College Women's Experience of Verbal Sexual Coercion and Responses to a Sexual Assault Vignette Vol. 14/2020

DOI: 10.4119/ijcv-3945

IJCV: Vol. 14/2020 College Women’s Experience of Verbal Sexual Coercion and Responses to a Sexual Assault Vignette

Marta Garrido-Macíasi [email protected] Inmaculada Valor-Seguraii [email protected] Barbara Krahéiii [email protected] Francisca Expósitoii [email protected]

iUniversity of Alicante, Spain iiUniversity of Granada, Spain iiiUniversity of Potsdam, Germany

Vol. 14/2020

The IJCV provides a forum for scientific exchange and public dissemination of up-to-date scientific knowledge on conflict and violence. The IJCV is independent, peer reviewed, open access, and included in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) as well as other rele- vant databases (e.g., SCOPUS, EBSCO, ProQuest, DNB). The topics on which we concentrate—conflict and violence—have always been central to various disciplines. Consequently, the journal encompasses contributions from a wide range of disciplines, including criminology, economics, education, ethnology, history, political science, psychology, social anthropology, sociology, the study of reli- gions, and urban studies. All articles are gathered in yearly volumes, identified by a DOI with article-wise pagi- nation. For more information please visit www.ijcv.or g Suggested Citation: APA: Garrido-Macías, M., Valor-Segura, I., Krahé, B., Expósito, F. (2020). College women’s experience of verbal sexual coercion and responses to a sexual assault vignette. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 14, 1-15. doi: 10.4119/ijcv-3945 Harvard: Garrido-Macías, Marta, Valor-Segura, Inmaculada, Krahé, Barbara, Expósito, Francisca. 2020. College Women’s Experience of Verbal Sexual Coercion and Responses to a Sexual Assault Vignette. International Journal of Conflict and Violence 14: 1-15. doi: 10.4119/ijcv-3945

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution—NoDerivatives License. ISSN: 1864–1385 IJCV: Vol. 14/2020 Garrido-Macías, Valor-Segura, Krahé, Expósito: College Women’s Experience of Verbal Sexual Coercion and 1 Responses to a Sexual Assault Vignettee

College Women’s Experience of Verbal Sexual Coercion and Responses to a Sexual Assault Vignette

Marta Garrido-Macíasi Inmaculada Valor-Seguraii Barbara Krahéiii Francisca Expósitoii

iUniversity of Alicante, Spain iiUniversity of Granada, Spain iiiUniversity of Potsdam, Germany

Sexual aggression is one of the most humiliating forms of gender-based violence and may profoundly affect victims’ physical, mental, and sexual health. This research analyzed the role of previous experiences of sexual coercion by an intimate partner on women’s behavioral, cognitive, and emotional responses to a video clip showing a sexual assault involving a couple. Spanish college women with (N = 63) and without (N = 77) experience of sexual coercion indicated the point at which they would leave the situation (response latency), the probability of terminating the relationship if they were the woman in the video, attributions of responsibility to victim and perpetrator, and their emotional state. Victims were less likely to say they would terminate the relationship and reported more negative emotions than did nonvictims, but no differences were found on the response latency and attribution measures. Overall, the results suggest that previous sexual coercion may be related to women’s behavioral and emotional responses to situations involving the threat of sexual victimization.

Keywords: Sexual coercion, victimization, perception of sexual assault risk, attributions of responsibility, negative emotions

Acknowledgement: This research was supported by a grant from the Spanish Ministry of Education to the first author [Ref.FPU14-02905], and the financing provided by the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Com- petitiveness [Ref.PSI2017-84703-R; Ref. PSI-2017-83966-R (MINECO/AEI/FEDER/UE)].

Sexual coercion is a manifestation of male aggression mors, showing displeasure, or getting angry (Koss et against women that is especially frequent in intimate al. 2007; Smith et al. 2018). relationships (Edwards et al. 2014; Smith et al. 2017). Sexual coercion is more common than may be For the purposes of this research, the term of sexual widely recognized. In a study from the United States, coercion is used to refer to an unwanted sexual activ- 13.2 percent of women reported having experienced ity that occurs after a person is pressured in a non- one or more incidents of nonphysical sexual coercion physical way, for example by telling lies, using persist- at some point in their lifetime, and in 74.7 percent of ent verbal pressure to have sex, making false prom- cases, the perpetrator was a current or former partner ises, threatening to end the relationship or spread ru- (Smith et al. 2017). A very similar prevalence for verbal sexual coercion of 13.3 percent was found IJCV: Vol. 14/2020 Garrido-Macías, Valor-Segura, Krahé, Expósito: College Women’s Experience of Verbal Sexual Coercion and 2 Responses to a Sexual Assault Vignettee across nine European countries, with the rate for vignette about a date-rape interaction. Several other Spain being 15.7 percent (Krahé et al. 2015). Another studies suggest that women with sexual victimization Spanish study found a prevalence rate of 19.1 percent histories are less likely than nonvictimized women to (Santos-Iglesias and Sierra 2012). identify threat and decide they would leave the sexu- Despite a large body of evidence on the con- ally aggressive situation (Gidycz, McNamara, and Ed- sequences of sexual victimization (for example, wards 2006; Messman-Moore and Brown 2006; Frank- Brown, Testa, and Messman-Moore 2009), not much is lin 2013; Haugen, Salter, and Philipps 2019; Neilson et known about the relationship between the experience al. 2018). of sexual coercion and the recognition of risky situ- How previous experience of sexual victimization in- ations, especially in interactions with intimate part- fluences the decision to terminate a relationship may ners. Such knowledge is important because impaired also be considered as a measure of risk response, even risk awareness is thought to play a critical role in the though it is more far-reaching than deciding to leave risk of revictimization, whether within the same rela- a specific risky situation and implies a greater degree tionship or in a new one. The current study sought to of conscious reflection. A small number of studies address this gap. We examined whether women’s be- have found that prior experience of sexual coercion by havioral, cognitive, and emotional responses to a an intimate partner predicted a lower probability of scenario involving the risk of sexual assault by an in- terminating the relationship in hypothetical scenarios timate partner varied in relation to two factors: previ- (for example if the partner had been unfaithful; Ar- ous experience of sexual coercion by an intimate part- riaga, Capezza, and Daly 2016; Garrido-Macías and ner, and increasing severity of sexual violence as the Arriaga 2020). experimental situation unfolds. Behavioral responses Experience of sexual victimization has also been were measured by the time the women took to decide linked to the level of attribution of responsibility to they would leave the situation and probably termin- other victims (Miller, Amacker, and King 2011). In line ate the relationship, cognitive responses were as- with the defensive attribution hypothesis (Shaver sessed in terms of attributions of responsibility to the 1970), women who had experienced sexual assault perpetrator and the victim, and emotional responses perceived greater similarity to the victim and less sim- were measured on the valence and control dimen- ilarity to the perpetrator than did nonvictimized wo- sions. men, leading to less responsibility attributed to the victim and more responsibility attributed to the per- 1 Previous Experience of Sexual Assault and petrator (Grubb and Harrower 2008; Osman 2011; Perceptions of Rape Amacker and Littleton 2013). Miller et al. (2011) found A large body of literature has addressed the effect of that a history of sexual assault predicted lower victim sexual assault experiences on the increased risk of be- responsibility attributions mediated through greater ing victimized again (revictimization), and impaired perceived similarity to the victim. risk perception has been identified as a critical medi- Finally, the experience of sexual victimization may ating variable in explaining this link (see reviews by have an impact on emotional responses to sexually Decker and Littleton 2018; Rinehart and Yeater 2015). risky situations. Abundant research has analyzed the A few studies have compared victims’ and nonvictims’ relationship between sexual victimization and emo- awareness of the threat of sexual assault in vignettes tional outcomes, showing that victims of sexual ag- with a hypothetical partner, finding that victimized gression experience more negative affect, emotional women take longer to recognize the point at which a distress, anxiety, anger, frustration, sadness, and dis- sexual situation turns risky and it would be time to gust than women who had not suffered sexual aggres- leave. For example, Soler-Baillo, Marx, and Sloan sion (Livingston et al. 2004; Mason and Lodrick 2013; (2005) found that college women with sexual victimiz- Jeffrey 2014). For example, Soler-Baillo et al. (2005) ation experiences took longer to realize that a man’s found that victims of sexual assault experienced less behavior became sexually inappropriate in an audio positive-valence affect after a vignette about a date- IJCV: Vol. 14/2020 Garrido-Macías, Valor-Segura, Krahé, Expósito: College Women’s Experience of Verbal Sexual Coercion and 3 Responses to a Sexual Assault Vignettee rape interaction than did nonvictims. These emotions thetical) abusive relationship (Yeater, McFall, and associated with sexual victimization could make wo- Viken 2011; Garrido-Macías et al. 2020). For example, men less willing to acknowledge and use emotions as Yeater et al. (2011) reported that women’s response cues that signal the need to escape, undermining risk effectiveness increased when vignettes of situations awareness (Magar, Phillips, and Hosie 2008; Walsh, that carried the risk of sexual assault became increas- DiLillo, and Messman-Moore 2012). ingly violent, but the increase was less pronounced in To our knowledge, no research to date has specific- victimized than in nonvictimized women. Similarly, ally examined how prior experience of sexual coercion research has demonstrated that more responsibility is by an intimate partner relates to women’s responses attributed to the victim, less responsibility is attrib- to hypothetical sexually risky situations. The literat- uted to the perpetrator, and a greater probability of ure closest to this area has found that sexual coercion continuing the relationship is reported for verbal is perceived negatively, unless a woman has personal sexual coercion than for physical force (Katz, Moore, reasons to reinterpret or minimize the harmful beha- and Tkachuk 2007; Edwards et al. 2012; Garrido- vior of the other person (Arriaga et al. 2018). Accord- Macías et al. 2020; Garrido-Macías and Arriaga 2020). ing to Betrayal Trauma Theory (Freyd 2020), victims of Further, research has shown that the perceived in- sexual assault by their intimate partners remember crease in the severity of violence is related to more and process the sexual transgression differently from negative emotional reactions (Ullman et al. 2007). For transgressions involving betrayal by individuals with example, Jeffrey (2014) demonstrated that more force- whom victims do not have such a close connection ful tactics of sexual aggression used by the partner (Gobin and Freyd 2017; Klest, Tamaian, and Boughner were associated with more negative emotional reac- 2019). Based on this reasoning, betrayal trauma the- tions. ory can offer a framework to explain why victims of partner sexual coercion may be less perceptive of 3 The Current Study partner sexual assault than nonvictims, as indicated The current study integrated findings from several by impaired risk awareness and response. lines of research, summarized above, to analyze the Many studies about the influence of sexual victimiz- role of experiences of sexual coercion by an intimate ation experiences on perceptions of sexual assault partner and the increasing severity of sexual violence have grouped together subjects who had experienced in a sexually risky scenario (with a hypothetical part- physical and verbal sexual coercion (for example, ner) in predicting women’s responses to the incident. Soler-Baillo et al. 2005; Messman-Moore and Brown In contrast to previous studies that used written or 2006; Haugen et al. 2019). However, because women audiotaped scenarios (Soler-Baillo et al. 2005; Mess- tend to normalize experiences of verbal sexual coer- man-Moore and Brown 2006; Franklin 2013; Haugen cion (Katz and Tirone 2010; Salwen and O’Leary 2013), et al. 2019), we decided to employ a film clip to in- and to perceive these forms of violence less negatively crease the realism of the simulated threat situation. than physical forms (Brown et al. 2009; Garrido- Specifically, we predicted in Hypothesis 1 that Macías, Valor-Segura and Expósito 2020), the current women who experienced one or more instances of research aimed to analyze how the experience of non- sexual coercion by an intimate partner would have physical sexual coercion relates to behavioral, cognit- more difficulties recognizing a sexual assault risk than ive, and emotional responses to a sexually risky situ- nonvictims, as indicated by a longer latency for iden- ation. tifying the point at which they would leave the situation and a lower probability of terminating the rela- 2 Increase in the Severity of Sexual Violence tionship (Arriaga et al. 2016; Decker and Littleton The literature indicates that a perceived increase in 2018). According to the information-processing model the severity of coercive means is related to women’s proposed by Rinehart and Yeater (2015), deciding decision to leave a hypothetical situation involving when to leave the situation reflects the first stage of the risk of sexual violence and to terminate a (hypo- risk perception at which environmental stimuli are in- IJCV: Vol. 14/2020 Garrido-Macías, Valor-Segura, Krahé, Expósito: College Women’s Experience of Verbal Sexual Coercion and 4 Responses to a Sexual Assault Vignettee terpreted based on individual experience. Indicating 4 Method the probability of terminating the relationship with a 4.1 Participants and Design sexually aggressive partner reflects the second stage Participants were 150 students at a Spanish university of the model, involving decisions about what skills are who self-identified as female and were enrolled in needed to reduce or avoid future risk. different academic subjects. They were invited to par- At the level of cognitive and emotional responses, ticipate in a study about intimate relationships, in we predicted that victims, compared to nonvictims, which the purpose was to inquire about conflict reso- would attribute more responsibility to the perpetrator lution, emotions, and decision-making, and received and less responsibility to the victim (Hypothesis 2a) course credit for their participation. The sample size and would experience more negative emotions (Hy- was determined a priori by a power analysis to detect 2 pothesis 2b). Based on the proposition in Hypothesis 1 a moderate effect size [η p = .06], with α =.05 and a that victims have a higher threshold for interpreting a power of 80 percent; Faul et al. 2007). Participants’ situation as risky, the two parts of Hypothesis 2 as- mean age was M = 21.18 years (SD = 3.03), and 86.7 sume that victims would be more likely to blame the percent self-identified as heterosexual, 4.7 percent as perpetrator and less likely to blame the victim once homosexual, and 8 percent as bisexual. Regarding re- they have concluded that the situation involves the lationship status, 64 percent were in a relationship risk of a sexual assault. Victims are likely to feel more (mean duration: M = 28.75 months, SD = 32.83 similar to the woman in the video compared to non- months) at the time of the study. Based on their re- victims, reducing the tendency of victim blaming sponses to the Sexual Coercion in Intimate Relation- (Miller et al. 2011). Observing another woman experi- ships Scale (SCIRS; Shackelford and Goetz 2004), a encing sexual coercion may remind them their own categorical variable of sexual coercion experience was victimization and trigger more negative emotional re- defined: Women who did not report any sexual coer- sponses compared to nonvictims (Soler-Baillo et al. cion or physical sexual assault were classified as non- 2005). In combination, Hypotheses 1 and 2 predict a victims (N = 77). Women who endorsed at least one main effect of victim status. item of (nonphysical) sexual coercion, but no item re- Further, we predicted a main effect of severity: as ferring to physical violence, were classified as victims severity of violence increased participants would at- of intimate partner sexual coercion (N = 63). Ten tribute more responsibility to the perpetrator and less women who reported at least one physical form of responsibility to the victim (Hypothesis 3a) and would sexual assault (regardless of whether they had suf- experience more negative emotions (Hypothesis 3b). fered verbal sexual coercion or not) were excluded, Again, the increased use of coercive behavior by the leading to a final sample size of N = 140 (see detailed perpetrator may be seen as clarifying for the partici- description below). pants that a sexual assault is happening, reducing vic- The study was a two (previous sexual coercion: victim-blaming and increasing negative emotional re- tims vs. nonvictims; between-participant factor) by sponses (Ullman et al. 2007; Yeater et al. 2011). Finally, three (increase of violence: Baseline vs. Time 1 vs. we predicted that victims, compared to nonvictims, Time 2; within-participant factor) design. Based on re- would show a larger increase in negative perceptions sponses to the video, appraisal of sexual assault risk (more responsibility attributed to the perpetrator and (indicated by response latency for leaving the situa- less to the victim; Hypothesis 4a) and emotional re- tion and probability of terminating the relationship), sponses (Hypothesis 4b) as the severity of the man’s attributions of responsibility to the victim and the behavior increased, because they would be less likely perpetrator, and emotional responses to the film clip to consider the situation risky at the lower levels of were examined as dependent variables. coercive behavior in the earlier phase of the video. This reasoning leads to the prediction of an interac- 4.2 Procedure and Materials tive effect of victim status and increase in severity. Participants completed the measures in the e-prime program under the supervision of a female research IJCV: Vol. 14/2020 Garrido-Macías, Valor-Segura, Krahé, Expósito: College Women’s Experience of Verbal Sexual Coercion and 5 Responses to a Sexual Assault Vignettee assistant in a separate lab room. After providing con- ing and remains immobile. After watching the video sent, participants responded to a baseline measure of and in line with previous research, to assess the extent emotional state and then watched a video about a to which they were immersed in the experimental couple that ended with the woman having unwanted task, all participants were asked to rate how realistic sex with her male partner. Participants were asked to the portrayed interaction was, using a scale from 1 stop the video when they would leave the situation if (completely unrealistic) to 7 (completely realistic). they were the woman in the video. At that point Manipulation check. (Time 1), they rated their emotional state again, along One question assessed whether the manipulation of with the degree of responsibility assigned to the vic- the increase of sexual violence had the intended effect tim and the perpetrator, the perceived severity of the of invoking perceptions of greater severity (“How se- situation (manipulation check), and the probability vere do you consider the situation shown in the video that they would terminate the relationship. Then, to be?”). This item was measured at Time 1 and Time they watched the video again from the beginning to 2, and the rating was made on a seven-point response the end, which meant that they saw more severe vio- scale: 1 (not at all), 7 (very much), with higher ratings lent behavior by the man than at Time 1. After the reflecting greater perceived severity. end of the video (Time 2), they again completed the Perception of partner sexual assault dependent variables and manipulation check. All par- Two measures assessed the perception of sexual as- ticipants completed the measure of experience of sex- sault. The first was a response-latency measure, as de- ual coercion (SCIRS). The order in which the video veloped by Marx and Gross (1995). In the standard clip and the SCIRS were presented was counterbal- use of the paradigm, participants are asked to stop anced. In the final part, participants provided demo- the situation to indicate when “the man has gone too graphic information and were debriefed. Sessions far,” which is a useful indicator of threat detection. lasted approximately thirty minutes. All measures and However, some studies suggest that the difference be- procedures were approved by the Research Ethics tween victims and nonvictims lies not in their ability Committee of the first author’s university. to recognize risky sexual situations but rather in their response to the risk of sexual assault (Vanzile-Tamsen, 4.3 Measures Testa, and Livingston 2005; Yeater et al. 2006). There- Video fore, instead of asking participants to indicate when A clip of 165 seconds from the Spanish film “No estás the man had gone too far, we asked them to indicate sola, Sara” [“You are not alone, Sara”] was used. This at what point they would leave the situation if they scene is about a couple in a romantic relationship, were the woman in the scene, following the procedure both of whom are university students. They are in the used by Anderson and Cahill (2014). The score of in- woman’s bedsit studying for a university exam, when terest is the length of time (measured in seconds) the man attempts to persuade the woman to have sex- from the start of the video until the participant de- ual intercourse. As the videotape progresses, the man cides to stop the clip. Longer response latency is con- engages in an escalating sequence of verbally coercive ceptualized as indicating a lower perception of sexual behaviors (during the first 105 seconds; for example, coercion. The second measure of perception was one verbal pressure, emotional blackmail, signs of disgust item that evaluated the likelihood that the participant and anger) and physical acts (in the last 60 seconds), would terminate the relationship (“to what extent ending with the man using physical force (holding her would you be willing to leave the relationship if the arms and legs, throwing her to the floor and physi- situation happened to you?”). Responses were made cally blocking her body) to have sexual intercourse on a seven-point scale from 1 (I would definitely not with her. The woman responds with verbal refusals terminate the relationship) to 7 (I would definitely ter- and resistance throughout the interaction, clearly in- minate the relationship). Participants answered this dicating that she does not want to have sex with her item after stopping the video (Time 1) and after hav- partner, but at the end of the scene, she stops resisting seen the full video (Time 2). IJCV: Vol. 14/2020 Garrido-Macías, Valor-Segura, Krahé, Expósito: College Women’s Experience of Verbal Sexual Coercion and 6 Responses to a Sexual Assault Vignettee

Attributions of responsibility and physical force (for example, ‘‘my partner threat- Two items assessed the degree of responsibility attrib- ened to use violence against me if I did not have sex uted to the man and the woman (“to what extent do with him; n = 4 items). Participants indicated whether you consider the man/woman to be responsible for they had experienced each act at some point in their what occurred?”). Both ratings were based on a seven- life (i.e. in a past or current relationship), using a di- point response scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (a chotomous response format: 0 (has never occurred in lot). Higher ratings reflect higher attributed responsi- my life), 1 (has occurred in my life). As explained bility. Participants answered these items at Time 1 above, nonvictims were defined as scoring zero across and Time 2. all items of the SCIRS, and victims of sexual coercion Emotional responses were defined as scoring above zero on the thirty non- Emotional responses to the video were measured us- physical coercion items (but zero on the five physical ing the valence and control dimensions of the Self-As- sexual assault items). As noted in the sample descrip- sessment Manikin (SAM, Bradley and Lang 1994). Re- tion, the data of women who scored above zero on the sponses ranged from 1 (very sad) to 9 (very happy) on physical assault items were excluded from the analy- the valence dimension and from 1 (with very little con- sis. trol) to 9 (with a lot of control) on the control dimen- Demographic characteristics sion. Participants indicated their emotional state at Self-identified gender and relationship status (and du- the beginning of the experiment (Baseline), after they ration, if in a relationship) were assessed with stan- decided to stop the video (Time 1), and after having dard demographic questions. seen the full video (Time 2). Furthermore, the negative scale of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule Scale 5 Results (PANAS; Watson, Clark, and Tellegen 1988) was ad- 5.1 Manipulation Check and Order Effects ministered. It consists of ten words describing differ- To examine whether the manipulation of increase of ent emotions (such as “irritable, upset, nervous”), and sexual violence (Time 1 vs. Time 2) influenced percep- participants rated to what extent they experienced tions of severity, we conducted a within-subjects each presented emotion, using a scale from 1 (very ANOVA. As the results did not vary depending on re- 2 slightly) to 5 (very much). Participants made these rat- sponse times, F (1, 135) = 0.67, p = .416, η p = .01, the ings at Baseline (α = .87), Time 1 (α = .82), and Time 2 manipulation check was run without this control vari- (α = .79). able to increase statistical power. The analysis yielded Previous sexual coercion by an intimate partner a significant effect of time, F (1, 139) = 67.44, p < .001, 2 The Sexual Coercion in Intimate Relationships Scale η p = .33. After having watched the full video (Time 2), (SCIRS; Shackelford and Goetz 2004) was used to as- participants perceived the situation to be more seri- sess sexual coercion by an intimate partner. Partici- ous, M = 6.94, SD = 0.32, than at the point at which pants indicated whether they had experienced any of they had first stopped it (Time 1), M = 6.24, SD = 1.01. ten coercive acts of commitment manipulation, in Although the order of presentation of the video clip which men manipulate their partners by telling them and the sexual victimization measure was counterbal- that the couple’s relationship status obliges them to anced, which should have ruled out systematic order grant sexual access (for example, ‘‘my partner hinted effects, we tested for possible order effects by running that if I loved him, I would have sex with him’’); nine a MANOVA with order (video clip before or after the coercive acts of defection threat, in which men SCIRS) as independent variable and response latency threaten to pursue relationships with other women and probability of leaving the relationship at Time 1, (for example, “my partner hinted that he would have as well as attribution of responsibility to the man and sex with another woman if I did not have sex with the woman, negative affect, control, and valence at him”); and fifteen coercive acts of resource manipula- Time 1 as dependent variables. The multivariate effect tion/violence, in which men withhold or give gifts and of order was nonsignificant, Wilks’ λ = .92, F (7, 130) = 2 benefits (n = 11 items) and/or threaten or use violence 1.54, p = .161, η p = .08. Therefore, order was not in- IJCV: Vol. 14/2020 Garrido-Macías, Valor-Segura, Krahé, Expósito: College Women’s Experience of Verbal Sexual Coercion and 7 Responses to a Sexual Assault Vignettee

2 cluded as a control variable in the hypotheses-testing 136) = 2.66, p = .105, η p = .02. In combination, these analyses. findings lend only partial support to Hypothesis 1. Regarding ecological validity, participants thought the portrayed interaction was quite realistic. They 5.4 Attributions of Responsibility perceived the video to be more realistic after having Two mixed-model ANOVAs tested whether victim sta- seen the completed situation, M = 5.76, SD = 1.34, tus (Hypothesis 2a) and increase in severity (Hypothe- than at the point at which they had stopped the sis 3a) would differentially affect attributions of victim video, M = 5.44, SD = 1.43, F (1, 139) = 11.65, p = .001, and perpetrator responsibility. Victim status was in- 2 η p = .08. This reflects the greater ambiguity as to how cluded as a between-participants variable, and in- the situation might progress at Time 1 than at Time 2. creasing severity of sexual violence (Time 1 vs. Time 2) Victims and nonvictims did not differ on this measure, as within-participants variable. A preliminary analysis 2 F (1, 138) = 0.74, p = .391, η p = .01. indicated that results did not vary depending on re- 2 sponse times [Fvictim (1, 135) = 0.02, p = .880, η p = .00; 5.2 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations 2 Fperpetrator (1, 135) = 0.99, p = .321 η p = .01], so the hy- The means, standard deviations, and correlations for pothesis-testing analyses were run without this con- all dependent variables are presented in Table 1. Re- trol variable in order to increase statistical power. Re- sponse latency for leaving the situation was positively sults indicated that, contrary to Hypothesis 2a, no sig- correlated with negative affect and negatively with nificant effects of victim status were found on respon- feelings of control. Probability of terminating the rela- sibility attributions to the victim, F (1, 138) = 1.95, p tionship was positively correlated with the degree of 2 = .165, η p = .01 and to the perpetrator, F (1, 138) = responsibility attributed to the perpetrator and with 2 0.25, p = .615, η p = .00. negative affect. The emotional measures were corre- Furthermore, consistent with Hypothesis 3a, the ef- lated at Baseline, Time 1, and Time 2. More negative fect of the increase in severity was significant for at- affect was significantly related to lower feelings of tribution of both victim responsibility, F (1, 138) = 5.14, control and less positive emotions, and more control 2 p = .025, η p,= .04 and perpetrator responsibility, F (1, was related to more positive emotions. The two attri- 2 138) = 9.51, p = .002, η p = .06. As shown in Table 2 bution measures were uncorrelated with each other (within-participants columns), participants attributed and with any of the other variables. more responsibility to the perpetrator, but also to the victim, at Time 2 than at Time 1. 5.3 Perception of Partner Sexual Assault Finally, the predicted interaction effect (Hypothesis To examine the hypothesized relation between previ- 4a) between victim status and the increase of sexual ous sexual coercion and perception of partner sexual violence severity on attributions was nonsignificant assault (Hypothesis 1), a between-subjects MANOVA for both dependent variables: victim responsibility at- was conducted. Victim status was the independent 2 tributions, F (1, 138) = 0.46, p = .497, η p = .00, and per- variable, and response latency for leaving the situa- petrator responsibility attributions, F (1, 138) = 0.20, p tion and probability of terminating the relationship at 2 = .656, η p = .00. Time 1 and Time 2 were the dependent variables. Re- sults revealed a significant multivariate effect of previ- 5.5 Emotional Responses ous sexual coercion, Wilks’ λ = .94, F (3, 134) = 3.10, p Three mixed-model repeated-measures ANOVAs 2 = .029, η p = .07. Consistent with Hypothesis 1, victims tested whether previous sexual coercion (Hypothesis were less likely than nonvictims to report that they 2b) and the increase of severity (Hypothesis 3b) as well would terminate the relationship at Time 2, F (1, 136) as their interaction (Hypothesis 4b) would affect (1) 2 = 5.35, p = .022, η p = .04, MVictims = 6.61, SD = 0.93, MNon- negative affect, (2) valence, and (3) control. Victim sta- victims = 6.88, SD = 0.36. The univariate effect on termi- tus was included as a between-participants variable, nating the relationship at Time 1 was nonsignificant, and increase of the severity of sexual violence (Base- 2 F (1, 136) = 2.96, p = .088, η p = .02. The univariate ef- line, Time 1, Time 2) as a within-participants variable. fect on response latency was also nonsignificant, F (1, IJCV: Vol. 14/2020 Garrido-Macías, Valor-Segura, Krahé, Expósito: College Women’s Experience of Verbal Sexual Coercion and 8 Responses to a Sexual Assault Vignettee s e l b a i r a v

t n e d n e p e d

e h t

n e e w t e b

s n o i t a l e r r o c

d n a

, s n o i t a i v e d

d r a d n a t s

, s n a e M

: 1

e l b a T IJCV: Vol. 14/2020 Garrido-Macías, Valor-Segura, Krahé, Expósito: College Women’s Experience of Verbal Sexual Coercion and 9 Responses to a Sexual Assault Vignettee IJCV: Vol. 14/2020 Garrido-Macías, Valor-Segura, Krahé, Expósito: College Women’s Experience of Verbal Sexual Coercion and 10 Responses to a Sexual Assault Vignettee

A significant main effect of victim status indicated ness, measured through participants’ response latency that victims reported significantly less positive-va- before indicating that they would leave the situation 2 lence affect, F (1, 138) = 8.19, p = .005, η p = .06, more and the probability that they would terminate the re- 2 negative affect, F (1, 138) = 4.27, p = .041, η p = .03, and lationship. Regarding response latency, there was no marginally significantly lower feelings of control, F (1, evidence that victims took longer than nonvictims to 2 138) = 3.86, p = .051, η p = .03, than nonvictims at all stop the video to indicate the point at which they three time points (see Table 2, between-participants would leave the situation. Some past research also columns). These results provide full support for Hy- found no differences between victims and nonvictims pothesis 2b. in the length of time they allowed the simulated sexu- The main effect of time was significant on negative ally violent situation to continue (e.g. Chu, DePrince, 2 affect, F (2, 276) = 253.86, p < .001, η p = .65, valence, F and Mauss 2014). However, there were differences in 2 (2, 276) = 297.10, p < .001, η p = .68, and control, F (2, the probability of choosing to terminate the relation- 2 276) = 133.09, p < .001, η p = .49, consistent with Hy- ship at Time 2. As predicted in Hypothesis 1, women pothesis 3b. Specifically, as shown in Table 2 (within- with the experience of sexual coercion by an intimate participants columns), participants reported more partner, compared to women without this experience, negative affect, less positive affect, and lower feelings were less likely to say they would terminate the rela- of control at Time 2 than at Time 1 and at Baseline. tionship when the situation increased in severity Finally, a significant time by victim status interac- (Time 2). This result confirms prior research (Arriaga tion was found for control, F (2, 276) = 4.48, p = .012, et al. 2016; Garrido-Macías and Arriaga 2020). 2 η p = .03, consistent with Hypothesis 4b, as shown in One possible explanation of the differences in the Table 2. Victims of sexual coercion felt less in control probability of terminating the hypothetical relation- than did nonvictims at Time 1, F (2, 135) = 5.14, p ship, but not on response latency, is that the level of 2 = .025, η p = .04 (response latency was included as a cognitive processing may play an important role. control variable here because the length of time be- Stopping the video when they would leave the situa- tween baseline and Time 1 depended on response la- tion is a more spontaneous, situational decision, tency). However, no differences were found between whereas deciding they would terminate the relation- victims and nonvictims on control at Baseline, F (1, ship involves a greater degree of conscious reflection. 2 138) = 0.21, p = .648, η p = .00, and at Time 2, F (1, 138) This higher cognitive processing involved in thinking 2 = 3.05, p = .083, η p = .02. No significant interactions about ending the relationship –as compared to leav- emerged for negative affect, F (2, 276) = 0.79, p = .454, ing the sexually coercive situation – is consistent with 2 2 η p = .01, and valence, F (2, 276) = 1.19, p = .307, η p the idea that victims of intimate partner aggression = .01. remember and process the transgression by minimiz- ing or reinterpreting it to adapt their beliefs and 6 Discussion therefore avoid the decision to end the relationship The present study examined whether the experience (Gobin and Freyd 2017; Goodfriend and Arriaga 2018). of nonphysical sexual coercion by an intimate partner In this sense, it is possible that victims of sexual coer- and an increase in the severity of observed sexual vio- cion were able to recognize the risk but decided they lence would be related to women’s behavioral, cogni- would to stay in the relationship for other reasons. tive, and emotional responses to a scenario describing For example, a lower probability of deciding to leave a sexually coercive situation with a hypothetical part- the relationship might be linked to higher levels of ner. commitment or dependence (Garrido-Macías, Valor- The aim of the study was to examine whether previ- Segura, and Expósito 2017; Valor-Segura, Garrido- ous sexual coercion by an intimate partner affects vic- Macías, and Lozano 2020), so victims would prefer to tims’ evaluation of a sexual assault scenario. We pre- ignore or downplay the betrayal, something that dicted that prior experience of sexual coercion by an would not happen in the case of sexual assault com- intimate partner would be linked to lower risk aware- mitted by a stranger. These possibilities should be ad- IJCV: Vol. 14/2020 Garrido-Macías, Valor-Segura, Krahé, Expósito: College Women’s Experience of Verbal Sexual Coercion and 11 Responses to a Sexual Assault Vignettee dressed in future research by comparing responses of uted more responsibility to the victim at Time 2 than victims of partner vs. stranger sexual coercion. Such a at Time 1. Regarding this result, it is important to comparison would also facilitate an examination of note that the woman stopped resisting at the end of the impact of betrayal trauma on risk awareness and the video when she realized she could not fight off the responses. attacker (even though she clearly showed that she did The hypotheses regarding responsibility attributions not want to have sex and tried to resist all the time). and emotional responses depending on victim status This last scene, along with the fact that she told him were only partially supported. The prediction that not to make noise because her mother was down- women who had suffered sexual coercion would as- stairs, might have given the impression to participants sign less responsibility to the victim and more respon- that the victim accepted to have sex with him. Con- sibility to the perpetrator than nonvictims was not cerning emotions in relation to increasing severity supported by the data. This finding is inconsistent (Hypothesis 3b) women reported more negative affect, with Amacker and Littleton (2013), Grubb and Har- less positive emotions, and lower feelings of control rower (2008), and Miller et al. (2011) and fails to sup- when the situation included physical force (Time 2) port Hypothesis 2a. However, the positive correlation than at the point where they decided to stop the found between responsibility attributed to the perpe- video. These results support the idea that the increas- trator and probability of terminating the relationship ing severity of violence through greater use of forceful suggest that the more women blame the perpetrator, and physical tactics is associated with more negative the more likely they would be to leave an abusive re- emotional reactions (Ullman et al. 2007; Jeffrey 2014). lationship (Edwards et al. 2012). Finally, the predicted interaction effect between vic- In support of Hypothesis 2b, victims of sexual coer- tim status and increasing severity of sexual violence cion reported less positive-valence affect, more nega- on attributions (Hypothesis 4a) and emotions (Hypoth- tive affect, and lower feelings of control than did non- esis 4b) was significant only for the feeling of control victims. These results are consistent with past re- of the situation. Specifically, victims of sexual coer- search indicating that victims of sexual assault experi- cion by an intimate partner felt less in control than ence less positive emotions (Livingston et al. 2004; did nonvictims at Time 1, after having stopped the Soler-Baillo et al. 2005; Mason and Lodrick 2013; Jef- video. When both groups had seen the full video clip frey 2014) than nonvictims when they re-experience (Time 2), the difference between their emotional re- similar situations of sexual assault. Taken as a whole, sponses was superseded by a main effect of severity. these results indicate that victims may exhibit a dif- Since Time 2 included physical force from which the ferent pattern of emotional reactivity in response to a woman was unable to escape, both victims and non- sexual assault scenario compared to nonvictims, so victims realized that a loss of control had occurred. that these altered emotional reactions might be re- When they decided to stop the video (Time 1), there lated to victims’ ability to react to these risky situa- was more room for interpretation, as sexual coercion tions. was less severe and there was a greater chance of con- The hypotheses that increasing severity of the sex- trolling the situation, allowing the differences in the ual violence would be linked to women’s attributions experiential background between victims and nonvic- (Hypothesis 3a) and emotional responses (Hypothesis tims with regard to sexual coercion to show an effect. 3b) were supported. Regardless of victimization status, While the findings of this study shed light on the women attributed more responsibility to the perpetra- perceptual and emotional responses of victims and tor after they had watched the full video (at Time 2) nonvictims of sexual coercion to a realistic film clip than when they stopped the video at the point at depicting a sexual assault, several limitations should which they would leave the situation (Time 1). This be noted. First, our study adopted a quasi-experimen- finding confirms the results of previous research (e.g. tal design in which women were assigned to the vic- Katz et al. 2007; Edwards et al. 2012) and is consistent tim and nonvictim groups based on self-reported vic- with Hypothesis 3a. Unexpectedly, women also attrib- timization. Therefore, the design is subject to the IJCV: Vol. 14/2020 Garrido-Macías, Valor-Segura, Krahé, Expósito: College Women’s Experience of Verbal Sexual Coercion and 12 Responses to a Sexual Assault Vignettee problem of potential third variables inherent in any violence by intimate partners, which would make quasi-experimental comparison. We did not assess them less likely to leave an abusive relationship (Mc- victimization experiences outside intimate partner- Quiller-Williams, Porter, and Smith 2016). The differ- ships and the domain of sexuality, so we were unable ences might also be due to 1) a greater identification to examine in what other ways beyond the experience of victims with the female character in the video clip of sexual victimization by an intimate partner partici- or 2) by the activation of memories about their own pants in the two groups may have differed and how victimization driving their affective states and sense these differences would have been linked to our de- of control. Future studies should include such process- pendent variables. Thus, our data cannot speak to a related constructs to clarify the differences in process- causal influence of prior victimization on responses to ing assault-related information from the video among the sexual assault vignette. Victim status is a quasi-ex- victims and nonvictims. perimental variable by nature, and true experimental Despite these limitations, our findings suggest that designs to capture the effects of differences in victim the experience of sexual coercion by an intimate part- status are not possible. Prospective longitudinal de- ner and the severity of the sexual assault may be re- signs would be needed to come closer to a causal lated to women’s behavioral, cognitive, and emotional analysis of the impact of victimization on subsequent responses to risky sexual situations. The results have processing of information about a sexual assault situ- implications for analyzing factors involved in the per- ation. Second, the sample consisted exclusively of col- ception of sexual assault and how this perception de- lege students, which does not allow us to generalize termines the complex process of deciding whether to our results to other populations. Nonetheless, sexual terminate, or remain in, a risky situation and an abu- coercion is a major issue on college campuses, and sive relationship. They may also contribute to under- thus, college students are a population that is appro- standing the widely demonstrated risk of revictimiza- priate for studying sexual coercion (Krebs et al. 2016). tion among victims of sexual aggression (Noll and Third, our findings could not support the differences Gyrch 2011; Decker and Littleton 2018). Additional re- between victims’ and nonvictims’ hypothetical threat search using experimental designs with sensitive mea- responses in terms of leaving the sexually risky situa- surement procedures is needed to strengthen and re- tion, which is at odds with some past research fine the findings reported here. Furthermore, more re- (Gidycz et al. 2006; Franklin 2013; Anderson and search is needed into the factors that may explain Cahill 2014). Due to the difficulty of differentiating how women respond to the risk of sexual assault (for between threat detection and threat response, as example, relational variables such as commitment and noted in prior research (for example, Franklin 2013), it dependence) and what types of responses promote is necessary to develop more suitable ways to mea- the ability to identify the risk of sexual aggression and sure women’s responses to the threat of sexual as- engage in effective decision making. sault. Furthermore, responses women give to fictitious situations in the laboratory may differ from their re- References sponses when facing the risk of sexual assault in their Amacker, Amanda M., and Heather L. Littleton. 2013. Per- real life, although some research has shown responses ceptions of Similarity and Responsibility Attributions to in both situations to be similar (Turchik et al. 2007; an Acquaintance Sexual Assault Victim. Violence Against Women 19 (11): 1384–1407. https://doi.org/ Gidycz, Van Wynsberghe, and Edwards 2008). Finally, 10.1177/1077801213514860 we were unable to elucidate the processes underlying Anderson, RaeAnn E., and Shawn Cahill. 2014. Use of the the differences between victims and nonvictims estab- Response-latency Paradigm for Eliciting and Evaluating Women’s Responses to the Threat of Date Rape. Violence lished in our study. To explain why victims were less and Victims 29 (2): 248–61. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886- likely to say they would leave the relationship if their 6708.VV-D-12-00101R1 partner used sexual violence against them, different Arriaga, Ximena B., Nicole M. Capezza, and Christine A. Daly. 2016. Personal Standards for Judging Aggression by mediating processes could be considered. For exam- a Relationship Partner: How Much Aggression Is Too ple, victims may have less negative attitudes toward Much? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 110 (1): 36–54. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000035 IJCV: Vol. 14/2020 Garrido-Macías, Valor-Segura, Krahé, Expósito: College Women’s Experience of Verbal Sexual Coercion and 13 Responses to a Sexual Assault Vignettee

Arriaga, Ximena B., Nicole M. Capezza, Wind Goodfriend, Commitment on the Decision Making. Psychosocial Inter- and Katherine E. Allsop. 2018. The Invisible Harm of vention 26 (2): 111–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Downplaying a Romantic Partner’s Aggression. Current j.psi.2016.12.001 Directions in Psychological Science 27 (4): 275–80. https:// Garrido-Macías, Marta, Inmaculada Valor-Segura, and Fran- doi.org/10.1177/0963721417754198 cisca Expósito. 2020. Which Tactics of Sexual Violence Bockers, Estelle, Stefan Roepke, Lars Michael, Babette Ren- Predict Leaving the Relationship? The Role of Depen- neberg, and Christine Knaevelsrud. 2014. Risk Recogni- dence towards Partner. The European Journal of Psychol- tion, Attachment Anxiety, Self-efficacy, and State Disso- ogy Applied to Legal Context 12 (2). https://doi.org/ ciation Predict Revictimization. PLoS One 9 (9): 1–9. 10.5093/ejpalc2020a6 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108206 Gidycz, Christine A., John R. McNamara, and Katie M. Ed- Bradley, Margaret M., and Peter J. Lang. 1994. Measuring wards. 2006. Women’s Risk Perception and Sexual Vic- Emotion: The Self-assessment Manikin and the Semantic timization: A Review of the Literature. Aggression and Vi- Differential.Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimen- olent Behavior 11 (5): 441–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/ tal Psychiatry 25 (1): 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005- j.avb.2006.01.004 7916(94)90063-9. Gidycz, Christine A., Amy Van Wynsberghe, and Katie M. Brown, Amy L., Maria Testa, and Terri L. Messman-Moore. Edwards. 2008. Prediction of Women’s Utilization of Re- 2009. Psychological Consequences of Sexual Victimiza- sistance Strategies in a Sexual Assault Situation: A tion Resulting from Force, Incapacitation, or Verbal Coer- Prospective Study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 23 (5): cion. Violence Against Women 15 (8): 898–919. https:// 571–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507313531 doi.org/10.1177/1077801209335491 Gobin, Robyn L., and Jennifer Freyd. 2017. Do Participants Chu, Ann T., Anne P. DePrince, and Iris B. Mauss. 2014. Ex- Detect Sexual Abuse Depicted in a Drawing? Investigat- ploring Revictimization Risk in a Community Sample of ing the Impact of Betrayal Trauma Exposure on State Sexual Assault Survivors. Journal of Trauma and Dissocia- Dissociation and Betrayal Awareness. Journal of Child tion 15 (3): 319–31. https://doi.org/ Sexual Abuse 26 (3): 233–45. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/15299732.2013.853723 10.1080/10538712.2017.1283650 Decker, Melissa, and Heather L. Littleton. 2018. Sexual Re- Goodfriend, Wind, and Ximena B. Arriaga. 2018. Cognitive victimization among College Women: A Review through Reframing of Intimate Partner Aggression: Social and an Ecological Lens. Victims and Offenders 13 (4): 558–88. Contextual Influence. International Journal of Environ- https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2017.1390514 mental Research and Public Health 15 (11): 2464. https:// Edwards, Katie M., Megan C. Kearns, Christine A. Gidycz, doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15112464 and Karen S. Calhoun. 2012. Predictors of Victim-perpe- Grubb, Amy, and Julie Harrower. 2008. Attribution of Blame trator Relationship Stability Following a Sexual Assault: in Cases of Rape: An Analysis of Participant Gender, A Brief Report. Violence and Victims 27 (1): 25–32. https:// Type of Rape and Perceived Similarity to the Victim. Ag- doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.27.1.25 gression and Violent Behavior 13 (5): 396–405. https:// Edwards, Katie M., Danielle R. Probst, Erin C. Tansill, Kris- doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2008.06.006. tiana J. Dixon, Sidnet Bennett, and Christine A. Gidycz. Haugen, Andrea D., Phia Salter, and Nia L. Phillips. 2019. “"I 2014. In Their Own Words: A Content-analytic Study of Know it When I See It”: Recent Victimization and Per- College Women’s Resistance to Sexual Assault. Journal of ceptions of Rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 34 (14): Interpersonal Violence 29 (14): 2527–47. https://doi.org/ 2938–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516664314 10.1177/0886260513520470 Jeffrey, Nicole. 2014. Women’s Lived Experiences of Sexual Faul, Franz, Edgar Erdfelder, Albert-Georg Lang, and Axel Coercion in Intimate Relationships with Men. PhD diss., Buchner. 2007. G* Power 3: A Flexible Statistical Power University of Guelph, Canada. Analysis Program for the Social, Behavioral, and Biomed- Katz, Jennifer, and Vanessa Tirone. 2010. Going Along With ical Sciences. Behavior Research Methods 39 (2): 175–91. It: Sexually Coercive Partner Behavior Predicts Dating https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146 Women’s Compliance with Unwanted Sex. Violence Franklin, Cortney A. 2013. Anticipating Intimacy or Sexual Against Women 16 (7): 730–42. https://doi.org/ Victimization? Danger Cue Recognition and Delayed Be- 10.1177/1077801210374867 havioral Responses to a Sexually Risky Scenario. Feminist Katz, Jennifer, Jessica A. Moore, and Sherri Tkachuk. 2007. Criminology 8 (2): 87–116. https://doi.org/ Verbal Sexual Coercion and Perceived Victim Responsi- 10.1177/1557085112455840 bility: Mediating Effects of Perceived Control. Sex Roles Freyd, Jennifer J. 2020. What Is a Betrayal Trauma? What Is 57 (3–4): 235–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9253- Betrayal Trauma Theory? Author’s page, website of the x University of Oregon. http://pages.uoregon.edu/dynamic/ Klest, Bridget, Andreea Tamaian, and Emily Boughner. 2019. jjf/defineBT.html A Model Exploring the Relationship between Betrayal Garrido-Macías, Marta, and Ximena B. Arriaga. 2020. Trauma and Health: The Roles of Mental Health, Attach- Women Are Not Swayed by Sugar-Coated Acts of Sexual ment, Trust in Healthcare Systems, and Nonadherence to Coercion. Personal Relationships 27 (2): 251–73. https:// Treatment. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Prac- doi.org/10.1111/pere.12314 tice, and Policy 11 (6): 656–62. https://doi.org/10.1037/ Garrido-Macías, Marta, Inmaculada Valor-Segura, and Fran- tra0000453 cisca Expósito. 2017. Would I Leave my Partner? Influ- Koss, Mary P., Antonia Abbey, Rebecca Campbell, Sarah ence of Severity of the Transgression, Satisfaction and Cook, Jeanette Norris, Maria Testa, Sarah Ullman, et al. IJCV: Vol. 14/2020 Garrido-Macías, Valor-Segura, Krahé, Expósito: College Women’s Experience of Verbal Sexual Coercion and 14 Responses to a Sexual Assault Vignettee

2007. Revising the SES: A Collaborative Process to Im- tory of Sexual Aggression. Sex Roles 64 (7–8): 506–15. prove Assessment of Sexual Aggression and Victimiza- https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9919-7 tion. Psychology of Women Quarterly 31 (4): 357–70. Rinehart, Jenny K., and Elizabeth A. Yeater. 2015. Using https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00385.x Cognitive Theory and Methodology to Inform the Study Krahé, Bárbara, Anja Berger, Ine Vanwesenbeeck, Gabriel of Sexual Victimization. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse 16 Bianchi, Joannes Chliaoutakis, Andrés A. Fernández- (1): 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838013515761 Fuertes, Antonio Fuertes, et al. 2015. Prevalence and Cor- Santos-Iglesias, Pablo, and Juan Carlos Sierra. 2012. Sexual relates of Young People’s Sexual Aggression Perpetration Victimization among Spanish College Women and Risk and Victimization in 10 European Countries: A Multi- Factors for Sexual Revictimization. Journal of Interper- level Analysis. Culture, Health and Sexuality 17 (6): 682– sonal Violence 27 (17): 3468–85. https://doi.org/ 99. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2014.989265 10.1177/0886260512445383 Krebs, Christopher, Christine Lindquist, Marcus Berzofsky, Salwen, Jessica K., and K. Daniel O’Leary. 2013. Adjustment Bonnie Shook-Sa, Kimberly Peterson, Michael Planty, Problems and Maladaptive Relational Style: A Media- and Jessica Stroop. 2016. Campus Climate Survey Valida- tional Model of Sexual Coercion in Intimate Relation- tion Study: Final Technical Report. Washington, DC: BJS, ships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 28 (10): 1969–88. Office of Justice Programs. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512471079 Livingston, Jennifer A., Amy M. Buddie, Maria Testa, and Shackelford, Todd K., and Aaron T. Goetz. 2004. Men’s Sex- Carol VanZile-Tamsen. 2004. The Role of Sexual Prece- ual Coercion in Intimate Relationships: Development and dence in Verbal Sexual Coercion. Psychology of Women Initial Validation of the Sexual Coercion in Intimate Rela- Quarterly 28 (4): 287–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471- tionships Scale. Violence and Victims 19 (5): 541–56. 6402.2004.00146.x https://doi.org/10.1891/vivi.19.5.541.63681 McQuiller-Williams, LaVerne, Judy L. Porter, and Tony R. Shaver, Kelly G. 1970. Defensive Attribution: Effects of Smith. 2016. Understanding Date Rape Attitudes and Be- Severity and Relevance on the Responsibility Assigned haviors: Exploring the Influence of Race, Gender, and for an Accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- Prior Sexual Victimization. Victims and Offenders 11 (2): ogy 14 (2): 101–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028777 173–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2014.960025 Smith, Sharon G., Jieru Chen, Kathleen C. Basile, Leah K. Magar, Emily C. E., Louise H. Phillips, and Judith A. Hosie. Gilbert, Melissa T. Merrick, Nimesh Patel, Margie 2008. Self-regulation and Risk-taking. Personality and In- Walling, et al. 2017. The National Intimate Partner and dividual Differences 45 (2): 153–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010–2012 State Report. j.paid.2008.03.014 Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Marx, Brian P. and Alan M. Gross. 1995. An Analysis of Two Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Contextual Variables. Behavior Modification 19 (4): 451– Smith, Sharon G., Xinjian Zhang, Kathleen C. Basile, 63. https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455950194003 Melissa T. Merrick, Jing Wang, Marcie-jo Kresnow, and Mason, Fiona, and Zoe Lodrick. 2013. Psychological Conse- Jieru Chen. 2018. The National Intimate Partner and Sex- quences of Sexual Assault. Best Practice and Research: ual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2015 Data Brief: Updated Re- Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology 27 (1): 27–37. https:// lease. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2012.08.015 and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Messman-Moore, Terri L., and Amy L. Brown. 2006. Risk Soler-Baillo, Jose M, Brian P. Marx, and Denise M. Sloan. Perception, Rape, and Sexual Revictimization: A Prospec- 2005. The Psychophysiological Correlates of Risk Recog- tive Study of College Women. Psychology of Women nition among Victims and Non-Victims of Sexual Assault. Quarterly 30 (2): 159–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471- Behaviour Research and Therapy 43 (2): 169–81. https:// 6402.2006.00279.x doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2004.01.004 Miller, Audrey K., Amanda M. Amacker, and Antoinette R. Turchik, Jessica A., Danielle R. Probst, Minna Chau, Amy King. 2011. Sexual Victimization History and Perceived Nigoff, and Christine A. Gidycz. 2007. Factors Predicting Similarity to a Sexual Assault Victim: A Path Model of the Type of Tactics Used to Resist Sexual Assault: A Perceiver Variables Predicting Victim Culpability Attribu- Prospective Study of College Women. Journal of Consult- tions. Sex Roles 64 (5–6): 372–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/ ing and Clinical Psychology 75 (4): 605–14. https://doi.org/ s11199-010-9910-3 10.1037/0022-006X.75.4.605 Neilson, Elizabeth C., Elizabeth R. Bird, Isha W. Metzger, Ullman, Sarah E., Stephanie M. Townsend, Henrietta H. Fili- William H. George, Jeanette Norris, and Amanda K. pas, and Laura L. Starzynski. 2007. Structural Models of Gilmore. 2018. Understanding Sexual Assault Risk Per- the Relations of Assault Severity, Social Support, Avoid- ception in College: Associations among Sexual Assault ance Coping, Self-blame, and PTSD among Sexual As- History, Drinking to Cope, and Alcohol Use. Addictive Be- sault Survivors. Psychology of Women Quarterly 31 (1): haviors 78:178–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00328.x j.addbeh.2017.11.022 Valor-Segura, Inmaculada, Marta Garrido-Macías, and Luis Noll, Jennie G., and John H. Grych. 2011. Read-React-Re- M. Lozano. 2020. Adaptation of the Accommodation spond: An Integrative Model for Understanding Sexual among Romantic Couples Scale (ARCS) to the Spanish Revictimization. Psychology of Violence 1 (3): 202–15. Population. Psicothema 32 (1): 145–52. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023962 10.7334/psicothema2019.123 Osman, Suzanne L. 2011. Predicting Rape Empathy Based Vanzile-Tamsen, Carol, Maria Testa, and Jennifer A. Liv- on Victim, Perpetrator, and Participant Gender, and His- ingston. 2005. The Impact of Sexual Assault History and IJCV: Vol. 14/2020 Garrido-Macías, Valor-Segura, Krahé, Expósito: College Women’s Experience of Verbal Sexual Coercion and 15 Responses to a Sexual Assault Vignettee

Relationship Context on Appraisal of and Responses to Acquaintance Sexual Assault Risk. Journal of Interper- sonal Violence 20 (7): 813–32. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0886260505276071 Walsh, Kate, David DiLillo, and Terri L. Messman-Moore. 2012. Lifetime Sexual Victimization and Poor Risk Per- ception: Does Emotion Dysregulation Account for the Links? Journal of Interpersonal Violence 27 (15): 3054–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512441081 Watson, David, Lee Anna Clark, and Auke Tellegen. 1988. Development and Validation of Brief Measures of Posi- tive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54 (6): 1063–70. https:// doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.54.6.1063 Yeater, Elizabeth A., Richard M. McFall, and Richard J. Viken. 2011. The Relationship between Women’s Re- sponse Effectiveness and a History of Sexual Victimiza- tion. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 26 (3): 462–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510363425 Yeater, Elizabeth A., Richard J. Viken, Richard M. McFall, and Lindsey R. Wagner. 2006. Sexual Attitudes and In- structional Set Affect Estimates of Risk and Response Rffectiveness. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 28 (4): 232–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862- 005-9018-1