Keywords

Introduction

Prior to the women’s movement of the 1960s and 1970s in the United States, sexual assault, rape, and other forms of violence against women were rarely discussed in public forums, let alone studied in academic settings. During the era of the women’s rights movement, rape crisis centers and other support mechanisms for women were created nationwide, though little research into either victimization or perpetration was conducted during this time (Sable, Danis, Mauzy, & Gallagher, 2006). The 1980s began to see general research in the field of violence against women. After a multitude of high-profile athletes garnered media attention specifically for violent acts against women in the 1980s and 1990s (many of which are detailed in Benedict, 1997), researchers in fields ranging from sociology to psychology to higher education took notice and began conducting studies to assess the prevalence of student-athlete violence against women (i.e., Crosset, Ptacek, McDonald, & Benedict, 1996; Koss & Gaines, 1993).

Empirical results regarding the prevalence of student-athlete violence against women from the 1990s were mixed and, as such, were subject to criticisms from the field. Further, there is a definitive gap in the literature in the 2000s. In the last 15 years, only two new empirical studies sought to question whether male student-athletes are more likely to perpetrate sexual assault (Sawyer, Thompson, & Chicorelli, 2002; Young, Desmarais, Baldwin, & Chandler, 2017), and many studies have documented the generally positive effects of sexual assault prevention programming with student-athletes (Foubert & Perry, 2007; Jackson & Davis, 2000; McMahon & Farmer, 2009; Moynihan & Banyard, 2008; Moynihan, Banyard, Arnold, Eckstein, & Stapleton, 2010).

This chapter begins with an overview of rape culture, followed by an examination of hypermasculinity, particularly as it pertains to sexual assault and college athletics. Next, there is a brief overview of sexual assault at the university level, which is followed by information about sexual assault within intercollegiate athletics. This section includes an examination of perpetration by male student-athletes, criticisms and gaps in this research, and a brief overview of prevention education efforts. This chapter concludes with a look at how college athletic departments may be identified as rape-prone cultures.

Rape Culture

Prior to the 1980s, rape was assumed to be a consequence of male nature, in that men were “programmed for rape” (Sanday, 1981, p. 6). However, through her study of 156 tribal societies, Sanday (1981) posited that rape is not a biological need, but something that can be attributed a society’s culture; thus, the term rape culture was born. Herman (1984) was the first to label America as a rape culture. In a society where the majority of the nation’s leaders, both in the workplace and in elected government, are men, “the eroticization of male dominance means that whenever women are in a subordinate position to men, the likelihood for sexual assault is great” (p. 52). Herman concluded, “To end rape, people must be able to envision a relationship between the sexes that involves sharing, warmth, and equality, and to bring about a social system in which those values are fostered” (Herman, 1984, p. 52). The ideal of a rape-free environment was supported by Messner and Sabo (1994), who wrote:

Compelling as the evidence is, we want to emphasize two points. First, nothing inherent in men leads them to rape women. Peggy Sanday, an anthropologist, and other researchers have found that there are rape-free societies in the world, and that they tend to be characterized by low levels of militarization, high levels of respect for women, high levels of participation by women in the economy and the political system, and high levels of male involvement in child care. (p. 34; emphasis original)

Thus, rape cultures are often characterized by high levels of tolerance for violence and strict sex segregation and gender roles, which foster lack of respect for women.

These characteristics of a rape culture are often cultivated and supported by rape myths. According to Burt (1980), these are “stereotypes and myths—defined as prejudicial, stereotyped, or false beliefs about rape, rape victims, and rapists—in creating a climate hostile to rape victims” (p. 217). Examples of rape myths are “look at how she was dressed—she was asking for it” or “he couldn’t help himself—he’s a guy just following his sexual urges; what do you expect?” Rape myths include stereotypes about both victims and perpetrators, but hold only the victim accountable for the sexual assault (Burt, 1980). Lonsway and Fitzgerald (1994) further contributed to the field’s understanding of rape myths, noting they are “attitudes and beliefs that are generally false but are widely and persistently held, and that serve to deny and justify male sexual aggression against women” (p. 134).

Rape myths and stereotypes often uphold traditional views on sex, gender, and masculinity (i.e., women are to be pure and chaste, men are celebrated for sexual conquest). Burt’s findings indicated that rape myth acceptance is “strongly connected to other deeply held and pervasive attitudes such as sex role stereotyping, distrust of the opposite sex (adversarial sexual beliefs), and acceptance of interpersonal violence” (p. 229). This last finding is particularly worrisome, as the acceptance of interpersonal violence was found to be the strongest predictor of rape myth support. In sum, rape myths and their acceptance contribute to a culture that is supportive of rape (i.e., a rape culture).

Thus, rape cultures are those that (1) “display a high level of tolerance for violence, male dominance, and sexual segregation” and (2) “lack the social constraints that discourage sexual aggression or contain social arrangements that encourage it” (Crosset, 1999, p. 245). In the realm of higher education, Sanday (1990) noted that many facets of American society, including intercollegiate athletics, are often considered to be rape cultures or display elements of rape culture. Curry (2002) exposed rape culture in college athletics through an examination of locker room talk. He found that locker room talk about women “promotes harmful attitudes and creates an environment supportive of sexual assault and rape” (p. 183). Further, Messner and Sabo (1994) connected locker room talk to peer support of violence:

And when verbal sparring and bragging about sexual conquests led to actual behavior, peer group values encouraged these young men to treat females as objects of conquest. This sort of masculine peer group dynamic is at the heart of what feminists have called “the rape culture.” (p. 50)

Peer support of violence is cited as the main reason for acting in a sexually aggressive way. According to Schwartz and DeKeseredy (1997), “We argue that North American is a ‘rape-supportive culture,’ where values and beliefs that support and encourage the sexual victimization of women are widely available to all men” (p. 52). However, just because someone is supportive of rape myths does not necessarily mean that they will act upon those beliefs. Schwartz and DeKeseredy propose that perpetrators of sexual assault do so based on perceived peer support for violence against women (Schwartz & DeKeseredy, 1997).

Hypermasculinity

Rape cultures can be aggravated by hypermasculinity (Sanday, 1990). However, an examination of masculinity within the context of sport is necessary first. Crosset (1990) argued that in the Victorian era, “physical educators and ideologues of early modern sport professed inherent connections between sport, morality, and manliness” (p. 45). This early connection between sport, manliness, and masculinity has been supported throughout current sport manifestations. Messner and Sabo (1994) contended that to display masculinity in sport, men must be “competitive, successful, dominating, aggressive, stoical, goal-oriented, and physically strong,” and therefore “many athletes accept this definition of masculinity and apply it in their relationships with women” (p. 38). However, they also argued that sport in itself does not make athletes more likely to sexually assault women. Drawing upon rape culture characteristics, they wrote, “Nothing inherent in sports makes athletes especially likely to rape women. Rather, it is the way sports are organized to influence developing masculine identities and male peer groups that leads many male athletes to rape” (p. 34; emphasis original).

In her work on male violence against women, Brackenridge (2002) argued that violence against women in sport (i.e., against female athletes themselves) is due to a crisis of masculinity facing men in sport. She described sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and sexual abuse as a continuum of violence against women that began in the 1970s and continued throughout the 1990s. Further, she acknowledged that “under-reporting is a common problem in research studies of rape, for obvious reasons of confidentiality and post-disclosure victimization” (p. 258), thus limiting her arguments to mostly those of sexual harassment, as there are little existing data on sexual assault victimization of female adult athletes.

While Brackenridge (2002) theorized that male athlete violence against women is due to a crisis of masculinity, others attributed it to the concept of hypermasculinity. As noted, rape cultures can be aggravated by hypermasculinity (Sanday, 1990). Corprew and Mitchell (2014) thoroughly explored hypermasculinity, noting that a more classical definition includes “an exaggerated adherence to traditional male gender role beliefs” which “encapsulates a belief by men that they should be tough, be independent, act as provider and protector, and be resistant to femininity” (p. 549). This was expanded to include “characteristics such as a supervaluation of competitive and aggressive activities” as well as “higher levels of status and self-reliance [that] are important to the hypermasculine male and that sensation-seeking, dominance over others, and interpersonal violence become necessary components of the hypermasculine male’s perception of maleness” (p. 549).

Murnen and Kohlman (2007) defined hypermasculinity as values associated with all-male groups (e.g., fraternities, the military). Hypermasculinity is three-pronged in promoting (1) “the idea that violence is ‘manly’”; (2) “that men are naturally aggressive and dominant over women;” and (3) “that the ‘sexual conquest’ of women is an important aspect of masculinity” (p. 146). As such, hypermasculinity has also been linked heavily with sport participation of men and violence against women. Brackenridge (2002) noted:

This hyper masculine, heterosexual culture of sport, with its sexually intense initiation rituals, excessive use of alcohol and demeaning attitudes towards women, can remove inhibitions for sexual abuse and assault, both by males to females (singly or in groups) or by males to other males. (p. 262)

In a study on professional football players, Welch (1997) found that players in certain positions—namely, “scoring” positions, such as receivers or running backs—were more likely to commit violence against women. He said, “due to the degree that violence, aggression, domination, and physicality are rewarded in the context of the sport, it ought not be surprising that some football players enthusiastically embrace versions of hypermasculinity” off the field (p. 394). Welch’s study appeared to be the only one attempting to measure the differences in hypermasculinity between specific positions. In addition, Corprew and Mitchell (2014) warned that studies attempting to measure masculinity were flawed as they exhibited mixed results; thus, it is inconclusive if hypermasculinity is a correlate or a cause of violent behaviors, particularly sexual assault. It is important to remember this in the next section about sexual assault on college campuses, which outlines information on both perpetrator and victim characteristics.

Sexual Assault on College Campuses

Victimization

It is often difficult to survey sexual assault due to the sensitive and confidential nature of the subject (Brackenridge, 2002; Crosset, 1999). However, the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) released in 2010 is widely accepted by those within the rape crisis field as the most current and accurate picture of victimization of sexual assault in the United States (Black et al., 2011). The NISVS indicated that one in five women has experienced rape in their lifetime, with more than half reporting the perpetrator as their intimate partner and 40% reporting an acquaintance as perpetrator. Further, the study showed that almost 80% of female victims experienced a completed rape prior to the age of 25, making college one of the highest risk time periods in a young woman’s life (Black et al., 2011). This supported the findings of the 2007 Campus Sexual Assault (CSA) Study released by the National Institute of Justice, which found that one in five undergraduate female students was the victim of attempted or completed sexual assault while in college.

As there are high numbers of women assaulted each year on college campuses, the National Institute of Justice compiled research on victimization statistics (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000). According to the report:

Although exceptions exist, most sexual victimizations occur when college women are alone with a man they know, at night, and in the privacy of a residence. Most women attempt to take protective actions against their assailants but are then reluctant to report their victimization to the police (p. 34).

Additional risk factors for female sexual assault victimization included being single (i.e., unmarried), living on campus, prior victimization, and “frequently drinking enough to get drunk” (p. 23). The role of alcohol is clearly present in campus sexual assault, with research finding it consistently present in at least 50% of campus assaults (Abbey, Zawacki, Buck, Clinton, & McAuslan, 2001; Crowe & George, 1989; Crowell & Burgess, 1996; Littleton & Breitkopf, 2006; Logan, Cole, & Capillo, 2006; Pope & Shouldice, 2001; Ullman, Karabatsos, & Koss, 1999). In sum, campus sexual assault victimization often involved women who live on campus, are intoxicated, and know their perpetrator, which leads to the next section on campus perpetrators.

Perpetration

As noted, alcohol was present in more than half of campus sexual assaults, with both victims and perpetrators exhibiting intoxication. However, more important from the standpoint of perpetration is peer support. Schwartz and DeKeseredy (1997) noted that many cultures exhibit rape-supportive attitudes, but just because someone believes rape myths do not necessarily mean that he will engage in sexual assault. The authors noted that male peer support for sexual assault might lead men to commit the act. Peer support and the need for bystander intervention are discussed further in prevention efforts.

There is no typical “profile” of a campus perpetrator. However, Lisak and Miller’s (2002) work “has been instrumental in highlighting the role of the ‘undetected rapist,’ a male who is an average person, who commits repeated assaults yet is not reported” (McMahon, 2011, p. 5). The “undetected rapist” was one who does not self-identify as a rapist, but when asked questions about sexual encounters, reported sexually violent behaviors. For example, the perpetrators admitted to using physical violence, such as holding down a victim who is struggling, only after verbal and/or psychological coercion did not work (Lisak & Miller, 2002). Using physical violence as a last resort was also demonstrated by Carr and VanDeusen (2004), whose research found:

Few men acknowledged using physical force to obtain sex, whereas more men acknowledged some form of sexual coercion. This included pressuring women and saying things they did not mean to obtain sex, using alcohol to obtain sex, and having sex with a woman even when she wanted to stop. (p. 286)

There is a strong link between alcohol, lack of force, and coercion by perpetrators of sexual assault. This is often upheld through peer support and rape-supportive attitudes in rape cultures on college campuses. The next section is a comprehensive review of sexual assault in college athletics, beginning with male student-athletes as perpetrators of sexual assault.

Sexual Assault in College Athletics

Male Student-Athletes’ Violence Against Women

Until the 1990s, research in the field of student-athlete violence against women was nonexistent. Melnick (1992) was one of the first in the sport field to call upon colleagues to examine the relationship between intercollegiate athletic participation and sexual assault by male student-athletes. He proposed five potential reasons for the prevalence of student-athlete perpetration: (1) male bonding; (2) sport as a masculine proving ground; (3) combative sports (i.e., contact sports) and violence; (4) the athletic justice system (i.e., athletes believe that they are subject to more lenient rules by coaches); and (5) big-man-on-campus syndrome (i.e., athlete are so accustomed to “easy” sex that they are not used to hearing “no”). Based upon these presumptive reasons, Melnick also laid out the case for five reforms: (1) elimination of student-athlete specific residences; (2) elimination of sexist talk in the sporting environment; (3) tougher, swift punishment for perpetrators; (4) rape prevention education for student-athletes; and (5), the most radical, “reformation of the male sport experience” (p. 35), which one can see echoed in sport sociology literature (Coakley, 2015; Messner & Sabo, 1994). Coakley (2015) argued that hegemonic masculinity, the dominant form of manhood today, leads to a masculine power dynamic that many men, especially those in sports, are unwilling to give up. In contrast, Messner and Sabo (1994) wrote that many men are unhappy with the rigid strictures under which they must perform a stereotypical masculinity. The authors suggested a variety of reforms to be made, including more co-ed sports opportunities, ending excessive violence in sports, and the confrontation of sexist “locker room talk,” among others. However, despite calls from Melnick and other scholars, no one is reforming the male sport experience in ways that are comprehensive and/or focus on masculinity, rather through nitpicking one element of a sport experience (i.e., alcohol abuse).

Perhaps in response to Melnick’s (1992) call to action, the mid-1990s saw the development of research on violence against women perpetrated by male athletes, particularly intercollegiate student-athletes. Mostly quantitative in nature, empirical findings were mixed. What follows is a review of the literature detailing research indicating higher rates of student-athlete perpetrators of sexual assault, criticism of the field, and the positive impact of rape education prevention programming with student-athletes. It is important to note that in studies of sexual assault, other campus factors (e.g., fraternity affiliation, drug and/or alcohol use) were addressed; however, due to the focus of this study, only athletic participation is considered here.

One of the first studies, by Fritner and Rubinson (1993), provided early data on student-athlete perpetration of sexual assault. Their study focused on the correlation between fraternity affiliation, alcohol use, and student-athlete involvement with violence against women. The authors sampled 925 randomly selected women. Responses categorized women as experiencing one of four crimes: (1) sexual assault; (2) attempted sexual assault; (3) sexual abuse; and (4) battery, illegal restraint, and/or intimidation. Results indicated that 27.1% of women were victims of one of these crimes. Additionally, many women experienced more than one form of abuse. Victims identified their perpetrators, with student-athletes representing 22.6% of perpetrators of sexual assaults; 13.7% of perpetrators of attempted sexual assaults; 13.6% of perpetrators of sexual abuse incidences; and 11.09% of perpetrators of battery, illegal restraint, and/or intimidation incidences. During the time of the study, student-athletes represented less than 2% of the overall male student body. As such, Fritner and Rubinson (1993) indicated that student-athletes were “vastly overrepresented as offenders of these crimes” (p. 282) and noted that future research into this area should be undertaken. The need for further study is noted throughout the decade by other researchers.

As with much of the literature, Koss and Gaines (1993) explored the link between fraternity affiliation, athletic participation, and sexual assault. Taking an approach different than Fritner and Rubinson (1993), the authors surveyed 530 male students, including 140 student-athletes, of which 16% participated in revenue-producing sports (i.e., football and basketball). Scored on such attributes such as sexual nonaggression, uninvited sexual advances, unwanted sexual contact, sexual coercion, and attempted or completed rape, the authors found true the “prediction of sexual aggression by participation in organized athletics” (Koss & Gaines, 1993, p. 104). However, the authors did indicate that the association between being a student-athlete and sexual aggression was less than that of alcohol and/or nicotine use (i.e., alcohol and/or nicotine use is a higher predictor of sexual aggression than athletic participation).

While Koss and Gaines (1993) relied on students’ self-reports, Crosset et al. (1996) examined the incidences of sexual assault reported to campus judicial affairs. In their study of ten judicial affairs offices during a three-year period, they found an overrepresentation of male student-athletes as perpetrators of sexual assault and battering (i.e., domestic violence). Though the intent was to study battering, not all schools in the dataset kept complete records, and thus, both sexual assault and battering were analyzed. In the ten participating schools, 35% of the reported perpetrators of sexual assault and battering were student-athletes, though they comprised only 3% of the student body. The authors did acknowledge the small sample (69 reports of sexual assault, 21 reports of battering) and cautioned that the reports only constitute a small number of actual assaults occurring on any campus at any given time, due to the stigma, fear, and negative stereotypes experienced by victims of reporting these crimes, which, by their nature, are intimate and taboo.

Though previous research found a link between athletic participation and sexually aggressive behavior and actions, Boeringer (1996, 1999) found a link between sport participation and sexually aggressive attitudes. After surveying 477 male undergraduates, of whom 16.2% were student-athletes, he found that student-athletes displayed a “greater rape proclivity” (Boeringer, 1996, p. 134). Further, student-athletes were more likely than their non-athlete counterparts to report potential use of coercion, alcohol and drugs, and force. Participants were asked to indicate their likelihood in engaging in acts such as coercion, force, etc., if there was no chance they would be caught. Due to the hypothetical nature of the survey, the dataset does not indicate that student-athletes were more likely to actually use coercion, drugs and alcohol, and/or force; thus, Boeringer (1996) was only able to measure attitudes or behavioral intentions. As such, he reported that while student-athletes were more likely to hypothetically engage in sexual force, they were not more likely than non-athletes to hypothetically engage in sexual aggression. He concluded by noting that this study did not allow for variances between different types of student-athletes, and he suggested longitudinal research in the future to determine whether or not student-athletes who enter the sports world are already predisposed to violence and aggression, or whether participation in sports may encourage this aggression.

Boeringer (1999) followed his 1996 study with additional information about the likelihood of student-athletes to support rape myths, which are “beliefs and situational definitions that excuse rape or define assaultive situations as something other than rape” (p. 82). For example, a rape myth is that a woman “asked for it” by wearing a short skirt or revealing clothes. Within a sample of undergraduate men (detailed in Boeringer, 1996), he found that student-athletes were significantly more likely to report agreement with 14 rape-supportive myths than non-athletes. Boeringer hypothesized that hypermasculine environments were responsible for student-athletes’ endorsement of rape myth. Fifty-six percent of student-athletes responded positively to rape-supportive myths, whereas only 8% of non-athletes agreed with the same statements.

Despite student-athletes’ self-reports and campus records indicating higher proclivity and incidences of sexual assault among student-athletes, other research indicated otherwise. Crosset, Benedict, and McDonald (1995) surveyed 20 campus police departments and found that student-athletes were not represented as perpetrators of sexual assault at higher rates than non-athletes. A significant limitation of this study is that more than 80% of all rapes go unreported to police, and thus, the campus police reports are not necessarily a representative sample (Crosset et al., 1995).

Criticisms and Gaps in the Literature

The bulk of research on student-athlete violence against women was conducted and published in the mid-1990s. During this time, Koss and Cleveland (1996) detailed the methodological and conceptual concerns with the studies that led to such mixed empirical results. The authors noted problems such as convenience sampling, as well as the need for larger and more representative samples. They also indicated that “qualitative richness has not been matched by quantitative rigor” (Koss & Cleveland, 1996, p. 181). Additionally, they addressed the nature of self-selection: Are more aggressive, rape-supportive men joining sports teams because they are naturally aggressive, or do sports make student-athletes more aggressive? Their findings from this time period do not address this concern. Lastly, they discussed a need to measure sport subcultures. Boeringer (1996) acknowledged this as a limitation, and Crosset (1999) focused on this in his critique.

Similar to Koss and Cleveland (1996), Crosset (1999) addressed the variance of sports and their individual cultures, and he noted that future research “should focus on why some positions, teams, sports, or programs are prone to committing specific types of violence against women” (p. 249). It does not appear that this research has been undertaken since Crosset’s criticism in 1999. He also wrote that much of the research relied too broadly upon rape culture and called for both specificity in methods as well as theoretical constructs in future research. Lastly, Crosset indicated a need to focus on structural changes within intercollegiate athletics and higher education, instead of relying upon individual and punitive responses to incidences of sexual assault against women by student-athletes.

Despite the calls to re-evaluate the methods and conceptual frameworks and continue to study student-athlete sexual assault (Crosset, 1999; Koss & Cleveland, 1996), there is a significant time gap in the research, with only three publications addressing student-athlete violence against women during the last 15 years. One study sought new empirical data on whether male student-athletes are more likely than non-athletes to perpetrate sexual assault (Sawyer et al., 2002). While the authors did narrow their focus and sample a variety of student-athlete groups (e.g., team-based versus individual sports, class rank), they did so with a convenience sample, one of the issues noted by Koss and Cleveland (1996) as a limitation in this field of study. Sawyer et al. (2002) found higher rape myth acceptance in male student-athletes, first and second year male athletes, male athletes who play team-based sports, and female athletes at Division I schools. Though these results cannot be generalized, their findings do support the idea that student-athletes are not a homogeneous group and should be studied accordingly.

Next, Murnen and Kohlman (2007) conducted a meta-analytic review of both behaviors and attitudes that support sexual aggression. Through statistical analysis, they discovered a moderate effect between athletic participation and hypermasculinity, an attribute that positively contributes to rape culture (Sanday, 1990). Further, small but significant associations were found between athletic participation and sexual aggression and rape myth acceptance. Murnen and Kohlman (2007) recommended longitudinal studies with this student population, as well as distinct studies among student-athlete subcultures and teams.

Finally, the most recent study discovered that both intercollegiate athletes and recreational athletes exhibited similar rates of sexual coercion, notably higher rates than non-athletes (Young et al., 2017). Further, when compared to non-athletes, the male athletes reported higher rape myth acceptance and poor attitudes toward women, considered to be a risk factor for sexual assault (Gage, 2008; Kimble, Russo, Bergman, & Galindo, 2010).

In summary, findings indicated student-athletes disproportionately represented perpetrators of incidences of violence against women (Crosset et al., 1996; Fritner & Rubinson, 1993) and possessed rape-supportive attitudes and rape myth acceptance (Boeringer, 1996, 1999; Koss & Gaines, 1993; Murnen & Kohlman, 2007; Sawyer et al., 2002; Young et al., 2017). One study found that student-athletes were not overrepresented as perpetrators of sexual assaults in campus police reports (Crosset et al., 1995). It is important to remember the methodological criticisms of and differences in these studies. Few examined actual perpetration—and those that did used a variety of methodologies. Many of the studies focused on attitudes, not behaviors (e.g., rape myth acceptance, perceived sexual aggression). As a whole, this body of research suggests that college athletes may be more sexually violent, but one should be cautioned that these studies do not definitively prove that student-athletes rape at higher rate than non-athletes.

Sexual Assault Prevention Efforts

Regardless of the complicated findings in sexual assault perpetration by athletes, many universities understood the critical need to reduce sexual assault on campus and began implementing both awareness and prevention education programs on campuses. Though athletic participation is only one correlate of sexual assault, efforts have been made to document the effects of programming with student-athletes. Jackson and Davis (2000) outlined an athlete-specific rape prevention program, similar to what many universities provide to student-athletes. Unfortunately, while the abstract noted that “the program has been in place for 10 years and has demonstrated several uniquely positive results” (Jackson & Davis, 2000, p. 589), these results were not detailed in a methodologically sound way within the paper. Several other programs, however, have documented success with empathy-based prevention (Foubert & Perry, 2007) and bystander intervention (Katz, 1995; McMahon & Farmer, 2009; Moynihan & Banyard, 2008).

Though the above studies related to awareness and prevention programming were specific to student-athletes, studies throughout the literature noted the impact and success of general and/or campus-wide efforts not specific to student-athletes (Anderson & Whiston, 2005; Berkowitz, 2002; Berg, Lonsway, & Fitzgerald, 1999; Breitenbecher, 2000; Heppner, Neville, Smith, Kivlighan, & Gershuny, 1999; Rothman & Silverman, 2007; Thatcher, 2011). According to Breitenbecher, however, “most published investigations have reported favorable, short-term results on at least one outcome variable measured in the study” (p. 39), with the most consistent support for programs that reduce rape myth acceptance. These positive findings should be interpreted with some caution however, as “studies that result in nonsignificant findings are often less likely to be published” (Breitenbecher, 2000, p. 40).

Rape-Prone Environments and Athletic Cultures

What may contribute to male student-athlete violence against women? As previously noted, regardless of athletic status, higher rape myth acceptance and poor attitudes toward women may be a risk factor for perpetrating sexual assault (Gage, 2008; Kimble et al., 2010). The hypermasculine attributes that contribute to rape culture help foster environments in which sexual assault victims are blamed while the perpetrators are not held accountable for their actions. However, in light of the literature criticisms above, it is imperative to note that not all athletes, teams, and athletic departments are rape cultures. Instead, it is critical to consider what factors may help to identify “rape-prone subcultures” (Crosset, 2016; Sanday, 1990).

Crosset (2016) outlined the four main factors that contribute to a rape-prone culture in intercollegiate athletics: (1) peer support for violence against women; (2) normativity of interpersonal violence (i.e., off the field/court violence); (3) institutional support for male privilege; and (4) institutional practices that fail to hold athletes accountable for criminal behavior. He noted that while the presence of merely one of these factors is not ideal, it is not until all four are present that universities, athletic departments, and/or teams are in danger of creating a hostile environment for women on campus. Examples of these factors in high-profile and recent incidences may be found in the athletic departments at University of Montana, Michigan State University, Baylor University, and Florida State University (see Krakauer, 2015; Lavigne & Noren, 2018; Luther, 2016). Baylor’s sexual assault scandal clearly exhibits these four attributes. First, the peer support for violence against women may be seen in multiple gang rapes, in which more than one football player was involved in a specific act of violence against women (Reagan, 2016). Second, many players displayed a history of off-the-field violence. Notable in the Baylor case is Sam Ukwuachu, a transfer student from Boise State, where he was dismissed from the institution for violence against women (Ellis, 2016). Many scholars have noted that, essentially, the person most likely to commit a sexual assault is the one who has done it before (see Murphy, 2017). Baylor coach Art Briles was aware of Ukwuachu’s violence and dismissal from Boise State (Ellis, 2016), exhibiting the third rape-prone factor. The institutional support for football and football players was so strong, that even previous violence against women was ignored in the quest to field a strong football team. Further, reports indicated that Briles knew of other sexual assaults by his players, but did not report them to the police or the university’s Title IX office (Reagan, 2016). Fourth, multiple reports indicated that coaches failed to hold football players accountable for their behavior (see Ellis, 2016; Reagan, 2016). For example, Ukwuachu was allowed to participate in some team activities even after his indictment, an example of what independent investigators described as “improper conduct that reinforced an overall perception that football was above the rules, and that there was no culture of accountability for misconduct” (Belkin & Futterman, 2016). Baylor’s athletic department is but one case of a rape-prone culture.

In addition to Crosset’s (2016) four factors for a rape-prone environment, there are three types of athletic department cultures that exist in college sports (McCray, Sutherland, & Pastore, 2018). This qualitative study, in which 15 former athletes from “big time” athletic institutions were interviewed, provided an overview of how athletic departments both prevent and respond to sexual assault. Based on participant narratives, the study characterized athletic department responses based on attitudes and behaviors as either proactive or reactive, culminating in three types of athletic department cultures. The Zero Tolerance Culture is one that actively prevents sexual assault through educational efforts, perpetration accountability, and victim support. The Checkbox Culture is one that appears to “check a box” by meeting any educational or reporting requirements as set by the university or through Title IX. The Rape Culture is one that reflects the traditional meaning of a rape culture in its support of perpetrators and lack of meaningful action to prevent sexual assault. However, the results were not generalizable and more research is needed in the field to further explore the intertwined nature of sexual assault and college athletics.

There is still much to be learned about sexual assault in the context of intercollegiate athletics. While much of the research in the 1990s indicated that male student-athletes were more likely than non-athletes to be perpetrators or hold sexually aggressive attitudes, there is little research in the last two decades. However, violence against women continues to happen, particularly visible at “big time” athletic departments around the country. More research on rape-prone environments and athletic cultures may be helpful in designing and implementing effective sexual violence prevention education programs for athletes.