拒绝就是拒绝吗?情境和处置因素影响成年男性在女性拒绝勾搭时使用攻击手段的意向。

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-08-14 DOI:10.1177/10790632241268527
Allison M McKinnon, Richard E Mattson, Ashton M Lofgreen
{"title":"拒绝就是拒绝吗?情境和处置因素影响成年男性在女性拒绝勾搭时使用攻击手段的意向。","authors":"Allison M McKinnon, Richard E Mattson, Ashton M Lofgreen","doi":"10.1177/10790632241268527","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Hookups can result in sexual assault when men do not listen to requests from women to stop. It is thus important to identify factors that influence men's decisions to override direct refusals in these situations. Presently, we administered first-person vignettes depicting a prototypical hookup wherein the woman refuses the man's attempt to escalate intimacy. Using a national sample of emerging adult men (<i>N</i> = 420), we found that they on average did not completely rule out coercive or forcible tactics, but those elevated on rape myth acceptance, hypermasculinity, and psychopathy were uniquely at risk of assault when controlling for several other traits known to correlate with rape. Participants also reported being likelier to use coercive sexual practices when refusals occurred at higher levels of sexual intimacy already attained. Notably, diagnostic analyses revealed that a subset of men had a disproportionate influence on the regression estimates, and that these men were not only elevated across a range of assault-relevant traits, but also endorsed higher likelihoods of using coercion and force in the face of female sexual refusal. Although removal of these cases did not substantively alter the results, exploratory analyses revealed that these individuals responded differently to situational factors in ways that suggested sexual opportunism. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does No Mean No? Situational and Dispositional Factors Influence Emerging Adult Men's Intentions to Use Assault Tactics in Response to Women's Sexual Refusal During Hookups.\",\"authors\":\"Allison M McKinnon, Richard E Mattson, Ashton M Lofgreen\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10790632241268527\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Hookups can result in sexual assault when men do not listen to requests from women to stop. It is thus important to identify factors that influence men's decisions to override direct refusals in these situations. Presently, we administered first-person vignettes depicting a prototypical hookup wherein the woman refuses the man's attempt to escalate intimacy. Using a national sample of emerging adult men (<i>N</i> = 420), we found that they on average did not completely rule out coercive or forcible tactics, but those elevated on rape myth acceptance, hypermasculinity, and psychopathy were uniquely at risk of assault when controlling for several other traits known to correlate with rape. Participants also reported being likelier to use coercive sexual practices when refusals occurred at higher levels of sexual intimacy already attained. Notably, diagnostic analyses revealed that a subset of men had a disproportionate influence on the regression estimates, and that these men were not only elevated across a range of assault-relevant traits, but also endorsed higher likelihoods of using coercion and force in the face of female sexual refusal. Although removal of these cases did not substantively alter the results, exploratory analyses revealed that these individuals responded differently to situational factors in ways that suggested sexual opportunism. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10790632241268527\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10790632241268527","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

如果男性不听从女性的停止要求,勾搭可能会导致性侵犯。因此,确定影响男性在这种情况下推翻直接拒绝的决定的因素非常重要。目前,我们采用了第一人称小故事,描述了一种典型的勾搭,其中女性拒绝了男性升级亲密关系的尝试。通过对全国新兴成年男性(420 人)进行抽样调查,我们发现,平均而言,他们并不完全排除采取胁迫或强制手段的可能性,但在控制了其他几种已知与强奸相关的特质后,那些对强奸谬论的接受度较高、男性气概过强和心理变态的人有独特的受攻击风险。参与者还报告说,当拒绝发生在已经达到较高的性亲密程度时,他们更有可能使用强制性的性行为。值得注意的是,诊断分析表明,有一部分男性对回归估计产生了不成比例的影响,这些男性不仅在一系列与侵犯相关的特质上有所提高,而且在面对女性性拒绝时使用胁迫和武力的可能性也更高。虽然剔除这些案例并不会对结果产生实质性的改变,但探索性分析表明,这些人对情境因素的反应不同,暗示了性机会主义。本文讨论了这些发现的理论和实践意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Does No Mean No? Situational and Dispositional Factors Influence Emerging Adult Men's Intentions to Use Assault Tactics in Response to Women's Sexual Refusal During Hookups.

Hookups can result in sexual assault when men do not listen to requests from women to stop. It is thus important to identify factors that influence men's decisions to override direct refusals in these situations. Presently, we administered first-person vignettes depicting a prototypical hookup wherein the woman refuses the man's attempt to escalate intimacy. Using a national sample of emerging adult men (N = 420), we found that they on average did not completely rule out coercive or forcible tactics, but those elevated on rape myth acceptance, hypermasculinity, and psychopathy were uniquely at risk of assault when controlling for several other traits known to correlate with rape. Participants also reported being likelier to use coercive sexual practices when refusals occurred at higher levels of sexual intimacy already attained. Notably, diagnostic analyses revealed that a subset of men had a disproportionate influence on the regression estimates, and that these men were not only elevated across a range of assault-relevant traits, but also endorsed higher likelihoods of using coercion and force in the face of female sexual refusal. Although removal of these cases did not substantively alter the results, exploratory analyses revealed that these individuals responded differently to situational factors in ways that suggested sexual opportunism. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Sleep Disturbance in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension. Advancing Patient Education in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: The Promise of Large Language Models. Anti-Myelin-Associated Glycoprotein Neuropathy: Recent Developments. Approach to Managing the Initial Presentation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Worldwide Practice Survey. Association Between LACE+ Index Risk Category and 90-Day Mortality After Stroke.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1