Conveying campus sexual misconduct policy information to college and university students: Results from a 7-campus study

ABSTRACT

Objective: To examine the efficacy of different methods (ie, in-class policy reading; in-class policy reading and discussion; no reading or discussion) to deliver campus sexual misconduct policy information to students on 7 campuses. Participants: A total of 1,195 participants at 7 colleges and universities participated in the study from August to October 2014. Participants were randomly assigned at the class level and completed pretest and posttest surveys assessing knowledge of campus policy and resources and confidence to seek help for sexual assault. Results: Students exposed to a larger dosage of material (in-class policy reading plus discussion) showed greater positive changes in attitudes and knowledge than students who did not receive information or were only read the policy. However, on some indices, students who were only read the policy showed positive outcomes compared with students receiving no intervention. Conclusion: Colleges and universities must use engaging methods to disseminate campus sexual misconduct policies to students.

KEYWORDS:

• Confidence to seek help
• disseminating campus policy information
• information dosage
• policy knowledge
• sexual misconduct policy
• students
• universities and colleges

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank our campus partners (in alphabetical order below) as well as the students at the 7 campuses who participated in the research and assisted us with data collection:

Brown University: L. M. Orchowski, F. J. Mantak, M. M. Klawunn, G. E. Cohee

Johnson C. Smith University: D. C. Johnson

Molloy College: T. C. Aprigliano, J. J. Amodeo

University of California, Merced: C. T. Nies, K. G. Mansager

University of Michigan: J. S. Barber, H. M. Rider-Milkovich

University of New Hampshire: R. P. Eckstein, C. Leyva

University of Utah: K. N. Keen, M. C. Liccardo, K.A. Stiel

We would also like to thank Hong Chang for his assistance with the statistical analyses.

Conflict of interest disclosure

The authors have no conflicts of interest to report. The authors confirm that the research presented in this article met the ethical guidelines, including adherence to the legal requirements, of the United States and received approval from the Institutional Review Board of the University of New Hampshire.

Funding

No funding was used to support this research and/or the preparation of the manuscript.