Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bednarchik (2021) - Defining Sexual Consent Perspectives From A College Student Population
Bednarchik (2021) - Defining Sexual Consent Perspectives From A College Student Population
Bednarchik (2021) - Defining Sexual Consent Perspectives From A College Student Population
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
Article views: 63
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.
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:
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.
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”).
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.
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