Just a Dare or Unaware? Outcomes and Motives of Drugging ( Drink Spiking ) Among Students at Three College Campuses

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 13
4 views
PDF
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Document Description
Objective: Drugging (administering a drug to someone without their knowledge or consent) is acknowledged as a problem in “watch your drink” campaigns. However, research on this phenomenon is nascent. Prior research has primarily focused on drugging
Document Share
Document Tags
Document Transcript
  Psychology of Violence  Just a Dare or Unaware? Outcomes and Motives of Drugging(“Drink Spiking”) Among Students at Three CollegeCampuses Suzanne C. Swan, Nicole V. Lasky, Bonnie S. Fisher, V. Diane Woodbrown, Janaé E. Bonsu,Andrew T. Schramm, Peter R. Warren, Ann L. Coker, and Corrine M. WilliamsOnline First Publication, May 23, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/vio0000060CITATIONSwan, S. C., Lasky, N. V., Fisher, B. S., Woodbrown, V. D., Bonsu, J. E., Schramm, A. T., Warren,P. R., Coker, A. L., & Williams, C. M. (2016, May 23). Just a Dare or Unaware? Outcomes andMotives of Drugging (“Drink Spiking”) Among Students at Three College Campuses. Psychology of Violence . Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/vio0000060  Just a Dare or Unaware? Outcomes and Motives of Drugging(“Drink Spiking”) Among Students at Three College Campuses Suzanne C. Swan University of South Carolina Nicole V. Lasky and Bonnie S. Fisher University of Cincinnati V. Diane Woodbrown University of South Carolina Janaé E. Bonsu University of Illinois at Chicago Andrew T. Schramm and Peter R. Warren University of South Carolina Ann L. Coker and Corrine M. Williams University of Kentucky Objective:  Drugging (administering a drug to someone without their knowledge or consent) is acknowl-edged as a problem in “watch your drink” campaigns. However, research on this phenomenon is nascent.Prior research has primarily focused on drugging as a means of sexual assault, and has not addresseddrugging more generally.  Method:  Survey data from 6,064 students at 3 universities was used to exploredrugging among those who had drugged someone (or knew someone who had) and those who had beendrugged.  Results:  More than 1 in 13 students reported being drugged (462 students, 7.8% of the sample,reported 539 incidents), and 83 students (1.4%) reported 172 incidents of drugging someone. Partici-pants’ perceptions of why people drug others varied by gender. Women were much more likely tomention sex or sexual assault as a motive, while men were more likely to mention having fun as a motive.Participants also mentioned getting others more drunk or high and getting someone to relax as motives.It is possible that some motives (e.g., “to ‘loosen’ me up”) could be euphemisms for more coercive orsexual motives not directly stated. Outcomes for those drugged were also gendered, with female victimsexperiencing more negative outcomes, including sexual assault, blacking out, and getting sick. Althoughover 4 out of 5 of victims reported negative outcomes, a small number of (mostly male) victims said theyenjoyed being drugged.  Conclusions:  To design interventions to prevent the negative consequences of drugging, the full context of drugging must be better understood. Keywords:  drugging, drink spiking, motives, alcoholThe guy who [drugged me] was an exchange student at a house partysome friends took me to. Afterward, they took me to another friend’shouse to “recover” since I was not in shape to go back to the dorm.They put me in his bed to sleep it off and I later woke up without anyclothes. They told me that both incidents were my fault, leading me tostop talking to them. (Female participant)[Others were] concerned that I had consumed something other thanalcohol because I was behaving strangely. They made sure I got a saferide home. (Male participant)I suspect[ed] it was Xanax after telling my mom (an experiencednurse) the side effects I felt after consuming the drink. I was verylucky to have such good friends who took me home . . . beforeanything bad happened to me and now myself and my whole group of friends are very careful in receiving drinks and nobody in my large(over 50) group of friends has been drugged since (over 6 monthsnow). (Female participant)I have drank many times before, but it has never had this kind of effect, especially since I did not drink an excessive amount . . . theguys who may have been responsible made comments about givingme a “present” while we were taking shots. (Male participant) Starting in the mid 1990s, there has been an increasing percep-tion that drugging (i.e., administering a drug or alcohol to someonewithout their knowledge or consent) has become more common-place (Beynon, McVeigh, McVeigh, Leavey, & Bellis, 2008; Suzanne C. Swan, Department of Psychology and Women’s & GenderStudies, University of South Carolina; Nicole V. Lasky and Bonnie S.Fisher, School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati; V. DianeWoodbrown, Department of Psychology, University of South Carolina;Janaé E. Bonsu, Jane Addams College of Social Work, University of Illinois at Chicago; Andrew T. Schramm and Peter R. Warren, Departmentof Psychology, University of South Carolina; Ann L. Coker, Center forResearch on Violence Against Women, University of Kentucky; CorrineM. Williams, College of Public Health, University of Kentucky.Nicole V. Lasky is now at the Department of Criminal Justice and LegalStudies, Northeastern State University. Peter R. Warren is now at the WJBDorn Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Columbia, South Carolina.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Suzanne C.Swan, Department of Psychology and Women’s & Gender Studies, University of South Carolina, 1512 Pendleton Street, Columbia, SC 29208. E-mail:drsuzanne.swan@gmail.com      T     h     i   s     d   o   c   u   m   e   n    t     i   s   c   o   p   y   r     i   g     h    t   e     d     b   y    t     h   e     A   m   e   r     i   c   a   n     P   s   y   c     h   o     l   o   g     i   c   a     l     A   s   s   o   c     i   a    t     i   o   n   o   r   o   n   e   o     f     i    t   s   a     l     l     i   e     d   p   u     b     l     i   s     h   e   r   s .     T     h     i   s   a   r    t     i   c     l   e     i   s     i   n    t   e   n     d   e     d   s   o     l   e     l   y     f   o   r    t     h   e   p   e   r   s   o   n   a     l   u   s   e   o     f    t     h   e     i   n     d     i   v     i     d   u   a     l   u   s   e   r   a   n     d     i   s   n   o    t    t   o     b   e     d     i   s   s   e   m     i   n   a    t   e     d     b   r   o   a     d     l   y . Psychology of Violence © 2016 American Psychological Association2016, Vol. 6, No. 3, 000 2152-0828/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/vio0000060 1  Weiss & Colyer, 2010). In the Birmingham, England area, requestsfor toxicological analyses of patients presenting to hospitals fol-lowing suspected drugging rose 77% from 2002 to 2004 (Elliott &Burgess, 2005). In the United States, reports also describe aperception that drugging cases are on the rise (Madea & Musshoff,2009; Negrusz, Juhascik, & Gaensslen, 2005). “Watch your drink”awareness campaigns have become more commonplace as well,particularly on college campuses (e.g., Arizona State University,n.d.). More recently, however, some authors have suggested analternative view—that drugging is an urban legend, a rare phe-nomenon that has been greatly exaggerated by media reports(Burgess, Donovan, & Moore, 2009; Weiss & Colyer, 2010).Weiss and Colyer (2010) state that drugging is a “crime narrative,”a socially constructed “good story” supported by little evidencethat it actually occurs. The real problem, according to this argu-ment, is binge drinking; sometimes people think they have beendrugged when in fact, they have underestimated the amount andeffects of alcohol that they voluntarily consumed. This is illus-trated in a headline in the Daily Mail in 2009: “Date-Rape Drug?No Dear, You Just Had Too Much to Drink” (Martin, 2009). Thepurpose of this study is to elucidate the phenomena of drugging bypresenting data from a large sample of university students.In contrast to the frequent media reports and discussions of drugging on college campuses, research in the area of drugging isnascent. The discourse on drugging is based almost exclusively onanecdotal data. There is very little research that can prove ordisprove either point of view, that is, that drugging is “on the rise”or that it has been overblown by the media. A second limitation of the discourse on drugging is that almost all of the empiricalliterature, as well as media reports, official government docu-ments, and “watch your drink” campaigns focus on drugging as ameans of sexual assault, with the victims being almost exclusivelyfemale. There is surprisingly little information on the prevalence of drugging more generally (meaning beyond the context of drug-facilitated sexual assault). However, it is possible that much of thetime, drugging does not result in sexual assault. In Munich, forexample, the primary crime associated with the drugging cases thatwere reported to the forensic medicine department was robbery(48%), with rape constituting 13% of such cases (Madea & Muss-hoff, 2009). Similarly, an Australian government report that ex-amined drink spiking incidents reported to police and a drink spiking hotline found that one third resulted in sexual assault(Australia Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy, 2004). Anothersurvey of campus crime victimization found that among studentswho stated that someone had “dropped a drug into your drink without your knowledge,” only 12% stated that they “were vic-timized by sexual assault or any other crime” after being drugged(K. Weiss, personal communication, September 11, 2012; Weiss &Colyer, 2010). Collectively, these data suggest that, despite theoverwhelming emphasis on sexual assault in the media and thedrugging literature, there may be other motives and other contextsfor drugging.Another challenge for researchers and other stakeholders inter-ested in better understanding the drugging phenomenon is that of describing the result or consequences of being drugged. Research-ers lack answers to these basic questions: What is the range of consequences for people who are drugged? How many people whoare drugged are sexually assaulted versus other kinds of outcomessuch as becoming ill, being helped by friends, or being physicallyassaulted? Where does drugging typically occur? Are there pat-terns in the experience of drugging that differ by gender?This study examines this much-discussed but underresearchedphenomenon by presenting survey data from a large sample of American undergraduate students from three campuses. Researchobjectives include providing estimates of drugging prevalence,motives, and consequences based on the experiences of those whohave drugged others or know someone who has, and those whobelieve they have been drugged. The study uses both quantitativedata and responses to open-ended questions to explore this nascentarea of research. Prevalence of Drugging Victimization The focus of this paper is drugging in general, including but notlimited to drugging that results in sexual assault. There is very littledata on the prevalence of drugging in general (i.e., drugging that isnot limited to drug-facilitated sexual assault), and these estimatesvary widely. One recent prevalence estimate from 959 Americanwomen aged 18–24 found that 7.8% of college women and 8.5%of noncollege women had been drugged (Coker, Follingstad, Bush,& Fisher, 2016). A second estimate comes from a West VirginiaUniversity campus crime study, in which 6% of students stated thatsomeone had drugged them (Weiss, personal communication,2012; Weiss & Colyer, 2010). In a sample of 805 Australians aged18 to 35, 25% experienced drink spiking (McPherson, 2007).Finally, an Australian government report estimated that 3,000–4,000 drink spiking incidents occurred in Australia between 2002and 2003 (15–19 incidents per 100,000 persons; Australia Minis-terial Council on Drug Strategy, 2004).In contrast to the dearth of information on general drugging,prevalence estimates of drug-facilitated sexual assault are avail-able. Drug-facilitated sexual assault is defined as sexual assaultthat occurs as a result of intoxication due to drugs or alcoholdeliberately given to the victim by the perpetrator (Kilpatrick,Resnick, Ruggiero, Conoscenti, & McCauley, 2007). Kilpatrick etal.’s (2007) nationally representative telephone survey estimatedthat 2.7% of college women have experienced drug-facilitatedsexual assault, a significantly higher percentage than the 2.3% of women in the general population who reported experiencing drug-facilitated sexual assault (cf. Krebs, Lindquist, Warner, Fisher, &Martin, 2007). Among patients who reported to hospital-basedsexual assault treatment centers, rates of suspected drug-facilitatedsexual assault ranged from 7% (Ledray & Kraft, 2001) to 21% (DuMont et al., 2009; cf. McGregir, Lipowska, Shah, Du Mont, & DeSiato, 2003; in this study the rate was 12%). Difficulties in Estimating Drugging VictimizationPrevalence and Forensic Toxicology Studies Providing a population-based estimate of drugging victimizationis extremely difficult because unless someone has witnessed some-one else putting a substance into a beverage, it is often unclear if victims were actually drugged, or if they became incapacitatedthrough their own consumption of alcohol, medications, drugs, ora combination of these (Australia Ministerial Council on DrugStrategy, 2004). Forensic toxicology studies, which examine apatient’s bodily fluids for the presence of drugs, can be helpful insorting out which patients were drugged, but even these studies      T     h     i   s     d   o   c   u   m   e   n    t     i   s   c   o   p   y   r     i   g     h    t   e     d     b   y    t     h   e     A   m   e   r     i   c   a   n     P   s   y   c     h   o     l   o   g     i   c   a     l     A   s   s   o   c     i   a    t     i   o   n   o   r   o   n   e   o     f     i    t   s   a     l     l     i   e     d   p   u     b     l     i   s     h   e   r   s .     T     h     i   s   a   r    t     i   c     l   e     i   s     i   n    t   e   n     d   e     d   s   o     l   e     l   y     f   o   r    t     h   e   p   e   r   s   o   n   a     l   u   s   e   o     f    t     h   e     i   n     d     i   v     i     d   u   a     l   u   s   e   r   a   n     d     i   s   n   o    t    t   o     b   e     d     i   s   s   e   m     i   n   a    t   e     d     b   r   o   a     d     l   y . 2  SWAN ET AL.  have many uncertainties. Chief among these include the brief timein which some drugs are excreted by the body. Rohypnol (“roof-ies”) can be detected up to 72 hours after ingestion (U.S. Depart-ment of Health and Human Services, 2012), but gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) may be undetectable as little as 10 hoursafter ingestion (Elliott & Burgess, 2005; Madea & Musshoff,2009; Negrusz et al., 2005). While some forensic toxicologystudies stipulate that patients must be tested within 72 hours of thesuspected drugging incident (Du Mont et al., 2010; Juhascik et al.,2007), researchers acknowledge that even within this timeframesome drugs may not be detectable (Negrusz et al., 2005). Anotherissue is that patients may be reluctant to disclose to medicalproviders their voluntary use of illegal drugs (Negrusz et al.,2005).Likely for these reasons, estimates of drugging from forensictoxicology studies vary widely. Du Mont et al. (2010) examineddata from urine toxicology tests with 178 patients who suspectedthey had been drugged and sexually assaulted. Among these pa-tients, 49% were confirmed as drugging cases through toxicologyresults revealing drugs that the person did not report voluntarilyconsuming. However, Negrusz, Juhascik, and Gaensslen (2005)found that only 4.2% of patients met their criteria for drug-facilitated sexual assault. Another study of emergency departmentpatients who suspected they had been drugged found drugs that thepatient reported they did not take in 19% of cases (Hughes, Peters,Davies, & Griffiths, 2007). Prevalence and Motives of Drugging Perpetration We found only one study examining drugging perpetrators(McPherson, 2007). While 1% of participants admitted to addingdrugs to a person’s drink, 16% added extra alcohol shots toalcoholic drinks, and 6% added alcohol to nonalcoholic drinks.Half of these individuals added additional alcohol to drinks to getthe recipient more intoxicated. Other motives described by indi-viduals who added drugs or alcohol to someone’s drink wererelated to sex and having fun: 29% indicated they thought spikingsomeone’s drink would put them in the mood for sex; 21% percentsaid it was easier to approach someone for sex if the person wasdrunk or drugged; and 43% spiked a person’s drink “for fun”(McPherson, 2007).It is possible that motives for drugging may be related tomotives for other types of interpersonal aggression. Even if aperson is drugging someone else simply “for fun,” with no intentof taking advantage of the drugged person, the drugger is stillputting a drug in someone else’s body without their consent—andthis is coercive and controlling behavior. Coercion, control, andlack of consent are familiar constructs in the interpersonal aggres-sion literature. For example, the power and control model of intimate partner violence presumes that a need for enacting powerand control over one’s partner is the root cause of violence,coercive control behaviors, and abuse against the partner (Pence &Paymar, 1993). Similarly, the confluence model proposes that oneof the causal factors in men’s sexual aggression against women issatisfaction from controlling and dominating women (Malamuth,Linz, Heavey, Barnes, & Acker, 1995). The power a woman hasdue to her sexual appeal may be threatening to men who are proneto sexual aggression; using coercion to obtain sex “reduces hercontrol over him by eliminating her ability to exercise choice”(Malamuth et al., 1995, p. 354). Drugging may involve similarmotives of power and control. Why Examine Drugging With a College Sample? College students are an important population in which to exam-ine drugging, because of risk behaviors that are highly prevalent inthis environment that may be related to drugging. Compared withsame-aged peers who are not attending college, those in collegereport higher levels of binge drinking (O’Malley & Johnston,2002) and may be at increased risk for sexual assault (Krebs et al.,2007).To explore the phenomenon of drugging, this study addressesthese research questions: (a) What are people’s motives for drug-ging?, (b) Which drugs are being used to drug others?, (c) Howoften does sexual assault result from drugging?, (d) What are theoutcomes for those who are drugged?, (e) Are there patterns in theexperience of drugging that differ by gender?, and (f) Where doesdrugging typically occur? MethodSampling The current study is part of a larger longitudinal study of datingviolence and sexual violence among college students at threeuniversities—the University of South Carolina, the University of Kentucky, and the University of Cincinnati (Coker et al., 2015).Identical items were included in online surveys, and the samesampling methodology was used for all three campuses. The finaldataset contained  N   6,064 students. Surveys were administeredduring March and April of 2010–2013. In 2010, a stratified ran-dom sample of 16,000 full-time undergraduate students age 18–24was obtained using enrollment data from the Registrar’s office ateach campus. Stratum selection was based on year in school with25% from each class (first year, sophomore, junior, and senior). In2011, 2012, and 2013, all students who completed the survey in theprevious year (except for seniors who were assumed to havegraduated) were e-mailed and invited to complete the survey again.Also in 2011, 2012, and 2013, first-year students were randomlyselected and invited to participate in the survey to replenish thegraduating seniors.The current study employs data from 2012 and 2013 only. In2012, the sample included first year students who were invited tocomplete the survey for the first time in 2012 (  N     6,679, with2,398 responses; response rate    35.9%); and sophomores, ju-niors, and seniors who completed the survey in 2011 and wereinvited to complete it again in 2012 (  N     5,213 with 2,457responses; response rate  47.1%). In 2013, the sample includedonly first-year students who had  not   completed the survey in 2012(  N     3,994, with 1,299 responses; response rate    32.5%). Theoverall response rate was 38.7%. Procedure In March or April of 2012 and 2013, an e-mail describing theonline survey and inviting students to participate was sent to allsampled students’ e-mail addresses. Students who were interestedin participating were instructed to click on the survey link in the      T     h     i   s     d   o   c   u   m   e   n    t     i   s   c   o   p   y   r     i   g     h    t   e     d     b   y    t     h   e     A   m   e   r     i   c   a   n     P   s   y   c     h   o     l   o   g     i   c   a     l     A   s   s   o   c     i   a    t     i   o   n   o   r   o   n   e   o     f     i    t   s   a     l     l     i   e     d   p   u     b     l     i   s     h   e   r   s .     T     h     i   s   a   r    t     i   c     l   e     i   s     i   n    t   e   n     d   e     d   s   o     l   e     l   y     f   o   r    t     h   e   p   e   r   s   o   n   a     l   u   s   e   o     f    t     h   e     i   n     d     i   v     i     d   u   a     l   u   s   e   r   a   n     d     i   s   n   o    t    t   o     b   e     d     i   s   s   e   m     i   n   a    t   e     d     b   r   o   a     d     l   y . 3 DRUGGING OUTCOMES AND MOTIVES  e-mail. Participants received a $5 Amazon e-gift certificate. Re-minder e-mails were sent approximately every 3–4 days for thefollowing 4 weeks. The Institutional Review Board at each of theuniversities approved the research protocol; a waiver of writtenconsent was granted and a certificate of confidentiality was ob-tained through the National Institute of Child Health and HumanDevelopment. Participants Respondents age 25 or older (  N   4) or who were missing theage variable (  N     8) were removed so that the sample would berepresentative of traditionally aged college students (aged 18–24;U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). Sixty-one participants an-swered “no” to the question “Do you want to complete the survey”and were directed out of the survey. Our final dataset contained  N     6,064 students, 3,755 (61.9%) of whom were female and2,229 (36.8%) were male (80, 1.3%, did not report gender). Themajority of the sample identified as White (80.7%), with 7.0%identifying as Black or African American, 3.7% as Asian, 1.6% asHispanic or Latino(a), 0.2% as American Indian or Alaska Native,0.1% as Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 4.6% indicat-ing more than one race, and 2.0% not reporting race. Consistentwith the sampling design, over half the sample (57.6%) were firstyear students, 23.3% were sophomores, 9.6% were juniors, 8.0%were seniors, and 0.9% did not report year in school. The modalage of the sample was 19 (41.3%), followed by aged 18 (26.4%),aged 20 (17.7%), aged 21 (9.2%), aged 22 (4.5%), and aged 23–24(0.9%). Measures Drugging victimization was assessed with a single item: “Sincethe beginning of [this academic year’s] fall term, how many timesdo you suspect or know that someone put a drug into your drink  without   your knowledge?” The response scale included  0 times, 1time, 2 times, 3–5 times, 6 or more times,  “This happened, but notsince the beginning of [this year’s] Fall term,” and “Choose not toanswer (coded as missing).” Students who responded that they hadbeen drugged (i.e., they gave a response other than  0  or  Choose not to answer  ) were asked several follow-up questions. These in-cluded: “Where did this happen?” with response choices:  in a bar  ; in a fraternity ;  in a sorority ;  in a dorm ;  in a house or apartment  ;or  other, please specify  with a text box for the respondent toprovide a location. Next, participants were asked “What were theconsequences for you? (check all that apply).” Responses choicesincluded  blacked out; became physically ill; enjoyed it, had fun;experienced unwanted sexual touching; forced to have sexualintercourse; was physically hurt (hit, slapped, beat up ); and  other, please specify  with a text box for open-ended responses. Respon-dents were then asked two open-ended questions with text boxes totype their responses: “Why do you think someone put a drug inyour drink?,” and “Is there anything else you can tell us aboutwhen you were drugged?”While conventional reliability indices cannot be determined asdrugging victimization is assessed with a single item, relativeconsistency across the three universities and across year of surveyprovides some indication of reliability. The percent drugged was6.0%, 7.2%, and 10.8% at the three sites, and 7.5% for year 1 of the survey and 9.0% for year 2. To assess validity of the item, weexamined its correlation with binge drinking (assessed with theitem, “In the past month, on how many days did you have 5 ormore drinks of alcohol in a row, within a couple of hours,” withresponses ranging from  I never drink   and  0 days  to  20–31 days ).Binge drinking and drugging victimization were significantly cor-related at  r   .191,  p  .01.  Drugging perpetration or knowing a drugging perpetrator   wasassessed with one item that varied slightly by year of survey. In2012, respondents were asked, “Since the beginning of [this aca-demic year’s] fall term, have you or someone you know put drugsin someone else’s drink on purpose?” The response scale included 0 times, 1 time, 2 times, 3–5 times, 6–9 times, 10 or more times, “Yes, but not since the beginning of [this year’s] Fall term,” and“Choose not to answer” (coded as missing). In 2013, the questionwas worded “Since the beginning of [this academic year’s] fallterm, have you or someone you know put drugs in someone else’sdrink without their knowledge?,” and the response scale wasidentical.Students who responded that they or someone they knew haddrugged someone (i.e., they gave a response other than  0  or  choosenot to answer  ) were asked several follow-up questions. Theseincluded: “If you or someone you know ever put a drug insomeone’s drink without their knowledge, what was the reason fordoing that?” followed by a text box for the respondent to type theirresponse. Participants were then asked, “What drug or drugs wereused? (check all that apply).” Responses in 2012 included  roofies(Rohypnol );  GHB ;  cocaine ;  ecstasy ;  methamphetamine ;  I do not know ; or  Other, please specify  with a text box for comments. In2013, the additional options of   Xanax ,  ketamine , and  Benadryl were added based on comments from the 2012 survey.Location of drugging was assessed with the question “Wheredid this happen?” Response choices were identical to those de-scribed above for drugging victimization. Finally, respondentswere asked “Did you or someone you know engage in anythingsexual with this person?” with response choices of   yes  or  no . Alsoin 2013 only, respondents who drugged someone or knew a drug-ger and indicated that this happened more than once were directedto two sets of follow-up questions, identical to the questions above;one set of questions was preceded by the statement, “If you orsomeone you know ever put a drug in someone’s drink, please tellus about the  first time  that happened.” The second set of questionswas preceded by the statement, “If you or someone you know everput a drug in someone’s drink, please tell us about the  most recent time  that happened.” These data were combined in the analyses.Reliability of the drugging perpetration/knowing a drugger itemis indicated by consistent endorsement of the item across the threeuniversities (1.3%, 1.9%, 1.2%) and across years (1.4% in year 1,1.6% in year 2). To assess validity of the item, we reasoned thatindividuals who drug others may be more likely to engage in othertypes of controlling and abusive behavior. Therefore, we examinedits correlation with measures of sexual aggression and physicaldating aggression. Sexual aggression perpetration was assessedusing three items adapted from the National Intimate Partner andSexual Violence Survey (Black et al., 2011): “Since the beginningof [this academic year’s] fall term, how many times did you: havesexual activities with someone when they didn’t want to because(a) you threatened to end your relationship if they didn’t, orpressured them with arguments or begging; (b) they were drunk or      T     h     i   s     d   o   c   u   m   e   n    t     i   s   c   o   p   y   r     i   g     h    t   e     d     b   y    t     h   e     A   m   e   r     i   c   a   n     P   s   y   c     h   o     l   o   g     i   c   a     l     A   s   s   o   c     i   a    t     i   o   n   o   r   o   n   e   o     f     i    t   s   a     l     l     i   e     d   p   u     b     l     i   s     h   e   r   s .     T     h     i   s   a   r    t     i   c     l   e     i   s     i   n    t   e   n     d   e     d   s   o     l   e     l   y     f   o   r    t     h   e   p   e   r   s   o   n   a     l   u   s   e   o     f    t     h   e     i   n     d     i   v     i     d   u   a     l   u   s   e   r   a   n     d     i   s   n   o    t    t   o     b   e     d     i   s   s   e   m     i   n   a    t   e     d     b   r   o   a     d     l   y . 4  SWAN ET AL.
Similar documents
View more...
Search Related
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks