性暴力受害经历的性别差异与受害报告的有效性:大声思考研究

IF 2.7 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Journal of Sex Research Pub Date : 2024-09-09 DOI:10.1080/00224499.2024.2397496
Nicole K Jeffrey,Charlene Y Senn
{"title":"性暴力受害经历的性别差异与受害报告的有效性:大声思考研究","authors":"Nicole K Jeffrey,Charlene Y Senn","doi":"10.1080/00224499.2024.2397496","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study compared the qualitative nature of women and men's sexual violence (SV) victimization, the types of experiences captured and missed on the Sexual Experiences Survey-Short Form Victimization (SES-SFV) across genders, and common interpretations of the SES-SFV items. Fifty-four university students (31 women, 21 cis men, 2 trans men) who had recent unwanted (but not necessarily nonconsensual) sexual experiences thought out loud while privately completing the SES-SFV. They also typed descriptions of experiences reported on SES-SFV items or similar experiences when nothing was reported on an item. Results indicated that women's victimization was more frequent and severe than cis men's, except when men were victimized by men. Although verbal coercion was common across genders, event descriptions indicated that women's verbal coercion experiences were more often harsh and part of a partner's ongoing SV or coercive control. The findings suggest that quantitative measurement can mask important gender differences in victimization and (based on analysis of false positives and negatives) may underestimate rape and attempted rape experiences, especially women's. Findings suggested that responding to the SES-SFV was not traumatic or distressing. However, participants sometimes expressed confusion about the items and interpreted them in unintended ways.","PeriodicalId":51361,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sex Research","volume":"2 1","pages":"1-17"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gender Differences in Sexual Violence Victimization Experiences and Validity of Victimization Reports: A Think-Aloud Study.\",\"authors\":\"Nicole K Jeffrey,Charlene Y Senn\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00224499.2024.2397496\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study compared the qualitative nature of women and men's sexual violence (SV) victimization, the types of experiences captured and missed on the Sexual Experiences Survey-Short Form Victimization (SES-SFV) across genders, and common interpretations of the SES-SFV items. Fifty-four university students (31 women, 21 cis men, 2 trans men) who had recent unwanted (but not necessarily nonconsensual) sexual experiences thought out loud while privately completing the SES-SFV. They also typed descriptions of experiences reported on SES-SFV items or similar experiences when nothing was reported on an item. Results indicated that women's victimization was more frequent and severe than cis men's, except when men were victimized by men. Although verbal coercion was common across genders, event descriptions indicated that women's verbal coercion experiences were more often harsh and part of a partner's ongoing SV or coercive control. The findings suggest that quantitative measurement can mask important gender differences in victimization and (based on analysis of false positives and negatives) may underestimate rape and attempted rape experiences, especially women's. Findings suggested that responding to the SES-SFV was not traumatic or distressing. However, participants sometimes expressed confusion about the items and interpreted them in unintended ways.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51361,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Sex Research\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"1-17\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Sex Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2024.2397496\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sex Research","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2024.2397496","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究比较了女性和男性性暴力(SV)受害者的定性、不同性别的性经历调查--受害者简表(SES-SFV)中记录和遗漏的经历类型,以及对 SES-SFV 项目的常见解释。54 名最近有过非自愿(但不一定是非自愿)性经历的大学生(31 名女性、21 名顺式男性、2 名变性男性)在私下填写 SES-SFV 时大声思考。他们还输入了对 SES-SFV 项目中报告的经历的描述,或者在项目中未报告任何经历时对类似经历的描述。结果表明,与同性男性相比,女性受害的频率更高、程度更严重,但男性受害的情况除外。虽然语言胁迫在不同性别中都很常见,但事件描述表明,女性的语言胁迫经历更经常是严厉的,而且是伴侣持续的 SV 或胁迫性控制的一部分。研究结果表明,定量测量可能会掩盖受害方面的重要性别差异,并且(根据对假阳性和假阴性的分析)可能会低估强奸和强奸未遂的经历,尤其是女性的经历。研究结果表明,对 SES-SFV 进行回答不会造成创伤或痛苦。然而,参与者有时会对这些项目表示困惑,并以非故意的方式对其进行解释。
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
Gender Differences in Sexual Violence Victimization Experiences and Validity of Victimization Reports: A Think-Aloud Study.
This study compared the qualitative nature of women and men's sexual violence (SV) victimization, the types of experiences captured and missed on the Sexual Experiences Survey-Short Form Victimization (SES-SFV) across genders, and common interpretations of the SES-SFV items. Fifty-four university students (31 women, 21 cis men, 2 trans men) who had recent unwanted (but not necessarily nonconsensual) sexual experiences thought out loud while privately completing the SES-SFV. They also typed descriptions of experiences reported on SES-SFV items or similar experiences when nothing was reported on an item. Results indicated that women's victimization was more frequent and severe than cis men's, except when men were victimized by men. Although verbal coercion was common across genders, event descriptions indicated that women's verbal coercion experiences were more often harsh and part of a partner's ongoing SV or coercive control. The findings suggest that quantitative measurement can mask important gender differences in victimization and (based on analysis of false positives and negatives) may underestimate rape and attempted rape experiences, especially women's. Findings suggested that responding to the SES-SFV was not traumatic or distressing. However, participants sometimes expressed confusion about the items and interpreted them in unintended ways.
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
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
11.10%
发文量
121
期刊介绍: The Journal of Sex Research (JSR) is a scholarly journal devoted to the publication of articles relevant to the variety of disciplines involved in the scientific study of sexuality. JSR is designed to stimulate research and promote an interdisciplinary understanding of the diverse topics in contemporary sexual science. JSR publishes empirical reports, theoretical essays, literature reviews, methodological articles, historical articles, teaching papers, book reviews, and letters to the editor. JSR actively seeks submissions from researchers outside of North America.
期刊最新文献
"It Felt Sexually Liberating": An Examination of How Black Women's Awareness of Kink and BDSM Informs Their Sex Lives. Cross-Cultural Validation of the Sexual Desire Inventory (SDI-2) in 42 Countries and 26 Languages. Development and Validation of a Measure of the Resolution Phase of the Sexual Response Cycle: The Sexual Resolution Scale (SRS). Toward a Typology of the Client: A Latent Class Analysis Approach to the Consumption of Sex Work in the United States. Developing a Scale Measuring Comprehensive Sex Education Attitudes in K-12 Schools (CSEA-K12).
×
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