Understanding Sexual Aggression in UK Male University Students: An Empirical Assessment of Risk Factors and Online Harm Prevention Programming

University-based sexual aggression is a pervasive public health issue associated with numerous negative, long-term outcomes. Most scientific literature on the topic has emanated from the US, where researchers possess a solid academic understanding of sexual aggression by male university students - the leading perpetrators of campus-based sexual offences - and have evaluated various harm prevention strategies for tackling the issue. This contrasts with the UK, where academic assessments of male students' illegal sexual behaviours are scant and research evaluating evidence-based prevention interventions is embryonic. This is despite established high rates of sexual victimisation across campuses nationally. To help catalyse research into university-based sexual aggression in the UK, this thesis presents six novel empirical studies that offer some of the first psychological insights into UK male students' sexual offending behaviours. These include studies assessing the prevalence of, and socio-ecological risk factors associated with, the harmful sexual behaviours of male university students in the UK, the heterogeneity of self-reported perpetrators as a group of forensic interest, and the efficacy of evidence-based online harm prevention programming at reducing UK university males' sexual offence proclivity. Considered together, findings suggest that (a) UK male students are at increased risk of sexual perpetration at university; (b) perpetrators' behaviours are guided by various socio-ecological risk factors, which differentiate them from their non-offending peers; (c) students with harmful sexual histories comprise a heterogeneous forensic group who can be meaningfully categorised based on their psychological characteristics; and (d) evidence-based online harm prevention programming can effectively reduce the short and longer-term risk of sexual offending amongst UK university males. The implications of findings for academic research and UK harm prevention work are discussed, alongside methodological limitations