Sexual coercion and the misperception of sexual intent

Abstract

Misperceiving a woman's platonic interest as sexual interest has been implicated in a sexual bargaining process that leads to sexual coercion. This paper provides a comprehensive review of sexual misperception, including gender differences in perception of women's sexual intent, the relationship between sexual coercion and misperception, and situational factors that increase the risk that sexual misperception will occur. Compared to women, men consistently perceive a greater degree of sexual intent in women's behavior. However, there is evidence to suggest that this gender effect may be driven largely by a sub-group of men who are particularly prone to perceive sexual intent in women's behavior, such as sexually coercive men and men who endorse sex-role stereotypes. Situational factors, such as alcohol use by the man or woman, provocative clothing, and dating behaviors (e.g., initiating the date or making eye contact), are all associated with increased estimates of women's sexual interest. We also critique the current measurement strategies and introduce a model of perception that more closely maps on to important theoretical questions in this area. A clearer understanding of sexual perception errors and the etiology of these errors may serve to guide sexual-assault prevention programs toward more effective strategies.

Beauty Is in the Eye of the Beer Holder: An Initial Investigation of the Effects of Alcohol, Attractiveness, Warmth, and Competence on the Objectifying Gaze in Men

“…It is possible, for example, that increased sexual objectification, brought on by myopia, may be an underlying process that contributes to outcomes such as men's misperceptions of women's sexual interest and related sexual aggression (Abbey et al 2000). If men who are under the influence of alcohol pay less attention to the humanizing attributes of women (e.g., through decreased focus on facial cues), they may be less able to gauge women's sexual interests accurately (Farris et al 2008). Furthermore, for women who are targets of objectification, these experiences may potentially act as a precursor to behavioral confirmation in which women begin to self-objectify (Kozee et al 2007), leading to safety concerns (Fairchild and Rudman 2008), negative affect, reduced flow, increased body monitoring, and shame (Calogero et al 2011;Noll and Fredrickson 1998;Tiggemann and Williams 2012).…”

Unwanted sexual experiences among adolescents: shedding light on the gray zone between consensual and non-consensual sex

“…Similarly, a review study (18) showed that compared with women, men consistently perceived a greater degree of sexual intent in women ' s behavior. Misperception has been shown to be often constructed after an assault for the perpetrator to absolve himself of guilt (19) .…”

On the practice of cultural clothing practices that conceal the eyes: An evolutionary perspective

“…In other words, in comparison to women, men more likely frame their opposite-sex interactions using a socialsexual relational schema and women interpret relational schemas as friendship (Farris, Treat, Viken, & McFall, 2008b;LaFrance, Henningsen, Oates, & Shaw, 2009;Lindgren, Parkhill, George, & Hendershot, 2008). Men presented with ambiguous cues such as touching and prolonged eye contact are more likely than are women to assume sexual intent and to rate female targets as sexy, promiscuous, and seductive (Abbey & Melby, 1986).…”