Elaborations on Sexual Assault on Dates Among Israeli Students

Abstract

The current study of 668 Israeli male and female students examines the prevalence of gendered risk factors for sexual assault (SA) on dates, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a detrimental effect of SA, and self-efficacy as resiliency to refuse unwanted sex following SA. Two different sets of risk factors that increased the likelihood of SA on dates emerged from the hierarchical regression. Sexual experience, use of drugs, and private location increased the risk of being SA victims among males, whereas sexual experience, perceived provocative behavior, and alcohol use increased the risk among females. In addition, PTSD and self-efficacy to refuse unwanted sex following SA on dates were predicted by the extent of coercive sexual victimization. PTSD was also predicted by subjective perception of sexual behavior and rape myths, whereas efficacy was predicted by private location. The findings contribute to the literature by showing the contribution of various risk factors to experiencing SA, and by showing SA effect on PTSD and self-efficacy.

Keywords

sexual coercion PTSD self-efficacy

Introduction

Sexual assaults (SA) and serious violent incidents on dates are more common than is publicly known (Muehlenhard & Linton, 1987; Voller & Long, 2010). Both are relatively prevalent between the ages of 14 and 26, and female college students are a high-risk group for various forms of SA (e.g., rape; Abbey, 2002; Flack et al., 2007; Iconis, 2008; Voller & Long, 2010). Prevalence estimates of SA range from 13% to 54% among females (Abbey, 2002; Elliott, Mok, & Briere, 2004; Gidycz, McNamara, & Edwards, 2006) and from 0.6% to 8.3% among males (Elliott et al., 2004).

The main body of research on SA focuses on women as victims (for review, see Gidycz et al., 2006). Most studies conducted examined risk factors (e.g., Sochting, Fairbrother, & Koch, 2004; Voller & Long, 2010) as well as psychological and behavioral outcomes (e.g., Campbell, Dworkin, & Cabral, 2009; Davies, 2002; Sleath & Bull, 2010) of male-on-female SA. However, in the last two decades the number of clinical reports of rapes targeting males has increased (Jackson & Newman, 2004; Street, Gradus, Stafford, & Kelly, 2007) and there has been a significant growth in research examining the problem of adult male rape (Rumney, 2009). The number of testimonies and awareness of the fact that men are also sexually assaulted and that SA can be carried out by both sexes is growing (DeSouza & Solberg, 2004; Street et al., 2007). In Israel, the phenomenon has mostly been studied in the context of SA against women (Herzog, 2007; Zeira, Astor, & Benbenishty, 2002).

The current study aims to assess the incidence of SA among males and females, to determine the a priori factors that are liable to increase the risk of SA, and to consider two possible mechanisms: detrimental effect and resilience, after experiencing SA. Detrimental effect relates to PTSD (a psychopathological response to traumatic events) and self-efficacy relates to the ability to refuse unwanted sexual contact.

Risk Factors

Past research has identified several risk factors associated with date rape and other forms of SA (Gidycz et al., 2006; Testa, VanZile-Tamsen, & Livingston, 2007). These include location and dating activity, miscommunication about sex, alcohol, and/or drug use, and gender role attitudes and beliefs (Burt, 1980; Flood & Pease, 2009; Howard, Griffin, & Boekeloo, 2008).

Location and date initiation activities

Studies have distinguished between private and public locations as date settings. Private locations refer to settings in which dating couples are alone, while public locations refer to settings in which other people are present (Yeater, Lenberg, Avina, Rinehart, & O’Donohue, 2008). For example, more than 60% of student SA incidents occurred either at the victim’s or the assailant’s home (Mynatt & Allgeier, 1990). Thus, it appears that among students the risk of SA is higher when dating occurs in private rather than in public locations (Miller & Marshall, 1987; Mynatt & Allgeier, 1990).

Initiation behaviors are thought to reflect male dominance and gender-related power differences (Muehlenhard & Linton, 1987). In the American dating system, for example, research in the 1980s highlighted the expectation that money and sex would be exchanged on a date (McCormick & Jesser, 1983). Students held the opinion that if the woman allows the man to pay for rather than split all dating expenses, it is more likely that she wants to have sex, and he is more justified in having sex with her even against her will (Muehlenhard & Andrews, 1985). While informative, these studies were conducted in the 1980s and since then changes in SA, financial and other dating norms, and date initiation behaviors may have occurred (e.g., Fuge’re, Escoto, Cousins, Riggs, & Haerich, 2008). Thus, further research is needed to update previous conclusions regarding the relationship between dating activity and SA in modern societies (Sochting et al., 2004), particularly with regard to male victims.

Miscommunication about sex

Miscommunication about sex has also been linked to SA (Jacques-Tiura, Abbey, Parkhill, & Zawacki, 2007; Muehlenhard & Linton, 1987). Miscommunication mostly refers to the erroneous interpretation of females’ behavior by males (although it could be the other way or same gender). This occurs when behavior is ambiguous or verbal communication is misinterpreted as being indirectly sexual in content when in fact no sexual content was intended. Research suggests that men may misinterpret women’s friendly behavior as reflecting sexual interest (e.g., Winslett & Gross, 2008). More women than men report that their level of sexual interest is over-perceived, and men are more likely to interpret female behavior as more sexual than intended (Muehlenhard & Linton, 1987; Vrij & Kirby, 2002).

Alcohol and drug use

Alcohol and drug use by the perpetrator and/or the victim has consistently been reported as a risk factor for SA among college students (Abbey, 2002; Mohler-Kuo, Dowdall, Koss, & Wechsler, 2004; Schiff & Zeira, 2005; Testa et al., 2007), and as a significant catalyst of SA on dates and/or by an acquaintance (e.g., Cole & Logan, 2010; Macy, Nurius, & Norris, 2006).

Gender role attitudes and beliefs

Social perceptions of different beliefs and attitudes regarding SA (Murnen, Wright, & Kaluzny, 2002), such as rape myth acceptance, adversarial sexual beliefs, and acceptance of interpersonal violence (Burt, 1980; Flood & Pease, 2009; Hockett, Saucier, Hoffman, Smith, & Craig, 2009) are also thought to be risk factors.

Rape myths have been defined as false beliefs, stereotypes, and prejudices about rape, rape victims, and rapists. Rape myths have traditionally framed rape in the context of violence against women (Anderson, Cooper, & Okamura, 1997; Ellis, 1989). Typical of such myths are beliefs such as many women wish to be raped, and only “bad girls” get raped (Burt, 1980, 1991; Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1995).

Burt suggests that violence against women does not result from individual pathologies of a group of “insane” individuals, but is rather a socio-cultural phenomenon in which people may rely on a string of accessible cultural attitudes to justify their violent behavior. These attitudes are used to deny or reduce the intensity of perceived harm or to blame the victims themselves for their victimization (Burt, 1980). Lonsway and Fitzgerald (1995) suggested a similar approach, defining rape myths as false positions and beliefs used to deny or justify male sexual aggression towards women.

The acceptance of rape myths is associated with victim blaming as well as with sex role stereotypes, sexual conservatism, adversarial sexual beliefs, and a tolerance toward interpersonal violence (Burt, 1980; Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1995; Shechory & Idisis, 2006).

The main body of research focuses on the rape of women (e.g., Bryden & Fletcher, 2007; DeSouza & Fansler, 2003), and shows that men, more than women, tend to espouse rape myths and to blame the victim (e.g., Anderson et al., 1997; Barbaree, Marshell, & Sundberg, 1991; Shechory & Idisis, 2008) as well as a strong connection among men and women between rape myths and stereotypical approaches toward sex roles (Ben-David & Schneider, 2005; Iconis, 2008). High rape myth acceptance and negative sexual beliefs are found to be associated with SA (e.g., Anderson et al., 1997; Burt, 1980; Iconis, 2008; Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1995; Shechory & Idisis, 2006).

PTSD and Self-Efficacy Following SA

PTSD

Exposure to traumatic events has serious short- and long-term detrimental effects on its victims (Bergen, Martin, Richardson, Allison, & Roeger, 2004). One of these is PTSD, a syndrome characterized by re-experiencing events, avoidance, numbing, and hyperarousal (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed., text rev. [DSM-IV-TR]; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2000), and associated with disturbances in many domains of functioning (see Brewin & Holmes, 2003). A review indicates that between 17% and 65% of SA victims develop PTSD (Campbell et al., 2009). Some studies suggest that females are at greater risk of PTSD than males, perhaps due to the relatively higher incidence of affective and anxiety disorders in women than in men, and to greater exposure to SA (Creamer, Burgess, & McFarlane, 2001; Zlotnick et al., 2006). Most research, however, was conducted on female victims, and most forms of trauma are reported by females (Tolin & Foa, 2006).

Research has also shown that PTSD is associated to a larger degree with SA experienced by female college students (e.g., Campbell et al., 2009). As research on male SA victims is scarce, the relationship between PTSD and male sexual victimization is unclear, possibly also due to under-reporting of sexual victimization by men (Gavranidou & Rosner, 2003). The exception is a study conducted by Kessler, Sonnega, Bromet, Hughes, and Nelson (1995) on a representative national U.S. sample. Findings showed that approximately 65% of men and 46% of women who had been raped qualified for a diagnosis of PTSD at some stage in their lives (see also Creamer et al., 2001; Zlotnick et al., 2006). Overall, the role of gender differences in the connection between sexual victimization and PTSD, and more specifically gender differences in the outcomes of date SA, require further examination.

Self-efficacy

Self-efficacy is defined as a multi-dimensional belief system that develops over the life-course. It is composed of an individual’s belief of how capable he or she is of reaching an intended goal and of performing specific actions that result in specific outcomes (Bandura, 1977). Several studies that examined the psychometric properties of self-efficacy in refusing unwanted sexual contact (Cecil & Pinkerton, 1998) indicated that sexual assertiveness among female college students was positively associated with interpretation of and response to threats of acquaintance assault and sexually aggressive acts (Macy et al., 2006). This finding is in line with reports that indicate the appropriateness of developing skills of assertiveness and self-efficacy as prevention against unwanted sexual contact (e.g., Brecklin & Ullman, 2005). However, to the best of our knowledge, there is still no information regarding gender differences in self-efficacy among college students regarding their ability to refuse unwanted sex.

Summary

In summary, the purpose of the current study was to examine the prevalence of date-related SA among Israeli male and female students, and to assess risk factors for SA, as well as PTSD and self-efficacy following SA. As men and women may differ by prevalence and by risk factors, detrimental effect and gender differences were explored and delineated. Little research is currently available regarding gender differences (e.g., Flack et al., 2007; Howard et al., 2008), so this research could greatly contribute to the scholarly literature by informing prevention efforts for males and females.

Method

Data Screening and Sample Description

The total sample consisted of 691 respondents. After disqualifying 23 (3.3%) participants who did not respond to an entire section of the survey, 668 remained for analysis. Of these, 160 (24%) were male and 508 (76%) female. Mean age was 24.36 (SD = 3.85) with no significant gender differences. All participants were students, most of whom were living in their parents’ homes (n = 368, 55.1%), city dwellers (n = 512, 76.6%), Jewish (n = 605, 90.6%), and secular (n = 337, 50.4%). T-tests and χ² tests to compare between disqualified and remaining participants revealed no significant differences by gender, age, behavior, subjective reports of harassment, PTSD, or efficacy. This indicated that the omitted data did not create any systematic bias.

Measures

Sexual experience and incidence of coercive sexual victimization

The questionnaire is divided into normative sexual behavior (sexual experience) and coercive sexual victimization, and is based on prior research (Muehlenhard & Linton, 1987). Normative sexual behavior (i.e., noncoercive behavior that may occur on a date by mutual consent) was measured by 10 items and had a Cronbach’s coefficient of .96 (see Table 1). Each item was coded on a 1-4 Likert scale, ranging from “never” to “many times.”

Table 1.

Normative Sexual Behaviors by Gender (N = 668).

	Males (160)		Females (508)		Statistic
Items reported	N	%	n	%	χ²(1)
Sexual experience
You were
Kissed without tongue	133	83.1	337	66.3	17.76***
Kissed with tongue	131	81.9	314	61.8	23.66***
Touched under blouse	103	64.4	228	44.9	20.46***
Touched or kissed on breast over clothes	94	58.8	178	35.0	31.22***
Touched or kissed on breast under clothes	97	60.6	179	35.2	34.41***
Touched on the bottom over clothes	104	65.0	227	44.7	22.31***
Touched on the bottom under clothes	93	58.1	161	31.7	37.95***
Sexual body part touched over clothes	102	63.8	142	27.9	68.64***
Sexual body part touched under clothes	96	60.0	122	24.0	71.95***
Had oral sex	93	58.1	103	20.3	86.40***

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Coercive sexual victimization was similarly assessed by seven reported behaviors that had good reliability (e.g., had oral sex; α = .92) and two subjective items: “I felt that the sexual behavior was undesirable even though it was not forced on me” (unwanted sexual advances) and “I suffered from sexual harassment” (sexual harassment; see Table 2; r = .66, p < .001).

Table 2.

Coercive Sexual Victimization by Gender (N = 668).

	Males (160)		Females (508)		Statistics
Items reported	N	%	n	%	χ²(1)
Experienced coercive sexual victimization
You were
Forced to touch the other under shirt	27	16.9	34	6.7	15.75***
Forced to touch the other’s bottom over clothes	25	15.6	26	5.1	19.56***
Forced to touch the other’s bottom under clothes	20	12.5	24	4.7	12.31***
Forced to touch the other’s genitalia over clothes	15	9.4	34	6.7	1.39
Forced to touch the other’s genitalia under clothes	13	8.1	31	6.1	0.87
Forced to have oral sex	14	8.8	24	4.7	3.81*
Forced to have sexual intercourse	14	8.8	31	6.1	1.44
Experienced unwanted sexual advances	33	20.6	126	24.8	1.09
Experienced sexual harassment	22	13.8	94	18.5	1.80
Scales	M	SD	M	SD	t, df, and p values
Was subject to coercive sexual victimization	0.80	1.87	0.40	1.34	t(212.98) = 2.50*
Felt subjected to coercive sexual victimization	0.34	0.65	0.43	0.71	t(284.94) = −1.48

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

In all the questionnaires participants were asked to indicate which of the given incidences they had experienced on a date. All items were scored on a 4-point Likert scale (never/once or seldom/several times/often).When participants indicated having experienced one of the coercive types of sexual victimization, they were asked about the frequency of this experience and requested to answer a series of questions about modes of coercion, location of the coercive behavior, and provocative behavior. In other cases “none” was coded.

Coercion modes were measured by five items as follows: “S/he did it even though I said no,” “S/he used threats,” “S/he used physical force,” “S/he used physical violence,” and “S/he used a weapon.” Due to small cells, we combined Items 3 to 5 into one item under “Use of physical force/violence/weapon” (see Table 3). All the items were scored on a 4-point Likert scale and had a Cronbach’s coefficient of α = .74.

Table 3.

Method and Location of Experienced Coercive Sexual Victimization by Gender (N = 219).

	Males (58)		Females (161)		Statistics
The incident	n	%	n	%	χ²(1)
Behavior occurred despite saying no	12	20.7	58	36.0	7.97**
Physical force/violence/weapon was used	10	17.2	45	28.0	4.43*
Threats were used	8	13.8	17	10.6	0.15
Perceived provocative behavior	25	43.1	62	32.3	1.17
Alcohol was used	16	27.6	43	26.7	0.23
Drugs were used	18	31.0	24	14.9	9.01**
Place: Dating partner’s apartment	12	22.2	43	26.1	0.32
Place: My apartment	11	20.4	14	8.48	5.68*
Place: Public (party, bar)	18	31.0	67	41.6	0.94

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Location of coercive sexual victimization was measured by nine questions divided into two scales: seven questions on public locations (e.g., bars, restaurants; α = .93) and two on private locations (victim’s or attacker’s apartment; r = .58; p < .001; see Table 3).

Perceived provocative behavior was assessed by four items (“Do you think he thought you wanted sex?” “Do you think you were dressed provocatively?”) and had a Cronbach’s coefficient of .96.

Alcohol and/or drug use was assessed by two items.

Gender Role Attitudes and Beliefs

All attitudinal measures were based on Burt (1980, 1991). The Adversarial Sexual Beliefs Scale assesses the degree to which a person believes that sexual relationships are exploitative and that both involved parties are sly, manipulative, dishonest (unfaithful), impervious to the other’s wishes, and not to be trusted (e.g., “Women only respect men who lay down the law,” “Men are after one thing only”). The scale consists of nine questions, with higher scores indicating greater identification with adversarial beliefs (α = .82).

The Acceptance of Interpersonal Violence Scale aims to assess the degree to which a person believes that force and coercion are legitimate ways of gaining compliance, specifically in intimate and sexual relationships (e.g., “Women often pretend they don’t want to have intercourse because they don’t want to appear loose, but in fact they hope the man will coerce them,” “Sometimes force is the only thing that turns cold women on”). The scale consists of six questions and was acceptable for research purposes despite its low reliability (α = .50). Responses to these items are on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A high score reflects adherence to more conservative attitudes. According to Burt, Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .59 to .81. As mentioned above, Cronbach’s alphas in the present study ranged from .50 to .82. Burt’s scales have proven to be effective in evaluating attitudes toward rape among the Israeli population (e.g., Shechory & Idisis, 2006).

The Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (RMAS) was designed to measure stereotyped beliefs about rape that blame the victim for the crime (e.g., “A woman who goes to a man’s home or apartment on their first date implies that she is willing to have sex,” “Most rape victims are either promiscuous or have a bad reputation”). The RMAS consists of 11 items that were scored on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). High scores on the RMAS indicate endorsement of rape myths (α = .79).

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was measured using the DSM-based PTSD Inventory (Solomon, Neria, Ohry, Waysman, & Ginzburg, 1994). It consists of 17 statements corresponding to the 17 PTSD symptoms listed in the DSM. All responses were rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (not at all) to 4 (usually; α = .94). Participants were classified as having PTSD if they endorsed at least one intrusive symptom, three avoidant symptoms, and two hyperarousal symptoms on the PTSD inventory, whereby higher scores represent more severe symptoms (e.g., Levine, Laufer, Stein, Hamama-Raz, & Solomon, 2009). The scale has been reported to have high convergent validity when compared with structured clinical interview diagnoses (Solomon et al., 1994). In addition, according to a review of PTSD inventories (Watson, 1990), this scale is widely used and has good psychometric properties.

Self-efficacy to refuse unwanted sexual advances

This scale aims to assess respondents’ confidence to refuse unwanted sexual advances in a wide range of settings following SA, and has been reported to have acceptable reliability in English and Hebrew (see Cecil & Pinkerton, 1998; Schiff & Zeira, 2005). For example, respondents were asked,

To what extent are you confident that you can say “No” to unwanted sexual contact with someone you have known for only a few days/with someone you have been dating for a while/with someone you have already had sexual relations with?

Items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale, from 1 “not at all sure” to 5 “absolutely certain” (α = .95).

Procedure

The participants in the present study were 691 1st-year social sciences undergraduate students at an Israeli university. The sample consisted of more females than males (76% vs. 24%), a similar gender distribution to that of students in the social sciences faculty, which is predominantly female. Questionnaires were distributed in class following a short explanation of the research aims. Twelve classrooms were selected on the basis of availability.

Students were asked to voluntarily participate in the study by answering an anonymous questionnaire in class during their break. They were asked to sign a consent form, assured anonymity, and were told that they had the right to refuse to participate in the study without penalty and could withdraw their participation at any stage. The response rate was about 97% of the students enrolled in these classes.

Results

Incidence of Normative Sexual Behavior—Sexual Experience

Table 1 shows the percentages of males and females who reported experiencing at least one normative sexual behavior and the means of behavioral reports of sexual experience. Of all males, 139 (86.9%) reported some experience of normative sexual behavior. Of all females, 365 (70.0%) reported some experience of normative sexual behavior. The table shows that all normative sexual behaviors were more highly reported by men.

Incidence of Coercive Sexual Victimization

Table 2 shows the percentages of males and females who reported experiencing at least one incidence of coercion and the means of behavioral and subjective reports of experiencing coercion. Of all males, 58 (36.3%) reported experiencing some coercive sexual victimization. Of all females, 161 (31.7%) reported experiencing some coercive sexual victimization. The table shows that four of the self-reported experienced coercion behaviors significantly differed by gender: was forced to touch under shirt, was forced to touch bottom (over and under clothes), and was forced to have oral sex. On the scale level males reported experiencing significantly more coercion than females, although differences in subjective perception of harassment did not differ.

Table 3 presents the method and location of experienced coercive behavior by gender.

The data in Table 3 refer only to participants who reported experiencing coercive sexual victimization: 58 (36.3%) males and 161 (31.7%) females, Z = 0.98, ns. We deleted small cells and united others to obtain a more concise and comprehensive picture (e.g., restaurant, party, bar, theaters united under public places; physical force and physical violence).

Table 3 shows that a higher percentage of females (36%) than males (21%) reported being subjected to coercive sexual victimization despite refusing it, and victimization that involved aggression or violence (28% vs. 17%). A higher percentage of males (31%) than females (15%) reported the use of drugs when they were subjected to coercive sexual victimization and that it occurred in their own apartment (20% vs. 8.5%). No gender differences in experienced coercive sexual victimization were found in the use of threats (14% and 11%), perceived provocative behavior (43% and 32%), alcohol use (28% and 27%), and occurrence in a public setting (31% and 42%).

Predicting Experienced Coercive Sexual Victimization

Two multiple hierarchical regressions were used to predict the extent of experienced coercive sexual victimization by sexual experience, perceived provocative behavior, alcohol and drug use, and location (private or public), as shown in Table 4. Hierarchical regressions were used to examine the significance of specific predictors, when all others are included in the model. All predictors were entered at once. Experienced coercive sexual victimization, the dependent variable, was defined as the mean of the items appearing in Table 2, thus being continuous with a range of 0 to 3. Sexual experience was defined as the mean of the items appearing in Table 1, thus being continuous with a range of 0 to 3. Perceived provocative behavior was defined as the mean of four items, with a range of 1 to 4. Alcohol and drugs were used as dummy variables (0 = no, 1 = yes). Private place was the mean of two items, and public place the mean seven items, each ranging 0 to 4.

Table 4.

Predictors of experienced coercive sexual victimization by gender (N = 668).

	Males (160)			Females (508)
	B	SE	β	B	SE	β
Sexual experience	0.05	0.02	.12*	0.09	0.02	.23***
Perceived provocative behavior	0.06	0.04	.11	0.19	0.04	.23***
Alcohol was used	0.13	0.09	.11	0.14	0.06	.12*
Drugs were used	0.44	0.09	.38***	0.07	0.07	.05
Private place	0.16	0.07	.20*	0.04	0.04	.06
Public place	0.11	0.08	.10	0.12	0.06	.10
	R² = .52, Adj R² = .50			R² = .31, Adj R² = .30
	F(6, 153) = 27.44, p < .001			F(6, 501) = 38.52, p < .001

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Both regression models are significant. Fifty percent of the variance in males’ experienced coercive sexual victimization is explained. Significant predictors were sexual experience, drug use, and private location, all positively related. This means that greater normative sexual experience, drug use, and more frequent meetings in private locations predict a higher extent of experienced coercive sexual victimization against males.

A total of 30% of the variance in females’ experienced coercive sexual victimization is explained by the model. Significant predictors were sexual experience, perceived provocative behavior, and alcohol use, all positively related. This suggests that greater normative sexual experience, a stronger perception of provocative behavior, and the use of alcohol predict a higher extent of experienced coercive sexual victimization against females.

Predicting Present PTSD and Self-Efficacy

SA victims were three times more likely than others to report PTSD symptoms, n = 50, 17% vs. n = 39, 43.8%; χ² (1) = 25.50, p < .01, OR = 3.11, 95% CI = 1.97, 4.91, yet the two groups did not differ statistically by gender, χ² (1) = 0.09, p = .77. T-tests revealed that males reported slightly higher PTSD symptoms than females, although not significantly so (M = 0.55, SD = 0.64 vs. M = 0.52, SD = 0.57, respectively), and that females reported higher self-efficacy than males, M = 33.6, SD = 10.54 vs. 30.10, SD = 11.35, t(81.32) = −1.97, p = .05.

Gender differences were also found for belief in rape myths (males: M = 28.09, SD = 10.65, females: M = 25.82, SD = 9.69), t(684) = 2.55, p < .05, for adversarial sexual belief (males: M = 27.93, SD = 10.18, females: M = 24.73, SD = 9.15), t(683) = 3.79, p < .001, and for acceptance of interpersonal violence (males: M = 16.86, SD = 5.40, females: M = 15.42, SD = 5.10), t(678) = 3.10, p < .01. In all cases males scored higher than females.

Hierarchical regression modeling was used to examine self-efficacy and PTSD among SA victims (n = 219). Table 5 shows the predictors of PTSD and self-efficacy. Hierarchical regressions were used to examine the significance of specific predictors, when all others are included in the model. All predictors were entered at once. It should be emphasized that these two regressions were conducted for SA victims only. Both dependent variables are continuous. Gender is defined dichotomously (0 = females, 1 = males) and age is continuous. Other predictors are sexual experience, coercive sexual victimization, private and public place, as defined in Table 4. Rape myth, adversarial sexual belief, and acceptance of interpersonal violence are the three continuous variables of the RMAS.

Table 5.

Predictors of PTSD and Self-Efficacy (n = 219).

	PTSD			Self-efficacy
	B	SE	β	B	SE	β
Gender	0.02	0.09	.02	−1.95	1.73	−.08
Age	−0.01	0.01	−.09	0.13	0.16	.06
Sexual experience	−0.02	0.04	−.04	0.31	0.83	.03
Was subjected to coercive sexual victimization	0.18	0.08	.17*	−3.73	1.40	−.19**
Felt subjected to coercive sexual victimization	0.24	0.06	.25***	−0.40	1.19	−.02
Private place	0.12	0.08	.14	−4.90	1.48	−.30***
Public place	0.11	0.11	.08	3.34	2.09	.14
Rape myth	0.01	0.01	.19*	0.12	0.09	.12
Adversarial sexual belief	−0.01	0.01	−.04	−0.06	0.09	−.05
Acceptance of interpersonal violence	−0.01	0.02	−.02	−0.24	0.16	−.12
	R² = .23, Adj R² = .19			R² = .16, Adj R² = .12
	F(10, 209) = 6.15, p < .001			F(10, 209) = 3.92, p < .001

Note. PTSD = posttraumatic stress disorder.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Hierarchical regression modeling explained 19% of the variance in PTSD and 12% of the variance in self-efficacy. PTSD and negative self-efficacy were predicted by experiencing coercive sexual victimization. PTSD was also predicted by self-reported perception of being subjected to coercive sexual victimization, as well as belief in rape myths, whereas self-efficacy was negatively predicted by private location. This means that the more participants reported experiencing coercive sexual victimization and feeling that they had been subjected to coercive sexual victimization, and the more they believed in rape myths, the more severe were the PTSD symptoms. Furthermore, the more participants reported experiencing coercive sexual victimization and that the attack occurred in a private location (the victim’s or the attacker’s home), the lower the victim’s ability to refuse unwanted sexual contact.

Discussion

The current study examines the prevalence of gendered risk factors for SA on a date, and the impact of SA on PTSD as a detrimental effect, and self-efficacy (the ability to refuse unwanted sex). Several gender differences emerged from the research results: for example, males reported significantly more sexual experience than females, and males were more likely than females to experience certain types of unwanted fondling over and under clothes and oral sex.

In addition, two different sets of risk factors that increase the likelihood of SA on dates emerged from the hierarchical regression. Sexual experience, use of drugs, and private location increased the risk of male SA victimization, whereas being younger, sexual experience, public location, and provocative behavior increased the risk among females. In addition, PTSD and lowered efficacy to refuse unwanted sex following SA on dates were predicted by the extent of coercive sexual victimization. PTSD was also predicted by the subjective perception of being harassed and by belief in rape myths, whereas efficacy was negatively predicted by private location.

Coercive Sexual Victimization: Prevalence and Predictive Risk Factors

Overall, SA in dating situations appears to be a common occurrence among college students. This finding corroborates earlier data (Abbey, 2002; Flack et al., 2007; Iconis, 2008), as the current results report that more than 30% of women and men suffer SA, and 6.1% of women and 8.8% of men in the study had been raped. The results are also consistent with studies that indicate that women and men experience SA victimization (Flack et al., 2007; Sleath & Bull, 2010; Waldo, Berdahl, & Fitzgerald, 1998), and that the incidence of male sexual victimization is not uncommon. (Abbey, 2002; Davies, 2002; Sleath & Bull, 2010; Walker, Archer, & Davies, 2005). In fact, incompatible with the assumption that women are attacked more than men (Flack et al., 2007; Sleath & Bull, 2010; Waldo et al., 1998; Walker et al., 2005), in the current study males reported significantly more unwanted sexual experiences, especially with regard to fondling over and under clothes and oral sex.

Shame, victim blaming, fear of society’s reaction, and rape myths underlie lower reporting among both genders, particularly men (e.g., Sleath & Bull, 2010; Walker et al., 2005). The educational system, the media, and organizations in Israel (e.g., hotlines for men, television programs, help groups for male and female SA victims) may be responsible for increased reports of SA among men and women. This also applies to increased awareness among faculty members and students in institutions of higher education in Israel. In all universities and colleges (and in many workplaces) there are strict regulations regarding SA supported by enforcement of SA legislation. In recent years, the Israeli media has played an important part in raising awareness through newspaper articles, exposés of cases involving celebrities, press coverage of trials, and so on. The most famous example is the SA and rape conviction in 2011 of former President of the State of Israel, Moshe Katzav. These significant shifts appear to have contributed to a heightened awareness of harassment in general, and to broader perceptions of SA that go beyond the traditional instances of men attacking women.

The measures used in the current study were based on those of Muehlenhard and Linton (1987), one of the most comprehensive and widely cited set of measures to date (e.g., Abbey, 2002; Armstrong, Hamilton, & Seeney, 2006). In addition, studies in recent years have used similar tools to measure unwanted sex among university students (e.g., Flack et al., 2007). Thus the differences between the findings in the current study and those of other studies cannot be explained by the use of an unsuitable research tool and highlight the need for cross-cultural SA research.

Although men reported more incidents, coercive behavior and lack of respect for others’ desires mainly apply to attitudes toward women. The women in the present study reported far more incidents in which the attacker used force or violence, and far more incidents that occurred against their will. This is contrary to the accepted belief that SA of a male would involve more coercive methods than SA of a female (Chapleau, Oswald, & Russell, 2008; McMahon, 2010). Research has shown that hypermasculinity and the need for power and dominance often characterize perpetrators of sexual violence (Malamuth, Linz, Heavey, Barnes, & Acker, 1995). The current study indicates that this applies more to SA against women.

However, our results are compatible with other findings that found an association between miscommunication about sex and SA (Jacques-Tiura et al., 2007; Muehlenhard & Linton, 1987), especially with regard to erroneous interpretation of females’ behavior by males (e.g., Winslett & Gross, 2008). Thus perhaps saying “no” is not enough, and this may partly explain the role of coercion and violence in SA incidents.

In general, private locations increase the risk of SA in dating situations and acquaintance assault often occurs on the assailant’s turf, which serves to combine privacy with a high probability of miscommunication (Miller & Marshall, 1987; Muehlenhard & Linton, 1987; Mynatt & Allgeier, 1990; Yeater et al., 2008). We found this to be especially relevant among men. A possible explanation may be related to date initiation behaviors and sex-related miscommunication that have been linked to SA (Abbey, McAuslan, & Ross, 1998; Jacques-Tiura et al., 2007; Muehlenhard & Linton, 1987). An initiation error may derive from the myth that “if he invited me to his home, he must have had sexual intentions.” A common facilitator in these settings may be alcohol or drug use, factors known to increase the risk of being assaulted (Abbey, 2002; Flack et al., 2007).

Results of the multiple hierarchical regressions also reinforce the above. Two sets of gendered risk factors that increase the likelihood of SA on dates emerged from the hierarchical regression. Sexual experience, use of drugs, and private location increased the risk of being a SA victim across outcomes among males, whereas being younger, sexual experience, public location, and provocative behavior increased the risk among females. The only common risk-enhancing variable for males and females was previous sexual experience. Nevertheless, traditional risk factors embedded in rape myths (e.g., sexual experience and provocative appearance) still apply to females (Chapleau et al., 2008; McMahon, 2010).

Detrimental Effects and Resilience Factors: PTS Symptoms and Self-Efficacy

Male and female SA victims were three times more likely than others to report PTS symptoms. This similarity serves to highlight that SA is a traumatic experience for men and women (Creamer et al., 2001; Zlotnick et al., 2006) This finding is consistent with past epidemiological research (Kessler et al., 1995) and reinforces the argument that the effects of SA for men are at least as detrimental as they are for women.

Although the findings that males report higher PTS symptoms than females are not statistically significant, these findings may indicate that SA is a somewhat more traumatic experience for males than for females. This effect might be the result of the common beliefs that males are SA perpetrators but not victims (Rumney, 2009; Shechory & Idisis, 2006); thus, they are less prepared for such a traumatic event, and its effect on males is therefore stronger than on females. These beliefs and myths can also serve as an explanation for the findings that females reported more efficacy than males. Even if the significance level is marginal these findings may indicate that females are more prepared and more geared for the traumatic experience of SA and that surviving such an event has reinforced their self-efficacy. Support for these assumptions comes from the findings regarding rape myths. Men, more than women, tended to espouse rape myths and blame on the women victim. However, further research is needed.

The impact of SA is also reflected in the results of the hierarchical regressions. Being a victim of coercive sexual incidents, whether objectively (reported behaviors) or subjectively (perception of being harassed), was found to be a predictive factor of PTS symptoms.

Endorsement of rape myths was also a predictive factor of PTS symptoms. One of the central explanations for adherence to rape myths is the Just World theory (Lerner, 1980; Lerner & Miller, 1978), according to which people get what they deserve and deserve what they get. Blaming victims reduces one’s perceived likelihood of becoming a victim. It helps maintain a sense that the world is safe and secure and that control can be exercised over events, such as rape. Thus, we can understand the connection between rape myth endorsement and emotional distress, as the collapse of this worldview results in severe disappointment. The theory may also explain the connection between SA and the ability to refuse unwanted sexual contact, especially in a private location. Nevertheless, further research is required to expand knowledge on the relationship between SA, PTSD, and self-efficacy In the current study, gender differences were found in PTS symptoms and self-efficacy, males reported slightly higher PTS symptoms than females, although not significantly, and females reported more efficacy than males, even if the significance level is marginal (p = .05), Although SA-related PTSD has been discussed in several studies (e.g., Campbell et al., 2009; Gavranidou & Rosner, 2003), to the best of our knowledge there is no information on gender differences in self-efficacy for refusing unwanted sexual contact, and further research in recommended.

Limitations and Implications

As with most studies, the current study is based on self reports. A potential pitfall that may emerge relates to the fact that SA and rape are difficult and sensitive topics for discussion. In the present study participants were asked directly about the incidents of SA they experienced. Therefore the study findings should be regarded with caution.

In addition, the sample consisted of students in a specific university department—social sciences—and the findings may contain representational bias, especially as the gender distribution was not equal. Our sample may not be representative of the entire student population (e.g., in other academic departments, such as Sciences or Exact Sciences, the representation of men in the sample would be higher). In addition, even though we asked about method, type, and location of the coercive behavior, we did not collect information regarding the gender of the SA/harassment perpetrator or the circumstances of the coercive meetings, an important variable that may shed more light on the nature of the relationship between the variables examined in this study. For example, Flack and his colleagues (2007), in the first study on unwanted sexual experiences in the “college hook up” culture, emphasized the differences between hooking up (“typically although not always unplanned, often with the implicit assumption of physical but not necessarily emotional intimacy, and with no sense of commitment over time,” p. 153) and dating (“usually a planned event entailing the assumption of at least some emotional, if not physical, intimacy,” p. 153), and the significance of this distinction in the context of SA and its effects.

In conclusion, the current study contributes to the literature by (a) identifying SA risk factors, detrimental effects, and resiliency factors for SA on dates, and (b) showing different risk, detrimental effect, and resiliency factors for men and women through an examination of male and female victimization. The current study implies that more theory on and research into gender differences in victimization are required, as different theories may apply across genders and provide direction for preventive action (e.g., educational programs for increasing awareness of SA, the role of risk factors and attitudes).

We believe that as this study is exploratory in nature, the findings serve to indicate the impact of SA on detrimental effects and resiliency factors, and the need to pay more attention to gender differences in factors associated with SA, as well as to male victimization.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

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

References

Abbey

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

Abbey

McAuslan

Ross

L. T.

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

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

Anderson

K. B.

Cooper

Okamura

(1997). Individual differences and attitudes toward rape: A meta analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 295-315.

Armstrong

Hamilton

Seeney

(2006). Sexual assault on campus: A multilevel, integrative approach to party rape. Social Problems, 53, 483-499.

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Barbaree

H. E.

Marshell

W. L.

Sundberg

S. L.

(1991). Victim blame and disinhibition of sexual arousal of rape vignettes. Violence and Victims, 6, 103-120.

Ben-David

Schneider

(2005). Rape perceptions, gender role attitudes and victim-perpetrator acquaintance. Sex Roles, 53, 385-399.

Bergen

H. A.

Martin

Richardson

A. S.

Allison

Roeger

(2004). Sexual abuse, antisocial behavior and substance use: Gender differences in young community adolescents. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 38, 34-41.

10.

Brecklin

L. R.

Ullman

S. E.

(2005). Self-defense or assertiveness training and women’s responses to sexual attacks. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6, 738-762.

11.

Brewin

C. R.

Holmes

E. A.

(2003). Psychological theories of posttraumatic stress disorder. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 339-376.

12.

Bryden

P. J.

Fletcher

P. C.

(2007). Personal safety practices, beliefs and attitudes of academic faculty on a small university campus: Comparison of males and females. College Student Journal, 41, 613-622.

13.

Burt

M. R.

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

14.

Burt

M. R.

(1991). Rape myths. In Parrot

Bechhofer

(Eds.), Acquaintance rape: The hidden crime (pp. 26-40). New York, NY: John Wiley.

15.

Campbell

Dworkin

Cabral

(2009). An ecological model of the impact of sexual assault on women’s mental health. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10, 225-245.

16.

Cecil

Pinkerton

S. D.

(1998). Reliability and validity of self-efficacy instrument for protective sexual behaviors. Journal of American College Health, 47, 113-121.

17.

Chapleau

K. M.

Oswald

D. L.

Russell

D. L.

(2008). Male rape myths: The role of gender, violence, and sexism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 600-615.

18.

Cole

Logan

T. K.

(2010). Inter professional collaboration on Sexual Assault Response Teams (SART): The role of victim alcohol use and a partner—Perpetrator. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 336-357.

19.

Creamer

Burgess

McFarlane

A. C.

(2001). Post-traumatic stress disorder: Findings from the Australian National Survey of mental health and well-being. Psychological Medicine, 31, 1237-1247.

20.

Davies

(2002). Male sexual assault victims: A selective review of the literature and implications for support services. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 203-214.

21.

DeSouza

Fansler

(2003). Contrapower sexual harassment: A survey of students and faculty members. Sex Roles, 48, 529-542.

22.

DeSouza

Solberg

(2004). Women’s and men’s reactions to man-to-man sexual harassment: Does the sexual orientation of the victim matter? Sex Roles, 50, 623-639.

23.

Elliott

D. M.

Mok

D. S.

Briere

(2004). Adult sexual assault: Prevalence, symptomatology and sex differences in the general population. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17, 203-211.

24.

Ellis

(1989). Theories of rape: Inquiries into the causes of sexual aggression. New York, NY: Hemisphere.

25.

Flack

W. F.

Daubman

K. A.

Caron

M. L.

Asadorian

J. A.

D’Aureli

N. R.

Gigliotti

S. N.

Stine

E. R.

(2007). Risk factors and consequences of unwanted sex among university students: Hooking up, alcohol, and stress response. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 139-157.

26.

Flood

Pease

(2009). Factors influencing attitudes to violence against women. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10, 125-142.

27.

Fuge’re

M. A.

Escoto

Cousins

A. J.

Riggs

M. L.

Haerich

. (2008). Sexual attitudes and double standards: A literature review focusing on participant gender and ethnic background. Sexuality & Culture, 12, 169-182.

28.

Gavranidou

Rosner

(2003). The weaker sex? Gender and post-traumatic stress disorder. Depression and Anxiety, 17, 130-139.

29.

Gidycz

C. A.

McNamara

J. R.

Edwards

K. M.

(2006). Women’s risk perception and sexual victimization: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 441-456.

30.

Herzog

(2007). Public perceptions of sexual harassment: An empirical analysis in Israel from consensus and feminist theoretical perspectives. Sex Roles, 57, 579-592.

31.

Hockett

M. J.

Saucier

D. A.

Hoffman

B. H.

Smith

S. J.

Craig

A. W.

(2009). Oppression through acceptance? Predicting rape myth acceptance and attitudes toward rape victims. Violence Against Women, 15, 877-897.

32.

Howard

D. E.

Griffin

M. A.

Boekeloo

B. O.

(2008). Prevalence and psychosocial correlates of alcohol-related sexual assault among university students. Adolescence, 43, 733-750.

33.

Iconis

(2008). Rape myth acceptance in college students: A literature review. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 1(2), 47-52.

34.

Jackson

R. A.

Newman

M. A.

(2004). Sexual harassment in the federal workplace revisited: Influences on sexual harassment by gender. Public Administration Review, 64, 705-717.

35.

Jacques-Tiura

A. J.

Abbey

Parkhill

M. R.

Zawacki

(2007). Why do some men misperceive women’s sexual intentions more frequently than others do? An application of the confluence model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1467-1480.

36.

Kessler

R. C.

Sonnega

Bromet

Hughes

Nelson

C. B.

(1995). Posttraumatic stress disorder in the national comorbidity survey. Archives of General Psychiatry, 52, 1048-1060.

37.

Lerner

M. J.

(1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York, NY: Plenum.

38.

Lerner

M. J.

Miller

D. T.

(1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1030-1051.

39.

Levine

S. Z.

Laufer

Stein

Hamama-Raz

Solomon

(2009). Examining the relationship between resilience and posttraumatic growth. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 22, 282-286.

40.

Lonsway

K. A.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

(1995). Attitudinal antecedents of rape myth acceptance: A theoretical and empirical reexamination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 704-711.

41.

Macy

R. J.

Nurius

P. S.

Norris

(2006). Responding in their best interests: Contextualizing women coping with acquaintance sexual assault. Violence Against Women, 12, 478-500.

42.

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 10-year follow-up study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 353-369.

43.

McCormick

N. B.

Jesser

C. J.

(1983). The courtship game: Power in the sexual encounter. In Allgeier

E. R.

McCormick

N. B.

(Eds.), Changing boundaries: Gender roles and sexual behavior (pp.64-86). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.

44.

McMahon

(2010). Rape myth beliefs and bystander attitudes among incoming college students. Journal of American College Health, 59, 3-11.

45.

Miller

Marshall

J. C.

(1987). Coercive sex on the university campus. Journal of College Student Personnel, 28, 38-47.

46.

Mohler-Kuo

Dowdall

G. W.

Koss

M. P.

Wechsler

(2004). Correlates of rape while intoxicated in a national sample of college women. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 65, 37-45.

47.

Muehlenhard

C. L.

Andrews

S. L.

(1985, November). Open communication about sex: Will it reduce risk factors related to date rape? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Houston, Texas.

48.

Muehlenhard

C. L.

Linton

M. A.

(1987). Date rape and sexual aggression in dating situations: Incidence and risk factors. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 34, 186-196.

49.

Murnen

S. K.

Wright

Kaluzny

(2002). If boys will be boys, then girls will be victims? A meta-analytic review of research that relates masculine ideology to sexual aggression. Sex Roles, 46, 359-375.

50.

Mynatt

C. R.

Allgeier

E. R.

(1990). Risk factors, self-attributions and adjustment problems among victims of sexual coercion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 130-153.

51.

Rumney

P. N. S.

(2009). Gaymale rape victims: Law enforcement, social attitudes and barriers to recognition. The International Journal of Human Rights, 13, 233-250.

52.

Schiff

Zeira

(2005). Dating violence and sexual risk behaviors in a sample of at-risk Israeli youth. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 1249-1263.

53.

Shechory

Idisis

(2006). Rape myths and social distance towards sex offenders and victims among therapists. Sex Roles, 54, 651-658.

54.

Shechory

Idisis

(2008). Rape myths and gender stereotypes towards sex offenders’ victims among women and men. In Kim

Zohar

Y. B.

Eden

(Eds.), Victimology: Law enforcement sex and society (pp. 265-280). Tel Aviv, Israel: Masada. [Hebrew]

55.

Sleath

Bull

(2010). Male rape victim and perpetrator blaming. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 969-988.

56.

Sochting

Fairbrother

Koch

W. J.

(2004). Sexual assault of women: Prevention efforts and risk factors. Violence Against Women, 10, 73-93.

57.

Solomon

Neria

Ohry

Waysman

Ginzburg

(1994). PTSD among Israeli former prisoners of war and soldiers with combat stress reaction: A longitudinal study. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 151, 554-559.

58.

Street

A. E.

Gradus

J. L.

Stafford

Kelly

(2007). Gender differences in experiences of sexual harassment: Data from a male-dominated environment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 464-474.

59.

Testa

VanZile-Tamsen

Livingston

J. A.

(2007). Prospective prediction of women’s sexual victimization by intimate and nonintimate male perpetrators. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 52-60.

60.

Tolin

D. F.

Foa

E. B.

(2006). Sex differences in trauma and posttraumatic stress disorder: A quantitative review of 25 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 959-992.

61.

Voller

E. K.

Long

P. J.

(2010). Sexual assault and perpetration by college men: The role of the big five personality trait. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 457-480.

62.

Vrij

Kirby

(2002). Sex differences in interpreting male-female dyad interactions: Males’ predominance in perceiving sexual intent. International Review of Victimology, 9, 289-297.

63.

Waldo

R. C.

Berdahl

J. L.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

(1998). Are men sexually harassed? If so, by whom? Law and Human Behavior, 22, 59-79.

64.

Walker

Archer

Davies

(2005). Effects of rape on men: A descriptive analysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 69-80.

65.

Watson

C. G.

(1990). Psychometric posttraumatic stress disorder measurement techniques: A review. Psychological Assessment, 2, 460-469.

66.

Winslett

A. H.

Gross

A. M.

(2008). Sexual boundaries: An examination of the importance of talking before touching. Violence Against Women, 14, 542-562.

67.

Yeater

E. A.

Lenberg

K. L.

Avina

Rinehart

J. K.

O’Donohue

. (2008). When social situations take a turn for the worse: Situational and interpersonal risk factors for sexual aggression. Sex Roles, 59, 151-163.

68.

Zeira

Astor

R. A.

Benbenishty

(2002). Sexual harassment in Jewish and Arab public schools in Israel. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 149-166.

69.

Zlotnick

Johnson

Kohn

Vicente

Rioseco

Saldivia

(2006). Epidemiology of trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and co-morbid disorders in Chile. Psychological Medicine, 36, 1523-1533.