Content uploaded by Jessica A Turchik
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jessica A Turchik
Content may be subject to copyright.
Sexual Victimization Among Male College Students:
Assault Severity, Sexual Functioning, and Health Risk Behaviors
Jessica A. Turchik
Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System and Stanford University Medical School
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between college men’s
sexual victimization experiences, engagement in a number of health risk behaviors, and
sexual functioning. The study also examined sexual victimization by assault severity
categories and utilized a multiitem, behaviorally specific, gender-neutral measure.
Three hundred and two male college students were recruited for the current study from
a midsized Midwestern university. Of these men, 51.2% reported at least one sexual
victimization experience since age 16. The multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) results suggested that male sexual victimization is related to increased
weekly alcohol consumption, increased problematic drinking behaviors, increased
tobacco use, increased sexual risk-taking behaviors, and increased number of reported
sexual functioning difficulties. Each of these problematic behaviors was greater among
those who reported rape compared to no victimization, and some differences were also
found in relation to the sexual contact and sexual coercion groups. These findings have
important implications in sexual assault prevention and risk-reduction programming.
Keywords: male victimization, sexual assault, risk-taking behavior, sexual functioning, college,
substance use
Although the majority of adult sexual crimes
are committed by men against women, other
forms of sexual assault, such as those perpetrated
against men, are often ignored. It is estimated that
approximately 3% to 8% of American and British
men have experienced an adulthood incident of
sexual assault in their lifetime (Coxell, King,
Mezey, & Gordon, 1999; Elliott, Mok, & Bri-
ere, 2004; Sorenson, Stein, Siegel, Golding, &
Burnam, 1987; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006; U.S.
Department of Justice, 2000). Many male col-
lege students appear to have a history of sexual
victimization with reported rates of experienc-
ing unwanted sexual contact ranging
from 18.5% to 31% in the past year or academic
year (O’Sullivan, Byers, & Finkelman,1998;
Larimer, Lyndum, Anderson, & Turner, 1999;
Palmer, McMahon, Rounsaville, & Ball, 2009),
34% to 58% when asking students to provide
information since age 16 (Struckman-Johnson
& Struckman-Johnson, 1994; Struckman-
Johnson, Struckman-Johnson, & Anderson,
2003), and up to 70% when students provide
victimization experiences for the past 5 years
(Fiebert & Tucci, 1998). Although it is clear
that sexual coercion is common among male
undergraduates, studies that assess male sexual
victimization in college students have used a
variety of definitions and measures of sexual
victimization, which makes it difficult to com-
pare across studies.
Although research has demonstrated the po-
tential negative mental and physical health ef-
fects of male sexual victimization (e.g., Burnam
et al., 1988; Ratner et al., 2003; Tewksbury,
2007; Walker, Archer, & Davies, 2005a), only a
few studies have examined such issues among
college students. A recent study revealed that
college male victims (who reported either child-
hood or adult sexual victimization) reported in-
creased adulthood posttraumatic stress, hostil-
ity, depression, and general distress symptoms
(Aosved, Long, & Voller, in press). Another
study found that college men who reported be-
ing victims of sexual coercion endorsed a
This article was published Online First September 26, 2011.
Jessica A. Turchik, VA Palo Alto Health Care System,
National Center for PTSD; Department of Psychiatry and
Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University Medical School.
Research for this article was conducted while the author was
at Ohio University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed
to Jessica A. Turchik, VA Palo Alto, 795 Willow Road, MPD
PTSD -324, Menlo Park, CA 94025. E-mail: jturchik@
stanford.edu
Psychology of Men & Masculinity © 2011 American Psychological Association
2012, Vol. 13, No. 3, 243–255 1524-9220/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0024605
243
greater number of depressive symptoms and
increased alcohol consumption compared with
those men who did not report any coercion
(Larimer et al., 1999). Similarly, a recent study
by Palmer et al. (2009) found that college men
who reported experiencing unwanted sexual
contact reported greater alcohol use, fewer pro-
tective drinking-related strategies, and a greater
number of negative alcohol-related conse-
quences. Although Tewksbury and Mustaine
(2001) found that drug use variables were re-
lated to sexual victimization experiences in
male college students, they failed to find a re-
lationship with alcohol use. Although other
studies have demonstrated that college men
generally do not rate the consequences or their
reactions to a unwanted sexual experience as
highly negative, (e.g., Banyard et al., 2007;
Krahe´, Scheinberger-Olwig & Bieneck, 2003;
Struckman-Johnson, 1988; Struckman-Johnson
& Struckman-Johnson, 1994), it is unclear how
accurate or willing men would be in self-reporting
that unwanted sexual contact, especially from
women, caused negative sequelae. Given college
students’ high level of male rape myth acceptance
(Chapleau, Oswald, & Russell, 2008; Struckman-
Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1992), particu-
larly when women are the perpetrators, it is likely
that men may not be forthcoming about issues
related to sexual victimization. Further studies that
use comparisons of victimized and nonvictimized
college men are needed in which the variables of
interest are not presented to participants as being
directly linked to the victimization experience.
The association between male sexual vic-
timization and greater alcohol use, drug use,
and alcohol-related consequences (Larimer et
al., 1999; Palmer et al., 2010; Tewksbury &
Mustaine, 2001) suggests that other health
risk behaviors may also be associated as has
been found among college women who report
sexual assault (e.g., Brener, McMahon, War-
ren, & Douglas, 1999; Gidycz, Orchowski,
King, & Rich, 2008). In a large sample of
sexually active boys in 8th to 12th grades
from Vermont, sexual victimization was
found to be associated with a number of sex-
ual risk behaviors: earlier initiation of sexual
activity, greater number of male and female
sexual partners in the past 3 months, not using
a condom during last intercourse, and being
involved in more pregnancies (Shrier, Pierce,
Emans, & DuRant, 1998). College men are
already a high-risk group for a number of
health risk behaviors, including alcohol con-
sumption, problem alcohol-related behaviors,
drug uses, smoking, and sexual risk taking
behaviors (e.g., Johnston, O’Malley, Bach-
man, & Schulenberg, 2007; Levinson et al.,
2007; Ravert et al., 2009; Turchik & Garske,
2009; Weitzman, 2004), therefore given the
potential negative consequences (e.g., unin-
tended pregnancy, sexually transmitted infec-
tions, increased medical visits, increased risk
of revictimization, legal and financial conse-
quences) of these behaviors, it is important to
examine whether victimization status further
increases men’s risk for engaging in risky
behaviors.
Few studies have tested theoretical expla-
nations of male sexual assault (see Tewks-
bury & Mustaine, 2001, for an exception);
however, given that the demonstrated and hy-
pothesized relationships between sexual vic-
timization and health risk behaviors in college
men are similar to those of college women,
the theoretical explanations posited for this
relationship among female victims may also
apply to men victims. The posited theorized
relationships between sexual victimization and
health risk behaviors can be summarized as the
following: (a) men who engage in health risk
behaviors are more at risk to be victimized (due to
impairment in judgment, greater exposure to as-
sailants, viewed as an easier target by perpetra-
tors); (b) men who are victimized are subse-
quently more likely to engage in health risk be-
haviors (way to psychologically cope, distract
oneself, or self-medicate); or (c) there is a recip-
rocal relationship between these variables and vic-
timization (see Champion et al., 2004, and Kilpat-
rick, Acierno, Resnick, Saunders, & Best, 1997,
for discussion of these relationships). For instance,
a man who is sexually victimized may subse-
quently experience depression or other psycholog-
ical problems and begin binge drinking and par-
tying to distract himself. Alternatively, a man who
abuses substances and goes home with strangers
for sex may be at increased risk to be exposed to
potential assailants and be less likely to be able to
successfully resist an attack. Kilpatrick et al.
(1997) tested these three possible hypotheses in
relation to substance abuse and sexual victimiza-
tion among a sample of 3,006 women and found
support for a reciprocal relationship. Although
such explanations are helpful in understanding the
244 TURCHIK
potential relationships between sexual victimiza-
tion and health risk behaviors in men, it is likely
that there are sex-specific variables that may be
important. For instance, many male victims strug-
gle with issues related to masculinity and sexual
orientation (e.g., Walker, Archer, & Davies,
2005b) as being a victim is not consistent with
society’s heterosexual masculine ideal (Lisak,
1993). Such issues may lead men to be more
likely to engage in health risk behavior to cope
rather than disclosing their experience or seeking
treatment as prior research has indicated that col-
lege men are less likely to disclose unwanted
sexual contact or seek services for sexual victim-
ization compared to college women (Banyard et
al., 2007). Similarly, victims’ beliefs in male rape
myths or encountering others with such beliefs
(e.g., men cannot be raped, men who are raped are
homosexual) may also be strongly influential in
determining men’s reaction to sexual victimiza-
tion (see Turchik & Edwards, in press).
Another area of importance for male sexual
assault victims is sexual functioning, and al-
though few researchers have examined this
issue among this group, sexual concerns have
been noted to perhaps be “among the most
severe and longest lasting consequences for
victimized men” (Tewksbury, 2007, p. 31).
Unlike health risk behaviors, it is generally
theorized that sexual dysfunction is a conse-
quence of sexual victimization, although it is
unclear whether it is a direct consequence,
related to increases in health risk behaviors
such as substance abuse, or is related to psy-
chological sequeale such as depression. One
study of community men found that those
who reported sexual victimization reported a
greater number of dysfunctional sexual be-
havior symptoms on the Trauma Symptom
Inventory compared to those without a vic-
timization history (Elliot, Mok, & Briere,
2004). No studies have specifically examined
sexual functioning in male college students,
although Struckman-Johnson and Struckman-
Johnson (1994) did include a measure of sex-
ual well-being—which included three sub-
scales measuring sexual self-esteem, sexual
depression, and sexual preoccupation—and
did not find differences between men who had
experienced sexual coercion and those who
did not. Further exploration of the relation-
ship between sexual victimization and sexual
functioning is needed as it is currently un-
known if this is a problem associated with
assault for young college men. Such a finding
could have implications for their desire to
seek romantic relationships and satisfaction
within these relationships.
The goal of this study was to build on
existing research to examine the relationship
between college men’s sexual victimization
status and their engagement in a number of
risky health behaviors (alcohol consumptions,
problem drinking behaviors, drug use, sexual
risk taking) and sexual functioning (sexual
desire and sexual functioning problems).
Given that little research has examined health
risk factors related to college men’s sexual
victimization and no prior studies have exam-
ined sexual risk taking or functioning vari-
ables, this study sought to further the current
understanding of factors related to male sex-
ual victimization. The study also measured
each of these constructs without linking the
questions to an assault experience and mea-
sured all of these constructs before assessing
sexual victimization so that participants
would not be influenced by their responses to
the sexual victimization items. Further, this
study sought to examine sexual victimization
by severity and broke sexual victimization
status into four categories based on the sever-
ity of the “worse” victimization experience
(i.e., no victimization, unwanted sexual con-
tact, sexual coercion, and rape), rather than
only comparing victims to nonvictims, which
is more consistent with the way victimization
is often measured for women (i.e., Koss et al.,
2007; Koss, Gidycz, & Wisniewski, 1987).
The chosen measure of sexual victimization
was gender neutral, behaviorally specific, in-
cluded a range of potential coercive tactics
and sexual acts, and included substance
abuse-related assault as recommended by ex-
perts in the field of sexual victimization (Koss
et al., 2007; Struckman-Johnson, Struckman-
Johnson, & Anderson, 2003). It was hypoth-
esized that men who reported sexual victim-
ization would report more frequent engage-
ment in the health risk behaviors, more sexual
functioning problems, and lower sexual de-
sire, and that endorsement of these variables
would be highest among those with more
severe victimization experiences.
245MALE SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION
Method
Participants
Participants were 302 undergraduate men,
from a medium-sized Midwestern University,
the majority of whom were between the ages
of 18 to 23 (M⫽19.2). The majority of the
participants indicated they were heterosexual
(95.7%), Caucasian (92.4%), Christian (85%),
never married (100%), had parents’ whose an-
nual incomes were over $50,000 (74.7%), and
were in their first or second year of college
(83.4%). Approximately 56.3% of the students
reported that they were not in any kind of ro-
mantic relationship, 22.9% were in a dating
relationship, and 20.6% were in a long-term
monogamous relationship of 6 months or lon-
ger. Most of the participants (85.4%) reported
having consensual sexual experience (previous
oral, anal, or vaginal sex). Three participants
had a significant amount of missing data (i.e.,
only completing the demographics) and were
removed from the analyses leaving a total sam-
ple of 299. There was very little missing data
(less than 5%) in the current study and missing
data was handled using multiple imputation
prior to data analyses.
Measures
Demographics. Participants completed
several questions regarding their age, year in
school, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation,
past sexual behavior, marital status, dating sta-
tus, and parents’ annual income.
Sexual functioning. An item was con-
structed and used to obtain a count of sexual
functioning problems (during solitary and/or
dyadic situations). Participants were asked: “Do
you experience any of the following sexual
problems at least 25% of the time during sexual
situations?”. Participants were asked to circle
all of the sexual problems that applied to them.
The seven problems were based on the seven
sexual dysfunction disorders as categorized in
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision
(American Psychiatric Association, 2000): lack
of sexual desire, difficulty getting or maintain-
ing an erection, premature ejaculation, inability
to ejaculate, lack of orgasm, aversion to sexual
contact, and pain associated with sex. A total
sexual dysfunction score was derived based on
a total count of endorsed problems, with a score
range from 0 to 7.
Sexual desire. The Sexual Desire Inven-
tory (SDI; Spector, Carey, & Steinberg, 1996)
was used to assess both dyadic and solitary
sexual desire. The SDI is a cognitive self-report
measure that explores the strength of a person’s
sex drive and the desired frequency of sexual
behavior rather than the frequency of actual
behavior. Factor analysis has supported the ex-
istence of two factors: a dyadic (8 items) and a
solitary (3 items) factor (Spector et al., 1996).
Examples of items include “During the last
month, how often have you had sexual thoughts
involving a partner?” with responses ranging
from“0-Notatall” to“7-Manytimes a day”
on the dyadic subscale and “How important is it
for you to fulfill your desire to behave sexually
by yourself?” with responses ranging from“0-
Not at all Important” to“8-Extremely Impor-
tant” on the solitary subscale. Item scoring dif-
fers depending on the item but higher scores
represent higher level of sexual desire and can
be calculated by summing the items. Dyadic
desire scores range from 0 to 62 and solitary
scores range from 0 to 23. The internal consis-
tency for the dyadic and solitary desire scale
alphas for the current study were .87 and .86,
respectively.
Substance use. All the substance use vari-
ables were assessed using the Drinking and
Drug Habits Questionnaire (DDHQ; Collins,
Parks, & Marlatt, 1985). The 31-item DDHQ
assessed participants’ substance use employing
standardized definitions of what constitutes a
drink (e.g., one 4 oz. glass of wine). Partici-
pants’ report the number of drinks they have
each day of an average week and these numbers
which range from “0” to “11 or more” are used
to calculate a weekly drinking score which
ranges from 0 to 77. A second subscale assessed
problem drinking behaviors, such as getting
sick after drinking and getting DWIs from
drinking and driving, which was answered
“yes” or “no” with a score range of 0 to 9. A
third subscale assessed drug use by asking par-
ticipants about their usage of 13 different drugs
(e.g., marijuana, opiates, cocaine, inhalants) on
a 4-point “never used” to “regularly use” scale
with a score range of 0 to 39 with a fourteenth
question used to assess tobacco use on the same
4-point scale with a score range of 0 to 3. In the
246 TURCHIK
current study, the internal consistency alphas
for the weekly alcohol, problem drinking be-
haviors, and drug use subscales were .78, .73,
and .72, respectively.
Sexual risk-taking behavior. The 23-item
Sexual Risk Survey (SRS; Turchik & Garske,
2009) was used to assess the frequency of sex-
ual risk behaviors in the past six months. All
items pertain to the actual participant’s behavior
over the past six months and the scale was
designed for college students with or without
sexual experience. The survey measures a broad
range of sexual behaviors and each item is
scored 0 to 4 with a possible scale total range
of 0 to 92, with higher scores indicating greater
risk taking. The SRS, for example, asks partic-
ipants to write the number of times they had
“‘hooked up’ but not had sex with someone you
didn’t know or didn’t know well”, “had anal sex
without a condom”, and “had vaginal inter-
course without protection against pregnancy.”
The total score of the SRS can be used or five
subscale scores can be calculated; both the total
score and the subscale scores were used in the
current study. The SRS has evidenced conver-
gent and discriminant validity as well as good
internal consistency and test–retest reliability
(Turchik & Garske, 2009). In the current study,
the internal inconsistency reliability was .90 for
the total SRS score and .87, .81, .80, .90, and
.58 for the Sexual Risk Taking with Uncommit-
ted Partners, Risky Sex Acts, Impulsive Sexual
Behaviors, Intent to Engage in Risky Sexual
Behaviors, and Risky Anal Sex Acts subscales,
respectively.
Sexual victimization. Sexual victimiza-
tion was assessed using the Sexual Coercion
Tactics Scale (SCTS), which assesses sexual
coercion used by and used on both men and
women since the age of 16 years (Struckman-
Johnson et al., 2003). These surveys ask par-
ticipants to indicate how many times they
have either used coercive tactics to get some-
one to engage in sexual behaviors or how
many times they engaged in sexual behaviors
because someone used these tactics on them
and the gender of the other person involved.
There were 18 different tactics that were
listed for each of three types of sexual acts
(sexual behavior, oral sex, and anal–vaginal
sex) on both forms (whether they were the
user or recipient of the tactics) of the survey.
Only male victimization was used in this
study, both by male and female perpetrators.
Victimization status was broken down into
four victimization categories consistent with
studies of female sexual victimization (Koss
et al., 1987, 2007): no victimization, un-
wanted sexual contact, sexual coercion, and
rape (see Table 1). In this study, the internal
consistency reliability alphas of the SCTS
across the four categories for both male and
female perpetrators ranged from .70 to .85.
Procedure
Participants were recruited from under-
graduate psychology courses and volunteered
through an online experiment scheduling sys-
tem, participating for partial class credit. The
study was advertised as a research project that
examined numerous social, health, and per-
sonality factors. This study was part of a
larger study focused on measure validation
that is described in detail elsewhere (Turchik
& Garske, 2009). Participants gave informed
consent and the research was conducted in
compliance with the university’s Institutional
Review Board. Participants were administered
paper-and-pencil surveys in small group set-
tings, and they returned the surveys in a manila
envelope to the researcher. Measures were
given in a fixed order and were self-adminis-
tered. Because of the sensitive nature of the
study material, a clinical psychology graduate
student was available during all study sessions
in case participants experienced distress; how-
ever, no participants exhibited or reported any
problems or distress related to taking part in the
study. Each participant received a debriefing
form, which included local resources for sexual
education, STI and pregnancy testing, and
counseling services.
Data Analyses
Pearson’s bivariate correlations were ex-
amined for sexual victimization status (coded
as0⫽none, 1 ⫽unwanted sexual contact,
2⫽sexual coercion, and 3 ⫽rape) and all of
the health risk and sexual functioning vari-
ables included in the analyses described be-
low. Two one-way multivariate analyses of
variance (MANOVAs) were used to test the
effect of victimization status (none– unwanted
sexual contact–sexual coercion–rape) on
247MALE SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION
health risk behavior engagement and sexual
functioning. The first MANOVA was used to
examine the risk-taking variables (weekly
drinking amount, problematic drinking be-
haviors, smoking, drug use, sexual risk-taking
behaviors), and the second was used to exam-
ine the sexual functioning variables (dyadic
sexual desire, solitary sexual desire, number
of sexual dysfunctions). If the multivariate
test was significant, the univariate analyses of
variance (ANOVA) were then examined, and
if these were significant, Bonferroni post hoc
tests were then used to further examine the
pairwise comparisons. Given the effect of vic-
timization status on overall sexual risk-taking
behaviors, a follow-up multivariate analysis
of covariance (MANCOVA) was also run to
explore the effect of sexual victimization on
the five SRS subscale scores. Past sexual ex-
perience (whether the person has engaged in
consensual oral, anal, or vaginal sex; 0 ⫽no,
1⫽yes) was included as a covariate in this
analysis given that some of the SRS items
require past sexual experience with a partner
to score above a 0. Effect sizes are presented
in the form of partial eta squared and can be
generally interpreted as follows: .01, a small
effect size, .06, a medium effect size; and .14,
a large effect size (Cohen, 1977). Box’s M
tests, examination of bivariate scatterplots,
and screening for outliers was conducted be-
fore each analysis and revealed no violations
of MANOVA or MANCOVA assumptions.
Results
Frequency of Victimization and Bivariate
Correlations
In this study, 51.2% (N⫽153) of male partic-
ipants reported at least one experience of sexual
victimization since age 16 with 5.6% reporting
victimization experiences by male perpetra-
tors, 48.4% by female perpetrators, and 3% by
both sexes. When participants were placed in mu-
tually exclusive groups based on the most severe
type of victimization reported, 48.8% (N⫽146)
reported none, 21.7% (N⫽65) reported unwanted
sexual contact, 12.4% (N⫽37) reported sexual
coercion, and 17.1% (N⫽51) reported completed
rape (see Table 1).
Bivariate correlations revealed that all of the
variables except solitary sexual desire and one of
the five subscales of the SRS, Risky Anal Sex
Acts, were correlated with sexual victimization
status (see Table 2).
Table 1
Items Used to Measure Sexual Victimization by Type and Victimization Frequencies
Unwanted sexual contact Sexual coercion Rape
Frequency ⫽21.7% Frequency ⫽12.4% Frequency ⫽17.1%
Engaged in unwanted sexual behavior
(kissing, fondling, petting) but not
sex with someone because he or she:
Engaged in unwanted oral, vaginal,
or anal sex with someone
because he or she:
Engaged in unwanted oral, vaginal,
or anal sex with someone
because he or she:
Tried to talk you into it repeatedly
Told a lie
Questioned your sexuality
Said there must be something wrong
with you if you didn’t
Threatened to break up with you
Threatened to blackmail you
Threatened to harm themselves
They used their authority or position
Took advantage of you being drunk
or high
Purposely gave you drugs or alcohol
Blocked your retreat
Used physical restraint
Tied you up
Threatened to physically harm you
Threatened you with a weapon
Tried to talk you into it
repeatedly
Told a lie
Questioned your sexuality
Said there must be something
wrong with you if you didn’t
Threatened to break up with you
Threatened to blackmail you
Threatened to harm themselves
They used their authority or
position
Took advantage of you being
drunk or high
Purposely gave you drugs or
alcohol
Blocked your retreat
Used physical restraint
Tied you up
Threatened to physically harm
you
Threatened you with a weapon
248 TURCHIK
Sexual Victimization and Health Risk
Behaviors
A one-way MANOVA was conducted to ex-
amine the effect of sexual victimization on
health risk behavior engagement. The multivar-
iate test was significant, Wilks’s ⫽.83, F(15,
804) ⫽3.84, p⬍.001,
p
2
⫽.06, observed
power ⫽1.00, indicating significant differences
among the victimization categories on the com-
bined health risk variables. The univariate
ANOVA tests were then performed, and victim-
ization category differences were significant for
weekly drinking, problematic drinking behav-
iors, tobacco use, and sexual risk taking when
the alpha was set at .01 using a Bonferroni
correction. The effect sizes ranged from small
to medium. The Bonferroni post hoc analyses
revealed a number of differences between the
victimization groups (see Table 3).
Given the significance of sexual risk taking,
using the full SRS score, a one-way
MANCOVA was conducted to examine the ef-
fect of sexual victimization status on the five
SRS subscales scores. Sexual experience was
included as a dichotomous covariate.
MANCOVA results indicated significant differ-
ences among the victimization categories on the
combined sexual risk subscales, Wilks’s ⫽
.85, F(15, 800) ⫽3.16, p⬍.001,
p
2
⫽.05,
observed power ⫽.99. The covariate, sexual
experience, significantly influenced the com-
bined dependent variable, Wilks’s ⫽.76, F(5,
290) ⫽18.70, p⬍.001,
p
2
⫽.24, observed
power ⫽1.00. Analyses of covariance
(ANCOVAs) were conducted on the dependent
variables as follow-up tests to the MANCOVA,
demonstrating that victimization status differ-
ences were significant for three of the five sub-
scales—Sexual Risk Taking With Uncommitted
Partners, Impulsive Sexual Behaviors, and In-
tent to Engage in Risky Sexual Behaviors—
while controlling for sexual experience and us-
ing a more conservative alpha level of .01.
Effect sizes ranged from small to medium. Bon-
ferroni post hoc tests revealed a number of
significant differences (see Table 4).
Sexual Victimization and Sexual
Functioning
A one-way MANOVA was conducted to de-
termine the effect of sexual victimization status
on sexual functioning. The multivariate test was
significant, Wilks’s ⫽.83, F(9, 708) ⫽1.91,
p⬍.05,
p
2
⫽.02, observed power ⫽.84,
indicating significant differences among the
victimization categories on the sexual function-
ing variables. The univariate tests were then
performed, using a more conservative alpha
Table 2
Bivariate Correlations Among Health Risk Behaviors, Sexual Functioning Variables, and Sexual
Victimization Severity
Variable/Subscale 1 234567 8 9 1011121314
1. Sexual victimization
severity — .19
ⴱⴱ
.24
ⴱⴱ
.17
ⴱⴱ
.12
ⴱⴱ
.31
ⴱⴱ
.10
ⴱ
⫺.04 .30
ⴱⴱ
.29
ⴱⴱ
.13
ⴱⴱ
.32
ⴱⴱ
.10
ⴱ
.07
2. Weekly drinking — .57
ⴱⴱ
.37
ⴱⴱ
.29
ⴱⴱ
.48
ⴱⴱ
.19
ⴱⴱ
.15
ⴱⴱ
.01 .38
ⴱⴱ
.28
ⴱⴱ
.41
ⴱⴱ
.38
ⴱⴱ
.12
ⴱⴱ
3. Problematic drinking — .33
ⴱⴱ
.22
ⴱⴱ
.41
ⴱⴱ
.17
ⴱⴱ
.11
ⴱⴱ
.14
ⴱⴱ
.31
ⴱⴱ
.21
ⴱⴱ
.38
ⴱⴱ
.35
ⴱⴱ
.09
ⴱ
4. Drug use — .53
ⴱⴱ
.24
ⴱⴱ
.19
ⴱⴱ
.12
ⴱⴱ
.06 .21
ⴱⴱ
.16
ⴱⴱ
.20
ⴱⴱ
.14
ⴱⴱ
.04
5. Tobacco use — .19
ⴱⴱ
.15
ⴱⴱ
.19
ⴱⴱ
.05 .20
ⴱⴱ
.04 .16
ⴱⴱ
.21
ⴱⴱ
⫺.02
6. Sexual risk taking — .29
ⴱⴱ
.19
ⴱⴱ
.20
ⴱⴱ
.86
ⴱⴱ
.65
ⴱⴱ
.74
ⴱⴱ
.56
ⴱⴱ
.40
ⴱⴱ
7. Dyadic sexual desire — .36
ⴱⴱ
.10
ⴱ
.20
ⴱⴱ
.24
ⴱⴱ
.15
ⴱⴱ
.25
ⴱⴱ
.14
ⴱⴱ
8. Solitary sexual desire — ⫺.03 .10
ⴱ
.07 .15
ⴱⴱ
.27
ⴱⴱ
.11
ⴱⴱ
9. Sexual dysfunctions — .18
ⴱⴱ
.16
ⴱⴱ
.14
ⴱⴱ
.02 .14
ⴱⴱ
10. Risk with uncommitted
partners — .41
ⴱⴱ
.59
ⴱⴱ
.37
ⴱⴱ
.23
ⴱⴱ
11. Risky sex acts — .19
ⴱⴱ
.13
ⴱⴱ
.35
ⴱⴱ
12. Impulsive sexual
behaviors — .45
ⴱⴱ
.09
ⴱ
13. Intent to engage in
sexual risk — .06
14. Risky anal sex —
ⴱ
pⱕ.05.
ⴱⴱ
pⱕ.01.
249MALE SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION
Table 3
Multivariate Analyses of Variance Examining Effects of Sexual Victimization Status on Health Risk Behaviors and Sexual Functioning
Variables
Sample
M(SD) Nonvictim
Unwanted sexual
contact
Sexual
coercion Rape Wilk’s ⌳Univariate FPartial
2
Weekly drinking 26.24 (13.83) 22.08 (13.04)
a,b,c
27.60 (12.36)
a
29.73 (12.03)
b
33.86 (15.03)
c
.826
ⴱⴱⴱ
11.70
ⴱⴱⴱ
.11
Problematic drinking 3.38 (2.11) 2.73 (1.96)
a,b,c
3.75 (2.04)
a
4.08 (1.93)
b
4.25 (2.17)
c
10.50
ⴱⴱⴱ
.10
Drug use 7.11 (3.89) 6.52 (3.90) 7.62 (3.59) 7.24 (4.02) 8.04 (3.93) 2.51 .03
Tobacco use 1.10 (1.12) .92 (1.08)
a
1.20 (1.18) 1.14 (1.08) 1.47 (1.14)
a
3.40
ⴱⴱ
.04
Sexual risk taking 19.86 (14.52) 16.27 (13.88)
a
19.63 (13.13)
b
21.54 (13.32) 29.18 (14.84)
a,b
11.18
ⴱⴱⴱ
.10
Dyadic sexual desire 36.63 (10.95) 36.90 (11.56) 37.67 (10.14) 36.38 (10.26) 37.04 (10.83) .943
ⴱ
0.34 .00
Solitary sexual desire 8.02 (5.16) 7.55 (5.08) 9.20 (5.22) 7.86 (5.08) 7.98 (5.31) 1.54 .02
Sexual dysfunctions 0.51 (0.79) 0.41 (0.75)
a
0.52 (0.69) 0.43 (0.56) 0.84 (1.03)
a
4.15
ⴱⴱ
.04
Note. Means (SD) in the same row with the same superscripts differ at p⬍.05 based on Bonferroni post hoc comparisons.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p⬍.001.
Table 4
Multivariate Analysis of Covariance Examining Effects of Sexual Victimization Status on Sexual Risk Survey Subscales
Variables
Sample
M(SE) Nonvictim
Unwanted
sexual contact
Sexual
coercion Rape Wilk’s ⌳Univariate FPartial
2
Risk with uncommitted partners 5.64 (0.37) 4.49 (0.47)
a
4.63 (0.70)
b
5.52 (0.93) 7.93 (0.79)
a,b
.826
ⴱⴱⴱ
4.87
ⴱⴱ
.05
Risky sex acts 5.19 (0.28) 5.75 (0.36) 4.52 (0.52) 4.67 (0.70) 5.82 (0.60) 1.78 .02
Impulsive sexual behaviors 6.03 (0.27) 4.42 (0.35)
a
5.69 (0.51)
b
5.45 (0.68)
c
8.58 (0.58)
a,b,c
12.22
ⴱⴱⴱ
.11
Intent to engage in sexual risk 3.20 (0.20) 2.48 (0.25)
a
3.34 (0.37) 3.33 (0.49) 3.69 (0.42)
a
2.64
ⴱⴱ
.03
Risky anal sex 0.72 (0.13) 0.97 (0.16) 0.50 (0.24) 0.47 (0.32) 0.97 (0.27) 1.39 .01
Note. All means and standard errors are adjusted for the covariate of sexual experience. Means (SEs) in the same row with the same subscripts differ at p⬍.05 based on Bonferroni
post hoc comparisons.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p⬍.001.
250 TURCHIK
level of .01, and victimization category differ-
ences were significant only for number of sex-
ual dysfunctions (see Table 3), accounting for a
modest amount of the variance. The Bonferroni
post hoc analyses revealed that those men who
experienced rape reported a greater number of
sexual dysfunctions compared with those who
reported no victimization.
Overall, results from this study demonstrate
that (a) over half of the college men reported
some form of sexual victimization; (b) men with
sexual victimization experiences reported
higher levels of weekly drinking, problematic
drinking, tobacco use, sexual risk-taking behav-
ior, and sexual dysfunction; and (c) those men
with more severe sexual victimization experi-
ences generally reported engaging in more
health risk behaviors and experiencing more
sexual dysfunctions than those who reported
less severe experiences.
Discussion
The primary goal of this study was to exam-
ine the relationship between sexual victimiza-
tion among college men and engagement in a
number of health risk behaviors and sexual
functioning. These relationships have largely
not been addressed among college men, and
research on male sexual victimization in general
has been understudied (Chapleau et al., 2008;
Davies, 2002; Ratner et al., 2003). These results
demonstrated, as hypothesized, that sexual vic-
timization among college men is related to
higher levels of alcohol use, problem drinking
behaviors, tobacco use, sexual risk behaviors,
and more sexual functioning problems; how-
ever, neither drug use nor sexual desire were
related in the presence of the other predictors.
This study also demonstrated that health risk
behaviors and sexual functioning problems
were greatest among those who experienced
more severe victimization with all of these
problematic behaviors being greater among
those who reported rape compared to no victim-
ization. These findings underscore the impor-
tance of using a multiitem behaviorally specific
measure versus a one or two item measure that
does not allow one to differentiate assault types.
The findings that health risk behaviors are
related to sexual victimization are consistent
with prior findings demonstrating that college
men who report victimization have higher rates
of alcohol consumption and alcohol-related
consequences (Larimer et al., 1999; Palmer et
al., 2010), as well as research with college
women (e.g., Brener et al., 1999; Gidycz et al.,
2008) and male adolescents (Shrier et al., 1998).
Given the cross-sectional design of this study,
the directionality of the relationship between
the health risk behaviors and sexual victimiza-
tion cannot be determined. As noted, three pos-
sible mechanisms for these associations have
been posited: (a) men who engage in health risk
behaviors are more at risk to be victimized; (b)
men who are victimized are subsequently more
likely to engage in health risk behaviors; or (c)
there is a reciprocal relationship between these
variables and victimization (see Champion et
al., 2004, and Kilpatrick, Acierno, Resnick,
Saunders, & Best, 1997, for discussion of these
relationships). One possible explanation for
these results may be that men who experience
victimization are more likely to experience
mental health problems and then subsequently
engage in risky behavior such as substance
abuse to cope or self-medicate rather than seek-
ing treatment. Additionally, it is important to
note that variables such as a man’s adherence to
traditional beliefs about masculinity, endorse-
ment in male rape beliefs, and sexual orienta-
tion may play a role in determining the extent of
these relationships. Aosved et al. (in press) sug-
gested, for instance, that male victims with
stronger adherence to traditional masculine ide-
als may experience greater denial and shame
and be less likely to seek social support or help.
These men may then in turn be more likely to
engage in unhealthy risk behaviors to cope
rather than talking to family or friends or seek-
ing treatment. Although no longitudinal studies
have been able to tease apart these possible
explanations among male victims, these data
clearly indicate that men who are sexually vic-
timized are engaging in a greater number of
problematic risk behaviors, which is particu-
larly concerning given college men, regardless
of victimization status, are at high risk to en-
gage in these behaviors (e.g., Johnston et al.,
2007; Turchik & Garske, 2009).
Further examination of the association be-
tween sexual risk taking and sexual victimiza-
tion status was possible by examining the five
subscales of the Sexual Risk Survey. It is note-
worthy that the three subscales that were signif-
icant—Sexual Risk Taking With Uncommitted
251MALE SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION
Partners, Impulsive Sexual Behaviors, and In-
tent to Engage in Risky Sexual Behaviors—are
the three that include the items related to seek-
ing out and engaging in impulsive and casual
sexual experiences. Such experiences may put a
person at more risk to experience sexual victim-
ization by being alone with a greater number of
potential assailants and engagement in other
risk behaviors, such as substance abuse, which
may impair one’s judgment or ability to resist
an assault. Although, given that the directional-
ity is unclear, it could also be that men who are
victimized are subsequently more likely to en-
gage in sexual risk behaviors because of medi-
ating psychological issues or because they feel a
need to “prove” their masculinity or heterosex-
uality.
The hypotheses related to sexual functioning
were partially supported by the data. Although
both decreased dyadic sexual desire and number
of sexual functioning difficulties were related to
sexual victimization, only sexual functioning
difficulties were related in the presence of the
other predictors. The finding that solitary sexual
desire ratings did not differ by victimization
status is not that surprising, but it is noteworthy
that dyadic desire was not affected. The in-
creased number of sexual functioning difficul-
ties reported by men who were victimized is
consistent with findings among community men
(Elliott et al., 2004), and demonstrate the need
for more research on this understudied topic.
Whereas the findings from this research pro-
vide important information on college male sex-
ual victimization, there are some limitations to
this study. First, the homogeneous nature of the
sample makes it difficult to generalize these
findings to college men in more culturally di-
verse settings or to noncollege men. Second, as
discussed previously, given the cross-sectional
design of this study, it is not possible to deter-
mine causality and it is recommended that fu-
ture research use prospective designs to further
explore these relationships. Another limitation
is that although it is noted that mental health
problems as well as men’s beliefs about mascu-
linity, sexual identity, and sexual orientation
may be important in providing further examina-
tion of these relationships, these variables were
not included in this study. Last, this study did
not rely on legal definitions to define the cate-
gories of sexual victimization. However, given
that the legal institution has not historically
recognized male sexual victimization and defi-
nitions and laws are not consistent across U.S.
states or countries (see Turchik & Edwards, in
press, for a discussion), sexual victimization
was measured in a behaviorally specific gender-
neutral manner consistent with the measure-
ment of female sexual victimization.
Despite the above limitations, this investiga-
tion provides some initial information about
variables that are related to male sexual victim-
ization among college students. These findings
suggest that male sexual victimization is related
to a number of negative behaviors and problems
and is an issue that needs to be addressed on
college campuses. Awareness and education on
male sexual victimization is needed to prevent
victimization and support victims, especially
given that college men are less likely to disclose
unwanted sexual experiences, less knowledge-
able about rape crisis resources, indicate less
willingness to use sexual assault support ser-
vices if they needed them, and are less likely to
report attending a rape prevention program than
college women (Banyard et al., 2007). Unfortu-
nately, almost all sexual assault risk reduction
and prevention programming focus on women
as potential victims and men as potential perpe-
trators; however, a more recent type of pro-
gramming has focused on men and women as
bystanders of sexual assault who have the
power to intervene and prevent sexual assault
(e.g., Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2004).
This type of approach has the potential to in-
clude male victimization issues and lead to
changes in peer norms related to male and fe-
male rape, and ultimately, decreases in victim-
ization rates. Further, given the relationships
between substance use, sexual risk taking, and
sexual victimization in both college men and
women, prevention and intervention programs
that combine information on health risk behav-
iors and sexual victimization may be appropri-
ate for college students of both sexes.
In addition to implications for further re-
search and college campus awareness and pre-
vention programming, the results of this study
also have implications for clinical treatment.
Given that college men report being less likely
to disclose or seek help if they were sexually
assaulted (Banyard et al., 2007), outreach by
mental health professionals and sexual assault
organization is needed to make men aware of
the availability of these services and to encour-
252 TURCHIK
age treatment seeking. Further, it is likely that
many men who do seek treatment for symptoms
or problems related to sexual assault may not
report the sexual victimization but instead pres-
ent only with secondary issues such as sub-
stance abuse or mood symptoms. This high-
lights the importance for universal sexual
violence screening for both men and women
patients (Probst, Turchik, Zimak, & Huckins,
2011), and clinicians should be familiar with
behavioral indicators of sexual assault among
men (see Yeager & Fogel, 2006). Given that
men may feel uncomfortable discussing victim-
ization experiences, clinicians may want to tai-
lor therapy to the unique needs of men (e.g.,
Englar-Carlson & Stevens, 2006; Rabinowitz &
Cochran, 2002). In particular, issues around
sexual functioning, sexual identity, sexual ori-
entation, and male rape myths may be important
in the context of treatment, as counselors and
other health care professionals need to be aware
of and educated about these issues as they may
be particularly prevalent among male victims.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnos-
tic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th
ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
Aosved, A., Long, P., & Voller, E. (in press). Sexual
revictimization and adjustment in college men.
Psychology of Men & Masculinity. doi:10.1037/
a0020828
Banyard, V., Plante, E., & Moynihan, M. (2004).
Bystander education: Bringing a broader commu-
nity perspective to sexual violence prevention.
Journal of Community Psychology, 32, 61–79. doi:
10.1002/jcop.10078
Banyard, V., Ward, S., Cohn, E., Plante, E., Moor-
head, C., & Walsh, W. (2007). Unwanted sexual
contact on campus: A comparison of women’s and
men’s experiences. Violence & Victims, 22, 57–70.
doi:10.1891/vv-v22i1a004
Brener, N. D., McMahon, P. M., Warren, C. W., &
Douglas, K. A. (1999). Forced sexual intercourse
and associated health-risk behaviors among female
college students in the United States. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 252–259.
doi:10.1037/0022-006X.67.2.252
Burnam, M., Stein, J., Golding, J., Siegel, J., Soren-
son, S., Forsythe, A., & Telles, C. (1988). Sexual
assault and mental disorders in a community pop-
ulation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-
chology, 56, 843– 850. doi:10.1037//0022-
006X.56.6.843
Champion, H., Foley, K., Durant, R., Hensberry, R.,
Altman, D., & Wolfson, M. (2004). Adolescent
sexual victimization, use of alcohol and other sub-
stances, and other health risk behaviors. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 35, 321–328.
Chapleau, K., Oswald, D., & Russell, B. (2008).
Male rape myths: The role of gender, violence, and
sexism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23,
600 – 615. doi:10.1177/0886260507313529
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the
behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Academic
Press.
Collins, R., Parks, G., & Marlatt, G. A. (1985). Social
determinants of alcohol consumption: The effects
of social interaction and model status on the self-
administration of alcohol. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 53, 189 –200. doi:
10.1037/0022-006X.53.2.189
Coxell, A., King, M., Mezey, G., & Gordon, D.
(1999). Lifetime prevalence, characteristics and
associated problems of non-consensual sex in men:
Cross sectional survey. British Medical Journal,
318, 846 – 850.
Davies, M. (2002). Male sexual assault victims: A
selective review of the literature and implications
for support services. Aggression and Violent Be-
havior, 7, 203–214. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789
(00)00043-4
Elliott, D. M., Mok, D. S., & Briere, J. (2004). Adult
sexual assault: Prevalence, symptomatology, and
sex differences in the general population. Journal
of Traumatic Stress, 17, 203–211. doi:10.1023/B:
JOTS.0000029263.11104.23
Englar-Carlson, M., & Stevens, M. (Eds.). (2006). In
the room with men: A casebook of therapeutic
change. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Fiebert, M., & Tucci, L. (1998). Sexual coercion:
Men victimized by women. Journal of Men’s Stud-
ies, 6, 127–133.
Gidycz, C., Orchowski, L., King, C., & Rich, C.
(2008). Sexual victimization and health-risk be-
haviors: A prospective analysis of college women.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 744 –763.
doi:10.1177/0886260507313944
Johnston, L., O’Malley, P., Bachman, J., & Schulen-
berg, P. (2007). Monitoring the future national
survey results on drug use, 1975–2006: Volume II,
College students and adults ages 19 –45 (NIH
Publication No. 07– 6206). Bethesda, MD: Na-
tional Institute on Drug Abuse.
Kilpatrick, D., Acierno, R., Resnick, H., Saunders,
B., & Best, C. (1997). A two-year longitudinal
analysis of the relationship between violent assault
and alcohol and drug use in women. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 834 – 847.
doi:10.1037/0022-006X.65.5.834
253MALE SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION
Koss, M., Abbey, A., Campbell, R., Cook, S., Norris,
J. Testa, M., & White, J. (2007). Revising the SES:
A collaborative process to improve assessment of
sexual aggression and victimization. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 31, 357–370. doi:10.1111/
j.1471-6402.2007.00385.x
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. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162–170.
doi:10.1037/0022-006X.55.2.162
Krahe´, B., Scheinberger-Olwig, R., & Bieneck, S.
(2003). Men’s reports of non-consensual sexual
interactions: Prevalence and impact. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 32, 165–175. doi:10.1023/A:
1022456626538
Larimer, M., Lydum, A., Anderson, B., & Turner, A.
(1999). Male and female recipients of unwanted
sexual contact in a college student sample: Preva-
lence rates, alcohol use, and depression symp-
toms. Sex Roles, 40, 295–308. doi:10.1023/A:
1018807223378
Levinson, A., Campo, S., Gascoigne, J., Jolly, O.,
Zakharyan, A., & Tran, Z. (2007). Smoking, but not
smokers: Identity among college students who
smoke cigarettes. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 9,
845– 852. doi:10.1080/14622200701484987
Lisak, D. (1993). Men as victims: Challenging cul-
tural myths. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 6, 577–
580. doi:10.1007/BF00974326
O’Sullivan, L., Byers, E., & Finkelman, L. (1998). A
comparison of male and female college students’
experiences of sexual coercion. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 22, 177–195. doi:10.1111/
j.1471-6402.1998.tb00149.x
Palmer, R. S., McMahon, T. J., Rounsaville, B. J., &
Ball, S. A. (2010). Coercive sexual experiences, pro-
tective behavioral strategies, alcohol expectancies
and consumption among male and female college
students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25,
1563–1578. doi:10.1177/0886260509354581
Probst, D., Turchik, J., Zimak, E., & Huckins, J.
(2011). Assessment of sexual assault in clinical
practice: Available screening tools for use with
different adult populations. Journal of Aggression,
Maltreatment, and Trauma, 20, 199 –226. doi:
10.1080/10926771.2011.546754
Rabinowitz, F. E., & Cochran, S. V. (2002). Deep-
ening psychotherapy with men. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Ratner, P., Johnson, J., Shoveller, J., Chan, K., Mar-
tindale, S., Schilder, A., & Hogg, R. (2003). Non-
consensual sex experienced by men who have sex
with men: Prevalence and association with mental
health. Patient Education and Counseling, 49, 67–
74. doi:10.1016/S0738-3991(02)00055-1
Ravert, R. D., Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L.,
Kim, S. Y., Weisskirch, R. S., & Bersamin, M.
(2009). Sensation seeking and danger invulnerabil-
ity: Paths to college student risk-taking. Personal-
ity and Individual Differences, 47, 763–768. doi:
10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.017
Shrier, L., Pierce, J., Emans, S., & DuRant, R.
(1998). Gender differences in risk behaviors asso-
ciated with forced or pressured sex. Archives of
Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 152, 57– 63.
Sorenson, S. B., Stein, J. A., Siegel, J. M., Golding,
J. M., & Burnam, M. A. (1987). The prevalence of
adult sexual assault: The Los Angeles epidemio-
logic catchment area project. American Journal of
Epidemiology, 126, 1154 –1164.
Spector, I., Carey, M., & Steinberg, L. (1996). The
Sexual Desire Inventory: Development, factor,
structure, and evidence of reliability, Journal of
Sex & Marital Therapy, 22, 175–190.
Struckman-Johnson, C. (1988). Forced sex on dates: It
happens to men, too. Journal of Sex Research, 24,
234 –241. doi:10.1080/00224498809551418
Struckman-Johnson, C., & Struckman-Johnson, D.
(1992). Acceptance of male rape myths among
college men and women. Sex Roles, 27, 85–100.
doi:10.1007/BF00290011
Struckman-Johnson, C., & Struckman-Johnson, D.
(1994). Men pressured and forced into sexual ex-
perience. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23, 93–114.
doi:10.1007/BF01541620
Struckman-Johnson, C., Struckman-Johnson, D., &
Anderson, P. B. (2003). Tactics of sexual coercion:
When men and women won’t take no for an an-
swer. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 76 – 86. doi:
10.1080/00224490309552168
Tewksbury, R. (2007). Effects of sexual assaults on
men: Physical, mental and sexual consequences.
International Journal of Men’s Health, 6, 22–35.
doi:10.3149/jmh.0601.22
Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. (2001). Lifestyle
factors associated with the sexual assault of men:
A routine activity theory analysis. Journal of
Men’s Studies, 9, 153–182.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2006). Extent, nature,
and consequences of rape victimization: Find-
ings from the National Violence Against Women
Survey (No. NCJ210346): Washington DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Jus-
tice.
Turchik, J. A., & Edwards, K. E. (in press). Myths
about male rape: A literature review. Psychology
of Men & Masculinity
Turchik, J. A., & Garske, J. P. (2009). Measurement
of sexual risk taking among college students. Ar-
chives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 936 –948. doi:
10.1007/s10508-008-9388-z
U.S. Department of Justice. (2000). Full report of the
prevalence, incidence, and consequences of vio-
254 TURCHIK
lence against women. Retrieved from http://
www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/nij/183781.txt
Walker, J., Archer, J., & Davies, M. (2005a). Effects
of male rape on psychological functioning. British
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44, 445– 451. doi:
10.1348/014466505X52750
Walker, J., Archer, J., & Davies, M. (2005b). Effects
of rape on men: A descriptive analysis. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 34, 69 – 80. doi:10.1007/s10508-
005-1001-0
Weitzman, E. (2004). Poor mental health, depression,
and associations with alcohol consumption,
harm, and abuse in a national sample of young
adults in college. Journal of Nervous and Mental
Disorders, 192, 269 –277. doi:10.1097/
01.nmd.0000120885.17362.94
Yeager, J. C., & Fogel, J. (2006). Male disclosure of
sexual abuse and rape. Topics in Advanced Prac-
tice Nursing, 6. http://www.medscape.com/
viewarticle/528821
Received February 15, 2011
Revision received May 27, 2011
Accepted June 5, 2011 䡲
255MALE SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION
A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Psychology of Men & Masculinity
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.