The Sexual Awareness Scale (SAS)

Abstract

The Sexual Awareness Scale (SAS), initially introduced in psychometric literature by William E. Snell, Jr., Terri D. Fisher, and Rowland S. Miller (1991), represents a foundational self-report psychometric instrument designed to measure individual differences in sexual self-consciousness, sexual self-monitoring, sexual assertiveness, and sex-appeal consciousness. Grounded in dispositional self-awareness theories—specifically adapting the multidimensional framework of private and public self-consciousness established by Fenigstein, Scheier, and Buss (1975) to the domain of human sexuality—the SAS conceptualizes sexual awareness as a multidimensional cognitive-affective trait. The inventory evaluates four primary dimensions: (1) Sexual-Consciousness, measuring the tendency to introspectively reflect upon internal sexual feelings, tendencies, physiological arousal, and motivations; (2) Sexual-Monitoring, assessing vigilance regarding the external, public impression made by one’s sexuality and behavioral presentation; (3) Sexual-Assertiveness, capturing proactive agency in voicing desires, negotiating sexual needs, initiating intimacy, and insisting on sexual autonomy; and (4) Sex-Appeal-Consciousness, assessing acute sensitivity to and awareness of others’ perceptions of one’s physical attractiveness and sexual desirability.

Comprising 36 self-report items evaluated on a 5-point Likert response scale ranging from A (“Not at all characteristic of me”) to E (“Very characteristic of me”), the SAS demonstrates robust internal consistency across independent samples, with subscale Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically ranging from .70 to .88 and strong test-retest stability across multiple-week intervals. Construct, convergent, and discriminant validity have been confirmed through significant empirical correlations with measures of sexual communication, contraceptive adherence, sexual self-esteem, sexual depression, relational satisfaction, and broader socio-cognitive monitoring traits. The instrument serves as a critical diagnostic and evaluative tool in clinical sexology, relationship therapy, health psychology, and behavioral sex research, illuminating the pathways through which cognitive processing of sexual cues governs sexual health behaviors, communicative efficacy, and psychological adjustment.

Keywords

Sexual Awareness Scale, sexual consciousness, sexual self-monitoring, sexual assertiveness, sex-appeal consciousness, psychometrics, sexual self-schema, sexual communication, human sexuality, scale validation, clinical sexology, private self-consciousness

Authors

The Sexual Awareness Scale was formulated and psychometrically validated by a collaborative team of distinguished personality and social psychologists specializing in human sexuality, personal relationships, and health behaviors:

• William E. Snell, Jr., Ph.D.: Late Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Southeast Missouri State University (Cape Girardeau, Missouri, USA). Dr. Snell was a prolific psychometrician and social psychologist whose pioneering scholarship centered on the intersection of personality traits, intimate relationship processes, multidimensional sexuality inventories (including the Multidimensional Sexual Self-Concept Questionnaire and the Sexual Awareness Questionnaire), and health-protective behaviors.
• Terri D. Fisher, Ph.D.: Professor Emeritus of Psychology at The Ohio State University at Mansfield (Mansfield, Ohio, USA). Dr. Fisher is an internationally recognized expert in human sexuality research, renowned for her investigative work on methodological artifacts in sex research (such as the bogus pipeline technique), sexual attitudes, gender differences in sexual cognition, and family communication dynamics.
• Rowland S. Miller, Ph.D.: Professor of Psychology and Distinguished Professor of Social Psychology at Sam Houston State University (Huntsville, Texas, USA). Dr. Miller has published seminal research in the fields of social anxiety, embarrassment, social psychology, and interpersonal close relationships.

Inquiries regarding archival documentation and original scale usage are maintained historically within the Department of Psychology at Southeast Missouri State University and indexed across standard research compendia, notably the Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Sexual Awareness Scale (SAS) is to operationalize, quantify, and empirically differentiate the distinct cognitive and behavioral orientations that individuals maintain toward their own sexuality. Prior to the development of domain-specific sexuality inventories in the early 1990s, personality and social psychologists frequently relied upon global inventories of self-awareness, private versus public self-consciousness, and generalized self-monitoring to infer how people navigate sexual encounters. However, these generalized measures routinely exhibited attenuated predictive validity when applied to intimate, emotionally charged, and socially stigmatized sexual behaviors. The SAS was engineered to bridge this theoretical and methodological divide by translating generalized dispositional constructs into direct, sexuality-specific assessments.

From a research perspective, the SAS provides behavioral scientists with a psychometrically sound vehicle for investigating a wide spectrum of empirical questions. It allows investigators to evaluate how introspective attention directed toward one’s sexual desires influences communicative clarity between partners, how acute concern with sexual impressions interacts with contraceptive compliance and risk-taking, and how feelings of sexual assertiveness protect against sexual compliance, coercion, and interpersonal distress. In health psychology, the SAS plays an essential role in predictive modeling of preventative health practices, such as barrier contraceptive negotiation, STI testing initiation, and adherence to safer-sex guidelines.

In clinical sexology and couples therapy, the SAS provides clinicians with an objective diagnostic profile of a client’s cognitive vulnerabilities and communicative proficiencies. For instance, an individual exhibiting marked sexual-monitoring paired with low sexual-assertiveness may demonstrate heightened spectatoring, sexual performance anxiety, and systematic suppression of authentic needs, often resulting in sexual dysfunctions such as female orgasmic disorder, erectile dysfunction, or hypoactive sexual desire. Conversely, therapeutic interventions designed to enhance introspective sexual-consciousness and communicative assertiveness can be quantitatively tracked pre- and post-treatment using the scale, offering empirical benchmarks of therapeutic growth.

Psychological Construct

The theoretical architecture of the Sexual Awareness Scale rests upon the principle that sexual behavior is heavily mediated by cognitive appraisal systems, internal attentional focus, and outward communicative competence. Snell, Fisher, and Miller (1991) conceptualized sexual awareness not as a monolithic trait, but as an interactive matrix comprising four primary psychological constructs:

1. Sexual-Consciousness (Internal/Private Introspection)

Sexual-consciousness represents the dispositional tendency to attend to, reflect upon, and introspectively monitor one’s internal sexual states. This includes an individual’s ongoing awareness of their physiological arousal, internal sexual fantasies, motivational triggers, erotic desires, and psychological tendencies. Individuals scoring high on this dimension are intimately attuned to changes in their sexual arousal; they know what stimuli induce sexual excitement, can articulate how their mind operates during sexual experiences, and dedicate reflective cognitive resources to understanding their sexual self-concept. Rather than viewing sexuality as an unexamined biological drive, highly sexually conscious individuals maintain a rich, clearly articulated internal sexual self-schema.

2. Sexual-Monitoring (Public Concern and Impression Vigilance)

Sexual-monitoring mirrors the public dimension of self-consciousness, capturing the degree to which an individual is anxiously or deliberately concerned with the outward appearance, social impression, and evaluation of their sexuality. High scorers on this dimension are intensely preoccupied with what others think of their sexual conduct, physical appearance, and erotic presentation. They frequently worry about making a favorable sexual impression, feel vulnerable to negative social judgments concerning their sexual morality or prowess, and may consciously modify or censor their sexual self-expression to conform to perceived relational or cultural standards. In extreme forms, excessive sexual-monitoring generates debilitating spectatoring during sexual activity, impairing autonomic physiological responsiveness.

3. Sexual-Assertiveness (Behavioral Agency and Communication)

Sexual-assertiveness encompasses an individual’s proactive agency, directness, and behavioral willingness to communicate and demand fulfillment of their sexual needs, boundaries, and preferences. This dimension evaluates freedom from passive compliance and communicative inhibition. High scorers actively initiate sexual encounters when desired, voice specific sexual preferences and dislikes to partners, insist upon their own pleasure, decline unwanted sexual advances without guilt, and proactively mandate health-protective measures, such as condoms or barrier methods. Conversely, individuals with low sexual-assertiveness exhibit passive, deferential behaviors, often submitting to partner preferences at the expense of their own comfort or safety.

4. Sex-Appeal-Consciousness (Perceptual Desirability Awareness)

Sex-appeal-consciousness assesses an individual’s subjective awareness of and sensitivity to their perceived attractiveness and sexual desirability in the eyes of other people. Distinct from purely internal sexual-consciousness or outward behavioral assertiveness, this dimension gauges how quickly and definitively an individual detects when they are eliciting sexual attraction or “turning someone on.” High scorers possess acute perceptual decoding skills regarding subtle interpersonal cues of desire, flirtation, and sexual interest from others, reflecting high confidence in their ability to recognize when they are viewed as a sexually attractive figure.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual framework underpinning the Sexual Awareness Scale integrates classical social psychology, cognitive self-regulation models, and modern human sexuality paradigms. The primary theoretical lineage stems from the Theory of Objective Self-Awareness formulated by Duval and Wicklund (1972) and its subsequent multidimensional refinement by Fenigstein, Scheier, and Buss (1975) in their seminal work on Private and Public Self-Consciousness.

Fenigstein et al. demonstrated that when attention is focused inward, it can be directed toward private, unobservable aspects of the self (such as bodily sensations, private thoughts, and idiosyncratic values) or outward toward public aspects of the self (such as physical appearance, stylistic demeanor, and external impressions made on social audiences). Snell and colleagues recognized that human sexual interactions represent one of the most psychologically complex arenas wherein private sensory experiences collide with intense public evaluation. By tailoring private self-consciousness specifically to sexual desires and physiological cues, they formulated the Sexual-Consciousness subscale; by adapting public self-consciousness to social evaluative concerns regarding erotic attractiveness and sexual reputation, they established the Sexual-Monitoring and Sex-Appeal-Consciousness subscales.

Furthermore, the SAS incorporates theoretical tenets from Mark Snyder’s (1974) Self-Monitoring Theory. Snyder postulated that individuals vary systematically in the extent to which they monitor, regulate, and control their public expressive behavior versus acting upon internal states. In the SAS framework, high sexual-monitors are hyper-vigilant to the social cues of sexual partners and cultural norms, often moderating their sexual performance to avoid interpersonal friction or judgment, whereas low sexual-monitors act more spontaneously out of internal sexual motives.

Finally, the scale aligns with Hazel Markus’s cognitive schema theory, specifically as elaborated in the Sexual Self-Schema Theory advanced by Andersen and Cyranowski (1994). According to this perspective, individuals organize cognitive generalizations about the sexual self based on past experiences, which subsequently guide the processing of sexually relevant social information and dictate behavioral responses. Assertiveness models (such as those by Alberti and Emmons) inform the behavioral dimension of the scale, explaining why cognitive awareness alone is insufficient for sexual wellbeing without the communicative efficacy required to realize one’s desires and maintain somatic boundaries.

Validity

The construct, convergent, predictive, and discriminant validity of the Sexual Awareness Scale has been substantiated through extensive empirical research across diverse university and community samples:

Construct and Convergent Validity

In the foundational validation investigations conducted by Snell, Fisher, and Miller (1991), the subscales of the SAS exhibited theoretically coherent correlations with established psychological measures. The Sexual-Consciousness subscale was found to correlate moderately and positively with generalized private self-consciousness ($r \approx .35$ to $.45, p < .001$), while demonstrating distinct specificity toward sexual cognition, confirming that it measures a unique domain rather than redundant general introspection. Similarly, Sexual-Monitoring demonstrated positive associations with generalized public self-consciousness ($r \approx .40, p < .001$) and social anxiety measures, while remaining distinct from generalized neuroticism.

Convergent validity was further established by examining relationships with Snell’s broader sexuality inventories, such as the Multidimensional Sexual Self-Concept Questionnaire (MSSCQ). Sexual-Assertiveness correlated strongly with sexual self-esteem ($r > .50, p < .001$) and internal sexual locus of control, while displaying inverse correlations with sexual depression, sexual anxiety, and sexual fearfulness. Individuals scoring high in sexual assertiveness exhibited significantly higher rates of direct verbal communication with relationship partners concerning sexual satisfaction, preferred stimulation techniques, and prophylactic safety.

Predictive and Behavioral Validity

A major validation benchmark for the SAS lies in its ability to predict real-world health and relational behaviors. In a landmark study by Snell and Wooldridge (1998), the predictive validity of the SAS was confirmed in relation to contraceptive use, sexual behavior history, and sexual attitudes. Snell and Wooldridge demonstrated that individuals possessing elevated Sexual-Assertiveness and higher Sexual-Consciousness were substantially more likely to consistently utilize effective contraceptive methods, discuss sexually transmitted infection (STI) histories prior to coitus, and insist upon barrier protection during casual sexual encounters. Conversely, elevated Sexual-Monitoring in the absence of assertiveness was associated with delayed contraceptive acquisition and elevated communicative avoidance, driven by an acute fear of social embarrassment.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity analyses reveal that the four SAS subscales correlate minimally with generalized measures of social desirability (e.g., the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale), indicating that scores are not merely reflections of impression management or self-deceptive enhancement. Furthermore, the four subscales, while sharing theoretical ties, exhibit low to moderate intercorrelations with one another ($r$ values typically ranging between .12 and .38), validating them as distinct cognitive dimensions rather than redundant iterations of a single global construct.

Reliability

The Sexual Awareness Scale demonstrates robust psychometric reliability across internal consistency metrics and temporal stability indices:

Internal Consistency

In the original validation studies by Snell, Fisher, and Miller (1991), Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) coefficients were computed independently for each subscale across both male and female participant cohorts. The internal consistency estimates consistently met or exceeded standard psychometric criteria for psychological research inventories:

• Sexual-Consciousness (items 1, 4, 10, 13, 22, 25): Demonstrates high internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha values typically ranging between $\alpha = .80$ and $\alpha = .86$ across diverse samples.
• Sexual-Monitoring (items 2, 5, 14, 17, 23, 26, 28, 31, 32): Displays acceptable to strong internal reliability, yielding Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from $\alpha = .72$ to $\alpha = .81$ following proper reverse-scoring of designated items.
• Sexual-Assertiveness (items 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 24): Demonstrates strong homogeneity and internal reliability, with alpha coefficients consistently observed between $\alpha = .79$ and $\alpha = .88$.
• Sex-Appeal-Consciousness (items 8, 11, 29): Despite comprising only three items, this brief subscale maintains adequate reliability, with alpha coefficients typically ranging from $\alpha = .68$ to $\alpha = .76$, supported by elevated mean inter-item correlations exceeding $.40$.

Test-Retest Reliability

Temporal stability assessments conducted across three- to six-week test-retest intervals have yielded stability coefficients ranging from $r = .74$ to $r = .85$ across the subscales, indicating that the SAS captures stable dispositional personality tendencies rather than fleeting, state-dependent affective fluctuations. Test-retest reliability remains stable across demographic factors, including gender and relationship status.

Factor Analysis

The structural validity of the Sexual Awareness Scale was originally determined through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and subsequently corroborated using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) techniques across independent normative cohorts.

Exploratory Factor Structure

During scale construction, Snell, Fisher, and Miller (1991) subjected the 36-item pool to principal components analysis followed by orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations to ascertain the latent dimensionality of the items. Factor extraction criteria—including Kaiser’s eigenvalue-greater-than-one ($> 1.0$) rule and Cattell’s scree plot inspection—consistently revealed a four-factor solution accounting for approximately 48% to 54% of the total variance across gender cohorts:

• Factor 1: Sexual-Consciousness: Primary items (1, 4, 10, 13, 22, 25) exhibited salient factor pattern loadings ranging from $.52$ to $.78$, with negligible cross-loadings on other factors. Additional exploratory reflective items (e.g., items 7, 16, 19) also loaded heavily onto this cognitive introspection factor.
• Factor 2: Sexual-Monitoring: Core evaluative items (2, 5, 14, 17, 23, 26, 28, 31, 32) loaded robustly on this factor, with factor loadings spanning from $.44$ to $.74$. Reverse-coded items (such as item 23 and 31) demonstrated clean negative or reversed positive loadings confirming their alignment with public sexual concern.
• Factor 3: Sexual-Assertiveness: Loaded distinctly with items 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, and 24, displaying standardized factor loadings between $.56$ and $.81$. Reverse-scored items reflecting passivity (items 6 and 9) aligned symmetrically with direct assertion statements.
• Factor 4: Sex-Appeal-Consciousness: Delineated by items 8, 11, and 29, with primary factor loadings exceeding $.65$, capturing the perceptual identification of one’s own immediate erotic attractiveness to others.

Confirmatory Factor Modeling

Subsequent structural modeling assessments utilizing CFA have affirmed the superiority of the correlated four-factor model over competing unidimensional or two-factor models. Standard goodness-of-fit indices routinely yield acceptable to strong model fit, with Comparative Fit Index (CFI) values exceeding $.90$, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) values exceeding $.90$, and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) values remaining at or below $.06$ (with 90% confidence intervals between $.048$ and $.068$). These structural findings support the theoretical premise that sexual awareness is fundamentally multidimensional.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational administration parameters, structural properties, and scoring specifications for the Sexual Awareness Scale are structured as follows:

• Test Type: Multidimensional Self-Report Questionnaire / Psychological Rating Scale.
• Target Population: Adolescents (typically aged 16 and older) and adults across the lifespan, encompassing all gender identities and sexual orientations.
• Item Count: 36 total self-report items (comprising core subscale diagnostic items alongside exploratory and behavioral items).
• Administration Time: Approximately 8 to 12 minutes for complete self-administration.
• Response Format: 5-point Likert scale utilizing alphabetic/numeric anchors:
  • A = Not at all characteristic of me (assigned 0 or 1 depending on scoring convention; standard protocol assigns 0 to 4 or 1 to 5). Standard Snell protocol utilizes:
    • A = 0 (Not at all characteristic of me)
    • B = 1 (Slightly characteristic of me)
    • C = 2 (Somewhat characteristic of me)
    • D = 3 (Moderately characteristic of me)
    • E = 4 (Very characteristic of me)
• Subscale Item Composition:
  • Sexual-Consciousness: Items 1, 4, 10, 13, 22, 25 (and exploratory items 7, 16, 19).
  • Sexual-Monitoring: Items 2, 5, 14, 17, 23, 26, 28, 31, 32.
  • Sexual-Assertiveness: Items 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 24 (with items 21, 27, 30 informing broader assertiveness profiles).
  • Sex-Appeal-Consciousness: Items 8, 11, 29.
  • Exploratory / Health-Related Items: Items 20, 33, 34, 35, 36 (addressing communicative consent, STI inquiry, and safe sex insistence).
• Scoring and Reverse-Scoring Instructions:
  • Before summing subscale scores, reverse-keyed items denoted with (R) must be inverted. For standard 0 to 4 scoring, reverse as: $0 \rightarrow 4$, $1 \rightarrow 3$, $2 \rightarrow 2$, $3 \rightarrow 1$, $4 \rightarrow 0$ (or for 1 to 5 scoring: $1 \rightarrow 5$, $2 \rightarrow 4$, $3 \rightarrow 3$, $4 \rightarrow 2$, $5 \rightarrow 1$).
  • Reverse-scored items include: Items 6, 9, 23, 30, 31, and 32.
  • Subscale composite scores are obtained by calculating either the sum or the mean of the items comprising each specific subscale. Higher scores indicate greater levels of the respective construct.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Sexual Awareness Scale was initially introduced and validated in 1991 by William E. Snell, Jr., Terri D. Fisher, and Rowland S. Miller in their seminal publication in the Annals of Sex Research. In accordance with Dr. William E. Snell, Jr.’s professional commitment to open scientific advancement and academic dissemination, the instrument was placed in the academic public domain for non-commercial research and educational utilization. Historically, Dr. Snell maintained open-access electronic repositories through Southeast Missouri State University (http://www4.semo.edu/snell/scales/SAS.htm), permitting researchers, clinicians, and educators to utilize, administer, and reproduce the scale without licensing fees or written permission, provided appropriate scholarly citation is maintained.

Researchers intending to employ the SAS for commercial software, sponsored clinical trials, or fee-generating diagnostic applications should consult archival university institutional repositories or the formal publishers of the compendium volumes (such as the Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures by Sage / Routledge) to verify current proprietary boundaries.

References

• Andersen, B. L., & Cyranowski, J. M. (1994). Women’s sexual self-schema. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1079–1100. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1079
• Duval, S., & Wicklund, R. A. (1972). A theory of objective self awareness. Academic Press.
• Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43(4), 522–527. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076760
• Snell, W. E., Jr. (1994, April). Sexual awareness: Contraception, sexual behaviors and sexual attitudes. Paper presented at the 63rd annual meeting of the Southwestern Psychological Association, Tulsa, OK.
• Snell, W. E., Jr., Fisher, T. D., & Miller, R. S. (1991). Development of the Sexual Awareness Questionnaire: Components, reliability, and validity. Annals of Sex Research, 4(1), 65–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00849647
• Snell, W. E., Jr., Fisher, T. D., & Miller, R. S. (2010). The Sexual Awareness Scale. In C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, R. Bauserman, G. Schreer, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures (3rd ed., pp. 493–495). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315881089
• Snell, W. E., Jr., & Wooldridge, D. G. (1998). Sexual awareness: Contraception, sexual behaviors and sexual attitudes. Sexual and Marital Therapy, 13(2), 191–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/02674659808405678
• Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4), 526–537. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037039

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)