Profiling Institutional Estrangement: Contours and Consequences of Gendered Mistreatment in College

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.