The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol.

18 (4) 2009 201

The roles of situational factors, attributions, and guilt in the

well-being of women who have experienced sexual coercion
Shannon A. Glenn^ and E. Sandra Byers^

' Department of Psychology, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton NB

Abstract: This study examined cognitive (attributions) and affective (guiit feeiings) experiences of
biame foiiowing sexuai coercion and their association with women's psychoiogicai weil-being. Sexuai
coercion was defined as any unwilling sexual experiences that occurred as a result of verbal pressure
or physical force fronn another person. Women (N = 104) who had experienced sexual coercion completed
questionnaires assessing psychological well-being (trauma symptoms, depression, self-esteem, sexual
satisfaction), blame (internal and external attributions, guilt feelings), and characteristics of their most
serious or upsetting experience of sexual coercion. A number of findings suggested that attributions
and guilt feelings are related but distinct experiences for women and can have differing effects on
women's psychological well-being. Multivariate multiple regression and hierarchical multiple regression
analyses found that, as predicted, the blame variables predicted women's well-being over and above
the situational characteristics of the coercive experience. The results are discussed in terms of the need
to conceptualize self-blame as encompassing both "head" (attributions) and "heart" (emotions).

Acknowledgements: This research was conducted in partial fulfilment of the first author's requirements
for the doctoral degree in clinical psychology at the University of New Brunswick under the supervision
of the second author. The authors would like to thank the Human Sexuality Research Group at the
University of New Brunswick for their valued input on the methodology of this study and Hilary Randall
for her assistance in data collection.

Introduction

Sexual coercion occurs when an individual uses
verbal pressure or physical force to engage in sexual
activity with a person who is unwilling (Faulkner,
Kolts, & Hicks, 2008; Hartwick, Desmarais, &
Henning, 2007; Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-
Johnson, 1994). As such, sexual coercion can range
from sexual touching to oral, anal and/or vaginal
penetration. It can involve a variety of coercion
tactics including verbal pressure, use of intoxicants,
and/or actual or threatened physical force
(Breitenbecher, 2006; Faulkneretal., 2008; Hartwick
et al., 2007; O'Sullivan, Byers, & Finkelman, 1998).
Some, but not all, of these activities would constitute
crimes and not all women who experience sexual
coercion consider themselves to be victims. Thus,
we have used the desicriptive phrase "experienced
sexual coercion" to refer to the women in our study,
We have used the term "coercer" to refer to the
individuals who used pressure or force to engage in
sexual activity,
It is not uncommon for young women to experience
sexual coercion by men, with estimates of the
prevalence ranging from 18% to 54% (Koss, Gidycz,
& Wisniewski, 1987; O'Sullivan et al., 1998; Watts
& Zimmerman, 2002). Further, both studies that have
"sed broader and those that have used narrower
definitions of sexual coercion have found that
experiencing sexual coercion is associated with
poorer psychological and sexual well-being (Elliott,
Mok, & Briere, 2004; Koss, 1993; Mynatt & Allgeier,
1990; Neville & Heppner, 1999; Shapiro & Schwarz,
1997; Ullman, 1997; Ullman, Filipas, Townsend, &
Starzynski, 2007a). However, not all women who
have experienced sexual coercion exhibit adjustment
problems; those that do experience symptoms that

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to E. Sandra Byers, Ph.D., Department of Psychology,
University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada E3B 5A3. E-mail: byers@unb.ca
202 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 18 (4) 2009

vary in their severity. Therefore, it is important to sexual coercion are socially encouraged to "look at
identify factors that affect the well-being of women themselves" for reasons as to why they were
who have experienced sexual coercion. The present victimized (Anderson, 1999). In fact, making self-
study examined the extent to which situational attributions following sexual coercion is a fairly
characteristics of the sexual coercion as well as common response with one-third to one-half of North
women's cognitive and affective responses to it are American women placing at least some blame on
associated with their well-being. We assessed four themselves (Littleton et al., 2007; Ullman, 1997;
psychological outcomes that have been shown to be Vidal & Petrak, 2007).
associated with experiencing sexual coercion:
symptoms of distress following a stressful or Self-blame is, in and of itself, one harmful outcome
traumatic event (i.e., trauma symptoms), depression of sexual coercion. It also has been found to
symptoms, self-esteem, and sexual satisfaction exacerbate other negative outcomes such as
(Branscombe, Wohl, Owen, Allison, & N'gbala, 2003; depression symptoms, trauma symptoms, and low
Elliott et al., 2004; Lemieux & Byers, 2008; Offman & self-esteem (Branscombe et al., 2003; Ullman et al.,
Matheson, 2004; Shapiro & Schwarz, 1997). 2007a). However, little is known about the emotional
distress associated with self-blame following sexual
Self-blame attributions and guilt coercion. Kubany and Watson (2003) define guilt and
feelings self-blame as "an unpleasant feeling with
Following sexual coercion, women may find accompanying beliefs that one should have thought,
themselves trying to "make sense" of why they were felt, or acted differently (with implications of
victimized. Despite consciousness-raising efforts to responsibility, wrong-doing, and/or insufficient
the contrary, in doing so they may blame themselves justification)" ( p. 53). That is, they argued that guilt
for their victimization (Janoff-Bulman, 1979; and self-blame consist of both an affective (distress,
Littleton, Magee, & Axsom, 2007; Vidal & Petrak, guilt feelings) and a cognitive (guilt-related
2007). The sociopolitical context undoubtedly cognitions, internal attributions) component. Indeed,
contributes to women's experience of self-blame they have shown that, for women in a physically
following sexual coercion (Fine & Carney, 2001). abusive relationship, emotions and cognitions
Beliefs and stereotypes in many cultures assign blame associated with self-blame are separate factors and
to women for their own sexual victimization in at each is associated with trauma symptoms, depression,
least some circumstances (Girard & Senn, 2008; and low-self-esteem (Kubany, Haynes, Abueg,
Geiger, Fischer, & Eshet, 2004; Grubb & Harrower, Manke, Brennan, & Stahura, 1996). However, to date,
2008; Janoff-Bulman, 1979; Leonard, 1999). These examinations of self-blame following sexual coercion
sexual coercion supportive attitudes (also called rape have focused mostly on internal attributions—that
myths) include such beliefs as: women say "no" when is, on the cognitive element—and have neglected to
they niean "yes"; a women who goes to a man's assess guilt feelings. Therefore, in this study we
residence is consenting to sex; it is acceptable to force assessed both internal attributions (the cognitive
a woman to have sex if the couple has engaged in component of self-blame) and guilt feelings (the
sexual activity in the past; and, men cannot control affective component of self-blame).
their behaviour when they are highly sexually aroused
(Anderson, 1999; Price, Byers, & the Dating Violence
Beck (1976) has argued that the way we perceive
Research Team, 1999; Taylor & Sorenson, 2007).
situations influences how we feel emotionally.
Further, even in unambiguous sexual coercion
Consistent with this view, in general, guilt-related
situations, women who have certain characteristics
cognitions (e.g., the belief that one should have
(e.g., are viewed as provocative, having low
behaved differently and therefore is in some way
respectability, intoxicated) and who are acquainted
responsible for the event) have been shown to be
with the coercer are attributed more blame for the
associated with guilt-related emotions such as
sexual coercion than are women who do not have
remorse or distress (Kubany & Watson, 2003;
these characteristics (Anderson, 1999; Girard &
Lazarus, 1991 ; Tangney, Wagner, & Gramzow, 1992;
Senn, 2008). Similarly, women who have experienced
Weiner, 1985). As such, it is likely that women who
 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 18 (4) 2009
see themselves as more responsible for the sexual
coercion (i.e., make stronger internal attributions)
also experience stronger guilt feelings. However,
emotions in general, and guilt feelings in particular,
may not be totally determined by cognitive appraisals
(MacLeod, 1999; Parkinson, 1999). Therefore, it is
possible that women can experience high guilt but
report weak internal attributions. However,
researchers have not examined the interrelationships
among internal attributions, external attributions, and
guilt feelings following sexual coercion. Based on
past research, we predicted that internal and external
attributions would be positively associated. Further,
given Kubany and Watson's (2003) conceptualization
of self-blame and guilt as consisting of both cognitive
and affective components, we expected that the
relationship between guilt feelings and internal
attributions would be significantly greater than the
relationship between either construct and external
attributions.
Attributions and adjustment
Researchers generally have asked women to make
cognitive (and arguably rational) attributional
judgments about responsibility for their experience
of sexual coercion. According to Janoff-Bulman
(1979), internal attributions following sexual assault
can take one of two forms: a behavioural form in
which a woman blames her assault on some aspect
of her behaviour; and, a characterological form in
which a woman blames her assault on some enduring
flaw in her personality or character. Most researchers
have found that both forms of internal attributions
are associated with poorer adjustment including more
trauma symptoms, higher depression symptoms,
lower self-esteem, and lower sexual satisfaction
(Arata & Burkhart, 1998; Frazier, 2000, 2003;
Littleton & Breitkopf, 2006; Meyer & Taylor, 1986;
Regehr et al., 1999; Ullman, Townsend, Filipas, &
Starzynski, 2007b).
Some researchers have argued that blaming others
or society for the sexual coercion is adaptive (Massad
& Hulsey, 2006; Ullman, 1997). Further, counseling
of women who have experienced sexual coercion
often focuses on replacing self-blame with external
blame. As such, it would be expected that women
who place more blame on themselves would place
less blame on external factors such as the coercer
203
and society. However, higher self-blame is associated,
in fact, with higher blame on external factors (Arata
& Burkhart, 1998; Frazier, 2000; Koss, Figueredo,
& Prince, 2002; Meyer & Taylor, 1986; Ullman,
1997). As is the case with internal attributions,
external attributions also tend to be associated with
poorer psychological well-being including greater
depression and trauma symptoms and lower self-
esteem (Arata & Burkhart, 1996; Branscombe et al.,
2003; Frazier, 2000; Regehr et al., 1999). This may
be because women who make stronger attributions
to any source (internal or external) have lower
resolution of the traumatic experience, are focused
on the past rather than on controllable aspects of
their lives, and have a greater feeling of
vulnerability (Frazier, 2003; MacLeod, 1999;
Ullman, 1997).
Guilt and adjustment
In keeping with theoretical perspectives that
emphasize the key role of emotions in processing
negative events, guilt also likely exacerbates other
negative outcomes associated with sexual coercion
(Greenberg, 2004; Shaver & Drown, 1986). However,
this has not been investigated empirically. Further,
consciousness-raising campaigns that stress that
women are not to blame for sexual coercion may not
undo the emotional impact of years of messages that
women are to blame (Burt, 1980; Lottes, 1991). As
such, a woman may experience a "head" versus
"heart" discrepancy whereby she knows or thinks that
she is not responsible for sexual coercion but
nonetheless feels guilty. Thus, it is likely that guilt
feelings, internal attributions, and external
attributions make independent contributions to
negative adjustment outcomes following sexual
coercion. Because both strong internal attributions
and strong guilt feelings are negative sequelae of
sexual coercion, it is also likely that guilt moderates
the relationships that have been found between
internal and external attributions and well-being
following sexual coercion. That is, it is likely that
the relationships between internal and external
attributions and well-being are stronger for
individuals who experience high guilt than for
individuals who experience low guilt. It is also likely
that internal attributions moderate the relationship
between external attributions and well-being. That
is, in keeping with the argument that having both
204 The Canadian Journai of Human Sexuality, Vol. 18 (4) 2009
strong internal and strong external attributes is
indicative of lower resolution of a stressful or
traumatic event, we expected that external
attributions would only be associated with well-being
for individuals who make strong internal attributions.
Situational characteristics
According to Kubany and Watson (2003),
following a stressful negative event such as sexual
assault, situational variables that are associated
with negative affect or with cognitions about one's
own role in the outcome influence self-blame.
Similarly, attribution theory proposes that when
individuals attempt to make sense of negative events,
they consider both internal and external (i.e.,
situational) factors (Weiner, 1985). We examined four
situational characteristics that would be expected to
affect women's attributions and guilt following
sexual coercion: number of sexually coercive
experiences, whether the experience involved
intercourse or attempted intercourse, whether it
involved use or threat of physical force, and
familiarity with the coercer.
The traditional sexual script places responsibility on
women for limiting sexual involvement in dating
situations and thus assigns blame to women for their
experiences of sexual coercion (Burt, 1980; Byers,
1996). Similarly, there are a number of commonly
held myths about sexual assault and sexual coercion
including the view that "real" sexual coercion is
committed by a stranger using physical force—that
is, crimes over which the woman has little control
(Alicke, 2000; Fisher Daigle, Cullen, & Turner,
2003). These two overlapping sets of beliefs suggest
that society places more blame on women who have
experienced a greater number of sexually coercive
experiences and who are sexually coerced by
someone they know well who uses verbal coercion
rather than physical force, and if the incident does
not involve intercourse or attempted intercourse.
Similarly, women would be expected to experience
greater self-blame (that is, be more likely to look to
their own behaviour or character for an explanation
and experience guilt) if their sexually coercive
experience had these characteristics.
Research supports these views. That is, sexually
coerced women who have experienced fewer
incidents of sexual coercion in the past report weaker
internal attributions; women who are less familiar
with the coercer, and who experience sexual coercion
involving penetration also tend to report weaker
internal attributions (Arata & Burkhart, 1998; Katz,
1991; Katz & Burt, 1988; Mynatt & Allgeier, 1990;
Ullman, 1997; Ullman et al., 2007b). We found no
research that compared self-blame for sexual
coercion in situations involving verbal coercion
versus physical force. However, Katz, Moore, and
Tkachuk (2007) found that men attribute more
responsibility to women who were coerced using
verbal means than those coerced using physical force.
Although it is likely that the relationships between
these characteristics and guilt feelings are similar to
those with internal attributions, this has not been
studied empirically.
It would be expected that situational factors
associated with stronger internal attributions would
be associated with weaker external attributions. As
would be expected, women who have experienced
sexual coercion involving verbal coercion tend to
make weaker external attributions for their
victimization (Breitenbecher, 2006; Mynatt &
Allgeier, 1990; Ullman, 1997). However, women
with more previous victimizations report stronger not
weaker external attributions (Breitenbecher, 2006;
Ullman, 1997). We could find no studies that
investigated the relationship between external
attributions and either women's familiarity with the
coercer or whether their experience involved
intercourse. Nonetheless, based on the traditional
sexual script and myths about "real" sexual coercion,
we expected that women with these types of coercive
experiences would make weaker external attributions.
Situational characteristics have been shown to have
a negative impact on women's post-coercion
adjustment. In particular, a greater number of
coercive experiences, more severe assaults, and
greater familiarity with the coercer are associated
with poorer adjustment (Arata & Burkhart, 1998;
Elliott et al., 2004; Katz & Burt, 1988; Koss, 1993;
Littleton & Breitkopf, 2006; Neville & Heppner,
1999; Ullman, 1997; Ullman et al., 2007b). However,
researchers have not examined whether attributions
and guilt contribute uniquely to adjustment over and
above these situational factors.
 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 18 (4) 2009
Hypotheses
HI. Internal attributions, external attributions, and
guilt would be significantly positively correlated with
each other.
H2. The magnitude of the association (correlation)
between internal attributions and guilt would be
significantly greater than the magnitude of the
associations between external attributions and either
internal attributions or guilt.
H3a. Women who report a greater number of sexual
coercion experiences and who have experienced
sexual coercion involving a coercer with whom they
were more familiar and verbal coercion rather than
physical force and that did not involve intercourse
or attempted intercourse (situational variables) would
report stronger internal attributions and greater guilt.
H3b. Women who report a greater number of sexual
coercion experiences and who have experienced
sexual coercion involving a coercer with whom they
were less familiar, physical force, and intercourse or
attempted intercourse would report stronger external
attributions.
H4. Women who report stronger internal and external
attributions and greater guilt would report lower well-
being (more trauma symptoms, greater depression,
lower self-esteem, and lower sexual satisfaction) over
and above the association of the situational variables
with their well-being.
H5a. Guilt would moderate the relationships between
attributions and adjustment such that the relationship
would be stronger for individuals who experience
greater guilt.
H5b. Internal attributions would moderate the
relationship between external attributions and
adjustment such that attributions would only be
associated with adjustment for individuals who make
stronger internal attributions.
Finally, because sexual coercion involving physical
force has been shown to be associated with both
stronger attributions and poorer adjustment (Arata
& Burkhart, 1999; Breitenbecher, 2006; Mynatt &
Allgeier, 1990), we examined whether use of force
205
(verbal coercion vs. physical force) moderated the
relationships proposed in H3 and H4. Given the lack
of previous research, no predictions were made.
Methods
Participants
Two hundred forty-nine women were recruited for a
study of adult sexual experiences. The current sample
consisted of the 119 participants (48%) who reported
one or more experiences of sexual coercion. Fifteen
of these participants were excluded from the sample
leaving a final sample of 104: eight because of an
excess of missing data, and seven to increase the
homogeneity of the sample (four were older than 25
and three reported 15 or more years had passed since
their experience of sexual coercion compared to an
average of three years in the remainder of the sample).
Participants ranged in age from 17 to 25 years (M =
19.1, SD = 1.7). Ninety-seven percent of participants
identified their sexual orientation as heterosexual
with three individuals identifying as bisexual.
Although information about ethnic background was
not obtained, in keeping with the homogeneous
population of the province in which the study was
conducted, the vast majority of participants were of
white European descent. In terms of relationship
status, 64% of participants were dating one person
exclusively, married, or living with a romantic
partner. Eighty-nine percent of participants reported
having engaged in intercourse. Participants reported
an average of 4.2 (SD = 6.7) sexual partners and 2.3
(SD =1.1) serious relationships.
Measures
The Demographic and Sexual History Questionnaire
consisted of 10-items and was used to obtain a range
of demographic information and a brief dating and
sexual history.
The Centre for Epidemiological Studies-Depression
Scale (CES-D) (Radloff, 1977) is a 20-item self-
report scale designed to assess symptoms of
depression in the general population in the past week
(e.g., "I felt sad"). The scale uses a 4-point response
format ranging from "rarely/none of the time" ( 1 ) to
"most/all of the time" (4). Possible scores range from
0 to 60, with higher scores indicating a greater
frequency of depression symptoms. Radloff reported
206 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 18 (4) 2009

high internal consistency and test-retest correlations
at two, four, six and eight weeks in the moderate range
(a = .92 in the current study) and that the CES-D
discriminates between psychiatric inpatients and the
general population.
from -120 to 120. Higher scores indicate higher self-
esteem. Nugent and Thomas reported that the SERS
has excellent internal consistency and provided
evidence of its convergent and divergent validity (a
= .97 in the current sample).

The Impact of Event Scale (IES) (Horowitz, Wilner The Sexual Experience Survey (SES) (Koss &
& Alvarez, 1979) is a 15-item scale that measures Gidycz, 1985) was used as a screening instrument to
symptoms of subjective distress following a stressful identify participants who had experienced sexual
or traumatic event (e.g., "I stayed away from coercion. We used the version revised by O'Sullivan
reminders of it"). Participants rated symptoms on a et al. (1998) to be gender-neutral; they changed the
scale ranging from "not at all" (0) to "often" (5) to term "man" to "person" or "someone", and "him" to
indicate how often they experienced each symptom "him or her". Respondents indicated whether they
during the past week with respect to the unwanted had ever had each of ten sexually coercive
sexual experience. Responses are summed such that experiences after the age of 14 (e.g., "Since you were
possible scores rangefrom0 to 75, with higher scores 14, have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't
indicating greater frequency of trauma symptoms want to because a person threatened or used some
(Trauma Symptoms). Horowitz et al. reported that degree of physical force (e.g., twisting your arm,
the split half reliability of the total scale was high. holding you down, etc) to make you". Items described
Sundin and Horowitz (2002) provided a favorable unwanted sexual fondling, attempted sexual
review of the evidence for the reliability, validity andintercourse, and sexual intercourse as a result of
sensitivity of the IES (a = .94 in the current study). verbal pressure, threat or actual physical force, and
other coercive strategies. Women who indicated that
The Global Measure ofSexual Satisfaction {GMSEX) they had any of these coercive experiences were
(Lawrance, Byers, & Cohen, in press) is a measure considered to have experienced sexual coercion and
of sexual satisfaction in long-term relationships. The were included in the present sample. The construct
instructions were altered to make the scale validity of the original scale has been demonstrated
appropriate for both women in and those not in a through its association with interview responses.
current romantic relationship. Participants rated their
satisfaction with their current sex life along five The Sexual Coercion Characteristics Questionnaire
bipolar dimensions ("good-bad, pleasant-unpleasant, (SCQ (O'Sullivan et al., 1998) was completed by
positive-negative, satisfying-unsatisfying, and participants who reported one or more incidents of
valuable-worthless"). Responses were summed such sexual coercion on the SES. Participants indicated
that possible scores ranged from 5 to 35, with higher how many sexually coercive experiences they had
scores indicating greater sexual satisfaction. Lemieux experienced since the age of 14. Participants then
and Byers (2008) have provided evidence for the were asked to respond to a series of questions about
internal consistency and validity of the GMSEX vji\h the incident of sexual coercion that they considered
the revised instructions. The internal consistency was the most serious or most upsetting including the year
high in the present sample (a = .95). that the incident took place and the gender of the
coercer. Participants also rated how well they knew
The Self-Esteem Rating Scale (SERS) (Nugent & the coercer on 7-point scale familiarity ranging from
Thomas, 1993) is a 40-item measure that includes "not at all" (1) to "extremely well" (7). Participants
20 positively worded and 20 negatively worded indicated all the sexual activities the person was
elements of self-esteem (e.g., "I feel that others do trying to pressure or force them to engage in on a 7-
things much better than I do"). It employs a 14-point item checklist that included kissing/necking,
response format with end points "never" (1) to fondling, oral sex, penile-vaginal intercourse and anal
"always" (7) for positively worded items and "never" intercourse. These items were dichotomized to assess
(-1) to "always" (-7) for negatively worded items. Type of Coercion (no intercourse vs. intercourse/
Responses are summed with possible scores ranging attempted intercourse). Individuals whose experiences
 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 18 (4) 2009 207

involved vaginal and/or anal intercourse were coded 24 with higher score indicating stronger guilt. Harder
as having experienced intercourse/attempted and Zalma reported adequate internal consistency and
intercourse. Finally, participants indicated on a 13- two week test-retest reliability. In order to assess guilt
item checklist all of the coercive strategies used by regarding the experience of sexual coercion rather
the coercer. These items were dichotomized to assess than trait guilt, participants were asked to rate each
Force (verbal coercion only vs. physical force/threat feeling "reflecting how common the feeling is for
of physical force). Examples of items coded as verbal you when you think about the unwanted sexual
coercion included "verbal persuasion" (e.g., "I'll experience". The scale had good internal consistency
leave you if you don't" or "If you love me you will") in the current study (a =.80).
and "continual arguments and pleading". Items coded
as physical force included "pushing, slapping or Procedure
holding me down or mild roughness" and "verbal Following approval from the university Research
threats of physical injury". Ethics Board, women were recruited for a study on
adult sexual experiences, including unwanted sexual
The revised Attribution Scale (AS) (Meyer & Taylor, experiences. Participants were drawn from
1986; Arata & Burkhart, 1996) was used to assess Introductory Psychology classes at a mid-sized
internal and external causal attributions with respect Canadian university and two local community
to participants' most serious or upsetting experience colleges. Approximately 80% of participants were
of sexual coercion. The AS consists of 15 items that recruited from Introductory Psychology classes and
have been found to correspond to behavioural, received bonus points for their participation. Students
characterological, or societal (external) attribution at the community colleges were recruited through
scales. Participants were asked to rate items classroom announcements that provided a number
"according to their importance in helping you explain of times during which they could come to a
why you think the experience occurred" on a scale designated room to complete tbe questionnaires.
ranging from "not at all" (1) to "completely" (7). Snacks were provided to these students. After
Because research has found little distinction between providing informed consent, all participants
behavioural and characterological attributions completed questionnaires in small groups, seated at
(Frazier 2000; 2003), we combined the nine a sufficient distance from one another to ensure
behavioural and characterological items to form the confidentiality of responses. Participants completed
Internal Attribution Scale (e.g., "I am a poor judge the Demographic and Sexual History Questionnaire
of character"; "I made a rash decision"). We used first, followed by the CES-D, SERS, GMSEX and
the six societal items to form the External Attributions SES. The instructions then directed participants to
Scale (e.g., "Men don't respect women"; "There is complete different sections of the questionnaire
too much violence on T.V."). Scores on the Internal booklet depending on whether they had endorsed one
Attributions scale can range from 9 to 63 and scores or more items related to experiences of sexual
on the External Attributions Scale range from 6 to coercion.The two sections were of comparable length
42. Both the Internal and External Attributions Scales and time to complete. Upon completion of the study,
obtained adequate internal consistency in the present participants received a debriefing document that
sample (a = .73 and .78, respectively). included contact telephone numbers for local
counseling resources and the e-mail addresses of the
The Guilt Subscale of the Personal Feelings experimenters.
Questionnaire-2 Guilt Scale (Harder & Lewis, 1987;
Harder & Zalma, 1990) is a 6-item scale that assesses Data Analysis
trait guilt (e.g., "mild guilt, feeling you deserve HI and H2 were tested using Pearson product
criticism for what you did".) It was used to assess moment correlations and Fisher's Zie,y/, respectively.
participants' guilt with respect to their most serious H3a, H4, and H5 were tested using multivariate
or upsetting experience of sexual coercion. This scale multiple regression as an omnibus test to protect
uses a 5-point response format ranging from "never" against Type I error. The significant multivariate
(0) to "continuously" (4). Scores can range from 0 to effects were followed up with hierarchical multiple
208 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 18 (4) 2009

regression analyses using the same design. H3b was Internal attributions, external
tested using multiple regression analysis. As attributions, and guilt
recommended by Aiken and West ( 1991 ), interaction To test the hypothesis that Internal Attributions,
terms were calculated using partial products based External Attributions, and Guilt would be
on centered variables and simple slopes analyses were significantly correlated with each other (HI), we
used to interpret significant interaction terms. Alpha examined the zero-order correlations (see Table 2).
was set at .05 for all analyses. As predicted. Internal Attributions and Guilt were
significantly positively related to one another and to
Results External Attributions. Fisher's Z-test indicated that,
as predicted, the correlation between Internal
Among the 119 participants who reported one or more Attributions and Guilt was significantly greater than
experiences of sexual coercion since the age of 14, the correlation between Guilt and External
the mean number of such experiences was 2.7 {SD = Attributions, Z = 2.56, p = .011. However, the
2.2). Participants were asked to provide information correlation between Internal Attributions and Guilt
about the experience of sexual coercion that they did not differ reliably from the correlation between
considered the most serious or upsetting to them. Internal Attributions and External Attributions, Z =
These incidents had occurred, on average, three years 1.18,p>.05.
earlier and all participants identified a male coercer.
On the 7-point scale used to scale assess how well Predicting internal attributions, external
the participants knew the coercer in these incidents, attributions, and guilt
73.1 % reported 5,6 or 7. The midpoint of 4 indicated We used a multivariate multiple regression analysis
"somewhat familiar." The fact that 30% of all to test the prediction that the situational variable set
participants reported 6 on the scale and 30% reported (Number of Incidents, Type of Coercion, Force,
7 ("extremely well" known) makes it is clear that a Familiarity) would be associated with stronger self-
sizeable majority of participants new the coercer blame (Internal Attributions and Guilt; H3a). To test
well; 4.8% reported "not at all". For most participants whether Force moderated these relationships, the
(69.2%), sexual coercion involved multiple verbally interactions between Force and the other predictors
coercive strategies (A/ = 3.0 verbally coercive were added on Step 2. In keeping with predictions,
strategies experienced by the Verbal Coercion group) at Step 1 the Situational Variable Set significantly
but not physical force. However, 30.8% of the sample predicted self-blame, F^^^^ (8, 196) = 2.15, p = .033.
reported an experience that involved physical force At Step 2, the interactions with Force added
or threat of physical force. About two-thirds (66.3%) significantly to the equation, F^_^,, (6, 182) = 2.24,
of participants reported that the experience involved
intercourse or attempted intercourse.
Results from the follow-up multiple regression
In relation to the outcome variables, participants, on analyses are presented in Table 3. Neither the
average, reported mild internal attributions, external Situational Variable Set nor the interaction terms with
attributions, and guilt regarding their most upsetting Force were significantly associated with Internal
experience of sexual coercion (Table 1). The findings Attributions, F (4, 99) = 1.20, p > .05 and F-, (3,
also indicate they were not experiencing significant 96) = 2.46, p > .05, respectively. However, the
trauma or depression symptoms, had acceptable self- Situational Variable Set was significantly associated
esteem, and were satisfied with their current sex life. with Guilt, R^= .15, F (4, 99) = 4.21, p = .003. As
The zero-order correlations among the variables used predicted, women who had experienced more
in this study are reported in Table 2. Using the previous sexually coercive experiences and whose
criterion of r > .70 as suggested by Tabachnick and experience involved intercourse or attempted
Fidell (2007), none of the correlations among the intercourse reported greater guilt. However, contrary
predictors was sufficiently large to indicate a problem to predictions, women who were less familiar with
with multicollinearity. the coercer reported greater guilt. At Step 2, the
interaction terms added significantly to the prediction
 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 18 (4) 2009 209

Table 1 Participants' mean scores on outcome variables

Outcome (score range) Mean SD

Internal Attributions (9-63) 26.0 8.0

External Attributions (6-42) 14.1 6.9
Guilt (0-24) 7.1 4.6
Trauma Symptoms (0-75) 18.4 17.8
Depression Symptoms (0-60) 16.8 11.0
Self-Esteem(-120to 120) 52.2 34.5
Sexual Satisfaction (5-35) 27.3 6.7

Note. N = 104 participants, higher scores reflect greater frequency or greater degree.
A participant's score is the sum of the scale scores for each item in the outcome measure.
Scale ranges and number of item: internal attributions (1-7,9 items); external attributions (1-7,6 items); guilt (0-4,6 items);
trauma symptoms (0-5,15 items); depression symptoms (1-4,20 items; self-esteem (1-7 negative and positive, 20 items each);
sexual satisfaction (1-5,7 items each).

of Guilt accounting for 8% additional variance, F- We conducted a hierarchical multiple regression

chan A^' ^^^ = 3.12,p = .030. The interaction betweenanalysis using the same design to predict External
Force and Familiarity added uniquely to the equation Attributions (H3b). The Situational Variables Set was
(see Table 3). The results of the simple slopes tests significantly associated with External Attributions,
(Aiken & West, 1991) are depicted in Figure 1. The R^ = .13,F (4, 99) = 3.69, p = .008. Consistent with
analysis showed that Familiarity was negatively predictions, women who had experienced incidents
associated with Guilt for women who had involving force or threat of force reported stronger
experienced sexual coercion involving verbal External Attributions. Addition of the interaction
coercion {B = -1.02, ß = -.38, /J = .011), whereas terms with Force did not add significantly to the
Familiarity was not associated with Guilt for women equation, F-^,,^,,^^ (3, 96) = 0.03, p > .05.
who had experienced coercion involving physical
force (B = -.02, ß = -.01, p > .05).

Table 2 Zero order correlations among the variables included in the study

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1 Number of Incidents .21 * .29** .18 .09 .15 .22* .17 .14 -.12 .07
2 Type of Coercion .25** .10 .17 .15 .27** .18 .10 -.11 -.01
3 Force .05 .12 .33*** .08 .31** .02 -.00 .09
4 Familiarity with Coercer -.08 .16 -.15 -.06 -.02 .11 -.01
5 Internal Attributions .39*** 52*** .40*** .31*** .,41*** -.18
6 External Attributions .21* .36*** .27** -.28** -.22*
7 Guilt Feelings 54*** .22* -.29** -.22*
8 Trauma Symptoms 30** -.39*** -.06
9 Depression Symptoms -.70*** -.24*
10 Self-Esteem 32***
11 Sexual Satisfaction

Note. N = 104 participants.

IVpe of Coercion: no intercourse versus intercourse/attempted intercourse
Force: no force versus force/threat of force
Familiarity: how well coercer was known to participant
* p < .05 •* p < .01 • • • p < .001.
210 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Voi. 18 (4) 2009

Table 3 Multiple regression analysis predicting internal attributions, external attributions and guilt from situational
variables

Internal Attributions Guilt External Attributions

Predictors ß sr R' ß sr R' ß sr R'

Step 1 - Situational Variables Set .05 .15** .13**

Number of Incidents .06 .05 .21 .20* .03 .02
Type of Coercion .15 .14 .26 .24** .05 .05
Force .07 .06 -.04 -.04 .30 .28**
Familiarity with Coercer -.11 -.11 -.22 -.21* .14 .13
Step 2 - Interactions of Situational Variables and Force .07 .08* .00
Number of Incidents x Force -.01 -.01 -.03 -.03 .00 .00
lype of Coercion x Force .64 .19 .61 .18 -.00 -.00
Familiarity x Force .17 .17 .21 .20* -.03 -.03

Note. N = 104 participants.

Type of Coercion: no intercourse versus intercourse/attempted intercourse
Force: no force versus force/threat of force.
* p < .05 *• p < .01 *** p < .001.

Figure 1 Regression lines showing significant interaction between familiarity with the coercer and force predicting guilt
feelings

12 1

•' ' '•'• ••-•••••• Verbai Coercion

O "•
—•—Force

Low Fanniliarlty High Familiarity

Note: Relationship between Familiarity and Guilt is significant for Verbal Coercion only. Possible range of scores for Guilt is
0-24.

Predicting adjustment adjustment (H5a) and that Internal Attributions would

We used a multivariate multiple regression atialysis
to test the hypothesis that stronger Internal
Attributions and External Attributions and greater
Guilt would be significantly associated with
decreased well-being (higher Trauma Symptoms,
greater Depression Symptoms, lower Self-Esteem,
and lower Sexual Satisfaction) over and above the
contribution of the situational variables. In keeping
with H4, the Situational Variables Set was entered at
Step 1 and the Blame Variable Set (Infernal
Attributions, External Attributions, and Guilt) was
added at Step 2. To test the hypotheses that Guilt
would moderate the relationships between both
Internal Attributions and External Attributions and
moderate the relationship between External
Attributions and adjustment (H5b), the interactions
between Internal Attributions, External Attributions, and
Guilt were entered at Step 3. Finally, to test whether
Force moderated the relationships between the
predictors and adjustment, the interactions between
Force and the other predictors were entered at Step 4.
The Situational Variable Set was not significantly
associated with the outcome variables, F^,^ ( 16,245)
= 1.04, p > .05. They were therefore not analyzed
further. However, they were retained in the multiple
regression analyses as control variables. Steps 2 and
3 added significantly to the equation, F^^,, (12, 212)
 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 18 (4) 2009 211

= 3.02, p = .001 and F„^„(12, 212) = 2.22, p = .012, and greater Guilt reported lower Sexual Satisfaction.
respectively. Addition of the interaction terms with However, only Guilt uniquely predicted Trauma
Force at Step 5 was not significant and they were not Symptoms; only Internal Attributions uniquely
pursued further, F„„„(24, 280) = 1.26, p > .05. predicted Self-Esteem; and only External Attributions
uniquely predicted Sexual Satisfaction. None of the
The results of the follow-up hierarchical multiple blame variables contributed uniquely to the
regression analyses are depicted in Table 4. At Step prediction of Depression Symptoms.
2, the Blame Variable Set was significantly associated
with all four measures of adjustment accounting for At Step 3, the set of interaction terms between
between 11 % and 28% additional variance, F-^^^,^^^ Internal Attributions, External Attributions, and Guilt
(3, 96) = 14.65, p < .001 for Trauma Symptoms,"/^-' contributed significantly to the prediction of Trauma
Chang, (3, 96) = 4.48, p =.005 for Depression Symptoms and Sexual Satisfaction, F-^,,„„ ^(3, 93) =
Sym'ptoms, F-^^,_^^ (3, 96) = 7.17,/? < .001 for Self- 3.55, p = .017 and F-, (3, 93) = 5.46?/? = .002,
Esteem, and F-',J,^', (3,96) = 3.82,p =.012 for Sexual ' * change ^ » ^ ^r '

Satisfaction. On a bivariate basis (see Table 2), all respectively. Internal Attributions interacted
three of the blame variables were significantly significantly with both External Attributions and
associated with Trauma Symptoms, Depression Guilt for Trauma Symptoms; External Attributions
Symptoms, arid Self-Esteem; External Attributions interacted significantly with Guilt for Sexual
and Guilt were significantly correlated with Sexual Satisfaction. As depicted in Figure 2a, the results of
Satisfaction. The women who made more internal the first simple slopes analysis showed that External
and external attributions and experienced greater guilt Attributions were positively associated with Trauma
reported more trauma symptoms, more depression Symptoms for women with strong Internal
symptoms, and lower self-esteem. In addition, Attributions (B = 1.01, ß = .39, p < .001), whereas
women who reported stronger External Attributions External Attributions were not significantly
associated with Trauma Symptoms for women with

Table 4 Predicting adjustment from control variables, situational characteristics, guilt, internal attributions, and external
attributions

IVauma Symptoms Depression Symptoms Self-Esteem Sexual Satisfaction

Predictors ß sr R'-chng ß sr R'-chng ß sr R'-chng ß sr R'-chng
Step I - Situational Variables Set .12* .03 .04 .01
Number of Incidents .09 .08 .15 .14 -.14 -.13 .06 .05
Type of Coercion .10 .10 .09 .08 -.11 -.10 -.05 -.04
Force .26 .24* -.04 -.04 .06 .06 .09 .08
Familiarity with Coercer -.10 -.09 -.05 -.05 .14 .14 -.02 -.02
Step 2 - Blame Variables Set .28*** .12** .18*** .11*
Internal Attributions .06 .05 .20 .16 -.29 -.24** -.02 -.01
External Attributions .17 .15 .21 .18 -.20 -.17 -.23 -.20*
Guilt Feelings .47 .38*** .04 .03 -.05 -.04 -.20 -.16
Step 3 - Interactions of Attributions .06* .02 .01 .13**
and Guilt
Internal Attributions x External .27 .19* .09 .07 -.11 -.08 .08 .06
Attributions
Internal Attributions x Guilt -.18 -.17* -.11 -.10 .02 .02 -.04 -.04
Feelings
External Attributions x Guilt -.05 -.03 -.10 -.07 .05 .04 .35 .24**
Feelings

Note. N = 104 participants. Incident = number of different incidents

l^pe of Coercion: no intercourse versus intercourse/attempted intercourse
Force: no force versus force/threat of force.
* p < .05 • • p < .01 ••* p < .001.
212 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 18 (4) 2009

Figure 2 Regression lines predicting IVauma Symptoms showing significant interactions between: (a) Internai
Attributions and Externai Attributions and (b) Internal Attributions and Guiit

(a)
30 -
25 -
20 - -Weak Internal
15 Attributions
- Strong Internal
10 - Attributions

Weak External Attributions Strong External Attributions

(b)
30-
25
20
15
------ -Low Guilt
— • — High Guiit
10-
5
0
Low internai Attributions High Internai Attributions

Note: The relationship between Extemai Attributions and IVauma Symptoms (a) is significant for strong Internai Attributions
only. The relationship between Internai Attributions and IVauma Symptoms (b) is significant for iow Guiit only. Possible
range for trauma scores is 0-75.

weak Internai Attributions (B =. 19, ß = .08, p > .05). Guilt and Trauma Symptoms were positively
The second simple slopes analysis (Fig. 2b) indicated associated for both women with high internal
that Internal Attributions were not associated with attributions and for those with low internal
Trauma Symptoms for women with high Guilt (B = attributions (B = 1.51, ß = .39, p < .001 and B =
0.10, ß = .05, p > .05) whereas they were positively 2.32, ß = .60, p < .001). Finally, the third simple
associated with Trauma Symptoms for women with slopes analysis (see Fig. 3) examined whether
low Guilt (B = 0.57, ß = .26, p = .049). We also Guilt qualified the relationship between External
examined whether Internai Attributions qualified the Attributions and Sexual Satisfaction. For women
main effect between Guilt and Trauma Symptoms. with low Guilt, External Attributions were

Figure 3 Regression lines predicting Sexual Satisfaction showing significant Interaction between External Attributions
and Guilt

— • — L o w Guilt
--> -High Guilt

Weak External Attributions Strong External Attributions

Note: The relationship between Extemai Attributions and Sexual Satisfaction is significant for low Guilt only. Possible range
of sexual satisfaction scores is 5 - 35.
 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 18 (4) 2009
negatively associated with Sexual Satisfaction (B
= -.53, ß = -.54, p < .001) whereas for women
with high Guilt, External Attributions were not
associated with Sexual Satisfaction (B = .24, ß =
Discussion
This study examined women's cognitive
(attributions) and affective (guilt) experiences of
blame following their most serious or upsetting event
of sexual coercion and the association of these
experiences of blame with women's psychological
well-being. Consistent with cognitive-behavioural
theory (Beck, 1976), the more women thought that
they were responsible for the sexual coercion they
experienced, the guiltier they felt about it and vice
versa. Also consistent with past research (Arata,
1999; Koss et al., 2002), women who made stronger
internal attributions also made stronger external
attributions. In addition, stronger external attributions
were related to experiencing stronger guilt.
However, a number of our results suggest that
attributions and guilt feelings, although related, are
distinct experiences for women as proposed by
Kubany and Watson (2003). First, although as
predicted guilt was more strongly related to internal
attributions than to external attributions, internal
attributions and guilt feelings only shared 27% of
their variance. As such, women may experience one
without the other or may experience one aspect more
intensely than the others. This may lead to a "head"
versus "heart" experience. Thisfindingsuggests that
self-blame following sexual coercion is more
complex than typically conceptualized in research
in that women may "know" (head) that they are not
responsible for sexual coercion yet continue to "feel"
guilty ("heart"). Second, the associations between
various characteristics of the sexual coercion (e.g.,
whether force was used) and internal attributions,
external attributions, and guilt were not the same.
This suggests that situational characteristics affect
women's cognitive and emotional responses to
experiences of sexual coercion in different ways.
Finally, we found that: internal attributions
moderated the relationship between trauma
symptoms and external attributions; guilt moderated
the relationship between trauma symptoms and
213
internal attributions; and, guilt moderated the
relationship between sexual satisfaction and external
attributions. These findings indicate the existence of
more complex relationships between cognitions,
emotions and well-being following sexual coercion
beyond those investigated in prior research. Future
studies should identify the factors that result in a
discrepancy between women's cognitive and
emotional responses to their sexually coercive
experiences. Two likely factors that merit
investigation are women's coping strategies and the
reactions of other people in women's lives (Ullman
et al., 2007a & b).
Women's adjustment following sexual
coercion
We found evidence that both cognitive and emotional
responses to sexual coercion are associated with
women's psychological well-being. Consistent with
prior research (Arata, 1999; Branscombe et al., 2003;
Littleton, & Breitkopf, 2006; Shapiro & Schwarz,
1997; Ullman et al., 2007a & b), on a bivariate basis
stronger internal and external attributions were
associated with increased symptoms of trauma,
increased symptoms of depression, and decreased
self-esteem; stronger external attributions also were
associated with lower sexual satisfaction. We
extended past research by showing that guilt also was
associated with all four of these negative
psychological outcomes. Further, the blame variables
were associated with poorer psychological well-being
after controlling for characteristics of the situation
and regardless of whether verbal coercion or physical
force was used. This suggests that it is women's
cognitive and affective responses to sexual coercion
more than the objective characteristics of the sexual
coercive experience that most affect their well-being.
Future research needs to investigate emotional
responses following sexual coercion other than guilt
that might also affect women's adjustment. For
example, Vidal and Petrak (2007) showed that shame
following sexual coercion is associated with some
negative psychological outcomes.
External attributions were not uniquely associated
with trauma symptoms, depression symptoms or low
self-esteem when guilt and internal attributions were
controlled for. Similarly, Breitenbecher (2006) found
that external attributions did not predict trauma
214 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuaiity, Vol. 18 (4) 2009
symptoms over and above internal attributions. This
suggests that some previous findings demonstrating
a relationship between external attributions and poor
psychological adjustment may have been due to the
overlap of external attributions with internal
attributions and/or guilt. Further, external attributions
were only related to trauma symptoms when they co-
occurred with strong internal attributions. These
results are in keeping with the findings of research
concluding that the reason that both internal and
external attributions have been found to be associated
with poorer psychological well-being is that women
making stronger attribution have lower resolution of
the traumatic experience and thus are focused on the
past (Frazier, 2003; MacLeod, 1999; Ullman, 1997).
Women who make low internal attributions but high
external attributions likely are not focused on the past,
and thus do not experience higher trauma symptoms
than do women with low internal and low external
attributions.
Unique roles of attributions and guiit in
women's psychoiogical well-being
The present study has also extended past research
by demonstrating the unique roles of internal
attributions, external attributions and guilt in
women's adjustment following sexual coercion.
Those effects are reflected in each of the four
measures of psychological well-being discussed
below.
Trauma symptoms
Only guilt was uniquely associated with trauma
symptoms over and above the other blame variables.
In addition, internal attributions were uniquely
associated with trauma symptoms but only for women
who experienced lower guilt. This suggests that guilt
represents the deeper impact of sexual coercion to a
woman beyond her cognitive appraisals of her actions
and judgment of societal factors. As Herman (1992)
stated, "(t)he survivor's shame and guilt may be
exacerbated by the harsh judgment of others, but is
not fully assuaged by simple pronouncements
absolving her from responsibility..." (p. 69). That
is, women experience both a "heart" and a "head"
response to their sexual coercion, with "heart" being
particularly important to understanding the
emergence of trauma symptoms even when a woman
"knows" that she is not responsible. Failure to also
assess the emotional responses of women who have
experienced sexual coercion may account for the
inconsistent results of past research investigating the
relationship between internal attributions and trauma
symptoms (e.g., Arata, 1999; Arata & Burkhart, 1996;
Regehretal., 1999).
Self-esteem
Past research has shown that women who make more
internal attributions for their sexually coercive
experiences have lower self-esteem (Branscombe et
al., 2003; Katz & Burt, 1988; Littleton & Breitkopf,
2006). We extended these findings by showing that
internal attributions uniquely predicted self-esteem
over and above the contributions of guilt and external
attributions. It may be that believing that one did
something that caused one's own sexually coercive
experience results in lower self-esteem generally,
over and above the effects on self-esteem of making
external attributions and experiencing guilt.
However, it also may be that women who have low
self-esteem are more likely to look toward themselves
for explanations of the negative things that happen
to them. Indeed, Katz and Burt (1988) argued that
both self-blame and low self-esteem represent a
negative self-view. However, Branscombe et al.
(2003) did notfindthat low well-being among women
who have experienced sexual coercion leads to more
self-blame.
Sexual satisfaction
Stronger external attributions were uniquely
associated with lower sexual satisfaction; however,
this was only true for women who experienced low
guilt. Our participants tended to report weaker guilt
feelings when the coercer was more familiar to them
and used verbal coercion rather than physical force.
It is likely that many of these were incidents of sexual
coercion by a romantic partner and that at least some
of these women continued the relationship after the
incident (Archibald & Byers, 2005). Offman and
Matheson (2004) have shown that women in a
sexually coercive relationship have a more negative
sexual self-perception than do women who are not
in a sexually coercive relationship. These authors
speculated that having more negative sexual self-
perceptions may decrease women's sense of control
over the sexual interactions in their relationship and
thus their assertiveness in expressing their own sexual
 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 18 (4) 2009
needs. Guilt following sexual coercion is
unwarranted and harmful. Nevertheless, external
attributions in the absence of guilt feelings may tend
to result in learned helplessness and thus, in turn,
lower sexual satisfaction both in the sexually coercive
and in future relationships.
The roie of situationai characteristics in
women's psychoiogicai weli-being
We found very limited evidence that the traditional
sexual script and myths about sexual coercion affect
women's self-blame and/or their adjustment.
Specifically, and contrary to past research (e.g., Katz,
1991; Katz & Burt, 1988; Littleton et al., 2007;
Mynatt & Allgeier, 1990; Ullman, 1997), the
situational characteristics we assessed were not
associated with women's internal attributions.
Similarly, the extent of women's external attributions
was not associated with the number of past incidents,
whether the coercion-involved actual or attempted
intercourse, or with the woman's familiarity with the
coercer. In addition, for the women who had
experienced sexual coercion involving physical force,
familiarity was not associated with guilt. Further, the
women who had experienced verbal coercion who
were less familiar with the coercer reported stronger
rather than weaker guilt feelings as predicted. In
addition, use of force was not associated with guilt.
Finally, the situational variables were not associated
with any of our measures of psychological
adjustment.
Only two of our predictions based on the traditional
sexual script were supported: women with a history
of more sexual coercive experiences reported greater
guilt about their most upsetting experience of sexual
coercion as did women who experienced sexual
coercion that involved penetration or threat of
penetration. These variables were not related to
internal or external attributions, however. As would
be expected, few of the women in our sample were
sexually coerced by strangers. Indeed, about three-
quarters of the women were more than somewhat
familiar with the coercer. Thus, it may be that these
women had consented to lower levels of sexual
involvement prior to being sexually coerced. If so,
these findings suggest that women, particularly
women who have been in similar situations in the
past, may "know" that they are not to blame when
215
they are unable to prevent unwanted sexual activity,
but nonetheless "feel" guilty. This would be
consistent with the traditional sexual script that holds
women responsible for limiting sexual involvement.
However, given that most of the predictions based
on the traditional sexual script were not supported
and that each of these relationships only accounted
for 4% of the variance, it is important to replicate
these results.
Consistent with past research (Breitenbecher, 2006;
Mynatt & Allgeier, 1990; Ullman, 1997), the women
who were coerced by actual or threatened physical
force made more external attributions. However, they
did not make fewer internal attributions or experience
less guilt. It is likely that force is used most often
when a woman has clearly indicated her non-consent
to the sexual activity and thus, it is easier for women
to look for external reasons for the sexual coercion.
Indeed, Katz et al. (2007) found that women were
seen to have less control in sexually coercive
scenarios involving physical force.
Limitations and implications
The results of this study must be interpreted in light
of its limitations. First, research is needed using more
diverse community samples as our participants were
primarily young. White, undergraduate women.
Second, because we relied on women's retrospective
self-reports, we cannot draw definitive conclusions
about the causal relationships between variables.
Thus, it is possible that low self-esteem, high
depression symptoms, high trauma symptoms, and
low sexual satisfaction make women vulnerable to
experiencing high guilt and strong attributions
following sexual coercion rather than vice versa.
Longitudinal research is needed to determine how
situational factors influence women's attributions and
guilt as well as how attributions and guilt feelings
influence women's well-being following sexual
coercion. Third, there are a number of situational
characteristics that may affect women's attributions
and guilt that we did not assess including whether
the women had consumed alcohol or drugs, how they
responded to the sexually coercive incident, and
whether they had a history of child sexual abuse.
Fourth, our measure of guilt was adapted from a trait
measure. Although it had good internal consistency
in the present study, the validity of this measure for
216 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 18 (4) 2009
assessing guilt feelings following sexual coercion is
not known. Thus, future research investigating the
role of cognitions and affect following sexual assault
needs to use established measures of guilt-related
cognitions and affect related to specific events such
as the Trauma-Related Guilt Inventory (Kubany et
al., 1996). Finally, we included women who had
experienced a broad range of sexually coercive
experiences in our sample. We also combined
experiences that involved the threat of force with
experiences that involved actual force, as well as
experiences that involved attempted penetration with
those that involved penetration. Research is needed
that uses large enough samples to examine the roles
of guilt and attributions in women who have
experienced different types of sexual coercion.
On average, the women in our sample experienced
only mild self-blame and were well-functioning.
Nonetheless, the results have some practical
implications, particularly if they are replicated with
clinical samples of women. That is, they suggest that
if women are to fully recover from the negative
outcomes of sexual coercion, therapeutic
interventions need to not only target women's
cognitions but also to address their emotional
responses. This will require interventions that go
beyond cognitive restructuring and psycho-education
toward helping women process deeper emotional
meanings. This will help women to not only "know"
that they are not to blame but also to not feel guilty
or ashamed about their own victimization. As well,
educational campaigns need to provide information
about the frequent discrepancy between "head" and
"heart" that women experience following sexual
coercion.
References
Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression:
Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, Elliott, D.M., Mok, D.S., & Briere, J. (2004). Adult sexual
CA: Sage.
Alicke, M.D. (2000). Culpable control and the psychology
of blame. Psychological Bulletin, 4, 556-574.
Faulkner, G.E., Kolts, R.L., & Hicks, Q F (2008). Sex role
Anderson, I. (1999). Characterological and behavioural
blame in conversations about female and male rape.
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18,
377-394.
Arata, CM. (1999). Coping with rape: The roles of prior
sexual abuse and attributions of blame. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 14, 62-78.
Arata, CM., & Burkhart, B.R. (1996). Post-U-aumatic stress
disorder among college student victims of
acquaintance assault. In E.S. Byers & L.F. O'Sullivan
(Eds.), Sexual coercion in dating relationships (pp.
79-92). New York: Haworth.
Arata, CA., & Burkhart, B.R. (1998). Coping appraisals
and adjustment to nonstranger sexual assault. Violence
Against Women, 4, 224-239.
Archibald, S.A., & Byers, E.S. (2005, July). Women's
satisfaction in dating relationships following sexual
coercion. In E.S. Byers (Chair), Women's sexual well-
being: Sources of stress and resilience. Symposium
presented at the World Congress of Sexology,
Montreal, PQ.
Beck, A.T. (1976) Cognitive therapy and the emotional
disorders. New York: Penguin Books.
Branscombe, N.R., Wohl, M.J.A., Owen, S., Allison, J.A.,
& N'gbala, A. (2003). Counterfactual thinking, blame
assignment, and well-being in rape victims. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 25, 265-273.
Breitenbecher, K.H. (2006). The relationships among self-
blame, psychological distress, and sexual
victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21,
597-611.
Burt, M.R. (1980). Cultural myths and support for rape.
Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 38,
217-230.
Byers, E.S. (1996). How well does the traditional sexual
script explain sexual coercion? Review of a program
of research. In E.S. Byers & L.F. O'Sullivan (Eds),
Sexual coercion in dating relationships (pp. 7-25).
New York: Haworth.
assault: Prevalence, symptomatology, and sex
differences in the general population. Journal of
Traumatic Stress, 17, 203-211.
ideology, relationship context, and response to sexual
coercion in college females. Sex Roles, 59, 139-150.
 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 18 (4) 2009
Fitie, M., & Carney, S. (2001). Women, gender, and the
law: Toward a feminist rethinking of responsibility.
In R.K. Unger (Ed.), Handbook of the psychology of
women and gender (pp. 388-409). New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Fisher, B.S., Daigle, L.E., Cullen, F.T., & Turner, M.G
(2003). Acknowledging sexual victimization as rape:
Results from a national-level study. Justice Quarterly,
20, 535-574.
Frazier, P.A. (2000). The role of attributions and perceived
control in recovery from rape. Journal of Personal &
Interpersonal Loss, 5, 203-226.
Frazier, P.A. (2003). Perceived control and distress
following sexual assault: A longitudinal test of a new
model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
84, 1257-1269.
Geiger, B., Fischer, M., & Eshet, Y. (2004). Date-rape-
supporting and victim-blaming attitudes among high
school students in a multiethnic society: Israel. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 406-426.
Girard, A.L., & Senn, C.Y. (2008). The role of the new
"date rape drugs" in attributions about date rape.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 3-20.
Greenberg, L. (2004). Emotion-focused therapy. Clinical
Psychology & Psychotherapy, 11, 3-16.
Grubb, A., & Harrower, J. (2008). Attribution of blame in
cases of rape: An analysis of participant gender, type
of rape and perceived similarity to the victim. Koss, M.P & Gidycz, C.A. (1985). Sexual experiences
Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 13, 396-405.
Harder, D.H., & Lewis, S.J. (1987). The assessment of
shame and guilt. In J.N. Butcher & C.D. Spielberger Koss, M.P, Gidycz, C.A., & Wisniewksi, N. (1987). The
(Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 6,
pp. 89-114). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Harder, D.H., & Zalma, A. (1990). Two promising shame
and guilt scales: A construct validity comparison. Kubany, E.S., Haynes, S.N., Abueg, F.R., Manke, F.P.,
Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 729-745.
Hartwick, C , Desmarais, S., & Hennig, K. (2007).
Characteristics of male and female victims of sexual
coercion. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Kubany, E.S., & Watson, S.B. (2003). Guilt: Elaboration
76,31-44.
Herman, J.L. (1992). Trauma and recovery. USA:
HarperCollins.
217
Horowitz, M., Wilner, N., & Alvarez, W. (1979). Impact
of Event Scale: A measure of subjective distress.
Psychosomatic Medicine, 41, 209-218.
Janoff-Bulman, R. (1979). Characterological versus
behavioural self-blame: Inquiries into depression and
rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
37, 1798-1809.
Katz, B.L. (1991). The psychological impact of stranger
versus nonstranger rape on victim's recovery. In A. Parrot
& L. Bechhofer (Eds.), Acquaintance rape: The hidden
crime (pp. 251-269). New York: John Wily & Sons.
Katz, B.L., & Burt, M.R. (1988). Self-blame in recovery
from rape: Help or hindrance? In A.W. Burgess (Ed.),
Rape and sexual assault II (pp. 151-168). New York:
Garland Publishing.
Katz, J., Mooore, J.A., &Tkachuk, S. (2007). Verbal sexual
coercion and perceived victim responsibility:
Mediating effects of perceived control. Sex Roles, 57,
235-247.
Koss, M.P. (1993). Rape: Scope, impact, interventions and
public policy response. American Psychologist, 48,
1062-1069.
Koss, M.P., Figueredo, A.J., & Prince, R.J. (2002).
Cognitive mediation of rape's mental, physical, and
social health impact: Tests of four models in cross-
sectional data. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 70,926-941.
survey: Reliability and validity. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 53, 422-423.
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.
Brennan, J.M., & Stahura, C. (1996). Development
and validation of the Trauma-Related Guilt Inventory
(TRGI). Psychological Assessment, 8, 428-444.
of a multidimensional model. The Psychological
Record, 53, 5\-90.
218 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 18 (4) 2009

Lawrance, K., Byers, E.S., & Cohen, J. (in press). Neville, H.A., & Heppner, M.J. (1999). Contextualizing
Interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction
questionnaire. In T.D. Fisher, CM. Davis, W.L.
Yarber, & S. Davis. (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-
related measures (2nd ed.). New York, NY, Thousand
Oaks, CA: Routledge.
Lazarus, R.S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Lemieux, S.R., & Byers, E.S. (2008). The sexual well-
being of women who have experienced child sexual
abuse. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32,126-144.
Leonard, R. (1999). Defining sexual assault where
acquaintances are involved: Exploring commonalties
and differences. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 4,
105-124.
Littleton, H. L., & Breitkopf, C.R. (2006). Coping with
the experience of rape. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 30, lO6-\\6.
rape: Reviewing sequelae and proposing a culturally
inclusive ecological model of sexual assault recovery.
Applied and Preventative Psychology, 8, 41-62.
Nugent, W.R., & Thomas, J.W. (1993). Validation of the
Self-Esteem Rating Scale. Research on Social Work
Practice, 3, 191-207.
Offman, A., & Matheson, K. (2004). The sexual self-
perceptions of young women experiencing abuse in
dating relationships. Sex Roles, 51, 551-560.
O'Sullivan, L.F., Byers, E.S., & Finkelman, L. (1998). A
comparison of male and female college students'
experiences of sexual coercion. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 22, 177-195.
Parkinson, B. (1999). Relations and dissociations between
appraisal and emotion ratings of reasonable and
unreasonable anger and guilt. Cognition and Emotion,
13, 347-385.

Littleton, H.L., Magee, K.T., & Axsom, D. (2007). A meta- Price, E.L., Byers, E.S., & the Dating Violence Research
analysis of self-attributions following three types of Team. ( 1999). The Attitudes Towards Dating Violence
trauma: Sexual victimization, illness, and injury. Scales: Development and initial validation. Journal
Joumal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 515-538. of Family Violence, 14, 351-375.

Lottes, I.L. (1991). Belief systems: Sexuality and rape. Radloff, L.S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report
Joumal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 4,37-59.
MacLeod, M.D. (1999). Why did it happen to me? Social
cognition processes in adjustment and recovery from Regehr, C, Cadell, S., & Jansen, K. (1999). Perceptions
criminal victimization and illness. Current
Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality,
Social, 18, 18-31.
Massad, P.M., & Hulsey, T.L. (2006). Causal attributions
in posttraumatic stress disorder: Implications for
clinical research and practice. Psychotherapy: Theory,
Research, Practice, Training, 43, 201-215.
Meyer, C.B., & Taylor, S.E. (1986). Adjustment to rape.
Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50,
1226-1234,
Mynatt, C.R. & Allgeier, E.R. (1990). Risk factors, self-
attributions, and adjustment problems among victims
of sexual coercion. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 20, 130-153.
depression scale for use in the general population.
Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401.
of control and long-term recovery from rape.
American Joumal of Orthopsychiatry, 69, 110-115.
Shapiro, B.L., & Schwarz, J.C. (1997). Date rape: Its
relationship to trauma symptoms and sexual self-esteem.
Joumal of Interpersonal Violence, 12,407-419.
Shaver, K.G., & Drown, D. (1986). On causality,
responsibility, and self-blame: A theoretical note.
Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50,
697-702.
Struckman-Johnson, C, & SUiickman-Johnson, D. ( 1994).
Men pressured and forced into sexual experience.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23, 93-114.
Sundin, E.C., & Horowitz, M.J. (2002). Impact of events
scale: Psychometric properties. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 180, 205-209.
 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 18 (4) 2009 219

Tabachnick, B.G & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate

statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Tangney, J.P., Wagner, P., & Gramzow, R. (1992).

Proneness to shame, proneness to guilt, and
psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
101, 469-478.

Taylor, C.A., & Sorenson, S.B. (2007). Community-based

norms about intimate partner violence: Putting
attributions of fault and responsibility into context.
Sex Roles, 57, 573-589.

Ullman, S.E. ( 1997). Attributions, world assumptions, and

recovery from sexual assault. Journal of Child Sexual
Abuse, 6, 1-19.

Ullman, S.E., Filipas, H.H., Townsend, S.M., and

Starzynski, L.L. (2007a). Psychosocial correlates of
PTSD symptom severity in sexual assault survivors.
Journal of Traumatic Stress, 20, 821 -831.

Ullman, S.E., Townsend, S.M., Filipas, H.H., & Starzynski,

L.L. (2007b). Structural models of the relations of
assault severity, social support, avoidance coping, self-
blame, and PTSD among sexual assault survivors.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 23-37.

Vidal, M.E., & Petrak, J. (2007). Shame and adult sexual

assault: A study with a group of female survivors
recruited from an East London population. Sexual and
Relationship Therapy, 22, 159-170.

Watts, C, & Zimmerman, C. (2002). Violence against

women: Global scope and magnitude. The Lancet,
359, 1232-1237.

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement,

motivation, and emotion. Psychological Review, 92,
548-573.
Copyright of Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality is the property of Sex Information & Education Council of
Canada and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.