Social Cognitive Processes Underlying Normative Misperception of Sexual Judgments

Acquaintance-initiated sexually aggressive behavior (SAB) is a widespread problem on college campuses, and intervention strategies thus far have not produced sustained reductions in SAB. Peer-related social norms and cognitive processes underlying sexual decision-making have separately been implicated in SAB. The present study integrates this work by examining the effect of perspective (self vs. typical college male referent) on college men's judgments of the justifiability of unwanted sexual advances, determining the cognitive processes underlying men's misperceptions, and evaluating rape-supportive attitudes (RSA) as a correlate of the implicated processes. College men attracted to women (n = 217) completed the Heterosocial Perception Survey-Revised, in which they judged the justifiability of a man's increasingly intimate sexual advances as a woman responds increasingly negatively. Participants completed the Heterosocial Perception Survey-Revised from their own perspective and from the typical college male perspective. Participants also completed questionnaires assessing RSA and demographics. Undergraduate men, and particularly those endorsing more RSA, greatly overestimated how much the typical college male perceives increasingly nonconsensual behavior as justified. Three cognitive processes were strongly implicated in this misperception. When responding from the self-perspective, RSA correlated significantly with all cognitive processes. These findings illustrate the utility of integrating work on social norms and cognitive processing to document the global effect of perspective on average justifiability ratings and the perspective effect on cognitive processes underlying the ratings. Future work should evaluate personalized normative feedback and cognitive-training approaches to target misperceptions of peers' sexual judgments, given the well-established relation between sexual misperception and SAB risk.

Evaluative Attitudes May Explain the Link Between Injunctive Norms and Sexual Aggression

The current study examined the extent to which evaluative attitudes toward sexual aggression (i.e., positive or negative evaluative judgments about sexually aggressive behavior) mediate the association between injunctive norms (i.e., extent to which peers approve or disapprove of sexually aggressive behavior) and self-reported sexual aggression against women. Participants were 200 male undergraduate students. Approximately one in four males reported engaging in at least one sexually aggressive act since the age of 16. Participants with a history of sexual aggression also reported the highest likelihood of engaging in sexually aggressive behavior in the future. We tested two separate mediation models to examine the extent to which evaluative attitudes account for the link between injunctive norms and sexual aggression: one model with self-reported history of sexual aggression as the outcome and the other with likelihood of engaging in sexually aggressive behavior as the outcome. Results showed that more positive evaluative attitudes toward sexual aggression accounted for the association between injunctive norms and self-reported history of sexual aggression. Similarly, evaluative attitudes accounted for the link between injunctive norms and self-reported likelihood of engaging in sexually aggressive behavior in the future. Overall, these findings are consistent with theoretical and empirical explanations of sexual offending and general criminal behavior; however, this is the first study to explore the relationship between injunctive norms and evaluative attitudes in the context of explaining sexually aggressive behavior. If more rigorous research establishes a causal relationship between injunctive norms, evaluative attitudes, and sexually aggressive behavior, this would suggest that targeting these factors in prevention programs may reduce sexual aggression by male undergraduate students.

Reducing Rape-Related Attitudes Utilizing a Cognitive Dissonance Paradigm

This study used a cognitive dissonance mechanism that required college students to write essays dispelling previously endorsed rape myth beliefs. Results indicate that participants in the cognitive dissonance condition reported less rape myth endorsement at a 2-week follow-up than the control group. Effect sizes were large. The cognitive dissonance condition also led to more sustained internal motivation to respond in a nonsexist manner and earlier identification of sexually coercive behavior. Counter-attitudinal advocacy appears to result in sustained decreases in endorsement of rape-supportive attitudes, which could lead to safer communities for women by altering beliefs predictive of sexual assault perpetration.

Sexual Coercion Practices Among Undergraduate Male Recreational Athletes, Intercollegiate Athletes, and Non-Athletes

Prior research shows that male intercollegiate athletes are at risk for perpetrating sexual violence. Whether this risk extends to male recreational athletes has not been explored. This study assessed associations between attitudes toward women, rape myth acceptance, and prevalence of sexual coercion among 379 male, undergraduate recreational and intercollegiate athletes and non-athletes. Our analyses showed significant differences between the responses of athletes and non-athletes for all dependent variables, and intercollegiate and recreational athletes on attitudes toward women and the prevalence of sexual coercion. Controlling for rape myth acceptance and traditional gender role attitudes eliminated differences between athletes and non-athletes in prevalence of sexual coercion.