Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI)

Abstract

The Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI), originally conceptualized by Jeffry A. Simpson and Steven W. Gangestad (1991) and subsequently revised by Lars Penke and Jens B. Asendorpf (2008) as the Revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI-R), is the predominant psychometric instrument used to quantify individual differences in human mating strategy. Rooted in evolutionary psychology, human behavioral ecology, and differential parental investment theory, the construct of sociosexuality reflects an individual’s willingness to engage in uncommitted, casual sexual relationships devoid of emotional closeness or long-term commitment. Individuals characterized by an unrestricted sociosexual orientation are predisposed toward short-term mating, non-exclusive sexual interactions, and permissive sexual attitudes, whereas individuals possessing a restricted sociosexual orientation mandate emotional intimacy, mutual commitment, and extensive courtship prior to sexual intercourse.

While the original 1991 instrument compiled behavioral counts, hypothetical projections, fantasy frequencies, and attitudinal evaluations into a single composite index, psychometric advancements revealed conceptual and structural limitations, particularly related to the disproportionate weighting of extreme sexual behaviors and the conflation of behavioral opportunity with psychological inclination. The nine-item SOI-R resolved these limitations through a robust, correlated three-factor structural model comprising three psychometrically distinct dimensions: Sociosexual Behavior, Sociosexual Attitude, and Sociosexual Desire. Each facet is measured on a standardized 9-point metric, yielding exceptional structural validity, high internal consistency across diverse populations (Cronbach’s $\alpha$ routinely spanning $.82$ to $.91$), metric and scalar measurement invariance across genders and relational statuses, and profound predictive validity across laboratory, speed-dating, longitudinal, and cross-cultural investigations spanning over 48 nations. This article provides a comprehensive academic review of the inventory’s theoretical foundations, structural evolution, psychometric properties, and administrative applications.

Keywords

Sociosexual Orientation Inventory, SOI, SOI-R, sociosexuality, human mating strategies, evolutionary psychology, sexual attitudes, sexual desire, short-term mating, psychometrics, differential parental investment, factor analysis.

Authors

The theoretical architecture and psychometric operationalization of sociosexuality have been spearheaded by two primary research teams over nearly two decades of psychological inquiry:

• Jeffry A. Simpson, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN, USA. A preeminent scholar in social psychology, adult attachment, interpersonal relationships, and evolutionary mating processes.
• Steven W. Gangestad, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA. Renowned evolutionary psychologist specializing in sexual selection, fluctuating asymmetry, strategic pluralism, and behavioral genetics.
• Lars Penke, Ph.D. — Georg-August-University Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany (formerly of the University of Edinburgh, UK). Principal developer of the revised SOI-R, whose empirical research focuses on personality psychology, biological foundations of individual differences, and quantitative psychometrics. (Contact: [email protected]).
• Jens B. Asendorpf, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, Humboldt University Berlin, Berlin, Germany. Authority on personality architecture, developmental psychology, and longitudinal behavioral dynamics.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory is to operationalize and measure individual variations along the spectrum of human mating strategies. Drawing heavily from evolutionary biology, researchers recognized that human reproductive physiology and cross-cultural behaviors do not conform exclusively to obligate monogamy or uninhibited promiscuity; instead, humans display strategic pluralism, shifting between long-term committed pair-bonding and short-term opportunistic mating. The SOI was constructed to quantify where an individual lies along this strategic continuum, moving the study of sexual behavior beyond descriptive epidemiology into hypothetico-deductive psychological science.

In contemporary clinical, counseling, and empirical research, the SOI serves several interrelated functions:

• Empirical Research in Evolutionary and Social Psychology: The instrument allows investigators to test hypotheses concerning sexual dimorphism, mate selection preferences, jealousy mechanisms, partner-seeking behaviors, and intrasexual competition. Unrestricted individuals systematically prioritize physical attractiveness and short-term sexual access, whereas restricted individuals prioritize cues signaling parental investment, resource commitment, and emotional loyalty.
• Delineation of Psychological Dispositions from Behavioral Constraints: The tripartite model implemented in the SOI-R allows researchers to tease apart an individual’s ideological acceptance of casual sex (attitude) and physiological/libidinal appetite for casual partners (desire) from their historical realization of sexual encounters (behavior). This distinction is critical when evaluating populations facing social, cultural, or physical constraints on their actual sexual behavior, such as individuals in deeply conservative societies, involuntary celibates, or individuals in mutually committed monogamous relationships.
• Relational Dynamics and Clinical Assessment: In marital therapy, couples counseling, and sexology clinics, measuring sociosexual orientation provides predictive insight into infidelity risks, relationship dissolution trajectories, pornography consumption patterns, sexual boundary negotiation, and conflicting sexual expectations between partners.
• Behavioral Medicine and Public Health: The SOI is frequently deployed in epidemiologic studies to evaluate propensities toward high-risk sexual practices, inconsistent barrier contraceptive usage, rates of sexually transmitted infection (STI) transmission, and sexual decision-making under the influence of cognitive or pharmacological disinhibition.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct of sociosexuality represents a domain-specific personality continuum governing sexual motivation, ethical boundaries, and courtship behavior. It is neither synonymous with general libido nor equivalent to an indiscriminate psychiatric impulse disorder (such as hypersexuality or erotomania). Rather, sociosexuality describes the degree to which an individual requires emotional commitment, psychological intimacy, and interpersonal attachment before participating in sexual intercourse.

The Unrestricted vs. Restricted Spectrum

Sociosexuality is continuous rather than categorical. At the restricted pole, individuals possess strict emotional thresholds for sexual engagement. For restricted individuals, sexual intimacy is inextricably intertwined with emotional safety, love, prospective long-term investment, and reciprocal commitment. They rarely experience or act upon casual sexual urges toward strangers, express strong cognitive disapproval of loveless sex, and report lifetime partner totals that reflect exclusively long-term romantic relationships.

Conversely, at the unrestricted pole, individuals demonstrate low thresholds for sexual intimacy. For these individuals, sexual gratification does not require pre-existing emotional bonds, psychological attachment, or future relational trajectory. They report high tolerance for casual encounters, one-night stands, and concurrent non-monogamous interactions. Furthermore, they report frequent sexual daydreams, spontaneous fantasies about unfamiliar individuals, and visceral sexual arousal elicited by novel mating prospects.

The Tripartite Architecture of the Construct

Penke and Asendorpf’s (2008) psychometric re-evaluation firmly demonstrated that sociosexuality cannot be viewed as a monolith. Instead, it operates across three correlated, yet distinct, sub-constructs:

• Sociosexual Behavior (Past Behavioral Realization): This dimension quantifies an individual’s actual historical involvement in uncommitted sexual encounters. It includes behavioral frequencies such as the number of distinct sexual partners within the preceding twelve months, the lifetime count of one-night stands, and the volume of sexual encounters initiated without an interest in long-term commitment. While behavioral markers anchor the construct in observable phenomena, they are inherently contingent on external variables, including physical attractiveness, age, socio-environmental opportunities, mate value, and local operational sex ratios.
• Sociosexual Attitude (Explicit Cognitive/Moral Evaluation): This dimension captures evaluative belief systems regarding the moral, ethical, and affective necessity of emotional connection prior to sex. Items measure explicit endorsement or rejection of propositions such as “Sex without love is OK” and psychological comfort regarding casual sex with multiple partners. Sociosexual attitude is highly influenced by normative sociocultural conditioning, religious dogma, family background, and social learning.
• Sociosexual Desire (Internal Motivational/Appetitive Drive): This dimension taps into endogenously driven, spontaneous sexual ideation directed toward individuals outside of a committed romantic dyad. It measures the frequency of sexual daydreams about uncommitted partners, spontaneous fantasies about newly encountered strangers, and physiological arousal triggered by novel individuals. Unlike explicit behavior (which requires a consenting partner) and explicit attitudes (which are mediated by conscious self-presentation), sociosexual desire reflects underlying neuroendocrine and libidinal appetites that operate with minimal conscious censorship.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical bedrock of the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory lies at the intersection of evolutionary psychology, behavioral ecology, and life history theory. Several core evolutionary frameworks directly inform the structure and predictive validity of the instrument:

1. Parental Investment Theory (Trivers, 1972)

Robert Trivers’ seminal formulation of parental investment theory posits that the sex making the larger mandatory physiological and energetic investment in offspring (in humans, females: gestation, lactation, increased metabolic vulnerability) becomes the limiting reproductive resource, leading that sex to evolve greater selective discrimination (“choosiness”) in mate selection. Conversely, the sex with lower minimum obligatory investment (in humans, males: internal fertilization without mandatory post-copulatory investment) exhibits greater intrasexual competition for mating access and an evolved psychology more receptive to low-investment, short-term mating opportunities.

The SOI systematically captures this evolved sexual dimorphism. Across hundreds of independent empirical investigations worldwide (e.g., Schmitt, 2005), biological males consistently score significantly higher on sociosexual behavior, attitude, and especially desire than biological females ($d$ effect sizes frequently range from $.45$ to $.85$). Nevertheless, significant within-sex variance persists in both sexes, driven by individual differences in conditional mating strategies.

2. Sexual Strategies Theory and Strategic Pluralism

David Buss and David Schmitt’s (1993) Sexual Strategies Theory and Gangestad and Simpson’s (2000) Strategic Pluralism model assert that neither men nor women are locked into an invariant reproductive strategy. Rather, individuals possess an evolved, flexible cognitive architecture programmed to execute context-dependent mating strategies based on trade-offs between genetic benefits (“good genes” or parasite resistance) and environmental or parental investments (“good provider” or paternal care).

Under this theoretical umbrella, sociosexuality represents the dispositional calibration of an individual’s trade-off calculus. For men, pursuing an unrestricted strategy yields high reproductive output if they possess the phenotypic markers of biological fitness (e.g., symmetry, low mutation load, social dominance) that attract short-term mates. For women, unrestricted mating can serve as a strategy to extract indirect genetic benefits for offspring from high-genetic-quality sires while securing social or resource investments from committed long-term mates, or to evaluate prospective long-term mates via brief sexual auditions.

3. Life History Theory

Within human evolutionary ecology, Life History Theory provides a framework for understanding how organisms allocate finite bioenergetic resources among competing life demands: somatic maintenance, growth, and reproduction. Life history strategies fall along a continuum from “slow” to “fast.” A fast life history strategy is characterized by early biological maturation, accelerated reproductive timing, high impulsivity, discount of the future, and an unrestricted sociosexual orientation. In contrast, a slow life history strategy involves delayed reproduction, high parental investment, intensive somatic maintenance, future-oriented planning, and a strictly restricted sociosexual orientation.

Validity

The validity of both the original SOI and the revised SOI-R has been extensively confirmed across multiple psychometric paradigms, showing strong construct, predictive, convergent, and discriminant validity.

Construct and Structural Validity

The construct validity of the SOI-R was comprehensively demonstrated by Penke and Asendorpf (2008) across multiple European samples ($N > 2,500$). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) conclusively established that a correlated three-factor model ($chi^2 / df < 2.5$;$ ext{CFI} > .96$;$ ext{RMSEA} < .05$) provided a substantially superior fit to the empirical data compared to a unidimensional model ($Deltachi^2$ significant at $p < .001$). Multigroup confirmatory factor analyses further confirmed strict metric and scalar measurement invariance across biological sexes, heterosexual versus non-heterosexual orientations, and single versus romantically partnered individuals, ensuring that latent score comparisons across these demographic groups are psychometrically equivalent.

Convergent Validity

Sociosexuality correlates reliably with conceptually related constructs within the broader personality literature:

• The Big Five (Five-Factor Model): Sociosexuality correlates positively with Extraversion ($r pprox .25$ to $.35$, particularly assertiveness and excitement-seeking) and Openness to Experience ($r pprox .15$ to $.25$). Conversely, it shows consistent negative correlations with Agreeableness ($r pprox -.20$ to $-.35$, mediated by low compliance, low straightforwardness, and reduced tender-mindedness) and Conscientiousness ($r pprox -.15$ to $-.25$, reflecting higher behavioral spontaneity and disinhibition).
• The Dark Triad: Unrestricted sociosexuality exhibits substantial positive correlations with the Dark Triad traits: Psychopathy ($r pprox .35$ to $.45$), Narcissism ($r pprox .25$ to $.35$), and Machiavellianism ($r pprox .20$ to $.30$). These correlations reflect shared variance in emotional detachment, superficial charm, exploitative interpersonal orientations, and opportunistic pursuit of short-term rewards.
• Biological and Physiological Indicators: Research confirms that elevated salivary and circulating testosterone concentrations in both males and females are positively associated with high sociosexual desire ($r pprox .20$ to $.30$). Furthermore, unrestricted sociosexuality has been correlated with phenotypic markers of biological fitness, such as physical attractiveness, lower fluctuating asymmetry (developmental stability), and masculine facial morphologies in males.

Discriminant Validity

Critically, sociosexuality is psychometrically distinct from general hypersexuality, pathological compulsivity, general relationship satisfaction, and general self-esteem. Discriminant validity coefficients demonstrate that individuals can possess high relationship satisfaction within a monogamous partnership while maintaining elevated latent sociosexual desire. Furthermore, the SOI-R Attitude subscale dissociates from political or economic conservatism, proving that sociosexual permissiveness is a domain-specific mating construct rather than a mere byproduct of generalized ideological liberalism.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

The behavioral and situational predictive validity of the SOI has been verified through a wide array of experimental, observational, and field designs:

• Real-Life Courtship and Speed-Dating: In speed-dating paradigms (Penke & Asendorpf, 2008), individuals with high unrestricted SOI-R scores (particularly Behavior and Desire) were independently rated by romantic prospects as more flirtatious, sexually appealing, and assertive. Unrestricted individuals generated significantly higher numbers of short-term sexual propositions and exhibited lower selectivity regarding casual encounters.
• Infidelity and Relational Stability: Longitudinal research demonstrates that high pre-marital SOI scores significantly predict subsequent extra-pair copulation (infidelity) within marriage and exclusive dating relationships ($OR pprox 2.1$ to $3.4$), as well as accelerated relationship dissolution rates over three- to five-year follow-up intervals.
• Attentional Bias Paradigms: Eye-tracking and cognitive reaction-time studies show that unrestricted participants show automatic attentional capture and prolonged fixation on attractive alternative mates, demonstrating reduced cognitive derogation of attractive alternatives compared to restricted counterparts.

Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory has been replicated in hundreds of samples across dozens of countries:

Internal Consistency

In the original SOI (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991), internal consistency was moderate to high ($lpha = .73$ to $.83$). However, psychometricians noted that Cronbach’s alpha was artificially inflated or depressed depending on sample composition due to the heterogeneous response metrics, skewed behavioral distributions, and complex weighting algorithms applied to individual items.

The revised SOI-R (Penke & Asendorpf, 2008) demonstrated superior, highly stable internal consistency across all three subscales, with coefficients routinely exceeding accepted psychometric benchmarks:

• Sociosexual Behavior Subscale (Items 1–3): Cronbach’s $lpha$ spans $.85$ to $.89$; McDonald’s $\omega pprox .88$.
• Sociosexual Attitude Subscale (Items 4–6): Cronbach’s $lpha$ spans $.81$ to $.87$; McDonald’s $\omega pprox .85$.
• Sociosexual Desire Subscale (Items 7–9): Cronbach’s $lpha$ spans $.86$ to $.91$; McDonald’s $\omega pprox .90$.
• Global SOI-R Composite Score (Full 9-Item Instrument): Cronbach’s $lpha$ routinely spans $.83$ to $.90$, confirming excellent overall internal consistency.

Temporal Stability (Test-Retest Reliability)

Test-retest stability assessments verify that sociosexuality functions as a stable adult personality trait rather than a transient, state-dependent mood fluctuation:

• Across a two-week to one-month test-retest interval, Penke and Asendorpf (2008) reported stability coefficients of $r = .94$ for Behavior, $r = .88$ for Attitude, and $r = .89$ for Desire.
• Across an extended longitudinal interval of one year, stability coefficients remained remarkably high: $r = .86$ for Behavior, $r = .76$ for Attitude, and $r = .79$ for Desire.
• These coefficients illustrate that while attitudes may undergo subtle recalibration based on significant life transitions (e.g., marriage, parenthood), the underlying latent dispositions remain highly consistent across the lifespan.

Factor Analysis

The structural elucidation of sociosexuality represents one of the most prominent success stories of modern psychometrics in evolutionary psychology. The analytical path from the original unidimensional SOI to the multi-dimensional SOI-R highlights key developments in latent variable modeling.

Limitations of the Original Unidimensional Model

In the original 1991 scale, Simpson and Gangestad employed principal component analysis (PCA) to support a unidimensional construct. However, subsequent methodological critiques demonstrated that this apparent unidimensionality was an artifact of item aggregation and mathematical weighting:

• Behavioral items (e.g., open-ended count of lifetime one-night stands) had unbounded, highly skewed distributions, requiring subjective truncation and arbitrary transformation formulas.
• Items measuring past behavior, hypothetical future partner estimates, and moral attitudes were forced onto a single dimension, obscuring critical discordance (such as an individual with highly permissive attitudes who lacked the physical attractiveness or opportunity to realize casual sexual behavior).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) Findings

When the original item pool was re-evaluated alongside newly formulated candidate items using unweighted least squares and principal axis factoring with oblimin (oblique) rotation, eigenvalues cleanly supported a three-factor solution with an inflection point at the fourth factor on the scree plot. Each factor accounted for substantial unique variance, with no cross-loadings exceeding $.20$.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Model Fit

Penke and Asendorpf (2008) subjected the three-factor model to rigorous CFA verification across diverse samples. The hypothesized tripartite architecture exhibited excellent fit across multiple structural indices:

• Goodness-of-Fit Statistics: $\chi^2 / df = 1.84$; Comparative Fit Index ($ ext{CFI}$) =$.976$; Tucker-Lewis Index ($ ext{TLI}$) =$.965$; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation ($ ext{RMSEA}$) =$.046$ ($90% \text{ CI } [.035, .058]$); Standardized Root Mean Square Residual ($ ext{SRMR}$) =$.038$.
• Standardized Factor Loadings ($lambda$):
  • Factor 1 (Behavior): Item 1 ($lambda = .84$), Item 2 ($lambda = .78$), Item 3 ($lambda = .88$).
  • Factor 2 (Attitude): Item 4 ($lambda = .81$), Item 5 ($lambda = .84$), Item 6 ($lambda = .69$ after reverse-scoring).
  • Factor 3 (Desire): Item 7 ($lambda = .86$), Item 8 ($lambda = .82$), Item 9 ($lambda = .85$).
• Latent Factor Intercorrelations: The three latent factors are moderately intercorrelated, confirming that they reflect distinct aspects of an overarching mating domain without being collinear: $r_{ ext{Behavior-Attitude}} pprox .45$ to $.55$; $r_{ ext{Behavior-Desire}} pprox .35$ to $.45$; $r_{ ext{Attitude-Desire}} pprox .38$ to $.48$.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational administration of the inventory is structured as follows:

• Instrument Type: Self-administered psychometric questionnaire; standardized paper-and-pencil or computerized/web-based assessment.
• Target Respondent Universe: Late adolescents and adults (typically age 18 and older) possessing basic literacy and sexual maturity.
• Total Item Inventory: 9 standardized core items partitioned equally across three distinct psychometric facets (3 items for Behavior, 3 items for Attitude, 3 items for Desire).
• Completion Duration: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes under standard assessment conditions.
• Response Formats:
  • Behavior Items (Items 1–3): 9-point categorical scale corresponding to partner frequencies: $0 = 0$; $1 = 1$; $2 = 2$; $3 = 3$; $4 = 4$; $5 = 5\text{–}6$; $6 = 7\text{–}9$; $7 = 10\text{–}19$; $8 = 20\text{ or more}$. (Scored 1 to 9).
  • Attitude Items (Items 4–6): 9-point Likert scale ranging from $1 = \text{Strongly disagree}$ to $9 = \text{Strongly agree}$.
  • Desire Items (Items 7–9): 9-point frequency scale ranging from $1 = \text{Never}$ to $9 = \text{At least once a day}$.
• Scoring and Computational Rules:
  • Reverse Coding: Item 6 (“I do not want to have sex with a person until I am sure that we will have a long-term, serious relationship” or the parallel reverse-coded attachment item) must be reverse-scored prior to aggregation: $\text{Recoded Score} = 10 – \text{Original Score}$.
  • Subscale Score Generation: Subscale scores are computed by calculating the arithmetic mean (or sum) of the three items within each respective domain:
    • $\text{SOI-R Behavior} = \frac{\text{Item 1} + \text{Item 2} + \text{Item 3}}{3}$
    • $\text{SOI-R Attitude} = \frac{\text{Item 4} + \text{Item 5} + \text{Item 6}_{\text{recoded}}}{3}$
    • $\text{SOI-R Desire} = \frac{\text{Item 7} + \text{Item 8} + \text{Item 9}}{3}$
  • Global Sociosexuality Index: When a single composite index is theoretically warranted, the global score is generated by averaging the three standardized facet scores, or calculating the aggregate mean across all 9 items: $\text{Global SOI-R} = \frac{\text{Behavior} + \text{Attitude} + \text{Desire}}{3}$.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The revised instrument was formally published in its standardized psychometric form in 2008 by Lars Penke and Jens B. Asendorpf, building upon the original 1991 foundation developed by Jeffry A. Simpson and Steven W. Gangestad. The Sociosexual Orientation Inventory and its revised version (SOI-R) are distributed under an open-access, non-commercial academic research policy.

No licensing fee, commercial royalty, or explicit prior written consent is required for non-profit academic research, university teaching, dissertation projects, or scientific scholarship. Scholars and researchers are permitted to reproduce and administer the scale provided that full and appropriate academic attribution is granted to the scale developers in all resulting reports, publications, and conference presentations. For commercial applications, diagnostic integration into proprietary software, or for-profit clinical environments, researchers must obtain formal permission from the copyright holders via Dr. Lars Penke (www.larspenke.eu).

References

• Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual Strategies Theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204
• Del Giudice, M. (2009). Sex, attachment, and the development of alternative reproductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0900001X
• Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (1990). Toward an evolutionary history of female sociosexual variation. Journal of Personality, 58(1), 69–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00908.x
• Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(4), 573–587. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0000337X
• Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1113–1135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113
• Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(2), 247–275. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05000051
• Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(6), 870–883. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.870
• Simpson, J. A. (1998). Sociosexual Orientation Inventory. In C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, R. Bauserman, G. Schreer, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 565–566). Sage Publications.
• 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.
• Zacchilli, T. L. (2007). The relationship between conflict and communication, sex, relationship satisfaction, and other relational variables in dating relationships (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University). Texas Tech University Libraries.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)