Content uploaded by Sarah Edwards
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sarah Edwards on Feb 09, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Denying Rape but Endorsing Forceful Intercourse:
Exploring Differences Among Responders
Sarah R. Edwards, PhD,
1
Kathryn A. Bradshaw, MA,
1
and Verlin B. Hinsz, PhD
2
Abstract
Sexual assault is a problem on many college campuses, and many researchers have conducted studies assessing the
prevalence of sexual assault perpetration and intentions to be coercive. Behaviorally descriptive survey items (i.e., ‘‘Have
you ever coerced somebody to intercourse by holding them down?’’) versus labeling survey items (i.e., ‘‘Have you ever
raped somebody?’’) will yield different responses, in that more men will admit to sexually coercive behaviors and more
women will self-report victimization when behavioral descriptions are used (Koss 1998) instead of labels. Indeed, some
men will endorse items asking whether they have used force to obtain intercourse, but will deny having raped a woman.
There has been little research on differences between individuals to endorse a behaviorally descriptive item versus a labeling
item. The present study uses discriminant function analysis to separate men who do not report intentions to be sexually
coercive, those who endorse behaviorally descriptive intentions but deny it when the word rape is used, and those who
endorse intentions to rape outright. Results indicated that participants can be differentiated into three groups based on scores
from scales on hypermasculinity and hostility toward women. High hostility toward woman and callous sexual attitudes
separated the no intentions group from those who endorsed either intentions to rape or those who endorses only the
behavioral description of rape. The two types of offender groups were distinguishable mostly by varying levels of hostility,
suggesting that men who endorse using force to obtain intercourse on survey items but deny rape on the same may not
experience hostile affect in response to women, but might have dispositions more in line with benevolent sexism.
Introduction
F
ederal data estimate that about one in five women
becomes the victim of sexual assault while in college,
most of which is committed by assailants known to the
victim (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control
2012). These staggering numbers, as well as the govern-
ment’s response of creating a task force addressing college
sexual assault, have generated an increase in news coverage
with some mainstream media and social network users
questioning whether many of these cases constitute rape.
For example, commentators have suggested that rape only
occurs if a woman labels it as such, while experiencing an
unwanted sexual experience under the influence does not
constitute rape. This perspective demonstrates stereotypical
assumptions many people still hold about rape, considering
it to be an act of extreme violence perpetrated by an un-
known assailant upon an unsuspecting woman who is
willing to defend her sexual purity with her life. Such
sentiments contribute to a culture that continues to put at
least partial responsibility for sexual assault on the victim
and normalizes sexual aggression as part of the male gender
role. Such thinking highlights a well-known phenomenon in
research on sexual aggression, in which individuals struggle
with accurately identifying the range of different circum-
stances that all might constitute sexual assault (Bachman
and Paternoster 1993; Littleton and Axsom 2003; Littleton
et al. 2009).
Specifically, when survey items describe behaviors (i.e.,
‘‘Have you ever coerced somebody to intercourse by
holding them down?’’) instead of simply label them (i.e.,
‘‘Have you ever raped somebody?’’), more men will admit
to sexually coercive behaviors in the past and more women
will self-report past victimization (Koss 1998). Little re-
search has examined what dispositional factors might prompt
an individual to admit to rape when asked through behav-
iorally worded questions as opposed to labeling themselves a
rapist. Given that rape is defined as intercourse by use of
force or threat of force against a victim’s wishes, this dis-
crepancy suggests that at least some men who rape do not
seem to classify their behaviors as such. Hence, we would
like to explore the dispositional motivations and reasons that
1
Counseling Psychology and Community Services, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, North Dakota.
2
Department of Psychology, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota.
VIOLENCE AND GENDER
Volume 1, Number 4, 2014
ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
DOI: 10.1089/vio.2014.0022
188
some individuals endorse behaviorally descriptive intentions
to use force to engage in sexual aggression, but deny in-
tentions to rape, and other individuals endorse intentions to
rape. The present study is an exploratory attempt to distin-
guish between these different types of rapists via the dis-
positional constructs of hostility toward women, and callous
sexual attitudes.
Callous Sexual Attitudes
Callous sexual attitudes are commonly defined as atti-
tudes that objectify women and expect men to exhibit sexual
dominance (Donaldson 1993). Callous sexual attitudes are a
part of the larger group of constructs that make up hyper-
masculinity. Hypermasculinity reflects an exaggeration of
traditional masculine messages, such as dictating that real
men should enjoy danger, aggressively pursue sexual op-
portunities, and stand ground in a fight. While previous
studies have related hypermasculine attitudes to sexual ag-
gression (Koralewski and Conger 1992; Good et al. 1995;
Suarez-Al-Adam et al. 2000; Tatum and Foubert 2009),
treating hypermasculinity as a global construct creates diffi-
culty in determining which particular dimensions of hyper-
masculinity predict sexual aggression. Understanding specific
dimensions that contribute to sexual aggression may help re-
fine sexual assault prevention programming or rehabilitation
programming for sexual offenders.
Most research specifically links one dimension of hy-
permasculinity, callous sexual attitudes, with sexual ag-
gression (Koralewski and Conger 1992; Parrot and Zeichner
2003). Vokey et al. (2013) noted that the dominant nature of
callous sexual attitudes prompts the hypermasculine sexual
exchange to become a depersonalized act rather than an
expression of intimacy. This is supported by research
demonstrating that men who exhibit higher sexual coercion
exhibit more callous sexual attitudes when compared to less
sexually coercive men (Koralewski and Conger 1992).
Further, research indicates that callous sexual attitudes are
linked with laboratory aggression (Parrot and Zeichner
2003) as well as cultural attitudes that justify rape or rape
myth acceptance (e.g., endorsing the belief that wearing a
short skirt invites rape) (Good et al. 1995; Tatum and
Foubert 2009). Ryan (2004) proposed that the relationship
between rape myth acceptance and sexual aggression might
be due to the extent to which callous sexual attitudes support
rape beliefs. This indicates that callous sexual attitudes may
be a unique contributor to sexual aggression.
Given that callous sexual attitudes permit violence and
consider women as passive sexual objects, it follows that for
men who endorse these, sexual aggression becomes an ap-
propriate and accepted expression of masculinity. In this sense,
using force to obtain intercourse does not become an act of
rape, but rather an expression of hypermasculinity, which may
be thought of as a desirable disposition in certain subcultures.
Taken together, these research findings suggest that an ex-
pression of hypermasculinity through callous sexual attitudes
may relate to an inclination to endorse a behavioral description
(i.e., using force to hold an individual down) versus referring to
a sexually aggressive act as rape. Hence, we hypothesize that
the construct of callous sexual attitudes will be found at the
highest levels in those men who endorse intentions to force a
woman to sexual acts but deny intentions to rape.
Hostility Toward Women
Hostility toward women is a tendency to be focused on
negative interactions with women (i.e., attacks, rejections),
resulting in an angry and unfriendly attitude toward them
(Check 1985). Hostility toward women reflects a disposition
in which men view women’s motives as manipulative or
deceitful. By extension, hostility toward women can feature
an unwillingness to trust women, as well as a tendency to
blame women for one’s problems.
Generally, sexually aggressive men, in both offending
populations and college populations, exhibit higher levels of
hostility toward women (Bernat et al. 1997; Rando et al.
1998). In a correlational study examining various attitudes
related to sexual aggression, Forbes et al. (2004) concluded
that hostility towards women closely related to college men’s
levels of sexual coercion and sexual aggression. Rando et al.
(1998) found that sexually aggressive men ranked higher
on hostility toward women when compared to nonsexually
aggressive men. Perpetrators of sexual violence scored
higher on hostility toward women compared to nonsexually
violent criminal offenders (Gudjonsson et al. 1989; Mar-
shall and Moulden 2001). However, research investigating
the relationship of hostility toward women and sexual of-
fending is not conclusive (Beech et al. 2006). Overall, while
some research points to a relationship between hostility
toward women and sexual aggression, most investigations
do not differentiate between sexual coercion (i.e., utilizing
nonphysical tactics to obtain a nonconsensual sexual en-
counter), and rape (i.e., utilizing force to obtain noncon-
sensual sexual encounter). Combining the constructs of
sexual coercion and rape may limit the predictive power of
attitudinal measures, and potentially reflects an assumption
that all manifestations of sexually aggressive behavior re-
flect the same dispositional pathway. Hence, examining the
extent to which hostility toward women predicts male’s
perceptions of future intentions as constituting rape or force
could help differentiate such mixed results.
Prior research differentiated coercive men (i.e., utilizing
nonphysical means to obtain a nonconsensual sexual en-
counter) from sexually aggressive men (i.e., utilizing
physical force to obtain a nonconsensual sexual encounter).
DeGue et al. (2010) found that only sexually aggressive
men exhibited hostility toward women when compared to
men that utilized consent, and sexually coercive men. How-
ever, DeGue et al. also noted that a substantial proportion of
the sample indicated that they engaged in both sexual coer-
cion and sexual aggression, which may have resulted in an
overall lack of prominent differences between sexually co-
ercive men and sexually aggressive men. Such results support
the exploration of delineating between perceiving one’s use
of forceful sexual behaviors as constituting rape or not. We
believe that men exhibiting higher levels of hostility toward
women will exhibit awareness that their behaviors constitute
rape, and still endorse use of force given that the motivation
of the encounter is to punish women.
The Present Study
We investigated whether the constructs of hostility to-
ward women and callous sexual attitudes differed among
men who self-identify as denying any likelihood to rape or
use force to obtain intercourse from women in the future,
DENYING RAPE BUT ADMITTING USE OF FORCE 189
self-identify as using force to obtain intercourse but denying
any intentions to rape ever, and men who respond affirma-
tively to both having intentions to rape and using force in
the future. This allows us to test whether there are differ-
ences in men who do not identify with the ‘‘rape’’ label on
sexual aggression surveys, although they have committed
acts that would be defined as rape. Men who admit inten-
tions to force women to have sexual intercourse only, but do
not believe that this act constitutes rape, might not be pri-
marily motivated by a desire to retaliate and overpower
women. Their behavior could be guided by other factors in
line with stereotypically masculine gender roles such as
having a high desire for sexual activity, viewing sexuality as
a competition and a way to gain respect among peers, and
lacking consideration for women or viewing them as sexual
objects. Therefore, we hypothesize that men do not endorse
any intentions for sexual aggression will differ from the
other two groups of men primarily on a dimension charac-
terized by hostility toward women as the strongest loading
factor. Men who openly endorse intentions to rape women
versus those who only endorse intentions to use force but
deny rape are hypothesized to differ along a second di-
mension on which callous sexual attitudes play a more
important role. In other words, we expect a pattern of results
showing two significant functions along which we can dif-
ferentiate the three groups of men.
Materials and Methods
Participants and measures
Eighty-six male college students received extra credit for
their participation. All participants were over 18 (M = 21,
SD = 3.6) and most were juniors in college. The over-
whelming majority of participants ( > 90%) identified as
Caucasian, consistent with the general student make up at
this university, and all identified as heterosexual, with prior
sexual experiences.
Hostility toward women. The hostility toward women
scale (Check 1985) assesses hostile, negative, and resentful
feelings participants might hold against women. This scale
consists of 22 items, specifically addressing male hostility
against females, such as: ‘‘I feel that many women flirt with
men just to tease them and hurt them’’ or ‘‘I am easily
angered by women.’’ Judgments were made on a 0 (strongly
agree)to6(strongly disagree) response scale, with higher
scores indicating more hostility. The scale demonstrated
good reliability (a = .87) in the current study.
Hypermasculinity scale. The survey also included the
callous sexual attitudes subscale from the hypermasculinity
scale (Mosher and Sirkin 1984). This scale consists of three
subscales: viewing danger as exciting, regarding violence as
manly, and endorsement of callous sexual attitudes. Only the
callous sexual attitudes subscale was used in this study,
because we were interested specifically in the contribution of
callous sexual attitudes to likelihood to commit sexual as-
sault. The subscale consisted of 10 forced choice items. The
scale demonstrated good reliability in this study (a = 0.86).
Attraction to sexual aggression. The survey concluded
with part of the attraction to sexual aggression scale (Ma-
lamuth 1989a,b). This scale measures self-reported likeli-
hood to engage in a variety of sexual behaviors ‘‘if nobody
would ever know and there wouldn’t be any consequences’’
for the participants. The behaviors that were included were
heterosexual intercourse, forcing a female to do something
sexual she does not want to, and rape. We chose to use a
hypothetical scale like this because we believed that it
would lead to less social desirability bias in this research, as
well as lessen any concerns participants might have about
divulging information about past crimes. In addition, for the
purpose of this study, the key points of having labels (rape)
versus behavioral descriptions of sexual aggression is
completely addressed with this scale.
Marlow–Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Participants
also completed the Marlow–Crowne Social Desirability
Scale in order to account for biases in reporting (Crowne
and Marlow 1960). Participants agreed with 10 dichoto-
mous items designed to assess the respondent’s propensity
to wanting to paint themselves in a favorable light.
Procedure
A male research assistant collected informed consent and
administered the survey in a private location. After finishing
the survey, participants dropped the survey into a mailbox.
Participants were then debriefed by the experimenter. The
debriefing was extensive and provided hotline information,
addressed rape myths, social norms campaign, university
policy on sexual assault, and a full presentation aimed at
preventing sexual aggression. This debriefing also included
resources to obtain free counseling services. Providing an
educational debriefing is a common practice in research
examining sexual aggression or utilizing sexually aggressive
materials (Allen et al. 1996), and our debriefing followed all
appropriate guidelines.
Results
The Marlow–Crown scale was not correlated with any of
the measures of interest, indicating that participants did not
exhibit any significant bias in reporting. Hence, we were able
to proceed with our analyses as planned. Data of the partici-
pants’ intentions to commit sexual assault are displayed in
Table 1. Table 2 shows the correlations of dispositional var-
iables and self-reported intentions to commit sexual assault.
To investigate whether hostility toward women and cal-
lous sexual attitudes differentiated among participants who
endorsed forced sex but not rape versus those who endorsed
both or neither, a descriptive discriminant function analysis
was conducted. We chose this analysis because it is well
suited to describe differences between preexisting groups
along multiple constructs at the same time. Discriminant
function analysis attempts to predict group membership
Table 1. Frequency of Intentions by Item Wording
Yes No
Intentions to force a woman
to sexual intercourse
31.7% (n = 26) 68.3% (n = 56)
Any intentions to rape a woman 13.6% (n = 11) 86.4% (n = 70)
190 EDWARDS ET AL.
based on canonical variables created by a given set of pre-
dictors. This allows the researcher to understand the nature
of the differences in groups more clearly by revealing which
variables are important and in which manner they should be
combined to optimally describe the distinction between groups.
Each of the discriminant functions represents a canonical var-
iable that is made up of a unique linear combination of the
constructs used (Duarte Silva and Stam 1995). In this study, we
attempted to predict membership in the three groups (reports no
intentions to be sexually coercive, reports intentions to force a
woman to have sex but denies intentions to rape, and reports
intentions to rape a women) based on hostility toward women
scores and callous sexual attitudes. In a sense, discriminant
function analysis can be viewed as a reverse multivariate
analysis of variance (MANOVA).
There was one participant who indicated that he would rape a
woman, but denied any likelihood to use force to obtain in-
tercourse. Because we did not know how to make sense of this
answer and could not exclude a random error (e.g., careless
marking), this case was dropped from the analysis. Cases with
missing data for the dispositional measures or intentions were
also dropped. This left us 73 cases for analysis, which all fell
into one of these groups: endorsing no intentions of sexual
assault (n = 49), endorsing intentions to use force but denying
intentions to rape a woman (n = 13), and endorsing both
(n = 10). Statistical guidelines for our chosen analysis suggests
that the minimum number of cases per group should exceed the
number of variables to be workable, and 5 observations per
variable entered into the analysis, although 20 is preferred. For
our 3 groups and 2 variables, we have 73 cases that surpass
these requirements (Tabachnick and Fidell 1996).
In discriminant function analysis, each function consists
of a unique linear combination of the predictor variables
used (here: hostility toward women and callous sexual atti-
tudes). Function 1 significantly discriminated among groups:
k = 0.65, v
2
(4) = 32.76, p < 0.001. Observing the standardized
canonical function coefficients and structure matrix suggests
that the first function is very strongly related to hostility toward
women (r
s
= 0.87), and moderately strongly related to callous
sexual attitudes (r
s
= 0.75). Function 2 was also significant:
k = 0.91, v
2
(1) = 7.20, p < 0.01. Function 2 appears to represent
moderately strong callous sexual attitudes (r
s
= 0.66), and a
moderate inverse of hostility (r
s
=-0.50). Plotting the group
centroids along the 2 significant dimensions represented by the
functions suggests that function 1 differentiates between re-
spondents who deny any intentions to rape or use force and the
other participants, as seen by the large distance between group
1 and groups 2 and 3 along the x axis in Figure 1. Given that
hostility is the attribute most strongly represented on the first
canonical variable, with moderately high levels of callous
sexual attitudes also represented, we interpret this as confir-
mation of previous research that suggests men who do not act
sexually coercive to have lower levels of both hostility toward
women and callous sexual attitudes compared to sexually co-
ercive men.
Inspection of function 2 in Figure 1 suggests that this di-
mension separated all three groups, although most strongly the
‘‘force’’ group from the ‘‘rape’’ group, as seen by the distance
between groups on the y axis in figure. Moderately high levels
of callous sexual attitudes coupled with an inverse of hostility
suggest that this function represents a unique set of charac-
teristics where the predominant disposition is not related to
being angry or violent toward women. Table 3 lists the
structure matrix and group centroids.
Discussion
The present study serves as initial investigation to exam-
ine how respondents who endorse behavioral descriptions of
rape but deny rape when labeled as such outright differ from
those who self-report intentions to rape and those who do
not endorse any sexual coercion. A descriptive discriminant
function analysis was used to reveal which variables should
be combined in what manner to best distinguish between the
groups. As hypothesized, a sizable number of participants
indicated that they might use force to obtain intercourse, but
would not rape a woman. Men who indicate intentions to use
force but deny intentions to rape exhibit a unique disposition
featuring an inverse construct of hostility toward women but
high levels of callous sexual attitudes (Check 1985). Given
that hostility toward women involves resentment, bitterness,
rejection sensitivity, and paranoia about women’s motives,
we consider the inverse of hostility toward women in men
Table 2. Correlations of Dispositional Measures
and Intentions to Commit Sexual Assault
Hostility
Callous sexual
attitudes
Intentions
to rape
Intentions
to use force
Hostility 0.43** 0.32** 0.35**
Callous sexual
attitudes
0.09 0.24*
Intentions to rape 0.81**
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
FIG. 1. Functions at group centroids.
Table 3. Structure Matrix and Functions at Group
Centroids by Function and Dispositional Measure
Structure matrix Function 1 Function 2
Hostility 0.84 - 0.55
Callous sex 0.81 0.58
Functions at group centroids
No intentions - 0.37 0.05
Force 1.06 0.34
Rape 0.52 - 0.64
DENYING RAPE BUT ADMITTING USE OF FORCE 191
that intend to use force to be indicative of an affable, trust-
ing, and nonreactive affect toward women. When combined
with callous sexual attitudes, we interpret this function as
representing personality characteristics that might lend
themselves to allowing men to not perceive his actions as
rape and may even view the forced intercourse as an
achievement. The primary motivation in this case could be
sexual gratification, accomplishment, and/or perceived
compliance with stereotypical masculine gender norms. The
use of force in these cases might be seen as an acceptable
mean to reach one’s goal, or the woman’s ‘‘no’’ is perceived
as a token resistance consistent with stereotypical gender
norms. While the ultimate outcome of either act constitutes
rape, this pattern of results suggests that there might be
different types of offenders with potential differences in
underlying motivation, cognition, and/or personality traits.
These results are informative because knowing ahead of
time that a particular subgrouping of men exhibit higher
levels of callous sexual attitudes may suggest that males in
this group are more likely to commit rape without labeling it
as such. Therefore, programming for these men needs to
include a strong educational component focused on clari-
fying different behaviors that all constitute sexual assault,
but do not follow the stereotypically imagined scenarios
related to rape. Furthermore, such programming would also
have to prompt men to be engaged and open to thinking
about their own behaviors to avoid having participants in-
ternally distance themselves (i.e., exhibiting an ‘‘I am not
that kind of guy who rapes women, this programming is not
for me’’ attitude) that would preclude men from fully par-
ticipating and benefitting from the program.
Males who might assault women without conceptualizing
their actions as rape might benefit more from psychoedu-
cation and immersion in cultural messages that do not con-
done the use of force, but might actually not take in rape
prevention messages directly due to not identifying with the
role of rapist. If improper beliefs and attitudes were sup-
planted with acceptable ones, the potential for sexual assaults
might be reduced, and the men could develop mutually
satisfying sexual relationships with women. If hostility, on
the other hand, is a prominent motivator, successful inter-
ventions likely need to include techniques to manage affect,
manage and/or process anger toward women, and cognitive
restructuring to disconnect negative feelings and women.
These men might need more individual services to allow for
successful processing of their affective bases of sexually
violent behaviors toward women, and would likely not
benefit from rape awareness and prevention programming
that focuses on norms and definitions of consent.
Limitations and Future Directions
There is likely more than hostility toward women and
callous sexual attitudes that distinguishes men who endorse
forced intercourse but not rape from those who admit to rape
on psychological studies. Our study was only a first ex-
ploration of this topic. Future studies could help account for
this by examining more dispositional measures. Given the
high perpetration of sexual assaults on college campuses
(Abbey et al. 1996), coupled with the fact that many studies
on sexual assault use college men, we felt that a conve-
nience sample of college males was a good place to start.
Understanding the motives and meaning associated with
such rapes is beyond this scope of the present research;
however, future studies could better clarify such motivations
by examining the extent to which other dimensions of
sexual aggression predict intentions to use force versus rape.
Further, it is important to note that sexual aggression is a
multidimensional construct, and both hostility toward wo-
men and hypermasculinity relate to rape myth acceptance
(Forbs et al. 2004; Ryan 2004). Given that our discrimi-
nant function analysis points to a construct that objectifies
women but exhibits positive affect toward women, future
research should incorporate other measures such as rape
myth acceptance, the full hypermasculinity scale, or benev-
olent sexism to achieve a greater dimension on the disposi-
tions contributing to different behavioral manifestations of
sexual aggression.
Conclusions
Our results suggest that there is no one-size-fits-all ap-
proach to sexual assault prevention. If men who sexually
assault harbor different motivations to varying degrees,
identifying them ahead of time and targeting interventions
toward groups of men with similar motivations, or better
even, providing personalized prevention programs, may
be more successful. Men who are primarily motivated by
negative, hostile affect toward women and who conceptu-
alize their own intentions and behaviors as rape are unlikely
to benefit from the large group primary prevention efforts
done as part of college outreach efforts. However, program-
ming using a group and norm-based approach appears to be
appropriate for men who endorse force but deny rape, as long
as the programming can establish rapport and credibility with
participants. Because these men do not view their sexually
aggressive intentions as rape, failing to attend to issues around
beliefs about the stereotypical rapist and not identifying with
them could weaken the effectiveness of the programming due
to not receiving buy in from participants. This would ulti-
mately likely leave the men who could benefit most from
these prevention efforts disengaged.
Author Disclosure Statement
In the present study, no competing financial interests
exist.
References
Abbey A, Ross LT, McDuffie D, McAuslan P. (1996). Alcohol and
dating risk factors for sexual assault among college women. Psychol
Women Q. 20, 147–169.
Allen M, D’Alessio D, Emmers T, Gebhart L. (1996). The role of
educational briefing in mitigating effects of experimental exposure
to violent sexually explicit media: A meta-analysis. J Sex Res. 33,
135–141.
Bachman R, Paternoster R. (1993). A contemporary look at the effects
of rape law reform: How far have we really come? J Criminal Law
Criminol. 84, 554–574.
Beech AR, Ward T, Fisher D. (2006). The identification of sexual and
violent motivations in men who assault women: Implication for
treatment. J Interpers Violence. 21, 1635–1653.
Bernat JA, Stolp S, Calhoun KS, et al. (1997). Construct validity and
test-retest reliability of a date rape decision-latency measure. J
Psychopathol Behav Assess. 19, 315–330.
192 EDWARDS ET AL.
Check JV. (1985). The Hostility Toward Women Scale. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Manitoba, Manitoba, Canada.
Crowne DP, Marlowe D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability
independent of psychopathology. J Consult Psychol. 24, 349–354.
DeGue S, DiLillo D, Scalora M. (2010). Are all perpetrators alike?
Comparing risk factors for sexual coercion and aggression. Sex.
Abuse. 22, 402–426.
Donaldson M. (1993). What is hegemonic masculinity? Theory Soc.
22, 643–657.
Duarte Silva AP, Stam A. (1995). Discriminant analysis. In Reading
and Understanding Multivariate Statistics. LG Grimm, PR Yarnold,
eds. (APA, Washington, DC), pp. 277–319.
Forbes GB, Adams-Curtis LE, White KB. (2004). First-and second-
generation measures of sexism, rape myths and related beliefs, and
hostility toward women: Their interrelationships and association
with college students’ experiences with dating aggression and
sexual coercion. Violence Against Women. 10, 236–261.
Good GE, Hepper MJ, Hillenbrand-Gunn T, et al. (1995). Sexual and
psychological violence: An exploratory study of predictors in col-
lege men. J Mens Stud. 4, 59–71.
Gudjonsson GH, Petursson H, Skulason S. (1989). Psychiatric evidence:
A study of psychological issues. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 80, 165–169.
Koralewski MA, Conger JC. (1992). The assessment of social skills
among sexually coercive college males. J Sex Res. 29, 169–188.
Koss MP. (1998). Hidden rape: Sexual aggression and victimization in
a national sample in higher education. In Rape and Sexual Assault,
Vol. II. AM Burgess, ed. (Garland Press, New York, NY), pp. 3–25.
Littleton HL, Axsom D. (2003). Rape and seduction scripts of uni-
versity students: Implications for rape attributions and unacknowl-
edged rape. Sex Roles 49, 465–475.
Littleton HL, Tabernik H, Canales EJ, et al. (2009). Risky situation or
harmless fun? A qualitative examination of college women’s bad
hook-up and rape scripts. Sex Roles. 60, 793–804.
Malamuth NM. (1989a). The attraction to sexual aggression scale: Part
one. J Sex Res. 26, 26–49.
Malamuth NM. (1989b). The attraction to sexual aggression scale: Part
two. J Sex Res. 26, 324–354.
Marshall WL, Moulden H. (2001). Hostility toward women and victim
empathy in rapists. Sex Abuse. 13, 249–255.
Mosher DL, Sirkin M. (1984). Measuring a macho personality con-
stellation. J Res Pers. 18, 150–163.
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. (2012). Sexual
violence. Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/sv-
datasheet-a.pdf
Parrott DJ, Zeichner A. (2003). Effects of hypermasculinity on phys-
ical aggression against women. Psychol Men Masculinity. 4, 70.
Rando RA, Rogers JR, Brittan-Powell CS. (1998). Gender role conflict
and college men’s sexually aggressive attitudes and behavior. J
Mental Health Couns. 20, 359–369.
Ryan KM. (2004). Further evidence for a cognitive component of rape.
Aggress Violent Behav. 9, 579–604.
Suarez-Al-Adam M, Raffaelli M, O’Leary A. (2000). Influence of
abuse and partner hypermasculinity on the sexual behavior of La-
tinas. AIDS Educ Prev. 12, 263–274.
Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. (1996). Using Multivariate Statistics
(Harper Collins, New York, NY).
Tatum JL, Foubert JD. (2009). Rape myth acceptance, hypermasculi-
nity, and SAT scores as correlates of moral development: Under-
standing sexually aggressive attitudes in first year college men. J
Coll Stud Dev. 50, 195–209.
Vokey M, Tefft B, Tysiaczny C. (2013). An analysis of hyper-
masculinity in magazine advertisements. Sex Roles. 68, 562–576.
Address correspondence to:
Sarah R. Edwards, PhD
Counseling Psychology and Community Services
University of North Dakota
Education Building, Room 314
231 Centennial Dr. STOP 8255
Grand Forks, ND 58202-8255
E-mail: sarah.edwards@email.und.edu
DENYING RAPE BUT ADMITTING USE OF FORCE 193
