Sexual Consent Scale, Revised

Abstract

The Sexual Consent Scale, Revised (SCS-R) is an empirically validated psychometric instrument designed to evaluate cognitive, normative, and behavioral dimensions of sexual consent negotiation among emerging adults and dating partners. Conceptualized by Terry P. Humphreys and Melanie Brousseau, the SCS-R expands upon the original 35-item Sexual Consent Scale (Humphreys & Herold, 2007) by explicitly operationalizing the core socio-cognitive constructs of Icek Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). Composed of 40 self-report items administered on a 7-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree), the SCS-R captures six distinct empirical dimensions: four attitudinal/normative subscales—Positive Attitude Towards Establishing Consent (9 items), Lack of Perceived Behavioral Control (9 items), Relationship Length Norms (5 items), and (Pro) Assuming Consent (7 items)—and two behavioral subscales—Indirect Consent Behaviors (6 items) and Awareness of Consent (4 items). Psychometric evaluation across university cohorts demonstrates robust structural validity, with principal components analysis accounting for 48.7% of the total variance and high total scale internal consistency (α = .89). Subscale reliabilities range from adequate to strong (α = .68 to .85), alongside documented 5-week test-retest stability (r = .63 to .71). Construct, convergent, and discriminant validities are substantiated through theoretically predicted correlations with the Sexual Sensation Seeking Scale (SSSS) and Hurlbert’s Index of Sexual Assertiveness (HISA), while multiple regression analyses confirm the scale’s predictive validity regarding proximate behavioral intentions to explicitly communicate verbal consent (β values ranging from .08 to -.39; R² = .39). The SCS-R represents an indispensable diagnostic and evaluative tool for public health researchers, sexologists, campus violence prevention specialists, and clinical psychologists addressing sexual communication, boundary negotiation, and sexual assault prevention.

Keywords

Sexual Consent Scale-Revised, SCS-R, sexual consent negotiation, Theory of Planned Behavior, sexual communication, affirmative consent, sexual assertiveness, sexual health, campus sexual violence prevention, psychometrics

Authors

The Sexual Consent Scale, Revised was developed and validated by:

• Terry P. Humphreys, Ph.D. – Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada. Research specialization includes human sexuality, sexual consent negotiation, sexual communication scripts, and adolescent sexual health. (Correspondence: [email protected]; Trent University, 1600 West Bank Drive, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada, K9J 7B8).
• Melanie Brousseau, Ph.D. – Researcher affiliated with the Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), Montréal, Québec, Canada. Specialization in psychometrics, dyadic sexual processes, and interpersonal communication.
• Edward S. Herold, Ph.D. (Collaborator on the original SCS framework) – Professor Emeritus, Department of Family Relations and Applied Nutrition, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Sexual Consent Scale, Revised (SCS-R) is to systematically capture, quantify, and differentiate the multifaceted attitudes, social beliefs, perceived behavioral barriers, and behavioral scripts that guide how individuals negotiate sexual consent with intimate partners. Sexual consent has historically been treated in legal frameworks as a dichotomous threshold (the absence of non-consent or resistance), whereas contemporary psychological, sexological, and public health paradigms conceptualize consent as an active, ongoing, dynamic, and communicative dyadic process. The SCS-R was constructed to address the acute empirical need for a theoretically grounded, multidimensional instrument capable of moving beyond simplistic assessments of consent attitudes.

From an applied research and clinical perspective, the SCS-R serves several critical functions across diverse domains:

• Campus Sexual Violence Prevention and Educational Programming: As higher education institutions worldwide enact affirmative consent standards (“yes means yes”), university administrators and health educators utilize the SCS-R to conduct baseline campus climate assessments, identify prevailing cognitive distortions (such as relying on relationship duration to substitute for active communication), and evaluate the targeted efficacy of bystander intervention and consent literacy workshops.
• Etiological Research on Sexual Assault and Communication Misalignments: Research indicates that sexual coercion and non-consensual sexual encounters frequently stem from misread cues, ambiguous nonverbal signaling, and entrenched sexual scripts. The SCS-R enables sexologists and social psychologists to isolate specific cognitive risk factors—such as high endorsement of (Pro) Assuming Consent or acute Lack of Perceived Behavioral Control—that correlate with boundary violations, sexual aggression, or passive compliance.
• Dyadic and Clinical Sex Therapy: In clinical sexology, couples therapy, and trauma-informed psychotherapy, practitioners implement the SCS-R to diagnose communication inhibitions, fear of mood disruption, sexual shyness, and divergent consent expectations between partners. Identifying discrepancies in how partners perceive relationship length norms or nonverbal cues facilitates targeted interventions to foster assertive, pleasurable, and unambiguous sexual communication.
• Theoretical Extension of Social Cognition Models: The SCS-R bridges basic cognitive psychology with relational health by operationalizing how general health behavior models—specifically the Theory of Planned Behavior—operate within the emotionally vulnerable, socially scripted, and high-arousal context of sexual intimacy.

Psychological Construct

The overarching construct quantified by the SCS-R is sexual consent negotiation, defined operationally as the freely given verbal or nonverbal communication of a feeling of willingness to engage in sexual activity. Rather than conceptualizing consent as a monolithic trait, the SCS-R recognizes it as an interactive constellation of socio-cognitive attitudes, perceived behavioral capabilities, normative assumptions regarding relational progression, and actual communicative behavioral strategies. Through rigorous psychometric validation, this construct is delineated into six correlated yet distinct subscales:

1. Positive Attitude Towards Establishing Consent (Attitudinal Dimension)

This dimension measures an individual’s explicit endorsement of mutual, affirmative, and proactive consent communication prior to initiating sexual contact. High scorers believe that consent should be obtained unconditionally across all relationship types (casual or long-term), across all sexual behaviors (from kissing and petting to intercourse), and that obtaining consent safeguards against miscommunication. An exemplary belief captured by this factor is that partners must actively assume non-consent until unequivocal permission is established, framing consent as a shared ethical and relational responsibility.

2. Lack of Perceived Behavioral Control (Control/Barrier Dimension)

This subscale evaluates internal and interpersonal obstacles that hinder individuals from verbally articulating consent or requesting consent from a partner. It captures feelings of social awkwardness, shyness, fear of negative evaluation (e.g., worrying that a partner will perceive the request as “weird” or “strange”), and the cognitive belief that pausing to negotiate consent inevitably “spoils the mood” or dampens erotic pleasure. Elevated scores reflect significant anxiety, communicative paralysis, and reduced self-efficacy regarding sexual communication.

3. Relationship Length Norms (Normative Dimension)

This subscale assesses the pervasive cognitive script that formal consent negotiation is inversely related to relational duration and emotional commitment. High scores reflect the belief that explicit consent is strictly necessary during casual or novel encounters but becomes redundant, superfluous, or obsolete as relational familiarity, romantic trust, and shared sexual history accumulate. This construct taps into implicit relationship norms that substitute presumed consent for ongoing, active communication.

4. (Pro) Assuming Consent (Attitudinal/Normative Dimension)

This dimension operationalizes traditional sexual scripts that endorse passive or token-resistance assumptions. High scorers hold beliefs that consent can be presumed until an explicit verbal “no” or physical resistance occurs, that nonverbal ambiguous behaviors are fully equivalent to explicit verbal agreements, that persistence following an initial refusal is acceptable negotiation, and that consent established at the beginning of an encounter automatically covers subsequent activities. This construct represents a crucial cognitive risk profile in sexual assault etiology.

5. Indirect Consent Behaviors (Behavioral Dimension)

This subscale evaluates the habitual utilization of implicit, nonverbal, and indirect behavioral strategies to navigate sexual encounters. Behaviors include relying exclusively on body language, making physical advances and monitoring partner reactions to determine whether to continue, and foregoing explicit verbal queries based on the belief that partners intuitively “know” each other’s boundaries. While nonverbal communication is ubiquitous in human sexuality, elevated scores on this subscale reflect heavy reliance on potentially ambiguous behavioral cues rather than definitive communication.

6. Awareness of Consent (Behavioral/Cognitive Dimension)

This construct captures the degree to which an individual actively reflects upon, discusses, and integrates the concept of sexual consent into their broader socio-relational life. It quantifies communicative behaviors outside the bedroom, such as discussing consent with peers, engaging in campus dialogues, processing boundary preferences with intimate partners during non-sexual encounters, and cognitive rumination regarding sexual ethics. High scores reflect an active, internalized engagement with sexual consent discourse.

Theoretical Framework

The architectural foundation of the Sexual Consent Scale, Revised is grounded in Icek Ajzen’s (1985, 1991, 2005) Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), complemented by Simon and Gagnon’s (1986, 2003) Sexual Script Theory. The synthesis of these theoretical traditions explains how individual cognitions, cultural narratives, and situational competencies coalesce to determine whether an individual actively negotiates sexual consent.

Under the Theory of Planned Behavior, human social behavior is directly guided by behavioral intentions, which are function of three primary socio-cognitive determinants:

1. Attitudes Toward the Behavior: The degree to which performance of the behavior is positively or negatively valued. In the SCS-R, this is operationalized across two contrasting poles: Positive Attitude Towards Establishing Consent (which frames consent as protective, essential, and respectful) and (Pro) Assuming Consent (which frames verbal consent as unnecessary, cumbersome, or adequately substituted by passive acquiescence).
2. Subjective Norms: The perceived social pressure from significant others or reference groups to perform or withhold the behavior, coupled with the individual’s motivation to comply. The SCS-R captures this through Relationship Length Norms, reflecting normative dating scripts that dictate that established couples “should not need” explicit communication, as well as peer norms tapped via Awareness of Consent.
3. Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC): An individual’s perception of their capability and self-efficacy to execute the target behavior, accounting for anticipated hurdles, emotional discomfort, and environmental constraints. The SCS-R explicitly measures this via the (Lack of) Perceived Behavioral Control subscale, diagnosing whether anxiety, communicative inhibition, and fear of negative partner evaluation suppress the enactment of affirmative consent intentions.

Humphreys and Brousseau (2009) expanded the original SCS framework (Humphreys & Herold, 2007) by recognizing that past behaviors and habits (operationalized as Indirect Consent Behaviors) directly influence both perceived behavioral control and immediate intentions. Furthermore, by incorporating Sexual Script Theory, the SCS-R acknowledges that young adults navigate sexual intimacy utilizing deeply ingrained cultural, interpersonal, and intrapsychic scripts. Cultural scripts have traditionally designated men as sexual initiators who read nonverbal signals and women as passive gatekeepers who communicate refusal through subtle resistance. The SCS-R maps the transition away from these traditional, ambiguous scripts toward egalitarian, affirmative communicative scripts, providing empirical clarity on how individuals construct sexual encounters.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the SCS-R has been extensively substantiated across multiple empirical investigations involving undergraduate cohorts and dating populations (Humphreys & Brousseau, 2009; Humphreys & Herold, 2007).

Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity was established by correlating the SCS-R subscales with well-established psychometric instruments measuring related sexual and personality constructs, specifically the Sexual Sensation Seeking Scale (SSSS; Kalichman & Rompa, 1995) and Hurlbert’s Index of Sexual Assertiveness (HISA; Hurlbert, 1991):

• Relation to Sexual Sensation Seeking: Sexual sensation seeking involves the willingness to take physical, health, and social risks to attain novel sexual stimulation. Because establishing clear sexual consent represents a risk-reducing, protective communication behavior, sensation seeking was hypothesized to correlate negatively with explicit consent practices. Consistent with theoretical expectations, SSSS scores were significantly negatively correlated with Positive Attitude Towards Establishing Consent (r = -.15, p < .05), while positively correlated with (Pro) Assuming Consent (r = .15, p < .05), Relationship Length Norms (r = .15, p < .05), and reliance on Indirect Consent Behaviors (r = .18, p < .05).
• Relation to Sexual Assertiveness: Assertive sexual communication encompasses expressing desires, refusing unwanted advances, and negotiating contraception (Morokoff et al., 1997). Consistent with convergent hypotheses, HISA scores exhibited a robust negative correlation with Lack of Perceived Behavioral Control (r = -.35, p < .01), demonstrating that higher sexual assertiveness mitigates the perceived awkwardness and shyness associated with negotiating consent. Additionally, sexual assertiveness positively correlated with Awareness of Consent (r = .24, p < .01) and Indirect Consent Behaviors (r = .23, p < .01).

Predictive Validity

To establish predictive validity within the TPB framework, Humphreys and Brousseau (2009) conducted a standard multiple linear regression analyzing the capacity of the SCS-R subscales and demographic factors to predict prospective behavioral intentions to verbally ask for sexual consent across the next five sexual encounters. The overall regression model was highly significant, accounting for 39% of the total variance: F(6, 380) = 33.31, p < .001, R² = .39. Unique significant predictors included:

• Past reliance on fewer indirect consent behaviors (B = -.41, β = -.39, p < .001)
• Perceiving greater behavioral control / lower communicative barriers (B = -.22, β = -.22, p < .001)
• Positive attitudes towards establishing consent (B = .20, β = .17, p < .001)
• Gender (being male: B = -.36, β = -.15, p < .01)
• Higher awareness and out-of-bedroom discussions of consent (B = .07, β = .08, p < .05)

Reliability

The reliability of the SCS-R has been confirmed through both internal consistency metrics and temporal stability assessments across independent samples.

Internal Consistency

In the primary psychometric validation study comprising N = 396 university students across three Canadian universities (Humphreys & Brousseau, 2009), the overall 40-item scale demonstrated excellent global internal consistency, yielding a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of α = .89. Subscale-specific alpha coefficients confirmed satisfactory to strong internal reliability across both attitudinal and behavioral dimensions:

• Positive Attitude Towards Establishing Consent (9 items): α = .83
• Lack of Perceived Behavioral Control (9 items): α = .85
• Relationship Length Norms (5 items): α = .72
• (Pro) Assuming Consent (7 items): α = .68
• Indirect Consent Behaviors (6 items): α = .78
• Awareness of Consent (4 items): α = .72

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability was evaluated on a subsample of undergraduate respondents (n = 45) who completed the SCS-R at two time points separated by a 5-week interval. Pearson test-retest correlation coefficients across the six subscales ranged from r = .63 to r = .71 (all p < .001), indicating moderate-to-strong longitudinal stability of consent cognitions and behavioral styles over time while maintaining appropriate sensitivity to potential educational interventions.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the SCS-R was established using exploratory factor analysis (Principal Components Analysis; PCA) accompanied by orthogonal (Varimax) rotation, based on the responses of 396 undergraduate participants (Humphreys & Brousseau, 2009). Prior to factor extraction, sampling adequacy and data factorability were verified. The extraction criteria isolated six principal components with eigenvalues exceeding 1.0, satisfying Cattell’s scree test criteria and theoretical interpretability.

The definitive six-factor solution comprises 40 items and accounts for 48.7% of the total cumulative variance. The factor structure neatly bifurcates into four attitudinal/normative components and two behavioral components:

• Factor 1: Positive Attitude Towards Establishing Consent (9 items, M = 4.67, SD = 1.08). Primary loadings exceed .45, capturing beliefs regarding absolute necessity, mutual responsibility, and proactive assumption of non-consent across all sexual activities.
• Factor 2: (Lack of) Perceived Behavioral Control (9 items, M = 3.18, SD = 1.15). Loadings capture internal communicative barriers, anxiety regarding social stigmatization, fear of spoiling erotic momentum, and awkwardness.
• Factor 3: Relationship Length Norms (5 items, M = 5.02, SD = 1.14). Items load on scripts establishing that relational longevity and historical sexual encounters diminish or eliminate the obligation to negotiate consent.
• Factor 4: (Pro) Assuming Consent (7 items, M = 3.08, SD = 0.94). Items load on beliefs endorsing passive acquiescence, the adequacy of ambiguous nonverbal cues, and perseverance following rejection.
• Factor 5: Indirect Behavioral Approach (6 items, M = 4.97, SD = 1.07). Captures habituated nonverbal signaling, physical escalations while observing reactions, and reliance on perceived relational trust over verbal discourse.
• Factor 6: Awareness of Consent (4 items, M = 3.55, SD = 1.28). Loadings reflect conscious engagement, peer discussions, and deliberate communication outside immediate sexual settings.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational features, administration parameters, and scoring specifications of the Sexual Consent Scale, Revised are structured as follows:

• Instrument Name: Sexual Consent Scale, Revised (SCS-R)
• Instrument Type: Self-report multidimensional psychometric questionnaire
• Administration Format: Available in both paper-and-pencil format and secure computerized/online web surveys
• Target Population: Emerging adults, university students, and sexually active dating populations (normed on heterosexual young adults; applicable to diverse gender and sexual identities)
• Item Count: 40 items distributed across 6 factors
• Estimated Completion Time: Approximately 15 to 20 minutes
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert-type rating format:
• 1 = Strongly Disagree
• 2 = Disagree
• 3 = Somewhat Disagree
• 4 = Neither Agree nor Disagree
• 5 = Somewhat Agree
• 6 = Agree
• 7 = Strongly Agree
• Standardized Definition Provided to Respondents: “Sexual consent: the freely given verbal or nonverbal communication of a feeling of willingness to engage in sexual activity.”
• Reverse-Scored Items: Exactly three items are reverse-keyed prior to calculating dimensional scores:
  • Item 18 (in overall scale sequence; Item 8 of Factor 2): “I feel confident that I could ask for consent from a new sexual partner” [Recode: 1=7, 2=6, 3=5, 4=4, 5=3, 6=2, 7=1]
  • Item 34 (in overall scale sequence; Item 4 of Factor 5): “I always verbally ask for consent before I initiate a sexual encounter” [Recode: 1=7, 2=6, 3=5, 4=4, 5=3, 6=2, 7=1]
  • Item 40 (in overall scale sequence; Item 4 of Factor 6): “I have not given much thought to the topic of sexual consent” [Recode: 1=7, 2=6, 3=5, 4=4, 5=3, 6=2, 7=1]
• Scoring and Computational Rules:
  • Step 1: Invert numerical values for the three reverse-scored items (18, 34, 40).
  • Step 2: Calculate individual subscale scores by summing the response values for items belonging to each subscale and dividing by the total number of items in that subscale (mean item score, range 1.00 to 7.00):
    • Positive Attitude Towards Establishing Consent: Sum items 1 through 9 ÷ 9
    • (Lack of) Perceived Behavioral Control: Sum items 10 through 18 (with item 18 reversed) ÷ 9
    • Relationship Length Norms: Sum items 19 through 23 ÷ 5
    • (Pro) Assuming Consent: Sum items 24 through 30 ÷ 7
    • Indirect Behavioral Approach: Sum items 31 through 36 (with item 34 reversed) ÷ 6
    • Awareness of Consent: Sum items 37 through 40 (with item 40 reversed) ÷ 4
  • Step 3: Higher scores on respective subscales signify higher endorsement of that specific construct (e.g., higher scores on Factor 2 denote greater lack of control/greater perceived barriers).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Sexual Consent Scale, Revised (SCS-R) was finalized and formally published in 2009 by Dr. Terry P. Humphreys and Melanie Brousseau, following initial scale construction in 2004 and foundational normative validation by Humphreys and Herold in 2007. The instrument is protected under academic copyright held by the authors and the original publisher (Taylor & Francis / Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality).

For non-commercial scholarly research, university instruction, and institutional quality improvement initiatives, the SCS-R may generally be utilized upon obtaining formal permission from the lead author. Researchers wishing to administer the SCS-R in clinical trials, funded public health interventions, or commercial software applications must contact the primary author directly:

Terry P. Humphreys, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology, Trent University
1600 West Bank Drive, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada, K9J 7B8
Email: [email protected]

References

• Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2
• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
• Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 27–58. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.27
• Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality, and behavior (2nd ed.). Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.
• Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (2005). Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality (2nd ed.). Aldine Transaction. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315127118
• Humphreys, T. P. (2004). 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. P., & Brousseau, M. (2009). The Sexual Consent Scale—Revised: Development, reliability, and preliminary validity. The Journal of Sex Research, 47(5), 420–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490903151357
• Humphreys, T. P., & Herold, E. S. (2007). Sexual consent in heterosexual dating relationships: Attitudes and behaviours of university students. Sex Roles, 57(3–4), 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9257-2
• Hurlbert, D. F. (1991). The role of assertiveness in female sexuality: A comparative study between sexually assertive and sexually non-assertive women. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 17(3), 183–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/00926239108404342
• Kalichman, S. C., & Rompa, D. (1995). Sexual sensation seeking and sexual compulsivity scales: Reliability, validity, and predicting HIV risk behavior. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65(3), 586–601. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6503_16
• Morokoff, P. J., Quina, K., Harlow, L. L., Whitmire, L., Grimley, D. M., Gibson, P. R., & Sloane, T. S. (1997). Sexual Assertiveness Scale (SAS) for women: Development and validation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4), 790–804. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.790

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)