Predicting Sexual Risk in College Students: The Roles of Assertiveness and Coercion

Background: Risk-taking may be normative in adolescence and early adulthood, developmental periods of autonomy-seeking. However, sexual risk-taking may yield negative outcomes, including unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases including HIV/AIDS. Research on adolescent risk-taking suggests predictors such as early trauma (Smith et al., 2006), child sexual abuse (Johnson et al., 2006), and substance use (Bachanas et al., 2002). Adolescent sexual coercion has also been linked with sexual risk (Teitelman et al., 2008). However, research often focuses on high-risk populations and omits perpetration. Findings are also mixed about effects of condom efficacy and sexual assertiveness on risk-taking. This study examines sexual coercion (both victimization and perpetration), as well as sexual assertiveness and efficacy, to try to better understand potential risk or protective factors using a normative college sample. We hypothesized that youth expressing high levels of assertiveness or self-efficacy would be less risky, and that those who experienced sexual victimization or who perpetrated sexual coercion would be more risky. Method: Participants were 335 undergraduates (57% female; Mage=19 years; 73.4% White/Caucasian, 15.5% Asian/Pacific Islander, 4.2% Latina/o, and 3.9% Black/African-American) attending a large Midwestern university. Participants completed a confidential, hour-long survey about sexual experiences. Sexual attitudes and experiences were assessed using the Precautions subscale of the Sexual Self-Efficacy Scale, the Hurlbert Index of Sexual Assertiveness, the Inauthentic Voice in Relationships subscale of the Femininity Ideology Scale, the Sexual Abuse Exposure Questionnaire—Short Form, a modified version of the Sexual Experiences Survey, and a scale assessing sexual risk-taking (alpha=.80). Results: Using OLS regression, we found that sexual risk-taking was predicted by experiences of sexual victimization (b=.15, p<.05), and perpetration of sexual coercion (b=.22, p<.001), as expected. We also found an effect in the unexpected direction for sexual assertiveness (b=.38, p<.001) as well as a marginal effect for condom self-efficacy (b=.10, p<.08). Since experiences of both victimization and perpetration were found to predict risk, we wanted to further explore this relationship, and the role gender might play. Accordingly, we ran sex-segregated models, hypothesizing that assertiveness would operate differently for men and women, and that victimization would be more prevalent for women, and perpetration for men. Results indicated that sexual assertiveness still predicted risk-taking for both women (b=.34, p<.001) and men (b=.45, p<.001). As predicted, experiences of victimization predicted risk-taking only for women (b=.25, p<.01) and perpetration experiences predicted risk-taking only for men (b=.30, p<.01). Implications: Sexual risk-taking may be related to both sexual assertiveness, generally regarded positively, and sexual coercion, a negative experience. Whereas we tend to encourage youth to be assertive about their wants and needs, social work practitioners must consider messages being communicated, and perhaps better contextualize these messages when working with youth. Further research is needed to better understand the relationship between sexual assertiveness and gender. Additionally, while risk-taking in women and men is predicted by sexual coercion, gender differences in results suggest alarming power differentials between men and women in intimate relationships. It is critical that social work address gender differences in both sexual risk and in sexual violence prevention efforts.