This article presents findings from in-depth interviews (IDIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) conducted with undergraduate students participating in a parent study, the UC Speaks Up Project, a mixed-methods study conducted at three large Californian university campuses between January and June 2019.³² The universities included in this study are three campuses that are located in Southern California and total undergraduate student enrollment by campus at the time of the study was as follows: campus 1 (31,543), campus 2 (30,794), and campus 3 (23,349).³³ The parent study aimed to assess students’ understanding of sexual violence on their campus and their knowledge of and perceptions about the prevention, response, and educational efforts around sexual violence on each campus. Participants were also asked questions about alcohol use on their campus, both in and out of the context of experiences of sexual violence. The research was carried out by a team of investigators from the three campuses, including seven faculty investigators, three staff researchers, and sixteen student researchers. The current study conducts a sub-analysis of these data.

Trained staff and student researchers conducted a total of 86 IDIs and 27 FGDs with undergraduate students from the three campuses (n = 244 total participants). IDIs were conducted in an accessible and convenient location where privacy could be ensured, such as in a private study room in the campus library, and typically lasted 60–90 min. We conducted interviews until saturation was reached, which we defined as the point when conducting additional interviews only produced previously discovered data. FGDs were conducted with five to ten participants per group (averaging around eight a group) and each session was led by a moderator with facilitation and note-taking assistance from another student researcher. Each FGD was composed of a different stratum of students, including, for example: male athletes, female athletes, sorority members, fraternity members, students of color, students who identify as sexual minorities, and student leaders. FGDs were conducted in a private space, such as a conference room or a group study room at a campus library, at each of the three campuses and lasted between 60–120 min. FGD participants were given a piece of paper with a number on it and were asked to state their assigned number each time they spoke, to assist with the transcription process later on. Like with the IDIs, we conducted FGDs until we deemed saturation was reached and additional discussions were only providing results we had already found. Semi-structured guides were used to facilitate the IDIs and FGDs and included open-ended questions that allowed for flexible conversation about topics of interest. The guide included probes and follow up conversation to solicit detailed responses or clarification from participants. The semi-structured guides did not differ significantly between IDIs and FGDs, and were designed to elicit information on: students’ knowledge and attitudes about the prevalence of and factors surrounding alcohol use and sexual and intimate partner violence on campus; perceived links between alcohol and violence; understanding of and participation in bystander intervention; awareness of and opinions about campus-based sexual violence reporting services; and community responses to sexual violence. Overall, the guides were designed to solicit information about how students felt the university could better create a learning environment that is free from sexual violence. All IDIs and FGDs were audio-recorded with consent of the participant(s).

Eligibility criteria for study participants included current enrollment at one of the university campuses (confirmed via use of official school email address), being 18 years of age or older, and English speaking. To obtain a sample of participants with varying background and identities, participant selection proceeded using both self-selection sampling and purposive sampling. To advertise for the study, the research team posted study flyers around each of the three campuses and also shared it through email listservs and social media. Interested individuals who self-selected to participate in the study were invited to complete an online eligibility screening form. The research team then stratified eligible participants by demographic strata to ensure a diverse sample by gender, sexual orientation, year in college, and fraternity membership. Purposive snowball sampling was subsequently used to recruit students with lower self-selection status, such as fraternity members and male student athletes. The study team then invited all eligible students to participate in either an FGD or an IDI. All participants were offered a $25 gift card to compensate them for their time.

The study protocol was approved by campus 2’s Human Research Protection Program (HRPP), following which the Institutional Review Boards at campus 1 and campus 3 approved reliance agreements from the campus 2’s HRPP. All researchers received training on the safe and ethical conduct of research on violence against women, based on recommendations developed for the World Health Organization Multi-Country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence.³³ Researchers also received training on the ethical conduct of human subjects research, compliance, and data management via a collaborative institutional training initiative for biomedical research. A certificate of confidentiality was obtained from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to protect identifiable, sensitive research information from compulsory legal disclosure (eg unwanted sexual contact). All IDI and FGD participants provided written consent to participate in the study and have the session audio recorded.

IDI and FGD audio recordings were transcribed verbatim by student and staff researchers and enhanced with notes taken by the facilitator and/or notetaker. The notes were used to capture nonverbal cues, such as body language and facial expressions, to help the research team contextualize what participants shared and allow for a more robust understanding of the data.³⁴ Multiple safeguards were placed to ensure data confidentiality. All personal identifying information was redacted from the transcriptions which were stored in an encrypted, password protected folder only accessible by the research team. Transcriptions were assigned a numeric code that was used as a reference for participant identification. The file linking transcripts and participants’ contact information was stored separately in a secured folder that was only accessible to the study’s principal investigators.

Thematic analysis was utilized to ensure a rigorous and transparent process. Our analysis was meticulously structured to identify, examine and interpret emerging themes and patterns in alignment with the study’s objectives.^35,36 Our analytical process was grounded in a combination of emic and etic coding strategies, facilitating a nuanced exploration of the data from both insider and outsider perspectives.

A subset of the research team embarked on developing the codebook by engaging in a series of iterative discussions to identify emergent themes from the preliminary data analysis. The resulting comprehensive codebook was structured to include broad “parent” codes, under which more specific “child” codes were categorized, capturing the nuanced sub-themes present in the data. The development of emic codes was primarily driven by the participants’ narratives, focusing on the social contexts and interactions that characterized their experiences. In contrast, etic codes were informed by the seminal work of Abbey and colleagues, particularly in categorizing responses related to the role of alcohol in sexual assault incidents, delineated into two critical temporal phases: pre-assault and during the assault.^37–39

To validate and refine the codebook, the study’s PIs reviewed all themes identified by research staff, as well as the initially coded transcripts before approving the final codebook for systematic analysis. This meticulous review process culminated in the approval of the final codebook, which served as the foundation for the systematic analysis of the dataset. To further enhance transparency and facilitate replication, a detailed account of our coding protocol, including the final codebook and examples of coded transcripts, is provided in the supplemental materials section. This addition aims to offer comprehensive insights into our analytical framework, highlighting the rigor and systematic nature of our thematic analysis.

We followed procedures outlined by Campbell et al. (2013) to ensure inter-rater reliability and agreement.³⁹ To assess the degree of consistency in how the coding system was applied between members of the research team, a minimum of two reviewers coded each of the transcripts. The reviewers then manually examined the coding decisions that each had made and held a consensus inter-rater discussion to clarify areas of disagreement and to identify codes requiring refinement. Discrepancies among reviewers were resolved through ongoing discussion with the research team and subsequent codebook revisions.

Analysis was conducted in Dedoose, an online mixed-methods analysis platform which enables rigorous qualitative research across research sites.⁴⁰ The research team utilized Dedoose to create a codebook of emerging themes, collaborate on transcripts, and track demographic trends. Multiple team members coded each transcript and, to ensure inter-rater reliability, met regularly to compare codes assigned to each passage, discuss any discrepancies between coders, and agree upon which codes to assign.

The majority of participants agreed that drinking alcohol was an accepted part of the college experience. While it was recognized that not all students consume alcohol, it was felt that the widespread availability and frequent use of alcohol greatly influenced the structure or ‘culture’ of social events and social interactions, both on and off campus. Participants posited this could be due to numerous factors, including increased independence and control over one’s life decisions, limited interaction with parents and adults, freedom to structure one’s own time and schedule, and active and ongoing social opportunities of college life. Participants repeatedly talked about the links between alcohol use at college and “party culture,” which was referred to as a normative social behavior that involved attending parties to have fun, hook up with sexual partners, and see how much alcohol can be consumed with friends.

Given that it’s a college campus, you have a bunch of young, inexperienced, drunk - you know - high kids who are in a party environment. Like, you don’t have any experience in life. Not a lot of chaperones or anything like that. So sh*t’s gonna happen. (IDI Participant, cisgender male)

In addition to perceiving alcohol use as commonplace, participants recognized sexual violence as a major, concurrent problem on college and university campuses. Further, the majority of students who participated in our study considered alcohol consumption (and the location or social situation in which drinking occurs) to be closely linked with increased risk for nonconsensual sexual contact or attention.

I think alcohol is a huge part of it [sexual violence]. (IDI Participant, cisgender female)

While I do think the party culture is a fun aspect of the school, I recognize that it leads to a lot of these kinds of [sexually violent] situations, just because of alcohol and drugs. It kind of leads to sexual assault. It tends to be like a stepping stone almost just because drunk people make dumb decisions. (FGD Participant, cisgender male)

Students identified alcohol as something that increases sexual violence risk during the early stages of an interaction (eg on a date or at a party) when a potential perpetrator is observing and assessing a potential victim’s verbal or non-verbal cues to assess their interest in a sexual encounter. Students referenced the way in which alcohol impaired cognitive functioning by distorting an intoxicated pursuer’s impression of whether the person being pursued is truly interested in the sexual advances being made. Participants narrated how this often leads to the person seeking sex to misinterpret cues as being more encouraging than they truly are.

Because they [person instigating a sexual encounter] think sometimes you’re like picking up what they’re putting down. Just the alcohol gets in the way. And I think that’s sort of what the vibe is like, you’re feeling it and you’re not sure, but the alcohol is just like prohibiting you from seeing if they’re really okay with it or not. (IDI Participant, cisgender female)

Participants explained how potential victims of violence can also experience cognitive deficits, if consuming alcohol, and may be unable to discern if their cues have or have not been misread by the person pursuing sex. Participants believed that alcohol causes ambiguity in both giving and receiving sexual consent, referencing the “blurred lines” concept, between what is and what is not considered violence.

It’s kind of a blurred line in some cases about, like, is this actually assault? Especially if there’s alcohol involved. (IDI Participant, cisgender female)

In addition to believing alcohol could reduce someone’s ability to think clearly and assess potentially risky situations, participants recognized alcohol use, particularly in large quantities, as a contributor to impaired decision-making skills. Some students specifically narrated how being intoxicated led many people to take risks they normally would avoid.

When people are intoxicated, they’re obviously more likely to do things that aren’t okay. (…) they can deem it as, ‘Oh, yeah, I was drunk. I did that. Sorry.’ That kind of way and just waive it off easily. It’s kind of like an easy card to play. (IDI Participant, cisgender female)

Participants also believed alcohol contributed to sexual assaults occurring when the perpetrator was fully aware that the victim did not want the encounter to happen. Numerous explanations were suggested.

First, it was felt that perpetrators of violence commonly interpret a person of sexual interest’s decision to get drunk as a signal of implicit agreement to any and all of his advances. Participants explained how students often equated drunk sex to consensual sex when both parties were intoxicated.

A lot of people aren’t very serious about consent. It’s like ‘OK. You’re drunk. I’m drunk.’ They think that if they have sex like it’s fine, when in reality there wasn’t consent. It’s just that they’re not aware of it. So, it’s like it’s really difficult to kind of think about. (IDI Participant, cisgender female)

[Students feel that] Just because someone is drunk, or just because I’m drunk, someone did something that I didn’t give consent to, that it is totally fine, because I’m just drunk. (IDI Participant, cisgender female)

Although less common, participants narrated how some students, usually men, and often part of the Greek system, felt entitled to misuse their power (eg physical strength) or situation (eg if a woman is drunk) to force someone into sex, especially if they feel they have been “led on,” including in the context of intoxication of the victim.

There’s a common thread of just predatory [sexual] behavior, specifically from fraternities (…) They [members of fraternities] find a way to take advantage of individuals. (IDI Participant, cisgender female)

Another theory for understanding why sexual violence occurs in the context of alcohol use is that aggressive behavior is exacerbated when a victim is intoxicated because the perpetrator realizes alcohol’s effects on motor skills limit her ability to resist effectively.

It [sexual violence] comes with the territory of partying or party culture, which it shouldn’t. But you know, it does. Unfortunately, people take advantage of people when they’re powerless or weak. (FGD Participant, cisgender female)

Participants also suggested that cognitive deficits associated with alcohol consumption often enhance a perpetrator’s likelihood of assaulting someone or behaving aggressively because, when intoxicated, the person causing harm prioritizes immediate sexual gratification and sense of entitlement over any internalized moral compass or concern about being punished. Common knowledge that a victim’s own intoxication increases likelihood that they won’t clearly remember an incidence of violence only serves to exacerbate this type of scenario.

You need a group of people looking out for you all the time. Because the people at these parties, they carry such a sense of entitlement. They’ve just met you, but they behave like they can do whatever they want with you and everything’s gonna be fine. (IDI Participant, cisgender female)

Participants were asked where they thought the likelihood of alcohol use and sexual violence was highest. Bars and other alcohol-selling venues were mentioned in a few discussions, but these references were limited, given that most participants were not yet of legal age to purchase/consume alcohol. On all three campuses, Greek organizations and events/parties were the most common venue reported for both drinking and assault/harassment.

Greek life could be a huge entryway, like a gateway. Because guys are always around girls. They’re always drinking around girls in Greek life. It’s like a huge party scene. (IDI Participant, cisgender female)

It is important to clarify that students did not equate Greek life to alcohol consumption and sexual assault but noted how certain situational factors (such as gender norms related to relationship dynamics and alcohol use) may lead to both outcomes. Many students explained how accepted norms in some fraternities and male athletic teams encouraged excessive drinking, use of other drugs, and toxic masculinity, which often condones sexual exploitation of women.

You’re constantly hearing stories about, ‘Did you hear this girl got roofied or something last night?’ (…) It’s either a fraternity or like a sports team, sometimes a combo of both, which makes me think it [sexual assault] always involves drugs and alcohol. (IDI Participant, cisgender male)

Student-athletes said they commonly drank together (ie with other student-athletes) and frequently consumed excessive amounts of alcohol because they only had short periods of time when they were able to party, between seasons and games. Although this pattern of drinking was normalized, it contributed to numerous risks for the students, especially women who were at heightened vulnerability for adverse alcohol consequences and sexual violence, as illustrated by the quote below, from a male student-athlete discussing parties in which the attendees are athletes.

At every party I’ve been to here, the guys [male athletes] are kind of drunk and having a good time, but the girls [female athletes] are blacked out. (IDI Participant, cisgender male)

Although not investigated in detail, compelling findings emerge on why some students thought sexual violence is more likely to occur in situations dominated by fraternity members and male athletes. Participants believed some fraternities and men’s sports teams placed pressure on male student members to uphold and endorse masculine norms, including the objectification of women (and acceptance of sexual violence). Alcohol was thought to facilitate all of these factors.

I know fraternities that have quotas for the people in their fraternity, they have to hook up with or at least attempt to hook up with X amount of people within a period of time. (…) There’s a pressure on your reputation sexually to be up there [ie have sex with a large number of people]. There’s a pressure to continue drinking. (FGD Participant, cisgender female)

Misogynistic, gendered inequitable attitudes about women’s alcohol use were also thought to influence both perpetration and justification of sexual violence against women. Participants did not necessarily express views that college students disapproved of women drinking and having sex, but many described how women who drank, particularly if they became inebriated, were more likely to be targeted (for sexual aggression) and/or blamed if victimized. This was attributed to harmful societal sentiments rooted in patriarchal believes, often prevalent in male-dominated spaces like fraternities, where the female survivor is perceived as being guilty of contributory negligence (ie because she was drunk) and blameworthy for the rape.

Girls are definitely shamed for being raped, they’re more likely to be blamed for the way they were dressed, for being drunk, for putting themselves in a situation where they went to a party and kind of enabled themselves to be raped, which isn’t true at all but because of that kind of blame culture that surrounds like rape. (IDI Participant, cisgender female)

Amidst normalization of increased risk for sexual violence against women in situations where there is excessive alcohol use, female participants expressed how they had learned it was necessary for them to continually remain aware of their surroundings and be cautious not to consume too much alcohol or allow their drink to be spiked.

I think it’s just a thing that girls are taught when they go to college that you don’t let yourself get to that point [of intoxication]. You don’t leave your drink by itself. (IDI Participant, cisgender female)

Bystander intervention was thought to be the most commonly implemented sexual violence prevention approach used on the three campuses. Participants shared their opinions on what impact alcohol use might have on college students’ ability to recognize risk for the perpetration of sexual violence and step in to interrupt the abuse from happening, either before, during, or after an incident.

Participants agreed that alcohol’s contribution to risky (including aggressive or violent) behavior in social situations where people are drinking increased the value of the presence of a third-party witness who could intervene in high-risk sexual situations. Students understood the concept of bystander intervention and many recalled instances where alcohol was consumed and perceived to have increased risk for violence. Further, some participants retrospectively narrated situations where they thought they could have stepped in (but did not) or did step in to try to prevent an incident of alcohol-related violence from happening.

I see this stuff at parties and (…) at the bars, there’s been a series of circumstances where I’ve seen a girl that’s a little too drunk that’s misplaced from her friends and a guy that’s hitting on her a little too aggressively. And that there are certain points where I feel that somebody should step in. (FGD Participant, cisgender female)

However, despite the perceived value of bystander intervention in settings where alcohol is being consumed, participants viewed drinking, in and of itself, as a barrier to effective intervention. A few explanations were provided. First, participants explained that although some people might otherwise have every intent to intervene and help someone at risk for harm or sexual violence, if that person is drinking, the effects of alcohol on their brain and body (ie the pharmacological effects) could reduce or eliminate their ability to notice the event in the first place.

One of the biggest proponents of sexual assault is the lack of even recognizing what is sexual assault and what is not. And, with drinking, I think that hinders that even worse. (FGD Participant, cisgender female)

Second, participants expressed how alcohol made it hard to interpret an event as high-risk and to also feel certain there is true need for bystander intervention. While students felt confident about the need for intervening on blatantly problematic situations, there was less certainty on how to act when a peer’s safety was hard to determine, such as in situations characterized by ambiguity or mixed signals. Noting how it was, at times, difficult to identify inappropriate sexual behavior when sober, participants narrated how it became even more challenging to recognize if a potential victim was freely providing (or able to freely provide) consent if the potential bystander was intoxicated. In other words, students who would otherwise intervene said they might miss or misinterpret cues for needed intervention if they were drunk.

I’d say that alcohol is a barrier. I think just identifying that there is a situation to step into can be challenging. Like if there’s a private interaction it could be worse than, what you would assume is going on (or) it could be the same as what you would assume. It is challenging to figure out what’s going on. (FGD Participant, cisgender male)

Narratives about the aftermath of alcohol-related sexual violence, as it pertained to discussion about existing campus “responses,” suggested use of existing support and prevention services was fraught with problems. The most commonly shared challenges related to disclosing and formally reporting incidents of sexual violence.

Many felt alcohol consumption deterred survivors from reporting instances of sexual violence because they thought they would not be believed (by friends, as well as officials) and/or that they would be blamed for having used alcohol and failing to protect themselves. Sentiments of doubt and ‘victim blaming’ came up in some interviews.

It’s not so black and white, it’s not like ‘Oh, he raped me last night.’ There are a lot of other, other factors that play into it, especially if it’s like (…) you were really drunk, and you don’t remember exactly. (IDI Participant, cisgender female)

Some participants believed alcohol made it hard to discern the truth during the reporting process after an experience of sexual violence had occurred. For example, people who had engaged in sexual activities while intoxicated were sometimes uncertain if they had experienced sexual violence.

I do know a friend who was [accused of sexual assault] (…) There was a lot of alcohol involved, and the truth couldn’t really be discerned from either party. (FGD Participant, cisgender male)

Participants had varying levels of awareness about their school’s official alcohol policies and alcohol abuse and sexual violence education and prevention programs. A few recalled how first-year and transfer students are required to complete a mandatory, two-hour online substance abuse training program, with modules on harmful alcohol use, underage drinking, vaping and cannabis use, use of other drugs (including prescription medications), policies and prevention. Although the mandatory online alcohol prevention training did touch upon the relationship between alcohol and consent, when describing sexual violence prevention programming, participants explained that it seemed to be based on the assumption that students were not of legal drinking age and would therefore not be engaging in alcohol consumption.

I feel like whenever I took the [sexual violence prevention] training, they wouldn’t even talk about parties, because it was like well, you’re underage so you’re never going to one so we’re not going to cover this [alcohol consumption]. (IDI Participant, cisgender female)

For the most part, these online trainings were not considered effective (or memorable, as many students had forgotten the trainings entirely). Further, many students felt these trainings were only offered so their campus could comply with university and/or state/federal policies and procedures related to harm reduction and protection of students. Instead of using human resources to teach students about alcohol and substance use, participants felt the online course enabled the administration to ensure compliance and document that students received (and acknowledged receipt) of the university’s policies and procedures. Many students equated the mandatory online alcohol and substance use prevention training to a parallel mandatory online sexual violence and sexual harassment prevention training that UC students are required to complete.

It [prevention training] is very much one of those things that they just do to say, ‘We tried if anything goes wrong!’ It’s a liability dodge. It’s not actually anything functional. (FGD Participant, cisgender male)

In light of these perceived deficiencies, participants felt additional education was needed on the complexities of how alcohol and sexual violence are related. Participants suggested that combined violence and alcohol prevention programming be offered to address gaps in students’ collective knowledge about how alcohol impacts decision-making, increases risk for violence, and contributes to the “blurred lines” and “gray areas” of sexual consent.

I think maybe more education on the consequences of drinking a lot, because that sometimes leads- could lead- to a sexual assault case. So, if the public is more educated on the consequences and risks of drinking, I think that can help lower the chances [of sexual violence]. (FGD Participant, cisgender male)

Students also recommended that university-mandated sexual violence training be revised to ensure that lessons are provided to address what students should do in situations of alcohol-related risk for sexual violence. Finally, many student participants suggested that the UC campuses design and implement tailored prevention programming specific to participation in or affiliation with Greek organizations. Although such programming would be limited to a subsection of the population, participants felt its administration would benefit overall campus prevention efforts, due to the perceived magnitude of alcohol consumption and alcohol-related sexual violence among these communities.

I think especially for fraternities and sororities, where those social gatherings happen very frequently and (…) there is going to be alcohol involved, but maybe teach them that you do not necessarily have to consume alcohol to enjoy each other’s company. And then also kind of let them know that sexual assault is not okay. Like it impairs, it damages a person’s life psychologically, permanently. (FGD Participant, cisgender female)

The study was designed to examine a broad range of student perspectives to expand understanding of how current undergraduate students perceive connections between alcohol and sexual violence in their lives, and campus prevention efforts. The findings included in this paper may not accurately reflect the impact(s) that the COVID-19 pandemic had on perceptions of how students experience and respond to campus sexual assault, as well as what campus leadership can do to prevent campus sexual assault. Emerging research suggests that the pandemic altered campus sexual cultures and exposed persistent gaps in prevention programming. For example, pandemic-related restrictions on social gatherings were found to temporarily reduce opportunities for alcohol-facilitated sexual violence, yet underlying cultural norms surrounding alcohol and consent remained largely unchanged.⁵⁷ Similarly, the pandemic exacerbated challenges in delivering effective violence prevention programming, with many institutions transitioning to virtual formats that may have diminished the impact of bystander training.⁵⁸ Other research found that the COVID 19 pandemic disrupted prevailing campus sexual culture, offering young adults—particularly women, sexual and racial minorities, and individuals with disabilities—a temporary reprieve from thepressures and risks of hookup culture.⁵⁹ While our findings provide valuable pre-pandemic insights, future research should explore how these dynamics evolved during and after the pandemic, including shifts in drinking behaviors, reporting patterns, and prevention program delivery.

Although the breadth of the sample for this qualitative research allows for increased understanding of these connections within a more diverse population, it does not allow for in-depth examination of certain sub-populations. For example, the research focus was not on populations that are commonly accused of perpetrating sexual violence on college and university campuses, such as football players.⁵⁸ Additionally, while the study employed a large qualitative sample and purposive sampling to include diverse student voices, the analysis was limited to thematic approaches to address the primary research objectives. This precluded a more intersectional analysis that could have provided deeper insights into how experiences and perceptions of alcohol-related sexual violence vary across different demographic, cultural, or social identities, including differences by sex, gender, or disability status. Future research should explore these intersections to better understand the nuances of these experiences and ensure that prevention programming is tailored to meet the needs of diverse populations. For instance, given persistent gender-disparities in experiences of sexual violence and rates of alcohol use,^60,61 additional research to examine the gendered pathways to each is necessary but beyond the scope of the present research. Further, acknowledging that students with disabilities are at an increased risk of experiencing sexual violence,⁶² future research should specifically examine how these risks intersect with alcohol-related harm. Additionally, the IDI and FGD guides were structured similarly, creating space for an inaccurate understanding of the differences between individual thoughts and group-level thinking regarding alcohol consumption and sexual violence.

Our findings may have limited generalizability outside of the United States and even within smaller, private, or more demographically homogeneous university settings, as the data were from three large public universities in Southern California with diverse demographics. Future research is needed within these other contexts (ie private universities with more homogenous demographics) to replicate our findings. More so, given that the present findings come from a larger study, this sub-analysis may not offer a full understanding of the students’ beliefs regarding the links between alcohol and substance use and sexual violence. Thus, future research would benefit from looking distinctly at students’ perceptions of the connection. Finally, the study was not designed to understand whether there may be differences in responses to what is needed in campus prevention programs between individuals who have experienced sexual violence versus those who may have perpetrated sexual violence. We did not ask participants whether they had experienced or been exposed to any form of sexual violence. This also limits our data, as there are likely important differences in the way in which students who had been exposed to sexual violence responded as compared to those who have had no direct or indirect experience with sexual violence. While this was beyond the scope of our study, we understand that future research should incorporate this distinction. Additional research in the area of sexual violence prevention designed specifically for those who may be at risk of perpetrating nonconsensual sexual contact would be beneficial.

This study not only highlights student perceptions that campus sexual violence is exacerbated by alcohol use, but also their desire for improved campus-based prevention efforts and trainings. As prevention efforts and survivor support systems grow across college and university campuses, effort must be made to create synergies between substance abuse prevention and sexual violence prevention programming. This will include efforts to foster a campus and reporting environment where student survivors are supported, believed, and listened to, regardless of whether they were using alcohol at the time of experiencing sexual violence. Finally, expanding survivor-centered discussion about how and why alcohol may blur issues surrounding consent, will promote more honest conversations without falling into a common trap of blaming the victims of sexual violence for their use of alcohol. These steps, in addition to those currently being taken to reduce problem alcohol use and campus-based sexual violence, will help to shift the problematic norms and contexts within college and universities, and make these learning environments safer for students across the US.