Through Myths,Attitudes,or Norms? The Relationship Between Low Self-Control and Sexual Aggression

Abstract

This study tested the direct and indirect effects of low self-control on sexual aggression and violence, mediated through rape myth acceptance, date rape attitudes, and promiscuous sexual norms among college-aged men. Self-report data were collected from 369 male college students attending a large university in the southeastern United States. The final model with all three mediators indicated significant mediated effects through date rape attitudes as well as promiscuous sexual norms on sexual aggression; it explained 16% (Cox & Snell) and 23% (Nagelkerke) of the variance. Study findings support the importance of low self-control on sexual aggression among male college students.

Keywords

impulsivity mediation indirect effects sexual violence

Introduction

Sexual aggression against females is considered a serious social problem, but only recently, has it been brought to public awareness, as a result of new federal reporting mandates for college campuses in the United States (Dear Colleagues Letter; U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, 2017), where a great deal of sexual aggression is perpetrated against young women (Franklin et al., 2012). Sexual aggression can be defined as the sexual act carried out by a person without the consent of the victim and may be accompanied by not only the use of alcohol or drugs, but also physical or nonphysical pressure (Basile et al., 2014). According to the National Intimate Partner Sexual Violence Survey, for instance, approximately 37.4% of adult female rape victims were first raped between 18 and 24 years of age, and 19% of victims of either attempted or completed sexual assault have been identified as college students (Black et al., 2011). Given that this rate is very high, it becomes vital to better understand the underlying mechanisms of such aggressive behaviors which would also be instructive for the development of more effective prevention programs.

Various explanatory models of violence perpetration have been proposed across social science disciplines (Cavanaugh et al., 2012), some informed by theories of general aggression, others more tailored to understanding sexual aggression (DeKeseredy, 1990; Malamuth et al., 1995; Schwartz & DeKeseredy, 1997) and sexual aggression against women (e.g., feminist theories on violence against women; Yodanis, 2004). In addition to contextual factors (e.g., peer group influence and exposure to violence; Abbey, 2011; Bannon et al., 2013; Kingree & Thompson, 2013; Murnen & Kohlman, 2007; Testa et al., 2015), several individual characteristics have been identified for their particular salience, including impulsivity and emotional dysregulation (Jennings et al., 2017; Mouilso et al., 2013), but also low self-control (Franklin, 2011), consistent with self-control theory (Gottfredson & Hirschi), the framework chosen for the present study. Studies have also identified and tested the salience of perceptual and attitudinal characteristics of violence perpetrators, including rape myth acceptance (RMA; Debowska et al., 2016), date rape attitudes (McQuiller Williams et al., 2016), and promiscuous sexual norms (Malamuth et al., 1995), that are associated with sexually aggressive behaviors. Little work has tested the importance of multiple, potentially additive effects by perceptual or attitudinal characteristics to explain sexual aggression. One exception is the study by Qureshi et al. (2021) which tested and found that low self-control, along with antisocial as well as sexist attitudes, explains variability in RMA, a known correlate of sexual aggression. The present study takes one step further by testing the salience of low self-control for multiple perceptual and attitudinal characteristics known to explain variability in sexual aggression, namely RMA, date rape attitudes, and promiscuous sexual norms, in addition to direct effects on sexual aggression.

Self-Control Theory

Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) introduced the idea of low self-control underlying norm-violating and deviant conduct. Individuals low in self-control are impulsive, lack of persistence, are risk-seeking, have a tendency to be more physical than mental, are self-centered, and have a bad temper. These individual characteristics have repeatedly been found to be associated with a great variety of norm-violating and deviant behaviors, including sexual aggression (Winfree et al., 2007). Gottfredson and Hirschi (2020) also poignantly note:

A theory of crime is a theory about the social order because unfettered self-interest places the interests of others at risk. Social bonds, as described in control theory (Hirschi 1969), serve the interests of collectivities (expressed initially in life as the interests of caregivers) in preserving the rights and welfare of everyone against usurpation by the selfish, the strong, the more powerful. (p. 228)

The empirical support for self-control theory has been overwhelming (Pratt & Cullen, 2000; Vazsonyi et al., 2017), although some work has also called into question the extent to which the theory may need revision or expansion (e.g., Burt, 2020). However, relatively few studies have considered the importance of low self-control theory and low self-control for sexual aggression.

Some of this work has included support showing the links between low self-control and risky sexual behaviors (Magnusson et al., 2019), violent behaviors and intimate partner violence (Larson et al., 2015), sexual assault victimization (Franklin, 2011), as well as sexual violence and victimization among repeat sex offenders (Ha & Beauregard, 2016). One study based on a sample of university students tested the relationship between low self-control and sexual aggression and found evidence supporting it, in addition to finding associations with more behavioral problems (DeLisi et al., 2020). This work also highlighted the similarity between psychopathy and self-control in terms of understanding antisocial behaviors in the context of theories of crime, thus concluding that all antisocial behaviors, including sexual coercion, had a significant association with self-control.

Although extensive scholarship, based on cross-sectional and longitudinal work, conducted in both the United States and abroad, has demonstrated the lifelong implications of self-control for adjustment and well-being, including academic achievement, health, and financial status, as well as crime, deviance, delinquency, externalizing behaviors, and violence (DeLisi, 2017; Larson et al., 2015; Moffitt et al., 2011, 2013; Vazsonyi et al., 2017), few studies have considered how low self-control affects not only these indicators of adjustment and well-being, but also the underlying attitudes that influence these behaviors. In fact, a number of studies have shown that low self-control is linked to violent sexual attitudes and behaviors (Cook, 1995; Clevenger et al., 2016; Franklin et al., 2012; Stylianou, 2002) as well as to promiscuous sexual attitudes and behaviors (Love, 2006), although this link is thought to have been overstated in the literature (Shively, 2001).

Perceptual and Attitudinal Correlates of Sexual Aggression

The present study not only tested the links between low self-control and sexual aggression, but it also tested the extent to which violence-justifying perceptions and attitudes toward sex mediated this link, with a consideration of male college students’ experiences, attitudes, and beliefs that have been mostly ignored in both research and intervention programs (Jennings et al., 2017; Shively, 2001). More specifically, it examined the role of three attitudinal constructs, namely the acceptance of rape myths, date rape attitudes, and promiscuous sexual norms. Previous research has not conceptualized these three attitudinal measures as mediators between low self-control and sexual aggression, and thus, this study aims to contribute to the existing literature in a novel and unique way.

RMA refers to the possession of a prejudicial, stereotypical set of beliefs about rape, victims, or rapists (Burt, 1980). Chapleau and Oswald (2010) tested two competing models that included measures of RMA, measures of implicit and explicit power about sex, and a measure of rape proclivity. Findings supported the model where RMA effects were mediated by perceived power on rape proclivity, a measure of sexually aggressive inclinations. O’Connor (2021) studied longitudinal bidirectional effects in a sample of nearly 500 male college students, assessed four times over the course of a year, between RMA and rape proclivity, and found support for consistent reciprocal effects. This work once again highlights the key role of RMA in understanding the perpetration risk for sexual violence, thus also highlighting its importance for prevention or intervention efforts. Bouffard and Miller (2021) tested how RMA, together with a measure of psychopathy, predicted sexual coercive behaviors as well as intentions to use sexual coercive behaviors (both verbal and illegal strategies) based on a sample of nearly 500 college-age youth. RMAs were consistently predictive of sexually coercive behaviors or intentions, past or present, with the exception of past illegal coercion. Finally, a study by Qureshi et al. (2021) found that low self-control was positively associated with RMAs, along with sexist attitudes and antisocial tendencies, based on a sample of Indian male college students. This work shows how RMAs are consistently associated with measures of sexual aggression, but it also shows that other traits and behaviors uniquely explain additional variability.

Rape myths are used to advocate men's improper behavior toward women and are mostly shaped by the norms of the society (Samji & Vasquez, 2020). Other work has shown that masculinity norms impact RMA among males in college or military settings (Le et al., 2020). According to Prina and Schatz-Stevens (2020), the educational level of the individuals is directly linked to fewer RMA while religion is seen as a fundamental contributor to the notion. As is foreseeable, the level of RMA of male college students is reported to be higher than females whereas the students knowing a victim are reported as less likely to accept rape myths (Besher & DiVita, 2019). Other factors explaining RMA include group socialization among males (Debowska et al., 2016), where stereotypical thinking by males about women influences their attitudes about them.

Date rape attitudes are those that minimize the seriousness of date rape (Amar et al., 2014). When date rape attitudes are taken into account, sex-related communication problems between partners especially in a campus setting can be a risk factor for sexual aggression (McQuiller Williams et al., 2016). Although there have been studies specifically on rape, the number of studies on date rape among college students is limited. This is mostly because college students do fail to report their sexual assault experience as date rape (Bouffard & Bouffard, 2011).

Promiscuous sexual norms refer to deviations from social norms related to sexual behavior. Promiscuous or impersonal sex is a relationship in which both parties have sexual relations without commitment; this has been linked to both sexual aggression as well as other related problems in adulthood (Malamuth et al., 1995). However, whether the perception of males on impersonal sex directly contributes to sexual aggression has not been well researched (Casey et al., 2020).

Even though culture is considered the main source of such attitudes and beliefs, it is also certain that not all individuals hold the same beliefs, or they do not hold them to the same degree. There is reason to believe that individual characteristics are important. As Payne (2005) and others (e.g., Von Hippel et al., 2000) have shown, executive functioning, which is responsible for self-control, changes the way individuals form stereotypes and discriminate based on race. In the same way, we expected that individuals with less self-control would be more likely to have stereotypes related to sexual behaviors.

In this study, it was expected that individuals with low self-control would be more likely to accept views that justify sexual aggression in the case of rape, or more specifically, date rape, more likely to endorse attitudes that deviate from existing norms, and that these in turn would explain involvement in sexually aggressive behaviors. In a sense, sexual assault and aggression are a manifestation of deviant attitudes about sex (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994). Based on the fact that campus sexual assault rates have been reported as the same for the last three decades—one in four women (Foubert et al., 2020), various intervention studies have shown, addressing men's attitudes and norms related to women and sexuality (e.g., hostility, date rape attitudes, and hyper-gender ideology) can be one of the most effective strategies for reducing sexual violence perpetration (Kettrey et al., 2019; Salazar et al., 2014, 2019). If in fact, low self-control is partly responsible for having such attitudes, then future intervention and prevention programs focused on reducing these attitudes will greatly benefit from including self-control as a potential target.

Study Hypotheses

The following hypotheses were tested; it was expected that:

Low self-control would be associated with a greater likelihood of sexual aggression.

The effect of low self-control on sexual aggression would be mediated by RMA.

The effect of low self-control on sexual aggression would be mediated by date rape attitudes.

The effect of low self-control on sexual aggression would be mediated by promiscuous sexual norms.

The effect of low self-control on sexual aggression would be mediated by all three hypothesized mediators when tested together in a single model, thus providing evidence of unique, nonredundant contributions of each mediator on the link between low self-control and sexual aggression.

This latter expectation was developed because, even though there are some conceptual similarities across these three attitudinal constructs, they each stem from a different theoretical tradition, and thus, are different in a sense. They are certainly distinguishable simply based on face and content validity considerations.

Methods

Participants

Self-report data were collected from a sample of N = 415 (M_age = 21.48 years, SD = 1.93; 85.1% European American, 9.2% African American, 3.3% Hispanic/Latino American, 1.9% Asian American, and 0.5% American Indian; all heterosexual) male college students. Undergraduate students in social science classes at a large public, four-year university located in the southeastern United States were invited to participate in the current study. The final study sample excluded 46 individuals who did not respond to questions about sexual behaviors. Data were collected through self-reports via an online survey, the goal of which was to assess various aspects of college students’ behavioral health. Participants completed a password-protected, anonymous, self-administered online questionnaire. Institutional review board approval was obtained, and students consented to participate prior to completing the questionnaire.

Measures

Demographic Variables

Several demographic characteristics were collected, including age, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), and family structure. Age was measured in years, and it was computed as the difference between the date of birth and the date of the interview. Race variable was recoded to include all ethnic and racial minorities into one category (coded as 0) as opposed to European American (coded as 1), who represented 85% of the sample. In addition, participants were asked to indicate whether they were raised in a family with two biological parents present or another family form. The family structure variable was coded by combining all other categories (coded as 0) as opposed to two biological parents (coded as 1); 79.8% of participants indicated that they came from families with two biological parents.

SES was developed as an average score based on a participant's maternal and paternal education and overall family income. The participants were asked to indicate their annual family income by choosing one of the five categories: 1 = “$20,000 or less,” 2 = “$20,000–$32,000,” 3 = “35,000–60,000,” 4 = “$60,000–$100,000,” and 5 = “$100,000 or more.” Mother's (mother/stepmother or female caretaker) and father's (father/stepfather or male caretaker) education were assessed by asking about their level of education (response options: 1 = “finished elementary school,” 2 = “finished high school,” 3 = “finished some college or technical school,” 4 = “has a college degree,” 5 = “has a graduate degree”). In total, 72.4% of the sample indicated that their father had a college or advanced degree and 63.8% indicated the same about their mother's education; 35.1% reported family income to be between $60,000 and $100,000, and 46.5% reported$100,000 or more. The correlation between maternal and paternal education was r = .48, p < .001, and each was also positively and moderately associated with family income (rs = .29 and .34, p < .001, for mother's and father's education respectively). SES variable was computed by averaging parental education and income variables. The resulting SES ranged from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating higher SES. See Table 1 for descriptive statistics of all study variables.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Pearson's Correlations

Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Age	21.46	1.93
2. Race (White)	0.85	0.36	−.02
3. SES	3.92	0.75	−.13*	.10
4. Family structure (two bioparents)	0.80	0.40	.01	.10	.23**
5. Low self-control	2.64	0.59	−.17**	.03	−.05	−.09
6. Rape myth acceptance	1.69	0.52	−.13*	.03	.07	.02	.26***
7. Date rape attitudes	1.59	0.87	−.11*	−.07	.05	.03	.15**	.48***
8. Promiscuous sexual norms	2.11	1.49	.05	.01	.04	−.15**	.24***	.14**	.11*
9. Sexual aggression	0.27	0.44	−.15**	−.20***	−.11*	−.02	.04	.22***	.36***	.15**

Note. SES = socioeconomic status. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

Independent Variable

Low Self-Control

Low self-control was measured by the Low Self-Control Scale (Grasmick et al., 1993), which consists of 24 items reflecting respondents’ way of impulsive, self-centered, and risk-seeking tendencies. The response categories ranged from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree,” which were averaged to calculate a low self-control score, ranging from 1 to 5, with higher values indicating lower self-control (α = .91).

Dependent Variable

Sexual Aggression

Sexual aggression was measured by nine items (Koss & Oros, 1982), asking participants whether they had ever engaged in nonconsensual sex, or overpowered a woman to force her into having sex using physical or mental strategies of influence. The responses to all the items were dichotomous (“yes” = 1 and “no” = 0), which were then summed to calculate a sexual aggression score, which ranged from 0 to 9, where higher values indicated more sexual aggression perpetrated against woman (α = .84). Given the highly skewed distribution of the score, a decision was made to dichotomize the score into 0 (no sexual aggression) and 1 (sexual aggression).

Mediators

Rape Myth Acceptance

This was measured by the Rape Myths Scale (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1995), which consists of 19 items designed to assess participants’ degree of endorsement of a woman's role in instigating rape, and whether respondents think that in general, it is the woman's fault that the man raped her. Example items include: “When a woman is raped, she usually did something careless to put herself in that situation” and “If a woman doesn’t physically fight back, you can’t really say that it was a rape.” Responses ranged from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 4 = “strongly agree,” and the scores were then averaged to compute RMA, ranging from 1 to 4, with higher values indicating greater acceptance (α = .95).

Date Rape Attitudes

This was measured by the Forcible Date Rape Scale (Fischer & Chen, 1994), the goal of which is to assess to what extent a person attributes the responsibility for rape to a woman in various hypothetical circumstances that might serve to justify a man's forcible sexual advances; for instance, if a woman was seen to be enticing in her demeanor and played a significant part in sexually arousing a man. Participants were asked to read a dating scenario and then respond to nine items, which listed situations where rape would be acceptable, rated on a 5-point Likert-type response scale (1 = “definitely acceptable” to 5 = “definitely unacceptable”; example situations included: “if he had spent a lot of money on her,” “if she let him touch her breasts,” and “if they had dated each other for a long time”). The responses were reversed and averaged to compute a date rape attitudes score, which ranged from 1 to 5, with higher values suggesting a more favorable attitude toward date rape (α = .97).

Promiscuous Sexual Norms

This was measured by a modified version of the Conservative Sexual Attitudes Questionnaire (Moore & Davidson, 2006). Participants were asked to indicate whether they would consider it acceptable to have sexual intercourse or to give or receive oral sex with (a) a person they had just met or (b) an occasional dating partner. The responses to these six questions (1 = “yes” and 0 = “no”) were summed to compute a promiscuous sexual norms score (α = .88), which ranged from 0 to 6.

Plan of Analysis

Initially, descriptive statistics and correlations were computed on the main study variables. In the next step, due to the very high positive skew of the sexual aggression measure, and violations of normality, the variable was dichotomized for subsequent multivariate, logistic regression analyses. Four model tests were conducted, where the effect of each mediator was tested separately (models 1–3) as well as together (model 4). Mediation model tests were conducted in the PROCESS macro in SPSS, which uses bootstrapping to evaluate the significance of the indirect effect (Hayes, 2017). Although there exist several approaches to testing mediation (e.g., the Causal Steps Approach by Baron & Kenny, 1986), the most up-to-date recommendations were followed (Hayes, 2017; MacKinnon et al., 2000; Rucker et al., 2011), that is, to focus on testing the mediation effects themselves. Accordingly, the indirect effects were tested using bootstrapping (with n = 5,000 bootstrap samples) and were assessed based on 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals (CIs). Across model tests, demographic variables that had significant associations with sexual aggression were added as control variables. This included participant's age, SES, and race/ethnicity.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics and Pearson's correlations are presented in Table 1. Correlations provided evidence that sexual aggression had a modest and weak association with age and a small negative association with race (being ethnic/racial minority rather than European American). In addition, a very weak negative association with the socioeconomic background was observed. In addition, although age was negatively associated with low self-control, RMA as well as date rape attitudes had a positive association with low self-control. In addition, both race and SES were negatively associated with levels of acceptance of sexual norms, attitudes, or myths, with the exception of participants from two biological parent families who were less likely to report promiscuous sexual norms. Table 2 reports the percentages of positive responses to each item part of the sexual aggression scale. It is interesting to point out that while 12.7% agreed to ever being so sexually aroused that could not stop themselves even though the woman did not want sex, only 3.1% indicated that they had ever raped a female. The most often endorsed item was having obtained sexual intercourse by saying things they did not really mean (20.2%).

Table 2.

Reported Sexual Aggression based on Individual Items.

Items	% Yes
Been in a situation where you became so sexually aroused that you could not stop yourself even though the woman did not want to?	12.7
2. Had sexual intercourse with a woman even though she did not really want to because you threatened to end your relationship otherwise?	5.4
3. Had sexual intercourse with a woman when she did not really want to because she felt pressured by your continual arguments?	5.9
4. Obtained sexual intercourse by saying things you did not really mean?	20.2
5. Been in a situation where you used some degree of physical force (twisting her arm, holding her down, etc.) to try to get a woman to have sexual intercourse with you when she didn’t want to, but for various reasons, sexual intercourse did not occur?	4.5
6. Had sexual intercourse with a woman when she did not want to because you threatened to use physical force (twisting her arm, holding her down, etc.) if she didn’t cooperate?	1.7
7. Had sexual intercourse with a woman when she did not want to because you used some degree of physical force (twisting her arm, holding her down, etc.)?	3.4
8. Been in a situation where you obtained sexual acts with a woman such as anal or oral intercourse when she did not want to by using threats or physical force (twisting her arm, holding her down, etc.)?	3.7
9. Have you ever raped a female?	3.1

Low Self-Control and Sexual Aggression (Hypothesis 1)

Based on a preliminary simple logistic regression, low self-control was positively associated with sexual aggression: b = 0.50, standard error (SE) = 0.22, p = .021, odds ratio (OR) = 1.65. Once the hypothesized mediators (RMA, date rape attitudes, and promiscuous sexual norms) were added as controls to this initial logistic regression model, low self-control was no longer significantly associated with sexual aggression: b = 0.05, SE = 0.25, p = .838, OR = 1.05.

Low Self-Control, RMA, and Sexual Aggression (Hypothesis 2)

Results from the first mediation model using PROCESS with 5,000 bootstrap resamples are presented in Figure 1(a). Low self-control significantly and positively predicted RMA (b = 0.24, p < .001), which, in turn, significantly and positively predicted likelihood of sexual aggression (b = 0.97, SE = 0.25, p < .001, OR = 2.63). Low self-control was not directly associated with likelihood of sexual aggression (b = 0.33, SE = 0.23, p = .15, OR = 1.39). However, the indirect effect by low self-control on sexual aggression was statistically significant: b = 0.23, SE = 0.08, 95% confidence interval (CI)[0.10, 0.43], OR = 1.26. The Cox & Snell pseudo R² was .06, and the Nagelkerke pseudo R² was .09.

Figure 1.

(a) Associations among low self-control, rape myth acceptance, and sexual aggression. (b) Associations among low self-control, date rape attitudes, and sexual aggression.

Low Self-Control, Date Rape Attitudes, and Sexual Aggression (Hypothesis 3)

Results from the second mediation model using PROCESS with 5,000 bootstrap resamples are presented in Figure 1(b). Low self-control significantly and positively predicted date rape attitudes (b = 0.24, p = .002), which, in turn, significantly and positively predicted likelihood of sexual aggression (b = 0.65, SE = 0.14, p < .001, OR = 1.91). Low self-control was not directly associated with likelihood of sexual aggression (b = 0.40, SE = 0.22, p = .07, OR = 1.49). Nevertheless, indirect effect by low self-control on sexual aggression was statistically significant: b = 0.15, SE = 0.07, 95% CI [0.04, 0.31], OR = 1.17. The Cox & Snell pseudo R² was .08, and the Nagelkerke pseudo R² was .12.

Low Self-Control, Promiscuous Sexual Norms, and Sexual Aggression (Hypothesis 4)

Results from the third mediation model using PROCESS with 1,000 bootstrap resamples are presented in Figure 1(c). Low self-control significantly and positively predicted promiscuous sexual norms (b = 0.76, p < .001), which, in turn, significantly and positively predicted the likelihood of sexual aggression (b = 0.33, SE = 0.06, p < .001, OR = 1.39). Low self-control was not directly associated with likelihood of sexual aggression (b = 0.30, SE = 0.23, p = .19, OR = 1.35). Nevertheless, indirect effect by low self-control on sexual aggression was statistically significant: b = 0.25, SE = 0.08, 95% CI [0.11, 0.45], OR = 1.29. The Cox & Snell pseudo R² was .10, and the Nagelkerke pseudo R² was .14.

Low Self-Control, RMA, Date Rape Attitudes, and Promiscuous Sexual Norms, and Sexual Aggression (Hypothesis 5)

Results from the final mediation model with all three hypothesized mediators, using PROCESS with 5,000 bootstrap resamples, are presented in Figure 2. Low self-control significantly and positively predicted RMA (b = 0.24, p < .001), date rape attitudes (b = 0.24, p = .002), and promiscuous sexual norms (b = 0.75, p < .001). Date rape attitudes (b = 0.53, SE = 0.16, p = .001, OR = 1.71) and promiscuous sexual norms (b = 0.34, SE = 0.07, p < .001, OR = 1.41), in turn, significantly and positively predicted likelihood of sexual aggression, but RMA did not (b = 0.50, SE = 0.30, p = .089, OR = 1.65). Direct effect of low self-control on likelihood of sexual aggression did not achieve statistic significance (b = 0.09, SE = 0.30, p = .72, OR = 1.09). Although the indirect effect from low self-control to likelihood of sexual aggression was not statistically significant through RMA: b = 0.12, SE = 0.09, 95% CI [0.02, 0.28], OR = 1.13, it was statistically significant and positive through both date rape attitudes: b = 0.13, SE = 0.07, 95% CI [0.02, 0.28], OR = 1.14 as well as promiscuous sexual norms: b = 0.26, SE = 0.09, 95% CI [0.11, 0.46], OR = 1.30. The Cox & Snell pseudo R² was .16; the Nagelkerke pseudo R² was .23.

Figure 2.

Associations between low self-control and sexual aggression through rape myth acceptance, date rape attitudes, and promiscuous sexual norms.

Discussion

The present study sought to further test the extent to which low self-control was associated with sexual aggression among males, both directly and indirectly as mediated by RMA, date rape attitudes, and promiscuous sexual norms. Study findings support both a direct and an indirect link between low self-control and sexual aggression, consistent with study hypotheses as well as theoretical predictions. More specifically, the present data provided support for a significant direct relationship between low self-control and sexual aggression (Hypothesis 1) as well as unique indirect effects of low self-control on sexual aggression as mediated by each RMA and date rape attitudes, and promiscuous sexual norms (Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4). Findings from the multiple mediation model which included all three attitudinal constructs as mediators provided evidence that both date rape attitudes as well as promiscuous sexual norms remained significant mediators of the association between low self-control and sexual aggression (Hypothesis 5). RMA was no longer statistically significant in this final model, thus providing evidence of potential redundancy or overlap among these attitudinal constructs (between RMA and date rape attitudes).

The finding of a direct association between low self-control and sexual aggression was consistent with previous research as well as self-control theory (Abbey et al. 2007; Debowska et al., 2016; Franklin, 2011; Ha & Beauregard, 2016; Larson et al., 2015; Magnusson et al., 2019; Prentky & Knight, 1991). It was consistent with theory, despite the fact that Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990, 2020) do not focus on sexual aggression per se; however, they do explicitly address “preserving the rights and welfare of everyone against usurpation by the selfish, the strong, the more powerful” (p. 228). Sexual aggression seems to be the epitome of what they describe.

According to Hyde and Delamater (2017), there is no evidence that would allow researchers to propose a specific profile of perpetrators of sexual aggression. However, a number of characteristics have been observed. Gannon et al. (2008), for instance, suggested that perpetrators of sexual violence tend to espouse certain elements of social cognition or “implicit theories” that explain and support their sexually aggressive behaviors. They believe that women are sexual objects; they have a sense of entitlement involving male superiority and control. They are dangerous and deceptive, characterized by poor inhibition and self-regulation, are unable to inhibit aggressive impulses and lack empathy. The present study certainly did not have a possibility to examine such a complete profile (Ward, 2014); the findings, however, are consistent with some of the above descriptions in that there was a significant positive association between having favorable attitudes toward RMA, or promiscuous sexual norms and the likelihood of engaging in sexual aggression.

Sexually deviant behaviors are oftentimes tied to sexist attitudes (Chasteen, 2001). The inclination to normalize violent sexual acts is further exacerbated by peer pressure among young adult males. It is important to note that favorable misconceptions about rape myths and date rape acceptance among male peers contribute to a potentially toxic environment on college campuses surrounding sexual conduct and aggressive or violent sexual conduct. These misconceptions have a detrimental effect on what constitutes a healthy sexual relationship. In turn, these can lead to a tendency not only to engage in sexual aggression, but also to further promote collective approval of rape myths (Qureshi et al., 2021). Thus, efforts focused on changing, disrupting, and disallowing such attitudes and myths appear critical to address aggressive sexual behaviors; they are also important to increase perceptions of safety and well-being in relationships.

Research Implications

One important implication of the present study is that it provides new directions in research testing self-control theory. The present study findings illustrate that low self-control also plays a significant role in explaining social cognition, and in maintaining certain attitudes and beliefs that are linked to sexually aggressive behaviors. Thus, research needs to consider how low self-control is directly linked to sexual aggression, but also how it is indirectly linked to discriminatory, prejudicial, or violence-justifying attitudes important in understanding the perpetration of sexual aggression. Clearly, certain attitudes and beliefs can effectively explain involvement in sexual aggression; however, as the present findings indicate, variability in these beliefs themselves is partially explained by low self-control.

Some of the implications of these findings include that in addition to targeting the socialization of youth and young adult males related to attitudes, norms, and associated behaviors, targeting self-control early in life seems important. This includes a responsive parent–child relationship, consisting of positive affect, monitoring, and discipline, as well as punishment to address socially deviant behaviors (Brody et al., 2005; Vazsonyi & Huang, 2010). A key meta-analysis of previous prevention and intervention work on improving self-control has provided very promising evidence, based on 41 studies (Piquero et al., 2016). These same efforts targeting improving self-control and lowering delinquency would also likely prove beneficial for improving attitudes and beliefs surrounding sexually aggressive behaviors.

Limitations

There are several limitations to this study. First, the generalizability of study findings is limited due to the convenience sample recruited from mostly social science courses at one particular university in the southeastern United States; in addition, the student body was predominantly European American and thus not fully representative. It is certainly possible that the recruited male college students were systematically different from the general male college student population at this particular university which in turn might have systematically affected study findings.

Additional work needs to replicate the current findings using different samples from different locations and ethnic groups across the United States and elsewhere. Next, no competing models were considered or tested, which would have necessitated the incorporation of additional potential factors in the study known to influence sexual attitudes and sexual aggression, such as religious beliefs about sexual behaviors. Additional factors also include measures of childhood sexual abuse, alcohol consumption, viewing pornography, peer influences as well as prior sexual violence perpetration. And finally, exclusively relying on self-report or single-informant reports of data, particularly when focused on such a sensitive topic, can be problematic and introduce systematic biases potentially impacting study findings.

Prevention Implications

Sexual violence is a serious social problem with potentially deleterious consequences for the mental and physical health and well-being of not only victims but also perpetrators themselves. It can cause substantial damage not only to individuals, but also to communities by distorting the very nature of a society, its moral fabric and culture. It is important to continue improving our understanding of sexual violence perpetration, including its etiology or explanatory mechanisms, based on scientific research. One of the implications of the current research is that it can inform policies and prevention programs. Since the sample consisted of college-age males, we will limit our discussion of implications to the same population. As the present study found, individuals with lower self-control were more likely to hold certain attitudes and beliefs that effectively justify violence in intimate or sexual partner relationships, and these attitudes and beliefs, in turn, were linked to a greater likelihood of engaging in sexually aggressive behaviors. These findings underscore the significance of focusing on self-control as well as on these harmful attitudes for prevention and intervention purposes. Such consideration would be the next meaningful step toward reducing sexual violence among college students.

Footnotes

Appendix

The following nine questions (Sexual Experiences Survey Items; Koss & Oros, 1982) were used to compute a sexual aggression score:

Been in a situation where you became so sexually aroused that you could not stop yourself even though the woman did not want to?

Had sexual intercourse with a woman even though she did not really want to because you threatened to end your relationship otherwise?

Had sexual intercourse with a woman when she did not really want to because she felt pressured by your continual arguments?

Obtained sexual intercourse by saying things you did not really mean?

Been in a situation where you used some degree of physical force (twisting her arm, holding her down, etc.) to try to get a woman to have sexual intercourse with you when she did not want to, but for various reasons, sexual intercourse did not occur?

Had sexual intercourse with a woman when she did not want to because you threatened to use physical force (twisting her arm, holding her down, etc.) if she did not cooperate?

Had sexual intercourse with a woman when she did not want to because you used some degree of physical force (twisting her arm, holding her down, etc.)?

Been in a situation where you obtained sexual acts with a woman such as anal or oral intercourse when she did not want to by using threats or physical force (twisting her arm, holding her down, etc.)?

Have you ever raped a female?

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all study participants for completing the survey.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Alexander T. Vazsonyi

Hüsna Albayrak

Author Biographies

Alexander T. Vazsonyi is Professor of Family Sciences, Professor of Psychology, and Professor of Sociology at the University of Kentucky. He received his PhD in Family Studies and Human Development, with a minor in Sociology (Criminology), from the University of Arizona. He is recognized as a leading scholar in criminology and cross-cultural comparative research on adolescent development and has published over 160 papers and chapters. His major research interests focused on child and adolescent development, including self-control, adjustment, and well-being (problem behaviors, deviance, violence, health-compromising behaviors), with a focus on development in context (family, school, neighborhood, and culture).

Neslihan Güney Karaman is Professor of Educational Psychology at Ankara University in Ankara, Turkey. She received her PhD in Educational Psychology from Ankara University. She received postdoc support through the Turkish scientific research center for a stay in the United States. She has published many articles related to child and adolescent development, focused on risky/problem behaviors, sexual development, social–emotional development, cross-cultural research, and family relationship. Her research interests are developmental psychopathology with a focus on development in a social context (family, peer, school, and cultural variations) and sexual development and sex education, and child and adolescent development.

Hüsna Albayrak is a lecturer at TOBB University of Economics and Technology in Ankara, Turkey. She holds a bachelor's degree in English language and literature from Hacettepe University and a master's degree in Educational Psychology from Ankara University. She is currently pursuing her PhD career in Educational Psychology Department at Ankara University. Her research interests are adolescent development with a focus on motivation, informal learning, gender equality, and equality of opportunity in education.

Dan Liu is a PhD candidate at the Family Sciences Department, University of Kentucky. Her research interests concern general child and adolescent development. Her research has mainly focused on how parenting and sleep are associated with adolescent self-control, mental health, and deviant behaviors. She has published papers on correlates of deviance, including parental support, self-esteem, sleep, and neighborhood environment, the links between sleep and internalizing problems, as well as correlates of adolescent girls’ dating violence victimization.

References

Abbey

(2011). Alcohol’s role in sexual violence perpetration: Theoretical explanations, existing evidence and future directions. Drug and Alcohol Review, 30(5), 481–489. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3362.2011.00296.x

Abbey

Parkhill

M. R.

Clinton-Sherrod

A. M.

Zawacki

(2007). A comparison of men who committed different types of sexual assault in a community sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(12), 1567–1580. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507306489

Amar

A. F.

Sutherland

Laughon

(2014). Gender differences in attitudes and beliefs associated with bystander behavior and sexual assault. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 10(2), 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1097/JFN.0000000000000024

Bannon

R. S.

Brosi

M. W.

Foubert

J. D.

(2013). Sorority women’s and fraternity men’s rape myth acceptance and bystander intervention attitudes. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 50(1), 72–87. https://doi.org/10.1515/jsarp-2013-0005

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.51.6.1173

Basile

K. C.

Smith

S. G.

Breiding

M. J.

Black

M. C.

Mahendra

R. R.

(2014). Sexual violence surveillance: Uniform definitions and recommended data elements, Version 2.0. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Besher

Divita

(2019). Changes in rape myth acceptance among undergraduates: 2010 to 2017. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(19–20), 9371–9392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519867153

Black

Basile

Breiding

Smith

Walters

Merrick

Stevens

(2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Bouffard

J. A.

Miller

H. A.

(2021). Exploring rape myth acceptance and psychopathy as predictors of sexual coercion. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 31(4), 425–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2021.1994501

10.

Bouffard

L. A.

Bouffard

J. A.

(2011). Understanding men’s perceptions of risks and rewards in a date rape scenario. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(4), 626–645. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X10365083

11.

Brody

G. H.

McBride Murry

McNair

Chen

Y. F.

Gibbons

F. X.

Gerrard

Ashby Wills

(2005). Linking changes in parenting to parent–child relationship quality and youth self-control: The Strong African American Families Program. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 15(1), 47–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2005.00086.x

12.

Burt

C. H.

(2020). Self-control and crime: Beyond Gottfredson & Hirschi’s theory. Annual Review of Criminology, 3, 43–73. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011419-041344

13.

Burt

M. R.

(1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(2), Article 217. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.2.217

14.

Casey

E. A.

Masters

N. T.

Beadnell

(2020). Social norms: Are sexually aggressive men more likely to misperceive other men’s sexual desires and behavior? Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 29(8), 917–935. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2019.1711278

15.

Cavanaugh

C. E.

Messing

J. T.

Petras

Fowler

La Flair

Kub

Campbell

J. C.

(2012). Patterns of violence against women: A latent class analysis. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 4(2), 169–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023314

16.

Chapleau

K. M.

Oswald

D. L.

(2010). Power, sex, and rape myth acceptance: Testing two models of rape proclivity. Journal of Sex Research, 47(1), 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490902954323

17.

Chasteen

(2001). Constructing rape: Feminism, change, and women's everyday understandings of sexual assault. Sociological Spectrum, 21(2), 101–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/02732170121403

18.

Clevenger

S. L.

Navarro

J. N.

Jasinski

J. L.

(2016). A matter of low self-control? Exploring differences between child pornography possessors and child pornography producers/distributors using self-control theory. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 28(6), 555–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063214557173

19.

Cook

S. L.

(1995). Acceptance and expectation of sexual aggression in college students. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19(2), 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1995.tb00286.x

20.

Debowska

Boduszek

Dhingra

DeLisi

(2016). The effect of male incarceration on rape myth acceptance: Application of propensity score matching technique. Deviant Behavior, 37(6), 634–643. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2015.1060805

21.

DeKeseredy

(1990). Male peer support and woman abuse: the current state of knowledge. Sociological Focus, 23(2), 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380237.1992.10570559

22.

DeLisi

(2017). Consumptive behavior, eating behavior, and antisocial behavior: The ubiquitous roles of self-control. Preventive Medicine, 105, 366–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.08.001

23.

DeLisi

Bouffard

J. A.

Miller

H. A.

(2022). Another look at the self-control vs. psychopathy debate: A study assessing sexual aggression, aggression, and substance abuse. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 47, 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09582-w

24.

Fischer

G. J.

Chen

(1994). The attitudes toward forcible date rape (FDR) scale: Development of a measurement model. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 16(1), 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02229064

25.

Foubert

J. D.

Clark-Taylor

Wall

A. F.

(2020). Is campus rape primarily a serial or one-time problem? Evidence from a multicampus study. Violence Against Women, 26(3–4), 296–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219833820

26.

Franklin

C. A.

(2011). An investigation of the relationship between self-control and alcohol-induced sexual assault victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(3), 263–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854810394800

27.

Franklin

C. A.

Bouffard

L. A.

Pratt

T. C.

(2012). Sexual assault on the college campus fraternity affiliation, Male peer support, and low self-control. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(11), 1457–1480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.08.001

28.

Gannon

T. A.

Rose

M. R.

Ward

(2008). A descriptive model of the offense process for female sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse, 20(3), 352–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063208322495

29.

Gottfredson

Hirschi

(2020). Modern control theory and the limits of criminal justice. Oxford University Press.

30.

Gottfredson

M. R.

Hirschi

(1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press.

31.

Grasmick

H. G.

Tittle

C. R.

Bursik

R. J.

Arneklev

B. J.

(1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427893030001002

32.

O. K.

Beauregard

(2016). Sex offending and low self-control: An extension and test of the general theory of crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 47, 62–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2016.07.005

33.

Hayes

A. F.

(2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications.

34.

Hirschi

(1969). Causes of delinquency. University of California Press.

35.

Hyde

J. S.

DeLamater

J. D.

(2017). Understanding human sexuality (13th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

36.

Jennings

W. G.

Okeem

Piquero

A. R.

Sellers

C. S.

Theobald

Farrington

D. P.

(2017). Dating and intimate partner violence among young persons ages 15–30: Evidence from a systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 33, 107–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.007

37.

Kettrey

H. H.

Marx

R. A.

Tanner-Smith

E. E.

(2019). Effects of bystander programs on the prevention of sexual assault among adolescents and college students: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 15(1–2), Article e1013. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2019.1

38.

Kingree

J. B.

Thompson

M. P.

(2013). Fraternity membership and sexual aggression: An examination of mediators of the association. Journal of American College Health, 61(4), 213–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2013.781026

39.

Koss

M. P.

Oros

C. J.

(1982). Sexual experiences survey: A research instrument investigating sexual aggression and victimization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50(3), 455–457. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.50.3.455

40.

Larson

Vaughn

M. G.

Salas-Wright

C. P.

Delisi

(2015). Narcissism, low self-control, and violence among a nationally representative sample. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(6), 644–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814553097

41.

T. P.

Pekosz

M. C.

Iwamoto

D. K.

(2020). Masculine norms and college men’s rape myth acceptance: The mediating role of nurturance. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 21(4), 665–674. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000310

42.

Lonsway

K. A.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

(1994). Rape myths in review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18(2), 133–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb00448.x

43.

Lonsway

K. A.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

(1995). Attitudinal antecedents of rape myth acceptance: A theoretical and empirical reexamination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(4), 704–711. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.4.704

44.

Love

S. R.

(2006). Illicit sexual behavior: A test of self-control theory. Deviant Behavior, 27(5), 505–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639620600781464

45.

MacKinnon

D. P.

Krull

J. L.

Lockwood

C. M.

(2000). Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1(4), 173–181. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026595011371

46.

Magnusson

B. M.

Crandall

Evans

(2019). Early sexual debut and risky sex in young adults: The role of low self-control. BMC Public Health, 19, Article 1483. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7734-9

47.

Malamuth

N. M.

Linz

Heavey

C. L.

Barnes

Acker

(1995). Using the confluence model of sexual aggression to predict men’s conflict with women: A 10-year follow-up study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(2), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.2.353

48.

McQuiller Williams

L. V.

Porter

J. L.

Smith

T. R.

(2016). Understanding date rape attitudes and behaviors: Exploring the influence of race, gender, and prior sexual victimization. Victims and Offenders, 11(2), 173–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2014.960025

49.

Moffitt

T. E.

Arseneault

Belsky

Dickson

Hancox

R. J.

Harrington

Sears

M. R.

(2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(7), 2693–2698. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1010076108

50.

Moffitt

T. E.

Poulton

Caspi

(2013). Lifelong impact of early self-control. American Scientist, 101(5), 352–359. https://doi.org/10.1511/2013.104.352

51.

Moore

N. B.

Davidson

J. K.

(2006). College women and personal goals: Cognitive dimensions that differentiate risk-reduction sexual decisions. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35(4), 574–586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-006-9041-x

52.

Mouilso

E. R.

Calhoun

K. S.

Rosenbloom

T. G.

(2013). Impulsivity and sexual assault in college men. Violence and Victims, 28(3), 429–442. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.vv-d-12-00025

53.

Murnen

S. K.

Kohlman

M. H.

(2007). Athletic participation, fraternity membership, and sexual aggression among college men: A meta-analytic review. Sex Roles, 57(1–2), 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9225-1

54.

O’Connor

(2021). The longitudinal effects of rape myth beliefs and rape proclivity. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 22(2), 321–330. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000324

55.

Payne

B. K.

(2005). Conceptualizing control in social cognition: How executive functioning modulates the expression of automatic stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(4), 488–503. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.4.488

56.

Piquero

A. R.

Jennings

W. G.

Farrington

D. P.

Diamond

Gonzalez

J. M. R.

(2016). A meta-analysis update on the effectiveness of early self-control improvement programs to improve self-control and reduce delinquency. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 12(2), 249–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-016-9257-z

57.

Pratt

Cullen

(2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 38(3), 931–964. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2000.tb00911.x

58.

Prentky

R. A.

Knight

R. A.

(1991). Identifying critical dimensions for discriminating among rapists. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(5), 643–661. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.59.5.643

59.

Prina

Schatz-Stevens

J. N.

(2020). Sexism and rape myth acceptance: The impact of culture, education, and religiosity. Psychological Reports, 123(3), 929–951. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294119826896

60.

Qureshi

Kulig

T. C.

Cullen

F. T.

Fisher

B. S.

(2021). Rape myth acceptance among college students in India: Prevalence and predictors in a changing context. Deviant Behavior, 42(8), 1043–1066. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2020.1720935

61.

Rucker

D. D.

Preacher

K. J.

Tormala

Z. L.

Petty

R. E.

(2011). Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(6), 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00355.x

62.

Salazar

L. F.

Vivolo-Kantor

Hardin

Berkowitz

(2014). A web-based sexual violence bystander intervention for male college students: Randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16(9), Article 203. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3426

63.

Salazar

L. F.

Vivolo-Kantor

Schipani-McLaughlin

A. M.

(2019). Theoretical mediators of real consent: A web-based sexual violence prevention and bystander education program. Health Education & Behavior, 46(1), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198118779126

64.

Samji

Vasquez

E. A.

(2020). The link between myths about sexual aggression and sexual objectification via hostile attitudes toward women. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 26(3), 385–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2019.1676924

65.

Schwartz

M. D.

DeKeseredy

W. S.

(1997). Sexual assault on the college campus: The role of male peer support. Sage Publications, Inc.

66.

Shively

(2001). Male self-control and sexual aggression. Deviant Behaviour, 22(4), 295–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/016396201750267843

67.

Stylianou

(2002). The relationship between elements and manifestations of low self-control in a general theory of crime: Two comments and a test. Deviant Behavior, 23(6), 531–557. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639620290086512

68.

Testa

Parks

K. A.

Hoffman

J. H.

Crane

C. A.

Leonard

K. E.

Shyhalla

(2015). Do drinking episodes contribute to sexual aggression perpetration in college men? Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 76(4), 507–515. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2015.76.507

69.

U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (2017). “Dear colleague” letter guidance, supplementing the OCR’s revised sexual harassment guidance. https://www.cmu.edu/title-ix/colleague-title-ix-201709.pdf

70.

Vazsonyi

A. T.

Huang

(2010). Where self-control comes from: On the development of self-control and its relationship to deviance over time. Developmental Psychology, 46(1), 245–257. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016538

71.

Vazsonyi

A. T.

Mikuška

Kelley

E. L.

(2017). It's time: A meta-analysis on the self-control-deviance link. Journal of Criminal Justice, 48, 48–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2016.10.001

72.

Von Hippel

Silver

L. A.

Lynch

M. E.

(2000). Stereotyping against your will: The role of inhibitory ability in stereotyping and prejudice among the elderly. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(5), 523–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200267001

73.

Ward

(2014). The explanation of sexual offending: From single factor theories to integrative pluralism. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 20(2), 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2013.870242

74.

Winfree

L. T.

Giever

D. M.

Maupin

J. R.

Mays

G. L.

(2007). Drunk driving and the prediction of analogous behavior: A longitudinal test of social learning and self-control theories. Victims & Offenders, 2(4), 327–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564880701403959

75.

Yodanis

C. L.

(2004). Gender inequality, violence against women, and fear: A cross-national test of the feminist theory of violence against women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(6), 655–675. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260504263868