Reducing Rape Myth Acceptance and Increasing Consent Education: Evaluating the Yes Means Yes Consent Approach

Event Center BC

Any type of sexual activity acquired without consent, forced, or while intoxicated is an act of sexual assault (Jozkowski & Peterson, 2013). On college campuses, sexual assault is becoming increasingly problematic among heterosexual and LGBT populations, with rates ranging from 11.4% to 37.8% (Ford & SotoMarquez, 2016). Unfortunately, only 7% of sexual assault incidents on college campuses are reported to a school official, and most incidents go unreported by the victims (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2016). Cultural norms and legal standards often reflect the No Means No (NMN) approach, which emphasizes presence or the absence of a “no” in consent. In 2014, California enacted affirmative consent legislation, similar to the Yes Means Yes (YMY) model of consent. Due to the emphasis of consent from both partners, the YMY model can lead to better communication and shared responsibility, unlike the victim-blaming NMN approach (Lafrance et al., 2012). According to Miscommunication Theory (Jozkowski, 2015), non-consensual and/or assaultive sex can result from confusion surrounding sexual consent and its definition (e.g., obtaining consent, continuous consent during sexual encounter). Utilizing this theory to increase education on the confusion of consent, rape myth acceptance (RMA), and rape culture may reduce the prevalence of sexual assault. Implementing sexual consent awareness programs among college campuses, specifically those that include discussions based on real life scenarios, have resulted in increased knowledge of consent among students (Borges et al., 2008). Moreover, peer-led programs have proven to be more effective in educating students on sexual assault within college campuses (Simon, 1993). The purpose of our study is to determine if the YMY intervention would influence individuals’ attitudes about sexual consent more than a NMN approach. We hypothesized that a YMY intervention would produce significant changes in attitudes toward consent whereas a NMN intervention would not. Results indicated unique findings that were unexpected, some of which suggest that there could be unintended positive effects from the NMN presentation.