The Relation of Unwanted Consensual Sex to Mental Health and Relationship Variables: the Role of Motivations

THE RELATION OF UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX TO MENTAL HEALTH AND RELATIONSHIP VARIABLES: THE ROLE OF MOTIVATIONS

Maren Froemming

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

August 2020

Committee:

Eric Dubow, Advisor

Jeanne Novak Graduate Faculty Representative

Anne Gordon

Joshua Grubbs

Maren Froemming

Eric Dubow, Advisor

Unwanted consensual sex, when a person willingly consents to sexual activity that is unwanted in some way, is a largely understudied sexual behavior despite its relatively common prevalence. Many researchers have conceptualized unwanted consensual sex to be a negative sexual experience and even to lie on the spectrum of sexual coercion and violence. Previous research has demonstrated associations between unwanted consensual sex and poorer relationship quality and sexual satisfaction, but no research has investigated its potential association with psychological functioning. Additionally, there has been a lack of research on the role of motivations for unwanted consensual sex, though initial evidence suggests that reasons for having unwanted consensual sex may be differentially related to certain outcomes. Using an approach-avoidance motivational framework, I tested moderation models exploring how frequency of unwanted consensual sex relates to mental health and relationship variables, with either approach or avoidance motivations as moderators. A sample of 704 sexually active adults of varied age, gender, sexual orientation, and relationship status were surveyed using Amazon

Mechanical Turk. Forty-four percent of the total sample endorsed engaging in unwanted consensual sex in the past year. Frequency of unwanted consensual sex was positively associated with mental health symptoms and negatively associated with well-being (marginally significant) and relationship quality. Results indicate that approach motivations for unwanted consensual sex did not moderate the relation between frequency of unwanted consensual sex and relationship quality as hypothesized. There was modest support for avoidance motivations for unwanted iv consensual sex as a moderator of the relation between frequency of unwanted consensual sex and mental health symptoms as well as well-being. Taken together, the findings provide initial support for the use of a motivational framework to understand unwanted consensual sex. Overall, results suggest that engaging in unwanted consensual sex may predict negative outcomes, and that motivations for the behavior can play an important role in predicting risk. v

This dissertation is dedicated to E.J. Froemming, who finished the race of life as I was finishing

the race to my Ph.D. Love you, Grandpa. vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Since beginning graduate school seven years ago, I have grown as a researcher, student, teacher, clinician, advocate, and friend. None of this growth could have occurred without the constant support, love, generosity, and sacrifice of the people in my life.

I’d first like to start by thanking my committee, whose encouragement and feedback strengthened both my research skills and my final manuscript. In particular, I would like to thank my advisor, Eric Dubow, for being a constant throughout my graduate school career, for giving me the autonomy I needed, and for always being willing to challenge and be challenged. Many thanks also to the mentors and teachers whose lessons I will carry with me to the next leg of my journey.

I cannot fully express the gratitude I have for new friends who have supported me throughout my graduate career. Their support came in many forms: nights out dancing (my favorite self-care activity), group texts, commiseration, study tips, work parties, rides to the hospital, feeding my kid, etc. I’m also thankful to my friends from home who have taught me that true friendship can, without question, stand the test of distance and time. I’m grateful for my partner, who always has faith in me even when I don’t. Last, but certainly not least, I want to thank my family for their unwavering support. This has been an incredibly long journey and I appreciate the patience you have shown to me and the sacrifices you have made to help me get here today. I love you.

Finally, in honor of the late Dr. Kenneth Shemberg, a reminder to myself and my readers,

“Illegitimi non carborundum.” vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Definitions and Conceptualizations of Unwanted Consensual Sex ...... 3

Prevalence of Unwanted Consensual Sex ...... 5

Relevant Outcomes and Concurrent Correlates of Sexual Assault/Coercion and

Unwanted Consensual Sex ...... 6

Sexual Assault/Coercion: Relevant Outcomes and Concurrent

Correlates ...... 7

Unwanted Consensual Sex: Relevant Outcomes and Concurrent

Correlates ...... 8

Motivations for Sexual Behavior ...... 11

Specific Motivations for Engaging in Unwanted Consensual Sex ...... 12

An Overarching Motivational Framework ...... 15

Present Study ...... 20

Hypothesis I ...... 21

Hypothesis II ...... 21

Hypothesis III...... 22

Hypothesis IV ...... 22

METHOD ...... 23

Participants ...... 23

Procedure ...... 24

Measures ...... 25 viii

Demographic Information ...... 25

Attention Checks ...... 26

Predictors ...... 26

Prevalence of Unwanted Consensual Sex ...... 26

Frequency of Unwanted Consensual Sex ...... 27

Hypothesized Moderators: Motivations for Unwanted Consensual Sex ...... 27

Relationship-Specific Outcomes ...... 30

Relationship Satisfaction ...... 30

Relationship Intimacy ...... 31

Sexual Satisfaction ...... 32

Psychological Functioning Outcomes...... 32

Well-Being ...... 32

Mental Health Symptoms ...... 33

RESULTS ...... 34

Preliminary Analyses ...... 34

Data Reduction...... 34

Demographic Differences in the Major Study Variables ...... 34

Variable Transformations ...... 38

Major Study Analyses ...... 39

Hypothesis I: The Prevalence of Unwanted Consensual Sex Will Be

Higher in an Age-Diverse Sample than in College Student Samples;

There Will Be Gender and Partner-Type Differences in Unwanted

Consensual Sex Prevalence and/or Frequency ...... 39 ix

Hypothesis II: A Modified Measure of Motivations for Unwanted

Consensual Sex, Based on a Motivational Framework, Can Be Validated ... 40

Latent Factors...... 41

Higher-Order Factors ...... 41

Hypothesis III: Unwanted Consensual Sex Frequency Will Be Negatively

Associated with Relationship Quality and Well-Being, and Positively

Associated with Mental Health Symptoms ...... 43

Hypothesis IV: The Strength of the Relation between Frequency of

Unwanted Consensual Sex and the Hypothesized Outcomes Will Be

Moderated by the Type of Motivations Endorsed ...... 45

Approach Motivations as a Moderator of the Relation

between Frequency of Unwanted Consensual Sex and the

Outcome Variables...... 46

Avoidance Motivations as a Moderator of the Relation

between Frequency of Unwanted Consensual Sex and the

Outcome Variables...... 47

DISCUSSION ...... 50

Hypothesis I: The Prevalence of Unwanted Consensual Sex Will Be Higher

in an Age-Diverse Sample than in College Student Samples; There Will Be

Gender and Partner-Type Differences in Unwanted Consensual Sex Prevalence

and/or Frequency ...... 51

Hypothesis II: A Modified Measure of Motivations for Unwanted Consensual

Sex, Based on a Motivational Framework, Can Be Validated ...... 54 x

Latent Factors...... 54

Higher-Order Factors ...... 55

Hypothesis III: Unwanted Consensual Sex Frequency Will Be Negatively

Associated with Relationship Quality and Well-Being, and Positively Associated

with Mental Health Symptoms ...... 56

Hypothesis IV: The Strength of the Relation between Frequency of Unwanted

Consensual Sex and the Hypothesized Outcomes Will Be Moderated by the

Type of Motivations Endorsed...... 57

Approach Motivations ...... 57

Avoidance Motivations ...... 59

Limitations and Conclusions...... 61

REFERENCES ...... 65

APPENDIX A. TABLES ...... 76

APPENDIX B. FIGURES ...... 90

APPENDIX C. MTURK RECRUITMENT SCRIPT ...... 95

APPENDIX D. INFORMED CONSENT...... 96

APPENDIX E. DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 98

APPENDIX F. SEXUAL EXPERIENCE DEMOGRAPHICS QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 100

APPENDIX G. ATTENTION CHECK ITEMS ...... 101

APPENDIX H. UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX: PREVALENCE AND

FREQUENCY ITEMS...... 102

APPENDIX I. UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX MOTIVATIONS SCALE ...... 103

APPENDIX J. QUALIFYING QUESTIONS FOR RELATIONSHIP-SPECIFIC

OUTCOMES...... 105

APPENDIX K. COUPLES SATISFACTION INDEX – 16 ...... 106

APPENDIX L. PAIR EMOTIONAL INTIMACY SUBSCALE ...... 108

APPENDIX M. GLOBAL MEASURE OF SEXUAL SATISFACTION ...... 109

APPENDIX N. FLOURISHING SCALE...... 110

APPENDIX O. PATIENT HEALTH QUESTIONNAIRE - 9 ...... 111

APPENDIX P. GENERALIZED ANXIETY DISORDER - 7 ...... 112

APPENDIX Q. SOMATIC SYMPTOM SCALE – 8 ...... 113

Running head: UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 1

INTRODUCTION

Unwanted consensual sex (UCS), broadly, refers to an act in which an individual

consents to sexual activity that is unwanted in some way. Numerous studies have demonstrated

that this behavior is not uncommon, with reported lifetime prevalence rates ranging from 35% to

64% (Conroy et al., 2015; Krahé et al., 2000). We know that unwanted, nonconsensual sex can

have serious physical, psychological, and social consequences for victims (Chen et al., 2010;

Golding et al., 2002; Paras et al., 2009). According to some, high rates of unwanted consensual sex are also a cause for concern, as any type of unwanted sex is thought to be a negative sexual experience (Gentzler & Kerns, 2004). Many researchers conceptualize sex that is consensual but unwanted to lie on the spectrum of coercion and sexual violence (Dempster et al., 2015; Foster,

2011; Walker, 1997).

Although the literature commonly suggests that unwanted consensual sex and

nonconsensual sex may have similar consequences, there is not yet enough evidence to support

that assumption. Empirical studies have provided some evidence of positive correlations between

the prevalence and/or frequency of unwanted consensual sex and experiences of coercion or

rape, poorer relationship quality, and lower levels of sexual satisfaction (Katz & Tirone, 2009;

O’Sullivan & Allgeier, 1998), which have been interpreted as evidence that unwanted consensual

sex is a negative sexual experience that should be avoided (e.g., Foster, 2011). However, many

of the findings regarding theorized outcomes of unwanted consensual sex have been mixed (e.g.,

relations with sexual victimization histories). While significant research has investigated mental

health outcomes related to experiences of nonconsensual sex, the same research has not been

undertaken for unwanted consensual sex. A more comprehensive understanding of the effects of UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 2

having unwanted consensual sex must be undertaken before the assumption that it is necessarily

a negative experience can be supported.

In addition to the dearth of research on the outcomes of unwanted consensual sex, there is

also an under emphasis in the literature on the role of motivations for engaging in this behavior.

We know that individuals engage in desired, consensual sex for a variety of reasons (Cooper et

al., 1998; Meston & Buss, 2007), and the same has been found to be true for unwanted

consensual sex (Impett & Peplau, 2002). For example, individuals commonly endorse the

following reasons for having unwanted consensual sex: making a partner happy, avoiding

conflict, and having a sense of obligation or duty. Although people report choosing to have

unwanted consensual sex for a variety of reasons, unwanted consensual sex is most commonly

framed as a unified behavior that has the same meaning and consequences no matter the reasons

behind it. However, a functionalist perspective suggests that even when behaviors may appear at

the surface level to be the same, if the behaviors are undertaken to serve different needs, they

may be usefully viewed as distinct phenomenon. The motivations for engaging in unwanted

consensual sexual behavior may be related to whether it has negative or positive outcomes for

the individuals involved. Initial evidence exists that suggests that different reasons for engaging

in unwanted consensual sex are associated with frequency of unwanted consensual sex and with

relationship satisfaction (Katz & Tirone, 2009; Kennett et al., 2009).

Cooper et al. (1998) proposed a model to identify domains of sexual motivations as well as to determine the predictive validity of various sexual motivations. This model demonstrated usefulness of explaining the ways that motivations were associated with patterns of intrapersonal and interpersonal correlates, as well as patterns of sexual risk taking. This model may provide a UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 3 framework through which to investigate the possibility that outcomes may differ as a function of motivations for having unwanted consensual sex.

In this dissertation, I will describe the construct of unwanted consensual sex, as well as how it is defined and conceptualized in the literature. Next, I will review the research on the prevalence of unwanted consensual sex across different populations, and I will present empirical findings regarding relevant hypothesized outcomes of sexual assault and coercive sexual experiences, as well as unwanted consensual sex. I will then outline various sexual motivations proposed by researchers and summarize the research findings related to reasons that individuals engage in unwanted consensual sex. Then, I will describe a framework of sexual motivations through which to better understand individuals’ motivations to engage in unwanted consensual sex, and the possible consequences of doing so. Next, I will report the methods and results for my study which used a motivational framework to measure and evaluate the potential moderating effects of motivations in the relation between engaging in unwanted consensual sex and various outcomes. Finally, I will review the strengths and limitations of the project and how results can contribute to our understanding of sexual behavior.

Definitions and Conceptualizations of Unwanted Consensual Sex

Unwanted consensual sex is a behavior that occurs when an individual agrees to engage in sexual activity that is not wanted or desired for some reason. This behavior has also been called sexual acquiescence, sexual compliance, and rape by acquiescence (Basile, 1999; Katz &

Schneider, 2015; Kettrey, 2014). As there are differences in the way that unwanted consensual sex is labeled, there are also differences in how it is conceptualized.

A key difference among researchers in this area is the issue of freely given consent versus consent that is given due to pressure. Many scholars who have authored articles about unwanted UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 4

consensual sex posit that this behavior may sometimes result from partner pressure or coercion.

For example, Shotland and Hunter (1995) stated that “compliant sexual behavior…may originate

from sexual pressure from their dates…” Similarly, Kennett and colleagues (2009) contended that “voluntarily giving in to unwanted sexual activity often involves some sort of verbal or non- verbal persuasion on the part of the male, creating more perceived pressure to consent. Sprecher, et al. (1994) stated that “consent to unwanted sex may be a form of nonviolent coercion.” Other researchers conceptualize unwanted conceptual sex as necessarily resulting from some form of pressure or coercion from their partner or dates (e.g. Basile, 1999, 2002; Dempster et al., 2015;

Foster, 2011). For example, Dempster et al. (2015) stated that unwanted consensual sex is on the continuum of coercion, and Basile (1999) asserted that if sex is unwanted then some level of coercion must be involved. This position rests on the assumptions that consent is only ever truly given in situations where something is wanted.

However, another group of researchers proposes that wanting and consenting exist independently of one another and seeks to differentiate unwanted consensual sex from situations that involve pressure or coercion from a sexual partner (e.g., Katz & Tirone, 2009; Muehlenhard

& Cook, 1988; Vannier & O’Sullivan, 2010). According to researchers who have taken this viewpoint, such as Peterson and Muehlenhard (2007), “Individuals can be willing to do things that do not correspond with their wishes or their inclinations.” These scholars take the position that it is completely possible to freely consent to sex that is unwanted. It appears that the jury is still out about whether unwanted consensual sex reflects experiences of pressure or coercion, perceived pressure and coercion, or may under some conditions or for some individuals represent something less concerning UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 5

Prevalence of Unwanted Consensual Sex

A review of the literature indicates that unwanted consensual sex is not an uncommon behavior, although prevalence rates vary depending upon the period of measurement (e.g., lifetime, past year), the sample that was used, and how/what sexual activities were included. In two survey studies conducted by Katz and Tirone (2009, 2010), 37.5% and 40.8%, respectively, of heterosexual college women indicated that they had experienced unwanted consensual intercourse at some point in their current committed relationship. O’Sullivan and Allgeier (1998) used a daily diary study to investigate the sexual experiences of college men and women and discovered that 38.1% of individuals reported engaging in unwanted consensual sexual activity

(including hugging, kissing, fondling, intercourse) during the two-week period of data collection.

A more recent study using daily diaries to understand sexual experiences of college students found that 46% of all participants reported at least one occasion of sexual compliance (including genital touching, oral sex, or intercourse) in the three-week period of data collection. During those three weeks, 17.2% of all sexual activity reported was unwanted but consensual (Vannier

& O’Sullivan, 2010).

Research suggests that individuals who report having engaged in unwanted consensual sex tend to report having done so on more than one occasion. For example, Katz and Tirone’s

(2009) sample reported having previously engaged in unwanted consensual sex an average of

5.81 total times with their current partner. Ninety-three percent of the sample in O’Sullivan and

Allgeier’s (1998) study who reported engaging in unwanted consensual sex over the 2-week data collection period also reported having engaged in unwanted consensual sex at least once previously. College students in this study reported an average of 11.9 total occasions of unwanted consensual sex over their lifetime, with an average of 2.5 partners. UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 6

Overall, the current literature on unwanted consensual sex is limited in that it

predominantly includes samples of heterosexual female college students in committed and

monogamous relationships. Over-reliance on college samples is a common problem in survey

research, and it tends to limit the ability to generalize findings to other populations. However, the

lack of adequate representation in this research area is especially problematic because many

college students have limited sexual and relationship experience due to their relatively young

age. As we know that sexual behaviors, motivations, and well-being differ throughout the life

course (Flynn et al., 2016; Mercer et al., 2013; McNulty et al., 2016), and vary with regard to

relationship type (Jonason et al., 2011; Meston & Buss, 2007), these undergraduate college

students’ experiences likely may not adequately represent unwanted but consensual sexual behavior across age groups and relationship types. For example, some older individuals may be less likely to want to engage in sexual behavior (and therefore have more opportunities for unwanted consensual sex to occur) due to increased stress related to work and parenting demands

(Bodenmann et al., 2007). Similarly, women may have more opportunities for unwanted sex to occur based on a lower sex drive when compared to men (Baumeister et al., 2001). Individuals in committed relationships may be more likely to engage in maintenance behaviors to preserve the relationship (Rusbult & Buunk, 1993), which may include sexual behaviors. The present study sought to address this limitation by including a sample of age-diverse men and women in various types of relationships.

Relevant Outcomes and Concurrent Correlates of Sexual Assault/Coercion and Unwanted

Consensual Sex

In this section, I review studies that examine outcomes and concurrent correlates both of sexual assault/coercion and unwanted consensual sex. This review will illuminate gaps in the UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 7 literature regarding correlates of unwanted consensual sex. Throughout the review, I report effect sizes when possible. Following Rosnow and Rosenthal (1988), I used available data from studies to calculate an r as an index of effect size (effect sizes indexed by rø when variables are dichotomous). When multiple regression results were reported in the studies reviewed, I have included the standardized beta and provided information about other predictor variables included in the equations.

Sexual Assault/Coercion: Relevant Outcomes and Concurrent Correlates

As stated previously, unwanted consensual sex is considered by many scholars to be a negative behavior and has even been conceptualized as a form of sexual victimization or sexual violence. To gain a better understanding of whether, or where, unwanted consensual sex lies on the spectrum of sexual violence and coercion, it is necessary to explore the consequences of experiencing various forms of sexual victimization.

Sexual assault has wide-ranging consequences for the individuals that experience it. It has been associated with increased rates of depression (Acierno et al., 2002; Nicolaidis et al.,

2004), fear and anxiety, (Burnam et al., 1988; Winfield et al., 1990), sleep disturbances (Steine et al., 2012), substance abuse (Burnam et al., 1988; Ullman et al., 2005), post traumatic stress disorder (Campbell et al., 2009; Rothbaum et al., 1992), and sexual dysfunction (Golding et al.,

1998; Postma et al., 2013).

It has been suggested that sexual coercion represents a “qualitatively different type of sexual aggression experience” (Testa & Dermen, 1999), and is often assumed to be a less severe type of sexual experience when compared to forcible rape (Koss et al., 1987). A few studies have provided empirical support for this assertion (Abbey et al., 2004; Brown et al., 2009), including

Brown et al.’s study of college women which demonstrated that when compared to victims of UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 8 incapacitated or forcible rape, victims of verbal coercion reported lower levels of post-traumatic stress symptoms (r = .19). Additionally, victims of verbal coercion reported lower levels of perceived trauma during the sexual victimization experience (r = .35) and at the time of the study

(r = .21), and were less likely to report an emotional or psychological reaction (rø = .21) or negative impact on their social lives (rø = .37). However, it is important to note that women who reported a verbally coercive experience still rated the experience as moderately traumatic and many reported being affected by the experience in some way.

Several authors have suggested that unwanted consensual sex is a coercive experience.

Therefore, it is necessary to explore the literature regarding psychological adjustment as it relates to sexual coercion. A cross-sectional study of young adults (ages 19-22, mix of college and non- college) by Zweig et al. (1997) examined differences on several adjustment outcomes for those who had experienced coercion, those who reported pressured sex, and those who experienced

“violent coercion” (rape). Overall, experiencing sexual pressure or violent coercion (rape) was associated with poorer psychological adjustment, including increased anger (r = .17), social isolation (r = .17), depressed mood (r = .24), and lower self-esteem (r = .21) for both men and women. In terms of specific differences between the groups in levels of the outcome variable, women who had experienced pressured sex reported more depressed mood and social anxiety than women who were not coerced or those who were violently coerced (raped). For men, those who were violently coerced reported more depressed mood and anger when compared to those who experienced no coercion or pressured sex only.

Unwanted Consensual Sex: Relevant Outcomes and Concurrent Correlates

Despite its suggested closeness with other forms of sexual violence, measures of psychological adjustment and well-being have not been explored with regard to unwanted UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 9 consensual sex. A review of the literature found that the only outcomes that have been empirically investigated in relation to unwanted consensual sex include aspects of romantic well- being, which is comprised of relationship or sexual satisfaction as well as commitment to the relationship. Katz and Tirone (2009) theorized that engaging in unwanted consensual sex represents a form of self-sacrifice indicative of commitment, and that sexual compliance may promote further commitment and investment in a romantic relationship. However, empirical investigation of these factors has demonstrated that although there are associations between unwanted consensual sex and romantic/sexual satisfaction, the relations between these variables are not necessarily in the direction hypothesized by these authors.

In their cross-sectional study of heterosexual, monogamous, undergraduate females, women who had unwanted consensual sex reported lower relationship satisfaction than women who did not (r = .23), suggesting a modest effect size. Interestingly, there was no association between frequency of unwanted consensual sex and relationship satisfaction (Katz & Tirone,

2009). The same study found no association between relationship commitment and unwanted consensual sex (Katz & Tirone, 2009). Using a similar sample in a 6-week longitudinal study, the same authors (Katz & Tirone, 2010) found that while sexual satisfaction at Time 2 was not associated with unwanted consensual sex at baseline, it was predicted by unwanted consensual sex at Time 2 (β = -.19), even when controlling for baseline variables including sexual satisfaction and coercion by a sexual partner. These results suggest that unwanted consensual sex may have negatively impacted women’s sexual functioning However, it is important to note that this relation was moderated by sexually coercive partner behavior, such that the negative association between unwanted consensual sex and sexual satisfaction was stronger for those women who reported that they more frequently experienced coercion from their partners (β = UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 10

.63) than for those who reported lower levels of sexually coercive behavior from partners (β =

.33, these are betas from simple slopes analyses).

A seminal study of unwanted consensual sex by O’Sullivan and Allgeier (1998) incorporated qualitative responses from college students about positive and negative outcomes experienced because of engaging in unwanted consensual sex with their committed partner. A number of participants reported negative outcomes, with emotional discomfort (e.g., feeling disappointed in oneself) being the most commonly endorsed negative outcome (reported by 35% of women and 28.6% of men). Other negative outcomes that were reported included physical discomfort (women only) and relationship tension.

In addition to exploring the possibility that unwanted consensual sex may be associated with problems of psychological adjustment or other negative outcomes, inquiry into potential positive outcomes is warranted, such as those reported by participants in O’Sullivan and

Allgeier’s (1998) study. In that study, more than one third of the sample who had engaged in unwanted consensual sex reported that there were no negative outcomes, while almost all participants reported at least one positive outcome. Relationship satisfaction/promotion of intimacy and prevention of relationship discord were the most commonly reported positive outcomes. Others included the attainment of the participants’ own physical or sexual satisfaction and enjoyable nonsexual interaction.

Romantic interest was investigated as a separate outcome in the above study, and while most participants (59%) reported that their romantic interest toward their partner did not change as the result of engaging in unwanted consensual sex, 21% did report an increase in romantic interest. No participants reported an extreme decrease in romantic interest. Although participants rated unwanted consensual sexual experiences as less pleasant than their sexual experiences in UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 11

general with their partner, 85% of respondents rated their last consensual but unwanted sexual

activity at least slightly pleasant, with no participants rating it as extremely unpleasant.

The findings from O’Sullivan and Allgeier’s (1998) study regarding outcomes provide

important insight into individuals’ perceptions of the positive consequences of having unwanted

consensual sex, but it is important to note that most of these results were based solely on

qualitative data, and it is possible for people to overestimate or underestimate the true

consequences (negative or positive) of their own behaviors, especially when these past events

may have subsequently been reconstrued or rationalized (reference on construal, rationalization,

cognitive dissonance). Quantitative investigation of positive relationship outcomes such as those

suggested by participants in this study could provide additional insight into the phenomenon of

unwanted consensual sex.

Motivations for Sexual Behavior

In addition to exploring consequences, it is important to also explore the reasons that

individuals have unwanted consensual sex, which begins with an examination of motivations for

sexual behavior in general. Specific reasons for engaging in sexual activity may be best

understood in terms of the needs (psychological or physical) that are served by the sexual

behavior (Cooper et al., 1998; Hill & Preston, 1996). A functionalist perspective suggests that

even when behaviors may appear at the surface level to be the same, such as two different

individuals engaging in unwanted consensual sex, if the behaviors are undertaken for different

reasons, they should be viewed as distinct phenomenon. If this is the case, differing motivations

for unwanted but consensual sexual behavior may be related to different predictors, correlates, and outcomes. This perspective represents a departure from how unwanted consensual sex is frequently discussed in the literature, as a unified behavior regardless of the motives underlying UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 12

the behavior. That may be because, as stated previously, many researchers have made or relied

on untested assumptions about why individuals are engaging in unwanted consensual sex (e.g.,

due to some form of coercion). The importance of motivations in terms of antecedents and

consequences of unwanted consensual sex has been underemphasized in the literature.

Specific Motivations for Engaging in Unwanted Consensual Sex

Potential reasons for engaging in unwanted consensual sex have been proposed and measured by scholars, and several common themes have emerged across studies. Evidence suggests that making a partner happy and promoting intimacy in the relationship are the most frequently reported reasons for engaging in unwanted consensual sex. In a study by Conroy et al.

(2015), 76-89% of heterosexual college women endorsed “to please my partner” as a reason to engage in unwanted consensual sex. Wanting to satisfy a partner’s needs and promote intimacy in the relationship were the most likely reasons to be named by participants in O’Sullivan and

Allgeier’s (1998) study of unwanted consensual sexual experiences. Other commonly endorsed reasons were related to concern about the sexual partner’s feelings. Shotland and Hunter (1995) discovered that 67% of female undergraduate participants engaged in unwanted consensual sex because they did not want to disappoint their partner, and 33% of participants in Vannier and

O’Sullivan’s (2010) sample of male and female college students in committed relationships indicated they engaged in the behavior due to a concern for their partner’s feelings or feelings of guilt that they did not mutually desire the sexual activity.

Avoiding conflict and/or relationship tension is also frequently given as a reason for engaging in unwanted consensual sex. In Conroy and colleagues’ (2015) study, 43-45% of women stated that they had engaged in manual or oral sexual activity to avoid upsetting their partner, and 11%-19% said that they engaged to avoid an argument. Further, 38% of adolescent UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 13 females seen at a primary health clinic reported that they had engaged in unwanted sex due to a fear that their partner would get angry if they were denied sex (Blythe et al, 2006). It is possible that gender differences in the relative importance of these types of motivations exist, although to date these motivations have primarily been examined among women.

Another theme that has emerged is related to relationship expectations and norms including a sense of obligation or duty. For example, Vannier and O’Sullivan (2010) reported that 75% of participants provided reasons for engaging in unwanted consensual sex that were related to the idea of an unspoken reciprocal agreement. Similarly, Shotland and Hunter (2005) found that 40% of respondents indicated that they engaged in unwanted consensual sex because they thought they should not refuse because they had experienced sex with that partner before. In a nationally representative telephone survey, 43% of adult women said that they had unwanted consensual sex because it was their duty, and of those that were married, 61% endorsed wifely duty as a reason for having unwanted sex (Basile, 2002). Yet in Conroy and colleagues’ (2015) study, only between 18 and 21% (depending on the type of sexual activity measured) of the college student sample responded that they had unwanted consensual sex because they felt it was their responsibility. This suggests that there may be some differences in the sexual motivations of adults or individuals in marital relationships as compared to the motivations of college students.

The desire to maintain a relationship with the sexual partner also surfaced as a theme across studies. For example, 21% of respondents in Shotland and Hunter’s study (1995) indicated that they had unwanted consensual sex out of a fear that their partner would stop going out with them if they didn’t. In another study, 38% of women who consented to unwanted UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 14 consensual vaginal sex reported that they did so to prevent their partner from losing interest

(Conroy et al., 2015).

Very little research has focused on the exploration of motives related to societal expectations and beliefs. Several motivations that may fall in this category emerged in Shotland and Hunter’s (1995) study of unwanted consensual sex. Fifty-six percent of undergraduate women said that they did not want it to seem as if they were leading their male partner on, which may be related to the gendered expectation that women are “teases.” Fifty-two percent of women reported that their male partner was aroused, and they didn’t want to stop him, which may be related to the belief that men’s sex drive is so great that they are unable to stop or control themselves once they become sexually aroused. Some women (24%) said that they had unwanted consensual sex because they believed that their male partner expected sex in return for certain actions, such as spending money on them. This is related to the idea of sex as transaction. As many authors have posited that gendered expectations and beliefs form the basis for engaging in unwanted consensual sex (e.g., Conroy et al., 2015; Katz & Tirone, 2009; Krahé et al., 2000), more information is needed regarding the ways that these factors influence individual’s motivations to engage in unwanted consensual sex.

Other relatively unexplored motivations include the influence of peer expectations as well as the attainment of physical pleasure. Studies by Muehlenhard and Cook (1988) and

Poppen and Segal (1988) found that both college men and women reported engaging in unwanted sexual activity due to peer pressure or a desire to be popular, although men were at least twice as likely to report these reasons. In a scale development study assessing motivations for unwanted consensual sex, over 10% of college student participants rated the influence of peers as important to very important in their decision to have unwanted consensual sex, and UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 15

63.5% reported that the obtainment of physical pleasure was important or very important in their

decision to have unwanted consensual sex (Mattei et al., 2017). It is likely that the extent to

which individuals may be motivated by these reasons to engage in unwanted sexual behavior

may vary greatly with age, as the influence of peers, as well as biological sexual drive, decreases

with age.

Few of the studies that asked individuals to report on their reasons to engage in unwanted consensual sex asked participants about the relative importance of those reasons. For this reason,

Mattei and colleagues (2017) developed a scale of motivations, and 280 college students rated

the importance of 19 motivations for engaging in their most recent unwanted but consensual

sexual experience. An exploratory factor analysis of the 19 motivations resulted in five factors,

which included partner approval/influence (concern about partner’s feelings), fear of reaction

(avoiding a negative reaction from one’s partner), increased commitment (wanting to enhance the relationship in some way), peer influence (concern about one’s status with peers), and physical pleasure (wanting to experience the positive physical aspects of sex). Individuals in the

2017 study rated partner approval/influence as most important to their decision to engage in unwanted consensual sex, followed by physical pleasure, increased commitment, fear of reaction, and peer influence.

An Overarching Motivational Framework

Theories of motivation suggest that a set of basic human motives exists which direct and select all human behavior. According to Baumeister (2016), motivation is fundamental to understanding psychological processes, as motivations are generally the starting point for all behavior. However, there appears to be no consensus regarding how many basic motives or exist or what is their exact nature. Cooper et al. (1998) asserted that there are two important UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 16 dimensions to be considered when understanding emotionally driven interpersonal behaviors, such as sexual behaviors.

The first dimension of motivation to be considered is the extent to which a behavior is motivated by a desire to avoid negative experiences or to attain positive experiences. These distinctions go by a variety of names, including approach or avoidance motives (Impett &

Peplau, 2005b), appetitive versus aversive motives (Gray, 1987), or positive versus negative reinforcement (Cooper et al., 1998). In the case of sexual behavior, these distinctions suggest that individuals may engage in sex to seek out positive outcomes, such as feelings of intimacy, or to avoid negative consequences, such as conflict or rejection (Cooper et al., 2006). The second dimension involves the extent to which the act serves to fulfill an individual or a social goal.

Some motivations for sexual behavior may be primary internally focused, such as seeking physical pleasure, while others may be primarily externally or socially focused, such as seeking out the approval of a partner or peers. In Cooper and colleagues’ (1998) model, which included motivations for both unwanted/wanted and consensual/nonconsensual sex, motivations fell into one of four quadrants (i.e., interpersonal approach, interpersonal avoidance, intrapersonal approach, intrapersonal avoidance). However, it is important to note that the literature on unwanted consensual sex does not suggest that individuals report engaging in this behavior for reasons consistent with intrapersonal approach motivations.

The utility of a taking a motivational perspective in exploring patterns of dating and relationship behavior has been demonstrated in several studies. The most work in this area has been done with regard to approach and avoidance goals. These goals have been found to be associated with different psychological correlates, including both hypothesized predictors and outcomes. For example, in a daily experience study Impett et al. (2005a) of male and female UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 17 college students, individuals who were high in their desire and need for social connection were more likely to report motivations to sacrifice for their partner based on approach goals (e.g., feel closer to their partner, make their partner happy), while those who were high in fear of rejection were more likely to make sacrifices for their partner for avoidance goals (e.g., avoid conflict, guilt). A short-term longitudinal study of undergraduate college students by Elliot et al. (2006) found that reporting social approach goals (e.g., trying to deepen relationships with friends, trying to share fun and meaningful experiences with friends) at time 1 predicted increased subjective well-being (positive and negative affect, life satisfaction) at a 3 ½ month follow up.

Conversely, social avoidance goals (e.g., trying to stay away from situations that could harm my friends, trying to avoid getting embarrassed, betrayed, or hurt by my friends) at time 1 were associated with reports of increased physical health symptoms (e.g., headaches, dizziness, coughing/sore throat, shortness of breath) at follow-up.

A few studies have investigated the importance of approach and avoidance goals on sexuality and sexual behavior. Impett, Peplau, and Gable (2005b) conducted a daily experience study of 121 dating, sexually active college students’ sexual behavior over a period of 2 weeks.

In a within-subjects design, results of hierarchical linear modeling demonstrated that on days when individuals reported an increase in approach motives for sex, they also reported higher positive affect (b = .16) and life satisfaction (b = .28). In contrast, an increase in reported avoidance motives was associated only with negative affect (b = .16). The authors also examined the relation between sexual motivations on a given day and various relationship variables.

Approach motives significantly predicted increased relationship satisfaction (b = .35), closeness

(b = .35), and fun (b = .5), and decreased conflict (b = -.33). Avoidance motives, on the other hand, predicted increased conflict (b = .23), and decreased relations satisfaction (b = -.17) and UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 18 fun in the relationship (b = -.21). These effects remained even after controlling for frequency of sex and level of sexual desire. It is important to note that the coefficients listed above are unstandardized regression coefficients, and the authors did not report the statistics necessary to calculate effect sizes, making interpretation of the magnitude of these results difficult. The same study also included a one-month follow-up to examine longer-term associations between motives and relations variables. In a between-subjects design, approach motives predicted neither relationship satisfaction nor relationship status at one-month follow-up after controlling for baseline satisfaction and commitment. However, avoidance motives did predict lower relationship satisfaction (β = -.26) at follow-up after controlling for initial levels of satisfaction and approach motives, and predicted the likelihood that they would break up at the one month follow up, after controlling for initial levels of commitment to the relationship and approach motives (OR = 2.6)

A more recent study by Rosen et al. (2015) of the impact of sexual motivations provides further information about the importance of sexual motivations on various outcomes. A community sample of Canadian women with provoked vestibulodynia (a prevalent vaginal pain condition) and their partners completed measures of sexual goals (approach/avoidance sex motivations), sexual satisfaction, relationship satisfaction, depression. The women also rated pain during intercourse and sexual functioning. For each outcome variable, the women’s motives

(approach and avoidance) and their partners’ motives (approach and avoidance) were entered into the regression equation. Results indicated that higher sexual approach goals predicted increased sexual and relationship satisfaction for women and predicted a marginal increase in sexual and relationship satisfaction reported by their partners. Conversely, for these women, sexual avoidance goals were negatively associated with sexual and relationship satisfaction, UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 19

positively associated with depressive symptoms, and marginally and negatively associated with

sexual functioning.

Just one study of unwanted consensual sex used an approach-avoidance framework to

investigate the relation between motivations and outcomes. Katz and Tirone (2009) tested the

association between motivations, relationship satisfaction, and frequency of unwanted

consensual sex in a sample of 199 unmarried undergraduate women in committed heterosexual

relationships. Nine possible motives were theoretically assigned to one of two categories: approach motives (e.g., “to express love for my partner,” “to pursue my own physical pleasure”) and avoidance motives (e.g., “to avoid conflict in my relationship,” “to prevent my partner from losing interest in me”). The cross-sectional study found that respondents endorsed more approach than avoidance motives for their most recent experience of unwanted consensual sex, which is consistent with the literature on sexual motivations for wanted consensual sex (Cooper et al., 1998; Impett et al., 2005a). The authors discovered that while approach motives were unrelated to sexual satisfaction, avoidance motives were negatively correlated with relationship satisfaction (r = -.32). Additionally, the study demonstrated a correlation between frequency of engaging in unwanted consensual sex and endorsing avoidance motives, such that those who have more unwanted consensual sex were more likely to endorse avoidance motives (r = .27).

Finally, avoidance motives moderated the relation between frequency of compliant sex and

relationship satisfaction, such that there was a stronger association between frequency of

unwanted consensual sex and relationship satisfaction for those who reported higher levels of

avoidance motives (β = -.89; simple slopes analysis) than between those at lower level of

avoidance motives (not significant).

UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 20

Present Study

The literature on unwanted consensual sex is mixed regarding whether conceptualizing

unwanted, consensual sex as a form of sexual violence and coercion is warranted. Experiencing

sexual violence has links to a number of adverse outcomes, including psychological distress, but

to the author’s knowledge no studies to this date have investigated whether unwanted consensual

sex is correlated with poorer psychological functioning. Some researchers have used correlations

between unwanted consensual sex and poorer relationship or sexual satisfaction as evidence that

unwanted consensual sex is a behavior that should be avoided and targeted for intervention.

However, initial evidence suggests that individuals’ motivations to engage in unwanted

consensual sex may be differentially related to their attitudes and beliefs, the frequency with

which they engage in the activity, and relationship outcomes. Therefore, using a motivational

perspective to better understand the phenomenon of unwanted consensual sex appears warranted.

Specifically, using a framework based upon Cooper and colleagues (1998) work may help

elucidate the relation between unwanted consensual sex and a variety of possible positive and

negative outcomes, and provide evidence for or against the assertion that unwanted consensual

sex represents a negative sexual experience.

In additional to the paucity of research on the outcomes of unwanted consensual sex and

the under emphasis in the literature on the role that motivations play in this sexual behavior, the

literature is also limited by the homogeneity of the samples used in the majority of studies, which

primarily include heterosexual college women in committed, monogamous relationships. As sexual behaviors, motivations, and well-being change over the lifespan and vary with regard to the type of relationship and gender, the inclusion of men, age diverse individuals, and the UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 21

allowance for more than one type of sexual partner will increase our understanding of unwanted

consensual sex.

Using an online survey, the present study will examine the prevalence and frequency of

unwanted consensual sex in adults of all ages, as well as any differences by gender or partner

type. The present study will also investigate the relation between unwanted consensual sex and a

range of global and relationship-specific outcomes. Additionally, a major portion of the study

will focus on testing whether motivations for engaging in unwanted consensual sex moderate the

relation between unwanted consensual sex and the hypothesized outcomes.

Hypothesis I

The majority of research on unwanted consensual sex indicates that about 25-50% of

respondents endorse having had unwanted consensual sex. However, these studies primarily used

college students. I hypothesize that this sample of adults will report a higher occurrence and frequency of unwanted consensual sex compared to college samples (50-75%), based on differences in sexual and romantic relationships over the life course. I also anticipate that women will report more unwanted consensual sex than their male counterparts.

Hypothesis II

I hypothesize that individuals will report engaging in unwanted consensual sex for a variety of reasons, and that these reasons will fall into seven empirically and theoretically- developed categories (i.e., partner approval/influence, peer influence, reciprocity, physical pleasure, fear of reaction, normative beliefs, and increased commitment), which themselves will fall into three higher-level factors (i.e., interpersonal approach, intrapersonal approach, and avoidance). UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 22

Hypothesis III

I hypothesize that the frequency of engaging in unwanted consensual sex will be significantly and positively related to global, clinical outcomes (i.e., depression, anxiety, somatic symptoms, and well-being) and significantly and negatively associated with relationship-specific outcomes (i.e., relationship satisfaction and intimacy, sexual satisfaction).

Hypothesis IV

I hypothesize that the strength of the relationship between frequent of unwanted consensual sex and the hypothesized outcomes will be moderated by the type of motivations endorsed by participants. Specifically, I hypothesize that those with high levels of approach motivations and greater frequency of unwanted consensual sex will report better relationship quality compared to those with lower levels of approach motivations. Additionally, I hypothesize that the positive relation between frequency of unwanted consensual sex and mental health symptoms will be strongest for individuals who report high levels of avoidance motivations; the same prediction is made for the negative relation between unwanted consensual sex frequency and well-being. UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 23

METHOD

Participants

Participants were recruited using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (Murk) online human service database, a website where individuals receive payment to complete self-selected tasks: in this case, completing an online survey. MTurk has demonstrated the ability to produce data that are comparably reliable to traditional data collection methods (Buhrmester et al., 2011; Casler et al., 2013). I used tools provided by TurkPrime, a research platform that integrates with MTurk, to improve the quality of the data. Specifically, I blocked participants using suspicious geocode locations (locations linked to server farms) from participating in the survey, and included only participants who had a good history of successfully completing tasks (HITs) on MTurk (99%-

100% approval ratings). Participants were informed prior to viewing the survey that to qualify for the study, the must: 1) be 18 years of age or older, 2) reside in the United States, 3) speak fluent English, and 4) have been sexually active in the past year; 821 of the 899 participants who initially started the survey completed it. Four participants were deleted from the dataset due to completing the survey from duplicate geolocations and nearly identical IP addresses. Thirty-four additional participants’ data were deleted because they did not meet criteria for the study as listed in the informed consent (i.e., being sexually active in the past year). Seventy-four participants had data suggesting a possible a lack of attention and/or inconsistent responding

(i.e., failing attention checks, reporting yes to unwanted consensual sex in past year but endorsing 0% unwanted consensual sex frequency in past year, 0 lifetime sexual partners after responding yes to being sexually active in the past year), and another 4 were deleted due to providing responses that indicated they may not have taken the survey seriously. Four additional participants did not respond to the item about whether they had unwanted consensual sex in the UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 24

past year, and thus were not included in the sample.

This resulted in a total valid sample of 704 adult participants: 336 (47.7%) participants identified as female, 365 (51.9%) as male, and 3 (.04%) identified as transgender, genderqueer, or gender non-conforming. The 3 individuals who did not identify as male or female received a follow-up question explaining that the survey included beliefs related to gender norms and were asked to select the gender that was most appropriate for them based on that knowledge. Analyses were computed and results reported using the gender that these individuals selected in response to that item. Demographic information for gender (dichotomized as explained above), race, sexual orientation, parenthood status, and relationship status of these participants can be found in

Appendix A, Table 1. The table shows the demographic characteristics of those who did (44.3%) and those who did not (55.7%) engage in unwanted consensual sex in the past year. I focus on the 312 participants who did engage in UCS in the past year, because only those participants reported on motivations for engaging in unwanted consensual sex. Among those who reported having unwanted consensual sex in the past year, the table shows that 71.8% were white, 79.5% were heterosexual, 51% were married, and 46.2% were parents. The age of these participants ranged from 18 to 76, with a mean age of 36.94 (SD = 10.90). The majority of the participants

(75.9%) reported earning an Associate’s degree or higher. With regard to religiosity, on a scale

ranging from 1 (not spiritual/religious at all) to 4 (very spiritual/religious), participants had a

mean score of 2.39 (SD = 1.04). Participants reported having an average of 11.51 (SD = 27.34)

lifetime sexual partners, and a mean age at first intercourse of 16.82 (SD = 5.77).

Procedure

The study was posted to MTurk (Appendix C) and participants self-selected into the

study. The study was described as an academic survey about the experiences of adults in intimate UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 25 relationships. Participants were then directed from MTurk to the survey on Qualtrics. They were first presented with the informed consent document (Appendix D) which included a brief description of the study, potential risks and benefits of participation, rights of participants, how information would be kept confidential, and contact information for the researcher. Participants then indicated their informed consent by clicking on a box stating: “I have been presented with the statement of risks and benefits of participating in this project and I agree to participate” before beginning the survey. After completing the survey, participants were provided a unique, randomized code, directed back to the MTurk site, and asked to provide their code. Responses were reviewed within one week by the researcher or research assistant, and if it was determined that the participants met the study criteria and answered conscientiously, they received payment for their participation ($1.00 US).

Measures

The survey included the following measures in the order listed: demographic information, predictors (prevalence and frequency of unwanted consensual sex), hypothesized moderators

(motivations for unwanted consensual sex), relationship-specific outcomes (relationship satisfaction, relationship intimacy, and sexual satisfaction), and psychological functioning outcomes (depressive symptoms, generalized anxiety symptoms, somatic symptoms, and well- being). Detailed information on each measure is provided in the following subsections.

Demographic Information

Several items were administered to obtain basic demographic information, including sex assigned at birth, gender, sexual orientation, age, race/ethnicity, relationship status, parenthood status, religiosity, and level of education (see Appendix E). Participants were also asked to provide information about their sexual histories, including number of lifetime sexual partners UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 26

and age at first intercourse (see Appendix E), as these variables have been found to be related to

prevalence and/or frequency of unwanted consensual sex in some studies (i.e., Foster, 2011;

Gentzler & Kerns, 2014; Katz & Schneider, 2015; O’Sullivan & Allgeier, 1998)

Attention Checks

Participants responded to two instructed-response items embedded in the survey in order to filter out the data of careless respondents (see Appendix G). Instructed-response items asked respondents to respond to questions that have an obviously correct answer. Research has indicated that this type of attention check does not affect scale validity (Kung et al., 2018). In the current survey, participants were given the following instructions: “For this question, please select four for your answer,” and “For this question, please select moderately untrue for your answer. The first attention check, which was presented early in the survey, was passed by all but two participants, while 24 failed the second attention check. Based on this information, a stringent criterion was set for attention checks, and participants’ data were excluded from analyses if they failed either or both attention checks.

Predictors

Prevalence of Unwanted Consensual Sex. Participants were first asked if they had been sexually active in the past year, and were routed directly to the outcomes section of the survey if they answered “no.” If participants endorsed having engaged in sexual activity in the past year, participants were then presented with instructions for the set of unwanted consensual sex questions: “Now we will ask you to think about situations where you consented (either with your words or actions) to sexual activity even though you did not want to. This does not include situations where you were coerced/pressured by your partner to consent or where you were too drunk or high to consent”. Participants then indicated whether they have engaged in unwanted UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 27 consensual sex in the past year with either of two partner types (committed partner or casual partner). See Appendix H for specific details. A person was counted in the annual prevalence totals if they answered “yes” to having unwanted consensual sex in the past year with either or both types of partners.

Frequency of Unwanted Consensual Sex. Participants were then asked to report on the percentage of total sexual encounters in the past year that were unwanted but consensual. For individuals who reported unwanted consensual sex with both partner types, a frequency score was computed by averaging their percentages of unwanted consensual sex for each partner type.

(71 participants reported having unwanted consensual sex with both partner types, r = .55, p <

.001) In order to provide descriptive data, participants were also asked to report on how many times they have consented to sexual activity with each partner type in the past year (see

Appendix H). They responded using a Likert-type scale with the following options: (1) Once or twice, (2), Every few months, (3) About once a month, (4) Every few weeks, (5) Almost every week, (6) Almost every day. Percentage of unwanted consensual sex in the past year was used as the indicator for frequency for the following reasons because this score: 1) allowed for a wider range of responses, 2) allowed scores to be averaged in a meaningful way across partner type, and 3) provided information about the proportions of unwanted consensual sex compared to all sexual experiences.

Hypothesized Moderators: Motivations for Unwanted Consensual Sex

A modified version of the Unwanted Consensual Sex Motivations Scale (UCSM) was used to assess motivations for engaging in unwanted consensual sex (Mattei et al., 2017).

Participants who endorsed unwanted consensual sex in the past year were asked to rate the importance of 37 reasons for their decision to engage in their most recent act of unwanted UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 28

consensual sex, on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Not important) to 4 (Very Important) (see

Appendix I).

An exploratory factor analysis of the original UCSM scale indicated that a five-factor

model was the best fit for the data (Mattei et al., 2017). The resulting five subscales reflect

differing types of reasons for having unwanted consensual sex: Partner influence/approval (e.g.

“I didn’t want to disappoint my partner”), fear of reaction (e.g., “I wanted to avoid an argument

or tension”), increased commitment (e.g., “I wanted to take the relationship to the next level”), peer influence (e.g., “I wanted to fit in”), and physical pleasure (e.g., “I wanted a release or to

relax”). Internal consistencies for the subscales were as follows: fear of reaction, α = .35; physical pleasure, α = .63, increased commitment, α = .65; peer influence, α= .72; and partner approval/influence, α = .85. In the initial validation of the measure, convergent and divergent validity was established through differential correlations between the motivations subscales and several personality traits and cognitive schemas. For example, neuroticism was significantly correlated with the fear of reaction, and peer influence scales, which includes items related to avoiding preventing negative outcomes, but was not correlated with increased commitment and physical pleasure, which consists of items related to gaining something from the sexual experiences. Results also demonstrated that motivations for unwanted consensual sex were different depending on whether the participant was reporting on unwanted consensual sex with a committed partner or an acquaintance/friend, providing further evidence that each subscale represents a separate construct (Mattei et al., 2017).

The original measure was modified for this study to improve psychometrics and to include possible reasons for unwanted consensual sex that were not included in the original study. In addition, to improve reliability of the scale and improve construct validity, items were UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 29

added to subscales that included fewer than five items. It should be noted that while the UCSM

was developed independently of the Sexual Motivations Scale (Cooper et al., 1998), I consulted

the Sexual Motivations Scale when making modifications to the UCSM scale to ensure that

reasons from the Sexual Motivations Scale that were theoretically related to unwanted

consensual sex were also represented on the UCSM scale. Additionally, based on a

comprehensive review of the literature on motivations for sex, two additional subscales were

created. Items from the first subscale, called reciprocity, reflect motivations for sex related to the

give-and-take nature of relationships, and include items such as: “I wanted to show my partner I

appreciated something they did,” and “I was hoping to get something non-sexual in return.” The

second subscale, called normative beliefs, includes motivations that reflect an individual’s

subscription to normative expectations regarding gendered sex roles. Because normative beliefs

about sex and sexuality vary by gender, both male and female versions of these subscales were

created. Items on the male version of the normative beliefs scale include the following: “Men

should always be in the mood for sex” and “Having sex proves that you are a real man.” The

female version of the normative beliefs scale includes items such as “Women are supposed to be

sexual” and “I didn’t want to be a tease” (see Appendix I for the modified version of the UCSM).

Internal consistencies for the subscales prior to the confirmatory factor analysis were as follows:

fear of reaction, α = .87; physical pleasure, α = .91, increased commitment, α = .84; peer influence, α= .88; partner approval/influence, α = .83, normative beliefs (female version), α=

.80, normative beliefs (male version), α= .89, reciprocity, α= .77 (see Appendix A, Table 2 for a listing of the items on the original scale, items added in the present study, and the items included on the measure after examining the results of confirmatory factor analyses for this study). UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 30

Based on the results of the confirmatory factor analysis, which will be described in detail

in the results section, and the theoretical motivational framework described in the introduction

section, composite scores for approach and avoidance motivations were computed by averaging the scores of the subscales of which they were composed. The approach motivations higher-order

factor was comprised of physical pleasure, increased commitment, and reciprocity, while the

avoidance motivations higher-order factor was comprised of fear of reaction and peer influence.

Internal consistencies were as follows: approach, α= .85; avoidance, α= .86.

Relationship-Specific Outcomes

Directly following the completion of the UCS motivations scale, respondents were asked whether they were still involved in a 1) romantic, and/or 2) sexual relationship with that partner

(see Appendix J). If individuals answered “yes,” they were given relationship-specific measures to complete regarding that partner. If they answered no, they were asked if they were in a sexual or romantic relationship at all, and if so, to complete the relationship and sexual satisfaction scales with that individual in mind. If not, they did not receive sexual satisfaction and relationship measures.

Relationship Satisfaction. The Couples Satisfaction Index - 16 (CSI) was used to measure overall relationship satisfaction of participants with their current romantic or sexual partner (Funk & Rogge, 2007). Participants rated their agreement with 16 items using a Likert- type scale, which ranges from 0-5, with response choices varying by question (see Appendix K).

Example items include: “Our relationship is strong,” “How rewarding is your relationship with your partner,” and “How well does your partner meet your needs?” Scores were averaged with higher scores indicating higher satisfaction with the relationship. Scale developers used a data- driven approach (principal components analysis and item response theory) to choose the most UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 31

effective items for measuring relationship satisfaction from eight widely used measures (e.g.,

Marital Adjustment Test, Dyadic Adjustment Scale, Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale) to

improve the preciseness of measurement for this construct. The authors reported excellent

reliability of the scale (α = .98), and strong convergent validity with the other measures of relationship satisfaction used to devise the scale such as the Dyadic Adjustment Scale and the

Marital Adjustment Test. Internal consistency for the current study was similar, α= .97.

Relationship Intimacy. The Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships is a 36- item questionnaire that was used to assess an individual’s perception of current relationship intimacy (Schaefer & Olsen, 1981). The PAIR contains five subscales assessing the following domains of intimacy: emotional (e.g., “I can state my feelings without him/her getting defensive”), social (e.g., “We enjoy spending time with other couples), intellectual (e.g., “My partner helps me clarify my thoughts”), sexual (e.g., “I feel our sexual activity is just routine”, and recreational (e.g., “We enjoy the out of doors together”), as well as a subscale measuring social desirability. Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (not at all true) to 4 (completely true). Alpha coefficients range from .70 (intellectual subscale) to .77

(sexual intimacy subscale). The PAIR was found to be correlated with the Locke-Wallace

Marital Adjustment Scale (MAS) and the cohesion, expressiveness, conflict, and control subscales of the Moos Family Environment Scale. For the purposes of the current study, I included only the emotional intimacy subscale (see Appendix L). This scale was chosen because the construct is most closely related conceptually to the topic of study when compared to other subscales (e.g., intellectual intimacy) and does not overlap with other included measures as other subscales from this measure do (e.g., sexual intimacy subscale overlaps significantly with the

Global Measure of Sexual Satisfaction). Item scores were averaged, with higher scores indicating UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 32

greater emotional intimacy. Internal consistency for the emotional intimacy subscale in the

current study was α= .89.

Sexual Satisfaction. The Global Measure of Sexual Satisfaction (GMSEX) assessed

overall sexual satisfaction (Lawrance & Byers, 1998, see Appendix M). Respondents rated their

sex life on five 7-point dimensions: good–bad, pleasant–unpleasant, positive–negative, satisfying–unsatisfying, valuable–worthless. Ratings were averaged, with higher scores indicating greater sexual satisfaction. Previous studies have found the GMSEX to demonstrate good internal consistency (α = .94 to .96), and adequate test-retest reliability (rs = .61 over 18 months, .72 over 2 months) (Byers & Macneil, 2006; Mark et al., 2014). It also demonstrated good convergent validity as it was also significantly correlated with other sexual satisfaction measures including the Index of Sexual Satisfaction (ISS) and the New Sexual Satisfaction Scale

– Short (NSSS-S) (Mark et al., 2014). Overall α was .97 for the current study.

Psychological Functioning Outcomes

Well-Being. The Flourishing Scale (FS) is an 8-item measure that was used to assess

several areas of functioning related to well-being, including positive relationships, feelings of

competence, and having meaning and purpose (Diener et al., 2010, see Appendix N). Participants

responded to items on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7

(strongly agree). Examples of items include “I lead a purposeful and meaningful life” and “I

actively contribute to the happiness and well-being of others”. Item scores were averaged, and

higher mean scores on this measure reflect that individuals perceive themselves as functioning

positively in important areas. This unidimensional scale has demonstrated good internal

consistency (α = .87) and convergent validity, as evidenced by significant and strong correlations

with other measures of subjective well-being, including the Ryff Scales of Psychological Well- UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 33

being, the Satisfaction with Life scale and the LOT optimism scale. Internal consistency for the

current study sample was α= .93.

Mental Health Symptoms. In order to assess mental health symptoms, participants

completed the PHQ-9 (Kroenke et al., 2001), the GAD-7 (Spitzer et al., 2006), and the Somatic

Symptom Scale – 8 (Gierk et al., 2014) (see Appendices O, P, and Q, respectively). For each of

these scales, participants rated how often they had been bothered by particular symptoms in the

past two weeks, on a scale from 0 (not at all) to 4 (nearly every day). The PHQ-9, which measures depression symptoms (e.g., “Feeling down, depressed, or hopeless”, “Trouble falling or staying asleep, or sleeping too much”) has been studied on both clinical and non-clinical

samples, and demonstrated good internal consistency, with Cronbach alphas ranging from .83 to

.89 (Cameron et al., 2008; Kroenke et al., 2001). The SSS-8, which assesses somatic symptoms

(e.g., “Headaches,” “Chest pain or shortness of breath”), and the GAD-7, which measures

symptoms of generalized anxiety (e.g., “Worrying too much about different things”, “Feeling

nervous, anxious, or on edge”), also demonstrated good internal consistency (a= .92 and .81,

respectively) (Gierk e al., 2014; Spitzer et al., 2006). In clinical settings, individuals’ scores are

summed and compared with cutoff ratings for various severity levels. In the current study, item

scores for each scale were averaged, and internal consistencies were as follows: PHQ9, α= .92;

GAD-7, α= .93, SSS-8; α= .87. UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 34

RESULTS

Preliminary Analyses

Preliminary analyses were conducted to inform data reduction decisions and to identify demographic differences in the frequency of unwanted consensual sex, hypothesized moderators, and outcomes that would need to be controlled for statistically in the major analyses.

Data Reduction

Correlations among the outcome variables were computed. Table 3 (Appendix A) shows that the intercorrelations among the relationship-specific variables were high (rs ranged from .68 to .82). Given these results, a total relationship quality composite score was generated by standardizing and averaging the scores on the three relationship outcomes (i.e., relationship satisfaction, relationship intimacy, sexual satisfaction). Similarly, Table 3 shows that the correlations among the psychological functioning outcomes were moderate to high. Mental health symptom scales (i.e., generalized anxiety symptoms, depression symptoms, somatic symptoms) were highly correlated with one another (rs ranged from .74 to .84), while intercorrelations of the symptom scales with well-being were generally in the moderate range (-

.33 to -.55). Based on these results, a total mental health symptoms composite score was generated by standardizing and averaging the three symptom scales. It was determined that the well-being would remain separate as it was only moderately correlated with the mental health symptom scales and because it conceptually represents a different construct.

Demographic Differences in the Major Study Variables

Demographic differences in the frequency of unwanted consensual sex, hypothesized moderators (i.e., approach/avoidance motivations), and outcomes (i.e., relationship quality, mental health symptoms, and well-being) were examined to determine whether they would need UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 35

to be statistically controlled for in the major analyses. Correlations were computed to identify

demographic differences in the major study variables for the continuous demographic variables

(age, age of participant at first intercourse, number of lifetime sexual partners, education, and

religiosity) (Appendix A, Table 4). Age was negatively associated with frequency of unwanted

consensual sex (r = -.11, p < .01), approach motivations (r = -.17, p < .01), avoidance

motivations (r = -.29, p < .01), mental health symptoms (r = .22, p < .01), and well-being (r =

.12, p < .05). The age of the participant at first intercourse was significantly correlated with

frequency of unwanted consensual sex (r = -.18, p < .05), avoidance motivations (r = -.21, p <

.01), and relationship quality (r = .09, p < .05), and the association with approach motivations was marginally significant (r = -.10, p < .10). Number of lifetime sexual partners was associated with frequency of unwanted consensual sex, (r = -.14, p < .05), approach motivations (r = -.17, p

< .01), and avoidance motivations (r = -.12, p < .05) , but no significant associations were found with any of the outcome variables. Education was associated with frequency of unwanted consensual sex (r = .20, p < .01), approach motivations (r = .26 p < .01) avoidance motivations (r

= .25, p < .01), and well-being (r = .08, p < .05). Religiosity was associated with frequency of unwanted consensual sex (r = .22, p < .01), approach motivations (r = .42 p < .01) avoidance motivations (r = .37, p < .01), mental health symptoms (r = .09, p < .05), and well-being (r =

.24, p < .01). Age, age at first intercourse, education, and religiosity were controlled statistically

in subsequent analyses. It was decided that lifetime number of sexual partners would not be

included as a covariate because it was conceptually related to age as well as age at first

intercourse, and was less strongly related to the major study variables than the other

demographic variables (see Appendix A, Table 4).

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) and multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 36

were computed to examine demographic differences in the major study variables for the

categorical demographic variables (gender, race, partner type for most recent unwanted

consensual sexual experience, parenthood status, and relationship status). For these analyses,

gender was dichotomized into male and female. Individuals who did not identify as male or

female (n = 3) were categorized based on the survey they selected to complete (male or female

version). Race was collapsed into three categories (White, Black, Other) given small cell sizes

for some subgroups.

First, a MANOVA was computed for the hypothesized moderator variables (approach

and avoidance motivations) to identify significant differences for the same demographic

variables. Table 5 (Appendix A) provides MANOVA results and means and standard errors for

each hypothesized moderator variable. Significant effects were found for gender, race, and

sexual orientation, and a marginally significant effect emerged for relationship status. Follow-up

ANOVAS indicated that participants who identified as male reported both approach and avoidance motivations as more important in their decision to have unwanted consensual sex than did those who identified as female. Similarly, participants who identified as gay, bisexual, or another sexual orientation reported higher importance for both approach and avoidance motivations. Additionally, Black individuals rated approach and avoidance motivations as more important than White participants. Regarding relationship status, univariate ANOVAs indicated that married respondents rated avoidance motivations as significantly more important than did their cohabitating counterparts.

Next, a MANOVA was computed for the outcome measures (relationship quality, mental health symptoms, and well-being) to determine whether there were significant differences for gender, race, sexual orientation, partner type for most recent unwanted consensual sexual UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 37

experience, parenthood status, and relationship status. Table 6 (Appendix A) presents MANOVA

results and means and standard errors for each outcome variable (i.e., relationship quality, mental

health symptoms, and well-being) for each demographic variable. Significant effects were found

for race, sexual orientation, and parenthood status. Follow-up univariate ANOVAS (also shown

in Appendix A, Table 6) indicated that Black participants reported more mental health symptoms

than did White participants. Participants who identified as gay, bisexual, or another sexual

orientation reported more mental health symptoms and poorer relationship quality than straight

respondents. Additionally, participants with children reported higher levels of well-being than

participants who were not parents.

Finally, an ANOVA was computed to investigate demographic differences in frequency

of unwanted consensual sex. Table 7 (Appendix A) presents ANOVA results including means

and standard errors for the categorical demographic variables. There was a significant effect of

race on frequency of unwanted consensual sex (F(2,297) = 13.14, p < .001), such that Black

participants reported higher frequency of unwanted consensual sex (M = 52.12, SE = 4.49) than participants who identified as White (M = 29.61, SE = 2.76) or of another race (M = 29.68, SE =

4.19). There was also a significant difference found for sexual orientation (F(1,297) = 26.98, p <

.001) , where participants who identified as straight reported less frequent unwanted consensual sex (M = 27.62, SE = 2.71) than those who identified as gay/bisexual, or other (M = 46.66, SE =

3.78). Finally, a significant difference in unwanted consensual sex frequency was found for relationship status (F(4,297) = 3.25, p < .05. Single individuals reported marginally significantly

higher frequency of unwanted consensual sex (M = 43.61, SE = 6.40) than cohabitating

participants (M = 30.85, SE = 4.24). Married participants reported significantly higher frequency

of unwanted consensual sex (M = 43.36, SE = 3.54). than those in a committed relationship (M = UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 38

31.42, SE = 4.66) and cohabitating participants.

Variables were chosen for inclusion as covariates in the major analyses if significant differences were found in association with frequency of unwanted consensual sex, one or both of the hypothesized moderator variables, and two or more of the outcome variables. Variables that met this criterion included age, age at first intercourse, number of lifetime sexual partners, gender, race, sexual orientation, religiosity, and education. However, as stated previously, lifetime number of sexual partners was not included as a covariate due to its statistical and conceptual associations with age and age and first intercourse, as well as its weaker correlations with major study variables.

Variable Transformations

All major study variables were assessed for skewness prior to running the major analyses.

The following variables were identified as skewed and in need of transformation: mental health symptoms, relationship quality, well-being, frequency of unwanted consensual sex, and avoidance motivations (Appendix A, Table 8). Log transformations were applied to correct for skew. As the mental health symptom composite measure was standardized, the data included negative values. For this reason, a log(x + a) (where a is a constant) transformation was applied, as log transformations are not effective when applied to negative values. Relationship quality and well-being included negative values and were also negatively skewed, and these data were reflected to allow for log transformation. Following the log transformation, the values for relationship quality and well-being were re-reflected so that high scores mean higher well-being and better relationship quality. Transformations eliminated skewness for all variables except for well-being, which remained moderately negatively skewed.

UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 39

Major Study Analyses

Hypothesis I: The Prevalence of Unwanted Consensual Sex Will Be Higher in an Age-Diverse

Sample than in College Student Samples; There Will Be Gender and Partner-Type Differences in Unwanted Consensual Sex Prevalence and/or Frequency

Specifically, I hypothesized that the prevalence of unwanted consensual sex in the past year would be between 50 and 75% for the overall sample. I predicted that women would be significantly more likely than men to have had unwanted consensual sex in the past year, and with higher frequency. Additionally, I expected that individuals who had unwanted consensual sex with committed partners would report higher frequency of unwanted consensual sex in the past year.

Descriptive statistics indicated that the annual prevalence of unwanted consensual sex was slightly lower than predicted, with 44.3% of the sample reporting at least one occasion of unwanted consensual sex in the past year. Chi-square analyses were computed to examine gender differences in prevalence of unwanted consensual sex in the past year (see Appendix A, Table 1).

Results indicated that this portion of the hypotheses was supported, as a significant gender difference was discovered: χ2 (1) = 14.013, p < .001, with female-identifying participants reporting higher frequency of unwanted consensual sex in the past year (51.6%) when compared to those who identify as male (37.6%). There was no significant difference in annual prevalence rate by partner type. As reported previously, an ANOVA was conducted to determine gender and partner-type differences in frequency of unwanted consensual sex (Appendix A, Table 7).

Contrary to the hypothesis, no significant differences were found for either gender or partner type in frequency of unwanted consensual sex in the past year. UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 40

Although I did not have hypotheses about annual prevalence rate by race, sexual

orientation, or parenthood status, Table 1 (Appendix A) does show that there were significant

differences in prevalence of unwanted consensual sex for race (χ2 (1) = 13.35, p =.01) and sexual

orientation χ2 (1) = 23.87, p < .01. Specifically, results showed that Black participants had the

highest prevalence of unwanted consensual sex in the past year (65.1%), followed by

Hispanic/Latino (47.4%), Multiracial/Other Race (42.9%), White (42.4%), and Asian American

(35%) participants. Bisexual participants reported the highest prevalence of unwanted consensual

sex in the past year (69.5%), followed by gay (41.2%) and straight (41%) respondents.

Additionally, no specific hypotheses were made about annual prevalence rate by age, education,

religiosity, age at first intercourse, or number of sexual partners, but results indicated significant

differences in prevalence of unwanted consensual sex for religiosity (t (702) = -3.95, p < .001)

and age at first intercourse (t (702) = 3.10, p < .01). Specifically, results showed that using a scale ranging from 1 (not spiritual/religious at all) to 4 (very spiritual/religious), participants who reported having unwanted consensual sex in the past year reported being more religious (M =

3.29, SD = 1.04) when compared to those who did not report unwanted consensual sex in the past year (M = 2.08, SD = 1.05). Participants who endorsed unwanted consensual sex in the past year reported being younger at the time of first intercourse (M = 16.82, SD = 5.77) than those who did not (M = 17.94, SD = 3.73).

Hypothesis II: A Modified Measure of Motivations for Unwanted Consensual Sex, Based on a

Motivational Framework, Can Be Validated

I predicted that motivations for unwanted consensual sex would consist of seven factors

(i.e., partner approval/influence, peer influence, reciprocity, physical pleasure, fear of reaction, normative beliefs, and increased commitment), which would then be accounted for by three UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 41 larger domains (i.e., interpersonal approach, intrapersonal approach, and avoidance).

Latent Factors. A confirmatory factor analysis was computed using Amos (Arbuckle,

2019) to evaluate the factor structure of the 30 items comprising the modified Unwanted

Consensual Sex Motivations scale. The normative beliefs items were not included in the analysis because items were different for men and women and the split samples were not adequately large for this procedure. Maximum Likelihood Estimation was used to estimate the parameters of the model. Goodness of fit indices were considered as follows: Chi-Square divided by degrees of freedom (CMIN/DF; good fit = less than 3), Comparative Fit Index (CFI; good fit = > .93), and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA; good fit = < .05) (Byrne, 2010, p. 73-

84). It should be noted that according to Byrne (2010), RMSEA “values as high as .08 represent reasonable errors of approximation in the population” and that “when sample size is small, the

RMSEA tends to over-reject true population models” (p.80). Thus, a RMSEA of < .08 is considered the present threshold for fair model fit. The Unwanted Consensual Sex Motivations scale demonstrated fair fit: χ2 (390) = 1207.85, CMIN/DF = 3.097, CFI = .855, and RMSEA =

.055. I attempted to improve the model fit by removing items that did not load as strongly onto the hypothesized latent factors (i.e., with standardized regression weights less than .60). A visual depiction of this model can be found in Figure 1 (Appendix B). The modified model demonstrated improved fit: χ2 (309) = 858.986, CMIN/DF = 2.780, CFI = .893, and RMSEA =

.050.

Higher-Order Factors. To test the hypothesis that these factors would fall into three domains, another confirmatory factor analysis was computed. In this model, the items assessing each factor served as indicators of those latent factors (fear of reaction, peer influence, partner approval/influence, increased commitment, reciprocity, and physical pleasure), and the three UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 42 larger domains were set as higher order latent variables (avoidance, interpersonal approach, intrapersonal approach). The hypothesized model demonstrated a fair fit: χ2 (316) = 917.233,

CMIN/DF = 2.903, CFI = .88, and RMSEA = .052. However, an examination of the standardized regression weights indicated that partner approval/influence loaded poorly on the higher order interpersonal approach factor (standardized regression weight estimate = .237). It was therefore determined that partner approval/influence would not be included in the final model.

Additionally, though the initial planned analyses included investigation of the relation between interpersonal approach motivations and sexual satisfaction, because sexual satisfaction was subsumed under a composite relationship quality score and intrapersonal approach consisted only of the physical pleasure subscale of the UCSM, it was determined that it would be more appropriate both to include physical pleasure under a higher order approach motivations factor.

Though initial hypotheses included two dimensions of motivation (i.e., approach/avoidance; interpersonal/intrapersonal), empirical evidence exists to support an approach-avoidance framework for understanding sexual behavior in the absence of the second dimension (e.g.,

Impett, Peplau, & Gable, 2005b; Katz & Tirone, 2009; Rosen et al., 2015). Thus, a modified

CFA model was computed by removing partner approval/influence from the model and setting approach and avoidance as the two higher order latent variables (Appendix B, Figure 2). Though this model appeared to demonstrate slightly weaker fit across indices, the fit was still reasonable

(χ2 (183) = 615.043, CMIN/DF = 3.361, CFI = .902, and RMSEA = .058, and it was not possible to statistically compare model fits as the non-nested models contained different manifest variables. Therefore, it was determined that moderation analyses would be based on this model for empirical (i.e., low factor loading of partner approval/influence variable) and conceptual reasons (see Appendix A, Table 2 for a listing of the items on the original scale, items added in UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 43

the present study, and the items included on the measure after examining the results of

confirmatory factor analyses for this study). As a result, approach motivations scores were

computed by averaging increased commitment, physical pleasure, and reciprocity scores, and avoidance motivations scores were computed by averaging fear of reaction and peer influence scores. To confirm the appropriateness of eliminating partner approval/influence from the model,

I computed correlations between partner approval/influence and these composite scores. Results indicated low correlations between partner approval/influence motivations and both approach (r

= .24, p < .01) and avoidance (r = .14, p < .05) motivations, which suggests that partner approval/influence motivations may not fit into the approach-avoidance framework.

Hypothesis III: Unwanted Consensual Sex Frequency Will Be Negatively Associated with

Relationship Quality and Well-Being, and Positively Associated with Mental Health Symptoms

I hypothesized that there would be a main effect of frequency of unwanted consensual sex on each of the outcome variables (i.e., relationship quality, mental health symptoms, and well-being), such that frequency would be negatively associated with the relationship quality and well-being, and positively associated with mental health symptoms.

First, zero order correlations among frequency and the outcome variables were examined

(Appendix A, Table 4). Consistent with the hypotheses, frequency of unwanted consensual sex was negatively correlated with relationship quality (r = -.38, p < .01) and positively correlated with mental health symptoms (r = .43, p < .01). Contrary to the hypothesis, frequency of unwanted consensual sex was not significantly correlated with well-being.

To further investigate these hypotheses, multiple regression analyses were computed for each dependent variable to test whether the zero-order correlation results for unwanted consensual sex being related to the outcome variables remained after controlling for UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 44

demographic variables (Appendix A, Table 9). The predictor variables included the demographic

covariates (i.e., age, age at first intercourse, education, religiosity, race, gender, sexual

orientation) and frequency of unwanted consensual sex. For all major analyses, gender was

dichotomized as previously reported (i.e., Male/Female). Race was also dichotomized (i.e.,

Black/not Black) based on the lack of significant differences between White participants and

those in the Other race category on the major study variables. First, a multiple regression was

calculated to predict mental health symptoms. The overall model was significant (F(10,297) =

9.432, p < .001), with an adjusted R2 of .21. A main effect for frequency of unwanted consensual

sex (β =.24, p < .001) was found. Sexual orientation also predicted mental health symptoms (β

=.25, p < .001), such that individuals who did not identify as straight reporting more mental

health symptoms. Additionally, there was a significant effect of age (β =-.19, p < .001), where

younger age predicted greater mental health symptoms. The next regression predicted well-

being, and the regression equation was significant (F(10,297) = 4.957, p < .001). A marginally

significant main effect for frequency of unwanted consensual sex was found (β =-.11, p < .10). A

significant effect of education was also found (β =.15, p < .01), such that a higher level of

education predicted greater well-being Additionally, religiosity predicted well-being (β =.25, p <

.001), where endorsing being more spiritual or religious predicted greater well-being.

Relationship status also predicted well-being (β =-.14, p < .01), such that being single predicted

poorer well-being when compared to married participants. Finally, results for the multiple

regression predicting relationship quality resulted in a significant overall model (F(10,288) =

6.895, p < .001, adj. R2 = .16), with increased frequency of unwanted consensual sex predicting poorer relationship quality (β = -.38, p < .01). In this model, religiosity also predicted relationship quality, such that endorsing being more spiritual or religious predicted better UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 45

relationship quality. Taken together, these findings demonstrate that the relation between unwanted consensual sex frequency and all outcomes remained robust even when controlling for

a range of demographic variables. Specifically, the results showed that engaging in unwanted

consensual sex was associated with more mental health symptoms and poorer relationship

quality.

Hypothesis IV: The Strength of the Relation between Frequency of Unwanted Consensual Sex

and the Hypothesized Outcomes Will Be Moderated by the Type of Motivations Endorsed

I expected that motivations for UCS (approach/avoidance) would moderate the relation between UCS frequency and outcomes. Specifically, individuals who report a higher frequency of UCS and rated avoidance motivations as more important would have more mental health symptoms, lower levels of psychological well-being, and poorer relationship functioning.

Participants who engaged in more UCS and rated approach motivations as more important would endorse better relationship quality.

To test these hypothesized moderating effects, a series of moderated multiple regressions were computed for each of the three outcome variables and each hypothesized moderator

(approach and avoidance motivations) separately using PROCESS (Hayes, 2017), resulting in a total of six total regressions. Prior to computing the regressions, each moderator was mean centered by subtracting the mean score from each participant’s score. Centering the mean products of the variables reduces multicollinearity among the predictor terms. In each regression analysis, frequency of unwanted consensual sex, a hypothesized moderator (i.e., approach motivations, avoidance motivations), and covariates (i.e., age, age at first intercourse, education, religiosity, gender, race, sexual orientation) were entered along with the interaction terms of frequency x hypothesized motivations moderator. As main effects for frequency of unwanted UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 46

consensual sex were reported in the previous section, I will only report main effects for the

hypothesized moderator variables for these analyses, as well as frequency x hypothesized

moderator interaction effects. Because this one of the first studies to my knowledge to examine the potential moderation effects using an approach-avoidance framework, I will report marginally significant interactions (p < .10), with the caution that such effects would need to be replicated in future work.

Approach Motivations as a Moderator of the Relation between Frequency of

Unwanted Consensual Sex and the Outcome Variables. With regard to approach motivations,

I made only one specific hypothesis; approach motivations would moderate the relation between unwanted consensual sex frequency and relationship quality. However, for exploratory purposes, three regressions were computed to test whether approach motivations for unwanted consensual sex would moderate the effects of unwanted consensual sex frequency, one for each dependent variable: relationship quality, mental health symptoms, and well-being (see Appendix A, Table

10). No significant interaction effects between frequency of unwanted consensual sex and approach motivations emerged for either relationship quality or well-being. Thus, there was no

support for my hypothesis that approach motivations would moderate the relation between

unwanted consensual sex frequency and relationship quality. However, it is important to note

that significant main effects for approach motivations were found on well-being and relationship

quality: greater importance of approach motivations predicted higher well-being and better

relationship quality. Thus, approach motivations for engaging in unwanted consensual sex were

associated with more positive adjustment, irrespective of the frequency with which one engaged

in unwanted consensual sex.

Unexpectedly, a marginally significant interaction effect between frequency of unwanted UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 47 consensual sex and approach motivations was found for mental health symptoms (p = .09).

Based on Holmbeck’s (2002) approach, these interactions were further investigated to establish the nature of the moderating effect. Regressions were computed at three levels of the moderator, avoidance motivations: 1 SD below the mean, at the mean, and 1 SD above the mean. The unstandardized regression coefficients from the regressions provided the simple slope of the regression line for frequency of unwanted consensual sex predicting the outcome variable at each level of the moderator. A visual depiction of this interaction can be found in Figure 3 (Appendix

B). For participants who reported above average approach motivations, there was a positive significant effect of unwanted consensual sex frequency on mental health symptoms (b = .10, t

(295) = 4.07, p < .001). Similarly, there was a significant positive effect of unwanted consensual sex frequency on mental health symptoms for participants who endorsed average importance of approach motivations (b = .08, t(297) = 2.67, p < .01). For participants who reported below average importance of approach motivations, there was a marginally significant effect of unwanted consensual sex frequency on mental health symptoms (b = .01, t(297) = 0.40, p = .69).

These findings indicate that individuals who have engaged in more unwanted consensual sex and rated approach motivations as more important also reported more mental health symptoms than those who rated these motivations as less important. This is counter-intuitive as one might expect that approach motivations would lessen the negative consequences of engaging in unwanted consensual sex. This will be discussed later in the Discussion section.

Avoidance Motivations as a Moderator of the Relation between Frequency of

Unwanted Consensual Sex and the Outcome Variables. Three additional regressions were computed to test the hypothesis that avoidance motivations for unwanted consensual sex would moderate the effects of unwanted consensual sex frequency, one for each dependent variable: UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 48 relationship quality, mental health symptoms, and well-being (see Appendix A, Table 11). A marginally significant interaction effect between frequency of unwanted consensual sex and avoidance motivations was found on both mental health symptoms (p = .05) and well-being (p =

.08).

A visual depiction of the marginally significant unwanted consensual sex frequency x avoidance motivations interaction on mental health symptoms can be found in Figure 4

(Appendix B). For participants who reported average avoidance motivations, there was a positive significant effect of unwanted consensual sex frequency on mental health symptoms (b = .04, t

(295) = 2.30, p < .05). Similarly, there was a significant positive effect of unwanted consensual sex frequency on mental health symptoms for participants who endorsed above average importance of avoidance motivations (b = .09, t (295) = 2.91, p < .01). For participants who reported below average importance of avoidance motivations, there was no significant effect of unwanted consensual sex frequency on mental health symptoms (b = .01, t (295) = .37, p = .71).

These findings support my hypothesis that individuals who have engaged in more unwanted consensual sex and rated avoidance motivations as more important would report more mental health symptoms than those who rated these motivations as less important.

A graph of the marginally significant unwanted consensual sex frequency x avoidance motivations interaction on psychological well-being can be found in Figure 5 (Appendix B).

Despite a significant overall interaction effect was found, slopes for those with below average levels of avoidance motivations (b = -.02, t(297) = -1.83, p = .07), average levels of avoidance motivations (b = -.02, t(297) = -1.83, p = .07) , and above average levels of avoidance motivations (b = -.02, t(297) = -1.83, p = .07) were all nonsignificant. However, visual inspection of the graph and slope statistics suggests that the strongest relation between unwanted UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 49 consensual sex frequency and well-being was found for individuals reporting low levels of avoidance motivations. As such, the hypotheses that participants who rated motivations as more important and reported more frequent unwanted consensual sex would report lower well-being was not supported. However, it is important to examine the levels of psychological well-being for the three avoidance groups in addition to the slopes. Those who endorsed higher levels of avoidance motivations reported lower levels of well-being across levels of frequency of unwanted consensual sex. UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 50

DISCUSSION

Unwanted consensual sex, when a person willingly consents to sex that is unwanted for

some reason, has been shown to be a relatively common behavior (Conroy et al., 2015; Krahé et

al., 2000). However, much remains unknown about this type of sexual behavior. Many

researchers have conceptualized unwanted consensual sex as necessarily representing a negative

sexual experience (e.g., Gentzler & Kerns, 2004), with some going so far as to classify it as a

behavior that lies on the spectrum of sexual violence and coercion (Dempster et al., 2015; Foster,

2011; Walker, 1997). Though these researchers have framed unwanted consensual sex in such a way that suggests that engaging in this behavior has negative consequences, there is very little research regarding outcomes such as mental health symptoms and relationship quality. In particular, in my review of the literature regarding unwanted consensual sex, no research was found regarding the association of unwanted consensual sex with psychological functioning. I sought to address this gap in the literature by examining the relation between unwanted consensual sex and several outcomes, including aspects of relationship quality, mental health symptoms, and well-being.

Additionally, unwanted consensual sex has been framed as a behavior that has the same

meaning and consequences for all who engage in it, based on its conceptualization as a negative

sexual experience. As such, little research has focused on the role of motivations for engaging in

unwanted consensual sex and how this might affect the association between this behavior and

mental health for individuals who engage in it. Initial evidence suggests that motivations to

engage in unwanted consensual sex may be differentially related to the frequency of engaging in

the behavior, relationship outcomes, and a person’s attitudes and beliefs (Katz & Tirone, 2009;

Kennett et al., 2009; Kettrey, 2014; Muehlenhard & Cook, 1988). In the current project, I UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 51

utilized a theoretically and empirically supported motivational framework—approach and

avoidance motivations-- to better understand individuals’ reasons for engaging in unwanted

consensual sex as well as how these reasons may moderate the relations between frequency of

engaging in unwanted consensual sex and mental health.

Another limitation that emerged in the literature was the homogeneity of the samples used in the study of unwanted consensual sex. The majority of studies of this behavior have included primarily heterosexual female college students in committed relationships. As sexual behavior can vary across race, sexual orientation, gender, and age, overreliance on these samples greatly limits our ability to generalize across populations and obtain a fuller understanding of unwanted consensual sex. I hoped to address this limitation by recruiting a more diverse sample and expanding inclusion criteria (to include all sexually active, English speaking U.S. adult residents) to obtain a better understanding of the sexual experiences of sexually active adults.

In this section, I will explore the results for each of the four proposed hypotheses and how they fit into the current literature base surrounding unwanted consensual sex. Implications of these findings will also be discussed.

Hypothesis I: The Prevalence of Unwanted Consensual Sex Will Be Higher in an Age-

Diverse Sample than in College Student Samples; There Will Be Gender and Partner-Type

Differences in Unwanted Consensual Sex Prevalence and/or Frequency

I anticipated that due to differences in sexual and romantic relationships across the lifespan, that my sample of adults would report higher prevalence of unwanted consensual sex

(50-75%) than college student samples. However, results indicated that 44.3% of the total sample endorsed having unwanted consensual sex in the past year, which was slightly lower than expected and did not support my hypothesis. Though it is difficult to directly compare UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 52 prevalence rates across studies because it has been assessed for varying time periods, the annual prevalence rate found in the current study was similar to lifetime prevalence rates found in unmarried sexually active adults (i.e., Sprecher et al., 1994), as well as rates found in daily diary studies of college student samples collected over the course of just weeks (i.e., O’Sullivan &

Allgeier, 1998; Vannier & O’Sullivan, 2010). This suggests that overall, adults across various developmental age groups may be similarly likely to report engaging in unwanted consensual sex, and that they may do so relatively consistently across time, although longitudinal studies following the same individuals, rather than cross-sectional studies with different age groups, would confirm this.

Based on results of previous studies, it was also hypothesized that women would be more likely to report unwanted consensual sex than men, which was supported by the results. Women were significantly more likely to report engaging in unwanted consensual sex than men, with

52% of women answering “yes” to having unwanted consensual sex in the past year compared to

37% of men in the sample. Again, this is consistent with the results of previous studies that have found gender differences in prevalence rates of U.S. samples (e.g., O’Sullivan & Allgeier, 1998;

Sprecher et al., 1994, Foster 2011). Despite finding significant gender difference in prevalence rates, the hypothesis that women would also report engaging in unwanted consensual sex more often than men was not supported. Men and women reported similar frequency of unwanted consensual sex, with women reporting that 35% of their total sexual experiences were unwanted but consensual, with men reporting that 39% were unwanted but consensual. This result complements findings from previous studies that found no gender differences in instances of unwanted consensual sex measured through daily diaries or retrospective accounts of total occasions of unwanted consensual sex. It may be, as previous authors have suggested, that men UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 53 are less likely than women overall to engage in unwanted consensual sex based on gendered sexual scripts or gendered power differentials in relationships (Katz & Tirone, 2009; Krahe et al.,

2000). It may also be the case that due to gender-based expectations, men are less likely to see sex as unwanted. However, it appears that when men do choose to have unwanted consensual sex and label it as such, they do so at rates similar to women. These findings highlight the importance of including men in future research of unwanted consensual sex.

Finally, the hypothesis that individuals who reported on unwanted consensual sexual experiences with a committed partner would do so at higher rates than those with a casual partner was not supported. I anticipated that, because the motivations for unwanted consensual sex most frequently reported in the literature are associated with needs and desires related to the relationship, that individuals with casual partners would not engage in this behavior as frequently. However, results indicated that individuals with casual partners reported that 39% of their total sexual experiences were unwanted but consensual, which was not significantly different than the 35% reported by those who had unwanted consensual sex with committed partners. This suggests that the level of commitment to a relationship may not be associated with the amount of unwanted consensual sex individuals choose to have. Similar rates of consensual sex within both casual and committed relationships may be explained by the fact that many individuals report having casual sexual encounters with some hope that it will lead to a more committed relationship (Heldman & Wade, 2010).

Though no specific hypotheses were made about the other demographic variables, it is important to note that several differences in UCS frequency and/or prevalence among these variables did emerge, including race, sexual orientation, religiosity, education, and lifetime number of sexual partners. For example, Black participants, individuals who identified as not UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 54

straight, and those who were single or married/in a civil union reported a significantly higher

frequency of unwanted consensual sex. Future studies could further investigate whether these

findings could be replicated, and examine theoretically derived rationales for these findings.

Hypothesis II: A Modified Measure of Motivations for Unwanted Consensual Sex, Based

on a Motivational Framework, Can Be Validated

The modified Unwanted Consensual Sex Motivations scale (Mattei et al., 2017) included items that were hypothesized to load onto seven factors (partner approval/influence, peer influence, reciprocity, physical pleasure, fear of reaction, normative beliefs, and increased commitment), which would in turn load onto three higher-order factors (interpersonal approach motivations, intrapersonal approach motivations, and avoidance motivations).

Latent Factors

Though the modified Unwanted Consensual Sex Motivations scale included items related to gendered sociocultural norms (i.e., normative beliefs), it was not appropriate to include them in the analyses because items could not be equated across the male and female versions of the survey and the sample sizes by sex were not large enough to compute gender-specific factor analyses. Therefore, the initial hypothesis of seven motivational factors was tested using a confirmatory factor analysis of a six-factor model of motivations for unwanted consensual sex.

The initial model was a good fit, providing support for my hypothesis. Overall, the results of the analyses were consistent with results from the initial validation of the Unwanted Consensual Sex

Motivations scale (Mattei et al., 2017), with the main difference being the addition of a factor, reciprocity, that had been outlined in the literature but not included in the initial UCSM. To my knowledge, no other validated measure to assess motivations for unwanted consensual sex exists in the literature to compare to the findings from the current study. UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 55

Higher-Order Factors

The second part of the hypothesis, that the above factors would be accounted for by three

larger domains, was partially supported by the results of a second confirmatory factor analysis,

which demonstrated a good fit of the model. However, partner approval/influence unexpectedly

did not load onto the avoidance factor, suggesting that it should not be included as part of the

avoidance motivations construct for unwanted consensual sex. It appears that partner

approval/influence may represent a different type of motivation, not captured appropriately by an

approach-avoidance framework, and was therefore removed from the model. A review of the

individual items reveals that the majority of UCSM items pertain to wanting (or not wanting)

some outcome for oneself, while many of the partner approval/influence items were related to wanting (or not wanting) an outcome for one’s partner. It may be that an approach-avoidance framework is best suited for motivations that are directly related to positive or negative consequences for the self.

Additionally, it was determined that intrapersonal approach motivations (which included only the physical pleasure motivations subscale), might be combined with interpersonal approach motivations in an overall approach motivations factor for statistical and conceptual reasons (e.g., the intrapersonal motivations latent factor contained only the one subscale—physical pleasure, and previous research supporting an approach-avoidance framework). As such, the final confirmatory factor analysis was computed with three of the remaining five motivations being accounted for by an overall approach motivations higher-order factor (physical pleasure, increased commitment, and reciprocity) and two factors accounted for by a higher-order avoidance factor (fear of reaction, peer approval). Though the findings of these analyses differed slightly from the results that were expected, they did provide support for the use of an approach- UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 56

avoidance motivational framework to explain and understand unwanted but consensual sexual

behavior. Several studies have demonstrated that reporting approach motivations and avoidance

motivations (choosing to engage in a behavior to attain a positive/pleasant outcome or to avoid a

negative/unpleasant outcome) for various activities, including sexual behavior, were

differentially related to short and long-term outcomes (e.g., Impett et al., 2005; Elliot et al.,

2006). As such, these results justified the use of these two higher-order motivations factors in further analyses to explore the relation between frequency of, motivations for, and outcomes related to unwanted consensual sex.

It is interesting to note that though approach and avoidance motivations are conceptually different and the results justify the use an approach-avoidance framework for unwanted

consensual sex, approach motivations and avoidance motivations were highly correlated with

one another in the context of the current study. It appears that for a single sexual experience,

participants endorsed having unwanted consensual sex both to avoid negative outcomes and to

achieve positive outcomes. This suggests that individuals’ reasons for engaging in unwanted

consensual sex are likely multifaceted.

Hypothesis III: Unwanted Consensual Sex Frequency Will Be Negatively Associated with

Relationship Quality and Well-Being, and Positively Associated with Mental Health

Symptoms

Significant effects in the hypothesized direction were found for two of the three

outcomes: mental health symptoms and relationship quality. Individuals who engaged in a

greater frequency of unwanted consensual sex were more likely to experience mental health

symptoms, including symptoms of depression, anxiety, and somatic symptoms. These results

suggest similarities between unwanted consensual sex and forms of sexual coercion and UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 57 violence, which have been also been linked to negative mental health outcomes including depression and anxiety (e.g., Acierno et al., 2002; Burnam et al., 1988; Winfield et al., 1990).

Additionally, more frequent unwanted consensual sex predicted poorer relationship quality, which included aspects of relationship satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, and emotional intimacy.

These results are consistent with findings from previous research linking unwanted consensual sex to poorer relationship and sexual satisfaction (Katz & Tirone, 2009) as well as qualitative reports that having unwanted consensual sex can lead to relationship tension (O’Sullivan &

Allgeier, 1998). It should be noted that the effects of unwanted consensual sex frequency on mental health symptoms and relationship quality were robust, as they remained even after accounting for a number of demographic variables as well as motivations for unwanted consensual sex. Overall, these findings provide support for the conceptualization of unwanted consensual sex as a negative sexual experience that has been posited by other scholars (e.g.,

Gentzler & Kerns, 2004),

Hypothesis IV: The Strength of the Relation between Frequency of Unwanted Consensual

Sex and the Hypothesized Outcomes Will Be Moderated by the Type of Motivations

Endorsed

Approach Motivations

I predicted that participants who engaged in more unwanted consensual sex and rated approach motivations as more important would endorse better relationship quality than those who placed less importance on approach motivations. Though no specific hypotheses were made related to the interaction between unwanted consensual sex frequency approach motivations on mental health symptoms and well-being, these effects were also investigated for exploratory purposes. No significant interaction effect of approach motivations and frequency of unwanted UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 58 consensual sex was found on relationship quality, so the hypothesis was not supported. Similarly, no interaction effect of approach motivations and frequency of unwanted consensual sex was found on well-being. However, an examination of main effects indicated that rating approach motivations as more important in the decision to have unwanted consensual sex predicted better relationship quality and well-being, even though frequency of unwanted consensual sex was still negatively related to relationship quality and well-being in these models.-These results indicate that having approach motivations for unwanted consensual sex may be a predictor of positive outcomes, independent of the frequency with which one engages in the behavior. These results also suggest that approach motivations may have a compensatory effect in the context of relationship quality and well-being. In the stress and resilience literature, a compensatory effect occurs when the impact of a stressor (in this case, frequency of unwanted consensual sex) is compensated for, or counteracted by, a resource (in this case approach motivations) (Garmezy et al., 1984)—main effects but not interactions. These results expand upon previous findings that sexual approach goals for consensual sex predict increased sexual and relationship satisfaction for women (Impett et al., 2005; Rosen et al., 2015), and confirm qualitative reports from

O’Sullivan and Allgeier’s (1998) study that engaging in unwanted consensual sex can sometimes promote positive relationship outcomes, including promotion of intimacy and relationship satisfaction. Taken together, these results provide additional support for the use of a motivational framework to understand this type of sexual behavior.

Although no specific hypotheses were made about the potential moderating effects of unwanted consensual sex frequency and approach motivations on mental health symptoms, the results were surprising and counter-intuitive. As expected, frequency of unwanted consensual sex predicted increased mental health symptoms, but this effect was strongest for those with the UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 59 highest levels of approach motivations. This suggests those with higher levels of approach motivations and more frequent unwanted consensual sex are at the highest risk. These results are unexpected given the finding that approach motivations are positively related to well-being and relationship quality. It appears that approach motivations for unwanted consensual sex may have both costs and benefits. The approach motivations subscale included a majority of items related to obtaining something from the relationship, whether it be a sense of intimacy or something non-sexual, so choosing to engage in unwanted consensual sex may represent a type of sacrifice for the relationship. Previous literature on self-sacrifice suggests that subverting or suppressing one’s personal desires and feelings within a relationship may increase risk for psychological distress (Jack & Dill, 1992; Fritz & Helgeson, 1998), which may help explain the current findings for mental health symptoms. However, the research also indicates that selecting to sacrifice for the relationship can have positive effects on relationship satisfaction, which is consistent with this study’s findings that approach motivations for unwanted consensual sex are associated with better relationship quality. Additionally, it may be that making the choice to engage in unwanted consensual sex in order to achieve a positive or pleasant outcome (for oneself or for the sake of the relationship) provides individuals with a sense of autonomy and mastery, important aspects of well-being.

Avoidance Motivations

With regard to avoidance motivations for engaging in unwanted consensual sex, I predicted that those who reported a higher frequency of unwanted consensual sex and endorsed avoidance motivations as more important in their decision to have unwanted consensual sex would have more mental health symptoms, lower well-being, and poorer relationship functioning than those who reported that avoidance motivations were less important in their decision. UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 60

In support of this hypothesis, avoidance motivations moderated the relation between unwanted consensual sex frequency and mental health symptoms (although this interaction effect

was marginal). For people with below average avoidance motivations, having more frequent unwanted consensual sex did not make it significantly more likely that they would report more mental health problems. However, for individuals with average or above average levels of reported avoidance motivations, mental health was poorer if they had more frequent unwanted consensual sex. This suggests that individuals who report average or higher levels of avoidance motivations are at greater risk of experiencing mental health symptoms if they have unwanted consensual sex more frequently. It is important for clinicians to assess for avoidance motivations

in the context of unwanted consensual sex, as they appear to represent a risk factor for increased

mental health symptoms.

Avoidance motivations also moderated the relation between unwanted consensual sex

frequency and well-being, but not exactly in the hypothesized directions. Although none of the individual slopes for any of the groups was significant (and the interaction was marginally significant), an interesting pattern emerged which actually supports what Luthar et al. (2000) termed a “protective-reactive” effect. For those reporting low levels of avoidance motivations, higher frequency of unwanted consensual sex predicter lower well-being. Luthar et al. (2000) reconceptualized protective effects into specific types of protective effects; the effect found for relationship quality fits into the “protective-reactive” type—individuals with a resource (in this case, low avoidance motivations) are generally protected from negative effects of a stressor (in this case, frequency of unwanted consensual sex), but succumb at high levels of the stressor. This suggests that in examining “protective” interaction effects, it is important to note the levels of psychological well-being for the three avoidance groups in addition to the slopes. Those who UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 61 endorsed higher levels of avoidance motivations reported lower levels of well-being across levels of frequency of unwanted consensual sex.

Limitations and Conclusions

Despite the interesting and potentially clinically important findings of this study, there are several limitations that need to be noted. One major limitation is its cross-sectional design, which prevents the ability to conclude directionality among the variables. Although implicit in my models is the theoretical temporal precedence of variables (e.g., frequency of unwanted consensual sex predicts outcomes), it is very possible that bidirectionality exists, or even that directionality is the reverse of my predictions. For example, it is possible that increased mental health symptoms could result in higher engagement in unwanted consensual sex, and in turn, that could lead an individual to develop particular motivations for unwanted consensual sex to explain or justify his or her behavior. Future research using longitudinal designs would allow for exploration of the directionality in the associations among frequency of unwanted consensual sex, motivations for unwanted consensual sex, and outcomes.

The exclusion of several variables from my measurement model represents an additional limitation. Several motivation items related to normative beliefs about unwanted consensual sex were not included in analyses (e.g., that’s what women do for their sexual partners, men should always be in the mood for sex). Similarly, the motivation to obtain partner approval was removed from the measurement model of approach and avoidance motivations for conceptual reasons. Eliminating these variables from further analyses introduces that possibility that we are missing important information about participants’ motivations for sexual behavior, though it was useful to learn that partner approval motivations do not fit into an approach-avoidance framework for unwanted consensual sex. Though the specific motivations that were included UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 62 were based on theoretical and empirical findings, the elimination of some variables from analyses reduces the ability to understand the possible role of other motivations about sex and sexuality in people’s decisions to have unwanted consensual sex.

Additionally, the interactions that were found in the current study were all only marginally significant. These were examined because the current study represents a novel application of an approach-avoidance framework investigating the relation between frequency of unwanted consensual sex, motivations for unwanted consensual sex, and mental health and relationship-specific outcomes, and by controlling for many demographic covariates, the models already were quite conservative. Still, further replications of the results found in the current study are necessary to be certain of the existence and strength of the moderation effects.

A number of demographic variables were found to correlate with frequency of unwanted consensual sex and motivations for unwanted consensual sex. It is possible that the moderation effects of motivations in the relation between unwanted consensual sex frequency and the various outcomes could differ according to various demographic variables (e.g., gender, relationship type). Additionally, there may be contextual factors not assessed in the current study

(e.g. sexual attraction between partners, responsiveness to sexual needs) that could help to explain the associations between the major study variables. These types of investigations should be guided by further theory development.

Another limitation of the study is related to potential sampling bias. Research indicates that as a group, MTurk workers tend to be younger, have more formal education, and are more familiar with completing academic surveys (Hitlin, 2016; Rand et al., 2014). Additionally, as individuals using the online platform MTurk were informed that the survey was focused on sexual relationships, it is possible that individuals who self-selected to complete the survey UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 63

differed in important ways from those who did not. Previous research has found that college

students who volunteer for sexuality research are more likely to be sexually experienced, have

less traditional sexual attitudes, and score higher on measures of sexual esteem and sexual

sensation seeking (Weiderman,1999). Although my sample is not a college student sample, it is

possible that these characteristics may have impacted the results, and therefore limit the

generalizability of the findings.

Despite these limitations, these findings provide some clarification of the processes

underlying unwanted consensual sex using an inclusive sample of sexually active adults. The

current study provides initial support for the assumption that unwanted consensual sex may

represent a negative or risky sexual behavior, based on the overall associations discovered

between frequency of unwanted consensual sex and poorer relationship and psychological

functioning outcomes. However, findings from this study also further illuminate the role of an

individual’s motivations for unwanted consensual sex in these outcomes. Specifically, these

findings suggest that having unwanted consensual sex in order to avoid negative consequences

may be more harmful than choosing to engage in unwanted consensual sex to attain something

positive. As such, it may be useful for mental health and relationship therapists to include in their diagnostic assessments and interventions considerations about unwanted but consensual sexual experiences in discussions about relationship, sexual, and psychological functioning. For individuals who share that they engage in unwanted consensual sex, reducing the frequency of this behavior appears to be an appropriate target for intervention, as the study findings show negative associations with mental health outcomes and relationship quality, regardless of the types of motivations individuals have for engaging in the behavior. But at the same time, the findings suggest that it would also be beneficial to assess an individual’s motivations for UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 64 engaging in unwanted consensual sex, in order to evaluate the level of risk for mental health symptoms, poorer relationship quality, and decreased well-being. Avoidance motivations, which include fear that a partner will react negatively to a sexual rejection as well as fear of social rejection for not being sexually experienced, appear to exacerbate the risk of negative effects of engaging in unwanted consensual sex. In contrast, approach motivations, which include a desire to gain closeness in the relationship, to experience physical pleasure, and to show appreciation to one’s partner, seem to be related to better relationship quality and well-being, though it is also related to increased mental health symptoms. Thus, in addition to focusing on an overall reduction in unwanted consensual sex behavior, it may be advantageous for mental health professionals to discuss the possible risks and benefits of engaging in this behavior for particular reasons, and to examine an individual’s motivations for engaging in this sexual behavior, potentially working to modify motivations (e.g., through cognitive reframing). UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 65

REFERENCES

Abbey, A., BeShears, R., Clinton-Sherrod, A. M., & McAuslan, P. (2004). Similarities and

differences in women's sexual assault experiences based on tactics used by the

perpetrator. Psychology of Women quarterly, 28(4), 323-332.

Acierno, R., Brady, K., Gray, M., Kilpatrick, D. G., Resnick, H., & Best, C. L. (2002).

Psychopathology following interpersonal violence: A comparison of risk factors in older

and younger adults. Journal of Clinical Geropsychology, 8(1), 13-23.

Arbuckle, J. L. (2019). Amos (Version 26.0) [Computer Program]. Chicago: SPSS.

Basile, K. C. (1999). Rape by Acquiescence The Ways in Which Women “Give in” to Unwanted

Sex With Their Husbands. Violence Against Women, 5(9), 1036-1058.

Basile, K. C. (2002). Prevalence of wife rape and other intimate partner sexual coercion in a

nationally representative sample of women. Violence and victims, 17(5), 511-524.

Baumeister, R. F., Catanese, K. R., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Is there a gender difference in strength

of sex drive? Theoretical views, conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant

evidence. Personality and social psychology review, 5(3), 242-273.Baumeister, R. F.

(2016). Toward a general theory of motivation: Problems, challenges, opportunities, and

the big picture. Motivation and Emotion, 40(1), 1-10.

Blythe, M. J., Fortenberry, J. D., Temkit, M. H., Tu, W., & Orr, D. P. (2006). Incidence and

correlates of unwanted sex in relationships of middle and late adolescent

women. Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine, 160(6), 591-595.

Bodenmann, G., Ledermann, T., & Bradbury, T. N. (2007). Stress, sex, and satisfaction in

marriage. Personal Relationships, 14(4), 551-569. UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 66

Brown, A. L., Testa, M., & Messman-Moore, T. L. (2009). Psychological consequences of

sexual victimization resulting from force, incapacitation, or verbal coercion. Violence

Against Women, 15(8), 898-919.

Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source

of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?. Perspectives on psychological science, 6(1), 3-5.

Burnam, M. A., Stein, J. A., Golding, J. M., Siegel, J. M., Sorenson, S. B., Forsythe, A. B., &

Telles, C. A. (1988). Sexual assault and mental disorders in a community

population. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 56(6), 843.

Byers, E. S., & Macneil, S. (2006). Further validation of the interpersonal exchange model of

sexual satisfaction. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 32(1), 53-69.

Byrne, B. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS Basic Concepts, Applications and

Programming: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group New York.

Cameron, I. M., Crawford, J. R., Lawton, K., & Reid, I. C. (2008). Psychometric comparison of

PHQ-9 and HADS for measuring depression severity in primary care. Br J Gen

Pract, 58(546), 32-36.

Campbell, R., Dworkin, E., & Cabral, G. (2009). An ecological model of the impact of sexual

assault on women's mental health. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10(3), 225-246.

Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants

and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral

testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2156-2160.

Chen, L.P., Murad, M.H., Paras, M.L., Colbenson, K.M., Sattler, A.L., Goranson, E.N.,

Zirakzadeh, A. (2010) Sexual abuse and lifetime diagnosis of psychiatric disorders:

systematic review and meta-analysis. Mayo Clin Proc. 2010; 85(7): 618-629. UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 67

Conroy, N. E., Krishnakumar, A., & Leone, J. M. (2015). Reexamining issues of

conceptualization and willing consent the hidden role of coercion in experiences of

sexual acquiescence. Journal of interpersonal violence, 30(11), 1828-1846.

Cooper, M. L., Pioli, M., Levitt, A., Talley, A. E., Micheas, L., & Collins, N. L. (2006).

Attachment styles, sex motives, and sexual behavior. Dynamics of romantic love:

Attachment, caregiving, and sex, 243-274.

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(6), 1528.

Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D. W., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R.

(2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and

negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143-156.

Dempster, D., Rogers, S., Pope, A. L., Snow, M., & Stoltz, K. B. (2015). Insecure Parental

Attachment and Permissiveness Risk Factors for Unwanted Sex Among Emerging

Adults. The Family Journal, 23(4), 358-367.

Elliot, A. J., Gable, S. L., & Mapes, R. R. (2006). Approach and avoidance motivation in the

social domain. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(3), 378-391.

Flynn, K. E., Lin, L., Bruner, D. W., Cyranowski, J. M., Hahn, E. A., Jeffery, D. D., ... &

Weinfurt, K. P. (2016). Sexual satisfaction and the importance of sexual health to quality

of life throughout the life course of US adults. The journal of sexual medicine, 13(11),

1642-1650. UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 68

Foster, S. M. (2011). Consensual unwanted sex: Motivations and reservations (Order No.

3457540). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I; ProQuest Dissertations

& Theses Global. (874151022).

Fritz, H. L., & Helgeson, V. S. (1998). Distinctions of unmitigated communion from

communion: Self-neglect and overinvolvement with others. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 75, 121–140.

Funk, J. L. & Rogge, R. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing

precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction

Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 572-583.

Garmezy, N., Masten, A. S., & Tellegen, A. (1984). The study of stress and competence in

children: A building block for developmental psychopathology. Child development, 97-

111.

Gentzler, A. L., & Kerns, K. A. (2004). Associations between insecure attachment and sexual

experiences. Personal relationships, 11(2), 249-265.

Gierk, B., Kohlmann, S., Kroenke, K., Spangenberg, L., Zenger, M., Brähler, E., & Löwe, B.

(2014). The somatic symptom scale–8 (SSS-8): a brief measure of somatic symptom

burden. JAMA internal medicine, 174(3), 399-407.

Golding, J. M., Wilsnack, S. C., & Cooper, M. L. (2002). Sexual assault history and social

support: Six general population studies. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 15(3), 187-197.

Golding, J. M., Wilsnack, S. C., & Learman, L. A. (1998). Prevalence of sexual assault history

among women with common gynecologic symptoms. American Journal of Obstetrics

and Gynecology, 179(4), 1013-1019. UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 69

Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A

regression-based approach. Guilford publications.

Heldman, C., & Wade, L. (2010). Hook-up culture: Setting a new research agenda. Sexuality

Research and Social Policy, 7(4), 323-333.

Hill, C. A., & Preston, L. K. (1996). Individual differences in the experience of sexual

motivation: Theory and measurement of dispositional sexual motives. Journal of Sex

Research, 33, 27-43.

Hitlin, P. (2016, July 11). Research in the Crowdsourcing Age, a Case Study. Retrieved from

http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/07/11/research-in-the-crowdsourcing-age-a-case-study/

Holmbeck, G. N. (2002). Post-hoc probing of significant moderational and mediational effects in

studies of pediatric populations. Journal of pediatric psychology, 27(1), 87-96.

Impett, E. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2002). Why some women consent to unwanted sex with a dating

partner: Insights from attachment theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 360-

370.

Impett, E. A., Peplau, L. A., & Gable, S. L. (2005a). Approach and avoidance sexual motives:

Implications for personal and interpersonal well‐being. Personal relationships, 12(4),

465-482.

Impett, E. A., Gable, S. L., & Peplau, L. A. (2005b). Giving up and giving in: The costs and

benefits of daily sacrifice in intimate relationships. Journal of personality and social

psychology, 89(3), 327.

Jack, D. C., & Dill, D. (1992). The Silencing the Self Scale: Schemas of intimacy associated

with depression in women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16, 97–106. UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 70

Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Richardson, J. (2011). Positioning the booty-call relationship on the

spectrum of relationships: Sexual but more emotional than one-night stands. Journal of

sex research, 48(5), 486-495.

Katz, J., & Tirone, V. (2009). Women’s sexual compliance with male dating partners:

Associations with investment in ideal womanhood and romantic well-being. Sex

Roles, 60(5-6), 347-356.

Katz, J., & Tirone, V. (2010). Going along with it: Sexually coercive partner behavior predicts

dating women’s compliance with unwanted sex. Violence against women, 16(7), 730-

742.

Katz, J., & Schneider, M. E. (2015). (Hetero) sexual compliance with unwanted casual sex:

Associations with feelings about first sex and sexual self-perceptions. Sex Roles, 72(9-

10), 451-461.

Kennett, D. J., Humphreys, T. P., & Patchell, M. (2009). The role of learned resourcefulness in

helping female undergraduates deal with unwanted sexual activity. Sex Education, 9(4),

341-353.

Kettrey, H. H. (2014). It "just happened" one night: Gender norms and consent to unwanted

sexual activity on college hookups (Order No. 3648759). Available from ProQuest

Dissertations & Theses A&I; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1650609863).

Krahé, B., Scheinberger-Olwig, R., & Kolpin, S. (2000). Ambiguous communication of sexual

intentions as a risk marker of sexual aggression. Sex Roles, 42(5-6), 313-337.

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(2), 162. UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 71

Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. (2001). The PHQ‐9: validity of a brief depression

severity measure. Journal of general internal medicine, 16(9), 606-613.

Kung, F. Y., Kwok, N., & Brown, D. J. (2018). Are Attention Check Questions a Threat to Scale

Validity?. Applied Psychology, 67(2), 264-283.

Lawrance, K. A., Byers, E. S., & Cohen, J. N. (1998). Interpersonal exchange model of sexual

satisfaction questionnaire. Sexuality-related measures: A compendium, 514-519.

Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical

evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child development, 71(3), 543-562.

Mark, K. P., Herbenick, D., Fortenberry, J. D., Sanders, S., & Reece, M. (2014). A psychometric

comparison of three scales and a single-item measure to assess sexual satisfaction. The

Journal of Sex Research, 51(2), 159-169.

McNulty, J. K., Wenner, C. A., & Fisher, T. D. (2016). Longitudinal associations among

relationship satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, and frequency of sex in early

marriage. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(1), 85-97.

Mattei, G.M., Froemming, M.W., Sedlar, A.E., & Dubow, E.F. (2017, August). Development

and Initial Validation of the Unwanted Consensual Sex Motivations Scale. Paper

presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association,

Washington, D.C.

Mercer, C. H., Tanton, C., Prah, P., Erens, B., Sonnenberg, P., Clifton, S., ... & Copas, A. J.

(2013). Changes in sexual attitudes and lifestyles in Britain through the life course and

over time: findings from the National Surveys of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles

(Natsal). The Lancet, 382(9907), 1781-1794. UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 72

Meston, C.M., & Buss, D. M. (2007). Why humans have sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36,

477–507.

Muehlenhard, C. L., & Cook, S. W. (1988). Men's self‐reports of unwanted sexual

activity. Journal of Sex Research, 24(1), 58-72.

Nicolaidis, C., Curry, M., McFarland, B., & Gerrity, M. (2004). Violence, mental health, and

physical symptoms in an academic internal medicine practice. Journal of General

Internal Medicine, 19(8), 819-827.

O'Sullivan, L. F., & Allgeier, E. R. (1998). Feigning sexual desire: Consenting to unwanted

sexual activity in heterosexual dating relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 35(3), 234-

243.

Paras, M.L., Murad, M.H., Chen, L.P., Goranson, E.N., Sattler, A.L., Colbenson, K.M., Elamin,

M.B., Seime, R.J., Prokop, L.J., Zirakzadeh, A. (2009). Sexual abuse and lifetime

diagnosis of somatic disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Med

Assoc; 2009:302(5), 550-561.

Peterson, Z. D., & Muehlenhard, C. L. (2007). Conceptualizing the “wantedness” of women's

consensual and nonconsensual sexual experiences: Implications for how women label

their experiences with rape. Journal of sex research, 44(1), 72-88.

Poppen, P. J., & Segal, N. J. (1988). The influence of sex and sex role orientation on sexual

coercion. Sex Roles, 11-12(6) 89-71.

Postma, R., Bicanic, I., van der Vaart, H., & Laan, E. (2013). Pelvic floor muscle problems

mediate sexual problems in young adult rape victims. The Journal of Sexual

Medicine, 10(8), 1978-1987. UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 73

Rand, D. G., Peysakhovich, A., Kraft-Todd, G. T., Newman, G. E., Wurzbacher, O., Nowak, M.

A., & Greene, J. D. (2014). Social heuristics shape intuitive cooperation. Nature

communications, 5(1), 1-12.

Rosen, N. O., Muise, A., Bergeron, S., Impett, E. A., & Boudreau, G. K. (2015). Approach and

avoidance sexual goals in couples with provoked vestibulodynia: Associations with

sexual, relational, and psychological well‐being. The journal of sexual medicine, 12(8),

1781-1790.

Rothbaum, B. O., Foa, E. B., Riggs, D. S., Murdock, T., & Walsh, W. (1992). A prospective

examination of post‐traumatic stress disorder in rape victims. Journal of Traumatic

stress, 5(3), 455-475.

Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (1988). Focused tests of significance and effect size estimation

in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35(2), 203.

Rusbult, C. E., & Buunk, B. P. (1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An

interdependence analysis. Journal of social and personal relationships, 10(2), 175-204.

Schaefer, M. T., & Olson, D. H. (1981). Assessing intimacy: The PAIR inventory. Journal of

marital and family therapy, 7(1), 47-60.

Shotland, R. L., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Women's" token resistant" and compliant sexual

behaviors are related to uncertain sexual intentions and rape. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 21(3), 226-236.

Sprecher, S., Hatfield, E., Cortese, A., Potapova, E., & Levitskaya, A. (1994). Token resistance

to sexual intercourse and consent to unwanted sexual intercourse: College students’

dating experiences in three countries. Journal of Sex Research, 31(2), 125-132. UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 74

Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B., & Löwe, B. (2006). A brief measure for assessing

generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Archives of internal medicine, 166(10), 1092-

1097.

Steine, I. M., Harvey, A. G., Krystal, J. H., Milde, A. M., Grønli, J., Bjorvatn, B., ... & Pallesen,

S. (2012). Sleep disturbances in sexual abuse victims: A systematic review. Sleep

Medicine Reviews, 16(1), 15-25.

Testa, M., & Dermen, K. H. (1999). The differential correlates of sexual coercion and

rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(5), 548-561.

Ullman, S. E., Filipas, H. H., Townsend, S. M., & Starzynski, L. L. (2005). Trauma exposure,

posttraumatic stress disorder and problem drinking in sexual assault survivors. Journal of

studies on alcohol, 66(5), 610-619.

Vannier, S. A., & O'Sullivan, L. F. (2010). Sex without desire: Characteristics of occasions of

sexual compliance in young adults' committed relationships. Journal of sex

research, 47(5), 429-439.

Walker, S. J. (1997). When “no” becomes “yes”: Why girls and women consent to unwanted

sex. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 6(3), 157-166.

Wiederman, M. W. (1999). Volunteer bias in sexuality research using college student

participants. Journal of Sex Research, 36(1), 59-66.

Winfield, I., George, L. K., Swartz, M., & Blazer, D. G. (1990). Sexual assault and psychiatric

disorders among a community sample of women. American Journal of

Psychiatry, 147(3), 335-341. UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 75

Zweig, J. M., Barber, B. L., & Eccles, J. S. (1997). Sexual Coercion and Well-Being in Young

Adulthood Comparisons by Gender and College Status. Journal of Interpersonal

Violence, 12(2), 291-308. UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 76

APPENDIX A. TABLES

Table 1 Chi Square and T-test Results for Demographic Differences in Annual Prevalence of Unwanted Consensual Sex Variable No UCS in Past UCS in Past Year Test Statistic Year Pearson Chi n (%) n (%) Square Gender χ2 = 14.01** Female 163 (48.4%) 174 (51.6%) Male 229 (62.4%) 138 (36.6%) Race χ2 = 13.35* White/Caucasian 304 (57.6%) 224 (42.4%) Black/African American 22 (34.9%) 41 (65.1%) Asian 26 (65.0%) 14 (35%) Hispanic/Latino 20 (52.6%) 18 (47.4%) Multiracial/Other 20 (57.1%) 15 (42.9%) Sexual orientation χ2 = 23.87** Straight 357 (59%) 248 (41%) Gay 10 (58.8%) 7 (41.2%) Bisexual 25 (30.5%) 57 (69.5%) Parenthood status χ2 = 2.01 No 202 (58.4%) 144 (41.6%%) Yes 190 (53.1%) 168 (46.9%) Relationship status χ2 = 2.34 Single 29 (61.7%) 18 (38.3%) Casually dating 45 (57.7%) 33 (42.3%) Committed but not 63 (58.9%) 44 (41.1%) cohabitating Cohabitating 76 (56.7%) 58 (43.3%) Married or in a civil union 179 (53%) 159 (47%) Total 392 (55.7%) 312 (44.3%) M (SD) M (SD) t value Age 38.06 (11.09) 36.94 (10.90) t (702) = 1.34 Education 4.30 (1.42) 4.48 (1.39) t (702) = -1.64 Religiosity 2.08 (1.05) 2.39 (1.04) t (702) = -3.95*** Age at first intercourse 17.94 (3.73) 16.82 (5.77) t (702) = 3.10** # of sexual partners 11.6 (16.98) 11.51 (27.34) t (702) = .06 Note. Bold font denotes a statistically significant effect at the p < .05 level.

+ p < .10. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. ***p <0.001. UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 77

Table 2 Items on Original Unwanted Consensual Sex Motivations Scale, Items Added to Scale for Present Study, and Items Included in Final Analyses based on Factor Analytic Results Subscale Items Notes about which items were included in the final measure for the present analyses Partner approval/influence Subscale not included due to poor loading onto the higher order approach factor Original UCSM items I didn’t want to disappoint my partner I didn’t want my partner to feel rejected I didn’t want to hurt my partner’s feelings I would feel guilty if I said no I wanted to make my partner happy Added items for Modified UCSM I felt an obligation to fulfill my partner’s sexual needs Fear of reaction Original UCSM items

I was afraid they would become aggressive if I said no Item replaced by more specific items addressing various types of aggression I wanted to avoid an argument or tension Item not included due to low factor loading Added items for Modified UCSM I was afraid my partner would become angry if I said not I was afraid my partner would become verbally aggressive if I said no (e.g., yelling, insulting) I was afraid my partner would become physically aggressive if I said no (e.g., hitting me, choking me, etc.) I was afraid my partner would not stop even if I said no (continued) UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 78

Table 2 (continued) Items on Original Unwanted Consensual Sex Motivations Scale, Items Added to Scale for Present Study, and Items Included in Final Analyses based on Factor Analytic Results Subscale Items Notes about which items were included in the final measure for the present analyses Increased commitment Original UCSM items I wanted to feel closer to my partner I wanted more commitment out of the relationship I wanted to take the relationship to the next level Added items for Modified UCSM I wanted to feel a deeper connection to my partner I wanted to express my love to my partner Item not included due to low factor loading Peer influence Original UCSM items All of my friends are sexually active I wanted to have a story to share or something to contribute when talking to my friends I wanted to fit in I wanted to gain sexual experience Physical Pleasure Original UCSM items I wanted to feel physical pleasure I wanted a release or to relax Added items for Modified UCSM I was sexually aroused I was feeling horny I wanted to have an orgasm (continued) UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 79

Table 2 (continued) Items on Original Unwanted Consensual Sex Motivations Scale, Items Added to Scale for Present Study, and Items Included in Final Analyses based on Factor Analytic Results Subscale Items Notes about which items were included in the final measure for the present analyses Reciprocity Original UCSM items N/A Added items for Modified UCSM I wanted to reward my partner for a non-sexual act I wanted to show my partner I appreciated something they did I was hoping to get something non-sexual in return My partner has done/would do the same for me Item not included due to low factor loading It was a special occasion Normative Beliefs (female Subscale not included because items were different version) for males and females Original UCSM items N/A Added items for Modified UCSM That’s what women do for their sexual partners They talked to me all night or bought me dinner/ When men are aroused, it is impossible for them to stop themselves I didn’t want to be a tease Women are supposed to be sexual I didn’t want to be a prude (continued) UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 80

Table 3 Intercorrelations among the Outcome Variables Generalized Depression Somatic Relationship Relationship Sexual anxiety Well-being symptoms symptoms satisfaction intimacy satisfaction symptoms Depression - .84*** .81*** -.55*** - - - symptoms Generalized anxiety - - .74*** -.49*** - - - symptoms Somatic - - - -.33*** - - - symptoms

Well-being ------

Relationship - - - - .82*** .76*** satisfaction Relationship - - - - - .68*** intimacy Sexual ------satisfaction ***p <0.001. UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 82

Table 4 Intercorrelations among the Continuous Demographic Variables, UCS Frequency, Hypothesized Moderators, and Outcomes Major study 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Variables

1 UCS ------frequency 2 Approach .36*** ------motivations 3 Avoidance .59*** .68*** ------motivations 4 Relationship -.38*** -.08 -.26*** ------quality 5 Mental health .43*** .28*** .52*** -.43*** ------symptoms 6 Well-being -.03 .23*** .01 .54** -.49*** ------Continuous demographic variables 7 Age -.11* -.17** -.29*** .05 .22*** .12* - - - - - 8 Age at first -.18** -.10+ -.21*** .09* -.19*** .00 .00 - - - - intercourse 9 # of sex -.14* -.17** -.12* .00 -.06+ .00 .19*** -.14*** - - - partners 10 Education .20** .26** .25** -.07 .01 .08* .04 .10** -.06 - - 11 Religiosity .22** .42** .37** .06 .09* .24** .09* -.06 -.07 .09* - + p < .10. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. ***p <0.001. UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 83 UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 84 UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 85

Table 7 ANOVA Results and Means and Standard Errors for Differences in Frequency of Unwanted Consensual Sex for the Categorical Demographic Variables Variable Mean Standard Error F Statistic Gender F(1,297) = 1.25 Female 35.49 3.14 Male 38.79 3.07 Race F(2,297) = 13.14*** White/Caucasiana 29.61 2.76

Black/African Americanb 52.12 4.49

Other racea 29.68 4.19 Sexual orientation F(1,297) = 26.98*** Straighta 27.62 2.71

Gay/Bisexual/Otherb 46.66 3.78 Partner for most recent episode of UCS F(1,297) = .53 Committed 35.34 2.74 Casual 38.94 4.44 Parenthood status F(1,297) = .31 No Yes Relationship status F(4,297) = 3.25* Single 43.61 6.40

Casually datingac 36.45 4.69

Committed not cohabitatingbc 31.42 4.66

Cohabitatingbc 30.85 4.24

Married or in a civil uniona 43.36 3.54 Note. Variables that do not share the same subscript are significantly different at p < 0.05. Bold font denotes a statistically significant effect at the p < .05 level. + p < .10. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. ***p <0.001 UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 86

Table 8 Means, Standard Deviations, and Skewness Statistics for the Major Study Variables

Skewness Variable N Mean SD Standard error of Statistic skewness UCS Frequency 308 26.82 27.82 1.19 .14 Mental health 704 0.00 .93 1.11 .09 symptoms Well-being 704 0.00 1.00 -1.29 .09

Relationship quality 694 0.00 .91 -1.02 .09 Approach 312 1.40 .79 .22 .14 motivations Avoidance 299 .81 .86 1.11 .14 motivations UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 87

Table 9 Main Effects of Frequency of UCS on Outcome Variables

Variable Mental health symptoms Well-being Relationship quality

B Se B β B Se B β B Se B β

UCS frequency .08 .02 .24*** -.02 .01 -.11+ -.11 .02 -.41***

Gendera -.02 .02 -.05 -.01 .01 .04 .00 .02 .01

Raceb -.03 .03 -.05 .00 .01 .00 -.01 .02 -.03

Orientationc .12 .03 .25*** -.02 .01 -.09 -.02 .02 -.07

Age .00 .00 -.19*** .00 .00 -.04 .00 .00 .07

Age at first .00 .00 -.04 .00 .00 .04 .00 .00 .02 intercourse

Education -.01 .01 -.09 .01 .00 .15* .00 .01 .00

Religiosity .01 .01 .04 .02 .00 .25*** .02 .01 .12*

Singled .05 .04 .06 -.05 .02 -.14* .06 .04 .08

Datinge -.03 .02 -.07 .00 .01 .00 .01 .02 .02

adj. R2= .21 adj. R2= .11 adj. R2= .17

Total Model F (10,297) = 9.432 F (10,297) = 4.957 F (10,288) = 6.895 p < .001 p < .001 p < .001 Note. Bold font denotes a statistically significant effect at the p < .05 level. a b c d Gender was coded as follows: 0 = female, 1 = male; Race was coded as follows: 1 = Black, 2 = Not Black; Sexual orientation was coded as follows: 0 = Heterosexual, 1 = Gay/Bisexual/Other; Single

e was coded as follows: 1 = Single, 2 = Other, reference group = Married; Dating was coded as follows: 1 = Dating, 2 = Other, comparison group = Married.

+ p < .10. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. ***p <0.001 UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 88

Table 10

Predicting Outcome Variables with Approach Motivations as the Hypothesized Moderator of UCS Frequency

Variable Mental health symptoms Well-being Relationship quality

B se t p B se t p B se t p

UCS frequency .08 .02 4.02** <.001 -.02 .01 -2.15* < .05 -.11 .02 -7.43*** < .001

Approach .03 .01 1.84+ .07 .02 .01 2.66** < .01 .03 .01 3.03** < .01 motivations UCS frequency x Approach .04 .02 1.71+ .09 .01 .01 1.08 .28 .03 .02 1.51 .13 motivations Gendera -.03 .02 -1.56 .12 .00 .01 .14 .89 -.01 .02 -.59 .56

Raceb -.01 .03 -.37 .71 .01 .01 .51 .61 .01 .02 .23 .82

Sexual .10 .03 4.08*** < .001 -.02 .01 -1.95 .05+ -.03 .02 -1.62 .11 orientationc

Age .00 .00 -3.40** < .001 .00 .00 1.50 .14 .00 .00 1.70 .09+

Age at first .00 .00 -.70 .48 .00 .00 -.72 .47 .00 .00 .50 .61 intercourse

Education -.01 .01 -1.96 .05+ .01 .00 2.17* <.05 .00 .01 -.51 .61

Religiosity .00 .01 -.12 .90 .01 .00 2.96** <.01 .01 .01 .84 .40

Singled .05 .04 1.04 .30 -.05 .02 -2.58* < .05 .05 .04 1.30 .20

Datinge -.02 .02 -1.11 .27 .00 .01 .14 .89 .01 .02 .52 .60

R2= 0.26 R2 = .17 R2 = .23 Total Model F (12,295) = 8.53 F (12,295) = 4.92 F (12,286) = 6.92 p < .001 p < .001 p < .001 Note. Bold font denotes a statistically significant effect at the p < .05 level. a b c d Gender was coded as follows: 0 = female, 1 = male; Race was coded as follows: 1 = Black, 2 = Not Black; Sexual orientation was coded as follows: 0 = Heterosexual, 1 = Gay/Bisexual/Other; Single

e was coded as follows: 1 = Single, 2 = Other, reference group = Married; Dating was coded as follows: 1 = Dating, 2 = Other, comparison group = Married.

+p < .10 *p < 0.05. ** p < .01. ***p < .001. UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 89

Table 11 Predicting Outcome Variables with Avoidance Motivations as the Hypothesized Moderator of UCS Frequency

Variable Mental health symptoms Well-being Relationship quality

B se t p B se t p B se t p

UCS frequency .05 .02 2.30* < .05 .00 .01 -.33 .74 -.08 .02 -4.56 < .001

Avoidance .11 .02 4.54*** < .001 -.03 .01 -3.03** < .01 -.09 .02 -4.37 <. 001 motivations UCS frequency x avoidance .07 .04 1.95+ .05 .03 .02 1.78+ .08 .04 .03 1.49 .13 motivations

Gendera -.05 .02 -2.53* < .05 .01 .01 1.43 .15 .02 .02 1.30 .19

Raceb .01 .03 .29 .77 -.01 .01 -.41 .68 -.03 .02 -1.14 .25

Sexual .09 .03 3.66*** < .001 -.02 .01 -1.47 .14 -.02 .02 -.94 .35 orientationc

Age .00 .00 -2.24* < .05 .00 .00 .16 .87 .00 .00 -.09 .93

Age at first .00 .00 -.87 .39 .00 .00 -.34 .73 .00 .00 .81 .42 intercourse

Education -.01 .01 -2.01* < .05 .01 .00 2.76** < .01 .00 .01 .16 .87

Religiosity -.01 .01 -.95 .34 .02 .00 4.84*** < .001 .03 .01 3.36 < .001

Singled .06 .04 1.53 .12 -.05 .02 -2.66** < .01 .04 .04 1.04 .30

Datinge -.02 .02 -.95 .34 .00 .01 .02 .98 .01 .02 .34 .73

R2= 0.30 R2 = .17 R2 = .25 Total Model F (12,295) = 10.53 F (12,295) = 5.28 F (12,286) = 7.88 p < .001 p < .001 p < .001 Note. Bold font denotes a statistically significant effect at the p < .05 level. a b c d Gender was coded as follows: 0 = female, 1 = male; Race was coded as follows: 1 = Black, 2 = Not Black; Sexual orientation was coded as follows: 0 = Heterosexual, 1 = Gay/Bisexual/Other; Single

e was coded as follows: 1 = Single, 2 = Other, comparison group = Married; Dating was coded as follows: 1 = Dating, 2 = Other, comparison group = Married.

+p < .10 *p < 0.05. ** p < .01. ***p < .001. UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 90

APPENDIX B. FIGURES

Figure 1 Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis for the Modified Unwanted Consensual Sex Motivations Scale

Note. Reported values represent standardized regression coefficients. All estimates are significant at p < .001. UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 91

Figure 2

Measurement Model of Motivations for Unwanted Consensual Sex UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 92

Figure 3 Marginally Significant Interaction of UCS Frequency and Approach Motivations Predicting Mental Health Symptoms

0.45

b = .11** 0.4

b = .08** 0.35 b = .05+

0.3

0.25 Low Approach

0.2 Avg Approach High Approach

Mental Health Health Symptoms Mental 0.15

0.1

0.05

0 Low Frequency Avg Frequency High Frequency Frequency of Unwanted Consensual Sex

+p < .10 *p < 0.05. ** p < .01. ***p < .001. UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 93

Figure 4 Marginally Significant Interaction of UCS Frequency and Avoidance Motivations Predicting Mental Health Symptoms

0.45 b = .09** 0.4

0.35 b = .05*

0.3

b = .01 0.25 Low Avoidance

0.2 Avg Avoidance High Avoidance

Mental Health Health Symptoms Mental 0.15

0.1

0.05

0 Low Frequency Avg Frequency High Frequency Frequency of Unwanted Consensual Sex

+p < .10 *p < 0.05. ** p < .01. ***p < .001. UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 94

Figure 5 Marginally Significant Interaction of UCS Frequency and Avoidance Motivations Predicting Well-Being

0.35

0.3

b = -.02 b < -.01 0.25 b = .01

0.2 being -

Well 0.15

0.1 Low Avoidance Avg Avoidance 0.05 High Avoidance

0 Low Frequency Avg Frequency High Frequency Frequency of Unwanted Consensual Sex

+p < .10 *p < 0.05. ** p < .01. ***p < .001. UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 95

APPENDIX C. MTURK RECRUITMENT SCRIPT

MTurk HIT Description: We are conducting an academic survey about the experiences of adults in intimate relationships.

MTurk HIT Key Words: Academic Survey, Relationships, Intimate Relationships, Sexual Experiences

MTurk HIT Instructions: Researchers at Bowling Green State University are interested in examining the experiences and behaviors of adults (ages 18 and up) in intimate relationships, with a particular focus on sexual relationships. We are interested in understanding how certain behaviors and experiences may be related to the intimate relationships of adults. To participate, you must be an English-speaking adult (at least 18years of age) living in the United States who has been sexually active in the past 12 months. Eligible participants will be compensated $1.00 for their time. The survey will take about 15-20 minutes to complete. After entering a randomized code received at the end of the survey, payment will be delivered to your MTurk account within seven days. UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 96

APPENDIX D. INFORMED CONSENT

Project Title: Adult Relationships Study

KEY INFORMATION

Eligibility: To participate, you must meet the following criteria: 1) be at least 18 years old 2) speak English 3) live in the United States 4) have been sexually active in the past year.

Description: (a) Purpose: The purpose of this study is to explore a range of experiences and behaviors among adults. A focus of this research is on intimate relationships, particularly sexual experiences. (b) Time Commitment: Your participation will involve completing an online survey that should take about 15-20 minutes to finish. (c) Tasks: You will be asked questions about your experiences with sex and relationships, as well as individual experiences. You will also be asked questions about your gender and sexual orientation. Please answer as honestly as possible; there are no right or wrong answers. Your responses will be anonymous. There will be no way for researchers to identify you through your answers because no names are linked with the surveys.

Potential Risks: The risks of participating are expected to be no greater than those you would normally encounter in your daily life.

Benefits & Incentives: Benefits: We hope to use our findings to teach us more about adults’ intimate relationships. This can help us find ways to increase benefits and reduce risks of behaviors and experiences in intimate relationships. Incentives: As an MTurk worker, you will receive $1.00 [U.S.]. Only those who reach the survey through MTurk will be paid for participating. Only those who are eligible for the survey, complete the entire survey, and pass data checks will be paid for participating.

OTHER INFORMATION

Privacy, Confidentiality, & Data Security: Your answers are anonymous and will be used only for research purposes. The survey you fill out will be labeled with a random number. The number will not be linked with your name or other information that could identify you. Answers from the study will be kept on a password protected computer and will only be seen by the researchers. If data from this study are published, they will never include your name, identifying information, or your individual answers. A report will only include a summary of data from all participants. If you complete the survey using a device owned or controlled by your employer, please be aware of the possibility that your employer may monitor your responses. We recommend that you do not leave the online survey open or unattended if taking it on a public computer. We suggest that you clear the browser history and cache when finished with the survey. UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 97

Voluntariness & Right to Withdraw: Your participation in this study is voluntary, and you can choose not to answer any question without penalty. You are free to withdraw consent and end the study at any time. You may do so by clicking the X at the top right-hand corner of your computer window to exit the survey. However, you will not be paid unless you fully complete the survey. You have the right to have all questions answered by the researcher and may ask for a copy of the results of the study.

Your Relationship with BGSU: Deciding to participate or not will not affect your standing with Bowling Green State University.

Researcher Information: Maren Froemming, M.A. Department of Psychology at Bowling Green State University.

Contact Information: If you have any questions or comments about this study, you may contact Maren Froemming by phone at 419-372-4398 or by email at [email protected]. You may also contact the research advisor for this project, Eric Dubow, by phone at 419-372-2556 or email at [email protected]. You may contact the Chair of the Institutional Review Board by phone at 419-372-7716 or by email at [email protected] if you have any questions about your rights as a participant.

CONSENT

Completing this online survey indicates your voluntary consent to participate in this research study. You may refuse to participate or withdraw your consent and stop participating at any time without penalty (however you will not receive payment if you do not complete the entire survey). If you are eligible to participate and wish to give your consent, please select the response option below and click on the “Next” button; you will then be directed to the survey. If you prefer not to participate, please close the browser window now by clicking the X at the top right hand corner.

____I have read the informed consent, I am 18 years or older and I agree to participate in the study (This box is required to continue. By clicking the “Next” button below, you are indicating your informed consent.). UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 98

APPENDIX E. DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE

1. What is your age? (Open Ended, with a limitation on entering a 2-digit number)

2. What sex were you assigned at birth, on your original birth certificate? a. Female b. Male

3. What is your current gender identity? a. Female b. Male c. Transgender d. Gender queer/Gender non-conforming e. Different identity (please write in) f. I do not feel comfortable choosing any of these options.

3a. (NOTE: For those who pick a gender identity outside of male and female) Some of the items on our survey are related to societal gender norms. For this reason, we have created a male and a female version of the survey. Please feel free to choose the gender that you think would be the most relevant for these types of items below. a. Female b. Male c. I do not feel comfortable choosing either of these gender options.

4. Do you think of yourself as: a. Straight b. Gay or lesbian c. Bisexual d. Not listed (please write in)

5. Race/Ethnicity (check all that apply): a. White/Caucasian b. Black/African American c. Asian d. Hispanic/Latino e. Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander f. Middle Eastern/ North African g. Native American/Alaskan Native h. Other (Please write in):

6. What is the highest degree or level of schooling you have completed? (If you’re currently enrolled in school, please indicate the highest degree you have received) a. No formal schooling b. Less than a high school diploma c. High school degree or equivalent UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 99

d. Post high school trade/technical/vocational training e. Associate degree f. Bachelor’s degree g. Master’s degree h. Professional degree i. Doctorate degree

7. To what extent do you consider yourself a spiritual or religious person? a. Very spiritual/religious b. Slightly spiritual/religious c. Moderately spiritual/religious d. Not spiritual/religious at all

8. Which of the following best describes your relationship status? a. Married or in a civil union b. Cohabitating (living with partner, not married or in a civil union) c. In a committed relationship but not living together d. Casually dating e. Single f. Other

9. Do you have biological, adopted, foster, or stepchildren? a. Yes b. No

10. Were you born in the United States? a. Yes b. No

11. Do you currently live in the United States? a. Yes b. No

12. How long have you lived in the United States? (Open-ended, requiring a number, displayed only for participants choosing No for being born in United States and Yes for currently living in United States)

13. Approximately how many sexual partners have you had? (Open-ended, requiring a number) UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 100

APPENDIX F. SEXUAL EXPERIENCE DEMOGRAPHICS QUESTIONNAIRE

Instructions: We will now be asking you some questions about your sexual experiences. There are no right or wrong answers; please answer as openly as honestly as possible. Remember that your answers are completely anonymous and will not be associated with your name or other identifying information about you.

1. At what age did you first engage in sexual intercourse? If you have never had intercourse, please enter 0. (Open Ended, with a limitation on entering a 2-digit number)

2. Approximately how many sexual partners have you had? (Open-ended, requiring a number) UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 101

APPENDIX G. ATTENTION CHECK ITEMS

1. For this question, please select four for your answer.

2. For this question, please select disagree for your answer. UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 102

APPENDIX H. UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX: PREVALENCE AND FREQUENCY

ITEMS

1. Have you been sexually active in the past year? a. Yes b. No

Instructions: Now we will ask you to think about situations where you consented (either with your words or actions) to sexual activity even though you did not want to. This does not include situations where you were coerced/pressured by your partner to consent or where you were too drunk or high to consent.

2. In the past year, have you consented to sexual activity even though you did not want to… a. With a committed partner? (Yes/No) b. With a casual partner? (Yes/No)

(If yes to the options above, participants received the rest of the UCS survey. It was routed for their type of partner and their gender identified in the beginning of the demographics.)

3. In the past year, how many times have you consented to sexual activity even though you did not want to with (previously named partner/s). (Displayed only to those who answered Yes to whether they have consented a committed partner to sexual activity in the last year even though they did not want to) a. Never b. Once or twice c. Every few months d. About once a month e. Every few weeks f. Almost every week g. Almost every day

4. Out of all of your sexual encounters with (previously named partner/s) that you have had in the past year, approximately how often have you consented to sexual activity even though you did not want to? (Answered using sliding bar from 0 to 100 UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 103

APPENDIX I. UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX MOTIVATIONS SCALE

1. For the next set of questions, think about the last time that you consented to sexual activity even though you did not want to. Who was this with? a. A committed partner? b. A casual partner?

Instructions: Please answer the following questions about the last time you consented to unwanted sexual activity with (insert partner indicated above). Please indicate how important on a scale of 1-4 (with 1 being NOT important and 4 being VERY important) each of the following factors was in your decision to consent to sexual activity even though you did not want to. (Answer Choices) Not Important, Slightly Important, Important, Very Important

Subscales Partner Approval/Influence (Entire sample) 1. I didn’t want to disappoint my partner 2. I didn’t want my partner to feel rejected 3. I didn’t want to hurt my partner’s feelings 4. I would feel guilty if I said no 5. I wanted to make my partner happy 6. I felt an obligation to fulfill my partner’s sexual needs

Fear of Reaction (Entire sample) 7. I wanted to avoid an argument or tension 8. I was afraid my partner would become angry if I said no 9. I was afraid my partner would become verbally aggressive if I said no (e.g., yelling, insulting) 10. I was afraid my partner would become physically aggressive if I said no (e.g., hitting me, choking me, etc.) 11. I was afraid my partner would not stop even if I said no

Increased commitment (Entire sample) 12. I wanted to feel closer to my partner 13. I wanted more commitment out of the relationship 14. I wanted to take the relationship to the next level 15. I wanted to feel a deeper connection to my partner 16. I wanted to express my love to my partner

Peer Influence (Entire sample) 17. All of my friends are sexually active 18. I wanted to have a story to share or something to contribute when talking to my friends 19. I wanted to fit in 20. I wanted to gain sexual experience

Physical Pleasure (Entire sample) UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 104

21. I wanted to feel physical pleasure 22. I wanted a release or to relax 23. I was sexually aroused 24. I was feeling horny 25. I wanted to have an orgasm

Reciprocity (Entire sample) 26. I wanted to reward my partner for a non-sexual act 27. I wanted to show my partner I appreciated something they did 28. I was hoping to get something non-sexual in return 29. My partner has done/would do the same for me 30. It was a special occasion

Hidden Intentions (Entire Sample) 31. I wanted to hide something (e.g., my sexual orientation, my true feelings or intentions toward my partner, my cheating/affair, my feelings toward someone else, my intentions to end the relationship, etc.)

Normative Beliefs (Female version) 32. That’s what women do for their sexual partners 33. They talked to me all night or bought me dinner/ drinks 34. When men are aroused, it is impossible for them to stop themselves 35. I didn’t want to be a tease 36. Women are supposed to be sexual 37. I didn’t want to be a prude

Normative Beliefs (Male version) 38. That’s what men do for their sexual partners 39. Having sex proves that you are a real man 40. Men shouldn’t pass up an opportunity to have sex 41. I didn’t want to be seen as a wuss 42. Men should always be in the mood for sex 43. I was trying to help a friend get laid (e.g. taking one for the team)

Other (Entire sample) (allow write-in)

(Follow up question) How similar are your motivations from this one time to your motivations for consenting to sexual activity even when you didn’t want to in general? (Answer choices) very different (1), somewhat different, somewhat similar, very similar, the same UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 105

APPENDIX J. QUALIFYING QUESTIONS FOR RELATIONSHIP-SPECIFIC OUTCOMES

1. Are you still involved in a sexual relationship with this partner? (Displayed only to those who answered that they have consented to sexual activity even though they did not want to a committed partner OR a casual partner) • Yes • No

If participants answered yes, they were sexual satisfaction questions; if no, given 1a follow-up question.

1a. Are you currently involved in a sexual relationship? • Yes • No

If participants answered no, they were not given sexual satisfaction questions.

2. Are you currently involved in a romantic relationship (committed or not) with this partner? (Displayed only to those who answered that they have consented to sexual activity even though they did not want to a committed partner OR a casual partner) • Yes • No

If participants answered yes, they were relationship questions; if no, given 2a follow- up question.

2a. Are you currently involved in a romantic (committed or not) relationship? (if no, skip relationship questions) • Yes • No

If participants answered no, they were not given relationship questions. UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 106

APPENDIX K. COUPLES SATISFACTION INDEX – 16

Instructions: Earlier you indicated that you were still in a romantic relationship with the person you consented to sexual activity with even though you didn't want to. Please answer the following questions about your romantic relationship with that partner. (Displayed if participants answered yes to“Are you still in a romantic relationship (committed or not) with this partner?”)

Earlier you indicated that you are currently in a romantic relationship. Please answer the following questions about that relationship. If you are in more than one romantic relationship, please choose the relationship that is the most important to you at this time. (Displayed if participants answered yes to“Are you currently involved in any romantic relationship (committed or not)?”)

1. Please indicate the degree of happiness, all things considered, of your relationship. (0) Extremely Unhappy (1) Fairly Unhappy (2) A Little Unhappy (3) Happy (4) Very Happy (5) Extremely Happy (6) Perfect

2. In general, how often do you think that things between you and your partner are going well? (5) All the time (4) Most of the time (3) More often than not (2) Occasionally (1) Rarely (0) Never

(Answer choices for 3-6) (0) Not at all true (1) A little true (2) somewhat true (3) Mostly true (4) Almost completely true (5) Completely true

3. Our relationship is strong 4. My relationship with my partner makes me happy 5. I have a warm and comfortable relationship with my partner 6. I really feel like part of a team with my partner

(Answer choices for 7-10) (0) Not at all (1) A little (2) Somewhat (3) mostly (4) almost completely (5) Completely 7. How rewarding is your relationship with your partner? 8. How well does your partner meet your needs? 9. To what extent has your relationship met your original expectations? 10. In general, how satisfied are you with your relationship?

(Instructions for 11-16) For each of the following items, select the answer that best describes how you feel about your relationship. Base your responses on your first impressions and immediate feelings about the item.

11. Interesting 5 4 3 2 1 0 Boring 12. Bad 0 1 2 3 4 5 Good UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 107

13. Full 5 4 3 2 1 0 Empty 14. Sturdy 5 4 3 2 1 0 Fragile 15. Discouraging 0 1 2 3 4 5 Hopeful 16. Enjoyable 5 4 3 2 1 0 Miserable UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 108

APPENDIX L. PAIR EMOTIONAL INTIMACY SUBSCALE

Instructions: For each of the following items, please select the answer that best describes how you feel about your relationship.

Answer choices: (4) Completely true (2) Mostly true (2) Somewhat true (1) Mostly untrue (0) Not at all true

1. My partner listens to me when I need someone to talk to. 2. I can state my feelings without him/her getting defensive 3. I often feel distant from my partner (reverse coded) 4. My partner can really understand my hurts and joys 5. I feel neglected at times by my partner (reverse coded) 6. I sometimes feel lonely when we’re together (reverse coded) UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 109

APPENDIX M. GLOBAL MEASURE OF SEXUAL SATISFACTION

Instructions: Earlier you indicated that you were still in a sexual relationship with the person you consented to sexual activity with even though you didn't want to. Please answer the following questions about your romantic relationship with that partner. (Displayed if participants answered yes to“Are you still in a sexual relationship (committed or not) with this partner?”)

Earlier you indicated that you are currently in a sexual relationship. Please answer the following questions about that relationship. If you are in more than one sexual relationship, please choose the relationship that is the most important to you at this time. (Displayed if participants answered yes to“Are you currently involved in any sexual relationship (committed or not)?”)

Overall, how would you describe your sexual relationship with your partner?

1. Good 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Bad

2. Pleasant 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Unpleasant

3. Positive 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Negative

4. Satisfying 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Unsatisfying

5. Valuable 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Worthless UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 110

APPENDIX N. FLOURISHING SCALE

Instructions: Below are eight statements with which you may agree or disagree. Using the 1-7 scale below, indicate your agreement with each item by indicating that response for each statement. Answer choices: (1) Strongly disagree, (2) Disagree, (3) Slightly disagree, (4) Mixed or neither agree nor disagree, (5) Slightly agree, (6) Agree, (7) Strongly agree

1. I lead a purposeful and meaningful life. 2. My social relationships are supportive and rewarding. 3. I am engaged and interested in my daily activities. 4. I actively contribute to the happiness and well-being of others. 5. I am competent and capable in the activities that are important to me. 6. I am a good person and live a god life. 7. I am optimistic about my future. 8. People respect me. UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 111

APPENDIX O. PATIENT HEALTH QUESTIONNAIRE - 9

Instructions: Over the last two weeks, how often have you been bothered by any of the following problems?

Answer choices: (0) Not at all, (1) Several days, (2) More than half the days, (3) Nearly every day

1. Little interest or pleasure in doing things 2. Feeling down, depressed, or hopeless 3. Trouble fallings or staying asleep, or sleeping too much 4. Feeling tired or having little energy 5. Poor appetite or overeating 6. Feeling bad about yourself – or that you are a failure or have let yourself or your family down 7. Trouble concentrating on things, such as reading the newspaper or watching television 8. Moving or speaking so slowly that other people could have noticed? Or the opposite – being so fidgety or restless that you have been moving around a lot more than usual? UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 112

APPENDIX P. GENERALIZED ANXIETY DISORDER - 7

Instructions: Over the last two weeks, how often have you been bothered by any of the following problems?

Answer choices: (0) Not at all, (1) Several days, (2) More than half the days, (3) Nearly every day

1. Feeling nervous, anxious, or on edge 2. Not being able to stop or control worrying 3. Worrying too much about different things 4. Trouble relaxing 5. Being so restless that it’s hard to sit still 6. Becoming easily annoyed or irritable 7. Feeling afraid as if something awful might happen UNWANTED CONSENSUAL SEX 113

APPENDIX Q. SOMATIC SYMPTOM SCALE – 8

Instructions: Over the last two weeks, how often have you been bothered by any of the following problems?

Answer choices: (0) Not at all, (1) Several days, (2) More than half the days, (3) Nearly every day

1. Stomach or bowel problems 2. Back pain 3. Pain in your arms, legs, or joins 4. Headaches 5. Chest pain or shortness of breath 6. Dizziness 7. Feeling tired or having low energy 8. Trouble sleeping