Measuring attitudes and behaviors associated with sexual consent is crucial to research addressing sexual violence, as lack of consent is a defining feature thereof. This research developed and validated the Process-Based Consent Scale to address concerns associated with missing components of existing consent scales. The factor structure was supported by an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and subsequent confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The scale contains three subscales: ongoing consent, communicative sexuality, and subtle coercion. Results indicated good convergent and concurrent validity. Future research should consider using this tool to measure attitudes and behaviors related to sexual consent and coercion.
Adams-CurtisL. E.ForbesG. B. (2004). College women’s experiences of sexual coercion: A review of cultural, perpetrator, victim, and situational variables. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 5(2), 91–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838003262331
2.
AjzenI.FishbeinM. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. The handbook of attitudes, 173(221), 173–221.
3.
Bay-ChengL. Y.Eliseo-ArrasR. K. (2008). The making of unwanted sex: Gendered and neoliberal norms in college women’s unwanted sexual experiences. Journal of Sex Research, 45(4), 386–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490802398381
4.
BeresM. A. (2007). “Spontaneous” sexual consent: An analysis of sexual consent literature. Feminism & Psychology, 17(1), 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353507072914
5.
BeresM. A. (2014). Rethinking the concept of consent for anti-sexual violence activism and education. Feminism & Psychology, 24(3), 373–389. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353514539652
BeresM. A.SennC. Y.McCawJ. (2014). Navigating ambivalence: How heterosexual young adults make sense of desire differences. Journal of Sex Research, 51(7), 765–776. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.792327
8.
BreidingM. J.SmithS. G.BasileK. C.WaltersM. L.ChenJ.MerrickM. T. (2014). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence victimization—National intimate partner and sexual violence survey, United States, 2011. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: Surveillance Summaries, 63(8), 1–18.
9.
BrowneM. W. (2001). An overview of analytic rotation in exploratory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36(1), 111–150. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327906MBR3601_05
10.
ChapleauK. M.OswaldD. L. (2010). Power, sex, and rape myth acceptance: Testing two models of rape proclivity. Journal of Sex Research, 47(1), 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490902954323
11.
ChenF. F.ZhangZ. (2018). Bifactor models in psychometric test development. In IrwingP.BoothT.HughesD. J. (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of psychometric testing (pp. 325–345). John Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118489772.ch12
12.
CookN. K.Messman-MooreT. L. (2018). I said no: The impact of voicing non-consent on women’s perceptions of and responses to rape. Violence Against Women, 24(5), 507–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801217708059
13.
FantasiaH. C. (2011). Really not even a decision any more: Late adolescent narratives of implied sexual consent. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 7(3), 120–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-3938.2011.01108.x
14.
FleischerA.MeadA. D.HuangJ. (2015). Inattentive responding in MTurk and other online samples. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 196–202. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.25
15.
García-MorenoC.PallittoC.DevriesK.StöcklH.WattsC.AbrahamsN. (2013). Global and regional estimates of violence against women: Prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. World Health Organization.
16.
GrayJ. M. (2015). What constitutes a “reasonable belief” in consent to sex? A thematic analysis. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 21(3), 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2014.900122
17.
HallalD. M. (2004). Sexual consent in a gay, lesbian, and bisexual population: An exploratory study [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Wilfrid Laurier University.
18.
HumphreysT. P.BrousseauM. M. (2010). The Sexual Consent Scale–Revised: Development, reliability, and preliminary validity. Journal of Sex Research, 47(5), 420–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490903151358
19.
JozkowskiK. N. (2015). Barriers to affirmative consent policies and the need for affirmative sexuality. University of the Pacific Law Review, 47, 741–772.
20.
JozkowskiK. N.PetersonZ. D. (2014). Assessing the validity and reliability of the perceptions of the consent to sex scale. Journal of Sex Research, 51(6), 632–645. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.757282
21.
JozkowskiK. N.SandersS.PetersonZ. D.DennisB.ReeceM. (2014). Consenting to sexual activity: The development and psychometric assessment of dual measures of consent. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(3), 437–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0225-7
22.
KitzingerC.FrithH. (1999). Just say no? The use of conversation analysis in developing a feminist perspective on sexual refusal. Discourse & Society, 10(3), 293–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926599010003002
23.
LofgreenA. M.MattsonR. E.WagnerS. A.OrtizE. G.JohnsonM. D. (2021). Situational and dispositional determinants of college men’s perception of women’s sexual desire and consent to sex: A factorial vignette analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(1-2), NP1064–NP1097https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517738777
24.
MuehlenhardC. L.HumphreysT. P.JozkowskiK. N.PetersonZ. D. (2016). The complexities of sexual consent among college students: A conceptual and empirical review. Journal of Sex Research, 53(4–5), 457–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1146651
25.
MuehlenhardC. L.PetersonZ. D.HumphreysT. P.JozkowskiK. N. (2017). Evaluating the one-in-five statistic: Women’s risk of sexual assault while in college. Journal of Sex Research, 54(4–5), 549–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1295014
26.
O’ByrneR.HansenS.RapleyM. (2008). “If a girl doesn’t say ‘no’ . . . ”: Young men, rape and claims of “insufficient knowledge.”Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 18(3), 168–193. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.922
27.
O’ByrneR.RapleyM.HansenS. (2006). ‘You couldn’t say “no,” could you?’: Young men’s understandings of sexual refusal. Feminism & Psychology, 16(2), 133–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959-353506062970
28.
PowellA. (2008). Amor fati?: Gender habitus and young people’s negotiation of (hetero)sexual consent. Journal of Sociology, 44(2), 167–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783308089168
29.
RudmanL. A.MescherK. (2012). Of animals and objects: Men’s implicit dehumanization of women and likelihood of sexual aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(6), 734–746. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212436401
30.
TannenD. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. Ballantine Books.
31.
TharpA. T.DeGueS.ValleL. A.BrookmeyerK. A.MassettiG. M.MatjaskoJ. L. (2013). A systematic qualitative review of risk and protective factors for sexual violence perpetration. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 14(2), 133–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838012470031
32.
VelicerW. F.EatonC. A.FavaJ. L. (2000). Construct explication through factor or component analysis: A review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or components. In GoffinR. D.HelmesE. (Eds.), Problems and solutions in human assessment: Honoring Douglas N. Jackson at seventy (p. 41–71). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4397-8_3
33.
WarrenP.SwanS.AllenC. T. (2015). Comprehension of sexual consent as a key factor in the perpetration of sexual aggression among college men. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 24(8), 897–913. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2015.1070232
34.
ZurbriggenE. L. (2000). Social motives and cognitive power-sex associations: Predictors of aggressive sexual behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(3), 559–581. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.78.3.559
