Skip to main content
Log in

Interpreting Sexual Dating Encounters: Social Information Processing Differences in Men and Women

Journal of Family Violence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research has shown that college women are at considerable risk for sexual assault by dating partners, and studies have shown early detection of threat risk cues is an important factor in rape avoidance. This study examined how men and women process sexual encounters in a date rape situation and how they differ in interpretation of cues and response decision-making using Crick and Dodge’s (1994) model of social information processing (SIP). Participants listened to an audio vignette depicting a female resisting sexual contact as the male continues to make sexual advances. The vignette was paused at a point in which there is ambiguity concerning the sexual intentions of the actors, and multiple choice/forced answer questions reflecting five stages in social information processing (causal and intent interpretation, goal clarification, response decision, response efficacy, and response evaluation) were administered. Analyses revealed males and females significantly differed in all SIP stages, and emotional reaction was a significant predictor of response decision. Implications of the findings were discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. The SES was administered as part of a broader, programmatic effort across studies in this lab to enable examination of sexual aggression/victimization experiences. Unfortunately, due to limited variability the base rate of these behaviors in this sample was such that the resultant power for statistical analyses was minimal. As such, these data were archived pursuant to longer-term data collection that could propel appropriate analyses, and are not mentioned further in the current manuscript

References

  • Abbey, A. (1982). Sex differences in attribution for friendly behavior: Do males misperceive females’ friendliness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 830–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arsenio, W., & Lemerise, E. (2001). Varieties of childhood bullying: Values, emotion processes, and social compe-tence. Social Development, 10, 59–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arsenio, W. F., & Lemerise, E. (2004). Aggression and moral development: Integrating the social information processing and moral domain models. Child Development, 75, 987–1002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Arsenio, W. F., Adams, E., & Gold, J. (2009). Social information processing, moral reasoning, and emotion attributions: Relations with adolescents’ reactive and proactive aggression. Child Development, 80, 1739–1755.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Basow, S. A., & Minieri, A. (2011). “You owe me”: Effects of date cost, who pays, participant gender, and rape myth beliefs on perceptions of rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 479–497.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brady, E. C., Chrisler, J. C., Hosdale, D. C., & Osowiecki, D. M. (1991). Date rape: Expectations, avoidance strategies, and attitudes toward victims. Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 427–429.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brener, N. D., McMahon, P. M., Warren, C. W., & Douglas, K. A. (1999). Forced sexual intercourse and associated health-risk behaviors among female college students in the United States. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 252–259.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2010). Criminal victimization in the United States 2007. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byers, E. S. (1988). Effects of sexual arousal on men’s and women’s behavior in sexual disagreement situations. Journal of Sex Research, 25, 235–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clay-Warner, J. (2002). Avoiding rape: The effects of protective actions and situational factors on rape outcomes. Violence and Victims, 17, 691–705.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, S. L., Gidycz, C. A., Koss, M. P., & Murphy, M. (2011). Emerging issues in the measurement of rape victimization. Violence Against Women, 17, 201–218.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1996). Social information-processing mechanisms in reactive and proactive aggression. Child Development, 67, 993–1002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Earnshaw, V. A., Pitpitan, E. V., & Chaudoir, S. R. (2011). Intended responses to rape as functions of attitudes, attributions of fault, and emotions. Sex Roles, 64, 382–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, C. J., & Dyck, D. (2012). Paradigm change in aggression research: The time is come to retire the General Aggression Model. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 220–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkelson, L., & Oswalt, R. (1995). College date rape: Incidence and reporting. Psychological Reports, 77(2), 526.

  • Fisher, B. S. (2009). The effects of survey questions wording on rape estimates. Violence Against Women, 15, 133–147.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, P. A. (1990). Victim Attributions and post-rape trauma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 298–304.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, J. (2002). Media violence and its effect on aggression. In Assessing the scientific evidence. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gauntlett, D. (2005). Moving experiences: Understanding television’s influences and effects. Luton: John Libbey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, A. M., Weed, N. C., & Lawson, G. D. (1998). Magnitude scaling of intensity of sexual refusal behaviors in a date rape. Violence Against Women, 4, 329–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross, A. M., Winslett, A., Roberts, M., & Gohm, C. L. (2006). An examination of sexual violence against college women. Violence Against Women, 12, 288–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gylys, J. A., & McNamara, J. R. (1996). A further examination of the validity for the Sexual Experiences Survey. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 14, 245–260.

  • Janoff-Bulman, R. (1979). Characterological versus behavioral self-blame: Inquiries into depression and rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1798–1809.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koss, M. P., & Gidycz, C. A. (1985). Sexual Experiences Survey: Reliability and validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 422–423.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koss, M. P., & Oros, C. (1982). Sexual experiences survey: A research instruments investigation of sexual aggression and victimization. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 50, 455–457.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koss, M. P., Abbey, A., Campbell, R., Cook, S., Norris, J., Testa, M., Ullman, S., West, C., & White, J. (2007). Revising the SES: A collaborative process to improve assessment of sexual aggression and victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(4), 357–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kowalski, R. M. (1993). Inferring sexual interest from behavioral cues: Effects of gender and sexually relevant attitudes. Sex Roles, 29, 13–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemerise, E. A., & Arsenio, W. F. (2000). An integrated model of emotion processes and cognition in social information processing. Child Development, 71, 107–118.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Littleton, H., & Breitkopf, C. R. (2006). Coping with the experience of rape. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 106–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Livingston, J. A., & Testa, M. (2000). Qualitative analysis of women’s perceived vulnerability to sexual aggression in a hypothetical dating context. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 729–741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luebbe, A. M., Bell, D. J., Allwood, M. A., Swenson, L. P., & Early, M. C. (2010). Social information processing in children: Specific relations to anxiety, depression, and affect. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 39, 386–399.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Macy, R. J., Nurius, P. S., & Norris, J. (2006). Responding in their best interest. Violence Against Women, 12, 478–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marx, B. P., & Gross, A. M. (1995). Date rape: An analysis of two contextual variables. Behavior Modification, 19, 451–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCaw, J. N., & Senn, C. Y. (1998). Perception of cues in conflictual dating situations. Violence Against Women, 4, 609–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muehlenhard, C. L. (1988). ‘Nice women’ don’t say yes and ‘real men’ don’t say no: How miscommunication and the double standard can cause sexual problems. Women and Therapy, 7, 95–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muehlenhard, C. L., & Linton, M. A. (1987). Date rape and sexual aggression in dating situations: Incidence and risk factors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 186–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muehlenhard, C. L., Andrews, S. L., & Beal, G. K. (1995). Beyond “just saying no”: Dealing with men’s unwanted sexual advances in heterosexual dating contexts. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 8, 141–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nurius, P. S. (2000). Risk perception for acquaintance sexual aggression: A social-cognitive perspective. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1, 63–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nurius, P. S., & Norris, J. (1996). A cognitive ecological model of women’s responses to male sexual coercion in dating. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 8, 117–139.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Nurius, P. S., Norris, J., Young, D. S., Graham, T. L., & Gaylord, J. (2000). Interpreting and defensively responding to threat: Examining appraisals and coping with acquaintance sexual aggression. Violence and Victims, 15, 187–208.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nurius, P. S., Norris, J., Macy, R. J., & Huang, B. (2004). Women’s situational coping with acquaintance sexual assault: Applying an appraisal-based model. Violence Against Women, 10, 450–477.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • O’Bryne, R., Rapley, M., & Hansen, S. (2006). ‘You couldn’t say ‘no’, could you?’ Young men’s understandings of sexual refusal. Feminism & Psychology, 16, 133–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ouimette, P. C., Shaw, J., Drozd, F., & Leader, J. (2000). Consistency of reports of rape behaviors amongnonincarcerated men. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 1(2), 133–139.

  • Ross, R. R., & Allgeier, E. R. (1996). Behind the pencil/paper measurement of sexual coercion: Interview-based clarification of men's interpretations of sexual experiences survey items. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(18), 1587–1616.

  • Savage, J. (2004). Does viewing violent media really cause criminal violence? A methodological review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 99–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Testa, M., VanZile-Tamsen, C., Livingston, J. A., & Koss, M. P. (2004). Assessing women’s experiences of sexual aggression using the Sexual Experiences Survey: Evidence for validity and implications for research. Psychology ofWomen Quarterly, 29, 345–352.

  • Ullman, S. E., Townsend, S. M., Filipas, H. H., & Starzynski, L. L. (1997). Structural models of the relations of assault severity, social support, avoidance coping, self-blame, and PTSD among sexual assault survivors. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 23–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanzile-Tamsen, C., Testa, M., & Livingston, J. A. (2005). The impact of sexual assault history and relationship context on appraisal of and response to acquaintance sexual assault risk. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 813–832.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Winslett, A. H., & Gross, A. M. (2008). Sexual boundaries: An examination of the importance of talking before touching. Violence Against Women, 14, 542–562.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zoucha-Jensen, J. M., & Coyne, A. (1993). The effects of resistance strategies on rape. American Journal of Public Health, 83, 1633–1634.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alan M. Gross.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ambrose, C.E., Gross, A.M. Interpreting Sexual Dating Encounters: Social Information Processing Differences in Men and Women. J Fam Viol 31, 361–370 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-015-9757-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-015-9757-z

Keywords

Navigation