Sexual Aggression in Married Couples: A 7-Year Longitudinal Study Kassi D. Pham & Erika Lawrence The University of Iowa Sexual Aggression in Married Couples: A 7-Year Longitudinal Study Kassi D. Pham & Erika Lawrence The University of Iowa Abstract Introduction Method Procedures Measures Participants Acknowledgements Future Directions Strengths & Limitations Results & Discussion  Purpose: clarify the prevalence and nature of sexual aggression in community, non-battering populations  Husbands and wives (N = 102 couples) reported on sexual perpetration and sexual victimization 4 times over the first 7 years of marriage  More than 25% of couples reported sexual aggression  Sexual aggression is surprisingly prevalent even among happy newlyweds, highlighting the need to identify predictors and consequences of sexual aggression and prevent its occurrence  Purpose: clarify the prevalence and nature of sexual aggression in community, non-battering populations  Husbands and wives (N = 102 couples) reported on sexual perpetration and sexual victimization 4 times over the first 7 years of marriage  More than 25% of couples reported sexual aggression  Sexual aggression is surprisingly prevalent even among happy newlyweds, highlighting the need to identify predictors and consequences of sexual aggression and prevent its occurrence Overview of research:  Historically, aggression research was conducted with battered women  More recently, physical and psychological aggression investigated in normative samples (e.g., happy, community couples)  Physical and psychological aggression are highly prevalent (25% - 57%) among happy, community couples  Sexual aggression has not been investigated in these populations Two studies of sexual aggression with non-battering samples:  Russell (1982): 14% of women (N = 930) reported being raped by their husbands  Meyers et al. (1998): 36% of wives in couple therapy and 14% of community wives reported sexual victimization in the previous year Gap in literature: no studies assessing husbands’ and wives’ reports of sexual aggression in community couples over time Purpose of this study:  To assess the prevalence and nature of sexual aggression in a sample of community couples  To identify correlates of sexual aggression Overview of research:  Historically, aggression research was conducted with battered women  More recently, physical and psychological aggression investigated in normative samples (e.g., happy, community couples)  Physical and psychological aggression are highly prevalent (25% - 57%) among happy, community couples  Sexual aggression has not been investigated in these populations Two studies of sexual aggression with non-battering samples:  Russell (1982): 14% of women (N = 930) reported being raped by their husbands  Meyers et al. (1998): 36% of wives in couple therapy and 14% of community wives reported sexual victimization in the previous year Gap in literature: no studies assessing husbands’ and wives’ reports of sexual aggression in community couples over time Purpose of this study:  To assess the prevalence and nature of sexual aggression in a sample of community couples  To identify correlates of sexual aggression Prevalence Rates and Interspousal Agreement  Both husbands and wives reported incidents of victimization and perpetration Rates of sexual aggression similar to rates of psychological and physical aggression in normative samples  Little agreement on specific behaviors May be because partners label sexually aggressive acts differently  Verbal coercion far more common than physical force  Husbands and wives reported similar rates of using physical force to have sex Surprising: marital rape occurs in normative populations Correlates of Sexual Aggression  Levels of sexual aggression NOT associated with aggressiveness, manipulativeness or antisocial personality traits These traits are associated with psychological & physical aggression Surprising given similar prevalence rates across different types of aggression  Husbands’ sexual aggression associated with lack of emotional intimacy & issues of power and control  Sexual aggression in young, happy relationships seems qualitatively distinct from psychological and physical aggression. Not a function of personality pathology or relationship distress but may be indicative of emotional disengagement and larger issues of power and control Prevalence Rates and Interspousal Agreement  Both husbands and wives reported incidents of victimization and perpetration Rates of sexual aggression similar to rates of psychological and physical aggression in normative samples  Little agreement on specific behaviors May be because partners label sexually aggressive acts differently  Verbal coercion far more common than physical force  Husbands and wives reported similar rates of using physical force to have sex Surprising: marital rape occurs in normative populations Correlates of Sexual Aggression  Levels of sexual aggression NOT associated with aggressiveness, manipulativeness or antisocial personality traits These traits are associated with psychological & physical aggression Surprising given similar prevalence rates across different types of aggression  Husbands’ sexual aggression associated with lack of emotional intimacy & issues of power and control  Sexual aggression in young, happy relationships seems qualitatively distinct from psychological and physical aggression. Not a function of personality pathology or relationship distress but may be indicative of emotional disengagement and larger issues of power and control  N = 102 couples  Eligibility Requirements: First marriages, married less than 6 months At least 18 years old Ability to read and speak in English  Demographics : Months dated before marriage: M = 44.0 (SD = 27.0) 15% identified as ethnic minorities Ages: husbands, M = (3.55); wives, M = (.67) Modal annual joint income = $40,001- $50,000 Modal years of education = 14 years  N = 102 couples  Eligibility Requirements: First marriages, married less than 6 months At least 18 years old Ability to read and speak in English  Demographics : Months dated before marriage: M = 44.0 (SD = 27.0) 15% identified as ethnic minorities Ages: husbands, M = (3.55); wives, M = (.67) Modal annual joint income = $40,001- $50,000 Modal years of education = 14 years  Conflict Tactics Scales 2 (Straus et al., 1996): 7 perpetration & 7 victimization items Participants rate how often each behavior occurred in the past 6 months on 7-point scales ranging from “never” to “20 times or more”  The Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality 2 (Clark et al., in press) Manipulativeness & Aggressiveness scales: 20 T/F items each Antisocial Personality Scale: 34 T/F items  Quality of Marriage Index (Norton, 1983): 6 items assessing global perceptions of relationship satisfaction  Relationship Quality Interview (Lawrence et al., 2011): Semi-structured, behaviorally anchored individual interview Emotional Intimacy and Respect/Control sections administered Participants answered open-ended questions about the past 6 months Interviewers rate relationship quality on 9-point scales Participants rate their satisfaction on a 9-point scales  Conflict Tactics Scales 2 (Straus et al., 1996): 7 perpetration & 7 victimization items Participants rate how often each behavior occurred in the past 6 months on 7-point scales ranging from “never” to “20 times or more”  The Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality 2 (Clark et al., in press) Manipulativeness & Aggressiveness scales: 20 T/F items each Antisocial Personality Scale: 34 T/F items  Quality of Marriage Index (Norton, 1983): 6 items assessing global perceptions of relationship satisfaction  Relationship Quality Interview (Lawrence et al., 2011): Semi-structured, behaviorally anchored individual interview Emotional Intimacy and Respect/Control sections administered Participants answered open-ended questions about the past 6 months Interviewers rate relationship quality on 9-point scales Participants rate their satisfaction on a 9-point scales Strengths  Multi-wave (4 waves), longitudinal (7 years) design  Data collected on specific acts of aggression (increases validity)  Data collected on perpetration and victimization  Data collected from husbands and wives  Normative community sample – rarely studied in this field Limitations  Sample White, non-Hispanic, middle class, heterosexual married couples – limits generalizability Strengths  Multi-wave (4 waves), longitudinal (7 years) design  Data collected on specific acts of aggression (increases validity)  Data collected on perpetration and victimization  Data collected from husbands and wives  Normative community sample – rarely studied in this field Limitations  Sample White, non-Hispanic, middle class, heterosexual married couples – limits generalizability  Examine predictors and context of sexual aggression community, normative samples  Examine sexual, physical, and psychological aggression in the same samples  Examine predictors and context of sexual aggression community, normative samples  Examine sexual, physical, and psychological aggression in the same samples  Data collection was supported by grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (R49 CCR and R49 CE721682), the National Institute for Child and Human Development (RO1 HD046789), and The University of Iowa  Analyses and completion of this study were supported by the University of Iowa Summer Research Opportunity Program (SROP)  We thank Rebecca Brock for assistance with data analyses, Rosaura Orengo-Aguayo for feedback on poster development, and the countless research assistants who helped collect 7 years of data  Data collection was supported by grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (R49 CCR and R49 CE721682), the National Institute for Child and Human Development (RO1 HD046789), and The University of Iowa  Analyses and completion of this study were supported by the University of Iowa Summer Research Opportunity Program (SROP)  We thank Rebecca Brock for assistance with data analyses, Rosaura Orengo-Aguayo for feedback on poster development, and the countless research assistants who helped collect 7 years of data Husbands’ ReportsWives’ Reports H Perpetration H Victimization W Perpetration W Victimization 3-6 mos 22.5 % 23.5 %5.8 %21.2 % mos 13.6 %17.5 %6.1 %9.8 % mos 7.0%8.5 %2.8 %11.3 % mos 11.7%5%1.7 %13.8 % Table 1 Percent of Spouses Reporting Sexual Aggression at Each Time Point Aggressive ActH Perpetration W Perpetration Insisted on sex without condom (no force)39.0 %36.2 % Insisted on oral or anal sex when partner did not want to (no force) 31.3 %14.8 % Insisted on intercourse when partner did not want to (no force) 56.9 %40.3 % Used threats to make partner have oral or anal sex 13.0 %11.3 % Used threats to make partner have intercourse 11.3 %9.6 % Used force to make partner have oral or anal sex 6.0 %7.7 % Used force to make partner have intercourse9.8 %9.6 % Table 2 Percent of Spouses Who Engaged in Specific Acts of Sexual Aggression Defining Sexual Aggression  A completed nonconsensual sex act (e.g., rape)  An attempted nonconsensual sex act  Abusive sexual contact (e.g., unwanted touching)  Non-contact sexual abuse (e.g., threatening sexual violence) -- Centers for Disease and Control and Prevention, 2009  A completed nonconsensual sex act (e.g., rape)  An attempted nonconsensual sex act  Abusive sexual contact (e.g., unwanted touching)  Non-contact sexual abuse (e.g., threatening sexual violence) -- Centers for Disease and Control and Prevention, 2009  Recruitment letters sent to those who applied for marriage licenses  Couples who called were screened and, if eligible, scheduled a laboratory appointment (Time 1)  Husbands and wives completed questionnaires 4 times: Time 1 (3-6 mos.), Time 2 (12-15 mos.), Time 3 (54-57 mos.), Time 4 (74-77 mos. of marriage)  Paid $25 - $100 at each time point  95% retention rate  Recruitment letters sent to those who applied for marriage licenses  Couples who called were screened and, if eligible, scheduled a laboratory appointment (Time 1)  Husbands and wives completed questionnaires 4 times: Time 1 (3-6 mos.), Time 2 (12-15 mos.), Time 3 (54-57 mos.), Time 4 (74-77 mos. of marriage)  Paid $25 - $100 at each time point  95% retention rate H Sexual Aggression W Sexual Aggression Quality of Emotional Intimacy (interviewer’s rating from H interview) -.34 **-.11 Quality of Emotional Intimacy (H satisfaction rating) -.24 *.06 Quality of Emotional Intimacy (Interviewer’s rating from W interview) Quality of Emotional Intimacy (W satisfaction rating) Quality of Respect & Control (interviewer’s rating from H interview) -.22 *.10 Quality of Respect & Control (H satisfaction rating) Quality of Respect & Control (Interviewer’s rating from W interview) Quality of Respect & Control (W satisfaction rating) H Marital Satisfaction W Marital Satisfaction Table 3 Correlations between Sexual Aggression at Time 1 and Relationship Facets +p<.10; *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.005;****p<.001.