Abstract
Although there has been increased attention to campus sexual and relationship violence (SRV) because of Title IX and the #MeToo movement, much of that attention has focused on victimization of cisgender heterosexual women. This scoping review uncovers information from empirical studies on what is known about LGBTQ+ (e.g., lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and nonbinary) students’ experiences of campus SRV. Using rigorous scoping review methods (i.e., searches of 15 databases, searches of expert websites, hand searching, reference harvesting, and forward citation chaining), we identified 60 documents published since 2000 that contained findings from empirical studies related to LGBTQ+ students and SRV on U.S. college and university campuses. Through content analysis, we summarized findings around five key themes: (1) extent and types of victimization, (2) negative outcomes, (3) knowledge of and attitudes about SRV, (4) perspectives on SRV services and prevention education programs, and (5) recommendations from study authors based on their findings. Implications for research, practice, and policy based on these findings are discussed.
Introduction
Sexual and relationship violence (SRV) are pervasive global public health and social problems. According to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), about one in five women and one in 14 men have experienced sexual violence in their lifetime, and about one in four women and one in 10 men have experienced relationship violence in their lifetime (Smith et al., 2018). LGBTQ+ 1 people in the U.S. have been found to experience higher rates of SRV than the general population, with rates for bisexual cisgender women of approximately two in five and rate for gender minority 2 people of about one in two (James et al., 2016; Rothman et al., 2012; Walters et al., 2013).
Negative short- and long-term outcomes associated with experiencing SRV include behavioral and mental health issues including post-traumatic stress disorder and depression (Campbell et al., 2009), physical health issues such as injuries and sexually transmitted infections (Campbell et al., 2003; Stubbs & Szoeke, 2021), economic issues like job loss and lower lifetime earnings (Loya, 2015; Peterson et al., 2018), and academic consequences such as dropping out of or lower grades (Molstad et al., 2021). For LGBTQ+ people, these negative outcomes may be exacerbated by minority stress. Minority stress is additional stress faced by LGBTQ+ people due to discrimination and oppression in institutions and communities (Meyer, 2003; Tan et al., 2020).
Decades of research have documented that approximately one in four women are sexually assaulted during their college careers (Fedina et al., 2018). Although there has been increased attention to campus SRV because of Title IX and the #MeToo movement, much of that attention has focused on victimization of heterosexual, cisgender 3 women (Harris et al., 2019; Klein et al., 2020). However, approximately 10% of college and university students are LGBTQ+ (American College Health Association, 2016). Studies of campus SRV often use predominantly cisgender heterosexual samples, cannot report findings about gender minority students due to small sample size, do not measure sexual orientation, and/or conflate assigned sex and gender (i.e., binary options of male and female; Voth Schrag, 2017). Therefore, less is known about victimization of LGBTQ+ college and university students.
Recent scholarship also suggests that campus services and prevention education programs are not adequately serving the needs of LGBTQ+ college and university students and that these efforts would be better informed by more LGBTQ+-specific research (Marine & Niccolazo, 2020; Potter et al., 2012; Worthen & Wallace, 2017). For all these reasons, it would be valuable to synthesize the extant literature on SRV experiences of LGBTQ+ students to better inform campus SRV prevention, services, and policy efforts for LGBTQ+ students.
Current Study
To the authors’ knowledge, there has not been another review of the literature on campus SRV among LGBTQ+ students. Rothman and colleagues (2012) conducted a systematic review of the prevalence of SV among lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, and Callan et al. (2021) recently reviewed the literature on relationship violence among sexual minority 4 men. Neither study focused on college and university students or included gender minority people’s experiences. As campus prevention programs are mandated to encompass both sexual and relationship violence, it is also valuable to include both overlapping forms of violence to inform such programming (Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, 2013). Due to the recent proliferation of research in this area and calls to better understand and affirm LGBTQ+ students in campus prevention and intervention (Coulter & Rankin, 2020; Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, 2013), a literature review of the research is warranted to identify current gaps in knowledge and avenues for future research. Accordingly, this scoping review seeks to uncover information from empirical studies on what is known about LGBTQ+ students’ experiences of campus SRV to inform future prevention and intervention efforts.
Method
Due to the heterogeneity of the literature and growth of research in recent years, this study used a scoping review approach (Mays et al., 2001). A scoping review uses rigorous methods to summarize heterogeneous and complex extant literature (Peters et al., 2015). The purpose is to transparently map the extant literature in a broad and heterogeneous area rather than to answer a focused research question and critically appraise and compare study methods and findings (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Tricco et al., 2018). Scoping reviews can also serve as precursors to systematic reviews, help determine gaps in the literature, and provide suggestions for research, practice, and policy (Tricco et al., 2018).
Search Strategy
To locate documents to meet our study aim, our process was guided by a protocol based on the PRISMA standards for scoping reviews (Tricco et al., 2018). The five strategies we used were (a) library database searches, (b) searches of expert organization websites (i.e., grey literature), (c) hand-searching key journals, (d) review of reference sections of included documents (i.e., reference harvesting), and (e) searches for documents that cited included documents (i.e., forward citation chaining).
Keywords for Database Searches.
In May 2020 and August 2021, the first author used these terms to search 15 databases: Academic Search Premier, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Dissertation and Thesis Abstracts, Education Full Text, Education Source, Education Resources Information Center, Genderwatch, ProQuest Education, PsycINFO, PubMed, Sociological Abstracts, Social Work Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, and Women’s Studies International.
The first author then generated a list of 35 websites based on consultation with the research team and queries to professional email lists dedicated to campus SRV and LGBTQ+ issues. These websites were identified by professionals as sources of information for campus SRV information (e.g., Futures Without Violence and National Sexual Violence Resource Center), LGBTQ+ information (e.g., BiNet USA and National Center for Transgender Equality), or both (e.g., Northwest Network of Bisexual, Trans, Lesbian, and Gay Survivors of Abuse and The Network/La Red). In June 2021, the third author reviewed these websites and identified documents for possible inclusion.
After initial screening of documents derived from the database and website searches, we hand-searched eight journals that published multiple included documents (e.g., Journal of Interpersonal Violence and Journal of School Violence). We then used reference harvesting and forward citation chaining.
Screening
The first three authors then reviewed documents using the following inclusion criteria: (a) studies published or released (i.e., in reports) since 2000, (b) empirical studies, (c) provided information about SRV at colleges or universities, (d) used a sample from the United States, and (e) included specific findings about LGBTQ+ students. Two authors independently screened all titles and abstracts and met to resolve any conflicting decisions. If they did not agree, they consulted others on the research team. Two authors then conducted independent full-text screening and consulted the rest of the team if there were any documents about which there was uncertainty on inclusion. The screening process was facilitated by Covidence systematic review software (Veritas Health Innovation, 2020).
Abstraction
The first author developed a standardized abstraction form based on the study aim and PRISMA-ScR guidelines (Tricco et al., 2018), which the research team then reviewed. The revised version was then piloted by three of the authors using Qualtrics (Version August 2020). It was then revised for usability and clarity based on feedback. Fields included document type, research question/aim, study objectives, hypotheses, study setting/s, methods, participant characteristics, findings, author recommendations, and abstractor assessment of the study. The first author abstracted all of the included documents, and the second and third authors each independently abstracted half of the documents. The first author then merged the abstractions and highlighted any discrepancies, which the research team then discussed and resolved.
Analysis
The first author generated descriptive statistics about article characteristics. To further examine study findings, the first three authors used summative content analysis (i.e., counting themes and interpreting relationships between them in context; Hsieh & Shannon, 2005) to identify themes that emerged from the study findings. The first author then used a tree diagram to determine hierarchies and subcategories to help organize and synthesize study findings (Tracy, 2020). This tree diagram was then reviewed by the second and third authors who provided further suggestions and insights.
Results
The database searches yielded 1929 documents. The website searches yielded 20 documents for possible inclusion. Hand searching resulted in four additional documents, reference harvesting in three additional documents, and forward citation chaining in four additional articles. After duplicates were removed, there were 895 documents remaining for title and abstract screening. After these 895 documents were screened, 792 were deemed not to meet the inclusion criteria and 103 were subjected to full-text screening. 60 documents were then included for abstraction. Each document represented a unique study. A summary of this process is included as Figure 1. Prisma Flow Diagram.
Below, we first describe the included document types, methods, and samples. We then provide a summary of findings on campus SRV and LGBTQ+ students organized into five emergent themes identified in the tree diagram: (1) extent and types of victimization, (2) negative outcomes, (3) knowledge of and attitudes about SRV, (4) perspectives on SRV services and prevention education programs, and (5) recommendations from study authors based on their findings. Of the 60 included documents, 53 were peer-reviewed articles, five were reports, and two were dissertations or theses. Reflecting the emergence of this field in recent years, all documents were published since 2011 and 49 documents were published since 2016.
Study Methods and Samples
A summary of all included articles is included in Supplementary Appendix A. Forty-two of the studies used quantitative methods, 11 used mixed methods, and seven used qualitative methods. Almost all the studies (n = 57) were non-experimental, but two used quasi-experimental designs, and one was a randomized controlled trial. Only three studies were longitudinal (Martin-Storey & Fromme, 2016; McCauley et al., 2020; Richardson et al., 2015). Only two documents were generated from intervention research (Bloom et al., 2016; McCauley et al., 2020). The data collection methods included online surveys (n = 51) paper-and-pencil surveys (n = 4), combination online and paper-and-pencil surveys (n = 2), focus groups (n = 2), and interviews (n = 1). Of the 49 studies that used convenience or purposive sampling, five studies specifically used snowball sampling techniques. The other 10 studies used probability sampling (n = 8) and stratified random sampling (n = 3).
Forty-two studies included students from multiple institutions of higher education, between two and 918 institutions (M = 114, SD = 174). 18 studies focused on a sample of students at one institution. For the single-institution studies, many documents did not specify institution type. However, when such information was presented, institutions were typically described by authors as public (n = 8) and large (n = 9). Only two studies used data from community colleges (Moschella et al., 2020; Potter et al., 2020). Most studies (n = 49) included findings about sexual minority students and about a third of the studies (n = 19) included findings on gender minority students. Several studies were gender-specific, with nine focusing on sexual minority females or women and five focusing on sexual minority males or men. Four studies included specific findings about sexual racial/ethnic minority students (Cantor et al., 2015, 2019; Whitfield et al., 2018; Worthen & Wallace, 2017), but most did not specify findings by race/ethnicity.
Key Themes
Summary of Critical Findings.
Extent and Types of SRV Victimization
Thirty-nine studies provided information on the extent of SRV or types of violence experienced by LGBTQ+ college students. 11 studies sought to determine the relative prevalence of SRV among subpopulations of LGBTQ+ students (e.g., sexual minority students) compared to non-LGBTQ+ students (e.g., heterosexual students, Potter et al., 2020), while others specifically collected sexual minority or LGBTQ+ samples and compared victimization types across sexual or gender identities (e.g., Edwards et al., 2015).
Victimization of Sexual Minority Students
Study findings indicated that sexual minorities experienced higher rates of SRV and more types of victimization than heterosexual students (e.g., Backhaus et al., 2019; Palmer et al., 2022; Potter et al., 2020; Richardson et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2016). Bisexual cisgender women experienced higher rates of SRV than heterosexual or lesbian cisgender women (e.g., Blosnich & Bossarte, 2012; Eisenberg et al., 2021; Ford & Soto-Marquez, 2016; Mellins et al., 2017; Moschella et al., 2020; Seabrook et al., 2018).
Study findings were mixed on other sexual minority groups and relationship violence, but rates were typically similar to or higher than those for heterosexual students (e.g., Graham et al., 2019; Greathouse et al., 2018; Martin-Storey & Fromme, 2016; Martin-Storey & Fromme, 2017; Snyder et al., 2018; Zavala & Guadalupe-Diaz, 2019). Study findings were mixed as well on relative sexual violence rates among cisgender lesbian students (or women who solely have sex with women as in McCauley et al., 2020). Across varying samples, rates were lower (Ford & Soto-Marquez, 2016; McCauley et al., 2020), similar to (e.g., LaChance, 2019; Smidt et al., 2019), or higher (Kammer-Kerwick et al., 2019; Martin et al., 2011) for lesbian cisgender women compared to cisgender heterosexual women. Some studies also identified sexual minority cisgender men as being at greater risk of sexual violence than heterosexual cisgender men (e.g., Anderson et al., 2017; Ray et al., 2018).
Victimization of Gender Minority Students
Findings from all nine of the included studies that examined the extent of SRV for gender minority students indicated higher levels for gender minorities than cisgender women (e.g., Brewer & Thomas, 2019; Cantor et al., 2015; Cantor et al., 2019; Griner et al., 2017; Hoxmeier, 2016; Hoxmeier & Madlem, 2018; Mellins et al., 2017; Parr, 2020; Whitfield et al., 2018)
Gender of Perpetrator
In the two studies that asked about the perpetrator’s gender, perpetrators were majority cisgender men for sexual and gender minorities as well as heterosexual cisgender victims (e.g., Murchison et al., 2017; Richardson et al., 2015).
Negative Outcomes
15 studies described negative behavioral and physical health outcomes of SRV for LGBTQ+ students which included (1) behavioral health problems, (2) lack of disclosure, and (3) institutional betrayal and discrimination.
Behavioral and Physical Health Problems
Several studies described higher levels of mental health issues including depression and suicidality (Backhaus et al., 2019; Parr, 2020; Smith et al., 2016; Zavala, 2017), post-traumatic stress disorder (Kammer-Kerwick et al., 2019; Parr, 2020; Smith et al., 2016), substance use (McCauley et al., 2020), and lower life satisfaction (Moschella et al., 2020; Potter et al., 2020) among sexual minorities compared to cisgender heterosexual women. In a study focused on cisgender women experiencing same-sex relationship violence, the researchers found high levels of dependency and emotional instability within participants’ intimate partner relationships (Bloom et al., 2016). Holmes and colleagues (2021) found that bisexual cisgender women experienced both higher levels of SV victimization and disordered eating than heterosexual cisgender women.
Lack of Disclosure
Sexual minority students with more internalized homonegativity (e.g., self-loathing because of one’s sexual minority identity) were less likely to disclose physical RV to someone than those with lower levels of internalized homonegativity (Sylaska & Edwards, 2015). One study found that bisexual survivors were more likely to disclose to a romantic partner, family member, or law enforcement officer, while gay and lesbian students were more likely to disclose to a counseling center, crisis center, or college staff member (Moschella et al., 2020). Another study found that sexual minority students were more likely to cite fear of being blamed as a reason they did not disclose compared to heterosexual students (Richardson et al., 2015). DeKeseredy and colleagues (2019) also found that the odds of a sexual minority student reporting relationship violence victimization were three times higher if they had received informational support such as survivor advocacy. One study of cisgender women in same-sex relationships identified barriers to seeking support that included isolation, lack of awareness of resources, and fear or actual experiences of discrimination (Bloom et al., 2016). One study found that sexual minority students were more likely to disclose to formal off-campus resources for SRV and formal on-campus resources for SV than heterosexual students (Palmer et al., 2022).
Institutional Betrayal and Discrimination
Studies also found that SRV impacted LGBTQ+ students’ experiences on campus. One study found that sexual minority cisgender women experienced greater levels of institutional betrayal (e.g., failure of their institution of higher education to respond supportively to SRV) than cisgender heterosexual women (Smidt et al., 2019). Another study found that gay and lesbian cisgender students felt safer on their campuses than cisgender heterosexual men and that bisexual/pansexual students reported significantly more academic disengagement (e.g., failing out and dropping out) than cisgender heterosexual students (Kammer-Kerwick et al., 2019). Gender minority students were more likely to report additional forms of discrimination along with SRV than cisgender women (Hoxmeier & Madlem, 2018).
Knowledge of and Attitudes about SRV
One study with a residential four-year university sample found that sexual minority students were more knowledgeable about SV than heterosexual students (Mennicke et al., 2019), while another study using a community college sample found the opposite (Moschella et al., 2020). Another study found that sexual minority students had fewer sexist beliefs and attitudes than heterosexual students but had similar knowledge about healthy relationships (Crittenden et al., 2017).
Perspectives on SRV Services and Prevention Education Programs
18 studies described LGBTQ+ students’ perspectives on campus SRV services and prevention education programs. Sexual minority students, especially bisexual students, were disappointed in SRV prevention education programs (Worthen & Wallace, 2017) and perceived that their institution would respond poorly to reports of SRV (Hackman et al., 2022; Potter et al., 2020; Seabrook et al., 2018). Sexual minority students also perceived that they were less valued by the institution than heterosexual students (Greathouse et al., 2018). Indeed, one study found that campuses with better campus climates for LGBTQ+ students had lower percentages of SRV for LGBTQ+ students (Coulter & Rankin, 2020). Another study’s results indicated that LGBTQ+ students who felt their schools had a favorable campus climate for LGBTQ+ people also felt their campuses were more ready to address SRV (Edwards et al., 2016). Echoing these findings, another study found that the more out as LGBTQ+ and the greater sense of belonging a student felt on campus, the less likely they were to be sexually assaulted (Nightingale, 2021). LGBTQ+ students also perceived that a key protective factor to reducing SRV among LGBTQ+ students was cisgender heterosexual students’ willingness to speak up when they witness SRV (Ollen et al., 2017).
Recommendations from Study Authors based on Their Study Findings
Almost all studies (n = 50) provided recommendations to inform SRV services and prevention education programs that support LGBTQ+ students. Given the current dearth of intervention studies in this area, this synthesis of recommendations from authors’ implications for practice sections provides preliminary practice directions. Study authors provided recommendations to inform (1) prevention education programs, (2) services for survivors and perpetrators, (3) behavioral health and medical services, (4) partnership among community stakeholder groups, and (5) structural and policy change.
Prevention Education Programs
Several studies called on universal prevention education programs to change the men’s violence against women framing of their programs (Bloom et al., 2016; Cantor et al., 2015; Edwards et al., 2015; Hoxmeier, 2016; Johnson et al., 2016; Martin et al., 2011; Mennicke et al., 2019; Ray et al., 2018) through strategies such as using gender-neutral language and scenarios (Mennicke et al., 2019; Worthen & Wallace, 2017) or creating spaces for dialogue that include specific discussion of experiences of sexual minority students (e.g., in residence halls; Seabrook et al., 2018). Specific suggestions included the need to incorporate information on minority stress (Edwards et al., 2016; Edwards & Sylaska, 2013), internalized homophobia (Zavala & Guadalupe-Diaz, 2019), differentiation between risk of LGBTQ+ subgroups (e.g., bisexual, trans; Mellins et al., 2017), connections between alcohol use and SV (LaChance, 2019; Richardson et al., 2015), and institutional betrayal (Smidt et al., 2019).
Services for Survivors and Perpetrators
Several study authors also stressed the importance of developing, implementing, and evaluating services that specifically focus on LGBTQ+ people and their needs (Edwards et al., 2016; Edwards & Sylaska, 2013; Eisenberg et al., 2021; Hoxmeier, 2016; Martin et al., 2011; Martin-Storey & Fromme, 2017; Mennicke et al., 2019; Moschella et al., 2020; Murchison et al., 2017; Ollen et al., 2017). Two studies stressed the importance of developing more LGBTQ+-inclusive treatment services for LGBTQ+-identified perpetrators (Crittenden et al., 2017; Martin et al., 2011).
Behavioral Health and Medical Services
Recommendations from study authors also focused on the need for an overall increase in resources to help LGBTQ+ students including comprehensive healthcare (Holmes et al., 2021; Seabrook et al., 2018), universal screening for SRV by health professionals (Blosnich & Bossarte, 2012; Brewer & Thomas, 2019), and targeted psychosocial support for survivors with academic difficulties (Brewer et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2018). Another key suggestion from study authors was to increase training for clinicians caring for sexual minority survivors that could include information on prevalence of SRV, behavioral health negative outcomes, and the impact of internalized homonegativity (Backhaus et al., 2019; Blosnich & Bossarte, 2012; Crittenden et al., 2017; Graham et al., 2019; Jacobson et al., 2015; Jones & Raghavan, 2012; McCauley et al., 2020; Ollen et al., 2017; Parr, 2020; Pepper & Sand, 2015; Richardson et al., 2015; Whitfield et al., 2018; Wilson & Newins, 2019).
Partnership
Several study authors pointed to the importance of SRV services and prevention education programs partnering with campus or community LGBTQ+ centers (DeKeseredy et al., 2019; Greathouse et al., 2018; Mennicke et al., 2019; Potter et al., 2020; Reiner, 2020), including the value of Safe Zone or Safe Space programs (Snyder et al., 2018). Another study’s authors suggested that campuses provide training on how to help an LGBTQ+-identified friend who has experienced SRV (Richardson et al., 2015).
Structural and Policy Change
On a broader level, several authors specified the need to change the broader campus climate and sense of community for LGBTQ+ students (Backhaus et al., 2019; Coulter & Rankin, 2020; DeKeseredy et al., 2019; Edwards et al., 2016; Murchinson et al., 2017; Ollen et al., 2017), including shifting the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of senior administrative leaders (Ollen et al., 2017). Specific suggestions included the need to prioritize the creation of safe and healthy environments for gender minority students (Griner et al., 2017; Hackman et al., 2022; Hoxmeier & Madlem, 2018), and developing/delivering courses on LGBTQ+ issues (Backhaus et al., 2019). Several authors also commented on the importance of enhancing LGBTQ+-affirming prevention education offered at the high school level (Crittenden et al., 2017; Martin et al., 2011; McCauley et al., 2020; Murchinson et al., 2017) rather than waiting until students have matriculated to institutions of higher education.
Discussion
Using rigorous scoping review methods, we synthesized the findings from 56 empirical studies on campus SRV with LGBTQ+ students organized by five themes: (1) extent and types of victimization, (2) negative outcomes, (3) knowledge of and attitudes about SRV, (4) perspectives on SRV services and prevention education programs, and (5) recommendations from study authors for services and prevention education programs.
Overview of Findings
Consistent with non-college national prevalence studies (e.g., Walters et al., 2013), findings from this review suggest that bisexual cisgender women and gender minorities face much higher rates of SRV than heterosexual cisgender women. Findings on lesbian cisgender women’s SRV victimization relative to heterosexual cisgender women’s SRV victimization were mixed. Our findings pointed to negative outcomes for LGBTQ+ students, especially regarding their behavioral health and sense of belonging. LGBTQ+ students also experience discrimination when seeking support, additional forms of discrimination alongside SRV, institutional betrayal, and internalized homonegativity. Our findings also suggest that minority stress plays a role in increasing LGBTQ+ students’ risk of violence and exacerbating the negative outcomes due to added discrimination.
Some studies found that LGBTQ+ students had more knowledge and less rape-supporting attitudes than their cisgender heterosexual peers, while other studies found the opposite, indicating that there may be variation by institution type (e.g., between four-year residential campuses and community colleges). Campus climate, including attitudes of cisgender, heterosexual faculty, staff, students, and administrators, may impact LGBTQ+ students’ sense of safety and available support. Services and prevention programs both for LGBTQ+ students and those that target LGBTQ+-specific change outcomes (e.g., changing the attitudes of cisgender heterosexual people toward LGBTQ+ survivors) are needed, but there was limited evidence that such interventions have been evaluated.
Implications
Implications of the Review for Research, Practice, and Policy.
Implications for Research
As exhibited by 49 of the 60 included documents being published within the past 5 years, research on campus SRV and LGBTQ+ students has recently increased. Despite this recent increased attention, more research is needed to inform services and prevention education programs. Study authors noted the difficulty of comparing their study findings to other studies given differences in measure (e.g., some studies on relationship violence measured sexual orientation based on the gender of one’s partner while others asked directly about sexual orientation and extrapolated the gender of the abusive partner). Measurement across surveys for sexual orientation and gender should be better standardized to compare results across studies (Brubaker et al., 2017). Westat’s Association of American Universities survey provides an example of the use of consistent measurement across multiple institutions and strategies to garner a high response rate (Cantor et al., 2019) but use of that methodology has been limited to elite four-year institutions. More studies with community and commuter college samples and samples that are not predominantly White (e.g., Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Historically Black Colleges and Universities) are needed (Voth Schrag, 2017). Centralized data collection for all U.S. institutions across all institution types, regions, and settings (e.g., urban, rural, and suburban) using rigorous methods and valid and reliable measures would allow for better comparison between institutions.
Second, study authors noted the need to learn more about SRV prevalence and outcomes for LGBTQ+ students based on institutional factors such as campus climate and interventions used (see Coulter & Rankin, 2020 for an example). These outcomes could include intended or actual bystander behavior, help-seeking from formal and informal campus resources, institutional betrayal, and feelings of community and belongingness. To this end, including further questions about LGBTQ+-related discrimination alongside questions about SRV could help better explicate LGBTQ+ students’ experiences, especially as studies have shown that intense and chronic gender microaggressions can serve as what Gartner and Sterzing (2016) call a “gateway mechanism” to more highly recognizable forms of SRV. As study authors note, campus climate is malleable and by lessening discrimination and harassment of LGBTQ+ people, it is likely that SRV prevalence will be lowered as well. More research is needed that applies the minority stress framework (Meyer, 2003; Tan et al., 2020) to assess this constellation of negative outcomes. A minority stress framework would include not only measuring whether study participants are LGBTQ+ but would assess their minority stress and resilience alongside SRV victimization (see Iniewicz et al., 2017; Testa et al., 2015). Given that few studies have provided meaningful findings about the experiences of LGBTQ+ students of color, inquiries that simultaneously examine experiences of racial harassment, harassment based on gender and/or sexual orientation, and SRV are also needed.
Third, study authors note the need to develop and test prevention programs to reduce campus SRV against LGBTQ+ students. Indeed, we only located two documents that provided findings from intervention research (Bloom et al., 2016; McCauley et al., 2020). Prevention programs specifically for LGBTQ+ students and LGBTQ+-affirming programs for everyone are both needed. Universal prevention efforts such as bystander intervention programs should be updated based on recent research on LGBTQ+ students and their heightened risk as well as evaluated for their effectiveness with LGBTQ+ students (Potter et al., 2012). As (Edwards et al., 2016) posit, campus climate is highly influenced by the attitudes and behaviors of cisgender heterosexual students who, therefore, should receive education that helps them better support their LGBTQ+ peers. The research included in this review demonstrates some progress from conceptualization of SRV as solely an issue of men’s violence against women, but more studies using intersectional approaches are needed to understand how oppression and minority stress impact LGBTQ+ students’ experience of SRV (Armstrong et al., 2018).
Implications for Practice
Study findings pointed to varying levels of awareness of resources, feelings of safety, and support from administration for LGBTQ+ students. Therefore, further campus-specific inquiries are needed to understand LGBTQ+ perspectives and experiences with campus resources to engage in quality improvement. Specifically, several study authors pointed to the need to shift the framing of SRV prevention efforts from a men’s violence against women approach to a gender-neutral approach. However, research has shown that simply removing gender (e.g., by using gender-neutral names like Alex and Pat in discussion of bystander intervention scenarios) does not make programming LGBTQ+-affirming (Hobaica & Kwon, 2017; Marine & Niccolazo, 2020). As Mellins and colleagues (2017) note, SRV risk varies by sexual orientation (e.g., more risk for bisexual and other sexual minorities compared to heterosexual and lesbian/gay students) and gender (e.g., more risk for cisgender women and gender minorities than for cisgender men), and prevention programming should not treat LGBTQ+ people as a homogenous group. Therefore, further infusion of specific LGBTQ+ student experiences into curricula is needed, both for programs specifically for LGBTQ+ students and programs for the broader student population. Institutions of higher education tend to situate their SRV prevention and services efforts within health and counseling (Klein et al., 2016), but students could benefit from greater alignment between SRV and diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. For example, ensuring adequate resources for LGBTQ+ centers (Fine, 2012) and supporting LGBTQ+ ally training (e.g., Safe Space; Woodford et al., 2014) could foster a campus climate that would lead to less SRV against LGBTQ+ students.
Implications for Policy
Policy changes could also help foster more affirming environments for LGBTQ+ students to reduce the disproportionate prevalence and impact of SRV on them. Findings suggest that LGBTQ+ students feel that policies, including resource and reporting information, leave them out. Providing a variety of LGBTQ+-focused examples of SRV would help students to know that the campus sexual misconduct policy includes them and that university administrators are aware of the specific dynamics they face. For example, policies could specifically describe a scenario in which someone is targeted for sexual violence because of their gender expression or an instance in which a student’s partner is threatening to out them as queer to their family if the student breaks up with them.
Hiring LGBTQ+ people in key institutional roles could also help to foster greater trust between LGBTQ+ students and university administrations, as could hiring LGBTQ+-focused consultants to audit existing university efforts for LGBTQ+ inclusion. As Ollen and colleagues (2017) describe, buy-in from the highest levels of leadership is needed to achieve necessary policy and structural change, and having representation among administrators writing and reviewing policy and procedure is crucial. Institutions of higher education should also consider greater operationalization of their non-discrimination policies, especially given that guidance on protections for gender minority students under Title IX has recently varied depending on the presidential administration (Battle & Wheeler, 2017; Goldberg, 2021). Describing SRV as a Title IX–related sex discrimination harm without integration with other non-discrimination policies (e.g., discrimination based on gender expression, gender identity, or sexual orientation) may lead LGBTQ+ students to see Title IX policies as only applicable to cisgender heterosexual students. Further discussion of the intersections of various forms of discrimination (e.g., SRV within the context of discrimination based on gender expression and race/ethnicity) would also provide greater affirmation and context for those students who are unable to pinpoint a specific identity (e.g., gender) as the motivation behind the harm they experienced.
Limitations
Using rigorous scoping review methods, this study synthesized findings from empirical studies found in both peer-reviewed and grey literature. There are several limitations to keep in mind when considering study findings. First, this review focused on samples of U.S. college and university students and further global study is needed. Second, the grey literature search relied on reviews of specific websites, and it is possible that other reports exist outside of these repositories, such as in institutional climate survey reports that are not easily accessible. Third, the studies used heterogeneous methods to answer a variety of research questions, so it is difficult to compare and contrast study findings.
Conclusion
LGBTQ+ college and university students, especially bisexual cisgender women and gender minority students, experience disproportionate SRV and negative outcomes heightened by discrimination and minority stress. Despite experiencing disproportionate harm, LGBTQ+ students report feeling left out of campus SRV prevention and intervention efforts. Further research on LGBTQ+ SRV experiences by specific identities, negative outcomes, and perspectives is needed, as is greater formative work to cultivate more LGBTQ+-affirming interventions for diverse campus contexts. Through better affirming LGBTQ+ students in campus SRV prevention and intervention, institutions of higher education can help reduce SRV against LGBTQ+ students and mitigate its impact on their mental, behavioral, physical, interpersonal, educational, and socioeconomic well-being.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental Material - Sexual and Relationship Violence Among LGBTQ+ College Students: A Scoping Review
Supplemental Material for Sexual and Relationship Violence Among LGBTQ+ College Students: A Scoping Review by LB Klein, Hayden C. Dawes, Greeshma James, William J. Hall, Cynthia Fraga Rizo, Sharyn J. Potter, Sandra L. Martin, and Rebecca J. Macy in Trauma, Violence, & Abuse
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.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Notes
Author Biographies
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
