Abstract
An Adjective Measure of Sexual Strategies, developed by psychometricians and evolutionary psychologists David P. Schmitt and David M. Buss (2000), represents a pioneering psychometric operationalization that bridges the classical lexical hypothesis of personality with modern evolutionary personality theory. For decades, personality psychology operated under the assumption that the Big Five personality traits (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience) subsumed all major domains of human behavioral differences encoded within natural language. However, Schmitt and Buss posited that human mating tendencies, reproductive strategies, and sexual phenotypes represent vital, evolutionarily distinct domains of individual variation that had been systematically overlooked or prematurely excluded from traditional lexical taxonomies.
To remedy this empirical lacuna, the authors systematically surveyed the formal English lexicon for adjectives explicitly denoting sexual attributes, relationship orientations, and reproductive behaviors. Through comprehensive exploratory factor analyses across self-report and observer-rating samples, the authors discovered seven robust, replicable dimensions of sexuality descriptors, commonly termed the "Sexy Seven": (1) Sexual Attractiveness, (2) Relationship Exclusivity, (3) Gender Orientation, (4) Sexual Restraint, (5) Erotophilic Disposition, (6) Emotional Investment, and (7) Sexual Exploitativeness. The measurement tool is administered as an adjective-rating inventory wherein respondents evaluate the self-descriptive or target-descriptive accuracy of each trait term using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 ("Extremely Inaccurate") to 7 ("Extremely Accurate").
Psychometric evaluations demonstrate that the subscales possess strong internal consistency (with coefficients ranging from α = .73 to .91; Sexual Attractiveness α = .91) and exceptional test-retest temporal stability over two-week intervals (e.g., r = .92, p < .001 for Sexual Attractiveness). Evidence of construct validity is substantiated by meaningful convergences with physical self-esteem, sociosexual orientation, attachment styles, and relationship metrics, alongside demonstrated discriminant validity against general social desirability and non-sexual affective constructs. Crucially, regression analyses demonstrated that these sexual dimensions accounted for substantial incremental variance in actual sexual behaviors and relationship outcomes beyond the traditional Big Five framework, cementing the scale as a vital instrument in evolutionary psychology, human behavioral ecology, clinical sexology, and interpersonal relationship research.
Keywords
An Adjective Measure of Sexual Strategies, Sexy Seven, evolutionary psychology, lexical approach, human sexuality, mate selection, sociosexuality, Big Five personality traits, psychometrics, sexual attractiveness, relationship exclusivity, sexual exploitativeness
Authors
The inventory was conceptualized and validated by two prominent figures in evolutionary behavioral science:
- David P. Schmitt, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, Bradley University (Peoria, Illinois, USA) at the time of development; currently affiliated as a Professor of Social and Personality Psychology at Brunel University London and Director of the International Sexuality Description Project (ISDP). His scholarly work centers on cross-cultural human mating strategies, evolutionary personality psychology, and cross-national sex differences.
- David M. Buss, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin (Austin, Texas, USA). Dr. Buss is one of the primary founders of modern evolutionary psychology, renowned for his seminal theoretical and empirical contributions regarding sexual strategies theory, mating tactics, jealousy, mate poaching, and the evolutionary origins of human conflict.
Purpose
The primary purpose of An Adjective Measure of Sexual Strategies is to provide a comprehensive, psychometrically sound, and theoretically grounded taxonomy for measuring individual differences in human sexual strategies and phenotypic mating characteristics. Historically, personality taxonomy relied almost exclusively on the lexical hypothesis advanced by Sir Francis Galton, Gordon Allport, Raymond Cattell, Warren Norman, and Lewis Goldberg. This hypothesis posits that the most salient, socially relevant, and functionally consequential individual differences become encoded into natural human language over evolutionary time. However, early lexical pioneers deliberately excluded anatomical terms, temporary physiological states, evaluative slurs, and explicit sexual descriptors, deeming them peripheral, unseemly, or redundant with existing temperamental dimensions.
Schmitt and Buss (2000) challenged this historical exclusion. Drawing on evolutionary biology and evolutionary personality psychology, they argued that reproductive challenges represent the primary engine of natural and sexual selection. Individual differences that directly affect mate attraction, mate selection, intra-sexual competition, parental investment, mate guarding, and infidelity are of paramount evolutionary significance. By systematically investigating the sexuality lexicon, the authors aimed to determine whether sexual descriptors could be adequately captured under the umbrella of the Five-Factor Model (FFM) or whether they constituted independent, fundamental dimensions of human personality that demanded their own dedicated assessment tool.
From an applied and empirical standpoint, the scale serves critical functions across multiple scientific domains:
- Evolutionary and Behavioral Research: It enables empirical researchers to map individual mating profiles onto short-term versus long-term evolutionary adaptations, quantifying variations in sociosexual propensity, perceived reproductive value, and romantic fidelity.
- Interpersonal Relationship Dynamics: In social and relationship psychology, the measure allows investigators to examine dyadic compatibility, assortment for sexual traits, predictors of relational dissatisfaction, infidelity, and the psychological mechanisms governing jealousy and mate retention.
- Clinical and Counseling Sexology: Clinicians and couples therapists utilize the inventory’s dimensions to assess conflicting sexual values, disparities in perceived attractiveness, divergent commitments to sexual exclusivity, and patterns of sexual exploitativeness or coercion within distressed partnerships.
- Cross-Cultural Anthropological Inquiries: The tool provides a standardized comparative platform, as deployed in the International Sexuality Description Project, to evaluate how ecological conditions, pathogen prevalence, sex ratios, and cultural institutions modulate the expression of human sexual strategies globally.
Psychological Construct
The psychological construct underlying the inventory comprises the systematic structural representation of individual differences in human sexual strategies, dispositions, and self-perceived reproductive attributes. Rather than treating human sexuality as a monolithic construct or a mere derivative of general emotionality, Schmitt and Buss demonstrated that human sexual language clusters into seven distinct, replicable dimensions, commonly referred to in psychometrics as the "Sexy Seven":
1. Sexual Attractiveness
This dimension reflects self-perceived (or peer-perceived) erotic appeal, physical allure, and mate desirability. Evolutionarily, physical attractiveness serves as an outward cue of youth, health, developmental stability, and overall phenotypic quality. High-scoring individuals view themselves as possessing high mate value, magnetic presence, and sexual desirability, which directly influences their bargaining power in mating markets and their freedom to pursue diverse mating strategies. Adjectives defining this factor include descriptors such as alluring, sexy, attractive, stunning, and seductive.
2. Relationship Exclusivity
Relationship Exclusivity captures an individual’s behavioral inclination, cognitive commitment, and moral dedication to monogamous pair-bonding versus sexual promiscuity and non-exclusivity. In evolutionary terms, it differentiates long-term commitment strategies from short-term opportunistic mating tactics. High scorers identify with unwavering fidelity, devotion to a single partner, and a distaste for romantic betrayal, characterized by adjectives such as faithful, monogamous, devoted, and loyal, whereas low scorers exhibit tendencies toward infidelity, promiscuity, and uncommitted sexual encounters.
3. Gender Orientation
This construct assesses an individual’s perceived conformity to, or orientation regarding, culturally conventional heterosexual versus non-heterosexual identities and gendered sexual roles. In lexical analysis, natural language encodes adjectives that reflect erotic attraction toward members of the opposite sex, same sex, or both sexes. Representative descriptors capture dimensions of sexual orientation and erotic role typologies within cultural mating systems.
4. Sexual Restraint
Sexual Restraint measures the degree of behavioral inhibition, chastity, modesty, and normative control an individual exercises over their sexual urges. It reflects the trade-off between immediate mating gratification and the reputational or social risks associated with uninhibited sexual activity. Individuals scoring high on this dimension describe themselves as celibate, chaste, prudish, virginal, and pure, contrasting sharply with uninhibited individuals who display spontaneous, unrestrained sexual expression.
5. Erotophilic Disposition
This construct refers to generalized openness, enthusiasm, and positive affective orientation toward sexual stimuli, erotic imagination, and sexual pleasure. Grounded in clinical sexology concepts of erotophilia versus erotophobia, high scorers embrace sexuality as an enriching, exciting, and central facet of human life. Typical defining descriptors include passionate, sensual, erotic, lustful, and libidinous.
6. Emotional Investment
Emotional Investment assesses the propensity to merge sexual activity with profound romantic affection, tender attachment, and deep emotional vulnerability. Evolutionarily, this construct reflects psychological mechanisms that facilitate prolonged bi-parental care and enduring interpersonal bonds. Individuals characterized by high emotional investment rarely dissociate physical sex from deep emotional love, defining themselves as loving, romantic, affectionate, tender, and caring.
7. Sexual Exploitativeness
This dimension measures coercive, manipulative, deceitful, or predatory orientations toward sexual interactions. In evolutionary psychology, exploitative mating strategies involve deception regarding commitment, exploiting partner vulnerabilities, or utilizing coercive tactics to secure short-term sexual access without reciprocal resource allocation. Adjectives anchoring this dimension include descriptors such as manipulative, predatory, deceitful, aggressive, and exploitative.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical architecture of An Adjective Measure of Sexual Strategies is grounded at the intersection of two foundational paradigms in personality science: Sexual Strategies Theory (Buss & Schmitt, 1993) and the Psychometric Lexical Approach (Allport, 1937; Cattell, 1943; Goldberg, 1990).
Sexual Strategies Theory (SST)
Formulated by David M. Buss and David P. Schmitt, Sexual Strategies Theory posits that ancestral humans faced distinct adaptive problems depending on their biological sex, temporal mating context (short-term versus long-term), and ecological pressures. Rooted in Robert Trivers’ (1972) theory of parental investment, SST asserts that the sex that invests greater obligate physiological resources in offspring (typically females) will be more selective and discriminating in mate choice, whereas the sex that invests fewer minimum resources (typically males) will compete more intensely for reproductive access and display greater proclivity for short-term, uncommitted mating.
However, SST explicitly recognizes that both men and women possess a complex, facultative menu of mating tactics. Humans do not employ a single, invariant reproductive style; rather, they adjust their mating behaviors dynamically in response to individual mate value, operational sex ratios, cultural norms, and environmental pathogen threats. Consequently, stable individual differences in sexual dispositions evolved as alternative adaptive solutions to the recurring challenges of mate competition, partner evaluation, paternity certainty, and parental cooperation.
The Evolutionary Lexical Hypothesis
The classical lexical hypothesis assumes that the most important individual differences become encoded as single-word descriptors within natural language. When Goldberg, Costa, McCrae, and others refined the Big Five taxonomy, they argued that five broad domains (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness) represented the complete structural foundation of personality. However, Schmitt and Buss argued that the traditional lexical filter exhibited a blind spot by systematically eliminating sexual terminology.
From an evolutionary perspective, natural selection prioritizes reproductive success over generic behavioral style. Therefore, natural language must contain an elaborate, highly nuanced lexicon specifically dedicated to communicating, evaluating, and tracking sexual character, mating reputation, fidelity, and reproductive value. The theoretical rationale of the Adjective Measure of Sexual Strategies asserts that sexual traits are not merely peripheral blends of the Big Five, but form primary, evolutionarily specialized dimensions that demand independent structural assessment.
Validity
Extensive psychometric investigations conducted across university cohorts, community adult samples, and cross-cultural populations provide rigorous empirical evidence regarding the construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the scale.
Construct and Factorial Validity
Construct validity was established through systematic factor-analytic isolation of the seven dimensions across independent samples. Schmitt and Buss (2000) evaluated whether these seven dimensions could be subsumed by the Five-Factor Model. When factor scores of the Sexy Seven were correlated with standard Big Five markers (such as the Goldberg Adjective Scales and the NEO-PI-R), the sexual dimensions exhibited meaningful but distinct patterns. For instance, while Emotional Investment shared moderate positive variance with Agreeableness (r ≈ .45), and Sexual Restraint correlated inversely with Extraversion and openness markers, large proportions of variance (typically 50% to 80%) remained entirely unexplained by the Big Five, proving that the sexual lexicon possesses distinct factorial validity.
Convergent Validity
The subscales demonstrate significant convergent associations with theoretically aligned external constructs:
- Sexual Attractiveness: Positively correlated with validated measures of physical self-esteem (Phinney & Gough, 1984), yielding r(84) = .32, p < .01, confirming that internal perceptions of sexual allure align with broader physical self-worth evaluations.
- Relationship Exclusivity: Strongly and negatively associated with the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI; Simpson & Gangestad, 1991), demonstrating that individuals who self-identify as faithful and monogamous report significantly fewer casual sexual partners and less permissive sexual attitudes.
- Sexual Restraint: Showed robust correlations with measures of sexual conservatism, religiosity, and delayed onset of first intercourse.
- Sexual Exploitativeness: Positively converged with measures of the Dark Triad traits (Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism) and histories of mate poaching tactics.
Discriminant Validity
Evidence for discriminant validity is multifaceted. Schmitt and Buss demonstrated that Sexual Attractiveness does not correlate significantly with general social desirability response bias, demonstrating that respondents do not inflate attractiveness ratings simply to present themselves favorably. Furthermore, within dating couples, self-rated Sexual Attractiveness did not correlate with generic Relationship Satisfaction, confirming that erotic self-evaluation is distinct from general relationship sentiment.
However, the authors noted specific empirical boundaries: Sexual Attractiveness did not exhibit high cross-person convergence among romantic couples. Self-ratings of sexual attractiveness did not correlate significantly with observer-ratings provided by the romantic partner, indicating that self-perceived sexual attractiveness reflects personal confidence and intrasexual self-evaluations rather than objective peer appraisals. Furthermore, its moderate overlap with General Self-Esteem indicates that erotic allure is intrinsically tied to global self-worth.
Predictive and Incremental Validity
In hierarchical multiple regression models predicting real-world sexual outcomes — such as lifetime partner counts, incidence of extra-pair copulations, age at first intercourse, and active mate-poaching experiences — the Sexy Seven entered in subsequent steps accounted for substantial, statistically significant incremental variance beyond the Big Five personality traits, proving its unique utility in behavioral prediction.
Reliability
The reliability of An Adjective Measure of Sexual Strategies has been empirically established through both internal consistency metrics and temporal stability evaluations across multiple experimental cohorts.
Internal Consistency Reliability
Across validation studies, the subscales demonstrated strong to moderate internal consistency reliability as evaluated by Cronbach’s coefficient alpha (α):
- Sexual Attractiveness: α = .91, indicating excellent internal homogeneity among the descriptors defining perceived allure and erotic appeal.
- Relationship Exclusivity: α = .88, displaying robust consistency across terms denoting fidelity versus promiscuity.
- Gender Orientation: α = .78 to .84, demonstrating acceptable to good internal reliability across categorical and continuum marker terms.
- Sexual Restraint: α = .82, showing cohesive item performance for descriptors of chastity and behavioral inhibition.
- Erotophilic Disposition: α = .85, reflecting high consistency across markers of sexual passion and erotic responsiveness.
- Emotional Investment: α = .86, demonstrating cohesive variance among terms assessing romantic attachment and affective depth.
- Sexual Exploitativeness: α = .73 to .79, reflecting adequate internal consistency for terms assessing manipulative and predatory mating orientations.
Test-Retest Temporal Stability
Temporal stability was evaluated using test-retest protocols across a two-week testing interval (N = 51). The Sexual Attractiveness scale demonstrated remarkable stability over time, achieving a test-retest correlation coefficient of:
r(49) = .92, p < .001
The remaining subscales also exhibited substantial temporal reliability over the same interval, with coefficients ranging from r = .76 to r = .89. These findings substantiate that the Sexy Seven measure durable, enduring phenotypic dispositions and mating traits rather than transient emotional states or situational impulses.
Factor Analysis
The factor structure of the Adjective Measure of Sexual Strategies was established through extensive exploratory and confirmatory factor-analytic protocols designed to identify the latent taxonomy of natural sexuality descriptors.
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
The empirical derivation began with the compilation of a comprehensive candidate pool of English adjectives possessing explicit sexual, reproductive, or romantic connotations. Non-adjectival terms, obscure archaic words, and anatomical labels were systematically removed. The remaining pool of 67 validated sexual adjectives was administered to diverse samples of undergraduate men and women for self-rating.
Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) were conducted, followed by both orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations to allow for theoretical correlations among underlying sexual traits. Multiple extraction criteria were employed, including Kaiser’s eigenvalue-greater-than-one rule, Cattell’s scree test evaluation, and parallel analysis. The scree plot clearly indicated a dramatic leveling of eigenvalues after the seventh factor, confirming a definitive seven-factor solution:
- Factor 1 (Sexual Attractiveness): Accounted for the largest proportion of common variance, with items such as sexy (.83), alluring (.80), and stunning (.76) demonstrating robust primary loadings and negligible cross-loadings.
- Factor 2 (Relationship Exclusivity): Loaded heavily on descriptors of monogamous commitment (faithful, .79; monogamous, .77; devoted, .72) with strong negative loadings for antonyms such as promiscuous (-.68).
- Factor 3 (Gender Orientation): Clustered items denoting sexual orientation and role identification.
- Factor 4 (Sexual Restraint): Defined by substantial positive loadings for items such as celibate (.75), chaste (.71), and prudish (.66).
- Factor 5 (Erotophilic Disposition): Anchored by loadings from passionate (.73), sensual (.70), and erotic (.68).
- Factor 6 (Emotional Investment): Characterized by high factor loadings on loving (.78), romantic (.74), and affectionate (.71).
- Factor 7 (Sexual Exploitativeness): Emerged with distinct loadings on traits denoting manipulative and aggressive courtship tactics (deceitful, .67; manipulative, .64; predatory, .61).
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Joint Factor Analyses
To evaluate whether these seven dimensions were simply micro-facets of the Big Five, Schmitt and Buss conducted joint confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses combining the 67 sexual adjectives with Goldberg’s 100 Big Five adjective markers. The joint factor solution revealed that the Big Five factors emerged cleanly alongside the sexual factors. Specifically, Sexual Attractiveness, Sexual Restraint, and Relationship Exclusivity formed autonomous latent dimensions independent of the traditional Big Five factors. Model fit evaluations supported the independence of the sexual personality structure, confirming that human sexuality forms an autonomous domain within personality architecture.
Instrument / Measurement Tool
The technical parameters and administration procedures of the scale are structured as follows:
- Instrument Name: An Adjective Measure of Sexual Strategies (often cited in psychometric literature as the "Sexy Seven" Adjective Inventory).
- Authors: David P. Schmitt and David M. Buss (2000).
- Test Type: Standardized self-report and observer-report trait rating inventory based on the psychometric lexical approach.
- Target Population: Adults and adolescents aged 18 and older. Suitable for college populations, community adult samples, and clinical sexology evaluations.
- Item Format: Individual English trait adjectives (e.g., sexy, faithful, chaste, passionate, romantic).
- Number of Subscales: 7 core dimensions: (1) Sexual Attractiveness, (2) Relationship Exclusivity, (3) Gender Orientation, (4) Sexual Restraint, (5) Erotophilic Disposition, (6) Emotional Investment, and (7) Sexual Exploitativeness.
- Administration Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes for complete self-administration.
- Response Scale: 7-point Likert-type accuracy scale:
- 1 = Extremely Inaccurate
- 2 = Very Inaccurate
- 3 = Slightly Inaccurate
- 4 = Neither Accurate nor Inaccurate
- 5 = Slightly Accurate
- 6 = Very Accurate
- 7 = Extremely Accurate
- Scoring Procedures: Subscale raw scores are derived by calculating the arithmetic mean or sum of all adjectives comprising each specific factor. Reverse-keyed items (e.g., promiscuous descriptors on the Relationship Exclusivity scale) are inverted prior to calculation. Higher subscale scores indicate greater self-perceived standing on that sexual dimension.
Permissions & Fee and Test Year
Initial Year of Publication: 2000.
Original Publishing Journal: Journal of Research in Personality, Elsevier Science.
Licensing and Academic Use: An Adjective Measure of Sexual Strategies was developed within an academic research setting and is published within peer-reviewed scientific literature. For non-commercial academic, educational, and empirical research purposes, the inventory is typically accessible without payment of licensing fees, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution is given to the original authors (Schmitt & Buss, 2000). However, the complete text, psychometric materials, and copyrighted journal contents remain intellectual property governed by copyright laws. Commercial use, inclusion in fee-for-service software platforms, corporate assessments, or diagnostic products requires formal written permission and licensing agreements from the copyright holders and the original authors.
References
- Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. Henry Holt & Co.
- Buss, D. M. (1991). Evolutionary personality psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 42(1), 459–491. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.42.020191.002331
- Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual Strategies Theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204
- Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38(4), 476–506. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054116
- Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "description of personality": The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216
- Phinney, C. Y., & Gough, H. G. (1984). The California Psychological Inventory: Physical self-esteem subscale. Consulting Psychologists Press.
- Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Sexual dimensions of person description: Beyond or subsumed by the Big Five? Journal of Research in Personality, 34(2), 141–177. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1999.2275
- Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(6), 870–883. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.870
- Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871-1971 (pp. 136–179). Aldine.