Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Predicting Verbal Coercion Following Sexual Refusal During a Hookup: Diverging Gender Patterns

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This online study explored gender differences in affective reactions to sexual refusal during hookups and whether state or trait measures were the best predictors of verbal coercion. The Midwestern U.S. undergraduate sample included 220 men and 50 women previously in situations where they wanted more sexual contact than their heterosexual partner desired. Women reported stronger negative responses on several affect variables, suggesting that such refusals might have resulted in significant expectancy violations. Men reported more experience in handling refusals, consistent with traditional sexual scripts. Logistic regression analyses revealed that dominant men were more likely to coerce when angry or confused, whereas hostile women were more likely to coerce when feeling rejected. The results have important implications for sexual coercion prevention efforts.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbey, A. (2002). Alcohol-related sexual assault: A common problem among college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 14, 118–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abbey, A., & McAuslan, P. (2004). A longitudinal examination of male college students’ perpetration of sexual assault. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 747–756.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Adams-Curtis, L. E., & Forbes, G. B. (2004). College women’s experiences of sexual coercion: A review of cultural, perpetrator, victim, and situational variables. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 5, 91–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, P. B. (1998). Variation in college women’s self-reported heterosexual aggression. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 10, 283–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, P. B., & Aymami, R. (1993). Reports of female initiation of sexual contact: Male and female differences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 22, 335–343.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, P. B., & Savage, J. S. (2005). Social, legal, and institutional context of heterosexual aggression by college women. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 6, 130–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, P. B., & Struckman-Johnson, C. (Eds.) (1998). Sexually aggressive women: Current perspectives and controversies. New York: Guilford Press.

  • Baumeister, R. F., Wotman, S. R., & Stillwell, A. M. (1993). Unrequited love: On heartbreak, anger, guilt, scriptlessness, and humiliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 377–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., Catanese, K. R., & Wallace, H. M. (2002). Conquest by force: A narcissistic reactance theory of rape and sexual coercion. Review of General Psychology, 6, 92–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, M. E., McGrady, B. S., Frankenstein, W., Laitman, L. A., Van Horn, D. H. Q., & Keller, D. S. (1992). Identifying young adult substance abusers: The Rutgers Collegiate Substance Abuse Screening Test. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 54, 522–527.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkowitz, A. D. (2002). Fostering men’s responsibility for preventing sexual assault. In P. Schewe (Ed.), Preventing violence in relationships: Interventions across the lifespan. Washington: The American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bevan, J. L. (2003). Expectancy violation theory and sexual resistance in close, cross-sex relationships. Communication Monographs, 70, 68–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our will: Men, women, and rape. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, K. E., Winkel, R. E., & Leary, M. R. (2004). Reactions to acceptance and rejection: Effects of level and sequence of relational evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 14–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byers, E. S. (1996). How well does the traditional sexual script explain sexual coercion? Review of a program of research. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 8, 7–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byers, E. S., & O’Sullivan, L. F. (1998). Similar but different: Men’s and women’s experiences of sexual coercion. In P. B. Anderson & C. Struckman-Johnson (Eds.), Sexually aggressive women: Current perspectives and controversies (pp. 144–168). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caruthers, A. S. (2006). “Hookups” and “friends with benefits”: Nonrelational sexual encounters as contexts of women’s normative sexual development, Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B. Sciences and Engineering, 66 (10-B) 5708.

  • Check, J. V. P., & Malamuth, N. (1985). An empirical assessment of some feminist hypotheses about rape. International Journal of Women’s Studies, 8, 414–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Check, J. V. P., Malamuth, N., Elias, B., & Barton, S. (1985). On hostile ground. Psychology Today, 19, 56–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clements-Schreiber, M. E., Rempel, J. K., & Desmarais, S. (1998). Women’s sexual pressure tactics and adherence to related attitudes: A step toward prediction. The Journal of Sex Research, 35, 197–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, M., & Popp, D. (2003). Sexual double standards: A review and methodological critique of two decades of research. The Journal of Sex Research, 40, 13–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Graaf, H., & Sandfort, T. G. M. (2004). Gender differences in affective responses to sexual rejection. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33, 395–403.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Felson, R. B., & Messner, S. F. (2000). The control motive in intimate partner violence. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 86–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flack, W. F., Daubman, K. A., Caron, M. L., Asadorian, J. A., D’Aureli, N. R., Gigliotti, S. N., et al. (2007). Risk factors and consequences of unwanted sex among university students: Hooking up, alcohol, and stress response. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 139–157.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Forbes, G. B., & Adams-Curtis, L. E. (2001). Experiences with sexual coercion in college males and females: Role of family conflict, sexist attitudes, acceptance of rape myths, self-esteem, and the Big-Five personality factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 865–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foubert, J. D. (2000). The longitudinal effects of a rape prevention program on fraternity men’s attitudes, behavioral intent, and behavior. Journal of American College Health, 48, 158–163.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gagnon, J. H. (1990). The explicit and implicit use of the scripting perspective in sex research. Annual Review of Sex Research, 1, 1–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality. Hinsdale: Dryden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, K., & Faulkner, S. (2005). Gender, belief in the sexual double standard, and sexual talk in heterosexual dating relationships. Sex Roles, 53, 239–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grello, C. M., Welsh, D. P., Harper, M. S., & Dickson, J. W. (2003). Dating and sexual relationship trajectories and adolescent functioning. Adolescent and Family Health, 3, 103–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grello, C. M., Welsh, D. P., & Harper, M. S. (2006). No strings attached: The nature of casual sex in college students. The Journal of Sex Research, 43, 255–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helgeson, V. S., & Fritz, H. L. (2000). The implications of unmitigated agency and unmitigated communion for domains of problem behavior. Journal of Personality, 68, 1031–1057.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, L. M., Rosenberg, S. E., Baer, B. A., Ureno, G., & Villasenor, V. S. (1988). Inventory of interpersonal problems: Psychometric properties and clinical applications. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 885–892.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kamen, P. (2003). Her way: Young women remake the sexual revolution. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolivas, E. D., & Gross, A. M. (2007). Assessing sexual aggression: Addressing the gap between rape victimization and perpetration prevalence rates. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 315–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krahe, B., Scheinberger-Olwig, R., & Bieneck, S. (2003). Men’s reports of nonconsenual sexual interactions with women: Prevalence and impact. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 165–175.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krahe, B., Bieneck, S., & Scheinberger-Olwig, R. (2007). Adolescents’ sexual scripts: Schematic representations of consensual and nonconsensual heterosexual interactions. Journal of Sex Research, 44, 316–327.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leary, M. R., Springer, C., Negel, L., Ansell, E., & Evans, K. (1998). The causes, phenomenology, and consequences of hurt feelings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1225–1237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leary, M. R., Twenge, J. M., & Quinlivan, E. (2006). Interpersonal rejection as a determinant of anger and aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 111–132.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1995). Attitudinal antecedents of rape myth acceptance: A theoretical and empirical re-examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 704–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lottes, I. L., & Weinberg, M. S. (1996). Sexual coercion among university students: A comparison of the United States and Sweden. The Journal of Sex Research, 34, 67–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. R. (2005). Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship between social and physical pain. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 202–223.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Malamuth, N. M., Linz, D., Heavey, C. L., Barnes, G., & Acker, M. (1995). Using the confluence model of sexual aggression to predict men’s conflict with women: A ten-year follow-up study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 353–369.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maticka-Tyndale, E., & Herold, E. S. (1999). Condom use on spring break vacation: The influence of intentions, prior use, and context. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 1010–1027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCaw, J. M., & Senn, C. Y. (1998). Perception of cues in conflictual dating situations: A test of the miscommunication hypothesis. Violence Against Women, 4, 609–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meston, C. M., Heiman, J. R., Trapnell, P. D., & Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Socially desirable responding and sexuality self-reports. The Journal of Sex Research, 35, 148–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metts, S., Cupach, W. R., & Imahori, T. T. (1992). Perceptions of sexual compliance-resisting messages in three types of cross-sex relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 56, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosher, C. E., & Danoff-Burg, S. (2005). Agentic and communal personality traits: Relations to attitudes toward sex and sexual experiences. Sex Roles, 52, 121–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muehlenhard, C. L. (1998). The importance and danger of studying sexually aggressive women. In P. B. Anderson & C. Struckman-Johnson (Eds.), Sexually aggressive women: Current perspectives and controversies (pp. 19–48). New York: Guildford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muehlenhard, C. L., & Cook, S. (1988). Men’s self-reports of unwanted sexual activity. Journal of Sex Research, 24, 58–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muehlenhard, C. L., & Rogers, C. S. (1998). Token resistance to sex: New perspectives on an old stereotype. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 443–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan, L. F., & Byers, E. S. (1993). Eroding stereotypes: College women’s attempts to influence reluctant male sexual partners. The Journal of Sex Research, 30, 270–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan, L. F., & Byers, E. S. (1996). Gender differences in responses to discrepancies in desired level of sexual intimacy. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 8, 49–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan, L. F., Byers, E. S., & Finkelman, L. (1998). A comparison of male and female college students’ experiences of sexual coercion. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 177–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortiz-Torres, B., Williams, S. P., & Erhardt, A. A. (2003). Urban women’s gender scripts: Implications for HIV. Culture, Health, and Sexuality, 5, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oswald, D. L., & Russell, B. L. (2006). Perceptions of sexual coercion and heterosexual dating relationships: The role of aggressor gender and tactics. The Journal of Sex Research, 43, 87–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul, E. L., & Hayes, K. A. (2002). The casualties of ‘casual’ sex: A qualitative exploration of the phenomenology of college students’ hookups. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 639–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul, E. L., McManus, B., & Hayes, A. (2000). “Hookups”: Characteristics and correlates of college students’ spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. The Journal of Sex Research, 37, 76–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, L. M. (2000). Flirting with danger: Young women’s reflections on sexuality and domination. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, B. L., & Oswald, D. L. (2002). Sexual coercion and victimization of college men: The role of love styles. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 273–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seal, D., & Ehrhardt, A. (2003). Masculinity and urban men: Perceived scripts for courtship, romantic and sexual interactions with women. Culture, Health, and Sexuality, 5, 295–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spitzberg, B. H. (1999). An analysis of empirical estimates of sexual aggression, victimization, and perpetration. Violence and Victims, 14, 241–260.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Struckman-Johnson, C. (1988). Forced sex on dates: It happens to men too. The Journal of Sex Research, 24, 234–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Struckman-Johnson, C., & Struckman-Johnson, D. (1993). College men’s and women’s reactions to hypothetical sexual touch varied by initiator gender and coercion level. Sex Roles, 29, 371–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Struckman-Johnson, C., & Struckman-Johnson, D. (1994). Men pressured and forced into sexual experience. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23, 93–114.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Struckman-Johnson, C., & Struckman-Johnson, D. (1998). The dynamics and impact of sexual coercion of men by women. In P. Anderson & C. Struckman-Johnson (Eds.), Sexually aggressive women: Current perspectives and controversies (pp. 121–143). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Struckman-Johnson, C., Struckman-Johnson, D., & Anderson, P. B. (2003). Tactics of sexual coercion: When men and women won’t take no for an answer. The Journal of Sex Research, 40, 76–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, S. J., & Herold, E. S. (2000). Casual sex and women: Measurement and motivational issues. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 12, 23–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Miami University, 90 North Patterson Ave, Psychology Building, Room 100 G, Oxford, OH, 45056, USA

    Margaret O’Dougherty Wright, Dana L. Norton & Jill Anne Matusek

Authors
  1. Margaret O’Dougherty Wright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dana L. Norton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jill Anne Matusek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Margaret O’Dougherty Wright.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wright, M.O., Norton, D.L. & Matusek, J.A. Predicting Verbal Coercion Following Sexual Refusal During a Hookup: Diverging Gender Patterns. Sex Roles 62, 647–660 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9763-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9763-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation