DEP Paper

MAJOR ARTICLE

Facial emotion identification and sexual assault risk detection among college student sexual assault victims and nonvictims

Alexander J. Melkonian, MAa, Lindsay S. Ham, PhDa, Ana J. Bridges, PhDa, and Jessica L. Fugitt, PhDb

aDepartment of Psychological Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA; bG.V. (Sonny) Montgomery VA Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, USA

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 10 June 2016 Revised 7 March 2017 Accepted 19 April 2017

ABSTRACT Objective: High rates of sexual victimization among college students necessitate further study of factors associated with sexual assault risk detection. The present study examined how social information processing relates to sexual assault risk detection as a function of sexual assault victimization history. Participants: 225 undergraduates (Mage D 19.12, SD D 1.44; 66% women). Methods: Participants completed an online questionnaire assessing victimization history, an emotion identification task, and a sexual assault risk detection task between June 2013 and May 2014. Results: Emotion identification moderated the association between victimization history and risk detection such that sexual assault survivors with lower emotion identification accuracy also reported the least risk in a sexual assault vignette. Conclusions: Findings suggest that differences in social information processing, specifically recognition of others’ emotions, are associated with sexual assault risk detection. College prevention programs could incorporate emotional awareness strategies, particularly for men and women who are sexual assault survivors.

KEYWORDS Emotion recognition; risk detection; sexual assault prevention; social information processing

Sexual assault in college presents a major public health concern. Although many college sexual assault prevention programs have been developed and implemented, college sexual assault rates have remained consistently high.1

Sexual assault is defined as unwanted sexual contact including but not limited to attempted and completed rape, incapacitated sexual contact obtained through alcohol or drugs, and sexual contact obtained through physical force or coercion. Studies suggest rates of sexual assault for undergraduates while enrolled in college range between 19% and 35% for women (as many as 43% may experience sexual victimization in their lifetime), and 5% and 15% (23% lifetime rates) for men.2–5 Sexual victimiza- tion is associated with many negative outcomes, including elevated rates of depression, anxiety, alcohol use disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, and revictimization com- pared to nonvictims.6–8 Among college student survivors of sexual assault, 11% changed their residence, 8% dropped classes, and 3% changed universities following the assault.9 Although the blame for sexual assault lies solely on the perpetrator and therefore prevention efforts should target perpetrators’ behaviors, targeting bystanders and potential victims could also help reduce incidence rates of sexual assault. Research to identify relevant factors that contribute to risk for sexual assault can be used to empirically inform prevention efforts for potential victims

or bystanders who may have the opportunity to intervene in a sexual assault.

Studies that empirically examine individual factors relating to risk for sexual assault frequently use vignette methodology, in which participants read or listen to a scenario describing a social interaction and then respond to questions assessing the identification and interpreta- tion of risk in potentially hazardous social scenarios.10–12

Such methodology is based on the premise that reduced identification of risk in a hypothetical scenario is associ- ated with greater risk for an unwanted sexual experience based on the lack of recognition of potential harm to oneself or others. This methodology is supported by pro- spective studies that have found a relationship between lower risk detection and future sexual assault experien- ces: participants who were delayed in their recognition of sexual assault risk in a vignette were significantly more likely to experience a new instance of sexual assault at a follow-up compared to participants who recognized risk more quickly.13,14 However, social situations are highly complex and social reactions may not be fully captured by a written or audio vignette.

According to social information processing theory,15

in order to respond effectively in a situation such as a potential sexual assault scenario, one must first notice and accurately interpret relevant social and situational

CONTACT Alexander J. Melkonian, MA [email protected] University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA. © 2017 Taylor & Francis

JOURNAL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH 2017, VOL. 65, NO. 7, 466–473 https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2017.1341897

cues, which may include direct verbal conversation or nonverbal communication. Social information process- ing theory provides a helpful framework for how an indi- vidual’s or a bystander’s ability to identify relevant social cues, such as emotional expressions in others, could con- tribute to recognition of risk in a potential sexual assault situation. Given the importance of noticing and inter- preting situational cues as dangerous is an important step of the bystander intervention process,16 the identifi- cation of additional factors related to how potential vic- tims or bystanders interpret social information in risky scenarios may help to enhance our understanding of risk for sexual assault.

Emotion identification

Many researchers study perceptions of social scenarios using written or audio recorded descriptions of situa- tions; however, these studies may not capture all relevant components of communication. Human communication is a complex process with important pieces of informa- tion conveyed through verbal and nonverbal cues, such as facial expressions. Nonverbal communication makes up a critical component of meaning in human interac- tion.17 Specifically in sexual interactions, important information related to consent is likely to be communi- cated nonverbally.18 Thus, studying how individuals uniquely interpret nonverbal expression and the implica- tions of misinterpretation of cues in a sexual situation is a critical component of understanding risk perception, relevant for potential victims or bystanders.

Not everyone interprets cues in the same way, as vari- ation in emotion recognition is biologically based and refined in early childhood.19 Accurate understanding of visual emotional expression is critical to interpersonal relationships.20 Indeed, researchers find that difficulties in facial emotion recognition are related to difficulties with accurate interpretation of social communication and increased problems in social relationships.21,22

Though no known published studies have directly examined the association between nonverbal emotional cue recognition and sexual assault risk perception, Walsh, DiLillo, and Messman-Moore23 examined the role of emotion dysregulation (ie, lack of awareness of one’s emotions, lack of acceptance of one’s emotions, and limited emotion regulation strategies) in sexual assault risk perception among college women. Results suggest that self-reported difficulties with awareness and differentiation of one’s own emotions were significantly related to reduced risk detection in a sexual assault vignette. Given the observed connection between identi- fying one’s own emotions and sexual assault risk detec- tion,23 it is possible that impairment in identifying the

emotions of others may also relate to difficulty detecting sexual assault risk.

Victimization history

Sexual victimization is associated with subsequent vic- timization.8 However, results of studies examining the association between sexual assault victimization history and sexual assault risk detection have been mixed. Marx and Soler-Baillo11 and Soler-Baillo et al24 found college women who had experienced sexual assault displayed differences in responding to a sexual assault vignette, taking longer to identify risk compared to nonvictims. However, other researchers have found no such differen- ces in sexual assault risk perception based on victimiza- tion history.25,26

There is evidence that emotion-related variables could play a role in the association between sexual victimiza- tion history and sexual assault risk detection. In the pre- viously mentioned study by Walsh and colleagues,23 the researchers found several facets of emotion dysregula- tion, including identification of one’s own emotions, to be related to sexual assault victimization history and sex- ual assault risk detection in a vignette. However, no known research has examined whether accuracy in detecting and differentiating others’ emotional expres- sions relates to sexual assault risk detection. Sexual assault survivors may be less accurate at gauging risk in social situations if they are less accurate in processing emotions in others. Social situations, including those which involve sexual assault risk detection, represent a complex interplay of environmental, psychological, and sociocultural considerations that may not be fully cap- tured in a controlled laboratory study. Thus, the present study represents a first step in understanding the rela- tionship between victimization history, risk detection, and a facet of social information processing. The current study aims to contribute to the literature on the preven- tion of sexual assault by incorporating facial emotion recognition as a moderator between victimization history and risk detection.

Current study

To inform prevention efforts to reduce sexual assault incidence, we aimed to enhance our understanding of risk for sexual assault by incorporating facial emotion interpretation as an aspect of social information processing ability, which could relate to risk detection for both male and female college students. While sev- eral studies have examined the relationship of prior sexual victimization and risk perception (see Gidycz et al1 for review) and Walsh et al23 examined emotion

JOURNAL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH 467

dysregulation (one’s own emotions), victimization his- tory, and sexual assault risk perception, no known study to date has also examined additional facets of nonverbal social communication ability. Previous mixed findings related to sexual victimization history and sexual assault risk detection could be related to a failure to consider how one processes others’ emo- tions.27 Therefore, the current study focuses on whether emotion recognition moderates the relationship between sexual assault victimization history and risk detection. First, we expected that ratings of risk detec- tion in a hypothetical sexual assault scenario would be lower for those who have been a victim of sexual assault (since age 14) compared to nonvictims. Further, it was hypothesized that the association between victimization history and risk detection would be moderated by facial emotional expression recognition such that those who had experienced previous victimization and were less accurate in identifying others’ emotions would have the most difficulty detecting risk in the sexual assault sce- nario. Though most previous work focused on women, men are also victimized and both men and women may be in a position to intervene as a bystander in a sexual assault scenario.28 As such, this study adds to the litera- ture by examining both men and women.

Methods

Participants and general procedures

Participants were 225 college students aged 18–28 years (Mage D 19.12, SD D 1.44; 66% women; 86% Caucasian) recruited from a large southern university’s undergradu- ate psychology courses in 2013–2014. See Table 1 for a demographic summary. Participants provided anony- mous responses on an online study administered through Qualtrics for course credit. Participants were presented with informed consent electronically. Upon providing an electronic signature to indicate informed consent, participants completed self-report question- naires, an emotion identification task (ie, identify one of five emotions depicted in facial images), and a sexual assault vignette task (ie, reading a vignette ending in sex- ual assault followed by providing ratings of their inter- pretation of the behavior in the scenario) in randomized order. Participants were provided with debriefing infor- mation online. All procedures were approved by the Uni- versity’s Institutional Review Board.

Measures and stimuli

Demographics Participants reported age, gender, race, and ethnicity.

Sexual victimization history Sexual victimization history was assessed using the Sex- ual Experiences Survey—Short Form Victimization (SES-SFV29). The SES-SFV is a commonly used brief measure that includes items related to the occurrence and frequency of multiple types of unwanted sexual experiences since the age of 14 years. Previous versions of the SES have displayed good reliability and validity.30

Participants were included in the victimization history group based on scoring recommendations of the SES- SFV if previous unwanted sexual contact was reported as a result of force or coercion [n D 56 (25% of sample; 31% of women, 14% of men)] and were included in the nonvictimization history group (n D 169) if no sexual contact as a result of force or coercion was reported.

Emotion identification Emotion recognition was assessed with a series of images of male and female portrayals of one of four facial emo- tions (anger, happiness, sadness, and disgust) or no emo- tion. Although surprise and fear are also outlined as universally identifiable emotions, we chose to exclude these emotions as past research shows poor reliability in identifying these expressions.31,32 Each image shown to participants was a composite image based on Ekman and Friesen’s33 facial stimuli created by combining multiple images of varying strength of expression (ie, a face dis- playing 50% emotion expression strength is a composite image exactly halfway between no emotion being shown, and 100% expression). Strength of expression was varied to include 10 images each shown at 30%, 50%, and 70% strength of expression to simulate the variability of emo- tion expression in a social situation.31 Participants were shown 30 total digital images (one male and one female portrayal of 5 different expressions, shown at the three strengths of expression) and asked to identify the emo- tion being depicted in each by selecting their choice from a list of possible responses (ie, angry, happy, sad, dis- gusted, neutral). Overall accuracy scores were computed based on the total number of correct identifications of each emotion image (M D 21.11, SD D 3.34).

Sexual assault risk detection Participants read a brief vignette used in prior research35

that portrays a situation involving unwanted sexual con- tact between a male perpetrator and female victim. The story follows a college-aged woman being introduced to a man by a mutual friend with whom she gets along well. As the gathering concludes, the woman agrees to return to the man’s house to continue talking and have a drink. The woman begins to kiss the man for a short time period before deciding she would like to end the interac- tion and asks the man to stop. The man ignores her

468 A. J. MELKONIAN ET AL.

request, and instead begins to engage in increasing levels of sexual acts despite the lack of consent. Items were selected based on previous vignette research to assess participant perceptions regarding the scenario, including responsibility of the man (reverse coded) and woman,34

approval of the man’s behavior (reverse coded),35 degree of consent provided, the woman’s desire for sex,35 and the degree to which the scenario could be considered a rape.35 Each item was rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale. A sum score was calculated to create an overall index of risk perception, with higher scores reflecting greater detection of risk (possible range D 6–42, M D 30.36, SD D 4.8, Cronbach’s alpha D .68). Items used were based on related research examining risk detection in a sexual assault scenario26 and situational rating25 scores to high degrees of reliability.

Results

Preliminary analyses

Data were examined for violations of assumptions for the analyses conducted. There were no missing data (all par- ticipants completed all study measures, despite having the option to skip over items) and no violations of nor- mality. Results of independent samples t-tests indicated that there were no gender differences in vignette risk detection rating sum scores [Mmen D 30.28, SD D 5.23; Mwomen D 30.40, SD D 4.6; t(223) D 0.17, p D .87] or emotion identification scores [Mmen D 20.63, SD D 3.41; Mwomen D 21.35, SD D 3.30; t(223) D 1.50, p D .14]. As shown in Table 1, victimization history groups did not significantly differ in race and ethnicity, emotion identi- fication scores, or sexual assault vignette rating scores. Victimization groups differed by gender, with women more likely to be victimized than men. Finally, emotion identification scores and sexual assault vignette risk detection ratings were significantly positively correlated, r D .20, p < .01.

Moderation

The Hayes PROCESS macro36 was used to test emotion identification as a moderator of the association between victimization history and sexual assault risk detection. The overall model including victimization history, emo- tion identification, and their interaction accounted for a significant amount of the variance in risk detection scores, R2 D .063, F (3,222) D 4.96, p < .01. Main effects of victimization history {B D 0.67 [95% confidence inter- val (CI) D ¡0.77, 2.10], t D 0.91, p D .36} and emotion identification score [B D 0.16 (95% CI D ¡0.61, 0.38), t D 1.42, p D .16] on risk detection score were nonsignif- icant. The victimization history X emotion identification interaction [B D 0.47 (95% CI D 0.06, 0.89, t D 2.25, p D .03)] accounted for significant variance in sexual assault risk detection [DR2 D .022, p D .03]. As shown in Figure 1, emotion identification moderated the associa- tion between victimization history and sexual assault risk detection such that individuals with a history of victimi- zation showed a significant positive relationship between

Table 1. Demographic summary.

Total sample (N D 225) Victimization history (n D 56) No victimization history (n D 169) Gender x2 (1, N D 225) D 8.45, p D 0.01 Male 76 (33.8%) 10 (17.9%) 66 (39.1%) Female 149 (66.2%) 46 (82.1%) 103 (60.9%)

Race and ethnicity x2 (5, N D 225) D 5.37, p D 0.37 Caucasian (non-Hispanic) 194 (85.8%) 49 (87.5%) 144 (85.2%) African American 5 (2.2%) 2 (3.6%) 3 (1.7%) Hispanic/Latino 10 (4.4%) 0 (0%) 10 (5.9%) Asian 6 (2.7%) 1 (1.8%) 5 (3.0%) American Indian 5 (2.2%) 2 (3.6%) 3 (1.7%) Other/not reported 5 (2.2%) 2 (3.6%) 4 (2.4%)

Age 19.12 (SD D 1.44) 19.14 (SD D 1.57) 19.12 (SD D 1.41) t(224) D ¡0.11, p D 0.91 Emotion identification score 21.11 (SD D 3.34) 20.80 (SD D 3.54) 21.21 (SD D 3.27) t(224) D 0.79, p D 0.43 Risk detection score 30.36 (SD D 4.83) 30.71 (SD D 5.51) 30.25 (SD D 4.60) t(224) D ¡0.62, p D 0.53

Figure 1. Sexual assault risk detection score by emotion identifi- cation score and victimization group.

JOURNAL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH 469

emotion identification and risk detection [B D 0.63 (95% CI D 0.28, 0.99), t D 3.52, p < .01], whereas emotion identification was not related to sexual assault risk detec- tion in nonvictims [B D 0.16 (95% CI D ¡0.61, 0.38), t D 1.42, p D .16]. Furthermore, this association was not significantly moderated by gender [B D .74 (95% CI D ¡0.26, 1.74), t D 1.42, p D .15].

Comment

The current study examined the role of nonverbal social communication abilities in the association between sex- ual victimization history and sexual assault risk detection among college students, a population with high rates of sexual assault.5 Results revealed that the association between sexual victimization history and situational risk detection was moderated by emotion identification accu- racy for both men and women. Ability to identify emo- tional expressions in others was positively related to sexual assault risk detection for those with a victimiza- tion history, but emotion identification accuracy was unrelated to sexual assault risk detection for those with no victimization history. Due to previously mixed find- ings regarding the effects of victimization history on risk detection,1 the present findings suggest an important new avenue of study further examining the connection between visual emotion processing and social situation interpretation to better explain conditions under which victimization history may be related to risk detection. Extending previous work connecting emotion identifica- tion related to one’s self and detection of sexual assault risk,23 the present results suggest that identification of others’ emotions may also be an important factor related to risk detection.

Discussion

The results of the current study suggest that sexual assault risk detection did not differ based on victimiza- tion history alone. Although some researchers have found a significant relationship between victimization history and situational risk recognition,13,14,24 others have not found support for differences by victimization history.14,26 The present study revealed those who experi- enced victimization and showed less accuracy in identify- ing facial emotions also rated lower levels of risk in the sexual assault scenario, suggesting that social informa- tion processing may be an important variable related to further understanding differences in detecting sexual assault risk. Sexual assault survivors who are less accu- rate in decoding nonverbal cues may also be more likely to misidentify potential risk in social situations. Con- versely, sexual assault survivors who are more accurate

may be more attuned to risk cues and therefore have reduced risk for revictimization and a greater likelihood of intervening as a bystander to prevent to stop a sexual assault. These findings may be explained by variable levels of hyperarousal among victims. Previous research has found increased reported levels of posttraumatic stress disorder-related arousal, such as hypervigilance, increased startle response, and irritability, among sexual assault victims was related to increased risk detection compared to victims with lower levels of reported arousal symptoms.37 Thus, while some survivors may experience a higher threshold for risk recognition, others may expe- rience enhanced attention to risk and social information processing. Future research examining how and why sex- ual assault survivors might have differential responses to risk cues and social information cues, as well as how these differential responses are related to meaningful health and behavioral outcomes, is warranted.

Furthermore, results suggesting differences in sexual assault risk detection and social information processing for those with a history of victimization are relevant for practice settings as well as experimental research to improve intervention and prevention efforts. Emotion recognition accuracy may be considered a relatively sta- ble yet malleable factor; research supports that with spe- cific training, emotional awareness can be improved.38

Thus, practitioners could consider assessing emotional awareness in survivors of sexual assault to understand how they process social information and embed emo- tional awareness of others into interventions focusing on empowering survivors. Further understanding of the implications of these social processing differences can also be used to enhance bystander behavior to reduce sexual assault incidence. Recent evidence supports the efficacy of bystander intervention programs targeting reduction in victimization, reduction in perpetration, and increase in bystander intervention.39 Adding a com- ponent of training in nonverbal communication recogni- tion may further increase the likelihood of identifying a situation in need of intervention to enhance program effectiveness on college campuses. Other programs have targeted increasing empathy to enhance bystander inter- vention behavior.40 Given emotional awareness has been connected to empathic responding,41 enhancing emo- tional awareness of bystanders through direct training may provide an added benefit to empathy-based bystander intervention training to prevent sexual assault. Accuracy of facial emotion identification has been found to be enhanced through training, which includes feed- back on emotional expressions displayed.38 Thus, practi- tioners or bystander interventions aiming to increase empathic responding may include an emotional expres- sion feedback training.

470 A. J. MELKONIAN ET AL.

Limitations

A primary limitation of the current study is that it was correlational; thus, no assumptions regarding causality can be implied. Additionally, it is possible that the lack of a significant relationship between victimization history and risk ratings could be due to the methodol- ogy employed. There are numerous approaches to studying the assessment of a nonconsensual situation, all of which may reveal differences in findings; Gidycz et al1 discuss the potential for differences as a result of varying vignette items and individual sexual assault experiences. Thus, it is possible different results may be found based on individual victimization experiences (the setting, context, and relationship to perpetrator), the situation detailed in the vignette used (how similar or dissimilar is it to the victimization experience), and the way in which risk detection is measured (eg, rat- ings versus behavioral response). Of note, the internal consistency of our risk detection measure (a D .68) fell just below the conventional cutoff of acceptability. However, measures with this Cronbach’s alpha may be considered moderately reliable, and acceptable for use in preliminary research such as the current study.42,43

Furthermore, victimization history was only measured from the age of 14 years, and perpetration history was not measured. Given the scope of the study, childhood sexual assault experiences were not examined; there- fore, it remains unknown how childhood victimization may influence the relationships examined in the pres- ent study. Additionally, though a strength of the study was the inclusion of both men and women, it is possi- ble that the lack of gender moderation was due to low power to detect the effect. Future studies should con- tinue to examine the role of gender in the relationship between social information processing and risk detec- tion. Follow-up studies may also consider use of vignettes that vary the depiction of the gender of the perpetrator and victim.

Additionally, given that in nearly 50% of all college sexual assault situations alcohol is present in either the perpetrator or the victim, future research should con- sider examining this relationship within the context of alcohol intoxication.44 Research suggests intoxication is related to impaired risk detection,10 and thus future research should consider the impact of intoxication on emotional awareness as well. Finally, all emotions dis- played in a social interaction such as events leading to sexual assault may not always be authentic or clearly dis- played. Given these limitations, the current study repre- sents the first step in a line of research further understanding the role of emotional awareness under controlled conditions. Future research should next target

the more nuanced display of emotions in a complex social situation.

Conclusions

This study incorporated emotion recognition, a compo- nent of social information processing, into the current understanding of sexual assault risk detection and sexual victimization history. Results provide evidence for differ- ences in processing of social information and risk detec- tion between victims and nonvictims of sexual assault, with the least successful sexual assault risk detection being observed among survivors of sexual assault and less accuracy in emotion recognition. The present results, if replicated, have implications for improving prevention programs by incorporating emotional awareness strate- gies, particularly for men and women who are sexual assault survivors. However, future research is needed to further study unique differences in risk for victimization based on history and social information processing.

Conflict of interest disclosure

The authors have no conflicts of interest to report. The authors confirm that the research presented in this article met the ethi- cal guidelines, including adherence to the legal requirements, of the United States and received approval from the Institu- tional Review Board of the University of Arkansas.

Funding

No funding was used to support this research and/or the prep- aration of the manuscript.

References

1. Gidycz CA, McNamara JR, Edwards KM. Women’s risk perception and sexual victimization: A review of the literature. Aggress Violent Behav. 2006;11(5):441– 456. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2006.01.004

2. Turchik JA. Sexual victimization among male college stu- dents: Assault severity, sexual functioning, and health risk behaviors. Psychol Men Masculin. 2012;13(3):243–255. doi:10.1037/a0024605

3. Coker AL, Follingstad DR, Bush HM, Fisher BS. Are inter- personal violence rates higher among young women in college compared with those never attending college? J Interpers Violence. 2016;31(8):1413–1429. doi:10.1177/ 0886260514567958

4. Breiding MJ. Prevalence and characteristics of sexual vio- lence, stalking, and intimate partner violence victimiza- tion—National intimate partner and sexual violence survey, United States, 2011. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Sur- veill Summ. 2014;63(8):1–18.

5. Krebs C, Lindquist C, Warner T, Fisher B, Martin S. Col- lege women’s experiences with physically forced, alcohol- or other drug-enabled, and drug-facilitated sexual assault

JOURNAL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH 471

before and since entering college. J Am Coll Health. 2009;57(6):639–649. doi:10.3200/JACH.57.6.639-649

6. Resnick HS, Kilpatrick DG, Dansky BS, Saunders BE, Best CL. Prevalence of civilian trauma and posttraumatic stress disorder in a representative national sample of women. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1993;61(6):984–991. doi:10.1037/ 0022-006X.61.6.984

7. Arata C, Burkhart B. Post-traumatic stress disorder among college student victims of acquaintance assault. J Psychol Hum Sex. 1996;8(1–2):79–92. doi:10.1300/J056v08n01_06

8. Flack WF, Daubman KA, Caron ML, et al. Risk factors and consequences of unwanted sex among university students hooking up, alcohol, and stress response. J Interpers Vio- lence. 2007;22(2):139–157. doi:10.1177/0886260506295354

9. Krebs C, Lindquist C, Warner T, Fisher BS, Martin S. The campus sexual assault (CSA) study: Final report. National Institute of Justive, US Department of Justice. Available at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails. aspx?idD243011. Published 2007. Accessed February 21, 2017.

10. Loiselle M, Fuqua W. Alcohol’s effects on women’s risk detection in a date-rape vignette. J Am Coll Health. 2007;55(5):261–266. doi:10.3200/JACH.55.5.261-266

11. Marx BP, Soler-Baillo JM. The relationships among risk recognition, autonomic and self-reported arousal, and posttraumatic stress symptomatology in acknowledged and unacknowledged victims of sexual assault. LWW. 67 (4):618–624.

12. Norris J, Cubbins LA. Dating, drinking, and rape: Effects of victim’s and assailant’s alcohol consumption on judgments of their behavior and traits. Psychol Women Q. 1992;16 (2):179–191. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1992.tb00248.x

13. Marx BP, Calhoun KS, Wilson AE, Meyerson LA. Sex- ual revictimization prevention: An outcome evaluation. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2001;69(1):25–32. doi:10.1037/ 0022-006X.69.1.25

14. Messman-Moore TL, Brown AL. Risk perception, rape, and sexual revictimization: A prospective study of college women. Psychol Women Q. 2006;30(2):159–172. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00279.x

15. McFall RM. A review and reformulation of the concept of social skills. Behav Assess. 1982;4(1):1–33. doi:10.1007/ BF01321377

16. Burn SM. A situational model of sexual assault prevention through bystander intervention. Sex Roles. 2009;60(11– 12):779–792. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9581-5

17. Burgoon JK, Guerrero LK, Floyd K. Nonverbal Communi- cation. New York, NY: Routledge; 2016.

18. Jozkowski KN, Wiersma JD. Does drinking alcohol prior to sexual activity influence college students’ con- sent? Int J Sex Health. 2015;27(2):156–174. doi:10.1080/ 19317611.2014.951505

19. Crick NR, Dodge KA. Social information-processing mechanisms in reactive and proactive aggression. Child Dev. 1996;67(3):993–1002. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996. tb01778.x

20. Carton JS, Kessler EA, Pape CL. Nonverbal decoding skills and relationship well-being in adults. J Nonverbal Behav. 1999;23(1):91–100. doi:10.1023/A:1021339410262

21. Lepp€anen JM, Hietanen JK. Emotion recognition and social adjustment in school–aged girls and boys. Scand J Psychol. 2001;42(5):429–435. doi:10.1111/1467-9450.00255

22. McDonald S, Flanagan S. Social perception deficits after traumatic brain injury: Interaction between emotion rec- ognition, mentalizing ability, and social communication. Neuropsychology. 2004;18(3):572–579. doi:10.1037/0894- 4105.18.3.572

23. Walsh K, DiLillo D, Messman-Moore TL. Lifetime sexual victimization and poor risk perception: Does emotion dys- regulation account for the links? J Interpers Violence. 2012;27(15):3054–3071. doi:10.1177/0886260512441081

24. Soler-Baillo JM, Marx BP, Sloan DM. The psychophysio- logical correlates of risk recognition among victims and non-victims of sexual assault. Behav Res Ther. 2005;43 (2):169–181. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2004.01.004

25. Cue KL, George WH, Norris J. Women’s appraisals of sex- ual-assault risk in dating situations. Psychol Women Q. 1996;20(4):487–504. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00318.x

26. Vanzile-Tamsen C, Testa M, Livingston JA. The impact of sexual assault history and relationship context on appraisal of and responses to acquaintance sexual assault risk. J Interpers Violence. 2005;20(7):813–832. doi:10.1177/ 0886260505276071

27. Yeater EA, Hoyt T, Rinehart JK. Sexual assault prevention with college-aged women: Toward an individualized approach. J Behav Anal Offender Vict Treat Prev. 2008;1 (1):36–51. doi:10.1037/h0100433

28. Gidycz CA, Orchowski LM, Berkowitz AD. Preventing sexual aggression among college men: An evaluation of a social norms and bystander intervention program. Violence Women. 2011;17(6):720–742. doi:10.1177/ 1077801211409727

29. Koss MP, Abbey A, Campbell R, et al. Revising the Ses: A collaborative process to improve assessment of sexual aggression and victimization. Psychol Women Q. 2007;31 (4):357–370. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00385.x

30. Koss MP, Gidycz CA. Sexual experiences survey: Reliabil- ity and validity. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1985;53(3):422– 423. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.53.3.422

31. Gery I, Miljkovitch R, Berthoz S, Soussignan R. Empa- thy and recognition of facial expressions of emotion in sex offenders, non-sex offenders and normal controls. Psychiatry Res. 2009;165(3):252–262. doi:10.1016/j. psychres.2007.11.006

32. Hudson SM, Marshall WL, Wales D, McDonald E, Bakker LW, McLean A. Emotional recognition skills of sex offenders. Sex Abuse J Res Treat. 1993;6(3):199–211. doi:10.1177/107906329300600303

33. Ekman P, Friesen WV. Constants across cultures in the face and emotion. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1971;17(2):124–129. doi:10.1037/h0030377

34. Abrams D, Tendayi G, Masser B, Bohner G. Perceptions of stranger and acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent and hostile sexism in victim blame and rape proclivity. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;84(1):111–125. doi:10.1037/0022- 3514.84.1.111

35. Abbey A, Buck PO, Zawacki T, Saenz C. Alcohol’s effects on perceptions of a potential date rape. J Stud Alcohol. 2003;64(5):669–677. doi:10.15288/jsa.2003.64.669

36. Hayes AF. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2013.

37. Wilson AE, Calhoun KS, Bernat JA. Risk recognition and trauma-related symptoms among sexually revictimized

472 A. J. MELKONIAN ET AL.

women. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1999;67(5):705–710. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.67.5.705

38. Elfenbein HA. Learning in emotion judgments: Training and the cross-cultural understanding of facial expressions. J Nonverbal Behav. 2006;30(1):21–36. doi:10.1007/s10919- 005-0002-y

39. Banyard VL, Moynihan MM, Plante EG. Sexual violence prevention through bystander education: An experimental evaluation. J Community Psychol. 2007;35(4):463–481. doi:10.1002/jcop.20159

40. Foubert J, Newberry JT. Effects of two versions of an empathy-based rape prevention program on fraternity men’s survivor empathy, attitudes, and behavioral intent

to commit rape or sexual assault. J Coll Stud Dev. 2006;47 (2):133–148. doi:10.1353/csd.2006.0016

41. Mayer JD, DiPaolo M, Salovey P. Perceiving affective con- tent in ambiguous visual stimuli: A component of emo- tional intelligence. J Pers Assess. 1990;54(3–4):772–781. doi:10.1080/00223891.1990.9674037

42. Hinton PR, McMurray I, Brownlow C. SPSS Explained. New York, NY: Routledge; 2014.

43. Kent RA. Data Construction and Data Analysis for Survey Research. New York: Palgrave; 2001.

44. Abbey A. Alcohol-related sexual assault: A common prob- lem among college students. J Stud Alcohol Suppl. 2002; (14):118–128.

JOURNAL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH 473

Copyright of Journal of American College Health is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.