This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE DATING GAME: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE DATING FORMAT T0 SEXUAL AGGRESSION presented by Sharon A. Cisco has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M.S. degree in Criminal Justice Wm MM / / Maj/or professor Date May, 20, 1987 '- 1n 07639 MSU is an AWN-"'5"- ‘ ' , n. ', Institution ‘ MSU LIBRARIES -_— RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if bookTis returned after the date stamped below. ‘JUL d 3 Gt) 1"“; 1} 1:10} . l ‘1, S I, .9 with" C , w , .f, z" \ {1" In! ' ‘ if 1" ‘9 :0 T“ In K Z; C r, . .-" L. h [-— ‘- p;-‘o. ‘ . _ -- ~ aka-“1.4 ‘ X’lgfii.. A??? 2 4 €391) — N33 24 1991I {387, . ‘ T ’3, . ,. \ ‘s L. ‘C I. ‘ t‘y; . UL. . . n" k . .fi .1 ‘VT( Noyl §2L0Q5 1’: ~ » L. J T301181”: "' 276 NMMSKIBB 1‘? DEC 1 51§98 C— .'. CA' -; 1‘11“" THE DATING GAME: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE DATING FORMAT TO SEXUAL AGGRESSION By Sharon A. Cisco A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE School of Criminal Justice 1987 Copyright by SHARON A. CISCO 1987 ABSTRACT THE DATING GAME: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE DATING FORMAT TO SEXUAL AGGRESSION BY Sharon A. Cisco According to several studies, sexual assault that occurs on dates is a common occurrence. This exploratory study attempted to understand sexual aggression on dates in terms of the dating format. Data were collected from a purposive sample of 241 undergraduate students attending a large midwestern university. Factor analysis was used to reduce the data set and to identify various dimensions of dating. Four belief and four dating style dimensions were identified and correlation analysis and stepwise regression were used to test the relationship between these dimensions and use of as well as experience with verbal and physical coercive attempts to obtain sexual compliance. Dating style dimensions correlated most significantly with the, dependent measures with "pick-up" dates having the strongest association with verbal coercion. None of the belief or style factors were associated with the use of physical force. A symbolic inter- actionist perspective guided the research. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my appreciation to Dr. Merry Morash, the chairperson of my graduate committee, for her comments, criticisms, and scholarly suggestions in the preparation of this thesis. Also appreciated are the contributions of Dr. Robert Trojanowicz and Dr. Vince Hoffman who, as guidance committee members, played a part in the development and the revision of this work. Gratitude is also extended to Dr. Albert Levak, Dr. Barrie Thorne, Dr. Joyce Ladenson, and Ms. Conna Wood for so graciously permitting me to survey their classes. Without their assistance, this thesis probably wouldn't have come to pass. I owe a great personal debt and much gratitude to the late Dr. Philip Marcus and to Dr.-Dora Marcus for their support, inspiration, patience and encouragement. They helped me through many a difficult moment. Special thanks are also due Mr. Nicholas Hinkle whose computer technical assistance and friendship are much appreciated. A special thanks goes to Ms. Shirley Anthes, whose work in typing difficult copy against pressing deadlines were extraordinary and indeed beyond the call of friendship. Her part in this thesis is gratefully acknowledged. Finally, and most importantly, I wish to thank my daughter and best friend, Casey, who has been so very supportive throughout the preparation of this thesis. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . LIST OF APPENDICES Chapter I. INTRODUCTION Background of the Research Problem The Research Problem . The Need for Research Purpose of the Study . II. LITERATURE REVIEW Overview of the Literature on Rape Sexual Behavior in the Dating Relationship. Theoretical Perspectives III. METHODOLOGY Hypotheses Definition of Terms . Sample and Sampling Procedures Instrumentation . Data Analysis IV. FINDINGS Introduction . Sample Characteristics . Factor Analysis of Data Subsets Dating Belief Variables Dating Style Variables . . Offending and Game- Playing Variables . Summary . I Simple Bivariate Correlation Analysis Step-Wise Multiple Regresstion iii Page vii Chapter V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . Overview . . Limitations . Discussion Implications for Theory. Considerations for Future Research APPENDICES BIBLIOGRAPHY iv Table 10. ll. 12. l3. 14. LIST OF TABLES Demographic Variables for the Sample . Factor Loadings to Determine Dating Belief Orientations, VARIMAX Rotation (n=24l) Description of the New Belief Variables (4-factor solution) and their Means and Standard Deviations . Factor Loadings to Determine Dating Style Orientations, VARIMAX Rotation (n=24l) . . . . . . Description of the New Dating Style Variables (2-factor solution) and their Means and Standard Deviations (n=24l) Factor Loadings to Determine Alcohol and Drug Orientations, VARIMAX Rotation (n=24l) . . . . . . Description of the New AlcOhol and Drug Variables (2-factor solution) and their Means and Standard Deviations (n=24l) Description of Third and Fourth Subset Variables (n=24l) Factor Loadings to Determine Gameplaying or Offending Orientations used by Respondents, VARIMAX Rotation (n=24l) Description of the New UMANIPUL and UFORCE Variables (2-factor solution) and their Means and Standard Deviations (n=24l) Factor Loadings to Determine Gameplaying or Offending Orientations Experienced by Respondents, VARIMAX Rotation (n=24l) . Description of the New OFFENDNG and GAMEPLAY Variables (2- factor solution) and their Means and Standard Deviations (n=24l) . . . . . . Summary of New Factor Variables Bivariate Correlations (Pearson' s r) for Dating Belief and Style Variables with all Dependent Measures, Females n= 171 . . . Page SI 56 61 63 65 65 67 68 74 75 77 79 8] Table Page 15. Bivariate Correlations (Pearson's r) for Dating Belief and Style Variables with all Dependent Measures, Males (n=70) 84 16. Step- -Wise Regression of all Independent Variables on UMANIPUL, Males (n= 70) . . . . . . . 88 17. Step- -Nise Regression of all Independent Variables on GAMEPLAY, Females (n=271) . . . . . . 88 18. Eigenvalues fOr 58 Dating Belief Variables . . . . . . 123 23. Eigenvalues for First Dating Style Subset, 10 Variables . 125 3B. Eigenvalues for Second Dating Style Subset, 6 Variables . 125 4B. Eigenvalues for First Subset of Dependent Measures, 8 Variables. . . . . . . . . 126 58. Eigenvalues for Second Subset of Dependent Measures, 24 Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 vi LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. The Survey Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 B. Eigenvalue Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background of the Research Problem For most women, the word "rape“ conjures * an immediate terrifying image: a stranger-- with a gun breaking into the house at ,1 a. night, a knife-wielding stranger appearing- suddenly out of a dark alley. Those ‘1 images aren't incorrect, but they are" a long way from complete. The word/- "forced," however, as defined by law--and' most men and women--seldom encompasses more than the traditional picture of sudden attack by a total stranger. (Mithers, 1980:210) 1 Even though there has been considerable publicity given to the t0pic of rape over the past decade or so--much of which has attempted to eradicate the many myths surrounding this subject--the stereotype of the rapist as a stranger still prevails. Contrary to this myth, however, evidence shows that rapes are often committed by someone known to the victim, for example, a friend, neighbor, relative, or date. In fact Bowker (1981a), Dowd (1983), Mithers (1980), and Seligmann gt_gl, (1984) estimate that at least 50 percent of all rapes are not stranger rapes at all, but acquaintance rapes. Research bears this out. Schneider (1981), in a study of 216 rapes in New Jersey, found that 59 percent of these reported rapes fell into the acquaintance category. Similarly, Amir (1971) found over 1 40 percent and in MacDonald's (1971) study of 200 rapes in Denver, 40 percent of the victims were raped by either a friend, relative, employer, or casual acquaintance. These figures, of course, do not reflect unreported rapes, which many suspect, if known, would boost the numbers of acquaintance rapes even higher. It is believed that a woman who finds herself assaulted by someone she knows is unlikely to interpret it as rape, and, therefore, is unlikely to report it. Furthermore, Storaska's (1975) "educated guess" is that 35 percent of all acquaintance rapes are committed by the victim's date, boyfriend or fiancee and Theo (1983) contends that ”date rape“ is the most common sexual offense of all--“rape in which a man commits sexual aggression against a woman he is out with." That sexual aggression does occur on dates appears to be supported by research, research that has focused on college students who date. In work done by Kanin and Parcell (1977), 83 percent of the 282 college women in their sample reported being sexually offended by men they dated. This included casual dates as well as long-term relationships. And in an earlier study, of which the above is a replication (Kirkpatrick and Kanin, 1957), 55.7 percent of the dating college females in the sample reported sexual aggression with 20.7 percent reporting forceful attempts at intercourse. Similarly, Nilson, Faison and Britton (1983), in a study of full-time undergraduate students from a university in the South, found that 31 percent of the males surveyed admitted to using "forceful and offensive attempts for sexual intercourse which did not involve menacing threats or painful physical persuasion and 2.3 percent reported that they had made forceful and offensive attempts for sexual intercourse which involved menacing threats and/or painful physical persuasion" (p. 247). In a 1979 survey of the entire University of Rhode Island population regarding incidence of sexual assault (defined as sexual contact through the use of force, threatened force, or a weapon, without consent) and sexual harassment, Lott, Reilly and Howard (1983) found that "the vast majority of women reporting assaults (71 percent) were main campus undergraduates." Moreover, "half of all reported assaults were perpetrated by acquaintances with 18 percent by co-workers, friends or dates" (p. 304). More recently, Koss (cited in Sherman, 1985) completed a three-year survey of college women from 35 universities nationwide. Of the first 1,000 respondents (a total of 6,500 women were surveyed by project's end), one out of eight women reported being raped and 47 percent of that group "said the rapists were either first dates, casual dates, or romantic acquaintances." Neis and Borges (1973:73) link the incidence of sexual assault on campus to the way dating is organized: "It might be suggested that the American dating system is a major factor contributing to the 'rape scene' in this country." And according to Thio (1983:145): Male role expectations often require that the male take an active part in achieving the social and the sexual relation with a female. He should be aggressive and use whatever force necessary to carry out his sexual conquest. He need not concern himself with how much force he is allowed to use. Our culture puts that burden on the female; it is she who has to determine the limit of the force he is allowed. But even when the female bluntly tells him to stop or puts up a fight to ward off his sexual advances, he may still ignore her resistance. Unfortunately, this is often accepted as “normal" dating behavior. An article in a large midwestern university paper (ChristOpherson, 1983: 12), referring to a talk by a male member of a sexual assault and safety education program, well illustrates this point: He talks to many college men who say they aren't rapists. After all, they don't maliciously jump out of bushes in the night, abuse 90-year-old women or pursue little girls on their way home from school. But they may believe that, when the women they date say "step," they are only being coy, and so these men don't step. Technically, that makes them rapists. There have been years of conditioning that women mean yes when they say no. Heterosexual dating has been traditionally Characterized by role playing with males assuming the dominant role and females the passive in accordance with sex role socialization. And it has been characterized by stereotypical beliefs about male and female sexual behavior-~beliefs which often lead to conflicts concerning sexual activity. Males have been taught to expect sexual rewards when dating and to try for them deSpite female protestations. Females, on the other hand, have been taught they are responsible for setting sexual limits, so tend to fault themselves when aggression does occur. Because both parties enter the dating event with conflicting expectations, they have difficulty interpreting the sexual or non-sexual goals of the other. Consequently, the dating event becomes an arena where the participants, unsure of the expectations of their dating partners, play games of manipulation and coercion. This game playing appears to be related to the incidence of sexual aggression reported by the studies mentioned earlier. The Research Problem In American society the traditional dating format appears to be conducive to incidents of sexual aggression: (1) dating participants carry into the dating relationship stereotypical ideas of male and female sexual behavior-~ideas which may lead to conflicts concerning sexual activity (e.g., the belief that females expect or want to be forced to engage in sexual activity); (2) males have traditionally assumed the dominant role in all facets of the dating relationship, including that of sexual initiator, and females have assumed the dependent role; (3) males are encouraged to expect sexual activity as a payoff for their social and financial investment in the date; (4) females are expected to set sexual limits while, at the same time, males are encouraged to extend those limits; and (5) sexual activity is considered by many to be an integral part of the dating scene, therefore, participants may feel obligated to initiate or participate in such activity when they may, in fact, not want to. These and other characteristics of the dating event seem to contribute to misunderstandings, conflicing expectations and gameplaying to achieve goals, expecially sexual ones. And the result may be sexual offending ranging from verbal manipulation (i.e., the use of "lines" or threats to end a relationship) to physical sexual assault. The Need for Research There are two major justifications for conducting research dealing with sexual offending that occurs on dates. First of all, even though the tapic has received considerable media attention, little research has been done in this area. In general, date assault as well as other forms of acquaintance rape have been neglected by the academic community. Only recently, within the last five years or so, have researchers begun to treat the topic seriously. Consequently, most of the information we do have on rape concerns stranger rape. This is not to say knowledge about stranger rape is unimportant, but it is only a part of the larger picture of rape; and information on date assault will help complete that picture. Secondly, a better understanding of the relationship of sexual offending to the dating format, may provide answers for preventing future victimizations. Furthermore, though research in this area--sexual offending on dates--suggests that the traditional structure of dating contributes in some way to sexual offending and in some instances rape, few have pursued this line of thought. Most of the work, thus far, primarily has attempted to show that college women are being victimized by dates and rather frequently. But it has not attempted to determine how or to what extent the traditional dating configuration or dating game contributes to sexual offending and more importantly, whether or not individuals who date in a non-traditional way are being victim- ized at the same rate as those who date traditionally. Within the context of conventional dating, men have traditionally assumed the responsibility for making decisions regarding whom to date, where to go, what to do, how to get there, and additionally, have absorbed the financial cost of the date. Under these circum- stances, females primarily have had only one decision to make: whether or not to accept the invitation. And once having accepted, for example, an offer to go out to eat or to a movie, convention has also implied that the female is accepting whatever else her date has in mind--she is accepting a packaged deal. Because attitudes and roles have been changing over the last few decades, albeit slowly, a number of college students may be engaging in a more egalitarian dating style and can serve as a comparison group to those who follow the traditional dating format. For example, some males may no longer view themselves as the sole economic provider for the date or feel they must fulfill the role of sexual initiator. And there may be females who no longer are passive participants, and who no longer see sex as an obligation on their part. Furthermore, some women may be initiating interaction (e.g., asking men out) and paying for the date. Ullman (1984), a senior at the University of California, Berkeley, claims that "dating is less stereotypical and more casual today." Yet she claims that "men and women alike are confused about who should ask whom out and who should pay.” As she sees it, contempo- rary dating is divided into I'formal" and "casual" dating with the former referring to the traditional format where males assume responsi- bility for the date and the latter referring to occasions where females are "active participants in the process." Applebome (1986) agrees with Ullman concerning the confusion over who pays for the date. Based on interviews with single peOple in their 205 and 305, he claims that "paying for a date is one of those hazy areas that's determined according to who did the asking, the degrees to which people accept traditional sexual roles and who has the most money." He goes on to say that "despite changing sexual mores, it's clear that many men and women still expect the man to pay, particularly on a first and second date." We need to know what preportion of dating, college students are still participating in a traditional dating style and how many are not, and of those who are not, whether they are experiencing the same level of sexual aggression as their traditional counterparts. Common sense would seem to suggest that if females shared in the decision-making process and in the financial costs of the date, men would no longer be able to "anticipate a sexual return on their financial or social investment" (Neis and Borges, 1973), thus feeling justified in applying sexual pressure, nor would women feel they must comply with that pressure. Logic also suggests that women who are more assertive in their relationships with men, might experience less sexual offending. However, these suppositions need to be tested. To understand why date assault occurs, we must look at the interactional setting in which it takes place. As Shepherd (1982:235) claims “frequently binding social arrangements, which we are so prone to take for granted, are themselves contributors to much victimi- zation that occurs among human beings." And these "social arrangements" are often based on collective stereotypes. The traditional dating event is permeated with stereotypes—-stereotypes of the event itself as well as sex role and sexual behavior stereotypes. Traditionally, the dating configuration has reflected the way in which males and females have been socialized in our society. In general women have been taught to be passive and dependent and males have been taught to be aggressive and dominant. Because women grow up with traits of passivity and learned helplessness, they tend to carry these traits into the dating relationship. And "when a woman is behaving in the way she is socialized, she is most vulner- able to sexual assault, having a trained incapacity to deal with such an attack should it occur" (Bart, 1981:125). This is true whether the attack is by a stranger, acquaintance, or a date. On the other hand, males have been taught to be dominant and in control of all situations including dating. Koss (1982) found that the sexually aggressive males in her work tended to "oversubscribe" to traditional males roles; men have learned to base their worth, in part, on their sexual performance. Exacerbating the problem is the stereotype of rape as a stranger event. Barrett (1982:48) claims that "it's hard to make women under- stand that if they do get raped while they're in college, it's more likely to be on a date than in a dark alley." But if a woman is sexually assaulted by someone she knows, eSpecially a date, she is likely to have difficulty defining it as sexual assault. As Medea and Thompson (1974:12) contend, "there are artificial lines of actual behavior: if it happens in an alley, it's rape, if it happens in bed, it's love. If the man is a stranger, it's rape: if he's your date, it's love." Finally, analyses of the dating interaction may provide us information for preventing future victimizations. The solution to sexual offending that occurs on dates involves a multifacted approach. While many authors propose long-range macro level changes, 10 such as institutional level changes regarding the socialization of children, we must, in the meantime, offer women some short-range strategies they can now use. The literature suggests that we change the dating equation from male social + financial control female sexual payoff to shared social 8 financial input - sex by consent & negotiation If the rules of dating are changed so that the social and financial investment is shared, decisions should reflect consensus not coercion. Shared decision-making should lead to more congruent expectations or goals for the dating relationship, thereby, eliminating the game- playing nature of the interaction. When the female in a dating relationship can stop thinking of herself as the non-aggressive, subordinate participant and the male can stop thinking of himself as the aggressive, dominant participant, dating will begin to lose some of its game-like qualities. Also when females learn to add assertiveness to their behavioral repertoire and males learn to add empathy and sensitivity to theirs, sexual activity on dates may then reflect consent and negotiation rather than intimidation and force. Dating should not be a contest, but a relationship of mutuality, for no one should have to take "date assault for granted" (Barrett, 1982). According to Brodsky (1976b), we need to teach women "to say what they mean, openly and directly, and not to play games." And we must also teach males "to take refusals seriously." A no is a no is a no. Barrett (1982) agrees that we need to communicate to women that they must be "self-assured, forthright, and definite 11 in encounters with men,“ for “the evidence suggests that a female student may have to contend with a sizable minority of men who will press her to go to bed with them whether she wants to or not." If women do not want to participate in sexual activity, they must let their dating partners know "in no uncertain terms what they want or don't want" (Storaska, 1975). "In the present dating system, however, women commonly expect men to take care of them, and therefore situations develop in which a women can't take care of herself. This leaves her vulnerable to men she may scarcely know" (Medea and Thompson, 1974:41). Besides assertiveness, other strategies are also recommended for avoiding date assault. Because they recognize that there is a high risk of assault among acquaintances, Medea and Thompson (1974) admonish women to stay out of unusual situations with men they don't know well and also recommend that women participate in the planning of a date, pay their own way, and always carry money with them on dates, so that they are able to get themselves out of difficult situations that may arise. And Driscoll (1971) and Rosenkrantz _t__l, (1968) feel there is a need for educational means to inform students about how men and women do react to each other and to point out areas where misunderstandings may occur and reasons for those misunderstandings. All of these suggestions seem laudable. But no research, thus far, has looked at whether or not these strategies do, in fact, decrease the level of sexual offending. Currently, we know through research that assaults are taking place, and though there has been speculation as to why, no research has really attempted to look 12 at the part the dating game contributes to potentially assaultive situations. Several questions, then, must be asked, among them: Is there more sexual offending in dating situations where one individual is in control? Does less offensive behavior occur on dates where there is equal input? Are stereotypical attitudes about dating activity and stereotypical attitudes towards sex roles positively correlated with frequency of offending? Are stereotypical attitudes about sex roles positively related to miscommunication and conflict over sexual activity? Are women who participate in a dating style commensurate with traditional sex roles, more likely to experience sexual offending than those who do not? Are men who date traditionally more likely to use aggression to achieve sexual compliance from their dates and to sanction such behavior? And are men and women who subscribe to sex-role stereotypes likely to date in a traditional way? By studying the dating interaction, we should be able to answer some of these questions. And the answers should provide us with suggestions for preventing date assault. In sum, many studies have reported a high level of sexual offending among college couples who date. And this offending seems to be related to the way dating has been traditionally organized. However, no research has been done to firmly establish this link. Furthermore, even though college women fall within the age group of 16-24, which is especially vulnerable to rape in general (Amir, 1971; Bowker, 1980, 1981a; Hindelang, 1976, 1977), and also belong to the age group most frequently involved in dating, they continue to think of rape as a stranger event. Riger, Gordon, and LeBailley (1978) found that women still tend to think of streets, alleys, and parks 13 as the most dangerous places with regard to rape. Consequently, when college women do take precautions against victimization, these precautions are almost entirely stranger-oriented. They may be protect- ing themselves by taking self-defense classes or by not going out alone at night, but they are not prepared to protect themselves from being assaulted by their dates. In large part, this is because they do not think of rape within the context of dating. Purpose of the Study The goals of the present study were threefold. First of all, as an exploratory investigation, the aim was to obtain clarification of the concept of dating. It was haped that by identifying dimensions of dating, for example, various dating style and dating belief clusters, a better understanding of the nature of contemporary college dating would be obtained. A second goal was to assess whether or not particu- lar dimensions of dating were related to verbal and physical sexual offending. The final goal was to demonstrate the utility of a symbolic interactionist perspective for understanding sexual assault within the context of the dating interaction (specified in Chapter 11). Overall, the present research was seen as a preliminary venture--one that would help establish priorities for carrying out a subsequent, more highly structured and controlled survey design. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW Overview of the Literature on Rape When reviewing the literature relevant to rape, one finds that numerous books and articles have been written on this subject, especially during the past two decades. Very little of this material, ‘however, focuses on dating behavior and its relationship to sexual assault. In fact, acquaintance rape, in general, has received meager attention. Only recently has date rape emerged as a viable topic. The bulk of the literature on rape reflects a feminist perspec— tive--one that believes rape is a result of a sexist society where men are in a position of power and women are viewed as property (Brownmiller, 1975; Calvert, 1974; Chapman and Gates, 1978; Clark and Lewis, 1977; Davis, 1975; Gager and Schurr, 1976; Griffin, 1979; Holliday, 1982; Holmstrom, 1983; Holmstrom and Burgess, 1983a & b; Hursch, 1977; Largen, 1976; Manhard and Rush, 1971; Mauss and Wolfe, 1977: Metzger, 1976; Rose, 1977a & b; Scherer, 1982; Schwendinger and Schwendinger, 1974; Williams and Holmes, 1981). But this literature either mentions date assault not at all or only in passing. It is not being suggested, however, that the feminist literature is unimportant for it can be credited with calling attention to the crime of rape in the first place, and in the second, for 14 15 generating many books and articles on c0ping and adjustment behavior of victims after assault (Burgess and Holmstrom, 1976; Hilberman, 1976; Notman and Nadelson, 1976; Resik gt_al,, 1981) and on victim- interaction with the criminal justice system--police, prosecution and courts (Bode, 1978; Chappell, 1976; Holmstrom and Burgess, 1983; LaFree, 1981; Peters, 1977; Sanders, 1980; Sheppard, Giancinti and Tjaden, 1976). But it is also responsible for generating a considerable amount of literature which displays a stranger-rape bias, for example, emphasis on environmental protection strategies such as "make sure your doors are locked," "don't go out alone at night," "don't be overly friendly with someone you don't know" (Offir, 1975; Selkin, 1975; Stone, 1983) and emphasis on the use of self-defense against stranger assault (Molmen, 1982). Most of these works, though, fail to address the potential of assault by someone who is known, either as a casual acquaintance or a date, in which case, a warning of "don't be overly friendly with someone you don't know" is not going to be all inclusive; it is not going to cover all situations of rape. Admittedly, women need advice on how to prevent stranger rape and the many books and articles which give advice on how to do so are an important contribution to the rape literature. But as mentioned in Chapter I, the image of stranger rape isn't incorrect; it is just incomplete (Mithers, 1980). Overall the rape literature leaves a void by not giving women strategies on how to protect themselves from acquaintance assault, especially that occurring in dating situations. Most likely, suggestions are slow in coming, because date rape is still an unknown commodity. While few researchers 16 would contest the claim that date assault is occurring and much too frequently, few have a clear understanding of the dating event and how it may contribute to offending. Consequently, there are few suggestions on how to prevent date victimization.1 Thus, the tendency to focus on stranger rape remedies remains in the literature. A good example is a recent book by Carol Pritchard (1985), Avoiding Rape on and off Campus. She discusses date rape in the introductory chapter: Studies indicate that the majority of college women who are raped are victims of "date rapes." These "date rapes" tend to take place on weekends during the late evening and early morning hours, frequently occurring at the rapist's place of residence. The majority of victims range in age between mid-teens to mid-twenties. (p. 11) But her "19 Precautions" or recommendations for rape prevention (pp. 25-34) primarily deal with stranger rape prevention, for example: - Do lock your apartment and dormitory doors; - Close your blinds and shades at night; - Keep one hand free when walking; - Lock your car doors; - Vary routes on campus; ~ Walk briskly and look alert. Although she acknowledges that college women are often victims 1Even though there is a paucity of literature on preventing date assault, a growing number of programs and workshops are being conducted on campuses across the country. According to Sherman (1985), several such sessions have been held at the University of Wisconsin. A group called "Men Stapping Rape" has sponsored "workshops and seminars that explore the tapic of date rape, where men and women discuss dating expectations. The goal "is to get women to say clearly what they want, or don't want and to get men to listen to women and to talk to them." And at Swarthmore video dramatizations are used to acquaint students with the problem and ways of preventing victimization. 17 of date rape, she offers few strategies for preventing date assault. The only strategy relating directly to the dating situation was "When you first meet a man, stay in public places or double date. Avoid being alone at either your or his apartment“ (p. 12). Pritchard, a rape referral counselor at Glassboro State College, has the best of intentions, but like others before her, has had little research to draw from when it comes to date assault. In addition, by focusing the problem at the societal level, much of the literature on rape has tended, perhaps inadvertently, to ignore victim-offender interaction. Consequently, date assault didn't receive much attention until the 19805, when several articles on the subject began to appear in the popular literature (Barrett, 1982; ChristOpherson, 1983; Dowd, 1983; Mithers, 1980; Schwartz gt_al,, 1986; Seligmann gt_al,, 1984; Sherman, 1985). Therefore, the material most germane to the tapic at hand--that of the role traditional dating plays in sexual assault--is rather sparse relative to the substantial amount of literature on rape in general. Sexual Behavior in the Dating Relationship While the issue of date rape appears to have emerged only recently, there were earlier works, nonetheless, that touched on the subject. Calvert (1974), Hilberman (1976), Klemmack and Klemmack (1976), Medea and Thompson (1974), Storaska (1975), and Weis and Borges (1973) were among the first to discuss the way in which dating is organized and its potential for sexual offending. Having sex on dates may be a common dating activity, but according to these various authors, dating involves game-like behavior where 18 sex is not a free exchange, but is won or obtained according to the rules of the game. And game rules for dating appear to be long established. As early as 1937, Waller described dating or courtship as a "thrill-seeking," exploitative relationship where the "female exploits for presents and expensive amusements." Weis and Borges (1973:88) also refer to the dating relationship as a "mutually exploitative arrangement of self-role expectations which limit and direct behavior of both parties and determine the character of the relationship." According to them: Men generally initiate the social interaction by asking a member of the opposite sex out for an evening of entertain- ment. Many aspects of the date are highly ritualized; he is expected to show her a good time and pay all of the expenses. The time and frequency with which a couple has been dating is expected to have some impact on the degree of intimacy she will allow. Dating is often seen as the first step toward courtship and eventually marriage. She may stress the latter development, whereas he may be interested in maintaining a less serious involvement. This gives the interaction a game-like quality, in which the participants may be dishonest about the goals they are pursuing and operate under different guises depending on their sex. ...Built into the concept of dating is the notion that the woman is an object which may be purchased. The man is taught to anticipate a sexual return on his financial and social investment. (pp. 87-88) Klemmack and Klemmack (1976) also contend that "in the American dating system females are viewed as sexual objects; men are socialized to expect a sexual reward (or at least to try for that reward)." Traditionally, then, dating has been characterized by different goals and expectations, a double standard of sexual behavior, and game-like pr0perties that imply one partner in the dating relationship will emerge a winner and the other a loser. Contributing to the win-lose nature of the game is the notion that the female will 19 set a sexual limit which the male, in turn, will try to extend either by pressure, deception, intimidation, or force. Women, of course are expected to rebuff, intially at least, all sexual advances. MacDonald (1971:84) believes "a certain measure of forceful- ness is expected by many women in lovemaking or courtship. Likewise, the man expects some resistance to his efforts at seduction.“ Similarly, Medea and Thompson (1974:23) claim "the man has always been taught that no women really wants to have sex and that he will have to bargain for it." And according to Klemmack and Klemmack (1976), there is a double standard of sexuality: "man's sexuality is something to be enjoyed and given when it pleases him; a woman's sexuality has to be persuaded or forced out of her." Moreover, Calvert (1974) feels that a "man starts with the assumption that any woman is sexually available to him, if he is persistent enough." And "any reasonably experienced male has learned to disregard a woman's minor protestations." And finally MacKellar (l975:6) states: There are still a great many men to whom forcing a woman sexually is not a crime. Resisting sexual advances is the normal way for a woman to act, and overcoming this resistance is the way a man is supposed to act. It is also expected that males will assume the dominant role in the dating relationship, and females the subordinate. Falbo and Peplau (1980), in a study of power strategies used by single college men and women in their relationships, found that most of the women perceived themselves to be in a weaker or subordinate position, in contrast, to most of the males, who perceived themselves to be in the dominant position. Accordingly, males expected compliance when trying to influence their partners, where females assumed non-compliance to their influence attempts. Under these circumstances, 20 dating becomes a no-win situation for most women. It comes as no surprise, then, that "many women take date assault for granted; something they must put up with if they go out with men" (Barrett, 1982). Medea and Thompson (1974) concur, "many young women on a first date feel fortunate if the evening ends quietly rather than in a wrestling match or an actual rape." The importance to males of winning sexual contact in the dating game, from a few grabs to the ultimate--sexual intercourse--is illustrated again and again in the literature. Komarovsky (1976), in interviews with 62 college senior males, found the majority (56) believed, to varying degrees, that "sex as a conquest of a resisting female" is a desirable goal. In fact, one male ”was known to place a mark on the wall of his dormitory room for every new conquest“ (p. 64). In this sense, dating is a sport, where women who participate are potential trophies for some game hunter's wall In a parallel vein, Thio (1983:144) sees dating as a "masculinity contest," where women are the prize: This society places a high premium on competition, men are pressured to engage in what may be called a masculinity contest. In order to come out as a winner, a man has to make out with the largest number of women possible. And according to Clark and Lewis (1977), "men who identify masculinity with sexual dominance and aggression are not likely to see any difference between what they call seduction and women call rape." To win the contest, males, especially those who adhere to traditional sex-role values (Taylor and Smith, 1974), appear to frequently resort to covert as well as overt methods to "persuade" their partners to comply sexually. Gorer (1948) and Balswick and Anderson (1969) claim that a technique often used by males to get 21 females to acquiesce sexually is the "line, “for example, a profession of love. And according to Gorer, the use of such "lines" is merely a "friendly deception"--an accepted dating procedure. Corroborating the above claim, Kanin (1967), in a study of male sexual aggression on college campuses (Kanin defines sexual aggression as "the male's quest for coital access of a rejecting female during the course of which physical coercion is utilized to the degree that offended responses are elicited from the female"), found that 80.5 percent of the sexually aggressive males (as Opposed to 27.3 percent of the non-aggressive males), in addition to using physical coercion, indicated having used one of the following "surreptitious maneuvers": "attempted to get girl intoxicated," "falsely promised marriage," "falsely professed love," "threatened to terminate relationship." According to Kanin, "exploitation of the female for erotic gratifica- tion permeates the entire approach of the aggressive male." And as shown below, this exploitation isn't always so "friendly," nor is it infrequent. In a study done by Kirkpatrick and Kanin (1957), 55.7 percent of the dating college females in their sample (162) indicated having been sexually offended while at college, and of this number, 20.9 percent were offended by "forceful attempts at intercourse and 6.2 percent by aggressively forceful attempts of which menacing threats or coercive infliction of physical pain were employed." Overall, these women experienced 1,022 sexually offensive episodes. Kanin (1957) concluded that dating relationships were characterized by exploitation and that misunderstanding and miscommunication were factors associated with offensive episodes. In a replication 22 of the 1957 study, Kanin and Parcell (1977) found an even higher incidence of offending; 83 percent of the 282 college females surveyed in this sample reported having been sexually offended during high school and/or college. And in further support of sexual aggression among college couples who date, over 70 percent of the women in Koss's study (1982) acknowledged being pressured to some degree to have sex in excess of what they desired and "38 percent reported sexual victimizations that met the legal definition of rape" (p. 16). In addition, many participants in this study felt that all heterosexual relationships were a form of game playing. Based on the research above, it would appear that the traditional dating game is alive and flourishing. A significant number of young men and women, eSpecially those of college age, seem to be playing the game according to traditional rules with male sexual aggression being taken for granted by both sexes. Consequently, women often give in to sexual demands that do not match their own because they perceive themselves powerless, or because they want to be liked, or because they are afraid of offending males. College females in a study done by D'Augelli and Cross (1975) indicated they "often participated in sexual activity in excess of their personal preference." But some dating women, who don't comply, are physically forced to engage in sexual activity against their will; in other words, they are sexually assaulted or raped. Indeed, without great difficulty, one can envision how sexual assault may be a natural consequence of the dating game. As Medea and Thompson see it (1974:23): 23 If he knows the woman and she lets herself be put into the situation that allows him to rape her, he will almost certainly not think that he has raped her; she has made a false move in the game and it only makes sense for him to take advantage of it. Even though our society encourages males to use deception and intimidation to "persuade“ females to have sexual contact with them, and even though many women take this kind of behavior for granted, these females, nonetheless, find it offensive as indicated in the research above. Also some of these so-called techniques of courtship qualify as sexual assault or rape. While few researchers have attempted to directly investigate the relationship of the dating format to sexual offending, there has been work peripheral to the problem.1 In addition to the work done by Kanin (1957), Kanin (1967), Kanin and Parcell (1977), Kirkpatrick and Kanin (1957), Komarovsky (1976), Koss (1982), and K055 and Oros (1982), there have been several studies, multidisciplinary in nature, which have attempted to examine the relationship of traditional sex role attitudes to attitudes about rape (Calhoun, Selby and Warring, 1976; Feild, 1978; Krulewitz, 1981; Krulewitz and Nash, 1979; Krulewitz and Payne, 1978; Scroggs, 1976), the relationship of premarital sexual attitudes of American college 1While an understanding of the dating event and its relationship to sexual assault was not a main goal of their investigation, a few items from the Sexual Experiences Survey designed by K055 and Oros (1982) do measure some game-like aspects of dating behavior. For example, misinterpretation of sexual intimacy and use of the "line," are included in two of the items: (1) "Have you ever had a man (woman) misinterpret the level of sexual intimacy you desired?", and (2) "Have you ever found out that a man had obtained sexual intercourse with you by saying things he didn't really mean?" p. 456 24 students to sexual behavior or standards (Croake, 1973; Driscoll, 1971; Kaats and David, 1970; Spence and Helmreich, 1972), and the relationship of stereotyped sex role attitudes to miscommunication in dating (Balswick and Anderson, 1969; Rosenkrantz gt a1. 1968). When college students were given hypothetical situations of rape, several authors found a strong relationship between stereotyped attitudes towards sex roles and stereotyped attitudes about rape. Krulewitz and Nash (1979) found that both college men and women tended to apply sex-role stereotypes when evaluating rape situations. With regard to victim precipitation, Krulewitz and Payne (1978) found that women in their study attributed more responsibility to the victim than did men, while Calhoun, Selby and Warring's (1976) research showed males to view rape as the victim's fault to a greater extent than did females. And data from the Kirkpatrick and Kanin (1967) and Kanin (1957) studies showed that both males and females involved in actual cases of sexual aggression or victimi- zation on campus believed that the aggression was somehow the fault of the female (e.g., "she let it get out of hand," or "she was asking for it"). As far as force and resistance to rape are concerned, females as well as males seem to need evidence of force and resistance to that force, before they can define a situation as rape, with traditional females being the most influenced by the assailant's force (Krulewitz and Payne, 1978). Furthermore, some males interpret a failure to resist as a "conscious or unconscious desire for sexual intercourse" (MacDonald, 1971). It is rather disconcerting to find that college women seem to require, as a criterion for rape, strong physical resistance, 25 because when asked about defense against assault in general, they tend to endorse nonaggressive responses (Krulewitz, 1981; Scroggs, 1976). Men, on the other hand, strongly endorse aggressive responses to assault. In the Krulewitz study, "women believed physically aggressive victims were the most likely to be physically injured," while "men believed that physical aggression was the most effective method for averting attack.” Likewise, Scroggs found that "men feel that not to defend oneself is to ask for it," while "women feel that not to defend oneself is to give notice of one's helplessness and consequently, of the inappropriateness of oneself as a target for aggression." This research suggests that male and female college students who hold stereotyped attitudes toward sex roles are apt to carry those attitudes into the dating environment and when assault or rape does occur, females will have difficulty in defining it as such and will also have difficulty in responding in an appropriate manner to a sexually aggressive event. Also males will have difficulty in interpreting female responses to their sexual overtures. Concerning sex-role stereotypes and sexual behavior, some researchers have found that college students, both female and male, appear to continue to strongly adhere to traditional role stereotypes (Driscoll, 1971; Kaats and David, 1970; Krulewitz, 1981; Krulewitz and Nash, 1979; Rosenkrantz §t_al,, 1968); others have found a considerable shift away from traditional to more liberal attitudes towards women (Spence and Helmreich, 1972), and a shift towards more liberal attitudes about sex (Croake, 1973). This would suggest that there is a group of students engaging in non-stereotypic behavior; a group which may be tapped by research. However, Kaats and David 26 (1970) found that in spite of more liberal sexual attitudes, dating couples were still experiencing a double standard in actual sexual behavior. And Balswick and Anderson (1969) and Driscoll (1971) found that both males and females tended to misread sexual expectations because of discrepancies in perception about sexual standards, attitudes, and behavior that were in accordance with their prescribed roles. Much of this research strongly suggests that attitudinal shifts away from stereotypes about sex roles may significantly help reduce the incidence of date assault. The contemporary dating scene, with its emphasis on traditional role-playing, is an ambiguous situation characterized by tension and unclear and contradictory sex role expectations, which frequently result in miscommunication, misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the degree of sexual intimacy desired by either sex. Theoretical Perspectives . While articles have been written on date rape and investigations have been conducted to determine the prevalence of date assault, a review of the literature shows that few attempts have been made to understand it from a sound theoretical standpoint. In fact, Burt (1980:229) claims: Until quite recently the whole area of rape research proceeded on largely atheoretical grounds while at the same time implicitly incorporating many cultural stereo- types into its hypotheses, methodologies, and interpreta- tions of results. Early theories of rape were mainly psychopathological orientations where rape was seen as a symptom of some psychological dysfunction 27 in the male (Groth and Birnbaum, 1979). But these clinical theories have been based on a very small sample of the real papulation and have failed to take into account either victim-offender interaction or the input of socialization. Also these studies have focused on either the offender or the victim, not the interaction. Later efforts at theorizing produced a subcultural perspective, which asserts that rape is due to a lower-class subculture of violence where aggressive and exploitative behavior towards women is a normative part of the subculture and a victim precipitation model which suggests that characteristics or behaviors of females are to blame for rape events. For example, a woman can precipitate rape by placing herself in a vulnerable position (e.g., agreeing to drink or ride with a stranger), by wearing seductive clothing, by using obscene language, or by not resisting strongly enough when attacked. These actions or non actions by the female imply consent. Within this framework, the "victim is always the cause of the crime," because "the victim creates the possibility of the crime" (Schafer, 1968:79). According to Schwendinger and Schwendinger (1974) victim precipi- tation also "assumes that rape involves a degree of overwhelming passion on the part of men." A not uncommon statement of reproach would be: "You have led him on, so what do you expect?" Furthermore, they believe that maintaining a woman is a contributor to the event "normalizes" rape as "consensual heterosexual sex." The victim precipitation model is most frequently used to explain assault situations where the victim knows the offender. Amir (1971), in a study of all forcible rape cases listed with the Philadelphia police department for the years 1958 and 28 1960, draws from both the subcultural and victim precipitation perspectives. In support of subcultural theory, he claims: Because the highest rates of the offenses studied occurred among relatively homogeneous groups, it is, therefore, assumed that these groups situated in a subculture, hold a particular set of conduct norms which emphasize and condone aggressive behavior, and have also the least 'resistance potential' toward aggressive sexual behavior. Thus, under special circumstances, violence, including sexual violence towards women, is more likely to occur. Furthermore it is contended that members of these subcultures are more likely to react aggressively than non-members. Hence, individual differences in aggressive behavior may also reflect different degrees of integration with the subculture rather than only personality differences of a pathological nature. It is not contended, however, that there is a unique subculture of rape. Rather, there exists a ubiquitous or "parent“ subculture of violence. Rape is, therefore, only an epiphenomenon occurring under special circumstances. (pp. 319-320) But in an analysis of stranger versus non-stranger rape, he relies on the victim precipitation perspective. In his study, he found that in more than one-third of the cases (N=646), the victim and the offender "knew each other as close neighbors or acquaintances" and that "offenders and victims frequently met in the home or place of sojourn of either one of them and that the offense also occurred in that place“ (p. 336). While "date rape" terminology isn't used, some of the rapes described in Amir's study would have clearly fallen into this category. He, at least, admits (1971: 245:246) that "the foregoing analysis already tends to discard the assumption that forcible rape is an event where a woman is attacked, without warning, by an offender who is unknown to her." But he then appears to discredit many of the non-stranger rapes in his study by assuming complicity on the part of the victim and uses the following as a "working definition“ of victim precipitation to identify whether 29 or not a rape fell into this category: . those rape situations in which the victim actually, or so it was deemed, agreed to sexual relations but retracted before the actual act or did not react strongly enough when the suggestion was made by the offender. The term applies also to cases in risky situations marred with sexuality, especially when she uses what could be interpreted as indecency in language and gestures, or constitutes what could be taken as an invitation to sexual relations. (p. 266) He further subdivides the model (p. 493): “victim behavior may consist of an act of commission (e.g., she agreed to drink or ride with a stranger), or omission (e.g., she failed to react strongly enough to sexual suggestions and overtures)." Police comments found in some of the case files obviously biased this labeling process, for example, "she behaved provocatively, it seems she was seductive" or "irresponsible." All in all, Amir claimed that 71 percent of the acquaintance rapes were victim precipitated as Opposed to 43 percent of the stranger rapes. The irony here is that all of these rapes, according to the police files, were cases of forcible rape without consent, and yet, by labeling a great many of the rapes, especially the acquaintance rapes, victim precipitated, it is implied that these women did consent, to some extent anyway, by contributing to the crime. The literature abounds with such examples, among them, MacDonald (l97l:3), who feels that "some women, by their reckless behavior, tempt fate," and Clinard and Quinney (1973:42), who state "the victim of rape g:tgn_appears to have much to do with the fact that she is raped." And in a content analysis of 13 criminology textbooks published between 1970 and 1977, Wisan (1979) found victim precipitation 30 to be a major theme. Following in Amir's footsteps, Schiff (1979), in an analysis of 100 cases of rape, excluded those where he "questioned whether all or any of the components of the crime were factual." Most of the cases he dismissed as not being rape were those where the victim knew the assailant. For example, he excluded a case “where a woman on a date had been intoxicated and claimed that her date raped her while she was sick." And another case was excluded because it involved an 18-year-old girl who had been having sexual intercourse with the alleged assailant on a regular basis. Schiff, however, doubts the credibility of most rape victims as demonstrated by this quote from an earlier work: The determination as to whether a female has or has not been sexually attacked is often difficult, if not impossible, to make and the truth is known only to two people, one saying yes and the other no . . . He (the medical examiner) must rely upon whatever the victim tells him, distilling out what he believes to be fact, physical signs which, at times, are difficult to unravel, and a sixth sense derived from interviewing hundreds of patients. In arriving at a conclusion, he must weigh carefully the words and the attitude of the victim as well as to seek out any hidden, ulterior motives. He must keep his index of suspicion high because, not infrequently, false accusations of rape have been made against innocent persons (1973:345). Amid such skepticism, the issue of rape in general had difficulty surfacing, let alone the issue of date rape. While mention of acquaintance rape began to appear in the literature in the late 19605 and early 19705, invariably, it was linked to the victim precipitation model, which tended to minimize the legitimacy of these rapes. The paucity of literature on acquaintance rape and date rape, in part, can be attributed to this perspective. By the mid to late 1970s the idea of victim precipitation 31 was beginning to be vigorously challenged, particularly by those belonging to the feminist camp. The wave of feminist literature stimulated new ways of thinking about rape. As a result, the concept of rape took on a new look--that of a violent crime as Opposed to a sex crime. Rape was now an act of power, violence, aggression, and degradation (Becker, Abel and Skinner, 1979; Bode, 1978; Brownmiller, 1975; Schwendinger and Schwendinger, 1974). A theory typifying this new orientation is that of sexual stratification which asserts that rape is a direct result of our society's differen- tial sex-role socialization, which places men in a position of power and dominance (Jackson, 1978; Rose 1977b, Schlegel, 1977; Williams and Holmes, 1981). Much of the research on date assault has as Burt put it "proceeded on largely atheoretical grounds." Those studies which have utilized theoretical frameworks most often have used combinations or variations of several longstanding sociological orientations. Wilson, Faison and Britton (1983) combined structural strain theory with social learning to explain male sexual aggression on campus: . . anomie results from the acceptance of a double standard. If a society encourages sexual encounters for males, and discourages sexual encounters for females, a clear disjunction between goals and means results. Innovations like sex ag ression should occur under these circumstances. (p. 244) With regard to social learning they believe gender stereotypes "identify certain types of women as legitimate targets for sexual aggression" and "learned patterns of aggressive behavior" lead to abuse in other situations such as the dating event: "when abused boys grow up they abuse their dates." Similar to Wilson, Faison and Britton's structural strain theory, Kanin (1967) "studied male 32 sex aggression to determine whether it tends to be a response of frustrated males unable to obtain outlets by sanctioned means." Instead, he found it to be "more a function of peer group associa- tions." The idea of sex-role socialization or cultural conditioning has greatly influenced recent thinking about rape (Sanday, 1981). A study by Berger gt_al, (1986) views sexual assault "as a form of socially conditioned sexual aggression that stems from traditional gender role socialization and sexual learning." For example, few undergraduate female students in their sample took seriously unwanted sexual contacts, especially those occurring in local bars: Many women seemed to take these types of behaviors as givens, as part of the dating game, as reasonable risks one invariably had to take when trying to meet the opposite sex. These women have been so effectively socialized to accept the cultural norms of male sexual aggression that they appeared to have difficulty imagining that things could, or should, be any different. (p. 14) And respondents often felt responsible for nonconcensual sexual contact and even intercourse because they somehow thought they should have had more sense than to accompany men they barely knew, or because they had consented to kissing or other sexual 'preliminaries'. They knew they didn't want to go any further, but often questioned their right to withdraw consent once sexual activity had begun and the man had become aroused. (p. 15) Traditional sex-role socialization appears to play a primary part in the way dating is organized. As Waller (1937:727) states, "although there are endless variations in courtship customs, they are always functionally related to the total configuration of the culture.“ And according to Storaska (1975), "men and women tend to play out the roles society currently favors, so they start out with a preconceived notion of what the date should be." Men and women, then, are “products of and potential victims of their own 33 social and cultural creations" (Shepherd, 1982). Typically in this society, males are socialized to be strong, aggressive, and dominant (Becker and Abel, 1978; Knox and Kupferer, 1971; Komarovsky, 1976). Most of the males in Komarovsky's study regarded these traits to characterize their notion of the "ideal man." If males are repeatedly told they should be aggressive and dominant, they come to believe it. In contrast, females are traditionally socialized to be the weaker or more sexually passive sex (Griffin, 1979; Jackson, 1978; Klemmack and Klemmack, 1976; Riger, Gordon and LeBailley, 1978; Weis and Borges, 1973). "They are systematically instructed in the feminine virtues of ladylike behavior, particularly to be submissive to men" (Weis and Borges, 1973:81). Gager and Schurr (1976) claim that socializing women to be passive prevents them from making "clear choices“ and places them in a position conducive to victimiza- tion. Society has contradictory expectations of women, for while they are taught to be weak and passive, they are also expected to respond aggressively when attacked, especially in rape situations. Naturally, women are unable to meet these diametrically opposed expectations. The dating game is a microcosm of society at large in that its participants or players tend to carry into the dating environment the roles society has taught them to play. Since our society condones that males be dominant and aggressive, they are usually the dominant and aggressive partipants in the dating interaction and are expected to be the initiators of sexual activity. Likewise, women have learned to be passive participants in the interaction and are expected 34 to agree to sex with reluctance. And if they don't agree, males have been taught to apply pressure to overcome their resistance, since through socialization, they have come to expect some kind of sexual activity to occur on a date. Overall, the game reflects the common belief in our society that it's natural for the sexes to engage in battle, whether in the dating interaction or outside of it. To understand the dating interaction and the way it contributes to sexual assault, it is necessary to observe the roles and meanings associated with the interaction. Weis and Borges (1973:88), coming from a symbolic interactionist orientation, claim that "interaction takes place between role-carriers rather than persons." And in dating these roles are often “unclear, frequently contradictory, and sometimes mutually exclusive." In their excellent article they state: The stereotypic notions of male and female roles and their relationships to conceptions of masculine and feminine sexuality, coupled with a situation that is fraught with ambiguous expectations, provide the ingredients for systemat- ically socialized actors who can participate in the drama of rape. The dating system, by setting up such situations, accustoms the male to encounters in which he feels some justification and need to demand intimate sex and to approach this goal forcefully. (p. 86) Through socialization, we learn what others expect of us as we move into role-playing in groups. Socialization involves the "acquisi- tion of shared meanings“ so that each individual coming into an interactional situation has a unique set of meanings and these meanings are derived primarily from the meaning given to these acts by the person's social and cultural environment (Lauer and Handel, 1983). Consequently, what he or she does in the interaction 35 depends upon the kind of person that individual is as well as meanings he or she attaches to the event. Over time, we develop definitions of different kinds of situations and base our conduct on those definitions (Stryker, 1980). Thus, these definitions give individuals a rough guide of what they should or should not do in any given situation. But according to Weis and Borges (1973:89), individuals involved in the dating interaction have "difficulty in coming to a consensus about the definition of the situation." Consequently, "misunderstandings may occur on both sides." Each participant, in accordance with his or her prescribed role expectancies, has formed a definition of what the dating encounter will be and these definitions are often opposed to one another. For example, not included in the definition of dating, especially for the female, is sexual assault or rape. A dating relationship is most frequently seen as one in which rape cannot occur (Barrett, 1982; Klemmack and Klemmack, 1976; Koss, 1982; Mithers, 1980). A woman often assumes that the person she is with is trustworthy because he is known to her regardless of whether or not it is a casual date or one of long standing. As Hilberman states (l976zxi): Rape can occur in a social situation as well as in surprise attacks, but in the former non-consent is often overlooked or misinterpreted by assuming that certain situations imply a willingness for a sexual relationship. And "since having sex on dates is a normal dating activity, many rape victims may interpret rape as overly aggressive sexual advances" (Sanders, 1980:50). Koss (1982:22) found that women who were identified 36 as "unacknowledged victims" of rape, were often romantically involved with their offender and were unable to define the situation as rape. Consequently, women seldom report date rapes, because they are convinced it couldn't have happened since it occurred within the framework of a date or because they feel they did something to bring it about. When participants have definitions in Opposition to one another, the gestures or symbols used in the interaction lead to conflict as both parties try, often in vain, to interpret what the other expects or is doing within the framework of their definition. As Weis and Borges state, "in a conflict situation the participants often struggle to interpret the verbal and nonverbal gestures of the other and to assign them social meaning which allows a definition of the situation." And the most common conflict for participants in a heterosexual dating interaction is interpreting the sexual intent of the other. Therefore, participants frequently misinterpret the sexual expectations of their dating partners. In the study done by Balswick and Anderson (1969:777), in response to the question, "If a boy offers you a ride home from a bar, do you expect to make out for a while? over twice as many males as females predicted that a girl would respond in the affirmative." And in response to the question, "If a boy offers to walk you home from a bar, do you expect to make out? almost three times more males than females felt that a girl would respond in the affirmative." They concluded that both males and females were far from accurate in reading the sexual expectations of their dates. And when there is a sexual misunderstanding, males have frequently been able to 37 convince their dating partners that the responsibility for the misunderstanding is theirs. Similarly, Jackson (1978:34) claims: Competing definitions of the situation are a constant source of misinterpretation and misunderstanding in the unfolding of the sexual drama. The man has to rely on successfully decoding the gestural and verbal cues which she provides and it is therefore possible for him to perceive a sexual invitation where none was intended. It is also possible that the woman might not realize that he has defined a situation in sexual terms when she has not. This ambiguity may provide a pretext for the mobilization of the appropriate techniques of neutrali- zation. If the man does not reassess his initial definition of the situation and proceeds to interpret all that tran- spires within its terms, the likely outcome is rape. And Goodchilds and Zellman (1984) postulate that "sexual signaling" --various verbal and nonverbal behaviors--can influence expectations and behavior during a relationship. To see whether or not males and females interpret behavioral cues the same and to see whether or not these interpretations relate to aggression, they surveyed 432 adolescents between 14 and 18 years of age. They found that "male respondents consistently scored behaviors as more indicative of sexual interest than did their female counterparts," concluding that “males have a more sexualized view of the world than females, attributing more sexual meaning to a wide range of behaviors" (p. 239). For example, males in their study viewed certain items of female apparel (e.g., low-cut blouses and tight jeans) as "potent sexual signals" while females were not as certain of their meaning. Some teenagers are more apt to wear such clothing as part of a fashion statement then as a lure for males. And while going to a man's home was a less ambiguous set of signals, "male interviewees were more confident than females that the dating pair wanted to 38 have sex." Goodchilds and Zellman also presented several rape scenarios to their subjects and found that 79 percent of their sample believed that under some circumstances it was all right for a male to hold his date down and force her to have sexual intercourse. “While the extent to which male adolescents accept sexual assault as justified is surprising, the numbers of female adolescents who also condone a male attack is truly astounding. While female acceptance was less, the fact that females could accept such behavior at all is deeply disturbing" (p. 242). (Twenty-one percent of the sample--two- thirds female--replied that no circumstances would justify such behavior.) These findings related to interpretations respondents made of certain behaviors. For example, force was considered justified if the couple had dated a long time, the female said she would have sex but then changed her mind, and the female's behavior was seen as responsible for getting the male sexually excited. In conclusion, Goodchilds and Zellman found that many behaviors were still being interpreted in accordance with traditional stereotypes about male and female behavior. Males were expected to be aggressive and females were expected to be responsible for controlling sexual activity on dates and thus were responsible for sexual outcomes. And data from their study indicated that adolescents seem to accept adversary as part of the male-female relationship, especially where sex is concerned. In summing up the relationship of sexual signaling to the dating interaction they state: A system that works (i.e., one in which signals are clear and straightforward) allows relationships to proceed (or not) based on accurate readings of the partners' needs and wishes. A dysfunctional system, in which signals 39 are distorted by the sender, the receiver, or both, results in relationships that run the risk of being dishonest, exploitative, stereotypical, and unsatisfying. (p. 235) Other conflicts in the dating relationship include differences in perceptions of sex (biological need for males versus sex as a manifestation of love for females), differencesin behavioral styles (aggressiveness for males versus passivity for females), and the male's perception that sexual activity is a fair exchange for his input into the date. "In the process of learning the female role, (the woman) is taught to value her sexual favors as an impor- tant item of exchange, to be used, ideally, to transact a marriage contract" (Weis and Borges, 1973:81). Thus, the dating system "leaves the woman in a position of being a sexual object that is bought and paid for" (p. 108). Therefore, it is assumed that if the male provides the economic resources for the date, the female, in return, will provide physical gratification as a reward or payment. On the whole, dating is characterized by conflicts which hinder its participants from taking part in a relationship with common goals or expectations. Because of sex-role socialization, participants often have different expectations for the event which, in turn, often lead to misunderstandings about sexual activity. And these misunderstandings can sometimes lead to offensive sexual behavior or rape. The symbolic interactionist perspective provides a useful framework for viewing sexual assaults on dates and is the frame of reference employed in the present research. As Jackson (1978:29) contends: 40 If rape is to be understood, then, it must be placed within the context of the patterns of sexual relationships typical of our society. Rather than asking why_some men rape we should ask hgw_rape is possible within certain situations, how features of conventional sexual scenes .create the potential for rape. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY As mentioned in Chapter I, the present study had three major goals: (1) to identify dimensions of dating that would help clarify the dating construct, (2) to assess whether or not particular dimensions are related to verbal and/or physical sexual offending, and (3) to assess the utility of using a symbolic interactionist perspective for understanding sexual assault within the context of the dating interaction. This study is an exploratory investigation and uses the symbolic interactionist perSpective as its theoretical orientation. Hypotheses Because the first goal of this study was to discover and identify dimensions of dating beliefs and dating style that might clarify the dating interaction, hypotheses concerning dating dimensions were, of necessity, somewhat general. But based on the symbolic interactionist perspective and implications from prior research, it was believed that dating dimensions would be subsets for the traditional/non-tradi- tional continuum, that is, college students would be dating in a way which reflected sex-role socialization. And it was expected that students who were more traditional in their orientation on beliefs and style of dating dimensions would be more likely to experience or use sexual aggression than those who had a non-traditional orientation on these dimensions. Furthermore, research has indicated that 41 42 traditionally females are the ones offended and males have been the offenders. Thus, the following hypotheses were pr0posed to guide the research study: Hypothesis 1: Females who subscribe to traditional dating beliefs are more likely to experience verbal coercion or manipulation (gameplaying) by their dates than females with a non-traditional orientation; Hypothesis 2: Females who engage in a traditional dating style are more likely to experience verbal coercion or manipulation (gameplaying) by their dates than females with a non-traditional orientation; Hypothesis 3: Females who subscribe to traditional dating beliefs are more likely to experience physical sexual offending on dates than females with a non-traditional orientation; (Hypothesis 4: Females who engage in a traditional dating style are more likely to experience physical sexual offending on dates than females with a non-traditional orientation. Corresponding hypotheses for males were: Hypothesis 5: Males who subscribe to traditional dating beliefs are more likely to employ gameplaying strategies (verbal coercion and manipulation) to obtain sexual compliance from their dates than males with a non-traditional orientation; Hypothesis 6: Males who engage in a traditional dating style are more likely to employ gameplaying strategies (verbal coercion and manipulation) to obtain sexual compliance from their dates than males with a non-traditional orientation; Hypothesis 7: Males who subscribe to traditional dating beliefs 43 are more likely to use physical force to obtain sexual compliance from their dates than males with a non-traditional orientation; Hypothesis 8: Males who engage in a traditional dating style are more likely to use physical force to obtain sexual compliance from their dates than are males with a non-traditional orientation. The independent variables in this study were traditional beliefs and traditional dating style and the dependent measures were sexual offending--verbal and physical. Traditional dating beliefs were operationalized in terms of factor scores obtained for four dating belief dimensions. Dating style was operationalized in terms of factor scores obtained on four dating style dimensions and scores obtained on 18 individual style variables. Sexual offending--verbal and physical--was Operationalized in terms of factor scores on four offending dimensions. Definition of Terms DATE refers to a social engagement with a person of the opposite sex, in other words, a situation where there is an understanding that the heterosexual pair is together for a focused interaction usually of a social nature. TRADITIONAL DATING FORMAT refers to a dating interaction where the male assumes the dominant role in the relationship and assumes the social and financial responsibility for the date (i.e., initiates the dating interaction, pays expenses, provides transportation, decides where to go and what to do). NON-TRADITIONAL DATING FORMAT refers to a dating interaction where both participants share in the social and financial responsibility 44 for the date with neither assuming a dominant role. TRADITIONAL DATING BELIEFS refer to beliefs that are commensurate with a traditional dating style and with stereotypical attitudes about male and female behavior. UNARRANGED OR "PICK-UP" DATE refers to an occasion where the date is considered to begin at the time the female or male accepts an offer to pair off (e.g., meeting in a bar); and pick-up dates are usually with someone unknown prior to the pairing. PRE-ARRANGED DATE refers to a date planned prior to the actual time the date begins either with someone already known (casually or long-term) or with someone unknown, e.g., a blind date. SEXUAL OFFENDING OR AGGRESSION is defined Operationally in this study as all reported "unwanted sexual overtures," verbal and/or physical, made by one dating partner to obtain sexual compliance from the other, for example, forceful maneuvering of a partner into a sexually convenient position, the forceful removal of clothing, verbal threats, etc. (This study defines sexual aggression more generally and considers a wide range of offending behaviors, that is, a continuum of sexually offensive behaviors ranging from verbal coercion to the ultimately aggressive act, rape. GAME PLAYING specifically refers to the use of types of verbal manipulation to obtain sexual compliance from a dating partner, for example, threatening to end a relationship if a dating partner doesn't comply sexually, and using "lines" to convince a date to participate in sexual activity. 45 Sample and Sampling Procedure A total of 241 undergraduate students enrolled at Michigan State University during the fall of 1985 comprised the sample for this study. These subjects were drawn from five courses purposively selected to maximize the heterogeneity of respondents. Two courses approved to meet the University's general education requirement in the social and behavioral sciences (SS 201 - Americans and Their Values and SOC 241 - Introduction to SociologY) were chosen because of diversity in class composition. (All undergraduate students attending Michigan State University are required to complete 45 credits of general educa- tion as a part of their degree programs.) Two courses approved for the Women's Studies-Thematic Program (CJ 425 - Women in Criminal Justice and IDC 233 - Introduction to Women's Studies) were included to increase the likelihood of obtaining respondents who may have dated in a non-traditional manner. The fifth course-ATL 181 - Writing: Women in America--was approved as a course for the Women's Studies-The- matic Program and for the general education requirement in written and oral communication. Data were collected with a 140-item questionnaire administered by the researcher in the classroom. The investigator supervised the testing procedure--giving instructions for completing the survey, ensuring anonymity, and distributing and collecting completed question- naires. Because the questionnaire was quite long and took, on the average, 40 minutes to complete, students who did not complete the survey during the class period were allowed to finish it out of class with the understanding they would return the instrument at the next class meeting. (Envelopes were provided to those students who wished 46 to return the survey directly to the researcher's on-campus office.) Of the students attending the five courses mentioned above, 43 did not participate in the study. Eight students were married; 6 had not dated anyone of the opposite sex during the past year; 18 preferred to not participate; and 11 cited other reasons (including 2 foreign students whose religion did not permit dating). A subsequent check of the completed instruments resulted in the decision to delete 22 cases because of susbtantial item nonresponse, especially nonresponse to demographic questions. This resulted in a sample size of 241. (Demographic variables were located at the end of the survey instrument. Consequently, students who had not completed the survey by the end of the class period but, nonetheless, Opted to return it at that time failed, in most cases, to respond to these items, rendering their questionnaires inadequate for analysis.) Instrumentation The basic instrument was an anonymous 140-item questionnaire (Appendix A) with total administration time approximating 40 minutes. The questionnaire was designed to be as simple and visually appealing as possible so that questions could be answered quickly by filling in the appropriate circle on the accompanying answer sheet. The cover page explained the study briefly and assured the student of anonymity. And students were asked to place their responses to questions within a time frame: the last 12 months. Fifty-eight items reflecting beliefs about dating were included in the instrument; each item had five Likert-type responses (agree strongly, agree mildly, undecided, disagree mildly, disagree strongly). 47 The dating belief items were culled from a systematic search of the literature for items that would be useful for characterizing people's beliefs about dating behavior and the dating event. Furthermore, these items were designed to measure the degree to which a respondent had a traditional or non-traditional orientation to dating. For example, it has been traditional for men to take the social and sexual initiative in dating relationships. Thus several items in this subset of questions tapped this particular facet of traditionality. Sixty-eight items were designed to measure actual dating experiences. These items were subdivided into the following categories: (1) style of dating variables (e.g., pick-up dates, steady dates, etc.), (2) game playing or manipulation variables (e.g., "When dating during the past year, did you ever use drugs?"), (4) date dominance variables (e.g., "When dating during the past year, how often did you feel like you were the stronger or more dominant person on the date?"), and (5) physical sexual offending variables (e.g., "Did a date ever use some degree of physical force to try and make you engage in kissing or petting when you didn't want to?"). The sexual offending items were suggested by the Sexual Experiences Scale developed by K055 and Oros (1982). So that both males and females could respond to these items, they were modified to some extent for inclusion in this questionnaire. And most of the items included under dating experiences were answered using a frequency continuum (e.g., "none," "a few," "half," "most," "all"). Finally, four items reflected the main reason a respondent dated and the last 10 variables characterized resondents by age, sex, year in college, college of major preference, religious affiliation, ethnicity, 48 residence, participation in a women's study course, participation in a rape awareness program and class surveyed. Data Analysis To meet the objectives of this study, factor analysis, simple bivariate correlation, and stepwise multiple regression techniques were used to test the hypotheses. First, factor analysis was used to reduce the data set and to identify valid dimensions or clusters of various subsets of data, for example, the 58 dating belief variables were subjected to a principal components analysis. After extraction of roots and VARIMAX rotation, factor solutions that were most meaning- ful were chosen for further study. The new factor variables were first subjected to a simple correlational analysis (Pearson's r) and then to multiple regression, a higher order analysis, to determine “best fit" models for predicting sexual offending. Findings from the data analysis are reported in Chapter IV. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS Introduction The present study, exploratory in nature, had three major goals: (1) to identify dimensions of contemporary dating--dimensions that reflect dating belief or behavioral style orientations, (2) to assess whether or not these dimensions are related to verbal and/or physical sexual offending on dates, and (3) to demonstrate the utility of using a symbolic interactionist perspective to better understand sexual offending within the context of the dating interaction. The procedures employed for data analysis are suggestd not only by the nature of the data, but also by the overall intent and purpose of the investigation. While various statistical procedures were performed, it must be recognized that the uniqueness and exploratory nature of this investigation restricts and limits the generalizability of the results. By way of orientation, this chapter will begin with a description of the sample, then will proceed to a discussion of the factor analysis of various data subsets. Then, to test the hypotheses, the discussion will turn to correlational analysis and stepwise multiple regresson. 49 50 Sample Characteristics The data collected are from a sample of 241 undergraduate students who attended Michigan State University during the fall of 1985. A breakdown of the sample by sex shows that there were more female (170 or 70.5%) than male (71 or 29.5%) respondents. (Absolute and relative frequencies for the demographic variables are presented in Table 1). With respect to age, 92 percent were 21 years of age or younger with the largest percentage (40.7%) falling in the 18-year old category. Because general education classes were surveyed, it was not surprising to find that the majority or 72.2 percent of the respondents were either freshmen (48.1%) or sophomores (24.1%). Most students attending Michigan State University attempt to complete general educa- tion requirements by the end of their SOphomore year. Thus only 27.8 percent or 67 respondents were upperclassmen. The frequencies further reveal that the sample was dispersed rather evenly with respect to college of major preference. The colleges with the largest percentage of respondents were the College of Business (27.8%), the College of Social Science (14.5%), and the College of Communication Arts (11.6%). Once again, the nature of general education classes seems to influence this distribution. Because all students are required to take 45 credits of general education, class composition was expected to reflect a variety of majors. As shown in Table 1, respondents were disproportionately white with few students belonging to ethnic minorities. Of the 240 students responding to this item, (there was missing information for one case), 215 or 89.2 percent were white, 10 (4.1%) were black, 5 (2.1%) were 51 TABLE 1.--Demographic Variables for the Sample.a Variable Absolute Relative frequency frequency Sex Male 71 29.5 Female 170 70.5 Age 17 1 .4 18 98 40.7 19 61 25.3 20 32 13.3 21 26 10.8 22 9 3.7 23 4 1.7 24 5 2.1 25 1 .4 Year of College Freshman 116 48.1 Sophomore 58 24.1 Junior 40 16.6 Senior 26 10.8 Off Campus/Lifelong 1 .4 Major Agriculture 10 4.1 Arts & Letters 10 4.1 Business 67 27.8 Communication Arts 28 11.6 Education 9 3.7 Engineering 25 6.2 Human Ecology 12 5.0 Human Medicine 6 2.5 James Madison 5 2.1 Natural Science 12 5.0 Nursing 2 .8 Osteopathic Medicine 5 2.1 Social Science 35 14.5 Veterinary Medicine 3 1.2 No Preference 22 9.1 Ethnicity Black 10 4.1 Hispanic 5 2.1 White 215 89.2 American Indian 3 1.2 Oriental 5 2.1 Other 2 .8 52 Table 1 (cont'd.) \IO‘N-h km 00 i—I-bNOkoHNv-IO Religiosity Catholic 102 42. Jewish 9 3. Baptist/Bible/Nazarene/ Pentecostal Gospel 20 8. Methodist/Episc0pa1/Presbyterian/ Lutheran 68 28. Seventh Day Adventist 1 Interdenominational/Non- Demoninational 1 Christian Scientist 3 1 Other 16 6 None 21 8 Place of Residence Dormitory 94 39. Sorority 5 2. Fraternity 3 1. Off campus, parents 99 41 Off campus, alone 7 2. Off campus, with roommate(s) 24 10. Off campus, steady boyfriend 3 1 Off campus, steady girlfriend 1 Other 5 2 Women's Study Courses No 174 72. Yes 66 27. Participated in Rapeawareness No 210 87. Yes 27 11. Course Surveyed SS 201 172 71. SOC 241 24 10. CJ 425 26 10. ATL 182 14 5. IDC 233 5 2. \100 NH «bN HGDCDOA aThere were 4 missing cases for the variable age and 1 missing case for the variable ethnicity. 53 Hispanic, 3 (1.2%) were American Indian, 5 (2.1%) were Oriental, and 2 students fell into the "other" category. Looking at religiosity, the data reveal that a preponderance of students (42.3%) designated Catholicism as their religious prefer- ence. It should be noted, however, that students were asked to respond to this item within a particular time frame, namely, "when they were growing up.“ Consequently, the designated preference, that of their family, may not necessarily be the one to which they currently ascribe. The second largest grouping was that of the "Methodist/Episcopal/ Presbyterian/Lutheran" category, containing 68 responses or 28.2 percent of the sample. Finally, with respect to place of residence, 94 (39%) lived in one of the dormitories on campus, 99 (41.1%) lived off campus with parents, 24 (10%) lived off campus with same-sex friends, 5 (2.1%) lived in a sorority, 3 (1.2%) lived in a fraternity, 7 (2.9%) lived off campus alone, 3 (1.2%) lived with a steady boyfriend, I (.4%) lived with a steady girlfriend, and 5 or 2.1 percent fell into the "other" category. Again, the large number of students living off campus with parents is reflective of the time frame of the instru- ment--"the past 12 months." As mentioned above, 72.2 percent of the students in the sample were freshmen and since the instrument was administred during the fall of 1985, typically a first term for new freshmen, responses for many students in the sample indicated where they were living during their senior year of high school. With regard to participation in a women's study course or a rape awareness program (items 139 and 140), 174 or 72.2% of the respon- dents said they had never taken a women's studies course and 210 54 or 87.1% said they had never participated in a rape awareness program. Factor Analysis of Data Subsets There were two primary motivations behind using factor analysis in the present study. First of all, it was used as an exploratory device to locate or identify dimensions of dating beliefs and dating behavior which would better define or explain the dating construct. Secondly, factor analysis was used to reduce the large number of variables to a smaller number of homogeneous subgroups which could then be used in subsequent analysis. By looking for interrelationships among the many variables in the instrument, considerable parsimony was achieved. Items were initially factor analyzed using the principal components method with VARIMAX rotation. The number of factors extracted was based on (1) the eigenvalue associated with each factor (i.e., only factors with eigenvalues greater than one were extracted), (2) the number of items with meaningfully large loadings on each factor (i.e., loadings equal to or exceeding .30 were considered significant), and (3) the ability to reach a theoretically interpretable simple structure. (Eigenvalues for each set of variables factor analyzed are reported in Appendix B.) Dating_Belief Variables The matrix of intercorrelations among the 58 Dating Belief variables was subjected to a principal components extraction of roots, which yielded 17 eigenvalues equal to or greater than 1.0. The l7-corre- sponding factors accounted for 63.4 percent of the total variance 55 (Appendix B). The 17-, 7-, 6-, and 5-factor solutions were then examined, but did not collapse the data enough or provide meaningful distinctions among the factors. The 4-factor solution, while not explaining a large amount of variance (32.1%), was the most theoreti- cally meaningful. Each factor in this solution was named based on the intent of items loading highest in the factor (Table 2). The Belief variables loading high on Factor 1, NOTSEXEV, concerned the overall dating event--whether or not respondents perceived dating as a sexual or non-sexual interaction. For example, strong agreement with the following beliefs (Questionnaire, Appendix A, items 1-58) indicated that a respondent viewed dating primarily as a sexual event-- an interaction where sexual behavior was central to the interaction: Belief 9: A woman who goes with a man alone to his room, apart- ment, or home on their first date implies that she is willing to have sex: Belief 10: It's normal to expect some kind of sexual activity to occur on dates with a steady boyfriend or girlfriend; Belief 26: The longer and more frequent a woman dates a man, the more sexual intimacy she should allow; Belief 52: It's normal to expect some kind of sexual activity to occur on "pick-up" dates; Belief 55: Dating is more fun when it includes some form of sexual activity. On the other hand, respondents who disagreed with these items seemed to view dating as a non-sexual event or interaction--or, at least, an event where sexual behavior was not necessary to the interaction. In other words, these individuals did not seem to associate or pair 56 TABLE 2.--Factor Loadings to Determine Dating Belief Orientations, VARIMAX Rotation (n=24l). FACTORS Variable 1 2 3 4 NOTSEXEV MUTUALSX PROSHARE NOSTEREO Belief 1 .09 -.06 .68* .01 Belief 2 .32* .00 -.O7 .14 Belief 3 .OO .03 -.45* .02 Belief 4 .10 -.O6 .57* .11 Belief 5 .15 -.O3 .39* .05 Belief 6 -.O4 -.10 -.58* .06 Belief 7 .33 .42* -.O6 .04 Belief 8 .29 .29 .17 .15 Belief 9 .34* .07 .05 .20 Belief 10 .34* .06 .08 .OO Belief 11 .28 .17 .18 .08 Belief 12 -.33 -.34* .13 .06 Belief 13 -.12 -.O9 -.57* .01 Belief 14 .26 .44* -.IO .22 Belief 15 .08 .07 .55* .07 Belief 16 .06 -.O3 -.41* -.Ol Belief 17 .37* -.OO .21 .32 Belief 18 .23 .39* -.O4 .25 Belief 19 .10 .OO .55* .18 Belief 20 .30 .49* -.O9 .30 Belief 21 .54* .18 .08 .09 Belief 22 .07 -.07 .62* .18 Belief 23 .16 -.08 .13 .59* Belief 24 .41* .19 .21 .31 Belief 25 -.27 -.28 -.O4 .16 Belief 26 .54* -.Ol .13 .21 Belief 27 .09 .02 .21 .O7 Belief 28 .08 .05 .37 .43* Belief 29 .45* .04 .23 .22 Belief 3O .48* .18 .16 .28 Belief 31 .35* .10 .12 .31 Belief 32 .40* .02 .05 .36 Belief 33 .14 .21 .16 .43* Belief 34 .16 .06 .21 .47* Belief 35 .23 .29 .03. .15 Belief 36 .28 .31 .08 .46* Belief 37 -.02 -.44* -.27 -.14 Belief 38 .46* .16 .08 .23 Belief 39 .50* .23 .03 .22 Belief 4O .12 .40* .04 .28 Belief 41 -.19 .23 -.O4 -.25 Belief 42 .12 -.O7 .25 .17 Belief 43 .OO -.66* -.O4 -.12 Belief 44 .29 .28 .08 .29 Table 2 (cont'd.) Belief Belief Belief Belief Belief Belief Belief Belief Belief Belief Belief Belief Belief Belief 57 25 -.34* - .08 .29 .21 -.37* .23 .01 27 .38 - 18 -.16 - 09 -.61 - .56* .02 .19 .17 08 .24 - 49* .16 - 02 -.50* 17 .28 - 03 -.47* *High loadings which characterize the factor. 58 dating with sexual behavior and thus were considered non-traditional on this dimension. For those who agreed with these items, sexual behavior seemed to be an essential component of the dating interaction. Again, these respondents were viewed as traditional in their orienta- tion. Items loading high on the second factor, MUTUALSX, dealt with whether or not sexual behavior, when it did occur on dates, was consen- sual or coercive. For example, agreement with the beliefs below: Belief 51: Males and females should share in the responsibility for setting sexual limits; Belief 56: Both men and women should be allowed to say no to sexual activity on dates and to have their dates take them seriously; Belief 58: Each level of sexual activity on a date (e.g., necking, petting, and intercourse) should be mutually agreed upon by both people; and disagreement with Belief 7: It's all right for men to test their dates to see how far they can get them to go sexually; Belief 20: When there is a disagreement over sexual activity, the man should keep trying until his date gives in; and Belief 40: It's all right for a man to physically force his date to have sexual intercourse, if she participated in sexual activity that got him sexually excited; indicated that a respondent viewed sexual activity on dates as consen- sual or mutually agreed upon behavior--a non-traditional orientation. The opposing viewpoint indicated a more traditional orientation, 59 one where it was considered “normal" for males to be aggressive sexually and to force sexual activity on their dates under various circumstances. The third factor, PROSHARE, dealt with control of or responsibility for the dating event primarily in terms of which dating partner was to assume the financial burden of the date, provide the transportation for the date, do the asking out, and which partner was responsible for initiating sex. Those who reported agreement on the following variables were considered traditional in their orientation towards dating: Belief I: A man should always ask the woman out; Belief 4: Men should always be the ones to initiate sexual activity on dates; Belief 15: Men should always pay for the date; Belief 19: It's the man's responsibility to plan the date (e.g., decide what to do or where to go); and Belief 22: It should be the man's responsibility to provide the transportation for the date. Conversely, those who indicated disagreement with the measures above and agreement with the variables listed below were considered non-tradi- tional or egalitarian on this dimension: Belief 3: Women should share equally in the expense of a date; Belief 6: It is perfectly all right for women to ask men out; Belief 13: Women should share in the responsibility for providing the transportation for the date; and Belief 16: Women have as much right as men to initiate sexual activity on a date. The fourth factor, NOSTEREO, concerned whether or not respondents 60 subscribed to sex—role stereotypes, especially stereotypes dealing with female sexual behavior. For instance, respondents who indicated agreement with the following belief variables were considered to be traditional on this dimension: Belief 23: If a woman engages in sexual activity and lets things get out of hand, it is her own fault if her partner forces sexual intercourse on her; Belief 28: A woman who initiates sexual activity will probably have sex with anyone; Belief 34: Men are biologically driven by sexual desires and once they reach a certain level of sexual excitement, they can't st0p themselves; Belief 36: Most women are sexually available, a man just has to be persistent enough; Belief 48: Women often want a certain degree of forcefulness in lovemaking; Belief 53: When women say no to sexual activity, they usually don't mean it and would feel offended if their dates didn't push the issue. Those who disagreed with these items were viewed as non-traditional in their orientation. In sum, a factor analysis of the dating belief subset identified four theoretically sound belief dimensions, especially from a symbolic interactionist perspective. (See Table 3 for a description of these new variables and their means and standard deviations.) According to this perspective, individuals carry into interactional situations meanings derived from their social and cultural environment. 61 TABLE 3.--Description of the New Belief Variables (4-factor solution) and their Means and Standard Deviations (n-241). Variable Name Dev. Description Mean Std. NOTSEXEV MUTUALSX PROSHARE NOSTEREO Dating is more a social -.015 .910 than sexual interaction (scores range from -2.628 to 2.055) high scores indicate a non-traditional orientation. Sexual behavior that does -.O31 .925 occur on dates should be mutually agreed upon behavior (scores range from -4.392 to 1.185) high scores indicate a nontraditional orientation. Males and females should -.021 .922 share responsibility for the dating interaction, e.g., they should share in expenses (scores range from -3.239 to 1.658) high scores indicate a non-traditional orientation. No ascription to sexual .024 .819 behavior stereotypes, e.g., women really mean yes, when they say no (scores range from —3.260 to 2.192) high scores indicate a non—traditional orientation. 62 Thus, beliefs and attitudes towards the dating event should reflect those of the larger cultural configuration. As can be seen from the factor loadings in Table 2, the belief variables clustered around three dimensions which are closely related to some facet of sex-role socialization: NOSTEREO, PROSHARE, and MUTUALSX. For example, the PROSHARE dimension deals with the control of the dating event. In our society, males traditionally have assumed responsibility for interactions with females. It is interesting to note that 86 (36%) of the respondents in this study disagreed to some extent with Belief 3 (an item characterizing the PROSHARE dimension: "Women should share equally in the expense of the date"--indicating an orientation in line with traditional socialization. On the other hand, 96 (40%) agreed with this statement and 58 (24%) were undecided. This, too, is reflective of sex-role socialization, in that, our society is in a state of flux with regard to male and female roles. DatingStyle Variables Four subsets of variables were factor analyzed with regard to style of dating. A principal components extraction of roots for the first subset (10 items) yielded three eigenvalues greater than 1.0, accounting for 57.4 percent of the total variance (Appendix 8). However, the two-factor solution for these variables (accounting for 45.8% of the variance) was the most meaningful. (See Table 4 for factor loadings for this data subset.) Since pick-up dates in general, and pick-up party dates and pick-up bar dates specifically, loaded high on the first factor, it was named PICUPDT. The second factor was named FSTEADY, because of the high loadings of items reflective of steady dating, in other 63 TABLE 4.--Factor Loadings to Determine Dating Style Orientations, VARIMAX Rotation (n=24l). Factors Variable 1 2 PICUPDT FSTEADY DATEWEEK -.11 .60* DIFFDATE .53* -.28 STEADY -.14 .95* PICKUPDT .77* -.OO PICUPPTY .85* .02 PICUPBAR .71* .04 PREARRDT -.26 .02 BLINDDAT .29 -.08 SPURMOMT .15 .16 DOUBLEDT .20 .15 *High loadings which characterize the factor. 64 of the high loadings of items reflective of steady dating, in other words, dating which centered around one particular individual. Respon- dents with high scores on Factor 1 generally dated many dfferent people and these dates were often pick-up dates. Respondents with high scores on Factor 2, on the other hand, were more likely to be involved in a relationship with one person. Fifty or 21 percent of all respondents in this study reported being involved in a steady relationship with one person for the entire year; 68 (28%) reported a steady relationship with one person for most of the year; 64 (27%) reported a steady relationship with one person "off and on"; and 59 (24%) reported no steady relationship for the year. Eighty-one respondents claimed that at least 25 percent of all their dates for the year were pick-up dates ("leaving a social event with someone you just met there“) and 23 of the 81 said that 50 percent or more of their dates for the year were pick-up dates. Furthermore, pick-up dates occurred more frequently at parties (32%) than at bars (16%). (See Table 5 for a description of these new factor variables and their means and standard deviations.) A two-factor solution emerged for the second data subset under this heading. These were labeled DRUGS and ALCOHOL and accounted for 68.9 percent of the total variance. Table 6 presents the factor loadings for the 2-factor solution. When asked "Did you ever drink alcoholic beverages when dating during the past year?", well over half (63%) of the students in the sample responded "yes, about half the time," and 34 percent responded "yes, most of the time." Concerning drug usage, 9 percent of the sample reported using drugs "about half the time" when dating during 65 TABLE 5.--Description of the New Dating Style Variables (2-factor solution) and their Means and Standard Deviations (n=24l). Variable Name Description Mean Std. Dev. PICUPDT Dating someone who is .017 .956 picked up (scores range from -.850 to 4.029) high scores indicate a pick-up dating style orientation FSTEADY Dating one person steadily .001 .962 (scores range from -1.555 to 2.138) high scores indicate a steady dating style orientation TABLE 6.--Factor Loadings to Determine Alcohol and Drug Orientations, VARIMAX Rotation (n=24l). Factors Variable 1 2 DRUGS ALCOHOL PREPTYDT .18 .53* PREBARDT .08 .36* DRKBOOZ .11 .93* HIBOOZ .34 .64* USEDRUGS .81* .26 HIDRUGS .98* .19 *High loadings which characterize the factor. 66 the past year. (Table 7 contains descriptions of the new factor variables for the second subset and their means and standard devia- tions.) The third and fourth data subsets were factor analyzed but because of high multicollinearity, it was decided to treat each of these items as independent variables rather than as clusters. Table 8 provides descriptions for these variables. Students appeared to have difficulty responding to the items describing their main reason for dating (e.g., mainly to find someone to marry, mainly to develop a meaningful relationship with someone, mainly for the fun of it, or mainly to find sexual partners). In other words, students tended to respond affirmatively to more than one of the above reasons, for example, agreeing with the statement that the main reason they dated during the past year was not to find a marriage partner but to develop a meaningful relationship with someone, as well as not being interested in having a relationship, but dating mainly for the fun of it. Nonetheless, respondents seemed to be more interested in dating as a means of develOping a relationship (186 students reported agreeing with this statement) as opposed to dating solely to find sexual partners (28 students reported agreeing with this statement). For this sample, traditional dating behavior appears to predominate. When asked "Of all the dates you had in the last year, how often did ygg take the first step and ask the other person out?", 49 or 70 percent of the males in the sample responded most to all of the time, compared to 4 or 2 percent of the females in the sample. However, 38 (22%) females responded they did the asking out "about half of 67 TABLE 7.--Oescription of the New Alcohol and Drug Variables (2-factor solution) and their Means and Standard Deviations (n=24l). Variable Name Description Mean Std. Dev. DRUGS Uses drugs when dating -.002 .999 (scores range from -8.21 to 5.498) high scores indicate frequent use of drugs. ALCOHOL Uses alcohol when dating —1.802 2.032 (scores range from -1.802 to 2.032) high scores in- dicate frequent use of alcohol and/or frequent attendance at bars or parties where alcohol is served. 68 TABLE 8.--Description of Third and Fourth Subset Variables (n=24l). Variable Name Description MARRY RELATSHP FUNOFIT SEXPART UASKOUT WASASKED DTDECGOD UDECGODO SHAREDECI DTPAYALL UPAIDALL SHAREXPS DTTRANSP UTRANSP MONEYCDS WAYHOME SUBORDIN DOMINANT Main reason for dating was to find someone to marry Main reason for dating was to develop a relationship Main reason for dating was for the fun of it Main reason for dating was to find sexual partners Respondent usually initiated the dating interaction Respondent was usually asked out Respondent's date usually decided what to do and where to go on date Respondent usually decided what to do and where to go on date Respondent and date shared in decisionmaking Respondent's date usually paid for the date Respondent usually paid for the date Respondent and date usually shared expenses Respondent's date usually provided transportation Respondent usually provided transportation Respondent usually carried money or credit cards in case of unexpected situations Respondent usually had a way home if something un- expectedly happened on date Respondent usually felt he/she was the subordinate one on the date Respondent usually felt he/she was the dominant one on the date 69 the time," with 82 or 48 percent responding they did the asking out "a few times." Forty-six (27%) of the females in the sample said they "never" did the asking, compared to only 2 or 2 percent of the males. When females were asked how often their dates paid for expenses, 141 (83%) responded "about half of the time" with 106 (62%) saying their dates paid most to all of the time. In comparison, only 8 or 11 percent of the males in the sample responded that their dates paid for expenses half of more of the time. Likewise, 152 or 92 percent of the females responded that their dates provided transporta- tion for the date "about half of the time," with 132 (78%) reporting that their dates provided transportation most to all of the time. Conversely, 9 or 13 percent of the males said their dates provided transportation most to all of the time. With regard to decision-making (e.g., deciding where to go or what to do), 146 or 86 percent of the females said their dates decided where to go or what to do at least half of the time, with 58 (34%) stating most to all of the time. On the other hand, only 11 (16%) of the males in the sample, said their dates made the decisions on where to go or what to do most to all of the time, with 30 (43%) reporting "about half of the time.“ Finally, when asked, "When dating during the past year, how often did you feel like you were the weaker or more subordinate person on the date?", 126 or 74 percent of the females in the sample reported at least a few times with 31 (18%) reporting “about half of the time," and 18 (11%) reporting most to all of the time. In contrast, only 1 male reported feeling subordinate most to all of the time and 5 7O (7%) reporting "about half of the time." Overall, style of dating was characterized by (1) the number of different dates a respondent had during the past year, (2) whether or not these dates were steady or pick-up dates, (3) whether or not drugs and alcohol were used during the dating interaction, (4) control of the dating event--whether or not the individual made dating decisions, his or her date made the decision, or they shared in decisionmaking, (5) whether or not the individual had a way home and money or credit cards in case a problem arose, and (6) the reason an individual dated (e.g., to develop a relationship.) Offendingyand Game-Playing Variables Two data subsets were factor analyzed for the dependent measures. A principle components extraction of the 10 items in the first subset resulted in a 2-factor solution accounting for 40.5% of the total variance (Appendix B). Table 9 contains the factor loadings for the 2-factor solution. Items loading high on factor 1, UMANIPUL, indicated a respondent's use of game-playing techniques to obtain sexual compliance. For example a high score on USAYTHNG indicated a respondent's frequent use of lines to persuade a date to engage in sexual intercourse ("Did you ever say things you really didn't mean to get a date to participate in sexual intercourse with you (i.e., telling your date that you loved him/her when you really didn't mean it?"). Items loading highest on factor 2, UFORCE, measured actual use of physical force to obtain sexual goals. For example, a high score on UPFORCKP, indicated frequent use of some degree of physical force to get a date to take part in 71 TABLE 9.--Factor Loadings to Determine Gameplaying or Offending Orientations used by Respondents, VARIMAX Rotation (n=24l). Factors Variable 1 2 UMANIPUL UFORCE PLAYGAME .30* .02 UGOTDTHI .48* -.05 USAYTHNG .76* .14 UARGUMTS .44* .16 UTHRETRS .33* -.02 UTHRETFC -.Ol .31* UPFORCKP -.O3 .74* UPFORCSI .13 .30* *High loadings which characterize the factor. 72 kissing or petting. Gameplaying techniques were used more frequently by males than females for this sample. For instance, when respondents were asked "Did you ever attempt to get a date intoxicated or high h0ping that he/she would then take part in sexual activity?", 23 or 33 percent of the males reported using this strategy “one or more times" compared to 14 or 8 percent of the females. In response to the question "Did you ever say things you really didn't mean to get a date to participate in sexual intercourse with you?", 15 or 21 percent of the males respond- ed “yes, one or more times" compared to 10 or 6 percent of the females. Overall, 53 percent of the entire sample felt that dating, at least some of the time, involved gameplaying. When asked "When dating during the past year, did you ever feel like you were playing a game, where you had to outsmart your date(s) to get what you wanted"?, 88 (52%) of the females reported feeling this way "a few times" with 33 (19%) reporting "half to all of the time" and 40 (58%) of the males reporting "a few times" with 5 responding "most to all of the time." For this sample, use of actual physical force to obtain sexual compliance was less evident than the use of gameplaying strategies. For example, only 1 male reported ever using "some degree of physical force to try and get a date to have sexual intercourse." Surprisingly, 5 females reported using physical force at least once to get a date to have sexual intercourse. And in response to "Did you ever use some degree of physical force (i.e., twisting an arm, holding the other person down, etc.) to get a date to take part in kissing or petting?", 6 females reported using force one or more times compared 73 to 5 males reporting use of force at least once. (Table 10 provides a description of the new factor variables UMANIPUL and UFORCE and their means and standard deviations.) Upon analysis of the second subset, a 2-factor solution was arrived at. A principal components extraction of roots yielded 6 eigenvalues greater than 1.0 (Appendix B), accounting for 66.8 percent of the total variance. The 6-, 5-, 4-, and 3-factor solutions were rotated by the VARIMAX procedure and then examined, but did not reduce the data enough or provide interpretable factors. The 2-factor solution, accounting for 44.0 percent of total variance, was the most meaningful. Factor loadings for the 2-factor solution are reported in Table 11. Inspection of Table 11 reveals that Factor 1, OFFENDNG, had substantial loadings for 7 items. These items are indicative of interactions where the respondent experienced threats of physical force or actual physical force by a date. For example, a high score on DTHRETFC ("Did you ever have a date threaten to use physical force if you didn't couperate to get you to have sexual intercourse, but for various reasons sexual intercourse didn't occur?"), on DPFORCKP ("Did a date ever use some degree of physical force to try and make you engage in kissing or petting when you didn't want to?"). and on RAPE ("Were you ever in a situation where you actually had sexual intercourse with a date because you were physically forced?") indicate the presence of sexual offending. Factor 2, GAMEPLAY, had high loadings on items indicative of gameplaying--where the respondent was in a situation where gameplaying 74 TABLE lO.--Description of the New UMANIPUL and UFORCE Variables EZ-factor solution) and their Means and Standard Deviations n=241 . Variable Name Description Mean Std. Dev. UMANIPUL ReSpondent uses game 8.290 90.820 playing techniques or strategies to obtain sexual compliance (scores range from -.759 to 999.000) high scores indicate frequent use of game playing techniques UFORCE Respondent uses physical -.000 .766 force to obtain sexual compliance (scores range from -.424 to 7.375 high scores indicate frequent use of physical force 75 TABLE 11.--Factor Loadings to Determine Gameplaying or Offending Orientations Experienced by Respondents, VARIMAX Rotation (n=24l). Factors Variables 1 2 OFFENDNG GAMEPLAY UNCOMFBL .08 .58* DTMISINT .17 .56* USEXINTM .17 .54* MISLEVSX .14 .57* ENDEDDT .30 .50* UBGNSXDW .16 .44* KISPETDW .16 .58* HADSIDW .16 .59* CUZDTPAY .27 .29 CUZDLOTS .22 .37* USXARDCS -.Ol .33* DSXARDCS .12 .52* DCONVCS .24 .53* DSAYTHNG .32 .53* UGAVINTG .39 .48* DARGUMTS .38 .51* UGAVINAR .12 .48* DTHRETRS .70* .29 UGAVINTH .81* .15 DTHRETFC .81* .21 UGAVINTF .90* .05 DPFORCKP .52* .35 DFORCNSI .58* .30 RAPE .90* .08 *High loadings which characterize the factor. 76 took place.1 In other words, respondents reported having dates use arguments, "lines," or other verbal techniques of coercion (DCONVCS, DSAYTHNG, DARGUMTS) to obtain sexual compliance. And they reported varying levels of miscommunication and/or misinterpretation concerning sexual activity (DTMISINT, MISLEVSX, ENDEDDT, DSXARDCS). Miscommunica- tion and verbal coerciveness help define this factor. A description of these factor variables and their means and standard deviations are reported in Table 12. Just as game playing strategies were Hggg more frequently Hy respondents than physical force to obtain sexual compliance, respondents reported that their dates were more likely to use game playing techniques than physical force. For example, when asked "Did a date ever try to convince you to have sex with him/her, because you had dated that person several times?", 51 or 30 percent of the females in the sample responded "one or more times;" fewer males (11 or 16%) found themselves in a similar situation. In response to "Did a date ever try to convince you that you had to go along with sexual activity because you got him/her so sexually excited that he or she couldn't stOp?", 63 (37%) of the females reported "one or more times" compared to 20 or 29% of the males in the sample. With regard to dating situations involving actual physical force, 31 (18%) of the females and 5 (7%) of the males reported dates "using some degree of physical force to try and make you engage in kissing 1It should be noted that GAMEPLAY differs from the factor variable UMANIPUL in the first data subset. UMANIPUL is an active variable indicating the respondent is doing the manipulating or game playing and GAMEPLAY is a passive variable in that the reSpondent is experiencing gameplaying in a dating situation. 77 TABLE 12.--Description of the New OFFENDNG and GAMEPLAY Variables EZ-factor solution) and their Means and Standard Deviations n=241 . Variable Name Description Mean Std. Dev. OFFENDNG Dates use physical force -.001 .955 to obtain sexual compliance (scores range from -8.29 to 13.847) high scores indicate frequent victimi- zation GAMEPLAY Dates use gameplaying -.004 .915 techniques to obtain sexual complaince (scores range from -1.088 to 3.350) high scores indicate frequent victimization 78 or petting when you didn't want to," one or more times. And when asked "Did a date ever use some degree of physical force to try and get you to have sexual intercourse when you didn't want to, but for various reasons sexual intercourse didn't occur?“, 19 females responded, "yes." Only 1 male responded likewise. For the RAPE variable, 6 female respondents (3%) reported being physically forced to have sexual intercourse at least once, and 1 female respondent indicated having been raped more than once. No males responded affirmatively to this item. Summar In conclusion, two of the three goals of the present study were reached by employing factor analysis. First, data reduction was achieved by reducing 106 variables to 12 new factor variables.1’ 2 Table 13 summarizes the new factor variables. Secondly, these new factors or dimensions help define the dating construct. The dating event, a complex interaction, is composed of several belief and style dimensions. For example, a dating individ- ual may view the interaction as primarily a sexual one (a low score on NOTSEXEV), feel that sexual initiation is the male's reSponsibility (low score on a dating control variable), prefer picking up dates 1As noted earlier, all dating style variables were not reduced to new factor variables because of high multicollinearity, specifically those related to control of the dating interaction (e.g., UASKOUT, SHAREEXPS, etc.) 2Factor scores were obtained for each new factor variable (factor loadings were used to calculate weighted scale scores for all respon- dents). 79 TABLE 13.--Summary of New Factor Variables. Belief Subsets Dating Style Gameplaying/Offending Subsets Subsets (Ind. vars.) (Ind. vars.) (Dep. vars.) NOTSEXEV PICUPDT UMANIPUL MUTUALSX FSTEADY UOFFEND PROSHARE NOSTEREO DRUGS GAMEPLAY ALCOHOL OFFENDNG 80 as opposed to dating one person on a regular basis (high score on PICUPDT), and may drink alcohol frequently when dating (high score on ALCOHOL). By examining these various dimensions, we may discover which, if any, are related to sexual offending--the subject of the following data analysis. Simple Bivariate Correlation Analysis The dependent measures were first tested for association with each of the independent variables using simple correlation analysis. Table 14 presents zero-order correlations of dating belief and style variables with the dependent measures for females. The simple, bivariate correlations between several independent variables and the dependent measure, GAMEPLAY, suggests that for females a traditional orientation on several belief and style dimensions (NOTSEXEV, PROSHARE, DRUGS, ALCOHOL, PICUPDT, FUNOFIT, SEXPART, DTDECGOD, MONEYCDS, WAYHOME, SUBORDIN, DOMINANT) is significantly correlated with being verbally manipulated or coerced on dates. However, while significant (all correlations were considered significant at the .05 level), these data indicate modest correlations; none of which exceed .37. Of the independent style variables, PICUPDT correlated most highly with GAMEPLAY (r = .37, p < .001), suggesting that gameplay- ing was more likely to occur on pick—up dates than with steady dates (FSTEADY did not significantly correlate with GAMEPLAY). Similarly the use of DRUGS (r = .23), the use of ALCOHOL (r = .25), dating for the FUNOFIT (r = -.16), and dating for sex partners, SEXPART (r = -.26), significantly correlated with this dependent measure. In addition, having dates decide where to go and what to do, DTDECGOD, 81 :5. v at: mo. v as «efi. mo.1 no.1 mo. hz<3 aka. mo. co. no. moo>mzoz we. “o.u mo.1 mo.u amzmmomxmmhoz > mpxpm use emepmm mappmo see A; m.:omgmwav meowpmpmgcou mpmwgm>wmnu.efi m4m<~ 82 correlated positively with gameplaying (r = .14), but weakly. Another variable on the date control dimension, SUBORDIN (feeling like the weaker person on the date-~a traditional orientation for females) indicated a positive, but moderate correlation with gameplaying (r = -.24). However, the meaning of this relationship is less clear, since DOMINANT (feeling like the stronger person on the date--a non- traditional orientation for females was also significantly associated with gameplaying (r = .15). With respect to belief dimensions, a traditional orientation on NOTSEXEV (viewing the dating event as a sexual interaction) and on PROSHARE (not sharing the responsibility for the dating interaction) was significantly associated with being manipulated on dates (GAMEPLAY). This pattern of relationships seems to offer some support for the first and second hypotheses: H1: Females who subscribe to traditional dating beliefs are more likely to experience verbal coercion or manipulation (gameplay- ing) by their dates than females with a non-traditional orientation; H2: likely to experience verbal coercion or manipulation (gameplaying) Females who engage in a traditional dating style are more by their dates than females with a non-traditional orientation. Analysis of the OFFENDNG variable produced unanticipated findings; for example, there was no relationship between any of the belief dimensions (NOSTEREO, MUTUALSX, PROSHARE, NOTSEXEV) and this dependent measure. And there was no significant association between most of the dating style variables and experience of sexual offending. This dependent measure had significant correlations with only 3 independent variables and these correlations, FSTEADY (r = -.15), SEXPART 83 (r =-.20) and WASASKED (r = .14) were all quite low. These results offer no support for the third hypothesis: H3: Females who subscribe to traditional dating beliefs are more likely to experience physical sexual offending on dates than females with a non-traditional orientation; and little support for the fourth hypothesis: H4: Females who engage in a traditional dating style are more likely to experience physical sexual offending on dates than females with a non-traditional orientation. With respect to UFORCE and UMANIPUL, there were few significant correlations: (1) only two variables, SEXPART (r = -.23) and SHAREDEC (r = -.16) were significant for UFORCE, and (2) only two variables, DTDECGOD (r = -.13) and UDECGOD (r = .15) were significantly associated with UMANIPUL. All of these correlations were extremely low as was expected. Because the distributions for three of the dependent measures for females (UFORCE, UMANIPUL, AND OFFENDNG) were very skewed, they were eliminated from further analysis. There was not enough variation on these measures with few females reporting frequencies at the upper end of the scale. Therefore, only variables significantly associated with gameplaying were considered for regression analysis. Correlations of dating belief and style variables with all dependent measures for males are reported in Table 15. As for females, there were few significant associations for three of the dependent variables, in this case, UFORCE, OFFENDING, and GAMEPLAY. It was expected that for males there would be few, if any, significant associations for the OFFENDNG or GAMEPLAY measures. It is interesting to note, however, 84 :5. v 9.... m0. v. ac «H. ¢~.1 0a. «0N. hzmzoz «0N.1 «mm. 00. 0H.1 amzm¢0mxumh02 ><4¢mz<0 wzozmuuo mumoua 400H2<20 .Aonucv mmsz .mmgammmz acmucmamo FF» suwz mmpnmwcm> mpxpm ucm mow—mm mcwpma Low As m.comgmmav mcowpmpmcgoo mpmwcm>wm11.mfi m4m