An Examination of Dating Violence Among College Student-Athletes

Abstract

College students are at increased risk for dating violence (DV) perpetration and victimization. One group of college students who may be at elevated risk is college student-athletes. While levels of athletic involvement range from National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I to Division III, there is currently a lack of information about the dating and relationship behaviors of male and female Division III student-athletes. This study identified the frequency of both minor and severe physical, psychological, and sexual DV perpetration and victimization in a sample of NCAA Division III college student-athletes. We also examined hazardous drinking and hostile sexism as risk factors for DV perpetration and victimization among male and female student-athletes. A total of 350 student-athletes from a Division III university participated in this study. In total, 57% of student-athletes reported perpetrating some form of DV in the past year, while 56% reported experiencing some form of DV victimization in the past year. Two negative binomial generalized linear models assessed if hazardous drinking and hostile sexism were associated with sexual assault perpetration and victimization among men and women. Both hostile sexism and hazardous drinking were predictive of DV perpetration and victimization. These findings serve as an important first step in identifying behaviors that contribute to DV among Division III student-athletes and can be used to inform future prevention interventions aimed at decreasing DV among student-athletes.

Keywords

predicting domestic violence domestic violence alcohol and drugs

Dating violence (DV) can be defined as the victimization or perpetration of physical violence, sexual violence, threats of physical or sexual violence, stalking, and psychological aggression against a partner in a dating relationship (Black et al., 2011; Breiding et al., 2014). Estimates suggest that up to one third of women and nearly half of men have perpetrated DV within a relationship (Straus, 2008). More specifically, dating partners perpetrate about 51% of female rapes and 45% of male rapes (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Division of Violence Prevention, 2012). In addition, approximately 35% of women and 28% of men in the United States have reported victimization of some form of DV in their lifetime (Black et al., 2011), with nearly half of all women and men experiencing psychological aggression by a dating partner (S. G. Smith et al., 2017). Taken together, over 80% of young men and women have either perpetrated or experienced DV (P. H. Smith et al., 2009), suggesting it is a ubiquitous experience for individuals in relationships.

College Students

DV perpetration and victimization is a serious concern for young adults in the developmental period between adolescence and adulthood (Arnett, 2000; Munsey, 2006). In fact, 47% of women and 38% of men first experience DV between the ages of 18 and 24 years (Black et al., 2011). Furthermore, DV is more prevalent among college-aged couples relative to any other age group (Karakurt & Keiley, 2013) with estimates ranging between 10% and 50% (Harned, 2002; Mulford & Giordano, 2008). Among college students, physical aggression occurs in 20% to 30% of dating relationships, while psychological aggression occurs in 50% to 80% of dating relationships and sexual aggression occurs in 15% to 25% of dating relationships (Gover et al., 2008; Shorey et al., 2011).

One subgroup of college students who may be at particular risk for DV is National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) student-athletes. Student-athletes are overrepresented as perpetrators in incidents of sexual assault reported to college campus judicial affairs (Crosset et al., 1996) and exhibit high rates of DV (Chandler et al., 1999; Forbes, 2006). Specifically, male student-athletes are at high risk for perpetrating sexual violence (McCray, 2015). In addition, a national report of college campuses indicates that male student-athletes account for 19% of all sexual violence cases reported to Judicial Affairs offices, despite only comprising 3% of the students surveyed (Crosset et al., 1995). Finally, student-athletes have reported a greater likelihood than nonathletes to have fondled someone of the opposite sex against their will and to have had forced sex (Chandler et al., 1999).

It is important to note, however, that research on student-athletes’ dating behaviors is limited. The research that does exist focuses exclusively on NCAA Division I student-athletes and examines men as perpetrators and women as victims. In addition, these data do not provide prevalence rates, specify frequency, or identify specific risk factors of perpetration and victimization for both male and female student-athletes across NCAA competition levels (Cercone et al., 2005; Kaukinen et al., 2012). Furthermore, some researchers report higher rates of victimization among college women than men and higher rates of perpetration for college men than women, while other researchers report similar rates of perpetration among college men and women (Cercone et al., 2005; Follette & Alexander, 1992; Foshee & Matthew, 2007). More recent work suggests that college women may perpetrate DV more than men (Kaukinen et al., 2012). To date, no study has investigated gender differences in the rates of perpetration and victimization of DV among college student-athletes.

As described above, the majority of research on student-athletes has focused on Division I student-athletes, despite potential differences between intercollegiate divisions. Division I student-athletes often maintain a focused and physically demanding lifestyle while employing a “win-at-all-costs” mentality, which may lead to greater levels of aggression, dominance, and hypermasculinity for men both on and off the field (Jackson & Davis, 2000). In contrast, Division II and III student-athletes may be quite similar to nonathletes because they are not afforded the same privileges as Division I student-athletes. For example, they do not enjoy the same tuition, room and board, tutoring opportunities, and medical care benefits and therefore are under less pressure to prioritize their athletic responsibilities and win at all costs (Jackson & Davis, 2000). Unfortunately, there is a paucity of data on DV involvement among such student-athletes, despite the fact that Division III schools represent 41% of NCAA institutions.

Risk Factors

In addition to understanding the prevalence and frequency of DV, identifying specific factors related to DV among student-athletes could assist in minimizing risk. Identification of such factors has the potential to inform a targeted prevention intervention aimed at reducing DV and promoting healthy relationships for student-athletes. For example, alcohol use is a known risk factor for both DV perpetration and victimization among college students (Kaukinen, 2014). Alcohol can also prevent potential victims from interpreting warning signs of an assault while diminishing a perpetrator’s understanding of consent (Gidycz et al., 2007). Also, perpetrators often use alcohol as a justification or excuse for violent behavior such as DV (Koss & Cleveland, 1997). Drinking alcohol prior to a sexual act is associated with greater likelihood of DV given alcohol’s impact on a potential victim’s ability to resist unwanted sexual advances (Gidycz et al., 2007). Furthermore, hazardous drinking, defined as drinking habits that allow for moderate risk of physical or psychological harm (Saunders et al., 1993), is consistently associated with DV (Kantor & Straus, 1990; Shorey et al., 2011).

College students consume large quantities of alcohol and are at risk for both alcohol use disorders and negative consequences associated with their alcohol use, more so than their noncollege peers (Shorey et al., 2015). They also engage in greater levels of hazardous drinking and are more frequently intoxicated than their noncollege counterparts (Schulenberg et al., 2017). Further, these behaviors are consistently associated with DV (Kantor & Straus, 1990; Shorey et al., 2011). With regard to student-athletes, both men and women are likely to engage in hazardous drinking (Green et al., 2014). Male student-athletes also exhibit high rates of alcohol use in conjunction with sexual risk behaviors, such as multiple sexual partners (Grossbard et al., 2007). Overall, student-athletes have a propensity to engage in high rates of alcohol use, a known risk factor for DV perpetration and victimization among college students (Gidycz et al., 2007; Grossbard et al., 2007). Hazardous drinking may serve as an important risk factor for DV perpetration and victimization among student-athletes.

In addition to hazardous drinking, several attitudinal risk factors are associated with DV perpetration and victimization (for review, see Capaldi et al., 2012). One relevant factor is hostile sexism, which enforces an unequal balance of power between men and women, leaving men feeling entitled to exerting dominance (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Individuals who endorse hostile sexism believe women are inferior and do not deserve respect, which has been associated with the justification of DV following an act of betrayal (Forbes et al., 2005). Indeed, hostile sexism is recognized as a risk factor for DV among college students (Forbes et al., 2005; Lisco et al., 2012).

With regard to student-athletes, it is possible that hostile sexism increases risk for DV. Student-athletes are more likely to endorse beliefs that are reflective of a rape-supportive culture than nonathletes (Boeringer, 1999; Crosset et al., 1996; Forbes, 2006; Frintner & Rubinson, 1993). Rape-supportive cultures often foster sexist beliefs, the acceptance of violence, hostility toward women, and rape myths (Boeringer, 1999; Frintner & Rubinson, 1993). Furthermore, in rape-supportive cultures, the victim is typically blamed, while the perpetrator is exonerated or their actions justified (Bieneck & Krahe, 2011; Sizemore, 2013). Such beliefs help individuals make sense of victimization, to facilitate the belief that “this won’t happen to me.” In terms of perpetration, sexist beliefs are often predictive of DV (Reyes et al., 2015). It is therefore reasonable to hypothesize that student-athletes’ endorsement of hostile sexism may be associated with the frequency of DV perpetration and victimization.

Study Aims and Hypotheses

To understand how to prevent DV perpetration and victimization among NCAA Division III intercollegiate athletes, it is critical that we understand the frequency and prevalence of DV, type of DV (victimization, perpetration, or both), and risk factors for DV. Therefore, this study aimed to (a) identify the prevalence and frequency of DV perpetration and victimization among men and women within a sample of Division III student-athletes, and (b) evaluate whether hazardous drinking and hostile sexism are risk factors for DV perpetration and victimization among these student-athletes. We hypothesized that both hazardous drinking and hostile sexism would be predictive of the frequency of both DV perpetration and victimization among student-athletes.

Method

Participants

Participants included intercollegiate student-athletes attending a public NCAA Division III university in the Northeastern United States. Of the 519 student-athletes enrolled during the Fall of 2016 and Spring of 2017 semesters, 350 student-athletes (53.1% male and 45.4% female, 0.9% preferred not to say, 0.6% did not answer) from 16 sports teams (seven male teams and nine female teams) completed the questionnaires of interest (67% participation rate). These teams included football, men’s and women’s track and field, field hockey, men’s and women’s soccer, men’s and women’s swimming and diving, men’s and women’s cross country, baseball, men’s and women’s basketball, volleyball, softball, and women’s lacrosse. The mean age of participants was 19.5 (SD = 1.3, range = 18–25) years. Our sample consisted of freshman (31.1%, n = 109), followed by sophomores (28.6%, n = 100), juniors (24.9%, n = 87), and seniors (12.0%, n = 42), while 3.4% did not report their academic year (n = 12). The sample was predominantly White (78.3%, n = 274), followed by Black or African American (16.9%, n = 59), American Indian or Alaska Native (1.1%, n = 4), and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (0.6%, n = 2). Within our sample, 8% (n = 28) identified as “Other,” 4.9% (n = 17) identified as multiracial, and 0.6% (n = 2) preferred not to identify their race. Given the small number of participants who identified as other than White, those participants were grouped together as non-White for subsequent analyses. These demographics are consistent with the 2016 and 2017 NCAA demographic database. In addition, the majority of our sample identified as heterosexual (94%, n = 329), followed by bisexual (3.1%, n = 11) and homosexual (1.4%, n = 5); however, 0.6% (n = 2) preferred not to indicate their sexual orientation and 0.9% (n = 3) did not respond. Finally, 64% (n = 224) of participants were in a relationship, while 36% (n = 126) were not.

Procedure

After obtaining approval by our Institutional Review Board (IRB), we administered several questionnaires that assessed the frequency of DV perpetration and victimization and measured engagement in or endorsement of our hypothesized risk factors in a sample of NCAA Division III student-athletes. Coaches coordinated with research assistants to find a time and date for their team to be surveyed. Research assistants attended team meetings to oversee how coaches explained the project, the distribution of the questionnaires, and to complete the informed consent process. Team coaches left the room during the informed consent and questionnaire administration process to protect student confidentiality. After collecting the consent forms, each student-athlete received either the questionnaires or an alternate packet based on the student-athlete’s decision to participate or not. The alternate packet included material such as puzzles and word games, and minimized the risk of teammates and coaches knowing who did and did not participate.

Measures

Sociodemographics

We obtained sociodemographic information via eight questions about gender, sexual orientation, age, academic year, race, ethnicity, relationship status, and team membership.

Revised Conflict Tactics Scale

The Revised Conflict Tactics scale (CTS2; Straus et al., 1996) is a 39-item measure evaluating the use of sexual coercion, injury, psychological aggression, and physical attacks in dating relationships. Some items include the ability to use reasoning or negotiation when dealing with conflicts. We did not include these items in our analyses as we are only interested in DV behaviors through the sexual coercion, injury, psychological, and physical subscales (Graham et al., 2019; Sabina et al., 2017). There are two subscales: minor and severe. The CTS2 queries frequency (from “never” to “more than 20 times”) of behaviors within the past year. Items are typically scored by determining the prevalence of the behavior, followed by the frequency (Straus, 2004). This study utilized both the prevalence score and frequency score to determine how many student-athletes have experienced or perpetrated DV in the past year, and how frequently DV has been experienced or perpetrated within the past year.

Reports on the internal consistency of the CTS2 subscales vary, with Cronbach’s alphas ranging from .34 to .92 (Straus et al., 1996). For this study, the CTS2 demonstrated strong internal consistency for items relating to behavior done to a partner (α = .93) and for items relating to behavior a partner did to the participant (α = .92). Of note, one item from the minor subscale of physical aggression was inadvertently omitted: “I pushed or shoved my partner.” Because it is not possible to impute data missing for every participant on a single item, we chose to compute subscale scores for the physical assault scale using the existing items. This method of dealing with item-level missing data is preferable to replacing the missing item with mean subscale scores because it preserves the scale variance. The internal consistency for the physical assault subscale originally reported by Straus and colleagues (1996) was α = .86, while among our sample, the internal consistency reliability for the physical assault subscale was α = .97.

Ambivalent Sexism Inventory

The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI; Glick & Fiske, 1996) is a 22-item self-report measure of sexist attitudes. The ASI contains two subscales, comprising 11 items each. This study focused on the hostile sexism subscale, which encompasses the belief that women are inferior to men and not worthy of respect, but worthy of subservience and domination by men. Items are measured on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and averaged. Higher scores represent greater endorsement of hostile sexism. The hostile sexism subscale of the ASI demonstrates good Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from .80 to .92 (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Within the current sample, the hostile sexism subscale demonstrated good internal consistency (α = .79).

Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test

The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT; Saunders et al., 1993) is a 10-item measure of harmful and hazardous alcohol use. The AUDIT covers the domains of alcohol consumption, drinking behavior, adverse reactions to drinking, and alcohol-related problems. Each item asks for either the frequency or amount of the behavior, with scores for each item ranging from 0 to 4. A hazardous drinking score on the AUDIT is represented by a score of 8 or above. The AUDIT demonstrates a range of internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from .40 to .83 (Saunders et al., 1993). In the present sample, the AUDIT demonstrated good internal consistency (α = .82).

Analytic Strategy

We obtained prevalence and frequency scores of DV perpetration and victimization among male and female Division III student-athletes by averaging the scores on the CTS2 for the entire sample, including those who reported never perpetrating or experiencing DV. We then assessed demographic differences in the frequency of DV perpetration and victimization. Next, we examined gender differences among our dependent and independent variables through a series of t-tests, bivariate zero-order correlations, and point-biserial correlations. Our dependent variables included frequency of DV perpetration and victimization, and our independent variables included gender, hazardous drinking, and hostile sexism. We included hazardous drinking and hostile sexism given the literature about risk factors for DV among college students. Finally, we ran two separate negative binomial generalized linear models to determine whether gender, hazardous drinking, and hostile sexism are associated with the frequency of DV perpetration and victimization within our sample. Gender was included as an independent variable in the generalized linear models to allow for a direct comparison of the effects of gender within a single model.

Results

Frequency of DV Perpetration and Victimization

Table 1 shows differences in student-athletes’ frequency of DV perpetration and victimization during the past year by gender, academic year, age, race, ethnicity, and relationship status. Participants who did not report their gender (n = 3) were excluded from our analyses. Within our sample, 57.1% (n = 197) of participants reported perpetrating DV in the past year. Of those who perpetrated DV, 48.7% (n = 96) were men and 51.3% (n = 101) were women. In total, 53.3% (n = 184) of our sample reported perpetrating psychological aggression in the past year, while 26.4% (n = 91) of our sample reported sexual coercion perpetration, 18.3% (n = 63) reported physical assault perpetration, and 7.2% (n = 25) reported injury perpetration. Among women, 59.7% (n = 95) perpetrated psychological aggression in the past year, 19.5% (n = 31) perpetrated physical assault in the past year, 21.4% (n = 34) perpetrated sexual coercion in the past year, and 4.4% (n = 7) reported injury perpetration in the past year. Among men, 47.8% (n = 89) perpetrated psychological aggression in the past year, 17.2% (n = 32) perpetrated physical aggression in the past year, 30.6% (n = 57) perpetrated sexual coercion in the past year, and 9.7% (n = 18) reported injury perpetration in the past year. The average frequency of DV perpetration across all CTS2 subscales in our entire sample was 15.6 instances in the past year. Among the CTS2 subscales measuring DV perpetration in the past year, participants endorsed frequent psychological aggression perpetration (M = 8.6, SD = 15.7), followed by sexual coercion perpetration (M = 3.3, SD = 8.4), physical assault perpetration (M = 2.5, SD = 10.8), and injury perpetration (M = 1.3, SD = 6.7). Gender differences in frequency of perpetration among the subscales of the CTS2 were explored and the only statistically significant difference emerged for physical assault perpetration and sexual coercion perpetration. Relative to women (M = 1.2, SD = 4.8), men (M = 3.5, SD = 14.0) reported greater frequency of physical assault perpetration, t(329) = 2.06, p < .05. Also, relative to women (M =1.9, SD = 5.3), men (M = 4.5, SD = 10.2) reported greater frequency of sexual coercion perpetration, t(328) = 2.98, p < .01. There was a significant difference in frequency of DV perpetration in the past year by race, with non-White participants reporting more frequent perpetration than White participants, t(329) = 2.78, p < .01. Of note, non-White is a heterogeneous label, and any differences likely represent a proxy for other constructs.

Table 1.

Frequency Differences in Student-Athletes’ DV Perpetration and Victimization by Gender, Academic Year, Race, Ethnicity, and Relationship Status.

Demographic Variable	Perpetration			Victimization
Demographic Variable	M (SD)	t/F	df	M (SD)	t/F	df
Gender		1.19	329		0.77	328
Male	17.48 (38.38)			20.99 (46.11)
Female	13.44 (22.40)			16.96 (48.46)
Academic year		0.64	3, 317		0.71	3, 316
Freshman	12.69 (34.95)			13.78 (43.95)
Sophomore	17.89 (36.31)			20.14 (41.70)
Junior	15.60 (23.11)			22.60 (61.28)
Senior	19.73 (33.19)			23.70 (36.10)
Race		2.78**	329		2.58*	328
White	11.58 (20.78)			14.39 (40.15)
Non-White	27.46 (51.03)			32.99 (61.69)
Ethnicity		−0.10	296		−0.09	296
Hispanic	14.43 (22.52)			17.32 (30.30)
Non-Hispanic	14.89 (31.29)			18.14 (48.46)
Sexual orientation		0.45	3, 325		0.40	3, 324
Straight	15.53 (32.730)			19.14 (47.98)
Gay/Lesbian	8.40 (11.72)			7.20 (11.80)
Bisexual	19.73 (31.04)			21.82 (34.99)
Romantic relationship		−0.25	329		−0.34	328
Yes	16.19 (33.35)			20.26 (61.90)
No	15.27 (31.28)			18.44 (35.86)

Note. DV = dating violence.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

In terms of victimization, 55.7% (n = 192) of participants within our sample reported experiencing DV victimization in the past year. Of those who experienced DV victimization, 50.5% (n = 97) were men and 49.5% (n = 95) were women. In addition, 52.2% (n = 180) of our sample reported victimization through psychological aggression, while 26.7% (n = 92) reported sexual coercion victimization, 18.8% (n = 65) reported physical assault victimization, and 6.7% (n = 23) reported experiencing injury victimization. Among women, 57.9% (n = 92) experienced psychological aggression in the past year, 17.0% (n = 27) experienced physical assault in the past year, 20.8% (n = 33) experienced sexual coercion in the past year, and 4.4% (n = 7) reported injury victimization in the past year. Among men, 47.3% (n = 88) experienced psychological aggression in the past year, 20.4% (n = 38) experienced physical assault in the past year, 31.7% (n = 59) experienced sexual coercion in the past year, and 8.6% (n = 16) reported injury victimization in the past year. The average frequency of DV victimization across all CTS2 subscales in our entire sample was 19.1 instances in the past year. Among the CTS2 subscales measuring DV victimization in the past year, participants endorsed frequent psychological aggression victimization (M = 9.9, SD = 19.6), followed by sexual coercion victimization (M = 4.7, SD = 14.6), physical assault victimization (M = 3.6, SD = 16.3), and injury victimization (M = 1.0, SD = 5.4). Gender differences in frequency of victimization among the subscales of the CTS2 were explored and the only statistically significant difference emerged for injury victimization. Relative to women (M = 0.3, SD = 2.9), men (M = 1.6, SD = 6.8) reported greater frequency of injury victimization, t(328) = 2.31, p < .05. There was a significant difference in frequency of DV victimization in the past year by race, with participants who identified as non-White reporting more frequent DV victimization than those who identified as White, t(328) = 2.58, p < .05.

Of note, there was a significant relationship between DV perpetration and DV victimization among women and men. A chi-square test of independence revealed a significant relationship between DV perpetration and DV victimization χ²(1, n = 153) = 113.53, p < .001, in that women who perpetrated DV were more likely to experience DV victimization. In addition, men who perpetrated DV were more likely to experience DV victimization χ²(1, n = 177) =142.58, p < .001.

Risk Factors for DV Perpetration and Victimization

There were gender differences in hostile sexism. Men exhibited a greater endorsement of hostile sexism (M = 2.5, SD = 0.8) than women (M = 1.9, SD =0.8); t(331) = 6.86, p < .001. There were no gender differences in hazardous drinking χ²(2, n = 345) = 3.25, p = .07. To explore the bivariate correlations among the primary variables, we conducted a series of zero-order Pearson correlations for continuous variables and point-biserial correlations for dichotomous variables. There was a significant positive correlation between frequency of DV perpetration and DV victimization in the past year (r = .86, p < .001). There was also a significant positive correlation between frequency of DV perpetration and hazardous drinking (r = .16, p < .01). While there was no significant correlation between frequency of DV perpetration and hostile sexism, there was a significant positive correlation between frequency of DV victimization and both hostile sexism (r = .12, p < .05) and hazardous drinking (r = .13, p < .05). Finally, there was a significant positive correlation between hostile sexism and hazardous drinking (r = .12, p < .05).

Furthermore, we ran separate bivariate correlations for men and women between the primary variables. Table 2 summarizes these results. In sum, there was a significant positive correlation between frequency of DV perpetration and victimization for both men (r = .95, p < .001) and women (r = .78, p < .001). In addition, hazardous drinking was positively correlated with frequency of DV perpetration among women (r = .20, p < .05). No other relationships between the primary variables were significant at the bivariate level within gender.

Table 2.

Bivariate Correlations Among Primary Variables.

Variable	DV Perpetration	DV Victimization	Hazardous Drinking	Hostile Sexism
DV perpetration	—	.78***	.20*	.10
DV victimization	.95***	—	.15	.15
Hazardous drinking	.14	.10	—	.03
Hostile sexism	.09	.08	.14	—

Note. Men’s scores on the bottom diagonal, women’s scores on the top diagonal. DV = dating violence.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 3 summarizes the results of the two generalized linear models (GLMs) estimating the effects of gender, hazardous drinking, and hostile sexism on frequency of DV perpetration and victimization. We used negative binomial distributions with logit link functions to account for zero inflation in the outcome variables. Given the gender differences identified in our risk factors, we included gender within our models for both perpetration and victimization and ran interaction effects to assess for gender’s impact on hazardous drinking and hostile sexism within our models. A significant model for perpetration (p < .001) and victimization (p < .001) emerged with hazardous drinking and hostile sexism predictive of frequency of DV perpetration and victimization. Specifically, tests of model effects indicate that both hazardous drinking (Wald χ² = 37.55, p < .001) and hostile sexism (Wald χ² = 10.88, p < .01) were predictive of frequency of DV perpetration. Similarly, tests of model effects indicate that both hazardous drinking (Wald χ² = 33.67, p < .001) and hostile sexism (Wald χ² = 24.08, p < .001) were predictive of frequency of DV victimization. There were no significant interaction effects of gender on both hazardous drinking and hostile sexism.

Table 3.

Parameter Estimates for Generalized Linear Models Estimating the Effects of Hazardous Drinking, Hostile Sexism, and Gender Variables on DV Perpetration and Victimization.

Predictor	Perpetration			Victimization
Predictor	Wald Chi-Square	Exp(B)	95% CI	Wald Chi-Square	Exp(B)	95% CI
Hazardous drinking	37.55***	2.12	[1.57, 3.04]	33.67***	1.64	[1.18, 2.28]
Hostile sexism	10.88**	1.42	[1.13, 1.78]	24.08***	1.32	[1.06, 1.66]
Gender	1.35	1.59	[0.75, 3.37]	1.99	0.49	[0.23, 1.03]
Gender × Hazardous Drinking	0.14	0.93	[0.57, 1.46]	2.90	1.51	[0.94, 2.41]
Gender × Hostile Sexism	1.62	0.82	[0.61, 1.11]	1.73	1.23	[0.90, 1.67]

Note. Hazardous drinking = yes, gender = female. DV: dating violence; CI = confidence interval.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was twofold. First, we identified the prevalence and frequency of DV perpetration and victimization among men and women within a sample of Division III student-athletes. Second, we examined whether hazardous drinking, hostile sexism, and gender demonstrate significant relationships with the frequency of DV perpetration and victimization. Currently, no research exists on DV among Division III student-athletes, much less risk factors associated with DV within this population. Consistent with DV literature among adolescents and previous reports on college dating relationships (Cercone et al., 2005; Foshee & Matthew, 2007; Kaukinen et al., 2012), our findings indicate that men and women are both victims and perpetrators of DV, making this sample not dissimilar to nonathletes. DV perpetration and victimization are not mutually exclusive; those who experience DV victimization are likely to perpetrate DV against their partner (Kaukinen et al., 2012). Researchers suggest that men’s violence influences women such that their experience as victims impacts their propensity to use violence against their partners (Herrera et al., 2008). However, this relationship between men and women is not bidirectional; no studies currently implicate women’s use of violence as influencing men’s use of violence. Interestingly, in this study, men experienced injury DV victimization more frequently than women, and perpetrated physical and sexual DV more frequently than women.

Our results indicate that hazardous drinking is predictive of frequency of DV perpetration and victimization among both men and women. College student-athletes are held to a high standard and adhere to certain rules during their season. One such rule often set forth by coaches forbids alcohol use up to 48 hr before a game (P. Kempf, personal communication, September 25, 2018). This provides less of an opportunity for student-athletes to drink during their athletic season. As such, college student-athletes may engage in more hazardous drinking outside of their season in an attempt to enjoy something that is typically restricted. This may result in uninhibited behaviors typical to hazardous drinking, such as DV perpetration, which may be justified after the fact as the product of alcohol use.

In this study, hostile sexism is also predictive of frequency of DV perpetration and victimization among both men and women. In addition, differences exist between men and women concerning hostile sexism. Men, on average, endorsed higher levels of hostile sexism. This is not surprising given that sexist attitudes (particularly hostile) appear to be consistently held by men over women and are linked to DV and sexual harassment (Russell & Trigg, 2004). Furthermore, hostile sexism affects the acceptance of DV, victim blame, and the approval of male aggression in dating relationships (Forbes et al., 2005; Koepke et al., 2014).

Hostile sexism may be a significant risk factor for the frequency of DV perpetration and victimization among student-athletes for several reasons. The more men harbor sexist beliefs toward women—such as they are not equal and they strive to diminish and inhibit men—the more likely it is that they may feel able to inflict harm on women. This is consistent with the literature that identifies student-athletes’ likelihood to endorse sexist beliefs (Boeringer, 1999; Crosset et al., 1996; Forbes, 2006; Frintner & Rubinson, 1993). In addition, sexist beliefs can lead to DV during conflict (Bascón et al., 2013). Feminist theorists argue that the dating relationship is an institution that teaches individuals the practices of heterosexuality; women learn to place the needs of their male partners above their own, which may explain this relationship between sexist beliefs and DV (Chung, 2005). This contributes to a power imbalance between men and women within romantic relationships, such that gender scripts privilege male power (Chung, 2005).

If heterosexual norms teach women to place a man’s needs over her own, then women may not view themselves as equal to men. Instead, women may view themselves as subservient. This coincides with our finding that hostile sexism is associated with DV victimization among women and men, as there were no significant interaction effects of gender on hostile sexism in the negative binomial generalized linear model. Should a woman believe she is not a man’s equal, she may feel that he holds more power over her, including the right to engage in conflict through psychological, physical, sexually coercive, or injurious DV. In addition, women often experience self-blame following an instance of violence, including DV, possibly to alleviate feelings of confusion concerning “why me?” (Ullman et al., 2014). As such, women’s endorsement of hostile sexism may be an example of self-blame; because women believe themselves to be “less than” men, they deserve the experience of DV victimization during conflict. In addition, self-blame often leads to revictimization (Janoff-Bulman, 1979; Miller et al., 2007). Alternatively, women who endorse hostile sexism may see themselves as innocent, pure, and required to adhere to certain stereotypes. Therefore, they may accept male dominance and an unequal power dynamic.

In addition, significant differences in DV perpetration and victimization also emerged by race; participants who identified as non-White reported more frequent DV perpetration and victimization. Research suggests that African Americans are more likely to report experiencing DV than any other racial group (Bent-Goodley, 2004; Hampton & Gelles, 1994; Rennison & Welchans, 2000). However, these differences in rates of DV by race are likely due to multiple contextual factors outside of race, such as family, school, and neighborhood, as well as systemic risk factors like poverty and racism (Foshee et al., 2005; Gunroe & Mariner, 1997; McLeod et al., 1994). As such, it is important to recognize that race alone does not explain the significant differences that emerged in frequency of DV perpetration between White and non-White participants within our sample.

Overall, our findings support an association between hazardous drinking and hostile sexism with DV among Division III student-athletes. For the first time, hostile sexism and hazardous drinking are identified as risk factors for DV perpetration and victimization among student-athletes. In addition, this study provides the first report of the frequency of DV perpetration and victimization among male and female student-athletes.

This study is not without its limitations. Our data are cross-sectional and come from a single NCAA Division III university in the Northeastern United States. Our results may not generalize to other institutions, particularly non-NCAA institutions, or geographic regions and may not be directly compared with nonathletes. To explore potential differences between Division III student-athletes and their counterparts in Divisions I and II, in addition to nonathletes, future studies should seek to compare data across multiple universities of varying sizes, locations, and divisions. Such data may speak to whether prevention interventions should vary based on athletic division and other differences in the target audience of student-athletes. It would also be beneficial to assess DV perpetration and victimization along with hazardous drinking and hostile sexism longitudinally.

Furthermore, our data are not relationship-specific. As such, future studies should assess frequency of DV perpetration and victimization within and between both participants and relationships, ideally with dyadic data to examine mutual violence within relationships and relationship-level risk factors. Although we encountered significant differences in DV perpetration and victimization by race, we were unable to thoroughly explore these differences due to our small sample size of non-White participants. This is largely due to the demographics of the university sample in this study.

Finally, future studies should be sure to include a diverse sample and assess protective factors for DV perpetration and victimization in addition to risk factors. Understanding the protective factors for DV among male and female Division III student-athletes informs skills-based prevention interventions aimed toward minimizing the frequency of DV perpetration and victimizations. Such skills-based prevention interventions may include psychoeducation and skill-based activities concerning communication, conflict resolution, safe sex behaviors, and bystander behaviors. DV may be reduced by addressing specific behaviors that contribute to experiencing DV. For example, communication skills may mitigate the effects of alcohol or hostile sexism on DV perpetration and victimization. As such, continuing to understand the behaviors of this population that contribute to DV perpetration and victimization can further inform what skills may be used to decrease risk for DV.

In conclusion, Division III student-athletes are often an understudied population of college students. While our sample of Division III student-athletes reported both perpetrating DV and experiencing DV victimization, they do so at rates not dissimilar to those of young adults, ages 18 to 24 years (Gover, 2004; Harned, 2002; Mulford & Giordano, 2008; Shorey et al., 2011). As compared with other studies concerning student-athletes, our findings reflect minor differences in the gender of those who perpetrate and are victimized by the majority of DV. That is, previous research has highlighted the increased rate of perpetration among men and victimization among women. Our findings evidence that among certain subscales men both perpetrate DV more frequently than women and are experiencing DV victimization more frequently than women. When looking at rates of DV perpetration and victimization overall, independent of subscale, there are no gender differences. Furthermore, similar to their nonathlete counterparts, hazardous drinking and hostile sexism are in fact risk factors for DV among Division III college student-athletes. We hope that our findings stimulate other researcher’s interest in understanding Division III student-athletes and their various risk and protective factors for DV.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Nicole Cantor

Author Biographies

Nicole Cantor, MA, is a fourth-year doctoral candidate at Rowan University and a member of the Aggression, Substance, and Sexuality Research team (ASSeRT). Her research primarily concerns sexual victimization and perpetration among unique populations, such as student-athletes. She is interested in developing prevention interventions to promote healthy relationships among such unique populations and subsequently assessing their acceptability, feasibility, and efficacy so they may be disseminated for use.

Meredith Joppa, PhD, earned her doctorate in clinical child psychology from the University of Denver. She is an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology at Rowan University. Her research focuses on developing and evaluating prevention interventions to promote healthy relationships and reduce sexual risk and dating violence in adolescence and young adulthood.

D. J. Angelone, PhD, earned his doctorate in clinical psychology from Kent State University. He is a professor of Psychology at Rowan University where he codirects the Aggression, Substance, and Sexuality Research Team (ASSeRT). His primary research interests are sexually violent behaviors and sexual risk-taking. He has developed several laboratory analogues of sexual aggression and has used these paradigms to examine a variety of factors related to perpetration and victimization. His research also focuses on understanding the factors that can influence observer perceptions of sexually assaultive behaviors.

References

Arnett

J. J.

(2000). Emerging Adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480.

Bascón

Saavedra

Arias

(2013). Conflictos y violencia de género en la adolescencia [Conflicts and gender-based violence in adolescence]. Análisis de Estrategias Discursivas y Recursos Para la Coeducación, 17(1), 289–307.

Bent-Goodley

T. B.

(2004). Perceptions of domestic violence: A dialogue with African American women. Health & Social Work, 29(4), 307–316.

Bieneck

Krahe

(2011). Blaming the victim and exonerating the perpetrator in cases of rape and robbery: Is there a double standard? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(9), 1785–1797.

Black

M. C.

Basile

K. C.

Breiding

M. J.

Smith

S. G.

Walters

M. L.

Merrick

M. T.

Stevens

M. R.

(2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS). National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Boeringer

(1999). Associations of rape-supportive attitudes with fraternal and athletic participation. Violence against Women, 51(1), 81–90.

Breiding

M. J.

Chen

Black

M. C.

(2014). Intimate partner violence in the United States. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Capaldi

D. M.

Knoble

N. B.

Shortt

J. W.

Kim

H. K.

(2012). A systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 3(2), 231–280.

Cercone

J. J.

Beach

S. R. H.

Arias

(2005). Gender symmetry in dating intimate partner violence: Does similar behavior imply similar constructs? Violence and Victims, 20(2), 207–218.

10.

Chandler

S. B.

Johnson

D. J.

Carroll

P. S.

(1999). Abusive behaviors of college athletes. College Student Journal, 33(4), 638–645.

11.

Chung

(2005). Violence, control, romance and gender equality: Young women and heterosexual relationships. Women’s Studies International Forum, 28(6), 445–455.

12.

Crosset

Benedict

MacDonald

(1995). Male student athletes reported for sexual assault: A survey of campus police departments and judicial affairs offices. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 19(2), 126–140.

13.

Crosset

Ptacek

McDonald

Benedict

(1996). Male student-athletes and violence against women. Violence Against Women, 2(2), 163–179.

14.

Follette

V. M.

Alexander

P. C.

(1992). Dating violence current and historical correlates. Behavioral Assessment, 14(1), 39–52.

15.

Forbes

G. B.

(2006). Dating aggression, sexual coercion, and aggression-supporting attitudes among college men as a function of participation in aggressive high school sports. Violence Against Women, 12(5), 441–455.

16.

Forbes

G. B.

Jobe

R. L.

White

K. B.

Bloesch

Adams-Curtis

L. E.

(2005). Perceptions of dating violence following a sexual or nonsexual betrayal of trust: Effects of gender, sexism, acceptance of rape myths, and vengeance motivation. Sex Roles, 52(3–4), 165–173.

17.

Foshee

V. A.

Bauman

K. E.

Ennett

S. T.

Suchindran

Benefield

Linder

G. F.

(2005). Assessing the effects of the dating violence prevention program “safe dates” using random coefficient regression modeling. Prevention Science, 6(3), 245–258.

18.

Foshee

V. A.

Matthew

R. A.

(2007). Adolescent dating abuse perpetration: A review of findings, methodological limitations, and suggestions for future research. In Vazonsyi

Waldman

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of violence behavior and aggression (pp. 431–449). Cambridge University Press.

19.

Frintner

M. P.

Rubinson

(1993). Acquaintance rape: The influence of alcohol, fraternity membership and sports team membership. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 19(4), 278–284.

20.

Gidycz

C. A.

Warkentin

J. B.

Orchowski

L. M.

(2007). Predictors of perpetration of verbal, physical, and sexual violence: A prospective analysis of college men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 8(2), 79–94.

21.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

(1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512.

22.

Gover

A. R.

(2004). Risky lifestyles and dating violence: A theoretical test of violent victimization. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32(2), 171–180.

23.

Gover

A. R.

Kaukinen

Fox

K. A.

(2008). The relationship between violence in the family of origin and dating violence among college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(12), 1667–1693.

24.

Graham

L. M.

Jensen

T. M.

Givens

A. D.

Bowen

G. L.

Rizo

C. F.

(2019). Intimate partner violence among same-sex couples in college: A propensity score analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(8), 1583–1610.

25.

Green

Nelson

T. F.

Hartmann

(2014). Binge drinking and sports participation in college: Patterns among athletes and former athletes. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 49(3–4), 417–434.

26.

Grossbard

J. R.

Lee

C. M.

Neighbors

Hendershot

C. S.

Larimer

M. E.

(2007). Alcohol and risky sex in athletes and nonathletes: What roles do sex motives play? Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 68(4), 566–574.

27.

Gunroe

M. L.

Mariner

C. L.

(1997). Toward a developmental-contextual model of the effects of parental spanking on children’s aggression. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 151(8), 768–775.

28.

Hampton

R. L.

Gelles

R. J.

(1994). Violence toward Black women in a nationally representative sample of Black families. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 25(1), 105–119.

29.

Harned

M. S.

(2002). A multivariate analysis of risk markers for intimate partner violence victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(11), 1179–1197.

30.

Herrera

V. M.

Wiersma

J. D.

Cleveland

H. H.

(2008). The influence of individual and partner characteristics on the perpetration of intimate partner violence in young adult relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(3), 284–296.

31.

Jackson

T. L.

Davis

J. L.

(2000). Prevention of sexual and physical assault toward women: A program for male athletes. Journal of Community Psychology, 28(6), 589–605.

32.

Janoff-Bulman

(1979). Characterological versus behavioral self-blame: Inquiries into depression and rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 1798–1809.

33.

Kantor

G. K.

Straus

M. A.

(1990). The “drunken bum” theory of wife beating. In Straus

M. A.

Gelles

R. J.

(Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 203–224). Transaction Publishers.

34.

Karakurt

Keiley

(2013). Intimate relationship aggression in college couples: Family-of-origin violence, egalitarian attitude, attachment security. Journal of Family Violence, 28(6), 561–575.

35.

Kaukinen

(2014). Dating violence among college students: The risk and protective factors. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 15(4), 283–296.

36.

Kaukinen

Gover

A. R.

Hartman

(2012). College women’s experiences of dating violence in casual and exclusive relationships both as victims and perpetrators. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(2), 146–162.

37.

Koepke

Eyssel

Bohner

(2014). “She deserved it” effects of sexism norms, type of violence, and victim’s pre-assault behavior on blame attributions to- ward female victims and approval of the aggressor’s behavior. Violence Against Women, 20(4), 446–464.

38.

Koss

M. P.

Cleveland

M. P.

(1997). Stepping on toes: Social roots of date rape lead to intractability and politicization. In Schwartz

M. D.

(Ed.), Researching sexual violence against women: Methodological and personal perspectives (pp. 4–21). SAGE.

39.

Lisco

C. G.

Parrott

D. J.

Tharp

A. T.

(2012). The role of heavy episodic drinking and hostile sexism in men’s sexual aggression toward female intimate partners. Addictive Behaviors, 37(11), 1264–1270.

40.

McCray

K. L.

(2015). Intercollegiate athletes and sexual violence a review of literature and recommendations for future study. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 16(4), 438–443.

41.

McLeod

J. D.

Kruttschnitt

Dornfield

(1994). Does parenting explain the effects of structural conditions on children’s antisocial behavior? A comparison of Blacks and Whites. Social Forces, 73(2), 575–604.

42.

Miller

A. K.

Markman

K. D.

Handley

I. M.

(2007). Self-blame among sexual assault victims prospectively predicts revictimization: A perceived sociolegal context model of risk. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(2), 129–136.

43.

Mulford

Giordano

P. C.

(2008). Teen dating violence: A closer look at adolescent romantic relationships (No. 224089). National Institute of Justice Journal.

44.

Munsey

(2006). Emerging adults: The in-between age. Monitor on Psychology, 37(6), 68.

45.

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Division of Violence Prevention. (2012). Sexual Violence Facts at a Glance. Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

46.

Rennison

C. M.

Welchans

(2000). Intimate Partner Violence (Special Reprt NCJ 178247; Intimate Partner Violence Series). U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ipv.pdf

47.

Reyes

H. L. M.

Foshee

V. A.

Niolon

P. H.

Reidy

D. E.

Hall

J. E.

(2015). Gender role attitudes and male adolescent dating violence perpetration: Normative beliefs as moderates. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(2), 350–360.

48.

Russell

B. L.

Trigg

K. Y.

(2004). Tolerance of sexual harassment: An examination of gender differences, ambivalent sexism, social dominance, and gender roles. Sex Roles, 50(7–8), 565–573.

49.

Sabina

Schally

J. L.

Marciniec

(2017). Problematic alcohol and drug use and the risk of partner violence victimization among male and female college students. Journal of Family Violence, 32(3), 305–316.

50.

Saunders

J. B.

Aasland

O. G.

Babor

T. F.

De La Fuente

J. R.

Grant

(1993). Development of the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption—II. Addiction, 88(6), 791–804.

51.

Schulenberg

J. E.

’Johnston

L. D. O.

Malley

P. M.

Bachman

J. G.

Meich

R. A.

Patrick

M. E.

(2017). Monitoring the future national survey results on drug use, 1975-2016: Volume 2, College students and adults ages 19-55. Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan.

52.

Shorey

R. C.

Brasfield

Zapor

Febres

Stuart

G. L.

(2015). The relation between alcohol use and psychological, physical, and sexual dating violence perpetration among male college students. Violence Against Women, 21(2), 151–164.

53.

Shorey

R. C.

Stuart

G. L.

Cornelius

T. L.

(2011). Dating violence and substance use in college students: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(6), 541–550.

54.

Sizemore

O. J.

(2013). The role of perpetrator motivation in two crime scenarios. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(1), 80–91.

55.

Smith

P. H.

White

J. W.

Moracco

K. E.

(2009). Becoming who we are: A theoretical explanation of gendered social structures and social networks that shape adolescent interpersonal aggression. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33(1), 25–29.

56.

Smith

S. G.

Basile

K. C.

Gilbert

L. K.

Merrick

M. T.

Patel

Walling

Jain

(2017). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010-2012 State Report. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

57.

Straus

M. A.

(2004). Manual for scoring the CTS2 and CTSPC. Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire.

58.

Straus

M. A.

(2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(3), 252–275.

59.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Boney-McCoy

Sugarman

D. B.

(1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283–316.

60.

Ullman

S. E.

Peter-Hagene

L. C.

Relyea

(2014). Coping, emotion regulation, and self-blame as mediators of sexual abuse and psychological symptoms in adult sexual assault. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse: Research, Treatment, & Program Innovations for Victims, Survivors, & Offenders, 23(1), 74–93.