Reducing Risk for Sexual Victimization

Abstract

The current study examined college women’s perceptions of the positive and negative socioemotional consequences associated with engaging in self-protective behaviors to reduce risk for sexual victimization. At baseline, women completed assessments of the extent to which they would experience positive or negative socioemotional consequences as a result of engaging in various self-protective behaviors. At a 2-month follow-up, women reported on their engagement in self-protective behaviors and experience of sexual victimization over the interim (N = 143). At baseline, some self-protective strategies were perceived as having more positive or negative socioemotional consequences than others. Perceiving a high level of negative socioemotional consequences associated with taking precautions prior to a date was associated with sexual victimization over the 2-month follow-up.

Keywords

sexual assault cognitive appraisals self-protective behaviors

Rates of sexual assault are alarmingly high among college women. In a seminal study of university students, Koss, Gidycz, and Wisniewski (1987) found that 53.8% of college women reported some form of sexual victimization after the age of 14, and 27.5% reported experiencing an act that could be legally defined as rape or attempted rape. More recently, Lawyer and his colleagues (Lawyer, Resnick, Bakanic, Burkett, & Kilpatrick, 2010) reported that 29.6 % of female college students reported experiencing a drug-related sexual assault. Women can reduce risk for sexual assault by paying attention to cues that a dating or social situation is potentially threatening (Rozee & Koss, 2001). Difficulties in recognizing risky dating scenarios place women at higher risk for sexual victimization (Soler-Baillo, Marx, & Sloan, 2005). Once risk is recognized, it is important that women trust their intuition and respond quickly and assertively (Nurius, Norris, Macy, & Huang, 2004; Nurius, Norris, Young, Graham, & Gaylord, 2000). Physically and verbally assertive responses are generally more effective in deterring potential perpetrators than diplomatic resistance tactics such as crying or pleading with the perpetrator (Ullman & Knight, 1993). Women can also adopt a self-protective stance prior to a dating situation, by being aware of what protective actions to take if a dating partner becomes aggressive or by planning to meet in a public place instead of a private location (Moore & Waterman, 1999).

According to the socialcognitive model of risk perception for sexual assault, women’s beliefs about susceptibility to harm and cultural dating norms influence the types of threats women anticipate, prepare for, perceive as threatening, and actively respond to (Nurius, 2000). Women tend to operate with an optimistic bias regarding their risk for sexual assault (see Weinstein, 1980), underestimating their personal vulnerability for sexual assault compared to peers (see Gidycz, McNamara, & Edwards, 2006, for a review). Furthermore, the signals that a dating situation is escalating to a threatening encounter are often ambiguous (Nurius, 2000). Women also report psychological barriers to engaging in self-protective behavior in dating situations (Norris, Nurius, & Dimeff, 1996). Women may hesitate to respond assertively in a dating situation if they fear they are misunderstanding a dating partner’s intention (Norris et al., 1996). Cues that a dating situation is potentially dangerous may also be disregarded if the dating partner is someone the woman wants to trust (Norris, Nurius, & Graham, 1999). Other factors that influence women’s responses to a risky dating situation include not wanting to overreact or create a scene, fear of embarrassment, or rejection, not wanting to seem “uptight,” and fear of being physically injured (Cook, 1995; Nurius, 2000; Norris et al., 1996; Nurius & Norris, 1995).

Drawing from the socialcognitive model of risk perception for sexual assault (Nurius, 2000), the primary aim of the current study was to examine college women’s perceptions of the social and emotional benefits and costs associated with self-protective dating behaviors. In the current study, a positive socioemotional consequence of self-protective behavior was conceptualized as the extent to which the behavior would result in feeling good or having a good time, whereas a negative socioemotional consequence of self-protective behavior was conceptualized as the extent to which the behavior would result in being embarrassed, creating a scene, or not having a good time. Norris and her colleagues have referred to the social, cognitive, and emotional consequences of engaging in self-protective dating behaviors as “psychological barriers to resistance.” In order to develop more effective sexual assault risk reduction programs, it is important to understand whether there are some self-protective behaviors that women perceive will result in a particularly large social or emotional cost. Sexual assault risk reduction programs include a discussion of self-protective dating behaviors as well as the psychological barriers that deter women from taking a self-protective stance (Breitenbecher & Scarce, 2001; Orchowski, Gidycz, & Raffle, 2008); however, little is known about whether women perceive some self-protective behaviors more positively or negatively than others. It is plausible that women perceive more negative socioemotional consequences associated with engaging in self-protective behaviors that involve directly responding to a dating partner (i.e., using self-defense) compared to self-protective behaviors that involve taking precautions prior to a date (i.e., finding out more information about a potential dating partner). It is also unclear whether perceived socioemotional consequences of self-protective behavior relate to future risk for sexual assault. Whereas prior research suggests that socioemotional factors are associated with women’s projected responses to a hypothetical sexual assault scenario (Norris et al., 1996), research has yet to prospectively examine whether the perceived socioemotional consequences of self-protective behaviors are associated with women’s personal experiences of sexual assault. The purpose of the current study was to address these gaps in the literature.

At baseline, women rated the extent to which various self-protective behaviors would result in a positive or negative socioemotional consequence. Prior research suggested that low utilization of the self-protective behaviors surveyed in this study is associated with delays in perception of risk within a hypothetical sexual assault scenario and more frequent sexual victimization (Breitenbecher, 2008). Women returned for a 2-month follow-up and reported on use of self-protective behavior and experiences of sexual victimization over the interim. The following research questions were examined:

Research Question 1: Which self-protective behaviors are perceived as having more positive socioemotional consequences?

Research Question 2: Which self-protective behaviors are perceived as having more negative socioemotional consequences?

Research Question 3: How do appraisals of the positive and negative socioemotional consequences of a self-protective behavior relate to current use of the strategy?

Research Question 4: How do appraisals of the positive and negative socioemotional consequences of a self-protective behavior relate to use of the strategy over a 2-month follow-up?

Research Question 5: How do baseline appraisals of the socioemotional consequences of self-protective behaviors relate to sexual victimization over a 2-month interim?

Method

Participants

Participants consisted of 143 college women from a medium-sized Midwestern university. The vast majority of the women were single (98.6%, n = 141), 18 or 19 years old (90.9%, n = 130), and in their first or second year of college (93.7%, n = 134). Consistent with the demographics of the university, 95.8% (n = 137) of the participants were Caucasian, 2.1% (n = 3) African American, 0.7% (n = 1) Asian American, and 1.4% (n = 2) selected “Other” as their race. Twelve percent (n = 17) of the participants reported annual family incomes that were US$50,000 or less, 27.3% (n = 39) between US$50,000 and US$100,000, 28.7% (n = 41) more than US$100,000, and 32.2% (n = 46) reported, “I don’t know.” Experiences of forced sexual contact, sexual coercion, and attempted rape since the age of 14 were reported by 26.6% (n = 38) of participants. Experiences of rape since the age of 14 were reported by 13.3% (n = 19) of participants. Of the 134 women who completed the 2-month follow-up, 11.9% (n = 16) experienced unwanted sexual contact over the follow-up, 3.7% (n = 5) experienced attempted rape over the follow-up, 4.5% (n = 6) experienced sexual coercion over the follow-up, and 12.7% (n = 17) experienced completed rape over the follow-up.

Measures

Demographics

A brief questionnaire was used to collect relevant personal information regarding basic participant characteristics such as age, race, and annual family income.

Alcohol consumption

The frequency of women’s alcohol use was assessed using a series of questions from the Drinking and Drug Habits Questionnaire (Collins, Parks, & Marlatt, 1985). Seven questions were used to capture a sum of weekly drinking. This questionnaire demonstrates good reliability when compared to a daily self-report measure of alcohol use (Collins, Koutsky, Morsheimer, & MacLean, 2001). Cronbach’s alpha was .75.

Sexual victimization

The Sexual Experiences Survey (SES; Koss & Oros, 1982) is a 10-item scale that utilizes a series of behaviorally specific questions to assess a range of sexual assault experiences. The survey assessed adolescent sexual victimization history (i.e., victimization since the age of 14 to the time of the baseline survey) and victimization from baseline to the 2-month follow-up. The scale is used to classify individuals according to the most severe experience reported. The SES adequately captures the legal definitions of attempted rape and rape and demonstrates good internal consistency and test–retest reliability (Koss & Gidycz, 1985). Cronbach’s alpha was .72.

Self-protective dating behaviors

The Dating Self-Protection Against Rape Scale (DSPARS; Moore & Waterman, 1999) is an index of 15 potential behaviors women may perform in order to reduce their risk for sexual victimization. Women rate the degree to which they engage in each behavior on a 6-point scale, ranging from never to always. The scale measured women’s use of self-protective behaviors at baseline and over the 2-month follow-up. The survey demonstrates good split-half and internal consistency reliability (Moore & Waterman, 1999). Cronbach’s alpha was .85.

Socioemotional consequences of self-protective strategies

Two separate questionnaires were designed for the current study to measure women’s perceptions of the positive and negative socioemotional consequences of self-protective dating behaviors. For 13 of the self-protective behaviors listed on the DSPARS, participants indicated the extent to which they would likely experience a positive/negative consequence as a result of engaging in the behavior. Any items on the DPSARS that were reverse coded were removed from the scale (i.e., Items 6 and 11) so that only items that were clearly self-protective were rated. The version measuring negative socioemotional consequences began with the following prompt: “On a scale of 1 (never) to 7 (extremely likely) how likely is it that you would experience some negative outcome (e.g. be embarrassed, create a scene, not have a good time) if you engaged in one of these activities?” The version measuring positive socioemotional consequences began with the following question prompt: “On a scale of 1 (never) to 7 (extremely likely) how likely is it that you would experience some positive outcome (e.g., feel good about yourself, have a good time) if you engaged in one of these activities?” This survey strategy was modeled upon the Cognitive Appraisals of Risk Events Questionnaire (Katz, Fromme, & D’Amico, 2000). For the purpose of analyses, self-protective behaviors were grouped into three categories: (1) “planning ahead/precautionary behaviors” (i.e., carrying money, providing own transportation, getting information about their date, making a plan, telling someone where they will be), (2) “maintaining awareness” (i.e., being aware of individuals to help, being aware of the exits, monitoring a date’s alcohol use), and (3) “active self-protection” (i.e., limiting alcohol use, considering self-defense or use of a weapon, using assertive language, keeping your friends with you). Cronbach’s alphas for the subscales measuring positive appraisals of planning ahead, maintaining awareness, and active self-protection were .84, .78, and .79, respectively. Cronbach’s alpha for the subscales measuring negative appraisals of planning ahead, maintaining awareness, and active self-protection were .84, .66, and .91, respectively.

Sexual assertiveness

The Sexual Assertiveness Scale (SAS; Morokoff et al., 1997) is an 18-item measure that assesses willingness to assert one’s sexual desires and limits. Participants completed the initiation subscale and refusal subscale at baseline. Construct validity was evidenced by shared variance with other measures of sexual assertiveness (Morokoff et al., 1997). Cronbach’s alphas for the initiation and refusal subscales were .70 and .68, respectively.

Procedure

Data were collected as a part of a larger study evaluating the efficacy of a sexual assault risk reduction program for women (Orchowski et al., 2008). Women were informed that they would be asked to discuss their experiences in social and dating situations as well as complete questionnaires on a range of health-related behaviors. None of the women declined to participate. No cases were omitted from the data set due to missing data. Only data from participants assigned to the control group were utilized. Questionnaires were administered at a baseline assessment and were administered again at a 2-month follow-up. Of the 143 women who completed the baseline, 93.7% (n = 134) returned for the 2-month follow-up. History of adolescent sexual victimization and baseline levels of measures of self-protective behaviors did not predict participation in the 2-month follow-up.

Results

Appraisals of the Positive Socioemotional Consequences of Self-Protective Behaviors

Women reported generally high levels of perceived positive socioemotional consequences for each self-protective behavior at baseline, with average appraisals ranging between 4.67 and 5.85 on the 7-point scale (see Table 1). A series of t tests using a Bonferroni correction (Bonferroni, 1936) were conducted to assess whether women’s perception of the positive socioemotional consequences varied between self-protective behaviors (see Table 2). Women perceived lower levels of positive socioemotional consequences associated with being aware of potential weapons to use against their partner (M = 4.67, SD = 1.75) compared to all other types of self-protective behavior, except for considering the use of self-defense (M = 4.96, SD = 1.75). Women perceived being aware of potential exits (M = 4.97, SD = 0.70) to have fewer positive socioemotional consequences compared to all other types of self-protective behavior, except for making a plan of what self-protective behavior to use if a partner became aggressive (M = 5.22, SD = 1.80) and considering self-defense (M = 4.96, SD = 1.75). The use of self-defense (M = 4.96, SD = 1.75) was perceived to have fewer positive socioemotional consequences than all other types of self-protective behaviors, with the exception of making a plan (M = 5.22, SD = 1.80), being aware of individuals who can help (M = 5.29, SD = 1.57), being aware of potential exits (M = 4.97, SD = 1.70), and considering use of potential weapons (M = 4.67, SD = 1.75). Speaking assertively (M = 5.79, SD = 1.28) and telling friends/family your location (M = 5.85, SD = 1.40) were perceived as having more positive socioemotional consequences compared to making a plan for what protective behavior to use if a partner became aggressive (M = 5.22, SD = 1.80) and being aware of individuals who can help (M = 5.29, SD = 1.57).

Table 1.

Perceptions and Use of Self-Protective Behavior

	Level of positive socioemotional consequences		Level of negative socioemotional consequences		Frequency of use at baseline		Frequency of use over the follow-up
Type of self-protective behavior	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Make a plan for what strategy to use if your partner became aggressive	5.22	1.80	2.73	1.54	2.27	1.11	2.29	1.22
Have trusted friends be with you and the dating partner	5.66	1.44	2.09	1.50	3.47	1.38	3.20	1.22
Abstain from drinking or limit alcohol use to three drinks or less	5.66	1.38	1.94	1.00	3.60	1.38	3.38	1.44
Let someone know where you are and who you are with	5.85	1.40	1.96	1.54	4.58	1.24	4.32	1.39
Speak assertively and directly	5.79	1.28	2.22	1.43	4.21	1.29	3.87	1.50
Talk to others about your dating partner to see what he or she is like	5.54	1.34	2.18	1.43	3.15	1.27	2.89	1.34
Pay attention to your partner’s use of drugs or alcohol	5.51	1.33	2.24	1.52	3.44	1.25	3.38	1.43
Provide your own transportation	5.53	1.43	2.24	1.59	3.06	1.39	2.96	1.41
Consider self-defense techniques if needed	4.96	1.75	2.58	1.62	2.13	1.18	2.00	1.07
Be aware of potential weapons	4.67	1.75	2.52	1.54	1.89	0.93	1.84	1.04
Be aware of potential exits	4.97	1.70	2.23	1.54	2.37	1.21	2.35	1.27
Be aware of individuals who can help in case of emergency	5.29	1.57	2.07	1.39	2.89	1.34	3.01	1.38
Carry enough money to call a taxi or a support provider	5.68	1.41	2.06	1.54	3.67	1.50	3.72	1.50

Table 2.

t Statistics Comparing Women’s Levels of Appraisals of Various Self-Protective Behaviors at Baseline

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
1. Make a plan	—	−3.10	−2.77	−3.96*	−4.02*	−2.00	−1.83	−1.98	2.01	4.04*	1.75	−0.50	−3.12
2. Be with friends	4.24*	—	0.00	−1.38	−0.98	0.97	1.10	0.90	4.14*	6.11*	4.76*	2.73	−0.12
3. Limit alcohol use	5.02*	0.97	—	−1.70	−1.15	1.04	1.49	1.06	4.97*	6.99*	4.97*	2.93	−0.12
4. Tell friends your location	4.88*	0.92	−0.11	—	0.56	2.75	3.43	2.75	6.32*	8.13*	6.80*	4.51*	1.45
5. Speak assertively	3.43	−0.80	−1.93	−2.38	—	2.45	2.56	2.32	6.38*	7.90*	6.13*	4.09*	1.04
6. Get information on your partner	3.92*	−0.64	−1.77	−1.90	0.31	—	0.28	0.06	4.13*	5.88*	4.22*	1.94	−1.23
7. Watch your Partner’s drinking	3.34	−0.99	−2.21	−2.25	−0.22	−0.63	—	−0.19	4.27*	6.06*	4.13*	1.83	−1.48
8. Provide own transportation	3.31	−1.01	−2.07	−2.15	−0.16	−0.44	0.06	—	4.75*	6.42*	4.37*	2.11	−1.27
9. Consider self-defense	1.02	−3.05	−3.88*	−3.96*	−2.35	−2.62	−2.44	−2.70	—	2.67	−0.12	−2.62	−5.17*
10. Consider potential weapons	1.37	−2.67	−4.06*	−3.98*	−2.11	−2.48	−2.05	−2.22	0.47	—	−3.84*	−5.99*	−6.99*
11. Be aware of exits	3.24	−0.87	−2.19	−1.95	−0.10	−0.38	0.11	0.05	2.56	3.57*	—	−4.35*	−6.15*
12. Be aware of people who can help	4.61*	0.14	−0.98	−0.88	1.17	1.07	1.64	1.37	4.16*	4.49*	2.27	—	−4.08*
13. Carry enough money	4.60*	0.19	-0.88	−0.79	1.17	1.09	1.82	1.55	3.65*	3.67*	1.56	0.08	—

Note: Positive appraisals are listed in the top diagonal; negative appraisals are listed in the bottom diagonal.

p < .0006.

Appraisals of the Negative Socioemotional Consequences of Self-Protective Behaviors

Women reported generally low levels of perceived negative socioemotional consequences for each self-protective behavior at baseline, with average ratings ranging between 1.94 and 2.73 on the 7-point scale (see Table 1). A second series of t tests with a Bonferroni correction (Bonferroni, 1936) were conducted to examine whether women’s perception of the negative socioemotional consequences varied between self-protective behaviors (see Table 2). Levels of perceived negative socioemotional consequences were higher for making a plan for how to respond to aggressive behavior (M = 2.73, SD = 1.54) compared to being with friends while on a date (M = 2.09, SD = 1.50), limiting their alcohol use (M = 1.94, SD = 1.96), telling friends their location (M = 1.96, SD = 1.54), getting more information about their partner prior to a date (M = 2.18, SD = 1.43), being aware of individuals who can help (M = 2.07, SD = 1.39), and carrying enough money to call taxi or another support figure (M = 2.06, SD = 1.54). Women perceived considering potential self-defense techniques (M = 2.58, SD = 1.62) to have higher negative socioemotional consequences compared to limiting their own alcohol use (M = 1.94, SD = 1.96), telling their friends about their location (M = 1.96, SD = 1.54), being aware of individuals who can help (M = 2.07, SD = 1.39), and carrying enough money to call a taxi or another support figure (M = 2.06, SD = 1.54). Women also reported higher levels of perceived negative socioemotional consequences regarding being aware of potential weapons (M = 2.52, SD = 1.54) compared to limiting their own alcohol use (M = 1.94, SD = 1.96), telling friends about their location (M = 1.96, SD = 1.54), locating a potential exit (M = 2.23, SD = 1.54), being aware of individuals who can help (M = 2.07, SD = 1.39), and carrying enough money to call a taxi or another support figure (M = 2.06, SD = 1.54).

Perceived Socioemotional Consequences of Self-Protective Behavior and Engagement in Self-Protective Behavior at Baseline

Using a Bonferroni correction (Boneferroni,1936) for each series of tests, two series of bivariate correlations examined associations between perceived positive/negative socioemotional consequences of self-protective behavior and self-reported use of the behavior at baseline. Positive socioemotional consequences associated with limiting one’s alcohol use, telling one’s friends his or her location, speaking directly and assertively, providing own transportation, considering use of a weapon, being aware of potential exits, being aware of individuals who can help, and carrying enough money to call a taxi or support figure were related to more frequent use of the behavior at baseline, r(142) = .27, p < .003; r(142) = .29, p < .003; r(142) = .38, p < .001; r(142) = .34, p < .001; r(142) = .30, p < .001; r(142) = .32, p < .001; r(142) = .33, p < .001; r(142) = .27, p < .003. Higher perception of negative socioemotional consequences was associated with of telling one’s friends their location, and using direct and assertive communication was associated with less frequent use of the behavior at baseline, r(142) = –.25, p < .003; r(142) = –.25, p < .003.

Perceived Socioemotional Consequences of Self-Protective Behavior and Engagement in Self-Protective Behavior Over the Follow-Up

Partial correlations using a Bonferroni correction (Bonferroni, 1936) were produced using two series of hierarchical multivariate linear regression analyses to examine whether positive/negative socioemotional appraisals of self-protective behavior were associated with engaging in the behavior over the 2-month follow-up, accounting for baseline levels of engaging in the self-protective behavior. Engagement in the self-protective behavior over the 2-month follow-up served as the dependent variable, baseline levels of the behavior were entered in Block 1, and the perceived socioemotional consequence of the behavior was entered in Block 2. Accounting for baseline levels of self-protective behavior, perceived positive socioemotional consequences of carrying enough money to call a taxi or a support figure was positively associated with engagement in this behavior over the follow-up, partial R = .26, F(1, 129) = 9.35, p < .003, R²Δ = .05. Accounting for self-protective behavior at baseline, the perceived negative socioemotional consequences of self-protective behavior were not associated with engagement in the behavior over the follow-up.

Socioemotional Consequences of Self-Protective Behavior and Subsequent Victimization

Hierarchical logistic regression was conducted to explore the relationship between perceived positive and negative socioemotional consequences of self-protective behavior and sexual victimization over the 2-month follow-up, accounting for other putative risk factors. The dependent variable was sexual victimization over the 2-month follow-up. Participants were classified into one of two categories depending on whether or not they experienced any form of sexual victimization over the follow-up (i.e., 0 = not victimized, 1 = victimized). Prior experience of sexual victimization was entered into the model in the first block, G²(1, n = 125) = 44.63, p < .001, Nagelkerke R² = .41. The second block of predictors consisted of perceived positive socioemotional consequences of self-protective behavior, perceived negative socioemotional consequences of self-protective behavior, and other risk factors for victimization, including alcohol use and sexual assertiveness, G²(9, n = 125) = 17.25, p < .05. The full model accounted for 53.7% of the variance in sexual victimization over the 2-month follow-up, G²(10, n = 125) = 61.88, p < .001. In the full model, adolescent sexual victimization, higher weekly alcohol use, and higher levels of perceived negative socioemotional consequences of preparative/precautionary self-protective behaviors were related to victimization over the follow-up, Wald χ²(1, n = 125) = 29.46, p < .001; Wald χ²(1, n = 125) = 4.44, p < .05; Wald χ²(1, n = 125) = 5.04, p < .05 (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Predicting Sexual Victimization Over the 2-Month Follow-Up

Time 1 variables	B	Wald χ²	Odds ratio	ΔG²	p
Block 1				44.63***
Adolescent sexual assault	2.47	29.46	11.87		0.001***
Block 2				17.25*
Alcohol use	0.07	4.44	1.07		0.04*
Positive appraisal—awareness	0.23	2.71	1.26		0.10
Negative appraisal—awareness	−0.05	0.12	0.96		0.72
Positive appraisal—active	−0.01	0.01	1.00		0.98
Negative appraisal—active	−0.16	2.42	0.85		0.12
Positive appraisal—plan ahead	−0.10	0.90	0.90		0.34
Negative appraisal—plan ahead	0.19	5.04	1.21		0.03*
Initiating sexual activity	−0.11	3.67	0.90		0.06
Refusing sexual activity	0.10	6.64	1.10		0.13

Note: N = 125.

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

Discussion

To develop more effective sexual assault risk reduction programs, it is important for researchers to understand how women are responding to program material and whether they are reluctant to engage in the self-protective strategies presented in the curriculum. The current study sought to examine college women’s appraisals of the positive and negative socioemotional consequences of self-protective dating behaviors. For this research, a positive socioemotional consequence was operationalized as feeling good about yourself or having a good time and a negative sociocognitive consequence was operationalized as feeling embarrassed, creating a scene, or not having a good time. The fear of sustaining an injury may also deter women from using self-protective behaviors; however, the present research operationalized barriers to women’s engagement in self-protective strategies in terms of social or emotional consequences.

Data indicated some variation in women’s evaluation of the socioemotional consequences associated with various self-protective behaviors. Women rated self-protective behaviors as generally having a high level of positive and a low level of negative socioemotional consequences. Speaking assertively and letting friends know one’s location were rated as having more positive socioemotional consequences compared to other types of protective behaviors. From a social norms perspective (Berkowitz, 2003), it may be useful for college women to know that other college women support the use of engaging in self-protective strategies to reduce risk for violence. Future research may examine women’s perceptions of the extent to which other women support engaging in self-protective dating behaviors and whether potential misperceptions of other women’s behavior decrease women’s personal likelihood of taking a self-protective stance.

The self-protective strategies of being aware of potential weapons to use against a partner, being aware of the location of potential exits, and considering the use of self-defense were rated as having less positive socioemotional consequences, compared to other behaviors. Considering self-defense or use of potential weapons were rated as having more negative socioemotional consequences, compared to several other protective behaviors. These findings are particularly notable because employing self-defense strategies has been shown to be both effective and empowering. Assertive responses to unwanted sexual advances are more effective in reducing the likelihood of experiencing a completed sexual assault (Ullman & Knight, 1993). Sexual assault risk reduction programs can also be useful in encouraging women to discuss their hesitations regarding various protective behaviors and develop ways to combat potential fears of embarrassment related to using verbal and physical resistance tactics. It is important to note that the current study did not specify the context in which each self-protective strategy would be utilized. It is possible, for example, that women would appraise using a weapon against a stranger more positively than using a weapon against an intimate partner. Future research may explore how positive and negative socioemotional appraisals of various self-protective behaviors vary as a function of the victim–offender relationship.

Although findings did not support the idea that perceived socioemotional consequences of self-protective behavior were uniformly associated with risk for subsequent victimization, prospective analyses indicated that high levels of perceived negative socioemotional consequences associated with taking precautions before a date was associated with sexual victimization over the follow-up. As expected, history of adolescent sexual victimization and higher levels of alcohol use were also associated with victimization over the interim. Whereas the present research did not distinguish between alcohol-related and non–alcohol-related victimization over the interim, future research may consider potential differences in predictors of alcohol-related and non–alcohol-related assaults. Refusal of sexual activity was not associated with victimization over the interim; however, a marginally significant negative relationship was revealed between initiating sexual activity and victimization over the follow-up (p = .06). Although future research is needed to explore this trend in the data, it may be that women who initiate sexual activity are also more assertive in social and dating situations, which decreases their risk for victimization.

Albeit a relatively weak effect, it was nonetheless interesting that women who felt that engaging in precautionary strategies prior to a date might be embarrassing or lead them to not have a good time were at increased risk to experience sexual victimization. Univariate analyses also suggested that women perceived there to be less positive and more negative socioemotional consequences associated with making a plan for how to respond to a threatening situation compared to a range of other behaviors. Though speculative, it may be that women see planning ahead as a hassle or feel embarrassed about obtaining more information about a potential dating partner. It is also possible that women who perceive a high level of negative socioemotional consequences associated with taking precautions before a date believe that they are not at risk for assault. Women who indicate a low personal risk for sexual assault also report low preparedness to prevent an assault (Nurius, 2000). Sexual assault risk reduction programs can be an especially useful forum for debunking optimistic bias regarding sexual assault and encouraging women to engage in self-protective behavior as a lifestyle. By increasing women’s positive appraisals of self-protective behaviors and increasing women’s awareness of contextual risk factors and perpetrator characteristics, risk reduction programs aim to increase women’s ability to assess risk and respond quickly and assertively (Rozee & Koss, 2001). Since positive social expectations for dating situations may also interfere with women’s willingness to consider the riskiness of dating situations, sexual assault risk reduction programs must also emphasize that women can have fun in social and dating situations while also prioritizing personal safety.

Consistent with the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985), higher appraisals of the positive socioemotional consequences of self-protective behavior were associated with increased use of the following strategies at baseline: limiting one’s use of alcohol, telling friends where they are going to be located, communicating assertively, providing one’s own transportation, considering use of a weapon, being aware of potential exits, being aware of individuals who can help, and carrying enough money to get home. Women’s negative socioemotional appraisal of telling friends where they will be located and using assertive communication skills was associated with less frequent use of these behaviors. Appraisals of the positive and negative socioemotional consequences of self-protective behavior were not uniformly associated with engaging in protective strategies over the follow-up. Rather, only women’s perceptions of the positive socioemotional consequences of carrying enough money to call a taxi or support provider were positively associated with engaging in this behavior over the follow-up. Since women’s use of self-protective behavior in college may decline over time (Orchowski et al., 2008), it may be useful to promote maintenance of a self-protective stance among women by providing them with opportunities to engage in targeted sexual assault risk reduction programs during each year of college.

It is important to note that the homogeneous nature of this relatively small sample makes it difficult to generalize these findings to more racially and ethnically diverse samples, women beyond the first year of college, and women residing in the community or women in nontraditional college settings such as community colleges. The present study was also limited to a 2-month follow-up period. A longer follow-up period or more than one follow-up assessment would provide a more detailed assessment of how various risk factors influence risk for victimization and revictimization over time. It is also possible that the short follow-up period did not provide enough time for women to utilize various self-protective strategies, as there was not an opportunity to do so. Furthermore, the current study examined a relatively small set of potential behaviors women may perform to decrease their risk for an unwanted sexual experience. Women may engage in other self-protective behaviors not included in the present study. Given that the DSPARS (Moore & Waterman, 1999) was designed over a decade ago, future research aimed at developing measures of self-protective dating behaviors is particularly warranted. Mixed-methods research can be especially useful in identifying new ways in which women act to decrease their vulnerability to assault. Furthermore, although the SES (Koss & Oros, 1982) is a valid and widely utilized measure of sexual victimization, new measures of sexual victimization have also been developed since this study was conducted (Koss et al., 2007). Specifically, future studies may consider using the Revised Sexual Experiences Scale—Short Form, to assess victimization history (Koss et al., 2007).

In sum, the present data further substantiated that women perceive both positive and negative socioemotional consequences to engaging in self-protective dating behaviors. Findings also added to the literature by documenting that some strategies are perceived as having more positive or negative socioemotional consequences than others. Notably, perceiving a high level of negative socioemotional consequences associated with taking precautions prior to a date increased women’s risk for victimization during college. As highlighted by the present study, women navigate an array of positive and negative social, cognitive, and emotional factors when attempting to maintain their safety in dating situations. Understanding potential barriers to engaging in self-protective dating behavior can help researchers and social advocates empower women to reduce their vulnerability and fight back against potential perpetrators.

Footnotes

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

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Bios

Lindsay M. Orchowski, PhD, completed her undergraduate degree in psychology with high honors in women’s studies at Dartmouth College. She obtained a PhD in clinical psychology with a specialization in applied quantitative psychology, and a graduate certificate in women’s studies from Ohio University. She is currently a postdoctoral research fellow at the Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies at Brown University.

Amy S. Untied, MS, is currently pursuing her PsyD from the Department of Psychology at Xavier University. As an undergraduate student at Ohio University, she completed an honors thesis examining the role of alcohol in observer judgments of hypothetical sexual assault scenarios and served as a program facilitator for the Ohio University Sexual Assault Risk Reduction program.

Christine A. Gidycz, PhD, is a professor of psychology and director of clinical training in the Department of Psychology at Ohio University. She is actively involved with conducting research on sexual assault and is particularly interested in the evaluation of sexual assault prevention and risk reduction programs.

References

Ajzen

(1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Kuhland

Beckman

(Eds.), Action-control: From cognitions to behavior (pp. 11-39). New York, NY: Springer.

Berkowitz

A. D.

(2003). Applications of social norms theory to other health and social justice issues. In Perkins

(Ed.), The social norms approach to preventing school and college age substance abuse: A handbook for educators, counselors, and clinicians (pp. 259-279). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bonferroni

C. E.

(1936). Teoria statistica delle classi e calcolo delle probabilitá [Statistical theory of classes and the calculus of probability]. Pubblicazioni del R Istituto Superiore di Scienze Economiche e Commerciali di Firenz, [Publication of the Institute of Higher Studies in Economic Sciences and Business of Florence], 8, 3-62.

Breitenbecher

K. H.

(2008). The convergent validities of two measures of dating behaviors related to risk for sexual victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1095-1107. doi: 10.1177/08862605073139710.1177/088626050731397

Breitenbecher

K. H.

Scarce

(2001). An evaluation of the effectiveness of a sexual assault education program focusing on psychological barriers to resistance. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 387-407. doi: 10.1177/08862600101600500110.1177/088626001016005001

Collins

R. L.

Koutsky

J. R.

Morsheimer

E. T.

MacLean

M. G.

(2001). Binge drinking among underage college students: A test of a restraint-based conceptualization of risk for alcohol abuse. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 15, 333-340. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.15.4.33310.1037/0893-164X.15.4.333

Collins

Parks

G. A.

Marlatt

G. A.

(1985). Social determinants of alcohol consumption: The effects of social interaction and model status on the self-administration of alcohol. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 189-200. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.53.2.18910.1037/0022-006X.53.2.189

Cook

S. L.

(1995). Acceptance and expectation of sexual aggression in college students. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19, 181-194. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1995.tb00286.x10.1111/j.1471-6402.1995.tb00286.x

Gidycz

C. A.

McNamara

Edwards

(2006). Women’s risk perception and sexual victimization: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 441-456. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2006.01.00410.1016/j.avb.2006.01.004

10.

Katz

Fromme

D’Amico

(2000). Effects of outcome expectancies and personality on young adults illicit drug use, heavy drinking and risky sexual behavior. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24, 1-22.

11.

Koss

M. P.

Abbey

Campbell

Cook

Norris

Testa

Ullman

West

White

(2007). Revising the SES: A collaborative process to improve assessment of sexual aggression and victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 357-370. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00385.x10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00385.x

12.

Koss

M. P.

Gidycz

C. A.

(1985). Sexual experiences survey: Reliability and validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 422-423. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.53.3.42210.1037/0022-006X.53.3.422

13.

Koss

M. P.

Gidycz

C. A.

Wisniewski

(1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162-170. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.55.2.16210.1037/0022-006X.55.2.162

14.

Koss

M. P.

Oros

C. J.

(1982). Sexual Experiences Survey: A research instrument investigating sexual aggression and victimization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 455-457. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.50.3.45510.1037/0022-006X.50.3.455

15.

Lawyer

Resnick

Bakanic

Burkett

Kilpatrick

(2010). Forcible, drug-facilitated, and incapacitated rape and sexual assault among undergraduate women. Journal of American College Health, 58, 453-460. doi: 10.1080/0744848090354051510.1080/07448480903540515

16.

Moore

C. D.

Waterman

C .K.

(1999). Predicting self-protection against sexual assault in dating relationships among heterosexual men and women, gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 132-140.

17.

Morokoff

P. J.

Quina

Harlow

L. L.

Whitmire

Grimley

D. M.

Gibson

P. R.

Burkholder

G. J.

(1997). Sexual Assertiveness Scale (SAS) for women: Development and validation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 790-804. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.79010.1037/0022-3514.73.4.790

18.

Norris

Nurius

P. S.

Dimeff

L. A.

(1996). Through her eyes: Factors affecting women’s perception of and resistance to acquaintance sexual aggression threat. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 123-145. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00668.x10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00668.x

19.

Norris

Nurius

P. S.

Graham

T. L.

(1999). When a date change from fun to dangerous: Factors affecting women’s ability to distinguish. Violence Against Women, 5, 230-250. doi: 10.1177/1077801992218120210.1177/10778019922181202

20.

Nurius

P. S.

(2000). Risk perception for acquaintance sexual aggression: A social-cognitive perspective. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 63-78.

21.

Nurius

P. S.

Norris

(1995). A cognitive ecological model of women’s response to male sexual coercion in dating. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 8, 117-139. doi: 10.1300/J056v08n01_0910.1300/J056v08n01_09

22.

Nurius

P. S.

Norris

Macy

R. J.

Huang

(2004). Women’s situational coping with acquaintance sexual assault: Applying an appraisal-based model. Violence Against Women, 10, 450-477. doi: 10.1177/107780120426436710.1177/1077801204264367

23.

Nurius

P. S.

Norris

Young

D. S.

Graham

T. L.

Gaylord

(2000). Interpreting and defensively responding to threat: Examining appraisals and coping with acquaintance sexual aggression. Violence and Victims, 15, 187-208.

24.

Orchowski

L. M.

Gidycz

C. A.

Raffle

(2008). Evaluation of a sexual assault risk reduction and self-defense program: A prospective analysis of a revised protocol. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 204-218. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00425.x10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00425.x

25.

Rozee

P. D.

Koss

M. P.

(2001). Rape: A century of resistance. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25, 295-311. doi: 10.1111/1471-6402.0003010.1111/1471-6402.00030

26.

Soler-Baillo

J. M.

Marx

B. P.

Sloan

D. M.

(2005). The psychophysiological correlates of risk recognition among victims and non-victims of sexual assault. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 43, 169-181. doi: 10.1097/01.psy.0000171809.12117.7910.1097/01.psy.0000171809.12117.79

27.

Ullman

S. E.

Knight

(1993). The efficacy of women’s resistance strategies in rape situations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17, 23-38. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1993.tb00674.x10.1111/j.1471-6402.1993.tb00674.x

28.

Weinstein

N. D.

(1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 806-820.