Arnett Inventory of Sensation Seeking (Arnett, 1994)

Abstract

The Arnett Inventory of Sensation Seeking (AISS), developed by developmental psychologist Jeffrey Jensen Arnett in 1994, is a 20-item self-report psychometric instrument designed to assess sensation seeking as a multidimensional personality disposition. Conceived as a conceptual and methodological alternative to Marvin Zuckerman’s widely used Sensation Seeking Scale Form V (SSS-V), the AISS redefines sensation seeking along two primary dimensions: Novelty (the openness to unfamiliar, varied, and unexpected experiences) and Intensity (the preference for sensory stimulation of strong amplitude, energy, and physical or psychological force). Comprising two 10-item subscales rated on a 4-point response format (ranging from “describes me very well” to “does not describe me at all”), the instrument addresses several persistent psychometric and conceptual limitations of prior sensation seeking measures. Crucially, the AISS eliminates the forced-choice format, excludes items reliant on physical strength or athletic prowess that bias scores against older adults or females, and removes content depicting overt illegal acts, substance abuse, and antisocial behavior. By dissociating the latent personality trait of sensation seeking from deviant behavioral manifestations, the AISS eliminates criterion contamination and avoids circular reasoning when predicting adolescent and adult risk-taking. Psychometric evaluations across diverse populations demonstrate adequate internal consistency (with subscale Cronbach’s alphas typically ranging from .64 to .70 and total scale reliability reaching .70 to .75), sound convergent validity with legacy sensation-seeking measures, and strong predictive validity across diverse domains, including reckless driving, adolescent risk behaviors, media consumption patterns, and occupational preferences.

Keywords

Arnett Inventory of Sensation Seeking, AISS, sensation seeking, Novelty, Intensity, risk-taking behavior, psychometrics, personality assessment, Jeffrey Jensen Arnett, emerging adulthood, stimulus seeking, optimal arousal theory

Authors

The Arnett Inventory of Sensation Seeking was developed and validated by Jeffrey Jensen Arnett, Ph.D., an American developmental psychologist renowned for formulating the theory of emerging adulthood.

• Primary Author: Jeffrey Jensen Arnett, Ph.D.
• Institutional Affiliation at Inception: Department of Human Development and Family Studies, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, United States.
• Current Affiliation: Research Professor, Department of Psychology, Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States.
• Key Collaborators and Psychometric Evaluators: Subsequent prominent psychometric validations and structural evaluations have been conducted by independent researchers, including Caroline A. Haynes, Jeremy N. V. Miles, and Keith Clements at the Institute of Behavioural Sciences, University of Derby, United Kingdom, as well as Pere Joan Ferrando and Urbano Lorenzo-Seva in cross-cultural Spanish psychometric adaptations.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Arnett Inventory of Sensation Seeking is to measure sensation seeking as a basic psychological trait without conflating the underlying disposition with its potential behavioral consequences. For decades, the study of sensation seeking was dominated by Marvin Zuckerman’s operationalization via the Sensation Seeking Scale Form V (SSS-V). However, Arnett identified several theoretical and methodological flaws in existing scales that curtailed their utility in psychological, developmental, and criminological research.

Prior instruments predominantly utilized a forced-choice dichotomy (e.g., choosing between an adventurous option and a mundane option). This format introduced substantial measurement error, increased cognitive burden on respondents, lowered scale reliability, and prevented participants from indicating gradations of agreement. Furthermore, older instruments included dated cultural colloquialisms and heavily indexed physical activities requiring muscular strength, speed, and agility (e.g., downhill skiing, mountain climbing, waterskiing). Consequently, older adults and individuals with physical disabilities routinely received artificially depressed sensation-seeking scores, creating an artificial artifact of age-related trait decline rather than reflecting an actual reduction in sensory appetite.

Most critically, Zuckerman’s scale incorporated items explicitly measuring illegal drug experimentation, heavy alcohol consumption, wild partying, and minor delinquency (especially within the Disinhibition and Boredom Susceptibility subscales). When developmental psychologists and criminologists utilized the SSS-V to predict risk-taking behaviors (such as reckless driving, substance misuse, or criminal delinquency), the resulting correlations suffered from substantial criterion contamination and tautological fallacy: delinquent behaviors were being predicted by questionnaire items that asked whether the individual engaged in delinquent behaviors.

The AISS was formulated to achieve the following clinical, developmental, and psychometric objectives:

• Provide an Uncontaminated Measure: Measure sensation seeking strictly as a psychological appetite for sensory stimulation and novel experience, ensuring that items reflect cognitive preferences and sensory appetites rather than unlawful or risky acts.
• Facilitate Valid Predictive Research: Allow researchers investigating adolescent and adult risk-taking (e.g., reckless driving, unprotected sexual activity, substance use) to assess the causal or correlational impact of the personality disposition without structural confounding.
• Enable Lifespan Applicability: Formulate items free from physical prowess constraints, making the scale equitable across sexes, age cohorts, and diverse physical capabilities.
• Enhance Measurement Precision: Adopt a standardized 4-point Likert response format to capture subtle individual differences in trait intensity and improve distributional properties.

Psychological Construct

Sensation seeking is conceptualized within differential psychology as a biologically based, relatively stable personality dimension defined by the need for varied, novel, complex, and intense sensations and experiences, alongside the willingness to take physical, social, legal, and financial risks for the sake of such experience. In the Arnett (1994) formulation, the construct is decoupled from overt danger or antisocial deviance and structured into two distinct, correlated psychological dimensions: Novelty and Intensity.

1. Novelty (10 Items)

The Novelty dimension assesses an individual’s openness to new, unfamiliar, and cognitively varied experiences, environments, and interpersonal configurations. Individuals high in Novelty possess an exploratory drive, intellectual and cultural curiosity, and an aversion to behavioral rigidity and routine. This dimension taps into experiential breadth rather than sheer sensory loudness.

Manifestations of high Novelty include:

• Intercultural and Interpersonal Curiosity: A profound interest in engaging with people from distinct cultural backgrounds (e.g., Item 1: “I can see how it would be interesting to marry someone from a foreign country”).
• Spontaneity and Low Need for Cognitive Closure: Embracing unstructured situations and traveling without rigid itineraries (e.g., Item 5: “When taking a trip, I think it is best to make as few plans as possible and just take it as it comes”).
• Exploratory Motivation: An affinity for remote, unfamiliar environments and frontier exploration (e.g., Item 9: “I would like to travel to places that are strange and far away”; Item 11: “I would have enjoyed being one of the first explorers of an unknown land”).
• Culinary and Experiential Adventurousness: Openness to novel sensory and dietary stimuli, as opposed to preferring predictable, familiar routines (e.g., reverse-scored Item 17: “I think it’s best to order something familiar when eating in a restaurant”).

2. Intensity (10 Items)

The Intensity dimension assesses an individual’s preference for sensory inputs that are high in physical amplitude, volume, speed, kinetic energy, or psychological arousal. Where Novelty reflects an appetite for the unfamiliar, Intensity reflects an appetite for the powerful. A sensory stimulus can be completely familiar yet highly intense.

Manifestations of high Intensity include:

• Auditory and Acoustic Amplitude: A strong preference for loud, high-energy music and rich auditory stimulation (e.g., Item 4: “When I listen to music, I like it to be loud”).
• Visceral and Kinetic Arousal: Seeking bodily sensations associated with acceleration, gravitational force, heights, and fast motion (e.g., Item 8: rollercoasters and fast rides; Item 18: standing next to the edge of high places and looking down).
• Arousal from High-Stakes and Dramatic Media: Deriving pleasure from media characterized by visceral stimulation, fast pacing, explosions, and high suspense (e.g., Item 12: movies with explosions and car chases; reverse-scored Item 6: avoiding frightening or suspenseful films).
• Cognitive and Performance Activation Under Pressure: Operating more effectively when subjected to imminent deadlines or physiological stress (e.g., Item 14: working better under pressure; Item 7: public performance before an audience).

Arnett hypothesized that while both dimensions interact to produce overt sensation-seeking behaviors, they can operate independently. For instance, a scholar may exhibit high Novelty (embracing exotic travel, diverse ideas, and international cuisines) while exhibiting low Intensity (disliking loud environments, fast rollercoasters, or extreme physical exertion). Conversely, an individual who enjoys driving at excessive speeds and listening to deafening rock music (high Intensity) may possess low Novelty, routinely eating identical meals and avoiding foreign cultures.

Theoretical Framework

The Arnett Inventory of Sensation Seeking is grounded in an integration of optimal stimulation theory, evolutionary psychology, and developmental neurobiology.

1. Optimal Stimulation and Homeostatic Regulation

The foundational premise of sensation seeking originates from early psychobiological formulations by Donald Hebb and Daniel Berlyne regarding the optimal level of arousal (OLA) and optimal level of stimulation (OLS). According to this framework, organisms do not seek a static state of zero excitation; rather, every individual possesses a biologically determined central nervous system baseline of arousal. Individuals with a low baseline or a high threshold of central nervous system reactivity require substantial external sensory inputs to attain an optimal, emotionally gratifying state of functioning. If sensory input falls below this threshold, the individual experiences boredom, lethargy, and psychological dysphoria. Conversely, individuals with high internal baseline arousal or low sensory thresholds are easily overwhelmed by intense stimulation, seeking predictable, quiet, and low-amplitude environments to maintain psychological homeostasis.

2. Developmental Context: Emerging Adulthood and Neurodevelopment

Arnett’s construction of the AISS is intrinsically linked to his broader developmental framework of emerging adulthood (spanning ages 18 to 29). During late adolescence and early adulthood, sensation seeking reaches an ontogenetic peak across human populations. Evolutionary and developmental perspectives suggest that elevated sensation seeking during this transitional stage serves adaptive evolutionary functions: facilitating exploration away from the natal family unit, encouraging mate selection across novel social groups, and promoting the acquisition of survival skills in unfamiliar territories.

Modern neurodevelopmental models, such as the dual systems model (Steinberg) and the triadic model (Ernst), provide biological grounding for Arnett’s observations. During emerging adulthood, subcortical dopaminergic reward systems (particularly the nucleus accumbens and ventral striatum) mature more rapidly than the prefrontal executive control networks responsible for cognitive inhibition and long-term risk assessment. Consequently, sensation seeking—manifesting as heightened sensitivity to Novelty and Intensity—surges. By providing a scale devoid of criminal items, Arnett allowed developmental researchers to observe how this normative neurodevelopmental surge in sensation seeking interacts with social regulation, parenting, and peer influence to determine whether that trait translates into benign experiential growth (e.g., study abroad, artistic performance) or dangerous, destructive behaviors (e.g., reckless driving, substance abuse).

Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the AISS have been examined across numerous empirical investigations since its initial publication.

Construct and Convergent Validity

In the original validation study by Arnett (1994), conducted across samples of adolescents and young adults (N = 139 adolescents, N = 180 adults), the AISS exhibited expected associations with alternative measures of sensation seeking and related personality constructs. The total AISS score demonstrated moderate-to-strong positive correlations with Zuckerman’s SSS-V total score (correlations typically falling between r = .41 and r = .62 across various adult samples), confirming that both scales tap the same underlying theoretical domain. Furthermore, convergent validity studies linking the AISS with the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) established that the Novelty subscale correlates strongly with the Openness to Experience domain (particularly the Openness to Actions and Openness to Ideas facets), whereas the Intensity subscale correlates robustly with Extraversion (specifically the Excitement Seeking facet).

Discriminant Validity

Crucially, the AISS demonstrates superior discriminant validity compared to legacy sensation-seeking inventories. Because the AISS explicitly excludes items assessing aggressive conduct, antisocial tendencies, and illegal substance use, its baseline correlations with measures of baseline hostility, conduct disorder, and social nonconformity are lower than those observed with Zuckerman’s Disinhibition (Dis) and Boredom Susceptibility (BS) subscales. Additionally, the AISS shares negligible-to-low correlations with measures of neuroticism, generalized anxiety, and depression, confirming that the appetite for sensory stimulation operates independently from emotional distress.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

The primary empirical strength of the AISS lies in its ability to predict high-intensity, risky real-world behaviors without structural criterion contamination:

• Reckless Driving: Arnett (1994, 1996) demonstrated that adolescents and young adults scoring high on the AISS reported significantly higher rates of driving at extreme speeds (e.g., driving 20+ mph over the speed limit), racing other vehicles, running red lights, and driving while intoxicated. Importantly, both Novelty and Intensity contributed independently to driving violations.
• Substance Use and Sexual Risk: Elevated AISS scores significantly predict adolescent and collegiate alcohol intoxication, illicit drug experimentation, and unprotected sexual intercourse with multiple casual partners. Because the AISS contains zero drug or sex items, these findings provide pure criterion validity: high sensation seekers engage in substance experimentation not necessarily out of psychopathology, but out of an uninhibited appetite for novel sensory experiences and intense physiological states.
• Media and Music Preferences: Consistent with the Intensity dimension, high AISS scorers demonstrate pronounced preferences for hard rock, heavy metal, and high-energy electronic music, as well as cinema dominated by visceral action, explosions, and horror. Conversely, low scorers systematically prefer classical music, soft pop, and low-tension drama.

Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the Arnett Inventory of Sensation Seeking has been evaluated extensively regarding internal consistency and temporal stability.

Internal Consistency

In his seminal 1994 investigation, Arnett reported the following Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficients:

• Total AISS Score (20 items): α = .70 in the adolescent sample; α = .70 in the adult sample.
• Novelty Subscale (10 items): α = .64 in adolescents; α = .64 in adults.
• Intensity Subscale (10 items): α = .64 in adolescents; α = .64 in adults.

Subsequent independent studies in English-speaking samples (e.g., Haynes, Miles, & Clements, 2000; Roth et al., 2007) have reported comparable coefficients, with total scale alphas generally falling between .68 and .75, while subscale alphas range from .60 to .72. Although subscale alpha values around .64 are classified as modest by traditional psychometric standards, psychometricians note that sensation seeking is an inherently broad, heterogeneous personality construct. Arnett intentionally selected items reflecting diverse behavioral domains (e.g., food, travel, acoustic loudness, media, heights, social encounters) to ensure ecological validity and wide bandwidth. Artificially inflating internal consistency by asking repetitive questions about the same specific behavior would have narrowed the construct’s breadth and compromised criterion validity.

Test-Retest Stability

Evaluations of temporal stability demonstrate that the AISS possesses strong test-retest reliability over short and moderate intervals. Across test-retest periods ranging from two to four weeks, total score correlation coefficients typically exceed r = .80 (ranging from .78 to .85), demonstrating that the instrument reliably captures a durable personality trait rather than transient mood states or fluctuating situational arousal.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the AISS has been investigated through both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In the original scale construction, Arnett (1994) conducted principal components analysis with varimax and oblimin rotations on the 20 items. The analysis yielded empirical support for a two-dimensional solution corresponding directly to the theoretical constructs of Novelty and Intensity. The two factors were found to be moderately positively correlated (typically r = .30 to .45), demonstrating that while they share common variance as manifestations of a broader sensation-seeking phenotype, they reflect distinguishable behavioral inclinations.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Structural Controversies

In a notable independent psychometric evaluation, Haynes, Miles, and Keith Clements (2000) conducted a confirmatory factor analysis comparing Zuckerman’s SSS-V and Arnett’s AISS among 224 British university students. Their CFA of the AISS evaluated both a unidimensional model and Arnett’s proposed two-factor oblique model. Key findings from structural investigations include:

• Two-Factor Oblique Fit: The hypothesized two-factor structure (Novelty and Intensity) demonstrated markedly superior goodness-of-fit compared to a single-factor general sensation seeking model. However, overall global fit indices in standard CFA models frequently fall slightly below stringent contemporary thresholds (e.g., Comparative Fit Index [CFI] ≈ .85 to .90; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] ≈ .06 to .08).
• Item Complexities and Cross-Loadings: Psychometricians identified that certain items exhibit dual loadings across both dimensions. For instance, Item 19 (“If it were possible to visit another planet or the moon for free, I would be among the first to sign up”), assigned theoretically to Novelty, shares substantial variance with Intensity due to the extreme physical and kinetic sensations associated with space travel. Similarly, Item 18 (standing at the edge of a high place) exhibits cross-loadings with fearlessness and thrill-seeking.
• Bi-Factor and Hierarchical Models: Later structural analyses (such as those by Ferrando and Chico, 2001) suggest that the AISS conforms well to a bi-factor model: a strong, overarching general sensation-seeking factor (g-factor) accounts for the common variance across all 20 items, while two group factors capture the unique residual variance of Novelty and Intensity. This psychometric finding justifies both the reporting of specific subscale scores and the calculation of a single, composite AISS total score.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational characteristics and scoring architecture of the Arnett Inventory of Sensation Seeking are summarized below:

• Instrument Name: Arnett Inventory of Sensation Seeking (AISS)
• Author: Jeffrey Jensen Arnett, Ph.D. (1994)
• Measurement Format: Self-report questionnaire
• Target Population: Adolescents (ages 12–18), emerging adults (ages 18–29), and mature adults
• Administration Time: Approximately 5 to 10 minutes
• Number of Items: 20 items
• Subscale Breakdown:
  • Novelty Subscale (10 items): Items 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19
  • Intensity Subscale (10 items): Items 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20
• Authentic Response Scale: 4-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Describes me very well
  • 2 = Describes me somewhat
  • 3 = Does not describe me very well
  • 4 = Does not describe me at all
• Scoring and Directionality:
  • Items are conventionally scored such that higher scores indicate greater sensation seeking (scoring direction: 4 = Describes me very well, 3 = Describes me somewhat, 2 = Does not describe me very well, 1 = Does not describe me at all; or by reversing the original coding).
  • Reverse-Scored Items (6 items total): Six items depict low sensation seeking or avoidance of stimulation and MUST be reverse-scored prior to computing subscale or total sums:
    • Novelty Subscale Reversals: Item 3, Item 13, Item 17
    • Intensity Subscale Reversals: Item 2, Item 6, Item 10
  • Score Derivation:
    • Novelty Subscale Score: Sum of items 1, 3(R), 5, 7, 9, 11, 13(R), 15, 17(R), 19. (Theoretical range: 10 to 40).
    • Intensity Subscale Score: Sum of items 2(R), 4, 6(R), 8, 10(R), 12, 14, 16, 18, 20. (Theoretical range: 10 to 40).
    • Total AISS Score: Sum of all 20 items (Novelty + Intensity). (Theoretical range: 20 to 80).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Arnett Inventory of Sensation Seeking was officially published in 1994 in the peer-reviewed academic journal Personality and Individual Differences.

• Copyright and Availability: The copyright for the original article and printed scale text is held by Elsevier Ltd. However, Dr. Jeffrey Jensen Arnett placed the instrument in the public academic domain for non-commercial educational, scientific, and research purposes.
• User Fees: There are no licensing fees, royalties, or purchase costs required for academic researchers, graduate students, or clinicians administering the scale for non-commercial research or diagnostic assessment.
• Permission Protocol: Formal permission is generally not required for non-commercial scholarly research, provided that the original 1994 validation article is properly cited in all resulting reports, theses, and publications. Commercial applications, commercial software integration, or profit-driven assessment platforms require written consent from the author and copyright holder.

References

• Arnett, J. (1994). Sensation seeking: A new scale and a new conceptualisation. Personality and Individual Differences, 16(2), 289–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(94)90165-1
• Arnett, J. (1996). Sensation seeking, aggressiveness, and adolescent reckless behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 20(6), 693–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(96)00027-X
• Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469
• Ferrando, P. J., & Chico, E. (2001). The Arnett Inventory of Sensation Seeking: Psychometric properties and validity in a Spanish sample. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17(1), 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1027//1015-5759.17.1.47
• Haynes, C. A., Miles, J. N. V., & Clements, K. (2000). A confirmatory factor analysis of two models of sensation seeking. Personality and Individual Differences, 29(5), 823–839. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00234-8
• Roth, M., Schumacher, J., & Brähler, E. (2007). The Arnett Inventory of Sensation Seeking (AISS) – Psychometric properties and normative values in a representative German sample. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 28(2), 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1024/0170-1789.28.2.111
• Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511752940

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)