Prior work has identified endorsement of gendered sexual script beliefs as predictive of sexual coercion perpetration among heterosexual individuals, primarily men. This research is lacking among sexual minority individuals and may be important in informing inclusive and effective sexual coercion prevention efforts. The current study sought to (1) assess the level of adherence to gendered sexual script beliefs, (2) report relative rates of general sexual coercion and sexual intimate partner violence (IPV), and (3) examine the relationship between gendered sexual script beliefs and self-reported sexually coercive behavior among sexual minority and heterosexual college men and women. Undergraduate students (n = 1,199; 182 sexual minorities) completed self-report measures assessing gendered sexual script beliefs, sexual coercion perpetration, and sexual IPV. Results from Gender × Sexual Minority group ANOVAs and logistic regression analyses indicated similar rates of perpetration across sexual orientation groups, with men overall reporting the most perpetration. Furthermore, men and heterosexual individuals adhered more strongly to gendered sexual scripts than women and sexual minority individuals, respectively. Results of path models revealed no moderation by sexual orientation, and that adherence to gendered sexual scripts was positively related to sexual IPV perpetration among the full sample of heterosexual and nonheterosexual individuals, though this effect was small. Gendered sexual scripts did not significantly relate to general sexual coercion perpetration among the full sample, suggesting that traditional sexual script beliefs may not be as relevant to perpetration in a contemporary college sample. This study adds to limited literature on sexual coercion perpetration among sexual minority individuals and is an important step in understanding relationships between endorsement of gendered sexual script beliefs and sexual coercion perpetration among sexual minority and heterosexual college students.
Adams-CurtisL. E.ForbesG. B. (2004). College women’s experiences of sexual coercion: A review of cultural, perpetrator, victim, and situational variables. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 5(2), 91–122.
2.
BasileK. C.SmithS. G. (2011). Sexual violence victimization of women: Prevalence, characteristics, and the role of public health and prevention. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 5(5), 407–417.
3.
BellK. M.NaugleA. E. (2007). Effects of social desirability on students’ self-reporting of partner abuse perpetration and victimization. Violence and Victims, 22(2), 243–256.
4.
BishopM. D.MalloryA. B.GessnerM.FrostD. M.RussellS. T. (2021). School-based sexuality education experiences across three generations of sexual minority people. The Journal of Sex Research, 58(5), 648–658.
5.
BogradM. (1988). How battered women and abusive men account for domestic violence: Excuses, justifications, or explanations? In HotalingG. T.FinkelhorD.KirkpatrickJ. T.StrausM. A. (Eds.), Coping with family violence: Research and policy perspectives (pp. 60–77). Sage Publications, Inc.
6.
BossonJ. K.VandelloJ. A.BurnafordR. M.WeaverJ. R.Arzu WastiS. (2009). Precarious manhood and displays of physical aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(5), 623–634.
7.
BrousseauM. M.BergeronS.HébertM.McDuffP. (2011). Sexual coercion victimization and perpetration in heterosexual couples: A dyadic investigation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(2), 363–372.
8.
BrownmillerS. (1975). Against our will: Men, women and rape. Simon & Schuster.
9.
ByersE. S. (1996). How well does the traditional sexual script explain sexual coercion? Review of a program of research. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 8(1–2), 7–25.
10.
CotterD.HermsenJ. M.VannemanR. (2011). The end of the gender revolution? Gender role attitudes from 1977 to 2008. American Journal of Sociology, 117(1), 259–89.
11.
CourticeE. L.ShaughnessyK. (2018). The partner context of sexual minority women’s and men’s cybersex experiences: Implications for the traditional sexual script. Sex Roles, 78(3), 272–285.
12.
DickK.ZieringA. (2016). The hunting ground: The inside story of sexual assault on American college campuses. Simon and Schuster.
13.
DuttonD. G.NichollsT. L. (2005). The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and theory: Part 1—The conflict of theory and data. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(6), 680–714.
14.
DworkinS. L.O’SullivanL. (2005). Actual versus desired initiation patterns among a sample of college men: Tapping disjunctures within traditional male sexual scripts. Journal of Sex Research, 42(2), 150–158.
15.
EatonA. A.MatamalaA. (2014). The relationship between heteronormative beliefs and verbal sexual coercion in college students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(7), 1443–1457.
16.
EdwardsK. M.SylaskaK. M. (2013). The perpetration of intimate partner violence among LGBTQ college youth: The role of minority stress. Journal of youth and adolescence, 42(11), 1721–1731.
17.
EdwardsK. M.SylaskaK. M.NealA. M. (2015). Intimate partner violence among sexual minority populations: A critical review of the literature and agenda for future research. Psychology of Violence, 5(2), 112–121.
18.
FedinaL.HolmesJ. L.BackesB. L. (2018). Campus sexual assault: A systematic review of prevalence research from 2000 to 2015. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 19(1), 76–93.
19.
Fernández-FuertesA. A.CarcedoR. J.OrgazB.FuertesA. (2018). Sexual coercion perpetration and victimization: Gender similarities and differences in adolescence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(16), 2467–2485.
20.
FordJ. V. (2021). Unwanted sex on campus: The overlooked role of interactional pressures and gendered sexual scripts. Qualitative Sociology, 44(1), 31–53.
21.
FordJ. V.BeckerA. (2020). “A situation where there aren’t rules”: Unwanted sex for gay, bisexual, and questioning men. Sociological Science, 7(3), 57–74.
22.
GlaceA. M.KaufmanK. L. (2020). Sexual consent attitudes and rape-supportive norms among gender and sexual minority students. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 20(1), 657–675.
23.
HoL. Y.EhmanA. C.GrossA. M. (2021). Gender roles, sexual assertiveness, and sexual victimization in LGBTQ individuals. Sexuality & Culture, 25(4), 1469–1489.
24.
HoffmannA. M.VeronaE. (2019). Psychopathic traits, gender, and motivations for sex: Putative paths to sexual coercion. Aggressive Behavior, 45(5), 527–536.
25.
HustS. J.RodgersK. B.BaylyB. (2017). Scripting sexual consent: Internalized traditional sexual scripts and sexual consent expectancies among college students. Family Relations, 66(1), 197–210.
26.
HydeJ. S.BiglerR. S.JoelD.TateC. C.van AndersS. M. (2019). The future of sex and gender in psychology: Five challenges to the gender binary. American Psychologist, 74(2), 171–193.
27.
JozkowskiK. N.PetersonZ. D. (2013). College students and sexual consent: Unique insights. Journal of Sex Research, 50(6), 517–523.
28.
LeiM.LomaxR. G. (2005). The effect of varying degrees of nonnormality in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 12(1), 1–27.
29.
MalamuthN. M.SockloskieR. J.KossM. P.TanakaJ. S. (1991). Characteristics of aggressors against women: Testing a model using a national sample of college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(5), 670–681.
30.
MarshallE. A.MillerH. A.BouffardJ. A. (2021). Bridging the theoretical gap: Using sexual script theory to explain the relationship between pornography use and sexual coercion. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(9–10), NP5215–NP5238.
31.
MastersN. T.CaseyE.WellsE. A.MorrisonD. M. (2013). Sexual scripts among young heterosexually active men and women: Continuity and change. Journal of Sex Research, 50(5), 409–420.
32.
McKelvieM.GoldS. R. (1994). Hyperfemininity: Further definition of the construct. Journal of Sex Research, 31(3), 219–228.
33.
MurnenS. K. (2015). A social constructivist approach to understanding the relationship between masculinity and sexual aggression. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 16(4), 370–373.
34.
MurnenS. K.ByrneD. (1991). Hyperfemininity: Measurement and initial validation of the construct. Journal of Sex Research, 28(3), 479–489.
35.
MurnenS. K.WrightC.KaluznyG. (2002). If “boys will be boys,” then girls will be victims? A meta-analytic review of the research that relates masculine ideology to sexual aggression. Sex Roles, 46(11–12), 359–375.
36.
MuehlenhardC. L.QuackenbushD. M. (2020). The sexual double standard scale. In MilhausenR. R.SakalukJ. K.FisherT. D.DavisC. M.YarberW. L. (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (4th ed., pp. 652–654). Routledge.
37.
MullerM. N.WranghamR. W. (Eds.), (2009). Sexual coercion in primates and humans: An evolutionary perspective on male aggression against females. Harvard University Press.
38.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998–2011). Mplus user’s guide. Muthén and Muthén.
39.
OrchowskiL. M.CreechS. K.ReddyM. K.CapezzaN. M.RatcliffT. (2012). College women’s perceived risk to experience sexual victimization: A prospective analysis. Violence and Victims, 27(2), 194–214.
40.
OswaldD. L.HolmgreenL. (2013). Female sexual aggression on college campuses: Prevalence, correlates, and perceptions. In RussellB. L. (Ed.), Perceptions of female offenders (pp. 77–91). Springer.
41.
ReedL. A.WardL. M.TolmanR. M.LippmanJ. R.SeabrookR. C. (2021). The association between stereotypical gender and dating beliefs and digital dating abuse perpetration in adolescent dating relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(9–10), NP5561–NP5585.
42.
RelingT. T.BartonM. S.BeckerS.ValasikM. A. (2018). Rape myths and hookup culture: An exploratory study of US college students’ perceptions. Sex Roles, 78(7–8), 501–514.
43.
ReyesH. L. M.FosheeV. A.NiolonP. H.ReidyD. E.HallJ. E. (2016). Gender role attitudes and male adolescent dating violence perpetration: Normative beliefs as moderators. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(2), 350–360.
44.
RolleroC.BergagnaE.TartagliaS. (2021). What is violence? The role of sexism and social dominance orientation in recognizing violence against women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(21–22), NP11349–NP11366.
45.
RothmanE. F.ExnerD.BaughmanA. L. (2011). The prevalence of sexual assault against people who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual in the United States: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 12(2), 55–66.
46.
SakalukJ. K.MilhausenR. R. (2012). Factors influencing university students’ explicit and implicit sexual double standards. Journal of Sex Research, 49(5), 464–476.
47.
SanchezD. T.FetterolfJ. C.RudmanL. A. (2012). Eroticizing inequality in the United States: The consequences and determinants of traditional gender role adherence in intimate relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 49(2–3), 168–183.
48.
SánchezF. J.GreenbergS. T.LiuW. M.VilainE. (2009). Reported effects of masculine ideals on gay men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 10(1), 73–87.
49.
SatorraA.BentlerP. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66(4), 507–514.
50.
Schatzel-MurphyE. A. (2011). Expanding a model of female heterosexual coercion: Are sexually coercive women hyperfeminine? [Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Boston]. Doctoral Dissertations and Masters Theses at ScholarWorks at UMass Boston.
51.
Schatzel-MurphyE. A.HarrisD. A.KnightR. A.MilburnM. A. (2009). Sexual coercion in men and women: Similar behaviors, different predictors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(6), 974–986.
52.
SeabrookR. C.WardL. M.CortinaL. M.GiaccardiS.LippmanJ. R. (2017). Girl power or powerless girl? Television, sexual scripts, and sexual agency in sexually active young women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41(2), 240–253.
53.
SeabrookR. C.WardL. M.GiaccardiS. (2018). Why is fraternity membership associated with sexual assault? Exploring the roles of conformity to masculine norms, pressure to uphold masculinity, and objectification of women. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 19(1), 3–13.
54.
SimonW.GagnonJ. H. (2003). Sexual scripts: Origins, influences and changes. Qualitative Sociology, 26(4), 491–497.
55.
SmithR. M.ParrottD. J.SwartoutK. M.TharpA. T. (2015). Deconstructing hegemonic masculinity: The roles of antifemininity, subordination to women, and sexual dominance in men’s perpetration of sexual aggression. Psychology of men & masculinity, 16(2), 160–169.
56.
SneadA. L.BabcockJ. C. (2019). Differential predictors of intimate partner sexual coercion versus physical assault perpetration. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 25(2), 146–160.
57.
StrausM. A.HambyS. L.Boney-McCoyS.SugarmanD. B. (1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283–316.
58.
Struckman-JohnsonC.AndersonP. B.Struckman-JohnsonD.SmeatonG. (2020). Post-refusal sexual persistence scale. In MilhausenR. R.SakalukJ. K.FisherT. D.DavisC. M.YarberW. L. (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 208–211). Routledge.
59.
Struckman-JohnsonC.Struckman-JohnsonD.AndersonP. B. (2003). Tactics of sexual coercion: When men and women won’t take no for an answer. Journal of Sex Research, 40(1), 76–86.
60.
SugarmanD. B.HotalingG. T. (1997). Intimate violence and social desirability: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12(2), 275–290.
61.
SutterM. E.RabinovitchA. E.TrujilloM. A.PerrinP. B.GoldbergL. D.CostonB. M.CaltonJ. M. (2019). Patterns of intimate partner violence victimization and perpetration among sexual minority women: A latent class analysis. Violence Against Women, 25(5), 572–592.
62.
SwanL. E. T.HenryR. S.SmithE. R.Aguayo ArelisA.BarajasB. V. R.PerrinP. B. (2021). Discrimination and intimate partner violence victimization and perpetration among a convenience sample of LGBT individuals in Latin America. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(15–16), NP8520–NP8537.
63.
TharpA. T.DeGueS.ValleL. A.BrookmeyerK. A.MassettiG. M.MatjaskoJ. L. (2013). A systematic qualitative review of risk and protective factors for sexual violence perpetration. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 14(2), 133–167.
64.
ThompsonA. E.HarveyC. A.HausK. R.KarstA. (2020). An investigation of the implicit endorsement of the Sexual Double Standard among US young adults. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1454.
65.
ThornhillR.ThornhillN. W. (1992). The evolutionary psychology of men’s coercive sexuality. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15(2), 363–375.
66.
UllmanS. E.FilipasH. H. (2001). Predictors of PTSD symptom severity and social reactions in sexual assault victims. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 14(2), 369–389.
VandelloJ. A.BossonJ. K. (2013). Hard won and easily lost: A review and synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(2), 101–113.
69.
VanderLaanD. P.VaseyP. L. (2009). Patterns of sexual coercion in heterosexual and non-heterosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(6), 987–999.
70.
WardL. M.RosenscruggsD.AguinaldoE. R. (2022). A scripted sexuality: Media, gendered sexual scripts, and their impact on our lives. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 31(4), 369–374.
71.
WatermanC. K.DawsonL. J.BolognaM. J. (1989). Sexual coercion in gay male and lesbian relationships: Predictors and implications for support services. Journal of Sex Research, 26(1), 118–124.
72.
YodanisC. L. (2004). Gender inequality, violence against women, and fear: A cross-national test of the feminist theory of violence against women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(6), 655–675.
73.
ZinzowH. M.ThompsonM. (2015). A longitudinal study of risk factors for repeated sexual coercion and assault in US college men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(1), 213–222.
74.
ZweigJ. M.CrockettL. J.SayerA.VicaryJ. R. (1999). A longitudinal examination of the consequences of sexual victimization for rural young adult women. Journal of Sex Research, 36(4), 396–409.
