‘No One Believed Me, and I Have No proof’: An Exploration into the Experiences of Spiking Victims

ABSTRACT

Spiking has become increasingly more prevalent since the 1990s, with drugs such as Rohypnol, Ketamine and GHB commonly being put unknowingly into people’s drinks in nightclubs. More recently, spiking through the use of a needle has become more prevalent in the nighttime economy, with this and the other more commonly known methods of spiking (drink, food) all being limited in research. The current mixed-design study aims to explore victims’ spiking experiences and explore the prevalence of the varying forms of this spiking phenomenon. In the study, 131 participants took part and all had experienced spiking. Data were analyzed using statistical testing and content analysis. Findings showed that females were more likely to experience spiking than males, and the experience of each sex was entirely different. Drink spiking was shown to be the most common method of spiking in this sample. Many participants highlighted the lack of support received after victimization, from the establishment and medical professionals. There was also a strong theme of fear from participants regarding potential reactions if they were to report it. Participants also recalled feeling responsible for their victimization due to voluntary alcohol consumption prior to the incident. Implications and limitations are discussed.

Introduction

Since the 1990s spiking has been a disturbing crime that put at risk many innocent victims; spiking a drink of the unaware victim has been reported as the most common method (Swan et al. 2017). There are many different substances that are used for spiking, with the most common drugs being Gammahydroxy-Butyrate (GHB), Ketamine and Rohypnol (also referred to as “roofies”: Anderson et al. 2019; Warner et al. 2018). Previous research (Colyer & Weiss, 2018) identified that it was the use of these drugs in the early 1990s club scene, which highlighted the dangers of these drugs. However, any other illegal drug or prescription drug can be used to spike an individual’s drink (Warner et al. 2018).

While it is drinks that are most often spiked, the intoxicating substances can also be placed in food. The American Addiction Centers (2022) ran a survey of 246 people who had experienced spiking and they found that alcoholic drinks were the most common mean to spike victims, with 64% of men and 83% of women reporting such experiences; however, food spiking was the second most common method, with 28% of men and 10% of women reporting that they had their food spiked. Swan et al. (2017) mentions that, in Birmingham alone, hospital toxicology test requests rose by 77% in just two years due to cases of suspected spiking. However, despite the commonly accepted assumption that spiking is a widespread problem, the actual prevalence of spiking is unknown as the reported and verified are limited (Colyer and Weiss 2018; Swan et al. 2017). This project aims to contribute to previous research on this subject and explore related areas, such as the location of such experiences, the motivation, the identity of the perpetrator, age and gender as factors for the victimization.

Spiking victims are often unaware of being spiked and frequently are under the impression that excessive alcohol consumption led to the experienced spike-like symptoms (drowsiness or light-headedness, difficulty speaking, slurring your words, difficulty concentrating, loss of balance, finding it hard to move, blurred vision, memory loss or ‘blackouts), therefore cases are not reported (Colyer and Weiss 2018). In addition to this, with one of the common side effects of the associated drugs being blackouts and temporary amnesia, the victims are unlikely to recall the event or evidence of assault (Colyer and Weiss 2018; NHS 2017). A recent study carried out by Coker et al. (2016) found that 7.8% of women in college and 8.5% of women not in college have experienced being spiked. Swan et al. (2017) found that 7.8% of participants in a college sample were certain or suspected that they had been drugged, with 462 students reporting 539 instances of spiking. Likewise, an Australian study consisting of 805, 18–35-year-olds found that 26% of the participants reported that they had been spiked at least once (Swan et al. 2017). Schramm et al. (2018) also found that spiking victimization was more common among sexual minorities (9.8%) compared to heterosexual participants (7.5%); it was also found that voluntary drug use and excessive alcohol consumption, increase the risk of victimization. Still, not many know that spiking is an offense, consequently many cases are not reported, leading to the prevalence rates being unrepresentative of the reality (Sheard 2011; Colyer & Weiss, 2018).

Drug facilitated sexual assault

The term drug facilitated sexual assault (DFSA) is frequently associated with discussions on spiking. It was initially used in the United States in the 1990s where sexual assault was commonly a result of being spiked and has become prominent in the United Kingdom and Australia as cases of sexual assault after being spiked have increased (Burgess, Donovan, and Moore 2009). The same authors found that the fear of sexual assault is prominent among women when they suspect spiking threat, thus approximately 77% of women will not leave their drink unattended. However, Anderson et al. (2019) states that, while there is a great social perception that most DFSA is a result of proactive offenders spiking drinks, nonetheless, most cases of DFSA are a result of an opportunistic offender targeting an individual who is too intoxicated to give consent.

Gender and age

Research by Swan et al. (2017) found that 9.5% of the female participants (3,755) had experienced spiking compared to 4.2% of the male participants (2,229). These findings are supported by Schramm et al. (2018) who found that 9.8% of heterosexual females in their sample reported being spiked compared to just 3.7% of heterosexual men. However, when it comes to sexual minorities, the gap between male and female victimization was much smaller, with 10% of sexual minority females reporting being spiked compared to 9.4% of sexual minority males (Schramm et al. 2018).

A qualitative study carried out by Sheard (2011) explored the female experience of the nighttime economy. Overall, 40 women were interviewed as a part of this research, and it was found that only one participant had no fear of being spiked. Most participants expressed were worried and afraid of being spiked and explained their cautiousness when consuming alcoholic drinks in public (Sheard 2011). The safeguarding of drinks was a primary factor discussed, with many women stating they would not consume a drink purchased for them by a stranger, nor would they consume their own drink had it been left unattended (Sheard 2011). Some women stated that they would only accept a drink purchased by a stranger if they were present themselves when the drink was being prepared by the bartender to ensure the stranger did not have an opportunity to contaminate the drink (Sheard 2011). Likewise, a study by Brooks (2011) interviewed 35 young women about their experiences and behaviors when socializing. They found that safety in venues such as pubs and nightclubs was a concern for all participants, with many of them highlighting how they fear sexual violence when out in public (Brooks 2011). When asked about safety advice, many participants explained their awareness of campaigns warning women to prevent their drink being spiked and to not consume too much alcohol (Brooks 2011).

In the United Kingdom in particular, there has been one major case of male victim drug facilitated sexual assault in recent years. Between 2015 and 2017 Reynhard Sinaga, a mature student living in Manchester used GHB to drug his male victims before sexually assaulting them (Pidd and Halliday 2020). It is unknown how many men were sexually assaulted by Reynhard Sinaga in the three years that he was known to be active, while there are 48 confirmed cases of rape; it is believed that there may be many more victims who are unaware of their victimization, with investigators believing that he was active for many years prior (Pidd and Halliday 2020). Many of the victims in this case were unaware of their experiences prior to being contacted by the police due to the memory loss side effect of GHB (Colyer and Weiss 2018; NHS 2017). Additionally, one victim from the Reynhard Sinaga case shared how he was ashamed and found it hard to admit that he had been raped because he was a male, this is another explanation for the lack of statistics around male spiking and drug facilitated sexual assault (BBC 2021). The shame surrounding male sexual assault can cause the victims to keep the information to themselves rather than reporting it to authorities. This case brought much-needed attention to the dangers of drink spiking, with many people becoming more vigilant when socializing in venues such as night clubs. It also called for reviews to be carried out of the current legislation and the controls that are placed on the more commonly used drugs (Pidd and Halliday 2020).

In terms of age, most previous research that has been carried out in relation to spiking has utilized a sample deriving from American college students (Coker et al. 2016; Schramm et al. 2018). For example, Warner et al. (2018) used a sample of 8742 female college students aged 18–24 and found that 9% of the women in their sample had been drugged since starting college, with Rohypnol being the most common substance used (Warner et al. 2018). A similar study carried out by Lasky et al. (2017) used a sample of 16,000 undergraduate students aged 18–24 and found that 6.16% of the participants had been drugged in the previous academic year. The findings showed that almost 20% of those who had been drugged had also been victimized more than once (Lasky et al. 2017). It appears that spiking is most prevalent among students and those aged 18–24 (Lasky et al. 2017; Warner et al. 2018).

Location

It is commonly believed that spiking takes place primarily in venues that are typically associated with partying, such as pubs, bars, and nightclubs (Colyer & Weiss, 2018; Swan et al. 2017). Although, such studies also found that victimization typically occurred alongside voluntary participation in consuming alcohol and drugs. However, an Australian research project conducted by Anderson et al. (2019) aimed to develop the understanding of predictive traits that may increase the vulnerability of potential victims, this involved gathering data on the most frequent locations in which individuals are victimized. They found that 48% of offenses occurred in a private residence, with 16% of these being in the victim’s own home (Anderson et al. 2019). The venues that would stereotypically be assumed to be the most common, bars and nightclubs were the least common with only 5% of the participants reporting one of these as the location of their victimization (Anderson et al. 2019).

Research has shown that there is a link between individuals’ lifestyles, their daily activities, and the risk of victimization (Lasky, Fisher, and Swan 2018). Individual lifestyles are characterized by their daily activities, and these activities are contextualized based on demographic factors, cultural norms, role expectations and social constraints (Lasky, Fisher, and Swan 2018). Cohen and Felson’s (1979) argue that for crime to occur there are three key factors: a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of an appropriate guardian. Because of this, those individuals who live riskier lifestyles are at a greater danger of being victimized (Lasky, Fisher, and Swan 2018; Warner et al. 2018). In relation to spiking, this theory is mostly applied to students who engage in excessive alcohol consumption (Lasky, Fisher, and Swan 2018).

Research has suggested that individuals who make changes to their lifestyles and daily activities after being victimized are unlikely to be targeted again, but those who do not make changes are often victimized again (Lasky, Fisher, and Swan 2018; Warner et al. 2018). However, while these theories appear to provide adequate explanations of victimization is some instances, such as college campuses, there have been many criticisms of the lifestyle. One of the major criticisms being that scrutinizing the victim’s routine and lifestyle as an explanation of their victimization appears to be a way of blaming the victim for their own suffering (Hayes, O’Neal, and Hernandez 2021).

Is spiking a myth or excessive alcohol consumption?

Research (Sheard 2011) shows that some members of the bartending community do not believe that spiking is as prevalent as it appears in the media, while they support that not eating prior to alcohol consumption leads to intoxication with spiking-like symptoms (Colyer and Weiss 2018; Sheard 2011). Additionally, Anderson et al. (2019) found that where toxicology tests are carried out when drug facilitated sexual assault is suspected, the most common substance to be detected is alcohol, and this is often detected alongside illegal drugs which have been consumed voluntarily by the victim. Another study conducted in Australia (Quigley et al. 2009) examined 101 patients that attended the hospital emergency department presenting with symptoms of drink spiking; they found that the presence of illegal drugs in urine and blood samples were very rare, with alcohol being the most common substance to be found in the patient’s samples.

It is recognized that female victims are most commonly the focus of investigations into drugging and this often because of sexual assault where there has also been alcohol involved (Warner et al. 2018). However, as there is a common positive correlation between alcohol consumption and sexual assault, when there are reports of spiking it is often suggested that victimization occurred due to excessive alcohol consumption rather than spiking (Burgess et al., 2009). In Sheard (2011) a bartender that drugging is glorified by the media, while in addition spiking with alcohol is most frequent when people accept drinks from friends which they believe are single shots but are double shots instead. Many of the bartending participants explain that they believe that the majority of those who say they have been spiked have just consumed too much alcohol and do not wish to be held accountable. Dismissing cases of potential spiking as voluntary excessive alcohol consumption ignores the evidence that the two can co-occur (Warner et al. 2018). With bars and nightclubs being common environments for spiking (Colyer & Weiss, 2018), it can be easily assumed that alcohol consumption has also taken place (Anderson et al. 2019; Warner et al. 2018). This view, places victims in danger of not receiving help and protection when they suspect spiking.

Spiking with alcohol does not seem to attract the same reactions from the public and the media as typical spiking drugs, such as GHB, particularly when the experience results in sexual assault (Angelone, Mitchell, and Smith 2018; Brooks 2014). Although, alcohol has been found in many sexual assault victims (Brooks 2014), where there is no evidence of drugs, it is commonly found that observers are not as sympathetic toward the victim as when there is evidence of drugs (Angelone, Mitchell, and Smith 2018). Moreover, it has been suggested by Moore (2009) that media coverage of drink spiking can be viewed as more of a cautionary tale than a warning of the dangers that are actively occurring.

Burgess, Donovan, and Moore (2009) have argued that the concept of drink spiking is a functional social construct which provides an alternative explanation for people who have consumed too much alcohol. Particularly relating the spiking discourse in women, suggesting that it gives a more feminine foundation to the usually masculine concept of binge drinking (Brooks 2014; Burgess, Donovan, and Moore 2009). As well as the suggestions that victims are falsely claiming to have been spiked prior to being sexually assaulted when they have instead just had too many alcoholic drinks voluntarily (Brooks 2014; Burgess, Donovan, and Moore 2009). This is extremely problematic for all women as the female experience has been consistently marginalized and dismissed; the denial of the spiking phenomenon means that this will prevent adequate support and safeguarding of female potential victims.

Spiking prevention

The previously mentioned gender gap in the experience of spiking and the related research is also reflected in the awareness campaigns about alcohol consumptions in public settings (Brooks 2011). From a feminist perspective, it appears that these awareness campaigns are holding women personally accountable for their victimization and giving them the responsibility of preventing an attack (Brooks 2011). For example, Brooks (2011) refers to a community safety leaflet with the title “Drug rape is rare: don’t let it happen to you” (Brooks 2011), this could be perceived by many that if a woman is to be victimized then she has allowed it to happen and could have prevented it.

Data gathered by Sheard (2011) showed that women were being told to restrict themselves if they want to avoid victimization, with advice such as not getting drunk, not wearing revealing clothing and not being out in certain areas at nighttime. Most campaigns raising awareness of how to be safe on a night out are informative, practical, and useful in lowering the opportunities for perpetrators to spike someone, such as only drinking from bottles and keeping a thumb over the opening. However, the responsibility for spiking prevention should not be placed on potential victims, instead there should be more done to take away the perpetrators possibility of carrying out the attack, such as thorough searches from venue security and patrolling police.

The current study

While there has been some significant research conducted on spiking experiences, consequences and attitudes associated with it (Anderson et al. 2019; Brooks 2011; Burgess, Donovan, and Moore 2009, Colyer & Weiss, 2018; Lasky, Fisher, and Swan 2018; Moore 2009; Sheard 2011; Warner et al. 2018), it is still an extremely under-researched phenomenon. Furthermore, previous research has occasionally grouped together different methods of the spiking phenomena (drink, food, injection) all into one grouped variable of spiking/drugging, potentially overlooking valuable inferences into the prevalence rates of this under-researched area. The present study aims to build on the previous research and aims to explore spiking experiences in more depth, focusing on the numerous variables that are involved within the phenomena. In particular, the project investigates age and gender differences and different aspects related to the spiking experience, such as the location of the incident, the identification of the perpetrator, the method used to spike them, and whether the incident has changed how the victims behave when they find themselves in similar establishments. To investigate this phenomenon further and enhance previous efforts that have explored this phenomena, this research collects and analyses information regarding the victim’s experience using both quantitative and qualitative research, to provide a deeper overview on the phenomena.

Methods

Participants

Prior to data collection, ethical approval was granted, and informed consents were signed by all participants. The study included participants over the age of 18 and those who had been spiked at least once. Participants were primarily recruited online via social media, including Facebook and Instagram. In total, 156 (N = 156) participants completed the survey for this research, however 25 responses were removed from the sample as incomplete. There were 131 participant responses included in the final analysis, consisting of 7 males (5.3%), 122 females (93.1%) and two participants that identified as non-binary (1.5%). Participants ranged in age from 18 to 55 years (M = 25.08, SD = 6.06). Of the 131 participants included in this study, 83.2% (n = 109) identified as Caucasian, 2.3% (n = 3) identified as Black (British, American, Caribbean, and other), 8.4% (n = 11) identified as Asian, 0.8% (n = 1) identified as Hispanic and 5.3% (n = 7) identified as another ethnicity that was not included within the list. All participants in this study had a minimum of a secondary school level education. For 2.3% (n = 3) of participants secondary school was their highest level of education, 17.6% (n = 23) had received a college or sixth form level of education, 55% (n = 72) had received an undergraduate level of education and 25.2% (n = 33) had received a postgraduate level of education.

Procedure and Materials

A survey was constructed to measure the spiking experiences; the questions resulted from a combination of constructed questions for this study, and questions that resulted from the limited previous literature. The questionnaire included demographic questions, questions specific to the spiking experience (17), such as the location of the incident, the identification of the perpetrator, the method used to spike them and whether the incident has changed how they behave. Participants were asked to answer the survey in relation to their most recent experience of being spiked and were able to leave the survey at any time. Participants were provided with a definition of spiking before the questionnaire was completed, with the definition being sourced from the Metropolitan Police (nd): Spiking is when someone puts alcohol or drugs into another person’s drink or body without their consent or knowledge.

Participants also had the opportunity to respond to an open-ended question allowing for qualitative data collection. These open-ended questions asked participants about their experiences of being spiked, how they believe they were spiked and why, any potential responses they received from law enforcement and/or the establishment where the spiking took place, if and how they have altered their behavior since the incident and their experiences of getting support during and after the incident. The anonymous survey took approximately 10 minutes to complete. The survey was advertised online for four months and disseminated on social media to attract participants from a wide range of locations and backgrounds, with the only inclusion criteria being that the participants had to be over the age of 18 and experienced spiking at least once. All quantitative data were analyzed via the software Qualtrics.

Open-ended questions and qualitative investigation

Qualitative data from the open questions was analyzed using conventional content analysis (Hsieh and Shannon 2005). The steps set out in Hsieh and Shannon (2005) were followed when conducting the analysis. The first step of the analysis consisted of highlighting key words from the data that appeared to match key concepts in relation to the research topic. Once key words had been identified, notes were made regarding key ideas, and these were then combined with the key words to create codes that are reflective of the data. This produced the final categories that are present in the analysis. Conventional content analysis was previously utilized successfully by Swan et al. (2017) for the qualitative section of their mixed methods research into the motives and experiences of spiking and the outcomes of it among a student sample. This successful example of the use of conventional content analysis contributed to the decision to use this form of analysis for the current research.

Results

Descriptive statistics

All participants experienced spiking between the ages of 16 to 36 (M = 20.37, SD = 2.93). The age of 19 was when most participants were victimized (n = 27, 20.6%). Analysis showed that, females were more likely to be victimized (n = 122, 93.1%), compared to males (n = 7, 5.3%) and non-binary (n = 2, 1.5%). However, inequality in the sample regarding the sexes should be considered as it cannot be known whether more female participants completed the survey because they are more frequently victimized or because they are keener to complete surveys.

Inferential analysis

Method used and location

Drink spiking was the most common method of spiking (n = 120, 91.6%). Table 1 shows the prevalence of the other methods included in this study.

Table 1. Frequency table showing the prevalence of different methods of spiking.

	Frequency	Percent
Drink spiked	120	91.6
Food spiked	1	0.8
Injection spiked	5	3.8
Unsure	5	3.8

Nightclubs were the most common location for spiking to occur (n = 75, 57.3%). Table 2 below, shows the prevalence of the other locations.

Table 2. Frequency table showing the prevalence of spiking in various locations.

	Frequency	Percent
Restaurant	1	0.8
Pub	23	17.6
Nightclub	75	57.3
Party	16	12.2
Other	16	12.2

Perpetrator, reporting the incident and assistance

Out of 131 participants 22.1% (n = 29) identified the perpetrator, 77.9% (n = 102) did not. Table 3 displays the frequencies of the perpetrator’s relationship to the participants, for the participants who identified the perpetrators.

Table 3. Frequency table showing the relationship of the perpetrators to the participants, for the participants who identified the perpetrator.

	Frequency	Percent
Friend	3	8.33
Acquaintance	7	19.44
Date	1	2.78
Stranger	15	41.67
Other	10	27.78

Table 4 shows the number of participants who reported their experience to the establishment (the location where the spiking took place e.g. nightclub), to the police, and how many of them received professional medical help after the incident.

Table 4. Frequency table showing how many participants reported their experience to the establishment, to the police and received professional medical help.

	Reported to Establishment		Reported to Police		Received Professional Medical Help
	Frequency	Percent	Frequency	Percent	Frequency	Percent
Yes	29	22.1	18	13.7	31	23.7
No	99	75.6	113	86.3	99	75.6

Method used, age when spiked and location

A Kruskal–Wallis H test was conducted to determine if there was a difference in the method used for spiking (drink spiked, food spiked, injection spiked, unsure) compared to the age of the participant at the time of the incident. The Kruskal–Wallis H test showed that there was no significant difference between the variables H (3) = 5.64, p = .131. A Kruskal–Wallis H test was conducted to determine if there was a difference in the age of the participant when the incident occurred compared to the location of the incident (restaurant, pub, nightclub, party, other). The Kruskal–Wallis H test discovered that there was no significant difference between the variables H (4) = 4.32, p = .365.

Altered behaviour

Of the 131 participants in this study, 83.2% (n = 109) stated that they have altered the way that they behave when they go out, and 67.2% (n = 88) said that their spiking experience led to avoiding the venue they experienced the victimization.

Content analysis

All participants responded to the open-ended questions, with the analysis of these answers providing 5 overall content themes:

Safety advice and accepting stereotypes

Most research on spiking acknowledges the many stereotypes that are associated with the issue, for example the perception that if an individual is drunk, they are at fault for their victimization (Sheard 2011). Another common misconception is the idea that it is only strangers that spike victims (Sheard 2011). There has also been safety information distributed about how to prevent spiking, including never leaving your drink unattended, disposing of your drink if it has been out of sight, never accepting drinks from strangers, not getting drunk, not wearing revealing clothing, or going to certain places at night (Brooks 2011; Sheard 2011). When the safety advice and the stereotypes are examined, it could be suggested that they are placing the full responsibility on the potential victims rather than placing a focus on preventing perpetrators from being able to offend.

… told me I just got too drunk and what happened as a result was my fault alone

… everyone thought I had just had too much [to drink]

I was embarrassed and felt like it could have been my fault and I’d just drank too much.

Didn’t report to the police as I had been drinking quite a lot anyway …

This shows that many of the participants have accepted the stereotypical views. There is a consistent theme of believing they were at fault for their victimization due to having consumed alcohol, as well as other people not believing the victim due to this. Being blamed for their experience was damaging for many participants often preventing them from appropriately dealing with the situation. This also helps perpetrators to continue their practises without legal consequences, as such perceptions insinuate that the victim is at fault.

I am a lot more careful about watching my drink when I’m out.

I bought bottles all night so I could cover the top.

Make sure not to leave my drink anywhere, if I put it down without watching it the whole time then I will not have another drink from it I will just get another one

Never leave my drink unattended and I never put it down

Make sure to not leave my drink unattended.

… knew to be extra careful … people didn’t really believe the girls that it happened to and said they were just drunk and couldn’t handle it.

I no longer leave my drink unattended even if it’s with people I think I know.

This suggests that many of the participants have been exposed to and have knowledge of the safety campaigns that have been created to help prevent spiking, this demonstrates how successful they have been in creating awareness. However, as many of the responses are sharing what they have started doing since being victimized, it also shows that many of them have only implemented the safety measures after the experience of being spiked and so the campaigns are not completely preventing victimization.

I feel like this is a big reason why I didn’t report it to authorities or seek medical attention.

This shows that the acceptance of stereotypes in relation to spiking is dangerous for victims as it can prevent them from reporting the offense or seeking the necessary medical help. This leaves the perpetrator free to target other victims and can put the victim at risk for further complications that could have been prevented if medical help had been sought.

I drank a friend’s (female) drink, so I don’t think it was intended for me to be spiked, rather her.

I thought I’d be a very unlikely target as a 19-year-old male, but my perspective has certainly changed afterwards.

The quotes above show that the male victims had accepted the stereotype that women are the only people who get spiked, and while one participant believes that the spiked drink was not meant for them, the assumption that men are not targeted led to their victimization.

Excessive alcohol consumption

In relation to the stereotypes surrounding spiking, there appears to be a focus on alcohol consumption, and the idea that drinking alcohol is a facilitator in being spiked (Brooks 2011; Schramm et al. 2018; Sheard 2011).

“ … now I get stressed about drinking too much.”

I no longer consume alcohol outside my home/friend’s home.

I stick to shots so no one can get a chance to spike them.

I knew I was spiked because I hadn’t drunk any alcohol.

This common theme among respondents suggests that monitoring alcohol consumption will ensure that they will not be spiked again. This appears to propose that alcohol is the factor that causes victimization rather than perpetrators administering the substance to victims.

Lack of support from the establishment

There has been limited previous research that has discussed the role of the establishment and how they dealt with the situation. Sheard (2011) reported how a bartender would look out for females in their establishment and warn them not to leave their drink unattended. This is valuable for research into the prevention of spiking in venues, still research about how such events are managed by the staff of the venue or the management is sparse.

We reported this to the club who identified the man who had spiked us via CCTV but nothing further was done.

This suggests that this participant did not receive any valuable support from the venue where they were spiked.

I was afraid to, for fear of being banned, not being believed

… no one believed me, and I have no proof

These experiences suggest that the venues are not supportive of victims who have had a bad experience; instead, they portray an image that makes victims feel that they deserve punishment for their victimization.

Other people have had similar experiences in the same place. Have avoided going back since.

The venue had been known to have spiking incident

… but I identified the man to security, and they knew him from previous spiking attempts

These responses from three different participants indicate that there is a culture which allows perpetrators to continue offending in the nighttime economy. Venues with previous cases of spiking should have preventative measures in place; but the suggestions that some venues have a reputation for spiking risk, suggest that they are not doing enough to protect their customers. Additionally, the readmittance of known offenders into the establishment suggests that the venues are not concerned for the welfare of their customers.

“ … however, because I ‘worked’ for the club at the time, my complaint was taken much more seriously.”

This response suggests that for an establishment to be proactive and take cases of spiking seriously, the victim must have a valued relationship to those with the power to investigate it. Also suggesting that venues are not concerned about general customers and their safety.

I was lucky enough to be out with a large group of friends that kept me safe after noticing something was wrong

It’s essential to ensure you stay with your friends on nights out as if I didn’t have my friends present, I don’t know what could’ve happened to me.

This insinuates that victims need to rely on their friends for support in situations where they have been spiked due to the lack of support from the establishment.

Identifying perpetrators

When common results of being spiked include memory loss, it is to be expected that many incidents of spiking will result in the perpetrator not being identified due to victims’ inability to recall potential interactions (Colyer and Weiss 2018).

It was a person I had known since the fourth grade.

I noticed a suspicious man around myself and my friends whilst buying a drink.

… it was likely one of my co-workers or the bar staff that did this …

There was only one response in this research where the participant appeared certain who the perpetrator was. This supports research stating that it is rare for victims of spiking to identify the person who spiked them.

… thought it was the bartender as it happened to our whole group …

… people suspected the bartenders.

… suspect it was the barman as no other individuals were around us when we bought our drinks.

Many responses indicated a belief that it was a member of the bar staff that was spiking drinks. This suggests that the danger of being victimized is even greater if the offenders are individuals in positions of power that people expect to be able to trust. It also potentially suggests that establishments are not providing adequate support for victims as well as prevention methods. While in addition, it appears that in some occasions, customers could be at risk by the staff of the venue.

Lack of professional help

There has been limited previous research about the medical help received by victims of spiking. Swan et al. (2017) mentions that requests for toxicology tests to be carried out in a Birmingham hospital rose by 77% in two years due to suspected cases of spiking. Additionally, the participants responses also give insight into the experience that victims have when receiving medical help.

… the hospital confirmed I’d had drugs in my system but said I must’ve taken them

Police tested my urine, and it came back with cocaine … called me a liar when I said I had never taken cocaine

Police were extremely unhelpful and dismissive.

The current research has shown that, when receiving professional help after suspected spiking, victims often are not believed and instead accused of ingesting the drugs voluntarily. This has been the case for a victim who was seeking help from the hospital and another seeking help from the police; consequently, when authorities are unsupportive, victim are likely to avoid reporting their experience.

I tried to get counselling after from my uni, but they told me I didn’t need it. I really doubted myself and felt ashamed.

This participant was even refused mental health support when requested it; the victim had developed mental health issues caused by the spiking experience.

Discussion

The aim of this research was to explore the experience of being spiked, taking into consideration variables such as the method of spiking used, if the incident was reported as well as the help that was given to victims. This research also included a qualitative approach to gain insight into the lived experience of participants who have been spiked. The findings of this research showed that drink spiking is the most common method used by perpetrators; thus, supporting previous research (Warner et al. 2018). Drink spiking appears to be the easiest way for perpetrators to administer the substance to the victim, and there is no obvious evidence that the drink has been tampered with.

The media provided mass coverage of injection spiking in October 2021 when cases were initially emerging, giving the view that it was a widespread phenomenon that was affecting masses of people of the nighttime economy. While this research does not wish to minimize the experience of anyone who was targeted via injection spiking, the findings of this research do not indicate that it was as prevalent as the media coverage suggests. However, as there was not published research on the aspect of injection spiking, at the point of data collection for this study, the authors recommend further research to establish the actual prevalence rates

Consistent with previous research, this study found that nightclubs were the most common venue for spiking to occur (Colyer & Weiss, 2018), although others had found private parties as the most common venue of this crime. As with the previous research, it can be suggested that night clubs provide perpetrators with an opportunity to offend due to the already expected excessive consumption of alcohol that can cause individuals to exhibit similar behaviors as a victim of spiking (Burgess, Donovan, and Moore 2009). Furthermore, this research found that 19 years old people were at more risk than other age groups; this is supportive of previous research which found that spiking is most prevalent between the ages of 18–24 (Lasky et al. 2017; Warner et al. 2018). Consequently, indicating that typical university/college aged students are the most at risk of spiking due to their frequent presence in nightclubs and the risky lifestyles that they lead (Swan et al. 2017).

The statistical tests carried out in this research did not produce any significant findings. This is a contrast with previous research and further research should be conducted. It is possible that the sample was small to produce significant results. This research also found that an overwhelming majority of participants did not report their experience to the police or to the venue in which it occurred. This finding is explanatory of why statistics regarding spiking do not appear to be representative.

The open-ended question included in this study indicates that many participants appeared to be accepting of the spiking stereotypes, particularly the suggestion that if an individual has consumed alcohol voluntarily, they are responsible for their victimization (Warner et al. 2018). Consequently, as seen in the qualitative analysis, many victims did not report their victimizations as they feared judgment. It was also found that many participants appear to believe that by avoiding consuming alcohol, they are avoiding any risk of being spiked. Such perceptions could lead to victimization, as perpetrators target any type of drink not such alcoholic. This is an important finding in the understanding of the experience of being spiked; the failure for the general population to accept that voluntary alcohol consumption and spiking victimization can co-occur can obstruct victims from receiving support and medical help when they have been spiked.

A concerning finding discovered, is the lack of support provided from medical professionals, with many participants being accused of voluntarily ingesting the drugs they were spiked with. Despite previous research finding that drug facilitated sexual assault is a major factor in relation to spiking (Brooks 2011; Burgess, Donovan, and Moore 2009), the current research did not produce the same findings; only a small number of participants reported DFSA as a part of their experience. In relation to the awareness campaigns, the current research found that many participants implemented safety measures only after they had been victimized. This highlights the work that needs to be done in making sure the campaigns have better outreach to inform individuals and prevent them from ever experiencing being spiked. A possible explanation for this could be the attitudes portrayed in the media which often deliver a cautionary tale about how spiking could occur rather than accurate facts and warnings of the real prevalence of spiking (Moore 2009).

Limitations

One key limitation of this research is the fact that participants could not provide medical proof of spiking after their experience; future research could work with medical personnel to identify victims of spiking with medical confirmation of involuntary consumption of spiking drugs. Moreover, participant self-report accounts are useful in gaining insight into the topic, however, when there is no confirmation of the incident occurring it is possible that what the participants experienced was not actually spiking. It is also important to note that there have been significant gaps of time for some participants from when they were spiked to their participation in this research and so their recollection of the events may not be entirely accurate. This research has been conducted using a small sample size, and while the statistical tests were altered to be appropriate for fewer participants it is important that further research is conducted to verify these findings.

Conclusions and future research

Overall, this research found that white females are the most at risk of being targeted for spiking victimization, with drink spiking being the most prevalent method that is used. This research has highlighted the effect that stereotyping can have on victims of spiking and their attitudes relating to their role in their victimization. It has also been recognized that help for victims of spiking needs to be more accessible as well as improvements in the support that is provided, particularly in relation to medical professionals. Finally, this research has shown that awareness campaigns for spiking prevention have been successful, but more should be invested to reach wider audiences and to prevent drink spiking in the first instance. However, this research also highlights how the blame for spiking needs to be placed with the perpetrators rather than allowing for victim blaming techniques to continue. Finally, existing research focuses on male perpetrators and female victims; future research into same sex spiking would provide an interesting viewpoint on the phenomenon. Similarly, future research on the male experience of spiking would be beneficial, particularly after the Reynhard Sinaga case uncovering how prevalent male spiking and DFSA may be.

Declarations

No funding was received for conducting this study.

Ethical approval was granted by the board of ethics of the University of Huddersfield. The study was performed in accordance with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and informed consent was gained prior to the study commencing.

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Laura Stephenson

Laura Stephenson at the time of the project completion was an MSc graduate in Investigative Psychology, the at University of Huddersfield.

Calli Tzani

Dr Calli Tzani is a senior lecturer in psychology at Huddersfield University. Dr Tzani joined the University of Huddersfield in 2017 after completing her PhD in Bullying and Cyberbullying. Dr Tzani’s research is focused mainly on wellbeing of children, bullying and cyber-bullying prevention, but also conducts research on sextortion, criminal behaviour, fraud and cybercrime.

Maria Ioannou

Professor Maria Loannou (Psychology) is the Course Director for the MSc Investigative Psychology. She is a Chartered Forensic Psychologist (British Psychological Society) and a HCPC Registered Psychologist (Forensic). She joined Huddersfield University in 2009 as a Senior Lecturer. Dr Ioannou obtained a first class undergraduate degree in Psychology, Philosophy and Pedagogics from the University of Ioannina, Greece in 2000.

John Synnott

Dr John Synnott is a Chartered Psychologist, a Reader and Assistant Course Director for the MSc Investigative Psychology. He joined Huddersfield University in 2013 on completion of his PhD. Dr Synnott obtained his undergraduate degree in Psychology from University College Dublin, Ireland in 2007, his dissertation, which has since been published was on positional effects in police line-ups. Thomas James Vaughan Williams is a PhD researcher at the University of Huddersfield.

Mara Morelli

Dr Mara Morelli is an Assistant Professor of Developmental Psychology at Sapienza University of Rome, Italy. Her interests are focused on developmental psychology, online risky behaviors, parent-child relationships, and risk factors in adolescence and young adulthood. Her main research topics are sexting behaviors and dating violence.