“By the semi‐mystical appearance of a condom”: How young women and men communicate sexual consent in heterosexual situations

Abstract

Little is known about how women and men communicate sexual consent. In this study, 378 undergraduate women and men completed a questionnaire designed to examine how they would interpret their date's and their own consent signals in hypothetical scenarios and how they actually communicate consent in heterosexual situations. Although there were no gender differences in ratings of the hypothetical date's behavior, men rated their own behaviors in hypothetical scenarios as more representative of consent than women rated their own behaviors, suggesting that women and men may mean different things when they use the same signals. There were some gender differences in how they conveyed consent in actual situations; furthermore, both women and men reported most often showing their consent to sexual intercourse by making no response. The effect sizes of the gender differences were small. The results suggest that gender‐based miscommunications about consent are possible but unlikely. Thus, miscommunication is an unlikely explanation for rape.

Full text

This article was downloaded by: [University of Kansas Libraries]
On: 14 November 2012, At: 08:15
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Sex Research
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjsr20
“By the semi‐mystical appearance of a condom”: How
young women and men communicate sexual consent
in heterosexual situations
Susan E. Hickman a & Charlene L. Muehlenhard b
a University of Kansas,
b Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, 426 Fraser Hall, Lawrence, Kansas,
66045–2160 E-mail:
Version of record first published: 11 Jan 2010.
To cite this article: Susan E. Hickman & Charlene L. Muehlenhard (1999): “By the semi‐mystical appearance of a condom”:
How young women and men communicate sexual consent in heterosexual situations, Journal of Sex Research, 36:3, 258-272
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499909551996
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

"By
the
Semi-Mystical Appearance
of a
Condom":
How
Young Women
and
Men Communicate Sexual Consent
in
Heterosexual Situations
Susan
E.
Hickman
and
Charlene
L.
Muehlenhard
University of Kansas
Little
is
known about
how
women
and men
communicate sexual consent.
In
this study,
378
undergraduate women
and
men completed
a
questionnaire designed
to
examine
how
they would interpret their date's
and
their own consent signals
in
hypothetical scenarios
and
how they actually communicate consent
in
heterosexual situations. Although there were
no gen-
der differences
in
ratings
of
the hypothetical date's behavior,
men
rated their
own
behaviors
in
hypothetical scenarios
as
more representative
of
consent than women rated their own behaviors, suggesting that women
and
men
may
mean different
things when they
use the
same signals. There were some gender differences
in how
they conveyed consent
in
actual situa-
tions; furthermore, both women
and men
reported most often showing their consent
to
sexual intercourse
by
making
no
response.
The
effect sizes
of
the gender differences were small.
The
results suggest that gender-based miscommunications
about consent are possible
but
unlikely. Thus, miscommunication
is an
unlikely explanation
for
rape.
In
the
fall
of 1990,
students
and
administrators
at
Antioch College
in
Yellow Springs, Ohio, joined forces
to
develop
a
mutual sexual consent policy.
It
required, among
other things, that
all
Antioch students obtain consent from
their partners prior
to
engaging
in any
sexual contact
and
before proceeding
to the
next level
of
sexual intimacy,
unless
the
sexual activity
was
mutually initiated. Consent
was defined
as "the act of
willingly
and
verbally agreeing
to engage
in
specific sexual contact
or
conduct" (Antioch
College, 1990, p. 1).
When
the
national press brought this policy
to the
atten-
tion
of the
general public
in the
fall
of
1993,
it
created
an
international controversy.
The
policy
was
discussed
and cri-
tiqued
on the
front pages
of
newspapers ranging from
the
New York Times
to the
Bangkok Post,
on
every major
U.S.
television network,
and
even
on the
comedy show Saturday
Night Live (Guskin, 1994).
In a
response
to the
public's
reaction, Alan Guskin (1994), President
of
Antioch College,
discussed
the
reasoning behind
the
mutual consent policy.
The goal
of the
policy
was to
enable women
and men to
communicate freely about their sexual wishes
in an
open
and honest manner. Ideally, this would reduce
the
incidence
of sexual assault
on
campus. Reflecting
on the
international
press coverage this policy received, Guskin (1994) stated,
I believe it's not just sex that has created the reaction, but the
Antioch requirement that students talk about sex! Talking about it
with someone whom you desire; getting consent before having
sex; having to think about sexual acts that you are about to do;
communicating with a partner about your interests, (p. 2)
This paper
is
based
on
Susan
E.
Hickman's doctoral dissertation, conducted
under
the
supervision
of
Charlene
L.
Muehlenhard
and
defended
in
October
1996.
We
wish
to
thank Kate Prenovost
for
statistical consultation.
The
title
is
taken from
a
participant's response
to the
pilot questionnaire regarding
how he
knew
his
partner
was
consenting
to
sexual intercourse.
Address correspondence
to
Charlene
L.
Muehlenhard, Department
of
Psychology,
426
Fraser Hall, University
of
Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045-
2160;
e-mail: charlene@ukans.edu.
Sexual consent
is an
important issue. Consent
is a cen-
tral issue
in
defining rape both
in
research
and in
legal
cases (rape
is
often defined
as sex
without consent;
see
Burt
&
Albin, 1981; Estrich, 1987; Muehlenhard, Powch,
Phelps,
&
Giusti,
1992;
Sanday, 1996).
It has
even been
suggested that gender-based misunderstandings regarding
consent
can
lead
to
rape (Abbey, 1991;
see
also Crawford,
1995).
Unfortunately, there
has
been little research
to
help
clarify
how
people perceive
and
communicate sexual
con-
sent.
Defining Sexual Consent
Sexual consent
is
defined differently
by
different people:
Furthermore,
the
term
is
often used without being defined
(Muehlenhard
et al.,
1992). There
are
several conceptual
issues that should
be
considered.
One such issue
is
whether consent should
be
defined
as
a mental act—that
is, the
decision that
one
agrees
to
engage
in
sex—or
a
physical act—that
is, the
verbal
or
nonverbal expression
of
agreement (Muehlenhard,
1995/1996; Muehlenhard
et al.,
1992). Defining consent
as
a purely mental
act is
problematic.
If
consent
is
defined
as
a mental
act,
then
one
person
can
never truly know
if
another
has
consented. This allows
for the
possibility
of
misunderstandings,
or
claims
of
misunderstandings, that
can lead
to
sexual assault (Abbey,
1982, 1987;
Bart
&
O'Brien, 1985; Warshaw, 1994).
Defining consent
as a
physical
act is
also problematic.
If consent
is
defined
as the
expression
of
agreement, this
expression
can be
verbal
or
nonverbal.
It has
been argued
that consent should
be
verbally expressed
and
that relying
on nonverbal expressions
of
consent
is
unacceptable
(Antioch College, 1990; Sanday, 1996). Nonverbal signals
can
be
ambiguous, which creates
the
potential
for mis-
communication. Reliance
on
nonverbal signals allows
one
person
to
selectively interpret another's signals
or to
claim
The Journal
of Sex
Research Volume
36,
Number
3,
August 1999:
pp.
258-272258
Downloaded by [University of Kansas Libraries] at 08:15 14 November 2012

Hickman and Muehlenhard259
miscommunication as an excuse for rape. However,
restricting consent to verbal expressions is problematic,
for most sexual scripts do not involve explicitly giving ver-
bal consent (Muehlenhard, 1995/1996; Muehlenhard et al.,
1992).
As Muehlenhard et al. (1992) observed, "if defini-
tions of sexual assault were to include all sexual behavior
that occurs without explicit verbal consent, they would
include much behavior in which those involved consider
themselves to be willing participants" (p. 31). Definitions
of consent need to allow for the possibility that people use
a variety of verbal and nonverbal behaviors to communi-
cate consent.
Consent as a mental act and consent as a physical act do
not always correspond with each other. For example,
research indicates that some people engage in token resis-
tance to sex, indicating no to sexual behavior while mean-
ing yes. It is unclear how frequently this occurs. Some
studies (e.g., Muehlenhard & Hollabaugh, 1988;
O'Sullivan & Allgeier, 1994) suggest that a substantial
minority of women and men have engaged in such behav-
ior. A more recent study (Muehlenhard & Rodgers, 1998),
however, suggests that many respondents who reported
engaging in token resistance had misunderstood the ques-
tionnaire and, in fact, had not engaged in this behavior,
although some had. Rape can result when a man misinter-
prets a woman's no to mean yes (e.g., see Bart & O'Brien,
1985,
p. 10; Warshaw, 1984, p. 91). However, the idea that
rape is frequently a result of men misunderstanding
women's refusals has been challenged as an excuse allow-
ing sexually aggressive men to avoid responsibility for
their behavior (e.g., Crawford 1995). Nevertheless, the
above studies suggest that feelings of willingness and
expressions of willingness are distinct and should both be
included in defining consent.
Some research and legal definitions of rape are based on
the idea that nonconsent should be assumed until someone
actively consents, whether verbally or nonverbally. Other
definitions of rape, however, are based on the idea that con-
sent should be assumed until someone refuses or resists—
that being passive should be interpreted as consent (see
Estrich, 1987; Muehlenhard et al., 1992, for a discussion).
The latter conceptualization is problematic because there
are many reasons why someone might not resist an unwant-
ed sexual initiation (e.g., they might be confused, embar-
rassed, or afraid). If making no response is treated as con-
sent, coercive sex could be viewed as consensual.
Finally, when conceptualizing consent, it is important to
consider the context in which consent occurs. A person
may be unable to give or withhold consent freely as a
result of alcohol or drugs, threat of harm, economic coer-
cion, or compulsory heterosexuality (Muehlenhard,
1995/1996; Muehlenhard & Schräg, 1991; Tong, 1984).
For the purposes of this paper, we defined consent to
engage in sexual activity as the freely given verbal or non-
verbal communication of a feeling of willingness. This
definition conceptualizes consent as both a mental act (the
feeling of willingness) and a physical act (the communica-
tion of this willingness) and takes context into account by
requiring that consent be expressed freely.
Empirical Research
The vast majority of research on sexual communication has
focused almost exclusively on sexual initiations and refusals
(e.g., Byers & Heinlen, 1989; McCormick, 1979;
O'Sullivan & Byers, 1992, 1993). This research is often
framed using the theory of the "traditional sexual script," in
which men are responsible for initiating and pursuing sexu-
al encounters whereas women are responsible for restricting
the level of sexual activity, serving as gate keepers in sexu-
al encounters (Gagnon & Simon, 1973; Peplau, Rubin, &
Hill, 1977; Perper & Weis, 1987; Safilios-Rothschild, 1977;
Sprecher & McKinney, 1993). Noticeably absent in the tra-
ditional sexual script is the concept of sexual consent.
We identified three empirical studies—one published
and two unpublished—that specifically addressed sexual
consent. In addition, there are other lines of research that,
although not specifically addressing consent, provide data
that inform the discussion of sexual consent.
Research on sexual consent. Byers (1980) provided par-
ticipants with lists of behaviors thought to show agreement
or refusal to sexual intercourse. They were asked to rank
the three most important forms of communication a woman
can use to show sexual consent. Byers found that the high-
est percentage of participants ranked "fondles male's geni-
tals"
as the most important way a woman could communi-
cate consent to sexual intercourse (31 % of women and 31 %
of men). A slightly smaller percentage of participants
ranked "clear verbal consent" as the most important way
for women to communicate consent to sexual intercourse
(26%
of women and 28% of men). The author did not
assess whether gender differences were statistically
signif-
icant, and this study examined only perceptions of women's
consent, not perceptions of men's consent. Nevertheless,
these findings suggest that both nonverbal and verbal sig-
nals are important in signaling consent.
Hall (1995) examined consent signals used by hetero-
sexual female and male college students for a variety of
sexual behaviors, ranging from kissing to anal intercourse.
Of the participants who said that they had been in a situa-
tion in which they and their partner had engaged in wanted
sexual activity, participants reported indicating it was okay
to continue most frequently for penile-vaginal intercourse
(78.8%) and anal intercourse (73.4%) and least frequently
for the male's having an orgasm (35.1%). There were no
significant gender differences in women's and men's
reports of indicating consent for various behaviors. These
findings suggest that in examining consent, it is important
to specify what kind of sexual behavior is in question.
Hall (1995) also asked participants how they indicated
yes to their partner for their most recent wanted sexual
experience. Most participants reported that they indicated
yes both verbally and nonverbally (60.9%), although some
reported that they indicated yes only nonverbally (28.2%)
or only verbally (11.0%). When participants were asked to
Downloaded by [University of Kansas Libraries] at 08:15 14 November 2012

260Communication of Sexual Consent
report how they nonverbally indicated yes, 75.0% of
women and 72.0% of men reported that they "kissed,"
70.8 % of women and 69.5% of men "got closer," 62.0%
of women and 69.5% of men "intimately touched," and
35.4%
of women and 33.9% of men "smiled." There were
no significant gender differences on any of these variables.
However, significantly more women than men indicated
that they "hugged or caressed" (72.4% and 63.6%, respec-
tively) and "did not move away" (58.9% and 47.5%) to
indicate consent. Participants were not asked how they
indicated yes verbally, so it is not clear how participants
interpreted this item when responding to the questionnaire.
Hall's study suggests that there are few gender differences
in the use of consent signals, that nonverbal consent sig-
nals are more popular than verbal consent signals, that
people often use a combination of consent signals, and that
people consent at varying rates for different behaviors.
Burrow (1997) examined women's and men's percep-
tions of women's consent and nonconsent to sexual inter-
course, similar to Byers (1980). In this study, participants
read vignettes in which a man initiates sexual intercourse
with a woman while they are on a date. Women were asked
to rate which of 12 verbal and nonverbal behaviors would
be likely to indicate their consent if they were the woman
in that vignette. Men were asked to rate which of the
behaviors would most likely signal the woman's consent.
Parallel questions were asked in which the same 12 items
stated in the negative (e.g., "She would/would not touch
Rick in intimate places") were used to assess which behav-
iors represent nonconsent.
Burrow (1997) found gender differences in perceptions
of sexual consent: Male participants rated verbal behaviors
as significantly more likely to represent the woman's con-
sent in the vignette than female participants rated the
behaviors as representative of their own consent in the
vignette. There were no gender differences in ratings of
behaviors representing nonconsent. These results are com-
plicated by some methodological concerns. First, female
and male participants received different instructions in
completing this questionnaire: Women were asked to
imagine themselves in the scenario when rating behaviors,
whereas men were asked to rate the behaviors as an outside
observer, thereby confounding gender and response set.
Second, it is unclear if all the women were able to imagine
themselves as the woman in the scenario. Third, many of
the questions regarding nonconsent included double or
triple negatives, which may have been confusing for
respondents (e.g., "She definitely would not 'not touch
Rick in very intimate places' to show nonconsent"). Thus,
Burrow's study suggests that there may be gender differ-
ences in interpreting whether a woman's behavior indi-
cates consent, but many questions remain.
Research on related topics. Research on related topics
can also inform the discussion of sexual consent. In a line
of research designed to examine sexual initiations and
refusals, Byers and colleagues examined "positive
responses" to sexual initiations. Such responses include
one aspect of our definition of consent—the expression of
willingness—but do not address the feeling of willingness
or the context in which the individual is free to give or
withhold consent.
In Byers and Heinlen's (1989) study, female and male
participants recorded all sexual interactions with their part-
ners over the course of a week. Two trained raters then
coded these descriptions. Of the participants who
described an initiation in which the partner responded pos-
itively, 41.8% of the positive responses were nonverbal,
31.3%
were verbal, and 26.9% were both verbal and non-
verbal. Nonverbal responses included initiating the sexual
activity and continuing the sexual interaction. Verbal
responses included requesting clarification, saying yes, or
making an invitation. Neither information regarding gen-
der differences in these responses nor operational defini-
tions of the responses were provided.
In a study by O'Sullivan and Byers (1992), female and
male participants recorded aspects of their sexual interac-
tions in dating situations over a two-week period, including
responses to sexual initiations. Nonverbal responses were
more common than verbal responses: 90.9% of the women
and 82.9% of the men reported making a positive nonver-
bal response to an initiation. In contrast, 56.3% of the
women and 49.9% of the men reported making a positive
verbal response to an initiation. It is unclear whether there
were significant gender differences in the use of these pos-
itive responses. Consistent with the studies specifically on
consent, both nonverbal and verbal responses were used,
with nonverbal responses predominating.
Another related area of research involves gender differ-
ences in perceptions of sexual interest and intent. This line
of research relates to one aspect of our definition of con-
sent—perceptions of someone's sexual interest or desire—
but interest and desire are not the same as willingness (see
Muehlenhard & Rodgers, 1998); furthermore, neither the
expression of willingness nor the context are typically
addressed in these studies.
Numerous studies using a variety of methodologies have
found that, on average, men view persons and interactions
more sexually than do women. Measures used to assess
sexual perceptions include ratings of sexiness (e.g.,
Johnson, Stockdale, & Saal, 1991; Saal, Johnson, & Weber,
1989),
seductiveness and promiscuity (e.g., Abbey, 1982;
Abbey & Melby, 1986; Abbey, Cozarelli, McLaughlin, &
Harnish, 1987), perceptions of willingness to engage in sex
(e.g., Botswick & DeLucia, 1992; Muehlenhard, 1988),
and perceptions of a woman's sexual interest in a man (e.g.,
Shotland & Craig, 1988). Given the overwhelming evi-
dence that gender affects perceptions of sexual intent, it is
likely that gender affects perceptions of sexual consent as
well. The tendency of men to view interactions more sexu-
ally than women may lead men to interpret signals as more
representative of consent than do women. If the theory of
the traditional sexual script is accurate and men initiate sex-
ual intercourse more often than women do, then men would
interpret women's consent signals more often than women
Downloaded by [University of Kansas Libraries] at 08:15 14 November 2012

Hickman
and
Muehlenhard261
would interpret men's consent signals. Thus, men's percep-
tions
or
misperceptions
of
consent signals become more
important than women's perceptions
or
misperceptions
of
consent signals.
A final topic useful
to
this discussion involves
a
schema
for conceptualizing consent signals.
In a
review
of the sex-
ual initiation
and
refusal literature, McCormick (1987)
cat-
egorized initiation
and
refusal signals
as
either verbal
or
nonverbal,
and as
either direct
or
indirect.
The
verbal/non-
verbal categorization reflects
a
commonly understood
dis-
tinction between communication approaches,
one
often
used
in
sexual signal research (e.g., Byers
&
Heinlen,
1989;
Byers
&
Lewis,
1988;
Metts, Cupach,
&
Imahori,
1992;
Perper
&
Weis, 1987).
The
direct/indirect catego-
rization
of
sexual signals
is
based
on
research
on
more
general influence strategies (Falbo,
1977;
Falbo
&
Peplau,
1980).
According
to
McCormick (1987), direct sexual
influence signals
are
strategies
in
which influencées
are
aware
of how
power
is
being used
on
them,
and
indirect
sexual influence signals
are
strategies that depend
on the
influencées' ignorance
of how
power
is
being used
to
influence them (McCormick,
1979,
1987). McCormick's
definitions
of
direct
and
indirect include
the use of
power
to influence another, inconsistent with
the
definition
of
consent used
in
this study. Moreover,
a
person cannot
con-
vey
her or his
willingness
to
have sexual intercourse with-
out
the
other person's awareness,
as the
definition
of
indi-
rect implies.
We therefore used McCormick's categories
of
verbal
and nonverbal
in our
consent category system,
but we
reconceptualized
the
distinction between direct
and
indi-
rect. Specifically,
for our
purposes
we
defined direct
con-
sent signals
as
signals that
are
straightforward
and
unam-
biguous
and
indirect consent signals
as
signals that
are
ambiguous.
The Present Study
The existing literature
on
consent provides
us
with impor-
tant information about consent,
but
many unanswered
questions remain.
For
example,
we do not
know whether
there
are
significant gender differences
in how
consent
is
conveyed
and
inferred.
We do not
know what kinds
of sig-
nals
are
perceived
as
most indicative
of
sexual consent
or
if consent
is
situationally specific, such that
the
meaning
of
a signal varies depending
on the
nature
of the
relationship,
the partner's initiation strategy,
and so
forth. Data suggest
that nonverbal consent signals
are
used more often than
verbal consent signals,
but our
information about these
consent signals—especially about verbal signals—is limit-
ed. Finally,
the
information
we
have regarding sexual
con-
sent provides
us
with lists
of
alternately vague catchall
terms (e.g., "verbal consent") without explanation
of
what
those terms mean
and
specific behaviors (e.g., "smiling"),
with
no
organizational schema
to aid our
understanding
of
consent.
The present study
was an
exploratory investigation
of
how young women
and men
convey
and
infer sexual
con-
sent. Female
and
male participants were asked
to
imagine
themselves
in
scenarios
in
which sexual intercourse
was
initiated either verbally
or
nonverbally
by
either them-
selves
or
their date, along with
a
list
of
possible responses
someone could make
to
such initiations. First, participants
were asked
to
indicate whether they could imagine them-
selves
in
each scenario. This information
was
important
because
it
would decrease
the
validity
of the
results
to ana-
lyze
the
responses
of
participants
who
could
not
imagine
themselves
in the
situations. Given
the
traditional sexual
script,
it
could
be
that many women
are
unable
to
imagine
themselves initiating
sex and
that many
men are
unable
to
imagine their dates initiating
sex.
Also, many people
may
be uncomfortable talking about
sex
(consider
the
contro-
versy regarding
the
Antioch College verbal consent policy
and
the
predominance
of
nonverbal over verbal responses
found
by
Byers
and
Heinlen,
1989;
Hall,
1995; and
O'Sullivan
and
Byers, 1992); thus, some individuals
may
be unable
to
imagine themselves
or
their dates making
ver-
bal sexual initiations.
Next, participants were asked
to
rate
how
indicative
each response would
be of
their
own
sexual consent
as a
participant
in a
hypothetical scenario (hypothetical
self-
consent ratings)
and how
indicative each response would
be
of
their hypothetical date's sexual consent (hypothetical
date-consent ratings). They were also asked
to
rate
how
frequently they
use
each response
to
signal their sexual
consent
in
actual situations (actual self-consent ratings).
We addressed
the
following research questions:
1.
Does
the
ability
to
imagine oneself
in the
scenarios vary
as a
function
of
participant gender
and
type
of
initiation (verbal
or
nonverbal)
in
self-initiation
and
date-initiation scenarios?
2.
What consent signals
do
women
and men
report using
the
most?
The
least? That
is,
which actual self-consent ratings were
highest
and
lowest?
3.
Are
there gender differences
in how
often women
and men
report using consent signals
in
actual situations, similar
to the dif-
ferences found
by
Hall (1995)?
In
other words,
are
there gender
differences
in
actual self-consent ratings?
4.
Do
people actually
use the
signals they rate
as
indicative
of
their consent
in the
scenarios? That
is, do
actual self-consent
rat-
ings correlate with hypothetical self-consent ratings?
5.
Hall's (1995) study suggested that there were differences
in
how consent
was
conveyed based
on the
type
of
sexual behavior
participants were consenting
to.
Similarly, does
the
type
of
initia-
tion (verbal
or
nonverbal) affect ratings
of how
indicative
the sig-
nals
are of
consent
in the
scenarios, providing evidence that
con-
sent
is
situationally specific? That
is,
does
the
type
of
initiation
in
the scenario affect hypothetical self-consent
and
hypothetical
date-consent ratings?
6. Numerous studies have found that
men
tend
to
view them-
selves, other
men, and
women
in a
more sexualized fashion than
do women (e.g., Abbey,
1982;
Muehlenhard, 1988). Does partici-
pant gender affect participants' ratings
of how
indicative signals
are
of
their
own
consent
and
their date's consent
in the
scenarios?
In other words,
are
there gender differences
in
hypothetical
self-
consent
and
hypothetical date-consent ratings?
Downloaded by [University of Kansas Libraries] at 08:15 14 November 2012

262
Communication
of Sexual Consent
7. Are there discrepancies between women's and men's ratings
that would suggest gender-related miscommunication, lending
support to the idea that gender-based miscommunication can lead
to rape? That is, do women's hypothetical date-consent ratings
differ significantly from men's hypothetical self-consent ratings,
and do men's hypothetical date-consent ratings differ significant-
ly from women's hypothetical self-consent ratings?
METHOD
Pilot Study
Purpose. The purpose of the pilot study was to gather infor-
mation regarding how women and men communicate sexu-
al consent both verbally and nonverbally. The responses to
the pilot questionnaire were used to create items for the
questionnaire used in the second phase of the study.
Participants. The pilot participants were 39 female and
28 male introductory psychology students from the
University of Kansas. The demographics of the partici-
pants were as follows: 88.1% European American, 4.5%
Asian American, 3.0% African American, 1.5% Hispanic
American, and 3.0% international students. Their mean
age was 19. Their participation was solicited through post-
ed sign-up sheets that did not mention the topic of the
study. Each respondent received credit toward a course
research requirement.
Questionnaire. Participants were asked whether they
had ever had sexual intercourse. If they had not, they were
asked to answer the questionnaire the way they thought
they would if they had experienced sexual intercourse;
thus,
everyone answered the questions regardless of their
sexual experience, protecting their privacy during data-
gathering sessions. Participants who had never had sexual
intercourse were eliminated from the analyses, leaving a
total of 22 women and 22 men.
Participants were asked a series of open-ended ques-
tions regarding how they and their most recent sexual part-
ner communicated consent for sexual intercourse. For
example, participants were asked the following question:
Have you ever been in a situation in which you definitely wanted
to have sexual intercourse with someone, and they wanted to
have sexual intercourse with you? If so: (a) How, if at all, did
your partner communicate his or her consent verbally? (b) How,
if at all, did your partner communicate his or her sexual consent
nonverbally?
They were also asked how they communicated consent to
their partner verbally and nonverbally. The intent was to
identify the ways in which people communicate their sex-
ual consent.
Procedure. The pilot questionnaires were administered
in single-sex groups by a female researcher (the first
author). After signing consent forms, participants complet-
ed the questionnaires anonymously, seated in alternate
seats to protect their privacy. When they were finished,
they were debriefed and given information about the pur-
pose of the study and the phone numbers of the researchers
in case they had questions.
Results. Participants' responses to the pilot questions
regarding how they and their partners communicate con-
sent to sexual intercourse were compiled into a list of
behaviors. These lists were used to construct the question-
naire used in the second part of the study.
Main Study Participants
The participants for the second phase of the study were
214 female and 210 male introductory psychology stu-
dents at the University of Kansas. Participation was
solicited in the same manner described above, and respon-
dents received research credit for participating. The
demographics of the participants were as follows: 84.7%
European American, 3.1% African American, 3.1% Asian
American, 1.7% Hispanic American, 1.4% biracial, 0.7%
Native American/Alaskan, 3.1% international students,
and 2.4% other. Their mean age was 19. A total of 46 par-
ticipants were dropped from the analyses for the follow-
ing reasons: 29 failed accuracy checks (to be described
later),
and 9 had incomplete questionnaires. International
students {n = 13) were dropped to maintain the focus on
cultural norms in the United States. Because the focus
was consent in heterosexual situations, the one participant
who reported being homosexual was dropped.
Participants older than 26 (n = 3) were excluded to allow
for an examination of traditional-aged college students.
The sum of those in the exclusionary categories is greater
than 46 because several participants were in more than
one category. This left a final sample of 378 participants
(188 women and 190 men).
Measures
Cover sheet. Participants were asked to complete a set of
demographic questions as well as questions regarding
their sexual experience history. These included questions
about their sexual orientation, whether they had ever
engaged in sexual intercourse, and the number of partners
with whom they had engaged in sexual intercourse. For
the purposes of this study, sexual intercourse was defined
exclusively as penile-vaginal intercourse. Participants
were asked to use this definition and were reminded of it
throughout the questionnaire to ensure that they were all
thinking of the same kind of sexual behavior when
answering the questions.
Consent questionnaire. There were parallel versions of
this questionnaire: one depicting verbal heterosexual initi-
ations and one depicting nonverbal heterosexual initia-
tions.
Each participant was randomly assigned to complete
one of the two versions. Women and men received gender-
appropriate forms. Each participant was asked to read and
imagine being in two scenarios: two verbal initiation sce-
narios in the verbal version or two nonverbal initiation sce-
narios in the nonverbal version.
To obtain hypothetical date-consent ratings, partici-
pants were asked to imagine themselves making a sexual
advance. Each participant read the following scenario with
one of the two final sentences:
Downloaded by [University of Kansas Libraries] at 08:15 14 November 2012

Hickman and Muehlenhard263
Self-Initiation Scenario
You are very attracted to your date and would like to have sexual
intercourse with her/him. You have been out several times, but the
two of you have not had sexual intercourse (penile-vaginal inter-
course) together before. The two of you are finally alone in a pri-
vate place. [Verbal version:]You start to kiss her/him, and you
decide to make a sexual advance by asking her/him directly, "Will
you have sex with me?" [Nonverbal version:] You make a sexual
advance by sitting close to her/him, kissing her/him, and then
starting to undress her/him.
After reading the scenario, participants were asked to indi-
cate whether they could imagine themselves in the sce-
nario.
If so, they were asked to rate whether each of 34
behaviors (see Table 1) would indicate that their date was
giving sexual consent, using a scale ranging from 0 (does
not show his/her consent to sexual intercourse) to 6 (defi-
nitely shows his/her consent to sexual intercourse). Most
of the items on this list came from the pilot study, although
a few (e.g., "She/He says 'no'") were added so that not all
the behaviors would be positive.
To obtain hypothetical self-consent ratings, participants
were asked to imagine that their date had made either a
verbal or nonverbal sexual advance. The order of the
self-
initiation and date-initiation scenarios was counterbal-
anced across participants. Each participant read the fol-
lowing scenario with one of the two final sentences:
Date-Initiation Scenario
You and your date have been out several times, but the two of you
have not had sexual intercourse (penile-vaginal intercourse)
together before. The two of you are finally alone in a private
place. [Verbal version:} He/She starts to kiss you and then asks
you directly, "Will you have sex with me?" [Nonverbal version:]
He/She sits close to you, kisses you, and starts to undress you.
After reading the scenario, they were asked to indicate
whether they were able to imagine themselves in the sce-
nario.
If so, they were asked to rate whether each of 34
behaviors, parallel to those in the previous section, would
show that they were giving sexual consent in response to
the described sexual advance on a scale ranging from 0
(does not show your consent to sexual intercourse) to 6
(definitely shows your consent to sexual intercourse).
For both
self-
and date-initiation scenarios, participants
unable to imagine themselves in the scenario were asked to
respond as outside observers; these participants were
dropped from analyses related to the scenario they could
not imagine (n = 106 for self-initiation scenarios and n =
24 for date-initiation scenarios). Accuracy checks were
included to ensure that participants were reading each item
rather than responding randomly. Participants were asked
to respond to an item with a specific number (e.g., "he
yawns—answer this question with an eight"). The first part
of these questions (e.g., "he yawns") was included so the
items would blend in with the other items; the second part
instructed participants how to respond if they were reading
carefully. Anyone failing an accuracy check was eliminat-
ed from the study (n = 29). One of the 34 consent behav-
iors was eliminated from analysis because of inconsistent
wording across forms, leaving a total of 33 behaviors.
To obtain actual self-consent ratings, all participants
were asked how frequently they engaged in each of the 34
behaviors in order to indicate sexual consent (as discussed,
only 33 were analyzed). They were asked to rate each item
on a scale ranging from 0 (never do this to show consent)
to 6 (always do this to show consent). They were remind-
ed that we were interested in how often they did the behav-
ior to indicate sexual consent, not just how often they did
each behavior. Participants who had never had penile-
vaginal sexual intercourse were asked to imagine how they
might consent; their responses were eliminated from
analyses of this section.
Procedure
The questionnaires were administered in single-sex groups
by the first author. Participants were seated in alternate
desks to protect their privacy. After they read and signed
consent forms, they completed the questionnaires anony-
mously. Afterwards, the researcher distributed and read
aloud a debriefing script about the purpose of the study.
They were also provided with the researchers' phone num-
bers in case they had questions.
RESULTS
Descriptive Data
Of the 378 participants in the final sample, 364 (96.3%)
identified themselves as heterosexual, and 14 (3.7%) iden-
tified themselves as bisexual. Questions regarding their
previous sexual experience revealed that 93, or 24.6%;
21.8%
of the women and 27.4% of the men,
%2(1,
N= 378)
= 1.56, p = .210, of the participants had never engaged in
penile-vaginal intercourse and 285 (75.4%) of the partici-
pants had engaged in penile-vaginal intercourse with a
mean number of 5.16 partners. The modal number of part-
ners was one.
Participants had indicated whether they were able to
imagine themselves in the scenarios depicted. To address
Research Question 1, whether ability to imagine oneself in
these scenarios varied as a function of participant gender
and type of initiation depicted (verbal or nonverbal), two
logistic regressions were conducted. One was performed
with gender of participant (female or male) and type of ini-
tiation (verbal or nonverbal) as the predictors and the abil-
ity to imagine their date initiating sexual intercourse as the
outcome. A test of the full model, with both predictors
against a constant-only model, was not statistically
signif-
icant,
%-(2,
N = 377) = 3.25, p = .197, indicating that nei-
ther gender of participant nor type of initiation affected the
ability to imagine one's date initiating sexual intercourse
(see Table 2).
A second logistic regression was performed with gender
of participant (female or male) and type of initiation (ver-
bal or nonverbal) as the predictors and the ability to imag-
ine oneself initiating sexual intercourse as the outcome. A
Downloaded by [University of Kansas Libraries] at 08:15 14 November 2012

264Communication of Sexual Consent
Table 1. Subscales and Factor Loadings Derived From Factor Analysis of Actual Self-Consent Ratings, Hypothetical
Self-Consent Ratings, and Hypothetical Date-Consent Ratings.
SignalLoadings
for
Actual
Self-Consent
Loadings
for
Hypothetical
Self-Consent
Loadings
for
Hypothetical
Date-Consent
Direct verbal signals (.76; .78; .49)a
You say, "I want to have sex with you"; She/He says, "I want to have sex with you"
You say, "I want you"; She/He says, "I want you"
You say, "Yes"; She/He says, "Yes"
You say, "I would like to sleep with you"; She/He says, "I would like to sleep with you"
You say, "I consent to sexual intercourse"; She/He says, "I consent to sexual intercourse"
Direct nonverbal signal
You don't say anything—you just start having intercourse with her/him;
She/He doesn't say anything—she/he just starts having intercourse with you
Indirect verbal signals (.69; .74; .83)a
You ask if she/he has a condom; She/He asks if you have a condom
You talk about the importance of using birth control if you do have sex;
She/He talks about the importance of using birth control if you do have sex
You suggest she/he get a condom out; She/He suggests you should get a condom out
You talk about your positive feelings about having sex with her/him;
She/He talks about her/his positive feelings about having sex with you
Indirect nonverbal signals (.91; .94; .94)a
You rub, fondle, and touch her/him sexually; She/He rubs, fondles, and touches you sexually
You put your hands down her/his pants; She/He puts her/his hands down your pants
You help her/him undress you; She/He helps you undress her/him
You undress her/him; She/He undresses you
You hug and caress her/him; She/He hugs and caresses you
You touch and kiss her/him in return; She/He touches and kisses you in return
You kiss her/him in return; She/He kisses you in return
You get physically closer to her/him; She/He gets physically closer to you
You start having dry sex with her/him (humping with clothes on);
She/He starts having dry sex with you (humping with clothes on)
You smile; She/He smiles
Intoxication signals (.92; .94; .95)a
You say, "I'm really drunk"; She/He says, "I'm really drunk"
You say, "I'm feeling a little drunk"; She/He says, "I'm feeling a little drunk"
Direct refusal signal
You say, "No"; She/He says, "No"
No response signals (.88; .89; .91) a
You do not resist her/his sexual advances; She/He does not resist your sexual advances
You don't stop her/him from kissing you and touching you sexually;
She/He doesn't stop you from kissing her/him and touching him/her sexually
You do not say no; She/He does not say no
You let her/him take your clothes off; She/He lets you take her/his clothes off
846
445b
522
774
531
.838
.657
.729
.641
.617
.776
.387°
.165C
.758
.055d
.682
.886
.418e
.881
.057e
.609
.869
.442
.694
.704
.569
.604
-.488'
.806
.830
.849
.575
.488J
.803
.450)
.707
.817
.741
.828
.573
111
708
749
815
543«
695
655
517s
411
564
881
884
.865
.865
.783
.804
.650
.725
.613
.638
.694
.507h
.868
.877
.802f
.800f
.737f
.704f
.803f
.717f
.801f
.766f
.695f
.681f
.876
.868
.657
.721*
.779*
.679f
.688f
Note. Factor loadings are presented only for the factor to which each item was ultimately assigned. For each item, the actual self-consent signal and
hypothetical self-consent signal given in response to the date's initiation are presented to the left of the semicolon; the hypothetical date-consent sig-
nal given in response to the participants' initiation is presented to the right of the semicolon.
aThese numbers represent the coefficient alphas for actual self-consent ratings (n = 285), hypothetical self-consent ratings (n = 352 or 353),and hypo-
thetical date-consent ratings (n = 272), respectively. 'This Direct Verbal item loaded more highly with the Direct Refusal item (-.618). These two
Direct Verbal items loaded more highly with the Indirect Nonverbal and No Response items (.423 and .464, respectively) and with the Direct
Nonverbal item (.430 and .442, respectively). dThis Direct Verbal item loaded more highly on its own factor (.688). These two Indirect Verbal items
loaded more highly on their own factor (.535 and .733, respectively). The Indirect Nonverbal items and No Response items loaded on the same fac-
tor. gThese two Indirect Nonverbal items loaded more highly with the No Response items (.564 and .634, respectively). hThis Indirect Nonverbal item
loaded more highly with the Direct Nonverbal item (-.532). This Direct Refusal item loaded negatively with the Direct Verbal items. These two No
Response items loaded more highly with the Indirect Nonverbal items (.642 and .699, respectively).
Downloaded by [University of Kansas Libraries] at 08:15 14 November 2012

Hickman
and
Muehlenhard265
Table
2.
Percentages
of
Participants
Who
Could Imagine Themselves
in
Each Scenario
as a
Function
of
Participant Gender,
Type
of
Initiation,
and
Initiator
Type
of
initiation
Verbal
Nonverbal
Across type
of
initiation
Verbal
Nonverbal
Across type
of
initiation
Women
90.59%
(85)
93.20%
(103)
92.02%
(188)
48.24%
(85)
66.99%
(103)
58.51%
(188)
Gender
of
participants
Men
Date-initiation scenarios
93.26%
(89)
97.00%
(100)
95.24%
(189)
Self-initiation scenarios
73.03%
(89)
96.04%
(101)
85.26%
(190)
All participants
91.95%
(174)
95.07%
(203)
93.63%
(377)
60.92%
(174)
81.37%
(204)
71.96%
(378)
Note. Numbers
in
parentheses
are ns
indicating
the
total number
of
participants
on
which
the
percentages
are
based.
test
of the
full model with both predictors against
a con-
stant-only model
was
statistically significant,
%2(2, N =
378)
=
57.12,
p <
.001. Both gender
and
type
of
initiation
significantly predicted participants' ability
to
imagine
themselves initiating sexual intercourse. Significantly
more
men
than women could imagine themselves initiat-
ing sexual intercourse,
X2(l, N = 378) =
33.48,
p < .001.
Participants were more likely
to be
able
to
imagine them-
selves initiating sexual intercourse nonverbally than
ver-
bally, %il,N=378)
=
21.34,
p < .001 (see
Table
2).
Factor Analyses
Participants' ratings were factor analyzed
to
guide
the cre-
ation
of
subscales
to be
used
in
subsequent analyses.
The
meanings
of the 33
behaviors
had
been rated
on a
7-point
Likert scale ranging from
0
(does
not
show consent
to sex-
ual intercourse/never
do
this
to
show consent)
to 6
(defi-
nitely shows consent
to
sexual intercourse/always
do
this
to
show consent). Participants rated these behaviors three
times:
once
to
rate
how
often they
use
various signals
to
show their consent
in
actual situations (actual self-consent
ratings), once
to
rate
how
indicative each behavior would
be
of
their
own
consent
in
scenarios (hypothetical self-con-
sent ratings),
and
once
to
rate
how
indicative each behavior
would
be of
their date's consent
in
scenarios (hypothetical
date-consent ratings).
To
increase
the
validity
of the
results,
the actual self-consent ratings
of
participants
who had not
had penile-vaginal intercourse were eliminated,
as
were
the
hypothetical
self- or
date-consent ratings
of
participants
who could
not
imagine themselves
in
these scenarios.
For
the
factor analyses, female
and
male participants'
responses were combined.
A
principal-components factor
analysis with
a
varimax rotation
was
conducted
on
each
type
of
rating, resulting
in
three factor patterns.
For the
hypothetical self-consent factor analysis,
six
factors
emerged.
For the
hypothetical date-consent factor analysis,
seven factors emerged.
For the
actual self-consent factor
analysis, eight factors emerged.
The
factor loadings were
examined
for
similarities across
the
three analyses.
Conceptual considerations were used
in
combination with
the loadings
to
guide
the
development
of
subscales.
Six
items were dropped
to
facilitate conceptual clarity.
We cre-
ated seven subscales
(see
Table
1).
Four
of the
subscales
paralleled
the
categories used
by
McCormick (1987): direct
verbal signals (e.g., "She/He says, 'Yes'"), direct nonver-
bal signals ("She/He doesn't
say
anything—she/he just
starts having intercourse with you"), indirect verbal signals
(e.g., "She/He asks
if you
have
a
condom"),
and
indirect
nonverbal signals (e.g., "She/He rubs, fondles,
and
touches
you sexually").
The
fifth subscale represented statements
about intoxication (e.g., "She/He says
'I'm
really drunk'"),
the sixth represented
a
direct refusal ("She/He says, 'No'"),
and
the
seventh represented making
no
response (e.g.,
"She/He does
not
resist your sexual advances").
Two of
these seven subscales
(the
direct nonverbal subscale
and
the direct refusal subscale) consisted
of
only
one
item each.
Although this
is
less than ideal,
we
decided
to
retain them
because they represented important concepts
for
expressing
sexual consent
or
nonconsent.
The
items
on
these subscales
showed satisfactory reliability, with
a
median Cronbach's
alpha
of .89 and a
range
of .69 to .95,
with
one
exception:
For hypothetical date-consent ratings
of
direct verbal
sig-
nals, Cronbach's alpha
was
only
.49 (see
Table
1).
Calculating subscale scores. Once
the
subscales were
derived, subscale scores were calculated
for
each partici-
pant. Participants' subscale scores were determined
by cal-
culating
the
mean
of
their responses
to the
items
on the sub-
scale.
In
this
way,
subscale scores retained
the
same range
of potential values
as the
original ratings
(see
Table
1 for a
list
of the
items
on
each subscale). Subscale scores
for
each
participant were computed separately
for the
hypothetical
self-consent, hypothetical date-consent,
and
actual
self-
consent ratings. Subscale scores were
not
calculated
for the
hypothetical
self- or
date-consent ratings
of
participants
who were unable
to
imagine themselves
in
those scenarios
or
for the
actual self-consent ratings
of
participants
who
had
not had
penile-vaginal intercourse. Subscale scores
were used
as
dependent variables
in
subsequent analyses.
Self-Reported
Use of
Consent Signals
To answer Research Question
2,
addressing which consent
signals women
and men use
most frequently,
the
actual
Downloaded by [University of Kansas Libraries] at 08:15 14 November 2012

266Communication of Sexual Consent
Table 3. Women's and Men's Self-Reported Use of Consent Signals
Factor
Direct verbal
Direct nonverbal
Indirect verbal
Indirect nonverbal
Intoxication
Direct refusal
No response
Gender of participants
Womena
3.21 (1.56)c
3.06 (2.21)cd
3.65 (1.39)abd
3.29(1.44)bc
0.26 (0.85)e
0.60(1.57)e
3.85 (1.63)a
Menb
3.19(1.49)°
3.21 (2.21)c
2.85 (1.52)c
3.96(1.25)b
0.65 (1.19)d
0.40(1.01)d
4.53 (1.61)a
F
0.01
0.33
21.57
17.35
10.29
1.69
12.48
P
.9249
.5653
.0001
.0001
.0015
.1947
.0005
Adjusted r\2
.000
.000
.068
.055
.032
.002
.039
Note. Scale ranged from 0 (never do this to show consent) to 6 (always do this to show consent). Table entries are means with standard deviations
shown in parentheses. Participants who had never engaged in sexual intercourse were dropped from this analysis. Within each column, means with
the same subscript do not differ significantly from each other at p < .002, calculated using the Bonferroni technique. Fs refer to tests of gender dif-
ferences. Adjusted T|2s refer to estimated effect sizes of gender differences.
an = 146. bn = 136.
self-consent ratings of participants who had experience
with penile-vaginal intercourse were analyzed separately
for women and men. Both women and men reported that
they most often showed their consent to sexual intercourse
by making no response. For each gender, 21 within-subject
t tests were used to compare each of the seven subscales
with every other subscale; using the Bonferroni technique,
alpha was set at .05/21=.002. Women's no response sub-
scale scores were significantly higher than any other sub-
scale scores except for the indirect verbal subscale; men's
no response subscale scores were significantly higher than
all their other subscale scores (see Table 3). Both women
and men reported almost never using statements about
intoxication or direct refusals to show their consent.
Gender differences in the use of consent signals. To
address Research Question 3, whether there are gender dif-
ferences in how often women and men report using con-
sent signals in actual situations, a between-subjects multi-
variate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted
with gender of the participant as the independent variable
and actual self-consent ratings as the dependent variables.
Only participants who had experienced penile-vaginal
intercourse were included in these analyses. There was a
significant gender difference, F{1, 21 A) = 10.38, p < .001.
Follow-up univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs)
showed that men reported using indirect nonverbal sig-
nals, statements about intoxication, and no response to
signal consent more frequently than did women (see Table
3).
Women reported using indirect verbal signals to show
consent more frequently than did men. To estimate effect
size,
adjusted eta squared was calculated for each effect
(Judd & McClelland, 1989). Whenever the formula for
adjusted eta squared (1 - [1 - n2] [dflotal/dferrOT]) produced a
negative number, it was set to 0. Using Cohen's (1977)
guidelines, construing .02 as a small effect, .13 as a medi-
um effect, and .26 as a large effect, all effect sizes for gen-
der were in the small range, suggesting that although there
were significant gender differences in reports of how fre-
quently different signals were used, the gender differences
were small. There were no gender differences in any of the
direct signals: direct verbal signals, direct nonverbal sig-
nals, or a direct refusal.
Self-reported behaviors and hypothetical self-consent
ratings. To address Research Question 4—whether people
actually use the signals they rate as hypothetically indicat-
ing their own consent to sexual intercourse—we calculat-
ed Pearson's correlations between participants' actual
self-
consent ratings and hypothetical self-consent ratings. Only
the responses of participants who had experienced penile-
vaginal intercourse and could imagine themselves
responding to a partner's sexual initiation were included.
Participants' self-reported use of signals correlated posi-
tively and significantly with their ratings of how indicative
these behaviors were of their own sexual consent, although
the magnitude of these correlations ranged from moderate
to low: for direct verbal signals, r = .18, p = .004; for
direct nonverbal signals, r = .22, p < .001 ; for indirect ver-
bal signals, r = .23, p < .001; for indirect nonverbal sig-
nals, r = .59, p < .001; for statements about intoxication, r
= .43, p < .001; for a direct refusal, r = .18, p = .003; and
for no response, r = .49, p < .001.
Women's and Men's Ratings of the Meaning of Consent
Signals in Hypothetical Scenarios
Type of initiation and gender differences. To answer
Research Questions 5 and 6, whether the type of initiation
(verbal or nonverbal) and participant gender affected rat-
ings of how indicative signals were of consent in the
hypothetical scenarios, two 2x2 between-subjects
MANOVAs were performed on participants' subscale rat-
ings of hypothetical date-consent signals and hypothetical
self-consent signals. For the first MANOVA, the indepen-
dent variables were the gender of the participants (female
or male) and the type of initiation (verbal or nonverbal),
and the dependent variables were the seven hypothetical
self-consent subscale scores. Participants who could not
imagine their partner initiating sexual intercourse were
eliminated from this analysis. For the second MANOVA,
the independent variables were participant gender and
type of initiation, and the dependent variables were the
Downloaded by [University of Kansas Libraries] at 08:15 14 November 2012

Hickman and Muehlenhard267
Table
Factor
4.
Mean Hypothetical Self-Consent Ratings and
Verbal and Nonverbal Initiation Scenarios
Verbal
Hypothetical Date-Consent
Type of initiation
Nonverbal
Ratings of Sexual
F
Consent
P
Signals in
Adjusted t]2
Direct verbal
Direct nonverbal
Indirect verbal
Indirect nonverbal
Intoxication
Direct refusal
No response
5.28(1.01)
5.34(1.45)
4.22(1.20)
3.87(1.27)
1.02(1.57)
0.12(0.59)
3.64(1.48)
Ratings of one's own hypothetical consent signalsa
5.26 (0.90) 0.01 .9297
5.36(1.44) 0.01 .9140
4.62(1.00) 13.36 .0003
3.51(1.37) 6.43 .0116
1.10(1.56)
0.40 .5278
0.30(1.01) 4.08 .0442
3.54(1.56) 0.27 .6004
.000
.000
.025
.008
.000
.003
.000
Direct verbal
Direct nonverbal
Indirect verbal
Indirect nonverbal
Intoxication
Direct refusal
No response
5.50 (0.48)
5.66(1.03)
4.20(1.10)
3.91 (1.13)
1.08 (1.52)
0.06 (0.33)
3.47(1.42)
Ratings of dates' hypothetical consent signals'3
5.43 (0.54) 0.73 .3927
5.61 (0.99) 0.27 .6041
4.53(1.06) 4.29 .0394
3.46(1.27) 9.44 .0023
1.10(1.54)
0.01 .9116
0.23 (0.91) 3.44 .0646
3.25(1.38) 1.77 .1839
.000
.000
.004
.023
.000
.000
.000
Note. Table entries are means with standard deviations shown in parentheses. Participants who could not imagine themselves in the situations were
dropped from these analyses. Fs refer to tests of differences between types of initiations. Adjusted T|2s refer to estimated effect sizes of these differ-
ences.
aScale ranged from 0 (does not show your consent to sexual intercourse) to 6 (definitely shows your consent to sexual intercourse); n = 160 Verbal
and 193 Nonverbal. bScale ranged from 0 (does not show her/his consent to sexual intercourse) to 6 (definitely shows her/liis consent to sexual inter-
course);
n = 106 Verbal and 166 Nonverbal.
seven hypothetical date-consent subscale scores.
Participants who could not imagine themselves initiating
sexual intercourse were eliminated from this analysis.
Participants were included whether or not they had expe-
rienced penile-vaginal intercourse because even inexperi-
enced persons might find themselves in situations where
they need to convey or infer consent or lack of consent to
sex. There were no significant interactions between gen-
der and type of initiation in either MANOVA, so these
variables will be discussed separately.
Type of initiation. The two MANOVAs revealed that
type of initiation (verbal or nonverbal) significantly
affected hypothetical self-consent ratings, F{1, 343) =
6.62, p < .001, and hypothetical date-consent ratings, F{1,
262) = 4.84, p < .001. Follow-up ANOVAs showed that
participants rated indirect nonverbal signals as more
indicative of their consent and of their dates' consent in
response to verbal initiations than in response to nonver-
bal initiations (see Table 4). However, they indicated that
indirect verbal signals would be more indicative of their
consent and of their dates' consent in response to nonver-
bal initiations than in response to verbal initiations. In
both cases the effect sizes were small, suggesting that the
type of initiation only had a small effect on the ratings of
these signals. Participants also rated a direct refusal as
less indicative of their own consent in response to verbal
initiations than in response to nonverbal initiations,
although these ratings were low and the effect size was
very small; there was a similar but nonsignificant trend for
hypothetical date-consent ratings. The type of initiation
had no significant impact on the ratings of hypothetical
direct verbal, direct nonverbal, intoxication, or no
response signals in the scenarios.
Participant gender. The MANOVAs revealed that gen-
der of the participant significantly affected hypothetical
self-consent ratings, F(J, 343) = 11.48, p < .001, but not
hypothetical date-consent ratings, F(J, 262) = 1.85, p -
.078.
Follow-up ANOVAs revealed that men rated their
own hypothetical direct verbal, direct nonverbal, indirect
verbal, indirect nonverbal, intoxication, and no response
signals as more indicative of their sexual consent than
women rated their own such hypothetical behaviors (see
Table 5). The effect sizes ranged from small to medium-
small, suggesting that the differences between men's and
women's ratings of their own hypothetical consent signals
were minimal. Both women and men rated a direct refusal
similarly as not indicative of sexual consent.
Assessing the potential for miscommunication. To
answer Research Question 7, whether there were discrep-
ancies between women's and men's ratings of the scenar-
ios that would suggest gender-related miscommunication,
two between-subjects MANOVAs were performed. The
first compared women's hypothetical date-consent ratings
and men's hypothetical self-consent ratings to assess pos-
sible gender miscommunications about sexual consent.
This analysis compared how men rated their own consent
signals and how women rated their male dates' signals in
the scenarios to see if women and men have similar under-
Downloaded by [University of Kansas Libraries] at 08:15 14 November 2012

26SCommunication of Sexual Consent
Table 5. Women's and Men's Mean Hypothetical Self-Consent Ratings and Hypothetical Date-Consent Ratings
Factor
Gender of participants
WomenMenAdjusted T|
Direct verbal
Direct nonverbal
Indirect verbal
Indirect nonverbal
Intoxication
Direct refusal
No response
Rating's of one's own consent signals'1
5.05(1.13) 5.49(0.69) 19.73 .0001
5.11(1.69) 5.58(1.12) 8.85 .0031
4.10(1.14) 4.76(0.98) 35.44 .0001
3.31 (1.29) 4.03 (1.29) 27.52 .0001
0.55(1.06)
1.55(1.80)
40.48 .0001
0.16(0.73) 0.28(0.95) 1.67 .1969
3.13(1.46) 4.02(1.46) 34.30 .0001
.045
.016
.081
.064
.096
.000
.081
Direct verbal
Direct nonverbal
Indirect verbal
Indirect nonverbal
Intoxication
Direct refusal
No response
Ratings of dates' consent signals
5.44 (0.53)
5.59(1.12)
4.30(1.12)
3.50(1.21)
0.77 (1.33)
0.14 (0.66)
3.39(1.38)
5.47 (0.51)
5.65 (0.92)
4.47(1.06)
3.72(1.25)
1.30(1.62)
0.18(0.80)
3.30(1.42)
0.42
0.11
0.87
1.23
7.12
0.27
0.32
.5168
.7352
.3510
.2676
.0081
.6063
.5725
.000
.000
.000
.000
.015
.000
.000
Note. Table entries are means with standard deviations shown in parentheses. Participants who could not imagine themselves in the situations were
dropped from these analyses. Fs refer to tests of gender differences. Adjusted T|2s refer to estimated effect sizes of gender differences.
aScale ranged from 0 (does not show your consent to sexual intercourse) to 6 (definitely shows your consent to sexual intercourse); n = 173 women
and 180 men. bScale ranged from 0 (does not show her/his consent to sexual intercourse) to 6 (definitely shows her/his consent to sexual intercourse);
n = 110 women and 162 men.
standings of how men consent to sexual intercourse.
Participants who could not imagine themselves in the per-
tinent scenarios were eliminated. A significant gender dif-
ference was found, suggesting that women and men have
different understandings of how men signal consent to sex-
ual intercourse, F(7, 282) = 3.96, p < .001. Follow-up
ANOVAs revealed that men rated indirect verbal, indirect
nonverbal, no response, and intoxication signals as more
indicative of their own sexual consent than women rated
these signals as indicative of their male dates' consent in
scenarios (see Table 6). Effect sizes were small, suggesting
that the actual gender differences were minimal. Direct
verbal signals were rated as similarly indicative of a man's
sexual consent by both women and men, as were direct
nonverbal signals and a direct refusal.
Similarly, a between-subjects MANOVA was per-
formed on men's hypothetical date-consent ratings and
women's hypothetical self-consent ratings. Again, a
signif-
icant gender difference was found, suggesting that women
and men have different understandings of how women sig-
nal consent to sexual intercourse, F(7, 326) = 7.39, p <
.001.
Follow-up ANOVAs revealed that for all signals
except a direct refusal and no response, women rated their
own hypothetical signals as less indicative of sexual con-
sent than men rated their hypothetical female dates' signals
in the scenarios (see Table 6). Effect sizes were small, sug-
gesting that the gender differences on these ratings were
minimal.
There was no significant difference between
women's and men's ratings of a direct refusal, and these
ratings were low, suggesting that women and men agree
that a direct refusal does not indicate sexual consent. Also,
there was no significant difference between men's and
women's ratings of no response signal: These ratings fell
in the middle of the rating scale, suggesting they are con-
sidered somewhat indicative of consent.
DISCUSSION
Sexual Consent Signals
Communicating sexual consent is far more complex than
simply saying yes to a sexual initiation. The young women
and men in this study reported that they use a variety of
signals to indicate their consent, and that they view a vari-
ety of signals as indicative of sexual consent in heterosex-
ual situations. These signals ranged from behaviors as
vague as smiling to statements as straightforward as "I
want to have sex with you." Most of the sexual consent sig-
nals in this study fell into identifiable categories of direct
and indirect verbal and nonverbal consent signals.
Reported use of consent signals. Participants who had
previously engaged in sexual intercourse reported that they
used a wide repertoire of signals to indicate their sexual
consent in actual situations: direct verbal signals, direct
nonverbal signals, indirect verbal signals, and indirect non-
verbal signals. They reported almost never using state-
ments about their level of intoxication or direct refusals to
signal their sexual consent; they did, however, frequently
convey consent by not resisting. Self-reported use of con-
sent signals was, at most, moderately related to ratings of
how indicative the signals were of sexual consent in the
Downloaded by [University of Kansas Libraries] at 08:15 14 November 2012

Hickman and Muehlenhard269
Table 6. Women's and Men's Mean Hypothetical Date-Consent Ratings Compared With Their Mean Hypothetical
Self-Consent Ratings
Factor
Direct verbal
Direct nonverbal
Indirect verbal
Indirect nonverbal
Intoxication
Direct refusal
No response
Direct verbal
Direct nonverbal
Indirect verbal
Indirect nonverbal
Intoxication
Direct refusal
No response
Gender of participants
WomenMenAdjusted T|
Women's mean hypothetical date-consent ratings compared with men's hypothetical
self-consent ratingsa
5.44(0.53) 5.49(0.69) 0.31 .5752 .000
5.59(1.12) 5.58(1.12) 0.00 .9554 .000
4.30(1.12) 4.76(0.98) 13.39 .0003 .041
3.50(1.21) 4.03(1.29) 11.74 .0007 .036
0.77(1.33)
1.55(1.80)
15.52 .0001 .048
0.14(0.66) 0.28(0.95) 1.90 .1693 .003
3.39(1.38) 4.02(1.46) 13.35 .0003 .041
Men's mean hypothetical date-consent ratings compared with women's mean hypothetical
self-consent ratings'1
5.05(1.13) 5.47(0.51) 19.16 .0001 .052
5.11(1.69) 5.65(0.92) 13.02 .0004 .035
4.10(1.14) 4.47(1.06) 9.22 .0026 .024
3.31(1.29) 3.72(1.26) 8.96 .0030 .023
0.55(1.06)
1.30(1.62)
25.43 .0001 .068
0.16(0.73) 0.18(0.80) 0.08 .7732 .000
3.13(1.46) 3.30(1.42) 1.18 .2777 .001
Note. Table entries are means with standard deviations shown in parentheses. Scale ranged from 0 (does not show his/her/your consent to sexual inter-
course) to 6 (definitely shows his/her/your consent to sexual intercourse). Participants who could not imagine themselves in the situations were
dropped from these analyses. Fs refer to tests of gender differences. Adjusted T|2s refer to estimated effect sizes of gender differences.
3n= 110 women and 180 men. bn = 173 women and 161 men.
scenarios. The use and interpretation of consent signals
depended on other factors such as gender and the way in
which sex was initiated.
Gender and Sexual Consent
Gender and the self-reported actual use of consent signals.
Closer examination of the self-reported use of consent sig-
nals revealed that there were small differences between
women and men in the kinds of consent signals they
reported using. Women were more likely than men to use
indirect verbal signals (e.g., asking if the other person has
a condom), whereas men were more likely than women to
use indirect nonverbal signals (e.g., touching, kissing, or
caressing the other person), no response (e.g., not saying
no),
or statements about their level of intoxication (though
the use of intoxication statements was relatively rare) to
indicate their consent. These differences suggest the possi-
bility of gender-based misunderstandings. Women and
men may expect that their date would consent in the same
way they would consent; if their date does or says some-
thing that they themselves would use to signal consent,
they may mistakenly assume the date is signaling consent.
However, the effect sizes of the differences between
women's and men's self-reported use of these consent sig-
nals were small, suggesting that the actual differences are
small. Additionally, both women and men reported using
no response (e.g., not resisting) more frequently than other
signals. They were equally likely to use direct verbal and
direct nonverbal signals, and equally unlikely to use direct
refusals to signal consent. There were far more similarities
than differences in women's and men's self-reported use of
consent signals.
Gender and perceptions of sexual consent. There were
also gender differences in ratings of how indicative signals
would be of one's own sexual consent in response to a date's
sexual initiation in hypothetical scenarios. Men rated direct
verbal signals, direct nonverbal signals, indirect verbal sig-
nals,
indirect nonverbal signals, statements about intoxica-
tion, and no response as more indicative of their own sexu-
al consent than did women. This is not surprising given that
numerous studies have found that men rate women, other
men, and even themselves more sexually than women do
(e.g., Abbey, 1982; Johnson et al., 1991). It seems this ten-
dency also affects perceptions of hypothetical self-consent
ratings. The one exception was saying no to signal consent:
Women and men rated a direct refusal—a no—as being
equally unindicative of their sexual consent.
Women and men were in agreement about the meaning
of their dates' sexual consent signals in hypothetical sce-
narios. Interestingly, although women and men have simi-
lar ideas about whether their dates' signals indicate consent,
they mean different things when they themselves use these
signals. That is, women interpret their male dates' signals
the same way that men interpret their female dates' signals,
but paradoxically, as discussed in the previous paragraph,
men's signals indicate a greater level of sexual consent than
do the same signals given by women. This difference sets
up the potential for sexual miscommunication.
Downloaded by [University of Kansas Libraries] at 08:15 14 November 2012

270Communication of Sexual Consent
Further exploration revealed that men rated their female
dates'
direct verbal signals, direct nonverbal signals, indi-
rect verbal signals, indirect nonverbal signals, and intoxi-
cation statements as more indicative of their female dates'
sexual consent than women rated their own sexual consent
signals. Likewise, men rated their own indirect verbal sig-
nals,
indirect nonverbal signals, statements about intoxica-
tion, and no response as more indicative of their own sex-
ual consent than women rated their male dates' signals.
These findings, taken in combination with the differences
between women and men in what they mean by different
consent signals, suggest the potential for gender-based
sexual miscommunication.
However, it is important not to exaggerate these gender
differences. Although there were significant gender differ-
ences in the expected direction, effect sizes were small, and
the actual ratings of signals were quite similar. Differences
between women's and men's ratings of how they interpret-
ed these signals were always less than 1 point on a 7-point
scale, just as they were for ratings of how often they used
these signals. Additionally, there was agreement on an
important issue: Both men and women rated direct refusals
as equally unindicative of sexual consent, suggesting that a
direct refusal is an unambiguous signal.
Gender and sexual initiations. There were also signifi-
cant gender differences in ability to imagine oneself initi-
ating sexual intercourse in the scenarios. More men than
women were able to imagine themselves initiating sexual
intercourse both verbally and nonverbally. This pattern fits
with the traditional sexual script, in which men initiate
sexual intercourse and women are the recipients of these
initiations. It also has implications for sexual consent. If
men typically initiate sexual intercourse, men will be inter-
preting women's consent signals more often than women
will be interpreting men's consent signals. Thus, women's
misinterpretations of men's consent signals are less rele-
vant to most sexual situations than men's misinterpreta-
tions of women's sexual signals.
Verbal and Nonverbal Initiations
The way in which sexual intercourse was initiated influ-
enced what behaviors were seen as indicative of consent.
Women and men rated indirect verbal signals as more
indicative of their and their dates' sexual consent in
response to nonverbal initiations than in response to ver-
bal initiations. Conversely, they rated indirect nonverbal
signals as more indicative of their and their dates' sexual
consent in response to verbal initiations than in response
to nonverbal initiations. It seems that the meanings of
indirect verbal and nonverbal signals are more situational-
ly specific than are direct verbal and nonverbal signals.
The unclear nature of indirect signals may force the ini-
tiator to look to the situation for cues as to whether the
respondent has actually consented. The type of initiation
did not affect how participants rated direct verbal signals
or direct nonverbal signals. Further research is needed to
clarify the role of the type of initiation on perceptions of
sexual consent and to explore the situational specificity of
consent signals.
Implications
Miscommunication and acquaintance rape. Many
researchers have discussed the possibility that sexual mis-
communication between women and men contributes to
acquaintance rape (Abbey, 1982, 1987; Bart & O'Brien,
1985;
Warshaw, 1994). Indeed, anecdotal evidence sug-
gests that gender-based misunderstandings do sometimes
lead to rape (Bart & O'Brien, 1985; Warshaw, 1994).
Empirical research has also found support for this hypoth-
esis.
One study found that male and female participants
had different understandings of resistance messages, par-
ticularly when the messages were indirect, suggesting that
miscommunication about refusals could contribute to sex-
ual assault (Motley & Reeder, 1995). Abbey (1987), exam-
ining naturally occurring misperceptions of sexual intent,
found that such misperceptions are common between
women and men. Significantly more women (72%) than
men (60%) reported that they had had at least one experi-
ence in which a member of the "opposite sex" misper-
ceived their friendly behavior as sexually-interested
behavior. Although most misperceptions were minor in
nature and were resolved quickly, some led to forced sex-
ual activity, ranging from kissing to sexual intercourse.
However, it is unclear from these data whether the respon-
dents'
signals were misunderstood or deliberately ignored.
As a result of the miscommunication hypothesis, women
have been advised to clearly communicate their sexual
intentions to prevent being raped. This "prevention strategy"
is problematic, for it suggests that it is women's responsi-
bility to ensure that men understand their sexual intentions,
not men's responsibility to listen to their partner or
date or to get clear consent before proceeding
(Crawford, 1995). It encourages victim blaming, for women
are held responsible when their communication efforts
"fail"
and they are raped (Crawford, 1995; Warshaw, 1994).
Also,
this approach does not take into account women's
concerns about the effect of direct messages, particularly
direct refusals, on their relationship with the man involved
(Motley & Reeder, 1995). Cupach and Metts (1991) sug-
gested that both men and women prefer indirect communi-
cation because it enables them to gain sexual access and
avoid explicit rejection. If the indirect communication is not
responded to in a positive way, it can go unacknowledged.
If it is accepted, then sexual activity can begin or continue.
Although this study found evidence that women and
men do have different ideas about how indicative of sexu-
al consent many signals are, the differences between
women and men were generally quite small. Thus, it is
unlikely that miscommunication about consent is a major
contributing factor to acquaintance rape. It is more likely
that sexually aggressive men selectively ignore or reinter-
pret what women say to fit what they want to hear, using
miscommunication as an excuse for raping (Christopher &
Frandsen, 1990; Warshaw, 1994).
Downloaded by [University of Kansas Libraries] at 08:15 14 November 2012

Hickman and Muehlenhard271
One finding in the present study did signal a cause for
concern, however. Both women and men reported that they
most frequently signaled sexual consent by not resisting:
letting their partner undress them, not stopping their partner
from kissing or touching them, not saying no.
Unfortunately in some cases of rape, the aggressor pro-
ceeds without resistance from the victim, perhaps because
the victim is frightened, confused, or embarrassed (Estrich,
1987; Meyer, 1984; Warshaw, 1994). Thus, it could be dan-
gerous to use not resisting as a signal of consent.
Directions for Future Research
Numerous participants wrote comments indicating that
being in a relationship affected how they signaled consent.
One woman wrote that "a smile does not mean consent in
a bar to a guy I hardly know, but it does with my
boyfriend." It may be that couples develop more idiosyn-
cratic rules for interpreting each other's behavior and sex-
ual signals as the relationship develops (Peplau et al.,
1977). There may also be a sense of entitlement that
encourages people to presume sexual consent in relation-
ships (Shotland & Goodstein, 1992). Further research is
needed in this area. Additionally, the current study was
designed to assess how young women and men perceive
and communicate consent in heterosexual situations.
Further research is needed to examine how people of dif-
ferent ages, socioeconomic groups, ethnic groups, and sex-
ual orientations infer and convey consent.
Conclusion
When the students and administrators at Antioch College
developed mutual consent guidelines, they unintentionally
created an international controversy, generating discussion
about a previously neglected topic: sexual consent. At the
time there was little information about how people con-
ceptualize and communicate consent to help inform the
discussion. The results of this study and related studies
clearly indicate that consent is complex and can take many
forms. Simply requiring that people verbally communicate
consent by saying "I consent to sexual intercourse," as the
Antioch College mutual consent guidelines suggested, is
probably unrealistic for most people. We need to generate
dialogue about the nature of consent and encourage young
women and men to talk about consent, both in sexual situ-
ations and in the classroom. Such discussions would min-
imize the possibility of gender-based miscommunications
about sexual consent and help eliminate harmful stereo-
types that perpetuate rape.
REFERENCES
Abbey, A. (1982). Sex differences in attributions for friendly behavior: Do
males misperceive females' friendliness? Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 42, 830-838.
Abbey, A. (1987). Misperceptions of friendly behavior as sexual interest: A
survey of naturally occurring incidents. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
11,
173-194.
Abbey, A. (1991). Misperception as an antecedent of acquaintance rape. In
A. Parrot & L. Bechhofer (Eds.), Acquaintance rape: The hidden crime
(pp.
96-111). New York: Wiley.
Abbey, A., Cozarelli, C, McLaughlin, K., & Harnish, R. J. (1987). The
effects of clothing and dyad sex composition on perceptions of sexual
intent: Do women and men evaluate these cues differently. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 17, 108-126.
Abbey, A., & Melby, C. (1986). The effects of nonverbal cues on gender dif-
ferences in perceptions of sexual intent. Sex Roles, 15, 283-298.
Antioch College. (1990). Sexual violence and safety. Yellow Springs, OH:
Author.
Bart, P. B., & O'Brien, P. H. (1985). Stopping rape: Successful survival
strategies. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.
Botswick, T. D., & DeLucia, J. L. (1992). Effects of gender and specific dat-
ing behaviors on perceptions of sex willingness and date rape. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 11,
14-25.
Burrow, J. J. (1997). Men's and women's perceptions of verbal and nonver-
bal consent for sexual intercourse. Unpublished master's thesis,
University of the Pacific, Stockton, CA.
Burt, M. R., & Albin, R. S. (1981). Rape myths, rape definitions, and proba-
bility of conviction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11, 212-230.
Byers,
E. S. (1980). Female communication of consent and nonconsent to
sexual intercourse. New Brunswick Psychology, 5, 12-18.
Byers,
E. S., & Heinlen, L. (1989). Predicting initiations and refusals of sex-
ual activities in married and cohabiting heterosexual couples. The
Journal of Sex Research, 26,
210-231.
Byers,
E. S., & Lewis, K. (1988). Dating couples' disagreements over the
desired level of sexual intimacy. The Journal of Sex Research, 24, 15-29.
Christopher, F. S., & Frandsen, M. M. (1990). Strategies of influence in sex
and dating. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 89-105.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Rev.
ed.).
New York: Academic Press.
Crawford, M. (1995). Talking difference: On gender and language.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cupach, W. R., & Metts, S. (1991). Sexuality and communication in close
relationships. In K. McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Sexuality in close
relationships (pp. 93-110). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Estrich, S. (1987). Real rape. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
Falbo,
T. (1977). Multidimensional scaling of power strategies. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 537-547.
Falbo,
T., & Peplau, L. A. (1980). Power strategies in intimate relationships.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 618-628.
Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social sources of
human sexuality. Chicago: Aldine.
Guskin, A. E. (1994). The Antioch response: Sex, you just don't talk about it.
Yellow Springs, OH: Antioch College.
Hall,
D. S. (1995). Consent for sexual behavior in a college student popula-
tion.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Institute for Advanced Study
of Human Sexuality, San Francisco.
Johnson, C. B., Stockdale, M. S., & Saal, F. E. (1991). Persistence of men's
misperceptions of friendly cues across a variety of interpersonal encoun-
ters.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 463-475.
Judd, C. M., & McClelland, G. H. (1989). Data analysis: A model-compari-
son approach. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
McCormick, N. B. (1979). Come-ons and put-offs: Unmarried students'
strategies for having and avoiding sexual intercourse. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 4,
194-211.
McCormick, N. B. (1987). Sexual scripts: Social and therapeutic implica-
tions.
Sexual and Marital Therapy, 2, 3-27.
Metts,
S., Cupach, W. R., & Imahori, T. T. (1992). Perceptions of sexual
compliance-resisting messages in three types of cross-sex relationships.
Western Journal of Communication, 56, 1-17.
Meyer, T. J. (1984, Dec. 5). "Date rape": A serious campus problem that few
talk about. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 29 (15), pp. 1, 12.
Motley, M. T., & Reeder, H. M. (1995). Unwanted escalation of sexual inti-
macy: Male and female perceptions of connotations and relational con-
sequences of resistance messages. Communication Monographs, 62,
355-382.
Muehlenhard, C. L. (1988). Misinterpreted dating behaviors and the risk of
date rape. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 6, 20-37.
Muehlenhard, C. L. (1995/1996). The complexities of sexual consent.
SIECUS Report, 24 (2), 4-7.
Muehlenhard, C. L., & Hollabaugh, L. C. (1988). Do women sometimes say
no when they mean yes? The prevalence and correlates of women's token
Downloaded by [University of Kansas Libraries] at 08:15 14 November 2012

272Communication
of
Sexual Consent
resistance to sex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,
872-879.
Muehlenhard, C. L., Powch, I. G., Phelps, J. L., & Giusti, L. M. (1992).
Definitions of rape: Scientific and political implications. Journal of
Social
Issues,
48(1),
23-44.
Muehlenhard, C. L., & Rodgers, C. S. (1998). Token resistance to sex: New
perspectives on an old stereotype. Psychology of
Women
Quarterly, 22,
443-463.
Muehlenhard, C. L., & Schrag, J. L. (1991). Nonviolent sexual coercion. In
A. Parrot & L. Bechhofer (Eds.), Acquaintance rape: The hidden crime
(pp.
115-128). New York: Wiley.
O'Sullivan, L. F., & Allgeier, E. R. (1994). Disassembling a stereotype:
Gender differences in the use of token resistance. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 24, 1035-1055.
O'Sullivan, L. F., & Byers, E. S. (1992). College students' incorporation of
initiator and restrictor roles in sexual dating interactions. The Journal of
Sex Research, 29, 435-446.
O'Sullivan, L. F., & Byers, E. S. (1993). Eroding stereotypes: College
women's attempts to influence reluctant male sexual partners. The
Journal of Sex Research, 30, 270-282.
Peplau, L. A., Rubin, Z., & Hill, C. T. (1977). Sexual intimacy in dating rela-
tionships. Journal of Social Issues, 33 (2), 86-109.
Perper, T., & Weis, D. L. (1987). Proceptive and rejective strategies of U.S.
and Canadian college women. The Journal of Sex Research, 23, 455-480.
Saal, F. E., Johnson, C. B., & Weber, N. (1989). Friendly or sexy? It may
depend on whom you ask. Psychology of
Women
Quarterly, 13, 263-276.
Safilios-Rothschild, C. (1977). Love, sex, and sex roles. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Sanday, P. R. (1996). A woman
scorned:
Acquaintance rape on
trial.
New
York: Doubleday.
Shotland, R. L., & Craig, J. M. (1988). Can men and women differentiate
between friendly and sexually interested behavior? Social Psychology
Quarterly, 51,
66-73.
Shotland, R. L., & Goodstein, L. (1992). Sexual precedence reduces the per-
ceived legitimacy of sexual refusal: An examination of attributions con-
cerning date rape and consensual sex. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 19, 756-764.
Sprecher, S., & McKinney, K. (1993). Sexuality. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Tong, R, (1984). Women, sex, and the law. Totowa, NJ: Rowman &
Allanheld.
Warshaw, R. (1994). / never called it rape (2nd ed.). New York: Harper &
Row.
Manuscript accepted December
9, 1998
Downloaded by [University of Kansas Libraries] at 08:15 14 November 2012