Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 979–986

Effects of gender, rape-supportive attitudes, and explicit instruction on perceptions of women’s momentary sexual interest

  • Teresa A. Treat
  • Erin K. Church
  • Richard J. Viken
Brief Report


Contemporary models of male-initiated sexual aggression toward female acquaintances implicate misperception of women’s sexual interest. This study investigated the effects of gender, rape-supportive attitudes and an instructional manipulation on college students’ sexual-interest judgments. Two hundred seventy-six women and 220 men judged the cues of momentary sexual interest expressed by photographed women; half received instruction on the differential validity of nonverbal cues of sexual interest for estimation of women’s momentary sexual interest. Participants also completed an assessment of rape-supportive attitudes. Overall, college students’ perceptions of women’s momentary sexual interest are compromised both nomothetically and idiographically. Both male and female college students relied not only on women’s nonverbal affect but also on the provocativeness of women’s clothing and attractiveness when judging women’s sexual interest. Men and women showed similar average ratings, but women relied more than men on women’s affect, whereas men relied more than women on women’s attractiveness. Both male and female students who endorsed more rape-supportive attitudes, relative to their peers, relied less on women’s affect and more on women’s clothing style and attractiveness. Explicit instruction regarding the greater validity of women’s affective than nonaffective cues enhanced focus on nonverbal affective cues and decreased focus on clothing style and attractiveness. Although higher rape-supportive attitudes predicted more deficits in processing cues of sexual interest, explicit instruction proved to be effective for both higher-risk and lower-risk participants. These findings highlight the generalizability of the well-established effects of explicit instruction on category learning to sexual perception and may point to procedures that eventually could be incorporated into augmented prevention programs for sexual aggression on college campuses.


Cognitive training Social cognition Cue utilization Sexual perception 

Supplementary material

13423_2016_1176_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (247 kb)
ESM 1(PDF 247 kb)


  1. Abbey, A., Jacques-Tiura, A. J., & LeBreton, J. M. (2011). Risk factors for sexual aggression in young men: An expansion of the confluence model. Aggressive Behavior, 37, 450–464.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 256–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker S. (2015). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4 (R package Version 1.1-8) [Computer software]. Retrieved from
  4. DeGue, S., Valle, L. A., Holt, M. K., Massetti, G. M., Matjasko, J. L., & Tharp, A. T. (2014). A systematic review of primary prevention strategies for sexual violence perpetration. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 346–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Farris, C. A., Treat, T. A., Viken, R. J., & McFall, R. M. (2008a). Gender differences in perception of women’s sexual intent. Psychological Science, 19, 348–354.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Farris, C. A., Treat, T. A., Viken, R. J., & McFall, R. M. (2008b). Sexual coercion and the misperception of sexual intent. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 48–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Farris, C. A., Viken, R. J., & Treat, T. A. (2010). Perceived association between diagnostic and non-diagnostic cues of women’s sexual interest: General Recognition Theory predictors of risk for sexual coercion. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 54, 137–149.Google Scholar
  8. Farris, C. A., Viken, R. J., Treat, T. A., & McFall, R. M. (2006). Heterosocial perceptual organization: A choice model application to sexual coercion. Psychological Science, 17, 869–875.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Healy, A. F., Schneider, V. I., & Bourne, L. E. (2012). Empirically valid principles of training. In A. F. Healy & L. E. Bourne Jr. (Eds.), Training cognition: Optimizing efficiency, durability, and generalizability (pp. 13–39). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  10. Karelaia, N., & Hogarth, R. M. (2008). Determinants of linear judgment: A meta-analysis of lens model studies. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 404–426.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Krebs, C. P., Lindquist, C. H., Warner, T. S., Fisher, B. S., & Martin, S. L. (2007, December). The campus sexual assault (CSA) study. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  12. Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2013). lmerTest: Tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models (R package Version, 2.0-25) [Computer software]. Retrieved from
  13. Lupyan, G., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2012). The evocative power of words: Activation concepts by verbal and nonverbal means. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 170–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Malamuth, N. M., Sockloskie, R. J., Koss, M. P., & Tanaka, J. S. (1991). Characteristics of aggressors against women: Testing a model using a national sample of college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 670–681.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Maner, J. K., Miller, S. L., Moss, J. H., Leo, J. L., & Plant, E. A. (2012). Motivated social categorization: Fundamental motives enhance people’s sensitivity to basic social categories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 70–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Payne, D. L., Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1999). Rape myth acceptance: Exploration of its structure and its measurement using the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 27–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Perilloux, C., Easton, J. A., & Buss, D. M. (2012). The misperception of sexual interest. Psychological Science, 23, 146–151.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Perilloux, C., & Kurzban, R. (2015). Do men overperceive women’s sexual interest? Psychological Science, 26, 70–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Thompson, M. P., Koss, M. P., Kingree, J. B., Goree, J., & Rice, J. (2011). A prospective mediational model of sexual aggression among college men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 2716–2734.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Treat, T. A., Farris, C. A., Viken, R. J., & Smith, J. R. (2015). Influence of sexually degrading music on men’s perceptions of women’s dating-relevant cues. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29, 135–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Treat, T. A., Viken, R. M., Kruschke, J. K., & McFall, R. M. (2011). Men’s memory for women’s sexual-interest and rejection cues. Journal of Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 802–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Treat, T. A., Viken, R. M., Farris, C. A., & Smith, J. R. (2016). Enhancing the accuracy of men’s perceptions of women’s sexual interest in the laboratory. Psychology of Violence, 6, 562–572.Google Scholar
  23. Yeater, E., Treat, T. A., Viken, R. J., & McFall, R. M. (2010). Cognitive processes underlying women’s risk judgments: Associations with sexual victimization history and rape myth acceptance. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78, 375–386.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Teresa A. Treat
    • 1
  • Erin K. Church
    • 2
  • Richard J. Viken
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Psychological and Brain SciencesUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA
  2. 2.George Warren Brown School of Social WorkWashington University in St. LouisSt. LouisUSA
  3. 3.Department of Psychological and Brain SciencesIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations