The Multidimensional Sexual Approach Questionnaire (MSAQ)

1. Abstract

The Multidimensional Sexual Approach Questionnaire (MSAQ) is a comprehensive self-report psychometric instrument developed by William E. Snell, Jr. to assess individual differences in the cognitive, emotional, motivational, and behavioral orientations that characterize how individuals approach romantic and sexual relationships. Grounded in John Alan Lee’s pioneering typology of love styles as well as Margaret Clark and Judson Mills’ social psychological framework differentiating communal and exchange relationship orientations, the MSAQ systematically models the multidimensional nature of human sexual interaction. The instrument comprises 56 self-referential items distributed evenly across eight distinct seven-item subscales: (1) Romantic Approach, (2) Game-Playing Approach, (3) Friendship Approach, (4) Practical Approach, (5) Possessive Approach, (6) Altruistic Approach, (7) Communal-Caring Approach, and (8) Exchange Approach. Respondents rate each item using a 5-point Likert response scale ranging from A (“Strongly agree with the statement”) to E (“Strongly disagree with the statement”), yielding both independent subscale scores and profile configurations of sexual orientation styles.

Empirical validation studies demonstrate robust psychometric properties for the MSAQ across diverse adult and collegiate populations. Internal consistency reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) across the eight dimensions typically range from moderate to high (α = .70 to .88), with high temporal stability demonstrated over multi-week test-retest intervals. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses corroborate the theorized eight-factor orthogonal-oblique latent architecture, distinguishing autonomous constructs of erotic absorption, interpersonal detachment, rational deliberation, dependent obsession, unconditional benevolence, mutual responsiveness, and transactional reciprocity. By extending classical love typology explicitly into the domain of sexuality and synthesizing it with interpersonal exchange dynamics, the MSAQ serves as an invaluable diagnostic and research instrument in sexual psychology, relationship counseling, marital therapy, and behavioral sexology.

2. Keywords

Multidimensional Sexual Approach Questionnaire, MSAQ, William E. Snell Jr., sexual styles, love styles, sexual attitudes, interpersonal exchange, communal sexuality, psychometrics, relational intimacy, sexual psychology, scale validation

3. Authors

The Multidimensional Sexual Approach Questionnaire was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically validated by William E. Snell, Jr., Ph.D.

• Author Affiliation: Department of Psychology, Southeast Missouri State University, Cape Girardeau, Missouri, United States.
• Academic Profile: Dr. Snell is an internationally recognized personality and social psychologist specializing in human sexuality, interpersonal communication, gender roles, and psychological measurement. Throughout his career, he spearheaded the development of widely utilized psychometric instruments, including the Multidimensional Sexuality Questionnaire (MSQ), the Sexual Awareness Questionnaire (SAQ), and the Multidimensional Sexual Approach Questionnaire (MSAQ).
• Historical Archive & Repository: Dr. Snell’s measurement instruments and psychometric archives were originally hosted via the Southeast Missouri State University academic network (e.g., http://www4.semo.edu/snell/scales/MSAQ.htm).

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Multidimensional Sexual Approach Questionnaire (MSAQ) is to capture, operationalize, and quantify the heterogeneous psychological strategies, cognitive schemas, and relational behavioral tendencies individuals deploy when initiating, maintaining, or navigating sexual partnerships. Human sexuality cannot be reduced to physiological arousal, biological drives, or generic indices of sexual satisfaction; rather, it represents a deeply personalized, socially mediated system of interpersonal motivations and stylistic orientations. Before the development of the MSAQ, empirical sexology frequently conflated romantic sentiments with sexual tactics or relied on unidimensional measures of erotophilia versus erotophobia, failing to elucidate the nuanced strategies people exhibit in their erotic lives.

The MSAQ was formulated to address these conceptual and empirical limitations by pursuing three core objectives:

• Typological Expansion into the Sexual Domain: Adapting classical sociological and psychological love archetypes—specifically John Alan Lee’s taxonomy (Eros, Ludus, Storge, Pragma, Mania, and Agape)—and translating their conceptual foundations directly into explicit sexual orientations and behavioral patterns.
• Integration of Social Exchange Paradigms: Bridging personality theory with social exchange theory by incorporating the communal versus exchange relationship paradigms established by Clark and Mills. This integration allows investigators to evaluate whether an individual views sexual intimacy as a collaborative, unselfish endeavor (Communal-Caring) or as a transactional, reciprocal dynamic governed by calculated ledgers of favors (Exchange).
• Clinical Diagnostic Assessment: Providing marital, family, and sex therapists with an empirical diagnostic tool to diagnose sexual style incompatibilities, dysfunctional relationship patterns (such as extreme game-playing or possessive obsessiveness), and individual vulnerabilities to sexual exploitation or distress.

In both research and clinical contexts, the MSAQ enables professionals to map behavioral scripts, predict relationship dissolution or infidelity, evaluate risk factors for sexually coercive or manipulative dynamics, and facilitate client insight into interpersonal scripts that undermine long-term relationship satisfaction.

5. Psychological Construct

The overarching construct assessed by the MSAQ is sexual approach style—the enduring constellation of affective dispositions, motivational drives, and cognitive heuristics that govern how a person conceptualizes, approaches, and engages in sexual relationships. Rather than treating sexual behavior as a monolithic entity, the MSAQ segments this construct into eight distinct, theoretically driven dimensions, each characterized by specific psychological scripts:

1. Romantic Approach (Items 1–7)

Reflecting the sexualized manifestation of Eros, this dimension captures an intense, passionate, and immediate physical and emotional attraction toward a partner. Individuals scoring high on this subscale experience profound “chemistry,” an instinctive belief in romantic/sexual destiny, and rapid erotic engagement. The underlying schema assumes that ideal sex is spontaneous, intensely satisfying, and rooted in a powerful romantic affinity (e.g., “I feel a strong sexual ‘chemistry’ toward my partner”).

2. Game-Playing Approach (Items 8–14)

Representing the sexual manifestation of Ludus, the game-playing approach involves treating sexual relationships as permissive, uncommitted, and manipulative encounters. High scorers value emotional autonomy, maintain secrecy regarding outside sexual exploits, actively avoid deep emotional entanglements, and experience little difficulty abruptly severing sexual ties. It reflects a tactical orientation characterized by emotional withholding and deliberate ambiguity regarding commitment (e.g., “I try to keep my partner a little uncertain about my sexual commitment to him/her”).

3. Friendship Approach (Items 15–21)

Embodying the sexual translation of Storge, this orientation conceptualizes sexual intimacy as a natural, gradual evolution derived from deep companionate affection, mutual trust, and long-standing friendship. High scorers generally reject rapid, uninhibited sexual escalation, requiring established emotional security and shared history prior to physical intimacy. Sex is viewed as meaningful precisely because it is anchored in friendship rather than impulsive passion (e.g., “Sex with my partner is highly satisfying because it developed out of a good friendship”).

4. Practical Approach (Items 22–28)

Grounded in the pragmatic style of Pragma, this dimension reflects a highly rational, analytical, and socially conscious appraisal of sexual and romantic partners. Individuals exhibiting this approach evaluate a partner’s socioeconomic background, career prospects, family compatibility, and parenting suitability prior to initiating or deepening sexual involvement. Sexual selection is filtered through logical criteria to ensure long-term life stability (e.g., “Before I made love with my partner, I spent some time evaluating her/his career potential”).

5. Possessive Approach (Items 29–35)

Representing the sexualized counterpart of Mania, this dimension taps into obsessive, jealous, anxiety-driven, and emotionally volatile sexual dependency. High scorers experience severe emotional distress when sex does not go as planned, insomnia fueled by sexual yearning, overwhelming fear of partner abandonment or infidelity, and dramatic attempts to secure sexual attention. Sexual interactions serve as anxiolytic reassurance to ward off intense fears of rejection (e.g., “If my partner doesn’t have sex with me for a while, I sometimes do stupid things to get her/his sexual attention”).

6. Altruistic Approach (Items 36–42)

Paralleling Agape, the altruistic approach delineates a selfless, unconditionally giving, and self-sacrificing erotic orientation. High scorers prioritize their partner’s sexual satisfaction and well-being entirely above their own, expressing willingness to endure personal sexual dissatisfaction or engage in desired activities purely for the partner’s gratification. In its extreme form, this construct can verge on self-abnegation and a lack of sexual self-advocacy (e.g., “I am usually willing to forsake my own sexual needs in order to let my partner achieve hers/his own sexual needs”).

7. Communal-Caring Approach (Items 43–49)

Synthesizing Clark and Mills’ communal model with sexual ethics, this construct evaluates an individual’s commitment to mutual responsiveness, emotional sensitivity, and interpersonal care without strict transactional accounting. High scorers actively consider a partner’s feelings, seek emotional support during moments of sexual vulnerability, and expect mutual sensitivity to bodily and psychological needs, viewing sex as an interpersonal sanctuary of reciprocal validation (e.g., “If I were to make love with a sexual partner, I’d take that person’s needs and feelings into account”).

8. Exchange Approach (Items 50–56)

Reflecting the economic or transactional model of social exchange theory, this dimension captures a balance-sheet mentality applied to erotic intimacy. Individuals scoring high on the exchange subscale believe sexual favors must be systematically tracked, repaid, and kept strictly equitable. Sexual intimacy is framed through implicit contracts, debts, and obligations, wherein unreciprocated pleasure is experienced as interpersonal exploitation (e.g., “I think people should feel obligated to repay an intimate partner for sexual favors”).

6. Theoretical Framework

The intellectual scaffolding of the MSAQ integrates two seminal theoretical paradigms from personality, clinical, and social psychology: the Sociological Taxonomy of Love Styles and the Communal vs. Exchange Theory of Interpersonal Relationships.

John Alan Lee’s Color Wheel Theory of Love

In his landmark 1973 treatise, The Colours of Love, Canadian sociologist John Alan Lee proposed that romantic relationships could be classified into primary and secondary love styles analogized to the primary and secondary colors of the chromatic spectrum. Lee identified three primary styles: Eros (passionate, romantic, physical love), Ludus (game-playing, uncommitted love), and Storge (friendship-based, companionate affection). Combining these primary styles yielded secondary compounds: Pragma (Ludus + Storge; logical, calculated love), Mania (Eros + Ludus; obsessive, possessive, dependent love), and Agape (Eros + Storge; altruistic, selfless love). While Hendrick and Hendrick (1986) operationalized Lee’s model into the Love Attitudes Scale (LAS) for general romantic relationship attitudes, Snell recognized that romantic attitudes do not always map identically onto sexual behaviors and cognitions. The MSAQ directly adapted these six archetypal orientations into explicit sexual behavioral scripts (Romantic, Game-Playing, Friendship, Practical, Possessive, and Altruistic sexual styles).

Clark and Mills’ Relationship Orientations

To provide a more comprehensive interpersonal framework, Snell incorporated the social psychological models articulated by Margaret Clark and Judson Mills (1979, 1993) concerning communal and exchange relationships. Clark and Mills posited that human relationships are governed by fundamentally divergent distributive norms:

• Communal Norms: Benefits are provided based on the other person’s needs, or to demonstrate general care and concern for their welfare. Specific, immediate repayment is neither expected nor desired; doing so can even be perceived as damaging to intimacy.
• Exchange Norms: Benefits are bestowed with the explicit expectation of receiving comparable benefits in return, or in response to benefits previously received. Fairness is monitored through an active psychological ledger of inputs and outcomes.

By translating these relational norms into the sexual domain, Snell formulated the Communal-Caring and Exchange subscales of the MSAQ. Consequently, the instrument offers a holistic conceptual grid combining individual emotional-romantic preferences with social-motivational rules of interpersonal reciprocity.

7. Validity

Psychometric investigations into the MSAQ have established strong evidence supporting its construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity across varied empirical contexts.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Studies evaluating the MSAQ against established measures of human sexuality and personality confirm that its eight subscales converge theoretically with corresponding constructs:

• Romantic Approach: Demonstrates substantial positive correlations with measures of sexual sensation seeking, erotic intimacy, relationship satisfaction, and the Eros subscale of Hendrick and Hendrick’s Love Attitudes Scale (r ≈ .55 to .68).
• Game-Playing Approach: Correlates strongly with sociosexual orientation (Simpson & Gangestad’s SOI), Machiavellianism, avoidant attachment styles, and Ludus (r ≈ .48 to .62), while exhibiting inverse relationships with dyadic commitment and relational trust.
• Friendship Approach: Shows significant positive associations with companionate love, secure attachment, and Storge (r ≈ .50 to .65).
• Practical Approach: Correlates moderately to strongly with Pragma, conscientiousness, and structured mate selection strategies.
• Possessive Approach: Demonstrates high convergent associations with anxious attachment, relationship ambivalence, borderline affective instability, sexual jealousy, and Mania (r ≈ .52 to .70).
• Altruistic and Communal-Caring Approaches: Converge positively with dispositional empathy, perspective-taking, marital altruism, and Agape, while negatively correlating with sexual narcissism and exploitative relationship tactics.
• Exchange Approach: Exhibits robust correlations with transactional relationship beliefs, equity sensitivity, equity score balances, and general exchange orientations as operationalized by Clark and Mills.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is supported by low inter-factor correlations between theoretically opposing dimensions. For instance, the Game-Playing Approach correlates negligibly or inversely with Friendship (r = -.18 to -.25) and Communal-Caring (r = -.30 to -.42). Similarly, the Exchange Approach is clearly distinguishable from the Altruistic Approach, with empirical analyses demonstrating that the two scales measure divergent constructs rather than opposite ends of a single continuum.

8. Reliability

The psychometric evaluation of the MSAQ reveals solid internal consistency and temporal stability across diverse validation samples.

Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha)

In standard developmental and cross-validation cohorts consisting of university undergraduates and community adults, the internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) for the eight subscales consistently satisfy psychometric standards for basic research and exploratory assessment:

• Romantic Approach: α = .82 to .88
• Game-Playing Approach: α = .75 to .83
• Friendship Approach: α = .78 to .84
• Practical Approach: α = .74 to .81
• Possessive Approach: α = .79 to .86
• Altruistic Approach: α = .72 to .80
• Communal-Caring Approach: α = .76 to .82
• Exchange Approach: α = .77 to .85

Across validation cohorts, the average internal consistency coefficient hover between .78 and .84. Corrected item-total correlations within each 7-item subscale routinely exceed .40, verifying that each item contributes adequately to its latent scale without excessive redundancy.

Test-Retest Reliability

Investigations into the temporal stability of the MSAQ over test-retest intervals ranging from two to four weeks yield stability coefficients ranging from r = .71 to r = .86 (p < .001). These findings confirm that while individual sexual behaviors may fluctuate based on situational dynamics and partner characteristics, general sexual approach styles operate as stable, trait-like cognitive-behavioral orientations over time.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the MSAQ was examined through both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) techniques during its construction and validation.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During initial scale development, the pool of candidate items was submitted to principal axis factoring and principal components analysis with both orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax/Oblimin) rotations. The empirical factor extraction criteria (eigenvalues greater than 1.0, scree plot inspection, and parallel analysis) consistently supported an eight-factor solution, accounting for over 52% of the cumulative variance across the 56 items.

Each of the 56 items demonstrated primary factor pattern loadings exceeding .45 on its hypothesized target latent construct, with cross-loadings onto non-target factors generally remaining below .25. For example, items reflecting transactional sexual repayments (Items 50–56) loaded cleanly onto the Exchange factor without significant cross-loadings on the Communal-Caring or Game-Playing dimensions.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent confirmatory factor analyses comparing competing structural models—including a unidimensional model, a six-factor model (Lee’s love styles alone), and the hypothesized eight-factor multidimensional model—demonstrated superior fit indices for the eight-factor latent architecture:

• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): < .055 (90% CI: .050 – .060)
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): > .91
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): > .90
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): < .058

These structural equation modeling results confirm that the MSAQ functions best as an eight-dimensional construct rather than a single overarching sexual approach index, confirming that Snell’s integration of social exchange principles creates distinct latent spaces separable from romantic love styles.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: The Multidimensional Sexual Approach Questionnaire (MSAQ)
• Author: William E. Snell, Jr., Ph.D.
• Publication Date: 1997
• Construct Measured: Individual differences in cognitive, affective, and behavioral orientations toward sexual and romantic relationships.
• Administration Format: Standardized self-report questionnaire; paper-and-pencil or secure digital delivery.
• Item Count: 56 items.
• Subscales (8 subscales, 7 items each):
  • Romantic Approach (Items 1–7)
  • Game-Playing Approach (Items 8–14)
  • Friendship Approach (Items 15–21)
  • Practical Approach (Items 22–28)
  • Possessive Approach (Items 29–35)
  • Altruistic Approach (Items 36–42)
  • Communal-Caring Approach (Items 43–49)
  • Exchange Approach (Items 50–56)
• Response Scale (5-Point Likert Scale):
  • A = Strongly agree with the statement
  • B = Moderately agree with the statement
  • C = Neutral – Neither agree nor disagree
  • D = Moderately disagree with the statement
  • E = Strongly disagree with the statement
• Scoring Instructions:
  • Responses are typically coded as: A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1, E = 0 (or alternatively converted to a 1–5 continuum where A = 5, B = 4, C = 3, D = 2, E = 1 depending on institutional preference).
  • No items are reverse-coded.
  • Subscale scores are obtained by calculating the sum or mean of the 7 items within each dedicated subscale, yielding total subscale scores ranging from 0 to 28 (under a 0–4 scheme) or 7 to 35 (under a 1–5 scheme).
  • Higher scores on any given subscale indicate a stronger reliance on that specific sexual approach orientation.
• Estimated Completion Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Year of Development: 1997. Dr. Snell initially presented the empirical structure of the MSAQ at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association in Chicago, IL, followed by formal publication in the Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures.
• Copyright & Licensing: The Multidimensional Sexual Approach Questionnaire is copyrighted by William E. Snell, Jr.
• Permissions & Accessibility: In accordance with Dr. Snell’s commitment to psychological scholarship, the MSAQ was made accessible for non-commercial academic research, empirical theses, and educational purposes without licensing fees. Researchers and clinical professionals are permitted to reproduce and administer the scale provided that appropriate credit and formal academic citation are granted to Dr. Snell.
• Commercial Inquiries: Commercial applications, electronic health record (EHR) integration, or for-profit diagnostic uses require permission from the copyright holder or designated estate administrators.

12. References

• Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(1), 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.1.12
• Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1993). The difference between communal and exchange relationships: What it is and is not. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(6), 684–691. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167293196003
• Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(2), 392–402. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.392
• Lee, J. A. (1973). The colours of love: An exploration of the ways of loving. Don Mills, Ontario: New Press.
• Snell, W. E., Jr. (1997). Sexual styles: A multidimensional approach to sexual relations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.
• Snell, W. E., Jr. (1998). The Multidimensional Sexual Approach Questionnaire. In C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, R. Bauserman, G. Schreer, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 526–528). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Snell, W. E., Jr., Fisher, T. D., & Walters, A. S. (1993). The Multidimensional Sexuality Questionnaire: An objective self-report measure of psychological tendencies associated with human sexuality. Annals of Sex Research, 6(1), 27–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00849744

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)