Original Research Article

Violence Against Women

1–26
Non-Physical and Ambient © The Author(s) 2023

Sexual Harassment of Women Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Undergraduate University DOI: 10.1177/10778012231153369
journals.sagepub.com/home/vaw
Students in Canada: A Diary
Study

Katelin Albert1 , Amanda Couture-Carron2,

and Erik Schneiderhan3

Abstract
Using a 60-day daily e-diary tool, 117 women undergraduate students reported sexual
harassment on a Canadian university campus (4,283 diary surveys, collectively).
Participants reported 181 incidents of both ambient sexual harassment (witnessing
40 incidents, hearing 106 unwelcomed sexual jokes/remarks) and targeted personal
experiences of non-physical sexual harassment (35 incidents). Qualitative data docu-
ment students’ descriptions of these encounters and contextualize how these are
part of everyday student life. Findings show that students experience this harassment
almost daily—in an ongoing, persistent, and normalized way—and that university can
be a hostile environment where the possibility of daily unwanted sexual experiences is
a lived, endemic reality.

Keywords
sexual harassment, university students, diary study, violence against women, mixed
methods

1
Department of Sociology, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
2
Rowan University, Glassboro, USA
3
University of Toronto Mississauga, Mississauga, Canada
Corresponding Author:
Katelin Albert, Department of Sociology, University of Victoria, COR A333, 3800 Finnerty Rd., Victoria BC,
Canada.
Email: katelinalbert@uvic.ca
2 Violence Against Women 0(0)

Introduction
Sexual violence—namely, acts of a sexual nature without a victim’s consent,1 includ-
ing non-contact forms, such as sexual harassment (Basile et al., 2014)—is a longstand-
ing and significant problem across college and university campuses in North America
(Buchwald et al., 1993; Cantor et al., 2020). Defined as “unwanted sexual advances,
requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual
nature” (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n.d.), sexual harassment
is a common experience on campus; between one-fifth and three-quarters of women
have experienced sexual harassment on campus (Cortina et al., 1998; Kelley &
Parsons, 2000; Lorenz et al., 2019). These numbers, however, likely underestimate
the problem given that the normalization of everyday forms of direct and indirect
sexual violence contributes to their misrecognition and underreporting. Indeed, only
one-quarter of students who reported various forms of sexual harassment identified
it as such (Cortina et al., 1998). Although direct physical sexual violence such as
rape and sexual assault2 is readily thought of when we consider this problem, non-
physical sexual harassment is one of several types of sexual violence that women
encounter in their lives as students. Indeed, a continuum of violence exists which con-
nects the normalized everyday sexual violence (i.e., non-physical forms of violence,
such as cat calls) to other forms of physical violence (e.g., sexual assault and rape)
(Kelly, 1987; Osborne, 1995), illuminating the pervasiveness of various types of vio-
lence that women frequently encounter (Osborne, 1995, p. 638).
In addition to these direct and targeted forms of sexual harassment and violence,
many scholars of gendered, sexualized, and racialized violence (Ferris et al., 1994;
Gutierres et al., 1994; Noh et al., 2007) reveal that people experience violence indirectly
as well. For example, ambient sexual harassment (wherein people watch, hear, or know
another person is experiencing sexual harassment or physical violence) is a form of vio-
lence that can have negative effects similar to those experienced by a direct victim
(Glomb et al., 1997). In the everyday lives of students, these direct (explicit, subtle, or nor-
malized) and indirect everyday ambient exposures to sexual violence are pervasive and an
everyday part of student culture for students who identify as women (hereafter, women).
Inspired by Kelly’s (1987) broad conceptualization of violence, our research (using
a 60-day daily e-diary method) reveals the everyday, normalized, and insidious nature
of non-physical and indirect sexual harassment in the daily lives of students (both on
and off campus)—two forms of sexual violence that are often taken for granted and
difficult to view. As part of a larger project on campus-based sexual violence in
general, we focus on these forms and specifically ask, what is the nature of both non-
physical and ambient sexual violence (which includes witnessing another person expe-
rience physical sexual violence) in women students’ daily lives? What occurs, where,
and how often? Although we recognize that other persons such as men, transgender
people, nonbinary folks, and members of the LGBTQIA2 + community experience
sexual violence, our focus in this study is on women (which refers to anyone who self-
identifies as a woman) as experiencing sexual violence is a pervasive problem among
women (Banyard et al., 2007).
Albert et al. 3

Our findings reveal the unrelenting and (almost) everyday nature of sexual violence
for women students. By revealing the normalized nature of non-physical and ambient
sexual harassment, our paper not only calls for broadening the conceptualization of
sexual violence to encompass non-physical and ambient forms, but also suggests
that these types of violence must be meaningfully reflected upon and taken seriously
within colleges and universities. In addition to broadening the conceptual and practical
scope, we argue that all incidents of sexual violence must be contextualized and under-
stood as everyday occurrences in students’ lives (both on and off campus), wherein
they are often normalized as a part of students’ experiences. Only then can we
improve student life, mental health, and campus culture.

Sexual Harassment, Campus, and Student Life

Most post-secondary institutions in Canada have worked to establish policies and pro-
cedures to address campus-based sexual harassment and many now draw attention to
topics like consent, acquaintance rape, rape culture, rape myths, and a culture that dis-
courages reporting and prosecuting cases of sexual violence (Hall & Sandler, 1984;
Koss et al., 1985; Warshaw, 1988; Young, 1992). Universities have developed and
implemented many programs and policies in response to the problem (see Quinlan
et al., 2016). Notwithstanding individual universities’ efforts to shift campus culture,
incidents of sexual violence on Canadian campuses continue to be a part of the
daily news. Effective sustainable change has been elusive for a variety of reasons.
For example, in 2016, the Ontario provincial government implemented Bill 132:
Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act (Ontario, 2016) requiring that all
government-funded colleges and universities independently develop sexual violence
and sexual assault policies by 2017 (Lopes-Baker et al., 2017; Takagi, 2019). Bill
132, however, did not provide clear guidelines on what to include in such policies
(CBC, 2017).
Many interventions, prevention campaigns, and programs continue to use language
signaling overt “violence” and “assault” and prioritize extreme forms such as rape and
rape culture, often neglecting or making invisible the more subtle, insidious, and
ambient forms of sexual harassment. As McMahon and Baker (2011) aptly point
out, while the necessity of a broad conceptual term that captures a range of harassment
and assault may be familiar and welcomed by scholars and advocates, “the community
at large retains a much narrower definition of sexual violence, understanding it mostly
as vaginal penetration” (p. 3). While academic and advocacy circles may recognize the
importance of subtle unwanted experiences, some still view universities’ emphasis on
physical or explicit forms of violence as “appropriate at the current moment…[and] to
focus their limited resources on less ambiguous and more serious forms of assault and
harassment3.”
Even with an emphasis on physical forms of violence, cultural norms at universities
are shifting and students are becoming more aware of political correctness and rape
myths, which means discourses around sexual harassment are changing as well (see
Frazier et al., 1994; Gerger et al., 2007; McMahon & Baker, 2011). As culture
4 Violence Against Women 0(0)

changes, however, discourse around rape and sexual harassment become more subtle
or covert than explicit and overt (O’Connor et al., 2018) and non-physical forms of
sexual violence on campus remain pervasive. The media has brought renewed attention
to the reality that campus cultures still condone and normalize sexual violence by highlight-
ing campus events such as frosh weeks and pro-rape chants shouted at campuses across the
country like the University of British Columbia and Saint Mary’s University, and the sex-
ualized social media activity among students at Dalhousie (e.g., Dalhousie suspends 13
dentistry students, 2015; Saint Mary’s University unveils, 2014; UBC investigates frosh,
2013). Recently, students at Queen’s university displayed signs of threats of sexual vio-
lence, harassment, and misogyny during student parties (Ottawa Sun, 2021).
Students mental health and well-being also encompass their lives both on and off
campus. While many incidents of sexual violence and harassment occur on campus
itself, students’ university experiences extend beyond the walls of campus itself.
Moreover, students bring their off-campus experiences onto campus and into univer-
sity spaces, impacting their time at school, their academic performance, and their
campus-based interactions. As such, if we want to understand students’ experiences,
we must look to campus culture itself, but also beyond.

Subtle, Insidious, and Ambient Violence

We are guided conceptually by a feminist praxis that strives to contextualize and make
visible women’s everyday experiences of harassment. In so doing, we aim to deindi-
vidualize harassment, showing the pervasive direct and indirect experiences that are
part of women’s everyday lives as students. Showing the everyday nature of these
experiences emphasizes that these are not isolated and individual experiences, but
rather are embedded in the larger culture and everyday life that students move
through—both on and off campus. Although sexist beliefs are less overtly endorsed,
we begin from the premise that subtle, clandestine, covert, ambient, and indirect
forms of discrimination are built into cultural and societal norms, which according
to Swim and Cohen (1997), “is why subtle sexism goes unnoticed and is hidden—
because it is perceived to be customary or normal behaviour” (p. 104). We take this
perspective to establish sexual harassment and assault as a cultural problem rather
than an individualized one. This matters in the context of sexual harassment policies
and practices that individualize harassment and deal with the experience as an isolated
act (Osborne, 1992) where interventions and changes are limited to the individual level
with individual behavioral changes.
The effects of subtle discrimination can also have long-lasting effects on women’s
perception of self. Sexual harassment, such as sexually suggestive speech, can lead to
self-objectification (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997) and women who are targets of sug-
gestive speech are often left frightened, humiliated, and offended (Gardner, 1995). This
publicly suggestive speech ranges in scope from “polite” comments, to unsavory,
vulgar, offensive, and hate comments. When this occurs, many women are blamed
for being targets of sexually suggestive speech, are fearful to say anything about expe-
riencing it, and feel uncomfortable being in public because of it.
Albert et al. 5

Hearing such speech is common and much research documents the detrimental
impact and consequences of being targets of mistreatment and harassment. For
example, Nielsen (2002) finds that 61% of the women in their sample reported that
they are targets of sexually suggestive speech in public places everyday/often;
Barling (1996) emphasizes that non-physical aggression is linked to negative psycho-
logical and psychosomatic outcomes. Similarly, Fitzgerald et al. (1997) argue that
sexual harassment triggers health problems, psychological wellbeing, withdrawal,
and lowers job satisfaction. Even when a woman is not the direct target, scholars
emphasize the saliency of witnessing harassment, violence, and discrimination—vicar-
ious or ambient harassment. For example, Schmader et al. (2012) find that people can
experience serious emotional discomfort if they witness but do not act toward discrim-
ination. Miner-Rubino and Cortina (2007), investigating workplace harassment, argue
that vicarious harassment leads to lower wellbeing and higher rates or organizational
withdrawal for employees. Barling (1996) explains that when others are exposed to
hostility, they are secondary victims. Glomb et al. (1997) describe this as ambient
sexual harassment. Regardless of the term, those who observe sexual harassment
also experience negative effects and bystander stress (Hitlan et al., 2006), as a second-
ary, nontargeted victim (Andersson & Pearson, 1999).
While existing research documents the harmful effects of harassment, we know less
about the everyday nature of this violence nor the context within which it occurs among
women university students. With our diary approach to studying this issue, we offer a
more accurate snapshot of harassment’s pervasiveness alongside a qualitative under-
standing of the nature of these events based on an analysis of how women describe
these incidents. Exploring various forms of sexual harassment—targeted nonphysical
and ambient sexual harassment—we draw attention to these often overlooked, hidden,
and de-prioritized form of violence against women. In so doing, this research estab-
lishes that subtle, non-physical, and ambient forms of violence against women are per-
vasive within the everyday lives of students. Research shows that women are more
likely to recognize and take action against overt discrimination, compared to subtle
forms (Lindsey et al., 2015). The more that normalized, everyday, persistent, subtle,
and ambient forms of violence are not the main focus of universities and colleges,
these forms of sexual violence persist. Below, we document them on one campus
and demonstrate some of their harmful effects using the words of our respondents.
We then suggest strategies for positive change.

Methods
To expand knowledge and understanding on a continuum of violence, we used an
online daily 60-day e-diary survey where students report their experiences of sexual
harassment each day (from explicit to more subtle forms), thus increasing the likeli-
hood of accurately capturing the everyday nature and range of more subtle, normalized,
and ambient sexual harassment that may not be recalled easily in six months’ time.
Used seldomly as a method (for example, see Hirsch et al., 2018; Mellins et al.,
2017), this unique approach offers several advantages. Through this method, we
6 Violence Against Women 0(0)

were able to ask a wide range of questions about experiencing sexual harassment on
campus, including the more mundane, normalized, subtle, ambiguous, and forgotten
sexual harassment that “may be quickly brushed off as a function of everyday living
and survival” (Swim et al., 2003, p. 41).
A diary study is also unique given that the majority of research on sexual violence
utilizes either large-scale survey data (e.g., campus climate surveys) or interview-based
data where people share their experiences. While both sets of data are extremely useful
for capturing broad trends as well as victims’ experiences, they rely on retrospect and
recall memory. For example, in large-scale surveys, a research participant may be
asked, whether or how many times one experienced various forms of sexual harass-
ment since enrollment at the university/college (see Wood et al., 2021 for timeframe
example) or during the current academic year (e.g., see Banyard et al., 2007 for time-
frame example). Not only is it difficult to recall how many occurrences were experi-
enced (resulting in underreporting), but participants may also only recall obvious or
explicit occurrences and not necessarily micro-occurrences, such as witnessing or
hearing an unwanted sexual joke, look, etc. When using a diary method, however, par-
ticipants’ recordings of daily experiences produce more real-time data allowing for
greater accuracy in ascertaining the frequency of students’ unwanted sexual experi-
ences. Diaries provide a “dramatic reduction of the likelihood of retrospection,
achieved by minimizing the amount of time elapsed between an experience and the
account of this experience” (Bolger et al., 2003, p. 580). In other words, when partic-
ipants report at least daily rather than looking back on past experiences over months or
even years, there is a reduction of retrospective bias (Reis & Gable, 2000).
Ohly et al. (2010) also point out that a diary design for data collection is ideal for
gathering data that “is highly fluctuating and strongly dependent on situational condi-
tions” (p. 79). Asking students to report witnessing or experiencing sexual harassment
every day captures students’ immediate reactions to these events. Moreover, they are
more likely to report an incident since they have not yet rationalized their experiences,
which may make them less likely to see it as harassment and more likely to excuse it.
With this, we also get more detailed information about the event—what, where, and
how. This provides the context in which the incidents occur alongside the frequency
of the incidents. Our diary study, therefore, contributes to existing scholarship by
using this methodological approach and offering unique data.

Recruitment and Sample

After receiving Research Ethics Board approval, we recruited participants using
posters hung throughout the university campus and handbills that members of the
undergraduate research advisory committee distributed on campus. Both the handbills
and the posters sought participants for a “… pilot study on unwanted sexual contact on
university campuses,” and included information on the extent and nature of the
involvement, eligibility requirements, monetary compensation, study contact informa-
tion, funding information, and a link for the Qualtrics secure online survey platform,
where the survey was hosted.
Albert et al. 7

Our sample includes 117 participants who were undergraduate students and who
self-identified as women. These participants completed an initial baseline survey
(described below) and at least one diary survey (see Ohly et al., 2010 for more on non-
compliance in diary studies). Collectively, these 117 participants completed 4,283
diary surveys over 60 days. Participation rates ranged from days when 104 women par-
ticipated (day 10) to days when 40 women participated (day 33).

Procedures
Upon visiting the Qualtrics survey link, participants gave electronic consent to partic-
ipate and chose a unique ID code (that only they knew) to use for the duration of this
research. Since the data collected is longitudinal, a unique identifier code was needed in
order to connect individuals’ multiple diary entries as well as their initial baseline
survey. Students began with a one-time online baseline survey (approximately
45 min of time) that gathered data on participants’ demographics, social capital,
mental health, substance use, prior sexual victimization, and sexual behavior. Upon
completing the baseline survey, participants received a new website link directing
them to the daily e-diary survey (also Qualtrics). Participants completed a second
consent form for this stage of the research, and then were prompted to complete an
e-diary entry consisting of multiple choice and short answer questions about some
of the participants’ daily experiences and mental health. The daily diary survey took
approximately five minutes to complete—fitting the ideal amount of time earlier
research established (Reis & Gable, 2000). We asked participants to return to the
same diary survey link every 24 h for 60 days (from January until March 2018), includ-
ing weekends, to fill out the same diary survey everyday (the survey would be empty
when refreshed). A 60-day timeframe is sufficiently long to establish the trends and
patterns of typical of a semester.
To ensure continued participation, we used a monetary compensation plan (offering
up to $80 in total incentives per student). The plan increased compensation over the
length of the study (e.g., $0.50 for days 1 through 20; $1.00 for days 21 through 40;
$1.50 for days 41 through 60; weekend completions of $1.00 per weekend day).
Daily reminder emails were automatically sent to all participants who had not yet
filled out their daily survey. If a participant missed a diary entry, they could continue
to participate in the following days. If the participant completed the baseline survey and
at least one diary survey, their diary entry was included in the data analysis.

Survey Design and Measures

Previously implemented surveys on sexual assault, health, and wellness developed by a
variety of experts in the social sciences, such as the Canadian Community Health
Survey (CCHS, 2016), the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT, 2014), the
Center for Collegiate Mental Health (CCMH, 2018), and the Center for
Epidemiological Studies (CES, 2004) informed the design of our surveys. We modified
questions from established surveys as necessary to make them appropriate for the
8 Violence Against Women 0(0)

Canadian and specific university context. The daily diary survey included a wide range
of questions about sexual activity, unwanted physical sexual contact, substance use,
daily sexual harassment, and mental health questions. For this manuscript, however,
the focus is on daily sexual harassment. An undergraduate advisory committee of 10
demographically diverse students from multiple areas of study reviewed the baseline
survey and the daily diary survey, provided feedback on our questions, and tested
the surveys to ensure language and questions were relevant to their experiences and
accessible to the diverse local study body.
As previously noted, the baseline survey gathered data on participants’ demograph-
ics, social capital, mental health, substance use, prior sexual victimization, and sexual
behavior. For example, the demographic questions assessed participant’ age, gender
identity, and race. Sexual behavior-related questions included, for instance, “what
type of sexual contact have you had with someone else BEFORE becoming a
student at (X university)? (select all that apply).” The current study, however, analyzes
only the demographic information from the baseline survey. The core data analysis for
this study uses measures of non-physical sexual harassment and witnessing sexual
assault from the diary surveys, which are specified below.

Ambient Sexual Harassment—Witnessing. To assess indirect and ambient sexual harass-

ment, we captured whether participants witnessed sexual harassment in the daily diary
survey. We asked, “Have you witnessed someone experience unwanted sexual contact
(this could be physical, verbal, emotional, online or email lists, on social media sites)?”
If they had, they were prompted to identify where it occurred and what took place, per-
mitting qualitative analysis. If more than one incident occurred in the 24-h period, par-
ticipants were asked to select all that applied.

Hearing a Sexual Joke or Sexual Remark. To determine whether the participants heard a
sexual comment or joke, we asked the following question: “Since you last filled out the
diary, did you hear someone make a sexual remark or tell a sexual joke that you found
insulting or offensive.” If they had, they were asked to identify where it occurred
(selecting all that applied, if more than one incident occurred). This could have been
hearing a joke directed at them, or directed at another person.

Non-Physical Direct Forms of Sexual Harassment. Participants were asked, “Since you
last filled out the diary, have you been sexually harassed (this includes unwelcome
sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal conduct of a sexual
nature)?” If they had, they were asked where the incident occurred and to qualitatively
describe what happened.
For all of the above measures, the data analysis reports on the number of times par-
ticipants reported particular responses to our questions. We cannot report these as indi-
vidual incidents because of possible overlap in survey responses for single participants.
For example, a participant may have reported witnessing unwanted sexual contact
taking the form of penetration and forced oral sex. We are unable to determine with
certainty if the participant is describing a single incident with multiple forms of
Albert et al. 9

unwanted contact or two incidents with different types of contact. In light of this, we
report the number of times particular responses were chosen. It could also be the case
that multiple women reported the same incident. However, this concern for duplicate
reporting is not an issue analytically since we show the pervasive and widespread
impact of sexual harassment. Multiple people reporting the same incident reveals the
everyday nature of students and would only indicate that multiple students are experi-
encing violence.

Data Analysis
We analyzed the quantitative data using Stata to identify the frequency of participant
responses. Descriptive statistics allow for identifying the trends and patterns in partic-
ipant experiences. The qualitative data and participants’ descriptions of events are
limited, but were imported into qualitative analysis software, Dedoose, and coded
using open coding which helped identify patterns and themes in descriptions. The
descriptions of the events were usually 1–2 sentences long and were coded to under-
stand the normalized and everyday nature of the incident.

Results
Participant Characteristics
As noted, 117 students who self-identified as women participated in both the baseline
and diary surveys. Participants ranged in age from 17 to 35 with an average age of 20
years. The majority (75%, n = 86) were between the ages of 18 and 20 years of age and
in the first two years of their university program (42%, n = 49 in the first year; 22%, n =
26 in the second year). Fewer were in the third year (19%, n = 22) and fourth year
(14%, n = 16). Most also identified as straight/heterosexual (87%, n = 102), while
the remainder (13%, n = 15) identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or other. Almost all
participants self-identified as women. The majority of women self-identified as
South Asian (39%, n = 45) or White (28%, n = 32). Participants also identified as
Arab (5%, n = 6), Chinese (4%, n = 5), and other (39%, n = 45).

An Everyday Thing: Sexual Harassment

Our respondents experienced a form of non-physical and ambient sexual harassment
almost every day. Plotting these incidents on a 60-day calendar (see Table 1) reveals
the unrelenting pervasiveness of harassment and shows that from January 22 to
March 22 (60 days), there are 181 incidents of some type of non-physical sexual
harassment. It could be the case that multiple students are reporting the same event
although this is unlikely as the university is large both physically and in terms of enroll-
ment. In any event, we are not concerned about inflation of the data since one event or
incident can be experienced by multiple students and have an impact on multiple
people. Indeed, at least one student reported an incident of non-physical sexual
 Table 1. Frequency of Non-Physical Sexual Harassment on 60-Day Calendar.

10
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
a
January 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Witness: 5 Witness: 2 Witness: 3 Witness: 3 Witness: 1 Witness: 1 Witness: 0
Remarks: 16 Remarks: 11 Remarks: 5 Remarks: 5 Remarks: 1 Remarks: 4 Remarks: 3
Harass.b: 2 Harass.: 0 Harass.: 1 Harass.: 1 Harass.: 1 Harass.: 0 Harass.: 1
Total incidents: Total incidents: Total incidents: Total incidents: Total incidents: 3 Total incidents: Total incidents:
23 13 9 9 # of Part.: 92 5 4
# of Part.c: 71 # of Part.: 98 # of Part.: 93 # of Part.: 95 # of Part.: 87 # of Part.: 83
29 30 31 February 1 2 3 4
Witness: 1 Witness: 0 Witness: 1 Witness: 0 Witness: 2 Witness: 1 Witness: 0
Remarks: 1 Remarks: 2 Remarks: 4 Remarks:1 Remarks: 3 Remarks: 4 Remarks: 2
Harass.: 0 Harass.: 1 Harass.: 0 Harass.: 0 Harass.: 2 Harass.: 2 Harass.: 1
Total incidents: Total incidents: Total incidents: 5 Total incidents: Total incidents: 7 Total incidents: Total incidents:
2 3 # of Part.: 104 1 # of Part.: 88 7 3
# of Part.: 98 # of Part.: 90 # of Part.: 80 # of Part.: 82 # of Part.: 74
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Witness: 0 Witness: 0 Witness: 0 Witness: 0 Witness: 1 Witness: 2 Witness: 2
Remarks: 2 Remarks: 2 Remarks: 2 Remarks: 1 Remarks: 3 Remarks: 0 Remarks: 1
Harass.: 1 Harass.: 0 Harass.: 0 Harass.: 0 Harass.: 0 Harass.: 2 Harass.: 2
Total incidents: Total incidents: Total incidents: 2 Total incidents: Total incidents: 4 Total incidents: Total incidents:
3 2 # of Part.: 83 1 # of Part.: 76 4 5
# of Part.: 81 # of Part.: 84 # of Part.: 76 # of Part.: 67 # of Part.: 79
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Witness: 0 Witness: 0 Witness: 1 Witness: 0 Witness: 1 Witness: 1 Witness: 0
Remarks: 2 Remarks: 1 Remarks: 1 Remarks: 0 Remarks: 0 Remarks: 2 Remarks: 1
Harass.: 0 Harass.: 0 Harass.: 0 Harass.: 1 Harass.: 0 Harass.: 3 Harass.: 0
Total incidents: Total incidents: Total incidents: 2 Total incidents: Total incidents: 1 Total incidents: Total incidents:
# of Part.: 71 # of Part.: 65

(continued)
 Table 1. (continued)
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
2 1 1 6 1
# of Part.: 77 # of Part.: 71 # of Part.: 70 # of Part.: 67 # of Part.: 67
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Witness: 2 Witness: 1 Witness: 0 Witness: 1 Witness: 0 Witness: 0 Witness: 0
Remarks: 1 Remarks: 2 Remarks: 1 Remarks: 1 Remarks: 0 Remarks: 0 Remarks: 0
Harass.: 0 Harass.: 2 Harass.: 0 Harass.: 0 Harass.: 1 Harass.: 0 Harass.: 1
Total incidents: Total incidents: Total incidents: 1 Total incidents: Total incidents: 1 Total incidents: Total incidents:
3 5 # of Part.: 60 2 # of Part.: 40 0 1
# of Part.: 64 # of Part.: 67 # of Part.: 67 # of Part.: 59 # of Part.: 70
26 27 28 March 1 2 3 4
Witness: 1 Witness: 1 Witness: 1 Witness: 0 Witness: 0 Witness: 0 Witness: 0
Remarks: 0 Remarks: 1 Remarks: 3 Remarks: 0 Remarks: 0 Remarks: 5 Remarks: 1
Harass.: 3 Harass.: 0 Harass.: 0 Harass.: 1 Harass.: 0 Harass.: 2 Harass.: 0
Total incidents: Total incidents: Total incidents: 3 Total incidents: Total incidents: 0 Total incidents: Total incidents:
4 2 # of Part.: 71 1 # of Part.: 62 7 1
# of Part.: 73 # of Part.: 68 # of Part.: 64 # of Part.: 65 # of Part.: 61
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Witness: 0 Witness: 1 Witness: 1 Witness: 0 Witness: 1 Witness: 0 Witness: 0
Remarks: 0 Remarks: 2 Remarks: 2 Remarks: 0 Remarks: 0 Remarks: 0 Remarks: 1
Harass.: 0 Harass.: 1 Harass.: 0 Harass.: 0 Harass.: 0 Harass.: 0 Harass.: 1
Total incidents: Total incidents: Total incidents: 3 Total incidents: Total incidents: Total incidents: Total incidents:
0 4 # of Part.: 65 0 1 0 2
# of Part.: 69 # of Part.: 61 # of Part.: 58 # of Part.: 57 # of Part.: 58 # of Part.: 63
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Witness: 0 Witness: 1 Witness: 0 Witness: 0 Witness: 0 Witness: 0 Witness: 0
Remarks: 1 Remarks: 1 Remarks: 1 Remarks: 0 Remarks: 0 Remarks: 0 Remarks: 0
Harass.: 1 Harass.: 0 Harass.: 0 Harass.: 0 Harass.: 0 Harass.: 0 Harass.: 0

(continued)

11
12
Table 1. (continued)

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

Total incidents: Total incidents: Total incidents: 1 Total incidents: Total incidents: 0 Total incidents: Total incidents:
2 2 # of Part.: 59 0 # of Part.: 60 0 0
# of Part.: 80 # of Part.: 66 # of Part.: 56 # of Part.: 55 # of Part.: 67
19 20 21 22
Witness: 0 Witness: 0 Witness: 1 Witness: 0
Remarks: 1 Remarks: 1 Remarks: 1 Remarks: 0
Harass.: 0 Harass.: 0 Harass.: 1 Harass.: 0
Total incidents: Total incidents: Total incidents: 3 Total incidents:
1 1 # of Part.: 51 0
# of Part.: 59 # of Part.: 79 # of Part.: 60
a
Calendar date.
b
Harassment.
c
Participants.
Albert et al. 13

harassment on 51 of those 60 days—almost every day. In fact, multiple forms of

harassment can be seen on most days. While the number of incidents a day ranges,
with day one having 23 incidents, between 2 and 5 incidents a day is most common.
Several of the days that have no reported incidents are later in the study timeframe
and may be a result of participant-response decline as the diary study progressed.
However, given this was a small sample of women students, the everyday and
common reporting is particularly concerning, and even more daily incidents might
have occurred in a larger, representative study. The persistent nature of these incidents
shows that a continuum of violence is an everyday experience for women students.
In what follows, we elaborate on the everyday, normalized, and persistent nature of
sexual harassment in students’ lives. We report the frequency, nature, and context of
the three types of harassment that are captured in this calendar—(a) witnessing
sexual harassment, (b) hearing offensive sexual comments or jokes, and (c) personally
experiencing non-physical forms of sexual harassment.

Witnessing Harassment—Indirect and Ambient Sexual Harassment

Witnessing sexual violence, assault, and harassment is a type of ambient sexual vio-
lence that creates indirect secondary victims to direct violence, producing a culture
of fear for women students (Kelly & Torres, 2006). Over the 60 days, our data
reveal that students reported witnessing harassment 40 times. In many instances, stu-
dents witnessed harassment in person, while others observed harassment online, and
some heard about the harassment from a friend telling them about an experience or
showing them something that happened to them. In all of these instances, the unwanted
sexual experience was not directed towards the participants themselves, but they wit-
nessed it firsthand or became aware of the incident from the direct target (e.g., from a
friend), thereby becoming a witness, so to speak. Kelly and Torres (2006) argue that
knowing that a friend has been victimized impacts women students’ fear and percep-
tion of safety on campus just as much as one’s own experience and personal victimi-
zation. Below, we outline these experiences, from witnessing non-physical sexual
harassment, hearing a sexual comment or joke, and witnessing physical forms of
harassment. To emphasize the normalization of the incidents, we also reveal some
qualitative descriptions of the incidents, how they unfolded, including the persistence
of the harassment despite resistance from women.

Witnessing Non-Physical Sexual Harassment and Hearing a Sexual Comment or Joke.

Participants reported witnessing non-physical sexual harassment of some kind 26
times, 12 of which they witnessed online. Descriptions of witnessing non-physical
incidents can be grouped into three themes: Witnessing someone (a) make sexually
explicit comments, (b) use unwelcomed pick-up lines, and (c) make comments
about women’s bodies.
Qualitative entries include women describing 16 incidents where they witnessed
sexually explicit comments. For example, one student described witnessing, “a man
sent a spew of messages to a girl he matched with on a dating media site saying
14 Violence Against Women 0(0)

how he is the king of pussy and other vulgar language to seduce her.” Another student
reported witnessing a horrific and disrespectful conversation, hearing someone “[talk]
about a girl who was raped and then killed in a somewhat disrespectful manner.” In five
descriptions, participants heard comments that can be categorized as pick-up lines, or
asking for numbers, and are not necessarily sexually explicit, but were deemed as wit-
nessing an unwanted advance (i.e., witnessing sexual harassment). For example, one
student reported, “the first incident occurred after class to my roommate where she
was approached by someone in her class and was being hit on making her very uncom-
fortable.” Similarity, another woman said, “someone stopped her, [another student],
out of class and was hitting on her and trying to ask for her number [to] go out with
him which she kept saying no to, but he wouldn’t stop.” In five other instances, the
harassment women witnessed was directed toward women’s bodies. For example,
one student reported, “guys were messaging her, commenting on her body, and
when she took offence to it, they got verbally aggressive towards her.” Another said
she witnessed “a random person commented, ‘nice tits.’” Referring to an incident
that occurred on the bus, one student reported,

A guy followed a girl through the long [local] bus as she changed seats twice to avoid
talking to him. He kept commenting on her appearance and her chest, legs, butt and
tried to touch her the last time he approached her. Also [asked] her if she was afraid of
him. I got up to talk to him and confront him about his unacceptable behaviour when [I
noticed] things started to get more serious. No one else seemed [to] want to do anything
about it. But before I approached him, the guy left the bus at the next stop, cursing at the girl.

These 26 incidents of witnessing a non-physical harassment reveal a variety of indi-

vidual experiences but show they occur in many everyday scenarios. They occur in
passing and in everyday places such as while taking the bus, leaving class, or being on
social media. Witnessing these is an indirect and ambient form of harassment. Hearing
a “group of guys” disrespectfully discuss a rape and murder, or male aggression after a
witnessing a fellow woman student be offended by a sexual comment creates a toxic envi-
ronment where women students may not only feel unwelcomed, but also unsafe, particu-
larly when “responding to” or showing resistance to the harassment.
Students were also asked if they had heard someone make a sexual remark or joke
that they found insulting or offensive. We include this in witnessing sexual harassment and
with this specific question, students reported hearing a sexual remark or joke 106 times.
However, students were not asked to qualitatively describe these remarks or jokes. The fre-
quency of hearing a joke or comment further reveals the everyday reality that students face
and the normalized ambient harassment that makes up their everyday lives.

Witnessing Physical Sexual Harassment. In addition to witnessing non-physical harass-

ment, participants described witnessing incidents that were physical in nature 16
times. For example, one student reported seeing a “group of guys fingering her [a
girl at a party] while she was drunk;” Another student reported, “a man inappropriately
touched one of my friends.” Demonstrating how normalized and persistent witnessing
Albert et al. 15

physical sexual assault is, one student listed a string of incidents she saw in one
comment: “someone was groped. Someone had their butt grabbed.” Another student
witnessed an incident of physical sexual harassment that was filmed and said, “a
person [was] filming another getting sexually assaulted and then thanking the other
person for not saying anything.”
In some of the descriptions, participants specified that a fellow student told them
about physical harassment that occurred. We count these as witnessing the event
since they enter into the participant’s consciousness, are part of their view, and inter-
polate the student into the scenario, positioning them as a secondary victim. Moreover,
although we did not specifically ask participants to report if a fellow student told them
about their experience of harassment, multiple women in this study identified these sit-
uations as “witnessing” harassment suggesting they interpreted them as such. For
example, one student reported that a fellow “student told [her] that they were intoxi-
cated with a group of guys, and they sexually harassed her in her bedroom.”
Another participant described what her friend experienced saying, “someone came
onto another [person] and they tried pushing away, but they were quite forceful.
Outside help was necessary.” Another woman explained a conversation between her
and a friend, saying, “her boyfriend was drunk and kept asking her for sex despite
her saying no. She gave in and [told me] it was the worst night of her life. She
asked [me] whether it was sexual assault. And I said yes.” Referencing the larger
context of student life and consciousness, as well as the everyday macro climate that
students are a part, one student just said, “someone was attacked today [at] YorkU.”
The context of witness sexual harassment also involved witnessing its normalized
persistence, despite women’s resistance, demonstrating the hostile environment in
which students exist every day. While we did not specifically ask participants about
resistance or resistance responses, many included descriptions of these when reporting
what happened. The qualitative descriptions of witnessing reveal the complicated and
dynamic ways sexual violence and sexual harassment unfold and give insight into what
students are witnessing.
Participants reported that they witnessed resistance in 12 of the 40 incidents of wit-
nessing sexual harassment. In particular, they described 5 cases of verbal resistance
(from a woman verbally expressing discomfort to explicit stating “no”), and 5 cases
of indirect resistance. Indirect resistance included using body language to convey dis-
comfort and unwantedness and physical avoidance. For example, participants
described women physically moving or leaving a space to avoid the harassment:
“she was talking to me and a stranger at the event. [He] was eyeing and approaching
her trying to talk to her while she was trying to avoid him by talking with me and
walking away.” Another woman described an unspecified resistance—“the girl
refused to engage in sexual texting and the man told her to kill herself”—where it is
unclear if this was verbal or just avoidance. One participant described witnessing phys-
ical resistance and said, “they tried pushing away.”
These descriptions of resistance were commonly accompanied by descriptions of
rejection responses, where participants described what the male harassers did in
response to the resistance. Participants described witnessing these rejection responses
16 Violence Against Women 0(0)

10 times. Some included witnessing men deny that they were sexually harassing the
woman. Often, descriptions included persistent and continued harassment even after
resistance. Some of the participants described scenarios where the men continued to phys-
ically harass the women, others included men continuing to follow the women in spaces or
not leave the women alone. Disturbingly, four participants described scenarios where the
men became violent, aggressive, and threatening when the women expressed some type of
resistance. For example, one woman said, “… when she brushed him off and tried to
ignore him, he became hostile and threatened her with more explicit acts.” Similarly,
another woman reported, “… when she took offense to it, they got verbally aggressive
towards her.” In the two incidents described above, men “cursed her” and “told her to
kill herself” after the women expressed resistance.

Directly Experiencing Non-Physical Sexual Harassment

After asking participants about witnessing sexual harassment and hearing sexual com-
ments or jokes, we asked if they had personally experienced any non-physical sexual
harassment. This includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and
other verbal conduct of a sexual nature. Over the 60 days, women reported experienc-
ing sexual harassment 35 times. Of the 35 reported incidents of sexual harassment, par-
ticipants qualitatively described 32 experiences. Notably, while we did ask people
about their experiences of physical sexual violence and assault in the daily diary,
our analysis for the purposes of this article only focuses on personally experiencing
non-physical harassment and does not include any personal experiences of unwanted
physical contact or sexual assault.
An analysis of these qualitative descriptions of non-physical harassment reveals that
this sexual harassment commonly occurs during everyday events or moments that are
not necessarily considered risky. For example, nine participants specifically described
sexual harassment during everyday events such as “waiting for a delivery,” “crossing
the street,” “someone walking by,” eating in a restaurant, riding the bus, studying in the
library, or at a family dinner. The sexual harassment that students reported ranged in
nature. The most common types of sexual harassment were catcalling (e.g., “hey
sexy,”)—which were often perpetrated by groups of men—and direct and explicit
sexual comments or advances. For example, one woman reported that she was in the
university library when “a man [an undergraduate student] made a comment about how
I should let him put his penis in my mouth.” Other women’s descriptions reveal that
these comments are made in passing. For instance, one woman said, “someone was
commenting on how I looked and was making sexual comments like, ‘I’d tap that’.”
Another woman explained, “he said he has had problems ‘getting laid’ and moved
closer and closer to me.” Similarly, one student described an incident she experienced
on campus:

I fell on the ground and stated, “oh my god I am so wet right now” (I fell in a puddle). He
[an undergraduate student] was standing next to me and told me to wait until I saw what he
could do.
Albert et al. 17

Other times, students described personally experiencing sexual harassment where

they felt they were the sexual subject of someone’s gaze. One woman reported, an
“old man gave me sexual looks.” Another student said, “I heard an unwanted
comment sexualizing my body.” At times, being under someone’s gaze involved the
use of photos specifically. For example, one woman said, “someone walked by and
took a picture of my butt.” Another participant explained, what she experienced was
an “invasion of privacy. He took my phone while I was asleep and sent himself pro-
vocative pictures of myself from my phone.”
Like above, experiencing non-physical sexual harassment also involved persistent
sexual harassment. Qualitative descriptions of personal experiences of non-physical
sexual harassment reveal the ongoing nature of these incidents. Eleven descriptions of
these incidents included women explaining some form of resistance—verbal, physical
avoidance (e.g., crossing the street, moving over), or physically pushing someone away.
They describe six instances of verbal resistance (from verbally expressing discomfort to
explicitly saying “no”), three instances of an unspecified resistance where it is unclear if
it was verbal or not, “just some guys making advances and not taking a hint,” and one
instance of indirect resistance, “creepy guy called out to me and yelling louder when I
kept walking.” One case involved physical resistance, “me pushing them off.”
Similar to witnessing sexual harassment, a few qualitative descriptions of incidents
of experiencing sexual harassment conveyed that the perpetrator became agitated,
angry, or persistent in response to their resistance or avoidance. While we did not spe-
cifically ask about this, participants reported men’s reactions to their resistance in their
descriptions nine times. Consistent with the findings regarding witnessing harassment,
the most common theme in men’s reactions to the women’s resistance was persistent
and continued harassment. While this section reports non-physical sexual harassment,
these qualitative descriptions reveal the analytic difficulty of separating a sequence of
events in sexual harassment. Men’s responses to women’s resistance commonly reveal
how harassment that is initially non-physical (or one that involves both physical and
non-physical) might subsequently include some form of physical harassment. For
example, six of the student’s qualitative descriptions of men’s responses to her resistance
involved some form of physical harassment and persistence as well. One participant
described, “he first talked about my looks and all and said I was fit for him and later
asked for my number which I didn’t [give] him. So, he tried to take my phone and grab
my hand.” Disturbingly, three participants described scenarios where the men became
angry and rude when the women expressed some type of resistance. For example, one
woman said, “…he asked if I wanted sex and when he noticed that my boyfriend was
beside me he said, ‘well are you in a monogamous relationship?’ When I said yes, he
got angry and stormed out of the restaurant.” Another student describes how she “was
approached by a guy that made lewd sexual advances. [I] told him I wasn’t interested,
and he became annoyed and even more rude before leaving.”
These descriptions of the incidents reveal the persistent nature of harassment, how
harassment evolves in a scenario, perhaps ending with a physical assault or escalating
harassment. Because of this, large-scale surveys may only note explicit physical assault
without capturing the full nature of the harassment.
18 Violence Against Women 0(0)

Contextualizing Everyday Harassment

To better understand the normalization and everyday nature of both direct non-physical
and ambient sexual harassment (witnessing), it is insightful to understand the context
of these incidents—specifically, where they occurred. Witnessing sexual harassment
occurred in a variety of places. The most common place this occurred was online,
with students reporting witnessing 18 incidents online. Participants described 11 inci-
dents as occurring either on campus (e.g., after class reported 4 times, in dorms
reported 3 times) or off campus at a student gathering. The qualitative data further dem-
onstrates that witnessing sexual harassment occurred in places and at times that are not
commonly associated with risky places or times, such as in the library. Reporting on where
jokes or comments were heard, students indicated these incidents often occurred on
campus (49 times; e.g., in dorms and campus housing 5 times, at a student on-campus
party 2 times, and in a professor, instructor, or teaching assistant’s office 1 time).
Students also heard jokes and remarks off campus. They chose the general descriptor of
“off campus” 17 times. They also reported that they heard a joke or remark 2 times at a
student off-campus party, and 8 times while at work (either on or off campus). Students
also said they saw jokes and remarks online 20 times. Reporting on where direct, non-
physical sexual harassment occurred, participants indicated it occurred on campus (10
times) and off campus (10 times), including once at a student gathering off campus.
Two of these incidents occurred online or via social media.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study represents a unique approach to the study of sexual violence on university
campuses. Rather than rely on snapshots in time, whether from an incident report, a
survey, or a focus group, we tracked students over the course of 60 days, opening a
new window into these experiences on campus and in students’ lives. We also move
beyond physical sexual violence to consider the more insidious and pervasive forms
of sexual violence on campus. What we found is alarming: nonphysical and ambient
sexual harassment are persistent everyday occurrences for women students. Sexual
harassment of women students, according to our data, is not just something that
happens occasionally at parties. Rather, it often happens on campus, in places like
the library or the hallways outside of classrooms. These are places not readily consid-
ered to be unsafe or that are associated with risk and sexual violence. Our findings
show that students not only personally experience or witness this harassment daily
and that is it persistent, but taken together, their descriptions show a hostile environ-
ment where the possibility of a daily harassment is a lived, structural, and endemic
reality.
Our findings also help us think what it means to be a woman university student
today and what an average day might look like—the daily hassles, chronic stressors,
and traumas and normalized violence women experience and witness. It occurs as a
student packs up her books after class and walks into the hallway, as she studies in
the library, as she takes the bus, crosses the street, or eats lunch. In other words, our
Albert et al. 19

findings help us think about the social context in which sexual harassment can cause
stress in students’ lives occurs. This insight and our findings reinforce the need to
focus on the variety of forms of sexual harassment—along a continuum of violence
—and to take seriously the subtle, insidious, ambient and indirect, and normative
forms of sexual harassment. Seeing harassment as an individual incident removes
the data point from the realities of the student’s life (on and off campus) and university
context.
While this piece does not specifically link sexual harassment to mental health out-
comes, our data can be contextualized alongside research show that sexual harassment
(both direct and indirect, both non-physical and ambient) in university spaces is a
“hazard to women’s health,” having “both direct and indirect health effects, including
nausea and sleeplessness, loss of self-esteem, fear and anger, feelings of helplessness
and isolation, as well as nervousness and depression” (van Roosmalen & McDaniel,
1999, p. 33). Our data show that students experience this harassment daily. Women
study, work, and exist in a hostile campus environment, where the possibility of expe-
riencing or witness sexual harassment is a real and likely possibility—as demonstrated
by the calendar data. Daily experiences and witnessing of sexual harassment can be a
stressor in students’ lives. Such experiences “undermine women students’ economic,
political, social, and personal wellbeing,” leading to “culturally and socially deter-
mined health problems” (van Roosmalen & McDaniel, 1999, p. 33).
Our data suggest that the social contexts to which policy and programs respond do
not fully match the reality of the social and situational context in which harassment
occurs. University responses tend to focus on most extreme forms of sexual violence,
offering maxims like “don’t walk home alone,” campus walk services, and emergency
blue light phones set up in places like parking lots around campus—responses that are
necessary, but do not respond to non-physical sexual harassment women also fre-
quently experience, as our data suggests. Universities in Canada are responding to a
particular context in which they think sexual violence occurs, but we show that the
context is different, more varied, and widespread, especially when we broaden our con-
ceptualization of sexual violence. Typical university responses to sexual violence
reflect the ways the data are commonly collected and how sexual violence and
assault are conceptualized. Unfortunately, they miss the everyday, normalized sexual
violence that women encounter outside the classroom, inside their instructors’
offices, and at the library; they miss the types of sexual violence that create the
chilly climate women encounter on campus.
This research should be understood as part of a conversation about the university’s
response to sexual violence on campus. Our research shows the need for a broad con-
ceptualization of violence against women to begin to even make sense of women’s
experiences on campus, and also points to the everyday nature and ambient nature
of these events. These are not isolated and one-off events, they are not just individu-
alized micro experiences of harassment. They are rather part of daily student life for
women and almost to be expected. A fresh look at social context might lead universi-
ties to reconstruct responses that actually address the varying forms of sexual violence
where they occur and how they occur (e.g., thinking about the escalation of non-
20 Violence Against Women 0(0)

physical harassment). Focusing on the context and varieties of experiences is one-way

universities might begin to gain clarity of vision and can help move toward healthier
campuses and student experiences.
In our view, broad policies that focus on reporting and prevention are not enough.
Universities must create responses, training programs, and interventions that are rele-
vant to spaces that are not normally considered risky. For example, our data show that
many sexual harassment incidents occurred in places like the library or immediately
after class. These situations may be surprising to students and students may require
specific strategies for making sense of them and knowing how to respond. This also
requires that universities conceptually shift where and what they consider spaces
where students are at risk. In other words, it does not just occur when students are par-
tying, consuming substances, or walking in the parking lot. Finally, mental health sup-
ports on campus must evolve to include responses and strategies to address the
generalized and social stressors that students witness, hear, and are faced with every
day. Because our findings reveal the insidious and normalized types of harassment,
many of which may be occur in passing, students likely internalize these and carry
these stressors with them in ways that are difficult to name or point to. Moreover, in
order to create shifts in broader culture, we emphasize the need to bring together
diverse campus stakeholders (from students to administrators) and to focus on environ-
ments (not just individuals) as Hirsch et al. (2021) do in their SPACE (Sexual
Prevention and Community Equity) Toolkit. This innovative and new approach uses
a public health approach and is rooted in equity and addresses the role of power in
assault. This toolkit focuses on special regulations, residential spaces, social spaces,
public spaces, and the digital spaces that make up students’ lives.
When thinking about the implications of this study, multiple considerations should
be acknowledged. Although generalization was not the aim of this study, it is worth
noting that the data are from a convenience sample and, as such, may not represent
the experiences of the larger study body or students at other universities. The fluctua-
tion of participation over the course of the study could also impact the generalizability
of the findings (Newcomb et al., 2018), but such fluctuation does not affect the validity
of the findings in most cases (Ohly et al., 2010). Additionally, it is possible that persons
extremely interested in the topic would have been more likely to participate in this
study, especially given the time commitment involved. Swim et al. (2001) speculate
that those with an interest in the research topic at hand may “self-select into situations
in which they are less likely to encounter gender prejudice” (p. 42). As such, it is pos-
sible that an interest in sexual harassment could have reduced the likelihood of expe-
riencing sexual harassment because the women in the study may have “self-selected”
out of situations where harassment may be more likely to occur. Alternatively, it is pos-
sible that an interest in harassment may have heightened participants’ awareness of
harassment making them more likely to recognize its occurrence. However, since
we asked questions about specific events (e.g., “did you hear someone make a
sexual remark or tell a sexual joke that you found insulting or offensive?” “have
you been sexual harassed (this includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for
sexual favors, and other verbal conduct of a sexual nature)?” emphasis added), the
Albert et al. 21

participants’ responses should reflect what occurred rather than prior interest, interpre-
tations, preconceptions, or understandings of harassment. As such, any interest in the
topic should not undermine the validity of the findings. It is, however, still possible that
preconceptions about sexual harassment may have influenced individual responses.
Future research should also consider the role peers and other students can have in
interventions. For example, researchers might investigate the role that senior students
can have in changing campus culture and modeling intervention actions in everyday
common spaces on campus. Researchers might conduct an extensive diary study
that covers the course of the entire academic year with a larger group of students.
Such a study could identify additional situational risks associated with the academic
schedule—for example, orientation and frosh week, exam periods, and so forth.
Expanding the number of students participating would also provide a more accurate
assessment of the pervasiveness and the nature of sexual harassment. Future research
would also benefit from distinguishing between multiple experiences occurring on the
same day versus a single experience encompassing multiple forms of contact. The
diary tool this study uses can also be applied to research on unwanted sexual experi-
ences occurring in other settings, such as the workplace. As this study demonstrates,
this tool can capture the subtler and everyday forms of sexual violence that are not
always easily recalled after a significant amount of time has passed. Such research
would help identify the situational factors that contribute to these experiences occur-
ring in other settings among non-students. Furthermore, this tool could be used to
assess other negative experiences, such as experiences of everyday racism and other
forms of discrimination.

Author’s Note
We would also like to acknowledge the generous support and advice of numerous faculty and
students in the UTM Department of Sociology.

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.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article: Social Science and Humanities Council (SSHRC), grant
430-2016-00453.

ORCID iD
Katelin Albert https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0029-0189

Notes
1. Including “when a victim is unable to consent (e.g., due to age, illness) or refuse (e.g., due to
physical violence or threats)” or incapacitation (Basile et al., 2014, p. 1).
22 Violence Against Women 0(0)

2. We define sexual assault as “Intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of
the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person without his or her
consent, or of a person who is unable to consent or refuse” (Basile et al., 2014, p. 12).
3. Personal communication from an anonymous reviewer for earlier version of this manu-
script. This review/reviewer was not from Violence Against Women.

References
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the work-
place. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452–471. https://doi.org/10.2307/259136
Banyard, V. L., Ward, S., Cohn, E. S., Plante, E. G., Moorhead, C., & Walsh, W. (2007).
Unwanted sexual contact on campus: A comparison of women’s and men’s experiences.
Violence and Victims, 22(1), 52–70.
Barling, J. (1996). The prediction, experience, and consequences of workplace violence. In
G. R. VandenBos & E. Q. Bulatao (Eds.), Violence on the job: Identifying risks and devel-
oping solutions (pp. 29–49). American Psychological Association.
Basile, K. C., Smith, S. G., Breiding, M. J., Black, M. C., & Mahendra, R. R. (2014). Sexual violence
surveillance: Uniform definitions and recommended data elements, version 2.0. National Center
for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Eshkol, R. (2003). Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual Review
of Psychology, 54(1), 579–616. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145030
Buchwald, E., Fletcher, P. R., & Roth, M. (1993). No laughing matter: Sexual harassment in
K-12 schools. Milkweed Editions.
Cantor, D., Fisher, B., Chibnall, S., Harps, S., Townsend, R., Thomas, G., Lee, H., Kranz, V.,
Herbison, R., & Madden, K. (2020). Report on the AAU campus climate survey on
sexual assault and misconduct. https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AAU-Files/Key-
Issues/Campus-Safety/Revised%20Aggregate%20report%20%20and%20appendices%
201-7_(01-16-2020_FINAL).pdf
CBC. (2017, October 11). University sex assault policies average C- in analysis by nationwide
student. CBC News. Retrieved https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/our-turn-move-
ment-unites-survivors-of-sexual-assault-through-student-unions-1.4348709.
CCHS (2016). Canadian community health survey. http://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p3Instr.pl?
Function=assembleInstr&lang=en&Item_Id=260675
CCMH (2018). Annual report. https://sites.psu.edu/ccmh/files/2019/04/2018-Annual-Report-4.
15.19-FINAL-1s1dzvo.pdf
CES (2004). CESD-R. Centre for epidemiological studies depression scale revised. https://cesd-r.com
Cortina, L. M., Swan, S., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Waldo, C. (1998). Sexual harassment and assault:
Chilling the climate for women in academia. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22(3), 419–
441. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00166.x
Dalhousie suspends 13 dentistry students from clinic amid Facebook scandal (2015, January 5).
CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/dalhousie-suspends-13-dentistry-
students-from-clinic-amid-facebook-scandal-1.2889635
Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., Gilmore, D. C., & Kacmar, K. M. (1994). Understanding as an anti-
dote for the dysfunctional consequences of organizational politics as a stressor 1. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 24(13), 1204–1220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.
tb01551.x
Albert et al. 23

Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J., & Magley, V. J. (1997). Antecedents
and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: A test of an integrated model. The
Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(4), 578–589.
Frazier, P., Valtinson, G., & Candell, S. (1994). An evaluation of a coeducational interactive rape
prevention program. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73(2), 153–158. https://doi.
org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1994.tb01728.x
Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding
women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
21(2), 173–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x
Gardner, C. B. (1995). Passing by: Gender and public harassment. University of California Press.
Gerger, H., Kley, H., Bohner, G., & Siebler, F. (2007). The acceptance of modern myths about
sexual aggression scale: Development and validation in German and English. Aggressive
Behavior, 33(5), 422–440. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20195
Glomb, T. M., Richman, W. L., Hulin, C. L., Drasgow, F., Schneider, K. T., & Fitzgerald, L. F.
(1997). Ambient sexual harassment: An integrated model of antecedents and consequences.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/
10.1006/obhd.1997.2728
Gutierres, S. E., Saenz, D. S., & Green, B. L. (1994). Job stress and health outcomes among
White and Hispanic employees: A test of the person-environment fit model.
Hall, R., & Sandler, B. (1984). Out of the classroom: A chilly campus climate for women?
Project on the Status and Education of Women, Association of American Colleges.
Hirsch, J. S., Khan, S., Leichter, K., & Zeitz-Moskin, A. (2021). Sexual assault prevention and
community equity (SPACE) toolkit. Accessed April 11, 2022 from https://static1.
squarespace.com/static/5cfe8170aca3540001876100/t/624da9a50a06857dd34d0b0f/
1649256872238/SexualCitizensToolkit_6APRIL2022v1.1.pdf
Hirsch, J. S., Reardon, L., Khan, S., Santelli, J. S., Wilson, P. A., Gilbert, L., Wall, M., &
Mellins, C. A. (2018). Transforming the campus climate: Research on the social and cultural
roots of sexual assault on a college campus. Voices: Journal of the Association for Feminist
Anthropology, 13(1), 23–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/voic.12003
Hitlan, R. T., Schneider, K. T., & Walsh, B. M. (2006). Upsetting behavior: Reactions to per-
sonal and bystander sexual harassment experiences. Sex Roles, 55(3–4), 187–195. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9072-5
Kelley, M. L., & Parsons, B. (2000). Sexual harassment in the 1990s: A university-wide survey of female
faculty, administrators, staff, and students. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(5), 548–568. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2000.11778852
Kelly, B. T., & Torres, A. (2006). Campus safety: Perceptions and experiences of women students.
Journal of College Student Development, 47(1), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2006.0007
Kelly, L. (1987). The continuum of sexual violence. In J. Hanmer & M. Maynard (Eds.), Women,
violence and social control (pp. 46–60). MacMillan Press Ltd.
Koss, M. P., Leonard, K. E., Beezley, D. A., & Oros, C. J. (1985). On-stranger sexual aggres-
sion: A discriminant analysis of the psychological characteristics of undetected offenders.
Sex Roles, 12(9), 981–992. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00288099
Lindsey, A., King, E., Cheung, H., Hebl, M., Lynch, S., & Mancini, V. (2015). When do women
respond against discrimination? Exploring factors of subtlety, form, and focus. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 45(12), 649–661. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12326
Lopes-Baker, A., McDonald, M., Schissler, J., & Pirone, V. (2017). Canada And United States:
Campus sexual assault law & policy comparative analysis. Can.-USLJ, 41, 156. https://
scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cuslj/vol41/iss1/8
24 Violence Against Women 0(0)

Lorenz, K., Kirkner, A., & Mazar, L. (2019). Graduate student experiences with sexual harassment
and academic and social (dis)engagement in higher education. Journal of Women and Gender in
Higher Education, 12(2), 205–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/19407882.2018.1540994
McMahon, S., & Baker, K. (2011). Changing perceptions of sexual violence over time. https://
vawnet.org/material/changing-perceptions-sexual-violence-over-time
Mellins, C. A., Walsh, K., Sarvet, A. L., Wall, M., Gilbert, L., Santelli, J. S., & Hirsch, J. S.
(2017). Sexual assault incidents among college undergraduates: Prevalence and factors asso-
ciated with risk. PLoS one, 12(11), e0186471. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186471
Miner-Rubino, K., & Cortina, L. M. (2007). Beyond targets: Consequences of vicarious expo-
sure to misogyny at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1254. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0021-9010.92.5.1254
MIT (2014). MIT health & wellness surveys: Tips from developing the 2014 MIT community atti-
tudes on sexual assault (CASA) Survey. http://web.mit.edu/surveys/casatips/sources.html
Newcomb, M. E., Swann, G., Estabrook, R., Corden, M., Begale, M., Ashbeck, A., Mohr, D., &
Mustanski, B. (2018). Patterns and predictors of compliance in a prospective diary study of
substance use and sexual behavior in a sample of young men who have sex with men.
Assessment, 25(4), 403–414.
Nielsen, L. B. (2002). Subtle, pervasive, harmful: Racist and sexist remarks in public as hate
speech. Journal of Social Issues, 58(2), 265–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00260
Noh, S., Kaspar, V., & Wickrama, K. A. (2007). Overt and subtle racial discrimination and
mental health: Preliminary findings for Korean immigrants. American Journal of Public
Health, 97(7), 1269–1274. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2005.085316
O’Connor, J., Cusano, J., McMahon, S., & Draper, J. (2018). Students’ articulation of subtle rape
myths surrounding campus sexual assault. Journal of College Student Development, 59(4),
439–455. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2018.0041
Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C., & Zapf, D. (2010). Diary studies in organizational research.
Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(2), 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000009
Ontario (2016). Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act (Supporting Survivors and
Challenging Sexual Violence and Harassment), 2016, S.O. 2016, c. 2 - Bill 132.
Accessed July 24, 2020 from https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/s16002
Osborne, R. L. (1992). Sexual harassment in universities: A critical view of the institutional
response. Canadian Woman Studies, 12(3), 72–76.
Osborne, R. L. (1995, September). The continuum of violence against women in Canadian uni-
versities: Toward a new understanding of the chilly campus climate. In Women’s studies
international forum (Vol. 18, No. 5–6, pp. 637–646). Pergamon.
Ottawa Sun (2021). Queen’s taking action against students over misogynistic signs. Accessed
Oct 19, 2021 from https://ottawasun.com/news/provincial/queens-taking-action-against-
students-over-misogynistic-signs/wcm/c0fd97ab-29e2-4865-9c89-f6f8d867b299
Quinlan, E., Clarke, A., & Miller, N. (2016). Enhancing care and advocacy for sexual assault
survivors on Canadian campuses. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 46(2), 40–54.
https://doi.org/10.47678/cjhe.v46i2.185184
Reis, H. T., & Gable, S. L. (2000). Event-sampling and other methods for studying everyday
experience. In H. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social
and personality psychology (pp. 190–222). Cambridge University Press.
Saint Mary’s University unveils frosh week changes in wake of rape chant (2014, August 27).
CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/saint-mary-s-university-unveils-
frosh-week-changes-in-wake-of-rape-chant-1.2748017
Albert et al. 25

Schmader, T., Croft, A., Scarnier, M., Lickel, B., & Mendes, W. B. (2012). Implicit and explicit
emotional reactions to witnessing prejudice. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,
15(3), 379–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430211426163
Swim, J. K., & Cohen, L. L. (1997). Overt, covert, and subtle sexism: A comparison between the
attitudes toward women and modern sexism scales. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(1),
103–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00103.x
Swim, J. K., Hyers, L. L., Cohen, L. L., & Ferguson, M. J. (2001). Everyday sexism: Evidence
for its incidence, nature, and psychological impact from three daily diary studies. Journal of
Social Issues, 57(1), 31–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00200
Swim, J. K., Hyers, L. L., Cohen, L. L., Fitzgerald, D. C., & Bylsma, W. H. (2003). African American
college students’ experiences with everyday racism: Characteristics of and responses to these inci-
dents. Journal of Black Psychology, 29(1), 38–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798402239228
Takagi, A. (2019, November 17). Review of sexual violence policy finds 56 reports in three
years, only one tribunal. The Varsity. https://thevarsity.ca/2019/11/17/review-of-sexual-
violence-policy-finds-56-reports-in-three-years-only-one-tribunal/
UBC investigates frosh students’ pro-rape chant (2013, September 7). CBC News. https://www.cbc.
ca/news/canada/british-columbia/ubc-investigates-frosh-students-pro-rape-chant-1.1699589
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (n.d.). “Sexual Harassment.” Accessed April
11, 2022 from https://www.eeoc.gov/sexual-harassment
van Roosmalen, E., & McDaniel, S. A. (1999). Sexual harassment in academia: A hazard to
women’s health. Women & Health, 28(2), 33–54. https://doi.org/10.1300/J013v28n02_03
Warshaw, R. (1988). I never called it rape. Harper & Row.
Wood, L., Hoefer, S., Kammer-Kerwick, M., Parra-Cardona, J. R., & Busch-Armendariz, N.
(2021). Sexual harassment at institutions of higher education: Prevalence, risk, and
extent. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(9), 4520–4544.
Young, V. D. (1992). Fear of victimization and victimization rates among women: A paradox?
Justice Quarterly, 9(3), 419–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829200091461

Author Biographies
Katelin Albert is an assistant professor in Sociology at the University of Victoria, Canada. Dr.
Albert is a medical and health sociologist with expertise in vaccinations and health decision-
making, public opinion, and vaccination acceptance. Her previous research investigates parental
understandings of responsibility for children’s health in the case of the HPV vaccine, school-
based sex-education, and knowledge politics in research funding. She has published in
Sociology of Health and Illness, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, The American
Sociologist, The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, and the Canadian Journal of Sociology.

Amanda Couture-Carron is a postdoctoral research fellow at Rowan University. Dr.

Couture-Carron’s research focuses on vulnerable and marginalized communities’ contact and
interactions with criminal justice institutions in Canada and the United States. She examines
how socially structured inequalities stemming from the intersections of immigration status,
race, gender, and class shape experiences with criminal justice institutions. Dr.
Couture-Carron has written several articles and reports on violence against women that have
been published in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Violence Against Women, and
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology.
26 Violence Against Women 0(0)

Professor Erik Schneiderhan’s theoretical work engages with pragmatist understandings of

creativity, habit, and social dilemmas which informs his empirical projects on deliberation,
democracy, and community helping. He has published in journals such as Theory and
Society, Sociological Theory, The Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, The British
Journal of Sociology, and Qualitative Sociology. His book, The Size of Others’ Burdens
(Stanford University Press, 2015), uses the cases of Jane Addams and Barack Obama (with
focus on their community organizing in Chicago) to consider how individuals creatively
move forward when faced with seemingly intractable situations resulting from contradictory cul-
tural schemas.