Sex Roles

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01178-2

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Sexual Consent: How Relationships, Gender, and Sexual

Self-Disclosure Affect Signaling and Interpreting Cues for Sexual
Consent in a Hypothetical Heterosexual Sexual Situation
Nicholas P. Newstrom 1 & Steven M. Harris 2 & Michael H. Miner 1

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
Sexual communication is critical to establishing sexual encounters. Sexual script theory has been used to explore how individuals
communicate sexual consent and perceive sexual consent cues. Gender differences appear to dictate how consent cues are
expressed and interpreted. Using a sample of 309 U.S. heterosexual participants (Mage = 34.6 years, range = 19.3–72.2), we
explore how single and partnered women and men interpret and perceive cues for consenting to sexual behaviors in a hypothetical
situation. Results revealed that relationship length and sexual self-disclosure did not affect how individuals would communicate
sexual consent; gender differences were identified as women reported being more likely to interpret their use of direct forms of
communication as consent indications whereas men reported they were more likely to interpret their use of indirect communi-
cation strategies as consent indications. Within-subjects analyses suggest that some forms of communication would be
interpreted differently depending on if they were to be used by the participant or used by the participant’s partner. Although
there is considerable agreement across genders on what classes of behaviors are indicative of consent, differences in the sexual
scripts of men and women may contribute to gender differences in consent. Given these gender and within-subjects’ differences,
further research is needed to explore the nuances of sexual communication.

Keywords Gender differences . Sexual consent . Sexual script theory

Sexual health is an important aspect of the human experi-
ences. Researchers have found that sexual satisfaction is asso-
ciated with positive mental health and improved relationships
The present study used original data collected as part of the dissertation
completed by Nicholas Newstrom in partial completion of a doctoral
degree from the Department of Family Social Science, University of
Minnesota.
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article
(https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01178-2) contains supplementary
material, which is available to authorized users.
* Nicholas P. Newstrom
newst038@umn.edu
1
Program in Human Sexuality, Department of Family Medicine and
Community Health, University of Minnesota, 1300 South Second
Street, Suite 180, Minneapolis, MN 55454, USA
2
Couple and Family Therapy (CFT) Program, Department of Family
Social Science, College of Education and Human Development,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
(Byers 2005; Dosch et al. 2016). Positive or negative change
in sexual satisfaction level is associated with positive or neg-
ative changes in relationship satisfaction levels (Byers 2005).
Broadly, researchers have found that couples who are able to
communicate positively about conflict and about physical af-
fection report greater levels of relationship satisfaction over
the course of their relationships (Mackey et al. 2000, 2004).
Failure to communicate about sexual desires conversely have
been shown to have negative impacts on couples’ satisfaction
and may lead to conflict.
However, few studies have explored what forms of com-
munication are typically used during conversations related to
sexual behavior. Furthermore, sexual behaviors unfold differ-
ently at different points in time. For example, the behaviors
and communication used to engage in sexual behaviors are
different from those used during the act of sex itself. The
present paper explores the different communication patterns
expected to be used by U.S. heterosexual women and men
when they are consenting to engage in sexual intercourse.
We investigate what different behaviors individuals use when

in a hypothetical sexual situation to indicate consent (i.e., con-
sent cues) as well as how these behaviors are interpreted when
observed in others (i.e., consent perceptions).
Consent and Sexual Script Theory
Sexual script theory has often been used as one way to con-
ceptualize sexual behavior by providing a framework for
studying the behaviors that precede and occur during and after
sexual intercourse (Gagnon and Simon 1973). This theory
suggests that sexual behaviors are informed by social con-
structs such as culture, interpersonal relationships and intra-
psychic scripts (e.g., sexual fantasy; memory) (Wiederman
2015). Consistent with a social constructionist perspective,
sexual script theory posits that men and women create mean-
ing and interpret sexual behaviors through shared beliefs with
others and interactions with their social world. Sexual scripts
are a form of social scripts that are representations individuals
create to organize sexual behaviors and are developed from
culture, media, family members, sexual fantasy, and past sex-
ual encounters with others.
Although both men and women are more likely to use
nonverbal communication as sexual consent cues, gender dif-
ferences exist (Hall 1998; Hickman and Muehlenhard 1999).
Traditionally, the sexual scripts of men socialize them to be
the aggressor and pursuer during sexual encounters whereas
women are socialized to remain passive and to communicate
indirectly (Wiederman 2005). In this manner, sexual scripts
influence the way men’s and women’s behaviors are used to
signal consent to sexual behavior and how men and women
interpret a prospective partners’ behavior as a signal of their
consent to such behavior. A concern is that traditional scripts
may lead to actual or perceived token resistance, overt resis-
tance cues, and indirect consent cues (Muehlenhard and
Hollabaugh 1988; Sprecher et al. 1994). Research has also
found that men are more likely to use deception and manipu-
lation when trying to gain consent of their female partners and
that social factors (e.g., being at a bar) are more likely to be
interpreted as automatic signs for consent cues (Jozkowski
et al. 2018; Jozkowski and Peterson 2013).
Men and women also appear to value different consent
cues and to perceive cues differently. Women are more likely
to rate verbal strategies as more important consent cues than
men (Humphreys and Herold 2007; Jozkowski et al. 2013).
Jozkowski et al. (2013) found, in a sample of college students,
that men were more likely to attend to their female partner’s
nonverbal consent cues whereas women’s consent perceptions
were more likely focused on their partners’ use of verbal cues.
In one of the most thorough studies of sexual consent cues
and consent perceptions, Hickman and Muehlenhard (1999)
created two scales to measure how college-aged heterosexual
participants communicate (consent cues) and interpret cues for
Sex Roles
sexual consent (consent perceptions). Through factor analysis,
they found that their scales measured five patterns for consent
cues: (a) direct verbal cues (“Will you have sex with me?”),
(b) direct nonverbal cues (“You [your partner] begins to take
off your clothes”), (c) indirect verbal cues (“You talk about
your positive feelings about having sex with her/him”; “She/
He talks about her/his positive feelings about having sex with
you”), (d) indirect nonverbal cues (“You rub, fondle, and
touch her/him sexually”; “She/He rubs, fondles, and touches
you sexually”) and (e) statements about intoxication levels
(“You say, ‘I’m really drunk’”; “She/He says, ‘I’m really
drunk’”).
Hickman and Muehlenhard (1999) found that both women
and men used indirect cues to communicate consent.
Specifically, men were more likely than women were to use
indirect nonverbal cues (e.g., touching, kissing or caressing
the other person) whereas women were more likely than
men were to use indirect verbal consent cues (e.g., asking if
the other person has a condom) and to give “no response.”
Hickman and Muehlenhard then asked participants to rate
which cue types from their partners were most likely to indi-
cate sexual consent (consent perceptions). They found that
men rated direct verbal cues, direct nonverbal cues, indirect
verbal statements, indirect nonverbal statements, and state-
ments about intoxication as more indicative consent cues than
women did. Hickman and Muehlenhard concluded that the
chance for miscommunication is high, given that they found
gender differences across all five categories of behavior cues.
When the sexual scripts of women and men are shared and
align (e.g., both have traditional sexual scripts), sexual en-
counters operate smoothly (Wiederman 2005). However,
when these scripts do not align or a partner deviates from their
assigned script, problems can occur (Klein et al. 2019;
Wiederman 2005). Klein et al. (2019) found that women
who deviated from traditional sexual scripts were regarded
more negatively by their male partners. These differences in
behaviors and their interpretation are influenced by the atti-
tudes and beliefs (sexual script) each individual brings to the
encounter, and sexual scripts influence how behaviors are ex-
hibited and interpreted. If behaviors exhibited are viewed by
one as an indication of consent, while the other does not be-
lieve they are cueing consent, misinterpretation can occur and
the incident may be experienced differently by each
participant.
Couples and Sexual Self-Disclosure
Consent cues are likely to change over time as individuals in
relationships get to know their partners better and develop a
more intimate, ongoing relationship. Relationship status likely
affects consent cues and perceptions in that the on-going in-
teractions that occur within committed sexual relationships
Sex Roles
may change one’s conceptualization of what consent is and
how consent is communicated. Researchers have found that
individuals in long-term relationships are more likely to use
nonverbal and indirect cues to indicate consent (Curtis and
Burnett 2017; Humphreys 2007; Marcantonio et al. 2018;
Willis et al. 2019a, b). Willis and Jozkowski (2019) used a
diary study to investigate how relationship status affected con-
sent cues. They found that individuals in relationships were
less likely to rely on communication cues and more likely to
use tacit knowledge or do nothing in response to their part-
ners’ consent cues to indicate that they would like to have sex
with their partners.
Whereas the accumulated data indicate that women and
men are likely to cue consent using non-verbal and indirect
behaviors, current sexual violence prevention programs focus
on direct verbal expressions of consent. Direct verbal consent
involves the ability to explicitly communicate one’s sexual
intentions. This process is similar to sexual self-disclosure
(SSD), which may serve as a predictor or moderator of the
manner in which individuals express consent. SSD is the pro-
cess of sharing one’s sexual likes and dislikes with another
(Greene and Faulkner 2005; MacNeil and Byers 2009).
Researchers have found that higher levels of SSD are associ-
ated with greater relationship and sexual satisfaction
(Jozkowski 2013). Satinsky and Jozkowski (2015) explored
sexual self-disclosure and sexual consent among cisgender,
heterosexual women who wanted to have oral sex with their
partners. Using structural equation modeling, they found that
entitlement to sexual pleasure and sexual consent communi-
cation was mediated by self-efficacy, suggesting that commu-
nication about sexual behavior (oral sex) is related to per-
ceived ability to talk about sexual consent.
This ability to share one’s sexual likes and dislikes, which
indicates a certain level of comfort with sexual communica-
tion, may have implications for the types of behaviors that one
would use to cue interest or lack of interest in engaging in
sexual behavior. That is, using direct verbal cues requires
comfort with sexual communication that appears consistent
with SSD. Theoretically, gaining consent for sex may be
deemed an attractive sexual quality. Gaining explicit verbal
consent may help sexual partners to assert their sexual needs
and desires clearly (Troost 2008). When partners are enthusi-
astic about gaining consent for sexual behaviors they have yet
to try with their respective partners, it forces the requester to
focus on the needs and desires of their partner. This may
increase the level of emotional intimacy required to both make
requests for sexual behaviors and be turned down by a partner
(Troost 2008).
In the present study we investigate how single and
partnered individuals project they would indicate and
interpret cues for sexual behavior. Much of the research to
date has used samples of undergraduate college students.
Conducting a systemic view of the literature, Willis et al.
(2019a, b) identified 41 studies exploring sexual consent and
found a mean age for participants of 20.45 years. The fact that
sexual consent research has relied on college-aged individuals
limits the generalizability of findings, but may also distort
some results given that relationships mature over time and
change with the demands of family, work, and aging. Thus
this body of research may not adequately reflect how relation-
ship length and context affect consent cues and perceptions.
The present study expands upon the existing research and
investigated three research questions to explore sexual scripts
in a sample including individuals older than college aged: (a)
How does gender affect the extent to which behavior engaged
in by the individual or by their partner is interpreted as indi-
cating consent in a hypothetical sexual situation?; (b) How do
relationship satisfaction and sexual self-disclosure affect how
individuals in relationships would interpret behavior cues as
consent to sex in a hypothetical sexual situation?; and (c) How
do behaviors used by participants affect their interpretation of
these same behaviors used by their prospective sexual partners
in a hypothetical sexual situation?
Method
Participants
Participants were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk
(MTurk) during an 8-h period on May 19, 2017. MTurk is
an Internet marketplace that allows companies and researchers
to pay workers to complete surveys for monetary compensa-
tion. As a host, Amazon takes a 10% commission from every
survey that is completed. Considering the amount of time
required for the survey (45 min) and the sensitive nature of
the questions, participants were reimbursed $1.00 U.S. for
completing the survey.
A total of 368 participants started the survey. However,
only 350 participants completed the entire survey.
Participants who did not successfully answer the validity
check were eliminated from the sample, leaving a final sample
of 309 U.S. heterosexual participants. The average age of
participants was 34.6 (SD = 12.45, range = 19.27–72.17)
years; and there was no significant differences between men
(M = 34.86, SD = 12.97, range = 19.27–72.17) and women
(M = 34.21, SD = 11.75, range = 21.33–67.52), t(304) = .406,
p = .406. The sample included 72.2% (n = 223) who identified
as Caucasian, 17.5% (n = 54) identified as Asian American,
3.6% (n = 11) identified as African American, 3.6% (n = 11)
identified as South Asian or Pacific Islander, and 3.2% (n =
10) identified as Other. Thirty-two percent of the sample (n =
100) reported income greater than $50,000. A majority
(79.3%, n = 246) of participants reported that they were in
relationships (Women = 116, 47.3%; Men = 130, 52.7%).

Materials and Procedures
An advertisement asked subjects to participate in a survey
examining how heterosexual, cisgender (when one’s gender
matches their biological sex) individuals convey and interpret
verbal and nonverbal signals to engage in sexual intercourse.
The procedure for our study was approved by the University’s
Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects (IRB) and
participants read an informed consent statement prior to com-
pleting the survey. Once participants selected the survey to
complete from Amazon MTurk, they were directed to click
on the survey’s link and then directed to a website where the
instruments were presented using REDCap software.
REDCap is a system for data storage and sharing designed
initially for multi-site trials. This software administers and
collects completed questionnaires and allows for the data to
be stored confidentially and safely (Harris et al. 2009). Upon
completing the study, participants were given a unique ID
code, which they entered in Amazon MTurk to verify that they
completed the survey before they received payment.
Demographic information was collected including date of
birth, gender, income, and relationship status.
Signaling and interpreting consent. Hickman and
Muehlenhard’s (1999) scales were used to measure how indi-
viduals cued and interpreted consent. These measures includ-
ed gender-specific versions for men and for women. Their
original scales had 33 items; however, after conducting a fac-
tor analysis, they dropped three items for a total of 30 items in
order to improve conceptual clarity. Based on the recommen-
dations of the authors, the final 27 items were used in the
current study (S.E. Hickman, personal communication, April
5, 2017). Due to a production error, four items were dropped
from the consent cue scales for men: one validity check was
dropped, two items were dropped for the Indirect Verbal con-
sent cue scale (“You suggest you should get a condom out”;
“You ask if she has a condom”) and one item from the non-
response consent cue scale (“You do not resist her sexual
advances”).
Communicating sexual consent. In accordance with
Hickman and Muehlenhard’s (1999) procedures, participants
were asked how they would communicate sexual consent if
they were in a hypothetical situation with an partner of the
other gender:
You and your date have been out several times but the two
of you have not had sexual intercourse (penile-vaginal
intercourse) together before. The two of you are finally alone
in a private place. She [he] sits close to you, kisses you, and
then starts to undress you. In response to her [him] sitting
close, kissing you, and then starting to undress you. . .
They were then asked their level of agreement on 27 items,
describing various ways that they could signal sexual consent.
We used six of the seven subscales identified by Hickman and
Muehlenhard (1999) for our study. We omitted analyzing the
Sex Roles
Direct Refusal item (“You say, ‘No.’” and “She/He says,
‘No’”) because in our study, very few participants (n = 55)
indicated that their use of this behavior or their partner’s use
would indicate consent. The subscales we analyzed included:
(a) Direct Verbal cues (e.g., “I want you”) comprising five
items (αmen = .81; αwomen = .75), (b) Direct Nonverbal
cues composed of one item (“You don’t say anything—you
just start having intercourse with her/him”), (c) Indirect Verbal
cues (e.g., “You ask if she/he has a condom”) comprising four
items (αmen = .54; αwomen = .83), (d) Indirect Nonverbal
cues (e.g., “You help her/him undress you”) composed of 10
items (α = .94; αwomen = .83), (e) Nonresponse cues com-
prising four items (e.g., “You do not say, ‘No’”)
(αmen = .85; α = .89), and (f) Statements about Intoxication
(e.g., “I’m really drunk”) combining two items (αmen = .94;
αwomen = .91). A 7-point Likert-type scale was used with
ratings from 0 (does not show your consent to sexual
intercourse) to 6 (definitely shows your consent to sexual
intercourse). For all multi-item subscales, ratings across items
were averaged such that higher scores indicate stronger levels
of communicating sexual consent.
Interpreting sexual consent cues. Hickman and
Muehlenhard’s (1999) interpreting consent scale used gender
appropriate language for a hypothetical dating scenario:
You are very attracted to your date and would like to have
sexual intercourse with him [her]. You have been out several
times but the two of you have not had sexual intercourse
(penile-vaginal intercourse) together before. The two of you
are finally alone in a private place. You make a sexual advance
by sitting close to him [her], kissing him [her], and then
starting to undress him [her]. In response to your sexual ad-
vance in which you sit close to him [her], kiss him [her], and
then start to undress him [her]. . .
The same 27 communication cues were used and adjusted
to measure the extent that these behaviors would be
interpreted as consent cues in a hypothetical situation.
The subscales were the same as those for communicating
sexual consent: (a) Direct Verbal (e.g., “She/He says, ‘I want
to have sex with you’”) (αmen = .75; αwomen = .71), (b)
Direct Nonverbal (e.g., “She/He doesn’t say anything—she/
he just starts having intercourse with you”), (c) Indirect Verbal
(e.g., “She/He asks if you have a condom”) (αmen = .83;
αwomen = .88), (d) Indirect Nonverbal (e.g., “She/He rubs,
fondles, and touches you sexually”) (αmen = .95;
αwomen = .95), (e) Nonresponse cues (e.g., “She/He does
not say, ‘No’”) (αmen = .92; αwomen = .90), and (f)
Statements About Intoxication (e.g., “I’m really drunk”)
(αmen = .95; αwomen = .95). The same 7-point, Likert-type
rating scale. For all multi-item subscales, ratings across items
were averaged such that higher scores indicate stronger levels
of consent perceptions. Hickman and Muehlenhard’s (1999)
scales were chosen because they were not open-ended items,
meaning participants had to choose from a list of behaviors.
Sex Roles
Sexual self-disclosure. To measure the extent to which in-
dividuals in relationships shared their sexual likes and dislikes
with their partners, we used the 12-item Sexual Self-
Disclosure (SSD) scale (Byers and Demmons 1999). This
measure was only administered to those who indicated they
were currently in a relationship. Participants were asked to
think about their sexual relationship with their current partner
and indicate how often they communicated with them about
their sexual likes and dislikes. Participants were prompted by
the stem, “How much have you told your partner about…,”
and then were asked to respond to a variety of sexual behav-
iors (e.g., “…the way(s) you like/don’t like to be kissed?”; “…
the way(s) you like/don’t like to have intercourse?”). Six items
of the scale measured the extent to which participants have
told their partners about how much they liked sexual behav-
iors (e.g., kissing, oral sex) and six items were used to measure
the extent to which participants told their partners how much
they disliked the same sexual behaviors. A 7-point, Likert-
type scale was used with anchors from 1 (Nothing at all) to
7 (Everything). Higher averaged scores indicated that partici-
pants were more likely to sexually disclose to their partner.
Cronbach’s alphas were .90 for men and .93 for women.
Relationship satisfaction. Relationship satisfaction was
measured using the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale
(RDAS) (Busby et al. 1995). The RDAS is a 14-item scale
that assesses the consensus, cohesion, and satisfaction of dy-
adic couples, and it has been used in a variety of studies to
measure individuals’ attitudes on couple satisfaction. Items
included: “How often do you and your partner quarrel?” and
“Do you ever regret that you married (or lived together)?”
Items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 0 (All
of the time) to 5 (Never). Ratings were averaged across items
so that higher scores indicates stronger relationship satisfac-
tion. Cronbach’s alphas were .87 for men and .84 for women.
Data Analysis
IBM’s v22 SPSS was used for the analysis of the data.
Descriptive statistics, boxplots, correlations and scatterplots
were calculated to test assumptions of normality. Little’s
Missing Completely at Random Test was used to assess the
patterns of missing data. This test indicated that 2% of the data
were missing in a random pattern and thus were not the result
of a systematic problem. Expectation maximization was used
to impute missing values. This technique uses an algorithm to
re-estimate new parameters of the missing data frame. Then, a
second iteration is used to re-estimate missing values based on
this parameter frame (Little and Rubin 1989).
Hickman and Muehlenhard (1999) incorporated two accu-
racy check questions into their scale (e.g., “He/she yawns—
answer this question with a nine” and “You scratch your
arm—answer this question with an eight”). Both of these ac-
curacy checks were included in the self-initiation scale
whereas only one of the accuracy checks was included in the
interpretation scale. After surveys were eliminated using the
accuracy checks, descriptive statistics and histograms were
used to examine the normality of all scale items. Then, log-
transformations were used to address positive skewness.
Although data analysis was conducted using the log-
transformed scores, untransformed means are presented in
both tables and in the Results section for clarity and ease of
interpretation. To control for experiment-wise error, we ap-
plied a Bonferroni correction (p < .008).
To examine the effect of gender and relationship status
would have on consent behaviors, five two-way factorial anal-
yses of variances (ANOVAs) were used. The outcome cues
(Direct Verbal, Indirect Verbal, Direct Nonverbal, Indirect
Nonverbal, Statements about Intoxication, Nonresponse) were
entered as dependent variables and gender consisted of two
levels (male and female.) ANOVAs were used instead of lin-
ear regression in order to test the three levels of relationship
length. An additional six two-way factorial analyses of vari-
ances (ANOVA) were conducted by using the combined sub-
scales for interpreting sexual consent cues across the same
behavior categories.
We used 12 regression equations to test the relationship
among relationship satisfaction, sexual self-disclosure, and
the interaction between relationship satisfaction and sexual
self-disclosure. Six equations were applied to the men’s sub-
scales of Direct Verbal, Indirect Verbal, Direct Nonverbal,
Indirect Nonverbal cues, Nonresponse cues, Statements about
Intoxication, and Nonresponse cues and five were applied to
the women’s subscales.
In order to identify differences between behaviors partici-
pants would choose to cue consent and how participants
would interpret consent cues in a hypothetical situation, we
used a one-way, repeated measures ANOVA. This analysis
had one between-subjects factor with two levels (female and
male) and one within-subjects factor with two levels (actor
and receiver). ANOVAs were conducted for each class of
behaviors (Direct Verbal, Indirect Verbal, Direct Nonverbal,
Indirect Nonverbal, Statements about Intoxication, and
Nonresponse cues). Because both the men’s and women’s
scales were scored the same, the two versions of each subscale
were combined. To control for familywise error, we applied
Bonferroni correction within each set of analyses (p < .008).
Results
Indicating Consent
A 2 × 3 analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on the
influence of gender (male or female), relationship length (less
than one year, one to 5 years, greater than 5 years), and the
interaction between gender and relationship length on the type
 Sex Roles

of communication participants reported they would use. The situation. When relationship satisfaction was high, there is
main effect of gender was statistically significant for three no impact of sexual self-disclosure.
types of communication: Indirect Verbal cues, F(1, 227) = Interpreting Partner’s Consent.
41.14, p < .001, ηp2 = .15; Indirect Nonverbal cues, F(1, With regard to interpreting consent, the main effect of
239) = 13.08, p < .001, ηp2 = .05; and Statements about Gender was significant for Indirect Verbal cues, F(1, 239) =
Intoxication, F(1,239) = 18.14, p < .001, ηp2 = .07 (see 12.35, p < .001, ηp2 = .05, and for Indirect Nonverbal cues,
Table 1). F(1, 239) = 8.23, p = .004, ηp2 = .03. These analyses indicate
Correlations were calculated between the independent var- that men in our sample would be more likely to interpret
iables (Relationship Satisfaction, Sexual Self-Disclosure). A Indirect Verbal cues (e.g., “She asks if you have a condom”)
nonsignificant correlation was identified between Sexual Self- and Indirect Nonverbal cues (e.g., “She hugs and caresses
Disclosure and Relationship Satisfaction (r = .02, p = .760). you”) by their female partners as indicative of consent than
We ran multiple regression equations to test the relationship women would interpret such cues as indicative of their male
between relationship satisfaction, sexual self-disclosure, and partners’ consent (see Table 1). Additionally, men would also
the interaction between relationship satisfaction and sexual be more likely to interpret their partner’s statements about
self-disclosure (see Tables 2 s and 3 s in the online supple- their intoxication level as indicative of consent, although the
ment). The interaction between relationship satisfaction and magnitude of their ratings indicate that men do not interpret
sexual self-disclosure was significant only for Indirect statements about intoxication as strong indications of consent
Nonverbal cues, F(3, 126) = 2.39, p < .009, with an R2 of for sexual intercourse, F(1, 239) = 9.37, p = .002, ηp2 = .04.
.054 for men (see Table 1s in the online supplement). When The interaction between relationship satisfaction and sexu-
relationship satisfaction was low, the magnitude of sexual al self-disclosure was also significant for interpreting Indirect
self-disclosure was related to the degree to which Indirect Nonverbal cues, F(3, 126) = 2.38, p < .010, with an R2 of .054
Nonverbal cues signaled sexual consent in a hypothetical (see Table 4 s in the online supplement). None of the other
behavior types were significant for relationship satisfaction,
sexual self-disclosure, or the interaction between relationship
Table 1 Descriptive statistics for combined cues indicating and satisfaction and self-disclosure (See Tables 4 s and 5 s in the
interpreting consent by participants’ gender online supplement). As previously for signaling consent,
when relationship satisfaction was rated low, men would be
Men Women Total
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
more likely to interpret their partner’s Indirect Nonverbal cues
as indicative of consent when their level of sexual self-
Direct Verbal disclosure was high in a hypothetical situation. Again, with
Indicated Consent 5.10 (1.10) 5.17 (.89) 5.12 (1.00) higher relationship satisfaction, there is no impact of SSD.
Interpreted Consent 5.10 (.96) 5.16 (.88) 5.13 (.93)
Indirect Verbal
Indicated Consent 3.88 (1.39)a,c 2.85 (1.62)b 3.44 (1.58) Differences between Indicated and Interpreted
Interpreted Consent 4.26 (1.26)a,d 3.38 (1.51)b 3.89 (1.44) Consent
Direct Nonverbal
Indicated Consent 4.34 (2.03) 4.88 (1.64)c 4.57 (1.89) Turning to our repeated measures ANOVAs which sepa-
Interpreted Consent 4.80 (1.74) 4.99 (1.61)d 4.88 (1.67) rately compared men’s and women’s projections of their
Indirect Nonverbal own indicated consent with their interpreted consent of
Indicated Consent 3.94 (1.41)a 3.14 (1.57)b 3.60 (1.53) their partner, only two comparisons were statistically sig-
Interpreted Consent 3.79 (1.48)a 3.17 (1.55)b 3.52 (1.54) nificant. There was a significant effect of Indirect Verbal
Nonresponse behaviors, Wilks’ λ = .89, F(1, 307) = 42.65, p = .001,
Indicated Consent 3.67 (1.63) 2.92 (1.69) 3.36 (1.69) ηp2 = .12, finding that men in our sample indicated that
Interpreted Consent 3.42 (1.68) 3.03 (1.72) 3.26 (1.70) their use of Indirect Verbal behaviors were less indicative
Statements About Intoxication of sexual consent than the Indirect Verbal behaviors of
Indicated Consent 1.38 (1.63)a .58 (1.16)b 1.04 (1.50)
their partners in a hypothetical sexual situation (see
Interpreted Consent 1.30 (1.68)a .64 (1.23)b 1.02 (1.54)
Table 5 s in the online supplement). There was also a
significant effect for Direct Nonverbal behaviors, Wilks’
Note. All analyses were conducted with log transformed means whereas λ = .97, F(1, 307) = .13, p = .003, ηp2 = .03, suggesting
the statistics reported here as not transformed. Means with different sub- that women reported they would be more likely to inter-
scripts (a,b) across a row indicate a significant gender difference; means
with different subscripts (c, d) down a column indicate a significant dif-
pret their Direct Nonverbal behaviors as indicative of con-
ference between indicated and interpreted consent (at p < .008 using a sent while rating their prospective male partner’s direct
Bonferroni-correction) non-verbal behaviors as less indicative of consent.
Sex Roles
Discussion
Overall, our findings indicate discrepancies that could lead to
misunderstanding of consent in three areas. First, our results
indicate gender differences related to sexual consent cues.
Second, we also detected gender differences regarding the
consent perceptions of both men and women. Third, we found
within-subjects differences that affect sexual consent commu-
nication. The following sections describe and interpret the
results of how individuals communicate and interpret sexual
consent.
Consent Cues
Our results revealed that women and men would use similar
consent cues in a hypothetical sexual situation with their part-
ner. However, we did find some differences. Women indicat-
ed their Direct Verbal and Direct Nonverbal consent cues
were more indicative of sexual consent whereas men indicated
that their Indirect Verbal cues were more indicative of consent
in a hypothetical situation. Although neither men nor women
rated potential use of statements about their intoxication as
particularly strong indicators of consent, we did find that
men’s ratings of statements about intoxication were higher
than women’s, consistent with the gender differences identi-
fied by Hickman and Muehlenhard (1999).
It is important to note that the partial eta squared statistics,
used to indicate effect size, were small for Direct Verbal and
Direct Nonverbal cues. The largest effect size was for the
Indirect Verbal cues used by men (.15) suggesting that these
group differences are more robust and may be indicative of
men being less direct and possibly more manipulative in their
approaches to sexual behavior. Women may be socialized
more to be more direct in their sexual communication in order
to prevent sexual miscommunication (Muehlenhard and
Hollabaugh 1988; Sprecher et al. 1994). However, the idea
that sexual miscommunication can be prevented by women
only forces the responsibility of consent solely on women
(O’Byrne et al. 2008). It is possible that because traditional
sexual scripts require men to initiate sexual behavior, indirect
communication allows them to save face if their potential
partner is uninterested or it may be indicative of discomfort
with or prohibitions against direct sexual advances. However,
our measure was not about frequency of use because we did
not ask participants which consent cues they use the most.
Our within-subjects analyses indicated that other behavior
classes, Indirect Verbal, and Direct Nonverbal cues have dif-
ferent meanings with respect to whether they would indicate
consent when used by men and women in hypothetical situa-
tions. Men indicated that their hypothetical use of Indirect
Verbal cues was less indicative of consent than their hypothet-
ical female partners’ use of Indirect Verbal cues. In contrast,
women would be more likely to interpret their Direct
Nonverbal cues as indicative of consent while rating their
hypothetical male partner’s Direct Nonverbal cues as less in-
dicative of consent. Given the tenants of sexual script theory,
our within-subjects findings support the idea that sexual
scripts that occur prior to sexual intercourse are influenced
by social interactions with other-gender partners (Gagnon
and Simon 1973). Recall that intrapsychic scripts, such as
memories of previous sexual encounters, contribute to the
formation of current sexual scripts (Sternberg 1996).
Women and men in our study may have been socialized to
indicate and interpret communication differently based on
their previous sexual encounters. Women may have found
success in their previous use of Direct Nonverbal communi-
cation and were not looking for men to use this strategy with
them. Conversely, men may have been socialized to be attune
to the Indirect Verbal cues of women.
Perception Cues
Men in our study were more likely to indicate that Indirect
Verbal and Nonverbal perception cues, as well as statements
about intoxication, are indicative of consent by their female
partners. These findings are similar to those of Hickman and
Muehlenhard (1999) who also found that men in their sample
were more likely than women to interpret Indirect Verbal and
Nonverbal cues and statements about intoxication as more
indicative of consent. However, in their sample, they found
that men rated Direct Verbal cues as more indicative of con-
sent than women. In our sample, this was not the case.
Our results indicate that, for the most part, men attuned to
the same behaviors that women report would indicate consent
if they used them. The exception is that whereas women re-
ported that using Indirect, Nonverbal cues would be less likely
to signal consent, men reported that they interpret such cues as
indications of consent. The sexual scripts of men in our sam-
ple appear to lead them to use indirect communication during
negotiation of sexual behaviors. Sexual script theory posits
that society and cultural influences contribute to the sexual
behaviors of women and men (Gagnon and Simon 1973).
Traditional heterosexual dating scripts dictate that the man is
in a proactive role whereas the woman assumes a reactive one
(Laner and Ventrone 2000; Rose and Frieze 1993). This tra-
ditional script, where women are more passive in their dating
communication, may have socialized men to be attuned to the
indirect signals of women (Muehlenhard and Hollabaugh
1988; Sprecher et al. 1994). In response to these indirect cues,
they in turn would use them with women.
Relationship satisfaction and sexual self-disclosure do not
appear to affect the consent or perception cues in our study.
However, the interaction between sexual self-disclosure and
relationship satisfaction was significant for Indirect Nonverbal
cues that men would use in a hypothetical situation and how
men would interpret Indirect Nonverbal cues in a fictional

situation. Men rated Indirect Nonverbal cues and interpreta-
tions of these cues as high when sexual self-disclosure was
high and relationship satisfaction was low. This interaction
effect is consistent with sexual script theory (Wiederman
2015) in that it indicates that an internal factor (sexual self-
disclosure) interacts with an experiential factor (a negative
relationship experience as measured by the RDAS) to influ-
ence how men communicate and perceive consent.
Specifically, for those men in unsatisfying relation-
ships, their level of sexual self-disclosure, which indi-
cates comfort communicating with their partners about
sex, is related to increased perceptions that both their
and their partners’ use of indirect non-verbal cues are
indicative of consent for sexual intercourse in the pre-
sented fictional dating situations. For those men in rela-
tively satisfying relationships, sexual self-disclosure did
not influence the ratings of indirect, non-verbal behav-
iors. There is an indication that unstable relationships
influence the types of behaviors used to negotiate sexual
situations, such that indirect behavior is more likely
among both men and women when there is relationship
uncertainty (Theiss 2011). Thus, our findings may indi-
cate that learning from experience within their relation-
ships that sexual communication is indirect would lead
men with sexual comfort to define such indirect behavior
as sexual consent. However, these findings should be
interpreted with caution because this interaction effect
only explained 5% of the variance in both ratings of
consent cues and consent perceptions.
Further, our analyses of relationship factors are limited in
that rather than querying how individuals within relationships
would signal or interpret consent of their partners, we asked
them to put themselves into a fictitious scenario that involved
the initial instance of sexual intercourse. Thus, we may have
lost the influence of time spent in relationship because it does
not change how one may view consent for an initial sexual
encounter. Additionally, our rating anchors asked how likely a
particular behavior would be an indication of consent if used
rather than how often one might use a particular behavior to
signal consent.
With regard to our study, we had assumed that being
in a relationship would have changed the sexual scripts
of partnered individuals, but, except for the interaction
effect found in men for indirect non-verbal behavior,
this was not the case. The vignette we used was a
hypothetical situation, asking that participants think
about a date they are on but it did not specify that this
person was their partner. Thus, some participants could
have responded with their partner in mind or responded
as if they would be having sex with an acquaintance for
the first time. This may explain why we were unable to
find an association between relationship satisfaction and
a particular consent behavior.
Sex Roles
Actor and Perceiver Differences
Our data indicate that, for the most part, both women and men
perceive behaviors in others as indications of consent that they
themselves would use to cue consent. However, in both men
and women, we found that Indirect Verbal cues were rated
more highly as an indication of consent when used by a per-
spective sexual partner than our participants rated such behav-
iors when used by themselves. That difference would appear
to indicate that, in both women and men, although they do not
believe that their Indirect Verbal cues are indicative of con-
sent, they do perceive their partner’s Indirect Verbal cues as
indicating consent. This perceptual disparity sets up an inter-
esting situation in that for both men and women, they appear
to be drawing inferences about consent from behaviors they
themselves would see as less indicative of their interest in
engaging in sexual intercourse. For Direct Nonverbal cues
there are gender differences in this mismatch between what I
would do to communicate consent and what I perceive you are
communicating with the same behaviors. In this case, men
rated their hypothetical use of Direct Nonverbal cues as less
indicative of consent than when their perspective partner used
these cues. Women rated both their use and their hypothetical
partner’s use as equally indicative of consent. Thus, male sex-
ual scripts appear to include the expectation that their potential
female partners will use direct nonverbal cues to tell them of
their interest in engaging in sexual behavior, but that such
behavior is not part of the consent script for men. As we noted
previously, men believe that their indirect behavior, whether
verbal or nonverbal, is more indicative of their consent for
sexual intercourse.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
The present study had several limitations in addition to those
we described previously for our relationship analyses. First,
the cross-sectional design limits statements about causality,
and self-report is also subject to biases and contamination.
The various sexual scripts that individuals use to consent to
sex may be difficult to measure in a survey given the variety of
different ways consent can be shown. Human communication
and sexual behaviors are complex, and there may be addition-
al forms of communication that were not accounted for, spe-
cifically among the indirect, nonverbal and intoxication sub-
scales. For example, pouring a glass of alcohol while smiling
seductively is another indirect, nonverbal behavior pattern that
may be indicative of sexual consent that was not measured in
our study.
Additionally, it is likely that different forms of communi-
cation interact with each other to lead to perceived consent.
Hickman and Muehlenhard’s (1999) scales limit the ability to
make statements about the number of times a particular cue
type was used or if combinations of behaviors were used. We
Sex Roles
also do not have data on the context of relationships or sexual
orientation. For example, there may have been individuals in
relationships that for religious reasons were not having sex
until marriage or individuals who participated in our study
who were in same-sex relationships even though recruitment
materials asked for sexually active, heterosexual, cisgender
participants. The vignettes we used were the original
Hickman and Muehlenhard (1999) vignettes that did not ask
participants who are in relationships already what consent
cues they would use with their partner or ask how they would
perceive cues from their partner. Finally, Hickman and
Muehlenhard’s scales were also used to investigate the con-
sent cues and perceptions of college-aged individuals. It is
possible that the vignettes and behaviors used in the original
study resonated better with college-aged individuals than the
older adult sample recruited for our study.
The Indirect Verbal subscale for men only included two
items whereas the female Indirect Verbal subscale contained
four items. This difference may explain the poor reliability for
the male version of this scale. The male version of the
Nonresponse subscale did not include one of the items from
the original scale, however, this did not appear to affect the
reliability of the scale for men or women.
Although participants in our study indicated whether their
use of cues would cue consent, the frequency that they are
used is still unknown. Thus, it is unclear which behavioral
cues are more likely to be used in negotiating and consenting
to engage in sexual intercourse. To address this issue, future
studies should include self-report measures asking about the
consent cues that individuals actually use with their partners.
Although our study used a sample that was older than college-
aged samples, our sample was still predominantly Caucasian.
Exploring the consent cues and perceptions of same-sex indi-
viduals and ethnic minority populations is required to increase
external validity of findings. Longitudinal and experimental
designs are also promising ways of exploring sexual consent.
Diary studies could be employed to track how cues and per-
ceptions change over time and experimental studies using vir-
tual reality technology would allow researchers to control en-
vironmental elements in hypothetical situations (e.g., gender
of the proposed sexual partner).
Practice Implications
Our study found gender differences between how women and
men would signal and interpret consent. A key issue is that we
have found that men will imply consent when women display
behaviors that they indicate are less indicative of their willing-
ness to engage in sexual intercourse. Thus, sexual intent can
be misinterpreted and a potential exists for a coercive or ma-
nipulative sexual encounter. One implication is that sexual
assault prevention programs should address how consent is
signaled and interpreted, especially in situations where one
partner is not signaling consent and the other partner believes
that they are. These programs may benefit from highlighting
the complex nature of communication and encouraging indi-
viduals to ask clarifying questions about their partner’s inten-
tions. Another is that existing sexual scripts influence men and
women to both perceive their own sexual cues in different
ways and their potential partners’ sexual cues differently.
These differences appear to conform to traditional sexual
scripts and may further reinforce gender stereotypes and pow-
er imbalances within heterosexual sexual relationships.
Conclusions
Our study extends the available research and indicates
that different strategies are used by men and women not
only in college students, but also in a more general sam-
ple of U.S. adults. Not only did women and men differ in
how they would perceive their own behavior to be indic-
ative of consent, but in at least two cases, there were
differences in whether they felt a behavior was a cue of
consent depending on whether it was their behavior or the
behavior of their perspective partner in a hypothetical
sexual situation. Our findings suggest that both women
and men may have been socialized to use indirect forms
of communication and that men may have been keyed to
pay attention to the nonverbal, indirect strategies of wom-
en. The within-subject differences suggest that when men
are presented with these scripts, men respond with non-
verbal, indirect cues as well. Further exploring these
within-subject differences using different consent cues
may further explicate sexual scripts. Given that sexual
scripts are nuanced, exploring within-subjects differences
and how different behaviors are used in combination may
further an understanding of sexual interactions and com-
munication of consent.
The results of our study suggest that gender differences
influence how women and men indicate and interpret commu-
nication for sexual consent. It appears that both genders infer
consent from non-verbal and indirect behaviors. Although in
past studies sexual self-disclosure has been found to be asso-
ciated with indirect forms of communication, we found that
this was only true for men with lower relationship satisfaction.
Future studies should examine the complex interactions
among relationship variables and different combinations of
statements and behaviors that men and women use to indicate
sexual consent and explore the mechanisms involved in
changing sexual norms. Finally, it should be noted that, for
the most part, the gender differences we found were rather
small. Thus, there appears to be more agreement among men
and women as to what behaviors communicate consent to
sexual intercourse than there are differences, at least in a hy-
pothetical context.

Acknowledgements We would also like to acknowledge Cynthia Meyer
and Tai Mendenhall’s critiques and comments during the writing process
as well as Heidi Fall’s help editing and formatting.
Thanks to the University of Minnesota Department of Family
Medicine and Community Health, especially Heidi Fall for her editing
and formatting as well as the critiques and comments from Cynthia Meyer
and Tai Mendenhall during the writing process.
Funding This research was funded by a dissertation award from the
University of Minnesota Family Social Science Department and by the
National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Advancing
Translational Sciences, grant UL1TR002494. The content is solely the
responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official
views of the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for
Advancing Translational Sciences.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
Ethical Approval: All procedures performed in studies involving hu-
man participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the
University of Minnesota Institutional Review Board (FWA number
00000312) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amend-
ments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual
participants included in the study.
References
Busby, D. M., Christensen, C., Crane, D. R., & Larson, J. H. (1995). A
revision of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale for use with distressed and
nondistressed couples: Construct hierarchy and multidimensional
scales. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 21(3), 289–308.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.1995.tb00163.x.
Byers, E. S. (2005). Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction: A
longitudinal study of individuals in long-term relationships. Journal
of Sex Research, 42(2), 113–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00224490509552264.
Byers, E. S., & Demmons, S. (1999). Sexual satisfaction and sexual self-
disclosure within dating relationships. Journal of Sex Research,
36(2), 180–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499909551983.
Curtis, J. N., & Burnett, S. (2017). Affirmative consent: What do college
student leaders think about “yes means yes” as the standard for
sexual behavior? American Journal of Sexuality Education, 12(3),
201–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2017.1328322.
Dosch, A., Rochat, L., Ghisletta, P., Favez, N., & Van der Linden, M.
(2016). Psychological factors involved in sexual desire, sexual ac-
tivity, and sexual satisfaction: A multi-factorial perspective.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 2029–2045. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10508-014-0467-z.
Gagnon, J., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social sources of
human sexuality. Chicago: Aldine.
Greene, K., & Faulkner, S. L. (2005). Gender, belief in the sexual double
standard, and sexual talk in heterosexual dating relationships. Sex
Roles, 53(3/4), 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-5682-
6.
Hall, D. S. (1998). Consent for sexual behavior in a college student
population. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, 1, 1–16 http://
www.ejhs.org/volume1/consent1.htm.
Sex Roles
Harris, P. A., Taylor, R., Thielke, R., Payne, J., Gonzalez, N., & Conde, J.
G. (2009). Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A
metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing
translational research informatics support. Journal of Biomedical
Informatics, 42(2), 377–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.
010.
Hickman, S. E., & Muehlenhard, C. L. (1999). “By the semi-mystical
appearance of a condom”: How young women and men communi-
cate sexual consent in heterosexual situations. Journal of Sex
Research, 36(3), 258–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00224499909551996.
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.
Humphreys, T., & Herold, E. (2007). Sexual consent in heterosexual
relationships: Development of a new measure. Sex Roles, 57, 305–
315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9264-7.
Jozkowski, K. N. (2013). The influence of consent on college students’
perceptions of the quality of sexual intercourse at last event.
International Journal of Sexual Health, 25(4), 260–272. https://
doi.org/10.1080/19317611.2013.799626.
Jozkowski, K. N., Manning, J., & Hunt, M. (2018). Sexual consent in and
out of the bedroom: Disjunctive views of heterosexual college stu-
dents. Women’s Studies in Communication, 41(2), 117–139. https://
doi.org/10.1080/07491409.2018.1470121.
Jozkowski, K. N., & Peterson, Z. D. (2013). College students and sexual
consent: Unique insights. Journal of Sex Research, 50(6), 517–523.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.700739.
Jozkowski, K. N., Peterson, Z. D., Sanders, S. A., Dennis, B., & Reece,
M. (2013). Gender differences in heterosexual college students' con-
ceptualizations 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.
Klein, V., Imhoff, R., Reininger, K. M., & Briken, P. (2019). Perceptions
of sexual script deviation in women and men. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 48, 631–644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1280-
x.
Laner, M. R., & Ventrone, N. A. (2000). Dating scripts revisited. Journal
of Family Issues, 21(4), 488–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/
019251300021004004.
Little, R. J., & Rubin, D. B. (1989). The analysis of social science data
with missing values. Sociological Methods & Research, 18(2–3),
292–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124189018002004.
Mackey, R. A., Diemer, M. A., & O’Brien, B. A. (2000). Psychological
intimacy in the lasting relationships of heterosexual and same-
gender couples. Sex Roles, 43, 201–225. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:
1007028930658.
Mackey, R. A., Diemer, M. A., & O’Brien, B. A. (2004). Relational
factors in understanding satisfaction in the lasting relationships of
same-sex and heterosexual couples. Journal of Homosexuality,
47(1), 111–136. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v47n01_07.
MacNeil, S., & Byers, E. S. (2009). Role of sexual self-disclosure in the
sexual satisfaction of long-term heterosexual couples. The Journal
of Sex Research, 46(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00224490802398399.
Marcantonio, T., Jozkowski, K. N., & Wiersma-Mosley, J. (2018). The
influence of partner status and sexual behavior on college women’s
consent communication and feelings. Journal of Sex & Marital
Therapy, 44(8), 776–786. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2018.
1474410.
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(5), 872–879. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.54.5.872.
Sex Roles
O’Byrne, R., Hansen, S., & Rapley, M. (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/. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.922.
Rose, S., & Frieze, I. H. (1993). Young singles' contemporary dating
scripts. Sex Roles, 28(9–10), 499–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF00289677.
Satinsky, S., & Jozkowski, K. N. (2015). Female sexual subjectivity and
verbal consent to receiving oral sex. Journal of Sex & Marital
Therapy, 41(4), 413–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2014.
918065.
Sprecher, S., Hatfield, E., Cortese, A., Potapova, E., & Levitskaya, A.
(1994). Token resistance to sexual intercourse and consent to un-
wanted sexual intercourse: College students’ dating experiences in
three countries. The Journal of Sex Research, 31(2), 125–132.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499409551739.
Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Love stories. Personal relationships, 3(1), 59–79.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1996.tb00104.x.
Theiss, J. A. (2011). Modeling dyadic effects of the associations between
relational uncertainty, sexual communication, and sexual satisfac-
tion for husbands and wives. Communication Research, 38(4), 565–
584. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211402186.
Troost, H./. C. (2008). Reclaiming touch: Rape culture, explicit verbal
consent, and body sovereignty. In J. Friedman & J. Valenti (Eds.),
Yes means Yes! (pp. 171–178). Berkley: Seal Press.
Wiederman, M. W. (2005). The gendered nature of sexual scripts. The
Family Journal, 13(4), 496–502. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1066480705278729.
Wiederman, M. W. (2015). Sexual script theory: Past, present, and future.
In J. DeLamater & R. F. Plante (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of
sexualities (pp. 7–22). Madison: Springer.
Willis, M., Blunt-Vinti, H. D., & Jozkowski, K. N. (2019a). Associations
between internal and external sexual consent in a diverse national
sample of women. Personality and Individual Differences, 149, 37–
45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.05.029.
Willis, M., Hunt, M., Wodika, A., Rhodes, D. L., Goodman, J., &
Jozkowski, K. N. (2019b). Explicit verbal sexual consent commu-
nication: Effects of gender, relationship status, and type of sexual
behavior. International Journal of Sexual Health, 31(1), 60–70.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19317611.2019.1565793.
Willis, M., & Jozkowski, K. N. (2019). Sexual precedent’s effect on
sexual consent communication. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48,
1723–1734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1348-7.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.