Individual, Behavioral, and Situational Correlates of the Drugging Victimization Experiences of College Women

• Author: Christine H. Lindquist,Christopher T. Allen,Christopher P. Krebs,Sandra Martin,Bonnie S. Fisher,Tara D. Warner
• DOI: 10.1177/0734016817744606
• Date: 01 March 2018
• Published date: 01 March 2018
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article
Criminal Justice Review
2018, Vol. 43(1) 23-44
Individual, Behavioral,
ª 2017 Georgia State University
Reprints and permission:
and Situational Correlates
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0734016817744606
journals.sagepub.com/home/cjr
of the Drugging Victimization
Experiences of College Women
Tara D. Warner1, Christopher T. Allen2, Bonnie S. Fisher3,
Christopher P. Krebs4, Sandra Martin5, and Christine H. Lindquist4
Abstract
Interest in “drugging” has increased, with much focus on drugging victimization within the context of
sexual assault and particularly among college students. This study uses data from the Campus Sexual
Assault (CSA) Study and the Historically Black College and University Campus Sexual Assault
(HBCU-CSA) Study to explore college women’s drugging victimization experiences beyond those
limited to drug-facilitated sexual assault. We draw on a lifestyle-exposure/routine activity theory
approach to personal victimization integrated with scholarship on gendered opportunities and the
campus party culture to examine the individual, behavioral, and situational characteristics embedded
in the campus environment that place college women at increased risks of being drugged. We pay
particular attention to cultural and institutional differences shaping experiences and risks at pre-
dominantly White institutions (PWIs) and Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).
Findings show that 5% and 4% of women at PWIs and HBCUs, respectively, report drugging victi-
mization and that exposure to risky situations (e.g., fraternity party attendance) is a risk factor
primarily for women at PWIs.
Keywords
drugging victimization, binge drinking, Greek membership, party culture, HBCUs
Drugging victimization occurs when one is administered an intoxicating substance (e.g.,
gammahydroxy-butyrate [GHB], ketamine [Special K], Royhpnol [“roofies”], other illicit drugs
or prescription medications, or alcohol; Donovan, 2016) without their knowledge or consent, often
1 Department of Sociology, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA
2 Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA, USA
3 School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA
4 Center for Justice, Safety, and Resilience, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
5 Gillings School of Public Health, University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Corresponding Author:
Tara D. Warner, Department of Sociology, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 705 Oldfather Hall, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA.
Email: twarner2@unl.edu

---

24
Criminal Justice Review 43(1)
(but not always) via “drink spiking.” Much of the scholarly (and media) attention on drugging is
focused on its use in sexual assault (Anderson, Flynn, & Pilgrim, 2017). Because of the rates at
which they experience sexual assault and consume alcohol, female college students are often the
focus of many drugging investigations. Yet given the positive correlation between alcohol consump-
tion and sexual assault, reports of drugging victimization are often viewed as reflecting women’s
own unexpected (or unintended) reactions to binge drinking rather than as criminal victimization
(Burgess, Donovan, & Moore, 2009).
Framing drugging victimization among college women as a distorted consequence or ratio-
nalization of binge drinking neglects the broader context within which these two experiences
can co-occur. That is, it downplays the social and cultural context of college campus life
wherein risky behaviors (e.g., binge drinking) are normalized (Neighbors, Lee, Lewis, Fossos,
& Larimer, 2007) and risky situations (e.g., settings such as parties where students consume
copious amounts of alcohol) are commonplace (Cashin, Presley, & Meilman, 1998). These
risky behaviors and settings intersect (in combination with individual characteristics
[e.g., sorority affiliation]) and create potential opportunities for college women to be victi-
mized. Building from a gendered interpretation of lifestyle-exposure/routine activity theory (L-
RAT), we describe the college environment as a constellation of individual, behavioral, and
situational factors that contribute to college women’s victimization risks. We also integrate
sociological scholarship on gender and campus party culture (Armstrong, Hamilton, & Swee-
ney, 2006; Wade, 2017) with feminist community psychology perspectives (Bond & Allen,
2016) to articulate how social situations—especially those structured around and governed by
gendered norms—may exacerbate women’s risks for drugging victimization. To do this, we
illustrate the similarities between lifestyle/situational risks for sexual violence and those for
drugging victimization.
Using self-report data from two surveys of undergraduate women enrolled at predominantly
White institutions (PWIs) of higher education and Historically Black Colleges and Universities
(HBCUs), we make three contributions to the nascent body of drugging victimization scholarship.
First, we develop a descriptive portrait of drugging victimization during college. Second, we test
how individual characteristics (e.g., year in school, sorority affiliation), behaviors (e.g., substance
use), and social settings/situations (e.g., frequenting bars pubs or clubs) are associated with women’s
risks of being drugged within these two college populations. Third, given the contextual differences
between PWI and HBCU environments, we examine the risks of drugging victimization separately
in order to identity both the similarities and differences within and between these two student
populations. To our knowledge, ours is the first published study to examine explicitly the context
of drugging victimization at HBCUs.
Background
Opportunities for Women’s Victimization on College Campuses: A L-RAT Approach
Routine activity theory (RAT; Cohen & Felson, 1979) asserts that the amounts and locations of
crime are affected by three key factors: the presence of likely offenders, the absence of effective/
capable guardians, and the availability of suitable targets. Observations of college campuses as “hot
spots” for certain types of crime—particularly sexual violence—highlighted further the utility of the
theory. Specifically, Schwartz and Pitt (1995) argued that sexual assaults occurred on college
campuses because of “criminogenic convergences”: that is, college campuses are physical spaces
often characterized by a number of male students motivated to sexually assault, the presence of
“suitable” female targets, and few capable guardians willing to intervene (DeKeseredy & Schwartz,
2013; Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2002).

---

Warner et al.
25
What makes some college men motivated offenders? Feminist perspectives on violence against women
argue that boys and men are socially supported and reinforced for aggression (DeKeseredy &
Schwartz, 1993). On college campuses, same-gender peer groups represent potential sources of
reinforcement for a range of deviant lifestyles and activities: binge drinking, hazing, and sexual
assault (Drout & Corsoro, 2003; Schwartz & Pitts, 1995; Sweeney, 2014b). Fraternities have often
been identified as key locales for the concentration and dissemination of harmful attitudes and
behaviors, as fraternity men have more sexually aggressive attitudes and higher rates of sexual
assault perpetration than nonfraternity men (Corprew & Mitchell, 2014).1 Further, fraternity mem-
bers in particular drink more often, are more likely to binge drink (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2002),
and some admit to getting women drunk to make them more sexually receptive (Schwartz & Pitts,
1995), a practice often embedded in (and disseminated throughout) the fraternity culture (Sweeney,
2014b). For instance, one fraternity brother described the goals of many fraternity men as: “Get
drunk. Get girls drunk. Get laid. That’s it” (Sweeney, 2014a, p. 814).
Why are capable guardians lacking within the college context? Within RAT, a guardian is “any person
and every person on the scene of a potential crime that may notice and intervene” (whether they
intend to or not; Hollis-Peel, Reynald, van Bavel, Elffers, & Welsh, 2011, p. 66). Effective guardian-
ship may be lacking on certain college campuses where there exists a culture that normalizes and
minimizes violence against women. In such a culture, perpetrator guilt and shame are neutralized (or
even nonexistent), and thus capable guardianship is minimal (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2002).
Indeed, much of the discussion of guardianship on college campuses (particularly with respect to
violence against women) is tightly intertwined with attention to the male peer support cultures
discussed above (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 2013; Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2002; Schwartz & Pitts,
1995). Also unique to the campus context, guardianship may be especially low among sorority
women (who already have lower perceptions of risk; see Menning, 2009; Nurius, 2000), given their
socialization into the belief that the shared bonds of Greek membership should protect them from
fraternity men’s aggression (Bannon, Brosi, & Foubert, 2013; Franklin, 2016; Franklin & Menaker,
2016; Norris, Nurius, & Dimeff, 1996).2 Alternatively, effective guardians could be systematically
excluded from college settings. As Bond and Allen (2016) discuss, fraternities are gendered settings
where distinct social practices facilitate the commission of violence against women. That is, they are
male-controlled spaces that typically function without direct oversight by college administrators,
and as a result,...