Does College Matter? Exploring College-Level Factors Related to Victimization Risk for U.S. and Canadian College Students.

Research shows that U.S. college students are at risk for a variety of victimization types. College students in Canada also experience similar types of victimization compared to U.S students, yet recent research shows that Canadian students are at a greater risk than U.S. college students of being victimized. Little is known, however, as to whether college-level factors influence victimization risk and how these risks may be different for U.S. and Canadian college students. Using the American College Health Association's National College Health Assessment data (ACHA-NCHA II), the current study builds upon past research by exploring the role of both individual and school characteristics and whether they are similarly related to risk of victimization in the two populations. The findings show that Canadian students are at higher risk for victimization and that some school-level factors play a role in predicting this risk for all students, with some variation in ones that matter for each country.

The Extent and Risk of Violent Victimization Among International College Students Enrolled in the United States: A Gendered Analysis.

Although the risk of being violently victimized in college has been established for college students in the United States in general, this risk has not been explored for international college students. Using data from the Fall 2012 National College Health Assessment Survey, the extent to which international college students experience violent victimization is assessed. In addition, the risk factors for violent victimization for international students are compared with those for domestic students. Finally, in multivariate analyses, whether being an international student influences risk of violent victimization is examined and whether this relationship is moderated by gender is considered. Findings indicate that international students in general have lower risk profiles, in that they reported lower rates of drug use, binge drinking, being a first-year undergraduate student, and having a disability. Multivariate analyses, however, revealed that being an international student reduces the odds of violent victimization among only females.

Protective behavioural strategies while drinking: do they protect against sexual victimisation and is this protection gendered?

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Although alcohol use has been linked to sexual victimisation among college students , the specific ways in which college students may be able to avoid the negative consequences of excessive drinking as they relate to sexual victimisation have not been fully explored. This study examines whether using protective behavioural strategies attenuates the risk of sexual victimisation for both male and female college students and whether this relationship is moderated by alcohol use. DESIGN AND METHOD: Data were obtained from the Fall 2012 National College Health Assessment Survey. This survey is conducted on college campuses across the USA and institutions that self-selected to participate in the survey. The sample used in the study includes 19 881 students (male and female) across 51 schools. RESULTS: Findings indicate that although women are more likely to use protective behavioural strategies, these strategies work to reduce the likelihood of experiencing sexual victimisation for both sexes among those who are high-frequency drinkers. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the frequency of alcohol use is important when considering the risk of sexual victimisation among college students, and protective behavioural strategies can help reduce this risk among frequent drinkers. [Daigle LE, Johnson LM, Napper SL, Azimi AM. Protective behavioural strategies while drinking: do they protect against sexual victimisation and is this protection gendered?. Drug Alcohol Rev 2016;35:573-579].

General versus specific victim blaming.

The authors investigated (a) whether victim blaming is a general variable in a person's make-up or (b) whether the extent of blaming depends on the kind of victim considered. The authors evaluated scales for blaming (a) victims in general, (b) society in general, (c) a specific kind of victim (i.e., AIDS), and (d) the society in which AIDS victims live. The general and specific scales had favorable psychometric properties, including reliability. General and specific victim blaming were significantly and positively correlated, whereas victim blaming and society blaming were not significantly correlated. Multiple regression analyses provided evidence of construct validity for the scales. All blaming variables were significantly related in the hypothesized directions to social distance, social responsibility, and discrimination (regarding persons with AIDS). The general and specific scales made significant and unique contributions. Implications for attribution theory and research are specified.