Sexual Situation Questionnaire

Abstract

The Sexual Situation Questionnaire (SSQ) is a specialized psychometric and behavioral assessment instrument developed by E. Sandra Byers and colleagues (Byers & Lewis, 1988; O’Sullivan & Byers, 1993, 1996) designed to assess the behavioral, communicative, and interpersonal dynamics that occur when dating partners experience discrepant desires regarding levels of sexual intimacy. Grounded in sexual script theory and interpersonal influence paradigms, the SSQ measures the sequential trajectory of a sexual disagreement event, capturing the initiating behaviors, refusal responses, initiator influence tactics, partner compliance, and subsequent emotional and relational evaluations. The instrument exists in parallel gender-counterbalanced forms (evaluating scenarios where either the male or the female desires a higher level of sexual intimacy) and can be deployed via retrospective self-report or daily event-contingent self-monitoring. The core architecture incorporates a 19-item event-characterization sequence supplemented by a specialized 34-item Influence Strategies Subscale, which documents the enactment and perceived affective impact (positive, negative, or neutral) of noncoercive, persuasive, manipulative, and overtly coercive tactics. Psychometric evaluations demonstrate high interrater reliability across qualitative response classifications (mean Cohen’s κ and percentage agreements ranging from .83 to 1.00; Byers & Lewis, 1988; O’Sullivan & Byers, 1993), robust convergent validity with measures of traditional gender-role adherence, and construct validity substantiated by predictable variations across verbal definiteness, nonverbal resistance, and initiator compliance scales. This article provides an exhaustive academic exposition of the SSQ, detailing its theoretical foundation, structural dimensions, administrative protocols, psychometric properties, and research utility across sexology, relationship science, and sexual violence prevention.

Keywords

Sexual Situation Questionnaire, sexual negotiation, sexual compliance, influence strategies, sexual coercion, refusal definiteness, dating interactions, sexual communication, sexual script theory, interpersonal influence.

Authors

The Sexual Situation Questionnaire was conceptualized, developed, and validated through the programmatic research of:

• E. Sandra Byers, Ph.D. — Professor Emerita and Honorary Research Professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of New Brunswick (Fredericton, NB, Canada). Dr. Byers is an internationally recognized scholar in human sexuality, sexual health, relationship satisfaction, and the prevention of sexual violence, having served as President of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality (SSSS) and an Associate Editor for major sexuality journals. E-mail: [email protected].
• Lucia F. O’Sullivan, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology and former Canada Research Chair in Adolescents’ Sexual Health Behavior at the University of New Brunswick. Dr. O’Sullivan’s empirical work investigates sexual decision-making, relationship trajectories, gender dynamics, and sexual risk behaviors among adolescents and emerging adults.
• Karen Lewis, M.A. — Co-developer of the original event-monitoring methodology and behavioral coding paradigms articulated in the foundational 1988 investigation at the University of New Brunswick.

Purpose

The primary clinical, empirical, and theoretical purpose of the Sexual Situation Questionnaire (SSQ) is to operationalize and dissect the micro-level communication processes that unfold when heterosexual or same-sex dating partners experience asymmetric levels of sexual desire or intent during an interactive episode. Historically, sexuality research frequently treated sexual encounters as binary occurrences (e.g., mutually consensual intercourse versus overt sexual assault), leaving a profound empirical void regarding the expansive continuum of normative sexual negotiations, miscommunications, subtle compliance-gaining attempts, and sexual boundary setting in dating relationships.

By capturing the interactional choreography of a specific sexual disagreement, the SSQ fulfills several vital objectives in contemporary psychological science:

• Empirical Deconstruction of Sexual Negotiation: The instrument moves beyond distal personality traits or general attitudes to capture event-level behavioral interactions. It delineates precisely how initiators convey interest, how non-initiators express reluctance, and how initiators respond to that reluctance.
• Mapping the Continuum of Influence and Coercion: Through its 34-item Influence Strategies Subscale, the SSQ measures the specific tactics individuals utilize to persuade a reluctant partner to engage in disputed sexual activity. This ranges from prosocial behaviors (e.g., reasoning, expressing genuine affection, compliments) to manipulative strategies (e.g., guilt induction, pouting, false relationship promises) and explicitly coercive behaviors (e.g., intoxication tactics, physical restraint, persistent advances despite overt refusal).
• Dismantling Gender Stereotypes in Sexual Initiation: By incorporating parallel versions (assessing men desiring more intimacy than women, and women desiring more intimacy than men), the SSQ facilitates direct empirical tests of traditional sexual scripts. It has been instrumental in demonstrating that women frequently initiate sexual advances and that men regularly experience and express sexual reluctance, challenging traditional assumptions regarding passive female gatekeeping and unyielding male sexual appetite (O’Sullivan & Byers, 1993).
• Informing Affirmative Consent and Violence Prevention Paradigms: In clinical, forensic, and campus intervention contexts, the SSQ provides granular baseline data regarding how verbal and nonverbal “definiteness” shapes partner compliance. Understanding the conditions under which initiators fail to respect subtle or explicit refusals enables prevention programmers to design nuanced, evidence-based curricula addressing affirmative consent, resistance recognition, and the de-escalation of coercive persistence.

Psychological Construct

The SSQ assesses a multidimensional, dyadic behavioral construct termed sexual disagreement negotiation and influence dynamics. Rather than evaluating a static psychological trait, the instrument measures a dynamic interpersonal episode characterized by competing goals regarding physical intimacy. This overarching construct is segmented into distinct conceptual dimensions:

1. Contextual and Relational Grounding

Sexual negotiations do not occur in an interpersonal vacuum. The SSQ contextualizes the interaction by measuring relational duration (number of previous dates), relational commitment (first date, casual date, steady date), spatial setting (bedroom versus non-bedroom environments), historical precedence (whether the disputed sexual act had been consensually performed in the past), and ongoing baseline behaviors occurring immediately prior to the disagreement (e.g., hugging, kissing, breast fondling, genital contact).

2. Initiation Modality and Communicative Clarity

This dimension operationalizes the behavioral vehicle used by the initiating partner to signal their desire to elevate the level of sexual activity. Initiation can occur via direct verbal requests, indirect verbal hints, suggestive nonverbal looks, explicit touch, or unilateral physical escalation. Crucially, the construct incorporates self- or partner-perceived clarity of initiation, evaluated on a 6-point continuum ranging from extremely clear to extremely unclear, identifying the degree of ambiguity present at the inception of the encounter.

3. Reluctance and Resistance Definiteness

A central theoretical innovation of the SSQ is the operationalization of refusal behaviors along two distinct behavioral axes:

• Verbal Definiteness: Evaluates the linguistic explicitness and force of the refusal. This spans a 4-point spectrum ranging from no verbal refusal (complete silence), to conditional or situation-dependent refusal implying advances might be welcomed at another time or setting (e.g., “Not tonight, I have an early class”), to unconditional direct refusal (e.g., “No, I do not want to”), to severe refusal accompanied by overt hostility or threats (e.g., “Stop right now or I will leave”).
• Nonverbal Definiteness: Measures the somatic and physical manifestation of boundary enforcement. This spans a 4-point spectrum ranging from no physical resistance, to passive nonperformance or obstruction (blocking hand movements), to active physical separation (pushing the partner away, moving across the room), to aggressive physical counteraction (slapping, striking, or abruptly leaving the physical venue).

4. Influence Tactics and Affective Valuation

When an initiator encounters reluctance, the interaction can terminate or escalate into active influence. The SSQ’s 34-item behavioral taxonomy captures influence tactics across several operational domains:

• Cognitive and Rational Persuasion: Attempting to reason, bargaining, discussing compromises, or inquiring why the partner is hesitant.
• Positive Ingratiation and Romance: Complimenting appearance or personality, expressing genuine love, dancing seductively, or utilizing humor.
• Emotional Manipulation and Deception: Feigning love or future commitment, pouting, sulking, crying, inducing guilt, or feigning sexual distress (e.g., claiming to be too aroused to stop).
• Coercive, Intoxicating, and Exploitative Tactics: Administering alcohol or drugs to weaken inhibitions, issuing relationship termination threats, making disparaging insults, physically pinning or grabbing the partner, and ignoring refusals by forcing sexual contact.

Uniquely, the construct accounts for the subjective affective appraisal of these tactics, requiring respondents to evaluate whether each endorsed influence strategy exerted a positive (pleasing), negative (displeasing), or neutral impact on the reluctant partner.

5. Compliance and Dyadic Relational Outcomes

The concluding dimension evaluates the behavioral resolution of the disagreement (immediate compliance, delayed compliance later during the date, or complete cessation of advances) and measures relational fallout. This includes shifts in romantic interest (measured pre- and post-incident) and immediate versus recalled retrospective pleasantness of the interaction.

Theoretical Framework

The architecture of the Sexual Situation Questionnaire is embedded within several converging paradigms in social psychology, interpersonal communication, and sociological sexology:

Sexual Script Theory

Originating in the seminal work of John Gagnon and William Simon (1973), Sexual Script Theory posits that sexual behavior is guided by culturally transmitted schemas that dictate who, what, when, where, and why individuals engage in sexual acts. Traditional Western heterosexual scripts assign men the proactive role of sexual “initiator” or “aggressor,” while women are scripted into the reactive role of “gatekeeper” or “limit-setter.”

Byers and Lewis (1988) and O’Sullivan and Byers (1993) constructed the SSQ to empirically examine the rigid execution, violation, or renegotiation of these scripts. The instrument operationalizes how deviations from stereotypical scripts (such as a female initiator and a male limit-setter) impact communication clarity, the selection of influence tactics, and the probability of compliance, providing empirical verification that sexual scripts are dynamic, bidirectional negotiations rather than static cultural imperatives.

Interpersonal Compliance-Gaining and Social Exchange Theory

The influence subscale draws heavily from Marwell and Schmitt’s (1967) taxonomy of interpersonal compliance-gaining techniques and Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964; Walster et al., 1978). In dating encounters, individuals evaluate the perceived costs and rewards of consenting to or refusing sexual escalation. When a boundary is asserted, initiators employ diverse power strategies—ranging from reward-oriented tactics (promises, compliments) to punitive tactics (anger, threats of abandonment, guilt)—to shift the reluctant partner’s subjective cost-benefit calculus.

The Communication of Sexual Refusal and “Token Resistance” Myths

During the 1980s and 1990s, pervasive cultural and academic debates centered on the concept of “token resistance”—the erroneous belief that women routinely offer insincere refusals to sexual advances while secretly desiring intimacy (Muehlenhard & Hollabaugh, 1988). The SSQ was designed with high methodological rigor to provide an objective, behavioral recording system to document actual refusal behaviors. By pairing objective open-ended behavioral logs with definiteness scaling, Byers and colleagues established that sexual refusals are overwhelmingly genuine, unambiguous, and intended to halt unwanted sexual contact, thereby refuting rape myths that misinterpret female communication as inherently deceptive.

Validity

The validity of the Sexual Situation Questionnaire has been substantiated across construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related domains through extensive empirical investigations involving university and community dating samples:

Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity is evidenced by the scale’s sensitivity to established sociosexual and cognitive individual differences:

• Adherence to Traditional Gender Roles: Byers and Lewis (1988) demonstrated that male participants endorsing traditional, conservative gender-role ideologies exhibited significantly lower compliance scores upon encountering a woman’s refusal. Specifically, traditional men were significantly more likely to persist, utilize higher numbers of pressure tactics, or express overt displeasure compared to egalitarian men, confirming theoretical predictions linking patriarchal attitudes to coercive persistence.
• Refusal Definiteness and Compliance: The SSQ’s verbal and nonverbal definiteness scales reliably predict behavioral compliance. Research utilizing the SSQ has demonstrated that men rate themselves as significantly more likely to halt sexual advances when a female partner employs high-definiteness verbal refusals (unqualified “no” or threats) and forceful physical resistance (pushing away, slapping) than when ambiguous or situation-specific excuses are offered (Byers & Lewis, 1988). This functional concordance between measured refusal clarity and behavioral cessation provides robust construct validity for the definiteness continuum.
• Cross-Gender Script Comparisons: O’Sullivan and Byers (1993, 1996) utilized parallel versions of the SSQ to establish convergent validity across gender configurations. Their findings revealed that while women utilized influence strategies when encountering reluctant men, the profile of tactics differed significantly from men’s: women relied predominantly on seductive dress, mood manipulation, and reasoning, rarely resorting to physical intimidation or intoxication tactics, aligning with established social power differentials.

Criterion and Ecological Validity

Ecological validity is bolstered by the instrument’s methodological flexibility. Comparative studies evaluating retrospective recall against daily event-monitoring logs (Byers & Lewis, 1988) demonstrated consistent distributions of reported disagreement types, locations, and influence strategies, confirming that the retrospective version does not suffer from substantial memory distortion or systemic recall biases. Furthermore, respondents’ subjective confidence ratings regarding the accuracy of their recalled interaction averaged 5.1 to 5.2 on a 6-point scale across validation studies, supporting high self-reported fidelity.

Reliability

Given that the SSQ combines qualitative, open-ended behavioral narratives with quantitative rating scales and categorical checklists, its reliability has been extensively evaluated using both interrater agreement metrics and internal consistency indices:

Interrater Reliability of Qualitative Classifications

The SSQ requires independent raters to categorize open-ended responses regarding the physical location of the disagreement, reasons for reluctance, verbal/nonverbal initiation behaviors, and refusal tactics. Across published empirical studies, interrater reliability has demonstrated outstanding consistency:

• In the Byers and Lewis (1988) validation study, the mean interrater agreement across all open-ended behavioral dimensions was .85, with individual category reliabilities spanning from .71 to 1.00.
• In subsequent programmatic studies by O’Sullivan and Byers (1993, 1996), the mean interrater agreement across trained judges rose to .87, with specific sub-domain agreement ranging between .83 and 1.00, indicating that the operational definitions and coding rubrics for verbal/nonverbal behaviors are highly reproducible and objective.

Scale and Subscale Reliability

For the continuous dimensions:

• The Verbal Definiteness Scale and Nonverbal Definiteness Scale exhibit high inter-coder reliability, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) consistently exceeding .88.
• The Compliance Scale, scored along a 5-point progression (from stopping without questioning to continuing unwanted advances), demonstrates interrater agreement exceeding .90.
• When the 34-item Influence Strategies Subscale is aggregated into composite indices reflecting overall influence tactic variety or coercive intensity, the resulting composite scores demonstrate acceptable internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically ranging between .78 and .86 depending on sample homogeneity.

Factor Analysis and Dimensional Structure

Although the primary structural deployment of the SSQ relies on event-level behavioral coding and checklist endorsements, psychometric investigations into the 34-item Influence Strategies Subscale have examined its underlying latent structure using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and principal components analysis (PCA):

Latent Factor Solutions

Factor-analytic studies of the influence tactics (Byers & Lewis, 1988; O’Sullivan & Byers, 1993) reveal that while individual tactics represent discrete behavioral acts, they consistently load onto four distinct higher-order dimensions:

1. Direct/Rational Persuasion: Characterized by high loadings from items such as bargaining/negotiating (Item 14), trying to reason (Item 13), asking for reasons (Item 32), and discussing real emotional feelings (Item 5). These items represent prosocial, cognitively driven compliance-seeking.
2. Seductive and Ingratiating Tactics: Characterized by high loadings from positive appearance/personality comments (Items 23, 24, 25), flirting (Item 16), touching/stroking (Item 20), dancing seductively (Item 34), and manipulating music or atmospheric cues (Item 33).
3. Emotional Manipulation and Deception: Encompassing guilt induction (Item 27), pouting/sulking (Item 2), feigning disinterest (Item 17), feigning love or making insincere promises (Item 4), and crying (Item 18).
4. Hostile Coercion and Physical Pressure: Dominated by explicit threats to end the date or relationship (Item 6), negative personal/sexual insults (Item 9), grabbing or using physical pressure (Item 19), attempting intoxication through drugs/alcohol (Item 21), and explicitly ignoring refusals to engage in the sexual act anyway (Item 31).

These empirical factor solutions explain between 48% and 56% of the total variance across dating samples, providing structural support for treating influence tactics as both specific behavioral items and broader stylistic clusters along a continuum of coerciveness.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The complete Sexual Situation Questionnaire (SSQ) is structured as a comprehensive multi-method survey containing 19 standardized core items and an extensive 34-item behavioral checklist:

• Test Type: Retrospective behavioral event-inventory and self-monitoring questionnaire; includes forced-choice categorical items, multi-point Likert-type scales, and structured open-ended behavioral logs.
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults in dating, casual, or romantic relationships (originally validated with heterosexual dating couples aged 18–30; fully adaptable to diverse sexual orientations and gender identities).
• Administration Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes for the retrospective version; 3 to 5 minutes daily for the self-monitoring log.
• Structural Sections:
  • Screening & Temporal Recency: Binary gatekeeping question evaluating whether the participant has ever experienced an intimacy disagreement, followed by temporal proximity (days, weeks, months).
  • Relational & Situational Context: Date frequency, relationship status (first date, casual date, steady date), and physical environment (coded: bedroom vs. non-bedroom).
  • Disputed Activity & Prior Precedent: Checklist of 11 specific sexual behaviors (ranging from kissing to intercourse and anal sex) identifying what was desired, what was occurring immediately prior, and whether the disputed act had occurred previously.
  • Reasons for Reluctance: Open-ended entry categorized into 7 standard coding rubrics: Unknown, Timing in Relationship, Inappropriate Relationship, Situational (wrong time/venue), Moral Beliefs, Physical Reasons, or Mood.
  • Communication Modalities & Definiteness:
    • Clarity ratings (6-point scale: 1 = extremely unclearly to 6 = extremely clearly).
    • Verbal initiation/refusal logs coded on a 4-point Verbal Definiteness Scale (0 = No verbal refusal, 1 = Conditional/situational refusal, 2 = Unqualified direct refusal, 3 = Hostile refusal/threat).
    • Nonverbal initiation/refusal logs coded on a 4-point Nonverbal Definiteness Scale (0 = No physical refusal, 1 = Blocked/obstructed act, 2 = Moved away/pushed partner away, 3 = Aggressive counteraction/slapped/left).
  • Initiator Compliance: Operationalized via categorical coding (compliance without influence, compliance with influence, noncompliance) or a 5-point ordinal scale (1 = Stopped without questioning, 2 = Stopped and asked for clarification, 3 = Stopped and attempted persuasion, 4 = Stopped and expressed anger/displeasure, 5 = Continued unwanted advances).
  • Influence Strategies Subscale: A 34-item behavioral checklist (plus open-ended “other”) evaluating tactics utilized to overcome reluctance, each scored for perceived affective impact on the partner: Positive (“P”), Displeasing/Negative (“D”), or Neutral (“N”).
  • Evaluative Outcomes: Concurrent and retrospective pleasantness ratings (6-point scale), pre- and post-incident romantic interest ratings (5-point scale), open-ended contextual elaboration, and participant reporting confidence (6-point scale).

Permissions, Fee, and Test Year

The Sexual Situation Questionnaire was first published in 1988 by E. Sandra Byers and Karen Lewis in The Journal of Sex Research, with expanded gender-comparative validation studies published in 1993 and 1996 by Lucia F. O’Sullivan and E. Sandra Byers. The instrument is considered an open-access academic measurement tool available for non-commercial educational, scientific, and empirical research purposes without royalty fees. Researchers wishing to utilize, modify, or adapt the scale (including adaptations for LGBTQ+ populations or modern digital communication media) are requested to properly cite the foundational validation articles. Inquiries regarding original administrative manuals or standardized coding protocols can be directed to Dr. E. Sandra Byers at the Department of Psychology, University of New Brunswick ([email protected]).

References

• Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley & Sons.
• Byers, E. S., & Lewis, K. (1988). Dating couples’ disagreements over the desired level of sexual intimacy. The Journal of Sex Research, 24(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498809551397
• Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality. Aldine Publishing Company.
• Marwell, G., & Schmitt, D. R. (1967). Dimensions of compliance-gaining behavior: An empirical analysis. Sociometry, 30(4), 350–364. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786181
• 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
• O’Sullivan, L. F., & Byers, E. S. (1993). Eroding stereotypes: College women’s attempts to influence reluctant male sexual partners. The Journal of Sex Research, 30(3), 270–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499309551710
• O’Sullivan, L. F., & Byers, E. S. (1996). Gender differences in responses to discrepancies in desired level of sexual intimacy. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 8(1–2), 49–67. https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v08n01_04
• Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Allyn & Bacon.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)