The association between abuse and the perpetration of subtle sexual coercion: The role of approach and avoidance motivations

Abstract

Little research has investigated the associations between abuse and subtle sexual coercion within romantic relationships and the mechanisms that may underpin this association. Specifically, no previous research has investigated whether approach and avoidance motivations for engaging in sexual coercion explain this association. The aim of this research was to investigate whether approach and avoidance motivations pertaining to the perpetration of subtle sexual coercion may mediate the perpetration of psychological and physical abuse and the perpetration of sexual coercion. A total of 117 heterosexual couples (mean age = 30.42 years) completed measures assessing their approach and avoidance motivations for sexual coercion, as well as reports of abuse perpetration (physical and psychological) and sexual coercion against their romantic partner. Findings revealed that men and women’s perpetration of psychological abuse (but not physical abuse) was positively associated with their own avoidance motivations for sexual coercion perpetration and that women’s perpetration of psychological abuse was positively associated with their partner’s approach and avoidance motivations for sexual coercion perpetration. Avoidance motives were also found to mediate the association between psychological abuse and sexual coercion perpetration for both men and women. The results of this study highlight the importance of exploring motives as a potential mechanism to help explain the associations between abuse and sexual coercion within romantic relationships.

Keywords

Abuse approach and avoidance motivations intimate partner violence romantic relationships sexual coercion

Sexual coercion occurs in romantic relationships when an individual pressures or manipulates their partner to engage in sexual activity despite the partner’s initial disinterest in engaging in sex (O’Sullivan, 2005). Sexual coercion can be best conceptualized as a continuum of verbal and nonverbal behavior that ranges from quite explicit and illicit acts such as sexual harassment, sexual abuse, sexual assault, and rape at one end, through to more subtle forms of sexual coercion at the other end of the continuum (Brousseau, Bergeron, Hébert, & McDuff, 2011; Karantzas et al., 2016; Spitzberg & Rhea, 1999). Subtle sexual coercion often involves various psychological means of manipulating a partner to engage in sex such as inciting shame or guilt, pleading with one’s partner, and verbal threats about leaving or bringing harm to one’s relationship (Brousseau et al., 2011; Karantzas et al., 2016; Schatzel-Murphy, Harris, Knight, & Milburn, 2009).

These subtle forms of sexual coercion are quite common, with 50% of romantic couples having experienced this form of sexual coercion (Brousseau et al., 2011), a rate that is two to four times higher than the reporting of more severe forms such as harassment and rape (Brousseau et al., 2011; O’Leary & Williams, 2006; Spitzberg, 1998). Despite being characterized as subtle in nature, these forms of sexual coercion have been found to yield intrapersonal and interpersonal negative outcomes for both targets and perpetrators alike. These include a reduction in relationship quality as well as sexual pleasure and desire, the manifestation of post-traumatic stress symptoms, and depression (Collibee & Furman, 2014; de Visser, Rissel, Richters, & Smith, 2007; Katz & Myhr, 2008).

As a result of the prevalence rates and negative outcomes associated with subtle sexual coercion, research has attempted to identify the factors that contribute to this phenomenon. For example, attitudes about aggression and power, decoding sexual intent, sexual scripts, psychopathy, and past experiences with abuse and alcohol use, reflect some of the factors linked to sexual coercion (e.g., Krahe, Waizenhofer, & Moller, 2003; Lalumière & Quinsey, 1996; Testa, Hoffman, & Livingston, 2010). Some research has attempted to integrate a number of these and other factors within testable models such as Malamuth’s confluence model (Malamuth, 1998, 2003) and Knight and Sims-Knight’s (2003) model of developmental antecedents.

Malamuth’s confluence model (Malamuth, 1998, 2003) is a model that attempts to outline the characteristics that impel acts of sexual aggression in men. The model entails two largely independent drivers of sexual aggression: hostile masculinity and impersonal sex. Hostile masculinity is a personality profile that includes a defensive, hypersensitive, hostile, narcissistic, and distrustful orientation toward women, as well as gaining sexual gratification from dominating or controlling women. Impersonal sex is characterized as a detached orientation toward sex, which is usually the result of a violent or abusive developmental history (Malamuth & Hald, 2017).

Knight and Sims-Knight’s (2003) model of developmental antecedents of sexual coercion against women proposes that there are three major causal paths to sexual coercion. The first path assumes that physical and verbal abuse produces callousness and a lack of emotionality that leads to a disinhibited sexual drive and sexual fantasies, which in turn, leads to the perpetration of sexual coercion. The second path differs from the first path in that past sexual abuse (as opposed to past nonsexual physical abuse) is directly associated with disinhibition in sexual drive and sexual fantasies. Finally, the third path in the model proposes that early antisocial behavior and aggressive acts in childhood (which develop out of a history of physical and verbal abuse), as well as callousness and lack of emotion, are associated with hostile sexual fantasies, and in turn, lead to the perpetration of sexual coercion (Knight & Sims-Knight, 2003). Both of these models posit that sexual coercion may reflect a manifestation of abuse within sexual encounters. Moreover, the models propose that previous abusive experiences are likely to be an important developmental precursor for the perpetration of sexual coercion through a series of mediators, including antisocial and aggressive behaviors, callousness and unemotionality, narcissism, hostile masculinity, and sociosexuality to name but a few.

Addressing research gaps: Subtle sexual coercion and motivational processes

Although the models outlined in the previous section represent integrative frameworks for the study of sexual coercion, they suffer from some limitations. First, these models focus on the more severe forms of sexual coercion, and thus, the mechanisms proposed within these models may not apply equally well to subtle sexual coercion. Second, the models outlined were generated to explain men’s sexual coercion of women and are thus gender specific. Third, these models place no emphasis on motivational drivers of sexual coercion. Finally, these models do not take a dyadic perspective in the testing of models.

In contrast, research into relationship science has placed emphasis on understanding the motivational aspects of interpersonal processes and examining these processes from dyadic perspectives (e.g., Cooper, Talley, Sheldon, Levitt, & Barber, 2008). As a case in point, recent reviews and empirical studies have identified motivations to be an important factor in understanding the manifestation of subtle sexual coercion (e.g., Brousseau, Hébert, & Bergeron, 2012; Davis, Shaver, & Vernon, 2004; Karantzas et al., 2016). For instance, Brousseau, Hébert, and Bergeron (2012) found motives related to power and control to be associated with subtle sexual coercion, while Davis, Shaver, and Vernon (2004) suggested that sex can be used to assuage one’s negative emotions, and therefore, individuals may sexually coerce another in a subtle manner to avoid the experience of stress and negative feelings.

However, a number of these studies have not tested whether motivations for sexual coercion may mediate the association between past experiences of abuse and the perpetration of sexually coercive behavior. Rather, studies have treated motives as a predictor alongside other factors such as personality traits and past experiences of abuse, but nonetheless implied that motives may be a mechanism. Furthermore, a number of these studies have revealed a wide-ranging set of motives that may be implicated in the manifestation of subtle sexual coercion. These include the desire for power and control through to avoiding the experience of negative emotions (Brousseau et al., 2012; Davis et al., 2004). Yet, this diversity of motives makes it difficult to develop a coherent understanding as to the function of motives in explaining the link between perpetrating physical and psychological abuse more generally and the specific perpetration of subtle sexual coercion. Therefore, a broad motivational theory that can assist in organizing the study of motivational processes is necessary.

A framework that can be applied in the context of subtle sexual coercion is Gable’s (2006) model of approach–avoidance motivations. According to Gable, the motivations that underpin interpersonal processes within romantic relationships can be largely conceptualized as motivations to attain rewards (i.e., approach motivations) or to minimize punishments (i.e., avoidance motivations). Moreover, these two broad motivations are thought to mediate the links between distal factors (such as past relationship events and individual differences) and proximal relationship outcomes such as relationship satisfaction. Recently, this framework has been applied to understand the motivational processes underpinning aspects of individual differences (such as attachment styles) and subtle sexual coercion (Impett & Peplau, 2003; Mullins & Karantzas, 2019); with findings suggesting that approach and avoidance motivations do indeed play a mediating role. That is, within the context of couples’ sexual interactions, these motivations manifest in the reasons that an individual engages in the subtle sexual coercion of a romantic partner.

Drawing on the notion that sexual coercion may be a manifestation of the tendency to engage in more general forms of abuse (DeGue, DiLillo, & Scalora, 2010; Katz, Carino, & Hilton, 2002), we contend that approach and avoidance motivations may act as an explanatory mechanism that may impel individuals that have previously perpetrated abuse within their romantic relationship to then perpetrate subtle sexual coercion against one’s intimate partner. Specifically, we suggest that issues of abuse and subtle sexual coercion are related to people’s drives to attain rewards such as to maintain relationship power, to experience validation and approval, or to avoid punishments such as rejection and to mitigate negative emotions.

Research beyond the realm of sexual coercion, into intimate partner aggression, indeed supports the notion that various approach and avoidance motivations are associated with the enactment of partner maltreatment. For instance, a review by Langhinrichsen-Rohling, McCullars, and Misra (2012) of the motivations that underpin the perpetration of intimate partner violence highlighted that motivations, such as regaining a sense of power and control in the relationship, the expression of negative emotions (i.e., to show anger), self-protection against ongoing physical or emotional pain, retaliation for partner wrongdoing, and jealousy, were all associated with the perpetration of partner maltreatment. Moreover, many of these motivations could be clustered in to motivations that reflect avoidance of threats and punishments (e.g., to avoid emotional pain) and the approach of incentives and rewards (e.g., to regain power and control). Therefore, this broad conceptualization of motivations into dimensions of approach and avoidance motivations appears to capture the many and varied motivations that drive partner maltreatment. Within the context of sexual interactions within romantic relationships, these broad motivations focus abuse to be of a sexual nature where convincing a partner to engage in sex ensures that particular relationship rewards are actualized or certain relational punishments are averted.

The current research: Rationale and hypotheses

Drawing on past research and models suggesting an indirect association between past abuse and sexual coercion or sexually aggressive acts, we contend that the perpetration of past abuse is likely to be a predictor of subtle sexual coercion through two motivational pathways: motivations to avoid punishments or motivations to attain rewards. However, given that subtle sexual coercion entails numerous manipulative behaviors and tactics (such as inciting guilt or questioning a partner’s love; Brousseau et al., 2011; Schatzel-Murphy et al., 2009), we contend that the perpetration of past psychological abuse will be associated with the perpetration of subtle sexual coercion through approach and avoidance motivations more so than physical abuse. Therefore, it is hypothesized that both physical and psychological abuse will be positively associated with approach and avoidance motivations for sexual coercion perpetration, and in turn, approach and avoidance motivations will be positively associated with the actual perpetration of subtle sexual coercion. It is further hypothesized that the direct and indirect associations between abuse and subtle sexual coercion will be larger in magnitude for psychological abuse compared to physical abuse.

Furthermore, given that the perpetration of subtle sexual coercion is a dyadic phenomenon, it is important that the role of motivational processes be studied within a dyadic context. To date, research into subtle sexual coercion has been largely non-dyadic in nature, with studies exclusively focusing on individuals (e.g., Mathes, 2013), or the inclusion of couples has still resulted in non-dyadic methods for analyzing the data (e.g., Brousseau et al., 2011). Nevertheless, studies into other realms of partner maltreatment, such as intimate partner violence, find a dyadic association (e.g., Capaldi, Kim, & Shortt, 2007). Specifically, perpetration in one member of the dyad is associated with perpetration by the other partner. Thus, the perpetration of maltreatment is often characterized as a reciprocal association (e.g., Archer, 2000). In a few studies, this reciprocal association has been investigated from a motivational perspective (for a review, see Wilkinson & Hamerschlag, 2005).

From this perspective, explanations for relationship partners’ pursuit of violent acts can include motivations such as to reestablish power and control, or as a means to defend against various relationship threats such as partner rejection (e.g., Wilkinson & Hamerschlag, 2005). These motivational explanations tend to align with approach and avoidance motivational processes. Thus, drawing on this literature, it may be argued that motives to engage in partner maltreatments, such as sexual coercion, may not only have origins in a person’s own tendencies to perpetrate abuse, but the extent to which a partner perpetrates abuse. However, these proposed associations have not been examined as part of past research into subtle sexual coercion. To this end, it is hypothesized that a partner’s perpetration of abuse will be positively associated with an individual’s approach and avoidance motivations for sexual coercion, which in turn, will be associated with one’s own subtle sexual coercion perpetration.

Method

Participants

The study included 117 heterosexual couples (mean age = 30.42 years, SD = 12.52 years) recruited from the wider community across 14 countries (67.5% Australia, 13% the United States of America, 3% Canada, 3% New Zealand, 2.5% Ireland, 2% England, 2% Sweden, 1% Brazil, 1% France, 1% Netherlands, 1% Philippines, 1% Russia, 1% Singapore, and 1% South Africa). All couples had reported having engaged in sexual intercourse in their current relationship. Relationship length ranged from 2 months to 56 years (M = 7 years, SD = 10 years). Approximately 28% of couples were either engaged or married, while 34% of couples were cohabiting, and 34% were steady dating. The remaining 4% of couples were casually dating.

Materials

Background information

Demographic items were developed to record each participant’s age, gender, sexual history, relationship status, relationship length, sexual orientation, and birth country.

Physical and psychological abuse

Participants completed the Abuse Within Intimate Relationships Scale (AIRS; Borjesson, Aarons, & Dunn, 2003). The AIRS consists of 26 items that are designed to measure an individual’s own perpetration of intimate partner violence. It consists of five subscales (emotional abuse, 7 items; deception, 4 items; verbal abuse, 5 items; overt physical violence, 7 items; and restrictive violence, 3 items). The five subscales can also be grouped together into two broad factors: psychological abuse (consisting of the emotional abuse, deception, and verbal abuse subscales; e.g., “I have given my partner the silent treatment”) and physical abuse (consisting of the overt physical violence and restrictive violence subscales; e.g., “I have forcefully pushed my partner”). All items are rated on a three-point scale ranging from 0 (never) to 2 (twice or more).

Motives for sexual coercion perpetration

Participants completed the perpetration version of the Sexual Coercion Approach-Avoidance Motivations Questionnaire (SCAAM-Q; Mullins, Karantzas, & Pizzirani, 2019). The measure consists of 27 items constituting two subscales that tap into avoidance motivations (12 items, e.g., “I convinced my partner to have sex with me because I was afraid that they would leave me if we didn’t have sex”) and approach motivations (15 items, e.g., “I convinced my partner to have sex with me to feel more in control of my partner”) regarding the perpetration of subtle sexual coercion. Items are rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (very uncharacteristic of me) to 7 (very characteristic of me). Higher scores on each subscale reflect greater endorsement of approach and avoidance motivations respectively.

Perpetration of subtle sexual coercion

Participants also completed a modified version of the Perpetrator of Sexual Coercion Scale (Mathes & McCoy, 2011) that was used to measure subtle sexual coercion. The modified version of the perpetrator scale comprised of 11 items (e.g., “Have you ever coerced someone into engaging in sexual activities by pleading or making the person feel sorry for you?”) rated on a four-point scale ranging from 1 (No, definitely) to 4 (Yes, definitely). Higher scores reflect greater subtle sexual coercion perpetration.

Procedure

Couples were recruited through advertisements posted online to various social media websites such as Facebook and Reddit. The advertisements included a URL that directed participants to the study questionnaire that was administered online. Prior to filling in the questionnaire, participants were required to read an introductory letter about the study and acknowledge their consent to participate. As part of the introductory letter, participants were also advised to complete the online survey independently of their partner and to complete it in one sitting. The online survey took approximately 15–20 minutes to complete.

Data analysis

Actor-Partner Interdependence Modeling (APIM) was used so that the analysis of individuals is nested within couples. This allows analyses to be decoupled into two types of effects: actor effects and partner effects. Actor effects pertain to the associations between a person’s own scores on a given variable (e.g., abuse) and their scores on a related outcome variable (e.g., approach and avoidance motives for sexual coercion), whereas partner effects reflect the associations between a person’s scores on a given variable and their partner’s scores on an outcome variable (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006).

Within the current study, the actor effects pertain to the paths linking men’s physical and psychological abuse to men’s approach and avoidance motivations for engaging in sexual coercion, that then lead to men’s perpetration of subtle sexual coercion. Likewise, these same actor paths are estimated for women. The partner effects relate to the paths linking men’s physical and psychological abuse to women’s approach and avoidance motivations for engaging in sexual coercion and the links between women’s abuse and men’s sexual coercion motivations. In addition, men’s approach and avoidance motivations for sexual coercion are linked to women’s perpetration of subtle sexual coercion, and women’s approach and avoidance motivations are linked to men’s perpetration of subtle sexual coercion.

Specific indirect effects were conducted to test whether approach and avoidance motives for sexual coercion mediate the association between psychological and physical abuse and subtle sexual coercion perpetration. The sample was bootstrapped to 1,000 replications and the 95% bias corrected confidence intervals were estimated (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Confidence intervals that do not include zero are suggestive of the presence of mediation. Given the dyadic nature of the data, a series of actor and partner indirect effects were estimated. In this way, an indirect actor effect tested whether men’s and women’s own approach and avoidance motivations mediated their own reports of physical and psychological abuse and their own reports of subtle sexual coercion perpetration. An indirect partner effect reflected when the motives of one’s partner mediated one’s own reports of physical and psychological abuse and their own reports of subtle sexual coercion perpetration or their own reports of abuse and their partner’s perpetration of sexual coercion. All analyses were undertaken using Mplus 7.4 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2015).

Results

Missing data analyses revealed that no single item had more than 1.23% missing data; therefore, the missing data were replaced using expectation maximization (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). The results are divided into three sections. First, descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations for each of the study variables are reported. Second, the APIM (with both physical abuse and psychological abuse as predictor variables in the one model) is reported. Third, the mediational analyses by way of specific indirect tests¹ are presented.

Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations

The means and standard deviations for each of the study variables, internal consistencies of measures, as well as the percentage of participants that reported no perpetration of psychological abuse, physical abuse, and sexual coercion against their romantic partner are presented in Table 1. The zero-order correlations between the study variables (i.e., men and women’s perpetration of sexual coercion, men and women’s approach and avoidance motivations for sexual coercion perpetration, and men and women’s psychological and physical abuse) are presented in Table 2.

Table 1.
Descriptive statistics for the continuous independent variables and dependent variables.

Variables M SD Range % of participants reporting no perpetration α

Men

Approach motivations P 3.07 1.23 1–6 — .92

Avoidance motivations P 1.85 1.05 1–7 — .90

SC perpetration 1.43 0.50 1–3 37 .89

Psychological abuse 0.70 0.49 0–2 6 .89

Physical abuse 0.19 0.37 0–2 62 .89

Women

Approach motivations P 2.93 1.04 1–6 — .88

Avoidance motivations P 1.85 0.93 1–5 — .86

SC perpetration 1.38 0.38 1–3 32 .81

Psychological abuse 0.80 0.55 0–2 5 .91

Physical abuse 0.32 0.53 0–2 53 .94

Note. SC = sexual coercion; approach motivations P and avoidance motivations P = motivations for sexual coercion perpetration.

Table 2.
Zero-order correlations between all study variables.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Women psychological abuse —

2. Men psychological abuse .34* —

3. Women physical abuse .48** .00 —

4. Men physical abuse .00 .34* .29* —

5. Women approach motives P −.13 .06 −.01 .04 —

6. Women avoidance motives P .16 .09 .00 .05 .72* —

7. Men approach motives P −.12 .14 −.18 −.05 .46 .49** —

8. Men avoidance motives P .26* .12 −.09 −.03 .51 .65* .81*** —

9. Women’s SC perpetration .01 −.01 .04 .03 .12 .20* −.08 .00 —

10. Men’s SC perpetration −.05 .07 −.06 −.02 .24* .31* .43 .46 .18* —

Note. SC = sexual coercion, P = perpetration.

p < .05; p < .01; p < .001.

Actor–partner interdependence modeling

An APIM was conducted in which physical and psychological abuse were modeled to predict approach and avoidance motivations for sexual coercion. In turn, approach and avoidance motivations for sexual coercion were modeled as predictors of the perpetration of sexual coercion.² The APIM is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.
APIM of psychological and physical abuse and sexual coercion perpetration mediated by approach and avoidance motivations. Note: dashed lines represent a nonsignificant path (p > .05), solid lines represent a significant path (p < .05), and regression coefficients are standardized.

As shown in Figure 1, no significant actor or partner effects were found linking physical abuse to approach and avoidance motives for sexual coercion. However, psychological abuse was found to yield two actor effects. Psychological abuse was significantly positively associated with one’s own reports of avoidance motivations for sexual coercion in both men and women. Furthermore, two partner effects were found. Women’s (but not men’s) reports of psychological abuse were positively associated with both men’s approach motivations and men’s avoidance motivations for sexual coercion perpetration (see Figure 1).

In terms of the associations between men and women’s approach and avoidance motivations for sexual coercion, and actual perpetration of subtle sexual coercion, only two actor effects were found to be significant. As shown in Figure 1, for both men and women, avoidance motivations for sexual coercion were positively associated with sexual coercion perpetration.

As part of the APIM, numerous significant associations were found between men and women’s reports of abuse, endorsement of motives, and perpetration of sexual coercion. As shown in Figure 1, men and women’s reports of physical and psychological abuse were moderately correlated, as were the associations between approach and avoidance motivations for sexual coercion. A weak but significant correlation was also found between men and women’s perpetration of sexual coercion (see Figure 1).

Specific indirect effects

No significant actor or partner specific indirect effects were found in relation to approach and avoidance motives mediating the association between physical abuse and subtle sexual coercion perpetration. However, avoidance motivations were found to mediate the association between psychological abuse and subtle sexual coercion perpetration. These indirect effects reflected two actor and one partner mediation effect. Specifically, men’s own endorsement of avoidance motivations for sexual coercion mediated the association between their own reports of psychological abuse and subtle sexual coercion perpetration (point estimate = .073; 95% CI = .006, .217). This same actor indirect effect was found for women (point estimate = .048; 95% CI = .002, .122). That is, men and women’s psychological abuse was positively associated with avoidance motives for sexual coercion, which in turn, was positively associated with subtle sexual coercion perpetration.

In terms of specific indirect partner effects, it was found that men’s endorsement of avoidance motivations for sexual coercion mediated the association between women’s reports of psychological abuse and men’s perpetration of subtle sexual coercion (point estimate = .064; 95% CI = .001, .189). That is, women’s reports of psychological abuse were positively associated with men’s avoidance motivations for sexual coercion, and in turn, men’s avoidance motivations were positively associated with men’s subtle sexual coercion perpetration.

Discussion

This study aimed to investigate whether approach and avoidance motivations pertaining to sexual coercion mediate the perpetration of psychological and physical abuse and the perpetration of subtle sexual coercion. Specifically, it was hypothesized that the perpetration of physical abuse, and in particular, psychological abuse, would be positively associated with approach and avoidance motivations for sexual coercion perpetration, and in turn, approach and avoidance motivations would be positively associated with the actual perpetration of subtle sexual coercion. This hypothesis was partially supported with avoidance motives (but not approach motives) mediating some of the actor and partner associations between psychological abuse and sexual coercion perpetration. However, no mediation was found between physical abuse and the perpetration of sexual coercion. We discuss these findings below.

The lack of significant actor and partner effects between the perpetration of physical abuse and motivations may speak to physical abuse and subtle sexual coercion reflecting two somewhat distinct phenomena of abuse. The highly overt nature of physical abuse may be such that it is unlikely to be associated with more subtle attempts at partner maltreatment, and related motivations, as in the case of subtle sexual coercion. To date, physical abuse has been found to be associated with severe forms of sexual coercion such as sexual harassment, sexual abuse, and rape (e.g., Campbell & Soeken, 1999; McFarlane et al., 2005; Preiser & Assari, 2018). Moreover, the mechanisms linking physical abuse with these severe forms of sexual coercion have largely pertained to factors such as hostility, callousness, and sociosexuality (Knight & Sims-Knight, 2003; Malamuth, 2003). These mechanisms speak more toward having a chronic lack of regard for one’s romantic partner (Hines, 2007; Muñoz, Khan, & Cordwell, 2011) and unrestrictive attitudes toward sex (Schmitt, 2005; Schmitt & Shackelford, 2008; Simpson & Gangestad, 1991). Thus, approach and avoidance motives may play little, if any, role in explaining the association between physical abuse and sexual coercion.

In contrast to the lack of associations between physical abuse and motives for sexual coercion, a set of significant actor and partner associations were found between psychological abuse, motives, and subtle sexual coercion perpetration. However, all but one of the direct and indirect significant effects involved associations pertaining to avoidance motivations for sexual coercion (one partner effect was found between women’s psychological abuse and men’s approach motivations). Thus, it appears that avoidance motivations play a more central role in the psychological abuse to sexual coercion perpetration link than approach motivations. Specifically, in terms of actor effects, men and women’s perpetration of psychological abuse in their romantic relationships was significantly positively associated with their own avoidance motivations (but not their approach motivations) for sexual coercion perpetration. That is, past engagement in the perpetration of psychological abuse was positively associated with motivations to perpetrate sexual coercion as a means to avoid relationship threats and punishments. This may suggest that for both men and women, their perpetration of past psychological abuse may indeed be an impelling factor in heightening one’s motives to perpetrate abuse within the form of subtle sexual coercion (Finkel, 2014).

However, for men, the impelling role of psychological abuse extended beyond their own perpetration. Partner effects revealed that men’s endorsement of approach and avoidance motivations was associated with having been the target of psychological abuse by one’s partner. Thus, for men, the motivation to perpetrate sexual coercion appears to derive from two sources, their own perpetration as well as their partner’s perpetration of psychological abuse. When men are the victims of psychological abuse, the experience may be more salient for them, as compared to women, due to gender roles. Men’s gender roles entail representations of men as powerful, dominant, and independent compared to women (Eagly & Wood, 2012). In contrast, women’s gender roles entail representations of women as relationship caretakers and nurturers of romantic partners (Lee, Fiske, Glick, & Chen, 2010). Thus, when men are the victim of their partner’s psychological abuse, it may invoke gender role violations regarding how a woman is meant to act in a romantic relationship. This role violation may be quite salient for men and also threaten their mental representations of their own gender role. As a way of combating this threat, men may perpetrate subtle sexual coercion, whereby the enactment of this behavior is designed to avoid the further compromise of one’s gender role and/or to attain positive outcomes, such as to restore a sense of power and control in the relationship.

Furthermore, for both men and women alike, avoidance motivations for sexual coercion perpetration were significantly positively associated with their own perpetration of sexual coercion. This result is consistent with previous research that has suggested that engaging in sexual behavior, and in particular, sexual coercion, may be a way for an individual to avoid particular perceived relationship threats and punishments (e.g., Davis et al., 2004; Gentzler & Kerns, 2004). These relationship costs can include rejection from a partner, intimate discussions about the relationship that wish to be avoided, or mitigating feelings of negative affect (e.g., Davis et al., 2004; Gentzler & Kerns, 2004). In particular, this result is consistent with recent research that has found that avoidance motivations seem to have more of a predictive role than approach motivations when it comes to the perpetration of subtle sexual coercion (Mullins & Karantzas, 2019). These associations were further qualified in the present study through the specific indirect effects (i.e., mediation findings) pertaining to avoidance motivations. In terms of specific indirect actor effects, men and women’s psychological abuse was positively associated with their own avoidance motives for sexual coercion, and in turn, men and women’s own avoidance motivations were positively associated with their own perpetration of sexual coercion.

In terms of the specific indirect partner effects, men’s endorsement of avoidance motivations was found to significantly mediate the association between women’s reports of psychological abuse and men’s perpetration of subtle sexual coercion. This finding suggests that when men are the target of their partner’s psychological abuse, then that may be positively associated with them engaging in sexual coercion perpetration, and this association appears to be mediated by men’s avoidance of threat or punishment—which is likely to reflect how psychological abuse is appraised. Psychological abuse includes criticism, undue blaming, and mocking of one’s partner, withholding information and being secretive, partner betrayals, as well as emotional disconnection by way of withdrawal and stonewalling (Borjesson et al., 2003). It is therefore likely that exposure to psychological abuse by one’s partner may heighten men’s motivations to defend against these abusive actions. It however appears that for men, this may manifest in their own perpetration of subtle sexual coercion.

A question that the findings raise is why the direct and indirect partner effects were gender specific (i.e., women’s perpetration of psychological abuse to men’s approach and avoidance motives, and men’s avoidance motivations mediated women’s perpetration of psychological abuse and men’s sexual coercion perpetration). It may be that for men (rather than women), reactions to a partner’s abuse may be driven by approach and avoidance motivations to respond through means of sexual coercion. That is, men’s responses to abuse may manifest in sexually hostile behavior underpinned by the need to approach rewards or avoid punishments. Various studies have suggested that men are more likely to perpetrate sexually abusive and coercive acts than women (Christopher, Madura, & Weaver, 1998; Hamby, 2005; Hines & Saudino, 2003). Thus men, more so than women, have a propensity to demonstrate sexually coercive behavior. Moreover, this prevalence is thought to reside in hostile masculinity, male propensities for antisocial or aggressive behavior, which are thought, in part, to be rooted in experiences of past abuse (Knight & Sims-Knight, 2003; Malamuth, 2003; Malamuth, Linz, Heavey, Barnes, & Acker, 1995; Vivolo-Kantor, DeGue, DiLillo, & Cuadra, 2013). The findings of the present study suggest that for men, the manifestation of subtle sexual coercion may not only relate to these supposed manifestations of masculinity, but seem to also be underpinned by motives in response to a partner’s psychological abuse. Specifically, it appears that while psychological abuse may be associated with heightened approach and avoidance motivations for men to be sexually coercive, it seems that it is through avoidance motivations that men’s perpetration of sexual coercion manifests.

As already noted, the findings (direct and indirect actor and partner effects) point to the role that avoidance motives, rather than approach motives, play in understanding the association between the perpetration of psychological abuse and the perpetration of subtle sexual coercion. But what do we make of this finding? Research to date suggests that avoidance motivations are associated with the occurrence and reactivity to negative events as well as placing more importance on such events (Elliot, Gable, & Mapes, 2006; Gable, 2006; Gable, Reis, & Elliot, 2000). Thus, it may well be that negative events (whether they be the perpetration of sexual coercion or being the target of psychological abuse) may enhance the saliency of avoidance motives, rather than heightening approach motivations.

Limitations and future directions

Despite the novel insights gained from the present study, there are some limitations that need to be considered. First, although we tested for mediation, the research was cross-sectional, so causation cannot be inferred. Future research could test for causation by way of longitudinal research designs. Second, the study limited the investigation of explanatory processes to motives. While a number of statistically significant findings emerged regarding motives, the effect sizes were modest, which may suggest the need to investigate additional explanatory variables as mediators alongside motives. These variables may include factors outlined in past mediational models of sexual aggression, such as hostile masculinity, callousness, sexual fantasies, and antisocial personality traits (e.g., Knight & Sims-Knight, 2003; Malamuth, 2003). Third, the current study only investigated abuse and motivations for sexual coercion in heterosexual couples, thus future work could test the model investigated in this study with same-sex couples to further understand the generalizability of this model. Finally, the current study included a community sample that largely reported low levels of abuse and subtle sexual coercion perpetration. Thus, future research could explore our model in couples that report high levels of aggression or severe forms of abuse. Such an investigation may provide an enhanced understanding of the relevance of approach and avoidance motivations for sexual coercion in couples experiencing significant relationship distress and maladjustment.

Conclusion

This study is the first to investigate the association between engaging in abuse (physical and psychological) and the perpetration of sexual coercion in romantic relationships within a dyadic context with a focus on motives for sexual coercion as an explanatory mechanism. The findings suggest that avoidance motivations appear to play a key role in explaining the association between psychological abuse and the perpetration of sexual coercion within intimate relationships. In particular, avoidance motivations were implicated in both actor and partner mediation effects. Our findings therefore highlight the merit of exploring motivations as an important mechanism in unpacking issues of abuse and sexual coercion within the context of romantic couple relationships.

Variables	M	SD	Range	% of participants reporting no perpetration	α
Men
Approach motivations P	3.07	1.23	1–6	—	.92
Avoidance motivations P	1.85	1.05	1–7	—	.90
SC perpetration	1.43	0.50	1–3	37	.89
Psychological abuse	0.70	0.49	0–2	6	.89
Physical abuse	0.19	0.37	0–2	62	.89
Women
Approach motivations P	2.93	1.04	1–6	—	.88
Avoidance motivations P	1.85	0.93	1–5	—	.86
SC perpetration	1.38	0.38	1–3	32	.81
Psychological abuse	0.80	0.55	0–2	5	.91
Physical abuse	0.32	0.53	0–2	53	.94

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Women psychological abuse	—
2. Men psychological abuse	.34*	—
3. Women physical abuse	.48**	.00	—
4. Men physical abuse	.00	.34*	.29*	—
5. Women approach motives P	−.13	.06	−.01	.04	—
6. Women avoidance motives P	.16	.09	.00	.05	.72***	—
7. Men approach motives P	−.12	.14	−.18	−.05	.46**	.49**	—
8. Men avoidance motives P	.26*	.12	−.09	−.03	.51**	.65***	.81***	—
9. Women’s SC perpetration	.01	−.01	.04	.03	.12	.20*	−.08	.00	—
10. Men’s SC perpetration	−.05	.07	−.06	−.02	.24*	.31*	.43**	.46**	.18*	—

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the author(s) have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data and materials used in the research are available. The data and materials can be obtained by emailing: ellie.mullins@deakin.edu.au.

Notes

References

Archer

(2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651–680.

Borjesson

W. I.

Aarons

G. A.

Dunn

M. E.

(2003). Development and confirmatory factor analysis of the abuse within intimate relationships scale. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 295–309.

Brousseau

M. M.

Bergeron

Hébert

McDuff

(2011). Sexual coercion victimization and perpetration in heterosexual couples: A dyadic investigation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 363–372.

Brousseau

M. M.

Hébert

Bergeron

(2012). Sexual coercion within mixed-sex couples: The role of sexual motives, revictimization, and reperpetration. Journal of Sex Research, 49, 533–546.

Campbell

Soeken

(1999). Forced sex and intimate partner violence: Effects on women’s risk and women’s health. Violence Against Women, 5, 1017–1035.

Capaldi

D. M.

Kim

H. K.

Shortt

J. W.

(2007). Observed initiation and reciprocity of physical aggression in young, at-risk couples. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 101–111.

Christopher

F. S.

Madura

Weaver

(1998). Premarital sexual aggressors: A multivariate analysis of social, relational, and individual variables. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 56–69.

Collibee

Furman

(2014). Impact of sexual coercion on romantic experiences of adolescents and young adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 1431–1441.

Cooper

M. L.

Talley

A. E.

Sheldon

M. S.

Levitt

Barber

L. L.

(2008). A dyadic perspective on approach and avoidance motives for sexual behavior. In Elliot

A. J.

(Ed.), Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation (pp. 615–631). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

10.

Davis

Shaver

P. R.

Vernon

M. L.

(2004). Attachment style and subjective motivations for sex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1076–1090.

11.

DeGue

DiLillo

Scalora

(2010). Are all perpetrators alike? Comparing risk factors for sexual coercion and aggression. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 22, 402–426.

12.

de Visser

R. O.

Rissel

C. E.

Richters

Smith

A. M. A.

(2007). The impact of sexual coercion on psychological, physical, and sexual well-being in a representative sample of Australian women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 676–686.

13.

Eagly

A. H.

Wood

(2012). Social role theory. In Van Lange

P. A. M.

Kruglanski

A. W.

Higgins

E. T.

(Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 458–476). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

14.

Elliot

A. J.

Gable

S. L.

Mapes

R. R.

(2006). Approach and avoidance motivation in the social domain. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 378–391.

15.

Finkel

E. J.

(2014). The I3 model: Metatheory, theory, and evidence. In Olson

J. M.

Zanna

M. P.

(Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 49, pp. 1–104). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

16.

Gable

S. L.

(2006). Approach and avoidance social motives and goals. Journal of Personality, 74, 175–222.

17.

Gable

S. L.

Reis

H. T.

Elliot

A. J.

(2000). Behavioral activation and inhibition in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1135–1149.

18.

Gentzler

A. L.

Kerns

K. A.

(2004). Associations between insecure attachment and sexual experiences. Personal Relationships, 11, 249–265.

19.

Hamby

S. L.

(2005). Measuring gender differences in partner violence: Implications from research on other forms of violent and socially undesirable behavior. Sex Roles, 52, 725–742.

20.

Hines

D. A.

(2007). Predictors of sexual coercion against women and men: A multilevel, multinational study of university students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 403–422.

21.

Hines

D. A.

Saudino

K. J.

(2003). Gender differences in psychological, physical, and sexual aggression among college students using the revised conflict tactics scales. Violence and Victims, 18, 197–217.

22.

Impett

E. A.

Peplau

L. A.

(2003). Sexual compliance: Gender, motivational, and relationship perspectives. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 87–101.

23.

Karantzas

G. C.

McCabe

M. P.

Karantzas

K. M.

Pizzirani

Campbell

Mullins

E. R.

(2016). Attachment style and less severe forms of sexual coercion: A systematic review. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 1053–1068.

24.

Katz

Carino

Hilton

(2002). Perceived verbal conflict behaviors associated with physical aggression and sexual coercion in dating relationships: A gender-sensitive analysis. Violence and Victims, 17, 93–109.

25.

Katz

Myhr

(2008). Perceived conflict patterns and relationship quality associated with verbal sexual coercion by male dating partners. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 798–814.

26.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: The Guildford Press.

27.

Knight

R. A.

Sims-Knight

J. E.

(2003). The developmental antecedents of sexual coercion against women: Testing alternative hypotheses with structural equation modeling. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 989, 72–85.

28.

Krahe

Waizenhofer

Moller

(2003). Women’s sexual aggression against men: Prevalence and predictors. Sex Roles, 49, 219–232.

29.

Lalumière

M. L.

Quinsey

V. L.

(1996). Sexual deviance, antisociality, mating effort, and the use of sexually coercive behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 33–48.

30.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling

McCullars

Misra

T. A.

(2012). Motivations for men and women’s intimate partner violence perpetration: A comprehensive review. Partner Abuse, 3, 429–468.

31.

Lee

T. L.

Fiske

S. T.

Glick

Chen

(2010). Ambivalent sexism in close relationships: (Hostile) power and (benevolent) romance shape relationship ideals. Sex Roles, 62, 583–601.

32.

Malamuth

(1998). The confluence model as an organizing framework for research on sexually aggressive men: Risk moderators, imagined aggression and pornography consumption. In Geen

Donnerstein

(Eds.), Aggression: Theoretical and empirical reviews (pp. 229–245). New York, NY: Academic Press.

33.

Malamuth

(2003). Criminal and non-criminal sexual aggressors: Integrating psychopathy in a hierarchical-mediational confluence model. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 989, 33–58.

34.

Malamuth

N. M.

Hald

G. M.

(2017). The confluence mediational model of sexual aggression. In Boer

D. P.

Beech

A. R.

Ward

Craig

L. A.

Rettenberger

Marshall

L. E.

Marshall

W. L.

(Eds.), The Wiley handbook on the theories, assessment, and treatment of sexual offending (pp. 53–71). New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.

35.

Malamuth

N. M.

Linz

Heavey

C. L.

Barnes

Acker

(1995). Using the confluence model of sexual aggression to predict men’s conflict with women: A ten-year follow-up study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 353–369.

36.

Mathes

E. W.

(2013). Why is there a strong positive correlation between perpetration and being a victim of sexual coercion? An exploratory study. Journal of Family Violence, 28, 783–796.

37.

Mathes

E. W.

McCoy

(2011). Perpetration of sexual coercion and victim of sexual coercion scales: Development and validation. Psychological Reports, 108, 449–469.

38.

McFarlane

Malecha

Watson

Gist

Batten

Hall

Smith

(2005). Intimate partner sexual assault against women: Frequency, health consequences, and treatment outcomes. Obstetrics & Gynecology (New York), 105, 99–108.

39.

Mullins

E. R.

Karantzas

G. C.

(2019). Attachment style and subtle sexual coercion: The mediating role of approach and avoidance motivations. Unpublished manuscript.

40.

Mullins

E. R.

Karantzas

G. C.

Pizzirani

(2019). The development and validation of the Sexual Coercion Approach-Avoidance Motivations Questionnaire (SCAAM-Q). Unpublished manuscript.

41.

Muñoz

Khan

Cordwell

(2011). Sexually coercive tactics used by university students: A clear role for primary psychopathy. Journal of Personality Disorders, 25, 28–40.

42.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O

. (1998–2015). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

43.

O’Leary

K. D.

Williams

M. C.

(2006). Agreement about acts of aggression in marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 656–662.

44.

O’Sullivan

L. F.

(2005). Sexual coercion in dating relationships: Conceptual and methodological issues. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 20, 3–11.

45.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.

46.

Preiser

Assari

(2018). Psychological predictors of sexual intimate partner violence against Black and Hispanic women. Behavioral Sciences, 8, 3. doi:10.3390/bs8010003

47.

Schatzel-Murphy

E. A.

Harris

D. A.

Knight

R. A.

Milburn

M. A.

(2009). Sexual coercion in men and women: Similar behaviors, different predictors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 974–986.

48.

Schmitt

D. P.

(2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 247–311.

49.

Schmitt

D. P.

Shackelford

T. K.

(2008). Big five traits related to short-term mating: From personality to promiscuity across 46 nations. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 246–282.

50.

Simpson

J. A.

Gangestad

S. W.

(1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870–883.

51.

Spitzberg

B. H.

(1998). Sexual coercion in courtship relations. In Spitzberg

B. H.

Cupach

W. R.

(Eds.), The dark side of close relationships (pp. 179–232). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

52.

Spitzberg

B. H.

Rhea

(1999). Obsessive relational intrusion and sexual coercion victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 3–20.

53.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

54.

Testa

Hoffman

J. H.

Livingston

(2010). Alcohol and sexual risk behaviors as mediators of the sexual victimization–revictimization relationship. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78, 249–259.

55.

Vivolo-Kantor

A. M.

DeGue

DiLillo

Cuadra

L. E.

(2013). The mediating effect of hostility toward women on the relationship between childhood emotional abuse and sexual violence perpetration. Violence and Victims, 28, 178–191.

56.

Wilkinson

D. L.

Hamerschlag

S. J.

(2005). Situational determinants in intimate partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 333–361.