Peter B. Anderson, Ph.D., Professor, Full-Time Faculty, Ph.D. in Human Services
School of Counseling and Social Services
Walden University, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Sergey Lebedev, Ph.D., National Institute for Mental Health Research,
Russian Academy of Medical Sciences,
Moscow, Russian Federation
Radik M. Masagutov, Ph.D., Bashkir State Medical University,
Department of Psychiatry,
Ufa, Russian Federation
Jennifer Fagen, Ph.D., Lamar University,
Department of Sociology, Social Work and Criminal Justice
Beaumont, Texas
ABSTRACT:
The present study is the first report of women’s sexual aggression gathered from a sample of women in Ufa, Russian Federation. The research question was: do women of different ethnicities, living in the Russian Federation, who are of different economic, social, and marital status, differ in their frequency of sexually aggressive behaviors. One hundred and twenty one primarily single (69.4%), heterosexual (88.4%), middle class (73.6%) women with a mean age of 23.1 (SD = 8.3) completed the questionnaire. Differences is sexually aggressive behaviors were found between women who were married vs. single, middle vs. upper class, Russian vs. Ukrainian, and clerks vs. students. The results provide new evidence of women’s sexual aggression outside of the United States and Western Europe. Support was found for previous reports about women’s sexual aggression and new possibilities for theory building are presented.
Introduction
The vast majority of the recent research published on the phenomenon of women’s sexual aggression has been conducted with populations of college students from the United States and Canada (Anderson & Struckman-Johnson, 1998; Spitzberg, 1999; Byers & O’Sullivan, 1996). One recent study from Germany, and another from India (Krahé, Scheinberger-Olwig, & Bieneck, 2003; Waldner, Vaden-Goad, & Sikka , 1999) provide accounts of women’s sexual aggression outside the U.S.. The present study is the first report of women’s sexual aggression gathered from a sample of women in the Russian Federation. Cultural norms and stereotypes have typically cast women as sexually passive (Campbell, 1999; Byers, 1996) and even resistant to sexual behavior and pleasure (Waldner, et al., 1999). The study of women’s sexual aggression runs counterintuitive to these cultural norms and expectations and challenges some basic assumptions about the nature of women’s sexuality (Denov, 2003; Green, 1999). Despite these cultural expectations, several authors have reported on women’s sexually aggressive behaviors (Anderson & Melson, 2002; Spitzberg, 1999). It has been argued that the most commonly studied variables used to explain women’s heterosexual aggression (e.g., past sexual abuse, stereotypical beliefs about sexuality) are not sufficient to explain the majority of the variance in this behavior and that other behavioral, cultural, and contextual variables need more scrutiny ( Anderson, Kontos, Tanigoshi, & Struckman-Johnson, 2005; Anderson & Savage, 2005)
Women’s Sexual Aggression
The very definition of sexual aggression is controversial, even when analyzing men’s behavior. The most widely used or adapted survey to assess men’s heterosexual aggression was first introduced by Koss and Oros in 1982. The sexual experiences survey (SES) was developed to reveal hidden cases of rape (Koss & Oros, 1982) and as they stated, “the continuum of sexual aggression would range from intercourse achieved through verbal coercion and threatened force to intercourse achieved against consent through use of physical force (rape)” (p. 455). Researchers who use the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES), (Koss & Oros, 1982; Koss & Gidycz, 1985; Koss, Gidycz, &Wisniewski, 1987) assume the intersubjectivity of terms such as sex, sexual behavior and verbal pressure. However, it has been found that the terms used in the SES are interpreted in many different ways by male subjects, which undermines the validity of results gleaned from this survey (O’Sullivan, 2005; Ross & Allgeier, 1996). According to Ross and Allgeier, “the SES may be plagued by inaccurate psychometric citations… and potentially questionable face validity” (p. 1590). For example, as O’Sullivan explains, the SES item: “Have you ever had intercourse with a woman when she didn’t really want to because she felt pressured by your continual arguments?” was interpreted by male respondents on a continuum from verbally persuading a woman, using threats to obtain sex to using physical force to obtain sex from a woman (p. 7).
As Larimer, Lydum, Anderson, and Turner (1999) explain, one of the limitations of her research is that the SES has been criticized for its lack of clarity. Further they state: “insufficient information exists regarding the extent to which men and women mean the same thing when they respond ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to these items” (p. 306). The “gender-neutral” version of the SES faces similar issues. One question reads, “In the past year, have you been in a situation where your partner became so sexually aroused that you felt it was useless to stop them even though you DID NOT want to have sexual intercourse?” (p. 304)
Although Larimer’s, et al. (1999) questions are theoretically “gender-neutral,” the only terms that had been altered are the respondent’s or perpetrator’s gender. For example, instead of using “he” or “she,” Larimer, et al. (1999) uses “your partner” and “their.” It presumes that terms such as “intercourse,” “sex play” and “pressure” are defined similarly by women and men. However, men and women have been shown to define these terms in gender-specific ways. As Fenton, Johnson, and McManus (2001) stated, men are more likely than women to include “non-penetrative sex” in their definition of “sex.” In addition, since sexual initiation, dominance, and even aggression are consistent with the masculine role within the traditional sexual script, a man may be physically aggressive in a sexual encounter without a woman perceiving this behavior as coercive. Further, men may over report their sexual aggression since they may “need to impress others or [have] an emotional investment in a culture’s male script” (O’Sullivan. 2005, p. 7). This may also lead men to underreport their own sexual victimization. Conversely, women are acknowledged to underreport the number of partners with whom they had sexual contact and the amount of times they have participated in premarital sex (Fenton, et al., 2001, p. 86).
This issue is intensified by the fact that the SES defines physical force in vague terms, as is evident in the following question:
In the past year, have you been in a situation where someone used some degree of PHYSICAL FORCE (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc.) to get you to have sexual intercourse with them when YOU DIDN'T WANT TO, WHETHER OR NOT INTERCOURSE ACTUALLY OCCURRED (Larimer, et al., 1999. p. 306).
The first published study to adapt the Koss and Oros questionnaire to examine women’s heterosexual aggression was the Anderson and Aymami (1993) article on male and female differences in reports of women’s initiation of sexual contact. Since that publication, Anderson and others have continued to use the continuum of sexual aggression first described by Koss and Oros to measure women’s heterosexual aggression (Anderson, 1996; Russell & Oswald, 2002). Koss, et al. (2007) have published an updated version of the original scale to counter these criticisms and offer an improved version of the scale. Our study was conducted prior to the publication of the revised scale and we specify our list of the 15 tactics used to define sexually aggressive behavior in the methods section.
Spitzberg (1999) aggregated the results of 120 studies of sexual aggression conducted in the U.S. that involved a total of over 100,000 respondents. His analysis revealed that despite methodological differences, prevalence estimates for perpetration and victimization were generally consistent across time, population type, and gender regardless of whether the questions asked about specific behaviors (e.g., lying, using your position of power or authority, or threatening to use violence) or categories of behavior (e.g., used coercion or raped). Estimates were that approximately 13% of women and 3% of men had been raped and approximately 25% of both men and women had experienced and perpetrated sexual coercion. He also concluded that there are likely other variables that would better account for the variation among prevalence estimates, and that these prevalence estimates will remain consistent until new variables (e.g., region and culture) are used. The Spitzberg study was published concurrent with the Waldner, et al. (1999) study and before the Krahé, et al. (2003) study and was only focused on U.S. data.
Waldner, et al. (1999), gathered self-report data from 54 men and 83 women attending college in Western India. The authors expected women, married persons, and members of the “protected” or lower class to experience higher levels of sexual coercion. Results from a sexual coercion inventory indicated that overall rates of coercion in Western India were virtually identical to those reported by Spitzberg (26%), that there was no relationship between gender and victimization status, and that both married persons and members of the protected class reported higher levels of sexual coercion than singles and upper class members respectively. The authors concluded that the lack of gender differences could be due to discrepancies between patriarchal social attitudes and actual behaviors or that milder forms of coercion are seen as acceptable pressure by either a husband or wife to fulfill their culturally appropriate social/marital responsibility to have sex for procreation or to preserve the marital bond. The result that married respondents were more likely to experience coercion was explained in two ways. First, the cultural expectation of marital duty increases the possibility of experiencing behaviors defined as coercion by Western researchers. Second, premarital dating is rare because of arranged marriages and is closely monitored when it does occur, thus limiting opportunities for singles to experience sexual coercion. Finally, the authors argued that the class system in India may lead members of the protected class to feel socially powerless and to gain some level of personal power through sexual aggression.
Krahé, et al. (2003) reported on two studies intended to measure the prevalence and emotional impact of men’s experiences of nonconsensual sexual interactions with women in Germany. Both studies involved men’s self-reports of their experiences. All the data was gathered by approaching men in public settings and asking them to complete a questionnaire about sexuality. The men in both studies were primarily German nationals (80 +%) who had completed 10 or more years of school (85 +%). The men in the second study were, on average, 4 years older (22.3 years vs. 18.3 years) than men in the first study. The authors hypothesized that questions about lifetime prevalence would lead to more reports of sexual coercion among the second sample, and, as predicted, approximately 5% more (30.1% vs. 25.1%) of the men in the second study reported experiencing sexual coercion. These results are in general agreement with American rates reported by Spitzberg (1999) given the age of the relative samples.
Purpose
The present study is an attempt to generate data about women’s sexual aggression in the Russian Federation to further our knowledge and understanding of women’s sexual behaviors and discover any cultural differences in reported behaviors between this new sample and previously studied samples. The primary research question was: do women of different ethnicities, living in the Russian Federation, who are of different economic, social, and marital status, differ in their frequency of sexually aggressive behaviors.
Setting
The Bashkiria Republic of the Russian Federation lies to the West of the Southern Ural Mountains and is also bounded by the Belaya and Kama rivers (Oztukler.com, 2005). For ten thousand years both Turkish and Bashkurd tribes have lived here as neighbors with similar educational and economic histories. Ufa is the capitol of modern Bashkiria with a population of approximately 1.1 million people, made up primarily of Russian, Ukrainian, Tartar, and Georgian ethnic groups. Tartars are likely to have Moslem family traditions while Ukrainians are likely to have Eastern Orthodox Christian traditions and Russians may have no religious traditions or are newly religious (NationMaster.com, 2005). Ufa is situated on the confluence of the Belaya and Ufa rivers and supports mining, oil refining, and petrochemical industries among others (Greatestcities.com, 2005).
Method
Procedures
The questionnaire was developed by the authors based on previous work and specific understandings of population of Ufa and the Russian Federation. The final version of the questionnaire was then translated into Russian by a paid and experienced translator and then back translated into English by the same translator.
Questionnaires were distributed by a member of the research team to three groups: (1) second year medical students at Bashkir State Medical University, (2) the tax staff in one of the five tax-institutions, and (3) to the staff in the office drilling operations (a labor collective of approximately 150 people who administrate and coordinate the work of an oil producing operator); all located in Ufa, Russian Federation. Everyone was informed of the voluntary nature of the questionnaire. No one refused to fill out the questionnaire and all responders filled it out in privacy and returned it to the team member as soon as it was completed. The data from the completed questionnaires was coded and analyzed by one of the Russian members of the research team to make sure that no translation errors corrupted the data or analysis.
Participants
One hundred and twenty one primarily single (69,4%), heterosexual (88,4%), middle class (73.6%) women with a mean age of 23.1 (SD = 8.3) completed the questionnaire. The respondents were relative evenly divided between three ethnic groups; Russian (24.8%), Tartar (35.5%), and Ukrainian (33.9%). Most were University students (68.6%) or clerks (26.4%), reported attending religious services at least once per month (23.1%), and not quite half (47.1%) reported viewing erotic materials at least once per month. Almost all the women (80.9%) reported consensual sexual contact in the past, most (65.5%) reported initiating sexual contact, and not quite half (45.3%) reported overestimating the level of sexual contact that a partner desired at the time.
Measures
As discussed by Fenton, Johnson, McManus and Erens (2001), the accurate measurement of sexual behavior is most difficult due to the sensitive nature of sexual activity. This challenge is compounded by the fact that respondents may be reticent to report sexual behaviors that violate culturally prescribed gender norms. The difficulty in obtaining accurate data is exacerbated in studies of sexual aggression, largely due to the social stigma associated with being a rape victim and/or perpetrator. Although cross sectional population surveys provide a “robust estimate” of the prevalence of various sexual behaviors in a population, such instruments fail to assess respondents’ interpretations of survey items as well as the “social context of sexual behaviour” (Fenton, et al., 2001, p. 85).
In this study, participants completed a 34 item questionnaire (see Appendix A for the English version) that assessed demographics, sexual experience, tactics used to influence a reluctant partner, and the gender and respondents relationship to the reluctant partner. The demographic portion of the questionnaire included 9 categorical questions to measure age, marital status (i.e., single, married, divorced, separated living alone, or not married living with a sexual partner), socio-economic background (i.e., poor, middle class, upper middle class, wealthy), sexual orientation, frequency of attendance at religious services, frequency of use of erotic materials (self-defined), ethnicity (i.e., Russian, Tartar, Ukrainian, Georgian gender, and social status (i.e., student, clerk, worker, other). The sexual experience portion contained 3 questions asking for the number of times the respondent had sexual contact (i.e., sexual touch, oral sex, or intercourse), number of times they initiated sexual contact, and number of times they overestimated the level of sexual activity desired by a partner. The tactics portion contained 20 questions with open ended numerical answers. Each question asked about attempted or completed sexual touch, oral sex, or sexual intercourse resulting in 120 possible answers (i.e., 3 categories of attempted sexual contact and 3 categories of completed sexual contact for each of the 20 tactic questions). Only 15 of the 20 tactics questions were classified as sexual aggression (versus sexual initiation or seduction) resulting in 90 possible answers for this analysis ( Anderson, 1996). The questions were in a format that asked, “How many times have you attempted or completed sexual touch (fill in the blank), oral sex (fill in the blank), or sexual intercourse (fill in the blank) by using one of the 20 tactics. The 15 tactics defined as sexual aggression were: threatening to end your relationship, by saying things you did not mean, by questioning his sexuality (suggesting he may be impotent or gay), by pressuring with verbal arguments, by getting him drunk or high, by using your position of power or authority, by taking advantage of a compromising position he was in (being some place he did not belong or breaking some rule), by threatening or using some form of physical force (6 items), or by having sex with someone between the ages of 12 and 18 years of age who was five or more years younger than yourself or by having sex with someone while their judgment was impaired by drugs or alcohol). The final two questions on the questionnaire measured the percent of times the tactics were directed toward men vs. women and the percent of times the tactics were used with a stranger, a date or acquaintance, a steady date or fiancé, or a spouse.
Results
Marital Status
Married women (M = 15.58, SD = 29.03, N = 26) were more likely than single women (M = 1.25, SD = 8.79, N = 84) to attempt intercourse (t = -2.48, p = .02) when her partner’s judgment was impaired by drugs or alcohol. Similarly, married women (M = 13.31, SD = 21.53, N = 26) were more likely than single women (M = 1.00, SD = 6.66, N = 84) to accomplish intercourse (t = -2.87, p = .008) when her partner’s judgment was impaired by drugs or alcohol.
Economic Status
Middle class (the combination of middle and upper middle class responses on the questionnaire) heterosexual women (M = 5.88, SD = 19.49, N = 79) were more likely than upper class (a response of wealthy on the questionnaire) heterosexual women (M = 0.0, SD = 0.0, N = 12) to attempt intercourse (t = 2.68, p = .009) with a man when his judgment was impaired by drugs or alcohol. Middle class heterosexual women (M = 4.59, SD = 14.45, N = 79) were also more likely than upper class women (M = 0.0, SD = 0.0, N = 12) to accomplish intercourse (t = 2.83, p = .006) when her male partner’s judgment was impaired by drugs or alcohol.
Ethnicity
Russian women (M = 1.70, SD = 3.74, N = 30) were more likely than Ukrainian women (M = .17, SD = 1.09, N = 41) to accomplish intercourse (t = 2.17, p = .037) by questioning her male partner’s sexuality. Russian clerks (M = 2.47, SD = 4.48, N = 19) were more likely than Tartar clerks (M = .14, SD = .38, N = 7) to accomplish intercourse (t = 2.25, p = .037) by questioning his sexuality.
Social Status
Russian clerks (M = 10.58, SD = 20.31, N = 19) were more likely than Russian students (M = .20, SD = .63, N = 10) to accomplish intercourse (t = -2.23, p = .039) when her partner’s judgment was impaired by drugs or alcohol. In addition, Russian clerks (M = 2.47, SD = 4.48, N = 19) were more likely than Russian students (M = 0.0, SD = 0.0, N = 10) to accomplish intercourse (t = -2. 41, p = .027) by questioning her partners sexuality.
Discussion
Marital Status
Ufa is a relatively small city where sexual activity for unmarried women is likely regarded as unacceptable behavior that becomes acceptable, even expected, after marriage. Additionally, unlike circumstances in the US, single women are not likely to have many opportunities to meet single men to date and engage in sexual behavior. For example, nearly all single women students live at home rather than in a dorm or in an apartment as may be the case in the United States. If married women have more sex generally, they are also more likely to have sex with men who are under the influence of alcohol. These results parallel those of Waldner, et al. (1999) and share similar explanatory characteristics in that single women are unlikely to have as much opportunity as married women to use sexually aggressive tactics toward a reluctant male partner.
Economic Status
Class distinctions between students in Ufa are difficult to interpret. Certainly, among medical students, some women are from well-off families with parents who work in the gas or oil business. We believe that this distinction is a potential result of on-campus vs. off-campus living. Middle class women are more likely to live on campus as are middle class men. They may socialize together at parties that involve alcohol and present the opportunity for women to initiate sexual contact with a man whose judgment is impaired. Conversely, upper class women are likely to live off campus in a flat paid for by parents and they are much more under the control of their parents as well. In a more carefully supervised circumstance upper class women have fewer opportunities to initiate sex with men who are under the influence of alcohol or drugs. These class distinctions are also similar to those reported by Waldner, et al. (1999). This result is not because the lower class (protected class in their study) was gaining power through sexual aggression, but rather because the upper class had fewer opportunities as a result of being supervised and controlled by their parents or guardians.
Ethnicity
The distinctions between Russian and Ukrainian women could be a result of the minority status of Ukrainians in Bashkiria. Not only were the Ukrainian respondents living in the Russian Federation, not the Ukraine, but they are a marginalized group experiencing some prejudice from the majority population. The distinction between Russian and Tartar women is likely the result of the fact that in Ufa, Tartars are typically Muslims who follow very strict codes of conduct regarding sexual behavior. Other researchers have connected minority ethnic status with differences in receiving sexual aggression for women in Africa (Chapko, 1999) and in the United States (Scott, Lefley, & Hicks, 1993), but others have failed to find any connection (Merrill, et. al., 1999). Similar studies should examine women’s ethnic status and their sexual aggression.
Social Status
Differences between Russian clerks and students could be explained by differences in age (students are significantly younger M = 19.6, SD = 4.4 vs. M = 29.7, SD = 8.4) or general sexual experience in that clerks are almost 7 times as likely to report sexual contact and more than 14 times as likely to report initiating sexual contact with a man. Of course, in general age and experience go hand in hand so these differences are not at all unusual or unexpected. These differences are also in agreement with the conclusions of Anderson, Kontos, Tanigoshi, and Sturckman-Johnson (2005) who asserted that women who have more partners simply have more opportunities to experiment in sexual relationships, including the use of non-physical coercion strategies to obtain sex.
Limitations
The respondents in this study were convenience sampled from a single city in the Russian Federation and the respondents faced the problem of dimming memory over time when trying to recall many years of sexual behavior. It should likewise be noted that the questions in this study asked the respondents about attempted sexual contact and therefore the results must be seen as an overestimate of any actual sexual behaviors engaged in by the respondents. Therefore, these results can not be interpreted to represent any group beyond the sample itself.
Conclusions
Given the limitations of this research, the results still provide new evidence of women’s sexual aggression outside of the United States and Western Europe and, in general, support previous reports about women’s sexual aggression. Sexual aggression for these women was connected to increased opportunity for sexual activity due to their relationship or economic status and their age (older women having had more opportunities). Opportunity combined with motivation and reduced inhibitions, was one of three factors that Malamuth (1986) identified as predictors of male sexual aggression. The role of ethnicity favors an explanation that places women from the majority culture as being more likely to be sexually aggressive. Majority status could provide more psychological comfort for women to experience and express their motivation for sex. These results support two of the three aspects of Malamuth’s theoretical framework of men’s sexual aggression. Future research should continue to examine culture, context, ethnicity, and other elements that may influence women’s sexual aggression and expand our knowledge of the full range of women’s sexual behaviors.
References
Anderson, P.B. (1996). Correlates with college women's self reports of initiating heterosexual contact, Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 8(2), 121-131.
Anderson, P.B., Kontos, A.P., Tanigoshi, H., & Struckman-Johnson, C. (2005). A Comparison of Sexual Strategies Used by Urban Southern and Rural Midwestern University Women. Journal of Sex Research, 42(4), 335-341.
Anderson, P.B., & Savage, J. (2005, April). Social, Legal, and Institutional Context of Heterosexual Aggression by College Women. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 6(2), 130-140.
Anderson, P.B., & Melson, D.T. (October 23, 2002). From deviance to normalcy: Women as sexual aggressors. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, 5, [WWW document] URL http://www.ejhs.org/volume5/deviancetonormal.htm
Anderson, P.B. & Struckman-Johnson, C. (1998). Sexually Aggressive Women: Current Perspectives and Controversies, New York, NY: Guilford Publications, Inc.
Bashkiria Federal Republic, encyclopedia entry (n.d.). Retrieved August 4, 2005, from http://www.ozturkler.com/data_english/0007/0007_08.htm
Anderson, P.B. & Aymami, R. (1993). Reports of female initiation of sexual contact: Male and female differences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 22(4), 335-43.
Byers, E. (1996). How well does the traditional sexual script explain sexual coercion? Review of a program of research. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 8(1/2), 7-25.
Byers, E.S. & O’Sullivan, L.F. (1996). Sexual Coercion in Dating Relationships [Special Issue]. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 8(1/2).
Campbell, A. (1999). Staying alive: Evolution, culture and women’s intra-sexual aggression. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 203-52.
Chapko, M.K. (January 1999). Predictors of rape in the Central African Republic. Health Care for Women International, 20(1), 71-79.
Coleman, E. (Ed). (1996). Sexual Coercion in Dating Relationships [Special Issue]. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 8(1/2).
Crawford, M., & Popp, D. (2003). Sexual double standards: A review and methodological critique of two decades of research. The Journal of Sex Research, 40 (1), 13-27.
Denov, M.S. (2003). The myth of innocence: Sexual scripts and the recognition of child sexual abuse by female perpetrators. Journal of Sex Research, 40(3), 303-14.
Eder, D., Evans, C. C., & Parker, S. (1995). Gender and Adolescent Culture. Rutgers, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Green, A. H. (1999). Female sex offenders. In J.A. Shaw (Ed.), Sexual aggression (pp. 195-210). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
Koss, M. P., Abbey, A., Campbell, R., Cook, S., Norris, J., Testa, M., Ullman, S., West, C., White, J. (Dec 2007). Revising the SES: A collaborative process to improve assessment of sexual aggression and victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, Vol 31(4), pp. 357-370.
Koss, M., Gidycz, C.A., & 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.
Koss, M. & Gidycz, C.A. (1985). Sexual Experiences Survey: Reliability and validity. Journal of consulting and clinical Psychology, 53, 422-423.
Koss, M.P., & Oros, C.J. (1982). Sexual Experiences Survey: A research instrument investigating sexual aggression and victimization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol 50(3), pp. 455-457.
Krahe, B., Scheinberger-Olwig, R., & Bieneck, S. (2003). Men’s reports of nonconsensual sexual interactions with women: Prevalence and impact. Archives of Sexual Behavior 32(2), 165-76.
Larimer, M. E., Lydum, A. R., Anderson, B. K., & Turner, A. P. (1999). Male and female recipients of unwanted sexual contact in a college student sample: Prevalence rates, alcohol use, and depression symptoms. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 40 (3/4), 295-308.
Malamouth, N.M. (1986). Predictors of naturalistic sexual aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(5), 953-62.
Merrill, L.L., Newell, C.E., Thomsen, C.J., Gold, S.R., Milner, J.S., Koss, M.P., & Rosswork, S.G. (1999). Childhood abuse and sexual revictimization in a female Navy recruit sample. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 12(2), 211-225.
O’Sullivan, L.F. (2005). Sexual coercion in dating relationships: Conceptual and methodological issues. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 20(1), 1-11.
Ross, R.R. & Allgeier, E. R. (1996). Behind the pencil/paper measurement of sexual coercion: Interview-based clarification of men’s interpretations of Sexual Experiences Survey items. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(18), 1587-1616.
Russell, B.L., & Oswald, D.L. (Mar 2002). Sexual coercion and victimization of college men: The role of love styles. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol 17(3), pp. 273-285.
Russian People encyclopedia entry (n.d.). Retrieved August 4, 2005, from http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Russian-people.
Scott, C.S., Lefley, H.P., & Hicks, D. (1993). Potential risk factors for rape in three ethnic groups. Community Mental Health Journal, 29(2), 133-141.
Spitzberg, B.H. (1999). An analysis of empirical estimates of sexual aggression, victimization, and perpetration. Violence and Victims, 14(3), 241-60.
Tolman, D. L. (1994). Doing desire: adolescent girls' struggles for/with sexuality. In Gender & Society, 8(3), p324-343.
Ufa, encyclopedia entry (n.d.). Retrieved August 4, 2005, from http://www.greatestcities.com/Europe/Russia/Ufa_city.html
Waldner, L.K., Vaden-Goad, L., & Sikka, A. (1999). Sexual coercion in India: An exploratory analysis using demographic variables. Archives of Sexual Behavior 28(6), 523-38.
QUESTIONNAIRE
It is important for any researcher to know something about the individuals responding to their survey. It is equally important to know the same things about the people who chose not
to complete the research document. It is only through this knowledge that accurate generalizations about the results of the study can be made. It would be appreciated if you would take the time to complete the entire questionnaire. However, if you do not intend to complete the entire questionnaire, please complete at least the very important information on this first page. For those of you completing the entire document, please complete this page as well and include it with your responses. Thank you.
*PLEASE FILL IN OR MARK THE APPROPRIATE ANSWER*
1) Age? _____
2) Marital Status?
1) SINGLE (LIVING ALONE) _____
2) MARRIED _____
3) DIVORCED (LIVING ALONE) _____
4) SEPARATED (LIVING ALONE) _____
5) NOT MARRIED, BUT LIVING WITH A SEXUAL PARTNER _____
3) Socio-economic Background (for example: poor, middle class, upper middle class, or wealthy) ______________________________
4) Primary sexual orientation?
HETEROSEXUAL LESBIAN BISEXUAL HOMOSEXUAL
5) How often do you attend Religious Observances in a year?
6) How often do you view or read erotic materials/yr.?
7) Nationality* (for example: Russian, Ukrainian, or Georgian) ______________________
8) What is your gender? _____ Male _____ Female
* In the Russian version the term Nationality was used, instead of ethnicity, because it has more cultural meaning to the respondents living in Ufa, the Russian Federation. This portion of the questionnaire is an attempt to discover some of the behavior that you employ in your sexual activity. Sexual contact is defined as fondling, kissing, petting, or intercourse. There are no right or wrong answers to the questions. It is very important that you answer every question. Please answer as honestly as you can.
*PLEASE WRITE THE NUMBER CORRESPONDING TO YOUR RESPONSE IN THE SPACE AT THE END OF EACH QUESTION*
1) How many times have you had sexual contact (fondling, kissing, petting, or intercourse) with a woman or a man when you both wanted to? _____
2) How many times have you initiated sexual contact (fondling, kissing, petting, or intercourse) with a woman or a man? _____
3) In initiating sexual contact with a woman or a man, how many times have you overestimated the level of sexual activity she/he desired to have with you? _____
THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ONLY APPLY TO TIMES WHEN YOU BELIEVED THAT YOUR PARTNER DID NOT WANT TO HAVE SEXUAL CONTACT WITH YOU AT THAT TIME (WAS RELUCTANT), EVEN IF THEY DID AT OTHER TIMES.
6) How many times have you:
attempted completed
_____ _____ sexual touch
_____ _____ intercourse
_____ _____ oral sex
with a reluctant woman or a man by persistent kissing?
7) How many times have you:
attempted completed
_____ _____ sexual touch
_____ _____ intercourse
_____ _____ oral sex
with a reluctant woman or a man by dancing or moving seductively?
8) How many times have you:
attempted completed
_____ _____ sexual touch
_____ _____ intercourse
_____ _____ oral sex
with a reluctant woman or a man by touching them to get her/him sexually aroused?
9) How many times have you:
attempted completed
_____ _____ sexual touch
_____ _____ intercourse
_____ _____ oral sex
with a reluctant woman or a man by taking off your own clothes.
10) How many times have you:
attempted completed
_____ _____ sexual touch
_____ _____ intercourse
_____ _____ oral sex
with a reluctant woman or a man by removing their clothes?
11) How many times have you:
attempted completed
_____ _____ sexual touch
_____ _____ intercourse
_____ _____ oral sex
with a reluctant woman or a man by threatening to end your relationship?
12) How many times have you:
attempted completed
_____ _____ sexual touch
_____ _____ intercourse
_____ _____ oral sex
with a reluctant woman or a man by saying things that you didn't mean?
13) How many times have you:
attempted completed
_____ _____ sexual touch
_____ _____ intercourse
_____ _____ oral sex
with a reluctant woman or a man by pressuring her/him with verbal arguments?
14) How many times have you:
attempted completed
_____ _____ sexual touch
_____ _____ intercourse
_____ _____ oral sex
with a reluctant woman or a man by questioning her/his sexuality (suggesting that she/he may be impotent or frigid)?
15) How many times have you:
attempted completed
_____ _____ sexual touch
_____ _____ intercourse
_____ _____ oral sex
with a reluctant woman or a man by threatening to hold him down?
16) How many times have you:
attempted completed
_____ _____ sexual touch
_____ _____ intercourse
_____ _____ oral sex
with a reluctant woman or a man by using your position of power or authority (boss, teacher, baby sitter, counselor, or supervisor)?
17) How many times have you:
attempted completed
_____ _____ sexual touch
_____ _____ intercourse
_____ _____ oral sex
with a reluctant woman or a man between 12 and 18 years of age who was five or more years younger than yourself?
18) How many times have you:
attempted completed
_____ _____ sexual touch
_____ _____ intercourse
_____ _____ oral sex
with a reluctant woman or a man while her/his judgment was impaired by drugs or alcohol?
19) How many times have you:
attempted completed
_____ _____ sexual touch
_____ _____ intercourse
_____ _____ oral sex
with a reluctant woman or a man by getting her/him drunk or high?
20) How many times have you:
attempted completed
_____ _____ sexual touch
_____ _____ intercourse
_____ _____ oral sex
with a reluctant woman or a man by taking advantage of a compromising position she/he was in (being where he did not belong or breaking some rule)?
21) How many times have you:
attempted completed
_____ _____ sexual touch
_____ _____ intercourse
_____ _____ oral sex
with a reluctant woman or a man by blocking their retreat (i.e., would not let them out of the room or car)?
22) How many times have you:
attempted completed
_____ _____ sexual touch
_____ _____ intercourse
_____ _____ oral sex
with a reluctant woman or a man by threatening to use some degree of physical force (holding her/him down, hitting her/him)?
23) How many times have you:
attempted completed
_____ _____ sexual touch
_____ _____ intercourse
_____ _____ oral sex
with a reluctant woman or a man by hitting them?
24) How many times have you:
attempted completed
_____ _____ sexual touch
_____ _____ intercourse
_____ _____ oral sex
with a reluctant woman or a man by using some degree of physical force?
25) How many times have you:
attempted completed
_____ _____ sexual touch
_____ _____ intercourse
_____ _____ oral sex
with a reluctant woman or a man by threatening her/him with a weapon?
26) Toward which gender was the sexual activity above directed?
Male _____% Female _____%
27) What was your relationship to the reluctant person you attempted sexual contact with?
Stranger _____ % Steady Date/Fiancé _____ %
Date/Acquaintance _____ % Spouse _____ %