Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T08:09:26.769Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Women’s Risk Perception and Responses to Intimate Partner Sexual Coercion: The Role of Type of Tactic, Previous Experience, and Myths Acceptance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2022

Marta Garrido-Macías Open the ORCID record for Marta Garrido-Macías [Opens in a new window] ,
Inmaculada Valor-Segura Open the ORCID record for Inmaculada Valor-Segura [Opens in a new window]  and
Francisca Expósito Open the ORCID record for Francisca Expósito [Opens in a new window]
Marta Garrido-Macías*
Affiliation:
Universitat d’ Alacant (Spain)
Inmaculada Valor-Segura
Affiliation:
Universidad de Granada (Spain)
Francisca Expósito
Affiliation:
Universidad de Granada (Spain)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Marta Garrido-Macías. Universitat d’ Alacant. Departament de Comunicació i Psicologia Social. Carretera de Sant Vicent del Raspeig s/n, Edifici de Ciéncies Socials. 03690 Sant Vicent del Raspeig, Alacant (Spain). Email: marta.garrido@ua.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sexual coercion is among the subtlest forms of sexual violence in an intimate relationship and sometimes goes unnoticed by victims. The present study analyzed factors that potentially mitigate women’s negative perceptions of intimate partner sexual coercion (IPSC). A total of 427 women completed an online survey, in which they were shown vignettes illustrating a growing risk of sexual coercion according to the perpetrators’ use of different coercive tactics. Participants replied to questions that reflected their risk perception, their perceptions of perpetrator behavior, and the probability of their leaving the relationship. The survey also queried their previous IPSC experience, and their degree of acceptance of sexual aggression myths. According to the results, women exposed to positive (vs. negative) verbal sexual coercion (VSC) condition decided to leave the abusive situation later (risk response), presented a longer time lag between the moment they recognized the risk and the moment they responded to it, perceived the perpetrator’s behavior as more acceptable and excusable, and were less likely to leave the relationship. Finally, greater myth acceptance and previous IPSC experience predicted a lower probability of leaving the relationship, due to delayed risk responses and to perceiving the perpetrator’s behavior as more acceptable and excusable. This was true regardless of the type of coercive tactic used by the perpetrator. The results highlight the need to consider the type of coercive tactic, previous experience, and myths acceptance as risk factors that may impede a woman to adequately perceive and respond to an intimate partner’s sexual violence.

Keywords

perceptions of perpetrator’s behaviorrisk responsesexual aggression mythssexual coercionvictimization
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 25 , 2022 , e18
Copyright
© Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Funding Statement: This work was supported by a grant from the Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional - Gobierno de España to the first author (Ref. FPU14–02905), and the financing provided by the Ministerio de Asuntos Económicos y Transformación Digital – Gobierno de España (Ref. PSI2017–84703–R; Ref. PID2020–114464RB–I00 [MINECO/AEI/FEDER/UE]).

Conflict of Interest: None.

References

Arriaga, X. B., Capezza, N. M., & Daly, C. A. (2016). Personal standards for judging aggression by a relationship partner: How much aggression is too much? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(1), 36–54. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arriaga, X. B., & Capezza, N. M. (2011). The paradox of partner aggression: Being committed to an aggressive partner. In Mikulincer, M. & Shaver, P. (Eds.), Understanding and reducing aggression and their consequences (pp. 367–383). American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Bagwell-Gray, M. E., Messing, J. T., & Baldwin-White, A. (2015). Intimate partner sexual violence: A review of terms, definitions, and prevalence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 16(3), 316–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014557290CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Basile, K. C., Black, M. C., Breiding, M. J., Chen, J., Merrick, M. T., Smith, S. G., Stevens, M. R., & Walters, M. L. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/11637Google Scholar
Bohner, G., Eyssel, F., Pina, A., Siebler, F., & Viki, G. T. (2009). Rape myth acceptance: Cognitive, affective, and behavioral effects of beliefs that blame the victim and exonerate the perpetrator. In Horvath, M. A. H. & Brown, J. M. (Eds.), Rape: Challenging contemporary thinking (pp. 17–45). Willan.Google Scholar
Brown, A. L., Testa, M., & Messman-Moore, T. L. (2009). Psychological consequences of sexual victimization resulting from force, incapacitation, or verbal coercion. Violence Against Women, 15(8), 898–919. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801209335491CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Camilleri, J. A., Quinsey, V. L., & Tapscott, J. L. (2009). Assessing the propensity for sexual coaxing and coercion in relationships: Factor structure, reliability, and validity of the Tactics to Obtain Sex Scale. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 959–973. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-008-9377-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edwards, K. M., Gidycz, C. A., & Murphy, M. J. (2011). College women’s stay/leave decisions in abusive dating relationships: A prospective analysis of an expanded investment model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(7), 1446–1462. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510369131CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edwards, K. M., Kearns, M. C., Gidycz, C. A., & Calhoun, K. S. (2012). Predictors of victim-perpetrator relationship stability following a sexual assault: A brief report. Violence and Victims, 27(1), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.27.1.25CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Escudero Nafs, A., Polo Usaola, C., López Gironés, M., and Aguilar Redo, L. (2005). La persuasión coercitiva, modelo explicativo del mantenimiento de las mujeres en una situación de violencia de género. I: Las estrategias de la violencia [The coercive persuasion, an explanatory model of the stay of women in a situation of gender-based violence. I: Violence Strategies]. Revista de la Asociación Española de Neuropsiquiatría, 25 (95), 85–117.Google Scholar
Fernández-Fuertes, A. A., Fernández-Rouco, N., Lázaro-Visa, S., & Gómez-Pérez, E. (2020). Myths about sexual aggression, sexual assertiveness and sexual violence in adolescent romantic relationships. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(23), Article 8744. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17238744CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garrido-Macías, M., Valor-Segura, I., Krahé, B., & Expósito, F. (2020). College women’s experience of verbal sexual coercion and responses to a sexual assault vignette. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 14, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.4119/ijcv-3945Google Scholar
Garrido-Macías, M., Valor-Segura, I., & Expósito, F. (2020a). Which tactics of sexual violence predict leaving the relationship? The role of dependence towards partner. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 12(2), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2020a6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrido-Macías, M., Valor-Segura, I., & Expósito, I. (2020b). Women’s experience of sexual coercion and reactions to intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520980394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrido-Macías, M., & Arriaga, X. (2020). Women are not swayed by sugar-coated acts of sexual coercion. Personal Relationships, 27(2), 251–273. http://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerger, H., Kley, H., Bohner, G., & Siebler, F. (2007). The acceptance of modern myths about sexual aggression scale: Development and validation in German and English. Aggressive Behavior, 33(5), 422–440. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20195CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodfriend, W., & Arriaga, X. B. (2018). Cognitive reframing of intimate partner aggression: Social and contextual influence. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(1), Article 2464. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15112464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, E. M., Berry, M. A., & Rodriguez, D. N. (2011). The influence of rape myth acceptance, sexual attitudes, and belief in a just world on attributions of responsibility in a date rape scenario. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 16(2), 242–252. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532510X499887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Hetzel-Riggin, M. D., James, S., Roby, R., & Buczek, T. J. (2021). Gender, myths, and assumptions: Correlates of risk perception in sexual assault scenarios. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211035867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Igartua, J.-J., & Hayes, A. F. (2021). Mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: Concepts, computations, and some common confusions. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 24, Article e49. https://doi.org/10.1017/SJP.2021.46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, J., Kuffel, S. W., & Brown, F. A. (2006). Leaving a sexually coercive dating partner: A prospective application of the investment model. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(3), 267–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00295.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, J., Moore, J. A., & Tkachuk, S. (2007). Verbal sexual coercion and perceived victim responsibility: Mediating effects of perceived control. Sex Roles, 57(3–4), 235–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9253-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, J., & Tirone, V. (2010). Going along with it: Sexually coercive partner behavior predicts dating women’s compliance with unwanted sex. Violence Against Women, 16(7), 730–742. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801210374867CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klement, K. R., Sagarin, B. J., & Skowronski, J. J. (2019). Accusers lie and other myths: Rape myth acceptance predicts judgments made about accusers and accused perpetrators in a rape case. Sex Roles, 81(1), 16–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0950-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loiselle, M., & Fuqua, W. R. (2007). Alcohol’s effects on women’s risk detection in a date-rape vignette. Journal of American College Health, 55(5), 261–266. https://doi.org/10.3200/JACH.55.5.261-266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López-Megías, J., Romero-Sánchez, M., Durán, M., Moya, M., & Bohner, G. (2011). Spanish validation of the acceptance of modern myths about Sexual Aggression Scale (AMMSA). The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 14(2), 912–925. http://doi.org/10.5209/rev_SJOP.2011.v14.n2.37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messman-Moore, T. L., & Brown, A. L. (2006). Risk perception, rape, and sexual revictimization: A prospective study of college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(2), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00279.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newcombe, P. A., van Den Eynde, J., Hafner, D., & Jolly, L. (2008). Attributions of responsibility for rape: Differences across familiarity of situation, gender, and acceptance of rape myths. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(7), 1736–1754. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00367.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pugh, B., & Becker, P. (2018). Exploring definitions and prevalence of verbal sexual coercion and its relationship to consent to unwanted sex: Implications for affirmative consent standards on college campuses. Behavioral Sciences, 8(8), Article 69. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs80800698.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salwen, J. K., & O’Leary, K. D. (2013). Adjustment problems and maladaptive relational style: A mediational model of sexual coercion in intimate relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(10), 1969–1988. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512471079CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shackelford, T. K., & Goetz, A. T. (2004). Men´s sexual coercion in intimate relationships: Development and initial validation of the sexual coercion in intimate relationships scale. Violence and Victims, 19(5), 541–556. https://doi.org/10.1891/vivi.19.5.541.63681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, S. G., Chen, J., Basile, K. C., Gilbert, L. K., Merrick, M. T., Patel, N., Walling, M., & Jain, A. (2017). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010–2012 State Report. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS-StateReportBook.pdfGoogle Scholar
Smith, S. G., Zhang, X., Basile, K. C., Merrick, M. T., Wang, J., Kresnow, M., & Chen, J. (2018). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2015 Data brief-Updated release. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/2015data-brief508.pdfGoogle Scholar
Tamborra, T. L., Dutton, L. B., & Terry, K. J. (2014). Verbally coerced sex: Does she have to say ‘no’? International Review of Victimology, 20(2), 227–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269758014521740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeater, E. A., McFall, R. M., & Viken, R. J. (2011). The relationship between women’s response effectiveness and a history of sexual victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(3), 462–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510363425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeater, E. A., Treat, T. A., Viken, R. J., & McFall, R. M. (2010). Cognitive processes underlying women’s risk judgments: Associations with sexual victimization history and rape myth acceptance. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78(3), 375–386. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019297CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed