Moving Toward a New Model of Sexual Consent: The Development of the Process-Based Consent Scale

Abstract

Measuring attitudes and behaviors associated with sexual consent is crucial to research addressing sexual violence, as lack of consent is a defining feature thereof. This research developed and validated the Process-Based Consent Scale to address concerns associated with missing components of existing consent scales. The factor structure was supported by an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and subsequent confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The scale contains three subscales: ongoing consent, communicative sexuality, and subtle coercion. Results indicated good convergent and concurrent validity. Future research should consider using this tool to measure attitudes and behaviors related to sexual consent and coercion.

Keywords

sexual consent process-based consent consent measurement

Sexual consent is a topic which has recently received much attention in research, policy, and public awareness. Despite this, there is a great amount of variability in the way that sexual consent as a construct is defined (Beres, 2007; Muehlenhard et al., 2016). Within the literature, consent has been operationalized in varying ways, detailed in the following paragraph. This inconsistency has posed a barrier to research synthesis in this area. The research literature would benefit from a consistent definition of sexual consent, as well as associated measurement tools. This study defines sexual consent as a process wherein sexual behavior is established by mutual concern for a partner’s willingness to engage in sexual activity.

Broadly speaking, sexual consent refers to a voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity (Beres, 2007). However, operational definitions of sexual consent vary regarding whether they refer to an internal willingness to engage in sexual behavior, the external communication of this willingness, or the interpretation of such communication made by one’s sexual partner(s) (Beres, 2007; Muehlenhard et al., 2016). While it is possible that these are all facets of sexual consent, this creates a problem for the definition of nonconsensual sexual contact. Which of these constructs must be violated for sexual contact to be considered nonconsensual? Furthermore, it often remains unclear whether studies measuring consent assess whether one understands what consent is, in general and in terms of specific communications of consent (i.e., comprehension), or whether one perceives sexual consent as a necessary component of sexual activity (i.e., endorsement; see Warren et al., 2015). Finally, a clear disconnect exists between the way consent is defined in policy and research and the way that individuals understand consent in their day-to-day lives (Beres, 2014). Qualitative research on this topic has indicated that definitions of affirmative consent (i.e., “yes means yes” policies) often fail to resonate with the ways in which individuals engage in sexual behavior (Beres, 2014).

Measuring and understanding sexual consent attitudes and behaviors is essential in several ways. First, estimates suggest that one in five U.S. women experience rape in their lifetime (Breiding et al., 2014). This type of trauma is associated with negative mental and physical health outcomes (García-Moreno et al., 2013). Second, the defining feature of sexual violence is lack of consent. When consent from all parties is not present, sexual behaviors that might otherwise be part of a healthy sexual relationship can become sexual violence. As a result, sexual consent is sometimes conceptualized as having the power of moral transformation, changing a criminal act to a noncriminal behavior (Beres, 2007). Thus, the ability to measure one’s attitudes toward consent is essential in addressing this problem. Third, while a range of factors have been shown to predict sexually aggressive behavior (Tharp et al., 2013), attitudes and behaviors regarding sexual consent are crucial among them. What follows is a review of the literature and discussion of the context surrounding this issue.

Literature Review

Research, policy, and intervention approaches to sexual consent have been influenced by Tannen’s (1990) miscommunication theory of gender and sexual consent (for a review see Beres et al., 2014; Kitzinger & Frith, 1999; O’Byrne et al., 2006). This model suggests that sexual violence occurs due to gender differences in consent communication (Kitzinger & Frith, 1999; O’Byrne et al., 2006). These differences lead men to fail to understand women’s lack of consent, committing sexual violence in the process (Kitzinger & Frith, 1999). Although this model has found some support in the literature, the majority of research has found no evidence that consent miscommunication is responsible for sexual violence. Warren and colleagues (2015) found that poorer understanding of sexual consent predicted greater intentions to engage in sexual aggression. However, this research did not ask whether sexually violent behaviors were consensual; it instead asked whether they were acceptable (Warren et al., 2015). As such, the results may suggest that it is not misunderstanding consent which leads to violence, but rather that believing that nonconsensual sex is acceptable that is associated with sexual aggression.

This complication reveals a further problem with the miscommunication model. Research indicates that even those who profess to misunderstand consent communications are capable of understanding social refusals in other contexts (O’Byrne et al., 2006, 2008). In qualitative research with young men, O’Byrne and colleagues (2006, 2008) found that these young men were capable of understanding socially normative indirect refusals, such as deflecting and making excuses without explicitly saying “no,” when it came to their own communication of sexual nonconsent. However, in cases where they were asked to interpret a woman’s claims of nonconsent, anything less than an explicit and forceful “no” was considered ambiguously consensual (O’Byrne et al., 2006, 2008). Such research suggests that individuals interpreting an ambiguously consensual or nonconsensual sexual scenario may claim miscommunication about consent to justify the encounter, avoid thinking of it as violence, and avoid holding the perpetrator accountable. A subsequent study by Beres and colleagues (2014) further supported the conclusion that miscommunications are not responsible for sexual violence. Researchers asked heterosexual adults about sexual situations with a desire mismatch (i.e., one partner desired sex when the other desired sex less or not at all), and found no evidence that miscommunication led to sexual violence in these situations (Beres et al., 2014).

This is consistent with previous research which suggests that the way consent is defined often does not resonate with individuals engaging in sexual behavior (Beres, 2014). Individuals frequently feel that consent does not apply to their own relationships (Beres, 2014). This may be due to consent’s association with sexual violence, and understandable unwillingness to think of oneself or one’s partner as a person capable of committing a sexual offense. Gender scripts are also influential; many sexual encounters entail performing gendered sexual roles which do not facilitate honest consent communication (Bay-Cheng & Eliseo-Arras, 2008; Powell, 2008).

Research suggests that many individuals view consent as a process (Beres, 2014; Gray, 2015). However, some individuals may alternatively report understanding sexual consent as a sort of gatekeeping event. Individuals may report that after a certain amount of intimacy, consent to sex was assumed from that point onward (Fantasia, 2011; Lofgreen et al., 2021). Research and policy may have both inadvertently perpetuated this way of thinking. For example, it is possible that affirmative consent policies which stress “yes means yes” may inadvertently communicate that once “yes” is said, consent is irrevocable (Jozkowski, 2015). Furthermore, existing sexual consent scales ask about one’s feelings about asking for consent before sex, but relatively neglect any ongoing consent process (Humphreys & Brousseau, 2010).

The idea of consent as a process is also critical from an ethical standpoint for a number of reasons. First, research suggests that individuals often experience unwanted sexual intercourse after consenting to less-intimate sexual activities (Fantasia, 2011). Furthermore, a common type of rape, date rape, occurs after the survivor has consented to a date, but not all types of sexual activity, with the perpetrator (Muehlenhard et al., 2017). In both cases, the survivor’s consent and bodily autonomy were violated. These examples illustrate the importance of defining consent as a process; it would be a mistake to conceptualize such encounters as consensual because a “yes” was given at some point earlier in the process. Research also indicates that consent is a process inherently embedded in a relationship, and removing the context also removes a comprehensive understanding of consent (Muehlenhard et al., 2016). A crucial element of freely given sexual consent is that it can be revoked at any time (Muehlenhard et al., 2016). Anything less represents a violation of bodily autonomy. Furthermore, the idea that once sex has begun, consent cannot reasonably be revoked is a rape myth which is used to harm survivors of sexual violence (Muehlenhard et al., 2016). Based on this, to conduct research that aims to prevent sexual violence and support survivors, it is essential to define sexual consent as an ongoing process.

Existing Consent Scales

A number of scales exist that measure sexual consent, but these scales leave a number of gaps which warrant further measure development. Existing scales include the Sexual Consent Scale—Revised (SCS-R; Humphreys & Brousseau, 2010), the Consent to Sex Scale (CSS; Jozkowski & Peterson, 2014), the Internal Consent Scale (ICS), and the External Consent Scale (ECS) (Jozkowski et al., 2014).

SCS-R

The SCS-R measures attitudes and behaviors related to sexual consent, using a framework based on the theory of planned behavior (Humphreys & Brousseau, 2010). The use of this theoretical lens represents a strength of this widely used scale. However, this scale relies on a conceptualization of sexual consent as a discrete transaction, rather than an ongoing negotiation process. Items from the SCS-R which exemplify this concern include “I feel that sexual consent should always be obtained before the start of any sexual activity” and “I would worry that if other people knew I asked for sexual consent before starting sexual activity, that they would think I was weird or strange” (Humphreys & Brousseau, 2010, p. 425). While one item on the scale does address the nature of consent as a process (i.e., “I believe it is enough to ask for consent at the beginning of a sexual encounter”), this item is framed as a social norm instead of part of one’s own attitude about consent (Humphreys & Brousseau, 2010). These concerns suggest that further measurement development is needed to measure attitudes and behaviors around process-based sexual consent.

ICS, ECS, and CSS

Jozkowski and colleagues (2014) developed scales to measure various methods of communication of sexual consent. While these scales are useful for their intended purpose, they include only measures of participant willingness to engage in sex, and how they would communicate it (Jozkowski et al., 2014; Jozkowski & Peterson, 2014). Further assessment is needed to measure participant attitudes toward consent, and participant respect for partners’ consent.

Further Measure Development

Based on limitations of the aforementioned research literature, this study proposes the previously mentioned alternative means of conceptualizing sexual consent. More specifically, sexual consent is defined as an ongoing process that occurs when individuals engage in sexual behavior characterized by mutual concern for the other’s continuing willingness to engage in the behavior. This represents a departure from many previous definitions in two key ways. First, it explicitly defines consent as an ongoing process, as opposed to previous models of consent. While some past affirmative consent definitions have included the stipulation that consent is ongoing (Muehlenhard et al., 2016), this stipulation is inconsistently applied, and is under-addressed in existing measurement tools and research. Second, this study’s definition explicitly states a focus on consent endorsement as opposed to consent comprehension. The distinction between these two constructs has been exceptionally blurry in past research (Jozkowski, 2015). However, the implications of such a distinction for future research and applied avenues are substantial (Jozkowski, 2015). As such, an explicit boundary between comprehension and endorsement is included in this study.

This Research

Two studies were undertaken to develop and validate the Process-Based Consent Scale (PBCS). The first study aimed for item reduction and to explore the factor structure of the developed scale. The second study was designed to confirm the factor structure, and to establish convergent validity. More details about both studies are provided below.

Study 1

Sample

Participants for the first study were recruited via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk). No gender or other demographic restrictions were placed on participants, other than that participants were required to be above the age of 18 years and must have reported that they were comfortable viewing sexuality-related content on the website. The latter requirement is based on MTurk policy, which requires a specific process for content that is sexual in nature. A total of 238 participants provided responses during the first study. This survey included a conservative reading check in which participants were asked to leave an item blank. The item was unable to be unchecked once selected. This test was done to compensate for high rates of inattentive responding found on MTurk (Fleischer et al., 2015). Of the original sample, 199 answered the included reading check correctly. List-wise deletion was used for missing data, as it is likely that much of the missingness was associated with inattentive responding. Participants were compensated US$0.50 each for their participation in this research. Combined with Study 2, a total of approximately 500 participants were included, based on the number of items from the original item pool (i.e., approximately 50 items). Fewer participants participated in the first study because it served as initial development for the second study.

The final sample was composed of predominantly male (52.1%) and White (79.2%) participants. In addition, 10.4% of the sample reported Hispanic, Latinx, or Spanish ethnicity. The majority of the sample was married (36.1%) or single without ever having been married (32.6%). Furthermore, the sample was highly educated, with 41.7% indicating that they hold a bachelor’s degree. The sample was also majority heterosexual, with 86.1% of the sample reporting being straight. The sample was fairly evenly split with regard to income: 39.6% of the sample made less than US$35,000 annually; 32.7% reported US$35,000–US$74,999 annually; and 23.6% reported an annual income of US$75,000–US$150,000. Very few participants (2.1%) made more than US$150,000 annually. Finally, the majority of participants were aged 25–34 years (38.9%) or aged 35–44 years (25.7%). On average, participants took 11.4 min (685 s) to complete this survey. However, it should be noted that this value was skewed by several participants who completed the survey but neglected to click “submit,” meaning their responses were recorded some time later. The median response time was 381 s. More detail regarding participant demographics for Study 1 is available in Table 1.

Table 1.

Participant Demographics for Studies 1 and 2.

	Study 1		Study 2
Demographic Information	Percent	N	Percent	N
Gender
Man	52.1	75	56.6	116
Woman	46.5	67	42.9	88
Other	1.4	2	0.5	1
Race
White	79.2	114	65.4	134
Black	8.3	12	7.8	16
Asian	8.3	12	20.5	42
Multiracial	2.8	4	3.4	7
Other	1.4	2	3.0	6
Ethnicity
Hispanic/Latinx	10.4	15	5.9	12
Not Hispanic/Latinx	87.5	126	92.7	190
Unsure/declined	2.1	3	1.5	3
Marital status
Married	36.15	52	48.3	99
Single	32.6	47	26.8	55
Partnered	22.2	32	15.1	31
Divorced	6.3	9	7.8	16
Other	2.8	4	1.0	2
Education
Bachelor’s	41.7	60	40.0	82
Some College	20.8	30	21.0	43
Master’s	11.8	17	13.2	27
Associate’s	11.1	16	10.2	21
HS diploma/GED	8.3	12	7.8	16
Trade school	2.8	4	1.5	3
Other	3.5	5	6.3	13
Income
US<$25,000	20.8	30	22.4	46
US$25,000–US$34,999	18.8	27	14.6	30
US$35,000–US$49,999	14.6	21	16.6	34
US$50,000–US$74,999	18.1	26	20.55	42
US$75,000–US$99,999	14.6	21	12.2	25
US$100,000–US$149,999	9.0	13	7.8	16
Other	4.2	6	5.9	12
Age^a
18–24 (18–27)	11.8	17	17.1	35
25–34 (28–37)	38.9	56	39.0	80
35–44 (38–47)	25.7	37	21.0	43
45–54 (48–57)	12.5	18	12.2	25
55–64 (58–67)	8.3	12	6.3	13
≥65 (≥ 68)	2.8	4	0.5	1
Declined	0	0	3.9	8
Sexual orientation
Straight	86.1	124	80.0	164
Bisexual	4.9	7	13.7	28
Gay/Lesbian	4.9	7	2.9	6
Other	4.2	6	3.4	7

Age ranges were slightly different in the second study, represented in parentheses. HS = high school; GED = general education diploma.

Measures

The measures included in this study consisted of demographics and a pool of proposed items for the PBCS. The original pool of items included 52 statements about which participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement. Appendix A contains the full pool of items. Items were rated using a 7-point Likert-type scale. Options ranged from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Twelve items in this pool were intended to be reverse coded.

Item development

Items for the pool were developed by the first and second authors based on both a thorough review of the existing consent literature and the proposed model of process-based consent. Six categories were used to develop a comprehensive pool of items. These categories included verbal sexual communication, nonverbal sexual consent communication, sexual coercion, the idea of sexual consent as a process, respect for one’s sexual partner, and feelings of safety in a sexual relationship with one’s current partner. These categories were used to ensure that a wide range of topics would be included in the item pool. The following sections provide a more in-depth description of the six categories included.

Verbal sexual communication

Verbal sexual communication included items about the way in which one communicates their sexual needs and desires to their partner, and the extent to which they value those communications. These items were included because research has shown that consent can be communicated both verbally and nonverbally (Jozkowski et al., 2014). Research supports the idea that both verbal and nonverbal communications regarding sexual consent are generally understood (Beres et al., 2014; O’Byrne et al., 2006, 2008). However, they may have differing implications for survivors of sexual violence (Cook & Messman-Moore, 2018). A sample item from this category is “It is important to me to talk about my sexual needs and desires with my partner often.”

Nonverbal sexual communication

Nonverbal sexual communication included items which measured whether or not one responds to the indirect, behavioral, or nonverbal consent communications of one’s sexual partner. Notably, this category did not measure one’s own use of nonverbal consent communication, but rather, one’s tendency to attend to the nonverbal consent communication of one’s sexual partner. This was included to more accurately measure attitudes and behaviors around situations where individuals might claim that a partner’s consent communication was “ambiguous.” A participant’s own nonverbal consent communication is less relevant to this construct. Because research indicates that consent communication is often nonverbal (Muehlenhard et al., 2016) and that individuals generally have the capacity to understand nonverbal consent refusals (Beres et al., 2014; O’Byrne et al., 2006, 2008), willingness to attend to one’s partner’s nonverbal consent communications is a crucial aspect of consent. A sample item from this category is “If I am unclear about my partner’s body language I make sure to verbally check in with them to be sure that they want to have sex.”

Sexual coercion

Items in the sexual coercion category were intended to measure one’s propensity to engage in sexually coercive behavior, and one’s attitudes about sexual coercion. Because this area, in particular, is highly impacted by social desirability, items were designed to be subtle. These attitudes may reflect social norms which act to produce sexually coercive situations (Bay-Cheng & Eliseo-Arras, 2008). A sample item from this category is “When my partner says that they do not want to be a part of sexual activity, I try to change their mind.”

Sexual consent as a process

Items in this category were developed to measure the extent to which one believes and acts as though sexual consent is an ongoing process as opposed to a one-time event. This was done to reflect the theoretical conceptualization of consent used in these studies. An example of an item from this category is “If I’m having sex with a partner who I’ve had sex with before, I still make sure to check in about their sexual needs and desires.”

Respect for partner

The respect for partner category included items that indicated that one’s attitudes and behaviors reflect the belief that one’s sexual partner is an autonomous human being with value outside of sexual contexts. This was included due to the theory of rape and sexual violence which suggests that offenders dehumanize the people that they offend against (Rudman & Mescher, 2012). A sample item from this category is “I value my sexual partners as people outside of sexual contexts.”

Feelings of safety

This category included items measuring the perception that one could refuse sexual activity with one’s partner without anticipating negative or coercive reactions. This was included because past research has suggested that some young adults may fear refusing sexual activity due to their partners’ reaction (Fantasia, 2011). An example of an item from this category is “When I have said ‘no’ to sex in the past, my partners have reacted with anger” [R].

Results

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)

An EFA was conducted in Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) to examine the factor structure of the draft scale. An oblimin rotation was attempted, but failed to converge, likely due to factor collapse (Browne, 2001). This occurs when the correlations between factors approach one (Browne, 2001). The oblimin rotation was attempted again with increased iteration, but still failed to converge. Orthogonal varimax rotation was used instead. This offers additional advantages in that it allows for the creation of distinct subscales. Both Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO = 0.84) and Bartlett’s test, χ²(1,326) = 4,928, p < .001, indicated good factorability. Communalities ranged from 0.45 to 0.84. Inclusion criteria for individual items included a main factor loading with an absolute value of at least 0.45 and no cross loadings with an absolute value above 0.35. In addition, items that were highly skewed (i.e.,|skew| > 2) were removed from the data set. This was done using an iterative process. Although it is possible that many of the facets of consent are highly related to each other, this was done to create distinct subscales. After removing cross-loaded and highly skewed items, 18 items remained. The EFA supported three theoretically distinct factors, explaining 58.67% of the total variance. The scree plot supported a three-factor solution. In addition, Velicer’s Minimum Average Partial Test (Velicer et al., 2000) was conducted, and both the original (1976) and revised (2000) versions supported a three-factor structure. Standardized main factor loadings ranged from 0.48 to 0.92, as shown in Table 2. All three subscales were highly reliable as assessed by Cronbach’s alpha. The ongoing consent subscale had an alpha of .86, and the subtle coercion subscale had an alpha of .88. The communicative sexuality subscale had an alpha of .82.

Table 2.

Study 1 Exploratory Factor Analysis Item Loadings.

Item	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3
Ongoing consent
If my partner seems less than excited about sex, I will stop and ask if they want to be sexual with me.	0.922	−0.051	0.135
If my partner is not expressing physical affection toward me during sex, I check in with them to make sure they want to have sex, even if they verbally agreed to sex.	0.829	−0.064	0.183
If I am unclear about my partner’s body language I make sure to verbally check in with them to be sure that they want to have sex.	0.627	−0.347	0.278
I pay attention to my partner’s body language during sexual encounters to be sure that they want to have sex.	0.559	−0.250	0.305
If I’m having sex with a partner who I’ve had sex with before, I still make sure to check in about their sexual needs and desires.	0.499	−0.166	0.278
Subtle coercion
I would tell a partner that if they cared about me they would have sex with me.	−0.156	0.746	−0.110
When my partner says that they do not want to be a part of sexual activity, I try to change their mind.	−0.124	0.738	−0.135
Sometimes, people need a little verbal convincing to have sex.	−0.106	0.724	−0.115
I think that if you care about someone you should have sex with them even if you are not in the mood.	−0.109	0.705	−0.141
I think my partner should feel guilty if they do not want to have sex with me.	−0.170	0.672	−0.121
I am easily upset if I feel that my partner is not taking care of my sexual needs.	−0.029	0.655	−0.059
Communicative sexuality
I verbally tell my partner what I want sexually.	0.141	0.034	0.769
I ask my partner what they want sexually.	0.179	−0.014	0.711
It is important to me to talk about my sexual needs and desires with my partner often.	0.301	0.017	0.588
I know that it will not hurt my relationship with my sexual partner if I say no to sex when I don’t want to have it.	0.090	−0.262	0.573
I know that if I say no to sexual behavior, my partner will not be angry with me.^a	0.080	−0.200	0.569
I value ongoing conversations about my and my partner’s sexual desires.	0.247	−0.200	0.538
During a sexual activity, it is important to me that my partner knows what I am comfortable with.	0.168	−0.213	0.479

Note. Primary factor loadings are shown in bold.

This item was dropped in Study 2, as it degraded scale reliability.

Factor Interpretation

The three implicated factors were labeled and interpreted. One was labeled ongoing consent, measuring the extent to which a participant values process-based consent. An example item is “If my partner seems less than excited about sex, I will stop and ask if they want to be sexual with me.” Many of the items on this subscale explicitly suggest or imply verbal consent communication on the part of the participant, which might be used differently than nonverbal consent communication (Adams-Curtis & Forbes, 2004). However, it would be inaccurate to call this subscale a measure of purely verbal consent communication, as many of the items also measure an individual’s interpretation of nonverbal consent communication.

The second factor was titled subtle coercion and measures the extent to which a participant expresses attitudes and reports behaviors in support of verbally pressuring a sexual partner to convince them to engage in sexual activity. An example item is “When my partner says that they do not want to be a part of sexual activity, I try to change their mind.” Some of these items might be interpreted such that the reader is the object rather than the subject of the coercive attitude (e.g., “I think that if you care about someone you should have sex with them even if you are not in the mood”). Items that could be understood in reverse in such a manner were retained for two reasons. First, these items related strongly to the other items in the subscale and did not degrade subscale reliability. Second, the broad wording of these items could act to reduce the impact of social desirability on responding.

The third factor was titled communicative sexuality, measuring a participant’s comfort with explicit communication during and about sex. A sample item is “It is important to me to talk about my sexual needs and desires with my partner often.” While many of these items measure a participant’s global comfort with communication about sex, a number measure a participant’s confidence that their partner will respect their nonconsent should they choose to refuse sex (i.e., “I know that if I say no to sexual behavior, my partner will not be angry with me.”). These items may have loaded onto the same factor as the more global items for several reasons. Individuals might feel more secure that their nonconsent communication will be respected when they are confident in their ability to communicate sexual boundaries. Conversely, it is possible that individuals who are currently in relationships where they perceive that their nonconsent is respected feel more comfortable communicating about their sexual boundaries.

Discussion

The results of the EFA 1 indicate three subscales of the PBCS, including ongoing consent, subtle coercion, and communicative sexuality. This result warranted further research to confirm the factor structure and test the validity of this scale. Based on this, Study 2 was conducted to confirm the factor structure suggested by Study 1, and to examine the convergent and concurrent validity of the scale, as well as item-demographic correlations.

Study 2

Sample

The recruitment procedure for the second study replicated the first. Participants above the age of 18 years were recruited from MTurk. A total of 328 participants provided answers during the second study. Of these, 205 passed the included attention check. The sample was once again majority male (56.6%) and majority White (65.4%). In addition, 5.9% of the sample reported Hispanic, Latinx, or Spanish ethnicity. The sample was again highly educated, with the most common education level reported as a bachelor’s degree (40%). Participant income was again split between mid- to low-income ranges, with 22.4% of the sample reporting an income of less than US$25,000 annually, and 20.5% of the sample reporting an annual income between US$50,000 and US$74,999. The most common age category was 28–37 years of age (39%), and most participants were married (48.3%). This sample was also majority (80%) heterosexual. On average, participants took 14.1 min (846 s) to complete this survey. However, it should be noted that this value was skewed by several participants who completed the survey but neglected to click “submit,” meaning their responses were recorded some time later. The median response time was 607 s. A more detailed breakdown of participant demographics is available in Table 1. Participants were compensated US$0.50 each for their participation.

Measures

The measures included in this study included demographic items, the proposed PBCS, the SCS-R (Humphreys & Brousseau, 2010), and the Explicit Power-Sex Beliefs Scale (EPSBS; Chapleau & Oswald, 2010). More detail regarding the measures is provided below.

PBCS

The PBCS is based on the results of the first study. The scale included 18 items, and an embedded attentional check, which participants rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” The subscales included ongoing consent and subtle coercion. Cronbach’s alpha for each subscale indicated that the reliability for each subscale was good (ongoing consent α = .86, subtle coercion α = .89, and communicative sexuality α = .84). One item was dropped from the communicative sexuality subscale as it degraded scale reliability, leaving a total of 17 items. Each subscale was coded such that a score of 7 indicated strong agreement and 1 indicated strong disagreement. Because of this, higher values represent higher agreement with the implicated attitude in validity analyses.

SCS-R

SCS-R (Humphreys & Brousseau, 2010) has been the most commonly used measure of sexual consent–related attitudes and norms in the recent literature. It asks participants to rate a number of statements on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. It includes five subscales: measuring (lack of) perceived behavioral control over consent, positive attitude toward establishing consent, indirect behavioral approach to consent, sexual consent norms, and awareness and discussion of sexual consent (Humphreys & Brousseau, 2010). Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for each subscale in this study, indicating adequate to good reliability for each subscale (perceived behavioral control α = .93; positive attitude toward consent α = .93; indirect behavioral approach to consent α = .79; sexual consent norms α = .81; and awareness of sexual consent α = .76). Similar to PBCS, these items were coded such that higher scores indicate higher levels of the latent construct measured by the respective subscale. This scale is a commonly used measure of sexual consent attitudes and behaviors in the current literature, making it an important point of comparison for the scale in development.

EPSBS

Chapleau and Oswald’s (2010) EPSBS measures the extent to which participants explicitly associate sex with power. Higher scores are interpreted to mean the participant sees exchange of power as an inherent part of sexual activity. It is associated with rape proclivity and rape myth acceptance (Chapleau & Oswald, 2010). Participants rate items on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from “not at all agree” to “very much agree,” with higher scores indicating a higher association between power and sex. Cronbach’s alpha calculated in this study indicated high reliability for this scale (α = .96). This scale was used to establish concurrent validity for the scale in development. This scale was selected for concurrent validity analyses mainly due to its established relationship with rape proclivity and rape myth acceptance, which are both associated with sexually aggressive behavior (Chapleau & Oswald, 2010). It was selected as a concise index of attitudes related to support for sexual aggression, to avoid overburdening participants.

Results

CFA

Three CFA models were constructed to analyze the structure of the PBCS. These include a single-factor model, a three-factor model, and a bifactor model. A higher order factor model was attempted but did not converge. All models were assessed based on χ²/df ratio (good < 3), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; good < 0.08), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR; good < 0.08), and comparative fit index (CFI; good > 0.9) statistics. The bifactor model was supported as the best fit for the data. For all CFA models, full information maximum likelihood techniques were used to address missing data and latent factor variances were constrained to one. More detailed results are provided below.

A one-factor CFA was conducted in R using the Lavaan package to test the fit of this factor structure. The χ²/df ratio was large (7.78). The RMSEA failed to meet statistical standards (RMSEA = 0.19), as did the SRMR (SRMR = 0.16) and CFI (CFI = 0.53). These suggest that this model was a poor fit for the data.

A three-factor CFA was conducted in R using the Lavaan package to test the fit of this factor structure. The χ²/df ratio was borderline (3.15), as was the SRMR (SRMR = 0.09) and the CFI (CFI = 0.86). The RMSEA failed to meet statistical standards (RMSEA = 0.11). These suggest that this model was a borderline to poor fit for the data.

A bifactor confirmatory factor analysis was conducted in R using the Lavaan package to test the fit of this factor structure. The χ²/df ratio was good (2.42), as was the SRMR (SRMR = 0.05) and the CFI (CFI = 0.92). The RMSEA was borderline (RMSEA = 0.086). These suggest that this model was a good fit for the data. The standardized loadings suggested by this CFA are shown in Figure 1, and further descriptive statistics are shown in Table 3.

Figure 1.

Confirmatory factor analysis bifactor model with standardized factor loadings.

Table 3.

Study 2 CFA Standardized Item Loadings and Descriptive Statistics.

Item	Loading		M	SD
Ongoing consent	Subscale	Main	5.47	1.15
OC 1. If my partner seems less than excited about sex, I will stop and ask if they want to be sexual with me.	0.627	0.684	5.39	1.50
OC 2. If my partner is not expressing physical affection toward me during sex, I check in with them to make sure they want to have sex, even if they verbally agreed to sex.	0.679	0.679	5.28	1.52
OC 3. If I am unclear about my partner’s body language I make sure to verbally check in with them to be sure that they want to have sex.	0.482	0.830	5.32	1.52
OC 4. I pay attention to my partner’s body language during sexual encounters to be sure that they want to have sex.	0.258	0.838	5.80	1.24
OC 5. If I’m having sex with a partner who I’ve had sex with before, I still make sure to check in about their sexual needs and desires.	0.209	0.855	5.56	1.35
Subtle coercion			3.11	1.41
SC 1. When my partner says that they do not want to be a part of sexual activity, I try to change their mind.	0.759	−0.218	3.33	1.68
SC 2. Sometimes, people need a little verbal convincing to have sex.	0.734	−0.267	3.62	1.79
SC 3. I would tell a partner that if they cared about me they would have sex with me.	0.724	−0.298	2.63	1.75
SC 4. I think that if you care about someone you should have sex with them even if you are not in the mood.	0.548	−0.421	3.31	1.76
SC 5. I think my partner should feel guilty if they do not want to have sex with me.	0.662	−0.248	2.53	1.62
SC 6. I am easily upset if I feel that my partner is not taking care of my sexual needs.	0.605	−0.281	3.17	1.79
Communicative sexuality			5.47	1.03
CS 1. I verbally tell my partner what I want sexually.	0.652	0.534	5.20	1.42
CS 2. I ask my partner what they want sexually.	0.563	0.645	5.58	1.31
CS 3. It is important to me to talk about my sexual needs and. desires with my partner often.	0.874	0.454	5.30	1.42
CS 4. I know that it will not hurt my relationship with my sexual partner if I say no to sex when I don’t want to have it.	0.091	0.558	5.30	1.55
CS 5. I value ongoing conversations about my and my partner’s sexual desires.	0.417	0.639	5.55	1.35
CS 6. During a sexual activity, it is important to me that my partner knows what I am comfortable with.	0.137	0.709	5.87	1.25

Note. OC = ongoing consent; SC = subtle coercion; CS = communicative sexuality.

Convergent validity

Convergent validity was assessed through examining correlations between the Process-Based Consent Subscales and related subscales of the SCS-R. Pairwise deletion was used to address missing data. All correlations for this study are shown in Table 4.

Table 4.

Correlations of Convergent Validity Variables in Study 2 Data Collection.

Variable	1	2	3	4	5
1. Ongoing consent^a	•
2. Subtle coercion^a	−.345 ***	•
3. Communicative sexuality^a	.636	−.230 **	•
4. Perceived consent control^b	−.555 ***	.587***	−.435 ***	•
5. Positive consent attitude^b	.546***	−.308 ***	.516***	−.444 ***	•
6. Indirect behavioral consent^b	−.209 **	.026	−.12	.182*	−.444 ***

Note. Correlations shown in bold are significant at the α=0.05 level.

Process-Based Consent Scale subscale. ^b Sexual Consent Scale—Revised subscale.

p < .01. ***p < .001.

With regard to the SCS-R, the perceived behavioral control, indirect behavioral consent, and positive attitude toward consent subscales are the best suited to establish convergent validity with the PBCS. The PBCS does not measure social norms nor awareness around consent. Because of this, the sexual consent norms and consent awareness subscales will not be used to establish convergent validity. All correlations were examined in SPSS.

The (lack of) perceived behavioral control of sexual consent subscale was negatively correlated with ongoing consent (r = −.56, p < .001) and communicative sexuality (r =−.44, p < .001). Furthermore, the (lack of) perceived behavioral control of sexual consent subscale was positively related with subtle coercion (r = .59, p < .001). This indicates that participants who do not feel that they can or should establish consent with sexual partners also indicate low support for ongoing consent and communicative sexuality, as well as high support for coercion. This supports the convergent validity of these subscales.

The positive attitude toward consent subscale revealed the opposite pattern of results. The subscale correlated positively with ongoing consent (r = .55, p < .001) and communicative sexuality (r = .52, p < .001). It also correlated negatively with subtle coercion (r = −.31, p < .001). This result suggests that those with a positive attitude toward consent also report a positive attitude toward ongoing consent and communicative sexuality, as well as a negative attitude toward coercion. This supports the convergent validity of the subscales. Finally, the indirect behavioral consent subscale related significantly negatively to the ongoing consent subscale (r = −.21, p = .005). The subtle coercion subscale was not related to indirect behavioral consent (r = .01, p = .89), nor was the communicative sexuality subscale (r = −.12, p = .12).

Concurrent validity

Concurrent validity was established using hierarchical linear regression in SPSS by predicting explicit power sex beliefs based on the three selected subscales of the SCS-R, and then adding the Process-Based Consent Subscales into the model. Pairwise deletion was used to address missing data

The first model, including the subscales of the SCS-R, was significant, f(3, 167) = 14.87, p < .001, r² = .26. Lack of perceived behavioral control, b = .46, SE = 0.07, t(167) = 6.18, p < .001, and indirect behavioral consent, b = −.2, SE = 0.07, t(167)= −2.72, p = .007, were significant predictors of explicit sex-power beliefs. Positive attitude toward consent, b = −.13, SE = 0.08, t(167) = −1.57, p = .11, was not a significant predictor of sex-power beliefs. In total, this model explained approximately 26.2% of the variance in explicit sex-power beliefs.

The addition of the PBCS significantly improved the model’s predictive utility (f change = 10.33, p < .001). Furthermore, the PBCS explained an additional 11.8% of the variance (r² = .38, Δr² = .118). The addition of the PBCS meant that, of the SCS-R subscales, only indirect behavioral consent, b = −.14, SE = 0.07, t(164) = −2.03, p = .04, remained a significant predictor of explicit sex-power beliefs. Meanwhile, positive attitude toward consent, b = −.1, SE = 0.09, t(164) = −1.2, p = .23, and lack of perceived behavioral control, b = 0.17, SE = 0.09, t(164) = 1.89, p = .06, were not significant predictors of explicit sex-power beliefs. The subtle coercion subscale, b = 0.42, SE = 0.08, t(164) = 5.28, p < .001, of the PBCS was the strongest predictor of sex-power beliefs. The ongoing consent, b = −.12, SE = 0.09, t(164) = −1.36, p = .18, and communicative sexuality, b = .1, SE = 0.08, t(164) =1.13, p = .26, subscales were not significant predictors of explicit sex-power beliefs. This second model explained 38% of the variance in explicit sex-power beliefs. This is theoretically significant due to the association between sex-power beliefs and sexual aggression (Zurbriggen, 2000).

Scale-demographic correlations

Because sexual consent attitudes and behaviors have been previously shown to be related to gender (Muehlenhard et al., 2016), the correlations between the three subscales and gender were analyzed in SPSS. Previous research has also shown that consent attitudes and behaviors might be related to sexual orientation (Beres et al., 2004; Hallal, 2004). Unfortunately, there were not enough participants who indicated a nonheterosexual sexual orientation to reliably examine this. Ongoing consent was not significantly related to gender (men: r = .07, p = .32 and women: r = −.09, p = .23), nor was communicative sexuality (men: r = .09, p = .2 and women: r = −.11, p = .15). Subtle coercion, conversely, was significantly related to gender. Male gender was related to higher scores on the subtle coercion subscale (r = .26, p < .001) and female gender was related to lower scores on the subtle coercion subscale (r = −.25, p = .001).

Discussion

The results based on the second study provide support for the structure and validity of the PBCS. The constructed CFA models suggest that a bifactor model is a good fit for the data. Chen and Zhang (2018) suggest that bifactor models present a good option for psychometric scales which measure a multifaceted construct. Furthermore, the concurrent and convergent validities of the scale were both supported. In addition, only the subtle coercion subscale, and not the ongoing consent subscale nor the communicative sexuality subscale, was related to gender.

However, the results also raise a number of questions. Of particular interest are the findings that ongoing consent and communicative sexuality did not predict sex-power beliefs in the full model. These results raise questions about the relationship between support for consent and support for coercive behavior. In the full model predicting explicit sex-power beliefs, the subtle coercion subscale of the PBCS was a significant predictor. While this speaks to the scale’s utility, it is unclear why ongoing consent and communicative sexuality were not also significant predictors. It is possible that support for consent and support for coercion are not two extremes of the same continuum, but instead represent two separate continuums. In this case, coercion measures would likely be more indicative of sex-power beliefs, as supported by findings in this research. It is also possible that the ongoing consent and communicative sexuality subscales have more overlap with the SCS-R than the subtle coercion subscale, attenuating the result.

General Discussion

Sexual consent is a complex topic, defined by the nuances and subtle cues that make up much of human communication. Legal conceptualizations of consent, by definition, leave little room for interpretation. Yet, to achieve such parsimony, these consent conceptualizations, along with the measures which quantify them, sacrifice many of the important nuances that would allow researchers to examine sexual consent attitudes and behaviors in more detail. The PBCS, developed and validated in this article, makes several important contributions that address these concerns. First, it defines sexual consent as an ongoing process. Second, the scale text does not use the word “consent,” to avoid priming participants to respond with the legal system in mind.

The PBCS defines consent as an ongoing process throughout sexual activity. This is accomplished both by the inclusion of a subscale that measures the view of consent as a process (i.e., ongoing consent), and by the language of the other subscale which conceptualizes consent as a process. While no scale can capture the nuance that might be available with other methodologies, including a measure of ongoing consent allows for more discussion of context than was possible with previously available scales.

Another important advantage of this scale is that it does not use the word consent specifically. Research indicates that individuals may perceive the word consent as relegated to the legal system or otherwise inapplicable to their own experiences (Beres, 2014). By avoiding this language, this scale decreases the risk of priming participants to think in unnecessarily legal or black-and-white terms which could hinder honest and accurate reporting of their beliefs.

Implications for Theory

Gender differences

While no gender differences were found for the ongoing consent subscale, nor the communicative sexuality subscale, significant gender differences were found on the subtle coercion subscale. Men were more likely to report higher support for subtle coercive behaviors surrounding sexual consent. This is unsurprising given the established relationship between gender and sexual violence–related attitudes and behaviors in the literature (Muehlenhard et al., 2016). However, the same relationship with gender is not found in the ongoing consent subscale or the communicative sexuality subscale. This is likely due to the gendered way that consent is often understood. Sexual consent is often understood as something that a woman gives to a man during intercourse (Beres, 2007, 2014). Because the ongoing consent scale addressed checking in regarding consent during a sexual encounter, women may score lower on this scale due to pervasive cultural beliefs that they give consent to men, as opposed to vice versa (Beres, 2007, 2014). Similarly, gendered cultural norms suggest that women should not be assertive during sexual activity (Bay-Cheng & Eliseo-Arras, 2008).

It is possible that men and women read these items differently. This difference in perception may have washed out potential gender differences. It is also possible that gender differences may have been observable in a larger sample. Finally, it is possible simply that no gender differences exist at all, and men and women are equally likely to value communication across the entire consent communication process.

Subtle coercion

A difficulty involved in measuring sexual consent–related attitudes and behaviors is the high level of social desirability concerns associated with the topic. A potential method of addressing this concern involves measuring attitudes and behaviors related to the topic that might be perceived as mild or innocuous. The items on the subtle coercion subscale are likely less impacted by social desirability. This is reflected in the mean of the items on this subscale (3.11), which is relatively close to the midpoint of the scale (4). The results of this research suggest that the subset of these attitudes included in this scale are associated with sex-power beliefs, which are related to rape proclivity (Chapleau & Oswald, 2010). This suggests that attitudes in support of subtle coercion that are more easily endorsed might be associated with attitudes more overtly supportive of sexual violence.

Communicative sexuality and ongoing consent

Both the ongoing consent and communicative sexuality subscales assessed verbal communication about consent. These scales are highly correlated. However, the items for these subscales loaded on to separate factors. This suggests that process-based consent communication might be a separate construct from general consent communication. This underscores the importance of measuring attitudes and behaviors surrounding process-based consent, in addition to general consent attitudes and behaviors.

Limitations

Despite its strengths, there are limitations to this research which must be considered. Among them are concerns about the sample size, generalizability, and lack of support for predicting behavior. These concerns are discussed in more detail in the following section.

In both studies, the sample size which remained following the elimination of inattentive responders was smaller than optimal. This occurred in part due to high levels of inattentive responding. Future research should examine this scale in larger samples. However, that the factor structure was supported across two studies may work to ameliorate some concerns about sample size. The data used to develop and validate this scale were collected using the internet from a pool of MTurk workers. While the samples collected reported some amount of diversity with regard to demographic items, the population of MTurk workers is selected. As such, it is unclear whether the results found in this research would generalize to another group.

Finally, this research did not examine the ability of the PBCS to predict actual behavior (i.e., sexual aggression or healthy consent behaviors). While it did ask about behaviors in a general sense, it remains unclear how this scale might relate to perpetration of specific instances of sexual violence. As such, future research should examine the PBCS as a predictor of specific sexually aggressive behavior, both alone and in conjunction with measures of consent social norms and measures of perceived control over consent behaviors, as per the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005).

Future Directions

A number of future directions are suggested by this research. Specifically, further analysis of this scale using a larger and more generalizable sample would contribute much to the development of this measure. In addition, future research should use this scale to examine consent attitudes and behaviors and test-related hypotheses. Finally, future research should focus on further nuanced theoretical development in this area.

Future research might test the properties of this scale in a larger and more representative sample. This has the potential to further support the factor structure of this scale. In addition, future research examining and testing the factor structure of this scale might refine the nuances of the scale wording and items. This would increase the scale’s reliability and structure, and otherwise improve scale quality. Further validation would also benefit the utility of this scale. This research examines the relationship between this consent scale and several other related constructs. However, there are far more variables associated with sexual consent attitudes and behaviors that might be tested, both to enhance understanding of scale validity and to examine the relationships between these constructs.

Finally, future research should address further theoretical development around sexual consent attitudes and behaviors. While this project focused on developing a concise measurement tool, sexual consent is a complex and multifaceted construct. Future research should consider how the concepts considered in developing this scale might interrelate and the insight that might be offered by these connections.

Conclusion

Despite the fact that sexual violence is a widely researched and often discussed topic, sexual consent is inconsistently defined and operationalized. This research aimed to develop a measure of sexual consent attitudes and behaviors that could better account for nuance in the way consent communication most often occurs. The results indicated a consistent factor structure, and high reliability and validity of the PBCS. Future research should use this tool as a measure of sexual consent attitudes and behaviors.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Appendix B

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Todd Bodner for his contributions to this research.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Alyssa M. Glace

Author Biographies

Alyssa M. Glace, MS, is a PhD candidate at Portland State University in the Applied Psychology Program, social psychology track. Her research focuses on gender-based violence, with special attention to sexual violence, sexual consent, and the societal norms that influence these attitudes and behaviors. She is also interested in health and other psychophysiological measures as they relate to sexually violent experiences.

Judith G. Zatkin, MS, is a PhD candidate in the Applied Psychology Program at Portland State University in Portland, OR. Her research broadly centers upon prevention of sexual violence perpetration, with focuses on perceptions of and myths surrounding sexual offenders and perpetration patterns of sexual offenders. She is interested in utilizing psychometric methodology and qualitative methodology to inform community-level social change.

Keith L. Kaufman is a Professor of psychology at Portland State University. He is a member of the National Sexual Violence Resource Centre’s advisory board, the National Coalition to Prevent Child Sexual Abuse & Exploitation, Boys & Girls Clubs of America’s National Safety Task Force, and Big Brothers Big Sisters Nation Safety Committee. He has authored two books, and numerous research articles addressing sexual violence prevention. His most recent edited book is Preventing Sexual Violence: A Practitioner’s Sourcebook (NEARI Press, 2010). He is currently working on a large grant to develop an approach to address campus sexual assault.

References

Adams-Curtis

L. E.

Forbes

G. B.

(2004). College women’s experiences of sexual coercion: A review of cultural, perpetrator, victim, and situational variables. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 5(2), 91–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838003262331

Ajzen

Fishbein

(2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. The handbook of attitudes, 173(221), 173–221.

Bay-Cheng

L. Y.

Eliseo-Arras

R. K.

(2008). The making of unwanted sex: Gendered and neoliberal norms in college women’s unwanted sexual experiences. Journal of Sex Research, 45(4), 386–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490802398381

Beres

M. A.

(2007). “Spontaneous” sexual consent: An analysis of sexual consent literature. Feminism & Psychology, 17(1), 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353507072914

Beres

M. A.

(2014). Rethinking the concept of consent for anti-sexual violence activism and education. Feminism & Psychology, 24(3), 373–389. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353514539652

Beres

M. A.

Herold

Maitland

S. B.

(2004). Sexual consent behaviors in same-sex relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33(5), 475–486. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ASEB.0000037428.41757.10

Beres

M. A.

Senn

C. Y.

McCaw

(2014). Navigating ambivalence: How heterosexual young adults make sense of desire differences. Journal of Sex Research, 51(7), 765–776. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.792327

Breiding

M. J.

Smith

S. G.

Basile

K. C.

Walters

M. L.

Chen

Merrick

M. T.

(2014). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence victimization—National intimate partner and sexual violence survey, United States, 2011. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: Surveillance Summaries, 63(8), 1–18.

Browne

M. W.

(2001). An overview of analytic rotation in exploratory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36(1), 111–150. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327906MBR3601_05

10.

Chapleau

K. M.

Oswald

D. L.

(2010). Power, sex, and rape myth acceptance: Testing two models of rape proclivity. Journal of Sex Research, 47(1), 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490902954323

11.

Chen

F. F.

Zhang

(2018). Bifactor models in psychometric test development. In Irwing

Booth

Hughes

D. J.

(Eds.), The Wiley handbook of psychometric testing (pp. 325–345). John Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118489772.ch12

12.

Cook

N. K.

Messman-Moore

T. L.

(2018). I said no: The impact of voicing non-consent on women’s perceptions of and responses to rape. Violence Against Women, 24(5), 507–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801217708059

13.

Fantasia

H. C.

(2011). Really not even a decision any more: Late adolescent narratives of implied sexual consent. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 7(3), 120–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-3938.2011.01108.x

14.

Fleischer

Mead

A. D.

Huang

(2015). Inattentive responding in MTurk and other online samples. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 196–202. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.25

15.

García-Moreno

Pallitto

Devries

Stöckl

Watts

Abrahams

(2013). Global and regional estimates of violence against women: Prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. World Health Organization.

16.

Gray

J. M.

(2015). What constitutes a “reasonable belief” in consent to sex? A thematic analysis. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 21(3), 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2014.900122

17.

Hallal

D. M.

(2004). Sexual consent in a gay, lesbian, and bisexual population: An exploratory study [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Wilfrid Laurier University.

18.

Humphreys

T. P.

Brousseau

M. M.

(2010). The Sexual Consent Scale–Revised: Development, reliability, and preliminary validity. Journal of Sex Research, 47(5), 420–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490903151358

19.

Jozkowski

K. N.

(2015). Barriers to affirmative consent policies and the need for affirmative sexuality. University of the Pacific Law Review, 47, 741–772.

20.

Jozkowski

K. N.

Peterson

Z. D.

(2014). Assessing the validity and reliability of the perceptions of the consent to sex scale. Journal of Sex Research, 51(6), 632–645. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.757282

21.

Jozkowski

K. N.

Sanders

Peterson

Z. D.

Dennis

Reece

(2014). Consenting to sexual activity: The development and psychometric assessment of dual measures of consent. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(3), 437–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0225-7

22.

Kitzinger

Frith

(1999). Just say no? The use of conversation analysis in developing a feminist perspective on sexual refusal. Discourse & Society, 10(3), 293–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926599010003002

23.

Lofgreen

A. M.

Mattson

R. E.

Wagner

S. A.

Ortiz

E. G.

Johnson

M. D.

(2021). Situational and dispositional determinants of college men’s perception of women’s sexual desire and consent to sex: A factorial vignette analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(1-2), NP1064–NP1097 https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517738777

24.

Muehlenhard

C. L.

Humphreys

T. P.

Jozkowski

K. N.

Peterson

Z. D.

(2016). The complexities of sexual consent among college students: A conceptual and empirical review. Journal of Sex Research, 53(4–5), 457–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1146651

25.

Muehlenhard

C. L.

Peterson

Z. D.

Humphreys

T. P.

Jozkowski

K. N.

(2017). Evaluating the one-in-five statistic: Women’s risk of sexual assault while in college. Journal of Sex Research, 54(4–5), 549–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1295014

26.

O’Byrne

Hansen

Rapley

(2008). “If a girl doesn’t say ‘no’ . . . ”: Young men, rape and claims of “insufficient knowledge.” Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 18(3), 168–193. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.922

27.

O’Byrne

Rapley

Hansen

(2006). ‘You couldn’t say “no,” could you?’: Young men’s understandings of sexual refusal. Feminism & Psychology, 16(2), 133–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959-353506062970

28.

Powell

(2008). Amor fati?: Gender habitus and young people’s negotiation of (hetero)sexual consent. Journal of Sociology, 44(2), 167–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783308089168

29.

Rudman

L. A.

Mescher

(2012). Of animals and objects: Men’s implicit dehumanization of women and likelihood of sexual aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(6), 734–746. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212436401

30.

Tannen

(1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. Ballantine Books.

31.

Tharp

A. T.

DeGue

Valle

L. A.

Brookmeyer

K. A.

Massetti

G. M.

Matjasko

J. L.

(2013). A systematic qualitative review of risk and protective factors for sexual violence perpetration. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 14(2), 133–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838012470031

32.

Velicer

W. F.

Eaton

C. A.

Fava

J. L.

(2000). Construct explication through factor or component analysis: A review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or components. In Goffin

R. D.

Helmes

(Eds.), Problems and solutions in human assessment: Honoring Douglas N. Jackson at seventy (p. 41–71). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4397-8_3

33.

Warren

Swan

Allen

C. T.

(2015). Comprehension of sexual consent as a key factor in the perpetration of sexual aggression among college men. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 24(8), 897–913. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2015.1070232

34.

Zurbriggen

E. L.

(2000). Social motives and cognitive power-sex associations: Predictors of aggressive sexual behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(3), 559–581. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.78.3.559