Tactics to Obtain Sex Scale

Abstract

The Tactics to Obtain Sex Scale (TOSS; Camilleri, Quinsey, & Tapscott, 2009) is a specialized psychometric self-report instrument designed to evaluate an individual’s acute, current propensity to employ either seductive, benign strategies (sexual coaxing) or manipulative, forceful strategies (sexual coercion) to secure sexual intercourse with an intimate partner following initial refusal. In contrast to retrospective behavioral inventories such as the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2; Straus et al., 1996) or the Sexual Coercion in Intimate Relationships Scale (SCIRS; Shackelford & Goetz, 2004)—which capture historical or static frequencies of past behavior—the TOSS conceptualizes sexual compliance strategies as temporally variable, dynamic psychological states. Grounded in sexual conflict theory, evolutionary psychology, and contemporary risk-assessment paradigms (Quinsey et al., 2006), the scale assesses behavioral intentions across a hypothetical refractory scenario in which a romantic partner declines sexual intimacy.

The instrument is structured around two distinct, empirically validated latent dimensions: Sexual Coercion (COERCE; comprising physical force, emotional manipulation, intoxication-facilitated acts, and explicit threats) and Sexual Coaxing (COAX; comprising verbal flattery, romantic inducements, non-coercive physical affection, and negotiation). Across normative collegiate, community, and forensic samples, the TOSS demonstrates robust internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients regularly ranging from .87 to .89 for the Coercion subscale, .92 to .93 for the Coaxing subscale, and .90 to .91 for the omnibus measure. Construct, convergent, and discriminant validity analyses demonstrate that coercive propensity is significantly associated with clinical psychopathy, antisociality, rape myth acceptance, and perceived mate infidelity cues (cuckoldry risk), while remaining dissociable from non-sexual intimate partner violence. Conversely, coaxing propensity aligns systematically with sociosexual openness, self-perceived mating success, and relational investment. By bridging evolutionary models of reproductive strategy with clinical dynamic risk assessment, the TOSS provides a sensitive psychometric apparatus for tracking laboratory manipulations, pre- and post-intervention changes, and relational conflict dynamics.

Keywords

Tactics to Obtain Sex Scale, TOSS, sexual coercion, sexual coaxing, sexual conflict theory, evolutionary psychology, intimate partner violence, dynamic risk factors, cuckoldry risk, psychometrics, reproductive strategies, behavioral propensity

Authors

The Tactics to Obtain Sex Scale was conceptualized, developed, and empirically validated by an academic research team specializing in evolutionary psychology, forensic clinical psychology, and sexual violence:

• Joseph A. Camilleri, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, Westfield State University (formerly Westfield State College), Westfield, Massachusetts, United States. Dr. Camilleri’s scholarship centers on evolutionary forensic psychology, intimate partner sexual conflict, anti-cuckoldry psychology, and the dynamic assessment of sexual offending. Primary correspondence: [email protected].
• Vernon L. Quinsey, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Dr. Quinsey is an internationally recognized authority on violent and sexual recidivism risk prediction, evolutionary psychopathology, and the behavioral ecology of human aggression.
• Jessica L. Tapscott, M.A. / Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Co-investigator in the structural validation, factor identification, and psychometric modeling of intimate partner sexual tactics.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Tactics to Obtain Sex Scale (TOSS) is to quantify an individual’s current, acute behavioral propensity to utilize either coercive or coaxing strategies when confronted with sexual refusal within an ongoing intimate relationship. Prior to the development of the TOSS, the empirical study of intimate partner sexual aggression relied almost exclusively on retrospective, historical inventories such as the Conflict Tactics Scales (Straus et al., 1996) or the Sexual Coercion in Intimate Relationships Scale (Shackelford & Goetz, 2004). While retrospective instruments are indispensable for epidemiological base-rate estimation and historical victimization profiling, they suffer from inherent psychometric limitations when deployed in experimental or evaluative contexts. Specifically, historical frequency checklists capture static historical markers (or temporally fixed dynamic variables) that cannot register rapid, short-term fluctuations in motivational states, cognitive reappraisals, physiological arousal, or targeted intervention outcomes.

In clinical, correctional, and experimental settings, investigators require measurement tools capable of indexing temporally variable dynamic risk factors (Quinsey et al., 2006). Dynamic variables represent internal psychological mechanisms and behavioral inclinations that fluctuate in response to proximate internal or environmental cues—such as acute jealousy, suspected partner infidelity, alcohol intoxication, or therapeutic cognitive restructuring. The TOSS addresses this methodological gap by projecting respondents into an ecologically valid, standardized hypothetical scenario: an evening encounter in which their romantic partner explicitly communicates an unwillingness to engage in sexual intercourse. By standardizing the situational context, the TOSS isolates individual variance in behavioral inclinations and tactical repertoire, circumventing the retrospective recall biases and opportunity constraints that undermine historical measures.

Furthermore, the TOSS deliberately avoids treating sexual solicitation as a unidimensional, exclusively violent construct. In real-world pair-bond relationships, human mating interactions span a complex continuum ranging from prosocial, tender, and seductive behaviors to persistent verbal cajoling, emotional guilt induction, substance-facilitated exploitation, and overt physical assault. Traditional sexual violence batteries focus solely on illegal, physically violent, or explicitly non-consensual acts, completely omitting the normative, seductive, and playful strategies that individuals utilize to overcome partner hesitation. The inclusion of a dedicated Sexual Coaxing (COAX) dimension alongside the Sexual Coercion (COERCE) dimension allows researchers and clinicians to examine how prosocial courtship and manipulative aggression interact within an individual’s behavioral economy. This dual-subscale architecture makes the TOSS uniquely valuable across several key domains:

• Evolutionary and Social Psychological Research: Testing competitive hypotheses regarding reproductive conflict, sperm competition, cuckoldry evasion, mating effort, and sex differences in resource allocation and negotiation strategies.
• Forensic and Risk-Assessment Contexts: Evaluating proximal risk escalation among individuals convicted of sexual or domestic offenses, identifying treatment targets, and assessing changes in coercive inclinations following cognitive-behavioral or empathy-induction interventions.
• Couples Therapy and Relational Health: Diagnosing toxic sexual communication patterns, addressing discrepancies in sexual desire, identifying coercive boundary violations, and fostering non-coercive relational negotiation strategies.
• Experimental Psychopathology: Tracking acute fluctuations in sexual compliance tactics following laboratory manipulations, such as alcohol exposure, social rejection paradigms, or simulated infidelity cues.

Psychological Construct

The TOSS measures the multidimensional psychological construct of tactical sexual pursuit propensity within romantic pair bonds. The scale conceptualizes sexual pursuit not as a single pathological entity, but as a broad repertoire of adaptive and maladaptive behaviors deployed to alter a partner’s motivational state when sexual access is initially denied. Psychometrically and theoretically, this construct bifurcates into two distinct, correlated yet functionally dissociable dimensions: Sexual Coercion and Sexual Coaxing.

1. Sexual Coercion (COERCE)

The Sexual Coercion subscale captures an individual’s willingness to impose their sexual desires over a partner’s explicit resistance through manipulative, exploitative, threatening, or forceful means. This dimension reflects an asymmetric strategy characterized by low empathy, elevated dominance, and an entitlement to bodily access irrespective of mutual consent. Within the operationalization of the TOSS, coercive tactics do not merely consist of blatant physical assault; they span a sophisticated hierarchy of pressure tactics:

• Physical Restraint and Force: Behaviors that involve direct physical subjugation, such as holding the partner down, blocking physical retreat, pinning limbs, and overpowering resistance through raw bodily force (e.g., Items 5, 8, 22, 29).
• Incapacitation and Exploitation: Strategies aimed at bypassing partner resistance by exploiting diminished cognitive capacity, such as administering intoxicating substances or initiating sexual acts while the partner is asleep, waking, or severely inebriated (e.g., Items 2, 19, 25).
• Psychological Manipulation and Guilt Induction: Non-physical coercion operating via emotional blackmail, inducing guilt, acting moody or withdrawn, questioning the partner’s love or sexual orientation, and asserting obligatory relational duty (e.g., Items 6, 17, 21, 24, 27, 31).
• Overt Intimidation and Relational Threats: Coercive leverage achieved through verbal aggression, threats of abandonment, infidelity threats, or implicit/explicit threats of interpersonal violence and property destruction (e.g., Items 3, 11, 16).

2. Sexual Coaxing (COAX)

The Sexual Coaxing subscale captures the propensity to employ seductive, affectionate, romantic, and communicative behaviors designed to awaken sexual interest and shift a partner’s mood from reluctance to willing arousal. Coaxing represents an investment-heavy, prosocial mating tactic that respects the partner’s agency while attempting to influence their hedonic state. Coaxing tactics manifest across several expressive modalities:

• Affectionate and Seductive Physical Touch: Prosocial physical contact designed to foster physical comfort, relaxation, and sexual arousal, such as giving back or foot massages, playing with the partner’s hair, and soft kissing (e.g., Items 9, 12, 18).
• Atmospheric and Sensory Romance: Altering the proximate sensory environment to foster intimacy, including lighting candles, playing music, wearing appealing scents, and presenting thoughtful gifts or dining arrangements (e.g., Items 1, 15, 23, 26).
• Verbal Flattery and Relational Affirmation: The strategic use of compliments, verbal declarations of romantic connection, humor, gentle teasing, and reminding the partner of shared intimate history (e.g., Items 4, 10, 20, 30).
• Reciprocal Bargaining and Accommodations: Offering relational compromises, performing domestic chores, or promising personal self-improvements to incentivize consensual intimacy (e.g., Items 7, 28).

By mapping these two dimensions, the TOSS captures the structural complexity of human sexual conflict. Individuals with high COAX and low COERCE scores manifest healthy, flexible, and adaptive courtship skills. In contrast, elevated scores on COERCE—regardless of COAX levels—signal a high risk for boundary transgression, emotional abuse, and sexual assault within intimate relationships.

Theoretical Framework

The Tactics to Obtain Sex Scale is theoretically grounded at the intersection of three major psychological frameworks: Sexual Conflict Theory, the Cuckoldry Risk Hypothesis, and Dynamic Assessment of Offending Behavior.

1. Sexual Conflict Theory and Triversian Parental Investment

The foundational bedrock of the TOSS is Sexual Conflict Theory (Parker, 1979; Buss & Schmitt, 1993), which derives from Robert Trivers’ (1972) seminal model of parental investment. Trivers demonstrated that the sex making the greater obligate biological investment in offspring (typically females) acts as the limiting reproductive resource, evolving to be highly discriminating and selective regarding mating encounters. Conversely, the sex with lower obligate parental investment (typically males) evolves to compete intensely for sexual access, leading to lower thresholds for sexual initiation.

Because the optimal reproductive interests of males and females routinely diverge, evolutionary biologists conceptualize heterosexual pair bonds as arenas of perpetual negotiation and evolutionary conflict. When an asymmetry in immediate sexual willingness arises, individuals must navigate this impasse. Coaxing tactics reflect adaptive courtship investment, signaling genetic fitness, resource devotion, and cooperative intent. In contrast, coercive tactics reflect sexually antagonistic adaptations designed to circumvent female mate choice and reduce the temporal and material costs of extended courtship.

2. The Cuckoldry Risk Hypothesis

A central theoretical application of the TOSS is the exploration of the Cuckoldry Risk Hypothesis (Goetz & Shackelford, 2006; Camilleri & Quinsey, 2009b). In species with internal fertilization and biparental care, males face the adaptive threat of paternity uncertainty—unwittingly investing finite resources into offspring sired by a rival male. Evolutionary theorists hypothesize that male sexual coercion within long-term relationships may function, in part, as an anti-cuckoldry mechanism. When a male detects cues of imminent or recent female infidelity (e.g., sudden partner emotional withdrawal, extended periods of separation, suspected interactions with other men), psychological mechanisms related to sperm competition and reproductive desperation are triggered.

Under elevated cuckoldry risk, a partner’s sexual refusal may be interpreted by the male mind as evidence of infidelity. The TOSS provides an empirical framework to test whether men exposed to acute infidelity cues experience a selective surge in coercive sexual propensities (COERCE) as a counter-strategy to introduce sperm into the reproductive tract and outcompete potential rival gametes. Research utilizing the TOSS confirms that acute cuckoldry threats selectively amplify COERCE scores without altering general prosocial coaxing scores, providing compelling support for the modularity of sexual conflict mechanisms (Camilleri & Quinsey, 2009b).

3. Dynamic Risk Assessment and Forensic Psychology

The scale incorporates principles from contemporary forensic psychology regarding dynamic risk assessment (Quinsey et al., 2006). Classic forensic tools often categorize individuals based on static historical markers (e.g., criminal record, childhood maltreatment, age at first arrest). However, dynamic risk factors—such as acute antisocial attitudes, grievance processing, and contextual sexual entitlement—exhibit acute fluctuations and are amenable to psychological intervention. By measuring latent behavioral intentions in response to standardized interpersonal stress (refusal of sex), the TOSS operates as a sensitive psychometric barometer for cognitive distortions, sexual boundary deficits, and acute treatment responsiveness.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Tactics to Obtain Sex Scale has been rigorously documented across multiple validation studies encompassing collegiate, community, and forensic cohorts (Camilleri, Quinsey, & Tapscott, 2009; Camilleri & Quinsey, 2009a, 2009b).

Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity is substantiated by distinct, theoretically aligned correlational patterns across both subscales. The Sexual Coercion (COERCE) subscale demonstrates robust, statistically significant positive correlations with established indices of antisociality, dominance, and sexual deviance:

• Psychopathy and Callous-Unemotional Traits: COERCE correlates significantly with the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (SRP-III; r = .38 to .46, p < .001), specifically loading on the Interpersonal Manipulation and Callous Affect facets.
• Attraction to Sexual Aggression: Strong convergent alignment is documented between COERCE and the Attraction to Sexual Aggression Scale (ASA; r = .42 to .51, p < .001).
• Rape Myth Acceptance and Hostile Sexism: Elevated COERCE scores correlate with the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (IRMA; r = .35 to .44, p < .001) and the Hostile Sexism subscale of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI; r = .31, p < .01).

Conversely, the Sexual Coaxing (COAX) subscale exhibits an entirely distinct convergent profile. COAX is positively correlated with measures of general sexual interest, relationship investment, sociosexuality, and self-perceived mating success (SPMS; r = .28 to .37, p < .01), while displaying non-significant or negligible correlations with psychopathic traits and rape myths. This double dissociation provides powerful empirical confirmation of construct divergent validity.

Criterion and Predictive Validity

Criterion validity was established by comparing TOSS scores against real-world behavioral outcomes. Camilleri, Quinsey, and Tapscott (2009) investigated whether self-reported tactical propensities predicted actual historical and prospective partner sexual assault. The COERCE subscale demonstrated strong criterion associations with reported partner sexual coercion over the preceding 30-day (r = .43, p < .001) and 12-month (r = .49, p < .001) intervals, measured via collateral and retrospective conflict indices.

Critically, the COERCE subscale exhibited discriminant criterion validity: while it strongly predicted sexually coercive acts within the relationship, it showed non-significant or trivial associations with general, non-sexual domestic physical violence (e.g., throwing objects, general domestic disputes). This demonstrates that the TOSS isolates sexual conflict dynamics rather than capturing diffuse interpersonal violence.

Temporal Sensitivity and Experimental Validity

A defining hallmark of the TOSS is its temporal sensitivity to situational risk factors. In experimental investigations of the cuckoldry risk hypothesis, Camilleri and Quinsey (2009b) exposed male participants to experimental vignettes manipulation partner infidelity cues. Men in the high infidelity cue condition exhibited statistically significant elevations in COERCE scores relative to control conditions (d = 0.54, p < .01), whereas COAX scores remained unaffected. Furthermore, developmental studies revealed that coaxing propensities vary dynamically across age and relationship stages, with younger dating cohorts reporting higher coaxing variability than long-term married cohorts, further validating the scale’s sensitivity to proximate relational contexts.

Reliability

The TOSS demonstrates exceptional psychometric reliability across diverse demographic groups and administration formats. Reliability parameters have been systematically established across undergraduate university cohorts, community adult couples, and specialized forensic populations.

Internal Consistency

Internal consistency analyses reveal high degree of item homogeneity within both latent factors:

• Sexual Coercion (COERCE) Subscale: Internal consistency estimates consistently range between Cronbach’s alpha (α) = .87 and .89 across community and collegiate validation samples. In forensic psychiatric and incarcerated samples, alpha coefficients for COERCE remain highly robust at .88.
• Sexual Coaxing (COAX) Subscale: The COAX dimension yields exceptionally high internal consistency, with α values ranging from .92 to .93. The absence of redundant item content confirms that this high reliability reflects a unified underlying construct of seductive courtship effort.
• Total TOSS Battery: When examined as an omnibus measure of general tactical pursuit intensity, total scale reliability yields α values between .90 and .91.

Split-Half and Test-Retest Stability

Split-half reliability metrics utilizing Spearman-Brown correction yield coefficients exceeding .89 for both subscales. Because the TOSS was intentionally engineered to function as a dynamic, temporally variable measure rather than a rigid static trait scale, conventional long-term test-retest reliability evaluations must be interpreted through the lens of situational fluctuations. Over short intervals (2-week test-retest in stable relational environments), the scale exhibits solid temporal stability (r = .81 for COERCE; r = .84 for COAX), demonstrating that baseline behavioral repertoires are stable in the absence of acute environmental disruptions or therapeutic interventions.

Cross-Modal Invariance

Psychometric evaluations evaluating administration modalities confirmed that the internal consistency, mean scores, and covariance structures of the TOSS remain virtually identical across paper-and-pencil formats and computerized web-based administrations (Camilleri et al., 2009). The elimination of modality effects facilitates the instrument’s integration into computerized laboratory paradigms and longitudinal online surveys.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the Tactics to Obtain Sex Scale was established through a systematic sequence of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses during its initial scale development (Camilleri et al., 2009).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Initial item generation yielded an initial candidate pool of 36 items derived from existing clinical literature, qualitative reports of intimate partner violence, and behavioral courtship observations. The candidate items were administered to an initial cohort of sexually active heterosexual adults. Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) accompanied by Promax (oblique) and Varimax (orthogonal) rotations was executed to determine the underlying latent structure:

• Scree Plot and Eigenvalue Extraction: Examination of the empirical scree plot and parallel analysis indicated a decisive break after the second factor. The first two factors accounted for the vast majority of the common item variance (Factor 1 eigenvalue > 9.4; Factor 2 eigenvalue > 4.8).
• Item Pruning: Five candidate items that exhibited substantial cross-loadings (> .30 on both factors) or inadequate primary factor loadings (< .40) were eliminated.
• Retained Factor Solution: The resulting 31 items resolved cleanly into two primary latent dimensions: a coercive factor comprising 19 items and a coaxing factor comprising 12 items. Primary factor loadings for retained items were substantial, ranging from .44 to .83, with no significant cross-loadings exceeding .20.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

To establish structural stability, the two-factor model was subsequently tested using Confirmatory Factor Analysis on an independent cross-validation sample of community adults and college students. The hypothesized two-factor oblique model was compared against alternative structural specifications, including a unidimensional one-factor model (general tactical pursuit) and a four-factor model parsing verbal vs. physical tactics.

Goodness-of-fit indices demonstrated that the two-factor oblique model provided an outstanding fit to the empirical data, significantly outperforming alternative models:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .94 (exceeding the standard .90 threshold for acceptable fit and approaching the .95 conservative criterion).
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .93.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .052 (90% Confidence Interval: [.046, .058]), indicating close approximate model fit.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .048 (well below the .08 cutoff).

The latent inter-factor correlation between COERCE and COAX was modest and negative to weakly positive depending on the sample (r = -.12 to .15), affirming that sexual coaxing and sexual coercion represent orthogonal, structurally distinct tactical strategies rather than polar opposites on a single continuum.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Tactics to Obtain Sex Scale (TOSS)
• Authors: Joseph A. Camilleri, Vernon L. Quinsey, and Jessica L. Tapscott (2009)
• Construct Measured: Acute behavioral propensity to deploy sexual coaxing or sexual coercion strategies to secure sexual intimacy with a partner following initial refusal
• Target Population: Sexually active individuals (adolescents and adults) engaged in dating, cohabiting, common-law, or marital relationships; validated in community, university, and forensic settings
• Test Type: Self-report psychometric rating scale; hypothetical scenario-based behavioral intention inventory
• Item Count: 31 items total
• Subscale Architecture:
  • Sexual Coercion Subscale (COERCE): 19 items assessing physical force, emotional manipulation, partner incapacitation, verbal threats, and relational blackmail (Items 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31).
  • Sexual Coaxing Subscale (COAX): 12 items assessing romantic inducements, verbal compliments, affection, sensory romance, and seduction (Items 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 23, 26, 30).
• Response Format: 7-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Somewhat Disagree
  • 4 = Neither Agree nor Disagree
  • 5 = Somewhat Agree
  • 6 = Agree
  • 7 = Strongly Agree
• Administration Modality: Available in paper-and-pencil questionnaire format or randomized computerized administration; completion time is approximately 8 to 10 minutes.
• Scoring Procedures:
  • Subscale scores can be computed as raw sums or mean item scores. Reverse-scored items (if applicable in specific experimental design variations) are inverted prior to final tabulation.
  • COERCE Subscale Score: Sum or mean of the 19 coercive items. Higher scores reflect a greater acute propensity to employ manipulative, emotionally abusive, or physically violent tactics to overcome sexual refusal.
  • COAX Subscale Score: Sum or mean of the 12 coaxing items. Higher scores indicate an elevated propensity to utilize prosocial, affectionate, seductive, and romantic bargaining tactics.
  • Total Score: An omnibus score can be derived by summing all 31 items, indexing total tactical persistence, though subscale reporting is strongly recommended due to factor orthogonality.
• Clinical & Evaluative Cut-Offs: The TOSS is primarily an empirical research instrument; normative baseline scores in community cohorts show heavily right-skewed distributions for COERCE (low base rates of severe physical tactics) and normal distributions for COAX. Any endorsement of physical restraint, violence, or incapacitation items (scores ≥ 4 on Items 5, 8, 16, 19, 22, 25, 29) warrants immediate clinical and risk-management scrutiny.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Tactics to Obtain Sex Scale was formally published in 2009 by Springer Science+Business Media in the peer-reviewed journal Archives of Sexual Behavior (Camilleri, Quinsey, & Tapscott, 2009). The scale items and psychometric properties are published within the academic public domain for non-commercial scientific, educational, and clinical research purposes.

No licensing fee or formal purchasing cost is required for academic researchers, universities, or non-profit clinical settings utilizing the scale. Researchers wishing to administer the TOSS in formal clinical trials, commercial assessment platforms, or translational studies are advised to contact the primary developer, Dr. Joseph A. Camilleri ([email protected]; Department of Psychology, Westfield State University, Westfield, MA 01086), to secure written permission, request administration manuals, or obtain specialized randomized computer administration scripts.

References

• Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual Strategies Theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204
• Camilleri, J. A., & Quinsey, V. L. (2009a). Individual differences in the propensity for partner sexual coercion. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 21(1), 111–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063208326030
• Camilleri, J. A., & Quinsey, V. L. (2009b). Testing the cuckoldry risk hypothesis of partner sexual coercion in community and forensic samples. Evolutionary Psychology, 7(2), 164–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490900700201
• Camilleri, J. A., Quinsey, V. L., & Tapscott, J. L. (2009). Assessing the propensity for sexual coaxing and sexual coercion in relationships: Factor structure, reliability, and validity of the Tactics to Obtain Sex Scale. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(6), 959–973. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-008-9400-8
• Deitz, S. R., Blackwell, K. T., Daley, P. C., & Bentley, B. J. (1982). Measurement of empathy toward rape victims and rapists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(2), 372–384. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.43.2.372
• Goetz, A. T., & Shackelford, T. K. (2006). Sexual coercion and forced in-pair copulation as sperm competition tactics in humans. Human Nature, 17(3), 265–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-006-1020-0
• Jesser, C. J. (1978). Male response to direct verbal sexual initiatives of females. The Journal of Sex Research, 14(2), 118–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224497809550998
• Parker, G. A. (1979). Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In M. S. Blum & N. A. Blum (Eds.), Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects (pp. 123–166). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-8683-1_1
• Payne, D. L., Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1999). Rape myth acceptance: Exploration of its structure and its measurement using the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 33(1), 27–68. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1998.2238
• Quinsey, V. L., Jones, G. B., Book, A. S., & Barr, K. N. (2006). The dynamic prediction of antisocial behavior among forensic psychiatric patients: A prospective field study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(12), 1539–1565. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260506294241
• Shackelford, T. K., & Goetz, A. T. (2004). Men’s sexual coercion in intimate relationships: Development and initial validation of the Sexual Coercion in Intimate Relationships Scale. Violence and Victims, 19(5), 541–556. https://doi.org/10.1891/vivi.19.4.541.64166
• Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251396017003001
• Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Aldine-Atherton.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)