An Examination of the Roles of Cognitive-Affective Sexual Appraisals and Coping
Strategies in the Relationship between Sexual Victimization and Sexual Functioning
A thesis presented to
the faculty of
the College of Arts and Science of Ohio University
In partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Science
Erika L. Kelley
June 2012
© 2012 Erika L. Kelley. All Rights Reserved.
2
This thesis titled
An Examination of the Roles of Cognitive-Affective Sexual Appraisals and Coping
Strategies in the Relationship between Sexual Victimization and Sexual Functioning
by
ERIKA L. KELLEY
has been approved for
the Department of Psychology
and the College of Arts and Science by
_________________________________________________
Christine A. Gidycz
Professor of Psychology
_________________________________________________
Howard Dewald
Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
3
Abstract
KELLEY, ERIKA K., M.S., June 2012, Psychology
An Examination of the Roles of Cognitive-Affective Sexual Appraisals and Coping
Strategies in the Relationship between Sexual Victimization and Sexual Functioning (137
pp.)
Director of Thesis: Christine A. Gidycz
A large proportion of college women will experience some form of sexual
victimization in their lives. Sexual victimization experienced in childhood (CSA),
adolescence or adulthood (ASA), is often associated with long-term negative outcomes of
sexual health. Research indicates that sexual victimization can lead to increased
engagement in risky sexual behaviors, while other research suggests that sexual
victimization can lead to sexual dysfunctions and sexual aversion. To date, prior research
has not examined the potential differential effects of abuse experienced at different
developmental time periods (e.g., CSA, ASA, both CSA and ASA) on sexual behavior
and functioning. Furthermore, little previous research has examined the mechanisms of
the relationship between sexual victimization and sexual functioning. The current study
was conducted to fill this gap in the literature. Results of the current study suggested that
CSA was associated with sexual problems and lower sexual self-esteem while ASA was
associated with risky sexual behavior, increased sexual desire, increased skill/experiencebased sexual self-esteem, and difficulties with sexual arousal. Furthermore, results of a
cluster analysis conducted on the subsample of victimized women revealed two patterns
of sexual functioning outcomes: Risky Sex/Low Desire and Sexual Dysfunctions.
Erotophobia-erotophilia and skill/experience-based sexual self-esteem predicted
4
membership in these clusters. The implications of these results on future research and
treatment programming will be discussed.
Approved: _________________________________________________
Christine A. Gidycz
Professor of Psychology
5
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my colleagues in the Laboratory for the Study and
Prevention of Sexual Assault for their continual support and constructive feedback; my
advisor, Christine Gidycz, for her guidance in this project and as a model advocate for
survivors of sexual assault; my research assistants for their help and their eagerness to
continue the study of sexual assault; and to my husband, for his love and support of my
professional development.
6
Table of Contents
Page
Abstract……………………………………………………………………….…………..3
Acknowledgments…………………………………………………………….…….……5
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................…8
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………10
An Examination of the Roles of Cognitive-Affective Sexual Appraisals and Coping
Strategies in the Relationship between Sexual Victimization and Sexual Functioning…11
Hypotheses……………………………………………………………………….18
Method .......................................................................................................................... …20
Participants .............................................................................................................. …20
Procedure ................................................................................................................ …20
Measures ................................................................................................................. …21
Demographics…………………………………………….………………………..21
Childhood sexual abuse…………………………………..………………………..21
Adolescent/adult sexual victimization………………………..…………………………22
Adult sexual victimization characteristics…………………..……………………..23
Risky sexual behavior……………………………………………..……………….24
Sexual self-schema…………………………………………………..……………..24
Sexual appraisals…………………………………………………...………………25
Sexual functioning…………………………………………………...…………….25
Coping strategies……………………………………….…………………………..26
Sexual problems……………………………………...…………………………….27
7
Sexual self-esteem………………………………...……………………………….27
Results ..................................................................................................................... …29
Data Preparation……………………………………………………………………29
Descriptive Information……………………………………………...…………….29
Sexual Victimization Experiences……………………………………...………….30
Relationship between victimization and general sexual activity………….…....31
Hypothesis 1: Association between Childhood and Adulthood Sexual
Victimization………………………………………………………….…………32
Hypothesis 2: Relationship between Victimization Status and Sexual
Functioning……………………………………………………………….……...32
Hypothesis 3: Relationship between Victimization Status and Coping…………....35
Hypothesis 4: Relationship between Victimization Status and Cognitive-Affective
Sexual Appraisals……………………………………………….……………….36
Hypothesis 5: Cluster Analysis of Victimized Women According to Sexual
Functioning Variables………………………………………………….………..38
Hypothesis 6: Prediction of Cluster Classification by Cognitive-affective Sexual
Appraisals……………………………………………………………..……..…..39
Hypothesis 7: Prediction of Cluster Classification by Coping Strategies……...…..40
Discussion…………………………………………………………………………...…...42
References ..................................................................................................................... ....57
Appendix A:Measures and Psychometric Properties .................................................... ....64
Appendix B:Supplemental Statistical Analyses............................................................ ..105
8
List of Tables
Table 1. Demographic Information of Full Sample (N = 412)…....………….……….…108
Table 2. Summary of Study Measures and Current Sample Internal Consistency
Reliabilities………………………………………………………………..…………....110
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics of Sexual History (N = 412)……. ..………………...…113
Table 4. Means, Standard Deviation, and Range of Study Variables (N = 412)……...115
Table 5. Correlation Matrix of Study Variables of Interest for Full Sample…………..116
Table 6. Sexual Victimization Frequencies for Full Sample……….…..……….……...119
Table 7. Results of Chi-square Examining Relationship between Childhood and
Adolescent/Adult Sexual Victimization……….………………..….………...……….…120
Table 8. Univariate Effects for significant multivariate Factorial MANOVA Effects
Examining Sexual Victimization and Sexual Functioning……………….…………..…121
Table 9. Univariate Effects for significant multivariate Factorial MANOVA Examining
Sexual Victimization and FSFI Subscales……………………………...……………....122
Table 10. Univariate Effects for significant multivariate Factorial MANOVA effects
Examining Sexual Victimization and Cognitive-affective Sexual Appraisals…….…....123
Table 11. Univariate Effects for significant multivariate MANOVA Effects Examining
Sexual Victimization and SSEI-W Subscales…………..……….……..………………..124
Table 12. Correlation Matrix of Study Variables for Victimized Sample….…...………125
Table 13. Final Cluster Centers for Cluster Analysis of Subsample with Victimization
Histories………….…………………………………………………………….....…....128
Table 14. Descriptive ANOVA Results of Cluster Differences on Sexual Functioning
Variables……………………………………………………………………………..…129
9
Table 15. Case Distribution of Clusters by Victimization Categories………....….…..130
Table 16. Logistic Regression Predicting Cluster Membership by Cognitive-Affective
Sexual Appraisals………..………………….………………………………….…..….133
Table 17. Logistic Regression Predicting Cluster Membership by Coping
Strategies……………………………………………………………….……….….….132
Table 18. Adolescent/Adult Sexual Victimization Characteristics……….….……..….133
10
List of Figures
Figure 1. Bar chart displaying FSFI full scale scores by CSA severity level…………136
Figure 2. Bar chart displaying FSFI full scale scores by ASA severity level…………137
11
An Examination of the Roles of Cognitive-Affective Sexual Appraisals and Coping
Strategies in the Relationship between Sexual Victimization and Sexual Functioning
Sexual violence against women is a highly prevalent problem in our society, and
can occur in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Estimates range from between 45%
and 75% of adult women experiencing some form of adult sexual victimization (ASA)
(Brecklin & Ullman, 2002; Koss, Gidycz, & Wisiniewski, 1987) and between one third
and one fifth of all women experiencing some form of childhood sexual assault (CSA)
(Finkelhor, Hotaling, Lewis, & Smith, 1990). Additionally, data from the Bureau of
Justice Statistics suggests that college-aged women are at particular risk for sexual
victimization (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000; Humphrey & White, 2000). It has been
well-documented that sexual victimization is related to a wide variety of sexual health
functioning consequences, although the research is equivocal (Weaver, 2009). There is a
dearth of research examining potential mechanisms of sexual functioning outcomes
following sexual assault. Thus, the purpose of this study is to more thoroughly examine
the relationship between sexual victimization and sexual functioning in a sample of
college women.
Research that has examined the long-term sexual functioning outcomes of women
who experience CSA has generated mixed results such that there are a variety of effects
of CSA on sexual functioning, ranging from sexual difficulties or anxious-avoidance of
sexual stimuli in adulthood (e.g., vaginismus, decreased sexual desire, sexual aversion) to
increased sexuality (e.g., high-risk sexual behavior, high number of sexual partners) in
adulthood (see Van Berlo & Ensink, 2000, for a review). Still other studies have failed to
find a relationship between CSA and sexual functioning outcomes (e.g., Noll, Trickett, &
12
Putnam, 2000). Despite some negative findings, taken together the data suggest that CSA
may lead to several different forms of negative sexual health outcomes.
Compared to the research on CSA sexual functioning outcomes, relatively fewer
studies have examined the relationship between ASA and sexuality variables; and of the
studies that have, findings are similarly equivocal. Some findings imply that ASA is
associated with increased rates of risky sexual behaviors (e.g., sex without contraception
with a partner just met) that negatively impact sexual health and may lead to increased
risk for exposure to sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancy, and sexual
revictimization (Green, Krupnick, Stockton, Goodman, Corcoran, & Petty, 2005;
Weaver, 2009). Conversely, other research indicates that women who have experienced
ASA report higher levels of sexual dysfunctions (e.g., lack of sexual interest, fear of sex,
and arousal and orgasm difficulties) or withdrawal (Letourneau, Resnick, Kilpatrick,
Saunders, & Best, 1996). Research also indicates that revictimization is associated with
greater impairments in sexual functioning than experiences of CSA or ASA alone; such
that revictimized women reported a higher number of lifetime sexual partners, unwanted
pregnancies, and likelihood of engaging in sexual activity, than victims of ASA alone and
victims of CSA alone (Kaltman, Krupnick, Stockton, Hooper, & Green, 2005; Wyatt,
Guthrie, & Notgrass, 1992). There may be potential differences in outcomes between
women who have experienced victimization at different developmental periods. Overall,
further research is needed to clarify the specific relationships between CSA, ASA, and
revictimization, and sexual functioning.
The lack of consensus as to the actual relationship between sexual victimization
and sexual functioning found in these studies may actually suggest that no single specific
13
pathway is replicable across victimized women. That is, some women may react to CSA
with sexual avoidance and dysfunctions yet other women may engage in high-risk sexual
behavior in response. These varying pathways may also be present in women who have
experienced ASA or revictimization. The exact psychological mechanisms and processes
leading to these relationships remain unclear; without examining other such factors, it
may be difficult to interpret results and design appropriate interventions. Thus, to resolve
conflicting findings in the literature, factors must be identified that predict whether a
victimized woman will engage in high-risk sexual behavior or experience sexual
problems and sexual avoidance. A consideration of the theoretical underpinnings of the
impact of sexual victimization may provide a framework for identifying the mechanisms
of the relationship between sexual victimization and sexual functioning.
Becker and colleagues (Becker, Skinner, Abel, Axelrod, & Cichon, 1984)
suggested that classical conditioning within a two-factor social learning theory explains
the development of sexual problems of inhibition or avoidance following sexual assault.
That is, a sexual assault experience acts as an unconditional stimulus that evokes fear and
anxiety in the victim. Aspects of the sexual assault, sexual aspects in particular (e.g.,
penetration), can become conditioned to elicit a negative reaction that might generalize to
specific or all forms of sexual experiences and behaviors. Thus, in order to avoid these
negative reactions, a survivor might experience sexual dysfunctions, aversion, or
avoidance. This theory might explain the sexual aversion/dysfunctions outcomes, but
does not explain outcomes related to risky sexual behavior.
To this end, Finkelhor and Browne (1985; Browne & Finkelhor, 1986) also
proposed a conceptual model that explains why and how sexual abuse results in various
14
outcomes. Through a process of modeling and reinforcement elicited by the sexual
perpetrator, women who have experienced CSA may attain inaccurate or negative views
and ideas about their sexuality. The authors proposed a traumagenic dynamics theoretical
framework that purports that CSA experiences can be analyzed in terms of four traumacausing factors, two of which, traumatic sexualization and stigmatization, may help to
describe the seemingly distinct pathways of CSA to either sexual avoidance or increased
risky sexual behavior.
Traumatic sexualization refers to “a process in which a child’s sexuality
(including both sexual feelings and sexual attitudes) is shaped in a developmentally
inappropriate and interpersonally dysfunctional fashion as a result of abuse” (Finkelhor &
Browne, 1985, p. 67). In this manner, sexual abuse can lead to lasting inappropriate
associations (e.g., attention, rewards) with sexual activity and arousal, which may
continue into adulthood and then lead to distorted sexual cognitions, attitudes, emotions,
and behaviors that may last into adulthood. It may be inferred that similar associations
can occur with experiences of ASA; for example, when unwanted sexual experiences
may actually elicit a sexual response (e.g., arousal) in a victim. Stigmatization refers to
the “badness, shame, and guilt” that might become incorporated into the self-image of a
CSA survivor as a result of the abuse; which is similar to the classical conditioning
conceptualization (e.g., Becker et al., 1984). Many children who experience CSA may
become conditioned to associate sexual experiences with these negative emotions,
resulting in sexual aversion, sexual phobia, or negative reactions to subsequent sexual
stimuli. Perhaps this framework could be extended to survivors of ASA as well. For
example, women who experience acquaintance rape in high school or college often
15
respond to the experience with high levels of guilt and shame (Van Berlo & Ensink,
2000) which may lead to long-lasting negative thoughts and feelings associated with
sexual stimuli, and ultimately sexual difficulties and aversion.
Within these frameworks, sexuality can thus be thought of as a dynamic
component of the self-concept which can be developed and modified over time, and
includes cognitive and affective aspects of the sexual self (Schloredt & Heiman, 2003).
Two potential mechanisms of such outcomes of sexual functioning that may relate to the
development and modification of the sexual self-concept are coping strategies and
cognitive-affective sexual appraisals.
Coping strategies have been found to be associated with sexual victimization as
well as sexual functioning and have been proposed as a factor that potentially mediates
the relationship between sexual victimization and sexual health outcomes (Merrill,
Guimond, Thomsen, & Milner, 2003). In a sample of Navy recruits, Merrill and
colleagues (2003) found that use of self-destructive coping in response to CSA was
positively associated with dysfunctional risky sexual behavior and number of sex
partners; whereas use of avoidant coping strategies was associated with higher levels of
sexual concerns (e.g., sexual distress, sexual functioning problems) and lower numbers of
sexual partners. A similar relationship might be present among college women, such that
self-destructive coping is associated with high-risk sexual behaviors and avoidant coping
is associated with sexual avoidance and withdrawal.
Cognitive-affective sexual appraisals that incorporate more subjective information
of a woman’s sexual experience and sexual self-concept, including erotophobiaerotophilia, sexual self-schema, and sexual self-esteem, have been conceptualized to
16
predict or magnify negative sexuality outcomes. Erotophobia-erotophilia can be
conceptualized as women’s affective appraisals or evaluations of various sexual stimuli
and is an integral part of response dispositions that mediate the effect of sexual
stimulation of subsequent sexual behavior or experience (Fisher, Byrne, White, & Kelley,
1988). Individuals with an erotophobic disposition tend to have negative affective and
evaluative responses to a variety of sexual stimuli and behaviors (Lemieux & Byers,
2008) which may lead to generalized avoidance response to sexual cues. Conversely,
erotophilic individuals have a learned disposition to respond to sexual cues with
relatively positive affect, and would show more approach tendencies to sex (Fisher et al.,
1998).
Sexual self-esteem has been defined as a woman’s “affective reactions to her
subjective appraisals of her sexual thoughts, feelings, and behaviors” (Fisher et al., 1988,
p.3). Research has indicated that lower sexual self-esteem is related to sexual difficulties
and sexual avoidance (Lemieux & Byers, 2008). Research has also shown that college
women who had experienced acquaintance rape, and women who have experienced CSA,
report significantly lower sexual self-esteem than women without sexual assault histories
(Shapiro & Schwarz, 1997; Van Bruggen, Runtz, and Kadlec, 2006).
Sexual self-schema has been defined as “cognitive representations (or thoughts)
about the sexual aspects of the self” (Anderson & Cyranowski, 1994, p. 1092) or more
simply, as a woman’s sexual self-concept. Women with more positive sexual selfschemas are more open to sexual relationships and sexual experiences, report higher
levels of sexual arousal, and have more liberal sexual attitudes (Lemieux & Byers, 2008).
Meanwhile, more negative sexual self-schema has been associated with less extensive
17
relationship histories and reports of self-views as being sexually conservative and
inhibited (Anderson & Cynarowski, 1994).
It has been suggested that erotophobia-erotophilia, sexual self-schema, and sexual
self-esteem develop from experiences in childhood, at least partially (Lemieux & Byers,
2008). There has been limited research examining the relationship between these
variables and CSA (Meston & Heiman, 2000; Meston, Rellini, & Heiman, 2006) to date,
no research has examined their relationship with ASA or revictimization. Only one study
to date (Lemieux & Byers, 2008) has examined the combined variables of erotophobiaerotophilia, sexual self-esteem, and sexual self-schema and their relation to sexual
functioning. Considering the mediating role of these variables in the relationship between
CSA and adult sexual functioning among a sample of college women, Lemieux and
Byers (2008) found that sexual self-esteem was a mediator of this relationship.
Expanding on this study, the current study will examine the potential role of cognitiveaffective sexual appraisals in the relationships between sexual victimization experienced
at different developmental periods and sexual functioning using a more comprehensive
assessment of sexual functioning.
In the current study, the researcher seeks to examine the complex relationship
between sexual victimization experienced at different developmental time periods and
various aspects of sexual functioning, including risky sexual behaviors (e.g., unprotected
sex), and sexual difficulties (e.g., inhibited desire). Furthermore, this study seeks to
determine whether there are two different types of sexual functioning outcomes (i.e.,
risky sexual behavior; sexual dysfunctions or avoidance) among women with a history of
sexual victimization and whether or not coping strategies and/or cognitive-affective
18
sexual appraisals (i.e., sexual self-esteem, sexual self-schema, erotophobia-erotophilia)
predict which sexual functioning outcome women experience.
Hypotheses
1) There will be a significant association between sexual victimization
experiences, such that experiences of childhood sexual abuse will be correlated with
adolescent/adult sexual assault experiences.
2) There will be a significant positive relationship between sexual victimization
and sexual functioning, such that women with a history of CSA, ASA, or revictimization
(i.e., both CSA and ASA) will report higher levels of negative sexual functioning
outcomes (i.e., higher frequency of risky sexual behaviors, increased inhibition of sexual
desire, arousal, orgasm, and lubrication, sexual pain, sexual dissatisfaction, withdrawal
from sexual activity) than women who do not report a history of sexual victimization.
3) History of sexual victimization will predict use of coping strategies. Women
with abuse histories will report greater use of both avoidant and self-destructive coping
strategies than women without a history of sexual victimization.
4) History of sexual victimization will predict cognitive-affective sexual
appraisals. No a priori hypotheses will be identified, as previous literature on this
relationship is equivocal.
5) A stable and valid two-cluster solution will be identified for women with a
history of abuse (i.e., CSA, ASA, or revictimization) according to sexual functioning
variables. One cluster, the Sexual Problems cluster, will be identified by high sexual
problems (i.e., increased inhibition of sexual desire, arousal, orgasm, and lubrication,
sexual pain, sexual dissatisfaction) and low risky sexual behavior (i.e., low frequency of
19
engagement in risky sexual behavior). A second cluster, the Risky Sex cluster, will be
identified by low sexual dysfunctions (i.e., low levels of inhibition of sexual desire,
arousal, orgasm, and lubrication, sexual pain, sexual dissatisfaction) and high risky
sexual behavior (i.e., high frequency of engagement in risky sexual behavior).
6) Cognitive-affective sexual appraisals will predict cluster classification.
Erotophobia, negative sexual self-schema, and low sexual self-esteem will predict
classification in the Sexual Problems cluster. Erotophilia, positive sexual self-schema,
and high sexual self-esteem will predict classification in the Risky Sex cluster.
7) Coping strategies will predict cluster classification. Increased use of avoidant
coping strategies will predict classification in the Sexual Problems cluster. Increased use
of self-destructive coping will predict classification in the Risky Sex cluster.
20
Method
Participants
Participants for this study were 488 college women who were recruited from
introductory psychology classes at a mid-sized Midwestern university. However, a total
of 76 women were excluded from analyses; 47 women were excluded from analyses due
to missing 20% or more of items on any given measure, and 29 women were excluded as
they were women who were categorized as unwanted sexual contact victims. The
majority (73.2%) of the women were in their first year of college. The average age of
participants was 18.99 (SD = 1.14, range = 18 –34) and most participants (87.4%) selfidentified as Caucasian, followed by Asian/Pacific Islander (4.6%), African American
(4.1%), Other/Multiracial (2.8%), and Latino/Hispanic (1.0%). The majority of women
indicated that they were heterosexual (87.6%) and never married (98.8%). With regards
to family income, 58.7% reported an annual income of $51,000 or greater, 20.1%
reported an annual income less than $51,000, and the remaining 21.1% reported that they
did not know their family’s annual income. Complete participant demographic
information can be found in Table 1.
Procedure
Participation consisted of completion of a paper-and-pencil survey entitled “An
Examination of Women’s Health and Social Experiences” in groups of approximately 5
to 20 women. Halfway through the first quarter of data collection, the title of the study
was changed to “Share your Story as a College Woman” due to overlap in similarity of
the previous title with a separate ongoing study (no other changes to study consent forms,
debriefing, or description were made). The survey took approximately 30 to 65 minutes
21
to complete and was presented as a study of women’s social and health experiences.
Participants completed the surveys in large classrooms in the Department of Psychology
and all sessions were conducted by the primary investigator. Participants received and
signed consent forms (Appendix B-1) prior to participation describing the study’s
purpose and aims. Participants were informed that their information would remain
anonymous and that they were free to discontinue at any time without penalty. Following
completion of the survey, participants received debriefing forms (Appendix B-2) that
included contact information for the study’s administrators and counseling services.
Study procedures were approved by the Ohio University Internal Review Board.
Measures
Table 2 contains information regarding study measures, internal consistency
reliability scores for the current sample, and sample items for each scale or subscale.
Additional psychometric information regarding the measures is presented in Appendix B14.
Demographics.
A brief Demographics History Questionnaire (DHQ; Appendix B-3) was used to
assess basic participant characteristics (e.g., age, racial identification) and previous sexual
activity history, including age of onset of sexual activity, number of sexual partners, and
age of puberty onset.
Childhood sexual abuse.
The Comprehensive Child Maltreatment Scale for adults (CCMS; Higgins &
McCabe, 2001; Appendix B-4) assesses for five forms of childhood maltreatment,
including witnessing family violence, neglect, psychological maltreatment, physical
22
abuse, and sexual abuse that occurred before the age of 14. For the current study, only
the sexual abuse subscale was used for analyses, which consists of 11 items. For each of
these items, participants indicated how many times the behavior was directed towards
them by (a) their mother, (b) their father, and (c) other adult or older adolescent at least 5
years older than the participant (to distinguish abuse from other more experimental forms
of sexual activity with peers). Response options are on a 6-point scale representing the
number of times they have experienced the incident (ranging from “never” to “more than
20 times”) with each of the three perpetrator types. Each participant was categorized into
one of four categories of CSA (perpetrated by adults or older adolescents), increasing in
severity: (a) no sexual victimization, (b) sexual invitation/request, exposure, forced
witnessing of sexual activity, (c) genital touching of other person or being touched by
other, (d) oral, anal, or vaginal rape. For MANOVA analyses, each participant was also
dichotomously coded as not having experienced CSA (e.g., no sexual victimization) or as
having experienced CSA.
Adolescent/adult sexual victimization.
The Sexual Experiences Survey-Short Form Victimization (SES-SFV; Koss et al.,
2007; Appendix B-5) was used to assess women’s experiences of adolescent/adult sexual
victimization, including both rape and non-rape experiences and ranging from unwanted
fondling or sexual contact to forcible rape that have occurred on or after the 14th birthday.
For each item they endorsed, participants indicated how many times the incident had
occurred in the past 12 months as well as how many times the incident occurred since the
age of 14 up until 12 months ago; for the current study, any experiences that occurred
since the age of 14 were included. Each participant was categorized into one of five
23
categories of ASA, increasing in severity: (a) no sexual victimization history, (b)
unwanted sexual contact, (c) sexual coercion, (d) attempted rape, (e) completed rape.
Consistent with the CCMS coding for MANOVA analyses, participants were also
dichotomously categorized as victims of ASA (e.g., sexual coercion, attempted rape,
completed rape) or as non-victims of ASA (e.g., no sexual victimization history). Given
that severity of sexual victimization is associated with post-assault trauma (Briere &
Runtz, 1990), women who experienced unwanted sexual contact only were excluded
from these analyses, as these women may report post-assault outcomes more similar to
women who have not reported any unwanted sexual experiences. To ensure the
homogeneity of the victimization groups for subsequent analyses, women with a history
of unwanted sexual contact only were not included in this study sample.
Adult sexual victimization characteristics.
The Characteristics of Sexual Victimization Scale (CSVS; Appendix B-6) is a
measure designed by the researcher that was included as a supplementary measure for the
SES-SFV. If a participant endorsed an item of the SES-SFV, they were asked to complete
the CSVS to answer follow-up questions about their unwanted sexual experience. For
participants who had experienced more than one such experience, they were asked to
answer questions on the CSVS in relation to the most distressing of these experiences.
The CSVS assessed for characteristics of the assault including information about the
perpetrator (e.g., age), the tactics used during the unwanted sexual experience (e.g.,
physical force), participants’ previous and subsequent relationship with the perpetrator,
sexual history, participants’ perception of the unwanted sexual experience, and
24
participants’ attribution of blame for the unwanted sexual experience. These items were
examined for descriptive purposes.
Risky sexual behavior.
The Cognitive Appraisal of Risky Events-Revised-Frequency of Events scale
(CARE-R-FOI, Fromme, Katz, & Rivet, 1997; Appendix B-7) assessed participants’
frequency of engagement in risky sexual behavior. The full CARE-R measure (Fromme,
et al., 1997) is a 30-item survey that assesses participants’ expected risk of, expected
benefit of, and expected involvement in risky behaviors. Only actual frequency of past
engagement was considered in the present study for the risky sexual behavior subscale.
This subscale of the CARE-R-FOI survey contains 13 questions asking about
participants’ risky sexual behavior with regular partners and someone they just met or
don’t know well. Participants indicated the number of times they engaged in each
behavior in the past six months, on a 7-point scale ranging from 0 (never/not at all) to 6
(31 or more times). A total risky sexual behavior score for each participant was
calculated by summing the responses from all 13 of the items.
Sexual self-schema.
The Sexual Self-Schema Scale (SSSS; Anderson & Cyranowski, 1994; Appendix
B-8) assessed women’s views of themselves as sexual persons. Scores indicate
participants’ beliefs about their own sexuality on a negative to positive dimension. This
scale consists of 50 trait adjectives (26 scored and 24 fillers). Participants rated the
degree to which each word describes them on a 6-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all
descriptive of me) to 6 (very much descriptive of me). The scale consists of two positive
factors (romantic/passionate and open/direct) and one negative aspect
25
(embarrassment/conservatism). A total SSSS score was calculated by summing the items
from the positive factors and subtracting the sum of the items from the negative factor
(Anderson & Cyranowski, 1994). Potential scores range from 0 to 156 for each
participant, with higher scores indicating more positive sexual self-schemas.
Sexual appraisals.
The Sexual Opinion Survey (SOS; Fisher et al., 1988; Appendix B-9) is a 21-item
measure that assesses erotophobia-erotophilia, or participants’ affective and evaluative
responses to a range of sexual stimuli including autosexual, heterosexual and homosexual
behavior, sexual fantasy, and visual sexual stimuli. Each item describes a positive or
negative affective-evaluative response to a certain sexual behavior or stimuli; two
subscales are derived from the measure, a positive subscale and a negative subscale to
obtain a full scale score; although individual subscale scores are not computed.
Participants indicated the degree to which they agree or disagree with each item.
Response options for each item are on a 7-point scale (ranging from “I strongly agree” to
“I strongly disagree”). Total scores were calculated for each participant by subtracting the
sum of the negative subscale from the sum of the positive subscale and adding a constant
of 67; potential total scores range from 0 to 126, with higher scores indicating greater
erotophilia and lower scores indicating greater erotophobia.
Sexual functioning.
The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI; Rosen et al., 2000; Appendix B-10) is
a 19-item measure that assesses six domains of female sexual functioning: desire, arousal,
lubrication, orgasm, satisfaction, and pain that refer to the participants’ experience in the
past four weeks. For each participant, a total score as well as a domain score for each of
26
the six domains can be determined. Scores for each domain are derived by multiplying
the subscale item sums by a factor weight that varies by subscale (see Table 3 for
subscale score ranges). Potential FSFI total scores range from 0 to 42; lower scores
indicate greater difficulty with sexual functioning. Notably, a score of 0 indicates a report
of no sexual activity in the past four weeks.
Coping strategies.
A modified version of the “How I Deal With Things” Scale (Burt & Katz, 1987;
Appendix B-11) was used to assess for coping strategies. The original “How I Deal With
Things” scale (Burt & Katz, 1987) is a 33-item measure that asks about coping strategies
to deal with an adult sexual assault experience. For the current study, items were
rephrased from current tense to past tense and asked about the frequency with which the
participant has been engaging in each item over the past 4 weeks. All items are on a 7point rating scale ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (all the time). Furthermore, only 29 of the
original 33 items are included in the current study. Four of the original items were
excluded because they did not load on any of the factors in the factor analysis conducted
by Burt and Katz (1987). An additional modification to the scale was applied for the
current study: each participant was asked to respond to the items in reference to the way
they have been coping with the sexual victimization experience they indicated in the
SES-SFV or the CCMS. If a participant indicated more than one unwanted sexual
experience, they were asked to respond in reference to the incident that was the most
distressing and were asked to indicate the item number that the incident refers to on either
the CCMS or the SES-SFV. In addition, if a participant did not indicate any experiences
on either the SES-SFV or the CCMS, then they were asked to respond to items in
27
reference to the most stressful situation they have been in, and were asked to indicate
what that experience was. The “How I Deal With Things” Scale consists of five coping
strategy subscales: avoidance, expressive, anxious/nervous, cognitive, and selfdestructive; only the self-destructive and avoidance subscales were used for analyses in
the current study. Subscale scores for each participant were computed by summing the
scores; subscale scores for each of the subscales range from potential scores of 0 to 42
with higher scores indicating greater use of that form of coping.
Sexual problems.
The Trauma Symptoms Checklist-40 (TSC-40; Briere & Runtz, 1989; Appendix
B-12) is a 40-item measure that assesses the impact of traumatic events, capturing
domains that are considered to be correlates of abuse. The TSC-40 consists of six
domains, including dissociation, anxiety, depression, sexual problems, sleep disturbances,
and a sexual abuse trauma index. Participants indicated how often they had experienced
each item in the past two months (ranging from never to very often), on a four-point
scale. The sexual problems scale of the TSC-40 was the only scale used in this study to
serve as a supplemental indicator of sexual functioning outcomes that are related to low
sex drive, sexual overactivity, and negative thoughts and emotions related to sex. Sexual
problems subscale scores were obtained by summing the responses of each sexual
problems subscale item; higher scores indicate greater frequency of experience/problems.
Sexual self-esteem.
The Sexual Self-Esteem Inventory for Women (SSEI-W, Zeanah & Schwarz,
1996; Appendix B-13) was used to assess women’s sexual self-esteem, defined as “a
women’s affective reactions to her subjective appraisals of her sexual thoughts, feelings,
28
and behaviors” (Zeanah & Schwarz, 1996, p.3). The SSEI-W includes five subscales of
sexual self-esteem consisting of skill/experience-based (i.e., satisfaction with own skill
and experience), attractiveness-based (i.e., participant’s self-perceived physical and
sexual appeal), control-based (i.e., satisfaction with own ability to manage sexuality or
sexual thoughts, feelings, and interactions), moral judgment-based (i.e., congruence of
sexual thoughts, feelings, and behaviors with own moral standards), and adaptivenessbased (i.e., satisfaction of the relationship between own sexual experiences with other
personal goals). For the current study, subscale scores were determined in addition to a
full score for each participant.
29
Results
Data Preparation.
In terms of missing data, participants who were missing more than 20% of any
given survey were eliminated from the analyses (N = 47). For participants who were
missing less than 20% of items on a given survey, ipsative mean substitution (Tabachnick
& Fidell, 2007) was used; with the exception of the victimization questionnaires (i.e.,
CCMS, SES). Therefore, for a given scale or subscale, a participant’s missing data point
was replaced with the individual’s mean (sub)scale score based on the remaining items.
Furthermore, women who indicated that the most severe form of ASA they had
experienced was unwanted sexual contact were removed from analyses (N = 29).
Therefore, the final full sample containing no missing data on study variables of interest
consisted of 412 women.
Descriptive Information.
The demographic history questionnaire inquired about women’s history of sexual
behavior and the age that they started puberty. Frequency results indicated that
approximately 89.1% of the women in the study reported that they engaged in consensual
sexual activity, with a mean age of onset of sexual activity at approximately 15.29 years
of age (SD = 1.72). More specifically, about 72.7% of women indicated that they had
engaged in consensual sexual intercourse; with a mean age of sexual intercourse onset at
16.12 (SD = 3.24) and average number of consensual sexual intercourse partners (after
removal of an outlier of 400 partners) of 3.60 partners (SD = 3.81). Additionally, the
average age of onset of puberty for the current sample was approximately 12.82 years of
age (SD = 1.56). Table 3 reports the descriptive statistics related to sexual history.
30
Frequency and descriptive statistics were computed to explore the characteristics
of the full sample on study variables. Table 4 presents the means, standard deviations,
and range of the study variables of interest.
Additionally, a correlation matrix was computed to examine the bivariate
relationships among all of the study variables of interest. The correlation matrix variables
included: CSA measured by the CCMS; ASA measured by the SES-SFV; sexual
functioning assessed by the FSFI with the following subscales: sexual desire, sexual
arousal, sexual satisfaction, sexual pain, orgasm, and lubrication; avoidant coping and
self-destructive coping strategies measured by the HIDWTS; erotophobia-erotophilia
measured by the SOS; sexual self-schema assessed by the SSSS; risky sexual behavior
assessed by the CARE-R-FOI; sexual problems assessed by the TSC-40; and sexual selfesteem assessed by the SSEI-W with the following subscales: skill/experience-based,
attractiveness-based, control-based, adaptiveness-based, and moral judgment-based.
Table 5 presents this correlation matrix.
Sexual Victimization Experiences
Results of frequency statistics indicated that approximately 6.1% of women (N =
25) reported a history of some form of CSA. Approximately 93.9% of women were
nonvictims of CSA, 1.5% reported sexual request/exposure as the most severe form of
CSA experienced, 1.9% reported sexual touching as the most severe form, and 2.7%
experienced rape as the most severe form. In terms of ASA, approximately 64.3% of
women (N = 265) had no history of ASA. In terms of most severe type of ASA
experienced, 7.5% of women reported sexual coercion, 8.7% reported attempted rape,
and 19.4% reported a history of completed rape as the most severe type of ASA
31
experienced. Approximately 62% of women indicated that their ASA experience
occurred within one year of participation in the study. Furthermore, approximately 48%
(N = 12) of women who experienced any form of CSA also experienced ASA (i.e., sexual
coercion, attempted rape, or completed rape). Frequencies and percentages of women
who reported CSA or ASA experiences are presented in Table 6.
To explore potential differences between victims and nonvictims on demographic
variables, a series of chi-square analyses were conducted. Results indicated that victims
of any type of sexual victimization (i.e., CSA, ASA) did not differ from nonvictims in
terms of age, χ2 (6, n = 412) = 5.56, p = .474, phi = .12; year in college, χ2 (3, n = 412) =
1.39, p = .71, phi = .06; parents’ yearly income, χ2 (3, n = 412) = 11.83, p = .223, phi =
.17, or race, χ2 (6, n = 412) = 10.64, p = .10, phi = .16. However, victims and nonvictims
differed in terms of sexual orientation, χ2 (2, n = 412) = 18.71, p = .002 Cramer’s V =
.213 and marital status χ2 (3, n = 412) = 7.97, p = .047; Cramer’s V = .139 such that
victims were more likely to be married, divorced/separated, or cohabitating and identify
as bisexual than nonvictims. Cross-tabulation results are presented for the significant Chisquare analyses in Table 7.
Relationship between victimization and general sexual activity.
Independent samples t-tests were conducted to examine potential differences
between women with a history of sexual victimization (i.e., CSA, ASA) and those
without a history of sexual victimization on sexual history and age of puberty onset.
Women with a history of sexual victimization reported earlier age of onset of any form of
sexual activity (M = 14.75, SD = 1.92) than those without a history of sexual
victimization (M = 15.65, SD = 1.48), t (363) = 5.01, p < .001. Women with a history of
32
sexual victimization (M = 7.97, SD = 6.06) reported more consensual sexual activity (of
any form) partners than those without a history of sexual victimization (M =5.25, SD =
5.36), t (360) = -4.47, p < .001. Women with a history of sexual victimization (M = 4.49,
SD = 4.26) also reported more consensual sexual intercourse partners than women
without a history of sexual victimization (M = 3.18, SD = 2.82) t (320) = -2.89, p = .004.
However, in terms of age of first consensual sexual intercourse, women with a history of
sexual victimization (M = 15.83, SD = 3.63) did not differ from those without a history of
sexual victimization (M =16.34, SD = 2.88), t(311) = 1.38, p = .170. Similarly, women
with a history of sexual victimization (M = 12.66, SD = 1.49) did not differ from those
without a history of sexual victimization (M = 12.93, SD = 1.59) on age of puberty onset,
t (406) = 1.73, p = .085.
Hypothesis 1: Association between Childhood and Adulthood Sexual Victimization
The first hypothesis proposed a significant association between CSA experiences
and ASA experiences. Contrary to prediction, results of a chi-square test for
independence (with Yates Continuity Correction) indicated that this relationship between
CSA and ASA was nonsignificant, χ2 (1, n = 412) = 1.24, p = .266, phi = .07. Among
women who had a history of CSA, 48.0% also experienced ASA; among women without
a history of CSA, 52.0% experienced ASA.
Hypothesis 2: Relationship between Victimization Status and Sexual Functioning
To examine the relationship between sexual victimization and sexual functioning,
a series of 2 (CSA) by 2 (ASA) multivariate analyses of variance were conducted. For
each MANOVA for the multivariate tests, Pillai’s Trace statistic was used in place of
33
Wilks’ Lambda as a statistical criterion due to unequal cell sample sizes (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2007).
A 2 (CSA) by 2 (ASA) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was
conducted to examine potential differences in sexual functioning variables between
victimization types (i.e., nonvictim, CSA-only, ASA-only, revictimization) with FSFI
full-scale scores, CARE-R-FOI full-scale risky sex scores, and sexual problems scores
from the TSC-40 as dependent variables. No a priori post-tests were predicted, as
research indicates that differences between these groups are equivocal. Prior to analyses,
the CARE-R-FOI risky sexual behavior scale was transformed using the natural
logarithmic function (after an addition of a constant of 1 to each participant’s score)
because this original variable was a positively-skewed frequency variable, violating the
normality assumption). Results of Box’s M Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices
indicated that homogeneity may be violated, although Tabachnick and Fidell argue that
this criterion may be too strict (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007, p. 281). Levene’s Test of
Equality of Error Variances also indicated that this assumption was violated for risky
sexual behavior, F (3, 408) = 6.34, p < .001; the sexual problems (F (3, 408) = 15.22, p <
.001); and for the FSFI full-scale score (F (3, 408) = 3.50, p = .016). Therefore, a more
conservative alpha level was selected for these variables and set at .025 for any
subsequent univariate tests as suggested by Tabachnick and Fidell (2007).
The effect of the CSA by ASA interaction was nonsignificant, F (3, 406) = 0.31, p
= .817, thus the main effects of the independent variables were examined. There was a
statistically significant difference between women with a history of CSA and women
without a history of CSA on the combined dependent variables, F (3, 406) = 6.67, p <
34
.001; Pillai’s Trace = .05, partial eta squared = .05. When the univariate results for the
individual dependent variables were examined, the only difference to reach statistical
significance (below the α = .025 level adjusted by Levene’s test results), was sexual
problems. Further examination of the estimated marginal mean scores indicated that
women with a history of CSA reported more sexual problems than women without a
history of CSA. Table 8 contains a summary of the univariate effects and estimated
marginal means.
Additionally, results of the multivariate tests indicated that there was a
statistically significant difference between women with a history of ASA and women
without a history of ASA on the combined dependent variables, F(3, 406) = 5.51, p =
.001; Pillai’s Trace = .04, partial eta squared = .04. When individually examined, the only
dependent variable that was statistically significant with the adjusted alpha level of .025
(corrected for inequality of variances indicated by Levene’s test) was risky sexual
behavior. Women with a history of ASA reported greater involvement in risky sexual
behavior than women without a history of ASA. Table 8 contains summary information
of the univariate effects and estimated marginal means.
A follow-up 2 (CSA) by 2 (ASA) MANOVA was conducted to examine potential
differences between victimization groups in each of the specific subscales of the FSFI,
consisting of sexual arousal, lubrication, orgasm, sexual satisfaction, sexual pain, and
sexual desire. No a priori post-tests were predicted, as research indicates that differences
between the victimization groups are equivocal. Results of Box’s M Test of Equality of
Covariance Matrices indicated that homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices was not
violated. Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances indicated that this assumption was
35
violated for lubrication, F (3, 408) = 7.91, p < .001; orgasm F (3, 408) = 3.59, p = .014;
and for sexual pain F (3, 408) = 5.56, p = .001. Therefore, a more conservative alpha
level was selected for these variables and set at .025 for the subsequent univariate tests as
suggested by Tabachnick and Fidell (2007).
The effect of the CSA by ASA interaction was nonsignificant, F (6, 403) = 0.95, p
= .463, thus the main effects of the independent variables were examined. The main
effect of CSA on the combined dependent variables was nonsignificant, F (6, 403) =
2.01, p = .064. However, there was a statistically significant difference between women
with a history of ASA and women without a history of ASA on the combined dependent
variables, F (6, 403) = 2.52, p = .038; Pillai’s Trace = .03, partial eta squared = .03. When
individually examined, the dependent variables that individually reached statistical
significance (α < .05) were sexual arousal and sexual desire. Interestingly, women with a
history of ASA reported more difficulty with sexual arousal but less difficulty with
sexual desire than nonvictims. Table 9 presents a summary of the univariate effects and
estimated marginal means.
Hypothesis 3: Relationship between Victimization Status and Coping
To examine the relationship between sexual victimization and coping strategies, a
2 (CSA) by 2 (ASA) MANOVA was conducted with self-destructive coping and avoidant
coping as the dependent variables. For the multivariate tests, Pillai’s Trace statistic was
used in place of Wilks’ Lambda as a statistical criterion due to unequal cell sample sizes
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
Results indicated that the interaction of CSA and ASA on the combined
dependent variables was nonsignificant, F (2, 407) = 0.34, p = .714. The main effect of
36
ASA on the combined dependent variables was nonsignficant, F (2, 407) = 0.39, p =
.680, and the main effect of CSA on the combined dependent variables was similarly
nonsignificant, F (2, 407) = 0.76, p = .470. Given the nonsignificance of the multivariate
tests suggesting no differences between victimization groups on the use of the
maladaptive coping strategies, the univariate results were not examined.
Hypothesis 4: Relationship between Victimization Status and Cognitive-affective
Sexual Appraisals
It was hypothesized that women with a history of sexual victimization (i.e., ASA,
CSA, or revictimization) would differ from women without a history of sexual
victimization on cognitive-affective sexual appraisals. A series of 2 (CSA) by 2 (ASA)
MANOVAs were conducted to examine these potential differences, with no hypothesized
direction of this relationship due to the equivocal nature of the previous literature
between victimization groups on these variables.
The first of these MANOVAs examined the potential differences between
victimization groups on the following dependent variables: erotophobia-erotophilia,
sexual self-schema, and sexual self-esteem (full-scale). Results of Levene’s Test of
Equality of Error Variances was significant for erotophobia-erotophilia, F (3, 408) =
4.11, p = .007, suggesting that this assumption was violated; therefore, a more stringent
alpha level will be set at .025 for the univariate analyses of this variable.
Results indicated that the interaction of CSA and ASA on the combined
dependent variables was nonsignificant, F (3, 406) = 0.34, p = .102. The main effect of
ASA on the combined independent variables was also nonsignificant, F (3, 406) = 2.17, p
37
= .091, suggesting no differences between women with and without a history of ASA on
the combined cognitive-affective sexual appraisals.
There was a trend for significance for the main effect of CSA on the combined
dependent variables, F (3, 406) = 2.60, p = .05, Pillai’s Trace = .02, partial eta squared =
.02. When the univariate effects on the dependent variables were examined, sexual selfesteem was the only variable that reached statistical significance (α < .05). Women
without a history of CSA reported greater sexual self-esteem than women with a history
of CSA. Table 10 presents a summary of the univariate effects and estimated marginal
means.
A follow-up 2 by 2 MANOVA was conducted to examine potential differences
between victimization groups on the specific subscales of the SSEI-W (i.e.,
skill/experience-based, attractiveness-based, control-based, adaptiveness-based, moral
judgment-based). Results of Box’s M Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices and
Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances were both nonsignificant, indicating
homogeneity of variance-covariance was not violated. The effect of the interaction of
CSA and ASA on the combined dependent variables was nonsignificant, F (5, 405) =
1.68, p = .139.
There was a significant main effect of CSA on the combined dependent variables,
F (5, 405) = 3.99, p = .002, Pillai’s Trace and partial eta squared = .05. When the results
for the dependent variables were considered separately for CSA, skill/experience-based
sexual self-esteem and control-based sexual self-esteem were statistically significant (α <
.05). Women with a history of CSA reported both lower control-based sexual self-esteem
38
and lower skill/experience-based sexual self-esteem than CSA nonvictims. Table 11
presents a summary of the univariate effects and estimated marginal means.
There was also a significant main effect of ASA on the combined dependent
variables, F (5, 405) = 2.61, p = .024, Pillai’s Trace and partial eta squared = .03.
Examination of the univariate effects revealed that the only variable to reach unique
statistical significance (α < .05) was skill/experience-based sexual self-esteem.
Interestingly, women sexually victimized in adolescence/adulthood reported greater
skill/experience-based sexual self-esteem than women without a history of ASA. Table
11 presents a summary of the univariate effects and estimated marginal means.
Hypothesis 5: Cluster Analysis of Victimized Women According to Sexual
Functioning Variables
For the remaining analyses, only women who indicated a history of ASA or CSA
were included in analyses; all other cases were excluded. This resulted in a subsample of
160 women; a correlation matrix of the study variables for this subsample is presented in
Table 12. To examine whether women with a history of sexual victimization engage in
two different sexual functioning subtypes a cluster analysis was conducted using a Kmeans algorithm with K = 2 clusters. Prior to conducting the cluster analysis, the
independent variables were standardized so that all variables contributed with equal
weight as previous research does not strongly evidence stronger weight to any given
variable. The independent variables entered into the cluster analysis consisted of sexual
desire, sexual arousal, orgasm, lubrication, sexual pain, and sexual satisfaction, sexual
problems, and risky sexual behavior. A stable and valid two-cluster solution was
identified after seven iterations. Cluster 1 was identified by 121 cases and cluster 2 was
39
identified by 39 cases. Table 13 consists of the final cluster centers for all standardized
independent variables. Table 14 presents the results of analysis of variance (ANOVA)
tests comparing the two clusters on the independent variables. The results of these
ANOVAs are presented purely for descriptive reasons to examine which variables
contributed most to differences in clusters and should be interpreted with caution as the
clusters were chosen to maximize the differences between the groups. Using a
Bonferroni-corrected alpha level set at .00625 (.05/8) to examine the relative contribution
of each variable, results indicate that all variables contributed highly to the cluster
differentiation.
Table 15 presents a crosstabulation of the distribution of cases of the two clusters
categorized by victimization categories for descriptive purposes only as they do not
reflect a statistical test. Overall, when considering victimization categorized by all
possible developmental types (i.e., CSA only, ASA only, or revictimization) it appeared
that women who had experienced CSA only were relatively evenly categorized into
cluster 1 or cluster 2, whereas women who had experienced ASA only or who had been
revictimized (e.g., experienced both CSA and ASA) appeared to more often be classified
into cluster 1. Furthermore, when examining the specific severity categories of CSA and
of ASA individually (e.g., attempted rape in adolescence/adulthood), it appeared that
most victims were classified into cluster 1 for each category, with the exception of
unwanted sexual contact in childhood; where it appeared that more victims were
classified as cluster 2.
40
Hypothesis 6: Prediction of Cluster Classification by Cognitive-affective Sexual
Appraisals
A binary logistic regression was performed to examine the impact of sexual
functioning variables on the cluster classifications identified by the cluster analysis. Prior
to conducting the analysis, the resulting variable from the cluster analysis that
categorized cases by cluster was recoded into a dummy variable; dummy code 0
represented cluster 1 and dummy code 1 represented cluster 2 from the previously
discussed cluster analysis. The following independent variables were entered into the
logistic regression analysis: the five sexual self-esteem variables (i.e., skill/experiencebased, attractiveness-based, control-based, adaptiveness-based, and moral judgmentbased), erotophobia-erotophilia, and sexual self-schema. The full model containing all
predictors was statistically significant, χ2 (7, N = 160) = 30.68, p < .001, Negelkerke R2 =
.260, indicating that the model was able to distinguish between the two clusters and
explained about 26% of the variance in cluster status. Additionally, the model correctly
classified 80% of the cases. When examining each variable independently, results
indicated that only the erotophobia-erotophilia and skill/experience-based sexual selfesteem variables each made a unique statistically significant contribution to the model,
controlling for all other variables in the model. For every one-point increase in
erotophobia-erotophilia respondents were 1.04 times more likely to be in cluster 1. For
each one unit increase in skill/experience-based sexual self-esteem, respondents were
1.16 times more likely to be classified in cluster 1. Table 16 presents the test statistics for
each independent variable in the model.
41
Hypothesis 7: Prediction of Cluster Classification by Coping Strategies
A binary logistic regression was also conducted to investigate the impact of
coping strategies on cluster classification; self-destructive coping and avoidance coping
were the two independent variables entered into the model with the dummy coded cluster
classification (0 represented cluster 1, 1 represented cluster 2) as the dependent variable.
The full model was not statistically significant, χ2 (2, N = 160), indicating that the model
was not able to distinguish between respondents’ cluster classifications. See Table 17 for
a description of the model.
42
Discussion
The current study sought to examine the relationship between sexual victimization
and sexual functioning among a sample of college women. More specifically, this study
considered sexual victimization experienced at different developmental periods,
including CSA and ASA, and sexual functioning outcomes including risky sexual
behavior and sexual problems and dysfunctions. The potential role of cognitive-affective
sexual appraisals and coping strategies in this relationship was also investigated.
Overall, victims of sexual victimization differed from nonvictims on various
sexual functioning outcomes; partially supporting the hypothesis that sexual assault is
associated with negative sexual health sequelae consistent with other studies (Van Berlo
& Ensink, 2000; Weaver, 2009). Women with a history of any form of sexual
victimization reported more consensual sexual partners, including sexual intercourse
partners, than nonvictims and also reported an earlier age of onset of general consensual
sexual activity, but not sexual intercourse, than nonvictims. These results provide some
preliminary evidence of a positive relationship between overall sexual victimization and
increased sexual activity which may put women at risk for revictimization or negative
health outcomes (Schloredt & Heiman, 2003). Additional analyses were conducted to
further clarify these results considering forms of sexual victimization experienced at
specific developmental periods including CSA, ASA, and revictimization (i.e., CSA and
ASA) and more specific sexual functioning variables.
The sexual functioning variables including sexual dysfunctions, sexual problems,
and risky sexual behavior were found to collectively distinguish between ASA victims
and ASA nonvictims, and between CSA victims and CSA nonvictims. In particular,
43
women with a history of ASA reported greater engagement in risky sexual behavior, and
greater difficulty with sexual desire and fewer problems with sexual arousal than ASA
nonvictims. Taken together, these results may suggest that women with a history of ASA
experience a sense of loss of control over their sexuality and might engage in increased
risky behavior as a way of coping with their sexual assault despite low desire. In other
words, there may be mechanism other than desire that drives this risky behavior. These
results provide some support for Bartoi and Kinder’s (1998) proposal that ASA impacts
adult sexual functioning by changing the perceptions, attitudes, and associations related
to a previously pleasurable act, which then appears as a situation of loss of control and
helplessness. Meanwhile, greater arousal may reflect hyperarousal due to PTSD-like
trauma symptomatology, yet additional physiological research is needed to explore this
finding further and to better understand this relationship between ASA and sexual
behavior, desire, and arousal.
Meanwhile, women with a history of CSA reported greater sexual problems than
women without a history of CSA. The measure of sexual problems assessed by the TSC40 consisted of some aspects of sexual difficulties that may be related to both subjective
sexual activity and negative self-perceptions or reactions to sexual activity; including
such items as “having sexual feelings when you shouldn’t have them,” “being confused
about your sexual feelings,” and “bad thoughts or feelings during sex.” These women
may reflect Finkelhor and Brown’s (1985) stigmatization dynamic, such that they have
internalized their CSA experiences and feelings of badness and guilt experienced through
acknowledgment of the inappropriateness of the CSA, and learned to associate sexual
experiences with negative emotions. It should be noted that there is only one item on the
44
sexual problems subscale that assesses sexual behavior that asks women how often they
experienced being “sexually overactive” in the past month. As women with a history of
CSA did not endorse high engagement of risky sexual behavior on the CARE-R-FOI or
more sexual dysfunctions, the more subjective nature of sexual activity in the TSC-40
may reflect these negative emotions; such that women who have made the negative
associations with sexual activity may subjectively judge a small amount of sexual activity
as “overactive” or any sexual feelings as “bad.” However, these results should be
interpreted with caution given the relatively small sample of women with a history of
CSA. Further research is necessary to further distinguish the types of sexual problems
experienced among women with a CSA history, by examining the relationships between
perceptions of sexuality and sexual activity and how they might relate to sexual
cognitions, emotions, and behaviors.
Interestingly, evidence of increased negative sexual outcomes related to
revictimization (i.e., experience of both CSA and ASA) was not found in the present
study. Whereas some studies have found that revictimization is related to increased
negative psychological and sexual health outcomes (Arata, Langhinrichsen-Rohling,
Bowers, & O’Farrill-Swails, 2005), results of the current study did not find a significant
interaction of CSA and ASA or evidence that revictimized women had significantly
greater sexual functioning problems.
However, the current study also did not support the notion that CSA is a
significant risk factor for additional victimization in adolescence/adulthood. Whereas
previous research has documented that college women with a history of CSA are at 2.5 to
3.5 times greater risk for ASA than college women without a history of CSA (Arata,
45
2002), the current study did not replicate this finding. These results may be partially due
to the relatively low rate of CSA (6%) compared to previous studies on college women
finding that at least 20% of women have a history of CSA and finding a positive
association between CSA and ASA (Arata, 2002). Furthermore, the current study only
considered victimization occurring in childhood and in adolescence/adulthood as a
dichotomous variable (i.e., victim, nonvictim) excluding unwanted sexual contact in
adolescence/adulthood and did not consider the severity, frequency, or count of such
experiences, which may contribute to previous significant revictimization findings.
Indeed, Schacht and colleagues, (Schacht et al., 2010) found that CSA penetration was
related to severity of sexual victimization experienced in adulthood. Additional research
should consider the frequency and severity of multiple sexual victimizations both in
childhood and adolescence/adulthood, in addition to additional risk factors (e.g., alcohol
use), to continue to explore whether previous sexual assault is a risk factor for further
revictimization among college women.
While some differences were found between victimization groups on sexual
functioning outcomes, findings of the present study only partially supported the
hypothesis that victimization history would be associated with differences in cognitiveaffective sexual appraisals including erotophobia-erotophilia, sexual self-schema, and
sexual self-esteem. Results indicated only a trend for a significant relationship between
CSA and these combined cognitive-affective sexual appraisals, and no differences
between ASA victims and nonvictims. More specifically, women with a history of CSA
reported lower overall sexual self-esteem than nonvictims, and an analysis examining the
specific sexual self-esteem subtypes revealed that women with a history of CSA reported
46
both lower control-based sexual self-esteem and lower skill/experience-based sexual selfesteem than CSA nonvictims. The relationship between CSA and control-based sexual
self-esteem is consistent with previous research (Lemieux & Byers, 2008; Van Bruggen,
Runtz, & Kadlec, 2006), but the significant association between CSA and sexual selfesteem related to sexual skill and experience has not been previously documented. These
results could provide further evidence for a stigmatization framework among women
with a history of CSA such that these women negatively evaluate their ability to be
pleased by or to please a partner and they negatively evaluate their perception of control
over their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors related to sexuality. Moreover, the impact of
CSA on cognitive-affective sexual appraisals may be more selective than general, as
suggested by Lemieux and Byers (2008), as it affects perceptions of one’s own sexual
abilities, but not affective responses to sexual stimuli in general or general sexual selfconcept.
Meanwhile, women sexually victimized in adolescence/adulthood reported greater
skill/experience-based sexual self-esteem than women without a history of ASA. While
no previous research has examined this specific relationship between sexual self-esteem
and ASA, as discussed above, these results provide some further support that women
with a more recent sexual victimization may experience greater sexual self-esteem that
coincides with their risky sexual behavior. These women may be engaging in high-risk
sexual behaviors in the hopes of feeling better about themselves (Lemieux & Byers,
2008) and to affirm their perceptions of their abilities in relation to sexual skills or
behavior. Additional research is needed to further examine this relationship and its
potential reciprocity. It is important to note that most of the women who indicated that
47
they had experienced ASA reported that it had occurred within the past year.
Longitudinal studies are needed to better understand the impact of ASA over time on
both women’s risky sexual behavior and their sexual self-esteem.
Contrary to hypotheses, there were no differences found between victims of
sexual assault and nonvictims in the use of avoidance or self-destructive coping
strategies. These results are inconsistent with a previous study evidencing a significant
relationship between sexual assault and maladaptive coping (Merrill et al., 2003). The
lack of replication in the present study may reflect the nature of the coping measure
utilized; the HIDWTS asked nonvictims to respond to the coping items in response to the
most stressful experience they had encountered, which appeared to be primed by the
sexual nature of other questionnaires in the study. For example, some women who had
not indicated a history of sexual victimization on the SES-SFV or the CCMS and were
classified as nonvictims responded to the HIDWTS in reference to such experiences as
“talked into having sex with my partner” or “kissing a cousin the same age when young”
which might involve similar coping strategies. These results may also be confounded by
life stressors (e.g., recent break-up, midterms) and by unacknowledgement or different
perceptions of sexual assault experiences that were not assessed which may also be
related to increased maladaptive coping strategies. Thus, further research is needed to
examine whether there are more specific differences between victimization groups on
various coping strategies.
Whereas the aforementioned results provide some evidence of a relationship
between sexual assault and sexual functioning as well as sexual self-esteem, the current
study sought to further explore the sexual functioning patterns of the subsample of
48
sexually victimized women. Given that previous research has documented a wide range
of sexual functioning outcomes associated with sexual victimization history, ranging
from sexual withdrawal and aversion to sexual risk-taking, it was hypothesized that
women with a history of sexual victimization would experience one of two unique types
(i.e., clusters) of sexual functioning; one cluster would be identified by more risky sexual
behavior and fewer sexual problems/dysfunctions (i.e., Risky Sex cluster); the other
cluster would be defined by less risky sexual behavior and more sexual
problems/dysfunctions (i.e., Sexual Problems cluster). These results were generally
supported and a stable two-cluster solution was found, classified by sexual functioning
variables, although the specific constellations of variables among these two groups are
somewhat surprising. It appears that the sexual functioning pathways following sexual
assault may be more complex than theorized.
The first cluster exhibited more risky sexual behavior, sexual problems, and
greater difficulties with sexual desire, relative to the other variables; which will be
renamed as the Risky Sex/Low Desire cluster to better represent the outcomes.
Meanwhile, the second cluster of victimized women experienced greater difficulties with
sexual arousal, pain, orgasm, lubrication and satisfaction and had lower engagement in
risky sexual behavior, fewer sexual problems, and less difficulty with sexual desire; and
will be referred to as the Sexual Dysfunctions cluster for the remainder of the discussion.
It should be noted that scores of 0 on the FSFI subscales indicated no sexual activity;
which could indicate that some women within the Sexual Dysfunctions group are
engaging in sexual withdrawal and some women are experiencing sexual dysfunctions
when they do engage in sexual activities, which might reflect their lower engagement in
49
risky sexual behavior. When discussing his theory on outcomes of CSA, Putnam (1990)
argued that CSA could lead to either “sexual preoccupation” or “sexual aversion,” but
this proposal may be too simplistic. The results of the current study extend this idea and
suggest that sexual victimization at any developmental time period may lead to different
patterns of sexual functioning, although the specific patterns may be more complex than
either over-engagement or withdrawal from sexual activity.
To better understand the potential mechanisms of these two types of sexual
functioning outcomes among sexually victimized women, logistic regression analyses
were conducted to test the hypotheses that cognitive-affective sexual appraisals, and
maladaptive coping strategies, would predict cluster membership. With regards to
cognitive-affective sexual appraisals, results provided partial support for this hypothesis;
erotophobia-erotophilia and skill/experience-based sexual self-esteem predicted cluster
membership. These results are somewhat consistent with Lemieux and Byers (2008) who
found that sexual self-esteem partially mediated the relationship between CSA and some
sexual functioning outcomes; although they did not examine this relationship with
victims of ASA more specifically, which may account for their failure to find
erotophobia-erotophilia a significant mediator as well.
In general, the current findings suggest that women’s appraisals of various sexual
stimuli (i.e., erotophobia-erotophilia) and their appraisals of themselves as sexual beings
(sexual self-esteem) may predict their sexual functioning patterns, although further
longitudinal research is needed to decipher the temporal direction of this relationship.
More specifically, higher self-esteem in relation to sexual skill and experience and
greater erotophilia were positively related to membership in the Risky Sex/Low Desire
50
cluster, and lower sexual self-esteem in skill and experience and greater erotophobia was
related to classification of the Sexual Dysfunctions cluster. These results are consistent
with Schloredt and Heiman’s (2003) proposal that some sexually abused women might
experience more negativity towards the self, expressed as negative sexual selfrepresentation and consequently experience sexual difficulties resulting in anxiety and
withdrawal. Thus, learned negative appraisals of sexual stimuli stemming from sexual
abuse may interfere with some women’s ability to enjoy potential sexual interactions.
Meanwhile, Schloredt and Heiman (2003) argued that another group of women
with abuse histories might seek engagement in high frequencies of risky sexual behavior
in order to modify their negative perceptions of their sexuality. However, results of the
current study suggested that women who engage in more frequent dangerous sexual
behavior (i.e., the Risky Sex/Low Desire cluster) exhibit cognitions related to erotophilia
and report greater sexual self-esteem related to sexual skill and experience. Following the
theory and research put forth by Fisher and colleagues (Fisher et al., 1998) these
individuals evidence more positive and approach tendencies toward sexual stimuli. It
could be that these women are overcompensating for their negative sexual experiences,
and perhaps tend to sexualize relationships and seek behaviors that confirm their sexual
self-esteem, which may unfortunately lead to increased risk for STI’s or unwanted
pregnancies and even revictimization.
While it might seem counterintuitive that women engaging in sexual risk-taking
may report greater difficulty with sexual desire, these women may not be engaging in
sexual risks due to high desire but as a way of coping with their unwanted sexual
experience or to block out or rescript their sexuality. Therefore, their desire might
51
subjectively seem low relative to their sexual behaviors. Indeed, previous research has
suggested that risky sexual behavior is often utilized as a maladaptive coping mechanism,
and is related to other risky behaviors such as increased substance use which in turn
increases victimization risk (Deliramich & Gray, 2008). Alternatively, these women may
have impaired sexual risk perception and lack sexual assertiveness, resulting in
succumbing to pressures to engage in sexual activity, which might reflect their low desire
and increased sexual problems. Previous research has indicated that sexual assertiveness
is influenced by cognitive-emotional results of previous sexual victimization (MessmanMoore, Ward, & Walker, 2007). Certainly further research is warranted to continue to
investigate the mechanisms behind this risky sexual behavior, especially given that it
appears the specific sexual functioning pathways following sexual assault are more
complicated than originally proposed. Such research would inform intervention programs
to decrease risk for revictimization and negative sexual health outcomes. It appears that
these two pathways are more complicated than originally viewed and additional research
is needed to identify additional mechanisms of sexual cognitions, emotions, and
behaviors following sexual victimization.
Interestingly, sexual self-schema and coping strategies were not salient factors in
the relationship between sexual victimization and sexual functioning and health, which is
contrary to prediction. Schemas are conceptualized to regulate emotions, thoughts, and
behaviors (Markus & Zajonc, 1985) and some researchers have postulated that they may
mediate the relationship between sexual victimization and sexual functioning or
behaviors (Meston, et al., 2006), yet the results of this study did not support this finding.
However, the current results are consistent with those of Anderson and Cyranowski
52
(1994), and with Lemieux and Byers (2008) who argued that it could be that the trait
adjectives in the SSSS assess appraisals of one’s sexual-self more generally but do not
take into account the meanings of these words which might differ between victimized and
nonvictimized women. Indeed, Meston and Heiman (2000) found that women with a
history of CSA processed positively-valenced sexual words (e.g., passionate) differently
(and less positively) than women without a history of CSA. Additionally, some research
suggests that the relationship between sexual self-schema and sexual assault is
dimensional; such that sexual assault decreases positive sexual self-schema dimensions
(e.g., romantic) while not influencing more negative dimensions of sexual self-schema
(e.g., embarrassment) (Meston & Heiman, 2000; Meston, et al., 2006). While the current
study examined sexual self-schema as a comprehensive measure among a sample of
college women; future research should consider the dimensionality of sexual self-schema
and potential perceptions of assessment measures.
Self-destructive coping and avoidance coping did not appear to distinguish
membership in either sexual functioning cluster, which is inconsistent with a previous
study among female Navy recruits (Merrill at al., 2003). It could be that the sexual
functioning patterns of both clusters involve some levels of both avoidance and selfdestructive coping. For example, risky sexual behavior could be both self-destructive and
used as a means of avoiding negative emotions and cognitions related to their sexual
trauma. Alternatively, it could be that women in one cluster may engage in significantly
fewer adaptive coping strategies, although their maladaptive coping mechanisms do not
differ. Previous research has also found that psychological distress is significantly related
to maladaptive coping strategies among sexually victimized women (Runtz & Schallow,
53
1997) but was not included in the present study. Future research should consider a
broader scope of both adaptive and maladaptive coping strategies, while considering
additional factors such as mental health and psychological distress (e.g., PTSD), to
continue to examine the mechanisms behind these sexual functioning patterns following
sexual assault.
Overall, although the current results should be replicated with future research, this
study has important potential implications for clinical response and interventions.
Treatment efforts should target women who have experienced sexual victimization at
specific developmental time periods. Women who have experienced ASA may benefit
from learning about more adaptive coping skills and behavioral interventions, consisting
of sexual assertion and communication skills, given that many of the risky sexual
behaviors involved non-use of contraceptives including condoms which may low sexual
risk appraisal or assertiveness. Meanwhile, women with a history of CSA may benefit
from interventions targeting anxiety related to sexual stimuli and reframing of
internalized negative perceptions of sexuality. Additionally, interventions should focus
on sexual self-esteem and help women to adopt more balanced self-esteem regarding
their sexual functioning, particularly related to their sexual skill and experience.
Treatment programs specifically for sexual assault victims should consider the type of
sexual functioning patterns such women are exhibiting, whether they are engaging in
risky sexual behavior and experiencing sexual problems or whether they are experiencing
sexual dysfunctions, and tailor treatment efforts towards those functioning patterns.
These programs could help to modify women’s appraisals of various sexual stimuli and
54
their appraisals of themselves as sexual beings as these appraisals may influence these
specific sexual functioning patterns.
Whereas this study provides some insight into the relationship between sexual
assault and sexual functioning, it is not without its limitations. The present study utilized
a college sample from a Midwestern public university that was relatively homogenous in
terms of participant demographics. Future studies may be beneficial in examining
similarly studied relationships between sexual victimization and sexual functioning
among more diverse populations. Indeed, some past research in sexual assault outcomes
has found some unique differences in college samples compared to community or clinical
samples (Weaver, 2009), which may also be found in these sexual functioning outcomes.
Similarly related to the current sample utilized, the low rate of CSA found in the current
study resulted in low power in examining the interaction effects and some effects of
CSA. Future research should examine the potential higher order effects of multiple
developmental sexual victimization experiences on sexual functioning with a larger
sample.
Furthermore, the variables in the current study were assessed retrospectively in
the form of self-report surveys which may have resulted in some confounded results due
to common method shared variance. To address this, future studies may include
information from multiple sources, such as diagnostic interviews, gynecological medical
information, or use other methodologies to increase likelihood of accurate recall (i.e.,
prospective, self-report diary methods).
A further limitation of the current study is related to the possible confounding
variable of time; a temporal relationship between study variables is not definitive. For
55
example, it is possible that the risky behavior assessed by the CARE-R-FOI actually
preceded or facilitated the sexual assault experiences reported in adolescence and
adulthood. Women who engage in more sexual behavior may put themselves at higher
risk for encountering an unwanted sexual experience. Future studies should assess sexual
assault, sexual functioning, and cognitive-affective sexual appraisal variables at different
intervals of time to examine any potential causal relationships or to examine any
fluctuations in cognitions, emotions, and behaviors among sexual victimized women.
Thus, it is important to consider the current results with caution and directions of the
correlational relationships cannot be determined with only a cross-sectional, retrospective
design.
Similarly, whereas these results provide preliminary support for the notion that
sexual victimization can lead to two different types of maladaptive sexual outcomes,
additional research is necessary to further examine this complex relationship. While not
specifically addressed in the current study, it may be that some women with a history of
sexual victimization experience episodes of sexual aversion/withdrawal as well as
episodes of increased risky sexual behavior. The current findings indicate that cognitiveaffective sexual appraisals, specifically appraisals of one’s own sexual abilities and of
sexual stimuli in general, may determine these patterns of sexual functioning; future
research should identify additional mechanisms of this relationship, including factors
such as psychological distress, PTSD symptoms, alcohol use, and more specific
characteristics or contexts of encountered sexual stimuli. For example, it could be that
specific sexual stimuli (e.g., being touched in certain place) in new sexual encounters
may trigger these particular responses. Furthermore, qualitative research may help to
56
clarify the specific pathways following sexual assault and help understand the sexual
experiences of women; for example, by examining their perception of sexual activity we
might better understand why low sexual desire could coincide with risky sexual behavior.
Although limitations do exist within the current study, these exploratory results
emphasize the complexity of the impact of sexual victimization on sexual functioning and
health. Overall, the present study highlighted the negative sexual functioning outcomes
that may result from sexual victimization. Furthermore, results suggested that there may
be varying forms of negative sexual functioning outcomes following sexual assault such
that some women engage in more frequent risky sexual behavior and experience low
sexual desire whereas other women experience more sexual dysfunctions. Continued
research in the area of sexual functioning and cognitive or affective aspects of sexuality,
including both subjective and objective measures of sexual functioning, will help in
understanding the complex sequelae of sexual victimization and in the development of
effective interventions and sexual health treatments.
57
References
Anderson, B. L., & Cyranowski, J. M. (1994).Women’s sexual self-schema. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1079–1100. DOI: 10.1037/00223514.67.6.1079.
Arata, C. M. (2002) Child sexual abuse and sexual revictimization. Clinical PsychologyScience and Practice, 9(2), 135-164. DOI: 10.1093/clipsy/9.2.135.
Arata, C. M., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Bowers, D., & O’Farrill-Swails, L. (2005).
Single versus multi-type maltreatment: An examination of the long-term effects
of child abuse. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 11(4), 29-52.
DOI: 0.1300/J146v11n04•02.
Bartoi, M., G., & Kinder, B. N. (1998). Effects of child and adult sexual abuse on adult
sexuality. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 24(2), 75-90. DOI:
0.1080/00926239808404921.
Becker, J.V., Skinner, L.J., Abel, G.G., Axelrod, R., & Cichon, J. (1984). Sexual
problems of sexual assault survivors. Women & Health, 9(4), 5-20.
Brecklin & Ullman. (2002). The roles of victim and offender alcohol use in sexual
assaults: Results from the National Violence against Women Survey. Journal of
Studies on Alcohol. 63(8), 57-63. DOI: 10.1177/0886260509354584.
Briere, J., & Runtz, M. (1990). Differential adult symptomatology associated with three
types of child abuse histories. Child Abuse and Neglect, 14(3), 357-364.
DOI: 10.1016/0145-2134(90)90007-G.
58
Briere & Runtz, 1989; The Trauma Symptom Checklist: Early data on a new scale.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4(2), 151-163.
DOI: 10.1177/088626089004002002.
Browne, A., & Finkelhor, D. (1986). The impact of child sexual abuse: A review of the
research. Psychological Bulletin, 99(1), 66–77. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.99.1.66.
Burt, M R., & Katz, B. L. (1987). Dimensions of recovery from rape: Focus on growth
outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2(1), 57-81.
DOI: 10.1177/088626087002001004.
Deliramich, A. N., & Gray, M. J. (2008). Changes in women’s sexual behavior following
sexual assault. Behavior Modification. 32(5), 611-621.
DOI: 10.1177/0145445508314642.
Elliott, D. M., & Briere, J. (1992). Sexual abuse trauma among professional women:
Validating the Trauma Symptom Checklist-40 (TSC-40). Child Abuse & Neglect.
16(3), 391-398. DOI:10.1016/0145-2134(92)90048-V.
Finkelhor, D., Hotaling, O., Lewis, I. A., & Smith. (1990) Sexual abuse in a national
survey of adult men and women: Prevalence characteristics and risk factors. Child
Abuse and Neglect, 14(1), 19-28. DOI:10.1016/0145-2134(90)90077-7.
Finkelhor, D. & Browne, A. (1985). The traumatic impact of child sexual abuse: A
conceptualization. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 55(4), 530-541. DOI:
10.1111/j.1939-0025.
Fisher, W. A. (1998). The Sexual Opinion Survey. In C. Davis, W. Yarber, R.
Bauserman, G. Schreer, & S. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related
measures (pp. 218–223). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
59
Fisher, W. A., Byrne, D., White, L. A., & Kelley, K. (1988). Erotophobia-erotophilia as a
dimension of personality. The Journal of Sex Research, 25(1), 123-151.
Fisher, B.S., Cullen, F.T., & Turner, M.G. (2000). The Sexual Victimization of College
Women. Washington D.C. National Institute of Justice/Bureau of Justice
Statistics.
Fromme, K., Katz, E. C., & Rivet, K. (1997). Outcome expectancies and risk-taking
behavior. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 21(4), 421-442.
DOI:10.1023/A:1021932326716.
Green B. L, Krupnick, J. L. Stockton, P., Goodman, L., Corcoran, C., & Petty R. (2005).
Effects of adolescent trauma exposure on risky behavior in college women.
Psychiatry-Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 68(4), 363-378
DOI:10.1521/psyc.2005.68.4.363.
Higgins, D., & McCabe, M. (2001). The development of the Comprehensive Child
Maltreatment Scale. Journal of Family Studies, 7(1), 7-28.
Humphrey, J. A., & White, J. A. (2000). Women’s vulnerability to sexual assault from
adolescence to adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27(6), 419-424.
DOI: 10.1016/S1054-139X(00)00168-3.
Kaltman, S., Krupnick, J., Stockton, P., Hooper, L., & Green, B. L. (2005). Psychological
impact of types of sexual trauma among college women. Journal of Traumatic
Stress, 18(5), 547-555. DOI: 10.1002/jts.20063.
Koss, M. P., Abbey, A., Campbell, R., Cook, S., Norris, J., Testa, M., & White, J. (2007).
Revising the SES: A collaborative process to improve assessment of
60
sexual aggression and victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(4), 357370. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00385.x.
Koss, M. P., & Gidycz, C. A. (1985). Sexual Experiences Survey: Reliability and
validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53(3), 422-423.
DOI: 10.1037/0022-006X.53.3.422.
Koss, M. P., Gidycz, C. A., & Wisiniewski, 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(2), 162170. DOI: 10.1037/0022-006X.55.2.162.
Lemieux, S.R. & Byers, E.S. (2008). The sexual well-being of women who have
experienced child sexual abuse. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(2), 126-144.
DOI: 10.1111/pwqu.2008.32.
Letourneau, E. J., Resnick, H. S., Kilpatrick, D.G., Saunders, B. E.; et al. (1996).
Comorbidity of sexual problems and posttraumatic stress disorder in female crime
victims. BehaviorTherapy,27(3). 321-336. DOI:10.1016/S0005-7894(96)80020-7.
Markus, H., & Zajonc, R. (1985). The cognitive perspective in social psychology. In
G.Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., pp 137230). New York: Random House.
Merrill, L. L., Guimond, J. M., Thomsen, C. J., & Milner, J. S. (2003). Child sexual
abuse and number of sexual partners in young women: The role of abuse severity,
coping style, and sexual functioning. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 71(6), 987-996. DOI: 10.1037/0022-006X.71.6.987.
61
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
50thannual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality,
Indianapolis, IN.
Meston, C. M., & Heiman, J.R. (2000). Sexual abuse and sexual function: An
examination of sexually relevant cognitive processes. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology,68(3), 399-406. DOI: 10.1037/0022-006X.68.3.399.
Meston, C., Rellini, A. H., & Heiman, J. R. (2006). Women’s history of sexual abuse,
their sexuality, and sexual self-schemas. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 74(2), 229 236. DOI: 10.1037/0022-006X.74.2.229.
Noll, J. G., Trickett, P. K., & Putnam, F. W. (2000). Social network constellation and
sexuality of sexually abused and comparison girls in childhood and adolescence.
Child Maltreatment, 5(4), 323–337. DOI: 10.1177/1077559500005004004.
Putnam, F. W. (1990). Disturbances of “self” in victims of childhood sexual abuse. In R.
P. Kluft (Ed.), Incest-related syndromes of adult psychopathology (pp. 113–131).
London: American Psychiatric Press.
Rosen, R., Brown, C., Heiman, J., Leiblum, S., Meston, C., Shabsigh, R., Ferguson, D.,
& D’Agostino, R. (2000). The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): A
multidimensional self-report Instrument for the assessment of female sexual
function. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 26, 191-208. DOI:
10.1080/009262300278597.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the Self. New York: Basic Books.
62
Runtz, M. G. & Schallow, J. R. (1997). Social support and coping strategies as mediators
of adult adjustment following childhood maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect,
21(2), 211-225. DOI:10.1016/S0145-2134(96)00147-0.
Sanders, B. & Becker-Lausen, E. (1995). The measurement of psychological
maltreatment: Early data on the child abuse and trauma scale. Child Abuse and
Neglect, 19(3), 315-323. DOI:10.1016/S0145-2134(94)00131-6.
Schacht, R. L., George, W. H., Davis, K. C., Heiman, J. R., Norris, J., Stoner S. A., &
Kajumulo, K. F. Sexual abuse history, alcohol intoxication, and women’s sexual
risk behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(4), 898-906.
DOI: 10.1007/s10508-009-9544-0.
Schloredt, K. A., & Heiman, J. R. (2003). Perceptions of sexuality as related to sexual
functioning and sexual risk in women with different types of childhood abuse
histories. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 16(3), 275–284. DOI: 0894-9867/03/06000275/1.
Shapiro, B. L., & Schwartz J. C. (1997). Date rape: Its relationship to trauma symptoms
and sexual self-esteem. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12(3), 407-419.
DOI: 10.1177/088626097012003006.
Tabachnick B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th Ed. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Van Berlo, W., & Ensink, B. (2000). Problems with sexuality after sexual assault. Annual
Review of Sex Research. 11. 235-258.
63
Van Bruggen, L. K., Runtz, M. G., & Kadlec, H. (2006). Sexual revictimization: The role
of sexual self-esteem and dysfunctional sexual behaviors. Child Maltreatment,
11(2), 131-145. DOI: 10.1177/1077559505285780.
Weaver, T. (2009). Impact of rape on female sexuality: Review of Selected Literature.
Clinical Obstetrics & Gynecology, 52(4), 702-711. DOI:
0.1097/GRF.0b013e3181bf4bfb.
Wyatt, G. E., Guthrie, D., & Notgrass, C. M. (1992). Differential effects of women’s
child sexual abuse and subsequent sexual revictimization. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 60(2), 167-173. DOI: 10.1037//0022-006X.60.2.167.
Zeanah, P. D., & Schwarz, J. C. (1996). Reliability and validity of the Sexual SelfEsteem Inventory–Women. Assessment, 3, 1–15.
Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., Joireman, J., Teta, P., & Kraft, M. (1993). A
comparison of 3 structural models for personality- The Big 3, the Big 5, and the
alternative 5. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 757768. DOI:10.1037//0022-3514.65.4.757.
64
Appendix A: Measures and Psychometric Properties
65
Ohio University Consent Form
Title of Research: An Examination of Women’s Health and Social Experiences
Researcher: Erika L. Kelley, B.A.
Faculty Supervisor: Christine Gidycz, Ph.D.
You are being asked to participate in research. For you to be able to decide whether you
want to participate in this project, you should understand what the project is about, as
well as the possible risks and benefits in order to make an informed decision. This
process is known as informed consent. This form describes the purpose, procedures,
possible benefits, and risks. It also explains how your personal information will be used
and protected. Once you have read this form and your questions about the study are
answered, you will be asked to sign it and return it to the researcher prior to receiving a
survey packet. These consent forms will be kept separate from survey packets that you
complete today. This will allow your participation in this study. You should receive a
copy of this document to take with you. Please let the researcher know if you have any
questions.
Explanation of Study
The purpose of this study is to better understand social, sexual, and health
experiences of college women. All questions will be asked in paper-and-pencil format in
an anonymous manner. If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to
answer questions about your current and past social, sexual, and health experiences,
where upsetting or negative experiences may have occurred. You should not participate
in this study if these topics may be too upsetting to you. Following participation, you will
be debriefed and given more information about the study.
If at any time you have any questions or concerns about the study at any time, the
experimenter will be there to assist you. Your participation for this session will take
approximately an hour.
Risks and Discomforts
There are no physical risks anticipated for participation in this study. However, you
will be asked for personal and sexual information during this study. Please consider your
comfort level with these types of question before agreeing to participate in the study.
However, some individuals might experience emotional discomfort. Participation is
voluntary, and you may choose to not answer any questions in the survey packet, as well
as choose to stop responding and/or withdraw from the study at any point without
penalty.
Benefits
Individually, you may benefit from participation in this study by having the
opportunity to learn about the data collection and research process. Furthermore,
information obtained from participation in this study will help mental and physical health
professionals to provide help and support to students with upsetting social or sexual
experiences.
[08/15/2010 Version]
Confidentiality and Records
Your survey data will be completely anonymous. Your name will not be linked to your
66
data. Additionally, any information you provide to the experimenters is confidential.
Please do not put your name or any other identifying information on any part of the
packets or envelopes that will be distributed to you if you decide to participate. No
individual names or identifying information will be used in reporting the results of the
study. Additionally, in presentations or publications, your written responses to questions
might be used in the form of quotations, but no identifying information will be included.
Additionally, your anonymous survey packets will be kept in locked filing cabinet.
Compensation
As compensation for your time/effort, you will receive one research participation
credit for one hour of participation.
Contact Information
If you have any questions regarding this study, please contact:
Erika Kelley
[email protected] 740-593-1088
Dr. Christine Gidycz (advisor)
[email protected]
740-593-1092
If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact
Jo Ellen Sherow, Director of Research Compliance, Ohio University, (740)593-0664.
By signing below, you are agreeing that:
 you have read this consent form (or it has been read to you) and have been
given the opportunity to ask questions and have them answered
 you have been informed of potential risks and they have been explained to
your satisfaction.
 you understand Ohio University has no funds set aside for any injuries you
might receive as a result of participating in this study
 you are 18 years of age or older
 your participation in this research is completely voluntary
 you may leave the study at any time. If you decide to stop participating in the
study, there will be no penalty to you and you will not lose any benefits to
which you are otherwise entitled.
Signature
Date
Printed Name
[08/15/2010 version]
Debriefing Form
Thank you for your participation in this research project. This study was designed to
examine sexual, physical, and mental health experiences. To accomplish this goal, you
were asked questions about personal life events, including psychological, physical, and
sexual experiences and related information that may pertain to you.
67
The information provided by these questionnaires will help psychology
researchers and clinicians learn more about college student’s sexual experiences,
including those sexual experiences that were unwanted. This information will also help
psychologists to research important social issues in the future. The results of studies such
as this one will help to inform the development of intervention and prevention
programming related to unwanted sexual experiences.
As a reminder, all of your questionnaire responses will remain anonymous. If you
have any further questions regarding the nature of this study, or would like to request
details of the results, please feel free to contact one of the following:
Erika Kelley B.A.
056 Porter Hall (740-593-1088)
[email protected]
Christine A. Gidycz, Ph.D.
231 Porter Hall (740-593-1092)
[email protected]
In addition, if you are concerned about the study materials used or questions
asked and wish to speak to a professional, or if you would like more information or
reading material on this topic, please contact one of the following resources:
Ohio University Counseling and Psychological Services:
1616
(740) 593-
Ohio University Psychology and Social Work Clinic
593-0902
My Sister’s Place Battered Women’s Shelter
593-3402
Sexual Assault Survivor Advocacy Program
589-5562
OU Counselor-in-Residence
593-0769
Thank you again for your participation.
68
DHQ
DIRECTIONS: Please write-in your answer or choose the best response for each
question.
1. How old are you?
A. 18
B. 19
C. 20
D. 21
E. 22
F. 23
G. 24
H. 25
I. 26
J. Other (Please specify)________
2. What is your gender identification?
A. Male
B. Female
C. Transgender
3. What year of college are you in?
A. First
B. Second
C. Third
D. Fourth
E. Fifth or above
F. Graduate student
G. Other ___________
4. What is your racial/ethnic identification?
A. Caucasian, Non-Hispanic
B. African American
C. Latino or Hispanic
D. Asian or Pacific Islander
E. American Indian or Alaska Native
F. Two or more races
G. Other ___________________(Please specify)
5. What is your religion?
A. Catholic (Christian)
B. Protestant (Christian)
C. Jewish
D. Muslim
E. Nondenominational
F. Other ____________________(Please specify)
G. None
7. Approximately what is your parents’ yearly income?
A. Unemployed or disabled
69
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
$10,000 – $20,000
$21,000 - $30,000
$31,000 - $40,000
$41,000 - $50,000
$51,000 - $75,000
$76,000 - $100,000
$100,000 - $150,000
$151,000 or more
Do not know
9. Which one best describes your relationship or sexual orientation?
A. exclusively heterosexual experience
B. mostly heterosexual experiences
C. more heterosexual than homosexual experiences
D. equal heterosexual and bisexual experiences
E. more homosexual than heterosexual experiences
F. mostly homosexual experiences
G. exclusively homosexual experiences
10. What is your marital status?
A. Never married
B. Married
C. Cohabiting
D. Divorced or Separated
E. Widowed
11a. Are you currently in a dating or sexual relationship?
A. Yes
B. No
11b. If you answered “yes” to Question 11a., for how long have you been in this
relationship?
(Write-in)________________________
12. Have you ever engaged in any consensual (non-forced) sexual activity (ranging from
kissing to oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse)?
A. Yes
B. No
13. If you answered “yes” to question 12, approximately how old were you when you
first willingly and consensually (non-forced) engaged in sexual activity (not including
vaginal intercourse)? (write-in)____________________
70
14. If you answered “yes” to question 12, approximately how many consensual (nonforced) sexual partners have you had (not including vaginal intercourse) (writein)________________________
15. If you answered “yes” to question 12 and have engaged in consensual (non-forced)
vaginal intercourse, approximately how old were you when you first engaged in this
activity (vaginal intercourse)?
(write-in)_______________________
16. If you answered yes to question 12, and have engaged in consensual vaginal
intercourse, approximately how many sexual partners have you had vaginal intercourse
with?
(write- in)___________________
17. At what age did you enter puberty (i.e., start menstruating)? _____________(writein).
71
CCMS
Before the age of 14, how frequently did you experience any of the following behaviors?
Please rate the frequency with which the behaviors were directed towards you by your
mother, your father, and other adults or older adolescents. Next to each item are three
columns with the numbers 0 to 4 please circle the number that corresponds to how often
you experienced the following behaviors using the following scale:
0 = never or almost never
1 = occasionally
2 = sometimes
3 = frequently
4 = very frequently
Mother
1. Physically
punished for
wrongdoing (e.g.,
smacking,
grabbing,
shaking)
2. Other use of
violence (e.g.,
hitting, punching,
kicking)
3. Severely hurt
you, requiring
medical attention
Father
Other Adult/
Older Adolescent
0
1
2
3
4
0
4
1
2
3
0
4
1
2
3
0
4
1
2
3
0
4
1
2
3
0
4
1
2
3
0
4
1
2
3
0
4
1
2
3
0
4
1
2
3
4. How frequently do you believe you witnessed any of the behaviors listed above
directed towards others in the family?
A. Never or almost never
B. Occasionally
C. Sometimes
D. Frequently
E. Very frequently
Mother
5. Yelled at you
0
4
6. Ridiculed,
0
embarrassed, used 4
Father
1
2
3
1
2
3
0
4
0
4
1
2
3
Other Adult/
Older Adolescent
0
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
4
72
sarcasm (made
you feel guilty,
silly, or ashamed)
7. Provoked,
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
made you feel
4
4
afraid, or used
cruelty
8. How frequently do you believe you witnessed any of the behaviors listed above
directed towards others in the family?
A. Never or almost never
B. Occasionally
C. Sometimes
D. Frequently
E. Very frequently
Mother
Father
Other Adult/
Older Adolescent
9. Not given you
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
regular meals or
4
4
baths, clean
clothes, or needed
medical attention
10. Shut you in a 0
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
room alone for an 4
4
extended period
of time
11. Ignored your
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
requests for
4
4
attention; did not
speak to you for
an extended
period of time
4
4
4
4
Many people report having had childhood sexual experiences with other children or with
older people. The following questions relate only to sexual activities with older people.
These “older people” include someone who at the time was either an adolescent (at least
5 years older than you; or an adult (18 years of age or over). Before you turned 13, did an
older person engage in any of the following types of sexual activity with you? Next to
each item are three columns with the numbers 0 to 5, please circle the number in each
column that corresponds to how frequently you experienced each of the following using
the scale below:
0 = never
1 = once
2 = twice
3 = 3-6 times
73
4 = 7-20 times
5 = more than 20 times
Mother
12. Requested
you to do
something sexual
13. Forced you to
watch others have
sex
14. Showed you
his erect penis
15. Made you
touch his
penis/her vagina,
or breasts
16. Touched your
penis, vagina, or
breasts
17. Put his/her
mouth on your
penis or vagina
18. Made you put
your mouth on his
penis/her vagina
19. Put his penis
in your vagina or
anus
20. Put a finger in
your vagina or
anus
21. Put other
objects in your
vagina or anus
22. Made you put
your penis inside
a vagina or anus
Father
Other Adult/
Older Adolescent
0
1
2
3
4
0
4
1
2
3
0
4
1
2
3
0
4
1
2
3
0
4
1
2
3
0
4
1
2
3
0
4
0
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
2
3
2
3
1
2
3
0
4
0
4
1
1
0
4
0
4
1
2
3
0
4
1
2
3
0
4
1
2
3
0
4
1
2
3
0
4
1
2
3
0
4
1
2
3
0
4
1
2
3
0
4
1
2
3
0
4
1
2
3
0
4
1
2
3
0
4
1
2
3
0
4
1
2
3
0
4
1
2
3
0
4
1
2
3
0
4
1
2
3
0
4
1
2
3
0
4
1
2
3
0
4
1
2
3
0
4
1
2
3
0
4
1
2
3
0
4
1
2
3
0
4
1
2
3
74
SES-SFV
The following questions concern sexual experiences that you may have had that were unwanted. We
know that these are personal questions, so we do not ask your name or other identifying information.
Your information is completely confidential. We hope that this helps you to feel comfortable
answering each question honestly. Place a check mark in the box
showing the number of times
each experience has happened to you. If several experiences occurred on the same occasion--for
example, if one night someone told you some lies and had sex with you when you were drunk, you
would check both boxes a and c. The past 12 months refers to the past year going back from today.
Since age 14 refers to your life starting on your 14th birthday and stopping one year ago from today.
SEXUAL EXPERIENCES
1
.
A man fondled, kissed, or rubbed up against
the private areas of my body (lips, breast/chest,
crotch or butt) or removed some of my clothes
without my consent (but did not attempt sexual
penetration) by:
a
.
b
.
c
.
d
.
e
.
2.
b.
c.
How many
times since
age 14?
0
1
2
3+
3+ 0
1
2
3+
Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship,
threatening to spread rumors about me, making
promises I knew were untrue, or continually verbally
pressuring me after I said I didn’t want to.
Showing displeasure, criticizing my sexuality or
attractiveness, getting angry but not using physical
force, after I said I didn’t want to.
Taking advantage of me when I was too drunk or
out of it to stop what was happening.
Threatening to physically harm me or someone
close to me.
Using force, for example holding me down with
their body weight, pinning my arms, or having a
weapon.
A man had oral sex with me or made me have
oral sex with them without my consent by:
a.
How many
times in the
past 12
months?
0 1 2 3+
Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship,
threatening to spread rumors about me, making
promises I knew were untrue, or continually verbally
pressuring me after I said I didn’t want to.
Showing displeasure, criticizing my sexuality or
attractiveness, getting angry but not using physical
force, after I said I didn’t want to.
Taking advantage of me when I was too drunk or
out of it to stop what was happening.
0
1
2
75
d.
e.
3.
Threatening to physically harm me or someone
close to me.
Using force, for example holding me down with
their body weight, pinning my arms, or having a
weapon.
A man put his penis into my vagina, or
someone inserted fingers or objects without
my consent by:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
b.
c.
d.
e.
How many
times since
age 14?
0
1
2
3+ 0
1
2
3+
0
1
2
3+ 0
1
2
3+
Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship,
threatening to spread rumors about me, making
promises I knew were untrue, or continually verbally
pressuring me after I said I didn’t want to.
Showing displeasure, criticizing my sexuality or
attractiveness, getting angry but not using physical
force, after I said I didn’t want to.
Taking advantage of me when I was too drunk or
out of it to stop what was happening.
Threatening to physically harm me or someone
close to me.
Using force, for example holding me down with
their body weight, pinning my arms, or having a
weapon.
4. A man put his penis into my butt, or someone
inserted fingers or objects without my consent
by:
a.
How many
times in the
past 12
months?
Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship,
threatening to spread rumors about me, making
promises I knew were untrue, or continually
verbally pressuring me after I said I didn’t want to.
Showing displeasure, criticizing my sexuality or
attractiveness, getting angry but not using physical
force, after I said I didn’t want to.
Taking advantage of me when I was too drunk
or out of it to stop what was happening.
Threatening to physically harm me or someone
close to me.
Using force, for example holding me down with
their body weight, pinning my arms, or having a
weapon.
76
5. Even though it did not happen, a man TRIED
to have oral sex with me, or make me have oral
sex with them without my consent by:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
b.
c.
d.
e.
1
2
3+ 0
1
2
3+
Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship,
threatening to spread rumors about me, making
promises I knew were untrue, or continually
verbally pressuring me after I said I didn’t want to.
Showing displeasure, criticizing my sexuality or
attractiveness, getting angry but not using physical
force, after I said I didn’t want to.
Taking advantage of me when I was too drunk
or out of it to stop what was happening.
Threatening to physically harm me or someone
close to me.
Using force, for example holding me down with
their body weight, pinning my arms, or having a
weapon.
6. Even though it did not happen, a man TRIED
to put his penis into my vagina, or someone
tried to stick in fingers or objects without my
consent by:
a.
0
Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship,
threatening to spread rumors about me, making
promises I knew were untrue, or continually
verbally pressuring me after I said I didn’t want to.
Showing displeasure, criticizing my sexuality or
attractiveness, getting angry but not using physical
force, after I said I didn’t want to.
Taking advantage of me when I was too drunk
or out of it to stop what was happening.
Threatening to physically harm me or someone
close to me.
Using force, for example holding me down with
their body weight, pinning my arms, or having a
weapon.
How many
times in the
past 12
months?
0
1
2
How many
times since
age 14?
3+ 0
1
2
3+
77
7. Even though it did not happen, a man TRIED
to put his penis into my butt, or someone tried
to stick in objects or fingers without my
consent by:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
0
1
2
3+ 0
1
2
Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship,
threatening to spread rumors about me, making
promises I knew were untrue, or continually
verbally pressuring me after I said I didn’t want to.
Showing displeasure, criticizing my sexuality or
attractiveness, getting angry but not using physical
force, after I said I didn’t want to.
Taking advantage of me when I was too drunk
or out of it to stop what was happening.
Threatening to physically harm me or someone
close to me.
Using force, for example holding me down with
their body weight, pinning my arms, or having a
weapon.
3+
If you did not experience options c, d, or e for any of the above items, please
skip to the CARE-R-FOI (page X). (In other words, if you ONLY marked items 1a, 1b,
2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, 5a, 5b, 6a, 6b, 7a, or 7b, please move on to the CARE-R-FOI).
78
CSVS
If you marked 1, 2, or 3+ for any of the above items in the SES-SFV with
options c, d, or e, please answer the following questions:
In other words, if you indicated that you have experienced items 1c, 1d, 1e, 2c,
2d, 2e, 3c, 3d, 3e, 4c, 4d, 4e, 5c, 5d, 5e, 6c, 6d, 6e, 7c, 7d, and/or 7e, please
answer the following questions:
8. If you have checked any of these items (1c, 1d, 1e, 2c, 2d, 2e, 3c, 3d, 3e, 4c, 4d, 4e, 5c, 5d,
5e, 6c,
6d, 6e, 7c, 7d, and/or 7e), please indicate which incident was most distressing to
you (for example, 3d or 5c). If you only checked one of these items, simply indicate which
item that was.
Which item indicates the experience that was most distressing to
you?___________________________________________________________
*For each of the remaining questions, please answer the item in reference to the item that you
indicated in question 8 (the incident that was most distressing to you). If you have
experienced this incident more than one time, please consider the most distressing occurrence
of the incident to answer each question. In other words, you should answer these questions
with regards to one particular, most distressing, incident.*
9. How long ago did this incident occur?
A. Less than a month ago
B. 1-3 months ago
C. 3-6 months ago
D. 6 months to one year
E. 1-2 years
F. Over 2 years ago
10. How old was the man/men who did this to you?
(Write-in) __________________years old
________I do not know
11. What was your relationship to the man/men who did this to you? (Choose the most
applicable option)
A. Non-romantic friend or acquaintance
B. Co-Work
C. Stranger
D. Boyfriend
E. Spouse
F. Casual romantic acquaintance/first date
G. Relative__________(please specify
12. Was there more than one man who did this to you during this incident?
79
A. Yes
B. No
13. If this occurred more than one time with this man/men, how many times did it occur?
A. Two times
B. Three times
C. Four times
D. 5-10 times
E. More than 10 times
F. Only occurred one time
14. How would you best describe what happened to you?
A. Miscommunication
B. Sexual Assault
C. Attempted Rape
D. Completed Rape
E. Some other type of crime
F. Other ________________________________(please specify)
15. During this incident, which of the following drugs did you use? (circle all that apply)
A. Not applicable/did not use any drugs or alcohol
B. I do not know/do not remember
C. Alcohol
D. Marijuana
E. Other ______________________________________ (please specify)
16. During this incident, which of the following drugs did the man/men use, to your
knowledge?
(circle all that apply)
A. Not applicable/did not use any drugs or alcohol
B. I do not know/do not remember
C. Alcohol
D. Marijuana
E. Other ______________________________________ (please specify)
17. Did the man/men threaten physical force during this incident to make you cooperate?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Not applicable
18. Did the man/men hold you down, twist your arm, or use any other kind of physical
restraint to
make you cooperate?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Not applicable
19. Did the man/men kick, punch, choke, beat, or otherwise physically injure you to make
80
you cooperate?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Not applicable
20. Did the man/men threaten to use a weapon to make you cooperate?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Not applicable
21. Did the man/men use a weapon to make you cooperate?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Not applicable
22. Prior to this incident, what was the greatest amount of sexual activity you had willingly
engaged in (not including the man/men involved in this incident)?
A. None/ I was not sexually active
B. Kissing
C. Fondling
D. Oral or anal intercourse
E. Vaginal intercourse
23. Prior to this incident, what was the greatest amount of sexual activity you had willingly
engaged in with the man/men involved in this incident, if any?
A. None/no prior sexual intimacy
B. Kissing
C. Fondling
D. Oral or anal intercourse
E. Vaginal intercourse
24. Since this incident occurred, have you engaged in any sexual activity?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Not applicable
25. Since this incident occurred, what is the greatest amount of sexual activity you have
willingly engaged in with any man or woman but not including the man/men involved in
this incident?
A. None/ I have not been sexually active
B. Kissing
C. Fondling
D. Oral or anal intercourse
E. Vaginal intercourse
81
26. Since this incident occurred, what is the greatest amount of sexual activity you have
willingly engaged in with the man/men involved in this incident, if any?
A. None
B. Kissing
C. Fondling
D. Oral or anal intercourse
E. Vaginal intercourse
27. Have you continued your relationship/acquaintance with the man/men involved in this
incident, since it has occurred?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Not applicable
27. To what do you most attribute this occurrence?
A. The man/men
B. Myself
C. Alcohol or drugs
D. Other person
E. Society
F. Other ____________________ (please describe)
28. Have you told anyone about this incident?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Not applicable
29. Whom have you told about this incident?
A. No one
B. Friend/friends
C. Co-worker
D. Counselor or Therapist
E. Family Member
F. Police
G. Other ______________ (please specify)
30. To what degree would you describe this incident as sexual assault (circle one)?
1
Not at all
sexual assault
2
3
Somewhat
sexual assault
4
5
Definitely
Sexual
Assault
82
31. To what degree would you describe this incident as rape (circle one)?
1
Not at all
sexual assault
2
3
Somewhat
sexual assault
4
5
Definitely
Sexual
Assault
32. To what degree do you think the man/men would describe this incident as sexual assault
(circle one)?
1
Not at all
sexual assault
2
3
Somewhat
sexual assault
4
5
Definitely
Sexual
Assault
33. To what degree do you think the man/men would describe this incident as rape (circle
one)?
1
Not at all
sexual assault
2
3
Somewhat
sexual assault
4
5
Definitely
Sexual
Assault
34. We are interested in knowing whether or not anyone had an unwanted sexual
experience before the age of 14 and after the age of 14 with the same person. Please look
back at your responses to the CCMS (page 3) and the SES-SFE (page 6). If you indicated
experiences on both questionnaires, did they happen with the same person? ______YES
_____NO (check one).
If yes, please indicate which items (for example, CCMS #22 and SES-SFV #3c).
________________________________________________________________________
______
83
CARE-R-FOI
Please complete the following sentence:
A. A regular partner is someone that I have dated for at least __________ (specify number)
weeks.
When asked about a regular partner below, please use this definition.
B. We would like to know how often you participated in the following activities during the
past 6 months.
Please circle the number of times that you engaged in each behavior over the past 6
months.
Number of Times in the Past 6 Months
1. Had sex with:
… a regular partner (as
0 1
2-4
5-9
10-20
21-30
defined in
A)
… someone I just met or
0 1
2-4
5-9
10-20
21-30
do not know well
2. Had sex without protection against pregnancy with:
… a regular partner (as
0 1
2-4
5-9
10-20
21-30
defined in
A)
… someone I just met or
0 1
2-4
5-9
10-20
21-30
do not know well
3. Had sex without protection against sexually transmitted diseases with:
31+
31+
31+
31+
… a regular partner (as
0 1
2-4
5-9
10-20
21-30
defined in
A)
… someone I just met or
0 1
2-4
5-9
10-20
21-30
do not know well
4. Used condoms for sexual intercourse with:
… a regular partner (as
0 1
2-4
5-9
10-20
21-30
defined in
A)
… someone I just met or
0 1
2-4
5-9
10-20
21-30
do not know well
5. Had sexual intercourse while under the influence of alcohol with:
31+
… a regular partner (as
defined in
A)
… someone I just met or
do not know well
6.
31+
31+
31+
0
1
2-4
5-9
10-20
21-30
31+
0
1
2-4
5-9
10-20
21-30
31+
Had sexual intercourse while under the influence of drugs other than alcohol with:
… a regular partner (as
defined in
A)
… someone I just met or
do not know well
0
1
2-4
5-9
10-20
21-30
31+
0
1
2-4
5-9
10-20
21-30
31+
84
7.
Had sex without a condom with:
… a regular partner (as
0
1
defined in
A)
… someone I just met or 0
1
do not know well
2-4
5-9
10-20
21-30
31+
2-4
5-9
10-20
21-30
31+
For the following items, please circle the number of times that you
engaged in each behavior over the past 6 months.
Number of Times in the Past 6 Months
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Sex with someone
other than my regular
partner (as defined in
A)
Sex with a NEW
partner
Left a social event
with someone I just
met or did not know
well
Chose to abstain from
sexual activity due to
concerns about
pregnancy or sexually
transmitted diseases
Had sexual
intercourse because
partner used verbal
pressure or threats
Had sexual
intercourse because
partner used physical
force
Was drunk with
someone I did not
know well
Had sexual
intercourse because
partner was too
aroused to stop
Had sexual
intercourse because
of partner’s continual
pressure (e.g., threats
0
1
2-4
5-9
10-20
21-30
31+
0
1
2-4
5-9
10-20
21-30
31+
0
1
2-4
5-9
10-20
21-30
31+
0
1
2-4
5-9
10-20
21-30
31+
0
1
2-4
5-9
10-20
21-30
31+
0
1
2-4
5-9
10-20
21-30
31+
0
1
2-4
5-9
10-20
21-30
31+
0
1
2-4
5-9
10-20
21-30
31+
0
1
2-4
5-9
10-20
21-30
31+
85
to end relationship)
Please circle the number of times that you engaged in each behavior over
the past 6 months.
Number of Times in the Past 6 Months
22. Tried/used drugs other than alcohol:
a) Marijuana
0
1
b) Cocaine
0
1
c) Hallucinogens
0
1
d) Amphetamines (speed) 0
1
e) Inhalants
0
1
f) Other (specify
0
1
___________)
23. Drove after drinking
… 1-2 alcoholic beverages
0
1
… 3-4 alcoholic beverages
0
1
… 5 or more alcoholic
0
1
beverages
24. Drank more than 5
0
1
alcoholic beverages
25. Drank alcohol too
0
1
quickly
26. Mixed drugs and alcohol 0
1
27. Played drinking games
0
1
28. Rode in a car with
0
1
someone who had
consumed alcohol
2-4
2-4
2-4
2-4
2-4
2-4
5-9
5-9
5-9
5-9
5-9
5-9
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
21-30
21-30
21-30
21-30
21-30
21-30
31+
31+
31+
31+
31+
31+
2-4
2-4
2-4
5-9
5-9
5-9
10-20
10-20
10-20
21-30
21-30
21-30
31+
31+
31+
2-4
5-9
10-20
21-30
31+
2-4
5-9
10-20
21-30
31+
2-4
2-4
2-4
5-9
5-9
5-9
10-20
10-20
10-20
21-30
21-30
21-30
31+
31+
31+
86
SSSS
Directions: Below is a listing of 50 adjectives. For each word, consider whether or not the
term describes you. Each adjective is to be rated on a scale ranging from 0 = not at all
descriptive of me to 6 = very much descriptive of me. Circle the number corresponding
with each adjective that indicates how accurately the adjective describes you. There are
no right or wrong answers. Please be thoughtful and honest.
Question: To what extent does the term ________ describe me?
Rating Scale:
1. generous
2. uninhibited
3. cautious
4. helpful
5. loving
6. open-minded
7. shallow
8. timid
9. frank
10. clean-cut
11. stimulating
12. unpleasant
13. experienced
14. short-tempered
15. irresponsible
16. direct
17. logical
18. broad-minded
19. kind
20. arousable
21. practical
22. self-conscious
23. dull
24. straightfoward
25. casual
26. disagreeable
27. serious
1
Not at all
2
descriptive
of me
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
7
Very
descriptive
of me
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
87
Rating Scale:
28. prudent
29. humorous
30. sensible
31. embarrassed
32. outspoken
33. level-headed
34. responsible
35 romantic
36. polite
37. sympathetic
38. conservative
39. passionate
40. wise
41. inexperienced
42. stingy
43. superficial
44. warm
45. unromantic
46. good-natured
47. rude
48. revealing
49. bossy
50. feeling
1
Not at all
2
descriptive
of me
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
7
Very
descriptive
of me
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
88
SOS
Please respond to each item as honestly as you can. There are no right or wrong answers,
and your answers will be completely confidential.
After each item, the following response scale appears:
1
Strongly
Agree
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
2
3
I think it would be very
entertaining to look at
erotica (sexually explicit
books, movies, etc.).
Erotica (sexually explicit
books, movies, etc.) is
obviously filthy and
people should not try to
describe it as anything
else.
Swimming in the nude
with a member of the
opposite sex would be an
exciting experience.
Masturbation can be an
exciting experience.
If I found out that a close
friend of mine was a
homosexual, it would
annoy me
If people thought I was
interested in oral sex, I
would be embarrassed.
Engaging in group sex is
an entertaining idea
I personally find that
thinking about engaging in
sexual intercourse is
arousing.
Seeing an erotic (sexually
4
5
6
7
Strongly
Disagree
1
Strongly 2
Agree
3
4
5
6
7
Strongly
Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
89
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
explicit) movie would be
sexually arousing to me.
Thoughts that I may have
homosexual tendencies
would not worry me at
all.1
The idea of my being
physically attracted to
members of the same sex
is not depressing.
Almost all erotic (sexually
explicit) material is
nauseating.
It would be emotionally
upsetting to me to see
someone exposing
themselves publicly.
Watching a stripper of the
opposite sex would not be
very exciting.
I would not enjoy seeing
an erotic (sexually
explicit) movie.
When I think about seeing
pictures showing someone
of the same sex as myself
masturbating, it nauseates
me.
The thought of engaging
in unusual sex practices is
highly arousing
Manipulating my genitals
would probably be an
arousing experience.
I do not enjoy
daydreaming about sexual
matters.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
Strongly 2
Agree
3
4
5
6
7
Strongly
Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
90
20.
21.
I am not curious about
explicit erotica (sexually
explicit books, movies,
etc.).
The thought of having
long-term sexual relations
with more than one sex
partner is not disgusting to
me
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
91
FSFI
Directions: For each of the following items, circle the response that best applies to
you.
1. Over the past 4 weeks, how often did you feel sexual desire or interest?
A.
Almost never or never
B.
A few times (less than half the time)
C.
Sometimes (about half the time)
D.
Most times (more than half the time)
Almost always or always
E.
2. Over the past 4 weeks, how would you describe your level (degree) of sexual desire or
interest?
A.
Very low or none at all
B.
Low
Moderate
C.
D.
High
E.
Very high
3. Over the past 4 weeks, how often did you feel sexually aroused (“turned on”) during
sexual activity or intercourse?
A.
Almost never or never
B.
A few times (less than half the time)
C.
Sometimes (about half the time)
D.
Most times (more than half the time)
E.
Almost always or always
F.
No sexual activity
4. Over the past 4 weeks, how would you rate your level of sexual arousal (“turn on”)
during sexual activity or intercourse?
A.
Very low or none at all
B.
Low
Moderate
C.
D.
High
E.
Very high
F.
No sexual activity
5. Over the past four weeks, how confident were you about becoming sexually aroused
during sexual activity or intercourse?
Very low or no confidence
A.
B.
Low confidence
C.
Moderate confidence
D.
High confidence
E.
Very high confidence
F.
No sexual activity
6. Over the past 4 weeks, how often have you been satisfied with your arousal
(excitement) during sexual activity or intercourse?
92
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Almost never or never
A few times (less than half the time)
Sometimes (about half the time)
Most times (more than half the time)
Almost always or always
No sexual activity
7. Over the past 4 weeks, how often did you become lubricated (“wet”) during sexual
activity or
intercourse?
A.
Almost never or never
A few times (less than half the time)
B.
C.
Sometimes (about half the time)
D.
Most times (more than half the time)
Almost always or always
E.
F.
No sexual activity
8. Over the past 4 weeks, how difficult was it to become lubricated (“wet”) during sexual
activity or intercourse?
A.
Not difficult
Slightly difficult
B.
C.
Difficult
D.
Very difficult
E.
Extremely difficult or impossible
F.
No sexual activity
9. Over the past 4 weeks, how often did you maintain your lubrication (“wetness”) until
completion of sexual activity or intercourse?
A.
Almost never or never
B.
A few times (less than half the time)
Sometimes (about half the time)
C.
D.
Most times (more than half the time)
E.
Almost always or always
F.
No sexual activity
10. Over the past 4 weeks, how difficult was it to maintain your lubrication (“wetness”)
until completion of sexual activity or intercourse?
A.
Not difficult
B.
Slightly difficult
C.
Difficult
D.
Very difficult
E.
Extremely difficult or impossible
F.
No sexual activity
11. Over the past 4 weeks, when you had sexual stimulation or intercourse, how often did
you
reach orgasm (climax)?
93
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Almost never or never
A few times (less than half the time)
Sometimes (about half the time)
Most times (more than half the time)
Almost always or always
No sexual activity
12. Over the past 4 weeks, when you had sexual stimulation or intercourse, how difficult
was it for you to reach orgasm (climax)?
A.
Not difficult
Slightly difficult
B.
C.
Difficult
D.
Very difficult
E.
Extremely difficult or impossible
F.
No sexual activity
13. Over the past 4 weeks, how satisfied were you with your ability to reach orgasm
(climax)
during sexual activity or intercourse?
A. Very dissatisfied
B. Moderately dissatisfied
C. About equally satisfied and dissatisfied
D. Moderately satisfied
E. Very Satisfied
F. No sexual activity
14. Over the past 4 weeks, how satisfied have you been with the amount of emotional
closeness
during sexual activity between you and your partner?
A. Very dissatisfied
B. Moderately dissatisfied
C. About equally satisfied and dissatisfied
D. Moderately satisfied
E. Very Satisfied
F. No sexual activity
15. Over the past 4 weeks, how satisfied have you been with your sexual relationship
with your
partner?
A. Very dissatisfied
B. Moderately dissatisfied
C. About equally satisfied and dissatisfied
D. Moderately satisfied
E. Very Satisfied
F. No sexual activity
16. Over the past 4 weeks, how satisfied have you been with your overall sexual life?
A. Very dissatisfied
94
B. Moderately dissatisfied
C. About equally satisfied and dissatisfied
D. Moderately satisfied
E. Very Satisfied
F. No sexual activity
17. Over the past 4 weeks, how often did you experience discomfort or pain during
vaginal
penetration?
A.
Almost never or never
A few times (less than half the time)
B.
C.
Sometimes (about half the time)
D.
Most times (more than half the time)
E.
Almost always or always
F.
Did not attempt intercourse
18. Over the past 4 weeks, how often did you experience discomfort or pain following
vaginal
penetration?
A.
Almost never or never
B.
A few times (less than half the time)
Sometimes (about half the time)
C.
D.
Most times (more than half the time)
E.
Almost always or always
F.
Did not attempt intercourse
19. Over the past 4 weeks, how would you rate your level (degree) of discomfort or pain
during or following vaginal penetration?
A.
Very low or none at all
B.
Low
C.
Moderate
High
D.
E.
Very high
F.
Did not attempt intercourse
95
HIDWT
The following items refer to the way that you have been dealing with the unwanted
sexual experience that you described in the SES-SFV section (page X) or in the
CSVQ section (page X). If you indicated an experience in both the SES-SFV section
and the CSVQ section, please respond to the following items in reference to the most
distressing experience,
If you did not answer “YES” to any items on the SES-SFV or the CSVQ, please
answer the following items with respect to the most stressful situation that you have
experienced. Please indicate what that event was: (writein)___________________________________________.
The following items ask what you've been doing to deal with the incident identified
above. Each item refers to a particular way of dealing with the incident. I want to know to
what extent you've been doing what the item says. Don't answer on the basis of whether
it seems to be working or not—just whether or not you're doing it. Use these response
choices. Try to rate each item separately in your mind from the others. Circle your
answers as true FOR YOU as you can.
How frequently have you engaged in each of the following items in the past two months:
0 = never
1 = rarely
2 = sometimes
3 = half the time
4 = often
5 = usually
6 = always
1. Trying to rethink the situation and to see it from a different perspective.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
2. Taking concrete actions to make positive changes in your life.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
3. Changing your habitual ways of doing things, for example, things in your daily routine.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
4. Sleeping a lot and trying not to think about what happened.
1
2
3
4
5
6
0
5. Finding out more information about this type of experience/incident.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
6. Going over the incident/situation again and again, trying to figure out why it happened
and exactly what happened at each point.
96
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7. Avoiding people, places, or situations that remind you of the incident.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
8. Giving yourself permission to feel your feelings and considering any feelings to be
“okay.”
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
9. Crying, screaming, or giggling a lot when you are by yourself.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
10. Directly showing your feelings when you are with others—actually crying,
screaming, expressing confusion, and so on.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
11. Talking to family and friends about your feelings.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
12. Doing things for yourself just because they make you feel good.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
13. Trying to forget that the incident ever happened.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
14. Trying to ignore all thoughts and feelings about the incident.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
15. Blaming yourself for what happened, going over all the things you did wrong,
holding yourself responsible for the incident, or chewing yourself out for having been “so
dumb.”
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
16. Snapping at people for no apparent reason, generally feeling irritable, or feeling like
you are about to explode.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
17. Trying intellectually to understand what happened to you and why you have felt the
way you have.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
18. Drinking a lot of alcohol or other drugs more than usual.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
19. Getting yourself into dangerous or risky situations more than you usually would.
97
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
20. Examining your life activities, relationships, and priorities, and getting rid of things
that aren’t really important to you.
1
2
3
4
5
6
0
21. Telling yourself and/or others that you are determined not to let the incident ruin your
life or make you a victim forever, and that you are not going to let the incident defeat
your emotionally.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
22. Eating or smoking cigarettes a lot more than usual.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
23. Going over all the things you did that were “good” and helped you get through the
incident.
1
2
3
4
5
6
0
24. Thinking about killing yourself.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
25. Getting more involved in your religion, changing religions, or becoming more
religious.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
26. Talking to a therapist or counselor (including psychologists, psychiatrists, or social
workers) about your experiences.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
27. Taking prescription drugs (such as Valium) to help yourself relax.
1
2
3
4
5
6
0
28. Keeping busy and trying to distract yourself from being bothered by the incident.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
29. Staying inside your house or apartment, and going out as little as possible.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
98
TSC-40
For each of the following items (1-40), please use the following scale:
0
NEVER
1
2
3
OFTEN
Circle the response that best applies to you, for each individual item.
How often have you experienced each of the following in the last two
months?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Headaches
Insomnia (trouble
getting to sleep)
Weight loss (without
dieting)
Stomach problems
Sexual problems
Feeling isolated from
others
“Flashbacks” (sudden,
vivid, distracting
memories)
Restless sleep
Low sex drive
Anxiety attacks
Sexual overactivity
Loneliness
Nightmares
“Spacing out” (going
away in your mind)
Sadness
Dizziness
Not feeling satisfied
with your sex life
Trouble controlling your
temper
Waking up early in the
morning and can’t get
back to sleep
Uncontrollable crying
Fear of men
Not feeling rested in the
0
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
0
1
2
3
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
0
1
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
99
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
morning
Having sex that you
didn’t enjoy
Trouble getting along
with others
Memory problems
Desire to physically hurt
oneself
Fear of women
Waking up in the
middle of the night
Bad thoughts or feelings
during sex
Passing out
Feeling that things are
“unreal”
Unnecessary or overfrequent washing
Feelings of inferiority
Feeling tense all the
time
Being confused about
your sexual feelings
Desire to physically hurt
others
Feelings of guilt
Feeling that you are not
always in your body
Having trouble
breathing
Sexual feelings when
you shouldn’t have them
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
0
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
0
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
0
1
2
3
0
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
0
1
2
3
0
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
0
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
100
SSEI-W
Instructions: This inventory asks you to rate your feelings about several aspects of
sexuality. There are no right or wrong answers: reactions to feelings about sexuality are
normally quite varied. From the rating scale near the top of the page, select the response
which most closely corresponds to the way you feel about each statement. Write the
number for that response in the space before each statement.
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
Strongly
Moderately
Mildly
Mildly
Moderately Strongly
____1. I wish I could relax in sexual situations.
____2. I am pleased with my physical appearance.
____3. I feel emotionally vulnerable in a sexual encounter.
____4. I feel good about the place of sex in my life
____5. I feel guilty about my sexual thoughts and feelings.
____6. I feel I am pretty good at sex.
____7. I hate my body.
____8. I am afraid of losing control sexually.
____9. I like what I have learned about myself from my sexual experiences.
____10. My sexual behaviors are in line with my moral values.
____11. I feel that “sexual techniques” come easily to me.
____12. I am please with the way my body has developed.
____13. I feel I can usually judge how my partner will regard my wishes about how far to
go sexually.
____14. I don’t feel ready for some of the things that I am doing sexually.
____15. Some of the things I do in sexual situations are morally wrong.
____16. Sexually, I feel like a failure.
____17. I would like to trade bodies with someone else.
____18. I feel physically vulnerable in a sexual encounter.
____19. Sometimes I wish I could forget about sex.
____20. I have punished myself for my sexual thoughts, feelings, and/or behaviors.
____21. I do pretty well at expressing myself sexually.
____22. I worry that some parts of my body would be disgusting to a sexual partner.
____23. I worry that I won’t be able to stop something I don’t want to do in a sexual
situation.
____24. I wish sex were less a part of my life.
____25. I never feel bad about my sexual behavior.
____26. I feel embarrassed about my lack of sexual experiences.
____27. I would be happier if I looked better.
____28. I worry that things will get out of hand because I can’t always tell what my
partnerwants in a sexual situation.
____29. I am glad that feelings about sex have become a part of my life.
____30. I never feel guilty about my sexual feelings.
____31. I feel good abut my ability to satisfy my sexual partner.
101
____32. I am proud of my partner.
____33. I worry that I will be taken advantage of sexually.
____34. In general, I feel my sexual experiences have given me a more positive view of
myself.
____35. From a moral point of view, my sexual feelings are acceptable to me.
102
Psychometric Properties of Measures
The CCMS (Higgins & McCabe, 2001) has demonstrated adequate reliability and
validity for both the total score, including all five forms of maltreatment, as well as for
the sexual abuse subscale. Internal consistency was adequate with a coefficient alpha of
.93 for the total CCMS and .88 for the sexual abuse subscale (Higgins and McCabe,
2001). Test-retest reliability over a six to eight week interval was also adequate for the
total score (r = .92) and for the sexual abuse subscale (r = .95). Sufficient validity for the
sexual abuse subscale was demonstrated by concurrent criterion-related validity with the
Child Abuse and Trauma scale (CATS; Sanders & Becker-Lausen, 1995) which measures
the extent of adverse sexual, physical, neglectful, and emotional childhood experiences.
The CATS sexual abuse scale and the CCMS sexual abuse scale were strongly
intercorrelated (r = .97, p < .001).
The SES-SFV (Koss et al., 2007) has demonstrated convergent validity with
transcribed interviews such that agreement between interview transcription coding and
SES results regarding rape ranged between 81% and 94%, and results regarding coercion
ranged from 86% to 95%. Internal consistency of the original SES was .74 for women
and item agreement between two administrations one week apart was 93% (Koss &
Gidycz, 1985).
The CARE-R-FOI (Fromme, et al., 1997) demonstrated good criterion validity;
for example, scores were significantly associated with risk-taking behavior over a 10-day
period; and good construct validity such that the CARE-R-FOI scale was intercorrelated
with the Impulsive Unsocialized Sensation Seeking scale (Zuckerman, Kuhlman,
Joireman, Teta, &Kraft, 1993).
103
The SSSS (Anderson & Cyranowski, 1994) has demonstrated adequate internal
consistency over the full scale (α = .92) and high test-retest reliability over a two-week
interval (r = .91) (Andersen & Cyranowski, 1994). Good construct, content, and
discriminant and convergent validity have been demonstrated as well for the SSSS
(Anderson & Cyranowski, 1994). For example, women who reported more positive
sexual self-schemas described themselves as having greater sexual self-esteem and sexual
arousability, as well as reported higher erotophilia than those with negative sexual selfschemas (Anderson & Cyranowski, 1994).
The SOS (Fisher et al., 1988) has shown high two-week test-retest reliability (r =
.85) and high internal consistency of (α = .82) (Fisher, 1998). The SOS has demonstrated
good content and construct validity; for example, erotophobia was found to be highly
correlated with less frequent sexual activity and contraceptive use, as well as more
negative sexual attitudes (Fisher, 1998).
The FSFI (Rosen et al., 2000) has demonstrated high test-retest reliability for
between two to four weeks for each domain ranging from r = .79 to r = .86, and for the
overall scale (r = .88). Internal consistency was also high, ranging from α = .82 to α =.93
for each of the six domains, and was high for the overall scale using (α =.97) (Rosen et
al., 2000). Good construct validity was demonstrated by significant mean difference
scores on the FSFI between women diagnosed with Female Sexual Arousal Disorder and
age-matched control groups for each of the six domains, with p < .001 on each scale
(Rosen, et al., 2000).
The How I Deal With Things Scale (Burt & Katz, 1987) demonstrated adequate
test-retest reliabilities of 2- to 5- week intervals for both the Self-Destructive scale (r =
104
.74) and the Avoidance scale (r = .83). Internal consistency reliabilities were also
relatively adequate for the Self-Destructive scale (α = .65) and for the Avoidance scale (α
= .75). Construct validity for the subscales were also demonstrated by through moderate
correlations between the scale scores and measures of symptomatology, such that higher
scores on the coping scales were correlated with greater negative symptomatology such
as anxiety, avoidance, and anger-hostility (Burt & Katz, 1987).
The TSC-40 (Briere & Runtz, 1989) demonstrated adequate internal consistency
for each of the subscales; specifically, the sexual problems subscale (α = .77) (Elliott &
Briere, 1992). Sufficient validity has been demonstrated; TSC-40 scores, for each
subscale and for the total score, discriminated between women who had been sexually
abused and those who had not been sexually-abused (Elliott & Briere, 1992).
For the SSEI-W (Zeanah & Schwarz, 1996), the developers found each of the five
subscales to have high internal consistency, with Chronbach’s alpha’s ranging from .85
(Moral judgment-based) to .94 (Attractiveness-based) (Zeanah & Schwarz, 1996). The
SSEI-W also demonstrated good convergent validity as the total scale correlated
moderately (r = .57) with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1979).
105
Appendix B: Supplemental Statistical Analyses
106
Descriptive and frequency statistics were conducted to examine the characteristics
of the adolescent/adult sexual victimization experiences; full descriptive and frequency
results are presented in Table 18. Among women who had experienced ASA and who
completed follow-up questions about their experiences, most assaults (62.2%) occurred
within a year prior to participation in the study. The majority of assaults (53.2%) were
committed by a non-romantic friend or acquaintance and the average age of the man who
committed the sexual assault was 19.2 years (SD = 1.62; range = 15.0 – 23.0). None of
the women reported that their ASA experience was perpetrated by the same person
involved in any of their CSA experiences, if they had any. Only five women (4.5%)
reported that two men were involved in their sexual assault, whereas the rest of the
assaults were committed by a single man. Some women reported that the sexual assault
experience was committed multiple times by the male perpetrator; 26.9% of women
experienced the incident more than once. In terms of the women’s labeling or perception
of the sexual assault experiences, the majority (58.7%) reported that the best description
for their experience was a “miscommunication.” Additionally, about 57.3% of women
indicated that they perceived the man as most responsible for the assault, followed by
alcohol or drugs (21.8%).
The majority of women (71.8%) reported being under the influence of alcohol
during the time of their ASA and most women (61.8%) also reported that the male
perpetrator was using alcohol at the time of the assault. In terms of tactics used by the
male perpetrator, about 15% of women reported that the man threatened physical force,
approximately 36% used physical restraint, about 4% kicked, punched, or choked the
woman, 2.7% threatened to use a weapon, and 2.7% used a weapon during the incident.
107
Regarding relationship characteristics between the participants and their
perpetrators, approximately 55.5% of women indicated that they had engaged in
consensual sexual activity (ranging from kissing to vaginal intercourse) with the male
involved prior to the sexual assault experienced. Furthermore, approximately 27%
women reported that since the sexual assault, they have engaged in consensual sexual
activity with the perpetrator and about 36% of women reported that they have continued
their relationship (e.g., friendship, courtship) with the man involved since the assault
occurred. Regarding disclosing their sexual assault experiences to others, about 84% of
women indicated that they have told someone about the event; with the majority (76%)
telling a friend or friends.
To descriptively explore how overall sexual functioning levels differed between
women with different levels of severity of sexual victimization experiences (e.g.., no
ASA experiences, ASA sexual coercion, ASA attempted rape, ASA complete rape)
descriptive statistics (i.e., means, standard deviations) were explored for each severity
level of ASA and for each severity level of CSA. FSFI full scale mean scores for the CSA
severity levels were as follows: no CSA victimization (M = 27.34, SD = 7.46); sexual
request or exposure (M = 33.72, SD = 8.35); genital touching (M = 28.53, SD = 7.20),
and oral, anal, or vaginal rape (M = 28.83, SD = 6.83). FSFI full scale mean scores for
the ASA severity levels were as follows: no ASA victimization (M = 28.14, SD = 7.64);
sexual coercion (M = 24.84, SD = 6.60); attempted rape (M = 27.28, SD = 7.12), and
completed rape (M = 26.51, SD = 7.13). Box plots of these results are presented in Figure
1 for CSA experiences and in Figure 2 for ASA experiences.
108
Table 1
Demographic Information of Full Sample (N = 412)
N
Variable
Age
College Year
Marital Status
Sexual Orientation
M = 18.99, SD = 1.14
18
19
20
21
22
23
Greater than 24
151
179
48
20
11
1
2
36.7
43.4
11.7
4.9
2.7
0.2
0.5
First
Second
Third
Fourth
301
65
31
14
73.2
15.8
7.5
34
Never married
Other
407
5
98.8
1.2
Heterosexual
Homosexual
361
87.6
0.2
50
12.2
360
19
17
8
4
4
87.4
4.6
4.1
1.9
1.0
0.9
Bisexual
Race
%
Caucasian
Asian/Pacific Islander
African-American
Multiracial
Hispanic/Latino
Other
1
109
Table 1 (continued)
Religion
Parents’ Yearly
Income
Catholic
Protestant
Jewish
Nondenominational
Muslim
None
Other
188
83
8
29
2
53
48
45.7
20.2
1.9
7.1
0.5
12.9
117
Unemployed or disabled
$10,000-50,000
≥$51,000
Do not know
10
73
242
87
2.4
17.7
58.7
21.1
110
Table 2
Summary of Study Measures and Current Sample Internal Consistency Reliabilities
Measure
Constructs assessed
Chronbach’s Sample items
α
Demographics History Demographic information;
N/A
“Approximately how old were you when you
Questionnaire
sexual history
began puberty (i.e., began menstruating)?”
Comprehensive Child
Maltreatment Scale for
Adults (CCMS;
Higgins & McCabe,
2001)
Childhood sexual abuse
.92
[Approximately how many times has your
father] “Put a finger in your vagina or anus”
Sexual Experiences
Survey- Short Form
Victimization (SESSFV; Koss et al., 2007)
Adolescent/adulthood
sexual abuse
.94
“Someone had oral sex with me or made me
have oral sex with them without my consent
by: threatening to physically harm me or
someone close to me.”
Characteristics of
Sexual Experiences
Scale
Coping: How I Deal
With Things (Burt &
Katz, 1987)
Characteristics of ASA
experiences
N/A
“Did the man/men use a weapon to make
you cooperate?”
Coping strategies
(Subscale domains):
Avoidant coping
Self-destructive coping
.83
.77
[How frequently have you engaged in each
of the following items in the past two
months:]
“Sleeping a lot and trying not to think about
what happened” (avoidant)
“Drinking a lot of alcohol or taking other
drugs more than usual” (self-destructive)
111
Table 2 (continued)
Measure
Female Sexual
Function Index (FSFI;
Rosen et al, 2000)
Sexual Self-Schema
Scale (SSSS;
Anderson &
Cyranowski, 1994)
Constructs assessed
Sexual functioning (total)
Subscale domains:
Desire
Chronbach’s
α
.94
.84
Sample items
[Over the past 4 weeks…]
“How often did you feel sexual desire or
interest?” (desire)
Arousal
.91
“How would you rate your level of sexual
arousal (“turn on”) during sexual activity or
intercourse?” (arousal)
Lubrication
.87
Orgasm
.76
“How difficult was it to become lubricated
(“wet”) during sexual activity or intercourse?”
(lubrication)
Satisfaction
.88
Pain
.99
Sexual self-schema
.75
“Over the past 4 weeks, when you had sexual
stimulation or intercourse, how often did you
reach orgasm (climax)?” (orgasm)
“How satisfied have you been with the amount
of emotional closeness during sexual activity
between you and your partner?” (satisfaction)
“How would you rate your level (degree) of
discomfort or pain during or following vaginal
penetration?” (pain)
“To what extent does the term uninhibited
describe me?”
112
Table 2 (continued)
Measure
SOS
Sexual Self-Esteem Inventory
for Women (SSEI-W; Zeanah
& Schwarz, 1996)
Constructs assessed
Erotophobia-erotophilia
Sexual self-esteem (total)
Subscale domains:
Skill/experiencebased
Chronbach’s
α
.85
(negative)
Sample items
If people thought I was interested in oral
sex, I would be embarrassed.” (negative)
.89
.85
“I feel I am pretty good at sex.”
.87
“I worry that some parts of my body
would be disgusting to a sexual partner.”
“I feel okay about saying “no” in a sexual
situation.”
“In general, I feel my sexual experiences
have given me a more positive view of
myself.”
“Some of the things I do in sexual
situations are morally wrong.”
Attractiveness-based
.78
Control-based
.76
Adaptiveness-based
.74
Moral judgment-based
Cognitive Appraisal of Risky
Events-Revised-Frequency of
Involvement (CARE-R-FOI;
Fromme et al., 1997)
Risky sexual behavior
.81
[Number of times in the past 6 months]
“Had sex with someone I just met or do
not know well”
Trauma Symptom Checklist40 Briere & Runtz, 1989)
Sexual problems
.76
[in the last two months?]
“bad thoughts or feelings during sex”
113
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics of Sexual History (N = 412)
Variable
Age of first sexual activity (if yes)
≤ 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
≥ 19
Number of sexual activity partners
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
≥11
Age of first sexual intercourse
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
≥ 19
Number of sexual intercourse partners
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
N
%
17
25
64
88
93
51
19
8
4.7
6.8
17.5
24.1
25.4
13.7
5.2
2.2
48
48
49
37
33
28
16
12
8
31
50
13.3
13.3
13.5
10.2
9.1
7.7
4.4
3.3
2.2
9.1
13.8
1
2
14
41
88
67
68
22
0.3
0.6
4.6
13.5
29.0
22.1
22.4
7.3
80
55
49
31
20
16
9
11
26.7
18.2
16.3
10.3
6.7
5.3
3.0
3.6
114
Table 3 (continued)
Variable
Number of intercourse partners
Age of puberty onset
N
9
10
≥11
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
≥16
%
7
5
17
6
15
48
106
109
71
40
13
2.3
1.7
5.7
1.5
3.6
11.8
26.0
26.7
17.4
9.8
3.1
115
Table 4
Means, Standard Deviation, and Range of Study Variables (N = 412)
Variable
Mean
SD
Minimum
Maximum
FSFI desire
3.61
1.05
1.20
6.00
FSFI arousal
5.44
1.35
1.80
7.20
FSFI lubrication
4.45
1.79
1.20
7.20
FSFI orgasm
4.61
1.77
2.00
7.20
FSFI satisfaction
5.55
1.39
1.20
7.20
FSFI pain
3.84
2.63
1.20
7.20
FSFI total score
27.50
7.47
13.80
41.40
HIDWT-avoidance coping
12.12
9.73
0.00
41.00
HIDWT-self-destructive
coping
SSEI skill
8.56
5.77
1.00
40.00
27.23
6.05
4.00
38.00
SSEI attract
26.07
8.66
7.00
42.00
SSEI control
33.42
6.66
7.00
42.00
SSEI adapt
SSEI moral
31.63
32.04
6.41
6.59
9.00
10.00
42.00
42.00
150.30
65.16
24.59
14.09
65.00
29.00
199.00
107.00
CARE risky sexual behavior
13.60
11.27
0.00
56.00
SOS total
63.19
23.09
2.00
125.00
2.34
3.16
0.00
21.00
SSEI full score
SSSS total score
TSC sexual problems
116
Table 5.
Correlation Matrix of Study Variables of Interest for Full Sample
1. CSA
2. ASA
3. Avoidance
coping
4. Selfdestructive
coping
5. Sexual
desire
6. Sexual
arousal
1
-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
.05
.07
.08
-.05
-.05
-.02
.02
.02
.01
-.01
-
.07
-
.12**
.51**
*
.18***
.02
-.01
-.02
-.06
-.02
-.05
-.02
-.14**
-.04
-.07
.02
-.05
-.01
-
.05
-.07
-.10*
-.10*
-.15**
-.05
-.10*
-
.10*
.37***
.36***
.27***
.39***
.24***
-
.77***
.73***
.65***
.50***
.82***
-
.89***
-
.70***
.73***
.75***
.76***
.93***
.93***
-
.55***
.80***
-
.85***
7. Lubrication
8. Orgasm
9. Sexual
satisfaction
10. Sexual Pain
11. FSFI total
score
N = 412, *p < .05 level, ** p <.01 level, *** p< .001 level
-
117
Table 5 (continued)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
-.44***
-.30***
12. SSEI
-.04
skill/experience
.08
-.02
-.07
.42***
-.10*
-.33***
-.33***
-.17***
13. SSEI
attractiveness
-.02
-.03
-.04
-.13*
.01
-.08
-.10*
-.13**
-.01
14. SSEI
control
15. SSEI
adaptiveness
-.07
-.24***
-.18***
-.31***
.10*
.01
-.12*
-.13**
.06
-.13**
.17**
*
-.25***
-.12*
-.10
-.06
-.14**
-.30***
.33***
.04
-.15**
-.14**
.05
-.28***
-.10*
16. SSEI moral
judgment
-.08
-.16***
-.16***
-.31***
.06
.08*
.01
.01
.11*
-.09
.01
17. SSEI full
score
-.06
-.11*
-.14**
-.31***
.24***
-.02
-.19***
-.20***
.01
-.33***
-.18***
18. Sexual selfschema
-.06
.23***
-.02
-.003
.42***
-.05
-.23***
-.21***
-.15**
-.30***
-.18***
19. Risky
sexual behavior
.03
.30***
.04
.14**
.50***
-.15**
-.43***
-.41***
-.25***
-.56***
-.40***
20.
Erotophobiaerotophilia
.06
.17***
-.01
.07
.53***
.01
-.14**
-.17***
-.15**
-.18***
-.09
-.23***
-.18***
-.19***
-.26***
-.10
-.18***
21. Sexual
.14 .24***
.15**
.31*** .22***
problems
**
N = 412, *p < .05 level, ** p <.01 level, *** p< .001 level
118
Table 5 (continued)
12. SSEI
skill/experience
13. SSEI
attractiveness
14. SSEI control
15. SSEI
adaptiveness
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
-
.37***
.38***
.59***
.21***
.69***
.51***
.45***
.24***
-.001
-
.34***
.32***
.14**
.66***
.15**
.08
-.09
-.13**
-
.55***
.48***
.76***
.25***
.14**
-.02
-.35***
-
.54***
.82***
.42***
.26***
.19***
-.20***
-
.64***
.17***
-.05
.12*
-.35***
-
.41***
.23***
.11*
-.29***
- .41***
.32***
.06
-
.32***
.28***
-
.23***
16. SSEI moral
judgment
17. SSEI full
score
18. Sexual selfschema
19. Risky sexual
behavior
20. Erotophobiaerotophilia
21. Sexual
problems
N = 412, *p < .05 level, ** p <.01 level, *** p< .001 level
-
119
Table 6
Sexual Victimization Frequencies for Full Sample
N
Variable
Childhood sexual
victimization
Adolescent/Adult sexual
victimization
Sexual Revictimization (any
CSA and any ASA)
%
Nonvictim
Sexual
Request/Exposure
Sexual Touching
Rape
387
6
93.9
1.5
8
11
1.9
2.7
Nonvictim
Sexual Coercion
Attempted Rape
Completed Rape
265
31
36
80
64.3
7.5
8.7
19.4
Revictimization
12
2.9
120
Table 7
Results of Chi-square Examining Relationship between Childhood and Adolescent/Adult
Sexual Victimization
Victimization status
Variable
Sexual orientation
Exclusively
heterosexual
Bisexual
Exclusively
homosexual
Marital Status
Never Married
Married
Cohabitating
Divorced/separated
Nonvictim
Percentage
(%)
Victim
Percentage
(%)
233
92.4
128
80.0
18
1
7.1
0.4
32
0
20.0
0.0
252
0
0
0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
155
2
2
1
96.9
1.3
1.3
0.6
121
Table 8
Univariate Effects for significant multivariate Factorial MANOVA effects Examining Sexual Victimization and Sexual
Functioning
95% C.I.
Victimization status
Means
Lower
Upper
Dependent variable
F (1, 408)
p-value
Partial η2
(independent variable)
bound
bound
Risky sexual
0.87
.351
.002
CSA nonvictim
2.34
2.23
2.45
behavior
CSA victim
2.13
1.71
2.55
Sexual problems
Sexual functioning
(total score)
13.28
2.97
Risky sexual
behavior
15.50
Sexual problems
3.50
Sexual functioning
(total score)
3.27
.001
.086
.001
.062
.071
.03
.01
.04
.01
.01
CSA nonvictim
2.35
2.03
2.67
CSA victim
4.67
3.46
5.88
CSA nonvictim
27.08
26.30
27.85
CSA victim
29.84
26.92
32.75
ASA nonvictim
1.80
1.50
2.10
ASA victim
2.67
2.36
2.99
ASA nonvictim
2.92
2.06
3.78
ASA victim
4.11
3.20
5.02
ASA nonvictim
29.76
27.69
31.83
ASA victim
27.15
24.95
29.34
122
Table 9
Univariate Effects for significant multivariate Factorial MANOVA Examining Sexual Victimization and FSFI Subscales
95% C.I.
Dependent variable
Victimization status
Lower
Upper
2
F (1, 408)
p-value
Partial η
(independent variable)
Means
bound
bound
Sexual arousal
4.98
.026
.01
ASA nonvictim
5.13
4.73
5.52
Sexual lubrication
Orgasm
Sexual satisfaction
Sexual pain
Sexual desire
2.07
1.92
2.94
3.15
4.89
.151
.167
.093
.077
.028
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
ASA victim
5.75
5.37
6.12
ASA nonvictim
4.31
3.78
4.84
ASA victim
4.84
4.34
5.34
ASA nonvictim
4.57
4.05
5.10
ASA victim
5.08
4.59
5.57
ASA nonvictim
5.56
5.16
5.97
ASA victim
6.04
5.66
6.42
ASA nonvictim
3.78
3.01
4.55
ASA victim
4.73
4.01
5.46
ASA nonvictim
3.80
3.50
4.11
ASA victim
3.32
3.03
3.61
123
Table 10
Univariate Effects for significant multivariate Factorial MANOVA effects Examining Sexual Victimization and Cognitiveaffective Sexual Appraisals
95% C.I.
Victimization status
Lower
Upper
Dependent variable
F (1, 408)
p-value Partial η2
(independent variable) Means
bound
bound
Sexual self-esteem
total score
4.02
Sexual self-schema
3.34
Erotophobiaerotophilia
0.46
.046
.068
.498
.01
.01
.01
CSA nonvictim
153.39
150.73
156.04
CSA victim
142.86
132.88
152.83
CSA nonvictim
66.25
64.80
67.70
CSA victim
61.00
55.54
66.46
CSA nonvictim
64.33
61.96
66.71
CSA victim
67.52
58.59
76.46
124
Table 11
Univariate Effects for significant multivariate MANOVA Effects Examining Sexual Victimization and SSEI-W Subscales
99% C.I.
Victimization status
Lower
Upper
2
Dependent variable
F (1, 408) p-value Partial η
(independent variable)
Means
bound
bound
Skill/experience-based
6.11
.014
.02
CSA nonvictim
30.47
29.69
31.25
CSA victim
26.67
23.75
29.59
Attractiveness-based
0.05
.832
.001
CSA nonvictim
25.90
24.99
26.80
CSA victim
25.52
22.11
28.92
Control-based
13.30
.001
.03
CSA nonvictim
33.43
32.75
34.11
CSA victim
28.53
25.97
31.08
Adaptiveness-based
0.94
.333
.002
CSA nonvictim
CSA victim
31.67
30.38
31.00
27.86
32.34
32.91
Moral judgment-based
0.31
.578
.001
CSA nonvictim
CSA victim
31.84
31.08
31.15
28.50
32.53
33.66
Skill/experience-based
11.87
.001
.03
ASA nonvictim
ASA victim
25.92
31.22
23.84
29.02
28.00
33.42
Attractiveness-based
0.19
.663
.001
Control-based
0.02
.893
.001
Adaptiveness-based
0.54
.465
.001
ASA nonvictim
ASA victim
ASA nonvictim
ASA victim
ASA nonvictim
ASA victim
25.32
26.10
30.89
31.07
30.54
31.51
22.90
23.54
29.07
29.15
28.75
29.61
27.73
28.66
32.70
32.99
32.33
33.41
Moral judgment-based
0.20
.655
.001
ASA nonvictim
ASA victim
31.76
31.16
29.93
29.21
33.60
33.10
125
Table 12
Correlation Matrix of Study Variables for Victimized Sample
1
2
3
4
1. Avoidance
coping
2. Self-destructive
coping
3. Sexual desire
4. Sexual arousal
- .53***
-
5
6
7
8
9
10
.07
-.01
.003
-.03
-.03
.06
.02
-.04
.10
-.02
-.01
-.04
-.05
.003
-.01
.04
-
-.01
-.35***
-.39***
-.33***
-.46***
-.26***
.35***
-
.72***
.66***
.59***
.44***
.78***
.13
-
.87***
.65***
.76***
.92***
-.10
-
.70***
.78***
.93***
-.09
-
.56***
.78***
-.04
-
.85***
-.21*
-
-.05
5. Lubrication
6. Orgasm
7. Sexual
satisfaction
8. Sexual Pain
9. FSFI total score
10. Sexual selfSchema
N = 160, *p < .05 level, ** p <.01 level, *** p< .001 level
-
126
Table 12 (continued)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11. Risky
sexual behavior
-.03 .13
.46***
-.10
-.39***
-.35***
-.22**
-.54***
-.35***
.39***
12. SSEI
skill/experience
-.03 -.11
.38***
-.02
-.29***
-.27***
-.11
-.41***
-.24**
.45***
13. SSEI
attractiveness
-.07 -.19*
.002
-.19*
-.19*
-.19*
-.07
-.20*
-.21
.13
-.23** -.47***
.01
.04
-.07
-.08
.10
-.17*
-.07
.21**
-.18* -.45***
.16*
.18*
-.06
-.001
.14
-.19*
.004
.31***
-.22** -.45***
-.05
.08
.01
.05
.15
-.01
.05
.07
-.20* -.46***
.11
.01
-.16*
-.13
.06
-.26***
-.13*
.31***
.55***
.03
-.20*
-.21**
-.20*
-.27***
-.15
.31***
.25**
-.24**
-.17*
-.13
-.24**
-.10
-.16*
.02
14. SSEI
control
15. SSEI
adaptiveness
16. SSEI
moral/judgment
17. SSEI full
score
18. Erotophiliaerotophobia
19. Sexual
problems
.10 .04
.17* .43***
N = 160, *p < .05 level, ** p <.01 level, *** p< .001 level
127
Table 12 (continued)
11. Risky sexual
behavior
12. SSEI
skill/experience
13. SSEI
attractiveness
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
-
.44***
.13
.05
.15
-.17*
.15
.33***
.30***
-
.42***
.34***
.54***
.14
.66***
.26***
-.02
-
.38***
.37***
.18*
.69***
-.04
-.14
-
.64***
.47***
.78***
-.02
-.48***
-
.59***
.85***
.11
-.34***
-
.65***
.06
-.42***
-
.08
-.40***
-
.30***
14. SSEI control
15. SSEI
adaptiveness
16. SSEI
moral/judgment
17. SSEI full
score
18. Erotophiliaerotophobia
19. Sexual
problems
N = 160, *p < .05 level, ** p <.01 level, *** p< .001 level
-
128
Table 13
Final Cluster Centers for Cluster Analysis of Subsample with Victimization Histories
Cluster Number
Variable
Cluster 1
Cluster 2
Risky sexual behavior
0.61
-0.49
Sexual problems
0.41
-0.21
Sexual arousal
0.46
-1.04
Lubrication
0.60
-1.45
Orgasm
0.55
-1.44
Sexual satisfaction
0.51
-1.00
-0.39
0.55
0.55
-1.28
Sexual desire
Sexual pain
129
Table 14
Descriptive ANOVA Results of Cluster Differences on Sexual Functioning Variables
F
40.09
p-value
.001
8.09
.005
113.22
.001
1275.05
.001
Orgasm
606.86
.001
Sexual satisfaction
110.92
.001
Sexual desire
31.704
.001
Sexual Pain
323.79
.001
Dependent variable
Risky sexual behavior
Sexual problems
Sexual arousal
Lubrication
130
Table 15
Case Distribution of Clusters by Victimization Categories
Cluster classification
of case
Victimization categorization
CSA (CCMS) category
1
2
Nonvictim
Sexual
request/exposure
Sexual
touching
Rape
105
30
2
4
6
2
8
3
ASA (SES) category
1
2
Nonvictim
Sexual coercion
Attempted rape
Completed rape
7
6
27
4
25
11
62
18
Total victimization category
1
2
CSA only
ASA only
7
6
105
30
Revictimized (CSA &
ASA)
9
3
131
Table 16
Logistic Regression Predicting Cluster Membership by Cognitive-Affective Sexual
Appraisals
B
Erotophobiaerotophilia
-.035
.011
9.48
1
.002
Odds
ratio
0.97
.013
.017
0.62
1
.431
1.01
Skill/experiencebased self-esteem
-.152
.052
8.61
1
.003
0.86
Attractiveness-based
self-esteem
-.026
.027
0.96
1
.326
0.97
Control-based selfesteem
-.039
.038
1.06
1
.304
0.96
Adaptiveness-based
self-esteem
.090
.053
2.82
1
.093
1.09
Moral judgmentbased self-esteem
.010
.038
0.07
1
.792
1.01
Sexual self-schema
S.E.B.
Wald χ2
Variable
df
p-value
132
Table 17
Logistic Regression Predicting Cluster Membership by Coping Strategies
B
Avoidance coping
0.00
0.02
0.00
1
.983
1.00
-0.01
0.04
0.12
1
.742
0.99
Self-destructive
coping
S.E.B.
Wald χ2
Variable
df
p-value
Odds
ratio
133
Table 18
Adolescent/Adult Sexual Victimization Characteristics
N
Variable
Age of perpetrator
Time since assault
Relationship to man
Number of men involved
Times incident occurred
%
M = 19.20, SD = 1.62
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Did not know
3
8
17
25
19
7
8
2
18
2.8
7.3
15.6
22.9
17.4
6.4
7.3
1.8
16.5
Less than 1 month ago
1-3 months
3-6 months
6 months-1 year
1-2 years ago
Over 2 years ago
7
20
22
20
18
24
6.3
18.0
19.8
18.0
16.2
21.6
Friend/acquaintance
Stranger
Boyfriend
Casual romantic
acquaintance
Relative
59
13
19
19
53.2
11.7
17.1
17.1
1
0.9
105
95.5
4.5
76
20
1
2
4
1
73.1
19.2
1.0
1.9
3.8
1.0
One
Two
Once
Twice
3 times
4 times
5-10 times
More than 10 times
5
134
Table 18 (continued)
N
Variable
How best described
Drugs victim used
Drugs perpetrator used
Prior greatest amount
sexual activity with man
involved
Greatest amount sexual
activity since event with
man
%
Miscommunicati
on
Sexual assault
Attempted rape
Completed rape
Some other type of
crime
Other
64
58.7
18
5
9
3
16.5
4.6
8.3
2.8
10
9.2
Alcohol
Marijuana
Other
None
Don’t know/remember
79
1
2
25
3
71.8
0.9
1.8
22.7
2.7
Alcohol
Marijuana
Other
None
Don’t know/remember
68
4
2
22
14
61.8
3.6
1.8
20.0
12.7
None
Kissing
Fondling
Oral/anal intercourse
Vaginal intercourse
49
None
Kissing
Fondling
Oral/anal intercourse
Vaginal intercourse
80
4
1
2
23
18
3
20
20
44.5
18.2
16.4
2.7
18.2
72.7
3.6
0.9
1.8
20.9
135
Table 18 (continued)
N
Variable
Whom told
Friend(s)
Co-worker
Counselor/therapist
Family member
Police
Other
%
83
2
6
12
4
2
76.1
1.8
5.5
11.0
3.7
1.8
136
Figure 1. Bar chart displaying FSFI full scale scores by CSA severity level.
137
Figure 2. Bar chart displaying FSFI full scale scores by ASA severity level.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Thesis and Dissertation Services
!