Reasons for Consenting to Unwanted Sex Scale

1. Abstract

The Reasons for Consenting to Unwanted Sex Scale (RCUSS) is an 18-item psychometric self-report assessment developed by Terry P. Humphreys and Deborah J. Kennett (2008; Kennett, Humphreys, & Patchell, 2009) at Trent University. The instrument was engineered to assess the underlying motivations, relational dynamics, internal pressures, and interpersonal factors that lead women to voluntarily consent to sexual activity that they do not intrinsically desire. Grounded in empirical literature on sexual compliance, relationship maintenance, social exchange processes, and attachment theory, the RCUSS provides a nuanced evaluation of consensual but non-desired sexual encounters among heterosexual female populations. Although the original exploratory factor analysis revealed an overarching unidimensional structure accounting for 59.2% of the total variance, the individual items span a complex spectrum of relational motivations, including partner appeasement, conflict avoidance, fear of relational dissolution, partner sexual entitlement, social and relationship role obligations, peer or partner verbal coercion, and emotional intoxication or substance use.

Respondents evaluate each of the 18 items using a 9-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 0 (Not at all Characteristic of Me) to 8 (Very Characteristic of Me), yielding total composite scores from 0 to 144, where higher scores reflect greater endorsement of reasons for engaging in unwanted consensual sexual behavior. The RCUSS demonstrates exceptional psychometric reliability, with internal consistency coefficients reaching Cronbach’s alpha of α = .96 across independent cohorts of undergraduate women (Kennett et al., 2009; Humphreys & Kennett, 2008), high average inter-item correlations ranging between .55 and .75, and a robust 6-week test-retest reliability coefficient of r = .85. Construct, convergent, and discriminant validity have been confirmed through significant positive correlations with dating history, relationship volume, frequency of past experiences with male unwanted sexual advances, and victimization severity as indexed by the Sexual Experiences Survey (Koss & Oros, 1982), alongside robust negative correlations with sexual self-efficacy and learned sexual resourcefulness. The RCUSS represents a critical instrument for sexologists, relationship researchers, and clinical psychologists seeking to untangle the boundary between healthy relationship accommodations, sexual compliance, and relational distress.

2. Keywords

Reasons for Consenting to Unwanted Sex Scale, RCUSS, sexual compliance, unwanted consensual sex, sexual motives, relationship maintenance, sexual self-efficacy, sexual negotiation, attachment theory, sexual coercion

3. Authors

The Reasons for Consenting to Unwanted Sex Scale was conceptualized, developed, and empirically validated by:

• Terry P. Humphreys, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada. Specialization: Human sexuality, sexual consent, sexual communication, and romantic relationship functioning. Email: [email protected]
• Deborah J. Kennett, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada. Specialization: Learned resourcefulness, self-regulation, health behaviors, sexual self-efficacy, and interpersonal coping strategies. Email: [email protected]

Institutional Address: Department of Psychology, Trent University, 1600 West Bank Drive, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada, K9J 7B8.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Reasons for Consenting to Unwanted Sex Scale (RCUSS) is to systematically quantify the strength and diversity of self-reported motives that drive women to voluntarily consent to sexual interactions that they do not desire. In contemporary human sexuality research, a crucial conceptual distinction exists between non-consensual sexual victimization (such as sexual assault or rape, where consent is absent, overridden, or incapacitated) and consensual unwanted sex (where an individual unambiguously communicates or signals consent despite experiencing an absence of subjective sexual arousal, interest, or desire). Seminal investigations (e.g., O’Sullivan & Allgeier, 1998; Zimmerman et al., 1995) revealed that sexual compliance is a remarkably pervasive phenomenon in romantic pairings; up to 50% of undergraduate women in prospective diary studies endorse engaging in unwanted sexual interactions within brief two-week recording periods, and a substantial proportion of young adults report perceived difficulties in asserting non-consent when a partner pursues intimacy.

Understanding why individuals choose to engage in sexual compliance is paramount for both theoretical sexology and clinical relationship counseling. The RCUSS was designed to answer fundamental empirical questions regarding the cognitive, affective, and interpersonal calculations that govern non-desired sexual participation. Specifically, the scale assesses whether sexual compliance is motivated by altruistic relationship-promoting desires (such as satisfying a partner’s physiological and emotional needs, fostering relational intimacy, or expressing love), self-protective motives (such as preventing conflict, de-escalating relationship tension, or mitigating partner anger), relational fears (such as dreading abandonment, feeling that the partner will lose interest, or worrying that refusal will cause relationship termination), perceived normative role obligations (such as viewing sex as an obligatory duty inherent in being a girlfriend or spouse), or maladaptive interpersonal yielding (such as bowing to verbal badgering, psychological wear-down, or physical intimidation).

In clinical and educational settings, the RCUSS serves as a valuable diagnostic and psychoeducational tool. Clinicians working with couples experiencing sexual desire discrepancies, sexual aversion, or intimacy dissatisfaction can utilize the RCUSS to determine whether one partner is habitually engaging in sexual compliance out of fear, guilt, or perceived coercion, rather than mutual pleasure and authentic connection. Prolonged sexual compliance driven by fear of abandonment or persistent guilt can foster chronic sexual dissatisfaction, emotional detachment, psychological distress, and secondary sexual dysfunctions (such as hypoactive sexual desire disorder or genito-pelvic pain/penetration disorder). In research contexts, the RCUSS enables social scientists to clarify the boundaries between consensual compliance, coercive persuasion, and sexual trauma, providing empirical clarity regarding how personal agency, learned resourcefulness, and communication skills intersect within modern intimate relationships.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct captured by the RCUSS is sexual compliance—defined as the behavioral act of willingly consenting to sexual activity in the absence of sexual desire or intrinsic sexual motivation. Rather than reflecting sexual pathology, sexual compliance is an interpersonal phenomenon situated at the intersection of motivation theory, relational interdependence, and behavioral self-regulation. Although the psychometric structure of the RCUSS behaves unidimensionally in factor analyses, theoretical and thematic analyses delineate several distinct psychological components that constitute the overarching construct:

1. Altruistic and Partner-Focused Motivations

A primary operational component of sexual compliance involves partner-oriented altruism, wherein an individual prioritizes the partner’s physical pleasure, emotional well-being, and self-esteem above their own immediate sexual inclination. In long-term romantic attachments, individuals frequently engage in pro-relationship behaviors that demand personal sacrifice. When applied to sexuality, this dimension reflects an individual’s desire to satisfy the partner’s perceived sexual drive, demonstrate affectionate support, prevent the partner from feeling emotionally rejected, and protect the partner’s feelings (e.g., Item 11: “I felt it was necessary to satisfy my partner’s needs”; Item 15: “I didn’t want him to feel rejected”). In these scenarios, the cognitive appraisal of the sexual act is framed not as self-sacrifice under duress, but as a deliberate gift or act of caring designed to support the partner’s affective equilibrium.

2. Relational Maintenance and Intimacy Enhancement

Sexual interactions function as powerful bonding mechanisms within pair-bonded humans. The RCUSS captures motives related to utilizing sexual activity as an emotional bridge to consolidate closeness, affirm commitment, and foster emotional intimacy (e.g., Item 10: “I consented to the unwanted sexual activity to promote intimacy”). Individuals often recognize that physical closeness generates subsequent emotional warmth; hence, consenting to sex without initial arousal is viewed as an instrumental pathway toward emotional security and shared connection. Furthermore, this facet encompasses the longing for personal validation and relational acceptance (e.g., Item 16: “I felt that, if I consented to the unwanted sexual activity, he would like/love me”; Item 17: “I wanted to feel accepted by my partner”).

3. Avoidance-Oriented Relationship Preservation

In contrast to approach-oriented motives, avoidance motives are driven by the urgent necessity to prevent catastrophic relationship outcomes. The RCUSS heavily samples cognitions centered on fear of partner desertion, relationship erosion, and conflict mitigation. Individuals high on this dimension consent to sexual activity because they perceive that refusal carries high existential costs for the partnership (e.g., Item 1: “I felt that I would be jeopardizing our relationship if I did not engage in the unwanted sexual activity”; Item 7: “I feared that I would lose my boyfriend if I did not consent to the unwanted sexual activity”; Item 9: “I wanted to prevent my partner from losing interest in our relationship”). Sexual engagement functions as a pre-emptive defense mechanism against relationship decay and acute discord (e.g., Item 8: “I wanted to avoid tension in our relationship”).

4. Internalized Role Obligations and Normative Prescriptions

Gender-role socialization and heteronormative relationship scripts often impart the belief that romantic partners possess a sexual duty or obligation to be sexually available upon request. Within the RCUSS, this construct manifests as internalized guilt and perceived contractual obligations embedded in dating roles (e.g., Item 2: “As his girlfriend, I am obligated to engage in the unwanted sexual activity”; Item 6: “I felt guilty for not participating in the unwanted sexual activity”). It also encompasses historical behavioral consistency traps, wherein having consented to an activity in past encounters creates cognitive dissonance or perceived loss of the right of refusal in subsequent interactions (e.g., Item 12: “I felt that I needed to because I consented to the sexual activity before”).

5. Partner Pressure, Coercion, and Yielding

The construct extends along a continuum that transitions from autonomous accommodation toward pressured yielding. The RCUSS incorporates scenarios where external partner actions undermine the woman’s autonomy through relentless verbal wear-down, manipulation, and physical constraint (e.g., Item 3: “He verbally pressured me to participate in the unwanted sexual behavior”; Item 4: “He begged me to engage in the unwanted sexual activity until I could not argue anymore”; Item 14: “He physically would not let me leave”; Item 18: “He sweet talked me into it”). Finally, pharmacological disinhibition constitutes an important situational moderator (Item 5: “I had been drinking or had consumed other types of drugs”), highlighting how substance use impairs assertive refusal and facilitates acquiescence.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual framework undergirding the Reasons for Consenting to Unwanted Sex Scale integrates four major theoretical paradigms from social psychology, evolutionary psychology, and relationship science:

1. Attachment Theory and Relational Insecurity

Pioneered by John Bowlby and extended into adult romantic relationships by Hazan and Shaver (1987), attachment theory provides the primary explanatory architecture for sexual compliance (Impett & Peplau, 2002). Individuals with high attachment anxiety possess pervasive fears of abandonment, hypersensitivity to rejection cues, and chronic doubt regarding their partner’s love. Consequently, anxiously attached women are significantly more prone to utilize sexual compliance as a proximity-seeking and partner-retention strategy. They fear that asserting sexual boundaries will evoke partner displeasure, hostility, or withdrawal. Conversely, individuals characterized by attachment avoidance often engage in compliance to rapidly defuse intimate confrontations or circumvent prolonged emotional discussions. The RCUSS items directly operationalize these attachment-driven defensive strategies, tapping into abandonment anxiety, guilt, and partner appeasement.

2. Approach and Avoidance Motivational Theory

Contemporary motivational psychology distinguishes between approach goals (behaviors directed toward attaining positive, desirable outcomes such as intimacy, pleasure, and connection) and avoidance goals (behaviors directed toward averting negative, undesirable outcomes such as conflict, rejection, or guilt; Gable & Impett, 2012). Impett and Peplau (2002) demonstrated that the psychological consequences of consenting to unwanted sex diverge dramatically depending upon the underlying motivational orientation. When women comply for approach reasons (e.g., to promote relationship closeness or make a partner feel valued), the individual and relational costs are substantially mitigated. However, when compliance is executed under avoidance motives (e.g., to avoid a fight, evade partner resentment, or satisfy an unbearable sense of duty), it reliably predicts decrements in personal well-being, heightened negative affect, decreased sexual satisfaction, and elevated relationship termination rates over time. The RCUSS incorporates both approach and avoidance items, providing a comprehensive index of the motivational forces driving sexual compliance.

3. Interdependence and Social Exchange Theories

Interdependence theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959; Rusbult, 1980) conceptualizes romantic relationships as ongoing matrices of behavioral exchanges wherein partners negotiate rewards, costs, and investments. From this perspective, sex is not merely a biological act, but an interpersonal resource that can be leveraged, traded, or offered to maintain equity and relational equilibrium. In established couples, individuals frequently make behavioral accommodations—engaging in activities they do not personally enjoy for the broader health of the partnership. Sexual compliance can be theoretically understood as a perceived low-cost investment executed to prevent high-cost relational disruptions (e.g., ongoing relationship friction, partner infidelity, or relational dissolution). The RCUSS items concerning relationship jeopardy and obligation reflect these social exchange principles, wherein perceived costs of refusal outweigh the temporary subjective cost of consenting without desire.

4. Sexual Scripting Theory and Gender Socialization

Grounded in the sociological framework developed by Gagnon and Simon (1973), sexual scripting theory posits that human sexual behavior is dictated by socially acquired cognitive schemas operating at cultural, interpersonal, and intrapsychic levels. Traditional heteronormative sexual scripts historically position men as the active sexual initiators whose physiological drives are urgent and non-negotiable, while women are socialized into the role of sexual gatekeepers, accommodating nurturers, and relational caretakers. Under these scripted expectations, female sexual agency is frequently subordinated to male gratification, and refusing sexual advances is framed as hurtful or unfeminine. RCUSS items assessing duty, girlfriend obligation, and inability to withstand repetitive verbal badgering reflect these pervasive, internalized cultural scripts that undermine assertive refusal and validate sexual compliance.

7. Validity

The construct, convergent, criterion, and discriminant validity of the Reasons for Consenting to Unwanted Sex Scale were rigorously evaluated across multiple empirical studies conducted by Humphreys and Kennett (2008) and Kennett, Humphreys, and Patchell (2009). The resulting psychometric evidence confirms that the RCUSS captures the complex psychological architecture of sexual compliance while effectively distinguishing between autonomous relationship maintenance and experiences of sexual coercion.

1. Convergent and Criterion Validity

To establish construct and convergent validity, the RCUSS was systematically compared against established behavioral measures, dating histories, and validated psychometric scales:

• Dating and Relationship History: Theoretical models predict that individuals with broader dating histories confront more frequent sexual desire discrepancies requiring active negotiation. In empirical testing, total RCUSS scores demonstrated statistically significant positive correlations with both the total number of dating partners, r(152) = .23, p = .004, and the number of steady romantic partners, r(152) = .19, p = .017. As individuals accumulate relationship experience, the incidence of navigating conflicting sexual desires increases, expanding the range of endorsed compliance rationales.
• History of Unwanted Sexual Advances: RCUSS scores were positively correlated with single-item markers assessing the overall extent to which women experienced unwanted sexual advances from men, r(152) = .25, p = .002, as well as the percentage of cumulative relationships in which unwanted sexual advances occurred, r(152) = .26, p = .001. Greater exposure to partner sexual pressure directly corresponds to higher levels of endorsed compliance rationales.
• Sexual Victimization Experiences: The scale was evaluated against the widely used Sexual Experiences Survey (SES) developed by Koss and Oros (1982). RCUSS scores correlated strongly and positively with experiences of forced sex play (SES Items 1–3), r(152) = .541, p < .001, and attempted or completed forced intercourse (SES Items 4–10), r(152) = .502, p < .001. These robust correlations illustrate that women with extensive histories of non-consensual sexual victimization endorse far more reasons for consenting to unwanted sex. This phenomenon indicates that victims of sexual assault are frequently exposed to ambiguous sexual situations where boundaries are blurred, or they employ post-hoc cognitive rationalizations, reframing coercive encounters as voluntary compliance to preserve a sense of psychological agency.

2. Discriminant and Negative Construct Validity

To establish discriminant and divergent validity, Kennett et al. (2009) investigated the relationship between the RCUSS and measures of personal agency and self-regulation:

• Sexual Self-Efficacy: The Sexual Self-Efficacy Scale assesses an individual’s confidence and perceived competence in successfully refusing or dealing with unwanted sexual advances. As hypothesized, sexual self-efficacy exhibited a robust, statistically significant negative correlation with the RCUSS, r(152) = −.49, p < .001 (replicated in Kennett et al., 2009). Women who firmly believe in their operational ability to assert boundaries and repel unwanted advances have significantly less need to utilize or endorse compliance rationales.
• Learned Resourcefulness: Kennett et al. (2009) examined the protective role of learned resourcefulness—a cognitive-behavioral repertoire of self-control skills. Women exhibiting high learned resourcefulness scored substantially lower on the RCUSS, demonstrating superior ability to de-escalate sexual pressure without succumbing to compliant behaviors.

8. Reliability

The Reasons for Consenting to Unwanted Sex Scale possesses exceptional psychometric reliability, demonstrated through repeated assessments of internal consistency and temporal stability across independent participant cohorts:

1. Internal Consistency

Internal consistency metrics for the full 18-item inventory have consistently reached near-perfect levels in empirical validation investigations:

• In a sample of N = 150 heterosexual undergraduate females, Kennett, Humphreys, and Patchell (2009) reported a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .96, with an average inter-item correlation coefficient of r = .75 (individual item-pair correlations ranging from .46 to .85).
• In an independent validation cohort of N = 152 undergraduate females, Humphreys and Kennett (2008) observed an identical Cronbach’s alpha of α = .96, accompanied by an average inter-item correlation of r = .55 (individual item-pair correlations ranging from .18 to .85).
• These coefficients substantially exceed the standard psychometric cutoff of .70 for research instruments and .90 for clinical evaluation tools, demonstrating that the 18 items form a remarkably coherent and homogeneous measurement scale.

2. Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

To assess temporal stability over time, Humphreys and Kennett (2008) administered the RCUSS to a sub-sample of undergraduate female students (N = 63) across a 6-week test-retest interval. The resulting stability coefficient was r = .85 (p < .001). This high test-retest reliability confirms that the motives assessed by the RCUSS represent enduring behavioral and cognitive tendencies within romantic relationships rather than ephemeral, transient situational states.

3. Sample Descriptive Statistics

Normative baseline scores collected across primary validation samples demonstrate stable distribution properties:

• Sample 1 (Kennett et al., 2009; N = 150): Mean total score M = 41.2, Standard Deviation SD = 33.5.
• Sample 2 (Humphreys & Kennett, 2008; N = 152): Mean total score M = 35.9, Standard Deviation SD = 32.5.

The relatively large standard deviations reflect meaningful variance across individuals, spanning the full continuum from women who completely disavow any sexual compliance (scores approaching 0) to those who regularly acquiesce across diverse interpersonal contexts (scores exceeding 100).

9. Factor Analysis

The underlying latent dimensionality of the RCUSS was established via exploratory factor analysis conducted during initial scale construction (Humphreys & Kennett, 2008). The statistical parameters of this analysis are detailed below:

1. Extraction and Rotation Parameters

The 18 candidate items were submitted to exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with varimax orthogonal rotation. The sample size satisfied standard psychometric participant-to-item ratio criteria (exceeding 8:1). Examination of the scree plot alongside eigenvalues indicated that a single dominant factor accounted for the vast majority of common variance.

2. Factor Variance and Loadings

• Unidimensional Solution: The single extracted general factor accounted for 59.2% of the total variance, meeting the robust criteria for psychometric unidimensionality.
• Item Factor Loadings: All 18 items loaded cleanly onto this single factor. No item exhibited a factor loading below .30. Item-factor loadings predominantly ranged from moderate (.45) to extremely high (.88), demonstrating that every item contributes meaningfully to the shared variance of the construct.
• Item Retention: Because all 18 proposed items satisfied the statistical retention threshold without dual loadings or significant error variance distortion, all 18 items were retained in the final scale.

3. Methodological and Structural Considerations

Although the RCUSS is psychometrically unidimensional—allowing researchers and clinicians to compute and interpret a single global score—theoretical content analyses reveal latent thematic sub-clusters (e.g., relationship maintenance, conflict avoidance, partner coercion, guilt/obligation). Subsequent psychometric investigators examining larger and more diverse samples have suggested that hierarchical or bifactor modeling might further illuminate secondary sub-dimensions. Nevertheless, the total composite score remains the gold standard, statistically verified index of general sexual compliance endorsement.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Reasons for Consenting to Unwanted Sex Scale (RCUSS) is an objective, standardized self-report psychometric questionnaire. Below are its primary administration parameters:

• Test Type: Self-report psychological questionnaire / rating inventory.
• Target Population: Normed on heterosexual undergraduate females; applicable to adult women in dating, cohabiting, or marital relationships.
• Administration Format: Available in paper-and-pencil format (circling numeric values) and computerized/online survey format (bullet or radio button selection).
• Total Items: 18 items.
• Response Scale: 9-point Likert-type continuum anchored from 0 to 8:
  • 0 = Not at all Characteristic of Me
  • 1 = [Unlabeled intermediate point]
  • 2 = [Unlabeled intermediate point]
  • 3 = [Unlabeled intermediate point]
  • 4 = Somewhat Characteristic of Me
  • 5 = [Unlabeled intermediate point]
  • 6 = [Unlabeled intermediate point]
  • 7 = [Unlabeled intermediate point]
  • 8 = Very Characteristic of Me
• Administration Time: Approximately 8 to 10 minutes.
• Scoring Procedures:
  • There are no reverse-scored items; all statements are worded in the direction of compliance endorsement.
  • The total score is calculated by summing the numerical ratings across all 18 items.
  • Possible range: 0 to 144.
  • Higher scores represent greater characteristic endorsement of reasons for voluntarily consenting to unwanted sexual activity.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Reasons for Consenting to Unwanted Sex Scale was developed in 2008 by Terry P. Humphreys and Deborah J. Kennett, with foundational peer-reviewed validation published in 2009 (Kennett, Humphreys, & Patchell, 2009). The scale is protected under academic copyright.

Permissions and Accessibility: The RCUSS is freely accessible for non-commercial academic research, empirical study, and educational applications. Qualified researchers and clinicians wishing to employ the instrument in empirical protocols or clinical assessments must formally contact the authors to request explicit permission and obtain the full testing materials. Correspondence should be addressed to:

• Dr. Terry P. Humphreys: Email: [email protected]
• Dr. Deborah J. Kennett: Email: [email protected]
• Institutional Address: Department of Psychology, Trent University, 1600 West Bank Drive, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada, K9J 7B8.

12. References

• Gable, S. L., & Impett, E. A. (2012). Approach and avoidance motives for sexual activity in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(1), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028260
• Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual Conduct: The Social Sources of Human Sexuality. Aldine Publishing Company.
• Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511
• Humphreys, T. P., & Kennett, D. J. (2008). The reliability and validity of the Sexual Resourcefulness and Reasons for Consenting to Unwanted Sex Scales [Unpublished raw data]. Trent University.
• Impett, E. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2002). Why some women consent to unwanted sex with a dating partner: Insights from attachment theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 360–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00075
• Kennett, D. J., Humphreys, T. P., & Patchell, M. (2009). The role of learned resourcefulness in helping female undergraduates deal with unwanted sexual activity. Sex Education, 9(4), 341–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681810903265293
• Koss, M. P., & Oros, C. J. (1982). Sexual experiences survey: A research instrument investigating sexual aggression and victimization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50(3), 455–457. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.50.3.455
• Meston, C. M., & Buss, D. M. (2007). Why humans have sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36(4), 477–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-007-9175-2
• O’Sullivan, L. F., & Allgeier, E. R. (1998). Feigning sexual desire: Consenting to unwanted sexual activity in heterosexual dating relationships. The Journal of Sex Research, 35(3), 234–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499809551938
• Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(2), 172–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4
• Shotland, R. L., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Women’s “token resistant” and compliant sexual behaviors are related to uncertain sexual intentions and rape. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(3), 226–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295213004
• Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The Social Psychology of Groups. John Wiley & Sons.
• Zimmerman, R. S., Sprecher, S., Langer, L. M., & Holloway, C. D. (1995). Adolescents’ perceived ability to say “no” to unwanted sex. Journal of Adolescent Research, 10(3), 383–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743554895103006

13. Items of the Scale