Abstract IMPAIRED SEXUAL ASSERTIVENESS AND

Abstract

IMPAIRED SEXUAL ASSERTIVENESS AND CONSENSUAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY AS RISK FACTORS FOR SEXUAL COERCION IN HETEROSEXUAL COLLEGE WOMEN

by David Pierce Walker

This study investigated the role of sexual assertiveness as a predictor of verbal sexual coercion in a sample of 447 college women using self-report measures. The Sexual Assertiveness Questionnaire for Women (SAQ-W) assessed relational sexual assertiveness and sexual confidence and communication assertiveness. It was hypothesized that more impaired sexual assertiveness in the context of higher rates of sexual activity would be associated with an increased risk for verbal sexual coercion. Impaired sexual assertiveness was associated with multiple forms of sexual victimization, including verbal coercion, and was a predictor of negative sexual identity and non-sexual motivations for sexual activity. In addition, sexual assertiveness moderated the relationship between the number of sexual partners and verbal sexual coercion. Findings suggest that continued research into the construct of sexual assertiveness may inform risk reduction intervention strategies for college women. IMPAIRED SEXUAL ASSERTIVENESS AND CONSENSUAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY

AS RISK FACTORS FOR SEXUAL COERCION IN HETEROSEXUAL COLLEGE

WOMEN

A Thesis

Submitted to the

Faculty of Miami University

in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

Department of Psychology

David Pierce Walker

Miami University

Oxford, Ohio

2006

Advisor______Terri Messman-Moore

Reader______Margaret Wright

Reader______Rose Marie Ward

Table of Contents

Introduction...... 1

Method ...... 7

Results...... 9

Discussion...... 14

References...... 20

Table 1 ...... 23

Table 2 ...... 24

Table 3 ...... 28

Table 4 ...... 32

Table 5 ...... 33

Table 6 ...... 34

Table 7 ...... 40

Figures...... 42

Appendices...... 54

List of tables

Table 1. Trauma Symptom Inventory Subscale Breakdown

Table 2. Exploratory Factor Loadings for SAQ-W

Table 3. Confirmatory Factor Loadings for SAQ-W

Table 4. Correlations Between SAQ-W Scales and Coercive Sexual Experiences

Table 5. Analysis of Group Differences in Hypothesis One ANOVA

Table 6. Coefficients of Predictor Variables in Tests of Hypothesis Three

Table 7. Coefficients of Predictor Variables in Tests of Hypothesis Four

iii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Relational Sexual Assertiveness and Number of Received Oral Sex Partners as Predictors of Threats to End the Relationship

Figure 2. Relational Sexual Assertiveness and Number of Sexual Intercourse Partners as Predictors of Threats to End the Relationship

Figure 3. Relational Sexual Assertiveness and Number of Received Oral Sex Partners as Predictors of Verbally Coerced Sexual Intercourse

Figure 4. Relational Sexual Assertiveness and Number of Given Oral Sex Partners as Predictors of Verbally Coerced Sexual Intercourse

Figure 5. Relational Sexual Assertiveness and Number of Sexual Intercourse Partners as Predictors of Verbally Coerced Sexual Intercourse

Figure 6. Sexual Confidence and Communication Assertiveness and Number of Received Oral Sex Partners as Predictors of Verbally Coerced Intercourse

Figure 7. Sexual Confidence and Communication Assertiveness and Number of Given Oral Sex Partners as Predictors of Verbally Coerced Intercourse

Figure 8. Sexual Confidence and Communication Assertiveness and Number of Sexual Intercourse Partners as Predictors of Verbally Coerced Intercourse

Figure 9. Relational Sexual Assertiveness and Misinterpreted Intimacy as Predictors of Threats to End the Relationship

Figure 10. Relational Sexual Assertiveness and Misinterpreted Intimacy as Predictors of Verbally Coerced Oral Sex

Figure 11. Relational Sexual Assertiveness and Misinterpreted Intimacy as Predictors of Verbally Coerced Sexual Intercourse

Figure 12. Sexual Confidence and Communication Assertiveness and Misinterpreted Intimacy as Predictors of Verbally Coerced Sexual Intercourse

Impaired Sexual Assertiveness and Consensual Sexual Activity as Risk Factors for Sexual Coercion in Heterosexual College Women

Sexual victimization of college women is an all too common problem in our society. According to a study published by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), as many as one in four college women are sexually victimized during their time in college (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000). However, the majority of these victimization incidents did not involve force or threat of force, but rather were incidents of verbal sexual coercion or non-forced unwanted intercourse. Additionally, the majority of the perpetrators of these incidents were previously known to the victims, indicating that the traditional “stranger in the alley” rape myth is grossly exaggerated. Many of the women surveyed indicated that they attempted to use some form of protective actions (e.g., trying to communicate a desire to not engage in sexual activity) to prevent the assault, but for many these actions were unsuccessful. It is in an attempt to understand this particular finding that the current research was developed. As seen in the results of the NIJ study, verbal sexual coercion is a common form of sexual victimization. The predominant model for understanding sexual victimization was developed by Mary Koss and has been utilized in countless studies to identify individuals with victimization histories. Koss theorizes a continuum of sexual victimization beginning with unwanted sexual contact, then proceeding to verbal sexual coercion (operationally defined as verbal arguments and pressure or misuse of an authority position to attain sex), attempted physically forced coercion, and ending with forcible sexual coercion (Koss & Gidycz, 1985; Koss, Gidycz, & Wisniewski, 1987). However, the concept of a continuum of victimization experiences has been challenged by several authors (e.g., O’Sullivan, 2005; Testa & Dermen, 1999). Testa and Dermen (1999) suggest that verbal sexual coercion represents a qualitatively distinct type of victimization experience; one that has correlates different from forcible coercion. For example, although assertiveness training is often incorporated into risk reduction programming for women (see Parrot, 1996), Testa and Dermen (1999) suggest that assertiveness may only be relevant to risk for verbal sexual coercion and not forcible sexual coercion. They argue that women with higher levels of assertiveness will be more equipped to successfully resist verbal and emotional pressure for sexual activity and that sexually aggressive men may be less likely to target assertive women for verbal coercion because they perceive such advances to be unsuccessful. However, when unwanted sexual advances are accompanied by force, assertiveness is unlikely to be sufficient to avoid victimization. To test their assumptions, Testa and Dermen (1999) examined the differential correlates of verbal and forcible sexual coercion. Both forms of coercion were associated with more casual sexual partners, increased alcohol consumption, and sexual behavior in the context of alcohol use. However verbal sexual coercion was also associated with greater endorsement of sex-related alcohol expectancies, lower levels of self-esteem, and low assertiveness. Additionally, women at risk for verbal coercion endorsed greater amounts of alcohol use in sexual encounters. Furthermore, verbal coercion but not forcible coercion, was associated with sex-related alcohol expectancies, which the authors suggest reflect a belief of low control in sexual situations as well as an expectancy of being unable to resist unwanted sexual advances. Moreover, the

disinhibiting effects of alcohol could further compound risk in conjunction with lower assertiveness, and increase the risk of alcohol-facilitated sexual victimization. A model developed by O’Sullivan (2005) broadly defines sexual coercion as sexual behavior that occurs when one partner recognizes that s/he does not want to engage in the sexual behavior, communicates this lack of interest to his/her partner, but sex occurs anyway. Under this model, the woman must be able to recognize her own sexual interest and communicate the desire for sexual activity to her partner. O’Sullivan suggests that coercive sexual experiences can be related to two factors, either inability to recognize a desire for sexual activity or inability to communicate that desire to one’s partner. Therefore, this model suggests that non-coercive sexual experience requires the recognition of sexual motivation and desire as the force behind sexual behavior. This would suggest that other non-sexual motivations (e.g., pleasing a partner, sex as a tension-reducing behavior, etc.) which result in sexual behavior may create increased risk for coercion as well. Shackelford and Goetz (2004) identified several factors relating to actions that may be present in a sexually coercive exchange. These factors included aggressive, violent experiences (e.g., “My partner physically forced me to have sex with him”) as well as manipulative experiences (e.g., “My partner told me that if I loved him I would have sex with him”). This suggests that women seeking to protect themselves from coercion need the skills to respond assertively to both forcibly and verbally coercive pressures in a sexual interaction, skills that may well be different depending on the type of coercion (Cleveland, Koss, & Lyons, 1999). The purpose of the current study is to examine a measure of sexually-based assertiveness and to determine if this construct can identify individuals who are more vulnerable to verbal sexual coercion.

The Construct of Assertiveness In general, assertiveness is viewed as a component of personality related to extroversion or agency, and with the ability to identify and confidently express opinions, feelings, and personal rights. Additionally, the expression of assertiveness is related to both social status and social roles, indicating that the immediate situation and relationship are important factors in the occurrence of assertive behavior (Norris, Masters, & Zawacki, 2004; Twenge, 2001). Assertiveness in sexual situations has been examined in two ways in the literature. The most prevalent definition focuses on condom usage and pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease prevention in women (Morokoff et al., 1997; Noar, 2003). The current measures of sexual assertiveness based on this construct imply that the woman is already engaged in consensual sexual activity and that her assertiveness is grounded in a need to create a physically safe sexual experience from a sexual health standpoint (i.e., request partner to wear a condom). Unfortunately, defining sexual assertiveness only in this manner does not necessarily advance a construct that is useful in researching assertiveness as a risk factor for verbal sexual coercion. In order to measure assertiveness in a way that is relevant to understanding the mechanisms of verbal sexual coercion, the construct needs to be broadened and defined more relationally such that having higher levels of sexual assertiveness encourages consensual sexual experiences. Morokoff’s (1997) widely used measure, the Sexual Assertiveness Scale (SAS), incorporates some aspects of this more relevant definition. However, the main purpose

of this measure is to evaluate safe-sex assertiveness as discussed above, although this scale also has two subscales, one ostensibly measuring “initiation assertiveness” and the other measuring “refusal assertiveness”, that relate more to the occurrence of sexual behavior in general. However, both of these subscales measure assertiveness in primarily behavioral terms (i.e., physical resistance in the presence of force). Although this is useful to a certain extent, it fails to fully capture the complex nature of sexual interactions (e.g., responding to verbal coercion by physically pushing someone is potentially more socially unacceptable than the verbal coercion was in the first place) and the associated interpersonal and behavioral expectations (Edgar & Fitzpatrick, 1993; Frith & Kitzinger, 2001; Leigh, Aramburu & Norris, 1992). Furthermore, as discussed by Testa and Dermen (1999), it is unclear whether interpersonal sexual assertiveness is relevant to forcibly coercive sexual experiences. Greene and Navarro (1998) examined assertiveness more interpersonally and determined that it served as a protective factor for sexual victimization. This study broadly defined victimization such that it included all elements of Koss’ hierarchy for both adult sexual victimization as well as child sexual abuse. To assess women’s assertiveness with men, the assertiveness subscale of the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP; Horowitz, Rosenberg, Baer, Ureno, & Villasenor, 1988) was modified by adding the word “with the opposite gender” to the end of each item. This adaptation allowed for the measurement of the social influence of heterosexual interpersonal interactions on assertiveness; however questions were not specific to sexual situations. This study utilized a prospective design and found that low assertiveness, along with prior victimization, was the most consistent predictor of future victimization. If low general assertiveness in heterosexual interpersonal situations is a risk factor, then we may assume that measuring interpersonal sexual assertiveness would result in more robust findings regarding risk for verbal sexual coercion.

Sexual Scripts Sexual scripts are one of the primary means by which gender, sexuality, and the interpersonal and behavioral “rules” for sexual behavior are linked. They represent a general framework that underlies sexual behavior and, although not directly assessed in this study, provide a general lens for considering all the factors in the sexual interaction. Sexual scripts revolve around “the idea that sexuality is learned from culturally available messages that define what ‘counts’ as sex, how to recognize sexual situations, and what to do in sexual encounters”(Frith & Kitzinger, 2001, p. 210). Frith and Kitzinger note that the terminology is often used interchangeably with other terms relating to social messages regarding sexuality, including but not limited to: stereotypes, social roles, norms, and gender socialization patterns. The use of these other terms as synonyms for sexual scripts is somewhat inaccurate, however. Sexual scripts represent a socio-cognitive phenomenon that is highly descriptive of the appropriate sequence of behaviors in any given sexual exchange in any given situation. While they can incorporate stereotypes, for example, that men are interested in the physical sexual act whereas women tie sex to romance and emotion (Leigh, Aramburu, & Norris, 1992), social roles such as men providing women material tokens such as drinks, meals, etc. to indicate sexual interest (Edgar & Fitzpatrick, 1993), norms such as men initiating communication in a public setting (Edgar & Fitzpatrick, 1993), and

gender socialization patterns (e.g., one of the central messages of masculinity is that men should pursue sexual opportunities, Schwartz & Dekeseredy, 1997), sexual scripts represent a comprehensive set of expectancies and instructions for sexual interactions. One of the primary assumptions regarding sexual scripts is the step-by-step nature of heterosexual interaction in Western culture (Frith & Kitzinger, 2001). This script has been identified in research as the “Traditional Sexual Script” (TSS). In the TSS, sexual activity is initiated through kissing, followed by tongue kissing, and ultimately culminates in sexual intercourse. In addition to behavioral information, the TSS contains differential messages for each gender regarding cognitions, expectancies, morality, and assertiveness. Byers (1996) outlines the expected behaviors and attitudes associated with the TSS, arguing the TSS suggests that men are driven by strong sexual needs, are obsessed with sex, are willing to act on any sexual opportunity offered by a woman, and may use any number of potentially coercive tactics to engage in sexual behavior. Women are described in the TSS as having few sexual needs, being sexually reluctant, slow to arouse, and being focused on satisfying their (male) partner’s sexual needs. According to the TSS, women seek sex as a means of procuring love or commitment, and women’s sexual experience decreases perceived worth as a relationship partner in the eyes of society (Byers, 1996). Women are scripted to play a passive, relatively non-assertive stance in response to male sexual initiation, even to the extent that when sexual activity is desired, a “token resistance” (e.g., the belief that a woman says “no” when she really means “yes”) is required in order to maintain the perception that sex is not a need or desire for women (Muehlenhard & Rodgers, 1998). Ultimately, the expectation of token resistance potentially increases the amount of overall sexual assertiveness that is needed for women to effectively define the limits of a sexual encounter and communicate that to their partner.

Barriers to Female Sexual Assertiveness: Token Resistance, Ambivalence, and Compliance Token resistance has been found to occur in the script for both males and females, usually occurring before intimate touching is initiated (Edgar & Fitzpatrick, 1993). Offering up real resistance represents a violation of the script, which accounts for the difficulty of saying “no” to sexual activity (Frith & Kitzinger, 2001). From the position of the male partner, belief in token resistance as an essential component of the TSS can actually promote sexual assault by encouraging miscommunication between sexual partners. Women are scripted to behave unassertively; therefore actual assertive behavior may easily be misinterpreted as token resistance (Muehlenhard & Hollabaugh, 1988). For women, the expression of behavior identified by men as token resistance may in fact be an expression of sexual ambivalence (e.g., the experience of concurrently wanting and not wanting sex). This experience ranges from wanting the sexual activity itself but not the consequences, to not wanting to engage in sex but being willing to do so (Muehlenhard & Peterson, 2005). Sexual ambivalence may act as a barrier to sexual assertiveness in two ways. First, the expression of ambivalence by women may be interpreted as token resistance by a male partner and summarily disregarded in accordance with the TSS. Sexual ambivalence also may interact with the component of assertiveness that requires the identification of feelings, opinions, and rights with respect to a particular situation. These

factors may combine to make consent for sexual behavior and communication of that consent increasingly more difficult for non-assertive women. Considering O’Sullivan’s (2005) model, these women may simply acquiesce to sexual behavior for non-sexual motivations. Sexual consent and sexual communication are two closely related constructs that are highly relevant to the proposed sexual assertiveness construct. Outright communication of consent is typically not present in the sexual script (Frith & Kitzinger, 2001). However, studies have shown that the communication of sexual consent occurs both verbally and non-verbally, with the type of communication used depending on how the sexual scenario was initiated (i.e., non-verbally initiated scenarios contained more indirect verbal signals) (Beres, Herold & Maitland, 2004; Hickman & Muehlenhard, 1999). The ability to communicate in sexual situations is an essential aspect of sexual assertiveness. Quina et al. (2000) found that women with fewer past negative sexual experiences and more cognitively consistent sexual attitudes tended to engage in more direct verbal communication during sexual scenarios. For this communication to take place, the research suggests that the women who could communicate in an assertive manner were not ambivalent with respect to their desire for sexual activity, and held clear ideas regarding the scope and nature of that desired sexual activity. Sexual compliance is a construct that examines the wider range of situational variables that can play a role in sexual interactions. One of the most important aspects of sexual compliance is its interpersonal perspective. In general, research on sexual compliance examines the reasons why individuals engage in unwanted sex, of which verbal sexual coercion may be one aspect (Impett & Peplau, 2003). This research suggests that unwanted sex may not necessarily be coercive, depending on the motivations of the complying partner. Individuals may comply out of a desire to please a partner or out of a desire to conform to external standards or norms (Cooper, Shapiro, & Powers, 1992; Impett & Peplau, 2003). However, compliance in the context of a dating relationship may also stem from ambivalence which, in the context of a dating scenario, may lead to an experience of verbal sexual coercion.

Purpose As a qualitatively distinct type of victimization experience, verbal sexual coercion is an important area of research (Testa & Dermen, 1999). The TSS includes a certain degree of allowance for verbally coercive behavior on the part of the male partner, as well as sets up numerous barriers to assertiveness in women by encouraging problematic beliefs (i.e., sexual behavior should focus on a partner’s satisfaction), and behaviors (i.e., a need to comply with male initiation). The TSS also includes elements that allow men to comfortably disregard women’s attempts at assertive communication (i.e., token resistance). Given these relatively normative aspects of the TSS, it is not surprising that the majority of sexual victimization experiences involves verbal coercion, which only highlights the need to further understand the role of interpersonal sexual assertiveness as a risk factor for verbal coercion. Greene and Navarro (1998) began the process of examining assertiveness in an interpersonal context as a predictor of vulnerability for sexual victimization. However, considering the general impact of sexual scripts and models specific to coercion such as those by O’Sullivan (2005), it is not enough to evaluate an individual’s capacity for outright (generalized) assertive behavior in the face

of physical threat. Assertiveness in sexual situations involving partner-focused or compliance-based motivations may be an important trait that may place individuals differentially at risk for verbal versus forcible sexual coercion (Testa & Dermen, 1999). Although Testa and Dermen linked sexual behavior to sexual coercion and showed a weak link between assertiveness and sexual coercion, they failed to discuss how sexual assertiveness might influence sexual behavior and subsequent risk for assault. Given this, the proposed study will attempt to determine the role of sexual assertiveness in the occurrence of verbal sexual coercion among a sample of college women, with a focus on the interaction between assertiveness and consensual sexual behavior.

Hypotheses The first step in examining the utility of a sexual assertiveness construct is to examine its relationship with victimization. Examining the general hierarchy of victimization suggested by Koss ( Koss & Gidycz, 1985) and with specific considerations given to the modification of this hierarchy by Testa and Dermen (1999), impaired sexual assertiveness was hypothesized to relate positively with verbal sexual coercion and with alcohol-facilitated sexual victimization, but was not expected to be related to forcible coercion. It was expected that impaired sexual assertiveness would act as a risk factor for both verbal and alcohol-facilitated coercion because these types of coercion include interpersonal factors that affect decision-making and assertive resistance to these types of coercion would make clear that further sexual activity was undesired, at which point no sex should occur (O’Sullivan, 2005). According to O’Sullivan’s (2005) model, one possible psychological process associated with sexual coercion involves engaging in sexual activity without necessarily desiring that activity. This could either reflect elements of sexual ambivalence or non- sexual motivations for engaging in sexual activity. Although women in this situation may not directly report experiences of coercion, sexual behavior may still result in psychological distress and reflect concerns about sexuality due to the fact that the sexual behavior itself is potentially unwanted, although other factors associated with that interaction may be desired (e.g., combating loneliness by engaging in sexual behavior). As these factors are related to identifying beliefs and motivations regarding sexual behavior, women with more impaired sexual assertiveness should have more distress about their sexuality and also endorse more non-sexual motivations for engaging in sexual activity. Testa and Dermen (1999) noted a small positive relationship between sexual behavior and verbal sexual coercion, which suggests that the more sexual behavior a woman engages in, the more risk exists for verbal sexual coercion. However, because sexual assertiveness is tied to both consensual and non-consensual sexual behavior, sexual assertiveness may interact with sexual behavior in predicting risk for verbal sexual coercion (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Frazier, Tix, & Barron, 2004). It is hypothesized that sexual assertiveness will act as a moderator in the relationship between sexual behavior and sexual coercion. Specifically, women with impaired sexual assertiveness and more sexual partners are predicted to have more sexually coercive experiences than women with less impaired sexual assertiveness. Finally, sexual assertiveness will be examined in relation to sexual miscommunication as a specific risk factor for instances of sexual coercion. Using Koss’

(1985) model as well as an understanding of the sequential nature of sexual behavior described by sexual scripts, instances of sexually coercive behavior are likely to be preceded by instances in which sexual intentions are not clearly communicated between partners. Therefore, it is predicted that sexual assertiveness should act as a moderator in the relationship between rates of sexual miscommunication and sexual coercion. Specifically, women with more impaired sexual assertiveness in the context of more failures in communication are hypothesized to have more verbally sexually coercive experiences than women with less impaired sexual assertiveness in the same context. In summary, this study has four main hypotheses: 1. Impaired sexual assertiveness is hypothesized to act as a risk factor for both verbal and alcohol-facilitated coercion. 2. Impaired sexual assertiveness is hypothesized to predict a more negative sexual identity and the use of more non-sexual motivations for engaging in sexual activity. 3. Women with more impaired sexual assertiveness and more sexual partners are predicted to have more sexually coercive experiences than women with less impaired sexual assertiveness. 4. Impaired sexual assertiveness in the context of more failures in communication is hypothesized to predict verbally sexually coercive experiences.

Method

Participants The sample consisted of 501 college women recruited from the subject pool at a mid-sized Midwestern university. These data were archival in nature and were collected from the subject pool beginning in the spring of 2004 and continuing throughout the 2004-2005 academic year. The age of the women ranged from 17 to 24 (M = 18.71, SD = .95). Approximately 68% of the women in the sample were freshmen and 92.6% were Caucasian. Black and Hispanic participants each comprised 1.6% of the sample, Asian participants accounted for 2.2%, and Native American and biracial participants each accounted for less than 1% of the sample. The majority of participants reported upper middle class socioeconomic status (52% reported a family income of greater the $100k a year with another 21% reporting that they did not know). The demographic characteristics of this sample are consistent with the ethnic and economic diversity of the university population.

Materials

Sexual Experiences Survey The Sexual Experiences Survey (SES) is a commonly used self-report measure developed by Mary Koss (Koss & Gidycz, 1985; Koss & Oros, 1982) designed to identify experiences of multiple forms of sexual victimization since the age of 14. This measure was modified from the original 10-item SES to include 14 additional items assessing specific sexual behaviors in greater detail (e.g., oral-genital contact), as well as information about alcohol-facilitated sexual victimization. Verbal coercion was defined as completed, unwanted oral-genital, vaginal, or anal penetration due to threats to end the

relationship or continual arguments and pressure. Alcohol-facilitated coercion was defined as completed oral-genital, vaginal, or anal penetration due to the woman’s inability to consent or resist due to her level of intoxication due to alcohol or drugs. Forcible coercion was defined as completed oral-genital, vaginal, or anal penetration due to threats or use of physical force. Additionally, participants were asked to include the number of occurrences of each experience, rather than simply yes or no as provided by the original Koss and Oros (1982) measure. These changes are consistent with a methodology outlined by Messman-Moore and Long (2000) (see Appendix A-1 for full measure). Life Experiences Survey The Life Experiences Survey (LES) is a self-report measure which assesses basic demographic information (e.g., age, year in school, etc.), as well as information about consensual sexual behavior (Messman-Moore, 2004). This measure assessed the number of partners for several types of consensual sexual behavior including giving oral-genital sex, receiving oral-genital sex, and vaginal or anal sexual intercourse. An example item is “Have you ever had sexual intercourse (vaginal or anal) when you wanted to (without force)?” with a dichotomous yes/no response. This question is followed by “with how many different partners?” in a free response format (see Appendix A-2 for full measure). Trauma Symptom Inventory The Trauma Symptom Inventory (TSI; Briere, 1995) is a 100-item self-report measure designed to identify symptoms consistent with traumatic experience. The two subscales utilized in the proposed study are the sexual concerns (SC) and the dysfunctional sexual behavior (DSB) subscales. The SC scale measures dysfunction and psychological distress resulting from negative affect related to sexual behavior. The DSB scale measures problematic sexual behaviors that suggest sexual risk taking and involvement in unsafe sexual behavior. These two scales are moderately inter-correlated in the original sample (r = .66) and both are elevated in women with a traumatic history (see Appendix A-3 for full measure; Briere, 1995). For the purpose of this study, these two subscales were factor-analyzed to determine the most relevant items in the present sample. A principal component analysis was performed on the 18 items from the SC and DSB subscales. Two factors emerged, corresponding to the original SC and DSB subscales, each containing six items (a reduction from the original nine on each subscale). Six items were excluded due to low factor loadings (< .5). The shortened SC scale (hereafter referred to as the Negative Sexual Identity scale) had a Cronbach’s alpha of .84, and the shortened DSB scale (hereafter referred to as the Non-Sexual Motivations scale) had a Cronbach’s alpha of .79 (see Table 1 for item loadings onto the factors). The NSI scale retained content focusing specifically on problems with sexual functioning and problematic cognitions about sexuality. The NSM scale retained content that focused on engaging in sexual behavior for non-sexual reasons and engaging in sexual behavior with negative social ramifications, although the NSM scale does not appear to reflect risky or dangerous sexual behavior suggested by the original DSB scale. Sexual Assertiveness Questionnaire for Women The Sexual Assertiveness Questionnaire for Women (SAQ-W) was developed specifically for use in this study. A pool of items was generated, and a final 85-item test was constructed following a card sort and a series of cognitive interviews. The SAQ-W

uses a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Higher scores on this measure are indicative of more impaired assertiveness. The full 85-item scale was administered along with the other measures and then an exploratory factor analysis was performed to determine the structure. Items were selected using a principal components analysis using a varimax rotation, which utilized approximately 50% of the sample (n = 230). Items were retained if the individual factor loadings were greater than .5 and differed from other factors by at least .2. Eigenvalues were selected following the criterion outlined by Lautenschlager (1989). The final solution contained 30-items on four factors (see Table 2 for item loadings on the 4 factors). A confirmatory factor analysis was performed using a principal components analysis with varimax rotation to confirm the structure (see Table 3). The first factor contained 14 items and reflected relational sexual assertiveness, a construct identified by Shackelford and Goetz (2004). The full 14-item scale had good internal reliability (Cronbach’s α = .93; M = 28.03, SD = 10.10) and consisted of items such as “I worry that my partner won’t like me unless I engage in sexual behavior” and “I am easily persuaded to engage in sexual activity”. Factor two addressed the confidence and communication component of sexual assertiveness that related to the general nature of assertiveness outlined by Twenge (2001). This scale contains seven items and has good internal reliability (Cronbach’s α = .88; M = 17.12, SD = 5.71). A sample item is “I lack confidence in sexual situations”. This subscale also contains four reverse-scored items such as “I am good at expressing my sexual needs and wants”. Factor two has a moderate positive correlation with factor one (r = .47, p < .001). The third and fourth factors consisted of four items each and related to commitment-focused sexual behavior and sex-related negative affect. Factor three contained five reverse-scored items and had acceptable reliability (Cronbach’s α = .81; M = 10.00, SD = 3.97). An example item is “I don’t have intercourse unless I know my partner very well”. Factor four contained four items and had acceptable reliability (Cronbach’s α = .74; M = 8.77, SD = 3.14). An example item is “I feel bad after I have sex”. These two subscales were not included in the proposed analyses (see Appendix A- 4 for full measure). Procedure The study received approval through the departmental review board. Participants were recruited from the subject pool and all received course credit for their participation. Participants completed a packet of self-report measures in an all-female group setting administered by a female research assistant after giving informed consent. All responses were anonymous and confidential, and the completed surveys were identified only using code numbers. All participants were instructed that they could quit without penalty as well as refuse to answer specific questions.

Results

Descriptive Statistics The analyses were conducted with a subset of the participants (n = 447) who reported an exclusively heterosexual sexual orientation. Because this study focused on heterosexual sexual behavior and heterosexual sexual assertiveness, this resulted in the

elimination of 52 participants, 51 of whom indicated some degree of homosexual orientation, and one participant who did not answer this question. The majority of the sample (64.5%) indicated that they were sexually active. The mean number of sexual partners for different types of sexual behavior was as follows: received oral sex (M = 2.14, SD = 2.82, Range: 0-25), given oral sex (M = 1.99, SD = 2.70, Range: 0-25) and sexual intercourse (M = 1.48, SD = 2.41, Range: 0-16). When only the sexually active participants were considered, the mean number of sexual partners for different types of sexual behavior were as follows: received oral sex (M = 3.05, SD = 2.92, Range: 1–25), given oral sex (M = 2.90, SD = 2.81, Range: 1–25), and sexual intercourse (M =2.64, SD = 2.70, Range: 0-16). Approximately 41% of the women in the sample reported instances of misinterpreted intimacy. The rates of different types of sexual coercion in the sample were consistent with the usual rates in the specific population with 19.2% reporting verbal sexual coercion, 17% reporting alcohol-facilitated sexual coercion, and 4% reporting forcible coercion1. There were no relationships between assertiveness and age or family income. There was no relationship between family income and number of sexual partners. There was also no relationship between verbal sexual coercion and age or family income. There were small positive correlations between age and number of sexual partners. This was broken down by number of partners for specific types of sexual behavior including receiving oral sex (r = .18, p < .001), giving oral sex (r = .21, p < .001), and sexual intercourse (r = .24, p < .001). Sexual Assertiveness and Coercive Experience The first hypothesis, that impaired sexual assertiveness will be positively correlated with verbal sexual coercion and with alcohol-facilitated sexual coercion, but will not be related to coercion by force, was tested by correlating the relational sexual assertiveness (RSA) and sexual confidence and communication assertiveness (SCCA) scales of the SAQ-W with the continuous measures of coercive sexual experiences drawn from the SES. This hypothesis was partially supported (see Table 4 for the full correlation matrix). All forms of coercive sexual experiences (verbal, alcohol, and force) were positively related to some degree with the RSA scale (correlations ranged from r = .12 to r = .31, p < .05). This suggests impaired relational assertiveness is associated with more experiences of sexual coercion (involving oral-genital or vaginal intercourse). The SCCA scale was positively associated only with verbally-coerced sexual intercourse (r = .09, p< .05), and was not associated with alcohol and forcibly coerced sexual experiences. These findings suggest that the relational aspects of sexual assertiveness, compared to sexual confidence and communication assertiveness, are more strongly related to sexual coercion (across types). Additionally, when type of coercion is examined, the strongest relationships were found between verbal coercion and assertiveness, which provides partial support for the first hypothesis. Physical coercion was weakly associated with relational assertiveness, and was not related to sexual confidence and communication assertiveness. This relationship was further examined by creating groups based on victimization history and performing a one-way ANOVA with sexual assertiveness (as defined by the SAQ-W subscales) as the dependent variables. A four-level group variable was formed for individuals with only verbally coercive sexual experiences (engaging in oral-genital

1 These rates include individuals who reported multiple forms of coercion.

or vaginal/anal intercourse due to threats to end the relationship or continual arguments and pressure ; n = 43), only alcohol-coercive sexual experiences (e.g., engaging in oral- genital or vaginal intercourse due to inability to consent or resist due to alcohol or drugs; n = 38), both verbally and alcohol coercive sexual experiences (n = 29), and no coercive sexual experiences (n = 280). There were significant differences in scores on the RSA scale, F(3, 384) = 14.59, p < .001. There were no significant differences found in levels of SCCA, F(3, 383) = 1.03, p = .38 (see Table 5). Overall, individuals with both verbally and alcohol-coerced sexual experiences had the most impaired relational assertiveness scores, indicating significantly more difficulty in being assertive sexually than individuals with no sexual coercion history and individuals with only alcohol- facilitated coercion. Individuals with a history of verbal sexual coercion also had significantly more impaired relational assertiveness than individuals with no history of coercion. Individuals with no history of sexual coercion did not significantly differ in relational assertiveness from individuals with alcohol-facilitated sexual coercion. Sexual Assertiveness, Sexual Identity, & Sexual Motivation The second hypothesis, that impaired sexual assertiveness will predict higher levels of problematic sexuality and increased sexual activity for non-sexual reasons was tested using a multiple regression analysis. Problematic sexuality was measured using the Negative Sexual Identity (NSI) subscale derived from the TSI, and non-sexually motivated sexual behavior was tested using the Non-Sexual Motivation (NSM) subscale derived from the TSI. The RSA scale and the SCCA scale of the SAQ-W were entered simultaneously into the equation predicting NSI. The resulting equation was significant, F(2, 427) = 63.57, p < .001, with both predictors together accounting for approximately 23% of the variance in problematic sexuality. When the RSA scale and the SCCA scale were simultaneously entered as predictors of NSM, the resulting equation was significant, F(2, 428) = 72.03, p<.001. In this case, the two types of sexual assertiveness explained 25% of the variance in non-sexually motivated sexual behavior. These results provide strong support for the hypothesis that impaired assertiveness is predictive of negative sexuality and non-sexually motivated behavior. Sexual Assertiveness in the Context of Sexual Activity Sexual assertiveness was hypothesized to act as a moderator in the relationship between sexual activity and verbal sexual coercion. Specifically, more impaired sexual assertiveness in the context of more sexual partners was predicted to result in more verbally sexually coercive experiences. Verbal sexual coercion was defined by the number of occurrences of verbal sexual coercion identified by the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES) (i.e., threats to end the relationship, oral sex due to arguments and pressure, and intercourse due to arguments and pressure). This resulted in three different outcome variables. Two predictors were examined: number of sexual partners and sexual assertiveness. The number of partners for three different types of sexual behavior, receiving oral sex (ROS), giving oral sex (GOS), and sexual intercourse (SI), were considered separately as predictors of sexual coercion. Sexual assertiveness, measured separately using the first two factors of the SAQ-W, was considered as a moderator. An interaction term was created by multiplying sexual behavior with sexual assertiveness. Both sexual activity and the SAQ-W scales were standardized in accordance with recommendations by Frazier, Tix, and Barron (2004). Because of this standardization,

when reporting results, unstandardized coefficients (B) will be reported instead of the usual practice of reporting standardized coefficients (β) (see Table 6). Threats to End Relationship. For the first outcome variable, engaging in sexual activity due to threats to end the relationship, there was a significant effect of relational sexual assertiveness (as measured by the RSA scale), as well as an interaction between the number of ROS partners and RSA, F (3, 425) = 9.05, p < .001 (see Figure 1). However, ROS and RSA only accounted for 6% of the variance in sexual activity due to threats to end the relationship. Findings were similar when the number of SI partners was considered, F (3, 432) = 8.58, p < .001, R2 = .06 (see Figure 2). In both cases, a significant interaction emerged, which supports the hypothesis that it is the level of sexual activity in relationship to the level of sexual assertiveness that is predictive of verbal sexual coercion. A slightly different pattern emerged for number of GOS partners. In this case only RSA was a significant predictor of coercion, and neither number of GOS partners nor the interaction were significant, F (3, 426) = 6.33, p < .001, R2 = .04. A similar set of analyses was conducted to examine the sexual confidence and communication assertiveness (SCCA) factor. Number of ROS partners predicted verbal coercion, F (3, 422) = 2.90, p < .05, R2 = .02, but there was neither a significant effect for SCCA nor a significant interaction. When number of GOS partners was substituted for ROS partners, the resulting equation was not significant, F (3, 424) = .08, p =.97. When number of SI partners was substituted for GOS partners, the resulting equation was also not significant, F (3, 429) = 2.48, p = .06. Verbally Coerced Oral-Genital Sex. For the second outcome variable, verbally coerced oral sex, relational sexual assertiveness was a significant predictor of coercion, F (3, 425) = 9.34, p <.001, R2 = .06, but the number of prior ROS partners was not a significant predictor, nor was the interaction significant. A similar pattern emerged for GOS, F (3, 426) = 9.20, p < .001 and SI, F (3, 432) = 9.72, p < .001, with both sets of variables accounting for 6% of the variance. When the sexual confidence and communication assertiveness (SCCA) scale was used to measure sexual assertiveness, the overall results were not significant. Number of ROS partners only predicted verbally coerced oral sex when the interaction term was included, F (3, 422) = 2.94, p < .05, R2 = .02. There was no significant effect for SCCA. Number of GOS partners, SCCA, and the interaction between them were not significant predictors of verbally coerced oral sex, F (3, 424) = 2.33, p = .07. Number of SI partners, SCCA, and the interaction were not significant predictors of verbally coerced oral sex, F (3, 429) = 2.59, p = .05. Verbally Coerced Intercourse. For the third outcome variable, verbally coerced intercourse, a different pattern of results emerged. In the first analysis, relational sexual assertiveness (RSA), and an interaction between ROS and RSA significantly predicted coercion, F (3, 425) = 22.42, p < .001, R2 = .14 (see Figure 3). There was no significant effect for number of ROS partners when the interaction term was included. In the second analysis, RSA and an interaction between GOS partners and RSA significantly predicted coercion, F (3, 426) = 17.03, p < .001, R2 = .11 (see Figure 4). There was no significant effect for number of GOS partners when the interaction term was included. In the third analysis, RSA and an interaction between RSA and number of SI partners significantly predicted verbal coercion. F (3, 432) = 27.21, p < .001, R2 = .16 (see Figure 5). Number of SI partners was not a significant predictor of coercion when the interaction term was

included. These results provide support for the idea that relational sexual assertiveness is important in predicting verbal sexual coercion, and that number of consensual sexual partners predicts coercion only in the context of impaired assertiveness. Analyses were repeated using sexual confidence and communication assertiveness (SCCA) in place of relational assertiveness and found that, for all types of sexual activity (ROS, GOS, and SI), there was a significant effect SCCA, a significant effect of number of sexual partners, and a significant interaction in predicting verbally coerced sexual intercourse. For number of ROS partners, F (3, 422) = 12.56, p < .001, R2 = .08 (see Figure 5). For number of GOS partners, F (3, 424) = 7.13, p < .001, R2 = .05 (see Figure 6), and for number of SI partners, F(3, 429) = 14.97, p < .001, R2 = .10 (see Figure 7). The different patterns of results based on the different type of assertiveness (relational vs. sexual confidence and communication), suggest that it is the relational component of sexual assertiveness which plays the larger role in moderating the effect of number of sexual partners on verbal sexual coercion. Sexual Assertiveness in the Context of Sexual Miscommunication For the final hypothesis, that more impaired sexual assertiveness in the context of more frequent misinterpretation of desired intimacy will result in more sexually coercive experiences, the SES was used to identify the number of experiences of misinterpreted intimacy. Verbal sexual coercion and sexual assertiveness were assessed in the same way as in the prior tests. All items were standardized in accordance with Frazier, Tix, and Barron (2004), and an interaction term was created by multiplying misinterpreted intimacy with sexual assertiveness (see Table 7). Threats to End Relationship. For the first outcome variable, there was a significant effect of relational sexual assertiveness (RSA), as well as a significant interaction between misinterpreted intimacy and RSA, F (3, 438) = 16.54, p < .001, R2 = .10 (see Figure 9). There was no significant effect for misinterpreted intimacy when the interaction term was included. When sexual assertiveness was measured using the sexual confidence and communication assertiveness scale, only misinterpreted intimacy was a significant predictor of coercion, F (3, 435) = 6.98, p < .001, R2 = .05. There was no significant effect of SCCA, and no significant interaction. Verbally Coerced Oral-Genital Sex. For the second outcome variable, there was a significant main effect of relational sexual assertiveness (RSA), as well as a significant interaction between RSA and misinterpreted intimacy, F (3, 438) = 15.71, p < .001, R2 = .10 (see Figure 10). There was no significant effect of misinterpreted intimacy when the interaction term was included in the equation. When sexual assertiveness was measured using the sexual confidence and communication assertiveness (SCCA) scale, only misinterpreted intimacy significantly predicted coercion, F (3, 435) = 7.80, p < .001, R2 = .05. There was no significant effect for SCCA, and no significant interaction. Verbally Coerced Sexual Intercourse. For the third outcome variable, there was a significant effect for relational sexual assertiveness (RSA), as well as a significant interaction between RSA and misinterpreted intimacy, F (3, 438) = 37.78, p <. 001, R2 = .21 (see Figure 11). There was no significant effect of misinterpreted intimacy when the interaction term was included. When sexual assertiveness was measured using the sexual confidence and communication assertiveness (SCCA) subscale, there was a main effect of misinterpreted intimacy, as well as an interaction between misinterpreted intimacy and SCCA, F (3, 435) = 12.06, p < .001, R2 = .08 (see Figure 12). There was no significant

effect of SCCA. The pattern in these results is somewhat more complicated and varies by type of assertiveness. For relational sexual assertiveness, more impaired assertiveness in the context of higher rates of misinterpreted intimacy predicted more coercive experiences. However, for sexual confidence and communication assertiveness, the primary factor in predicting coercive experiences was misinterpreted intimacy rather than assertiveness. This suggests that relational assertiveness is more important than sexual confidence and communication assertiveness in reducing the impact of sexual miscommunication on verbal sexual coercion.

Discussion Overall, the results support the idea that sexual assertiveness is a unique and useful construct in understanding the process of verbal sexual coercion. It appears that impaired sexual assertiveness acts as a risk factor for verbal (and alcohol-facilitated) sexual coercion, but also may have implications for maintaining a consistent and healthy sexual identity and making informed decisions based on personal motivations for engaging in sexual behavior. Assertiveness has been inconsistently linked to risk for sexual coercion in previous studies (e.g., Greene & Navarro, 1998; Testa & Dermen, 1999). One potential reason for mixed findings in the previous literature may center on the construct of assertiveness, which in previous studies has involved assertiveness as a personality trait across multiple domains. However, this generalized form of assertiveness may not be as relevant to risk for sexual coercion. That is, individuals may have high levels of general assertiveness, yet struggle to engage in assertive behavior in the context of sexual situations, especially given broader social influences, such as gender role socialization, sexual scripts, and token resistance. Given this, the Sexual Assertiveness Questionnaire for Women (SAQ-W) was developed specifically to identify and measure different components of assertiveness specific to heterosexual situations. In particular, the SAQ- W assumes two predominant types of sexual assertiveness: 1) relational assertiveness, which emphasizes partner focus and sexual compliance, and 2) sexual confidence and communication assertiveness, which emphasizes acknowledgement and communication of sexual desires and needs. The present findings further highlight the importance of assessing both types of sexual assertiveness, but especially sexual assertiveness from a more relational standpoint. Across the majority of the analyses, this aspect of assertiveness most consistently predicted risk for sexual coercion. Overall, the confidence and communication aspect of sexual assertiveness was not related to risk for sexual coercion. Considering the predominant definitions of assertiveness found in the literature (i.e., Greene & Navarro, 1998; Morokoff et al., 1997; Testa & Dermen, 1999), which focus more on generalized assertiveness or sexual assertiveness regarding safe sex practices, the present study emphasizes the need to approach the construct of assertiveness from a more relational perspective. This study provides clear support for the relationship between impaired sexual assertiveness and risk for sexual coercion of all types (verbal, alcohol-facilitated, and forcible). The strongest associations were between the relational assertiveness factor of the SAQ-W and verbally coercive experiences, and only verbally coerced intercourse was associated with sexual confidence and communication assertiveness. This suggests that

only verbal coercion is related to the two major hypothesized components of sexual assertiveness. Although the relational assertiveness factor of the SAQ-W was also positively correlated with forcibly coerced experiences, these correlations were much smaller in magnitude than those with verbally coerced experiences and experiences of alcohol-facilitated coercion. Further research should attempt to determine the possible impact of these different relationships between types of coercion and relational assertiveness. The hypothesized relationship between impaired assertiveness and negative sexual identity and non-sexual motivations for sexual activity was supported. Individuals with more impaired assertiveness reported more guilt, shame, and confusion regarding sexuality and sexual relationships. Furthermore, these individuals also reported using sexual behavior to meet nonsexual needs (e.g., to obtain attention, to feel powerful or important). The major implication of this finding is that impaired sexual assertiveness may be indicative of negative psychological and behavioral problems related to engaging in sexual activity. The relationship between sexual assertiveness and negative sexual identity may be conceptualized as a negative feedback loop, such that negative sexual identity actually contributes to problems in sexual assertiveness, which may then influence levels of sexual identity. On the other hand, negative sexual motivations may overlap to a great extent with the relational sexual assertiveness construct measured by the SAQ-W. Further research should examine whether these are identical or merely related constructs. This study examined the relationships between consensual sexual activity, sexual assertiveness, and sexual coercion at a greater level of specificity than other research. Greene and Navarro (1998) and Testa and Dermen (1999) both assessed number of sexual partners by asking for a global number of sexual partners (implicitly defining sexual partners as vaginal intercourse). By examining different types of sexual behavior (i.e., oral-genital received, oral-genital given, and vaginal/anal intercourse), this study found that rates of sexual activity are different based on the type of sexual activity in question. Furthermore, the relationship between coercion and sexual activity differed depending on the type of activity engaged in. For example, number of given oral sex partners was never a predictor of verbally coerced sexual intercourse, whereas number of received oral sex partners and number of sexual intercourse partners both predicted verbally coerced intercourse before the inclusion of the moderator. The finding that type of sexual behavior interacts differently with assertiveness in predicting verbal coercion highlights the need for this level of specificity in research. One interesting finding was the emergence of different patterns of relations among assertiveness, sexual activity and coercion depending on the subscale of the SAQ- W examined. This is not surprising, and was somewhat expected given that the relational sexual assertiveness factor was much more focused on assertive responses to the relational pressures in sexual situations (i.e., focusing on partner’s needs and sexual compliance) as compared to the sexual confidence and communication assertiveness factor which assessed a more traditional sense of sexual assertiveness (i.e., identifying and expressing one’s sexual desires and needs). Although there were significant interactions indicating that risk for verbal sexual coercion increased differentially depending on strength of sexual confidence and communication assertiveness, in all cases the risk increased as number of partners increased. This is a substantially different

pattern than that associated with relational assertiveness, which suggests that risk for victimization could actually decrease as number of sexual partners increases for more highly assertive women. This study also suggests that, despite the existence of a positive relationship between more impaired relational assertiveness and more impaired sexual confidence and communication assertiveness, it is the former that seems to play a more influential role in predicting verbal sexual coercion. Testa and Dermen (1999) defined assertiveness in a more general context and from a more sexual confidence and communication context, and only found a marginal relationship between assertiveness and coercion. Greene and Navarro (1998) found a relationship between assertiveness and coercion using a modified version of the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP), which placed assertiveness in a gender relational context, although not necessarily a sexual relational context. The results of the present study show that it is relational assertiveness in sexual situations that more consistently predicts verbal coercion across different types of coerced behavior. Testa and Dermen (1999) noted that an increased number of sexual partners acted as a risk factor for sexual victimization, whereas assertiveness was only a marginally significant predictor of coercion, a somewhat disempowering finding with respect to women’s decisions to engage in sexual activity. However, the results of the present study strongly temper their conclusions given that relational sexual assertiveness moderated the relationship between consensual sexual activity and sexual coercion. This suggests that it is sexual activity in the context of more impaired sexual assertiveness that places women at an increased risk for verbal coercion, and not sexual behavior in and of itself in most situations. It appears that women with a greater ability to be assertive sexually are more able to engage in sexual activity without increased risk for coercion. In addition, findings even suggest that stronger assertiveness in the context of more sexual partners may actually reduce risk for verbal sexual coercion. This outcome may be particularly likely if women have a strong sense of sexual identity or if sexual activity occurs to meet sexual rather than nonsexual needs. Perhaps this outcome is related to positive self-efficacy expectations which developed in relation to prior experiences of sexual pressure that were encountered and successfully negotiated. Another focus of the present study was to examine how experiences of misinterpreted intimacy may potentially lead to experiences of coercion. As hypothesized, experiences with misinterpreted intimacy predicted verbal sexual coercion. However, these experiences were no longer significant predictors when considering sexual assertiveness and the interaction of these two factors. Misinterpreted intimacy was related to increased risk for sexual coercion only in the presence of impaired relational assertiveness, whereas misinterpreted intimacy was related to decreased risk for coercion in the presence of more adaptive relational assertiveness. In the context of the traditional sexual script, misinterpreted intimacy may be a common experience for college women, however, such experiences do not appear to inevitably increase risk for victimization. Rather, assertive responses in such situations may actually reduce risk for further sexual coercion. However, this pattern seems relevant only for relational assertiveness and not general sexual confidence and communication assertiveness. These findings provide further support for the idea that more opportunities to practice relational sexual assertiveness may have potential implications for reducing the risk for coercion. These findings support the general spirit of Parrot’s (1996) programming for women,

although the emphasis of programming should probably be focused on relational assertiveness, rather than explicit sexual communication. The different patterns between different forms of sexual assertiveness noted above may reflect problems concerning the constructs of verbal sexual coercion and sexual compliance. O’Sullivan’s (2005) model attempted to differentiate sexual coercion from “unwanted consensual intercourse,” arguing that the two constructs differ based on explicit verbal consent. By definition, unwanted consensual intercourse involves communicating consent to sexual activity that one does not want or that is not desired. The degree to which this is meaningfully different from verbal sexual coercion has yet to be defined, although the different relations for the relational factor and the sexual confidence and communication factor may be reflective of this potential confusion. The relational sexual assertiveness factor specifically addresses partner-focus and sexual compliance, presumably factors which would encourage unwanted consensual intercourse but may increase risk for coercion as well. The sexual confidence and communication factor addresses more general sexual confidence and the ability to communicate desire to cease sexual activity, which would probably only impact sexual coercion (as defined by O’Sullivan). Overall, the findings of the present study suggest there are at least two components of sexual assertiveness. Of these two forms, relational assertiveness is more important overall in predicting sexual coercion. Specifically, relational assertiveness is most relevant to sexual coercion in the context of sexual activity. This suggests that all sexual activity is not necessarily “bad”, but rather it is higher rates of sexual activity in the context of problematic assertiveness that relate to risk for coercion. Furthermore, previous experiences with sexual miscommunication may increase risk for sexual coercion only in the context of problematic assertiveness. Finally, the study highlights the need to examine specific types of sexual behavior when considering rates of sexual activity, as the relationships between sexual activity and sexual coercion differed when different types of sexual behavior were considered. This study had several limitations. First, this study was potentially limited by the general homogeneity of the sample. This study focused primarily on relatively wealthy, generally Caucasian, heterosexual women, early in their college careers, which can affect the potential generalizeability of these results to other groups. However, this group is one of the primary groups at risk for sexual coercion. Also, by focusing solely on heterosexual women, with detailed measures of sexual activity, with a large sample, this study was able to focus on questions related to heterosexual verbal coercion. While coercion in homosexual relationships is an important concept to understand, there may be different issues which arise given that the TSS only considers heterosexual behavior. Another limitation of this study was the use of a retrospective, cross-sectional design, which limits the ability to discern temporal and causal relationships. However, given the patterns in the interactions using the relational assertiveness, it is possible to make the inference that assertiveness may precede verbal sexual coercion because increased sexual activity in the context of more adaptive sexual assertiveness is associated with a decreased likelihood of victimization, suggesting that sexual assertiveness could be viewed as a risk/protective factor. Findings from the present study also suggest that the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES) is limited as a measure of verbal sexual coercion. Although this widely-used

measure allows for the screening of various types of victimization experiences, it does not allow for much more than a general identification of broad verbal coercion. It addresses two particular verbally coercive tactics, threatening to end the relationship and “continual arguments and pressure”. Models such as those by O’Sullivan (2005) and Shackelford and Goetz (2004) suggest that verbal sexual coercion encompasses a much larger range of coercive tactics than what are presently measured with the SES. The use of a measure which could examine verbal sexual coercion at a more detailed level could potentially identify women who have engaged in unwanted sexual behavior for different reasons. The SES also is not as behaviorally specific as the LES (which measured the number of consensual partners for received oral-genital sex, given oral-genital sex, and vaginal-anal intercourse). Future research may want to address this imbalance to determine which specific type of sexual behavior (e.g., unwanted received oral-genital sex vs. unwanted given oral-genital sex) constitutes the experience of verbal coercion. However, use of a more detailed measure of verbal coercion should only strengthen the existing relationships found in this study. Although this study included data on the type of coercion, it did not elaborate on the nature of the relationship between the man and woman involved. Additionally, many individuals reported multiple forms of coercion (verbal, alcohol-facilitated, or forcible), which could be indicative of either multiple, separate incidents of sexual coercion, or a single incident in which multiple forms of coercion occurred. Forcible coercion in the context of a relationship (e.g., domestic violence) may be qualitatively different (i.e., include relational influences) than forcible coercion by a stranger. Given the differential findings based on type of sexual assertiveness (relational vs. confidence and communication), it would not be surprising if different types of sexual assertiveness impacted risk differentially based upon type of relationships (e.g., hookups, serial monogamy, long-term monogamous relationships). Future research should examine this in more detail. Despite these weaknesses, this study had several clear strengths which represent an improvement to existing research. This study involved a large sample of college women, examined a variety of forms of sexual activity (e.g., giving versus receiving oral- genital sex), as well as utilized a survey specifically designed to assess assertiveness in sexual situations. The SAQ-W as a measure of interpersonal sexual assertiveness is much more grounded in theory regarding the barriers to assertiveness present in the TSS, and therefore is an improvement over existing measures such as Morokoff’s (1997) Sexual Assertiveness Scale, which more properly addresses sexual health issues, and the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems, revised by Greene and Navarro (1998), which does not comprehensively assess interpersonal assertiveness in specifically sexual situations. An additional strength of this study was the test of moderation to examine whether sexual assertiveness impacted risk for coercion, particularly in relation to levels of sexual activity. Testa and Dermen (1999) only found a marginally significant relationship between assertiveness and coercion. Greene and Navarro (1998) found a stronger relationship between problematic assertiveness and risk for future victimization, although they noted that this relationship was inconsistent in the literature. In a literature such as this, where two variables (assertiveness and sexual victimization risk) are inconsistently linked, it seems likely that a third factor (e.g., sexual activity) is relevant. Cooper (2006) notes that, for complex relationships such as factors influencing sexual

coercion, explanations are often found in the form of an interaction. Rather than simply considering the relationship between verbal coercion and its correlates, the success of the interactions in this study emphasize the need to examine for whom, and when, certain factors influence victimization. The use of the SAQ-W in understanding the nature of verbal sexual coercion expands the possibility for future research focusing on sexual assertiveness and sexual victimization. Although the results here provide preliminary evidence for both the validity and the reliability of the SAQ-W, additional research should also be conducted to further study, validate, and refine the SAQ-W. Other directions for research include more detailed investigations into sexual assertiveness in different relationship contexts (i.e., casual sex, serial monogamy, long-term monogamy). Ultimately, longitudinal studies are necessary to determine the role of sexual assertiveness in risk for victimization. Future research should also focus on how individuals develop sexual assertiveness, as well as mechanisms and programs for assisting individuals in the development of sexual assertiveness. Numerous developmental experiences and social factors could potentially affect the evolution of sexually assertive behavior, including child abuse, parent-child relationships, peer relationships, sexual education programs, religious beliefs, and other extant social norms. Of course, sexual assertiveness may not only increase vulnerability for sexual coercion; nonassertive behavior may develop in relation to abusive (both sexual and nonsexual) relationships, or previously problematic assertiveness may worsen following victimization, perhaps contributing to the cycle of revictimization. Because verbal sexual coercion remains one of the primary factors in sexual victimization, developing research on specific skills and abilities to resist this unique pressure is of the utmost importance.

References

Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Beres, M. A. (2004). Sexual consent behaviors in same-sex relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33, 475-486.

Briere, J. (1995). Trauma symptom inventory: Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

Cleveland, H. H., Koss, M. P., & Lyons, J. (1999). Rape tactics from the survivors' perspective: Contextual dependence and within-event independence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 532-547.

Cooper, M. L. (2006). Does drinking promote risky sexual behavior? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 19-23.

Cooper, M. L., Shapiro, C. M., Powers, A. M. (1998). Motivations for sex and risky sexual behavior among adolescents and young adults: A functional perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1528-1558.

Edgar, T. & Fitpatrick, M.A. (1993). Expectations for sexual interaction: A cognitive test of the sequencing of sexual communication behaviors. Health Communication, 5, 239-261.

Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2000). The sexual victimization of college women. Research report of the National Institute of Justice.

Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 115-134.

Frith, H. & Kitzinger, C. (2001). Reformulating sexual script theory. Theory & Psychology, 11, 209-232.

Greene, D. M. & Navarro, R. L. (1998). Situation-specific assertiveness in the epidemiology of sexual victimization among university women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 589-604.

Hickman, S. E. & Muehlenhard, C. L. (1999). “By the semi-mystical appearance of a condom”: How young women and men communicate sexual consent in heterosexual situations. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 258-272.

Horowitz, L. M., Rosenberg, S. E., Baer, B. A., Ureno, G., & Villasenor, V. S. (1988). Inventory of interpersonal problems: Psychometric properties and clinical applications. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 885-892.

Impett, E. A. & Peplau, L. A. (2003). Sexual compliance: Gender, motivational, and relationship perspectives. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 87-100.

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.

Lautenschlager, G. J. (1989). A comparison of alternatives to conducting Monte Carlo analyses for determining parallel analysis criteria. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 365-395.

Leigh, B.C., Aramburu, B., Norris, J. (1992). The morning after: gender differences in attributions about alcohol-related sexual encounters. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 22, 343-357.

Messman-Moore, T. L. & Long, P. J. (2000). Child sexual abuse and revictimization in the form of adult sexual abuse, adult physical abuse, and adult psychological maltreatment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 489-502.

Messman-Moore, T. L. (2004). Life experiences survey. Unpublished measure. Miami University.

Morokoff, P. J., Quina, K., Harlow, L. L., Whitmire, L., Grimley, D. M., Gibson, P. R., & Burkholder, G. J., (1997). Sexual assertiveness scale (SAS) for women: Development and validation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 73, 790-804.

Muehlenhard, C. L. & Hollabaugh, L. C. (1988). Do women sometimes say no when they mean yes? The prevalence and correlates of women’s token resistance to sex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 872-879.

Muehlenhard, C. L. & Peterson, Z. D. (2005). Wanting and not wanting sex: The missing discourse of ambivalence. Feminism & Psychology, 15, 15-20.

Muehlenhard, C. L. & Rodgers, C. S. (1998). Token resistance to sex. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 443-463.

Noar, S. M. (2003). The role of structural equation modeling in scale development. Structural Equation Modeling. 10, 622-647.

Norris, J., Masters, N. T., & Zawacki, T. (2004). Cognitive mediation of women’s sexual decision making: The influence of alcohol, contextual factors, and background variables. Annual Review of Sex Research, 15, 258-296.

O’Sullivan, L. F. (2005). Sexual coercion in dating relationships: Conceptual and methodological issues. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 20, 3-11.

Parrot, A. (1996). Sexually assertive communication training. In T. L. Jackson (ed.). Acquaintance rape: Assessment, treatment, & prevention. Professional Resource Press, FL.

Quina, K, Harlow, L. L., Morokoff P. J., Burkholder, G., & Deiter, P. J. (2000). Sexual communication in relationships: When words speak louder than actions. Sex Roles, 42, 523-549.

Shackelford, T. K. & Goetz, A. T. (2004). Men’s sexual coercion in intimate relationships: Development and initial validation of the sexual coercion in intimate relationships scale. Violence and Victims, 19, 541-556.

Testa, M. & Dermen, K. H. (1999). The differential correlates of sexual coercion and rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 548-561.

Twenge, J. M. (2001). Changes in women’s assertiveness in response to status and roles: A cross-temporal meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 133-145.

Table 1. Trauma Symptom Inventory Subscale Breakdown

Item Loadings

Negative-Sexual Non-Sexual

Identity Motivations

Confusion about your sexual feelings .81 .09

Sexual problems .75 .17

Problems in your sexual relations with another .74 .22 person

Wishing you didn’t have any sexual feelings .70 .24

Feeling ashamed about your sexual feelings or .68 .40 behavior

Wishing you could stop thinking about sex .61 .21

Using sex to feel powerful or important .20 .76

Using sex to get love or attention .22 .74

Having sex or being sexual to keep from .33 .69 feeling lonely or sad

Having sex with someone you hardly knew .06 .66

Having sex that had to be kept a secret from .18 .62 other people

Getting into trouble because of sex .29 .61

M = 2.24 M = 1.35 SD = 3.17 SD = 2.35 α = .84 α = .79

23 Table 2. Exploratory Factor Loadings for SAQ-W

Items Factor Loadings

Sex- Relational Sexual Survey Commitment related Sexual Confidence & Item # Focus negative Assertiveness Communication affect

I go farther sexually than I want because otherwise my 1 .67 .22 .15 .19 partner might reject me

I engage in sexual behavior when I don’t really want to 2 .74 .16 .15 .21 because I’m afraid my partner might leave me if I don’t

8 I am easily persuaded to engage in sexual activity .65 -.03 .23 -.11

I worry that my partner won’t like me unless I engage in 9 .62 .30 .10 .24 sexual behavior

It is difficult for me to be firm sexually if my partner keeps 12 .70 .25 .02 .00 begging me or pressuring me about it

It is easier to “give in” sexually than to argue with my 13 .70 .19 .04 .03 partner

I engage in sexual activity when I don’t want to because I 15 .71 .18 .11 .08 don’t know how to say “no”

Items Factor Loadings

Sex- Relational Sexual Survey Commitment related Sexual Confidence & Item # Focus negative Assertiveness Communication affect

16 I agree to have sex when I don’t feel like it .71 -.03 .02 -.06

I go along with what my partner wants sexually, even 18 .71 .26 .04 .08 when I’m uncomfortable

19 I give more than I take in sexual situations .56 .27 .09 .00

I engage in unwanted sexual activity to avoid hurting my 22 .75 .16 .00 .08 partner’s feelings

Once I agree to some sexual activity, it is difficult for me 24 .63 .21 .10 .29 to stop things from going farther than I’d like

I engage in unwanted sexual behavior to “avoid making a 26 .72 .14 -.06 .09 scene” with my partner

30 It is easy for others to seduce me into sexual activity .63 -.03 .30 -.00

3 I have trouble expressing my sexual needs .38 .65 -.09 .02

Items Factor Loadings

Sex- Relational Sexual Survey Commitment related Sexual Confidence & Item # Focus negative Assertiveness Communication affect

4 I lack confidence in sexual situations .11 .69 -.10 .26

27(r) I know what I want sexually .08 .76 .09 .16

28(r) I am good at expressing my sexual needs and wants .12 .84 .04 .07

54 I don’t really know what I want sexually .17 .69 .04 .27

It is easy for me to tell my partner what I want, and what I 67(r) .19 .73 .09 .02 don’t want, sexually

It is easy for me to be assertive in sexual situations with a 68(r) .11 .76 -.01 .00 partner

My partner must express respect and love for me before I 33(r) .31 .02 .68 .05 engage in sexual behavior

I need to know my partner very well before I engage in 45(r) .25 .01 .83 -.04 oral, vaginal, or anal sex

Items Factor Loadings

Sex- Relational Sexual Survey Commitment related Sexual Confidence & Item # Focus negative Assertiveness Communication affect

I limit sexual activity to kissing and fondling when I first 47(r) -.08 .09 .68 -.08 meet someone

I don’t have oral sex unless I’m in a committed 48(r) .08 .02 .75 -.05 relationship

I don’t have intercourse unless I know my partner very 61(r) .09 -.03 .72 .15 well

I worry that my partner might think less of me if I engage 53 .04 .10 -.06 .63 in sexual activity

If you express your sexual needs, your partner may think 64 .04 .01 .01 .63 you are promiscuous

72 I feel bad after I have sex .20 .18 .05 .77

73 Sexual behavior makes me feel dirty or “cheap” .10 .24 -.00 .79

M = 28.03 M = 17.12 M = 10.00 M = 8.77 SD = 10.09 SD = 5.71 SD = 3.97 SD = 3.14 α = .93 α = .88 α = .81 α = .74 Table 3. Confirmatory Factor Loadings for SAQ-W

Items Factor Loadings

Sex- Relational Sexual Survey Commitment related Sexual Confidence & Item # Focus negative Assertiveness Communication affect

I go farther sexually than I want because otherwise my 1 .77 .05 .09 .21 partner might reject me

I engage in sexual behavior when I don’t really want to 2 .75 -.08 .13 .18 because I’m afraid my partner might leave me if I don’t

8 I am easily persuaded to engage in sexual activity .72 .02 .22 -.02

I worry that my partner won’t like me unless I engage in 9 .67 .19 .17 .20 sexual behavior

It is difficult for me to be firm sexually if my partner keeps 12 .58 .23 -.07 .10 begging me or pressuring me about it

It is easier to “give in” sexually than to argue with my 13 .72 .23 .03 .02 partner

I engage in sexual activity when I don’t want to because I 15 .65 .12 .20 .24 don’t know how to say “no”

Items Factor Loadings

Sex- Relational Sexual Survey Commitment related Sexual Confidence & Item # Focus negative Assertiveness Communication affect

16 I agree to have sex when I don’t feel like it .71 .02 .12 -.17

I go along with what my partner wants sexually, even 18 .74 .19 .09 .14 when I’m uncomfortable

19 I give more than I take in sexual situations .44 .23 -.01 .00

I engage in unwanted sexual activity to avoid hurting my 22 .72 .21 -.07 .04 partner’s feelings

Once I agree to some sexual activity, it is difficult for me 24 .62 .19 .25 .23 to stop things from going farther than I’d like

I engage in unwanted sexual behavior to “avoid making a 26 .58 .25 .23 .23 scene” with my partner

30 It is easy for others to seduce me into sexual activity .55 .12 .25 .36

3 I have trouble expressing my sexual needs .36 .58 -.20 .12

Items Factor Loadings

Sex- Relational Sexual Survey Commitment related Sexual Confidence & Item # Focus negative Assertiveness Communication affect

4 I lack confidence in sexual situations .32 .63 -.21 .16

27(r) I know what I want sexually .04 .73 .03 .21

28(r) I am good at expressing my sexual needs and wants .04 .84 -.03 .23

54 I don’t really know what I want sexually .15 .68 -.05 .36

It is easy for me to tell my partner what I want, and what I 67(r) .26 .77 .18 .02 don’t want, sexually

It is easy for me to be assertive in sexual situations with a 68(r) .20 .74 .20 -.02 partner

My partner must express respect and love for me before I 33(r) .19 .04 .75 -.11 engage in sexual behavior

I need to know my partner very well before I engage in 45(r) .10 .13 .79 .10 oral, vaginal, or anal sex

Items Factor Loadings

Sex- Relational Sexual Survey Commitment related Sexual Confidence & Item # Focus negative Assertiveness Communication affect

I limit sexual activity to kissing and fondling when I first 47(r) -.02 -.07 .56 -.02 meet someone

I don’t have oral sex unless I’m in a committed 48(r) .19 .02 .71 -.10 relationship

I don’t have intercourse unless I know my partner very 61(r) .19 -.06 .66 .18 well

I worry that my partner might think less of me if I engage 53 .15 .15 -.01 .61 in sexual activity

If you express your sexual needs, your partner may think 64 .07 .05 .01 .62 you are promiscuous

72 I feel bad after I have sex .21 .25 -.04 .76

73 Sexual behavior makes me feel dirty or “cheap” .11 .24 .03 .79

M = 27.29 M = 17.66 M = 9.67 M = 9.10 SD = 9.35 SD = 5.43 SD = 3.62 SD = 3.22 α = .92 α = .87 α = .76 α = .75

Table 4. Correlations between SAQ-W scales and coercive sexual experiences

Relational Sexual Sexual Confidence and Communication Assertiveness Assertiveness

Unwanted sex due to threats to .19*** .02 end relationship

Verbally coerced oral sex .24*** -.00

Alcohol- facilitated oral .21*** .00 sex

Forcibly coerced oral sex .12* .03

Verbally coerced sexual .31*** .09* intercourse

Alcohol- facilitated sexual .19*** .03 intercourse

Forcibly coerced sexual .14** .04 intercourse

* p <. 05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

Table 5. Analysis of group differences in hypothesis one ANOVA Sexual Coercion N Mean (SD) History Relational

Sexual Assertiveness No Sexual Coercion 278 25.45 (8.70)a

Verbal Coercion and 29 34.72 (10.11)bc Alcohol

Alcohol Only 38 27.97 (9.04)a

Verbal Coercion Only 43 31.91 (9.15)b

Sexual Confidence and Communication Assertiveness

No Sexual Coercion 277 16.98 (5.40)

Verbal Coercion and 29 18.62 (3.94) Alcohol

Alcohol Only 38 16.95 (6.26)

Verbal Coercion Only 43 16.37 (6.06)

Note. Means that do not share the same subscript differ at p < .05 in the Tukey honestly significant difference comparison.

Table 6. Coefficients of Predictor Variables in Tests of Hypothesis 3

Criterion: Threats to End the Relationship

Type of sexual Step Variable B(SE) t R2 activity Received Oral Sex

1 Number of Partners .03 (.02) 1.53 .04

RSA .06 (.02) 3.57**

2 Number of Partners .01 (.02) 0.28 .06

RSA .05 (.02) 3.15**

Interaction Term .03 (.02) 2.68** Given Oral Sex

1 Number of Partners -.02 (.02) -1.13 .04

RSA .07 (.02) 4.30**

2 Number of Partners -.01 (.02) -0.79 .04

RSA .07 (.02) 4.35**

Interaction Term -.01 (.01) -0.70 Sexual Intercourse

1 Number of Partners .02 (.02) 1.52 .04

RSA .06 (.02) 3.69**

2 Number of Partners .01 (.02) 0.59 .06

RSA .05 (.02) 3.25**

Interaction Term .03 (.01) 2.36*

Note. RSA denotes Relational Sexual Assertiveness * p < .05 ** p < .01 34

Criterion: Threats to End the Relationship

Type of sexual Step Variable B(SE) t R2 activity

Received Oral Sex

1 Number of Partners .05 (.02) 2.76** .02

SCCA .02 (.02) 0.98

2 Number of Partners .05 (.02) 2.90** .02

SCCA .02 (.02) 1.03

Interaction Term .02 (.02) 0.96

Given Oral Sex

1 Number of Partners -.00 (.02) -0.10 .00

SCCA .01 (.02) 0.44

2 Number of Partners -.00 (.02) -0.07 .00

SCCA .01 (.02) 0.44

Interaction Term .00 (.02) 0.08

Sexual Intercourse

1 Number of Partners .04 (.02) 2.54* .02

SCCA .01 (.02) 0.89

2 Number of Partners .05 (.02) 2.68** .02

SCCA .02 (.02) 0.91

Interaction Term .01 (.02) 0.90

Note. SCCA denotes Sexual Confidence and Communication Assertiveness. * p < .05 ** p < .01 35 Criterion: Verbally Coerced Oral Sex

Type of sexual Step Variable B(SE) t R2 activity

Received Oral Sex

1 Number of Partners .04 (.07) 0.48 .06

RSA .37 (.08) 4.92**

2 Number of Partners .05 (.08) 0.57 .06

RSA .37 (.08) 4.91**

Interaction Term -.02 (.05) -0.33

Given Oral Sex

1 Number of Partners .06 (.08) 0.84 .06

RSA .36 (.08) 4.87**

2 Number of Partners .06 (.08) 0.72 .06

RSA .36 (.08) 4.83**

Interaction Term .01 (.06) 0.17

Sexual Intercourse

1 Number of Partners .11 (.07) 1.47 .06

RSA .35 (.07) 4.71**

2 Number of Partners .11 (.08) 1.38 .06

RSA .35 (.08) 4.64**

Interaction Term -.00 (.06) -0.03

Note. SCCA denotes Sexual Confidence and Communication Assertiveness. * p < .05 ** p < .01 36 Criterion: Verbally Coerced Oral Sex

Type of sexual Step Variable B(SE) t R2 activity

Received Oral Sex

1 Number of Partners .15 (.08) 1.94+ .01

SCCA .03 (.08) .35

2 Number of Partners .23 (.08) 2.72** .02

SCCA .04 (.08) 0.49

Interaction Term .16 (.07) 2.25*

Given Oral Sex

1 Number of Partners .15 (.08) 1.94+ .01

SCCA .03 (.08) 0.40

2 Number of Partners .20 (.08) 2.45* .02

SCCA .03 (.08) 0.40

Interaction Term .13 (.07) 1.79+

Sexual Intercourse

1 Number of Partners .19 (.07) 2.59* .02

SCCA .03 (.08) 0.41

2 Number of Partners .23 (.08) 2.78** .02

SCCA .03 (.08) 0.44

Interaction Term .07 (.07) 1.03

Note. SCCA denotes Sexual Confidence and Communication Assertiveness. * p < .05 ** p < .01 37 Criterion: Verbally coerced sexual intercourse

Type of sexual Step Variable B(SE) t R2 activity

Received Oral Sex

1 Number of Partners .09 (.04) 2.05* .11

RSA .27 (.04) 6.11**

2 Number of Partners .02 (.05) .38 .14

RSA .25 (.04) 5.59**

Interaction Term .11 (.03) 3.61**

Given Oral Sex

1 Number of Partners .04 (.04) 0.84 .10

RSA .29 (.04) 6.41**

2 Number of Partners .00 (.05) 0.03 .11

RSA .28 (.04) 6.19**

Interaction Term .07 (.04) 2.07*

Sexual Intercourse

1 Number of Partners .14 (.04) 3.15** .12

RSA .26 (.04) 5.90**

2 Number of Partners .06 (.05) 1.35 .16

RSA .22 (.04) 5.15**

Interaction Term .14 (.03) 4.71**

Note. SCCA denotes Sexual Confidence and Communication Assertiveness. * p < .05 ** p < .01 38

Criterion: Verbally coerced sexual intercourse

Type of sexual Step Variable B(SE) t R2 activity

Received Oral Sex

1 Number of Partners .20 (.05) 4.35** .05

SCCA .14 (.05) 2.94**

2 Number of Partners .27 (.05) 5.57** .08

SCCA .14 (.05) 3.19**

Interaction Term .16 (.04) 3.69**

Given Oral Sex

1 Number of Partners .12 (.05) 2.64** .03

SCCA .12 (.05) 2.51*

2 Number of Partners .17 (.05) 3.58** .05

SCCA .12 (.05) 2.54*

Interaction Term .14 (.04) 3.13 **

Sexual Intercourse

1 Number of Partners .22 (.04) 4.99** .06

SCCA .13 (.05) 2.93**

2 Number of Partners .30 (.05) 6.25** .10

SCCA .14 (.05) 3.08**

Interaction Term .16 (.04) 3.87**

Note. SCCA denotes Sexual Confidence and Communication Assertiveness. * p < .05 ** p < .01 39 Table 7. Coefficients of Predictor Variables in Tests of Hypothesis Four

Type of Coercion Step Variables B (SE) t R2

Threats to end the Relationship 1 Misinterpreted Intimacy .06 (.02) 3.50** .06

RSA .05 (.02) 3.06**

2 Misinterpreted Intimacy .02 (.02) 0.86 .10

RSA .05 (.02) 2.97**

Interaction Term .06 (.1) 4.32**

Verbally Coerced Oral Sex 1 Misinterpreted Intimacy .24 (.07) 3.31** .08

RSA .30 (.07) 4.12**

2 Misinterpreted Intimacy .12 (.08) 1.41 .10

RSA .29 (.07) 4.05**

Interaction Term .18 (.06) 2.86**

Verbally Coerced Sexual Intercourse 1 Misinterpreted Intimacy .17 (.04) 3.96** .13

RSA .24 (.04) 5.49**

2 Misinterpreted Intimacy .01 (.05) 0.17 .21

RSA .23 (.04) 5.52**

Interaction Term .25 (.04) 6.67**

Note. SCCA denotes Sexual Confidence and Communication Assertiveness. * p < .05 ** p < .01 40

Type of Coercion Step Variables B (SE) t R2

Threats to end the Relationship 1 Misinterpreted Intimacy .07 (.02) 4.45** .04

SCCA -.01 (.02) -0.36

2 Misinterpreted Intimacy .06 (.02) 3.70** .05

SCCA -.01 (.02) -0.35

Interaction Term .02 (.02) 0.98

Verbally Coerced Oral Sex

1 Misinterpreted Intimacy .33 (.07) 4.60** .05

SCCA -.06 (.07) -0.88

2 Misinterpreted Intimacy .29 (.08) 3.65** .05

SCCA -.06 (.07) -0.87

Interaction Term .11 (.08) 1.47

Verbally Coerced Sexual Intercourse

1 Misinterpreted Intimacy .23 (04) 5.26** .07

SCCA .05 (.04) 1.09

2 Misinterpreted Intimacy .19 (.05) 4.05** .08

SCCA .05 (.04) 1.11

Interaction Term .09 (.05) 2.02*

Note. SCCA denotes Sexual Confidence and Communication Assertiveness. * p < .05 ** p < .01 41 Figure 1. Relational Sexual Assertiveness and Number of Recieved Oral Sex Partners as Predictors of Threats to End the Relationship

0.14

0.12

0.10 p i 0.08 sh n o i t a

l 0.06 e RSA

e R high h 0.04 t

d med n low 0.02 eats to E r 0.00 Th

-0.02

-0.04

-0.06 low med high Number of Recieved Oral Sex Partners

Note. RSA indicates Relational Sexual Assertiveness Higher levels indicate more impaired assertiveness

Figure 2. Relational Sexual Assertiveness and Number of Sexual Intercourse Partners as Predictors of Threats to End the Relationship

0.14

0.12

0.10 p i 0.08 sh n o i t a

l 0.06 e RSA

e R high h 0.04 t

d med n low 0.02 eats to E r 0.00 Th

-0.02

-0.04

-0.06 low med high Number of Sexual Intercourse Partners

Note. RSA indicates Relational Sexual Assertiveness Higher levels indicate more impaired assertiveness

Figure 3. Relational Sexual Assertiveness and Number of Recieved Oral Sex Partners as Predictors of Verbally Coerced Sexual Intercourse

0.60

0.50

0.40 e s r 0.30 u o c r e t 0.20 RSA In

d high e c r med e

o 0.10 low C lly a b

r 0.00 e V

-0.10

-0.20

-0.30 low med high Number of Recieved Oral Sex Partners

Note. RSA indicates Relational Sexual Assertiveness Higher levels indicate more impaired assertiveness

Figure 4. Relational Sexual Assertiveness and Number of Given Oral Sex Partners as Predictors of Verbally Coerced Sexual Intercourse

0.60

0.50

0.40 e s r u o

c 0.30 r e t RSA In

d high e

c 0.20 r med e o low C

lly 0.10 a b r e V 0.00

-0.10

-0.20 low med high Number of Given Oral Sex Partners

Note. RSA indicates Relational Sexual Assertiveness Higher levels indicate more impaired assertiveness

Figure 5. Relational Sexual Assertiveness and Number of Sexual Intercourse Partners as Predictors of Verbally Coerced Sexual Intercourse

0.70

0.60

0.50 e s r 0.40 u o c r e t 0.30 RSA In

d high e c r med e

o 0.20 low C lly a b

r 0.10 e V

0.00

-0.10

-0.20 low med high Number of Sexual Intercourse Partners

Note. RSA indicates Relational Sexual Assertiveness Higher levels indicate more impaired assertiveness

Figure 6. Sexual Confidence and Communication Assertiveness and Number of Recieved Oral Sex Partners as Predictors of Verbally Coerced Intercourse

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60 e s r u

o 0.50 c r e t SCCA

In 0.40 d high e c r med e 0.30 o low C lly

a 0.20 b r e V 0.10

0.00

-0.10

-0.20 low med high Number of Recieved Oral Sex Partners

Note. SCCA indicates Sexual Confidence and Communication Assertiveness Higher levels indicate more impaired assertiveness

Figure 7. Sexual Confidence and Communication Assertiveness and Number of Given Oral Sex Partners as Predictors of Verbally Coerced Sexual Intercourse

0.80

0.70

0.60 e s r u o

c 0.50 r e t SCCA In

d high e

c 0.40 r med e o low C

lly 0.30 a b r e V 0.20

0.10

0.00 low med high Number of Given Oral Sex Partners

Note. SCCA indicates Sexual Confidence and Communication Assertiveness Higher levels indicate more impaired assertiveness

Figure 8. Sexual Confidence and Communication Assertiveness and Number of Sexual Intercourse Partners as Predictors of Verbally Coerced Intercourse

1.00

0.80 e s r 0.60 u o c r e t SCCA In

d high e 0.40 c r med e o low C lly a b

r 0.20 e V

0.00

-0.20 low med high Number of Sexual Intercourse Partners

Note. SCCA indicates Sexual Confidence and Communication Assertiveness Higher levels indicate more impaired assertiveness

Figure 9. Relational Sexual Assertiveness and Misinterpreted Intimacy as Predictors of Threats to End the Relationship

0.15

0.10 p i sh n o i t a

l 0.05 e RSA

e R high h t

d med n low 0.00 eats to E r Th

-0.05

-0.10 low med high Misinterpreted Intimacy

Note. RSA indicates Relational Sexual Assertiveness Higher levels indicate more impaired assertiveness

Figure 10. Relational Sexual Assertiveness and Misinterpreted Intimacy as Predictors of Verbally Coerced Oral Sex

1.20

1.00 x

e 0.80 S al r RSA d O

e high c 0.60 med

Coer low y l al b r

e 0.40 V

0.20

0.00 low med high Misinterpreted Intimacy

Note. RSA indicates Relational Sexual Assertiveness Higher levels indicate more impaired assertiveness

Figure 11. Relational Sexual Assertiveness and Misinterpreted Intimacy as Predictors of Verbally Coerced Sexual Intercourse

0.80

0.60 e s r 0.40 u o c r e t RSA In

d high e

c 0.20 r med e o low C lly a b

r 0.00 e V

-0.20

-0.40 low med high Misinterpreted Intimacy

Note. RSA indicates Relational Sexual Assertiveness Higher levels indicate more impaired assertiveness

Figure 12. Sexual Confidence and Communication Assertivenss and Misinterpreted Intimacy as Predictors of Verbally Coerced Intercourse

0.60

0.50

0.40 se r u o c r

e 0.30 SCCA t

In high

ced med er

o 0.20 low ly C al b r e

V 0.10

0.00

-0.10 low med high Misinterpreted Intimacy

Note. SCCA indicates Sexual Confidence and Communication Assertiveness Higher levels indicate more impaired assertiveness Appendix A-1

The following questions concern sexual experiences WITH MEN.

Please answer the following questionnaire regarding experiences you have had since your 14th birthday. If you have already described a sexual experience that you had before your 14th on the preceding questions, DO NOT REPORT IT HERE AS WELL, even if it continued past your 14th birthday.

Throughout our lives we have a variety of experiences. Some are positive and some are negative. The following questions involve unwanted sexual experiences. You will be asked to describe experiences with:

1. SEXUAL CONTACT – KISSING, FONDLING 2. ORAL – SEX 3. VAGINAL OR ANAL INTERCOURSE 4. PENETRATION BY OBJECTS INCLUDING A FINGER(S)

Please report any incidents whether or not they were reported to the police or discussed with family or friends. Report experiences even if you feel that they were not very forceful and even if they involve friends, boyfriends, or husbands.

Please answer the following questions about ALL EXPERIENCES YOU HAVE HAD SINCE YOU TURNED 14. Circle Yes (Y) or No (N) for each question. Yes No 1. Have you ever had a man misinterpret the level of sexual intimacy you desired? N Y 2. If yes, on how many different occasions? ______Have you ever had sex with a man when you didn't really want to because he 3. N Y threatened to end the relationship?

4. If yes, on how many different occasions? ______Have you given in to sex play (fondling, kissing, or petting, but not oral sex or N Y 5. intercourse) when you didn’t want to because you were overwhelmed by a man’s continual arguments and pressure? 6. If yes, on how many different occasions? ______Have you had sex play (fondling, kissing, or petting, but not oral sex or intercourse) N Y 7. when you didn’t want to because a man used his position of authority (boss, teacher, camp counselor, supervisor) to make you? 8. If yes, on how many different occasions? ______

54 Appendix A-1

Please answer the following questions about ALL EXPERIENCES YOU HAVE HAD SINCE YOU TURNED 14. Circle Yes (Y) or No (N) for each question. Yes No

Have you had sex play (fondling, kissing, or petting, but not oral sex or intercourse) N Y 9. when you didn’t want to because a man threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc.) to make you?

10. If yes, on how many different occasions? ______

Have you given in to oral sex (giving or receiving) when you didn’t want to because N Y 11. you were overwhelmed by a man’s continual arguments and pressure?

12. If yes, on how many different occasions? ______

Have you had oral sex (giving or receiving, e.g., blow job, going down) when you N Y 13. didn’t want to because a man used his position of authority (boss, teacher, camp counselor, supervisor) to make you?

14. If yes, on how many different occasions? ______Have you had oral sex (giving or receiving, e.g., blow job, going down) with a man N Y 15. when you didn’t want to because you were incapable of giving consent or resisting due to alcohol or drugs? 16. If yes, on how many different occasions? ______Have you had oral sex (giving or receiving, e.g., blow job, going down) when you N Y 17. didn’t want to because a man threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc.) to make you? 18. If yes, on how many different occasions? ______Have you had a man attempt sexual intercourse (get on top of you, attempt to N Y insert his penis) when you didn’t want to by threatening or using some degree of 19. force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc.), but for some reason intercourse did not occur? 20. If yes, on how many different occasions? ______Have you had a man attempt sexual intercourse (get on top of you, attempt to N Y insert his penis) when you didn’t want to because you were incapable of giving 21. consent or resisting due to alcohol or drugs, but for some reason intercourse did not occur? 22. If yes, on how many different occasions? ______Please answer the following questions about ALL EXPERIENCES YOU HAVE HAD SINCE YOU TURNED 14. Circle Yes (Y) or No (N) for each question. Yes

55 Appendix A-1

No Have you given in to sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because you were 23. N Y overwhelmed by a man’s continual arguments and pressure?

24. If yes, on how many different occasions? ______

Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man used his N Y 25. position of authority (boss, teacher, camp counselor, supervisor) to make you?

26. If yes, on how many different occasions? ______

Have you had sexual intercourse with a man when you didn’t want to because you N Y 27. were incapable of giving consent or resisting due to alcohol or drugs?

28. If yes, on how many different occasions? ______Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man N Y 29. threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc.) to make you? 30. If yes, on how many different occasions? ______Have you had sex acts (anal intercourse or penetration by objects other than the N Y 31. penis, e.g., finger or fingers) when you didn’t want to because you were incapable of giving consent or resisting due to alcohol or drugs? 32. If yes, on how many different occasions? ______Have you had sex acts (anal intercourse or penetration by objects other than the N Y 33. penis, e.g., finger or fingers) when you didn’t want to because a man threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc.) to make you? 34. If yes, on how many different occasions? ______

56 Appendix A-1

Circle the number that corresponds to the best answer.

Definitely 5 If you answered yes to any of the previous questions in this 4 section, please indicate the extent to which you believe 3 each of the following occurred: 2 Definitely Not 1 Which number best describes the extent to which you consider 1. 1 2 3 4 5 what happened to be rape?

Which number best describes the extent to which you consider 2. 1 2 3 4 5 what happened to be sexual assault?

Which number best describes the extent to which you consider 3. 1 2 3 4 5 what happened to be sexual coercion?

Which number best describes the extent to which you consider 4. 1 2 3 4 5 what happened to be consensual?

57 Appendix A-2 1. Education

o Freshman o Junior o Sophomore o Senior 2. What is your age (in years)? ______

3. What is your Male Female gender? o o

4. What is your cumulative GPA? ______

5. Are you a member Yes No of a sorority? o o

5a. ______Pledge ______Initiated Member

6. What is your marital status? (check one)

o Married o Divorced

o Not married, but living with partner o Widowed

o Not married o Don’t know

o Separated 7. What is your race and ethnicity? (Please check all that apply)

o Caucasian/White o African American / Black

o Hispanic/Latina o Asian/ Asian American

o Native American o Pacific Islander/ Hawaiian

o Biracial (please specify) o Other (please specify) ______

8. What is your religious affiliation/ preference? (Please check all that apply)

o Protestant (Baptist, Methodist, o Catholic Episcopalian, Pentecostal, etc.)

o Jewish o Muslim

o Hindu o Nonaffiliated

o Other (please specify) ______

58 Appendix A-2 9. Using the numbers below, indicate the highest level of education obtained by each of your parents.

Father ______Mother ______1. Graduate or professional training 2. Partial graduate or professional training 3. College graduate (degree obtained) 4. Partial college training (include technical schooling and beyond high school) 5. High school graduate (graduate of technical school or trade school) 6. Partial high school (10th grade through partial 12th grade) 7. Partial junior high school ( 7th grade though 9th grade) 8. Elementary school (6th grade or less)

10. Please indicate your family’s annual income in the past year.

o $200,000 or more o $150,000 - $199,000

o $100,000 - $149,000 o $75,000 - $99,000

o $50,000 - $74,000 o $40,000 - $49,000

o $30,000 - $39,000 o $20,000 - $29,000

o $10,000 - $19,000 o $0 - $10,000

o I don’t know During the majority of your childhood, who was living in your household? (Circle 12. all that apply.) (0) Father (1) Mother (2) Sister(s) _____ (enter number of sisters) (3) Brother(s) _____ (enter number of brothers) (4) Grandfather(s) (5) Grandmother(s) (6) Other family member – child (please describe) ______(7) Other family member – adult (please describe) ______(8) Other non-family member – child (please describe) ______(9) Other non-family member – adult (please describe) ______

59 Appendix A-2 Did your parents ever divorce while you were a child (before you were 18 years 13. old?)

o No o Yes 14. If your parents divorced during your childhood, how old were you when they divorced?______15. During your childhood, did anyone in your family ever have a psychiatric illness?

o No o Brother or Sister

o Mother o You

o Father o Other please specify) ______16. Did any member of your family have an alcohol problem?

o No o Brother or Sister

o Mother o You

o Father o Other please specify) ______17. Did any member of your family have a drug abuse problem?

o No o Brother or Sister

o Mother o You

o Father o Other please specify) ______18. Before age 18, were you ever physically abused?

o No o Yes

60 Appendix A-2 18b. By whom were you physically abused before age 18?

o Not applicable – not abused

o Maternal parent figure (mother, stepmother, foster mother, etc.)

o Paternal parent figure (father, stepfather, foster father, etc.)

o Sibling

o Other relative (please identify)______

o Peer or classmate

o Dating partner/ ex-dating partner

o Other (please identify)______19. Before age 18, were you ever psychologically or emotionally abused?

o No o Yes 19b. By whom were you psychologically/emotionally abused before age 18?

o Not applicable – not abused

o Maternal parent figure (mother, stepmother, foster mother, etc.)

o Paternal parent figure (father, stepfather, foster father, etc.)

o Sibling

o Other relative (please identify)______

o Peer or classmate

o Dating partner/ ex-dating partner

o Other (please identify)______20. Before age 18, were you ever bullied by classmates or peers?

o No o Yes 21. Before age 14, were you ever sexually abused?

o No o Yes

61 Appendix A-2

21b. By whom were you sexually abused before age 14?

o Not applicable – not abused

o Maternal parent figure (mother, stepmother, foster mother, etc.)

o Paternal parent figure (father, stepfather, foster father, etc.)

o Sibling

o Other relative (please identify)______

o Peer or classmate

o Dating partner/ ex-dating partner

o Other (please identify)______22. Have you ever been to see a professional for an emotional problem (i.e., social worker, psychologist, psychiatrist, counselor, clergy, etc.)?

o No

o Yes, once for 6 months or less

o Yes, two or three times for 6 months or less; one time for a year or more

o Yes, more than three times for 7 months or less; two or three times for a year or more

o Yes, more than three times for a year or more each time 23. Have you ever taken medications for your nerves or mood? (check all that apply)

o No

o Mild tranquilizer (anti-anxiety medication), less than 1 month

o Mild tranquilizer (anti-anxiety medication), over 1 month

o Sleeping pill or antidepressant, less than 3 months

o Sleeping pill or antidepressant, more than 3 months

o Major tranquilizer (anti-psychotic medication), less than 3 months

o Major tranquilizer (anti-psychotic medication), more than 3 months

62 Appendix A-2

24a. Have you ever been hospitalized for emotional problems? For a nervous breakdown? For drug addiction? For a drinking problem? For a suicide attempt?

o No

o Yes, once for 6 weeks or less

o Yes, two or three times for 6 weeks or less; one time for 3 months or more (up to 12 months)

o Yes, more than three times for 6 weeks or less; two or three times for 3 months or more (up to 12 months)

o More than three times for 3 to 12 months; one time for 18 months or longer 24b. How long ago was the most recent hospitalization?

o Never hospitalized

o Within the past 6 months

o 6 months to 1 year ago

o l to 4 years ago

o 5 to 10 years ago

o More than l0 years ago 25 Please check the statement that best describes your sexual experience. a.

o Entirely heterosexual

o Largely heterosexual, but some homosexual experience

o Largely heterosexual, but considerable homosexual experience

o Equally heterosexual and homosexual

o Largely homosexual, but considerable heterosexual experience

o Largely homosexual, but some heterosexual experience

o Entirely homosexual

63 Appendix A-2

25b. Are you currently involved in a romantic/dating relationship or marriage?

o No o Yes 25c. If yes, how long have you been involved with this person? ______months 25d. If yes, please indicate below your level of satisfaction with your current relationship. Not at all Very Much Satisfied Satisfied

o 1 o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 o 6 o 7 26. Are you sexually active (e.g., do you engage in oral, vaginal, or anal sex)?

o No o Yes 27 a. Have you ever kissed someone in a sexual manner or “made out” when you wanted to?

o No o Yes 27 b. With how many different partners? ______(enter number of partners) 28 a. Have you ever had oral-sex (including giving or receiving, e.g., blow job, going down) when you wanted to (without force)?

o No, never received o Yes, received

o No, never given o Yes, given 28 b. With how many different partners have you given oral sex (e.g., blow job)? ______(enter number of partners) 28 c. With how many different partners have you received oral sex (e.g., gone down)? ______(enter number of partners) 28 d. How old were you the first time you had oral-sex (including giving or receiving, e.g., blow job, going down)? (leave blank if never had oral-sex) ______years 29 a. Have you ever had sexual intercourse (vaginal or anal) when you wanted to (without force)?

o No o Yes 29 b. With how many different partners? ______(enter number of partners) 29 c. How old were you the first time you had consensual sexual intercourse? (Leave blank if never had intercourse) ______years

64 Appendix A-2 30 a. Which of the following forms of birth control have you used in the past 6 months?

o None

o Withdrawal (man withdraws his penis prior to ejaculation)

o Rhythm (calendar) method

o Oral contraceptive (“the pill”)

o Depo-Provera

o Diaphragm

o Condom

o Spermacide (without condom)

o Other (specify) ______

o None – I was not sexually active in the past 6 months. 30 b. Which of the above methods of birth control do you use most regularly? (enter name) ______31. Please indicate your level of satisfaction with the total number of sexual partners you’ve had. Not at all Very Much Satisfied Satisfied

o 1 o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 o 6 o 7

65 Appendix A-3 Please indicate how often each of the following experiences has happened to you in the last six months. Often 3 2 1 Never 0

1. Nightmares or bad dreams 0 1 2 3

2. Trying to forget about a bad time in your life 0 1 2 3

3. Irritability 0 1 2 3

4. Stopping yourself from thinking about the past 0 1 2 3

5. Getting angry about something that wasn’t very important 0 1 2 3

6. Feeling empty inside 0 1 2 3

7. Sadness 0 1 2 3

8. “Flashbacks” (sudden memories or images of upsetting things) 0 1 2 3

9. Not being satisfied with your sex life 0 1 2 3

10. Feeling like you were outside of your body 0 1 2 3

11. Lower back pain 0 1 2 3

0 1 2 3 12. Sudden disturbing memories when you were not expecting them

13. Wanting to cry 0 1 2 3

14. Not feeling happy 0 1 2 3

15. Becoming angry for little or no reason 0 1 2 3

16. Feeling like you don’t know who you really are 0 1 2 3

17. Feeling depressed 0 1 2 3

18. Having sex with someone you hardly knew 0 1 2 3

19. Thoughts or fantasies about hurting someone 0 1 2 3

20. Your mind going blank 0 1 2 3

66 Appendix A-3

Please indicate how often each of the following experiences has happened to you in the last six months. Often 3 2 1 Never 0

21. Fainting 0 1 2 3

22. Periods of trembling or shaking 0 1 2 3

23. Pushing painful memories out of your mind 0 1 2 3

24. Not understanding why you did something 0 1 2 3

25. Threatening or attempting suicide 0 1 2 3

26. Feeling like you were watching yourself from far away 0 1 2 3

27. Feeling tense or “on edge” 0 1 2 3

28. Getting into trouble because of sex 0 1 2 3

29. Not feeling like your real self 0 1 2 3

30. Wishing you were dead 0 1 2 3

31. Worrying about things 0 1 2 3

0 1 2 3 32. Not being sure of what you want in life

33. Bad thoughts or feelings during sex 0 1 2 3

34. Being easily annoyed by other people 0 1 2 3

35. Starting arguments or picking fights to get your anger out 0 1 2 3

36. Having sex or being sexual to keep from feeling lonely or sad 0 1 2 3

37. Getting angry when you didn’t want to 0 1 2 3

38. Not being able to feel your emotions 0 1 2 3

39. Confusion about your sexual feelings 0 1 2 3

40. Using drugs other than marijuana 0 1 2 3

67 Appendix A-3

Please indicate how often each of the following experiences has happened to you in the last six months. Often 3 2 1 Never 0

41. Feeling jumpy 0 1 2 3 42. Absent-mindedness 0 1 2 3

43. Feeling paralyzed for minutes at a time 0 1 2 3

44. Needing other people to tell you what to do 0 1 2 3 45. Yelling or telling people off when you felt you shouldn’t have 0 1 2 3

46. Flirting or “coming on” to someone to get attention 0 1 2 3

0 1 2 3 47. Sexual thoughts or feelings when you thought you shouldn’t have them

0 1 2 3 48. Intentionally hurting yourself (for example, by scratching, cutting, or burning) even though you weren’t trying to commit suicide.

49. Aches and pains 0 1 2 3 50. Sexual fantasies about being dominated or overpowered 0 1 2 3

51. High anxiety 0 1 2 3

0 1 2 3 52. Problems in your sexual relations with another person

53. Wishing you had more money 0 1 2 3

54. Nervousness 0 1 2 3

55. Getting confused about what you thought or believed 0 1 2 3

56. Feeling tired 0 1 2 3

57. Feeling mad or angry inside 0 1 2 3

58. Getting into trouble because of your drinking 0 1 2 3

0 1 2 3 59. Staying away from certain people or places because they reminded you of something

60. One side of your body going numb 0 1 2 3

68 Appendix A-3

Please indicate how often each of the following experiences has happened to you in the last six months. Often 3 2 1 Never 0

61. Wishing you could stop thinking about sex 0 1 2 3

62. Suddenly remembering something upsetting from your past 0 1 2 3

63. Wanting to hit someone or something 0 1 2 3

64. Feeling hopeless 0 1 2 3

65. Hearing someone talk to you who wasn’t really there 0 1 2 3

66. Suddenly being reminded of something bad 0 1 2 3

67. Trying to block out certain memories 0 1 2 3

68. Sexual problems 0 1 2 3

69. Using sex to feel powerful or important 0 1 2 3

70. Violent dreams 0 1 2 3

71. Acting “sexy” even though you didn’t really want sex 0 1 2 3

72. Just for a moment, seeing or hearing something upsetting that 0 1 2 3 happened earlier in your life

73. Using sex to get love or attention 0 1 2 3

74. Frightening or upsetting thoughts popping into your mind 0 1 2 3

75. Getting your own feelings mixed up with someone else’s 0 1 2 3

76. Wanting to have sex with someone who you knew was bad for you 0 1 2 3

77. Feeling ashamed about your sexual feelings or behavior 0 1 2 3

78. Trying to keep from being alone 0 1 2 3

79. Losing your sense of taste 0 1 2 3

80. Your feelings or thoughts changing when you were with other people 0 1 2 3

69 Appendix A-4

3. I have trouble expressing my sexual needs. 1 2 3 4 5

4. I lack confidence in sexual situations. 1 2 3 4 5

5. It is easy for me to say “no” in sexual situations. 1 2 3 4 5

6. I feel confident initiating sexual contact with a partner. 1 2 3 4 5

7. It is difficult for me to ask my partner to wear a condom. 1 2 3 4 5

8. I am easily persuaded to engage in sexual activity. 1 2 3 4 5

I worry that my partner won’t like me unless I engage in sexual 9. 1 2 3 4 5 behavior.

10. I can “stand my ground” sexually. 1 2 3 4 5

11. I can resist unwanted sexual behavior. 1 2 3 4 5

It is difficult for me to be firm sexually if my partner keeps 12. 1 2 3 4 5 begging or pressuring me about it.

13. It is easier to “give in” sexually than to argue with my partner. 1 2 3 4 5

14. It is hard for me to set boundaries regarding sexual behavior. 1 2 3 4 5

I engage in sexual activity when I don’t want to because I don’t 15. 1 2 3 4 5 know how to say “no.”

16. I agree to have sex when I don’t feel like it. 1 2 3 4 5

70 Appendix A-4

17. I engage in sexual activity because I’m flattered by the attention. 1 2 3 4 5

I go along with what my partner wants sexually, even when I’m 18. 1 2 3 4 5 uncomfortable.

19. I give more than I take in sexual situations. 1 2 3 4 5

20. I am a needy person. 1 2 3 4 5 21. I hate confrontations. 1 2 3 4 5 I engage in unwanted sexual activity to avoid hurting my 22. 1 2 3 4 5 partner’s feelings.

23. Fulfilling my partner’s sexual needs is very important to me. 1 2 3 4 5

Once I agree to some sexual activity, it is difficult for me to stop 24. 1 2 3 4 5 things from going farther than I’d like.

I wait for my partner to “make the first move” in sexual 25. 1 2 3 4 5 situations.

I engage in unwanted sexual behavior to “avoid making a 26. 1 2 3 4 5 scene” with my partner.

27. I know what I want sexually. 1 2 3 4 5

28. I am good at expressing my sexual needs and wants. 1 2 3 4 5

29. I engage in sexual activity to gain popularity or attention. 1 2 3 4 5

30. It is easy for others to seduce me into sexual activity. 1 2 3 4 5

31. For me, sex equals love. 1 2 3 4 5 I engage in sexual activity because most people my age are 32. 1 2 3 4 5 “doing it.”

71 Appendix A-4

Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. Answer each question based on how you generally behave, even if you are not currently in a relationship or sexually active. Circle the corresponding number. Strongly Agree 5 Agree 4 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 Disagree 2 Strongly Disagree 1 My partner must express respect and love for me before I 33. 1 2 3 4 5 engage in sexual behavior. It is hard for me to deny my partner sexual activity if I really like 34. 1 2 3 4 5 him/her. I worry that my partner will feel bad if I reject his/her sexual 35. 1 2 3 4 5 advances. I worry that if I tell my partner no, he/she will not want to see me 36. 1 2 3 4 5 again. I set “rules” for myself regarding my sexual behavior, and I stick 37. 1 2 3 4 5 to them. I am more likely to agree to sexual activity if I’ve been drinking 38. 1 2 3 4 5 alcohol.

39. Using alcohol makes it easier for me to express myself sexually. 1 2 3 4 5

I am more likely to ask my partner to wear a condom if I’ve been 40. 1 2 3 4 5 drinking.

41. I use sexual behavior to express my feelings of love. 1 2 3 4 5

42. It is very important to me that others find me sexually attractive. 1 2 3 4 5 I believe that sexual activity brings a relationship to a more 43. intimate level. 1 2 3 4 5 44. I engage in risky sexual behavior. 1 2 3 4 5 I need to know my partner very well before I engage in oral, 45. 1 2 3 4 5 vaginal, or anal sex. 46. To me, oral sex is no big deal. 1 2 3 4 5 I limit sexual activity to kissing and fondling when I first meet 47. 1 2 3 4 5 someone. 48. I don’t have oral sex unless I’m in a committed relationship. 1 2 3 4 5

72 Appendix A-4

49. In general, I feel good about my level of sexual activity. 1 2 3 4 5

I engage in risky sexual behavior, but I know things will turn out 50. 1 2 3 4 5 all right in the end. I worry that something bad could happen to me because of my 51. 1 2 3 4 5 sexual behavior. My fears of pregnancy outweigh my desire for sexual 52. 1 2 3 4 5 intercourse. I worry that my partner might think less of me if I engage in 53. 1 2 3 4 5 sexual activity. 54. I don’t really know what I want sexually. 1 2 3 4 5 55. I feel confused when I engage in sexual behavior. 1 2 3 4 5

I engage in sexual activity even if I’m afraid of the 56. 1 2 3 4 5 consequences. In the moment, I focus on my partner’s needs, and worry less 57. 1 2 3 4 5 about the consequences of sexual activity. 58. I get very upset if my partner is angry with me. 1 2 3 4 5 59. I do everything I can to avoid disappointing my partner. 1 2 3 4 5

60. Others value me only for my appearance or sexiness. 1 2 3 4 5 61. I don’t have intercourse unless I know my partner very well. 1 2 3 4 5

Giving in to her partner’s sexual desires is part of the woman’s 62. 1 2 3 4 5 role.

63. Men don’t like women who are sexually aggressive. 1 2 3 4 5 If you express your sexual needs, your partner may think you 64. 1 2 3 4 5 are promiscuous.

73 Appendix A-4

Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. Answer each question based on how you generally behave, even if you are not currently in a relationship or sexually active. Circle the corresponding number. Strongly Agree 5 Agree 4 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 Disagree 2 Strongly Disagree 1 For me, sexual activity is more about fun and pleasure rather 65. 1 2 3 4 5 than love or commitment. It is very unlikely that I will be sexually assaulted during my 66. 1 2 3 4 5 college years. It is easy for me to tell my partner what I want, and what I don’t 67. 1 2 3 4 5 want, sexually. It is easy for me to be assertive in sexual situations with a 68. 1 2 3 4 5 partner. 69. I am an assertive person. 1 2 3 4 5 70. It is my job to keep my partner happy. 1 2 3 4 5 It is partly the “danger” in some sexual situations that gets me 71. turned on. 1 2 3 4 5 72. I feel bad after I have sex. 1 2 3 4 5 73. Sexual behavior makes me feel dirty or “cheap.” 1 2 3 4 5

74. I feel conflicted about sexual behavior. 1 2 3 4 5 75. Women are not supposed to enjoy sex as much as men. 1 2 3 4 5

76. I worry that I am too liberal in my sexuality. 1 2 3 4 5 77. I worry that I am too conservative in my sexuality. 1 2 3 4 5

I participate in sexual activity without thinking about the 78. 1 2 3 4 5 consequences.

79. I am an impulsive person. 1 2 3 4 5

80. I have no desire to engage in sexual activity in the near future. 1 2 3 4 5

81. I have mixed feelings about engaging in sexual activity. 1 2 3 4 5

82. It’s important that I look sexy or attractive when I socialize. 1 2 3 4 5

74 Appendix A-4

83. Afterwards, I often regret some of my sexual experiences. 1 2 3 4 5

When it comes to sexual activity, I often act first and think 84. 1 2 3 4 5 second.

85. Having a steady sexual partner is important to me. 1 2 3 4 5