Unblurring the Lines of Sexual Consent with a College Student-Driven Sexual Consent Education Campaign

"Sexual consent education campaigns for college students that are student-driven and address relevant sociocultural factors while authentically interacting with students can improve students' sexual consent understanding."

This is an evaluation of Define Your Line, a campaign created and implemented by undergraduate students and faculty members at a United States (US) university with the goal of "unblurring the lines" of sexual consent through peer-to-peer and mediated messaging. Many college students do not have comprehensive understanding of sexual consent and may not perceive use of sexual coercion to obtain consent as problematic. College students also differ in how they report obtaining and communicating sexual consent with their partners. Furthermore, contextual factors, such as belief in destructive gender and sexual stereotypes, also contribute to the problem. As reported here, an estimated 1 in 5 female undergraduate students and 1 in 20 male undergraduate students in the US experience sexual assault while enrolled.

The report describes the campaign's development, which was student-driven. An undergraduate student advisory board was created; it included 25-30 members representing various student groups on campus (e.g., athletes, sorority and fraternity members, and Gay Straight Alliance members). They led all the in-person and online conversations and messaging, under the guidance and assistance of appropriate staff and faculty members, including the primary researchers. Their goal was to generate an open and engaging "campus-wide conversation" about sexual consent by gathering and displaying questions and responses posed by other students about topics such as sexual consent misconceptions, dating expectations, and gender or sexual stereotypes.

Most of the campaign messages were interactive. Student campaign representatives, for example, set up tables around campus and invited other students to confidentially fill out cards with their questions and to answer other students' questions. Students could also anonymously answer and pose questions on the campaign's website and interact with messages on the campaign's social media pages. Posters, table tents, bus signs, and other promotional materials were placed around campus to enhance awareness and reach. These materials addressed common misconceptions and stereotypes related to sexual consent in sex-positive, non-judgmental tones.

Three online survey questionnaires assessing relevant outcome measures were distributed to the university's undergraduate student population (N = 992) before, during, and after the campaign's implementation between March and December 2015. As part of the evaluation, participants were provided with 12 sexual situations and asked to indicate on a 5-point Likert scale whether they considered each situation to be sexual assault or not. Seven of the situational statements represented what students in the qualitative formative research had indicated were "clearly" sexual assault; the other 5 statements represented what students had expressed were more "grey" areas of sexual assault, such as "Both partners were intoxicated (with alcohol and/or illicit drugs) when they had sex."

Pairwise comparisons of the outcome measures revealed significant increases from baseline to post-fall 2015 and from post-spring 2015 to post-fall for all outcome measures, p < .05. A significant increase from baseline to post-spring 2015 was also identified for accurate "clear" sexual assault identification, p < .05. Put another way, compared to baseline reports, at the end of the 21-week campaign period, students reported significantly greater positive attitudes about establishing sexual consent before engaging in sexual activity, perceived behavioural control to obtain sexual consent from a partner, intentions to ask for consent prior to sexual activity and to stop sexual activity if consent was rescinded or if a partner was silent, and understanding of what constitutes sexual assault (i.e., absence of consent).

Notably, significant changes were consistently found from baseline to 21 weeks and from 6 to 21 weeks. Thus, for measurable change to occur, students likely need to be exposed to multiple components of the campaign multiple times, evidenced in part by the increases in reported exposure over time, such that 38.1% of students indicated campaign exposure at 6 weeks and 50.0% reported exposure at 21 weeks.

College men and members of university-affiliated social sororities or fraternities resulted in greater improvement than their respective counterparts (i.e., college women, nonmembers). "This research provides evidence that a campaign of this nature can help populations with the most destructive beliefs and practices catch up to their peers who have healthier beliefs, while also raising overall healthy beliefs about sexual consent."

In conclusion, the researchers explain: "While a campaign such as this could be implemented successfully on other campuses, to ensure effectiveness, it is important to gather baseline understanding of the cultures and beliefs of the university's student population. Having a solid understanding of campus culture and beliefs of the student population at the university in this study allowed the researchers to ensure strategies and messaging were authentic and relevant to students. Student representatives who were the 'face' of the campaign also helped ensure the authenticity of the campaign's messages. These students identified heavily trafficked locations on and off campus, optimal times of day to set up tables, types of promotional materials that would entice participation, and messaging that would most appeal to peers."