Inventory of Dyadic Heterosexual Preferences and Inventory of Dyadic Heterosexual Preferences—Other

Abstract

The Inventory of Dyadic Heterosexual Preferences (IDHP) and its collateral partner-perception instrument, the Inventory of Dyadic Heterosexual Preferences—Other (IDHP-O), were formulated by Daniel M. Purnine, Michael P. Carey, and Randall S. Jorgensen (1996) at Syracuse University to provide an empirically grounded, multidimensional assessment of sexual behavioral affinities within heterosexual couples. Designed to address critical measurement voids in sexology and relationship science, the IDHP operationalizes behavioral inclinations across six distinct latent domains: Erotophilia, Use of Contraception, Conventionality, Use of Erotica, Use of Drugs/Alcohol, and Romantic Foreplay. The instrument comprises 27 self-report statements calibrated on a 6-point Likert-type agreement scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 6 (Strongly agree), structured in the hypothetical conditional mood (“I would enjoy”) to accommodate individuals irrespective of current relationship status or historical behavioral enactment.

Psychometric evaluation across sequential derivation (N = 258) and cross-validation cohorts (N = 228) demonstrated robust internal consistency (mean subscale Cronbach’s α = .72; subscale range = .59 to .87) and high test-retest stability across a 2-week interval (mean r = .84; subscale range = .73 to .92). Maximum likelihood factor analysis with promax rotation, executed on a covariance matrix with gender variance statistically partitioned, confirmed a 6-factor oblique structure accounting for 51% of common item variance. Construct validity was corroborated via hypothesized associations with the Sexual Opinion Survey (r = .54 with Erotophilia), affective measures of contraceptive attitudes, the Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire, and the Sexual Irrationality Questionnaire, while demonstrating orthogonality to the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Beyond individual profile quantification, the dual administration of the IDHP and IDHP-O facilitates sophisticated dyadic indices, including objective behavioral concordance, dyadic perceptual accuracy (understanding), and perceived agreement, making it an indispensable instrument for couples therapy, sexual dysfunction etiology, and behavioral health research.

Keywords

Inventory of Dyadic Heterosexual Preferences, IDHP, IDHP-O, sexual preferences, dyadic assessment, erotophilia, sexual communication, partner understanding, couples therapy, psychometrics, sexual behavior, sexual compatibility.

Authors

The Inventory of Dyadic Heterosexual Preferences (IDHP) and its companion instrument (IDHP-O) were conceived, developed, and psychometrically standardized by:

• Daniel M. Purnine, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York. Dr. Purnine conducted the primary psychometric scale construction, item pruning, and empirical validation studies as part of his doctoral and postdoctoral research in clinical psychology and behavioral medicine.
• Michael P. Carey, Ph.D. — Center for Health and Behavior and Department of Psychology, Syracuse University (subsequently Director of the Centers for Behavioral and Preventive Medicine at The Miriam Hospital/Brown University). Dr. Carey is an internationally recognized authority in behavioral medicine, human sexuality, HIV/STI risk reduction, and randomized interventions.
• Randall S. Jorgensen, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, Syracuse University. Dr. Jorgensen is a clinical health psychologist specializing in cardiovascular psychophysiology, stress processes, and multivariate psychometric assessment methodology.

Correspondence concerning the primary instrument validation literature was traditionally directed to Michael P. Carey, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, 430 Huntington Hall, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244-2340.

Purpose

The clinical and empirical investigation of human sexuality historically suffered from a lack of psychometrically standardized, behaviorally focused instruments capable of capturing granular sexual preferences within dyadic contexts. While earlier scales frequently assessed global constructs such as sexual guilt, general sexual satisfaction, or overall erotophilia-erotophobia, they consistently failed to quantify specific operational behaviors that partners negotiate in intimate settings. The Inventory of Dyadic Heterosexual Preferences (IDHP) was specifically engineered to overcome these empirical deficiencies by targeting three primary scientific and clinical objectives.

First, the IDHP delineates individual behavioral affinities across a broad spectrum of normative and conventional heterosexual practices. By intentionally excluding rare paraphilic or idiosyncratic behaviors, the instrument concentrates on the ecological realities of modern couples: contraceptive management, romantic ambiance, pacing, visual erotica, substance integration, and broader erotophilic exploration. This behavioral specificity enables researchers to model how discrete sexual repertoires interface with broad personality dimensions, such as the Five-Factor Model, attachment styles, sensation seeking, and sexual assertiveness.

Second, the parallel construction of the IDHP-O (Other-focused version) provides an empirical vehicle for dyadic systems analysis. In relationship science, individual preferences alone explain only a modest fraction of relationship distress; marital and relational satisfaction are fundamentally mediated by perceived partner responsiveness, mutual communication, and empathic accuracy. By asking Respondent A to complete the IDHP for themselves and the IDHP-O regarding what they believe Partner B prefers, investigators can calculate structural dyadic indices: Actual Agreement (cross-partner IDHP concordance), Perceptual Accuracy or Understanding (congruence between Respondent A’s IDHP-O and Partner B’s actual IDHP), and Perceived Agreement or Assumed Similarity (congruence between Respondent A’s IDHP and Respondent A’s IDHP-O).

Third, the IDHP was constructed with direct clinical utility for sex therapy, marital counseling, and premarital education. Clinical practitioners routinely encounter couples presenting with sexual desire discrepancies, unvoiced inhibitions, or chronic sexual avoidance fueled by mutual misattributions. Because clients frequently find it threatening or shame-inducing to articulate novel desires or boundaries directly to a partner, the IDHP offers a standardized, objective baseline profile. Clinicians can superimpose the partners’ profiles to immediately pinpoint precise points of synergy (e.g., mutual enthusiasm for romantic foreplay) versus latent flashpoints of conflict (e.g., asymmetrical attitudes toward erotica, lubricants, or morning intimacy), transforming vague interpersonal tension into concrete, resolvable communication exercises.

Psychological Construct

The overarching construct quantified by the IDHP is dyadic heterosexual preference: an individual’s self-reported affective affinity, behavioral desire, and anticipated hedonic pleasure regarding specific sexual activities enacted with a romantic partner. To ensure comprehensive coverage of the relational sexual landscape, the construct is differentiated into six distinct latent dimensions:

1. Erotophilia (Items 1, 7, 8, 11, 16, 17, 18)

This subscale captures an overarching behavioral orientation toward proactive, frequent, and contextually varied sexual engagement. Departing from global personality dispositions of erotophilia (which encompass abstract attitudes toward nudity or masturbation), the IDHP operationalizes erotophilic preference through tangible relational initiatives. Behaviors include an inclination to initiate sexual encounters (Item 1), high desired sexual frequency (“I would prefer to have sex everyday,” Item 8), temporal variety (“morning sex,” Item 17), and geographic/environmental novelty, such as engaging in sex in rooms outside the bedroom (Item 7), post-beach encounters (Item 11), outdoors (Item 16), and swimming in the nude (Item 18). Individuals scoring high in Erotophilia demonstrate sexual assertiveness, high sexual appetite, and openness to somatic adventure.

2. Use of Contraception (Items 3, 6, 13, 26)

The Use of Contraception dimension captures psychological comfort with, and minimal behavioral disruption caused by, reproductive health prophylaxis and sexual barrier devices. Recognizing that fear of pregnancy or disease prevention can either facilitate uninhibited pleasure or induce psychological avoidance, this scale evaluates whether prophylactic barriers undermine hedonic experience. It measures tolerance for spermicidal agents (Item 3, reverse scored), condoms (Item 6), general contraceptive protocols (Item 13), and personal lubricating agents such as K-Y jelly (Item 26, reverse scored). High scores reflect a pragmatic, positive orientation wherein prophylactic precautions do not interfere with sexual arousal or satisfaction.

3. Conventionality (Items 5, 10, 22, 23)

Conventionality evaluates behavioral conservatism, sensory modesty, and traditionalism in sexual interactions. It reflects preferences for emotional or physical concealment and adherence to restrictive sexual norms. Key indicators include preferences for sensory cloaking (“under the bedcovers and with the lights off,” Item 5), visual genital avoidance (“not enjoy looking at my partner’s genitals,” Item 10; “not enjoy having my partner look at my genitals,” Item 23), and strict physiological taboos regarding menstruation (“avoid having sex during my [partner’s] period,” Item 22). Elevated scores on this scale signal heightened body shame, sexual anxiety, or adherence to rigid socio-cultural scripting.

4. Use of Erotica (Items 4, 9, 24, 27)

This dimension assesses an individual’s affinity for integrating external sexual stimuli, technological aids, and media into the shared sexual relationship. It encompasses an openness to incorporating mechanical stimulation aids (“vibrator or other sexual toy,” Item 4), visual erotic print or video material (“sexually explicit books and movies,” Item 9), mutual video consumption (“watching erotic movies with my partner,” Item 27), and an absence of disgust toward explicit sexual media (Item 24, reverse scored). High scorers actively embrace external stimuli to augment dyadic arousal, whereas low scorers view such materials as intrusive, offensive, or competing with interpersonal intimacy.

5. Use of Drugs/Alcohol (Items 12, 14, 15, 20)

The Use of Drugs/Alcohol subscale quantifies an individual’s preference for pharmacological co-factors and substance-facilitated sexual activity. It captures inclinations toward combining alcohol with sex (Item 12), sexual enactment post-cannabis inhalation (Item 14), consumption of specific arousal-inducing drugs (Item 15), and a general affinity for mixing recreational substances with sexual encounters (Item 20). This dimension reflects expectations of chemical disinhibition, physiological enhancement, or altered sensory perception during intimacy.

6. Romantic Foreplay (Items 2, 19, 21, 25)

Romantic Foreplay measures preferences for deliberate interpersonal courtship rituals, extended sensory stimulation, and romantic staging prior to genital intimacy. It indexes the hedonic value placed on romantic context (“an intimate, romantic dinner together,” Item 2), visual and erotic sartorial staging (“dressing in sexy/revealing clothes to arouse my partner,” Item 19), somatic tactile exploration (“touched my chest and nipples,” Item 21), and intensive oral contact (“deep kissing with the tongue,” Item 25). High scores indicate that emotional ambiance, prolonged tactile arousal, and passionate kissing are prerequisites for sexual fulfillment.

Theoretical Framework

The architecture of the IDHP is situated at the intersection of three major behavioral and social science paradigms: Sexual Script Theory, Social Learning / Reinforcement Models of Sexuality, and the Interpersonal Dyadic Systems Model.

1. Sexual Script Theory (Gagnon & Simon)

Originally formulated by sociologists John Gagnon and William Simon (1973), Sexual Script Theory posits that human sexual behavior is not an instinctual, reflex-driven biological drive, but a socially scripted and cognitively mediated phenomenon. Sexual scripts operate across three nested hierarchical levels:

• Cultural Scenarios: Broad institutional narratives outlining who, what, when, where, and why sexual acts should take place within a given society (e.g., traditional gender roles, beliefs regarding contraception or erotica).
• Interpersonal Scripts: The micro-negotiated, communicative behavioral patterns that emerge between two individuals as they adapt societal norms to their relationship.
• Intrapsychic Scripts: The internalized cognitive schemas, fantasies, and personal behavioral preferences that guide an individual’s private sexual desires.

The IDHP operates primarily as an operational measurement tool for intrapsychic sexual scripts while simultaneously providing the structural mechanism (via the IDHP-O) to analyze the transformation of intrapsychic schemas into interpersonal scripts. By measuring specific preferences rather than abstract ideologies, the scale captures the precise behavioral sequences an individual expects within their sexual repertoire.

2. Byrne’s Erotophobia-Erotophilia Framework

A second theoretical pillar is Donn Byrne’s (1977, 1988) conceptualization of erotophobia-erotophilia as a learned, generalized affective-evaluative personality disposition toward sexual cues. Byrne posited that individuals exposed to punishing versus reinforcing sexual socialization develop a stable affective orientation ranging from extreme avoidance/disgust (erotophobia) to enthusiastic approach/pleasure (erotophilia). Purnine, Carey, and Jorgensen incorporated this foundation into the IDHP’s Erotophilia, Conventionality, and Use of Erotica subscales, while addressing a critical limitation of Byrne’s Sexual Opinion Survey (SOS): the SOS assessed abstract reactions to third-party sexual stimuli, whereas the IDHP specifically measures preferences for direct dyadic enactment with a committed partner.

3. Kenny’s Social Relations Model and Dyadic Interactionism

From an interpersonal systems perspective, the conceptualization of the IDHP-O is directly anchored in David A. Kenny’s Social Relations Model and relational interdependence frameworks. Dyadic functioning is fundamentally an emergent property of mutual perception. When two partners interact, their communication and satisfaction are shaped not only by their own desires (Actor effects) and their partner’s actual desires (Partner effects), but by the degree of cognitive distortion, perceptual projection, and empathic alignment between those desires. The theoretical model assumes that discrepancies between Actor IDHP and Partner IDHP-O give rise to systematic misattributions, which in turn foster relational friction, sexual dissatisfaction, and emotional disengagement.

Validity

The validity of the IDHP was established through an extensive series of construct, concurrent, convergent, and discriminant validation analyses conducted during its initial standardization (Purnine et al., 1996).

Construct and Discriminant Validity via Social Desirability

A persistent methodological challenge in self-report sexology is the confounding influence of social desirability bias, wherein respondents attenuate their reported desires to conform to perceived societal norms. To test for this bias, the IDHP scales were administered alongside the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). Across all six IDHP subscales, correlations with the Marlowe-Crowne scale failed to reach statistical significance, demonstrating that responses on the IDHP are orthogonal to self-favorable presentation biases.

Concurrent and Convergent Validity Matrices

In a criterion validation subsample (N = 65; 45 women, 20 men), the six IDHP subscales were correlated with seven external, theoretically linked psychometric instruments, generating a 6 × 7 multitrait-multimethod correlation matrix. Of the 42 specific a priori hypotheses, 36 empirical predictions were fully supported:

• Erotophilia Subscale: Demonstrated strong convergent validity with the Sexual Opinion Survey (SOS; Fisher, White, Byrne, & Kelley, 1988), exhibiting a correlation of r = .54 (p < .001). The SOS was also moderately associated with Use of Erotica, Use of Drugs/Alcohol, and inversely with Conventionality, confirming that broad erotophilic dispositions manifest across multiple specific behavioral subdomains.
• Use of Contraception Subscale: Correlated exclusively and positively with the Affective Response Toward Contraceptive Topics and Behavior Scale (Kelley, 1979), demonstrating both high convergent and exquisite discriminant validity by failing to correlate with unrelated sexual domains.
• Conventionality Subscale: Demonstrated strong positive associations with the Sexual Irrationality Questionnaire (SIQ; Jordan & McCormick, 1988), particularly with subscales tapping into “conformity” and “cautious control” over sexual impulsivity.
• Use of Drugs/Alcohol Subscale: Exhibited convergent validity with both the global and sexual enhancement subscales of the Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire (AEQ; Brown, Christiansen, & Goldman, 1987), while remaining uncorrelated with scales measuring contraceptive attitudes or romantic foreplay.
• Use of Erotica and Romantic Foreplay Subscales: While Use of Erotica demonstrated logical oblique associations with general erotophilia, specific external criterion instruments designed specifically for dyadic erotica consumption were unavailable during the 1996 validation. Romantic Foreplay demonstrated modest associations with affectional scales, though its specific discriminative criterion validity remained an area designated for further empirical expansion.

Reliability

The psychometric evaluation of the IDHP demonstrated strong internal consistency across its multi-item subscales, coupled with high temporal stability across longitudinal test-retest assessments (Purnine et al., 1996).

Internal Consistency Reliability

Across the cross-validation sample (Sample 2, N = 228), Cronbach’s alpha coefficients (α) demonstrated satisfactory to excellent internal consistency across all six dimensions, yielding a mean instrument alpha of .72:

• Use of Drugs/Alcohol: α = .87 (4 items)
• Use of Erotica: α = .83 (4 items)
• Erotophilia: α = .73 (7 items)
• Use of Contraception: α = .65 (4 items)
• Romantic Foreplay: α = .62 (4 items)
• Conventionality: α = .59 (4 items)

Although the Conventionality and Romantic Foreplay subscales exhibit lower alpha coefficients (α = .59 and .62, respectively), this is largely attributable to the brief number of items (4 items each) and the heterogeneous behavioral content within those dimensions (e.g., combining sensory darkness with menstrual sex taboos). In applied psychometrics, short scales with alphas around .60 to .65 are considered acceptable for exploratory and descriptive research.

Test-Retest Stability

To evaluate temporal stability, the IDHP was re-administered across a 2-week interval to a subgroup of 65 participants (45 women, 20 men). The test-retest correlation coefficients (Pearson’s r) revealed exceptional temporal stability, with an overall mean stability coefficient of r = .84:

• Use of Erotica: r = .92
• Use of Drugs/Alcohol: r = .91
• Erotophilia: r = .84
• Conventionality: r = .83
• Use of Contraception: r = .80
• Romantic Foreplay: r = .73

These findings substantiate that self-reported dyadic sexual preferences reflect stable intrapsychic dispositions rather than ephemeral, state-dependent mood fluctuations.

Factor Analysis

The factorial validity of the IDHP was established through rigorous exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic procedures across two independent university student samples.

Sample 1 Derivation and Item Pruning

An initial pool of 74 candidate statements was generated based on extensive literature review, sexual behavior checklists, and clinical consultations. Items were restricted to concrete behaviors and operational scenes, deliberately excluding fantasy, cognitive opinions, or motivational drivers. Statements were framed in the hypothetical conditional mood (“I would enjoy…”) rather than present tense (“I enjoy…”) to ensure applicability to participants regardless of their immediate relationship status or personal history with that specific act.

The 74 items were administered to Sample 1 (N = 258; aged 18 to 59 years, M = 23). Items were systematically eliminated if they exhibited restricted variance (floor or ceiling effects) or if their 1- to 2-week test-retest reliability fell below an empirical threshold of r = .70. This reduced the pool to 46 items.

Gender-Neutral Covariance Adjustments

A critical psychometric innovation in the IDHP development was the management of gender variance. Because men and women frequently exhibit significant mean-level differences across specific sexual preferences, raw factor analyses risked extracting pseudo-factors driven purely by gender differences. To enable direct dyadic cross-comparisons between male and female partner profiles, the developers statistically partialled out the variance attributable to gender from the inter-item covariance matrix prior to factor extraction. This guaranteed that the derived latent factor structure was fundamentally gender-neutral and functionally invariant across partners.

Sample 2 Cross-Validation and Final Solution

The resulting factor structure was cross-validated using Sample 2 (N = 228; aged 17 to 53 years, M = 21). Six items were reworded for clarity, three new items were introduced to bolster underrepresented dimensions, and three redundant items were eliminated. A maximum likelihood factor analysis with promax (oblique) rotation confirmed a clean 6-factor, 27-item solution accounting for 51% of the total common variance. The oblique rotation was theoretically essential, reflecting the reality that sexual dimensions (e.g., erotophilia, erotica use, and substance use) are naturally correlated rather than strictly orthogonal in human populations.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational administration, formatting, scoring protocols, and computational procedures of the IDHP and IDHP-O are structured as follows:

• Instrument Designation: Inventory of Dyadic Heterosexual Preferences (IDHP) and Inventory of Dyadic Heterosexual Preferences—Other (IDHP-O).
• Format: Self-administered paper-and-pencil or secure computer-based rating inventory.
• Item Count: 27 operational statements.
• Administration Time: Approximately 5 minutes for the IDHP; an additional 5 minutes if the partner-focused IDHP-O is simultaneously administered.
• Target Population: Adult heterosexual individuals and couples (adaptable for research in young adult, clinical, and community populations).
• Response Scale: 6-point Likert-type agreement scale anchored as:
• 1 = Strongly disagree
• 2 = Disagree
• 3 = Somewhat disagree
• 4 = Somewhat agree
• 5 = Agree
• 6 = Strongly agree
• Reverse-Scored Items: Three items must be reverse-scored prior to dimension compilation by subtracting the recorded numerical response from 7 (i.e., New Score = 7 − Original Response):
• Item 3: “Using spermicide would spoil sex for me.”
• Item 24: “Sexually explicit books and movies are disgusting to me.”
• Item 26: “Using a vaginal lubricant (KY jelly) would spoil sex for me.”
• Subscale Item Composition:
• Erotophilia (7 items): Items 1, 7, 8, 11, 16, 17, 18.
• Use of Contraception (4 items): Items 3 [R], 6, 13, 26 [R].
• Conventionality (4 items): Items 5, 10, 22, 23.
• Use of Erotica (4 items): Items 4, 9, 24 [R], 27.
• Use of Drugs/Alcohol (4 items): Items 12, 14, 15, 20.
• Romantic Foreplay (4 items): Items 2, 19, 21, 25.
• Individual Scale Scoring: Subscale raw scores are derived by summing the ratings of the respective items. To preserve a standardized metric spanning 1.00 to 6.00 across subscales with differing item counts, subscale raw sums are divided by the number of items in that subscale. Higher mean scores indicate a stronger preference for that behavioral domain.
• Exploratory Dyadic Indices: When administered concurrently to both partners within a couple (Male IDHP + IDHP-O; Female IDHP + IDHP-O), four structural dyadic variables can be computed via profile correlations (Pearson’s r across the 27 items) or absolute difference sums ($\sum_{i=1}^{27} |Score_A – Score_B|$):
• Actual Agreement (Similarity): The direct congruence between the Male IDHP profile and Female IDHP profile.
• Female Understanding of Male: The congruence between the Male IDHP (his actual preferences) and Female IDHP-O (her predictions of his preferences).
• Male Understanding of Female: The congruence between the Female IDHP (her actual preferences) and Male IDHP-O (his predictions of her preferences).
• Perceived Agreement (Assumed Similarity): An intra-individual index derived from the discrepancy between an individual’s own IDHP and their IDHP-O estimate of their partner.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Inventory of Dyadic Heterosexual Preferences (IDHP) and IDHP-O were developed and published in 1996 by Daniel M. Purnine, Michael P. Carey, and Randall S. Jorgensen. The seminal psychometric validation study was published in Behaviour Research and Therapy (Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 375–387). The instrument was subsequently reprinted in Sexually-Related Measures: A Compendium (Davis, Yarber, Bauserman, Schreer, & Davis, Eds.).

The scale was developed as an open scientific research instrument intended for academic, non-commercial clinical, and empirical investigation. Researchers and licensed clinicians may utilize the scale items for empirical investigations without commercial fee, provided appropriate scholarly citation is credited to the original authors and the copyright holder (Elsevier / Behaviour Research and Therapy). Use in commercial diagnostic software or profit-generating proprietary settings requires formal permission from the copyright owners.

References

Below is the formal bibliographic documentation for the IDHP and its supporting empirical literature:

• Brown, S. A., Christiansen, B. A., & Goldman, M. S. (1987). The Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire: An instrument for the assessment of adolescent and adult alcohol expectancies. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 48(5), 483–491. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsa.1987.48.483
• Byrne, D. (1977). The imagery of sex. In J. Money & H. Musaph (Eds.), Handbook of Sexology (pp. 327–350). Elsevier/North-Holland Biomedical Press.
• Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 349–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047358
• Davis, C. M., Yarber, W. L., Bauserman, R., Schreer, G., & Davis, S. L. (Eds.). (1998). Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures. SAGE Publications.
• Fisher, W. A., White, L. A., Byrne, D., & Kelley, K. (1988). Erotophilia-erotophobia as a dimension of personality. The Journal of Sex Research, 25(1), 123–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498809551448
• Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual Conduct: The Social Sources of Human Sexuality. Aldine Publishing Company.
• Jordan, T. J., & McCormick, N. B. (1988). Sexual Irrationality Questionnaire. In C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Sexually-related measures: A compendium (pp. 46–49). Graphic Publishing Company.
• Kelley, K. (1979). Socialization factors in contraceptive attitudes: Roles of affective responses, parental attitudes, and sexual experience. The Journal of Sex Research, 15(1), 6–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224497909551019
• Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal Perception: A Social Relations Analysis. Guilford Press.
• Purnine, D. M., Carey, M. P., & Jorgensen, R. S. (1996). The Inventory of Dyadic Heterosexual Preferences: Development and psychometric evaluation. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 34(4), 375–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(95)00078-X

Items of the Scale