Content uploaded by Richard L Ogle
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Richard L Ogle on May 20, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
http://vaw.sagepub.com/
Violence Against Women
http://vaw.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/10/20/1077801214555472
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/1077801214555472
published online 20 October 2014Violence Against Women
Nora E. Noel, Richard L. Ogle, Stephen A. Maisto and Lee A. Jackson, Jr.
What Do Women Want? A Qualitative Study of Dating
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at:Violence Against WomenAdditional services and information for
http://vaw.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://vaw.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
What is This?
- Oct 20, 2014OnlineFirst Version of Record >>
by guest on October 21, 2014vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 21, 2014vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Violence Against Women
1 –21
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1077801214555472
vaw.sagepub.com
Article
What Do Women Want? A
Qualitative Study of Dating
Nora E. Noel1, Richard L. Ogle1,
Stephen A. Maisto2, and Lee A. Jackson, Jr.1
Abstract
Many approaches to decrease unwanted sex for women emphasize enhanced risk
recognition. However, women often remain in risky situations despite recognition;
so we need to understand the attractions of normative dating and sex. In this focus
group study, 45 young adult women discussed their attractions to men, dating, and
sex. Themes emerged describing conflicts between what they wanted, dating realities,
desire for “traditional” behavior from the man, alcohol use, sexual arousal (hers and
his), indirect communication about sex, feeling “obligated,” and enhanced self-esteem.
Results suggest improving risk-recognition programs by examining and clarifying
women’s goals for dating and putting positive emphasis on “have fun, achieve your
goals, but try to avoid harm in the process.”
Keywords
alcohol use, risk recognition, sexual coercion, women’s dating goals
Dating is an important and widespread courtship behavior in Western cultures
(Mongeau, Jacobsen, & Donnerstein, 2007). Young adults engage in other types of
sexual relationships such as “friends with benefits” (sexual encounters between friends
with no intention of romantic ties; Afifi & Faulkner, 2000) or “hooking up” (casual sex
with relative strangers; Paul, McManus, & Hayes, 2000; also see Bogle, 2008, for a
detailed study of hooking up and dating among college students). However, dating is
still commonly seen as the normative pathway to long-term romantic relationships and
possibly marriage (Mongeau, Serewicz, & Therrien, 2004).
1University of North Carolina Wilmington, USA
2Syracuse University, NY, USA
Corresponding Author:
Nora E. Noel, Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina Wilmington, 601 South College
Rd., Wilmington, NC 28403-5612, USA.
Email: Noeln@uncw.edu
555472VAWXXX10.1177/1077801214555472Violence Against WomenNoel et al.
research-article2014
by guest on October 21, 2014vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
2 Violence Against Women
Many researchers agree that “dating” is difficult to define. The term is in common
use and carries many implicit assumptions (Mongeau et al., 2007), so, as a starting
position, we borrowed heavily from Mongeau and Kendall (1996; presentation
described in Mongeau et al., 2007) and defined dating as a discrete dyadic interac-
tional social event with sexual overtones, initiated and arranged by one of the dyad.
However, this was only a starting point because discovering how young adult women
currently define dating was one of the goals of the current project.
Although daters generally have positive goals, dating unfortunately also has some
negative associations including unwanted or even harmful interactions, particularly
sexual coercion (Drieschner & Lange, 1999), with significant harmful consequences
(Brener, McMahon, Warren, & Douglas, 1999). The frequency of sexual coercion is
uncertain due to variations in definition and assessment, and includes many forms of
unwanted sex (Edwards, Kearns, Calhoun, & Gidycz, 2009; Koss, 1992, 1996;
O’Sullivan, 2005; Porter & Critelli, 1992). However, even with regard to forced sexual
intercourse (the most extreme definition), the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention’s (CDC) 2003 national survey found high school females’ lifetime inci-
dence was 11.9% (CDC, 2004). Furthermore, anonymous surveys suggest that up to
27% of women in college have experienced coerced sexual activity (Larimer, Lydum,
Anderson, & Turner, 1999) with an equally high rate for non-student women in the
same age range (Buddie & Testa, 2005). Even these estimates may be low because in
a 1986 national survey, Koss, Gidycz, and Wisniewski (1987) found that up to 50% of
college women had experienced sexual coercion, including events that reached the
legal definition of rape. Thus, Norris, Nurius, and Dimeff (1996) aptly characterized
women on dates as “walking a cognitive tightrope,” balancing between goals of rela-
tionship-building and self-protection.
Given that dating is normative behavior for young adults, the contrast between
relationship-building and sexual coercion outcomes indicates a need to understand the
dynamic and subtle “negotiations” inherent in dating. Such knowledge may allow
women earlier and more accurate prediction of sexual coercion risk and help them take
effective protective actions. Along these lines, Nurius and her colleagues (Nurius,
2000; Nurius & Norris, 1995; Nurius, Norris, Macy, & Huang, 2004) have applied a
social cognitive model of risk assessment, similar to Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984)
stress appraisal model, to assist women in predicting, recognizing, and preventing
danger in dating situations.
However, as mentioned above, most dates are positive events that do not involve
aggression or violence. As evidenced by their frequent willing participation, many
women have a positive view of dating, and thus their expectation of pleasure may lead
them to discount risk-appraisal approaches. Indeed, some research suggests that even
when they recognize risk, women often remain in the dangerous situation (Gidycz,
McNamara, & Edwards, 2006). A more complete model of dating risks probably has
to acknowledge the positive, noncoercive aspects of sexual activity in the context of
dating relationships. Applying such a model to a woman’s dating interactions would
characterize her as a full partner within the ongoing dynamics of the situation, rather
than emphasizing only her reaction to risk. We think that a woman is attracted to and
by guest on October 21, 2014vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Noel et al. 3
agrees to date a specific man and engages in ongoing interactions with him because
she believes that their resulting relationship could fulfill her particular set of individu-
ally determined goals. The strength of her attraction to these goals and her ongoing
dynamic assessment of the likelihood of achieving these goals with this specific man
are probably important determinants of perceived risk as well as the amount of risk she
is willing to tolerate.
Applying a more complete model, then, requires determining the attractions as well
as the risks of dating. So what are women’s goals and expectations for dating? The
current literature, though relatively sparse, projects the view that women most often
value forming and strengthening a romantic relationship, in contrast to men, who
value having sex (e.g., see discussion by Morr & Mongeau, 2004). As an alternate
view, Morr and Mongeau (2004), as well as Mongeau et al. (2007), suggested that
most men’s and women’s dating goals actually have much in common. Both men and
women desire a relationship and sexual activity, but generally women desire the for-
mer slightly more, and men, the latter. For example, Mongeau et al. (2004), in a study
using written narratives, reported both male and female young adults defined dating as
activity that was (a) planned, (b) one-on-one, and (c) included strong sexual overtones,
with the third criterion distinguishing dating from “going out with a friend.”
In any case, very little dating research goes beyond generalities to assess specific
dating goals and behaviors of young adult women. Furthermore, several researchers
have pointed out that the literature tends to characterize normative dating as women
fighting off men’s sexual advances and “keeping them in line” (Bartoli & Clark, 2006;
Nurius, Norris, & Dimeff, 1996), which seems unpleasant; where is the attraction for
women in dating?
Open questions, therefore, remain: What attracts women to dating? What do women
want and expect in a dating interaction? How do women attempt to achieve their sex-
ual and relationship goals? Answers may help us understand what motivates women to
engage in sometimes risky behavior.
Current Study
To begin our investigation of this under-researched aspect of dating-related sexual
coercion, we instigated a qualitative focus group study of the desires of young adult
women who date men. Our aim was to capture important information about women’s
dating desires to use in developing models that could be tested quantitatively (using a
similar approach to the research program presented in Noel et al., 2008). Focus group
methods were developed originally for research in marketing (Morgan, 1997), but
recently have been used in psychological research as an alternative to surveys, written
narratives, and individual interviews. Focus groups gather a small number of people to
discuss specific topics, employing group social interaction to enhance feedback on
beliefs, experiences, and reactions of respondents (Gibbs, 1997). Morgan (1997)
argued that the advantage of focus groups over narratives and individual interviews
lies in their ability to allow the researcher to observe interaction of participants on a
topic and enhance the depth of the data, especially with topics (such as dating) that are
by guest on October 21, 2014vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
4 Violence Against Women
“habit-ridden” or often not thought out in detail. Thus, the data from the current focus
group study could inform and develop models that will drive quantitative studies,
richer in detail than might otherwise be known.
Our participants were young adult single women, aged 21 to 30, who were dating
men. The lower age limit (21) allowed us to discuss sensitive topics with women who
had had a variety of dating experiences, including those who would have had legal
opportunities for alcohol use, because alcohol use is so often associated with instances
of sexual coercion (Norris et al., 1996). Based on informal discussions and preliminary
studies with several female psychology undergraduates, we formulated six questions
to discuss sequentially in each focus group:
Research Question 1: What kinds of activities would you normally expect on a
date (e.g., going to a restaurant, time alone in his or your home)?
Research Question 2: What are the qualities that would make a man attractive to
you on a date and make you want to see him again?
These two questions allowed us to assess participants’ views of “normal” dating,
how dates come about and what attracts and motivates them to date, information that
has direct bearing on women’s ongoing goals for dating, including their sexual and
relationship goals.
Research Question 3: Suppose you are interacting with a man to whom you are
attracted. What are the things he might do or say that would suggest he wants to
have sex with you?
This question allowed us to assess participants’ perceptions of the man’s sexual
signals. Did they know when a decision point about sex was approaching? If, for
example, they wanted to delay sex to find out more about him, were they able to antici-
pate when and how? We asked the question this way because in preliminary work,
many women told us that “getting rid of” an “unattractive” man was not difficult.
Problems arose when they felt ambivalent: attracted to a man, but wanting to interact
more before deciding whether to have sex with him.
Research Question 4: From your experience and knowledge (e.g., from friends),
what are the kinds of situations can you imagine where a woman would really not
want to have sex with a man, but would go ahead anyway?
Research Question 5: In those situations, what would it be about the man or the
man’s behavior that would make it difficult to not have sex (ranging from his use of
force to he was so overwhelmingly attractive, you couldn’t say no. In the latter
case, what would those qualities be?)
With these two questions, we hoped to learn more about how women handled their
own sexual attraction and their motivations vis-à-vis decisions to engage in “ambiva-
lent” or even unwanted sex.
by guest on October 21, 2014vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Noel et al. 5
Research Question 6: What are some things you could say or do if you liked the
guy, but you wanted him to not pressure you for sexual intercourse?
This question was somewhat of a challenge. As noted above, saying “no” may be
relatively easy if a woman decides she does not want to see the man again. However,
if she is ambivalent (she likes him, but is cautious about “getting too involved” before
she really knows him), would her attraction to possible sex and/or a romantic relation-
ship with him drive her immediate response? How will she evaluate the likelihood of
achieving her dating goals with him versus the risk of negative consequences? The
“cognitive tightrope” (Norris et al., 1996) becomes an especially apt metaphor.
In summary, we conducted the focus groups to enhance knowledge of women’s
dating views in rich detail. Our goal was to collect data that allow elaboration of
Nurius’s (2000) risk-appraisal model, so that women’s attractions to dating and dating
behavior can provide a more complete model of women’s dating interactions.
Method
Participants
Fifty-four women volunteered for the study, but only 49 met the inclusion/exclusion
criteria (age 21-30; dating men; no problematic alcohol, drug, or mental health issues;
willing to participate in a focus group with other women to discuss dating). Potential
participants were excluded because they were not dating men (n = 2); they were mar-
ried (n = 2), or they showed evidence of serious alcohol, drug, or psychiatric problems
on screening measures (n = 3; categories overlapped). In addition, 4 could not be
scheduled for group times, leaving a final sample of 45. Ages range from 21 to 30, but
the median was 22; 31 (69%) were current college or graduate students; 38 were
Caucasian, 6 were African American, and 1 was Latina. Participants were paid US$10
for screening and US$15 if they attended a focus group.
Procedure
Participants were recruited via flyers and word-of-mouth both on campus and in the
surrounding community. Each signed an informed consent and was screened individu-
ally. We assessed demographics, drinking, and drug use quantity and frequency (using
a Quantity-Frequency Index adapted from Cahalan, Cisin, & Crossley, 1969) and psy-
chological problems (using the Symptom Checklist-90-R; Derogatis, 1977). If she met
the criteria, a female graduate student called and scheduled the participant for a focus
group.
Eleven focus groups were held over a 5-week period. One group had three women,
2 had five, and the rest each had four. Each group was scheduled for 90 min on a week-
day evening at the University so that non-students could attend. All groups were mod-
erated by a female clinical psychologist (the first author), with a female graduate
student assisting with data collection. All sessions were audio-recorded, but having a
by guest on October 21, 2014vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
6 Violence Against Women
note-taking student was helpful in one group when the sound-recording equipment
failed and we were able to reconstruct part of the dialogue from her notes.
The room was comfortably equipped with sofas, chairs, and a small snack table
(coffee, cookies, chips, and sodas were available). We tried to schedule friends into
separate groups, but inadvertently had one session with two friends. However, in all
others, participants were only acquaintances, if they knew each other at all.
The Moderator explained the informed consent, including the need for confidenti-
ality among the group members (“What is said here, stays here.”) and the need for
sound recording. Later, after the sound recordings had been transcribed, they were
erased, so no voices could be recognized. The first question proved to be a good ice-
breaker, as women seemed to enjoy talking about dating experiences, and the discus-
sion was lively, thorough, sometimes serious, and occasionally raucous. The Moderator
ensured that each participant had the opportunity to speak before moving on to the
next question. At the end of the group, the Moderator reminded the participants of the
confidentiality agreement, paid each, and gave each a list of contact information for
her and the local rape crisis center, in case the discussion had aroused concerns about
the participant or any of her friends. Several participants remarked that they had
enjoyed the group experience and wished it was offered as a discussion group on a
regular basis.
Data preparation. All 16 hr of discussion were transcribed by a team of two laboratory
assistants. Then, before the tapes were erased, a separate team of four undergraduates
listened while reading the transcripts to check for mistakes and omissions. Then, a
three-step content analysis was completed.
Content analysis. First, the same four undergraduates analyzed the content of the tran-
scribed material, formulating and agreeing on categories of responses and remarks
through extensive and frequent group discussions over the course of one semester. The
four were selected because they were experienced research assistants, two female and
two male, all within the same age range as the participants (21-30). The coders’ analy-
ses of content here, and below, did not differ on the basis of their gender.
Second, a large number of categories (>100) were formulated, so a second indepen-
dent team (again two females and two males in the same age range) used the defini-
tions to collapse some of the categories. Furthermore, some participants’ remarks,
while very striking, did not occur often, so they were left uncategorized, but may be
described and discussed below. Category definitions are available from the first author.
Finally, a third team, a female and a male in the same age group, were trained to a
high criterion (90% agreement) on the major category definitions. They then tallied
the frequency of statements in each category in response to each question for the entire
transcript. After intensive training and discussion between the last two raters, inter-
rater reliability for content classification ranged from 82% to 98% with a mean of 92%
over the course of the entire transcript. Each disagreement was discussed and resolved
to provide the final judgment. All this work was supervised closely by the first author,
a clinical psychologist with extensive experience working with young adult women.
by guest on October 21, 2014vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Noel et al. 7
Results and Discussion
Participants discussed a wide variety of topics, so to limit the results and discussion,
we included descriptions of statements in categories that totaled more than 1% of the
responses to a question. Each of these categories and the percent of responses for the
category are listed in Table 1. In the text, each topic is followed by descriptions of
responses. Statements in quotations are examples drawn from the transcripts. Overall
implications and conclusions appear in the “General Discussion” section.
Defining a Date and Normative Dating Activities (Responses to
Research Question 1)
Consistent with the findings of Mongeau et al. (2004), most of the women agreed that
three criteria defined a date. First, it was a planned activity, and it was mostly planned
and financed by the man. A consensus emerged in almost all groups that at least in the
beginning of a relationship, the man should ask the women for a date, he should plan
the date, he should drive (pick her up) and he should pay the expenses:
. . . this is like a text book stereotypical expectation, but I expect for the first couple of
months of hanging out and spending time with each other, yeah, you should take me out
to a nice dinner once or twice and pay for it.
Many participants said they understood that most men their age, especially college
students, had little money, so they felt that after a few dates, it was appropriate to pay
for themselves or even ask him out, but only if he had made some sort of public state-
ment or show of a commitment to her.
Two other criteria consistent with Mongeau et al.’s (2004) results were also dis-
cussed. First, a date should include one-on-one time (“Group dates were for high
school. Going out with a group now is just so you can meet someone for the first time.
It’s not a date.”). One-on-one time allows a couple to get to know each other better and
decide if the relationship should continue. Second, the man was expected to show her
affection in public by hugging, holding hands, kissing, or commenting about how nice
she looks, both to reassure her that he cared and to make a “public statement” that they
were together. Although this description seems similar to Mongeau et al.’s (2004) “sex-
ual overtones,” our exclusively female groups referred to it as “affectionate” behavior.
Fourth, in addition to the three criteria, participants said a date requires doing some-
thing special, like going to a “not-fast-food” restaurant or eating a specially cooked
dinner at his place. Getting at least a little bit dressed up was important as well. The
latter helped distinguish a date from going out with a friend. “If I go out with a friend
[meaning a male friend], I don’t care if I get food all over my face. It’s just more
comfortable.”
The rest of the discussion of date criteria centered on the locations and activities
involved in a typical date. Public versus private locations were important. General
agreement was that early dates should always be in public locations—“you know, for
by guest on October 21, 2014vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
8 Violence Against Women
Table 1. Percent of Statements Participants Made About Each Category in Response to Each
Question.
% of statements
1. What kinds of activities would you normally expect on a date (e.g., going to a restaurant,
time alone in his or your home)?
Entertainment 16
Dining in/out 10
Recreational 09
Public location 08
Private location 07
Man demonstrates affection 07
Man plans and drives 06
One-on-one 06
Man pays 06
Man asks 05
Alcohol consumption 02
2. What are the qualities that would make a man attractive to you on a date and make you
want to see him again?
Positive personality traits 22
Physically attractive 15
Social skills/manners 13
Maturity 08
Goals and ambitions 08
Fashion/style 07
Personal hygiene 06
Intelligence 03
3. Suppose you are interacting with a man to whom you are attracted. What are the things
he might do or say that would suggest he wants to have sex with you?
Body language 31
Oral (verbal) statements 27
Setting (environment) 13
Alcohol 09
Gifts (and flowers) 02
4. From your experience and knowledge (e.g., from friends), what are the kinds of situations
you can imagine where a woman would really not want to have sex with a man but would
go ahead anyway?
Affiliative need/desire 30
Obligation 27
Pressure from man 13
Alcohol use 12
Peer pressure 09
(continued)
by guest on October 21, 2014vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Noel et al. 9
the safety thing”—but later dates could be at his or her place. However, several admit-
ted they did not always follow that principle and occasionally had gone to a man’s
apartment or invited him over to theirs during early dating.
Typical dating activities included eating out, going to something entertaining (e.g.,
a movie, a show, or concert), engaging in recreational activities (e.g., bowling, surfing,
putt-putt golf), or going out drinking at bars or parties. In practice, almost all of the
activities (eating, entertainment, some recreation, and, of course, parties and bars)
involved an expectation of some level of alcohol consumption, and most participants
said they really enjoyed drinking.
% of statements
Increase self-esteem 07
Biological (hers) 04
Fear of man 04
Special occasion 03
Revenge 01
5. In those situations what would it be about the man or the man’s behavior that would
make it difficult to not have sex (ranging from his use of force to he was so overwhelmingly
attractive, you couldn’t say no—in latter case, what would those qualities be)?
Obligation/guilt 26
Man’s verbal persistence 13
Physical force/persistence 10
Man’s persuasion 09
Physical attraction to him 07
Too much alcohol 07
Man’s social status 06
Man’s arousal level 03
6. What are some things you could say or do if you liked the guy but you wanted him to not
pressure you for sexual intercourse?
Indirect verbal 24
Direct verbal 17
Verbal avoidance 13
Physical avoidance 07
Engaging in other sex 05
Environmental control 04
Verbal distraction 03
Promising future sex 03
Physical direct 03
Note. If a category represented less than 1%, it does not appear in this table.
Table 1. (continued)
by guest on October 21, 2014vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
10 Violence Against Women
Specific Qualities That Are Deemed “Attractive” (Responses to
Research Question 2)
Most discussion centered on “positive” personality traits, including having confidence
in himself, being a leader, caring about others, and having a good sense of humor. Many
participants were attracted to a man whom others “looked up to” for something he
could do quite well, “Like he has his own band or something.” Intelligence and ambi-
tion were also very attractive to most participants. Many expressed the opinion that
both physical attraction and a “good” personality were required to make a second date.
I could be physically attracted to him when I meet him, and then if the first date goes
badly, I could lose that physical attraction for him. He could be a cute guy but if his
personality is bad . . . But I don’t think a very nice guy, if he’s unattractive, would work
either.
The man’s physical appearance was important to many participants. “If the chem-
istry is not there, he’s just going to be a friend.” Physical attributes that attracted indi-
vidual participants were quite varied. They discussed age, hair color, height, weight,
physical fitness, and so on. One participant insisted that she was attracted only to older
men, while another (age 23) said she was dating an 18-year-old, whom she described
as “quite mature.” Another said, “I’ve never really dated someone who, like, had
blonde hair. I usually like brunets with dark skin. I like, like, broader guys, rather than,
like, um skinny guys.” Yet another said, she was attracted to a man with “a beautiful
smile.” Participants seemed to agree that physical appearance was important to sexual
appeal, but the specifics were a source of disagreement.
Related to physical appearance was how the man “kept himself.” Having some
fashion sense was a subject of discussion. Again, each participant seemed to have her
own style preference, but most agreed that the man should not look “thrown together.”
Many included the type of music he liked as part of his “style.” Equally important, and
more specifically agreed upon, was personal hygiene, including being clean, wearing
clean clothes, brushing his teeth, washing his hair, and “smelling nice.” The man’s
social skills and manners generated much discussion. Many participants said they felt
more attracted to a man who used good table manners, was polite to others (including
his parents), and behaved like “a gentleman” (e.g., opening doors for her).
Two other categories appeared important to some women: (a) religion and religious
beliefs and (b) “negative” personality traits. A few participants were adamant that they
would be attracted to a man only if he shared their religious beliefs. Another few were
attracted to what they described as “negative personality traits.” One woman expressed
it as, “I like a man with an edge.”
Women’s Perception of the Man’s Sexual Signals (Responses to
Research Question 3)
Participants said they were very aware of sexual signals: “[Sex] is such a big deal in
our relationships. Usually it’s the guy saying I want it and the girl is like, this isn’t the
by guest on October 21, 2014vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Noel et al. 11
time for it.” Much discussion centered specifically on men’s body language. Most
participants believed they recognized when body language signaled a desire for sex.
For example, “It’s that look that he gives you . . . ” or “If he starts kissing you and
doesn’t stop or something like that. Yeah. Like it never ends,” or
Like, if y’all are cuddling on the couch and I guess you could sit next to each other or I
guess if it’s late at night you could like lay on the couch with him on top of you and he
could like rub your back or something like that or offer you a back massage or something
and kinda go a little further than the back or something.
In addition, participants said men’s verbal indicators could be direct and under-
standable, too (e.g., “Should I get a condom?”). However, in contrast, many partici-
pants said that men’s indirect verbal comments were difficult to interpret. For example,
is “I love you” a statement of affection, a sexual signal, or both? They had difficulty
with “those BS lines, like ‘I’ve never met someone like you before. I think you’re
wonderful. You’re the most beautiful person I’ve ever met. I love you.’ Stuff like that.”
They were often uncertain when men were “dropping the L-Bomb.” Likewise, gifts
and flowers could be a source of confusion.
Well, with expensive stuff he could be wanting something in return, you know. But I
guess it all depends on the way he acts when he gives it to you, like if he bought you a big
piece of jewelry or something.
Another commented,
Well, if it’s kind of out of the blue, like not on your birthday or holidays or Valentine’s
Day, it’s more like, “Oh, I thought of you, so here you go.” And you’re kind of like,
“Well, do I repay you somehow? Do I have to give you something back?” I think that’s a
little drastic, if they’re going to buy you something that big and you’re not already at a
level where you’re comfortable enough to talk about sex, even if you’re not having it.
Most participants described two “obvious” sexual signals. One was the setting or envi-
ronment, as in “he gets you off alone somewhere.” The other was alcohol. “A lot of times
they keep offering you drinks. So that you have a little alcohol in you, loosen you up a bit.”
Reasons for Having Sex Despite Ambivalence (Responses to Research
Question 4)
Most discussion centered on sex as a method of creating or strengthening a relation-
ship bond. “Sometimes I don’t want to have sex, but if he does, it’s my way of telling
him I love him,” or “If she likes him and wants him to like her back,” or “If she really
likes him but she thinks he won’t stay, unless she hooks up with him,” or
Some women just have to be in a relationship, and they feel like they aren’t complete and
aren’t happy unless they’re in a relationship, and sometimes when there’s nothing there
by guest on October 21, 2014vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
12 Violence Against Women
compatibility-wise, the woman will go ahead and please the man so he will stay with her,
until she can find the next “Mr. Right Now.”
Second, the woman’s own sexual arousal may determine her responses, despite
conflicted feelings. “Well, I didn’t necessarily want to have sex with him, but I was
feeling pretty frustrated and he was ready,” or
Sometimes even though you think at the beginning you don’t want to, then you do
because you get all turned on. But later you say, “why did I do that?” I think it has to do
with where you are in your menstrual cycle,
or “Maybe she wants it for herself even though she’s not totally attracted to the guy,
she just wants to have a little fun.”
Another reason to have undesired sex was a sense of obligation. “Sometimes a
woman might feel obligated, depending on, I guess, depending on how much the guy
spends on her during the date,” or “Girls just want to be nice and stuff and we just
don’t want to hurt their feelings,” or
Things like if they got a promotion or if it’s their birthday or your birthday or whatever
and you feel, well, I don’t want to say obligated, but I guess people just assume that like
on special occasions [having sex is] something you do,
or “This is just something he needs to release stress or something, it’s not going to
hurt me. I mean it’s not one of those things where if I said no, he wouldn’t stop. So why
not?” The idea of jewelry and other expensive gifts (see topic 3) was discussed again:
“If you are going to accept his gifts, then why not have sex with him?”
Peer pressure, and sometimes not-so-subtle pressure from friends, was also seen as
a factor. “I guess sometimes pressure from friends, like if they set you up with the
guy?” or “Everybody else wants to go off together, and you’re the only one who
doesn’t,” or “If people hear that everybody else is doing it, everybody else is doing it,
and they do it just because everybody else is doing it, even though they don’t want to.
Peer pressure.” One participant described the interplay of obligation and concern
about her reputation with peers:
You’ve been flirting or whatever, and they obviously in their minds know, “Okay, this is
where this is going,” and then you pull the plug, and it’s hard if they’ve been expecting
to go down that road. It’s kind of hard to explain and put into words what I’m trying to
say. And you have to worry about, “Oh my gosh, he thinks I’m a tease” and stuff like that.
You may not be worried about you being a tease, but you worry about other people may
be thinking you’re a tease. And then you get the reputation of, “Oh, she takes guys home,
but she doesn’t ever do anything with them.”
Enhancement of the woman’s self-esteem was also a reason for “ambivalent” sex.
Some participants said women were complimented by a man’s attention and getting
him to have sex with her increased self-esteem. “That would have to be a girl with
by guest on October 21, 2014vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Noel et al. 13
pretty low self-esteem to start,” one participant remarked, but others disagreed with
her, saying that if the man was high status (such as a famous actor one participant had
met in a local bar), then having sex with him would make her feel more attractive, even
if she was not “turned on.” Furthermore, three participants in three separate groups
said that sex with another man was a way to get “revenge” on a former boyfriend
because “he’ll hear about it” and presumably realize what an attractive woman he had
lost.
Then, of course, there was alcohol.
You’ve been drinking and you’re drunk and you’re attracted to the other person and you
kiss him and whatever and he starts doing more and you’re just so drunk you’re kind of
like, “Okay,” and you just kind of let it go before you even realize what’s happening.
Definitely I would say alcohol would play a big part if she didn’t really want it.
One participant quoted a friend as saying,
I drank a certain amount and when he tried to start I just didn’t feel like trying to push him
off. You know, I didn’t really want to, but it wasn’t really rape because I went ahead with
it, and I didn’t really want it but I just did it to get him off of me.
Finally, pressure from the man and fear of the man were cited as factors in a deci-
sion to have unwanted sex. Pressure from the man was characterized as “whining” and
“nagging” (see also next topic). Fear of the man was not just fear of being hurt, but fear
of being left in a bad situation. For example, one participant described being left
downtown by herself late at night with no transportation home. She advised the others
to always bring cab fare. Fear also could arise from having been raped or otherwise
physically abused. A few participants suggested that if a woman had been physically
hurt once, later she might be more likely to “give in” to any pressure from any man to
avoid getting hurt again.
Qualities of the Man That Make Refusing Sex Difficult (Responses to
Research Question 5)
Most responses to this question paralleled those in Research Question 4, with more
emphasis on the man’s behavior. Sometimes, participants said, the man’s positive
behavior may change her mind (i.e., he seduces her). “Well, he kept at it, but he lit
candles and played some good music and kept telling me I was beautiful, so I said
okay ’cause it was really nice.”
However, the idea of obligation and guilt arose again. “There are lots of guys who
know exactly how to manipulate that guilt thing with us.” A related behavior was a
man’s verbal persuasion. “He says he’ll use a condom.” “He’s had a bad day. How can
it hurt me to just do it with him?” “He says, ‘It’ll make you feel better, too, Baby.’”
Verbal persistence (“nagging and whining”) was discussed again: “Sometimes if you
just give in and get it over with, he’ll shut up about it.”
by guest on October 21, 2014vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
14 Violence Against Women
Physical persistence (e.g., “constant groping and grabbing at me”), because it was
annoying, sometimes led to sex because, “It got it over with.” Physical force, however,
sometimes grew out of physical persistence.
He kept getting more and more at it, and he wouldn’t leave me alone, and I think he didn’t
realize how forceful he was getting till he hurt me and I got really mad at him and he
backed off.
Threat or actual use of physical force was often associated with the man drinking
too much alcohol and/or the woman’s belief that he was too sexually aroused to stop.
Finally, the man’s social status or physical attractiveness might lead to an unwanted
sexual experience. For example, “You get put into a popular crowd where you’re pop-
ular by association, so if she’s associated with the head of the football team or some-
thing, she could be considered cool too,” or “When [celebrity] is in town for a television
show and he invites you to his place to ‘hang out,’ you go, because he is too good
looking to pass up.”
Strategies to Avoid Ambivalent or Unwanted Sex in a Relationship
(Responses to Research Question 6)
Participants moved on to this topic by describing a variety of strategies to stay bal-
anced on the “cognitive tightrope.” Participants said they used indirect verbal strate-
gies (e.g., “I’m on my period,” “I have to get up early tomorrow”) most often. Several
participants felt that being honest and direct was probably the most effective strategy
(e.g., “I like you, but I have to feel more secure before we go on,” “I want to get to
know you better; I don’t want just a physical relationship”), but they felt awkward,
difficult, and “rude” saying such things, so the strategy was underused. Often, they
said, it felt difficult because the man knew they had been in sexual relationships before,
so they worried that he might feel like they were telling him to “get lost.” “He knows
it’s not like you’re saving yourself for marriage or something.” Others said they had
been successful with the direct approach: “If he’s any kind of a gentleman, he’ll hear
what you have to say,” and if not, then they felt he should “get lost.”
Avoidance or distraction strategies could be verbal or physical: changing the sub-
ject or putting it off (e.g., “Let’s talk about that later”) or moving out of reach (e.g., “If
he tries to kiss you before you’re ready, turn your cheek.” “If he starts getting physical,
get up and head for the kitchen or go to the bathroom or something”). Direct physical
responses, such as gentle but firm pushes away, and removal of hands were deemed
more effective, but again, most believed these responses might damage the possibility
of a future relationship. Environmental control, including manipulating the setting of
the date (“Never go anywhere with him but public places till you’re sure you can trust
him”) and ensuring that friends were in the vicinity, were effective, but awkward after
the first couple of dates.
Two other strategies included engaging in sexual behavior other than intercourse
(e.g., “just keep making out, but don’t let him do anything else”) and promising to
by guest on October 21, 2014vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Noel et al. 15
have sex at a specific later time. The consensus was that both were mostly ineffective
and perhaps even dangerous to the relationship and/or the woman, but both were fre-
quently used.
General Discussion
We conducted these focus groups to describe women’s dating behavior and expecta-
tions with the aim of informing social cognitive models of dating interactions. The
focus groups were well attended and viewed positively by the participants. The data
were detailed and varied, but converge on several themes illustrating the intertwined
attractions and risks of dating.
First, participants’ criteria for defining a “date” were consistent with the three cri-
teria described by Mongeau et al. (2004), including a planned “special” activity and
one-on-one time, except that the third, “sexual overtones,” was referred to as “affec-
tionate” behavior by this exclusively female sample. Still, if the man engaged in these
affectionate behaviors, the ultimate result often was that the woman desired sex with
him. Many participants expressed a sense of light-hearted fun and happiness during an
emerging relationship, especially in regard to having sex, but felt that a man’s public
display of affection or commitment to them was necessary to feel “safe” about having
sex with him.
Ironically, though, major themes emerging from the focus groups suggested that the
very qualities many women found attractive in men increased their vulnerability to
undesired sexual interactions and sexual coercion. First, despite changing mores of
sexual behavior, most participants seemed to hold traditional views of dating, at least
with regard to the initial stages of a relationship. Consistent with Mongeau and
Johnson’s (1995) study from nearly years ago, most said they still wanted men to take
a controlling role in initiating the dating relationship by asking, planning, driving, and
paying, until he made some sort of “public commitment” that he was involved with her
(e.g., outward show of affection). Indeed, most of these women said they were attracted
to a particular man because he took or was striving to take controlling and leading
roles in social and occupational contexts. Unfortunately, they did not seem to recog-
nize that voluntarily putting a controlling person in control means putting yourself in
a vulnerable position.
Second, our participants’ communication about sex often was limited perhaps by
their traditional social expectation that women must be discreet and indirect about their
sexual desires and also must not hurt the man’s feelings. They described very little open
discussion with men about mutual sexual desires, including the desire to wait to have
sex. It is telling that Hickman and Muehlenhard (1999) found that sexual misunder-
standings often arise with the use of indirect signals for consent. They reported that
many of their participants (both men and women) characterized their consent for sex as
kind of a passive acceptance of the other person’s sexual advances. Such indirect sig-
nals perhaps are a way of never having to clearly reject or be rejected by the other per-
son. However, passive behavior could also result from intoxication, indecision, or even
fear, so indirect or passive communication leaves the door open for misinterpretation.
by guest on October 21, 2014vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
16 Violence Against Women
Even more to the point, women may feel ambivalent about sex, intertwined with
whether to continue the relationship; perhaps she wants more time and interaction with
her dating partner before deciding about how she will behave with him. In a series of
provocative articles, Muehlenhard and Peterson (2005; Peterson & Muehlenhard,
2004, 2007) addressed the “missing discourse of ambivalence” with regard to wom-
en’s sexual decision-making. They point out that the “all or nothing” dichotomy of
categorizing “wanted” versus “unwanted” sex fails to capture what is often a very
ambiguous situation. For example, our participants said that a woman may not feel
like having sex with her dating partner, but she will, based on a goal of nurturing a
rewarding or potentially rewarding relationship. These data are consistent with
O’Sullivan and Allgeier’s (1998) study of men and women in “committed” dating
relationships in which 50% of women (and 26% of men) said that during the last 2
weeks they had consented to undesired sex, most often (ironically) to achieve intimacy
with their partner. Thus, women may feel ambivalent about having sex with their dat-
ing partner but have trouble communicating the desire to wait, slow down, or talk
more. Our participants told us that even directly and honestly communicating to a
man, “I’m very attracted to you, but I don’t want to have sex with you yet,” was con-
sidered “rude” and unacceptable.
Another emerging related theme was the sense of obligation or even guilt a woman
might feel when a man, in his expected traditional role, has spent money on her and
bought her gifts. Our participants said that although they may not desire sex at the
time, they don’t want to “hurt his feelings” when he has been “so nice” (e.g., “He gave
me these things because he cares about me”). Many of our participants described situ-
ations in which they had sex when they did not want to (or continued to date someone
when they did not want to) because they felt obligated. Furthermore, in this two-way
dialogue, participants felt that many men recognize the feeling of indebtedness and
may use that leverage. Thus, pressure such as nagging and guilt induction, even with-
out physical force, may push women into having sex.
A fourth theme was the importance of having a “relationship” to the self-esteem of
many women. If a “high status” (e.g., intelligent, ambitious, good looking) man pub-
licly evidenced affection for her, including having sex with her, many women felt
increased self-worth and higher status in the eyes of other women. Even declining an
unwanted sexual experience made some women feel odd compared with their peers
(“Everybody’s doing it”) or worse (e.g., the woman who was worried about her reputa-
tion for taking men home but not having sex with them). In these cases, sex, although
undesired, may be used to increase status or to avoid loss of status.
A final important theme was that alcohol consumption, a component of most dating
activities, could intensify impairment in sexual decision-making. Participants recog-
nized that alcohol decreased their cognitive and physical abilities, potentially affecting
several decision-making steps. However, drinking on dates was so ubiquitous that in
many cases it was hardly worth discussion in the groups. Many studies indicate that
consuming alcohol is normative for a “typical date” (e.g., Bartoli & Clark, 2006).
Almost all of the dating activities described by our participants included drinking or at
least the opportunity for drinking. Beyond the risk of incapacitation, a risk of drinking
by guest on October 21, 2014vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Noel et al. 17
is that the presence of alcohol in a dating situation significantly increases the daters’
expectations that sexual interactions will take place (Abbey, McAuslan, Ross, &
Zawacki, 1999; Mongeau & Johnson, 1995). Our participants described alcohol as
part of the fun and attraction of dating, even when they clearly recognized that men
“pushing” drinks were trying to “loosen them up.”
In sum, many young women engage in social dating with the goals of developing a
romantic relationship and/or having mutually enjoyable sex. The goal of most sexual
coercion prevention programs is to reduce the risk of negative, harmful consequences
of dating. Nurius et al. (2004) and others have suggested that teaching women risk-
recognition techniques will help protect them. However, Gidycz et al. (2006) and oth-
ers hypothesized that such risk-recognition programs are potentially ineffective
because most women can recognize risks (as many participants in this study evi-
denced), but perceive themselves as being less likely than their peers to be sexually
assaulted (e.g., “This may put me at risk, but I am more capable than other women in
protecting myself”). Such statements are also consistent with Abbey et al.’s (1999)
finding that young women saw themselves, relative to other women, as being less
influenced by alcohol in a sexual situation.
Going further, data from the current study suggest that “typical” dating activities
are inherently risky to women because many of the very qualities of men and situa-
tions that women find most attractive are the qualities making them most vulnerable.
In this regard, using risk-recognition programs to prevent sexual coercion might be
akin to using risk recognition to make sky diving safe. Participants in this study gener-
ally saw dating as exciting and fun, with the prospects of a rewarding relationship,
good sex, and the admiration of their peers as incentives to “dive in.” Many felt posi-
tive about themselves for having engaged in dating while dealing successfully with the
risks. These data suggest that efforts to prevent sexual coercion may require discover-
ing ways to work around the presence of risk, rather than to remove it from the typical
date. For example, rather than emphasizing recognizing and avoiding risk, programs
might help women construct creative and effective behaviors to achieve their ultimate
dating goals more directly or assertively than at present. This might involve helping
the woman to examine her specific, individual goals for dating and how she might
achieve those goals through dating activity. Such programs could also emphasize self-
esteem, effective communication, and not getting sidetracked by “obligation” and the
desire to protect others from “hurt feelings.” Another intervention may include a
harm-reduction approach (Marlatt, 1998) to alcohol use on dates, as alcohol seems to
play such a major role in “typical” dates. Women might learn methods to build in safe-
guards to protect themselves from alcohol-fueled bad decisions.
Limitations
Several obvious limitations of the study include (a) the restricted ethnic and regional
diversity of the sample, (b) the fact that many participants were college students, and
(c) the data were not collected in a way that is meaningfully quantifiable. Focus groups
may also have drawbacks in that one or two participants per session could have a
by guest on October 21, 2014vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
18 Violence Against Women
strong influence in guiding the discussion and the topics covered, or some participants
may feel shy and “hold back” an unpopular opinion. This concern might be pertinent
in this study because the women who were not college students might have felt intimi-
dated by the students as the sessions were held on campus. However, the Moderator in
this current study has had extensive experience in leading group therapy sessions and
thus could ensure that all of the women participated in the discussion of each question.
In addition, the small grant that funded this study did not allow us to rent a meeting
place off campus, which will be a goal for future studies.
Another drawback is that we did not study actual behavior, but only the partici-
pants’ reports of their own and others’ dating experiences. Remembering and actually
articulating behaviors may be subject to many distortions, but the same could be said
about any self-report method of study. Consistent with standard methods of increasing
validity of self-reports (see, for example, Sobell, Maisto, Sobell, & Cooper, 1979), we
kept the atmosphere as nonjudgmental and confidential as possible. The advantage of
the focus group study method is that it provided a richly detailed portrait of young
adult heterosexual women’s views of dating, sex, and alcohol that can form the basis
of several, more quantitative studies (see Noel et al., 2008, for more on the use of focus
groups in a quantitative research program).
Future Research
Our intention is to use these data to develop quantitative research that will help women
develop meaningful access to choices in their dating and sexual behavior. We hope to
help women prevent unwanted sexual interactions, while improving their skills for
communicating and clarifying ambivalence and for engaging in desired sex and rela-
tionship-building. Better understanding of what women want can inform a model of
dating behavior that acknowledges the enjoyment and attraction of dating for women,
helping them to decrease the experience of harm, rather than risk, and increase skills
for achieving the goals they desire.
Acknowledgments
We thank Gerald Benton, Melissa Cartun, Stephen Crozier, Shahena Dar, Kendria Funches,
Stacy Grossman, Jessica Hackworth, Patrick Jones, Stephanie Kress, Bridget Nichols, Benjamin
O’Brien, Jennifer Ort, Rakhee Patel, Lauren Slusher, and Cedric Turner for their assistance.
Special thanks to Kathryn Gallagher for her help in managing the coding teams.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a Cahill Grant from the
University of North Carolina Wilmington to the first author.
by guest on October 21, 2014vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Noel et al. 19
References
Abbey, A., McAuslan, P., Ross, L., & Zawacki, T. (1999). Alcohol expectancies regarding
sex, aggression and sexual vulnerability: Reliability and validity assessment. Psychology of
Addictive Behaviors, 13, 174-182.
Afifi, W., & Faulkner, S. (2000). On being “just friends”: The frequency and impact of sex-
ual activity on cross-sex friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17,
205-222.
Bartoli, A., & Clark, M. (2006). The dating game: Similarities and differences in dating scripts
among college students. Sexuality & Culture, 10, 54-80.
Bogle, K. (2008). Hooking up: Sex, dating, and relationships on campus. New York: New York
University.
Brener, N., McMahon, P., Warren, C., & Douglas, K. (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.
Buddie, A., & Testa, M. (2005). Rates and predictors of sexual aggression among students and
non-students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 713-724.
Cahalan, D., Cisin, I., & Crossley, H. (1969). American drinking practices. New Brunswick,
NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2004). National Center for Injury Prevention and
Control sexual violence fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/
svfacts.htm
Derogatis, L. (1977). The SCL 90-R: Administration, scoring and procedures manual. Baltimore,
MD: Clinical Psychometric Research.
Drieschner, K., & Lange, A. (1999). A review of cognitive factors in the etiology of rape:
Theories, empirical studies and implications. Clinical Psychology Review, 19, 57-77.
Edwards, K., Kearns, M., Calhoun, K., & Gidycz, C. (2009). College women’s reactions to
sexual assault research participation: Is it distressing? Psychology of Women Quarterly,
33, 225-234.
Gibbs, A. (1997). Focus groups. Social Research Update, 19, 1-8.
Gidycz, C., McNamara, J., & Edwards, K. (2006). Women’s risk perception and sexual victim-
ization: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 441-446.
Hickman, S., & Muehlenhard, C. (1999). “By the semi-mystical appearance of a condom”: How
young women and men communicate sexual consent in heterosexual situations. Journal of
Sex Research, 36, 258-272.
Koss, M. (1992). The underdetection of rape: Methodological choices influence incidence esti-
mates. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 61-75.
Koss, M. (1996). The measurement of rape victimization in crime surveys. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 23, 55-69.
Koss, M., Gidycz, C., & 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.
Larimer, M., Lydum, A., Anderson, B., & Turner, A. (1999). Male and female recipients of
unwanted sexual contact in a college student sample: Prevalence rates, alcohol use and
depression symptoms. Sex Roles, 40, 295-308.
Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.
Marlatt, G. A. (1998). Basic principles and strategies of harm reduction. In G. A. Marlatt (Ed.),
Harm reduction: Pragmatic strategies for managing high-risk behaviors (pp. 49-66). New
York: Guilford.
by guest on October 21, 2014vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
20 Violence Against Women
Mongeau, P., Jacobsen, J., & Donnerstein, C. (2007). Defining dates and first date goals:
Generalizing from undergraduates to single adults. Communication Research, 34, 526-547.
Mongeau, P., & Johnson, K. (1995). Predicting cross-sex first-date sexual expectations and
involvement: Contextual and individual difference factors. Personal Relationships, 2,
301-312.
Mongeau, P., & Kendall, J. (1996, September). “What do you mean, this is a date?”
Differentiating a date from going out with friends. Paper presented at the meeting of the
International Network on Personal Relationships, Seattle, WA.
Mongeau, P., Serewicz, M., & Therrien, L. (2004). Goals for cross-sex first dates: Identification,
measurement and influence of contextual factors. Communication Monographs, 71,
121-147.
Morgan, D. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage.
Morr, M., & Mongeau, P. (2004). First date expectations: The impact of sex of initiator, alcohol
consumption and relationship type. Communication Research, 31, 3-35.
Muehlenhard, C., & Peterson, Z. (2005). Wanting and not wanting sex: The missing discourse
of ambivalence. Feminism & Psychology, 15, 15-20.
Noel, N. E., Maisto, S. A., Johnson, J. D., Jackson, L. A., Goings, C. D., & Hagman, B. T.
(2008). Development and validation of videotaped scenarios: A method for targeting spe-
cific participant groups. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 419-436.
Norris, J., Nurius, P., & Dimeff, L. (1996). Through her eyes: Factors affecting women’s per-
ceptions of and resistance to acquaintance sexual aggression threat. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 20, 123-145.
Nurius, P. (2000). Women’s perception of risk for acquaintance sexual assault: A social
Cognitive assessment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 63-78.
Nurius, P., & Norris, J. (1995). A cognitive ecological model of women’s response to male
Sexual coercion in dating. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 8, 117-139.
Nurius, P., Norris, J., & Dimeff, L. (1996). Expectations regarding acquaintance aggression
among sorority and fraternity members. Sex Roles, 35, 427-444.
Nurius, P., Norris, J., Macy, R., & Huang, B. (2004). Women’s situational coping with acquain-
tance sexual assault: Applying an appraisal-based model. Violence Against Women, 10,
450-477.
O’Sullivan, L. F. (2005). Sexual coercion in dating relationships: Conceptual and methodologi-
cal issues. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 20, 3-11.
O’Sullivan, L. F., & Allgeier, E. R. (1998). Feigning sexual desire: Consenting to unwanted
sexual activity in heterosexual dating relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 234-243.
Paul, E., McManus, B., & Hayes, K. (2000). “Hookups”: Characteristics and correlates
of College students’ spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. Journal of Sex
Research, 37, 76-88.
Peterson, Z., & Muehlenhard, C. (2004). Was it rape? The function of women’s rape myth
acceptance and definitions of sex in labeling their own experiences. Sex Roles, 51,
129-144.
Peterson, Z., & Muehlenhard, C. (2007). Conceptualizing the “wantedness” of women’s con-
sensual and nonconsensual sexual experiences: Implications for how women label their
experiences with rape. Journal of Sex Research, 44, 72-88.
Porter, J. F., & Critelli, J. W. (1992). Measurement of sexual aggression in college men: A
methodological analysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 21, 525-542.
Sobell, L. C., Maisto, S. A., Sobell, M. B., & Cooper, A. T. (1979). Reliability of alcohol abus-
ers’ self-reports of drinking behavior. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 17, 157-160.
by guest on October 21, 2014vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Noel et al. 21
Author Biographies
Nora E. Noel completed her PhD in clinical psychology from the State University of New York
at Binghamton (currently Binghamton University) in 1983. She is a professor in the psychology
department at the University of North Carolina Wilmington where she teaches undergraduate
experimental psychology and several courses in the graduate program focused on treatment of
substance abuse. Her research emphasizes the interplay of alcohol and drug use with sexual
behavior and aggression among men and women and has been published in Violence Against
Women, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Addictive Behaviors, and several other journals.
Richard L. Ogle, PhD, received his doctorate in clinical psychology from the University of
New Mexico. He is currently the chair of the Department of Psychology at the University of
North Carolina Wilmington. His clinical specialization and program of research are on addic-
tions and post-traumatic stress disorder. He has also published in Violence Against Women,
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, and Addictive Behaviors.
Stephen A. Maisto received his PhD in experimental psychology from the University of
Wisconsin–Milwaukee (1975), with postdoctoral respecialization in clinical psychology at
George Peabody College of Vanderbilt University (1985). Currently, he is a professor of psy-
chology at the Syracuse University. His interests include determinants and treatment of alcohol
and other drug use and disorders, substance use and sexual risk behaviors, and the integration of
treatment of behavioral health problems in the primary care setting. He has published in journals
such as Psychological Assessment, Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, Journal of General
Internal Medicine, and Addiction.
Lee A. Jackson, Jr., PhD is a professor of psychology at the University of North Carolina at
Wilmington. He is a social and community psychologist whose current interests center on the
social psychology of alcohol use among college students and its impact on interpersonal rela-
tions. He has co-authored several articles with Drs. Noel, Ogle, and Maisto in addition to a
recent article in the Journal of Community Health Nursing.
by guest on October 21, 2014vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
