Sexual Opinion Scale

Abstract

The Sexual Opinion Scale (widely documented and utilized in psychometric literature as the Sexual Opinion Survey [SOS]; Fisher, Byrne, White, & Kelley, 1988) is an established psychological instrument designed to assess individual differences along the continuous personality dimension of erotophobia-erotophilia. Conceptualized within social learning and affective conditioning paradigms, erotophobia-erotophilia represents a learned dispositional tendency to respond to sexual stimuli across an evaluative spectrum ranging from negative affect and avoidance (erotophobia) to positive affect and approach (erotophilia). The standard instrument consists of 21 self-report items depicting diverse sexual situations, practices, and stimuli—encompassing autosexual behavior (e.g., masturbation), homosexual and heterosexual interactions, sexual fantasies, erotica, and non-normative sexual practices. Respondents evaluate each statement using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree), though scoring rubrics historically involve item reversals and constant-additive formulas yielding scores from 0 (extreme erotophobia) to 126 (extreme erotophilia), or mean-item configurations ranging from 1 to 7. Psychometric evaluations across multiple decades demonstrate strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha typically ranging between .76 and .89) and robust test-retest stability (r = .61 to .85 over several weeks). Factor analyses predominantly support a unidimensional affective-evaluative construct, while specialized investigations identify multidimensional substructures, including dimensions of open sexual display/variety and homoeroticism, or cross-cultural four-factor models (erotophilia, erotophobia, homophobia, and unconventional sexual practices). The scale possesses extensive convergent, discriminant, construct, and predictive validity, significantly forecasting sexual knowledge acquisition, contraceptive behavior, preventive sexual health practices, responses to explicit media, subjective sexual arousal, attachment orientations, and attitudes toward sexual minorities. Brief forms (e.g., Semph’s 5-item index) and developmentally tailored adaptations for adolescent populations have further extended its research and diagnostic utility.

Keywords

Sexual Opinion Survey, Sexual Opinion Scale, erotophobia, erotophilia, sexual attitudes, affective disposition, psychometrics, sexual behavior, sexology, sexual health

Authors

The contemporary synthesis and psychometric adaptation of the Sexual Opinion Scale presented in the focal literature was prepared by:

• B. J. Rye, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, St. Jerome’s University at the University of Waterloo, 290 Westmount Road North, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G3 (E-mail: [email protected]).
• Glenn J. Meaney, Ph.D. — Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
• William A. Fisher, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology and Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.

The original theoretical conceptualization and empirical construction of the parent instrument, the Sexual Opinion Survey (SOS), were established by William A. Fisher, Donn Byrne, Leonard A. White, and Kathryn Kelley (1988), building upon earlier foundational instrument development conducted by Byrne and colleagues during the late 1970s.

Purpose

Human sexuality is characterized by profound individual variability in emotional, cognitive, and behavioral responsiveness to sexual stimuli. While some individuals respond to sexual imagery, discussions, or behavioral opportunities with anticipation, pleasure, and approach behaviors, others experience anxiety, guilt, disgust, and a pronounced motivation for behavioral avoidance. The primary purpose of the Sexual Opinion Scale (SOS) is to operationalize and measure this underlying affective-evaluative orientation—termed erotophobia-erotophilia—using a standardized, psychometrically rigorous self-report methodology.

From a theoretical standpoint, the SOS was engineered to transcend superficial measures of sexual knowledge or isolated behavioral frequencies. The developers recognized that sexual attitudes do not function merely as cognitive beliefs; rather, they operate as emotionally charged evaluative dispositions that bias how an individual perceives, attends to, interprets, and acts upon sexual information. By evaluating affective reactions across diverse domains—including autosexual behavior (masturbation), same-sex romantic or erotic attraction, heterosexual intercourse, explicit erotica, nudity, sexual fantasy, and unconventional practices—the SOS captures an overarching dispositional continuum rather than context-specific sexual preferences.

In applied and empirical domains, the SOS serves multifaceted purposes across public health, clinical psychology, health psychology, and basic social psychology:

• Prediction of Sexual Health Behaviors: Erotophobia-erotophilia has repeatedly served as a crucial explanatory variable in safer-sex practices, barrier contraceptive utilization, reproductive decision-making, and compliance with clinical screenings (such as cervical cytology and breast or testicular self-examinations). Individuals higher in erotophobia frequently avoid purchasing condoms, discussing contraception with partners, or attending sexual health clinics due to the acute embarrassment and negative affect evoked by explicit sexual cues.
• Clinical Sexology and Psychotherapy: Clinicians utilize the scale to evaluate baseline affective inhibitions in individuals presenting with sexual dysfunctions, such as hypoactive sexual desire disorder, sexual aversion, or orgasmic difficulties. By quantifying an individual’s erotophobic disposition, therapists can tailor cognitive-behavioral or desensitization interventions designed to attenuate conditioned negative affect.
• Laboratory and Psychophysiological Research: The SOS serves as a vital screening and grouping metric in experimental psychophysiology. Researchers investigating genital vasocongestion, pupillary responses, startle eye-blink modulation, or implicit cognitive biases toward sexual stimuli routinely use SOS scores to explain variance in subjective and physiological arousal concordance.
• Evaluation of Educational and Preventive Interventions: Evaluators utilize the scale, along with its developmentally adapted variants, to benchmark the impact of comprehensive sex education curricula, homonegativity awareness workshops, and sexual violence prevention programs on participants’ overall comfort with sexuality.

Psychological Construct

The central psychological construct quantified by the Sexual Opinion Scale is erotophobia-erotophilia. This construct is conceptualized as a broad, learned, bipolar dispositional dimension of personality that governs an individual’s emotional and evaluative reactions to sexual stimuli. Rather than representing an objective inventory of an individual’s lifetime sexual experience, erotophobia-erotophilia reflects the valence—positive versus negative—and intensity of affective conditioning associated with sexual cues.

The Erotophobia Pole

At the negative extreme of the continuum lies erotophobia. Individuals scoring high in erotophobia exhibit internal emotional states dominated by anxiety, guilt, revulsion, shame, and discomfort when confronted with sexual stimuli or when anticipating sexual engagement. This negative affective orientation leads to systematic avoidance responses across cognitive, behavioral, and interpersonal dimensions:

• Cognitive Avoidance: Suppression of sexual daydreams, active avoidance of sexual health literature, and restricted encoding or retention of sexual knowledge.
• Behavioral Avoidance: Reluctance to acquire or negotiate contraception, avoidance of medical sexual examinations, low rates of autosexual exploration, and hesitancy to communicate sexual desires or boundaries with romantic partners.
• Affective Reactions: Heightened vulnerability to conditioned aversion, sexual disgust, and feelings of emotional distress when exposed to public sexual nudity, explicit visual media, or discussions of non-normative sexual behaviors.

The Erotophilia Pole

At the opposite end of the spectrum lies erotophilia. Erotophilic individuals evaluate sexual cues positively, responding with curiosity, excitement, pleasure, and cognitive engagement. Consequently, erotophilia fosters active approach behaviors:

• Cognitive Approach: Openness to sexual fantasy, detailed processing and retention of reproductive and sexual health information, and low levels of sexual self-monitoring or sexual guilt.
• Behavioral Approach: Higher frequency of self-reported sexual behaviors (such as masturbation, varied partner sexual practices, and communicative intimacy), proactive acquisition and consistent application of barrier methods during sexual encounters, and willingness to participate in sexual health screenings.
• Affective Reactions: Subjective feelings of arousal and positive curiosity in response to erotic art, media, or discussions of diverse sexual practices.

Stimulus Domains Assessed

The construct does not exist in an abstract emotional vacuum; it is tapped by presenting respondents with concrete situations across several primary sexual domains:

1. Autosexual Behavior: Attitudes and emotional responses to masturbation and manual genital self-stimulation (e.g., assessing whether genital manipulation is anticipated as exciting or repulsive).
2. Visual and Media Erotica: Evaluative and affective responses to explicit depictions of sexual activity, erotic films, and adult entertainment.
3. Heterosexual and Interpersonal Behaviors: Excitement versus aversion regarding shared naked swimming, oral sex, and conventional sexual intercourse.
4. Homoerotic Stimuli and Homosexuality: Emotional comfort versus distress or annoyance regarding personal homosexual thoughts, physical attraction to members of the same sex, or observing same-sex intimacy.
5. Sexual Fantasy and Cognitive Elaboration: Pleasure derived from daydreaming about sexual encounters versus feelings of embarrassment or deliberate suppression of erotic thoughts.
6. Non-Normative and Group Practices: Receptivity or disgust toward group sex, unconventional practices, public exposure, or multiple concurrent long-term partners.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture underpinning the Sexual Opinion Scale is rooted in social learning theory, affective conditioning models, and the reinforcement-affect model of evaluative responses pioneered by Donn Byrne and his associates (Byrne, 1971; Fisher et al., 1988). Byrne postulated that human behavior toward any category of environmental stimuli is profoundly guided by an unconditioned or conditioned affective reaction (positive vs. negative feeling states), which subsequently dictates approach or avoidance tendencies.

Conditioned Affect and Socialization Processes

According to Byrne’s developmental formulation, infants and young children initially encounter sexual stimuli (such as touching their own genitals or observing anatomical differences) with neutral curiosity or intrinsic tactile pleasure. However, during the course of primary and secondary socialization, the individual is systematically exposed to verbal, social, and cultural reactions from parents, religious institutions, peers, and broader society:

• Negative Conditioning Pathways: If early autosexual curiosity or exploratory sexual behaviors are consistently paired with parental punishment, verbal condemnation, expressions of parental disgust, religious moralizing, or strict taboos, these sexual cues become classically conditioned to elicit negative affective states—namely, fear, guilt, shame, and disgust. Over time, higher-order conditioning and cognitive generalization occur, such that any symbolic representation of sexuality (e.g., erotic words, images, contraceptive devices, physiological arousal sensations) automatically activates conditioned negative affect, solidifying an erotophobic orientation.
• Positive Conditioning Pathways: Conversely, when emerging sexual behaviors, bodily exploration, and questions about sexuality occur within an environment characterized by openness, objective information, affectionate reinforcement, and the absence of punitive sanctions, sexual stimuli become conditioned to positive affective states. The individual learns to associate sexual cues with warmth, physiological pleasure, emotional bonding, and aesthetic enjoyment, establishing an erotophilic disposition.

The Dual-Pathway Approach-Avoidance Paradigm

Once crystallized into a personality disposition, erotophobia-erotophilia operates as a stable lens that mediates the relationship between external sexual cues and overt behavioral sequences. In Byrne’s model, the disposition guides behavioral decisions through two interconnected pathways:

1. Cognitive Mediational Mechanisms: Affective reactions bias attention and cognitive appraisal. Erotophobic individuals selectively direct attention away from sexual cues to minimize unpleasant emotional states (affective gating). This cognitive avoidance impairs the acquisition and rehearsal of essential sexual health information (such as how to correctly use a condom or identify sexually transmitted infection symptoms). In contrast, erotophilic individuals attend closely to sexual information, integrate it effectively, and exhibit higher self-efficacy in sexual decision-making.
2. Behavioral Response Hierarchies: In any situation involving impending sexual activity, conditioned affect determines whether an individual initiates approach behaviors (e.g., discussing contraception, seeking intimacy, experimenting with varied sexual techniques) or enacts avoidance behaviors (e.g., passive acquiescence, denial of pregnancy risk, physical withdrawal, or avoidance of communication).

Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the Sexual Opinion Scale has been established through extensive psychometric and experimental research spanning more than four decades.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Convergent validity is evidenced by significant, theoretically predicted correlations between SOS scores and related psychological, personality, and behavioral constructs:

• Sexual Attitudes and Experience: In extensive university samples (e.g., Rye, Meaney, & Fisher, normative Sample 1, N = 2,861), SOS scores correlated moderately to strongly with approval of premarital sexual intercourse, liberal sexual morality, and broad accessibility of contraception. Garcia (1999) demonstrated that individuals scoring high in erotophilia evaluated themselves as significantly more sexually experienced, held more permissive sexual attitudes, and reported higher subjective sexual responsiveness.
• Autosexual and Interpersonal Behaviors: Erotophilia consistently predicts higher lifetime and recent frequencies of autosexual behaviors, including masturbation and the utilization of sexual aids (Zamboni & Crawford, 2002). Furthermore, higher erotophilia scores correlate with a higher number of lifetime sexual partners, greater comfort with oral-genital contact, and an unrestricted mating strategy as indexed by the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (Schmitt et al., 2001).
• Sexual Excitation and Inhibition: Concurrent validation with the Dual Control Model of sexual response demonstrates that the SOS correlates positively with sexual excitation proneness (SES) and negatively with sexual inhibition dimensions (SIS1 and SIS2) in both men and women (Graham, Sanders, & Milhausen, 2006; Janssen et al., 2002a, 2002b).
• Implicit Attitudes and Physiological Reactivity: Geer and Robertson (2005) established that the SOS correlates with implicit sexual attitudes measured via reaction-time tasks. In laboratory psychophysiological paradigms, Nobre et al. (2004) found that erotophilic men exhibited higher subjective sexual arousal and greater concordance between genital vasocongestion and self-reported arousal compared to erotophobic men. Using startle eye-blink electromyography, Mahaffey, Bryan, and Hutchison (2005) demonstrated that individuals exhibiting negative implicit affect toward gay stimuli scored significantly lower on the SOS homoerotic and general items.

Predictive and Applied Criterion Validity

The SOS has proven to be an effective predictor of behavioral outcomes in clinical, epidemiological, and health domains:

• Contraceptive Use and Partner Negotiation: Sanders et al. (2006) observed that among sexually active women, those who actively placed condoms on their male partners were significantly more erotophilic than those who did not. Wilkinson, Holahan, and Drane-Edmundson (2002) found that erotophilia significantly predicted safer-sex practices in contexts where partners were cooperative.
• Preventive Healthcare Compliance: Studies examine the relationship between erotophobia and clinical screening behaviors. Erotophilia significantly predicts an increased likelihood of undergoing clinical cervical cytology (Pap tests) and practicing regular breast self-examinations, as individuals comfortable with genital and anatomical cues experience lower emotional barriers to physical screening.
• Erotica Engagement: Bogaert (2001) and Lawyer (2008) verified that higher SOS scores reliably predict prior and ongoing exposure to sexually explicit media, delayed discounting of erotic rewards, and voluntary responsiveness to online erotic materials (Shim, Lee, & Paul, 2007).

Discriminant Validity

The SOS demonstrates clear empirical separation from constructs with which it should theoretically have minimal overlap:

• Social Desirability: Research across multiple cohorts confirms that SOS scores do not significantly correlate with standard measures of social desirability or impression management (e.g., the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale; Bogaert, 2001; Rye et al., Sample 4). This confirms that erotophilic endorsements reflect genuine affective comfort rather than a superficial desire to project an uninhibited persona.
• General Cognitive and Personality Dimensions: Erotophobia-erotophilia shows near-zero correlations with general intelligence, psychoticism, and trait dominance (Bogaert, 2001). While erotophobia moderately correlates with broad ideological constructs such as right-wing authoritarianism, religiosity, and conventional morality, it retains substantial unique variance when predicting sexuality-specific outcomes.

Reliability

The Sexual Opinion Scale possesses high reliability across diverse demographic groups, cultural contexts, and measurement intervals.

Internal Consistency

Extensive empirical investigations confirm the high internal consistency of the 21-item full-scale SOS:

• North American University Samples: Studies examining college cohorts report Cronbach’s alpha coefficients consistently ranging from .76 to .89 (Fisher, 1998; Fisher et al., 1988). In large cohorts evaluated by Rye, Meaney, and Fisher, internal reliability remained stable across male (α ≈ .85–.88) and female (α ≈ .84–.87) subsamples (Smith & Nave, 2007).
• Cross-Cultural Adaptations: Translated versions exhibit equivalent internal consistency. The Hebrew translation validated by Birnbaum and Gillath (2006) demonstrated an alpha coefficient of .85. The Spanish validation developed by Sierra, Ortega, and Zubeidat (2006) yielded alpha coefficients exceeding .80, with robust item-total correlations across community and student cohorts.
• Short Forms and Specialized Adaptations: The 5-item short version originally formulated by Semph (1979) demonstrates lower but acceptable internal reliability given its brief length, typically yielding alpha coefficients around .63 to .70 (Beatson & Halloran, 2007). Similarly, the 6-item developmentally tailored adaptation for young adolescent girls (Rye et al., 2008) yielded an alpha of .63.

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability evaluations confirm that erotophobia-erotophilia functions as a durable personality disposition rather than a fluctuating emotional state:

• In foundational validation studies by Fisher et al. (1988), test-retest reliability coefficients exceeded .80 across test-retest intervals ranging from two weeks to two months.
• In prospective re-evaluations conducted across a multi-week interval among university students (Rye, Meaney, & Fisher, Sample 2), the test-retest correlation was r = .61 (n = 35, p < .001).
• Extended longitudinal follow-ups over multiple months continue to indicate substantial intra-individual stability, confirming that the scale captures an enduring affective trait.

Factor Analysis

The latent dimensionality of the Sexual Opinion Scale has been extensively evaluated using both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), eliciting discussions regarding whether erotophobia-erotophilia is best modeled as a unidimensional construct or a multifaceted structural network.

The Unidimensional Model

In the original structural investigations conducted by Fisher, Byrne, White, and Kelley (1988), exploratory factor analyses indicated that the 21 items load heavily on a single primary factor accounting for the majority of the common variance. The scree test and eigenvalue distributions across early cohorts demonstrated a sharp drop after the first factor, supporting the aggregation of items into a singular composite index. Proponents of unidimensional scoring argue that diverse sexual stimuli—whether involving fantasy, media, autoeroticism, or partnered behaviors—activate a generalized, underlying approach-avoidance affective disposition.

Multifactorial Solutions and Subscale Models

Despite the functional utility of the unidimensional composite score, subsequent psychometric investigations have identified distinct, coherent sub-dimensions:

• The Two-Factor Refinement: Based on extensive empirical data from large student cohorts (N = 2,861), Rye, Meaney, and Fisher recommended a refined two-factor solution when researchers seek to examine domain-specific variance:
  1. Open Sexual Display and Sexual Variety: Encompassing items related to erotica consumption, group sex, public nudity, unusual sexual practices, and general sexual daydreaming.
  2. Homoeroticism: Comprising items tapping emotional reactions to personal same-sex attraction, homosexual fantasies, or interpersonal proximity to gay individuals.
• Three-Factor Models: Gilbert and Gamache (1984) proposed a three-factor structure capturing (a) explicit erotic media and visual stimulation, (b) personal sexual behaviors and autoeroticism, and (c) same-sex eroticism and non-traditional orientations.
• Four-Factor Cross-Cultural Structures: In an exploratory and confirmatory analysis of Norwegian adolescents, Rise, Traeen, and Kraft (1993) identified four stable factors. Similarly, Sierra, Ortega, and Zubeidat (2006), utilizing a Spanish sample, confirmed a four-factor model consisting of:
  1. Erotophilia: Positive approach items reflecting sexual excitement, fantasy, and autosexual arousal.
  2. Erotophobia: Negative affective items reflecting disgust, nausea, or embarrassment toward sexual stimuli.
  3. Homophobia / Homoerotic Discomfort: Items capturing anxiety or annoyance regarding homosexual tendencies and interactions.
  4. Unconventional Sex: Items assessing attitudes toward group sex, unusual practices, and public exposure.

While CFA fit indices for multidimensional models occasionally yield superior absolute fit metrics (e.g., comparative fit index [CFI] > .90, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] < .06) compared to strict single-factor models, the high inter-factor correlations (frequently r > .50) indicate that a general erotophobia-erotophilia second-order factor underlies these sub-dimensions, supporting the ongoing practical utility of the total score.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Sexual Opinion Scale (SOS; historically known as the Sexual Opinion Survey)
• Original Authors: William A. Fisher, Donn Byrne, Leonard A. White, and Kathryn Kelley (1988); modern revisions and normative syntheses by B. J. Rye, Glenn J. Meaney, and William A. Fisher
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire or computerized self-administered assessment
• Target Population: Adults and older adolescents (a specialized simplified 6-item version exists for young adolescent girls)
• Administration Time: Typically 8 to 10 minutes for the full 21-item scale; under 3 minutes for the 5-item short form
• Item Count: 21 items in the standard comprehensive scale; 5 items in the short form; 6 items in the adolescent adaptation
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert-type scale anchored from 1 (I strongly agree) to 7 (I strongly disagree) in the standard layout, or 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree) in standard scoring descriptions
• Scoring Methodology:
  • Classical Fisher (1998) Scoring Formula:
    
    1. Score responses from 1 = Strongly Agree to 7 = Strongly Disagree (or reverse-anchor accordingly).
    
    2. Compute the sum of the positively valenced items: Items 2, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, and 20.
    
    3. Compute the sum of the negatively valenced items: Items 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, and 21.
    
    4. Subtract the sum of the negatively valenced items from the sum of the positively valenced items.
    
    5. Add a constant of 67:
    
    Total Score = (Sum of Items 2, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20) - (Sum of Items 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 21) + 67
    
    This mathematical transformation yields a final score ranging from 0 (extreme erotophobia) to 126 (extreme erotophilia).
  • Linear Summation / Averaging Method: Alternatively, researchers reverse-code all negatively worded (erotophobic) items so that higher numerical values consistently denote positive affect/erotophilia. Items are then either summed (yielding a range of 21 to 147) or averaged across all completed items (yielding a scale range of 1.00 to 7.00). Averaging preserves the intuitive item metric and minimizes bias introduced by isolated missing responses.
  • Missing Data Rule: Missing values can be imputed using the respondent’s mean for the respective positive or negative sub-item set, provided the participant completed at least 50% of the relevant scale items.
• Short Form Administration: Comprises five primary predictive items administered in the sequence: Item 12, Item 4, Item 13, Item 17, and Item 21. Items 1 and 3 of the short form are reverse-coded and summed, yielding a range from 5 to 35.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Year of Initial Publication: The parent Sexual Opinion Survey was originally developed and disseminated in empirical literature during the late 1970s and early 1980s, culminating in the seminal psychometric publication by Fisher, Byrne, White, and Kelley in 1988. Terminology updates and standardized scoring procedures were codified by William A. Fisher in 1998 in the Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures.
• Permissions and Accessibility: The Sexual Opinion Scale is considered an open-access, non-commercial psychological assessment available for academic, scientific, and educational research purposes. The scale items and scoring guidelines are published in scholarly reference texts and peer-reviewed journals for research use.
• Commercial Licensing and Fees: There is no mandatory royalty or per-use fee required for non-profit academic research. Commercial entities or organizations seeking to deploy the scale within proprietary digital health applications or revenue-generating diagnostic platforms should contact the corresponding author, Dr. B. J. Rye (Department of Psychology, St. Jerome’s University at the University of Waterloo; E-mail: [email protected]), or Dr. William A. Fisher (University of Western Ontario) to request formal written authorization.

References

The following peer-reviewed articles, books, and reference sources represent foundational and contemporary psychometric scholarship on the Sexual Opinion Scale:

• Barak, A., Fisher, W. A., Belfry, S., & LaShambe, D. R. (1999). Sex, guys, and cyberspace: Effects of Internet pornography and individual differences on men’s attitudes toward women. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 11(1), 63–91. https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v11n01_04
• Beatson, R. M., & Halloran, M. J. (2007). Humans rule! The effects of creatureliness reminders, mortality salience and self-esteem on attitudes towards animals. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46(3), 619–632. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466606X149022
• Birnbaum, G. E., & Gillath, O. (2006). Measuring subgoals of the sexual behavioral system: What is sex good for? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23(5), 675–701. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407506068257
• Bogaert, A. F. (2001). Personality, individual differences, and preferences for the sexual media. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30(1), 29–53. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026404719604
• Bogaert, A. F., & Sadava, S. (2002). Adult attachment and sexual behavior. Personal Relationships, 9(2), 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00012
• Bradshaw, Z., & Slade, P. (2005). The relationships between induced abortion, attitudes towards sexuality and sexual problems. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 20(4), 391–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681990500238800
• Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. Academic Press.
• Cyranowski, J. M., & Andersen, B. L. (1998). Schemas, sexuality, and romantic attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1364–1379. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1364
• Dodge, B., Sandfort, T. G. M., Yarber, W. L., & de Wit, J. (2005). Sexual health among male college students in the United States and the Netherlands. American Journal of Health Behavior, 29(2), 172–182. https://doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.29.2.8
• Durant, L. E., Carey, M. P., & Schroder, K. E. E. (2002). Effects of anonymity, gender, and erotophilia on the quality of data obtained from self-reports of socially sensitive behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 25(5), 439–467. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020419023157
• Fisher, W. A. (1998). The Sexual Opinion Survey. In C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, R. Bauserman, G. Schreer, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 218–221). Sage Publications.
• Fisher, W. A., Byrne, D., White, L. A., & Kelley, K. (1988). Erotophobia-erotophilia as a dimension of personality. The Journal of Sex Research, 25(1), 123–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498809551448
• Forbes, G. B., Adams-Curtis, L. E., Hamm, N. R., & White, K. B. (2003). Perceptions of the woman who breastfeeds: The role of erotophobia, sexism, and attitudinal variables. Sex Roles, 49(7), 379–388. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025176121927
• Garcia, L. T. (1999). The certainty of the sexual self-concept. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 8(4), 263–270.
• Garland, J. T., Morgan, R. D., & Beer, A. M. (2005). Impact of time in prison and security level on inmates’ sexual attitude, behavior, and identity. Psychological Services, 2(2), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/1541-1559.2.2.151
• Geer, J. H., & Robertson, G. G. (2005). Implicit attitudes in sexuality: Gender differences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34(6), 671–677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-005-7928-0
• Gilbert, F. S., & Gamache, M. P. (1984). The Sexual Opinion Survey: Structure and use. The Journal of Sex Research, 20(3), 293–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498409551227
• Gould, S. J. (1995). Sexualized aspects of consumer behavior: An empirical investigation of consumer lovemaps. Psychology and Marketing, 12(5), 395–413. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.4220120504
• Graham, C. A., Sanders, S. A., & Milhausen, R. R. (2006). The Sexual Excitation/Sexual Inhibition Inventory for Women: Psychometric properties. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35(4), 397–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-9041-7
• Hogben, M., Byrne, D., Hamburger, M. E., & Osland, J. (2001). Legitimized aggression and sexual coercion: Individual differences in cultural spillover. Aggressive Behavior, 27(1), 26–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2337(200101/02)27:1<26::AID-AB3>3.0.CO;2-H
• Janssen, E., Vorst, H., Finn, P., & Bancroft, J. (2002a). The Sexual Inhibition (SIS) and Sexual Excitation (SES) Scales: I. Measuring sexual inhibition and excitation proneness in men. Journal of Sex Research, 39(2), 114–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490209552130
• Janssen, E., Vorst, H., Finn, P., & Bancroft, J. (2002b). The Sexual Inhibition (SIS) and Sexual Excitation (SES) Scales: II. Predicting psychophysiological response patterns. The Journal of Sex Research, 39(2), 127–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490209552131
• Lawyer, S. R. (2008). Probability and delay discounting of erotic stimuli. Behavioural Processes, 79(1), 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2008.04.004
• Mahaffey, A. L., Bryan, A., & Hutchison, K. E. (2005). Using startle eye blink to measure the affective component of antigay bias. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27(1), 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp2701_4
• Nobre, P. J., Wiegel, M., Bach, A. K., Weisberg, R. B., Brown, T. A., & Wincze, J. P. (2004). Determinants of sexual arousal and the accuracy of its self-estimation in sexually functional males. The Journal of Sex Research, 41(4), 363–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490409552243
• Rise, J., Traeen, B., & Kraft, P. (1993). The Sexual Opinion Survey Scale: A study on dimensionality in Norwegian adolescents. Health Education Research, 8(4), 485–492. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/8.4.485
• Rye, B. J., & Meaney, G. J. (2009). Impact of a homonegativity awareness workshop on attitudes toward homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 56(1), 31–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918360802551464
• Rye, B. J., Yessis, J., Brunk, T., McKay, A., Morris, S., & Meaney, G. J. (2008). Outcome evaluation of Girl Time: Grade 7/8 Healthy Sexuality Program. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 17(1–2), 15–36.
• Sanders, S. A., Graham, C. A., Yarber, W. L., Crosby, R. A., Dodge, B., & Milhausen, R. R. (2006). Women who put condoms on male partners: Correlates of condom application. American Journal of Health Behavior, 30(5), 460–466. https://doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.30.5.3
• Schmitt, D. P., Shackelford, T. K., Duntley, J., Tooke, W., & Buss, D. M. (2001). The desire for sexual variety as a key to understanding basic human mating strategies. Personal Relationships, 8(4), 425–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2001.tb00049.x
• Semph, M. E. (1979). Emotional orientation towards sexuality: Its relation to expecting and perceiving contraceptive side effects (Unpublished honors thesis). Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
• Shim, J. W., Lee, S., & Paul, B. (2007). Who responds to unsolicited sexually explicit materials on the Internet? The role of individual differences. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(1), 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2006.9989
• Sierra, J. C., Ortega, V., & Zubeidat, I. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis of a Spanish version of the sex fantasy questionnaire: Assessing gender differences. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 32(2), 137–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/00926230500442375
• Smith, G. E., & Nave, C. S. (2007). Illness transmission mode and perceiver personality: Factors affecting stigmatized perceptions of patients and sexual illness. Social Behavior and Personality, 35(6), 853–860. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2007.35.6.853
• Wilkinson, A. V., Holahan, C. J., & Drane-Edmundson, E. W. (2002). Predicting safer sex practices: The interactive role of partner cooperation and cognitive factors. Psychology & Health, 17(6), 697–709. https://doi.org/10.1080/0887044021000030585
• Wilson, B. A., Holm, J. E., Bishop, K. L., & Borowiak, D. M. (2002). Predicting responses to sexually aggressive stories: The role of consent, interest in sexual aggression, and overall sexual interest. The Journal of Sex Research, 39(4), 275–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490209552151
• Zamboni, B. D., & Crawford, I. (2002). Using masturbation in sex therapy: Relationships between masturbation, sexual desire, and sexual fantasy. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 14(2–3), 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v14n02_08

Items of the Scale