Sexual Assault on the College Campus

Abstract

Research on college sexual assault has focused on offender behavior to understand why men perpetrate sexual violence. Dominant theories have incorporated forms of male peer support, paying particular attention to the impact of rape-supportive social relationships on woman abuse. In contrast, Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime proposes that low self-control predicts crime and other related life outcomes—including the kinds of antisocial peer relationships that the male peer support model contends causes sexual violence. The exclusion of measures of self-control on sexual assault may result in a misspecified peer support model. Accordingly, the current research empirically tests Schwartz and DeKeseredy’s male peer support model and examines the role of self-control in the larger male peer support model of sexual assault. Implications for theory and research are discussed.

Keywords

fraternity sexual assault rape male peer support self-control

Women are sexually victimized on college campuses at disproportionately high rates (e.g., Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000; Koss, Gidycz, & Wisniewski, 1987). Scientific inquiry has focused on incidence and prevalence rates of campus sexual assault and has tested theories to better understand and prevent these forms of woman abuse. Traditionally, this literature has focused on offender behavior by proposing frameworks that explain why college men perpetrate sexual assault. One of the most dominant feminist explanations of sexual assault has relied on the ideological and behavioral facilitation of rape-supportive peer groups (Schwartz & DeKeseredy, 1997). Although the proposition of behavioral transmission through peer influence has an extensive history in criminology (Akers, 1973; Sutherland, 1947), Schwartz and DeKeseredy’s (1997) contributions to the study of peer support influences have honed in on structural issues relevant to feminist theory. They have integrated social learning and feminist perspectives with the specifics of the all-male peer group and the college campus to formulate a domain-specific theory of sexual offending. In line with early peer support theories (Bowker, 1983; DeKeseredy, 1988; Sanday, 1990) and drawing from the social learning and social support traditions, Schwartz and DeKeseredy proposed a theoretical model to explain the high rates of sexual abuse on college campuses by looking to the support provided by peers who belong to male-only social institutions.

Although Schwartz and DeKeseredy’s (1997) male peer support model accounts for a range of social and individual factors empirically established to influence sexual assault, their model as a whole has not been tested. In addition, the authors seem to have suggested that adding a motivational component for the perpetration of woman abuse would be useful to their model when they surmised,

The literature in psychology may disagree on many things, but one point of agreement is that men who have been identified as sexual aggressors on college campuses have been generally those men who are immature and irresponsible and have less respect than others for society’s rules. (p. 52)

This description appears conceptually similar to what Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) termed low self-control, though in the theory as originally hypothesized, Schwartz and DeKeseredy (1997) did not formally include any discussion of the potential role of low self-control or related constructs in explaining woman abuse. This may be problematic as Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) argued that self-control deficits account entirely for an individual’s propensity toward criminality and deviance (for a review of the empirical support for the role of low self-control, see Pratt & Cullen, 2000). As a counterpoint to theories incorporating social factors, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) theorized that the absence of self-control would account for criminal behavior to the exclusion of other social, ecological, psychological, and sociological explanations of crime—including the influence of deviant peer groups that is the staple of the male peer support model. Indeed, self-control deficits would explain a man’s engagement in the intermediate beliefs and behaviors that result in sexual assault and other forms of violence against women. In light of the overwhelming support for the general theory of crime and the contribution of low self-control to criminological explanations of offending, an important issue emerges: If male peer support models attempt to explain sexual assault through intermediate behaviors that result from association with all-male peers but do not account for the effects of low self-control, models may be, at best, misspecified. At worst, as Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) would suggest, the relationship between male peer support and sexual violence perpetration may be spurious.

The current research addressed these two shortcomings. First, this study operationalized and tested Schwartz and DeKeseredy’s (1997) male peer support model in full. Second, analyses incorporated Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) propositions regarding low self-control to better understand the effect of self-control on: (a) the attitudes and behaviors that may precede sexual assault, and (b) sexual assault perpetration among a sample of college men. In the end, we do not argue for a reconceptualization of self-control within the male peer support model, but suggest that Schwartz and DeKeseredy’s (1997) male peer support model might benefit from an examination of competing factors (e.g., self-control) to better explain college sexual assault.

Male Peer Support

The male peer support model has emerged from two primary traditions: (a) social learning theories and (b) social support theories. Generally, the social learning literature has concluded that association and identification with peer groups reinforce particular attitudes and behaviors that are socially desirable and appropriate according to the group, despite the illegality of such behaviors (Akers, 1973; Sutherland, 1947; also see Pratt et al., 2010). Akers’s (1973) extension of social learning theory highlighted the differential reinforcement of attitudes and group members’ behavior through a system of rewards or punishments. In other words, behaviors elicit responses (good and/or bad): When rewarded, behavior persists; if punished, group members learn to discontinue behavior. Thus, deviant behavior can be explained in terms of the degree to which a peer group differentially reinforces that behavior.

According to Schwartz and DeKeseredy (1997), social support theory has also contributed to the study of all-male peer groups and the support these groups provide that may legitimate woman abuse. They argued that relationship stress common to college populations is often dealt with by the support offered in close social networks. This social support serves as a buffer to help an individual deal with anxiety-producing situations—especially those related to interactions with women. Such support systems become problematic when social networks comprise peers who hold adverse beliefs about women and heterosexual relationships. These kinds of supports may provide men with the confidence and encouragement that dealing with women in abusive ways is socially appropriate according to group norms.

From these two perspectives, feminist criminologists have examined systematically why university men perpetrate sexual violence. Early studies on peer groups and university sexual assault proposed that formal social institutions, such as fraternities and athletic teams, conditioned adverse ideologies, prompting members to deem it appropriate to perpetrate sexual assault (DeKeseredy, 1990; Kanin, 1967; Martin & Hummer, 1989). After much investigation into the attitudes and behaviors that contribute to sexual assault on college campuses and the prevalence of these ideologies in most college contexts, Schwartz and DeKeseredy (1997) proposed a male peer support model that integrated the fundamental attitude transmission and behavioral conditioning concepts from the social learning tradition. They combined these ideas with (a) feminist scholarship on the influence of patriarchy, social system influences (Brownmiller, 1975), and the role of hypermasculinity and the sexual objectification of women in explaining sexual assault (e.g., Burt, 1980), (b) social support theories (DeKeseredy, 1988), and (c) empirical research related to the impact of additional variables, such as alcohol consumption, consistently found to predict sexual assault perpetration (e.g., Abbey, Ross, McDuffie, & McAuslan, 1996).

Male Peer Support and College Sexual Assault

Schwartz and DeKeseredy (1997) used the male peer support model to explain the prevalence of date rape by highlighting organized all-male peer groups on college campuses as environments that may condone the sexual exploitation and abuse of women. These may include college fraternities or athletic teams, may involve men living in all-male residence halls or alternate all-male living spaces, or may explain the behavior of men who belong to informal homosocial networks such as similarly-minded friends who regularly gather at the local pub. Regardless of the manner in which the all-male group is defined, according to Schwartz and DeKeseredy, members draw on the social networks fundamental to the peer group and in doing so may “normalize” woman abuse. Thus, the male peer support model holds that men engage in sexually predatory behaviors because they belong to male-only peer groups that reinforce their behavior. Schwartz and DeKeseredy’s male-peer support model does not name fraternities as the sole male peer group that facilitates sexual assault, though they do highlight the fraternity as a useful example of an elite all-male institution that has a history of sexual assault perpetration on college campuses (Frintner & Rubinson, 1993; Humphrey & Kahn, 2000; Kanin, 1967). Furthermore, other scholars have underscored the role of fraternities in perpetuating rape and sexual assault on American college campuses (e.g., Boeringer, 1996; Bohmer & Parrot, 1993; Sanday, 1990), positioning the fraternity as a useful social group to use for the purpose of theory testing.

Figure 1 presents Schwartz and DeKeseredy’s (1997, p. 46) male peer support model. In their discussion of male peer support, Schwartz and DeKeseredy defined social and courtship patriarchy and their influences on socialization and male behavior. They contend that society is patriarchal and that this social structure influences both family and dating behavior in terms of how interpersonal interactions are gendered. Male support group membership plays a central role in understanding sexual assault on college campuses because men who belong to all-male groups seek the support of fellow members, especially when their heterosexual relationships experience difficulty. These same groups facilitate hypermasculinity, group secrecy, the sexual objectification of women, and excessive alcohol consumption—all of which may foster sexual assault. Finally, Schwartz and DeKeseredy argued that there is an absence of deterrence on college campuses as it pertains to elite all-male groups. This lack of deterrence excuses and may actually motivate the perpetration of sexual assault. They referenced the lenient treatment typically afforded to fraternities and athletic teams by university administrators when handling and citing these organizations who are involved in sexually assaultive incidents.

Figure 1.

Schwartz and DeKeseredy’s (1997, p. 46) Male Peer Support Model

Ultimately, Schwartz and DeKeseredy (1997) argued that peer group members may learn to degrade and appropriate women as sexual conquests, targeting them as victims of coercive sex. On college campuses, this learning can take place in the context of fraternities. Thus, objectifying and predatory sexual behavior is supported and encouraged by like-minded men, who are also participating in a value-driven social group, characterized by superiority in membership status, which, in turn, induces conformity through a participatory “group-think” mentality (Sanday, 1990). Among fraternity members and in other male-only peer groups, nonconformists are ostracized or will face other equally damaging social consequences, which consequently reinforces hypermasculine behavior and conformity to collective sexual norms.

Schwartz and DeKeseredy (1997) proposed their male peer support framework as a heuristic tool because of the difficulty in testing each of the model’s components and in separating the effects of self-selection from socialization. Even so, investigations of sexual assault have theoretically extended male peer support to police subcultures (e.g., Franklin, 2007) or have incorporated specific elements of the male peer support model into their formal explanations of offending and victimization (Godenzi, Schwartz, & DeKeseredy, 2001; Schwartz & Pitts, 1995). To that end, Schwartz and DeKeseredy noted that a large body of research has established connections between the factors included in the model and woman abuse. For example, research has reported empirical relationships between hypermasculinity and sexual coercion (Truman, Toker, & Fisher, 1996), pornography consumption and rape proclivity (Vega & Malamuth, 2007), rape-supportive social relationships and sexual assault perpetration (Humphrey & Kahn, 2000; Martin & Hummer, 1989; Schwartz & Nogrady, 1996), all-male living space and antifeminine attitudes (Bohmer & Parrot, 1993), and alcohol consumption and violence against women (Abbey, 2002; Koss & Gaines, 1993; Ullman, Karabatsos, & Koss, 1999). From this empirical evidence, a theoretical model incorporating these factors to explain college sexual assault was formulated.

To date, however, there are no published studies that empirically test the male peer support model in its entirety. Furthermore, male peer support has not effectively accounted for the potential role of self-control (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Indeed, many of the attitudes and behaviors incorporated in feminist research as explanations for violence against women among male-only peer group members are complex constructs that may be explained by factors outside of the peer group. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) would argue that self-control deficits would effectively account for the propensity to accept and engage in these attitudes and behaviors and, in turn, to aggress against women.

Low Self-Control

Conceived as a general theoretical model that explains crime and similarly-related behavior, Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) general theory of crime proposed that the absence of self-control accounts for an individual’s propensity toward criminality and deviance. As control theories suggest, all people are capable of breaking the law and acting imprudently, but individuals with low self-control are more apt to act on the temptations toward crime and misbehavior. In addition, individuals with low self-control are more involved in an array of noncriminogenic but gratifying behaviors that coincide with crime and deviance (e.g., smoking, drinking, fast driving, illicit and unprotected sex). This proposition has been empirically evaluated, and findings provide fairly firm support for Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) claims (e.g., Pratt & Cullen, 2000).

Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) contend that low self-control may produce a variety of criminogenic and noncriminogenic outcomes, including undesirable life circumstances such as poor social relationships, unstable work histories, and deficient educational attainment. Accordingly, Gottfredson and Hirschi were explicit in their argument that certain “traditional” correlates of criminal behavior—namely, deviant peer influences and antisocial attitudes—are consequences of self-control and are therefore spuriously related to criminal behavior. In other words, individuals with self-control deficits will likely gravitate toward or self-select deviant and like-minded peer groups (also see McGloin, Pratt, & Maahs, 2004). Similarly, the impulsivity characteristic of low self-control precedes the formation of antisocial attitudes so that these persons are less likely to think critically and analyze information, especially if belief or adherence to such attitudes provides emotional benefits or allows an individual to justify adverse or deviant behavior. To be sure, self-control has been a strong predictor of a host of criminal and noncriminal “risky” behaviors and is also strongly correlated with antisocial attitudes in virtually every data set that includes measures of both concepts (Chapple, 2005; Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, & Arneklev, 1993; Miller & Burack, 1993; Pratt & Cullen, 2000; Sellers, 1999). Furthermore, self-control has predicted forms of social deviance both in and outside the realm of the criminal justice system (Holtfreter, Reisig, Beaver, & Pratt, 2010; Reisig & Pratt, 2011) and has been significantly linked with concepts tied to intimacy and relationships such as sexual entitlement and traditional gender role adherence (Bouffard, 2010).

Despite substantial empirical support, the general theory leaves much to be desired from a feminist perspective (Miller & Burack, 1993; Sellers, 1999). In particular, Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) propositions have relied entirely on the presence or absence of a developmental trait, with no consideration for other social or structural influences. In speaking about sexual assault, the authors were, at best, primitive in their explanation. Where feminists posited that rape could be understood through the role of a patriarchal society and gender inequality (e.g., Brownmiller, 1975), Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) rejected these propositions and instead surmised that men who rape are categorized as unwilling to properly seduce their female partners, referring to rape as “sex without courtship.” Furthermore, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) disregarded acquaintance rape as “relatively rare” and in doing so ignored existing prevalence estimates that 25% of college women will experience forced sex during their university tenure (Fisher et al., 2000; Koss et al., 1987). Even further, Gottfredson and Hirschi would argue that self-control alone could sufficiently explain sexual assault. Such a claim is problematic since considerable research has demonstrated that indicators of self-control fail to fully mediate the effects of other predictors of criminal behavior—including deviant peer influences and antisocial attitudes (Pratt & Cullen, 2000). Empirical research has generally found that variables specified by both self-control and social learning theories have strong and independent effects on criminal behavior (Pratt & Cullen, 2000; Winfree & Bernat, 1998).

In that vein, it is important to note that the current study does not claim to negate feminist contributions to the study of sexual assault but instead suggests that there may be much to learn from the integration of self-control with feminist theory as a mechanism for motivation. Indeed, one problem with peer support models is that any discussion of self-control is entirely absent as an explanation for the abuse-facilitating attitudes and behaviors and the perpetration of sexual assault. The current research fills a gap in the literature on sexual assault by integrating Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) theoretical contributions regarding self-control with Schwartz and DeKeseredy’s (1997) male peer support model. In doing so, this study modeled the relationships among male peer support, self-control, and sexual assault among college men.

Hypotheses

The male peer support model argued that membership in peer groups indirectly affects sexual assault through its influence on what we have termed “abuse-facilitating” attitudes and behaviors. Figure 2 displays the conceptual model illustrating the relationships among group membership, attitudes and behaviors, and sexual assault as proposed by Schwartz and DeKeseredy (1997). In light of these proposed relationships, the following hypotheses were tested:

Figure 2.

Conceptual Male Peer Support Model

Hypothesis 1: All-male group membership will directly predict abuse-facilitating attitudes and behaviors, operationalized as informational support, attachment to abusive peers, peer pressure for sex, gender role ideology, limited perceptions of deterrence, excessive alcohol consumption, illegal drug use, pornography consumption, and group secrecy.

Hypothesis 2: Abuse-facilitating attitudes and behaviors will directly predict sexual assault.

In addition, research on self-control has suggested that persons with self-control deficits will engage in crime, deviance, and similarly-related gratifying behaviors (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Self-control may have a direct impact on each of the abuse-facilitating attitudes and behaviors and on sexual assault. Figure 3 presents the conceptual model that includes self-control. When self-control is included in the path model, the model fit is expected to significantly improve. Two hypotheses addressed the role of self-control:

Figure 3.

Conceptual Male Peer Support Model With Self-Control

Hypothesis 3: Low levels of self-control will directly predict abuse-facilitating attitudes and behaviors as outlined above, net of other variables.

Hypothesis 4: Low levels of self-control will directly predict sexual assault, net of other variables.

Finally, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) argued that the relationship between peer factors and criminal behavior is spurious once self-control is accounted for. To assess this, a final hypothesis was tested:

Hypothesis 5: The impact of peer group membership on abuse-facilitating attitudes and behaviors will be reduced to nonsignificance when self-control is included in the model.

Method

Data were obtained from survey responses collected in undergraduate classes ranging in course level and substantive material at a large northwestern public university during the spring of 2007. Voluntary and anonymous self-administered survey questionnaires were completed during scheduled times.¹ Administration of the survey yielded 304 male responses. Only men who reported having ever engaged in consensual sex were included in the sample, leaving a total of 255 male respondents.² Sample demographics indicate that 28.6% of the male respondents were fraternity members, with 80.4% identifying themselves as White. Juniors composed the largest class (33.7%), followed by sophomores (30.9%), seniors (29.8%), and freshman (5.6%).³

Dependent Variable

The dependent variable was a dichotomous measure that captured the respondent’s self-reported perpetration of illegal sexual assault. This measure was taken from multiple items in a modified version of Koss and Oros’s (1982) Sexual Experiences Survey. A single variable was created from seven items that pertain to the commission of forced sex acts that are legally defined as crimes (attempted rape, completed rape, threats or force that resulted in sexual contact, alcohol-induced rape). Responses were coded 1 if the respondent responded affirmatively to any of the illegal sexual assault questions (n = 31, 12.2%) and 0 otherwise (n = 224, 87.8%).⁴

Independent Variables

All-male group membership was captured through respondents’ self-identified affiliation with the University’s Greek system. Although Schwartz and DeKeseredy’s (1997) male peer support model is not based solely on fraternity behavior specifically, Greek organizations on college campuses represent one manifestation of an all-male, elite social institution that is well suited for testing the male peer support model. As a result, fraternity membership was captured with a dichotomous variable where non-Greek members or independents were coded 0 (n = 182, 71.4%) and Greek members were coded 1 (n = 73, 28.6%).

Male peer social support

According to DeKeseredy (1990), the defining elements of male peer support include “attachments to male peers and the resources they provide which encourage and legitimate woman abuse” (p. 130). Attachment to abusive peers was defined as whether or not the respondent has friends who engage in sexually aggressive behaviors directed toward women and was measured using three questions from DeKeseredy and Kelly (1995) that asked the respondent to identify how many of his male friends had used physical and/or emotional abuse tactics to gain sexual access with their dating partners. Responses were measured on a 5-point scale (0 = none, 1 = 1 or 2, 2 = 3 to 5, 3 = 6 to 10, and 4 = more than 10). The three items were summed, and scale values ranged from 0 to 15, with higher numbers indicating more abusive peers (M = 1.26, SD = 1.68, α = .601).⁵ Informational support was defined as having friends who provide advice and/or guidance that encourages sexually abusive behavior and was captured through seven questions tapping the verbal support provided by male friends that explicitly encourages adverse sexual interactions (coded 0 for no and 1 for yes). The seven items were summed, and scale values ranged from 0 to 7, with higher numbers indicating greater informational support (M = 0.71, SD = 1.21, α = .703). Peer pressure to have sex was measured with one item that asked respondents, “How much pressure do your male friends place on you to have sex with your dating partners and/or girlfriends” (DeKeseredy & Kelly, 1995). Responses ranged from no pressure (coded 0) to a great deal of pressure (coded 4; M = 1.02, SD = 1.07). The appendix presents the factor loadings and reliability estimates for all indices included in the analysis.

Gender role ideology

Schwartz and DeKeseredy (1997) and others (e.g., Koss et al., 1994) have noted the importance of gender role traditionality in facilitating and justifying woman abuse. Gender role ideology was captured using the 20-item Traditional and Egalitarian Sex Roles scale (TESR; Larsen & Long, 1988). The TESR measures a respondent’s adherence to an egalitarian gender ideology. The TESR was modified in the current analysis so that only the 13 items with factor loadings greater than .4 were used. Item responses were captured on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The scale ranged from 5 to 65, with higher numeric values representing adherence to a less egalitarian and more traditional (or stringently masculine) gender ideology (M = 31.15, SD = 7.33, α = .852).

Group secrecy

According to Schwartz and DeKeseredy (1997), group members are well insulated from authority and public oversight as a result of strong bonds of loyalty that produce group secrecy. Group secrecy was assessed by asking respondents to indicate their level of agreement with the following statement: “I would lie to protect a close friend from getting in trouble with the law.” Responses were captured on a 5-point Likert-type scale where higher numbers represent increased group secrecy (M = 3.73, SD = 0.99).

Pornography consumption

Male peer support (Schwartz & DeKeseredy, 1997) and empirical research on pornography and sexual aggression (Vega & Malamuth, 2007) have suggested that regular pornography consumption may condition men to hold adverse beliefs about women, increasing their likelihood of sexual assault. Six questions assessed the frequency of pornography consumption in the past 6 months. Responses were coded on a 4-point scale ranging from never (coded 0) to frequently (coded 3). The items were summed and scale values ranged from 0 to 18, with higher numeric values representing more frequent consumption (M = 5.92, SD = 3.80, α = .792).

Alcohol consumption and drug use

Alcohol consumption was measured by summing the responses to three questions that captured the frequency, quantity, and variability of alcohol consumption as identified in prior literature (Felson & Burchfield, 2004; Franklin, 2010a, 2010b, 2011; Leigh, 1990; Ullman et al., 1999). For each item, responses were captured on a 7-point scale ranging from never (coded 0) to every day (coded 6). Responses were summed to create a scale ranging from 3 to 21, with higher values demonstrating increased alcohol consumption patterns (M = 7.04, SD = 3.18, α = .889). In addition, one item assessed the frequency of illegal drug use in the previous 6 months. Responses were captured on a 7-point scale ranging from never (coded 0) to every day (coded 6; M = 0.92, SD = 1.60).

Absence of deterrence

Schwartz and DeKeseredy (1997) argued that men who belong to fraternities receive institutional messages about the lack of formal consequences for engaging in sexual assault. Respondents were asked to answer the following question by estimating a numeric value: “Of the next 100 male students who sexually assault a woman on campus, how many do you think will be caught?” (see Kleck, Sever, Li, & Gertz, 2005). Responses ranged from 0 to 98 (M = 13.61, SD = 19.84). Lower values indicate a perceived absence of sexual-assault-related deterrence.

Self-control was captured through Grasmick et al.’s (1993) 24-item self-control measure (e.g., Pratt & Cullen, 2000). Responses to each question were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly agree (coded 1) to strongly disagree (coded 5). Constraining the data to fit a one-factor model in a confirmatory factor analysis produced factor loadings that ranged from .212 to .681. As a result, items loading less than .4 were eliminated from the scale, leaving 10 items with factor loadings that ranged from .469 to .601.⁶ The 10 items were summed to create a scale ranging from 10 to 50, with lower values representing lower levels of self-control (M = 36.40, SD = 5.07, α = .716).

Control Variables

Two measures were included in the current study as control variables: respondent race and year in college. Race was captured as a dichotomous variable of White (coded 0, 80.4%) and non-White (coded 1, 19.6%). Year in college reflected a respondent’s current class standing; freshman were coded 1 (5.5%), sophomores were coded 2 (31.0%), juniors were coded 3 (33.7%), and seniors were coded 4 (29.8%).

Analytic Strategy

The analysis proceeded in two stages. First, bivariate models were estimated to determine the relationships between: (a) fraternity membership and abuse-facilitating attitudes and behaviors, (b) self-control and abuse-facilitating attitudes and behaviors, and (c) abuse-facilitating attitudes and behaviors and sexual assault. Second, statistical analyses based on theoretically-specified models were conducted using EQS (structural equation modeling software; Bentler, 2004). Schwartz and DeKeseredy’s (1997) male peer support model was tested using path analysis, and the fit of the model was assessed as it has been hypothesized in existing literature. Post hoc modifications to this path model were made based on the results of specific modification indices and informed by theory to improve the overall fit of the male peer support model. A third path model containing the variables included in Schwartz and DeKeseredy’s (1997) modified male peer support model and a construct representing respondent self-control was estimated. The explanatory power of the path models was evaluated through the use of multiple fit statistics, including the comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR).

Results

Bivariate Analyses

Table 1 presents the results of the bivariate analyses and reveals significant differences between fraternity members and nonmembers in terms of sexual assault and several variables from the male peer support model. First, fraternity men were significantly more likely to report sexual assault as compared to their counterparts, providing preliminary support for the role of all-male peer groups in facilitating woman abuse. Furthermore, fraternity men were significantly more likely to receive informational support from their friends to use adverse and abusive tactics to gain sexual access. In addition, fraternity men reported receiving significantly greater levels of peer pressure from their friends to have sex. Fraternity men also consumed pornography with significantly higher frequency and reported significantly greater levels of alcohol consumption when compared to their counterparts—all of which provided preliminary support for Hypothesis 1. It is important to note that, in contrast to the remaining expectations laid out in Hypothesis 1, fraternity men did not significantly differ from independents on their reported attachments to abusive peers, gender role ideology, group secrecy, perceptions of deterrence, and illegal drug use.

Table 1:

Bivariate Relationships Among Fraternity Membership, Peer Support Measures, Self-Control, and Self-Reported Sexual Assault

	Fraternity Membership				Self-Reported Sexual Assault
	Yes		No		Yes		No
Variable	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	Self-Control (r)
Sexual assault (%)	61.3		38.7		—		—
χ²	18.427*
Male peer social support
Informational support	0.958	1.292	0.611	1.165	1.290	1.553	0.633	1.737	–.087
t	2.058*				2.271*
Attachment to abusive peers	1.306	2.053	1.243	1.515	1.709	1.345	1.206	1.727	–.073
t	0.234				1.555
Peer pressure to have sex	1.390	1.193	0.870	.986	1.810	1.195	0.900	1.009	–.166*
t	3.251*				4.551*
Gender role ideology	31.027	6.370	31.218	7.690	33.323	7.337	30.880	7.297	–.351*
t	–0.186				1.742
Group secrecy	3.821	1.018	3.696	.973	4.484	0.626	3.617	0.984	–.221*
t	0.982				6.627*
Pornography consumption	4.583	2.499	3.398	2.489	4.709	2.723	3.583	2.506	–.155*
t	3.414*				2.318*
Deterrence	11.908	18.684	14.288	20.297	10.355	12.462	13.818	20.477	–.105
t	–0.853				–1.310
Alcohol consumption	8.660	2.657	6.380	3.142	9.100	3.015	6.740	3.115	–.231*
t	5.447*				3.959*
Drug use	0.990	1.389	0.890	1.675	1.970	2.089	0.760	1.450	–.141*
t	0.434				3.122*
Self-control	35.767	5.097	36.682	5.065	34.497	5.153	36.782	4.724	—
t	1.298				1.897*

p < .05.

Many of these peer support variables were also significantly related to sexual assault. Men who reported sexual assault received significantly higher levels of informational support and peer pressure related to sexual interaction. They also endorsed a significantly greater degree of group secrecy and consumed pornography with significantly greater frequency when compared to non-sexually assaultive men. Furthermore, levels of alcohol consumption and drug use were significantly higher among men who reported sexual assault as compared to their counterparts. These bivariate relationships provided partial preliminary support for Hypothesis 2.

Moreover, there was no significant difference between fraternity and nonmembers in their level of self-control. As outlined in Hypothesis 4, however, individuals who reported sexual assault had significantly lower levels of self-control than those who did not. Self-control was also significantly correlated with a number of male peer support variables, as expected in Hypothesis 3. Specifically, higher levels of self-control were associated with lower levels of peer pressure to have sex, less adherence to a masculine ideology, less group secrecy, and less frequent consumption of pornography. Finally, men with more self-control reported less problematic alcohol consumption and illegal drug use.

Path Models

The male peer support model

To assess the relationships among fraternity membership, abuse-facilitating attitudes and behaviors, and sexual assault as outlined in Figure 2, path analysis using EQS with maximum likelihood estimation was conducted (Bentler, 2004; Byrne, 2008).⁷ Figure 4 presents the results of the initial test of the male peer support model. The goodness-of-fit statistics for the initial model did not fall within the acceptable range (CFI = .367, SRMR = .107, RMSEA = .107), signifying a poor-fitting overall model (Hu & Bentler, 1999).⁸ In addition, several of the path coefficients emerged as nonsignificant.

Figure 4.

Initial Male Peer Support Path Model

In an attempt to create a better fitting model, a series of post hoc modification indices were conducted in the form of Lagrange Multiplier and Wald tests (see Byrne, 2008; Kline, 2005).⁹ The measures included in the male peer support model specify a range of attitudes and behaviors that have been linked to all-male groups generally, and fraternities in particular, in terms of their relationship with sexual assault. An a priori expectation then, is that many of these behaviors are related so that when an individual is part of a fraternity, it is also likely that he may engage in and/or adhere to the series of attitudes or behaviors described in the model. Similarly, if an individual participates in and/or adheres to one attitude or behavior, it is likely that he will engage in another.

Consequently, path coefficients were added between informational support and peer pressure for sex. Research indicates that men who provide social support as related to dating and sex relationships in the form of informational support for adverse responses to relationship conflict may also pressure male friends to have sex with their dating partners as displays of masculinity and sexual conquest (see, e.g., Schwartz & DeKeseredy, 1997). Additional path coefficients were added between gender role ideology and both peer pressure for sex and alcohol consumption. Similarly, stringent masculinity manifests itself both as sexual activity and having sex with frequency (e.g., Kanin, 1967) and confounds the ability to consume alcohol in great quantities with masculine status (Suitor, Minyard, & Carter, 2001). Two additional path coefficients were added between alcohol consumption and drug use and between drug use and group secrecy. Although the relationship between alcohol consumption and drug use may be reciprocal, social norms on college campuses have accepted binge drinking as relatively benign, whereas illicit drug use has been less conventional. Moreover, although individuals with a propensity to protect secrecy may engage in drug use, it is likely the case that illicit drug use facilitates secrecy because of the nature of the behavior’s illegal classification and the desire to keep indiscretions confidential.

Figure 5 presents the modified male peer support path model and demonstrates that fraternity membership was both directly and indirectly related to sexual assault through alcohol consumption and peer pressure for sex. Moreover, those men who consumed alcohol were likely to use illegal drugs. Drug use was directly related to sexual assault and was also significantly related to group secrecy. Furthermore, respondents who reported high levels of group secrecy were more likely to report sexual assault. In addition, fraternity membership predicted sexual assault indirectly through peer pressure for sex. Men who belonged to a fraternity were more likely to have friends who pressured them to have sex and were more likely to report sexual assault. Finally, a significant path coefficient directly connected fraternity membership and sexual assault, suggesting that fraternity members were more likely than their counterparts to sexually assault women, while controlling for all other variables in the model. After making these modifications to the male peer support path model, the fit improved but the model fit statistics still did not fall within the acceptable range (CFI = .892, SRMR = .064, RMSEA = .048). Poor overall model fit demonstrated that even after modifying the original male peer support model, the model did not provide a statistically adequate explanation of sexual assault among this sample of college men. Thus, the next step in the analytic process was to add self-control to determine if model fit improved and thus could explain the outcome of interest.

Figure 5.

Modified Male Peer Support Path Model

Male peer support and self-control

To determine the direct impact of self-control on the intervening variables hypothesized to predict sexual assault, an additional path model containing the variables included in Figure 5 and an attitude measure of subject self-control (Grasmick et al., 1993) was estimated. Results of the path model with self-control are presented in Figure 6. It is important to note that the model fit improved substantially when self-control was included, representing a good fitting model (CFI = .948, SRMR = .060, RMSEA = .038). This finding provides support for the contention that self-control can effectively contribute to peer support theories of sexual assault. Accordingly, results from the final model are interpretable in terms of how they inform the processes that underlie sexual assault perpetration among this sample of college men. It is important to note the absence of a direct significant effect from self-control to sexual assault, refuting Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) predictions. Instead, as demonstrated in Figure 6, self-control indirectly correlated with sexual assault through gender ideology and alcohol consumption—two abuse-facilitating variables that the male peer support model surmised would affect sexual assault. In particular, self-control had a substantial effect on gender ideology and a relatively weak but significant effect on alcohol consumption, so that individuals with low self-control were likely to accept stringent traditional gender roles and to drink alcohol in greater quantities and with greater frequency than their counterparts. Furthermore, increased alcohol consumption predicted illegal drug use, which directly and indirectly (through group secrecy) predicted sexual assault. To empirically address self-selection effects, this model was estimated with a pathway from self-control to fraternity affiliation. The relationship was nonsignificant, indicating that self-control did not significantly predict membership in fraternities. Despite the inclusion of self-control in this model, fraternity affiliation remained statistically and substantively significant as a predictor of sexual assault through alcohol consumption and peer pressure for sex.

Figure 6.

Male Peer Support and Low Self-Control Path Model

Discussion

Scholarship on violence against women has proposed offense-specific explanations arguing that traditional criminology is insufficient to explain this unique form of offending. Schwartz and DeKeseredy’s (1997) male peer support model borrows some concepts from more general, traditional theories but applies them in a unique framework to explain the relationship between male group membership and sexual assault. This type of offense-specific explanation, however, runs the risk of being misspecified if more general explanations of criminal behavior are not considered. For example, Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) general theory of crime has been a powerful explanation of offending. Despite significant criticisms of the theory (see Miller & Burack, 1993; Sellers, 1999), the empirical status of self-control as a predictor of offending has suggested the need to examine its predictive capacity for sexual assault in conjunction with more offense-specific theories, such as male peer support. Accordingly, the analyses presented here lead to three conclusions.

First, although not entirely supported in these results, some of the concepts that capture male peer support had significant effects on sexual assault both directly and indirectly. Group secrecy and peer pressure for sex directly affected sexual assault, and gender role ideology and informational support significantly predicted sexual assault through their impact on peer pressure for sex. Schwartz and DeKeseredy’s (1997) model has identified some important predictors of sexual assault, yet these factors were not necessarily or solely tied to fraternity membership. Specifically, fraternity membership did not significantly affect gender role ideology, informational support, or group secrecy. Rather, the only significant indirect impact of fraternity membership occurred through peer pressure for sex. In other words, fraternity members experienced greater levels of peer pressure to have sex, which, in turn, increased the likelihood of sexual assault. It may be that although the current analysis used fraternity membership to measure the effects of all-male groups, analyses investigating male peer support using different forms of organized male-only peers may produce different results. Indeed, male peer support can operate in other homosocial group contexts, and so results of this analysis should be considered only in the context of fraternity membership. That said, the findings presented here lend support to facets of the male peer support model, but not as it has been conceptually proposed and not without accounting for the role of self-control.

Second, one additional aspect of the male peer support model received support in these analyses. Fraternity membership indirectly predicted sexual assault through alcohol consumption and illegal drug use. This finding is relatively unsurprising, given the pervasive party culture within Greek systems and research demonstrating a robust positive relationship between alcohol consumption and sexual assault (Abbey, 2002; Felson & Burchfield, 2004; Muehlenhard & Linton, 1987). Outside of the model as proposed, however, fraternity membership continued to significantly and directly predict sexual assault.

Third, the integration of concepts drawn from male peer support and self-control theories proved to be advantageous. As such, integrating self-control with male peer support is useful for understanding who is likely to hold abuse-facilitating attitudes or to engage in abuse-facilitating behaviors. Self-control significantly predicted the frequency of pornography consumption, gender role ideology, and alcohol use. Gender role ideology and alcohol consumption, in turn, predicted sexual assault. This implies that the impact of self-control on sexual assault is indirect through abusive attitudes and risky behaviors. When self-control was included in the model, the fit statistics improved to the point that the model would be considered a good fit to the data. In comparison, the solely male peer support models did not provide a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999) and thus were not supported by the data contained in this study.

Theoretically, these results demonstrate that the integration of more general criminological theory with the offense-specific explanations of sexual assault has value. Including a consistent and powerful predictor of offending such as self-control significantly improved the explanatory power of the model. It is important to recognize, however, that criticisms of general theories remain. Research has identified unique causal processes (e.g., masculinity and other patriarchal attitudes) that are important in the prediction of violence against women but that do not often appear in more general theories. Critics would argue that this limits the ability of general theories to explain a unique type of crime such as sexual assault (Britton, 2000; Daly & Chesney-Lind, 1988). This study would suggest that although general theoretical propositions may not be sufficient to explain sexual assault alone, the incorporation of these propositions alongside factors that are specific to sexual assault enables the more effective prediction of this type of offending. For example, it may be that low self-control individuals are more likely to accept stereotypical views of gender (e.g., masculinity and femininity) because they are unwilling or unable to think critically about how particular gender characteristics can be attributed fluidly to either sex. Furthermore, staunch traditionality is beneficial for justifying women’s opposition in progressive and socially powerful positions and for legitimizing women’s sexually submissive place in relationships (Johnson, 2001). Thus, incorporating the general perspective of low self-control alongside more specific predictors, such as rape-supportive attitudes, provides the necessary link to allow a more full and more nuanced explanation of sexual assault.

The results presented here also emphasize the need for further refinement of the male peer support model and the general theory of crime. In particular, even after including a measure of self-control, fraternity affiliation exerted a direct significant effect on sexual assault. This relationship highlights one area of the male peer support model that needs further consideration: opportunity. Indeed, fraternity men may be in a unique position to aggress against women by way of access to suitable targets (see Franklin, 2010a, 2010b, 2011). The Greek system has a history of institutionalized social arrangements that put fraternity men in regular and proximate contact with members of the opposite sex (e.g., sorority women). The context of these interactions has been characterized by high-risk sexual behaviors, excessive alcohol consumption, and expectations for casual sexual intimacy. As such, men whose routine activities are defined by frequent contact with college-aged women have a distinct opportunity to extort sex. Greek affiliation may provide this access (Franklin, 2010b; 2011), underscoring the importance of opportunity in the explanation of sexual assault offending in the university context. Perhaps men with self-control deficits who are fraternity members have greater access to opportunities to commit sexual assault when compared to low self-control men who are not fraternity members. Either way, future research should consider the role of opportunity in understanding a variety of criminal behaviors, including sexual assault, by incorporating elements of routine activity theory into both offense-specific explanations such as male peer support and general criminological theories such as the general theory of crime.¹⁰

Additional theoretical shortcomings arise on consideration of the issue of self-selection versus socialization. Schwartz and DeKeseredy (1997) largely proposed a social learning model of sexual assault in which men join fraternities, which increases their propensity for engaging in abusive attitudes and behaviors. They have suggested that “although . . . learning patterns may be true in many cases, it may also be true that many men arrive at college fully prepared to abuse women with no additional learning” (p. 59). In the current study, the inclusion of a statistical pathway from self-control to fraternity affiliation alleviates these potential concerns, at least with regard to questions of self-selection. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) proposed that low levels of self-control could also explain the formation of formalized deviant and antisocial peer groups.¹¹ This study modeled these relationships and found nonsignificant effects, demonstrating that, in this sample, men with self-control deficits were not more likely to join fraternities as compared to their higher self-control counterparts.

Although the current research provides evidence for the utility of integrating the male peer support model and the general theory of crime, opportunities for future research should be explored more carefully. For example, the present study used a convenience sample of largely White college males from the Northwest. It would be important to replicate this study among larger and more diverse samples. In addition, the item used to measure group secrecy may be further refined. As it was phrased in this analysis, individuals willing to tell lies to protect a friend facing legal consequences could be identifying personal loyalties, disrespect for the law, or a lack of confidence in the legal system. Future research may measure group secrecy through the use of multiple and specific offense descriptions or may be more specific about telling lies for a number of close friends as opposed to only one individual. Additional opportunities arise on the consideration of the dependent variable, self-reported sexual assault. All of the behaviors included in the measure of sexual assault fit the legal definition of rape, but most of the men who responded affirmatively to these questions reported using drugs or alcohol to get a woman to have sex. Fewer men reported using threats or actual force to have intercourse. Future research should address variation in the types of coercion used and whether theoretical claims apply equally along the continuum of force.

In the end, this study clearly supports the value of feminist criminology with regard to explaining sexual assault. Put simply, many of the traditional approaches in criminology (i.e., “general” theories of crime and deviance) simply fail to fully capture the nature of sexual violence—a finding that highlights the limits of much of the current “mainstream” wisdom of criminology. At the same time, these results reveal that feminist perspectives on sexual assault can and should be integrated with self-control—the very kind of mainstream perspective that feminist theories typically eschew. The findings presented here illustrate the need for continued integration of general theories with more offense-specific explanations of violence against women to better understand the causal pathways that underlie woman abuse.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note:

An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2008 annual meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. The authors would like to thank Noelle E. Fearn, Travis W. Franklin, Brian B. Boutwell, and Matt R. Nobles for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article.

Appendix

Factor Loadings and Reliability Estimates

		Loading
Male peer social support measures
Attachment to abusive peers (α = .601)
To the best of your knowledge, how many of your male friends . . .
1.	Have ever made physically forceful attempts at sexual activity with women they were dating which were disagreeable and offensive enough that the women responded in an offender manner such as crying, fighting, screaming, or pleading?	.829
2.	Have ever used physical force, such as hitting or beating, to resolve conflicts with their girlfriends and/or dating partners to make them fulfill some demand?	.859
3.	Insulted their dating partners and/or girlfriends, swear at them, and/or withhold affection?	.616
Informational support (α = .703)
Did any of your male friends tell you that . . .
1.	You should respond to your dates’ or girlfriends’ challenges to your authority by using physical force, such as hitting or slapping?	.642
2.	It is alright for a man to hit his date or girlfriend in certain situations?	.650
3.	Your dates or girlfriends should have sex with you when you want?	.610
4.	If a man spends money on a date, she should have sex with him in return?	.513
5.	You should respond to your dates’ or girlfriends’ challenges to your authority by insulting them or putting them down?	.608
6.	You should respond to your dates’ or girlfriends’ sexual rejections by employing physical force to obtain sex?	.731
7.	It is alright for a man to physically force a woman to have sex with him under certain conditions?	.799
Traditional Egalitarian Sex Roles (α = .852)
1.	Women should be more concerned with clothing and appearance than men.	.570
2.	Women should have as much sexual freedom as men.	.435
3.	The man should be more responsible for the economic support of the family than the woman.	.618
4.	Ultimately, a woman should submit to her husband’s decision.	.725
5.	Some equality in marriage is good but by and large the husband ought to have the main say-so in family matters.	.702
6.	In groups that have both male and female members, it is more appropriate that leadership positions be held by males.	.682
7.	I would not allow my son to play with dolls.	.555
8.	Men make better leaders.	.667
9.	Almost any woman is better off in her home than in a job or profession.	.575
10	A woman’s place is in the home.	.653
11.	The role of teaching in elementary schools belongs to women.	.586
12.	A man who has chosen to stay at home and be a house-husband is less masculine.	.437
13.	As head of the household, the father should have the final authority over the children.	.662
Pornography consumption (α = .792)
In the past six months, how often have you viewed the following types of materials:
1.	Sexual magazines available at places like convenience stores and newsstands. Examples include Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler.	.687
2.	Sexual magazines or books that show actual sexual intercourse and other sexual acts, such as those usually available only in “adults only” bookstores.	.713
3.	Movies or videos that include graphic but simulated sexual acts, such as those rated X or NC-17.	.761
4.	Movies or videos that show actual sexual intercourse and other acts, such as those usually found in “adults only” (XXX) sections of video rental stores.	.805
5.	Internet sites that show actual sexual intercourse and other acts	.676
6.	Movies or videos that show hard-core sexual acts (for example, bondage, S&M, etc.)	.528
Alcohol consumption (α = .889)
1.	During the past six months, how often did you drink any alcoholic beverages, including beer, light beer, wine, wine coolers, or liquor?	.888
2.	During the past six months, how often did you drink five or more alcoholic beverages in one day or evening?	.943
3.	During the past six months, how often did you drink to the point of intoxication or drunkenness?	.885
Self-control (α = .716)
1.	The things in life that are the easiest to do bring me the most pleasure	.601
2.	I frequently try to avoid things that I know will be difficult.	.599
3.	Often, when I’m angry at people, I feel more likely hurting them than talking to them about why I am angry.	.510
4.	I dislike really hard tasks that stretch my abilities to the limit.	.554
5.	I often do whatever brings me pleasure here and now, even at the cost of some distant goal.	.507
6.	When I have a serious disagreement with someone, its usually hard for me to talk about it without getting upset.	.469
7.	I will try to get the things I want even when I know it’s causing problems for other people.	.493
8.	I’m more concerned with what happens to me in the short run than in the long run.	.512
9.	I lose my temper pretty easily.	.558
10	I try to look out for myself first, even if it means making things difficult for other people.	.512

Notes

Cortney A. Franklin is an assistant professor in the College of Criminal Justice at Sam Houston State University. Her research interests include self-control and victimization, violence against women, and gender and criminal justice processing. Her recent work has appeared in Criminal Justice and Behavior, Violence Against Women, Journal of Criminal Justice, Feminist Criminology, Journal of Family Violence, and Women and Criminal Justice.

Leana Allen Bouffard is an associate professor in the College of Criminal Justice at Sam Houston State University. Her research interests include criminological theory, especially across the life course, and violence against women. She has published articles in such journals as Criminology, Justice Quarterly, Crime & Delinquency, Criminal Justice and Behavior, and Journal of Criminal Justice.

Travis C. Pratt is a professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona State University. His research focuses on criminology and corrections, and his work has appeared in Criminology, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Justice Quarterly, and Crime and Justice: A Review of Research.

References

Abbey

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

Abbey

McAuslan

Ross

L. T.

(1998). Sexual assault perpetrated by college men: The role of alcohol, misperception of sexual intent, and sexual beliefs and experiences. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17, 167-195.

Abbey

Ross

L. T.

McDuffie

McAuslan

(1996). Alcohol and dating risk factors for sexual assault among college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 147-169.

Akers

R. L.

(1973). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Bentler

P. M.

(2004). EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.

Boeringer

S. B.

(1996). Influences of fraternity membership, athletics, and male living arrangements on sexual aggression. Violence Against Women, 2, 134-147.

Bohmer

Parrot

(1993). Sexual assault on campus: The problem and the solution. New York, NY: Lexington.

Bouffard

L. A.

(2010). Exploring the utility of entitlement in understanding sexual aggression. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 870-879.

Bowker

(1983). Beating wife-beating. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

10.

Britton

D. M.

(2000). Feminism in criminology: Engendering the outlaw. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 571, 57-76.

11.

Brownmiller

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

12.

Burt

(1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217-230.

13.

Byrne

(2008). Structural equation modeling with EQS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

14.

Carr

J. L.

VanDeusen

K. M.

(2004). Risk factors for male sexual aggression on college campuses. Journal of Family Violence, 19, 279-289.

15.

Chapple

C. L.

(2005). Self-control, peer relations, and delinquency. Justice Quarterly, 22, 89-106.

16.

Daly

Chesney-Lind

(1988). Feminism and criminology. Justice Quarterly, 5, 497-538.

17.

DeKeseredy

W. S.

(1988). Woman abuse in dating relationships: The relevance of social support theory. Journal of Family Violence, 3, 1-13.

18.

DeKeseredy

W. S.

(1990). Male peer support and woman abuse: The current state of knowledge. Sociological Focus, 23, 129-139.

19.

DeKeseredy

W. S.

Kelly

(1995). Sexual abuse in Canadian university and college dating relationships: The contribution of male peer support. Journal of Family Violence, 10, 41-53.

20.

DiStefano

(2002). The impact of categorization with confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 327-346.

21.

Felson

R. B.

Burchfield

K. B.

(2004). Alcohol and the risk of physical and sexual assault victimization. Criminology, 42, 837-859.

22.

Fisher

B. S.

Cullen

F. T.

Turner

M. G.

(2000). The sexual victimization of college women. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

23.

Franklin

C. A.

(2007). Male peer support and police culture: Understanding the resistance and opposition of women in policing. Women and Criminal Justice, 16, 1-25.

24.

Franklin

C. A.

(2010a). The effect of victim attitudes and behaviors on sexual assault victimization severity: An examination of university women. Women and Criminal Justice, 20, 239-262.

25.

Franklin

C. A.

(2010b). Physically forced, alcohol-induced, and verbally coerced sexual victimization: Assessing risk factors among university women. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 149-159.

26.

Franklin

C. A.

(2011). An investigation of the relationship between self-control and alcohol-induced sexual assault victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 263-285.

27.

Frintner

M. P.

Rubinson

(1993). Acquaintance rape: The influence of alcohol, fraternity membership, and sports team membership. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 19, 272-284.

28.

Godenzi

Schwartz

M. D.

DeKeseredy

W. S.

(2001). Toward a gendered social bond/male peer support theory of university woman abuse. Critical Criminology, 10, 1-16.

29.

Gottfredson

M. R.

Hirschi

(1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

30.

Grasmick

H. G.

Tittle

C. R.

Bursik

R. J.

Jr. Arneklev

B. J.

(1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 5-29.

31.

Holtfreter

K. L.

Reisig

M. D.

Beaver

K. M.

Pratt

T. C.

(2010). Low self-control and fraud offending. Journal of Financial Crime, 17, 295-307.

32.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.

33.

Humphrey

S. E.

Kahn

A. S.

(2000). Fraternities, athletic teams, and rape: Importance of identification with a risky group. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 1313-1322.

34.

Johnson

A. G.

(2001). The gender knot: Unraveling our patriarchal legacy (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

35.

Kanin

E. J.

(1967). Reference groups and sex conduct norms. Sociological Quarterly, 8, 495-504.

36.

Kanin

E. J.

(1985). Date rapists: Differential sexual socialization and relative deprivation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14, 219-231.

37.

Kleck

Sever

Gertz

(2005). The missing link in general deterrence research. Criminology, 43, 623-660.

38.

Kline

R. B.

(2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.

39.

Koss

M. P.

Gaines

J. A.

(1993). The prediction of sexual aggression by alcohol use, athletic participation, and fraternity affiliation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 8, 94-107.

40.

Koss

M. P.

Gidycz

C. A.

Wisniewski

(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.

41.

Koss

M. P.

Goodman

L. A.

Browne

Fitzgerald

L. F.

Keita

G. P.

Russo

N. F.

(1994). No safe haven: Male violence against women at home, at work, and in the community. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

42.

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.

43.

Larsen

K. S.

Long

(1988). Attitudes toward sex roles: Traditional or egalitarian? Sex Roles, 19, 1-12.

44.

Leigh

B. C.

(1990). The relationship of sex-related alcohol expectancies to alcohol consumption and sexual behavior. British Journal of Addiction, 85, 919-928.

45.

Martin

P. Y.

Hummer

R. A.

(1989). Fraternities and rape on campus. Gender & Society, 3, 457-473.

46.

McGloin

J. M.

Pratt

T. C.

Maahs

(2004). Rethinking the IQ-delinquency relationship: A longitudinal analysis of multiple theoretical models. Justice Quarterly, 21, 601-631.

47.

Miller

S. L.

Burack

(1993). A critique of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: Selective (in)attention to gender and power positions. Women and Criminal Justice, 4, 115-134.

48.

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.

49.

Pratt

T. C.

Cullen

F. T.

(2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38, 931-964.

50.

Pratt

T. C.

Cullen

F. T.

Sellers

C. S.

Winfree

L. T.

Madensen

Daigle

. . . Gau

J. M.

(2010). The empirical status of social learning theory: A meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly, 27, 765-802.

51.

Reisig

M. D.

Pratt

T. C.

(2011). Low self-control and imprudent behavior revisited. Deviant Behavior, 32, 589-625.

52.

Sanday

P. R.

(1990). Fraternity gang rape: Sex, brotherhood, and privilege on campus. New York, NY: New York University Press.

53.

Schwartz

M. D.

DeKeseredy

W. S.

(1997). Sexual assault on the college campus: The role of male peer support. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

54.

Schwartz

M. D.

Nogrady

C. A.

(1996). Fraternity membership, rape myths and sexual aggression on a college campus. Violence Against Women, 2, 148-162.

55.

Schwartz

M. D.

Pitts

V. L.

(1995). Exploring a feminist routine activities approach to explaining sexual assault. Justice Quarterly, 12, 9-31.

56.

Sellers

C. S.

(1999). Self-control and intimate violence: An examination of the scope and specification of the general theory of crime. Criminology, 37, 375-404.

57.

Suitor

J. J.

Minyard

S. A.

Carter

R. S.

(2001). Did you see what I saw? Gender differences in perceptions of avenues to prestige among adolescents. Sociological Inquiry, 71, 437-454.

58.

Sutherland

E. H.

(1947). Principles of criminology. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.

59.

Truman

D. M.

Toker

D. M.

Fisher

A. R.

(1996). Dimensions of masculinity: Relations to date rape supportive attitudes and sexual aggression in dating situations. Journal of Consulting and Development, 74, 555-562.

60.

Ullman

S. E.

Karabatsos

Koss

M. P.

(1999). Alcohol and sexual assault in a national sample of college women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 603-625.

61.

Vega

Malamuth

N. M.

(2007). Predicting sexual aggression: The role of pornography in the context of general and specific risk factors. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 104-117.

62.

Winfree

L. T.

Bernat

F. P.

(1998). Social learning, self-control, and substance abuse by eighth grade students: A tale of two cities. Journal of Drug Issues, 28, 539-558.