A rich theoretical and ethnographic literature exists suggesting that fraternity men are particularly prone to be sexual victimizers of women on college campuses. Yet, there is thin empirical evidence for this contention. Here, in a sample from a large midwestern university, there was strong evidence uncovered that male peer support for victimization of women exists, and that it is related to extensive alcohol use. However, there is no evidence that fraternity men are different on these factors from other men. A conclusion is that anti-rape efforts must be broader than only targeting fraternities, and that alcohol education must be a high priority.

Scholars have been aware for generations of extensive sexual victimization of women on university campuses; Kanin's (1957) path-breaking work was done about the time the parents of many current college students were born. The exact amount of this victimization is difficult to determine, because different methodologies, definitions, questions, and sampling procedures used in various studies have produced rather different results (Johnson & Ferraro, 1988; Schwartz, 1991).[1] However, most U.S. research has produced lifetime prevalence rates that range from 15% to 25% (Koss, 1988; Koss, Gidycz & Wisniewski, 1987; Makepeace, 1986; Muehlenhard & Linton, 1987; Rivera & Regoli, 1987; Ward, Chapman, Cohn, White, & Williams, 1991). DeKeseredy and Kelly (1993), in a Canadian nationwide random sample of 1,835 college and university women, found an even higher prevalence rate of more than 45% for all forms of sexual abuse since leaving high school. Not all of these researchers have asked if the assault took place on a college campus, but those who did found the bulk of the victimizations take place there (Copenhaver & Grauerholz, 1991; Koss et al., 1987; Muehlenhard & Linton, 1987; Rivera & Regoli, 1987). Looking at the other side, Rapaport and Burkhart (i984), to choose just one example, collected self-report data from 201 college males and found 15% admitted to forcing sexual intercourse on a woman at least once. Not withstanding doubts from critics outside the research community (e.g., Gilbert, 1991; Roiphe, 1993), the conclusion that sexual victimization is widespread on college campuses should no longer be in question.

One of the most popular attempts to explain this phenomenon is the argument that male peer support groups, and specifically fraternities, support, encourage, and may even create such abuse. Not mincing words, Bohmer and Parrot (1993) assert that "the men who are most likely to rape in college are fraternity pledges" (p. 21). Boumil, Friedman, and Taylor (1993) suggest that a "desire for male bonding, as indicated by the popularity of fraternities" can lead in combination with other factors to coercive sexual acts (p. 122). Warshaw (1988) similarly gives a number of examples of gang rapes taking place in fraternity houses, although noting that "more one-on-one date rapes and acquaintance rapes occur in fraternity houses than do gang acquaintance rapes" (p. 104). Martin and Hummer (1989), in an article that is widely cited and reprinted (e.g., Bart & Moran, 1993; Thio & Calhoun, 1995), explain that fraternity members are more likely to have a narrow conception of masculinity, espouse group secrecy, and sexually objectify women. However, perhaps the most cited author of all on the subject is Sanday (1990), who describes in detail the psychological processes that lead fraternity pledges to a position that facilitates rape.

Given the widespread acceptance and citation of these arguments, it is surprising how little firm evidence exists to support the role of fraternities in expediting or promoting rape. There has been some excellent work on how fraternities objectify and corn-modify women (e.g., Stombler, 1994), but without a counterpart argument that this does not also take place elsewhere. Some authors have found that sorority women are sexually victimized, often by fraternity men (e.g., Copenhaver & Grauerholz, 1991; Rivera & Regoli, 1987), but in the absence of a comparison to other college-aged women, it is difficult to draw the conclusion that fraternity men are more sexually aggressive than other men. Kalof (1993) has found some differences between sorority and nonsorority women, but on a small upstate New York public university campus with a relatively small sorority presence. Similarly, Garrett-Gooding and Senter (1987) found some evidence of increased sexual aggression on the part of fraternity men. Others have found an increased incidence of sexual victimization when there is extensive alcohol use, and that all too often this alcohol use took place at fraternity houses (Frintner & Rubinson, 1993).

Still, Boeringer, Shehan, and Akers (1991) were unable to locate such an effect when introducing more sophisticated mathematical models. Koss and Gaines (1993) were similarly unable to locate an effect of fraternities using multivariate analysis. In other words, when both alcohol consumption and fraternity membership were entered simultaneously into a model, all of the explanatory power was provided by the variable of alcohol consumption. Although fraternity membership may have a bivariate relationship to sexual aggression, it loses that relationship when drinking intensity is taken into account. In simple English, it seems that heavy drinking is what is related to sexual aggression; fraternities may have many members who drink heavily but heavy drinking (and sexual aggression) is hardly limited to fraternity members.

Thus Koss and Gaines (1993) point out the strong need to replicate their study. They felt that a campus with a higher fraternity membership rate than the one they studied should be used, and that campuses in regions of the country other than the Southwest should be studied. Further, Koss and Gaines used the Psychology 101 subject pool, plus freshman members of the varsity football team. Thus, although a reasonable number of their respondents were pledges (15%), a smaller group were fraternity members (7%). If Bohmer and Parrot (1993) are correct in asserting that pledges rape at a rate higher than members, this should not be a problem, of course. If it is men who have already gone through initiation and are now members of fraternities who are most likely to rape, as Sanday (1990) and many others suggest, then there is a need for a sample with more fraternity members than in the Koss and Gaines sample.

Further, there has been extensive suggestion in the literature that fraternity members hold a different view of women than other college men (Sanday 1990; Martin & Hummer, 1989), and in particular hold the set of attitudes we term rape myths. These myths make it easier for them to become sexual aggressors. However, in the only study that supports this finding, Schaeffer and Nelson (1993) argue that whereas fraternity house residents were relatively accepting of rape myths, this acceptance was shared by other residents of single-sex housing. Meanwhile, coeducational residence hall residents were much less accepting of rape myths. interestingly, Kalof (1993) has found that sorority women believe more in rape myths than other women.

Based on this sparse empirical and rich theoretical literature, two hypotheses will be tested here. First, it will be tested that fraternity members will be significantly more likely to accept rape myths than nonfraternity men. Second, it will be tested that fraternity membership will be the most important variable in explaining membership in the group of sexual victimizers.

RAPE MYTHS

A central feature, either explicit or implicit, of arguments about fraternities and rape is that fraternity members are more likely to believe in rape myths than are other men on college campuses. Generally, the argument is that belief systems are in place in North America that support and promote rape (Griffin, 1971; Orcutt & Faison, 1988; Weis & Borges, 1973). Central to these belief systems are rape myths, defined by Burt as "prejudicial, stereotyped, or false beliefs about rape, rape victims, and rapists" (1980, p. 217). A person holding such beliefs often feels able to differentiate between "real rape" and other events (Estrich, 1987). Women who do not meet the stringent definitions of behavior required by the rape myths are defined (by those who hold such beliefs) as not being victims of a crime. As Weis and Borges have pointed out, such beliefs allow men to "engage in otherwise forbidden behavior and to rationalize and justify it after the event" (p. 11). In particular, fraternity men are said to learn that forced sex with a drunken woman is not wrong (Sanday, 1990).

Several rape-myth scales have been designed; all have been used to show that there is a high acceptance of such myths in our society and that these myths are closely connected to narrow definitions of rape (Burt & Albin, 1981; Feltey Ainslie & Geib, 1991; Giacopassi & Dull, 1986). In an attempt to link such beliefs to behavior, Koss, Leonard, Beezley, and Oros (1985) found that males who admitted to engaging in nonconsensual sexual intercourse with women acquaintances differed from nonaggressive men by scoring higher on Burt's scales.

However, several researchers have found Burt's scales problematic, and have developed their own (Ward, 1988). In particular, Gilmartin-Zena (1987) has argued that Burt's Rape Myth Acceptance Scale has an interpersonal orientation that discounts the importance of the structural causes of rape. She designed her own Acceptance of Rape Myths Scale (ARM) to include such items and has shown that it is reliable and valid (Gilmartin-Zena, 1988,1989).

PEER GROUP INFLUENCE

It is more than rape myths that influence men, however. Peer groups provide their members with a number of benefits. Whether it is just a group of friends or a highly organized social fraternity, peer groups can provide emotional support, guidance in negotiating the difficult academic, social and political waters of university life, and just plain social companionship (Gwartney-Gibbs & Stockard, 1989). However, often embedded within these lessons are values, techniques, goals and behaviors that are overtly or implicitly taught as appropriate conduct in dealing with the opposite sex. Many men have a problem in reconciling a popular mythology that emphasizes the highly romantic nature of courtship, and a reality that they are more likely to find their own emotions marked by conflict and stress. Social Support Theory suggests that it is common and normal for people in a situation where they feel conflict and stress to seek support from groups such as peer groups (Wills, 1985). At least for the past few generations in North America, dating and interacting with the opposite sex in general have been considered stressful life events of this nature. One of the major values in male peer support groups is that they often provide techniques for coping with stress, and even specific advice on how to interact with women. In some cases, unfortunately, these groups also legitimate and encourage the psychological, physical, and sexual abuse of dating partners (DeKeseredy 1990), providing the vocabulary that allows these men to commit criminal acts while maintaining a self-identity as normal and nondeviant (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 1993; Stombler, 1994). If "everyone does it," "drunken women are asking for it," "we're just having fun," or whatever the current excuse is, then through this vocabulary of motive the men can easily see that they are not committing a felony crime, but rather are just "normal guys." Of course, this is true not only on the college campus. A number of other studies provide evidence that the victimization of women is behavior that is socially learned in interaction with specific others (Scully 1990). In this study, variables will be used that tap into this dimension of male friendship.

THE EFFECT OF ALCOHOL

Several theorists have attempted to tie student drinking patterns to the development of these attitudes and vocabularies. Kanin (1984) and Abbey (1991), for example, each try to make the link between sexual violence against women and alcohol abuse. Although Kanin finds a direct link in many cases, Abbey finds an indirect one, suggesting that men's expectations about alcohol's effects can combine with their already existing misperceptions about women's sexual expectations and intentions, possibly ending up being used by these men as a justification for their sexual assaults. Barnes, Greenwood, and Sommer (1991) found that high alcohol users are higher in physical abuse of women, whereas Lisak and Roth (1988) found that sexually aggressive men were more likely to have a higher use of alcohol. In a conservative summary of this literature, Ward et al. (1991) suggest that although we cannot argue a causal connection, unwanted sexual experiences are a product of a student lifestyle that includes alcohol use.

Sanday (1990) provides a link between alcohol use, peer support, rape myths, and sexual aggression on campus. She argues that alcohol is a tool that men in fraternities are taught to use to "work a yes out" of unwilling women. Although this may work on occasion, some men get women so drunk that the women cannot resist sexual advances, which is a form of forcible rape in virtually all North American jurisdictions. If physical force is not used, the men are told and learn, this is a legitimate seduction (Sanday, 1990) and not "real rape" (Estrich, 1987). If it is a seduction, it follows (the teaching goes) that the women really wanted to engage in sex (Scully, 1990). Thus the behavior is conceptualized by these men as fully appropriate (Ward et al. 1991).

A self-administered questionnaire was administered to 296 students errolled in- courses on social problems, sport, and women's studies at a midwestern state university. This article only uses the 119 forms completed by males, who were virtually all in the courses in the first two disciplines. These men were 93.3% White, with an average age of 20.5 years. About 40% were sophomores, one-third juniors, and about one-quarter seniors. Only 2.5% were first-year students. Thus there is an important difference between this study which is made up almost completely of upperclassmen, and that of Koss and Gaines (1993), which used first-year students extensively.

Roughly 22% of this sample were members of fraternities, which is the same percentage of students who were fraternity members in the university as a whole, and significantly higher than at Koss and Gaines's university. All of these men self-identified as members, not pledges, whereas two-thirds of the fraternity men in the Koss and Gaines study were pledges. If the question to be studied is who on campus commits sexual assaults, then the lack of first-year students here can be seen as a drawback of the sample. However, the goal of this research was to test hypotheses based on the literature that men who are initiates of fraternities are more likely to be sexual victimizers than other men.

The survey included Gilmartin-Zena's ARM Scale, which consists of 24 questions scored in a Likert-type format ranging in 5 points from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Questions with a "correct" answer in the negative ,were reverse coded so that all responses could be scored 1 to 5 and summed across the 24 questions so that potential scores ranged from 24 to 120. The lower the score, the more the person accepted rape myths.

In addition to the ARM Scale, all students were administered the male version of the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES), a reliable and valid measure (Koss & Gidycz, 1985) discussed by Koss, Dinero, Seibel, and Cox (1988). A number of distracter questions, which were not used in the analysis, were asked between the ARM and the SES. Questions were also asked about a number of other behaviors, including alcohol and drug consumption, membership in campus organizations, and participation in volunteer work. After students signed human subject research waiver forms, all questionnaires were completed anonymously during scheduled class time. No course credit was given for participation. All students attending sampled classes voluntarily completed usable surveys.

The first hypothesis suggested a simple relationship: that fraternity men would be more likely to hold rape myths than non-fraternity men. Although this may be true in some specific fraternities, it certainly was not the case in the overall sample here. In a test where lower scores meant more rape myth acceptance, fraternity men (mean = 88.08) and nonfraternity men (mean = 89.22) were not statistically significant on a t test for the differences in the group means (t = .75, df = 117, p = .454). Thus this first hypothesis is rejected.

In fact, what might be surprising about this sample is that fraternity men are not different from other men on a variety of measures. We used several variables that tapped into the various dimensions of male peer group behavior and alcohol use, based on the discussion earlier. In simple bivariate investigation, fraternity men are not more likely to be victimizers, they do not go out drinking more often than nonmembers, and they don't drink more when they do go out. Further, they were not more likely to report having friends who got women drunk in order to have sex with them, or even to have friends who would approve of such behavior. In other words, there were no significant differences here between fraternity men and other men.

Although this study was not designed to have hypotheses on other similar variables, it might be worth noting that there were also no important differences on a number of other variables on bivariate or multivariate analyses: whether the men were varsity athletes, whether they took an active role in intramural sports, whether they held a job, or whether they were active in campus professional clubs. At the same time, the variables noted in the previous paragraph do an excellent job in differentiating at the bivariate level between those men who admit to being victimizers and those who do not. For example, the victimizers claim to have friends who would approve of getting a woman drunk for the purpose of having sex with her: 38.1% of the victimizers and 7.1% of the others claim to have such friends. Actually, 40% of the nonvictimizers say that they know a friend who has in fact engaged in this behavior, but fully 85.7% of the victimizers claim to have such friends. These relationships are statistically significant. The differences between victimizers and nonvictimizers on drinking behavior are not statistically significant, but victimizers are more likely to drink three or more times a week, and to have 7 or more drinks each time they go drinking.

Still, there are a number of mathematical reasons why large numbers of investigations of bivariate relationships can lead to incorrect conclusions. For this reason, the best overall method of testing the second hypothesis on the influence of fraternity membership is to use multivariate analysis to differentiate between the group of self-admitted sexual victimizers and the group that claimed they were not victimizers. Discriminant function analysis was used, as it is a technique designed to show both the influence of several independent variables on a nominal dependent variable and also how well the categories of the grouping (dependent) variable could be differentiated using the explanatory power of the discriminating (independent) variables. To create a dichotomous grouping (dependent) variable, and to make conceptual sense out of the complex data derived from the 10-question SES, the categories were reduced here: The men were categorized into non-sexual victimizers (80%) or victimizers (20%), whether they victimized by pressure or by force. In fact, attempted rape or completed rape accounted for more than 50% of the admitted acts.

Table 1 shows the results using the several independent variables, including the Acceptance of Rape Myths Scale score (ARMS), and whether the person is a member of a fraternity (FRAT). To test basic questions of male peer support that objectifies women and encourages sexual abuse, the following questions were asked: Would your friends approve of getting a woman drunk in order to have sex with her? (APPROVE); and, How many of your friends have actually gotten a woman drunk or high on drugs in order to have sex with her? (GETDRUNK). To test the effects of the man's own alcohol use and abuse, we asked: How many times each week do you go out drinking? (TIMESWK); and, When you go out drinking, how many drinks do you consume each time? (DRINKS). Finally, to investigate whether students in the sampled courses are politically different from other students in a way that might have affected the analysis,[2] we added a question on the student's own assessment of their political orientation, ranging from very conservative to very liberal.

As can be seen from Table 1, there is a strong eigen value (the between-groups variance divided by the within-groups variance) at .467, and a canonical correlation of .564, which means that the set of independent (predicting) variables are differentiating between the two values of the dependent (grouping) variable (aggressor/nonaggressor). The Wilks's lambda here of .682 can be interpreted as meaning that the differences between the aggressors and the nonaggressors account for 31.8% of the variance in the predicting variables. The correlations between the individual variables and the discriminant function show that the most powerful predictors of whether a male will be a sexual aggressor are whether he perceives that his friends will approve of getting a woman drunk for the purpose of having sex, whether he reports that he has friends that actually engage in this behavior, and how much he himself drinks whenever he engages in alcohol consumption. Certainly there seems to be a powerful function predicting sexually aggressive behavior based around a male peer culture and alcohol.

There are several methods to use in deciding on the value of the remaining independent variables in the model. Stevens (1992) would point out that the standardized canonical discriminant function coefficients are useful in showing us that all of the other variables in this model are of limited value and redundant. Others argue for running the entire analysis again, leaving out the variables identified as weak, to see what changes are made in the overall model (Afifi & Clark 1984; Hedderson 1991). When the same model is run using only the variables GETDRUNK, APPROVE, and DRINKS, the loss of the other five variables barely affects the outcome. To compare to Table 1, the eigenvalue (.448), the canonical correlation (.556), and Wilks's lambda (.691) are virtually identical.

An important statistic often used with discriminant function analysis is to use the discriminant function just created to go back and attempt to predict the group membership of each of the cases used in the analysis. Here, 80.37% of the cases were correctly classified, which is a good result.

Thus, in this multivariate analysis, fraternity membership and adherence to rape myths are of lesser importance. In fact, although it is not statistically significant, fraternity men are less likely to admit to victimizing activity than other men. Instead, the level of the perceived male peer support system for exploiting women through alcohol, plus the amount of alcohol actually consumed by men when they drink, are the primary predictors of whether they will report themselves as sexual victimizers of women.

The two original hypotheses that began this study are rejected: At least at this particular large midwestern university with heavy fraternity membership, fraternity men are not more likely to adhere to rape myths, nor is fraternity membership a particularly useful explanation of why men engage in sexually coercive behavior. Of course, this does not mean that such fraternities do not exist; it may well be that the large number of fraternity men who do not engage in sexually coercive behavior is masking the effect of those who do. This might account for the differences found on one hand in this study, Koss and Gaines (1993), and Boeringer et al. (1991), and on the other in the descriptions found in Sanday (1990), Ehrhardt and Sandler (1985), Stombler (1994) and others. From ethnographic, journalistic, and many personal accounts, there seems to be no question that there are fraternity chapters on U.S. campuses where the sexual victimization of women is taught and actively encouraged. It may be widespread on certain campuses, or perhaps a complex part of fraternity life and ritual, as described by Stombler (1994). The question raised in this study is whether this behavior is something completely unique to fraternities, or whether men bearing this message might be found throughout campus life. It seems to be possible that other groups on campus may be just as likely as fraternities to provide the extensive male peer support for the sexual objectification of women, and the access to alcohol, that encourages some men to engage in victimizing behaviors.

Campus administrators and rape educators need to search more broadly for potential and actual victimizers of women. There seems to be no question that a male peer support system does exist on college campuses to support the victimization of women. Men who feel that their friends approve of exploiting women sexually, and who further report that they actually have friends who exploit women sexually, are more likely to similarly report that they themselves are sexual exploiters. This is not a suggestion that the behavior of fraternities can be ignored, or that individual fraternities are not especially problematic (such as the ones documented by Sanday, 1990). However, this replication of Koss and Gaines (1993) and Boeringer et al. (1991) suggests (as did Koss and Gaines) that these data may be warning us to be careful not to focus so much attention on fraternities that we ignore the multiple other groupings of sexually coercive men on campuses. Further, the rather strong relationship here between heavy drinking and admission as a sexual aggressor should also spur rape educators on college campuses to include alcohol education as part of their mandate.

AUTHORS' NOTE: An earlier version of this paper was delivered at the annual meeting of the Society for the Study of Social Problems, Washington, D.C., 1995. Thanks are due to Robert Shelly, Walter DeKeseredy, and quite a number of others who commented on earlier drafts.

 1. See Ward et al. (1991) for a brief review of the various
    research techniques used to collect data on sexual assaults
    against U.S. female university students.

 2. This suggestion was made by reviewer.

Legend For Chart:

A - Canonical Discriminant Functions: Function
B - Canonical Discriminant Functions: Eigenvalue
C - Canonical Discriminant Functions: Canonical Correlation
D - Canonical Discriminant Functions: Function
E - Canonical Discriminant Functions: Wilks's Lambda
F - Canonical Discriminant Functions: Chi Square
G - Canonical Discriminant Functions: df
H - Canonical Discriminant Functions: Significance

A        B        C      D        E          F       G        H

1      .467     .564     0      .692       39.92     7     .0000
Legend For Chart:

A - Standardized Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients:
    Function I
B - Standardized Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients:
    Correlations Between Variables and Discriminant Function
C - Standardized Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients:
    Canonical Discriminant Functions Evaluated at Group Means

                         A              B              C

GETDRUNK               .740          .830
DRINKS                 .475          .519
APPROVE                .234          .648
TIMESWK               -.179          .295
ARMS                  -.122         -.245
FRAT                  -.064         -.156
POLITICS              -.015          .144
NOT AGGRESSORS           --            --            -.335
AGGRESSORS               --            --            1.370
Legend For Chart:

A - Correlation Matrix: FRAT
B - Correlation Matrix: DRINKS
C - Correlation Matrix: TIMESWK
D - Correlation Matrix: APPROVE
E - Correlation Matrix: GETDRUNK
F - Correlation Matrix: ARMS
G - Correlation Matrix: POLITICS

                  A            B          C             D
                  E            F          G

FRAT           1.0000          --         --            --
                   --          --         --

DRINKS          .1075      1.0000         --            --
                   --          --         --

TIMESWK        -.0556       .4868[b]   1.0000           --
                   --          --         --

APPROVE        -.0524       .2202       .3336[b]    1.0000
                   --          --         --

GETDRUNK       -.1188       .3473[b]    .2331        .5402[b]
               1.0000          --         --

ARMS          -.0712       -.1312      -.1929       -.2611[a]
              -.1076       1.0000         --

POLITICS      -.0785        .1179       .0867        .1607
               .1856        .1161      1.0000

NOTE: Classification results indicate 80.37% of cases correctly classified (using prior probabilities).

Two-tailed significance: a < .01; b < .001.

Abbey, A. (1991). Acquaintance rape and alcohol consumption on
     college campuses. Journal of American College Health, 39,
     165-169.

Afifi, A. A., & Clark, V. (1984). Computer-aided multivariate
     analysis (2nd ed.). New York Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Barnes, G. E., Greenwood, L., & Sommer, R. (1991). Courtship
     violence in a Canadian sample of male college students.
     Family Relations, 40, 31-44.

Bart, E B., & Moran, E.G. (Eds.) (1993). Violence against women:
     The bloody footprints. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Boeringer, S. B., Shehan, C. L., & Akers, R. L. (1991). Social
     contexts and social learning in sexual coercion and
     aggression. Family Relations, 40, 58-64.

Bohmer, C., & Parrot, A. (1993). Sexual assault on campus: The
     problem and the solution. New York: Lexington.

Boumil, M. M., Friedman, J., & Taylor, B. E. (1993). Date rape:
     The secret epidemic. Deerfield Beach, EL: Health
     Communications.

Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal
     of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 211-230.

Burt, M. R., & Albin, R. S. (1981). Who is a rape victim?
     Definitional problems in sexual victimization. Victimology,
     6, 15-28.

Copenhaver, S., & Grauerholz, E. (1991). Sexual victimization
     among sorority women: Exploring the link between sexual
     violence and institutional practices. Sex Roles, 24, 31-41.

DeKeseredy, W. S. (1990). Woman abuse in dating relationships: The
     contribution of male peer support. Sociological Inquiry, 60,
     236-243.

DeKeseredy, W. S., & Kelly, K. (1993). The incidence and
     prevalence of woman abuse in Canadian university and college
     dating relationships. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 18,
     131-159.

DeKeseredy, W. S., & Schwartz, M.D. (1993). Male peer support and
     women abuse. Sociological Spectrum, 13, 393-413.

Ehrhardt, J. K., & Sandler, B. R. (1985). Campus gang rape: Party
     games? Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges.

Estrich, S. (1987). Real rape. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
     Press.

Feltey, K. M., Ainslie, J. J., & Geib, A. (1991). Sexual coercion
     attitudes among high school students. Youth and Society, 23,
     229-250.

Frintner, M., & Rubinson, L. (1993). Acquaintance rape: The
     influence of alcohol, fraternity membership, and sports team
     membership. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 19,
     272-284.

Garrett-Gooding, J., & Senter, R. (1987). Attitudes and acts of
     sexual aggression on a university campus. Sociological
     Inquiry, 59, 348-371.

Giacopassi, D. J., & Dull, R. T. (1986). Gender and racial
     differences in the acceptance of rape myths within a college
     population. Sex Roles, 15, 63-75.

Gilbert, N. (1991). The phantom epidemic of sexual assault. The
     Public Interest, 103, 54-65.

Gilmartin-Zena, P. (1987). Attitudes toward rape: Student
     characteristics as predictors. Free Inquiry in Creative
     Sociology, 15, 175-182.

Gilmartin-Zena, P. (1988). Gender differences in students'
     attitudes toward rape. Sociological Focus, 21,279-292.

Gilmartin-Zena, E (1989). Attitudes about rape myths: Are women's
     studies students different? Free Inquiry in Creative
     Sociology, 11, 65-72.

Griffin, S. (1971, September). Rape: The all-American crime.
     Ramparts, 26-35.

Gwartney-Gibbs, E, & Stockard, J. (1989). Courtship aggression and
     mixed sex peer groups. In M. A. Pirog-Good & J. E. Stets
     (Eds.), Violence in dating relationships (pp. 185-204). New
     York: Praeger.

Hedderson, J. (1991). SPSS/PC+ made simple. Belmont, CA:
     Wadsworth.

Johnson, J. M., & Ferraro, K. J. (1988). Courtship violence:
     Survey vs. empathic understandings of abusive conduct. In N.
     Denzin (Ed.). Studies in symbolic interaction (pp. 175-186).
     Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Kalof, L. (1993). Rape-supportive attitudes and sexual
     victimization experiences of sorority and non-sorority women.
     Sex Roles, 29, 767-780.

Kanin, E. (1984). Date rape: Unofficial criminals and victims.
     Victimology, 11, 95-108.

Kanin, E. (1957). Male aggression in dating-courtship violence.
     American Journal of Sociology, 63,191-204.

Koss, M.P. (1988). Hidden rape: Sexual aggression and
     victimization in a national sample of students in higher
     education. In A. W. Burgess (Ed.), Rape and sexual assault
     II (pp. 3-25). New York: Garland.

Koss, M.P., Dinero, T. E., Seibel, C. A., & Cox, S. L. (1988).
     Stranger and acquaintance rape: Are there differences in the
     victim's experience? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12,1-24.

Koss, M. E, & Gaines, J: A. (1993): The prediction of sexual
     aggression by alcohol use, athletic participation, and
     fraternity affiliation. Journal of lnterpersonal Violence,
     8, 94-108.

Koss, M. E, & Gidycz, C. A. (1985). Sexual experiences survey:
     Reliability and validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
     Psychology, 53, 422-423.

Koss, M.P., Gidycz, C. A., & Wisniewski, N. (1987). The scope of
     rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and
     victimization in a national sample of higher education
     students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55,
     162-170.

Koss, M.P., Leonard, L. E., Beezley, D. A., & Oros, C. J. (1985).
     Non-stranger sexual aggression. Sex Roles, 12, 981-992.

Lisak, D., & Roth, S. (1988). Motivational factors in
     nonincarcerated sexually active men. Journal of Personality
     and Social Psychology, 55, 795-802.

Makepeace, J. M. (1986). Gender differences in courtship violence
     victimization. Family Relations, 35, 383-388.

Martin, E Y., & Hummer, R. A. (1989). Fraternities and rape on
     campus. Gender and Society, 3, 457-473.

Muehlenhard, C., & Linton,M. (1987). Date rape sexual aggression
     in dating situations: Incidence and risk factors. Journal of
     Counseling Psychology, 6, 20-31.

Orcutt, J. D., & Faison, R. (1988). Sex role attitude change and
     reporting of rape victimization, 1913-1985. Sociological
     Quarterly, 29, 589-604.

Rapaport, K., & Burkhart, B. R. (1984). Personality and
     attitudinal characteristics of sexually coercive college
     males. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93, 216-221.

Rivera, G., & Regoli, R. (1987) Sexual victimization experiences
     of sorority women. Sociology and Social Research, 12, 39-42.

Roiphe, K. (1993). The morning after: Sex,fear, and feminism on
     campus. Boston: Little, Brown.

Sanday, E R. (1990), Fraternity gang rape. New York: New York
     University Press.

Schaeffer, A., & Nelson, E. (1993). Rape-supportive attitudes:
     Effects of on-campus residence and education. Journal of
     College Student Development, 34,175-179.

Schwartz, M. D: (1991): Humanist sociology and date rape on the
     college campus. Humanity & Society, 15, 304-316.

Scully, D. (1990). Understanding sexual violence. Boston: Unwin
     Hyman.

Stevens, J. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social
     sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Stombler, M. (1994). "Buddies" or "slutties": The collective
     sexual reputation of fraternity little sisters. Gender and
     Society, 8, 297-323.

Thio, A., & Calhoun, T., (Eds.). (1995) Readings in deviant
     behavior. New York: HarperCollins. Ward, C. (1988). The
     attitudes toward rape victims scale. Psychology of Women
     Quarterly, 12, 121-146.

Ward, S. K., Chapman, K., Cohn, E., White, S., & Williams, K.
     (1991). Acquaintance rape and the college social scene.
     Family Relations, 40, 65-71.

Warshaw, R. (1988). I never called it rape. New York: Harper &
     Row.

Weis, K., & Borges, S.S. (1973). Victimology and rape: The case
     of the legitimate victim . Issues in Criminology, 8, 71-115.

Wills, T. A. (1985). Supportive functions of interpersonal
     relations. In S. Cohen & S. L. Syme (Eds.), Social support
     and health (pp. 61-78). Toronto: Academic Press.

~~~~~~~~

By MARTIN D. SCHWARTZ and CAROL A. NOGRADY

Martin D. Schwartz is Professor of Sociology at Ohio University, Athens. He is the author of more than 50 articles and books, mainly on subtopics of violence against women. Most recently, he co-edited a reader, Race, Class, and Gender in Criminology (Garland), co-authored the text Contemporary Criminology (Wadsworth), and articles on feminist routine activities theory for Justice Quarterly, postmodern theory for Criminology, and violence against prostitutes for Deviant Behavior

Carol A. Nogrady is a graduate student in student personnel services at Ohio University, Athens. This article has its roots in her senior Honors Tutorial thesis in sociology.