Sexual Consent in Committed Relationships: A Dyadic Study

Figures & data

Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics

Individual variables	Full sample (N = 74)	Event-level subsample (n = 56)
Age in years
M (SD)	22.4 (3.9)	22.6 (4.2)
Gender (%)
Woman	40 (54.1)	29 (51.8)
Man	33 (44.6)	27 (48.2)
Other	1 (1.4)	0 (0.0)
Race/Ethnicity (%)
White	56 (75.6)	41 (73.2)
Asian	3 (4.1)	3 (5.4)
Black	3 (4.1)	2 (3.6)
Multiracial/Other	12 (16.2)	10 (17.9)
Student status (%)
Undergraduate	50 (67.6)	37 (66.1)
Graduate	11 (14.9)	8 (14.3)
Non-degree seeking	1 (1.4)	1 (1.8)
Not a student	12 (16.2)	10 (17.9)
Dyadic Variables	(N = 37)	(n = 28)
Relationship length in months
M (SD)	38.3 (26.8)	37.1 (28.7)
Gender of partners (%)
Woman-Man	33 (89.1)	27 (96.4)
Woman-Woman	3 (8.1)	1 (3.6)
Woman-Other	1 (2.7)	0 (0.0)
Relationship type (%)
Exclusive/monogamous	35.5 (95.9)	27.5 (98.2)
Non-exclusive/non-monogamous	1 (2.7)	0 (0.0)
Mainly casual	.5 (1.4)	.5 (1.8)

Table 2. Operational definitions and indices of inter-rater reliability.

Variable	Operational definition	Percent agreement	Cohen’s Kappa
Verbal cues	Participants indicated that they or their partners use words (i.e., verbal cues) to communicate their willingness. Verbs that were to be considered verbal in nature included (but are not limited to) tell, ask, and say. Verbal cues could have also been coded as explicit or implicit but dido not have to be.	98.6	.952
Nonverbal cues	Participants indicated that they or their partners use behaviors or actions (i.e., nonverbal cues) to communicate their willingness. Nonverbal cues could have also been coded as explicit or implicit but did not have to be.	97.3	.924
Explicit cues	Participants indicated that they or their partners use signals that are most likely understood at face-value to communicate their willingness. These cues might be described as direct, clear, etc. Coders could have also deemed specific behaviors to be explicit.	95.9	.899
Implicit cues	Participants indicated that they or their partners use signals that suggest they are willing but are not likely understood at face-value. These cues might be described as indirect, subtle, etc. Coders could have also deemed specific behaviors to be implicit.	93.2	.835
Escalation	Participants indicated that they or their partners engage in behaviors that build toward a sexual act. These behaviors could have been sexual or non-sexual. These responses would have suggested that there is a process that precedes consensual sexual behavior.	100.0	1.000
Just Happens	Participants indicated that sexual activity “just” happens. These responses would have suggested that behaviors started without any indication of preceding communication.	95.9	.648
Refusals	Participants indicated that they or their partners would refuse a sexual advance if they were not willing, were not interested, or did not want to. As such, the implied cue is “not saying no” or “not refusing.”	93.2	.631
Self-reported cues	Participants referred to the cues they use to communicate their own willingness to their partners. These responses would have typically relied on the singular first-person pronouns like “I.”	91.9	.723
Perceived cues	Participants referred to the cues they perceive their partners use to communicate their (the partner’s) willingness. These responses would have typically relied on third-person pronouns like “she,” “he,” or “they.”	93.2	.743
Couple-centered cues	Participants referred to how they and their partner communicate their willingness together. These responses would have typically relied on the plural first-person pronouns like “we.”	95.9	.902

Table 3. Sexual consent communication codes by gender.

Consent Code	Women (n = 40)	Men (n = 34)	χ^2	p	φC
Verbal cues	43 (85.0%)	27 (79.4%)	0.40	.529	.07
Nonverbal cues	32 (80.0)	24 (70.6)	0.88	.347	.11
Explicit cues	27 (67.5)	27 (79.4)	1.32	.250	.13
Implicit cues	14 (35.0)	9 (26.5)	0.62	.429	.09
Escalation	7 (17.5)	6 (17.6)	0.00	.987	.00
Just Happens	2 (5.0)	4 (11.8)	1.13	.288	.12
Refusals	8 (20.0)	1 (2.9)	5.01*	.025	.26
Self-reported cues	10 (25.0)	6 (17.6)	0.59	.444	.09
Perceived cues	8 (20.0)	5 (14.7)	0.36	.551	.07
Couple-centered cues	29 (72.5)	24 (70.6)	0.03	.856	.02

Note. *p < .05.

Table 4. Sexual consent communication codes by relationship length.

Consent Code	<1 year (n = 16)	1–3 years (n = 20)	3–5 years (n = 22)	>5 years (n = 16)	χ^2	p	φC
Verbal cues	13 (81.3%)	17 (85.0%)	16 (72.7%)	15 (93.8%)	2.95	.399	.20
Nonverbal cues	14 (87.5)	15 (75.0)	19 (86.4)	8 (50.0)	8.32*	.040	.34
Explicit cues	11 (68.8)	15 (75.0)	15 (68.2)	13 (81.3)	1.00	.802	.12
Implicit cues	3 (18.8)	8 (40.0)	6 (27.3)	6 (37.5)	2.34	.506	.18
Escalation	4 (25.0)	4 (20.0)	3 (13.6)	2 (12.5)	1.21	.750	.13
Just Happens	4 (25.0)	1 (5.0)	1 (4.5)	0 (0.0)	8.17*	.043	.33
Refusals	1 (6.3)	4 (20.0)	3 (13.6)	1 (6.3)	2.24	.524	.17
Self-reported cues	3 (18.8)	1 (5.0)	7 (31.8)	5 (31.3)	5.56	.135	.27
Perceived cues	4 (25.0)	1 (5.0)	4 (18.2)	4 (25.0)	3.41	.333	.22
Couple-centered cues	11 (68.8)	17 (85.0)	15 (68.2)	10 (62.5)	2.61	.456	.19

Note.* p < .05.

Table 5. Descriptive statistics for event-level sexual consent variables.

Variable	n = 56
Internal consent	M (SD)
Physical response	3.21 (.59)
Safety/comfort	3.63 (.58)
Arousal	3.65 (.61)
Agreement/want	3.67 (.51)
Readiness	3.88 (.44)
External consent (actor)	n (%)
Explicit verbal	38 (67.9)
Explicit nonverbal	30 (53.6)
Implicit verbal	34 (60.7)
Implicit nonverbal	32 (57.1)
No response	11 (19.6)
External consent (partner)	n (%)
Explicit verbal	37 (66.1)
Explicit nonverbal	31 (55.4)
Implicit verbal	31 (55.4)
Implicit nonverbal	29 (51.8)
No response	15 (26.8)
External consent (accuracy)	n (%)
Explicit verbal	41 (73.2)
Explicit nonverbal	37 (66.1)
Implicit verbal	31 (55.4)
Implicit nonverbal	33 (58.9)
No response	38 (67.9)

Table 6. Bivariate correlations between event-level internal and external sexual consent.

		1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	8.	9.	10.
Internal sexual consent	1. Physical response	−.13	−.05	−.07	−.12	−.17	−.22	.05	−.12	.09	−.06
	2. Safety/Comfort	.54***	.05	.05	.06	.02	.06	.37**	−.13	.14	.20
	3. Arousal	.68***	.71***	.16	.02	.01	−.08	.22	−.08	.14	.03
	4. Agreement/want	.54***	.68***	.66***	−.07	.05	−.03	.13	−.19	.10	.14
	5. Readiness	.52***	.88***	.80***	.76***	−.04	.14	.31*	−.15	.02	.08
External sexual consent	6. Explicit verbal	−.03	.23	.15	.16	.19	.02	.13	.23	.02	.05
	7. Implicit verbal	−.02	.06	.18	−.04	.03	−.03	−.01	−.02	−.01	.01
	8. Explicit nonverbal	.11	.04	.10	−.06	.12	−.24	.06	.10	−.03	.03
	9. Implicit nonverbal	.05	−.14	.02	−.03	−.07	−.13	.28*	.12	.13	−.12
	10. No response	.02	−.00	.08	.14	.01	.05	.01	.03	.25	−.02

Note. Correlations presented below the diagonal represent actor associations (i.e., association between a participant’s X and their own Y), correlations presented above the diagonal represent the partner associations (i.e., association between a participant’s X and their partner’s Y), and correlations in bold represent between-partner correlations (i.e., association between a participant’s X and their partner’s X).

*p < .05.

*p < .01.

*p < .001.

Figure 1. Aspects of committed relationships that participants used to perceive their partner was willing during their most recent vaginal intercourse event.