PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINE return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

I DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

MAR 95 2005

w“; Ju

V

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

me wounaomm.mu

 

DATE RAPE AND COMPLIANCE-GAINING GOALS AND MESSAGES
FROM THE FEMALE'S PERSPECTIVE

By

Penny Baldwin Avery

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Communication

1999

ABSTRACT

DATE RAPE AND COMPLIANCE-GAINING GOALS AND MESSAGES
FROM THE FEMALE'S PERSPECTIVE

By

Penny Baldwin Avery

This investigation explored constraints to stopping or attempting to stop unwanted
sexual advances leading to forced sexual intercourse in a dating relationship. Constraints
were examined in terms of manifestations in verbal and nonverbal messages generated by
potential victims. A review of relevant date-rape and compliance-gaining literature
resulted in 17 research questions and four hypotheses for the present study.

One goal of the study was to evaluate messages, generated in the context of
potential forced sexual intercourse, for message directness or indirectness. A pre-study
was conducted to identify strategies to be labeled as direct and indirect. Female college
students (H = 28) from a large midwestem university rated and ranked 26 strategies
(Muehlenhard, Andrews, & Beal, 1996) that could be communicated in response to
unwanted sexual advances. In the main study, female undergraduates (E = 212) read one
of four hypothetical scenarios varied by relational development and by degree of sexual
discrepancy between current and desired situation. Subjects generated messages in
response to scenarios, prioritized goals, indicated reactions to primary and secondary
goals (Dillard, 1990), and provided demographic information and perceptions of date
rape. Based upon demographic information, subjects were differentiated by experience
with date-rape situations. Coders evaluated each generated message for general

directness and indirectness and for particular strategy type. The coefficient for intercoder

reliability was .90. The pre-study identified 8 strategies as direct and 18 strategies as
indirect. Using those categories, the main study classified generated statements as direct
(3 8%), indirect (48%), and uncodable (14%). The most-used particular strategy, “She
gets up to leave,” was coded as indirect. Consistent with previous findings (Koss,
Gidycz, & Wiskniewski, 1989), demographic results indicated that 12.3% (p, = 26) of the
participants reported having experienced forced sexual intercourse in a dating
relationship. Another 19.3% (n = 41) indicated that they had been in a dating situation
when they believed forced sexual intercourse was extremely likely but did not occur.
Compared to those without any level of direct experience with date rape, self-identified
date-rape victims believed that a significantly higher proportion of women had been date
raped and also reported personally knowing more women who have been. raped.
Participants with some self-reported level of direct experience with date rape also rated
scenario realism as significantly higher than did those who reported no experience level
with date rape. One area with a non-significant difference by direct-experience type was
direct and indirect message use. However, a significant main effect was found for the use
of direct messages as a function of scenario-described relational development, with the
low-relational development participants using significantly more direct messages than did
the high-relational development participants. Importance of secondary goals as a set
(i.e., constraints on reaching primary goal) did not relate to message directness. Two
types of secondary goals, functioning as constraints in stopping the aggressor, were
differentiated by scenario type, and one of these constraining goals was differentiated by

reported direct-experience level with date rape.

This is dedicated to my husband and son, my inspiration.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I was once told that 60% of all A.B.D.s never complete their doctoral degrees due
to the challenge of the dissertation. I’m not certain about the veracity of the percentage,
but I am certain that I am grateful not to be part of the 60% group. There are a number of
influential people who have kept me on track in their own ways throughout this project.
Some of them prayed for me, some prodded, and still others played occasionally to
provide much needed diversions. The following individuals and groups have helped me
maintain perspective and complete the project: Todd and Benjamin Avery, the people
closest to my heart; the entire Avery family; the entire Baldwin family, especially my
mother; Dr. David Weinandy; Dr. Lorraine Straw; Dr. Pamela Gray; my doctoral
committee, including Dr. Kelly Morrison, Dr. Sandi Smith, Dr. Steven McComack, and
Dr. Robert Griffore; the Communication Arts Department at Aquinas College including,
Dr. David Weinandy (again), Sr. Rosemary O’Donnell, Dr. Renee Stable, and Dr. Curt
Bechler; Dr. Bruce Frayman; Diane Bigelow; the students who participated in the study
and those at Aquinas College who cheered me on; the Communication Department staff
at MSU, especially Marge Barkman; the support staff at Aquinas College; all of my

friends at Georgetown United Methodist Church; and, of course, God. Thanks to all!

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................... 1
Date-Rape Literature .......................................................................................... 5
Commission of the crime ...................................................................... 6
Context of the assault .............................................................................. 8
Victim reactions and traumatic effects .................................................... 9
Likelihood to rape or be raped .............................................................. 10
Assessment of responsibility or blame ............................................... 11
Educational programs ........................................................................... l4
Reported versus accepted scope of date rape ........................................ 16
Summary of date-rape literature ........................................................... 19
Compliance-Gaining Research ......................................................................... 21
The functional component ................................................................... 22
The strategic component ....................................................................... 28
Summary of compliance-gaining literature ........................................... 34
Research Questions .......................................................................................... 35
Hypotheses ........................................................................................................ 41
CHAPTER 2
METHODS
Sample ............................................................................................................... 44
Instrument ......................................................................................................... 45
Procedure .......................................................................................................... 47
Self-report technique ............................................................................. 47
Pilot study ............................................................................................. 49
Textual analysis .................................................................................... 50
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS
Relational Development, Degree of Discrepancy, and Forced Sex
Manipulation Checks ........................................................................................ 52
Research Questions One through Ten ............................................................... 53
Research Question Eleven ................................................................................ 57
Research Question Twelve ................................................................................ 58
Pilot study ............................................................................................. 58
Main study ............................................................................................ 60
Research Question Thirteen .............................................................................. 60

Research Question Fourteen ............................................................................. 62

Research Question Fifteen ................................................................................ 63
Research Question Sixteen ............................................................................... 65
Research Question Seventeen ........................................................................... 65
Hypotheses One and Two ................................................................................. 66
Hypothesis Three .............................................................................................. 66
Hypothesis Four ................................................................................................ 67
CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION
Interpretation of Results .................................................................................... 68
Research questions one through ten ...................................................... 68
Research questions eleven through thirteen and sixteen ....................... 70
Research questions fourteen and fifteen ............................................... 72
Research question seventeen ................................................................. 74
Hypotheses one and two ....................................................................... 74
Hypothesis three .................................................................................... 75
Hypothesis four ..................................................................................... 76
Limitations of the Study ................................................................................... 77
Future Directions .............................................................................................. 78
Summary ........................................................................................................... 80
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 82
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................. 94
Appendix A ....................................................................................................... 95
Muehlenhard’s et a1. (1996) Responses to Unwanted Sexual
Advances-Rating
Appendix B ....................................................................................................... 98
Muehlenhard’s et a1. (1996) Responses to Unwanted Sexual
Advances-Ranking
Appendix C ..................................................................................................... 100
Questions for Functional-Area and Manipulation Checks
Appendix D ..................................................................................................... 105
Hypothetical Scenarios Varied in Terms of Relational Development
and Degree of Discrepancy
Appendix E ..................................................................................................... 107
Instructions for Prioritization of Goals and Other Issues
Appendix F ...................................................................................................... 108
Instructions for Textual Response
Appendix G ..................................................................................................... l 10
Demographic and Information-Seeking Questions
Appendix H ..................................................................................................... 11 1

Communication Research Consent Form

vii

Appendix I ...................................................................................................... 1 12
Tables
Appendix J ...................................................................................................... 146

Figures

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Seven Areas in Date-Rape Literature ........................................................... 113
Table 2: Dillard’s (1990) Secondary Goals ................................................................ 115
Table 3: McCormick’s (1979) Strategies for Avoiding Sexual Encounters ............... 116
Table 4: Muehlenhard’s et al. (1996) Responses to Unwanted Sexual Advances ..... 117
Table 5: Research Questions One through Ten .......................................................... 119
Table 6: Research Questions Eleven through Seventeen ............................................ 120
Table 7: Hypotheses .................................................................................................... 121
Table 8: Representation of Hypotheses One through Three ....................................... 122
Table 9: Retained Items for Secondary Goals ............................................................ 123

Table 10: Retained Items for Importance of Primary Goal, Persistence, and
Perception of Forced Sex ................................................................................ 124

Table 11: Retained Items for Relational Development and Degree of Discrepancy .. 125

Table 12: Analysis of Variance for Relational Development Index by

Scenario-Described Relational Development and Degree of Discrepancy ..... 126
Table 13: Analysis of Variance for Degree of Discrepancy Index by

Scenario-Described Relational Development and Degree of Discrepancy ..... 127
Table 14: Demographic Results .................................................................................. 128

Table 15: Level of Participants’ Own Reported Direct Experience Level with
Date Rape: Table of Means ............................................................................. 129

Table 16: Assessment of Relationship between Demographic and
Information Variables ..................................................................................... 130

Table 17: Analysis of Variance for Estimated Percentage of Date-Rape Victims
by Own Reported Direct Experience Level with Date Rape .......................... 131

Table 18: Analysis of Variance for Reported Number of Rape Victims Known
to Participant by Own Reported Direct Experience Level with Date Rape... 132

Table 19: Pure-Indirect Strategies ............................................................................... 133

Table 20: Varied-Indirect Strategies ........................................................................... 134
Table 21: Direct Strategies .......................................................................................... 135
Table 22: Qualitative Data .......................................................................................... 136
Table 23: Most Used Direct Strategies ....................................................................... 137
Table 24: Most-Used Indirect Strategies .................................................................... 138
Table 25: Assessment of Secondary-Goal Category Importance ............................... 139
Table 26: Analysis of Variance for Averaged Scores for Interaction Goals by

Own Reported Direct Experience Level with Date Rape ............................... 140
Table 27: Analysis of Variance for Interaction Goals by Scenario.Described

Relational Development and Degree of Discrepancy ..................................... 141
Table 28: Analysis of Variance for Relational Resource Goals by

Scenario-Described Relational Development and Degree of Discrepancy ..... 142
Table 29: Date-Rape Scenarios: Table of Means ........................................................ 143

Table 30: Analysis of Variance for Averaged Scores for Evaluation of Scenario
Realism by Own Reported Direct Experience Level with Date Rape ............ 144

Table 31: Analysis of Variance for Use of Direct Strategies by Scenario-Described
Relational Development and Degree of Discrepancy ..................................... 145

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Participants’ relational development index average as a function of
scenario type ................................................................................................... 147

Figure 2: Participants’ degree of discrepancy index average as a function of
scenario type ................................................................................................... 148

Figure 3: Participants’ estimation of the percentage of women who have been
forced to have sexual intercourse against their will in a dating situation,
as a function of participants’ own reported direct experience level with
date rape .......................................................................................................... 149

Figure 4: Reported number of raped women known personally by the participants,
as a function of participants’ own reported direct experience level with
date rape .......................................................................................................... 150

Figure 5: Participants averaged scores for interaction goals, as a function of
participants’ own reported direct experience level with date rape .................. 151

Figure 6: Participants’ interaction goal scores as a function of scenario-described
relational development and degree of discrepancy ......................................... 152

Figure 7: Participants’ relational resource goal scores as a function of participants’
own reported direct experience level with date rape ....................................... 153

Figure 8: Participants’ averaged scores for evaluation of scenario realism as
a function of participants’ own reported direct experience level
with date rape .................................................................................................. 154

Figure 9: Participants’ use of direct strategies as a function of scenario-described
relational development and degree of discrepancy ......................................... 155

xi

Chapter 1
Introduction
tat to e o lem

The "Just Say No" phrase coined by Nancy Reagan in the 19805 in her campaign
against drugs has an appealing simplicity. In fact, that phrase has been extrapolated to
other issues where attitudinal and behavioral change are desired. One such issue is date
rape (also referred to in the literature as acquaintance rape) which is a rape that occurs
within the general context of dating relationships. Similar to the approach taken by the
former First Lady, some researchers argue that the secret to controlling the number of
date-rape incidents rests primarily upon the alleged victim simply making expectations
explicitly known (i.e., communicating sexual interest and intent) (Abbey, 1982, 1987;
Shotland & Craig, 1988). These researchers contend that explicit communication of
expectations will lessen misinterpretation of cues where "fi'iendly" behaviors--such as
participating in conversation or being willing to have a drink in the other person's
apartment-~are mistaken as interest in sexual intercourse (Abbey, 1982, 1987; Shotland &
Craig, 1988). In fact, there are a number of studies and commentaries that focus on the
prevalence of "token resistance" or a lack of an unwavering "no" (F ussman, 1993;
Muehlenhard & Hollabaugh, 1988; Shotland, 1989). However, simply telling people to
say "no" to drug dealers or to would-be assailants minimizes the complexity of the
situation (Elliott, 1993). Research focusing solely on this aspect lacks an
acknowledgment and exploration of the factors, both situational and relational, that can

make saying "no" extremely difficult and a less than efficacious persuasive strategy.

Therefore, it seems theoretically and pragmatically valuable to consider which
strategies victims of unwanted sexual behavior consider and which they reject. In
exploring these strategies, at least two key questions emerge: a) what constraints to
stopping or attempting to stop unwanted sexual advances do victims experience and why,
and b) how are these constraints manifested in the verbal and nonverbal messages
generated by victims? An in-depth investigation of the "in-the-moment" obstacles to
stopping or to persuading the aggressor to stop unwanted sexual behavior leading to
intercourse will be explored in this project. It is believed that understanding these
obstacles may be a step toward creating efficacious strategies to help reduce the
prevalence of unwanted sexual contact.

There is some debate regarding the exact frequency of date rape (Aldrich, 1994;
Gross & Greene, 1992; Johnson, Palileo, & Gray, 1992; Orton, 1994). Regardless of
whether or not the percentages accurately represent the prevalence, it is indisputable that
date rape affects the lives of many people. For example, according to the FBI Uniform
Crime Report (1997), 72.5 founded rapes (i.e., confirmed by law enforcement agencies)
occur per 100,000 females and, on average, a rape occurs in the United States every five
minutes. In two studies conducted on college campuses, 54% of the college women
surveyed reported having experienced some form of forced sexual contact, with 15% of
them reporting an experience of rape (Koss, Gidycz, & Wisniewski, 1987; Koss,
Woodruss, & Koss, 1991). Between 78% and 89% of the sexual assaults reported in
these studies were said to be perpetrated by someone the victim knew (Koss et al., 1987;

Koss et al., 1991).

Date rape touches the lives of both women and men. Although more attention is
given to female victims, men are critical to the formula of date rape--both as potential
assailants and as potential victims. A large body of research has focused on men as
would-be assailants (Benson, Charlton, & Goodhart, 1992; Burke, Stets, & Pirog-Good,
1988; Craig, Kalichman, & Follingstad, 1989; Peterson & Franzese, 1987; Stets &
Pirog-Good, 1989; Warren, Reboussin, Hazelwood, & Wright, 1991), but, in addition to
this, at least one study suggests that men may be victims of this crime as well
(Struckman-Johnson, 1988). Furthermore, if it is accurate that women are reluctant to
file formal complaints against their alleged assailants or even to tell anyone of the
incident (Makepeace, 1981; Parrot, 1990; Weller, 1992; Winkel & Koppelaar, 1991), it
seems probable that men, who are potential victims, may feel even more pressure not to
come forward given the societal stereotypes of women as victims. This suggests that the
prevalence of date rape against men may be considerably higher than what is suggested
by the reported cases.

Whether the victim is male or female, the task of attempting or persuading the
aggressor to stop unwanted sexual advances is an unenviable but necessary task. Relying
on the alleged assailant to stop unwanted sexual advances seems both naive and
potentially injurious. Expecting the "good will” of the other person to prevail, even when
that individual is someone well liked, may be misguided and may give individuals a false
sense of security. In fact, studies have explored males' self-reported likelihood to rape in
both circumstances with strangers (Briere & Malarnuth, 1983; Malarnuth, 1981; Tieger,
1981) as well as with individuals known by the victim (Malamuth, 1986). These studies

indicated that as many as 60% of the men surveyed reported at least some likelihood of

raping if they could be assured of not being caught, regardless of the interpersonal
relationship.

A potential problem occurs when men and women believe other people behave
according to good will. Specifically, they may perceive themselves to be invulnerable to
date rape, thus blinding them to potential danger, especially when it involves other people
they know very well. This may cause them not to think proactively about strategies for
responses, should unwanted sexual advances occur. Concern regarding this potential
"blindness" has been addressed in much of the current literature distributed on college
campuses as part of student orientation and public safety programs (Harrison, Downes, &
Williams, 1991; Kidder, Boeil, & Moyer, 1983; Lisker, 1996; Shea, 1993).

Given the prevalence and importance of this topic, further exploration into
persuasive strategies to stop unwanted sexual intercourse, as well as perceived obstacles
to persuasion seems warranted. However, in order to make this exploration manageable,
the proj ect's scope is limited in two important ways. First, due to the statistics for male
and female victims, women as potential victims of date rape will be the focus of this
study. Second, this investigation will concentrate on traditional college-aged students, as
they are in a particularly vulnerable phase of their lives with regard to date rape due to the
prevalence of courting or dating relationships (Parrot, 1990).

With these constraints in mind, the purpose of the proposed research is to explore
women's projected reactions to hypothetical date-rape situations. Specifically, the focus
is on exploring women's perceptions regarding the importance of stopping an unwanted
sexual attempt intended to lead toward intercourse and what factors, if any, might cause

them to reshape their message output. The study has two goals: a) explore the type of

verbal and nonverbal messages used to stop an unwanted sexual advance, and b) examine
the salience of constraints on message output.

Using a goal-directed framework, both functional classification-describing
messages in terms of "the apparent goals pursued by the message" (O'Keefe, 1990,
p. 204)--and strategic classification-describing messages in terms of "the means of
achieving the message's goal" (p. 205)--are explored in the present investigation. For the
firnctional classification component, Dillard's (1990) multiple-goals approach serves as a
primary guide as he presents a conceptual framework for different types of goals. For the
strategic classification component, Muehlenhard, Andrews, and Beal's (1996) typology of
26 possible responses to an unwanted sexual advance will focus the investigation.

To begin, the key existing themes in the date-rape literature will be presented.
Next, relevant compliance-gaining literature, especially that related to goals and
strategies, will be reviewed. Based on these two areas of study, the research hypotheses
and research questions for the present investigation will be posited. Finally, the
methodology for the investigation and the results and discussion sections will be
presented. ’
W

Despite the plethora of date-rape studies as a whole in both academic journals and
non-academic sources in the past one quarter century, the following literature review
illustrates that the present investigation is an area that has not yet been given enough
academic attention. Although a specific investigation of the constraints women
experience in attempting to stop unwanted sexual behavior is lacking, numerous

connections between extant research and the present study can be drawn.

In exploring the date-rape literature, it was discovered that researchers have made
some attempt to categorize the studies by type. A categorization system posited by Burt
and Estep (1981) and Kleinke and Meyer (1990) is presented here with emphasis placed
on how the previous research relates to the present investigation. Because the purpose of
reviewing the date-rape literature is simply to illustrate the diversity of investigation and
to place the present study in context, most of the research projects are not presented in
great detail. Attention will be given now to the first identified group of date-rape studies.

SLOW One general identified category was factors
contributing to commission of the crime. Research exploring rape-myth acceptance
(Bernie & Colon, 1994; Burt, 1980; Burt & Albin, 1981; Burt & Estep, 1981; Dull &
Giacopassi, 1987; Fischer, 1987; Gillen and Muncer, 1995; Larsen & Long, 1988;
Margolin, Miller, & Moran, 1989; Ward, 1988) as well as research investigating
acceptance of rigid social roles (Costin, 1985; Costin & Schwarz, 1987; Spence,
Helrnreich, & Stapp, 1973) are both key areas of investigation within the commission of
the crime category. Rape myths have been defined as "prejudicial, stereotyped, or false
beliefs about rape, rape victims, and rapists" (Burt, 1980, p. 217). The researchers have
concluded that rape-myth acceptance narrows the definition of rape for both victim and
perpetrator; the effect of holding these stereotyped beliefs is to deny that many instances
involving coercive sex actually constitute "rape". Faced then with real-life situations,
individuals who accept rape myths may be more likely to continue sexual advances even
when the other person has indicated a desire for the behavior to stop. Victims of date
rape who have narrow definitions of rape due to rape-myth acceptance may face

numerous constraints in determining a course of action because they are so surprised this

is happening to them. The situation simply does not fit their narrow definition of rape.
This extant research on rape-myth acceptance and rigid social roles provides a
springboard for the present investigation because it helps to illustrate that these types of
situations are complex and that attitudes may be rooted in long-term socialization. It may
be these types of variables that help explain why women experience constraints in
stopping or attempting to stop unwanted sexual behavior, and future investigation may
elucidate this idea.

Also in the commission of the crime area is the research related to communication
of expectations (Abbey, 1982, 1987; Byers & Lewis, 1988; Knox & Wilson, 1981;
Sawyer, Desmond, & Lucke, 1993; Shotland & Craig, 1988), avoidance strategies (Amik
.& Calhoun, 1987; Atkeson, Calhoun, & Morris, 1989; Fischhoff, Furby, & Morgan,
1987; Koss, 1986; LaPlante, McCormick, & Brannigan, 1980; McCormick, 1979;
Mumen, Perot, & Byme, 1989), and token resistance (F ussman, 1993; Muehlenhard &
Hollabaugh, 1988; Shotland, 1989). For a communication-based study, these
investigations are helpful in that they do explore the dyad, but most of the studies do not
focus a great deal on the exploration of the motivation for the behavior. As mentioned
earlier, some of these researchers postulate that the solution to the prevalence of date rape
is simply for women to express expectations more clearly and to avoid token resistance.
This perception that women resist by using subtle verbal and nonverbal cues is
highlighted in Abbey’s (1991) conclusion that:

Educational programs need to be implemented to teach dating-age youth how to

honestly and clearly convey their intentions and impute the intentions of their

dates rather than to rely on indirect cues . . . . Future generations of American

youth will learn that "no" means "no" and "yes" means "yes" only if they
consistently receive this message from peers, parents, teachers, the media, and
most importantly, their dates (p. 108).
The present investigation argues that this is an oversirnplification, and it is necessary to
consider what factors constrain the victim's communication behavior, making saying "no"
a formidable task. The second category of date-rape literature, context of the assault, may
offer insight into potential constraining factors and is presented next.
W Investigations have identified several situational factors
that may contribute to the likelihood for date rape to occur. Specifically, situational
factors conducive to date rape were reported to include alcohol, loud music, private
dwellings, parties and bars, sorority and fraternity activities, and multiple male living
units (Makepeace, 1981; Parrot & Bechhofer, 1991). Even the time of year has been
linked with a higher incidence of date rape with the beginning of the academic year
through the Thanksgiving holiday involving the highest reported incidence (Parrot &
Bechhofer, 1991). Much of the date-rape research has been conducted on college
students which helps to explain why several of the situational factors seem to be most
relevant to the college-student experience. However, rather than using college students
for convenience, investigation of this type is purposeful. Parrot (1990) determined that
most rapists are between 15 and 24 years of age, putting high school and traditional-aged
college students in a high-risk category. Not only does this information provide
justification for the present study to utilize traditional-aged college students in the
investigation, the issue of situational variables may be important as well. As women

contemplate their ability to stop or to persuade the aggressor to stop an unwanted sexual

advance, situational variables, such as alcohol consumption, may be perceived to be
constraints for the victim and perpetrator. Participants in the present investigation will be
asked to consider two situational factors: relational development (i.e., length of
relationship and level of perceived relational investment) and degree of discrepancy
(i.e., the discrepancy between what the victim desires sexually and the assailant's desire
for sexual intercourse). Relational development was selected because the present
investigation is rooted in the context of date rape rather than stranger rape, thus rational
development would vary. This varied relational involvement may affect the victim’s
perceived choices in attempting to stop the aggressor. It is also anticipated that the level
of sexual involvement (representing the degree of discrepancy) may influence the
victim’s behavior.

Once a date rape has occurred, the victim is left with the reality of what has
happened. The third category of date-rape literature helps to illustrate the powerful
effects that date rape can have on its victims.

MW Research on victims' attributions of self-
blame following rape incidents (Frazier, 1990; Janoff-Bulman, 1979, 1982; Miller &
Porter, 1983) falls within this category. One investigation by Janoff-Bulman (1979) was
especially helpful in understanding the concept of self-blame. In this study, self-blame
was divided into two types: behavioral and characterological. Janoff-Bulman explained
that behavioral self-blame is related to control in that attributions are made to a
modifiable source-~one's behavior. This type of blame is associated with belief in future
avoidability of negative outcomes. In contrast, characterological self-blame is related to

esteem in that attributions are made to a relatively nonmodifiable source—one's character.

This type of blame is associated with belief in personal deservingness for past negative
outcomes. Of these two types, Janoff-Bulman reported that depression is correlated more
with characterological self-blame.

In addition to the area of self-blame, the research exploring individual "styles" of
recovery (Gaitskill, 1994; Taylor, Wood, & Lichtrnan, 1983; Winkel & Koppelaar, 1991),
effective forms of treafinent (Burgess & Holmstrom, 1976; Koss & Burkhart, 1989), and
post-rape perceptions of society (Janoff-Bulman & Frieze, 1983; Peterson & Seligrnan,
1983; Scheppele & Bart, 1983) all fall within the category of victim reactions and
traumatic effects. These studies attempt to explain the unique experiences of rape
victims. Janoff-Bulman and Frieze (1983), for example, explained that many victims
experience psychological distress because basic assumptions about themselves and their
world are shattered by their experiences. Consequent perceptions include a decrease of
belief in personal invulnerability, a decrease in perception of the world as meaningful and
orderly, and a decrease in perception of self as positive. An interesting question that
emerges for the present investigation is whether perceived constraints on behavior to stop
or to persuade the other to stop unwanted sexual advances contribute to the psychological
distress felt by victims after the assault.

I The distress that victims feel is a post-rape issue, but there is also a category of
date-rape research that explores the pre-rape issue of the likelihood to rape or be raped.
This fourth identified category of date-rape research is the focus of the next section.

LEW This category of date-rape research relies heavily

upon analysis of self-report and demographic data. The research discussed earlier

regarding individuals' self-reported likelihood to rape (Briere & Malarnuth, 1983;

10

Malarnuth, 1981, 1986; Tieger, 1981) falls within this category. Moreover,
investigations have included exploration of the relevance of previously experienced abuse
(Deal & Wampler, 1986; Roscoe & Benaske, 1985) and characteristics such as sex, age,
race, socioeconomic status, and political affiliation of victims and offenders (Grauerholz
& Solomon, 1989; Peterson & Franzese, 1987; Prentky, Burgess, & Carter, 1986;
Sigelman, Berry, & Wiles, 1984). The self-report data and other analyses are important
in the overall investigation of date rape as a phenomenon, but these investigations alone
do not provide a communication-based understanding unless they are correlated with
communication variables. The combination of these types of variables and
communication-based variables will be included in the present investigation by exploring
the correlation between previously experienced date rape and goals and constraints on
behavior. The purpose of this inclusion will be to determine if women who previously
have been victims of date rape perceive constraints to stop or persuade the aggressor to
stop unwanted sexual behavior differently than do those women who have not had
previous experience of this type.

Once a date rape occurs, those individuals directly involved in the situation, as
well as others outside of the relationship, may attribute responsibility and blame for what
occurred. The fifth and final identified category of date rape literature explores this issue.

WW One particularly relevant application of
this information is to explore what factors jury members may consideruboth when
determining whether a situation constitutes rape and when recommending punishment.
Such issues have received increased attention with the occurrence of famous "rape" cases,

such as the William Kennedy Smith trial (Cowan & Curtis, 1994).

11

The assessment of responsibility or blame for behavior has been explored as it
relates to a number of variables. The following is not an exhaustive list, but it illustrates
the diversity of investigation in this area. As awhole, the variables incorporated into
investigations of responsibility or blame assessment can be categorized according to
characteristics of the evaluator, the situation, or the victim.

In terms of variables relating to the evaluator, some studies have explored
demographic data while others have examined dimensions of attitude or personality. The
evaluator's sex (Calhoun, Selby, & Warring, 1976; Cowan & Curtis, 1994; Deitz,
Blackwell, Daley, & Bentley, 1982; Langley et al., 1991; McLendon et al., 1994; Schultz
& Schneider, 1991; Sheldon-Keller, Lloyd-McGarvey, West, & Canterbury, 1994;
Tetreault & Barnett, 1987), political affiliation and ethnicity (Cowan & Curtis, 1994), and
previously experienced victimization (Deitz et al., 1982) are all examples of variables
incorporated in third-party demographic investigations. Investigations of the evaluator's
attitude or personality characteristics have explored the degree of social influence
experienced (Drout, Becker, Bukkosy, & Mansell, 1994), belief in a just-world
hypothesis (Kleinke & Meyer, 1990), and acceptance of rape myths and sex-role
stereotypes (Jenkins & Dambrot, 1987; Proite, Dannells, & Benton, 1993).

In addition to the evaluator’s characteristics, placement of blame or responsibility
has been examined according to situational characteristics. Situational variables have
included degree of acquaintance between victim and perpetrator (Bell, Kuriloff, & Lottes,
1994; Bridges & McGrail, 1989; Johnson, 1994; McLendon et al., 1994; Sheldon-Keller
et al., 1994; Tetrealt & Barnett, 1987), the degree of physical violence or force involved

(Garcia, Milano, & Quijano, 1989; Langley etal., 1991; Shotland & Goodstein, 1983),

12

type of dating activity, such as who initiated, who paid, and where they went on the date
(Muehlenhard, Friedman, & Thomas, 1985), and availability of information to a third
party regarding motives of the victim and assailant (Vallacher & Selz, 1991; Wiener &
Rinehart, 1986).

In contrast, other variables examined in assessment of blame or responsibility
research have related directly to the victim and to the victim's behavior. For example,
research has included recidivist victims-«hose who have reported previous rapes (Schultz
& Schneider, 1991), the nature of the resistance used by the victim (Berlinger, 1986;
Langley et al., 1991; Shotland & Goodstein, 1983; Weller, 1992), the victim's attire
(Cassidy & Hurrell, 1995), the attractiveness of the victim (Ferguson, Duthie, & Graf,
1987), the sexual history of the victim (Johnson, 1994), the degree of perceived sexual
pleasure experienced by the victim (McCaul, Veltum, Boyechko, & Crawford, 1990), and
the victim's previous sexual activity-«sexual precedence-«with the assailant (Shotland &
Goodstein, 1992).

These investigations illustrate the extent to which researchers have examined the
minutia of placement of responsibility or blame in circumstances involving unwanted
sexual behavior. This information is infinitely important to prosecution and defense
lawyers as they select juries to hear cases and as they prepare questions for their
witnesses. This information may be useful for educational and treatment programs as
well. However, given that women do not anticipate being raped, it probably does not
occur to them prior to leaving on a date to consider how others, outside of the
relationship, may perceive such factors as their attire, their attractiveness, or the nature of

the date. Because the present investigation is designed to explore how women experience

13

date rape only from the standpoint of stopping or attempting to stop unwanted sexual
behavior, assessment of blame or responsibility will not be an area of focus. It should be
noted, though, that when women consider their goals and constraints, what "others"
outside of the situation might think could enter into their perceptions; therefore, the
participants will be asked to consider factors that could relate to others' perceptions of
them and their behavior.

Although the categorization systems presented by Burt and Estep (1981) and
Kleinke and Meyer (1990) have provided a useful conceptual picture of the literature
relating to the date-rape phenomenon, there have been new developments in the date-rape
literature with two major additions emerging. The first has been the number of articles
and other documents relating to the development and assessment of educational
programs. The second has been the debate regarding the reported versus accepted scope
of date rape as a phenomenon.

W The first addition, educational programs, resulted largely
from a federal law signed July 23, 1992 under the Higher Education Act requiring that
colleges receiving federal student aid must provide "educational programs promoting
students' awareness of rape, acquaintance rape and other sex offenses" (Glazer, 1994,

’p. 975). These schools are also required to "collect annual statistics on sex offenses,
distribute them to current students and establish disciplinary procedures for dealing with
sex offenses" (p. 975). Several colleges and universities have established programs.
Some evaluators have applauded while others have attacked programs and policies for

their aggressive and directive approaches to the issue.

14

One such program belongs to Swarthrnore College in Pennsylvania. This
program existed seven years before the law required it, and Swarthrnore is hailed as the
first college to develop an educational program designed to reduce date rape (Wiener,
1992). The program involved creating a video focusing on communication issues to
teach students about this type of rape. Students at the college wrote, produced and even
acted in the video. The video was then shown to fieshmen at the beginning of the
academic year. Although the program received an award from the Los Angeles
Commission on Assaults Against Women, Wiener reported that the program also
received a great deal of skepticism and criticism as some reporters alleged that
Swarthrnore College regarded "inappropriate innuendo as the equivalent of rape" (p. 44).

In addition to Swarthmore College, there are several other college and university
programs that have received national attention, and at times debate, in both the academic
and lay worlds. Academic institutions receiving attention have included Antioch College
in Ohio (Gross, 1993; Healy, 1993; Will, 1993); Columbia University in New York
(Hellman, 1993); Wittenberg University in Ohio (McEvoy, 1992); The University of
Maine (Caron, 1993); Cornell University in New York (Mazur, 1993); and University of
Pennsylvania (Shea, 1993). These programs have included a variety of educational
formats such as videotape, peer education, facilitated discussion, assertiveness training,
theatrical drarnatizations, and role-play exercises. Communication-based issues have
been at the heart of several of the programs as they focus on such issues as consent and
discussion of sexual expectations.

As programs are developed under the federal mandate, issues especially relevant

to students' ability to stop or attempt to stop unwanted sexual advances should be

15

considered for holistic understanding. The present investigation is designed to explore
what those issues may be from the perspective of potential female victims. In the present
age of educational assessment (Angelo & Cross, 1993), colleges and universities do not
want to implement programs without determining if those programs are effective.
Exploring the constraints that potential victims feel may be a critical variable in
understanding why certain programs on date rape are reported to be effective (Gray,
Lesser, Quinn, & Bounds, 1990; Harrison et al., 1991; Kidder et al., 1983; McEvoy,
1992; Shea, 1993) while others are said to fail (Borden, Karr, & Caldwell-Colbert, 1988;
Lenihan & Rawlins, 1994). For example, one reportedly successful program described
by Kidder et a1. (1983) offered assertiveness training for women. In the program, the
women were given the opportunity to practice the prescribed behaviors where they
previously felt afraid or felt they had no right to resist. Fear was discovered to be the
most common reaction to victimization, and it was evaluated as exacerbating
victimization because it caused the victims to feel immobilized. The present study may
help to explain what specifically creates fear for date-rape victims and why
immobilization may be the subsequent reaction.
W The attention surrounding the
programs and policies in higher education fueled a second major development in the
date-rape literature. Specifically, individuals both inside and outside the academic arena
began to debate assumptions based on previous research regarding the prevalence of the
crime. The majority of the debate regarding prevalence has centered on a study
conducted by Mary P. Koss and colleagues in 1985 funded by the National Institute of

Mental Health (Koss et al., 1987; Koss & Seibel, 1988). This study has been widely

16

disseminated in the popular press to document the scope of date rape (Berlinger & Koss,
1992). In this national study involving 32 United States institutions of higher education,
more than 6,000 students participated (3,187 females and 2,972 males). Ohio's legal
definition of rape, which the researchers argued was similar to that of many other states,
was used for the investigation. The legal definition of rape in Ohio is as follows:

Vaginal intercourse between male and female, and anal intercourse, fellatio, and

cunnilingus . . . Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete vaginal or

anal intercourse . . . No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another person
when any of the following apply: (a) the offender purposely compels the other
person to submit by force or threat of force, (b) for the purpose of preventing
resistance, the offender substantially impairs the other person's judgment or
control by administering any drug or intoxicant to the other person (Ohio Revised

Code as presented by Koss & Seible, 1988).

Based on this definition, 489 women were labeled as rape victims with 52
classified as stranger-rape victims, 416 classified as acquaintance-rape victims, and 21
not receiving classification due to missing data. Each of the 489 women answered "yes"
to one or more of the following three questions: a) Have you had sexual intercourse when
you didn't want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs? b) Have you had sexual
intercourse when you didn't want to because a man threatened or used some degree of
physical force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc.) to make you? c) Have you had
sex acts (anal or oral intercourse or penetration by objects other than the penis) when you
didn't want to because a man threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisting

your arm, holding you down, etc.) to make you?

17

Johnson et a1. (1992) replicated the Koss et a1. (1985) study with 1,177 students
(511 males and 666 females) on a single university campus and argued that their findings
were consistent with Koss et a1. and that the survey instrument was unbiased. However,
others have challenged the 1985 results and implications. At the forefront of this
opposition have been Gilbert (1991, 1993; Gilbert as critiqued by Collison, 1993),
Roiphe (1993, 1994), Paglia (Paglia & Cordes, 1993), and Carlin (1994).

Taken as a whole, the opposition's argument has been three-fold. First, critics
have argued that Koss' definition of rape was too broad, resulting in an exaggeration of
the prevalence of rape. Koss (1993) countered this by indicating that "although
educational materials exist that promote broad interpretations of the term 'rape' [also see
Young, 1993], critics err in the assumption that these definitions undergird the empirical
date base . . . the definition of rape [used for this study] is consistent with the statutes of
most North American jurisdictions" (p. 185). Second, critics have argued that Koss
included other types of sexual victimization besides rape in these figures, which caused
exaggeration. Koss (1993) corrected critics by explaining that although various other
forms of sexual victimization were examined (e.g., unwanted touching and intercourse
subsequent to menacing verbal coercion), the responses to these items were not summed
along with those dealing with force to obtain the rape rate. Third, critics have charged
that the vast majority of the "rape victims" did not classify themselves as rape victims so
neither should Koss. Again, Koss (1993) offered clarification and explanation.
Approximately one-quarter of the 489 women labeled as rape victims did not feel
victimized by the experience. The remaining women had the following reactions:

"one-quarter thought it was rape; one-quarter thought it was some kind of crime, but did

18

not realize it qualified as rape; [and] one-quarter thought it was serious sexual abuse, but
did not know it qualified as a crime" (p. 185). Koss ultimately argued that "the failure to
embrace the correct legal label for one's victimization does not mean that the
victimization did not occur" (p. 185).

Berlinger and Koss (1992), Faludi (1993), Orton (1994), and Ring (1994) are all
concerned about what impact the debate regarding prevalence and the publicity
surrounding the debate will have on public support and education or prevention
programs. Berlinger and Koss (1992), for example, indicated that the challenges "reveal
little regard for the scholarship on the subject and remind us that we are fighting
ideological barriers that no set of numbers may be able to lower" (p. 124). In an article
exploring the debate, an exasperated student was reported to have said, "We need to talk
about prevention and education. We are going to war with each other instead of going to
war against the problem" (Collison, 1993, p. A41). Even if the findings by Koss et a1.
(1987) were exaggerated, which they argued were not, does it diminish the impact that
victims of sexual assault experience? The present investigation begins with the
perspective that, regardless of the exact figures, men and women need to address the issue
of unwanted sexual behavior by increasing understanding of what occurs as the situation
unfolds. Only then can solutions be addressed.

WWW Over the past one quarter century, the
phenomenon of date rape has received a great deal of attention. To help manage the mass
and diversity, Burt and Estep (1981) and Kleinke and Meyer (1990) offered
categorization systems for the phenomenon. Taken together, five areas of investigation

were identified. The first area, factors contributing to commission of the crime,

19

addressed such issues as rape-myth acceptance, adherence to rigid social roles,
communication of expectations, avoidance strategies, and token resistance. The second
area, context of the assault, focused on factors such as common locations of date rape and
specific behavioral correlates such as consumption of alcohol. The third area, victim
reactions and traumatic effects, centered on issues of self-blame, style of recovery,
treatment programs, and post-rape perceptions of society. The fourth area, likelihood to
rape or be raped, utilized self-report data and statistical analyses of demographic
indicators. The fifth area, assessment of responsibility or blame, involved three major
components: evaluator characteristics (both demographic and attitude or personality
based), situational characteristics, and victim characteristics.

Since the time the categorizational systems by Burt and Estep (1981) and Kleinke
and Meyer (1990) were presented, two additional key areas of investigation have
emerged. The first, stemming fiom the implementation of a federal mandate, has been
the development and assessment of educational programs. The second area, emerging as
a result of increased attention given to the phenomenon, concerns the reported and
accepted scope of the phenomenon and has spurred heated debate.

These seven themes in the date-rape literature illustrate the diversity of
investigation (see Table 1), but they also point to the fact that most of the research relates
to pre-rape and post-rape issues rather than actual situational-rape issues. The present
investigation will focus on this latter area. Specifically, this paper will explore women's
perceived constraints to their ability to stop or to persuade the aggressor to stop unwanted

sexual advances.

20

Attempting to stop an unwanted sexual advance in all of its potential complexity
can be categorized as a compliance-gaining attempt. Relevant compliance-gaining
literature will be explored next to identify constraints that women may perceive on their
ability to stop an attempt at forced intercourse.

- ' ' ese

Philosopher and novelist, Ayn Rand, once described the human species as
goal-driven and action—oriented (Rand as described in Branden, 1989). This statement is
central to research in compliance-gaining as it highlights humans' ability to contemplate
and set a course of action. Dillard (1990) explained that this implies conscious
appreciation-although perhaps not total awareness-of one's own behaviors. Unlike the
great bulk of persuasion studies that focus on how and why persuasive messages have the
effects they do, compliance-gaining research highlights the "questions of how and why
persons produce the social influence efforts they do" (O'Keefe, 1990, p. 200). Another
useful distinction between compliance-gaining and persuasion is that compliance-gaining
focuses on behavioral change, while persuasion can involve both behavioral change as
well as attitudinal shifts. O'Keefe explained that the study of compliance-gaining
messages can be categorized usefully by two broad classification schemes: functional and
strategic. Functional classification schemes describe messages in terms of "the apparent
goals pursued by the message" (p. 204), while strategic classification schemes describe
messages in terms of "the means of achieving the message's goal" (p. 205). The present
investigation will involve a combination of the two types. Participants will consider
goals and constraints (functional) and issues of message production (strategic). In

exploring the application of these schemes to the present investigation, relevant literature

21

regarding the functional and strategic components will be presented, beginning with the
functional component.

WW1, O'Keefe (1990) explained that there are numerous
examples of classification schemes that focus on the functional component of messages.
The selected scheme for the present investigation is referred to as a multiple-goals
perspective, developed by James Dillard (1990). An infrastructure of goals, plans, and
action was highlighted that is helpful in the present investigation of women's perceived
constraints on stopping or persuading the other to stop unwanted sexual behavior leading
to intercourse. For ease of discussion, Dillard labeled the individual making the influence
attempt and the individual receiving the attempt as the actor and target respectively.
These terms will be used throughout the following sections.

Goals were described as "future states of affairs which an individual is committed
to achieving or maintaining" (p. 43). A goal may serve the following functions:

a) initiate action, b) act as a standard against which outcomes resulting from the action
may be compared, and c) impact meaning in human action and interaction. Dillard
postulated that people have multiple goals that vary in degree of abstraction, importance
over time, and importance at any given point in time. Thus, different goals will be
dominant at different times. Although Dillard's approach has not been utilized to explore
cognition and message output in date-rape situations, it is directly applicable. For
example, presumably in the context of an unwanted sexual advance, the desired "future
state of affairs" from the perspective of the recipient of the advance is the termination of

that advance.

22

Following goals are plans. Dillard explained that "a plan is that which specifies
the set of actions necessary to achieve a goal" (p. 43). Three dimensions of plans were
described: hierarchy, complexity, and completeness. Plan hierarchy refers to the
abstractrress of the goal. An abstract goal may elicit an equally abstract plan (e.g., a goal
of wanting to stop an unwanted sexual advance may invoke a relatively general plan of
trying to persuade the target to stop). Plan complexity refers to the number of elements
and contingencies in a plan and to the sequence in which those elements must be
executed. If, for example, the plan during an unwanted sexual advance involves asking
the target in the form of a direct request to stop, the plan has only one step. Finally, plan
completeness pertains to the extent to which the elements of a plan are clearly delineated
with regard to contingencies and subcomponents. In the example above involving the
direct request to stop, there are no contingencies presented. What if the target does not
stop after the request is made? Furthermore, the plan does not specify when the request
will be made or the style of presentation.

Applying the examples identified for plan hierarchy, complexity, and
completeness to a potential date-rape situation highlights the issue that there is very little
time between the establishment of the goal and the necessity to respond. This is an
important difference in the nature of this context as compared to many other
compliance-gaining situations. For example, if an actor has a goal of getting money back
that is owed, the actor may spend hours contemplating the most effective message
strategies for compliance-gaining and likely would develop a plan and perhaps an
alternate plan in case the first fails. However, in a date-rape situation, the likelihood of

the actor to do pre-planning for strategies to stop an unwanted sexual advance is

23

minimized because it is unlikely that individuals anticipate the necessity to have such a
plan in place. Given that the actor has agreed to or even initiated the date, there is
presumably some level of positive affect for the target. Therefore, it seems unlikely that
the actor anticipates undesirable behavior from the target. It is not until the initiation of
the unwanted sexual advance, then, that the actor will identify the necessity of the goal
and which strategies will be used. Because of the relatively spontaneous nature of the
date-rape situation fiom the perspective of the victim, the present investigation does not
explicitly explore the planning component of the goals-planning-action (GPA) sequence.
Whether the amount of planning time is hours (which possibly occurs in some
compliance-gaining situations) or seconds (which likely occurs in the context of date
rape), action is the result of plans that have been put into effect. Dillard (1990) explained
that a number of demands and limitations may affect the action portion of the GPA
sequence. First, given that individuals have multiple goals, one or more of the actor's
other goals may change the goal-plan that is currently being translated into action. For
example, the goal of stopping an unwanted sexual advance via direct request may be
displaced by other goals to protect one's own face, or "an approved social identity"
(Trenhohn & Jensen, 1996, p. 10), as well as the target's face. Second, "features of the
situation or interaction may come to light that make it apparent that pursuing a particular
goal is fruitless, thereby terminating plan execution" (Dillard, 1990, p. 44). For example,
if the assailant in the date-rape situation becomes even more physically aggressive as the
actor attempts to persuade the target to stop, the actor may believe that any attempt made
would be pointless or might even exacerbate the situation. Finally, "translating the plan

into action may require cognitive capacity that is available only in limited quantities"

24

(p. 44). If, for example, the actor is seriously intoxicated, she may be unable to execute
the plan. It is also possible that action by the actor may be limited, not because of a lack
of an existing goal or establishment of a plan, but because she has become immobilized
by fear. Given that Kidder et a1. (1983), as reported earlier, discovered that fear was the
most common reaction to victimization and that it caused victims to feel immobilized,
this is a plausible consequence of an unwanted sexual advance.

Dillard (1990) specified two types of goals: primary goals (also referred to as
influence goals) and secondary goals. The two types of goals are distinguished "by their
centrality to the influence attempt and by their causal relations to one another" (p. 45).
An elucidation of these goal types is critical to the present investigation of the perceived
constraints women experience in date-rape situations.

First, primary goals "bracket the attempt and provide the explanation for the
interaction" (p. 45); they also drive the influence attempt. Awareness of a primary goal
occurs when a person "perceives some discrepancy or potential discrepancy between the
current state of affairs and the desired state of affairs" (p. 45), where "state of affairs"
refers to the behaviors of the target. For example, if a woman prefers to restrict physical
contact on a date to kissing but the man prefers sexual intercourse, there is an obvious
discrepancy between the current state of affairs and the desired state of affairs. Given this
discrepancy, the actor's most likely primary goal in the situation would be to stop the
unwanted sexual advance. Dillard claims that the importance of the desired state of
affairs and the discrepancy between the current and desired states contribute to the

importance of the influence goal and the actor's persistence in reaching that goal.

25

Unlike the primary goal which drives the influence attempt, secondary goals "act
as a counterforce to it and as a set of dynamics that help to shape planning and message
output" (p. 46). Taken together, the primary and secondary goals comprise a set of
approach and avoidance forces oriented toward securing compliance. Secondary goals
constitute standards that are used to reject, or as a basis to alter, compliance-gaining
messages.

Dillard, Segrin, and Hardin (1989) proposed five different types of secondary
goals (see Table 2). Identity goals constitute the first type. These goals are "objectives
related to self concept. They derive from one's moral standards, principles for living, and
personal preferences concerning one's own conduct" (p. 20). For example, a goal to be
honest and forthright would be considered an identity goal, as would a goal to maintain
certain role differentiation such as between teacher and student. Interaction goals, the
second type, "are concerned with social appropriateness. They represent one's desire to
manage impressions successfully, to ensure a smooth flow to the communication event,
to avoid threatening the face of the target, and to produce messages that are relevant and
coheren " (p. 20). Trying not to look inept while making the compliance-gaining attempt
would be considered an interaction goal. Relational resource goals constitute the third
type. The focus of these goals is "on increasing or maintaining valued relational assets
such as attention, positive stimulation, emotional support, and social comparison"
(Dillard, 1990, p. 47). For example, wanting to avoid possible damage to the relationship
would be relevant to this goal type. Personal resource goals, the fourth type, are
"concerned with maintaining or improving all of those physical, material, mental, and

temporal assets that a person may have" (Dillard, 1990, p. 47). Attempting to lessen the

26

threat to one's safety, for example, is a personal resource goal. The final secondary goal
type is arousal management goals which refers to "a desire to maintain a state of arousal
that falls within certain idiosyncratically preferred boundaries . . . to dampen their
apprehension induced by participation or anticipation of making an interpersonal
influence attempt" (Dillard et al., 1989, p. 20). For example, fearing emotional
discomfort or nervousness relates to the arousal management goal type.

Because the present investigation is rooted in the context of date rape rather than a
stranger rape, one of the variables of interest is the tension between the primary goal of
getting the aggressor to stop the unwanted sexual attempt and the secondary goal of
relational development. In courtship, individuals vary in level of relational development
which, for this study, will be conceptualized as perceived relational closeness. When an
actor encounters an unwanted sexual advance, the level of relational involvement may
affect the perceived struggle between the primary goal and the secondary goals. It seems
reasonable to expect that if two people are on their first date and the actor judges the
relationship to have low development, the perceived conflict between the primary goal
and secondary goals may be lower than if the relationship were more developed.
Attempting to st0p an unwanted sexual advance may result in the decline or termination
of the relationship (Metts, Cupach, & Irnahori, 1992) because the compliance-gaining
attempt is a threat to the target's negative face, or the desire to be free from imposition or
intrusion (Brown & Levinson as cited in Littlejohn, 1996). Specifically, because the
energy (in terms of time and emotion) invested in the relationship has been limited,
risking damage to the relationship may be less of a concern. The primary goal, then,

likely would remain paramount. The concept of the actor producing messages that he or

27

she believes emphasize desirable consequences for high intimate targets, as opposed to
low intimate targets, has been supported in the literature (see Dillard & Burgoon, 1985;
Dillard et al., 1989). As a result, it is anticipated that as perceived relational development
increases and individuals become more invested in the relationship, they will experience
more dissonance in challenging the desires of the target. This will be due to fears that the
status of the relationship may be jeopardized.

Dillard et al. (1989) explicated and empirically tested this multiple-goals
approach. The results from three studies (1989) indicated that the six-goal model (one
primary goal and five secondary goals) provides an adequate representation of actors'
goals in interpersonal influence situations. The three studies serve as a basis for
confidence in the reliability and validity of the approach. The present investigation
explores the concept of how women perceive primary and secondary goals in the context
of date rape with special attention given to the degree of discrepancy (between the current
state of affairs and the desired state of affairs) and perceived relational development.

In addition to investigating the struggle between the primary goal and the
secondary goals in an unwanted sexual advance (functional component), the issue of what
messages, both verbal and nonverbal, emerge as a consequence of these goals is of
interest. Therefore, attention is now turned to the strategic area of compliance-gaining
messages.

W In defense of including the strategic component in
compliance-gaining research, Dillard et al. (1989) argued that a communication-based
study must necessarily examine message output of the GPA sequence. O'Keefe (1990)

insisted that researchers must specify the particular feature, or underlying dimension, of

28

compliance-gaining messages that is of interest in order to permit meaningful research
(also see Frey, Botan, Friedman, & Kreps, 1991). Without doing so, O'Keefe (1990)
argued, the researcher will create a "hodgepodge of categories . . . that are nearly
uninterpretable" (p. 208). When selecting a meaningful message feature and a useful
classification system for the present investigation, existing classification systems were
examined.

There are numerous systems presented and reviewed in the compliance-gaining
literature (for example, Baxter, 1984; Boster, 1990; Brendan, Bisanz, & Kohn, 1985;
Cody, McLaughlin, & Jordan, 1980; Craig, Tracy, & Spisak, 1986; Dillard & Fitzpatrick,
1985; Marwell & Schmitt, 1967; Roloff, Janiszewski, McGrath, Burns, & Manrai, 1988;
Schenck-Hamlin, Wiseman, & Georgacarakos, 1982; Wiseman & Schenck-Hamlin,
1981). Marwell and Schmitt's (1967) classification system contains 16
compliance-gaining techniques including promise, threat, positive expertise, negative
expertise, liking, pregiving, aversive stimulation, debt, moral appeal, positive self-feeling,
negative self-feeling, positive altercasting, negative altercasting, altruism, positive
esteem, and negative esteem. Given that the general compliance-gaining research focuses
on verbal messages, it is understandable that Marwell and Schmitt's system, as well as the
others, present strategies suitable primarily for verbal messages rather than nonverbal
messages. Although a typology with only verbal message strategies may be applicable
for more typical or nonvolatile compliance-gaining situations, in the context of a potential
date rape, women likely will consider nonverbal strategies as well as verbal strategies.
This suggestion is supported in the date-rape resistance literature (Atkeson et al., 1989;

Koss, 1986; Mumen et al., 1989). For example, Atkeson et al. (1989) interviewed 116

29

female rape victims seen at rape crisis centers. Based on the information given in the
interview pertaining to resistance, the following three mutually exclusive groups were
formed: no resistance (14%, g = 16), verbal resistance (53%, n = 62), and physical
resistance (33%, n = 38). Furthermore, in a study conducted by Mumen et al. (1989), 72
women wrote descriptions of unwanted sexual activity. Of those who had experienced an
unwanted intercourse attempt (53.7%), reactions to the attempt were reported as follows:
nothing (37.1%), nonverbal (8.6%), mild verbal (14.3%), strong verbal (25.7%), and
physical (14.3%). These two studies identify the existence of nonverbal and physical
forms of resistance in the context of unwanted intercourse attempts. Given that resistance
may be viewed simultaneously as an attempt to refuse and to gain compliance (Edgar &
Fitzpatrick, 1990), the studies highlight the necessity to include nonverbal and physical
compliance-gaining strategies.

One coding system, presented by McCormick (1979) in an investigation of
strategies unmarried men and women college students use for having and avoiding sex, is
especially relevant to the present investigation. One hundred twenty men and 109 women
were asked to "imagine being alone with an attractive person of the opposite sex whom
they had known for less than three weeks and with whom they had necked with but had
not yet had sexual intercourse" (p. 198). They were then asked how they would influence
the date to have sex and to avoid having sex, assuming that the date was "turned-on".
Based on pilot testing, ten possible strategy categories for having sex and nine possible
strategy categories for avoiding sex were used. In the main study, raters coded the first
and last strategy mentioned in each student's essay. The "have sex" influence situation

included the following categories: reward, coercion, logic, information, manipulation,

30

body language, deception, moralizing, relationship conceptualizing, and seduction. The
"avoid sex" influence situation included all of the above categories except seduction.
These categories are presented in greater detail in Table 3.

McCormick reported that there was a relatively low percentage of scoring system
problems in terms of coding the strategies students used to influence a date to have sexual
intercourse. Based on this, the researcher concluded that the study's coding scheme
adequately accounted for most of the strategies used when having sexual intercourse was
the goal. In contrast, the researcher reported a high percentage of scoring system
problems in terms of strategies students used to influence a date to avoid having sex. The
researcher concluded that the primary reason for the coding problems was that the
subjects presented vaguely described strategies which related to more than one of the
coding categories. Based on this, the researcher concluded that fewer and more general
categories should be used when attempting to determine strategies individuals use in
avoiding sex.

Although McCormick's suggestion that the solution to the "avoid sex" coding
problems was fewer categories, the researcher did not indicate why the goal of having sex
would generate specific responses, while the goal of avoiding sex would generate vaguely
described strategies. A plausible explanation, not presented by McCormick, is that the
description provided to the subjects for their response was more conducive to the goal of
having sex than to the goal of avoiding sex. Recall that the subjects were simply asked to
"imagine being alone with an attractive person of the opposite sex whom they had known
for less than three weeks and with whom they had necked with but had not yet had sexual

intercourse" (p. 198). Then they were asked how they would influence the "turned-on"

31

date to have sex and to avoid having sex. Although this description may have provided
enough information for a subject to consider strategies for having sex (since the other
person is already "turned on"), the description may not have given the subjects enough
contextual information about the nature of the date for the purpose of generating
strategies for avoiding sex. For example, the description did not make clear whether the
situation is relatively benign or volatile. The fact that the date is "tumed-on" does not
necessarily mean that the date has indicated that sexual intercourse is desired and will be
pursued. Furthermore, very little emphasis is placed on the idea that fi'om the viewpoint
of the subject, sexual intercourse is not desired. Given these limitations, it may be that
the primary reason for the vagueness of responses regarding avoiding sex was the
vagueness of the description provided.

McCormick also noted that coding problems occurred because the subj ects'
described strategies often related to more than one of the coding categories. Again,
McCormick's suggestion was to use more general categories. However, if the strategies
for avoiding sex relate to more than one of the coding categories at a time, making finer
distinctions (rather than more general ones) could lessen the problem as long as the
strategy descriptions allow for plausible combinations. For example, it seems quite
possible that a woman attempting to stop an unwanted attempt at intercourse could use
both a verbal message and a nonverbal message at the same time. For example, she
might scream "N01". The scream is nonverbal but the utterance of "No!" is verbal. The
critical factor is to have a coding system that represents the real-life strategies that victims

of this type of assault utilize.

32

A coding system representing these real-life strategies is now available.
Muehlenhard et al. (1996) identified 26 responses women make in anattempt to stop
men's unwanted sexual advances. The verbal and nonverbal responses were generated
through an open-ended questionnaire. Sixty female and sixty male introductory
psychology students described ways in which men had made sexual advances toward
women and in which women had resisted unwanted sexual advances from men based on
real-life experiences. No hypothetical experiences were used. Similar responses were
collapsed to generate the 26 response descriptions. The present investigation utilizes
these 26 responses (see Table 4) with an open-ended section encouraging subjects to
identify any other responses that a woman could make to a man's unwanted sexual
advances

In addition to selecting an applicable scheme of messages, it is also necessary, as
noted earlier by O'Keefe (1990), to specify a particular feature, or underlying dimension,
of compliance-gaining messages for meaningful research to occur. Again, McCormick's
(1979) study of messages generated by men and women in attempting to persuade
another person to have or to avoid having sex is helpful in this regard. McCormick's
specified feature was directness/indirectnesss. A direct compliance-gaining message is
one in which the persuasive force of the message depends on the target's awareness of
how the source is attempting to gain compliance (McCormick, 1979). Put another way, a
direct message explicitly makes clear what is wanted from the target. In contrast, an
indirect message "is one in which there is room for doubt about the persuader's intent . . .
These messages are designed to have plausible deniability" (Edgar & Fitzpatrick, 1990,

p.110)

33

Several other researchers have discussed the importance of this message feature in
the context of sexual behavior (Edgar & Fitzpatrick, 1990; Metts et al., 1992). One
concern regarding actors using indirect messages in attempting to stop an unwanted
sexual advance is that the target may not recognize the actor's intent. Furthermore, even
if the target does recognize the attempt for what it is, the target may rationalize that the
actor does not really desire for the attempt to stop, given that the "resistance" to the
attempt was indirect. Although a very direct message may still result in a lack of
aWareness or denial on the target's part, indirect strategies have been evaluated as having
an even greater likelihood of being misinterpreted or disregarded by the target (Abbey &
Melby, 1986; Edgar & Fitzpatrick, 1990; Sawyer et al., 1993).

In order to use the degree of directness as the specific message feature, it is
necessary to determine which of Muehlenhard's et al. (1996) list of 26 strategies to be
used in the present investigation are direct and indirect. What is important is to label
strategies as direct or indirect based on the perceptions of the individuals who might
actually use these strategies. Therefore, part of the present investigation will be dedicated
to determining which of these strategies women perceive as direct and indirect.

W The compliance- gaining literature has
been examined for both the functional and strategic classification schemes. Although
numerous functional perspectives exist, Dillard’s (1990) goal-driven model was selected
for use in the presented investigation. Special attention will be given to how women
perceive the various secondary goals as constraints on their ability to stop an unwanted
sexual advance leading toward intercourse. For the strategic classification scheme,

Muehlenhard’s et al. (1996) approach has been adopted for the study because it

34

specifically presented real-life strategies for avoiding an unwanted sexual advance. This
26-message system will be used to explore the message feature—directness/indirectnesss.

With the previous date-rape and compliance-gaining literature as a foundation, it
is now possible to posit a number of research questions and hypotheses. The research
questions are presented first followed by the hypotheses.
W

In the review of the date-rape literature, it was noted that a debate is being waged
over research on the prevalence of rape in general and date rape in particular. Koss’ et al.
(1987) study has been at the center of the debate. According to their national findings
involving 32 United States institutions of higher education, 416 (13%) of the 3,187
female participants were classified as date-rape (acquaintance-rape) victims. The present
investigation provides an opportunity to explore, on a small scale, participants’ stated
personal experience with date rape and knowledge of others who have experienced date
rape. Three direct experience levels with date rape will be examined as follows:
a) direct experience as a date rape victim, b) direct experience with a situation where date
rape was perceived as extremely likely but did not occur, and c) no direct experience with
either date rape or the likelihood situation. The study also allows for an investigation of
perceptions regarding the seriousness of date rape, the proportion of women who have
experienced date rape, and the problem of date rape on college campuses. An exploration
of the possible relationship between these variables was of interest, as a number of
questions emerge. For example, once someone experiences date rape, is that person more
likely to meet others who have experienced date rape? Therefore, to explore the personal

experiences and the cited perceptual issues as well as some of the possible relationships

35

to each other, the following research questions are posited (see Table 5):

RQ,:

RQZ:

RQ3:

RQ4:

RQS:

RQ6:

RQ,:

RQ,:

What proportion of the participants report having been in a situation with a date
when they were forced to have sexual intercourse against their will?

What proportion of the participants report having been in a situation with a date
when they truly believed that the likelihood of forced sexual intercourse was
extremely high but did not occur?

What perceptions do the participants have regarding the proportion of women, in
general, who have been forced to have sexual intercourse against their will in a
situation with a date?

How big of a problem do the participants perceive date rape to be on college
campuses?

What, if any, relationship is there between personal knowledge of others being
forced to have sexual intercourse by a date and perceptions of the proportion of
women who have been forced to have sexual intercourse by a date?

What, if any, relationship is there between perceptions of the proportion of
women who have been forced to have sexual intercourse by a date and the
perceived problem of date rape on college campuses?

What, if any, relationship is there between personal knowledge of others being
forced to have sexual intercourse against their will and the perceived problem of
date rape on college campuses?

How, if at all, do participants differ in perceptions of the percentage of women
who have experienced date rape based upon their own reported direct experience

level with date rape?

36

RQ,: How, if at all, do participants differ in perceived likelihood of knowing someone
else who has experienced date rape based upon their own reported direct
experience level with date rape?

RQw: How, if at all, do participants differ in perceptions of the perceived problem of
date rape on college campuses based upon their own reported direct experience
level with date rape?

The aforementioned research questions allow for an assessment of the subjects’
report of direct experience and perception regarding prevalence and seriousness of date
rape. Another goal of the project is to determine which tactics, as the identified message
feature of interest, women perceive to be direct and which they perceive to be indirect.
Using McCormick’s (1979) conceptualization, a direct compliance-gaining message is
defined as one that explicitly makes clear what is wanted from the target. An indirect
compliance-gaining message is defined as one in which “there is room for doubt about
the persuader’s intent” (Edgar & Fitzpatrick, 1990, p. 110). As noted earlier, the present
investigation utilizes Muehlenhard’s et al. (1996) identified 26 possible responses women
make in an attempt to stop men’s unwanted sexual advances. In Muehlenhard’s et al.
investigation, subjects were not asked to rank or rate each response in terms of
directness/indirectnesss. Therefore, the following research question is posited
(see Table 6):

RQ”: Which of Muehlenhard’s et al. (1996) 26 responses are rated and ranked by the
participants as direct or indirect?

To make this classification system more meaningful, it is also important to

determine which of the strategies the participants, overall, report they would use most,

37

least, etc. It is believed that this information could be critically important in the

development of effective date-rape avoidance training. If, for example, the indirect

strategies are the ones that the women report that they would most likely use, then it is
logical that there may be greater likelihood of the male missing or misinterpreting the cue
to stop the unwanted sexual advance. Therefore, the following research question is

posited (see Table 6):

RQn: To what extent, if any, do the participants use direct strategies in general and
indirect strategies in general when confronted with a hypothetical date-rape
scenario?

RQ,,: To what extent, if any, do the participants use particular direct and indirect
strategies when confi'onted with a hypothetical date-rape scenario?

In addition to the date-rape literature, the compliance-gaining literature review

also provided foundation for a number of research questions. As noted, Dillard (1990)

explained that people have multiple goals that vary in importance over time and

importance at any given point in time. The issue of which secondary goals are perceived
as most important from the victim’s perspective within the context of potential date rape
is of special interest in this investigation. Given that, after an exhaustive search, no
literature was available that applied a goals-perspective to the date-rape context, it is
difficult to specify which of the secondary goals will be identified as most important.

Adding to this difficulty is the fact that an argument can be made for the importance of

each of the secondary goals based upon the date-rape and compliance-gaining literature.

For example, one finding in the educational-programs literature pertaining to date rape

was that fear was the most common reaction to victimization (Kidder et al., 1983). Based

38

upon Dillard’s et al. (1989) description of the secondary-goal types, fear likely would be
linked to concern with one’s safety (part of the personal resource goal category) and
experiencing unwanted intense emotion (part of the arousal management goal category).
If, instead of emphasizing the fear-reaction literature, one emphasizes the literature
relating to the resulting decline or termination of the relationship as a consequence of
attempting to stop an unwanted sexual advance (Metts et al., 1992), then the relational
resource goal category may be evaluated as greatly important. Individuals may be
especially concerned with the future state of the relationship. If the literature pertaining
to face work (Brown & Levinson as cited in Littlejohn, 1996) is emphasized, then the
interaction goal category would be evaluated as greatly important. Finally, if the
literature relating to the common reaction of self-blame (Janoff-Bulman, 1979) or social
roles (Costin & Schwarz, 1987) is emphasized, then the identity goal category likely
would take a position of great importance. Therefore, given the feasibility of different
secondary goals (or combinations of goals) being rated as most important, the following
research question is presented (see Table 6):
RQM: How do the participants prioritize the secondary goals when confronted with a
hypothetical date-rape scenario?

In addition to the research question regarding prioritization of particular
secondary goals, a number of additional questions result from the present investigation’s
partially exploratory nature. One exploratory goal is to determine how perceived
importance of the secondary goals may differ based upon participants’ direct experience
level as victims of date rape. Furthermore, does the difference in experience affect the

types (direct/indirect) of messages created? Also related to experiential difference is the

39

issue of whether women who report having had direct experience as victims find it easier
to project themselves into the hypothetical situations than do those individuals who have
not had this experience. It is anticipated that there will be some difference based upon
direct experience level with date rape, but a theoretically driven prediction of the
direction of the difference cannot be offered. It could be that individuals who have
personally experienced date rape would identify more secondary goals as constraints
because they have seen first-hand the complexity of the interaction. In contrast, those
who have never experienced such an interaction may be very idealistic in thinking about
how they would respond, anticipating that nothing would get in their way of achieving
the primary goal. This concept of idealism is supported by research indicating that
individuals are unrealistically optimistic about future life events until faced with a related
negative experience (W einstein, 1980).

It is also possible that the inverse could occur. Perhaps women who have had
direct personal experience as victims would like to think that if they faced such an
experience again they would do whatever it took to stop the unwanted sexual advance
regardless of degree of discrepancy or relational involvement. If this were the case, these
women likely would indicate that the secondary goals would not constrain or reshape
their behavior. In contrast, women who have not had direct personal experience with date
rape may have difficulty imagining that they could bring themselves to stop or attempt to
stop an unwanted sexual advance. This may occur especially if they had heard from other
women who have experienced such an assault that it doesn't seem to matter what you do;
the inevitability of forced intercourse may exist. This likely would be reflected in

identifying more secondary goals as constraints. As a result of the feasibility of these

40

different possibilities, the following research questions are posited (see Table 6):

RQ,,: How, if at all, do the participants differ in prioritization of the secondary goals
when confronted with a hypothetical date-rape scenario based upon their own
reported direct experience level with date rape?

RQM: How, if at all, do the participants differ in use of direct and indirect strategies
when confronted with a hypothetical date-rape scenario based upon their own
reported direct experience level with date rape?

RQn: How, if at all, do the participants differ in evaluation of scenario realism based
upon their own reported direct experience level with date rape?

The presented research questions are a result, in part, of the exploratory portion
of the present investigation. Now, attention is turned to the more theoretically driven
aspects of the study, specifically to the hypotheses of the present investigation.
am

As noted by Dillard (1990), the degree of discrepancy between the current state
and the desired state has been found to be positively related to both the perceived
importance of the primary goal and the actor’s persistence in achieving the primary goal
within compliance-gaining situations. To determine if these variables will have like
frmctions within the context of the present investigation, hypothetical scenarios (to be
discussed in greater detail in the methods section) will be used with varied degree of
discrepancy and relational development. This results in a 2X2 factorial design (high and
low degree of discrepancy and high and low-relational development). The possible
combinations are represented in Table 8. Based upon this design, the following

hypotheses are posited (see'Table 7):

41

H,: Participants in the high degree of discrepancy conditions will rate the importance
of the primary goal to be significantly higher than will participants in the low
degree of discrepancy conditions.

H2: Participants in the high degree of discrepancy conditions will rate their
willingness to persist in achieving the primary goal to be significantly higher than
will participants in the low degree of discrepancy conditions.

In addition to the degree of discrepancy, relational deve10pment has been found
to relate to message production. As noted earlier, Dillard and Burgoon (1985) and
Dillard et a1. (1989) found that, in situations with high intimate targets, actors produce
messages that they believe those targets desire. Therefore, it is expected that participants
assigned to the high-relational development conditions will experience more dissonance
in challenging the desire of the aggressor to have sexual intercourse. This will result in
fewer direct messages. Therefore, the following hypothesis is posited:

H3: Participants in the high-relational development conditions will produce
significantly fewer direct messages than will those in the low-relational
development conditions.

Finally, one of the previously dependent variables, importance of the secondary
goals as a set, is refocused as an independent variable. Specifically, it is anticipated that
there will be a relationship between the perceived importance of the secondary goals as a
set and message directness. As Dillard (1990) explained, the primary goal drives the
influence attempt thus motivating action, whereas secondary goals “act as a counterforce
to it” and constitute standards that are used to reject, or as a basis to alter, possible

compliance-gaining messages (p. 46). Therefore, it is anticipated that when individuals

42

perceive secondary goals (as a set) to be important, they will be less likely to use direct
approaches to achieving the primary goal, and instead, likely will reshape the
compliance-gaining message to be more indirect. Therefore, the following hypothesis is
presented:
H4: The perceived importance of the secondary goals as a set is negatively related to
message directness.
Now that the literature has been reviewed and the research questions and
hypotheses presented, the methodology used in the study will be described. Attention

will be given to the sample, instrument, procedure, pilot study, and textual analysis used.

43

Chapter 2
Methods
Saran]:

A non-probability, purposive sample was used for this research. Because
traditional-aged college students are included in the highest-risk group for date rape
(Parrot, 1990), it was appropriate to utilize individuals within this demographic. All of
the participants were enrolled in undergraduate communication courses at a large
midwestem university. Participation in the project was voluntary; extra credit for the
course was provided for participation. For the pre-study intended to determine which
strategies should be labeled as direct and indirect, 28 traditional-aged female subjects
participated. Twenty-eight women also participated in the pilot study. Each participant
was assigned randomly to one of four cells as follows: seven in low-relational
development/high degree of discrepancy, nine in high-relational development/high degree
of discrepancy, five in low-relational development/low degree of discrepancy, and seven
in high-relational development/low degree of discrepancy. Relational development was
manipulated in the scenarios in terms of the amount of time spent in the relationship
(i.e., first date versus dating for awhile) and perceived closeness. Degree of discrepancy
also was manipulated in the scenarios. In the low discrepancy condition the sexual
behavior described was quite involved (i.e., kissing, mutual arousal, nudity, and petting
above and below the waist). In the high discrepancy condition, the sexual behaviors were
minimal (i.e., kissing). In the main study, 212 female subjects were assigned randomly to
one of the four possible cells varied by relational development and degree of discrepancy.

The cell distribution was as follows: 51 in low-relational development/high degree of

discrepancy, 58 in high-relational development/high degree of discrepancy, 50 in
low-relational development/low degree of discrepancy, and 53 in high-relational
development/low degree of discrepancy. Although an exploration of differences based
upon participants’ level of direct experience with date rape was one purpose of the
present investigation, no attempt was made to have a specified number of the experience
profiles in each cell. Instead, comparisons between levels of direct experience with date
rape were made based upon the entire sample and, as would be expected, were not equal
in size. The proportion in each group is discussed in the results section.
Instances;

For the pre-study investigation, participants completed a two-part questionnaire.
First, the subjects rated the directness of each strategy on an eight-point scale with one
being definitely indirect and eight being definitely direct (see Appendix A). A scale with
no midpoint was selected to force participants to identify at least a tendency for a strategy
to be direct or indirect. The second part of the questionnaire asked subjects to rank in
order the strategies from 1 to 26 with one being definitely indirect and 26 being definitely
direct (see Appendix B). The purpose of this second part was to aid in the differentiation
between strategies (direct/indirect) more easily (using the two parts of the survey
together); there was also some concern that part-one results alone would not yield enough
clear variation to label strategies as direct or indirect.

For the functional area of the investigation in the main study, Dillard's et al.
(1989) self-report, multiple-goals scale was used with slight variations in phrasing to
better capture the nature of the context under investigation. The survey also included

items for primary-goal importance, relational development, degree of discrepancy,

4S

perception of forced sex, persistence, and scenario realism (see Appendix C).
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted on these items to determine their fit.
A five-factor model was tested for the secondary goals. The specific criteria employed in
assessing item quality included item contribution to scale reliability, magnitude of
primary factor loadings, internal consistency, and parallelism. Problematic items, based
upon these criteria, were omitted from subsequent analyses. A chi-square goodness of fit
also was calculated using the critical value formula presented by Hays (1988). The
obtained chi-square was 150.70 (if = 133). The critical value for model rejection was
161.1805. Therefore, the model was accepted with the retained items (see Table 9). The
retained items for primary-goal importance, perception of forced sex, and persistence are
presented in Table 10.

As part of the main-study survey, the participants read an assigned hypothetical
scenario varied in terms of relational development and degree of discrepancyuhigh-high,
high-low, low-high, and low-low (see Appendix D). As noted earlier, relational
development was manipulated in terms of the amount of time spent in the relationship
(i.e., first date versus dating for awhile) and perceived closeness. To manipulate the
degree of discrepancy-the difference between the current state and the desired state-the
high discrepancy scenarios presented minimal sexual behaviors (i.e., kissing), while the
low discrepancy scenarios described more involved sexual behaviors (i.e., kissing, mutual
arousal, nudity, and petting above and below the waist). Retained items for relational
development and degree of discrepancy are presented in Table 11. Participants also were
asked to prioritize and list their goals and other issues they were concerned about during

the encounter (see Appendix E). For the strategic area of the investigation, participants

46

were asked to provide written, detailed descriptions of what (both verbal and nonverbal)
they would communicate to the target. Specifically, participants were asked to indicate
the first thing they would say and/or do through the tenth thing they would say and/or do
(if they chose to use all options) and why they would say and/or do what they had
described (see Appendix F). These written texts were then coded using Muehlenhard’s
et al. (1996) strategy list and labeled as direct or indirect based upon the pre-study
investigation. Finally, subjects were asked to complete a number of demographic and
information-seeking questions relating to their experience with date rape and their
perceptions of the seriousness and prevalence of date rape (see Appendix G). It was
necessary to minimize one section of the survey biasing participants' responses to other
sections of the survey. To do this, the survey sections were presented in the following
order: read scenario, generate message to the target, identify and prioritize goals and other
concerns, evaluate primary and secondary goals, and complete demographic and
miscellaneous items.
mm

W The self-report survey instrument created for the main
investigation was designed to be easily understood so that the subjects could complete the
instrument in the privacy of their own homes without the supervision of the researcher.
This technique was used because of the sensitive nature of the topic. In addition to
needing a private setting for the completion of the surveys, subjects' perception of the
anonymity of their responses was especially critical for this type of research. It has been
reported that subjects' ability to be candid regarding their feelings and attitudes typically

increases with their perception of anonymity of their responses (Frey et al., 1991 ).

47

Therefore, a designated drop-off area was provided, and consent forms (see Appendix H)
were collected in a separate receptacle from the surveys to reinforce to the subjects that
the researcher would not be able to associate their particular responses with the signed
consent forms. It was anticipated that by allowing for private completion of the surveys
and safeguards to promote anonymity, the potential for subjects to change their responses
as a result of knowing they were being observed, known as the Hawthorne effect, would
be minimized (Frey et al., 1991). Frey et al. explained that without these precautionary
steps, there is increased reason to question the internal validity of the study. Specifically,
there is no way to guarantee that the researcher is measuring the constructs of the study
rather than other variables such as the subjects' desire to present a particular image to the
researcher that may not be representative of their true attitudes.

Of course, even with these precautions, there are no guarantees in survey
self-report research that the responses are representative of what the respondents would
do. Frey et al. (1991) outlined both strengths and wealcnesses of the self-report
procedure. The primary advantage is that they are "extremely effective for ascertaining
respondents' beliefs, attitudes, and values" (p. 96). Because of this strength, the
self-report technique was selected for this investigation. There are, however, several
limitations to this procedure. First, self-reports depend on "people being able and willing
to provide complete and accurate information . . . , [and they] demand that people reflect
on their behavior, which may be difficult" (p. 97). Second, self-reports may or may not
be reflective of actual behavior. As Frey et al. noted, there is often "little relationship
between perception and behavior" (p. 97). These concerns highlighted the necessity to

include manipulation checks in the investigation.

48

W Because self-report surveys were used rather than observing behavior
as it occurs in natural settings (because naturally occurring behavior is not conducive to
an ethical investigation of date rape), it was especially critical to conduct a pilot test (Fink
& Kosecoff, 1985). Self-administered questionnaires are dependent upon the clarity of
their language. A pilot study should reveal whether people understand the directions and
are comfortable answering the questions. The subjects should perceive the presented
information to have ecological validityuthe sense that the instrument reflects real-life
circumstances (Frey et al., 1991). The pilot study, therefore, assessed both the content of
the instrument and the form of the instrument. Special consideration was given to
determining if the subjects’ open-ended comments could be coded using Muehlenhard’s
et al. (1996) list of possible responses. This process is described further under the textual
analysis section. The pilot test followed a number of guidelines consistent with those
suggested by Fink and Kosecoff (1985) and Frey et al. (1991). Specifically, every
attempt was made to select respondents similar in terms of critical demographics
(e.g., female, college students, traditional age) to the ones who eventually completed the
survey. Twenty-eight women participated in the study, ranging in age from 20-25.
Because the pilot test was the step in the process designed to make necessary alterations
proactively to increase the validity of the final draft of the survey, completed surveys
from the pilot study were not included in the main study's final analysis. Attention was
given to failure to answer questions, multiple answers provided to the same questions,
and comments written in the margins. Manipulation checks of the scenarios were
included in both the pilot study and the final version of the survey. This was done to

ensure that the scenarios had both content validity which relates to whether the scenarios

49

"reflect the attributes (or content) of the concept being investigated" (Frey et al., 1991)
and ecological validity which assesses the degree to which the scenarios are perceived as
realistic to the respondents. Both content validity and ecological validity were of concern
here because of the use of hypothetical situations. The subjects needed to perceive that
they could go beyond empathizing with someone in such a situation. They actually
needed to feel as though they could place themselves in the situation and think about how
they would actually respond to such circumstances.

W In both the pilot study and the main study, participants were
asked to write what they would say and/or do in the situation described. This was done
before they completed the questions relating to the functional area of the investigation.
The functional area explored the struggle between the primary goal and the secondary
goals given the degree of discrepancy and relational development. They were instructed
to be as specific as possible-writing the exact words and describing the specific
behaviors that they think they would use in the situation and why they would use those
words and behaviors. To aid with coding, subjects were asked to put each strategy on a
separate line. Conversation analysis, a form of textual analysis (Frey et al., 1991), was
conducted on the data base-in this case the written responses to a hypothetical scenario--
using the coding system outlined previously. Two coders were trained by the researcher
to understand the coding system and the unit of analysis. The pilot study was used to
practice the coding system. Based upon this exercise, the coders, along with the
researcher, determined that it was necessary to expand the category codes. Extensive
discussion took place to determine what type of expansion would be most beneficial to

capture the spirit of the strategies listed by the participants. As a result of this discussion,

50

in addition to direct response (coded as a one) and indirect response (coded as a two),
three additional codes were implemented for the main study. A code of three represented
a response deemed by the coders to be direct but not one included on Muehlenhard’s et
al. (1996) list of direct responses. A code of four represented a strategy determined to be
an indirect response by the coders but not one included on Muehlenhard’s et al. list of
indirect responses. Finally, a code of five was given to any tactic that the coders were
unable to classify under codes one through four. For the main study, intercoder reliability
was calculated, and the coders worked together to reach agreement on coded units about
which they disagreed. Scott's pi index (as outlined by Wimmer & Dominick, 1991) was
used to calculate intercoder reliability. This reliability index was selected because it
"corrects for the number of categories used" (p. 173). The coders analyzed the database
for category type (e.g., categories one through five) and then the researcher assessed the
number of units in each category (simple frequency count) to illustrate how often specific
message types were being communicated. This, then, yielded both qualitative (category

types) and quantitative (category frequency) data.

51

Chapter 3
Results

'- -. so 1.. I -v-lo _-_ 611 D - ye . Ir cr anc and 0 ed e . io.ultion heck

Before any analysis of data could be conducted, it was necessary to determine if
the scenario manipulations were effective. In order to do this, the subjects were asked a
number of questions based upon what they read in their assigned scenario. As noted
earlier, the items were evaluated for reliability, internal consistency, and parallelism using
Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Only those items that met acceptable standards were
retained. Indexes for relational development, degree of discrepancy, and perception of
forced sex were then created for each subject using the retained items. A two-way
analysis of variance (AN OVA) was computed to evaluate the expected differences on the
relational development index (possible range 6 to 36) and the degree of discrepancy index
(possible range 3 to 15) as a function of the scenarios. Results indicated that the scenario
manipulations were effective for both relational development and degree of discrepancy.
Specifically, the two-way AN OVA demonstrated a significant main effect for the
relational development index (E (1, 192) = 46.700, p S .01) as a function of the relational
development levels described in the scenarios (see Table 12). In the two low-relational
development scenarios, the means were 9.16 and 8.25 (possible range 3 to 15), in contrast
to the high-relational development scenarios where both means were 13.41 (see Figure 1).
A main effect for scenario-described degree of discrepancy was not significant for the
relational development index, and there was no interaction effect between the two
independent variables. As anticipated, when the degree of discrepancy index was

examined as a function of scenario type, there was a main effect for scenario-described

52

degree of discrepancy (E (l, 192) = 28.99, p _<_ .001, see Table 13). Means of the degree
of discrepancy index (possible range 3 to 15) were 12.40 and 12.04 for the low degree of
discrepancy conditions. For the high-degree of discrepancy scenarios, the mean indexes
for degree of discrepancy were 14.04 and 13.18 (see Figure 2). An unanticipated main
effect was found here for scenario-described relational development (E (1, 192) = 6.375,
p S .05, see Table 13). Specifically, the changes in the degree of discrepancy indexes
were greater when relational development was low. No interaction effect was found.
Finally, a manipulation check was completed for perception of forced sex. It was
important that the subjects recognized the volatile nature of the situation and that “Steve”
was planning to force sexual intercourse. The retained items for perception of forced sex
created an index with a mean of 11.88 (possible range 5 to 15). This mean indicates that
the subjects recognized the nature of the interaction as one involving potential force.
WW

As noted earlier, no attempt was made to control the number of individuals
participating in the study who had personally experienced date rape. Instead, the
researcher was interested in obtaining a sense of reported fiequency and subjects’
perceptions of prevalence and significance using the total sample. Descriptive statistics
for these issues are presented in Table 14. Table 15 includes means to be used for
analysis as a function of reported direct-experience level with date rape. Of the 212
participants, 26 (12.3%) reported that they had experienced forced sexual intercourse
while in a situation with a date, and 41 (19.3%) had been in a situation with a date when
they truly believed that the likelihood of forced sexual intercourse was extremely high but

did not occur. The no experience group, then, contained 144 women (67.9%) with one

53

person not responding to the related items. When all participants were asked what
percentage of women, in general, they believe have been forced to have sexual
intercourse against their will in a situation with a date, the response was quite varied with
a mean of 44.29 and a standard deviation of 19.30. The minimum reported percentage
was 1%, and the maximum reported percentage was 87%. Because of the size of the
standard deviation, the median and mode also were calculated with results of 44.00 and
40.00 respectively. Post hoc analyses were conducted to assess whether this variation
was a function of scenario type. A two-way ANOVA demonstrated that there were no
significant interaction effects or main effects for the estimated percentage of women
whom have experienced date rape as a function of scenario type.

In addition to estimating the percentage of women who have experienced date
rape, the subjects were asked to indicate how many women (not including themselves), if
any, they personally know who have been forced to have sexual intercourse against their
will. The mean for this question was 1.55 with a standard deviation of 2.38 (min. = 0 and
max. = 15). The subjects then indicated how big the problem on college campuses they
perceived date rape to be. On a one to five scale (one being no problem and five being a
big problem), the mean was 4.04 (SD = .87).

In addition to the descriptive statistics presented above, the researcher was
interested in looking at possible relationships between these demographic/informational
variables (see Table 16). The relationship between personal knowledge of others being
forced to have sexual intercourse against their will and perceptions of the proportion of
women who have been forced to have sexual intercourse against their will in a situation

with a date was examined. Analysis indicated a significant positive relationship

54

(r = .1523, p 5 .05). As the reported number of rape victims known personally by the
subject increased so did the perceived percentage of women forced to have sexual
intercourse in a situation with a date.

The correlation between perceptions of the proportion of women who have been
forced to have sexual intercourse against their will in a situation with a date and the
perceived problem of date rape on college campuses also was explored. A significant
positive relationship was found (1 = .2486, p _<_ .001). Therefore, the subjects who
perceived a greater proportion of women experiencing forced sexual intercourse in a
situation with a date also perceived date rape to be a more serious problem on college
campuses.

A third relationship examined was between personal knowledge of others being
forced to have sexual intercourse against their will and the perceived problem of date rape
on college campuses. It was determined that as the number of other women personally
known by the subject increased, so did their perception of the problem of date rape on
college campuses. A significant positive relationship was found between these two
variables (I = .1392, p 5 .05).

A one-way analysis of variance (AN OVA) was used to determine if there were
significant differences in the estimated percentages of individuals who have been forced
to have sexual intercourse by a date based upon the reported level of direct date-rape
experience. As noted earlier, three levels of reported direct date-rape experience were
examined: a) direct experience as a date-rape victim, b) direct experience with a situation
where date rape was perceived as extremely likely but did not occur, and c) no direct

experience. A significant main effect was found (E (2, 207) = 4.74, p 5 .01) for the

55

estimated percentage of date rape victims as a function of reported date-rape experience
level (see Table 17). The means were 41.90 (no experience), 45.98 (likelihood
experience), and 54.04 (rape experience) (see Figure 3). Using the Tukey method (as
described by Bartz, 1981), the combinations of means were tested for significant
differences. Results indicated that the self-reported date-rape victims estimated the
percentage of women who have been forced to have sexual intercourse by date to be
significantly higher than did those who have had no experience with date rape. Those in
the likelihood experience were not significantly different from either the participants who
reported no experience or those who reported direct experience as date rape victims.
Potential differences, based upon reported direct experience level with date rape,
were further examined by assessing the number of women reported to be known
personally by the subject who have been forced to have sexual intercourse against their
will. A one-way ANOVA demonstrated a significant main effect (E (2, 207) = 10.6380,
3 S .001, see Table 18). The means were 1.07 (no experience), 2.39 (likelihood
experience), and 2.92 (rape experience) (see Figure 4). Using the Tukey method,
significant differences were found between those who reported no experience and those
who reported the likelihood experience. A significant difference also was found between
those who reported no experience and those who indicated that they had been victims of
date rape. These findings demonstrate that, for these participants, at least some level of
direct experience with date rape increased the reported number of women known to the
participant as having been raped. Those in the likelihood experience and those in the date

rape experience were not significantly different on this variable.

56

Continuing with the assessment of reported date-rape experience level impact, a
one-way ANOVA was performed for the estimated problem of date rape on college
campuses (possible range 1 to 5). The group means were 3.99 (no experience), 4.12
(likelihood experience), and 4.23 (rape experience). A main effect was not found,
indicating that the three groups did not vary significantly on this variable. All three
groups rated the problem of date rape on college campuses to be quite large.
W

Using the surveys from the 28 participants in the prestudy, determinations were
made as to which of Muehlenhard’s et a1. (1996) statements would be coded as direct and
indirect. Again, a direct message is one that makes explicitly clear what is wanted from
the target, and an indirect message is one that leaves room for doubt about what is wanted
fi'om the target. A comparison was made between the responses on the two sections of
the survey (i.e., rating the strategies and ranking the strategies). This was done to
determine if there was consistency in subjects' reactions to the two parts of the survey.
Frequencies, percentages, means, standard deviations, variances, and ranges were
collectively examined to determine whether there was consistency.

Statements that were labeled as indirect took two forms. The first form was
classified for this study as pure-indirect strategies (see Table 19). These strategies had
scores clustering closely to the definitely indirect end of the likert-type format (part one
of the survey with possible responses from one to eight) or consistently received a 13 or
lower on the ranking section (part two of the survey with possible responses from 1 to
26). The 13 and below division was used for this purpose because the 13/14 point

represented the mid-point for potential scoring. Specifically, these strategies had means

57

in the rating section of the survey from 2.96 (SQ = 1.45) to 4.50 (SD = 1.75). In the
ranking section, these strategies had means from 3.29 (SD = 3.11) to 8.33 (SD = 4.64).

The other form of indirect strategies was classified for this study as varied-indirect
strategies (see Table 20). These included the strategies with greater fluctuation across
subjects in how they were rated and ranked. These strategies had means in the rating
section from 4.11 (SD = 1.81) to 7.32 (SD = 1.19). In the ranking section, these
strategies had means from 6.87 (S); = 5.32) to 17.54 (SD = 7.29). Two strategies had
higher means (7.32, 6.68 and 15.04, 17.54 in rating and ranking respectively) than the
other varied-indirect strategies, but the strategies were included as indirect items rather
than direct items because of the size of the standard deviations. Even these
varied-indirect items had much larger standard deviations (1.19, 1.94 and 6.91, 7.29 in
rating and ranking respectively) than the standard deviations for the direct items (.00, .50,
.97, 1.31, 1.38, 1.45, 1.47, 1.63, and 1.62, 2.41, 3.34, 3.46, 3.82, 4.35, 4.62, 4.81 in rating
and ranking respectively). These figures illustrate that, although these two strategies’
means were similar to some of the direct-strategy means (see Table 21), the varied
responses represented by the standard deviations made the strategies more aligned with
the conceptual definition of an indirect message. In other words, the strategies left room
for doubt about what was wanted fi'om the target.
KW

W Two volunteer coders, other than the researcher, coded the open-
ended portions of the pilot-study surveys. The research participants completed this
section of the survey first. Specifically, they were asked to read their assigned scenario

and indicate what they would say and/or do first and why, second and why, etc. through

58

tenth (if they chose to use all options). Three pilot-study surveys were used for the
purpose of training the coders. The coders were given opportunity to ask questions, and
the researcher provided clarification. Once these surveys were removed, 25 surveys
remained for coding practice and identification of coding concerns. The 25 surveys
represented each scenario type as follows: low-relational development/high degree of
discrepancy (g = 7), high-relational development/high degree of discrepancy (n = 9),
low-relational development/low degree of discrepancy (n = 5), and high-relational
development/low degree of discrepancy (n = 7). The 25 surveys included 124 responses;
therefore, 248 responses were coded, given that there were two coders. Taken together,
the codes were as follows: 45% (n = 111) coded as 1 (direct); 35% (n = 88) coded as

2 (indirect); 5% (n = 13) coded as 4 (direct other); 5% (n = 12) coded as 5 (indirect
other); and 10% (n = 24) coded as 6 (uncodable).

Scott's pi was used to calculate the intercoder reliability coefficient. Again this
formula was selected because it corrects for the number of categories used. Initially,
there was a .58 agreement coefficient. An acceptable coefficient for this formula is .75 or
higher. In an attempt to determine why the obtained coefficient was so low, the
researcher discussed the coding guidelines again with the coders, and clarification was
offered. The coders were reminded to read the ‘Vvhy” portion of the subjects’ statements
to help with the classification. This discussion was deemed appropriate, as the purpose of
the pilot study was in part to provide an opportunity to establish and practice a coding
system. The two coders then went back through the responses about which they
disagreed and made any changes that they deemed appropriate. Scott’s pi was

recalculated for the pilot-data set, and a .94 agreement coefficient was obtained.

59

Miriam For the main study, 1338 statements were coded as direct, indirect,
direct other, indirect other, or unable to be coded. The uncodable statements (11 = 190,
14% of the total 1338 statements) were labeled this primarily because the statements
described something to occur after the fact (e. g., I would seek counseling, call a friend for
support, or go to the hospital for an exam). Once the coders made their individual
assessment, the researcher calculated agreement across the two coders for each statement.
Using Scott’s pi, intercoder reliability was .90, with acceptability for this coefficient at
.75. The coders disagreed on 93 (7%) of the 1338 statements. The primary researcher
determined category placement for these 93 messages. Frequency distributions were then
calculated for direct/direct other and indirect/indirect other to determine whether the
direct strategies or the indirect strategies were more frequently reported for use as a
whole. As noted on Table 22, the indirect/indirect-other strategies were more fiequently
cited with 646 (48%) of the total 1338 statements labeled as indirect or indirect other.
The direct/direct-other statements occurred as 502 (38%) of the total 1338 statements.

e h ti

This research question examined whether there were particular direct or indirect
strategies that were used more often than were others. The specific direct strategy
differences are presented first followed by the specific indirect strategy differences.
When the strategies were assessed individually, certain direct strategies definitely
occurred more frequently than did other direct strategies (see Table 23). “She says,
‘No! ’” occurred 32% of the time that a direct strategy was used and represented 12% of
the total statements and 14% of the codable statements. The second most frequently used

direct strategy was, “She responds with physical violence, such as kneeing, biting,

60

slugging, kicking, or clawing.” This occurred 108 times (23% of the direct statements,
9% of the total statements, and 10% of the codable statements). “She tells him, ‘This is
rape, and I’m calling the cops’” was the third most often used direct strategy at

12% (n = 58) of the 502 total direct statements (4% of the total statements, and 5% of the
codable statements). The other two fairly frequently occurring direct strategies were,
“She pushes him away” and “She screams”. These both occurred in 8% of the direct
statements (n = 42 and 40 respectively), and each represented 3% of the total statements
and 4% of the codable statements.

In examination of the indirect strategies, there were also certain strategies that
occurred more often than others (see Table 24). “She gets up to leave” was the most
frequently cited indirect strategy at 33% (n = 212) of the 646 total indirect statements
made (16% of total statements, 18% of codable statements). The next most frequently
used indirect strategy involved breaking the mood and occurred as 9% (n = 57) of the
indirect statement total (4% of total statements, 5% of codable statements). “She says, ‘I
really care about you, but I’m not ready. Let’s wait until the relationship is stronger’”
was third most fiequent. It occurred 44 times (7% of the total indirect statements) and
represented 3% of all the statements and 4% of the codable statements. The fourth most
frequent, “She tells him she doesn’t want to do anything beyond kissing or making out,”
also represented 7% of the indirect statements (11 = 43, 3% of all statements and 4% of
codable statements). At 4% of the indirect statements used, “She says she has herpes (or

other diseases)” was presented 26 times (2% of total statements and codable statements).

61

W

This research question explored the issue of which, if any, secondary goals were
evaluated as having greater importance within the general context of attempted rape on a
date. Because the different secondary-goal categories had a different number of items
(either three or four), it was not possible to simply compare the mean indexes for each
secondary-goal category; the lowest and highest possible means were not consistent
across all category types. Instead, the means for the retained questions were calculated
separately for the entire sample and compared to determine if the questions with the
higher means fell into particular secondary-goal categories. Each category’s means were
then averaged to assess the significance of the secondary-goal type. Table 25 presents the
item means and the averaged means for each secondary-goal category. The arousal
management items had the highest means overall with an average of the means at 4.28
(possible range 1 to 5). The second highest secondary-goal category was personal
resource goals; the average of the means was 3.91 (possible range 1 to 5). The identity
items were third highest overall with an average of the means at 2.76 (possible range 1 to
5). The lowest two categories were interaction goals and relational resource goals with
averaged means of 1.68 and 1.44 respectively (possible range 1 to 5). These results
indicated that within the context of anticipated forced sexual intercourse by a date, the
participants perceived arousal management (related to apprehension) and personal
resource goal issues (related to concern for one’s safety) as most important. Although
less than arousal management and personal resource goals, issues related to one’s
self-concept and personal preferences for conduct (both related to the identity goal

category) were rated as fairly important. The least important issues as evaluated by the

62

subjects related to concern for face/impression management (interaction goals) and
maintaining relational resource goal assets such as attention, emotional support, and
positive stimulation from the target.

11 ' n Fi en

Given the potential differences between individuals based upon reported
experience levels with date rape, this research question examined the importance of each
secondary-goal type as a function of this reported level. A one-way ANOVA was
performed for each secondary-goal type. Of the five secondary-goal types (identity,
interaction, relational resource, personal resource, and arousal management), a significant
main effect as a function of reported experience level with date rape was found only for
the interaction goal category (B (2, 207) = 4.97, p 5 .01, see Table 26). The means for the
interaction goal index (possible range 3 to 15) were 4.65 (no experience), 5.73 (likelihood
experience), and 6.23 (rape experience) (see Figure 5). Using the Tukey method, those
who reported no experience and those who reported experience as date rape victims
varied significantly on the rated importance of interaction goal issues (relating to concern
for face/impression management). The importance of the interaction goal issues were
perceived as significantly more important for those who reported date rape victim status.
However, those who reported the likelihood experience did not differ significantly fi'om
either those who reported no experience or those who reported experience as date rape
victims.

Given that only one of the secondary-goal scores showed differences based upon
reported direct-experience with date rape, post hoc analyses were performed on the

secondary-goal scores as a function of scenario type. Of the five secondary goals, two

63

showed differences based upon scenario type using two-way ANOVAs. First, as with
reported direct-experience with date rape, differences in interaction goal scores were
found based upon scenario type. Specifically, there was a main effect for
scenario-described degree of discrepancy (E (1, 177) = 4.027, p 5 .05, see Table 27). The
low degree of discrepancy conditions resulted in significantly higher interaction goal
scores (M = 5.18 and 5.59 on possible 3 to 15 range) than in the high degree of
discrepancy condition (M = 4.73 and 4.72 on possible 3 to 15 range) (see Figure 6). A
main effect for the interaction goal scores was not found for scenario-described relational
development, nor was there an interaction effect between relational development and
degree of discrepancy. A second goal that was differentiated by scenario type was the
relational resource goal category. A significant main effect was found for relational
development (E (1, 177) = 4.835, p S .05, see Table 28). In the low relational
development scenario conditions, the relational resource goal index had means of 5.24
and 5.41 (possible range of 4 to 20). In contrast, the high relational development scenario
conditions produced relational resource goal index means of 6.55 and 5.66 (possible
range of 4 to 20) (see Figure 7). Therefore, individuals in the high relational
development conditions perceived the relational resource goal issues to be significantly
more important than those in the low relational development conditions. There was no
main effect for this variable as a function of degree of discrepancy, nor was there an
interaction effect between relational development and degree of discrepancy. Table 29
includes the means of all of the secondary goal indexes as a function of scenario type as

well as other dependent variables used for analysis.

ese uestio i teen

This research question explored the possible difference in use of direct and
indirect messages based upon reported direct experience level with date rape, by
examining the mean use of each message type. The direct message means (possible range
0 to 10) were 2.29 (no experience), 2.66 (likelihood experience), and 2.39 (rape
experience). The indirect message means (possible range 0 to 10) were 3.01 (no
experience), 3.44 (likelihood experience), and 2.69 (rape experience). One-way
ANOVAs demonstrated that there were no main effects or interaction effects for the use
of direct and indirect messages as a function of reported date-rape experience level.
W

This research question assessed the potential difference between the participants
based upon reported direct experience level with date rape in relation to evaluation of
scenario realism. Four statements on the survey tapped into this issue, creating an index
for scenario realism (possible range 4 to 20). The closer to 20 (after one question was
reverse coded), the better the rating of the scenario. The mean for the total sample for
scenario realism was 17.34. Divided by group, the means for the scenario realism index
were 16.92 (no experience), 18.20 (likelihood experience), and 18.50 (rape experience)
(see Figure 8). A one-way ANOVA showed significant differences between groups
(B (2, 206) = 6.46, n _<_ .01, see Table 30). The Tukey method was then used to examine
differences between all mean combinations. Both those in the likelihood experience and
the rape experience rated scenario realism as significantly higher than did those who
reported no experience level with date rape. Those in the likelihood experience and the

date-rape experience were not significantly different from each other.

65

th ses wo

These two hypotheses dealt with the influence of the degree of discrepancy on the
perceived importance of the primary goal and persistence in achieving that goal
respectively. It was anticipated that participants in the high degree of discrepancy
conditions would rate the importance of the primary goal as significantly higher than
would participants in the low degree of discrepancy conditions. It was further anticipated
that participants in the high degree of discrepancy conditions would rate their willingness
to persist in achieving the primary goal more highly than would participants in the low
degree of discrepancy conditions. Results indicated that in the low degree of discrepancy
conditions, the means for primary goal importance (possible range 4 to 20) were 19.42
and 18.94. In the high degree of discrepancy conditions, the means for primary goal
importance were 19.24 and 19.17. For persistence in achieving the primary goal
(possible range 3 to 15), the means in the low degree of discrepancy conditions were
14.18 and. 14.11. In the high degree of discrepancy conditions, the means were 14.49 and
14.38. A two-way AN OVA was performed for primary goal importance and persistence
in achieving the primary goal as a function of scenario type. No main effects were found
for degree of discrepancy or relational development for primary goal importance or
persistence. Based upon the means for each of the dependent variables, it is clear that the
participants perceived the primary goal of stopping “Steve” and their willingness to
persist in achieving that goal as highly important regardless of scenario type.
W

The use of direct messages was evaluated for potential differences based upon the

relational development variable as specified in the hypothetical scenarios. As part of the

66

directions for the open-ended section, the subjects were asked to reread the scenario they
were given and then write what their first (second, third, etc.) words and/or actions would
be toward reaching the goal of stopping the sexual advance. Analysis was performed on
the direct messages to determine if there were differences based upon scenario-specified
relational development. A two-way AN OVA was performed for message directness as a
function of scenario type. A significant main effect was found for relational development
(E (1, 207) = 5.42, p _<_ .05, see Table 31). In the low-relational development conditions
the use of direct messages (possible range 0 to 10) averaged 3.00 and 2.32, in contrast to
the high-relational development conditions with direct message means of 2.09 and 2.11
(see Figure 7). A main effect for degree of discrepancy was not found, nor was there a
significant interaction effect. A two-way ANOVA also was performed on the use of
indirect messages as a function of scenario type. No significant main effects or
interaction effects were found.
Mariam

This last hypothesis evaluated the relationship between the perceived importance
of the secondary goals as a set and message directness. Although the correlation did
show a negative relationships (I = -.0964) between secondary-goal importance and the
direct-message strategy, it did not reach statistical significance (p _>_ .05). When the
secondary goals were tested separately, the only relationship between secondary-goal
importance and message directness that reached statistical significance was the relational

resource goal category (1 = -.2081, p 5 .01).

67

Chapter 4
Discussion
Int retatio f Re

W The goal of these research questions was
two-fold: 1) to assess the subjects’ reported experience with and perceptions of date-rape
situations and related issues, and 2) to assess the relationships and possible differences
between these reported experiences and perceptions. One area of assessment was the
reported level of participants’ direct experience with date rape. Three experience levels
(direct experience as a date-rape victim, direct experience with a situation where date rape
was perceived as extremely likely but did not occur, and no direct experience) were
examined. As indicated earlier, 12.3% (n = 26) of the 212 participants indicated that they
had experienced forced sexual intercourse while in a situation with a date. These data
from the present investigation regarding reported personal experience with date rape were
consistent with Koss’ et al. (1987) study in which 13% (n = 416) of the 3,187 participants
were classified as date-rape (acquaintance-rape) victims.

Although Koss et al. did not ask the participants in their study if they had ever
been in a situation with a date where they truly believed that the likelihood of forced
sexual intercourse was high but did not occur, the present study did assess this
information. As noted earlier, of the 212 participants, almost 20% (19.3% or n = 41)
reported such an experience. The present investigation included this assessment to
determine if subjects who reported the likelihood experience were more similar to those
who reported that they had been victims of date rape or to those who reported having no

experience with date rape (n = 144, 67.9%).

68

When assessment of estimated percentages, personal knowledge of others, and
perceived problem of date rape on college campuses were examined based upon reported
experience level with date rape (no experience, likelihood experience, or rape
experience), several interesting results surfaced. The one variable that was not affected
by experience level was perceived problem of date rape on college campuses. No
statistically significant differences were found based upon experience level with date
rape. These results were not terribly surprising given the push on college and university
campuses to include workshops and educational programs on date rape and other dating
decisions. It is probable that students perceive that date rape must be a fairly serious
problem on college campuses or these workshops and educational programs would not be
necessary and included in the co-curricular program. The two variables that were
influenced by experience type were personal knowledge of others who have been raped
and the estimated percentage of women who have been forced to have sexual intercourse
by a date. For both dependent variables, those who reported having been victims of date
rape were significantly different from those reporting no experience. Those reporting the
likelihood experience were significantly different from those reporting no experience for
the number of rape victims known to the participant, but the two experience levels were
not significantly different for the estimated percentage of women who have experienced
date rape. Interestingly, those who reported the likelihood experience were not
significantly different from those who reported having been victims of date rape for either
the estimated percentage or the reported number. There are a number of possible
explanations for the differences between those who report having had at least some direct

experience with date rape and those who have had no experience. One possible

69

explanation is that those individuals with experience may share these experiences with
others, and others, knowing that these women can empathize, disclose that the experience
also has happened to them. Another possibility is that women who have experienced date
rape or a situation where date rape was perceived as highly likely but did not occur seek
out others who have had these experiences. This may occur, for example, in the context
of therapeutic support groups. Given the probability for psychological trauma caused to
the victim (J anoff-Bulman & Frieze, 1983), these women may seek out help to process
through the experience and work to move forward. This connection to others who have
shared like experiences may have lead those in the rape experience group to estimate the
percentage of women who have been forced to have sexual intercourse by a date to be
higher than those who have had no date-rape experience.
WWW Research questions
eleven through thirteen all dealt with the directness/indirectnesss of message strategies.
Muehlenhard’s et al. (1996) 26 responses were rated and ranked by the participants to
determine whether the strategy should be labeled as direct or indirect. Of the 26
responses, only eight were labeled as direct. The others were labeled as pure indirect
(n = 5) or varied indirect (n = 13). These findings indicate that there are many more
potential messages that “leave room for doubt about what is wanted fiom the target”
(conceptual definition of indirectness) than make “explicitly clear what is wanted from
the target” (conceptual definition of directness). Although this may or may not be cause
for concern in itself, the results indicating that the participants used 10% more indirect
messages (11 = 646) than direct messages (11 = 502) in response to the scenarios given

them is concerning. This trend is further supported in examination of the specific

70

strategies and their frequency of use as the most common indirect message represented
16% of the total number of statements made, as compared to the most frequently used
direct message representing 12% of the total number of statements. If indirect messages
are indeed more likely to be misinterpreted or discarded by the target (Abbey & Melby,
1986; Edgar & Fitzpatrick, 1990; Sawyer et al., 1993), reliance on indirect messages in
the context of forced sexual intercourse in a situation with a date is unwise.

The seriousness of the reliance on more indirect messages than direct messages is
further compounded by the results to research question sixteen. Each message strategy
category (direct, indirect, direct other, and indirect other) was examined for possible
differences based on reported direct experience level with date rape. No significant
differences as a function of experience level were found. These results suggest that even
after having experienced date rape or a situation in which date rape was perceived as
highly likely but did not occur, messages in response to a hypothetical situation involving
potential forced sexual intercourse remain the same. One might expect that those who
have experienced a situation of this nature in the past would use more direct messages in
order to make their wishes “this time” absolutely clear, but this did not occur. Perhaps,
the individuals who reported experience as date rape victims perceive that message
directness had little or nothing to do with the outcome in the situation; therefore, their
message strategies were not altered (although there is no baseline to actually test this). In
terms of the individuals who reported the likelihood experience, they may credit their
message approach (a mix of direct and indirect messages) to be the reason that forced

sexual intercourse was not achieved.

71

Research questions fourteen Ed fifteen. These two research questions examined

the prioritization of secondary goals. Research question fourteen identified the order of
secondary-goal importance. As noted earlier, the arousal management goals and personal
resource goals received the highest ratings respectively. Therefore, concerns with issues
such as maintaining an acceptable level of arousal (arousal management goal) and one’s
personal safety (personal resource goal) were perceived as most important. Although
these results are not surprising given the nature of the date-rape situation, it is interesting
that even though the situation was only hypothetically described, participants felt an
uncomfortable level of arousal and feared for their safety. For research question fifteen,
the prioritization of goals were assessed as a function of reported direct-experience level
with date rape. Only one of the secondary goals, the interaction goal category, was
differentiated by experience type. Those individuals, who reported have experienced date
rape, rated the interaction goal issues (such as face/impression management) as
significantly more important than did those individuals who reported no experience with
date rape. This indicates that the self-reported date-rape victims were much more
concerned with avoiding embarrassing “Steve” or making him look stupid while
attempting to stop the unwanted sexual advance than were those women who had not had
a date-rape experience of any kind. The question is why women who have experienced
date rape would be more concerned with these types of issues. If anything, it might be
anticipated that once women have experienced date rape they would be even less
concerned with maintaining an aggressor’s face. One possible explanation is that there
are personality variables at work. Perhaps these individuals experienced date rape

because they were unwilling to threaten the face of the target. Although assessment of

72

personality variables was beyond the scope of this project, these variables should be
examined in the future. This finding highlights the necessity to work with date rape
victims in not feeling badly about asserting their wishes within a sexual context even if it
means potentially embarrassing the other person.

Post hoc analyses also were performed on the secondary goal indexes as a
function of scenario type. Interestingly, two of the secondary goals were differentiated.
First, the interaction goal issues were perceived as significantly more important for the
individuals in the low degree of discrepancy conditions than they were for the high
degree of discrepancy conditions. This seems to indicate that when individuals are close
to sexual intercourse before the unwanted sexual advance occurs, the women were more
concerned with saving the aggressor’s face than when individuals only had kissed before
the unwanted advance occurred. A possible explanation for this is that the women in the
low degree of discrepancy condition were more aware of the level of intimacy that the
sexual activity created and potentially were concerned with what terminating the sexual
activity might do to the aggressor’s ego and their own face issues. The other secondary
goal that was differentiated by scenario type was the relational resource goal category.
Here, the individuals in the high relational development conditions perceived the
relational resource goal issues to be significantly more important than those in the low
relational development conditions. The relational resource goal category addresses
concerns with preserving the present and future relationship with the other person. It is
logical that those in the high relational development condition would perceive these

issues as more important because they have more relationship to protect.

73

Research question seventeen. This research question assessed the general

evaluation of the assigned scenarios for realism as well as potential differences in
evaluation based upon reported level of date-rape experience. The scenarios were
evaluated as quite realistic overall (means of 16.92, 18.20, and 18.50 on a possible scale
of 4 to 20). However, the individuals who reported having experienced date rape or the
likelihood experience rated the scenarios as being significantly more realistic (M = 18.50
and 18.20 respectively) than did those individuals who have had no experience with date
rape (M = 16.92). The scenario realism questions dealt with the participants’ evaluation
of whether the scenario could actually happen and whether they could imagine/envision
themselves in the situation with “Steve”. A possible explanation for this finding is that
the women who reported some level of experience with date rape more easily projected
themselves into the situation and perceived the situation as realistic because they had
been in a similar situation at least once before in their lives. Those individuals who have
never had this type of experience before may have a difficult time imagining that it could
ever happen to them or that the situation could involve the elements described in the
scenarios. The lower ability of the no experience individuals to imagine themselves in
the situation or see the situation as realistic is troubling given that increased awareness of
date-rape feasibility is one critical element in educational programs. If women, who have
had no experience of this type, have a difficult time imagining themselves in the situation
or the feasibility of the situation to occur, it may be difficult to get these same women to
envision possible effective reactions within the context of the situation.

WM Hypotheses one and two examined the importance of

the primary goal and the degree of persistence in primary-goal achievement as a function

74

of scenario-described degree of discrepancy. As Dillard (1990) expressed, high degrees
of discrepancy have been found to increase primary-goal importance and willingness to
persist in achieving that goal. Based upon Dillard’s finding, it was anticipated that in the
present study, participants in the high degree of discrepancy conditions would rate the
importance of the primary goal as significantly higher than would participants in the low
degree of discrepancy conditions. It was further anticipated that participants in the high
degree of discrepancy conditions would rate their willingness to persist in achieving the
primary goal more highly than would participants in the low degree of discrepancy
conditions. The results did not demonstrate a main effect for scenario-described degree of
discrepancy. The primary goal of stopping “Steve” was perceived as very important
regardless of discrepancy type. In fact, on a 4 to 20 possible range, the lowest mean
based upon scenario type for goal importance was 18.94. This high rating continued for
the persistence in achieving the primary goal. Again, no main effect was found for
degree of discrepancy. On a 3 to 15 possible range, the lowest persistence mean based
upon scenario type was 14.11. This finding demonstrates that the subjects (regardless of
degree of discrepancy) perceive that they would put a great deal of effort into stopping
“Steve” and continue their attempts even if “Steve” did not stop initially. These findings,
although contrary to what was hypothesized, are encouraging. They indicate that the
women in this study perceived the aggressor’s actions as an important violation and
worthy of persistent action.

W This hypothesis examined the use of direct messages as a
firnction of scenario-described relational development. It was anticipated that those

individuals in the low-relational development conditions would use more direct strategies

75

than would individuals in the high-relational development conditions. This hypothesis
was based upon previous findings (see Dillard & Burgoon, 1985 and Dillard et al., 1989)
that individuals in close relationships are more likely to produce messages that do not
challenge the desired outcome of the other person. The results of the present study
supported these findings. A main effect for use of direct messages as a function of
scenario-described relational development was found. Individuals in the low-relational
development condition used significantly fewer direct messages than did those
individuals in the high-relational development conditions. These results highlight that
even though the situation was hypothetical in nature, the participants who were told that
they had been dating “Steve” steadily for awhile and had grown to be very close to him
and invested in the relationship used fewer direct strategies. Given that these findings
occurred in a hypothetical situation, the differences may be more extreme within a
real-life interaction. The emphasis on communicating in ways that the aggressor will
perceive as representing desirable consequences appears, based upon these results, to be a
significant force in message production.

mm This final hypothesis evaluated the relationship between the
perceived importance of the secondary goals as a set and message directness. It was
predicted that as secondary-goal importance increased, the directness of messages would
decrease. Although the results were in the direction predicted for the secondary-goals as
a set, they lacked statistical significance. Only the relational resource goal category
provided a statistically significant negative relationship between secondary-goal
importance and message directness. This secondary goal category relates to maintaining

valued relational assets such as “attention, positive stimulation, emotional support, and

76

social comparison” (Dillard, 1990, p. 47). The fact that the relationship between
secondary-message importance and message directness was in the hypothesized direction
(although lacking statistical significance), leads the researcher to question if real-life
interaction would result in the same findings as the hypothetical-situational approach
used in this investigation. Perhaps imagining self in a situation and being in the situation
is not comparable enough to create affect on message production. This issue is discussed
in the section on future research directions.

i ' ’ f tud

The primary limitation of the present investigation was the use of hypothetical

scenarios. Although every attempt was made to create realistic-scenario descriptions,
placing self in a hypothetical situation and experiencing a real-life occurrence are not the
same. The physical and emotional reaction to being in a situation where forced sexual
intercourse by a date is likely cannot be fully created in a pencil and paper task. Thus,

scenarios fundamentally lack ecological validity. There may be ways to get closer to
real-life situations, but these come with a different set of concerns. For example, a
researcher may gain permission to interview victims of date rape immediately following
the incident to investigate what occurred between the victim and the aggressor. Although
this information would provide greater ecological validity, there are other concerns such
as the victims’ emotional state and the potential psychological damage caused to the
victim as a consequence of the interview. It might be possible to link with a
law-enforcement agency or a rape-crisis intervention center to address some of these

concerns.

77

The other primary limitation is a function of the sample. Although it was
purposive in that college-aged women are in the highest risk group based upon age
(Parrot, 1990), the sample was non-probability in nature. The results are limited to those
who participated in the study. Because a simple-random sample was not used, the
generalizability of the results should be questioned. The participants were all students in
communication-related courses where clear message production is certainly discussed.
Although the classes used for the investigation draw a variety of majors (given the
service-oriented nature of lower-level courses in communication), it is impossible to
know if their responses are reflective of what would occur from a broader sample pool.

E tur E l E . .

The limitations identified produce a number of areas for possible future research.
Attempting data collection in real-life situations and utilizing a sample base that is
representative of women in the relevant demographic should continue to be a goal for
researchers interested in the phenomenon of date rape. This study only explored
individuals in the traditional college-age span. Given that Parrot (1990) indicated that the
15 to 24 age span is of special interest for this topic, the need for investigation of the full
age span exists. For example, do high school students (ages 15 through 18) perceive the
strategies, secondary goals, and significance of the date-rape issue the same as those
included in the present investigation? Expansion of the age range for future
investigations would give a more complete sense of potential perceptions, etc. for the
relevant age demographic for this topic. F urthermore, replication of this study utilizing
other techniques such as interviews with victims and non-victims is desirable to create a

more complete understanding of the decision-making processes and consequences that

78

occur. Attention to these data collection and the sampling issues will enhance confidence
in results found.

In addition to ecological validity and sampling issues, there are a number of other
possible directions for future research. For example, in the present investigation, the
prevalence of experience in which forced sexual intercourse was perceived to be highly
likely but did not occur was an area of assessment. Results indicated that almost 20% of
the subjects reported this likelihood experience. The subjects were not asked, however,
what happened in that situation to prevent the rape from occurring. Perhaps the
completion of the act was stymied because of resistance used or because the would-be
assailant changed his mind. Without asking for that information, it is impossible to know
(at least from the female’s perspective) what prevented the carry-through of the assault.
This information may be pivotal to effective date-rape prevention training and should be
included in future projects of this nature.

Understanding the perception of possible responses to unwanted sexual advances
was a primary area of focus for this investigation. However, only female perceptions
were analyzed. Given that the male perspective is critical to whether responses are
interpreted as direct or indirect, it is important to include men in evaluation of messages.
It is entirely possible that the messages evaluated by the women in this sample to be
direct are not the messages that men would evaluate as direct. A comparative analysis of
message directness by sex is a logical next step for future research.

As noted in the results, the indirect message strategies were used 10% more
fiequently than the direct message strategies. This is a significant area of concern

because researchers have established that indirect messages are more likely to be

79

misinterpreted or discarded by the aggressor. Therefore, attention should be given to use
of direct and indirect messages within educational sessions at the high school and college
levels. Specifically, workshop leaders should encourage individuals to use more direct
strategies from the moment of the unwanted attempt. Although this may be
uncomfortable for individuals to consider, the stakes are hi gh—date rape. A second way
that attention can be given to the use of direct and indirect messages is to educate
potential assailants (which includes everyone) of the less obvious strategies that may be
attempted. If individuals are receptive to this type of conversation, they may learn to
respect not only the most obvious messages but also those that are less direct.

Women as victims have been the focus of the present investigation, but that does
not eliminate the potential of men as victims within the context of a dating relationship.
Struckman-Johnson (1988) discovered that one in 10 men in their investigation reported
having been a victim of rape within a heterosexual relationship. Although this is a
smaller proportion than is indicated for women, investigation of the male-as-victim
phenomenon merits attention. Future research must explore this possibility if we are to
have a full understanding of what occurs when unwanted sexual advances are made.
8.1mm

This investigation explored the constraints to stopping or attempting to stop
unwanted sexual advances women experience and why they experience them. These
constraints were examined in how they become manifest in the verbal and nonverbal
messages generated by potential victims within the date-rape context. Exploration of the
experience level with date rape as well as perceptions of the date-rape phenomenon

(e.g., percentage affected, significance of the problem on college campuses, and the

80

number of other victims known to the subject) were examined. Special attention was
given to possible differences based upon self-reported direct-experience with date rape.

A number of significant results were identified in the investigation leading the researcher
to the conclusion that this is a fruitful area of research. Ideas for future investigations
were offered with focus on increasing generalizability and ecological validity. The
results provide a number of opportunities for educational institutions to explore.
Prevention workshops and educational programs for date rape at both the high school and
college levels should continue to enhance present programs. This study has demonstrated
that saying “no” is complex and that the obstacles women experience in stopping an

unwanted sexual advance are multi-faceted.

81

REFERENCES

82

REFERENCES

Abbey, A. (1982). Sex differences in attributions for fiiendly behavior: Do males

misperceive females' fiiendliness?1our_nal of Personality and Social Psyohology,
4_2_, 830-838.

Abbey, A. (1987). Misperceptions of fiiendly behavior as sexual interest: A survey of
naturally occurring incidents. Psychology of Womgr ngerly, 1 1, 173-194.

Abbey, A. (1991). Misperception as an antecedent of acquaintance rape: A consequence
of ambiguity in communication between women and men. In A. Parrot & L.

Bechhofer (Eds) WWW (pp. 96-111). New York:
Wiley & Sons.

Abbey, A., & Melby, C. (1986). The effects of nonverbal cues on gender differences in
perceptions of sexual intent. M 283-298.

Aldrich, N. (1994). How to avoid date rape. W48 (2), 99-108.

Arnik, A. E., & Calhoun, K. S. (1987). Resistance to sexual aggression: Personality,
attitudinal, and situational factors. WWW 153-163.

Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques (2nd ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Atkeson, B. M., Calhoun, K S. & Morris, K. T. (1989). Victim resistance to rape: The
relationship of previous victimization, demographics, and situational factors.

WM 497-507.

Bartz, A. E. (1981). W New York: Macmillan.

Baxter, L. A. (1984). An investigation of complrance-garnrng as politeness. Human
W19 (3) 427-456

Bell, S. T., Kuriloff, P. J ., & Lottes, 1. (1994). Understanding attributions of blame in
stranger rape and date rape situations: An examination of gender, race,
identification, and students' social perception of rape victims. mm

SEalllethmcLU” 1719-1734

Benson, D, Charlton, C., & Goodhart, F. (1992). Acquaintance rape on campus: A
literature review WM 157- 165

Berlinger, L. (1986, March). Commentary editor’s introduction. WW
Violonoo, 99-105.

83

Berlinger, L., & Koss, M. P. (1992). Facts or advocacy statistics: The case of
acquaintance rape WW (1). 121-126.

Bernie, S. N., & Colon, I. (1994). Beliefs about rape among college males: A revision of

the rape myth acceptance scale. Collogofiuoouflojmzfi (1), 10-17.

Borden, L. A., Karr, S. K., & Cladwell-Colbert, A. T. (1988). Effects of a university rape
prevention program on attitudes and empathy toward rape. Jojuual of College
$11;th Dovoloorugt, 29, 132-136.

Boster, F. J. (1990). An examination of the state of compliance-gaimng message behavior

research In J P Dillard (Ed) WW
intememonal iufluence meosages (pp. 7-17). Scottsdale, AZ. Gorsuch Scarisbrick.

Branden, N. (1989). W New York: Avon Books.

Brendan, G. R., Bisanz, G. L., & Kohn, M. (1985). Anatomy of a persuasron schema:

Target goals and strategies MW (5)
1127 1140.

Bridges, J. S., & McGrail, C. A. (1989). Attributions of responsibility for date and
stranger rape. W 273-285.

Briere, J, & Malamutlr, N. M. (1983). Self-reported likelihood of sexually aggressive
behavior: Attitudinal versus sexual explanations. W

W313 323

Burgess, A. W., & Holmstrom, L. L. (1976). Coping behavior of the rape victim.
WW 413-418

Burke, P. J. Stets, J. E, & Pirog-Good, M. A. (1988) Gender identity, self-esteem, and

physical and sexual abuse 1n dating relationships. W
(3), 272- 285.

Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. MEWS!
Socialimholosxfi 217-230.

Burt, M. R., & Albin, R. S. (1981). Rape myths, rape definitions, and probability of
conviction aIone]_tz{Armli_c_d_Ssr9.ial_§xt2hsrl_t2311. 212-230

Burt, M. R., & Estep, R. E. (1981). Who is a victim? Definitional problems in sexual
victimization. W1 5-28.

Byers, E. S., & Lewis, K. (1988). Dating couples' disagreements over the desired level of
sexual intimaCY- W14. 15-29-

84

Calhoun, L. G., Selby, J. W., & Warring, L. J. (1976). Social perception of the victim's
causal role in rape: An exploratory examination of four factors. Human Relations,
22, 5 1 7-526.

Carlin, D. (1994, February 25). Date rape fallacies: Can there be purely voluntary acts?
W121 (4). 11-12.

Caron, S. L. (1993). Athletes as rape-awareness educators: Athletes for sexual
responsibility. ou a1 0 ' lle e a1 (6), 275-276.

Cassidy, C., & Hurrell, R. M. (1995). The influence of victim's attire on adolescents'
judgments of date rape. Adolosoenoe, 30, 319-323.

Cody, M. J., McLaughlin, M. L, & Jordan, W. J. (1980). A multidimensional scaling of
three sets of compliance-gaining strategies. W 34.46

Collison, M. (1993). Article's attack on "hype" surrounding date rape stirs debate among
researchers, catnpus counselors. WM (44). A41.

Costin, F. (1985). Beliefs about rape and women's social roles. WW
3911311315.. 319-325-

Costin, F., & Schwarz, N. (1987). Beliefs about rape and women's social roles. Joumflof
lutemoroonal Violenco, 2, 46-56.

Cowan, G, & Curtis, S. R. (1994). Predictors of rape occurrence and victim blame 1n the

William Kennedy Smith Case MW (1) 12-
20.

Craig,M. E. ,Kalichman,S. C., &Follingstad,D. R (1989). W
WHO). 421-434

Craig, R. T., Tracy, K., & Spisak, F. (1986). The discourse of requests: Assessment of a
politeness approach W12 (4) 437-468

Deal, J. E., & Wampler, K. S. (1986). Dating violence: The primacy of previous
experience. a i 1 rs nal lat' hi 457-471.

Deitz, S. R., Blackwell, K. T, Daley,P. C., &Bentley,B. J. (1982). Measurement of

empathy toward rape victims and rapists WW
magmas. 372 384

Dillard, J. P. (1990). A goal-driven model of interpersonal influence. In J. P. Dillard
(Edq) 10101110. I601“ 1010 1111611401». l 11 '11' a
(pp. 41-56). Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.

85

Dillard, J. P., & Burgoon, M. (1985). Situational influences on the selection of
compliance-gaining messages: Two tests of the Cody-McLaughlin typology.

WW 289-304.

Dillard, J. P., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1985). Compliance-gaining in marital interaction.
Pomoua 11g ouo Social Boychology Bulletiu, 11, 419-433.

Dillard, J. P., Segrin, C., &Harden, J. M. (1989). Primary and secondary goalsinthe

production of interpersonal influence messages. W
19- 38.

Drout, C., Becker, T., Bukkosy, S., & Mansell, M. (1994). Does social influence mitigate

or exacerbate reSponsibility for rape MW
(3), 409-420.

Dull, R. T., & Giacopassi, D. J. (1987). Demographic correlates of sexual and dating
attitudes WW 175- 193

Edgar, T. & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1990). Communicating sexual desire. Message tactics for
having and avoiding intercourse. In J. P. Dillard (Ed) W

WWW 107-121) Scottsdale AZ
Gorsuch Scarisbrick.

Elliott, J. (1993, May). Just say nonsense. W (5), 18-21.
Faludi, S. (1993, October 25). Whose hype? Newmeeku 122 (17), 61.

Ferguson, P. A., Duthie, D. A., & Graf, R. G. (1987). Attribution of responsibility to
rapist and victim: The influence of victim's attractiveness and rape-related

information. MW 243-250-

Fink. A., & Kosecoff. J. (1985). BMW Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.

Fischer, G. J. (1987). Hispanic and majority students attitudes towards forcible date rape
as a function of differences in attitudes toward women. W 93-101.

Fischhoff, B., Furby, L., & Morgan, M. (1987). Rape prevention: A typology of
strategies. Jouruul of InteLbozooual Violonce, 2, 292-308.

Frey,L. R., Botan,C. H., Friedman, P. G., &Kreps, G. L. (1991). W
_ _ .Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

 

Prentice-Hall.

Frazier, P. A. (1990). Victim attributions and post-rape trauma. mm
W 298-304

86

Fussman, C. (1993). Consent of a woman. Lear'o, o, 32-33.
Gaitskill, M. (1994, March). On not being a victim. Elmer's, 288 (1726), 35-44.

Garcia, L., Milano, L., & Quijano, A. (1989). Perceptions of coercive sexual behavior by
males and females. Sex Roles, 21, 569-577.

Gilbert, N. (1991). The phantom epidemic of sexual assault. The Bublio 1ntg'_e§1, 103, 54-
65.

Gilbert, N. (1993). At issue: Has the extent of date rape been exaggerated? Yes. £39
8W1 (8). 185.

Gillen, K., & Muncer, S. J. (1995). Sex differences in the perceived causal structure of

date tape. A preliminary report AggressiEHehaxicnfl (2) 101- 112
Glazer, S. (1994). Sex on campus. W (41), 961-979.

Grauerholz, E., & Solomon, J. C. (1989). Sexual coercion: Power and violence. In K

McKinney & S Sprccher (EdS) HEMWEEW
921112251 (pp. 350-369). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.

Gray, M. C., Lesser, D., Quinn, E., & Bounds, C. ( 1990). The effectiveness of
personalizing acquaintance rape prevention: Programs on perception of
vulnerability and on reducing risk-taking behavior. MW
23219121112331. 217-220.

Gross, J. (1993, September 27). Combating rape on campus in a class on sexual consent.
W22 pp- 4-5-

Gross, A., & Greene, P. (1992, September). The truth about rape. W
1112 (9), 42-46.

Hays, W. L. (1988). 5131181198 (4" ed). Fortworth: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Harrison, P. J ., Downes, J ., & Williams, M. D. (1991). Date and acquaintance rape:
Perception and attitude change strategies. MW
32, 131-139.

Healy, M. (1993, September 10). The eyes may say yes, but the lips have to give OK.
Wax. p- 1A.

Hellman, P. (1993). Crying rape: The politics of date rape on campus. Now York, lg
(10), 32-37.

87

Janoff-Bulman, R. (1979). Characterological versus behavioral self-blame: Inquiries into

depression and rape WW 1798-1809

Janoff-Buhnan, R. (1982). Esteem and control bases of blame: "Adaptive" strategies for

victims versus observers. MW 180-192.

Janoff-Bulman, R., & Frieze, I. H. (1983). A theoretical perspective for understanding
reactions to victimization. loumal o1 Sooial lsoues, 39, 1-17.

Jenkins, M. J ., & Dambrot, F. H. (1987). The attribution of date rape: Observers' attitudes

and sexual experiences and the dating situations. lomol of Aoolied Social
Poyohology, 112, 875-895.

Johnson, G. D., Palileo, G. J ., & Gray, N. B. (1992). "Date Rape" on a southern campus:
Reports from 1991.322iE3E522121EseE2hJ20). 37-41.

Johnson, J. D. (1994). The effect of rape type and information admissibility on
perceptions of rape victims. Sex Roles, 39 (1 1-12), 781-792.

Kidder, L. H., Boeil, J. L., & Moyer, M. M. (1983). Rights consciousness and
victimization prevention: Personal defense and assertiveness training. W

W (2), 155-170.

Kleinke, C. L., & Meyer, C. (1990). Evaluation of rape victim by men and women with
high and low belief in a just world. WW 343-353.

Knox, D., & Wilson, K. (1981). Dating behaviors in university students. Emily
sumac 255-253.

Koss, M. (1986). Acquaintance rape: Effective avoidance strategies. Esyohologyof
MW 311-320.

Koss, M. (1993). At issue: Has the extent of date rape been exaggerated? No. Q
82:22tch2rd (8). 185.

Koss, M. P., & Burkhart, B. R. (1989). A conceptual analysis of rape victimization:

Long-term effects and implications for treatment. Psyohologyoflllom
9112112111212. 2740.

Koss, M. P., Gidycz, C. A., Wisniewski, N. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and
prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher

education students MW: (2) 162-
170.

Koss, M. P., & Seibel, C. A. (1988). Stranger and acquaintance rape: Are there
differences in the victim's experience? W 1-24.

88

Koss, M. P., Woodruff, W. J ., & Koss, P. (1991). Criminal victimization among primary
care medical patients: Prevalence, incidence, and physician usage. Behavlooal

Soiences ouo tho Law, 2, 85-96.

Langley, T., Beatty, G., Yost, E. A., O'Neal, E. C., Faucett, J. M., Taylor, S. L., Frankel,
P., & Craig, K. (1991). How behavioral cues in a date rape scenario influence

judgments regarding victim and perpetrator. Mom (3), 355-358.

LaPlante, M. N., McCormick, N., & Brannigan, G. G. (1980). Living the sexual script:
College students' views of influence in sexual encounters. W832;
Resegoh, lo, 338-355.

Larsen, K. S., & Long, E. (1988). Attitudes toward rape. WW
299-304.

Lenihan, G. 0., & Rawlins, M. E. (1994). Rape supportive attitudes among Greek
students before and after a date rape prevention program. Why;
W (6). 450-455.

I«ittlciohn. S. W- (1996). Wu (5th ed-)- Detroit:
Wadsworth.

Lisker, D. (1996). Sexual assault: Information, prevention, resources. (Rep. No.
VT/360/O696/7M/963923). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
The Women's Center.

Makepeace, J. M. (1981). Courtship violence among college students. Motion;
39, 97-102.

Malamuth, N. (1981). Rape proclivity among males. W81, 138-
157.

Malarnuth, N. (1986). Predictors of naturalrstrc sexual aggression. W
W 953-962

Margolin, L., Miller, M., & Moran, P. B. (1989). When a kiss is not just a kiss: Relating
violations of consent in kissing to rape myth acceptance. W 231-243.

Marwell, G., & Schmitt, D. R. (1967). Dimensions of compliance-gaining behavior: An
empirical analysis. SEEM 350-364.

Mazur, F. E. (1993). A challenge for developers: Preserving the interactivity of human
relations 1n a stand alone application. W 63.

89

McCaul, K. D., Veltum, L. G., Boyechko, V., & Crawford, J. (1990). Understanding
attributions of victim blame for rape: Sex, violence, and foreseeability. 1W

Aoolied Sooial Eoyohology, 29, 1-26.

McCormick, N. B. (1979). Come-ons and put-offs: Unmarried students' strategies for

having and avoiding sexual intercourse. W (2),
194-211.

McEvoy, A. (1992). Talking about date rape to male students. Education Digeol, 57 (7),
42-43.

McLendon, K. ,Foley, L. A, Hall, J, Sloan, L., Wesley, A, & Perry, L. (1994). Male and

female perceptions of date rape. ,loumal of Soolul Bflaw vio; goo Bgoonallly, 2 (3),
421-428.

Metts, S., Cupach, W. R., & Imahori, T. T. (1992). Perceptions of sexual compliance-
resisting messages in three types of cross-sex relationships. _ootmfloumolof
WWI-17

Miller, D. T., & Porter, C. A. (1983). Self-blame in victims of violence. LoumuLoflSooiol
IosueoJQ, 139-152.

Muehlenhard, C. L., Andrews, S. L., & Beal, G. K. (1996). Beyond “just saying no”:
Dealing with men’s unwanted sexual advances in heterosexual dating contexts. In
E. S. Byers, & L. F. O’Sullivan (Eds), Sexual coercion in dating relationships (pp.
141-168. New York: Haworth.

Muehlenhard, C. L., Friedman, D. E., & Thomas, C. M. (1985). Is date rape justifiable?
The effects of dating activity, who initiated, who paid, and men's attitudes toward

women. WW 297-310.

Muehlenhard, C. L., & Hollabaugh, L. C. (1988). Do women sometimes say no when
they mean yes? The prevalence and correlates of women's token resistance to sex.

W352. 872- 879

Mumen, S. K., Perot, A., & Byme, D. (1989). Coping with unwanted sexual activity:
Normative responses, situational determinants, and individual differences. Joumul

WM 85-106-
O'Keefe. D. J. (1990). MW Newbury Park: Sage.

Orton, R. S. (1994). Date rape: Critiquing the critics. W810),
148-15 1 .

Paglia, C., & Cordes, H. (1993, January). It's a jungle out there, so get used to it._'[ho
W 61°65-

90

Parrot, A. (1990, November). Do rape prevention programs influence rape patterns
among New York State College students? Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex, Minneapolis, MN.

Parrot, A., & Bechhofer, L. (1991). Aguuintanco raoo', :1 ho hioogl orimo. New York:
Wiley & Sons.

Peterson, C., & Seligrnan, M. E. P. (1983). Learned helplessness and victimization.
,loumal of Social lssueg, 2, 103-116.

Peterson, S. A., & Franzese, B. (1987, May). Correlates of college men's sexual abuse of
women. on al f olle e erso e 223-228.

Prentky, R. A., Burgess, A. W., & Carter, D. L. (1986). Victim responses by rapist type:
An empirical and clinical analysis. ,loumal of lutgooosoual Violonco, 1, 73-98.

Proite, R., Dannells, M., & Benton, S. L. (1993). Gender, sex-role stereotypes, and the
attribution of responsibility for date and acquaintance rape. Joumolfigollogo
Student Qevoloomoul, 34 (6), 411-417.

Ring, L. (1994). And if morning never comes? Roiphe, resistance and the subject of

women. W25 (2). 57-64.
Roiphe, K. (1993, June 13). Date rape's other victim. W
section 6, 26-28, 30, 40.

Roiphe, K. (1994, January). Date rape: State of siege or state of mind? W
(1),148-151.

Roloff, M. B., Janiszewski, C. A., McGrath, M. A, Burns, C. S., &Manrai, L. A. (1988).
Acquiring resources fiorn intimates: When obligation substitutes for persuasion.

HumflmmEcafionMHJA (3) 364-396

Roscoe, B, & Benaske, N. (1985). Courtship violence experienced by abused wives:
Similarities 1n patterns of abuse. NW 419-424.

Sawyer, R. G., Desmond, S. M., & Lucke, G. M. (1993). Sexual communication and the
college student: Implications for date rape. Healgl Vuluoo, 17 (4), 11-20.

Schenck-Hamlin, W. J., Wiseman, R. L., & Georgacarakos, G. N. (1982). A model of
properties of complrance-garnrng strategies. W 92- 100.

Scheppele, K. L., & Bart, P. B. ( 1983). Through women's eyes: Defining danger in the
wake of sexual assault. WM 63-81.

91

Schultz, D., & Schneider, L. J. (1991). The role of sexual provocativeness, rape history,
and observer gender in perceptions of blame in sexual assault. _louma_1_of

lute_roorsonol Violonce, o, 94-101.

Shea, C. (1993, September 15). From date rape to racial fiiction, freshmen explore

sensitive issues during Penn Orientation. Qhroulcle of Highor Educalion, pp. A37-
A38.

Sheldon-Keller, A., Lloyd-McGarvey, E., West, M., & Canterbury, R. J. (1994).
Attachment and assessment of blame in date rape scenarios. Sooial Bohavior goo

W22 (4). 313-318.

Shotland, R. L. (1989). A model of the causes of date rape in developing and close
relationships. In C. Henrick (Ed), close rolatiousuios (pp. 247-270). Newbury
Park: Sage Publications.

Shotland, R. L., & Craig, J. M. (1988). Can men and women differentiate between
friendly and sexually interested behavior? WW, 66-73.

Shotland, R. L., & Goodstein, L. (1992). Sexual precedence reduces the perceived
legitimacy of sexual refusal: An examination of attributes concerning date rape and

consensual sex. W218. 756-764.

Shotland, R. L. & Goodstein, L. (1983). Just because she doesn't want to doesn't mean it's
rape: An experimentally based causal model of the perception of rape in a dating
situation. oci s c arterl 4 220-232.

Sigelman, C. K, Berry, C. J, & Wiles, K. A. (1984). Violence 1n college students' dating
relationships IQEflJApnlimSEaLfimhclcuflfi. 530-548

Spence, J., Hehnreich, R, & Stapp, J. (1973). A short version of the attitudes toward
women scale 821W 219-220

Stets, J. B., & Pirog-Good, M. A. (1989). Sexual aggression and control 1n dating
relationships WWW 1392-1412

Struckman-Johnson, C. (1988). Forced sex on dates: It happens to men too. Mulof
83823222222. 231-241.

Taylor, S. E., Wood, 1. V., & Lichtrnan, R. R. (1983). It could be worse: Selective
evaluation as a response to victimization. W 19-40.

Tetreault, P. A., & Barnett, M. A. (1987). Reactions to stranger and acquaintance rape.
MW 353-358.

92

Tieger, T. (1981). Self-rated likelihood of raping and the social perception of rape.
lomal of Rosearoh in Personolily, 13, 147-158.

Trenhom, S., & Jensen, A. (1996). lnter___oersonal oouuuuuioau'ou (3rd ed.). New York:
Wadsworth.

United States Department of Justice. (1997). Uniform crime reports. Washington DC:
Federal Bureau of Investigation. Government Printing Office.

Vallacher, R. R., & Selz, K. (1991). Who's to blame? Action identification in allocating
responsibility for alleged rape. Social Qoguition, 9, 194-219.

Ward, C. (1988). The attitudes toward rape victims scale. MW
9221221312. 127-146.

Warren, J. 1., Reboussin, R., Hazelwood, R. R., & Wright, J. A. (1991). Prediction of
rapist type and violence from verbal, physical, and sexual scales. Jomn_alof

lutoroorsonal Violmco, o (1), 55-67.

Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optinrisrn about future life events. 121.811.21.21
W233 9806-820

Weller, S. (1992). Why is date rape so hard to prove. 1:12:11th (4), 62-64.
Wiener, J. (1992). Rape by innuendo at Swarthrnore. 1131M 44-47.

Wiener, R. L., & Rinehart, N. (1986). Psychological causality in the attribution of
responsibility for rape. W 369-382.

Will, G. (1993, October 4). Sex amidst semicolons. Nourflook, p. 92.

Wimmer. R. D.. & Dominick. J. R. (1991). WM (3"'
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Winkel, F. W. ,& Koppelaar, L. (1991). Rape victims' style of self-presentation and

secondary victimization by the environment. MW
(1), 29-40.

Wiseman, R. L., & Schenck-Hamlin, W. (1981). A multidimensional scaling validation
of an inductively-derived set of compliance-gaining strategies. Couuuuuloauon

MW 251-270

Young, C. (1993, August 16). Beyond "no means no": Redefining date rape. 129181111211
1112112222 (33). 16-18-

93

APPENDICES

94

APPENDIX A

Muehlenhard’s et al. (1996) Responses to Unwanted Sexual Advances-- Rating

For each of the following, please rate on a 1-8 scale the directness/indirectnesss of each
message with regards to communicating that the sexual advance is unwanted with mug

W FINI T” and W A 211221 message
makes explicitly clear what is wanted from the other person. An 111m message leaves
room for doubt about what is wanted from the other person. Please circle only one

number for each statement.

A. She says, “I really care about you, but I’m not ready. Let’s wait until the relationship
is stronger.” -

W12345678222n1321222221

B. She says, “I’m scared.”

oefim'toly ludirecl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 W

C. She says, “No!”
dofinilely 1112112921 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 W

D. She yells, “No!”
22222212122222 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 mummy;

E. She tells him she’s on her period.
glefiru'toly 11m 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 oofim'loly 511m

F. She asks him to take her home.
2.2112112112122291 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Emma-291

G. She gets up to leave.
mm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2.211211211122221

H. She tells him it’s against her beliefs and she wants to wait until marriage.

W12345678222n221y2m

1. She says she has herpes.
oefiuiloly iuoirecl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 'tel

J. She slaps his hands playfully, smiles, and says “no.”
W l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 22112112122222!

95

. She responds with physical violence, such as kneeing him, biting him, slugging him,
kicking him, or clawing him.
glefiultoly ingllrect 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 gofimtolyjjm

. She threatens him with physical violence, such as threatening to knee, bite, slug, kick,
or claw him.

Qefiuiloly luglirect 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 'tel ir t

.She slaps him.

oefiulloly luoigect l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 'tel 're
.She cries.

goflnitely 1112111221 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 oefiuilely 511ml

. She says, “I’m tired and I have to get up early.”

ef' l' 'r l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 deflm’telydim}

. She calls him names such as jerk, creep, or sex-crazed maniac.

W12345678W

. She screams.

W12345678222212¢1v212221

. She says, “I can’t.”

22firu121m2122211234567822221121L21m

. She says, “I’m not sure we should.”

Wm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 22221121222221
. She tells him, “This is rape, and I’m calling the cops.”

glofimlolumllm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 'tel
. She pushes him away.
glolrulloly indigo; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2211111121! 211E
. She breaks the mood, such as by beginning a conversation or suggesting going to get
something to eat.

221121212122223123456782222112322221

. She says she’s afraid of getting pregnant.
glofinlloly inglioeol 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2211111121! ojgool

. She tells him she doesn't want to do anything beyond kissing and making out.
glofiulloly 111211221 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 oofinitoly 211.221

96

Y. She says, “You hurt my feelings by trying to take advantage of me.”
2211mm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 dofinitely giroot

Z. She cries, pleads, and asks God to help her.
glofiniloly inglirect l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 definitely diroct

Peaseu -uac.t -11 -- itan1-1u-.Wo11. out .eo.
’ w a v

 

Note. Adapted from Muehlenhard et al. (1996). Used by permission of the authors.

97

APPENDIX B

Muehlenhard’s et al. (1996) Responses to Unwanted Sexual Advances--Ranking
Please rank order each of the following messages from 1 to 26 with 1 beiug
“ INITELY IND T” and 26 ooiug “DEFlleleL! DBEQT”. A 211E message

makes explicitly clear what is wanted from the other person. An indireol message leaves
room for doubt about what is wanted from the other person. Please use each number one
time only. If it helps you keep track, please cross off each number below as you use it.
PLEASE TAKE EXTRA CARE NOT TO REVERSE THE NUMBERS.

Definitely Definitely

11121122 1212221
1-2-3-4"52627H829nlonl1212-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-21"22-23-24-25H2o

__ She says, “I really care about you, but I’m not ready. Let’s wait until the
relationship is stronger.”
She says, “I’m scared.”
__ She says, “No!”
_ She yells, “No!”
__ She tells him she’s on her period.
__ She asks him to take her home.
She gets up to leave.
She tells him it’s against her beliefs and she wants to wait until marriage.
__ She says she has herpes.
__ She slaps his hands playfully, smiles, and says “no.”

She responds with physical violence, such as kneeing him, biting him, slugging
him, kicking him, or clawing him.

She threatens him with physical violence, such as threatening to knee, bite, slug,
kick, or claw him.

She slaps him.

98

She cries.
She says, “I’m tired and I have to get up early.”
She calls him names such as jerk, creep, or sex-crazed maniac.
She screams.
She says, “I can’t.”
She says, “I’m not sure we should.”
_ She tells him, “This is rape, and I’m calling the cops.”
__ She pushes him away.

She breaks the mood, such as by beginning a conversation or suggesting going to
get something to eat.

She says she’s afiaid of getting pregnant.
She tells him she doesn't want to do anything beyond kissing and making out.
She says, “You hurt my feelings by trying to take advantage of me.”

She cries, pleads, and asks God to help her.

99

APPENDIX C

Questions for F unctional-Area and Manipulation Checks

The order of the questions and the labels for each section are presented here for ease in
reading. The order and labels do not represent what was provided to the participants.

Instructions: Based on your understanding of the situation between you and Steve as
depicted in the scenario you just read, please oircle 212 1111me (or respond as instructed)
that best represents how you feel. Please put a star next to any item that seems confusing
or vague to you.

e1 '01 vlo en

1. I feel emotionally close to Steve.

8.021121221222222 1 2 3 4 5 SEW

2. I feel attached to Steve.
Muslim 1 2 3 4 5 82212122222

3. I believe that Steve feels emotionally close to me.

W 1 2 3 4 5 81122212211122

4. I believe that Steve feels attached to me.

Stream 1 2 3 4 5 81121121222222

5. I would say that Steve and I have gotten to know each other well.

murmurs 1 2 3 4 5 82321121222122

6. Steve's and my relationship has developed to the point that I feel emotionally
connected to him.

1 rsa l 2 3 4 5 Suouglyogmo

7. Generally in dating relationships, I feel emotionally close only after I have been
dating for awhile.

82222122122212 1 2 3 4 5 80222122213
W22

1. Steve's attitude toward sex in this situation is different from mine.

82222122122222 1 2 3 4 5 8212221222222

100

2. What Steve wants sexually in this situation and what I feel comfortable doing are two
very different things.
Strongly disaggee 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly aggee

3. What I feel comfortable doing with Steve sexually and actually having sexual
intercourse are not that different from one another.

Smngly disaggee 1 2 3 4 5 W

4. Before Steve became aggressive, I came close to having sexual intercourse with him.

52222122122229. 1 2 3 4 5 32222111212262
M ' latio h k r c ionofF reed ex

1. Steve feels very strongly about pursuing his sexual advances including sexual

intercourse.
i 66 1 2 3 4 5 W

2. Steve intends to pursue his sexual advances including sexual intercourse at any cost.

W 1 2 3 4 5 3221221222222

3. Steve will force me to have sex.

W 1 2 3 4 5 52211212221122

4. Steve will not stop his sexual advances even though he knows that I don't want to
have sex.

W 1 2 3 4 5 81121122122122
'u' 'v Ra'

1. This scenario is realistic.

52222112222122 1 2 3 4 5 $22M

2. What happened in this scenario could actually happen.
, W 1 2 3 4 5 1 cc

3. I was able to imagine myself in this situation with Steve.

52211222221222 1 2 3 4 5 822112222212

4. I was not able to envision myself in this situation with Steve.

1 isa l 2 3 4 5 83mm

5. I would make the following changes to the scenario to make it seem more realistic.

101

1112212222112

1. It is very important to me to make sure that Steve stops.

5.2211211121222122 1 2 3 4 5 $222M

2. I am very concerned about getting Steve to stop.

lie1234SSM2bLA2m

3. I really don‘t care that much whether I can get Steve to stop.
32222212122213 1 2 3 4 5 51121121122122

4. Getting Steve to stop is absolutely critical.
51221212212222 1 2 3 4 5 tr 1 66

Identity Items

1. I do not want to violate my own ethical standards (e.g., lying) in getting Steve to stop.

W 1 2 3 4 5 W

2. In this situation, I am concerned about maintaining my own ethical standards (e.g.,
not lying) in getting Steve to stop.

llse123455292211222¢2

3. I am concerned about being true to myself and my values in getting Steve to stop.

W 1 2 3 4 5 51221121321212:

4. I want to behave in a mature, responsible manner in getting Steve to stop.

W l 2 3 4 5 W

5. I am concerned with sticking to my own standards in getting Steve to stop.

82222122122219: 1 2 3 4 5 81211121213212:
t 'nIt

1. It is a high priority for me to avoid embarrassing Steve while I try to get him to stop.

2221222222222 1 2 3 4 5 81122212452292

2. I don't want to say or do anything that might embarrass Steve.

W 1 2 3 4 5 82211211212222

3. I am concerned with making Steve look bad in this situation.

5.1122211212122232 1 2 3 4 5 31121221122222

4. I don't want to make Steve look stupid while I try to get him to stop.

52211222122221 2 3 4 5 822112124222:

102

011 t S

. I am willing to risk possible damage to the relationship in order to get Steve to stop.

MEWS—38:26.1 2 3 4 5 trle

. Getting Steve to stop is more important to me than preserving our relationship.

trol'see12 3 4 5 3mm

. I don't care if getting Steve to stop hurts our relationship.

32211211222222: 1 2 3 4 5 tr 1 cc
. It is a high priority for me to avoid damaging my present relationship with Steve in
getting him to stop.
' 1 2 3 4 5 W22:
. It is a high priority for me to avoid damaging my future relationship with Steve in

getting him to stop.
5221122121222: 1 2 3 4 5 52211212222:

WW

. My attempts to get Steve to stop may cause him to harm me.

82922122122212: 1 2 3 4 5 S2211211LA22:

. Steve may get rough if I try to get him to stop.
W 1 2 3 4 5 W229:

. Steve will become even more aggressive if I try to get him to stop.

8.1121121212122222: 1 2 3 4 5 822112112223

. There may be an even greater threat to my safety if I push the issue.
5.2211211212122212: 1 2 3 4 5 322112112122:

W

. Trying to get Steve to stop makes me feel apprehensive.

W 1 2 3 4 5 81121121113212:

. This situation with Steve does not make me nervous.

5.2211211121222122 1 2 3 4 5 522112122212:

. This situation with Steve worries me.

32211212122222: 1 2 3 4 5 21211212222:

. I feel uncomfortable about trying to get Steve to stop.
52211211222212: 1 2 3 4 5 5221121121922:

103

5. Thinking about getting Steve to stop is upsetting to me.

Strongly Disaggee 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Aggee

Persistence Items

1. I will try anything I can think of to get Steve to stop.
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Aggee

2. I will put a great deal of effort into getting Steve to stop.
Strongly Disagme 1 2 3 4 5 n l A

3. Even if Steve doesn't stop at first, I will keep on trying.

Strongly Disagzee l 2 3 4 5 W

4. No matter what Steve does, I will not give up trying to get him to stop.

W 1 2 3 4 5 2221212222:

104

APPENDIX D

Hypothetical Scenarios Varied in Terms of Relational Development
and Degree of Discrepancy

 

 

Qw-Relational Development/High Degzee 9f Qisgrgnnngy

You met Steve recently in one of your classes, and you don't know him very well.
Tonight, you are on your first date with Steve. You went to dinner and a movie, and
now you are back at his apartment. As the evening progresses, you and Steve begin to
kiss, which is fine with you, but you tell Steve that this is as far as you want it to go
tonight. Suddenly, his demeanor changes, and he becomes very aggressive. Steve says
he can't wait to go all the way and that he plans to have sex with you tonight whether
you want it or not. He tells you to just relax and enjoy what's coming next. You feel
you are losing control of the situation, and you wish you would have never gone out
with him. You believe that Steve will force you to have sex even though this is not what
you want.

 

 

 

-liav w

You met Steve recently in one of your classes, and you don't know him very well.
Tonight, you are on your first date with Steve. You went to dinner and a movie, and
now you are back at his apartment. As the evening progresses, you and Steve become
more and more sexually involved. Both of you end up with your clothes off. You have
kissed, become mutually aroused, and fondled each other's genitals. All of this has been
fine with you, but you tell Steve that this is as far as you want it to go tonight.

Suddenly, his demeanor changes, and he becomes very aggressive. Steve says he can't
wait to go all the way and that he plans to have sex with you tonight whether you want it
or not. He tells you to just relax and enjoy what's coming next. You feel you are losing
control of the situation, and you wish you would have never gone out with him. You
believe that Steve will force you to have sex even though this is not what you want.

 

105

 

 

 

 

Hi -Relational evelo ment/Hi D ee of Discr anc

You met Steve last semester in one of your classes. You began dating and have been
seeing him steadily for awhile. You feel very close to him, and you feel invested in the
relationship. On this particular night, you went to dinner and a movie, and now you are
back at his apartment. As the evening progresses, you and Steve begin to kiss, which is
fine with you, but you tell Steve that this is as far as you want it to go tonight.

Suddenly, his demeanor changes, and he becomes very aggressive. Steve says he can't
wait to go all the way and that he plans to have sex with you tonight whether you want it
or not. He tells you to just relax and enjoy what's coming next. You feel you are losing
control of the situation, and you wish you would have never gone out with him. You
believe that Steve will force you to have sex even though this is not what you want.

 

 

 

Hi -Rela iona Dev ent/L w De e i an

You met Steve last semester in one of your classes. You began dating and have been
seeing him steadily for awhile. You feel very close to him, and you feel invested in the
relationship. On this particular night, you went to dinner and a movie, and now you are
back at his apartment. As the evening progresses, you and Steve become more and more
sexually involved. Both of you end up with your clothes off. You have kissed, become
mutually aroused, and fondled each other's genitals. All of this has been fine with you,
but you tell Steve that this is as far as you want it to go tonight. Suddenly, his demeanor
changes, and he becomes very aggressive. Steve says he can't wait to go all the way and
that he plans to have sex with you tonight whether you want it or not. He tells you to
just relax and enjoy what's coming next. You feel you are losing control of the situation,
and you wish you would have never gone out with him. You believe that Steve will
force you to have sex even though this is not what you want.

 

106

 

 

APPENDIX E

Instructions for Prioritization of Goals and Other Issues
Keep in mind the situation that was described between you and Steve. Make a list of all
of the concerns that crossed your mind as you considered your reaction to Steve. Once

you have generated your list, rank order each concern by placing a number next to each
(1= greatest concern).

£22m 2211222:

107

APPENDIX F

Instructions for Textual Response

Given the situation that was described for you between you and Steve, think about what
you would do and/or say to Steve to persuade him to stop his sexual advance. Please be
as specific as possible about what actions (verbal or nonverbal) you would take by _
writing out in chronological order exactly what you would do and/or say to Steve. Then
explain why you would say and/or do what you have described. Use as many of the
spaces provided on this page and the next page as needed to reflect what you think you
would say and/or do. If you need more spaces than what is provided, please use the back
of the second page. Thank you.

Reread the scenario and start with your first words and/or actions towards your goal.

What is the first thing you would say and/or do?

 

Why?

 

What is the second thing you would say and/or do?

 

Why?

 

What is the third thing you would say and/or do?

 

Why?

 

What is the fourth thing you would say and/or do?

 

Why?

 

What is the fifth thing you would say and/or do?

 

Why?

 

108

What is the sixth thing you would say and/or do?

 

Why?

 

What is the seventh thing you would say and/or do?

 

Why?

 

What is the eighth thing you would say and/or do?

 

Why?

 

What is the ninth thing you would say and/or do?

 

Why?

 

What is the tenth thing you would say and/or do?

 

Why?

 

109

APPENDIX G

Demographic and Information-Seeking Questions

Please respond to the following. Remember that all of your responses will be kept
completely anonymous.

Previous Rgngned Experience win; Date Rane

Have you ever been in a situation with a date when you were forced to have sexual
intercourse with him against your will?

Yes No

Have you ever been in a situation with a date when you truly believed that the likelihood
of forced sexual intercourse was extremely high?

Yes No
w s o ble

What percentage of women, in general, do you believe have been forced to have sexual
intercourse against their will in a situation with a date?

%

Not including yourself, do you personally know anyone who has been forced to have
sexual intercourse against her will?

Yes No

How many, if any, women do you personally lmow who have been forced to have sexual
intercourse against their will?

How big of a problem on college campuses do you think date rape is?

W 1 2 3 4 5 21221221221

110

APPENDIX H

Communication Research Consent Form

With regard to your participation in this research:

1.

You will be asked to complete a set of questionnaires on your own time outside of
class. This set of questionnaires should take you no more than 30 minutes to
complete. You will be asked to place a completed questionnaire in an unmarked,
sealed envelope, and return it to Dr. Kelly Morrison’s office as a drop-off point.
You will place your signed consent form in a separate envelope and return it to
the dr0p off point as well.

Your responses to this set of questionnaires will in now way affect your
evaluation in any Communication courses or in the Department of
Communication.

You may earn extra credit for your participation if your faculty member approves
it, but this extra credit will not be transferable to another class or another term.

Your participation in this study does not guarantee any beneficial results to you
other than possible extra credit for participation.

You have the right to withdraw from this study at any time without penalty.

The results of this study will be completely anonymous. No one, not even the
principal investigator, will be able to associate the responses provided or any
other data with individual subjects.

The data you provide the researcher as a result of your participation in this study
may be used by other scientists for secondary analysis. Again, the data will be
completely anonymous.

If you have further questions regarding this study or the data generated from it,
you may contact Dr. Kelly Morrison in the Department of Communication to
have these questions answered.

If you feel any distress as a result of completing the questionnaire for this study,
please contact MSU’s Sexual Assault Crisis and Safety Education telephone
number at (517) 355-8270 or visit the Center at 207 Student Services Building.

Please print and sign your name below if you have read and understand this form.

Signature Printed Name

 

111

APPENDIX I

TABLES

112

TABLE 1

Seven Areas in Date-Rape Literature

 

Areas Content

 

Factors contributing to commission of crime *Rapc-myth acceptance

*Rigid social roles
‘Communication of expectations
*Avoidance strategies

 

Context of assault *Situational factors:

*Alcohol

*Loud music

*Private dwellings

*Parties and bars

*Sorority and fraternity activities
*Multiple male living units
*Time of year

 

Victim reactions and traumatic effects I"Self-blame

*Styles of recovery

*Forms of treatment

*Post-rape perceptions of society

 

 

Likelihood to rape or be raped *Likelihood to rape (self-reported)
*Demographics—victim and assailant:

*abuse

*sex

*age

*socioeconomic

l"political

*race

 

 

 

113

 

Areas

Content

 

Assessment of responsibility and blame

*Evaluator demographics:
*sex
*ethnicity
*political affiliation
*victirnization
*attitude and personality
*social influence
*belief in just-world hypothesis
*belief in rape myths
*sex-role stereotypes
*Situational factors:
*stranger versus date rape
*degree of force used
*dating activity
*motives of both
I"Victim characteristics:
*recidivist victims
*resistance used
*attire and attractiveness
*sexual history
*perceived pleasure

 

Educational programs

*Higher Education Act (July 23, 1992)
*Program requirements

*Program development

I"Program evaluation

*Controversy

 

 

Reported vs. accepted scope of phenomenon

 

*National study (Koss, 1985)
*National replication (Johnson, 1992)
*Criticism and rebuttal:

*breadth of definition

I"types of assault

*classification

 

114

 

TABLE 2

Dillard's (1990) Secondary Goals

 

Secondary Goals Description

 

Identity Goals *Address self-concept issues
*Maintain principles for living
‘Consider personal conduct preferences

 

Interaction Goals *Detennine social appropriateness
*Manage impressions
‘Avoid "face" threats

 

Relational Resource Goals *Maintain relational assets:
‘attention

*positive stimulation
*emotional support
*social comparison

 

Personal Resource Goals *Maintain personal assets:
*physical
*material

I"mental

*temporal

 

 

Arousal Management *Maintain desired state
*Dampen apprehension

 

 

115

 

TABLE 3

McCormick's (1979) Strategies for Avoiding Sexual Encounters

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Message output Definition

Information In a straightforward or direct manner, tell the date sex was
not desired.

Reward Giving gifis, providing services, and flattering the other
person in exchange for compliance.

Logic Using rational, but not moral, arguments to convince the
other person to stop attempting sexual intercourse.

Relationship Influencing the date by talking about the relationship and

Conceptualizing indicating concern for the date's feelings.

Moralizing Telling the other person that it is the influencing agent's
legitimate or socially-sanctioned right not to have sexual
intercourse.

Coercion Punishing or threatening to punish noncompliance by
withdrawing resources or services or by sharing negative
feelings.

Deception Giving the date false information.

Body Language Using facial expression, posture, physical distance, and
relatively subtle gestures to communicate one's sexual
intentions.

Manipulation Hinting at sexual intentions by subtly altering one's

 

appearance, the setting or the topic of conversation.

 

116

 

TABLE 4

Muehlenhard’s et al. (1996) Responses to Unwanted Sexual Advances

 

Responses

 

She says, "I really care about you, but I'm not ready. Let's wait until the relationship is
stronger."

 

She says, "I'm scar ."

 

She says, "No!"

 

She yells, "No!"

 

She tells him she's on her period.

 

She asks him to take her home.

 

She getsup to leave.

 

She tells him it's against her beliefs and she wants to wait until marriage.

 

She says she has herpes (or another sexually-nansmitted disease).

 

She slaps his hands playfully, smiles, and says "no."

 

She responds with physical violence, such as kneeing him, biting him, slugging him,
kicking him, or clawing him.

 

She threatens him with physical violence, such as threatening to knee, bite, slug, kick
or claw him.

 

She slaps him.

 

She cries.

 

She says, "I'm tired and I have to get up early."

 

She calls him names such as jerk, creep, or sex-crazed maniac.

 

She screams.

 

 

She says, "I can't".

 

117

 

 

Responses

 

She says, "I'm not sure we should."

 

She tells him, "This is rape, and I'm calling the cops."

 

She pushes him away.

 

She breaks the mood, such as by beginning a conversation or suggesting going to get
something to eat.

 

She says she's afraid of getting pregnant.

 

She tells him she doesn't want to do anything beyond kissing and making out.

 

She says, "You hurt my feelings by trying to take advantage of me."

 

 

She cries, pleads, and asks God to help her.

 

118

 

TABLE 5

Research Questions One through Ten

 

RQ,:

What proportion of the participants report having been in a situation with a date
when they were forced to have sexual intercourse against their will?

 

RQ2:

What proportion of the participants report having been in a situation with a date
when they truly believed that the likelihood of forced sexual intercourse was
extremely high but did not occur?

 

RQ3:

What perceptions do the participants have regarding the proportion of women, in
general, who have been forced to have sexual intercourse against their will in a
situation with a date?

 

RQ4:

How big of a problem do the participants perceive date rape to be on college
campuses?

 

RQS:

What, if any, relationship is there between personal knowledge of others being
forced to have sexual intercourse by a date and perceptions of the proportion of
women who have been forced to have sexual intercourse by a date?

 

RQG:

What, if any, relationship is there between perceptions of the proportion of
women who have been forced to have sexual intercourse by a date and the
perceived problem of date rape on college campuses?

 

RQ7:

What, if any, relationship is there between personal knowledge of others being
forced to have sexual intercourse by a date and the perceived problem of
date rape on college campuses?

 

RQaz

How, if at all, do participants differ in perceptions of the percentage of women
who have experienced date rape based upon their own reported direct experience
level with date rape?

 

Rng

How, if at all, do participants differ in perceived likelihood of knowing someone
else who has experienced date rape based upon their own reported direct
exgfience level with date rape?

 

 

RQIO:

How, if at all, do participants differ in perceptions of the perceived problem of
date rape on college campuses based upon their own reported direct experience
level with date rape?

 

119

 

TABLE 6

Research Questions Eleven through Seventeen

 

Rer

: Which of Muehlenhard’s et al. (1996) 26 responses are rated and ranked by

the participants as direct or indirect?

 

RQ123

To what extent, if any, do the participants use direct strategies in general and
indirect strategies in general when confronted with a hypothetical date-rape
scenario?

 

RQn:

To what extent, if any, do the participants use particular direct and indirect
strategies when confronted with a hypothetical date-rape scenario?

 

RQM:

How do the participants prioritize the secondary goals when confronted with a
hypothetical date-rape scenario?

 

RQ153

How, if at all, do the participants differ in prioritization of the secondary goals
when confronted with a hypothetical date-rape scenario based upon their own
reported direct experience level with date rape?

 

RQrs:

How, if at all, do the participants differ in use of direct and indirect strategies
when confronted with a hypothetical date-rape scenario based upon their own
reported direct experience level with date rape?

 

 

RQn:

How, if at all, do the participants differ in evaluation of scenario realism based
upon their own rgvorted direct experience level with date rape?

 

120

 

TABLE 7

Hypotheses

 

Participants in the high degree of discrepancy conditions will rate the importance
of the primary goal to be significantly higher than will participants in the low
degree of discrepancy conditions.

 

 

Participants in the high degree of discrepancy conditions will rate their
willingness to persist in achieving the primary goal to be significantly higher
than will participants in the low degree of discrepancy conditions.

 

 

Participants in the hi gh-relational development conditions will produce
significantly fewer direct messages than will those in the low-relational
development conditions.

 

 

 

The perceived importance of the secondary goals as a set is negatively related to
message directness.

 

121

 

TABLE 8

Representation of Hypotheses One through Three

 

Relational Development

 

 

 

 

Degree of
Discrepancy Low High
1. Lower perceived importance 1. Lower perceived importance
of primary goal of primary goal
Low 2. Lower persistence 2. Lower persistence
3. More direct message 3. Fewer direct messages
1. Higher perceived importance 1. Higher perceived importance
of primary goal of primary goal
High 2. Higher persistence 2. Higher persistence

 

3. More direct messages

 

3. Fewer direct messages

 

122

 

TABLE 9

Retained Items for Secondary Goals

 

 

Factor
Loadings Identity Goals (alpha = .734)
.79 I do not want to violate my ethical standards (e.g., lying) in gettirflteve to stop.

 

.64

In this situation, I am concerned about maintaining my own ethical standards (e. g.,
not lying) in getting Steve to stop.

 

 

 

.66 I am concerned about being true to myself and my values in getting Steve to stop.
.48 I am concerned with stickinLto my own standards in getting Steve to stop.

 

 

Interaction Goals (alpha = .863)

 

.83

It is a high priority for me to avoid embarrassing Steve while I try to get Steve to
stga.

 

.95

I don’t want to say or do anything that might embarrass Steve.

 

.70

I don’t want to make Steve look stupid while I try to get him to stop.

 

 

 

Relational Resource Goals (alpha = .730)

 

.53

I am willing to risk possible damage to the relationship in order to get Steve to
stop. (R)

 

.56

I don’t care if getting Steve to st0p hurts our relationship. (R)

 

.68

It is a high priority for me to avoid damaging my present relationship with Steve in
getting him to stop.

 

.78

 

It is a high priority for me to avoid damaging my future relationship with Steve in
getting him to stop.

 

 

Personal Resource Goals (alpha = .745)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.61 My attempts to get Steve to stop may cause him to harm me.

.90 Steve may get rough if I try to get him to stop.

.59 Steve will become even more ggressive if I try to get him to stop.

.52 There may be an even greater threat to my safety if I push the issue.
Arousal Management Goals (alpha = .473)

.57 This situation with Steve does not make me nervous. (R)

.67 This situation with Steve worries me.

.24 Thinking about getting Steve to stop is upsetting to me.

 

 

1391;. (R) represents a reverse-coded item. Chi-square = 150.70, df = 133, critical figure
for model rejection = 161.1805. Adapted from Dillard et al. (1989). Used by permission
of the authors.

123

 

TABLE 10

Retained Items for Importance of Primary Goal,
Persistence, and Perception of Forced Sex

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Factor
Loadings Item Category
Importance of Primary Goal (alpha = .62)
.51 It is important to me to make sure that Steve stops.
.53 I am very concerned about getting Steve to stop.
.53 I really don’t care that much whether I can get Steve to stOp. (R)
.57 Getting Steve to stop is absolutely critical.
Persistence (alpha = .68)
.52 I will put a great deal of effort into getting Steve to stop.
.83 Even if Steve doesn’t stop at first, I will keep on trying.
.59 No matter what Steve does, I will not give up trying to get him to stop.
Perception of Forced Sex (alpha = .67)
.52 Steve intends to pursue his sexual advances including sexual intercourse at any
cost.
.61 Steve will force me to have sex.
.77 Steve will not stop his sexual advances even though he knows that I don’t want

 

to have sex.

 

Note, (R) represents a reverse-coded item.

124

 

TABLE 11

Retained Items for Relational Development and Degree of Discrepancy

 

Factor Item Category
Loadings

 

Relational Development (alpha = .88)

 

.74 I feel emotionally close to Steve.

 

.81 I feel attached to Steve.

 

.63 I believe that Steve feels emotionally close to me.

 

.70 I believe that Steve feels attached to me.

 

.72 I would say that Steve and I have gotten to know each other well.

 

.84 Steve’s and my relationship has developed to the point that I feel emotionally
connected to him.

 

 

 

Degree of Discrepancy (alpha = .43)

 

.50 What Steve wants sexually in this situation and what I feel comfortable doing
are two very different things.

 

.50 What I feel comfortable doing with Steve sexually and actually having sexual
intercourse are not that different from one another. (R)

 

 

.36 Before Steve became aggressive, I came close to having sexual intercourse
with him. (R)

 

 

Ngte. (R) represents a reverse-coded item.

125

 

TABLE 12

Analysis of Variance for Relational Development Index
by Scenario-Described Relational Development and Degree of Discrepancy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sum of Mean Significance
Source of Variation Squares if Square 11: of
Main Effects 1090.694 2 545.347 23.567 .000'”
Relational Development 1080.637 1 1080.637 46.700 .000'”
Degree of Discrepancy 14.375 1 14.375 .621 .432
Interactions 7.060 1 7.060 .305 .581
Variation Explained 1097.754 3 365.918 15.813 .000'"
Residual 4442.914 192 23.140
Total 5540.668 195 28.414
mp 5 .001 .

126

 

TABLE 13

Analysis of Variance for Degree of Discrepancy Index
by Scenario-Described Relational Development and Degree of Discrepancy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sum of Mean Significance
Source of Variation Squares 91 Square E; of F
Main Effects 1 17.980 2 58.990 17.423 .000.”
Relational Development 21.573 1 21.573 6.375 .012'
Degree of Discrepancy 98.103 1 98.103 28.990 .000'”
Interactions 2.434 1 2.434 .719 .397
Variation Explained 120.415 3 40.138 1 1.861 .000'"
Residual 649.723 192 3 .3 84
Total 1563.713 195 3.949

 

 

 

 

 

 

'n S .05. "'12 _<_ .001.

127

 

TABLE 14

Demographic Results

 

Item Results

 

The proportion of the participants who
reported having been in a situation with a
date when they were forced to have sexual
intercourse against their will.

26 12.3%

I:
ll

 

The proportion of the participants who
reported having been in a situation with a
date when they truly believed that the
likelihood of forced sexual intercourse was
extremely high but did not occur.

41 19.3%

It:
ll

 

The perceived proportion of women, in M = 44.29 SD = 19.30
general, who have been forced to have Min = 44.00 range = 1 - 87%
sexual intercourse against their will in a mode = 40.00

situation with a date.

 

The reported number of women known
personally to the participants who have _M_ = 1.55 SD = 2.38

been forced to have sexual intercourse range = 0 - 15
against their will.

 

 

4.04 SD .87

IE
11

The estimated size of the date-rape problem
on college campuses. (On 5-point scale)

 

 

128

 

TABLE 15

Level of Participants’ Own Reported Direct Experience Level with Date Rape:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Means
Means within Groups
Possible No Likelihood Rape
Dependent Variables Range Experience Experience Experience

Participants’ estimation of %

who have been date raped 0 — 100% 41.90 45.98 54.04
Reported number of rape

victims known to

participant O - oo 1.07 2.39 2.92
Perceived size of date-rape

problem on college

campuses 1 — 5 3.99 4.12 4.23
Personal resource goals 4 - 20 15.51 15.83 16.04
Relational resource goals 4 - 20 5.50 5.72 6.89
Interaction goals 3 - 15 4.65 4.65 6.23
Identity goals 4 - 20 10.65 12.08 11.17
Arousal management goals 3 — 15 12.78 12.63 12.79
Secondary goals as a set 18 - 90 49.50 52.16 53.41
Realism of scenario 4 — 20 16.92 18.20 18.50
Direct messages 0 — 10 2.29 2.66 2.39
Indirect messages 0 — 10 3.01 3.44 2.69

 

 

 

 

 

129

 

TABLE 16

Assessment of Relationship between Demographic and Information Variables

 

Variable One

Variable Two

Results

 

Personal knowledge of others
who have been forced to have
sexual intercourse

Perception of percentage of
women who have been forced
to have sexual intercourse by
a date

;=.1523, 25.05

 

Perception of percentage of
women who have been forced
to have sexual intercourse by
a date

Perceived problem of date
rape on college campuses

r = .2486, n 5 .001

 

 

Personal knowledge of others
who have been forced to have
sexual intercourse

 

Perceived problem of date
rape on college campuses

 

r= .1392, p_<_ .05

 

130

 

 

TABLE 17

Analysis of Variance for Estimated Percentage of Date-Rape Victims

by Own Reported Direct Experience Level with Date Rape

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sum of Mean Significance
Source of Variation Squares gf Square E. of
Between Groups 3405.632 2 1702.816 4.737 .01 "
Within Groups 74415.364 207 359.495
Total 77820.995 209
"n 5 .01.

131

 

 

TABLE 18

Analysis of Variance for Reported Number of Rape Victims Known to Participant
by Own Reported Direct Experience Level with Date Rape

 

 

 

 

 

Sum of Mean Significance
Source of Variation Sgares d Square L of F
Between Groups 1 10.604 2 55.302 10.638 .000'"
Within Groups 1070.898 206 5.199
Total 1181.502 208

 

 

 

 

 

 

"'n 5 .001.

132

 

TABLE 19

Pure-Indirect Strategies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strategy Descriptive Statistics
She slaps his hands playfully, smiles, Rating M = 2.96 g = 1.45
and says "no." Ranking M = 3.29 SD = 3.11 0% > 13
She says, "I'm tired and I have to get Rating M = 3.96 SD = 2.17
up early." Ranking M = 4.58 312 = 3.01 0% > 13
She breaks the mood, such as by Rating M = 4.04 SD = 1.48
beginning a conversation or Ranking M = 4.96 SD = 4.63 8.4% > 13
suggesting going to get something to
eat.
She says, "I'm not sure we should." Rating M = 4.04 S2 = 1.85
Ranking M = 6.83 SD = 3.62 4.2% > 13
She says she's afraid of getting Rating M = 4.50 SD = 1.75
pregnant. Ranking M = 8.33 SD = 4.62 12.6% > 13

 

 

1301;, Rating possible mean from 1 to 8 and Ranking possible mean from 1 to 26

133

 

TABLE 20

Varied-Indirect Strategies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strategy Descriptive Statistics
She says, "I really care about you, but Rating M = 6.21 SD = 1.77
I'm not ready. Let's wait until the Ranking M = 13.54 S12 = 6.55 50.2% > 13
relationship is stronger."
She says, "I'm scared." Rating M = 4.43 S12 = 1.62
RankingM = 10.29 S2 = 5.48 33.4% > 13 ’
She tells him she's on her period. Rating M = 4.11 SD = 1.81
Rankirng = 687$ = 5.32 16.7% > 13
She asks him to take her home. Rating M = 4.68 SD = 2.37 ‘
Ranking M= 11.38 Sg= 4.54 33.4% > 13 ‘
She gets up to leave. Rating M = 5.71 SD = 2.21
RankingM = 12.71 it 5.06 45.7% > 13
She tells him it's against her beliefs Rating M = 7.32 SD = 1.19
and she wants to wait until marriage. Ranking M = 15.04 &691 54.3% > 13 ,
She says she has herpes. Rating M = 4.93 SD = 2.23 _
RankingM: 9.12 §L= 5.45 20.9% > 13
She cries. Rating M = 5.39 SD = 1.66 :
RankingM = 14.04 Sg= 4.21 58.4% > 13 .
She calls him names such as jerk, Rating M = 5.64 SD = 1.85 '

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

creep, or sex-crazed maniac. Ranking M = 13.00 SD = 4.67 41% > 13
She says, "I can't." Rating M = 5.29 SQ = 2.05

RankingM = 11.83 S2= 5.27 37.7% > 13
She tells him she doesn't want to do Rating M = 5.96 SD = 2.01 .
anything beyond kissing and making Ranking M = 12.58 SD = 6.67 45.8% > 13 ’
out.
She says, "You hurt my feelings by Rating M = 5.82 SD = 1.59
trying to take advantage of me." RankingM = 10.83 S2 = 4.56 20.9% > 13
She cries, pleads, and asks God to Rating M = 6.68 SD = 1.94 '
help her. Ranking k1 7.54 jg = 7.29 60.9% > 13 V

 

 

 

 

Egg. Rating possible mean from 1 to 8 and Ranking possible mean from 1 to 26.

134

 

TABLE 21

Direct Strategies

 

Strategy

Descriptive Statistics

 

She yells, "No!"

Rating M = 8.00 SD = .00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RankingM = 24.75 g= 1.62 100% > 13
She says, "No!" Rating M = 7.79 32 = .50

RankingM = 22.83 &= 2.41 100% > 13
She responds with physical violence, Rating M = 7.75 SD = .97
such as kneeing him, biting him, Ranking M = 22.08 SD = 3.34 100% > 13
slugging him, kicking him, or
clawing him.
She tells him, "This is rape, and I'm Rating M = 7.46 SD = 1.45
calling the cops." Ranking M = 23.21 §D¢= 4.35 95.7% > 13
She threatens him with physical Rating M = 7.18 SD = 1.31
violence, such as threatening to knee, Ranking M = 18.79 812 = 3.82 91.7% > 13
bitez slugz kick or claw him.
She screams. Rating M = 6.82 SD = 1.63

Ranking M = 18.42 SD = 4.62 87.4% > 13
She slaps him. Rating M = 6.71 SD = 1.38

Ranking M = 17.96 S2 = 3.46 83.4% > 13
She pushes him away. Rating M = 6.64 SD = 1.47

RankingM= 15.96 E=481 71.9%> 13

 

111219, Rating possible mean from 1 to 8 and ranking possible mean from 1 to 26.

135

 

TABLE 22

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Qualitative Data
Direct Strategies
Direct Strategies n = 473 (36%) M = 2.23
Direct-Other Strategies n = 29 (2%) M = .14
Total Direct Strategies n = 502 (38%) M = 2.37
Indirect Strategies
Indirect Strategies n = 501 (37%) M = 2.36
Indirect-Other Strategies n = 145 (11%) M = .68
Total Indirect Strategies n = 646 (48%) M = 3.05
Uncodable Strategies
Uncodable Strategies n = 190 (14%) M = .90
Total
Total Strategies n = 1338 (100%) M = 5.42

 

 

Note. Using Scott's (1955) pi, intercoder reliability for total strategies = .90. Means
represent the average number of strategies used with possible mean ranges from 0 to 10.

136

 

TABLE 23

Most-Used Direct Strategies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strategy Frguency
She says, "No!" n = 159
32% of direct statements
12% of total statements
She responds with physical violence, such n = 114
as kneeing, biting, slugging, kicking, or 23% of direct statements
clawing. 9% of total statements
She tells him, "This is rape, and I'm n = 58
calling the cops." 12% of direct statements
4% of total statements
She pushes him away. n = 42
8% of direct statements
3% of total statements
She screams. n = 40
8% of direct statements
3% of total statements
Totals for Most-Used Direct Strategies n = 413
82% of total direct statements

 

 

137

 

TABLE 24

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most-Used Indirect Strategies
Strategy Frequency
She gets up to leave. n = 212
33% of indirect statements
16% of total statements
She breaks the mood, such as beginning a n = 57
conversation or suggesting going to get 9% of indirect statements
something to eat. 4% of total statements
She says, "I really care about you, but I'm n = 44
not ready. Let's wait until the relationship 7% of indirect statements
is stronger. " 3% of total statements
She tells him she doesn't want to do n = 43
anything beyond kissing and making out. 7% of indirect statements
3% of total statements
She says she has herpes (or another n = 26
sexually-transmitted disease). 4% of indirect statements
2% of total statements
Totals for Most-Used Indirect Strategies n = 382
59% of total indirect statements

 

 

138

 

TABLE 25

Assessment of Secondary-Goal Category Importance

 

Arousal Management Goal Items (Averaged Means = 4.26)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This situation with Steve does not make me nervous. (R) M = 4.68

This situation with Steve worries me. M = 4.60

Thinkirg about getting Steve to stop is upsetting to me. = 3.46
Personal Resource Goal Items (Averaged Means = 3.91)

My attempts to get Steve to stop may cause him to harm me. M = 3.96

Steve may get rough if I try to get him to stop. M = 4.28

Steve will become even more aggressive if I try to get him to stop. M = 3.92

 

There may be an even greater threat to my safety if I push the issue.

 

M = 3.48

 

 

Identity Goal Items (Averaged Means = 2.76)

 

 

 

I do not want to violate my ethical standards (e.g., lying) in getting Steve to M = 1.97
stop.

In this situation, I am concerned about maintaining my own ethical standards M = 2.09
(e. g., not lying) in getting Steve to stop.

I am concerned about being true to myself and my values in getting Steve to M = 3.50

stop.

 

I am concerned with sticking to my own standards in getting Steve to stop.

 

M=3.46 ‘

 

 

Interaction Goal Items (Averaged Means = 1.68)

 

 

It is a high priority for me to avoid embarrassing Steve while I try to get M = 1.62
Steve to st0p.
I don’t want to say or do anythingghat might embarrass Steve. M = 1.57

 

I don’t want to make Steve look stupid while I try to get him to stop.

 

M=1.86 ,

 

 

Relational Resource Goal Items fiveraged Means = 1.44)

 

 

 

 

 

I am willing to risk possible damage to the relationship in order to get Steve M = 1.45
to stop. (R)

I don’t care if getting Steve to stop hurts our relationship. (R) M = 1.55
It is a high priority for me to avoid damaging my present relationship with M = 1.38
Steve in getting him to stop.

It is a high priority for me to avoid damaging my future relationship with M = 1.37

Steve in getting him to stop.

 

 

 

Note, (R) represents a reverse-coded item. All means had possible range of 1 to 5.

139

 

Analysis of Variance for Averaged Scores for Interaction Goals
by Own Reported Direct Experience Level with Date Rape

TABLE 26

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sum of Mean Significance
Source of Variation Squares g Square 2 of
Between Groups 78.133 2 39.066 4.970 .008"
Within Groups 1627.182 207 7.861
Total 1705.314 209
"n 5 .01.

 

140

 

TABLE 27

Analysis of Variance for Interaction Goals by Scenario-Described Relational

Development and Degree of Discrepancy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sum of Mean Significance
Source of Variation Squares 9: Square J of E ,
Main Effects 37.987 2 18.993 2.215 .112
Relational Development 5.1 15 1 5.1 15 .597 .441
Degree of Discrepancy 34.536 1 34.536 4.027 .046'
Interactions 7.922 1 7.922 .924 .338
Variation Explained 45.908 3 15.303 1.785 .152
Residual 1517.805 177 8.575
Total 1563.713 180 8.687
‘n 5 .05.

141

TABLE 28

Analysis of Variance for Relational Resource Goals by Scenario-Described Relational

Development and Degree of Discrepancy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sum of Mean Significance
Source of Variation Squares 4‘ Square E of E. ‘
Main Effects 51.248 2 25.624 3.242 .041'
Relational Develg3ment 38.215 1 38.215 4.835 .029'
Degree of Discrepancy 16.250 1 16.250 2.056 .153
Interactions 20.874 1 20.874 2.641 .106
Variation Explained 72.122 3 24.041 3.042 .030'
Residual 1398.906 177 7.903
Total 1471.028 180 8.172
'n 5 .05.

142

TABLE 29

Date Rape Scenarios: Table of Means

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Possible LRD/ I-IRD/ LRD/ HRD/
Dependent Variables Range HDD HDD LDD LDD
Personal resource goals 4 - 20 16.18 15.48 15.69 15.29
Relational resource goals 4 — 20 5.41 5.66 5.24 6.55
Interaction goals 3 - 15 4.73 4.72 5.18 5.59
Identity goals 4 — 20 10.25 1 1.44 1 1.00 1 1.22
Arousal management goals 3 - 15 12.82 12.91 12.45 12.76
Secondary goals as a set 18 - 90 49.81 50.26 50.21 51.95
Importance of primary goals 4 — 20 19.24 19.17 19.42 18.94
Persistence in primary-goal
achievement 3 - 15 14.49 14.38 14.18 14.11

 

 

 

 

 

 

1:19;; LRD = Low Relational Development scenario. I-IRD = High Relational

Development scenario. LDD = Low Degree of Discrepancy scenario. HDD = High

Degree of Discrepancy scenario.

143

 

 

TABLE 30

Analysis of Variance for Averaged Scores for Evaluation of Scenario Realism
by Own Reported Direct Experience Level with Date Rape

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sum of Mean Significance
Source of Variation Squares fldf Square E of F
Between Groups 90.193 2 45.097 6.461 .01"
Within Groups 1437.893 206 6.980
Total 1528.086 208
"n 5 .01.

144

 

TABLE 31

Analysis of Variance for Use of Direct Strategies
by Scenario-Described Relational Development and Degree of Discrepancy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sum of Mean Significance
Source of Variation Squares if" Square IFF of
Main Effects 22.355 2 11.177 3.368 .036'
Relational Development 17.976 1 17.976 5.416 .021'
Degree of Discrepancy 4.603 1 4.603 1.387 .240
Interactions 6.075 1 6.075 1.831 .178
Variation Explained 28.430 3 9.477 2.855 .038'
Residual 686.992 207 3.319
Total 715.422 210 3.407
'n 5 .05.

145

 

APPENDIX J

FIGURES

146

 

 

 

 

 

 

26 -
E 21 a +LDD Scenario
0
'3 0 ‘5 +I-IDD Scenario
5 E o
z: 8‘ m
a —— x
2 $2
a H 16 "
13.41
11 .
9.16
8.25
6 u 1
Low Relational High Relational

Deve10pment Scenario Development Scenario

Signal, Participants' relational development index average as a function of scenario

type. LDD = Low Degree of Discrepancy scenario. HDD = High
scenario. Range of possible scores: 6 — 30.

147

Degree of Discrepancy

15-

 

 

 

 

 

 

14.04
12 .. 13.18
12.04
>. o
‘O-t o 1..
3 a: e
{50% 5 9 . +LRDScenario
5 g E +HRD Scenario
6 .
3 t 1
Low Degree of High Degree of

Discrepancy Scenario Discrepancy Scenario

Ejgnrgg, Participants' degree of discrepancy index average as a function of scenario
type. LRD = Low Relational Development scenario. I-IRD = High Relational
Development scenario. Range of possible scores: 3 - 15.

148

100 -
90 -
80 -
70 a
60 a

50 -
54.04

40 -
41.90 45.98

Estimated %

30-
20-
10-

 

O l r I

No Experience Likelihood Rape Experience
Experience

 

figur_e3, Participants’ estimation of the percentage of women who have been forced to
have sexual intercourse against their will in a dating situation, as a function of
participants’ own reported direct experience level with date rape.

149

3.5 -

3i
2.92
2.5-
2.39

“5 8.2 2~
3:22
222
a...”

Z.§n..1.5-

>
1...
1.07
0.5-
O I I I

 

 

No Experience Likelihood Experience Rape Experience

Ejgnrgfi, Reported number of raped women known personally by the participants, as a
function of participants’ own reported direct experience level with date rape.

150

15-

 

 

13 .
11 a
'5
O
0 V)
1: o
3 8 9 -
8 c2
2‘3
.E.
7 ..
5 _ //8.23
5.73
4.65
3 . t
No Experience Likelihood Rape Experience
Experience
aging; Participants’ averaged scores for interaction goals, as a function of

participants’ own reported direct experience level with date rape. Range of possible
scores: 3 - 15.

151

15-

 

 

 

 

 

 

13 -
11 .. + LDD Scenario 7
1:: 5’} + HDD Scenario
2 :s
g c?) 9 .
2 2;
5 o
7 .1
5 18 5.59
. A
5 ' F 1
4.73 4-72
3 . .
Low Relational High Relational
Development Scenario Development Scenario
Ejgtngfi, Participants’ interaction goal scores as a function of scenario-described

relational development and degree of discrepancy. LDD = Low Degree of Discrepancy.
HDD = High Degree of Discrepancy. Range of possible scores: 3 - 15.

152

20-

 

 

+ LDD Scenario
+ HDD Scenario

 

 

18-
16-
14-
-- 8
«101..
C00
§ 8% 12-
1333
12045
10-
8..
4 5.24

 

 

6.55

6 ‘ 5.41?/
H
5.66

 

Low Relational

Development Scenario

I

High Relational

Development Scenario

F igge 7. Participants' relational resource goal scores as a function of participants' own
reported direct experience level with date rape. LDD = Low Degree of Discrepancy.
HDD = High Degree of Discrepancy. Range of possible scores: 4 - 20.

153

20-

18 '

16 - 16.92

14-

Scenario
Realism
Scores
H
N
l

 

 

No Experience Likelihood Rape Experience
Experience

M Participants’ averaged scores for evaluation of scenario realism as a function of
participants’ own reported direct experience level with date rape. Range of possible
scores: 4 - 20.

154

10-

 

+ LDD Scenario
-I- HDD Scenario

 

 

 

Use of Direct
Strategies
M

 

 

 

4 ..
3.00
3 d
e— 2.09
2 - 2.32
2.1 1
1 q
0 A 1
Low Relational Development High Relational Development
Scenario Scenario

512121121 Participants' use of direct strategies as a function of scenario-described
relational development and degree of discrepancy. LDD = Low Degree of Discrepancy
scenario. HDD = High Degree of Discrepancy scenario. Range of possible scores:

0 - 10.

155