This article was downloaded by: [University of Arizona]

On: 30 July 2012, At: 04:44

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Psychology & Human

Sexuality
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wzph20

How Well Does the Traditional

Sexual Script Explain Sexual
Coercion?
a
E. Sandra Byers PhD
a
University of New Brunswick, Department of Psychology
and Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre for Family Violence
Research, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada, E3B 6E4

Version of record first published: 22 Oct 2008

To cite this article: E. Sandra Byers PhD (1996): How Well Does the Traditional Sexual Script
Explain Sexual Coercion?, Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 8:1-2, 7-25

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J056v08n01_02

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-
licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any
representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The
accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently
verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or
 howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of
the use of this material.
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 04:44 30 July 2012
 How Well Does the Traditional Sexual Script
Explain Sexual Coercion?
Review of a Program of Research
E. Sandra Byers, PhD

SUMMARY. Male use of sexual coercion against an unwilling fe-

male partner is all too prevalent in North American society. Several
theorists, most notably feminist theorists, have hypothesized that so-
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 04:44 30 July 2012

cialization practices with respect to traditional gender roles, and cor-

responding cultural attitudes, cause sexual coercion. Although not
always labeled in this way, these theorists posit that the “traditional
sexual script” supports and condones male sexual coercion against
women and that this sexual script remains the normative dating
script in our society. In this article, I first review the aspects of the
traditional sexual script that have been theorized to promote and
maintain sexual coercion. Then 1 review the results of a program of
research 1 conducted in conjunction with colleagues and former
graduate students, which tested the validity of this theory for under-
standing coercive sexual interactions between dating partners. I con-

E. Sandra Byers is affiliated with the University of New Brunswick, Depart-

ment of Psychology and Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre for Family Violence
Research, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada E3B 6E4.
Address correspondence to E. Sandra Byers, Department of Psychology, Uni-
versity of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada E3B 6E4.
The author would like to offer a sincere thank-you to all her graduatc students
and colleagues who,over the years, have collaborated with her on this program of
research. She is particularly indebted to Lucia O’Sullivan for her helpful com-
ments on an earlier version of this article and for hcr collaboration on a number of
studies.
[Haworth co-indexing entry note]: “How Well Does the Traditional Sexual Script Explain Sexual
Caercion? Review of a Program or Research.” Byers, E. Sandra. Co-published simultaneously in
Journal qfPsycbafogy & Humon Sexual;@ (The Haworfh Press, lnc.) Vol. 8, No. 112. 1996, pp. 7-25;
and: S e n d Coercion in During Relalionship.r (ed: E. Sandra Byers, and Lucia F. O’Sullivan) The
Hawonh Press, Inc.. 1996, pp. 7-25 Single or multiple copies of this article are available rrom The
Hawonh Document Delivery Service [ 1-800-342-9678. 9:OO a.m. - 5:OO p m (EST)].

@ 1996 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All tights reserved. 7

 8 SEXUAL COERCiUN IN DA TING RELA TIONSHIPS

dude that the traditional sexual script has proven useful as a frame-
work for understanding sexual coercion in heterosexual dating
relationships. However, our research calls some aspects of this
theory into question. Some modification to this theory is needed.
[Arri.de copies available from 77ae Ha worih Documen[ Delivery Service:
1-800-342-9678.1

Male use of sexual coercion against an unwilling female partner is all

too prevalent in North American society. Although most research on sexu-
al coercion has been conducted with college students, even among this
relatively advantaged population, researchers have consistently found that
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 04:44 30 July 2012

between 22% and 83% (depending on the wording of the items) of the
women surveyed report having been coerced into engaging in some form
of unwanted sexual activity at some time in the past (see Craig, 1990, for a
review of prevalence studies). A smaller, but substantial, percentage of
men (between 20% and 42%) acknowledge having engaged in sexual
activity by using sexual coercion (Craig,1990). Most of these incidents
occurred within the context of dating or other non-stranger peer relation-
ships.
Several theorists, most notably feminist theorists, have hypothesized
that socialization practices with respect to traditional gender roles, and
corresponding cultural attitudes, cause sexual coercion (Brownmiller,
1975; Burt, 1980; Clark & Lewis, 1977). Although not always labeled in
this way, these theorists posit that the "traditional sexual script" supports
and condones male sexual coercion against women and that this sexual
script remains the normative dating script in North American society.
These theories stand in contrast to theories that place the causes of sexual
coercion in specific characteristics of offenders that are not seen to be
normative, such as offenders' psychopatho~ogy,coercive dispositions, or
hypererotic orientation (Craig, 1990;Kanin, 1985).
In this article, I first review the aspects of the traditional sexual script
that have been theorized to promote and maintain sexual coercion. Then 1
present the results of a program of research I conducted in conjunction
with colleagues and former graduate students that is designed to test the
validity of this theory for understanding coercive sexual interactions be-
tween dating partners.

THE TRADITIONAL SEXUAL SCRIPT

Scripts are cognitive frameworks for how people are expected to be-
have in social situations. Sexual scripts, therefore, delineate the who,
 E. Sandra Byers 9

what, where, when, how, and why of sexual behavior (DeLamater, 1987;
Gagnon, 1990; Gagnon & Simon, 1973; McComick, 1987; Rosen &
Leiblum, 1988). They also depict the sequence in which behaviors are
expected to occur within sexual intcractions. Individuals may improvise
and express their own personajities and preferences while still adhering to
the guidelines prescribed by the script.
Sexual scripts are teamed through socialization. The sexual script that
is most pervasive in North America has been termed the traditionai sexual
script (TSS), and it contains very different expectations for men’s and
women’s behavior and attitudes in sexual situations. It is these prescribed
gender differences which are hypothesized to link adherence to the TSS
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 04:44 30 July 2012

and sexual coercion (cf. Brownmillet, 1975; Byers, 1990; Clark & Lewis,
1977; Crooks & Baur, 1993; Korman & Leslie, 1982; LaPtante, McCor-
mick & Btannigan, 1980; Peplau, Rubin & Hill, 1977). In the following
list, I have summarized the gender differences in expected behaviors and
attitudes within the TSS that have been theorized to be particularly impor-
tant to the occurrence of sexual coercion. As the TSS prescribes that
sexual relationships be heterosexual, the following discussion describes
only male-female interactions.
(1) The TSS depicts men as “aversexed” and women as “undersexed.”
As such, men are described as having strong sexual needs, being obsessed
with sex, being highly motivated to engage in sexual activity, and willing
to exploit or pursue any sexual opportunity made available by a woman.
Women, on the other hand, are depicted as having few sexual needs, being
sexually reluctant, seeing sex as a means of procuring love or commit-
ment, being slow to arouse, and being dificult to satisfy sexually.
(2) Women’s perceived worth and status are seen as being decreased by
sexual experience whereas men’s worth and status are seen as being en-
hanced. That is, for men, sexual experience is perceived by society and by
their peers as reflecting positive characteristicssuch as masculinity, viril-
ity, and attractiveness. Fpr women, on the other hand, sexual experience is
attributed to undesirable characteristics such as nonselectivity, promiscu-
ity, emotional disturbance, and lack of values.
(3) The TSS casts men as the initiators in sexual situations and women
as the recipients of the initiations. Thus, because of their supposed large
sexual appetites, men are expected to initiate and vigorously pursue dates
with women, all sexual interactions, and increasingly intimate sexual activ-
ities within any given sexual interaction. Women are expected to adopt a
passive, defensive stance in order to protect their perceived worth. They
are expected to be prepared for and to respond cautiously to these initia-
tions.
 10 SEXUAL COERCION IN DATiNG RELATIONSH/PS

(4) Because women are depicted as not “really” interested in sex and as
having their worth decreased by being “too” sexually available or seem-
ing “too” interested in sex, the TSS prescribes that women are expected to
place limits on the level of sexuai activity in which they engage with their
male partner. Thus, women are expected to counteract, force€idly, men’s
continual pressure to increase sexual intimacy. Even when they are inter-
ested in engaging in sexual activity, women are expected to offer at least
initial token resistance to the man’s advances. It should be noted that
forceful resistance is inconsistent with women’s gender role scripts, which
dictate that women should be passive, submissive, and unassertive, On the
other hand, men are expected to try to remove women’s restrictions to
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 04:44 30 July 2012

enhance their own worth and meet their own sexual needs. As such, the
TSS legitimizes men’s use of a variety of coercive and noncoercive influ-
ence strategies in attempting to overcome the woman’s reluctance to en-
gage in the sexual activity. This expectation is similar to behavioral ex-
pectations within men’s gender role script, which prescribes that men be
active and aggressive. Use of these strategies is further justified by wide-
spread belief in women’s use of token refusal. As such, men who accept
the woman’s refusal and stop their sexual advances may be perceived as
not sufficiently masculine to gain sexual access (Muehlenhard, 1988;
Muehlenhard & Hollabaugh, 1988).
Two additional aspects of the TSS have been described as contributing
to sexual coercion but are not limited to sexual situations.
( 5 ) The dating and gender role scripts dictate that women’s worth is
enhanced by being in a romantic relationship. Thus, within the TSS, a
woman is expected to restrict sexual access but to do so in a way that does
not cause the man to decrease his romantic interest in her. To accomplish
this, she should not be too assertive or aggressive in refusing sexual
advances, she must appear sexy, and she must convey (through willing
participation in low levels of sexuai activity) that satisfying sex will occur
in the future if the man remains in the relationship.
(6) Women are expected to be emotional, sensitive, and nurturing in
interpersonal relationships, whereas men are expected to be unemotional,
relatively insensitive, and self-focused. The prescription for women to be
nurturing and consider the other person’s need before their own is in
conflict with the aspect of the TSS that calls for women to restrict access to
her sexuality. The latter would require that the woman place her needs and
wants before those of her male partner. The prescription that men be
unemotional and put their own needs first suggests that, in pursuing their
sexual goals, men need not take into account the woman’s feelings or
reluctance to engage in the sexual activity.
 E. Sandra Byers I1

In summary, the TSS pits the oversexed, aggressive, emotionally insen-

sitive male initiator who is enhanced by each sexual conquest and taught
not to accept “no“ for an answer against the unassertive, passive woman
who is trying to protect her worth by restricting access to her sexuality
while still appearing interested, sexy, and concerned about the man’s
needs. Sexual coercion is believed to be learned and maintained through
widespread socialization for this behavioral sexual script, traditional gen-
der roles, and attitudes and beliefs that support, condone, and legitimize
sexual coercion in at least some circumstances. These attitudes are them-
selves a consequence of socialization.
An important question that social scientists need to address, then, is
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 04:44 30 July 2012

whether the TSS is the normative sexual script in North American dating
relationships. Other questions that need to be addressed are: How accurate
are the gender role stereotypes described in the TSS? To what extent are
aspects of the TSS related to the use and experience of sexual coercion?
We addressed these broad questions in a series of studies that are reviewed
in the following sections.

IS THE TRADITIONAL SEXUAL SCRIPT

THE NORMATIVE SEXUAL SCRTPT?

Two predictions based on the TSS have been examined repeatedly in

the literature: attitudes supportive of sexual coercion are widespread, and
women commonly experience sexual coercion by men within dating rela-
tionships. Our results are in keeping with these predictions and with re-
search conducted in the United States (Burt,1980; Craig, 1990). We found
that many Canadian university students hold these beliefs and attitudes
(Byers & Eno,I 1991; Grenier & Byers, 1990).In addition, we found that a
substantial proportion of Canadian university women reported having ex-
perienced sexual coercion and Canadian university men reported having
engaged in sexual coercion (Byers & Eno, 1991; Finkelman, 1992; O’Sul-
livan, 1991).
However, these findings do not establish that sexual coercion is the
nonnative or typical sexual script; that is that “the socialization of both
men and women takes coercive sexuality as the normal standard of sexual
behavior” (Clark & Lewis, 1977, p. 140). To establish that TSS is the
normative script, it is necessary to go beyond the finding that many
women have experienced male sexual coercion. Rather, it is necessary to
demonstrate that the roles described by the TSS are the typical or usual
behavior in sexual interactions. Therefore, we examined the normative-
ness of several aspects of the TSS.
 12 SEXUAL COERCION IN DATING RELATIONSHlPS

Initiations and resiricfions of sexual actjvi&. The TSS defines clearly

differentiated gender roles for men and women in sexual situations, some
of which are believed to provide the framework within which sexual
coercion can occur. “Oversexed” men’s greater interest in sex is believed
to be expressed by their role as initiator and in their willingness to seize
every available sexual opportunity. In contrast, “undcrsexed” women’s
lesser interest in SCX is thought to be reflected in their roles as recipient of
initiations and restrictor of sexual activity. Using a self-monitoring tech-
nique, Lucia O’Sullivan and I investigated whether these stereotypes are
accurate or normative for dating couples (O’Sullivan & Byers, 1992).
Consistent with descriptions of the TSS, the men initiated sex more
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 04:44 30 July 2012

than the women did. However, initiations by the women were not rare,
albeit only about half as frequent as initiations by the men in the study. In
fact, the majority of participants reported one or more sexual initiations by
the woman during a two-week period. Of interest, initiations by women
were more likely to occur within a steady dating relationship. Thus, the
sexual script that designates men as the initiators appears to apply more
strongly in casual relationships. Other researchers have found that men’s
overt sexual advances are usually preceded by women’s signals communi-
cating sexual interest and that women are more likely than men to begin
sexual encounters (Moore, 1985; Moore & Butler, 1989; Perper, 1989;
Perper & Weis, 1987). Moreover, in contrast to predictions based on the
TSS, after controlling for the number of initiations, the women were no
more likely to refuse a sexual initiation by their partner than were the men.
Only a minority of initiations by the men or the women (20%) resulted in a
refusal by the partner, calling into question the view that most sexual
interactions between men and women are adversarial. The results also
indicate that in the typical sexual interaction, and particularly within
steady dating relationships, women are not serving a restrictive function,
and men do not feel obliged to accept every available sexual opportunity.
In so far as the TSS and its stereotypes regarding initiation and restriction
of sexual activity are used to explain sexual coercion, the explanation is
likely to be inadequate, incomplete, or inaccurate.
Men j. compliance wirh women k rel;ls~ls.Based on the argument that
the TSS is the normative sexual script, we predicted that men typically
would wish to engage in a higher level of sexual activity than would
women (that is, that adversarial sexual relationships are normative). We
also predicted that, given a situation in which the man wanis to engage in a
higher level of sexua1 activity than the woman does, men typically wouId
use some form of verbal or physical coercion to try to gain sexual access
(i.e., use of coercion by men to overcome resistance is normative). To test
 E. Sandra Byers I3

these predictions, Kim Lewis and I asked unmarried college men and
women to self-monitor their dating and sexual experiences over four
weeks (Byers & Lewis, 1988). Respondents recorded whether they had
been on a date, whether any level of sexual activity had occurred on that
date, and whether the man had desired to engage in a higher level of sexual
activity than did the woman. If respondents experienced a disagreement,
they recorded the words and actions used to communicate about the differ-
ing levels of desired sexual intimacy. Descriptions of the man’s behavior
following the woman’s refusal of his sexual advance were coded in terms
of the degree ofthe man’s compliance or noncompliance with the woman’s
refusal.
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 04:44 30 July 2012

Although 47% of respondents reported experiencing one or more dis-

agreements in which the man desired to engage in a higher level of sexual
intimacy than did the woman over the four-week period, disagreements
occurred on only 7% of all dates. This finding indicates that even though
disagreements are a common part of sexual dating relationships, agree-
ment about the desired level of sexual activity is more common and nor-
mative than is disagreement. This finding is contrary to the TSS.
Although sexual coercion will not occur if dating partners agree about
the desired level of sexual activity, disagreements do not inevitably lead to
sexual coercion. Therefore, in this study Lewis and I also examined men’s
compliance with the woman’s rehsal of their sexual advances in thesc
disagreement situations (Eyers & Lewis, 1988). According to the TSS, as
men are in pursuit of ever-increasing levels of sexual intimacy, they should
typically respond to refusals of their sexual advances by using strategies,
including coercive strategies, to “persuade” the reluctant woman to en-
gage in the disputed sexual activity. Contrary to this prediction, we found
that the majority of participants (64% of the men and 58% of the women)
reported that when the woman indicated her nonconsent, the man i m e d i -
ately stopped his sexual advances without questioning her. Twenty percent
and 13% of the men and women, respectively, described behavior in which
the man stopped his advances and questioned, in a non-coercive fashion,
the woman’s reasons for her reluctance. An additional 8% and 7% of the
men and the women, respectively, indicated that the man stopped his
advances and tried to persuade the woman to engage in the activity-re-
sponses that were not coercive but that indicated the man’s reluctance to
accept the woman’s rehsal. Finally, according to the women, 7% of the
men stopped their advances but expressed displeasure or anger, and 16%
continued the unwanted advances-responses that are clearly indicative of
sexual coercion. The percentage of men who reported behaving in these
coercive ways were 4% and 4%, respectively.
 14 SEXUAL COERCION IN DATING RELA TIONSHIPS

I found similar results in two studies I conducted using role-play sce-

narios (Byers, 1988; Byers & Wilson, 1985). For example, Paula Wilson
and I asked college men to role-play their initial responses to women’s
refusals of their sexual advances. In their role-play responses, the majority
of the men complicd with the woman’s refusal without using coercive
tactics. However, 6% continued their advances, and 9% complied in a way
that indicated that they were angry or upset with the wornan-lJoth indica-
tions of sexual coercion. An additional 18% complied but tried to persuade
the woman to continue, an indication of reluctance but not necessarily of
coercion. Although the degree to which these results can be generalized.
from the role-play situation to a real situation is not known, most men
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 04:44 30 July 2012

rated their responses as being an accurate representation of how they

would behave in a similar real situation, supporting the validity of the data.
To understand better the motivation behind men’s behavioral responses,
Wilson and I asked the men to interpret what the woman “really” meant
when she said “no” to the sexual advance, after they had role-played their
responses to the woman’s refusal (Byers & Wilson, 1985). The majority of
the men reported that they believed that the woman wanted the man to stop
what he was doing (34%) or to try again on another date (22%), interpreta-
tions that are consistent with their behavioral compliance in the role-play.
However, 15% of the men did not believe the woman’s refusal, as they
reported that the woman wanted the man to try again right away (6%) or
that she wanted him to continue @%)-both interpretations that might
account for the 15% of the men whose role-play responses were sexually
coercive. Finally, 29% of the men reported that they believed that the
woman really wanted the man to try again later that evening, an intcrpreta-
tion that suggests that these men believed she could be “persuaded” to
engage in the sexual activity. Similarly, in a study I conducted with Doro-
thy Price, we found that when men were asked to rate how effective each
of a number of different refusals would be in stopping their sexual ad-
vances, they indicated that they were not completely certain that even the
most definite responses would stop their unwanted sexual advances (By-
ers, Giles, & Price, 1987). These results suggest that a substantial propor-
tion of the men who participated in these studies subscribed to the belief in
women’s token refusals of men’s sexual advances. Other research has aIso
provided evidence for widespread belief in women’s use of token resis-
tance (Muehlenhard, 1988; Muehlcnhard & Hollabaugh, 1988).
Summary.There is considerable evidence from our research and that of
other researchers that the TSS is a common dating script and thus repre-
sents a frequently employed framework for heterosexual dating interac-
tions. In fact, findings of the commonness of women’s experiences with
 E. Sandra Byers IS

male sexual coercion in dating relationships that led, in part, feminists and
others to conclude that sexual interactions between men and women typi-
cally are adversarial and contain coercive elements. However, our research
has failed to support some aspects of the TSS as being nonnative or typical
of sexual interactions in dating relationships. Contrary to predictions
based on the TSS,we did not find that, in these sexual interactions, men
typically attempt to extend the sexual boundaries, women typically try to
serve a restrictive function, or men g p i d l y attempt to coerce the sexually
reluctant woman to engage in the disputed sexual activity. Rather, we
found that men and women typically agree about the desired level of
sexual activity. When a disagreement does arise, it is most typical for men
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 04:44 30 July 2012

to accept a woman’s refusal of more intimate sexual involvement without

questioning her and to believe that she indeed did not wish to engage in the
sexual activity at that time. Although the TSS appears to be common, there
are either other equally or more common sexual dating scripts or the TSS
as articulated is not sufficiently complex. In either case, the TSS as de-
scribed does not appear to be the normative dating script.

HOW ACCURATE ARE DEPICTIUNS OF GENDER RULES

IN SEXUAL INTER4 CTIONS?

The TSS is gender-specific. The gender roles are considered to be quite

distinct: certain roles are assigned to men; others are assigned to women.
In some of our research, we examined the extent to which these gender
differences accurately characterize sexual dating interactions.
Men as the reluctant sexual partner/women as fhe ‘brdenr partne,:”

The TSS casts men as the coercers and women as the coerced in sexual
situations. Early researchers adopted this assumption and only investi-
gated male sexual coercion of women. In keeping with recent research
using U.S. college students (Muehlenhard ?i Cook, 1988; Struckman-
Johnson, 1988), we have found evidence that a substantial percentage of
Canadian male college students report having experienced sexual coercion
by a woman (O’Sullivan, 1991; Finkelman, 1992). However, in both stud-
ies, a larger percentage of women than men reported having been coerced
to engage in unwanted sexual activity within a one-year period. For exam-
ple, Larry Finkelman,Lucia O’Sullivan, and I found that 17% of male
respondents compared to 36% of the female respondents reported having
had an unwanted sex experience because of sexual coercion by their het-
erosexual dating partner during one year of university (Finkelman, 1992).
Of particular interest with regard to critiquing the validity of the TSS, in
 16 SEXUAL COERCION IN DA TlNG RELATIONSHIPS

both studies some women reported having used sexual coercion against a
reluctant male partner.
In keeping with the TSS, our early research on disagreement situations
only examined situations in which the man desired to engage in a higher
level of sexual activity than did the woman (Byers & Lewis, 1988). How-
ever, in a recent study, O’Sullivan and I examined situations in which the
woman desired to engage in a higher level of sexual activity than did her
male dating partner (O’Sullivan & Byers, 1993). We also extended past
research by examining the range of influence strategies used in disagrec-
ment situations by the “ardent” partner, not just the negative or coercive
strategics that have been studied in the past. We found that 56% of partici-
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 04:44 30 July 2012

pants reported having experienced a disagreement situation in which the

woman desired the higher level of sexual intimacy during thc previous
year, most often within a steady dating relationship. The majority of par-
ticipants described responses to the man’s refusal that indicated that the
woman had complied with the refusal. However, 20% described noncom-
pliant responses by the woman. Further, 97% of respondents indicated that
the woman in some way had tried to influence the man to engage in the
sexual activity aftcr he had refused. Women typically used positive, non-
coercive strategies. These findings are clearly inconsistent with the TSS in
several ways. First, they demonstrate that women regularly assume the
role of initiator and demonstrate their interest in sex in various ways,
rather than solely assuming the role of passive recipient to men’sdemon-
strations of sexual ardor. Second, these findings do not support the stereo-
type that men will exptoit any indication of sexual receptivity on the part
of women. instead, respondents described disagreement situations that
resulted from men indicating reluctance to engage in sexual activity de-
sired by their female partner. This is consistent with our findings regarding
men’s and women’s responses to the sexual initiations of their partner
(O’Sullivan & Byers, 1992). Third, the findings demonstrate that women
are active in removing restrictions placed on sexual intimacy by their male
partners by trying to influence them to engage in disputed sexual activi-
ties. Finally, they demonstrate that some women use coercive strategies to
attempt to engage in sexual activity. The TSS does not account for these
behaviors by women. Because these disagreements occurred most fre-
quently within the context of steady dating relationships, these findings
may indicate that women and men are less likely to adhere to the TSS
within steady relationships. It shouId also be noted, however, that the TSS
is accurate in the sense that these behaviors are in general more character-
istic of men than they are of women (O’Sullivan & Byers, 1996). Further,
these data do not address whether the negative impact of experiencing
 E. Sandra Byers 17

sexual disagreements or sexual coercion is the same for men as it is for

women.
Expressiveness and instrumentality. There has been a good deal of re-
search supporting differences between men and women in their gender role
dcscriptionsmen as more instrumental (“masculine”) and less expressive
(“feminine”), women as more expressive and less instrumental (cf. Bern,
1474; Hiller & Philliber, 1985; Spence & Helmreich, 1978). The TSS
suggests that men and women also foliow these gender roles in sexual
situations both in terms of emotionality, sensitivity, and nurturance (ex-
pressive behaviors) as well as in terms of initiation and responses aimed at
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 04:44 30 July 2012

influencing a sexually reluctant partner (instrumental behaviors). To deter-

mine whether gender roles in sexual situations follow these stereotypes,
Kelli-an Lawrance, David Taylor, and I asked undergraduate men and
women to provide four gender role descriptions (Lawrance, Taylor, &
Byers, 1990). Participants described their gender role behaviorlcharacter-
istics both globally and in a sexual situation. Participants also described
their perception of the ideal gender role for men and the ideal gender role
for women in sexual situations. We found that the male and female stu-
dents agreed in their descriptions of how they believed men and women
should ideally behave in sexual situations. In keeping with the TSS,these
descriptions followed traditional gender lines, with men being described
as ideally more instrumental than women and women as ideally more
expressive than men. However, although always less so than the women,
the men’s global gender role was found to be least expressive, their sexual
gender role more expressive, and their ideal sexual gender role most
expressive. Thus, expressive behavior was not only seen as desirable for
men in sexual situations, but the men were also more expressive in sexual
than in nonsexual situations. ‘The women described themselves as equally
and highly expressive globally and in sexual situations. Further, they per-
ceived this same level of expressiveness as the ideal for a woman in a
sexual situation. With respect to instrumental traitshehaviors, the women
and the men described the ideal gender roles in sexual situations as more
instrumental than their own gender role in a sexual situation but as less
instrumental than their own global gender role.
Overall, these results suggest men behave in less gender-typed ways in
sexual situations than globally, and they do so because they believe that
this type of behavior represents the ideal for men. Women are less instru-
mental in sexual situations than they are globally, but they did not see this
behavior as ideal. Again, these resuits provide partial support for the TSS.
Women were found to be more expressive and men more instrumental, as
 18 SEXUAL COERCION IN UATING RELATIONSHIPS

suggested. However, although men and women are not always able to live
up to their sexual ideal, in sexual situations these roles may be converging.
Summay. The gender roles described in the TSS are accurate in de-
scribing behavior that is more characteristic of men or of women. Thus,
men morc often than women take the role of initiator, use coercion, and
engage in other instrumental behaviors. Women are more expressive than
arc men. However, there is also cvidence of considerable overlap in men’s
and women’s roles in sexual situations, as well as of convergence in what
is perceived as ideal behavior for men and women. In emphasizing gender
differences, the TSS may not suficiently describe gender similarities
(Hyde, 1985, 1994).
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 04:44 30 July 2012

WHAT FACTORS ARE ASSOCIATED

WITH SEXUAL COERCIUN?
To establish that socialization to the TSS is a causal factor in sexual
coercion, it is necessary (although not sufficient) to establish a link be-
tween aspects of the TSS and engaging in or experiencing sexual coercion.
To test the completeness of the TSS as an explanation for sexual coercion,
it is necessary to demonstrate that factors outside those proposed in the
TSS are not related to the use of sexual coercion. We have investigated a
number of factors that have been proposed to be related to sexual coercion.
Because the TSS is limited to depicting men as the coercers and women as
the coerced, we only examined factors thought to influence whether men
use sexual coercion or women experience sexual coercion.
Predicting men’s use of coercion. Based on the TSS, Ray Eno and I
predicted that men who subscribe more strongly to beliefs that support and
condone sexual coercion would be more likely to report having been
sexually coercive in a dating situation. We also predicted that men who
were more active daters would be more likely to report having used sexual
coercion because of their increased likelihood of being in situations in
which they desire a higher level of sexual intimacy than their female
partner, thus having more opportunities to use coercion to gain sexual
access (Byers & Eno, 1991). We also tested the hypothesis that men who
use sexual coercion adopt a hypererotic script. In contrast to theorists who
locate the cause of sexual aggression in the TSS,Kanin (1 985) has argued
that, compared to other men, “date rapists” undergo a differential sexual
socialization process that results in a hypererotic orientation. To test this
hypothesis, we investigated the relationships between men’s sexual re-
sponsiveness and their use of sexual coercion.
In keeping with predictions based on the TSS, in two studies we found
 E. Sandra B y m 19

that men who reported having engaged in both consenting and noncon-
senting sex tended to hold more traditional views of women’s roles as well
as to subscribe more strongly to coercion-supportive beliefs (Byers & Eno,
1991; Grenier & Byers, 1990). Similarly, in the role-play study of men’s
responses to women’s refusals of their sexual advances, Wilson and I
found that men who had more liberal attitudes toward women’s roles were
more compliant with the woman’s refusals (Byers &Wilson, 1985). These
findings are in keeping with the results of several other studies (Koss,
Leonard, Beezley & Oros, 1985; Muehlenhard & Linton, 1987; Rapaport &
Burkhart, 1984). Also in keeping with predictions based on the TSS,more
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 04:44 30 July 2012

active daters were more likely to have experienced consenting intercourse

and to have used verbal coercion (Byers & Eno, 1991). However, contrary
to predictions, more active daterswere less likely to have used physical
force, even though they would, presumably, have experienced more dis-
agreements in which the use of force to “persuade” the reluctant woman
to engage in the sexual activity was a response option. These results
suggest that, whereas the use of verbal coercion may be part of the TSS,
the script does not dictate use of physical force as the next step when
verbal coercion is unsuccessful. Rather, in sexual situations in which there
is a discrepancy in the desired level of sexual intimacy, only men with
certain characteristicsfor example, men who hold strongly to particular
beliefs or men with a hypererotic orientatiomy cross the line between
use of verbal pressure and use of physical force. This view has also been
proposed by Rapaport and Burkhart (1984) and Lisak and Roth ( I 988).
This interpretation is supported by two other findings from this research
(Byers & Eno, 1991). First, use of verbal coercion and use of physical
force were not significantly related to each other. Second, violence-sup-
portive attitudes and dating experience each uniquely predicted sexual
coercion. These results suggest that verbal coercion and physical force are
not two manifestations of a continuum of coercive behavior within the
same dating script.
Eno and I also identified a second pattern linking attitudes and use of
sexual coercion by men (Byers & Eno, 1991). When traditional and coer-
cion-supportive attitudes were controlied, men who described themselves
as highly sexually arousable and accepting of interpersonal violence, but
who were also relatively more erotophobic and less accepting of adversar-
ial sexual beliefs, were more likely to report having used physical force.
However, they were not more likely to report having engaged in consent-
ing intercourse or having used verbal coercion. That is, at least some men
who use physical force experience themselves as getting highly aroused in
sexual situations and may have difficulty talking about sex because of
 20 SEXUAL COERCION IN DATING RELATIOArSHIpS

their erotophobia (Fisher, Byme, White, & Kelley, 1988). Thus, they may
act according to their beliefs that force is an expected and accepted means
of resolving discrepancies in the desired level of sexual intimacy. These
characteristics are similar to Kanin’s { 1985) description of hypererotic
date rapists who hold an exaggerated view of the importance of engaging
in extensive sexual activity and conquest and who also believe that their
peers would support their aggressive behavior.
Taken together, these results suggest that the TSS contributes to sexual
coercion in that both coercion-supportive and traditional gender role be-
liefs, as well as active dating, were independently associated with coercive
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 04:44 30 July 2012

sexual behavior. However, the data also suggest, in keeping with the
results of the self-monitoring study of sexual disagreement situations, that
use of physical force is not part of the typical sexual script for dating men
(Byers & Lewis, 1988). In addition, in at least somc instances, factors that
are not part of depictions of the TSS apparently are related to men’s use of
physical force.
Pwdicting wumen k experience of sexual coercion. We have conducted
a number of studies to examine women’s behavior in situations in which
there is a discrepancy in the level of sexual intimacy desired by women
and by their male partners. We did so to test predictions based on the TSS
and not to suggest that women should be held responsible, in any way, for
their own victimization.
The TSS prescribes roles for women in sexual situations that might put
them at risk for experiencing sexual coercion or, at least, reduce their
effectiveness in responding to unwanted sexual advances. For example,
the TSS prescribes that women behave unassertively with men, particular-
ly if they want to keep the man’s romantic interest in them, and that, to
avoid being devalued, they should agree only to engage in lower levels of
sexual intimacy. Thus, women would be expected to be more definite in
their refusals of higher level sexual activities than of lower level sexual
activities and in their rehsals of advances by men in whom they had less
romantic interest. Barbara Gilcs and I tested these predictions using role-
play scenarios (Byers et al., 1987). Each scenario described the man mak-
ing one of three sexual advances, indicated the woman’s level of romantic
interest in her date, and instructed the female participants that they did not
want to engage in that activity, The women then role-played how they
would communicate their nonconsent to their date. In keeping with predic-
tions based on the TSS, the verbal refusals of the women were less definite
in the scenarios in which they were described as having greater romantic
interest in their date. The women were also less verbally definite in the
 E. Sandra Byers 21

scenarios describing a lower level of sexual activity than in the scenes

involving higher levels of sexual activity.
I used an extended role-play paradigm to determine how women’s
responses change in situations in which the man does not comply with
their initial refusal (Byers, 1988). As with the role-play procedure de-
scribed above, women were asked to role-play their refusal of a man’s
unwanted sexual advances, They were then informed that the man did not
comply with their wishes and were asked to role-play what they would do
andor say next. Most women increased the definiteness of their refusal
from their first to their second response. Increasing the definiteness of the
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 04:44 30 July 2012

refusal is likely to be an effective strategy for avoiding sexual coercion.

However, despite the fact that few women were as definite in their re-
sponses as they could have been, one quarter of the women did not be-
come more definite in the second role-play. This finding is in keeping with
predictions from the TSS-even when women are aware that the man is not
complying with their refusal, many women do not communicate their
reluctance as clearly as they could. Some men may interpret the lack of
increase in definiteness as evidence that the woman’s response constitutes
a token refusal. In addition, women with higher acceptance of rape myths
tended to be more definite in their refbsals of the unwanted sexual ad-
vances than women who had lower acceptance of rape myths.Many rape
myths place the blame on the woman for her victimization. This suggests
that women who accept these views are more aware of how nonassertive
behavior may be misinterpreted by men and thus are less likely to behave
in ways that teave them open to claims that they are responsible for their
sexually coercive experiences.
Efects of women k behavior on men Z compliance. The definiteness of
women’s refusals of men’s sexual advances is only important to the extent
that it affects men’s behavior. Therefore, we examined the relationship
between the definiteness of women’s refisals and men’s responses to their
refusals. In one study, Dorothy Price and I asked college men to rate the
effectiveness in stopping their sexual advances of verbatim transcripts of
women’s role-play responses which varied in their definiteness (Byers et
al., 1987). Less definite verbal responses were rated by the men as being
less effective in stopping their advances, supporting the validity of our
definiteness ratings. Similarly, in our self-monitoring study of disagree-
ment situations, Lewis and I found that, according to the women, more
definite refusals by women who were romantically interested in their date
and had dated him regularly in the past resulted in more compliance with
the refusal by the male partner (Byers & Lewis, 1988). In addition, using
an extended role-play paradigm, I had men who were not unquestioningly
 22 SEXUAL COERCION IN DATING RELATIONSHIPS

compliant with a woman’s initial refusal of their sexual advances role-play

their response to a second verbal refusal by the woman. Most (61%) of
these men were more compliant with the woman’s second refusal (Byers,
1988). Given the pervasiveness of men’s belief in women’s use of token
resistance, a second refusal may be interpreted by men as a clearer indica-
tion of a woman’s actual lack of interest. These findings suggest that
women who act unassertively to conform to the TSS may be at higher risk
for experiencing sexual coercion. Low intimacy situations, as well as
situations in which the woman is romantically interested in her date, are
most likely to produce less definite refisals and thus put women at the
greatest risk. However, even though less definite refusals may put women
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 04:44 30 July 2012

at greater risk, more definite refusals will not necessarily protect women
from experiencing sexual coercion. Three of the men who engaged in the
extended role-play became less compliant and three other men ignored both
of the women’s refusals and continued their advances even after the second
refusal (Byers, 1988). The remaining 26% of the men did not become
either more or less compliant in response to the second refusal. Moreover,
3 1% of the men indicated that they would initiate the rehsed advance
again the same evening, suggesting that they believed that the woman’s
refusals were insincere. Needless to say, even if a woman’s less assertive
behavior puts her at greater risk to experience male sexual coercion, she is
still not in any way responsible or to’blame for her own victimization.

CONCLUSION

The traditional sexual script has proven useful as a framework for

understanding coercion in heterosexual dating interactions. It has met the
most important criterion for a theory in that it has provided a framework
from which to generate hypotheses and make predictions about men’s and
women’s behavior in sexual dating situations in general and sexually
coercive situations in particular. However, as with most theories, it is
unable to explain all of the facts with which it is confronted. Thus, propo-
nents must be amenable to making modifications to the theory. The results
of my research program demonstrate mixed support for the TSS. Men and
women often follow the tenets of the TSS as guidelines for acceptable,
societally-condoned behavior. Unfortunately, these guidelines often lead
to male sexual coercion of women. However, they also often, and perhaps
more often, adopt only parts of the TSS. For example, they may adopt
male sexual initiation but not female restriction, or male initiation and
female restriction, but not male coercion. At times, men and women stray
from these guidelines altogether, apparently adopting a different script.
 E. Sandra Byers 23

For example, they may adopt femate sexual initiation, male restriction,
and female coercion. Our research calls into question the assertion that the
TSS is the normative script for dating interactions. Rather, it may be one of
a number of common and traditional scripts. Moreover, our research has
demonstrated that the sharp distinctions between appropriate behavior for
men and women in sexual dating situations are missing. Men’s and
women’s roles in sexual interactions overlap considembly, particularly in
established relationships.
Even though notions of appropriate behavior for men and women in
sexual situations may be evolving, the concept of the TSS and its role in
sexual coercion should not be abandoned. The TSS has proven valuable
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 04:44 30 July 2012

for furthering our understanding of sexual coercion between men and

women. It also provides a framework within which to develop interven-
tions designed to prevent sexual coercion in dating relationships. Nonethe-
less, the results of our program of research demonstrate that the TSS as it
is currently formulated needs some revision.

REFERENCES
Bem, S. ( I 974). The measurement of psychological androgeny. Journal of Con-
sulfing and Clinical Psycholugy, 42, 155-1 62.
Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our will. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Burt, M. R. (1980). CuItural myths and support for rape. Journal ofPersonality
and Social Psychology, 38,2 17-230.
Byers, E. S. (1988). Effects of sexual arousal on men and women’s behavior in
sexual disagreement situations. The Journal of Sex Research, 25,235-254.
Byers, E. S. ( I 990, November). Research on the traditional ~ I Z U Qscript.
~ Sympo-
sium presented at the meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex,
Minneapolis.
Byers, E. S., & Eno, R. (1 991). Predicting men’s sexual coercion and aggression
from attitudes, dating history, and sexual response. Journal of Psychology dt
Human Sauali@, 4,5569.
Byers, E. S.,Giles, €3. L., & Price, D. L. (1987).Definiteness and effectiveness of
women’s responses to unwanted sexual advances: A laboratory investigation.
Basic and Applied Social Psychoiogv,8,32 1-338.
Byers, E. S.,& Lewis, K. (1 988).Dating couples’ disagreements over the desired
level of sexual activity. 7’he J ~ u n t a olf Sex Research, 24, 15-29.
Byers, E. S., & Wilson, P. (1985). Accuracy of women’s expectations regarding
men’s responses to refusals of sexual advances in dating situations. Interna-
tional Journal of Women’sStudies, 4, 376387.
Clark, L.,& Lewis, D. (1977).Rape: The price ofcoercive s a u d i v . Toronto: The
Woman’s Press.
Craig, M. E. (1990). Coercive sexuality in dating relationships: A situational
model. Clinical Psychology Review, 10,395-423.
 24 SEXUAL COERClON IN DATING RELATIONSHIPS

Crooks, R., & Baur, K. (1993). Our sexuality (5th ed.). Redwood City, CA:
Benjamin/Cummings.
DeLamater, J. (1987). Gender differences in sexual scenarios. In K. Kelley (Ed.),
Females, males and sexualiy: Theories and research (pp. 127-1 39). Albany,
N Y SUNY Press.
Finkelman, L. (1992). Report of the survey of unwanted sexual experiences
among students of UNB-F and STU. Unpublished manuscript, University of
New Bnmswick, Fredericton, NB.
Fisher, W. A., Byrne, D., White, L. A., & Kelley, K. (1988). Erotophobia-eroto-
philia as a dimension of personality. The Journnl of Sex Research, 25, 123- 15 I.
Gagnon, J. H. (1990). The explicit and implicit use of the scripting perspective in
sex research. In J. Bancroft (Ed.), Annual review of sex research, I , 1-43.
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 04:44 30 July 2012

Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conducr: The social sources of human
smualify,Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press.
Grenier, G., & Byers, E. S.(1990, November), Patterns of coercive sexual behav-
iour in men. In E. S. Byers (Chair), Research on the rraditional sexual script.
Symposium presented at the meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of
Sex, Minneapolis.
Hiller, D., & Philliber, W. (1985). Internal consistency of the Bem Sex Role
Inventory. Social Psychology Quarrerly, 48,373-380.
Hyde, J. S. ( 1 994). Understanding human sexuality (5th ed.). New York: McGraw
Hill.
Hyde, J. S . (1985). Harlhe human experience: The psychology ofwomen (3rd
ed.). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Kanin, E. J. ( I 985). Date rapists: Differential sexual socialization and relative
deprivation. Archives ojSexual Behavior, 1 4 , 2 19-231,
Korman, S. K., & Leslie, G. R. (1982). The relationship of feminist ideology and
date expense sharing to perceptions of sexual aggression in dating. The Jour-
nal ofsex Research, 18, 1 14- 129.
Koss, M. P., Leonard, K.I., Beezley, D. A., & Oros, C. J. (1985). Nonstranger
sexual aggression: A discriminant analysis of the psychological characteristics
of undetected offenders. Sex Roles, 12,98 1-992.
LaPlante, M. M., McCormick, N., & Brannigan, G. G. (1980). Living the sexual
script: College students' views of influence in sexual encounters. The Journal
of Sex Research, 16,338-355.
Lawrance, K., Taylor, D., & Bycrs, E. S.(1990, November). Variations in global,
sexual, and ideal-sexual gender role descriptions. In E. S. Byers (Chair), Re-
search on the tradirional sexual script. Symposium presented at the meeting of
the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex, Minneapolis.
Lisak, D.,& Roth, S. (1988). Motivational factors in nonincarcerated sexually
aggressive men. Journal of Personalily and Social Psychology, 55, 795-801.
McCormick, N. B. (1987). Sexual scripts: Social and therapeutic implications.
Sexual and Marital Therapy, 2,3-27.
Moore, M. M. (1985). Nonverbal courtship patterns in women. Ethology and
Sociobiology, 6, 237-247.
 E. Sandra Byers 25

Moore, M. M., & Butler, D. L. (1989). Predictive aspects of nonverbal courtship

behavior in women. Semiofica, 76,205-215.
Muehlenhard, C . L. [1988). “Nice women” don’t say yes and “real men” don’t
say no: How miscommunication and the double standard can cause sexual
problems. In E. Cole & E. D. Rothblum @is.), Women & fierapy,(pp. 95-108).
New York: The Haworth Press, lnc.
Muehlenhard, C. L., & Cook, S. W. ( I 988). Men’s self-reports of unwanted sexual
activity. 7he Journal of Sex Research, 24.58-72.
Muehlenhard, C . L., & Hollabaugh, L. C. (1988). Do women sometimes say no
when they mean yes? The prevalence and correlates of women’s token resis-
tance to sex. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 54,872-879.
Muehlenhard, C . L., & Linton, M. A. (1987). Date rape and sexual aggression in
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 04:44 30 July 2012

dating situations: Incidence and risk factors. Journal of Coureling Psycholo-

a,34, 186- I 96.
O’Sullivan, L. ( I 99 I). Womenk w e of sexuai influence in heterosexual dating
relationships. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of New Brunswick,
Fredericton, NB.
O’Sullivan, L., & Byers, E. S.( I 990, November). Female use of sexual influence
strategies in dating relationships. In E. S . Byers (Chair), Research on ,the
tradizional saual script. Symposium presented at the meeting of the Society
for the Scientific Study of Sex, Minneapolis.
O’Sullivan, L.,& Byers, E. S. (1992). College students’ incorporation of initiator
and restrictor roles in sexual dating interactions. The Journol of Sex Research,
29,435446.
O’Sullivan. L., & Byers, E. S. (1993). Eroding stereotypes: College women’s
attempts to influence reluctant male sexual partners. The Journal ofsex Re-
search, 30,270-282.
O’Sullivan, L., & Byers, E. S. (1996). Gender Differences in Responses to Discre-
pancies in Desired Level of Sexual Intimacy. Journal oJPsychology & Human
Seruali&, 8,4941,
Peplau, L. A., Rubin, Z., & Hill, C. J. (1977). Sexual intimacy in dating relation-
ships. Journal ofsocial issues, 33,86-109.
Perper, T. (1989). Theories and observations on sexual selection and female
choice in human beings. Medical Anthropology, 11,409-454,
Perper, T., & Weis, D. L. (1987). Proceptive and rejection strategies of U.S. and
Canadian college women. 7he Journal of Sex Research, 23,455-480.
Rapaport, K., & hrkhart, B. R. (1984). Personality and attitudinal characteristics
of sexual coercive college males. Journal of Abnormol Psychology, 93,2 16-221.
Rosen, R. C., & Leiblum, S.R. ( 1 988). A sexual scripting approach to problems
in desire. In S , R. Leiblum & R. C. Rosen (Eds.), Sexual desire disorders
(pp. 168- 19 I). New York: Guilford Press.
Spence, J., & Helmreich, R. (1978). Masculinip andfemininiry: 7’heirpsychofogi-
cal dimensions, comlutes, and antecedents.Austin: University of Tcxas Press.
Struckman-Johnson, C. ( 1 988). Forced sex on dates: It happens to men, too. The
Jorrrnal of Sex Research, 24,234-24 1.