Gender

 Identity  and  Campus  Safety  Perceptions  on   RESULTS  

the  University  of  Montana  Campus   Independent-­‐samples  t-­‐tests  run  on  every  situa=onal  safety  measure  and  both  
general  safety  measures  all  showed  sta=s=cally  significant  differences  
Kira  Means,  Margaret  Mitzel,  Ashleigh  Bailey,  Christine  Fiore,  Ph.D.  and  Alison  Pepper,  Ph.D.   between  genders.  Levene’s  test  for  equality  of  variances  was  violated  in  all  
analyses  except  one.  Thus,  a  t  sta=s=c  not  assuming  homogeneity  of  variances  
was  computed  in  these  cases.    
ABSTRACT    
•  The  mean  of  the  female  group  was  higher  than  the  male  group  on  every  
Understanding  gender  differences  in  perceived  safety  on  college  campuses  is   ques=on  except,  “In  general,  how  safe  do  you  feel  on  the  UM  campus?”,  
an  important  part  of  understanding  campus  safety  climates.  Research  strictly   where  it  was  higher  than  the  female  group  (Table  8),  reflec=ng  a  greater  
focusing  on  this  topic  is  somewhat  limited,  but  many  studies  examining   feeling  of  safety,  in  line  with  our  hypothesis.  Men  (M=3.23,  SD=.795)  and  
campus  safety  percep=ons  also  include  gender  iden=ty  measures.  One  such   women  (M=2.78,  SD=.772;  t(1474)=10.06,  p<.001,  d=.57)  reported  
study  by  Sarah  Starkweather  (2007)  examined  gender  differences  in  ques=ons   significantly  different  feelings  of  safety.  
about  campus  safety  and  found  that  while  most  students  felt  generally  safe   •  As  displayed  in  Table  7,  a  significant  difference  was  also  found  when  men  
on  campus,  women  were  more  likely  to  feel  unsafe.  While  Starkweather’s   (M=1.25,  SD=.591)  and  women  (M=1.75,  SD=.786;  t(1109.5)=-­‐13.54,  p<.
study  focuses  only  on  general  ques=ons  about  campus  safety,  our  study  will   001,  d=.72)  were  asked  about  their  concern  for  personal  safety  on  campus.  
expand  on  what  has  already  been  found  by  analyzing  gender  differences  in   •  The  ques=on  about  situa=onal  safety  while  drinking  at  a  party  (Table  4)  
situa=onal  safety  in  addi=on  to  general  safety  percep=ons.  Working  with  data   showed  a  par=cularly  large  difference  in  means  between  men  and  women.  
from  the  2015  University  of  Montana  Safe  Campus  Climate  Survey,  we  will   Men  displayed  lower  perceived  fear  (M=2.38,  SD=.924)  than  women  
look  at  student  gender  iden==es  in  rela=on  to  responses  about  situa=onal   (M=2.98,  SD=1.162);  t(1057)=-­‐10.44,  p<.001,  d=.57.  
safety  and  general  safety.  The  sample  we  will  use  is  representa=ve  of   •  In  contrast,  the  situa=onal  safety  ques=on  referring  to  being  sober  on  a  
students  surveyed  between  the  ages  of  18-­‐25  years  old  (n=1,209).  This   date  had  the  lowest  means  for  both  groups  and  the  smallest  mean  
sample  was  69.7%  female  and  30.3%  male.  Situa=onal  safety,  in  this  study,  is   difference.  Although  the  difference  was  s=ll  found  to  be  sta=s=cally  
represented  in  a  ques=on  asking  how  safe  students  would  feel  in  a  variety  of   significant,  due  to  large  sample  sizes,  a  Cohen’s  d  effect  size  calcula=on  
situa=ons  on  or  near  the  UM  campus,  including  on  a  date  while  drinking  or   found  a  small  effect  size  (Men  (M=1.11,  SD=.439)  and  women  (M=1.24,  
sober,  at  a  party  while  drinking  or  sober  and  at  a  bar  while  drinking  or  sober.   SD=.521);  t(578.9)=-­‐3.77,  p<.001,  d=.27).  
The  ques=ons  on  general  safety  ask  for  the  level  of  concern  about  being  
personally  vic=mized  in  any  way  on  the  UM  campus  and  how  safe  students  
generally  feel  on  the  UM  campus.  We  expect  our  analysis  to  uphold  
stereotypical  no=ons  of  gender  and  perceived  safety—that  men  will  generally   DISCUSSION  
feel  less  fearful  on  campus  and  women  will  have  less  of  a  sense  of  general  
safety.  We  also  an=cipate  that  women  will  feel  more  unsafe  in  generally  more   Our  hypothesis  that  women  would  generally  report  more  fear  in  every  
vulnerable  situa=ons,  par=cularly  when  drinking,  but  across  the  board,   situa=on  given  and  on  general  safety  ques=ons  was  supported.  
women’s  sense  of  safety  will  be  lower  in  all  da=ng,  party  and  bar  seWngs.    
Studying  gender  differences  in  perceived  safety  has  two  main  purposes:  to   •  The  results  of  the  current  study  fall  in  line  with  results  of  previous  studies  
enhance  our  understandings  of  campus  safety  climates  and  to  examine  the   on  gender  and  campus  safety  percep=ons.  
validity  of  stereotypical  gender  roles  in  safety  situa=ons.  Our  preconceived   •  More  research  is  needed  into  situa=onal  safety  measures  related  to  
no=ons  of  how  men  and  women  experience  fear  in  various  situa=ons  are   campus  safety  in  order  to  improve  bystander  interven=on  and  preven=on  
worth  ques=oning,  if  only  to  confirm  that  women  are  par=cularly  at  risk  when   programs.  An  improved  understanding  of  how  gender  relates  to  feelings  of  
it  comes  to  a  percep=on  of  fear  on  campus,  and  that  this  fear  could  manifest   safety  has  the  poten=al  to  enhance  educa=on  on  the  subject  of  campus  
itself  in  any  number  of  ways,  such  as  a  lower  rate  of  repor=ng  assault  and   sexual  assault  and  other  related  issues.  
self-­‐blame.     •  The  means  for  situa=ons  while  drinking  were  higher  than  means  for  
situa=ons  while  sober  in  every  situa=on  listed  by  the  current  study.  This  
informa=on  could  affect  how  we  talk  about  alcohol  use  on  campus.    
•  Results  of  the  current  study  show  that  women  generally  feel  more  unsafe  
INTRODUCTION   on  campus,  and  a  percep=on  of  campus  as  an  unsafe  place  could  have  
•  In  the  Bureau  of  Jus=ce  Sta=s=cs’  Campus  Climate  Survey  Valida=on   numerous  effects,  such  as  lower  rates  of  repor=ng  assault,  mental  health  
Study,  average  prevalence  of  sexual  assault  across  nine  schools  during  the   issues  or  even  unsa=sfactory  academic  performance.  For  these  reasons,  
2014-­‐2015  academic  year  was  10.3%  for  women  and  3.1%  for  men  (Krebs,   studying  why  women  feel  more  unsafe  on  campus  is  the  next  step  in  
et  al.,  2016).   crea=ng  safer  campus  climates.  
•  Many  studies  have  found  that  women  generally  feel  more  unsafe  on  
campus  than  their  male  counterparts  (Starkweather,  2007;  Kelly  &  Torres,  
2006;  Lane,  Gover  &  Dahod,  2009).   METHODS   REFERENCES  
•  The  Shadow  of  Sexual  Assault  Thesis  theorizes  that  women’s  greater  fear  
of  sexual  assault  has  led  to  their  greater  fear  of  all  crime  (Ferraro,  1995).   The  University  of  Montana  Safe  Campus  Survey  was  conducted  in  2013,  2014,  and  2015.  This  
•  Currie,  D.  H.  (1994).  Women's  safety  on  campus:  Challenging  the  university  as  
This  may  influence  women’s  sense  of  situa=onal  safety;  under  this  theory,   study  used  data  from  the  2015  survey.    
gendered  space.  Humanity  and  Society,  18(3),  24.  
a  woman  would  be  most  fearful  in  situa=ons  where  they  perceive  sexual    
•  Ferraro,  K.  F.  (1995).  Fear  of  crime:  Interpre=ng  vic=miza=on  risk.  SUNY  press.  
assault  as  likely  to  occur.     •  The  online  survey  was  voluntary.  UM  students  age  18  and  above  were  encouraged  to  
•  Lane,  J.,  Gover,  A.  R.,  &  Dahod,  S.  (2009).  Fear  of  violent  crime  among  men  
•  Currie  (1994)  found  that  “the  greatest  risk  of  violence  occurs  in  situa=ons   par=cipate  and  incen=ves  were  provided  for  par=cipa=on.  We  surveyed  1,209  students.  
and  women  on  campus:  The  impact  of  perceived  risk  and  fear  of  sexual  
where  women  are  more  likely  to  feel  secure:  da=ng  or  cohabita=ng   •  Flyers  posted  across  the  university  campus,  online  banners  displayed  on  the  UM  website,  and  
assault.  Violence  and  vic=ms,  24(2),  172-­‐192.  
situa=ons  with  men  that  women  know”  (1994,  p.  43).  This  finding,  if   UM’s  online  learning  plajorm  were  used  for  recruitment.   •  Kelly,  B.  T.,  &  Torres,  A.  (2006).  Campus  safety:  Percep=ons  and  experiences  
supported  by  the  present  study,  could  have  important  implica=ons  for   •  In  addi=on  to  asking  about  percep=ons,  experiences,  and  knowledge  regarding  sexual   of  women  students.  Journal  of  College  Student  Development,  47(1),  20-­‐36.  
educa=on  regarding  women’s  risk  for  violence  in  varied  situa=ons.     vic=miza=on  on  and  around  campus,  demographic  informa=on  was  collected.   •  Krebs,  C.,  Lindquist,  C.,  Berzofsky,  M.,  Shook-­‐Sa,  B.,  Peterson,  K.,  Planty,  M.,  ...  
    •  This  study  focused  on  the  gender  iden=ty  ques=on  as  it  relates  to  ques=ons  about  personal   &  Stroop,  J.  (2016).  Campus  climate  survey  valida=on  study  final  technical  
Based  on  the  above,  our  hypothesis  is  that  women  will  report  being  more   safety  percep=ons  on  the  UM  campus.  Ques=ons  within  the  survey  opera=onalized   report.  Bureau  of  Jus=ce  Sta=s=cs  Research  and  Development  Series,  1-­‐193.  
concerned  about  personal  vic=miza=on  on  campus  and  will  generally  feel   percep=ons  of  both  situa=onal  safety  and  general  safety.   •  Starkweather,  S.  (2007).  Gender,  percep=ons  of  safety  and  strategic  
more  unsafe  on  campus  than  men.  Women  will  also  report  lower  sense  of   •  Using  SPSS,  t-­‐tests  tested  for  difference  between  males  and  females  in  situa=onal  safety  and   responses  among  Ohio  University  students.  Gender,  Place  and  Culture,  14(3),  
safety  in  all  situa=onal  scenarios,  par=cularly  ones  involving  drinking.     general  safety.     355-­‐370.