J Fam Viol (2016) 31:361–370 DOI 10.1007/s10896-015-9757-z

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Interpreting Sexual Dating Encounters: Social Information Processing Differences in Men and Women Carrie E. Ambrose 1 & Alan M. Gross 1

Published online: 11 July 2015 # Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract Research has shown that college women are at considerable risk for sexual assault by dating partners, and studies have shown early detection of threat risk cues is an important factor in rape avoidance. This study examined how men and women process sexual encounters in a date rape situation and how they differ in interpretation of cues and response decision-making using Crick and Dodge’s (1994) model of social information processing (SIP). Participants listened to an audio vignette depicting a female resisting sexual contact as the male continues to make sexual advances. The vignette was paused at a point in which there is ambiguity concerning the sexual intentions of the actors, and multiple choice/forced answer questions reflecting five stages in social information processing (causal and intent interpretation, goal clarification, response decision, response efficacy, and response evaluation) were administered. Analyses revealed males and females significantly differed in all SIP stages, and emotional reaction was a significant predictor of response decision. Implications of the findings were discussed. Keywords Date rape . Acquaintance rape . Sexual aggression . Social information processing Data suggest college women are at high risk for sexual assault perpetrated by acquaintances and dating partners (Brener et al. 1999; Gross et al. 2006; Winslett and Gross 2008). Studies have suggested that these assaults may in part, be due to male and female differences in communication resulting in * Alan M. Gross [email protected] 1

Department of Psychology, University of Mississippi, PO Box 1848, University, MS 38677, USA

inaccurate interpretations concerning sexual interest and boundaries during a sexual encounter. In particular, women may use subtle or indirect resistance they feel is clear while men do not identify these behaviors as clear resistance (Abbey 1982; Muehlenhard 1988; Muehlenhard and Linton 1987). McCaw and Senn (1998) asked male and female participants to read an ambiguous date scenario, place themselves in the story, and complete the scene as they imagine it advancing. Analyses revealed men and women agreed on women refusal cues, suggesting men are capable of recognizing refusal cues from women. O’Bryne et al. (2006) conducted male focus groups to investigate men’s ability to identify and understand women’s sexual refusals. Discussions revealed participants recognized verbal and nonverbal female refusals even though almost all refusals identified by participants were nonverbal, indirect, and subtle. Gross et al. (1998) similarly found men and women were able to identify refusals to unwanted sexual pressures. These data suggest males may knowingly ignore sexual refusals and use coercive behaviors to gain sex (McCaw and Senn 1998). Women’s ability to detect risk cues in sexual interactions has also been suggested as an important variable in sexual assault, as delays in risk recognition may result in delays implementing effective resistance. Vanzile-Tamsen et al. (2005) investigated the mediating effect of risk appraisal to resistance in a date rape scenario for women with and without sexual assault histories. Participants were exposed to one of four date rape vignettes and asked to imagine being the women in the vignette. The male was described as a boyfriend, friend, date, or acquaintance. Regardless of sexual history, relative to women in the friend, date, and acquaintance conditions, women in the boyfriend assailant condition reported the lowest perceived risk of sexual assault. The authors suggested that victimization and revictimization may not be a function of risk appraisal

362

deficits. Relationship context variables may result in women using ineffective resistance to unwanted sexual pressures. Nurius et al. (2000) investigated cognitive appraisals and emotional responses that may mediate women’s responses to unwanted sexual pressures. College women who experienced severe unwanted sexual advances from an acquaintance completed questionnaires assessing primary threat appraisals (assessment of a situation as dangerous) and secondary threat appraisals (assessment of where the risk comes from, who is responsible, possible situation outcomes, desired outcomes, psychological barriers). Regression analyses revealed that assertive responses were predicted by increased appraisal of assailant actions as isolating/controlling, assailant use of physical force, increased concern for exacerbating injury, increased feelings of anger, and decreased concern for preserving the relationship. Conversely, increased diplomatic behavioral responses (e.g., told him not ready; made excuse) were predicted by assailant use of verbal coercion, feelings of selfconsciousness in responses, and sadness. Confidence in one’s ability to respond to unwanted sexual pressures was predictive of assertive resistance. Primary threat appraisals were more predictive of psychological barriers (e.g., fear of embarrassment or damaging the relationship) than behavioral responses, but psychological barriers were predictive of behavioral responses suggesting they may have a mediating effect. It was suggested that such psychological concerns may be at the forefront of women’s appraisals, making detection and interpretation of significant sexual risk cues difficult. This confusion and concern may delay the implementation of effective resistance strategies to unwanted sexual pressures. Similar results have been reported by Macy et al. (2006) and Nurius et al. (2004). As detailed above, several variables influence women’s sexual refusals. Nurius and Norris (1996) offered a cognitive model of women’s responses to unwanted sexual pressures in dating contexts as a heuristic framework for understanding variables affecting women’s decisions to respond to sexual aggression. Women’s behavior is influenced by: ontogenetic variables (personal traits), exosystem variables (environmental factors such as social influences), and microsystem variables (alcohol, setting, relationship). These general categories of variables influence appraisals of the social context. Primary appraisals entail context search and social cue interpretation. Risk of sexual assault is determined here. Once risk has been recognized, secondary appraisals are activated. Appraisals determine: threat, who is at fault, personal resources, ability to act efficiently, anticipated consequences for behavior, and desired outcome, setting the stage for subsequent behaviors. The model suggests primary and secondary appraisals are also influenced by emotion and social/popularity concerns. Moreover, Nurius (2000) argued that women enter into social and dating situations with positive bias based goals and scripts from previous social interactions that shape how they behave

J Fam Viol (2016) 31:361–370

in these situations. These cognitive biases are automatic in nature. Risk cues are interpreted in congruence with anticipated positive social interactions. Until working memory aimed at self-protection is activated, women perceive and interpret the environment based on the anticipation of what they believe is supposed to occur in social situations. These biased perceptions influence risk reduction and self-protection behaviors. A similar, but broader model for understanding behavior in social contexts was developed by Crick and Dodge (1994). The Social Information Processing Model (SIP) was proposed to account for aggressive behavior in children. This model suggests that in social situations, individuals undergo six successive cognitive processing stages in determining how to respond to social stimuli and these stages are influenced by biological predispositions and memories of past experiences. The first stage, encoding of cues (internal and external), is influenced by selective attention. In stage 2, interpretation of those cues occurs and is influenced by factors such as personal representations of social situations, evaluation of goals, selfefficacy, outcome expectations, and attributions of others’ perspectives. Goal clarification, desired outcomes, and goals for the social interaction are determined in stage 3. Stage 4, response construction, consists of taking inventory of possible behavioral responses and reflects memory and social learning history. Behavioral response decisions occur in stage 5. Finally, in stage 6 the chosen behavioral response is implemented. Social information processing is automatic and fluid in that change in any stage influences subsequent processing steps. Several investigators have demonstrated the usefulness of SIP as a model for understanding reactive and proactive aggressive behavior in young children (Crick and Dodge 1996). The above review suggests that the social context in which sexual assault during a date occurs is complex with interpersonal, intrapersonal, and environmental variables influencing male and female behaviors. Research suggests that resisting unwanted sexual pressure is a decision that may be impeded at different levels by many factors. Failure to recognize risk may lead to delays in implementing effective resistance, but risk recognition alone does not account for resistance. A number of factors such as self-efficacy, emotional responses, and relationship concerns are also associated with the use of resistance. While in some instances male sex goals may result in inappropriate coercive/aggressive behavior, miscommunication may also lead to behaviors men believe are appropriate while women internalize these behaviors as unwanted. Understanding male and female processing of contextual and social cues in a dating sexual encounter may offer clues concerning how best to effectively communicate sexual boundaries and inform sexual assault prevention efforts. The purpose of this study was to examine how men and women process ambiguous sexual encounters, and how they differ in interpretation of cues and response decision-making in a casual date context. Congruent with the literature, it was

J Fam Viol (2016) 31:361–370

predicted males would possess more sexual intent biases and sexually driven goals while women would possess greater concerns for the relationship (i.e., demonstrate relationship consequence bias).

Method Participants One hundred and seventy-seven undergraduate students enrolled in sections of General Psychology at a public university located in the southeastern United States served as participants. (Course requirements include four hours of research participation, and participants received credit toward this class requirement for participating). Procedures were approved by the University Institutional Review Board. Data were collected during Spring 2012 semester. Measures The revised Sexual Experiences Survey (Koss et al. 2007) is a self-report measure used to identify victims and perpetrators of unwanted sexual experiences and is based on previous versions of the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES) (Koss and Oros 1982; Koss and Gidycz 1985; Koss et al. 1987). While research supports earlier versions the SES (1985) in identifying victims and perpetrators of sexual coercion and aggression, several limitations of the measure have been identified including classifying women as rape victims despite their failure to identify the experience as rape, unclear and/or out of date terminology, and concerns regarding the assessment of consent (Gylys and McNamara 1996; Koss et al. 2007a, b; Ouimette et al. 2000; Ross and Allgeier 1996; Testa et al. 2004). A team of sexual violence researchers recently collaborated to revise the SES (Koss et al. 2007). The revised form consists of 10 questions measuring forms of unwanted sexual contact. The items correspond with varying degrees of sexual touching, rape, and attempted rape. Unlike past versions of the SES, the revised form assesses the number of times each victimization/perpetration incident occurred in the past year and since the age of 14. Items also assess methods the perpetrator used to pressure or threaten the victim (e.g., telling lies, getting angry, taking advantage while drunk, threatening harm, and physical force). The revision omits vague and outdated language describing sex acts (e.g., Bsex play^), provides more precise language regarding nonconsent and use of intoxicants, and modifies item format to expand measurement of tactics used to obtain unwanted sex. At the time of the revised

363

measure’s release, no psychometric data had been published, as the authors state that others’ work will generate the large sample needed to support psychometric analyses (Koss et al. 2007). Cook et al. (2011) report that considerable evidence supports the use of behaviorally specific questions in the assessment of sexual assault victimization (e.g., face, content validity), but additional efforts are needed to develop criteria-related validity. Crick and Dodge’s (1994) social information processing model was assessed through multiple choice/forced answer questions (answer choices developed based on review of date rape literature). Similar to the procedure of Luebbe et al. (2010), stages were assessed in SIP sequential order. Social information processing questions were presented from a first person perspective with participants asked to answer as if they are the same sex actor in the vignette. Questions and their corresponding SIP stage are listed in Table 1. Crick and Dodge’s six SIP stages were reduced to five in the measure used. Response generation was eliminated as responses were provided for participants in the response decision-making stage. This procedure resulted in a consistent multiple-choice format and limited options to behaviors commonly found in the literature. An open-ended question asking participants to briefly describe what was occurring in the vignette was included ensuring participant attention to and understanding of vignette events. Two independent raters coded answers to the open-ended question. Data from participants unable to describe vignette content were removed before data analysis. Stimulus Material Stimuli consisted of an audio vignette of a date rape developed by Marx and Gross (1995). The vignette begins after the couple returned to the man’s apartment after having seen a movie on their second date. Physical intimacy began with kissing and proceeded to physical contact portrayed through kissing sounds and dialogue. To obtain sexual intercourse, the man used verbal persuasion, threats, and physical force. In the current study, participants were exposed to the initial portion of the vignette. During this segment, the couple kiss and the male’s first attempts at touching the female’s breasts are met with resistance. The female goes on to state she only wants to kiss and asks the male to continue kissing her. The male apologizes and the couple resumes kissing. Shortly after kissing resumes the male attempts to touch the female’s buttocks. This action is again met with resistance, and the female repeats she wants to be physically close and kiss. At this point the audiotape was stopped in order to establishing some contextual ambiguity: the female established a sexual boundary but continues to engage physically, the male verbally accepted boundary, but had continued to make sexual advances.

364 Table 1

J Fam Viol (2016) 31:361–370 SIP stages, questions, and responses Males Frequency

Causal interpretation: BDo you think what happened was because…^ Your behavior led him/her to think you are interested in sex 61 You are pretty/attractive 4 He/She likes you 21 He/She is angry with you 8 χ2(3)=31.998, p<.001 Intent interpretation: BDo you think she responded to your advances as she did because^ He thinks your refusals aren’t serious/ Her refusal aren’t serious 42 He/She wants to have sex with you 4 He/She wants to show his/her control 16 He/She wants to show he/she is interested 16 He/She wants a relationship with you 16 χ2 (4)=55.37, p<.001 Emotional reaction: BIf this happened to you, how would you feel?^ Frustrated 22 Disappointed 29 Nervous 15 Angry/Mad 2 Attractive/Desirable 14 Sexually aroused 12 χ2 (5)=42.266, p<.001 Goal Clarification: BWhat would your goal in handling the situation be?^ Let him/her know how you feel about the situation 19 Not to upset him/her 28 Not to ruin the relationship 25 Set relationship rules and expectations 4 Have sex 9 Not to embarrass self 9 χ2 (5)=84.721, p<.001 Response decision: BWhat would you do?^ Continue but only kiss 39 Talk him into stopping/Attempt to change her mind by talking 25 Resist his continuing contact/Stop all contact 16 Leave his apt/take her home 7 Allow more contact/Try to get her to go further 7 χ2 (40) =21.964, p<.001 Goal efficacy: BHow much would your response meet your chosen goal?^ Not very well 8 Somewhat well 17 Moderately well 27 Fairly well 30 Very well 12 Goal efficacy: BHow well do you think you could do the response you selected?^ Not very well 2 Somewhat well 8 Moderately well 24 Fairly well 36 Very well 24

Females Percentage

Frequency

Percentage

64.9 4.3 22.3 8.5

54 24 5 0

65.1 28.9 6 0

44.7 4.3 17 17 17

37 37 4 5 0

44.6 44.6 4.8 0.6 0

23.4 30.9 16 2.1 14.9 12.8

26 9 21 22 3 2

31.3 10.8 25.3 25.6 3.6 2.4

20.2 29.8 26.6 4.3 9.6 9.6

58 2 1 19 2 1

69.9 2.4 1.2 22.9 2.4 1.2

41.5 26.6 17 7.4 7.4

17 20 16 27 3

20.5 24.1 27 32.5 3.6

8.5 18.1 28.7 31.9 12.8

6 12 23 18 24

7.2 14.5 27.7 21.7 28.9

2.1 8.5 25.5 38.3 25.5

2 10 13 26 32

2.4 12 15.7 31.3 38.6

J Fam Viol (2016) 31:361–370

Procedure Participants were scheduled in groups (n=7) to come to a computer lab to complete surveys. Participants were seated at a computer (adequate space between participants insured privacy). Participants completed informed consent and a demographics questionnaire via computer. Participants then listened to the vignette via headphones. The vignette depicted a female resisting sexual contact as the male continues to make sexual advances. Participants then completed the SIP measure. In order to enhance ambiguity associated with the sexual encounter vignette, participants were only told that they would be listening to an interaction between a man and woman who were in the man’s apartment following a date. The SES (2007) was administered following completion of SIP task. Analysis In order to examine gender differences in SIP stage response themes, a series of chi square tests were conducted. Predictive ability of prior SIP stage responses on response decisionmaking was examined using logistic regression. Prior to regression analyses, correlations among predictor variables were examined and did not indicate multicollinearity. However, examination of the raw data revealed limited variability in terms of regression criterion (i.e., Hessian singularities were used in constructing the multinomial regression). Values of several predictors were associated with identical, non-varying, values of dependent variables. All values across predictor variable responses were summed to create an omnibus predictor score. The dependent variable, decision-making response, was dichotomized and coded based on the theoretical nature (i.e., functionality) of the response. Responses Bresist continuing contact/stop all contact^ and Bleave his apartment/take her home^ were coded as functional responses as literature suggests these responses are most likely to result in rape avoidance. Responses Bcontinue to kiss/continue but only kiss,^ Ballow for more physical contact/try to get her to go further physically,^ and Btalk him into stopping further sexual advances/attempt to change her mind through talking^ were coded as non-functional responses as these behaviors are more likely to result in completed rape. Scores were dummy coded such that functional responses were assigned a value of 0 and nonfunctional responses a value of 1.

365

of survey was 46.3 % Freshman, 20.3 % Sophomore, 18.6 % Junior, and 14.7 % Senior, and relationship status was 94.9 % single, 2.8 % indicating Bother^, and 2.3 % married. Participants identified as 96.6 % heterosexual, 1.7 % bisexual, and 1.7 % homosexual/lesbian with sexual intercourse experienced by 76.3 % of participants. Sorority/Fraternity membership was 33.3 %. Prior to analyses, participants’ responses to the open-ended question of the SIP were examined to determine participant understanding of the vignette. Participants’ descriptions were coded as accurate if there was concordance between events in the vignette and participant report. That is, accuracy was based on description of factual events (e.g., a guy and girl went on a date and kissed, the girl resisted his advances) and did not include participant interpretations (e.g., the girl doesn’t like the guy, the couple is going to have sex, etc.) of the vignette. One hundred percent coder agreement was observed and all participant responses were deemed accurate. Victimization and perpetration rates were calculated to identify participants who reported experiences of rape (e.g., oral, anal, or vaginal penetration acquired through physical force, threat of force, or no consent through intoxication). Among female participants, 8.4 % responded Byes^ to the item directly asking if she had ever been raped. Among male participants, 1.1 % responded Byes^ to the item directly asking if he had ever raped someone. 1 Chi square analyses revealed (Table 1) male and female participants significantly differed in response themes on all SIP stages. At the causal interpretation stage Byour behavior led him to think you are interested in sex,^ followed by Byou are pretty/attractive^ were responses receiving most female endorsements. Highest endorsed male responses included Byour behavior led her to think you are interested in sex^ and Bshe likes you.^ At the intent interpretation stage highest endorsed intent interpretation responses for women were Bhe wants to have sex with you^ and Bhe thinks your refusals aren’t serious.^ Highest endorsed intent interpretation responses for men were Bshe doesn’t want to seem easy^ and for Bshe wants to show she is interested,^ Bshe wants a relationship with you,^ and Bshe wants to show her control in the relationship.^ Analyses revealed at the emotional reaction stage highest endorsed responses from women included Bfrustrated,^ 1

Results The sample consisted of 94 males (53.1 %) and 83 females (46.9 %) (mean age 19.8 years SD=1.5), and was 56.5 % Caucasian, 37.3 % African American, 3.4 % Asian, 0.6 % Hispanic, 0.6 % Native American, and 0.6 % Multi-racial with 1.1 % not reporting ethnic background. Class standing at time

The SES was administered as part of a broader, programmatic effort across studies in this lab to enable examination of sexual aggression/victimization experiences. Unfortunately, due to limited variability the base rate of these behaviors in this sample was such that the resultant power for statistical analyses was minimal. As such, these data were archived pursuant to longer-term data collection that could propel appropriate analyses, and are not mentioned further in the current manuscript

366

Bangry/mad,^ and Bnervous.^ However, highest endorsed responses from men were Bdisappointed,^ Bfrustrated,^ Bnervous,^ and Battractive/desirable.^ Gender differences at the goal clarification stage revealed highest endorsed responses from women Blet him know how you feel about the situation,^ followed by Bset relationship rules and expectations.^ The highest endorsed responses from men were Bnot to upset her^ closely followed by Bnot ruin the relationship.^ Finally, gender differences were also seen in the Response decision stage. Most frequently endorsed responses from women were Bleave his apartment,^ followed by Btalk him into stopping further sexual advances,^ and Bcontinue to kiss.^ In contrast, highest endorsed responses from men were Bcontinue to kiss,^ followed by Battempt to change her mind by talking.^ Participants’ goal attainment efficacy (confidence in response choice meeting response goals) and enactment efficacy (ability to perform response) stages of the SIP measure were also examined using a chi square test. No significant difference between men and women in response decision or ability to perform their chosen response effectively was observed. The logistic regression analysis conducted to predict response decision-making using summation of prior SIP stages as predictors with a test of the full model against a constant only model was not significant, indicating that the predictors did not reliably distinguish between functional and nonfunctional decision-making responses (Table 2). Prediction success overall was 59.2 %. Given the emergence of a single predictor approaching significance, another isolated logistic regression was performed to allow a clear estimate of the influence of emotional reaction on decision responses. The full model against a constant only model was statistically significant, indicating that emotional reaction reliably distinguished between functional and nonfunctional decision-making responses (Table 3). Prediction success overall was 62.1 % (100 % for nonfunctional and 0 % for functional). Emotional reaction made a significant contribution to prediction although its impact was highly differential given its limited accurate categorization of functional behaviors. To further examine which specific emotion reactions reliably predicted functional versus nonfunctional decision-making, another logistic regression was performed with each emotion reaction entered as independent predictor variables. A test of the full model against a constant only model was significant, indicating that predictors reliably distinguished between functional and nonfunctional decision-making responses (Table 4). Prediction success overall was 67.2 % (92.8 % for nonfunctional and 24.2 % for functional). Odds ratio estimates that odds of selecting a nonfunctional behavioral response are 9.04 times higher than selecting a functional behavior for participants selecting the emotional reaction of attractive. Odds

J Fam Viol (2016) 31:361–370

ratio estimates that the odds of selecting a nonfunctional behavioral response are 0.28 times lower than selecting a functional behavior for participants selecting the emotional reaction of mad.

Discussion The purpose of the present investigation was to examine gender differences in decision-making processes during a sexual encounter in a casual date situation using Crick and Dodge’s (1996) SIP model. Consistent with expectations, men and women significantly differed in responses to each of the SIP stages assessed. After the female’s initial refusal of sexual contact beyond kissing, the vignette was stopped following the male’s second attempt to touch her sexually, and participants imagining themselves as the same sex actor were asked what they believed was leading the interaction to develop as portrayed in the vignette. At the causal interpretation stage, women indicated their behavior and attractiveness were responsible for the man’s sexual advances. Belief that her behavior resulted in sexually aggressive male behavior is consistent with research suggesting women experiencing sexual aggression frequently blame themselves for the aggressor’s behavior (Frazier 1990; Janoff-Bulman 1979; Littleton and Breitkopf 2006; Ullman et al. 1997), particularly in the context of a date (Finkelson and Oswalt 1995). At the causal interpretation stage, males viewed the man's sexual advances to be the result of his sexual interest in the female and to the woman’s sexual interest in the man. Viewing female interest in her date as the reason for the man to make sexual advances is consistent with data suggesting men tend to interpret mundane and or romantic female behavior as reflecting an interest in sex (Kowalski 1993). At the intent interpretation stage, when asked about the women’s interpretation of a man’s continued sexual advances, women indicated that the man did not believe her refusals were sincere. Similar findings have been reported by Marx and Gross (1995), who referred to this phenomenon as perceived token resistance. Muehlenhard et al. (1995) similarly reported that when women say Bno^ to a man's sexual advances it may be misperceived by men as reflecting her efforts to conform to traditional female scripts, believing that in reality she wants to engage in sexual activity. Men’s intent interpretation of a woman’s sexual refusal behavior was also identified as reflecting her desire not Bto seem easy.^ It may be that for men, being encouraged to continue kissing and hugging following his date’s request to stop attempting more intimate sexual contact neutralizes or greatly diminishes the salience of gentle female sexual refusals (Gross et al. 1998). This finding is also consistent with data indicating that women who express forceful verbal and physical refusals, compared to women who express gentle verbal refusals, are

J Fam Viol (2016) 31:361–370 Table 2

367

Logistic regression: using SIP stages to predict response decision-making B

SE B

Wald

Sig.

OR

% Correctly classified

Causal interpretation

0.017

0.242

0.005

0.943

1.017

59.2

Intent interpretation

−0.035

0.159

0.049

0.825

0.966

Emotional reaction Goal clarification

0.188 0.185

0.098 0.110

3.670 2.819

0.055 0.093

1.207 1.204

less likely to experience rape following unwanted sexual advances (Clay-Warner 2002; Zoucha-Jensen and Coyne 1993). Unlike previous stage responses, in which participants’ responses were limited to 2–3 item choices, the emotional reaction stage had the largest variance in response choices. Women endorsed feelings of frustration, nervousness, and anger. This finding is in concordance with research indicating relative to men, women report greater degrees of anger and fear in response to a date rape scenario (Earnshaw et al. 2011). Female reports of frustration may suggest feelings of powerlessness and/or insecurity concerning potential date outcomes. Men reported feeling disappointment, frustration, nervousness, and being attractive/desirable as emotional reactions to the women's sexual resistance. These reactions are consistent with situations where behaviors that produce reinforcers are blocked. In dating contexts, males may feel they are Bowed^ as repayment for dating expenses (Muehlenhard 1988; Basow and Minieri 2011). Additionally, feelings of being attractive or desirable are not unexpected given the high frequency of interpretations of the female as sexually interested and her sexual resistance as being a token gesture. Male participants who identified their emotional reaction as nervousness may attest to male’s uncertainty concerning how best to address sexual resistance. While her refusals may not be seen as sincere, they may still elicit a warning to him to proceed with caution, thus leading to nervousness and uncertainty in how to proceed behaviorally. At the goal clarification stage, women indicated they would aim to communicate their feelings and set relationship rules. Goals of this stage appeared to reflect attempts to maintain her sexual boundaries and preserve the relationship. This finding is consistent with research indicating that in date contexts, women are not anticipating the situation will end in sexual assault, and therefore rape threats may not be recognized (Vanzile-Tamsen et al. 2005; Brady et al. 1991) resulting in goals not aimed at protection, but rather relationship attainment/preservation. Surprisingly, attaining sex was not the most frequent response of men at the goal clarification stage. This is

particularly surprising given earlier stage interpretation that her refusal was not sincere. Males reported goals of not ruining the relationship and not upsetting the female. Endorsement of goals, which are explicitly stated intentions of wants, may be biased due to social desirability given men were asked to set goals and respond to a woman twice refusing sexual advances. However, stages of the SIP model are conceived to be fluid, and choosing to preserve the relationship as a goal may reflect a subsequent reinterpretation of her behavior (she is not going to be persuaded to have sex) undetected by the current experimental paradigm. At the response decision stage, women selected several response choices including: talking him into stopping further advances, leaving the situation, and continuing to kiss. These responses represent quite a behavioral spectrum and research shows different outcomes associated with each of these behaviors. Leaving the situation is associated with the best outcome (Nurius and Norris 1996). Talking and kissing typically occur together, as in our vignette the female asks the male to stop further advances while continuing to kiss in an attempt to establish boundaries. These behaviors may reflect above identified goals of establishing sexual boundaries and preserving the relationship by showing a willingness to engage in limited physical contact. Unfortunately, as noted above it, may be that consenting to any sexual contact after stopping the man's sexual advances invalidates the boundary just established (Gross et al. 1998). Moreover, the notion of being able to verbally convince him to stop is consistent with data indicating women may possess an optimistic bias regarding their ability to control sexual situations leading women to remain in situations in which they are experiencing unwanted sexual advances. Livingston and Testa (2000) suggested this belief in control may account for low reports of physical resistance to unwanted sexual pressures. Although during the goal clarification stage males selected response choices that focused on relationship maintenance (e.g., not ruin the relationship; not upset the female), response decisions reflected sexual contact attainment (e.g., continuing to kiss and acquiring more sexual contact through talking).

Table 3 Logistic regression: using emotional reaction to predict decision response

B

SE B

Wald

Sig.

OR

% Correctly classified

0.197

0.095

4.294

0.038

1.218

62.1

Emotional reaction

368 Table 4 Logistic regression: using emotion reactions to predict functional versus nonfunctional decision-making

J Fam Viol (2016) 31:361–370

B

SE B

Wald

Sig.

OR

% Correctly classified 67.2

Attractive

2.202

1.088

4.099

0.043

9.043

Frustrated

−0.060

0.457

0.017

0.896

0.942

Aroused Disappointed

−0.283 0.203

0.642 0.492

0.194 0.170

0.659 0.681

0.754 1.225

Angry

−1.264

0.555

5.186

0.023

0.283

This finding is contrary to previous findings suggesting that for men, sex attainment goals may be an exceptionally strong influence on the male behavioral response in a sexual situation (O’Bryne et al. 2006). As stated above, our finding may have been influenced by social desirability. As compared to the goal clarification choice of Bhave sex,^ which was not highly endorsed, the response choice Btalk the woman into further sexual contact^ may have been considered a socially acceptable sex strategy. Research reveals that rather than immediate compliance with a woman's sexual refusal, men frequently question the woman’s decision and attempt to persuade her to engage in sexual activity (Byers 1988). Since kissing a date is generally an entry point in a sexual liaison, response choices aimed at maintaining kissing and advancing contact are also consistent with the men’s interpretation of insincerity in refusal and perceived sexual interest from the female. Interestingly, when entered into the regression model, stages of the SIP model were not predictive of behavioral response choices. Emotion was the only independent variable that predicted functional versus non-functional behavior choices. This finding may attest to the fluid nature of social information processing and difficulties assessing interpretations that change and adjust quickly within complex and uncertain social interactions like that presented in the vignette. Lemerise and Arsenio (2000) argued for integration of emotion processing into Crick and Dodge’s SIP model due to the impact of emotion on cognitive processing. They noted emotion processing’s influence in information processing when knowledge about a social context is uncertain and/or incomplete. Given the vignette’s purposeful ambiguity and the numerous interpretations that may be inferred from the interaction, emotion may play a role in cognitive processing by reducing the number of choices and outcomes in behavior to emotionally congruent responses. Emotion may be a salient motivator in behavior response. In the current study, emotions of mad/anger were predictive of responses associated with rape avoidance, while emotions of attractive/desirable were predictive of responses associated with rape occurrence. For example, as the male or female interprets the situation negatively, eliciting a mad emotion, their response choices may become congruent with their emotions, such as leave his house or stop all contact. Similarly, men and women reporting feeling attractive and desirable selected responses that were consistent with this emotion such as

continuing contact, increasing contact, and remaining in the situation. Finally, it is possible that the failure of the regression to predict response choices may be a limitation of the assessment method. The fluidity of SIP makes it difficult to prospectively assess beyond a snap shot of cognitive processing. Social information processing is conceptualized as a fluid process that changes as new information is processed, making it difficult to assess in a self-report fixed response form. Unfortunately, as previously mentioned, assessing sexual behaviors and cognitive and emotional processes in real-time is difficult due to the sensitive nature of the subject. Sexual dating contexts are unique in that they are complex and difficult to predict. Men and women likely have learning histories of inconsistent and/or incongruent sexual signals from past and even present dating partners (e.g., a dating partner who after conveying lack of interest in sexual contact changes positions and encourages sexual contact) that may contribute to difficulty in accurately identifying intent in sexual encounters. Given the fluid nature of sexual intent, it is likely that statements/behaviors of intent change during interactions, further complicating intent interpretation. Additionally, social and cultural norms and expectations, traditional gender roles, and acceptable social and sexual behavior also influence cognitive processing. Endorsement of the response choice to Btalk^ from both men and women may be an appropriate response in attempts to clarify intent, but as the significant differences in interpretation at each stage shows, this clarification may be difficult. Moreover, emotion processing may also play a larger role in response decisions in part due to this uncertainty, limited knowledge, and demand for quick responses within these contexts. Restricting response choices on the SIP measure to 5–6 responses at each stage may have limited participant responses leading to little variability at some stage responding. However, response choices at each social information processing stage were largely in accordance with the predicted model. Assessing SIP with no response restrictions may lead to more variable responses and provide more insight into common processing themes in sexually ambiguous contexts. Moreover, several authors have suggested a more integrative model of SIP involving moral domain theory and work on emotional attributions may prove beneficial to understanding SIP (Arsenio et al. 2009; Arsenio and Lemerise 2001, 2004).

J Fam Viol (2016) 31:361–370

Although responses on the SIP measure were generally consistent with the SIP model, it is important to note that several authors have questioned the value of current social cognitive models of aggression. After reviewing the data, Ferguson and Dyck (2012) have suggested that cognitions may not play as an important role in aggression as is currently conceptualized. In their review, they point out that the evidence is not persuasive that cognitive processes predict aggression outside the lab (e.g., Freedman 2002; Gauntlett 2005; Savage 2004) and suggest that cognitions may follow rather than precede behavior. Another limitation of the current work was the analog nature of the study. Participants were asked to report how they believed they would react in reference to the presented situation, rather than report of real life experiences. This limitation is common in sexual assault research. It might prove beneficial for efforts to examine these issues retrospectively, with recent victims and perpetrators serving as participants. The present study utilized a college sample, and while research shows that individuals in college and between the ages of 18–25 are at highest risk of experiencing date rape (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2010), a more diverse community sample may lend generalizability to the findings. Additionally, future work should examine the impact of alcohol/drugs on men and women’s information processing during dating sexual encounters. Measures used in this study were self-report and therefore subject to social desirability as noted above. However, self-report is the relied upon method to assess social information processing. In regards to assessing disclosure of sexual behavior, sexual assault researchers recommend use of anonymous self-administered surveys as they have been shown to increase disclosure (Fisher 2009). Finally, the measure used to examine SIP was created for the current study based on an instrument developed by Luebbe et al. (2010). Development of a validated SIP assessment instrument would be beneficial for future examinations of this model. While acknowledging limitations of this work, findings that emotions of mad/anger were predictive of responses associated with rape avoidance, and emotions of attractive/ desirable were predictive of responses associated with sexual assault provide further evidence that efforts to understand social information process regarding sexual decision-making will be enhanced by increased focus on emotion variables. Importantly, the current findings also have implications for sexual assault prevention efforts. It may be that feeling attractive to a dating partner results in a higher likelihood of men dismissing a woman’s polite or mild sexual refusals and women accepting responsibility for the man’s aggressive behavior which translates into being less likely to display forceful resistance. For men, it may prove beneficial to emphasize education efforts to instill that polite sexual refusals from women convey hard boundaries. For women, benefits may accrue from continuing to remind them that they are not responsible

369

for unwanted sexual advances, and as such should not ignore their sense of frustration/anger at unwanted male sexual advances and express anger and forceful refusals to these inappropriate behaviors.

References Abbey, A. (1982). Sex differences in attribution for friendly behavior: Do males misperceive females’ friendliness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 830–838. Arsenio, W., & Lemerise, E. (2001). Varieties of childhood bullying: Values, emotion processes, and social compe-tence. Social Development, 10, 59–73. Arsenio, W. F., & Lemerise, E. (2004). Aggression and moral development: Integrating the social information processing and moral domain models. Child Development, 75, 987–1002. Arsenio, W. F., Adams, E., & Gold, J. (2009). Social information processing, moral reasoning, and emotion attributions: Relations with adolescents’ reactive and proactive aggression. Child Development, 80, 1739–1755. Basow, S. A., & Minieri, A. (2011). BYou owe me^: Effects of date cost, who pays, participant gender, and rape myth beliefs on perceptions of rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 479–497. Brady, E. C., Chrisler, J. C., Hosdale, D. C., & Osowiecki, D. M. (1991). Date rape: Expectations, avoidance strategies, and attitudes toward victims. Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 427–429. Brener, N. D., McMahon, P. M., Warren, C. W., & Douglas, K. A. (1999). Forced sexual intercourse and associated health-risk behaviors among female college students in the United States. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 252–259. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2010). Criminal victimization in the United States 2007. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Byers, E. S. (1988). Effects of sexual arousal on men’s and women’s behavior in sexual disagreement situations. Journal of Sex Research, 25, 235–254. Clay-Warner, J. (2002). Avoiding rape: The effects of protective actions and situational factors on rape outcomes. Violence and Victims, 17, 691–705. Cook, S. L., Gidycz, C. A., Koss, M. P., & Murphy, M. (2011). Emerging issues in the measurement of rape victimization. Violence Against Women, 17, 201–218. Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74–101. Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1996). Social information-processing mechanisms in reactive and proactive aggression. Child Development, 67, 993–1002. Earnshaw, V. A., Pitpitan, E. V., & Chaudoir, S. R. (2011). Intended responses to rape as functions of attitudes, attributions of fault, and emotions. Sex Roles, 64, 382–393. Ferguson, C. J., & Dyck, D. (2012). Paradigm change in aggression research: The time is come to retire the General Aggression Model. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 220–228. Finkelson, L., & Oswalt, R. (1995). College date rape: Incidence and reporting. Psychological Reports, 77(2), 526. Fisher, B. S. (2009). The effects of survey questions wording on rape estimates. Violence Against Women, 15, 133–147. Frazier, P. A. (1990). Victim Attributions and post-rape trauma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 298–304.

370 Freedman, J. (2002). Media violence and its effect on aggression. In Assessing the scientific evidence. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Gauntlett, D. (2005). Moving experiences: Understanding television’s influences and effects. Luton: John Libbey. Gross, A. M., Weed, N. C., & Lawson, G. D. (1998). Magnitude scaling of intensity of sexual refusal behaviors in a date rape. Violence Against Women, 4, 329–343. Gross, A. M., Winslett, A., Roberts, M., & Gohm, C. L. (2006). An examination of sexual violence against college women. Violence Against Women, 12, 288–300. Gylys, J. A., & McNamara, J. R. (1996). A further examination of the validity for the Sexual Experiences Survey. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 14, 245–260. Janoff-Bulman, R. (1979). Characterological versus behavioral selfblame: Inquiries into depression and rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1798–1809. Koss, M. P., & Gidycz, C. A. (1985). Sexual Experiences Survey: Reliability and validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 422–423. Koss, M. P., & Oros, C. (1982). Sexual experiences survey: A research instruments investigation of sexual aggression and victimization. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 50, 455–457. 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 higher education students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162–170. Koss, M. P., Abbey, A., Campbell, R., Cook, S., Norris, J., Testa, M., Ullman, S., West, C., & White, J. (2007). Revising the SES: A collaborative process to improve assessment of sexual aggression and victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(4), 357–370. Kowalski, R. M. (1993). Inferring sexual interest from behavioral cues: Effects of gender and sexually relevant attitudes. Sex Roles, 29, 13–36. Lemerise, E. A., & Arsenio, W. F. (2000). An integrated model of emotion processes and cognition in social information processing. Child Development, 71, 107–118. Littleton, H., & Breitkopf, C. R. (2006). Coping with the experience of rape. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 106–116. Livingston, J. A., & Testa, M. (2000). Qualitative analysis of women’s perceived vulnerability to sexual aggression in a hypothetical dating context. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 729–741. Luebbe, A. M., Bell, D. J., Allwood, M. A., Swenson, L. P., & Early, M. C. (2010). Social information processing in children: Specific relations to anxiety, depression, and affect. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 39, 386–399. Macy, R. J., Nurius, P. S., & Norris, J. (2006). Responding in their best interest. Violence Against Women, 12, 478–500. Marx, B. P., & Gross, A. M. (1995). Date rape: An analysis of two contextual variables. Behavior Modification, 19, 451–463. McCaw, J. N., & Senn, C. Y. (1998). Perception of cues in conflictual dating situations. Violence Against Women, 4, 609–624.

J Fam Viol (2016) 31:361–370 Muehlenhard, C. L. (1988). ‘Nice women’ don’t say yes and ‘real men’ don’t say no: How miscommunication and the double standard can cause sexual problems. Women and Therapy, 7, 95–108. 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., Andrews, S. L., & Beal, G. K. (1995). Beyond Bjust saying no^: Dealing with men’s unwanted sexual advances in heterosexual dating contexts. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 8, 141–168. Nurius, P. S. (2000). Risk perception for acquaintance sexual aggression: A social-cognitive perspective. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1, 63–78. Nurius, P. S., & Norris, J. (1996). A cognitive ecological model of women’s responses to male sexual coercion in dating. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 8, 117–139. Nurius, P. S., Norris, J., Young, D. S., Graham, T. L., & Gaylord, J. (2000). Interpreting and defensively responding to threat: Examining appraisals and coping with acquaintance sexual aggression. Violence and Victims, 15, 187–208. Nurius, P. S., Norris, J., Macy, R. J., & Huang, B. (2004). Women’s situational coping with acquaintance sexual assault: Applying an appraisal-based model. Violence Against Women, 10, 450–477. O’Bryne, R., Rapley, M., & Hansen, S. (2006). ‘You couldn’t say ‘no’, could you?’ Young men’s understandings of sexual refusal. Feminism & Psychology, 16, 133–154. Ouimette, P. C., Shaw, J., Drozd, F., & Leader, J. (2000). Consistency of reports of rape behaviors amongnonincarcerated men. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 1(2), 133–139. Ross, R. R., & Allgeier, E. R. (1996). Behind the pencil/paper measurement of sexual coercion: Interview-based clarification of men's interpretations of sexual experiences survey items. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(18), 1587–1616. Savage, J. (2004). Does viewing violent media really cause criminal violence? A methodological review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 99–128. Testa, M., VanZile-Tamsen, C., Livingston, J. A., & Koss, M. P. (2004). Assessing women’s experiences of sexual aggression using the Sexual Experiences Survey: Evidence for validity and implications for research. Psychology ofWomen Quarterly, 29, 345–352. Ullman, S. E., Townsend, S. M., Filipas, H. H., & Starzynski, L. L. (1997). Structural models of the relations of assault severity, social support, avoidance coping, self-blame, and PTSD among sexual assault survivors. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 23–37. Vanzile-Tamsen, C., Testa, M., & Livingston, J. A. (2005). The impact of sexual assault history and relationship context on appraisal of and response to acquaintance sexual assault risk. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 813–832. Winslett, A. H., & Gross, A. M. (2008). Sexual boundaries: An examination of the importance of talking before touching. Violence Against Women, 14, 542–562. Zoucha-Jensen, J. M., & Coyne, A. (1993). The effects of resistance strategies on rape. American Journal of Public Health, 83, 1633– 1634.