(PS1-C67) The Association Between Impulsivity Facets and Perpetration of Sexual Aggression Tactics Among College Men

Sexual aggression (SA) perpetration tactics include use of verbal coercion, substances to intoxicate/impair, and physical force to obtain non-consensual penetrative or non-penetrative sexual contact. Research examining risk factors for specific SA tactics is lacking, especially for verbal coercion and intoxication tactics (DeGue et al., 2010; Garner et al., 2017). Prior research supported facets of impulsivity as correlates of SA perpetration. For example, negative urgency, positive urgency, and lack of premeditation differentiated SA perpetrators from non-perpetrators among college men (Mouilso & Calhoun, 2013). We extended these findings by examining facets of impulsivity as they related to specific SA perpetration tactics among college men.

            Self-report, cross-sectional data were collected from 166 college men (Mage = 19.34; 70% white). The short form UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale (Cyders et al., 2014) assessed the five facets of impulsivity, negative and positive urgency, lack of premeditation and perseverance, and sensation seeking, with higher scores indicating greater endorsement of the specific impulsivity facets. The short form Sexual Experiences Survey (Koss et al., 2006) assessed two different outcomes (sexual contact or penetration) and three different tactics (verbal, intoxication, and force) of SA perpetration. We conducted separate hierarchical regression analyses examining the five facets of impulsivity as predictors of each of the six different outcomes/tactics combinations of SA perpetration while statistically controlling for the effects of age, alcohol use/problems (Saunders et al., 1993), rape myth acceptance (McMahon & Farmer, 2011), and hypersexual behavior (Reid et al., 2011).

            Data analyses revealed that all six models were significant: sexual contact/verbal coercion R² = .19, (F(9, 146) = 3.86; p < .001); sexual contact/intoxication R² = .23, (F(9, 146) = 4.91; p < .001); sexual contact/force R² = .23, (F(9, 146) = 4.96; p < .001); penetration/verbal coercion R² = .18, (F(9, 143) = 3.52; p < .001); penetration/intoxication R² = .15, (F(9, 141) = 2.79; p = .005); and penetration/force R² = .19, (F(9, 140) = 3.66; p < .001). Of the five impulsivity facets, lack of premeditation (PRMED) showed a significant, negative association and positive urgency (PU) showed a significant, positive association with sexual contact/verbal coercion (PRMED β = -.18, p = .04; PU β = .30, p = .01), sexual contact/intoxication (PRMED β = -.24, p = .01; PU β = .43, p < .001), sexual contact/force (PRMED β = -.25, p = .004; PU β = .44, p < .001), and penetration/force (PRMED β = -.20, p = .03; PU β = .34, p = .002), while only positive urgency showed a significant, positive association with penetration/verbal coercion (PU β = .32, p = .01) and penetration/intoxication (PU β = .28, p = .01). Our findings suggest that higher positive urgency and lower lack of premeditation may contribute to college men’s SA perpetration. Intervention efforts for college SA perpetration may benefit from addressing impulse control difficulties, especially positive urgency.