(023) THE IMPACT OF TITLE IX MANDATORY REPORTING POLICY ON UNDERGRADUATES' LIKELIHOOD OF REPORTING SEXUAL VIOLENCE
Authors: Sears-Greer M , Meston C 
Published: June 2024

Abstract

Introduction
In the United States, Title IX requires employees of federally funded universities to report any knowledge of university-related nonconsensual sexual experiences (NSEs), whether or not the students involved desire to file a report. Research assessing students’ likelihood of reporting sexual violence (SV) to someone at their university under these policies remains sparse; however, extant research indicates students are more likely to report when SV is penetrative, the perpetrator is a professor, and the event is similar to stereotypes of SV but they are less likely to report when alcohol is present or a student is the perpetrator. Alcohol is present in roughly half of all college SV and alcohol is the greatest rape-risk factor for female students. Despite the widespread implementation of MR policies, there is no consensus on how these policies actually impact students’ reporting. None of the previous studies on MR have used an experimental design to evaluate the effects of MR on students’ likelihood of reporting sexual violence to universities.

Objective
The current study aimed to fill these gaps by (1) using an experimental design to assess students’ likelihood of reporting sexual violence and (2) by evaluating how contextual factors, like perpetrator, violence type and alcohol consumption, impact likelihood of reporting under MR policy

Methods
171 female undergraduate students were recruited for the current study. Participants were randomized into two groups: one group was instructed to imagine that their university had MR policies in place while the other was instructed to imagine that university employees were all confidential reporting (CR) sources-- meaning that students could disclose without creating a report. Students read four vignettes alternating perpetrator (professor vs. student) and violence type (penetrative vs. non-penetrative). After each vignette, students indicated their likelihood of reporting if they were the student in the vignette with and without the presence of alcohol.

Results
Student answers were dichotomized to “would” versus “would not” report and binomial logistic regressions analyzed differences between conditions and vignettes with and without alcohol. Significant differences arose across vignettes, conditions, and alcohol consumption.

Conclusions
Overall, students who said they would report the SV vignette without alcohol were roughly 4 times more likely to report it with alcohol (p &lt;0.001). Students were significantly more likely to say they would report a professor perpetrating a penetrative assault (PR) over any other vignette; however, perhaps most importantly, students in the MR condition were significantly less likely to do so than students in the CR group (p= 0.032). Students in the MR group were also significantly less likely to report than CR students when alcohol was present (p= 0.004). Despite being most similar to stereotypical SV (e.g., power differential, penetration), students in the MR group reported it significantly less than CR students. As this type of SV is historically most commonly reported, this could have important implications for real-world reporting patterns. MR policy could significantly decrease reporting overall.

Disclosure
No.