Interpersonal aggression victimization within casual sexual relationships and experiences.

505207 research-article2013

JIV29310.1177/0886260513505207Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceKlipfel et al.

Brief Notes

Interpersonal Aggression Victimization Within Casual Sexual Relationships and Experiences

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2014, Vol 29(3) 557–569 © The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0886260513505207 jiv.sagepub.com

Katherine M. Klipfel,1 Shannon E. Claxton,1* and Manfred H. M. van Dulmen1

Abstract The frequent occurrence of aggression within committed romantic relationships is well documented. However, little is known about experiences of interpersonal aggression within casual sexual relationships and experiences. This study aimed to describe the occurrence of emotional, physical, and sexual aggression victimization within committed romantic relationships, casual dating relationships, friends-with-benefit relationships, booty-calls, and one-night stands. College students (N = 172) provided data regarding the lifetime occurrence of emotional, physical, and sexual aggression across different forms of casual sexual relationships and experiences (friends-withbenefits, booty-call, casual dating, one-night stands, committed relationships). Emotional, physical, and sexual subtypes of aggression were reported across all casual sexual relationships and experiences. While a higher percentage of individuals who had been involved in committed relationships reported experiencing at least one form of aggression (approximately 69%), prevalence of at least one form of aggression ranged from approximately 31% to 36% for the various casual sexual relationships/experiences. Across relationships/ experiences, emotional and sexual aggression were more common than physical aggression. The findings from this study indicate that emotional, *Denotes shared first authorship. 1Kent State University, OH, USA Corresponding Author: Katherine M. Klipfel, Department of Psychology, Kent State University, P.O. Box 5190, Kent, OH 44242, USA. Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com by guest on March 5, 2015

558

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 29(3)

physical, and sexual aggression occur across types of relationships and experiences. Thus, the current study underscores the importance of considering casual dating, friends-with-benefits, booty-calls, and one-night stands when assessing interpersonal aggression. Keywords casual sex, aggression, dating violence A large body of research has focused on dating aggression within committed romantic relationships during adolescence and young adulthood (e.g., Foshee & Matthew, 2007). Acts of emotional, physical, and sexual aggression are prevalent during these age periods. By young adulthood, approximately 40% of individuals may have experienced physical and/or sexual aggression (Halpern, Spriggs, Martin, & Kupper, 2009), with some estimates of emotional aggression exceeding 90% (e.g., Muñoz-Rivas, Graña, O’Leary, & González, 2007). Moreover, dating aggression victimization has been associated with a host of negative outcomes for victims (e.g., depression, suicidality, poor academic achievement; Banyard & Cross, 2008; physical injury and PTSD symptoms; Eshelman & Levendosky, 2012). The current focus on committed dating relationships, however, may neglect the wide variety of relationships and experiences that are common to young adulthood. In fact, recent research suggests that definitions of romantic relationships are diverse in adolescence and young adulthood, and many individuals experience sexuality and intimacy outside of committed relationships (e.g., Carver, Joyner, & Udry, 2003; Furman & Shaffer, 2011). Indeed, the majority of young adults have engaged in at least one type of casual sexual relationship or experience (e.g., Bisson & Levine, 2009; Lambert, Kahn, & Apple, 2003). Casual sexual relationships and experiences (CSREs), which are separate from formal romantic relationships and specifically occur outside of ongoing, dating relationships (i.e., committed dating relationships) and marital relationships, include friends with benefits (relationships “between cross-sex friends in which the friends engage in sexual activity but do not define their relationship as romantic”; Hughes, Morrison, & Asada, 2005, p. 49), onenight stands (“a sexual encounter, usually lasting only one night, between two people who are strangers or brief acquaintances”; Paul, McManus, & Hayes, 2000, p. 76), and booty calls (“communication initiated towards a non-long-term relationship partner with the urgent intent, either stated or implied, of having sexual activity and\or intercourse”; Jonason, Li, & Cason,


559

Klipfel et al.

2009, p. 462). These CSREs are explicitly sexual and include relationships as well as short-term experiences (see Claxton & van Dulmen, 2013, for a review). Qualitative studies show that young adults consider these relationships/experiences to be distinct from each other (e.g., Wentland & Reissing, 2011). Specifically, CSREs vary on several factors, including the number of times the encounter occurs (i.e., one-night stands happen once, whereas booty calls and friends with benefits reoccur) and how close the individuals are before the event occurs (i.e., one-night stands and booty calls involve strangers/acquaintances vs. friends; Wentland & Reissing, 2011). These different CSREs are prevalent during late adolescence and young adulthood with prevalence rates ranging from 60% to 64% for friends-with-benefits relationships and booty calls (Bisson & Levine, 2009; Jonason et al., 2009) and between 53% and 84% for hookups/one-night stands (Gute & Eshbaugh, 2008; Lambert et al., 2003; Paul et al., 2000). Although CSREs are prevalent, very little is known about emotional, physical, and sexual aggression within CSREs. In general, dating aggression theory suggests that aggression increases with commitment and seriousness of the dating relationship (e.g., Riggs & O’Leary, 1989). While inconsistencies exist, research tends to show that emotional and physical aggression are more likely to occur within relationships of longer duration (e.g., Giordano, Soto, Manning, & Longmore, 2010; Hammock & O’Hearn, 2002), and physical aggression may be more common in more committed dating relationships (e.g., Hanley & O’Neill, 1997). However, theory (e.g., Cohen & Felson, 1979; Jessor & Jessor, 1977) and research (e.g., Centers for Disease Control & Prevention [CDC], 2012; Gover, 2004) on adolescent and young adult risky behaviors suggest the co-occurrence of sexual risk-taking and aggressive behaviors. More specifically, sexual risk taking (e.g., early sexual debut, number of partners) is associated with emotional, physical, and sexual dating aggression (e.g., Coker et al., 2000; Gover, Kaukinen, & Fox, 2008; Silverman, Raj, Mucci, & Hathaway, 2001; Testa, VanZile-Tamsen, & Livingston, 2007; Younge et al., 2010). However, the majority of literature to date has focused on sexual aggression. For example, acceptance of and engagement in CSREs, including one-time sexual encounters, have been associated with past use of sexual aggression for men (aged 21-45 years; Yost & Zurbriggen, 2006) and experiences of rape and sexual coercion for women (aged 20-35 years; Testa & Dermen, 1999). Moreover, unwanted sex and sexual aggression have been documented to occur frequently outside of committed relationships—commonly within the context of a hookup (i.e., “single, casual encounter,” Flack et al., 2007, p. 141). In light of the limited attention to this topic in extant literature, it is worthwhile to examine whether aggression occurs in CSREs. While prior studies


560


have not precluded these CSREs (e.g., Edwards, Kearns, Gidycz, & Calhoun, 2012; Gross, Winslett, Roberts, & Gohm, 2006; Hanley & O’Neill, 1997; Katz, Kuffel, & Coblentz, 2002), no studies that we are aware of have specifically investigated emotional, physical, and sexual aggression across specific types of CSREs—namely, friends with benefits, booty call, and one-night stand experiences. Research investigating emotional, physical, and sexual aggression within these different CSREs is particularly important in light of the high prevalence rates of CSREs and public health concerns about interpersonal aggression on college campuses (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000).

The Current Study The aim of the current study was to examine the occurrence of aggression across several types of committed relationships, relationships and casual sexual relationships and experiences. Specifically, we aimed to determine whether aggression occurred within committed relationships, casual dating relationships, friends with benefits, booty calls, and one-night stands. Next, we aimed to describe and test mean differences in emotional, physical, and sexual aggression across the various CSREs.

Method Participants Data were derived from a sample of 174 college students (18-25 years old) from a large Midwestern university. Participants were recruited through the psychology subject pool and received course credit for participation in the study. Two individuals had missing or inconsistent data on the main study variables, leaving a final sample of 172 individuals. Participants were on average 19.84 years old (SD = 1.55), and the majority of the sample (82.6%) was Caucasian and female (n = 141). The majority of the sample (92.9%) self-identified as heterosexual. All procedures were approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board.

Measures As part of a larger study, participants completed a battery of survey questions. Specifically, individuals provided demographic information (age, race, educational status), and then completed a study-specific sexual behaviors questionnaire examining lifetime presence of emotional, physical, and sexual aggression across different forms of relationships and sexual experiences


561

Klipfel et al.

(committed relationships, casual dating, friends with benefits, booty call, and one-night stands). The following definitions were provided to participants: Committed relationship: A dating relationship which you have made official (i.e., you have indicated on Facebook you are “in a relationship,” you have introduced each other as your boyfriend/girlfriend). Casual dating relationship: You are going out on dates, but you have not made it official. Friend with benefits: Friends who have sex but do not consider themselves to be in a romantic relationship. Booty call: Individuals available for free sex on an as-needed basis. One-night stand: A sexual encounter with another individual that only occurred one time. Participants were first asked to report the lifetime number of partners they had in each type of relationship/experience. In rare cases in which questions arose regarding how to categorize a particular CSRE, participants were instructed to classify the relationship/experience in the category that best described that CSRE. If participants had questions about a CSRE that was fluid (changed categories), they were instructed to use the last category that applied to that CSRE (i.e., if a CSRE started off as a one-night stand but became a committed relationship, participants were instructed to include that individual as a committed relationship only). To assess aggression victimization, three short survey items were derived from existing measures of dating aggression (i.e., the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health project; Harris et al., 2009). To assess emotional aggression victimization, individuals reported the number of partners in each CSRE who had insulted them, yelled at them, sworn at them, or threatened them. To assess physical aggression victimization, participants were asked the number of partners for each CSRE who had hit them, punched them, kicked them, thrown something at them, or slapped them. Finally, to assess sexual aggression victimization, participants were asked to report the number of individuals in each CSRE who had pressured them into sexual acts. For each participant, the proportion of partners who inflicted each type of aggression within each CSRE was created based on the number of partners he or she reported had victimized him or her in the past—that is, the number of reported partners committing each type of aggression within each type of CSRE was divided by the total number of lifetime partners an individual reported having within the respective type of CSRE. This allowed us to examine the proportion of partners committing each type of aggression


562


Aggression 70 60

Percent

50 40 Emoonal Aggression

30

Physical Aggression Sexual Aggression

20 10 0

Commied Casual Dang Friends with Relaonship Relaonship Benefits

Booty Call

One Night Stand

Relaonship Type

Figure 1. Percentage of individuals reporting interpersonal aggression victimization (physical, sexual, or emotional) among individuals who reported having ever experienced each type of CSRE. Note. CSRE = Casual sexual relationships and experience.

within each relationship/experience, thereby accounting for the number of partners and, thus, opportunities for aggression to occur. For the remainder of the article, this will be referred to as the proportion of partners committing each type of aggression.

Results Emotional, physical, and sexual aggression victimization were present in all forms of CSREs. Of the 161 individuals reporting having had a committed relationship, 68.8% reported at least one form of aggression victimization. Of those who had had a casual dating relationship (n = 150), 33.3% reported at least one form of aggression. Of the 90 individuals reporting friends-withbenefits relationships, 31.1% reported experiencing aggression. Similar rates were found for individuals reporting booty-call relationships (n = 44) and one-night stands (n = 75) with 36.4% and 35.1% reporting at least one form of aggression respectively. See Figure 1 for percentages presented by aggression type. These results address the first aim of the study, confirming that emotional, physical, and sexual aggression occurred within committed,


563

Klipfel et al. Table 1. Proportion of Partners Committing Each Type of Aggression. Emotional Aggression

Physical Aggression

Sexual Aggressiona

M

SD

n

M

SD

n

M

SD

n

Committed Casual dating Friend with benefit Booty call One-night stand

.34a .12a .14a .32 .19

.36 .30 .75 1.52 1.16

161 150 90 44 75

.09b .03b .06b .14 .07b

.21 .19 .53 .77 .58

161 150 90 44 74

.14c .09a .16 .25 .23a

.26 .22 .40a .55 .48

159 150 90 44 74

Note. Means with differing subscripts within rows are significantly different at the p < .05 level based on paired sample t tests. aTwo participants did not answer about sexual aggression within committed relationships, one participant did not answer about physical aggression in one-night stands, and one participant did not answer about sexual aggression in one-night stands, so the Ns for these cells were slightly different.

casual dating, friends with benefits, booty call, and one-night stands. We also conducted preliminary analyses to explore the possibility of gender differences in the experience of aggression. Logistic regression analyses revealed no gender differences in overall victimization across the different CSREs (all p > .10). This finding should be interpreted with caution in light of the limited number of males included in the current sample. Next, we examined differences in emotional, physical, and sexual aggression within the various CSREs. Because each individual reported on each type of aggression in each CSRE, data were not independent. Therefore, paired sample t tests were used to examine differences in the proportion of partners committing each type of aggression within each CSRE. The t tests were conducted to examine differences in the proportions between the following pairs: emotional–physical, emotional–sexual, and physical–sexual. Based on recent literature suggesting that alpha corrections lead to low statistical power (e.g., Garamszegi, 2006; Nakagawa, 2004), we reported effect sizes and did not apply an alpha correction. These analyses revealed that physical aggression was the least common form of aggression across relationships (Table 1). The proportion of partners committing emotional aggression was higher than that committing physical aggression within committed relationships, t(160) = −9.92, p < .001, r2 = .38; casual dating relationships, t(149) = −4.84, p < .001, r2 = .14; and friends-with-benefits relationships, t(89) = −2.65, p = .010, r2 = .07. There was also a trend in the same direction for one-night stands, t(74) = −1.69, p = .095, r2 = .04. The proportion of


564


partners committing emotional aggression was higher than that committing sexual aggression within committed relationships, t(158) = −6.80, p < .001, r2 = .23. Finally, the proportion of partners committing sexual aggression was higher than that committing physical aggression in committed relationships, t(158) = −2.43, p = .016, r2 = .04; casual dating relationships, t(149) = −2.65, p = .009, r2 = .04; friends-with-benefits relationships, t(89) = −2.55, p = .012, r2 = .07; and one-night stands, t(73) = −3.02, p = .004, r2 = .11.

Discussion To our knowledge, this is the first study to document the prevalence of aggression victimization occurring within friends with benefits, booty calls, and one-night stands. Consistent with dating aggression theory and previous literature, we found a high prevalence of interpersonal aggression within committed relationships (Foshee & Matthew, 2007; Riggs & O’Leary, 1989). While aggression may be common in long-term committed relationships— which provide more time, and thus more opportunities, to engage in aggression (Giordano et al., 2010)—we found that aggression occurs across a spectrum of casual sexual relationships/experiences, including short onenight stands. The findings of this study also lend credence to theories of risky behaviors by demonstrating the co-occurrence of risky sexual behaviors (i.e., CSREs) and aggression and additionally highlight the importance of studying interpersonal aggression across a wide spectrum of relationships and experiences that are particularly relevant to the sexual culture on college campuses. Furthermore, this study illustrates that many types of aggression occur within the various CSREs, namely, emotional, physical, and sexual aggression. Based on existing literature (e.g., Flack et al., 2007; Gross et al., 2006; Testa & Dermen, 1999; Yost & Zurbriggen, 2006), it was not surprising to confirm the occurrence of sexual aggression within these various casual sexual relationships/experiences. However, the presence of emotional and physical aggression highlights the importance of assessing the various types of aggression (i.e., emotional, physical, and sexual) in future investigations of CSREs. A major limitation of previous research has been the reliance on interpersonal aggression measures that are designed to assess interpersonal aggression in ongoing committed romantic relationships. In fact, the two most widely used measures of interpersonal aggression imply committed romantic relationship involvement. More specifically, the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI; Wolfe et al., 2001) inquires about a boyfriend/girlfriend and the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) inquires about the couple/


565

Klipfel et al.

partner. For the purposes of the current study, we used a short survey question adapted from existing measures. However, future studies may benefit from adapting the CADRI or CTS2 to include aggression that occurs in CSREs. A logical next step is to investigate whether the risk factors and outcomes for interpersonal aggression differ across committed relationships and CSREs. With regard to risk factors, alcohol and impulsivity may be particularly germane to aggression occurring within CSREs, as theory and research implicate alcohol use in both risky behaviors and aggression (e.g., Cohen & Felson, 1979; Coker et al., 2000; Gover, 2004; Jessor & Jessor, 1977; Silverman et al., 2001). Moreover, the motives for aggression within and among CSREs may differ from those leading to aggression in committed relationships (e.g., Capaldi & Kim, 2007; Hanley & O’Neill, 1997). In terms of outcomes, it is probable that aggression occurring within CSREs—which involve less commitment and intimacy—may lead to dissolution of the relationship/experience more readily than aggression in committed relationships, which often persist despite the occurrence of aggression (e.g., Edwards et al., 2012; van Dulmen, Mata, & Klipfel, 2012). Therefore, the examination of risk factors and outcomes associated with and among CSREs, in comparison to committed relationships, is a worthwhile endeavor. We acknowledge that the current study had several limitations. First, the sample was small in size and homogenous. Previous studies have suggested that gender and ethnic differences may be apparent in CSREs (e.g., Owen, Rhodes, Stanley, & Fincham, 2012). While preliminary logistic regressions revealed no gender differences in rates of aggression across types of CSREs, future studies could expand on sampling by including a more diverse representation of genders and ethnicities, as well as through the inclusion of community samples. Another potential limitation of this study (and research on CSREs in general) is that these relationships can be fluid in nature, and conceptualization and measurement are still evolving (see Claxton & van Dulmen, 2013). As such, self reports of CSREs may be prone to inconsistencies. We attempted to minimize error by including a number of validity checks (e.g., examining data to ensure that the number of reported partners was consistent across several indicators of each CSREs) and providing participants with definitions of the various CSREs. Finally, studies may benefit from comprehensively assessing aggression. While we examined the proportion of partners within each CSRE that perpetrated aggression, future studies could benefit from gathering more information about the frequency and severity of aggressive acts (Follingstad, Bradley, Laughlin, & Burke, 1999), as well as the length of CSRE involvement. Despite these limitations, the current study is an important first step in recognizing the occurrence of aggression within CSREs.


566


In summary, the current study underscores the importance of considering CSREs when assessing interpersonal aggression. This study is the first to illustrate that emotional, physical, and sexual aggression occur within CSREs (i.e., casual dating, friends with benefits, booty calls, and one-night stands). In light of the growing public health concern regarding interpersonal aggression on college campuses (Fisher et al., 2000) and research indicating that the majority of college students report engaging in CSREs, safety and prevention efforts on college campuses should consider the potential risks that exist within these CSREs—which include not only sexual aggression but also emotional and physical aggression. The findings of the current study, then, inform efforts to minimize risk for interpersonal aggression perpetration and victimization by broadening the scope of intervention efforts to the wide variety of aggression and CSREs common to young adulthood. Moreover, practitioners should be sensitive to the possibility of aggression within CSREs, as these experiences of aggression are both prevalent and potentially detrimental to individual well-being. Authors’ Note Katherine M. Klipfel and Shannon E. Claxton share first authorship. Portions of this article were previously presented at the 2012 annual meeting of the International Association for Relationship Research Conference, Chicago, IL.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References Banyard, V. L., & Cross, C. (2008). Consequence of teen dating violence: Understanding Intervening variables in ecological context. Violence Against Women, 14, 998-1013. Bisson, M. A., & Levine, T. R. (2009). Negotiating a friends-with-benefits relationship. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 66-73. Capaldi, D. M., & Kim, H. K. (2007). Typological approaches to violence in couples: A critique and alternative conceptual approach. Clinical Psychology, 37, 253265. Carver, K., Joyner, K., & Udry, J. R. (2003). National estimates of adolescent romantic relationships. In P. Florsheim (Ed.), Adolescent romantic relationships and


567

Klipfel et al.

sexual behavior: Theory, research, and practical implications (pp. 291-329). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. (2012). Teen dating violence. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/intimatepartnerviolence/teen_dating_violence.html Claxton, S. E., & van Dulmen, M. H. M. (2013). Casual sexual relationships and experiences in emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 1, 138-150. Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588-608. Coker, A. L., McKeown, R. E., Sanderson, M., Davis, K. E., Valois, R. F., & Huebner, S. (2000). Severe dating violence and quality of life among South Carolina high school students. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 19, 220-227. Edwards, K. M., Kearns, M. C., Gidycz, C. A., & Calhoun, K. S. (2012). Predictors of victim-perpetrator relationship stability following a sexual assault: A brief report. Violence and Victims, 27, 25-32. Eshelman, L., & Levendosky, A. A. (2012). Dating violence: Mental health consequences based on type of abuse. Violence and Victims, 27, 215-228. Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2000). The sexual victimization of college women (Publication No.: NCJ 182369). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Flack, W. F., Daubman, K. A., Caron, M. L., Asadorian, J. A., D’Aureli, N. R., Gigliotti, S. N., . . .Stine, E. R. (2007). Risk factors and consequences of unwanted sex among university students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 39-157. Follingstad, D. R., Bradley, R. G., Laughlin, J. E., & Burke, L. (1999). Risk factors and correlates of dating violence: The relevance of examining frequency and severity levels in a college sample. Violence Victimization, 14, 365-380. Foshee, V. A., & Matthew, R. A. (2007). Adolescent dating abuse perpetration: A review of findings, methodological limitations, and suggestions for future research. In D. J. Flannery, A. T. Vazjoni, & I. D. Waldman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of violence behavior and aggression (pp. 431-449). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Furman, W., & Shaffer, L. (2011). Romantic partners, friends, friends with benefits, and casual acquaintances as sexual partners. Journal of Sex Research, 48, 554-564. Garamszegi, L. Z. (2006). Comparing effect sizes across variables: Generalization without the need for Bonferroni correction. Behavior Ecology, 16, 682-687. Giordano, P. C., Soto, D. A., Manning, W. D., & Longmore, M. A. (2010). The characteristics of romantic relationships associated with teen dating violence. Social Science Research, 39, 863-874. Gover, A. R. (2004). Risky lifestyles and dating violence: A theoretical test of violent victimization. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 171-180. Gover, A. R., Kaukinen, C., & Fox, K. A. (2008). The relationship between violence in the family of origin and dating violence among college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1667-1693.


568


Gross, A. M., Winslett, A., Roberts, M., & Gohm, C. L. (2006). An examination of sexual violence against college women. Violence Against Women, 12, 288-300. Gute, G., & Eshbaugh, E. M. (2008). Personality as a predictor of hooking up among college students. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 25, 26-43. Halpern, C. T., Spriggs, A. L., Martin, S. L., & Kupper, L. (2009). Patterns of intimate partner violence victimization from adolescence to young adulthood in a nationally representative sample. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45, 508-516. Hammock, G., & O’Hearn, R. (2002). Psychological aggression in dating relationships: Predictive models for males and females. Violence and Victims, 17, 525-540. Hanley, M. J., & O’Neill, P. (1997). Violence and commitment: A study of dating couples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 685-703. Harris, K. M., Halpern, C. T., Whitsel, E., Hussey, J., Tabor, J., Entzel, P., & Udry, J. R. (2009). The national longitudinal study of adolescent health: Research design. Retrieved from http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/design Hughes, M., Morrison, K., & Asada, K. J. K. (2005). What’s love got to do with it? Exploring the impact of maintenance rules, love attitudes, and network support on friends-with-benefits relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 69, 49-66. Jessor, R., & Jessor, S. L. (1977). Problem behavior and psychosocial development: A longitudinal study of youth. New York, NY: Academic Press. Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Cason, M. J. (2009). The “Booty call”: A compromise between men’s and women’s ideal mating strategies. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 460-470. Katz, J., Kuffel, S. W., & Coblentz, A. (2002). Are there gender differences in sustaining dating violence? An examination of frequency, severity, and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Family Violence, 19, 247-271. Lambert, T. A., Kahn, A. S., & Apple, K. J. (2003). Pluralistic ignorance and hooking up. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 129-133. Muñoz-Rivas, M. J., Graña, J. L., O’Leary, K. D., & González, M. P. (2007). Aggression in adolescent dating relationships: Prevalence, justification, and health consequences. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 298-304. Nakagawa, S. (2004). A farewell to Bonferroni: The problems of low statistical power and publication bias. Behavior Ecology, 15, 1044-1045. Owen, J. J., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Fincham, F. D. (2010). “Hooking up” among college students: Demographic and psychosocial correlates. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 653-663. Paul, E. L., McManus, B., & Hayes, A. (2000). “Hookups”: Characteristics and correlates of college students’ spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. Journal of Sex Research, 37, 76-88. Riggs, D. S., & O’Leary, K. D. (1989). The development of a model of courtship aggression. In M. A. Pirog-Good & J. E. Stets (Eds.), Violence in dating relationships: Emerging social issues (pp. 53-71). New York, NY: Praeger. Silverman, J. G., Raj, A., Mucci, L. A., & Hathaway, J. E. (2001). Dating violence against adolescent girls and associated substance use, unhealthy weight control,


569

Klipfel et al.

sexual risk behavior, pregnancy, and suicidality. Journal of the American Medical Association, 286, 572-579. Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316. Testa, M., & Dermen, K. H. (1999). The differential correlates of sexual coercion and rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 548-561. Testa, M., VanZile-Tamsen, C., & Livingston, J. A. (2007). Prospective prediction of women’s sexual victimization by intimate and nonintimate male perpetrators. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 52-60. van Dulmen, M. H. M., Mata, A. D., & Klipfel, K. M. (2012). Enhancing the assessment of verbal aggression through observational methodology. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 812-823. Wentland, J. J., & Reissing, E. D. (2011). Taking casual sex not too casually: Exploring definitions of casual sexual relationships. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 20(3), 75-91. Wolfe, D. A., Scott, K., Reitzel-Jaffe, D., Wekerle, C., Grasley, C., & Straatman, A. L. (2001). Development and validation of the conflict in adolescent dating relationships inventory. Psychological Assessment, 13, 277-293. Yost, M. R., & Zurbriggen, E. L. (2006). Gender differences in the enactment of sociosexuality: An examination of implicit social motives, sexual fantasies, coercive sexual attitudes, and aggressive sexual behavior. Journal of Sex Research, 43, 163-173. Younge, S. N., Salazar, L. F., Sales, J. M., DiClemente, R. J., Wingood, G. M., & Rose, E. (2010). Emotional victimization and sexual risk-taking behaviors among adolescent African American women. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 3, 79-94.

Author Biographies Katherine M. Klipfel is a clinical child graduate student in the Department of Psychology at Kent State University. Her research focuses on risk and protective factors for dating aggression in adolescent and young-adult populations. Specifically, her interests include the role of gender, method of report, psychopathology, and neuropathology, as they predict outcomes of psychological, physical, and sexual dating aggression. Shannon E. Claxton is an experimental social graduate student in the Department of Psychology at Kent State University. Her research interests include adolescent and young-adult romantic relationships, attraction, casual sexual relationships and experiences, and quantitative methodology. Manfred H. M. van Dulmen is an associate professor in the Department of Psychology at Kent State University. His research interests include interpersonal relationships, developmental psychopathology, and methodology/measurement.


Adverse childhood experiences and sexual victimization in adulthood.

Sexual Aggression Victimization and Perpetration among Male and Female College Students in Chile.

Interpersonal attraction and relationships.

Subjective adult identity and casual sexual behavior.

Lesbian and Bisexual Women's Experiences of Victimization: Mental Health, Revictimization, and Sexual Identity Development.

Age, Marital Status, and Risk of Sexual Victimization: Similarities and Differences Across Victim-Offender Relationships.

Effect of attraction on interpersonal aggression.

Relationships between Childhood Traumatic Experiences, Early Maladaptive Schemas and Interpersonal Styles.

Victimization and Relational Aggression in Adolescent Romantic Relationships: The Influence of Parental and Peer Behaviors, and Individual Adjustment.

Examining the effects of drinking and interpersonal protective behaviors on unwanted sexual experiences in college women.

Forms of aggression, peer relationships, and relational victimization among Chinese adolescent girls and boys: roles of prosocial behavior.

Prevalence of Sexual Aggression Victimization and Perpetration in a Sample of Female and Male College Students in Turkey.

Perpetration and Victimization of Intimate Partner Aggression Among Rural Mothers.

A self-report measure of legal and administrative aggression within intimate relationships.

The Seduction Script: Psychological and Cultural Norms of Interpersonal Approaches As Markers for Sexual Aggression and Abuse.

Interpersonal relationships of female patients with sexual disorders as assessed by Leary's test.

Rejection Sensitivity, Jealousy, and the Relationship to Interpersonal Aggression.

The negative effects of prejudice on interpersonal relationships within adolescent peer groups.

The Influence of Direct and Indirect Juvenile Victimization Experiences on Adult Victimization and Fear of Crime.

Victimization experiences and adolescent substance use: does the type and degree of victimization matter?

"Blurred lines?" Sexual aggression and barroom culture.

Sexual Relationships, Behaviors, and Experiences among Bisexual Men in Mumbai, India.

Multiple early victimization experiences as a pathway to explain physical health disparities among sexual minority and heterosexual individuals.

Fluoxetine and orgasmic sexual experiences.