Judgments about sexual assault vary depending on whether an affirmative consent policy or a “no means no” policy is applied

Affirmative consent (AC) policies require potential sexual partners to clearly and positively confirm that they want to engage in sexual behavior – in contrast to standard “no means no” policies, which typically define consent through resistance. AC policies might not be effective because they do not align well with typical scripts of how consent is given in practice. This study aims to compare participants’ judgments as to what constitutes sexual assault, using either an AC policy or a standard “no means no” policy.,Participants read 16 scenarios depicting various male-female sexual encounters and applied either an AC or a standard “no means no” policy to determine whether the encounter was consensual.,When an AC policy was used, participants were more likely to judge the scenario as sexual assault. Aspects of the scenario (which reflect AC policy criteria), such as the type of communication (verbal or nonverbal), clarity of communication (clear or unclear) and resistance (high or low) also affected judgments of the scenario. Relationship type (stranger vs acquaintance) did not affect judgments. Students were more likely to perceive the scenarios as sexual assault than community members; they also perceived differences between scenarios based on verbal communication and clarity more than community members. Finally, there was no main effect of participant gender, however, men perceived differences between scenarios based on verbal communication type, whereas women did not.,Findings indicate that participants are generally able to apply AC policies correctly, even though AC criteria do not generally align with common sexual scripts.,This is the first study known to test whether decision-makers can properly apply criteria outlined in AC policies and whether the application of these policies affect decisions-makers judgments as to whether a sexual encounter is consensual or assault.