Legal scholars and psychological researchers have identified the visceral state of sexual arousal as a potential contributing factor to the perpetration of sexual violence. Visceral states such as sexual arousal might systematically influence social perception and perhaps lead to misinterpretations of behavior, such as overestimates of others' willingness to have sex. The current study used an experimental design to assess effects of sexual arousal and relationship status on men's perceptions of the extent to which women's behaviors indicate sexual willingness. Our manipulation of sexual arousal was successful only among single men. Among these single men, sexual arousal was associated with ratings of the extent to which women's behaviors indicate sexual willingness. We consider explanations for why men in relationships responded differently to manipulations of sexual arousal and how this effect might contribute to equivocal findings in this literature. Results suggested that sexually aroused single men are uniquely motivated to misinterpret women's sexual willingness. These findings underscored the importance of interventions that identify and address the sources of sexual misunderstanding.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbbeyA, Jacquez-TiuraAJ, LeBretonJM. (2011). Risk factors for sexual aggression in young men: An expansion of the confluence model. Aggress Behav. 37, 450–464.
2.
AbbeyA, McAuslanP, ZawackiT, et al. (2001). Attitudinal, experiential, and situational predictors of sexual assault perpetration. J Interpers Violence. 16, 784–807.
3.
ArielyD, LoewensteinGF. (2006). The heat of the moment: The effect of sexual arousal on sexual decision making. J Behav Decis Mak. 19, 87–98.
4.
BancroftJ, JanssenE. (2000). The dual control model of male sexual response: A theoretical approach to centrally mediated erectile dysfunction. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 24, 571–579.
5.
BarghJA, RaymondP, PryorJ, StrackF. (1995). Attractiveness of the underling: An automatic power → sex association and its consequences for sexual harassment and aggression. J Pers Soc Psychol. 68, 768–781.
6.
BothS, SpieringM, EveraerdW, LaanE. (2004). Sexual behavior and responsiveness to sexual stimuli following laboratory-induced sexual arousal. J Sex Res. 41, 242–258.
7.
BouffardJA, MillerHA. (2014). The role of sexual arousal and overperception of sexual intent within the decision to engage in sexual coercion. J Interpers Violence. 29, 1967–1986.
8.
CronbachLJ. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 16, 297–334.
9.
CurtisJN, BurnettS. (2017). Affirmative consent: What do college student leaders think about “yes means yes”. as the standard for sexual behavior? Am J Sexual Educ. 12, 201–214.
10.
DavisD, LoftusEF. (2019). Title IX and “trauma-focused”. investigations: The good, the bad, and the ugly. J Appl Res Mem Cogn. 8, 403–410.
DittoPH, PizarroDA, EpsteinEB, et al. (2006). Visceral influences on risk taking behavior. J Behav Decis Mak. 19, 99–113.
13.
EdwardsKM, SylaskaKM, BarryJE, et al. (2015). Physical dating violence, sexual violence, and unwanted pursuit victimization: A comparison of incidence rates among sexual-minority and heterosexual college students. J Interpers Violence. 30, 580–600.
14.
ErdfelderE, FaulF, BuchnerA. (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behav Res Meth Instrum Comput. 28, 1–11.
15.
FosterCA, WitcherBS, CampbellWK, GreenJD. (1998). Arousal and attraction: Evidence for automatic and controlled processes. J Pers Soc Psychol. 74, 86–101.
16.
GreerAE, BussDM. (1994). Tactics for promoting sexual encounters. J Sex Res. 31, 185–201.
17.
HaseltonMG, BussDM. (2000). Error management theory: A new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. J Pers Soc Psychol. 78, 81–91.
18.
HinzmannJ, BorgC, VerwoerdJRL, de JongPJ. (2020). The reciprocal relationship between sexual arousal and disgust as evidenced in automatic approach-avoidance behavior. J Sex Res. 57, 384–396.
19.
JoyalCC, CossetteA, LapierreV. (2015). What exactly is an unusual sexual fantasy?. J Sexual Med. 12, 328–340.
20.
KinseyAC, PomeroyWR, MartinCE. (1948). Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. (Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN).
21.
LangPJ, BradleyMM, CuthbertBN. (2008). International Affective Picture System (IAPS): Affective Ratings of Pictures and Instruction Manual. (Technical Report. A-8). University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
22.
LivingstonTN, DavisD. (2020). Power affects perceptions of sexual willingness: Implications for litigating sexual assault allegations. Violence Gender. 7, 116–120.
23.
LivingstonTN, VikTA. (2021). “Empowering, humbling, and of course arousing”: A qualitative analysis of experiences with power in sexual relationships. Sexual Cult. 25, 1204–1226. DOI: 10.1007/s12119-021-09834-9
24.
LoewensteinG. (1996). Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 65, 272–292.
25.
MurrayDR, MurphySC, von HippelW, et al. (2017). A preregistered study of competing predictions suggests that men do overestimate women's sexual intent. Psychol Sci. 28, 253–255.
26.
PetitWE, FordTE. (2015). Effect of relationships status on perceptions of physical attractiveness for alternative partners. Pers Relat. 22, 348–355.
27.
People v. Newman, B255339 (California, 1988).
28.
PerillouxC, KurzbanR. (2015). Do men overperceive women's sexual interest?. Psychol Sci. 26, 70–77.
29.
RerickPO, LivingstonTN, DavisD. (2019). Rape and the jury. In Handbook of Sexual Assault and Sexual Assault Prevention. W O'Donohue, P Schewe, eds. pp. 551–571. New York, NY: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-23645-8_33
30.
RerickPO, LivingstonTN, DavisD. (2020). Does the horny man think women want him too?. Effects of male sexual arousal on perceptions of female sexual willingness. J Soc Psychol. 160, 520–533.
31.
Reynolds v. Cook, 1:2019cv01935 (Indiana, 2020).
32.
ShumlichEJ, FisherWA. (2020). An exploration of factors that influence enactment of affirmative consent behaviors. J Sex Res. 57, 1108–1121.
33.
ShuperPA, FisherWA. (2008). The role of sexual arousal and sexual partner characteristics in HIV+ MSM's intentions to engage in unprotected sexual intercourse. Health Psychol. 27, 445–454.
34.
Skakoon-SparlingS, CramerKM. (2014). Paratelic/telic state, sexual arousal, and sexual risk-taking in university students. J Motiv Emot Personal. 2, 32–37.
35.
Skakoon-SparlingS, CramerKM, ShuperPA. (2016). The impact of sexual arousal on sexual risk-taking and decision-making in men and women. Arch Sex Behav. 45, 33–42.
36.
StephanW, BerscheidE, WalsterE. (1971). Sexual arousal and heterosexual perception. J Pers Soc Psychol. 20, 93–101.
37.
SuarezE, GadallaTM. (2010). Stop blaming the victim: A meta-analysis on rape myths. J Interpers Violence. 25, 2010–2035.
38.
United States v. Hernandez, WL 451220 (2019).
39.
VillalobosJG, DavisD, LeoRA. (2016). His story, her story: Sexual miscommunication, motivated remembering, and intoxication as pathways to honest false testimony regarding sexual consent. In Vilified: Wrongful Allegations of Person Abuse. R Burnett, ed. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom).
40.
WrightPJ, TokunagaRS, KrausA. (2016). A meta-analysis of pornography consumption and actual acts of sexual aggression in general population studies. J Commun. 66, 183–205.
