1. Predictors of Sexual Coercion Against Women and Men: A Multinational Study of University Students Denise A. Hines Clark University Department of Psychology

2. Supported by:  Grant T32MH15161 from the National Institute of Mental Health

3. Background: Rates of Sexual Coercion  Female Victims 25-33% report at least forced touching of sexual parts <10% report forced intercourse  Male Victims 10-20% report verbal coercion 1-3% report forced intercourse

4. Background: Feminist Perspective  Roots of sexual coercion are grounded in the power imbalances inherent in patriarchy.  Power imbalances are reflected in dynamics of heterosexual romantic relationships.

5. Background: Feminist Perspective  Problem: Traditional feminist theory cannot account for sexual coercion by women against men.  When women gain increasing power in roles traditionally reserved for men, gender roles shift in other areas as well.

6. Background: Adversarial Sexual Beliefs  People with adversarial sexual beliefs would be more likely to commit sexual coercion.

7. Background: Sexual Revictimization A history of child sexual abuse is a strong predictor of sexual coercion victimization among women. Little research has documented whether sexual revictimization also applies to men. Don’t know whether the strength of this association differs by gender or culture.

8. Goals Investigate whether differing rates of sexual coercion victimization across 38 sites worldwide were due to differing degrees of the status of women. Investigate whether differing rates of sexual coercion victimization were due to differing degrees of adversarial sexual beliefs. Investigate the association between a history of CSA and current sexual coercion victimization for both men and women. Investigate whether sexual revictimization varied across sites.

9. Sample International Dating Violence Study 38 university sites from around the world 2,084 men in heterosexual romantic relationships Mean age: 23.11 years Mean Length of Relationship: 13.39 months % having sex in relationship: 74.2%

10. Sample International Dating Violence Study 38 university sites from around the world 5,583 women in heterosexual romantic relationships Mean age: 23.31 years Mean Length of Relationship: 15.37 months % having sex in relationship: 79%

11. Sites (n): Men ASIAEUROPEUNITED STATES China, Hong Kong (60)Belgium, Flemish (90)Indiana (47) India, Pune (20)England, Leicester (26)Louisiana (26) Singapore (55)Germany, Freiburg (65)Mississippi (15) South Korea, Pusan (68)Lithuania, Vilnius (105)New Hampshire 1 (114) AUSTRALIA/NZNetherlands, Amsterdam (30)New Hampshire 2 (60) Australia (32)Portugal, Braga (110)Ohio (128) New Zealand (25)Scotland, Glasgow (29)Pennsylvania (42) CANADASweden, Gavle (152)Texas, Houston (34) Hamilton (32)Swiss, French-speaking (42)Texas, Mexican-Amer (71) London (45)Swiss, German-speaking (26)Texas, Non-Mex-Amer (85) Quebec 1 (48)LATIN AMERICATexas, Nacogdoches (29) Quebec 2 (85)Brazil, Sao Paulo (76)Utah (54) Toronto (57)Mexico, Northern (24)Washington, DC (10) Winnipeg (15)MIDDLE EAST Israel, Emek Yezreel (52)

12. Sites (n): Women ASIAEUROPEUNITED STATES China, Hong Kong (87)Belgium, Flemish (311)Indiana (139) India, Pune (40)England, Leicester (157)Louisiana (70) Singapore (132)Germany, Freiburg (96)Mississippi (175) S. Korea, Pusan (113)Lithuania, Vilnius (220)New Hampshire 1 (208) AUSTRALIA/NZNetherlands, Amsterdam (94)New Hampshire 2 (205) Australia (176)Portugal, Braga (239)Ohio (144) New Zealand (94)Scotland, Glasgow (169)Pennsylvania (154) CANADASweden, Gavle (493)Texas, Houston (37) Hamilton (197)Swiss, French-speaking (141)Texas, Mexican-Amer (131) London (60)Swiss, German-speaking (92)Texas, Non-Mex-Amer (104) Quebec 1 (220)LATIN AMERICATexas, Nacogdoches (75) Quebec 2 (49)Brazil, Sao Paulo (155)Utah (100) Toronto (126)Mexico, Northern (158)Washington, DC (60) Winnipeg (112)MIDDLE EAST Israel, Emek Yezreel (250)

13. Measures Sexual Coercion Victimization Conflict Tactics Scales Verbally coerced sex Insisted or threatened vaginal, oral, and/or anal sex Physically forced sex Physically forced vaginal, oral, and/or anal sex

14. Measures Child Sexual Abuse Personal and Relationships Profile Contact and/or noncontact sexual abuse with: Family members Peers Nonfamily adults

15. Measures Site-level Gender Hostility Towards Men Average score for each site on the Gender Hostility to Men subscale of the Personal and Relationships Profile “Men treat women badly” “I often feel resentful of men”

16. Measures Site-level Gender Hostility Towards Women Average score for each site on the Gender Hostility to Women subscale of the Personal and Relationships Profile “Women treat men badly” “I often feel resentful of women”

17. Measures Site-Level Status of Women United Nations Statistics Division Eight indices of women’s participation in: Government (3) Education (3) Workforce (2)

18. Analyses  Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) Examine both group- and individual- level influences. Control variables  Age  Length of Relationship  Sex part of the relationship  SES  Social desirability

19. Analyses  Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) Individual-level predictor  Number of CSA items endorsed Site-level predictors  Site level Gender Hostility to (Wo)men  Status of Women Index Outcomes  Forced sexual coercion  Verbal sexual coercion

20. Descriptive Statistics: Male Victimization % Forced Sex % Verbal Coercion % CSA History Mean # of Items Endorsed Overall2.8%22.0%29.9%0.55 Low 0% (12 sites) 0% (India) 5.9% (Sweden) 0.09 (Sweden) High 12% (Louisiana) 50% (Louisiana) 62.5% (Quebec 1) 1.50 (Washington, DC)

21. Differences in Sexual Coercion Among Sites: Male Victimization Odds Ratios Forced Coercion Verbal Coercion Status of Women1.25**1.03 Gender Hostility to Men 1.38***1.18** ** p <.01; *** p <.001

22. Sexual Revictimization: Men Odds Ratios Forced Coercion Verbal Coercion Sexual Abuse History1.48***1.28*** χ2χ2 SAH-Sexual Coercion slope47.9744.77 *** p <.001

23. Descriptive Statistics: Female Victimization % Forced Sex % Verbal Coercion % CSA History Mean # of Items Endorsed Overall2.3%24.5%32.0%0.66 Low 0% (3 sites) 9.6% (Netherlands) 18.3% (Sweden) 0.31 (Lithuania) High 13.3% (London, Canada) 46.7% (Washington, DC) 53.1% (Quebec 2) 1.33 (India)

24. Differences in Sexual Coercion Among Sites: Female Victimization Odds Ratios Forced Coercion Verbal Coercion Status of Women0.81 † 0.93 Gender Hostility to Women 1.57***1.22*** † p <.10, *** p <.001

25. Sexual Revictimization: Women Odds Ratios Forced Coercion Verbal Coercion Sexual Abuse History1.18**1.16*** χ2χ2 SAH-Sexual Coercion slope21.4368.16** ** p <.01,*** p <.001

26. Conclusions: Feminist Theory  Limited support for the theory that forced sex rates against women varied according to the status women had in society.  When women’s status increases, so does the level of forced sex against men.

27. Conclusions: Adversarial Sexual Beliefs  When men and women are socialized to believe that the other gender is deceptive, manipulative, and exploitative, they are more likely to verbally or forcefully coerce sex from the other gender.

28. Conclusions: Sexual Revictimization  A history of childhood sexual abuse is a significant risk factor for sexual coercion victimization for men and women.  With one exception, these associations did not significantly differ across cultures.