Women's "Token Resistant" and Compliant Sexual Behaviors are Related to Uncertain Sexual Intentions and Rape

Abstract

Muehienhard and Hollabaugh reported that 39% of college women engaged in "token resistance" (said "no" but wanted to have sex). Many of these women's reasons for their behavior explained a sexual refusal but not token resistance. The authors hypothesize that many token resistant women honestly refused but later decided to have sex. Evidence indicates that token resistant behavior occurs on or after the 11th date, whereas resistant behavior (said "no" and meant no) occurs earlier. In addition, 83% of token resistant women had more than one sexual intention during the token resistant episode. They said they resisted or were uncertain before they said "no" and neant yes. The authors conclude that most token resistant behavior is a change of intention that is poorly recalled because of memory consolidation. Women 's compliant sexual behavior (agreeing to unwanted sex) occurs for relationship maintenance reasons. Both behaviors are related to women's histories of rape.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Burt, M. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217-230.

Higgins, E. T. , & Rholes, W. S. (1978). "Saying is believing": Effects of message modification on memory and liking for the person described. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 363-378.

Higgins, E. T. , Rholes, W. S. , & Jones, C. R (1977). Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 141-154.

Hunter, B. A. , & Shotland, R. L. (1994). "Token resistance" and compliance to sexual intercourse: Similarities and differences in men's and women's behavior. Unpublished manuscript, Pennsylvania State University at University Park.

Jarvis, K. (1986). Pennsylvania crime code and criminal law. Philadelphia: George T. Bisel.

Knox, D. , & Wilson, K. (1981). Dating behaviors of university students. Family Relations, 30, 255-258.

Koss, M. , Leonard, K. , Beezley, D. , & Oros, C. (1985). Nonstranger sexual aggression: A discriminant analysis of the psychological characteristics of undetected offenders. Sex Roles, 12, 981-992.

Koss, M. P. , & Oros, C. J. (1982). The Sexual Experience Survey: A research instrument investigating sexual aggression and sexual victimization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 455-457.

Muehlenhard, C. L. , & Hollabaugh, L. C. (1988). Do women sometimes say no when they mean yes? The prevalence and correlates of women's token resistance to sex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 872-879.

10.

Muehlenhard, C. L. , & Linton, M. A. (1987). Date rape and sexual aggression dating situations: Incidence and risk factors. Journal of Counselng Psychology, 34, 186-196.

11.

Muehlenhard, C. L. , & McCoy, M. L. (1991). Double standard/double bind: The sexual double standard and women's communication about sex. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 447-461.

12.

Shotland, R. L. (1989) . A model of the causes of date rape in developing and close relationships. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Close relationships (pp. 247-270). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

13.

Shotland, R. L. (1992). A theory of the causes of courtship rape: Part 2. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 127-143.

14.

Shotland, R. L. , & Goodstein, L. (1983). Just because she doesn't want to doesn't mean its rape: An experimentally based causal model of the perception of rape in a dating situation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 220-232.

15.

Shodland, R. L. , & Goodstein, L. (1992). Sexual precedence reduces the perceived legitimacy of sexual refusal: An examination of attributions concerning date rape and consensual sex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 756-764.

16.

Sinclair, R. C. , Mark, M. M. , & Shotland, R. L. (1987). Construct accessibility and generalizability across response categories. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 239-252.