Stakeholder Perceptions of Direct Conferencing as an Approach to Repairing Harm in Campus Sexual Misconduct Cases

The present research assessed university student stakeholders’ perceptions of positive outcomes (i.e., appropriateness and benefits of conferencing) and negative outcomes (i.e., endangerment and revictimization of the complainant) associated with restorative justice-based direct conferencing in sexual misconduct cases. Stakeholders received random assignment to a 2 (allegation severity: more vs. less) × 2 (evidence strength: lower vs. higher) between-participant experimental design. More severe allegations and higher evidence strength were associated with lower ratings of appropriateness; allegation severity and evidence strength interacted to affect ratings of benefits; and more severe allegations, but not stronger evidence, were associated with higher ratings of endangerment and revictimization. Belief in the alleged perpetrator’s guilt explained the relationship between evidence strength and ratings of appropriateness, and desire to punish the alleged perpetrator explained the relationship between allegation severity and ratings of appropriateness. Researchers and Title IX coordinators should evaluate and respond to stakeholder sentiment toward direct conferencing.