The Risks and Benefits of Participating in Victimization Surveys for Survivors of Sexual Assault

In 2014, the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault released a report with several recommendations for college campuses including encouraging universities to conduct regular campus climate surveys. In addition, Senators Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) have introduced legislation that, if passed, would require such surveys nationally. Some states have already passed similar legislation. In 2015, four states enacted legislation requiring a campus climate survey (Louisiana, Maryland, New York and Washington). 

There are several potential advantages of a regularly administered campus climate survey including the ability to measure changes in incidence over time and to assist higher educational institutions in identifying how they should be tailoring their prevention and response efforts (Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), 2014). However, some institutional review boards (IRBs), activists, academics, and others have worried about the impact of such surveys on individuals who have experienced trauma. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine the emotional reactions and perceived personal benefits of participating in a campus climate survey on victimization. The sample includes survivors and non-survivors of sexual assault at the undergraduate and graduate level. After completing a survey on victimization and bystander intervention, the sample was presented with ten items from Newman et al.’s (2001) Reactions to Research Participation Questionnaire Revised.

I examined whether reactions to research participation differ based on survivor status (i.e., a dichotomous variable indicating whether the respondent ever experienced sexual assault). In the first t-test, the dependent variable is a composite variable from the Emotional Reactions subscale. In the second t-test, the dependent variable is a composite variable from the Personal Benefits subscale. The independent variable is survivor status. A multiple regression analysis was conducted for each subscale in order to include several demographic variables as control variables (gender, race, class year). Additional models examine whether, among survivors, recency of assault has any impact on the respondent’s emotional reactions or perceived personal benefits (i.e., assault since attending college versus assault before college).

The Chronbach’s Alpha for the Emotional Reactions and Personal Benefits subscales are 0.84 and 0.82, respectively. The findings from the t-tests and regression analyses indicate that survivors had significantly higher scores on the emotional reactions subscale and significantly lower scores on the personal benefits subscale. However, there were no statistically significant differences between survivors and non-survivors on two items: “I think this research is for a good cause.” And “Had I known in advance what participating would be like I still would have agreed to participate.”

In conclusion, researchers, policy makers and IRBs should continue to weigh the risks and benefits of conducting these types of surveys. They should also consider whether the extent of the emotional reactions experienced by survivors necessitates re-visiting survey mandates or whether there are ways to minimize any severe emotional reactions that survivors may experience.