Communication Reports

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcrs20

Defining Sexual Consent: Perspectives from a

College Student Population

Lori A. Bednarchik, Mark Alan Generous & Paul Mongeau

To cite this article: Lori A. Bednarchik, Mark Alan Generous & Paul Mongeau (2021): Defining
Sexual Consent: Perspectives from a College Student Population, Communication Reports, DOI:
10.1080/08934215.2021.1974506

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2021.1974506

Published online: 06 Nov 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 63

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcrs20
Communication Reports
Vol. 00, No. 00, 2021, pp. 1–14

Defining Sexual Consent: Perspectives

from a College Student Population
Lori A. Bednarchik, Mark Alan Generous,
& Paul Mongeau

The current investigation explored how college students define sexual consent, and the
sources from which they developed these definitions. Thematic analysis generated five
categories of consent definitions: permission, agreement, willingness, wanted-ness, and
contextual elements (i.e., stipulations regarding the consent process; behaviors that
require sexual consent). Participants’ sources from which they learned about the
definition of sexual consent included: educational experiences, friends, family, school,
media, personal experiences, and unsure/common sense. Findings highlight the com­
plex nature of sexual consent as a communicative construct and the varied sources
from which college students constructed their conceptualization of consent. Implica­
tions for college health and sexual assault programming, as well as for researchers
looking to further explore the multi-faceted construct of sexual consent, are discussed.

Keywords: College Students; Definition; Qualitative Analysis; Sexual Consent

Sexual assault and rape are problems on college campuses; in particular, college-aged
women are at the highest risk of sexual assault, and as many as 1 in 5 women report
having experienced an attempted and/or completed rape by the time they graduate
(Muehlenhard et al., 2017). In 2013, the federal government increased attention on
campus sexual assault, particularly with regard to colleges’ and universities’ reporting

Arizona State University California State Polytechnic University, Pomonoa Arizona State University Corre­
spondence to: Lori A. Bednarchik, The Hugh Downs School of Human Communication, Arizona State
University, PO Box 871205, Tempe AZ 85287-1205. E-mail: lbednarc@asu.edu
Lori A. Bednarchik, Ph.D., is a lecturer at Arizona State University, and a professional speaker who educates
high risk populations about violence prevention and sexual consent.Mark Alan Generous, Ph.D., is an assistant
professor in the Department of Communication at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona.Paul
Mongeau, Ph.D., is a Herberger Professor in the Hugh Downs School of Human Communication at Arizona
State University.

ISSN 0893-4215 (print)/ISSN 1745-1043 (online) © 2021 Western States Communication Association
DOI: 10.1080/08934215.2021.1974506
2 L. A. Bednarchik et al.
procedures, educational programs, and sexual assault policies (Campus Sexual Vio­
lence Elimination Act [SaVE], 2013). In addition to clearly defining sexual assault
and rape, colleges and universities have been mandated to revise their policies by
defining what is, and is not, consensual sex (Campus Sexual Violence Elimination
Act [SaVE], 2013). Therefore, the focus on clearly defining sexual consent is parti­
cularly important because of the role consent has in differentiating between con­
sensual sex and rape and/or sexual assault (Little, 2005). The current investigation,
therefore, seeks to contribute to the consent literature via an exploration of how
college students define sexual consent, as well as from what sources they come to
learn about sexual consent. Understanding this population’s definition of sexual
consent can help with educational programming to increase awareness of the
importance of consensual sex.
Conceptualizations of sexual consent vary amongst scholars. That is, some
researchers define consent as an agreement to participate in sexual activities (see
Archard, 1998; Dripps, 1992). Other scholars contend that consent is something that
is given, and that it can only be given in the absence of force or coercion (see
M. Beres, 2007; Hickman & Muehlenhard, 1999). Further, scholars highlight the
overarching cultural and sexual scripts that influence how sexual activity is nego­
tiated (Byers, 1996; Masters et al., 2013; Wiederman, 2005). These consist of the
socially constructed expectations and norms of men’s role as initiators of sexual
activity (i.e., men are responsible for getting consent), and women’s role as gate­
keepers (i.e., women are responsible for giving consent; Byers, 1996; Masters et al.,
2013). More contemporary conceptualizations of sexual consent contend that it is
a construct with internal (e.g., perceptions of safety and readiness, physiological
responses) and external (e.g., verbal and nonverbal communicative behaviors) man­
ifestations (Jozkowski et al., 2014), and that consent cues occur both in social and
private settings (Jozkowski et al., 2018). Indeed, there is variability amongst aca­
demics regarding the nature of sexual consent.
Conceptualizations of sexual consent also differ among university administrators
and lawmakers. Some align with a “no means no” standard of consent that focuses
on whether someone (usually a woman) declines sexual advance(s). This perspective
places focus on the victim of sexual assault; that is, the person who is assaulted needs
to prove they said no, or attempted to stop the sexual act (M. A. Beres, 2014; Little,
2005). Conversely, others align with an affirmative (i.e., “yes means yes”) standard of
consent, which focuses on all parties communicating enthusiastic and ongoing
consent to engage in sexual activity (De Leon et al., 2014). If scholars, university
administrators, and lawmakers have difficulty constructing a consistent definition of
sexual consent, it stands to reason that young adults might have varied definitions as
well.
Academic exploration of sexual consent has not strongly focused on how college
students define sexual consent, despite the relevance of this topic to a college student
population (T. Humphreys, 2007). Of particular interest to consider is that college is
a time when young adults explore their own and others’ sexuality, and experiment
 Communication Reports 3
with various sexual activities and behaviors (Chen & Hole, 2010). Furthermore,
understanding college students’ definitions of consent could help with health messa­
ging and educational programming during a time when they are exploring their
sexuality. Thus, the following research question is posed:

RQ1: How do college students define sexual consent?

In addition to understanding college students’ definitions of consent, the current

study seeks to explore how college students came to learn said definitions. Specifi­
cally, it is important to consider the various sources that students pull from to
generate their meaning and understanding of sexual consent, as these sources can
affect the ways in which sexual consent is understood and enacted. Thus, the
following research question is posed:

RQ2: Where do college students learn about their definitions of sexual consent?

Method
Participants
Participants included 391 undergraduate students (144 men, 36.8%; 247 women,
63.2%) enrolled in communication classes at a large southwestern university. Parti­
cipants were more likely to be juniors (n = 140; 35.6%) and seniors (n = 156; 39.7%)
than freshmen (n = 27; 6.9%) or sophomores (n = 70; 17.8%). Most (n = 309; 78.8%)
participants reported being White, while other ethnicities included: Hispanic/Latino­
(a) (n = 56; 14.3%), Black/African American (n = 26; 6.6%), Asian/Asian American
(n = 25; 6.4%), American Indian/Alaska Native (n = 11; 2.8%), Middle Eastern
(n = 6; 1.5%, Pacific Islander (n = 6; 1.5%, and other (n = 6; 1.5%). A majority of
the sample reported being heterosexual (91.7%; n = 220), with approximately 8%
(n = 20) reporting being gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

Procedures
The investigators received approval from the Institutional Review Board at the first
author’s university before collecting data. College student participants were recruited
in communication courses at a large Southwestern university. Participants completed
an online survey. After participants provided their consent, they were asked several
demographic questions and then answered a number of open-ended questions. From
the larger survey, responses to two items are reported here. These items include:
“Define the term ‘sexual consent.’ Specifically, what does the word consent mean to
you?”; and, “How and where did you learn about your definition of sexual consent?”
4 L. A. Bednarchik et al.
Data Analysis
Participants’ responses to the aforementioned open-ended questions were analyzed
via thematic analysis. Thematic analysis allowed the researchers to find meaningful
patterns in the data and glean deeper interpretations of participants’ responses
(Tracy, 2019). Analysis occurred through several steps. In the first step, two coders
unitized all responses from both questions (i.e., sexual consent definition; source of
definition). This involved breaking responses into thought units (words, phrases, or
sentences that represent a single idea). Responses from the consent definition item
yielded 1,011 units, and responses for the definition source item yielded 567 units. In
the next step, three coders individually engaged in an initial cycle of coding proce­
dures to count words that were repeated in the responses as well as to create
categories based on the unitized responses (Saldaña, 2015). During the third step,
the three coders discussed the words that were repeated in the responses and then
combined similar words into larger categories; this third step also provided an
opportunity for the authors to add deeper interpretation into participants’ responses
for research question one. The goal of the fourth step of coding was to achieve inter-
coder reliability for responses to the two research questions. To assess consistency
reliability, a naïve fourth coder coded a randomly selected portion of the data that
had already been coded by the original three coders. Cohen’s kappa for both the
consent definition (.80) and the source of information (.87) were acceptable (Bane­
rjee et al., 1999). During the fifth step, the original three coders considered the
surrounding content and context where each word or phrase appeared, thus provid­
ing further insight and understanding of the data. These results are discussed in
greater detail below.

Results
Defining Sexual Consent
Analysis of participants’ responses to the definition question revealed five over­
arching categories that emerged in the data: 1) contextual elements related to the
enactment of consent; 2) consent as permission; 3) consent as agreement; 4) consent
as willingness; and, 5) consent as wanting.

Sexual Consent and Contextual Elements

Participants’ responses highlighted important contextual features that were relevant
to them regarding sexual consent. These components included contextual stipula­
tions (i.e., sobriety, absence of force, legal age) for the presence or absence of sexual
consent (n = 117). To begin, some participants noted sobriety from drugs and
alcohol as a contextual element (e.g., sound mind, sober): “Sexual consent means
that both parties have made the sober decision to touch each other in any sexual
way.” Alternatively, some participants indicated that a lack of physical coercion (e.g.,
no force) was a necessary component of consent: “Giving ‘permission’ to have sexual
 Communication Reports 5
contact without feeling pressured.” Also, a few participants indicated that being of
legal age is a necessary element for consent: “These people must be of legal age to be
able to consent.”
Participants also identified the sexual activities that require the presence of sexual
consent (n = 367; e.g., sexual activities such as physical touching, oral sex, and
penetrative intercourse). Interestingly, some participants indicated that consent was
required for a variety of sexual acts (e.g., “Sexual consent means a person has given
another person permission to touch or engage with them in a sexual manner”),
whereas other participants associated consent with intercourse only (e.g., “The
mutual agreement to sexual intercourse between both partners involved”).

Permission
Sexual consent as permission (n = 228) was defined as approving, accepting, or
allowing the sexual behavior; in other words, giving or getting the “okay” to engage
in sexual behaviors. The concept of permission was exemplified in a variety of ways,
such as who gives or gets permission. Participants reported that either one person
gets permission from the other in a sexual encounter (e.g., “Getting the okay to have
sex with someone”), or all people involved get permission in a sexual encounter (e.g.,
“ … means getting permission to perform sexual acts for both partners engaging in
activity”). Further examination of the responses revealed that participants tended to
differ on whether the process of giving permission operated via an intrapersonal (i.e.,
individual) or interpersonal (i.e., dyadic) lens. Intrapersonally, some participants
indicated that giving permission was an individual process enacted by one person
in the relationship (e.g., “Sexual consent is when one person gives permission to
another to engage in sexual behavior”). On the other hand, some participants
indicated that permission was an interpersonal or dyadic process that is performed
by both partners (e.g., “Both partners giving permission to engage in intimate
relations”).

Agreement
The second major category, agreement (n = 157), was defined as the recognition that
those involved have the same view of the sexual behaviors to be enacted. In other
words, that both partners are on the “same page” as to what is going to happen
sexually. Similar to the permission category, responses suggested that participants
described agreement as either intrapersonal or interpersonal. As an intrapersonal
process, only one person indicated their agreement to engage in sexual behavior
(e.g., “That I say the word yes and agree to have sex with the person who is
attempting to have sex with me”). Other participants described agreement as inter­
personal and mutually constructed between all parties involved (e.g., “When all
parties involved agree to have sex, and agree to the terms involved in sexual activity
[‘no anal’ implies no consent for that activity if it occurs]”).
6 L. A. Bednarchik et al.
Willingness
Willingness (n = 65) was defined as a state of being that an individual, dyad, or
group is inclined toward (i.e., feeling internally okay) the advancement of sexual
behaviors. The willingness code also included both intrapersonal and interpersonal
manifestations. Intrapersonal instances of willingness could be one’s own will­
ingness (e.g., “It means that I am a willing participant in sexual activity with that
person”), or a person confirming that his/her/their sexual partner is willing (e.g.,
“Ensuring the person you are about to have sex with is willing”). On the other
hand, interpersonal instances indicated that all people involved in the sexual
interaction need to be willing (e.g., “It means that both people engaging in sexual
activity are both willing to do so”). Permission and willingness appear to have
conceptual overlap; however, a key distinguishing factor in this study is that
permission seemed to entail an external and explicit giving or receiving of an
“okay to have sex,” whereas willingness seemed to be more implicit and internal
(i.e., a feeling that one is okay to engage in sexual intimacy, or that one’s partner is
feeling okay with having sex). This is not to say that willingness cannot be explicit,
or that permission cannot be implicit; however, the current data seemed to suggest
that permission means explicitly giving or receiving an okay, whereas exemplars
from the willingness category seemed to suggest an implicit willingness to have
sex.

Wanted-Ness
Wanted-ness (n = 28) was defined as an active motivation or desire (or passion)
to engage in sexual behaviors. Wanted-ness also appeared as both intrapersonal or
interpersonal in participants’ responses. As an intrapersonal construct, wanted-
ness referred to one person’s desire to engage in sexual behaviors (e.g., “Sexual
consent is wanting to participate in sexual activity with someone without any
force”), or a person ensuring that their sexual partner wants to engage in the
sexual behaviors (e.g., “Sexual consent is that the other person wants and verbally
agrees to it”). Wanted-ness was also reported as an interpersonal construct, in so
much that all people involved in the act were described as desiring to do so (e.g.,
“It means that two adults are consenting to sexual intercourse or whatever sexual
activity. Meaning both parties want to do that with the other person”).

Sources of Sexual Consent Definitions

Analyses identified five sources from which participants developed their definition of
sexual consent. From most often reported to least often reported, these sources
included: school and educational resources (n = 237; e.g., “I learned about consent
from being taught it in 11th grade by my health teacher in high school when we went
into the sex section of the course”); family, friends, and other close relationships
(n = 108; e.g., “My parents and friends around the age of 13, ‘no means no’ and all
that”); personal experiences (n = 72; e.g., “I would say through experience. I don’t
 Communication Reports 7
believe there are many occasions of people taking lessons or courses of ‘sexual
consent.’ People learn from experience on what works and what fails in terms of
achieving ‘sexual consent’”); not sure/it is common sense (n = 69; e.g., “I do not know.
It was just something I already knew”); and, the media (n = 52; e.g., “Probably when
I was younger and I would watch CSI”).

Discussion
The findings indicate that college students conceptualized sexual consent in con­
junction with contextual elements (e.g., sound mind and sexual acts that require
consent) and they perceived that consent manifests in various ways, including:
permission, agreement, willingness, and wanted-ness. Moreover, participants indi­
cated that they learned about sexual consent from a multitude of sources, such as
education and instruction, interpersonal interactions (e.g., family, friends), personal
experiences, common sense, and the media. The following discussion will further
interpret the findings, as well as offer practical implications, limitations, and future
directions.

Students’ Definitions of Sexual Consent

College students defined sexual consent in ways that align with previous literature.
For example, participants defined consent as something that is given or received (i.e.,
permission; Hall, 1998); an implicit or explicit agreement (Lim & Roloff, 1999);
a state of being (i.e., willingness; Hickman & Muehlenhard, 1999); and desire (i.e.,
wanted-ness; Hills et al., 2021, 2020; Peterson & Muehlenhard, 2007). Furthermore,
consistent with previous literature, college student participants’ definitions of sexual
consent indicate that they see consent as a cognitive activity (M. Beres, 2007; Hick­
man & Muehlenhard, 1999), communicative behavior (M. Beres, 2007; Hall, 1998;
Hickman & Muehlenhard, 1999; T. Humphreys, 2007), and highly contextual (Hall,
1998; Jozkowski & Peterson, 2014). Importantly, the results do not imply that these
categories are mutually exclusive and distinct at all times; instead, the findings
provide insight into how college students process and make sense of the sexual
consent construct. Scholars studying sexual communication and consent should
consider the varied interpretations of this nuanced and evolving construct, as
using the word consent with participants might elicit varying perceptions.
Of particular interest for communication scholars, participants’ definitions of
sexual consent differed in important ways; mainly, some participants saw consent
as an intrapersonal construct (i.e., I get consent from someone, or I give it to
someone), whereas some participants saw consent as an interpersonal construct
(i.e., all members in the sexual encounter are communicating consent). This high­
lights a communication quandary within the context of sexual encounters: why do
some individuals see consent as an intrapersonal (i.e., individual) construct, whereas
others perceive it as interpersonal (i.e., dyadic process)? Existing definitions of
8 L. A. Bednarchik et al.
consent seem to disagree on this issue, too. For example, Hall (1998) noted that
sexual consent is “ … the voluntary approval of what is done or proposed by
another … ” (p. 6). Such an individual approach is also highlighted in studies of
sexual refusals and sexual resistance strategies (see Afifi & Lee, 2000; Lannutti, 2004).
In these contexts, consent is determined by one person’s ability to clearly provide
affirmation or refusal. Such a view is also consistent with traditional sexual scripts,
which depict men as sexual initiators and women as gatekeepers (Frith & Kitzinger,
2001; Gagnon & Simon, 1973), as well as the “no means no” standard of consent,
which posits that someone (usually a woman) must verbally decline sexual advances
from their partner (M. A. Beres, 2014; Little, 2005). On the other hand,
T. P. Humphreys (2005) defined consent as dyadic (i.e., a “ … mutual understand­
ing, a willingness between partners to engage in agreed upon sexual behaviors”;
p. 217), and a dyadic approach to sexual consent is the foundation of the affirmative
(“yes means yes”) standard of sexual consent (De Leon et al., 2014). Practically
speaking, introducing a dyadic approach to understanding consent could help
individuals view consent as an interpersonal (versus intrapersonal) communicative
act that is negotiated and decided by both themselves and their sexual partners.
Moreover, participants’ definitions raise important questions regarding the culturally
and societally embedded sexual scripts that often accompany sexual interactions and
sexual consent (Byers, 1996; Masters et al., 2013). In particular, scholars and practi­
tioners can meaningfully assist young adults to more holistically understand consent
as an interpersonal construct that dialogically occurs and evolves between two or
more individuals throughout the entire sexual experience.
Furthermore, the conceptual distinction between permission (i.e., external and
explicit giving or receiving of an “okay to have sex”) and willingness (i.e., implicit
and internal) is noteworthy, as legal definitions of consent overwhelmingly rely on
and require explicit and verbal (i.e., external) communication of one’s consent in
order to distinguish between consensual sex and instances of sexual assault and rape
(Little, 2005). Consent scholars and practitioners have also advocated for teaching
sexual consent as explicit (i.e., affirmative) due to possible complications and mis­
interpretations that may occur when individuals imply consent (Johnson & Hoover,
2015). Pulling from prior work, as well as the current data, we believe that when
someone is able to freely give consent (i.e., say yes/consent to sex and/or sexual
activity without pressure, manipulation, or impairment such as being under the
influence of drugs or alcohol), sexual consent is highly contextual and relationally
situated; that is, each relationship and sexual encounter may have different rules,
beliefs, and values surrounding sexual consent. It is important for clinicians, scho­
lars, and educators to address these distinctions between implicit and explicit con­
sent, as well as the agency individuals possess to determine what forms of consent
work best for their relationships. Hopefully, this will lead to informed and inten­
tional decisions regarding sexual consent, which may also help sexual partners be
more open regarding sexual communication.
A final consideration to discuss is consent as wanted-ness. Many participants
defined consent as an active motivation or passion (i.e., desire) to engage in sexual
 Communication Reports 9
behaviors. It is worth noting that associating consent with wanted-ness, though
common (i.e., consensual sex is wanted and nonconsensual sex is unwanted), has
been called into question by scholars as potentially problematic, particularly when
labeling a sexual encounter as rape or sexual assault (Artime & Peterson, 2015; Hills
et al., 2021, 2020; Peterson & Muehlenhard, 2007). When we conceptualize rape as
unwanted sex, then any evidence that a victim of rape or sexual assault wanted to
have sex (e.g., flirtatious behavior before the assault/rape, being aroused during the
rape, actively participating in the nonconsensual sex/sexual activity while under the
influence of alcohol or other drugs) can be/is interpreted to mean that the sexual
encounter was not really a rape. As a result, victims of sexual assault/rape may
experience guilt, self-blame, feel as though they “asked for it,” etc. even though they
did not consent or could not consent (e.g., alcohol or other drugs, physical or mental
impairment, etc.) to the sex/sexual encounter (Artime & Peterson, 2015; Hills et al.,
2021, 2020; Peterson & Muehlenhard, 2007).
Additionally, within participants’ consent definitions was the idea that sexual
consent can only occur under certain sets of circumstances. In the present data,
participants indicated that consent can only be given when individuals are sober, of
sound mind, and when no force or coercion is used in the sexual interaction.
Scholars have also noted these characteristics as important components of sexual
consent (see T. Humphreys, 2007; Lim & Roloff, 1999), and these stipulations appear
in affirmative sexual consent policies adopted by universities across the country (De
Leon et al., 2014; Little, 2005). In addition, some students described the sexual
behaviors that require consent. Whereas some participants explicitly identified sex­
ual consent as necessary for penetrative intercourse, others used ambiguous terms
that identified sexual consent as necessary for various sexual acts that may or may
not culminate in intercourse. The former may suggest that students believe sexual
consent is only associated with, or needed for, intercourse and not for other types of
sexual activities that may precede sexual intercourse (e.g., kissing, sexual touching,
undressing, oral sex; Hall, 1998). The latter possibly suggests that students acknowl­
edge the necessity of sexual consent to engage in a variety of sexual acts (that may or
may not be intercourse; Hall, 1998), or the importance of providing consent during
different stages of sexual interaction, which is in line with the affirmative standard of
consent policies adopted by colleges and universities across the United States (Anti­
och College, 1996; De Leon et al., 2014; Little, 2005). From a practical perspective,
education and programming should aim to clearly associate sexual consent with all
forms of sexual and physical intimacy, and not just intercourse.

Sources of Students’ Consent Definitions

The sources from which participants created their definitions of sexual consent
illustrate two key findings. First, college students come to understand sexual consent
predominantly through educational settings with teachers and interpersonal rela­
tionships with parents and friends. Second, participants pull from multiple
10 L. A. Bednarchik et al.
discourses (e.g., media, interactions, personal memories) to discursively generate
meaning about how they understand sexual consent and how it is manifested in
sexual interactions. The variety of sources may explain the variation in definitions of
sexual consent. Consistent with past research (Cline, 2011; Cline & Engel, 1991),
college students turn to various sources for information regarding beliefs about
sexual practices. Moreover, many of these influences tend to be interpersonal (e.g.,
teachers in an educational setting, friends, family, and past and present sexual
partners). The interpersonal nature of information sources illustrates the influence
everyday interactions have on constructing the meaning of sexual consent and other
sexual practices (Cline, 2011). This is particularly important for educational pro­
gramming on college campuses because understanding college students’ sources of
consent knowledge allows practitioners to meet students where they are at and
develop effective pedagogical practices.

Limitations and Future Directions

To begin, only college-aged students were surveyed. Although this population was
chosen strategically (based on sexual activity and an increased risk of sexual vio­
lence), future research would benefit from investigating other sexually active popula­
tions (e.g., adolescents, non-college adults, married couples, older adults).
Furthermore, the sample was homogenous in ethnicity (i.e., predominantly White)
and sexual orientation (i.e., predominantly heterosexual). Future work should seek to
understand how other ethnicities, cultures, and sexual orientations define sexual
consent. Another limitation is that this study was cross-sectional and does not
address changes in students’ definitions over time. Longitudinal studies would be
helpful in order to explore temporal changes and adaptations. Finally, the survey
questions did not ask students about their sexual experiences. This may be note­
worthy, as sexual experience influences sexual outcomes, such as sexual anxiety
(Impett & Tolman, 2006; James, 2011); thus, it stands to reason that sexual experi­
ence might influence individuals’ conceptions of sexual consent.
Moving forward, scholars should seek to further explore the nuances of consent as
permission, agreement, wanted-ness, and willingness, and how each may affect or
influence students’ individual and/or dyadic views of sexual consent. The current
study did not explore gender differences in sexual consent definitions; however, past
work has indicated that men and women may define and communicate consent
differently across various contexts (see Jozkowski et al., 2014). As noted earlier,
sexual script theory suggests that men are more likely to be sexual initiators (i.e.,
men seek permission), whereas women are more likely to be sexual gatekeepers (i.e.,
women grant permission; see Gagnon & Simon, 1973). Although it is beyond the
scope of the current data, future work should seek to determine if consent con­
ceptualizations have nuanced differences based on gender. Also, many sexual vio­
lence prevention programs are single sex (versus co-ed), and this might inform the
need for different messaging based on the sex composition of the audience.
 Communication Reports 11
Additionally, this study did not address the differences, if any, between heterosexual
and LGBTQ individuals regarding definitions of sexual consent. A few studies have
begun to examine sexual consent in non-heterosexual populations (see Beres et al.,
2004; Sternin et al., 2021). Findings from these studies show mixed results, reporting
both unique challenges in sexual consent negotiation among non-heterosexual men
(Hills et al., 2021) as well as similarities in consent behaviors among non-
heterosexual men and women that are grounded in heteronormative beliefs about
gender roles and the traditional sexual script (Beres et al., 2004). However, the
surface has only been scratched within this context, and scholars need to further
include LGBTQ individuals in their samples to more comprehensively understand
the role of sexuality in the consent process. It would also be helpful for future
research to explore overlap and differences (if any) in definitions of sexual consent
held by heterosexual and non-heterosexual individuals.
Finally, future research should explore the role that the media plays in students’
definitions of sexual consent. A large number of students indicated that they learned
their definition of sexual consent from media sources such as television and the
internet. It would be helpful to further explore exactly what shows, websites, and
other media sources students are using, and whether these messages are accurate in
their portrayal of sexual consent.

Conclusion
This study offers valuable insight into college students’ definitions of sexual consent,
as well as the source(s) they used to develop these definitions. College students are at
a time in life that is ripe with sexual exploration and experimentation (Chen & Hole,
2010); therefore, the findings of the present study inform scholars and practitioners
on how undergraduates define sexual consent – an integral construct in any sexual
interaction they may encounter. The current study highlights the need to investigate
the various ways that students conceptualize consent. In particular, this study allows
academics and practitioners to recognize that all students do not share the same
definition of sexual consent. Moreover, there is a difference between participants’
responses regarding whether consent is an individual or dyadic construct,
a noteworthy distinction to aid practitioners’ understanding of how consent is
viewed. Importantly, this study calls scholars and practitioners to more closely
work with educators and administrators to create holistic, dialogue-based sexual
consent education, as young adults are learning about consent via educational
channels. In conclusion, sexual consent is complex, nuanced, interpretive, and
constantly evolving; thus, the work on this topic remains an unfinished puzzle.

References
Afifi, W. A., & Lee, J. W. (2000). Balancing instrumental and identity goals in relationships: The
role of request directness and request persistence in the selection of sexual resistance
12 L. A. Bednarchik et al.
strategies. Communication Monographs, 67(3), 284–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03637750009376511
Antioch College. (1996). The Antioch college sexual offense prevention policy (England, UK:
Routledge).
Archard, D. (1998). Sexual consent. Westview Press.
Artime, T. M., & Peterson, Z. D. (2015). Feelings of wantedness and consent during nonconsensual
sex: Implications for posttraumatic cognitions. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research,
Practice, and Policy, 7(6), 570–577. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000047
Banerjee, M., Capozzoli, M., McSweeney, L., & Sinha, D. (1999). Beyond kappa: A review of
interrater agreement measures. Canadian Journal of Statistics, 27(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/
10.2307/3315487
Beres, M. A., Herold, E., & Maitland, S. B. (2004). Sexual consent behaviors in same-sex
relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33(5), 475–486. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:
ASEB.0000037428.41757.10
Beres, M. A. (2014). Rethinking the concept of consent for anti-sexual violence activism and education.
Feminism and Psychology, 24(3), 373–389. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353514539652
Beres, M. (2007). ‘Spontaneous’ consent: An analysis of sexual consent literature. Feminism &
Psychology, 17(1), 193–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353507072914
Byers, E. S. (1996). How well does the traditional sexual script explain sexual coercion? Review of
a program of research. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 8(1–2), 7–25. https://doi.
org/10.1300/J056v08n01_02
Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act [SaVE]. (2013). The Violence Against Women Reauthor­
ization Act of 2013, Pub. L. No. 113‒4, §304, 127 Stat. 54, 89−92.
Chen, S., & Hole, G. T. (2010). Sex and socratic experimentation: Where it’s at. In M. Bruce &
R. M. Stewart (Eds.), College sex: Philosophy for everyone (pp. 17–27). Wiley-Blackwell.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444324488.ch1
Cline, R. J. W., & Engel, J. L. (1991). College students’ perceptions of sources of information about
AIDS. Journal of American College Health, 40(2), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/
07448481.1991.9936257
Cline, R. J. W. (2011). Everyday interpersonal communication and health. In T. L. Thompson,
R. Parrott, & J. F. Nussbaum (Eds.), Handbook of health communication (pp. 377–396).
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203846063
De Leon, S., Jackson, S., Lowenthal, A., Beall, J., Evans, N., Galgiani, C., Pavley, F., Torres, N.,
Gonzalez, L., & Williams, D. (2014). Senate bill 967 — Student safety: Sexual assault.
California Legislative Information. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.
xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967
Dripps, D. (1992). Beyond rape: An essay on the difference between the presence of force, and the
absence of consent. Columbia Law Review, 92(7), 1780–1809. https://doi.org/10.2307/
1123045
Frith, H., & Kitzinger, C. (2001). Reformulating sexual script theory - developing a discursive
psychology of sexual negotiation. Theory & Psychology, 11(2), 209–232. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0959354301112004
Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality. Aldine.
Hall, D. (1998). Consent for sexual behavior in a college student population. Electronic Journal of
Human Sexuality, 1(10). Retrieved October 12, 2012, from http://www.ejhs.org/volume1/
consent1.htm
Hickman, S. E., & Muehlenhard, C. L. (1999). By the semi-mystical appearance of a condom: How
young women and men communicate sexual consent in heterosexual situations. The Journal
of Sex Research, 36(3), 258–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499909551996
 Communication Reports 13
Hills, P. J., Pleva, M., Seib, E., & Cole, T. (2021). Understanding how university students use
perceptions of consent, wantedness, and pleasure in labeling rape. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 50(1), 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01772-1
Hills, P. J., Seib, E., Pleva, M., Smythe, J., Gosling, M. R., & Cole, T. (2020). Consent, wantedness,
and pleasure: Three dimensions affecting the perceived stress of and judgements of rape in
sexual encounters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 26(1), 171–197. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1037/xap0000221
Humphreys, T. P. (2005). Understanding sexual consent: An empirical investigation of the
normative script for young heterosexual adults. In M. Cowling & P. Reynolds (Eds.), Making
sense of sexual consent (pp. 209–225). Ashgate.
Humphreys, T. (2007). Perceptions of sexual consent: The impact of relationship history and
gender. Journal of Sex Research, 44(4), 307–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490701586706
Impett, E. A., & Tolman, D. L. (2006). Late adolescent girls’ sexual experiences and sexual
satisfaction. Journal of Adolescent Research, 21(6), 628‒646. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0743558406293964
James, R. (2011). Correlates of sexual self-esteem in a sample of substance-abusing women. Journal
of Psychoactive Drugs, 43(3), 220‒228. https://doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2011.605700
Johnson, A. M., & Hoover, S. M. (2015). The potential of sexual consent interventions on college
campuses: A literature review on the barriers to establishing affirmative sexual consent.
PURE Insights, 4. http://digitalcommons.wou.edu/pure/vol4/iss1/5.
Jozkowski, K. N., Manning, J., & Hunt, M. (2018). Sexual consent in and out of the bedroom:
Disjunctive views of heterosexual college students. Women’s Studies in Communication, 41
(2), 117–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/07491409.2018.1470121
Jozkowski, K. N., Peterson, Z. D., Sanders, S. A., Dennis, B., & Reece, M. (2014). Gender
differences in heterosexual college students’ conceptualizations and indicators of sexual
consent: Implications for contemporary sexual assault prevention education. The Journal
of Sex Research, 51(8), 904–916. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.792326
Jozkowski, K. N., & Peterson, Z. D. (2014). Assessing the validity and reliability of the perceptions
of the consent to sex scale. The Journal of Sex Research, 51(6), 632–645. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00224499.2012.757282
Lannutti, P. (2004). Resistance, persistence, and drinking: Examining goals of women’s refusal of
unwanted sexual advances. Western Journal of Communication, 68(2), 151–169. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10570310409374794
Lim, G. Y., & Roloff, M. E. (1999). Attributing sexual consent. Journal of Applied Communication
Research, 27(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909889909365521
Little, N. J. (2005). From no means no to only yes means yes: The rational results of an affirmative
consent standard in rape law. Vanderbilt Law Review, 58(4), 1321–1364. https://scholarship.
law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol58/iss4/5
Masters, N. T., Casey, E., Wells, E. A., & Morrison, D. M. (2013). Sexual scripts among young
heterosexually active men and women: Continuity and change. Journal of Sex Research, 50
(5), 409–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.661102
Muehlenhard, C. L., Peterson, Z. D., Humphreys, T. P., & Jozkowski, K. N. (2017). Evaluating the
one-in-five statistic: Women’s risk of sexual assault while in college. The Journal of Sex
Research, 54(4–5), 549–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1295014
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 of rape. Journal of Sex Research, 44(1), 72–88. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15598519jsr4401_8
Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
Sternin, S., McKie, R. M., Winberg, C., Travers, R. N., Humphreys, T. P., & Reissing, E. D. (2021).
Sexual consent: Exploring the perceptions of heterosexual and non-heterosexual men.
14 L. A. Bednarchik et al.
Psychology & Sexuality, 1–23. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19419899.2021.1879911
Tracy, S. J. (2019). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, commu­
nicating impact. John Wiley & Sons.
Wiederman, M. W. (2005). The gendered nature of sexual scripts. The Family Journal, 13(4),
496–502. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480705278729