Pathways from College Students’ Cognitive Scripts for Consensual Sex to Sexual Victimization: A Three-Wave Longitudinal Study

Figures & data

Table 1. Means and gender differences of all study variables

	T1 (N = 2,425)		T2 (N = 1,685)		T3 (N = 1,619)
Severity classification (n in parentheses)	F (1415)	M (1010)	F (1033)	M (652)	F (1000)	M (619)
(1) No victimization	70.5 (997)	85.6 (865)	73.2 (756)	75.6 (493)	74.2 (742)	77.5 (479)
(2) Sexual contact	5.0 (71)	3.4 (34)	11.5 (119)	6.3 (41)	11.6 (116)	7.6 (47)
(3) Attempted/completed sexual coercion	9.1 (129)	3.7 (37)	4.8 (50)	3.2 (21)	4.8 (48)	2.9 (18)
(4) Attempted rape	3.0 (42)	0.8 (8)	1.9 (20)	1.8 (12)	2.2 (22)	1.9 (12)
(5) Rape	11.4 (161)	6.3 (64)	7.5 (77)	12.6 (82)	6.6 (66)	10.2 (63)
Missing	1.1 (15)	0.2 (2)	1.1 (11)	.50 (3)	0.6 (6)	0.0 (0)
Mean sex. victimization (1–5)
M	1.79^a	1.38^b	1.57	1.69	1.55	1.60
SD	1.38	1.06	1.17	1.38	1.13	1.28
Gender diff F	59.29		3.39		0.79
df	1,2406		1,1670		1,1612
Risky scripts (1–5)
M	2.12^a	2.45^b	2.11^a	2.44^b	2.15^a	2.41^b
SD	0.42	0.40	0.41	0.42	0.39	0.39
α	0.69		0.74		0.71
Gender diff F	330.02		252.88		168.01
df	1,2051		1,1672		1,1613
Risky sexual behavior (1–5)
M	2.19	2.15	1.99	2.02	1.94	1.95
SD	0.55	0.56	0.54	0.57	0.51	0.60
α	0.74		0.72		0.65
F gender diff	3.01		1.59		0.21
df	1,2033		1,1620		1,1596

F = Female; M = Male.

^a,bp < .001.

Table 2. Bivariate correlations of all study variables

		2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1	Victimization T1	.20	.18	.07	.06	.07	.27	.17	.17
2	Victimization T2	–	.27	.10	.11	.08	.13	.22	.15
3	Victimization T3		–	.12	.12	.10	.15	.19	.22
4	Risky script T1			–	.67	.64	.42	.37	.36
5	Risky script T2				–	.69	.37	.47	.40
6	Risky script T3					–	.36	.44	.48
7	Risky behavior T1						–	.52	.47
8	Risky behavior T2							–	.55
9	Risky behavior T3								–

N = 2,425. Stability coefficients in bold; all correlations are significant at p < .01.

Figure 1. Longitudinal pathways from risky sexual scripts and risky sexual behavior to sexual victimization

Note. Single-group model with gender as a covariate. Standardized coefficients for the total sample. Cross-sectional correlations in the model at each data wave are reported in the text. Dashed lines denote nonsignificant associations. *p < .05; ***p < .001.

Data Availability Statement

The authors are willing to share the data on which this manuscript is based on request.