What Do Women Want? A Qualitative Study of Dating.

555472

research-article2014

VAWXXX10.1177/1077801214555472Violence Against WomenNoel et al.

Article

What Do Women Want? A Qualitative Study of Dating

Violence Against Women 1–21 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1077801214555472 vaw.sagepub.com

Nora E. Noel1, Richard L. Ogle1, Stephen A. Maisto2, and Lee A. Jackson, Jr.1

Abstract Many approaches to decrease unwanted sex for women emphasize enhanced risk recognition. However, women often remain in risky situations despite recognition; so we need to understand the attractions of normative dating and sex. In this focus group study, 45 young adult women discussed their attractions to men, dating, and sex. Themes emerged describing conflicts between what they wanted, dating realities, desire for “traditional” behavior from the man, alcohol use, sexual arousal (hers and his), indirect communication about sex, feeling “obligated,” and enhanced self-esteem. Results suggest improving risk-recognition programs by examining and clarifying women’s goals for dating and putting positive emphasis on “have fun, achieve your goals, but try to avoid harm in the process.” Keywords alcohol use, risk recognition, sexual coercion, women’s dating goals Dating is an important and widespread courtship behavior in Western cultures (Mongeau, Jacobsen, & Donnerstein, 2007). Young adults engage in other types of sexual relationships such as “friends with benefits” (sexual encounters between friends with no intention of romantic ties; Afifi & Faulkner, 2000) or “hooking up” (casual sex with relative strangers; Paul, McManus, & Hayes, 2000; also see Bogle, 2008, for a detailed study of hooking up and dating among college students). However, dating is still commonly seen as the normative pathway to long-term romantic relationships and possibly marriage (Mongeau, Serewicz, & Therrien, 2004).

1University 2Syracuse

of North Carolina Wilmington, USA University, NY, USA

Corresponding Author: Nora E. Noel, Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina Wilmington, 601 South College Rd., Wilmington, NC 28403-5612, USA. Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com at Kungl Tekniska Hogskolan / Royal Institute of Technology on November 21, 2015

2

Violence Against Women

Many researchers agree that “dating” is difficult to define. The term is in common use and carries many implicit assumptions (Mongeau et al., 2007), so, as a starting position, we borrowed heavily from Mongeau and Kendall (1996; presentation described in Mongeau et al., 2007) and defined dating as a discrete dyadic interactional social event with sexual overtones, initiated and arranged by one of the dyad. However, this was only a starting point because discovering how young adult women currently define dating was one of the goals of the current project. Although daters generally have positive goals, dating unfortunately also has some negative associations including unwanted or even harmful interactions, particularly sexual coercion (Drieschner & Lange, 1999), with significant harmful consequences (Brener, McMahon, Warren, & Douglas, 1999). The frequency of sexual coercion is uncertain due to variations in definition and assessment, and includes many forms of unwanted sex (Edwards, Kearns, Calhoun, & Gidycz, 2009; Koss, 1992, 1996; O’Sullivan, 2005; Porter & Critelli, 1992). However, even with regard to forced sexual intercourse (the most extreme definition), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) 2003 national survey found high school females’ lifetime incidence was 11.9% (CDC, 2004). Furthermore, anonymous surveys suggest that up to 27% of women in college have experienced coerced sexual activity (Larimer, Lydum, Anderson, & Turner, 1999) with an equally high rate for non-student women in the same age range (Buddie & Testa, 2005). Even these estimates may be low because in a 1986 national survey, Koss, Gidycz, and Wisniewski (1987) found that up to 50% of college women had experienced sexual coercion, including events that reached the legal definition of rape. Thus, Norris, Nurius, and Dimeff (1996) aptly characterized women on dates as “walking a cognitive tightrope,” balancing between goals of relationship-building and self-protection. Given that dating is normative behavior for young adults, the contrast between relationship-building and sexual coercion outcomes indicates a need to understand the dynamic and subtle “negotiations” inherent in dating. Such knowledge may allow women earlier and more accurate prediction of sexual coercion risk and help them take effective protective actions. Along these lines, Nurius and her colleagues (Nurius, 2000; Nurius & Norris, 1995; Nurius, Norris, Macy, & Huang, 2004) have applied a social cognitive model of risk assessment, similar to Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) stress appraisal model, to assist women in predicting, recognizing, and preventing danger in dating situations. However, as mentioned above, most dates are positive events that do not involve aggression or violence. As evidenced by their frequent willing participation, many women have a positive view of dating, and thus their expectation of pleasure may lead them to discount risk-appraisal approaches. Indeed, some research suggests that even when they recognize risk, women often remain in the dangerous situation (Gidycz, McNamara, & Edwards, 2006). A more complete model of dating risks probably has to acknowledge the positive, noncoercive aspects of sexual activity in the context of dating relationships. Applying such a model to a woman’s dating interactions would characterize her as a full partner within the ongoing dynamics of the situation, rather than emphasizing only her reaction to risk. We think that a woman is attracted to and


Noel et al.

3

agrees to date a specific man and engages in ongoing interactions with him because she believes that their resulting relationship could fulfill her particular set of individually determined goals. The strength of her attraction to these goals and her ongoing dynamic assessment of the likelihood of achieving these goals with this specific man are probably important determinants of perceived risk as well as the amount of risk she is willing to tolerate. Applying a more complete model, then, requires determining the attractions as well as the risks of dating. So what are women’s goals and expectations for dating? The current literature, though relatively sparse, projects the view that women most often value forming and strengthening a romantic relationship, in contrast to men, who value having sex (e.g., see discussion by Morr & Mongeau, 2004). As an alternate view, Morr and Mongeau (2004), as well as Mongeau et al. (2007), suggested that most men’s and women’s dating goals actually have much in common. Both men and women desire a relationship and sexual activity, but generally women desire the former slightly more, and men, the latter. For example, Mongeau et al. (2004), in a study using written narratives, reported both male and female young adults defined dating as activity that was (a) planned, (b) one-on-one, and (c) included strong sexual overtones, with the third criterion distinguishing dating from “going out with a friend.” In any case, very little dating research goes beyond generalities to assess specific dating goals and behaviors of young adult women. Furthermore, several researchers have pointed out that the literature tends to characterize normative dating as women fighting off men’s sexual advances and “keeping them in line” (Bartoli & Clark, 2006; Nurius, Norris, & Dimeff, 1996), which seems unpleasant; where is the attraction for women in dating? Open questions, therefore, remain: What attracts women to dating? What do women want and expect in a dating interaction? How do women attempt to achieve their sexual and relationship goals? Answers may help us understand what motivates women to engage in sometimes risky behavior.

Current Study To begin our investigation of this under-researched aspect of dating-related sexual coercion, we instigated a qualitative focus group study of the desires of young adult women who date men. Our aim was to capture important information about women’s dating desires to use in developing models that could be tested quantitatively (using a similar approach to the research program presented in Noel et al., 2008). Focus group methods were developed originally for research in marketing (Morgan, 1997), but recently have been used in psychological research as an alternative to surveys, written narratives, and individual interviews. Focus groups gather a small number of people to discuss specific topics, employing group social interaction to enhance feedback on beliefs, experiences, and reactions of respondents (Gibbs, 1997). Morgan (1997) argued that the advantage of focus groups over narratives and individual interviews lies in their ability to allow the researcher to observe interaction of participants on a topic and enhance the depth of the data, especially with topics (such as dating) that are


4


“habit-ridden” or often not thought out in detail. Thus, the data from the current focus group study could inform and develop models that will drive quantitative studies, richer in detail than might otherwise be known. Our participants were young adult single women, aged 21 to 30, who were dating men. The lower age limit (21) allowed us to discuss sensitive topics with women who had had a variety of dating experiences, including those who would have had legal opportunities for alcohol use, because alcohol use is so often associated with instances of sexual coercion (Norris et al., 1996). Based on informal discussions and preliminary studies with several female psychology undergraduates, we formulated six questions to discuss sequentially in each focus group: Research Question 1: What kinds of activities would you normally expect on a date (e.g., going to a restaurant, time alone in his or your home)? Research Question 2: What are the qualities that would make a man attractive to you on a date and make you want to see him again? These two questions allowed us to assess participants’ views of “normal” dating, how dates come about and what attracts and motivates them to date, information that has direct bearing on women’s ongoing goals for dating, including their sexual and relationship goals. Research Question 3: Suppose you are interacting with a man to whom you are attracted. What are the things he might do or say that would suggest he wants to have sex with you? This question allowed us to assess participants’ perceptions of the man’s sexual signals. Did they know when a decision point about sex was approaching? If, for example, they wanted to delay sex to find out more about him, were they able to anticipate when and how? We asked the question this way because in preliminary work, many women told us that “getting rid of” an “unattractive” man was not difficult. Problems arose when they felt ambivalent: attracted to a man, but wanting to interact more before deciding whether to have sex with him. Research Question 4: From your experience and knowledge (e.g., from friends), what are the kinds of situations can you imagine where a woman would really not want to have sex with a man, but would go ahead anyway? Research Question 5: In those situations, what would it be about the man or the man’s behavior that would make it difficult to not have sex (ranging from his use of force to he was so overwhelmingly attractive, you couldn’t say no. In the latter case, what would those qualities be?) With these two questions, we hoped to learn more about how women handled their own sexual attraction and their motivations vis-à-vis decisions to engage in “ambivalent” or even unwanted sex.


Noel et al.

5

Research Question 6: What are some things you could say or do if you liked the guy, but you wanted him to not pressure you for sexual intercourse? This question was somewhat of a challenge. As noted above, saying “no” may be relatively easy if a woman decides she does not want to see the man again. However, if she is ambivalent (she likes him, but is cautious about “getting too involved” before she really knows him), would her attraction to possible sex and/or a romantic relationship with him drive her immediate response? How will she evaluate the likelihood of achieving her dating goals with him versus the risk of negative consequences? The “cognitive tightrope” (Norris et al., 1996) becomes an especially apt metaphor. In summary, we conducted the focus groups to enhance knowledge of women’s dating views in rich detail. Our goal was to collect data that allow elaboration of Nurius’s (2000) risk-appraisal model, so that women’s attractions to dating and dating behavior can provide a more complete model of women’s dating interactions.

Method Participants Fifty-four women volunteered for the study, but only 49 met the inclusion/exclusion criteria (age 21-30; dating men; no problematic alcohol, drug, or mental health issues; willing to participate in a focus group with other women to discuss dating). Potential participants were excluded because they were not dating men (n = 2); they were married (n = 2), or they showed evidence of serious alcohol, drug, or psychiatric problems on screening measures (n = 3; categories overlapped). In addition, 4 could not be scheduled for group times, leaving a final sample of 45. Ages range from 21 to 30, but the median was 22; 31 (69%) were current college or graduate students; 38 were Caucasian, 6 were African American, and 1 was Latina. Participants were paid US$10 for screening and US$15 if they attended a focus group.

Procedure Participants were recruited via flyers and word-of-mouth both on campus and in the surrounding community. Each signed an informed consent and was screened individually. We assessed demographics, drinking, and drug use quantity and frequency (using a Quantity-Frequency Index adapted from Cahalan, Cisin, & Crossley, 1969) and psychological problems (using the Symptom Checklist-90-R; Derogatis, 1977). If she met the criteria, a female graduate student called and scheduled the participant for a focus group. Eleven focus groups were held over a 5-week period. One group had three women, 2 had five, and the rest each had four. Each group was scheduled for 90 min on a weekday evening at the University so that non-students could attend. All groups were moderated by a female clinical psychologist (the first author), with a female graduate student assisting with data collection. All sessions were audio-recorded, but having a


6


note-taking student was helpful in one group when the sound-recording equipment failed and we were able to reconstruct part of the dialogue from her notes. The room was comfortably equipped with sofas, chairs, and a small snack table (coffee, cookies, chips, and sodas were available). We tried to schedule friends into separate groups, but inadvertently had one session with two friends. However, in all others, participants were only acquaintances, if they knew each other at all. The Moderator explained the informed consent, including the need for confidentiality among the group members (“What is said here, stays here.”) and the need for sound recording. Later, after the sound recordings had been transcribed, they were erased, so no voices could be recognized. The first question proved to be a good icebreaker, as women seemed to enjoy talking about dating experiences, and the discussion was lively, thorough, sometimes serious, and occasionally raucous. The Moderator ensured that each participant had the opportunity to speak before moving on to the next question. At the end of the group, the Moderator reminded the participants of the confidentiality agreement, paid each, and gave each a list of contact information for her and the local rape crisis center, in case the discussion had aroused concerns about the participant or any of her friends. Several participants remarked that they had enjoyed the group experience and wished it was offered as a discussion group on a regular basis. Data preparation. All 16 hr of discussion were transcribed by a team of two laboratory assistants. Then, before the tapes were erased, a separate team of four undergraduates listened while reading the transcripts to check for mistakes and omissions. Then, a three-step content analysis was completed. Content analysis. First, the same four undergraduates analyzed the content of the transcribed material, formulating and agreeing on categories of responses and remarks through extensive and frequent group discussions over the course of one semester. The four were selected because they were experienced research assistants, two female and two male, all within the same age range as the participants (21-30). The coders’ analyses of content here, and below, did not differ on the basis of their gender. Second, a large number of categories (>100) were formulated, so a second independent team (again two females and two males in the same age range) used the definitions to collapse some of the categories. Furthermore, some participants’ remarks, while very striking, did not occur often, so they were left uncategorized, but may be described and discussed below. Category definitions are available from the first author. Finally, a third team, a female and a male in the same age group, were trained to a high criterion (90% agreement) on the major category definitions. They then tallied the frequency of statements in each category in response to each question for the entire transcript. After intensive training and discussion between the last two raters, interrater reliability for content classification ranged from 82% to 98% with a mean of 92% over the course of the entire transcript. Each disagreement was discussed and resolved to provide the final judgment. All this work was supervised closely by the first author, a clinical psychologist with extensive experience working with young adult women.


Noel et al.

7

Results and Discussion Participants discussed a wide variety of topics, so to limit the results and discussion, we included descriptions of statements in categories that totaled more than 1% of the responses to a question. Each of these categories and the percent of responses for the category are listed in Table 1. In the text, each topic is followed by descriptions of responses. Statements in quotations are examples drawn from the transcripts. Overall implications and conclusions appear in the “General Discussion” section.

Defining a Date and Normative Dating Activities (Responses to Research Question 1) Consistent with the findings of Mongeau et al. (2004), most of the women agreed that three criteria defined a date. First, it was a planned activity, and it was mostly planned and financed by the man. A consensus emerged in almost all groups that at least in the beginning of a relationship, the man should ask the women for a date, he should plan the date, he should drive (pick her up) and he should pay the expenses: . . . this is like a text book stereotypical expectation, but I expect for the first couple of months of hanging out and spending time with each other, yeah, you should take me out to a nice dinner once or twice and pay for it.

Many participants said they understood that most men their age, especially college students, had little money, so they felt that after a few dates, it was appropriate to pay for themselves or even ask him out, but only if he had made some sort of public statement or show of a commitment to her. Two other criteria consistent with Mongeau et al.’s (2004) results were also discussed. First, a date should include one-on-one time (“Group dates were for high school. Going out with a group now is just so you can meet someone for the first time. It’s not a date.”). One-on-one time allows a couple to get to know each other better and decide if the relationship should continue. Second, the man was expected to show her affection in public by hugging, holding hands, kissing, or commenting about how nice she looks, both to reassure her that he cared and to make a “public statement” that they were together. Although this description seems similar to Mongeau et al.’s (2004) “sexual overtones,” our exclusively female groups referred to it as “affectionate” behavior. Fourth, in addition to the three criteria, participants said a date requires doing something special, like going to a “not-fast-food” restaurant or eating a specially cooked dinner at his place. Getting at least a little bit dressed up was important as well. The latter helped distinguish a date from going out with a friend. “If I go out with a friend [meaning a male friend], I don’t care if I get food all over my face. It’s just more comfortable.” The rest of the discussion of date criteria centered on the locations and activities involved in a typical date. Public versus private locations were important. General agreement was that early dates should always be in public locations—“you know, for


8


Table 1. Percent of Statements Participants Made About Each Category in Response to Each Question. % of statements 1. What kinds of activities would you normally expect on a date (e.g., going to a restaurant, time alone in his or your home)? Entertainment 16 Dining in/out 10 Recreational 09 Public location 08 Private location 07 Man demonstrates affection 07 Man plans and drives 06 One-on-one 06 Man pays 06 Man asks 05 Alcohol consumption 02 2. What are the qualities that would make a man attractive to you on a date and make you want to see him again? Positive personality traits 22 Physically attractive 15 Social skills/manners 13 Maturity 08 Goals and ambitions 08 Fashion/style 07 Personal hygiene 06 Intelligence 03 3. Suppose you are interacting with a man to whom you are attracted. What are the things he might do or say that would suggest he wants to have sex with you? Body language 31 Oral (verbal) statements 27 Setting (environment) 13 Alcohol 09 Gifts (and flowers) 02 4. From your experience and knowledge (e.g., from friends), what are the kinds of situations you can imagine where a woman would really not want to have sex with a man but would go ahead anyway? Affiliative need/desire 30 Obligation 27 Pressure from man 13 Alcohol use 12 Peer pressure 09 (continued)


9

Noel et al. Table 1. (continued) % of statements

Increase self-esteem 07 Biological (hers) 04 Fear of man 04 Special occasion 03 Revenge 01 5. In those situations what would it be about the man or the man’s behavior that would make it difficult to not have sex (ranging from his use of force to he was so overwhelmingly attractive, you couldn’t say no—in latter case, what would those qualities be)? Obligation/guilt 26 Man’s verbal persistence 13 Physical force/persistence 10 Man’s persuasion 09 Physical attraction to him 07 Too much alcohol 07 Man’s social status 06 Man’s arousal level 03 6. What are some things you could say or do if you liked the guy but you wanted him to not pressure you for sexual intercourse? Indirect verbal 24 Direct verbal 17 Verbal avoidance 13 Physical avoidance 07 Engaging in other sex 05 Environmental control 04 Verbal distraction 03 Promising future sex 03 Physical direct 03 Note. If a category represented less than 1%, it does not appear in this table.

the safety thing”—but later dates could be at his or her place. However, several admitted they did not always follow that principle and occasionally had gone to a man’s apartment or invited him over to theirs during early dating. Typical dating activities included eating out, going to something entertaining (e.g., a movie, a show, or concert), engaging in recreational activities (e.g., bowling, surfing, putt-putt golf), or going out drinking at bars or parties. In practice, almost all of the activities (eating, entertainment, some recreation, and, of course, parties and bars) involved an expectation of some level of alcohol consumption, and most participants said they really enjoyed drinking.


10


Specific Qualities That Are Deemed “Attractive” (Responses to Research Question 2) Most discussion centered on “positive” personality traits, including having confidence in himself, being a leader, caring about others, and having a good sense of humor. Many participants were attracted to a man whom others “looked up to” for something he could do quite well, “Like he has his own band or something.” Intelligence and ambition were also very attractive to most participants. Many expressed the opinion that both physical attraction and a “good” personality were required to make a second date. I could be physically attracted to him when I meet him, and then if the first date goes badly, I could lose that physical attraction for him. He could be a cute guy but if his personality is bad . . . But I don’t think a very nice guy, if he’s unattractive, would work either.

The man’s physical appearance was important to many participants. “If the chemistry is not there, he’s just going to be a friend.” Physical attributes that attracted individual participants were quite varied. They discussed age, hair color, height, weight, physical fitness, and so on. One participant insisted that she was attracted only to older men, while another (age 23) said she was dating an 18-year-old, whom she described as “quite mature.” Another said, “I’ve never really dated someone who, like, had blonde hair. I usually like brunets with dark skin. I like, like, broader guys, rather than, like, um skinny guys.” Yet another said, she was attracted to a man with “a beautiful smile.” Participants seemed to agree that physical appearance was important to sexual appeal, but the specifics were a source of disagreement. Related to physical appearance was how the man “kept himself.” Having some fashion sense was a subject of discussion. Again, each participant seemed to have her own style preference, but most agreed that the man should not look “thrown together.” Many included the type of music he liked as part of his “style.” Equally important, and more specifically agreed upon, was personal hygiene, including being clean, wearing clean clothes, brushing his teeth, washing his hair, and “smelling nice.” The man’s social skills and manners generated much discussion. Many participants said they felt more attracted to a man who used good table manners, was polite to others (including his parents), and behaved like “a gentleman” (e.g., opening doors for her). Two other categories appeared important to some women: (a) religion and religious beliefs and (b) “negative” personality traits. A few participants were adamant that they would be attracted to a man only if he shared their religious beliefs. Another few were attracted to what they described as “negative personality traits.” One woman expressed it as, “I like a man with an edge.”

Women’s Perception of the Man’s Sexual Signals (Responses to Research Question 3) Participants said they were very aware of sexual signals: “[Sex] is such a big deal in our relationships. Usually it’s the guy saying I want it and the girl is like, this isn’t the


Noel et al.

11

time for it.” Much discussion centered specifically on men’s body language. Most participants believed they recognized when body language signaled a desire for sex. For example, “It’s that look that he gives you . . . ” or “If he starts kissing you and doesn’t stop or something like that. Yeah. Like it never ends,” or Like, if y’all are cuddling on the couch and I guess you could sit next to each other or I guess if it’s late at night you could like lay on the couch with him on top of you and he could like rub your back or something like that or offer you a back massage or something and kinda go a little further than the back or something.

In addition, participants said men’s verbal indicators could be direct and understandable, too (e.g., “Should I get a condom?”). However, in contrast, many participants said that men’s indirect verbal comments were difficult to interpret. For example, is “I love you” a statement of affection, a sexual signal, or both? They had difficulty with “those BS lines, like ‘I’ve never met someone like you before. I think you’re wonderful. You’re the most beautiful person I’ve ever met. I love you.’ Stuff like that.” They were often uncertain when men were “dropping the L-Bomb.” Likewise, gifts and flowers could be a source of confusion. Well, with expensive stuff he could be wanting something in return, you know. But I guess it all depends on the way he acts when he gives it to you, like if he bought you a big piece of jewelry or something.

Another commented, Well, if it’s kind of out of the blue, like not on your birthday or holidays or Valentine’s Day, it’s more like, “Oh, I thought of you, so here you go.” And you’re kind of like, “Well, do I repay you somehow? Do I have to give you something back?” I think that’s a little drastic, if they’re going to buy you something that big and you’re not already at a level where you’re comfortable enough to talk about sex, even if you’re not having it.

Most participants described two “obvious” sexual signals. One was the setting or environment, as in “he gets you off alone somewhere.” The other was alcohol. “A lot of times they keep offering you drinks. So that you have a little alcohol in you, loosen you up a bit.”

Reasons for Having Sex Despite Ambivalence (Responses to Research Question 4) Most discussion centered on sex as a method of creating or strengthening a relationship bond. “Sometimes I don’t want to have sex, but if he does, it’s my way of telling him I love him,” or “If she likes him and wants him to like her back,” or “If she really likes him but she thinks he won’t stay, unless she hooks up with him,” or Some women just have to be in a relationship, and they feel like they aren’t complete and aren’t happy unless they’re in a relationship, and sometimes when there’s nothing there


12


compatibility-wise, the woman will go ahead and please the man so he will stay with her, until she can find the next “Mr. Right Now.”

Second, the woman’s own sexual arousal may determine her responses, despite conflicted feelings. “Well, I didn’t necessarily want to have sex with him, but I was feeling pretty frustrated and he was ready,” or Sometimes even though you think at the beginning you don’t want to, then you do because you get all turned on. But later you say, “why did I do that?” I think it has to do with where you are in your menstrual cycle,

or “Maybe she wants it for herself even though she’s not totally attracted to the guy, she just wants to have a little fun.” Another reason to have undesired sex was a sense of obligation. “Sometimes a woman might feel obligated, depending on, I guess, depending on how much the guy spends on her during the date,” or “Girls just want to be nice and stuff and we just don’t want to hurt their feelings,” or Things like if they got a promotion or if it’s their birthday or your birthday or whatever and you feel, well, I don’t want to say obligated, but I guess people just assume that like on special occasions [having sex is] something you do,

or “This is just something he needs to release stress or something, it’s not going to hurt me. I mean it’s not one of those things where if I said no, he wouldn’t stop. So why not?” The idea of jewelry and other expensive gifts (see topic 3) was discussed again: “If you are going to accept his gifts, then why not have sex with him?” Peer pressure, and sometimes not-so-subtle pressure from friends, was also seen as a factor. “I guess sometimes pressure from friends, like if they set you up with the guy?” or “Everybody else wants to go off together, and you’re the only one who doesn’t,” or “If people hear that everybody else is doing it, everybody else is doing it, and they do it just because everybody else is doing it, even though they don’t want to. Peer pressure.” One participant described the interplay of obligation and concern about her reputation with peers: You’ve been flirting or whatever, and they obviously in their minds know, “Okay, this is where this is going,” and then you pull the plug, and it’s hard if they’ve been expecting to go down that road. It’s kind of hard to explain and put into words what I’m trying to say. And you have to worry about, “Oh my gosh, he thinks I’m a tease” and stuff like that. You may not be worried about you being a tease, but you worry about other people may be thinking you’re a tease. And then you get the reputation of, “Oh, she takes guys home, but she doesn’t ever do anything with them.”

Enhancement of the woman’s self-esteem was also a reason for “ambivalent” sex. Some participants said women were complimented by a man’s attention and getting him to have sex with her increased self-esteem. “That would have to be a girl with


Noel et al.

13

pretty low self-esteem to start,” one participant remarked, but others disagreed with her, saying that if the man was high status (such as a famous actor one participant had met in a local bar), then having sex with him would make her feel more attractive, even if she was not “turned on.” Furthermore, three participants in three separate groups said that sex with another man was a way to get “revenge” on a former boyfriend because “he’ll hear about it” and presumably realize what an attractive woman he had lost. Then, of course, there was alcohol. You’ve been drinking and you’re drunk and you’re attracted to the other person and you kiss him and whatever and he starts doing more and you’re just so drunk you’re kind of like, “Okay,” and you just kind of let it go before you even realize what’s happening. Definitely I would say alcohol would play a big part if she didn’t really want it.

One participant quoted a friend as saying, I drank a certain amount and when he tried to start I just didn’t feel like trying to push him off. You know, I didn’t really want to, but it wasn’t really rape because I went ahead with it, and I didn’t really want it but I just did it to get him off of me.

Finally, pressure from the man and fear of the man were cited as factors in a decision to have unwanted sex. Pressure from the man was characterized as “whining” and “nagging” (see also next topic). Fear of the man was not just fear of being hurt, but fear of being left in a bad situation. For example, one participant described being left downtown by herself late at night with no transportation home. She advised the others to always bring cab fare. Fear also could arise from having been raped or otherwise physically abused. A few participants suggested that if a woman had been physically hurt once, later she might be more likely to “give in” to any pressure from any man to avoid getting hurt again.

Qualities of the Man That Make Refusing Sex Difficult (Responses to Research Question 5) Most responses to this question paralleled those in Research Question 4, with more emphasis on the man’s behavior. Sometimes, participants said, the man’s positive behavior may change her mind (i.e., he seduces her). “Well, he kept at it, but he lit candles and played some good music and kept telling me I was beautiful, so I said okay ’cause it was really nice.” However, the idea of obligation and guilt arose again. “There are lots of guys who know exactly how to manipulate that guilt thing with us.” A related behavior was a man’s verbal persuasion. “He says he’ll use a condom.” “He’s had a bad day. How can it hurt me to just do it with him?” “He says, ‘It’ll make you feel better, too, Baby.’” Verbal persistence (“nagging and whining”) was discussed again: “Sometimes if you just give in and get it over with, he’ll shut up about it.”


14


Physical persistence (e.g., “constant groping and grabbing at me”), because it was annoying, sometimes led to sex because, “It got it over with.” Physical force, however, sometimes grew out of physical persistence. He kept getting more and more at it, and he wouldn’t leave me alone, and I think he didn’t realize how forceful he was getting till he hurt me and I got really mad at him and he backed off.

Threat or actual use of physical force was often associated with the man drinking too much alcohol and/or the woman’s belief that he was too sexually aroused to stop. Finally, the man’s social status or physical attractiveness might lead to an unwanted sexual experience. For example, “You get put into a popular crowd where you’re popular by association, so if she’s associated with the head of the football team or something, she could be considered cool too,” or “When [celebrity] is in town for a television show and he invites you to his place to ‘hang out,’ you go, because he is too good looking to pass up.”

Strategies to Avoid Ambivalent or Unwanted Sex in a Relationship (Responses to Research Question 6) Participants moved on to this topic by describing a variety of strategies to stay balanced on the “cognitive tightrope.” Participants said they used indirect verbal strategies (e.g., “I’m on my period,” “I have to get up early tomorrow”) most often. Several participants felt that being honest and direct was probably the most effective strategy (e.g., “I like you, but I have to feel more secure before we go on,” “I want to get to know you better; I don’t want just a physical relationship”), but they felt awkward, difficult, and “rude” saying such things, so the strategy was underused. Often, they said, it felt difficult because the man knew they had been in sexual relationships before, so they worried that he might feel like they were telling him to “get lost.” “He knows it’s not like you’re saving yourself for marriage or something.” Others said they had been successful with the direct approach: “If he’s any kind of a gentleman, he’ll hear what you have to say,” and if not, then they felt he should “get lost.” Avoidance or distraction strategies could be verbal or physical: changing the subject or putting it off (e.g., “Let’s talk about that later”) or moving out of reach (e.g., “If he tries to kiss you before you’re ready, turn your cheek.” “If he starts getting physical, get up and head for the kitchen or go to the bathroom or something”). Direct physical responses, such as gentle but firm pushes away, and removal of hands were deemed more effective, but again, most believed these responses might damage the possibility of a future relationship. Environmental control, including manipulating the setting of the date (“Never go anywhere with him but public places till you’re sure you can trust him”) and ensuring that friends were in the vicinity, were effective, but awkward after the first couple of dates. Two other strategies included engaging in sexual behavior other than intercourse (e.g., “just keep making out, but don’t let him do anything else”) and promising to


Noel et al.

15

have sex at a specific later time. The consensus was that both were mostly ineffective and perhaps even dangerous to the relationship and/or the woman, but both were frequently used.

General Discussion We conducted these focus groups to describe women’s dating behavior and expectations with the aim of informing social cognitive models of dating interactions. The focus groups were well attended and viewed positively by the participants. The data were detailed and varied, but converge on several themes illustrating the intertwined attractions and risks of dating. First, participants’ criteria for defining a “date” were consistent with the three criteria described by Mongeau et al. (2004), including a planned “special” activity and one-on-one time, except that the third, “sexual overtones,” was referred to as “affectionate” behavior by this exclusively female sample. Still, if the man engaged in these affectionate behaviors, the ultimate result often was that the woman desired sex with him. Many participants expressed a sense of light-hearted fun and happiness during an emerging relationship, especially in regard to having sex, but felt that a man’s public display of affection or commitment to them was necessary to feel “safe” about having sex with him. Ironically, though, major themes emerging from the focus groups suggested that the very qualities many women found attractive in men increased their vulnerability to undesired sexual interactions and sexual coercion. First, despite changing mores of sexual behavior, most participants seemed to hold traditional views of dating, at least with regard to the initial stages of a relationship. Consistent with Mongeau and Johnson’s (1995) study from nearly years ago, most said they still wanted men to take a controlling role in initiating the dating relationship by asking, planning, driving, and paying, until he made some sort of “public commitment” that he was involved with her (e.g., outward show of affection). Indeed, most of these women said they were attracted to a particular man because he took or was striving to take controlling and leading roles in social and occupational contexts. Unfortunately, they did not seem to recognize that voluntarily putting a controlling person in control means putting yourself in a vulnerable position. Second, our participants’ communication about sex often was limited perhaps by their traditional social expectation that women must be discreet and indirect about their sexual desires and also must not hurt the man’s feelings. They described very little open discussion with men about mutual sexual desires, including the desire to wait to have sex. It is telling that Hickman and Muehlenhard (1999) found that sexual misunderstandings often arise with the use of indirect signals for consent. They reported that many of their participants (both men and women) characterized their consent for sex as kind of a passive acceptance of the other person’s sexual advances. Such indirect signals perhaps are a way of never having to clearly reject or be rejected by the other person. However, passive behavior could also result from intoxication, indecision, or even fear, so indirect or passive communication leaves the door open for misinterpretation.


16


Even more to the point, women may feel ambivalent about sex, intertwined with whether to continue the relationship; perhaps she wants more time and interaction with her dating partner before deciding about how she will behave with him. In a series of provocative articles, Muehlenhard and Peterson (2005; Peterson & Muehlenhard, 2004, 2007) addressed the “missing discourse of ambivalence” with regard to women’s sexual decision-making. They point out that the “all or nothing” dichotomy of categorizing “wanted” versus “unwanted” sex fails to capture what is often a very ambiguous situation. For example, our participants said that a woman may not feel like having sex with her dating partner, but she will, based on a goal of nurturing a rewarding or potentially rewarding relationship. These data are consistent with O’Sullivan and Allgeier’s (1998) study of men and women in “committed” dating relationships in which 50% of women (and 26% of men) said that during the last 2 weeks they had consented to undesired sex, most often (ironically) to achieve intimacy with their partner. Thus, women may feel ambivalent about having sex with their dating partner but have trouble communicating the desire to wait, slow down, or talk more. Our participants told us that even directly and honestly communicating to a man, “I’m very attracted to you, but I don’t want to have sex with you yet,” was considered “rude” and unacceptable. Another emerging related theme was the sense of obligation or even guilt a woman might feel when a man, in his expected traditional role, has spent money on her and bought her gifts. Our participants said that although they may not desire sex at the time, they don’t want to “hurt his feelings” when he has been “so nice” (e.g., “He gave me these things because he cares about me”). Many of our participants described situations in which they had sex when they did not want to (or continued to date someone when they did not want to) because they felt obligated. Furthermore, in this two-way dialogue, participants felt that many men recognize the feeling of indebtedness and may use that leverage. Thus, pressure such as nagging and guilt induction, even without physical force, may push women into having sex. A fourth theme was the importance of having a “relationship” to the self-esteem of many women. If a “high status” (e.g., intelligent, ambitious, good looking) man publicly evidenced affection for her, including having sex with her, many women felt increased self-worth and higher status in the eyes of other women. Even declining an unwanted sexual experience made some women feel odd compared with their peers (“Everybody’s doing it”) or worse (e.g., the woman who was worried about her reputation for taking men home but not having sex with them). In these cases, sex, although undesired, may be used to increase status or to avoid loss of status. A final important theme was that alcohol consumption, a component of most dating activities, could intensify impairment in sexual decision-making. Participants recognized that alcohol decreased their cognitive and physical abilities, potentially affecting several decision-making steps. However, drinking on dates was so ubiquitous that in many cases it was hardly worth discussion in the groups. Many studies indicate that consuming alcohol is normative for a “typical date” (e.g., Bartoli & Clark, 2006). Almost all of the dating activities described by our participants included drinking or at least the opportunity for drinking. Beyond the risk of incapacitation, a risk of drinking


Noel et al.

17

is that the presence of alcohol in a dating situation significantly increases the daters’ expectations that sexual interactions will take place (Abbey, McAuslan, Ross, & Zawacki, 1999; Mongeau & Johnson, 1995). Our participants described alcohol as part of the fun and attraction of dating, even when they clearly recognized that men “pushing” drinks were trying to “loosen them up.” In sum, many young women engage in social dating with the goals of developing a romantic relationship and/or having mutually enjoyable sex. The goal of most sexual coercion prevention programs is to reduce the risk of negative, harmful consequences of dating. Nurius et al. (2004) and others have suggested that teaching women riskrecognition techniques will help protect them. However, Gidycz et al. (2006) and others hypothesized that such risk-recognition programs are potentially ineffective because most women can recognize risks (as many participants in this study evidenced), but perceive themselves as being less likely than their peers to be sexually assaulted (e.g., “This may put me at risk, but I am more capable than other women in protecting myself”). Such statements are also consistent with Abbey et al.’s (1999) finding that young women saw themselves, relative to other women, as being less influenced by alcohol in a sexual situation. Going further, data from the current study suggest that “typical” dating activities are inherently risky to women because many of the very qualities of men and situations that women find most attractive are the qualities making them most vulnerable. In this regard, using risk-recognition programs to prevent sexual coercion might be akin to using risk recognition to make sky diving safe. Participants in this study generally saw dating as exciting and fun, with the prospects of a rewarding relationship, good sex, and the admiration of their peers as incentives to “dive in.” Many felt positive about themselves for having engaged in dating while dealing successfully with the risks. These data suggest that efforts to prevent sexual coercion may require discovering ways to work around the presence of risk, rather than to remove it from the typical date. For example, rather than emphasizing recognizing and avoiding risk, programs might help women construct creative and effective behaviors to achieve their ultimate dating goals more directly or assertively than at present. This might involve helping the woman to examine her specific, individual goals for dating and how she might achieve those goals through dating activity. Such programs could also emphasize selfesteem, effective communication, and not getting sidetracked by “obligation” and the desire to protect others from “hurt feelings.” Another intervention may include a harm-reduction approach (Marlatt, 1998) to alcohol use on dates, as alcohol seems to play such a major role in “typical” dates. Women might learn methods to build in safeguards to protect themselves from alcohol-fueled bad decisions.

Limitations Several obvious limitations of the study include (a) the restricted ethnic and regional diversity of the sample, (b) the fact that many participants were college students, and (c) the data were not collected in a way that is meaningfully quantifiable. Focus groups may also have drawbacks in that one or two participants per session could have a


18


strong influence in guiding the discussion and the topics covered, or some participants may feel shy and “hold back” an unpopular opinion. This concern might be pertinent in this study because the women who were not college students might have felt intimidated by the students as the sessions were held on campus. However, the Moderator in this current study has had extensive experience in leading group therapy sessions and thus could ensure that all of the women participated in the discussion of each question. In addition, the small grant that funded this study did not allow us to rent a meeting place off campus, which will be a goal for future studies. Another drawback is that we did not study actual behavior, but only the participants’ reports of their own and others’ dating experiences. Remembering and actually articulating behaviors may be subject to many distortions, but the same could be said about any self-report method of study. Consistent with standard methods of increasing validity of self-reports (see, for example, Sobell, Maisto, Sobell, & Cooper, 1979), we kept the atmosphere as nonjudgmental and confidential as possible. The advantage of the focus group study method is that it provided a richly detailed portrait of young adult heterosexual women’s views of dating, sex, and alcohol that can form the basis of several, more quantitative studies (see Noel et al., 2008, for more on the use of focus groups in a quantitative research program).

Future Research Our intention is to use these data to develop quantitative research that will help women develop meaningful access to choices in their dating and sexual behavior. We hope to help women prevent unwanted sexual interactions, while improving their skills for communicating and clarifying ambivalence and for engaging in desired sex and relationship-building. Better understanding of what women want can inform a model of dating behavior that acknowledges the enjoyment and attraction of dating for women, helping them to decrease the experience of harm, rather than risk, and increase skills for achieving the goals they desire. Acknowledgments We thank Gerald Benton, Melissa Cartun, Stephen Crozier, Shahena Dar, Kendria Funches, Stacy Grossman, Jessica Hackworth, Patrick Jones, Stephanie Kress, Bridget Nichols, Benjamin O’Brien, Jennifer Ort, Rakhee Patel, Lauren Slusher, and Cedric Turner for their assistance. Special thanks to Kathryn Gallagher for her help in managing the coding teams.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a Cahill Grant from the University of North Carolina Wilmington to the first author.


Noel et al.

19

References Abbey, A., McAuslan, P., Ross, L., & Zawacki, T. (1999). Alcohol expectancies regarding sex, aggression and sexual vulnerability: Reliability and validity assessment. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 13, 174-182. Afifi, W., & Faulkner, S. (2000). On being “just friends”: The frequency and impact of sexual activity on cross-sex friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 205-222. Bartoli, A., & Clark, M. (2006). The dating game: Similarities and differences in dating scripts among college students. Sexuality & Culture, 10, 54-80. Bogle, K. (2008). Hooking up: Sex, dating, and relationships on campus. New York: New York University. Brener, N., McMahon, P., Warren, C., & Douglas, K. (1999). Forced sexual intercourse and associated health-risk behaviors among female college students in the United States. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 252-259. Buddie, A., & Testa, M. (2005). Rates and predictors of sexual aggression among students and non-students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 713-724. Cahalan, D., Cisin, I., & Crossley, H. (1969). American drinking practices. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2004). National Center for Injury Prevention and Control sexual violence fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/ svfacts.htm Derogatis, L. (1977). The SCL 90-R: Administration, scoring and procedures manual. Baltimore, MD: Clinical Psychometric Research. Drieschner, K., & Lange, A. (1999). A review of cognitive factors in the etiology of rape: Theories, empirical studies and implications. Clinical Psychology Review, 19, 57-77. Edwards, K., Kearns, M., Calhoun, K., & Gidycz, C. (2009). College women’s reactions to sexual assault research participation: Is it distressing? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 225-234. Gibbs, A. (1997). Focus groups. Social Research Update, 19, 1-8. Gidycz, C., McNamara, J., & Edwards, K. (2006). Women’s risk perception and sexual victimization: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 441-446. Hickman, S., & Muehlenhard, C. (1999). “By the semi-mystical appearance of a condom”: How young women and men communicate sexual consent in heterosexual situations. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 258-272. Koss, M. (1992). The underdetection of rape: Methodological choices influence incidence estimates. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 61-75. Koss, M. (1996). The measurement of rape victimization in crime surveys. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 55-69. Koss, M., Gidycz, C., & Wisniewski, N. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162-170. 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, 295-308. Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer. Marlatt, G. A. (1998). Basic principles and strategies of harm reduction. In G. A. Marlatt (Ed.), Harm reduction: Pragmatic strategies for managing high-risk behaviors (pp. 49-66). New York: Guilford.


20


Mongeau, P., Jacobsen, J., & Donnerstein, C. (2007). Defining dates and first date goals: Generalizing from undergraduates to single adults. Communication Research, 34, 526-547. Mongeau, P., & Johnson, K. (1995). Predicting cross-sex first-date sexual expectations and involvement: Contextual and individual difference factors. Personal Relationships, 2, 301-312. Mongeau, P., & Kendall, J. (1996, September). “What do you mean, this is a date?” Differentiating a date from going out with friends. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Network on Personal Relationships, Seattle, WA. Mongeau, P., Serewicz, M., & Therrien, L. (2004). Goals for cross-sex first dates: Identification, measurement and influence of contextual factors. Communication Monographs, 71, 121-147. Morgan, D. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage. Morr, M., & Mongeau, P. (2004). First date expectations: The impact of sex of initiator, alcohol consumption and relationship type. Communication Research, 31, 3-35. Muehlenhard, C., & Peterson, Z. (2005). Wanting and not wanting sex: The missing discourse of ambivalence. Feminism & Psychology, 15, 15-20. Noel, N. E., Maisto, S. A., Johnson, J. D., Jackson, L. A., Goings, C. D., & Hagman, B. T. (2008). Development and validation of videotaped scenarios: A method for targeting specific participant groups. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 419-436. Norris, J., Nurius, P., & Dimeff, L. (1996). Through her eyes: Factors affecting women’s perceptions of and resistance to acquaintance sexual aggression threat. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 123-145. Nurius, P. (2000). Women’s perception of risk for acquaintance sexual assault: A social Cognitive assessment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 63-78. Nurius, P., & Norris, J. (1995). A cognitive ecological model of women’s response to male Sexual coercion in dating. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 8, 117-139. Nurius, P., Norris, J., & Dimeff, L. (1996). Expectations regarding acquaintance aggression among sorority and fraternity members. Sex Roles, 35, 427-444. Nurius, P., Norris, J., Macy, R., & Huang, B. (2004). Women’s situational coping with acquaintance sexual assault: Applying an appraisal-based model. Violence Against Women, 10, 450-477. O’Sullivan, L. F. (2005). Sexual coercion in dating relationships: Conceptual and methodological issues. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 20, 3-11. O’Sullivan, L. F., & Allgeier, E. R. (1998). Feigning sexual desire: Consenting to unwanted sexual activity in heterosexual dating relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 234-243. Paul, E., McManus, B., & Hayes, K. (2000). “Hookups”: Characteristics and correlates of College students’ spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. Journal of Sex Research, 37, 76-88. Peterson, Z., & Muehlenhard, C. (2004). Was it rape? The function of women’s rape myth acceptance and definitions of sex in labeling their own experiences. Sex Roles, 51, 129-144. Peterson, Z., & Muehlenhard, C. (2007). Conceptualizing the “wantedness” of women’s consensual and nonconsensual sexual experiences: Implications for how women label their experiences with rape. Journal of Sex Research, 44, 72-88. Porter, J. F., & Critelli, J. W. (1992). Measurement of sexual aggression in college men: A methodological analysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 21, 525-542. Sobell, L. C., Maisto, S. A., Sobell, M. B., & Cooper, A. T. (1979). Reliability of alcohol abusers’ self-reports of drinking behavior. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 17, 157-160.


Noel et al.

21

Author Biographies Nora E. Noel completed her PhD in clinical psychology from the State University of New York at Binghamton (currently Binghamton University) in 1983. She is a professor in the psychology department at the University of North Carolina Wilmington where she teaches undergraduate experimental psychology and several courses in the graduate program focused on treatment of substance abuse. Her research emphasizes the interplay of alcohol and drug use with sexual behavior and aggression among men and women and has been published in Violence Against Women, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Addictive Behaviors, and several other journals. Richard L. Ogle, PhD, received his doctorate in clinical psychology from the University of New Mexico. He is currently the chair of the Department of Psychology at the University of North Carolina Wilmington. His clinical specialization and program of research are on addictions and post-traumatic stress disorder. He has also published in Violence Against Women, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, and Addictive Behaviors. Stephen A. Maisto received his PhD in experimental psychology from the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee (1975), with postdoctoral respecialization in clinical psychology at George Peabody College of Vanderbilt University (1985). Currently, he is a professor of psychology at the Syracuse University. His interests include determinants and treatment of alcohol and other drug use and disorders, substance use and sexual risk behaviors, and the integration of treatment of behavioral health problems in the primary care setting. He has published in journals such as Psychological Assessment, Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, Journal of General Internal Medicine, and Addiction. Lee A. Jackson, Jr., PhD is a professor of psychology at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington. He is a social and community psychologist whose current interests center on the social psychology of alcohol use among college students and its impact on interpersonal relations. He has co-authored several articles with Drs. Noel, Ogle, and Maisto in addition to a recent article in the Journal of Community Health Nursing.


What Women Want: A Qualitative Study of Contraception in Jail.

What do women want during medical abortion?

What do they want?

What do patients want?

What women want from women's reproductive health research: a qualitative study.

What do older Australians want?

What do cells actually want?

What do Women Want? Experiences of Low-Income Women with Postpartum Contraception and Contraceptive Counseling.

What do patients and the public know about clinical practice guidelines and what do they want from them? A qualitative study.

What do users want from "smart" wheelchairs?

SUDEP: what do parents want to know?

Septic shock. What do physicians want?

What women want: qualitative analysis of consumer evaluations of maternity care in Queensland, Australia.

Do We Really Want a Future as Qualitative Psychologists?

A 'cure' for Down syndrome: what do parents want?

When Will Presidential Candidates Ask, "What Do Women Want in Health Care?".

Informed choice in family planning: what do women want to know?

What do Australian Women Experiencing Intimate Partner Abuse Want From Family and Friends?

What do young Australian women want (when talking to doctors about contraception)?

End-of-life care--what do cancer patients want?

What communication strategies do AAC users want their communication partners to use? A preliminary study.

What kind of healthcare debate do we want?

What surgeons tell patients and what patients want to know before major cancer surgery: a qualitative study.

What Do Patients Want? Patient Preference in Wound Care.