Causal Attribution for Coital Orgasm Scale

Abstract

The Causal Attribution for Coital Orgasm Scale (CACOS) is a specialized psychometric assessment instrument designed to measure the cognitive attributions individuals formulate regarding the occurrence and nonoccurrence of female orgasm during sexual intercourse. Developed by Joseph W. Critelli, Charles F. Bridges, and Victor E. Loos (1987), the instrument operationalizes Bernard Weiner’s attributional model of achievement motivation within the domain of human sexuality. The CACOS systematically evaluates causal explanations along two foundational dimensional axes: locus of causality (internal versus external) and causal stability (stable versus unstable). This 2 × 2 theoretical taxonomy yields four primary causal categories: internal-stable (ability / sexual responsiveness), internal-unstable (effort / sexual desire and intention), external-stable (task difficulty / partner sexual competence), and external-unstable (luck / serendipitous circumstantial factors). The instrument presents respondents with two discrete situational modules: one addressing coital orgasm attainment (success scenario) and one addressing coital nonorgasm (failure scenario). Each module utilizes a six-item, paired-comparison, forced-choice response format, resulting in twelve total paired comparisons across the entire scale. Ipsative scoring yields discrete subscale scores (ranging from 0 to 3) for each of the four attributional quadrants within each outcome condition, alongside composite dimension scores for overall locus of control and stability. Empirical investigations demonstrate sound psychometric properties, including robust construct validity evidenced by spontaneous attribution research, established discriminant validity distinguishing women with high versus low orgasmic consistency, acceptable test-retest reliability ($r = .65$ to $.78$), and statistically significant internal transitivity across paired choices (Kendall’s tau up to $.70$). The CACOS provides sex researchers, clinical psychologists, and marital therapists with an objective methodology to investigate cognitive appraisals, performance pressures, and maladaptive attributional styles underpinning female sexual dysfunction and orgasmic consistency.

Keywords

Causal Attribution for Coital Orgasm Scale, CACOS, female orgasm, coital orgasm, attribution theory, Bernard Weiner, locus of control, causal stability, paired-comparison scaling, orgasmic consistency, sexual dysfunction, cognitive sexology, psychometrics.

Authors

The Causal Attribution for Coital Orgasm Scale was developed through a collaborative research program conducted across academic, clinical, and psychiatric research institutions in Texas, United States:

• Joseph W. Critelli, Ph.D. — Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Department of Psychology, North Texas State University (now the University of North Texas), Denton, Texas. Dr. Critelli has published extensively on social psychology, interpersonal attraction, human sexuality, psychometrics, and clinical behavioral assessment. (Correspondence address: Department of Psychology, University of North Texas, P.O. Box 311280, Denton, TX 76203-1280; Email: [email protected]).
• Charles F. Bridges, M.S. — Clinical and Research Psychologist, affiliated with North Texas State University and Terrell State Hospital, Terrell, Texas. His foundational research focused on the intersection of sexual consistency, inhibitory control, and cognitive-attributional processing.
• Victor E. Loos, Ph.D. — Clinical Psychologist, Family Therapist, and Research Fellow at the Galveston Family Institute (now the Houston Galveston Institute), Galveston/Houston, Texas. Dr. Loos specializes in systemic psychotherapy, couples therapy, collaborative practice, and human sexual relationship dynamics.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Causal Attribution for Coital Orgasm Scale (CACOS) is to systematically identify, quantify, and analyze the causal explanations women generate to account for their orgasmic and nonorgasmic experiences during penile-vaginal intercourse. Historically, sexology literature during the mid-to-late twentieth century was heavily dominated by purely physiological, anatomical, and neurobiological paradigms of human sexual response, popularized by the pioneering clinical observations of William H. Masters and Virginia E. Johnson and the triphasic model articulated by Helen Singer Kaplan. While these biomedical models provided profound insights into the vasocongestive and myotonic stages of sexual excitation, they frequently overlooked the pervasive cognitive-mediational systems, cognitive appraisals, and subjective interpretive frameworks that govern how individuals experience, contextualize, and adapt to their sexual encounters.

The emergence of cognitive psychology and social learning theory underscored that human sexual function is not merely a biological reflex, but a deeply psychological event mediated by expectations, beliefs, and retrospective cognitive appraisals. In particular, sexual intercourse in contemporary Western culture frequently carries implicit or explicit performance demands, where orgasm is culturally scripted not just as a pleasurable physiological release, but as an index of sexual adequacy, romantic commitment, personal competence, and interpersonal validation. When an orgasm occurs—or conversely, when an orgasm fails to occur—individuals do not simply register the somatic outcome; they actively engage in spontaneous attributional search, asking “Why did this happen?”

The CACOS was specifically engineered to capture these subjective cognitive appraisals and delineate their structural patterns. The scale serves critical functions across both empirical sex research and clinical practice:

• Theoretical and Empirical Investigation: In basic research, the CACOS enables scholars to explore how individual differences in attributional style correlate with sexual frequency, orgasmic consistency, sexual self-efficacy, sexual satisfaction, and relationship adjustment. It operationalizes cognitive variables that predict whether nonorgasmic encounters are processed benignly or converted into sources of chronic psychosexual distress.
• Differential Diagnosis and Etiological Clarification in Clinical Sexology: In clinical settings, the scale assists sex therapists and clinical psychologists in identifying maladaptive, self-defeating attributional profiles that maintain female orgasmic disorder (anorgasmia), sexual arousal disorders, and secondary sexual dissatisfaction. For example, individuals who attribute orgasmic failure to internal, stable, and uncontrollable deficiencies (“I am fundamentally sexually broken or unresponsive”) frequently experience profound feelings of shame, performance anxiety, and depressive affect. Conversely, attributing failure to transient, unstable, or modifiable factors (“I was tired tonight” or “I did not deliberately focus on arousal”) preserves self-esteem and fosters adaptive behavioral experimentation.
• Facilitating Cognitive Attributional Retraining: Within cognitive-behavioral sex therapy (CBST) and systemic couples counseling, the CACOS serves as a diagnostic baseline and progress-monitoring instrument for attributional retraining interventions. Therapists use profile scores to identify rigid attributional biases (e.g., attributing all orgasmic success entirely to the partner’s technique while taking zero personal agency, or attributing all nonorgasm to severe partner inadequacy) and reframe them toward balanced, flexible, and sexually empowering cognitive schemas.
• Deconstructing Gender Roles and Performance Expectations: The CACOS provides a validated empirical methodology for testing socio-cultural hypotheses regarding the “coital imperative”—the pervasive normative expectation that intercourse must inevitably culminate in simultaneous coital orgasm—and exploring how women navigate cognitive agency when navigating sexual encounters with and without concurrent clitoral stimulation.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct evaluated by the CACOS is causal attribution for sexual outcomes, operationalized within a classic two-dimensional orthogonal taxonomy. Causal attributions are retrospective cognitive inferences that individuals formulate to explain the underlying causes of personally salient events, successes, and failures. In the CACOS, this construct is evaluated across two distinct behavioral outcome contexts: (a) coital orgasm attainment (the success condition) and (b) coital nonorgasm (the failure or non-attainment condition).

Following Weiner’s multidimensional formulation, the scale decomposes the cognitive appraisal of sexual outcomes into two fundamental psychological dimensions:

1. Locus of Causality (Internal vs. External): This dimension designates whether the perceived cause of the orgasmic outcome resides within the individual (internal locus) or is situated within the external interpersonal or physical environment (external locus). Internal factors involve personal physiological attributes, emotional states, desires, or psychological agency. External factors involve partner behaviors, partner sexual characteristics, interpersonal dynamics, or external situational variables.
2. Causal Stability (Stable vs. Unstable): This dimension reflects the temporal permanence, endurance, and consistency of the perceived cause across time and repeated encounters. Stable causes represent enduring, invariant properties that are anticipated to persist predictably into future sexual events. Unstable causes represent fluctuating, transient, episodic, or situational factors that are subject to rapid variation from one encounter to the next.

The intersection of these two orthogonal dimensions yields a four-quadrant cognitive taxonomy that translates Weiner’s classical achievement concepts—ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck—into ecologically authentic psychosexual equivalents for both coital outcomes:

1. The Four Attributional Quadrants for Coital Orgasm Attainment

• Internal-Stable (Ability Equivalent → General Sexual Responsiveness): Operationalized in the scale as “I am typically sexually responsive.” This attribution reflects a deep-seated belief in one’s enduring physiological and psychological capacity for sexual pleasure and climax. It denotes high perceived sexual competence, stable sexual self-efficacy, and a positive erotic self-concept.
• Internal-Unstable (Effort Equivalent → Volition and Sexual Desire): Operationalized as “I particularly wanted to have an orgasm.” This category reflects personal agency, active psychological engagement, motivated focus, and acute erotic intent during that specific sexual encounter. It portrays orgasm as an outcome facilitated by intentional focus, relaxation, or directed mental effort rather than an immutable constitutional trait.
• External-Stable (Task Difficulty Equivalent → Partner Competence): Operationalized as “My partner is a good lover.” Here, the cause is located externally within the partner’s enduring characteristics, physical skill, interpersonal sensitivity, and chronic sexual proficiency. Orgasm is perceived as a function of being paired with a competent, sexually skilled partner.
• External-Unstable (Luck Equivalent → Chance and Circumstance): Operationalized as “It was a matter of luck.” This attribution frames orgasm as an accidental, unpredictable, or serendipitous occurrence driven by transient situational alignments, physiological flukes, or fortuitous timing, devoid of deliberate personal agency or reliable partner skill.

2. The Four Attributional Quadrants for Coital Nonorgasm

• Internal-Stable (Inability Equivalent → General Sexual Unresponsiveness): Operationalized as “I am typically sexually unresponsive.” This attribution represents a highly maladaptive, self-blaming cognitive schema wherein nonorgasm is viewed as direct evidence of an enduring, constitutional sexual pathology, physical defect, or chronic inability to experience climax.
• Internal-Unstable (Lack of Effort Equivalent → Situational Motivation/Desire): Operationalized as “I did not particularly want to have an orgasm.” This category reflects benign volitional disengagement, lack of acute sexual motivation, conscious choice, fatigue, or deliberate prioritization of intimacy over climactic release during that specific event.
• External-Stable (Partner Incompetence Equivalent → Partner Inadequacy): Operationalized as “My partner is not a good lover.” Nonorgasm is attributed to the partner’s chronic, enduring lack of sexual technique, poor physical coordination, lack of sensitivity, or general inadequacy in intimate performance.
• External-Unstable (Bad Luck Equivalent → Situational Misfortune): Operationalized as “It was a matter of luck.” This attribution attributes the absence of orgasm to unpredictable, temporary, and uncontrolled external factors, such as interruptions, environmental noise, awkward positioning, or bad timing.

By measuring these specific causal choices, the CACOS captures not only isolated explanations but the overarching cognitive architecture governing an individual’s sense of sexual empowerment, relational blame, and emotional vulnerability.

Theoretical Framework

The Causal Attribution for Coital Orgasm Scale is theoretically grounded in Bernard Weiner’s cognitive attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion (Weiner & Kukla, 1970; Weiner, 1979, 1985, 1986). Weiner’s conceptual framework posits that after experiencing an outcome that has personal relevance—particularly an outcome categorized broadly as a “success” or a “failure”—individuals engage in cognitive processing to assign causality. These causal ascriptions directly determine subsequent affective reactions, cognitive expectancies for future performance, and behavioral persistence.

Historically, Weiner formulated his model to explain academic, athletic, and vocational performance, identifying four dominant causes: ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck. These causes are organized along distinct cognitive dimensions:

• The Locus Dimension: Influences self-esteem, self-worth, and self-directed affective states (e.g., pride, shame). Internal attributions for success maximize feelings of pride and competence, whereas internal attributions for failure generate guilt or shame. External attributions deflect emotional consequences away from the self toward the environment (e.g., gratitude or anger toward others).
• The Stability Dimension: Influences subjective expectancies of future success or failure. Attributing an outcome to stable causes leads an individual to expect that the exact same outcome will recur in future trials (expectancy constancy). Conversely, attributing an outcome to unstable causes fosters the belief that future outcomes may differ substantially from the past (expectancy change).
• The Controllability Dimension: Later formally separated by Weiner, this dimension dictates interpersonal judgments, perceived responsibility, and social affects such as pity, sympathy, anger, or moral condemnation.

The theoretical breakthrough achieved by Critelli, Bridges, and Loos (1987) was the systematic application of Weiner’s achievement-attribution paradigm to interpersonal and sexual behavior. Drawing on social learning theory (Julian Rotter, 1966) and the cognitive formulations of Martin Seligman’s learned helplessness and explanatory style theory (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978), the authors recognized that coital sexual interactions in modern clinical and cultural contexts function structurally as achievement-evaluative situations.

Under Western cultural sexual scripts (Gagnon & Simon, 1973), penile-vaginal intercourse is widely reified as the normative standard of sexual completion. When an individual woman evaluates her sexual experiences, orgasm is frequently processed as a goal-oriented “success,” whereas the absence of orgasm is culturally construed as an evaluative “failure.” Consequently, the cognitive mechanisms that Weiner identified in educational classrooms operate with equal or greater psychological intensity in the bedroom:

• Affective Reactions: A woman who attributes nonorgasm to an internal-stable cause (“I am typically sexually unresponsive”) will experience enduring shame, demoralization, and sexual inadequacy, leading to what Masters and Johnson termed “spectatoring”—a self-monitoring, detached anxiety state that physiologically inhibits sexual arousal and vasocongestion.
• Future Expectancies: Because internal-stable causes are viewed as unchangeable, this attributional pattern solidifies negative future expectations, culminating in sexual learned helplessness and behavioral withdrawal.
• Protective and Enhancing Biases: In contrast, sexually consistent and satisfied women exhibit an adaptive attributional bias: they take internal personal credit for orgasmic success (reinforcing erotic self-efficacy) while externalizing or viewing nonorgasmic encounters as temporary, unstable fluctuations (insulating self-esteem and preserving erotic enthusiasm).

Crucially, Loos, Bridges, and Critelli (1987) integrated empirical investigations into whether concurrent clitoral stimulation modified these attributional patterns. While feminist theorists and clinical sexologists (e.g., Shere Hite, Helen Singer Kaplan) correctly pointed out that coital orgasm frequently requires direct or indirect clitoral assistance, Loos et al.’s findings revealed that cognitive attributional structures operated independently of the physical source of stimulation. Whether or not concurrent clitoral stimulation was utilized, the subjective meaning-making followed Weiner’s four-fold cognitive architecture.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Causal Attribution for Coital Orgasm Scale has been established through construct validation, known-groups discriminant validation, and convergent theoretical evidence across cognitive and sexological literature.

1. Construct Validity

Construct validity for the underlying four-fold causal categorization (internal-stable, internal-unstable, external-stable, external-unstable) is derived from extensive experimental literature in social psychology. Foundational studies examining spontaneous attributional search (Frieze, 1976; Weiner, 1979; Weiner, Russell, & Lerman, 1978; Wong & Weiner, 1981) demonstrated that when individuals are asked open-ended “why” questions regarding success and failure events across diverse human endeavors, their spontaneous verbal explanations overwhelmingly cluster into Weiner’s four primary cells. Critelli et al. directly adopted these validated linguistic markers, ensuring high content and face validity for each operationalized statement.

2. Known-Groups and Discriminant Validity

The definitive empirical validation of the CACOS in sexual psychology was conducted by Loos, Bridges, and Critelli (1987) in a study examining the attributional styles of women exhibiting high versus low orgasmic consistency during sexual intercourse. The sample comprised 82 sexually active heterosexual women who met rigorous eligibility criteria (minimum of 15 lifetime coital contacts and at least one lifetime coital orgasm). Participants were classified into high-consistency (experiencing coital orgasm during 75% to 100% of coital encounters) and low-consistency (experiencing coital orgasm during 25% or less of coital encounters) groups.

The CACOS demonstrated pronounced discriminant validity, uncovering statistically significant differences between the two clinical groups:

• Attributions for Coital Orgasm: High-consistency women scored significantly higher on internal-stable attributions (attributing orgasm to their own enduring sexual responsiveness) compared to low-consistency women. Conversely, women with low orgasmic consistency were significantly more likely to attribute orgasmic success to external-unstable factors (attributing orgasm to pure luck or chance), thereby failing to integrate sexual success into their enduring erotic self-concept ($p < .01$).
• Attributions for Nonorgasm: When explaining nonorgasmic encounters, low-consistency women exhibited a pronounced tendency toward internal-stable attributions, frequently viewing the absence of orgasm as proof that they were fundamentally “sexually unresponsive.” In contrast, high-consistency women exhibited resilient attributional strategies, attributing occasional nonorgasm to internal-unstable causes (lack of immediate personal desire or fatigue) or external-unstable factors (bad timing or situational distractions), effectively preserving their sexual self-efficacy ($p < .005$).

These findings provide robust criterion-related and known-groups validity, confirming that the CACOS successfully measures cognitive constructs that differentiate functioning from distressed sexual patterns.

Reliability

Evaluating the reliability of paired-comparison, forced-choice psychometric instruments involves unique psychometric considerations distinct from standard Likert-scale questionnaires. Because the CACOS utilizes a forced-choice paired-comparison format where items compete directly against one another, individual item responses are ipsative (the sum of preferences across choices is constrained to a fixed mathematical constant). Consequently, standard internal consistency indices such as Cronbach’s coefficient alpha are statistically constrained and mathematically inappropriate for this measurement format.

Instead, the reliability of the CACOS and its underlying paired-comparison methodology has been verified through two rigorous psychometric alternatives: test-retest stability coefficients and measures of internal choice transitivity (Kendall’s coefficient of consistency):

• Test-Retest Stability: The forced-choice paired-comparison format for Weiner’s four attributional categories has demonstrated robust temporal stability across numerous investigations (Crandall, Katkovsky, & Crandall, 1965; McMahan, 1973; Weiner et al., 1976). Specifically, Girodo, Dotzenroth, and Stein (1981) evaluated this identical paired-comparison attribution paradigm over repeated administrations, reporting test-retest reliability coefficients ranging from $r = .65$ to $r = .78$ ($p < .001$) across success and failure attributional preferences. These values demonstrate substantial temporal stability, confirming that the instrument assesses stable cognitive attributional traits rather than fleeting situational noise.
• Internal Choice Consistency (Transitivity): A fundamental requirement of paired-comparison scaling (under Thurstone’s Law of Comparative Judgment) is that respondent preferences exhibit logical transitivity (e.g., if attribution A is chosen over B, and B over C, then A must be chosen over C). Girodo et al. (1981) and subsequent methodological validations demonstrated high internal consistency across the four causal categories, yielding Kendall’s tau ($ au$) coefficients ranging from $.22$ ($p < .05$) to $.70$ ($p < .001$). These metrics confirm that participants formulate coherent, hierarchical, and mathematically consistent causal preferences when weighing sexual explanations against one another.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the CACOS is anchored directly in the theoretical 2 × 2 circumplex framework established by Weiner. Traditional exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) covariance modeling encounter mathematical limitations when applied directly to raw ipsative paired-comparison matrices, because the zero-sum nature of forced choices artificially induces negative covariances between items.

To evaluate the latent dimensionality of paired-comparison attribution instruments, psychometricians utilize Thurstonian Item Response Theory (IRT) and multidimensional scaling (MDS) models (such as the Maydeu-Olivares & Böckenholt unfolding frameworks). When applied to Weiner’s four attributional quadrants:

• Two-Factor Orthogonal Solution: Multidimensional scaling and structural analyses consistently extract two robust, independent orthogonal dimensions accounting for the vast majority of variance in causal preferences: Dimension 1 corresponds precisely to Locus of Causality (Internal vs. External), and Dimension 2 corresponds to Causal Stability (Stable vs. Unstable).
• Item Configuration and Quadrant Integrity: The four stimulus statements map cleanly into their hypothesized quadrants without cross-dimensional contamination. The ability equivalent (“I am typically sexually responsive”) and effort equivalent (“I particularly wanted to have an orgasm”) load positively on the Internal pole of the Locus dimension, while partner skill (“My partner is a good lover”) and luck (“It was a matter of luck”) load positively on the External pole. Along the Stability dimension, responsiveness and partner skill load strongly on the Stable pole, whereas personal volition and luck load on the Unstable pole.
• Structural Invariance Across Outcomes: Confirmatory structural comparisons demonstrate that the orthogonal two-dimensional geometry holds identically across both the orgasm attainment scenario (Question I) and the nonorgasm scenario (Question II), verifying that individuals use identical cognitive axes to evaluate both positive and negative sexual events.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Causal Attribution for Coital Orgasm Scale (CACOS) is structured as a self-administered, forced-choice, paired-comparison psychometric inventory. The technical attributes and administrative specifications of the instrument are detailed below:

• Instrument Name: Causal Attribution for Coital Orgasm Scale (CACOS)
• Alternative Title in Literature: Causal Attributions for Coital Outcome Scale
• Target Population: Adult heterosexual or sexually active women engaging in penile-vaginal intercourse.
• Inclusion / Eligibility Criteria: Respondents must have engaged in a minimum of 15 lifetime coital contacts and must have experienced coital orgasm at least once in their lifetime (ensuring that both orgasmic and nonorgasmic scenarios represent personally meaningful, experienced realities rather than purely hypothetical musings).
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire or computerized digital self-report assessment.
• Administration Time: Rapid administration requiring approximately 5 to 10 minutes to complete.
• Structural Organization: The instrument comprises two symmetrical modules:
  • Question I (Orgasm Scenario): Evaluates causal attributions when an orgasm occurs during coitus. Contains 6 paired comparisons.
  • Question II (Nonorgasm Scenario): Evaluates causal attributions when an orgasm does not occur during coitus. Contains 6 paired comparisons.
• Response Mode: Forced-choice paired comparisons. For each numbered item, respondents are presented with a pair of competing attributional statements joined by “OR” and are instructed to check the single statement within that pair that is more accurate for them personally.
• Total Comparisons: 12 forced-choice pairs (6 for orgasm, 6 for nonorgasm).
• Scoring Methodology:
  • One point (1) is credited for each selected statement; unchecked statements receive zero (0) points.
  • For both Question I (Orgasm) and Question II (Nonorgasm), responses are aggregated into four discrete attributional quadrant subscale scores, with raw scores ranging from 0 to 3 per quadrant:
  • Internal-Stable Score: Sum of selections for items (1a + 4b + 5b)
  • Internal-Unstable Score: Sum of selections for items (1b + 2a + 6a)
  • External-Stable Score: Sum of selections for items (2b + 3a + 5a)
  • External-Unstable Score: Sum of selections for items (3b + 4a + 6b)
  • Note on item keys: The letter ‘a’ designates the first statement in a pair; ‘b’ designates the second statement.
• Composite Dimensional Scores:
  • Overall Locus of Control Score: Calculated by summing the internal quadrants: $(\text{Internal-Stable} + \text{Internal-Unstable})$. Possible range: 0 to 6. Higher scores reflect greater internal personal attribution.
  • Overall Causal Stability Score: Calculated by summing the stable quadrants: $(\text{Internal-Stable} + \text{External-Stable})$. Possible range: 0 to 6. Higher scores reflect attribution to enduring, unvarying causes.
• Clinical Interpretation Guidelines:
  • High Internal-Stable for Orgasm (Score 2–3): Indicates strong sexual self-efficacy, positive erotic self-concept, and ownership of sexual response.
  • High External-Unstable for Orgasm (Score 2–3): Indicates externalized, fragile sexual agency; orgasm is perceived as a fluke or random event.
  • High Internal-Stable for Nonorgasm (Score 2–3): Clinically significant risk indicator for sexual demoralization, performance anxiety, and female orgasmic disorder; the individual views herself as inherently defective.
  • High External-Stable for Nonorgasm (Score 2–3): Indicates chronic partner blaming, relational conflict, or significant partner sexual dysfunction (e.g., severe premature ejaculation or partner erectile dysfunction).
  • High Internal-Unstable or External-Unstable for Nonorgasm: Reflects adaptive, flexible attributional coping; nonorgasm is perceived as situational, transient, and non-threatening to self-worth.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Causal Attribution for Coital Orgasm Scale (CACOS) was developed in 1981 by Charles F. Bridges in his master’s thesis research at North Texas State University and subsequently formally published in the peer-reviewed sexological literature in 1987 by Victor E. Loos, Charles F. Bridges, and Joseph W. Critelli in The Journal of Sex Research.

Licensing and Academic Usage: The scale is considered an open academic research instrument. The authors and the original publisher (Taylor & Francis / Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality) have made the complete methodology and scale items accessible in the public scientific domain for scholarly, educational, and clinical diagnostic research without fee. No commercial license fees or purchase permissions are required for non-commercial academic research and clinical assessment, provided that full scholarly credit and bibliographic attribution are formally cited.

Researchers intending to modify the scale, incorporate it into proprietary digital applications, or translate it into other languages should seek formal permission from the corresponding author, Dr. Joseph W. Critelli (Department of Psychology, University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76203-1280; Email: [email protected]), and consult the copyright policies of The Journal of Sex Research.

References

• Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87(1), 49–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.87.1.49
• Bridges, C. F. (1981). Orgasm consistency, causal attribution, and inhibitory control (Unpublished master’s thesis). North Texas State University, Denton, TX.
• Crandall, V. C., Katkovsky, W., & Crandall, V. J. (1965). Children’s beliefs in their own control of reinforcements in intellectual-academic achievement situations. Child Development, 36(1), 91–109. https://doi.org/10.2307/1126783
• Frieze, I. H. (1976). Causal attributions and information seeking to explain success and failure. Journal of Research in Personality, 10(3), 293–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(76)90022-X
• Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality. Aldine Publishing Company.
• Girodo, M., Dotzenroth, S. E., & Stein, S. J. (1981). Causal attribution bias in shy males: Implications for self-esteem and self-confidence. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 5(3), 325–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01173259
• Loos, V. E., Bridges, C. F., & Critelli, J. W. (1987). Weiner’s attribution theory and female orgasmic consistency. The Journal of Sex Research, 23(3), 348–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498709551373
• McMahan, I. D. (1973). Relationships between causal attributions and expectancy of success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28(1), 108–114. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035544
• Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976
• Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.71.1.3
• Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548
• Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4948-1
• Weiner, B., & Kukla, A. (1970). An attributional analysis of achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029211
• Weiner, B., Nierenberg, R., & Goldstein, M. (1976). Social learning (locus of control) versus attributional (causal stability) interpretations of expectancy of success. Journal of Personality, 44(1), 52–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1976.tb00578.x
• Weiner, B., Russell, D., & Lerman, D. (1978). Affective consequences of causal ascriptions. In J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 2, pp. 59–90). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Wong, P. T., & Weiner, B. (1981). When people ask “why” questions, and the heuristics of attributional search. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(4), 650–663. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.40.4.650

Items of the Scale