Expectancy Violation Theory and Sexual Resistance in the Face of Request Persistence: Try, Try, Try Again

Expectancy Violation Theory and Sexual Resistance in the Face of Request Persistence: Try, Try, Try Again

INTRODUCTION
"It made me feel really bad and confused, because he seemed like he wanted it and then what he wanted and what he showed he wanted were two different things" (Female, 18, personal interview, May 3, 2005). This is just one of many interesting pieces of conversation that I heard during my study. People told me about all kinds of situations in which they experienced sexual resistance in the face of their persistence. Many of the situations sounded typical--some that I could even relate to--but respondents surprised me by speaking of feelings anywhere from pain to happiness. With answers this varied, it would seem that it would be hard to draw any conclusions from them. Fortunately, Expectancy Violation Theory provides an excellent framework by which the data can be coded and analyzed. In this essay, the stories of a number of individuals will be analyzed through the EVT framework in order to understand the effects and consequences of such events more clearly.

POINT OF RESEARCH
In March of 2003, Jennifer L. Bevan’s study Expectancy Violation Theory and Sexual Resistance in Close, Cross-Sex Relationships was published in Communication Monographs. In this study, Bevan measured the effects of sexual resistance on relationships in terms of Expectancy Violation Theory. She measured violation valence, violation importance and violation expectedness. Bevan’s study was one of the first to apply EVT directly to the idea of sexual resistance. While her study did break new ground and shed light on many previously unseen aspects of relationships, Bevan admitted there were certain limitations to her study. One such limitation was that she did not take into account request persistence. In this study, I will explore this same framework specifically in relation to request persistence. I will analyze my data according to the same three categories that Bevan did.
This study is important not only as a way to continue Bevan's research, but also as a way to better understand sexual relationships in general. By using EVT in relation to sexual resistance, we can better understand and predict the effects of certain actions and learn to interact in a healthier, more effective way.

BACKGROUND
In order to understand how sexual resistance relates to Expectancy Violation Theory more clearly, I examined articles about EVT as well as articles about relationships, expectations that come with certain types of relationships, and articles specifically about sexual resistance.
Expectancy Violation Theory states that a violation occurs when behavior differs from what is expected. Sexual compliance may be expected due to heightened levels of intimacy that come with being in a close dating relationship or cross-sex friendship. However, these expectations can be altered through the experience of having previously been resisted. This previous experience of resistance can create a new model of expectations for the advancing individual, which would cause them to expect resistance to their future advances.
Because these two ideas completely refute each other, I decided to look further into the idea of sexual resistance. I explored different types of resistance as well as how members of both sexes respond to them.
Knapp and Vangelisti (1992) point out a piece of information that is of particular importance to this study. In Stages of Coming Together and Coming Apart they state, "The expectations for romantic relationships of today seem to include more physical contact and a greater expression of both positive and negative feelings than people expected fifty years ago" (p. 35). In A Prospective Study of Intraindividual and Peer Influences on Adolescents’ Heterosexual Romantic and Sexual Behavior, Melanie J. Zimmer-Gembeck, Jessica Siebenbruner and W. Andrew Collins (2003) support this statement. They state:

Romantic and sexual interests become increasing salient and common during adolescence. In Western industrialized cultures, young people typically begin heterosocial dating in early or middle adolescence and many have their first experience of sexual intercourse before finishing secondary school. (p. 381)

Here we can see that there is a lot of pressure and expectation that sexual activity will begin in early adolescence. Because the respondents are all college-aged, this information is very relevant. The information implies that sexual compliance would be expected, and therefore sexual resistance would be unexpected. Also, as Knapp and Vangelisti stated, people involved in close, romantic relationships expect more discussion of positive and negative feelings. This could lead one to believe that even if the resistance is expressed--which, upon first glance seems highly negative--it will not be seen as a negative thing because of the expectation of these types of communication. This would mean that in a serious dating relationship, the resistance should be seen as less negative.
One element that weighs heavily on expectations in relationships is the use of token resistance and the stereotypes about it. Token resistance is "refusing or resisting sexual activity while intending to engage in that activity" (Muehlenhard & Rogers, 1998, p. 443). Muehlenhard and Rodgers (1998) discuss this in Token Resistance to Sex: a New Take on an Old Stereotype. They state, "There is both anecdotal and laboratory evidence that some men do not believe women's refusals [to sex]" (p. 444). In addition to this, they also state "some researchers have found that significantly more men than women reported having engaged in token resistance to sexual intercourse," indicating that both men and women commonly engage in token resistance (p. 445). Not only does this second finding negate the old stereotype that only women engage in token resistance, it implies that both genders may expect a sexual advance to succeed regardless of previous refusals. This knowledge implies both that a resisted individual is likely to persist--because of the belief that the resistance is token--and that they would expect their persistent advances to succeed. In other words, upon being resisted the first time, the advancing individual might see the resistance as expected because due to token resistance, but if they believed the original instance was just that, they would most likely expect compliance upon further requests. This means the subsequent resistance would likely be less expected and very possibly more negative than the first.
Solomon and Knobloch (2004) state, "relational turbulence inherently accompanies the redefinition of a relationship as intimate" (p. 796). Given this information, it can be inferred that in a cross-sex friendship, the resistance will be more important than in a dating scenario. Knapp and Vangelisti (1992) state, "The act of sexual intercourse is commonly associated with male-female romantic couples..." (p. 37). Here we see that in a dating relationship, this redefinition is more or less expected, and therefore, less important/impactful, and probably less negative. Taking into account the first reference, it can be inferred that in a cross-sex friendship the violation valence would be more negative because of the sudden, less expected change in the dynamics of the relationship. Similarly, Hanneke de Graaf and Theo G. M. Sandfort (2004) argue that some individuals may perceive close, committed relationships as the proper place for sexual activity to take place. They state, in their article Gender Differences in Affective Responses to Sexual Rejection:

People with less permissive attitudes are more likely to believe that sexual behavior should be something that happens in a meaningful relationship. This applies especially to the more intimate forms of sexual behavior. On the basis of previous research, we expect the condition of a meaningful relationship to be a more central element in the sexual script of women than of men. (p. 396)

This information is further evidence that sexual behavior would be less expected in a cross-sex friendship, and therefore resistance to sexual advances would be more expected. It can also be logically inferred that the step to a sexual level of interaction in a cross-sex friendship would be a large one, and the person initiating the advance might feel that there is a lot at stake. If this "high risk" advance is resisted, it could have disastrous results for the individual's feelings and the relationship overall, therefore the relational importance would be higher and violation valence should be more negative.
de Graaf and Sandfort (2004) continue, stating, "One of the norms of current sexual scripts is mutuality. In situations of sexual rejection this mutuality within intimate encounters is violated. Although sexual rejection is expected to be a negative experience for both men and women, the encounter could elicit positive emotions as well" (p. 395). While they do admit the possibility of positive reactions to sexual resistance, de Graaf and Sandfort argue that a negative response is expected. One partner expects that what they are feeling is mutual, and when they find out different, they react negatively. It can be assumed from this that persistent resistance would only illicit an even more negative response.

HYPOTHESIS
Taking into account this background information, and the fact that we are only looking at request persistence, a few hypotheses can be made:
H1: If sexual advances persist in the face of resistance, the resistance will be seen as a) less expected, b) more negative and c) more important than the first instance.
Because the individuals being asked are in their (late) teenage years, sexual compliance is expected as argued by Zimmer-Gembeck et. al. (2003), the resistance should be seen as unexpected, especially because this resistance occurs more than once. Also, as stated by de Graaf and Sandfort, reactions to sexual resistance are expected to be negative. Considering that we are looking at request persistence, it can be predicted that the second event of resistance would be more negative. Given that the resistance would be more negative and unexpected, it follows that it would be more relationally important.
H2: In the friendship scenario, the resistance (second instance) will be seen as a) more expected, b) more negative and c) more important overall than in the dating scenario.
When involved in a dating relationship, individuals may expect sexual compliance more than in a friendship, as previously referenced. This means that if a sexual advance is resisted in a dating relationship or "romantic couple", it will be more of an expectancy violation than in a cross-sex friendship. However, because sexual behavior is more expected (and accepted) in a dating relationship, an individual being advanced upon in a cross-sex friendship may not expect it, and it may completely change the dynamics of the friendship. Therefore, the violation valence should be more negative and the violation importance should be higher in a cross-sex friendship situation.

METHODOLOGY
Participants
There were five respondents questioned in all. Two of their stories involved dating situations and three involved cross-sex friendship situations. All respondents were either 18 or 19 years of age. The respondents consisted of two males and three females. The respondents were all students at a university in northwestern Ohio. As mentioned in the previously, all respondents stated that they had either had sexual intercourse or were 'sexually active' in some way.

General Procedures
After reading over Muehlenhard and Rodgers (1998) study, in which narrative criticism was selected in order to avoid confusing survey questions, I decided to use it as well. Because it gives the subjects the chance to tell the story in their own words with minimal restrictions, it helped me get a better feel for the emotional significance of the events.
Narrative, as defined by Sonja K. Foss (1989) in Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice, is "the representation of at least two events or situations in a time sequence ... a way of ordering and presenting a view of the world through a description of a situation involving characters, actions and settings that changes over time" (p. 229). In order to practice narrative criticism, Foss states, one must analyze substance and form, and ultimately evaluate the narrative itself. For the purposes of this study, however, the overall analysis of the narrative was not necessary, and was therefore bypassed in order to save time.

Research Design
In keeping with these definitions and practices, I asked all of the subjects to tell me, in narrative form, about a time when they were sexually resisted and they persisted. In order to accurately measure the differences between both instances, I required than the second instance also be one of resistance. Once I had each of their stories, I analyzed the order of events, who was involved, what the overall setting of the narrative was, how the elements of the story related, and what themes were presented, as instructed by Foss. Following that, I analyzed the events described, determining what were important elements--or "kernels"--and what were unimportant--"satellites" (Foss, 1989, p. 233). The "kernels" were then coded according to the three categories laid out in Bevan's (2003) study. Each one was analyzed for elements of violation expectedness, violation valence and violation importance.
First, the age and gender of all subjects were recorded. Then, each of the subjects was asked if they had ever had sexual intercourse. The respondents who had not were asked no further questions. This was done because, as Bevan (2003) explained, they "may not have had the capacity or experience to place themselves into ... sexual resistance scenarios" (p. 80). Subjects were instructed to describe a situation in which they were resisted upon making a sexual advance and then persisted. They were to describe how they felt about the initial resistance and then describe their feelings about the reaction to their next request. The second instance was required to be a situation in which they were denied as well, in order to facilitate connections between the data. Their description was to be given in story format. Some additional questions were asked in order to clarify the data.
Notes were taken about each story and then analyzed in accordance with Jennifer Bevan's original study. Each story was interpreted in terms of violation valence, violation expectedness and violation importance. The original instance of resistance was interpreted first and then the second attempt was analyzed.

DATA
In terms of violation expectedness, first episodes of resistance were described as at least somewhat unexpected, and in three of the cases they were described as "very unexpected". For the second (or more) instance(s) of resistance, three of the five cases were reported as being less expected than the first. The other two, while still unexpected, were more expected than the first time. In the cross-sex friendships, resistance was described as "somewhat expected" in two of three cases for the initial instance, and "less expected" in two of three cases for the second instance. In dating relationships, the first resistance was described as unexpected in both cases. As for the second (or more) instance(s), they were described as more expected in one case and less expected in the other.
In terms of violation valence, four of five cases were described as negative the first time, and three of those four reported that the following instances were more negative. Specifically speaking of cross-sex friendships, all of the initial instances were described as negative and the following instances were described as being more negative than the first. In dating relationships, the first instance was described as positive by one respondent and negative by the other. In both cases, however, the degree to which they were seen as positive or negative decreased with each subsequent instance.
In terms of violation importance, all but one respondent described the original resistance as being substantially important to the relationship. Three of five respondents described the following instances as being more important than the first. In cross-sex friendships, two of three respondents described the resistance as being substantially important, while one said it was not very important. Nevertheless, in all three cases the later instances were seen as being more important than the first. For dating relationships, the first instances were seen as more important to the relationship and the second (or more) instances were seen as less important.
Many respondents said that the resistance caused an "awkward" feeling in the relationship. In one of the situations described, the cross-sex friendship ended, while in the others it continued, but became slightly more distant.
One interesting phenomenon was that in the case of dating relationships, both subjects reported multiple attempts, rather than just two as was reported in all three friendship scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS
Hypothesis One
Hypothesis 1 predicted that if sexual advances persist in the face of resistance, the resistance would be seen as a) less expected, b) more negative and c) more important than the first instance.
The analyzed and coded narratives indicated that indeed in the majority of cases, the second instance was more of an expectancy violation than the first. The data also shows that in the majority (three of five) cases, the second instances were described as being more negative than the first. Finally, the same results were found for violation importance. Three of five respondents described the second instances as being more relationally important than the first instance. This data is consistent with all parts of H1.

Hypothesis Two
Hypothesis 2 predicted that in the friendship scenario the resistance (second instance) would be seen as a) more expected, b) less negative and c) less important overall than in the dating scenario.
As stated in the previous paragraph, respondents who reported persistent resistance in dating relationships qualified the resistance as being unexpected more often than did the respondents resisted in cross-sex friendships. In terms of violation valence, however, all instances that occurred in cross-sex friendships were described as being more negative, whereas only one instance in a dating relationship was, and the following instance was less negative than the first. Finally, in dating relationships the second instances were all (three of three) seen as more important than the first, whereas in dating relationships, both were seen as less important than the first. This data is consistent with all parts of H2.

DISCUSSION
Taking into account the findings of this study, it is clear that both members in a cross-sex friendship need to make their expectations about sexual behavior very clear, otherwise, the results could be devastating to the friendship. One partner could end up thinking their feelings are mutual, only to find out (at the worst possible time), they are mistaken. This does not mean that dating relationships are free from danger. If boundaries are not set and expectations are not discussed, multiple instances of rejection may alienate one member of the relationship and cause an irreversible rift between relationship partners. However, as evidenced by one respondent's description, in cases where relationship expectations are set and resistance is explained, the resistance can actually have a positive effect. The respondent in question stated, "I think it made our relationship stronger because we respected each other more than another couple would" (Female, 18, personal interview, May 4, 2005). Here we can see the importance and positive effect that communication of expectations and desires can have on a relationship. This element is the reason why this study is important. If more people understand the possibility for this positive outcome, then they might be able to have much healthier relationships.

LIMITATIONS
One important limitation was the size of the sample group. Far more subjects would be needed in order to make concrete conclusions, but such a large sample size would have been difficult if not impossible due to the nature of the study and the time available. In the future, a much larger group should be sampled and the method should be revised so that it can be conducted in a timelier manner. I do believe that narrative criticism is a good method for this study because it enables the respondent to be much more specific about their emotions. The problem lies in its time consuming nature.
Another limitation is that the pool of possible respondents is narrowed by the nature of the study. Because only people who have had sufficient sexual experience and have experience recurring resistance qualified, the number of available subjects was greatly limited. Another factor that contributed to this problem was that I had limited access to subjects. Due to time constraints, I was only able to pull from a small section of the population, in fact, only residents of one hall on the campus. In future studies, a wider area should be surveyed to ensure a representative sample.
One very interesting limitation is that some potential respondents stated that they had never experienced sexual resistance of any kind. While unlikely, a surprising number of people responded in this manner, thus disqualifying them from the study.

References
Bevan, J. L. (2003). Expectancy Violation Theory and Sexual Resistance in Close, Cross-Sex Relationships. Communication Monographs, 70(1), 68.

de Graaf, H., & Sandfort, G. (2004). Gender Differences in Affective Responses to Sexual Rejection. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33(4), 395.

Foss, S. (1989). Rhetorical criticism: exploration & practice. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Knapp, M., & Vangelisti, A. (2004). Interpersonal communication and human relationships. 5th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Muehlenhard, C. L., & Rodgers, S. (1998). Tokean Resistance to Sex. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22(3), 443.

Solomon, D. H., & Knobloch, K. (2004). A model of relational turbulence: The role of intimacy, relational uncertainty, and interference from partners in appraisals of irritations. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 21(6), 795.

Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Siebenbruner, J., & Collins, W. A. (2004). A Prospective Study of Intraindividial and Peer Influences on Adolescents' Heterosexual Romantic and Sexual Behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33(4), 381.