Women S Responses to Unwanted Sexual Advances: the Role of Alcohol and Inhibition Conflict

Elaine Dicicco

Professor Hartlaub

Paper 2

Women’s Responses to Unwanted Sexual Advances: The Role of Alcohol and

Inhibition Conflict

Kelly Cue Davis, William H. George, and Jeanette Norris

Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28 (2004), 333-343

Background

Although extensive studies have supported the strong relationship between alcohol and sexual assault, this study further examines the affects of alcohol and a woman’s responses to initial sexual advances. A previous study found that sexual assaults were prompted by initial consensual sexual activities (Testa & Livingston, 1999).

Harrington and Leitenberg found that female victims of sexual assault that were under the influence of alcohol were more likely to agree to sexual activities preceding the assault than sober females. These suggestions are significant because men may mistake these initial sexual activities as consent for sexual intercourse.

Steele and Josephs developed an “inhibition conflict model” which suggests that alcohol is most influential in high conflict situations with “strong instigatory and inhibitory cues” (Steele & Joesephs, 1990). Because alcohol reduces one’s ability to perform cognitive processes, an intoxicated person cannot carry out the cognitive processes necessary for recognizing inhibitory cues. This means that intoxicated women

1 may be more likely to consent to sexual activity (an instigatory cue) because her cognitive capacity is not at its fullest – which puts the woman at risk for sexual assault.

An inner conflict may be happening for the woman, depending on the type of relationship she has with her partner. She may want to please her partner by consenting to sexual activities in order to further their relationship – despite the fact that she does not want to have sexual intercourse. Dating women might portray willingness to sexual activity while still being careful not to have sexual intercourse. This is much harder for intoxicated women to balance – therefore they may agree to sexual activities they would not have agreed to originally.

Another aspect of this study is how a woman responds to sexual aggression. It has been found that women under the influence of alcohol are less likely to react to sexual aggression with effective refusal strategies than sober women (Abbey, Clinton,

McAuslan, Zawacki, & Buck, 2002). Intoxicated women also tend to respond passively to sexual aggression (Norris, George, Stoner, & Masters, 2002).

Hypothesis

The experimenters hypothesized that “intoxicated women in a high conflict situation (those in a serious relationship at the time point revolving genital fondling and a statement of desire for intercourse) would be more likely than sober women to consent to such fondling” (Davis, George, & Norris, p.335). They also expected intoxicated women to respond more passively than sober women.

2 H0 : There is no significant difference in responses of intoxicated women versus

sober women and responses of women in serious relationships versus casual

relationships.

Ha : There is a significant difference in responses of intoxicated women versus

sober women and responses of women in serious relationships versus casual

relationships.

Experiment

A group of 62 women from a large western university were collected by an advertisement in the newspaper for this study. A monetary incentive of $10 an hour was provided. The participants’ mean age was 22.6 and the majority of participants had between 1 and 10 partners (73.3%). They drank a mean of 4.4 drinks a week. Heavy drinkers and abstainers were eliminated from this study.

This study is classified as a 2 X 2 design, where participants were given either a non-alcoholic drink or an alcoholic drink with a goal breath alcohol concentration (BAC) of .06 gm%. They were given a breathalyzer in confirm their BAC was .00gm% before they were given mixed drinks with 1.51 ml/kg of 80-proof vodka and orange juice (with a

1:4 ratio). Participants were told to drink each drink evenly over a 3-minute period.

Participants were placed in a written scenario where they were in either a casual or serious relationship (each where they did not want to have sex). The vignette’s casual dating relationship was described as the participant liking the partner but not being in love with him nor certain of how serious she wants the relationship to be. The vignette’s

3 serious relationship was described as the participant being in love with her partner and wanting a long-term relationship with her partner.

Dependent variables of the 2 X 2 design were how the participants responded to increased levels of unwanted sexual advances by their imaginary partner (three levels including response after kissing/breast fondling, after genital fondling/statement about sex, and after a sexual assault threat). Participants were given a 14-item questionnaire to measure the likelihood of how they would respond.

Each vignette was designed to create either a low or high level of conflict within the participant with each increase of her partner’s sexual advances. In order to validate these levels of conflict, the study randomly recruited thirty-two undergraduate women.

They were randomly assigned to one of the relationship scenarios and were asked to assess the level of conflict they experienced based on a scale of 1 – 7 (one being not difficult to make a decision and 7 being very difficult to make a decision).

Results

2 X 2 studies use a two-way analysis of variance (or ANOVA) because it compares population means that are classified according to two or more factors. In this study we have two independent variables: beverage condition and relationship condition.

The three levels of unwanted sexual advance serves as the three levels of both factors.

This study measured three dependent variables: consent likelihood, assertiveness, and resistance. The ANOVA uses the F statistic, which is the square of the t statistic (Moore,

David S. and George P. McCabe, 741).

4 In order to test the amount of inhibition conflict in each situation, a t-test was performed with the independent variable of “likelihood of consent” and the dependent variable of “amount of inhibition conflict” for the serious relationship at level 2 of unwanted sexual advances (genital fondling/intercourse desire). The t-test gave a z score of –1.70 and a p-value < .05 (one tailed) which indicates a significant difference (a greater likelihood of consent) in responses of intoxicated women over sober women. T- tests that were also performed for low-conflict situations (levels 1-3 in casual relationships and levels 1 and 3 in serious relationships) did not gave significant results.

“As predicted, women’s estimated likelihood of consenting decreased significantly as the aggressiveness of sexual advances increased” (Davis, George, &

Norris, 2004). The F statistic revealed a p-value < .001. In looking between levels, women in a serious relationship were more likely to give consent than women in a casual relationship (with a p-value < .001). Women in a serious relationship were also significantly more likely to give consent after kissing/breast touching and genital touching/intercourse desire (levels 1 and 2) whereas at level 3 (rape threat) women in each relationship type similarly were unlikely to respond.

A significant p-value < .001 was found for the amount of assertive resistance depending on the level of sexual advances. Women were found to be more assertive as the level of sexual advances increased. Women in serious relationships were found to have a significantly less assertiveness than women in casual relationships (p-value < .05).

After the rape threat (level 3 of sexual advances) there was no significant difference between women in each type of relationship, however. In addition, intoxicated women

5 showed a significant difference over sober women in their passive responses, with a p- value < .05.

Conclusion

Three major conclusions have been found through this study, all of which support the experimenters’ (alternative) hypotheses: In a high-conflict situation (serious relationship at level 2 of sexual advances), intoxicated women are more likely than sober women to consent to sexual activity. Intoxicated women are more likely to respond passively in the face of unwanted sexual advances. Lastly, “women in serious relationships were more likely to consent and less likely to resist initial sexual advances than were women in a casual relationship” (Davis, George, & Norris, 2004). The p- values were significant enough (using a  = .05) to reject the null hypothesis (that there was no difference in responses of intoxicated women and sober women/women in serious relationships and casual relationships) and support the alternative hypothesis (that there is a significant difference).

Because intoxicated women are more likely to consent to initial sexual advances, their partner may misinterpret this as a desire for sex and consequently puts these women at a greater risk for sexual assault. Passive responses (more likely displayed by intoxicated women) can increase a woman’s “sexual vulnerability”, thus putting women at risk for sexual assault (Davis, George, & Norris, 2004). Though the physical effect of alcohol relaxes responses, there could be a psychological implication here as well. This study raises the question of cognitive factors and societal norms as possible explanation for an increase in passive responses in intoxicated women. This study illustrates

6 complicated nature of a woman’s decision making: she considers the man’s behavior and the type of relationship she is in.

Critique

I thought this study was particularly interesting because it examined the initial sexual advances in a relationship – because that probably has a significant influence of a man’s possible misconception about an intimate situation. I do think that the results and conclusions that the study made are valid. However, this study could have used a different sample of participants to examine any kinds of class differences in alcohol- related responses to unwanted sexual advances. All these participants had enough money to pay for college. Would consent to sexual advances be greater in poorer or abused women? Perhaps the results would be different – or conversely, the results may be same.

This was not a completely random sample, either. The study could fall victim to response bias because it’s participants volunteered to be a part of the activity.

It would also be interesting, through a survey, to specifically explore why women might respond more passively or less assertively, based on any kinds of societal expectations. Though intoxication has many sedative effects, it can have the tendency to let our real inner desires or fears surface. What subconscious thoughts might be involved in a woman’s decisions in these intimate situations? This question may never be answered fully but further studies could indicate possible answers.

It could also be useful to do a similar study involving only male participants and their responses to what a woman conveys in intimate situations. A survey of sexual

7 assault victims and offenders could be carried out to support findings in this study or to provide another interesting viewpoint on this issue.

References:

Davis, Kelly Cue, William H. George, and Jeanette Norris. Women’s Responses to

Unwanted Sexual Advances: The Role of Alcohol and Inhibition Conflict.

Psychology of Women Quarterly 28 (2004): 333-343.

Moore, David S. and George P. McCabe. Introduction to the Practice of Statistics. Fifth

Edition. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company, 2004. 720 – 788.