Sexual Victimization among Spanish College Women and Risk Factors for Sexual Revictimization

Abstract

Sexual revictimization is frequent among victims of child sexual abuse. Several variables, such as sexual experience, substance abuse, and sexual assertiveness, have been proposed to explain the link between child sexual abuse and adolescent and adult sexual victimization, although they have typically been tested separately. The main objective of this study was to analyze which of these variables better explains the revictimization phenomenon using a multiple mediation analysis. The study also tested the frequency of sexual victimization experiences in a Spanish sample of college women. Four hundred and two women were interviewed. Results showed that 30.4% of them engaged in undesired sexual contact while almost 4% were victims of rape. The most frequent perpetrators were partners or ex-partners, acquaintances, or dating partners, but not strangers. Finally, the relationship between child sexual abuse and adolescent and adult sexual victimization was mediated by number of consensual sexual partners and sexual assertiveness. Results reflect some cultural differences from previous research.

Keywords

sexual revictimization sexual experience sexual assertiveness substance use multiple mediation

Sexual victimization experiences encompass different “violent, coercive, and developmentally inappropriate sexual experiences including incest, rape, and other forms of sexual abuse such as fondling and sexual exposure; use of physical force, authority, or age differentials to obtain sexual contact; and verbally coerced sexual contact” (Greene & Navarro, 1998, p. 590). Previous studies have shown that the female college population is at high risk for sexual victimization (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2007; Christopher & Kisler, 2004; National Victim Center, 1992; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). For example, it has been shown that 13% to 78% of college women have been victims of different forms of sexual victimization that in some cases meet the legal definition of rape (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000; Kanin & Parcell, 1977; Kirkpatrick & Kanin, 1957; Koss, Gidycz, & Wisniewski, 1987; Koss & Oros, 1982; Muehlenhard & Linton, 1987). In Spain, only a few studies have examined sexual victimization rates among the female college population. Sipsma, Carrobles-Isabel, Montorio Cerrato, and Everaerd (2000) revealed that 33.2% of college women had been victims of some form of sexual victimization and 3.2% had been raped. Fuertes et al. noted that 30.9% and 42.7% of college women had been sexually coerced or sexually victimized, respectively (Fuertes, Ramos, Martínez, López, & Tabernero, 2006; Ramos, Fuertes, & De la Orden, 2006). Regarding perpetrators, research studies have consistently found that partners and new acquaintances are more frequent perpetrators than strangers (Koss, Dinero, Seibel, & Cox, 1988; Krahé, Scheinberger-Olwig, Waizenhöfer, & Kolpin, 1999). In Spain, these issues have only been explored by Ramos et al. (2006), who found that 24% were victimized by a friend, 17% were victimized by a partner, and 16% were victimized by a new acquaintance.

Regarding risk factors, past research proposed child sexual abuse (CSA) as the main risk factor for adolescent or adult sexual victimization (AASV)—known as the revictimization hypothesis—(Messman & Long, 1996). For example, Barnes, Noll, Putnam, and Trickett (2009) found that female victims of CSA were 1.99 times more likely than females who had not experienced CSA to be sexually revictimized as adults. In a meta-analytic review, Roodman and Clum (2001) found an overall effect size of .59 regarding sexual revictimization. Many other studies have shown similar results (for a review, see Arata, 2000; Classen, Palesh, & Aggarwal, 2005; Messman & Long, 1996; Muehlenhard, Highby, Lee, Bryan, & Dodrill, 1998; Roodman & Clum, 2001). A number of variables have been proposed to explain why women who have experienced CSA are at increased risk for sexual victimization in adolescence and young adulthood. Muehlenhard et al. (1998) suggested that the relationship between CSA and adolescent and adult sexual victimization (AASV) might be mediated by third variables, such as sexual experience, sexual assertiveness, and substance use prior to sex.

First, regarding sexual experience, it has been proposed that the number of consensual sexual partners mediates the relationship between CSA and AASV. That is, women who have experienced CSA have a larger number of consensual sexual partners, which in turn increases the risk for AASV. This is because the higher the number of sexual partners, the greater the probability of finding an aggressive one (Muehlenhard et al., 1998). This has been supported by the results of several studies. For example, Arata (2000) discovered that consensual sexual behavior mediated the relationship between CSA and sexual revictimization, and Krahé et al. (1999) also found that both number of intercourse partners and number of nonintercourse partners mediated between CSA and AASV. This effect has also been supported by studies assessing the role of early consensual sexual activity as a mediator between CSA and AASV. Fergusson, Horwood, and Lynskey (1997) found that CSA was associated with early consensual sexual activity, and early sexual activity was related to adolescent sexual victimization. Himelein, Vogel, and Wachowiak (1994) found that age of first consensual experience was related to both CSA and AASV, although they did not strictly test mediation.

Sexual assertiveness has also been proposed as a mediator between CSA and AASV. In this regard, Russell (1986) stated that child sexual abuse “socializes a child into the role of a victim… [leaving her] less able to muster the confidence and assertiveness required to reject unwanted sexual advances from others” (p. 169). Finkelhor (1984) also stressed the significance of lack of sexual assertiveness and suggested that CSA victims “. . . also lack assertiveness to short-circuit at an early stage encounters where they sense some risk” (p. 194). Although this hypothesis has existed for a long time and has a very intuitive appeal (Livingston, Testa, & VanZile-Tamsen, 2007), to date we have only found two studies examining the mediator role of sexual assertiveness (Greene & Navarro, 1998; Livingston et al., 2007). Neither study found that sexual assertiveness mediated the relationship between CSA and AASV, basically because CSA did not predict low sexual assertiveness. However, this hypothesis was tested using the causal steps approach to assess mediation. Compared to the differences in coefficients and the product of coefficients approach, this approach is known to have less power to detect mediation effects (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002).

Substance use may also mediate between CSA and AASV (Muehlenhard et al., 1998). Various studies have shown that CSA is a risk factor for substance use (see Muehlenhard et al., 1998) and substance use is a risk factor for AASV (Fisher & Cullen, 2006; Kilpatrick, Acierno, Resnick, Saunders, & Best, 1997). Moreover, Kilpatrick et al. (1997) found that revictimization in women was mediated by alcohol and substance consumption together. In this context, it is also relevant to examine substance abuse prior to sex. For example, Testa et al. (1999) demonstrated this effect with alcohol. They found that women who had been raped or coerced into sex reported higher frequency of alcohol consumption in conjunction with sexual activity. Furthermore, Livingston, Hequembourg, Testa, and VanZile-Tamsen (2009) found that substance abuse prior to sex was a common risk factor for sexual victimization. Thus, it would be interesting to explore whether substance use prior to sex can mediate the relationship between CSA and AASV.

Most of these previous studies tested mediation effects individually (Fargo, 2009). However, it is important to test all of these potential mediation effects together for several reasons. First, the relationship between an independent variable and an outcome is usually mediated by more than one single variable (Preacher & Hayes, 2008a). For example, Livingston et al. (2007) recognized that sexual assertiveness “is not the only mechanism through which sexual revictimization occurs” (p. 310) and added that other mechanisms should be considered as well. Along the same lines, Ullman (2003) suggested the need to simultaneously test the relevance of different mediators between child and adult sexual assault. In fact, testing each mediator individually limits our understanding of the multiple pathways by which CSA enhances women’s risk for AASV. In contrast, including all these mediators in one model provides a test of the total indirect effect (all mediators taken together) as well as specific indirect effects (the independent contribution of each mediator; Preacher & Hayes, 2008b). This also makes it possible to test differential effect sizes between specific indirect effects and thus to analyze which variables or effects are most plausible (Preacher & Hayes, 2008a).

As we mentioned, little is known about rates of sexual victimization experiences and risk factors for sexual revictimization among Spanish college women. Moreover, most studies on sexual revictimization have been performed in the United States, so the present study has the potential to further our understanding about cultural differences regarding the revictimization phenomenon. Thus, the main objective was to analyze which variables mediate the relationship between CSA and AASV using a multiple mediation test (Preacher & Hayes, 2008a) in a Spanish sample of college women. The study simultaneously assessed the mediation effect of sexual experience (both number of consensual sexual partners and age of onset of consensual sex), substance use before sexual intercourse, and sexual assertiveness, following the model depicted in Figure 1. The second objective was to analyze rates of sexual victimization experiences in a Spanish sample of college women. Specifically, the present study analyzed rates of undesired sexual contacts, sexual coercion, attempted rape, and rape, as well as the frequencies of each experience committed by different kinds of perpetrators (i.e., stranger, acquaintance, occasional date, and partner or ex-partner).

Figure 1.

Path diagram of the full multiple mediation model

Method

Participants

The sample was composed of 402 women recruited in 13 different schools of a major Spanish university. The age of participants ranged from 18 to 24 years old (M = 20.82; SD = 1.60). Among participants, 73.3% were Catholic (n = 293), 24.8% (n = 99) reported no religious beliefs, and 2.2% (n = 8) reported other religions. A total of 62% of participants were currently involved in a romantic relationship; 94.3% were heterosexual, 2% were homosexual, and 3.7% were bisexual.

Materials

A sociodemographic background questionnaire assessed age, religion, and sexual orientation of participants and whether they were currently involved in a romantic relationship.

Sexual assertiveness

The study used the Refusal subscale of the Spanish validation of Morokoff’s Sexual Assertiveness Scale (Sierra, Vallejo-Medina, & Santos-Iglesias, 2011). The subscale is comprised of six items aimed at assessing the ability to refuse undesired sexual contacts using a 5-point Likert-type scale from 0 (never) to 4 (almost always). Higher scores indicate greater sexual assertiveness. Morokoff et al. (1997) reported internal consistency values from .71 to .80. Sierra et al. reported an omega value of .76. Validity evidence showed positive correlations with the Lack of shyness/Refusal subscale of the Spanish Hurlbert Index of Sexual Assertiveness (Santos-Iglesias & Sierra, 2010b). In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha reached .66.

Sexual experience

Two questions were used to assess sexual experience. The first one assessed the age of onset of consensual sexual intercourse (anal or vaginal) (“At what age did you have sexual intercourse for the first time?”). The second one assessed the number of consensual sexual partners since that age of onset (“With how many different consensual partners have you engaged in sexual intercourse?”).

Substance use prior to sex

Frequency of substance use prior to sex was assessed through one question: “In general, when you engage in sexual intercourse (anal or vaginal) how often do you use any kind of drug or substance before having sex?” Participants responded using a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always).

Child sexual abuse (CSA)

The Sexual victimization subscale of the Spanish translation (Pereda, Gallardo-Pujol, & Forero, 2008) of the Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire (JVQ; Hamby, Finkelhor, Ormrod, & Turner, 2005) was used. Given that contact CSA has a stronger relationship with revictimization (Roodman & Clum, 2001), we decided to include only 4 items assessing offenses involving sexual contact that occurred during childhood. Participants responded using a 6-point Likert-type scale from 0 (never) to 5 (5 times or more). A total score was computed, with higher scores indicating higher frequency of CSA. Finkelhor, Hamby, Ormrod, and Turner (2005) found moderated correlations with trauma symptoms (anxiety, depression, and anger). They also reported good test-retest and high internal consistency reliability. Following the Spanish penal code (Título VIII Cap. II. De los abusos sexuales, art. 181/2), CSA was defined as sexual abuse experienced before the age of 13 years.

Adolescent and adult sexual victimization (AASV)

The Sexual Experiences Survey (SES; Koss & Oros, 1982) was used. It is composed of ten items aimed at assessing sexual victimization experienced after the age of 14 years, and considers four different subtypes of victimization experiences: (a) sexual contact, which means having engaged in sexual contact (kissing, fondling, etc.) without penetration when the woman did not want it, using pressure, drugs or alcohol and threatening or using force; (b) sexual coercion, which involves having had sexual intercourse without a woman wishing it, by means of verbal pressure or use of authority; (c) attempted rape, which involves having attempted to have coitus without a woman wishing it, using alcohol or drugs and threatening with the use of force or using it; and (d) rape, which means having engaged in coitus when the woman did not want to, using alcohol/drugs and threatening or using force. In the present study, participants were asked about the frequency of experiencing each item using a Likert-type scale from 0 (never) to 5 (5 times or more) since the age of 14 years. A global score was computed by summing up each item frequency, which indicates the number of times the participant was victimized. Koss et al. reported an internal consistency index of .79 and good test-retest reliability after one week. After each question, an extra item was added asking who perpetrated each experience: a stranger (i.e., totally unknown person), an acquaintance (i.e., someone the victim knows but does not have an intimate relationship with), an occasional date (i.e., someone the victim has recently met and is involved to some degree of intimacy with), or a partner or ex-partner (i.e., a current partner or ex partner).

Procedure

Participants were recruited from various schools of the university. One lecturer from each school was randomly selected from all possible departments at the university. The lecturers were contacted by e-mail, given information about the study, and asked for permission to attend one of their lectures to assess the female students. After obtaining permission, the researchers attended the lectures and asked the male students to leave the classroom. Once only female students were left in the classroom (the lecturer was not present either), the aim of the study was briefly explained and female students were asked for their anonymous and confidential collaboration. These students had the option to refuse (only three students declined to participate) and no incentives were given to those who decided to participate. Questionnaires did not include information that could identify participants, and participants were asked to put them all together in a box once the questionnaires had been completed. Finally, participants were debriefed and students were given the researchers’ contact details to ask any questions or share any concerns about the topic of the study.

Results

As can be seen in Table 1, the most frequent sexual victimization experiences were sexual contact (30.4%), followed by sexual coercion (19.1%), attempted rape (3.9%), and rape (3.4%). The most frequent perpetrators were ex/current partners in the case of sexual contact and sexual coercion, acquaintances in attempted rape, and dating partners in rape. Descriptive statistics in Table 2 show that the mean age of onset of sexual intercourse was nearly 17 years old, while the mean number of partners was 3.57. Sexual assertiveness scores were high, while those of child sexual abuse were very low. Most participants reported no substance use prior to sex.

Table 1.

Frequency and Percentage of Each Sexual Victimization Experience and Perpetrators

Sexual Victimization		n	%	Perpetrator	n	%
Sexual contact	Yes	125	30.4	Stranger	4	3.2
				Acquaintance	27	21.6
				Dating partner	30	24
				Ex/Current partner	64	51.2
	No	286	69.6
Attempted rape	Yes	16	3.9	Stranger	2	15.4
				Acquaintance	7	53.9
				Dating partner	3	23
				Ex/Current partner	1	7.7
	No	397	96.1
Sexual coercion	Yes	79	19.1	Stranger	1	1.5
				Acquaintance	5	7.7
				Dating partner	12	18.5
				Ex/Current partner	47	72.3
	No	334	80.9
Rape	Yes	14	3.4	Acquaintance	5	35.7
				Dating partner	6	42.8
				Ex/Current partner	3	21.5
	No	399	96.6

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics for All Variables in the Study

			Observed Range
Variables		Scale Range	min	max	M	SD
Sexual experience	Age of onset	—	7	21	16.85	1.67
	No. of partners	—	1	50	3.57	4.72
Substance use		1-5	1	5	1^a	0.53
Sexual assertiveness		0-24	2	24	17.18	4.40
Child sexual abuse		0-20	0	5	0.12	0.50

a.= Median.

At the same time, a test was conducted to determine which variables mediated the relationship between CSA and AASV. Table 3 shows a correlation among variables. Because age of onset of consensual sexual intercourse was not related either to CSA or to AASV, it was decided not to include this variable in subsequent analyses. A multiple mediation analysis was run following the bootstrapping procedure described and recommended by Preacher and Hayes (2008a) using SPSS 17.0. CSA was entered as a predictor variable. Global score on the SES was used as an indicator of AASV (criterion). Number of partners, substance use, and sexual assertiveness were introduced as mediators. Five thousand bootstrap samples were extracted using the BCa procedure with a 95% confidence interval. Results showed that higher frequency of CSA was associated with higher number of partners (B = 2.57, t = 4.91, p < .001), more substance use prior to sex (B = .12, t = 2.09, p = .03), and lower sexual assertiveness (B = −1.22, t = −2.49, p = .01). In addition, higher number of partners (B = .06, t = 1.97, p = .05) and lower sexual assertiveness (B = −.08, t = −2.60, p = .009) were associated with higher frequency of AASV. The total (c path) and direct (c’ path) effects of CSA on sexual victimization were 1.33 (t = 4.67, p < .001) and 1.04 (t = 3.58, p = .004), respectively. Thus, the total indirect effect of the four mediators was .28 (Z = 2.85, p = .004), which led to the conclusion that these mediators taken as a whole mediated the relationship between CSA and AASV. A closer examination of specific indirect effects showed that number of partners (95% bootstrap CI: [.002, .589]) and sexual assertiveness (95% bootstrap CI: [.016, .285]) individually mediated that relationship. This model (see Figure 2) had a $R_{adj}^{2}$ of .09, F(4, 344) = 9.23, p < .001.

Table 3.

Pearson Correlations Among Variables in the Multiple Mediation Model

	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. CSA	1
2. Age of onset	−.04 ns	1
3. Number of partners	.21***	−.35***	1
4. Sexual assertiveness	−.13** ns	.009 ns	−.07 ns	1
5. Substance use	.08 ns	−.16**	.24***	−.02 ns	1
6. AASV	.30***	−.08 ns	.18**	−.17**	.13**	1

Note: ns = nonsignificant, **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Figure 2.

Path diagram of the multiple mediation model. The c’ path is shown between brackets

Discussion

The present study was performed to analyze a series of mediators between child sexual abuse and adolescent and adult sexual victimization. It also explored the frequency of sexual victimization experiences in a sample of Spanish college women. Results showed that number of partners and sexual assertiveness mediate the relationship between CSA and AASV, that is, victims of CSA have a higher number of partners and lower sexual assertiveness, which in turn makes them more vulnerable to experiencing AASV. Results also showed high rates of victimization experiences, particularly in the case of undesired sexual contacts and sexual coercion.

The results obtained in this study show high rates of sexual victimization that are similar to those found in previous studies in Spain (Ramos et al., 2006; Sipsma et al., 2000), except for sexual coercion. In this case (i.e., sexual coercion) our results are more similar to those found in the United States (see Testa, Livingston, & VanZile-Tamsen, 2005; Testa, VanZile-Tamsen, Livingston, & Koss, 2004). It is also important to note the difference in rates of rape and attempted rape between the United States and Spain, which call for differences in traditional sexual scripts between the two cultures, that is, those different expectations for men’s and women’s behavior and attitudes in sexual situations that make men to be more oversexed, aggresive, instrumental and taught not to accept a “no” for an answer in comparison to the unassertive and passive women, “who is trying to protect her worth by restricting access to her sexuality while still appear interested in sex” (Byers, 1996, p. 11). For example, it seems that the token refusal myth (i.e., belief that a women desires sex even after saying “no”) is hardly accepted by Spanish students in comparison to American students (Fuertes et al., 2005; Sipsma et al., 2000), which may lead to differences in victimization, because American men would continue to pursue their sexual needs by using strategies to overcome women’s initial reluctance. Although this may be due to a difference in traditional sexual scripts endorsement, it could be due to a difference in reporting caused by social desirability (Testa et al., 2005) or perhaps some questions of the Spanish adaptation of the SES have been interpreted in a different way with respect to the original scale (Fuertes et al., 2005). Regarding perpetrators, as shown by previous studies in Spain, the United States, and Europe, the present results show that strangers are less frequent perpetrators (Koss et al., 1988; Krahé et al., 1999) while partners/ex-partners and acquaintances are more frequent offenders (Koss et al., 1988; Krahé et al., 1999; Ramos et al., 2006). These results dismiss the myth of the batterer as a male stranger (Arata, 2000; Koss et al., 1994).

A multiple mediation test was run to analyze which variables mediate between child sexual abuse and adolescent and adult sexual victimization, as a way to explain the revictimization hypothesis (see Muehlenhard et al., 1998). Results showed that higher frequency of CSA, higher number of consensual sexual partners, and lower sexual assertiveness were associated with higher frequency of AASV, as found in previous research (Arata, 2000; Barnes et al., 2009; Greene & Navarro, 1998; Krahé et al., 1999; Livingston et al., 2007; Messman & Long, 1996). This means that both child sexual abuse and number of sexual partners are risk factors for AASV, while sexual assertiveness is a protective factor for sexual victimization (see Santos-Iglesias & Sierra, 2010a). Child sexual abuse was found to increase the risk for substance use prior to sex and the number of sexual partners (Krahé, 1998; Muehlenhard et al., 1998) and to decrease sexual assertiveness (Miner, Flitter, & Robinson, 2006; Morokoff et al., 1997, VanZile-Tamsen, Testa, & Livingston, 2005). Thus, according to the causal steps procedure to test mediation (see MacKinnon et al., 2002), number of consensual sexual partners and sexual assertiveness were able to mediate between CSA and AASV. Mediation results confirmed that number of consensual sexual partners mediated between CSA and AASV, as found by previous research (Arata, 2000; Krahé et al., 1999). Surprisingly, sexual assertiveness also mediated between CSA and AASV. It should be noted that previous research (Greene & Navarro, 1998; Livingston et al., 2007) did not found this mediation effect and that such differences may be due to methodological and cultural factors. First, studies by Greene and Navarro (1998) and Livingston et al. (2007) assessed mediation with a causal steps approach, which is less powerful to find statistical effects than the product of coefficients approach used in the present study (MacKinnon et al., 2002). Second, as mentioned above, American students have been found to endorse the traditional sexual script more than Spanish ones. Therefore, lower sexual assertiveness is only a risk factor for AASV, and then female American students may feel obliged to fulfil their partners’ sexual needs (VanZile-Tamsen et al., 2005) instead of protect her worth and restrict access to her sexuality (Byers, 1996). Lack of sexual assertiveness in American students depends on traditional sexual scripts that make women less able to directly refuse undesired sexual contact. In Spain, however, lower sexual assertiveness is associated with higher frequency of CSA, it does not depend on the traditional sexual script as it does in the United States, and therefore can—and actually does—mediate between CSA and AASV.

Substance use did not work as a mediator. CSA was found to predict higher substance use, but substance use did not predict AASV. Similar results have been found when testing for alcohol consumption as a mediator; Gidycz, Hanson, and Layman (1995) and Merrill et al. (1999) found that alcohol consumption did not mediate the relation between CSA and AASV.

Although these results are interesting, some limitations must be noted. First, prospective designs rather than cross-sectional ones are preferred for testing the revictimization hypothesis. Prospective designs are useful to analyze whether the predictor has a truly adverse effect on criterion variables (Livingston et al., 2007), which means that previous events have an adverse effect on later ones. However, although prospective designs are preferred, CSA assessments are typically retrospective in this kind of studies. Second, the sample only included college women. Previous research using these samples has been the target of severe criticism (Muehlenhard et al., 1998), because the broader and more representative samples are used, the fewer generalization problems emerge. Third, the amount of variance of AASV accounted for by these variables is low, which suggests the need to include more variables (e.g., alcohol abuse, rape-supportive attitudes) in future research. These limitations suggest other directions for research. First, it would be interesting to carry out a prospective study to assess multiple mediators. This would provide certainty that both predictor and mediation effects are temporarily consistent. Second, more sexual victimization assessments should be made. This would probably show, for example, that sexual assertiveness mediates between more recent victimization events (Greene & Navarro, 1998; Livingston et al., 2007) over and above more distant ones. Finally, more representative samples should be used in future research so that the results can be generalized to the general population.

Finally, we wish to conclude that the present study contributes substantially to the literature on revictimization, given that different mediators were simultaneously tested on the same model. Moreover, the presence of a cultural component and the comparisons made between Spain and the United States provide a different picture of the risk factors for sexual revictimization in Spain and show that it may be useful to train and increase sexually assertiveness skills in health promotion interventions.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Sandra E. Byers for her comments and suggestions on this article.

Part of the results in this manuscript have been published as an abstract in the Journal of Sexual Medicine (Vol. 8(Suppl. 3); Proceedings from the 20th World Congress of Sexual Health, Glasgow, United Kingdom)

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.

Bios

Pablo Santos-Iglesias is a doctoral student at the University of Granada (Spain). His research interests are focused on human sexuality, more specifically in human sexual response, sexual communication, and sexual victimization. He has a grant from the Spanish Ministry of Education and also teaches psychological assessment at the University of Granada.

Juan Carlos Sierra is an associate professor at the University of Granada (Spain). His research interests are focused on human sexuality. He teaches psychological assessment and human sexuality at the Faculty of Psychology at the University of Granada.

References

Arata

C. M.

(2000). From child victim to adult victim: A model for predicting sexual revictimization. Child Maltreatment, 5, 28-38.

Barnes

J. E.

Noll

J. G.

Putnam

F. W.

Trickett

P. K.

(2009). Sexual and physical revictimization among victims of severe childhood sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 412-420.

Bureau of Justice Statistics (2007). Criminal victimization. Washington, DC: Department of Justice.

Byers

E. S.

(1996). How well does the traditional sexual script explain sexual coercion? Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 8, 7-25. doi:10.1300/J056v08n01_02

Classen

Palesh

O. G.

Aggarwal

(2005). Sexual revictimization: A review of the empirical literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 6, 103-129.

Christopher

F. S.

Kisler

T. S.

(2004). Sexual aggression in romantic relationships. In Harvey

J. H.

Wenzel

Sprecher

(Eds.), The handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 287-309). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Fargo

J. D.

(2009). Pathways to adult sexual victimization. Direct and indirect behavioral risk factors across the lifespan. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1771-1791.

Fergusson

D. M.

Horwood

L. J.

Lynskey

M. T.

(1997). Childhood sexual abuse, adolescent sexual behaviors, and sexual revictimization. Child Abuse & Neglect, 21, 789-803.

Finkelhor

(1984). Child sexual abuse: New theory and research. New York, NY: Free Press.

10.

Finkelhor

Hamby

S. L.

Ormrod

Turner

(2005). The Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire: Reliability, validity, and national norms. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 383-412.

11.

Fisher

B. S.

Cullen

F. T.

(2006). La medición de la victimización sexual de las mujeres: Evolución, debates actuales y el futuro de la investigación. In Barberet

Barquín

(Eds.), Justicia penal siglo XXI. Una selección de Criminal Justice 2000 (pp. 131-180). Granada, Spain: Comares.

12.

Fisher

B. S.

Cullen

F. T.

Turner

M. G.

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

13.

Fuertes

Ramos

de la Orden

del Campo

Lázaro

(2005). The involvement in sexual coercive behaviors of Spanish college men: Prevalence and risk factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 872-891.

14.

Fuertes

Ramos

Martínez

J. L.

López

Tabernero

(2006). Prevalencia y factores de vulnerabilidad y protección de la victimización sexual en las relaciones con los iguales en las mujeres universitarias españolas. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 799-814.

15.

Gidycz

C. A.

Hanson

Layman

M. J.

(1995). A prospective analysis of the relationships among sexual assault experiences: An extension of previous findings. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19, 5-29.

16.

Greene

Navarro

R. L.

(1998). Situation-specific assertiveness in the epidemiology of sexual victimization among university women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 589-604.

17.

Hamby

S. L.

Finkelhor

Ormrod

Turner

(2005). The Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire (JVQ): Administration and scoring manual. Durham, NH: Crimes Against Children Research Center.

18.

Himelein

M. J.

Vogel

R. E.

Wachowiak

D. G.

(1994). Nonconsensual sexual experiences in precollege women: Prevalence and risk factors. Journal of Counselling and Development, 72, 411-415.

19.

Kanin

E. J.

Parcell

S. R.

(1977). Sexual aggression: A second look at the offended female. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 6, 67-76.

20.

Kilpatrick

D. G.

Acierno

Resnick

H. S.

Saunders

B. E.

Best

C. L.

(1997). A 2-year longitudinal analysis of the relationship between violent assault and substance use in women. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 834-847.

21.

Kirkpatrick

Kanin

E. J.

(1957). Male sex aggression on a university campus. American Sociological Review, 22, 52-58.

22.

Koss

M. P.

Dinero

T. E.

Seibel

C. A.

Cox

S. L.

(1988). Stranger and acquaintance rape: Are there differences in the victim’s experience? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12, 1-24.

23.

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.

24.

Koss

M. P.

Goodman

L. A.

Browne

A. A.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

Keita

G. P.

Russo

N. F.

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

25.

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.

26.

Krahé

(1998). Sexual aggression among adolescents. Prevalence and predictors in a German sample. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 537-554.

27.

Krahé

Scheinberger-Olwig

Waizenhöfer

Kolpin

(1999). Childhood sexual abuse and revictimization in adolescence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23, 383-394.

28.

Livingston

J. A.

Hequembourg

Testa

VanZile-Tamsen

(2009). Unique aspects of adolescent sexual victimization experiences. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 331-343.

29.

Livingston

J. A.

Testa

VanZile-Tamsen

(2007). The reciprocal relatioship between sexual victimization and sexual assertiveness. Violence Against Women, 13, 298-313.

30.

MacKinnon

D. P.

Lockwood

C. M.

Hoffman

J. M.

West

S. G.

Sheets

(2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83-104.

31.

Merrill

L. L.

Newell

C. E.

Thomsen

C. J.

Gold

S. R.

Milner

J. S.

Koss

M. P.

Rosswork

S. G.

(1999). Childhood abuse and sexual revictimization in a female navy recruit sample. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 12, 211-225.

32.

Messman

T. L.

Long

P. J.

(1996). Child sexual abuse and its relationship to revictimization in adult women: A review. Clinical Psychology Review, 16, 397-420.

33.

Miner

M. H.

Flitter

J. M. K.

Robinson

B. E.

(2006). Association of sexual revictimization with sexuality and psychological function. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 503-524.

34.

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.

35.

Muehlenhard

C. L.

Highby

B. J.

Lee

R. S.

Bryan

T. S.

Dodrill

W. A.

(1998). The sexual revictimization of women and men sexually abused as children: A review of the literature. Annual Review of Sex Research, 9, 177-223.

36.

Muehlenhard

C. L.

Linton

M. A.

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

37.

National Victim Center (1992). Rape in America: A report to the nation. Arlington, VA: National Victim Center.

38.

Pereda

Gallardo-Pujol

Forero

C. G.

(2008). JVQ. Cuestionario retrospectivo para adultos. Unpublished manuscript.

39.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

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

40.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008b). Contemporary approaches to assessing mediation in communication research. In Hayes

A. F.

Slater

M. D.

Snyder

L. B.

(Eds.), The Sage sourcebook of advanced data analysis methods for communication research (pp. 13-54). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

41.

Ramos

Fuertes

de la Orden

(2006). La victimización sexual en las relaciones con los iguales en una muestra de mujeres adolescentes y jóvenes: Prevalencia y creencias relacionadas con la victimización. Revista de Psicología Social, 21, 127-140.

42.

Roodman

A. A.

Clum

G. A.

(2001). Revictimization rates and method variance: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 21, 183-204.

43.

Russell

(1986). The secret trauma: Incest in the lives of girls and women. New York, NY: Basic Books.

44.

Santos-Iglesias

Sierra

J. C.

(2010a). El papel de la asertividad sexual en la sexualidad humana: Una revisión sistemática. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 10, 553-577.

45.

Santos-Iglesias

Sierra

J. C.

(2010b). Hurlbert Index of Sexual Assertiveness: A study of psychometric properties in a Spanish sample. Psychological Reports, 107, 39-57.

46.

Sierra

J. C.

Vallejo-Medina

Santos-Iglesias

(2011). Propiedades psicométricas de la versión española de la Sexual Assertiveness Scale (SAS). Anales de Psicología, 27, 17-26.

47.

Sipsma

Carrobles-Isabel

J. A.

Montorio Cerrato

Everaerd

(2000). Sexual aggression against women by men acquaintances: Attitudes and experiences among Spanish university students. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 3, 14-27.

48.

Testa

Livingston

J. A.

VanZile-Tamsen

(2005). The impact of questionnaire administration mode on response rate and reporting of consensual and nonconsensual sexual behavior. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 345-352.

49.

Testa

VanZile-Tamsen

Livingston

J. A.

Koss

M. P.

(2004). Assessing women’s experiences of sexual aggression using the sexual experiences survey: Evidence for validity and implications for research. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 256-265.

50.

Tjaden

Thoennes

(2000). Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

51.

Ullman

S. E.

(2003). A critical review of field studies on the link of alcohol and adult sexual assault in women. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 8, 471-486.

52.

VanZile-Tamsen

Testa

Livingston

J. A.

(2005). The impact of sexual assault history and relationship context on appraisal of and responses to acquaintance sexual assault risk. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 813-832.