Male Partners’ Investment and Alternatives as Correlates of Women’s Coerced First Sexual Intercourse in Chinese Dating Relationships: A Social Exchange Perspective

Abstract

Social exchange theory has great potential to help our understanding of dating partners’ sexual interaction. Yet, to our knowledge, there is still no empirical study applying this theory to explain sexual coercion in the context of intimate relationships. This study examined the relationship between male partners’ social exchange variables (investment and alternatives) and women’s coerced first sexual intercourse in dating relationships, within both gender samples (not dyadic data). A total of 927 valid questionnaires were collected by purposive snowball sampling in five main cities in China of college students who were currently in a romantic relationship. Results showed that in the male sample, male partners’ investment significantly and positively correlated with emotional manipulation coercive tactics, and their alternatives significantly and positively predicted defection threats as coercive tactics. In the female sample, there were no such observations. The research hypotheses of this study have been partially supported, and its implications and limitations are discussed.

Keywords

investment alternatives social exchange sexual coercion first sexual intercourse Chinese college students dating relationships

Introduction

Sexual coercion (SC) in intimate relationships is complex but common. It is defined as obtaining sex against the partner’s will through various tactics (e.g., physical violence, or psychological, economic, or evaluative pressure; Sprecher & McKinney, 1993). “Postrefusal sexual persistence” (which is the act of pursuing sexual contact with a person after he or she has refused an initial advance) is one of the most important aspects of SC (Struckman-Johnson, Struckman-Johnson, & Anderson, 2003). Enosh (2007) also concluded that any attempt to define SC must be interactive, suggesting that the essence of SC may be defined as “consisting of a persistent attempt to fulfill a sexual advancement in the face of refusal of the other party” (p. 313). The research question of this study concerns why someone would still persist to push for sex with the partner even if having been initially rejected. Christopher and Sprecher (2000) suggested that research into sexuality within close relationships has been focused on the individual and has largely ignored the interpersonal context in which it occurs. Social exchange theory has great potential to help us understand dating partners’ sexual interaction, because it takes the interpersonal context into account (Byers & Wang, 2004). Sexual economics theory can elucidate sexual interaction (Baumeister & Vohs, 2004, 2012), which shows that there is a gender asymmetry regarding SC that reflects complementary economic roles. For example, the asymmetry in victims’ reactions (male victims of SC typically report far less distress or trauma than female victims) may support the view that sex is a female resource, not a male one.

Whether admitted or not, there are always benefits and costs associated with one’s romantic relationship. The perceived benefits and costs of romantic relationships for men and women may be different, which sometimes leads to sexual conflict. Baumeister and Vohs (2004) showed that some rapes (especially date rape) may arise from the genders’ different perceptions of what is fairly owed in the relationship. For example, the man may think that the woman “owes” him sex in return for his investment, if the couple has been dating for a period of time, while his partner may not think so. However, this hypothesis has as yet not been empirically tested. To our knowledge, there has been no prior empirical study applying social exchange theory to explain or predict SC in the context of intimate relationships. This study aims to fill the gap by exploring SC associated with a dating couple’s first sexual experience, from a social exchange perspective.

Social Exchange Perspective on Sexuality in Close Relationships

A central point of social exchange theory is that supply and demand principles regulate social behavior. The basic assumptions include (a) that social behavior is a series of exchanges, (b) that social interaction is reciprocal (one receives rewards from others and would feel obligated to give back something else of comparable value), and (c) that individuals tend to maximize their rewards and minimize their costs (Sprecher, 1998). Applying this theory to sexuality, the core idea is that sex is a female resource (not male), and therefore women give sex to men (Baumeister, 2001a, 2001b). So sex is a kind of resource that women control and men want. Unlike feminist theory, social exchange theory proposes that sex is the goal and power is the means (Baumeister, 2001b).

There are different variants of social exchange theory, but it draws together four important components that comprise the social exchange framework: the balance of rewards and costs, equity/equality, comparison level, and comparison level for alternatives (Byers & Wang, 2004). Rewards are exchanges that are positive, gratifying, or pleasurable to the individual, whereas costs are exchanges that inflict pain, embarrassment, or anxiety, or demand mental or physical efforts, and include missed opportunities in relationships (Kelley, 1978; Thibaut, 1959). Equity and equality are also important exchange concepts. Equity models propose that each individual’s motivation is also driven by both partners’ desire to maintain equity or equality in the relationship. If there is a perceived imbalance between two dating people, people tend to be motivated to recover it. Comparison level (CL) refers to the expected outcomes from exchanges within the current relationship, that is, the level of rewards and costs that the individuals believe they should receive from the relationship. In contrast, comparison level of alternatives (CL_alt) refers to the expected outcomes from alternative relationships, including the best currently available alternative to the present relationship (Kelley, 1978). Relationship satisfaction is based not only on the individual’s absolute level of rewards and costs but also on the level of rewards and costs experienced relative to her or his CL and CL_alt (Byers & Wang, 2004).

Sprecher (1998) suggested that because most dyadic sex occurs within intimate relationships, the social exchange framework may be particularly applicable to the study of sexual phenomena in close relationships, and would emerge as a major theoretical perspective in sexuality. By applying economic principles to sexuality in intimate relationships, one can make predictions about how sexual negotiation will proceed. Some research examines theoretical and empirical evidence to support the importance of each of the above four components, related to several important aspects of sexuality in close relationships—such as the onset of sexual activity, sexual initiation, sexual refusal, and so on (Byers & Wang, 2004; Sprecher, 1998). Sprecher did note that some sexual phenomena, such as SC, would be unlikely to be studied from a social exchange perspective. However, as to the case of SC occurring in the context of intimate relationships, this view may be reversed. The timing of the “first sexual intercourse” is a common issue faced by dating heterosexual couples in an increasingly intimate relationship. What happens if one partner is ready for sex and the other is not? What if SC occurs in the onset of a dating couple’s first sexual activity? Could we use social exchange framework to study such sexual phenomena? This study aims to explore the relationships between male partners’ social exchange variables (such as investment and alternatives) and women’s coerced first sexual intercourse (WCFSI) among Chinese college students’ dating relationships.

Social Exchange and SC in Intimate Relationships

Byers and Wang (2004) argued that SC in intimate relationships, which is a neglected topic, could be examined from a social exchange perspective. For example, both men and women report engaging in unwanted sex because their partners threatened to end the relationship or find new partners, and that this has made them feel guilty or inadequate, or made them question their sexuality (Muehlenhard & Cook, 1988). These experiences may be associated with a number of negative psychological outcomes, which suggests that SC is experienced as a cost (Marelich, Lundquist, Painter, & Mechanic, 2008). Baumeister (2001b) also addresses using social exchange theory to explain an assortment of sexual behaviors, including rape and SC. He argues that courtship rape patterns suggest that males who conduct SC have an implicit concept of exchange. As to the question of “why would a man force his female partner that he has an intimate relationship with,” the author proposes that “he may well feel that he has invested a substantial amount of time, energy, and expense into wooing her and that her refusal to have sexual intercourse is an unfair refusal to give him what he has earned” (Baumeister, 2001b, p. 8).

Investment and alternatives, which arise from the social exchange perspective, are considered by the current study. Some men expect sex after investing time and effort into the relationship. Through comparison, and though experiencing inequity distress, they still may be refused sex by female partners, and then may try to rectify the imbalance. Some may choose the most costly strategy: SC. According to the model of date rape developed by Shotland (1989), forced sex in established dating relationships (relational date rape) distinguishes itself from the other two types (beginning date rape and early date rape), and is associated with imbalances of exchange and the social comparison process. From a social exchange perspective, the male partner’s greater investment (absolute level) and balance of investment (comparison level) may relate to an increased expectation of sex with the partner, which may constitute a justification to persist with sexually coercing the partner.

The male partner’s alternatives, which could reflect social comparison within sexual interaction in intimate relationships, are operationally defined as the male partner’s other options outside the current relationship, especially in reference to dating or having sex with other women/another woman. Quality of alternatives has been empirically tested to be the predictor of extradyadic involvement in dating relationships (Martins et al., 2016; McAlister, Pachana, & Jackson, 2005) or the ending of the current dating relationship (Copp, Giordano, Longmore, & Manning, 2015; Sprecher, 2001). The alternatives in these studies are mostly not known by the partner. What if the male partner’s alternatives are made explicit to his partner and used to emotionally pressure the partner to have sex with him? For our purpose, assume the man does not intend to have extradyadic activities or break up with his partner; he just wants to increase his bargaining chip under the disadvantaged circumstance (i.e., being refused when request to have sex with the partner). The present study hypothesizes that the male partner’s alternatives would correlate with the occurrence of SC in dating relationships.

Cultural Context and Studies of SC in Chinese Intimate Relationships

Treasuring the bride’s virginity has a long history in China, and still exists. It is called “virginity membrane adoration” or “virginity complex,” and is found among both genders (Pan, 2004). Sexual double standards also still exist around premarital sex. Men want to enjoy sexual pleasure as soon as possible while still wishing to marry a virgin girl, but women are expected to retain their virginity until marriage, and will be in a weaker position if not a virgin. The average age at which young Chinese people first have sex is later than most of their Western counterparts. Sex before the age of 18 is rare for both genders, and 19 to 24 appears to be the normative range for one’s sexual debut (Guo, Wu, Qiu, Chen, & Zheng, 2012; He, Tsang, Zou, & Wu, 2010). Disagreements about when to first have sex could be a key issue for Chinese dating couples. SC related to first sex within Chinese intimate relationships has been found to be not uncommon (X. Wang, 2006; B. Wang & Davidson, 2006).

The Present Study

This study aimed to explore male partners’ investment and alternatives as correlates of WCFSI in dating relationships, using a Chinese college student sample. The research hypotheses are male partner’s investment, alternatives and the balance of investment within the relationship would be the correlates of his sexually coercive behavior toward female partner in an intimate relationship.

Method

Participants

Participants were purposively sampled from eight universities in five major cities in China (Beijing, Shanghai, Xi’an, Shenzhen, and Hong Kong). College students currently in a heterosexual dating relationship were eligible for inclusion in the study. A total of 1,203 questionnaires were distributed, of which 1,172 (97.4%) were collected. Participants who answered invalidly or incompletely, validly but who were single (n = 124), or who were nonheterosexual (n = 37) were excluded from data analysis. “Invalidly” was defined as not answering items in accordance with the instructions (there are some items with skipping options and the participants were required to skip to the right section), while “incomplete” was defined as answering up to 20% of the items (n = 30), validly but incompletely (n = 83). Complete, valid, and eligible data were drawn from 927 college students who were not partnered to one another (not dyadic data). The study was based on a response rate of 77.1% (927/1,203). The response rate for each city was 72.9% (Beijing), 80.7% (Shanghai), 82.8% (Xi’an), 74% (Shenzhen), and 74% (Hong Kong).

Among the 927 accepted questionnaires, participants were aged between 17 and 33 years (M = 20.87; SD = 1.45; 439 men and 488 women). Shenzhen residents were the largest percentage (23.9%) of those surveyed, followed by Shanghai (22.5%), Xi’an (22.3%), Beijing (18.9%), and Hong Kong (12.3%). Participants were also asked to state their place of origin. They came from 32 provinces or regions of China, such as Guangdong (22.2%), Hong Kong (12.4%), and Shanghai (10.2%).

Regarding other general information (grade, major, place of origin), 68 (7.3%) reported they were freshmen, 307 (33.2%) were sophomores, 309 (33.4%) were juniors, 216 (23.3%) were seniors, and 26 (2.8%) were fifth-year seniors. They were majoring in a diverse range of subjects, including business/finance (25.2%), science (18.8%), social science (12.3%), art (10.4%), engineering (8.9%), education (7.8%), medicine (7.7%), law (3.9%), and architecture (2.4%). Most (n = 476, 51.4%) came from large or medium-sized cities; 279 (30.1%) came from small cities and 171 (18.5%) were from rural areas.

Regarding their current relationship status, a total of 192 (20.7%) participants reported they were in the early dating stage, 177 (19.1%) were in the exploring stage, and 558 (60.2%) were in the established stage. These three subjective options (early, exploring and established stage)—as used in He et al. (2010)—“reflected how long participants” had been dating. The three relationship categories were defined as (a) early stage (the dating couple have been in a formal romantic relationship for at least 3 months), (b) exploring stage (the dating couple have been in a formal romantic relationship for at least 1 year), and (c) established stage (the dating couple have intentions to get married).

As for the number of times they had previously been in a dating relationship, 31.4% of participants said never, 30.9% only once, 20.1% twice, 12.9% three to five times, and 4.8% more than five times. As to the length of their current relationships, 41 (4.4%) participants reported 0 to 4 weeks, 109 (11.8%) stated 1 to 3 months, 116 (12.5%) said 3 to 6 months, 186 (20.1%) reported 6 months to 1 year, 214 (23.1%) reported 1 to 2 years, and 260 (28.1%) reported 2 years or more.

Measures

This survey included both men and women college students as respondents, while the focus of the study was on women as victims in the SC. Identical but gender-specific versions of the questionnaire were developed, tested, and used. The following measures adopt a male version as an example.

Demographic information

Demographic questions gathered basic information about gender, age, grade, major, place of origin, sexual orientation, current relationship status, the length of dating relationships, and the number of times they had been in a dating relationship.

Investment (self-report and partner’s perceived report)

Investment was assessed by five global items of one construct (investment size) using an investment model scale (Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998) with a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Participants evaluated their investment and their perceptions of their partner’s investment. There were two identical subscales (five items in each subscale) in this part, with different subjects. The item scores were summarized to obtain a total score indicating levels of investment (self-report and partner’s perceived report). High scores indicated a high level of investment. Sample sentences included “I have put a great deal into our relationship that I would lose if the relationship were to end” (self-report), and “My partner has put a great deal into our relationship that he would lose if the relationship were to end” (perceived partner’s report). One composite variable is investment balance which is counted as male partner’s investment minus his partner’s perceived investment. This variable reflects a subjective comparison of investment between partners within the relationship. In designing the Chinese version of the investment model scale (Rusbult et al., 1998), the authors followed guidelines proposed in the literature on cross-cultural methodology (Brislin, 1986), in terms of independent/blind/back translation, educated translation, and small-scale pretests. The alpha value of investment was α = .76 (self-report) and α = .80 (partner’s perceived report), respectively.

Male partners’ alternatives

Male partners’ alternatives were assessed by five global items of one construct (alternatives) using the investment model scale (Rusbult et al., 1998), with a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Male participants evaluated their alternatives outside the relationship, and female participants were requested to evaluate their male partners’ perceived alternatives outside the relationship. The item scores were summarized to obtain a total score for the general evaluation of alternatives. High scores indicated male partners having alternatives. One sentence was “If I weren’t dating my partner, I would do fine, and I would find another appealing person to date.” The alpha value of alternatives was α = .74.

The revised Sexual Coercion in Intimate Relationships Scale (SCIRS) in Chinese

The revised SCIRS in Chinese (including six screening items plus 33 coercive tactics items; He, Tsang, & Li, 2013) was used in this study to measure the coercive tactics used on WCFSI. The screening items were designed before answering the coercion questions, to demonstrate a core definition of SC, which is an interactive process.

Screening questions (six items)

Six items were placed as screening questions: (a) “I or my girlfriend has asked (directly or indirectly) for ‘our first sex’” (yes/no; if “no,” then skip the following items); (b) “After ___ in our relationship, I or my girlfriend asked for ‘our first sex’” (0-4 weeks, 1-3 months, 3-6 months, 6 months to 1 year, 1 to 2 years, 2 years above); (c) “At that time, our relationship was at the ___ stage” (early, exploring, established); (d) “The one who initiated the first sex request was (me/my girlfriend)”; (e) “After addressing the sex request, the response was (no objection/my girlfriend rejected me/I rejected my girlfriend)”; (f) “After being rejected, the initiator continued to request sex (yes/no).” Male participants who answered (a) “yes,” (d) “me,” (e) “my girlfriend rejected me,” and (f) “yes”—or, likewise, female participants who answered (a) “yes,” (d) “my boyfriend,” (e) “I rejected my boyfriend,” and (f) “yes”—can be counted as “the boy had intent to coerce his girlfriend into having their first sex” and were regarded as the valid targets of this study. These participants were instructed to continue answering the following items, which measured coercive tactics.

Coercive tactics (33 items)

The coercive tactics items included three components: (a) Emotional Manipulation (19 items), defined as men who emotionally manipulate their partners by telling them that the relationship status obligates sexual access (such as “I told my partner that it was her obligation or duty to have sex with me”); (b) Defection Threat (seven items), defined as men who threaten to pursue casual affairs or long-term relationships with other women (such as “I hinted that other women were willing to have sex with me”); and (c) Threats of Violence (seven items), defined as men who threaten or use violence and physical force (such as “I threatened to physically force my partner to have sex with me”). The revised SCIRS asked how often the participant performed 33 sexually coercive acts, within the specific evaluation period—that is, leading up to their first time sex with the partner. Responses were recorded using a 6-point Likert-type scale: 0 = act did not occur, 1 = act occurred 1 time, 2 = act occurred 2 times, 3 = act occurred 3 to 5 times, 4 = act occurred 6 to 10 times, and 5 = act occurred 11 or more times. The item scores were summarized to obtain a total score (using “WCFSI” as the indicator in the following results session) and three component scores. High scores indicated frequent sexually coercive acts. For the whole sample, alpha values for the full scale and the three components (emotional manipulation, defection threat, and violence threat) were α = .86, α = .86, α = .85, and α = .78, respectively. For the male sample (men’s self-reports), alpha values for the full scale and the three components were α = .88, α = .88, α = .73, and α = .56, respectively. For the female sample (perceived partner’s reports), alpha values for the full scale and the three components were α = .84, α = .83, α = .89, and α = .85, respectively. This scale has shown good reliability and validity; further validation details can be found in He et al. (2013).

Procedure

To enhance the completion rate and data quality, the research assistants (RA) and student helpers (SH) for data collection were trained by the researcher and given clear and identical research implementation manuals. The RAs were responsible for recruiting, selecting, and training SHs to collect questionnaires. The eligible participants were limited to those currently in a dating relationship. A total of 116 SHs were responsible for recruiting prospective participants, who were mostly classmates, roommates, or close friends. The SHs were recruited by on-campus ads and paid according to the number of collected questionnaires. Through their social networks, the SHs learnt how to approach prospective participants, which were defined by the implementation manuals as “college students who are currently in a dating relationship (if they are dating couples, the SHs only choose one of them).” To avoid over-inclusion of participants from a particular network, SHs were selected from a variety of grades and majors, and each SH was allowed to recruit no more than 10 participants. When a prospective participant agreed to participate in the survey, the SH made an appointment with the participant and arranged a venue where the participant could answer the questionnaire in private. At the appointment, the SH showed the participant two consent forms, the questionnaire, and a security envelope. The consent forms were signed by both the SH and the participant. The participant was instructed to first read and sign the consent form, and then answer the questionnaire, place the answered questionnaire in the envelope, and seal the envelope. The participant was instructed not to seal the signed consent form inside the envelope to maintain anonymity. The sealed envelope, with the answered questionnaire inside, was placed by the participant into a paper bag that contained other sealed envelopes. After the survey, the SH answered any questions about the survey and gave the participant a thank-you gift (e.g., a range of stationery). The participants were sent the final research report if they left their email addresses at the end of the questionnaire. This is a one-to-one way of surveying, and the SHs were not allowed to read the collected questionnaires before or after they were sealed. These procedures were established in pilot studies in different cities, and the participants all shared great confidence that such procedures would ensure their comfort and enhance their happiness about entering honest data.

The data were gathered between September 2008 and February 2009. The university Institutional Review Board reviewed this study for compliance with the protection of human subjects, and granted ethical approval.

Results

In the total sample of those who were currently in a dating relationship (N = 927), 443 (47.8%) participants (213 males and 230 females) reported that they had been or were being requested to consent to first sexual intercourse with their partner, while 484 (52.2%) reported otherwise. These 443 participants would answer “investment” (self and partner) and alternatives (male partner) items. Of those 443 participants, 424 (95.7%) reported that it was the boyfriend (BF) who initiated the sexual request, while 19 (4.3%) reported that it was the girlfriend’s (GF) initiation. After the request, 158 (35.7%) of 442 participants reported that they had not encountered any rejection; 276 (62.4%) reported that the girlfriend rejected the boyfriend’s sexual request; only eight (1.9%) reported that the boyfriend rejected the girlfriend’s request, and one participant did not provide an answer. Of the 276 participants who reported that the boyfriend was rejected by the girlfriend, 170 reported that the boyfriend still continued to request sex with the girlfriend, while 106 did not. Thus, these 170 participants (72 males and 98 females) can be classified as “BF’s coercion of GF,” who were the real targets and subsample for data analysis of this study. These 170 participants would answer sexually coercive tactics items. The occurrence ratio of WCFSI within dating couples can be counted as 170/443 (38.4%). Within the data analysis subsample, 30 (18.2%) participants reported they were currently at the early dating stage, 106 (64.2%) reported being at the exploring dating stage and 29 (17.6%) reported being at the established dating stage.

There were three variables and one composite variable drawn from social exchange theory in this study, which were investment_self (self-report), investment_partner (partner-report), alternative_male and the balance of investment (investment_self − investment_partner). Table 1 shows the descriptive result of these four social exchange theoretical variables, the total score of WCFSI, and its three components, for the male and female sample separately. One-way ANOVA was conducted to examine the gender difference between the variables from social exchange theory and WCFSI. Results show that there were no significant gender differences between these variables.

Table 1.

Descriptive Result of Social Exchange Theoretical Variables and WCFSI.

	Male			Female
	n	M	SD	n	M	SD
Investment_self	213	4.85	1.10	230	4.62	1.13
Investment_partner	210	5.01	1.10	229	4.74	1.07
Investment_balance	210	−.15	1.08	229	−.12	1.09
Alternative_male	212	4.38	1.02	229	4.11	1.06
WCFSI	72	.47	.47	98	.41	.37
Emotional manipulation	72	.71	.69	98	.58	.52
Defection threat	72	.22	.37	98	.26	.55
Violence threat	72	.09	.29	98	.10	.47

Note. WCFSI = women’s coerced first sexual intercourse.

Table 2 showed the correlations between these four social exchange theoretical variables, and WCFSI and its three components, for the male and female sample separately. Results show that in the male sample, emotional manipulation significantly, positively correlated with investment (self-report), and defection threat significantly positively correlated with alternative_male. Among these variables, there were no significant correlations in the female sample. Therefore, the following multiple regressions were only conducted in the male sample.

Table 2.

Correlations Between Social Exchange Theoretical Variables and WCFSI.

Sample	Social Exchange Theoretical Variables	WCFSI	Emotional Manipulation	Defection Threat	Violence Threat
Male (n = 72)	Investment_self	.18	.23*	−.06	−.07
	Investment_partner	.06	.08	.04	−.09
	Investment_balance	.13	.18	−.16	.02
	Alternative_male	.02	−.07	.33**	.14
Female (n = 98)	Investment_self	.05	.00	.05	.12
	Investment_partner	.10	.06	.09	.10
	Investment_balance	−.06	−.06	−.04	.02
	Alternative_male	.03	−.07	.16	.15

Note. WCFSI = women’s coerced first sexual intercourse.

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

To test these four social exchange variables’ relations with WCFSI and its three components in the male sample, four multiple regressions were performed, respectively, after controlling for two relationship variables—the length of dating relationships and the number of times they had been in a dating relationship (see Table 3). WCFSI and its three components (emotional manipulation, defection threat, and violence threat) were put into these four multiple regression equation models as the dependent variable, respectively. Two relationship variables were first put into the equation as the controlled variables, then four social exchange variables (Investment_self, Investment_partner, Alternative_male, Investment_balance) were put into the equation as the independent variables. Results showed that in the male sample, only the regression model of defection threat was significant. Alternative_male positively predicted defection threat.

Table 3.

Testing the Predictive Effect of Four Social Exchange Variables on WCFSI and Its Three Components (Male Sample, n = 72).

Dependent Variable	Independent Variables	ΔR²	F	β
WCFSI		−.01	0.73
	Investment_partner			.13
	Alternative_male			.02
	Investment_balance			.19
Emotional manipulation		.02	1.45
	Investment_partner			.18
	Alternative_male			−.06
	Investment_balance			.24
Defection threat		.08	2.95*
	Investment_partner			−.07
	Alternative_male			.31*
	Investment_balance			−.11
Violence threat		−.01	0.80
	Investment_partner			−.12
	Alternative_male			.17
	Investment_balance			.02

Note. ΔR² = adjusted R². WCFSI = women’s coerced first sexual intercourse.

p < .05.

Discussion

Social exchange theory involves the interpersonal context (Byers & Wang, 2004), which uses concepts and theory to explain SC in close relationships (Baumeister, 2001b; Shotland, 1989). It proposes that imbalances of investment may trigger those who have invested more to attempt to recover the imbalance through SC in intimate relationships. Although there are some previous studies that have suggested that social exchange variables may be related to courtship rape or date rape (Baumeister, 2001b; Baumeister & Vohs, 2012; Byers & Wang, 2004; Shotland, 1989), there remains a lack of empirical studies applying social exchange theory to predicting SC in close relationships. This study tested the hypothesis, drawn from social exchange theory, to fill this research gap. We hypothesized that male partner’s investment, alternatives and the balance of investment within the relationship would be the correlates of his sexually coercive behavior toward female partner in an intimate relationship, and these hypotheses have been partially supported in this study.

In China, SC in intimate relationships does exist and sometimes occurs in the context of a dating couple’s first sex (Pan, 2004; Tang, Critelli, & Porter, 1995; X. Wang, 2006; B. Wang & Davidson, 2006). Results show that the occurrence ratio of WCFSI was actually not low (38.4%) in Chinese college students who are in dating relationships. And most WCFSI occurred at the exploring dating stage (64.4%), defined as “dating couple have been in a formal romantic relationship for at least one year.” Compared with early stage and established stage dating, the exploring dating stage means that dating couples are at the intimate relationship stage, which is full of heightened passion, intense interactive exploration and even conflict. Social exchange within dating relationships at this stage may be more varied, unstable, and unbalanced.

This study examined four social exchange variables’ relations with WCFSI in dating relationships, which included investment_male, investment_female, investment_balance, and alternatives_male. Results indicate that in the male sample, investment_male positively correlated with emotional manipulation tactics, while in the female sample, there were no such observations. In the further multiple regression analysis, investment_male did not have any significant predictive effect on WCFSI or any of its three components. This result did not echo Baumeister’s (2001b) and Shotland’s (1989) view that an imbalance of investment may lead to the occurrence of SC in intimate relationships. There may be several explanations for this refusal of the hypothesis. First, the sample size for data analysis was small (72 males and 98 females who reported such coercive experience). Second, it may be the measurement issues, which is that inequity of investment should not be calculated as the net investment of self minus partner (relative investment), but just the perception of one’s investment (absolute investment). Or in future research, the measurement of inequity of investment could be presented as only one question for the respondent, who would evaluate only how he or she feels about his or her investment into the relationship, compared with the partner, or by using dyadic data to analyze the effect of inequity of investment within dating relationships. Besides the sample size and measurement issues, the relation between investment and WCFSI could be explored at the different dating stages in future studies.

Female partner’s investment did not have any correlative effect on WCFSI in this study. This result could align with social exchange theory on sexuality in close relationships; that is, sex is a female resource that the male makes exchanges for, by inputting enough investment. The same investment (time, money, energy, etc.) within an intimate relationship may have different social meaning for each gender.

The hypothesis regarding alternatives_male was supported. Results show that in the male sample, alternatives_male positively correlates with defection threat tactics, and in the multiple regression analysis, alternatives_male could still positively predict defection threat tactics, after controlling two relationship variables. Perhaps the defection threat was a real; the male coercer already had an alternative besides his partner, which became his bargaining chip used to coerce his partner. Shotland (1989) suggests that, as distinguished from the other two types (beginning date rape and early date rape), forced sex in established dating relationships (relational date rape) is associated with the social comparison process. This social comparison would enhance the leverage of the male partner to sexually coerce his partner in an exploring stage of the dating relationship. Due to the limited sample size in each dating stage, we could not test whether alternatives_male and investment_male would have different correlative effects in different dating stages. Further research could enlarge the sample size to explore the relations between these two social exchange variables and sexually coercive behavior in different dating stages. Because our results show that most WCFSI occurred at the exploring dating stage (64.4%) and alternatives_male has a predictive effect on defection threat tactics (although the effect size is not large), we speculate that social exchange theory may be more suitable to explain some types of SC in intimate relationships than others, such as SC occurring at the exploring dating stage. This hypothesis could be tested in future studies.

Some limitations and recommendations need to be noted. One limitation is the cross-sectional research design, so the predictive effect of social exchange variables on SC variables could not be tested. Another limitation is the use of only one partner’s report on dyadic behavior. Although the SHs were required to collect data from one of the dating couple, we still could not completely ensure whether there are some dyadic data among the total data. Future research could try to intentionally collect only dyadic data to test this sexually interactive problem. The representativeness and size of the sample is also limited, as it drew on college students with dating experience from eight universities in five large cities in China, by using a purposive snowball sampling strategy. This was not a probability sample and cannot represent all Chinese college students. Future research could involve second- or third-tier cities in China and enlarge the sample size. Another limitation is that this study only examined sexually coercive behavior occurring in the situation of a dating couple’s first sex. Future studies could further explore the relation between variables from social exchange theory and other types of SC in intimate relationships. Moreover, the variables drawn from social exchange theory included only investment and alternatives; other relevant variables (such as perceived imbalance of investment, equity/equality, or comparison level) could be studied in SC research. Finally, the weak statistical power of the results in this study suggested that other theoretical variables (such as attachment theory, feminist theory or evolutionary theory) may explain the occurrence of WCFSI.

In conclusion, this study has preliminarily demonstrated that social exchange theory have potential for explaining SC within intimate contexts, and has added the available knowledge in SC studies. Besides its theoretical and research implications, this study has implications for practice application. It could play a positive role in sex education, clinical counseling, and prevention or intervention programs. The content of social exchange process as a way of understanding intimate relationships could be added to sex education textbooks, especially in chapters about SC or violence. As to clinical counseling, assessing the client’s social exchange mode with their partner would be an important step. Regarding the prevention of, or intervention into, SC in dating relationships, researchers could target persons showing problematic sexual interaction with their partners, and design an intervention program focusing on improving healthy sexual interaction within the intimate relationships.

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.

Author Biographies

Shanshan He is an assistant professor at the Department of Social Work of East China Normal University. She received a PhD in sexual health study from The University of Hong Kong. Her research focuses on sexuality in close relationships and health social work.

Sandra Tsang is an associate professor of the Department of Social Work and Social Administration of The University of Hong Kong. She is a Registered Clinical Psychologist, and a Registered Social Worker. Her research, publications and media profile focus on parent education, children with special educational needs, children and youth development, and drug prevention.

References

Baumeister

R. F.

(2001a). The social dimension of sex. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Baumeister

R. F.

(2001b). Social psychology, social exchange, and sexuality. In Baumeister

R. F.

(Ed.), Social psychology and human sexuality (pp. 1-24). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Baumeister

R. F.

Vohs

K. D.

(2004). Sexual economics: Sex as female resource for social exchange in heterosexual interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 339-363.

Baumeister

R. F.

Vohs

K. D.

(2012). Sexual economics, culture, men, and modern sexual trends. Society, 49, 520-524.

Brislin

R. W.

(1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In Lonner

W. J.

Berry

J. W.

(Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137-164). Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage.

Byers

E. S.

Wang

(2004). Understanding sexuality in close relationships from the social exchange perspective. In Harvey

J. H.

Wenzel

Sprecher

(Eds.), The handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 203-234). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Christopher

F. S.

Sprecher

(2000). Sexuality in marriage, dating, and other relationships: A decade review. Journal of Marriage & Family, 62, 999-1017.

Copp

J. E.

Giordano

P. C.

Longmore

M. A.

Manning

W. D.

(2015). Stay-or-leave decision making in nonviolent and violent dating relationships. Violence and Victims, 30, 581-599.

Enosh

(2007). Cognition or involvement? Explaining sexual-coercion in high-school dating. Sexual Abuse—A Journal of Research and Treatment, 19, 311-329.

10.

Guo

Qiu

Chen

Zheng

X. Y.

(2012). The timing of sexual debut among Chinese youth. International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 38, 196-204.

11.

Tsang

(2013). A revision of the Sexual Coercion in Intimate Relationships Scale for young adults in China. Violence and Victims, 28, 483-495.

12.

Tsang

Zou

(2010). Psychometric properties of the sexual attitudes scale in a sample of unmarried Chinese young adults. Journal of Sex Research, 47, 269-278.

13.

Kelley

H. H.

(1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York, NY: John Wiley.

14.

Marelich

W. D.

Lundquist

Painter

Mechanic

M. B.

(2008). Sexual deception as a social-exchange process: Development of a behavior-based sexual deception scale. Journal of Sex Research, 45, 27-35.

15.

Martins

Pereira

Andrade

Dattilio

F. M.

Narciso

Canavarro

M. C.

(2016). Infidelity in dating relationships: Gender-specific correlates of face-to-face and online extradyadic involvement. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 193-205.

16.

McAlister

A. R.

Pachana

Jackson

C. J.

(2005). Predictors of young dating adults’ inclination to engage in extradyadic sexual activities: A multi-perspective study. British Journal of Psychology, 96, 331-350.

17.

Muehlenhard

C. L.

Cook

S. W.

(1988). Men’s self-reports of unwanted sexual activity. Journal of Sex Research, 24, 58-72.

18.

Pan

(2004). Dang dai zhong guo ren de xing xing wei yu xing guan xi [Sexual behavior and relation in contemporary China]. Beijing Shi, China: She hui ke xue wen xian chu ban she.

19.

Rusbult

C. E.

Martz

J. M.

Agnew

C. R.

(1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357-391.

20.

Shotland

R. L.

(1989). A model of the causes of date rape in developing and close relationships. In Hendrick

(Ed.), Close relationships (pp. 247-270). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

21.

Sprecher

(1998). Social exchange theories and sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 32-43.

22.

Sprecher

(2001). Equity and social exchange in dating couples: Associations with satisfaction, commitment, and stability. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 599-613.

23.

Sprecher

McKinney

(1993). Sexuality. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

24.

Struckman-Johnson

Anderson

P. B.

(2003). Tactics of sexual coercion: When men and women won’t take no for an answer. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 76-86.

25.

Tang

C. S.-K.

Critelli

J. W.

Porter

J. F.

(1995). Sexual aggression and victimization in dating relationships among Chinese college students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 24, 47-53.

26.

Thibaut

J. W

. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York, NY: John Wiley.

27.

Wang

Davidson

(2006). Sex, lies, and videos in rural China: A qualitative study of women’s sexual debut and risky sexual behavior. Journal of Sex Research, 43, 227-235.

28.

Wang

(2006). Dating violence in post-socialist Beijing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.