexual Victimization 24 aggression for females than for males. Of the 27 correlations tested, 11 were significant for females, but only 3 were significant for males. Like Stets and Pirog-Good (1989), these results show that nonsexual and sexual victimization are more strongly associated for females than for males. However, unlike their results, which referred to acts of aggression occurring only within the same dating relationship, the present results tentatively suggest that the association between nonsexual and sexual victimization may exist for acts occurring across a variety of interactions (dating or otherwise). They also offer a more specific description of the relationship. In Table 4, “promises of rewards for sex” and “forced vaginal sex” were the two forms of sexual aggression most strongly associated with intimate partner aggression (i.e., significantly correlated with all four factors). This suggests that females with a history of verbal and physical aggression in their intimate relationships may be at greatest risk of these forms of sexual aggression. Likewise, females who have been the victims of forced vaginal sex or unwanted sex due to verbal coercion may be more likely to experience verbal and physical aggression at the hands of a romantic partner at some point in their lives. In the current study, both females and males reported experiencing instances in which someone had “repeatedly followed, watched, phoned, written, e-mailed or attempted to communicate with them in a way that seemed obsessive and made them afraid or concerned for their safety.” Such instances of “stalking” were the fourth most common form of aggression for both genders (17.9% of females and 4.5% of males) in Table 2, but significantly more common for females. The percentage for females is slightly higher than the one reported by Fisher et al. (2000) who used an almost identical question to assess stalking. The percentages found for both females and males are also higher than those reported by Tjaden and Thoennes (2000) for females and males in the general population. In addition, the present results show that stalking Verbal, Physical, Sexual Victimization 25 was significantly correlated with two of the four factors related to intimate partner aggression for females (i.e., “Threat of Harm, “Control”). These findings build on the work of Coleman (1997). She reported that females who experienced stalking behavior after a breakup often reported verbal and physical aggression prior to the termination of the relationship. Although we cannot be sure in the present study that the experiences of intimate partner aggression and stalking reported by females refer to experiences committed by the same perpetrator or conform to a particular order reported by Coleman (i.e., intimate partner aggression followed by stalking), our results do suggest that women who experience either intimate partner aggression or stalking are likely to experience the other form of aggression at some point. This appears to be particularly true when the intimate partner aggression is characterized by threats of harm (e.g., partner hits or kicks a wall, throws an object, or drives dangerously when victim was in the car) or controlling behavior (e.g., partner tells the victim she can not do something, stops her from doing something, accuses her of paying too much attention to someone/something else). In contrast, intimate partner aggression and stalking were not related for males. None of the four factors identified for intimate partner aggression was significantly correlated with stalking for males. Although the present results provide some preliminary evidence for an association between various forms of sexual and nonsexual aggression for females, the exact nature of these relationships is unknown. For example, it is possible that experiencing some form of verbal or physical aggression at the hands of an intimate partner causes a female to act in ways that make her more vulnerable to acts of sexual aggression both inside and outside the context of a dating relationship. Alternatively, experiencing some form of sexual aggression at one time may increase a female’s chances of being the target of an intimate partner’s verbal and/or physical aggression at a later time. Finally, some unknown variable or set of variables may be at play that Verbal, Physical, Sexual Victimization 26 influence(s) a female’s likelihood of being a victim of both sexual and nonsexual aggression. For example, both low self-esteem (Burke, Stets & Pirog-Good, 1989; Testa & Dermen, 1999) and a history of family violence and abuse (DeMaris, 1987; Laner & Thompson, 1982; Marshall, 1987; Polusny & Follette, 1995; Sigelman, Berry & Wiles, 1984) have been identified as risk factors for both types of victimization. Perhaps one or both of these pre-existing variables increases a female’s risk of victimization during her college years. Additional research is clearly needed to determine if the association between nonsexual and sexual victimization is real for females (and not for males), and if so, how these variables are related. Our data show that verbal, physical, sexual aggression and stalking among college students remain serious problems. This is troubling for the health of the individual and the university. At the individual level, students learn that aggression is an effective and acceptable way of resolving conflict and achieving desired outcomes within their intimate relationships. Assuming that dating relationships in college serve as models for future romantic partnerships, these interactions establish unhealthy behavior patterns that may generalize to later relationships. At the university level, undesirable levels of aggression undermined the university’s ability to create an environment that supports intellectual growth and promotes trust and respect among members of the student body. The results of the present study may have implications for how universities can address these concerns. Ideally, it appears that educational programs will be best when they cover a range of aggressive acts (e.g., verbal, physical, sexual) and recognize diverse victim profiles (e.g., female and male; straight, gay, and bisexual). Although programs focused on sexual coercion/assault are fairly common on college campuses, those addressing verbal and physical aggression among intimate partners are not. Our data indicate that such programs are needed for Verbal, Physical, Sexual Victimization 27 at least two reasons. First, they would directly address forms of aggression currently overlooked on many campuses. Second, they might indirectly decrease levels of sexual victimization, at least for females. Of course, budgetary constraints and logistical issues may prevent such a comprehensive approach. In such cases, programming targeting those at greatest risk may be more realistic. In the current study, females were significantly more likely than males to be the victims of all forms of sexual aggression but one and more likely to experience instances of stalking. In addition, sexual and nonsexual victimization were more strongly associated for females than for males. Consequently, females that have experienced either intimate partner aggression or sexual aggression may represent a group at greatest risk for future victimization. Tailoring programming for this particular group may be an effective prevention strategy. Verbal, Physical, Sexual Victimization 28 References Arias, I., Samios, M., & O’Leary, K. D. (1987). Prevalence and correlates of physical aggression during courtship. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2, 82-90. Bernard, J. L., & Bernard, M. L. (1983). Violent Intimacy: The family as a model of love relationships. Family Relations, 32, 283-286. Billingham, R. E., & Sack, A. R. (1987). Conflict resolution tactics and the level of emotional commitment among unmarrieds. Human Relations, 40, 59-74. Burke P. J., Stets J. E., & Pirog-Good., M. A. (1989). Gender Identity, Self-Esteem, and Physical and Sexual Abuse in Dating Relationships. In M. A. Pirog-Good & J. E. Stets (Eds.), Violence in dating relationships: Emerging social issues. (pp. 72-93) New York, NY: Praeger. Coleman, F. L. (1997). Stalking behavior and the cycle of domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 420-432. DeMaris, A. (1987). The efficacy of a spouse abuse model in accounting for courtship violence. Journal of Family Issues, 8, 291-305. Fiebert, M. S., & Tucci, L. M. (1998). Sexual coercion: Men victimized by women. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 6, 127-133. Finley, C., & Corty, E. (1993). Rape on campus: The prevalence of sexual assault while enrolled in college. Journal of College Student Development, 34, 113-117. Fisher, B., Cullen, F., & Turner, M. (2000). The sexual victimization of college women. U.S. Department of Justice, NCJ# 182369. Frinter, M. P., & Rubinson, L. (1993). Acquaintance rape: The influence of alcohol, fraternity membership, and sports team membership. Journal of Sex Education and Verbal, Physical, Sexual Victimization 29 Therapy, 19, 272-284. Harmon, H. H. (1967). Modern factor analysis (2 Ed). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. Humphrey, J. A., & White, J. W. (2000). Women’s vulnerability to sexual assault from adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27, 419-424. James, W. H., West, C., Deters, K. E., & Armijo, E. (2000). Youth dating violence. Adolescence, 35, 455-465. Koss, M. P., Gidycz, C. A., & Wisniewski, N. (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, 162-170. Koss, M. P., & Oros, C. (1982). Sexual Experiences Survey: A research instrument investigating sexual aggression and victimization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 455-457. Kurz, D. (1998). Old problems and new directions in the study of violence against women. In R. K. Bergen (Ed.), Issues in intimate violence (pp. 197-208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lane, K. E., & Gwartney-Gibbs, P. A. (1985). Violence in the context of dating and sex. Journal of Family Issues, 6, 45-49. Laner, M. R., & Thompson, J. (1982). Abuse and aggression in courting couples. Deviant Behavior, 3, 229-244. Larimer, M. E., Lydum, A. R., Anderson, B. K., & Turner, A. P. (1999). Male and female recipients of unwanted sexual contact in a college student sample: Prevalence rates, alcohol use, and depressive sympotoms. Sex Roles, 40, 295-308. Verbal, Physical, Sexual Victimization 30 Makepeace, J. M. (1981). Courtship violence among college students. Family Relations, 30, 97-102. Makepeace, J. M. (1983). Life events, stress and courtship violence. Family Relations, 32, 101-109. Makepeace, J. M. (1986). Gender differences in courtship violence victimization. Family Relations, 35, 383-388. Malamuth, N. M., Sockloskie, R. J., Koss, M. P., & Tanaka, J. S. (1991). Characteristics of aggressors against women: Testing a model using a national sample of college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 670-681. Marshall, L. L. (1987). Gender differences in the prediction of courtship abuse from family of origin violence, anxiety proneness and recent positive and negative stress. Paper presented at the Third National Conference on Family Violence Research. University of New Hampsire, Durham, NH, July, 1987. Marshall, L.L. (1992). Development of the severity of violence against women scales. Journal of Family Violence, 7, 103-121. Marshall, L. L., & Rose, P. (1987). Gender, stress and violence in adult relationships of a sample of college students. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 299-316. O-Keefe, N. K., Brockopp, K., & Chew, E. (1986). Teen dating violence. Social Work, 31, 465-468. Polusny, M. A., & Follette, V. M. (1995). Long-term correlates of child abuse: Theory and review of the empirical literature. Applied and Preventative Psychology, 4, 143 -166. Poppen, P. J., & Segal, N. J. (1988). The influence of sex and sex role orientation on Verbal, Physical, Sexual Victimization 31 sexual coercion. Sex Roles, 19, 689-701. Schwartz, M. D., & DeKeseredy, W. S. (1997). Sexual assault on the college campus: The role of male peer support. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Shepard, M. F., & Campbell, J. A. (1992). The abusive behavior inventory: A measure of psychological and physical abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 291-305. Sigelman, C. K., Berry, C. J., & Wiles, K. A. (1984). Violence in college students’ dating relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5, 530-548. Stets, J. E., & Pirog-Good, M. A. (1987). Violence in dating relationships. Social Psychology, 50, 237-246. Stets, J. E., & Pirog-Good, M. A. (1989). Patterns of physical and sexual abuse for men and women in dating relationships: A descriptive analysis. Journal of Family Violence, 4, 63-76. Stacy, C. L., Schandel, L. M., Flannery, W. S., Conlon, M., & Milardo, R. M. (1994). It’s not all moonlight and roses: Dating violence at the University of Maine, 1982 -1992. College Student Journal, 28, 2-9. Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88. Straus, M. A. (2001). Prevalence of violence against dating partners by male and female university students worldwide. Violence Against Women, 10, 790-811. Struckman-Johnson, C. (1988). Forced sex on dates: It happens to men, too. The Journal of Sex Research, 24, 234-241. Sugarman, D. B., & Hotaling, G. T. (1989). Dating violence: Prevalence, context, and risk markers. In M. A. Pirog-Good & J. E. Stets (Eds.), Violence in dating Verbal, Physical, Sexual Victimization 32 relationships: Emerging social issues (pp. 3-32). New York, NY: Praeger. Testa, M., & Dermen, K. H. (1999). The differential correlates of sexual coercion and rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 548-561. Tjaden and Thoennes (2000). Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women. National Institute of Justice, NCJ# 183781. White, J. W., & Koss, M. P. (1991). Courtship violence: Incidence in a national sample of higher education students. Violence and Victims, 6, 247-256. Zwisk, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 432-442. Verbal, Physical, Sexual Victimization 33 Acknowledgements This research was supported by grants from the Office of the President, Washington State University. We wish to thank V. Lane Rawlins, President Emeritus and Elson Floyd, President, for their continuing support in the effort to understand and prevent interpersonal violence on our campus. Verbal, Physical, Sexual Victimization 34