Intersections of Childhood Victimization Experiences,Gender,and Dominance: The Makings for Sexual Coercion Transnationally?

Abstract

Although the use of sexual violence has been widely researched, data on sexual offending tend to be limited. Since adverse childhood experiences have been found to be correlated with being a victim of sexually coercive behavior, more research is needed to understand the impact of adverse childhood experiences on the perpetration of sexually coercive behaviors. Yet, there is little published research explaining such risk factors for sexually coercive behaviors and even less transnationally. This study seeks to expand the current literature by exploring the impact of violence and dominance-based beliefs on sexually coercive behaviors. Using data from the International Dating Violence Survey, the results from multilevel modeling regression analysis indicate that beliefs in relational dominance moderate the relationship between violent childhood experiences and sexually coercive behaviors. More importantly, despite theoretical premises that men engage in more sexually coercive behaviors, the results found that sexually coercive behaviors are more prevalent among those who hold dominance-based belief systems over intimate partners regardless of gender. Implications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords

sexual coercion dominance violence gender international

Elements of a nation’s culture influence the perpetration of sexually coercive behavior (DeGue et al., 2010). One of these elements involves the socialization of youth. When childhood experiences involve violence, both direct and vicarious experiences, these experiences may permeate socialization processes and invoke the normative transmission of violence. This transmission may be particularly salient when youth are faced with conflict and the resolution of that conflict involves direct experiences with violence, witnessing others use violence, and being advised to engage in violence to resolve conflict. Because socialization transmits cultural values of society, culture may then be reflected in behavioral choices (Gorman-Smith & Tolan, 1998). This includes the use of sexually coercive behaviors toward an intimate partner who resists sexual relations.

With research indicating a high prevalence of sexually coercive behaviors within intimate relationships (Forbes & Adams-Curtis, 2001; O’Leary et al., 2007; Parkhill Purdie et al., 2010; Poppen & Segal, 1988; Williams et al., 2008), more information is necessary to understand the risk factors for sexual perpetration within intimate relationships (e.g., see Casey, Beadnell, & Lindhorst, 2009; Koss, Gidycz, & Wisniewski, 1987; Milletich et al., 2010; Zurbriggen et al., 2010). But most research on the perpetration of sexually coercive behaviors focuses on the United States (e.g., Forbes & Adams-Curtis, 2001; Poppen & Segal, 1988). We have yet to understand whether there might be culturally based issues, such as patterns of similar childhood violent experiences across nations, that shape sexually coercive behaviors within an intimate relationship. Therefore, more is needed to understand the contributing factors to sexually coercive behaviors from an international perspective.

If childhood is inundated with experiences of violence, youth become inculcated with a normative sense that conflict resolution between intimate partners is achieved through violent means. Such violent conflict resolution between intimate partners may instill belief in dominance over others in order to achieve specific goals. When one intimate partner desires sexual relations despite the wishes of the other partner, the intimate partner may take a dominant position in order to engage in sexual activity. This dominance may manifest as sexually coercive behaviors, a range of behaviors used to achieve sexual goals over unwilling intimate partner, from assertive, aggressive nonphysical coercion to physical force.

But belief systems alone may be erratic predictors of sexually coercive behaviors (White & Koss, 1993). The influence of violent childhood experiences and the belief systems of the perpetrator become important factors in predicting the use of sexually coercive behavior. Yet there appears to be no published studies exploring childhood violent experiences, exasperated by dominance-based belief systems, manifesting as sexually coercive behaviors. By examining individual- and national-level influences on the perpetration of sexually coercive behaviors, this study seeks to understand the extent to which sexual coercion manifests culturally within and between nations. Since the intersection of belief systems and experiences tends to shape behavior toward others and may be particularly salient in the use of sexually coercive behaviors (Berkowitz et al., 1994), the combination of violent experiences and beliefs supporting relational dominance could favor a need for power within intimate relationships. Such an entitlement may be manifested within sexually coercive behaviors.

This study will address these theoretical propositions by seeking to know (1) to what degree do violent childhood experiences impact the use of sexually coercive behaviors on an intimate partner across different nations and (2) is variation in this relationship based on belief in relational dominance. The study further explores the impact of these experiences and beliefs as they relate to gender specific responses to sexual conflict within an intimate relationship to determine whether there are gender differences in the perpetration of sexually coercive behaviors on an intimate partner across different nations? Answers to these questions will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the risk factors for sexually coercive behaviors transnationally.

Sexual Coercion

Sexually coercive behaviors can be defined as actions made in deliberate attempt to engage in sexual behavior despite resistance by an intimate partner. Sexually coercive behaviors may include violence such as threats and forced intercourse. But not all actions associated with sexually coercive behaviors occur as a result of force. Sexually coercive behavior is mostly subtle behaviors to induce compliance with unwanted sexual acts. Such subtle behaviors include emotional manipulation (e.g., Byers & Eno, 1991; Struckman-Johnson et al., 2003; Zurbriggen, 2003) or psychological threats (e.g., Basile, 1999; Schatzel-Murphy et al., 2009; Shackleford & Goetz, 2004). Sexual coercion can also include a range of physical behaviors without direct force such as providing substances to victim to induce a compliant state regardless of willingness (e.g., DeGue et al., 2010). The unwilling partner may only be made aware of the coercive behaviors if the perpetrator engages in the most violent types of coercion in order to achieve sexual intercourse (Saldivar Hernandez & Romero Mendoza, 2009).

Factors Associated With Sexually Coercive Behaviors

There are different risk factors associated with the perpetration of physical sexual violence within intimate relationships (Abbey et al., 2006; Capaldi et al., 2001; Schwartz & DeSeredy, 1997). Attitudes supporting the manipulation of an intimate partner have been found to be associated with the use of sexual violence (DeGue et al., 2010). Less is known about the risk factors associated with the perpetration of sexually coercive behaviors, inclusive of emotional and psychological tactics used on unwilling partner to ensure their compliance with unwanted sexual acts. It is imperative to begin an exploration of risk factors that encompass both experiences and psyche that shape sexually coercive behaviors.

Violent childhood experiences

Research has shown that childhood violence is correlated with being a victim of sexually coercive behavior (Gàmez-Guadix, Straus, & Hershberger, 2011; Hines, 2007) and one consequence is the perpetration of sexually coercive behaviors (Forsman et al., 2015; Gàmez-Guadix et al., 2011). Violence is not always limited to physical acts against children. Violent childhood experiences can include exposure to violence such as witnessing violence. Youth chronically exposed to violence during their childhood are more likely to engage in violent behavior (Spano et al., 2010), including the use of violence within intimate relationships (Margolin & Gordis, 2000) such as sexually coercive behavior (DeGue et al., 2010). This childhood violence can stem from exposure to familial violence (Forbes & Adams-Curtis, 2001; Gorman-Smith & Tolan, 1998; Lyndon et al., 2007) or advising youth to engage in violence to resolve conflict. Adults advising youth to respond to violence with their own violence may reinforce violence as an accepted means of resolving conflict. These communications can manifest, over time, as proviolent messages. Violent communication becomes another manifestation of violent childhood experiences. All of these experiences together, direct physical assault, exposure, and proviolent messages, can be theorized as normalized standards of violence rather than culturally inappropriate violence (e.g., see Delaney, 2015). Violent childhood experiences may be interwoven to a degree that separating different types of violent experiences into singular dimensions does not provide a robust exploration of the factors associated with the use of sexually coercive behaviors.

In all, the combination of different dimensions of violent childhood experiences may lead to an acceptance of using violence as a means to resolve conflict, including sexual conflict. Intimate partners who engage in aggressive behaviors have been found to also to engage in the perpetration of physical violence against their partner (Wright & Benson, 2010). This argument could be extended to the use of sexually coercive behaviors. An exploration into the full range of violent childhood experiences is necessary to determine whether there is an association with sexually coercive behaviors. This study offers this examination. But experiences alone cannot explain the manipulation involved in the use of sexually coercive behaviors. Beliefs about the manipulation of an intimate partner to engage in unwanted sexual acts must also be considered.

Belief in relational dominance

Dominance-based attitudes toward an intimate partner seem to increase the risk of engaging sexually coercive behaviors (DeGue et al., 2010; Malamuth et al., 1991). Predictors of sexually coercive behaviors must also include belief in relational dominance. Relational dominance involves three dimensions: decision-making power in the relationship, control over the partner’s behaviors, and negatively valuing the partner (Straus, 2008). Other studies attempting to empirically test these predictors for sexually coercive behaviors have failed to specifically include measures of dominance. Instead, the research has focused more on the role of hostile attitudes toward females to represent dominance (e.g., see Hines, 2007) or the socialization of dominance within males (e.g., Basile, 1999; Feder et al., 2010; Gage & Hutchinson, 2006; Goetz & Shackelford, 2009; Kahn & Paluzzi, 2006; Martin et al., 2005; Moore et al., 2010; Próspero & Fawson, 2010; Saldivar Hernandez & Romero Mendoza, 2009; Russell, 1975; Senn et al., 2000; Walker, 1997). Despite the support that gender hostility significantly predicts the use of coercive sexual behaviors transnationally, attitudes of hostility and beliefs in relational dominance are two separate constructs. Dominance is a power-based belief system (Russell, 1975). Hostility involves adversarial thoughts toward members of the opposite sex, such as general resentment and anger (Hines, 2007). Feelings of anger do not necessarily equate to seeking power over an intimate dating partner.

Males have been found to engage the use of sexual coercion more so than females in order to reinforce their dominance (Hines, 2007; Shackleford & Goetz, 2004). Males may not only be using sexually coercive behaviors to dominate their intimate partners to overcome resistance to sexual relations, but these behaviors may be reproductions of power within society. Male domination toward an intimate partner has been argued as being the product of culturally reinforced norms (Lottes & Weinberg, 1997). Perhaps this is why females tend to engage in less sexually coercive behaviors than males (Feiring et al., 2010; Fiebert & Tucci, 1998). Therefore, predictors of sexually coercive behaviors must account for gender differences.

Gender socialization

Much of the current research uses models of gender role socialization as the theoretical framework to explain the perpetration of sexually coercive behaviors (e.g., see Próspero & Fawson, 2010; Senn et al., 2000; Walker, 1997). Gender socialization involves the reinforcement of stereotypes based on cultural values of assigned gender behavior (Kendall, 2010). There may be differences in socialization experiences between males and females, and this may play out in how they pursue sexual relations within their intimate relationships. Males have traditionally been socialized into patterns of aggressiveness, including the use of coercion, in order to overcome their sexual partner’s reluctance and resistance to engaging in sexual relations (e.g., Russell, 1975). This is supported in that males who witness their fathers/father figures perpetrate violence toward their mothers may develop a sense of entitlement over their own female intimate partners (Lyndon et al., 2007).

Violent childhood experiences may contribute to the inculcation of violence as a normative response toward intimate partners when experiencing conflict surrounding the desire for sexual interaction. But such responses may be exasperated for males. Adolescent males who experienced violence within their family tend to have a gender-specific response in reaction to conflict (Kahn & Paluzzi, 2006; Mattingly & Straus, 2008). These contentions are supported in the current literature, given that males tend to use more sexually coercive behaviors, compared to females, in regard to sexual relations (Saldivar Hernandez & Romero Mendoza, 2009; Schatzel-Murphy et al., 2009) in an effort to dominate their female intimate partners (Basile, 1999; Gage & Hutchinson, 2006). Males are encouraged to disconnect from social ties with others, including intimate partners, which can increase the use of aggressive behaviors (Feder et al., 2010). Males may act out such violent childhood experiences differently than females due to developing a distorted sense of socially appropriate cues to negative responses and cultural norms supporting beliefs in relational dominance. Therefore, the impact of violent childhood experiences on sexually coercive behaviors cannot be investigated without also examining the effects from beliefs in relational dominance and the role of gender.

Transnational Comparisons

Culture plays an important role in how children are socialized (e.g., Hill & Tyson, 2008; Hofer et al., 2010; Zucker & Howes, 2009). The standards of acceptable socialization into the use of violence may be particularly salient when violent childhood experiences occur consistently across many groups within one nation. This may have the aggregate effect of violence as an accepted means to resolve conflict. For example, nonphysical aggression within an intimate relationship tends to predict the use of violence toward that intimate partner (Wright & Benson, 2010). Culture may be reflected within behavioral choices acted out toward intimate partners based on socialized experiences and beliefs. As another example, males tend to have dominance-based beliefs over females (see Krahé et al., 2005, for a review of the literature) based on cultural standards (Feder et al., 2010; Vandello & Cohen, 2003). When the social structure of a nation supports the use of relational dominance (Lottes & Weinberg, 1997), males are exposed to similar cultural standards in socialization processes (e.g., Keller et al., 2008; Levinson, 1989). This exposure can influence males’ level of aggressiveness, including coercion, in order to overcome female partners’ reluctance and resistance to engaging in sexual relations (Russell, 1975).

Transnational research on sexually coercive behaviors within intimate relationships tend to be elusive (Krahé et al., 2005), indicating that we still do not fully understand the factors associated with the perpetration of sexually coercive behavior across different nations. Emerging research examines contextual factors contributing to violent behaviors toward intimate partners across different nations. However, there are three major gaps within the currently published literature. First, the literature needs to include an exploration of the contextual factors that specifically contribute to the use of sexually coercive behaviors such as the combination of violent experiences and belief systems that support domination over an intimate partner. There are transnational differences in subtleties of views on sexual violence (e.g., Attar-Schwartz, 2009; Krahé et al., 2005; Kwon et al., 2007). This may be because people within the same nation tend to hold similar beliefs about violence and the accepted use of violent behavior toward intimate partners (e.g., Ben Ezra & Roer-Strier, 2009; Feder et al., 2010; Muftic & Bouffard, 2008; Sawyer et al., 2006; Uslucan, 2009; Vandello & Cohen, 2003; Vandello et al., 2009). Second, the research tends to examine comparisons of individual effects internationally rather than explore contexts. For example, Lottes and Weinberg (1997) make a contextual argument to explain the results of their research: Sweden has less perpetration of sexually coercive behaviors among its citizens compared to the United States due to lower levels of violence, both in terms of crime and interpersonal violence. However, Lottes and Weinberg did not analyze nationwide averages of sexually coercive behavior nor the impact of the crime rate or rate of interpersonal violence on sexually coercive behaviors. Therefore, they cannot confidently make this association. And finally, much of the current research seems to focus on the United States and other Western societies rather than take a full international consideration. There is a dearth of published research that explore the contexts that may explain the perpetration of sexually coercive behaviors at a national level across many different nations in different geographical locations. One reason may be that previous studies fail to provide consistent measures of violence across multiple nations in order to adequately test for contextual effects of violence.

Current Study

The current study fills these gaps in the literature by focusing on understanding the extent to which multiple violent experiences during childhood, in combination with beliefs in relational dominance, impact a range of behaviors used to procure sexual relations with an unwilling intimate partner transnationally. This study uses measures consistent across all nations. This study also begins to offer a theoretical argument to explain the contextual effect of violence across different nations. First, it is predicted (Hypothesis 1) that in nations where violent childhood experiences are more profound, sexually coercive behaviors will be more prevalent and particularly among males. This prediction cannot be made confidently without also acknowledging the other factors that contribute to the association between violent childhood experiences and the use of sexually coercive behaviors. This includes dominance-based beliefs toward an intimate partner. As such, it is predicted (Hypothesis 2) that within nations with higher levels of violent childhood experiences, the level of sexually coercive behaviors will depend on the degree to which the perpetrator holds dominance-based beliefs.

Method

This study tests these hypotheses using data from the International Dating Violence Study (IDVS). IDVS is an international cross-sectional sample of over 17,000 college and university students in 32 nations. More details of IDVS can be located at https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR29583.v1.

Sample

While the original dataset included 17,404 students, not all respondents answered questions about their belief in relational dominance and use of sexually coercive behaviors. In order to produce the least biased parameter estimates and standard errors, compared to imputation (Allison, 2002), cases with missing data were removed from the data set. The final sample size was 14,252 students from 32 nations.

Measures

All variables originate from the core questionnaire of the IDVS. Variables were not altered from the original state, including variables combined into a scale. Previously published research demonstrates both reliability and validity of these scales cross-culturally (see Straus, 2004, for details). To provide meaningful interpretation of true values for the dependent variable when using multilevel modeling regression (Hayes, 2006; Singer & Willett, 2003), all continuous measured independent and control variables were centered on the grand mean of responses (zero represents averages in the regression analyses). Correlations¹ among these variables were weak to moderate, indicating separate and independent measures. Table 1 lists the descriptive statistics for each of the variables.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics.

	Variable Name	Min.	Max.	Mean	Standard deviation
Level 1 (n = 14,252)
Violent experiences, family	ViolentFam	5	20	8.27	2.71
Dominance	dominance	7	28	14.24	3.05
Gender	gender	0	1	0.29	0.45
Age	age	18	55	23.11	6.26
Social Desirability Scale	socdesire	8	32	20.85	3.61
Level 2 (n = 32)
Violent experiences, community	VSComm	3	12	6.14	1.92
Sexual coercion	SexCoercion	0	175	2.80	2.04

Sexually coercive behavior

This dependent variable is a measure for the use of sexually coercive behaviors towards an intimate dating partner. It comprises of six items from the Sexual Coercion subscale of the Revised Conflict Tactic Scales (Straus et al., 1996). These items measure frequency of insisting on sexual intercourse when the partner did not want sexual intercourse but not using physical force, using threats to make the partner have sexual intercourse, and using force (like hitting, holding down, or using a weapon) to make partner have sexual intercourse. The variable reports the total use of self-reported sexually coercive behaviors reported by each participant during the year just prior to taking the IDVS survey. The average amount of sexually coercive behaviors was 3.24, ranging from a low of none (0) to a high of 175 acts. Due to highly negative skew, this scale was transformed by the natural log which produced a more normal distribution.

Violent childhood experiences

Violent childhood experiences involve two separate variables: Level 1 occurring within the family and Level 2 occurring within the community. Both variables are independent subscales from the violent socialization scale of the personal and relationships profile (see Straus et al., 1999), included in the IDVS. Responses categories in both scales are a 4-point Likert-type scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

Familial violent childhood experiences

The Level 1 independent variable measures respondents violent experiences within the family, including being hit by parents prior to age 12 (1) and as a teenager (2); witnessing domestic violence perpetrated by a parent (3) and a nonparent family member (4); and being advised by a parent to use violence to resolve conflict, either violent or verbal (5). Higher scores indicate the respondent had more violent childhood experiences within their family.

Communal violent childhood experiences

The Level 2 independent variable measures the degree to which respondents experienced direct or vicarious victimization within their community. The scale contains three items: experiencing violence from nonfamily; witnessing peer violence; and members being advised by nonfamily members to use violence to resolve conflict, either violent or verbal. Higher scores indicate the respondent had more violent childhood experiences within their community.

Dominance

This Level 1 predictor variable measures self-reported attitudes of dominance toward an intimate partner by the individual in the relationship with more advantage (i.e., relational dominance). This scale, from the Personal and Relationships Profile (Straus et al., 1999), includes three general domains of relational dominance authority, restrictiveness, and disparagement (see Straus, 2008). Example items include “I have the right to know everything my partner does” and “my partner needs to remember I’m in charge.” The scale uses six measures on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Higher scores indicate the participant more strongly approves of dominate-based attitudes toward an intimate dating partner.

Gender

This second Level 1 independent variable is the gender of the respondent, specifically measuring the self-identified biological sex of the respondent: male (1) or female (0).

Controls

The age of the respondent is used as a control variable. The Social Desirability Scale (i.e., the limited disclosure scale of the PRP, Straus et al., 1999) controls for socially desirable responses. It is possible respondents provided false answers about sensitive information, specifically the use of sexually coercive behaviors. Since men tend to underreport their perpetration of sexually coercive behaviors (e.g., Senn et al, 2000), it is important to include this control variable. The response categories are a 4-point Likert-type scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree, with higher scores indicating a greater likelihood the respondent answered dishonestly.

Data Analysis

As indicated in the Literature Review section, there are cultural factors that contribute to experiences and beliefs. This can create a contextual effect: clustering of groups that create an environment specific to that nation. In order to account for such a national contextual effect, multilevel modeling regression analysis is necessary (Bickel, 2007; Luke, 2004). This has the advantage of also controlling for the effects of clustering within the data set: Individuals are nested within families, which are in turn nested within nations. Ordinary least squares regression is not appropriate for this particular study due to the assumption that cases are statistically independent (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992), when these cases may not be.

Findings

Table 2 shows the results of the multilevel regression analysis. These results indicate that, on average, there was mean level of about 2.5 sexually coercive behavior across nations (Ɣ₀₀ = 2.606, p < .001) net of predictors and controls. There is significant variation in sexually coercive behaviors both within nations (σ²) and across different nations (T₀₀).

Table 2.

Multilevel Regression on Sexually Coercive Behavior.

Fixed Effects		Coefficient	Standard Errors
Level 1
Intercept	Ɣ₀₀	2.606***	0.357
Family violence	Ɣ₁₀	0.177***	0.030
dominance	Ɣ₂₀	0.250***	0.029
gender	Ɣ₃₀	0.598***	0.153
age	Ɣ₄₀	0.030*	0.012
socdesire	Ɣ₅₀	-0.074***	0.020
Famviolencedominance*	Ɣ₆₀	0.033***	0.009
genderdominance*	Ɣ₇₀	0.222***	0.048
Level 2
Community violence	Ɣ₀ ₁	0.140***	0.042
Commviolencedominance*	Ɣ₀₂	0.042***	0.013
Variance components (random effects)
Level 1: Within nation	σ²	61.227***	0.726
Level 2: Between nations	T₀₀	3.74***	1.014

Note. Level 1: n = 14,252; Level 2: n = 32.

*p ≤ 0.05. **p ≤ 0.01. ***p < 0.001.

Culturally based violence and sexually coercive behaviors

Violent childhood experiences within the family, part of the Level 1 analysis, indicate that sexually coercive behaviors, on average, tend to be significantly higher (Ɣ₁₀ = 0.177, p < .001) when accounting for family violence and net of controls. As the level of familial-level violent childhood experiences increase, the overall frequency of sexually coercive behaviors across nations, on average, increase by an estimate of 0.177 points with a mean of approximately 2.8 points (Ɣ₀₀ + Ɣ₁₀ = 2.783). The Level 2 analysis reveals that for the nations with above average levels of community-level violent childhood experiences, the overall level of sexually coercive behaviors across nations, on average, also tends to be significantly higher (Ɣ₀₁ = 0.140, p < .001), net of controls. As the level of community-level violent childhood experiences increase, the overall frequency of sexually coercive behaviors across nations, on average, increase by an estimate of 0.14 points with a mean of approximately 2.7 points (Ɣ₀₀ + Ɣ₀₁ = 2.746). This finding partially supports the first hypothesis. Across nations that where violent childhood experiences are more profound, sexually coercive behaviors tend to be more prevalent. To test the full hypothesis, the effects of gender must be examined.

Gender differences in sexually coercive behaviors

Gender is significantly associated with the use of sexually coercive behaviors, net of other predictors and controls. Among the male respondents, sexually coercive behaviors across nations tended to be greater, on average, compared to the females, with an average increase of 0.598 (Ɣ₃₀). Males engage in a mean of almost 3.2 sexually coercive behaviors (Ɣ₀₀ + Ɣ₃₀ = 3.204), on average, across nations. These individual level findings were expected, fully favoring the first hypothesis: Males engage in more frequent use of sexually coercive behaviors across nations compared to females.

The intersection of violence, gender, and dominance

The analysis reveals two significant interaction effects. First, the degree to which violent childhood experiences is associated with the use of sexually coercive behaviors across nations depends on the degree to which respondents hold beliefs in relational dominance. This finding is true for both family (Ɣ₆₀ = 0.033, p < .001) and community (Ɣ₀₂ = 0.042, p < .001) violence experiences. For the respondents who experienced violence within their family and hold dominance-based views toward an intimate partner, the level of sexually coercive behaviors across nations significantly increased to a mean score of 2.6 (Ɣ₀₀ + Ɣ₆₀ = 2.639), on average (net of controls). With community-based violence, respondents who also hold dominance-based views toward an intimate partner, the level of sexually coercive behaviors across nations significantly increased to a mean score of 2.6 (Ɣ₀₀ + Ɣ₀₂ = 2.648), on average (net of controls). These results support the second hypothesis, in that among nations with high levels of violent childhood experiences, the level of engagement in sexually coercive behaviors depends on the degree to which the perpetrator holds dominance-based beliefs.

Second, the degree to which males and females (Ɣ₇₀ = 0.222, p < .001) engaged in sexually coercive behaviors across nations depends on the degree to which these respondents hold beliefs in relational dominance. The perpetration of sexually coercive behaviors significantly increases across nations for males and females as the degree of belief in relational dominance increases, with a mean score of mean score of 2.8 (Ɣ₀₀ + Ɣ₇₀ = 2.828), on average (net of controls).

Overall, while the levels of sexually coercive behaviors across nations increase, on average, for both males and females who experienced violence in their childhood and have stronger beliefs in relational dominance, sexually coercive behaviors tend be more prevalent across nations among the males who hold dominance-based belief systems over intimate partners. There is a higher frequency of perpetration of sexually coercive behavior across nations regardless of gender when there are higher levels of violent childhood experiences in the presence of stronger dominance-based beliefs. But the strength of this relationship reduces the frequency of sexually coercive behaviors across nations in the presence of weaker dominance-based beliefs, regardless of gender.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to better understand cultural influences on the perpetration of sexually coercive behaviors through a transnational perspective. The results show support for the link between violence and dominance-based beliefs across nations and the use of sexually coercive behaviors. Violence as a culturally accepted response to conflict seems to promulgate the use of sexually coercive behaviors to overcome an intimate partner’s reluctance to engage in sexual relations. Dominance-based beliefs toward an intimate partner seem to exasperate these behaviors, manifesting within a violence-based reaction to sexual resistance by an intimate partner.

Each nation has specific standards of living, norms that shape behavior and attitudes, favoring or disapproving of violence. Youth victimized through violence, particularly through a range of normative violence during their developmental years, may inculcate the resolution of conflict via violent behavior. These standards become patterns that form a context: Common experiences among groups of people within the same nation that formulate behaviors deemed acceptable within a nation. Such experiences with norms of violence may then translate into criminogenic behavioral responses. Youth could, theoretically, have a distorted sense of acceptable behaviors when confronted with resistant to sexual relations. The behavioral response to such resistance is part of a national context of violence known as norms of violence (see Delaney, 2015, and Delaney, in press, for a more robust discussion). The common acceptance of violence to resolve conflict across a nation has been translated into a context of violence-based behaviors spilling over into intimate relationships such as the use of sexually coercive behavior.

In addition to being inculcated into normalized violent behavior, acting out violence within intimate relationships, via the use of sexually coercive behaviors, may be exasperated through dominance-based belief systems. Dominance over an intimate partner becomes another means to achieve self-desire over an unwilling partner, and this belief increases the use of sexually coercive behaviors among nations where childhood violence is more common. And these behaviors seem to be gendered. The link between gender socialization and violent behaviors has been shown to be dependent on the extent to which youth are exposed to family violence (Smagur et al., 2017). Further, attitudes of dominance may be the foundational mechanism for this relationship aggression particularly among men (Basile, 1999; DeGue et al., 2010; Dutton & Goodman, 2005; Gage & Hutchinson, 2006; Goetz & Shackelford, 2009; Keltner et al., 2003; Martin, et al., 2005; Moore et al., 2010; Saldivar Hernandez & Romero Mendoza, 2009).

The current study provides further support for the literature explaining violence, particularly within intimate partners. However, the current study appears to be the first to explore multilevels of violent childhood experiences, both within the family and community, intersecting with gender and dominance-based beliefs to explain the use of sexually coercive behaviors transnationally. The unexpected finding of the interaction effect of gender and dominance provides a unique contribution to the literation on intimate partner violence. Some of the current literature supports the present study’s finding that females also perpetrate sexually coercive behaviors (Anderson & Savage, 2005; Krahé et al., 2005; Struckman-Johnson et al., 2003). The females who hold dominance-based beliefs about intimate partners tended to engage in sexually coercive behaviors. This reverse gender role phenomenon may be the product of culturally reinforced domination, manifesting from a patriarchal society in which dominant behaviors are rewarded. Females who believe in relational dominance may have acted out this belief through the perpetration of sexually coercive behaviors to reaffirm their power-based position within male-dominant societies. More studies about females engaging in sexually coercive behaviors are necessary to determine the intersections violence, gender, and dominance, as research on female perpetrators is still lacking (Cauffman et al., 2017; Palmer et al., 2010).

As explained previously, the limited disclosure scale was included to control for socially desirable responses. Again, there were a high number of college students not reporting use of sexually coercive behaviors on their intimate dating partners. Although there is a possibility that this particular group of students may not in fact engage in coercive behaviors to achieve their sexual goals, this may also be the result of underreporting socially undesirable behaviors such as sexually coercive behaviors. This is consistent with the results of the present study: As respondents positively answered positively about socially desirable behaviors, their responses about youth criminal behavior tended to decrease (Ɣ₅₀ = −0.074, p < .001), on average. Admitting to adverse sexual behavior tends to be socially unacceptable, no matter how seemingly trivial. Some of the respondents may have engaged in milder forms of sexually coercive behaviors such as insisting their intimate partner engage in sexual relations. Yet, as reported in other studies (Feiring, 1999; Shulman & Kipnis, 2001), respondents may not recognize their behavior as a manifestation of coercion and instead view their behaviors as mutually beneficial. But when one partner says no and the other partner does not honor this message, insisting on sexual relations becomes a form of coercion.

Limitations

As an exploratory study, there are several limitations. This is a cross-sectional convenience sample of college students. The results of the present study are not nationally or institutionally representative beliefs or behaviors. Future research needs to use a representative sample of general populations with a longitudinal design in order to confidently claim causation between culturally based factors and sexually coercive behaviors. There may be other indicators of violence and dominance across different nations that need to be controlled in these studies. However, the inclusion of transnational variables must be done cautiously as many constructs of culture cannot be consistently measured nation to nation. Findings from any study of violence and violent behavior need to be interpreted cautiously. There is always the possibility of socially desirable responses from respondents. Respondents may not want to admit engaging in violent behavior toward an intimate partner, producing misrepresentations in the data. Further, qualitative research is necessary to parse out the specific reasons for engaging in sexually coercive behaviors with an intimate partner. There are no known transnational studies that have explored the theoretical premise of the intersection of gender and dominance-based beliefs contributing to a normative standard in which sexually coercive behaviors are acceptable to resolve sexual conflict within an intimate relationship. Therefore, comparisons between the present study and previous research are not possible. Instead, as an exploratory study, the present study provides a baseline for understanding norms of violence contributing to sexual violence across different nations.

Conclusion

Can we change behavior? Violent childhood experiences may be enduring in influencing behaviors. Byrne and Lurigio (2008) offer the possibility of reaching out to youth during a “turning point” in their life course in order to resocialize the youth away from violent behavior. Childhood can provide multiple turning points, as youth develop and mature in both their behaviors and belief systems. Intervention through primary preventive efforts may impress on youth the need to constrain power-induced behaviors that belittle and diminish intimate partners. Because the use of sexually coercive behaviors is harmful within intimate relationships (Gallaty & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2007; Williams et al., 2008), sexual education programs for youth can serve as early primary intervention when these programs are offered universally and curriculum is expanded to impress that the behaviors encompassing the range of sexual coercion are inappropriate. More difficult may be influencing change on belief systems within a culture supporting dominance. Sexual education can also serve as secondary prevention. Youth from power-based patriarchal nations can be informed about the increased risk for the perpetration of sexually coercive behaviors when they hold beliefs approving the use of dominance over an intimate partner. The influence of peer pressure on males to conform to normative masculine behaviors must be considered in such programs (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 1993). This is particularly important because subtle types of aggression within intimate relationships have been shown to persist within the relationship and in future relationships with different partners (Graves et al., 2005; O’Leary et al., 2007; Williams et al., 2008). Redirecting social standards, normative practices, and emergent belief systems based on dominance may reduce incidents of sexual violence, including the use of sexually coercive behavior. Early intervention for behavioral problems, both criminal and noncriminal, may best serve to prevent sexually coercive behaviors.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

Note

References

Abbey

Parkhill

M. R.

BeShears

Clinton-Sherrod

A. M.

Zawacki

(2006). Cross-sectional predictors of sexual assault perpetration in a community sample of single men. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 54–67.

Allison

P. D.

(2002). Missing data. Sage.

Anderson

P. B.

Savage

J. S.

(2005). Social, legal, and institutional context of heterosexual aggression by college women. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 6, 130–140.

Attar-Schwartz

(2009). Peer sexual harassment victimization at school: The roles of student characteristics, cultural affiliation, and school factors. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 79, 407–420. https://doi.org /10.1037/a0016553

Basile

K. C.

(1999). Rape by acquaintance: The ways in which women “give in” in unwanted sex with their husbands. Violence Against Women, 5, 1036–1058.

Ben Ezra

Roer-Strier

(2009). Socializing children under fire: Western women and Palestinian men. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 40, 1–25.

Berkowitz

A. D.

Burkhart

B. R.

Bourg

S. E.

(1994). Research on college men and rape. In Berkowitz

A. D.

(Ed.), Men and rape: Theory, research and prevention programs in higher education (pp. 3–19). Jossey-Bass.

Bickel

(2007). Multilevel analysis for applied research. Guilford.

Bryk

A. S.

Raudenbush

S. W.

(1992). Hierarchical linear models: Application and data analysis methods. Sage.

10.

Byers

Eno

(1991). Predicting men’s sexual coercion and aggression from attitudes, dating history, and sexual response. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 4, 55–69.

11.

Byrne

J. M.

Lurigio

(2008). Victimization and criminal behavior in adolescence and adulthood. Victims and Offenders, 3, 319–330.

12.

Capaldi

D. M.

Dishion

T. J.

Stoolmiller

Yoerger

(2001). Aggression towards female partners by at-risk men: The contribution of male adolescent friendships. Developmental Psychology, 37, 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.37.1.61

13.

Casey

E. A.

Beadnell

Lindhorst

T. P.

(2009). Predictors of sexually coercive behavior in a nationally representative sample of adolescent males. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1129–1147.

14.

Cauffman

Fine

Thomas

Monahan

K. C.

(2017). Trajectories of violent behavior among females and males. Child Development, 88, 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12678

15.

DeGue

DiLillo

Scalora

(2010). Are all perpetrators alike? Comparing risk factors for sexual coercion and aggression. Sex Abuse, 22, 402–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063210372140

16.

DeKeseredy

W. S.

Schwartz

M. D.

(1993). Male peer support and woman abuse: An expansion of DeKeseredy’s model. Sociological Spectrum, 13, 393–413.

17.

Delaney

A. X.

(2015). Violent socialization and youth violence across different nations: International variations in familial and contextual factors. Contemporary Perspectives in Family Research, 9, 129–151. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1530-353520150000009006

18.

Delaney

A. X.

(in press). Norms of violence: Violent socialization processes and the spillover effect for youth crime. Routledge.

19.

Dutton

M. A.

Goodman

L. A.

(2005). Coercion in intimate partner violence: Toward a new conceptualization. Sex Roles, 52, 743–756.

20.

Feder

Levant

R. F.

Dean

(2010). Boys and violence: A gender-informed analysis. Psychology of Violence, 1(S), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/2152-0828.1.S.3

21.

Feiring

(1999). Gender identity and the development of romantic relationships in adolescence. In Furman

Brown

B. B.

Feiring

(Eds.), Cambridge studies in social and emotional development. The development of romantic relationships in adolescence (pp. 211–232). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316182185.010

22.

Feiring

Jashar

Heleniak

(2010). Narrative approach to understanding young women’s schemas of power in romantic relationships: Links to negative emotions and dating aggression. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19, 540–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2010.495030

23.

Fiebert

M. S.

Tucci

L. M.

(1998). Sexual coercion: Men victimized by women. Journal of Men’s Studies, 6, 127–133.

24.

Forbes

G. B.

Adams-Curtis

L. E.

(2001). Experiences with sexual coercion in college males and females: Role of family conflict, sexist attitudes, acceptance of rape myths, self-esteem, and the Big-Five personality factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 865–889. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626001016009002

25.

Forsman

Johansson

Santtila

Sandnabba

Langstrom

(2015). Sexually coercive behavior following childhood maltreatment. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 149–156.

26.

Gage

A. J.

Hutchinson

P. L.

(2006). Power, control, and intimate partner sexual violence in Haiti. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 11–24.

27.

Gallaty

Zimmer-Gembeck

M. J.

(2007). The daily social and emotional worlds of adolescents who are psychologically maltreated by their romantic partners. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 310–323.

28.

Gàmez-Guadix

Straus

M. A.

Hershberger

S. L.

(2011). Childhood and adolescent victimization and perpetration of sexual coercion by male and female university students. Deviant Behavior, 32, 712–742. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2010.514213

29.

Goetz

A. T.

Shackleford

T. K.

(2009). Sexual coercion in intimate relationships: A comparative analysis of the effects of women’s infidelity and men’s dominance and control. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 226–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-4201-0

30.

Gorman-Smith

Tolan

P. H.

(1998). The role of exposure to community violence and developmental problems among inner-city youth. Development and Psychology, 74, 101–116.

31.

Graves

K. N.

Sechrist

S. M.

White

J. W.

Paradise

M. J.

(2005). Intimate partner violence perpetrated by college women within the context of a history of victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 278–289.

32.

Hayes

A. F.

(2006). A primer on multilevel modeling. Human Communication Research, 32, 385–410. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2006.00281.x

33.

Hill

N. E.

Tyson

D. F.

(2008). Excavating culture: Ethnicity and context as predictors of parenting behavior. Applied Developmental Science, 12, 188–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888690802388110

34.

Hines

D. A.

(2007). Predictors of sexual coercion against women and men: A multilevel, multinational study of university students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 403–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-9141-4

35.

Hofer

Eisenberg

Reiser

(2010). The role of socialization, effortful control, and ego resiliency in French adolescents’ social functioning. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 555–582. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00650.x

36.

Kahn

Paluzzi

(2006). Boys will be boys: Understanding the impact of child maltreatment and family violence on the sexual, reproductive, and parenting behaviors of young men. Healthy Teen Network. https://www.healthyteennetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/BoysWillBeBoys.pdf

37.

Keller

Otto

Lamm

Yovsi

R. D.

Kartner

(2008). The timing of verbal/vocal communications between mothers and their infants: A longitudinal cross-cultural comparison. Infant Behavior & Development, 31, 217–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2007.10.001

38.

Keltner

Gruenfeld

D. H.

Anderson

(2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265–284.

39.

Kendall

(2010). Sociology in our times: Essentials (7th ed.). Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

40.

Koss

M. P

Gidycz

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.

41.

Krahé

Bieneck

Möller

(2005). Understanding gender and intimate partner violence from an international perspective. Sex Roles, 52, 807–827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-4201-0

42.

Kwon

Lee

Kim

(2007). Sexual violence among men in the military in South Korea. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 1024–1042. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507302998

43.

Levinson

(1989). Family violence in cross-cultural perspectives. Sage.

44.

Lottes

I. L.

Weinberg

M. S.

(1997). Sexual coercion among university students: A comparison of the United States and Sweden. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 67–76.

45.

Luke

D. A.

(2004). Multilevel modeling. Sage.

46.

Lyndon

A. E.

White

J. W.

Kadlec

K. M.

(2007). Manipulation and force as sexual coercion tactics: Conceptual and empirical differences. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 291–303.

47.

Malamuth

N. M.

Sockloski

R. J.

Koss

M. P.

Tanaka

J. S.

(1991). Characteristics of aggressors against women: Testing a model using a national sample of college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 670–681.

48.

Margolin

Gordis

E. B.

(2000). The effect of family and community violence on children. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 445–479.

49.

Martin

A. F.

Vergeles

M. R.

Acevedo

V. D. L.

Sánchez

A. D. L.

Visa

S. L.

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

50.

Mattingly

M. J.

Straus

M. A.

(2008). Violence socialization and approval of violence: A world perspective on gender differences and American violence. [Paper presentation]. American Society of Criminology, St. Louis, MO. https://cola.unh.edu/family-research-laboratory

51.

Milletich

R. J.

Kelley

M. L.

Doane

A. N.

Pearson

M. R.

(2010). Exposure to interparental violence and childhood physical and emotional abuse as related to physical aggression in undergraduate dating relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 627–637. https://doi.org/doi10.1007/s10896-010-9319-3

52.

Moore

T. M.

Stuart

G. L.

McNulty

J. K.

Cordova

J. V.

Addis

M. E.

Temple

J. R.

(2010). Domains of masculine gender role stress and intimate partner violence in a clinical sample of violent men. Psychology of Violence, 1, 68–75.

53.

Muftic

L. R.

Bouffard

L. A.

(2008). Bosnian women and intimate partner violence differences in experiences and attitudes for refugee and nonrefugee women. Feminist Criminology, 3, 173–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085108318631

54.

O’Leary

K. D.

Smith Slep

A. M.

O’Leary

S. G.

(2007). Multivariate models of men’s and women’s partner aggression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 752–764.

55.

Palmer

R. S.

McMahon

T. J.

Rounsaville

B. J.

Ball

S. A.

(2010). Coercive sexual experiences, protective behavioral strategies, alcohol expectancies and consumption among male and female college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 1563–1578. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260509354581

56.

Parkhill Purdie

Abbey

Jacques-Tiura

A. J.

(2010). Perpetrators of intimate partner sexual violence: Are there unique characteristics associated with making partners have sex without a condom? Violence Against Women, 16, 1086–1097. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801210382859

57.

Poppen

P. J.

Segal

N. J.

(1988). The influence of sex and sex role orientation on sexual coercion. Sex Roles, 19, 689–701.

58.

Próspero

Fawson

(2010). Sexual coercion and mental health symptoms among heterosexual men: The pressure to say “yes.” American Journal of Men’s Health, 4, 98–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988308330106

59.

Russell

D. E.

(1975). The politics of rape. Stein and Day.

60.

Saldivar Hernandez

Romero Mendoza

M. P.

(2009). Recognition and use of sexual coercion tactics in men and women in the context of heterosexual relations a study of university students. Salud Mental, 32, 487–494.

61.

Sawyer

K. M.

Wechsberg

W. M.

Myers

B. J.

(2006). Cultural similarities and differences between a sample of Black/African and colored women in South Africa: Convergence of risk related to substance use, sexual behavior, and violence. Women & Health, 43, 73–92. https://doi.org/10.1300/J013v43n02_05

62.

Schatzel-Murphy

E. A.

Harris

D. A.

Knight

R. A.

Milburn

M. A.

(2009). Sexual coercion in men and women: Similar behaviors, different predictors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 974–986. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-9481-y

63.

Schwartz

M. D.

DeKeseredy

W. S.

(1997). Sexual assault on the college campus: The role of male peer support. Sage.

64.

Senn

C. Y.

Desmarais

Verberg

Wood

(2000). Predicting coercive sexual behavior across the lifespan in a random sample of Canadian men. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 95–113.

65.

Shackleford

T. K.

Goetz

A. T.

(2004). Men’s sexual coercion in intimate relationships: Development and initial validation of the sexual coercion in intimate relationships scale. Violence and Victims, 19, 21–36.

66.

Shulman

Kipnis

(2001). Adolescent romantic relationships: A look from the future. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 337–351. https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.2001.0409

67.

Singer

J. D.

Willett

J. B.

(2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. Oxford University Press.

68.

Smagur

K. E

Bogat

G. A.

Leveondosky

A. A.

(2017). Gender role and gender as predictors of behavior problems in children exposed to intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 32, 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9890-3

69.

Spano

Rivera

Bolland

J. M.

(2010). Are chronic exposure to violence and chronic violent behavior closely related developmental processes during adolescence? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(10), 1160–1179. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854810377164

70.

Straus

M. A.

(2004). Cross-cultural reliability and validity of the revised Conflict Tactics Scales: A study of university student dating couples in 17 nations. Cross-Cultural Research, 38, 407–432.

71.

Straus

M. A.

(2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 252–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.10.004

72.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Boney-McCoy

Sugarman

D. B.

(1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2). Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283–316.

73.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Boney-McCoy

Sugarman

D. B.

(1999). Manual for the personal and relationships profile (PRP). University of New Hampshire, Family Research Laboratory. https://cola.unh.edu/family-research-laboratory

74.

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.

75.

Uslucan

H. H.

(2009). Domestic violence, parenting styles and well-being of German and Turkish juveniles. Praxis Der Kinderpsychologie Und Kinderpsychiatrie, 58, 278–296.

76.

Vandello

J. A.

Cohen

(2003). Male honor and female fidelity: Implicit cultural scripts that perpetuate domestic violence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 997–1010.

77.

Vandello

J. A.

Cohen

Grandon

Franiuk

(2009). Stand by your man: Indirect prescriptions for honorable violence and feminine loyalty in Canada, Chile, and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40, 81–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022108326194

78.

Walker

(1997). When “no” becomes “yes”: Why girls and women consent to unwanted sex. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 6, 157–166. https://doi.org/0962-1849/97

79.

White

J. W.

Koss

M. P.

(1993). Adolescent sexual aggression within heterosexual relationships: Prevalence, characteristics, and cause. In Barbaree

H. E.

Marshall

W. L.

Hudson

S. M.

(Eds.), The juvenile sex offender (pp. 182–202). Guilford Press.

80.

Williams

T. S.

Connolly

Pepler

Craig

Laporte

(2008). Risk models of dating aggression across different adolescent relationships: A developmental psychopathology approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 622–632.

81.

Wright

E. M.

Benson

M. L.

(2010). Relational aggression, intimate partner violence, and gender: An exploratory analysis. Victims & Offenders, 5, 283–302.

82.

Zucker

Howes

(2009). Respectful relationships: Socialization goals and practices among Mexican mothers. Infant Mental Health Journal, 30, 501–522. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.20226

83.

Zurbriggen

E. L.

(2003). Social motives and cognitive power-sex associations: Predictors of aggressive sexual behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 163–173.

84.

Zurbriggen

E. L.

Gobin

R. L.

Freyd

J. J.

(2010). Childhood emotional abuse predicts late adolescent sexual aggression perpetration and victimization. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19, 204–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926770903539631