USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
Before you start on this assignment, study Lesson Three(article summary grading rubic) so that you know what to include. Write a five to seven research summary of the article, Perpetrators of Alcohol-Involved Sexual Assaults: How Do They Differ From Other Sexual Assault Perpetrators and Non-perpetrators?”. This summary will include a summary of each section of the research paper. I will want you to include references made by the authors, a summary of the methodology, of the analysis, and the conclusions.
PLEASE FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS……Everything you NEED is in the ARTICLE attached, USE THIS!
LESSON THREE
The Article Summary Grading Rubric
THE GRADING RUBRIC
Objective / Criteria
Performance Indicators
Needs Improvement
Meets Expectations
Exceeds Expectations
Purpose of the study
(0 points)
(1 points)
(2 points)
The purpose of the study is not stated.
The purpose of the study is stated, but there is little review of the literature that inspired the study.
The article summary provides a brief review of the theory and research that inspired the study. The purpose of the study is clearly stated.
Major hypotheses/research questions
(0 points)
(1 points)
(2 points)
The hypothesis(es) or research question(s) is/are not stated.
The hypothesis(es) or research question(s) is/are vague or incorrect.
The hypothesis(es) or research question(s) is/are clearly and correctly stated.
Method
(0 points)
(1 points)
(2 points)
The discussion of the study’s method is missing two or more of the following: a description of the sample, materials/instruments, procedure, and design. The missing information prevents the reader from undertanding the study’s methodology.
The discussion of the study’s method includes some, but not all of the following: a description of the sample, materials/instruments, procedure, and design. The information provided may be vague and may prevent the reader from undertanding the study’s methodology.
The discussion of the study’s method includes a description of the sample, materials/instruments, procedure, and design. All information is provided in sufficient detail so that the reader can undertand the study’s methodology.
Results
(0 points)
(1 points)
(2 points)
The summary does not include the results of the statistics computed to test the research hypotheses. The summary is poorly organized, incomplete, and vague.
The summary includes some, but not all of the results of the hypothesis tests conducted. The summary may be poorly organized or partially incomplete. Information about statistics computed may be vague or partially incorrect.
The summary includes the results of all statistics computed (descriptive and inferential). The summary is well-organized and easy to follow.
THE GRADING RUBRIC CONTINUED
Discussion
(0 points)
(1.25 points)
(2.5 points)
The summary does not include a clear discussion of the overall findings of the study and the application of those findings.
The overall findings are described in relation to theory and prior research. Some limitations may be mentioned. Directions for future research may be included.
The overall findings of the study relative to previous research and theory are described in detail. The summary discusses limitations of the present study and provides suggestions for future research.
Grammar/Usage/ Mechanics: Demonstration of advanced college level writing skills.
(0 points)
(1 points)
(2 points)
Grammar / usage / mechanics do not represent the writing of an individual who is a college writer.
Grammar / usage / mechanics represent the writing of an individual who is a below average college writer. There are multiple mistakes in grammar/usage/ mechanics.
Grammar/usage/ mechanics represent the writing of an individual who is an average and developing college writer.
There are still many mistakes
APA Style Formatting: Application of all APA formatting and style standards.
(0 points)
(1 points)
(2 points)
There are more than 5 APA style errors in citations, formatting, fonts, organization, headings, etc.
There are 2 to 5 APA style errors in citations, formatting, fonts, organization, headings, etc.
The document fully conforms to APA formatting standards and citation style. There are no APA style errors.
AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR
Volume 29, pages 366—380 (2003)
Perpetrators
of
Alcohol-Involved Sexual Assaults: How Do They Differ From Other Sexual Assault Perpetrators and Nonperpetrators?
Tina Zawacki, l Antonia Abbey, 1 Philip O. Buck, 1 Pamela McAusIan,2 and A. Monique Clinton-SherrodI
Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan
2University of Michigan—Dearbom, Dearborn, Michigan
Approximotely 50% of sexual assaults involve alcohol. Researchers have documented situationul characteristics that distinguish between sexual assaults that do and do not involve alcohol, but little attention has been paid to differences bctwcen the perpetrators of these two types of assault. In this study, discriminant function analysis was used to distinguish between college men (N = 356) who reported perpetrating sexual assault that involved alcohol, sexual assault that did not involve alcohol, or no scxuul assault. Predictors of sexual assault perpetration thut have been documented in pust research differentiated nonperpctrators from both types of perpetrators. Pcrpctrators of scxuol assaults that involved alcohol were in most wuys similar to perpetrutors of sexual assautts that did not, although they did differ on impulsivity, alcohol consumption in sexual situations, and beliers about alcohol. These findings suggest mechanisms through which alcohol is involved in sexual assault thut are relevant to theory and prevention. Aggr. Behav. 29:366—380, 2003. 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Key words: sexual assault; alcohol; antisocial behavior
The problems of rape and sexual assault have been studied intensely for the past 30 years. Rape is typically defined as vaginal, anal, or oral intercourse that is physically forced or occurs when consent could not be given because of the victim’s age or mental impairment, which may be due to intoxication [Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1995; Koss, 19921. Sexual assault includes rape as well as other types of physically forced sexual contact and verbally
Tina Zawacki is now at the Department or Psychology. Addictive Behaviors Research Center. University of Washington.
A. Monique Clinton-Sherrod is no’.,v at RTl international. North Carolina.
Grant support: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism to AA.
*Correspondence to: Tina Zawacki. Department of Psychology-ABRC. Box 351525, University of Washington. Seattle, WA 98195. E-mail: tzawacki@ u.washington.edu or Antonia Abbey, Department or Community Medicine. Wayne State University. 4201 St. Antoine, Delroil. MI 48201.
Published online in Wiley Jnterscience (wuw.intcrscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.100>ab.10076
0 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
coerced sexual intercourse [Koss, 19921. In a watershed study, Koss et al. [19871 surveyed a nationally representative sample of approximately 6,000 college men and women and found thal 25% or the men reported perpetrating some lev
el
of sexual assault since the age or 14; 54% of the women reported experiencing some level of sexual assault since the agc of 14. Thc perpetrator was almost always someone the victim knew, often a dating partner.
Research from national studies indicates that more than 95% of adult sexual assault victims are women; assailants of both male and female victims are usually men [Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1995; Tjaden and Thoennes, 1998). Across heterogeneous samples representing convicted rapists, college students, and small community samples of adults and adolescents, studies consistently find that in approximately 50% of all sexual assaults the perpetrator reports that he, his victim, or both have consumed alcohol [Abbey ct al., 1996; Coid, 1986; Koss et al., 1987; Vinogradov et al., 1988]. In most cases involving alcohol, both the victim and perpetrator have been drinking.
In etiological studies of sexual assault perpetration, typically no distinction is made between men who perpetrate alcohol-involved sexual assaults compared to other sexual assaults. Therefore, little is known about the extent to which perpetrators of alcohol-involved and non alcohol-involved sexual assaults difTer in terms or personality characteristics, attitudes, and past experiences. The study described in this paper compares the characteristics of three groups or college students: l) men who have committed sexual assault involving alcohol, 2) men who have committed sexual assault without alcohol, and 3) men who havc not committed sexual assault. By delineating similarities and differences between men who commit different types of sexual assault, this study provides information about potential mechanisms unique to alcohol-related sexual aggression that have implications for designing effective prevention and treatment programs.
Comparisons of Perpetrators and Nonperpetrators
Pcrpetrators, regardless of alcohol’s involvement, have been found to differ from nonperpetrators in terms of antisocial traits and behaviors, dating and sexual behaviors and beliefs, and alcohol-related behaviors and beliefs. Incarcerated rapists are frequently diagnosed with antisocial personality disorders [Brown and Forth, 1997; Prenlky and Knight, 1991]. Studies of nonincarccrated samples have also found that perpetrators have a tendency to disregard social norms. For example, Rapaport and Burkhart [1984] found that measures of socialization and responsibility were negatively correlated with collegc men’s self-reported sexually coercive behavior. Similarly, Kosson et al. [1997) found that among college students, sexual assault perpetrators scored lower on measures of socialization and higher on measures of narcissism than did nonperpetralors. A lack or empathy has also been round to characterize incarcerated and nonincarccratcd perpetrators [Geer et al., 2000]. Commonly, sexual assault perpetrators have been found to possess impulsive and aggressive personality traits [Lisak and Roth, 1988; Spence et al., 19911. Researchers have hypothesized that sexual assault perpetrators are less socially skilled than nonperpetrators; findings from these studies, however, have produced mixed results [see Geer et al., 2000 for a review]. Consistent with the antisocial traits they commonly possess. sexual assault perpetrators often have a history of adolescent delinquent behavior [Calhoun ct al., 1997; Malamuth el al.. 1991]. The authors of the studies described above have suggested that this combination or aggressiveness, impulsiveness, and lack of empathy for others makes it easy for some men to feel comfortable using force to obtain sex.
el
Men who began having sex at a young age, date and have consensual sex frequently, and commonly engage in casual sex (by having sex with individuals they do not know well, outside or a dating relationship) are more likely to commit sexual assault than are less sexually active mcn [Abbey 1998, 2001; Kanin, 1985; Koss and Dinero, 1988; Malamuth ct al., 1991; Senn ct al., 20001. Some authors have argued that early and frequent dating and sexual interactions may increase opportunities for committing sexual assault, and thereby increase its likelihood; whereas others suggest that early and frequent sexual experiences reflect a “predatory” motivation to engage in sex at every opportunity and through any means [Abbey et al., 1996; Kanin, 1985; Malamuth et al., 1991].
Another line or research has examined men’s misperceptions of women’s sexual intent, which occurs when men mistakenly assume that a woman is sexually attracted to them or is interested in having sex with them. Surveys have found that perpetrators or sexual assault report misperceiving their victim’s sexual intent before the assault occurred [Abbey et al., 1998, 2001]. In a laboratory experiment. Shea [19931 found that men who had a history of sexually coercive behavior were more likely to misperceive a female study partner’s sexual attraction to them than were noncoercivc men. Men who have misperceived their companion’s sexual interest may feel entitled to force sex because they erroneously think that she has “led them on” [Muehlenhard and Linton, 1987].
Perpetrators’ motives for committing sexual assault are also reflected in their beliefs about women and sexual relationships. Compared to nonpcrpetrators, men Y,’ho have committed sexual assault more strongly endorse gender role stereotypes (e.g., men arc the pursuers or sex and women arc the “gatekeepers”), rape myths (e.g., vs’omen say “no” to sex when they really mean “yes”), hostile attitudes toward women, the acceptability of using force in relationships, and dominance as a motive for sexual relationships [Abbey et al., 2001; Byers and Eno, 1991; Dean and Malalmuth, 1997; Koss and Dinero, 1988; Malalmuth et al., 1991; Mosher and Anderson, 1986; Muehlenhard and Linton, 1987; Rapaport and Burkhart, 1984]. These beliers are thought to contribute 10 sexual assault because they normalize the use of force in sexual relationships.
Studies of both incarcerated rapists and college men have found that greater usual alcohol consumption is positively related to sexual assault perpetration [Koss and Dinero, 1988; Seto and Barbaree, 1997]. Since the association between usual alcohol consumption and sexual assault perpetration is correlational, the two could be related through several pathways. Seto and Barbaree [1997] suggested that drinkers may use intoxication as an excuse 10 engage in many socially unacceptable behaviors, including sexual assault. They also suggested that individual differences such as antisocial tendencies may drive both drinking and sexually assaultivc behavior.
Abbey and her colleagues [Abbey, et al., 1998, 2001] have hypothesized that one reason usual alcohol consumption contributes to sexual assault is because men who drink more in general also drink more in dating and sexual situations. Abbey et al. [20011 round that perpetrators o? sexual assault reported greater alcohol consumption during consensual sexual experiences and during sexual misperceptions or women as compared to nonpcrpelrators. Using a path model approach, Abbey et al. [1998) found that usual alcohol consumption, as well as alcohol consumption in sexual and misperception situations were indirectly related to the number of sexual assaults college men reported that they had committed. Usual alcohol consumption was positively related to frequency of misperceiving women’s sexual interest, which in turn predicted perpetration.
Beliefs about alcohol may also contribute to sexual assault. Abbey and her colleagues [1996] found that perpetrators who reported drinking during the assault held stronger beliefs that alcohol increases sexuality than did sober perpetrators. Other researchers have found that sexual assault perpetrators report trying to get women drunk as a strategy ror obtaining sex and thal they perceive drinking women as being sexually available [Kanin, 1985; Mosher and Anderson, 19861.
Comparisons of Sexual Assaults that Involve Alcohol and Those That Do Not
Several studies have examined situational characteristics of sexual assaults that do and do not involve alcohol. Sexual assaults that involve alcohol arc more likely than other assaults to involve time spent together at a party or bar [Abbey et al., 1996; Ullman ct al., 1999a, 1999b]. and the victim and perpetrator are less likely to have spent their entire time together alone [Abbey et al., 2001; Norris et al., 1998]. Sexual assaults that involve alcohol are also more likely to be committed by someone who knows the victim only casually [Abbey et al., 2001; Norris et al., 1998]. Studies also have found situational similarities between sexual assaults that do and do not involve alcohol. For example, Norris et al. [1998] found no difference between sexual assaults that involved alcohol and those that did not in terms of who paid for the majority of expenses during the interaction. Researchers have also examined the role alcohol plays in the severity of the sexual assault outcome. Findings that alcohol consumption increases aggressive responding in laboratory studies [Bushman and Cooper, 1990; Chermack and Giancola, 1997] fueled the hypothesis that perpetrators’ intoxication facilitates higher levels of aggression against victims during sexual assault. Several survey studies of sexual assault have supported this hypothesis [Tjadcn and Thoennes, 1998; Ullman ct al., 1999a]. Due to alcohol’s effects on cognitive and motor functioning, victims’ intoxication has becn associated with less physical resistance and more completed rapes [Abbey el al., 1996; Ullman and Knight. 19931. This study expands on past research about alcohol’s role in sexual assaults by focusing on perpetrators’ characteristics, rather than situational factors.
Overview of Study Design and Hypotheses
In the present study, college men completed a survey assessing their previous perpetration of sexual assault, as well as measures of several personality traits, attitudes, and behaviors. Based on the literaturc reviewed above, men’s antisocial behaviors and traits, dating and sex related behaviors and beliefs, and alcohol consumption and beliefs were hypothesized to discriminate between men who committed alcohol-involved sexual assaults, men who committed sexual assaults that did not involve alcohol, and men who did not commit sexual assault.
Based on previous studies comparing perpetrators in general to nonperpetrators, it was hypothesized that compared to nonperpetrators, both alcohol-involved and non alcoholinvolved perpetrators would report greater antisocial behaviors and traits, more frequent dating and sex-related behaviors, and stronger beliers supporting violence toward women. Compared to nonperpetrators and men who have not committed alcohol-involved sexual assault, alcohol may play a more central role in the social lives of men who have committed sexual assault involving alcohol. Therefore, il was hypothesized alcohol-involved perpetrators would report greater usual alcohol consumption, greater drinking in sexual situations, and stronger beliers that alcohol enhances sexuality than would both nonperpetrators and non alcohol-involved perpetrators.
el
METHOD Participants
Participants were 356 male students at a large, urban, Midwestern university. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 48; the median age was 24 years. Fifty-seven percent (n 203) of the sample were Caucasian, 30% (n 109) were African-American, 6% (n = 21) were Arabic or Middle-Eastern, 3% (n = I l) were Asian or Pacific Islander, 2% (n 6) were Hispanic, and 2% (n 6) either had another ethnic background or did not answer this question. Ail or the mcn were single; 73% (n 261) were employed at least part-time. Men were recruited from an enrollment list provided by the Registrar’s office, flyers posted on campus, advertisements in the student newspaper, and announcements made in classrooms. The distribution of majors was representative of the university’s enrollment: 16% business, 14% health sciences, 13% liberal arts, 13% science, 12% education, 10% communications, 7% engineering, 6% psychology, and 4% law. The remaining 5 0/0 were either undecided, had another major, or did not answer this question.
Procedures
Potential participants were telephoned by a research assistant who told them that the Department or Community Medicine was contacting students to complete a questionnaire on health and well-being. Eligible participants scheduled appointments to complete a selfadministered questionnaire. Surveys were administered to small groups in large classrooms. Participants were seated far apart so that they could not see anyone else’s questionnaire. An experimenter reviewed the consent form and answered questions on an individual basis. Each participant then completed the survey on his own. Each participant placed his completed questionnaire in a sealed envelope before returning it to the experimenter, and no names or identifying information were included on the surveys. Students received $20 ror participating.
MEASURES
Sexual assault perpetration. Sexual assault perpetration during adolescence and adulthood was measured using a 16-item version of the sexual experiences survey [SES; Koss ct al., 1987]. The SES uses behaviorally specific items that describe acts committed since the age of 14 that constitute sexual assault without labeling the behaviors as criminal [Koss, 19921. Three items assessed forced sexual contact (e.g., kissing and fondling, but no penetration); six items assessed verbally coerced sexual intercourse; and seven items assessed acts that meet the standard legal definitions of attcmptcd or completed rape. This measure has bccn used extensively and has good internal consistency and test-retest reliability [Koss et al., 1987]. Cronbach coeflicient alpha in the present study was .85. For each item, participants reported whether alcohol was consumed by themselves and/or the victim.
Antisocial behavior and traits. To assess delinquency, participants indicated the number of times they had engaged in each of 14 delinquent behaviors prior to age 18 (alpha .87), adapted from Jessor and Jessor [1973] and Tremblay et al., [19951. Examples or delinquent behaviors included damaging school property, shoplifting, and trespassing. Four subscales of the Personality Research Form [Jackson, 19871 were used to assess personality traits in the domains of aggressiveness (alpha .69), ilnpulsivity (alpha .73). donjinancc (alpha .80), and entpathy (alpha — .68). Each domain was assessed with 16 items using true/false response options. Participants’ social skills were assessed with a 15 item “emotional cue sensing’ subscale of Riggio’s [19891 Social Skills Inventory (alpha .86). This measure used a 5-point response scale for each item, ranging from I not at all like me to 5 exactly like me.
Dating and sex-related behaviors and beliefs. Using an open response format, participants reported their niisperception offriendliness by answering the question, “How many times has a woman been friendly to you, only for you to discover that you had misperceived her friendliness as a sexual come-on—she was trying to be nice but you assumed she was sexually attracted to you?” [Abbey et al., 1998]. Participants were asked to indicate their frequency ofdating, on a 6-point scale ranging from I = never to 6 = very frequently. Using an open response format, participants reported their casual sex behavior by answering the question, “With how many different consensual female partners have you had sex on onc and only one occasion?”
Participants answered two survey items (alpha .76) adapted from Simpson and Gangstead (1991) that assessed their endorsentent of casual sex (“Sex without love is OK,’ and “I enjoy casual sex with different partners”). Three sexual attitude measures developed by Burt (1980] wcrc included: a 9—itcm adversarial sexual helieJÅ• scale (e.g., “In a dating relationship, a woman is largely out to take advantage of a man”), a 13-item rape jnyth acceptance scale (e.g., “Because women sometimes say ‘no’ when they mean •ycs• just to teasc a man or make him beg for sex, the man has a right to be forceful”), and an I I—item ntodified acceptance OJ interpersonal violence scale (e.g., “It is all right for a man to hit a ‘tvoman if she is unfaithful”), as well as Lonsway and Fitzgerald’s [1995] 10—itcm measure of hostility utonwn (e.g., “Sometimes women bother me just by being around”). Responses to all these measures wcrc madc on a 7-point scale ranging from I = strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree. These latter four measures were highly correlated (intraclass correlation .85) and were combined to Corm a 43—item scale of attitudes supporting violence tosvard “‘tnnen (alpha .91). Participants’ motivation to have sex to feel powerful and dominant was assessed using Nelson’s [1979] se.vual dontinance scale (alpha .86), which consists or 8 items rated on a 4—point scale ranging from I = not at all important to 4 = very important. Sample sexual dominance items included “I have sexual relations because like many people I enjoy the conquest” and “l have sexual relations because like the feeling or having another person submit to me.”
Alcohol-related behaviors and beliefs. Using an open response format, participants were asked to report how many days in a typical month they drink alcohol. Participants also indicated how many standard drinks they usually have on the days that they drink alcohol. These two questions were multiplied to create a quantity by frequency measure of Iotal alcohol consujnption per nu»nth [Hilton and Clark, 1987]. On a 12-point scale ranging from one drink to 12 or more drinks, participants also reported their largest tunount of alcohol drank on one occasion during the prior year [Dawson and Room. 2000]. Participants were asked to rate how often they typically drink during consensual sexual inlcrcoursc on a 6point scale ranging from I never to 6 nearly every lime or every time. Participants also were asked to rate how much they typically drink during consensual sexual intercourse on an 8-point scale ranging from I zero drinks to 8 = thirteen or more drinks. These two questions were multiplied to create a quantity by frequency measure of drinking during sex [Abbey et al., 2001]. Participants answered two parallel questions regarding the frequency and amount of alcohol typically consumed when misperceiving a woman’s friendliness as sexual interest, using the same response scales listed above. These two items were multiplied to create a quantity by frequency measure of drinking during jnisperception [Abbey ct al.,
20011. All of the alcohol consumption variables were skewed and were normalized through winsorization [Wilcox, 19961.
A five item measure of alcohol expectancies was included to assess the belief that alcohol increases sex drive [alpha — .95; Abbcy et al., 1999], using a 5-point response scale ranging from I not at all to 5 very much. Sample alcohol beliefs regarding sex drive included “When drinking alcohol I feel interested in having sex” and “When drinking alcohol I want to have sex.” Tendency to perceive bt•onten’s drinking as a sexual cue (alpha — .87) was measured using five items adapted from Feravich et al., [20001, with 5-point response options ranging from I not al ail to 5 very much. All drinking as a sexual cue items began with the stem: “To what extent is each of the follmving a sign that a man uses to decide if a woman is sexually attracted to him?” Sample items included “She is drinking alcohol” and “She has a drink with him.” The intercorrelations of all or the potential predictor variables are presented in Table I. The largest correlations (about .50) were between misperception and drinking during misperception, the largest amount of alcohol consumed on one occasion and total monthly alcohol consumption, and the largest amount or alcohol consumed on one occasion and alcohol consumption during consensual sexual experiences. None of the correlations wcrc large enough to raise concerns about multicolinearity.
RESULTS
Prevalence of Sexual Assault Perpetration
Forty-two percent (n 151) of participants indicated that they had never sexually assaulted a woman. Fifty-cight percent (n = 205) of participants indicated that they had committed some form of sexual assault since the age of 14. The highest level of perpetration reported by 9% (n = 32) of the men was forced sexual contact, 31% (n 109) reported sexual coercion. 4% (n 13) reported attempted rape, and 14% (n = 51) reported completed rape. Ninety-six percent or the perpetrators were acquainted with their victim. Participants who indicated that they had never committed any of the acts described on the SES were categorized as nonperpetrators (n 151). Participants who indicated that they had committed any Corm of sexual assault, and reported no alcohol was consumed, were categorized as non alcohol-involved perpetrators (n 94), Participants who indicated that they had committed any form of sexual assault. and reported that alcohol was consumed by either themselves or the victim, were categorized as alcohol-involved perpetrators (n = I I l). Among alcohol-involved assaults, in 96% of the cases the man had consumed alcohol. and in 84% of the cases both the man and woman had consumed alcohol. In 4% or cases (n 4), only the woman had consumed alcohol. On average the man and woman had consumed four or five drinks each,
Multivariate Prediction of Perpetration Group
The variables listed in Table I were included in a simultaneous entry discriminant (unction analysis (DFA) in order to predict perpetration group. A simultaneous entry analysis was used because there was no reason to assign some predictors priority over others and the simultaneous entry procedure minimizes capitalization on chance [Stevens. 1996]. As is recommended procedure [Tabachnick and Fidel), 1996], the DFA took into account the prior probabilities of group membership: 42.4% nonperpetrators. 26.4% non alcohol-involved
372 al.
Perpetrators
of Alcohol-Involved
Sexual Assaults 371
(,7
et
perpetrators, 31.2% alcohol-involved perpetrators. One significant discriminant function emerged, Wilks’ Lambda or .71 with X2 (36, N •e 356) 1 18.50, p<.001, accounting ror 32% of the variance associated with perpetrator status. The second discriminant function was not significant, indicating that that it did not discriminate adequately among the perpetration groups. Therefore, only the first, significant function was interpreted [Klecka, 1980]. All predictor variables that were significantly correlated with the discriminant function are presented in Table Il. Four variables are not included because they did not contribute significantly to prediction of perpetrator group: empathy, social skills, frequency of dating, and largest amount of alcohol consumed on one occasion.
In order to examine how well the predictors discriminated among the perpetrator groups, classification rates were examined [Stevens, 1996]. Overall, 56% of the men wcrc correctly classified, which significantly improved upon a chance rate of 35 0/0, (356) 8.41, p<.OOl. An examination of classification results indicated that the predictor variables most successfully classified men in the nonperpetrator group (75% correctly classified). Alcoholinvolved perpetrators were more likely to be successfully classified (52%) than were non alcohol-involved perpetrators (30%). Few of the nonperpetralors were misclassified as cither type of perpetrator, however. a grcatcr proportion of both types of perpetrators were misclassificd as nonpcrpetrators.
TABLE Il. Univariate ANOVAs of
Perpetrator Groups
on Predictor Variables (N 356)
Perpetrator Groups
Non Alcohol-involved Alcohol-involved Correlation
Nonperpetrators Perpetrators Perpetrators uith
Potential Predictors (n = 151) (n 94) (n * I l l ) Function
Antisocial Behaviors und Traits
Delinquency
1.57 (l .05)it
1.99 (1.15)b
2.32 (1.15)b
15.21
.52
Aggressiveness
t .48 (O. 19)a
1.55 (0.20)b
I .58 (0.19)b
.42
Impulsivity
1.28 (O. 19)a
1.31 (0.20)a
1.39 (0.21)b
8.66’*
.39
Dominance
Dating and Sex Relutcd
Behaviors and Beliefs
1.64
1.72 (0.18)b
I .70 (0.21)b
5.1 1*
.23
Misperception of friendliness I .42 (2.60)a 2.44 (3.58)b 3.55 (3.48)c.55 Casual sex behavior 3.01 (4.86)a 5.03 (6.49)b 6.92 (7.19)b.48
Endorsetnent or casual se.x
3.12
3.87 (1.68)b
4.28 (l .70)b
15.53*’
.51
Attitudes Supporting Violence Toward Women
2.42 (0.65)a
2.66 (0.81
2.81 (0.79)b
9.39’*
.40
Sexual dominance Alcohol Related Behaviors and Beliefs
t .68 (0.60)a
1.94 (0.68)b
2.09 (0.65)b
.48
Total alcohol consumption per month
27.58 (27.71
33.90 (33.80)
41.53 (37.43)b
5,86•
.32
Drinking during sex
7.09 (6.59)a
7.21 (6.28)a
10.78 (7.33)b
1 1.16’*
.42
Drinking during misperception
2.52 (5.53)a
3.07 (5.90)a
7,22 (7.98)b
18,53••
.55
Belief that alcohol increases sex drive
3.09 (1.09)a
3.20 (1.18)a
3.78 (0.91)b
.49
Women’s drinking as a sexual cue
1.79
1.90
2.18 (0.88)b
.34
1′<.001 Note: Means in the same row with different subscripts differ at the level in Tukey
comparisons.
of
Mean Differences on Predictor Variables by Perpetration Group
Univariate analyses of variance were conducted ror each of the significant predictor variables to examine the pattern or mean scores for thc three perpetrator groups. Table Il presents the means, standard deviations, and F-values for each o? the significant predictor variables. Each of the variables that contributed to the prediction of perpetrator group using DFA, also showed significant mean differences.
As compared to nonperpetrators, both non alcohol-involved and alcohol-involved perpetrators rcportcd a stronger history of delinquency, more aggressive and dominant personality traits, more frequent misperception of women’s friendliness as sexual interest, more casual sexual behavior, greater endorsement of casual sex, stronger attitudes supporting violence against women, and greater sexual dominance.
Alcohol-involved perpetrators reported greater monthly alcohol consumption than nonperpetrators, with the scores of non alcohol-involved perpetrators in between but not significantly different from either group. As compared to both nonperpetrators and non alcohol-involved perpetrators, alcohol-involved perpetrators reported a more impulsive personality, greater alcohol consumption during sexual interactions, greater alcohol consumption during misperceptions or women’s sexual intent, stronger beliers that alcohol enhances sex drive, and stronger beliefs that women’s drinking is a cue signifying sexual interest.
DISCUSSION
Eighteen percent of the college men who participated in this study reported that they had committed an act that met the standard legal definitions of rape or attempted rape; 58% reported committing some Corm or sexual assault. These rates are higher than those that have been round in some, but not all, studies of college students [Abbey et al., 2001; Rapaport and Burkhart, 1984]. This study utilized a measure that included a wide range or examples of sexually assaultive behaviors that may have captured a larger number or participants’ experiences. Fifty-four percent of perpetrators committed a sexual assault that involved alcohol. This ratc is consistent with those reported in other studies of college and noncollege perpetrators [Abbey et al., 1996; Coid, 1986].
Characteristics of Both Types of Perpetrators
The predictors included in this study did a good job overall of discriminating nonperpetrators from both types of perpetrators, as well as discriminating alcohol-involved perpetrators from both non alcohol-involved perpetrators and nonperpetrators. Predictors or sexual assault perpetration thal have been documented in past research difTerentiated nonperpetrators from both types of perpetrators, with perpetrators possessing stronger antisocial and sexual traits, beliers, and behaviors. In confirmation of hypotheses, as compared to nonperpetrators, both types of perpetrators reported stronger histories of delinquency, more aggressive and dominant personalities, and greater engagement in and endorsement of casual sex. Also as predicted, perpetrators were characterized by stronger attitudes supporting violence against women (including rape myth acceptance and hostility toward women). and a stronger motivation to have sex to reel dominant. These findings support theories that perpetrators have antisocial pcrsonalily traits that are reflected in a general lifestyle of societal transgression, are highly motivated 10 pursue all sexual encounters, consensual or not, and espouse stereotypes about sex and dating that condone
Zuu,ack-i el
sexual aggression [Kanin, 1985; Malamuth et al., 1991; Prentky and Knight, 1991; Seto and Barbaree, 1997]. As expected, traditional predictors of sexual assault did not differentiate between men who perpetrated sexual assault with and without alcohol.
Characteristics of Alcohol-involved Perpetrators
Men who committed sexual assault that involved alcohol stood out primarily in terms of alcohol-related behaviors and beliefs. In support or hypotheses, as compared to both nonperpetrators and non alcohol-involved perpetrators, alcohol-involved perpetrators reported greater alcohol consumption during sexual interactions and during sexual misperceptions of women, held stronger beliefs that alcohol increases their own sex drive, and belicvcd more strongly that a woman’s drinking is a signal of sexual interest. Contrary to predictions, alcohol-involved perpetrators did not differ significantly from other perpetrators in total alcohol consumption per month, although the pattern of means was in the expected direction with alcohol-involved perpetrators reporting higher levels in usual consumption than non alcohol-involved perpetrators. These findings suggest that it is important to focus on the specific use of alcohol in dating and sexual situations when explicating alcohol’s role in sexual assault, rather than only on general drinking patterns. As hypothesized, both groups of’ perpetrators had misperceived women’s sexual intentions more frequently than had nonperpetrators; although alcohol-involved perpetrators had done so significantly more than non alcohol-involved perpetrators. Unexpectedly, alcohol-involved perpetrators were more impulsive than were the other two groups of men.
This constellation of characteristics suggests several mechanisms through which alcohol may contribute to sexual assault. The belier that alcohol increases sex drive and is a cue women use to indicate sexual interest may increase the likelihood of alcohol-involved sexual assault directly in that these beliefs could be used as excuses to engage in sexually assaultive behavior when drinking with a woman [Abbey et al., 1996; George and Norris. 19911. Beliers about alcohol’s effects on sexual behavior and drinking women also may facilitate sexual assault indirectly by increasing men’s misperception of women’s sexual intent. Beliefs about the effects of alcohol can become self-fulfilling prophecies, because people tend to perceive events and react in ways that confirm their beliefs [Snyder and Stukas, 1999]. A man who strongly believes that alcohol increases his own sexual drive and that a woman’s drinking communicatcs her sexual intent may overfocus on his own sexual desires and any potentially sexual cues given by his companion. This biased information search may increase the likelihood that he will misperceive women•s friendly behavior as sexual interest when drinking [Abbey ct al., 1996, 1998]. Previous research suggests that misperception may lead some men to feel justified forcing unwanted sex [Muehlenhard and Linton, 1987]. Alcoholinvolved perpetrators also reported the highest levels of impulsivity. Impulsive men’s already low ability to inhibit their behavior may be exacerbated by alcohol consumption [Fillmore and Vogel-Sprott, 1999]. Thus, when drinking, highly impulsive men may also be morc likely than other men to take action based on their misperception of women’s sexual interest in them, creating a situation that could lead to sexual assault.
Limitations and Future Directions
These differences between men who have perpetrated sexual assault with and without alcohol are promising, but are only the first foray into comparing these types or perpetrators. The present study utilized a cross-sectional design that cannot establish causal relationships
Perpetrators Alcohol-involved Sexual Assaults 373
378 al.
Perpetrators Alcohol-involved Sexual Assaults 377
Q/’ Alcohol-hwolved
among variables. Third variables not measured in the present study may drive some effects, and the direction of effects may be different than our interpretation. Although it is not possible to examine the relationship between alcohol consumption and sexual assault directly in experimental research, links earlier in the chain of events can bc tested experimentally in order to establish causal relationships. For example, the relationships among alcohol consumption, impulsivity, and misperception suggested in this discussion can be examined in laboratory experiments. Men with different degrees of impulsivity could be randomly assigned to drink alcohol or not, and then they could make sexual judgments about a female confederate in a laboratory setting [cr., Abbey et al., 20001. Also, prospective studies that follow participants for several years can more firmly establish the direction or effects.
The present findings also need to be replicated and extended. Studies using structural equation analysis could examine the mediating relationships between perpetrator characteristics, alcohol consumption, and assault characteristics. Larger sample sizes might allow ror comparisons among sexual assaults that involve shared drinking, perpetrator drinking only, and victim drinking only. Although shared or perpetrator-only drinking is by far the norm in alcohol-involved sexual assault, the rare perpetrator (n = 4 in the present study) who remains sober while his victim drinks may exhibit important differences from intoxicated perpetrators. Some research has found that sexual assault perpetrators report trying to get women drunk as a strategy for obtaining sex [Kanin, 1985; Mosher and Anderson, 1986]. Indepth qualitative interviews arc needed with men who commit alcohol-involved sexual assault in order to understand more fully their perceptions of the role alcohol played in their assaults. Do they report targeting a drinking woman or trying to get a woman drunk in order to make victimization easier? Do they think they would have assaulted the woman if alcohol had not been involved? Did they drink as an excuse to engage in sexual and aggressive behavior? Although retrospective self-reports may be distorted by biases of memory or conscience, perpetrators’ perceptions of alcohol’s role are an important source or information.
It is likely that different perpetrators are motivated by different factors. even within the domain of alcohol-involved sexual assault. The present study included a wide range of theoretically grounded predictors, but numerous variables remain to be investigated. For example, aggression researchers have theorized about the importance of baseline cognitive functioning in alcohol-involved aggression [Hoaken et al., 1998], and the role of perpetrators’ cognitive functioning in alcohol-involved sexual assault warrants research attention.
Men with personality and attitudinal characteristics that facilitate sexual aggression do not commit sexual assault on every possible occasion. It takes a combination of situational, personality. and attitudinal factors to predict specific sexual assault events. Several studies have addressed situational differences between alcohol-involved and non alcohol-involved sexual assaults such as location or the incident and the relationship between the perpetrator and victim. More research is needed, however, that explores additional situational characteristics. For example, some research suggests that women’s reports of risk cues differ between alcohol-involved and non alcohol-involved sexual assaults [Norris ct al., 1998; Testa and Livingston, 1999]. Further research is needed to investigate the processes through which intoxication affects women’s perception and interpretation of risk cues. It is important to note that men who perpetrate a sexual assault are always responsible for their actions. Exploring the pathways through which alcohol contributes to sexual assault does not mitigate any responsibility held by the perpetrator, nor docs it shift any blame onto a drinking victim.
Finally, it is difficult to generalize this study’s findings because a college student sample was used. College students are not simply a convenient sample for sexual assault research; studies or college students have documented alarmingly high prevalence rates [Abbey et al., 2001; Koss ct al., 1987]. Also, the college sample used in this study was drawn from a large, urban, commuter campus with ethnically and socioeconomically diverse students. Nonetheless, further studies are needed using community samples that compare perpetrators who have committed sexual assaults that do and do not involve alcohol.
Prevention Implications
Information about the ways in which men who commit alcohol-involved sexual assault are similar to and different from other perpetrators can bc used to develop prevention programs tailored for men with characteristics that put them at greater risk of perpetrating this type of assault. For example, these findings suggest that men’s beliefs that alcohol increases sex drive and is a cue that women use to convey sexual interest, and men’s misperception or women’s sexual interest in drinking situations increase their likelihood or committing alcohol-involved sexual assault. Prevention programs targeting alcohol-involved perpetrators should specifically address the content of men’s alcohol beliefs and provide corrective reedback about the inaccuracy and potential destructiveness of those beliefs. Drinking and driving campaigns promote the message that when drinking, people should be wary of their own perceptions or their ability to drive safely. Similarly. men should be warned not to trust their perceptions or women’s sexual interest when drinking. Through role-playing, men could practice listening and responding appropriately to women’s refusals so that those refusals will be more easily recognized and heeded, even when drinking. Finally, programs should emphasize that drinking should not be used a strategy or an excuse for forcing sex on an
Perpetrators Sexual Assaults 377
380 al.
Perpetrators Sexual Assaults 381
unwilling person.
REFERENCES
Abbey A. Ross LT. McDuffie D, McAus•lan P. i996. Alcohol, misperception, and sexual assault: How and why are they linked? In: Buss DM. Malamuth M. editors. Sex. power. conflict: Evolutionary and feminist perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press. p 138—161.
Abbey A, McAuslan P. Ross LT. 1998. Sexual assault perpetration by college men: The role or alcohol, misperception of sexual intent, and sexual beliefs and experiences. J Soc Clin Psychol
Abbey A, McAuslan P. Ross LT. Zawacki T. 1999. Alcohol expectancies regarding sex, aggression. and sexual vulnerability: Reliability and validity assessment. Psychol Addict Behav i3:174-182.
Abbey A, McAuslan P. Zawacki T, Clinton AM. Buck PO. 2001. Attitudinal, experiential. and situational predictors of sexual assault perpetration. J Interpers Violence 16:784-807.
Abbey A. Zawacki T, McAuslan P. Alcohol’s effects on sexual perception. J Stud Alcohol 61: 688-697.
Brown SL. Forth AE. 1997. Psychopathy and sexual assault: Static risk factors. emotional precursors. and rapist subtypes. J Consult Clin Psychol 657848—857,
Bureau of Justice Statistics 1995. Criminal victimization in the United States. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
Burt MR. 198(). Cultural myths and supports for rape, J Pers Soc Psychol
Bushman BJ. Cooper HM. 1990. Effects of alcohol on human aggression: An integrative research review. Psychol Bull 107341-354.
Byers ES. Eno R.I. 1991. Predicting men’s sexual coercion and aggression from attitudesi dating history. and sexual response. J Psychol Hum Sex
Calhoun KC, Bernat JA, Clum GA, Frame CL. 1991, Sexual coercion and attraction to sexual aggression in a community sample of young men. J Interpers Violence 12:392-406.
Chcrmack Giancola P. 1997. The relationship between alcohol and aggression: An research review. Clin Psychol Rev
Coid J. 1986. Alcohol. rape. and sexual assault. Alcohol and Aggression London: Croum Heim. p 161—183.
Davis JL. Petric•Jackson PA. 2000. The impact of child sexual abuse on adult interpersonal functioning: A review and synthesis of the empirical literature. Aggress Violent Behav 5:291—328.
Dawson DA. Room R. 2000. Towards agreement on ways to measure and report drinking patterns and alcohol-relatcd problems in adult general population surveys: Thc Skarpo Conference overview. J Subst Abuse 121-21.
Dean K D. Malamulh NM. 1997. Characteristics or men Who aggress sexually and of men who imagine aggressing; Risk and moderating variables, J Pers soc Psychol 72:449-455.
Fillmore MT. Vogel-Sprott M. 1999. An alcohol model of inhibitory control and its treatment in humans. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 7149-50.
Feravich A. Abbey A. McAusIan P. 2000. Are your signals indicating sexual interest? Perception of sexual cues based on gender of perceiver. J MARC Res
Geer JH. Estupian LA. Manguno•Mire GM. 2000, Empathy. social skills. and other relevant cognitive processes in rapists an child molesters. Aggress Violent Behav 5:99-126.
George W H, Norris J. 1991„ Alcohol. disinhibition. sexual arousal, and deviant sexual behavior. Alcohol Health Res World 152:133-138.
Hilton ME. Clark WB. 1987. Changes in American drinking patterns and problems, 1967—1984. J Stud Alcohol 48:515-522.
Hoaken PNS, Giancola PR. Pihl RO. 1998. Executive cognitive functions as mediators of alcohol.related aggression. Alcohol Alcohol
Jackson DN. 1997. Personality research form. Port Huron, Ml: Sigma Assessment Systems.
Jessor R. Jessor SL. 1973. A social psychology or marijuana use: Longitudinal studies or high school and college youth. J Pers Soc Psychol 26:1—15.
Judd CM. Smith ER. Kidder IH. 1991. Research methods in social relations. Fort Worth. TX: Holt. Rinehart, and Winston,
Kanin EJ. 1985. Date rapists: Differential sexual socialization and relative deprivation. Arch Sex Behav 14:219-231.
Kiecka W R. 1980. Discritninant analysis. Newbury Park. CA: sage.
Koss MP. 1992. The underdetection or rape: Methodological choices influence incidence estimates. J Soc Issues 48:61-76.
Koss MP. Dinero TE. 1988. Predictors of sexual aggression among a national sample or male college students. Ann N Y Acad Sci 528:133-147.
Koss MP, Gidycz CA. Wisniewski N. 1987. The scope or rape: Incidence and prevalence or sexual aggression
of Alcohol-Involved
and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. J Consult Clin Psychol 55: 162— 170.
Kosson DS, Kelly JC. White JW. 1997. Psychopathy. related traits predict self-reported sexual aggression among college men. J Interpers Violence 12:241— 254.
Lisak D. Roth S. 1988. Motivational factors in nonincarcerated sexually aggressive men. J Pers Soc Psychol 55:795-802.
Lonsway KA. Fitzgerald LF. 1995. Attitudinal anteecdents of rape myth acceptance. J Pers Soc Psychol 68: 704—71 t.
Malamuth NM. Sockioskie RJ, Koss MP. Tanaka JS.
1991. Characteristics of aggressors against women’. Testing a model using a national sample of college students. J Consult Clin Psychol 59:670-681.
Muehlenhard CL. Linton MA. 1987. Date rape and sexual aggression in dating situations: Incidence and risk factors. J Couns Psychol 34:186- 196.
Mosher DL. Anderson RD. 1986. Macho personality, sexual aggression. and reactions to guided imagery of realistic rape. J Res Pers 20:77—94.
Nelson PA. 1979. Personality. sexual function. and sexual behavior: An experiment in methodology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida.
Norris J. Nurius PS. Gaylord JE. 1998. Alcohol’s relationship to recognizing and resisting sexual aggression. Paper presented at the Biannual Meeting of the International Society ror Research on Aggression, Mahwah. New Jersey.
Prentky RA. Knight RA. 1991. Identifying critical dimensions for discriminating among rapists, J Consult Clin Psychol 59:643-661.
Rapaport K. Burkhart BR. 1984, Personality and attitudinal characteristics or sexually coercive college males. J Abnorm Psychol
Riggio. R. 1989. Social skills inventory. Palo Alto. CA, Consulting Psychologists Press.
Senn CY. Desmaris S. Verberg N. Wood E. 2000. Predicting coercive sexual behavior across the lifespan in a random sample o? Canadian men. J Soc Pers Relat 17:95- 1 13.
Seto MC. Barbaree HE, 1997. Sexual aggression and antisocial behavior: A developmental model. ln. Stoff DM, Breiling J. Maser JD, editors. Handbook of antisocial behaGor, New York: Wiley. p 524—533 Shea MC. 1993. The effects of selective evaluation on the perception or female cues in sexually coercive and noncoercive males. Arch Sex Behav 225415—433,
Simpson JA. Gangstead SW. 1991, Individual differenccs in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and divergent validity. J Pers Soc Psychol 60:870-883.
Snyder M, Stukas AA. Jr. 1999. Interpersonal processes: The interplay or cognitive, motivational, and
Zznvacki el
behavioral activities in social interaction. Ann Rev Psychol 50:273- 303.
Spence JT, Los•ofT M, Robbins AS, 1991. Sexually aggressive tactics in dating relationships: Personality and attitudinal correlates. J Soc Clin Psychol 103:289- 304,
Stevens J. 1996. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates-
Tabachnick Fidell LS. 1996. Using multivariate statistics 3rd ed. New York: HarperCollins.
Testa M. Livingston JA. 1999. Qualitative analysis or t.vomen•s experiences of sexual aggression: Focus on the role of alcohol. Psychol Women Q 23: 573-589.
TJaden P. Thocnnes N. 1998. Extent. nature. and consequences of intimate partner violence: Findings from the national violence against women suruyr U.s. Department of Justice, NCJ 81867.
Tremblay R. Pagoni-Kurtz L, Masse L, Vitaro F, Pihl RO. 1995. A bimodal prevention intervention for disruptive kindergarten boys.’ It’s impact through mid-adolescence. J Consult Clin Psychol 634:560— 568.
Ullman SE. Knight RA. 1993. The efficacy of women’s resistance strategies in rape situations. Psychol Women Q 17:23-38.
Ullman SE, Karabatsos G. Koss MP, 1999a. Alcohol and sexual assault in a national sample or college women. J Interpers Violence
Ullman SE. Karabatsos G. Koss MP. 1999b. Alcohol and sexual assault in a national samplc or collegc men. Psychol Women Q 23:673—689.
Vinogradov S. Dishotsky NIO Doty AK. Tinklcnbcrg JR. 1988. Patterns of behavior in adolescent rape, Am J Orthopsychiatry 58:179—187.
Wilcox RR. 1996. Statistics for the social sciences, San Diego. CA; Academic Press.
Copyright of Aggressive Behavior is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
