See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/221789669

Number of Sexual Partners and Sexual Assertiveness Predict Sexual

Victimization: Do More Partners Equal More Risk?

Article in Violence and Victims · December 2011

DOI: 10.1891/0886-6708.26.6.774 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

20 356

3 authors, including:

Terri L Messman-Moore Rose Marie Ward

Miami University Miami University
67 PUBLICATIONS 2,309 CITATIONS 72 PUBLICATIONS 800 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sexual Assault and Alcohol-Related Variables in College Women View project

Interpersonal Violence and Beliefs in Interpersonal Relationships View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Terri L Messman-Moore on 28 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Running Head: NUMBER OF PARTNERS, ASSERTIVENESS, VICTIMIZATION 1

FINAL PREPRINT VERSION

Walker, D. P., Messman-Moore, T. L., & Ward, R. M. (2011). Number of sexual partners
and sexual assertiveness predict sexual victimization: Do more partners equal more risk?
Violence & Victims, 26(6),774-787. DOI: 10.1891/0886-6708.26.6.774

Number of Sexual Partners and Sexual Assertiveness Predict Sexual Victimization:

Do More Partners Equal More Risk?

Dave P. Walker, Terri L. Messman-Moore, and Rose Marie Ward

Miami University

Acknowledgements: The authors would like to acknowledge numerous research

assistants, without whom this project would not be possible: Alicyndra Amundsen,

Erin Bybee, Dasi Ginnis, Sarah Hoskinson, Parker Huston, Julie Krizay, Erin Kupres,

Robyn MacConnell, Jessica Morgan, Jenni Oberlag, and Mai Foerster Shaffner. We

are grateful to Margaret O’Dougherty Wright and Amanda Diekman for their insights

and support of this project, and appreciate the helpful suggestions of anonymous

reviewers.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Terri L. Messman-

Moore, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Miami University, 90 N. Patterson

Avenue, Oxford, Ohio, 45056; Electronic mail: messmat@muohio.edu.

 NUMBER OF PARTNERS, ASSERTIVENESS, VICTIMIZATION 2

Abstract

In previous studies, number of sexual partners and sexual assertiveness were examined as

independent risk factors for sexual victimization among college women. Using a sample

of 335 college women, the present study examined the interaction of number of sexual

partners and sexual assertiveness on verbal sexual coercion and rape. Approximately

32% of the sample reported unwanted sexual intercourse; 6.9% (n = 23) experienced

verbal sexual coercion, 17.9% (n = 60) experienced rape, and 7.2% (n = 24) experienced

both. As number of sexual partners increased, instances of verbal sexual coercion

increased for women low in relational sexual assertiveness, but not for women high in

relational sexual assertiveness. A similar relationship was not found for rape. Among

women who experienced both verbal sexual coercion and rape, increases in number of

partners in the context of low refusal and relational assertiveness were associated with

increases in verbal sexual coercion and rape. Findings suggest sexual assertiveness is

related to fewer experiences of sexual coercion.

Keywords: Sexual Assertiveness, Sexual Behavior, Verbal Sexual Coercion, Rape,

College Women
 NUMBER OF PARTNERS, ASSERTIVENESS, VICTIMIZATION 3

Number of Sexual Partners and Sexual Assertiveness Predict Sexual Victimization:

Do More Partners Equal More Risk?

Sexual victimization continues to be a problem for college women. It is estimated

that one in four women will experience some form of sexual assault during their

collegiate years (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000). In addition, despite multiple

approaches to prevention programming on college campuses, these programs generally

have little effect on decreasing the overall incidence of victimization (Anderson &

Whiston, 2006). In order to improve the efficacy of college sexual assault programming,

researchers are continuously seeking to understand the relationships between risk factors

and sexual victimization. For example, sexual assertiveness (Greene & Navarro, 1998;

Livingston, Testa, & VanZile-Tamsen, 2007) and number of sexual partners (Koss &

Dinero, 1989) have been examined individually as potential risk factors for sexual

victimization. Yet, few studies have examined how risk factors may interact to predict

sexual victimization. Furthermore, there are different risk factors for various types of

sexual victimization experiences (e.g., sexual coercion or rape; Testa & Dermen, 1999).

The current study examined the interaction between sexual assertiveness and number of

sexual partners in relation to sexual coercion and rape among college women.

A common method for examining college women’s relative risk for sexual

victimization is through the examination of associated behaviors and attitudes (i.e., risk

factors). Women with more consensual sexual partners are considered to be at increased

risk for sexual victimization (Kanin, 1985; Koss & Dinero, 1989). Having more sexual

partners increases the probability of encountering a sexually aggressive partner (Kanin,

1985). Furthermore, women with more sexual partners may be viewed by men as
 NUMBER OF PARTNERS, ASSERTIVENESS, VICTIMIZATION 4

“promiscuous” or “loose” and therefore as more acceptable targets for rape or coercion

(Baumeister & Vohs, 2004; Shotland & Goodstein, 1992). Although number of sexual

partners is a behavioral risk factor for sexual victimization, interventions to reduce the

incidence of sexual victimization typically do not focus on limiting women’s sexual

activity (for a review see Breitenbecher, 2000). The current project extends the literature

focused on the relation between number of sexual partners and sexual victimization by

introducing another plausible intervention entrance point -- sexual assertiveness.

Assertiveness is a fundamentally relational process in which individuals balance

regard for the “other” while also maintaining appropriate personal boundaries in any

given context (Twenge, 2001; Wilson & Gallois, 1993). In extension, sexual

assertiveness is specific to the sexual context. Sexual assertiveness has been defined as a

general aspect of interpersonal skills (Gidycz, Hanson, & Layman, 1995), as a specific

interpersonal skill women use with men (Greene & Navarro, 1998), and as a set of refusal

behaviors occurring in the context of partner insistence and pressure (Morokoff et al.,

1997). Furthermore, a range of interpersonal pressure tactics are common in the sexual

victimization context. These tactics include persistence past the initial refusal and

emotional manipulation such as threats to abandon the relationship or statements about

possible negative outcomes for the partner if sex does not take place (Shackelford &

Goetz, 2004; Struckman-Johnson, Struckman-Johnson, & Anderson, 2003). Such

relational pressures suggest a need to examine sexual assertiveness in a relational context

as well (Messman-Moore, Ward, & Walker, 2007).

Sexual assertiveness is one of many risks factors for sexual victimization. Sexual

assertiveness is negatively associated with sexual victimization; as sexual assertiveness

 NUMBER OF PARTNERS, ASSERTIVENESS, VICTIMIZATION 5

decreases, risk for sexual victimization increases (Greene & Navarro, 1998; Morokoff et

al., 1997). In addition to sexual assertiveness, number of sexual partners also predicts

sexual victimization. As number of sexual partners increases, risk for victimization

increases (Corbin, Bernat, Calhoun, McNair, & Seals, 2001; Gidycz et al., 1995; Greene

& Navarro, 1998; Koss & Dinero, 1989; Testa, VanZile-Tamsen, & Livingston, 2007).

Moreover, number of sexual partners and sexual assertiveness are related to each other,

although the direction of this relationship varies by the specific type of sexual

assertiveness assessed (Morokoff et al., 1997). No studies, however, have tested the

interaction of number of sexual partners and sexual assertiveness as interrelated risk

factors for sexual victimization.

In addition to examining the relationship among number of sexual partners, sexual

assertiveness, and sexual victimization, the current study was also designed to examine

the aforementioned relationship across types of sexual victimization. There is evidence

of differential correlates of verbal sexual coercion and rape (Testa & Dermen, 1999;

Tyler, Hoyt, & Whitbeck, 1998; Zweig, Barber, & Eccles, 1997). Verbal sexual

coercion, but not rape, has been associated with lower levels of assertiveness (Testa &

Dermen, 1999). Compared to rape, verbal sexual coercion was associated with higher

levels of social isolation, social anxiety, and depression among victims (Zweig et al.,

1997). Additionally, in an 8-month prospective study of college women, Messman-

Moore, Coates, Gaffey, and Johnson (2008) found both common and unique predictors of

rape and verbal sexual coercion. Number of sexual partners predicted both rape and

verbal sexual coercion; however, other behavioral risk factors (i.e., alcohol and marijuana

use) were more strongly linked with rape, whereas psychological vulnerabilities (i.e., low
 NUMBER OF PARTNERS, ASSERTIVENESS, VICTIMIZATION 6

self-esteem, depression) were more strongly associated with verbal sexual coercion.

Testa and Dermen (1999) hypothesized that assertiveness may play a more influential

role in cases of verbal sexual coercion than in cases of rape. Given that verbal sexual

coercion occurs in the context of verbal and emotional pressure, it is plausible that an

assertive response might have an impact. However, once aggression escalates to the

point of threats or use of physical force, or if the victim is severely intoxicated, it is

unlikely that even a strongly assertive response (if even possible) will reduce the

likelihood of victimization.

Purpose of the Current Study

The current study had three primary aims. First, this study was designed to test

the hypothesis that the number of sexual partners and sexual assertiveness interact in

relation to sexual victimization. Specifically, it is hypothesized that the positive

relationship between the number of sexual partners and sexual victimization exists for

women low in sexual assertiveness. In essence, risk lies not within sexual behavior per

se, but rather when sexual behavior occurs in the context of low sexual assertiveness.

Second, the current study was designed to increase understanding of the

multifaceted nature of sexual assertiveness. Previous studies of sexual victimization have

either examined general assertiveness as a proxy for sexual assertiveness (e.g., Gidycz, et

al., 1995; Testa & Dermen, 1999), or focused only on the refusal component of sexual

assertiveness (e.g., Corbin et al., 2001; Livingston et al., 2007). Therefore, the current

study includes measures of sexual assertiveness designed to assess both refusal sexual

assertiveness and relational sexual assertiveness. No specific hypotheses were generated

 NUMBER OF PARTNERS, ASSERTIVENESS, VICTIMIZATION 7

regarding any differential predictive ability of the two forms of sexual assertiveness, as

each represents an important component of a complex construct.

Finally, the current study was designed to extend the current literature which

suggests focusing on specific types of sexual victimization (e.g., verbal sexual coercion

vs. rape) as distinct phenomena with potentially different risk factors (Messman-Moore et

al., 2008; Testa & Dermen, 1999). Verbal sexual coercion occurs in the context of verbal

and emotional pressure, whereas rape occurs in the context of force or intoxication. It

was hypothesized that sexual assertiveness will moderate the relationship between

number of sexual partners and verbal sexual coercion, but will not be related to rape.

Additionally, the current study aimed to extend the current literature by addressing risk

for sexual victimization by assessing both the presence of victimization (e.g., risk for ever

being victimized; Koss & Gidycz, 1985) and the number of victimization experiences

(e.g., risk for how many times one is victimized; Livingston et. al, 2007).

Method

Participants

Questionnaires were collected from 501 college women enrolled in Introduction

to Psychology at a midsized Midwestern university. The age of the participants ranged

from 17 to 24 (M = 18.71, SD = .95). Approximately 68% of the women in the sample

were freshmen and 92.6% were Caucasian. Black and Hispanic participants each

comprised 1.6% of the sample, Asian participants accounted for 2.2%, and Native

American and biracial participants each accounted for less than 1% of the sample. The

majority of participants (52%) reported a family income of greater the $100k a year. The

number of vaginal sexual intercourse partners ranged from 0 (40.8% of the sample) to 20
 NUMBER OF PARTNERS, ASSERTIVENESS, VICTIMIZATION 8

(0.2% of the sample) with a mean of 1.62 (SD = 2.63). The average age of first sexual

intercourse was 17.03 (SD = 1.62).

Measures

Sexual Victimization. Sexual victimization was assessed with the Sexual

Experiences Survey (SES), a commonly used self-report measure designed to identify

different types of sexual victimization since the age of 14 (Koss & Gidycz, 1985; Koss &

Oros, 1982). The SES was modified from its original version to include questions about

the number of occurrences of each experience endorsed. Based on the participants’

responses, the women were classified as having experienced either verbal sexual coercion

(i.e., unwanted sexual intercourse, vaginal or anal, due to continual arguments and

pressure or misuse of authority), rape (i.e., unwanted sexual intercourse, vaginal or anal,

due to intoxication, force, or threat of force), or both.

Number of Sexual Partners. The number of participants’ sexual partners was

assessed using a two part question. Participants were instructed to respond with yes or a

no to the item “Have you ever had sexual intercourse (vaginal or anal), when you wanted

to (without force)?” Participants who responded affirmatively were instructed to provide

a free response to the item “With how many different partners?”

Refusal Sexual Assertiveness. Refusal assertiveness, defined as the ability to

refuse unwanted sexual activity, was assessed with a subscale of the same name from the

Sexual Assertiveness Scale (SAS; Morokoff, et al., 1997). The refusal subscale consists

of six items and had a Cronbach’s alpha of .68 in the current sample (M = 25.04, SD =

4.65). The scale consists of items such as “I refuse to have sex if I don’t want to, even if

my partner insists.”
 NUMBER OF PARTNERS, ASSERTIVENESS, VICTIMIZATION 9

Relational Sexual Assertiveness. Relational sexual assertiveness, defined as

sexual assertiveness in the context of specific interpersonal and relational pressures, was

assessed with the Relational Sexual Assertiveness subscale (RSA) of the SAQ-W

(Messman-Moore, et al., 2007) which contains 14 items, has good internal consistency

(Cronbach’s α = .93; M = 28.03, SD = 10.10), and consists of items such as “I engage in

unwanted sexual activity to avoid hurting my partner’s feelings” (reversed scored).

Procedure

All procedures used were approved by the primary author’s institutional review

board prior to commencement of the study. After providing informed consent,

participants completed a packet of anonymous self-report measures in an all-female

group setting administered by a female research assistant. Participants were instructed

that they could quit without penalty as well as refuse to answer specific questions. All

participants received course credit for participation.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Of the original sample of 501 women, 107 had experienced unwanted sexual

intercourse (due to verbal coercion, intoxication, or physical force). An additional 166

women reported some level of victimization that did not meet criteria for unwanted

sexual intercourse (e.g., unwanted sexual touching but no intercourse), and were

excluded from analyses, resulting in a final sample of 335 participants. The four

victimization categories used for the dependent variable are as follows. The verbal

coercion category (n = 23, 6.9%) included women who reported unwanted sexual

intercourse experiences due to verbal pressure or pressure from an authority figure, but
NUMBER OF PARTNERS, ASSERTIVENESS, VICTIMIZATION 10

did not report a rape experience. The mean number of instances of verbal coercion for

women in this group was 2.00 (SD = 1.48). The rape category (n = 60, 17.9%) included

women who did not report a verbal coercion experience but did report experiencing

unwanted sexual intercourse due to intoxication, threats of force, or force. The mean

number of instances of rape for women in this group was 2.08 (SD = 2.35). The fourth

category, combined (n=24, 7.2%), included women who indicated that they experienced

both unwanted sexual intercourse due to verbal coercion and a rape experience. For

women in the combined group, the mean number of instances of verbal sexual coercion

was 3.38 (SD = 3.58), and the mean number of instances of rape was 4.04 (SD = 3.50).

A non-victim was defined as a woman who did not indicate experiencing any unwanted

sexual experiences (n = 228, 68.1%).

Bivariate Correlations

Correlations among types of sexual assertiveness suggest that although related,

refusal assertiveness and relational assertiveness represent distinct aspects of

assertiveness (see Table 1). Given their relative distinctness, the current study examined

their impact on victimization separately. There were significant positive correlations

between number of sexual partners and the number of instances of verbal sexual coercion

and number of instances of rape; as the reported number of sexual partners increased, so

did rates of verbal coercion and rape. Both refusal and relational sexual assertiveness

were negatively correlated with verbal sexual coercion and rape; as sexual assertiveness

increased, rates of verbal sexual coercion and rape decreased.

Does Sexual Assertiveness Act as a Moderator In the Relationship between Number

of Sexual Partners and Risk of Ever Being Victimized?

NUMBER OF PARTNERS, ASSERTIVENESS, VICTIMIZATION 11

Using maximum likelihood estimation and transforming the dependent variable

into a logit variable, a series of polytomous regressions (using a multinomial logit model)

examined the hypotheses to estimate the odds of each victimization category when

compared to participants in the non-sexually victimized category. When using

polytomous regression, one category must be selected to serve as a reference. The non-

victim category was chosen to contrast the other three victimization categories in binary

comparisons. The first analysis predicted the odds being classified into the three

victimization categories when compared to non-victims using the refusal subscale of the

SAS (SAS-ref), number of sexual intercourse partners, and the interaction between SAS-

ref and number of sexual partners. All variables were entered simultaneously into the

equations. A non-significant deviance estimate was achieved, χ2 (267) = 263.29, p = .55.

The resulting model fit the data well, χ2 (9) = 56.02, p < .001, Cox and Snell pseudo R2 =

.17. When predicting membership in the verbal coercion category, all three variables

were non-significant. When predicting rape as compared to non-victims, none of the

variables were significant predictors. In the equation predicting the combined group, the

refusal scale of the SAS significantly predicted the membership (OR = .91). With respect

to classifications, 98.1% of the women in the non-victim category, 0% of the verbal

coercion, 3.6% of the rape, and 13.0% of the combined were correctly classified. Overall,

67.7% were correctly classified.

The second analysis predicted the odds of being classified into the three

victimization categories when compared to non-victims using relational sexual

assertiveness (RSA), number of sexual intercourse partners, and the interaction between

RSA and number of sexual partners. All variables were entered simultaneously into the
NUMBER OF PARTNERS, ASSERTIVENESS, VICTIMIZATION 12

equations. A non-significant deviance estimate was achieved, χ2 (423) = 334.10, p > .99.

The resulting model fit the data well, χ2 (9) = 87.24, p < .001, Cox and Snell pseudo

R2=.23. When predicting membership in the verbal coercion category, only RSA was a

significant predictor (OR = .88). Neither the number of sexual intercourse partners (OR

= .98) nor the interaction term (OR = 1.00) were significant contributors. When

predicting rape as compared to non-victims, RSA was the only significant predictor (OR

= .95). In the equation predicting the combined group, the only significant contributor

was RSA (OR = .85). With respect to classifications, 98.2% of the women in the non-

victim category, 0% of the verbal coercion, 3.3% of the rape, and 37.5% of the combined

were correctly classified. Overall, 69.5% of the sample was correctly classified.

Does Sexual Assertiveness Act as a Moderator In the Relationship between Number

of Sexual Partners and The Number of Instances of Victimization?

To test for moderation in multiple regression, interaction terms were created

utilizing the procedure outlined by Frazier, Tix, and Barron (2004). Statistically

significant interactions were interpreted based on testing the simple slope of regression

lines for the high (+1 SD), medium (Mean), and low (-1 SD) values of the moderator

variable (Aiken & West, 1991; Holmbeck, 1997).

Lifetime Instances of Verbally Coerced Sexual Intercourse. To test the

hypothesis that sexual assertiveness moderates the relationship between the number of

consensual sexual intercourse partners and instances of verbal sexual coercion, multiple

regression analyses were performed on the subset of the sample that either reported

experiencing verbal sexual coercion only or denied any experiences of unwanted sexual

intercourse (n = 244). Instances of verbal sexual coercion were predicted using SAS-ref,
NUMBER OF PARTNERS, ASSERTIVENESS, VICTIMIZATION 13

number of consensual sexual intercourse partners, and the interaction between SAS-ref

and number of sexual partner. In this case, only the number of consensual sexual

intercourse partners emerged as a significant predictor of verbal sexual coercion,

F(3,227) = 5.09, p < .01, R2 = .05. The interaction between number of consensual sexual

intercourse partners and SAS-ref was non-significant, B(SE) = .02(.05), t = .30, p = .77.

Instances of verbal sexual coercion were predicted using RSA, number of

consensual sexual intercourse partners, and the interaction between RSA and the number

of sexual partners. The presence of a significant interaction between the number of

consensual sexual intercourse partners and relational sexual assertiveness in predicting

instances of verbal sexual coercion, F(3,240) = 11.97, p < .001, R2 = .12, indicates that, in

general, the relationship between the number of consensual sexual partners and instances

of verbal sexual coercion depends on the level of relational sexual assertiveness. In order

to provide more specific information regarding the interaction between RSA and number

of consensual sexual intercourse partners, follow-up simple slope analyses were

performed using mathematically derived groups indicating a categorical level of RSA (-1

SD, mean, +1 SD). Individuals with low, t(240) = 3.67, p < .001, and medium, t(240) =

3.09, p < .01, levels of RSA showed a significant increase in incidence of verbal sexual

coercion as the number of consensual sexual intercourse partners increased; however,

women with high RSA did not show a significant increase in incidence of verbal sexual

coercion as the number of consensual sexual partners increased, t (240) = .82, p = .41.

Lifetime Instances of Rape. To test the hypothesis that sexual assertiveness

moderates the relationship between the number of consensual sexual intercourse partners

and number of instances of rape, multiple regression analyses were performed on the
NUMBER OF PARTNERS, ASSERTIVENESS, VICTIMIZATION 14

subset of the sample that either reported experiencing rape only or denied any

experiences of unwanted sexual intercourse (n = 281). Instances of rape were predicted

using SAS-ref, the number of consensual sexual intercourse partners, and the interaction.

The resulting equation did not significantly predict instances of rape, F(3,261) = 1.38, p =

.25. Additionally, instances of rape were predicted using RSA, the number of consensual

sexual intercourse partners, and the interaction. The resulting equation did not

significantly predict instances of rape, F(3,277) = 2.09, p = .10.

Lifetime Instances of Both Verbally Coerced Sexual Intercourse and Rape.

In order to independently examine the predictors (number of consensual sexual

intercourse partners, sexual assertiveness) of verbally coerced sexual intercourse or rape,

individuals who had experienced both verbally coerced sexual intercourse and rape were

evaluated as a separate group (n = 245). They were compared to non-victims (those who

had not experienced either form of victimization). Instances of verbal sexual coercion

and rape were predicted separately, using SAS-ref, number of consensual sexual

intercourse partners, and the interaction between SAS-ref and the number of sexual

partners. The presence of a significant interaction between number of consensual sexual

intercourse partners and SAS-ref in predicting instances of verbal sexual coercion,

F(3,228) = 17.27, p < .001, R2 = .17, indicates that in general the relationship between the

number of consensual sexual partners and instances of verbal sexual coercion depends on

the level of SAS-ref. Follow-up analyses of the simple slopes indicates that the incidence

of verbal sexual coercion increased for individuals with low SAS-ref as the number of

consensual sexual partners increased, t(231) = 3.78, p < .001). The incidence of verbal

sexual coercion did not increase for individuals with either medium, t (231) = .41, p =
NUMBER OF PARTNERS, ASSERTIVENESS, VICTIMIZATION 15

.68, or high t(231) =-1.67, p = .10 levels of SAS-ref as the number of consensual sexual

partners increased.

The presence of a significant interaction between number of consensual sexual

intercourse partners and refusal sexual assertiveness in predicting instances of rape,

F(3,228) = 45.22, p < .001, R2 = .37, indicates that in general the relationship between

number of consensual sexual partners and instances of rape depends on the level of SAS-

ref. Follow-up analyses of the simple slopes indicate that instances of rape increased for

individuals with low SAS-ref as the number of consensual sexual partners increased,

t(231) = 6.83, p < .001. Instances of rape did not increase significantly for individuals

with medium levels of SAS-ref as the number of consensual sexual partners increased,

t(231) = .68, p = .50. Instances of rape significantly decreased for individuals with high

levels of SAS-ref as the number of consensual sexual partners increased, t(231) = -3.63, p

< .001.

A second set of analyses were performed using RSA in place of SAS-ref. The

presence of a significant interaction between number of consensual sexual intercourse

partners and RSA in predicting instances of verbal sexual coercion, F(3,241) = 21.85, p <

.001, R2 = .20, indicates that in general the relationship between the number of

consensual sexual partners and instances of verbal sexual coercion depends on the level

of RSA. Follow-up analyses of the simple slopes indicated that the incidence of verbal

sexual coercion increased for individuals with low RSA, t(241) = 2.78, p < .01, as the

number of consensual sexual partners increased. However, the incidence of verbal sexual

coercion did not increase for individuals with medium, t(241) = .83, p = .40, or high

levels of RSA, t(241) = -.92, p = .36 as the number of consensual sexual partners
NUMBER OF PARTNERS, ASSERTIVENESS, VICTIMIZATION 16

increased. The presence of a significant interaction between number of consensual

sexual intercourse partners and relational sexual assertiveness in predicting instances of

rape, F(3,241) = 29.55, p < .001, R2 = .26, indicates that in general the relationship

between number of consensual sexual partners and instances of rape depends on the level

of relational sexual assertiveness. Follow-up analyses of the simple slopes indicated that

the incidence of rape increased for individuals with low, t(241) = 4.67, p < .001, and

medium, t(241) = 2.12, p < .05, levels of RSA as the number of consensual sexual

intercourse partners increased. However, the incidence of rape did not increase for

individuals with high levels of RSA as the number of consensual sexual intercourse

partners increased, t(241) = -.38, p = .71.

Discussion

The majority of previous studies have examined the risk factors of number of

sexual partners and sexual assertiveness as independent correlates of sexual victimization

(e.g., Gidycz, et al., 1995; Greene & Navarro, 1998; Livingston et al., 2007; Testa &

Dermen, 1999); however, no studies until this one have examined number of sexual

partners and sexual assertiveness as interdependent correlates of sexual victimization.

The first aim of the current study was to test for a hypothesized interaction between a

woman’s number of sexual partners and her sexual assertiveness in relation to sexual

victimization. Specifically, the current study examined whether women with more sexual

partners who were lower in sexual assertiveness would report higher rates of sexual

victimization. Overall, findings suggest that having more sexual partners in the context

of low sexual assertiveness is associated with more experiences of sexual victimization,

NUMBER OF PARTNERS, ASSERTIVENESS, VICTIMIZATION 17

whereas higher levels of sexual assertiveness may act as a buffer for the risk associated

with having more sexual partners.

Previous studies have typically assessed only one aspect of sexual assertiveness

(e.g., interpersonal skill with men; Greene & Navarro, 1998; refusal sexual assertiveness;

Livingston et al., 2007) despite theoretical (e.g. Wilson & Gallois, 1993) and empirical

(e.g., Morokoff et al., 1997) support for considering sexual assertiveness as a

multifaceted construct. Given these existing limitations in the literature, the second aim

of the current study was to examine multiple types of sexual assertiveness (e.g., Morokoff

et al., 1997). Overall, it appears that relational sexual assertiveness may be a stronger

moderator of number of sexual partners than refusal sexual assertiveness. However,

refusal sexual assertiveness was associated with the experience of multiple episodes of

rape and verbal sexual coercion, consistent with earlier studies of revictimization (Greene

& Navarro, 1998; Livingston, et al., 2007). These findings provide additional empirical

support for sexual assertiveness as a multifaceted construct, components of which

deserve continued attention in research on different forms of sexual victimization.

The third aim of the current study was to extend the current literature examining

differential correlates of verbal sexual coercion and rape (e.g., Testa & Dermen, 1999).

Consistent with Testa and Dermen, we hypothesized that the interaction between the

number of sexual partners and sexual assertiveness would be related to the number of

instances of verbal sexual coercion but not rape. Although no hypotheses were warranted

regarding the differential relationship of either aspect of sexual assertiveness assessed

(refusal or relational) with either verbal sexual coercion or rape, the different pattern of

results based on aspect of assertiveness are worthy of discussion. Consistent with the
NUMBER OF PARTNERS, ASSERTIVENESS, VICTIMIZATION 18

hypothesis that the interaction between the number of sexual partners and sexual

assertiveness would not be related to rape, neither refusal sexual assertiveness nor

relational sexual assertiveness interacted with number of sexual partners to predict rape.

Contrary to expectations, refusal sexual assertiveness (e.g., saying no to sex when a

partner insists or pressures) did not interact with the number of sexual partners in relation

to verbal sexual coercion. However, the interaction between relational sexual

assertiveness (e.g., saying no to sex when a partner could experience disappointment or

threaten to end the relationship) and number of sexual partners did relate to verbal sexual

coercion. Therefore, for the women in the current sample, relational sexual assertiveness

may be more relevant to risk for (and prevention of) verbal sexual coercion, whereas

refusal sexual assertiveness may play less of a role. Consistent with the findings of Testa

and Dermen, neither aspect of sexual assertiveness appeared relevant to rape, providing

additional support for verbal sexual coercion and rape as potentially distinct experiences

with potentially unique risk factors.

In addition to describing verbal sexual coercion as distinct constructs, Testa and

Dermen (1999) also highlighted the need to separately examine women who had

experienced both verbal sexual coercion and rape. Although Testa and Dermen failed to

find an interaction between verbal sexual coercion and rape on number of sexual partners

and sexual assertiveness, results of the current study support the decision to consider

these forms of sexual victimization separately. Among women with experiences of both

verbal sexual coercion and rape in the current study, our hypothesis that the number of

sexual partners and sexual assertiveness would interact in relation to verbal sexual

coercion was confirmed for both refusal sexual assertiveness and relational sexual
NUMBER OF PARTNERS, ASSERTIVENESS, VICTIMIZATION 19

assertiveness. Contrary to expectation, number of sexual partners and sexual

assertiveness (both refusal and relational) also interacted in relation to number of

instances of rape. One possible explanation for this pattern of results is that women who

reported both verbal sexual coercion and rape also reported more instances of both types

of victimization. Therefore, considering the reciprocal relationship that exists between

assertiveness and sexual victimization (e.g., Livingston et al., 2007), it may be that the

assertiveness-diminishing effects of victimization are more evident in a group that has

experienced more instances of victimization overall.

Finally, the current study extends the existing literature by assessing sexual

victimization as a categorical (e.g., risk for ever being victimized) and as continuous

(e.g., risk for how many times one is victimized) construct. When examining sexual

victimization as a categorical variable (i.e., presence/absence of lifetime victimization),

which is the most traditional method of examining sexual victimization (e.g., Koss &

Gidycz, 1985; Koss, Gidycz, & Wisniewski, 1987), the interaction between number of

sexual partners and sexual assertiveness was not significant. Previous studies considered

both number of sexual partners and sexual assertiveness as independent correlates of the

presence of victimization (Greene & Navarro, 1998; Testa & Dermen, 1999); results of

the current study would suggest that number of sexual partners and sexual assertiveness

were not correlated with increased odds of ever being victimized. Alternatively, when

sexual victimization was assessed as the number of lifetime instances of victimization,

results supported the moderation hypothesis. Higher numbers of sexual partners, only in

the context of low sexual assertiveness, were associated with an increased risk for more

instances of verbal sexual coercion. These findings are consistent with prior research
NUMBER OF PARTNERS, ASSERTIVENESS, VICTIMIZATION 20

(e.g., Livingston et al., 2007) which highlights the importance of considering factors

which are associated with multiple experiences of sexual victimization.

In summary, the current study suggests that number of sexual partners and sexual

assertiveness are interdependent correlates of sexual victimization, most specifically

among women with experiences of verbal sexual coercion. As the number of women’s

sexual partners increased and sexual assertiveness (particularly relational sexual

assertiveness) decreased, women reported more experiences of verbal sexual coercion. In

contrast, among women with higher levels of sexual assertiveness, frequency of sexual

victimization was not elevated.

Limitations

The present findings emphasize the importance of examining the interaction of

risk factors in relation to specific forms of sexual victimization as well as multiple

aspects of sexual assertiveness. Prior to the current study, the majority of research

focused on these factors as unrelated correlates of sexual victimization. Despite this

important contribution, some limitations of the current study must be acknowledged. The

sample was relatively homogenous in terms of race, ethnicity, age, and socioeconomic

status, and all participants were female college students. Although college-student

samples are necessarily limited, it is important recognize that college women have been

identified as an at-risk population for sexual victimization (e.g., Fisher et al., 2000).

Furthermore, college women represent a targeted group for many prevention programs

designed to reduce sexual victimization (e.g., Anderson & Whiston, 2006). However,

more research is needed to determine whether the pattern of relationships found here is

also present among community women, married women, and lesbians or bisexual
NUMBER OF PARTNERS, ASSERTIVENESS, VICTIMIZATION 21

women. Sexual assertiveness is likely influenced by development, thus the patterns

found here may differ from those reported by older women or women with more sexual

experience. Perhaps more importantly, the cross-sectional design limits inferences of the

directionality of the relationships. The possibility that victimization influences number of

sexual partners and assertiveness could not be determined. However, given prospective

studies that suggest sexual assertiveness and sexual victimization have a reciprocal

relationship and that low sexual assertiveness precedes future victimization (Livingston et

al., 2007), the conclusions seem reasonable. Finally, findings regarding the impact of

relational sexual assertiveness should be considered somewhat preliminary, given its

measurement is relatively new. Future studies are needed to confirm the relationships

found here. However, despite these limitations, the current study contributes to the

literature on sexual victimization by providing clarification on the nature of the

relationship among number of sexual partners, sexual assertiveness, and sexual

victimization. In addition, it provides further support for considering verbal sexual

coercion and rape as distinct experiences.

Implications for Future Research and Prevention

The current findings have several important implications for future research and

prevention efforts. First, this study offers an alternative contextual perspective on a long-

held assumption that as a woman engages in consensual sex with more partners, her risk

for victimization inevitably increases (e.g., Kanin, 1985; Koss & Dinero, 1989). Number

of consensual sexual partners and sexual assertiveness have consistently been treated as

independent correlates of sexual victimization, an assumption not supported by the

present findings. Future studies may benefit from considering number of sexual partners
NUMBER OF PARTNERS, ASSERTIVENESS, VICTIMIZATION 22

not as an independent correlate, but rather as a behavioral factor occurring

interdependently with other variables (e.g., sexual assertiveness, alcohol use, negative

affect, etc.) to predict sexual victimization. From a prevention standpoint, the current

findings suggest that programs designed to increase assertiveness, particularly as it relates

to making sexual decisions in the context of relationship-specific pressures, could be

particularly valuable.

Second, this study provides additional support for the argument that sexual

victimization is not a monolithic construct, but rather a complex phenomenon requiring

nuanced assessment (Testa & Dermen, 1999). The current study suggests that future

research may benefit from considering verbal sexual coercion and rape as different forms

of victimization with distinct risk factors, and that women with both experiences be

evaluated as a unique group. The current findings also suggest that future research may

benefit from addressing not only questions about factors increasing the likelihood for any

victimization, but also considering factors that impact how many times victimization

occurs. Future studies should focus not only on methods for preventing sexual

victimization, but also on additional methods for helping individuals with a history of

sexual victimization avoid sexual revictimization.

It is important to acknowledge possible third-variable influences on the results

that were not assessed in the current study. For example, previous research suggests that

substance use is frequently associated with sexual victimization in a college population

(e.g., Krebs, Lindquist, Warner, Fisher, & Martin, 2009), and substance use would likely

negatively impact sexual assertiveness, particularly among very impaired individuals.

Perhaps more centrally, the relationship between victim and perpetrator may also play a
NUMBER OF PARTNERS, ASSERTIVENESS, VICTIMIZATION 23

role given that over 90% of sexual assaults on college women are committed by men the

women know (Ullman, Karabatsos, & Koss, 1999). The degree of that relationship (e.g.,

acquaintance at a party vs. date with romantic interest vs. established dating partner)

could impact the the association between assertiveness and sexual victimization.

Relational assertiveness may be more important in the context of romantic interest (either

in an established or newer relationship a woman has with someone who pressures her for

sex), whereas refusal assertiveness may be more important in situations with less well-

known men who commit rape in a context absent romantic interest (e.g., meeting

someone at a party). Finally, assertiveness is likely related to levels of victim resistance,

which often varies by victim-offender relationship, but is a significant factor influencing

the outcome of a perpetrator’s coercive behavior (Turchik, Probst, Chau, Nigoff, &

Gidycz, 2007). VanZile-Tamsen, Testa and Livingston (2005) found that victimization

history was not only linked with a decreased likelihood of engaging in direct resistance,

but that lower levels of assertiveness mediated this relation. Future studies should

examine how relational and refusal assertiveness are associated with these factors.

Although this study focused primarily on women’s behavior, it is vitally

important to note that the hypotheses investigated in the current study were not meant to

suggest that having had a greater number of consensual sexual partners or low sexual

assertiveness places blame for sexual victimization on the victim. Indeed the ultimate

responsibility for sexual assault lies with the perpetrator. Rather, this study was designed

with a goal of identifying those women at greatest risk for sexual victimization (e.g.,

those needing to improve skills in sexual assertiveness), rather than to treat all women

with many sexual partners as being at the same degree of risk for sexual victimization.
NUMBER OF PARTNERS, ASSERTIVENESS, VICTIMIZATION 24

The current results emphasize the importance of considering sexual assertiveness

as a potential avenue for empowerment and intervention, in contrast to focusing solely on

women’s sexual behavior as a risk factor, or ignoring it as a theoretically “untouchable”

construct. Researchers in the field must continue to acknowledge the complexity of

victimization and the relational context in which it takes place (Macy, Nurius, & Norris,

2006; Nurius & Norris, 1996; Rozee & Koss, 2001) in order to avoid oversimplified

programming reminiscent of “Just Say No” campaigns. Ideally, current research will

inform interventions that can provide women with the skills and self-understanding

necessary to be simultaneously fulfilled and safe in sexual relationships today.

NUMBER OF PARTNERS, ASSERTIVENESS, VICTIMIZATION 25

References

Aiken, L. S. & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting

interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Anderson, L. A., & Whiston, S. (2005). Sexual assault education programs: A meta-

analytic examination of their effectiveness. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29,

374-388.

Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Sexual economics: Sex as female resource for

social exchange in heterosexual interactions. Personality and Social Psychology

Review, 8, 339-363.

Breitenbecher, K. H. (2000). Sexual assault on college campuses: Is an ounce of

prevention enough? Applied and Preventive Psychology, 9, 23-52.

Corbin, W. R., Bernat J. A., Calhoun, K. S., McNair, L. D., & Seals, K. L. (2001). The

role of alcohol expectancies and alcohol consumption among sexually victimized

and nonvictimized college women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 297-

311.

Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2000). The sexual victimization of college

women. Research report of the National Institute of Justice.

Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator

effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology,

51, 115-134.

Gidycz, C. A., Hanson, K., & Layman, M. J. (1995). A prospective analysis of the

relationships among sexual assault experiences. Psychology of Women Quarterly,

19, 5-29.
NUMBER OF PARTNERS, ASSERTIVENESS, VICTIMIZATION 26

Greene, D. M. & Navarro, R. L. (1998). Situation-specific assertiveness in the

epidemiology of sexual victimization among university women. Psychology of

Women Quarterly, 22, 589-604.

Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the

study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric

psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 599-

610.

Kanin, E. J. (1985). Date rapists: Differential sexual socialization and relative

deprivation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14, 219-230.

Koss, M. P. & Dinero, T. E. (1989). Discriminant analysis of risk factors for sexual

victimization among a national sample of college women. Journal of Consulting

and Clinical Psychology, 57, 242-250.

Koss, M. P. & Gidycz, C. A. (1985). Sexual Experiences Survey: Reliability and

validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 422-423.

Koss, M. P., 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. P. & Oros, C. J. (1982). Sexual Experiences Survey: a research instrument

investigating sexual aggression and victimization. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 50, 455-457.

Krebs, C. P., Lindquist, C. H., Warner, T. D., Fisher, B. S., & Martin, S. L. (2009). The

differential risk factors for physically forced and alcohol- or other drug- enabled

sexual assault among university women. Violence and Victims, 24, 302-321.
NUMBER OF PARTNERS, ASSERTIVENESS, VICTIMIZATION 27

Livingston, J. A., Testa, M., & VanZile-Tamsen, C. (2007). The reciprocal relationship

between sexual victimization and sexual assertiveness. Violence Against Women,

13, 298-313.

Macy, R. J., Nurius, P. S., & Norris, J. (2006). Women’s situational coping with

acquaintance sexual assault: Applying an appraisal-based model. Violence

Against Women, 12, 478-500.

Messman-Moore, T. L., Coates, A. A., Gaffey, K. J., & Johnson, C. F. (2008). Sexuality,

substance use, and susceptibility to victimization: Risk for rape and sexual

coercion in a prospective study of college women. Journal of Interpersonal

Violence, 23, 1730-1746.

Messman-Moore, T. L., Ward, R. M., & Walker, D. P. (2007). Sexual assertiveness in

relational context: Development and psychometric properties of the sexual

assertiveness questionnaire for women (SAQ-W). Paper presented at the 50th

annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality, Indianapolis,

IN.

Morokoff, P. J., Quina, K., Harlow, L. L., Whitmire, L., Grimley, D. M., Gibson, P. R., &

Burkholder, G. J. (1997). Sexual Assertiveness Scale (SAS) for women:

Development and validation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 73,

790-804.

Nurius, P. S., & Norris, J. (1996). A cognitive ecological model of response to sexual

coercion in dating. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 8, 117-139.

Rozee, P. D., & Koss, M. P. (2001). Rape: A century of resistance. Psychology of

Women Quarterly, 25, 295-311.

NUMBER OF PARTNERS, ASSERTIVENESS, VICTIMIZATION 28

Shackelford, T. K. & Goetz, A. T. (2004). Men’s sexual coercion in intimate

relationships: Development and initial validation of the sexual coercion in

intimate relationships scale. Violence and Victims, 19, 541-556.

Shotland, R. L. & Goodstein, L (1992). Sexual precedence reduces the perceived

legitimacy of sexual refusal: An examination of attributions concerning date rape

and consensual sex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 756-764.

Struckman-Johnson, C., Struckman-Johnson, D., Anderson, P. B. (2003). Tactics of

sexual coercion: When men and women won’t take no for an answer. The

Journal of Sex Research, 40, 76-86

Testa, M. & Dermen, K. H. (1999). The differential correlates of sexual coercion and

rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 548-561.

Testa, M., VanZile-Tamsen, C., & Livingston, J. A. (2007). Prospective prediction of

women’s sexual victimization by intimate and nonintimate male perpetrators.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 52-60.

Turchik, J. A., Probst, D. R., Chau, M., Nigoff, A., & Gidycz, C. A. (2007). Factors

predicting the type of tactics used to resist sexual assault: A prospective study of

college women. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 605-614.

Tyler, K. A., Hoyt, D. R., & Whitbeck, L. B. (1998). Coercive sexual strategies.

Violence and Victims, 13, 47-61.

Twenge, J. M. (2001). Changes in women's assertiveness in response to status and roles:

A cross-temporal meta-analysis, 1931-1993. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 81, 133-145.

NUMBER OF PARTNERS, ASSERTIVENESS, VICTIMIZATION 29

Ullman, S. E., Karabatsos, G., & Koss, M. P. (1999). Alcohol and sexual assault in a

national sample of college women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 603-

625.

VanZile-Tamsen, C., Testa, M., & Livingston, T. A. (2005). The impact of sexual assault

history and relationship context on appraisals of and responses to acquaintance

sexual assault risk. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 813-832.

Wilson, K. & Gallois, C. (1993). Assertion and Its Social Context. Pergamon Press,

New York.

Zweig, J. M., Barber, B. L., & Eccles, J. S. (1997). Sexual coercion and well-being in

young adulthood. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 291-308.

 NUMBER OF PARTNERS, ASSERTIVENESS, VICTIMIZATION 30

Table 1

Bivariate Correlations among Number of Sexual Partners, Sexual Assertiveness, and

Sexual Victimization

Measure 1 2 3 4 5

1. RSA - .50 -.27 -.40 -.33

2. SAS-ref - -.23 -.28 -.28

3. # of sexual partners - .21 .23

4. Verbal Sexual
- .45
Coercion

5. Rape -

Note: All correlations significant at p < .001. RSA = Relational Sexual Assertiveness.

SAS-ref = Refusal Sexual Assertiveness.

View publication stats