Sexual Beliefs Scale

Abstract

The Sexual Beliefs Scale (SBS), developed by Charlene L. Muehlenhard and Albert S. Felts, is a multidimensional psychometric instrument formulated to measure specific cognitive schemas and rape-supportive belief systems within interpersonal and heterosexual dating contexts. Unlike unidimensional instruments that collapse heterogeneous rape myths into a single undifferentiated index, such as Martha Burt’s Rape Myth Acceptance Scale, the SBS assesses five distinct, theoretically derived constructs: Token Refusal (TR; the belief that women habitually communicate refusal despite desiring sexual contact), Leading On Justifies Force (LOJF; the conviction that perceived flirtatious or sexually suggestive behavior entitles a man to employ physical coercion), Women Like Force (WLF; the belief that women derive erotic arousal from physical dominance or sexual aggression), Men Should Dominate (MSD; the prescription that men ought to exercise authoritative control and power in sexual scenarios), and No Means Stop (NMS; the normative conviction that a woman possesses an absolute right to decline sexual activity at any juncture and that advances must cease immediately). The SBS exists in two psychometrically parallel forms: an exhaustive 40-item long form consisting of five 8-item subscales, and an efficient 20-item short form comprising five 4-item subscales, rated on a 4-point Likert-type response continuum ranging from 0 (Disagree Strongly) to 3 (Agree Strongly).

Extensive psychometric investigations have established robust internal consistency for both scale versions. In foundational university cohorts, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the short form subscales range from .71 to .94, whereas long-form subscales yield coefficients between .84 and .96. Subscale scores exhibit high convergent and discriminant validity across diversified empirical paradigms: TR distinguishes individuals who perceive token resistance as pervasive; LOJF predicts victim-blaming attributions and the behavioral likelihood of applying physical force following verbal refusal; and WLF and MSD reliably identify endorsement of patriarchal sexual scripts. The SBS has also proven sensitive to educational interventions, serving as an evaluative metric in campus sexual assault prevention curricula, and correlates meaningfully with socio-environmental influences, including exposure to violent and hyper-gendered digital media. This paper presents an exhaustive academic review of the scale’s theoretical underpinnings, structural properties, scoring protocols, validity evidence, and administrative guidelines.

Keywords

Sexual Beliefs Scale, rape myths, sexual scripts, token refusal, sexual aggression, leading on justifies force, consent communication, psychometrics, gender role socialization, sexual violence prevention

Authors

The Sexual Beliefs Scale was authored by Charlene L. Muehlenhard, Ph.D., and Albert S. Felts. Dr. Muehlenhard is a distinguished Professor of Psychology and of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at the University of Kansas (Lawrence, KS, United States). Her seminal research program spans several decades and is widely recognized for deconstructing heterosexual dating scripts, token resistance, sexual consent, sexual coercion, and the social construction of gendered sexuality. Albert S. Felts collaborated on the initial design, psychometric validation, and conceptualization of the instrument during his institutional affiliation in San Marcos, Texas.

Inquiries concerning the Sexual Beliefs Scale and related psychometric instruments may be directed to Charlene L. Muehlenhard at the Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, 426 Fraser Hall, 1415 Jayhawk Blvd., Lawrence, KS 66045-7556 (Email: [email protected]).

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Sexual Beliefs Scale is to provide researchers, forensic evaluators, health educators, and prevention scientists with a fine-grained, multidimensional measurement tool capable of isolating distinct cognitive rationalizations used to excuse, perpetuate, or obscure sexual assault and interpersonal coercion. Prior to the development of the SBS, empirical investigations into rape-supportive ideology relied predominantly on omnibus measures, such as the Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (RMAS) or the Adversarial Sexual Beliefs Scale (ASBS) developed by Martha R. Burt (1980). While pioneering, those earlier instruments commonly aggregated heterogeneous ideological premises—ranging from stereotypical views of victim credibility to generalized distrust between genders—into a single global composite score. Such aggregation obscured crucial qualitative distinctions in how different individuals interpret ambiguous sexual communication, assign moral culpability, and rationalize transgressive behaviors.

Muehlenhard and Felts recognized that individuals do not endorse sexual myths uniformly. For instance, a person might strongly believe that women frequently say “no” when they actually mean “yes” (a misinterpretation of communication scripts) while simultaneously rejecting the notion that men are legally or morally justified in applying physical force to overcome an objection. Conversely, another individual might acknowledge that a refusal is sincere but nonetheless believe that if a woman initially dressed provocatively or accompanied a man home, her perceived provocation justifies coercive escalation. Collapsing these distinct cognitive premises into an omnibus index prevents investigators from discerning which specific beliefs mediate coercive behavior or which educational modules effectively attenuate distinct cognitive distortions.

Consequently, the SBS was constructed to fulfill three primary objectives:

• Differential Cognitive Assessment: Disentangle five independent belief systems implicated in sexual aggression, enabling precise profiling of individual cognitive structures regarding token resistance, victim provocation, eroticization of force, male sexual hegemony, and the inviolability of sexual refusal.
• Evaluation of Prevention Interventions: Serve as a sensitive diagnostic metric in psychoeducational workshops and campus sexual assault prevention curricula. By tracking individual subscales independently, program evaluators can determine whether an intervention successfully dismantled specific misconceptions (e.g., token refusal myths) even if broader attitudes regarding consent remain resistant to brief pedagogical exposures.
• Behavioral Prediction and Experimental Research: Facilitate targeted empirical testing of sexual aggression pathways in laboratory and vignette-based designs, allowing researchers to study how distinct beliefs interact with contextual variables, alcohol consumption, media consumption, and dating scripts to influence self-reported likelihood of force or victim-blaming attributions.

Psychological Construct

The SBS is rooted in the psychometric operationalization of rape-supportive cognitions. In social and clinical psychology, rape myths are defined as attitudes and false beliefs that are widely and persistently held, serving to deny, justify, or normalize male sexual violence against women. Rather than treating rape myth acceptance as a monolithic entity, the SBS delineates five interconnected yet conceptually distinct psychological dimensions:

1. Token Refusal (TR)

The Token Refusal subscale measures an individual’s adherence to the belief that women routinely communicate sexual reluctance or verbal refusal despite harboring an underlying willingness or desire to engage in sexual intercourse. This belief system presumes that female “no’s” are primarily theatrical, deployed to preserve reputations of modesty, avoid being perceived as “promiscuous” or “easy,” or conform to traditional societal prescriptions of female chastity. Endorsement of this construct creates a perilous cognitive climate in which genuine verbal refusals are dismissed as playful or insincere coyness, thereby providing perpetrators with a convenient post-hoc rationalization for ignoring explicit dissent (e.g., “Girls usually say No even when they mean Yes”).

2. Leading On Justifies Force (LOJF)

The Leading On Justifies Force subscale quantifies the normative belief that if a woman displays flirtatious behavior, accepts drinks, acts seductively, or engages in foreplay—thereby “leading a man on”—she has incurred an implicit contractual obligation to complete the sexual encounter. Crucially, this belief posits that when female behavior triggers intense male sexual arousal, physical coercion or force is justifiable retribution or an inevitable consequence. The LOJF dimension operationalizes extreme victim-blaming, shifting the locus of moral and behavioral responsibility entirely from the perpetrator’s aggressive conduct to the victim’s perceived sexual signaling (e.g., “A man is justified in forcing a woman to have sex if she leads him on”).

3. Women Like Force (WLF)

The Women Like Force subscale evaluates the endorsement of masochistic sexual stereotypes—specifically, the conviction that women secretly derive intense physical pleasure, heightened arousal, and psychological excitement from being physically overpowered, dominated, or subjected to coercive sexual tactics. This construct taps into cultural pornography narratives and historical romance tropes where female resistance is overcome by male assertiveness, transforming presumed terror or reluctance into orgasmic ecstasy. Believing that women desire physical force allows an aggressor to reframe non-consensual force not as an assault, but as an erotic service fulfilling unexpressed female fantasies (e.g., “Girls think it is exciting when guys use a little force on them”).

4. Men Should Dominate (MSD)

The Men Should Dominate subscale measures an individual’s subscription to patriarchal, hypermasculine sexual hierarchies. This construct reflects the ideological premise that male identity and masculine validity depend upon exercising authority, unilateral decision-making power, and absolute behavioral control within intimate encounters. Under this framework, sexual interactions are conceptualized not as collaborative, egalitarian exchanges, but as competitive spheres where men must dictate outcomes and assert dominance over women to substantiate their masculine status (e.g., “Men should decide what should happen during sex”).

5. No Means Stop (NMS)

The No Means Stop subscale measures endorsement of the foundational principle of autonomous sexual consent: that an individual retains the inviolable right to terminate sexual intimacy at any juncture, and that verbal refusal mandates an immediate cessation of physical advances. Unlike the preceding four scales, which represent rape-supportive cognitions, NMS represents a protective, pro-consent normative standard. However, empirical investigations reveal that this construct often exhibits ceiling effects and complex psychometric behavior, as respondents frequently endorse NMS in the abstract while simultaneously agreeing with items on the TR and LOJF subscales, illustrating compartmentalized or contradictory moral reasoning.

Theoretical Framework

The Sexual Beliefs Scale is theoretically anchored in Sexual Script Theory, initially pioneered by sociologists John H. Gagnon and William Simon (1973), and subsequently refined within feminist cognitive psychology. Sexual Script Theory posits that sexual conduct is not driven solely by biological impulses, but is guided by culturally constructed cognitive blueprints that dictate who participates, what behaviors are permissible, where encounters occur, and what motives are culturally sanctioned.

Cultural, Interpersonal, and Intrapsychic Scripts

Gagnon and Simon conceptualized sexual scripting across three hierarchical tiers:

• Cultural Scenarios: Broad societal narratives, gender role ideologies, and media representations that establish prevailing sexual norms (e.g., the historical script that men are active sexual pursuers while women function as passive gatekeepers).
• Interpersonal Scripts: The concrete verbal and nonverbal negotiation patterns adopted by individuals within dating situations, where social actors adapt cultural scripts to navigate mutual expectations and ambiguities.
• Intrapsychic Scripts: Internalized cognitive structures, schemas, and fantasies through which individuals assign subjective meaning to bodily sensations, desires, and their partner’s behavioral cues.

The SBS directly operationalizes the intersection of cultural scenarios and interpersonal scripts. Traditional heterosexual dating scripts have historically prescribed asymmetric roles: men are expected to relentlessly initiate sexual escalation, interpret resistance as a challenge to be overcome, and view female capitulation as a victory. In contrast, traditional scripts historically placed women in a double bind: engaging willingly in premarital sexual intimacy carried intense reputational risks (“promiscuous”), whereas absolute refusal threatened relational harmony. Within this traditional framework, token resistance evolved as an alleged intermediary script, leading men to systematically mischaracterize genuine non-consent as scripted coquetry.

Cognitive Schema Theory and Defensive Attribution

The scale also draws heavily upon Attribution Theory and Melvin Lerner’s Just-World Hypothesis. When observers or perpetrators are confronted with instances of sexual violence, acknowledging that an innocent individual was randomly and brutally assaulted produces intense cognitive dissonance and vulnerability. By adopting schemas such as LOJF (“she asked for it by teasing him”) or TR (“she didn’t communicate clearly”), individuals preserve the cognitive illusion that the social world is safe, orderly, and predictable. For potential perpetrators, these schemas operate as anticipatory neutralizing mechanisms—or “techniques of neutralization” (Sykes & Matza, 1957)—that preemptively silence guilt, allowing them to engage in coercive actions without experiencing moral self-condemnation.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Sexual Beliefs Scale has been established across multiple independent investigations employing diverse methodologies, including behavioral self-reports, vignette evaluations, experimental manipulations, and socio-environmental correlations.

Construct and Criterion-Related Validity

Foundational investigations conducted by Charlene Muehlenhard and colleagues demonstrated that SBS subscales possess high discriminant power and predict ecologically meaningful criteria:

• Token Refusal Validation: In a landmark study examining self-reported sexual communication, Muehlenhard and Hollabaugh (1988) found that women who reported having engaged in token resistance (saying “no” when they harbored an intention or willingness to engage in intercourse) scored significantly higher on the TR subscale than women who had never engaged in token resistance. High-TR individuals systematically perceived token refusal to be a common, normal behavioral practice among their peers, confirming that the TR subscale effectively captures personal beliefs about the frequency and normative status of ambiguous refusal scripts.
• Vignette-Based Attributions and Personal Victimization: Muehlenhard and MacNaughton (1988) categorized female participants into low, moderate, and high tiers (the lowest, middle, and highest 15% of the distribution) based on their LOJF scores. When evaluating a standardized vignette depicting an acquaintance rape, women with high LOJF scores rated the victim as significantly more responsible for the assault and perceived the perpetrator’s coercive force as significantly more justified compared to women with low LOJF scores. Furthermore, women possessing moderate to high LOJF scores were significantly more likely to report having personally engaged in unwanted sexual intercourse due to a partner’s intense sexual arousal, feeling that because they had “led him on,” they were morally obligated to yield to his advances.
• Differential Prediction of Perpetration Likelihood: In an experimental investigation testing the predictive divergence of the subscales, Muehlenhard, Andrews, and Beal (1996) compared three distinct profiles of men: high-LOJF men, low-LOJF/high-TR men, and low-myth men (low on both subscales). Participants self-rated their likelihood of attempting sexual intercourse after a female dating partner said “no.” Both high-LOJF and high-TR men reported a significantly greater likelihood of persisting with force than low-myth men. Crucially, when the experimental scenario was modified to state explicitly that the woman genuinely meant no, the high-TR men’s self-reported likelihood of force dropped significantly to match that of the low-myth men. In contrast, high-LOJF men continued to endorse a high likelihood of forcing intercourse regardless of her sincere refusal. This empirical divergence demonstrated the construct validity of measuring TR and LOJF independently: high-TR men misread communication, whereas high-LOJF men actively override known dissent based on feelings of entitlement.

Convergent and Divergent Validity

The SBS correlates strongly with established measures of patriarchal ideology and violence acceptance. Jones and Muehlenhard (1990) demonstrated that the TR, LOJF, WLF, and MSD subscales correlate significantly in the expected direction with Burt’s (1980) Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (RMAS), Adversarial Sexual Beliefs Scale (ASBS), and Acceptance of Interpersonal Violence (AIV) scale. Conversely, the NMS subscale consistently displays an inverse relationship with these violence-supportive metrics.

In digital media research, Dill, Brown, and Collins (2008) examined the relationship between video game exposure and rape-supportive cognitions in a sample of 180 university undergraduates. The 20-item SBS composite score correlated significantly with overall exposure to violent video games (r = .24, p < .001), with an even stronger association observed for exposure to first-person shooter games featuring hyper-stereotyped, hyper-sexualized depictions of women (r = .26, p < .0001), corroborating the scale’s sensitivity to cultural media socialization.

Sensitivity to Educational Interventions

The SBS has exhibited psychometric sensitivity to change in evaluative intervention research. In an experimental evaluation of a classroom-based rape education curriculum, Jones and Muehlenhard (1990) observed that four weeks post-intervention, students who received the educational lecture exhibited significantly lower scores on the TR, LOJF, WLF, and MSD subscales compared to unexposed control students. Similarly, Milhausen, McBride, and Jun (2006) evaluated a theatrical peer-led campus intervention and documented statistically significant pre-to-post reductions on the WLF and TR subscales, confirming the SBS’s utility as an outcome measure for social change initiatives.

Reliability

The SBS exhibits strong internal consistency across varied educational, demographic, and experimental samples. Reliability analyses have evaluated both the 40-item full-length inventory and the streamlined 20-item short form.

Foundational Psychometric Samples

In the original validation study comprising 337 male and female university undergraduates (Muehlenhard & Felts), Cronbach’s alpha coefficients demonstrated excellent homogeneity across all subscales for both the short (4 items per subscale) and long (8 items per subscale) forms:

• Token Refusal (TR): Short Form α = .71; Long Form α = .84
• Leading On Justifies Force (LOJF): Short Form α = .90; Long Form α = .92
• Women Like Force (WLF): Short Form α = .92; Long Form α = .95
• Men Should Dominate (MSD): Short Form α = .85; Long Form α = .93
• No Means Stop (NMS): Short Form α = .94; Long Form α = .96

Direct bivariate correlations between the corresponding 4-item and 8-item subscales were extraordinarily high, ranging from .96 to .98 across all five constructs. Because the long form introduced substantial participant fatigue and perceived redundancy without conferring psychometric gains, the authors recommended the 20-item short form for standard empirical and clinical use.

Replication and Independent Sample Reliability

Subsequent psychometric investigations have consistently corroborated the internal consistency of the SBS:

• Milhausen, McBride, and Jun (2006): In an evaluation cohort of 261 university students, Cronbach’s alpha values across the five subscales ranged from .62 to .86, with an overall median subscale alpha of .80.
• Dill, Brown, and Collins (2008): Administering the 20-item short form to 180 undergraduate students, the authors reported subscale alphas ranging from .71 (Token Refusal) to .94 (No Means Stop). The total 20-item composite reliability yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of .83.

Across all published samples, the Leading On Justifies Force, Women Like Force, and No Means Stop subscales exhibit exceptional reliability (frequently exceeding α = .90), whereas Token Refusal consistently yields lower, yet acceptable, reliability coefficients (.71 to .84), reflecting the semantic complexity inherent in defining ambiguous social communication.

Factor Analysis

The structural validity of the SBS was established through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses aimed at verifying whether sexual beliefs conform to a single global dimension or split into discrete cognitive factors.

Multidimensional Structural Integrity

Initial factor extractions utilizing principal components analysis with varimax and oblimin rotations confirmed that the SBS items load onto five distinct empirical factors that correspond precisely with Muehlenhard and Felts’ theoretical taxonomy: Token Refusal, Leading On Justifies Force, Women Like Force, Men Should Dominate, and No Means Stop. Rather than collapsing into a broad, general factor of “sexual conservatism” or “misogyny,” the items demonstrate clear simple structure:

• Factor I: Leading On Justifies Force (LOJF): Items loading heavily on this factor (loadings typically ranging from .65 to .84) capture the cognitive link between perceived female flirtatious behavior, male arousal, and the moral justification of sexual aggression. Cross-loadings onto dominance or token refusal factors remain low to moderate.
• Factor II: Women Like Force (WLF): Items loading onto this dimension (loadings .70 to .88) consistently isolate the eroticization of violence and dominance, reflecting the false belief that women desire sexual roughhousing or mastery.
• Factor III: Men Should Dominate (MSD): Items within this cluster reflect male hegemony, sexual authority, and gendered control during intercourse (loadings .62 to .82).
• Factor IV: Token Refusal (TR): Captures items focused on deceptive communication, reputational anxiety, and false refusals (loadings .55 to .78).
• Factor V: No Means Stop (NMS): Forms an independent, unipolar factor representing the absolute right to refuse consent (loadings .75 to .91).

The Psychometric Anomaly of the NMS Subscale

Although the No Means Stop subscale forms a clean statistical factor with high factor loadings and internal consistency (α > .94), factor analytic and correlation matrices reveal complex structural dynamics. While the TR, LOJF, WLF, and MSD subscales correlate positively with one another (intercorrelations typically ranging from .35 to .65), NMS does not always exhibit a symmetrical inverse correlation. Multiple factor analytic investigations demonstrate that many respondents simultaneously endorse NMS items (agreeing strongly that women always have the right to say no) while simultaneously endorsing items on the TR and LOJF subscales.

This empirical paradox—termed compartmentalized consent reasoning—mirrors findings by Goodchilds and Zellman (1984), who noted that individuals frequently state forced intercourse is never justified in the abstract, yet concede that it is justified under specific contingencies (e.g., if a woman acted seductively or changed her mind late in an encounter). Consequently, confirmatory factor analyses indicate that model fit is optimized when NMS is modeled as an independent cognitive factor rather than merely the negative pole of a single continuum of sexual coercion.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Sexual Beliefs Scale is structured as an objective, self-administered rating scale suitable for paper-and-pencil or computerized administration formats.

Structural Specifications

• Construct Assessed: Multidimensional rape-supportive cognitions, sexual scripts, victim-blaming rationalizations, and consent norms.
• Administration Format: Individual or group-administered questionnaire; paper-and-pencil, online survey engines (e.g., Qualtrics, REDCap), or interactive research platforms.
• Test Forms:
  • Short Form (Recommended): 20 items divided equally into five 4-item subscales. Administration duration is under 5 minutes.
  • Long Form: 40 items divided equally into five 8-item subscales. Administration duration is approximately 7 to 10 minutes.
• Target Population: Adolescents, college undergraduates, adult dating cohorts, and clinical or forensic assessment populations.
• Response Scale Continuum: 4-point Likert-type scale with no neutral midpoint, forcing respondents to indicate directional attitude:
  • 0 = Disagree Strongly
  • 1 = Disagree Mildly
  • 2 = Agree Mildly
  • 3 = Agree Strongly

Scoring Guidelines and Protocols

• Subscale Item Composition (Short Form – 20 items):
  • Token Refusal (TR): Items 13, 20, 28, 36
  • Leading On Justifies Force (LOJF): Items 11, 23, 29, 33
  • Women Like Force (WLF): Items 4, 14, 27, 40
  • Men Should Dominate (MSD): Items 1, 10, 26, 30
  • No Means Stop (NMS): Items 15, 21, 25, 32
• Subscale Item Composition (Long Form – 40 items):
  • Token Refusal (TR): Items 7, 13, 17, 20, 24, 28, 36, 39
  • Leading On Justifies Force (LOJF): Items 3, 8, 11, 19, 23, 29, 31, 33
  • Women Like Force (WLF): Items 4, 5, 9, 14, 18, 27, 37, 40
  • Men Should Dominate (MSD): Items 1, 10, 12, 16, 22, 26, 30, 35
  • No Means Stop (NMS): Items 2, 6, 15, 21, 25, 32, 34, 38
• Scoring Procedure: Raw scores for each subscale are generated by summing the individual item response values (0 to 3) for that subscale. Items within each subscale are unweighted.
  • Short Form Subscale Ranges: 0 to 12 points per subscale.
  • Long Form Subscale Ranges: 0 to 24 points per subscale.
  • Directionality: Higher scores on TR, LOJF, WLF, and MSD reflect higher endorsement of rape-supportive cognitions and coercive sexual scripts. Higher scores on NMS reflect greater adherence to autonomous sexual consent.
  • Composite Scoring: While a total composite score can be computed (either by summing TR, LOJF, WLF, and MSD directly, or by reverse-scoring NMS [3 – response] and summing across all 20 items to yield an overall scale range of 0 to 60), authors and psychometric experts strongly caution against using only an omnibus composite. Relying exclusively on an overall score masks meaningful clinical and empirical variations between distinct subscale dimensions.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Sexual Beliefs Scale was developed in the late 1980s by Dr. Charlene L. Muehlenhard and Albert S. Felts, with empirical validation data appearing throughout peer-reviewed literature across subsequent decades (e.g., Muehlenhard & Hollabaugh, 1988; Muehlenhard & MacNaughton, 1988; Jones & Muehlenhard, 1990; Muehlenhard, Andrews, & Beal, 1996).

The scale was developed as an open scientific and clinical measurement instrument for academic research, health education, and programmatic evaluation. No proprietary licensing fees or commercial purchase costs are required for non-commercial educational or research applications. Researchers and clinicians wishing to implement the scale are expected to cite the original authors appropriately in scholarly publications. To obtain authorized psychometric documentation, permissions for large-scale clinical trials, or customized digital deployments, interested investigators should contact Dr. Charlene L. Muehlenhard directly via the Department of Psychology at the University of Kansas.

References

• Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(2), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.2.217
• Dill, K. E., Brown, B. P., & Collins, M. A. (2008). Effects of exposure to sex-stereotyped video game characters on tolerance of sexual harassment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1402–1408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.06.002
• Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality. Aldine Publishing Company.
• Goodchilds, J. D., & Zellman, G. L. (1984). Sexual signaling and sexual aggression in adolescent relationships. In N. M. Malamuth & E. Donnerstein (Eds.), Pornography and sexual aggression (pp. 234–243). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-466580-4.50014-4
• Jones, J. M., & Muehlenhard, C. L. (1990, November). Using education to prevent rape on college campuses [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
• Milhausen, R. R., McBride, K. R., & Jun, M. K. (2006). Evaluating a peer-led, theatrical sexual assault prevention program: How do we measure success? College Student Journal, 40(2), 316–328.
• Muehlenhard, C. L., Andrews, S. L., & Beal, G. K. (1996). Beyond “just saying no”: Dealing with men’s unwanted sexual advances in heterosexual dating contexts. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 8(1–2), 141–168. https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v08n01_10
• 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
• Muehlenhard, C. L., & MacNaughton, J. S. (1988). Women’s attitudes toward women who “lead men on.” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 7(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1988.7.1.65
• Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 664–670. https://doi.org/10.2307/2089195

Items of the Scale