Profiling Institutional Estrangement: Contours and Consequences of Gendered Mistreatment in College
Goodman, Kevin
2018
Abstract
This dissertation integrates intersectionality with person-centered methods to explore how multidimensional gendered mistreatment in college is associated with students’ institutional estrangement. Here, gendered mistreatment includes: incivility (i.e., identity-ambiguous rudeness); heterosexist and gender harassment (i.e., identity-specific derogation); and sexually advancing harassment (i.e., coercive invitations, inappropriate touch). Survey data were collected in two waves (n = 4,023) from undergraduate (81.9%) and graduate students (18.1%) at a small public university in the rural Northwest, with 11% sexual minorities. Here, institutional relations encompass students’ attitudes (i.e., satisfaction, trust, safety) and academic engagement. I hypothesized that strained institutional relations would be associated with gender, sexuality, and mistreatment. I identified four mistreatment groups using k-means cluster analysis. Most reported Minimal (n = 2,397) mistreatment. The Hetero/Sexist group (n = 716) experienced predominantly identity-specific mistreatment. The Uncivil group (n = 660) recounted predominantly identity-ambiguous mistreatment. The minority (n = 250) reported globally High Victimization. Chi-square analyses determined that gender-sexuality subgroups were unevenly distributed among mistreatment groups, χ2 (9) = 113.14, p < .001. Sexual minority men (12.30%) and women (12.71%) were over twice as likely to report High Victimization compared to heterosexual men (4.97%) and women (6.04%). Finally, multiple ANOVAs revealed sociodemographic and mistreatment associations with institutional relations. College satisfaction was lower among sexual minorities (M = 5.34, SD = 1.51) compared to heterosexuals (M = 5.64, SD = 1.33), F(1, 3947) = 15.38, p < .001, 2 = .004; Uncivil and High Victimization were similarly deleterious, F(3, 3947) = 20.82, p < .001, 2= .016. Only High Victimization eroded trust in harassment reporting mechanisms, F(3, 3278) = 3.31, p = .019, 2 = .003. These students reported the least safety on campus (M = 5.13, SD = 1.56), F(3, 3941) = 26.41, p < .001, 2 = .020, and lowest academic engagement (M = 5.47, SD = 1.13), F(3, 3937) = 30.61, p < .001, 2 = .023. The Uncivil group (M = 5.40, SD = 1.46) felt less safety than the Hetero/Sexist group (M = 5.73, SD = 1.37). Women (M = 5.03, SD = 1.45) felt less safe than men (M = 6.32, SD = 0.85), F(1, 2941) = 339.20, p < .001, 2 = .080. Sexual minorities (M = 5.32, SD = 1.52) felt less safe than heterosexuals (M = 5.71, SD = 1.33) overall, F(1, 2941) = 25.66, p < .001, 2 = .006, and within mistreatment groups, F(3, 2941) = 6.78, p < .001, 2 = .005. Sexual minorities (M = 5.83, SD = 0.90), F(1, 3937) = 14.25, p < .001, 2 = .004, and men (M = 5.96, SD = 0.86), F(1, 3937) = 19.47, p < .001, 2 = .005, were less engaged compared to heterosexuals (M = 6.04, SD = 0.82) and women (M = 6.07, SD = 0.80). Highly victimized women (M = 5.62, SD = 1.01) had resilient engagement compared to similarly targeted men (M = 5.29, M = 1.23), F(3, 3937) = 4.10, p = .007, 2 = .003. While victimized and marginalized students’ diminished institutional relations could be characterized by disconnection (Tinto, 1975), they may simultaneously rely on this university to live, learn, work, and socialize (Smith & Freyd, 2014). College students’ strained attitudes and disengagement alongside gendered mistreatment might be best characterized as institutional estrangement, whereby they navigate simultaneous alienation and dependency.Subjects
campus climate discrimination gender intersectionality sexual harassment sexual orientation
Types
Thesis
Metadata
Show full item recordCollections
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.