Sex Roles

, Volume 42, Issue 5–6, pp 313–337 | Cite as

Ambiguous Communication of Sexual Intentions as a Risk Marker of Sexual Aggression

  • Barbara Krahé
  • Renate Scheinberger-Olwig
  • Susanne Kolpin


Three studies are reported that explored the role of ambiguous communication of sexual intentions as a risk factor for sexual aggression and victimization. Two main forms of ambiguous communication were distinguished: token resistance (saying “no” when you mean “yes”) and compliance (saying “yes” when you mean “no”). Two samples of heterosexual men and women and a sample of homosexual men with a total N of 1284 completed a measure of sexual victimization or aggression and indicated whether or not they had ever shown token resistance or compliance in a sexual encounter. Moreover, the heterosexual male respondents indicated whether they had ever perceived token resistance or compliance in a female partner. Logistic regression analyses revealed that the risk of experiencing sexual victimization was significantly increased as a function of token resistance. Two of the three studies also showed compliance to be a risk factor for sexual victimization. For the male respondents, token resistance was consistently linked to a higher likelihood of perpetrating sexually aggressive acts in the three studies. Perceived compliance was also found to increase the risk of sexual aggression in three of four analyses. Support for a link between perceived token resistance and sexual aggression was found in the first study only. Overall, the findings suggest that the use of ambiguous communication in negotiating sexual encounters is associated with an increased risk of sexual victimization as well as perpetration of sexually aggressive acts in both heterosexual and homosexual contacts. The implications of the findings are discussed with respect to the issue of rape prevention.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abbey, A. (1991). Misperception as an antecedent of acquaintance rape: A consequence of ambiguity in communication between women and men. In A. Parrot & L. Bechhofer (Eds.).Acquaintance rape: The hidden crime (pp.96–111). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Bochow, M. (1997). Schwule Männer und AIDS [Gay men and AIDS]. Bonn: Deutsche AIDSHilfe e.V.Google Scholar
  3. Breitenbecher, K. H., & Scarce, M. (1999). A longitudinal evaluation of the effectiveness of a sexual assault education program.Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 459–478.Google Scholar
  4. Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung (Ed.) (1995). Einfluss neuer gesetzlicher Regelungen auf das Verhütungsverhalten Jugendlicher und junger Erwachsener [The influence of new legal regulations on the contraceptive behavior of adolescents and young adults]. Cologne: BZgA.Google Scholar
  5. Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung (Ed.) (1996). Sexualität und Kontrazeption aus der Sicht der Jugendlichen und ihrer Eltern. [Sexuality and contraception as seen by adolescents and their parents]. Cologne: BZgA.Google Scholar
  6. Bundeszentrale fü r gesundheitliche Aufklärung (Ed.) (1998). Sexual-und Verhütungsverhalten 16-bis 24jähriger Jugendlicher und junger Erwachsener [Sexual and contraceptive behavior of 16-to 24-year-old adolescents and young adults]. Cologne: BZgA.Google Scholar
  7. Byers, S. E. (1996). How well does the traditional sexual script explain sexual coercion? Review of a program of research. In S. E. Byers & L. F. O'sullivan(Eds.), Sexual coercion in dating relationships (pp. 7–25). Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.Google Scholar
  8. Carpenter, L. M. (1998). From girls into women: Scripts for sexuality and romance in Seventeen magazine, 1974–1994. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 158–168.Google Scholar
  9. Coxon, A. (1996). Between the sheets. Sexual diaries and gay men's sex in the era of AIDS. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  10. Garcia, L. T. (1998). Perceptions of resistance to unwanted sexual advances. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 10, 43–52.Google Scholar
  11. Gidycz, C., Coble, C. N., Latham, L., & Layman, M. J. (1993). Sexual assault experience in adulthood and prior victimization experiences. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17, 151–168.Google Scholar
  12. Goodchilds, J. D., Zellman, G. L., & Giarrusso, R. (1988). Adolescents and their perceptions of sexual interactions. In A. W. Burgess (Ed.), Rape and sexual assault (Vol. II, pp. 245–270). New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar
  13. Harnish, R. J., Abbey, A., & DeBono, K. G. (1990). Toward an understanding of “the sex game”: The effects of gender and self-monitoring on perceptions of sexuality and likability in initial interactions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1333–1344.Google Scholar
  14. Hickson, F. C. I., Davies, P. M., Hunt, A. J., Weatherburn, P., McManus, T. J., & Coxon, A. P. M. (1994). Gay men as victims of nonconsensual sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23, 281–294.Google Scholar
  15. Hodge, S., & Canter, D. (1998). Victims and perpetrators of male sexual assault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 222–239.Google Scholar
  16. Karabatsos, G. (1997). The sexual experiences survey. Interpretation and validity. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 1, 305–328.Google Scholar
  17. Klinkenberg, D., & Rose, S. (1994). Dating scripts of gay men and lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 26, 23–35.Google Scholar
  18. Koss, M. P., & Gidycz, C. A. (1985). Sexual experiences survey: Reliability and validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 422–423.Google Scholar
  19. Koss, M. P., Gidycz, C. A., & Wisniewski, N. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162–170.Google Scholar
  20. Koss, M. P., & Oros, C. J. (1982). Sexual experiences survey: A research instrument investigating sexual aggression and victimization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 455–457.Google Scholar
  21. Krahé, B. (1998). Sexual aggression among adolescents: Prevalence and predictors in a German sample. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 537–554.Google Scholar
  22. Krahé, B., Reimer, T., Scheinberger-Olwig, R., & Fritsche, I. (1999). Measuring sexual aggression: The reliability of the Sexual Experiences Survey in a German sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 91–100.Google Scholar
  23. Krahé, B., Scheinberger-Olwig, R., & Waizenhöfer, E. (1999). Sexuelle Aggression zwischen Jugendlichen: Eine Prävalenzerhebung mit Ost-West-Vergleich. [Sexual aggression among adolescents: A prevalence study including an East-West comparison]. 'Gewalt in der Gesellschaft,' 30, 165–178.Google Scholar
  24. Krahé, B., Schütze, S., Fritsche, I., & Waizenhöfer, E. (in press). The prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization among homosexual men. Journal of Sex Research. Google Scholar
  25. Larimer, M. E., Lydum, A. R., Anderson, B. K., & Turner, A. P. (1999). Male and female recipients of unwanted sexual contact in a college student sample: Prevalence rates, alcohol use, and depression symptoms. Sex Roles, 40, 295–308.Google Scholar
  26. Menard, S. (1995).Applied logistic regression analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Metts, S., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1996). Sexual communication in interpersonal contexts: A scriptbased approach. In B. R. Burleson & A. W. Kunkel (Eds.), Communication yearbook 19 (pp. 49–91). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. 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.Google Scholar
  29. Muehlenhard, C. L., & McCoy, M. L. (1991). Double standard/double bind: The sexual double standard and women's communications about sex. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 447–461.Google Scholar
  30. Muehlenhard, C. L., & Rogers, C. S. (1998). Token resistance to sex. New perspectives on an old stereotype. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 443–463.Google Scholar
  31. Osman, S. L., & Davis, C. M. (1997). Predicting men's perceptions of date rape using the heuristic-systematic model. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 22, 25–32.Google Scholar
  32. 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.Google Scholar
  33. O'sullivan, L. F., & Allgeier, E. R. (1998). Feigning sexual desire: Consenting to unwanted sexual activity in heterosexual dating relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 234–243.Google Scholar
  34. Pan, H. S., Neidig, P. H., & O'Leary, K. D. (1994). Predicting mild and severe husband-towife physical aggression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 975–981.Google Scholar
  35. Rose, S., & Frieze, I. H. (1989). Young singles' scripts for a first date.Gender and Society, 3, 258–268.Google Scholar
  36. Rose, S., & Frieze, I. H. (1993). Young singles' contemporary dating scripts.Sex Roles, 28, 499–509.Google Scholar
  37. 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.Google Scholar
  38. Sprecher, S., Hatfield, E., Cortese, A., Potapova, E., & Levitskaya, A. (1994). Token resistance to sexual intercourse and consent to unwanted sexual intercourse: College students' dating experiences in three countries. Journal of Sex Research, 31, 125–132.Google Scholar
  39. Waterman, C. K., Dawson, L., & Bologna, M. J. (1989). Sexual coercion in gay male and lesbian relationships: Predictors and implications for support services. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 118–124.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara Krahé
    • 1
  • Renate Scheinberger-Olwig
    • 1
  • Susanne Kolpin
    • 1
  1. 1.University of PotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations