Beliefs, Attitudes and Behaviors Related to Sexual Consent in Complex Sexual Scenarios

Abstract

Sexual consent, although more extensively studied in recent decades, remains a complex and nuanced concept that is often difficult to define and investigate. This study aimed to analyze the relationships between beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors related to sexual consent, and the ability to interpret complex sexual scenarios with varying characteristics. A voluntary sample of 738 individuals over 18 years of age was recruited, mainly through social networks. Data analysis was conducted using descriptive statistics and mean comparison tests. Participants with higher scores for continuous consent, communicative sexuality, and positive attitudes toward consent, as well as lower scores for subtle coercion and (lack of) perceived control, showed more accurate interpretations of sexual assault situations. These findings may contribute to the development and implementation of programs aimed at reducing the use of coercive and violent strategies in sexual relationships.

1. Introduction

Sexual consent is a complex and often ambiguous concept, with discrepancies that challenge its definition and measurement [1]. It is generally understood as a voluntary and conscious decision to engage in a specific sexual activity with another person [2], an internal experience distinct from sexual desire. In one study, five sets of feelings (physical response, safety, arousal, wanting, and readiness) were identified, which must align at a particular time and context to satisfy the definition of internal consent [3].

Consent can also be defined as a process whereby there is a mutual expression of voluntary willingness to engage in sexual activity [1], which can be actively communicated through words or signs, clearly or suggestively. Nonverbal signals of consent are often relied upon [3,4]. There are several factors that influence the communication of sexual consent, including gender, relationship status, type of sexual behavior, and context.

Sexual consent is described in a dualistic way as the internal willingness to engage in sexual behaviors, and the manner in which that internal feeling is expressed, which can be verbal or nonverbal, and active or passive [5,6]. Research by Willis and collaborators conducted in women of various ethnicities in the United States found that, in general, “doing nothing” during sexual activity was understood as a consenting practice, although it was not associated with internal feelings (internal sexual consent) [2]. From this, it can be understood that there is a negative correlation between internal consent and passive signals, so that non-resistance to a sexual situation should not be understood as consent to sexual activity [7]. Furthermore, women with a high level of internal sexual consent make many more external displays of active consent, mostly nonverbal [2,7].

Research has shown that heterosexual women often prefer to communicate consent verbally, while men are more likely to rely on nonverbal cues [3], in addition to looking for the partner to explicitly give their consent [8]. This way of communicating, through nonverbal language, could lead to errors in interpretation; in one study, participants claimed that they were able to discern and accurately interpret subtle signals of both rejection and consent from their sexual partners [4]. Gender roles influence how consent is communicated, with men typically initiating sexual behavior and women consenting in heterosexual relations [8,9]. However, studies suggest that gender roles may not be predictive of consent communication in cisgender and non-binary sexual minority youths [7], nor in same-sex-attracted cisgender men and women [5]. The communication of consent also varies with the type of relationship; in established relationships, people tend to find verbal and direct consent less relevant [4].

The nonverbal and implicit form of consent presents some complications; it implies, on the one hand, that the person with whom one is having sex interprets what one wishes to communicate, such as their willingness to participate in sexual activities or, on the contrary, their refusal to take part in them [1]. The ambiguity that this generates, and a possible lack of understanding of the signals, can lead to situations in which there is inaccurate interpretation; for example, interpreting a kiss as a form of sexual consent that gives rise to other activities and not as a simple act of affection [10].

Sexual consent is closely tied to legal frameworks, such as the Spanish Organic Law 4/2023 amending Organic Law 10/2022, which consolidates crimes related to sexual abuse and assault into a single category: sexual assault [11]. This law defines consent as “…any act that infringes on the sexual freedom of another person without their consent, which is defined as: ‘Consent will only be understood to exist when it has been freely manifested through acts that, in light of the circumstances, clearly express the will of the person”. While sexual consent is clearly defined at the legal level, its interpretation is dependent on the specific circumstances of each case. This emphasizes the need to examine how context influences the understanding of consent and situations of sexual violence [3].

Currently, there are high prevalence rates of sexual violence, exemplified in the recent case involving the ex-director of the Royal Spanish Football Federation who, during a worldwide televised show, proceeded to kiss one of the players without her consent after winning the women’s World Cup. Despite the incident being recorded from multiple angles, and the player’s statements, such as “In no case was it consented; I did not feel respected” and “He did not respect me either as a player or as a person”, some media outlets downplayed its significance.

In Spain, according to the 2023 database of the Secretary of State for Security of the Ministry of the Interior (2023), a total of 9560 crimes against sexual freedom were registered in Spain from January to June 2023 [12]. In 2022, 17,389 crimes against sexual freedom and indemnity were reported in Spain, 16.5% (2870 cases) of which were sexual assaults. In the report on crimes against sexual freedom and indemnity proposed by the General Directorate of Coordination and Studies of the Secretariat of State for Security of the Ministry of the Interior in 2021, the number of known cases nearly doubled between 2016 and 2021 (17,016 cases), with 81% involving sexual assaults [13]. These data highlight the high prevalence of such crimes and the need to investigate sexual consent in the general population, as well as how it is interpreted in ambiguous situations.

Acts of sexual violence can sometimes be very difficult to detect, as they can be subtle and blur the line between what can and cannot be considered sexual assault. Examples include coercive behaviors, the pressure that a person may exert to get their partner to agree to sex, or whether or not the other person considers these persuasive behaviors as acts of sexual violence [9]. According to the legal definition of consent, these actions can be considered as a form of sexual assault, since the person does not agree to them freely or voluntarily, but rather in the face of coercion by the other person.

Nowadays, sexual violence within couples is difficult to identify, even for the people who experience it, which complicates its study and evaluation. In qualitative research, intimate partner sexual violence was examined in adolescents and young adults using a taxonomy based on the degree of intrusiveness and intensity of the activity [14]. The study revealed that the most frequent form of partner sexual violence was coercion to engage in sexual acts (vaginal, oral or anal) through non-physical but invasive strategies such as insistence, manipulation, or control. When intimate partner sexual violence occurs with a low degree of intrusiveness or force, victims tend to minimize or not recognize the activity as sexual assault. Gender stereotypes play a key role, as many participants are reluctant to refuse sex or feel pressure to meet their partner’s needs, viewing men’s sexual demands as part of “women’s duties” [15]. In other cases, girls feel that they owe their partners sexual activities and agree to them, even if they do not want to, out of obligation or fear of infidelity or breakups, or in an effort to maintain an idealized relationship [14,16].

Some women may interpret the situation differently from reality due to various factors. Wilson and Miller found that 60% of women who experienced sexual violence did not label it as rape, often describing it as “miscommunication” or an “unpleasant experience” [17]. Familiarity with the perpetrator also reduces the likelihood of recognizing the event as assault [18]. Other influencing factors include previous sexual activity with the aggressor, whether the victim and/or the aggressor has consumed substances, beliefs in stereotypes or rape myths, not wanting to admit that a loved one may knowingly commit assault, the aggressor’s tactics, the degree of the victim’s resistance or invasiveness of the sexual act, and uncertainty about the aggressor’s intentions [19,20].

Ambiguity in sexual situations is common among those with less experience, such as young people, who may hold unrealistic views of relationships and be influenced by media that normalizes violent behaviors. One study found that adolescents showed more ambivalence in aggressive situations involving peers, friends, or partners [21]. Media also shapes how consent is learned. In 2019, how consent is accepted or rejected in movie scenes was analyzed [22], drawing on cultivation theory [23] and social learning theory [24]. The first of these theories suggests that repeated exposure to fictional media shapes people’s perceptions of reality, reinforcing unrealistic romantic and sexual norms. On the other hand, the second theory proposes that individuals imitate behaviors they observe—especially when those behaviors lead to positive outcomes. Through this lens, viewers may adopt media portrayals of romance and sex as realistic, influencing their own attitudes and actions [25]. The study found that most consent was depicted nonverbally, reflecting general preferences [3,9].

Sexual consent is a broad, ambiguous and complex concept. How we measure this construct will depend fundamentally on the definition we use. Sexual consent can be understood as not being something static that is given before engaging in sexual activities, but rather as being on a continuum. The Process-Based Consent Scale (PBCS) evaluates this perspective through three dimensions: ongoing consent, subtle coercion, and communicative sexuality [1]. Ongoing consent reflects whether consent is seen as something continuous given over time or as something that is given only once; subtle coercion captures the persuasive tactics used to obtain consent; and communicative sexuality refers to open sexual communication about the partner’s sexual needs. Studies found that only subtle coercion was gender-related and predicted sexual power beliefs linked to rape propensity [1,26], suggesting that tolerating subtle coercion may increase support for sexually violent behaviors [27,28].

The Sexual Consent Scale Revised (SCS-R) is a fairly comprehensive questionnaire on beliefs, attitudes and behaviors in relation to the negotiation of sexual consent, referring to the personal assessment of one’s own behavior, subjective norms and the perception of control over one’s own behavior (locus of control) [10]. Research was conducted to study the relationship between sexual consent and attitudes that support rape and found that men showed less control over their behavior than women, suggesting greater difficulty in establishing consent [27]. This, along with less favorable attitudes, less stringent norms around sexual consent, and greater awareness of consent, was linked to higher rape acceptance and, ultimately, to more violent or aggressive behaviors [28].

Finally, we should take into account that sexual consent varies depending on the context, the interpretation of the language (mostly nonverbal) of the person with whom relations are maintained, and multiple other factors (previous partner relationship, drug use, etc.). For measurement of the ability to understand situations of sexual consent, the Interpretation of sexual consent in complex scenarios (ISCCS) instrument was created to assess how to interpret whether or not consent has been given, through various complex scenarios with different characteristics [29].

The main objective of this study was to analyze the relationship between attitudes, beliefs and behaviors in relation to sexual consent and the interpretation of consent and sexual aggression in various complex scenarios, taking into account several characteristics observed in other studies and discussed above, such as the type of relationship maintained with the other person, whether they are a couple, whether they have just met [2,4], the way consent is expressed, or not, through verbal or nonverbal language [3], the context in which it is given, whether substance abuse or consumption occurs, or whether coercive strategies are used to obtain consent [19,20]. The aim is to explore whether there is any specific characteristic that can help us better identify a situation of consent or sexual assault.

An inverse relationship between subtle coercion factors (PBCS) and correct interpretation of consent and sexual aggression in complex scenarios is expected. Previous research found that behaviors related to the use of coercion or persuasion were associated with more favorable attitudes toward sexual violence, as well as more lax beliefs about sexual consent [1,27]. A direct relationship is expected between the scores for positive attitudes toward consent and the interpretation of complex scenarios, where people with lower scores on this factor had less ability to correctly interpret the scenarios [29].

2. Materials and Methods

This study had a sample of 738 participants from the Spanish general population, of whom 515 were female (69.8%), 211 were male (28.6%), 7 were non-binary (0.9%), and 5 preferred not to answer (0.7%). Age ranged from 18 to 63 years (M = 26.85; SD = 8.93). More than half of the sample had a university degree (54.3%), and 160 had postgraduate studies (master’s, doctorate, etc.) (21.7%), followed by vocational training (12.5%), secondary education (6.5%), and primary education (0.5%).

Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of the sample.

Variable		n	%
Gender	Female	515	69.8
	Male	211	28.6
	Non-binary	7	0.9
	Prefer not to answer	5	0.7
Marital status	Single	281	39.1
	In a relationship	352	47.7
	Common-law partner	18	2.4
	Married	68	9.2
	Divorced	6	0.8
	Widowed	1	0.1
	Divorced with a partner	1	0.1
	Polyamorous	1	0.1
Highest level of education completed	Primary	4	0.5
	Secondary education	48	6.5
	Vocational education	92	12.5
	University degree	401	54.3
	Postgraduate (Master’s, PhD, etc.)	160	21.7
	Other (childhood education, diploma, high school, etc.)	33	4.5
Sexual activity in the relationship	Yes	418	98.4
	No	7	1.6
Age (years)		26.85	8.93
Age at first sexual intercourse		17.14	2.93
Age of partner (if applicable)		29.4	9.97
Length of relationship with current partner (years)		6.33	7.23
Number of sexual partners		Median 4	Mode 1

shows the descriptive statistics for the characteristics of the sample.

In terms of sexual orientation, the majority of the respondents considered themselves exclusively heterosexual (72.8%), followed by predominantly heterosexual with occasional homosexual contact (6.5%), predominantly heterosexual with more homosexual contact (1.6%), exclusively homosexual (4.9%), predominantly homosexual with occasional heterosexual contact, bisexual (10.7%), asexual (1.4%), and others (aromantic: 0.1%; heterosexual, demisexual: 0.1%; unsure: 0.1%). The predominant marital status was living with a partner (47.7%), followed by single (39%), married (9.2%), common-law partner (2.4%), divorced (0.8%), widowed (0.1%), and other type of relationship: polyamorous, for example (0.1%).

The average length of the current relationship was 6 years and 3 months (SD = 7.23), ranging from 0 to 41 years. The average age of the couples was 29 years (SD = 9.98), with the age of the couples ranging between 17 and 66 years. In general, the average age at which they began having sex was 17 years (SD = 2.93). In total, 98.4% said they have sex within their relationship, while 63.8% also say they have sex with other people. The median number of people with whom they have had sex was four.

To select participants for this study, a voluntary sampling approach was used across various social media platforms such as Twitter (X), Instagram, and WhatsApp, in addition to collecting data from university students. Participants were recruited by sharing a link to a questionnaire, which is detailed below. The inclusion criteria were age over 18 years and voluntarily participating. The final sample size was 738, ensuring a significant and representative sample of the general population. This study used a quantitative, non-experimental ex post facto design [30] to examine the relationship between sexual consent and interpretations of complex sexual scenarios regarding such behavior.

An online form was prepared, encompassing sociodemographic questions and the questionnaires specified in the instruments section, as well as informed consent and contact email addresses for those who wished to participate. The link to the questionnaire was disseminated via the social media platforms Twitter (X), Instagram, and WhatsApp, as well as universities. The vast majority of responses were received within the first 2 days of dissemination. Data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 22 software. The study was reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Jaén.

This study used sociodemographic questions (age, level of education, gender, marital status, nationality), as well as other questions relevant to the research such as sexual orientation, age of sexual debut, whether or not the respondent is sexually active within and/or outside of a relationship, the age of the partner, if applicable, the length of the current relationship, and the number of people with whom the respondent has had sexual relations. In addition, questions were asked about behaviors related to sexual consent and sexual assault.

The Sexual Consent Scale is a questionnaire consisting of 40 items, answered on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) [10]. The purpose of this test is to assess attitudes and behaviors regarding the negotiation of sexual consent. The version validated in Spanish has a total of 26 items [31]. It consists of four factors: (lack of) perceived control over behavior, positive attitudes toward consent, indirect behavioral approach to consent, awareness and discussion of sexual consent, and norms regarding sexual consent. The Spanish version of the questionnaire has good reliability for all subscales excluding the factor of awareness and discussion of sexual consent: (lack of) perceived control over behavior, Cronbach’s alpha (α) = 0.85; positive attitudes, α = 0.85; indirect behavioral approach, α = 0.66; and norms about consent, α = 0.7 [32]. In this study, this questionnaire was used in partial form; that is, only the items corresponding to the first two factors were included. This is because previous literature suggests that positive attitudes toward consent and lack of control over behavior are significant predictors of the formation of attitudes toward establishing consent [32], suggesting that these dimensions play a fundamental role in perception and understanding of the need to establish consent in sexual interactions. The α value for the first factor was 0.78, and that for the second factor was 0.84. It also has good construct validity, with significant correlations between scales and external measures [1,10]. Other studies show that this questionnaire has good validity for measuring attitudes toward sexual consent [32,33].

The PBCS questionnaire consists of 17 items, which are scored on a Likert scale with seven response options ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) [1]. It has three factors: continuous consent (five items), which refers to concern towards and perceptions of others regarding the continuous confirmation of sexual consent; subtle coercion (six items), which refers to the use of persuasive or coercive strategies to obtain sexual consent; and communicative sexuality (six items), which refers to openness towards others and one’s own behaviors aimed at communicating sexual consent. The reliability of the scale is good (α = 0.86, α = 0.89, and α = 0.84 for factors 1–3, respectively). It also has good convergent validity with the SCS factors [1], with a positive relationship found between perceived lack of behavioral control and subtle coercion. In this study, the α for the first factor, continuous consent, was 0.89, that for subtle coercion was 0.82, and that for communicative sexuality was 0.81.

The ISCCS questionnaire comprises a series of scenarios for assessing sexual consent and sexual assault, developed by the Yale University Sexual Misconduct Committee through extensive research and qualitative work, as well as input from various groups of university students who evaluated, adapted, and refined the scenarios [29]. It is important to note that, unlike the ISCCS, where the five stories presented involved only heterosexual people, the diversity of sexual orientations has been expanded in the new additions, with two additional stories being incorporated. These scenarios are presented in Appendix A.1 of this paper. All of them present details that allude to behaviors relating to consent, coercion, assault, or drugs, which are highlighted below:

Scenario 1: A heterosexual couple is presented in a situation involving drinking alcohol (there is no consent on the part of the girl, and sexual assault occurs).

Scenario 2: Heterosexual—there is concern that the other person is comfortable in the situation and clear verbal and nonverbal sexual consent during the sexual contact (there is consent and no sexual assault).

Scenario 3: Heterosexual—there is persuasion by the boy, and clear verbal signals from the girl not to continue with the sexual contact. The boy claims that he had reached a point where he could not stop (there is no consent, and there is sexual assault).

Scenario 4: Heterosexual—party setting, where the girl flirts with all the boys and leaves with one of them. Both consent to take off their clothes, she verbally states that she does not consent to sexual intercourse with penetration, the boy ignores her and continues, and she does not physically resist (there is no consent; there is sexual assault).

Scenario 5: Heterosexual—a girl shows non-verbally that she does not want to have sex, the boy responds by walking away, but after a while he tries again and they end up having sex. She remains motionless and simply waits for him to finish (there is no consent; there is sexual assault).

Scenario 6: Homosexual—two girls have known each other for 3 months, and there is consent until one of the girls decides to touch the other’s breasts and genitals; the latter moves away and tells the former verbally that she is not sure. There is persuasion on the part of the first girl, and the second finally consents to have sex (there is no consent; there is sexual assault).

Scenario 7: Homosexual—two boys know each other from work, and one day they go home together. They kiss and caress each other, but one of them pulls away (nonverbal language, no consent). The other boy coerces the first boy into having sex; finally the first boy does not resist having sex (nonverbal language, no consenting behavior—there is no consent; there is sexual assault).

After these seven scenarios, 15 items related to ambiguous sexual situations regarding whether or not there is consent and sexual assault were developed and presented. These items were developed based on a previous qualitative work (unpublished) from our research group, in which we asked “What is sexual activity in which there is no sexual consent?”. The research team grouped responses into emergent general themes and sub-themes. From all sub-themes, 30 sentences were selected, and their degree of ambiguity was measured through a 5-point Likert scale (low ambiguity of consent to high ambiguity of consent), which 15 experts were to judge. The items that the experts judged as more ambiguous were then selected. Ultimately, 15 items with mean scores higher than 3.5 were chosen, as shown in Appendix A.2.

The instructions for both the sexual scenarios and ambiguous situations were as follows: “Read each of the following scenarios/situations and indicate your level of agreement regarding whether you believe that the sex (or sexual activity) that occurred was consensual (meaning that both partners gave their consent to engage in the sexual activity) and whether or not sexual assault occurred, considering the following two response scales”. Consent: 1 = No, the sexual activity was not consensual; 2 = I am not sure; 3 = Yes, the sexual activity was consensual. Sexual assault: 1 = There was sexual assault; 2 = I’m not sure; 3 = There was NO sexual assault.

In further analyses, we classified the chosen option as “correct” or “incorrect”. Considering that the scores from both the complex sexual scenarios and ambiguous sexual situations were not based on composite averages from five-point Likert scales, no reliability values were obtained.

3. Results

Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics (version 22; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). First, descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, minimums, and maximums) were calculated for all sociodemographic variables, and for the subscales of the sexual consent scales (PBCS and SCS). Next, independent-samples t-tests were performed to examine gender differences in PBCS and SCS factors. To assess the relationship between the dimensions of sexual consent (PBCS and SCS) and the interpretation of complex sexual scenarios (ISCCS) and ambiguous sexual situations, participants’ responses were categorized as correct or incorrect. Following prior research, “unsure” responses were coded as incorrect. Comparison of means (Student’s t-test) was then conducted to compare the scores of participants who correctly versus incorrectly interpreted each scenario/situation, across the factors of continuous consent, subtle coercion, communicative sexuality, perceived behavioral control, and positive attitudes toward consent. The level of statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 for all tests.

First, descriptive statistics were generated for the sample and test factors (PBCS and SCS).

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the PBCS and SCS factors.

Scale/Factor	N	Min	Max	M	SD
PBCS_F1 (Ongoing Consent)	728	5	35	33.07	3.61
PBCS_F2 (Subtle Coercion)	728	5	42	9.76	5.02
PBCS_F3 (Communicative Sexuality)	728	7	42	36.91	5.37
SCS_F1 (Perceived Behavioral Control)	740	1	56	16.99	8.22
SCS_F2 (Positive Attitude Toward Consent)	738	9	63	52.59	8.5

Note. N = number of participants; Min = minimum; Max = maximum; M = mean; SD = standard deviation. PBCS = Process-Based Consent Scale; SCS = Sexual Consent Scale.

shows the descriptive statistics obtained for the PBCS and SCS. As can be seen, the mean values were high for Ongoing Consent, Communicative Sexuality and Positive Attitude Toward Consent, indicating that the sample has a very positive attitude towards guaranteeing sexual consent prior to and during sex, as well as being very open to communicating their sexual needs. Aligned with this, lower scores were found for Subtle Coercion and Perceived Behavioral Control. Therefore, the participants do not tend to endorse coercive behavior and do not lack the ability to ask for consent.

The scores for the PBCS, SCS, and sexual scenarios and situations were analyzed according to gender, as the non-binary sample was too small to include in the analysis. Differences were found in the means with respect to gender; for factor 2 of the PBCS questionnaire, the difference was statistically significant, t(377.16) = 3.14 p = 0.002, where males scored higher than females. Following research by Shafer, responses to scenarios such as “I’m not sure” were taken as errors [29].

Table 3. Statistics for responses to complex sexual scenarios and ambiguous situations.

	Consent				Assault
	n	Correct (%)	n	Incorrect (%)	n	Correct (%)	n	Incorrect (%)
Scenario 1 “heterosexual, alcohol, passed out, assault”	697	99.3	5	0.7	709	97.3	20	2.7
Scenario 2 “heterosexual, party, verbal and nonverbal language of consent”	726	99.5	4	0.5	689	99.3	5	0.7
Scenario 3 “heterosexual, established couple, non-consensual verbal language, continuous sexual activity”	483	68.8	221	31.4	657	90.7	67	9.3
Scenario 4 “heterosexual, party setting, non-consensual verbal language, no resistance”	631	89.5	74	10	660	91	65	9
Scenario 5 “heterosexual, non-consensual non-verbal language, relationships, no action”	554	78.8	149	21.2	542	74.9	182	25.1
Scenario 6 “homosexual, they know each other, coercion, finally consents”	147	50.4	572	79.6	156	22.2	547	77.8
Scenario 7 “homosexual, non-consensual non-verbal language, coercion”	368	51.2	351	48.8	302	42.5	409	57.5
Situation 1 “Suddenly engaging in sexual activity without warning	546	76.7	166	23.3	437	62.3	265	37.7
Situation 2 “While one partner sleeps, the other touches them and has sexual intercourse”	614	86.7	94	13.3	538	75.6	174	24.4
Situation 3 “One partner removing the condom during sex without warning”	590	84.2	111	15	623	87.4	90	12.6
Situation 4 “In a stable relationship, one person doesn’t feel like it, but the other insists and they end up having sex”	350	49.2	361	50.8	298	42.3	406	57.7
Situation 5 “One person doesn’t feel like it, but the other insists and they end up having sex”	205	28.7	509	71.3	185	26.5	514	73.5
Situation 6 “You want to have sex, but not the activities or positions you are currently engaging in.”	229	32.6	474	67.4	141	20.3	553	79.7
Situation 7 “While dancing at a nightclub, a stranger touches another person’s buttocks.”	691	99.1	6	0.9	649	90.1	71	9.9
Situation 8 “Verbally indicate that you do not want to have sex and that the other person should not continue.”	696	99	7	1	702	97.1	21	2.9
Situation 9 “Agreeing to have sex and forcing the other person to perform oral sex even if they do not want to”	627	88.7	80	11.3	679	93.9	44	6.1
Situation 10 “Having sex when someone is very drunk or high on drugs”	634	89.3	76	10.3	637	88.2	85	11.8
Situation 11 “Ejaculation on the other person’s body during sexual activity”	74	11.1	595	88.9	60	9	605	91
Situation 12 “Continue initially agreed activity even if someone arrives home and it feels uncomfortable.”	447	63.2	260	36.8	371	53.3	325	46.7
Situation 13 “Continue sexual intercourse despite pain indicated by partner, nonverbal”	352	50	352	50	411	58.5	291	41.5
Situation 14 “Hugging the person tightly, with touching of the chest and/or genitals”	310	45.1	378	54.9	253	36.7	437	63.3
Situation 15 “Masturbating next to your partner because they don’t feel like having sex”	292	42.5	395	57.5	201	29	491	71

shows the frequencies of responses to each complex sexual scenario and ambiguous situation. Items with a response frequency lower than 12% were omitted from the analysis.

Table 4. Results of Student’s t-test of the interpretation of complex scenarios and ambiguous situations.

			PBCS 1		PBCS 2		PBCS 3		SCS 1		SCS 2
			M (DT)	t	M (DT)	t	M (DT)	t	M (DT)	T	M (DT)	t
Story 3 “heterosexual, established, non-consensual verbal language, ongoing sexual activity”	Consent	Correct	33.31 (3.42)	2.12 (*)	9.16 (4.59)	−4 (***)	37.18 (5.18)	1.54	16.58 (7.51)	−1.41	53.55 (7.66)	3.73 (***)
		Incorrect	32.71 (3.58)		10.92 (5.26)		36.52 (5.3)		17.60 (9.43)		50.83 (9.5)
Story 5 “heterosexual, non-consensual non-verbal language, sexual activity, no action”	Consent	Correct	33.48 (3.06)	4.09 (***)	9.08 (4.53)	−5.47 (***)	37.67 (5.03)	3.41 (***)	16.32 (7.61)	−3.16 (**)	53.82 (7.35)	5.74 (***)
		Incorrect	31.98 (4.17)		11.74 (5.42)		35.53 (5.99)		19 (9.54)		48.63 (10.37)
	Assault	Correct	33.39 (3.43)	3.49 (***)	9.16 (4.75)	−4.87 (***)	37.29 (5.11)	2.71 (**)	16.56 (7.8)	−2.15 (*)	53.89 (7.48)	5.86 (***)
		Incorrect	32.27 (3.86)		11.27 (5.12)		35.98 (5.77)		18.2 (9.23)		49.22 (9.84)
Story 6 “homosexual, meeting, coercion, finally consents”	Consent	Correct	33.66 (3.5)	2.01 (*)	8.35 (4.96)	−3.73 (***)	37.57 (5.59)	1.55	16.59 (7.48)	−0.54	54.58 (7.7)	3.08 (**)
		Incorrect	33.03 (3.3)		10.01 (4.74)		36.81 (5.2)		16.97 (8.32)		52.21 (8.44)
	Assault	Correct	33.67 (3.44)	1.98 (*)	8.29 (4.73)	−3.97 (***)	37.49 (5.59)	1.44	16.99 (7.92)	0.27	54.79 (7.5)	3.3 (***)
		Incorrect	33.04 (3.47)		10.03 (4.92)		36.79 (5.24)		16.79 (8.15)		52.33 (8.4)
Story 7 “homosexual, non-consensual non-verbal language, coercion”	Consent	Correct	33.69 (2.87)	4.46 (***)	8.69 (4.28)	−5.68 (***)	37.4 (5.17)	2.33 (*)	16.49 (7.01)	−1.45	53.79 (7.09)	3.82 (***)
		Incorrect	32.56 (4.01)		10.78 (5.42)		36.45 (5.59)		17.38 (9.12)		51.39 (9.52)
	Assault	Correct	33.53 (3.48)	2.45 (**)	8.36 (4.25)	−6.41 (***)	37.39 (5.14)	1.82	16.55 (7.22)	−1.22	54.12 (7.32)	3.96 (***)
		Incorrect	32.9 (3.22)		10.61 (5.01)		36.66 (5.25)		17.29 (8.86)		51.7 (8.93)
Situation 1 “suddenly engaging in a sexual act without warning”	Consent	Correct	33.66 (3.5)	2.01 (*)	8.35 (4.96)	−3.73 (***)	37.57 (5.59)	1.55	16.59 (7.48)	−0.54	54.58 (7.7)	3.08 (**)
		Incorrect	33.03 (3.3)		10.01 (4.74)		36.81 (5.2)		16.97 (8.32)		52.21 (8.44)
	Assault	Correct	33.67 (3.44)	1.98 (*)	8.29 (4.73)	−3.97 (***)	37.49 (5.59)	1.44	16.99 (7.92)	0.27	54.79 (7.5)	3.3 (***)
		Incorrect	33.04 (3.47)		10.03 (4.92)		36.79 (5.24)		16.79 (8.15)		52.33 (8.4)
Situation 2 “While one partner sleeps, the other touches them and has sexual intercourse.”	Consent	Correct	33.69 (2.87)	4.46 (***)	8.69 (4.28)	−5.68 (***)	37.4 (5.17)	2.33 (*)	16.49 (7.01)	−1.45	53.79 (7.09)	3.82 (***)
		Incorrect	32.56 (4.01)		10.78 (5.42)		36.45 (5.59)		17.38 (9.12)		51.39 (9.52)
	Assault	Correct	33.53 (3.48)	2.45 (**)	8.36 (4.25)	−6.41 (***)	37.39 (5.14)	1.82	16.55 (7.22)	−1.22	54.12 (7.32)	3.96 (***)
		Incorrect interpretation	32.9 (3.22)		10.61 (5.01)		36.66 (5.25)		17.29 (8.86)		51.7 (8.93)
Situation 3 “One partner removing the condom during sex without warning.”	Consent	Correct	33.26 (3.31)	2.23	9.45 (4.57)	−1.51	37.09 (5.24)	0.9	16.76 (7.91)	−0.04	53.08 (8.18)	1.71
		Incorrect	32.46 (4.13)		10.33 (5.75)		36.6 (5.08)		16.79 (9.05)		51.61 (8.65)
	Assault	Correct	33.3 (3.36)	2.89 (**)	9.31 (4.77)	−3.93 (***)	37.1 (5.39)	2.37 (*)	16.85 (8.21)	−0.5	53.05 (8.36)	2.61 (**)
		Incorrect	31.96 (4.24)		11.56 (5.11)		35.67 (5.23)		17.31 (8.22)		50.57 (8.82)
Situation 4 “In a stable relationship, one person doesn’t feel like it, but the other insists and they end up having sex.”	Consent	Correct	33.37 (3.36)	1.87	8.6 (4.32)	−5.79 (***)	37.07 (5.24)	0.38	17.62 (6.34)	−2.78 (**)	54.03 (7.18)	3.44 (***)
		Incorrect	32.87 (3.63)		10.7 (5.26)		36.91 (5.34)		15.98 (9.41)		51.45 (9.23)
	Assault	Correct	33.44 (3.52)	1.82	8.39 (4.15)	−6.01 (***)	37.36 (5.48)	1.58	17.56 (7.28)	1.78	54.5 (6.96)	4.98 (***)
		Incorrect	32.98 (3.12)		10.5 (5.07)		36.72 (5.12)		16.48 (8.82)		51.56 (9.21)
Situation 5 “One person doesn’t feel like it, but the other insists and they end up having sex.”	Consent	Correct	33.66 (3.23)	2.9 (**)	8.27 (4.33)	−5.23 (***)	37.2 (5.17)	0.81	17.27 (7.02)	0.96	54.28 (7.1)	3.55 (***)
		Incorrect	32.84 (3.72)		10.27 (5.08)		36.84 (5.38)		16.68 (8.49)		52.04 (8.76)
	Assault	Correct	33.31 (4.08)	0.79	8.24 (4.58)	−4.71 (***)	37.55 (5.37)	1.77	17.32 (7.36)	0.72	54.18 (7.47)	2.87 (**)
		Incorrect	33.08 (3.1)		10.14 (4.81)		36.73 (5.29)		16.85 (8.51)		52.26 (8.68)
Situation 6 “You want to have sex, but not the activities or positions you are currently engaging in.”	Consent	Correct	33.22 (3.96)	0.87	9 (4.36)	−2.84 (**)	36.72 (5.87)	−0.57	17.2 (7.43)	0.77	54.24 (7.42)	3.49 (***)
		Incorrect	32.96 (3.48)		10.07 (5.19)		36.97 (5.11)		16.72 (8.46)		52.04 (8.52)
	Assault	Correct	33.42 (4.09)	1.06	8.5 (4.33)	−3.37 (***)	37.65 (5.16)	1.7	17.02 (8.54)	0.19	54.72 (7.81)	3.03 (**)
		Incorrect interpretation	33.08 (3.22)		9.32 (4.91)		36.8 (5.28)		16.88 (8.16)		52.36 (8.35)
Situation 14 “hugging tightly while rubbing genitals”	Consent	Correct	33.39 (3.22)	2.08 (*)	9.05 (4.19)	−3.13 (**)	37.28 (4.99)	1.66	17.03 (8.14)	0.18	53.8 (7.84)	2.81 (**)
		Incorrect	32.83 (3.72)		10.2 (5.34)		36.59 (5.58)		16.91 (8.25)		52.04 (8.35)
	Assault	Correct	33.63 (3)	3.03 (**)	8.76 (4.04)	−4.19 (***)	37.48 (4.93)	2.14 (*)	16.85 (8.37)	−0.23	54.44 (7.36)	3.99 (***)
		Incorrect	32.83 (3.82)		10.31 (5.53)		36.57 (5.55)		17 (8.09)		51.95 (8.73)
Situation 15 “Masturbating next to your partner when they don’t feel like having sex”	Consent	Correct	33.14 (3.78)	0.08	9.01 (4.44)	−3.04 (**)	36.53 (5.88)	−1.89	17.46 (8.51)	1.48	53.48 (8.23)	1.58
		Incorrect	33.12 (3)		10.14 (5.16)		37.33 (4.73)		16.52 (7.95)		52.5 (7.97)
	Assault	Correct	33.39 (3.47)	1.16	8.47 (3.83)	−4.82 (***)	36.86 (5.37)	−0.56	17.31 (8.06)	0.68	54.28 (7.55)	2.79 (**)
		Incorrect	33.06 (3.37)		10.24 (5.38)		37.11 (5.22		16.84 (8.34)		52.37 (8.43)
Situation 12 “Continue initially agreed activity if someone arrives home and feels uncomfortable.”	Consent	Correct	33.35 (3.42)	2.42 (*)	9.19 (4.56)	−3.57 (***)	37.24 (5.13)	1.62	16.75 (7.86)	−0.48	53.64 (7.43)	3.55 (***)
		Incorrect	32.63 (3.93)		10.68 (5.72)		36.54 (5.64)		17.07 (8.53)		51.18 (9.59)
	Assault	Correct	33.57 (3.23)	3.39 (***)	8.6 (4.28)	−6.11 (***)	37.57 (4.94)	3.05 (**)	16.26 (7.76)	−2.38 (*)	54.2 (7.43)	4.7 (***)
		Incorrect	32.69 (3.55)		10.86 (5.3)		36.33 (5.62)		17.75 (8.7)		51.2 (9.17)
Situation 13 “Continue sexual intercourse despite pain indicated by partner, nonverbal”	Consent	Correct	33.49 (3.3)	2.89 (**)	8.95 (4.43)	−4.2 (***)	37.47 (5.06)	2.45 (*)	16.78 (7.3)	−0.46	54.28 (6.97)	4.67 (***)
		Incorrect	32.71 (3.78)		10.54 (5.47)		36.49 (5.51)		17.06 (8.98)		51.45 (8.93)
	Assault	Correct	33.49 (3.03)	3.14 (**)	8.92 (4.24)	−4.86 (***)	37.42 (5.06)	2.77 (**)	17.01 (7.82)	−0.08	54.02 (7.36)	4.43 (***)
		Incorrect	32.64 (3.82)		10.83 (5.59)		36.27 (5.6)		17.06 (8.93)		51.2 (8.96)

Note: M = mean; SD = standard deviation; PBCS F1: Continuous consent; PBCS F2: Subtle coercion; PBCS F3: Communicative sexuality; SCS F1: (Lack of) perceived control; SCS F2: Positive attitude toward consent. (***) p ≤ 0.001; (**) p ≤ 0.01; (*) p ≤ 0.05

shows the results of Student’s t-test, which was used to compare the means of the scale factors between the group that interpreted the complex scenarios and situations correctly and that which did not.

Table 3 shows the number and percentage of participants who responded correctly versus incorrectly. Overall, the scenarios involving extreme conditions (e.g., unconsciousness due to alcohol, Scenario 1; and clear verbal consent, Scenario 2) have very high rates of correct classifications, with percentages exceeding 97% for both consent and assault judgments. In contrast, scenarios characterized by passive non-resistance, subtle coercion, or ambiguous partner behavior (e.g., Scenarios 5–7 and Situations 4–6 and 12–15) show lower levels of accuracy, with error rates exceeding 30% in some cases. Ambiguous situations such as condom removal without warning (Situation 3), persistence despite refusal (Situations 4–5), and continuation despite signs of pain (Situation 13) also show considerable variability, indicating that some participants struggled to consistently identify these cases as non-consensual or as sexual assault.

Based on Table 4, across multiple items, participants who provided correct responses had higher means for continuous consent, communicative sexuality, and positive attitudes toward consent, and lower means for subtle coercion and lack of perceived behavioral control. For example, in Scenario 3 (an established couple where verbal refusal was ignored), correct responders scored significantly lower on subtle coercion and higher on positive attitudes toward consent, with large effect sizes. Similarly, in ambiguous situations such as persistence in a stable relationship (Situation 4) or continuing despite nonverbal signs of pain (Situation 13), significant differences were observed in favor of correct responders, indicating more favorable consent-related attitudes and behaviors. Significance levels ranged from p < 0.05 to p < 0.001, with many comparisons reaching high levels of statistical significance. The results highlight a consistent pattern across both types of measures: correct interpretation of scenarios was strongly associated with endorsement of continuous and communicative models of consent, and with rejection of coercive strategies.

4. Discussion

The importance of sexual consent in contemporary society has grown significantly, with recognition of the need to explore in depth the complexities inherent in sexual interactions. Although from a legal perspective consent may seem clear, its interpretation is influenced by a series of nuances that must be considered when analyzing specific situations. The main objective of this study was to analyze how attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors toward sexual consent can influence the interpretation (for better or worse) of consent and sexual assault in various complex sexual scenarios, and in the context of ambiguous situations and different characteristics.

Among the findings of the study, significant differences were found with regard to the subtle coercion dimension of the PBCS. In line with previous studies, the male sample in this study scored statistically significantly higher on this subscale than the female sample [1,27]. However, this study has a larger female sample than male sample. Taking this into account, no gender differences were found in the other dimensions. This suggests that gender influences the behavioral strategies used to obtain consent from another person, which could indicate that there is an association between the use of persuasion and coercion and a higher risk of aggressive and sexually violent behavior [1,9,28].

Among the various nuances arising in the scenarios, one of the most notable is the party context and presence of alcohol. In contrast to the existing literature [19,20], in this study, there seems to be a clearer interpretation, by both men and women, of these situations, in cases of both assault and non-consent (with correct response rates of 97–99%). This points to a strong social consensus that consent cannot be valid under these conditions. On the other hand, another key finding is a predisposition to ask for less consent when there is already an established relationship [4,32]. In addition, there seems to be greater difficulty in accurately interpreting scenarios when a person does not react or do anything in response to the situation, despite not giving consent and expressing that they do not want to continue with the activity through nonverbal language. Previous studies have reported similar responses, in which participants interpreted a response of “no opposition” as consent [2]. This type of behavioral response is understood as a non-consensual act, since there is no internal consent (or, if present, only a low level of consent) [7].

Our study has the following implications regarding ambiguous or relationally complex situations, where the error rates increased notably. For example, in scenarios involving established couples where one partner is insistent despite the other’s refusal, the error rates reached 25–30%. In cases involving subtle coercion or pressured consent, errors were also frequent, suggesting difficulties in recognizing the impact of pressure and power dynamics on the validity of consent. In other cases, such as removing a condom without warning or continuing despite nonverbal signs of pain, the error rates were 10–20%, showing that not everyone identifies these behaviors as assault.

Overall, those who responded correctly scored higher on measures of continuous consent, communicative sexuality, and positive attitudes toward consent (PBCS and SCS), while incorrect responders had more difficulty in detecting subtle coercion and less accurate perceptions of control within sexual interactions.

Taken together, our results demonstrate that while there is a good understanding of extreme cases of non-consent (unconsciousness, sleep, intoxication), “gray areas” lead to confusion and normalization. This aligns with prior research indicating that sexual myths, power imbalances in relationships, and social pressure all contribute to difficulties in recognizing coercion. The high error rates in stable relationship contexts reflect the persistence of traditional beliefs, where prior consent or an intimate bond is assumed to grant an “implicit right” to sex. This is particularly problematic as it obscures forms of sexual violence within intimate partnerships. The difficulty in identifying practices such as emotional manipulation, persistent insistence, or stealthing (removing a condom without agreement) as forms of assault suggests the need for comprehensive sexual education that emphasizes consent as a continuous and dynamic process rather than a one-time agreement.

Furthermore, the results suggest that individuals with more positive attitudes toward consent and a communicative approach to sexuality are better able to recognize non-consent in ambiguous cases. This implies that educational interventions must address not only knowledge but also the underlying attitudes and beliefs that shape how these situations are interpreted.

In sum, the data reveal that the main challenge is not extreme scenarios, but rather situations involving subtle coercion, emotional pressure, or relational dynamics where the absence of consent masquerades as “normality.”

In general, the results support the initial hypotheses: those who have a more negative attitude toward establishing sexual consent and are more open to the use of coercive strategies tend to misinterpret the situations presented [29]. These types of beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors have been associated with attitudes that more openly support rape and the use of violent behavior [1,26,27].

5. Limitations

Although this study provides results regarding the interpretation of complex scenarios, the various inherent characteristics, and their relationship with the scores on sexual consent questionnaires, there are clearly several limitations to consider when interpreting the results. The main limitation of the design is that it is not possible to experimentally manipulate the variables, which is a barrier to establishing causal relationships between the elements, such that only the relationships between variables are referred to. Another factor to consider is the lack of control of external variables that may have affected the results, such as fatigue, a lack of responses, or loss of data, given that a self-reported test was used. There was little information about past sexual experiences and, given the nature of the subject matter, there is a possibility of social desirability bias in the responses. On the other hand, in this particular sample, despite the wide age range, the sample is unbalanced in terms of gender. This is also the case with sexuality, as most participants identify as heterosexual, which does not allow for comparison with sexual minorities. These types of problems are common in research on sexuality issues.

It is important to continue researching consent and how the general population understands it in order to establish protocols for the early identification of negative behaviors, beliefs, and attitudes toward sexual consent, as well as to intervene to prevent sexual assault. Knowing how people identify different situations can be useful in designing strategies to improve interpersonal relationships and identifying common ground that can guide awareness on the importance and power of consent, as well as establishing good practices in relationships, partnerships, and/or sexual relationships.

For all these reasons, future studies should focus on replicating our results with a more heterogeneous and balanced sample, or on gender and sexual minorities as this is a little-explored area. In addition, based on the results, research should be conducted to determine whether there are differences in the interpretation of the scenarios depending on the sexuality of the characters presented, or whether some other characteristic may be contributing to poorer performance on the task.

6. Conclusions

This study reaffirms the critical role of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors in the interpretation of sexual consent, revealing a significant gap between legal definitions and practical understanding in complex social scenarios. A key finding is that men are more likely to endorse subtle coercion to obtain consent, a behavior associated with a higher risk of sexual aggression.

This research highlights that while contexts involving parties and alcohol are often seen as ambiguous, the participants in this study demonstrated a clearer interpretation of assault and non-consent in such situations than previously suggested. However, a concerning finding is the persistent difficulty in correctly interpreting passive or non-verbal cues of refusal, with a lack of opposition often being misconstrued as consent. This is particularly prevalent in established relationships, where there appears to be a lower perceived need to seek explicit consent. Overall, the study supports the hypothesis that individuals with negative attitudes toward seeking sexual consent and a greater acceptance of coercive strategies are more prone to misinterpreting sexual scenarios. These beliefs are linked to attitudes that are more tolerant of sexual violence.

Therefore, the study concludes that there is a pressing need for continued research with more diverse and representative samples to better understand how different populations interpret sexual consent. Such research is vital for developing effective educational protocols and preventative measures against sexual assault. By identifying common misinterpretations and the underlying attitudes that drive them, society can better formulate strategies to promote healthier interpersonal and sexual relationships grounded in the clear and enthusiastic communication of consent.