Hendrick MultidimensionalitySexualAttitudes 1987

Multidimensionality of Sexual Attitudes
Author(s): Susan Hendrick and Clyde Hendrick

Source: The Journal of Sex Research , Nov., 1987, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Nov., 1987), pp. 502-526
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3812227
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Journal of Sex Research
This content downloaded from

146.50.151.137 on Thu, 22 Feb 2024 13:56:50 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Journal of Sex Research Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 502-526 November, 1987
Multidimensionality of
Sexual Attitudes
SUSAN HENDRICK AND CLYDE HENDRICK
In four studies, we used the Sexual Attitudes Scale, a new mult

sional instrument, and (a) concluded final construction of the s
assessed the relationships between the scale and three crit
measures, and (c) provided initial construct validation of the in
through demonstrated relationships with several relevant psyc
variables and personality/attitude measures. The instrument wa
ly administered to a large sample (N = 807); the scores wer
analyzed, and scales were defined. A refined version was cross v
on another large sample (N = 567), with results that mostly rep
earlier results. The Sexual Attitudes Scale was then given to
sample (N = 105), along with the Sexual Opinion Survey, the Re
and Female Premarital Permissiveness Scales, and the sex-guilt
subscale of the Revised Mosher Guilt Inventory. Results showed the
Sexual Attitudes Scale to have moderate and conceptually consistent
correlations with these other scales. Additional results from three
studies revealed significant relationships between subjects' sexual atti-
tudes and relevant demographic/psychosocial variables (e.g., gender
love experience) and demonstrated substantial links between the Sexual
Attitudes Scale and measures of related concepts such as sensation seek-
ing and love attitudes. The Sexual Attitudes Scale is a psychometrically
sound new scale assessing Sexual Permissiveness, Sexual Practices,
Communion, and Instrumentality.
Sexual attitudes and behavior provide a rich area for research. To

areas have included sexual permissiveness (e.g., Libby, Gray, & Whi
1978; Reiss, 1964, 1967, 1982), premarital sexuality (e.g., Juric
Jurich, 1974; MacCorquodale & DeLamater, 1979), and adolescent
uality in general (e.g., Byrne & Fisher, 1983).
An important area that cuts across both sexual permissiveness
premarital sexuality is gender differences in sexual attitudes.
historical assumption that women's sexual attitudes were more
servative than men's has shifted somewhat in the past 2 decades, an
many scholars now believe that male and female attitudes are c
Susan Hendrick, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psycholog
Texas Tech University, Lubbock. Clyde Hendrick, PhD, is a Professor in the Dep
ment of Psychology and Dean of the Graduate School at Texas Tech University,
bock.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Susan Hendrick, PhD, Department of

Psychology, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409.
502

146.50.151.137 on Thu, 22 Feb 2024 13:56:50 +00:00
SEXUAL ATTITUDES 503
verging (e.g., DeLamater & MacCorquodale, 1979; Hopkins, 1

Singh, 1980). However, recent research indicates that a double
dard still exists (e.g., Ferrell, Tolone, & Walsh, 1977; Robinson &
licka, 1982).
Inconclusiveness in the debate about convergence/divergenc
male and female attitudes toward sex prompted Hendrick, Hend
Slapion-Foote, and Foote (1985) to examine anew gender difference
sexual attitudes. In their study, assessing over 800 subjects on
multidimensional sexual attitudes scale, gender differences were f
on 73 of the 102 scale items. In nearly all cases, males endorsed ite
in a more liberal direction, leading the authors to categorize m
"moderately permissive" and females as "moderately conservat
Cultural/ethnic differences in sexual permissiveness and beh
have also been an important area for research (e.g., Luckey &
1969; Perlman, Josephson, Hwang, Begum, & Thomas, 1978),
results revealing cultural differences in sexual attitudes (e.g.,
pean students somewhat more sexually open than North Ame
students) as well as certain gender differences across cultures.
(1986) offers a comprehensive examination of cultural differences/s
larities in sexuality, but further empirical exploration is also need
Scholars have asked many questions about sexual attitudes, bu
instrument has predominated in providing answers, Reiss' (1
12-item Guttman scale. This popular scale assesses premarital s
permissiveness. However, the scale includes only three sexual
haviors (kissing, petting, and full sexual relations) and leaves
aspects of sexuality unexplored (Clayton & Bokemeier, 1980). In
tion, the scale may be somewhat dated. For example, the word
ting," though well defined in the questionnaire, is no longer us
current generations of college students. Other scales have been de
oped, but none has been used as widely as Reiss' scale. An exte
review of relevant scales can be found in Schiavi, Derogatis, Ku
sky, O'Connor, and Sharpe (1979).
The time appeared ripe for the development of a more compreh
sive, multidimensional sexual attitudes scale, with a special fo
sexual permissiveness. The questionnaire discussed earlier (Hen
et al., 1985) was the first attempt at such scale construction.
generated a pool of 150 items that represented several tradition
attitude areas such as sexual permissiveness, premarital sex, an
"meaning" of sexuality. We expected permissiveness to be the
nant dimension but felt that other sexual attitudes would also be im-

146.50.151.137 on Thu, 22 Feb 2024 13:56:50 +00:00
504 S. HENDRICK AND C. HENDRICK
portant. Elimination of redundant and ambiguous items resulted

initial questionnaire of 102 items. Factor analysis yielded nine f
five of which were retained as the basis for a multidimensional scale.
The five scales included: Sexual Permissiveness (29 items), Sexual
Responsibility (9 items), Sexual Communion (8 items), Sexual Instru-
mentality (6 items), and Sexual Conventionality (6 items).
The four studies presented in this paper were designed to (a) refine
the Sexual Attitudes Scale and develop it into a psychometrically pure
set of subscales, (b) conduct a criterion validity assessment of the sub-
scales, and (c) begin the process of construct validation of the sub-
scales. A wide variety of variables and additional scales was used to
assess criterion and construct validity of the Sexual Attitudes Scale.
The rationales for these specific other measures are described in the
appropriate sections of this paper. These four studies were part of a
larger research program that also studied attitudes about love. Only
the sexual attitude data are considered centrally in this paper,
although selected love data are briefly presented within the context of
providing construct validation for the Sexual Attitudes Scale.
Scale Development
Two large data collections were needed to conclude the psychometric

development of the Sexual Attitudes Scale begun by Hendrick et al.
(1985). Study 1 was conducted at the University of Miami during the
fall of 1983 and early 1984. Study 2 was conducted at Texas Tech
University during the fall of 1984. For the Miami sample, 807 students
completed the scale. In addition, 112 of these students completed the
scale a second time at an interval of 4 weeks or less in order to assess
test-retest reliability. For the Texas sample, 567 students completed
the scale.
In both studies, students were tested in large groups. They com-
pleted a questionnaire entitled "Attitudes About Love and Sex" con-
taining a brief explanation of the study of attitudes, a "Background
Inventory" (11 items in Study 1, 17 items in Study 2), a section
entitled "Love Attitudes Scale" containing 42 items, and the Sexual
Attitudes Scale (58 items in Study 1, 46 items in Study 2). Most of the
students were taking introductory psychology. Subjects in the test-
retest sample were told at their second session that the researchers
were interested in whether love and sex attitudes change over time and
that they should complete the questionnaire in terms of their present
feelings. The items in the attitude sections were rated on a 5-category
basis that was transformed into a 5-point numerical basis for data

146.50.151.137 on Thu, 22 Feb 2024 13:56:50 +00:00
analyses: (1 = strongly agree, 2 = moderately agree, 3 = neutral

moderately disagree, and 5 = strongly disagree). The responses t
items were made on machine scorable sheets.
Sample Characteristics
Selected sample characteristics for the Miami sample were as

follows: Of the 807 subjects, 58% were men and 42% were women.
Some 70% were age 19 or less. The ethnic heritage of the sample was
Black (5.3%), White non-Hispanic (50.4%), White-Hispanic (29.0%),
Oriental (7.7%), and other (7.6%). A substantial 161 students (20%)
indicated that they were international students. The religious heritage
of the sample was Protestant (13.3%), Catholic (47.6%), Jewish
(16.4%), none (4.7%), and other (18.1%). One item asked subjects how
many times they had been in love. Results were none (15.1%), one
(36.8%), two (26.1%), three to five times (17.7%), and more than five
times (4.2%). Men and women differed on an item that asked whether
they were in love at the present time. For women, 36.1% said no, and
63.9% said yes. For men, 54.5% said no, and 45.5% said yes. A final
background question asked subjects how they felt about themselves.
Most of the students (84.6%) rated themselves positive or very
positive, 12.4% rated themselves neutral, and only 3% rated their
esteem as negative or very negative.
For the Texas sample, 35% were men and 65% were women. Most
other characteristics were relatively similar to those of the Miami
sample, although there was greater homogeneity in the Texas sample
for religious heritage (Protestants = 49%, Catholics = 22%, Jewish =
.7%) and ethnic background (White non-Hispanic = 83%, White-
Hispanic = 11%, Black = 2.5%).
Results
The same approach to data analysis was used for both samples. Th
items were intercorrelated and factored using the principal com-
ponents method with varimax rotation. Items loading strongly on
factor were identified as forming a scale, excluding any item with hig
loadings (.30 or higher) on more than one factor. Items forming a scal
were subjected to a reliability analysis, using the Statistical Packag
for the Social Sciences (SPSS).
The results of the factor analyses are shown in Table 1, along with
the means and standard deviations of the items. Items used in Study 1
but deleted for Study 2 are not shown.

146.50.151.137 on Thu, 22 Feb 2024 13:56:50 +00:00
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Factor Loadings for Sex Attitude Items
Study 1 Study 2
Factor Factor
Means SD loadings Means SD loadings

Permissiveness
1. I do not need to be committed
to a person to have sex with
him/her. 3.0 1.6 .71 3.7 1.5 .75
2. Casual sex is acceptable. 3.0 1.5 .79 3.7 1.3 .81
3. I would like to have sex with
many partners. 3.4 1.5 .79 4.2 1.2 .80
4. One-night stands are some-
times very enjoyable. 3.1 1.5 .77 3.8 1.5 .81
5. It is okay to have ongoing
sexual relationships with more
than one person at a time. 3.7 1.4 .79 4.3 1.1 .80
6. It is okay to manipulate some-
one into having sex as long as
no future promises are made. 3.8 1.3 .77 4.4 1.0 .77
7. Sex as a simple exchange of
favors is okay if both people
agree to it. 3.1 1.5 .68 3.8 1.3 .75
8. The best sex is with no strings
attached. 3.8 1.3 .63 4.3 1.1 .66
9. Life would have fewer problems
if people could have sex more
freely. 3.4 1.3 .59 4.1 1.1 .67
10. It is possible to enjoy sex with
a person and not like that
person very much. 3.6 1.3 .56 4.0 1.2 .57
11. Sex is more fun with someone
you don't love. 4.3 1.0 .58 4.6 .8 .63
12. It is all right to pressure some-

one into having sex. 4.3 1.0 .59 4.7 7 .58
13. Unlimited premarital sexual ex-

perience is fine. (Extensive pre-
marital sexual experience is
fine.) 3.0 1.4 .60 3.6 1.3 .65
14. Extramarital affairs are all
right as long as one's partner
doesn't know about them. 4.4 1.0 .48 4.7 .7 .52
15. Sex for its own sake is per-

fectly all right. 2.6 1.3 .48 3.1 1.4 .48
16. I would feel comfortable having
intercourse with my partner in
the presence of other people. 4.2 1.1 .44 4.7 .8 .42
17. Prostitution should be accepted
by society. (Prostitution is
acceptable.) 3.5 1.4 .47 4.2 1.1 .64
(Continued on nex

146.50.151.137 on Thu, 22 Feb 2024 13:56:50 +00:00
Table 1-continued
Study 1 Study 2
Factor Factor
Means SD loadings M
18. Sex is best when people ap-
proach it as good physical
release. (It is okay for sex to
be just good physical release.) 2.9 1.2 .48 3.5 1.3 .67
19. Sex without love is meaning-
less. 2.5 1.3 -.63 2.1 1.3 -.65
20. People should at least be
friends before they have sex
together. 2.4 1.2 -.50 2.3 1.1 -.31
21. In order for sex to be good, it
must also be meaningful. 2.3 1.2 -.60 1.9 1.1 -.65
Sexual Practices
22. Birth control is part of respon-

sible sexuality. 1.5 1.0 .52 1.4 .8 .67
23. A woman should share respon-
sibility for birth control. 1.5 1.0 .51 1.4 .7 .73
24. A man should share responsi-
bility for birth control. 1.6 1.0 .41 1.5 .8 .74
25. Sex education for young people
is of little value. (Sex education
is important for young people.)4.1 1.1 -.34 1.4 .7 .54
26. Using "sex toys" during love-
making is abnormal. (Using
"sex toys" during lovemaking
is acceptable.) 3.2 1.2 -.33 3.1 .12 .50
27. Masturbation is all right. 2.7 1.2 .41 2.9 1.2 .48
28. Masturbating one's partner
during intercourse can increase
the pleasure of sex. 2.2 1.1 .41 2.3 1.1 .51
Communion
29. Sexual techniques get better as

a relationship progresses. (Sex
gets better as a relationship
progresses.) 1.7 1.0 .47 1.7 .8 .61
30. Sex is the closest form of com-
2.1 1.1 .47 2.3 1.2 .55
munication between two people.
31. A sexual encounter between
two people deeply in love is the
ultimate human interaction. 1.7 1.0 .58 1.7 .9 .65
32. Orgasm is the greatest experi-
ence in the world. 2.4 1.1 .49 2.7 1.1 .55
(Continued on ne

146.50.151.137 on Thu, 22 Feb 2024 13:56:50 +00:00
Table 1-continued
Study 1 Study 2
Factor Factor
Means SD loadings Means SD loadings
33. At its best, sex seems to be the
merging of two souls. 2.2 1.0 .58 2.2 1.0 .64
34. Life without sex would be very
dull. (Sex is a very important
part of life.) 2.1 1.1 .39 2.0 .9 .62
35. Sex is usually an intensive,
almost overwhelming experi-
ence. 1.9 1.0 .61 2.0 .9 .74
36. During sexual intercourse, in-
tense awareness of the part-
ner is the best frame of mind. 1.9 1.0 .53 1.9 .8 .63
37. Sex is fundamentally good. 1.7 1.0 .52 1.9 .8 .63
Instrumentality
38. Sex is best when you let your-
self go and focus on your own
pleasure. 3.0 1.2 .52 3.0 1.1 .55
39. Sex is primarily the taking of
pleasure from another person. 3.7 1.1 .54 3.7 1.1 .71
40. The main purpose of sex is to
enjoy oneself. 3.3 1.3 .66 3.5 1.1 .71
41. Sex is primarily physical. 3.1 1.2 .66 3.5 1.2 .74
42. Sex is primarily a bodily func-
tion, like eating. 3.5 1.3 .65 3.8 1.1 .71
43. Sex is mostly a game between
males and females. 3.6 1.3 .54 3.9 1.2 .51
Note. Final version of a revised item is

the stronger the agreement with the item
For Study 1, the best solution

tion, the percent of the total vari
Permissiveness (22.5%), Sexual
Sexual Conventionality combin
Instrumentality (3.3%). Permissiv
had been in previous research (
other subscales made an import
total scale variance accounted fo
were dropped, either because t
loaded on more than one factor.
Although the loadings varied, 24 of the 26 Permissiveness items, 6
of the 8 Sexual Practices items, 9 of the 11 Communion items, and all 6
of the Instrumentality items were above .40, with a considerable
number of items above .50.

146.50.151.137 on Thu, 22 Feb 2024 13:56:50 +00:00
The item revisions (7 items) for Study 2 are shown in pare

Table 1. The factor structure for Study 2 was essentially
that for Study 1. Factor loadings and percent of variance ac
were similar but higher: Permissiveness (24.8%), Sexual
(4.4%), Communion (11.8%), and Instrumentality (5.7%),
The results for the reliability analyses are shown in Ta
alpha coefficients were all above .70, except for Sexual P
Study 1 (.69). The test-retest correlations ranged from a low
Instrumentality to a high of .88 for Permissiveness. These c
suggest some shifting of sexual attitude scores on a shor
but are nevertheless within an acceptable range for relative
attitude scores.
Table 2
Reliability Analyses of the Sex Scales

Study 1
Permissiveness Sex Practices Communion Instrumentality
(26 items) (8 items) (11 items) (6 items)
Mean inter-item
correlations
N = 807 .37 .24 .27 .40
Alpha
N = 807 .94 .69 .79 .80
Standardized
item alpha
N = 807 .94 .71 .80 .80
Test-retest
correlations
N = 112 .88 .80 .67 .66
Study 2
Permissiveness Sex Practices Communion Instrumentality
(21 items) (7 items) (9 items) (6 items)
Mean inter-item
correlations
N = 567 .41 .34 .30 .38
Alpha
N = 567 .93 .82 .74 .78
Standardized
item alpha
N = 567 .94 .82 .75 .78
Note. Test-retest correlations were based on the sum of the items within a subscale.
Because of the nature of principal components analysis, the factors

were orthogonal to each other. However, it does not necessarily follow
that scale scores based on the sums of items for each factor will be in-

146.50.151.137 on Thu, 22 Feb 2024 13:56:50 +00:00
dependent of each other. To assess degree of scale independenc

scores were computed for each scale, and the four scales were
correlated. The results are shown in Table 3. Because of the
samples, even small correlations were significant. The pattern of
correlations was roughly similar for both studies and was consist
view of the scales' content. Thus, Permissiveness correlated most
highly with Instrumentality (.41 and .44). Its relationship to Com-
munion was statistically but not conceptually significant (.13 and .14).
Sexual Practices correlated most highly with Communion (.39) and
had low correlations with Instrumentality (-.08 and .09). Finally, Com-
munion had expectedly low correlations with Instrumentality (.05 and
.06). In summary, the four scales demonstrated considerable internal
reliability and reasonable independence of each other.
Table 3
Intercorrelations Among Sex Scale Sum Scores
Study 1
(N = 807)
Sex Practices Communion Instrumentality
Permissiveness .31* .13* .41*
Sex Practices - .39* -.08*
Communion - .05
Study 2
(N = 567)
Sex Practices Communion Instrumentality
] Permissiveness .00 .14* .44*

Sex Practices - .39* .09*
Communion -- .06
*p < .01.
Discussion
The two studies reported and the Hendrick et al. (1985) study re
sent an extended effort to develop a psychometrically pure, m
dimensional scale to assess sexual attitudes. The net result was a set
of four scales with Sexual Permissiveness as the strongest scale (most
variance accounted for, best alphas, highest test-retest correlations,
etc.). However, Sexual Practices, Communion, and Instrumentality
also emerged as distinct scales with relatively good reliabilities.
Although much current research is concerned with Permissiveness,
these three additional scales increase substantially the possibilities for
interesting exploration of sexual attitudes.
Psychometric validation of a new scale is only a first step. Perhaps

146.50.151.137 on Thu, 22 Feb 2024 13:56:50 +00:00
even more important is assessment of criterion validity and

that, construct validity.
Criterion Validity
In order to establish the place of the Sexual Attitudes Scale

existing sexuality measures, a questionnaire consisting of de
phic items, the current Sexual Attitudes Scale, the Sexual
Survey (Fisher, Byrne, White, & Kelley, in press), the Reiss
Female Premarital Sexual Permissiveness Scales (Reiss, 1967),
Revised Mosher Guilt Inventory (Green & Mosher, 1985) was
istered to 105 students at Texas Tech University in the fall
All items were scored on a 5-response Likert format. Intercorre
of the summed scores of the several scales are shown in Table 4.
Correlations among the four subscales of the Sexual Attitudes S
are similar to those shown earlier in Table 3.
Table 4
Intercorrelations Between Sex Scale and Criterion Measures
Study 3
(N = 105)
Sex Sexual Reiss Reiss Reiss Mosher
Pr. Comm. Inst. Opin. M F T Guilt
Permissiveness .26* .07 .37* .61* .63* .60* .63* -.53*
Sex practices .45* .18 .55* .30* .32* .31* -.53*
Communion .10 .15 .18 .17 .18 -.29*
Instrumentality .23* .24* .28* .26* -.25*
Sexual Opinion Survey .38* .41* .40* -.67*
Reiss male (M) .94* .99* -.56*
Reiss female (F) .98* -.60*
Reiss total (T) -.59*
*p < .05.
Three of the four Sexual Attitudes subscales show low to moderate
correlations with the three criterion measures; each set of relationships
will be discussed in turn.
The Sexual Opinion Survey (Fisher et al., in press) is a 21-item
measure that has been widely used to assess subjects' responses to
erotica along a dimension of erotophobia to erotophilia. Permissive-
ness, Sexual Practices, and Instrumentality were correlated with the
Sexual Opinion Survey with values of .61, .55, and .23, respectively.
The content of the Sexual Opinion Survey is strongly oriented to por-
nography, sexual behaviors, and homosexuality, whereas Permissive-
ness is concerned with a casual, nonexploitative approach to sexual
relationships. Sexual Practices also emphasizes relationship aspects.
Thus an individual who is permissive and endorsing of responsible

146.50.151.137 on Thu, 22 Feb 2024 13:56:50 +00:00
sexual practices appears to respond positively to erotica, but the ove

lap is modest. The low correlation with Instrumentality is expec
because the latter's rather utilitarian and biological approach to s
uality does not fit well with the more affective, fantasy-elicit
qualities of the Sexual Opinion Survey.
Reiss' (1967) 24-item Male and Female Premarital Sexual Permis-
siveness Scales were developed in a Guttman format and elicit a sub-
ject's attitudes toward kissing, petting, and full sexual relations,
under several different proposed conditions (e.g., when engaged, when
in love). An interesting property of the scale is that it elicits these atti-
tudes toward both a male object and a female object (thus 12 questions
are oriented toward male behaviors and 12 identical questions toward
female behaviors, with a total score representing the sum of the two
preceding scores). Correlations between Permissiveness and the Reiss
scale scores were .63 (males), .60 (females), and .63 (total score). Again,
the overlap is modest and indicates that Permissiveness in the Sexual
Attitudes Scale encompasses more aspects than the behaviors
explored by Reiss' scale. Sexual Practices showed a low but solid rela-
tionship with the three Reiss scores (.30, .32, .31), similar to its rela-
tionship with its companion Permissiveness scale (.26). Instrumen-
tality had low but significant correlations with the Reiss scores, indi-
cating once more that the constructs of Instrumentality and Permis-
siveness are somewhat different.
The Revised Mosher Guilt Inventory (Green & Mosher, 1985) is a
114-item scale consisting of subscales measuring sex guilt, hostility
guilt, and guilty conscience. Only the 50 items measuring sex guilt
were included in the present study. These items explore one's guilt (or
lack thereof) toward numerous sex-related behaviors such as telling
dirty jokes, having sex before marriage, engaging in childhood sex
play, etc. All four of the Sexual Attitudes subscales were significantly
negatively correlated with the Mosher scale. Both Permissiveness and
Sexual Practices correlated -.53 with the Mosher scales, Communion
correlated -.29, and Instrumentality -.25. It is reasonable that per-
sons who are permissive and endorsing of sexual practices should be
relatively low in sexual guilt. Communion, however, should be relative-
ly independent of guilt. The low correlation between Instrumentality
and the Mosher scale may underestimate the relationship and should
be explored further.
The correlations between the Sexual Attitudes Scale and the
criterion measures are theoretically consistent and statisticall
In addition, it is useful to note the correlations among the S

146.50.151.137 on Thu, 22 Feb 2024 13:56:50 +00:00
Opinion Survey, the Reiss scales, and the Revised Mosher Guilt
tory. The Sexual Opinion Survey correlates slightly less high
the Reiss scales and slightly more highly with the Mosher sc
does Permissiveness, but the magnitude of the correlations is si
In turn, the Reiss scales correlate with the Mosher scale at m
same level as do the Sexual Attitudes Scale and the Sexual O
Survey. (Correlations between the Sexual Opinion Survey a
Revised Mosher Guilt Inventory are similar to those repor
Fisher et al., in press). Thus the Sexual Attitudes Scale is substa
ly related to existing sex attitude measures but may well offer
tension to existing theoretical frameworks.
Construct Validation
The third area of substantive work on the Sexual Attitudes Scale ad-
dressed the issue of construct validity. To that end, we performed a
number of additional analyses. First, correlations were computed for
the Sexual Attitudes Scale and the Love Attitudes Scale, a separate
instrument developed by the authors (Hendrick, Hendrick, Foote, &
Slapion-Foote, 1984; Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986) for three different
data sets. The first two data sets have already been discussed in rela-
tion to scale development; the other one was obtained during spring,
1985, in Texas and also included correlations between the sex scales
and the Sensation Seeking Scale (Zuckerman, Kolin, Price, & Zoob,
1964). A factor analysis was also performed on the summed scale
scores of both the love and sex scales for the data gathered in the fall,
1984, Texas study. This particular data set was chosen for the analysis
because it represented the largest single data set with refined instru-
ments. In addition, analysis of variance techniques were used to ex-
plore relationships between the sex scales and several psychosocial
variables for the data of Studies 1 and 2.
Correlations Between Sex and Love
The Love Attitudes Scale is a 42-item Likert-format scale comprised

of six, 7-item subscales representing the six major love styles proposed
by Lee (1973). Lee identified three primary types of love styles: Eros
(passionate, romantic love), Ludus (game-playing love), Storge (com-
panionate love), and three important secondary styles (each a com-
pound of two of the primaries): Pragma (logical, computer-dating love),
Mania (dependent, possessive love), and Agape (selfless, all-giving
love). Details of the scale's construction are considered in another
paper (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986), and the scale is considered suffi-
ciently reliable and valid for wider research use.

146.50.151.137 on Thu, 22 Feb 2024 13:56:50 +00:00
Correlational analyses were performed on the Love Attitudes

and the Sexual Attitudes Scale for Studies 1 and 2 (discussed ea
and for the Texas study conducted in the spring of 1985. The latte
be referred to as Study 4, and two sets of analyses from that stud
be discussed. Correlations from the three studies are shown in Ta
Although the pattern of correlations differs somewhat amon
three studies, certain key relationships hold up fairly well and are
vant theoretically to the question of the sex scale's validity. The c
lation between Permissiveness and Ludus is strong and consi
throughout. The ludic lover takes a rather utilitarian stance t
love and seeks to avoid deep commitment. Such an individual woul
expected to endorse the items on the Permissiveness scale. On
other hand, one would expect an agapic (selfless) lover to dis
relatively with Permissiveness, and that occurs with modest co
tions in all three studies. Negative relationships between Perm
ness and the relatively stolid scales of Storge and Pragma
through the first two studies but were lost in the third, probably d
the smaller sample. The Sexual Practices subscale is somewhat
stable (typical of small scales) but nevertheless shows a consist
relationship with Eros. Though the Eros lover is romantic
passionate, he/she is also responsible and tolerant in the relationsh
thus the correlation with Sexual Practices.
Communion shows a consistent relationship with Eros, expected
given the exciting, passionate, almost idealistic emphasis by both
scales on love and sex. Communion shows a lower, though similarly
consistent, relationship with Mania, probably because of Mania's in-
tense emotional component. A relationship between Communion and
Agape appears in two of the three studies and will be explored in
further research on the scales. "Idealism" may be the characteristic
that is shared by these two scales. Instrumentality shows a consistent
relationship with Ludus, the love scale that itself has a rather instru-
mental quality. There is an egocentric, mechanistic theme that links
these two scales. Ludus' higher correlation with Permissiveness than
with Instrumentality can be accounted for by the fact that both Ludus
and Permissiveness share a casual, tolerant, game-playing orientation
toward sex that accepts playing the field and avoids commitment.
Neither, however, has the focus on genital sexuality present in Instru-
mentality. There is some indication of a relationship between Instru-
mentality and Pragma (two out of three studies) that is consistent with
Pragma's practical nature (sex as just a bodily function) and con-
sistent also with Pragma as a partial derivative of Ludus. Finally, the

146.50.151.137 on Thu, 22 Feb 2024 13:56:50 +00:00
small but consistently negative relationship between Agape

strumentality (approaching significance in Study 3, p = .051
one would expect between one scale espousing selfless givin
another stating "Sex is primarily the taking of pleasure from a
person."
Table 5
Intercorrelations Between Sex and Love Scales
Sex scales
Love scales Permissiveness Sex Practices Communion Instrumentality

Study 1
(N = 807)
Eros .09* .15* .30* .02
Ludus .48* .03 .06* .32*
Storge -.16* .02 .09* .00
Pragma -.19* -.17* .06* .16*
Mania -.08* .03 .19* .01
Agape -.17* .00 .25* -.14*
Study 2
(N = 567)
Eros -.06 .39* .20* -.06
Ludus .46* -.09* -.01 .34*
Storge -.18* .08* .06 -.04
Pragma -.18* .08* -.04 .03
Mania -.08* .29* .09* .10*
Agape -.28* .19* .01 -.21*
Study 4
(N = 218)
Eros .02 .17* .42* .05
Ludus .52* -.04 .04 .37*
Storge -.10 .05 .18* .06
Pragma .08 -.03 .11 .21*
Mania -.02 .12* .22* -.06
Agape -.14* .10 .28* -.11
Note. Study 4 temporally preceded Stud
tion.
*p < .05.
Factor Analysis of the Sex and
The six summed love scales and the four summed sex scales ob-
tained from the data in Study 2 were subjected to a principal com-
ponents factor analysis with varimax rotation. The best solution ex-
tracted three factors, shown in Table 6. Ludus, Permissiveness, and
Instrumentality loaded positively on the first factor, and Agape
loaded negatively. Given the correlations between these variables
shown in Table 5, such factor loadings are not surprising. The three

146.50.151.137 on Thu, 22 Feb 2024 13:56:50 +00:00
scales most oriented to a game-playing, mechanistic love/sex rela

ship are all related positively to each other and are all in turn ne
ly related to the scale most oriented toward selfless, idealistic lov
Factor 2, Eros, Mania, Agape, Sexual Practices, and Commun
loaded positively. Since both Mania and Agape are compounds o
and one other love style (Ludus and Storge, respectively) and sinc
three are concerned with emotional and/or "devotional" aspe
love, it is not surprising that the three load on the same factor.
munion and Sexual Practices show some of the more substantial rela-
tionship aspects of sex and therefore fit into this factor with Eros.
Factor 3 is characterized by strong positive loadings by Pragma and
Storge and a modest positive loading by Mania, as well as a modest
negative loading by Permissiveness. The content of this factor could
perhaps be characterized as "stable" in the sense that Storge and
Pragma are both solid, steady love styles. To the extent that Per-
missiveness represents more free-ranging sexuality, it would logically
relate negatively to the other two. Mania's secondary loading on this
factor may reflect the Manic tendency to fixate solidly on one's
partner.
Except for Mania's loading on two factors, there is no substantial
overlap of the factors. Love and sex scales load together on different
factors in such a way as to support the existence of an underlying the-
matic consistency in each scale-and in each factor.
Table 6
Factor Analysis of Sex and Love Scales

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
Eros -.28 .65* -.19

Ludis .79* -.14 .11
Storge -.12 .03 .67*
Pragma .05 .00 .81*
Mania -.01 .49* .30*
Agape -.60* .37* .13
Permissiveness .75* .11 -.32*
Sex Practices .00 .81* .11
Communion .15 .62* -.08
Instrumentality .70* .20 .06
Note. Factor loadings .30 or higher
Sex and Sensation-Seeking

An intercorrelation of the sex scales with the Sensation Seeking
Scale (Zuckerman et al., 1964) was performed for the data gathered in
Study 3. This personality measure was chosen because it emphasizes

146.50.151.137 on Thu, 22 Feb 2024 13:56:50 +00:00
affective and sensory attitudes and experiences that appear

to sexuality. As detailed by Zuckerman and others, the sub
the Sensation Seeking Scale are represented by the followi
and characteristic attitudes/behaviors: Disinhibition refers to the
extent to which an individual is governed by society's social and moral
dictums. Experience seeking refers to the need for a wide variety o
sensory and aesthetic experience. Boredom susceptibility reflects
one's tendency to get restless and bored without a substantial amount
of new stimuli. Thrill and adventure seeking could perhaps be de
scribed as "physical excitement," since the scale contains a number of
items referring to acts of physical daring (e.g., skydiving). Finally, th
total sensation seeking score is a sum of the four subscales. Correla
tions between the Sensation Seeking Scale and the Sexual Attitud
Scale are shown in Table 7. Nearly half of the correlations are signifi-
cant (9 out of 20), and though some are modest, all are interpretable.
Permissiveness is strongly related to Disinhibition, which is logical-
ly consistent, since permissiveness is frequently talked about but not
necessarily approved of in our society (Perlman, 1974). A permissiv
individual is likely to be relatively free of society's dictates. Per
missiveness is also related to Boredom susceptibility, and indeed
need for variety can contribute to sexual permissiveness. Permissiv
Table 7
Intercorrelations Between Sexual Attitudes Scale and Sensation Seeking Scale

Sex scales
Permissive- Sex Instrumen-

Sensation seeking ness Practices Communion tality
Disinhibition .62* .12* .09 .32*
Experience seeking .25* .25* .08 -.03
Boredom susceptibility .40* -.07 -.02 .25*
Thrill and adventure seeking .10 -.03 .04 -.06
Total sensation seeking score .56* .11 .08 .21*
Note. N = 218.
*p < .05.
ness and Experience seeking are modestly correlated; one

expect someone who desires novelty in food and art to like
certain amount of novelty in sex. Sexual Practices is related
Disinhibition and Experience seeking, although the former corre
is low. Persons who endorse Sexual Practices are quite tolera
previously noted, and indeed may value variety in both sex pr
and other life experiences. Communion shows no significant rela
ships with the Sensation Seeking Scale, as befits Commu

146.50.151.137 on Thu, 22 Feb 2024 13:56:50 +00:00
ethereal idealism. Instrumentality is related to Disinhibition and Bo

dom susceptibility, with the probable link between the three being
restless need for pleasure without regard for any particular rule
conventions. Correlations between the sex scales and the total sensa-
tion seeking score are shown in the last row of Table 7.
Psychosocial Variables and Sexual Attitudes

Eleven specific questions pertaining to subjects' backgrounds were
included in the initial questionnaire in Study 1. Each background ques-
tion was treated as an independent variable, with subjects' summed
scores on a given sex scale treated as a dependent variable. One-way
analyses of variance were performed on the data for each sex scale.
(Attempts at two-way analyses by crossing two independent variables
resulted in nonorthogonal effects due to large discrepancies in cell fre-
quencies.)
Several of the background variables yielded essentially uninterest-
ing results and will not be considered further (e.g., age, marital status,
living with someone). Religion variables were of special interest,
yielded extensive data, and are treated in a separate paper (Hendrick &
Hendrick, in press). Thus, the variables on which we focus here include
gender, ethnicity, international student status, number of times in
love, current love status, and self-esteem. Group means and F-ratios
for these six independent variables are shown in Table 8 for the four
sexual attitudes scales.
There were gender differences on two of the four subscales. Men an
women differed on both Permissiveness and Instrumentality, with
men appearing to endorse more liberal attitudes. However, inspection
of the group means reveals that all were at or above the 3.0 neutra
point. Thus men were neutral about Permissiveness, whereas wome
disagreed with it, and although both men and women disagreed wit
Instrumentality, men disagreed less.
There were significant differences as a function of ethnicity on all
four sex scales. Whites were the most permissive and other studen
least, and the same pattern was shown on Sexual Practices. For Com
munion, both Whites and White-Hispanics endorsed the items mor
positively than did Oriental subjects. Finally, Oriental subjects mos
strongly endorsed Instrumentality, with Whites and White-Hispanics
endorsing it least.
International students demonstrated differences from native U.S.
students on three of the four scales. Although the groups did not differ
significantly on Permissiveness, international students were less en-
dorsing of both Sexual Practices and Communion and more endorsing

146.50.151.137 on Thu, 22 Feb 2024 13:56:50 +00:00
Table 8
Means and F-Ratios for Each Sex Scale as a Function of Background Variables
Study 1
Sex scales
Variables n Permissiveness Sex Practices Communion Instrumentality

Gender F = 371.4* F = 1.1 F = 2.5 F = 35.0*
Men 466 3.0a 2.0 1.9 3.2a
Women 341 4.0b 2.1 1.9 3.6b
Ethnicity F = 4.6* F = 17.9* F = 2.7* F = 3.8*
Black 43 3.5ab 2.0a 2.0ab 3.4ab
White 407 3.3a 1.9a 1.9a 3.4a
White-
Hispanic 234 3.5b 2.0a 1.9 3.4a

Oriental 62 3.4ab 2.4b 2.1b 3.0
Other 61 3.6b 2.5b 2.0ab 3.2,b
International
student F = .8 F = 57.6* F = 8.8* F = 16.5*
Yes 161 3.5 2.4a 2.0a 3.1a
No 646 3.4 2.0b 1.9b 3.4b
Times in love F = 5.7* F = 4.5* F = 3.6* F = 5.6*
None 122 3.3a 2.2a 2.1a 3.1a
One 297 3.5a 2.1ab 1.9b 3.4b
Two 211 3.5a 2.0b 1.9b 3.4b
3-5 143 3.3a 2.0b 1.8b 3.4b
5 and up 34 2.9b 2.2ab 1.9ab 31
In love now F = 38.9* F = .3 F = 20.3* F = 25.8*
No 377 3.2a 2.1 2.0a 3.2a
Yes 430 3.6b 2.0 1.8b 3.5b
Self-esteem F = 5.1* F = 3.9* F = 8.2* F = 1.7
Very positive 251 3.3a 2.0a 1.8a 3.3
Positive 432 3.5b 2.1ab 2.0b 3.4
Neutral or
lower 124 3.5ab 2.1b 2.0b 3.4

Note. Means could vary from 1.0 to 5.0. The lower the m
with the given sex attitude. Within each column, for ea
scripts in common differed at the .05 level, either by
means or by the Multiple Range Test for three or mo
*p < .05.
of Instrumentality than were native U.S. s

The background questions on love pertained
a subject had been in love and to whether th
love. The number of times a subject had been
cant differences on all four of the sex scales
jects who had been in love five or more t
missive, differing significantly from all o

146.50.151.137 on Thu, 22 Feb 2024 13:56:50 +00:00
two or three to five times were most endorsing of Sexual Pr

differing from those subjects who had never been in love. Thos
had never been in love also relatively disagreed with Comm
differing significantly from those who had been in love one, tw
three to five times. For Instrumentality, the "never been i
group" along with "five or more times" most endorsed the scale
the "never in love group" differing significantly from those wh
been in love one, two, and three to five times.
Whether a subject was currently in love produced significan
ferences on three of the four scales. Those subjects not in
appeared more Permissive and Instrumental, whereas those
were more endorsing of Communion.
Because of the small number of subjects reporting negative an
negative self-esteem, these categories were combined with the n
category. Thus levels of self-esteem were neutral and lower, pos
and very positive. The reported level of a subject's self-estee
related to significant differences on three of the four scales. Su
with very positive feelings about themselves were more perm
differing most from those with positive self-esteem, and als
endorsing of Sexual Practices, this time differing from the neutr
jects. Finally, those with very positive feelings about them
endorsed Communion most strongly, differing significantly from
the positive and neutral subjects.
The relations between psychosocial variables and sexual at
were explored further in Study 2 (shown in Table 9) and refl
number of patterns relatively similar to those of Study 1.
The gender differences on the first two scales (men more endo
had appeared in Study 1, but women's endorsement of Sexua
tices and Communion was new. Ethnic homogeneity preclud
broad analysis of ethnic groups presented in Study 1, and exami
of White Hispanic and White non-Hispanic subjects revea
significant differences on any of the scales. There were too few
national students for that variable to be considered.
For the item concerned with number of times in love, subjects who
had been in love three or more times (categories of three to five and five
or more times had been collapsed to form a category of three or more)
appeared most permissive, differing significantly from all other
groups (similar to Study 1). Unlike Study 1, however, no differences
appeared for Sexual Practices. Those who had been in love three or
more times were most endorsing of Communion, differing most from
those who had never been in love (similar to Study 1). The differences

146.50.151.137 on Thu, 22 Feb 2024 13:56:50 +00:00
Table 9
Means and F-Ratios for Each Sex Scale as a Function of Background Variables
Study 2
Sex scales
Variables n Permissiveness Sex Practices Communion Instrumentality

Gender F = 224.7* F = 3.9* F = 5.7* F = 10.0*
Men 199 3.5a 2.1a 2.1a 3.4a
Women 368 4.4b 2.0b 2.0b 3.7b
Ethnicity F = 2.7 F = .2 F = .3 F = 1.1
White 472 4.1 2.0 2.0 3.6
White-
Hispanic 63 3.9 2.1 2.0 3.5
Times in love F = 7.1* F = 1.7 F = 5.0* F = 2.5
None 68 4.1a 2.2 2.2a 3.5

One 232 4.2a 2.0 2.1ab 3.7
Two 181 4.1a 2.1 2.0bc 3.6
3 or more 86 3.7b 2.0 1.8c 3.4
In love now F = 8.5* F = 11.1* F = 8.9* F = 6.5*
No 252 4.0a 2.1a 2.1a 3.5a

Yes 315 4.1b 2.0b 1.9b 3.7b
Self-esteem F = .1 F = 1.3 F = .4 F = 1.3
Very positive 103 4.0 2.0 2.0 3.7

Positive 346 4.0 2.0 2.0 3.6
Neutral or
lower 118 4.1 2.1 2.0 3.5
Happiness F = 4.7* F = .5 F = .4 F = 5.9*

Very happy 126 4.2a 2.0 2.0 3.7a
Happy 303 4.1a 2.1 2.0 3.6a
Okay 128 3.9b 2.1 2.0 3.4b
Note. Means could vary from 1.0 to 5.0
with the given sex attitude. Within eac
scripts in common differed at the .05
means or by the Multiple Range Test
*p < .05.
on Instrumentality approache
had been in love three or mor
followed by those never in lov
slightly different from Study 1
love status, subjects presently
siveness and Instrumentality
and Communion (similar to Stu
had not shown significant diff
were no differences on any of
Finally, in responding to a ne
jects who described themselve

146.50.151.137 on Thu, 22 Feb 2024 13:56:50 +00:00
and instrumental in their attitudes than all other subjects.

Although there were a number of similarities between Studies 1 a
2, the differences require consideration. Some of the differences w
undoubtedly due to the geographical (and perhaps cultural) differen
between the two samples. Happiness was introduced as a new dem
graphic/personality variable in Study 2, and therefore no data w
available for it in Study 1. Gender appeared to be a more salien
variable in Study 2, with all four scales showing significant di
ferences. Number of times in love, on the other hand, showed t
rather than four scale differences in Study 2 (with a trend also exist
for a third scale). Self-esteem showed the greatest changes, with th
of the four scales showing significant differences in Study 1 and n
in Study 2. Perlman (1974) offered a plausible model to explain s
results. Drawing on Stratton and Spitzer's (1967) social devia
model, he proposed that "the nature of the permissiveness/self-este
relationship is dependent upon societal norms. In moderate cultu
there should be little or no relationship between these variables. Bu
more liberal cultures, permissive individuals should have high s
esteem" (p. 470). Thus in a moderate society the variables are
unrelated, whereas in a society where permissiveness may be the social
"norm," permissive individuals will feel more socially approved and
will report higher self-esteem. Since the Florida sample was more en-
dorsing of Permissiveness than the Texas sample (nearly .5 scale point
difference for each gender), Perlman's model of liberal versus moderate
cultures may well fit. The whole discussion underlines the need for con-
tinued research on ethnic, cultural, and geographic differences in sex-
ual attitudes and related variables (Jones, Carpenter, & Quintana,
1985).
The various analyses undertaken to substantiate the construct
validity of the Sexual Attitudes Scale thus provide the support that
was intended. The statistically and theoretically consistent relation-
ships between the sex scales and the love scales, the patterns of factor
loadings for the scales, the relationships between the sex scales and
sensation seeking, and the relationships between various psychosocial
variables and the sex scales all undergird the sex scales' solidity.
Conclusions
First, we need to briefly consider the semantics of the Sexual Atti-

tudes Scale. This scale purports to measure "attitudes" toward sex-
uality, and it might be argued that while Permissiveness can be con
sidered an attitude, Sexual Practices, Communion, and Instrumental-
ity cannot. We disagree. For instance, preference for certain kinds of

146.50.151.137 on Thu, 22 Feb 2024 13:56:50 +00:00
Sexual Practices implies certain attitudes toward those pra

High endorsement of this scale represents strong agreement w
use of birth control, with sex education, and with the acceptab
such sexual behaviors as masturbation. Communion is a scale that
reflects attitudes toward sex that focus on sharing, involvement, and
more than a tinge of idealism. Instrumentality clearly presents an att
tude/orientation toward sex that is utilitarian and somewhat genitally
focused. High agreement reflects these utilitarian attitudes; low agree
ment reflects the opposite. Thus the scale names are reasonably ac
curate reflectors of the attitude constellations contained in the scales,
though we acknowledge that no scale names can perfectly capture the
complicated dimensions of sexuality.
The study of sexual attitudes is clearly important and can profi
from the employment of the 43-item Sexual Attitudes Scale developed
in the present research program. The revised scale, although by n
means an exhaustive survey of sexual attitudes, offers a promising ad
dition to existing scales, and it can be used as a four-factor sexual at-
titudes scale; or, the 21-item Permissiveness scale can be used in-
dividually. Moderate relationships between the scale and criterion
measures such as the Sexual Opinion Survey, the Reiss Male and
Female Premarital Sexual Permissiveness Scales, and the Revised
Mosher Guilt Inventory indicate that the Sexual Attitudes Scale may
well offer an extension of existing theoretical frameworks.
It is important to note that the subjects relatively rejected Instru-
mentality as an orientation to sexual attitudes. Subjects were also
somewhat rejecting of Permissiveness, although the Texas sample of
Study 2 was even less Permissive (.5 scale point higher for men and .4
for women) than was the Miami sample of Study 1. On the other hand,
both samples endorsed Sexual Practices and Communion. The need is
clear for further research to address regional and cultural variations in
sexual attitudes.
Gender differences occurred in both studies, with men consistently
more permissive and instrumental than women. In addition, in Study
2, women were more endorsing of Sexual Practices and more oriented
to Communion than were men. Although we were guarded in our
earlier study (Hendrick et al., 1985) about prognosticating either con-
vergence or divergence of male/female sexual attitudes, the data re-
ported here would indicate that anything approaching total con-
vergence will be a long time in coming. It has been suggested that
gender differences are most evident in topic areas reflecting sexual per-
missiveness/liberality; and since half the items in the scale are Per-

146.50.151.137 on Thu, 22 Feb 2024 13:56:50 +00:00
missiveness items, the Sexual Attitudes Scale may be more sen

to gender differences than would a scale reflecting a broader dom
sexuality. What is most likely is that convergence depends to a
extent on the topic as well as the particular sample being assessed
instance, there is greater convergence on Communion than on
missiveness in both samples (topic convergence) and greater
vergence on Instrumentality in the Texas sample than in the F
sample (sample convergence). It may be also that the genders
less divergence than they would have some years ago and are ther
moving in a convergent direction. Further study of this quest
clearly needed.
The love status questions-how many times a subject had bee
love and whether the subject was in love at the time of testin
strong enough relationships with sexual attitudes to warrant subs
tial continued exploration. Subjects who were in love at the time o
survey were less permissive and instrumental and more orien
Communion and Sexual Practices than those not in love. Being in
apparently not only cues off an intense response pattern but one
may move toward some measure of altruism (e.g., Kelley, 198
deed, the relationship between love and sex is both psychometr
and conceptually compelling.
Although the Sexual Attitudes Scale was developed empirica
without an explicit theoretical framework, it offers four subscale
are conceptually meaningful when considered in light of the v
measures of criterion and construct validity discussed earlier. For
stance, persons high in Permissiveness are relatively positive t
erotica, positive toward various sexual behaviors, untroubled b
guilt, oriented toward a gameplaying lovestyle, susceptible to
dom, and somewhat impervious to society's social and moral dictu
Such individuals are likely to have numerous sexual encounter
casual, freewheeling style. Similar profiles can be established f
other subscales in the Sexual Attitudes Scale, though it should
noted that the subscales are not mutually exclusive; and thus an i
vidual may highly endorse one or more of the scales. Numer
hypotheses can be generated for how such permissive persons
appear on a particular personality measure (e.g., MMPI, 16 PF)
the various problems that might emerge when a strongly permis
person attempts to maintain a monogamous love/sexual relatio
Exploration of these and other attitudes needs to be implem
and the present research should be extended to work with inta
dissolving couples, to see how sexual attitudes may impact-an
impacted by-an ongoing relationship. The Sexual Attitudes S

146.50.151.137 on Thu, 22 Feb 2024 13:56:50 +00:00
shows considerable promise for research on the multifaceted

sexual attitudes. Sexual attitudes cover much more than
siveness, and although that concept is very important, w
tempted to show in this research that other aspects of sexu
are also important. Therefore, future research will be most
if it incorporates a multidimensional reality into the stud
attitudes.
References
BYRNE, D., & FISHER, W. A. (1983). Adolescents, sex, and contraception. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
CLAYTON, R. R., & BOKEMEIER, J. L. (1980). Premarital sex in the seventies. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 42, 759-775.
DELAMATER, J., & MACCORQUODALE, P. (1979). Premarital sexuality: Attitudes, rela-
tionships, behavior. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
FERRELL, M. Z., TOLONE, W. L., & WALSH, R. H. (1977). Maturational and societal
changes in the sexual double-standard: A panel analysis (1967-1971; 1970-1974).
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 39, 255-271.
FISHER, W. A., BYRNE, D., WHITE, L. A., & KELLEY, K. (in press). Erotophobia-eroto-
philia as a dimension of personality. The Journal of Sex Research.
GREEN, S. E., & MOSHER, D. L. (1985). A causal model of sexual arousal to erotic fanta-
sies. The Journal of Sex Research, 21, 1-23.
HENDRICK, C., & HENDRICK, S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 50, 392-402.
HENDRICK, S., & HENDRICK, C. (in press). Love and sex attitudes and religious beliefs.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology.
HENDRICK, C., HENDRICK, S., FOOTE, F. H., & SLAPION-FOOTE, M. J. (1984). Do men
and women love differently? Journal of Social and Personality Relationships, 1,
177-195.
HENDRICK, S., HENDRICK, C., SLAPION-FOOTE, M. J., & FOOTE, F. H. (1985). Gender
differences in sexual attitudes. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 48,
1630-1642.
HOPKINS, J. R. (1977). Sexual behavior in adolescence. Journal of Social Issues, 33(2),
67-85.
JONES, W. H., CARPENTER, B. N., & QUINTANA, D. (1985). Personality and interpersonal
predictors of loneliness in two cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 48, 1503-1511.
JURICH, A. P., & JURICH, J. A. (1974). The effect of cognitive moral development upon
the selection of premarital sexual standards. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
36, 736-741.
KELLEY, H. H. (1983). Love and commitment. In H. H. Kelley, E. Berscheid,
A. Christensen, J. H. Harvey, T. L. Huston, G. Levinger, E. McClintock, L. A. Pep-
lau, & D. R. Peterson (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 265-314). New York: W. H.
Freeman.
LEE, J. A. (1973). The colors of love: An exploration of the ways of loving. Don Mills, On
tario: New Press.
LIBBY, R. W., GRAY, L., & WHITE, M. (1978). A test and reformulation of referen
group and role correlates of premarital sexual permissiveness theory. Journal
LUCKEY, E. B., & NASS, G. D. (1969). A comparison of sexual attitudes and behavior
an international sample. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 31, 364-379.

146.50.151.137 on Thu, 22 Feb 2024 13:56:50 +00:00
MACCORQUODALE, P., & DELAMATER, J. (1979). Self-image and premarital sex

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 327-339.
PERLMAN, D. (1974). Self-esteem and sexual permissiveness. Journal of Marria
the Family, 36, 470-473.
PERLMAN, D., JOSEPHSON, W., HWANG, W. T., BEGUM, H., & THOMAS, T. L.
Cross-cultural analysis of student's sexual standards. Archives of Sexual Beh
7, 545-558.
REISS, I. L. (1964). The scaling of premarital sexual permissiveness. Journal of M
and the Family, 26, 188-198.
REISS, I. L. (1967). The social context of premarital sexual permissiveness. New
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
REISS, I. L. (1982). Trouble in paradise: The current status of sexual science. The
nal of Sex Research, 18, 97-113.
REISS, I. L. (1986). A sociological journey into sexuality. Journal of Marriage a
Family, 48, 233-242.
ROBINSON, I. E., & JEDLICKA, D. (1982). Change in sexual attitudes and beha
college students from 1965 to 1980: A research note. Journal of Marriage an
Family, 44, 237-240.
SCHIAVI, R. C., DEROGATIS, L. R., KURIANSKY, J., O'CONNOR, D., & SHARPE, L. (
The assessment of sexual function and marital interaction. Journal of Se
Marital Therapy, 5, 169-224.
SINGH, B. K. (1980). Trends in attitudes toward premarital sexual relations. Jou
STRATTON, J. R., & SPITZER, S. P. (1967). Sexual permissiveness and self evalua
question of substance and a question of method. Journal of Marriage and the F
ly, 29, 434-441.
ZUCKERMAN, M., KOLIN, E. A., PRICE, L., & ZOOB, I. (1964). Development of a
tion seeking scale. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 28, 477-482.
Accepted forpublication February 10, 1986

146.50.151.137 on Thu, 22 Feb 2024 13:56:50 +00:00

Hendrick MultidimensionalitySexualAttitudes 1987

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hendrick MultidimensionalitySexualAttitudes 1987

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Multidimensionality of Sexual Attitudes

Author(s): Susan Hendrick and Clyde Hendrick

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3812227

This content downloaded from

In four studies, we used the Sexual Attitudes Scale, a new mult

Sexual attitudes and behavior provide a rich area for research. To

Requests for reprints should be sent to Susan Hendrick, PhD, Department of

This content downloaded from

verging (e.g., DeLamater & MacCorquodale, 1979; Hopkins, 1

This content downloaded from

portant. Elimination of redundant and ambiguous items resulted

Two large data collections were needed to conclude the psychometric

This content downloaded from

analyses: (1 = strongly agree, 2 = moderately agree, 3 = neutral

Selected sample characteristics for the Miami sample were as

This content downloaded from

Means SD loadings Means SD loadings

12. It is all right to pressure some-

13. Unlimited premarital sexual ex-

15. Sex for its own sake is per-

This content downloaded from

22. Birth control is part of respon-

29. Sexual techniques get better as

This content downloaded from

Note. Final version of a revised item is

For Study 1, the best solution

This content downloaded from

The item revisions (7 items) for Study 2 are shown in pare

Reliability Analyses of the Sex Scales

Because of the nature of principal components analysis, the factors

This content downloaded from

dependent of each other. To assess degree of scale independenc

Intercorrelations Among Sex Scale Sum Scores

] Permissiveness .00 .14* .44*

This content downloaded from

even more important is assessment of criterion validity and

In order to establish the place of the Sexual Attitudes Scale

Intercorrelations Between Sex Scale and Criterion Measures

This content downloaded from

sexual practices appears to respond positively to erotica, but the ove

This content downloaded from

Correlations Between Sex and Love

The Love Attitudes Scale is a 42-item Likert-format scale comprised

This content downloaded from

Correlational analyses were performed on the Love Attitudes

This content downloaded from

small but consistently negative relationship between Agape

Intercorrelations Between Sex and Love Scales

Love scales Permissiveness Sex Practices Communion Instrumentality

This content downloaded from

scales most oriented to a game-playing, mechanistic love/sex rela

Factor Analysis of Sex and Love Scales

Eros -.28 .65* -.19

Sex and Sensation-Seeking

This content downloaded from

affective and sensory attitudes and experiences that appear

Intercorrelations Between Sexual Attitudes Scale and Sensation Seeking Scale

Permissive- Sex Instrumen-

ness and Experience seeking are modestly correlated; one

This content downloaded from

ethereal idealism. Instrumentality is related to Disinhibition and Bo

Psychosocial Variables and Sexual Attitudes

This content downloaded from