Sexual Attitudes Scale and Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale

Abstract

The Sexual Attitudes Scale (SAS; Hendrick & Hendrick, 1987) and its refined, shortened successor, the Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale (BSAS; Hendrick, Hendrick, & Reich, 2006), represent landmark psychometric instruments designed to evaluate the multidimensional nature of human sexual attitudes. Prior to their development, psychological assessment of human sexuality was dominated by unidimensional conceptions, most notably focused exclusively on sexual permissiveness. Recognizing that human sexuality encompasses emotional, relational, physical, and ethical dimensions, Susan S. Hendrick and Clyde Hendrick established a four-factor orthogonal framework. The original 43-item SAS captures four distinct dimensions: Permissiveness (21 items), measuring casual, open, and non-committal orientations toward sex; Sexual Practices (7 items), measuring tolerance toward responsible practices such as contraception and varied sexual behaviors; Communion (9 items), assessing sex as an idealistic, profound emotional bonding, and spiritual peak experience; and Sexual Instrumentality (6 items), capturing a self-oriented, biological, and physical drive perspective. The instruments employ a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree). In response to cultural evolution, linguistic shifts, and psychometric refinements, the scale was revised into the 23-item BSAS, which reorganized the dimensions into Permissiveness (10 items), Birth Control (3 items), Communion (5 items), and Instrumentality (5 items). Psychometric investigations across university and community populations have documented strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s alphas ranging from .71 to .95 across subscales), robust test-retest reliability (.57 to .92), and sound structural integrity verified through both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA fit indices including CFI = .99 and RMSEA = .05). Both versions have proven invaluable across diverse socio-cultural contexts, relationship counseling, clinical evaluations, and academic research exploring sexuality, romantic relationship satisfaction, and interpersonal dynamics.

Keywords

Sexual Attitudes Scale, Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale, human sexuality, psychometrics, sexual permissiveness, sexual communion, sexual instrumentality, birth control attitudes, interpersonal relationships, Hendrick and Hendrick

Authors

The scale was developed and refined by prominent social psychologists and relationship researchers:

• Susan S. Hendrick, Ph.D.: Department of Psychological Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, United States. Correspondence regarding the scale was historically directed to Dr. Susan S. Hendrick at the Department of Psychology, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409–2051 (Email: [email protected]).
• Clyde Hendrick, Ph.D.: Department of Psychological Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, United States. Renowned social psychologist and theorist in close relationship dynamics, love styles, and human sexual attitudes.
• David A. Reich, Ph.D.: Co-author of the Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale (BSAS), Texas Tech University, contributing expertise in psychometric modeling, confirmatory factor analysis, and measurement invariance.
• Early Collaborators (1985 pilot phase): M. Julie Slapion-Foote and Franklin H. Foote, University of Miami.

Purpose

The primary rationale for developing the Sexual Attitudes Scale (SAS) and the subsequent Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale (BSAS) was to dismantle the historical reliance on unidimensional paradigms in sexuality research. Throughout the mid-20th century, empirical inquiries into human sexuality were largely restricted to measuring premarital sexual permissiveness (e.g., Reiss, 1967). While permissiveness was acknowledged as an indispensable construct, Susan Hendrick and Clyde Hendrick argued that reducing the complexity of human sexual expression to a single spectrum from restrictive to permissive severely obscured other fundamental psychological, interpersonal, and physical facets of sexual attitudes.

The authors aimed to create a generically applicable, psychometrically sound instrument capable of assessing attitudes across various relational contexts: married couples, cohabiting couples, premarital daters, and unpartnered individuals. The instrument was purposefully built to fulfill several research and clinical objectives:

• Broadening Dimensionality: Incorporating distinct psychological dimensions—such as emotional communion, personal pleasure instrumentality, and pragmatic responsibility—alongside traditional permissiveness.
• Differentiating Couple Orientations: Providing clinicians and couples therapists with a diagnostic framework to identify ideological incompatibilities, sexual dissatisfaction, and divergent expectations regarding intimacy, monogamy, and relational meaning.
• Evaluating Societal and Cohort Evolution: Serving as a standardized yardstick to capture generational and cultural shifts in sexual mores, contraception attitudes, gender role expectancies, and sexual behavior patterns.
• Advancing Close Relationships Research: Facilitating cross-disciplinary investigations connecting sexual attitudes to love styles (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986), attachment security, personality taxonomy (Shafer, 2001), infidelity distress (Cann et al., 2001), and sexual trauma risks (Abbey et al., 2007).

The later development of the BSAS was specifically prompted by the need for a concise, clinically feasible tool that mitigated survey fatigue, updated dated vernacular, and addressed slight structural shifts observed in cross-cultural and longitudinal cohorts (e.g., Le Gall et al., 2002).

Psychological Construct

The SAS and BSAS measure a multidimensional psychological construct representing an individual’s cognitive, affective, and evaluative dispositions toward sexual intimacy and sexual behavior. Rather than conceptualizing sexual attitudes as a singular continuum of conservatism versus liberalism, Hendrick and Hendrick demonstrated that sexual attitudes occupy four distinct, largely orthogonal domains.

1. Sexual Permissiveness

Permissiveness refers to an open, casual, and unconstrained attitude toward sexual behavior. Individuals scoring high in permissiveness view sex as acceptable outside the boundaries of emotional commitment, love, or formal relationship contracts. It encompasses acceptance of casual encounters, one-night stands, multiple concurrent partners, and non-relational sexual experimentation. Within the BSAS, items measuring this construct assess acceptance of uncommitted sex (e.g., “Casual sex is acceptable” and “I do not need to be committed to a person to have sex with him/her”). It reflects low inhibition regarding sexual behavior and an endorsement of sexual autonomy independent of institutional or romantic strictures.

2. Sexual Practices / Birth Control

In the original 43-item SAS, this factor was termed Sexual Practices (7 items) and reflected a combination of tolerant views regarding varied sexual expressions (such as masturbation, mutual masturbation, and erotic aids) alongside responsible sexual practices like contraception and sexual health education. In the revised 23-item BSAS, psychometric analyses indicated that items reflecting responsibility clustered into a tightly defined factor renamed Birth Control (3 items). This dimension captures the cognitive endorsement of sexual responsibility, mutual accountability between partners for family planning and safer sex practices, and the belief that contraception is an indispensable element of healthy adult sexuality (e.g., “Birth control is part of responsible sexuality”).

3. Sexual Communion

Communion represents an idealistic, expressive, and transcendent orientation toward sexual intimacy. Grounded in humanistic psychology and phenomenological accounts of human experience, this construct reflects the belief that sex is the ultimate physical and emotional culmination of love. Individuals endorsing communion perceive sexual intercourse as a spiritual “peak experience,” a profound vehicle for interpersonal communication, and the merging of two human identities (e.g., “At its best, sex seems to be the merging of two souls” and “A sexual encounter between two people deeply in love is the ultimate human interaction”). Communion emphasizes emotional safety, mutual vulnerability, deep awareness of the partner, and relational meaning over mere bodily gratification.

4. Sexual Instrumentality

Instrumentality characterizes an attitude wherein sexual activity is perceived primarily as a physical, biological, and self-focused drive. From an instrumental perspective, sex functions analogous to other biological necessities (e.g., eating or exercise) designed to achieve personal sensory gratification, physical tension reduction, and bodily pleasure. It frames sex in pragmatic, physicalist terms, frequently conceptualizing interactions as games or negotiations of physical pleasure rather than profound emotional exchanges (e.g., “Sex is primarily a bodily function, like eating” and “The main purpose of sex is to enjoy oneself”). Although correlated with permissiveness, instrumentality is uniquely characterized by its emphasis on physical sensations and self-oriented gratification.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual framework underpinning the Sexual Attitudes Scale is rooted in social cognitive theory, social exchange theory, evolutionary psychology, and humanistic relationship science. Hendrick and Hendrick (1987) positioned their conceptualization at the intersection of personality psychology and relationship science, asserting that sexual attitudes are learned cognitive orientations that shape and are shaped by an individual’s interpersonal history, socio-cultural scripts, and relationship goals.

Multidimensionality and Orthogonality

The foundational theoretical assumption of the SAS is that sexual attitudes are multidimensional rather than bipolar. Classical psychometric instruments frequently treated sexual attitudes as a linear spectrum between sexual conservatism/guilt (e.g., Mosher, 1966) and sexual liberalism/permissiveness (Reiss, 1967). Hendrick and Hendrick argued that such unidimensional scaling fails because an individual can simultaneously hold highly permissive attitudes toward sexual freedom while viewing sex within their own romantic union as a sacred, communion-oriented peak experience. By applying principal components analysis with orthogonal (Varimax) rotation, the authors operationalized these attitudes as distinct cognitive schemas that can coexist in varied profiles within an individual’s psyche.

Integration with Love Typologies

The theoretical framework of the SAS is closely connected to John Alan Lee’s (1973) typology of love, as operationalized by Hendrick and Hendrick’s (1986) Love Attitudes Scale (LAS). Hendrick and Hendrick posited that sexual attitudes function as cognitive schemas systematically aligned with romantic styles:

• Ludus (game-playing love) theoretically aligns with high Permissiveness and high Instrumentality, treating sexual interactions as non-binding, playful, or self-gratifying conquests.
• Eros (passionate, romantic love) and Agape (altruistic, selfless love) theoretically align with high Communion, framing sexual intimacy as an affectionate, soul-merging communion that deepens interpersonal connection.
• Storge (friendship love) and Pragma (practical love) tend to correlate negatively with uncommitted permissiveness, emphasizing stability, companionship, and shared domestic values over casual sexual gratification.

Gender-Role and Evolutionary Perspectives

The theoretical model explicitly addresses gender differences in sexual strategies. In line with parental investment theory (Trivers, 1972) and social role theory (Eagly, 1987), men across various cohorts have consistently exhibited higher average endorsement of Permissiveness and Instrumentality than women. Conversely, women and men show comparable levels of endorsement for Communion and Birth Control. Hendrick and Hendrick theorized that while biological imperatives and social scripts foster divergent attitudes regarding casual sex and instrumental physical release, the relational drive for intimate emotional bonding (communion) and pragmatic health maintenance remains universally valued across genders.

Validity

Both the SAS and BSAS have undergone extensive empirical validation across multiple decades, confirming robust construct, criterion, convergent, and discriminant validity across diverse demographic and clinical cohorts.

Criterion and Convergent Validity

During the initial validation of the SAS (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1987), criterion validity was established by comparing the scale with established sexuality instruments. The Permissiveness subscale demonstrated substantial positive correlations with Reiss’s (1967) Premarital Sexual Permissiveness Scale (r > .60) and significant negative correlations with the Revised Mosher Guilt Inventory (Green & Mosher, 1985), indicating that permissive individuals experience less sex-related guilt and moral inhibition. The Communion subscale was found to correlate strongly with relationship satisfaction, intimacy scales, and passionate love measures.

Construct and Nomological Network Validity

Extensive validity data stems from evaluating the scale within a nomological network of romantic relationship constructs (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1995; Hendrick et al., 2006):

• Love Styles: In repeated prospective studies, Permissiveness exhibited robust positive correlations with Ludus (game-playing love) and significant negative correlations with Storge (friendship love), Pragma (practical love), and Agape (altruistic love). Communion correlated positively with Eros (passionate love), Mania (possessive/dependent love), and Agape. Instrumentality correlated positively with Ludus and negatively with Agape.
• Infidelity and Relationship Distress: Cann, Mangum, and Wells (2001) demonstrated that high Permissiveness predicted lower emotional distress in response to hypothetical partner infidelity, whereas high Communion was associated with heightened sensitivity and emotional trauma following breaches of relational fidelity.
• Personality Trait Intersections: Shafer (2001) examined the SAS alongside the Five-Factor Model of personality, showing that Permissiveness and Instrumentality correlated positively with Extraversion and negatively with Agreeableness and Conscientiousness.
• Clinical and Behavioral Risk Contexts: Abbey et al. (2007) successfully utilized the Instrumentality and Permissiveness scales in community samples to identify cognitive risk profiles distinguishing men with a history of sexually aggressive behavior from non-aggressive controls. Evans and Wertheim (1998) applied the scale to elucidate intimacy deficits and body image dynamics in clinical populations suffering from eating disorders.

Cross-Cultural and Structural Validity

Validation studies conducted across non-English speaking cohorts—such as French adults (Le Gall, Mullet, & Shafighi, 2002) and Irish youth (Grey & Swain, 1996)—confirmed that the primary dimensions remain stable, although subtle cultural nuances in factor loadings justified the development of the more robust, cross-culturally invariant 23-item BSAS.

Reliability

The SAS and BSAS have demonstrated strong internal consistency and temporal stability across numerous investigations spanning university students, community adults, and international samples.

Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha)

In the seminal 43-item SAS validation study (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1987), Cronbach’s alpha coefficients across two large independent samples demonstrated high internal consistency:

• Permissiveness: α = .93 to .94
• Sexual Practices: α = .71 to .72
• Communion: α = .77 to .80
• Instrumentality: α = .77 to .80

In the 2006 revision and validation of the 23-item BSAS (Hendrick et al., 2006), internal consistency remained exceptionally strong despite a substantial reduction in item count:

• Permissiveness (10 items): α = .93 (Study 1), .94 (Study 2), and .95 (Study 3)
• Birth Control (3 items): α = .84 (Study 1), .86 (Study 2), and .88 (Study 3)
• Communion (5 items): α = .70 (Study 1), .71 (Study 2), and .73 (Study 3)
• Instrumentality (5 items): α = .77 (Study 1), .79 (Study 2), and .77 (Study 3)

Test-Retest Reliability

Temporal stability evaluated across four- to six-week test-retest intervals revealed solid test-retest correlations. For the original SAS (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1987, Study I), coefficients were: Permissiveness (r = .88), Sexual Practices (r = .78), Communion (r = .70), and Instrumentality (r = .66). For the prospective validation of the BSAS (Hendrick et al., 2006, Study 3), test-retest reliability across 4 to 7 weeks yielded:

• Permissiveness: r = .92
• Birth Control: r = .57
• Communion: r = .86
• Instrumentality: r = .75

The comparatively lower test-retest coefficient for Birth Control (.57) reflects a ceiling effect commonly observed on this subscale, where strong normative consensus and low variance across student samples attenuate correlation magnitudes.

Factor Analysis

The factorial architecture of the SAS and BSAS underwent comprehensive empirical refinement across two decades, moving from exploratory principal components analysis to rigorous structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (SAS Development)

The initial derivation of the SAS (Hendrick et al., 1985; Hendrick & Hendrick, 1987) began with an extensive pool of over 100 candidate items. Through preliminary pilot testing, the pool was reduced to 58 items and administered to 1,396 undergraduate students across two universities (Florida and Texas). Principal components analysis (PCA) with orthogonal Varimax rotation was employed under the assumption that distinct dimensions of sexual attitudes operate relatively independently. Items with low primary loadings (< .40) or severe cross-loadings were iteratively eliminated, resulting in a final 43-item matrix distributed across four clean factors:

• Factor 1: Permissiveness accounted for the largest proportion of total scale variance (approximately 23.3%), with factor loadings ranging from .46 to .78.
• Factor 2: Sexual Practices accounted for roughly 7.1% of the variance, loading items related to contraception, sex education, and masturbation.
• Factor 3: Communion accounted for 5.7% of the variance, capturing items reflecting emotional transcendence, love-sex integration, and interpersonal unity.
• Factor 4: Instrumentality accounted for 4.8% of the variance, clustering items defining sex as a bodily need, self-directed pleasure, and physical game.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (BSAS Revision)

By the early 2000s, cross-cultural studies (Le Gall et al., 2002) indicated that items loading on the original “Sexual Practices” subscale were splintering, as societal views on masturbation and sex toys had decoupled from views on contraceptive responsibility. Hendrick, Hendrick, and Reich (2006) conducted a three-study overhaul to refine the scale into the 23-item BSAS, evaluating both exploratory models and confirmatory factor models (CFA).

In Study 3 (prospective cohort, N = 518), CFA demonstrated exceptional fit for the revised four-factor structure (Permissiveness, Birth Control, Communion, and Instrumentality). The fit indices far surpassed accepted psychometric thresholds:

• Goodness of Fit Index (GFI): .98
• Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI): .95
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .99
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .05
• Chi-Square: χ²(21, N = 518) = 52.3, p < .001

Subscale intercorrelations confirmed the relative independence of the four dimensions. Permissiveness correlated modestly with Instrumentality (r = .40), while all other pairwise intercorrelations remained below .20 (e.g., Birth Control with Permissiveness, r = .03; Communion with Instrumentality, r = .09), supporting the conceptual integrity of the four distinct dimensions.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Tool Name: Sexual Attitudes Scale (SAS) / Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale (BSAS)
• Target Population: Adults and adolescents aged 17 and older, encompassing married, cohabiting, dating, or unpartnered individuals of all sexual orientations.
• Test Type: Multidimensional self-report psychological rating scale.
• Item Count:
  • Full SAS (1987): 43 items across 4 subscales (Permissiveness: 21 items; Sexual Practices: 7 items; Communion: 9 items; Instrumentality: 6 items).
  • Brief SAS (2006): 23 items across 4 subscales (Permissiveness: Items 1–10; Birth Control: Items 11–13; Communion: Items 14–18; Instrumentality: Items 19–23).
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert-type response format:
  • 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 and Directionality:
  • Original Hendrick & Hendrick Scoring: Responses are coded numerically as A = 1, B = 2, C = 3, D = 4, E = 5. Under this standard system, lower numerical scores reflect stronger endorsement of the attitude subscale.
  • Alternative (Reversed) Scoring: Researchers frequently invert the coding (A = 5, B = 4, C = 3, D = 2, E = 1) so that higher scores represent stronger endorsement; either approach is valid provided it is applied consistently across subscales.
  • Subscale Computation: Calculate the arithmetic mean for each subscale (sum of item scores divided by the number of items in that subscale).
  • Composite Score: Do not calculate a total composite score. The subscales are orthogonal and represent independent psychological dimensions; summing across subscales obscures meaningful variation.
• Administration Time: Approximately 8–10 minutes for the 43-item SAS; 3–5 minutes for the 23-item BSAS.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Sexual Attitudes Scale was originally published in 1987, and the Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale was published in 2006 by Susan S. Hendrick, Clyde Hendrick, and David A. Reich. Both instruments were formally placed into the public domain by the authors to facilitate open scientific research, psychological scholarship, and clinical application. No licensing fees or royalty payments are required for academic, clinical, educational, or research purposes. Commercial redistributions or inclusion in fee-for-service diagnostic batteries should credit the original authors and include appropriate bibliographic citations to Hendrick and Hendrick (1987) and Hendrick, Hendrick, and Reich (2006).

References

• Abbey, A., Parkhill, M. R., Clinton-Sherrod, A. M., & Zawacki, T. (2007). A comparison of men who committed different types of sexual assault in a community sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(12), 1567–1580. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507306490
• Cann, A., Mangum, J. L., & Wells, M. (2001). Distress in response to relationship infidelity: The roles of gender and attitudes about relationships. The Journal of Sex Research, 38(3), 185–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490109552089
• Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Evans, L., & Wertheim, E. H. (1998). Intimacy patterns and relationship satisfaction of women with eating problems and the mediating effects of depression, trait anxiety, and social anxiety. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 44(3–4), 355–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3999(97)00260-2
• Green, S. E., & Mosher, D. L. (1985). A causal model of sexual arousal to erotic fantasies. The Journal of Sex Research, 21(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498509551242
• Grey, I. M., & Swain, R. B. (1996). Sexual and religious attitudes of Irish students. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 17(3), 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/03033910.1996.10558097
• 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
• Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S. S., & Reich, D. A. (2006). The Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale. The Journal of Sex Research, 43(1), 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490609552301
• Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1987). Multidimensionality of sexual attitudes. The Journal of Sex Research, 23(4), 502–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498709551387
• Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1995). Gender differences and similarities in sex and love. Personal Relationships, 2(1), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1995.tb00077.x
• Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (2006). Measuring respect in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23(6), 881–899. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407506070471
• Hendrick, S. S., Hendrick, C., Slapion-Foote, M. J., & Foote, F. H. (1985). Gender differences in sexual attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(6), 1630–1642. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1630
• Le Gall, A., Mullet, E., & Shafighi, S. R. (2002). Age, religious beliefs, and sexual attitudes. The Journal of Sex Research, 39(3), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490209552143
• Lee, J. A. (1973). The colors of love: An exploration of the ways of loving. New Press.
• Mosher, D. L. (1966). The development and multitrait-multimethod matrix analysis of three measures of three aspects of guilt. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 30(1), 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022941
• Murray, K. M., Ciarrocchi, J. W., & Murray-Swank, N. A. (2007). Spirituality, religiosity, shame and guilt as predictors of sexual attitudes and experiences. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 35(3), 222–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/009164710703500305
• Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2007). Who looks for casual dates on the internet? A test of the compensation and the recreation hypotheses. New Media & Society, 9(3), 455–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807076973
• Rathus, S. A., Nevid, J. S., & Fichner-Rathus, L. (2008). Human sexuality in a world of diversity (7th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
• Reiss, I. L. (1967). The social context of premarital sexual permissiveness. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• Shafer, A. B. (2001). The Big Five and sexuality trait terms as predictors of relationships and sex. Journal of Research in Personality, 35(3), 313–338. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.2001.2323
• Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871-1971 (pp. 136–179). Aldine.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)