Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:283295 DOI 10.

1007/s10508-011-9793-6

ORIGINAL PAPER

Measurement of Nontraditional Sexuality in Women

Ronald F. Levant Thomas J. Rankin Rosalie J. Hall K. Bryant Smalley Christine M. Williams

Received: 10 July 2009 / Revised: 24 April 2011 / Accepted: 24 April 2011 / Published online: 27 July 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract The Womens Nontraditional Sexuality Questionnaire (WNSQ) was developed, and its factor structure, reliability, and convergent and concurrent validity assessed, in two samples of midwestern U.S. college women. Study 1 (N = 243) used exploratory factor analysis to assess the instrument dimensionality. In Study 2 (N = 627), the t of the four-factor solution derived from Study 1 was assessed using conrmatory factor analysis. Resultssupported afour-factor solution comprising: Involvement in Casual Sex, Self-Pleasuring, Degree of Sexual Interest, and Using Sex as a Means to an End. WNSQ total score and subscales had acceptable internal consistency reliability. Convergent validity was supported by signicant correlations of the WNSQ and its subscales with a measure of casual sex (the Sociosexual Orientation Index), and with a measure of adherence to traditional feminine sexual norms (the Purity subscale of the Femininity Ideology Scale). The WNSQ showed weak relationships with a measure of risky sexual health communication practices (Health Protective Sexual Communication Scale). The WNSQ offers promise for study of womens sexual attitudes and behaviors. Keywords Sexual norms Nontraditional sexuality Casual sex Femininity Sexual health
R. F. Levant (&) T. J. Rankin C. M. Williams Department of Psychology, The University of Akron, College of Arts & Sciences Building, Room 350, Akron, OH 44325-4301, USA e-mail: Levant@uakron.edu R. J. Hall Department of Psychology, The University of Akron, College of Arts & Sciences Building, Room 301, Akron, OH 44325-4301, USA K. B. Smalley Department of Psychology, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA, USA

Introduction The Gender Role Strain Paradigm (Levant, 1996; Pleck, 1981, 1995) posits gender role norms are socially constructed and reective of the power hierarchy between the genders in any particular society or subculture. Here, we focus on the norm for womens sexual behavior. We cite evidence suggesting that womens sexual norms changed from 1993 to 2007 (Peterson & Hyde, 2010), and argue that existing measures of womens sexuality do not adequately capture the full range of contemporary sexual attitudes and behaviors of women. We then introduce a new measure, the Womens Nontraditional Sexuality Questionnaire (WNSQ), designed to assess previously unmeasured aspects of womens sexual attitudes and behaviors.

Trends in Norms for Womens Sexual Behavior For men, the traditional norm in the U.S. for sexual behavior has been non-relational sexuality, which is dened as the tendency to engage in sexual behavior without any requirements for relational intimacy (Levant, 1997). This sexual norm permits men to engage in sex for a variety of reasons. For example, in a qualitative study of the reasons men and women gave for why humans have sex, Meston and Buss (2007, Study 1) found 237 distinct expressed reasons. Factor analysis of a large subset of these reasons resulted in four main factors: Physical Reasons, which incorporates hedonic and recreational sex; Goal Attainment, or using sex as a means to attain an end; Emotional, which reects relational sex, incorporating love and intimacy; and Insecurity, which includes using sex as a means of self-validation. As would be implied by a male sexual norm sanctioning sex for a variety of reasons, Meston and Buss noted that men endorsed most of the reasons for having sex with a substantially higher frequency than did women(p. 500).

123

284

Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:283295

In contrast, the traditional norm for womens sexual behavior in the U.S. has been strictly relational, requiring not only that sex occur within the context of a long-term monogamous heterosexual relationship, but also directing that the purpose of sex (in addition to procreation) is to promote intimacy and the relational bond of the couple (Hynie, Lydon, Cote, & Wiener, 1998; Levant, Richmond, Cook, House, & Aupont, 2007). This traditional sexual norm thus has discouraged women from using sex for physical reasons, such as recreational sex, including both casual sex and self-pleasuring through masturbation and the use of erotica (Alexander & Fisher, 2003). This difference in mens and womens sexual norms is reected in the large effect sizes found in a meta-analysis of gender differences in casual sex (d = .81) and masturbation (d = .96) published in the 1990s (Oliver & Hyde, 1993). The traditional relational sexual norm has also discouraged women from using sex instrumentally for goal attainment, including using sex as a means to gain an end, and participating in commercial sex (Levant et al., 2007). However, womens increasing access to education and nancial resources over the last 50 years has allowed them to gain independence and to change many of the traditional norms of femininity. There is also evidence that the traditional relational sexual norm for women may have lost its hegemony over a similar time period (Peterson & Hyde, 2010; Robinson & Jedlicka, 1982; Wells & Twenge, 2005), perhaps due to the combined effects of the feminist and gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) movements and the sexual revolution in the United States. As a result, women may have more permission to explore nontraditional sexuality, including both recreational and instrumental forms of sex. With regard to recreational sex, there is evidence of recent changes in the acceptance of casual sex and self-pleasuring among women. First, Peterson and Hydes (2010) recent metaanalytic review of gender differences in sexuality found smaller effect sizes for gender differences in casual sex (d = .45) and masturbation (d = .53) than those reported in the 1990s by Oliver and Hyde (1993). This suggests a decline from large to moderate gender differences over about a decade. Second, Peterson and Hydes meta-analytic review of gender differences in sexuality also found that womens attitudes on sex with commitment were, by 2007, more permissive than those of men. This nding was in the opposite direction and signicantly different from ndings of the 1993 meta-analysis. Womens engagement in casual sex appears to be related to their increasing levels of educational attainment (Gaughan, 2002). Women who are better educated and are therefore able to obtain more prestigious careers are also less likely to marry (Cooney & Uhlenberg, 1991), perhaps due both to their nancial independence (Goldscheider & Waite, 1986) and to the shortage of suitable long-term mate prospects. College women outnumber men, and educated single women report having trouble meeting suitable prospective mates. A recent study found that 78% of the women on one college campus had engaged in

hook-upactivity (casual sex) at least once (Paul, McManus, & Hayes, 2000). Another investigation found, similarly, that 45% of college freshmen women reported engaging in hooking up sporadically and another 24% reported engaging in it frequently (Samberg & Bursik, 2007). With regard to instrumental sex, Meston and Buss (2007) found that women endorsed a variety of utilitarian reasons for having sex, although they did so less frequently than did men. These reasonsincluded bothusing sex as means to gain an end (e.g., I wanted to get a raise) and commercial sex (e.g., Someone offered me money to do it). The literature on these reasons for having sex is very sparse and generally consists of qualitative studies focused on the lives of the women (M. Vaughn, personal communication, January 18, 2011). The sexual norm for women may thus be in ux. This in turn might have implications for womens sexual health. When sexual norms are in a state of ux, with emergent norms existing alongside traditional norms, women may receive conicting messages about appropriate sexual behavior. This may create confusion and embarrassment which could lead to inconsistency in the use of good sexual health practices such as birth control, gynecological healthcare,andprevention,testing,andtreatment ofsexually transmitted infections. Further, as casual sex becomes more accepted, the number of sexual partners may increase, and women may be at higher risk for STD infection and unwanted pregnancy. Research literature that addresses these potential relationships is sparse. However, as an example of risks associated with higher levels of casual sex, it has been found that young adults at high risk for HIV infection have a reduced likelihood of using a condom as the number of partners increased (Binson, Dolcini, Pollack, & Catania, 1993), and that college women who were younger at the age of sexual debut and who exercised less vigilant methods of decision-making about having sex engaged in more risky sexual practices (Chambers, 2004). If the norm for womens sexuality is indeed changing, measures are needed to assess the full range of contemporary sexual attitudes and behaviors. For example, the most frequently used measure of non-relational sexuality, the Sociosexual Orientation Index (SOI; Simpson & Gangestad, 1991), consists of only one factor focused narrowly upon casual sex. We argue that other dimensions of sexual behavior also may be included in womens non-traditional sexuality. These dimensions include the self-pleasuring aspect of recreational sexuality and aspects of instrumental sexuality such as using sex as a means to gain an end and participating in commercial sex. Similarly, another existing measure, the Attitudes Toward Dating and Relationships Measure, is also too narrow. It focuses on the extent to whichmales and females are viewed as being on opposing teamstaking different roles, and using sex as the object of exchange(Ward & Rivadeneyra, 1999, p. 241). Thus, we developed the Womens Nontraditional Sexuality Questionnaire (WNSQ) to assess changes and variations in, and correlates of, contemporary womens sexual attitudes and behaviors.

123

Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:283295

285

Considerations in the Design and Validation of the WNSQ Following the recommendations of Simpson and Gangestad (1991), the WNSQ was designed to assess both sexual behaviors and attitudes. We conceptualized the potential dimensionality of this new instrument as broadly as possible and included items relevant to several forms of sexuality prohibited by the traditional relational sexual norm for women. The instrument was initially envisioned as having one attitudinal (nontraditional sexual attitudes) and ve behavioral subscales. The rst theoretically generated behavioral dimension, degree of interest in sex, was intended both as an indicator of baseline sexual interest and as a gateway dimension, in that a higher level of sexual interest would be required to overcome internal and external resistance to the violation of traditional norms. We further theorized that womens nontraditional sexual behavior would include two dimensions of recreational sex (involvement in casual sex; selfpleasuring) and two dimensions of instrumental sex (using sex as a means to an end; involvement in commercial sex (the latter includes both paying for and being paid for sex). Two studies were conducted to assess the psychometric properties of this new measure in samples of U.S. college women attending a large midwestern university. In Study 1, we used exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to examine the dimensionality and factor loadings of a set of items generated in accord with the theoretical dimensions described in the preceding paragraph. Study 2 employed conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) to determine the t of the factor structure as rened in Study 1 in a replication sample. In addition, Study 1 assessed the instruments convergent validity, using measures of casual sexual behavior and adherence to traditional feminine sexual norms. A measure of risky sexual health communication practices was used in Study 2 to explore concurrent validity. Study 1 Hypotheses for Study 1 1. The WNSQ will have a six-factor structure reecting a single attitudinal dimension, Nontraditional Attitudes About Sex, and ve behavioral dimensions: Degree of Sexual Interest, Involvement in Casual Sex, Self-Pleasuring, Using Sex as a Means to an End, and Involvement in Commercial Sex. 2. Convergent validity of the WNSQ total score will be supported by nding: (a) a signicant, positive, moderate correlation between the WNSQ total score and the SOI (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991); and (b) a signicant, negative, moderate correlation between the WNSQ total score and a measure of the endorsement of traditional feminine sexual norms, the Purity subscale of the Femininity Ideology Scale (FIS; Levant et al., 2007). 3. The Involvement in Casual Sex subscale will have a signicant, positive, large correlation with the SOI (also

intended as a measure of casual sexual behavior), thus supporting convergent validity for this subscale. Involvement in Casual Sex will have the largest positive correlation of all of the WNSQ subscales with the SOI. Method Participants Study 1 participants were female students (N = 243) from a large midwestern U.S. university recruited from psychology classes during the Summer and Fall semesters of 2006. A total of 262 participants began the study, and 243 completed it, for a completion rate of 92.7%. The participants were predominantly White/European American (85.6%) and middle class (median family/household income, $40,00160,000), with an average age of 21.42 years (SD = 5.43). The second largest racial/ethnic group was Black/African American (7.8%) with other racial/ ethnic groups each comprising 2.1% or less of the sample. Only 10.3% of participants described themselves as married/partnered/engaged. Most (88.5%) stated that they had been sexually active at some time, yet fewer (72.4%) described themselves ascurrently sexually active,and fewer yet (67.1%) said they were in a sexual relationship. Most (92.2%) said they were exclusively heterosexual. Procedure Study 1 was approved by the university IRB. Female students were recruited from psychology courses and offered extra credit for their participation. Those who agreed to participate provided their e-mail addresses and were subsequently e-mailed the link to the online survey. Instructions asked them to visit the link at their leisure within 2 weeks and to complete the survey at a time when they would have privacy and not be distracted. The website was constructed through a pre-existing commercial survey site (www.surveymonkey.com) with access to participants data restricted by password to the researchers. The rst webpage presented the informed consent materials. Given the nature of the questions, the survey was anonymous. Demographic information was asked rst, followed by the survey instruments, which were presented in the following order: WNSQ, SOI, FIS-Purity. At the end of the survey, participants were directed to a separate site where they entered their contact information for extra credit. This second website was not linked to the survey, allowing participants to receive extra credit while keeping their responses anonymous. Measures Womens Nontraditional Sexuality Questionnaire (WNSQ) The initial section of the questionnaire consisted of six

123

286

Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:283295

introductory questions about current relationship status and sexual activity. Following this, the core part of the questionnaire consisted of 26 behavioral items with 7-point Never (1) to Frequently (7) Likert-type response scales, and 8 attitudinal items with 7-pointStrongly Disagree(1) toStrongly Agree (7) Likert-type response scales. The factor analyses and validity coefcients reported in this study are based on the behavioral and attitudinal items. Items were written by members of the research team to capture the content domain of each of six proposed subscales: (1) Nontraditional Attitudes About Sex (8 items; e.g.,One should always be ready for sex), (2) Degree of Sexual Interest (6 items; e.g., Given the chance, how often would you choose to have sex?), (3) Involvement in Casual Sex (7 items; e.g.,How often would you have anonymous sex with someone you were very attracted to if you were in a relationship and knew for sure that your partner would not nd out?), (4) Self-Pleasuring (6 items; e.g.,How often do you use sex toys alone?), (5) Using Sex as a Means to an End (5 items; e.g.,How often have you had sex to get someone to do something for you?), and (6) Involvement in Commercial Sex (2 items; e.g.,How often have you been paid for sex?). A total WNSQ scale score was calculated by averaging item responses across all six subscales. (See Appendix for all 40 items of the original WNSQ, including the initial six items describing relationship and sexual activity.) Sociosexual Orientation Index (SOI; Simpson & Gangestad, 1991) The SOI, a 7-item scale designed to assess individual differences in sociosexual orientation (the willingness to engage in uncommitted sexual relations), was used to assess convergent validity of the WNSQ. This measure consists of four questions with open-ended response formats asking participants about the number of sexual partners they had in the past year, the number of partners anticipated over the next 5 years, the number of times they engaged in sex with someone on only one occasion, and how often they fantasize about having sex with someone other than their current or most recent sex partner. Additionally, there are three items assessing attitudes towards sexuality using 9-point Likert scales, where 1 = strongly agree and 9 = strongly disagree (e.g.,Sex without love is ok). Responses were weighted and summed to obtain a total score; higher scores indicate a higher sociosexual orientation. Simpson and Gangestad (1991) reported that the women in their college-aged sample scored from 10 to 172 on the SOI, with a mean of 38.9 and SD of 26.9. They evaluated the reliability and validity of the SOI in a series of six studies. Internal consistency reliability was found to be adequate (Cronbachs alpha = .83). Higher scores on the SOI related to having sex earlier within a romantic relationship and to having concurrent sexual partners within a discrete time period. Lower scores related to requiring a more committed, loving relationship before being willing to engage in sexual activity. Simpson and Gangestad also found the SOI was not signicantly related to the desire to

have sex, suggesting that it is not simply a measure of sexual interest. Purity Subscale of the Femininity Ideology Scale (FIS; Levant et al., 2007) The 9-item Purity subscale of the FIS was used to assess convergent validity of the WNSQ. The FIS assesses the degree to which participants endorse traditional femininity ideology, e.g.,A woman should remain a virgin until she is married.Participants indicated their agreement or disagreement on a 5-point Likert-type scale, where higher scores represent stronger agreement with traditional norms. A subscale score was created by averaging responses to all 9 items. Internal consistency reliability was found to be adequate (Cronbachs alpha = .84). Statistical Analysis Not surprisingly, given the content of the WNSQ items and the college-age sample, participants in both Study 1 and Study 2 predominantly used the lower few categories of the seven-point response scale. This resulted in item-level responses with substantial skew and kurtosis. We believed that this non-normality was an accurate and an inevitable result of studying sexual behavior in a relatively young sample. That is, a large number of college age women do indeed have zero or low frequency responses to many of the questionnaire items while a very few have much higher frequency responses. Thus it was desirable to nd estimation methods appropriate for the factor analysis of such nonnormal data. Otherwise, when more traditional maximum likelihood or ordinary least squares estimators are used, data that are non-normal and coarsely measured (i.e., with a small number of response categories) can bias model t statistics, as well as potentially biasing parameter estimates and their signicance tests (Finney & DiStefano, 2006). In conditions of coarse measurement scales and substantial multivariate non-normality, Finney and DiStefano (2006) recommend using a specialized weighted least squares estimator for model tting and testing, specically the WLSMV estimator n & Muthe n, 19982007). We folavailable in Mplus (Muthe lowed their recommendation and used the WLSMV in both the exploratory factor analyses performed in Study 1 and the conrmatory factor analysis performed in Study 2. One advantage of using a WLSMV estimator for the EFA was the availability of model t statistics and signicance tests for the factor loadings, in addition to the more traditional standardized factor loadings which were also estimated. In other respects, standard analytic procedures were used. Results Preliminary Analyses Before performing the EFA, the WNSQ item-level responses were inspected. Three items had zero or very low variance

123

Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:283295

287

(Items 13, 16, and 19), and thus they were dropped from further analysis. Two of these items constituted the Involvement in Commercial Sex subscale (paying for or being paid for sex); hence, this subscale was dropped from further analysis, and Hypothesis 1 was modied accordingly, positing a ve- rather than a six-factor structure. This left 31 WNSQ items with sufcient variance in responding to proceed with the planned analyses. Tests of Revised Hypothesis 1: Dimensionality of the WNSQ Revised Hypothesis 1 proposed that the pattern of relationships among the WNSQ items would be consistent with a ve-factor structure. This hypothesis was investigated using exploratory factor analysis (EFA), with an oblique (geomin) rotation which allowed the resulting factors to intercorrelate. As a rst step, the eigenvalues resulting from the EFA of the remaining 31 WNSQ items were assessed using parallel analysis, performed using OConnors (2000) SPSS macro to generate 1,000 random permutations of the WNSQ data and extract comparison eigenvalues. The mean and 95th percentile eigenvalues from the parallel analysis procedure were compared with the actual eigenvalues computed from the original raw data. The mean eigenvalue from the parallel analysis suggested a four-factor structure, and the 95th percentile eigenvalue was right on the border between supporting a four- or a ve-factor structure. Thus, we tested both a four- and a ve-factor EFA model. In our evaluation of the EFA results, we required a minimum loading of .35 for each item on a primary factor, and followed Tabachnick and Fidells (2007) suggestion that items with a secondary loading of .32 or greater should be removed. It was clearly apparent that the ve-factor solution was not optimal, only a single item had a substantial loading on the fth factor. Furthermore, contrary to our initial expectations, no single factor reecting non-traditional sexual attitudes emerged cleanly. Rather, attitudinal items tended to load together with behavioral items. Given these aws, the ve-factor model was discarded as untenable, thereby disconrming Hypothesis 1. We then tested the four-factor model. An initial estimation of a four-factor structure with the full set of 31 potentially viable items indicated that some items did not perform well. Accordingly, four items were removed because they did not have a minimum loading of .35 on any factor, and six items were removed because they had secondary loadings of .32 or higher. The four-factor solution resulting from an EFA of the remaining 21 items was more satisfactory. Based on item content, we labeled the resulting factors: (1) Involvement in Casual Sex (7 items), (2) Self-Pleasuring (5 items), (3) Degree of Sexual Interest (4 items), and (4) Using Sex as a Means to an End (5 items). As shown in Table 1, most items in the factor solutions had strong loadings on a primary factor (values ranged from .44 to .96) and low loadings on the remaining factors, thus approximating simple structure.

The four-factor model had a signicant chi square value, v2(81) = 155.93, p\.0001, indicating that there wassome degree of lack of t to the data above and beyond what would be expected from sampling error. However, the value of the chi-square goodness of t statistic can be sensitive to minor and theoretically uninteresting sources of model mist. Larger samples often produce signicant chi-square tests even in models which are correct in their major aspects. Thus, many suggest also consulting alternative approximate t indices (Kahn, 2006) to determine whether a model demonstrates adequate t, even if the chi-square statistic is signicant. The comparative t index (CFI) and the TuckerLewis Index (TLI) are two commonly recommended alternative indices of t with a criterion for acceptable values of .90 or above (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Considering these indices, the four-factor model t well, with CFI = .96 and TLI = .98. The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) takes model complexity into account; good model t is suggested by RMSEA values of .05 or lower, whereas values between .05 and .08 suggest reasonable error of approximation (Kline, 2005). The four-factor model showed reasonably good t based on the RMSEA, with a value of .062. Finally, the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) is a measure of the mean absolute correlation residual, the overall difference between observed and predicted correlations, for which values of less than .10 are considered good. The four-factor model showed good t based on the SRMR, with a value of .055. In sum, the four-factor EFA model met multiple recommended indices of approximate t.

Tests of Hypotheses 2a and 2b: Convergent Validity of the WNSQ Total Score Descriptive statistics for the SOI and FIS-Purity scales used in the tests for convergent validity are shown in Table 3. Our participants average SOI score was similar to that of Simpson and Gangestads (1991) sample (37.49 vs. 38.90, respectively). Further, our sample tended to not endorse the feminine norm of Purity, scoring slightly below the midpoint on this 5-point scale, but not as low as the women in the Levant et al. (2007) study (2.90 vs. 2.56, respectively). (Descriptive statistics for the WNSQ and its factors are also shown in Table 3; however, note that these results were based on the combined data from Study 1 and Study 2 in order to increase the accuracy of the estimates.) Hypotheses 2a and 2b addressed the convergent validity of the WNSQ total score. First, Hypothesis 2a proposed that the WNSQ total score relates signicantly, positively, and moderately with the SOI measure of sociosexuality, as both measures assess aspects of womens non-traditional sexuality. As shown in Table 3, these two measures showed a signicant, positive, and moderately high correlation, r = .67, p\.01, indicating that women who reported more attitudes and behaviors reective of nontraditional sexuality also reported more attitudes and

123

288 Table 1 Study 1: Standardized factor loadings for WNSQ items from the exploratory factor analysis

Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:283295

Factor 1 Factor 1: Casual Sex (7 items) 9. How often do you go somewhere (e.g., bar, social event) to nd someone to have sex with? .96 .71 .80 .87 .83 .81 .73 .08 -.04 .00 .00 .02 .09 .03 -.11 -.11 .13 .23 .07 .15 .11 .51 .35 .41 .40 . .42 -.12 -.17 .25 -.27 -.43 -.11 .09 .04 -.13 .02 .04 .00 .07 .03 .09 10. How often would you have anonymous sex with someone you are very attracted to if you are/were single? 17. How often do you cheat sexually on a partner? 22. How often do you have sex outside of an exclusive relationship? 23. How often would you have anonymous sex with someone you were very attracted to if you were in a relationship and knew for sure that your partner would not nd out? 28. Do you ever have sex with a friend with whom you are not interested in dating (so-calledfriends with benets)? 29. How often do you have sex with someone you just met? Factor 2: Self-Pleasuring (5 items) 11. How often do you masturbate? 12. How often do you use sex toys alone? 18. How often do you purchase sex toys? 24. How often do you buy an x-rated video? 31. How often do you watch pornography alone? Factor 3: Degree of Sexual Interest (4 items) 7. Given the chance, how often would you choose to have sex? .31 .31 .23 -.02 -.03 .00 -.04 -.04 .32 -.07 .08 .38 .39 .17 -.07 -.21 -.06 -.32 .47 .60 -.10 .59 .01 .67 -.01 .44 .09 .31 .07 .25 .45 .75 .78 .38 21. How often do you say what you want or need during sex? 27. How often do you fantasize about having sex with your current partner? 34. One should always be ready for sex Factor 4: Using Sex as a Means to an End (5 items) 8. How often have you had sex to end a ght? 26. How often do you use sex to get something you want? 30. How often have you had sex to get someone to do something for you? 35. Sex can be a useful tool in some situations 39. I would not use sex to get something I wanted. (reverse scored) Items not meeting criteria 14. How often do you fantasize about having sex with someone other than your partner? 15. How often have you had sex to keep your partner in the relationship? 20. How often do you talk to your friends about your sexual experiences? 25. How often do you go to a strip club? 32. How often do you have phone-sex or cyber-sex with someone you are not in a relationship with? 33. Sex should be unplanned, rather than planned ahead of time 36. Hugging and kissing should not always lead to sex 37. I am not sexually satised with any behavior other than intercourse 38. Orgasm is not a necessary part of sex for me. 40. Sex should only take place between two people who are in love Factor intercorrelations Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Boldface indicates primary loading .30 .29 .53 .30 .26 .02 .11 .40 .03 .25 .02 .09 .06 .32 .08 .04 .10 .02 .10 .88 .96 .80 .72 .02 -.10 .00 .16 .08 .01 .06 .10 .01 2 3 4

.19 -.16 -.05 .00 -.06 .12 -.18 -.09 .02 .08 .09

.86 -.14

.14 -.04

.12 2.79

.04 -.02

.01 -.03

.02 -.11

behaviors reective of sociosexuality. Thus, Hypothesis 2a was supported. Hypothesis 2b proposed that the WNSQ total score relates signicantly, negatively, and moderately with the FIS Purity score,

based on an expectation that women reporting greater frequencies of nontraditional sexual behaviors would score lower on a measure of the endorsement of the traditional feminine sexual norm of strict relational sexuality (Levant et al., 2007). As shown in

123

Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:283295

289

Table 3, there was a signicant negative moderate correlation between nontraditional sexual behavior (as measured by the WNSQ) and the Purity subscale of the FIS, r = -.42, p\.01. This supported Hypothesis 2b. Additional exploratory results showed that all of the WNSQ subscale scores correlated signicantly and negatively with the Purity subscale of the FIS, with values ranging from -.20 to -.41. Using Sex as a Means to an End showed the lowest correlation of all the subscales with FIS Purity, suggesting that this form of instrumental sex was more orthogonal (conceptually unrelated) to Purity than the remaining WNSQ subscales. Tests of Hypothesis 3: Convergent Validity of the WNSQ Casual Sex Subscale Hypothesis 3 proposed a signicant, positive, and large correlation between the Involvement in Casual Sex subscale score of the WNSQ and the SOI score. Furthermore, it was proposed that the Casual Sex subscale would have the strongest correlation of all of the WNSQ subscales with the SOI. The stronger relationship for the Casual Sex subscale was expected because, of all of the WNSQ subscales, it has the greatest conceptual overlap with the SOI. Table 3 presents the correlations of the SOI with the WNSQ subscale scores. As hypothesized, Involvement in Casual Sex showed a large positive signicant correlation with the SOI, r = .73, providing support for the convergent validity of the Involvement in Casual Sex subscale. The remaining three subscales correlated less strongly with the SOI (.32 .51), suggesting that these subscales may be measuring different, although related, constructs.

Hypotheses for Study 2 1. The data will show adequate t to a CFA model specifying 21 items loading on four WNSQ factors (Casual Sex, SelfPleasuring, Degree of Interest in Sex, and Sex as Means to Attain an End). 2. Concurrent validity of the WNSQ total score will be supported by nding a signicant, positive, moderate correlation between the WNSQ total score and the HPSCS. Method Participants and Procedure Study 2 was approved by the university IRB. Identical procedures were used to recruit women (N = 674) in psychology classes at the same large midwestern U.S. university during the Fall semester 2008. The measures were administered to participants online using the same safeguards for anonymity and condentiality as described in Study 1. A total of 732 participants began the study, and 674 completed it, for a completion rate of 90.8%. Importantly, this sample size more than met a 10:1 participant to item ratio, and had adequate statistical power (estimated to be .99) for the planned conrmatory factor analysis (the power estimate was based on MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara, 1996, Table 2, p. 142). Demographic characteristics of the participants were quite similar to those in Study 1. Participants were predominantly White/ European American (84.2%) and middle class (median family/ household income, $40,00160,000), with an average age of 20.00 (SD = 3.45). The second largest racial/ethnic group was Black/African American (8.8%) with other racial/ethnic groups each comprising 1.8% or less ofthe sample. Only 13.6% of participants described themselves asmarried/partnered/engaged. Most (87.6%) stated that they had been sexually active at some time, yet fewer (69.9%) described themselves ascurrently sexually active,and fewer yet (51.2%) said they were in a sexual relationship.Most(91.5%)saidtheywereexclusivelyheterosexual and 24.9% indicated that they recently been sexually active with someone who was not their exclusive sexual partner. Added Measures Health Protective Sexual Communication Scale (HPSCS; Catania, 1998) The HPSCS is a 10-item measure that assesses the openness of communication between new sexual partners in the last year regarding topics such as condom use, number of prior sex partners, sexually transmitted diseases, and other indices of risk and protective factors in sexual behavior (e.g.,How often in the past 12 months have youasked a new sex partner about the number of past sex partners he or she had?). HPSCS items use a 4-point Likert response scale, where 1 = always and 4 = never. Participants may also selectDont KnoworNot Applicable.A total scale score was by obtained by averaging

Study 2 Study 1 provided preliminary evidence supporting four of the intended dimensions of the WNSQ. The convergent validity analyses were also supportive. However, some aspects of Study 1 were not as anticipated. So few respondents indicated involvement in Commercial Sex, that the two items intended to assess this dimension were dropped from further analysis. In addition, a separate attitudinal factor did not emerge. Furthermore, Study 1 had a 7.8:1 participant to item ratio, which is less than the 10:1 ratio that is recommended for EFA. Although using a ratio lower than 10:1 in EFA is not uncommon (Costello & Osborne,2005), it nonetheless limits condence in the Study 1 results. Thus, it was important to replicate the factor structure in a second, larger sample. Study 2 was designed to test the four-factor model identied using CFA in a new, larger sample. In addition, the WNSQs concurrent validity was investigated through its correlation with a measure of risky sexual health communication practices, the Health Protective Sexual Communication Scale (HPSCS; Catania, 1998).

123

290

Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:283295

responses across all 10 items. Higher scores indicate communication patterns that are more risky to participants health. The HPSCS has been normed on national samples, ethnically diverse populations, as well as those at risk of contracting HIV based on their sexual behavior. Statistically signicant relationships have been found between HPSCS scores and high-risk sexual behaviors, such as multiple sexual partners, infrequent condom use, and alcohol use before sex (Catania, 1998). Previous studies using either a 3-item or 10-item version of the HPSCS have found alphas ranging from .82 to .88 (Catania, 1998). Results Test of Hypothesis 1: CFA of Four-Factor Model Hypothesis 1 proposed adequate t of a WNSQ conrmatory factor analytic (CFA) model specifying four factors, with the proposed loading patterns for the 21 item-level indicators based on the EFA ndings of Study 1. The resulting revised four-factor

model displayed a signicant chi square value, v2(79) = 354.59, p\.0001. As noted in Study 1, larger samples typically produce signicant chi-square tests even in relatively well-tting models. Turning to alternative t indices, the revised four-factor model t well with CFI = .92 and TLI = .96. Therevisedfour-factormodel also showed reasonably good t based on the RMSEA, with a value of .075. In sum, in Study 2, the revised four-factor CFA model with 21 items met multiple recommended t indices. The standardized factor loading for each item in the fourfactor model is shown in Table 2. Specically, the Involvement in Casual Sex factor had seven items (9, 10, 17, 22, 23, 28, 29) whose loadings ranged from .76 to .87. The Self-Pleasuring factor had ve items (11, 12, 18, 24, 31) whose loadings ranged from .73 to .88. The Degree of Sexual Interest factor had four items (7, 21, 27, 34) whose loadings ranged from .30 to .77. And the Using Sex as a Means to an End factor had ve items (8, 26, 30, 35, 39) whose loadings ranged from .56 to .90. For the most part, this model replicated the pattern of EFA results seen in Study 1. Minor exceptions included Items 8 and 39, which both

Table 2 Study 2: Standardized factor loadings for WNSQ items from the conrmatory factor analysis Loading Factor 1: Casual Sex (7 items) 9. 10. 17. 22. 23. 28. 29. 11. 12. 18. 24. 31. How often do you go somewhere (e.g., bar, social event) to nd someone to have sex with? How often would you have anonymous sex with someone you are very attracted to if you are/were single? How often do you cheat sexually on a partner? How often do you have sex outside of an exclusive relationship? How often would you have anonymous sex with someone you were very attracted to if you were in a relationship and knew for sure that your partner would not nd out? Do you ever have sex with a friend with whom you are not interested in dating (so-called friends with benets)? How often do you have sex with someone you just met? How often do you masturbate? How often do you use sex toys alone? How often do you purchase sex toys? How often do you buy an x-rated video? How often do you watch pornography alone? .78 .80 .78 .87 .76 .80 .79 .73 .88 .85 .73 .77 .76 .77 .63 .30 .37 .37 .69 .89 .90 .56 .56

Factor 2: Self-Pleasuring (5 items)

Factor 3: Degree of Sexual Interest (4 items ? 2 cross-loadings) 7. Given the chance, how often would you choose to have sex? 21. 27. 34. 8. 39. 8. 26. 30. 35. 39. How often do you say what you want or need during sex? How often do you fantasize about having sex with your current partner? One should always be ready for sex How often have you had sex to end a ght? (see Factor 4) I would not use sex to get something I wanted (reverse scored, see Factor 4) How often have you had sex to end a ght? How often do you use sex to get something you want? How often have you had sex to get someone to do something for you? Sex can be a useful tool in some situations I would not use sex to get something I wanted (reverse scored)

Factor 4: Using Sex as a Means to an End (5 items)

p\.001 for all loadings

123

Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:283295

291

had fairly large cross-loadings (standardized loadings of .37 for both items) on the Degree of Sexual Interest factor. However, as would be expected, both of these items continued to have their strongest loadings on the desired primary factor of Using Sex as a Means to an End. The intercorrelations among the latent factors were moderate in value, ranging from .28 to .43 (see Table 3 for the complete set of intercorrelations). These intercorrelations were fairly similar in magnitude to those observed in Study 1, and suggested a set of inter-related but not redundant WNSQ constructs. Descriptive Statistics for WNSQ Scores Once the results of Study 2 supported the four-factor structure for the WNSQ, and appropriate subscale scores could be created, we combined Study 1 and Study 2 data sets to estimate descriptive statistics and relationships among those subscale scores and the WNSQ total score (see Table 3). As noted above, fewer than 25% of participants reported being involved in sex outside of the context of a relationship; thus, it is not surprising that participants mean scores for three of the WNSQ subscales (all except the Degree of Sexual Interest) were near the lowfrequency end of the 7-point response scales. The highest mean score was for Degree of Sexual Interest, which had a value of 4.14slightly above the response scale midpoint of 4. The total scale score mean was 2.05. The coefcient alpha was .84 for the full scale, and ranged from .67 to .82 for the subscales. Finally, the correlations of the WNSQ subscale scores with each other were of moderate magnitude (r = .28 to .43), whereas their correlations with the WNSQ Total score were quite a bit higher

(r = .68 to .75), suggesting that they were measuring different aspects of a broader construct. As can be seen in Table 4, age correlated positively, modestly, and in most cases signicantly with all of the WNSQ subscales and the total scale in both studies. These results suggest that in our two younger samples, the women who were relatively older were somewhat more likely have a higher degree of sexual interest, and to engage in casual sex, self-pleasuring, using sex as a means to an end, and non-traditional sex. Self-reported socioeconomic status correlated negatively, modestly, and signicantly with the SelfPleasuring subscale in both studies, and with the total WNSQ score in Study 1, suggesting that levels of nontraditional sex and self-pleasuring might tend to decrease as socioeconomic status increases.
Table 4 Correlations of the WNSQ subscales and total score with participant age and socioeconomic status WNSQ scale Age Study 1 Casual Sex Self-Pleasuring Sexual Interest Means to End WNSQ total .20** .25** .14* .15* .25** Study 2 .09* .23** .09* .19** .20** SES Study 1 -.11 -.23** -.11 -.05 -.19** Study 2 -.03 -.11** .01 -.08 -.07

For Study 1, N = 221240; For Study 2, N = 600621 WNSQ Womens Nontraditional Sexuality Questionnaire, SES socioeconomic status * p\.05; ** p\.01

Table 3 Means, standard deviations, and alphas of, and correlations among, the WNSQ subscales and total score, SOI, FIS-Purity, and HPSCS Scale 1 2 3 4 5 M SD Alpha

WNSQ (Study 1 ? Study 2, N = 812856) 1. Casual Sex 2. Self-Pleasuring 3. Degree Sexual Interest 4. Means to End 5. WNSQ total 6. SOI 7. FIS Purity 8. HPSCS 1.00 .33** .28** .43** .73** .73** -.24** .19** 1.00 .36** .29** .68** .51** -.41** .00 1.00 .30** .70** .32** -.35* .00 1.00 .72** .37** -.20** .04 1.00 .67** -.42** .08* 1.50 1.67 4.13 2.12 2.05 37.49 2.90 2.55 .74 .90 1.33 .98 .68 25.41 1.46 .50 .82 .80 .67 .75 .84 .80 .89 .86

Scales for convergent validity (Study 1, N = 227243)

Health Protective Sexual Communication Scale (Study 2, N = 592627)

Scores for the WNSQ and its subscales range from 1 to 7 (higher scores = greater nontraditional sexuality). The SOI combines frequency counts with attitudinal items and uses a weighted scoring system, with scores on the normative sample ranging from 10 to 172, mean = 38.9, SD = 26.9 (higher scores = greater sociosexuality). Scores for the FIS Purity scale ranges from 1 to 5 (higher scores = greater endorsement of the traditional sexual norm). Scores for the HPSCS range from 1 to 4 (higher scores = riskier communication patterns) WNSQ Womens Nontraditional Sexuality Questionnaire, SOI Sociosexual Orientation Index, FIS Purity Purity subscale of Femininity Ideology Scale, HPSCS Health Protective Sexual Communication Scale * p\.05; ** p\.01

123

292

Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:283295

Test of Hypothesis 2: Concurrent Validity of the WNSQ Total Score Concurrent validity of the WNSQ total score was assessed by examining the WNSQs association with the Health Protective Sexual Communication Scale (HPSCS; Catania, 1998). Table 3 shows that the HPSCS had a signicant, positive, weak correlation with the WNSQ total score (.08), suggesting that greater non-traditional sexual behavior was weakly associated with risky sexual health communication practices. In addition, only one of the WNSQ subscale scores correlated signicantly, positively, and modestly with the HPSCS, the Involvement in Casual Sex subscale (.19).

as previously noted, the distribution of responses to the WNSQ items was not multivariate normal and the measurement metric may be best dened not as continuous, but rather asordered categoricaldata (Finney & DiStefano, 2006). According to Helms, Henze, Sass, and Mifsud (2006), it is not always appropriate to calculate coefcient alphas with such data. On the other hand, a well-tting model resulting from a CFA does, in fact, establish the reliability of the scale and its subscales.

Convergent Validity of the WNSQ We hypothesized and found evidence for the convergent validity of the newly developed WNSQ, showing that the total score correlated positively with the SOI, a measure of sociosexuality, and negatively with the FIS Purity subscale, a measure of womens traditional sexuality norms. We also found that the Involvement in Casual Sex subscale had the strongest correlation of the WNSQ subscales with the SOI, thus providing evidence for the convergent validity of that subscale. The WNSQ Total score and the SOI score were relatively highly correlated (.67), leading to the question of whether they measure the same phenomena. We think not, for several reasons. First, the WNSQ was conceptualized as a multi-dimensional scale, whereas the SOI was conceptualized as a unidimensional scale. Consistent with the conceptualization of the two scales, empirical study of the WNSQ found four factors whereas the SOI was found to only have one. Second, the SOI correlated more strongly with the WNSQ Involvement in Casual Sex subscale than with the other three WNSQ subscales, suggesting that the overlap with SOI was driven by similarities to the Involvement in Casual Sex subscale. Finally, the correlations of the WNSQ subscale scores with each other were of moderate magnitude, whereas their correlations with the WNSQ Total score were higher, suggesting that they were measuring different aspects of a broader construct. Thus, it appears that while both the SOI and WNSQ total score share a focus on casual sex and have about 45% shared variance (.67 squared), the WNSQ measures other dimensions of nontraditional sexuality that are not represented in the SOI, specically SelfPleasuring, Using Sex as a Means to an End, and Degree of Sexual Interest.

Discussion Dimensionality of the WNSQ In Study 1, we hypothesized that the WNSQ would have a sixfactor structure. However, this hypothesis was disconrmed, and EFA suggested that the relationships among the 21 WNSQ items retained for analysis were best modeled using a fourfactor model. In Study 2, the a priori four-factor structure with 21 items was supported through CFA. The four factors supported by the empirical analyses (Involvement in Casual Sex, Self-Pleasuring, Degree of Sexual Interest, and Using Sex as a Means to an End) were consistent with four of the originally proposed six subscales. In contrast, the remaining two originally proposed subscalesInvolvement in Commercial Sex and Nontraditional Attitudeswere not supported by factor analysis. We can speculate about some reasons why these two proposed subscales did not receive empirical support in our two studies. First, the Involvement in Commercial Sex subscale consisted of two items involving the sale or purchase of sex, which were eliminated because they had very little variance in our two samples (most participants respondednever). This was likely due to the youth and socioeconomic status of our sample. We suggest considering using these commercial sex items in samples that may have greater variability in responding to these items, but acknowledge that for most samples these items may have low variability. Second, the eight items from the proposed Nontraditional Attitudes About Sex factor did not constitute a single attitudinal construct, but rather three loaded on closely related subscales in the EFA, and one loaded on a closely related subscale in the CFA. In retrospect, this is not surprising, as attitudes can be substantially related to behaviors for which they are deemed relevant, and thus would not likely emerge as a distinct factor in a factor analysis. As shown in Table 3, the Using Sex as a Means to an End subscale had a relatively low coefcient alpha of .67. However,

Concurrent Validity of the WNSQ We assessed the WNSQs association with the HPSCS, and found that the HPSCS had signicant, positive, weak correlations with the WNSQ total score and the Involvement in Casual Sex subscale, suggesting that non-traditional sexual behavior, and casual sex in particular, were weakly associated with risky sexual health communication practices.

123

Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:283295

293

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research The current study demonstrated the validity and usefulness of the WNSQ for college-age women with socioeconomic and cultural characteristics similar to those of our samples. Less than 25% of our participants in Study 2 engaged in sex outside the context of a relationship, reecting the fact that the sample was drawn from the midwest, an area known for its conservative values. Future research conducted with participants from more liberal areas of the country, such as the East and West Coasts may be helpful in further assessing contemporary womens sexual behaviors. The WNSQ correlated positively with age in this young sample, and negatively with socioeconomic status. Future study of a more diverse sample in terms not only of age and socioeconomic status, but also of race/ethnicity and sexual orientation would help expand our understanding of trends in womens sexual norms. It would be particularly important to assess the WNSQ in sample of less educated women, because the literature seems to suggest that nontraditional sexuality may be higher among college educated women. A potential drawback to the use of measures such as the WNSQ is their self-report nature, which introduces the possibility of bias due to socially desirable responding. A future study employing a multi-method design (which, in studying sexual attitudes and behavior, would ideally include a structured interview) could strengthen evidence for the construct validity of the WNSQ. However, the ease of administration of self-report measures is often an advantage when the goal is large scale research. The assessment of nontraditional sexual behavior among women has implications for the understanding of changes in womens sexual behavior and the impact these changes may have on womens psychological and physical health. The WNSQ provides a means to measure nontraditional sexual behavior in women broadly, including the dimensions of degree of interest in sex, casual sex, self-pleasuring through masturbation and the use of erotica, using sex as a means to gain an end, and, perhaps in some samples, participating in commercial sex, and thus holds promise for research purposes. Future studies should examine the antecedents and consequences of womens nontraditional sexual behavior more broadly and also investigate how the subscales may causally relate to each other. As noted, we conceptualized Degree of Interest in Sex as a gateway dimension, in that a higher level of sexual interest would presumably be required to overcome internal and external resistance to the violation of the traditional sexual norm. Hence, future research could assess its role as a mediator of relationships between antecedent variables and the remaining WNSQ subscales, and also examine its relationship to other potential antecedent variables, nard & Offman, 2009). Further, such as sexual assertiveness (Me research might further probe the idea of a distinction between the recreational and instrumental dimensions of the WNSQ by inves-

tigating differences in their correlates, and further investigate the construct validity of the WNSQ subscales. In sum, we believe the WNSQ offers promise for the study of changes and differences in, and correlates of womens contemporary sexual behavior.
Acknowledgments We gratefully acknowledge the statistical consultation assistance of Professor Dimitre Stefanov of The University of Akron. We also gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Korenna Barto, Samantha Gregus, Tiffany M. Kral, and Britney A. Kurtz, The University of Akron; Katherine Frank, University of Wisconsin, Madison; Kristin David and Chassity Angeny, Nova Southeastern University; and Katherine Richmond, Muhlenberg College.

Appendix: Sexual Practices and Attitudes Survey [WNSQ] [To save space, the formatting of the WNSQ is altered below, Likert scales are summarized and prefatory material is omitted. The actual scale is available from the rst author upon request.] 1. CurrentRelationshipStatus:(a)Married/partnered/engaged; (b) Single: Dating one person with the expectation of exclusivity; (c) Single: Casual, non-exclusive dating; (d) Single: Not currently dating anyone.

For the following questions, please consider the termsexto refer to any form of intimate physical contact involving more than kissing between you and another person (opposite or same sex). 2. 3. 4. Have you ever had sex (based on the above denition)? (a) Yes; (b) No Are you currently sexually active (based on the above definition)? (a) Yes; (b) No Are you currently involved in a sexual relationship in which you and your partner have agreed not to have sex (based on the above denition) with other people? (a) Yes (b) No Are you currently or have you recently been sexually active (based on the above denition) with someone who is not your exclusive sexual partner (e.g., one night stand; having sex with two or more people in a short time period; or casual sexual activity)? (a) Yes; (b) No Whether or not you are sexually active, would your preferred sexual partner be: (a) Always male; (b) Usually male, but sometimes female; (c) Equally likely to be either; (d) Usually female, but sometimes male; (e) Always female

5.

6.

[After a reminder that the above denition of sex applies, questions 732 use this Likert scale:]

Never 1 2 3 4 5 6

Frequently 7

7.

Given the chance, how often would you choose to have sex?

123

294

Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:283295

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

How often have you had sex to end a ght? How often do you go somewhere (e.g., bar, social event) to nd someone to have sex with? How often would you have anonymous sex with someone you are very attracted to if you are/were single? How often do you masturbate? How often do you use sex toys alone? How often have you been paid for sex? How often do you fantasize about having sex with someone other than your current partner? How often have you had sex to keep your partner in the relationship? How often have you had sex to help get a promotion or some other benet at work or school? How often do you cheat sexually on a partner? How often do you purchase sex toys? How often do you pay for sex? How often do you talk to your friends about your sexual experiences? How often do you say what you want or need during sex? How often do you have sex outside of an exclusive relationship? How often would you have anonymous sex with someoneyouwereveryattractedtoifyouwereinarelationship and knew for sure that your partner would not nd out? How often do you buy an X-rated video? How often do you go to a strip club? How often do you use sex to get something you want? How often do you fantasize about having sex with your current partner? Do you ever have sex with a friend with whom you are not interested in dating (so-calledfriends with benets)? How often do you have sex with someone you just met? How often have you had sex to get someone to do something for you? How often do you watch pornography alone? How often do you have phone-sex or cyber-sex with someone you are not in a relationship with?

40.

Sex should only take place between two people who are in love.

Reverse Scored Items: 36, 38, 39, 40. Scales: Nontraditional Attitudes About Sex: 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40. Degree of Sexual Interest: 7, 11, 14, 20, 21, 27. Involvement in Casual Sex: 9, 10, 17, 22, 23, 28, 29. Self-Pleasuring: 12, 18, 24, 25, 31, 32. Using Sex as a Means to an End: 8, 15, 16, 26, 30. Involvement in Commercial Sex: 13, 19.

References
Alexander, M. G., & Fisher, T. D. (2003). Truth and consequences: Using the bogus pipeline to examine sex differences in self-reported sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 2735. Binson, D., Dolcini, M. M., Pollack, L. M., & Catania, J. A. (1993). Multiple sexual partners among young adults in high-risk cities. Family Planning Perspectives, 25, 268272. Catania, J. A. (1998). Health protective sexual communication scale. In J. Nageotte (Ed.), Sexual risk (pp. 544547). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Chambers, M. K. (2004). A conceptual model of sexual health practices of older adolescent college women. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B. Sciences and Engineering, 64(11-B), 5446. Cooney, T. M., & Uhlenberg, P. (1991). Change in work-family connection among the highly educated men and women: 19701980. Journal of Family Issues, 12, 6990. Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, & Evaluation, 10(7), 19. Finney, S. J., & DiStefano, C. (2006). Nonnormal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 269 314). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Gaughan, M. (2002). The substitution hypothesis: The impact of premarital liaisons and human capital on marital timing. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 407419. Goldscheider, F. K., & Waite, L. J. (1986). Sex differences in the entry into marriage. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 91109. Helms, J. E., Henze, K. T., Sass, T. L., & Mifsud, V. A. (2006). Treating Cronbachs alpha reliability coefcients as data in counseling research. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 630660. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for t indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 155. Hynie, M., Lydon, J. E., Cote, S., & Wiener, S. (1998). Relational sexual scripts and womens condom use: The importance of internalized norms. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 370380. Kahn, J. H. (2006). Factor analysis in counseling psychology research, training, and practice: Principles, advances, and applications. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 684718. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford. Levant, R. (1996). The new psychology of men. Professional Psychology, 27, 259265.

[After a reminder that the above denition of sex applies, questions 3340 use this Likert scale:]
Strongly Disagree 1 2 Neutral 3 4 Strongly Agree 5

33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.

Sex should be unplanned, rather than planned ahead of time. One should always be ready for sex. Sex can be a useful tool in some situations. Hugging and kissing should not always lead to sex. I am not sexually satised with any behavior other than intercourse. Orgasm is not a necessary part of sex for me. I would not use sex to get something I wanted.

123

Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:283295 Levant, R. (1997). Nonrelational sexuality in men. In R. Levant & G. Brooks (Eds.), Men and sex: New psychological perspectives (pp. 927). New York: Wiley. Levant, R. F., Richmond, K., Cook, S., House, A., & Aupont, M. (2007). The Femininity Ideology Scale: Factor structure, reliability, validity, and social contextual variation. Sex Roles, 57, 373383. MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130149. nard, A. D., & Offman, A. (2009). The interrelationships between Me sexual self-esteem, sexual assertiveness and sexual satisfaction. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 18, 3545. Meston, C. M., & Buss, D. M. (2007). Why humans have sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 477507. n, L. K., & Muthe n, B. O. (19982007). Mplus users guide (5th Muthe n & Muthe n. ed.). Los Angeles: Muthe OConnor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicers MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32, 396402. Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 2951. Paul, E. L., McManus, B., & Hayes, A. (2000). Hookups: Characteristics and correlates of college students spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. Journal of Sex Research, 37, 7688.

295 Peterson, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality, 19932007. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 2138. Pleck, J. H. (1981). The myth of masculinity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pleck, J. H. (1995). The gender role strain paradigm: An update. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 11 32). New York: Basic Books. Robinson, I. E., & Jedlicka, D. (1982). Change in sexual attitudes and behavior of college students from 19651980: A research note. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 237240. Samberg, S. E., & Bursik, K. (2007, August). Hooking up as contemporary adolescent female sexual behavior. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA. Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870883. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education. Ward, L. M., & Rivadeneyra, R. (1999). Contributions of entertainment television to adolescents sexual attitudes and expectations: The role of viewing amount versus viewer involvement. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 237249. Wells, B. E., & Twenge, J. M. (2005). Changes in young peoples sexual behavior and attitudes, 19431999: A cross-temporal meta-analysis. Review of General Psychology, 9, 249261.

123