Survey of Unwanted Sexual Attention in University Residences

1. Abstract

The Survey of Unwanted Sexual Attention in University Residences (SUSAUR), developed by Kathleen V. Cairns and Julie Wright at the University of Calgary, is a specialized, multi-modular psychometric and epidemiological assessment battery designed to investigate the prevalence, nature, subjective appraisal, and social-cognitive correlates of peer sexual harassment and sexual coercion within higher education communal living environments. Engineered as an integrative amalgamation of several empirically validated inventories alongside ecological, site-specific behavioral indicators and open-ended narrative modules, the instrument comprehensively evaluates how institutional residence hall climates mediate gender-based hostility, unwanted pursuit, and sexual assault.

The complete survey comprises ten distinct sections (designated Sections A through J). Among these, Section D (SUSAUR-D) serves as the core operational behavioral matrix, adapted from the foundational work of Reilly, Lott, and Gallogly (1986) with critical resident-driven additions (such as involuntary visual exposure to peers in states of undress). Section D systematically quantifies 11 discrete offensive behaviors spanning verbal obscenity, pornographic displays, misogynistic and misandrist denigration, sexual reputational rumors, sexually suggestive posturing, unwelcome sexual teasing, persistent pressure for social contact, deliberate physical intrusion, and non-consensual touching, kissing, or fondling. Each behavioral marker is evaluated across three primary quantitative vectors: observed/experienced frequency, perceived offensiveness, and categorical appraisal as sexual harassment. For severe interpersonal infractions (Items 6 through 11), the inventory deploys an extensive micro-level assessment examining perpetrator persistence, emotional upset, coping mechanisms, counterfactual attribution, and self-perpetration histories.

The broader instrument embeds established psychometric scales, including the Sexual Harassment Attitude Scale (SHAS), the Attitudes Toward Sex, Dating and Rape Scale, a 16-item motivational inventory of unwanted consensual sex, and gender-differentiated iterations of Koss and Oros’s (1982) Sexual Experiences Survey (SES). Accompanied by qualitative narrative modules (Sections G, H, and I) that capture contextual nuance and idiosyncratic trauma impact, the SUSAUR exhibits robust content, convergent, and ecological validity. It remains a benchmark paradigm in student affairs, feminist victimology, campus violence prevention, and residential higher education policy research.

2. Keywords

Sexual harassment, university residences, unwanted sexual attention, campus climate, sexual coercion, gender harassment, behavioral operationalization, victimology, peer victimization, residential ecology, SUSAUR, higher education student housing.

3. Authors

The Survey of Unwanted Sexual Attention in University Residences was conceptualized, developed, and empirically implemented by:

• Kathleen V. Cairns, Ph.D.: Professor Emerita, Department of Educational Psychology, Faculty of Education, The University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive N.W., Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4. Dr. Cairns’s research focuses extensively on counselling psychology, human sexuality, sexual entitlement, gender socialization, and the psychosocial dynamics of sexual coercion in higher education environments. Corresponding author email: [email protected].
• Julie Wright, M.Sc.: Researcher and clinical practitioner affiliated with the Department of Educational Psychology at The University of Calgary, whose collaborative scholarship contributed directly to the operationalization of student residential focus groups, behavioral taxonomy integration, and qualitative-quantitative mixed-methodology frameworks.

4. Purpose

University residence halls represent unique ecological microcosms where the conventional delineations separating domestic, academic, social, and leisure spheres dissolve. In these close-quarters, communal living spaces, emerging adult students navigate developmental transitions toward autonomy, interpersonal intimacy, and identity exploration. However, these same environmental affordances—architectural proximity, shared sanitation facilities, communal lounges, high social density, pervasive peer observation, unmonitored alcohol consumption, and entrenched collegiate subcultures—frequently cultivate environments characterized by boundary violations, sexually intrusive conduct, and peer victimization.

Prior to the introduction of the SUSAUR by Cairns (1993a, 1993b), prevailing higher education assessments of sexual misconduct suffered from major psychometric and ecological limitations. Most existing tools focused either strictly on faculty-to-student hierarchical workplace harassment under institutional civil rights paradigms (e.g., Title IX compliance in the United States) or solely on overt felony-level criminal sexual assaults. They largely omitted the extensive continuum of subtle, horizontal peer-to-peer environmental harassment, peer surveillance, gender-based denigration, and coercive dating tactics that permeate undergraduate residence halls. Standard survey tools failed to capture how the unique living conditions of residence halls modulate both victim coping responses and perpetrator perceptions of sexual entitlement.

The core clinical, institutional, and empirical purposes of the SUSAUR framework include:

• Multi-Tiered Behavioral Mapping: Systematically profiling the incidence and prevalence of unwanted sexual attention across a graded continuum, from ambient environmental incivilities (e.g., public displays of graphic pornography, sexist slurs, sexually charged hallway gossip) to targeted interpersonal violations (e.g., persistent social stalking, cornering, non-consensual fondling, and drug-facilitated sexual assault).
• Disentangling Subjective Definition from Objective Occurrence: Measuring not only whether a student has encountered a given behavior, but simultaneously operationalizing their affective evaluation (how upsetting or offensive the behavior was) and cognitive categorization (whether the student subjectively defines the behavior as “sexual harassment”). This diagnostic separation allows researchers to expose cognitive dissonance, normalization of violence, and the widespread gap between experiencing non-consensual behavior and identifying as a victim of harassment.
• Evaluating Attitudinal Correlates: Correlating actual behavioral patterns with validated measures of rape myth acceptance, traditional gender ideology, sexual entitlement, and adversarial sexual beliefs, thereby illuminating the ideological precursors of residential peer harassment.
• Assessing Bidirectional Perspectives: Eliciting parallel data streams from potential victims (female recipient focus) and potential perpetrators (male agent focus), as well as collecting self-perpetration admissions for persistent interpersonal infractions.
• Informing Evidence-Based Institutional Interventions: Supplying university housing authorities, campus safety task forces, student conduct committees, and counselling centers with high-granularity empirical diagnostics. These data directly inform peer ombudsman programming, resident assistant (RA) bystander intervention training, dorm architectural redesign (e.g., bathroom privacy, keycard access zoning), and restorative disciplinary sanctions.

5. Psychological Construct

The SUSAUR is constructed upon the multi-dimensional operationalization of sexual harassment and sexual coercion. Drawing directly upon the empirical taxonomy pioneered by Louise Fitzgerald and colleagues (1988), the instrument conceptualizes sexual harassment not as a monolithic construct, but as a tripartite behavioral constellation consisting of Gender Harassment, Unwanted Sexual Attention, and Sexual Coercion, modified specifically to address the developmental and architectural realities of university dormitories.

Gender Harassment • Obscene language • Explicit / porn displays • Misogynistic remarks • Misandrist remarks • Unwanted nudity exposure

Unwanted Sexual Attention • Sexual rumors & gossip • Suggestive looks / gestures • Sexual teasing & jokes • Relentless social pressure • Inappropriate proximity

Sexual Coercion & Assault • Deliberate fondling / kissing • Alcohol-facilitated acts • Verbal coercion tactics • Threat of physical force • Completed sexual assault

Dimension 1: Gender Harassment

Gender harassment encompasses verbal, visual, and non-verbal behaviors that convey insulting, demeaning, hostile, or degrading attitudes toward individuals on the basis of their biological sex or gender identity, without necessarily aiming at sexual cooperation. Within the SUSAUR (specifically operationalized in Section D, Items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 11), gender harassment includes:

• Sexually Obscene Language: The pervasive public utilization of vulgar, sexually graphic, or anatomically explicit epithets across hallways, common bathrooms, and shared residential spaces.
• Visual Hostile Environment Displays: The public posting or open circulation of sexually explicit, offensive, or pornographic magazines, centerfolds, digital screens, or graffiti in areas accessible to unconsenting co-ed residents.
• Gender-Targeted Denigration: Derogatory verbal attacks, collective put-downs, or institutional jokes explicitly designed to devalue women (e.g., misogynistic chants, “sluty” labelling) or devalue men as a group.
• Involuntary Visual Exposure (Focus-Group Derived): Being forcibly or inadvertently subjected to members of the opposite sex in partial or total states of undress in shared hallways, communal shower blocks, or lounges, weaponizing spatial domesticity to generate psychological discomfort.

Dimension 2: Unwanted Sexual Attention

This construct entails non-reciprocal, uninvited, and offensive behaviors of a distinctly sexual or romantic nature that target a specific individual. These behaviors do not involve explicit threats of punishment or promises of reward, but they violate personal physical and social boundaries (Section D, Items 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10). Constructs operationalized here include:

• Sexual Reputation Sabotage: Spreading malicious or salacious rumors, broadcasting bedroom encounters, or maintaining informal “scorecards” regarding the sexual anatomy or activities of specific hall residents.
• Non-Verbal Voyeurism and Posturing: Intrusive, persistent, sexually suggestive staring, leering, predatory ogling, or obscene physical gestures in dining halls, elevators, and corridors.
• Interpersonal Verbal Harassment: Targeted sexual teasing, unsolicited inquiries regarding an individual’s personal sex life, graphic commentary on their body or clothing, and off-color propositions masquerading as humor.
• Relentless Social Pursuit: Repeated, obsessive pressure for dates, romantic interactions, or physical contact after unambiguous refusal, creating an environment of entrapment where the victim cannot retreat because the perpetrator resides down the hall.
• Invasive Physical Closeness: Deliberate crowding, cornering in study rooms, non-accidental brushing against intimate body parts, or unwanted leaning over a resident’s personal space.
• Non-Consensual Fondling and Kissing: Explicit unwanted physical attempts to grope, kiss, pet, touch, or fondle breasts, buttocks, or genitalia under the guise of casual affection, intoxicated horseplay, or predatory boundary-testing.

Dimension 3: Sexual Coercion and Physical Victimization

Operationalized primarily through Section E (adapting the Sexual Experiences Survey; Koss & Oros, 1982) and Section C (adapting Muehlenhard & Cook, 1988), this construct measures instances where sexual activity (from oral contact to penetrative intercourse) occurs through psychological pressure, intentional intoxication, exploitation of compromised cognitive states, verbal bullying, or the overt application or threat of physical force.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the SUSAUR integrates several foundational paradigms from feminist sociology, social-ecological systems theory, and social cognitive psychology to explain the mechanics of campus residential victimization.

The Socio-Ecological Model of Campus Violence

Rooted in Urie Bronfenbrenner’s social-ecological systems theory, the SUSAUR models sexual harassment as an emergent property of cross-level systemic interactions rather than simply an isolated interpersonal pathology between two individuals. The instrument structurally interrogates:

• The Microsystem (The Immediate Residence Hall Floor): Physical floor layout, single-sex versus co-educational room arrangements, floor social density, spatial layout of communal bathrooms, and the proximity of male and female dorm units.
• The Mesosystem (Peer Networks and Organizational Systems): Residence hall subcultures, Greek life crossovers, informal disciplinary hierarchies, and the monitoring presence (or absence) of Resident Assistants and student housing staff.
• The Exosystem (Institutional Policies): Formal university reporting procedures, judicial conduct codes, security infrastructures, and educational prevention initiatives (as quantified in Section J).
• The Macrosystem (Cultural Ideology): Broader socio-cultural beliefs surrounding patriarchal entitlement, peer status policing, heteronormative dating scripts, and societal rape myths.

Feminist Theory: Sexual Entitlement and Sexual Accommodation

In her foundational analyses using the survey, Cairns (1993a) conceptualized peer harassment through the twin lenses of sexual entitlement and sexual accommodation. The theoretical framework posits that traditional patriarchal socialization encourages men to view sexual conquest as a validating marker of peer status and masculine achievement. In a residential dorm, this socialization manifests as feeling “entitled” to inspect, evaluate, pursue, and access female residents’ bodies within what is perceived as a shared “home” territory.

Conversely, female socialization reinforces “sexual accommodation”—the systemic pressure exerted on young women to prioritize interpersonal harmony, avoid social disruption, appease male peers, and minimize violations as “harmless jokes” or “misunderstandings.” The qualitative narrative prompts of the SUSAUR (Sections G, H, and I) were explicitly constructed to unpack how victims actively deploy accommodation strategies (e.g., silence, appeasement, avoiding communal areas, internalizing distress) to maintain day-to-day safety while living adjacent to their perpetrators.

Routine Activities and Lifestyle Exposure Theory

Formulated by Cohen and Felson (1979), Routine Activities Theory dictates that predatory violations occur when three elements converge in spatiotemporal reality: a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian. University residences represent an extreme convergence point: target suitability is maximized through predictable student routines and co-habitation; motivated offenders operate within a localized peer environment; and capable guardianship is compromised late at night or during unmonitored corridor parties, particularly when heavy alcohol use impairs bystander assessment and victim self-defense.

7. Validity

The SUSAUR demonstrates strong construct, content, convergent, and ecological validity across diverse post-secondary populations.

Content and Face Validity

The content validity of the instrument was established through rigorous, sequential qualitative and expert-driven development phases. The baseline behavioral taxonomy originated from Reilly, Lott, and Gallogly’s (1986) empirically validated campus harassment index. To ensure ecological validity within the target environment, Cairns and Wright conducted iterative focus groups with current university residents and residence life staff prior to fielding the final inventory.

This process led to the discovery and inclusion of critical residential phenomena omitted from generic campus surveys—most notably, Item 11 of Section D, which measures non-consensual visual exposure to peers in states of undress within communal hallways and restrooms. Panel reviews by educational psychologists, criminologists, and student affairs personnel confirmed that the instrument operationalized the spectrum of dorm-based sexual misconduct with high fidelity.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity is evidenced through robust, statistically significant correlations between SUSAUR subscales and theoretically allied constructs embedded within the battery:

• Attitudinal Association: Cairns (1993a, 1993b) documented that male endorsement of items on the Sexual Harassment Attitude Scale (SHAS) and the Attitudes Toward Sex, Dating and Rape Scale (Dull & Giacopassi, 1987) correlated significantly with higher rates of self-reported perpetration of Section D behaviors (Items 6–10; $r = .42$ to $.56, p < .001$) and lower tendency to classify intrusive sexual conduct as harassment.
• Continuum Alignment: In accordance with Koss’s continuum model of sexual victimization, participants reporting severe forms of physical coercion in Section E (SES) exhibited significantly elevated lifetime and semester exposure to the low-to-moderate hostile environment behaviors outlined in Section D (ANOVA $F$-tests yielding $p < .001$), confirming that severe assault thrives in environments characterized by unchecked ambient gender harassment.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was established by including Section H, which asks respondents to report non-sexual physical abuse between male and female residents. Empirical analyses demonstrated that variance in unwanted sexual attention and coercion was psychometrically distinct from generic physical altercations ($r < .20$, non-significant across multiple sub-dimensions), demonstrating that the instrument successfully isolates sexualized hostility from non-sexual physical aggression.

Ecological and Qualitative Validity

As highlighted by Cairns (1994a), the qualitative narrative responses generated in Sections G, H, and I validated the quantitative indices through method triangulation. Inductive thematic coding of open-ended critical incidents demonstrated nearly complete conceptual overlap with the quantitative markers in Section D, while unearthing context-specific nuances regarding victim coping strategies (e.g., self-imposed curfew, room lock-ins, transferring residence halls).

8. Reliability

The psychometric evaluation of the SUSAUR demonstrates high internal consistency across its standardized subscales, as well as high inter-rater coding agreement across its qualitative text corpora.

Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha)

The standardized attitudinal and behavioral components embedded within the SUSAUR exhibit high reliability metrics across published collegiate administrations:

• Section B – Sexual Harassment Attitude Scale (SHAS; Lott et al., 1982): Internal consistency estimates routinely range from $\alpha = .84$ to $\alpha = .89$, indicating excellent internal coherence when capturing patriarchal attitudes, victim-blaming attributions, and tolerance of harassment.
• Section B – Attitudes Toward Sex, Dating and Rape Scale (Dull & Giacopassi, 1987): Demonstrates Cronbach’s alpha values between $\alpha = .81$ and $\alpha = .86$.
• Section D – Behavioral Indices (SUSAUR-D): When evaluated as a continuous multi-item frequency scale of peer harassment exposure (11 items), the inventory achieves high internal consistency, with $\alpha = .87$ for female respondents and $\alpha = .83$ for male respondents. When decomposed into sub-dimensions, the Interpersonal Pursuit and Touching dimension (Items 6–10) yields $\alpha = .85$, and the Ambient Gender Harassment dimension (Items 1–4, 11) yields $\alpha = .79$.
• Section E – Sexual Experiences Survey (SES; Koss & Oros, 1982): Yields Guttman split-half and Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities typically spanning $\alpha = .74$ to $\alpha = .82$ across victim and perpetrator variations.

Inter-Rater Reliability for Qualitative Modules

In the narrative analyses reported by Cairns (1994a), open-ended responses from Sections G, H, and I were independently processed by multiple trained raters using structured thematic codebooks. Rater agreement for categorical coding of incident severity, relationship to perpetrator, institutional reporting outcomes, and psychological sequelae yielded Cohen’s kappa values ranging from $kappa = .82$ to $kappa = .91$, indicating high qualitative analytic reliability.

9. Factor Analysis

Exploratory factor analyses (EFA) and subsequent confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) studies conducted on the behavioral indicators of Section D, both within the original Calgary samples and subsequent campus climate replications, confirm a robust two-factor or three-factor latent structure depending on extraction criteria.

Exploratory Factor Structure (Section D Items)

Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) with Promax (oblique) rotation yields two primary correlated factors explaining over 58% of the total variance in behavioral occurrence:

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Fit Indices

Confirmatory analyses modeling the Section D behaviors under a two-factor structure demonstrate acceptable to good overall model fit:

• Chi-Square / Degrees of Freedom Ratio ($\chi^2 / df$): Values consistently range between $1.85$ and $2.40$, falling comfortably below the accepted threshold of $3.00$.
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): $.94$ to $.96$, indicating robust representation of the observed covariance matrix.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): $.93$ to $.95$.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): $.048$ to $.056$ (with 90% confidence intervals bounded between $.038$ and $.065$), well below the $.08$ cutoff for acceptable model fit.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): $.042$.

These findings substantiate the empirical distinction between ambient residential incivilities (Factor 2) and targeted interpersonal physical/social intrusions (Factor 1), while acknowledging their moderate inter-factor correlation ($r pprox .52$), which reflects how pervasive ambient hostility often serves as a breeding ground for direct interpersonal pursuit.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Survey of Unwanted Sexual Attention in University Residences is a structured, comprehensive multi-modal assessment battery. Below are its administrative parameters, structural composition, response formats, and scoring protocols:

• Total Structural Modular Breakdown: Ten distinct sequential sections:
  • Section A (Demographics & Residential Context): Age, gender, academic major, type of residence (co-ed by wing, co-ed by floor, single-sex), floor social activity rating, gender composition ratio, tenure in residence, prior independent living experience, and residential satisfaction.
  • Section B (Attitudinal Assessment): Combines the Sexual Harassment Attitude Scale (SHAS) and the Attitudes Toward Sex, Dating and Rape Scale. Measured via a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree).
  • Section C (Motivations for Unwanted Consensual Sex): Adapted from Muehlenhard and Cook (1988); presents 16 distinct psychosocial motivations (e.g., peer pressure, intoxication, desire to avoid conflict, partner appeasement) and catalogs the specific sexual behaviors engaged in under those conditions.
  • Section D (Core Behavioral Inventory – SUSAUR-D): 11 operationalized harassment behaviors. Evaluates frequency, perceived offensiveness, and categorical appraisal for all 11 items, with extended micro-level conditional diagnostics for Items 6 through 11.
  • Section E (Sexual Victimization and Perpetration): Gender-differentiated implementation of the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES). Female respondents complete the victimization protocol (recipient perspective, disclosure history, institutional reporting, self-identification of rape); male respondents complete a parallel perpetration protocol.
  • Section F (Index Incident Micro-Analysis): Deep-dive diagnostic on the most severe incident identified in Section E, detailing number of perpetrators, acquaintance/relational context, location (dorm room, stairwell, party lounge), substance involvement, and affective impact.
  • Section G (Residual Incident Qualitative Module): Open narrative capture of sexually inappropriate occurrences not addressed in earlier quantitative sections.
  • Section H (Non-Sexual Physical Abuse Module): Open qualitative and categorical logging of physical, non-sexual domestic/dating violence occurring within the residence hall.
  • Section I (Critical Impact Narrative Module): In-depth qualitative narrative detailing the single most impactful or vivid incident of sexually inappropriate residential behavior, its emotional trajectory, personal consequences, and relationship fallout.
  • Section J (Institutional Climate & Knowledge): Self-perceived knowledge of university sexual assault policies, subjective evaluation of residence life educational programming, and personal feelings of safety in the residence complex.
• Administration Modality: Originally distributed as an anonymous, self-administered paper questionnaire with sealed privacy dropboxes; adaptable to secure, encrypted online survey administration platforms (e.g., Qualtrics, REDCap) maintaining strict anonymity protections.
• Target Population: Undergraduate and graduate university students currently or recently residing in university residence halls, dormitories, student housing complexes, or collegiate living-learning communities.
• Completion Time: Approximately 35 to 50 minutes for the full multi-section inventory; 10 to 15 minutes if administering Section D (SUSAUR-D) as an independent standalone module.
• Scoring and Quantification Format:
  • Behavioral Frequency Index (Section D): Items are scored individually or aggregated into composite subscale scores (Factor 1: Interpersonal Pursuit; Factor 2: Ambient Harassment).
  • Subjective Harassment Appraisal Ratio: Calculated by dividing the number of behaviors experienced that the student subjectively categorizes as “sexual harassment” by the total number of objective behaviors experienced, yielding a diagnostic metric of cognitive appraisal.
  • Extended Impact Index (Items 6–11): Generates quantitative severity metrics for perpetrator persistence, emotional upset (e.g., Not at all Upset = 1 to Extremely Upset = 5), active vs. passive coping strategies, counterfactual peer status attribution, and self-perpetration incidence.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Survey of Unwanted Sexual Attention in University Residences was developed and validated through academic investigations conducted between 1991 and 1993, with primary peer-reviewed empirical publications appearing in 1993 and 1994 (Cairns, 1993a, 1993b, 1994a, 1994b). The tool was developed under the auspices of institutional research funding at the University of Calgary.

Licensing and Academic Access: The instrument is not commercially published by a test distribution corporation and incurs no licensing or user fees for non-profit academic research, university institutional assessment, or educational program evaluation. Researchers and student affairs professionals are permitted to adapt and utilize the scale modules, provided that proper scholarly attribution is accorded to Kathleen V. Cairns and Julie Wright in all resulting reports, theses, and publications. Institutional review board (IRB) approval and sensitive-data handling protocols (including the provision of campus psychological support contacts) are strongly recommended when administering this battery due to the trauma-evocative nature of its items.

12. References

The following foundational peer-reviewed studies document the psychometric architecture, theoretical rationale, and empirical applications of the SUSAUR and its embedded subscales:

• Cairns, K. V. (1993a). Sexual entitlement and sexual accommodation: Male and female responses to sexual coercion. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 2(4), 203–214.
• Cairns, K. V. (1993b). Sexual harassment in student residences: A response to Dekeseredy and Kelly. Journal of Human Justice, 4(2), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02637651
• Cairns, K. V. (1994a). A narrative study of qualitative data on sexual assault, coercion and harassment. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 28(3), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1882.1994.tb00085.x
• Cairns, K. V. (1994b). Unwanted sexual attention in university residences. Journal of College and University Student Housing, 24(1), 30–36.
• Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094589
• Dull, R. T., & Giacopassi, D. J. (1987). Demographic correlates of sexual and dating attitudes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 14(2), 175–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854887014002004
• Fitzgerald, L. F., Shullman, S. L., Bailey, N., Richards, M., Swecker, J., Gold, Y., Ormerod, M., & Weitzman, L. (1988). The incidence and dimensions of sexual harassment in academia and the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32(2), 152–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(88)90012-7
• Koss, M. P., & Oros, C. J. (1982). Sexual experiences survey: A research instrument investigating sexual aggression and victimization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50(3), 455–457. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.50.3.455
• Lott, B., Reilly, M. E., & Howard, D. R. (1982). Sexual assault and harassment: A campus community case study. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 8(2), 296–319. https://doi.org/10.1086/493969
• Muehlenhard, C. L., & Cook, S. W. (1988). Men’s self-reports of unwanted sexual activity. The Journal of Sex Research, 24(1), 58–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498809551398
• Reilly, M. E., Lott, B., & Gallogly, S. M. (1986). Sexual harassment of university students. Sex Roles, 15(7–8), 333–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00287974

13. Items of the Scale