Date rape risk factors: A review and methodological critique of the literature

Pergamon

Aggression and Violent Behavior, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 27-45, 1996 Copyright © 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in the USA. All rights reserved 1359-1789/96 $15.00 + .00

SSDI 1359-1789(95)00003-8

DATE RAPE RISK FACTORS: A REVIEW AND METHODOLOGICAL CRITIQUE OF THE LITERATURE Brian P. Marx, Victoria Van Wie, and Alan M. Gross University of Mississippi

ABSTRACT, It has been well established that date rape is a frequent occurrence in college students. A large body of literature has examined factors related to date rape in an attempt to determine its antecedents. This article reviews the current literature. Studies examining factors related to sexual victimization, characteristics suggested to be common to date rapists, situational characteristics associated with date rape, and variables associated with misperceived sexual intent are reviewed. Firm conclusions about these factors, however, are hindered by methodological problems, including limited use of experimental designs, retrospective selfreport data, inadequate control groups, unstandardized measurements and definitions, and analog laboratory designs. Suggestions and directions for future research are provided.

RAPE IS defined as the sexual penetration of another by force or threat of force and without consent (Benson, Charlton, & Goodhart, 1992). Rape incidents have been parceled into two categories: rapes perpetrated by a stranger, and rapes perpetrated by an acquaintance or person known to the victim (Amir, 1971; Koss, 1985; Koss & Harvey, 1987; Weis & Borges, 1973). Stranger rape is defined as nonconsensual sex between individuals who do not know each other prior to the sexual act. Acquaintance rape is defined as nonconsensual sex between individuals who do know each other prior to the sexual act. The acquaintance relationship can be one of any variety of acquaintanceships, including platonic, dating, marital, professional, academic, or familial. Date rape is, thus, a subset of acquaintance rape where nonconsensual sex occurs between two people who are dating (Bechofer & Parrot, 1991). Statistics show that, in recent years, rape rates have been steadily increasing. Crime victimization surveys that have shown rape incidents to be three to four times higher than U.S. Bureau of Justice statistics indicate that about 200 per 100,000 women are the victims of completed or attempted rape (Ellis, 1989). It appears that crime surveys, which derive statistics from citizen reports to police, appear to underestimate the incidence of rape when compared to more in-depth surveys specific to rape victimization. These differences may be due Correspondence should be addressed to Alan M. Gross, Department of Psychology, University of Mississippi, University, MS 38677.

27

28

B. P. Marx, V. Van Wie, and A. M. Gross

to dissimilar definitions of rape. It has also been suggested that women may be hesitant to report rape incidents to authorities but readily report them in anonymous surveys that are part of descriptive psychological studies (e.g., Muehlenhard & Linton, 1987; Tanzman, 1992). Koss, Gidycz, and Wisniewski (1987) have shown that underreporting of the incidence of rape on the annual National Crime Survey (NCS) may be the result of the information gathering methods used. Questions regarding rape on the NCS often require the subject to infer the focus of inquiry, are embedded in a context of violent crime, and assume that subjects use the word rape to describe their experiences. Research has shown that most rape incidents occur between acquaintances (Amir, 1971; Kanin, 1957; Koss et al., 1987; Rabkin, 1979; Russell, 1984) and that the majority of rape victims fall into the age group of 16 to 25 years (Amir 1971; Koss et al., 1987; Russell, 1984). As such, many studies of rape prevalence have focused on the college population. In 1988, Koss found that 13% of a representative sample of college women had experienced unwanted sexual intercourse involving physical force. Most of these women either knew their assailant or were romantically involved with him at the time of the rape. Another 24% reported attempted rape, and another 18% had been verbally coerced to consent to sex. It is important to differentiate acquaintance rape from stranger rape because research suggests that determinants for stranger and date rape often differ. In stranger rape, the rape usually is premeditated, suggesting the sexual motive is secondary to aggressive motives. This appears not to be the case in date rape, where sexual motives appear to be primary. Moreover, date rape is worthy of attention because the victim and assailant usually view the rape incident differently. The woman usually feels as if she has been victimized, while the man perceives that no harm has been done (Parrot & Bechhofer, 1991). The focus of this article will be on date rape within the college-age population. It has been well established that date and acquaintance rape is a frequent occurrence in college students. This article reviews and critiques investigations that examine factors and variables related to acquaintance and date rape. Following a discussion of characteristics suggested to be common to date rapists, an examination of situational characteristics associated with date rape will be presented. Variables associated with misperceived sexual intent and factors related to sexual victimization will also be discussed. Following a discussion of methodological issues, suggestions for future research will be presented.

PREVALENCE OF DATE RAPE Muehlenhard and Linton (1987) assessed the incidence and risk factors of sexual aggression in dating situations. Men and women subjects were anonymously given several attitudinal questionnaires. They were also asked to describe their most recent date to provide normative data. Questions also addressed whether subjects ever experienced sexual aggression, and, if applicable, their worst experience with sexual aggression during a date. They found that over 77% of the women and 57% of the men polled were involved in some form of sexual aggression, with 14.7% of women and 7.1% of men involved in unwanted sexual intercourse. Koss, Gidycz, and Wisniewski (1987) administered the Sexual Experiences Survey to a sample of 6,159 students enrolled in 32 institutions of higher education across the United States. Prevalence rates from this survey revealed that 53.7% of the women experienced some form of sexual victimization, with attempted rape experienced by 12.1% and rape experienced by 15.4%. It was also noted that 25.1% of all men surveyed acknowledged involvement in some form of sexual aggression. Approximately 4.5% admitted committing rape, and an additional 3.3% revealed attempted rape of a date. These studies, as well as countless others (Aizenman & Kelley, 1988; Lewin, 1985; Meyer, 1984; Miller & Marshall, 1987; Mills & Granoft, 1992; Ward, Chapman, Cohn, White, & Williams, 1991; Yegidis, 1986), indicate that college women fall into a high risk category for

Date Rape Risk Factors

29

date rape even though the range of self-reported incidents of attempted or completed rape differs from annual National Crime Surveys.

VICTIM CHARACTERISTICS Koss (1985) suggests that there are three theoretical models to explain how women become rape victims: the social control model, the victim precipitation model (Amir, 1971), and the situational blame model. The social control model of rape victimization posits that women are socialized to accept rape-supportive attitudes and beliefs. The victim precipitation model proposes that a woman's risk of rape can be increased unknowingly by engaging in specific behaviors. This model also suggests that personality characteristics such as passivity and oversubmissiveness can increase a woman's vulnerability to rape. The situational blame model suggests that risk of sexual victimization is increased by certain environmental circumstances surrounding the assault. Victim response strategies in these situations are proposed to increase the likelihood of sexual assault. Working from these paradigms, many investigators have attempted to find factors that may increase a woman's vulnerability to sexual victimization in a dating relationship.

Age of Victim Most rape victims are between the ages of 13 and 26 (Amir, 1971; Koss et al., 1987; Russell, 1984). Russell asserts that increased risk of rape in this age group may be related to dating frequency. Women in this age group axe exposed to a larger number of potential perpetrators than at other times in their lives (Harney & Muehlenhard, 1991).

Previous Sexual Abuse Several studies have examined the link between early sexual victimization and victimization later in life (Gidycz, Coble, Latham, & Layman, 1993; Koss & Dinero, 1989; Russell, 1984). After reviewing the literature on the long-term effects of childhood sexual abuse, Browne and Finkelhor (1986) reported that adult abuse survivors are more likely than nonvictimized individuals to experience problems with low self-esteem, substance abuse, and depression. The authors suggested that these difficulties may increase the vulnerability of a survivor to future victimization in adulthood. Koss and Dinero (1989) conducted an investigation to identify risk factors for sexual victimization among a national sample of 2,723 college women. Participants completed a 330 item self-report questionnaire. Questionnaire items sought information about degree of sexual victimization and risk variables. The risk variables assessed included vulnerablity-creating traumatic experiences (e.g., background history), social-psychological characteristics (personality/attitudes), and vulnerablity-enhancing situation variables (e.g., sexual activity and alcohol use). It was reported that women who experienced sexual abuse in childhood were more likely to experience rape or attempted rape than women without a history of childhood sexual abuse. Gidycz et al. (1993) conducted a prospective analysis to investigate ways in which victimization experiences in childhood and later victimization in adulthood become related. Participants completed the Sexual Experiences Survey (Koss & Oros, 1982) to assess victimization after the age of 14. Participants completed questionnaires that screened for childhood victimization (prior to age 14), and levels of anxiety and depression. Measures were readministered 9 weeks later in order to assess victimization during the college quarter (Time 2). Data analyses revealed that individuals who experienced sexual assault during the 9-week interval had a higher incidence of sexual victimization in adolescence and childhood than nonvictims. Childhood or adolescent victimization predicted the poorest psychological adjustment

30

B. P. Marx, V Van Wie, and A. M. Gross

at Time 1 (as measured by the BAI and BDI). Results also suggested that poor psychological adjustment at Time 1 predicted adult victimization. The authors suggested that feelings of powerlessness and unworthiness (which may be the result of a history of victimization) may play a role in the risk of sexual victimization. Himelein (1995) has argued that experiencing sexual abuse as a child may be an important factor in women who experience sexual victimization during adulthood. One hundred college women completed questionnaires, including the Sexual Experiences Survey, a child sexual abuse survey, and several attitudinal measures including the Rape Myth Acceptance Scale, Sexual Conservatism Scale, Adversarial Beliefs Scale, and Acceptance of Interpersonal Violence Scale. Participants completed the Sexual Experiences Survey approximately 32 months later in order to assess the incidence of sexual victimization that may have occurred in the interim. The data revealed a relationship between childhood sexual abuse and precollege sexual victimization in dating. A relationship between precollege victimization in dating and college victimization was also demonstrated. However, a direct relationship between childhood sexual abuse and sexual victimization during college was not established. Himelein asserted that childhood sexual abuse may increase the risk of future sexual victimization, but this vulnerability may lessen as the length of time without victimization increases. It should be noted that her study reported a positive correlation between victimization during high school and sexual victimization during college. It has also been noted that women who report having many sexual partners and engaging in sexual intercourse at an early age are at an increased risk for sexual victimization (Koss & Dinero, 1989). Using the Sexual Experiences Survey, Koss (1985) classified a sample of college women into victim and nonvictim groups. Koss reported that, compared to nonvictims, rape victims reported a significantly higher number of sexual partners and reported engaging in sexual intercourse at a younger age. In an attempt to explain the observation that women who have been victims of sexual abuse during childhood are at an increased risk for sexual victimization as adults, LundbergLove and Geffner (1989) suggested that these women may have learned to feel powerless and may feel that they are unable to escape from these types of situations. Victims of childhood sexual victimization (particularly incest victims) may be prone to discount their perceptions of danger in a dating situation, increasing the likelihood of victimization. Moreover, they also suggested that survivors of sexual abuse may engage in behaviors that are likely to be misinterpreted by their partners and may be related to the occurrence of date rape (Lundberg-Love & Geffner, 1989). The authors assert that these individuals may show ageinappropriate sexual interest, have difficulty setting sexual limits, and may use sexual behavior to get attention.

Victim Attitudes Muehlenhard and Linton (1987) found support for the notion that, relative to nonvictimized women, victimized women are more accepting of violence in dating relationships. They administered Burt's (1980)Adversarial Sexual Beliefs Scale and Acceptance of Interpersonal Violence Scale to a sample of 728 college students to examine relationships between attitudes and sexual aggression. They found that women who reported past experience with sexual aggression in dating situations were more accepting of violence toward women and adversarial sexual beliefs than other women in the sample. Muehlenhard and MacNaughton (1988) examined a sample of 206 college female's beliefs about women that "lead men on." Participants were asked to read one of two date rape scenarios in which the woman's behavior was "suggestive" or "modest" (such as wearing revealing/conservative clothing). Participants were then asked to respond to questions regarding the victim's responsibility for the incident. In addition, participants completed questionnaires to

Date Rape Risk Factors

31

measure attitudes toward rape, gender roles, and sexual experiences. Measures included the Sexual Experiences Survey, the Sexual Beliefs Scale (Muehlenhard & Felts, as cited in Muehlenhard & MacNaughton, 1988), and the Sex Role Stereotyping Scale. Investigators found that participants who adhered more to the belief that rape is justifiable if the woman "led the man on" were more likely to have been involved in unwanted sexual intercourse obtained through verbal coercion than women who had not experienced sexual victimization. In contrast to the above studies, several investigations have suggested that a victim's attitudes and likelihood of sexual victimization are unrelated. Koss (1985) administered several questionnaires including the Sexual Experiences Survey, the Spence-Helmreich Attitudes Toward Women Scale, and a scale to measure rape supportive attitudes to a sample of 231 college females. Participants were also asked to answer questions about their social history (the Dating Behavior Interview). The data revealed that victims who acknowledged experiencing a rape reported less conservative sexual values than nonvictimized women. Koss reported that unacknowledged rape victims (those that did not report being raped, but reported an experience that met the legal definition of rape) did not differ from nonvictimized individuals about their sexual attitudes. The author suggested that most date rape victims do not differ from nonvictimized women in their sexual attitudes. Koss and Dinero (1989) have reported similar results. Koss and Dinero (1989) have asserted that it is unlikely that victims and nonvictims differ in their attitudes or beliefs about sex roles or rape. However, they suggest that a victim's attitudes may have an impact on how she conceptualizes the sexual assault. That is, if a victimized woman views the incident as her fault or believes that her partner was so aroused that he could not control himself, she may be less likely to conceptualize herself as a victim of rape. Attitudes of nonvictims (especially a victim's support system) may also have an effect on the victim's conceptualization of the assault. Rape supportive attitudes may be seen as more permissable when applied to date rape than when applied to stranger rape (Holcomb, Holcomb, Sondag, & Williams, 1991). It is surprisingly common for young women to endorse many of the same cultural stereotypes and attitudes reported by date rapists. This may contribute to the fact that many date rape victims may believe that they were responsible for creating a context that permitted sexual assault (Yegedis, 1986). Firm conclusions about the role that a victim's attitudes may or may not play in vulnerability to date rape have not been reached. Some authors, such as Himelein (1995), question use of retrospective techniques used in measuring attitudes. They warn that tolerance for violence and rape supportive attitudes may develop as a result of an attack.

Victim Personality Characteristics Amick and Calhoun (1987) examined factors that contribute to resistance to sexual aggression. Two hundred and six college females completed the Sexual Experiences Survey and other measures to assess prevalence and details of sexual victimization. Participants were also administered sections of the California Personality Inventory (CPI). Successful and unsuccessful resistors of sexual aggression within dating situations were distinguished by two scales of the CPI: social presence and dominance. The Dominance (Do) scale was used to measure passivity and submissiveness, and the Social Presence (Sp) scale was administered to participants to measure poise, social skills, and effective communication skills. Women that scored higher on these characteristics were less likely than those with lower scores to resist successfully sexual aggression. In the Koss (1985) study described above the relationship between personality characteristics and victimization was examined. Two scales of the California Psychological Inventory

32

B. P Marx, V Van Wie, and A. M. Gross

(CPI), Dominance and Social Presence (described above), were administered to participants. No significant differences between groups of victimized and nonvictimized women were obtained using these personality variables. Existence of distinct personality characteristics that differentiate between victims and nonvictims is questionable, given the conflicting results of similar studies. Investigators have reported more consistent findings in the research of the relationship of victimization to behavioral variables.

Victim Behaviors Women are largely viewed as having "control" or responsibility for sex in a dating relationship. Women have been socialized to "hold the line" and set the rules of sexual intimacy (Yegedis, 1986). Bateman (1991) asserts that women are seen as the gatekeepers of sexual interaction and are responsible for stopping the escalation of sexual interaction with their partner. Signals of sexual availability are sent and interpreted by partners. The female is perceived as sending intentional cues, especially sexual ones, in a dating relationship (Malamuth & Check, 1980; Muehlenhard & Linton, 1987; Shotland & Craig, 1988). In an attack by a stranger the female may perhaps be viewed as "blameless" in the eyes of her peers (she had no control), while if she had been attacked by her date she would have been deemed responsible for "leading him on." Several studies have investigated possible associations between victim behaviors and the occurrence of date rape (Amir, 1971; Koss & Dinero, 1989; Muehlenhard, Friedman, & Thomas, 1985; Muehlenhard & Linton, 1987; Muehlenhard & MacNaughton, 1988). These behaviors have been postulated to produce perceptions of victim arousal, acquiescence, or interest in the assailant (Kanin, 1984; Malamuth & Check, 1980; Muehlenhard, Koralewski, Andrews, & Burdick, 1986; Shotland & Craig, 1988). Muehlenhard, Friedman, and Thomas (1985) examined behaviors that men might interpret as suggestive of sexual interest. The possible "suggestive" behaviors examined were asking a man on a date, going to his apartment, or letting the man pay dating expenses. Participants (college males) were presented with written vignettes about two fictional characters and their date. The "suggestive" behaviors were manipulated, changing the location of the date, who initiated, and who paid. After reading the vignettes, participants rated (on a Likert scale) whether the male in the vignette would be justified having sexual intercourse with the female against her will. It was reported that participants viewed forced sexual intercourse as more justified when a man pays for dating expenses. Investigators also reported that participants may view certain female behaviors (such as initiating a date or going to his apartment) as indicators of her desire for sexual intercourse. The authors suggested that the perceived justifiability of rape by men in such situations may be increased if the man feels that she has "led him on" with these "suggestive" behaviors. In their retrospective examination of sexual aggression and the suggestive behaviors listed above Muehlenhard, Freidman, and Thomas (1985) asked a sample of college men and women to provide information about their most recent date. Information from participants that reported experience with sexual aggression was compared to data from participants who did not report sexual aggression. Results were consistent with those of Muehlenhard et al. (1985) that the man's initiating the date, paying all the expenses, and driving on the date were all associated with sexual aggression. Investigators suggested that a power differential is established through control of the planning of the date and driving on a date. Muehlenhard (1988) conducted a study with 272 female and 268 male undergraduates using methods similar to those of Muehlenhard et al. (1985) to explore the relationship between misinterpreted dating behaviors and date rape. Following each vignette, partici-

Date Rape Risk Factors

33

pants completed questionnaires measuring the sex-willingness of the characters depicted and how justified the man would be in having sex with the woman against her wishes. Participants were classified as traditional or nontraditional using the Attitudes Toward Women Scale. The majority of participants (77.5%) indicated that they believed it was never justifiable for the male depicted in the scenario to have sex with the female against her will. However, 22.5% of the participants indicated that they believed rape was sometimes justifiable. Further examination of the circumstances in which these individuals believed sexual intercourse against the woman's will was justifiable yielded several factors. Consistent with findings from Muehlenhard et al. (1985), rape was viewed as the most justifiable (by men and women) when the woman asked the man out, went to his apartment, or let him pay the dating expenses. Additionally, male participants classified as traditional reported rape as significantly more justifiable than men rated as nontraditional. The authors reported that traditional individuals (especially men) may continue to believe that a woman is willing to have sex even after she says no. They asserted that this persistence may be associated with a traditional script of sexual behavior in which the female's resistance would have been viewed as "token," that is, the female actually wanted to have sex. Abbey, Cozzarelli, McLaughlin, and Hamish (1987) conducted a study to examine the effects of the type of clothing worn and dyad-sex composition related to perceptions of sexual intent. Participants (college students) were exposed to different photographs in which the clothing (revealing/nonrevealing) and the sex-composition of the dyads (male-female, female-female, male-male) were manipulated. The female in the photo who wore revealing clothing (regardless of dyad) was rated by men and women as being more flirtatious, sexy, seductive, and promiscuous and was viewed as less considerate and sincere than the female wearing nonrevealing clothing. These results may suggest that a male's perception of his date's sexual intent could be influenced by the type of clothing she wears on the date. Furthermore, a woman wearing revealing clothing on a date may be viewed as less sincere in her refusals of sexual activity by her date, increasing the likelihood of date rape. Results from the above studies suggest that certain variables in the dating situation are related to heightened perceptions of a woman's willingness to have sex and increased justifiability of forced intercourse. Investigators have suggested that a woman may be at increased risk for sexual victimization in a dating situation if she initiates the date, allows her partner to pay dating expenses, goes to his apartment, and wears revealing clothing.

PERPETRATOR CHARACTERISTICS Date rape patterns appear to vary considerably from stranger rape patterns previously identified by researchers (see Amir, 1971). In Kanin's (1984) descriptive study in which he interviewed 71 self-disclosed date rapists, he reported that 75% of his sample was from middle class backgrounds and 82% were college students. Few of the rapists in his sample had ever confronted the criminal justice system for their actions nor was there any extensive history of aggression in any of his participants. It was also established that these men were not sexually deprived, but rather these men dated frequently and had more sexual experience than a control group.

Perpetrator Attitudes Many studies have suggested that date rapists, as compared to other nonrapist males, hold prorape, adversarial, and violence attitudes as well as traditional or stereotyped sex roles for men and women. Moreover, it has been suggested that attitudinal gender differences exist, as males have different perceptions of rape than females with male students more likely to hold many of the rape myths and traditional sexist attitudes that permeate society (Dull & Giacopassi, 1987; Follingstad, Wright, Lloyd, & Sebastian, 199 l; Holcomb et al., 1991).

34

B. P. Marx, V. Van Wie, and A. M. Gross

Rape myths are defined as prejudiced, stereotyped, or false beliefs about rape, rape victims, and rapists (Burt, 1991). Examples of rape myths include: the victim wanted or deserved to be raped, that when women say "no" they really mean "yes" to sexual advances, or that no harm was done when a woman was the victim of forced sexual contact. Previous research (Burt, 1980) has shown that increased acceptance of rape myths may be associated with increased sex-role stereotyping, adversarial sexual beliefs, and acceptance of interpersonal violence. Rape myths have also been found to be widely held by college age males (Muehlenhard & Linton, 1987; Quackenbush, 1991). Researchers have found that acceptance of rape myths in college males is associated with self-reported likelihood of raping (Dull & Giacopassi, 1987; Fischer, 1986a, 1986b, 1987; Hamilton & Yee, 1990; Malamuth, 1981; Malamuth & Check, 1980; Muehlenhard & Linton, 1987; Quackenbush, 1991; Tieger, 1981). Furthermore, researchers have found that self-reported likelihood of raping in college males has predicted laboratory aggression against women (Malamuth & Ceniti, 1986) and is associated with coercive sexual fantasies (Greenlinger & Byme, 1987) and decreased knowledge of the effects of rape (Hamilton & Yee, 1990). In a survey of the psychological characteristics of date and acquaintance rapists Koss, Leonard, Beezley, and Oros (1985) surveyed undergraduate males, classified as either sexually assaultive, sexually abusive, sexually coercive, or sexually nonaggressive. Subjects were identified through their responses to the Sexual Experiences Survey, scale 4 of the MMPI, the Buss and Durke Hostility Scale, Attitudes Towards Women Scale, a social anxiety scale, and an author constructed scale adapted from Burt's (1980) work, which measured adversarial sexual beliefs, acceptance of rape myths, interpersonal violence, and traditional sex roles. Results showed that, as predicted, male college students who used force to gain nonconsensual intercourse with female acquaintances differed from other college males in their degree of adherence to rape-supportive attitudes. Increased sexual aggression was associated with increased perceptions of interpersonal relationships as adversarial, acceptance of sex-role stereotypes, and rape myths. Muehlenhard, Linton, Felts, and Andrews (1985) administered an author-constructed Sexual Attitudes Survey to a sample of college males to investigate men's attitudes towards the justifiability of date rape. They found that the rape myth most frequently associated with date rape was men's belief that when women say "no" they really mean "yes." Also, the investigators ascertained that another belief strongly associated with sexual assault was that violence against women is permissible when men feel "led on."

Perpetrator Personality Characteristics The theory that men who rape are psychologically abnormal compared to men who do not rape has not been supported by empirical research (Amir, 1971). However, other studies have found that men who commit rape may have certain personality characteristics and childhood experiences that might predispose them to become sexually aggressive as adults. Rapaport and Burkhart (1984) attempted to identify characteristics of college males who participate in nonconsensual sexual activities. Male undergraduate students were administered a survey of coercive sexual behavior as well as several other measures including several scales from the California Personality Inventory, Endorsement of Force Scale, Coercive Sexuality Scale, and several sex role questionnaires. It was reported that the degree of involvement in sexually coercive behavior was found to covary with personality measures of irresponsibility, lack of social conscience, and values legitimizing aggression against women. The authors suggested that these personality traits mediate coercive sexual behavior. Results from other studies have shown that other traits, such as instrumentality and expressiveness (Stets & Pirog-Good, 1987) and need for dominance over sexual partners (Malamuth, 1986) may be associated with dating violence in men.

Date Rape Risk Factors

35

Perpetrator Patterns of Sexual Behavior Investigators have explored the sexual histories as well as pattems of sexual behavior associated with male college students who engage in date rape. Koss and Dinero (1989), using self-report methods with a large national sample of college students, found that men who perpetrated severe sexual aggression, relative to those who did not perpetrate sexual aggression, had their first sexual experience at a younger age and reported earlier and more frequent childhood sexual experiences, both forced and voluntary. Kanin (1984, 1985) has also closely explored the associated patterns of sexual behavior in his descriptive investigation of 71 self-disclosed date rapists. Kanin noted that relative to controls the date rapists were more sexually experienced, more successful in dating, and participated in more sexual activity. He also reported that these date rapists were generally dissatisfied with the frequency of their sexual experiences and, as a result, were frustrated by their relative sexual deprivation. Other investigators have focused on the relationship between sexual arousal and sexual aggression. Although many of the studies of sexual arousal and rape have focused on incarcerated males and stranger rapists (e.g., Abel, Barlow, Blanchard, & Guild, 1977; Barbaree, Marshall, & Lanthier, 1979), studies of sexual arousal and rape have also focused on the male college population (Malamuth & Check, 1980, 1983). In their 1980 study, Malamuth and Check attempted to detect the components of a date rape depiction that caused suppression of arousal in a normal population. One hundred forty-three male and female undergraduate students randomly read one of several sexually arousing passages. These stories were manipulated as to consent or nonconsent of the woman, woman's arousal or disgust, and pain or no pain experienced by the woman. Results indicated that portrayals of women experiencing sexual arousal, irrespective of whether the depiction portrayed rape or consenting interactions, were reported by male participants to be more sexually arousing than those in which the woman is depicted as being disgusted during the interaction. These outcomes imply that men's perceptions of female sexual arousal are crucial to the arousal state of the male listening to the depiction. Results of other studies (Malamuth & Check, 1983) suggest that college males arousal to rape depictions may also be related to several measures of aggressive tendencies and power motivation. Byers (1988) conducted an experiment in which a sample of unmarried college men and women role-played responses to a date's first and second refusal of sexual advances after watching either a neutral or erotic film. Participants were less compliant in response to the first than to the second refusal. Men scoring high in rape myth acceptance, as measured by the Rape Myth Acceptance Scale, who viewed a neutral film were less compliant than were men who scored low on rape myth acceptance. Data also showed that increased sexual arousal, measured by subjective estimates of arousal, affected male participants' compliance to their partner's refusals. Byers asserted that these results provide evidence for the commonly held notion that if a woman allows a man beyond a certain level of sexual activity, she has "forfeited" her right to refuse intercourse. Sundberg, Barbaree, and Marshall (1991) examined the effects of differing levels of victim blame on the sexual arousal of 32 male college students who were exposed to sex vignettes, which varied with regard to consent of the portrayed female and along a continuum of victim blame. Using a mercury-in-rubber strain gauge, participant sexual arousal was assessed continually during each of two sessions. In the first session, participants listened to three sexually explicit audiotaped vignettes (warm-up, female consenting, and female nonconsenting) that did not vary in order of presentation. In the second session, each participant was again presented with these vignettes in the same order. However, upon this presentation the consenting and nonconsenting vignettes were altered to include manipulations of low,

36

B. P. Marx, V. Van Wie, and A. M. Gross

medium, or high victim blame. All groups found the consenting vignette significantly more arousing than the nonconsenting vignette, although the effect was significantly smaller for participants assigned to high victim blame conditions. It was also found that participants assigned to high victim blame conditions became significantly more aroused than subjects assigned to medium or low victim blame conditions. When taken together, the data from these experiments suggest that male sexual arousal may play a role in date rape. However, these studies also suggest that arousal levels are determined, in part, by immediate situational factors, such as perceived female consent, arousal of the female, repeated exposure to violent sexual stimuli, and conditions in which elevated victim blame exists. In addition, results from some studies imply that the mechanism by which arousal may facilitate sexual aggression is through promoting sexual cue discrimination difficulties and the selective attention to salient immediate cues in males (Baxter, Barbaree, & Marshall, 1986; Byers, 1988; Wydra, Marshall, Earls, & Barbaree, 1983).

CONTEXTUAL/SITUATIONALCHARACTERISTICS Location Researchers have focused on particular locations and activities in which date rape most commonly occurs through surveys and ratings of rape justifiability in different dating situations (Miller & Marshall, 1987; Muehlenhard, 1988; Muehlenhard et al., 1985; Muehlenhard & Linton, 1987). Miller and Marshall (1987) surveyed 795 college men and women at a large university. They found that the most common location for coercive sex (date rape) was an apartment or private house (55%). Residence halls (15%) and parked cars (15%) ranked as the second most common locations for date rape to occur. Five percent of the women sampled reported experiencing date rape at a fraternity house. Muehlenhard and Linton (1987) reported similar findings and noted that sexual aggression was twice as likely to occur at the man's apartment than at the woman's apartment. The authors suggested that a notion of control may be associated with an assailants "turf" and may make a man's car or apartment a more likely location for sexual aggression.

Alcohol Many studies have revealed an association between alcohol consumption and date rape (Abbey, 1991b; Frinter & Rubinson, 1993; Koss & Dinero, 1989; Miller & Marshall, 1987; Muehlenhard & Linton, 1987; Norris & Cubbins, 1992). Miller and Marshall (1987) surveyed 795 male and female college students. Participants completed the Sexual Experiences Survey (Koss & Oros, 1982). The investigators reported that over half of the college females surveyed indicated that they had been using alcohol or other drugs at the time of unwanted sexual intercourse. The investigators argued that alcohol use may impair a woman's ability to resist an attack from her partner. Norris and Cubbins (1992) had 68 female and 64 male college students read a story of a date ending in rape. Investigators varied only the alcohol or soda consumption of the individuals on the date. After reading the scenario, participants completed questionnaires in which they rated traits and behaviors of the victim and the assailant. They found that rape was not judged as severely when both members of a dating couple had been drinking alcohol when compared to couples in which only the woman consumed alcohol. Investigators asserted that one implication of these findings is that when a man and woman drink together on a date, sexual intercourse is expected. Relative to nondrinking dyads, ratings of the assailant's likability and sexualness increased when both members have been drinking and perceptions of the victim's negative reactions to the incident decreased. Additionally, the woman in the scenario was rated as more sexually responsive when her assailant had been drinking.

Date Rape Risk Factors

37

Muehlenhard and Linton (1987) found that over half of the men in their sample (55%) admitted that they were under the influence of alcohol when they committed a sexual assault. The researchers asserted that heavy alcohol or drug usage may reduce men's inhibitions against violence and may reduce women's ability to resist an attacker. Investigators posit that a sexually coercive man may view women in these situations as "safer" victims. Abbey (1991b) discussed several possible links between acquaintance rape and alcohol consumption. Several explanations were gathered from many studies that propose reasons for the cooccurrence of alcohol use and sexual assault. Alcohol consumption by a male perpetrator has been shown to increase expectations of power, as well as perceptions of sexual and aggressive feelings. Consumption of alcohol was also linked to justification of sexual violence against female partners and increased perceptions of female's sexual interest. The author suggested that alcohol consumption may impair a woman's ability to receive cues that could warn her that an assault is likely. Alcohol consumption may impair a woman's cognitive or motor functioning, decreasing her ability to resist a sexual assault. Additionally, women who consume alcohol on a date may be viewed as "fair game" by their assailants. Unfortunately, these victims may be viewed by others (and themselves) as partially responsible for the attack. They may believe that they were impaired by alcohol and not able to maintain their gatekeeper role in the dating situation.

Date Rape and Misperception of Sexual Cues Interpersonal cues may also be associated with date rape. Many interpersonal situations involve interactions in which it may be difficult to distinguish sexual from nonsexual interpersonal cues. That is, a certain degree of ambiguity is associated with interpersonal behavior. These subtleties may make it difficult for people to discriminate whether certain words or actions are signs of platonic friendliness, sexual attraction, desire for sexual intimacy, etc. In fact, it has been shown that many of the cues that occur in all these situations are similar. This overlap in cues used to convey different feelings may promote misperceptions of sexual intent and miscommunication between individuals (Abbey, 1991a). Abbey (1987) conducted two surveys of undergraduate men and women in which they were asked about situations in which their friendliness had been mistakenly perceived as a sexual invitation. The questionnaire used for this investigation was developed through conversations with undergraduates. Results indicated that two-thirds of all subjects reported that their friendliness towards a member of the opposite sex had been mistaken as a sexual invitation on at least one occasion, with more women experiencing these misperceptions than men. The data also suggested that gender differences may exist on how these misperceptions are experienced. Men, it was found, typically found out about misperceptions from a third party. Women, on the other hand, typically became aware of misperceptions through direct physical contact with or being asked out on a date by a male. Similarly, Koss and Oros (1982) surveyed a large number of college students and reported that 70% of college women and 53% of college men related at least one episode where a member of the opposite sex misperceived the level of sexual intimacy they desired. Muehlenhard (1988) examined how traditional and nontraditional men and women, as measured by the Attitudes Toward Women Scale, interpreted various dating behaviors. Participants were divided into traditional and nontraditional groups based on a median split of the Attitudes Towards Women scores. Participants then read different dating scenarios that varied by who initiated the date, who paid for date expenses, and the date activity. Following this, subjects were asked to estimate the sex-willingness of females. Results showed that sexwillingness and rape justifiability ratings were highest when women initiated the date, when they went to the man's apartment, and when the man paid all of the dating expenses. It was

38

B. P Marx, V. Van Wie, and A. M. Gross

also shown that men's sex-willingness ratings were consistently higher than the women's, implying that a man might overrate his date's desire for physical intimacy. Rape justifiability ratings were higher for men than for women as well. These results have been replicated by Cornett and Shuntich (1991) and Bostwick and Delucia (1992). Shotland and Craig (1988) examined whether men and women differentiate between friendly and sexually interested behavior. This research follows from research indicating that men view the world more sexually than women. This universal sexual approach may cause men to misinterpret female behavior (Abbey, 1982, 1987; Abbey et al., 1987; Abbey & Melby, 1986). Shotland and Craig had male and female college students watch videotaped interactions of couples behaving in either a friendly or sexual manner, after which they answered questionnaires that were concerned with rating the apparent sexual interest of members of each couple. Analyses indicated that males and females have the ability to differentiate between friendly and sexual behavior. Even so, relative to female subjects, males still perceived both male and female models as having more sexual interest. The authors suggested that the lower perceptual threshold for sexual cues by males may be due to males having a comparatively larger sexual appetite. Furthermore, males may then attribute their sexual appetites to females who they encounter. Johnson, Jackson, and Smith (1989) also examined the ability of men and women to discriminate sexual cues. One-half of their participants was given information concerning the inappropriateness of sexual inequality (salient condition), defined as the historical and contemporary oppression of women, whereas the remaining subjects were not given such information (nonsalient condition). All subjects then read a passage that depicted an acquaintance rape in which the female either clearly or unclearly demonstrated her resistance to intercourse. Their results were notable in that in ambiguous acquaintance rape situations (no clear resistance) salience had a significant effect on males' perceptions and no impact on females' perceptions. This effect was contrary to that found about the depiction of the unambiguous acquaintance rape. In this condition subjects' perceptions were not affected by either salience or gender. These results may show that ambiguous information may be perceived according to prior cognitive biases. Kowalski (1992) examined the combined effects of verbal and nonverbal messages on sexual assault. In Experiment 1, male and female college students read scenarios in which a woman engaged in behaviors that were low, moderate, or high in the degree to which they connoted a desire for sex. Participants perceived the woman more sexually as her behaviors increased in sexual connotation, and also perceived that she desired sex more when no information about her verbal responses was provided than when she verbally resisted her date's sexual advances. Results also showed that men and women agreed in their perceptions of a woman whose behaviors connoted a high interest in sex, but men perceived behaviors low in sexual connotation more sexually than women. The data from these experiments suggest that misperceptions of sexual cues may be a factor related to date rape. Results, however, have been mixed in showing that gender differences exist in the misperception of sexual cues.

Antecedent Sexual Behavior and Perceived Token Resistance Among other things that Kanin (1984) found in his descriptive investigation of self-admitted date rapists, he discovered that in his sample not one individual reported to have planned the rape. Furthermore, 100% of the rape events reported were preceded by some sexual activity, with 84% involving some sort of genital foreplay. He also found that the stage of pair intimacy most characteristic of these pairings was "occasional date" defined as having two to five dates prior to the assault. Not one case constituted an assault of a stranger or of a female

Date Rape Risk Factors

39

who was not consensually intimate immediately prior to the rape. When asked why they raped their partners, the men overwhelmingly (over 90%) stated that their perception of their companions' extreme arousal which, then, intensified their own arousal to the extent that they experienced an exaggerated selective perception of the females' receptivity. As a result, these men ignored other stimuli intended to cease further sexual advances. It was in this context that the men did not take resistance seriously (Kanin, 1984). Subsequent studies have shown that prior mutual intimacy commonly occurs before incidents of sexual aggression (Koss, 1988; Miller & Marshall, 1987) and that sexual activity that precedes date rape may promote victim blame (Shotland & Goodstein, 1983). Shotland and Goodstein (1992) studied the effect of sexual precedence on future sexual behavior. Three hundred fifty-seven college students read a scenario that consisted of a graphic description of a sexual act in the context of a date. The scenarios varied in the number of prior sexual experiences that the pair had had with each other as well as the number of prior sexual partners for both the man and the woman. ,~fter reading the scenario, participants answered numerous author constructed questions that pertained to the scenario. The authors found that a precedence of sexual activity may promote the notion that a resisting woman is obligated to engage in further sexual activity and may precipitate a decreased likelihood of labeling a situation as a date rape. Other research findings (e.g., Marx & Gross, 1995) question the notion that the extent of previous sexual intimacy influences the ability of individuals to discriminate among sexual cues. Muehlenhard and Hollabaugh (1988) surveyed a large sample of college women and asked them to recall how many times they had wanted to engage in sexual intercourse but offered mild resistance despite their intention to engage in this behavior. (In the literature this behavior has been labeled both token resistance and, more recently, scripted refusal.) Results revealed that out of 610 women, 39.3% had engaged in token resistance at least once. Of these women, 85.2% had done so within the past year. Reasons offered for engaging in this response included practical (fear of appearing promiscuous, relationship concerns), inhibition related, and manipulative reasons. Subsequent survey investigations have reported similar findings (Giusti, Muehlenhard, & Rodgers, 1993; Miller & Marshall, 1987; Muehlenhard & McCoy, 1991; Shotland & Goodstein, 1992; Shotland & Hunter, 1995), while others have even reported that men may engage in token resistance more than women (O'Sullivan & Allgeier, 1993). Muehlenhard and Rogers (1993) have questioned the validity of the data suggesting that women commonly engage in token resistance. They suggested that these findings may have been due to method problems associated with participants' misinterpretation of the survey instrument. Controlling for this problem resulted in the discovery that only a very small percentage of women reported engaging in token sexual resistance with a new partner (5%). When token resistance occurred, it generally involved a couple in an ongoing relationship with a history of having sexual intercourse with each other. Moreover, both partners were aware of the token resistance and indicated it was frequently done to enhance the sexual relationship. It was also noted that 62% of the males surveyed believed that women displayed token resistance prior to ever having intercourse with a partner. Shotland and Hunter (1995) further explored the relationship between women's token resistance and date rape in an effort to confh'rn the hypothesis that many women who reported engaging in token resistance authentically refused but later decided to have sex. Female college students completed the author constructed Dating Behavior Questionnaire. Results showed that resistant behavior (said "no" and meant no) typically occurs early in a couple's relationship, whereas token resistant behavior occurs later (on or after the llth date). Also, investigators found that 83% of those women who reported engaging in token resistant behavior had more than one sexual intention during the token resistance episode. That is, they

40

B. P. Marx, V. Van Wie, and A. M. Gross

stated that they initially said "no" and meant no prior to saying "no" and meaning "yes." The authors then concluded that most token resistant behavior represents a change of sexual intention that is poorly recalled by individuals and occurs for relationship maintenance reasons. Although the data suggest that it is rarely the case that when a woman attempts to stop her date's sexual advances that her efforts are not genuine, many males perceive this resistance as a token effort. Whether she resisted throughout the interaction, resisted until she was physically unable to resist, or stopped resisting because she changed her mind, the occurrence of sex following resistance may result in the male perceiving the woman's behavior as token resistance. A more appropriate label for this phenomenon is perceived token resistance (Marx & Gross, 1995). An investigation by Marx and Gross (1995) examined the impact of perceived token resistance and previous sexual contact on men's discrimination of when a female wants her partner to stop his sexual advances. One hundred male college students were randomly assigned to one of four conditions. Before listening to an audiotape of a date rape participants were told that the couple had been on five dates and that on the previous date the man had manipulated the woman's breasts or genitals. Participants were also told that the woman did not object to this contact, or that she initially objected to the contact but subsequently stopped resisting the contact. Relative to participants in the no-perceived token resistance conditions, participants in the perceived token resistance conditions took significantly longer to determine that the man should refrain from attempting further sexual contact. Results also revealed that longer response latencies by participants were associated with greater acceptance of rape myths. Relative to participants who had never personally perceived token resistance, individuals who had personally perceived token resistance at least once took longer to determine when the man should refrain from making further sexual advances. In a replication of the Marx and Gross (1995) investigation, using a sample of 100 female undergraduates, Van Wie, Gross, and Marx (1995) found that participants assigned to the perceived token resistance conditions took significantly longer than participants assigned to the no-perceived token resistance conditions to determine that the man should refrain from attempting further sexual contact. However, in this study, rape myth acceptance was not sigificantly correlated with participant response times, nor were any between groups differences found on response latency for those women who had and had not participated in self-reported token resistance behaviors. In summary, research on situational factors in date rape has shown that miscommunication between sex partners is frequent, as males, relative to females, are more likely to misperceive the sexual intent of their partners. Other findings suggest that instances of sexual aggression may be preceded by sexual contact, and that while only a small proportion of females may engage in "token resistance" in novel sexual situations, both men and women may perceive authentic resistance as being merely token.

METHOD ISSUES In an attempt to determine factors related to date rape, numerous investigations have focused on perpetrator and vicitm characteristics, situational precipitants, and misperceptions of sexual intent. Despite the large body of available data, firm conclusions about the role of these variables in the occurrence of date rape remains elusive. Difficulties interpreting the date rape literature are, in part, due to a number of method issues. A large proportion of investigations on date rape relies on self-report from both perpetrators and victims (e.g., Kanin, 1984; Koss & Dinero, 1989; Koss et al., 1985, 1987; Malamuth, 1981; Muehlenhard & Hollabaugh, 1988; Muehlenhard & Linton, 1987; Tieger, 1981; Rapaport & Burkhart, 1984). While these reports are informative, they may not provide

Date Rape Risk Factors

41

accurate information about the nature of date rape. Self-reports of incidents of date rape may be influenced through experimenter expectancies, social desirability, and demand characteristics of experimental manipulations. Additionally, investigations that examine perspectives of both perpetrators and victims (Kanin, 1984; Koss et al., 1987; Muehlenhard & Linton, 1987) and measure a victim's attitudes or beliefs (e.g., Koss, 1988; Muehlenhard & Linton, 1987) employ retrospective techniques. Retrospective self-report may be compromised by memory consolidation or poor recall (Shotland & Hunter, 1995). Furthermore, Himelein (1995) asserts that retrospective techniques may make it difficult to determine factors that increase a victim's vulnerability to date rape, and suggests that the factors noted in these studies may result from the experience of date rape or sexual aggression, rather than acting as antecedent variables. A difficulty associated with much of the survey research is that these studies have involved correlational methods. Many of the personality, attitudinal, and descriptive studies of rapists and victims (e.g., Koss, 1985; Koss & Dinero, 1989; Koss et al., 1985; Muehlenhard & Linton, 1987; Rapaport & Burkhart, 1984) and situational studies (Muehlenhard, 1988) merely describe relationships between variables. While correlational analyses are informative, without experimentally manipulating independent variables it is difficult to understand fully their impact on date rape. Moreover, those studies of factors related to date rape that have employed experimental methods have traditionally neglected to determine the magnitude of these differences (e.g., effect size). Another weakness noted in this body of research is the lack of consistency used in defining terms and variables. Studies that have examined characteristics of victims of date rape often differ in their operationalization of terms such as "rape," "sexual aggression," and "sexual assault." For example, investigators such as Koss (1985) have argued against the inclusion of the notion of the use of force or threat of the use of force in criteria for distinguishing between victims and nonvictims of date rape. However, other investigators (e.g., Benson et al., 1992) have defined rape as involving use of or threat of the use of force. Similarly, many studies do not provide adequate operational definitions of the factors being examined. For example, studies that purport to examine relationships between alcohol use and date rape have surveyed participants about the use of alcohol in nondating situations (Koss & Dinero, 1989). As a body of research, date rape investigations would benefit from consistency in the specific measures and procedures used to assess peretrators, victims, the occurrence of date rape, and factors associated with date rape. It appears that different investigators prefer to use their own survey and interview meaures and procedures rather than employing well standardized instruments (e.g., Burt, 1980; Kanin, 1984; Koss, 1988; Koss et al., 1985; Muehlenhard & Hollabaugh, 1988; Muehlenhard & Linton, 1987). Investigations of date rapists are limited in scope and number. Aside from Kanin's study (1984) of 71 self-disclosed date rapists, no other extensive investigation of date rapists can be found. While Kanin's results are important as a starting point for further research, the small sample size used in this study limits the conclusions that can be drawn regarding the attitudes and behaviors of date rapists. Some rapist arousal studies (Barbaree et al., 1979; Baxter et al., 1986; Wydra et al., 1983) have compared unequivocal groups such as convicted rapists and graduate students. The disparate nature of stranger rape and date rape with regards to motivation and situational context (Kanin, 1984; Yegidis, 1986) make it difficult to draw firm conclusions from these comparisons. Stranger rapes are more apt to be reported, prosecuted, and convicted than date rapes. A concern of studies on variables related to date rape involves the generalizability of results found through laboratory manipulation. Analog studies have examined such factors as self-reported likelihood of raping (Malamuth, 1981; Malamuth & Check, 1980; Tieger, 1981), sexual arousal to rape related stimuli (Byers, 1988; Malamuth & Check, 1980, 1983;

42

B. P. Marx, V Van Wie, and A. M. Gross

Sundberg et al., 1991), ability to determine sexual interest (Abbey, 1987; Johnson et al., 1989; Kowalski, 1992; Muehlenhard, 1988; Shotland & Craig, 1988), and perceived token resistance (Marx & Gross, 1995; Van Wie et al., 1995). Although these investigations provide important results, it must be remembered that performance in an artificial setting may not predict performance in the natural environment. Additionally, little has been done to examine directly the effects of situational factors such as alcohol on date rape. Understandably, this task is difficult, given the restrictions of an artificial laboratory environment. FUTURE DIRECTIONS This review reveals a number of issues investigators might consider in future efforts to examine factors related to date rape. An increase in the use of experimental research designs might prove fruitful. Research to date has identified a large number of variables correlated with date rape. The use of experimental research strategies will allow for the controlled manipulation of these factors and a better understanding of their impact on the occurrence of date rape. Researchers examining variables associated with date rape would also benefit from using longitudinal research strategies. Prospective investigations would facilitate our understanding of the impact that various behaviors, environmental events, and attitudes play in date rape. Moreover, longitudinal research would also help clarify how these variables may change as a result of date rape. Interpreting research findings would also be easier if there were a greater consensus regarding the definition of date rape. Agreement concerning what constitutes an instance of date rape, as well as the use of standardized measurement tools when examining this problem would facilitate cross study comparisons. In comparison to stranger rape, relatively little work has been completed on date rape. This is because much of this work has focused on institutionalized rapists whose crimes are more similar to stranger rape scenarios than to date rape scenarios (Kanin, 1984). Results gleaned from studies not specifically concerned with date rape may not be indicative of the college population with whom, as noted before, much of the work on date rape has been done. For example, Wydra et al. (1983) found that convicted rapists had difficulty discriminating appropriate from inappropriate sexual cues in blatant rape depictions. It cannot be assumed that all rapists would respond in exactly the same fashion as convicted rapists, because situational contexts and salient cues may be different in stranger rape and date rape situations. Future researchers should concentrate their studies to populations in which date rape occurs. Moreover, our understanding of variables related to date rape would be enhanced if proper control groups were used. That is, control groups should be drawn from those populations that might be likely to engage in date rape. There are many difficulties associated with the study of date rape. For example, it is not possible to observe the phenomenon directly. Ethical issues also place necessary limits on experimental manipulations. However, it may be possible to examine the various date rape risk factors in the context of prevention research. Systematically manipulating these variables in a prospective research program aimed at preventing date rape would allow for a better understanding of their impact on date rape. The study of date rape, and rape in general, has always been a controversial topic, embroiled in polemics and frequently used to further political movements such as women's rights (Brownmiller, 1975; MacKinnon, 1987; Russell, 1984). As such, it has not always been easy for researchers to separate political from research agendas. Other researchers have attempted to examine factors related to date rape as objectively as possible. These attempts at objectivity should not be interpreted as refutations or, even, oppositions to women's rights. Although it may not be possible to completely divorce one's research from political and social

Date Rape Risk Factors

43

biases, it is critical that researchers attempt a logical positivist stance when engaging in research on date rape. Only then will a complete picture of the phenomenon of date rape arise. REFERENCES Abbey, A. (1982). Sex differences in attributions for friendly behavior: Do males misperceive females' friendliness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 830-838. Abbey, A. (1987). Misperceptions of friendly behavior as sexual interest: A survey of naturally occurring incidents. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 173-194. Abbey, A. (1991a). Misperceptions as an antecedent of acquaintance rape: A consequence of ambiguity in communication between women and men. In A. Parrot & L. Bechhofer (Eds.), Acquaintance rape: The hidden crime (pp. 96-1 i !). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Abbey, A. (1991b). Acquaintance rape and alcohol consumption on college campuses: How are they linked? Journal of American College Health, 39, 165-169. Abbey, A., Cozzarelli, C., McLaughlin, K., & Harnish, R. J. (1987). The effects of clothing and dyad sex composition on perceptions of sexual intent: Do women and men evaluate these cues differently. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 108-126. Abbey, A., & Melby, C. (1986). The effects of nonverbal cues on gender differences in perceptions of sexual intent. Sex Roles, 15, 283-298. Abel, G. G., Barlow, D. H., Blanchard, E. B., & Guild, D. (1977). The components of rapists' sexual arousal. Archives of General Psychiatry, 34, 895-903. Aizenman, M., & Kelley, G. (1988). The incidence of violence and acquaintance rape in dating relationships among college men and women. Journal of College Student Development, 29, 305-311. Amick, A. E., & Calhoun, K. S. (1987). Resistance to sexual aggression: Personality, attitudinal, and situational factors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 16, 153-163. Amir, M. (1971). Patterns in forcible rape. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Barbaree, H. E., Marshall, W. L., & Lanthier, R. D. (1979). Deviant sexual arousal in rapists. Behavior Research and Therapy, 17, 215-222. Bateman, P. (1991). The context of date rape. In B. Levy (Ed.), Dating violence young women in danger (pp. 94-99). Seattle, WA: The Seal Press. Baxter, D. J., Barbaree, H. E., & Marshall, W. L. (1986). Sexual responses to consenting and forced sex in a large sample of rapists and nonrapists. Behavior Research and Therapy, 24, 513-520. Bechhofer, L., & Parrot, A. (1991). What is acquaintance rape? In A. Parrot & L. Bechhofer (Eds.), Acquaintance rape: The hidden crime (pp. 9-25). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Benson, D., Charlton, C., & Goodhart, E (1992). Acquaintance rape on campus: A literature review. Journal of American College Health, 40, 157-165. Bostwick, T. D., & Delucia, J. L. (I 992). Effects of gender and specific dating behaviors on perceptions of sex willingness and date rape. Journal of Social and Clincial Psychology, I1, 14-25. Browne, A., & Fin kelhor, D. (1986). Impact of child sexual abuse: A review of the research. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 66-77. Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our will: Men, women, and rape. New York: Simon & Schuster. Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217-230. Burt, M. R. (1991 ). Rape myths and acquaintance rape. In A. Parrot & L. Bechhofer (Eds.), Acquaintance rape: The hidden crime (pp. 26-40). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Byers, S. E. (1988). Effects of sexual arousal on men's and women's behavior in sexual disagreement situations. Journal of Sex Research, 25, 235-254. Cornett, M. B., & Shuntich, R. (1991 ). Sexual aggression: Perceptions of its likelihood of occurring and some correlates of self-admitted perpetration. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 73, 499-507. Dull, R. T., & Giacopassi, D. J. (I 987). Demographic correlates of sexual and dating attitudes: A study of date rape. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 14, 175-193. Ellis, L. (1989). Theories of rape: Inquiries into the causes of sexual aggression. New York: Hemisphere Publishing. Fischer, G. J. (1986a). College student attitudes toward forcible date rape: I. cognitive predictors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15, 457-466. Fischer, G. J. (1986b). College student attitudes toward forcible date rape: Changes after taking a human sexuality course. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 12, 42-46. Fischer, G. J. (1987). Hispanic and majority student attitudes toward forcible date rape as a function of differences in attitudes toward women. Sex Roles, 17, 931-101. Follinstad, D. R., Wright, S., Lloyd, S., & Sebastian, J. A. (1991). Sex differences in motivations and effects in dating violence. Family Relations, 40, 51-57.

44

B. P. Marx, V. Van Wie, and A. M. Gross

Frinter, M. E, & Rubinson, L. (1993). Acquaintance rape: The influence of alcohol, fraternity membership, and sports team membership. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 19, 272-284. Gidycz, C. A., Coble, C., Latham, L., & Layman, M. J. (1993). Sexual assault experience in adulthood and prior victimization experiences. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17, 151-168. Giusti, L. M., Muehlenhard, C. L., & Rodgers, C. S. (1993, August). Token resistance to sex: Stereotypes versus reality. In C. L. Muehlenhard (Chair), "'Token resistance" to sex: Challenging a sexist stereotype. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada. Greendlinger, V., & Byrne, D. (1987). Coercive sexual fantasies of college men as predictors of self-reported likelihood to rape and overt sexual aggression. The Journal of Sex Research, 23, 1-11. Hamilton, M., & Yee, J. (1990). Rape knowledge and propensity to rape. Journal of Research in Personality, 24, 111-122. Harney, P. A., & Muehlenhard, C. L. (1991). Factors that increase the likelihood of victimization. In A. Parrot & L. Bechhofer (Eds.), Acquaintance rape: The hidden crime (pp. 159-175). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Himelein, M. J. (1995). Risk factors for sexual victimization in dating. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19, 31-48. Holcomb, D. B., Holcomb, L. C., Sondag, K. A., & Williams, N. C. (1991). Attitudes about date rape: Gender differences among college students. College Students Journal, 25, 434-439. Johnson, J. D., Jackson, L. A., & Smith, G. J. (1989). The role of ambiguity and gender in mediating the effects of salient cognitions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 52-60. Kanin, E. J. (1957). Male aggression in dating-courtship relations. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 197-204. Kanin, E. J. (1984). Date rape: Unofficial criminals and victims. Victimology, 9, 95-108. Kanin, E. J. (1985). Date rapists: Differential sexual socialization and relative deprivation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14, 219-231. Koss, M. P. (1985). The hidden rape victim: Personality attitudes and situational characteristics. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 193-212. Koss, M. P. (1988). Hidden rape: Incidence, prevalence, and decriptive characteristics of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of college students. In A. W. Burgess (Ed.), Sexual assault, Vol. II (pp. 1-25). New York: Garland. Koss, M. P., & Dinero, T. E. (1989). Discriminant analysis of risk factors for sexual victimization among a national sample of college women. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 242-250. Koss, M. P., & Harvey, M. (1987). The rape victim: Clinical and community approaches to treatment. Lexington, MA: Greene Press. 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 students in higher education. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162-170. Koss, M. P., Leonard, K. E., Beezley, D. A., & Oros, C. J. (1985). Nonstranger sexual aggression: A diseriminant analysis of the psychological characteristics of undetected offenders. Sex Roles, 12, 981-992. 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. Kowalski, R. M. (1992). Nonverbal behaviors and perceptions of sexual intentions: Effects of sexual connotativeness, verbal response, and rape outcome. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13, 427-445. Lewin, M. (1985). Unwanted intercourse: The difficulty of saying no. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 184-192. Lundberg-Love, P., & Geffner, R. (1989). Date rape: Prevalence, risk factors and a proposed model. In M. A. PirogGood & J. E. Stets (Eds.), Violence in dating relationships (pp. 169-184). New York: Praeger. MacKinnon, C. (1987). Toward a feminist theory of the state. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Malamuth, N. M. (1981). Rape proclivity among males. Journal of Social Issues, 37, 138-157. Malamuth, N. M. (I 986). Prediction of naturalistic sexual aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 953-962. Malamuth, N. M., & Ceniti, J. (1986). Repeated exposure to violent and nonviolent pornography: Likelihood of raping ratings and laboratory aggression against women. Aggressive Behavior, 12, 129-137. Malamuth, N. M., & Check, J. V. P. (1980). Sexual arousal to rape and consenting depictions: The importance of the woman's arousal. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 89, 763-766. Malamuth, N. M., & Check, J. V. P. (1983). Sexual arousal to rape depictions: Individual differences. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 92, 55-67. Marx, B. P., & Gross, A. M. (I 995). Date rape: An analysis of two contextual variables. Behavior Modification, 19, 451-463. Meyer, T. J. (1984). Date rape: A serious campus problem that few talk about. Chronicle of Higher Education, 29, !-12. Miller, B., & Marshall, J. C. (1987). Coercive sex on the university campus. Journal of College Student Personnel, 28, 38-47. Mills, C. S., & Granoff, B. J. (1992). Date and acquaintance rape among a sample of college students. Social Work, 37, 504-509.

Date Rape Risk Factors

45

Muehlenhard, C. L. (1988). Misinterpreted dating behaviors and the risk of date rape. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 6, 20-37. Muehlenhard, C. L., Friedman, D. E., & Thomas, C. M. (1985). Is date rape justifiable: The effects of dating activity, who initiated, who paid, and men's attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 297-310. Muehlenhard, C. L., & Hollabaugh, L. C. (1988). Do women sometimes say no when they mean yes? The prevalence and correlates of women's token resistance to sex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 872-879. Muehlenhard, C. L., Koralewski, M. A., Andrews, S. L., & Burdick, C. A. (1986). Verbal and nonverbal cues that convey interest in dating: Two studies. Behavior Therapy, 17, 404-419. 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. Muehlenhard, C. L., Linton, M. A., Felts, A. S., & Andrews, S. L. (1985, June). Men's attitudes toward tbe justifiability of date rape: Intervening variables and possible solutions. In E. R. Allgeier (Chair), Sexual coercion: Political issues and empirical findings. Symposium conducted at the annual Midcontinental meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex, Chicago. Muehlenhard, C. L., & MacNaughton, J. S. (198g). Women's beliefs about women who "lead men on." Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 7, 65-79. Muehlenhard, C. L., & McCoy, M. L. (1991). Double standard/double bind: The sexual double standard and women's communication about sex. Psychology of Women "s Quarterly, 15, 447-461. Muehlenhard, C. L., & Rogers, C. S. (1993, August). Narrative descriptions of "token resistance to sex." In C. L. Muehlenhard (Chair), "Token resistance" to sex: Challenging a sexist stereotype. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada. Norris, J., & Cubbins, L. A. (1992). Dating, drinking, and rape. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16, 179-191. O'Sullivan, L. F., & Allgeier, E. R. (1993, August). Gender differences in the use of token resistance. In C. L. Muehlenhard (Chair), "Token resistance" to sex: Challenging a sexist stereotype. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada. Parrot, A., & Bechhofer, L. (Eds.). (1991 ). Acquaintance rape: The hidden crime. New York: Wiley. Quackenbush, R. L. (1991 ). Attitudes of college men toward women and rape. Journal of College Student Development, 32, 376-377. Rabkin, J. G. (1979). The epidemiology of forcible rape. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 49, 634-636. Rapaport, K., & Burkhart, B. R. (1984). Personality and attitudinal characteristics of sexually coercive college males. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93, 216-221. Russell, D. E. (1984). Sexual exploitation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Shotland, R. L., & Craig, J. M. (1988). Can men and women differentiate between friendly and sexually interested behavior? Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 66-73. Shotland, R. L., & Goodstein, L. (1983). Just because she doesn't want to doesn't mean it's rape: An experimentally based causal model of the perception of rape in a dating situation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 220-232. Shotland, L. R., & 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. Shotland, L. R., & Hunter, B. (1995). Women's "token resistant" and compliant sexual behaviors are related to uncertain sexual intentions and rape. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21,226-236. Stets, J. E., & Pirog-Good, M. A. (1987). Violence in dating relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 237-246. Sundberg, S. L., Barbaree, H. E., & Marshall, W. L. (1991). Victim blame and the disinhibtion of sexual arousal to rape vignettes. Violence and Victims, 6, 103-120. Tanzman, E. S. (1992). Unwanted sexual activity: The prevalence in college women. Journal of American College Health, 40, 167-171. Tieger, T. (I 981 ). Self-rated likelihood of raping and the social perception of rape. Journal of Research in Personality, 15, 147-158. Van Wie, V., Marx, B. P., & Gross, A. M. (1995). A replication of a contextual analysis of date rape. Violence Against Women, I, 351-365. Ward, S. K., Chapman, K., Cohn, E., White, S., & Williams, K. (1991). Acquaintance rape and the college social scene. Family Relations, 40, 65-71. Weis, K., & Borges, S. S. (1973). Victimology and rape: The cause of the legitimate victim. Issues in Criminology, 8,71-115. Wydra, A., Marshall, W. L., Earls, C. M., & Barbaree, H. E. (1983). Identification of cues and control of sexual arousal by rapists. Behavior Research and Therapy, 21,469-476. Yegidis, B. L. (1986). Date rape and other forced sexual encounters among college students. Journal of Sex Education arm Therapy, 12, 51 54.