Token Resistance to Sex Scale

Abstract

The Token Resistance to Sex Scale (TRSS), developed by Suzanne L. Osman in 1995, is a specialized psychological instrument designed to quantify an individual’s predispositional belief in Token Resistance (TR). This belief posits that women may verbally decline sexual advances (saying “no”) while internally desiring sexual engagement (meaning “yes”). The scale is crucial because the concept of Token Resistance is a significant determinant in the perception and outcome judgments of situations such as Date Rape and Sexual Harassment.

Unlike prior research that often treated this belief as a dependent variable, the TRSS measures it as an independent variable, focusing on situational factors associated with this disposition. The TRSS is a concise measure comprising eight items rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale, with total scores ranging from 8 to 56. Higher scores indicate a stronger belief in the use of token resistance.

Keywords

Token Resistance, Sexual Beliefs, Date Rape Perceptions, Sexual Harassment, Hypermasculinity, Sexual Attitudes, Likert Scale, Psychological Measurement.

Authors

Suzanne L. Osman (Salisbury University)

Purpose

The primary purpose of the TRSS is to quantitatively assess the strength of an individual’s inherent belief that women employ Token Resistance—a phenomenon where verbal refusal of sex is interpreted as a coy invitation or desire for non-consensual activity. This scale addresses the need for a measure that captures this predispositional attitude, which has been documented as a key factor influencing judgments in cases of sexual aggression.

By framing the belief in Token Resistance as a predispositional measure (an independent variable), the scale enables researchers to predict perceptions related to sexual aggression, such as judgments regarding Date Rape and Sexual Harassment. The items specifically examine situational factors that individuals with this belief system tend to associate with non-genuine refusal.

Construct

The core psychological construct measured by the TRSS is the Belief in Token Resistance. This construct reflects a set of cognitive biases or schemas related to gender roles and sexual interactions, specifically the expectation that female sexual communication is indirect, misleading, or dishonest. This belief system is highly correlated with traditional, restrictive, and aggressive sexual attitudes.

A high score on the TRSS indicates a strong endorsement of rape myths surrounding female sexuality and refusal, linking this predisposition to specific interpretations of resistance (verbal vs. physical) in sexually aggressive scenarios. Research has demonstrated that this belief system is a critical factor in determining how individuals, particularly men, perceive the legitimacy and severity of Date Rape and Sexual Harassment.

Validity

The validity of the TRSS has been extensively supported across multiple studies, demonstrating strong construct validity and predictive utility regarding perceptions of sexual aggression.

Construct Validity: High scores on the TRSS consistently correlate with weaker perceptions of the severity or occurrence of Date Rape. The TRSS has been shown to correlate significantly with established measures, including Burt’s (1980) Sex Role Stereotyping Scale (r = .28) and Mosher and Sirkin’s (1984) Hypermasculinity Inventory. Notably, the correlation was strongest with the Callous Sexual Attitudes subscale (r = .60), supporting the idea that the TRSS measures a component of sexist attitudes regarding sexual consent. Furthermore, correlations were found with all five subscales of Muehlenhard and Felts’s (1998) Sexual Beliefs Scale, including Token Refusal and Women Like Force, confirming its theoretical alignment.

Predictive Utility: The TRSS demonstrates robust predictive power in experimental settings. Men with higher TRSS scores, when evaluating date rape scenarios, prioritized nonverbal cues of sexual availability (e.g., provocative clothing, location, timing of protest) over explicit verbal refusals. Conversely, men with lower scores were more sensitive to the victim’s verbal statements. This predictive distinction was also evident in resistance type: men with stronger beliefs were less certain that rape occurred when resistance was only verbal, but men with weaker beliefs were certain that rape occurred regardless of the type of resistance offered (verbal or physical). This utility extends to the perception of Sexual_harassment, where higher TRSS scores correlate with weaker perceptions of harassment severity.

Reliability

The Token Resistance to Sex Scale exhibits high internal consistency across various samples, confirming its stability as a measurement instrument. The initial reliability coefficient, established in a sample of 81 college men (Osman, 1995), yielded a Cronbach alpha coefficient of .86.

Subsequent research involving larger and more diverse samples, including both men and women (n’s ranging from 131 to 541), consistently replicated this high level of internal reliability. Across these multiple studies (Osman, 2003, 2004, 2007b; Osman & Davis, 1997, 1999a, 1999b), the Cronbach alpha for the TRSS has consistently fallen within the acceptable range of .83 to .87, demonstrating excellent internal consistency.

Factor Analysis

While explicit documentation of detailed factor analysis (Exploratory or Confirmatory) is not provided in the source summary, the scale is designed and scored as a unidimensional measure of the belief construct. The consistently high internal reliability suggests a strong factor structure.

The structure, consisting of eight items keyed uniformly in the same direction, and the consistent high internal reliability (Cronbach alpha > .83) across various studies strongly suggest that all items converge effectively to measure the singular, underlying construct of the Belief in Token Resistance.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report scale measuring predispositional beliefs/attitudes.

Format: 8 items arranged on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree). Scores range from 8 to 56.

Language Available: English (Original).

Population Group: College students and adults.

Age Group: Typically college-age (18+) and adult populations.

Population Details: Initial validation was conducted on college men (n=81). Subsequent studies included both male and female college students (n’s up to 541).

Test Methodology: Self-administered paper-and-pencil or digital format. Completion time is rapid, typically less than 5 minutes.

Keywords

Sexual Consent, Rape Myths, Sexual Violence, Gender Stereotyping, Predisposition, Psychological Scale, Sexual Communication, Victim Blaming.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not specified in source material.

Affiliation Email addresses: [email protected]

Correspondence Address: Suzanne L. Osman, Department of Psychology, Salisbury University, Salisbury, MD 21801.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was first developed and presented in 1995 (Osman, 1995). The TRSS is primarily used in academic research. Specific licensing or fee requirements are typically determined by the author for academic use. Researchers should contact the corresponding author, Suzanne L. Osman, for formal permissions and usage rights.

Reference’s

Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217–230.

Mosher, D. L., & Sirkin, M. (1984). Measuring a macho personality con- stellation. Journal of Research in Personality, 18, 150–163.

Muehlenhard, C. L., & Felts, A. S. (1998). Sexual Beliefs Scale. In C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, R. Bauserman, G. Shreer, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 116–118). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Muehlenhard, C. L., Friedman, D. E., & Thomas, C. M. (1985). Is date rape justifiable? The effects of dating activity, who initiated, who paid, and men’s attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 297–309.

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, 872–879.

Muehlenhard, C. L., & Linton, M. A. (1987). Date rape and sexual aggression in dating situations: Incidence and risk factors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 186–196.

Osman, S. L. (1995, April). Predispositional and situational factors influencing men’s perceptions of date rape. Paper presented at the Eastern Regional Meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality, Atlantic City, NJ.

Osman, S. L. (2003). Predicting men’s rape perceptions based on the belief that “no” really means “yes.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 683–692.

Osman, S. L. (2004). Victim resistance: Theory and data on understanding perceptions of sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 50, 267–275.

Osman, S. L. (2007a). The continuation of perpetrator behaviors that influence perceptions of sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 56, 63–69.

Osman, S. L. (2007b). Predicting perceptions of sexual harassment based on type of resistance and belief in token resistance. The Journal of Sex Research, 44, 340–346.

Osman, S. L., & Davis, C. M. (1997). Predicting men’s perceptions of date rape using the heuristic-systematic model. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 22, 25–32.

Osman, S. L., & Davis, C. M. (1999a). Belief in token resistance and type of resistance as predictors of men’s perceptions of date rape. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 24, 189–196.

Osman, S. L. & Davis, C. M. (1999b). Predicting perceptions of date rape based on individual beliefs and female alcohol consumption. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 701–709.

Shotland, R. L., & Goodstein, L. (1983). Just because she doesn’t want to doesn’t mean it’s rape: An experimental based causal model of the perception of rape in a dating situation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 220–232.

Items of the Token Resistance to Sex Scale

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

Respond to the following statements by indicating the degree to which you agree or disagree with the statement. Respond using the following scale for each statement.

• 1 = Strongly Disagree
• 2 = Disagree
• 3 = Slightly Disagree
• 4 = Undecided, Neither Agree nor Disagree 5 = Slightly Agree
• 6 = Agree
• 7 = Strongly Agree

1. Women usually say “no” to sex when they really mean “yes.”

2. When a man only has to use a minimal amount of force on a woman to get her to have sex, it probably means she wanted him to force her.

3. When a woman waits until the very last minute to object to sex in a sexual interaction, she probably really wants to have sex.

4. A woman who initiates a date with a man probably wants to have sex.

5. Many times a woman will pretend she doesn’t want to have intercourse because she doesn’t want to seem too loose, but she’s really hoping the man will force her.

6. A woman who allows a man to pick her up for a date probably hopes to have sex that night.

7. When a woman allows a man to treat her to an expensive dinner on a date, it usually indicates that she is willing to have sex with him.

8. Going home with a man at the end of a date is a woman’s way of communicating to him that she wants to have sex.