Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 43, Issue 3, pp 437–450 | Cite as

Consenting to Sexual Activity: The Development and Psychometric Assessment of Dual Measures of Consent

  • Kristen N. Jozkowski
  • Stephanie Sanders
  • Zoë D. Peterson
  • Barbara Dennis
  • Michael Reece
Original Paper

Abstract

Sexual assault prevention efforts have focused on educating students to obtain consent as a mechanism to reduce sexual assault, yet little is known about how college students consent to sex. Additionally, there are currently no measures available to assess students’ consent to sex. The current study aimed to better understand college students consent by using a systematic approach to develop validated measures of sexual consent. This study integrated mixed methods via three phases and two waves of data collection to develop two measures of consent. In Phase 1, qualitative data were collected from college students (n = 185) to inform the design of quantitative measures aimed at assessing sexual consent at last sexual intercourse. In Phase 2, items were written for the closed-ended quantitative instrument and reviewed by a team of experts, educators, and clinicians. In Phase 3, a quantitative survey was administered to college students (n = 660) which included the measures of consent developed from the Phase 1 data; the measures were assessed for their psychometric properties. Exploratory factor analyses were utilized to assess the measures and resulted in five factors each for both consent scales. Both scales had high internal consistency reliability, showed gender differences, and showed differences across relationship status (single vs. in a relationship). The two newly developed measures assess unique constructs of consent and demonstrate assessments of specific concepts. Our findings provide an important contribution to the field of sexuality as these measures can be used in future research to better understand sexual consent.

Keywords

Sexual consent Sexual assault College students 

References

  1. Adams-Curtis, L., & Forbes, G. (2004). College women’s experiences of sexual coercion: A review of cultural, perpetrator, victim and situational variables. Trauma, Violence and Abuse, 5, 91–122.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Armstrong, E. A., Hamilton, L., & Sweeney, B. (2006). Sexual assault on campus: A multilevel integrative approach to party rape. Social Problems, 53, 483–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bachar, K., & Koss, M. (2001). From prevalence to prevention: Closing the gap between what we know about rape and what we do. In C. Renzetti, J. Edleson, & R. K. Bergen (Eds.), Sourcebook on violence against women (pp. 117–142). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Beres, M. A. (2007). ‘Spontaneous’ sexual consent: An analysis of sexual consent literature. Feminism & Psychology, 17, 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beres, M. A., Herold, E., & Maitland, S. B. (2004). Sexual consent behaviors in same-sex relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33, 475–486.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bogle, K. (2008). Hooking up: Sex, dating and relationships on campus. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, J. D. (2002). Mass media influences on sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 42–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Burt, M. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217–230.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Carmody, M. (2005). Ethical erotics: Reconceptualizing anti-rape education. Sexualities, 8, 465–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1996). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cliff, N. (1988). The eigenvalues-greater-than-one rule and the reliability of components. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 276–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Daigle, L. E., Fisher, B. S., & Cullen, F. T. (2008). The violent and sexual victimization of college women: Is repeat victimization a problem? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1296–1313.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Daigle, L. E., Fisher, B. S., & Stewart, M. (2009). The effectiveness of sexual victimization prevention among college students: A summary of “what works”. Victims and Offenders, 4, 398–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DeSantis, A. (2007). Inside Greek-U: Fraternities, sororities, and the pursuit of power, pleasure and prestige. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar
  16. DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  17. DeVellis, R. F., Holt, K., Renner, B. R., Blalock, S. J., Banchard, L. W., Cook, H. L., et al. (1990). The relationship of social comparison to rheumatoid arthritis symptoms and affect. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Donat, P. L. N., & White, J. W. (2000). Re-examining the issue of non-consent in acquaintance rape. In C. B. Travis & J. W. White (Eds.), Sexuality, society, & feminism (pp. 355–376). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2000). The sexual victimization of college women. Research Report No. 182369. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  20. Gagnon, H., & Simon, W. (2009). Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality (2nd ed.). Rutgers, NJ: Aldine Transaction.Google Scholar
  21. Greer, A. E., & Buss, D. M. (1994). Tactics for promoting sexual encounters. Journal of Sex Research, 31, 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2009). Survey methodology (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  23. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (1987). Multivariate data analysis with readings (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  24. Hall, D. S. (1998, August 10). Consent for sexual behavior in a college student population. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, 1. Retrieved from http://www.ejhs.org/volume1/consent1.htm.
  25. Hickman, S. E., & Muehlenhard, C. L. (1999). “By the semi-mystical appearance of a condom”: How young women and men communicate consent in heterosexual situations. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 258–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Humphreys, T. (2007). Perceptions of sexual consent: The impact of relationship history and gender. Journal of Sex Research, 44, 307–315.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Humphreys, T. P., & Brousseau, M. (2009). The Sexual Consent Scale-Revised: Development, reliability, and preliminary validity. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Humphreys, T. P., & Herold, E. (2003). Should universities and colleges mandate sexual behavior? Student perceptions of ‘Antioch College’s consent policy’. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 15, 35–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Humphreys, T. P., & Herold, E. (2007). Sexual consent in heterosexual dating relationships: Attitudes and behaviors of university students. Sex Roles, 57, 305–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jhally, S. (2007). Dreamworlds 3: Desire, sex and power in music videos. United States: Media Education Foundation.Google Scholar
  32. Jozkowski, K. N., & Peterson, Z. D. (2013). College students and sexual consent: Unique insights. Journal of Sex Research, 50, 517–523.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Jozkowski, K. N., Peterson, Z. D., Sanders, S. A., Dennis, B., & Reece, M. (2013). Gender differences in college students’ conceptualizations and indicators of sexual consent: Implications for contemporary sexual assault prevention education. Journal of Sex Research,. doi:10.1080/00224499.2013.792326.Google Scholar
  34. Kilborne, J. (2010). Killing us softly 4: Advertising’s image of women. Northampton, MA: Media Education Foundation.Google Scholar
  35. Koss, M. P., Abbey, A., Campbell, R., Cook, S., Norris, J., Testa, M., … White, J. (2007). Revising the SES: A collaborative process to improve assessment of sexual aggression and victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 357–370.Google Scholar
  36. Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1994). Rape myths: In review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 133–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1995). Attitudinal antecedents of rape myth acceptance: A theoretical and empirical reexamination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 704–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marine, S. (2004, November 26). Waking up from the nightmare of rape. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B5.Google Scholar
  39. Middlestadt, S. E., Bhattacharyya, K., Rosenbaum, J., Fishbein, M., & Shepherd, M. (1996). The use of theory based semi-structured elicitation questionnaires: Formative research for CDC’s prevention marketing initiative. Public Health Reports, 111(Suppl. 1), 18–27.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Muehlenhard, C. L. (1995/1996). The complexities of sexual consent. SIECUS Report, 24, 4–7.Google Scholar
  41. Muehlenhard, C. L., Friedman, D. E., & Thomas, C. M. (1985). Is date rape justifiable? The effects of dating activity, who initiated, who paid and men’s attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 297–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Muehlenhard, C. L., & Hollabaugh, L. C. (1988). Do women sometimes say no when they mean yes? The prevalence and correlates of women’s token resistance to sex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 872–879.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Muehlenhard, C. L., & Linton, M. (1987). Date rape and sexual aggression in dating situations: Incidence and risk factors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 186–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Muehlenhard, C. L., & McCoy, (1991). Double standard/double bind: The sexual double standard and women’s communication about sex. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 447–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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, 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Muehlenhard, C. L., & Rodgers, C. (1998). Token resistance to sex: New perspectives on an old stereotype. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 443–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mueller, D. J. (1986). Measuring social attitudes: A handbook for researchers and practitioners. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  48. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  49. O’Sullivan, L. F., & Byers, E. S. (1996). Gender differences in responses to discrepancies in desired level of sexual intimacy. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 8, 49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Osman, S. L. (1995, April). Pre-dispositional and situational factors influencing men’s perceptions of date rape. Paper presented at the Eastern regional meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality, Atlantic City, NJ.Google Scholar
  51. Osman, S. L. (2003). Predicting men’s rape perceptions based on the belief that “no” really means “yes”. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 683–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Osman, S. L. (2004). Victim resistance: Theory and data on understanding perceptions of sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 50, 267–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Osman, S. L. (2007). Predicting perceptions of sexual harassment based on type of resistance and belief in token resistance. Journal of Sex Research, 44, 340–346.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Payne, D. L., Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerld, L. F. (1999). Rape myth acceptance: Exploration of its structure and its measurement using the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 27–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Peterson, Z. D., & Muehlenhard, C. L. (2007). Conceptualizing the “wantedness” of women’s consensual and nonconsensual sexual experiences: Implications for how women label their experiences with rape. Journal of Sex Research, 44, 72–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Price, A. (1996). Sexual offense policy, Part II: Statistical analysis of student opinion. The Antioch Record, p. 5.Google Scholar
  57. Sampson, R. (2002). Acquaintance rape of college students. Problem-Oriented Guides for Police Series, No. 17. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.Google Scholar
  58. Sawyer, R., Desmond, S., & Lucke, G. (1993). Sexual communication and the college student: Implications for date rape. Health Values, 17, 11–20.Google Scholar
  59. Schewe, P. A. (2002). Interventions to prevent sexual violence. In P. A. Schewe (Ed.), Preventing violence in relationships: Interventions across the life span (pp. 223–239). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Shotland, R. L., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Women’s “token resistant” and compliant sexual behaviors are related to uncertain sexual intentions and rape. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 226–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  62. Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2006). Extent, nature, and consequences of rape victimization: Findings from the National Violence against Women Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  63. Walker, S. (1997). When “no” becomes “yes”: Why girls and women consent to unwanted sex. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 6, 157–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wolf, N. (2009). The beauty myth: How images of beauty are used against women. New York: William Morrow and Company.Google Scholar
  65. Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 806–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kristen N. Jozkowski
    • 1
    • 2
  • Stephanie Sanders
    • 2
  • Zoë D. Peterson
    • 3
  • Barbara Dennis
    • 4
  • Michael Reece
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Health, Human Performance & Recreation, College of Education and Health ProfessionUniversity of ArkansasFayettevilleUSA
  2. 2.The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and ReproductionIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Missouri-St. LouisSt. LouisUSA
  4. 4.Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology, School of EducationIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  5. 5.Department of Applied Health Science, School of Public Health-BloomingtonIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations