Categories
Sex Roles: A Journal of Research

College students’ judgments regarding sexual aggression during a date

College students’ judgments regarding sexual aggression during a date

Roseann Hannon

Although many studies of acquaintance and date rape have accumulated over the last 15 years, disagreements continue as to how to define these terms. Muehlenhard, Powch, Phelps, and Giusti (1992) discussed definitions of rape used by researchers, and described two of the most important dimensions of researcher definitions: (a) the type of sexual behaviors specified, and (b) the criteria for establishing nonconsent by the victim. Feminist definitions of rape have attempted to change stereotypical ideas about rape by expanding the type of sexual behavior involved (i.e., nonconsensual sexual behavior of any type is included) and by reducing the requirement that extreme force by the aggressor or extreme resistance by the victim be demonstrated (Bechhofer & Parrot, 1991; Donat & D’Emilio, 1992; Muehlenhard, Harney, & Jones, 1992). This has led to significant changes in legal definitions of rape in several states.

Because many people continue to have a stereotypical definition of rape, researchers often study experiences of “unwanted sexual behavior” rather than of rape, and find that rape by these new definitions is much more prevalent than by older definitions. For example, Berkowitz (1992) stated that current studies show that from 25 to 60% of college men have engaged in some form of sexually coercive behavior, and he suggested that sexual assault results from normal socialization experiences for men in our culture. Despite increased efforts to teach college students about acquaintance rape, Berkowitz pointed out that most college men who commit sexual assault do not define their behavior as assault, and feel they can justify their behavior to themselves and others. Bechhofer and Parrot (1991) noted that victims of acquaintance rape often fail to label their own experience as rape.

An alternate approach to understanding public perceptions of rape is to have participants, rather than researchers, define the type of incidents they would classify as rape. (The term participant in the present article refers to individuals who are subjects in a study. The term victim refers to individuals who have experienced unwanted sexual activity.) College students’ perceptions of rape and sexual aggression have been studied by having students react to vignettes/scenarios of sexual interactions, and this was the focus of the current study. Burt and Albin (1981) found that the perception that force was used against a victim increased the probability that a vignette would be labeled as rape. Shotland and Goodstein (1983) used path analysis to show that participants were more likely to label scenarios as rape when verbal and physical protest, early onset of protest, and moderate force occurred (79% of the participants agreed that this scenario constituted rape, as opposed to only 33% in the verbal protest, late onset, low force condition). Both studies indicated that use of force by the aggressor continues to be an important factor in research participants’ willingness to label a scenario as rape. Several studies using vignettes have asked students to rate the justifiability of the man forcing the woman to have sex without her consent (Bostwick & Delucia, 1992; Muehlenhard, 1988; Muehlenhard, Friedman, & Thomas, 1985). Effects of variables such as who initiated the date, who paid, dating activity, and so on, have been investigated in these studies. Participants were not asked to specify what type of behavior they would classify as rape, and level of consent and force were not specified or varied.

The primary purpose of the current study was to assess the effects of level of resistance (nonconsent), type of sexual behavior, and participant gender on judgments regarding sexual aggression described in a dating vignette (with implied force used by the perpetrator held constant). We studied the effects of these critical variables (as identified by Muehlenhard, Powch, et al., 1992) on participants’ degree of disapproval of the aggressor as rated on 11-item scales from three different perspectives: their own, the victim’s, and the aggressor’s. We were interested in whether the same rater would respond to the vignettes differently if asked to assume different perspectives, and whether the rater’s own perspective would more closely match the victim’s or the aggressor’s. In addition, we used a 1-item scale with five choices of best overall terms to see whether participants would label the vignettes as involving date rape or would use less emotionally charged terms (e.g., aggression, assault). We also investigated the internal consistency of the scales.

The second purpose was to study the effect of using gender-neutral vignettes and having participants designate the gender they assumed the aggressor and victim to be. Most previous research has assumed that the victim is female and the aggressor is male, but more recent research indicates that the reverse situation also occurs. According to Struckman-Johnson (1991), college student surveys show that 12-16% of men have felt forced into intercourse by women, usually by verbal pressure. She also summarized evidence for the occurrence of sexual assault of men by other men. In a more recent study, Struckman-Johnson and Struckman-Johnson (1994) found that 34% of a sample of 204 college men reported that they had been sexually coerced since age 16 (24% by women, 4% by men, and 6% by both sexes). Some states have adopted gender-neutral laws regarding rape in which either males or females can be victims or assailants (Bechhofer & Parrot, 1991; Donat & D’Emilio, 1992).

The third purpose was to investigate the relationship between vignette ratings and personal experience of victimization, as measured by a gender-neutral version of the Sexual Experiences Survey (Koss & Oros, 1982; Koss & Gidycz, 1985). Cornett and Shuntich (1991), using vignettes for which participants rated the justifiability of forced sexual activity, found that participants who had been sexually victimized themselves thought that sexual aggression was significantly more justifiable than did those who had not been victimized. The authors felt victimized women may place more responsibility on the woman in the vignette than nonvictimized women do, given the tendency of victimized women to feel guilty about their victimization.

METHOD

Participants

Participants were 195 (138 female, 57 male; M age = 21.6, SD = 5.1) students recruited from undergraduate psychology and sociology courses at a small private university in northern California. Ethnic groups included 69.8% European American, 10.1% Asian American, 6.9% Latin American, 5.3% African American, 4.2% South East Asian American, and 3.7% other. Heterosexual orientation was reported by 97.4% of participants, and homosexual orientation by 2.6%.

Measurement

The dating questionnaire consisted of a brief demographic section, one of six gender-neutral vignettes describing a date between two individuals (varying resistance to sexual advances and type of sexual behavior), disapproval rating scales regarding the vignette, selection of best overall term for the vignette, and a modified gender-neutral version of the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES).

Gender-Neutral Vignettes. Resistance to sexual advances varied across three levels and included feeling uncomfortable plus: (a) showing no verbal or physical resistance (none), (b) giving verbal but no physical resistance (verbal), and (c) giving both verbal and physical resistance (physical). Sexual behavior varied across two levels: (a) kissing and intimately touching, and (b) sexual intercourse. Each level of resistance was crossed with each level of sexual activity to produce six vignettes with identical wording except for changes directly related to the resistance and sexual behavior variables. A sample vignette follows (no verbal or physical resistance, kissing and touching):

Chris and Pat know each other from a class they take at a local university. One day after class they went to a local cafe to discuss an upcoming assignment. After a few hours of enjoyable conversation during which each admitted to being attracted to the other, they decided to meet again over the weekend and rent a movie to watch at Pat’s apartment.

During the movie they began flirting and kissing. After a while, both Pat and Chris were sexually aroused, and both became more involved in flirting, kissing and intimately touching each other. Pat was uncomfortable with what was happening but did not say or do anything. Chris and Pat talked for a little while, Chris encouraging Pat to be more intimate. Chris then continued kissing and intimately touching despite Pat’s feelings of discomfort.

The other vignettes were identical to the one above until the second paragraph, third sentence, after which the vignette variables were manipulated, e.g., for the vignette involving verbal and physical resistance and intercourse, this part of the vignette read as follows:

Pat was uncomfortable with what was happening, and stopped and pulled away. Chris and Pat talked for a little while, Chris encouraging Pat to be more intimate. Pat again said, “I’m uncomfortable with this. I want to stop,” and moved away from Chris. Chris then continued and they had sexual intercourse despite Pat’s protests, struggles, and attempts to stop.

We used the names Pat and Chris in the vignettes as they may be attributed to either gender and thus avoid explicit assumptions based on the character’s gender. This allowed for the possibility of forced sexual activity in which men aggress against women, women aggress against men, and in same sex encounters as well. At the end of the rating scales, we asked participants to indicate which gender they assumed Chris and Pat to be.

Disapproval Rating Scales. After reading the assigned vignette, participants completed identical 11-item scales describing degree of disapproval of the aggressor’s behavior from three different perspectives: (a) their own viewpoint (Participant Rating), (b) the victim’s viewpoint (Victim Rating), and (c) the aggressor’s viewpoint (Aggressor Rating). The 11-item scales contained statements rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Items to be rated included whether the vignette described (a) appropriate dating behavior, (b) appropriate sexual contact, (c) sexual coercion, (d) sexual aggression, (e) sexual assault, (f) dating or acquaintance rape; whether the aggressor’s behavior (g) was understandable, (h) was justified given the victim’s responses; whether the aggressor should (i) be required to attend a workshop on the prevention of date/acquaintance rape, (j) be criminally prosecuted, (k) be put in jail. Ratings for items a, b, g, and h were reversed, and the average rating of all 11 items on the 7-point scale was computed. Final disapproval ratings then ranged from 1 to 7, with higher scores indicating greater disapproval of the aggressor’s behavior.

Best Overall Term. To identify which vignettes were labeled as involving rape, participants were asked to select the Best Overall Term for the aggressor’s behavior from among five choices: (a) appropriate dating behavior, (b) insensitive dating behavior, (c) sexually aggressive behavior, (d) sexual assault, (e) date or acquaintance rape. These terms were chosen to see if participants would avoid choosing the term rape, and would choose less specific terms such as sexually aggressive behavior or sexual assault, which they might see as having less negative connotations.

Internal Consistency of Disapproval Rating and Best Overall Term Scales. The complete 34-item rating scale (three 11-item subscales plus Best Overall Term) was assessed for internal consistency, and coefficient alpha was .85. For the three 11-item subscales, coefficient alpha was .88 for Participant Rating, .84 for Victim Rating, and .89 for Aggressor Rating. Analysis of the 34 items using varimax rotation principle component factor analysis (limited to five extracted factors) largely confirmed the structure of the three subscales. Ten of 11 Aggressor items (except sexual coercion) loaded most heavily on Factor 1. Eight of 11 Participant items (except sexual coercion, appropriate dating behavior, appropriate sexual contact) loaded on Factor 2, as did Best Overall Term. Victim items (except sexual coercion) loaded on Factors 3 and 4. The sexual coercion items (which were not understood by several participants) from all three subscales loaded on Factor 5.

Gender-Neutral SES. To parallel our use of gender-neutral vignettes, we modified the 10-item SES to be gender-neutral (see Appendix). The original questionnaire was designed in two parallel forms that assumed men were aggressors and women victims. We modified the questionnaire so that we could measure both victimization and aggression in each gender by combining the male and female forms into one 20-item survey. Each item was worded in a gender-neutral manner and was applicable to respondents of either gender, with Items 1-10 measuring victimization experiences and Items 11-20 measuring aggressive behaviors. Respondents were asked to indicate their sexual experiences since age 14 and the number of times they had been involved in a particular situation.

Procedure

The questionnaire was administered by one of four experimenters (two male, two female) during a class meeting. Participants received no incentive for participating, and there was no penalty for deciding not to participate. They were asked to complete the questionnaire as honestly as possible and according to their own experiences. To ensure anonymity, participants were instructed not to write their names or any other identification on the questionnaire, not to talk to themselves or anyone else as they completed the questionnaire, and to place their completed questionnaire in a box.

Participants were debriefed about the purpose of the study, given an explanation of why we used gender-neutral names, and informed that nonconsensual sexual contact is never justified. The telephone number of the local women’s center was provided so participants with personal concerns about sexual assault could refer themselves for assistance if they wished to do so.

RESULTS

Disapproval Ratings

Dependent variable measures rating degree of disapproval of the aggressor’s behavior (Participant Rating, Victim Rating, Aggressor Rating) were analyzed using 3 x 2 x 2 (Resistance x Sexual Behavior x Participant Gender) analyses of variance (ANOVAs) on each measure.

Mean scores for Participant Rating of degree of disapproval for each level of resistance, sexual behavior, and gender are shown in Fig. 1. There were significant differences for each main effect. For resistance, F(2, 183) = 34.6, p [less than] .001, [[Eta].sup.2] (strength of association) = .260, with physical resistance rating the highest disapproval (M = 5.37), verbal next (M = 4.51), and none lowest (M = 3.98). For sexual behavior, F(1, 183) = 6.0, p [less than] .05, [[Eta].sup.2] = .017, with intercourse rated higher than kiss/touch. For gender, F(1, 183) = 17.7, p [less than] .001, [[Eta].sup.2] = .073), with females higher than males. None of the interactions were significant.

Mean scores for Victim Rating for each level of resistance, sexual behavior, and gender are shown in Fig. 2. There were significant differences for resistance and gender, but not for behavior. For resistance, F(2, 183) = 15.5, p [less than] .001, [[Eta].sup.2] = .38, with physical resistance rated highest (M = 5.31), verbal next (M = 4.74), and none lowest (M = 4.36). For gender, F(1, 183) = 5.9, p [less than] .05, [[Eta].sup.2] = .029); with females higher than males. None of the interactions were significant.

Mean scores for Aggressor Rating for each level of resistance, sexual behavior, and gender are shown in Fig. 3. These scores were much lower than Participant and Victim Ratings (Ms = 2.06 for physical, 1.89 for verbal, and 2.07 for no resistance). None of the main effects or interactions were significant in the 3 x 2 x 2 ANOVA.

Best Overall Term

Percentage of participants selecting each of the five choices for Best Overall Term for each of the six vignettes is shown in Table I. Chi-square analyses showed a significant effect of level of resistance on term chosen for kiss and touch, [[Chi].sup.2](8, N = 96) = 31.5, p [less than] .001, and intercourse, [[Chi].sup.2](8, N = 99) = 30.7, p [less than] .001. Percentage of participants choosing the terms sexually aggressive behavior, sexual assault, and date or acquaintance rape increased as level of resistance increased for both types of sexual behavior. For vignettes involving kissing and touching, however, few participants (3.3-6.3%) chose the term rape, regardless of the level of resistance. For vignettes involving intercourse, an increasing percentage of participants chose the term rape as the level of resistance increased (6.1% for no resistance, 25.0% for verbal resistance, and 52.9% for physical resistance).

Assumed Gender of Aggressor and Victim in the Gender-Neutral Vignettes

The aggressor in the vignettes was assumed to be male by 95.8% of the participants, whereas the victim was assumed to be female by 88.3%. The reverse assumption, that the aggressor was female and the victim was [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE I OMITTED] male, was made by 3.1% (4 females, 2 males). Both aggressor and victim were assumed to be male by 8.2% (10 females, 6 males), and both were assumed to be female by 1.0% (2 females). Too few participants endorsed nonstereotypical gender assignment to victim and aggressor roles to allow for separate statistical analysis of these situations.

Gender-Neutral Sexual Experiences Survey

Responses regarding sexual victimization and aggression experiences since age 14 as assessed by the modified SES are presented for females and males in Table II. Using scoring procedures described in Koss, Gidycz, and Wisniewski (1987), each respondent was classified in one of five categories, according to the most serious victimization she or he had experienced (zero yes responses = none, highest yes responses to items 1-3 = sexual contact, 4-5 = attempted rape, 6-7 = sexual coercion, 8-10 = rape). Reports of victimization were given by 65.0% of women and 38.5% of men. All but one of the rape experiences reported by men involved having unwanted intercourse because someone gave them alcohol or drugs. Reports of aggression (with five categories parallel to victimization categories) were given by 2.8% of women and 31.6% of men.

Pearson correlation coefficients were computed between the five levels of participants’ sexual victimization reported on the SES and each of the three vignette disapproval rating subscales. There were no significant correlations between SES scores and disapproval rating subscale, either for all participants combined or for females and males separately.

Table II. Percentage of Participants Reporting Victimization and

Aggression on the SES

Victimization Aggression

Female Male Female Male

None 35.0 61.5 97.2 68.4

Sexual contact 14.6 7.0 1.4 10.5

Sexual coercion 20.4 10.5 1.4 12.3

Attempted rape 6.6 10.5 0.0 0.0

Rape 23.4 10.5 0.0 8.8

DISCUSSION

Disapproval Ratings

Internal Consistency. Internal consistency was acceptable (.84 or higher) for all three ratings of disapproval subscales, indicating that the scales would be appropriate for use in future research. Most studies of acquaintance rape use rather simply designed dependent variable measures and do not assess their psychometric properties. Future research would be improved by use of more carefully designed and assessed measures. Use of the same measures across different studies so that results could be more meaningfully compared would also be desirable. The factor analysis results suggest that the participants were able to meaningfully rate the vignettes from three different perspectives, as requested of them.

Level of Resistance. Level of resistance produced significant main effects in ANOVAs for Participant Rating and Victim Rating. The highest disapproval ratings were given to vignettes involving verbal and physical resistance, then verbal, then none. Strength of association measures ([[Eta].sup.2]) showing the percentage of the variance accounted for by level of resistance were relatively high (.26, .38) for both rating measures. These findings indicate that the type of consent/level of resistance given by the victim continues to be an important factor in college students’ judgments about sexual aggression.

The finding that Aggressor Rating showed no effect of level of resistance on disapproval ratings suggests that college students continue to expect that perpetrators of acquaintance rape do not see their own behavior as aggressive or assaultive. Aggressor Ratings showed only half the level of disapproval as Participant and Victim Ratings for all variables studied, whereas Participant and Victim Ratings were similar to each other, suggesting that participants identified more with victims than with aggressors.

Type of Sexual Behavior. This variable produced a significant main effect for Participant Rating (higher disapproval ratings for intercourse than for kiss/touch), but not for Victim Rating or Aggressor Rating. Strength of association for Participant Rating was low (.02), indicating that the difference in disapproval of kiss/touch vs. intercourse without consent is small, even when it is statistically significant. The small difference between disapproval of kiss/touch vignettes vs. intercourse vignettes may indicate that broader contemporary definitions of rape and assault are beginning to have an influence in broadening college students’ beliefs about what constitutes sexual assault.

Participant Gender. Participant gender was associated with significant main effects for Participant Rating and Victim Rating (higher disapproval ratings for females than for males), but not for Aggressor Rating. Strength of association measures were low (.07, .03), suggesting that the effects of participant gender are small. The assumption that men and women vary greatly in their attitudes toward acquaintance rape may be exaggerated in studies that report significant sex differences but do not give strength of association findings.

Best Overall Term

Choices of Best Overall Term varied significantly with level of resistance for each type of sexual behavior, with more negative labels assigned as level of resistance increased. In contrast to the findings for disapproval ratings that showed only small differences related to type of behavior, the percentage of participants assigning the label rape to vignettes was substantially higher for intercourse than for kissing and touching when verbal or physical resistance occurred. This underscores the important impact of choice of measurement technique on conclusions drawn in this area of research. Interestingly, even in the most extreme condition that combined intercourse with verbal and physical resistance, only 52.9% of the participants identified the vignette as involving rape. Given the amount of media and educational attention to acquaintance rape in recent years, especially on college campuses, the fact that nearly half of the participants did not identify this vignette as involving rape suggests that stereotypical ideas about rape are very resistant to change. The fact that level of force used by the aggressor was not specified or manipulated may have reduced the percentage of participants labeling situations as rape.

Assumed Gender of Aggressor and Victim in the Gender-Neutral Vignettes

Use of gender-neutral vignettes showed that participants do not necessarily assume the aggressor to be male and the victim to be female, or that the aggressor and the victim are of different genders. Since previous research using vignettes has focused on male aggressor/female victim scenarios, little to nothing is known about participants’ awareness and beliefs regarding sexual aggression in other types of couples. The degree of awareness of possible male victimization in the current study was especially interesting, and occurred most commonly when both individuals in the vignettes were assumed to be male.

Gender-Neutral Sexual Experiences Survey

SES results showed that participants of each gender reported instances of both victimization and aggression. A substantial proportion of men (38.5%) reported some level of victimization, comparable to some of the studies described by Struckman-Johnson (1991) and to Struckman-Johnson and Struckman-Johnson’s 1994 findings. Relatively few data are available on women as aggressors, and only 2.8% of women reported being sexual aggressors, as compared with 31.6% of men. Clearly this question warrants further research. Neither women nor men in the current study showed a correlation between their own experience of sexual victimization and their disapproval ratings of vignettes, in contrast to the findings of Cornett and Shuntich (1991) for women.

Suggestions for Future Research

Future research using methodology similar to that in the current study is needed to increase understanding of the variables that determine participants’ definitions of acquaintance rape. Degree of force used by the perpetrator is an important additional variable to study, as both level of resistance and degree of force appear to be critical components of the perception of situations as involving rape. Strength of association between variables should be reported in addition to significant differences to sort out the relative importance of different variables (or multiple regression analysis should be used). Gender-neutral vignettes and ratings showed promise in the current study for expanding research on sexual victimization beyond the stereotypic assumption of female victim and male aggressor, and use of this methodology should be further explored.

APPENDIX

Survey of Intergender Relationships

This survey requires that you indicate if the following situations have occurred for you since the age of 14, and how many times.

Note: Sexual intercourse is defined as penetration of a woman’s vagina or a man’s anus, no matter how slight, by a man’s penis. Ejaculation is not required. Fondling is defined as touching of the body through clothing, petting is touching of the body without clothing.

1. Have you ever given in to sexual contact (fondling, kissing, or petting, but not intercourse) when you didn’t want to because you were overwhelmed by someone’s continual arguments and pressure?

2. Have you ever had sexual contact (fondling, kissing, or petting, but not intercourse) when you didn’t want to because someone used their position of authority (boss, teacher, camp counselor, supervisor) to make you?

3. Have you ever had sexual contact (fondling, kissing, or petting, but not intercourse) when you didn’t want to because someone threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc.) to make you?

4. Have you ever had someone attempt sexual intercourse (get on top of you, attempt to penetrate your body or make you penetrate their body) when you didn’t want to by threatening or using some degree of force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc.), but intercourse did not occur?

5. Have you ever had someone attempt sexual intercourse (get on top of you, attempt to penetrate your body or make you penetrate their body) when you didn’t want to by giving you alcohol or drugs, but intercourse did not occur?

6. Have you even given in to sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because you were overwhelmed by someone’s continual arguments and pressure?

7. Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because someone used their position of authority (boss, teacher, camp counselor, supervisor) to make you?

8. Have you ever had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because someone gave you alcohol or drugs?

9. Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because someone threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc.) to make you?

10. Have you had sex acts (oral intercourse or penetration by objects or fingers) when you didn’t want to because someone threatened or used some degree of force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc.) to make you?

11. Have you ever caused someone to give in to sexual contact (fondling, kissing, or petting, but not intercourse) when they didn’t want to because they were overwhelmed by your continual arguments and pressure?

12. Have you ever caused someone to have sexual contact (fondling, kissing, or petting, but not intercourse) when they didn’t want to because you used your position of authority (boss, teacher, camp counselor, supervisor) to make them?

13. Have you ever made someone have sexual contact (fondling, kissing, or petting, but not intercourse) when they didn’t want to because you threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisting their arm, holding them down, etc.) to make them?

14. Have you ever attempted to make someone have sexual intercourse (get on top of them, attempt to penetrate their body or make them penetrate your body) when they didn’t want to by threatening or using some degree of force (twisting their arm, holding them down, etc.), but intercourse did not occur?

15. Have you ever attempted to make someone have sexual intercourse (get on top of them, attempt to penetrate their body or make them penetrate your body) when they didn’t want to by giving them alcohol or drugs, but intercourse did not occur?

16. Have you made someone give in to sexual intercourse when they didn’t want to because they were overwhelmed by your continual arguments and pressure?

17. Have you made someone have sexual intercourse when they didn’t want to because you used your position of authority (boss, teacher, camp counselor, supervisor) to make them?

18. Have you ever made someone have sexual intercourse when they didn’t want to because you gave them alcohol or drugs?

19. Have you made someone have sexual intercourse when they didn’t want to because you threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisting their arm, holding them down, etc.) to make them?

20. Have you made someone have sex acts (oral intercourse or penetration by objects or fingers) when they didn’t want to because you threatened or used some degree of force (twisting their arm, holding them down, etc.) to make them?

REFERENCES

Bechhofer, L., & Parrot, A. (1991). What is acquaintance rape? In A. Parrot & L. Bechhofer (Eds.), Acquaintance rape: The hidden crime. New York: Wiley.

Berkowitz, A. (1992). College men as perpetrators of acquaintance rape and sexual assault: A review of the recent research. Journal of American College Health, 40, 175-181.

Bostwick, T. D., & Delucia, J. L. (1992). Effects of gender and specific dating behaviors on perceptions of sex willingness and date rape. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 11, 14-25.

Burt, M. R., & Albin, R. S. (1981). Rape myths, rape definitions, and probability of conviction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11, 212-230.

Cornett, M. B., & Shuntich, R. (1991). Sexual aggression: Perceptions of its likelihood of occurring and some correlates of self admitted perpetration. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 73, 499-507.

Donat, P. L. N., & D’Emilio, J. (1992). A feminist redefinition of rape and sexual assault: Historical foundations and change. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 9-22.

Koss, M. P., & Gidycz, C. A. (1985). Sexual experiences survey: Reliability and validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 422-423.

Koss, M. P., Gidycz, C. A., & Wisniewski, N. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162-170.

Koss, M. P., & Oros, C. J. (1982). Sexual experiences survey: A research instrument investigating sexual aggression and victimization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 455-457.

Muehlenhard, C. L. (1988). Misinterpreted dating behaviors and the risk of date rape. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 6, 20-37.

Muehlenhard, C. L., Friedman, D. E., & Thomas, C. M. (1985). Is date rape justifiable? The effects of dating activity, who initiated, who paid, and men’s attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 297-310.

Muehlenhard, C. L., Harney, P. A., & Jones, J. M. (1992). From “victim-precipitated rape” to “date rape”: How far have we come? In J. Bancroft, C. Davis, & H. Ruppel (Eds.), Annual review of sex research: An integrative and interdisciplinary review (Vol. 3). Lake Mills, IA: Society for the Scientific Study for Sex.

Muehlenhard, C. L., Powch, I. G., Phelps, J. L., & Giusti, L. M. (1992). Definitions of rape: Scientific and political implications. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 2344.

Shotland, R. L., & Goodstein, L. (1983). Just because she doesn’t want to doesn’t mean its rape: An experimentally based causal model of the perception of rape in a dating situation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 220-232.

Struckman-Johnson, C. (1991). Male victims of acquaintance rape. In A. Parrot & L. Bechhofer (Eds.), Acquaintance rape: The hidden crime. New York: Wiley.

Struckman-Johnson, C., & Struckman-Johnson, D. (1994). Men pressured and forced into sexual experience. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23, 93-114.

COPYRIGHT 1996 Plenum Publishing Corporation

COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group