The Role of Male Sexual Arousal in Rape: Six Models

628 HOWARD E. BARBAREE AND WILLIAM L. MARSHALL
Stimulus: Emotional
State
Sexual Stimulus
Rape Stimulus
Sexual Stimulus
Rape Stimulus
Sexual Stimulus
N
E
R
L
v
E
H
E
t
Arousal
(+)
_ (0)
or
(-)
(+)(+3
_ (-)(-)
Rape Stimulus .~_ (+)
Figure4. The emotional state augmentation process is illustrated. (In
the upper panel, no augmentation is present. In the middle panel, the
arousal to sexual cues is augmented by positive emotional responses
toward the partner. In the lower panel, the arousal to rape cues is
augmented by negative emotional responses toward the partner.)
possibility that rape arousal is modulated by the emotional
state of the subject, or by the nature of the emotional response
he directs toward the imagined victim of the rape.
Discussion
Abel et al. (1977) presented data and an interpretation of data
that encouraged a sexual preference explanation of sexual as-
sault and a sexual preference view of rape arousal among rap-
ists. Following from this article and view, numerous authors
have espoused the sexual preference hypothesis as it pertains to
rape and violent sexual assault (e.g., Quinsey et al., 1984). This
view would argue that proclivity to rape would be proportional
to the strength of sexual arousal to rape cues. However, several
research articles have reported comparisons of sexual arousal
to rape cues between rapists and nonrapists in which the differ-
ences between these groups are either nonsignificant in a statis-
tical sense (Murphy et al., 1984) or unimportant in a clinical
sense (Baxter et al., 1986).
Commentary in the literature on these discrepant findings
seems, on the whole, to be predicated on the notion that what is
true for one rapist must be true for all others. For example,
when the sexual preference hypothesis has been posited and
supported by research findings, it has been discussed as if it
pertains to all, or at least most, sexual aggressors (Abel et al.,
1977; Quinsey, Chaplin, & Upfold, 1984). When findings have
been explained in terms of a lack ofdisinhibition among rapists
(Barbaree et al., 1979), the explanation has been applied to all
rapists. When authors have been critical of the notion that rape
cues have excitatory control over rapists' arousal (Blader &
Marshall, 1989), the criticism has seemed to apply to the use of
the model for all rapists.
The application of a single model of arousal to rapists belies
the data each research group has presented. Examination of
individual case data will show a heterogeneity of pattern of
response. Even so, a single pattern of response is often pre-
sented as being typical of the rapist. For example, even if
groups of rapists, on average, show patterns of response that are
not different from nonrapists (i.e., that rape cues act to inhibit
responding), it is clear that at least some individual rapists show
patterns of response indicating that rape cues have excitatory
properties for them (Abel, Blanchard, Baflow, & Mavissaka-
lian, 1975; Barbaree, 1990), or they show a preferential rape
pattern (Freund et al., 1986).
Even in studies of sexual preferences among child molesters,
where the group studies indicate large differences between
child molesters and normal subjects and where child molesters
as a group show clear evidence of a sexual preference for chil-
dren (Freund, 1981; Marshall, Barbaree, & Christophe, 1986;
Quinsey, Steinman, Bergersen, & Holmes, 1975), the pattern of
responding has been shown to be extremely heterogenous, with
no less than five different patterns of response identified (Bar-
baree & Marshall, 1989).
Knight, Rosenberg, and Schneider (1985) have pointed to the
extreme heterogeneity among sexual offenders measuring dif-
ferences along many different dimensions, including sexual
arousal. They go on to argue for the necessity of constructing
typologies to describe the heterogeneity that has been ob-
served. Knight and Prentky (1990) have presented a typology of
rapists that contains no fewer than nine separate subtypes, and
the typology has been shown to be reliable and to have empiri-
cal validity. The possibility exists, and begs investigation, as to
the relation between patterns of response to rape cues and classi-
fication in the various rapist subtypes. For example, we might
predict that the sadistic rapists would show evidence of rape
cues being excitatory, in comparison with the nonsadistic sub-
type rapists, who may show no such evidence. Perhaps the
model of disinhibition of rape arousal would account for the
sequence of events leading up to the opportunistic rapist's as-
saults. For the subtypes of rapists whose motivation involves
anger and hostility, we might predict that anger would disinhi-
bit arousal to the rape cues in the vindictive rapists, and it may
serve to enhance or accelerate arousal in the pervasively angry
subtypes.