Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 49, Issue 9–10, pp 465–475 | Cite as

Rape and Seduction Scripts of University Students: Implications for Rape Attributions and Unacknowledged Rape

  • Heather L. LittletonEmail author
  • Danny Axsom
Article

Abstract

Research suggests that sexual scripts play a key role in how people understand and enact sexual interactions. For example, forced sexual activity may not be labeled as rape because it does not fit with individuals' rape script and instead fits better with another sexual script. The current studies concern one such sexual script, seduction, which may partially overlap with individuals' rape script, leading to ambiguity regarding how to label certain incidents of forced sex. Two studies were conducted to determine the elements of university students' rape and seduction scripts. In the first study, 50 students described one of these two scripts in response to an open-ended query. In the second study, students (n = 130) rated how typical they believed a number of potential script elements were of rape or seduction. Results from both studies indicate differences as well as overlap between the two scripts. In particular, both scripts tended to involve the use of manipulative tactics on the part of the man to obtain sex. Implications of the results for understanding the rape attribution process and unacknowledged rape are discussed.

rape attributions rape acknowledgment scripts 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abbey, A. (1982). Sex differences in attributions for friendly behavior: Do males misperceive females' friendliness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 830–838.Google Scholar
  2. Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 461–484.Google Scholar
  3. Bondurant, B. (2001). University women's acknowledgment of rape: Individual, situational, and social factors. Violence Against Women, 7, 294–314.Google Scholar
  4. Botta, R. A., & Pingree, S. (1997). Interpersonal communication and rape: Women acknowledge their assaults. Journal of Health Communication, 2, 197–212.Google Scholar
  5. Bower, G. H., Black, J. B., & Turner, T. J. (1979). Scripts in memory for text. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 177–220.Google Scholar
  6. Bridges, J. S. (1991). Perceptions of date and stranger rape: A difference in sex role expectations and rape-supportive beliefs. Sex Roles, 24, 291–307.Google Scholar
  7. Byers, E. S. (1996). How well does the traditional sexual script explain sexual coercion? Review of a program of research. In E. S. Byers & L. F. O'Sullivan (Eds.), Sexual coercion in dating relationships (pp. 7–25). New York: Haworth Press.Google Scholar
  8. Byers, E. S., & Lewis, K. (1988). Dating couples' disagreements over the desired level of sexual activity. Journal of Sex Research, 24, 15–29.Google Scholar
  9. Byers, E. S., & Wilson, P. (1985). Accuracy of women's expectations regarding men's responses to refusals of sexual advances in dating situations. International Journal of Women's Studies, 4, 376–387.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Demorest, A. P. (1995). The personal script as a unit of analysis for the study of personality. Journal of Personality, 63, 569–591.Google Scholar
  12. Finley, C., & Corty, E. (1993). Rape on campus: The prevalence of sexual assault while enrolled in college. Journal of College Student Development, 34, 113–117.Google Scholar
  13. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  14. Frazier, P. A., & Seales, L. M. (1997). Acquaintance rape is real rape. In M. D. Schwartz (Ed.), Researching sexual violence against women (pp. 54–64). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Hannon, R., Kuntz, T., Van Laar, S., Williams, J., & Hall, D. S. (1996). College students' judgments regarding sexual aggression during a date. Sex Roles, 35, 765–780.Google Scholar
  16. Jenkins, M. J., & Dambrot, F. H. (1987). The attribution of date rape: Observers' attitudes and sexual experiences and the dating situation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 875–895.Google Scholar
  17. Kahn, A. S., Mathie, V. A., & Torgler, C. (1994). Rape scripts and rape acknowledgment. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 53–66.Google Scholar
  18. Kalof, L. (2000). Ethnic differences in female sexual victimization. Sexuality and Culture, 4, 75–97.Google Scholar
  19. Koss, M. P. (1985). The hidden rape victim: Personality, attitudinal, and situational characteristics. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 193–212.Google Scholar
  20. Koss, M. P. (1988). Hidden rape: Sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of students in higher education. In A. W. Burgess (Ed.), Rape and sexual assault II (pp. 2–25). New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  21. Koss, M. P., Dinero, T. E., Seibel, C. A., & Cox, S. L. (1988). Stranger and acquaintance rape: Are there differences in the victim's experience? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12, 1–24.Google Scholar
  22. Kowalski, R. M. (1993). Inferring sexual interest from behavioral cues: Effects of gender and sexually relevant attitudes. Sex Roles, 29, 13–36.Google Scholar
  23. Krahé, B. (1991). Police officers' definitions of rape: A prototype study. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 1, 223–244.Google Scholar
  24. Krulewitz, J. E., & Nash, J. E. (1978). Effects of rape victim resistance, assault outcome, and sex of observer on attributions about rape. Journal of Personality, 47, 558–574.Google Scholar
  25. LaPlante, M. N., McCormick, N., & Brannigan, G. G. (1980). Living the sexual script: College students' views of influence in sexual encounters. Journal of Sex Research, 16, 338–355.Google Scholar
  26. Layman, M. J., Gidycz, C. A., & Lynn, S. J. (1996). Unacknowledged versus acknowledged rape victims: Situational factors and posttraumatic stress. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 124–131.Google Scholar
  27. Levine-MacCombie, J., & Koss, M. P. (1986). Acquaintance rape: Effective avoidance strategies. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 10, 311–320.Google Scholar
  28. Lewin, M. (1985). Unwanted intercourse: The difficulty of saying no. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 184–192.Google Scholar
  29. Littleton, H. L. (2003). The coping process of the unacknowledged sexual assault victim. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia.Google Scholar
  30. Lottes, I. L. (1988). Sexual socialization and attitudes toward rape. In A. W. Burgess (Ed.), Rape and sexual assault II. (pp. 193–220). New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  31. Metts, S., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1996). Sexual communication in interpersonal contexts: A script-based approach. In B. R. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 19 (pp. 49–91). New Brunswick, NJ: International Communication Association.Google Scholar
  32. Muehlenhard, C. L., Andrews, S. L., & Beal, G. K. (1996). Beyond "Just saying no": Dealing with men's unwanted sexual advances in heterosexual dating contexts. In E. S. Byers & L. F. O'Sullivan (Eds.), Sexual coercion in dating relationships (pp. 141–168). New York: Haworth Press.Google Scholar
  33. O'Sullivan, L. F., & Byers, E. S. (1992). College students' incorporation of initiator and restrictor roles in sexual dating interactions. Journal of Sex Research, 29, 435–446.Google Scholar
  34. Pitts, V. L., & Schwartz, M. D. (1993). Promoting self-blame in hidden rape cases. Humanity and Society, 17, 383–398.Google Scholar
  35. Proite, R., Dannells, M., & Benton, S. L. (1993). Gender, sex-role stereotypes, and the attribution of responsibility for date and acquaintance rape. Journal of College Student Development, 34, 411–417.Google Scholar
  36. Quinn, K., Sanchez-Hucles, J., Coates, G., & Gillen, B. (1991). Men's compliance with a woman's resistance to unwanted sexual advances. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 17, 13–31.Google Scholar
  37. Rose, S., & Frieze, I. H. (1993). Young singles' contemporary dating scripts. Sex Roles, 28, 499–509.Google Scholar
  38. Ryan, K. M. (1988). Rape and seduction scripts. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12, 237–245.Google Scholar
  39. Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  40. Schwartz, M. D., & Legett, M. S. (1999). Bad dates or emotional trauma? The aftermath of campus sexual assault. Violence Against Women, 5, 251–271.Google Scholar
  41. Shotland, R. L., & Craig, J. M. (1988). Can men and women differentiate between friendly and sexually interested behavior? Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 66–73.Google Scholar
  42. Shotland, R. L., & Goodstein, L. (1992). Sexual precedence reduces the perceived legitimacy of sexual refusal: An examination of attributions concerning date rape and consensual sex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 756–764.Google Scholar
  43. Tetreault, P. A., & Barnett, M. A. (1987). Reactions to stranger and acquaintance rape. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 353–358.Google Scholar
  44. Zadney, J., & Gerard, H. B. (1974). Attributed intentions and informational selectivity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 34–52.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityBlacksburg

Personalised recommendations