The Sexual Relationship Scale (SRS)

1. Abstract

The Sexual Relationship Scale (SRS) is a psychometric instrument designed to assess individual differences in motivational and relational orientations toward sexual interactions within romantic and intimate partnerships. Developed by William E. Snell, Jr. and Terri G. Hughes (1990; Hughes & Snell, 2001), the SRS translates interpersonal relationship theory—specifically the distinction between communal and exchange orientations originally conceptualized by Margaret S. Clark and Judson Mills—into the domain of human sexuality. The instrument consists of 24 self-report items evaluated on a 5-point Likert-type response scale ranging from A (“Not at all characteristic of me”) to E (“Very characteristic of me”). While the 24-item inventory includes an array of sexual communication and caregiving exploratory items, its primary validated psychometric architecture centers on two focal dimensions: the Communal Approach to Sexual Relations (8 primary scored items) and the Exchange Approach to Sexual Relations (8 primary scored items, including 4 reverse-coded items).

Psychometric evaluations demonstrate robust internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically ranging from .78 to .86 for the Communal subscale and .71 to .81 for the Exchange subscale across diverse collegiate and community adult cohorts. Factor analytic investigations, both exploratory and confirmatory, substantiate a stable two-dimensional construct representing distinct interpersonal orientations rather than opposite ends of a single continuum. The Communal Approach assesses the expectation of mutual responsiveness to sexual needs and a non-contingent willingness to provide sensual pleasure without immediate ledger-keeping. Conversely, the Exchange Approach measures the expectation of immediate reciprocity, transactional equity, and contingent sexual benefits. The SRS exhibits established construct, convergent, and discriminant validity, demonstrating systematic correlations with sexual satisfaction, relationship commitment, sexual assertiveness, adult attachment styles, and psychological well-being. Consequently, the instrument serves as an indispensable tool in clinical sex therapy, couple counseling, and empirical research examining dyadic sexual adjustment.

2. Keywords

Sexual Relationship Scale, SRS, communal sexual orientation, exchange sexual orientation, sexual reciprocity, relationship satisfaction, dyadic interaction, human sexuality, psychometrics, William E. Snell Jr.

3. Authors

The Sexual Relationship Scale was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically validated by:

• William E. Snell, Jr., Ph.D.: Emeritus Professor of Psychology at Southeast Missouri State University, Cape Girardeau, Missouri, United States. Dr. Snell is widely recognized for his prolific contributions to personality assessment, relational communication, gender roles, and the development of specialized psychometric instruments in human sexuality, including the Sexual Awareness Questionnaire, the Multidimensional Sexual Self-Concept Questionnaire, and the Sexual Guilt Scale.
• Terri G. Hughes, M.A. / Ph.D.: Department of Psychology, Southeast Missouri State University, collaborator on foundational investigations into communal and exchange paradigms applied to intimate dyadic functioning and sexual behavior.

Institutional Contact and Archival Repository: Department of Psychology, Southeast Missouri State University, One University Plaza, Cape Girardeau, MO 63701, USA. Digital resources and author scale collections have historically been curated via Southeast Missouri State University educational domains.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Sexual Relationship Scale (SRS) is to quantify the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral rules that individuals apply to sexual reciprocity within intimate dyadic interactions. In broader interpersonal psychology, social relationships are routinely governed by implicit cognitive schemas dictating how benefits, emotional support, and behavioral resources are distributed and repaid. Prior to the development of the SRS, researchers possessed established measures to quantify communal and exchange orientations in general social relationships (Clark & Mills, 1979; Clark et al., 1987), but lacked a targeted, domain-specific instrument capable of evaluating these dynamic processes within erotic and sensual encounters.

Sexual interactions represent uniquely vulnerable, embodied exchanges where issues of mutual gratification, obligation, entitlement, and reciprocity manifest with heightened emotional stakes. The SRS was constructed to address this empirical gap by providing a reliable self-report measurement tool capable of answering fundamental clinical and research questions:

• Research Applications: In social, clinical, and evolutionary psychology, the SRS enables investigators to analyze how individual differences in relational schemas influence sexual communication patterns, sexual satisfaction, sexual distress, and vulnerability to sexual dysfunction. Researchers utilize the scale to evaluate longitudinal trajectories of marital satisfaction, the buffering effects of sexual communal strength against sexual desire discrepancies, and the destructive correlates of transactional scorekeeping in romantic relationships.
• Clinical and Sex Therapy Applications: In couple and family therapy, sex therapists utilize the SRS as a diagnostic and psychoeducational assessment. Discrepancies between partners regarding exchange versus communal orientations often underlie chronic sexual conflict. For example, when one partner operates under an exchange framework (“I gave you sensual pleasure yesterday, so you owe me tonight”) and the other operates under a communal framework (“Sex should flow spontaneously from mutual care without scorekeeping”), profound feelings of resentment, exploitation, or emotional alienation routinely emerge. Administering the SRS allows clinicians to map dyadic incongruence, challenge maladaptive transactional cognitive distortions, and foster responsive sexual caregiving.
• Theoretical Rationale: The theoretical rationale rests on the recognition that sexual behavior cannot be fully understood through physiological or hedonic lenses alone; it is intrinsically an interpersonal process regulated by relational standards. By operationalizing communal responsiveness and transactional exchange tendencies in the sexual realm, the SRS provides an empirically rigorous foundation for testing modern dyadic models of intimacy, adult attachment, and relational well-being.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct evaluated by the Sexual Relationship Scale centers on the cognitive-motivational orientations individuals hold regarding the provision and receipt of sexual benefits. Rather than viewing sexual desire as an isolated intrapsychic drive, the SRS conceptualizes sexual functioning as embedded in interpersonal schemas. Specifically, the instrument isolates two primary behavioral paradigms, complemented by evaluative items addressing sexual helpfulness, avoidance, and distress:

Communal Approach to Sexual Relations

The Communal Approach reflects an orientation wherein an individual feels a generalized responsibility for meeting a partner’s sexual desires and anticipates that the partner will likewise be responsive to their sexual needs. Key facets of this construct include:

• Non-contingent Responsiveness: Benefits are bestowed out of genuine concern for the partner’s sensual well-being, pleasure, and emotional comfort, without an expectation of an immediate or equivalent behavioral payback. For instance, Item 15 (“I would be willing to go out of my way to satisfy my sexual partner”) and Item 9 (“I believe sexual lovers should go out of their way to be sexually responsive to their partner”) capture this prosocial, non-calculating dedication to the partner’s erotic fulfillment.
• Vulnerability and Expression of Need: Communal sexual partners feel safe articulating their sexual desires and emotional vulnerabilities, expecting support rather than rejection or conditional bargaining (e.g., Item 21: “If I were feeling sexually needy, I’d ask my sexual partner for help”).
• Empathic Hurt upon Neglect: Because the communal bond is rooted in mutual care, the perceived failure of a partner to attend to one’s sexual and emotional needs elicits profound relational hurt rather than mere transactional grievance (e.g., Item 1: “It would bother me if my sexual partner neglected my needs”; Item 24: “If a sexual partner were to ignore my sexual needs, I’d feel hurt”).

Exchange Approach to Sexual Relations

The Exchange Approach reflects an orientation grounded in strict equity, reciprocity, ledger-keeping, and transactional contingency within the sexual domain. Its operational facets comprise:

• Contingent Giving: Sexual behaviors, sensual favors, and intimacy are viewed as commodities to be traded. The individual provides sexual pleasure only if a reciprocal benefit is anticipated or has already been delivered (e.g., Item 16: “I would do a special sexual favor for an intimate partner, only if that person did some special sexual favor for me”; Item 20: “If my sexual partner wanted something special from me, s/he would have to do something sexual for me”).
• Immediate Reciprocity and Obligation: Receipt of a sexual favor generates immediate psychological debt that must be promptly settled to maintain balance (e.g., Item 12: “When a person receives sexual pleasures from another, s/he ought to repay that person right away”; Item 2: “When I make love with someone I generally expect something in return”).
• Cognitive Ledger-Keeping: Individuals high in exchange orientation actively monitor and tally sexual events to ensure strict bilateral parity (e.g., Item 14: “It’s best to make sure things are always kept ‘even’ between two people in a sexual relationship”). Reverse-scored items assess the rejection of this scorekeeping mechanism (e.g., Item 6: “I don’t think people should feel obligated to repay an intimate partner for sexual favors” [R]; Item 10: “I wouldn’t bother to keep track of the times a sexual partner asked for a sensual pleasure” [R]).

Auxiliary Exploratory Facets

The full 24-item SRS inventory also incorporates exploratory items assessing negative or avoidant sexual caregiving tendencies (e.g., Item 5: low sensitivity to partner feelings; Item 11: lack of enjoyment in partner’s satisfaction; Item 17: avoidance of taking care of partner needs; Item 19: unwillingness to help with sexual difficulties; Item 22: emotional avoidance during partner distress; Item 23: privatizing sexual problems). In standard research protocols, investigators primarily focus on the established Communal and Exchange subscales, while utilizing the exploratory items for granular assessments of sexual detachment, uncommunal styles, and avoidant relational dynamics.

6. Theoretical Framework

The Sexual Relationship Scale is firmly anchored in social psychological theories of relational interaction, notably the Communal and Exchange Relationship Theory formulated by Margaret S. Clark and Judson Mills (1979, 1993, 2012), integrated with broader tenets of Social Exchange Theory (Homans, 1958; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) and contemporary dyadic models of human sexuality.

The Clark and Mills Interpersonal Paradigm

Clark and Mills (1979) established a fundamental distinction between two contrasting rules for giving and receiving benefits in human relationships:

• Exchange Relationships: Governed by the economic rule of equity and comparable return. Benefits are provided with the implicit or explicit expectation of receiving a specific benefit in return, or as payment for a benefit received in the past. Scorekeeping is normative, and unpaid social obligations produce discomfort or feelings of exploitation. Typical examples include interactions between business associates, acquaintances, or casual collaborators.
• Communal Relationships: Governed by responsiveness to mutual needs. Members have a generalized obligation to be attentive to the other’s welfare. Benefits are given freely in response to the other’s desires or need, without referencing past favors or calculating future repayments. Ledger-keeping is viewed as antithetical to the bond, and demanding immediate compensation can actively damage intimacy. Typical examples include family members, close friends, and romantic partners.

Translating the Paradigm to the Sexual Realm

Hughes and Snell (1990; 2001) recognized that while romantic partnerships are fundamentally communal in nature, individuals differ widely in the extent to which they import exchange vs. communal norms into their sexual interactions. Sexual interactions represent a complex intersection of bodily pleasure, emotional intimacy, and vulnerability. When an individual adopts an exchange schema in bed, sexual acts become currency. This transactional dynamic frequently leads to anxiety, hypervigilance regarding equity, and relational friction whenever physical desire levels diverge.

Conversely, adopting a communal schema aligns sexual behavior with authentic caregiving. Communally oriented partners derive intrinsic satisfaction from fulfilling their partner’s desires (altruistic or communal pleasure) and feel secure in communicating their own preferences. Modern empirical expansions (e.g., Muise, Impett, & Desmarais, 2013) have built upon Snell and Hughes’s framework by developing constructs such as “sexual communal strength,” confirming that non-contingent responsiveness fosters sustained sexual desire and buffers couples against long-term declines in relationship satisfaction.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the Sexual Relationship Scale has been rigorously evaluated across undergraduate samples, married cohorts, and clinical populations, establishing comprehensive support across standard validity domains:

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity is substantiated by the scale’s ability to clearly differentiate communal responsiveness from transactional ledger-keeping. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses demonstrate that the Communal and Exchange subscales emerge as distinct, orthogono-oblique factors rather than a single bipolar dimension. This indicates that an individual can theoretically exhibit varying combinations of both tendencies, although romantic longevity and emotional health are strongly associated with higher communal and lower exchange scores.

Convergent Validity

The SRS exhibits significant convergent correlations with related psychometric inventories:

• General Communal and Exchange Scales: The SRS Communal subscale correlates positively with Clark, Ouellette, Powell, and Milberg’s (1987) Communal Orientation Scale ($r \approx .35$ to $.48, p < .001$), while the SRS Exchange subscale correlates robustly with the Exchange Orientation Scale ($r \approx .40$ to $.55, p < .001$), confirming domain-specific manifestations of broad personality orientations.
• Sexual Self-Concept and Communication: Communal sexual scores correlate positively with Snell’s Multidimensional Sexual Self-Concept Questionnaire subscales, particularly sexual esteem, sexual optimism, and sexual assertiveness ($r$ values ranging from $.30$ to $.52$). Conversely, exchange sexual scores correlate positively with sexual anxiety, sexual depression, and external sexual locus of control.
• Attachment Orientations: High exchange scores converge significantly with anxious and avoidant adult attachment styles on the Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR) inventory, reflecting underlying fears of exploitation or emotional vulnerability. High communal scores align positively with secure attachment.

Discriminant and Predictive Validity

Discriminant validity is supported by minimal or non-significant correlations with unrelated constructs such as general intellectual aptitude, social desirability bias (when evaluated using the Marlowe-Crowne Personal Reaction Inventory), and broad demographic variables. In predictive studies, the SRS Communal subscale systematically predicts higher relationship satisfaction ($r \approx .42, p < .001$), greater sexual satisfaction, and enhanced dyadic intimacy across married couples (Hughes & Snell, 2001). In contrast, high scores on the Exchange subscale reliably predict sexual dissatisfaction, elevated relational conflict, and feelings of being sexually exploited or burdened by partner intimacy.

8. Reliability

The reliability of the Sexual Relationship Scale has been confirmed through repeated evaluations of internal consistency and temporal stability:

Internal Consistency

Internal consistency analyses conducted across diverse adult samples confirm that the two primary subscales possess satisfactory to high reliability:

• Communal Approach to Sexual Relations (8 items): Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) coefficients routinely range from .78 to .86. Corrected item-total correlations for communal items typically exceed .45, demonstrating strong cohesion around the mutual responsiveness construct.
• Exchange Approach to Sexual Relations (8 items): Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) coefficients routinely range from .71 to .81. The four reverse-coded items (Items 6, 8, 10, 18) function effectively in reducing acquiescence bias while maintaining acceptable item-total correlations ($ge .38$).
• Total 24-Item Inventory: While the complete 24-item battery exhibits overall internal consistency exceeding .80, psychometricians recommend scoring and analyzing the Communal and Exchange dimensions as distinct subscales rather than computing a single composite sum score.

Test-Retest Stability

Investigations evaluating the temporal stability of the SRS over a 4-to-6-week test-retest interval among non-clinical adult samples demonstrate stability coefficients of:

• $r_{tt} = .76$ to $.82$ for the Communal Approach subscale,
• $r_{tt} = .69$ to $.77$ for the Exchange Approach subscale.

These findings substantiate that sexual communal and exchange orientations operate as relatively enduring interpersonal traits while retaining sufficient sensitivity to reflect significant dyadic therapeutic interventions.

9. Factor Analysis

The underlying dimensionality of the Sexual Relationship Scale has been scrutinized using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA):

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During initial scale development (Snell & Hughes, 1990; Hughes & Snell, 2001), principal axis factoring and principal components analysis with varimax and promax (oblique) rotations were conducted on the pool of sexual reciprocity statements. The scree test and Kaiser-Guttman criterion (eigenvalues > 1.0) consistently isolated two primary factors accounting for substantial cumulative variance:

• Factor 1: Communal Sexual Orientation: Characterized by strong positive loadings (ranging from .51 to .78) on Items 1, 3, 4, 9, 13, 15, 21, and 24. These items emphasize relational empathy, responsive caregiving, willingness to satisfy the partner, and comfort expressing sexual vulnerability.
• Factor 2: Exchange Sexual Orientation: Characterized by substantial positive loadings (ranging from .44 to .73) on direct transactional items (Items 2, 12, 14, 16, 20) and negative loadings on the reverse-scored items (Items 6, 8, 10, 18). These items represent the necessity of immediate payback, scorekeeping, and contingent sensual service.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent structural equation modeling and CFA evaluations comparing a unidimensional model (single continuum) against a two-factor correlated model have demonstrated superior fit for the two-factor specification. Representative goodness-of-fit indices across empirical samples include:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): $ge .92$
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): $ge .90$
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): $le .058$ ($90%\text{ CI } [.048, .068]$)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): $le .061$

These indices confirm that the two-factor model provides an adequate to strong fit to the data, supporting the conceptual independence of communal responsiveness and exchange orientations within human sexual interactions.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational characteristics, administration parameters, and scoring protocols for the Sexual Relationship Scale (SRS) are structured as follows:

• Test Type: Self-report psychological questionnaire / dyadic sexual assessment.
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (aged 18 and older) who are currently or have previously been involved in intimate, romantic, or sexual relationships.
• Item Count: 24 total items (with 16 primary items forming the core two subscales, and 8 exploratory/supplementary items).
• Response Format: 5-point Likert-type scale designated alphabetically and numerically:
  • A = Not at all characteristic of me (assigned 0 or 1 depending on scoring convention; standard research uses 0 to 4, or 1 to 5).
  • B = Slightly characteristic of me
  • C = Somewhat characteristic of me
  • D = Moderately characteristic of me
  • E = Very characteristic of me
• Subscale Composition & Scoring Protocol (using standard 1–5 coding where $A=1, B=2, C=3, D=4, E=5$):
  • Exchange Approach to Sexual Relations: Comprises 8 items: 2, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18.
    • Reverse-Scored Items: Items 6, 8, 10, and 18 must be reverse-coded prior to subscale computation (i.e., for a 1–5 scale: $1 to 5, 2 to 4, 3 to 3, 4 to 2, 5 to 1$; for a 0–4 scale: $0 to 4, 1 to 3, 2 to 2, 3 to 1, 4 to 0$).
    • Score Interpretation: Sum or mean across the 8 items. Higher scores reflect a strong transactional, scorekeeping approach to sex.
  • Communal Approach to Sexual Relations: Comprises 8 items: 1, 3, 4, 9, 13, 15, 21, and 24.
    • Reverse-Scored Items: None. All items are scored in the direct positive direction.
    • Score Interpretation: Sum or mean across the 8 items. Higher scores denote high sexual empathy, responsiveness, and non-contingent sensual caregiving.
  • Unassigned / Exploratory Items: Items 5, 7, 11, 17, 19, 20, 22, and 23 evaluate unhelpful, avoidant, or detached sexual behaviors. They may be analyzed as individual exploratory indicators of avoidant sexual caregiving or used in specialized extended psychometric profiling.
• Administration Time: Approximately 5 to 10 minutes.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Sexual Relationship Scale was originally developed and introduced in 1990 by Terri Hughes and William E. Snell, Jr. (formalized in Annals of Sex Research, 1990, and expanded in Snell, 1998, 2001; Hughes & Snell, 2001). The instrument was placed into the academic domain to facilitate non-commercial scientific research, clinical training, and educational applications.

• Permissions: Researchers and licensed clinicians are permitted to utilize the SRS for empirical research and clinical practice without royalty payments or formal licensing fees, provided proper bibliographic attribution is granted to Dr. William E. Snell, Jr. and co-authors.
• Commercial Use: Any commercial redistribution, integration into fee-based software platforms, or publication within commercial testing packages requires explicit written authorization from the copyright holder(s) or corresponding academic publishers.
• Archival Sources: The scale, scoring rubrics, and psychometric documentation are archived in the Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures (Davis, Yarber, Bauserman, Schreer, & Davis, Eds.) and via academic faculty archives formerly hosted by Southeast Missouri State University.

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

Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (2012). A theory of communal (and exchange) relationships. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 232–250). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n38

Clark, M. S., Ouellette, R., Powell, M. C., & Milberg, S. (1987). Recipient’s mood, relationship type, and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1), 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.1.94

Clark, M. S., Taraban, C., Ho, J., & Wesner, K. (1989). A measure of exchange orientation (Unpublished manuscript). Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.

Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63(6), 597–606. https://doi.org/10.1086/222355

Hughes, T., & Snell, W. E., Jr. (1990). Communal and exchange approaches to sexual relations. Annals of Sex Research, 3(2), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/107906329000300203

Hughes, T. G., & Snell, W. E., Jr. (2001). Communal and exchange approaches to sexual relations. In W. E. Snell, Jr. (Ed.), New directions in the psychology of human sexuality: Research and theory (Chapter 5). Snell Publications. http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/snell/books/sexuality/sexuality.htm

Muise, A., Impett, E. A., & Desmarais, S. (2013). Getting it on versus getting it over with: Sexual motivation, desire, and satisfaction in intimate bonds. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(10), 1320–1332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213490963

Snell, W. E., Jr. (1998). The Sexual Relationship Scale. In C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, R. Bauserman, G. Schreer, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 256–258). SAGE Publications.

Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. John Wiley & Sons.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)