Isolate,Inebriate,Intimidate,Repeat: High Rates of Sexual Force Against Women Are Reported When Young Men Given Anonymous Surveys

Abstract

Few studies survey men who have remained undetected after engaging in acts of sexual aggression against women. Most survey women who were targets of sexual aggression or else survey men who consent to being identified. Using anonymous surveys of 2,689 U.S. and Canadian men (18–34 years), we aimed to assess rates of self-reported sexual aggression, reports of strategy effectiveness at forcing known reluctant women into sex, and men’s views of the circumstances, motivations, and positive and negative outcomes. Men reported occasions where they tried to get a woman to engage in sex that they knew she did not want and to which she had not consented. The women were individuals with whom the men shared no prior romantic or sexual history. Overall, 95.1% reported having recently used at least one of the strategies to get a woman to have sex who they knew did not want sex and had not consented. Most of these occasions (65%) resulted in successfully forcing the woman into sex. All of the 36 strategies generated from formative work were reported by at least some men; the average number ever used was 8.94. Consistent physical pressure and verbal coercion were common; overt force, including physical restraint and use of pain, was less common but not uncommon. Men who viewed themselves as better than same-aged male peers “at getting what they want sexually from women” used more forceful strategies. The men persisted for many reasons, most often because they were horny (38%) or because the opportunity arose (28%). They reported many positive outcomes from these interactions; most (70%) perceived no negative outcomes. Using anonymous survey methods provides a novel channel to capture men’s reports of the factors scaffolding their use of sexual aggression. Implications for prevention and making long overdue inroads into reducing rates are discussed.

Keywords

sexual aggression dating violence anonymous surveys strategies coercion force

Introduction

What is striking about sexual aggression is that despite decades of research, public health initiatives, education, media attention, and policy focus, there has been no discernible decrease in rates since first assessed in the 1980s and 1990s (Johnson et al., 2015; Koss et al., 1987, 2022). Acts of sexual aggression include rape or sexual assault (i.e., nonconsensual sexual acts obtained through force, threats of force, or incapacitation, such as through alcohol or drugs) as well as sexual coercion (i.e., sexual acts obtained through verbal pressure or manipulation; Peterson et al., 2014). There may be greater willingness and awareness around reporting in recent years, as some have suggested (Brooks-Hay, 2020; Kaufman et al., 2021), but national surveys consistently document high rates of sexual aggression (Koss et al., 2022; Ybarra et al., 2016). In fact, an analysis of global, regional, and national trends in violence between 1990 and 2019 revealed increases in sexual violence against women despite significant drops in rates of most other forms of interpersonal violence (Cao et al., 2024).

Most men report they do not commit acts of sexual aggression. However, most aggressors are men, and of these, most have never been brought to justice, often because they are part of their targets’ social networks (Rotenberg, 2017). Approximately five times more women than men have been forced into sex (Muehlenhard et al., 2017). Based on identifiable convenience samples willing to self-report perpetration, rates since age 14 generally range from 8% to 24% depending on the type of sexual aggression assessed (Anderson et al., 2019; Lund & Ross, 2017; Smeaton et al., 2018). Most incidents take place in the context of mixed-sex socializing of young adults (Koss et al., 2022), the age group with the highest rates of aggression (Cao et al., 2024; Walters, 2019).

Reports From Men Who Sexually Aggress

The premise guiding this research is that to finally shift rates of sexual aggression downward, we must focus firmly on understanding perpetrators (rather than focus so strongly on their targets) and recognize more fully that some intentionally and knowingly sexually aggress. Some sexual aggression may result from misunderstanding a partner’s interest or communication of consent (Javidi et al., 2020), and others might be impulsive or isolated occasions (Davis et al., 2015; Jeffrey & Barata, 2021). However, work with men who report sexually offending (Hewitt et al., 2019; Langevin et al., 2017) and a small body of online research of undetected aggressors (Hipp et al., 2017; Pedneault et al., 2022) make clear that many acts of forced sex in the general population are deliberate (if not planned), goal-oriented, and frequently collaborative. The process itself can be understood as adapting a shared social script (i.e., a social norm for how an event unfolds) that typically involves these elements: identifying, isolating, intimidating, pressuring or overcoming a target who does not want or consent to sex, often within a social context that includes peers aware of what is happening (O’Sullivan et al., 2023).

The majority of research on sexual aggression is derived from women willing to report or discuss their experiences as targets of sexual aggression (Brockdorf et al., 2022; Cook & Messman-Moore, 2017). However, targets often are not privy to any or all components of the perpetrators’ strategies, especially if they have been drinking or have ingested drugs (Brockdorf et al., 2022). Indeed, we know that the vast majority of these crimes are not picked up by official records. Research on perpetrators, although invaluable, is typically derived from studies of incarcerated men (Beatty & Butler, 2024; Marotta, 2022), men in community treatment programs (Bates & Metcalf, 2007; McAnena et al., 2016), or convenience samples receiving course credit or monetary compensation (Jeffrey & Barata, 2018; Jeffrey & Senn, 2025; Pedneault et al., 2022; Walters, 2019)— all generating invaluable information but requiring the perpetrators to be identifiable.

Assuring Anonymity to Study Sexual Aggression

Anonymous non-identifiable aggressors (i.e., undetected aggressors) have borne far less scrutiny from researchers. Despite the vast literature on sexual aggression, it is disturbing how little we know directly from this group. Collecting reliable and valid data from these men is challenged by sensitization to the wording used to assess sexual aggression and men’s concerns about prosecution for revealing histories of sexual aggression (Berzofsky et al., 2019). It is important to assure anonymity to collect meaningful data. A study employing focus groups with men found that participants emphasized that anonymity was imperative for those who engaged in sexual aggression to be willing to accurately reveal their behaviors (Aguilar et al., 2016). A landmark meta-analysis of validation studies estimated that 42% of sensitive behaviors are not reported in surveys that do not guarantee anonymity (Lensvelt-Mulders et al., 2005).

The little existing research ensuring anonymity to undetected sexual aggressors indicates that these men can be persuaded in some contexts to describe their strategies for overcoming a woman’s resistance. A seminal study by Hipp et al. (2017) examined first-hand narratives of serial sexual assaulters who willingly revealed their strategies and justifications in response to a now-famous topic thread on the forum /r/AskReddit [“Reddit’s had a few threads about sexual assault victims, but are there any redditors from the other side of the story? What were your motivations? Do you regret it?”]. This question generated 1,200 responses in the first 48 hr alone. Hipp et al. analyzed 68 of the user responses and found strong endorsement of roles that men demand and women grant sexual access. Unfortunately, the data are very limited in scope, the initial thread was removed quickly and is no longer available online or from the researchers, and like all self-reports, it is not possible to verify their veracity. However, the study demonstrated how it is possible to induce men to provide first-hand narratives online given sufficient guarantees of anonymity.

Following the lead of Hipp et al. (2017), the current study evolved from in-depth formative work involving the collection and analysis of online exchanges with men about intentional strategies used for forcing women to have sex (O’Sullivan et al., 2026). These exchanges took place with men through a range of popular and dark websites, including off-topic pages on gaming sites that attract a wide range of men (e.g., IGN.com, Black Desert Online), sport fan sites (e.g., fanspeak.com), and those that encourage controversial views (e.g., reddit.com/r/theredpill; the21convention). Threads were reviewed and coded by a team of consultants to develop and refine a set of items that were incorporated into a survey described below.

The Current Study

This research was designed to focus on men who admit to having intentionally and knowingly sexually aggressed against a woman who they knew did not want sex nor consented to it, including strategies to overcome her reluctance, circumstances, motivations, and positive and negative outcomes. We used anonymous self-report methods and asked men to refer to an occasion involving a woman with whom they had no prior intimate or sexual history. Respondents were reassured repeatedly that they would not and could not be identified. We used neutral, non-judgmental language, and chose not to use standardized instruments as most incorporate sensitizing language that likely contributes to under-reporting and defensiveness. The survey items represented common statements captured from our formative work (O’Sullivan et al., 2026). The study was designed to assess the following research questions (RQ):

RQ1: What proportion of men report recent use of strategies to force a woman to have sex?

RQ2: Of those who reported trying to force a woman into sex, how effective were those strategies?

RQ3: Are men’s ratings of their effectiveness at getting what they want sexually from women associated with their reports of strategy use?

H1: We expected that men who perceived themselves as better than their peers in terms of getting what they want sexually from women would report histories of using more forceful strategies compared to men who perceived themselves as worse than their peers in getting what they want sexually from women.

RQ4: What are the characteristic circumstances, reasons, and perceived positive and negative outcomes reported by men regarding efforts to force a woman into sex?

Method

Participants

A sample of 3,011 self-identified men ages 18 to 34 (M_age = 27.31) was recruited in the Spring of 2023 using an online panel (Qualtrics Research Suite) that invited all men who met criteria into the study. The study was described as exploring positive and negative interactions between men and women in sexual situations. The consent form indicated that the survey was men’s opportunity “to provide their side of the story given that we have heard so much from women” about male–female sexual interactions, repeatedly assuring them of their guaranteed anonymity. We wrote “We realize that this survey addresses sensitive information. We realize some people might not like us asking these questions. We want this information to know more about how men operate and how they overcome barriers to get what they want. NOTHING you report will be or can be linked back to you. All responses are anonymous.”

We described the survey this way to avoid sensitizing language and in an effort to communicate receptivity to men’s reports of aggression. Men were eligible if they self-identified as men, were in the age range 18 to 34 years, and reported having had a sexual encounter with a woman in the past 2 years. Rationale: Men are far more likely to be perpetrators of sexual aggression than are women (Koss et al., 2022). These ages correspond to the age group with the highest rates of aggression (Muehlenhard et al., 2017; Walters, 2019). We chose a 2-year cut-off window to help ensure recall was clear, even if among individuals who do not consistently have sex with women (e.g., some sexual minority individuals). During data conditioning, 322 participants were removed for incomplete (n = 102), patterned or inconsistent responding (n = 87), or failing at least two of seven embedded quality assurance (e.g., attention) checks (n = 133), resulting in a final sample size of 2,689. All materials and data are available from the authors upon request.

Most of the 2,689 participants identified as heterosexual (88.1%; see Table 1). The majority resided in the United States (85.9%); the remainder in Canada (14.1%)—the countries from which the majority of which our comparative literature is drawn. Over half identified as White/Caucasian (58.3%) or Black/African-American/Canadian (20.7%). They had completed at least a high school education (47.1%) or an undergraduate degree (30.0%). Two-thirds were working full-time (65.3%). Of note, only 10.2% were students, thus representing a community sample. Nearly half were in a relationship (49.9%); most others were single (43.3%).

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of the Sample.

Variable	N (%)
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual	2,370 (88.1)
Bisexual	245 (9.1)
Gay	34 (1.3)
Asexual	4 (0.1)
Prefer not to answer	10 (0.4)
Other	26 (1.0)
Race/ethnicity
White or Caucasian	1,569 (58.3)
Black, African America, or African Canadian	557 (20.7)
Latin American	185 (6.9)
Asian	169 (6.3)
Multi-racial	108 (4.0)
First Nations, Native, or Indigenous peoples	33 (1.2)
Pacific Islander	15 (0.6)
Arab	12 (0.4)
Other	40 (1.5)
Highest level of education
Some high school	90 (3.3)
High school	1,266 (47.1)
Undergraduate degree or college diploma	807 (30.0)
Professional or doctorate degree	268 (10.0)
Educational certificate of license	162 (6.0)
Other	96 (3.6)
Employment status
Working full time	1,757 (65.3)
Working part time	317 (11.8)
Not currently working	254 (9.4)
Student	109 (4.1)
Student and working part time	125 (4.6)
Student and working full time	39 (1.5)
Other	88 (3.3)
Relationship status
In a relationship	1,343 (49.9)
Single	1,165 (43.3)
In multiple relationships	91 (3.4)
Other	53 (2.0)

Note. N = 2,689.

Measures

Demographic Information and Relationship Status

Age and gender were determined at screening. For remaining background information, participants provided general background information including their sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, highest level of education completed, employment status, and relationship status (see Table 1 for all response options).

Use of Sexual Aggression

Participants were asked “In the past four years, how many times have you used any of the following strategies to get (or try to get) a woman to have some type of sex when she did not want to have sex or acted like she did not want to have sex? (Only women you have recently met—no sex or dating history with them beforehand).” Sex was defined as any type of sex including “blow jobs, getting laid, anal sex, threesomes, group sex, etc.” They indicated which of any 36 strategies derived from our formative work they had used and how often they had used it.

Strategy Effectiveness

For each strategy reported, participants indicated whether they eventually had sex with the woman on that occasion after using the strategy (no, yes, yes but not the type of sex I wanted) to capture strategy effectiveness at forcing sex.

Perceived Self-Effectiveness at Getting Sex From Women

They reported whether they perceived themselves as “particularly good at getting what you want when it comes to sex” compared to other men their age (about the same; definitely better; definitely worse; probably better; probably worse) on a scale ranging from 1 to 5.

Circumstances Surrounding Forced Encounter

For participants who reported using one or more strategies in the past 4 years, follow-up questions explored their “most recent or most clearly remembered experience” using these strategies. These items focused on (1) characteristics of the woman that made the man target her for sex from a list of eight options (e.g., she was hot), (2) the woman’s actions or words that communicated nonconsent and unwillingness even if the man did not believe she was “truly” reluctant or if he thought “she was faking” (from checklist of four items), (3) the context of the experience, including where and when they encountered the woman and whether there were other people around, (4) reasons for trying to force sex (from 17 reasons generated from our formative work), (5) whether their efforts were deliberate and planned or spontaneous and unplanned, and (6) perceived positive and negative outcomes (open-ended) from that interaction.

Procedure

The survey was hosted online via Qualtrics Panel^®. Eligible participants first received an informed consent form electronically which requested no identifiable information. Survey completion took 25 min on average. Participants received the equivalent of $10 USD in compensation which was redeemed anonymously. We were given full approval from our institution’s ethics review board prior to onset of this study. We worked with the survey panel company to ensure full anonymity in all respects.

Data Analyses

Once data collection was complete, all participant responses were exported to SPSS Version 28 and quality assurance procedures were completed to identify and eliminate poor or incomplete responders from the analytic sample (see above). Analyses examined how frequently men reported having used each of the 36 strategies (if at all) and their perceptions of success in relation to each strategy reported. The list of 36 strategies was analyzed to determine if the items constituted a scale using exploratory factor analysis first then confirmatory factor analysis (see Supplemental Material]. A strong measure resulted from these analyses, so mean scores on the resulting scale were examined using ANOVA. Open-ended responses were analyzed using directed content analysis, which is subjective interpretation of text data through a systematic classification process of coding (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). As coding proceeded, categories were identified and modified to capture all dimensions of the data (Morgan, 1993).

Results

Use of Strategies to Get a Woman to Have Sex

Of the final sample of 2,689 men, 95.1% reported having recently used at least one of the strategies to force or coerce a woman to have sex, addressing our first research question (RQ1). The 132 who reported never having used any of the strategies did not differ significantly (p > .05) from the 2,557 who reported an occasion in terms of age, sexual orientation (heterosexual vs. not), race/ethnicity (White/Caucasian vs. non-White/Caucasian), education (high school vs. more than high school), or relationship status (single vs. other status).

The complete list of strategies and frequencies of endorsement are reported in Table 2. All of the strategies were reported by at least some men; 36 men (1.3%) reported using all of the strategies at least once. The average reported number ever used was 8.94 (SD = 7.98). The most common strategy was telling a woman whatever she wanted to hear and this was used by the majority (78.1%) of the 2,557 men reporting any history of forced or coerced sex. The following strategies were reported by order of frequency: asked her repeatedly to have sex (48.6%); had a friend, partner, or group of friends help you get what you want (46.6%), had a female friend make the woman feel safe and convince her (43.8%), told her you knew she wanted it (39.3%), focused on a stranger to have sex with (37.9%), had a female friend bring her to you (37.6%), and got her away from everyone to somewhere private and under your control (37.5%). These strategies primarily involve sexual coercion in the form of persistent verbal pressure, as well as peers to help manipulate the targeted woman.

Table 2.

Strategies Used by Men to Get Unwilling and Nonconsenting Women to Have Sex.

	Frequency of use (n and %)^a			Strategy success in forcing sex (n and %)^b
Strategy	Never	Once or twice	Numerous times	No sex occurred	Wanted sex occurred	Other type of sex
Told her whatever she wanted to hear	588 (21.9)	1,007 (37.4)	1,093 (40.6)	261 (23.9)	785 (71.8)	47 (4.3)
Asked her repeatedly to have sex	1,381 (51.4)	325 (12.1)	983 (36.6)	344 (35.0)	575 (58.5)	64 (6.5)
Had a friend, partner, or group of friends help you get what you want²	1,437 (53.4)	328 (12.2)	924 (34.4)	298 (32.3)	571 (61.8)	55 (6.0)
Had a female friend around to make the woman Feel safe and convince her²	1,512 (56.2)	374 (13.9)	803 (29.9)	253 (31.5)	507 (63.2)	42 (5.2)
Told her you knew she wanted it	1,631 (60.7)	308 (11.5)	749 (27.9)	242 (32.3)	469 (62.6)	38 (5.1)
Focused on a stranger to have sex with (or someone who did not know you)	1,671 (62.1)	308 (11.5)	710 (26.4)	231 (32.6)	414 (58.4)	64 (9.0)
Had a female friend bring her to you²	1,677 (62.4)	291 (10.8)	719 (26.7)	216 (30.1)	464 (64.6)	38 (5.3)
Got her away from everyone to somewhere private and under your control	1,681 (62.5)	333 (12.4)	675 (25.1)	242 (35.9)	393 (58.2)	40 (5.9)
Used your money, age, status to convince her²	1,805 (67.1)	346 (12.9)	536 (19.9)	180 (33.6)	316 (59.0)	40 (7.5)
Gradually pushed verbally or physically until you got what you wanted	1,826 (67.9)	263 (9.8)	599 (22.3)	252 (42.1)	321 (53.6)	26 (4.3)
Stopped her friends from getting in the way or interfering	1,871 (69.6)	230 (8.6)	588 (21.9)	243 (41.3)	310 (52.7)	35 (6.0)
Kept touching and kissing her	1,120 (41.7)	663 (24.7)	903 (33.6)	211 (23.4)	651 (72.1)	41 (4.5)
Started undressing before she was ready	2,029 (75.5)	171 (6.4)	488 (18.1)	155 (31.8)	290 (59.4)	43 (8.8)
Kept her drunk/high if she already was drunk/high	2,120 (78.8)	176 (6.5)	392 (14.6)	123 (31.4)	242 (61.7)	27 (6.9)
Focused on a woman who you figured was unlikely to stop you	2,128 (79.1)	156 (5.8)	405 (15.1)	131 (32.5)	235 (58.3)	37 (9.2)
Got her drunk/high when she was not drunk/high	2,133 (79.3)	179 (6.7)	375 (13.9)	128 (34.1)	220 (58.7)	27 (7.2)
Demanded she stop conning you (faking a lack of interest in sex)	2,176 (80.9)	131 (4.9)	382 (14.2)	142 (37.2)	189 (49.5)	51 (13.4)
Corner her in some way so she could only focus on you	2,176 (80.9)	177 (6.6)	335 (12.5)	105 (31.3)	209 (62.4)	21 (6.3)
Started undressing her before she was ready	2,188 (81.4)	153 (5.7)	347 (12.9)	99 (28.5)	216 (62.2)	32 (9.2)
Stopped her (or tried to) if she tried to leave	2,202 (81.9)	130 (4.8)	355 (13.2)	185 (52.1)	139 (39.2)	31 (8.7)
Focused on a woman who you figured was unlikely to tell anyone if you kept going	2,281 (84.8)	140 (5.2)	267 (9.9)	107 (40.2)	144 (54.1)	15 (5.6)
Showed her that she was making you angry¹	2,300 (85.5)	114 (4.2)	275 (10.2)	132 (48.0)	112 (40.7)	31 (11.3)
Had her come to your house or apartment when she did not want to¹	2,300 (85.5)	138 (5.1)	250 (9.3)	91 (36.4)	136 (54.4)	23 (9.2)
Questioned her sexuality (e.g., called her a lesbian or a cold bitch)¹	2,313 (86.0)	95 (3.5)	281 (10.4)	128 (45.6)	128 (45.6)	25 (8.9)
Yelled at her or gave her hell for leading you on (being a tease)¹	2,348 (87.3)	102 (3.8)	238 (8.9)	144 (60.5)	67 (28.2)	27 (11.3)
Let her know she would regret it in some way¹	2,369 (88.1)	112 (4.2)	207 (7.7)	97 (46.9)	97 (46.9)	13 (6.3)
Take advantage of her being asleep or sleepy¹	2,387 (88.8)	89 (3.3)	210 (7.8)	57 (27.1)	129 (61.4)	24 (11.4)
Just overpowered her physically from the start¹	2,419 (90.0)	109 (4.1)	161 (6.0)	60 (37.3)	85 (52.8)	16 (9.9)
Used physical restraint (such as holding her down, or tying her hands)¹	2,435 (90.6)	89 (3.3)	165 (6.1)	37 (22.4)	108 (65.5)	20 (12.1)
Used some physical force to create some pain¹	2,439 (90.7)	70 (2.6)	178 (6.6)	63 (35.4)	94 (52.8)	21 (11.8)
Forced her to enjoy it	2,442 (90.8)	91 (3.4)	153 (5.7)	41 (27.0)	79 (52.0)	32 (21.0)
Used drugs to help (e.g., GHB or roofies)¹	2,458 (91.4)	84 (3.1)	146 (5.4)	50 (34.2)	83 (56.8)	13 (8.9)
Let her know you would embarrass or shame her in some way if she did not¹	2,471 (91.9)	94 (3.5)	123 (4.6)	52 (42.3)	57 (46.3)	14 (11.4)
Threatened to hurt yourself	2,507 (93.2)	78 (2.9)	104 (3.9)	54 (51.9)	39 (37.5)	11 (10.6)
Threatened to hurt her¹	2,548 (94.8)	70 (2.6)	70 (2.6)	37 (52.9)	23 (32.9)	10 (14.3)
Used something (even a weapon) to frighten her	2,539 (94.5)	74 (2.8)	74 (2.8)	28 (37.8)	35 (47.3)	11 (14.9)

N = 2,687–2689

Ns reflect number of men who reported ever having used a given strategy. Respondents could endorse as many as they had used. Prompt referred to when a woman did not want to have sex with you or was under the influence of drugs or alcohol (in the prior 4 years).

Items that comprise a forceful strategy subscale (see Supplemental Material).

Items that comprise a socially coercive subscale (see Supplemental Material).

Less common, but not uncommon, were the more overt forms of physical force: just overpowering her physically from the start (10.0%), using some form of physical restraint (9.4%), using some physical force to create some pain (9.3%), forcing her to enjoy it (9.2%), and using drugs, such as roofies (8.6%).

Age and total number of strategies reported were significantly correlated, r = .123, p < .001, indicating that older respondents reported more strategies used. Those who reported being White/Caucasian had higher mean scores of total strategies ever used compared to those who did not identify as White/Caucasian (M = 9.33; SD = 8.45 and M = 8.40; SD = 7.24, respectively), F(1, 2,554) = 8.492, p = .004. Those with higher education (i.e., greater than high school diploma) reported more strategies than did those with less education (M = 10.18; SD = 9.01, and M = 7.73, SD = 6.60), F(1, 255) = 61.618, p < .001. Single men reported fewer strategies than did men in relationships (at the time of the study; M = 8.13, SD = 7.22 and M = 9.59, SD = 8.45), F(1, 2,504) = 21.187, p < .001.

Strategy Effectiveness

Men rated the use of these strategies as being effective (“successful at getting the sex they wanted”) in forcing the woman into having sex on 64.6% of the occasions on which they used them (RQ2; see Table 2). Kept touching and kissing the woman despite her known unwillingness and lack of consent was rated as most effective in terms of getting sex, followed by telling her whatever she wanted to hear, using physical restraint (e.g., holding her down, tying her hands), and having a female friend bring her to him or help in someway. Getting her drunk or high (when she was not drunk or high) was also rated one of the most effective strategies.

With regard to RQ3, the men with a history of forcing a woman into sex tended to view themselves on the whole as being about as good (32.2%), probably better (26.3%), or definitely better (21.0%) than other men their age at getting what they wanted when it comes to sex. Those with higher self-ratings reported more success in forcing sex (r = .248, p < .001) and reported histories of using more strategies overall (r = .291, p < .001) compared to men with lower ratings of perceived effectiveness at getting the sex they want.

Our scale development work generated two viable measures—one was a 12-item measure of the most overtly forceful strategies and one of socially coercive strategies (4 items; see Supplemental Materials). The mean number of forceful strategies used across all men was 1.29 (SD = 2.65; range 0–12). Of particular importance, the modal number of forceful strategies used was zero, with 62.6% of the men reporting none. However, another 15.7% of the participants reported using one these forceful strategies; all others (21.7%) reported using at least two or more forceful strategies. Of the 37.4% of the sample who reported at least one especially forceful strategy, the mean was 3.45 (SD = 3.37). Rates of coercive strategies were higher with the mean amongst all men being 1.61 (SD = 1.47); 34.0% of the sample reported not using any of the four coercive strategies assessed. Of those who reported at least one, the mean was 2.44 (SD = 1.11) of the four strategies assessed using this subscale.

Ratings of how much better or worse each man perceived himself “at getting what you want when it comes to sex” relative to other men their age were significantly correlated with number of forceful strategies reported, r = .247, p < .001 and the use of coercive strategies, r = .231, p < .001, providing support for our hypothesis. That is, the higher men’s self-ratings of their ability to get what they want sexually from women, the more forceful and the more coercive strategies they tended to report.

Circumstances, Motivations, Intentions, and Perceived Outcomes

Our fourth research question focused on the social and psychological components of the interactions whereby men use force to make an unwilling woman have sex (RQ4). Men knew that the woman was unwilling and not consenting through her “making excuses” (41.9%), directly saying she was not interested or did not want to (24.1%), and physically moving away/trying to be out of reach (15.7%). Men also responded that, in some circumstances, women were too drunk or high to say or do much of anything (9.7%). They had met the woman on a dating app or website (10.0%), on another form of social media or online platform (9.6%), a private place (8.4%), indoor public space (2.8%), outdoor public space (2.1%), a social event (less than five people; 8.1%), social event with lots of people (some known; 28.1%), or social event with lots of people (all known; 30.9%). They met mostly in the early evening (40.1%), later in the evening (39.6%), and rarely in the morning (2.9%). Almost always there were peers or others around during the interaction (80.4%).

In reporting about the most recent or memorably vivid experience of efforts to force a woman to have sex, most men reported that finding the woman attractive (“hot”) was the primary reason they targeted her (78.4%), followed by having noticed her before (37.3%), feeling lonely and wanting intimacy or touch (33.7%), or being drunk or high (21.1%). Less common were the remaining reasons including that the woman was notably drunk or high (8.1%), the man was horny/aroused (8.1%), thinking it would be easy or fun (5.8%), or being angry at her (2.0%).

The men targeted these women most often because they were horny (38.2%) and simply because the opportunity was there (27.9%), being really determined to get what they wanted (19.2%), believing that women con men about their interest (17.9%), and liking “this type of challenge” (13.1%; see Supplemental Material). They indicated their efforts to force sex were typically unplanned (76.2%) or used “if the opportunity arose” (8.3%) versus a deliberate plan (15.5%).

Perceived Outcomes

When asked to explain whether “anything good” came out of this interaction, the most common positive outcome was coded as relationship-related (n = 654). This captured responses such as friendship (n = 221), friends with benefits (n = 70), long-term relationship (n = 35), short-term relationship (n = 41), and other forms of romantic connection. The next most common code was for sex-related responses (n = 546), including “sex” in general (n = 480) or specific types of sexual acts. The third most common code captured experiential responses (n = 206) including that the interaction was notably fun, a good time, interesting, or memorable (n = 100). Personal outcomes (n = 102), such as learning (n = 30), self-congratulations (n = 20), and “winning” (n = 13) were less common overall. Eight responses appeared to blame the woman in some way (e.g., “some women only want to have sex if they are drunk or high enough”). Another 377 did not elaborate on their “yes” response to the question about positive outcomes, 14 said “I got what I wanted so yes,” and 379 indicated no positive outcomes but did not elaborate.

Men’s responses when asked whether “anything bad” came out of the interaction were primarily “no” without elaboration (n = 1,903). The minority who elaborated indicated relationship impacts (such as hurt feelings, less trust, friend group broken, ghosting, lost friendship; n = 232), direct emotional impacts for themselves (guilt, shame, loss of self-esteem, regrets, embarrassment; n = 74), and bad sexual outcomes (horrible sex, shallow sex; n = 41). Just 7 indicated that a negative outcome was that the woman was traumatized, only 1 indicated that someone intervened to stop them, and just 3 (0.1%) of the 2,254 men reporting an incident cited having to face rape accusations or charges.

Discussion

This is one of the first studies to our knowledge to directly survey men anonymously about recent attempts to force an unwilling and nonconsenting woman to have sex. Our aim was to advance work in this area by gathering men’s perspectives regarding the strategies they used to enact sexual aggression against a woman with whom they had no established intimate or sexual history. Our reassurances of anonymity likely proved essential as 95% of the 2,689 men reported at least one effort to force such a woman into sex that they knew she did not want. In approximately two-thirds of those occasions, the men were successful in forcing sex. This study indicates that efforts to force women into sex are common and in fact now far better correspond to the high rates of forced sex that women report experiencing at the hands of men (Bonnesen et al., 2025; Mahon et al., 2024).

As with all self-reports, it is not possible to confirm the veracity of these reports, although each of the 2,689 men’s surveys passed all of our embedded quality assurance tests. Moreover, there are patterns of responses that add to our confidence in their veracity. For instance, our sample was far more likely to report more socially condoned forms of pressure and manipulation, such as being touched in a sexual manner without consent than they were to report overt force or illegal activities, such as holding her down or having the woman ingest drugs to incapacitate her. Research over the years has consistently noted patterns of more coercive and manipulative forms, including verbal pressure and cornering or preventing a woman from leaving, are far more common than are overt force (Abbey et al., 2025; Mahon et al., 2024; Peterson et al., 2025).

The men varied in their ratings of how effective their use of strategy was, but overall two-thirds of these efforts were viewed as successful in resulting in some type of sex from the women. Men were asked to recall a recent or “vivid” occasion where they tried to get sex that a woman did not want; this instruction may have biased recall toward occasions resulting in sex. Of note, the men reported on occasions of trying to force a woman with whom they had had no romantic or sexual connection before. These scenarios, then, likely involve dynamics quite different from those captured in research on intimate partner violence, such as familiarity with and anticipation of a partner’s level of interest or likely response.

Another novel finding is that the men typically rated themselves as good as or frequently better than most men their age in getting what they wanted sexually from women. Men may have been primed to think of scenarios that “worked out” in their view by our prompt to think of a particular recent or vivid occasion. On the other hand, they were asked to provide self-ratings in general. A self-enhancing bias whereby we perceive ourselves as better than most same-aged peers at various tasks or abilities is well known in the social psychological literature (Schacter et al., 2024). Usually, this cognitive bias emerges regarding socially supported, morally sound, or agentic traits, in which individuals evaluate themselves in ways that are favorable to boost one’s self-image (Wilson & Ross, 2003). That we saw a pattern emerge to view oneself as “better” than peers with regard to getting what one wants sexually from women provides support that for some men the act of dismissing a woman’s lack of consent—her clear communication that she did not or could not consent to sex—the illegal activity of victimizing women in this way incurs social status or supports the perceptions of oneself as superior to one’s (male) peers in this regard.

It is possible that young men are reflecting a socialization process that can be understood as adapting a traditional male script (i.e., a shared norm for how an event unfolds) that involves identifying, isolating, and overcoming women regardless of their interest, willingness, or consent to the sex that the men seek, but often with the encouragement of supportive peers (Deslauriers-Varin & Beauregard, 2010). Historically, men talk of sex in terms of chasing, scoring, nailing, banging–aggressive and adversarial terms still common today in toxic “bro culture” (Chrisler et al., 2012). Where women are penalized socially for sexual appearance, behavior, or availability, men by contrast tend to be admired (Soller & Haynie, 2016), a double standard that remains highly salient in current popular social media content (Chadwick-Brown & Endendijk, 2024; Klaassen & Peter, 2015). Links between such views and perpetration are well known. A recent study of young people 16 to 20 years found that higher sexualized media consumption was linked to stronger endorsement of the sexual double standard among boys, which were linked to higher odds of sexual coercion perpetration (Chadwick-Brown & Endendijk, 2024). Seduction scripts that glorify the overcoming of a girl’s or woman’s sexual resistance often refer to positive relational outcomes or the girl’s or woman’s pleasure that result, yet still start from a point of an intentional decision to disregard her communication of unwillingness or nonconsent, as noted in some seminal work by Starrett et al. (2023).

Another surprising finding was how common female peers appeared to facilitate these men in their efforts to force sex with women. Male peers’ help in blocking interference or participating in group assault of women are found in other work (Anderson et al., 2025; Raj et al., 2022). To our knowledge, this is one of the first to document notable numbers to report female peers’ complicity in acts of sexual aggression. To be fair, we do not know that the women knowingly aided in these crimes against other women. However, it may be that these reports provide initial insights into potential sexism that punishes women for attracting sexual attention or operates as a form of bullying to reinforce power disparities or social hierarchies (Rice et al., 2024). Additional research on collusion is clearly needed and certainly replication of this work.

Limitations and Future Directions

Our sample comprised individuals who self-identified as men, most of whom identified as heterosexual. We did not have sufficient numbers of men who identified as non-heterosexual to compare patterns across reports, thus these results may not capture important differences in that regard. Future research should examine women’s and non-binary individuals’ reports of perpetrating sexual aggression, as well as men’s reports of targeting other men or non-binary individuals.

Another limitation is that the sample included mostly White/Caucasian or Black/African origin individuals, and as such, is limited in how well we can generalize to other racial/ethnic groups. The sample tended to be fairly well educated (at least high school education) and employed, so we did not sufficiently sample across social economic positions. We used Qualtrics to help ensure more representative sampling across the two countries than would ever be possible through convenience sampling (Belliveau et al., 2022; Boas et al., 2020), although these limitations introduce cautions when interpreting the work. Replication of this work with more diverse samples will hopefully elucidate important variations in reports. Undoubtedly different results would emerge in more diverse groups and those from varying cultural contexts, especially those varying in permissive versus traditional sexual standards for men and women (Jamshed et al., 2022). We studied occasions whereby the man had no prior history with the woman he targeted. Similar anonymous survey methods could be incorporated into studies of intimate partner violence.

These results are also constrained by the cultural context in which they were collected. Other cultures, including non-English speaking individuals from within the United States and Canada, were not included in this initial investigation. Ultimately, we know that sexual aggression of women by men is a global phenomenon affecting directly and indirectly half the population, but the expression of such violence likely varies in ways we have not captured sufficiently here.

Future research should also adopt different terminology to explore strategies to force sex. We asked men to estimate how many times they had ever used some type of strategy to try to get a woman to have sex when she did not seem or did not act willing. However, the research is clear that different terms generate different rates. For example, a recent comparison found that men who responded to questions about whether they “make her” produced higher self-reported rates of coercive sex than did items worded in terms of “without her consent,” and “when she didn’t want to” (Abbey et al., 2025).

For those working to prevent sexual aggression, our findings suggest men’s efforts to force women into sex are far more common than previously captured via self-reports and in fact help to resolve the discrepancy with women’s higher rates of reporting being forced into sex relative to men’s rates of forcing sex. Such information can serve to reveal specific contexts or individuals who are especially likely to be perpetrating these crimes and provide more accurate information about the contexts in which an individual may be targeted. Clearly, mixed-sex social interactions appear rife with risk for sexual aggression. Replication of these findings using different assessment tools, anonymously applied, is clearly needed with more diverse groups.

In conclusion, extremely high self-reports of recent efforts to force women into sex were captured using anonymous surveys. Men reported that their efforts were typically effective and most men perceived themselves as particularly good at getting sex from women. Anonymous survey methods appear promising, if not invaluable, for providing novel insights from men themselves about the strategies they chose, motivations, circumstances, and perceived consequences in the sexual aggression of women sex. Most importantly, these insights will prove useful for making long overdue inroads into curtailing the deeply disturbing increases noted in these crimes.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jiv-10.1177_08862605261432630 – Supplemental material for Isolate, Inebriate, Intimidate, Repeat: High Rates of Sexual Force Against Women Are Reported When Young Men Given Anonymous Surveys

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jiv-10.1177_08862605261432630 for Isolate, Inebriate, Intimidate, Repeat: High Rates of Sexual Force Against Women Are Reported When Young Men Given Anonymous Surveys by Lucia F. O’Sullivan and Scott T. Ronis in Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Laura Coon and Emily MacKenzie for help with data collection, Kate Metcalfe for help with survey preparation, Aryn Benoit for help with data analyses, and Naomi Levins for help with manuscript preparation. The authors would also like to thank Zoe Peterson, William McIver, Jr., and Sandra Byers for consultation on the survey development and use of anonymous procedures.

ORCID iDs

Lucia F. O’Sullivan

Scott T. Ronis

Ethical Considerations

This research was conducted in accordance with ethical guidelines and was approved by the Research Ethics Boards at the University of New Brunswick. All participants provided informed consent and had the option to discontinue participation at any point.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article: The work was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (435-2021-0622; O’Sullivan).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data of this research are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Lucia F. O’Sullivan, PhD, is a social psychologist and an international expert on sexual behavior, intimate behavior, and relationships. She has a long history of scientific work exploring dating violence and sexual risk behavior. In addition, she serves as a Research Fellow of the Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre for Family Violence Research.

Scott T. Ronis, PhD, is a leading expert in the study of sexual offending, juvenile delinquency, family systems, and sexual relationships and violence. His work spans a range of topics including sexual aggression, youth mental health, family systems, and cyberviolence and consults frequently on the direct policy implications of his research.

References

Abbey

McDaniel

M. C.

VanParis

Helmers

B. R.

(2025). An experimental comparison of three phrases used to convey lack of consent: How does language affect men’s self-reports of sexual aggression against women? Psychology of Violence, 15(2), 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000550

Aguilar

Mahapatra

Busch-Armendariz

Dinitto

D. M.

(2016). Exploring the science of conducting surveys for studying men’s sexual assault perpetration behaviors. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 25(1), 88–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2015.1107171

Anderson

R. E.

Goodman

E. L.

Eby

F. G.

Mickelson

K. M.

Peterson

Z. D.

(2025). Exploring measurement strategies for identifying multiple-perpetrator sexual violence: Higher prevalence rates than past research. Aggressive Behavior, 51(2), Article e70021. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.70021

Anderson

R. E.

Silver

K. E.

Ciampaglia

A. M.

Vitale

A. M.

Delahanty

D. L.

(2019). The frequency of sexual perpetration in college men: A systematic review of reported prevalence rates from 2000 to 2017. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22(3), 481–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838019860619

Bates

Metcalf

(2007). A psychometric comparison of internet and non-internet sex offenders from a community treatment sample. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 13(1), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600701365654

Beatty

Butler

H. D.

(2024). The realities of stranger danger across violent crimes. Victims & Offenders, 20(3), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2024.2347634

Belliveau

Soucy

K. I.

Yakovenko

(2022). The validity of Qualtrics panel data for research on video gaming and gaming disorder. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 30(4), 424–431. https://doi.org/10.1037/pha0000575

Berzofsky

M. E.

Langton

Krebs

Lindquist

Planty

(2019). Methods for improving representativeness in a web survey on sexual assault among college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(23–24), 4838–4859. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519871526

Boas

Christenson

Glick

(2020). Recruiting large online samples in the United States and India: Facebook, Mechanical Turk, and Qualtrics. Political Science Research and Methods, 8(2), 232–225. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2018.28

10.

Bonnesen

Luo

Rothenbewrg

Smith

Swartout

(2025). Campus climate impacts on sexual violence: A Bayesian comparison of undergraduate and community colleges. Journal of American College Health, 73(3), 1103–1114. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2024.2351412

11.

Brockdorf

A. N.

Holland

K. J.

Kumar

S. A.

Jaffe

A. E.

DiLillo

(2022). Alcohol use before sexual violence and cognitive appraisals: Differential associations with barriers to help-seeking. Violence Against Women, 29(5), 777–799. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012221097144

12.

Brooks-Hay

(2020). Doing the “right thing”? Understanding why rape victim-survivors report to the police. Feminist Criminology, 15(2), 174–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085119859079

13.

Cao

Duan

Wang

Wei

(2024). Global, regional, and national burdens of interpersonal violence in young women aged 10–24 years from 1990 to 2019: A trend analysis based on the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1241862. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1241862

14.

Chadwick-Brown

Endendijk

J. J.

(2024). Associations between sexualized media consumption, sexual double standards, and sexual coercion perpetration and victimization in late adolescent sexually active boys and girls from The Netherlands. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 53(1), 4049–4064. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-024-02988-1

15.

Chrisler

J. C.

Bacher

J. E.

Bangali

A. M.

Campagna

A. J.

McKeigue

A. C.

(2012). A quick and dirty tour of misogynistic bro culture [Review of the media The bro code: How contemporary culture creates sexist men, by T. Keith]. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 66(11–12), 810–811. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0123-9

16.

Cook

N. K.

Messman-Moore

T. L.

(2017). I said no: The impact of voicing non-consent on women’s perceptions of and responses to rape. Violence Against Women, 24(5), 507–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801217708059

17.

Davis

K. C.

Danube

C. L.

Stappenbeck

C. A.

Norris

George

W. H.

(2015). Background predictors and event-specific characteristics of sexual aggression incidents: The roles of alcohol and other factors. Violence Against Women, 21(8), 997–1017. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215589379

18.

Deslauriers-Varin

Beauregard

(2010). Victims’ routine activities and sex offenders’ target selection scripts: A latent class analysis. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 22(3), 135–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063210375975

19.

Hewitt

A. N.

Beauregard

Davies

(2019). An empirical examination of the victim-search methods utilized by serial stranger sexual offenders: A classification approach. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(21-22), 4522–4549. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516675921

20.

Hipp

T. N.

Bellis

A. L.

Goodnight

B. L.

Brennan

C. L.

Swartout

K. M.

Cook

S. L.

(2017). Justifying sexual assault: Anonymous perpetrators speak out online. Psychology of Violence, 7(1), 82–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039998

21.

Hsieh

H. F.

Shannon

S. E.

(2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687

22.

Jamshed

Stewart

A. L.

Overstreet

N. M.

(2022). Social dominance, sexual double standards, and violence against women in tight and loose cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 53(9), 1145–1165. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221104950

23.

Javidi

Maheux

A. J.

Widman

Kamke

Chouska-Bradley

Peterson

A. D.

(2020). Understanding adolescents’ attitudes toward affirmative consent. Journal of Sex Research, 57(9), 1100–1107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1711009

24.

Jeffrey

N. K.

Barata

P. C.

(2018). “She didn’t want to. . . and I’d obviously insist”: Canadian university men’s normalization of their sexual violence against intimate partners. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 28(1), 85–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2018.1500406

25.

Jeffrey

N. K.

Barata

P. C.

(2021). Intimate partner sexual violence among Canadian university students: Incidence, context, and perpetrators’ perceptions. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50(5), 2123–2138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02006-8

26.

Jeffrey

N. K.

Senn

C. Y.

(2025). Gender differences in sexual violence perpetration behaviors and validity of perpetration reports: A mixed-method study. Journal of Sex Research, 62(2), 208–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2024.2322591

27.

Johnson

W. L.

Giordano

P. C.

Manning

W. D.

Longmore

M. A.

(2015). The age–IPV curve: Changes in the perpetration of intimate partner violence during adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(3), 708–726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0158-z

28.

Kaufman

M. R.

Dey

Crainiceanu

Dredze

(2021). #MeToo and Google inquiries into sexual violence: A hashtag campaign can sustain information seeking. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(19–20), 9857–9867. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519868197

29.

Klaassen

M. J. E.

Peter

(2015). Gender (in)equality in internet pornography: A content analysis of popular pornographic internet videos. Journal of Sex Research, 52(7), 721–735. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2014.976781

30.

Koss

M. P.

Gidycz

C. A.

Wisniewski

(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), 162–170. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.55.2.162

31.

Koss

M. P.

Swartout

K. M.

Lopez

E. C.

Lamade

R. V.

Anderson

E. J.

Brennan

C. L.

Prentky

R. A.

(2022). The scope of rape victimization and perpetration among national samples of college students across 30 years. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(1–2), NP25–NP47. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211050103

32.

Langevin

Proulx

Lacourse

(2017). Sexual aggressors against women’s sexual lives: A latest class analysis. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(6), 1430–1451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X17694374

33.

Lensvelt-Mulders

G. J. L. M.

Hox

J. J.

van der Heijden

P. G. M.

Maas

C. J. M.

(2005). Meta-analysis of randomized response research: Thirty-five years of validation. Sociological Methods & Research, 33(3), 319–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124104268664

34.

Lund

E. M.

Ross

S. W.

(2017). Bullying perpetration, victimization, and demographic differences in college students: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 18(3), 348–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015620818

35.

Mahon

Dooley

O’Reilly

Fitzgerald

(2024). Socioecological risk and protective factors for sexual victimization in post-secondary students in Ireland: A brief report. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 39(2), 4356–4386. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605241235626

36.

Marotta

(2022). Assessing the victimization–offending hypothesis of sexual and non-sexual violence in a nationally representative sample of incarcerated men in the United States: Implications for trauma-informed practice in correctional settings. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(21–22), NP20212–NP20235. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211050115

37.

McAnena

Craissati

Southgate

(2016). Exploring the role of locus of control in sex offender treatment. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 22(1), 95–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2015.1023374

38.

Morgan

D. L.

(1993). Qualitative content analysis: A guide to paths not taken. Qualitative Health Research, 3(1), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239300300107

39.

Muehlenhard

C. L.

Peterson

Z. D.

Humphreys

T. P.

Jozkowski

K. N.

(2017). Evaluating the one-in-five statistic: Women’s risk of sexual assault while in college. Journal of Sex Research, 54(4–5), 549–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1295014

40.

O’Sullivan

L. F.

Belu

C. F.

Richard

M. E.

Fuller

R. B.

(2023). Did you help? Intervening on behalf of a target during incidents of sexual assault among college student bystanders. Journal of College Student Development, 64(2), 208–224. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2023.0018

41.

O’Sullivan

L. F.

Ronis

S. T.

Coon

(2026). Out of the woodwork: Undetected sexual aggressors’ views of the scripts and strategies employed to overcome a woman’s resistance to sex. [Manuscript under review].

42.

Pedneault

C. I.

Nunes

K. L.

Hermann

C. A.

White

(2022). Evaluative attitudes may explain the link between injunctive norms and sexual aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(3–4), 1933–1959. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520926306

43.

Peterson

Z. D.

Herbenick

Chen

Harezlak

(2025). The association between sexual victimization history and consensual and nonconsensual rough sex: Findings from a U.S. nationally representative survey. Psychology of Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/viol0000638

44.

Peterson

Z. D.

Janssen

Goodrich

Heiman

J. R.

(2014). Physiological reactivity in a community sample of sexually aggressive young men: A test of competing hypotheses. Aggressive Behavior, 40(2), 152–164. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21512

45.

Raj

Molnar

Surya

DiGirolamo

Christian

C. W.

Lavelle

J. M.

Wood

J. N.

(2022). Characterizing multiple-perpetrator sexual assaults in the adolescent female population. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology 35(6), 659–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpag.2022.06.003.

46.

Rice

Calov

Arias

(2024). Increasing depression and suicidality among American adolescent girls: Current findings, associated factors, and implications. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 88(4), 360–384. https://doi.org/10.1521/bumc.2024.88.4.360

47.

Rotenberg

(2017). Police-reported sexual assaults in Canada, 2009 to 2014: A statistical profile (Juristat, 85-002-X). Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2017001/article/54866-eng.htm

48.

Schacter

D. L.

Greene

C. M.

Murphy

(2024). Bias and constructive processes in a self-memory system. Memory, 32(6), 656–665. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2023.2232568

49.

Smeaton

G. L.

Struckman-Johnson

Fagen

J. L.

Bohn

Anderson

P. B.

(2018). Generation cohort differences in male and female use of tactics to gain sex from an unwilling partner. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 24(2), 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2018.1440088

50.

Soller

Haynie

D. L.

(2016). Variation in sexual double standards across schools. Sociological Perspectives, 60(4), 702–721. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121416668865

51.

Starrett

E. J.

Sperry

Galligher

R. V.

(2023). The art of seduction: Male endorsement of coercive and willful sex tactics. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38(17–18), 9641–9670. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605231168825

52.

Walters

G. D.

(2019). Sex offending and the transition from adolescence to adulthood: A cross-lagged analysis of general offending and sexual assault in college males. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(6), 1311–1328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516651095

53.

Wilson

A. E.

Ross

(2003). The identity function of autobiographical memory: Time is on our side. Memory, 11(2), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/741938210

54.

Ybarra

M. L.

Espelage

D. L.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling

Korchmaros

J. D.

Boyd

(2016). Lifetime prevalence rates and overlap in physical, psychological, and sexual dating abuse perpetration and victimization in a national sample of youth. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(5), 1083–1099. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0748-9

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB