Title IX and “Trauma-Focused” Investigations: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly UC Irvine UC Irvine Previously Published Works Title Title IX and "Trauma-Focused" Investigations: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/31n1p8sr Journal JOURNAL OF APPLIED RESEARCH IN MEMORY AND COGNITION, 8(4) ISSN 2211-3681 Authors Davis, Deborah Loftus, Elizabeth F Publication Date 2019-12-01 DOI 10.1016/j.jarmac.2019.08.001 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California https://escholarship.org/uc/item/31n1p8sr https://escholarship.org http://www.cdlib.org/ Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 8 (2019) 403–410 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / j a r m a c Commentary Title IX and “Trauma-Focused” Investigations: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly Deborah Davis ∗ University of Nevada, Reno, United States Elizabeth F. Loftus a r t a i c f c a s s a e m p m t p a c r p t e h v i r o nia, p n p t u c t ( e c f c p c e a o e e t d r “ a p g University of Califor Beginning in earnest during the Obama era, campus, state, nd federal authorities have struggled to find Title IX rules, egulations, and investigatory procedures that would balance he needs and rights of those who allege sexual harassment or ssault against those of the accused. The “dear colleague” letter ssued in 2011 (US Department of Education, 2011) reminded ampuses of requirements under Title IX and issued guidelines or their enforcement, including those concerning the nature of ampus policies, the operation of Title IX offices and officials, nd the process of resolution of complaints. Although the letter pecified—as does Title IX itself—that “equitable” procedures hould be used, it did not require that due process protections be dopted (such as allowing lawyers to participate, access to all vidence), but merely stated that if allowed at all, both parties ust be able to use them. It specified that due process must be rovided for the accused, but at the same time, these protections ust not restrict or unnecessarily delay Title IX protections for he complainant. It also required that the relatively lax “pre- onderance of the evidence” standard of proof be employed to ssess any claim, thereby making it easier to find in favor of the omplainant. In September of 2017, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos escinded Obama era regulations. In November of 2018 DeVos roposed changes designed to eliminate restrictions in the inves- igations, to bolster the rights of the accused, to encourage more quitable investigations, and to allow the option to choose a igher standard of proof for allegations (such as “clear and con- incing” rather than “preponderance of evidence”). Changes ncluded options that either had not been mentioned or not equired in Title IX regulations or DOE guidance, or not adopted r permitted in specific campus regulations. These included the Author Note. Deborah Davis, University of Nevada, Reno, NV, United States. Elizabeth F. Loftus, University of California, Irvine, United States. D i s t Irvine, United States reviously absent or restricted right to cross-examine the wit- esses during mandatory live hearings, equal opportunity to resent witnesses and to examine evidence, and separation of hose who investigate the complaint from those who make the ltimate finding. Even as DeVos proposed such changes, some ourts had begun to order colleges to offer due process pro- ections for the accused, such as the right to question accusers Watanabe, 2018). Title IX itself, the “dear colleague” guidance, and subsequent fforts to revise relevant regulations and procedures have evoked onsiderable controversy and criticism. Reflecting this dissatis- action, our society has seen a growing number of individual and lass action lawsuits brought against universities by alleged per- etrators who claimed that their rights were violated by unfair ampus regulations and investigatory procedures, and by biased xecution of these procedures (Watanabe, 2019). While some re ongoing, nearly half of these plaintiffs have won their suits r settled their claims with the schools (Gersen, 2019). Appar- ntly, the DOE (2011) Title IX guidance has had the unintended ffect of spawning procedures that violated many of its own dic- ates regarding equity and fairness. We regard the widespread iscussion, airing of divergent views, and efforts to continually evise and improve the relevant regulations and processes as the good” associated with Title IX. But despite these efforts, s we write this article, Title IX campus investigatory rules and rocedures are still hotly debated. Campus Title IX offices have scrambled to comply with new uidance, regulations, and court rulings, and to offer increas- ∗ Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Deborah avis, University of Nevada, Reno, United States. Contact: debdavis@unr.edu. ng due process protections to defendants while still offering upport and protection to alleged victims. On the one hand, here is no question that alleged victims of sexual assault have https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2019.08.001 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/22113681 http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jarmac http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.jarmac.2019.08.001&domain=pdf mailto:debdavis@unr.edu FOC h c c T l s t t o u h r t r p K i s t r a i p a g t c c t n v o m o w a ( i m e d i t c i r t t o l f t fl I n 1 b e i d t t h c i T “ a i h g r P c I t e a b m a p e o e d m c e t a n n m a i m e a h b TITLE IX AND TRAUMA istorically faced extraordinary scrutiny and doubt of their laims, greater than that faced by victims of any other rime (see Rerick, Livingston, & Davis, in press, for review). his fact has been brought home once again by a recent engthy investigation documenting the widespread, and—in ome jurisdictions—almost complete failure of law enforcement o take claims of rape seriously. “Seriously” means enough even o test rape kits or to otherwise pursue thorough investigation f reported rapes (Hagerty, 2019). Hagerty suggested such fail- res reflect an “epidemic of disbelief” of victims of rape that as led to an overwhelming societal failure to catch and convict apists. Likewise, the social science literature has documented he many factors contributing to failure of victims to report ape, disbelief of victims who do report, and failure to convict erpetrators (e.g., Allison & Wrightsman, 1993; Reddington & reisel, 2017; Ward, 1995). Here we do not question these real- ties, nor do we suggest that the problems facing real victims of exual assault have ceased. On the other hand, it is also clear that in an effort to counter hese problems for the victim, Title IX investigatory rules and egulations—and how they are enacted—have placed many ccused in jeopardy. In practice, there is a presumption of truth n claims of rape, and an adoption of investigatory training and rocedures that may bias findings in favor of the complainant nd against the accused, to the point that some schools’ investi- ators or adjudicators have been trained to “start by believing” he complainant (Gersen, 2019). While we recognize the many hallenges facing real victims of sexual assault in having their laims taken seriously and prosecuted fairly, we also suggest hat a system that tends to presume guilt of the perpetrator is o better than one that refuses to recognize valid claims of the ictim. And, as Meissner and Lyle (2019) note, any presumption f guilt or other bias toward one party can set in motion confir- atory processes leading to biased collection and interpretation f evidence. In the sections to come, we discuss the basis of these concerns, ith focus on Title IX investigations, including (a) some flawed ssumptions that may directly promote judgments of guilt; b) investigatory procedures that can produce evidence biased n favor of complainants; (c) incorrect assumptions regarding emory and behavior that encourage interpretation of available vidence as favoring the complainant (but nevertheless may pro- uce biases against them in some cases); and (d) omission of nformation in training and in collection of evidence in inves- igations that would importantly inform judgments. We devote onsiderable attention to the nature of trauma-focused interview- ng and the way in which these four categories of concerns are eflected in the training for such interviews and in the interviews hemselves. Title IX Investigations and the Presumption of Guilt There has long been an argument among prosecutors and vic- im advocates that the base rate of guilt among those accused f sexual assault is extraordinarily high. That is, many in the egal system make the assumption that almost no allegations are alse, and trial testimony by purported experts citing statistics o t p t USED INVESTIGATIONS 404 o this effect is common (despite fundamental methodological aws in studies attempting to establish rates of false allegations). n effect, just as Carl Sagan famously asserted that extraordi- ary claims require extraordinary evidence, (Sagan & Druyan, 997), prosecutors invite jurors to presume a false allegation to e extremely unlikely (extraordinary), and therefore to require xtraordinary evidence of innocence to vote to acquit. Notwithstanding admonitions to conduct fair and equitable nvestigations, we suggest that Title IX regulations and proce- ures reflect this assumption of low base rate innocence among he accused, and that they may well infuse this assumption into he minds of those who must investigate and judge rape or sexual arassment complaints. There are numerous reasons for such a laim. First, the renewed emphasis on Title IX concerns was nspired in part by widely publicized statistics on campus rapes. he DOE “dear colleague” letter (2011) stated at the outset that the statistics on sexual violence are both deeply troubling and call to action for the nation” and proceeded to report statistics ndicating that 20% of college women and 6% of college males ave experienced sexual assault (p. 2). Though the methodolo- ies for assessing rates of sexual assault and the accuracy of such ates have been contested (see Krause et al., 2018; Muehlenhard, eterson, Humphreys, & Jozkowski, 2017 for reviews), they ontinue to be presented in multiple contexts, including in Title X training. The evolution of Title IX regulations and procedures has con- inued in the context of the #metoo movement. The movement mphasizes the pervasive nature of sexual harassment and sexual ssault and the extent to which reporting these actions has long een discouraged, and disbelieved when reported. Widespread edia coverage and discussion related to #metoo encourages cultural zeitgeist suggesting claims are to be believed and erpetrators brought to a long overdue reckoning. Second, though even the Obama era DOE letter (2011) mphasized the importance of fair and equitable procedures at ne level, it and subsequent regulations have simultaneously mphasized the importance of student safety on campus, and in oing so have disadvantaged the accused. Their specific state- ents regarding safety and associated rules and procedures oncern the safety of alleged victims, not of the accused. For xample, an accused may be subject to exclusion from any con- act with the accuser (including being removed from dormitories nd classes, or being suspended) even prior to any determi- ation of guilt. Due process protections for the accused must ot interfere with provision of safety for the accuser. Active easures must be taken to prevent revenge of the accused gainst the accuser. Moreover, remedies for the complainant can nclude escorts to ensure safety from the accused, counseling or edical services, academic support services such as tutoring, nsuring that class withdrawals do not affect the complainant’s cademic record, and reviewing the complainant’s disciplinary istory to assess whether any problems may have been caused y the actions of the accused. But none of these apply the ther way around (DOE, 2011). These reflect an assumption hat the accuser is indeed a victim, though it is clearly also ossible that the accused may be the victim of a false allega- ion. FOC t v F F C “ t e F F 2 e v 2 p m a n r w t a e t r a e b b T d o o F o I d p i f a t j P d e p a c t r t a t r a m i o m f I w f i e e c u d r i w e v n a t r p i t P “ d a t o a p c t t o i e c TITLE IX AND TRAUMA Third, we suggest that a presumption of guilt is reflected in he very notion of “trauma focused” or “trauma informed” inter- iews and investigations. As Meissner and Lyle (2019) note, the irst Report of the White House Task Force to Protect Students rom Sexual Assault (2014) tasked the Justice Department’s enter for Campus Public Safety with the development of a trauma-informed” training program for investigation of allega- ions of sexual misconduct. This focus on trauma was further ncouraged during the Obama administration and later the Task orce’s second report in 2017. This focus is reflected in the orensic Experiential Trauma Interview (Strand & Heitman, 017) and in many statements and training materials for law nforcement, statements posted on campus websites, those of ictim advocate organizations, and others (e.g., Webb et al., 018). Though there is much “good” about the recommended rocess of the interview and many accuracies in portrayal of emory processes, the “bad” consists of additional incorrect nd unstated assumptions and specific assertions about how the ature of interviewee memory reports informs judgments of the eality of their claims, and the “ugly” consists of the way in hich these fallacies can mislead judgments: mostly favoring he complainant, but in some cases inappropriately favoring the ccused. It is worth noting at this stage that training for FETI ncourages the assumption that the accuser is traumatized (and herefore was raped), and encourages the interpretation of all esponses as consistent with that trauma. Problematic Investigatory Tools: The Case of FETI (Forensic Experiential Trauma Interview) As Meissner and Lyle (2019) discuss, the procedures of FETI re largely empirically supported, in that they essentially adopt lements of the widely tested Cognitive Interview, developed y Fisher and Geiselman (1992; 2010) and since shown to e effective in eliciting true information and minimizing false. hese include developing rapport and demonstrating empathy, eveloping the interviewee’s interest in the interview, use of pen-ended prompts, active listening, and avoidance of leading r suggestive questions, for example. Differences lie primarily in ETI’s emphasis on asking about emotions and sensory mem- ries, though such questions are also used with the Cognitive nterview. We find little fault with the recommended interview proce- ure itself, though we do note that there is much less attention aid in campus procedures and by promoters of FETI to what s the appropriate way to interview the accused. Instead, we ocus here on several problematic assumptions and on question- ble assertions concerning the meaning of responses obtained hrough use of FETI and the way in which they may mislead udgment, primarily in favor of the complainant. roblematic Assumption 1: Sexual Assault Necessarily Pro- uces Trauma Sufficient to Disable Cognition FETI training suggests that sexual assault will be experi- nced as severely traumatic (see Strand & Heitman, 2017; and resentation of Strand posted at https://vimeo.com/117832921), s does the general exhortation of Title IX guidance to t p m h USED INVESTIGATIONS 405 onduct trauma-informed investigations. From this assumption, he training goes on to discuss how memory works when expe- iencing trauma and what this will mean for the nature of raumatized persons’ accounts. Derivations concerning memory nd the meaning of memory reports are based on the presump- ion that cognition will be profoundly affected. Such claims aise the question of the extent to which the experiences of ll or most victims of sexual assault (nevermind sexual harass- ent) include negative emotions rising to the level presumed n FETI training. That is, the training materials present effects f extreme trauma on stress hormones, cognition, behavior, and emory rising to the level of disabling frontal lobe executive unctions and exerting debilitating effects on memory formation. f the event in question does not create such extreme emotions, hat does this mean for the remainder of the training speci- ying what to expect victim accounts to look like and for the mplications of either conforming or not conforming to those xpectations? It is highly unlikely that all sexual assaults result in such xtreme emotional reactions (particularly in many disputed ases of acquaintance rape) and even more unlikely that all sex- al harassment does so. The level of negative emotion that will isable cognition to the extent proposed by FETI training is a elatively high standard. Many of the same considerations raised n the repressed memory literature are relevant in cases of rape as ell (e.g., Clancy, 2009; McNally, 2003). How extreme were the motions at the time it occurred (even when blunted by alcohol), ersus experienced later upon reflection, for example? When do egative emotions cross the line to become sufficient to dis- ble cognition to the extent FETI training suggests? We suggest hat the extreme trauma assumption itself and related theories egarding effects of trauma on memory and behavior are both roblematic, and, as we explore below, can lead to inappropriate nculpation of the accused as well as inappropriate disbelief of he alleged victim. roblematic Assumption 2: Trauma Is a One-Way Street Generally, Title IX investigations are tasked with being victim-centered” and “trauma-informed.” This exhortation irects much of the effort toward care and handling of the lleged victim (including greater victim-focus in interview raining). The theory and training of FETI, for example, focuses n how to interview the alleged victim. Where the alleged ssailant is mentioned in the training, it is to contrast the resumed status of the victim and assailant brains and pro- essing status (disabled by emotion vs. calm and rational), and herefore the likely types of memory reports they will be able o offer (disorganized, fragmentary and difficult to access vs. rganized and more accessible). The import of the discussion s to suggest that the assailant will not likely experience intense motions and therefore will not experience impairments of ognition or memory—at least not impairments approaching hose experienced by the alleged victim. Purportedly, the erpetrator will be calm and unemotional, in part because ost are repeat offenders who plan assaults and find them abitual and enjoyable in most instances (https://www.bwjp. https://vimeo.com/117832921 https://www.bwjp.org/resource-center/resource-results/the-forensic-experiential-trauma-interview-feti.html FOC o t t n m t f a C r 1 c h S t t a a i t a p a l m e s a m m b a a i r t p d z t e a T a r a b t s w i u t t i P C N a t v p r t t A b r b r s e o e t h n m a w t a t P R D o c v l c t o c u t t e e TITLE IX AND TRAUMA rg/resource-center/resource-results/the-forensic-experiential- rauma-interview-feti.html). But in a fair process, shouldn’t consideration of emotion and rauma extend to the accused? If a person is innocent, strong egative emotions are not likely relevant until an accusation is ade. But once an accused becomes aware of the accusation, hey are undoubtedly common. One of us (Loftus) worked on the amous case of Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago, who himself was ccused of sexual misconduct by a former seminarian, Stephen ook. Writing in his memoir, the Cardinal talked about his initial eaction: He was “startled and devastated” (Bernardin, 1997, p. 9). He would also tell others that the false accusation and the ancer that ultimately killed him were the worst things that had appened to him in his life. Fortunately, before Bernardin died tephen Cook dropped the case, making clear by his comments hat he was convinced of Bernardin’s innocence. But how might he terrible emotional devastation Bernardin felt because of the ccusation have affected his reports during relevant interviews? Strong emotions can affect the encoding of events. But they lso impair retrieval. FETI training notes that the potential for ntense emotions and re-traumatization is present for alleged vic- ims, even during a supportive FETI interview—and these may ffect memory reports. A more everyday experience is when eople cannot remember something while nervous in front of an udience or while taking a test, but remember as soon as they eave the stressful situation. Such processes likely also affect emory reports for respondents. In addition to effects of strong motion, an innocent accused may also be distracted by the truggle for answers. He may be confused by the unexpected ccusation and struggle to understand why the accusation was ade, or how his behaviors might have been misreported or isinterpreted. To the extent that a FETI interviewer expects the accused to e able to provide a linear “who, what, where, when, and how” ccount and the accuser to provide a disorganized, incomplete nd sometimes inconsistent account (as suggested by FETI train- ng: e.g., Strand webinar presentation: https://www.bwjp.org/ esource-center/resource-results/the-forensic-experiential- rauma-interview-feti.html), that interviewer may inappro- riately interpret normal failures of memory as indicators of eception by the accused, while interpreting similar disorgani- ation or mistakes as indicators of truth for the accuser. In short, here are many potential explanations for failures of frontal lobe xecutive functions, and for memory disorganization, errors nd omissions of the sort anticipated by FETI for victims. hese include alcohol or drug impairment, stress during recall, nd lying. Such report characteristics cannot be assumed to eflect the validity of either party’s account. Other inequities regarding interviews or their interpretation re also important. For example, given that the accused may also e traumatized, the same considerations of safety and accep- ance should apply as for accusers. Moreover, as FETI trainers uggest, asking open-ended questions about what the person as thinking or feeling during an event can trigger important nformation for the investigation. These techniques should be sed to give respondents the best chance to retrieve poten- ially exculpatory information, just as they are recommended t s c C USED INVESTIGATIONS 406 o give the accuser the chance to retrieve accusation supportive nformation. roblematic Assumption 3: Reliable Differences Exist in haracteristics of Memory Reports for Traumatic versus on-Traumatic Events FETI materials outline the way in which trauma is expected to ffect the manner of encoding, and therefore memory reports, for raumatic events. Space does not permit full exploration of the alidity of all such claims. However, many are correct: for exam- le, claims that intense emotion can impair frontal lobe function, educe control of attention, focus attention more strongly on he perceiver’s central concerns or the most salient aspects of he event, reduce attention to peripheral concerns, and others. s a result, the accounts of victims of trauma will purportedly e disorganized, focus on feelings and sensations, be inaccu- ate regarding timing, order, and other contextual details, and e inconsistent within and across tellings. Normal pathways of etrieval are expected to be impaired due to peritraumatic dis- ociation, which prevents normal associative pathways between lements of the event from being formed and makes retrieval f relevant memories more difficult. In contrast, the accused is xpected to provide much more organized accounts, better able o satisfy demands of investigators for “who, what, when, where, ow” information. As Meissner and Lyle (2019) review, however, evidence does ot support the predicted stark differences in accounts of trau- atic versus non-traumatic memories, or between accused and ccuser. The FETI training fails to acknowledge the many path- ays to any given failure or characteristic of memory. Moreover, here is almost no mention in FETI training of the way in which lcohol may alter the emotional experience of sexual assault or he interaction of alcohol and emotion on memory processes. roblematic Assumption 4: Characteristics of Memory eports Can Be Taken as “Evidence” of Whether Trauma id Occur An issue of considerable importance is that of whether mem- ry reports taken with FETI procedures and judged under FETI laims regarding traumatic and non-traumatic memories and ictim-perpetrator differences in memory characteristics will ead to more accurate conclusions regarding the truth of the laims. Several issues are relevant to this question. Is there really a “profile” of a true report? The unfor- unately “ugly” result of FETI-related mistaken assumptions f whose memory reports should look how and under what onditions is the risk of mistaken judgments. A particularly gly feature of FETI training is that it specifically suggests hat if memory reports of alleged victims fit the “profile” of hose expected from a trauma victim, this fit should serve as vidence that the report is true: “good solid neurobiological sci- nce routinely demonstrates that, when a person is stressed or raumatized, inconsistent statements are not only the norm, but ometimes strong evidence that the memory was encoded in the ontext of severe stress and trauma” (Strand & Heitman, p. 2). learly, given that evidence does not show that trauma is the https://www.bwjp.org/resource-center/resource-results/the-forensic-experiential-trauma-interview-feti.html https://www.bwjp.org/resource-center/resource-results/the-forensic-experiential-trauma-interview-feti.html https://www.bwjp.org/resource-center/resource-results/the-forensic-experiential-trauma-interview-feti.html https://www.bwjp.org/resource-center/resource-results/the-forensic-experiential-trauma-interview-feti.html https://www.bwjp.org/resource-center/resource-results/the-forensic-experiential-trauma-interview-feti.html FOC u a a ( f c t r n i t b h r f p o w n t s t o p F n p o F a m t c m c i e ( l e m H s f t k r d w a v o b i c t a i t p p i a t c b c J A D b n i D D t t r p r a s i h a B h O J h t r o i a u J s i h a t c u TITLE IX AND TRAUMA nitary cause for such memory reports (see next section), such n assumption poses considerable risk of an overly confident ttribution of truth to an accusation. FETI developer Strand made other such claims in his webinar https://www.bwjp.org/resource-center/resource-results/the- orensic-experiential-trauma-interview-feti.html). One such laim might disadvantage actual victims. That is, Strand stated hat he would be suspicious of alleged victims who were able to emember too much peripheral detail (because trauma should arrow attentional focus to central aspects of the event). It s notable, though, that he also made the contradictory claim hat because victims often dissociate during rape, they may e focusing on peripheral details to avoid focus on what is appening. Strand also claimed that when alleged victims eport expected emotional/behavioral reactions (e.g., terror, reezing), these reactions (which he clearly presumes true) can rovide support for required elements of proof for prosecution f rape claims, such as fear, force, or nonconsent. In other ords, the victim’s reported reactions are considered proof that onconsensual or forcible sex did occur. What other explanations exist for memory features FETI raining attributes to trauma? The claims above adopt logic uch as the following: If men have four appendages, then all crea- ures with four appendages must be men! Just as there are many ther creatures with four appendages, there are also many factors otentially responsible for the types of memory accounts that ETI training offers as evidence of trauma (or against). Promi- ent among them is intoxication, which, at high levels tends to roduce fragmentary memories, myopic focus impairing mem- ry for periphery, and other effects similar to those specified by ETI training (see Davis & Loftus, 2016, for review). Gener- lly, one might ask how the purported memory effects of trauma ight be different from what happens when one is asked about hings (or is trying to remember things) that were never encoded learly for any reason, or when one is lying. But even truth tellers ay provide less coherent or complete reports when under the ognitive load imposed by the stresses of an accusation, the nvestigation, interviews, and worry over consequences. Mod- rn studies of lie detection have focused, as Meissner and Lyle 2019) review, on what happens when one imposes a cognitive oad on would-be deceivers. A liar will have trouble with periph- ral details, and with unusual requests for information or unusual anners of retrieval (such as reverse order; see Vrij, 2019; Vrij, artwig, & Granhag, 2019). Combined with the effects of other tressors, the cognitive load imposed by efforts to lie success- ully can produce memory reports sharing many features with hose FETI training attributes to trauma. Does sex-related trauma = sexual assault? One thing to eep in mind while considering the issue of “traumatic” memo- ies is that a person may experience fear, high stress, or “trauma” uring a sexual encounter, even though objective judgment ould not suggest the encounter should be viewed as sexual ssault. This scenario might occur, for example, if the alleged ictim found the encounter highly aversive, but provided no vert indicators of nonconsent, or engaged in overtly voluntary, ut actually unwanted, sex. In such circumstances, the advice nherent to the FETI training (Strand & Heitman, 2017) to m l a c USED INVESTIGATIONS 407 onsider evidence of trauma (in the form of memory charac- eristics and reports of emotions) as evidence of truth of the ccusation can lead to misleading inferences that these feelings ndicate assault. One of us (Davis) served as expert witness in a case illus- rating perfectly the problems with such an assumption. The articipants, who we will call Jane and John, were both inex- erienced: she a virgin and he a near virgin. They were both nterested in one another, and arranged a late meeting at his partment to watch a movie. Jane had told John early in the visit hat she wasn’t ready for sex yet (the primary argument for non- onsent). Yet, as the evening progressed she engaged in many ehaviors that suggest consent. Her cross-examination at trial onsisted in essence of the following: Did you get in bed with ohn? [Yes.] Did you make out with him with clothes on? [Yes.] t some point, did he begin to remove your shirt [bra]? [Yes.] id you say no or try to stop him? [No.] At some point, did he eing to remove your shorts [underwear]? [Yes.] Did you say o, tell him to stop, or try to physically stop him? [No] Did you n fact raise your buttocks as he tried to remove them? [Yes.] id he then move to position himself between your legs? [Yes.] id you spread your legs voluntarily? [Yes.] Did you at any ime tell him not to insert his penis, say no, or in any way try o physically stop him? [No.] Nevertheless, Jane immediately eported the incident as rape to authorities. She made a recorded hone call at their behest to attempt to get John to admit to the ape on the record. During the call she talked about her feelings nd the fact that she had early on told him she wasn’t ready for ex, and tried to get him to admit that he knew she didn’t want t. For his part, John was obviously excited at first to hear from er, talked about when they could get together again, and clearly ssumed the previous night was the beginning of a relationship. ut as Jane disclosed her feelings, cried, and talked about how e had to have known she didn’t want it, John exclaimed “Jane! h my god! Jane! I raped you! Oh my god! I didn’t realize! ane! I’m so sorry. I’m so sorry. What can I do? I didn’t want to urt you!” Nothing could have been clearer from their accounts and their rial testimony. Jane really hadn’t wanted to have sex. She expe- ienced intense negative emotions, arguably trauma, as the result f the interaction. She exhibited strong distress, and cried often, n her initial report, hearings, and trial, and upon news of John’s cquittal. And yet, John clearly had no clue that she felt this way ntil the call the day after their encounter. His surprise was clear. ane had not overtly made clear her very real desire not to have ex. FETI trainers and others may assume that Jane experienced ntense fear as it became clear to her that John might attempt to ave sex with her, and as a result experienced “tonic immobility” nd the inability to marshal resistance, and indeed she reported hat she wanted to resist and didn’t know why she didn’t or ouldn’t. But this does not justify a finding of rape when it was nambiguous that John received no cues of resistance, and he ade a genuine “mistake of fact” regarding consent. Confusion, ack of experience, and a poorly developed repertoire for negoti- ting potentially sexual interactions among naïve young people an produce many similar scenarios among college students. https://www.bwjp.org/resource-center/resource-results/the-forensic-experiential-trauma-interview-feti.html https://www.bwjp.org/resource-center/resource-results/the-forensic-experiential-trauma-interview-feti.html FOC P O F a t m w t a v t r t s t d c q s c m c p t e 2 2 8 i t p t r o M r s g i t t L t i n i u m r i i s d a r f t L a g s ( t t t l g m i p ( R R i o t r r n t o d a c o t H fi ( e a t n p c c whether each interpreted the other correctly. It is truly a diffi- TITLE IX AND TRAUMA roblematic Assumption 5: FETI’s Focus on Emotion Has nly Positive Effects The story of John and Jane raises another question regarding ETI. That is, great emphasis is placed on asking the accuser bout the emotions and sensations she experienced during he event. The assumption is that such emotions and sensory emories are stronger than memory for “who, what, when, here, and why” details. Emotion and sensory-focused ques- ions purportedly build rapport with the interviewee and can lso trigger associative pathways by which the traumatized ictim may be able to retrieve memories for other aspects of he event (Strand & Heitman, 2017; https://www.bwjp.org/ esource-center/resource-results/the-forensic-experiential- rauma-interview-feti.html). We agree. But emotion focus, pecifically, is likely to have other effects as well, raising he question of whether FETI’s emotion focus may be a ouble-edged sword. In particular, two important issues deserve onsideration. What of the effects of emotion priming? Emotion related uestions and prompts to relive emotions and sensations clearly erve a priming function. For a complex event, such priming ould lead to preferential retrieval of emotion-consistent infor- ation at the expense of the contradictory, as shown by mood onsistent retrieval effects. Moreover, as shown in the affective riming literature, emotion at retrieval can serve as context for he information that is retrieved, causing it to be interpreted in an motion-consistent fashion (e.g. Bower & Forgas, 2001; Forgas, 008; Gibbons, Seib-Pfeifer, Koppelheie-Gossel, & Schnuerch, 018). Finally, fuzzy trace theory (e.g., Brainerd & Reyna, 2005, p. 3) would predict that strong emotion memories, particularly n the absence of clear verbatim memories, would likely lead o constructive memory errors consistent with the emotion. The erson might remember things that would be consistent with he emotion, even if they didn’t happen (such as attempts to esist, or coercive actions by the accused), and fail to remember, r reinterpret actions that were inconsistent with the emotion. ore generally, fuzzy trace theory suggests that when memo- ies are unclear, one’s general knowledge of what is likely in uch circumstances will lead to memory errors consistent with eneral knowledge or expectations. In this way, if FETI training s correct regarding the lack of clarity in traumatic memories, his lack of clarity leaves open greater opportunity for memory o be distorted in the direction of expectations. Or, as Davis and oftus (2016) put it, we tend to remember based on “who we hink we are and what we think we did.” John and Jane were not ntoxicated during their encounter. But how much more opportu- ity for expectation-based errors is imposed by alcohol, or other mpairments to memory clarity? How good is memory for emotion itself? The FETI theory nderlying its recommended procedures implies that emotion emory will be accurate and strong. These emotion memo- ies can be used as pathways to retrieve accurate event-related nformation. But what if the person remembers the emotions ncorrectly? A substantial literature exists to document incon- istencies in memories for emotion over time, and sources of c c t USED INVESTIGATIONS 408 istortion in memory for emotion comparable to those for other spects of event memory. Notably, like other memories, memo- ies for emotions are “functional,” and alter over time in ways to acilitate one’s current needs or goals, and they generally change o be consistent with current beliefs and appraisals (see Levine, ench, & Safer, 2009, for review). Given that emotion memories re malleable, and particularly toward consistency with current oals, it is quite possible that when interviewees are asked to tart with how they felt during an event, the emotions they report and that serve as associative cues or as primes) may not reflect hose experienced during the event, and as such, will not serve o prompt accurate memories or interpretations of the event. Sexual Behavior and Sexual Consent Communications: A Glaring Area of Omission in Title IX Training Our story of John and Jane raises other issues that are crucial o judgment of sexual assault. That is, there is a large scientific iterature on how sexual consent is conveyed and interpreted, ender differences in perception of the meaning of behaviors that ight or might not indicate consent, sources of misunderstand- ng of consent, effects of alcohol use on consent processes and erceptions, and other individual differences in these respects e.g., see Davis & Loftus, 2016; Davis & Villalobos, 2014; erick et al., in press; Villalobos, Davis, & Leo, 2016; Wood, ikkonen, & Davis, in press, for reviews). Whereas the case of John and Jane is relatively clear regard- ng whether Jane displayed cues of nonconsent once the making ut began, and many others are similar, it is also often the case hat the clarity of consent is more difficult to judge, and cor- espondingly, the defense of reasonable mistake of fact. In this espect, greater training concerning norms of how consent or onconsent tends to be communicated and interpreted in prac- ice would be very useful. Did the accuser fail to convey cues f nonconsent widely recognized among students as such, or id the accused fail to recognize them if they occurred? Did the ccuser engage in behaviors that she felt had nothing to do with onsent, but that are widely considered to indicate consent? To ur knowledge such issues are not covered in Title IX trainings. Unfortunately, issues of interpretation complicate the task of hose who must judge even further. FETI advocates Strand and eitman (2017) noted that “What many in the criminal justice eld have been educated to believe people do when they lie e.g., changes in body language, affect, ah-filled pauses, lack of ye contact, etc.) actually occur naturally when human beings re highly stressed or traumatized” (p. 2). It is indeed clear that here are many confusions regarding both what may or may ot indicate accuracy, subjective truth, or lying, as well as how erceivers understand and use such cues. The issue of consent ommunications adds to this the task of judging whether such ommunications conveyed each person’s intentions clearly and ult and error-fraught enterprise to judge who interpreted events orrectly in the first place, who remembers accurately, who is elling the truth as they know it, and who is lying. https://www.bwjp.org/resource-center/resource-results/the-forensic-experiential-trauma-interview-feti.html https://www.bwjp.org/resource-center/resource-results/the-forensic-experiential-trauma-interview-feti.html https://www.bwjp.org/resource-center/resource-results/the-forensic-experiential-trauma-interview-feti.html FOC o “ p c I “ q t t i v p t t h v o r i q s o e i r a w e t t v a v c r A B B B C D D F F F G G H K L N M M R R TITLE IX AND TRAUMA Conclusions and Caveats Meissner and Lyle (2019) clearly lay out the case that much f what is taught to Title IX investigators—whether basic facts,” recommended procedures, or the theory underlying such rocedures—lacks empirical tests or is unsupported or directly ontradicted by existing research. We agree. We have pointed to some problems with the training of Title X investigators and the specific procedure of FETI and other trauma-focused” interviewing. This discussion leaves open the uestion of how the investigations tend to be performed in prac- ice. As Meissner and Lyle (2019) review, there are no formal raining or minimum qualifications for those tasked with enact- ng recommended procedures, although such training may occur oluntarily, and many Title IX officials and investigators may ossess important relevant qualifications. Assuredly, however, here will be significant variability in the manner and compe- ence with which investigations are carried out. Such problems ave been manifest in lawsuits against many colleges and uni- ersities based on failures of due process. More development f specific guidelines for how to conduct the investigations or ecommended procedures (versus broad instructions such as to nterview both parties) is needed. It is also safe to assume that few investigators have ade- uate training in the many relevant areas of scientific knowledge uch as detection of deception, interviewing, suggestion, mem- ry, sexual behavior, sexual consent communications, and the ffects of trauma on thinking, memory and behavior. This miss- ng knowledge makes the task of making sense of the many eports and claims more fraught with error. Meissner and Lyle (2019) point to the need to develop nd employ evidence-based best practices for interviewing. We ould add to this the need to provide more comprehensive ducation to those who must judge the complaints. Such educa- ion should cover evidence-based recommendations about how o interpret the information elicited through improved inter- iewing practices. Additionally, such education should convey ccurate information about trauma and memory, as well as pro- ide needed information about sexual behavior, sexual consent ommunications, and other topics. Conflict of Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest. Author Contributions The authors discussed this and conceived it together. Keywords: Sexual assault, Memory, Title IX, Forensic Expe- iential Trauma Interview, FETI, Rape References llison, J. A., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1993). Rape: The misunderstood crime. New York, NY: Sage. ernardin, J. C. (1997). The gift of peace. Chicago: Loyola Press. ower, G. H., & Forgas, J. P. (2001). Mood and social memory. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Handbook of affect and social cognition (pp. 95–120). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. S USED INVESTIGATIONS 409 rainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (2005). The science of false memory. NY: Oxford University Press. lancy, S. (2009). The trauma myth: The truth about the sexual abuse of children–and its aftermath. In Basic Books. avis, D., & Loftus, E. F. (2016). Remembering disputed sexual encounters: A new frontier for witness memory research. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 105, 811–851. avis, D., & Villalobos, J. G. (2014). Language and the law: Illustra- tions from cases of disputed sexual consent. In T. Holtgraves (Ed.), Handbook of language and social psychology. Oxford: Oxford Uni- versity Press. isher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory-enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing: The cognitive interview. Springfield: Charles C Thomas, Publisher. isher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (2010). The cognitive interview method of conducting police interviews: Eliciting extensive infor- mation and promoting therapeutic jurisprudence. International Journal of Law & Psychiatry, 33, 321–328. orgas, J. P. (2008). Affect, cognition, and social behavior: The effects of mood on memory, social judgments, and social interaction. In M. A. Gluck, J. R. Anderson, & S. M. Kosslyn (Eds.), Memory and mind: A festschrift for Gordon H. Bower (pp. 261–279). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ersen, J. S. (2019, February 1). Assessing Betsy Devos’s pro- posed rules on Title IX and sexual assault. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/assessing-betsy- devos-proposed-rules-on-title-ix-and-sexual-assault ibbons, H., Seib-Pfeifer, L.-E., Koppelheie-Gossel, J., & Schnuerch, R. (2018). Affective priming and cognitive load: Event-related potentials suggest and interplay of implicit affect misattri- bution and strategic inhibition. Psychophysiology, 55, 1–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13009 agerty, B. B. (2019, August). An epidemic of disbelief: What new research reveals about sexual predators, and why police fail to catch them. Atlantic Magazine. https://www.theatlantic. com/magazine/archive/2019/08/an-epidemic-of-disbelief/592807/ rause, K. H., Woofter, R., Haardörfer, R., Windle, M., Sales, J. M., & Yount, K. M. (2018, October 1). Measuring campus sexual assault and culture: A systematic review of campus climate surveys. Psychology of Violence, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/vio0000209. Advance online publication evine, L. J., Lench, H. C., & Safer, M. A. (2009). Functions of remembering and misremembering emotion. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1059–1075. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.1610 ally Mc., R. M. (2003). Remembering trauma. Belknap Press. eissner, C. A., & Lyles, A. M. (2019). Title IX investigations: The importance of training investigators in evidence-based approaches to interviewing. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cog- nition, 8, 387–397. uehlenhard, E. L., Peterson, Z. D., Humphreys, T. P., & Jozkowski, K. N. (2017). Evaluating the one-in-five statistic: Women’s risk of sexual assault while in college. The Journal of Sex Research, 54, 549–576. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1295014 eddington, F. P., & Kreisel, B. W. (2017). Sexual assault: The vic- tim, the perpetrator, and the criminal justice system. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. erick, P. O., Livingston, T. N., & Davis, D. (in press). Rape and the jury. In W.O. O’Donohue, C. Cummings, & P. Schewe (Eds.), Handbook of sexual assault and sexual assault prevention. New York, NY: Springer. agan, C., & Druyan, A. (1997). The demon-haunted world: Science as a candle in the dark. Location: Ballantine Books. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0010 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0010 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0010 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0010 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0010 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0010 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0010 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0010 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0010 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0020 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0020 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0020 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0020 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0020 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0020 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0020 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0020 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0020 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0020 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0020 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0020 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0020 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0500 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0500 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0500 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0500 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0500 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0500 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0500 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0500 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0500 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0500 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0500 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0500 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0500 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0500 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0500 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0500 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0500 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0500 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0500 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0035 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0035 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0035 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0035 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0035 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0035 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0035 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0035 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0035 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0035 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0035 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0035 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0035 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0035 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0035 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0035 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0035 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0035 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0035 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0035 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0045 https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/assessing-betsy-devos-proposed-rules-on-title-ix-and-sexual-assault https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/assessing-betsy-devos-proposed-rules-on-title-ix-and-sexual-assault dx.doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13009 https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/08/an-epidemic-of-disbelief/592807/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/08/an-epidemic-of-disbelief/592807/ dx.doi.org/10.1037/vio0000209 dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.1610 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0505 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0505 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0505 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0505 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0505 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0505 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0140 dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1295014 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0090 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0090 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0090 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0090 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0090 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0090 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0090 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0090 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0090 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0090 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0090 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0090 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0090 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0090 FOC S V V V W W W W W Received 11 August 2019; accepted 11 August 2019 TITLE IX AND TRAUMA trand & Heitman (2017). The Forensic Experiential Trauma Interview (FETI). Downloaded on July 28th, 2019, from https://www.slideshare.net/LoriDHeitman/feti-public-description- jan-2017 illalobos, J. G., Davis, D., & Leo, R. A. (2016). His story, Her story: Sexual miscommunication, motivated remembering, and intoxica- tion as pathways to honest false testimony regarding sexual consent. In R. Burnett (Ed.), Vilified: Wrongful allegations of person abuse (pp. 129–142). Oxford: Oxford University Press. rij, A. (2019). Deception and truth detection when analyzing nonver- bal and verbal cues. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33, 160–167. rij, A., Hartwig, M., & Granhag, P. A. (2019). Reading lies: Nonverbal communication and deception. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 295–317. ard, C. A. (1995). Attitudes toward rape: Feminist and social psy- chological perspectives. London, UK: Sage. atanabe, T. (2018, November 16). DeVos moves to strengthen the rights of the accused in campus sexual misconduct cases. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/local/education/ la-me-edu-devos-sexual-misconduct-rules-20181116-story.html atanabe, T. (2019, August 3). UC student sues system in sexual harassment case. Los Angeles Times, p B1 and B4. (Also: USED INVESTIGATIONS 410 Students accused of sexual harassment sue California universities. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-08-02/california- universities-face-class-action-suits-by-students-accused-of-sexual- harassment) ebb, K., Wyandt-Hiebert, M. A., Hanenberg, S., Beck, D., Claypool, T., Hoch, A., . . ., & Stewart, D. (2018). Addressing sexual and rela- tionship violence: A trauma-informed approach. ACHA (American College Health Association). ood, E. G., Rikkonen, K., & Davis, D. (in press). Defining, commu- nicating and interpreting sexual consent. In W.O. O’Donohue, C. Cummings, & P. Schewe (Eds.), Handbook of sexual assault and sexual assault prevention. New York, NY: Springer. https://www.slideshare.net/LoriDHeitman/feti-public-description-jan-2017 https://www.slideshare.net/LoriDHeitman/feti-public-description-jan-2017 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0115 https://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-edu-devos-sexual-misconduct-rules-20181116-story.html https://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-edu-devos-sexual-misconduct-rules-20181116-story.html https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-08-02/california-universities-face-class-action-suits-by-students-accused-of-sexual-harassment https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-08-02/california-universities-face-class-action-suits-by-students-accused-of-sexual-harassment https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-08-02/california-universities-face-class-action-suits-by-students-accused-of-sexual-harassment http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0130 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0130 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0130 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0130 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0130 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0130 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0130 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0130 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0130 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0130 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0130 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0130 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0130 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0130 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0130 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0130 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0130 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0130 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0130 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0130 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0130 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0130 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2211-3681(19)30149-4/sbref0130 Title IX and “Trauma-Focused” Investigations: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly Title IX Investigations and the Presumption of Guilt Problematic Investigatory Tools: The Case of FETI (Forensic Experiential Trauma Interview) Problematic Assumption 1: Sexual Assault Necessarily Produces Trauma Sufficient to Disable Cognition Problematic Assumption 2: Trauma Is a One-Way Street Problematic Assumption 3: Reliable Differences Exist in Characteristics of Memory Reports for Traumatic versus Non-Traumat... Problematic Assumption 4: Characteristics of Memory Reports Can Be Taken as “Evidence” of Whether Trauma Did Occur Problematic Assumption 5: FETI's Focus on Emotion Has Only Positive Effects Sexual Behavior and Sexual Consent Communications: A Glaring Area of Omission in Title IX Training Conclusions and Caveats Conflict of Interest Author Contributions References