2015 PENN STATE
SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
CLIMATE SURVEY
SUMMARY REPORT:
UNIVERSITY PARK
This report highlights the major findings for University Park
from the Sexual Misconduct Climate Survey conducted
University-wide in fall 2015.

 Table of Contents

Introduction______________________________________________________________________1
Methodology_____________________________________________________________________1
Survey Instrument_____________________________________________________________________1
Sampling and Distribution______________________________________________________________1
Response Rates and Characteristics____________________________________________________2

Results___________________________________________________________________________3
Perceptions of Campus Climate_________________________________________________________3
Student Perceptions of How the University Would Handle a Report of Sexual
Misconduct____________________________________________________________________________3
Student Perceptions of Peer Attitudes_________________________________________________5
Overall Feeling of Safety______________________________________________________________6
Knowledge of Resources________________________________________________________________7
Offensive Behaviors and Potential Harassment_________________________________________9
Overall Offensive Behavior/Harassment_______________________________________________9
Offensive Behavior/Harassment by Faculty/Staff______________________________________10
Offensive Behavior/Harassment by Other Students___________________________________11
Stalking Behaviors____________________________________________________________________13
Intimate Partner and Dating Violence__________________________________________________15
Non-consensual Sexual Contact and Sexual Assault Victimization______________________17
Victimization Rates of Any Non-consensual Sexual Contact___________________________18
Victimization Rates of Sexual Assault_________________________________________________18
Victimization Rates of Non-consensual Sexual Touching, Fondling, or Kissing__________20
Context of Any Non-consensual Sexual Contact Victimization_________________________21
Reporting_____________________________________________________________________________23
Bystander Intervention Behavior______________________________________________________25
Comparisons to National Data_________________________________________________________27
Perceptions of Campus Climate______________________________________________________27
Offensive Behaviors and Potential Harassment_______________________________________27
Stalking______________________________________________________________________________28
Intimate Partner and Dating Violence_________________________________________________28
Non-consensual Sexual Contact______________________________________________________28

 Introduction
The 2015 Penn State Sexual Misconduct Climate Survey was created with the primary goal
of gathering data regarding student perceptions of sexual misconduct, prevalence rates of
such misconduct, University response, and knowledge of resources available in regard to
sexual misconduct at the University. The data are meant to inform policy, programming,
and educational efforts across the University aimed at reducing sexual misconduct and
improving the experience of all Penn State students. The survey also fulfills one of the
recommendations set forth in the University’s 2015 Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment
Task Force report, which can be found at the following link:
http://www.psu.edu/ur/2014/Task_Force_final_report.pdf.
This report focuses on the University Park (UP) campus, and, when possible, provides
comparative numbers from national data to help situate the survey’s data within the
broader national context of sexual misconduct on college and university campuses.

Page 1

 Methodology
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
The survey used was a modified version of the Administrator Researcher Campus Climate
Collaborative (ARC3) survey. This effort brought together academics who focus their
research on topics of sexual assault and sexual misconduct as well as administrators from
institutions across the country. More information on ARC3 and the process of creating the
survey can be found at: http://campusclimate.gsu.edu/.
The University chose to utilize a modified ARC3 instrument after considering alternative
models. One such alternative was an instrument developed by the Association of American
Universities (AAU). However, the University noted various concerns regarding the
methodology used in developing and administering the AAU survey. For example, at that
time, the AAU was requiring institutions to commit to using the survey without institutions
having the opportunity to see the instrument that would be used. Given this lack of
transparency in the early stages of the AAU survey administration, there were many
concerns expressed both internally and externally to Penn State regarding signing on with
the AAU process. A number of letters were drafted and sent to university presidents across
the country from researchers of sexual assault and others vested in the issue. Given these
concerns, it was decided that Penn State was more likely to benefit from conducting its
own survey based on an instrument that was created using a transparent process with
input from leaders in the field of sexual assault research from across the country.
Once the decision was made to use the ARC3 survey, the initial ARC3 instrument was sent
to a pilot sample of students in spring 2015 in order to solicit feedback from the student
perspective. Responses from this pilot administration informed discussions resulting in
some modifications such as minor wording changes and additions and subtractions of
content within the survey.

SAMPLING AND DISTRIBUTION
Penn State contracted with DatStat, Inc. to distribute the survey and host the data. This
enabled a distribution that ensured anonymity of responses but allowed for tracking of
individuals who completed the survey for the purpose of reminder emails and incentive
drawings. DatStat also provided the technical support and reporting tools essential for this
project.
At University Park, a random sample of 11,023 undergraduate and 4,000
graduate/professional students was selected to receive the survey via email. All
undergraduate students were 18 years of age or older and full-time, degree-seeking
students enrolled in fall 2015. An initial sample of 10,000 undergraduate students was
drawn. Additional students were then drawn randomly from smaller colleges in order to
ensure sufficient representation across colleges. Graduate/professional students included
students from all graduate and professional programs including business and law.

Page 2

 During the week prior to the survey launch, students selected to receive the survey were
sent an email from Vice President for Student Affairs, Damon Sims, to inform them of their
selection and to encourage them to take the time to complete the survey. The survey was
then open for three weeks with two reminder emails sent each week to non-respondents.
Those who completed the survey were entered into a random drawing for the incentive
items, which included: 8 iPad Airs, 40 $50 VISA gift cards, 8 mini speakers, 40 $10
Starbucks gift cards, and 8 sets of earbuds. (Note: these were the total incentives that
were given out University-wide).

RESPONSE RATES AND CHARACTERISTICS
Overall, 26.7% (N = 2,945) of undergraduate students and 40.9% (N = 1,637) of
graduate/professional students completed the survey. Responses were considered
complete if at least 90% of the survey questions were answered. The confidence interval
was +/-0.95% for the University-wide administration, +/-1.74% for UP undergraduate
students and +/-2.10% for UP graduate/professional students. Table 1 illustrates some of
the demographic characteristics of respondents.
Table 1. Selected demographics in percentages.

56.1
43.3

Graduate/Professi
onal
49.4
49.5

Transgender/Other

0.6

1.2

Lesbian/Gay/Bisex
ual
Straight
Domestic White
Domestic NonWhite
International
On Campus

5.3

8.8

93.3
74.2
19.7

88.8
49.9
13.6

6.1
40.9

36.5
5.0

59.1

95.0

Undergraduate

Gender

Sexual
Orientation
Race/Internatio
nal Status

Living Situation

Female
Male

Off Campus

Note: Percentages do not add to 100 when some students selected “other” or
“prefer not to answer.”

Page 3

  

Page 4

 

Page 5

Results
The following sections summarize some of the most important pieces of data from the
survey administration, as well as pieces of data that are commonly points of focus for
studies regarding sexual misconduct at colleges and universities. Most data points are split
by student level (undergraduate vs. graduate/professional) and gender. In addition,
because prevalence rates have been found to be higher in the LGBTQ community (Walter,
Chen, & Breiding, 2013), the data are split by that variable as well. It is important to note
that, due to a limited number of students identifying as transgender, queer, or gender nonconforming, the LGBTQ variable necessarily combines both sexual orientation and gender
identity.
At the end of this report, a number of comparisons are made to national statistics.
Specifically, when possible, comparisons are made to the Association of American
Universities (AAU) climate survey that was conducted in 2015 as mentioned above. Despite
the numerous initial concerns regarding signing on to conduct the AAU survey, it is the
best recently released comparative data. Differences in survey methodology and question
semantics will be noted when appropriate. In addition, it is important to note that the AAU
survey was conducted in spring 2015 as opposed to fall 2015. The AAU survey consisted of
27 institutions that varied widely on a multitude of institutional characteristics. While
comparisons to the average rates and responses from this survey are sometimes
convenient, doing so simplifies the fact that many of the key points from the AAU survey
have large ranges that are not necessarily best summarized with a single number. In fact,
the AAU report stresses that making broad generalizations from survey results — such as
“1 in 4” or “1 in 5 college women students” have been sexually assaulted while in college
— oversimplifies both the survey data and the complexity of the problem of sexual violence
on college campuses. Despite these caveats, comparisons to the average can be helpful in
determining areas in which more immediate focus may be beneficial.

PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE
Students were asked to report their perceptions regarding the campus climate in relation to
sexual misconduct, including their perception of how the University would handle a report
of sexual misconduct, their assessment of peers’ attitudes regarding various norms related
to sex-seeking behaviors, and their overall feeling of safety from various forms of sexual
misconduct on or around campus. These results are highlighted below.
Student Perceptions of How the University Would Handle a Report of Sexual
Misconduct
When students were asked about how the University would respond to instances of sexual
misconduct, perceptions were generally favorable. Overall, greater than 50% of students
thought that it was “likely” or “very likely” that the institution would respond in the ways
delineated in this section (Table 2).
•

Among all gender and LGBTQ groups, the highest-rated item was that the University
would maintain the privacy of the person making the report with 89.1% of

Page 6

 undergraduates and 83.2% of graduate/professional students selecting “likely” or “very
likely”.
•

Overall, the lowest-rated item in this section asked whether respondents believed that
the University would provide accommodations — such as academic, housing, or other
safety accommodations — to support the person who experienced an incident of sexual
misconduct.

•

The data reflect variation in students’ perceptions of campus climate according to
gender and level of study. The most consistent pattern of variation is evident in
responses by LGBTQ students, however. LGBTQ respondents exhibited lower rates of
agreement on all items related to perceptions of campus climate.

Table 2. Percentages of students who “likely” or “very likely” to various
institutional responses to claims of sexual misconduct.

Women
The
institution
would take
the report
seriously.
The
institution
would
maintain the
privacy of
the person
making the
report.
The
institution
would do its
best to
honor the
request of
the person
about to go
forward with
the case.
The
institution
would take
steps to
protect the

Page 7

Undergraduate
Men
LGBT
Q

Overall

Graduate/Professional
Wome
Men
LGBT
Overall
n
Q

72.8

81.5

59.4

76.4

70.6

80.9

62.5

75.3

89.1

89.4

83.7

89.1

80.1

86.7

72.9

83.2

71.4

75.7

59.7

73.1

62.0

71.0

47.9

66.3

73.4

80.4

58.9

76.3

68.7

79.5

62.8

73.7

 safety of the
person
making the
report.
The
institution
would
provide
accommodat
ions to
support the
person (e.g.
academic,
housing,
safety).
The
institution
would take
action to
address
factors that
may have
led to the
sexual
misconduct.
The
institution
would
handle the
report fairly.

55.9

62.2

41.5

58.4

47.2

57.5

39.6

52.1

59.8

66.0

39.6

62.3

50.6

63.2

42.2

56.5

66.7

69.7

51.0

67.8

60.0

67.0

48.4

63.0

Student Perceptions of Peer Attitudes
Respondents were asked a series of questions about the attitudes their peers hold about
expectations and appropriate behaviors surrounding sex and relationships. These results
are summarized in Table 3. As can be seen from the table, overall rates of selecting
“agree” or “strongly agree” never exceeded 6% for any single item. These results indicate
that students mostly did not agree that their peers hold the attitudes asked about in this
section.
Table 3. Percentages of students who “agree” or “strongly agree” that their
friends would approve of behaviors listed.
Undergraduate
Wome
Men
LGBT
Overa
n
Q
ll

Page 8

Graduate/Professional
Wome
Men
LGBT Overal
n
Q
l

 Getting someone
drunk or high to
have sex with
them.
Lying to
someone in order
to have sex with
them.
Forcing someone
to have sex.
Using physical
force, such as
hitting or
beating, to
resolve conflicts
with dates.
Insulting or
swearing at
dates.
It is alright for
someone to hit a
date in certain
situations.
Someone you are
dating should
have sex with
you when you
want.
When you spend
money on a date,
the person
should have sex
with you in
return.
You should
respond to a
date’s challenges
to your own
authority by
insulting them or
putting them
down.
It is alright to
physically force a
person to have

Page 9

2.1

4.0

2.5

2.9

0.6

1.9

0.5

1.2

1.3

5.5

1.5

3.1

0.4

2.7

2.6

1.6

0.1

0.2

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.3

1.0

0.2

0.1

0.2

0.0

0.2

0.1

0.2

1.6

0.2

1.1

1.3

3.0

1.2

1.0

0.4

3.1

0.7

0.7

0.9

2.0

0.8

0.9

1.5

0.5

1.2

6.2

2.8

4.0

4.7

5.2

1.0

5.7

3.2

0.5

1.2

0.5

0.8

0.5

0.4

2.6

0.6

0.2

0.5

0.0

0.3

0.6

0.7

2.1

0.7

0.1

0.6

0.0

0.3

0.0

0.4

1.0

0.2

 sex under certain
conditions.

The data reflect some variation in students’ perceived peer attitudes across gender and
LGBTQ status.
•

For women and LGBTQ undergraduates, the highest-rated item was “someone you are
dating should have sex with you when you want” (6.2% and 4.0%, respectively).

•

For undergraduate and graduate/professional men, the highest-rated item was “lying to
someone in order to have sex with them” (5.5% and 2.7%, respectively).

Overall Feeling of Safety
Students rated how safe they felt on campus from various forms of sexual misconduct,
specifically harassment, dating violence, sexual violence, and stalking. Responses are
summarized in Table 4.
Table 4. Percentages of students who “agree” or “strongly agree” that they feel
safe from various forms of sexual misconduct.
Undergraduate
Wome
Men
LGBT Overal
n
Q
l
On or around
this campus, I
feel safe from
sexual
harassment.
On or around
this campus, I
feel safe from
dating violence.
On or around
this campus, I
feel safe from
sexual violence.
On or around
this campus, I
feel safe from
stalking.

Page 10

Graduate/Professional
Wome
Men
LGBT Overal
n
Q
l

57.6

89.6

54.5

71.4

62.5

92.1

63.4

77.1

76.8

91.5

71.3

83.0

79.6

91.6

79.1

85.4

61.6

90.9

58.4

74.1

67.7

92.1

65.4

79.7

63.2

84.2

56.9

72.1

68.0

86.1

63.4

76.9

 •

Overall, students reported they “agree” or “strongly agree” that they feel safe from
each type of sexual misconduct more than 70% of the time. However, there was some
variation by gender and LGBTQ status.

•

Men selected “agree” or “strongly agree” about 90% of the time for all items with the
exception of stalking, which was slightly lower at 84.2% for undergraduate men and
86.1% for graduate/professional men.

•

Women and LGBTQ students reported similar rates of perceived safety across types of
sexual misconduct.

•

Graduate/professional students consistently reported feeling safer from all forms of
sexual misconduct compared to undergraduates.

Students were then asked three questions about their own attitudes regarding sexual
misconduct on campus, including whether they think: sexual misconduct is a problem on
campus, they can do anything about sexual misconduct on campus, and they should think
about the issue of sexual misconduct while in college. These results are summarized in
Table 5.
•

Overall ratings suggest that most students think that sexual misconduct is a problem at
Penn State and that they can do something about it and should be thinking about it.

•

Men were more likely than women and LGBTQ students to “agree” or “strongly agree”
to all three items. Note that the items were worded in the negative, so more agreement
means they are less likely to think that sexual misconduct is a problem on campus, that
there is something they can do about the issue, and/or that they should think about
sexual misconduct while at college.

Table 5. Percentages of students who “agree” or “strongly agree” with items
regarding sexual misconduct being a problem at Penn State.
Women
I don’t think sexual
misconduct is a
problem at University
Park.
I don’t think there is
much I can do about
sexual misconduct on
this campus.
There isn’t much need
for me to think about
sexual misconduct
while at college.

Page 11

Undergraduate
Men
LGBTQ

Overall

Graduate/Professional
Women
Men
LGBTQ Overall

4.7

13.5

3.0

8.5

10.1

20.8

8.4

15.4

17.8

24.6

18.8

20.8

21.8

29.9

18.9

26.0

5.7

19.6

9.9

11.7

11.1

24.8

9.5

17.9

 KNOWLEDGE OF RESOURCES
Students were asked a number of questions about their awareness regarding various
resources and information available in connection with issues of sexual misconduct,
including whether they recall receiving written information regarding various University
policies and procedures, and whether they are aware of various University offices and
websites related to sexual misconduct. Table 6 summarizes what information students
recall receiving from the University since arriving at UP.
•

With the exception of undergraduates’ rating of the Student Code of Conduct, overall
roughly half or less of respondents reported receiving information on any of the topics
covered in this section.

•

62.8% of undergraduate students recalled receiving written information regarding the
Student Code of Conduct, the highest-rated item in the question set. Rates were
relatively flat across gender and LGBTQ status.

•

Overall, graduate/professional students recalled receiving written information regarding
how to report an incident of sexual misconduct at a higher rate than other items in the
question set (47.4%). Rates varied among graduate/professional students according to
gender and LGBTQ status, however. For example, for men the highest-rated item was
the same as the overall (how to report, 53.5%), for women it was receiving information
on the code of conduct (42.6%), and for the LGBTQ community it was receiving the
definitions of types of sexual misconduct (49.0%).

•

Students reported receiving written information regarding Title IX protections against
sexual misconduct at a lower rate than other items, with just 25.8% of undergraduate
students and 24.7% of graduate/professional students reporting receiving such
information.

Table 6. Percentages of students indicating they had received written
information regarding sexual misconduct policies, definitions, and resources.

Wome
n
Definitions of
types of
sexual
misconduct
How to report
an incident of
sexual
misconduct
Where to go
to get help if
someone you
know
experiences

Page 12

Undergraduate
Men
LGBTQ Overal
l

Graduate/Professional
Wome
Men
LGBTQ Overal
n
l

53.5

54.2

49.5

53.8

39.7

49.1

49.0

44.4

41.4

43.5

35.6

42.3

41.5

53.5

47.4

47.4

42.0

40.3

35.6

41.3

37.6

44.4

41.7

41.0

 sexual
misconduct

Title IX
protections
against
sexual
misconduct
How to help
prevent
sexual
misconduct
Student code
of conduct or
honor code

24.2

27.9

28.2

25.8

24.0

25.3

31.8

24.7

56.7

52.1

50.5

54.8

32.2

41.9

35.9

36.8

61.3

64.7

59.4

62.8

42.6

47.2

38.0

44.7

Respondents were also asked to rate their level of awareness regarding seven
offices/resources available to students at University Park in connection with issues of
sexual misconduct. Table 7 summarizes the percentage of students reporting that they
were either “very aware” or “extremely aware” of the resource in question.
Table 7. Percentages of students responding “very aware” or “extremely aware”
of resource.

Wom
en
Center for Women
Students (CWS)
Office of Student
Conduct
Title IX Compliance
Counseling and
Psychological
Services (CAPS)
University Health
Services
SHARE Website
Centre County
Women’s Resource
Center
•

Undergraduate
Men
LGBT Overa
Q
ll

Graduate/Professional
Wom
Men
LGBT Overa
en
Q
ll

14.6

7.8

12.9

11.7

13.1

7.4

14.3

10.3

22.6

28.3

21.8

25.0

17.1

19.9

20.6

18.6

9.1

14.2

14.4

11.3

12.4

11.4

17.0

12.0

52.6

36.9

49.3

45.8

49.8

32.9

55.0

41.3

78.8

69.8

69.3

74.8

72.9

65.5

67.2

69.0

3.9

4.5

3.0

4.2

3.5

4.2

3.7

3.9

17.7

7.9

15.9

13.4

19.8

10.5

18.0

15.4

Across all student levels, gender, and LGBTQ status, students reported the highest level
of awareness of University Health Services, followed by Counseling and Psychological
Services.

Page 13

 •

Students uniformly reported the least amount of awareness (below 5% for all groups) of
the University’s SHARE website.1

OFFENSIVE BEHAVIORS AND POTENTIAL HARASSMENT
The survey included a number of questions regarding offensive behaviors that could
potentially constitute harassment. Given the limitations of questionnaires in gathering rich,
nuanced data, the items in this section do not fit a legal definition of harassment nor do
they fit the student conduct policy definition of harassment. Students were asked in
separate sections of the survey if any students or faculty/staff members exhibited any of
the following behaviors:
•

Treated you “differently” because of your sex.

•

Displayed, used, or distributed sexist or suggestive materials.

•

Made offensive sexist remarks (including cat-calls).

•

Put you down or was condescending to you because of your sex.

•

Repeatedly told sexual stories or jokes that were offensive to you.

•

Made unwelcome attempts to draw you into a discussion of sexual matters.

•

Made offensive remarks about your appearance, body, or sexual activities.

•

Made gestures or used body language of a sexual nature which embarrassed or
offended you.

•

Sent or posted unwelcome sexual comments, jokes, or pictures by text, email,
Facebook, or other electronic means.

•

Spread unwelcome rumors about you by text, email, Facebook, or other electronic
means.

•

Called you gay or lesbian in a negative way by text, email, Facebook, or other electronic
means.

•

Made unwanted attempts to establish a romantic sexual relationship with you despite
your efforts to discourage it.

•

Continued to ask you for dates, drinks, dinner, etc., even though you said “no”.

•

Touched you in a way that made you feel uncomfortable.

•

Made unwanted attempts to stroke, fondle, or kiss you.

•

Made you feel like you were being bribed with a reward to engage in sexual behavior.

•

Made you feel threatened with some sort of retaliation for not being sexually
cooperative.

•

Treated you badly for refusing to have sex.

•

Implied better treatment if you were sexually cooperative.

1 The University’s SHARE website is a portal through which individuals can access
information regarding the various resources, support services, and reporting options
available in connection with issues of sexual misconduct.

Page 14

 Overall Offensive Behavior/Harassment
When all of these offensive and potentially harassing behaviors are combined and the
person(s) committing the behaviors is not taken into account, a high percentage of
students report experiencing at least one of these behaviors since coming to University
Park. For undergraduates, 80.0% of women, 54.4% of men, and 81.7% of LGBTQ students
report experiencing at least one offensive or potentially harassing behavior. For
graduate/professional students, 64.1% of women, 37.3% of men, and 72.4% of LGBTQ
students have experienced at least one of the behaviors. More information can be gleaned
from these data as who committed the behaviors and which specific behaviors were most
commonly experienced are investigated.
Offensive Behavior/Harassment by Faculty/Staff
When asked specifically about offensive/harassing acts committed by faculty or staff,
undergraduates reported an overall rate of 29.9%, with 33.0% of women, 25.6% of men,
and 45.5% of LGBTQ students reporting at least one of the 19 offensive or harassing
behaviors were committed against them. For graduate/professional students, the overall
rate was 32.9% with 42.6% of women, 22.4% of men, and 51.6% of LGBTQ students
indicating that at least one of the behaviors was committed by faculty or staff.
Tables 8a and 8b break down responses regarding offensive behaviors committed by
faculty/staff based on the specific behaviors delineated in the survey. Table 8a looks at all
items that involve being treated differently based on sex or verbally offensive remarks and
Table 8b looks at items that involve trying to engage the student in an unwanted romantic
or sexual relationship.
Table 8a. Percentages of students reporting specific offensive behaviors by
faculty/staff.

Wom
en
Treated you “differently”
because of your sex
Displayed, used, or
distributed sexist or
suggestive materials
Made offensive sexist
remarks (including catcalls)
Put you down or was
condescending to you
because of your sex
Repeatedly told sexual
stories or jokes that were
offensive to you

Page 15

Undergraduate
Men
LGB Over
TQ
all

Graduate/Professional
Wom Men
LGB
Over
en
TQ
all

23.5

15.2

26.7

19.9

34.8

13.6

40.1

24.7

10.8

9.9

18.3

10.5

9.4

6.4

15.6

8.2

18.8

14.2

32.7

16.8

25.8

13.0

31.4

19.7

11.2

5.3

16.4

8.6

18.3

5.6

24.0

12.4

9.4

4.8

13.9

7.4

13.0

6.3

16.7

9.8

 Made unwelcome attempts
to draw you into a
3.5
2.5
7.4
3.1
4.2
2.6
6.3
discussion of sexual
matters
Made offensive remarks
about your appearance,
4.7
3.2
10.9
4.0
8.7
3.3
12.5
body, or sexual activities
Made gestures or used
body language of a sexual
3.6
2.3
6.9
3.1
5.6
2.6
8.3
nature which embarrassed
or offended you
Sent or posted unwelcome
sexual comments, jokes or
pictures by text, email,
0.8
1.3
1.5
1.0
0.8
1.4
2.6
Facebook, or other
electronic means
Spread unwelcome sexual
rumors about you by text,
0.6
1.0
1.5
0.8
0.4
1.0
1.6
email, Facebook, or other
electronic means
Called you gay or lesbian
in a negative way by text,
0.5
1.0
2.5
0.7
0.5
0.9
2.6
email, Facebook, or other
electronic means
• Women and men, regardless of student level, indicated that the most common
offensive or harassing behavior was being treated differently because of their sex.

3.5

6.1

4.2

1.1

0.7

0.7

•

LGBTQ students most frequently reported offensive sexist remarks.

•

The lowest rates of offensive behaviors involved attempts by faculty or staff to engage
in unwanted romantic or sexual relationships.

Table 8b. Percentages of students reporting specific behaviors to attempt to
engage in unwanted romantic or sexual relationships by faculty/staff.
Undergraduate
Wom
Men
LGBT Over
en
Q
all
Made unwanted
attempts to establish
a romantic sexual
relationship with you
despite your efforts to
discourage it
Continued to ask you
for dates, drinks,
dinner, etc., even

Page 16

Graduate/Professional
Wom
Men
LGBT Over
en
Q
all

2.1

1.7

4.5

1.9

2.0

1.5

5.2

1.8

2.1

1.3

4.0

1.8

1.9

1.4

3.6

1.8

 though you said “No”
Touched you in a way
that made you feel
uncomfortable
Made unwanted
attempts to stroke,
fondle, or kiss you
Made you feel like you
were being bribed
with a reward to
engage in sexual
behavior
Made you feel
threatened with some
sort of retaliation for
not being sexually
cooperative
Treated you badly for
refusing to have sex
Implied better
treatment if you were
sexually cooperative

2.4

1.7

4.5

2.1

3.8

1.7

5.2

2.9

1.4

1.5

3.5

1.4

1.4

1.5

3.6

1.5

0.9

1.3

2.5

1.1

0.6

1.0

2.1

0.9

0.6

0.9

2.0

0.7

0.6

1.0

2.1

0.9

0.8

1.2

2.0

1.0

0.3

0.9

1.6

0.6

0.9

1.6

2.5

1.2

0.4

1.2

2.6

0.9

Offensive Behavior/Harassment by Other Students
Students were also asked about offensive or harassing behaviors that were committed by
other students. Undergraduates reported an overall rate of 64.5%, with 77.4% of women,
47.8% of men, and 76.2% of LGBTQ students reporting that at least one of the 19 offensive
or harassing behaviors were committed by another student or students. For
graduate/professional students, the overall rate was 41.4%, with 54.0% of women, 28.2%
of men, and 57.3% of LGBTQ students indicating that at least one of the
offensive/harassing behaviors was committed by another student or students.
Tables 9a and 9b break down responses of student offensive behaviors and harassment
based on the specific behaviors delineated in the survey. Table 9a, looks at all items that
involve being treated differently based on sex or verbally offensive remarks. Table 9b looks
at items that involve trying to engage the student in an unwanted romantic or sexual
relationship.
•

For graduate/professional students, the most common offensive/harassing behaviors
from other students were being treated differently because of their sex and making
offensive sexist remarks.

•

For undergraduates, these two items were also the most often cited offensive/harassing
behaviors. However, undergraduates reported relatively high rates of occurrence of
many other specific behaviors.

Page 17

 Table 9a. Percentages of students reporting specific offensive behaviors by
students.

Wom
en
Treated you
“differently” because
of your sex
Displayed, used, or
distributed sexist or
suggestive materials
Made offensive sexist
remarks (including
cat-calls)
Put you down or was
condescending to you
because of your sex
Repeatedly told
sexual stories or jokes
that were offensive to
you
Made unwelcome
attempts to draw you
into a discussion of
sexual matters
Made offensive
remarks about your
appearance, body, or
sexual activities
Made gestures or
used body language
of a sexual nature
which embarrassed or
offended you
Sent or posted
unwelcome sexual
comments, jokes or
pictures by text,
email, Facebook, or
other electronic
means

Page 18

Undergraduate
Men
LGBT
Over
Q
all

Graduate/Professional
Wom
Men
LGBT
Over
en
Q
all

55.7

23.3

53.0

41.7

40.3

14.3

41.7

27.7

35.6

21.5

41.6

29.5

14.4

9.9

20.9

12.5

63.6

23.0

52.5

45.9

33.6

14.0

38.5

24.0

44.5

11.7

44.6

30.3

27.4

6.4

30.2

17.2

42.9

18.6

44.1

32.3

20.6

10.9

24.1

15.9

39.7

16.2

39.6

29.4

16.0

8.1

17.2

12.2

45.5

18.8

42.3

33.8

20.7

7.4

28.1

14.2

38.4

11.5

35.2

26.6

15.5

7.3

14.1

11.4

17.7

7.5

21.3

13.2

5.8

2.6

9.9

4.4

 Spread unwelcome
sexual rumors about
you by text, email,
Facebook, or other
electronic means
Called you gay or
lesbian in a negative
way by text, email,
Facebook, or other
electronic means

Page 19

9.1

4.5

12.9

7.1

1.6

2.4

5.7

2.0

3.6

5.7

21.3

4.6

1.6

2.3

11.5

2.0

 Table 9b. Percentages of students reporting specific behaviors to attempt to
engage in unwanted romantic or sexual relationships by students.
Undergraduate
Wom
Men
LGBT Over
en
Q
all

Graduate/Professional
Wom
Men
LGBT Over
en
Q
all

42.9

14.3

38.1

30.3

13.2

5.1

16.2

9.2

35.7

9.3

34.7

24.1

12.4

4.0

13.0

8.2

Touched you in a way
that made you feel
uncomfortable

43.3

11.6

34.2

29.5

14.7

5.1

15.1

10.0

Made unwanted
attempts to stroke,
fondle, or kiss you

42.2

14.4

32.7

30.0

9.8

3.7

10.4

6.8

12.8

3.5

10.9

8.7

2.2

1.4

5.2

1.8

11.8

2.8

11.9

7.9

2.4

1.1

5.7

1.8

Treated you badly for
refusing to have sex

20.1

6.0

17.9

13.9

4.9

1.9

8.3

3.4

Implied better
treatment if you were
sexually cooperative

14.4

3.8

13.4

9.8

2.9

1.5

6.8

2.3

Made unwanted
attempts to establish
a romantic sexual
relationship with you
despite your efforts to
discourage it
Continued to ask you
for dates, drinks,
dinner, etc., even
though you said “No”

Made you feel like you
were being bribed
with a reward to
engage in sexual
behavior
Made you feel
threatened with some
sort of retaliation for
not being sexually
cooperative

STALKING BEHAVIORS
Students were asked if they have experienced one or more of the following behaviors since
enrolling at Penn State:

Page 20

 •

Has anyone watched or followed you from a distance, or spied on you with a listening
device, camera, or GPS (global positioning system)?

•

Has anyone approached you or showed up in places, such as your home, workplace, or
school when you didn’t want them to be there?

•

Has anyone left gifts or other items for you to find that made you feel uncomfortable?

•

Has anyone sneaked into your home or car and did something to let you know they had
been there?

•

Has anyone communicated with you through letters, phone calls, messages, emails, or
other means that was unwanted?

Overall, 20.7% of undergraduate students and 11.7% of graduate/professional students
reported that somebody had committed at least one of the stalking behaviors against
them. As with other forms of sexual misconduct addressed in this survey, the data
regarding stalking behaviors reflect substantial variation across gender and LGBTQ status,
with LGBTQ students reporting having experienced stalking behaviors at a higher rate than
other groups. Figure 1 and Table 10 illustrate these differences.
Figure 1. Percentages of students reporting at least one incident of stalking
behaviors by gender and student level.

Page 21

 Students were also asked a series of questions related to the context of the incident of
stalking behavior that had the greatest effect on them. Data related to this question set are
also presented in Table 10.
•

With the exception of LGBTQ graduate/professional students, fewer than a quarter of
perpetrators of stalking behaviors were strangers to the respondent.

•

Overall, graduate/professional students reported that more than half of the time
(54.2%) the perpetrator was a student.

•

Undergraduate students indicated the perpetrator was a student 82.1% of the time.

•

Though students rarely identified staff or faculty as perpetrators of stalking behaviors,
graduate/professional men reported the highest rate of perpetration by a faculty or
staff member (12.7%).

•

The perpetrator was most often a man for all women and LGBTQ groups and most often
a woman for men.

•

Roughly half of undergraduates reported that the stalking behavior that had the
greatest effect on them occurred on campus (50.3%), while 37.3% of
graduate/professional students reported the same.

Table 10. Percentages of students reporting at least one incident of stalking and
context of the incident with the greatest effect on them.

Wome
n
Experienced
at least one
stalking
behavior
Perpetrator
was a stranger
Perpetrator
was a PSU
student
Perpetrator
was
faculty/staff
Perpetrator
was a man
Location
(On campus)

Page 22

Undergraduate
Men
LGBTQ Overal
l

Graduate/Professional
Wome
Men
LGBTQ Overal
n
l

27.8

11.6

33.7

20.7

16.2

6.7

22.9

11.7

22.1

19.3

17.7

21.5

23.7

24.1

29.6

24.6

83.6

78.0

82.4

82.1

56.5

52.7

56.8

54.2

1.1

2.0

5.9

1.3

4.6

12.7

4.6

7.3

97.4

37.3

91.3

82.3

92.4

45.5

70.5

77.1

50.8

49.0

57.4

50.3

41.7

29.1

36.4

37.3

 INTIMATE PARTNER AND DATING VIOLENCE
Students also responded to a series of questions referencing intimate partner and dating
violence (IPV/DV). Questions in this section of the survey asked respondents to think about
any hook-up, boyfriend, girlfriend, husband, or wife they have had – including exes, and
regardless of length of relationship – since enrolling at Penn State, before indicating
whether they had experienced the following specific behaviors:
•

The person threatened to hurt me and I thought I might really get hurt.

•

The person pushed, grabbed, or shook me.

•

The person hit me.

•

The person beat me up.

•

The person stole or destroyed my property.

•

The person can scare me without laying a hand on me.

As can be seen in Figure 2 and Table 11, responses varied by gender and LGBTQ status,
with LGBTQ students reporting the highest rates of IPV/DV victimization.
Figure 2. Percentages of students reporting at least one incident of IPV/DV by
gender and student level.

Page 23

 Also included in Table 11, is the context for the IPV/DV incident that had the greatest effect
on the respondents.
•

Undergraduates reported that the perpetrator was another student 75.7% of the time.

•

Graduate/professional students varied more by group whether the perpetrator was a
student, with an overall rate of 57.9%.

•

The percent of incidents involving faculty/staff was highest for undergraduate LGBTQ
students (6.7%).

•

Overall, 35.0% of undergraduates and 20.0% of graduate/professional students
reported that the incident of IPV/DV that had the greatest effect on them occurred on
campus.

Table 11. Percentages of students reporting at least one incident of IPV/DV and
context of the incident with the greatest effect on them.

Wome
n
Victim of at least one act
of Dating/IPV Violence

Undergraduate
Men
LGBT
Overa
Q
ll

Graduate/Professional
Wome
Men
LGBT
Overa
n
Q
ll

13.9

8.5

21.8

11.5

9.2

4.9

13.5

7.2

5.2

5.4

4.4

5.2

1.3

4.8

3.7

2.5

77.9

72.1

77.8

75.7

52.6

66.7

70.4

57.9

2.6

0.0

6.7

1.7

4.0

2.4

0.0

3.3

Perpetrator was a man

97.8

13.5

82.2

70.3

96.1

23.8

85.2

70.5

Location (On campus)

37.7

29.7

33.3

35.0

18.7

19.1

25.9

20.0

Perpetrator was a stranger
Perpetrator was a PSU
student
Perpetrator was
faculty/staff

NON-CONSENSUAL SEXUAL CONTACT AND SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIMIZATION
Students were also asked to report their experiences related to specific forms of nonconsensual sexual contact, including:
•

Fondling, kissing, or rubbing up against the private areas of the respondent’s body (lips,
breast/chest, crotch, or butt), or removing clothes without consent;

•

Having oral sex with the respondent or making the respondent perform oral sex without
consent;

Page 24

 •

Putting the penis, fingers, or other objects into the respondent’s vagina without
consent2;

•

Putting the penis, fingers, or other object into the respondent’s butt without consent;

•

Attempting (unsuccessfully) to have oral, anal, or vaginal sex without the respondent’s
consent.

For each form of non-consensual sexual contact, respondents were asked to report the
method by which non-consensual sexual contact was obtained, including:
Acts of Coercion
•

Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to spread rumors about the
respondent, making promises the respondent knew were untrue, or continually verbally
pressuring the respondent after they said they did not want to continue;

•

Showing displeasure, criticizing the respondent’s sexuality or attractiveness, getting
angry but not using physical force after the respondent said they did not want to
continue;

Incapacitation
•

Taking advantage of the respondent when they were too drunk or out of it to know what
was happening;

Force or Threats of Force
•

Threatening to physically harm the respondent or someone close to the respondent;

•

Using physical force, for example: holding the respondent down, pinning their arms, or
having a weapon.

Victimization Rates of Any Non-consensual Sexual Contact
As illustrated in Table 12, women students reported being victimized by any of the
specified forms of non-consensual sexual contact since enrolling at Penn State at a higher
rate than their male counterparts (35.0% of undergraduate women and 14.0% of
graduate/professional women, compared to 10.3% of undergraduate men and 4.4% of
graduate/professional men). LGBTQ students reported overall victimization rates similar to
women students (34.7% undergraduate, 16.7% graduate/professional).
Table 12. Percentages of students reporting any non-consensual touching,
penetration, or attempted penetration.

Victim of at least one
instance of unwanted

Undergraduate
Wom
Men
LGBT Over
en
Q
all
35.0
10.3
34.7
24.2

Graduate/Professional
Wom
Men
LGBT Over
en
Q
all
14.0
4.4
16.7
9.3

2 This question was asked only to respondents who indicated that their biological sex was
female.

Page 25

 touching, penetration,
or attempted
penetration
Victimization Rates of Sexual Assault
Sexual assault is defined here as any of the non-consensual acts that involve completed or
attempted sexual penetration. Therefore, these numbers exclude behaviors that involve
non-consensual touching/kissing/fondling. Table 13 and Figure 3 summarize the reported
victimization data for incidents that meet this definition of sexual assault.
•

Overall, 18.1% of undergraduate students and 6.7% of graduate/professional students
reported experiencing at least one incident of sexual assault (attempted or completed
non-consensual oral, vaginal, or anal penetration) since enrolling at Penn State.

•

Victimization rates were higher among women and LGBTQ students than their male
counterparts. 27.5% of undergraduate women, for example, reported experiencing at
least one such instance since enrolling at Penn State, compared to 6.2% of
undergraduate men. These data are reflected in Table 13.

Table 13. Percentages of students reporting sexual assault involving penetration
or attempts at penetration (excludes non-consensual touching/kissing/fondling).
Undergraduate
Wom
Men
LGBT Overa
en
Q
ll
Victim of at least
one instance of
completed or
attempted oral,
vaginal, or anal
sexual assault

27.5

6.2

25.7

18.1

Graduate/Professional
Wome
Men
LGBT Overa
n
Q
ll

10.4

2.7

13.0

Figure 3. Percentages of students reporting at least one incident of sexual
assault by gender and student level.

Page 26

6.7

 Sexual assault can be further broken down into the tactics used by the perpetrator to
commit the offenses without consent including coercion, incapacitation, and force or
threats of force as defined above. The rates of each of these tactics is found in table 13a. 3
•

21.1% of undergraduate women reported having been sexually assaulted while
incapacitated, while 13.7% reported being subjected to coercion during the commission
or attempted commission of a sexual assault, and 7.1% reported being victimized by
use of force or threats of force.

Table 13a. Percentages reporting sexual assault involving penetration or
attempts at penetration (excludes non-consensual touching/kissing/fondling) by
tactic.
3 Note that, because a student could report that multiple tactics were used in any instance
of sexual assault, adding the rates pertaining to any individual tactic results in a
percentage that is greater than the overall number presented in Table 13.

Page 27

 Women
Coercion
Incapacita
tion
Force or
threats of
force

Undergraduate
Men
LGBTQ

Overall

Graduate/Professional
Wome
Men
LGBTQ
Overall
n

13.7

3.1

12.4

9.1

5.9

1.9

9.4

4.0

21.1

4.1

18.8

13.6

6.1

1.2

7.3

3.7

7.1

1.1

7.4

4.5

1.9

0.3

3.1

1.1

Victimization Rates of Non-consensual Sexual Touching, Fondling, or Kissing
Respondents were asked a series of questions regarding their experiences with incidents of
non-consensual sexual touching. The category of non-consensual sexual touching excludes
acts of sexual assault that involve penetration or attempted penetration. Table 14 and
Figure 4 detail response rates related to this question set.
•

20.5% of undergraduate students and 7.5% of graduate/professional students reported
experiencing at least one instance of non-consensual sexual touching, fondling, or
kissing.

•

Again, undergraduate women and undergraduate LGBTQ students reported the highest
victimization rates across respondent groups (30.2% and 28.7%, respectively). See
Table 14.

Table 14. Percentages of students reporting non-consensual touching (excludes
assault by penetration or attempted penetration).
Undergraduate

Victim of at least one act
of non-consensual sexual
touching/fondling/kissing

Page 28

Graduate/Professional

Wome
n

Men

LGBT
Q

Overal
l

Wome
n

Men

LGBT
Q

Overal
l

30.2

8.2

28.7

20.5

11.5

3.3

14.1

7.5

 Figure 4. Percentages of students reporting at least one incident of nonconsensual touching by gender and student level.



Undergraduate women cited incapacitation as the most frequent tactic used during
incidents of non-consensual sexual touching, fondling, or kissing, followed by
coercion and use of force or threats of force. See Table 14a.

Table 14a. Percentages of students reporting non-consensual touching (excludes
assault by penetration or attempted penetration) by tactic.

Women
Coercion
Incapacita
tion
Force or
threats of
force

Page 29

Undergraduate
Men
LGBTQ

Overall

Graduate/Professional
Wome
Men
LGBTQ
Overall
n

13.5

3.7

20.3

9.2

6.6

2.1

9.9

4.5

23.5

5.5

18.8

15.6

6.7

1.9

9.4

4.3

7.1

1.0

5.9

4.5

2.4

0.4

3.7

1.4

 Context of Any Non-consensual Sexual Contact Victimization
Respondents who reported experiencing at least one incident of non-consensual sexual
contact since being enrolled at Penn State were further asked to provide the following
information regarding the details of the incident that had the greatest effect on them:
•

Whether the perpetrator was a stranger or known to the victim;

•

Whether the perpetrator was a Penn State student;

•

The gender of the perpetrator;

•

Where the incident occurred (on or off campus);

•

Whether alcohol or drugs were present or used by any parties involved in the incident. 4

Table 15 details the responses of students who indicated that they had experienced at
least one incident of non-consensual sexual touching.
•

Most respondents who indicated having experienced at least one incident of nonconsensual sexual contact since enrolling at Penn State reported that they were
victimized by another student (80.9% undergraduate, 69.8% graduate/professional).

•

Incidents were typically perpetrated by someone known to the victim, with 22.5% of
undergraduate students and 14.8% of graduate/professional students indicating that
their assailant was a stranger.

•

Respondents also indicated that incidents were commonly preceded by the use of
drugs or alcohol on the part of the victim and/or perpetrator: 77.5% of undergraduate
students who reported being victimized in at least one incident of non-consensual
sexual contact, for example, indicated that they used drugs or alcohol just prior to the
incident occurring. 72.8% indicated that the perpetrator of the incident used drugs or
alcohol just prior to the incident, as well.

•

Very few instances of non-consensual sexual contact were reported to be perpetrated
by faculty/staff (0.0% with the exception of 1.0% of graduate/professional women).

Table 15. Percentages of students indicating context of any non-consensual
contact victimization.

Perpetrator was a
stranger
Perpetrator was a PSU
student
Perpetrator was a
faculty/staff

Undergraduate
Wom
Men LGBT Over
en
Q
all

Graduate/Professional
Wom
Men LGBT Over
en
Q
all

22.9

20.9

21.4

22.5

17.1

8.6

12.5

14.8

82.1

75.8

72.9

80.9

70.3

71.4

56.3

69.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

0.0

0.7

4 Note that the survey assured students they were not at fault for the incident if they were
under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Page 30

 Perpetrator was a man

98.6

16.8

88.6

83.4

94.7

25.0

81.3

77.6

Location (on campus)

30.6

19.1

25.7

28.5

13.3

11.1

6.3

13.2

84.8

77.9

75.7

83.4

67.3

66.7

71.9

67.1

78.7

72.1

68.6

77.5

58.6

62.9

62.5

59.7

74.0

68.2

65.7

72.8

60.7

51.4

56.3

58.0

Any presence of drinking
or drugs by parties
involved
Victim: Use of alcohol
and/or drugs just prior
to the incident
Perpetrator: Use of
alcohol and/or drugs just
prior to the incident

REPORTING
Students who reported experiencing any type of sexual misconduct anywhere in the survey
were asked if they told anybody about the incident or incidents. Of undergraduates who
reported any stalking, IPV/DV, or non-consensual sexual contact of any kind, 56.7% of
women, 36.7% of men, and 57.9% of LGBTQ students reported telling someone about the
incident or incidents. For graduate/professional students, 52.3% of women, 32.3% of men,
and 58.9% of LGBTQ students reported telling someone about their experience.
Students indicating they had told someone about the incident were then asked whom they
told. Table 16 shows various categories of individuals identified in the survey, along with
the percentage of respondents indicating that they told someone in each specific category.
Note that percentages in Table 16 are only for those students that reported telling someone
about their experience.
Table 16. Percentages of students who spoke with someone about an incident of
stalking, IPV/DV, or non-consensual sexual contact.
Undergraduate
Wom
Men
LGBT
Over
en
Q
all

Graduate/Professional
Wom
Men
LGBT
Over
en
Q
all

Roommate

69.8

63.5

54.6

68.6

26.5

30.0

24.2

26.7

Close friend other
than roommate

87.4

82.3

85.5

86.5

84.3

80.0

90.9

83.0

Romantic partner

31.6

34.4

41.8

32.2

46.1

36.7

51.5

43.7

Parent or Guardian

17.5

17.7

25.5

17.7

16.7

20.0

12.1

17.0

Other family member

10.7

9.4

14.6

10.6

7.8

20.0

3.0

10.4

4.1

3.1

5.5

3.9

6.9

3.3

12.1

5.9

Doctor/nurse

Page 31

 Religious leader
Off-campus rape crisis
center staff
Off-campus
counselor/therapist
On-campus
counselor/therapist
Institution health
services
Campus security or
police department
Local police

1.7

1.0

1.8

1.6

1.0

0.0

0.0

0.7

1.7

0.0

1.8

1.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

7.5

0.0

5.5

6.1

14.7

0.0

9.1

11.1

9.7

7.3

18.2

9.2

6.9

6.7

18.2

7.4

2.7

3.1

5.5

2.8

7.8

3.3

9.1

6.7

2.9

1.0

3.6

2.6

4.9

3.3

12.1

4.4

2.4

3.1

5.5

2.6

3.9

0.0

6.1

3.0

Office of Student
3.2
4.2
5.5
3.3
4.9
6.7
15.2
5.2
Conduct
Resident Advisor or
2.7
3.1
7.3
2.8
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
Residence Life staff
Institution faculty or
2.2
2.1
1.8
2.2
10.8
13.3
15.2
11.1
staff
• Overall, the highest percentage of respondents who told someone about an incident of
sexual misconduct indicted that they told a close friend other than a roommate.
•

For undergraduates, the second most common person they told was their roommate.

•

For graduate/professional students, the second most common person they told was a
romantic partner.

•

All groups indicated relatively low rates of reporting incidents of stalking, IPV/DV, and
non-consensual sexual contact to a school or local law official. LGBTQ
graduate/professional students, however, reported to University Police (12.1%) or the
Office of Student Conduct (15.2%) more frequently than other groups.

Students who indicated they did not report the incident to Student Conduct, local law
enforcement, or University Police were asked what prevented them from reporting to those
officials. Table 17 presents the percentages for each reason presented in the survey. (Note
that students could check all reasons that apply. Therefore, columns add to greater than
100%.)
Table 17. Percentages of students indicating reasons why they did not report
incidents of stalking, IPV/DV, or non-consensual sexual contact to an authority.

Wome
n
I was too
embarrassed.

Page 32

27.3

Undergraduate
Men
LGBT Overa
Q
ll
15.6

24.7

24.2

Graduate/Professional
Wome
Men
LGBT Overa
n
Q
ll
23.5

7.7

16.0

18.7

 I didn’t think they
would believe me.
It would cause
more trouble than
it was worth.
I didn’t want to
get the person
who did it in
trouble.
I thought I would
be punished.
I didn’t think the
police would take
me seriously.
People who do
these things don’t
get brought to
justice anyway.

8.2

6.8

20.2

7.8

9.6

7.7

14.0

9.5

69.1

52.0

69.7

64.7

57.2

51.7

60.0

55.3

23.4

18.8

24.7

22.3

19.3

19.8

14.0

19.0

2.5

2.0

3.4

2.3

2.1

3.3

6.0

2.8

10.4

4.8

14.6

8.9

11.2

6.6

22.0

10.2

16.7

10.4

23.6

15.0

17.7

11.0

30.0

15.9

•

For all groups, the most commonly cited reason for not reporting to an official was that
it would cause more trouble than it was worth.

•

Undergraduates, overall, reported feeling too embarrassed (24.2%) and not wanting to
get the person in trouble (22.3%) as the next most common factors in not reporting.

•

The categories of feeling too embarrassed and not wanting to get the person in trouble
were also the next most selected for graduate/professional students, albeit at slightly
lower rates of 18.7% and 19.0%, respectively.

BYSTANDER INTERVENTION BEHAVIOR
Students were asked a number of questions about how they behaved when they were in
situations during which sexual misconduct was occurring or was likely to occur. In addition,
they were asked about their motivations for acting as a bystander — and the barriers that
can prevent them from acting as a bystander — when in situations during which sexual
misconduct was occurring or was likely to occur.
Table 18 shows the percentage of students reporting that they intervened “most of the
time” or “always” in situations during which sexual misconduct was occurring or was likely
to occur.
•

For undergraduates, women and LGBTQ students generally reported higher rates of
intervention than did men.

•

Graduate/professional students generally reported intervening at lower rates than
undergraduates, but variation across gender and LGBTQ status was not as evident.

Page 33

 •

With only a few exceptions, fewer than half of all students who found themselves in the
situations presented stated that they acted “most of the time” or “always”.

•

Undergraduate and graduate/professional men and women responded least often to
someone making a sexist joke.

•

Both undergraduate and graduate/professional LGBTQ students responded least often
to someone trying to take a drunk person to another room or get them to do something
sexual.

Table 18. Percentages of students reporting that they acted “most of the time”
or “always” when a bystander in each situation.

Wom
en
Walked a friend who has
had too much to drink
home from a party, bar,
or other social event.
Talked to the friends of
a drunken person to
make sure they don’t
leave him/her behind at
a party, bar, or other
social event.
Spoke up against sexist
jokes.
Tried to distract
someone who was trying
to take a drunken
person to another room
or trying to get them to
do something sexual.
Ask someone who looks
very upset at a party if
they are okay or need
help.
Intervene with a friend
who was being
physically abusive to
another person.
Intervene with a friend
who was being verbally
abusive to another
person.

Page 34

Undergraduate
Men LGBT Over
Q
all

Graduate/Professional
Wom
Men LGBT Over
en
Q
all

47.6

39.6

43.1

44.1

34.5

30.1

30.9

32.0

52.4

42.1

46.9

48.0

38.2

34.8

37.3

36.4

28.8

11.3

41.5

21.2

33.2

15.8

39.4

24.4

30.4

22.0

31.1

26.7

23.4

18.3

18.8

20.7

53.2

37.8

51.7

46.7

42.9

32.6

45.5

37.3

46.1

42.6

48.8

44.5

33.5

31.1

34.4

32.2

46.0

38.4

45.2

42.6

36.2

29.6

37.5

32.8

 Students were also asked to select the top three reasons they did not act when they were
in a situation in which they felt sexual misconduct might occur or be occurring. Table 19
shows the rates at which students indicated these barriers. (Note that because up to 3
items could be selected, columns add to more than 100%).
•

The top three barriers for undergraduates were not having enough information to
determine if it was concerning enough to intervene, not noticing the situation due to
being intoxicated, and being concerned for their own safety.

•

The top three barriers for graduate/professional students were not having enough
information to determine if it was concerning enough to intervene, being concerned for
their own safety, and not noticing due to intoxication.

Table 19. Percentages of students indicating barriers as one of the top three
reasons for not acting in a situation where sexual misconduct could occur or was
occurring.
Undergraduate
Wome
Men
LGBT Overa
n
Q
ll
You didn’t notice
the situation at
the time because
you were also
intoxicated.
No one else
seemed to think it
was an issue.
You didn’t have
enough
information to
determine if it
was concerning
enough to
intervene.
It’s not your place
to tell them what
to do.
You didn’t know
how to intervene.
You thought you
would make the
situation worse.
You were
concerned for
your own safety.

Page 35

Graduate/Professional
Wome
Men
LGBT Overa
n
Q
ll

53.4

54.1

53.5

53.7

35.3

38.6

41.2

37.0

12.7

19.4

12.9

15.6

8.9

14.6

6.3

11.7

64.7

69.8

63.4

67.0

67.3

68.8

60.9

67.8

10.8

11.5

9.4

11.1

8.5

11.5

7.3

10.0

37.1

26.3

35.6

32.5

35.0

26.8

31.3

30.9

21.0

19.2

23.8

20.3

20.8

21.1

22.4

20.9

44.1

30.9

49.5

38.4

56.3

42.8

50.5

49.5

 You didn’t want to
embarrass
yourself or others.
You worried about
the long-term
social
repercussions of
intervening.
You assumed
someone else
would intervene.
You didn’t know
the person well
enough.

5.8

9.7

7.9

7.4

6.6

8.0

8.9

7.2

3.1

6.8

6.4

4.7

4.0

6.4

6.3

5.2

6.9

7.1

4.0

6.9

6.8

6.8

3.7

6.7

29.0

29.9

24.3

29.3

26.4

27.5

24.5

26.9

COMPARISONS TO NATIONAL DATA
As mentioned previously, a number of past studies have yielded oft-cited estimates of
national victimization rates surrounding issues of sexual misconduct on college campuses
(e.g., Koss, Gidycz, & Wisniewski, 1987; and Krebs, Lindquist, Warner, Fisher, & Martin,
2007). Two of the more recent studies were conducted by the AAU and the Bureau of
Justice Statistics (BJS).5 Despite the concerns that led to the decision not to conduct the
AAU survey at Penn State, the AAU survey, which collected data from 27 named
institutions, does stand as one of the most recent national studies of the climate
surrounding sexual misconduct on college campuses. This section will therefore present
comparisons to the AAU survey where appropriate. Where valid comparisons between the
Penn State and AAU surveys cannot be made, the reasons for the lack of comparison will
be noted for the reader. The full AAU report can be found at the following link:
https://www.aau.edu/Climate-Survey.aspx?id=16525.
Perceptions of Campus Climate
Four of the items from the Penn State section on students’ perceptions of how the
institution would handle a report of sexual misconduct were worded very closely to items
on the AAU survey. Table 20 shows the rates at which Penn State students “agree” or
“strongly agree” with each item and includes the corresponding AAU rates in parentheses.
Table 20. Percentages of students selecting “agree” or “strongly agree” to how
the university would respond to reports of sexual misconduct with AAU
comparisons in parentheses.

5 The BJS survey does not map well to the Penn State survey due to significant differences
in the way survey questions were worded and the kinds of information collected.
Furthermore, the fact that the BJS survey covered only nine unnamed institutions makes it
difficult to assess the validity of any comparisons that might otherwise be made between
the results reported by that survey and those reflected in this report.

Page 36

 The institution would
take the report seriously.
The institution would
take steps to protect the
safety of the person
making the report.
The institution would
take action to address
factors that may have
led to the sexual
misconduct.
The institution would
handle the report fairly.

Undergraduate
Men LGBT Over
Q
all
81.5
59.4
76.4
(57.1 (70.0 (41.5
(N/A)
)
)
)

Graduate/Professional
Wom
Men LGBT Over
en
Q
all
70.6
80.9
62.5
75.3
(57.5 (69.9 (38.6
(N/A)
)
)
)

73.4

80.4

58.9

68.7

79.5

62.8

(51.3
)

(63.3
)

(34.2
)

(47.7
)

(62.6
)

(31.7
)

59.8

66.0

39.6

50.6

63.2

42.2

(36.0
)

(43.9
)

(17.0
)

(32.3
)

(42.4
)

(18.2
)

66.7

69.7

51.0

60.0

67.0

48.4

(45.7
)

(53.2
)

(26.4
)

(47.3
)

(53.9
)

(25.7
)

Wom
en
72.8

76.3
(N/A)

62.3
(N/A)

67.8
(N/A)

73.7
(N/A)

56.5
(N/A)

63.0
(N/A)

Offensive Behaviors and Potential Harassment
The Penn State and AAU surveys differ substantially in the ways offensive/harassing
behaviors were identified and defined. While neither survey applied a legal or conduct code
definition of the term “harassment,” the Penn State survey included a much broader set of
behaviors in its question set addressing offensive/harassing behaviors. In addition, the way
in which the items were presented differed. For example, the AAU survey first asked
respondents whether harassing behaviors were perpetrated by anybody at the university,
and then attempted to identify whether the perpetrators were students or faculty/staff. In
the Penn State survey, students were asked if faculty/staff committed any of the
offensive/harassing behaviors, then separately if students had committed any of those
same behaviors. Thus, while the reported rates for harassing behaviors at Penn State are
generally higher than those reported by the AAU survey, direct comparisons to the AAU
data are not drawn here due to the significant differences between the surveys. The reader
is cautioned that any such comparisons may not be meaningful.
Stalking
The behaviors and the method of asking and determining if any stalking did occur varies
too widely from the AAU survey, which was more stringent in identifying if the same person
had committed any of the behaviors multiple times. Because of these differences,
comparable data from the AAU survey is not presented here.
Intimate Partner and Dating Violence
Rates of IPV/DV at Penn State were similar or somewhat lower than those found in the AAU
survey. The AAU survey included questions regarding the use of controlling behaviors, such
as not allowing them to see friends or family, in its DV/IPV question set. The AAU definition

Page 37

 of IPV/DV was, therefore, broader than that used in the Penn State survey, and — as with
harassment and stalking — direct comparisons should be made with caution.
Non-consensual Sexual Contact
There were also some differences between the Penn State and AAU surveys in question
sets addressing non-consensual sexual contact. These differences are not so significant as
to prevent meaningful comparisons on this point, however.
35.0% of undergraduate women at Penn State reported experiencing some form of nonconsensual sexual contact while enrolled at the University. This is comparable to the range
of rates reported in the results of the AAU survey, which spanned from 17% to 39% among
institutions who took part in the survey.6
Further comparisons can be made between the AAU and Penn State surveys for responses
regarding incidents of non-consensual sexual contact involving penetration or attempted
penetration (sexual assault). Table 21 shows data for Penn State undergraduate students
broken down by gender, with the AAU rates in parentheses. Similar numbers for
graduate/professional students were not provided in the AAU report. (Note: the AAU report
was able to look at gender identity separately from sexual orientation, so the comparison
of LGBTQ categories is presented, but should be interpreted with caution.)
Table 21. Rates of students reporting sexual assault compared to average rates
from AAU report in parentheses.

Women
Victim of at least one instance of
completed or attempted oral,
vaginal, or anal sexual assault

Undergraduate
Men
LGBTQ

Overall

27.5

6.2

25.7

18.1

(28.5)

(7.1)

(30.6)

(NA)

6 The AAU survey did not provide an overall average victimization rate for this item.

Page 38