CheckJ. V.MalamuthN. M. (1983). Sex role stereotyping and reactions to depictions of stranger versus acquaintance rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 344–356. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.344
2.
DeauxK.MajorB. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369–389. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.369
3.
KossM. P.GidyczC. A.WisniewskiN. (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. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.55.2.162
4.
MuehlenhardC. L.FeltsA. S. (2011). The sexual beliefs scale. In FisherT. D.DavisC. M.YarberW. L.BausermanR.SchreerG. E.DavisS. L. (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 127–129). 3rd ed.Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.
5.
MuehlenhardC. L.HollabaughL. 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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.872
6.
MuehlenhardC. L.McCoyM. L. (1991). Double standard/double bind: The sexual double standard and women’s communication about sex. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 447–461. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1991.tb00420.x
7.
MuehlenhardC. L.MillerE. N. (1988). Traditional and nontraditional men’s responses to women’s dating initiation. Behavior Modification, 12, 385–403. doi:10.1177/014544558 80123005
8.
MuehlenhardC. L.QuackenbushD. M. (2011). The sexual double standard scale. In FisherT. D.DavisC. M.YarberW. L.BausermanR.SchreerG. E.DavisS. L. (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 199–200). 3rd ed.Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.
9.
MuehlenhardC. L.RodgersC. S. (1998). Token resistance to sex: New perspectives on an old stereotype. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 443–463. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402. 1998.tb00167.x
10.
MuehlenhardC. L.ShippeeS. K. (2010). Men’s and women’s reports of pretending orgasm. Journal of Sex Research, 47, 552–567. doi: 10.1080/00224490903171794
11.
PetersonZ. D.MuehlenhardC. 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. doi:10.1080/0022449 0709336794
12.
PetersonZ. D.MuehlenhardC. L. (2011). The sexual wantedness questionnaire. In FisherT. D.DavisC. M.YarberW. L.BausermanR.SchreerG. E.DavisS. L. (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 575–581). 3rd ed.Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.
13.
RussellD. E. H. (1984). Sexual exploitation: Rape, child sexual abuse, and workplace harassment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
RutherfordA. (2011). From the ground up: Feminist approaches, methods, and critiques. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 175–179. doi:10.1177/0361684310395912
15.
ShotlandR. L.HunterB. 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. doi:10.1177/0146167295213004
16.
SprecherS.HatfieldE.CorteseA.PotapovaE.LevitskayaA. (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. doi: 10.1080/002244 99409551739
17.
UngerR. K. (1983). Through the looking glass: No wonderland yet! (The reciprocal relationship between methodology and models of reality). Psychology of Women Quarterly, 8, 9–32. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1983.tb00614.x