Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 May 1.
Published in final edited form as: Psychol Violence. 2018 Jan 18;8(3):349–357. doi: 10.1037/vio0000172

Predicting Men's Immediate Reactions to a Simulated Date's Sexual Rejection: The Effects of Hostile Masculinity, Impersonal Sex, and Hostile Perceptions of the Woman

Jacqueline Woerner 1, Antonia Abbey 1, Breanne R Helmers 1, Sheri E Pegram 1, Zunaira Jilani 1
PMCID: PMC6007980  NIHMSID: NIHMS926930  PMID: 29938119

Abstract

Objective

Aggression is a common response to many types of social rejection. Men who respond aggressively to a woman's sexual rejection are likely to score high on risk factors associated with sexual aggression and to convince themselves that she is at fault. This study investigated how sexual dominance motivation and casual sex attitudes interact with “in the moment” hostile perceptions of the woman to predict the likelihood of an aggressive response.

Method

Male participants (N = 77) completed an online survey including self-report measures of sexual dominance motivation and casual sex attitudes. In a separate session, participants completed a laboratory study in which they interacted with a female agent in a dating simulation, allowing them to make nonsexual choices, sexual choices that were accepted, and sexual choices that were rejected. Immediate responses to sexual rejection were categorized as aggressive (n = 25) or nonaggressive (n = 52). After the simulation ended, participants answered questions about their perceptions of the situation and the woman. Moderated multiple logistic regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses.

Results

The hypothesized interactions were found such that men with high scores on sexual dominance motivation and positive attitudes about casual sex had a greater probability of responding aggressively when they formed extremely hostile perceptions of the woman who rejected them.

Conclusions

These findings provide insight into the processes by which men respond aggressively to women's refusals, and highlight the need for training that encourages benevolent attributions and nonviolent strategies to deal with sexual rejection.

Keywords: rejection, aggression, sexual aggression, sexual refusals, perpetration

Anecdotal reports of men's aggressive responses to women's sexual rejection are extensive. The Instagram page, “Bye Felipe” is devoted to “calling out dudes who turn hostile when rejected or ignored” (www.bye-felipe.com). The site includes screenshots of extremely hostile and derogatory messages women have received from men whose sexual advances were ignored or unreciprocated. Similarly, the Tumblr blog, “When Women Refuse” compiles news stories of “violence inflicted on women who reject sexual advances” (whenwomenrefuse.tumblr.com). For example, this includes a report of an incident in which a 29-year-old man called a woman “the dumbest bitch [he] had ever met”, and broke a martini glass on her face after she repeatedly refused his advances at a bar. Although some people respond neutrally or apologetically when rejected, anger and aggression are common responses to rejection from a romantic partner, friend, co-worker, acquaintance, or stranger (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Baumeister, Wotman, & Stillwell, 1993; Leary, Twenge, & Quinlivan, 2006; Williams, 2002). The goal of the current study is to predict men's likelihood of responding aggressively when their sexual advances are rejected by a virtual woman in a laboratory dating simulation. In this study, aggression is operationalized as insulting the woman, threatening to end the relationship, and/or persisting with sexual activity despite her refusal. This study extends previous sexual aggression research by delineating how known risk factors for perpetration interact with “in the moment” hostile perceptions of the woman to predict the likelihood of an aggressive response.

Rejection-Aggression Link

Interpersonal rejection has been associated with verbal and physical aggression in numerous correlational and experimental studies (for a review, see Leary, Twenge, & Quinlivan, 2006). For example, Reijntjes et al. (2011) told 10 to 13 year-olds that they were participating in an Internet popularity game and were being judged by same-age peers. However, the negative or neutral feedback they received was delivered by a computer and determined by random assignment. As compared to participants who received neutral feedback, participants who received negative, rejecting feedback were angrier, attributed more hostile intent to the peers, and were more aggressive towards these peers, which was operationalized as awarding them less money and posting more negative comments about them. In other studies, rejected participants were more likely than other participants to deliver noise blasts (Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, & Stucke, 2001), administer hot sauce to people who do not like spicy food (Warburton, Williams, & Cairns, 2003), and select an unpleasant tasting beverage for others to consume (Harmon-Jones & Sigelman, 2001).

There are multiple explanations for the link between rejection and aggression. Rejection may be perceived as a threat to self-esteem, a hindrance to goal attainment, or indicative of relational devaluation; consequently, aggression may be a means to reestablish control or retaliate (Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996; Berkowitz, 1989; Williams et al., 2002). For many aggressive acts, more than one of these explanations is relevant because an aggressive response can simultaneously fulfill multiple motives. Rejection has also been used to explain some acts of partner physical violence (Brown, 2012) and sexual aggression (Bushman, Bonacci, van Dijk, & Baumeister, 2003; Scully & Marolla, 1985). In the context of sexual aggression, a woman's sexual refusal may incite an aggressive reaction from the perpetrator, as the refusal obstructs his goal of obtaining the sexual gratification he anticipated or because it threatens his self-image (Baumeister, Catanese, & Wallace, 2002). Perpetrators often blame women after being rejected, using language which suggests they perceived aggression as an appropriate response (Leary, Twenge, & Quinlivan, 2006).

The Confluence Model of Sexual Aggression

Several factors may lead some men to perceive sexual rejection as particularly frustrating or threatening. Malamuth and colleagues' confluence model (Malamuth, Linz, Heavey, Barnes, & Acker, 1995; Malamuth, Sockloskie, Koss, & Tanaka, 1991) organized many established risk factors for sexual aggression into two parsimonious pathways which are hypothesized to have independent and synergistic effects: hostile masculinity and impersonal sexual orientation. Sexual aggression is defined in past research and in this paper as the use of any tactic to make someone engage in sexual activity when that individual is unwilling or unable to consent (whether the sexual activity is completed or not). Hostile masculinity combines suspicion and distrust of women with traditional and adversarial views about relationships with women that support the use of force (e.g., women say “no” when they mean “yes”). Traditional gender roles give men the power to initiate sexual activities; however, women's gatekeeper role allows them to set sexual limits (Crawford & Popp, 2003). Men with high levels of hostile masculinity feel insecure and defensive about their reliance on women to meet their sexual needs; thus, sexual aggression is a means to reaffirm their sense of masculine superiority through their control of women (Malamuth et al., 1995; Miedzian, 1993). Numerous studies with college and community samples have found that sexual aggression is positively associated with hostile masculinity, which has been operationalized as hostility toward women, sexual dominance motives for having sex, traditional attitudes toward gender roles and sexual relationships, and acceptance of rape myths (Abbey, Jacques-Tiura, & LeBreton, 2011; DeGue & DiLillo, 2004; Koss & Dinero, 1988; Malamuth et al., 1991, 1995; Wheeler, George, & Dahl, 2002).

Sexual dominance motivation (Nelson, 1979) was used in this study to represent the hostile masculinity construct. Men who score high on sexual dominance motivation enjoy sex for the power it gives them over their partner; thus, when rejected, they are likely to force sex to restore their sense of power over the woman (Abbey et al., 2011; Abbey, Parkhill, BeShears, Clinton-Sherrod, Zawacki, 2006; Malamuth et al., 1995; Wheeler et al., 2002; Zawacki, Abbey, Buck, McAuslan, & Clinton-Sherrod, 2003).

The impersonal sexual orientation construct combines a behavioral and attitudinal preference for sex with casual partners, allowing for sexual release without emotional closeness (Malamuth, 2003; Malamuth et al., 1991, 1995). In both college and community samples, sexual assault perpetrators report consensual sex at an earlier age, more one-time only consensual sexual partners, and more positive attitudes about casual sexual relationships “without strings” as compared to nonperpetrators (Abbey et al., 2011; Abbey, McAuslan, & Ross, 1998; DeGue & DiLillo, 2004; Koss & Dinero, 1988; Malamuth et al., 1991, 1995; Senn, Desmarais, Verberg, & Wood, 2000).

Positive attitudes about casual sexual relationships (Hendrick, Hendrick, & Reich, 2006) was used in this study to represent the impersonal sexual motivation construct. Although the items used to assess positive attitudes about casual sex do not have an aggressive tone (e.g., “Life would have fewer problems if people could have sex more freely.”), multiple studies have demonstrated that men who score high on this measure are more likely to engage in sexual aggression (Abbey & Jacques-Tiura, 2011; Abbey et al., 2006; Nguyen & Parkhill, 2014; Zawacki et al., 2003). These men are likely to have strong expectations for sex from women they do not know well, and to feel that they are a good judge of which women are likely to be interested in having sex with them. Thus, they may become frustrated and aggressive when their advances are rejected, given that the rejection is unexpected (Kelly, Dubbs, & Barlow, 2015; Wesselmann, Butler, Williams, & Pickett, 2010).

Overview of Study and Hypotheses

The goal of the current study was to determine if hostile masculinity and impersonal sexual orientation predict men's likelihood of responding aggressively immediately after a woman's sexual refusal. Young, single men participated in a laboratory study which involved going on a series of dates with a female agent in a computerized simulation. Although much has been learned from past laboratory research that asks participants to respond to a sexual assault presented in written, audio, or video format, (see Abbey & Wegner, 2015; Davis et al., 2014 for reviews of this literature), the storyline is predetermined. Thus, participants can only report on how it made them feel and if they would act in the same way if they were in that situation. A strength of this study's paradigm is that participants make their own choices regarding what they want to do on their date; these choices included nonsexual activities (e.g., talk about various topics, watch TV), sexual activities in which the female agent engaged (e.g., kiss, back rub), and sexual activities which she refused (e.g., oral sex, vaginal sex). Even though the female agent was viewed on a computer, people tend to exhibit social responses in virtual environments like they do toward other humans (von der Putten, Kramer, Gratch, & Kang, 2010).

Although the confluence model has been supported by numerous studies, it explains only a moderate amount of variance in the frequency of past perpetration (Abbey et al., 2011; Malamuth et al., 1991, 1995; Wheeler et al., 2002). Men who are high in hostile masculinity and/or impersonal sexual orientation are not aggressive every time they are with a woman who does not comply with their sexual demands. Instead, they are likely to be aggressive only when they are in a situation in which they feel they will not face consequences and in which they feel provoked (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). For many of these men, rejection is likely to trigger hostile attributions about the woman. Once hostile schemas are activated, they influence how stimuli are interpreted; thus, even a polite refusal is more likely to be perceived as unfair and warranting an aggressive response (Abbey, 2011; Abbey, Zawacki, & Buck, 2005). We hypothesized that it is the combination of these hostile “in the moment” attributions with pre-existing high levels of hostile masculinity and impersonal sexual orientation that produce an aggressive response to a sexual refusal. Thus, consistent with past psychological research examining interpersonal rejection and the confluence model, we hypothesized that sexual dominance motivation (Hypothesis 1) and positive attitudes about casual sex (Hypothesis 2) assessed at an earlier session would interact with hostile attributions formed during the simulation to predict men's likelihood of responding aggressively when rejected.

Method

Participants

Men were recruited for an online survey of dating decisions and behavior and a subset subsequently participated in a laboratory dating simulation. This study was limited to the 77 participants (88.5% of the 87 participants from a larger laboratory study that established construct validity of this sexual aggression analogue; Abbey, Pegram, Woerner, & Wegner, 2016) who received at least one refusal during the simulation. These 77 participants ranged from 18 to 29 years old (M = 22.06, SD = 3.13). Self-reported ethnicity was 45.5% Caucasian or White, 16.9% African-American or Black, 13.0% Middle Eastern or Arabic, 11.7% Asian or Pacific Islander, 7.8% Multiracial, 1.3% Hispanic, and 3.9% other. Most participants (84%) were full time students. Approval for both the online and laboratory portions of the study was obtained from the university's Institutional Review Board prior to data collection and all participants provided informed consent.

Procedures

Online survey

Multiple strategies were used to recruit participants including advertisements posted on several local online sites; flyers posted in local stores, restaurants, and campus buildings; emails sent to male students using the university's Registrar's list; and use of the psychology department's research participant pool. All materials stated that a study was being conducted for men between the ages of 18-29 years of age, who had dated a woman in the past two years but were not currently in a committed relationship, and were sexually active. The recruitment materials provided a link to an online survey, which began with an information sheet that included all the elements of informed consent and stated that they might be contacted for an additional laboratory study about dating decisions and behavior if they were eligible. The survey took approximately 30 min to complete and participants were entered into a lottery for which they had a (1 in 30) chance of winning a $100 gift card or received extra credit for an eligible psychology course.

Laboratory session

Individuals who completed the online survey were contacted by email or telephone and asked to participate in a laboratory session in which they would go on virtual dates with a woman. Male experimenters conducted all sessions. After reviewing the consent form, the dating simulation was described in detail. Participants were shown screen shots of several scenes to help them visualize the types of decisions they could make. They were told that they would go on four dates with the same woman. Participants were asked to treat the simulation as a real date and make decisions based on how they would act with an actual woman. To discourage decisions based solely on curiosity, participants were told they could explore the simulation freely when the study ended. Participants were compensated for their time with $15 an hour, one research credit per hour, or a combination of the two; most participants took 2 hr to complete the study and were paid cash.

Simulation

A two-dimensional virtual reality simulation was developed by WorldViz LLC using the Vizard technology and Python programming language. Participants interacted with their date through a large high definition computer monitor and keyboard. The first screen showed four female agents with different ethnicities and hair colors. After participants decided which woman they wanted to date, a few sentences appeared on the computer screen that described how long they had known each other and where they had been that evening. On the first date, participants were told that they had known the woman for a while as a part of a large group of friends; however, tonight was the first time they spent time together alone. They had been at a party most of the evening and had just arrived at her apartment. Then participants were inserted into a scene in the woman's apartment, sitting on her couch. As the dates progressed, they spent more time together as a couple and expressed how much they liked each other. Participants saw what happened through a first-person perspective, thus they only saw some of “their own” legs and arms during the simulation.

Throughout the simulation, participants made choices about what they wanted to do next with the woman. The choices initially were: watch TV, you drink some beer, she drinks some beer, you drink some water, she drinks some water, she talks about a topic (three included on first date; others added on later dates), you say something to her (compliment her, tell her you care about her, apologize, insult her, threaten to end the relationship), get closer to her, or end date. Participants were also encouraged to talk aloud to her throughout the simulation, saying whatever they would say on an actual date. The simulation was programmed to end each date after 10 min if participants had not already chosen to end it.

If participants selected “get closer to her,” then she moved physically closer to them on the couch and a list of sexual activities was added to their options. The woman agreed to some types of sexual activities (e.g., kiss, make out, back rub), but refused others (e.g., oral sex, vaginal sex). She engaged in more types of sexual activities on later dates than on earlier dates (e.g., touching her breasts through her shirt, touching her breasts without her shirt), but she never agreed to penetrative sex. When participants selected a type of sexual activity she was programmed to accept, they saw (for example) her face come close and her eyes close, while kissing sounds were made. The female agent used words and body language to refuse sexual activities that she was programmed to refuse.

Measures

Online survey

Two measures were included from the online survey.

Sexual dominance motivation

Nelson's (1979) 8-item measure was used to assess sexual dominance as a motive for having sex. Sample items include “I have sex because I enjoy the feeling of having someone in my grasp” and “I like the feeling of having another person submit to me.” This measure was first used as an indicator of hostile masculinity in a study conducted by Malamuth, who developed the confluence model and provided conceptual definitions of hostile masculinity and impersonal sex. Malamuth et al. (1995) emphasized that men who are highly hostile toward women obtain gratification from controlling and dominating women. Multiple research teams have found that sexual dominance correlates highly with other indicators of hostile masculinity (e.g., adversarial sexual beliefs, hostility toward women; Abbey, Jacques-Tiura, & LeBreton, 2011; Malamuth et al., 1995; Swartout, 2013), fits well on a hostile masculinity latent construct, is significantly associated with self-reported sexual aggression, and has high internal consistency reliability ranging from .77 to .90 in past research (Abbey et al., 2006, 2011; Malamuth et al., 1995; Wheeler et al., 2002). Responses were made on 4-point scales with response options ranging from 1 (not important at all) to 4 (very important) and Cronbach's alpha in this study was .84.

Positive attitudes about casual sex

An abbreviated 7-item version of The Sexual Permissiveness Scale (Hendrick, Hendrick, & Reich, 2006) was used to assess positive attitudes about casual sex. Sample items are “I do not need to be committed to a woman to have sex with her.” and “One night stands are sometimes very enjoyable.” Hendrick et al. (2006) validated the measure by conducting confirmatory factor analyses, as well as establishing convergent and discriminant validity with other love and relationship measures. Past research has demonstrated that it correlates highly with other indicators of impersonal sexual orientation, fits well on an impersonal sexual orientation latent construct, is positively associated with self-reported sexual aggression, and has high internal consistency reliability ranging from .76 to .93 in past research (Abbey et al., 2006, 2011; Hendrick et al., 2006; Nguyen & Parkhill, 2014). Responses were made on 5-point scales with response options ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and Cronbach's alpha in this study was .88.

Laboratory session

Two measures were included from the laboratory session.

Aggressive responses to the woman's sexual refusal

Participants' immediate behavioral response after a refusal was coded as either aggressive or nonaggressive. Based on the choices available in the simulation, three responses were coded as aggressive: insulting the woman, threatening to end the relationship, or selecting another sexual act that she refused – indicating that they persisted with the same act that she just refused or another comparable sexual act (e.g., selecting vaginal sex after she refused oral sex). All other responses were coded as nonaggressive, including watching TV, apologizing, talking, drinking, or selecting a lower level sexual activity to which she consented (e.g., kissing, back rub). Some participants received multiple refusals. An aggressive response immediately after any refusal placed participants in the aggressive category.

Hostile perceptions of the woman

Immediately after the simulation ended, participants completed a brief survey about their perceptions of the situation and the woman. Items were included from past sexual perception and sexual assault research (Abbey et al., 2005; Abbey, Buck, Zawacki, & Saenz, 2003); however, given that this is a new paradigm, exploratory factor analyses were conducted to determine which items could be combined to assess hostility. A five-item factor was formed to represent hostile perceptions of the woman's actions. Items included, “She was hostile.”; “She acted appropriately.” (reverse scored), “She led me on.”, “I got mad at her.”; and “I had the right to be mad at her.” Responses were made on 7-point scales with response options ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) and Cronbach's alpha was .77.

Results

Descriptive Information

As previously described, all participants in this study received at least one refusal to a sexual activity they initiated. The maximum number of refusals was 15 across all four dates; the average was 4.70 (SD = 3.18). Two-thirds of participants (n = 52; 67.5%) did not respond aggressively in response to any refusals they received. The remaining one-third (n = 25; 32.5%) responded aggressively to at least one sexual refusal, with aggressive reactions ranging from 1 to 7 times across all dates.

As can be seen in Table 1, sexual dominance, positive attitudes about casual sex, and hostile perceptions of the woman were all moderately positively correlated with each other (p < .05). Furthermore, as compared to men who responded nonaggressively, men who responded aggressively after a refusal had higher scores on sexual dominance (p = .051), more positive attitudes about casual sex (p = .032), and more hostile perceptions of the woman in the simulation (p = .001).

Table 1. Descriptive Information and Correlations (N = 77).

Correlations Aggression Groups
1 2 3 Aggressive Reaction Nonaggressive Reaction F p η2
M (SD) M (SD)
1. Sexual Dominance - 2.51 (0.74) 2.19 (0.61) 3.92 .051 .05
2. Casual Sex Attitudes .46** - 3.71 (0.93) 3.26 (0.80) 4.78 .032 .06
3. Hostile Perceptions .35** .25* - 2.95 (1.20) 2.13 (0.87) 11.60 .001 .13
Open in a new tab

Note.

*

p < .05,

**

p < .01

Primary Analyses

The PROCESS macro for SPSS was used to test the proposed conditional effects using moderated multiple logistic regression analyses to predict the dichotomous variable of aggressive responses (Hayes, 2012, 2013; Model 1). Variables were mean centered for interactions. Significance was determined through 95% bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence intervals based on 1,000 bootstrapped samples. Confidence intervals that do not contain zero are statistically significant (at p < .05). Sample size for the original study was determined based on the hypotheses associated with the construct validity assessment of the dating simulation. An a priori power analysis was conducted to test the moderated multiple logistic regression hypotheses in the current study. With power of .80, alpha of .05, and an estimated moderate effect size (odds ratio of 2.5), a sample size of 60 is necessary (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009).

Sexual dominance motivation

The first hypothesized model investigated the conditional effect of hostile perceptions on the relationship between sexual dominance motivation and aggressive responses to sexual refusals (Hypothesis 1). The three-variable model fit was better than the constant only model, χ2(3) = 17.99, p < .001. The average of the Cox and Snell (.21) and the Nagelkerke (.29) values was .25; thus, this model accounts for 25% of the variance in aggressive responses to sexual refusals. As can be seen in Table 2, the interaction between sexual dominance and hostile perceptions was significant (p = .022). Figure 1 provides a graphic representation of the interaction. As hypothesized, the relationship between sexual dominance and the likelihood of responding aggressively to a sexual refusal was contingent on hostile perceptions of the woman. The effect was positive and significant at the p < .05 level only when participants had high levels (+1 SD) of hostile perception of the woman (b = 1.50, SE = 0.77, p = .050, 95% CI [0.00, 3.00]) as compared to low (-1 SD; b = -0.89, SE = .70, p = .205, 95% CI [-2.27, 0.49]) and average (Mean; b = 0.31, SE = 0.52, p = .556, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.32]) levels of hostile perceptions of the woman.

Table 2. Results for Conditional Process Analyses (N = 77).
B (SE) p 95% CI: [LL, UL]
Outcome: Aggressive Response
Model 1: Sexual Dominance
 Intercept -1.02 (0.30) .001* [-1.60, -0.43]
 Hostile Perceptions 0.61 (0.32) .058 [-0.02, 1.25]
 Sexual Dominance 0.31 (0.52) .556 [-0.71, 1.32]
 Hostile Perceptions × Sexual Dominance 1.13 (0.50) .022* [0.16, 2.11]
Model 2: Casual Sex Attitudes
 Intercept -0.92 (0.29) .002* [-1.49, -0.35]
 Hostile Perceptions 0.75 (0.36) .037* [0.04, 1.45]
 Casual Sex Attitudes 1.01 (0.54) .061 [-0.05, 2.06]
 Hostile Perceptions × Casual Sex Attitudes 1.43 (0.61) .019* [0.23, 2.63]
Model 3: Combined
 Intercept -1.02 (0.31) .001* [-1.63, -0.41]
 Hostile Perceptions 0.71 (0.39) .066 [-0.05, 1.46]
 Casual Sex Attitudes 1.07 (0.58) .066 [-0.07, 2.20]
 Sexual Dominance 0.09 (0.56) .878 [-1.01, 1.18]
 Hostile Perceptions × Casual Sex Attitudes 1.27 (0.63) .046* [0.02, 2.51]
 Hostile Perceptions × Sexual Dominance 0.86 (0.59) .146 [-0.30, 2.01]
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Sexual dominance predicting probability of aggressive response at levels of hostile perceptions of the woman (N = 77).

Casual sexual attitudes

The second hypothesized model investigated the conditional effect of hostile perceptions on the relationship between positive attitudes about casual sex and aggressive responses to sexual refusals (Hypothesis 2). Again, the three-variable model fit better than the constant only model, χ2(3) = 22.85, p < .001. The average of the Cox and Snell (.26) and the Nagelkerke (.36) values was .31, indicating that this model accounts for 31% of the variance in aggressive responses to sexual refusals. As shown in Table 2, there was a significant interaction between positive attitudes about casual sex and hostile perceptions (p = .019) on aggressive response. Figure 2 provides a graphic representation of the interaction. As hypothesized, the relationship between casual sex attitudes and aggressive responding was contingent on hostile perceptions of the woman. The effect was positive and significant at the p < .05 level only when participants had high (+1 SD) levels of hostile perceptions of the woman (b = 2.52, SE = 1.09, p = .021, 95% CI [0.38, 4.65]) as compared to low (-1 SD; b = -0.50, SE = 0.47, p = .291, 95% CI [-1.43, 0.43]) and average (Mean; b = 1.01, SE = 0.54, p = .061, 95% CI [-0.05, 2.06]) levels of hostile perceptions of the woman.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Casual sex attitudes predicting probability of aggressive response at levels of hostile perceptions of the woman (N = 77).

Combined model

A logistic regression model was tested including the simultaneous effects of sexual dominance motivation and positive attitudes about casual sex, as well as their respective interactions with hostile perceptions of the woman. The five-variable model fit was better than the constant only model, χ2(3) = 25.15, p < .001. The average of the Cox and Snell (.28) and the Nagelkerke (.39) values was .34; thus, it accounted for 34% of the variance in aggressive response to sexual refusals. Only the interaction between casual sex attitudes and hostile perceptions was significant (p = .046) with patterns comparable to those described above (see Table 2).

Discussion

Almost 90% of the participants in the larger study received at least one sexual refusal in the dating simulation. This rate of rejection is not surprising; it is often difficult to know when a casual or steady partner is interested in engaging in a particular sexual activity (Abbey, 2011; Abbey et al., 1998). The female agent's initial refusals were polite, and she continued to respond positively when engaging in other activities selected by the participant. Nonetheless, approximately one-third of participants who received a refusal responded with aggression, which was defined as insults, threats, or repeated attempts of sexual activity. Cross-sectional and prospective surveys have found that men who are high in hostile masculinity and impersonal sexual orientation are more likely than other men to perpetrate sexual aggression. However, these studies demonstrate global associations; they do not illuminate how these constructs are enacted in actual interactions between men and women that become (or do not become) sexually aggressive. This study takes an initial step in that direction by demonstrating that these constructs are associated with an increased likelihood of an aggressive response to a sexual refusal in a laboratory setting among men who form hostile perceptions of the woman. When the woman was not perceived as being hostile during the simulation, there was no relationship between a man's aggression after a sexual refusal and his pre-existing level of sexual dominance motivation or casual sex attitudes. In contrast, when the woman was perceived as being highly hostile during the simulation, then the man's aggression after a sexual refusal was positively associated with the strength of his pre-existing levels of sexual dominance motivation and positive attitudes about casual sex.

These findings support Kurt Lewin's classic observation that behavior is a function of the person and the environment (Caplan & Harrison, 1993). Responses to a sexual refusal depend on general characteristics of an individual as well as aspects of the situation. Thus, men who are highly sexually dominant may be predisposed to sexual aggression, but situational factors will determine when they act on these urges and when they exert self-control. Because we did not systematically vary aspects of the simulation, this study does not provide information about the types of situational factors that are most likely to trigger hostile schemas. It is possible that for some men, the female agent's responses reminded them of past interactions with a partner whom they did not trust and these memories triggered their hostile perceptions. Some men may feel that if they have spent money on a woman or lost their opportunity to find another sexual partner that night, then they deserve sex in exchange for their money and/or time. Some men may be particularly sensitive to cues they receive from friends regarding how they should respond to a sexual refusal, particularly at bars and parties (Graham, Wells, Bernards, & Dennison, 2010). Alcohol administration research has demonstrated that intoxicated men are more likely to report sexual aggression intentions as compared to sober men when a woman refuses to have sex without a condom, particularly if they have high levels of trait hostility or a history of misperceiving women's sexual interest (Abbey, Parkhill, Jacques-Tiura, & Saenz, 2009). Future research is needed to determine the types of situational factors that heighten or reduce hostile responses to sexual refusals.

Although a positive orientation to casual sex is consistently positively linked to sexual aggression, main effects can seem counterintuitive. Our findings suggest that an aggressive response is likely when men who value casual sex also have high levels of hostility toward the woman with whom they are currently interacting. In some situations, men who strongly value casual sex may be able to accept a woman's lack of sexual interest and simply look for a more willing partner. In other situations, they may feel entitled to sex because they believe the woman has led them on by consenting to some sexual activities (Murnen, Wright, & Kaluzny, 2002). For example, Flack et al. (2016) reported that 78% of the sexual assaults reported by female students at one college occurred during a hookup that began with consensual sexual activities, but became assaultive when the man forced other types of sex that the woman refused. We are not aware of existing studies that systematically examine differences in how people respond to rejection in casual sex situations. Although the results from the current study provide important insight into this process, additional research is needed to determine when a strong desire for casual sex contributes to aggression and when it does not (Kelly, Dubbs, & Barlow, 2015; Wesselmann, Butler, Williams, & Pickett, 2010). Social media outlets such as those described at the beginning of this article may be an excellent source of qualitative information that could guide theory and hypothesis development (cf. Brennan, Swartout, Cook, & Parrott, 2016).

Limitations

This study has several limitations. Although the simulation was extensively pilot tested and preliminary findings established good construct validity (Abbey, Pegram, Woerner, & Wegner, 2016), it is likely that some men might have made other types of aggressive and nonaggressive choices on an actual date. Additionally, men's cognitions and responses to rejection may differ based on what else is occurring during the interaction and prior to receiving a sexual refusal (e.g., consensual kissing and touching vs. watching TV). Experimental proxies of sexual aggression are intended to stimulate the same cognitions, feelings, and actions that would occur in “real life;” however, they remain proxies; sexual aggression cannot be ethically assessed in the laboratory. Thus, these findings should be replicated in studies that ask participants to describe past experiences with sexual rejection and sexual assault, including detailed information about the sequence of events during the interaction. Other limitations include the small sample size and inclusion of only a few individual difference measures. Thus, the findings need to be replicated with a larger number of participants and a wider range of measures, including measures that assess other dimensions of masculinity, gender roles, and sexual attitudes.

Research Implications

A strength of this study was the use of a dating simulation, which allows participants to make a series of realistic choices about how they want to behave during a date. Because all participants responded to the same stimuli, it was possible to systematically compare how men with different levels of sexual dominance motivation and casual sexual attitudes reacted in comparable situations. Future studies can expand upon these findings to examine what types of situational cues are most associated with aggressive responses to sexual refusals. For example, participants could be randomly assigned to different versions of the simulation designed to increase or decrease the perceived threat to their self-esteem or sense of entitlement. Traditional gender roles and rape myths are still commonly endorsed and women who assert themselves sexually are often derogated (Crawford & Popp, 2003; Woerner & Abbey, 2016). Thus, randomly assigning participants to versions of the simulation that prime various rape myths could help determine what types of situations are most likely to produce anger and aggression. For example, telling participants that they had paid for an expensive date or that they had previously had sex with the woman may prime the rape myths that a woman is expected to have sex with a man after he has invested resources in her or if they have a sexual history. Future research is also needed to evaluate how perpetrators' motives and goals are associated with the types of aggressive strategies they use. Perpetrators with the primary goal of restoring their own self-esteem may react differently from perpetrators who primarily want to demonstrate their control over the woman. A more comprehensive understanding of these motivations would allow for the development of evidence-based prevention and treatment programs (Brown, 2012).

Clinical and Policy Implications

Despite decades of research on sexual assault etiology, only a small number of primary prevention programs have been carefully evaluated and only a handful have produced significant reductions in sexual assault perpetration (see DeGue et al., 2014 for a review). The results of this study suggest that hostile perceptions of women are key determinants of men's aggressive reactions to sexual rejection. In line with these findings, cognitive reframing programs that help men recognize hostile attributions and consider more benevolent explanations for women's responses could defuse potentially violent situations.

The interaction between attitudes about casual sex and hostile perceptions of the woman highlight the importance of developing programs that focus on casual sex norms. Many young adults believe that casual sex is more common and more positively perceived by their peers than it actually is (Abbey, 2017; Chia & Gunther, 2006; Crawford & Popp, 2003; Graham et al., 2010. These norms may lead some men to perceive women as more sexually willing than they are, assuming that everyone is having casual sex all the time and that refusals are insincere. Among men at heightened risk due to their hostile perceptions of the woman, this could lead to sexual aggression. Disrupting the cycle requires sexual communication programs that teach adolescents and young adults the elements of active sexual consent, how to communicate clearly with a potential sexual partner and to respect their desires, and healthy and appropriate ways to process social and sexual rejection.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism grant R21 AA020876 awarded to Antonia Abbey. We appreciate Massil Benbouriche's comments on an early draft of this manuscript. Jacqueline Woerner is now at Yale University School of Medicine, 389 Whitney, New Haven, CT 06511.

References

  1. Abbey A. Alcohol's role in sexual violence perpetration: Theoretical explanations, existing evidence, and directions for future research. Drug and Alcohol Review. 2011;30:481–489. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-3362.2011.00296.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Abbey A. Alcohol-related sexual assault on college campuses: A continuing problem. In: Kaukinen C, Miller MH, Powers RA, editors. Addressing violence against women on college campuses. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press; 2017. pp. 78–94. [Google Scholar]
  3. Abbey A, Buck PO, Zawacki T, Saenz C. Alcohol's effects on perceptions of a potential date rape. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2003;64:669–677. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2003.64.669. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Abbey A, Jacques-Tiura AJ. Sexual assault perpetrators' tactics: Associations with their personal characteristics and aspects of the incident. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2011;26:2866–2889. doi: 10.1177/0886260510390955. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Abbey A, Jacques-Tiura AJ, LeBreton JM. Risk factors for sexual aggression in young men: An expansion of the confluence model. Aggressive Behavior. 2011;37(5):450–464. doi: 10.1002/ab.20399. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Abbey A, McAuslan P, Ross LT. Sexual assault perpetration by college men: The role of alcohol, misperception of sexual intent, and sexual beliefs and experiences. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 1998;17(2):167–195. [Google Scholar]
  7. Abbey A, Parkhill MR, BeShears R, Clinton-Sherrod AM, Zawacki T. Cross sectional predictors of sexual assault perpetration in a community sample of single African American and Caucasian men. Aggressive Behavior. 2006;32(1):54–67. doi: 10.1002/ab.20107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Abbey A, Parkhill MR, Jacques-Tiura AJ, Saenz C. Alcohol's role in men's use of coercion to obtain unprotected sex. Substance Use and Misuse. 2009;44:1328–1348. doi: 10.1080/10826080902961419. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Abbey A, Wegner R. Using experimental paradigms to examine alcohol's role in man's sexual aggression: Opportunities and challenges in the selection of proxies. Violence Against Women. 2015;21:975–996. doi: 10.1177/1077801215589378. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Abbey A, Zawacki T, Buck PO. The effects of past sexual assault perpetration and alcohol consumption on men's reactions to women's mixed signals. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 2005;24:129–155. doi: 10.1521/jscp.24.2.129.62273. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Anderson CA, Bushman BJ. Human aggression. Psychology. 2002;53(1):27–51. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135231. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Abbey A, Pegram SE, Woerner J, Wegner R. Men's responses to women's sexual refusals: Development and construct validity of a virtual dating simulation of sexual aggression. Psychology of Violence. 2016 doi: 10.1037/vio0000078. Advance online publication. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Baumeister RF, Catanese KR, Wallace HM. Conquest by force: A narcissistic reactance theory of rape and sexual coercion. Review of General Psychology. 2002;6(1):92–135. [Google Scholar]
  14. Baumeister RF, Leary MR. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin. 1995;117(3):497–529. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Baumeister RF, Smart L, Boden JM. Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: the dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review. 1996;103(1):5–33. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.103.1.5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Baumeister RF, Wotman SR, Stillwell AM. Unrequited love: On heartbreak, anger, guilt, scriptlessness, and humiliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1993;64(3):377. [Google Scholar]
  17. Berkowitz L. Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin. 1989;106(1):59–73. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.106.1.59. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Blascovich J, Loomis J, Beall AC, Swinth KR, Hoyt CL, Bailenson JN. Immersive virtual environment technology as a methodological tool for social psychology. Psychological Inquiry. 2002;13:103–124. [Google Scholar]
  19. Brown J. Male perpetrators, the gender symmetry debate, and the rejection-abuse cycle: Implications for treatment. American Journal of Men's Health. 2012;6:331–343. doi: 10.1177/1557988312439404. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Bushman BJ, Bonacci AM, Van Dijk M, Baumeister RF. Narcissism, sexual refusal, and aggression: Testing a narcissistic reactance model of sexual coercion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2003;84(5):1027–1040. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.1027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Bye Felipe. 2017 Feb 21; Retrieved from www.bye-felipe.com.
  22. Caplan RD, Harrison RV. Person-environment fit theory: Some history, recent developments, and future directions. Journal of Social Issues. 1993;49:253–275. [Google Scholar]
  23. Chia SC, Gunther AC. How media contribute to misperceptions of social norms about sex. Communication & Society. 2006;9:301–320. [Google Scholar]
  24. Crawford M, Popp D. Sexual double standards: A review and methodological critique of two decades of research. Journal of Sex Research. 2003;40(1):13–26. doi: 10.1080/00224490309552163. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Davis KC, Parrott DJ, George WH, Tharp AT, Hall GCN, Stappenbeck C. Studying sexual aggression: A review of the evolution and validity of laboratory paradigms. Psychology of Violence. 2014;4:462–476. doi: 10.1037/a0037662. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. DeGue S, DiLillo D. Understanding perpetrators of nonphysical sexual coercion: Characteristics of those who cross the line. Violence and Victims. 2004;19:673–688. doi: 10.1891/vivi.19.6.673.66345. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. DeGue S, Valle LA, Holt M<, Massetti GM, Matjasko JL, Tharp AT. A systematic review of primary prevention strategies for sexual violence perpetration. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2014;19:346–362. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2014.05.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG. Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods. 2009;41(4):1149–1160. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Flack WF, Hansen BE, Hopper AB, Bryant LA, Lang KW, Massa AA, Whalen JE. Some types of hookups may be riskier than others for campus sexual assault. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. 2016;8:413–420. doi: 10.1037/tra0000090. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Fox J, Arena D, Bailenson JN. Virtual reality: A survival guide for the social scientist. Journal of Media Psychology. 2009;21:95–113. [Google Scholar]
  31. Graham K, Wells S, Bernards S, Dennison “Yes, I do but not with you”: Qualitative analyses of sexual/romantic overture-related aggression in bars and clubs. Contemporary Drug Problems. 2010;37:197–240. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Harmon-Jones E, Sigelman J. State anger and prefrontal brain activity: Evidence that insult-related relative left-prefrontal activation is associated with experienced anger and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2001;80(5):797–803. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Hayes AF. PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling 2012 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hayes AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  35. Hendrick C, Hendrick SS, Reich DA. The brief sexual attitudes scale. The Journal of Sex Research. 2006;43:76–86. doi: 10.1080/00224490609552301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Kelly AJ, Dubbs SL, Barlow FK. Social dominance orientation predicts heterosexual men's adverse reactions to romantic rejection. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2015;44(4):903–919. doi: 10.1007/s10508-014-0348-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Koss MP, Dinero TE. Predictors of sexual aggression among a national sample of male college students. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1988;528(1):133–147. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1988.tb50856.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Leary MR, Twenge JM, Quinlivan E. Interpersonal rejection as a determinant of anger and aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2006;10(2):111–132. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr1002_2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Lonsway KA, Fitzgerald LF. Attitudinal antecedents of rape myth acceptance: A theoretical and empirical reexamination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1995;68(4):704–711. [Google Scholar]
  40. Malamuth NM. Criminal and noncriminal sexual aggressors. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2003;989:33–58. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Malamuth NM, Linz D, Heavey CL, Barnes G, Acker M. Using the confluence model of sexual aggression to predict men's conflict with women: A 10-year follow-up study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1995;69(2):353–369. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.69.2.353. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Malamuth NM, Sockloskie RJ, Koss MP, Tanaka JS. Characteristics of aggressors against women: Testing a model using a national sample of college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1991;59:670–681. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.59.5.670. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Miedzian M. How rape is encouraged in American boys and what we can do to stop it. Transforming a Rape Culture. 1993:153–163. [Google Scholar]
  44. Murnen SK, Wright C, Kaluzny G. 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. 2002;46:359–375. [Google Scholar]
  45. Nelson PA. Personality, sexual function, and sexual behavior: An experiment in methodology. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida. 1979;39:6134. 1979. Dissertation Abstracts International. [Google Scholar]
  46. Nguyen D, Parkhill MR. Integrating attachment and depression in the confluence model of sexual assault perpetration. Violence Against Women. 2014;20:994–1011. doi: 10.1177/1077801214546233. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Reijntjes A, Thomaes S, Kamphuis JH, Bushman BJ, De Castro BO, Telch MJ. Explaining the paradoxical rejection-aggression link: The mediating effects of hostile intent attributions, anger, and decreases in state self-esteem on peer rejection-induced aggression in youth. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2011;37(7):955–963. doi: 10.1177/0146167211410247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Scully D, Marolla J. “Riding the bull at Gilley's”: Convicted rapists describe the rewards of rape. Social Problems. 1985;32(3):251–263. [Google Scholar]
  49. Senn CY, Desmarais S, Verberg N, Wood E. Predicting coercive sexual behavior across the lifespan in a random sample of Canadian men. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2000;17:95–113. [Google Scholar]
  50. Swartout KM. The company they keep: How peer networks influence male sexual aggression. Psychology of Violence. 2013;3(2):157–171. [Google Scholar]
  51. Twenge JM, Baumeister RF, Tice DM, Stucke TS. If you can't join them, beat them: Effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2001;81(6):1058–1069. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.81.6.1058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Warburton W, Williams KD, Cairns D. Effects of ostracism and loss of control on aggression. Paper presented at the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Society of Australasian Social Psychology; Sydney, Australia. 2003. Apr, [Google Scholar]
  53. Wesselmann ED, Butler FA, Williams KD, Pickett CL. Adding injury to insult: Unexpected rejection leads to more aggressive responses. Aggressive Behavior. 2010;36:232–237. doi: 10.1002/ab.20347. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Wheeler JG, George WH, Dahl BJ. Sexually aggressive college males: Empathy as a moderator in the “Confluence Model” of sexual aggression. Personality and Individual Differences. 2002;33:759–775. [Google Scholar]
  55. When Women Refuse. 2017 Mar 6; Retrieved from http://whenwomenrefuse.tumblr.com/
  56. Williams KD. Ostracism: The power of silence. New York: Guilford; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  57. Williams KD, Govan CL, Croker V, Tynan D, Cruickshank M, Lam A. Investigations into differences between social-and cyberostracism. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice. 2002;6(1):65–77. [Google Scholar]
  58. Woerner J, Abbey A. Positive feelings after casual sex: The role of gender and traditional gender role beliefs. Journal of Sex Research. 2016:1–11. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2016.1208801. Advance online publication. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Zawacki T, Abbey A, Buck PO, McAuslan P, Clinton-Sherrod AM. Perpetrators of alcohol-involved sexual assaults: How do they differ from other sexual assault perpetrators and nonperpetrators? Aggressive Behavior. 2003;29(4):366–380. doi: 10.1002/ab.10076. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES