Two-year panel data on a random sample of 54 college women were used to assess the link between rape supportive attitudes, prior experiences with sexual coercion, and vulnerability to sexual coercion while in college. Analysis showed that (1) rape supportive attitudes had no effect on vulnerability to physical coercion, rape, or alcohol/drug-related nonconsensual sex, (2) rape supportive attitudes were not changed by experiences with coercion, and (3) prior sexual coercion did not predict vulnerability over a two-year period. There was an increase in unwanted sex through nonviolent means (lies, threats to end the relationship) over the two-year period for women who held sex role stereotyped beliefs and a decrease in nonviolent unwanted sex for women who endorsed rape myths. Otherwise, these college women's attitudes and individual characteristics were generally not predictive of their risk for most sexual victimization.

Sexual coercion is a pervasive problem on American college campuses, and the incidence of date rape appears not to have changed much in the last 15 to 20 years (Johnson et al., 1992). In a national sample of American college women, Koss et al. (1987) found 54 percent had experienced some form of sexual victimization. Classifying those who had been sexually victimized into groups according to the severity of assault, 14.4 percent had experienced sexual contact (unwanted sex play), 11.9 percent had experienced sexual coercion (unwanted sexual intercourse), 12.1 percent were victims of attempted rape, and 15.4 percent were victims of rape (Koss, 1989). Garrett-Gooding and Senter (1987) reported that more than 75 percent of the college women in their study had experienced some form of sexual victimization while in college and 28 percent of the victimized women had experienced attempted rape. Himelein (1995) found that 52 percent of college women had, over their lifetimes, experienced some form of sexual victimization while dating. Nineteen percent of the women had experienced sexual contact, 22 percent had experienced attempted rape or sexual coercion, and 11 percent had been raped (Himelein, 1995).

While much has been learned about the factors that predispose individuals to use sexual coercion in intimate relationships, recent research in the U.S. has focused on vulnerability or factors that may perpetuate sexual victimization. One of the major models of vulnerability that has guided the research on sexual victimization is the social-psychological characteristics model (Koss and Dinero, 1989). This model focuses on the personality, attitudes or values of individuals that may facilitate sexual victimization. Ageton (1988) has argued that the social-psychological characteristics model includes two contradictory assumptions about the connection between sex roles and victimization. On the one hand, the model posits a social control theory of sexual coercion, suggesting that traditional socialization puts women at greater risk because of passivity and the tendency to give in to male demands. But at the same time, nontraditional women may be at higher risk for victimization because of nonconformity and violation of traditional sex roles. A substantial body of research has focused on the link between women's sex roles and their experiences with sexual coercion (see for example Bernard et al., 1985; Himelein, 1995; Murnen and Byrne, 1991). However, the results of these research efforts are inconsistent and contradictory.

Some studies have found that nontraditional attitudes are associated with increased coercion among college women. Bernard et al. (1985) reported that women who were "more clearly traditionally feminine" reported less abuse in dating relationships than less clearly sex-typed women. In a widely cited study, Muehlenhard and Linton (1987) found that, compared to women who had not experienced sexual assault, victims had nontraditional sex role attitudes. In addition, victims had higher scores than nonvictims on two of three standard scales that measure attitudes related to sexual coercion, the acceptance of interpersonal violence and the belief that sexual relationships are adversarial (Muehlenhard and Linton, 1987).

On the other hand, some research has reported that traditional femininity has been related to increased sexual victimization among college women. In a study of the influence of attitudes on women's experiences with sexual coercion, Murnen and Byrne (1991) found that college women who had "hyperfeminine" attitudes (traditional attitudes regarding women's rights and roles) reported higher total victimization experiences than women who had nontraditional attitudes. Murnen et al. (1989) argue that traditionality encourages women to be passive victims and thereby reduces effective response to sexual aggression. In a study of sex roles and sexual abuse, Burke et al. (1988) reported that sustaining and inflicting sexual abuse was associated with a "more feminine identity" for both women and men.

When attitudes have been found to be associated with experiences of victimization, it is unclear whether attitudes are the causes or consequences of experience with sexual aggression. Muehlenhard and Linton (1987) suggest that, whereas men's attitudes may be a cause of sexual aggression, women's attitudes may be a consequence of their victimization. Garrett-Gooding and Senter (1987) suggested that experiencing sexual victimization might cause a woman to become more nontraditional in her attitudes about sex roles. In a longitudinal study of college women and sexual victimization, Himelein (1995) reported that risk for victimization during college was not much influenced by victims' attitudes, behaviors, or history.

Finally, some studies have found no association between women's attitudes and experiences with sexual victimization. In an analysis of longitudinal data on a national sample of adolescent women, Ageton (1988) reported that neither attitudes nor demographics influenced vulnerability to sexual assault. Similarly, Koss (1985) and Koss and Dinero (1989) concluded that there were no differences between victims and nonvictims in attitudes or personality characteristics, including Burt's (1980) scales of rape-supportive attitudes. This work suggested that sexual victimization is unpredictable on the basis of victims' characteristics (Ageton, 1988; Koss, 1985; Koss and Dinero, 1989).

Thus, the research evidence is contradictory: some research suggests that the sexual victimization of women is closely linked to attitudes and behavior (Bernard et al., 1985; Muehlenhard and Linton, 1987; Murnen and Byrne, 1991). Others have found that sexual victimization is largely unrelated to a woman's attitudes and behavior (Ageton, 1988; Himelein, 1995; Koss, 1985; Koss and Dinero, 1989).

This study is an attempt to elaborate on and clarify the link between women's sex role attitudes and experiences with sexual victimization. I used two years of data from 54 college women to answer these questions: (1) Do women's attitudes influence vulnerability to sexual coercion over a two-year period? (2) Are attitudes changed after experiences with sexual victimization? (3) Does prior victimization reduce or increase the risk of later victimization?

Respondents were a random sample of 54 women enrolled as undergraduates at a state university in upstate New York over a two-year period. These women responded to two identical mail surveys (administered two years apart) on gender attitudes and experiences with sexual coercion. Sixty-seven of the original sample of 93 first- and second-year women were still enrolled two years later as third-, fourth-, or fifth-year students and had addresses on file with the registrar. A second wave survey was sent to these 67 women, and 54, or 81 percent, responded. Similar to the demographic profile of the college, the respondents were primarily white (93%) and from middle or working-class backgrounds. To facilitate direct comparisons between data from the two phases of the study, the second wave survey was identical to the original instrument on all of the items regarding attitudes and experiences, with the exception of asking women at follow-up about their experiences "over the last two years" (since the original survey).

Attitudes were measured by using the standard rape-supportive attitude scales first developed by Burt (1980) and since then used in modified versions in numerous published studies (Lonsway and Fitzgerald, 1994). These scales assess the degree to which individuals adhere to beliefs that are part of a cultural support for sexual assault. For this research, Burt's scales were modified by using approximately half the number of original items in each of the four scales. Separate standard factor analysis procedures were used to develop scales for each time period, so that each respondent had two factor scores for each scale, for attitudes at time 1 and at time 2. The reliability of the scales was assessed using Armor's (1974) theta scaling procedure. Theta scaling requires an unrotated principal components factor analysis to calculate a weighted value that, when applied to the items in the scale, has the highest possible alpha reliability for a linear combination of items (Armor, 1974). The scales are standardized with a mean of 0 and a variance of 1, and the factor scores based on the scales assume continuous level measurement. The sex role stereotyping scale consisted of 9 items (time 1 theta = .75, time 2 theta = .79), the adversarial sexual beliefs scale consisted of 6 items (time 1 theta = .74, time 2 theta = .71), the acceptance of interpersonal violence scale consisted of 4 items (time 1 theta = .61, time 2 theta = .57), and the acceptance of rape myths scale consisted of 7 items (time 1 theta = .83, time 2 theta = 87). (For a list of the items in each scale, please contact the author.)

To simplify the measurement of attitudes, one general attitude scale was developed to measure an overall attitude about rape. Respondents' factor scale scores on the four separate attitude scales were used as items in a principal components factor analysis. The analysis yielded one factor, included all 26 items from the four scales, and had a reliability of .78.

Experiences with sexual coercion were measured by using a shortened version of Koss and Oros's (1982) Sexual Experiences Survey. For this analysis, the original survey was modified by using 7 of 13 items that dealt with unwanted sexual intercourse to develop separate measures of victimization. Each of the measures reflected completed acts of sexual intercourse: "social coercion" is unwanted sexual intercourse forced through nonviolent means (threats to end the relationship, pressure by continual arguments, and lies), "alcohol- or drug-related nonconsensual sex" is intercourse that occurred when the respondent was unable to consent because of being under the influence of alcohol or drugs, "physical coercion" is forced intercourse through physical force or the threat of physical force. The fourth type of coercion measure is rape and consists of responses to the question: "Have you ever been raped?" In the initial survey, the questions were worded in a "have you ever experienced" format. In the follow-up questions at time 2, the questions used a "in the last two years, have you experienced" format.

Each of the four measures was dichotomized to control for the possibility that a given episode of coercion might be counted in more than one category. Thus, if a woman had ever experienced any of the three events that constitute social coercion (threats, pressure, or lies) or if she had experienced all three events, the value for the social coercion variable was 1, otherwise the value was zero. Also, a woman who had experienced all types of coercion, including rape, would be counted in all four coercion categories.

This research used four separate measures of completed acts of coerced intercourse, rather than alternative scoring systems, such as levels of victimization (see for example, Koss and Dinero, 1989), or the use of overall presence or absence of any victimization experiences, e.g., victims and nonvictims. Separate measures allows an analysis that does not assume that the relationship between attitudes and coercion will be the same for all types of victimization. For example, alcohol or drug-related nonconsensual sex has been found to be associated with nontraditional attitudes of women (Muehlenhard and Cook, 1988). Also, it has been reported that forced intercourse through social coercion is very common among college women (Komarovsky, 1985).

Multiple regression was used in all analyses, providing a standard method of control for initial attitudes and experiences. Since the coercion measures are dichotomous, the data were also analyzed using logistic regression. The results were basically unchanged. Under standard assumptions of the Gauss-Markov Theorem, sampling distributions for regression are well-defined in finite samples. Thus, while a larger sample than the 54 women available for this study would reduce standard errors and the chances of a Type II error, the hypothesis tests reported below give accurate probabilities of a Type I error (Goldberger, 1991).

When the 54 women were initially surveyed, 35 percent reported unwanted intercourse through social coercion, 20 percent alcohol or drug-related nonconsensual sex, 15 percent forced intercourse by physical coercion, and 5 percent were victims of rape. Over a two-year period (by Time 2), 20 percent reported an experience with social coercion, 13 percent alcohol or drug-related nonconsensual sex, 7 percent physical coercion, and 5 percent had been a victim of rape.

Estimates of coercion were much higher when the entire range of victimization experiences from the sexual experiences survey were taken into account. For this sample, 64.8 percent had experienced some form of sexual victimization by the time of the initial survey in 1990. When resurveyed in 1992, 50 percent of the women reported a victimization experience during the two-year study period.

The bivariate correlation matrix for all of the variables in the study is presented in Table 1, and Table 2 shows attitudes at Time 2 predicted by coercion categories at Time 1, controlling for initial (Time 1) attitudes. All of the Time 2 attitudes were substantially influenced by Time 1 attitudes, but none of the Time 1 coercion variables had a significant influence on Time 2 attitudes. Thus, there was no evidence that an experience of sexual coercion changed attitudes. This finding was stable for all attitude measures used.

Table 3 shows the results of using attitudes at Time 1 to predict experiences with coercion during the two-year study period. Most of the attitude measures had no influence on the reported experiences with coercion over the two-year period. However, an experience of social coercion at Time 2 was significantly reduced for women who endorsed rape myths at Time 1. On the other hand, vulnerability to social coercion was significantly increased for women who endorsed sex role stereotyping at Time 1. An examination of the effect of the controls for prior coercion on vulnerability (data not shown in the table) showed that previous sexual coercion in any of the four categories at Time 1 did not predict a woman's two year risk of sexual coercion (coercion reported at Time 2).

Two-year longitudinal data on a sample of 54 college women found little influence of rape-supportive attitudes on experiences with sexual coercion. The one exception was an increase in social coercion over the two-year period for women who held sex role stereotyped beliefs and a decrease in social coercion over the study period for women who endorsed rape myths. However, women's attitudes (sex role stereotyping, acceptance of rape myths, acceptance of interpersonal violence, and adversarial beliefs) were not changed by any of the reported experiences with sexual coercion. There was also no evidence that an experience with nonviolent or violent sexual coercion put women at greater risk for victimization over the two-year period. This finding, coupled with the lack of influence of attitudes on vulnerability to alcohol and drug-related nonconsensual sex, physical coercion, and rape, suggests that most victimization is not predicted by either attitudes or prior experience with coercion. These results are consistent with the argument that the sexual victimization of women is largely unrelated to attitudes and behavior, and that any woman could be a victim of sexual assault (Ageton, 1988; Himelein, 1995; Koss, 1985; Koss and Dinero, 1989).

This analysis was based on self-report data of sexual victimization. There may be an unmeasured connection between attitudes and perceptions of aggressive behavior, leading to different self-reports of the same coercive experiences. For example, women with nontraditional attitudes may be more sensitized to sexual aggression as offensive, or some women may be more willing to accept aggression as normal negotiation in relationships. Korman and Leslie (1982) also suggested that nontraditional, or "feminist," women may be particularly sensitive to exploitation and abuse, causing them to report sexual aggression that would not be found to be offensive by traditional women. However, after a test of this theory, they reported that there was no relationship between attitudes and the perception of offensive aggression (Korman and Leslie, 1982). But the possibility remains of some bias in how traditional and nontraditional women perceived and thus reported their experiences of victimization in this study. This issue also has implications for the argument that rape figures are exaggerated because of the research focus on the frequency of acquaintance rape (Koss and Cook, 1998). Many women who researchers have identified as victims do not in fact consider themselves as having been sexually coerced and continue to have sex with the alleged assailants (Frazier, 1997).

Because of the small sample size (20% of the original sample of women were no longer enrolled at follow-up), these research conclusions are presented with caution. However, the sample size was large enough to find two instances of statistical significance in the regression of attitudes on nonviolent coercion. Additional power analyses indicate that the regression estimates are reasonable. For example, the sample size needed to find a significant effect of rape at Time 1 on rape at Time 2 would be 718. On the other hand, a sample of only 67 might show an effect of sex role stereotyping on alcohol/drug-related nonconsensual sex. Thus, the ongoing debate regarding the link between sexual attitudes and sexual experiences would be greatly informed by a replication of this study with a larger sample. In addition, the measurement of attitudes needs further study. Although Burt's (1980) scales are widely used in the sexual aggression literature, there has been some criticism regarding the definition of rape myths (Lonsway and Fitzgerald, 1994).

This study indicates that future research must address the problem of sexual coercion within the framework of a vulnerability-enhancing situational model (Koss and Dinero, 1989) rather than a social-psychological characteristics model. Research has found evidence of situational factors that exacerbate sexual aggression: women were more likely to have had unwanted sex because they were intoxicated according to Muehlenhard and Cook (1988), and sexual assault victims were found different from nonvictims in their exposure to delinquent peers in a study by Ageton (1988). In addition, a number of scholars have found that the college fraternity subculture exploits women and supports sexual aggression (Martin and Hummer, 1989; Sanday, 1990; Strombler and Martin, 1994) and that sorority women have a high incidence of sexual assault (Copenhaver and Grauerholz, 1991). Indeed, some research has found that sorority women have higher rates of victimization than nonsorority women (Kalof, 1993). More research into these vulnerability-enhancing situational factors and sexual victimization is needed.

We also need to know more about how to target the problem of sexual coercion on college campuses through intervention programs. Some research has been done in this area. Himelein (1999) found that a short-term sexual assault prevention program increased "high risk" women's knowledge about sexual coercion. Lanier et al. (1998) reported that an "intervention play" was influential in reducing rape supportive attitudes among college students.

In conclusion, this research supports Koss and Dinero's (1989) argument that attitudes and behaviors do not render women "uniquely vulnerable to victimization" (p. 249). Attempts to develop a better understanding of the problem of sexual victimization among American college women would be better served by addressing vulnerability factors that lie outside the personality and attitudes of the victims themselves.

Legend for chart:

A1=SRST1
A2=SRST2
A3=ADSB1
A4=ADSB2
A5=AIV1
A6=AIV2
A7=ARM1
A8=ARM2
A9=GRA1
B1=GRA2
B2=SCOR1
B3=SCOR2
B4=ALCO1
B5=ALCO2
B6=PCOR1
B7=PCOR2
B8=RAPE1
B9=RAPE2
C1=1.000
         A1     A2     A3     A4     A5     A6     A7     A8     A9
A1       C1
 p=       .
A2     .640     C1
 p =   .000      .
A3     .544   .341     C1
 p =   .000   .012      .
A4     .551   .468   .696     C1
 p =   .000   .000   .000      .
A5     .405   .279   .636   .516     C1
 p =   .002   .041   .000   .000      .
A6     .234   .245   .403   .421   .588     C1
 p =   .088   .074   .002   .002   .000      .
A7     .305   .251   .383   .449   .520   .375     C1
 p =   .025   .067   .004   .001   .000   .005      .
A8     .194   .285   .164   .361   .317   .565   .569     C1
 p =   .159   .037   .236   .007   .019   .000   .000      .
A9     .729   .470   .830   .701   .834   .509   .685   .368     C1
 p =   .000   .000   .000   .000   .000   .000   .000   .006      .
B1     .531   .622   .529   .769   .574   .765   .571   .774   .687
 p =   .000   .000   .000   .000   .000   .000   .000   .000   .000
B2    -.034  -.078   .198   .185   .039  -.052  -.003  -.096   .058
 p =   .811   .583   .159   .188   .784   .716   .981   .500   .684
B3     .067   .005  -.115  -.003  -.199  -.215  -.264  -.109  -.172
 p =   .632   .970   .414   .983   .154   .121   .056   .439   .219
B4    -.137  -.029   .063  -.093  -.008   .085   .034  -.092  -.035
 p =   .349   .845   .665   .523   .954   .561   .817   .530   .809
B5    -.197  -.160  -.102   .042  -.163   .137  -.145   .113  -.199
 p =   .153   .248   .461   .761   .240   .322   .294   .414   .148
B6     .084  -.160   .152   .170  -.126  -.199  -.047  -.215   .024
 p =   .557   .261   .287   .234   .378   .162   .742   .129   .867
B7    -.176  -.104  -.148   .033  -.194  -.116  -.129  -.182  -.222
 p=    .203   .453   .286   .810   .160   .404   .384   .189   .106
B8     .184  -.102   .141   .055  -.106  -.235  -.124  -.192   .061
 p =   .195   .475   .324   .701   .460   .096   .387   .177   .670
B9    -.255  -.322  -.154  -.014  -.233  -.047  -.096  -.131  -.248
 p =   .065   .019   .271   .920   .094   .738   .492   .348   .074

         B1     B2     B3     B4     B5     B6     B7     B8     B9
B1       C1
 p =      .
B2    -.015     C1
 p =   .915      .
B3    -.102   .399     C1
 p =   .468   .004      .
B4    -.042   .195   .042     C1
 p =   .776   .179   .777      .
B5    -.064   .209   .458   .004     C1
 p =   .643   .136   .001   .976      .
B6    -.124   .503   .355   .268   .046     C1
 p =   .384   .000   .011   .063   .748      .
B7    -.107   .294   .487   .095   .373   .241     C1
 p =   .439   .034   .000   .518   .006   .089      .
B8    -.159   .330   .086  -.033  -.114   .790  -.085     C1
 p =   .264   .018   .551   .821   .427   .000   .551      .
B9     .147   .245   .246   .061   .428   .164   .865  -.079     C1
 p =   .295   .083   .079   .679   .001   .255   .000   .583      .
Legend:
SRST1 = sex role stereotyping at Time 1,
SRST2 = sex role stereotyping at Time 2
ADSB1 = adversarial beliefs at Time 1,
ADSB2 = adversarial beliefs at Time 2
AIV1 = interpersonal violence at Time 1,
AIV2 = interpersonal violence at Time 2
ARM1 = rape myths at Time 1,
ARM2 = rape myths at Time 2
GRA1 = general rape attitudes at Time 1,
GRA2 = general rape attitudes at Time 2
SCOR1 = social coercion at Time 1,
SCOR2 = social coercion at Time 2
ALCO1 = alcohol/drug related coercion at Time 1,
ALCO2 = alcohol/drug related coercion at Time 2
PCOR1 = physical coercion at Time 1,
PCOR2 = physical coercion at Time 2
RAPE1 = rape at Time 1,
RAPE2 = rape at Time 2

Legend for chart:

A1=Independent Variables (Time 1)
A2=Adversarial Beliefs
A3=Sex Role Stereotyping
A4=Interpersonal Violence
A5=General Rape Attitudes
A6=1. Social Coercion
A7=2. Alcohol/Drug-Related
A8=3. Physical Coercion
A9=6. Adversarial Beliefs
B1=7. Sex Role Stereotyping
B2=8. Interpersonal Violence
B3=5. Rape Myths
B4=9. General Rape Attitudes
B5=.67[sup*]
                    Dependent Variables (Time 2)
A1       Rape Myths      A2          A3          A4          A5
A6         -.04         .00         .06         .05         .01
A7         -.12        -.03        -.10         .05        -.05
A8         -.17         .19         .03        -.04         .01
4. Rape     .03        -.22        -.25        -.11        -.18
B3          .54[sup*]    --          --          --          --
A9           --         .68[sup*]    --          --          --
B1           --          --         .66[sup*]    --          --
B2           --          --          --         .54[sup*]    --
B4           --          --          --          --          B5

Legend for chart:

A1=Independent Variables (Time 1)
A2=Alcohol/Drug Related Sex
A3=Adversarial Beliefs
A4=Sex Role Stereotyping
A5=Interpersonal Violence
A6=General Rape Attitudes
             Dependent Variables (Time 2)
A1          Social Coercion    A2  Physical Coercion    Rape
Rape Myths      -.36[sup*]   -.14         -.04          .01
A3              -.16          .20         -.17          .06
A4               .39[sup*]   -.27         -.02         -.18
A5              -.12         -.17         -.07         -.22
A6              -.19         -.26         -.25         -.25
Note: Each of the four regression models was estimated with
Attitudes at Time 1 (independent) and Coercion at
Time 1 (controls).

Ageton, S. S. 1988. "Vulnerability to Sexual Assault." In A. W. Burgess (Ed.), Rape and Sexual Assault, II (pp. 221-243). New York: Garland Publishing.

Armor, D. J. 1974. "Theta Reliability and Factor Scaling." In H. L. Costner (Ed.), Sociological Methodology (pp. 17-50). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Benedict, J. R. 1998. Athletes and Acquaintance Rape. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bernard, J. L., Bernard, S. L. and Bernard, M. L. 1985. "Courtship Violence and Sex-typing." Family Relations 34:573-576.

Burke, P. J., Stets, J. E. and Pirog-Good, M. A. 1988. "Gender Identity, Self-Esteem, and Physical and Sexual Abuse in Dating Relationships." Social Psychology Quarterly 51:272-285.

Burt, M. R. 1980. "Cultural Myths and Supports for Rape." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 38:217-230.

Copenhaver, S. and Grauerholz, E. 1991. "Sexual Victimization among Sorority Women: Exploring the Link between Sexual Violence and Institutional Practices." Sex Roles, 24:31-41.

Frazier, P.A. and Seales, L. M. 1997. "Acquaintance Rape is Real Rape." In M. D. Schwartz (Ed.), Researching Sexual Violence against Women: Methodological and Personal Perspectives (pp. 54- 64). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Garrett-Gooding, J. and Senter, R., Jr. 1987. "Attitudes and Acts of Sexual Aggression on a University Campus. Sociological Inquiry 57:348-371.

Gidycz, C. A., Coble, C. N., Latham, L. and Layman, M. J. 1993. Sexual Assault Experience in Adulthood and prior Victimization Experiences: A Prospective Analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly 17:151-168.

Goldberger, A. S. 1991. A Course in Econometrics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gwartney-Gibbs, P. and Stockard, J. 1989. "Courtship Aggression and Mixed-Sex Peer Groups." In M. A. Pirog-Good and L. E. Stets (Eds.), Violence in Dating Relationships (pp. 185-204). New York: Praeger.

Himelein, M. J. 1999. "Acquaintance Rape Prevention with High-Risk Women: Identification and Inoculation." Journal of College Student Development 40:93-96.

Himelein, M. J. 1995. "Risk Factors for Sexual Victimization in Dating: A Longitudinal Study of College Women. Psychology of Women Quarterly 19:31-48.

Johnson, G. D., Palileo, G. J. and Gray, N. B. 1992. "'Date rape' on a Southern Campus: Reports from 1991." Social Science Research 76:37-44.

Kalof, L. 1993. "Rape-Supportive Attitudes and Sexual Victimization Experiences of Sorority and Nonsorority Women." Sex Roles 29:767-780.

Komarovsky, M. 1985. Women in College: Shaping new Feminine Identities. New York: Basic Books.

Korman, S. K. and Leslie, G. R. 1982. "The Relationship of Feminist Ideology and Date Expense Sharing to Perceptions of Sexual Aggression in Dating." The Journal of Sex Research 18:114-129.

Koss, M. P. and Cook, S. L. 1998. "Facing the Facts: Date and Acquaintance Rape are Significant Problems for Women." In R. K. Bergen (Ed.), Issues in Intimate Violence (pp. 147-156). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Koss, M. P. 1985. "The Hidden Rape Victim: Personality, Attitudinal, and Situational Characteristics." Psychology of Women Quarterly 9:193-212.

Koss, M. P. 1989. "Hidden Rape: Sexual Aggression and Victimization in a National Sample of Students in Higher Education." In M. A. Pirog-Good and J. E. Stets (Eds.), Violence in Dating Relationships: Emerging Social Issues (pp. 145-68). New York: Praeger.

Koss, M.P. and Dinero, T.E. 1989. "Discriminant Analysis of Risk Factors for Sexual Victimization among a National Sample of College Women." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 57:242-250.

Koss, M.P., Gidycz, C.A. and 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.

Koss, M.P. and Oros, C.J. 1982. "Sexual Experiences Survey: A Research Instrument Investigating Sexual Aggression and Victimization." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 50:455-457.

Lanier, C.A., Elliott, M.N., Martin, D.W. and Kapadia, A. 1998. "Evaluation of an Intervention to Change Attitudes toward Date Rape." Journal of American College Health 46:177-180.

Lonsway, K.A. and Fitzgerald, L. F. 1994. "Rape Myths: In Review." Psychology of Women Quarterly 18:133-164.

Martin, P.Y. and Hummer, R.A. 1989. "Fraternities and Rape on Campus." Gender & Society 3:457- 473.

Muehlenhard, C.L. and Cook, S. W. 1988. "Men's Self-Reports of Unwanted Sexual Activity." The Journal of Sex Research 24:58-72.

Muehlenhard, C.L. and Linton, M.A. 1987. "Date Rape and Sexual Aggression in Dating Situations: Incidence and Risk Factors." Journal of Counseling Psychology 34:186-196.

Murnen, S. K. and Byrne, D. 1991. "Hyperfemininity: Measurement and Initial Validation of the Construct." The Journal of Sex Research 28:479-489.

Murnen, S. K., Perot, A. and Byrne, D. 1989. "Coping with Unwanted Sexual Activity: Normative Responses, Situational Determinants, and Individual Differences." The Journal of Sex Research 26:85-106.

Sanday, P.R. 1990. Fraternity Gang Rape: Sex, Brotherhood, and Privilege on Campus. New York: Wiley.

Strombler, M. and Martin, P.Y. 1994. "Bringing Women in, Keeping Women Down: Fraternity 'little sister' Organizations." Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 23:150-184.

~~~~~~~~

By Linda Kalof, Thanks to Lucinda Spinner for help with survey administration and data entry. Please address correspondence and requests for reprints to Linda Kalof, Ph.D., Department of Sociology and Anthropology, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, Lkalof@gmu.edu, 703-993-1443 n Washington, D.C. She is currently a part-time instructor at the University of Colorado at Denver and Metropolitan State College of Denver and has started her own business. She has published several journal articles and public policy analyses and has contributed to several books. Most of her publications have been in the area of the economics of women in labor markets.