ABSTRACT
Title of Thesis: WHAT HAPPENS IF I SAY NO: ATTITUDES 
AND PREVALENCE OF EMOTIONAL 
COERCION IN SEXUAL DATING 
RELATIONSHIPS
Amy Lynn Sterner-Djangali, Master of 
Science, 2005
Thesis directed by: Associate Professor Manouchehr Mokhtari
Department of Family Studies
Emotional coercion is a gray area for many dating couples.  This 
study asked approximately 150 young men and women about their 
attitudes and experiences with emotional coercion in dating 
relationships and utilized both a Self-Report Measure and a 
Scenario Measure containing vignettes about coercion.  The 
findings indicated that, overall, participants failed to find the use 
of coercion inappropriate.  Participants found coercion by women 
to be less appropriate than coercion by men.  According to the 
results, most participants could not tell the difference between 
acquiescence and true consent, which may help explain why and 
how coercion occurs.  This study shows that education on this 
topic is needed for all individuals in order to promote healthier 
sexual relationships.
WHAT HAPPENS IF I SAY NO: ATTITUDES AND PREVALENCE OF 
EMOTIONAL COERCION IN SEXUAL DATING RELATIONSHIPS
by
Amy Lynn Sterner-Djangali
Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Maryland, College Park in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
2005
Advising Committee:
Associate Professor Manouchehr Mokhtari, Chair
Assistant Professor Jaslean J. LaTaillade 
Associate Professor Suzanne M. Randolph 
?Copyright by
Amy Lynn Sterner-Djangali
2005
ii
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I wish to acknowledge my ever-patient 
committee members: Dr. Manouchehr ?Mitch? Mokhtari, Dr. 
Suzanne Randolph and Dr. Jaslean LaTaillade of the Department 
of Family Studies. It seems as though I have been working on this 
thesis forever and you all hung in there as I finished and helped 
me along the way.  Thank you so much.
I must give very special thanks to Dr. Roger Rubin, also of the 
Department of Family Studies.  Roger: your constant support and 
infinite patience with my procrastination were amazing.  I 
appreciate you more than you know.  Special thanks are also due 
to Dr. Mokhtari.  Mitch: thank you for pushing me to finish and 
setting hard and fast deadlines for my sections.  I could not have 
finished if it were not for you.  
To my good friends, Dr. Laura Hoard and Dr. Crystal Tyler, I owe 
many thanks.  Both of you were instrumental in my completion of 
this process.  You ladies both inspired me to keep working and 
encouraged me whenever I was feeling lost or discouraged.
Finally, I would be quite remiss if I neglected to thank my parents, 
Gary and Nancy Sterner and my husband, Mirza Djangali.  Mama 
and Daddy: thank you for sending me to college and doing without 
so that I could have a great education and be somebody.  Mirza my 
love, thank you for being a rock of support (in more ways than one) 
and for making me laugh.
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments.................................................................... ii
List of Tables ........................................................................... v
Chapter I: Introduction............................................................ 1
Specific Aims and Hypotheses............................................. 1
Relevant Terms and Definitions........................................... 3
Chapter II: Literature Review ................................................... 4
The Influence of Gender on Perceptions of Coercion ............ 6
Does Race Influence Coercion?............................................ 8
Men as Victims of Coercion ............................................... 10
Why do Men and Women Coerce Their Partners?............... 14
Conceptual Framework ..................................................... 19
Introduction to the Current Study..................................... 23
Chapter III:  Research Design and Methods............................ 24
Sample ............................................................................. 24
Measures.......................................................................... 25
Procedures........................................................................ 29
Chapter IV:  Results .............................................................. 33
Data Scoring..................................................................... 33
Statistical Procedures ....................................................... 35
Demographic Characteristics: Scenario Measure 
Sample ............................................................................. 37
Demographic Characteristics: Self-Report Measure 
Sample ............................................................................. 39
Statistical Analyses by Hypothesis .................................... 40
Correlation Findings for the Scenario Measures ................. 48
Chapter V:  Discussion .......................................................... 49
Theoretical Consideration ................................................. 55
Limitations of the Current Study....................................... 58
Recommendations for Future Research............................. 60
Conclusions...................................................................... 62
Appendices
Appendix 1: Consent Form................................................ 65
Appendix 2: No Coercion Scenario..................................... 67
iv
Appendix 3: Mild Coercion Scenario .................................. 68
Appendix 4: Strong Coercion Scenario............................... 71
Appendix 5: Scenario Measure Questions.......................... 74
Appendix 6: Self-Report Measure ...................................... 76
Appendix 7: Debriefing Form............................................. 78
References............................................................................. 80
v
List of Tables
Table 1: 
Demographic Characteristics of the Scenario Measure Sample
Table 2: 
Demographic Characteristics of the Self-Report Measure Sample
Table 3: 
Scenario Measure Results
Table 4: 
Self-Report Measure Results
1
Chapter I
Introduction
Sexual coercion can exist on many levels from slight verbal 
pressure to threats and physical violence (Eds. Johns Hopkins 
University, 1999).  When the coercion is purely on an emotional 
level (i.e. ?guilt tripping?, threats to leave the uncooperative 
partner) the line between coercion and consent can blur to a 
decided gray.  This study is aimed at measuring the attitudes of 
traditional college age (18-25 years old) students concerning the 
use of emotional coercion or pressure in dating relationships.  In 
addition to their attitudes, this study will also measure reported 
prevalence of emotional coercion.
Specific Aims and Hypotheses
One aim of this study is to examine whether college aged 
students view emotional coercion that leads to a sex act as an 
appropriate way to get what they want in a sexual relationship.  It 
is hypothesized that traditional college aged students in the 
coercion groups will view emotional coercion that leads to a sex act 
as appropriate based on their score on the coercion scale of the 
Scenario Measure.
2
A second aim of this study is to investigate gender 
differences in how participants view emotional coercion.  It is 
hypothesized that participants in the male coercer scenarios will 
score higher on the Scenario Measure than participants in the 
female coercer scenarios based on their scores on the coercion 
scale of the Scenario Measure.
A third aim of the study is to explore the ability of 
participants to tell the difference between true consent and 
acquiescence.  It is hypothesized that participants will not be able 
to distinguish between true consent and acquiescence within the 
Scenario Measures.
This study also poses several research questions.  The first 
research question is ?Do White participants differ significantly from 
Non-White participants on the Scenario and Self-Report measure??
The two other research questions explore prevalence of coercion in 
the Self-Report Measure.  The researcher believes that participants 
will report having coerced their partners at some point during the 
relationship (research question 2), and that participants will report 
having been coerced by their partners (research question 3).
3
Relevant Terms and Definitions
Terms and concepts relevant to this study are defined below:
 Emotional coercion 
 non-violent verbal manipulation 
and/or pressure by a partner in a sexual situation.  
 Consent or ?true consent? 
 explicitly agreeing to a sexual 
interaction with both free will and complete knowledge 
present (Spitzberg, 1998).
 Acquiescence 
 giving in to a partner?s sexual demands 
when some type of coercion is present.
 Token resistance 
 saying ?no? to a sexual interaction when 
the individual?s real answer is yes or maybe. In some 
instances, an individual will say no as a means of game 
playing or because it is what is expected from them in 
traditional gender roles (Spitzberg, 1998).
4
Chapter II
Literature Review
Research supports the assertion that emotional coercion in 
sexual relationships is not an uncommon occurrence with young 
men and women (Larimer, Lydum, Anderson, & Turner, 1999; 
Murray & Henjum, 1993).  The high rate of occurrence is all the 
more troubling because emotional coercion carries with it negative 
repercussions for its victims.  Zweig and Barber (1997) have found 
that men and women who report being emotionally coerced into a 
sex act with their partner have poorer social adjustment skills.  
These researchers defined coercion as pressure to engage in a 
sexual activity.
Zweig and Barber (1997) used data gathered from the 
Michigan Study of Adolescent Life Transitions (MSALT).  The 
MSALT was a 13-year longitudinal study that ran from 1983 to 
1996.  Zweig and Barber used specific data from Wave 7 of the 
MSALT.  Wave 7 included data about romantic relationships and 
dating experiences.  The study?s sample were men (n= 527) and 
women (n= 872) between the ages of 19 years and 22 years old and 
included men and women who were currently attending college 
and those who were not (Zweig & Barber, 1997).
5
The researchers found that persons who were emotionally 
coerced into a sex act showed lower levels of well-being than 
individuals who had been violently coerced or raped.  This may be 
because victims of emotional sexual coercion feel partly 
responsible for the incident.  This can be especially true of 
situations in which the coercion was emotional and not necessarily 
violent (Zweig & Barber, 1997).  Victims of emotional coercion 
ultimately had to consent (or at least acquiesce) to their partner in 
order for the sexual act to take place; thus, they may feel 
responsibility for the act.  This may lead to a longer ?recovery time? 
for a person who was emotionally coerced rather than physically 
forced into a sex act (Zweig & Barber, 1997).  Persons who have 
been emotionally coerced may or may not go on to develop 
?normal? attachments with future partners; much depends on the 
kind of support (positive or negative) they receive following the 
coercive incident (Zweig & Barber, 1997).
In a recent study, researchers surveyed 272 single women 
from the Detroit metropolitan area and examined women?s sexual 
assault experiences based on perpetrator tactics (Abbey, BeShears, 
Clinton-Sherrod and McAuslan, 2004).  The study was conducted 
over the telephone utilizing random-digit dialing procedures.  The 
6
researchers found that verbal coercion victims were more likely to 
hold themselves responsible for the assault than women who were 
physically coerced or intoxicated.  The participants were also less 
likely to hold the perpetrator responsible even though they may 
have labeled the interaction as forced sex or rape; rather, the 
participants blamed a lack of communication between themselves 
and the perpetrator for the experience (Abbey, et. al., 2004).
The Influence of Gender on Perceptions of Coercion
Men and women have been found to have very different 
views about emotional coercion.  Women view coercive tactics used 
by their partners as less acceptable than their male counterparts 
(Haworth-Hoeppner, 1998).  However, women also expect coercive 
behavior across certain situations.  Though they still recognize the 
behavior as coercive, men and women will view coercion as 
justified or tolerable in some situations (Haworth-Hoeppner, 1998).  
For example, in a study by Cook (1995), both men and 
women said that sexually aggressive behavior such as emotional 
coercion should be expected when the woman acts in such a way 
as to be perceived as sexually forward.  This can include the 
woman asking out the man or accompanying him back to his 
7
apartment (Cook, 1995).  Cook?s sample included 235 men and 
311 women.
Men do view coercion as tolerable or justifiable in a wider 
variety of situations than women.  In a study comparing young 
men?s attitudes about sexual coercion in the United States and 
Sweden, Lottes and Weinberg (1997) found that men viewed 
sexually experienced women as "legitimate victims of coercion."  
Men disregard these women's choice in this matter based solely on 
their past sexual experiences.  This can explain why coercion, 
emotional or otherwise, can be so prevalent within a dating 
relationship.  If the couple has engaged in the sexual activity in the 
past, one partner may not see that their uncooperative partner 
may still say "no" this time.
A 2000 study for the National Institute of Justice surveyed 
one thousand undergraduate college women about their personal 
experiences with sexual victimization (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 
2000).  Women were asked a variety of questions regarding sexual 
victimization including incidences of sexual coercion.  The 
researchers defined sexual coercion as ?unwanted 
completed/attempted [sic] penetration/contact [sic] with the threat 
of non-physical punishment, promise of reward or pestering/verbal 
8
pressure,? (page 8).  Eleven percent of the women in this study 
reported being coerced.  
Does Race Influence Coercion?
As evidenced by the aforementioned research, it is clear that 
gender has a great deal to do with the perception of the presence of 
coercion within a situation.  One may wonder if people of different 
racial backgrounds view emotional coercion differently as well.
In an exploratory study by Kalof and Wade (1995), the 
researchers studied the attitudes about and experiences with 
sexual coercion in 383 undergraduate students. The study 
included 197 females and 126 males.  While not specifically spelled 
out, Kalof and Wade?s (1995) definition of sexual coercion seems to 
include both emotional and physical aggression and pressure.  The 
researchers studied not only the differences between genders 
within their sample, but also looked at the differences in responses 
of White (n= 323) and Black (n= 60) subjects (Kalof & Wade, 1995).
Kalof and Wade (1995) found no significant differences 
between White and Black subjects on the prevalence or attitudes 
about emotional coercion.  This lack of significance may be due to 
the small number of Black subjects within the sample (60 Black 
9
subjects as compared to 323 Whites subjects) (Kalof & Wade, 
1995).
In another study, Rouse (1988) examined varying forms of 
abuse in White and non-White dating relationships.  Rouse (1988) 
focused on Black, White and Hispanic college students.  The total 
sample consisted of 130 White students and 98 non-White 
students (64 Black students and 34 Hispanic students).  Rouse 
(1988) focused on six forms of abuse: possessiveness, rejection, 
sexual pressure, moderate physical abuse, consequences, and 
sexual abuse.  For the purposes of this paper, only the findings on 
sexual pressure will be discussed.  The findings on sexual abuse 
will not be discussed as they relate more to physical abuses such 
as rape and sexual assault.
The sexual pressure index included both incidences of a 
subject being pressured for sex and the incidence of their partner 
becoming upset if/when refused (Rouse, 1988).  Rouse varied the 
findings both by race and by gender using a Chi-square test 
statistic.  Rouse found no significant differences on race for these 
three groups.  The mean percentage of incidences of sexual 
pressure among Black, White and Hispanic participants was 50%.  
10
White participants did report being pressured ?somewhat less 
often? (p. 314) but this difference was not significant (Rouse, 1988).
Interestingly, when sexual pressure was examined for 
differences by sex, the percentage of men who reported being 
sexually pressured was higher for Black and White participants 
(41% and 40% respectively).  However the opposite was true for 
Hispanic participants where 53% of Hispanic female participants 
reported experiencing sexual pressure from their partners (Rouse, 
1988). 
While these two studies are neither definitive nor exhaustive 
on the relationship between race and coercion in dating 
relationships, they do suggest that one?s race may have little or no 
bearing on the prevalence of emotional coercion.  And if prevalence 
rates do not vary with race, it may be assumed that the attitudes 
about emotional coercion do not vary (for better or worse) as well. 
Men as Victims of Emotional Coercion
Victims of emotional coercion are not limited to women; men 
are also coerced into sex acts.  It is harder to view women as 
perpetrators but that may be because their means of coercing tend 
to be less threatening such as pleading and attempting to make 
their partner feel guilty (Murray & Henjum, 1993).  
11
In a study of primarily White Canadian university students, 
which compared males? and females? experiences with sexual 
coercion, 18% of men reported experiencing some type of sexual 
coercion (O'Sullivan, Byers, & Finkelman, 1998).  While the 
percentage was much higher for women (42.5%), this does show 
that the problem of emotional coercion is an issue for men as well 
as women.  In this same study, men reported "continued 
arguments and pressure" as the most common ways in which they 
were coerced (O?Sullivan, et al., 1998).
Struckman-Johnson and Struckman-Johnson (1994) 
conducted a study with 204 college men.  They asked the 
participants to report on the incidence of pressured or physically 
forced sex acts since the age of 16 and one third had experienced 
such an event.  Although the sample population was primarily 
heterosexual, the men reported being coerced by both men and 
women.  When coerced by another man, subjects reported the use 
of more emotionally coercive tactics (bribery, verbal pressure, 
manipulation) as well as physical coercion (physical restraint, 
intoxication).  When coerced by a woman, subjects reported verbal 
pressure and manipulation as the most common strategies 
(Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1994).
12
The results showed that when coerced by a woman, most of 
the subjects had low or no negative reactions.  However, one fifth 
did report a strong negative reaction when coerced by a woman 
(Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1994).  The men in 
the study reported a wide variety of feelings associated with the 
experiences (both with male and female perpetrators) including 
confusion, embarrassment, anger, loss of control and pride (in 
cases where the subject resisted the attempt at coercion) 
(Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1994).
In a recent study, Russell and Oswald (2002) administered a 
questionnaire to 173 heterosexual, undergraduate men.  Sixty-
three men in the study (36.4%) reported using sexual coercion to 
get what they want in a sexual relationship.  Of those men, 25.3%
reported saying things they did not mean, 17.1% reported they 
became too sexually aroused to stop, and 8.2% argued with their 
partner until a sex act took place (Russell & Oswald, 2002).
Russell and Oswald (2002) also looked at victims of sexual 
coercion in their study.  Fifty men reported having been coerced 
into a sex act either verbally or physically.  As in the Struckman-
Johnson study (1994), Russell and Oswald (2002) found that 
women most commonly used verbal pressure and manipulation to 
13
coerce their partners.  Of those men, 14.6% reported their partner 
used continual arguments, 14.0% reported their partner said 
things she did not really mean and 15.7% reported that their 
partner used threats (general and specifically to end the 
relationship) (Russell & Oswald, 2002).
In a 1988 study of unwanted sexual activity, Muehlenhard 
and Cook found that men were more likely than women to engage 
in unwanted intercourse (62.7% of men as opposed to 46.3% of 
women.)  The sample consisted of 507 men and 486 women who 
were administered a self-report measure designed to assess 
participants reported frequency of unwanted sexual activity.  The 
researchers theorized that men had experienced unwanted 
intercourse more often than women because of the traditional sex-
role scripts that pit men as experienced sexual aggressors in 
dating relationships (Muehlenhard & Cook, 1988).  
Generally, it is less desirable in our society for men to be 
sexually inexperienced; rather they are to be not only sexually 
experienced but also the aggressor in a dating relationship.  
Therefore, men will acquiesce to sexual pressure from their 
partners as a way to save face or live up to their partner?s and 
society?s expectations (Muehlenhard & Cook, 1988).  The 
14
stereotype about what a ?real? man should or should not be can 
account for unwanted/coerced sexual activity.
Why Do Men and Women Coerce Their Partners?
Men and women may have trouble identifying coercive 
behavior within themselves.  In a recent study, Hogben and 
Waterman (2000) studied 353 university students (176 men, 177 
women) concerning their sexual behaviors, including incidences of 
both physical and emotional coercion.  They found that sexually 
aggressive women in their study did not identify their behavior 
towards their partners as coercive.  Their behavior, as self 
reported, did fall under the study?s definition of sexual coercion of 
persistent verbal attempts to obtain intercourse (Hogben & 
Waterman, 2000).
Another reason why men and women may not realize when 
they are coercing their partners is because they may be unable to 
correctly identify true consent (Spitzberg, 1998).  In fact, men and 
women may see their partners acquiescing to their pressures for 
sex rather then consenting.  Another term for acquiescence may be 
?giving in? (p 184, Spitzberg, 1998).
True consent of a sexual act is contingent upon two things: 
knowledge and free choice (Muehlenhard, 1995; Spitzberg, 1998).  
15
Knowledge simply refers to the fact that a person knows exactly 
what they are consenting to.  For example, if one asks their partner 
to hold hands and then kisses them instead, they would be guilty 
of deceiving their partner; of withholding knowledge which may 
have impacted their partner?s willingness to consent.  In this 
example, the act of kissing would have crossed over to a 
nonconsensual act (Spitzberg, 1998).
The second criterion of true consent is free choice.  Free 
choice means that a person consented without threats, pressures 
or any other coercive act on the part of the initiator (Muehlenhard, 
1995; Spitzberg, 1998).  By this definition of free choice, any act of 
coercion on the part of the initiator negates the possibility of true 
consent.
As previously stated, acquiescence is giving in to a sex act 
rather than consciously choosing (truly consenting) to it (Spitzberg, 
1998).  A person may acquiesce for a number of reasons:
 Obligation 
  ?He bought me an expensive dinner, so he 
expects sex.?
 Fears of emotional harm 
 ?She may leave me if I don?t 
have sex?
16
 Fears of physical harm 
 ?He may hurt me if I don?t have 
sex.?
 Prevention 
 ?If I don?t have sex, we?re going to have 
another fight.?
In a very recent study, 114 women were surveyed concerning 
their experiences with verbal sexual coercion (Livingston, Buddie, 
Testa and VanZile-Tamsen, 2004).  The participants completed a 
questionnaire and a qualitative interview regarding their 
experiences.  According to the findings, when pressured, 54.4% of 
participants gave in to the verbal sexual coercion due to ?extrinsic 
motivation? (defined by the researchers as alleviating pressure or 
avoiding aggression and physical harm).  Other participants 
(23.7%) reported giving in to their partner out of a sense of 
obligation to their partner or to avoid feelings of guilt (what the 
researchers called ?intrinsic motivation?) (Livingston, et. al. 2004).
The list of reasons a person may have for acquiescing are varied 
and nearly limitless (Spitzberg, 1998).  The person who acquiesces 
may essentially be saying, ?I am doing this because I do not feel I 
have any other choice.?
Now that we have defined true consent and acquiescence the 
question remaining is why/how a person can confuse the two and 
17
end up coercing their partner?  A person who is acquiescing may 
not specifically say ?No, I do not want to have sex with you.?  
Instead, they may count on vague statements (?I have a headache?) 
or nonverbal cues and body language to say no for them.  When 
this does not work, and their partner persists, they may simply 
give in to the sexual act.  The partner, not ever hearing a definitive 
?no? either assumes consent has occurred since their partner now 
seems willing, or (more pessimistically) simply does not care as 
long as they are getting what they want out of the situation 
(Spitzberg, 1998).  And again, since the partner does not hear ?no?, 
they may continue to pressure their partner for a sexual 
interaction.
Another reason why men and women coerce and are coerced 
by their partners is because of the concept of token resistance 
which is related to the issue of acquiescence and consent.  Token 
resistance refers to the ?no means yes? phenomenon that takes 
place in dating relationships.  It can be a true token resistance (a 
woman says no but really does mean yes) or it can merely be a 
perceived token resistance (the woman says no and means no but 
her partner assumes she really means yes) on the part of the 
partner (Muehlenhard & Hollabaugh, 1988).  
18
Women may engage in token resistance due to the 
traditional sex-role stereotype which places high priority on women 
being submissive and being ?good girls? who need to be convinced 
by their male counterparts to engage in sexual activity 
(Muehlenhard & Cook, 1988; Muehlenhard & Hollabaugh, 1988).  
Therefore, when a person says ?no? and means it, their partner 
may erroneously take their ?no? as token resistance that merely 
needs to be overcome with more ?convincing?.  The unwilling 
partner acquiesces and unwanted sex is the result (Muehlenhard & 
Cook, 1988; Muehlenhard & Hollabaugh, 1988).
Though token resistance is applied more to the traditional 
?male as coercer, woman as coercee? stereotype, it could be applied 
to coercion victims of both sexes (Muehlenhard & Cook, 1988; 
Muehlenhard & Hollabaugh, 1988).  The phenomenon does 
contribute to coercive activity in both sexes and increases the 
chance for more aggressive and violent forms of sexual activity 
such as sexual abuse and rape (Muehlenhard & Hollabaugh, 
1988).
Ideally, all couples would be in tune to their partner?s 
nonverbal and verbal cues but this does not always occur, and so 
the line between consent and acquiescence blurs and unwanted 
19
sex occurs (Spitzberg, 1998).  Unwanted sex by acquiescence may 
be avoided by simply asking one?s partner if they wish to engage in 
sexual activity and providing them with knowledge and free choice 
through open communication (Lewin, 1995; Spitzberg, 1998).  
Included within this open communication would be accepting a 
negative response without getting upset as this may foster guilt 
which in turn may lead to acquiescence and unwanted sexual 
activity. 
When discussing emotional coercion in dating relationships 
it is important to note that men and women have experiences with 
coercion beginning at young ages.  Murray and Henjum (1993) 
found that the majority of their subjects? experiences with coercion 
occurred during adolescence (specifically secondary school age).  
Jackson, Cram and Seymour (2000) found similar findings in their 
study of 373 New Zealand high school students (173 men, 200 
women).  They also found that emotional coercion led to sex acts 
other than intercourse.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual frameworks utilized within this study are
conflict theory and social exchange theory.  Following is an 
20
overview of each theory and discussion of how each relates to the 
subject of emotional coercion in dating relationships.
Of particular interest is the concept of inequality within the 
framework of conflict theory.  This theory states that subordinates 
will always seek to gain more power, while superordinate people 
will seek to keep the power they do have for themselves (Winton, 
1995).  This can be directly related to relationships in which 
emotional coercion may take place.  The coercer in the relationship 
has a certain amount of power over their partner.  According to 
conflict theory, the superordinate partner would utilize that power 
and continue to use coercive behavior in order to maintain their 
position as superordinate (Winton, 1995).
Just as the superordinate partner would continue to use 
coercion to maintain power in the relationship, the subordinate 
partner may continue to stay within the relationship either in 
hopes of eventually gaining power for themselves through 
submission to their partner or to avoid the natural conflict that 
comes from a break-up.
A break-up can be devastating to any couple.  A 
superordinate partner can use this to his or her advantage within 
a coercive relationship (Winton, 1995).  The conflict that can arise 
21
from a break-up becomes the superordinate partner?s resource and 
their ammunition for coercion: ?If you don?t have sex with me, I?ll 
find someone who will!?  Conflict theory is useful to describe and 
explain the behavior of the coercive partner within a dating 
relationship.  Social exchange theory can be used to describe the 
non-coercive partner.
Social exchange theory was developed based on the 
principles of operant conditioned learning in which people react to 
positive and negative reinforcement (Winton, 1995). Human 
instinct is to maximize pleasure and to minimize pain and people 
learn how to do this socially, through environmental cues from 
peers and elders.  A person?s behavior in a new or recurring 
situation will depend on their positive or negative experience to a 
previous situation (Winton, 1995).  
In applying social exchange theory to dating relationships, 
we can see that when couples come together they do so with the 
expectation that each will be awarded mutual esteem and respect 
by their partner.  This concept is known as the rule of distributive 
justice (Winton, 1995).  If the balance of awards is upset, the 
relationship can become unstable.  This helps to explain why 
relatively healthy relationships can fail, but what about 
22
relationships in which one or both partners engage in coercive 
behavior?
As with conflict theory, the issue of power in relationships is 
important in social exchange theory.  Specifically, one member of 
the couple will have more power than another at any one time.  
However, the issue of power within exchange theory is closely 
related to dependence (Winton, 1995).  In terms of coercion, the 
coercive partner will most likely be less dependent on their partner, 
which allows them greater leeway in the relationship.  The non-
coercive partner may be more dependent on their partner for love, 
status, money, etc, which may lead to greater tolerance of their 
partner?s coercive behavior.  
At the heart of social exchange theory, and many human 
relationships, is the concept of maximizing pleasure and 
minimizing pain.  As a result, couples often perform a kind of 
hedonic calculus in their minds to try and determine what the 
outcome of certain behaviors might be.  For the coercive partner, 
he or she might see the outcome of coercion as obtaining sexual 
satisfaction and even more power in the relationship.  For the non-
coercive partner, he or she may justify acquiescing to their partner 
as a means to hold onto their partner.  This can be especially true 
23
if the coercive partner threatens to leave the non-coercive, 
uncooperative partner.
Introduction to the Current Study
Extant research shows that emotional coercion in sexual 
dating relationships is a problem for many men and women.  The 
proposed study is unique due to the dichotomy of the measures.  
The Scenario Measure asks participants to review a scenario and 
give their opinion as to the behaviors of the individuals within the 
story.  This measure is designed to explore the participants? 
attitudes and ability to detect coercion.  The Self-Report Measure 
asks for participants? own experiences with emotional coercion and 
is designed to simply measure the prevalence of emotional coercion 
among the sample population.  It is the hope that the research 
gathered from this study will lead to a better understanding of 
emotional coercion and peoples? attitudes about it and the 
development of educational programs for students concerning 
emotional coercion and appropriate ways to engage in romantic 
relationships.  
24
Chapter III
Research Design and Methods
Sample
The participants for this study were 180 undergraduate 
college students ages 18 to 25.  The sample was drawn from the 
campus of the University of Maryland, College Park.  Participation 
in this study was strictly voluntary.  Participants were recruited 
from a large undergraduate class open to all students.  The 
majority of the students in the class were graduating seniors.  The 
instructor for the class gave permission for the student investigator 
to conduct this study within the classroom during the designated 
class time. 
By recruiting from a large undergraduate class, the 
researcher was hopeful that the study would contain a mix of 
different racial and ethnic groups.  Participants were not included 
or excluded from the study based upon racial or ethnic 
background or sexual orientation.  The researcher is primarily 
interested in how men and women differ on the measures.  This 
study excluded participants over the age of 25, as the researcher is
interested only in students of traditional college age.  
25
Measures
This study utilizes two different measures that have been 
designed by the researcher.  The first measure is scenarios 
vignettes and questions.  The scenarios vary according to the 
condition (six conditions total) to which participants are randomly 
assigned (no coercion, mild coercion, strong coercion.)  The study 
will utilize a 3 X 2 X 2 experimental design: 3 being equal to the 
levels of coercion (none, strong coercion, mild coercion), 2 being 
equal to the gender of the scenario character (male or female) and 
2 being equal to the gender of the study participant (male or 
female.)  Participants were randomly assigned to one of six 
conditions dealing with coercion.
The scenarios are provided in Appendixes 2-4.  The scenarios 
describe a sexual situation between a couple, Mary and John.  The 
scenarios are not graphic and do not specify what kind of sexual 
activity takes place.  Participants are free to use their imaginations 
to fill in the blanks about what is meant by ?sexual activity? and 
?being intimate.?  
The no coercion condition describes the couple, Mary and 
John, as being in a good relationship in which they seldom fight.  
The story states that they have been sexually active for 5 months 
26
during their 7-month relationship.  After returning from a late 
movie, John and Mary go to Mary?s room to spend the night.  One 
of the couple initiates sexual contact and the other consents.  Both 
members of the couple fall asleep immediately after the interaction.
The mild and strong coercion conditions describe the same 
couple as being in a good relationship even though they sometimes 
argue.  The couple has been sexually active for 5 months of a 7-
month relationship.  On the walk home from a late movie, the 
couple argues about upcoming weekend plans but reach a 
compromise before they reach the dorm.  Depending on the gender 
of the initiator, one member of the couple is still upset and does 
not want to spend the evening with the other.  However, this 
person says nothing in order to avoid another argument.  One 
member of the couple initiates sexual contact with the other (who 
is still upset) and the upset partner turns the initiator down.  
At this point, the initiator complains that the upset partner 
is being petty (in strong coercion condition, the initiator also 
threatens to leave the upset partner) and the partner feels guilty 
and acquiesces.  After the sexual interaction, the initiator 
immediately falls asleep while the partner tosses and turns for 
either 30 minutes (mild coercion condition) or 60 minutes (strong 
27
coercion condition.)  In half the scenarios, the woman initiated the 
sexual contact and in the other half the man initiates the contact.
The questionnaire that follows the scenarios asks questions 
about the story. Refer to Appendix 5.  The questions are the same 
for every condition.  Questions that pertain to the scenario are 
scaled questions on a five-point Likert scale.  The scaled questions 
are used to give participants a range of response in order to 
account for gray areas.  The questions ask the participants to rate 
each member of the couple on desire for the sexual interaction, 
perceived manipulation by each partner, the appropriateness of
each partner?s behavior, and how common the scenario is on a 
college campus.
The second measure for this study is a self-report inventory 
aimed at assessing the attitudes and experiences of the 
participants.  Again the researcher developed this measure.  Refer 
to Appendix 6.  The questions in this inventory ask, for example, if 
study participants ever emotionally ?pressured? a partner, if a 
partner had ever emotionally ?pressured? participants, and if they 
had ever said ?no? to a partner but really meant ?yes? or ?maybe?.  
The word pressured in this measure is used as a substitute for 
coercion so as to decrease social desirability bias.
28
The majority of the questions in the self-report inventory are 
yes/no questions.  The remaining questions offer possible 
responses to the question.  For example, for the question ?Whose 
responsibility is it to decide if a sexual interaction will take place?? 
the response set is ?The Man, The Woman, Both.?
These measures are of the researcher?s own design.  The 
questions in both the Scenario Measure questions and the Self-
Report Measure were developed based on research about emotional 
coercion.  The internal validity and reliability of these measures is 
of concern.  The scenario descriptions did show good face validity 
when shown to traditional college aged students, in so much as the 
volunteer student readers asserted that the scenarios were 
accurate as to language and behavior of the characters and 
occurrence on a ?typical? college campus. 
The current study builds upon of a previous pilot study done 
by the researcher when she was an undergraduate student 
(Sterner, 2001.)  The first study?s sample was small (60 
participants) and yielded no significant results due primarily to the
small sample size. As a result of the pilot test, the questions 
regarding acquiescence were added and the questions regarding 
drug and alcohol use were collapsed during analysis
29
Procedures
Participants were given a consent form at the beginning of 
the study.  The study took place at the beginning of the designated 
class period within the designated classroom.  See Appendix 1 for a 
copy of the consent form.  The consent form explained that the 
study was designed to assess their attitudes about dating 
relationships.  Participants were advised both verbally by the 
student investigator and within the consent form that their 
answers are completely confidential.  It was important to the study 
to assure complete confidentiality of the participants in order to 
foster more honest responses.  The study was not mandatory and 
the students were informed of that by the student investigator and 
also by their instructor.  Participants who wished to participate in 
the study were asked to sign the consent form. Those students 
who chose not to participate were asked to sit quietly in their seats 
until the end of the study (approximately 15 minutes).  
The consent form was collected and kept separately from all 
data collected.  The questionnaires (both the Scenario Measure and 
the Self-Report Measure) did not ask for any identifying 
information such as name or student ID number. The signed 
consent forms were not paired with the corresponding 
30
questionnaires.  After the study had been conducted, the signed 
consent forms were kept in a locked filing cabinet within the office 
of the Family Studies Department.  The questionnaires remained 
with the student investigator for data analysis.
The study questionnaires were then handed out to the 
participants and they were asked to read a scenario, which 
detailed a story about a dating relationship.  The scenarios were 
stapled to the corresponding questionnaires.  This was done so the 
researchers could later identify which scenario the participant had 
read.  The scenario packets (one scenario plus scenario 
questionnaires) were thoroughly shuffled before the study took 
place and then handed out in random order.  This was done to 
ensure random assignment of the participants to one of the six 
conditions.   See Appendices 2-5 for copies of the scenarios and the 
Scenario Measure.
Participants were asked to answer questions on a 5-point 
Likert scale about what they read based on their own opinions.  
Responses sets varied by item, please see Appendix 5.  After the 
Scenario Measure was completed, the participants were given a 
Self-Report Measure designed to assess their personal experiences 
and the attitudes of the participants concerning emotional 
31
coercion.  Please see Appendix 6 for a copy of the Self-report 
Measure.
The Self-Report Measure was completely optional due to the 
sensitive nature of the questions.  Participants were told that 
completing the Self-Report Measure was not mandatory but to do 
so would greatly help the student investigator?s research.  
Participants who chose to fill out the Self-Report Measure were 
allowed to skip any question(s) they deemed too personal.  The 
Self-Report Measure has not been linked to the scenario 
questionnaire.  The researchers felt that to do so would 
compromise the participants? honesty on one or both of the 
measures.  More specifically, the researchers believed that 
although the study was completely confidential, the participants 
might have given socially desirable answers on one or both of the 
measures if the participants thought that their answers on the 
measures would be compared.  Participants were told that the two 
questionnaires would not be paired.
Once participants finished filling out both the measures, 
they were asked to fold them in half and pass them towards the 
center aisle one questionnaire at a time.  The researcher and class 
instructor then collected the questionnaires and placed them in 
32
two separate boxes.  The Scenario Measures were placed into a box 
labeled ?Box A? and the Self-Report Measures were placed into a 
box labeled ?Box B?.  This was done so the participants could see 
that their questionnaires would not be paired together.  
Participants were asked to pass in their questionnaires regardless 
of whether they completed all the measures.  
The student investigator sorted the boxes at a later time and 
separated out the incomplete/ineligible questionnaires (n=11 for 
the Scenario Measure and n= 9 for the Self-Report Measure).  
Participants were provided with a debriefing form at the end of the 
class period which explained the study?s hypotheses.  The 
researcher was also available for any questions at this time as well 
as during the study.  See Appendix 7 for a copy of the written 
explanation.  
33
Chapter IV
Results
Data Scoring
Analyses were performed on the data gathered from the 
study.  Separate analyses were performed for both the Scenario 
and the Self-Report Measures.  Participants were encouraged to 
complete both measures; however, because the measures were not 
linked as a way to foster greater honesty in the responses, there 
will be some differences in the demographic characteristics of the
participants.  
The original six scenario groups of no coercion male, no 
coercion female, strong coercion male, strong coercion female, mild 
coercion male and mild coercion female were collapsed to three 
groups: no coercion, coercion- male initiator and coercion- female 
initiator.  The Scenario Measure contained ten items that created 
the coercion scale.  Though the response sets varied by question, 
all Likert scale questions (Q1, Q2, Q5, and Q6), were structured to 
have two answer options on the high end of the scale (i.e. 1 and 2), 
two answer options on the low end of the scale (i.e. 4 and 5) and 
one neutral answer option (i.e. 3).  These five options were 
collapsed to three and assigned a score of optimal (1), neutral (2), 
34
or non-optimal (3) depending on the assigned scenario of the 
participant.  These categories were further collapsed and recoded 
to correct responses (1) and incorrect responses (0).  Neutral 
responses were recoded as incorrect responses (0). Questions 3 
and 4 were combined for purposes of analysis.  As with the Likert 
Scale questions the response sets for questions 3, 4 and 7 were 
recoded to correct (1) and incorrect (0) responses based upon the 
assigned scenario of the participant.  Participants received 1 point 
for each correct response.  The number of correct responses was
summed to form the participant?s total score on the coercion scale.  
The scoring range was zero to ten with a higher score indicating 
more correct responses.  Question 7 concerning consent and 
acquiescence was also examined separately in relation to 
Hypothesis 3.
For the Self-Report Measure, all items were examined item 
by item.  For both the Scenario Measure and Self-Report Measure, 
gender differences and race differences were examined.  Five 
participants declined to report their gender (two on the Scenario 
Measure and three on the Self-Report Measure).  These 
participants were left out of the analysis of gender differences.  
Similarly, 20 participants did not report their race (10 on each of 
35
the measures).  These participants were not included on the 
analysis of race differences.
Statistical Procedures
Descriptive statistics, frequencies, means and standard 
deviations were used to summarize the demographic information 
on the participants, using the SPSS statistical package.  Nominal 
variables (all Self-Report Measure questions and the acquiescence 
question on the Scenario Measure) were examined using 
descriptive statistics, means, frequencies, and Chi-square tests.  
Scale variables were examined using independent t-tests.  
Pearson?s correlations were run on paired items in the Scenario 
Measure.
The first hypothesis, that participants will view emotional 
coercion as appropriate based on their score on the coercion scale 
of the Scenario Measure, was tested by using a t-test to examine 
differences between coercion and non-coercion groups on the 
coercion scale.  A t-test was also used to identify the differences 
among the groups? score on the measure.  
The second hypothesis, which states that participants in the 
male coercer groups will score higher on the Scenario measure 
than participants in on the female coercer groups, was examined 
36
on the coercion scale of the Scenario Measure.  This hypothesis 
was examined using a t-test to look for differences in the coercion 
scale scores between groups.
The third hypothesis that participants will not be able to tell 
the difference between acquiescence and true consent in the 
Scenario Measure, was examined using Chi-square tests to test for 
differences between groups.  This hypothesis was further explored 
in the Self-Report Measure by examining descriptive statistics, 
means and Chi-square tests on relevant variables.  
For the first research question regarding race differences, the 
race categories were collapsed to White and Non-White due to the 
small numbers of participants in the non-White race categories.  
However, there were not enough Non-White participants to run any 
statistical analysis.  The second research question, that the Self-
Report Measure will show that participants engage in emotional 
coercion with their partners, and the third research question, that 
the Self-Report Measure will show that participants have been 
emotionally coerced by their partners, were both examined using 
Chi-Square tests.  
37
Demographic Characteristics: Scenario Measure Sample
The demographic characteristics of participants who 
completed the Scenario Measure are presented by gender in Table 
1.  The sample consisted of a total of 153 participants, 51 were 
men and 100 were women; two participants declined to report their 
gender.  The age of the participants ranged from 19 to 25 with the 
average age being 21.53.  Though the sample consisted of a mixed 
undergraduate class, 86.9% of the participants were seniors 
(n=131).  The other 20 participants were sophomores (n=4, 2.6%) 
and juniors (n=16, 10.5%).  There were no freshmen participants.  
Of the participants, 107 were White (69.9%), ten were Black or 
African American (6.5%), 19 were Asian or of Asian descent 
(12.4%), four were Hispanic or Latino (2.6%), one was Pacific 
Islander (0.7%) and two others identified as other (1.3%). The 
average age of the participants who did not report their gender was 
22 with no deviation.  Both participants were seniors and one 
participant reported being White and the other Asian.
The participants were randomly assigned to a scenario 
group.  The no coercion group contained 15 men and 34 women 
and one participant who did not give their gender; the coercion-
male group contained 19 men and 35 women; and the coercion-
38
female group contained 17 men and 31 women and one participant
who did not give their gender.
Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of the Scenario Measure Sample
Males 
(n=51)
Females 
(n=100)
Characteristic M S.D. M S.D.
   Age 21.53 0.76 21.37 0.94
Nominal Data n % n %
Scenario
No Coercion 15 29.4 34 34.0
Coercion- Male 19 37.3 35 35.0
Coercion- Female 17 33.3 31 31.0
Class
Freshman 0 0.0 0 0.0
Sophomore 0 0.0 4 4.0
Junior 2 3.9 14 14.0
Senior 49 96.1 82 82.0
Race*
White 39 79.6 67 72.8
Black/AA 0 0.0 10 10.9
Asian 8 16.3 10 10.9
Hispanic/Latino 2 4.1 2 2.2
Native American 0 0.0 0 0.0
Pacific Islander 0 0.0 1 1.1
Other 0 0.0 2 2.2
* 10 participants did not report their race.
39
Demographic Characteristics: Self-Report Measure Sample
The demographic characteristics of participants who 
completed the Self-Report Measure are presented by gender in 
Table 2.  The sample consisted of a total of 155 participants, 51 
were men and 101 were women; three participants declined to 
report their gender.  The age of the participants ranged from 19 to 
25 with the average age being 21.47.  Though the sample consisted 
of a mixed undergraduate class, 82.7% of the participants were 
seniors (n=130).  The other 20 participants were sophomores (n=4, 
4.1%) and juniors (n=14, 13.3%).  There were no freshmen 
participants.  Of the participants, 107 were White (69.9%), ten 
were Black or African American (6.5%), 19 were Asian or of Asian 
descent (12.4%), four were Hispanic or Latino (2.6%), one was 
Pacific Islander (0.7%) and two others identified as other (1.3%). 
The average age of the participants who did report their gender was 
21.33 (SD = 0.58).  One participant was a senior and two were 
juniors.  All three participants reported being White.
40
Table 2
Demographic Characteristics of Self-Report Measure Sample
Males 
(n=51)
Females 
(n=101)
Characteristic M S.D. M S.D.
   Age 21.60 .78 21.42 .96
Nominal Data n % n %
   Class
Freshman 0 0.0 0 0.0
Sophomore 0 0.0 4 4.1
Junior 1 2.0 13 13.3
Senior 49 98.0 81 82.7
   Race*
White 41 82.0 66 67.3
Black/AA 0 0.0 7 7.1
Asian 6 4.1 11 11.2
Hispanic/Latino 2 1.4 2 2.0
Native 
American
0 0.0 0 0.0
Pacific Islander 0 0.0 1 1.0
Other 0 0.0 2 2.0
* 10 participants did not report their race.
Statistical Analyses by Hypothesis 
Hypothesis 1.
This hypothesis predicted that participants in the coercion 
groups would score lower on the coercion scale of the Scenario 
Measure than participants in the no coercion group.  Participants 
in the coercion groups (M = 5.14, SD = 1.59) had statistically 
41
significantly lower scores than participants in the no coercion 
groups (M = 7.80, SD = 2.06), t(153) = 8.797, p< .001 (see Table 3).  
Thus, Hypothesis 1 is supported.  There were no gender differences 
between groups for this hypothesis.
Hypothesis 2.
This hypothesis predicted that participants in the coercion-
male group would score higher (answer more questions correctly)
on the Scenario measure than participants in the coercion-female 
group based upon their score on the coercion scale of the Scenario 
Measure.  A higher score on the coercion scale indicates that the 
participant recognized that the character?s behavior in the vignette 
was not appropriate.  Participants in the coercion-male group (M = 
4.65, SD = 1.39) scored statistically significantly lower on the 
Scenario Measure than participants in the coercion-female group 
(M = 5.67, SD = 1.64), t(103) = 3.436, p< .001 (see Table 3). These 
findings indicate that the participants in the coercion-female group 
answered more questions correctly on the coercion scale of the 
Scenario Measure.  Therefore, although these findings are 
statistically significant, Hypothesis 2 is not supported. There were 
no gender differences between groups for this hypothesis.
42
Hypothesis 3.
This hypothesis predicted that fewer participants in the 
coercion groups would answer the acquiescence question correctly 
when compared with the no coercion group.  Participants in the 
coercion groups answered the acquiescence question incorrectly 
statistically significantly more often than participants in the no 
coercion group, 

2 
(1, N = 153) = 92.324, p< .001 (see Table 3).
Hence, statistical results support Hypothesis 3.  A Chi-square test 
was conducted to examine differences between the coercion 
groups.  There was no statistically significant difference between 
these groups.
The Self-Report Measure contained two questions to examine 
reports of acquiescence in participants.  A majority of the 
participants (73.3%) reported acquiescing to their partners? sexual 
requests even though they did not feel like being intimate.  There 
were no gender differences between participants on this item. 
Participants also reported saying no to a sexual interaction when 
they actually meant yes (n = 51).  Though there is no statistical 
difference between gender groups, it may be said that a trend 
43
exists showing that more women than men report saying no when 
they mean yes to a sexual interaction.  
44
Table 3 Scenario Measure Results
No Coercion Coercion Male Coercion Female
t-test for 
differences 
between groups
t-test for 
gender 
differences 
between 
groups
Coercion Scale M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
   H1 7.8 (2.06) 4.65 (1.39) 5.67 (1.64)
t(153) = 8.797, 
p< .001 
n.s
   H2 7.8 (2.06) 4.65 (1.39) 5.67 (1.64)
t(103) = 3.436, 
p< .001
n.s.
n (%correct) n (%correct) n (%correct)
Chi-square test 
for coercion 
and no coercion 
groups
Chi-square 
test of gender 
differences 
between 
groups
Acquiescence 
(Q7)
   H3 46 (92.00%) 5 (4.90%) 7 (6.80%)


2
 (1, N = 153) = 
92.324, p< .001
n.s.
* no significance
45
Research Question 1.
This research question asked whether there are statistically 
significant differences between the responses for White and Non-
White participants.  As discussed above, there were not enough 
participants in the Non-White category to run any statistical 
analyses.
Research Question 2.
This research question predicted that participants will report 
having coerced their partners on the Self-Report Measure.  The 
Self-Report Measure shows that 33.3% of participants (n = 49) 
reported coercing their partner (Table 4).  While both men (n = 27) 
and women (n = 22) reported emotionally coercing their partners, 
men were statistically significantly more likely to coerce their 
partners than women, 

2
(1, N = 147) = 14.564, p< .001.  Of those 
participants who reported emotionally coercing their partners (n = 
49), 92.6% of men (n = 25) and 77.3% of women (n= 17) reported 
that the sexual interaction took place.  There were no statistically 
significant gender differences for participants reporting that the 
sexual interaction took place.
46
Research Question 3.
This research question predicted that participants would 
report having been coerced by their partners on the Self-Report 
Measure.  The Self-Report Measure shows that 53.1% of 
participants (n = 78) reported being emotionally coerced. Both men 
(n = 24) and women (n = 54) reported being emotionally coerced, 
however there are no gender differences between those who 
reported being coerced, p> .05.  Of those participants who reported 
being emotionally coerced (n = 78), 100% of men (n = 24) and 
77.8% of women (n= 42) reported that the sexual interaction took 
place.  Women were statistically significantly more likely to report 
that the coercion resulted in the sexual interaction, 

2
(1, N = 78) = 
6.303, p< .01.   For participants who reported a sexual interaction 
taking place as a result of coercing their partner or being coerced, 
44.4% (n = 32), reported that the interaction took place while 
either the participant and/or their partner were under the 
influence of drugs or alcohol.  There were no statistically 
significant differences due to gender of the participant. See Table 
4.
47
Table 4      Self-Report Measure Results
Males Females
n (%total) (%yes) n (%total) (%yes)
Chi-square test
Q1 Coercer 27 (18.4%) (55.1%) 22 (15.0%) (44.9%)


2
(1, N = 147) = 14.564, 
p< .001
Q2 Sexual Interaction 25 (51.1%) (59.5%) 17 (34.7%) (40.5%) *n.s
Q3 Coerced 24 (16.3%) (30.8%) 54 (36.7%) (69.2%) n.s.
Q4 Sexual Interaction 24 (30.8%) (100.0%) 42 (53.8%) (63.6%)


2
(1, N = 78) = 6.303,     
p< .01
Q5 Under the Influence 11 (15.3%) (34.4%) 21 (29.2%) (65.6%) n.s.
Q6 Said No, Meant Yes 13 (9.0%) (25.5%) 38 (26.2%) (74.5%) n.s.
Q7 Acquiescence 34 (23.3%) (31.8%) 73 (50.0%) (68.2%) n.s.
*no significance
48
Correlation findings for the Scenario Measures
It was expected that the paired questions in the Scenario 
Measure (questions 1, 2, 5 and 6) would correlate positively for the 
no coercion group, and negatively for both of the coercion groups.
Pearson?s correlation tests were run on each group to test for 
measure validity.  The results are as follows.  For the no coercion 
groups, all four question pairs are correlated positively as expected 
with three of the four pairs reaching significance (p> .01).  For the 
female coercer group, two of the four question pairs were negatively 
correlated (question 1 and 5); the others were positively correlated 
(questions 2 and 6).  Finally, for the male coercer group, only one 
of the four question pairs were negatively correlated (question 6). 
Due to the lack of expected negative correlation for the coercion 
groups, the data results need to be treated cautiously.
49
Chapter V
Discussion
The analysis for this study revealed the following findings.  
Hypothesis One, that participants will view emotional coercion as 
appropriate based on their score on the coercion scale of the 
Scenario Measure was supported.  Hypothesis Three, that 
participants will not be able to tell the difference between 
acquiescence and true consent in the Scenario Measure was also 
supported. Hypothesis Two, which states that participants in the 
male coercer groups will score higher on the Scenario measure 
than participants in the female coercer groups was not supported.  
The findings for all three hypotheses were statistically significant.
The first hypothesis stating that participants will view 
emotional coercion as appropriate as evidenced by their score on 
the coercion scale of the Scenario Measures was supported.  
Participants in the coercion groups, regardless of gender, did 
poorly on the coercion scale.  Less than half the participants in the 
coercion groups got more than five answers correct.  The fact that 
participants in the coercion groups did so poorly on the coercion 
scale of the Scenario Measures indicates that they found the use of 
coercion an appropriate means to a sexual end.  However, does the 
50
finding imply that participants found the behavior appropriate and 
condoned it?  It is doubtful that if asked whether coercing their 
partners was acceptable, many of these same participants would 
say yes.  
Rather, participants may have simply failed to see the 
behavior as inappropriate.  Failure to see the behavior as 
inappropriate speaks more to an ignorance of what coercion is or 
the participants? inexperience with sexual dating relationships.   
While not present in the Scenario Measure vignettes, the use of 
drugs and alcohol can further decrease a person?s ability to see 
coercive behavior as inappropriate.  A majority of participants who 
reported on the Self-Report as having coerced or having been 
coerced also reported that the sexual interaction took place.  Of 
these participants, nearly 45% (n = 32) reported that they or their 
partners were under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time.  
The implications of this hypothesis?s finding, and specifically 
the idea that participants do not see the coercive behavior as 
inappropriate, can be linked to the findings of the third hypothesis.  
The third hypothesis states that participants will not be able to tell 
the difference between acquiescence and true consent on the 
Scenario Measures.  Spitzberg (1998) wrote that true consent can 
51
only exist when both knowledge and free choice are present.  The 
majority of the participants in the coercion groups could not tell 
the difference between acquiescence and true consent.  This 
finding is further supported by the analysis of the Self-Report 
Measure, which found 73.3% (n = 107) of participants reported 
acquiescing to their partner?s sexual requests.  Furthermore, more 
than one-third of participants (n = 51) also reported giving token 
resistance (saying no, when they meant yes or maybe).  This could 
contribute to some of the confusion surrounding the issue of 
consent.  In short, no does not always mean no, at least in the 
minds of these participants.
While we cannot discount the fact that some people readily 
and knowledgably utilize coercion in sexual situations (Russell & 
Oswald, 2002) ignorance may be at the center of coercion for most 
individuals (Hogben & Watermen, 2000; Spitzberg, 1998).  One-
third (n = 49) of participants reported coercing their partners on 
the Self-Report Measure.  However, over one-half (n = 78) reported 
being coerced.  It could be that this sample included a large 
number of people who have never coerced their partners; however 
a more likely scenario is that only one-third of participants realized
they coerced their partners.  This is supported by research by 
52
Hogben and Waterman (2000) which found that participants may 
not identify their behavior as coercive.  Therefore, the real number 
of participants in this study who have coerced their partners may 
be much higher.  
Relating back to the Scenario Measure vignettes, the story 
states that the coerced partner did not want to be sexually intimate 
with their partner but did so anyway.  Participants may have seen 
this exchange as token resistance (saying no but meaning yes or 
maybe).  Compounding the issue is the fact that the story indicated 
that the coerced partner never verbally said no to the second 
overture by their partner.  This lack of a definitive verbal statement 
may have led participants to view the coerced partner as 
consenting when, in fact, consent was not possible due to the 
presence of coercion (Spitzberg, 1998).
Again there appears to be a lack of understanding 
surrounding the issues of coercion, acquiescence and consent.  It 
is important that education be given regarding these issues.  Most 
people are aware of the blatant issues surrounding sexual 
relationships (consensual sex vs. forced sex or rape), but few 
people have a clear understanding of the gray areas where 
situations like coercion exist.  Many may believe that coercion is a
53
normal part of the dating scene.  They may not recognize coercion
as inappropriate when it occurs or when it is presented in a story.
Finally, the second hypothesis actually turned out the 
complete opposite from what was expected.  Hypothesis Two stated 
that the participants in the male coercer groups would score 
higher on the Scenario Measure than participants in the female 
coercer groups based on their scores on the coercion scale of the 
Scenario Measures.  The original hypothesis was predicated on 
traditional American gender roles picturing men as the sexual 
aggressor.  In this way, it was thought that the participants would 
view men more negatively simply because they are men.  What was 
not expected was the overall acceptance of a male aggressor?s 
behavior being seen as so ordinary as to not draw much notice, let 
alone outrage on the part of the participants.  In other words, the 
old adage of ?boys will be boys? seems to be relevant today.
The behavior of the female coercer stood out to the 
participants because it challenged the traditional gender role 
portraying a woman as conquest, as prey, as victim.  Therefore, 
although both vignettes were identical in content, when a female is 
the coercer, the inappropriateness of the coercive behavior 
becomes more apparent and recognizable.  Conversely, for the 
54
male coercer, the behavior is seen as ?normal? or what is expected 
from a man in a dating relationship.  The fact that there were no 
genders differences for this finding shows that participants of both 
sexes found the female coercer vignette to be more abnormal when 
compared to the male coercer vignette.  
It is possible that participants saw the male coercer as more 
appropriate or at least justifiable because the female character 
invited the male character up to her room.  According to Cook 
(1995), displaying such sexually forward behavior creates a 
situation where coercion is appropriate or even expected in the 
eyes of the participant.  Furthermore, the fact that the story 
characters are described as being sexually intimate for the five 
months prior, could influence whether participants saw the act as 
coercion at all.  Rather, they may have seen the behavior as 
completely acceptable for a couple that has been sexually intimate 
in the past (Livingston, et. al., 2004; Lottes & Weinberg, 1997).
The implication of this finding points to the need for 
education not only concerning coercion but also education that 
challenges some of these traditional gender roles in dating 
relationships.  If both men and women are seeing coercive behavior 
on the part of men as appropriate or normal, then the likelihood is 
55
that each would grow up with distorted views on what constitutes 
a loving, healthy relationship.  Though research shows that people 
tend to outgrow coercive behavior, this may not be before more 
permanent damage is done.  Research also shows that coercion 
victims experience negative consequences as a result of their 
coercive experience (Abbey, et. al., 2004; Zwieg & Barber, 1997).  
A person who has been coerced carries that emotionally 
scarring experience into their future relationships.  For some 
individuals coercion is rarely a one time occurrence, so chances 
are they will experience several instances of coercion in one or 
more relationships (Fisher, Cullen & Turner, 2002).  This could 
continue unabated throughout a person?s entire dating experience.  
Individuals could then take these unhealthy, damaging 
experiences and habits into their marriages.  
Theoretical Considerations
The theoretical implications of the findings are more 
relatable to the Self-Report Measure due to the fact that the 
participants are reporting on their own behaviors.  Within the 
sample population, there are participants who report being 
coercers and coercees (sometimes both).  Of the one-third who 
reported coercing their partners, nearly all of the male participants 
56
(n = 25) and three-quarters of the female participants (n = 17) 
reported that the sexual interaction took place.  By simply 
admitting their culpability in the coercion, conflict theory may be 
utilized by the assertion that the participants position as 
superordinate provided what they wanted/needed sexually from 
the relationship.  Furthermore, in looking at the finding regarding 
the female coercer being more easily recognized than their male 
counterpart, it appears as though the participants are more 
forgiving of a male superordinate than a female one when coercion 
is present.  
In terms of social exchange theory, which assists in
explaining the behaviors of the coercee?s position, participants 
seemed to be in a dependent position with their partners.  Of those 
who reported being coerced, all of the male participants (n = 24) 
and over 60% of the female participants (n = 42) reported that the 
sexual interaction took place.  This finding is consistent with 
research by Muehlenhard and Cook (1988) which found that men 
were more likely to engage in unwanted sex.  Though the question 
as to why the participant submitted to their partner?s pressure is 
not asked, it can be assumed that the coerced partner felt that the 
detriment of being coerced was outweighed by some greater 
57
benefit.  If the coerced participant did not feel this was so, it is 
reasonable to assume that the sexual interaction would not have 
taken place.  For those participants that reported drugs and 
alcohol were involved, it can be assumed that, for some coercees, 
this is the reason the participant submitted.
For men, who reported higher rates of submission to the 
pressure from a partner, the submission could have occurred to 
help preserve their image as a ?man?s man? not only to their 
partner but to their peers as well.  Men are more greatly influenced 
by the pressure to maintain society?s standard of what a ?real? man 
is (Muehlenhard & Cook, 1988).  When coupled with the reality 
that women are more likely to coerce their partners by using 
manipulations, threats and name calling (Russell & Oswald, 2002; 
Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1994), you have a 
recipe for humiliation that could easily be avoided by the man 
simply giving into the pressure rather than being branded as 
impotent, or worse, gay (Muehlenhard & Cook, 1995).  
From the findings in the Self-Report Measure and, to a lesser 
extent, the Scenario Measure the participants in this study seem to 
fit into the presented conflict theory (coercer) and social exchange 
theory (coercee).
58
Limitations of the Current Study
Although this research found few gender differences on the 
measures, this is not definitive.  While it may be possible that 
many of the gender differences which used to exist, have simply 
faded away, one cannot say this with certainty. Further research 
should have a more equal distribution of participants by gender 
than the current project.  Additionally, no statistics could be run 
on race due to the small numbers of non-White participants.  
Based on the research available, there does not seem to be a racial
difference concerning coercion, however those studies are hardly 
expansive.  Both the gender and race limitations could be 
addressed by purposely recruiting or setting up quotas for 
participants.  
Aside from the sample concerns regarding the gender and 
racial make-up of the participants, the way in which the sample 
was obtained is also a limitation.  The sample for this study was a 
convenience sample of university students that would most likely 
not generalize to the greater population or even, perhaps, to other 
university students.  In order to find a truly representative sample, 
a general population study of randomly selected participants would 
be necessary.
59
The question concerning drug and alcohol use was not 
broken out enough and requires that the participant self-reports 
about their own behavior and their partner?s behavior as well.  This 
makes it impossible to determine how many participants were 
under the influence when the coercive act (either to them or by 
them) occurred and how many simply had partners who were 
under the influence.  Research shows that drugs and alcohol is a 
factor in many coercive situations, so it may be assumed that at 
least some of the participants were self-reporting that they, and 
not their partners, were under the influence of drugs and/or 
alcohol.
The decision to not link the responses of the Self-Report 
Measure to the responses on the Scenario Measure did limit what 
could be gleaned from the data.  To directly link these measures 
would have had a detrimental effect on the honesty of the 
participants and would have greatly increased the incidence of 
social desirability bias.  However, in reviewing the limitations of not 
linking these measures, it seems a balance could be struck by 
linking only what coercion group the participant belonged to.  
The measures create their own limitations.  Since both 
measures were created by the researcher for the purposes of this 
60
study and the previous undergraduate study, they do not have the 
benefit of a true pilot test or peer review.  Therefore, the validity 
and the accuracy of the measures cannot be guaranteed.  As 
previously mentioned, the vignettes for the Scenario Measure did 
show good face validity in terms of how closely they describe real 
dating situations.  Unfortunately, preliminary validity testing using 
the Pearson?s correlation test showed that some items in the 
coercion groups did not correlate as expected (negatively).  For this 
reason, caution must be used when interpreting the data.  Further 
testing on validity and reliability of the measures is needed. 
A further limitation is a lack of research available on the 
topic of coercion.  Though many studies cover certain aspects of 
coercion within a large sexuality study, very few cover only 
coercion.  This had made a comparison of findings difficult.  This 
limitation will be addressed in the next section.
Recommendations for Future Research
Though the findings of this study and other studies shed 
light on the issues surrounding emotional coercion in dating 
relationships, they are far from exhaustive or irrefutable.  More 
research is needed on this topic not only in regards to heterosexual 
relationships but for homosexual relationships as well.  It is 
61
recommended that more studies be conducted with gay and 
lesbian populations to determine if the findings of previous studies 
will hold true for same-sex relationships.  In researching this topic, 
not one article addressing coercion in same-sex dating 
relationships could be found.  There are some articles available 
that discuss institutional or situational homosexuality and address 
coercion, however as those situations are not indicative of a normal 
gay or lesbian relationship, they can hardly be used to support the 
assertion that coercion occurs or does not occur in gay and lesbian 
relationships.  More research with this population is needed.
In researching this study, it became evident that there is an 
obvious gap in the literature pertaining to emotional coercion in 
non-White relationships.  While many researchers examined their 
data for differences between White and non-White participants, the 
number of non-White participants was often small so little 
information could be inferred from the data.  Many researchers 
seemed to conduct race comparisons simply as an afterthought as 
opposed to purposefully recruiting equal numbers of White and 
non-White participants.  As each race and ethnicity carries with it 
its own culture and identity, studies that examine more racial 
categories are needed.  
62
Conclusions 
It is clear from this study that coercion not only exists but 
could be considered rampant among dating couples.  No longer 
limited to men, women are also utilizing coercion to attain what 
they want in a sexual relationship, though ?approval? for such 
behavior in women is somewhat lacking.  It appears as though 
people utilize coercion without understanding either what it is or 
how it might hurt their partner.  Too many people may lack an 
understanding as to what constitutes true consent to a sexual 
interaction.  Participants in this study were not able to 
appropriately identify acquiescence in the vignettes and reported
that they themselves have acquiesced as well as offered up token 
resistance to sexual overtures.  
Research has found that adolescents experience coercion as 
young as secondary school age.  Furthermore, coercion at this age 
may lead to sexual acts other than intercourse (Jackson, Cram & 
Seymour, 2000; Murray & Henjum, 1993).  Because of this, it is 
suggested that awareness education begin earlier preferably before 
children would reach the age where they are engaging in dating 
activities.  Given the delicate subject matter, education through 
63
community-based programs may be a more practical venue than 
school-based programs and curricula. 
Given the findings of this study, it seems that special 
attention should be paid to the breaking down the stereotypical 
gender roles and discouraging the use of token resistance.  It is 
important for women to realize that being sexually active is not 
necessarily negative.  It may be more appropriate to say yes to a 
sexual relationship, rather than offering up token resistance so 
that they can be ?conquered?. Conversely, men should be taught 
that not having sex does not make them less manly.  Women and 
men often do not seem to realize the damage that can occur with 
the use of token resistance.  If you say no and mean yes, how is 
anyone ever to know when you really mean no?  Given the rates of 
acquiescence occurring in this study, it is a source for concern.
Clinicians and counselors should also be educated 
concerning coercion.  They must know how to recognize coercion 
when they hear it described because, chances are, their client may 
not recognize it themselves or at the least their clients may not be 
able to label their experience as coercion.  Prevention of coercion is 
preferred, however, treatment is equally important (though not 
completely necessary), if the individual who has been coerced is to 
64
go on to healthy future relationships.  Education and awareness 
about coercion and its ramifications is needed to help men and 
women make healthy sexual choices for the good of themselves 
and their partners.
65
INITIALS___ DATE____
Page 1 of 2
Appendix 1: Informed Consent Form
Informed Consent Form:  Emotional Attitudes in Sexual Dating 
Relationships
I state that I am over the age of 18 and wish to participate in this 
study on Emotional Attitudes in Sexual Dating Relationships that 
is being conducted by Dr. Roger Rubin and Amy Sterner in the 
Department of Family Studies at the University of Maryland, 
College Park.
The purpose of this study is to assess undergraduate college 
students? attitudes about sexual dating relationships both in 
scenario and personal experiences.
I will be asked to read a short scenario that describes a typical 
couple in a sexual dating relationship and then answer questions 
about what I read.  I will then be asked to fill out a self-report 
questionnaire that asks about my personal experiences in dating 
relationships.  I understand that the self-report questionnaire is 
optional and I will not be penalized if I choose not to complete it.
All information collected in this study is confidential to the extent 
permitted by law.  I understand that the information I provide will 
be grouped with the information other participants provide for 
reporting and presentation. I understand that my name will not be 
used and that this signed consent form will not be paired with the 
completed questionnaires in any way.  I further understand that 
66
INITIALS___ DATE___
Page 2 of 2
the data from the scenario questionnaire will not be paired with 
the data from the self-report questionnaire.
When reading the scenarios, the participants should experience no 
greater distress than they would if they would read about sexual 
dating relationships in a novel or textbook.  I understand that I will 
be provided with the telephone number for the University?s 
Counseling Center should I become upset about the scenario and 
questions I have read. 
This study is not designed to help me personally but to help the 
investigators learn more about emotional attitudes in sexual dating 
relationships.  I understand that I am free to ask questions and/or 
withdraw from participation in this study at any time without 
penalty.
Contact Information:
Principal Investigator: Dr. Roger Rubin, 301-405-4004
Student Investigator: Amy L. Sterner, 301-498-7478
University Counseling Center: 
301-314-7651 (voice/TTY: 301-314-7682 or 301-314-7683)
8:30am to 9pm, Mon- Thurs. and 8:30am to 4:30pm on Fri.
Name of Subject         _________________________________________
Signature of Subject   _________________________________________
Date     ____________
67
Appendix 2: No Coercion Condition
Male Initiates:
Mary and John are both juniors at the university.  They have 
been dating for 7 months.  Mary and John have a good 
relationship even though they sometimes argue.  They have been 
sexually active for 5 months.  It?s Saturday night and the couple 
has just gotten back from a late movie.
Mary has a single room in the dorm and both Mary and John 
decided together to sleep there tonight.  After getting ready for bed, 
John initiates sexual contact and Mary agrees.  Both John and 
Mary fall asleep right afterwards.
Female Initiates:
Mary and John are both juniors at the university.  They have 
been dating for 7-months.  Mary and John have a good 
relationship even though they sometimes argue.  They have been 
sexually active for 5 months.  It?s Saturday night and the couple 
has just gotten back from a late movie.
Mary has a single room in the dorm and both Mary and John 
decided together to sleep there tonight.  After getting ready for bed, 
Mary initiates sexual contact and John agrees.  Both Mary and 
John fall asleep right afterwards.
68
Appendix 3: Mild Coercion Condition
Male Initiates
Mary and John are both juniors at the university.  They have 
been dating for 7-months.  Mary and John have a good 
relationship even though they sometimes argue.  They have been 
sexually active for 5 months.  It?s Saturday night and the couple 
has just gotten back from a late movie.
On the walk home, Mary and John had an argument about 
what they were going to do the next weekend.  Mary has a single 
room in the dorm and both John and Mary had decided together to 
sleep there before they left for the movie.  Before they reached the 
dorm, the couple compromised about their plans for the weekend, 
although Mary is still a little upset with John.  Mary wants to be by 
herself but rather than provoke another argument, she lets John 
come up to her room.
After getting ready for bed, John initiates sexual contact with 
Mary.  Mary turns him down.  At this point John says, ?Geez, 
Mary! I can?t believe you?re going to punish me for that petty 
argument. That really hurts me!?  Mary feels guilty and is sexually 
intimate with John even though she still doesn?t feel like being so.  
69
Afterwards, John goes right to sleep but Mary tosses and turns for 
about 30 minutes before she also falls asleep.
Female Initiates
Mary and John are both juniors at the university.  They have 
been dating for 7-months.  Mary and John have a good 
relationship even though they sometimes argue.  They have been 
sexually active for 5 months.  It?s Saturday night and the couple 
has just gotten back from a late movie.
On the walk home, Mary and John had an argument about 
what they were going to do the next weekend.  Mary has a single 
room in the dorm and both John and Mary had decided together to 
sleep there before they left for the movie.  Before they reached the 
dorm, the couple compromised about their plans for the weekend, 
although John is still a little upset with Mary.  John wants to be by 
himself but rather than provoke another argument, he goes with 
Mary up to her room.
After getting ready for bed, Mary initiates sexual contact with 
John.  John turns her down.  At this point Mary says, ?Geez, John! 
I can?t believe you?re going to punish me for that petty argument. 
That really hurts me!?  John feels guilty and is sexually intimate
with Mary even though he doesn?t feel like being so.  Afterwards, 
70
Mary goes right to sleep but John tosses and turns for about 30 
minutes before he also falls asleep.
71
Appendix 4: Strong Coercion Condition
Male Initiates
Mary and John are both juniors at the university.  They have 
been dating for 7-months.  Mary and John have a good 
relationship even though they sometimes argue.  They have been 
sexually active for 5 months.  It?s Saturday night and the couple 
has just gotten back from a late movie.
On the walk home, Mary and John had an argument about 
what they were going to do the next weekend.  Mary has a single 
room in the dorm and both John and Mary had decided together to 
sleep there before they left for the movie.  Before they reached the 
dorm, the couple compromised about their plans for the weekend, 
although Mary is still a little upset with John.  Mary wants to be by 
herself but rather than provoke another argument, she lets John 
come up to her room.
After getting ready for bed John initiates sexual contact with 
Mary.  Mary turns him down.  At this point John says, ?Geez, 
Mary! I can?t believe you?re going to punish me for that petty 
argument.  That really hurts me!?  John gets out of bed and paces 
the room.  ?I don?t know why you say you love me!  If you loved me, 
you wouldn?t make me beg.?  At this point John starts putting his 
72
clothes back on and says, ?If you don?t love me enough to show it, 
maybe it?s time I find someone who will!?
Mary says, ?I do love you, John.  Please come back to bed; 
you don?t have to leave.?  John gets undressed again and gets back 
in bed. This time when John initiates sexual contact with Mary, 
she is sexually intimate with him even though she still doesn?t feel 
like being so.  Afterwards, John goes right to sleep but Mary tosses 
and turns for almost an hour before she also falls asleep.
Female Initiates
Mary and John are both juniors at the university.  They have 
been dating for 7-months.  Mary and John have a good 
relationship even though they sometimes argue.  They have been 
sexually active for 5 months.  It?s Saturday night and the couple 
has just gotten back from a late movie.
On the walk home, Mary and John had an argument about 
what they were going to do the next weekend.  Mary has a single 
room in the dorm and both John and Mary had decided together to 
sleep there before they left for the movie.  Before they reached the 
dorm, the couple compromised about their plans for the weekend, 
although John is still a little upset with Mary.  John wants to be by 
73
himself but rather than provoke another argument, he goes with 
Mary up to her room.
After getting ready for bed Mary initiates sexual contact with 
John.  John turns her down.  At this point Mary says, ?Geez, John! 
I can?t believe you?re going to punish me for that petty argument.  
That really hurts me!?  Mary gets out of bed and paces the room.  ?I 
don?t know why you say you love me!  If you loved me, you 
wouldn?t make me beg.?  At this point Mary starts putting her 
clothes back on and says, ?If you don?t love me enough to show it, 
then maybe it?s time I find someone who will.  I want you to leave!?
John says, ?I do love you, Mary.  Please come back to bed; I 
don?t want to leave.?  Mary gets undressed again and gets back in 
bed.  This time when Mary initiates sexual contact with John, he is 
sexually intimate with her even though he still doesn?t feel like 
being so.  Afterwards, Mary goes right to sleep but John tosses and 
turns for almost an hour before he also falls asleep.
74
Appendix 5:  Scenario Measure Questions
Please answer the following questions honestly.  Your answers are completely 
confidential.
1. How much do you think each member of the couple wanted to engage in 
sexual relations?    
Mary:   Very much              A little               Not at all
1    2       3            4             5        
John:     Very much              A little               Not at all
1    2       3            4             5
2.  Please rate Mary and John on how manipulative they were in this scenario?
Mary
Very manipulative        a little manipulative not manipulative
     1                     2                   3                       4                   5
John
Very manipulative        a little manipulative not manipulative
     1                     2                   3                       4                   5
3. Was anyone doing any ?game playing? in this scenario? i.e. teasing
YES NO
4. If YES, then who was doing the game playing? 
John Mary Both
5. How do you think John and Mary felt after the sexual interaction?
John: Great! Okay Terrible
     1      2         3           4          5
Mary: Great! Okay Terrible
     1      2         3           4          5
6.  How appropriate was each person?s behavior in this scenario?
Mary
Very appropriate neutral             not appropriate
     1                     2                   3                       4                   5
John
Very appropriate               neutral             not appropriate
      1                     2                   3                       4                   5
75
7.  Did both Mary and John consent to the sexual interaction?
YES   NO I DON?T KNOW
8. How common is this type of scenario on this or any college campus?
Very Common Somewhat Common Not Common
1                 2                     3                      4                  5        
   I Don?t Know
Demographic Information
Age______
Class rank    Fr So Jr Sr       
(please circle one)
Gender_____
Race (optional)
White      Black/African-American          Asian Descent    
Hispanic/Latino Native American Pacific Islander
Other___________ (Please specify)
When you are finished with this questionnaire, please fold it in half along with 
the scenario you have read.  If you wish to complete the self-report inventory, 
please do so now.  When everyone is finished with his or her questionnaires, you 
will be asked to place this questionnaire in Box A.
76
Appendix 6: Self-Report Measure
Self Report Inventory
This is a self-report questionnaire designed to assess your own experiences.  
This questionnaire is completely optional.  If you do not want to do the 
questionnaire you will not be penalized.  If you choose to fill out this 
questionnaire, you may skip any question[s] you feel are too personal.  However, 
it would be helpful to this research if you would complete as many items as 
possible.
1. Have you ever emotionally pressured a partner into a sexual    interaction?
YES NO 
2. If YES, did the sexual interaction take place?
YES NO
3. Have you ever been emotionally pressured by a partner during a sexual 
interaction?
YES NO
4. If YES, did the sexual interaction take place?
YES NO
5. If YES did the sexual interaction take place while you or your partner were 
under the influence of alcohol or drugs?
Alcohol Drugs    Both None
6. Have you ever said NO to a sexual interaction with your partner and meant 
YES or MAYBE?
YES NO
7. Have you ever agreed to a sexual interaction with your partner when you did 
not feel like being sexually intimate?
YES NO
8. If a man asks a woman on a date and pays for everything, is he entitled to 
any sexual interaction later?
Absolutely not Maybe Yes, of course
9. If a woman asks a man on a date and pays for everything, is she entitled to 
any sexual interaction later?
Absolutely not Maybe Yes, of course
10.  Whose responsibility is it to decide if a sexual interaction will  
       take place?
The Man The Woman Both
77
11. If you ?sleep over? at a partner?s home/dorm room, do you 
      expect to have a sexual interaction with that partner?
Absolutely not Maybe Yes, of course
Demographic Information
Age______
Class rank    Fr So Jr Sr       
(please circle one)
Gender_____
Race (optional)
White Black/African-American         Asian Descent      
Hispanic/Latino Native American Pacific Islander
Other___________(Please Specify)
When you are finished with this self-report inventory, please fold it in half.  If 
you have not completed the scenario questionnaire, please do so now.  When 
everyone is finished with his or her questionnaires, you will be asked to place 
this questionnaire in Box B.
78
Appendix 7: Written Explanation of Study?s Purpose and 
Hypotheses
Thank you for participating in this study.  As you were 
informed in the consent form, this study was about emotional 
attitudes in sexual dating relationships.  More specifically this 
study was aimed as assessing the participants? attitudes about the 
use of emotional coercion within sexual dating relationships.  
Emotional coercion can include verbal manipulation, threats to 
leave an uncooperative partner and making the uncooperative 
partner feel guilty for their resistance.
The scenarios you read and questions that followed were 
designed to assess your attitudes about the use of emotional 
coercion in dating relationships.  The optional self-report inventory 
that followed was designed to assess the prevalence and 
circumstances of the occurrence of emotional coercion on this 
campus.
While each participant only received one scenario to read, 
there were a total of six scenarios: no coercion-male initiates, no 
coercion-female initiates, mild coercion-male initiates, mild 
coercion-female initiates, strong coercion-male initiates and strong 
79
coercion-female initiates.  The scenarios were handed out to 
participants in random order.
The hypotheses for this study are as follows:
1. Traditional college aged students will view emotional 
coercion that leads to a sex act as an appropriate means to a 
sexual end.
2. Participants will view male initiators more negatively than 
female initiators when coercion is present.
3. White subjects will not differ significantly from non-White 
subjects on the two measures.
4. Participants will not be able to distinguish between true 
consent and acquiescence within the scenario measures.
It is possible that after your participation in today?s study 
you may feel upset by some of the things you have read.  If you 
become upset, please contact the University?s Counseling Center at 
301-314-7651, (voice/TTY at 301-314-7682 or 7683) from 8:30am-
9pm, Monday through Thursday and 8:30am-4:30pm on Fridays.  
Again, I would like to thank you for your participation.  If 
you have any questions regarding this study, please call either the 
student investigator, Amy Sterner, at 301-498-7478 or the 
principal investigator, Dr. Roger Rubin, at 301-405-4004. 
80
References
Abbey, A., BeShears, R., Clinton-Sherrod, A.M., & McAuslan, P. 
(2004). Similarities and differences in women?s sexual 
assault experiences based on tactics used by the perpetrator. 
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 323-332.
Cook, S. (1995). Acceptance and expectation of sexual aggression 
in college students. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19, 181-
194.
Eds. John Hopkins University, (1999). Sexual Coercion. Population 
Reports, 27, 9-14.
Fisher, B., Cullen, F., & Turner, M. (2000). The sexual 
victimization of college women.  US Dept. of Justice: Office of 
Justice Programs. 
Haworth-Hoeppner, S. (1998). What?s gender got to do with it: 
Perceptions of sexual coercion in a university community. 
Sex Roles, 38, 757-779.
Hogben, M., & Waterman, C., (2000). Patterns of conflict resolution 
within relationships and coercive sexual behavior of men and 
women. Sex Roles, 43, 5/6, 341-357.
Jackson, S., Cram, F., & Seymour, F., (2000). Violence and sexual 
81
coercion in high school students? dating relationships. 
Journal of Family Violence, 15, 1, 23-36.
Kalof, L. & Wade, B., (1995). Sexual attitudes and experiences with 
sexual coercion: Exploring the influence of race and gender. 
Journal of Black Psychology 21, 3, 224-238.
Larimer, M., Lydum, A., Anderson, B., & Turner, A. (1999). Male 
and female recipients of unwanted sexual contact in a 
college student sample: prevalence rates, alcohol use and 
depression symptoms. Sex Roles, 40, 295-307.
Lewin, M. (1985). Unwanted intercourse: The difficulty of saying 
no. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 184-192.
Livingston, J., Buddie, A., Testa, M., & VanZile-Tamsen, C. (2004). 
The role of sexual precedence in verbal sexual coercion. 
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 287-297.
Lottes, I., & Weinberg, M. (1997). Sexual coercion among university 
students: A comparison of the United States and Sweden. 
Journal of Sex Research, 34, 67-77.
Muehlenhard, C. (1995). The complexities of sexual consent. 
SIECUS Report, 24(2), 4-7.
Muehlenhard, C., & Cook, S., (1988). Men?s self-report of 
82
unwanted sexual activity.  The Journal of Sex Research, 24, 
58-72.
Muehlenhard, C., & Hollabaugh, L., (1988). Do women sometimes 
say no when they mean yes? The prevalence and correlates 
of women?s token resistance to sex.  The Journal of 
Personality and Social Psychology 54 (5), 872-879.
Murray, J., & Henjum, R., (1993). Analysis of sexual abuse in 
dating. Guidance and Counseling, 8, 56-69.
O?Sullivan, L., Byers, E., & Finkelman, L. (1998). A comparison of 
male and female college students? experiences of sexual 
coercion. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 177-195.
Rouse, L., (1988). Abuse in dating relationships: A comparison of 
Blacks, Whites and Hispanics. Journal of College Student 
Development 17, 312-319.
Russell, B., & Oswald, D., (2002). Sexual coercion and 
victimization of college men: The role of love styles. Journal of 
Interpersonal Violence, 17, 1, 273-285.
Spitzberg, B., (1998). Sexual coercion in courtship relations. In B. 
Spitzberg & W. Cupach (Eds.), The Dark Side Of Close 
Relationships (pp. 179-207). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum 
Associates, Publishers.
83
Sterner, A., (2001).  What happens if I say no? Attitudes about 
emotional coercion in dating relationships.  Unpublished 
undergraduate paper, Lock Haven University of 
Pennsylvania..
Struckman-Johnson, C., & Struckman-Johnson, D., (1994). Men 
pressured and forced into sexual experience. Archives of 
Sexual Behavior, 23, 1, 93-114.
Zweig, J., & Barber, B., (1997). Sexual coercion and well-being in 
young adulthood. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 291-
309.