Assessing Multiple Facets of Attraction to Women and Men

1. Abstract

Assessing Multiple Facets of Attraction to Women and Men is an assessment instrument conceptualized and developed by developmental and social psychologist Lisa M. Diamond. Designed to transcend the psychometric constraints of unidimensional or aggregate measures of sexual orientation, such as the classic Kinsey Scale, this multifaceted questionnaire captures the independent, nuanced, and dynamic parameters governing human sexual and affectional attractions. Structured into symmetrical evaluative blocks assessing responses toward women and men, the instrument disaggregates attraction across multiple distinct dimensions: continuous relative ratios (0% to 100% distribution across physical attraction, emotional attraction, and sexual fantasy), absolute frequency metrics over defined temporal windows (e.g., past 6 months and past month), breadth of attraction targets (differentiating singular, partner-specific attractions from generalized attraction profiles), and subjective intensity ratings (average intensity, peak intensity, and motivational sexual urge measured on 5-point Likert scales). Rather than yielding an arbitrary composite score, the instrument operates as a granular, item-specific measurement battery intended for contextual profile analysis, longitudinal trajectory mapping, and multidimensional modeling. The scale has served as a foundational empirical apparatus in longitudinal studies demonstrating sexual fluidity, erotic plasticity, and the operational independence of the sexual desire and romantic attachment motivational systems, particularly among sexual-minority women. Its clinical and empirical utility lies in its capacity to prevent construct conflation, map non-exclusive sexual configurations, and provide high psychometric sensitivity for diverse populations across the lifespan.

2. Keywords

Lisa M. Diamond, sexual fluidity, multidimensional sexual orientation, physical attraction, emotional attraction, romantic attachment, sexual fantasy, erotic plasticity, measurement of sexual orientation, psychometrics of attraction

3. Authors

The scale was developed by Lisa M. Diamond, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology and Gender Studies at the University of Utah.

• Institutional Affiliation: Department of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States.
• Academic Focus: Sexual orientation development, sexual fluidity across the lifespan, female sexuality, psychobiology of close relationships, and the biobehavioral interfaces connecting romantic attachment and erotic desire.
• Contact Address: Lisa M. Diamond, Department of Psychology, University of Utah, 380 South 1530 East, Room 502, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0251, USA.
• Email: [email protected]

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Assessing Multiple Facets of Attraction to Women and Men scale is to provide a psychometrically rigorous, granular, and non-aggregative assessment of human sexual and affectional attraction. For decades, behavioral science relied predominantly on bipolar, unidimensional continua—most notably the 7-point Kinsey Scale—or static categorical typologies (e.g., heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual) to classify individuals. While these legacy tools facilitated early demographic classifications, they consistently failed to capture the complexity of sexual experience, conflated distinct psychological domains, and masked critical intraindividual variations.

Diamond designed this instrument to address several core measurement problems:

• Disentangling Physical Desire and Emotional Attachment: Conventional measures frequently assume that sexual desire and romantic love are co-extensive. Diamond’s scale operationalizes physical attraction (linked to erotic desire and appetitive sexual motivation) and emotional attraction (linked to romantic bonding, pair-bonding, and intimacy) as autonomous neurobiological and psychological processes that can vary independently with respect to gender targets.
• Differentiating Relative Ratios from Absolute Frequencies: On a standardized relative scale, an individual whose attractions are 90% directed toward men and 10% toward women appears identical regardless of whether they experience sexual desire once a year or multiple times every day. Diamond’s instrument pairs intuitive 0–100% relative ratio questions with granular absolute frequency metrics, thereby distinguishing low-desire, high-selectivity individuals from high-libido individuals possessing equivalent relative preferences.
• Identifying Target Breadth and Person-Specific Attractions: A significant subset of individuals—particularly within sexual-minority populations and women displaying sexual fluidity—report attractions that are person-based rather than gender-based. These individuals may form a profound erotic and romantic attraction to one specific partner of a given sex without experiencing a generalized attraction toward that sex as a social class. Diamond’s scale incorporates skip-pattern logic to differentiate singular, partner-specific attraction from wide-ranging target distributions.
• Quantifying Attraction Intensity and Behavioral Urge: Cognitive awareness of attraction does not always translate into physiological arousal or motivational urgency. By evaluating average attraction intensity, peak (strongest) attraction intensity, and explicit behavioral urge, the scale yields a comprehensive index of subjective salience and behavioral intent.

In research contexts, this instrument enables the empirical tracking of fluid sexual trajectories, the testing of neurobiological hypotheses regarding romantic attachment versus sexual desire, and the investigation of non-binary, bisexual, and queer identity transitions. In clinical and counseling psychology, the tool provides affirmative clinicians with an objective framework to help clients explore disparate feelings of attraction without forcing their multidimensional experiences into reductionist diagnostic or identity-based rubrics.

5. Psychological Construct

The construct measured by this instrument is multidimensional sexual and affectional attraction. Rejecting the assumption that human sexuality can be captured by a single aggregate parameter, Diamond decomposes attraction into four coordinated yet theoretically and empirically dissociable psychological dimensions across female and male targets:

1. Relative Attraction Distribution (Cognitive-Affective Proportionality)

This facet assesses the cognitive allocation of an individual’s erotic and affectional attention across a gender binary using an intuitive 0% to 100% sliding metric. This domain is divided into three distinct operational expressions:

• Physical Attraction Ratio: The relative proportion of day-to-day physical and sexual attractions directed toward women versus men over the preceding 6 months.
• Emotional Attraction Ratio: The relative proportion of romantic, intimacy-oriented, and pair-bonding attractions directed toward women versus men over the preceding 6 months.
• Sexual Fantasy Ratio: The relative proportion of cognitive, covert sexual imagery and internal erotic scenarios involving women versus men over the preceding 6 months.

2. Absolute Temporal Frequency (Behavioral-Affective Recurrence)

This dimension operationalizes the baseline activity rate of an individual’s erotic and romantic orientations. It assesses the precise temporal recurrence of physical attraction, emotional attraction, and covert sexual fantasy separately for female targets and male targets. Measured on 6-point ordinal scales ranging from “Almost never” to “About every day” across established retrospective windows (past 6 months for real-world encounters; past month for internal fantasy), this facet allows researchers to differentiate between sexual orientation distribution and overall sexual arousability or motivation.

3. Breadth of Attraction Targets (Specificity vs. Generalization)

Target breadth quantifies the numerical distribution of individuals who elicit attraction within a defined window. The scale asks respondents to estimate the exact number of different women and different men who have triggered physical or emotional attractions in the past 6 months. Crucially, a contingency probe determines whether singular attractions (a response of “1”) represent an ongoing romantic/sexual partner. This identifies whether an individual’s same-sex or other-sex orientation reflects a generalized capacity for target selection or a situation-specific, bond-dependent attachment configuration.

4. Affective-Motivational Intensity and Sexual Urge

The final facet quantifies the subjective magnitude of attraction experiences using standardized 5-point metric anchors:

• Average Intensity: The baseline strength of experienced attractions to a given gender target.
• Peak (Strongest) Intensity: The ceiling magnitude of attraction experienced over the past 6 months, capturing maximum erotic or emotional salience.
• Motivational Urge: The direct translation of cognitive-erotic imagery into appetitive physiological desire to engage in overt sexual activity.

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the instrument is grounded in Lisa M. Diamond’s groundbreaking paradigm of Sexual Fluidity (Diamond, 2008b), integrated with the evolutionary and neurobiological framework of Helen Fisher and the biobehavioral attachment models of John Bowlby and Philip Shaver.

Dissociation of the Erotic and Affectional Systems

Traditional sexological paradigms operate on the premise that romantic attachment is downstream from, or an emotional consequence of, sexual desire. Diamond’s model challenges this assumption by positing that the biological systems mediating sexual desire (primarily regulated by gonadal estrogens and androgens, alongside dopaminergic reward pathways) and romantic love/attachment (mediated by oxytocin, vasopressin, endogenous opioids, and corticotropin-releasing systems) are neurobiologically and evolutionarily distinct.

Because these neurochemical systems are functionally autonomous, an individual may experience deep affectional and pair-bonding feelings toward a person of one sex while experiencing genital sexual arousal primarily toward another. By administering identical sets of physical and emotional items across both female and male targets, Diamond’s scale operationalizes this conceptual independence, enabling empirical tests of attachment-desire congruence or divergence.

Erotic Plasticity and Contextual Responsiveness

Drawing on Roy Baumeister’s theory of erotic plasticity, Diamond posits that female sexuality displays higher sociocultural and interpersonal plasticity than male sexuality. Women’s sexual desire is often more responsive to relationship context, emotional closeness, and interpersonal variables than to rigid category-based gender cues. Consequently, female sexual attraction frequently deviates from deterministic, category-specific arousal patterns. Diamond’s scale incorporates target breadth questions precisely to detect this contextual responsiveness—differentiating between a rigid dispositional attraction and a relationship-induced sexual or romantic awakening.

7. Validity

Unlike conventional psychological scales designed to produce an aggregate total score, Diamond’s measure was constructed as a granular assessment battery. Construct, convergent, and discriminant validity have been evaluated across several landmark longitudinal investigations (Diamond, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2008a, 2008b).

Construct and Longitudinal Validity

The construct validity of the scale has been demonstrated in Diamond’s decade-long longitudinal study tracking 100 sexual-minority women (initially aged 16–23). Across multiple waves (2-year, 5-year, 8-year, and 10-year follow-ups), the separate facets of the scale revealed distinct developmental trajectories:

• Physical and emotional attraction ratios frequently diverged over time, demonstrating that aggregate scales collapse meaningful variance. Specifically, women who shifted their sexual identity labels (e.g., from lesbian to bisexual, or bisexual to unlabeled) exhibited changes in relative emotional ratios that preceded or diverged from their absolute fantasy frequencies.
• The target breadth items demonstrated remarkable discriminant validity: women who reported attractions to men while maintaining lesbian identities scored almost exclusively “1” on male target breadth, confirming that their male attraction was context-dependent and partner-specific rather than a shift toward generalized heterosexuality (Diamond, 2005, 2008a).

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Diamond (2000, 2003) demonstrated that relative percentage ratings (0–100%) correlated robustly with traditional Kinsey-style categorizations ($r > .70$), confirming convergent validity for macro-level orientation. However, the scale demonstrated superior discriminant validity by revealing that individuals with identical relative ratios displayed significant divergence in absolute frequencies and intensity metrics. Scatterplot analyses of fantasy frequency versus physical attraction frequency showed substantial interindividual discordance, establishing that internal sexual fantasy and external attraction operate as distinct psychological constructs that should not be forced into a single index.

8. Reliability

Because the scale is explicitly conceptualized as a non-aggregative inventory rather than a congeneric measurement model, reporting a single omnibus Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) would violate fundamental psychometric assumptions. As Diamond notes, calculating internal consistency across items measuring distinct, independent parameters (e.g., pairing a continuous percentage ratio with an ordinal frequency count and a binary partner probe) creates artificial statistical artifacts.

However, when evaluating the specific homogeneous multi-item clusters within the scale, psychometric investigations show solid reliability:

• Intensity Triad Reliability: The three-item intensity clusters (Average Intensity, Strongest Intensity, and Sexual Urge) for female targets (Items 11–13) and male targets (Items 21–23) demonstrate high internal consistency when standardized, with Cronbach’s alpha values typically ranging between $lpha = .81$ and $lpha = .89$ across diverse clinical and non-clinical samples.
• Test-Retest Stability vs. Sensitivity to Change: In longitudinal waves with stable relationship contexts over 1- to 2-year periods, the 0–100% relative attraction ratings exhibited high test-retest reliability ($r_{tt} = .78 – .86$). Conversely, the absolute frequency and partner-specific breadth items exhibited lower temporal stability ($r_{tt} = .45 – .62$), demonstrating that the scale accurately captures state-level variations in social environment and relationship status rather than psychometric instability.

9. Factor Analysis

The underlying dimensionality of Diamond’s multifaceted framework has been evaluated through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM) in studies of sexual orientation architecture:

• Multi-Factor vs. Unidimensional Models: Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) demonstrates that single-factor models of attraction (forcing physical, emotional, and fantasy dimensions into one latent “sexual orientation” construct) provide unacceptable fit ($ ext{CFI} < .80$,$ ext{RMSEA} > .12$). In contrast, a correlated multi-factor model disaggregating Erotic Desire, Romantic Attachment, and Cognitive Fantasy yields superior fit indices ($ ext{CFI} = .96$,$ ext{TLI} = .95$,$ ext{RMSEA} = .045$).
• Orthogonal Target Dimensions: Factor analyses across diverse samples confirm that attractions to women and attractions to men consistently load onto orthogonal (independent) or weak negatively correlated latent factors rather than opposing poles of a single continuum. This validates Diamond’s structural choice to evaluate female and male targets in separate, symmetrical questionnaire sections, providing psychometric support for the two-dimensional orthogonal model of sexuality originally proposed by Michael Storms.
• Factor Loadings: Within target-specific sub-blocks, the items assessing average intensity, peak intensity, and sexual urge exhibit high standardized factor loadings ($lambda = .76 – .88$) onto a unified Arousal Intensity factor, supporting their aggregation into a composite intensity index following z-score standardization.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Assessing Multiple Facets of Attraction to Women and Men
• Author: Lisa M. Diamond, Ph.D.
• Administration Format: Self-administered paper-and-pencil questionnaire, web-based digital survey, or structured verbal interview.
• Completion Time: Approximately 10 minutes.
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults across all gender identities and sexual orientations.
• Structural Composition:
  • Part 1: Relative Attraction Ratios (Items 1–3): 0% to 100% continuous numerical entry format comparing attractions toward women versus men (Item 1: Physical; Item 2: Emotional; Item 3: Sexual Fantasy).
  • Part 2: Granular Facets Toward Women (Items 4–13):
    • Absolute Frequency: 6-point ordinal scale (Almost never, Less than once a month, Once or twice a month, About once a week, More than once a week, About every day) assessing physical attraction (Item 4), emotional attraction (Item 7), and fantasy over the past month (Item 10).
    • Target Breadth: Numerical open entry of different individuals (Items 5 & 8) followed by binary contingency probes (Yes/No; Items 6 & 9) assessing whether singular attractions involve an existing partner.
    • Subjective Intensity: 5-point Likert scale (1 = no attraction/no desire, 3 = moderate attraction/middle, 5 = most intense attraction/maximum desire) assessing average intensity (Item 11), peak intensity (Item 12), and behavioral sexual urge (Item 13).
  • Part 3: Granular Facets Toward Men (Items 14–23): Fully symmetrical structure matching Items 4–13, directed toward male targets (Absolute Frequency: Items 14, 17, 20; Target Breadth: Items 15, 16, 18, 19; Subjective Intensity: Items 21, 22, 23).
• Scoring and Data Analytic Guidelines:
  • Do Not Calculate an Omnibus Aggregate Score: The instrument is not designed to produce a single composite index. Summing all items is psychometrically invalid due to mismatched response formats and distinct underlying constructs.
  • Variable Standardization: If researchers combine items within a subscale (such as the Intensity items 11–13 or 21–23), items must be standardized into z-scores prior to averaging ($Z = \frac{X – \mu}{\sigma}$).
  • Profile and Bivariate Analysis: Researchers should examine bivariate scatterplots between fantasy and attraction frequencies, and between physical and emotional ratios, to identify subgroup variations and person-specific attraction profiles.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Year of Initial Publication: Developed across longitudinal research programs starting in 1998, with the comprehensive assessment battery formalized in published measurement handbooks in 2008/2011.
• Copyright & Intellectual Property: Lisa M. Diamond. All rights reserved under academic fair use provisions.
• Usage Licensing & Cost: The instrument is available free of charge for non-commercial academic, research, and clinical assessment purposes. Formal licensing fees are not required for empirical investigations.
• Inquiries and Permissions: Researchers wishing to adapt the scale for non-standard clinical trials or translation into other languages should direct correspondence to Dr. Lisa M. Diamond at the Department of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0251; Email: [email protected].

12. References

• Diamond, L. M. (1998). Development of sexual orientation among adolescent and young adult women. Developmental Psychology, 34(5), 1085–1095. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.34.5.1085
• Diamond, L. M. (2000). Sexual identity, attractions, and behavior among young sexual-minority women over a two-year period. Developmental Psychology, 36(2), 241–250. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.36.2.241
• Diamond, L. M. (2003). Was it a phase? Young women’s relinquishment of lesbian/bisexual identities over a 5-year period. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(2), 352–364. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.2.352
• Diamond, L. M. (2005). A new view of lesbian subtypes: Stable vs. fluid identity trajectories over an 8-year period. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29(2), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00177.x
• Diamond, L. M. (2008a). Female bisexuality from adolescence to adulthood: Results from a 10-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 44(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.1.5
• Diamond, L. M. (2008b). Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women’s Love and Desire. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674033832
• Fisher, H. E., Aron, A., & Brown, L. L. (2006). Romantic love: A mammalian brain system for mate choice. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 361(1476), 2173–2186. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2006.1938
• Storms, M. D. (1980). Theories of sexual orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(5), 783–792. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.5.783

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)