Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Violence Against Women. 2021 Apr 14;28(1):93–106. doi: 10.1177/1077801221998757

Gender, Campus Sexual Violence, Cultural Betrayal, Institutional Betrayal, and Institutional Support in U.S. Ethnic Minority College Students: A Descriptive Study

Jennifer M Gómez 1,2
PMCID: PMC8582003  NIHMSID: NIHMS1751789  PMID: 33851553

Abstract

Women and ethnic minorities are at increased risk for campus sexual violence (CSV). Due to inequality, within-group victimization in marginalized communities includes cultural betrayal. Universities commit institutional betrayal (e.g., inadequate prevention) and institutional support (e.g., sensitivity). With a campus climate survey, the purpose of the study is to characterize, by gender, U.S. ethnic minority undergraduates’ CSV, cultural and institutional betrayal, and institutional support. Participants (N = 222) were a random sample of ethnic minority undergraduates. College women experienced higher rates of CSV and institutional betrayal. Universities can implement a research agenda that centralizes the role of oppression in CSV.

Keywords: ethnic minority college students, institutional betrayal, cultural betrayal, campus sexual violence, sexual assault

Indicative of a long-standing major public health concern (Fedina et al., 2018; Howard et al., 2018; Koss et al., 1987; Obama, 2014; White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault, 2014), campus sexual violence (CSV) is an umbrella term for sexually based violations that are perpetrated against members of the university, including undergraduates. CSV includes unwanted fondling, oral penetration, vaginal penetration, and anal penetration. By definition, CSV occurs without consent, with the person victimized either not giving consent, such as saying “no” or “stop,” or being unable to give consent, such as being incapacitated due to alcohol or other substances. CSV is detrimental to university students, as sexual violence is associated with a range of deleterious outcomes, including mental health problems (Campbell, 2008; Eisenberg et al., 2016; Jordan et al., 2010) and dropping out of college (Mengo & Black, 2016).

As with many forms of violence, CSV disproportionately affects those with lower societal status due to oppressions, such as racism and sexism. Specifically, compared to college men, college women are at increased risk for CSV (Gómez et al., 2015; Howard et al., 2018; Porter & Williams, 2011), with up to half experiencing CSV (Ullman et al., 1999). Although understudied, some research indicates that ethnic minority college students endure elevated rates of CSV (Howard et al., 2018; Porter & Williams, 2011). Moreover, the broader context of inequality (Brown, 2008; Bryant-Davis, 2005) in which CSV occurs may additionally affect ethnic minority college students. Therefore, focusing on ethnic minority college students, without comparing to White students, can guard against implicit biological essentialism (Cole & Stewart, 2001) that centralizes White people as the paradigm of the human experience (Henrich et al., 2010).

Cultural Betrayal Trauma Theory

With the broader context of inequality in mind, cultural betrayal trauma theory (CBTT; Gómez, 2017, 2019a, 2019b, 2019c, 2019d, 2020a, 2021; Gómez & Freyd, 2018; Gómez & Gobin, 2020) is a framework used to examine the impact of within-group violence in marginalized populations. The basic premise of CBTT is that societal trauma, such as systemic discrimination, creates the need for (intra)cultural trust within marginalized groups. This (intra)cultural trust includes solidarity with other known and unknown members of the group. Within-group violence violates this (intra) cultural trust, which is a cultural betrayal. Such violence is termed cultural betrayal trauma (Figure 1). The empirical research on CBTT demonstrates that this cultural betrayal in trauma affects outcomes above and beyond the violence itself (Gómez, 2017, 2019b, 2019c, 2019d, 2020a, 2021) and the close relationship with the perpetrator(s) (Gómez, 2019c, 2020a, 2021). This is particularly important given that the majority of sexual violence occurs within-group (Bryant-Davis et al., 2009). Therefore, assessing within-group status of perpetrator(s) as indicative of cultural betrayal can aid in understanding CSV for ethnic minority college students.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Cultural betrayal trauma theory, reprinted with permission.

Institutional Betrayal and Support

In addition to its contextualized interpersonal harm, such as cultural betrayal, universities themselves have a role to play in the incidence and aftermath of CSV. Institutional betrayal is defined as institutions’ problematic actions or inactions (Smith & Freyd, 2013), which range from apparently isolated to systemic (Smith & Freyd, 2014; Figure 2). In the university context, institutional betrayal includes covering up one’s experience of CSV and failing to take necessary preventive measures. Institutional betrayal is not without consequence, as it has been shown to exacerbate mental health outcomes of CSV (Monteith et al., 2016; Rosenthal et al., 2016; Smith, 2017; Smith & Freyd, 2013, 2017; Wright et al., 2017). Given that discrimination and institutional betrayal are linked (Cromer et al., 2018; Freyd & Birrell, 2013; Gómez, 2015; Gómez, Smith et al., 2016), it is not surprising that some minority, such as lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB), college students experience higher rates of institutional betrayal (Smith et al., 2016). The potential for minority college students to be more likely to shoulder the burden of institutional betrayal is far from trivial. Such increased prevalence may mean that minority students also suffer from higher rates of mental or behavioral health outcomes as compared to their majority counterparts. The increased potential for related negative downstream effects, such as lower academic achievement, for minority students is additionally worrisome.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Institutional betrayal, reprinted with permission.

Importantly, with universities’ power to harm comes the ability to help (Smith et al., 2014). Given the impact of institutional betrayal (Smith & Freyd, 2014), institutional support, such as creating an environment in which it is safe to discuss CSV, may aid in the well-being of undergraduates who have been victimized. Although much of the research has focused on institutional betrayal, assessing institutional support simultaneously can provide a fuller picture of the status of the institution. This can illuminate positive behaviors that can be bolstered, while addressing harmful institutional betrayal as well.

Purpose of the Study

With campus climate surveys providing university-wide information on CSV, the purpose of the current descriptive study is to characterize, by gender, U.S. ethnic minority college students’ experiences of CSV, cultural betrayal, and institutional betrayal and support using data from a campus climate survey. Given the nature of CSV being a form of gendered violence that is more prevalent in women populations (e.g., Ullman et al., 1999), I hypothesized that college women would indicate higher rates of CSV than college men (Hypothesis 1). Because individuals are more likely to be victimized by someone of the same ethnic group (Bryant-Davis et al., 2009), I hypothesized that within-group victimization (perpetrator: same ethnicity; cultural betrayal) would be more common than between-group victimization (Hypothesis 2). Finally, with evidence showing that sexual minorities experience more institutional betrayal (Smith et al., 2016) potentially due to inequality, I hypothesized that the majority of ethnic minority college students who were victimized would experience institutional betrayal (Hypothesis 3). Given the lack of prior literature, I made no predictions regarding the prevalence of institutional support.

Method

This study is part of a larger data collection (Madison Summit for Campus Climate and Sexual Misconduct, 2015); therefore, only some of the participants and measures are reported here.

Participants

Participants (N = 355) were ethnic minority college students attending a predominantly White university in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. They were traditional college age (M = 21.61, SD = 4.38), with 66.2% women and 33.8% men. Participants were ethnically diverse, with 42.3% Asian/Asian American, 30.6% Hispanic/Latina/o, 10.8% Other, 9.9% Black/African American, 5.4% Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and 5.0% Native American/Alaska Native (percentages add to more than 100% because participants could check more than one box for ethnicity). The majority of participants were heterosexual (90.5%) and domestic students (92.8%). Participants were evenly represented across years in college: Year 1: 23.9%, Year 2: 24.8%, Year 3: 24.3%, and Year 4+: 26.6%. Finally, only participants who endorsed an ethnic minority identity and completed the current study were included in analyses, resulting in a sample size of N = 222.

Measures

CSV.

CSV—unwanted fondling, oral penetration, vaginal penetration, and anal penetration—was assessed with the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES; Koss et al., 2007; 20 items). Instructions: The following questions concern sexual experiences that you may have had that were unwanted. We know that these are personal questions, so we appreciate your honest responses. Your information is completely confidential. We hope that this helps you to feel comfortable answering each question honestly. Fill the bubble showing the number of times occurred on the same occasion, indicate all that apply. (For example, if one night someone threatened to tell lies about you and criticized your sexuality, indicate both.) We want to know about your experiences since you enrolled at the [UNIVERSITY]. These experiences could occur on or off campus, when school is in session or not. Sample Item: Someone put their penis, fingers, or other objects into my vagina without my consent by … threatening to physically harm me or someone close to me. Participants responded on a Likert-type scale, from 1 (0 times) to 4 (3+ times). A measure of internal consistency is not appropriate given that the items on the SES pertain to different events, as opposed to an underlying construct (Koss et al., 2007). However, the SES has been shown to be a valid measure of sexual violence victimization (Koss & Gidycz, 1985). Dichotomous variables (1—any, 0—none reported) were used in descriptive analyses.

Institutional betrayal and support.

Created by Smith and Freyd, the Institutional Betrayal & Support Questionnaire (IBSQ) is based in the Institutional Betrayal Questionnaire (IBQ; Smith & Freyd, 2013), with additional items that assess institutionally supportive behaviors (26 items total). Stem Instructions and Sample Items: In thinking about the events related to sexual misconduct described in the previous sections, did the [INSTITUTION] play a role by … creating an environment where you no longer felt like a valued member of the institution?; Ensuring you were treated as an important member of the institution? Response choices were yes, no, and NA (not applicable). Due to its assessment of institutional treatment related to victimization, only participants who endorsed any victimization completed the IBSQ (N = 63). The original IBQ has been previously used with a college sample (Smith & Freyd, 2013), with prior work indicating strong internal consistency for the institutional betrayal items specifically (Rosenthal et al., 2016). In this study, internal consistency was excellent for both institutional betrayal (α = .97) and institutional support (α = .97). Dichotomous variables (1—any, 0—none reported) were used in descriptive analyses.

Cultural betrayal screener.

Created by the author for the current study based on prior research (e.g., Gómez, 2019b), the cultural betrayal screener consisted of 4 times assessing within- and between-group race and ethnicity of perpetrator. Sample Items: This person was the same race as me; this person was a different ethnicity than me. Given that race and ethnicity of perpetrator is related to victimization, only participants who indicated victimization completed these items (N = 63). Participants checked the box next to the item(s) that applied to their experience of victimization. The variable for any within-group (e.g., cultural betrayal) and between-group victimization was created in two steps, respectively: (a) summing together like race and ethnicity items; and (b) computing a dichotomous variable, with 1—any, 0—none reported.

Procedures

The current data collection comes from a pilot university site for an interdisciplinary initiative to create campus climate surveys grounded in the research (Madison Summit for Campus Climate and Sexual Misconduct, 2015). Students were eligible to participate if they were (a) 18 years or older, (b) enrolled in the previous academic term, and (c) enrolled in the following academic term. The university’s Office of the Registrar randomly chose 5,000 university emails as the sample. Potential participants received an initial email invitation to complete the 30-min online survey within 10 days. Five and 10 days after this email invitation, two reminder emails were sent, respectively. As compensation, participants received a $15 Amazon gift card. The larger data collection was approved by the university Institutional Review Board.

Data Analysis Plan

Descriptive analyses were run to assess for prevalence rates of CSV (total), unwanted fondling, oral penetration, vaginal penetration, anal penetration, between-group victimization, within-group victimization, institutional betrayal, and institutional support for the total sample, and separated by gender. Chi-square analyses were run to determine gender differences.

Results

The purpose of this study was to use data from a campus climate survey to characterize CSV, cultural betrayal, and institutional responses by gender in ethnic minority college students. Table 1 shows CSV prevalence rates by gender. In support of Hypothesis 1, college women (over 20%) reported significantly more CSV than college men (under 7%). Contrary to Hypothesis 2, participants reported statistically similar rates of within-group (also known as cultural betrayal; perpetrator: same race and/or ethnicity) and between-group (perpetrator: different race and/or ethnicity) victimization, χ2 (1) = 2.628, p = .105.

Table 1.

Gender Differences in Prevalence Rates of Campus Sexual Violence Victimization (CSV), Cultural Betrayal, and Institutional Responses in a Random Sample of Ethnic Minority College Students.

CSV & Institutional Responses Total College women College men
N = 222 N = 147 N = 75 χ2 (1)
CSV
 Any 18.0% 23.8% 6.7% 10.278***
 Fondling 16.7% 21.8% 6.7% 8.499**
 Oral penetration 4.5% 6.1% 1.3% 2.736
 Vaginal penetrationa 7.2% 10.2% 1.3% 6.008*
 Anal penetration 1.8% 2.0% 1.3% 0.155
Between-group 12.2% 16.3% 4.0% 7.148**
Within-group 7.2% 9.5% 2.7% 3.492
N = 63 N = 43 N = 20
Institutional responsesb
 Institutional support 95.2% 97.7% 90.0% 1.773
 Institutional betrayal 92.1% 97.7% 80.0% 5.836*
Open in a new tab
a

Vaginal penetration possible for self-identified men whose biological sex is female.

b

Includes only participants who reported any victimization.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

Exceeding expectations of Hypothesis 3, over 90% of participants who had been victimized reported any institutional betrayal, with college women (97.7%) reporting significantly more than their men counterparts (80.0%). The most common types of institutional betrayal were not doing enough to prevent this type of experience/s (11.1%); creating an environment in which this type of experience/s seemed common or normal (9.5%); and creating an environment in which this experience seemed more likely to occur (7.9%). Under 2% reported covering up the experience, creating an environment where you no longer felt like a valued member of the institution, and creating an environment where staying at the university was difficult for you. Finally, no students reported the following institutional betrayals: punishing you in some way for reporting the experience (e.g., loss of status, privileges); denying your experience in some way; and suggesting your experience might affect the reputation of the university. Similarly, 95% of the students exposed to CSV indicated they had received some type of institutional support. The most common types were creat[ing] an environment where this type of experience was recognized as a problem (19.0%); and creat[ing] an environment in which this type of experience was safe to discuss (14.3%). Unlike institutional betrayal, there were no significant gender differences in experiences of institutional support.

Discussion

The purpose of the current descriptive study was to use a standardized campus climate survey (e.g., Gómez et al., 2015) to characterize, by gender, a sample of U.S. ethnic minority college students regarding CSV, cultural betrayal (perpetrator: same race and/or ethnicity), institutional betrayal, and institutional support. As expected in Hypothesis 1, college women had significantly higher rates of CSV than their men counterparts, which is in line with the literature (Koss et al., 2007; Koss & Gidycz, 1985; Ullman et al., 1999). Contrary to Hypothesis 2 and prior research (Bryant-Davis et al., 2009), there were no significant differences between in-group versus out-group perpetrators of CSV. This may be due to this sample being from a predominantly White university in the United States, in which students may be more likely to have interracial exposure and relationships compared to community samples. Unfortunately, in line with Hypothesis 3 and past research with sexual minorities (Smith et al., 2016), the vast majority of ethnic minority college students who had been victimized also experienced at least one form of institutional betrayal. Moreover, college women who experienced CSV were at increased risk for institutional betrayal compared to college men. On the positive side, most victimized students also reported at least one form of institutional support.

New Contribution to the Literature

Although descriptive in nature, this study provides a preliminary characterization of CSV, cultural betrayal, and institutional betrayal and support for diverse U.S. ethnic minority college students across their undergraduate career. Importantly, this study provides a preliminary demonstration that CSV is not only CSV for ethnic minority college students. The impact of both cultural betrayal within CSV and institutional betrayal within the broader context of CSV are affected by the larger context of inequality. Specifically, without instantiations of inequality like racism, cultural betrayal itself would not exist, as the betrayal is theorized to stem from the violation of (intra)cultural trust that is developed within-group to guard against such inequality (e.g., Gómez, 2020a). Moreover, burgeoning research, including this study, shows that institutional betrayal disproportionately affects ethnic minorities, as their rates are much higher than those in predominantly White samples (e.g., over 90% in this study vs approximately 46%, Smith & Freyd, 2013). As such, these findings point to the need for culturally congruent, trauma-informed education and therapeutic resources. This may include university practitioners utilizing tenets of feminist paradigms of trauma treatment (Brown, 2004), including relational cultural therapy, which incorporates survivors’ interpersonal, institutional, cultural, and societal contexts into therapy (Comstock et al., 2008; Gómez, 2020b; Gómez, Lewis et al., 2016; Miller, 1976; Miller & Stiver, 1997).

Implications

With sizable proportions of ethnic minority college students experiencing CSV, universities should implement a research agenda that centralizes marginalized perspectives, while addressing the roles of power, privilege, and oppression in CSV (Marine et al., 2019), with transparency to the campus community being paramount (Gómez et al., 2016). Relevant for addressing CSV of all types, university policy implications are in line with recommendations from the 1st Annual National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine Action Collaborative to Prevent & Address Sexual Harassment in Higher Ed Summit (NASEM, 2019): prioritize funding to address CSV; implement a research agenda that utilizes the expertise already found on campus; conduct annual campus climate surveys and make the results public to stakeholders; fund an independent Title IX Office that includes a director and full staff, with independence connoted through a direct reporting line to the President or Provost of the university; appropriately fund and staff a violence resource center on campus that is complete with culturally competent resources; advertise campus resources so they are known to all members; and avoid blanket mandated reporting and one-time trainings. Finally, given the high rates of both institutional betrayal and institutional support, universities can solicit anonymous feedback from students who access campus resources. This information can be used to correct isolated and systemic institutional betrayals at the policy level while highlighting, bolstering, and rewarding institutional support across campus. This may be particularly important for morale and validation for university staff who are doing good work with student survivors regularly.

Finally, in the decision-making process of implementing policy changes that address CSV for all university members—including those who are most marginalized on campus and in society—perhaps the most important thing to remember is that university policies and members have the power to do good (Smith et al., 2014). Although institutional betrayal is common and costly (e.g., Smith & Freyd, 2013), it is not inevitable. University leaders can engage in institutional courage (Freyd, 2014; Freyd & Smidt, 2019) by taking a proactive approach to addressing CSV, which can change the campus culture and climate for the better (NASEM, 2019).

Limitations

Future work can build upon the current study’s limitations. First, it is imperative for predominantly White universities to oversample ethnic minority students across ethno-cultural groups. In doing so, universities can get a truer sense of the prevalence and impact of CSV for ethnic minority students generally, as well as for specific ethnic groups (e.g., Latina/o/x; Middle Eastern), thus making their evidence-informed services more effective. Oversampling would additionally allow enough statistical power to perform inferential statistics to uncover links with mental/behavioral health and academic engagement/achievement both within and across ethnic minority groups. Such future work should include students’ perceptions of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), as well as the role that these DEI perceptions have on academic outcomes for ethnic minority undergraduates who experience CSV. Finally, given that CSV is linked with dropping out of college (Mengo & Black, 2016), future research can use longitudinal methodology that includes students who have since left the university.

Concluding Thoughts

CSV victimization remains a major public health concern (e.g., White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault, 2014) affecting ethnically diverse undergraduate students. The first step in addressing CSV is to understand its scope (Gómez et al., 2015). This includes targeting culturally congruent research efforts (e.g., cultural betrayal; Gómez, 2020a) to ethnic minority students, who are often underrepresented in this literature. In doing so, universities’ implementation of institutional support can be tailored to serve diverse populations, ultimately ameliorating the incidence and impact of CSV for all.

Acknowledgments

The author thanks the Administrator Research Campus Climate Collaborative (ARC3) and the University of Oregon Campus Climate Survey collaborators, Jennifer J. Freyd, Carly P. Smith, Marina Rosenthal, and Alec Smidt.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the University of Oregon President’s Office.

Author Biography

Jennifer M. Gómez, PhD is assistant professor in the Department of Psychology and Merrill Palmer Skillman Institute for Child & Family Development (MPSI) at Wayne State University and Board Member & Chair of the Research Advisory Committee at the Center for Institutional Courage. She is the lead co-editor of a special issue of Journal of Trauma & Dissociation: Discrimination, Violence, & Healing in Marginalized Communities. Her research on cultural betrayal trauma theory has been recognized by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and funded by the Ford Foundation Fellowship Programs and Michigan Center for Urban African American Aging Research (MCUAAAR).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

  1. Brown LS (2004). Feminist paradigms of trauma treatment. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 41, 464–471. 10.1037/0033-3204.41.4.464 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Brown LS (2008). Cultural competence in trauma therapy: Beyond the flashback. American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bryant-Davis T (2005). Thriving in the wake of trauma: A multicultural guide. Greenwood Publishing Group. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bryant-Davis T, Chung H, & Tillman S (2009). From the margins to the center: Ethnic minority women and the mental health effects of sexual assault. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10, 330–357. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Campbell R (2008). The psychological impact of rape victims. American Psychologist, 63, 702–717. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cole ER, & Stewart AJ (2001). Invidious comparisons: Imagining a psychology of race and gender beyond differences. Political Psychology, 22, 293–308. [Google Scholar]
  7. Comstock DL, Hammer TR, Strentzsch J, Cannon K, Parsons J, & Salazar G II. (2008). Relational-cultural theory: A framework for bridging relational, multicultural, and social justice competencies. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86, 279–287. [Google Scholar]
  8. Cromer LD, Gray ME, Vasquez L, & Freyd JJ (2018). The relationship of acculturation to historical loss awareness, institutional betrayal, and the intergenerational transmission of trauma in the American Indian experience. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49, 99–114. [Google Scholar]
  9. Eisenberg ME, Lust KA, Hannan PJ, & Porta C (2016). Campus sexual violence resources and emotional health of college women who have experienced sexual assault. Violence and Victims, 31, 274–284. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Fedina L, Holmes JL, & Backes BL (2018). Campus sexual assault: A systematic review of prevalence research from 2000 to 2015. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 19, 76–93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Freyd JJ (2014, July 14). Official campus statistics for sexual violence mislead. Aljazeera America. http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions///college-campus-sexualassaultsafetydatawhitehousegender.html20147 [Google Scholar]
  12. Freyd JJ, & Birrell PJ (2013). Blind to betrayal. John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
  13. Freyd JJ, & Smidt AM (2019). So you want to address sexual harassment and assault in your organization? Training is not enough; Education is necessary. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 20, 489–494. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Gómez JM (2015). Microaggressions and the enduring mental health disparity: Black Americans at risk for institutional betrayal. Journal of Black Psychology, 41, 121–143. 10.1177/0095779841351460 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Gómez JM (2017). Does ethno-cultural betrayal in trauma affect Asian American/Pacific Islander college students’ mental health outcomes? An exploratory study. Journal of American College Health, 65, 432–436. 10.1080/07448481.2017.1341896 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Gómez JM (2019a). Group dynamics as a predictor of dissociation for Black victims of violence: An exploratory study of cultural betrayal trauma theory. Transcultural Psychiatry, 56, 878–894. 10.1177/1363461519847300 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Gómez JM (2019b). Isn’t it all about victimization? (Intra)cultural pressure and cultural betrayal trauma in ethnic minority college women. Violence Against Women, 25, 1211–1225. 10.1177/1077801218811682 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Gómez JM (2019c). What’s in a betrayal? Trauma, dissociation, and hallucinations among high-functioning ethnic minority emerging adults. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 28, 1181–1198. 10.1080/10926771.2018.1494653 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Gómez JM (2019d). What’s the harm? Internalized prejudice and intra-racial trauma as cultural betrayal among ethnic minority college students. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 89, 237–247. 10.1037/ort0000367 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Gómez JM (2020a). Cultural betrayal as a dimension of traumatic harm: Violence & PTSS among ethnic minority emerging adults. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma. Advanced online publication. 10.1007/s40653-020-00314-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Gómez JM (2020b). Trainee perspectives on relational cultural therapy and cultural competency in supervision of trauma cases. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 30, 60–66. 10.1037/int0000154 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Gómez JM (2021). Does gender matter? An exploratory study of cultural betrayal trauma and hallucinations in Latino undergraduates at a predominantly White university. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(3–4), NP1375–1390NP. doi: 10.1177/0886260517746942 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Gómez JM, & Freyd JJ (2018). Psychological outcomes of within-group sexual violence: Evidence of cultural betrayal. Journal of Immigrant & Minority Health, 20, 1458–1467. 10.1007/s10903-017-0687-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Gómez JM, & Gobin RL (2020). Black women and girls & #MeToo: Rape, cultural betrayal, & healing. Sex Roles, 82, 1–12. 10.1007/s11199-019-01040-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Gómez JM, Lewis JK, Noll LK, Smidt AM, & Birrell PJ (2016). Shifting the focus: Nonpathologizing approaches to healing from betrayal trauma through an emphasis on relational care. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 17, 165–185. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Gómez JM, Rosenthal MN, Smith CP, & Freyd JJ (2015). Participant reactions to questions about gender-based sexual violence: Implications for campus climate surveys. ejournal of Public Affairs: Special Issue on Higher Education’s Role on Preventing and Responding to Gender-Based Violence, 4, 39–71. 10.21768/ejopa. v4i2.75 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Gómez JM, Smith CP, Gobin RL, Tang SS, & Freyd JJ (2016). Collusion, torture, and inequality: Understanding the actions of the American Psychological Association as institutional betrayal [Editorial]. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 17, 527–544. 10.1080/15299732.2016.1214436 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Henrich J, Heine SJ, & Norenzayan A (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466, 29. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Howard RM, Potter SJ, Guedj CE, & Moynihan MM (2018). Sexual violence victimization among community college students. Journal of American College Health, 67(7), 674–687. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Jordan CE, Campbell R, & Follingstad D (2010). Violence and women’s mental health: The impact of physical, sexual, and psychological aggression. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 607–628. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Koss MP, Abbey A, Campbell R, Cook S, Norris J, Testa M, … White J (2007). Revising the SES: A collaborative process to improve assessment of sexual aggression and victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 357–370. 10.1111/j.14716402.2007.00385.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Koss MP, & Gidycz CA (1985). The sexual experiences survey: Reliability and validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 422–423. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Koss MP, Gidycz CA, & 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(2), 162–170. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Madison Summit for Campus Climate and Sexual Misconduct (2015). Historic summit on sexual violence creates new scientific campus climate survey. https://dynamic.uoregon.edu/scientists/Madison%20Summit%20Press%20Release%20FOR%20RELEASE.pdf” [Google Scholar]
  35. Marine S, Harris J, & Linder C (2019, June). Critical-interdisciplinary sexual violence research summit. [Google Scholar]
  36. Mengo C, & Black BM (2016). Violence victimization on a college campus: Impact on GPA and school dropout. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 18, 234–248. [Google Scholar]
  37. Miller JB (1976). Toward a new psychology of women. Beacon Press. [Google Scholar]
  38. Miller JB, & Stiver IP (1997). The healing connection: How women form relationships in therapy and in life. Beacon Press. [Google Scholar]
  39. Monteith LL, Bahraini NH, Matarazzo BB, Soberay KA, & Smith CP (2016). Perceptions of institutional betrayal predict suicidal self-directed violence among veterans exposed to military sexual trauma. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 72, 743–755. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine. (2019, November). 1st Annual National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine Action Collaborative to Prevent & Address Sexual Harassment in Higher Ed Summit. https://www.nationalacademies.org/event/11-19-2019/action-collaborative-on-preventing-sexual-harassment-in-higher-education-2019-public-summit
  41. Obama B (2014, January 22). Memorandum: Establishing a white house task force to protect students from sexual assault. The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/22/memorandum-establishing-white-house-task-force-protect-students-sexual-a [Google Scholar]
  42. Porter J, & Williams LM (2011). Intimate violence among underrepresented groups on a college campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(16), 3210–3224. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Rosenthal MN, Smidt AM, & Freyd JJ (2016). Still second class: Sexual harassment of graduate students. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(3), 364–377. [Google Scholar]
  44. Smith CP (2017). First, do no harm: Institutional betrayal and trust in health care organizations. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 10, 133–144. 10.2147/JMDH.S125885 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Smith CP, Cunningham SA, & Freyd JJ (2016). Sexual violence, institutional betrayal, and psychological outcomes for LGB college students. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 2, 351–360. 10.1037/tps0000094 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Smith CP, & Freyd JJ (2013). Dangerous safe havens: Institutional betrayal exacerbates sexual trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 26, 119–124. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Smith CP, & Freyd JJ (2014). Institutional betrayal. American Psychologist, 69, 575–587. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Smith CP, & Freyd JJ (2017). Insult, then injury: Interpersonal and institutional betrayal linked to health and dissociation. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 26, 1117–1131. 10.1080/10926771.2017.1322654 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Smith CP, Gómez JM, & Freyd JJ (2014). The psychology of judicial betrayal. Roger Williams University Law Review, 19, 451–475. [Google Scholar]
  50. Ullman SE, Karabatsos G, & Koss MP (1999). Alcohol and sexual assault in a national sample of college women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 603–625. [Google Scholar]
  51. White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault. (2014, April). Not alone: The first report of the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault. https://www.justice.gov/archives/ovw/page/file/905942/download

RESOURCES