Sexuality & Culture

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 1–23 | Cite as

Interpreting Survey Questions About Sexual Aggression in Cross-Cultural Research: A Qualitative Study with Young Adults from Nine European Countries

  • Barbara Krahé
  • Stans de Haas
  • Ine Vanwesenbeeck
  • Gabriel Bianchi
  • Joannes Chliaoutakis
  • Antonio Fuertes
  • Margarida Gaspar de Matos
  • Eleni Hadjigeorgiou
  • Sabine Hellemans
  • Christiana Kouta
  • Dwayne Meijnckens
  • Liubove Murauskiene
  • Maria Papadakaki
  • Lucia Ramiro
  • Marta Reis
  • Katrien Symons
  • Paulina Tomaszewska
  • Isabel Vicario-Molina
  • Andrzej Zygadlo
Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

Examining equivalence in the interpretation of survey items on sexual assault by participants from different cultures is an important step toward building a valid international knowledge base about the prevalence of sexual aggression among young adults. Referring to the theoretical framework of contextualism, this study presents qualitative data from semi-structured interviews with 128 young adults from nine EU countries on their understanding of survey items from the Sexual Aggression and Victimization Scale (SAV-S). The measure had previously been used to collect quantitative data on the prevalence of sexual aggression perpetration and victimization in the same countries that had yielded substantial differences in the rates of victimization and perpetration between countries. Based on the methodological approach of a mixed research design, the current study was conducted as a follow-up to the quantitative study with a new sample to explore whether systematic differences in the interpretation of the survey items in the different countries might explain part of the variation in prevalence rates. The interviews showed that participants from the nine countries interpreted the items of the SAV-S in a similar way and as intended by the authors of the scale. Systematic differences between men and women in interpreting the survey items were revealed. Implications of the findings for conducting survey research on sexual aggression across cultures are discussed.

Keywords

Sexual aggression Survey Interview study Cross-cultural Gender 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The study reported in this paper was conducted as part of the project ‘Y-SAV’ (Youth Sexual Aggression and Victimization) supported by a grant from the European Agency for Health and Consumers (EAHC; Grant No. A/101082). Additional funding was provided by the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW), and by the Slovak Academy of Sciences (Grant VEGA 2/0015/12).

References

  1. Bagwell-Gray, M. E., Messing, J. T., & Baldwin-White, A. (2015). Intimate partner sexual violence: A review of terms, definitions, and prevalence. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 16, 316–335.Google Scholar
  2. Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (2011). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boeije, H. (2010). Analysis in qualitative research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Buday, S. K., & Peterson, Z. D. (2014). Men’s and women’s interpretation and endorsement of items measured self-reported heterosexual aggression. Journal of Sex Research. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2014.967373.
  5. Chan, K. L., Straus, M. A., Brownridge, D. A., Tiwari, A., & Leung, W. C. (2008). Prevalence of dating partner violence and suicidal ideation among male and female university students worldwide. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health, 53, 529–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2014). Violence against women: An EU-wide survey. Retrieved March 23, 2015, from: fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-2014-vaw-survey-main-results_en.pdf.
  8. Fiebert, M. S., & Osburn, K. (2001). Effect of gender and ethnicity on self reports of mild, moderate and severe sexual coercion. Sexuality and Culture, 5, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fisher, B. (2009). The effects of survey question wording on rape estimates. Violence against Women, 15, 133–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Flick, U. (2002). An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Frels, R. K., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2013). Administering quantitative instruments with qualitative interviews: A mixed research approach. Journal of Counseling & Development, 91, 184–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gill, R. (2008). Discourse analysis text, narrative and representation. London: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Grych, J., & Hamby, S. (2014). Advancing the measurement of violence: Challenges and opportunities. Psychology of Violence, 4, 363–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hamby, S. (2015). Self-report measures that do not produce gender parity in intimate partner violence: A multi-study investigation. Psychology of Violence. doi: 10.1037/a0038207.
  15. Hayes, S. C. (1993). Analytic goals and the varieties of scientific contextualism. In S. C. Hayes, L. J. Hayes, H. W. Reese, & T. R. Sarbin (Eds.), varieties of scientific contextualism (pp. 11–27). Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hines, D. A. (2007). Predictors of sexual coercion against women and men: A multilevel, multinational study of university students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 403–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jozkowski, K. N., & Peterson, Z. D. (2013). College students and sexual consent: Unique insights. Journal of Sex Research, 50, 517–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Koss, M. P., & Gidycz, C. A. (1985). Sexual Experiences Survey: Reliability and validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 422–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Koss, M. P., & Oros, C. J. (1982). Sexual Experiences Survey: A research instrument investigating sexual aggression and victimization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 455–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koss, M. P., Abbey, A., Campbell, R., Cook, S., Norris, J., Testa, M., et al. (2007). Revising the SES: A collaborative process to improve assessment of sexual aggression and victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 357–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Krahé, B., & Berger, A. (2013). Men and women as perpetrators and victims of sexual aggression in heterosexual and same-sex encounters: A study of first-year college students in Germany. Aggressive Behavior, 39, 391–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Krahé, B., & Vanwesenbeeck, I. (2015). Mapping an agenda for the study of youth sexual aggression in Europe: Assessment, principles of good practice, and the multilevel analysis of risk factors. Journal of Sexual Aggression. doi: 10.1080/13552600.2015.1066885.
  23. Krahé, B., Tomaszewska, P., Kuyper, L., & Vanwesenbeeck, I. (2014). Sexual aggression as a threat to young people’s sexual well-being in Europe: A review of the evidence from 27 EU countries. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 545–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krahé, B., Berger, A., Vanwesenbeeck, I., et al. (2015). Prevalence and correlates of youth sexual aggression and victimization in 10 European countries: A multi-level approach. Culture, Health, & Sexuality., 17, 682–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Peterson, Z. D., Voller, E. K., Polusny, M. A., & Murdoch, M. (2011). Prevalence and consequences of adult sexual assault of men: Review of empirical findings and state of the literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pryor, J. B., DeSouza, E. R., Fitness, J., Hutz, C., Kumpf, M., Lubbert, K., et al. (1997). Gender differences in the interpretation of social-sexual behavior: A cross-cultural perspective on sexual harassment. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 509–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ross, R. R., & Allgeier, E. R. (1996). Behind the paper/pencil measurement of sexual coercion: Interview-based clarification of men’s interpretations of Sexual Experiences Survey items. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1587–1616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Smith, P. B., Fischer, R., Vignoles, V. L., & Bond, M. H. (2013). Understanding social psychology across cultures (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Stainton Rogers, W. (2011). Social psychology. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Stemple, L., & Meyer, I. H. (2014). The sexual victimization of men in America: New data challenge old assumptions. American Journal of Public Health, 104, e19–e26. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.301946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Turchik, J. A. (2012). Sexual victimization among male college students: Assault severity, sexual functioning, and health risk behaviors. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 13, 243–255. doi: 10.1037/a0024605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vandiver, D. M., & Dupalo, J. R. (2013). Factors that affect college students’ perceptions of rape: What is the role of gender and other situational factors? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57, 592–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. White, J. W., Yuan, N. P., Cook, S. L., & Abbey, A. (2013). Ethnic minority women’s experience with intimate partner violence: Using community-based participatory research to ask the right questions. Sex Roles, 69, 226–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wilson, L. C., & Miller, K. E. (2015). Meta-analysis of the prevalence of unacknowledged rape. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. doi: 10.1177/1524838015576391.
  35. Woodin, E. M., Sotskova, A., & O’Leary, K. D. (2013). Intimate partner violence assessment in an historical context: Divergent approaches and opportunities for progress. Sex Roles, 69, 120–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara Krahé
    • 1
  • Stans de Haas
    • 2
  • Ine Vanwesenbeeck
    • 2
    • 3
  • Gabriel Bianchi
    • 4
  • Joannes Chliaoutakis
    • 5
  • Antonio Fuertes
    • 6
  • Margarida Gaspar de Matos
    • 7
  • Eleni Hadjigeorgiou
    • 8
  • Sabine Hellemans
    • 9
  • Christiana Kouta
    • 8
  • Dwayne Meijnckens
    • 2
  • Liubove Murauskiene
    • 10
  • Maria Papadakaki
    • 5
  • Lucia Ramiro
    • 7
  • Marta Reis
    • 7
  • Katrien Symons
    • 9
  • Paulina Tomaszewska
    • 1
  • Isabel Vicario-Molina
    • 6
  • Andrzej Zygadlo
    • 11
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of PotsdamPotsdamGermany
  2. 2.RutgersUtrechtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Slovak Academy of SciencesBratislavaSlovakia
  5. 5.Technological Educational Institute of CreteHeraklionGreece
  6. 6.University of SalamancaSalamancaSpain
  7. 7.University of LisbonLisbonPortugal
  8. 8.Cyprus University of TechnologyLimassolCyprus
  9. 9.Ghent UniversityGhentBelgium
  10. 10.Public Foundation “MTVC” and Vilnius UniversityVilniusLithuania
  11. 11.University of Zielona GóraZielona GóraPoland

Personalised recommendations