rnal of Personality and Social Psychology 1985 by ihe American Psychological Association, Inc.

5, Vol 48, No. 6. 1630-1642 0022-3514/85/S00.75

Gender Differences in Sexual Attitudes

Susan Hendrick and Clyde Hendrick Michelle J. Slapion-Foote

Texas Tech University and Franklin H. Foote
University of Miami

The literature on gender differences in sexual attitudes is somewhat confused and

contradictory, and tends to be based on short scales and global constructs such
as "sexual permissiveness." Our research provided a more detailed examination
of the area. We developed a 102-item sexual attitudes questionnaire that was
completed by approximately 800 students at the University of Miami as part of
a larger attitudes study. Factor analyses yielded eight factors on which 74 of the
102 items loaded. Analysis of variance of the individual items showed that female
and male subjects differed on 73 of the 102 items. Female subjects were more
responsible, conventional, and idealistic, whereas male subjects were more per-
missive, instrumental, and control- and power-oriented. The means suggested that
women were moderately conservative in sexual attitudes, whereas men were
moderately permissive. On the basis of results of the factor analysis, we formed
five preliminary sexual attitudes scales. Correlations among the summed scale
scores indicated that the scales were largely independent of each other. Future
researchers should recognize the multidimensional complexity of sexual attitudes.
More work is needed on scaling to pinpoint the empirical explanations for the
continuing gender differences in sexual attitudes.

The study of sexual attitudes and behavior 1978; Libby, Gray, & White, 1978; Reiss,
has been a favorite research area for social 1982).
scientists since Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin Closely related to sexual permissiveness is
(1948) legitimized sex research nearly four the general area of premarital sexuality.
decades ago. In the resulting research, inves- MacCorquodale and DeLamater (1979) found
tigators have explored aspects of sexuality that positive evaluation of self as a social
such as sexual permissiveness, premarital object and positive evaluation of one's body
sexuality, contraception, specific sexual prac- image resulted in more extensive premarital
tices, and the like. Psychologists have emerged sexual behavior for some subjects. D'Augelli
with a mosaic in which disparate pieces of and D'Augelli (1977) developed a cognitive-
material are beginning to combine into a developmental model for understanding pre-
meaningful pattern. We attempt to add new marital sexual behavior as an aspect of rela-
material that adds to the pattern's clarity. tionships; Jurich and Jurich (1974) found
Various research traditions have evolved both religious and gender differences in pre-
in the area of sex research; one of the most marital sexual standards and demonstrated a
important topics is that of sexual permissive- strong relation between cognitive moral de-
ness. Sexual permissiveness typically refers to velopment and such standards. Jessor, Costa,
how far people will go sexually. Begun largely Jessor, and Donovan (1983) used longitudinal
with the empirical and theoretical work of psychosocial data to support the idea of the
Reiss (1964, 1967), research in this area has continuing effects of an individual's person-
blossomed. Some research has been concerned ality on his or her sexual behavior, specifically
with increases in sexual permissiveness (e.g., at the time of first intercourse. Numerous
Walsh, Ferrell, & Tolone, 1976), and theory other studies discuss the influence of religion
about factors influencing sexual permissive- on sexual attitudes and behavior (e.g., Glenn
ness has also been developing (e.g., Kelley, & Weaver, 1979; King, Abernathy, Robinson,
& Balswick, 1976; Mahoney, 1980; Martin
Requests for reprints should be sent to Susan Hendrick,
& Westbrook, 1973). Other scholars have
Department of Psychology, Texas Tech University, Lub- pointed out the necessity of viewing sexuality
bock, Texas 79409. within the context of an intimate interpersonal

1630
 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN SEXUAL ATTITUDES 1631

relationship (e.g., Peplau, Rubin, & Hill, shift toward greater permissiveness appeared
1977). In demonstrating the relation of these (Hunt, 1974). Bell and Chaskes (1970) found
and other variables to premarital sexuality, that their female college sample increased in
scholars have created new and more complex sexual activity and decreased in sexual guilt
research questions that require considerable relative to a similar sample assessed 10 years
additional work (Clayton & Bokemeier, 1980). earlier. Curran (1975) reported that the pro-
Research on related sexual issues such as gression of sexual experience differed some-
sex guilt (e.g., Mosher, 1979; O'Grady, Janda, what for male and female subjects, but female
& Gillen, 1979), sexual attitudes and behavior subjects often engaged in "moderate" and
across cultures (e.g., Luckey & Nass, 1969; "advanced" sexual practices as much or more
Perlman, Josephson, Hwang, Begum, & Tho- than did male subjects. The highly similar
mas, 1978), virginity (e.g., Herold & Good- sexual behavior reported by the male and
win, 1981), social/sexual anxiety (e.g., Leary female subjects in Curran's study led him to
& Dobbins, 1983), and adolescent sexuality suggest that the double standard was waning.
in general (e.g., Byrne & Byrne, 1977; Byrne King, Balswick, and Robinson (1977) found
& Fisher, 1983; Hopkins, 1977) has compli- that although both men and women had
cated the picture still further. become more liberal in the late 1960s and
Although we know that many different early 1970s, "due to the greater liberalization
developmental, familial, and societal forces in lemale premarital sexual behavior and
influence premarital sexuality, sexual permis- attitudes, the difference between male and
siveness, and sexuality in general, little unified female behavior and attitudes has diminished"
theory has been developing in the area (Clay- (p. 458). Mahoney (1978) discussed the rapid
ton & Bokemeier, 1980). This lack is under- liberalization of many women's attitudes in
standable, because the multidimensional na- the context of societal redefinition of women's
ture of sexual attitudes and behavior as well roles, although Roper and Labeff (1977) found
as the multidimensional nature of those vari- that such a redefinition was differentially
ables that influence attitudes and behavior approved by subjects, depending on whether
make any simplistic descriptions or explana- the issue was career-role related or home-role
tions impossible. However, many areas in sex related. Perlman (1974) found decreased gen-
research have been and continue to be ex- der differences in his study of self-esteem and
plored systematically. One such area is gender permissiveness, and Walsh et al. (1976) essen-
differences. tially concluded that women increased pro-
Scientific interest in gender similarities and portionately more in sexual permissiveness
differences has existed since Kinsey et al.'s than did men because they were initially
(1948) groundbreaking work revealed a num- more conservative and therefore had greater
ber of interesting findings, including the in- latitude for change. Although many scholars
fluence of both educational level and gender believe that male and female sexual attitudes
of subject on premarital intercourse. In studies are converging (e.g., DeLamater & Mac-
among undergraduates (Jurich & Jurich, Corquodale, 1979; Hopkins, 1977; Singh,
1974; Mercer & Kohn, 1979) and across 1980), others reach a different conclusion.
various western countries (e.g., Luckey & For example, Peplau et al.'s (1977) study of
Nass, 1969), women have generally reported 231 dating couples yielded gender differences
more conservative sexual attitudes than' have in both sexual attitudes and behavior within
men. Other researchers (Laner, Laner, & Pal- a relationship (women exerted more control
mer, 1978) pointed out that generalizing about in several areas), and Medora and Woodward
women as more attitudinally conservative (1982) found that women held more conser-
than men is imprecise, because any assess- vative attitudes than did men. Ferrell, Tolone,
ment must take into account specific sexual and Walsh (1977) extensively addressed the
behavior as well as particular background question of single standard versus double
variables. The belief that women's sexual standard in panel analyses of undergraduates
attitudes were more conservative than men's in the periods 1967-1971 and 1970-1974.
was largely taken for granted, at least until Results revealed general support for an atti-
the last decade. tudinal single standard of sexual permissive-
Within the last decade, however, a general ness, but indicated limited support of the
1632 HENDRICK, HENDRICK, SLAPION-FOOTE, AND FOOTE

traditional double standard. Behaviorally, (1979) published a rather extensive review of

however, the double standard continued to related instruments. A number of scholars of
predominate. To complicate the question even sex attitudes have used an interview format,
further, data presented by Robinson and Jed- but that approach is unwieldy.
licka (1982) indicated that the "old" double In summary, the time appears ripe for
standard had in some cases been replaced by development of a more comprehensive mul-
a "new" double standard wherein members tidimensional sexual attitudes scale. Toward
of each gender imposed greater sexual restric- that end, we developed a 102-item instrument
tions on members of the other gender than for use in this study. The main purpose of
on themselves. There was also a genera] ten- the questionnaire was to tap a range of atti-
dency on the part of members of both genders tudes and values associated with sexuality,
to endorse more conservative attitudes, similar such as abortion, birth control, idealization
to those that prevailed before the so-called of sex, and so on. We hoped that items on
sexual revolution. such specific issues might be associated with
This trend is somewhat supported by a more general attitudinal orientations toward
study on sex role attitudes (Helmreich, sex. The study was designed to assess gender
Spence, & Gibson, 1982), which showed that • differences in sexual attitudes in a contem-
male attitudes stabilized between 1976 and porary student population and to initiate the
1980, whereas female attitudes "showed a development of a new, comprehensive scale
small but significant shift in the conservative of sexual attitudes. This study also included
direction" (p. 656). Thus some of the more assessment of love attitudes (Hendrick, Hen-
recent research on sexual attitudes and related drick, Foote, & Slapion-Foote, 1984), but
topics indicates a possible swing toward con- only the sexual attitudes data are considered
servatism. Because the question of male- in this article.
female convergence in sexual attitudes is ob-
viously still unresolved, a primary purpose Method
of our study was to assess the extent to which
We developed a questionnaire entitled "Attitudes About
current college men and women differ in
Love and Sex" that included an initial explanation about
their sexual attitudes. the study of attitudes, a brief demographic section, a
One major issue in sex research in general section entitled "Love Attitudes Scale" that contained 54
and sexual attitudes in particular is that of items, and a section called "Sexual Attitudes Scale" that
scaling. Reiss's (1964) 12-item Guttman scale contained 102 items developed by the first two authors.
The questionnaire was designed to be answered on ma-
is a popular attitude scale with which chine-scored answer sheets. The items in the attitude
to assess premarital sexual permissiveness. sections were rated on a 5-letter basis: A = strongly agree,
However, the scale taps relatively few sexual B = moderalely agree, C = neutral, D = moderately
behaviors (kissing, petting, and full sexual disagree, E - strongly disagree. The letters were converted
to a 5-point numerical basis Tor data analyses (strongly
relations), and, as Clayton and Bokemeier
agree = 1, etc.).
(1980) noted in their extensive review article,
may well "not be an adequate sample of all
Subjects
the salient points on the dimension" (p. 35).
Other scales have also been developed, in- The questionnaire was administered to groups of stu-
cluding the "Sexual Opinion Survey" (White, dents attending the University of Miami during the spring
and fall semesters of 1982. It was completed primarily
Fisher, Byrne, & Kingma, 1977) and the "Sex by'freshmen and sophomores taking introductory psy-
Attitude Questionnaire" (Fretz, 1974), though chology, although a few small sociology classes completed
none have been used nearly as widely as it as well. A total of 835 students took the questionnaire;
Reiss's scale. Bentler's (1968a, 1968b) scale however, 22 did not complete all of the attitude items,
so the effective sample consisted of 439 female and 374
concerns sexual practices rather than sexual
male subjects. Because large numbers of students take
attitudes. Many researchers have developed introductory psychology, the sample was reasonably rep-
their own short (e.g., Laner et al., 1978; resentative of the student population, which included
Mercer & Kohn, 1979) or longer (e.g., Ma- white non-Hispanic, Hispanic, black, and Asian national
honey, 1980) attitude scales, but their pub- students. The sample was a mixture of freshmen and
sophomores whose mean age was 19.2 years.
lished reports provide disappointingly little Additional demographic questions produced expected
information about these instruments. Schiavi, results for a college population in South Florida. Religious
Derogatis, Kuriansky, O'Connor, and Sharpe affiliations of the sample were as follows: 49.1% Catholic,
 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN SEXUAL ATTITUDES 1633

20.7% Jewish, 12.6% Protestant, and 17.6% none or loadings, are shown in Tables 1 and 2. The
other. Only 6.6% had been married, and male and female variance accounted for by a factor is shown
subjects did not differ on this question. A higher percentage
of students were living together than had been married
in parentheses after the name of each factor.
(12.2%); slightly more men (14.2%) than women (11.2%) All items not loading on a factor (including
were living with someone. Male and female subjects did Item 138) are shown in Table 3. A cutoff
not differ on the question "How many times have you point of .40 was used for item loadings,
been in love?"; 11.4% responded "none," 37.0% "once,"
except for Factors 5 and 8. Lower loadings
29.1% "twice," and 19.9% "three or more times," and
2.6% did not respond. To a final demographic item, "Are were used in these two cases because item
you in love now?", 45.7% responded "no," 51.4% re- content was consistent with the factor.
sponded "yes," and 2.9% did not respond. There was a Before discussing specific factors, we make
signncant gender effect for this item by chi-square; of the
some general observations. First, 74 of the
men who responded to the question, 43.4% were in love
and 56.6% were not in love, whereas of the women,
102 items loaded on a factor. Second, of the
61.1% were in love and 38.9% were not. 74 items, 73 loaded on only one factor, this
is a remarkable partition of the items. Third,
the items loading on factors tended to reflect
Sexual Attitudes Scale Development
attitudes and values; items not loading on
The first two authors generated an initial pool of over factors were relatively more oriented toward
150 sexual attitude items that reflected a variety of concerns about specific sex-related behaviors,
attitudes, values, and orientations toward sex. They at- such as thinking about sex (Item 87), circum-
tempted to include items that encompassed some of the
cision (Item 123), sexually transmitted dis-
traditional sex attitude areas such as sexual permissiveness,
premarital sex, and sexual practices, as well as areas such eases (Item 130), celibacy (Item 131), organ
as the "meaning" of sexuality, sexual responsibility, and size (Item 141), and abortion (Item 161). The
power and dominance in sex. After they excluded ambig- fact that the specific issue items tended not
uous and redundant items, the final 102-item measure to load on the eight factors suggests that the
included questions that sampled a wide variety of sex-
related topics. Our goal was to develop a multidimensional
general value orientations are independent of
sexual attitudes questionnaire, using a wide range of attitudes about specific sex-related practices,
items that could potentially produce several clear factors such as abortion.
relevant to various aspects of sexual attitudes. Factor 1. The items and loadings for this
factor are shown in Table 1. This massive
factor contained 29 items and accounted for
Results
32.2% of the variance. The nature of these
items suggested sexual permissiveness as the
The 102 items from the Sexual Attitudes
name of the factor. Acceptance of casual sex
Scale (numbered 62-163 on the question-
(Item 65), approval of sex without commit-
naire) were analyzed in three major ways.
ment (Item 107), and desire for sex with
First, analysis of variance was performed on
many partners (Item 120) are the kinds of
each item in order to study effects due to
items that loaded on this factor. Several items
gender of subjects. Second, all the items were
phrased in a nonperrnissive direction (Items
intercorrelated for all respondents and sub-
62, 82, 90, 96, 102, 134, and 150) loaded
jected to a principal components factor anal-
negatively on the factor. The clarity of the
ysis with varimax rotation. Third, on the
factor does not necessarily imply positive
basis of results of the factor analysis, further
affirmation of the items by the subjects. De-
analyses were oriented toward preliminary
gree of agreement is indicated by the means
development of formal scales in order to
of the items. This topic is explored in the
measure sexual attitudes.
section on gender differences.
Factors 2 through 8 were smaller, but each
Factor Structure of the Sexual accounted for substantial variance ranging
Attitudes Scale from 13.5% for Factor 2 to 7.1% for Factor
8. Each factor suggested a relatively clear
The best solution extracted nine factors, interpretation. These factors are shown in
although the last factor had only one item Table 2.
with a substantial loading (Item 138) and is Factor 2. This factor included a number
not considered further. The eight factors and of items concerned with specific sexual acts,
items associated with them, along with item ranging from birth control (Items 129, 152,
1634 HENDRICK, HENDRICK, SLAPION-FOOTE, AND FOOTE

and 159) to communication (Items 108 and strumentality, with a focus on one's own
160) to adolescent pregnancy (Item 145). pleasure (Item 109), the taking of pleasure
Careful study of the item set suggested that (Item 116), enjoyment (Item 136), and so on.
the concern was not so much with the specific This factor suggested a self-centered, physical
acts, but was directed to the underlying value orientation to sex. In common language, this
orientation of sexual responsibility. factor connotes "screwing for its own sake,"
Factor 3. This factor was named sexual usually with a nameless partner.
communion, although a cynic might have Factor 5. This factor was concerned with
called it "sexual naivete." Items stressed sex the pros and cons of masturbation (Items
as the closest form of communication (Item 139, 144, and 153), sex toys (Item 155), dirty
84), the ultimate in human interaction (Item words (Item 162), and so on. The nature of
92), the merging of two souls (Item 78), the items suggested sexual conventionality as
fundamentally good (Item 103), and so on. the underlying theme.
Factor 4. The items suggested sexual in- Factor 6. The four items loading on this

Table 1
Factor I: Sexual Permissiveness

Factor
Item loading Men Women

107. I do not need to be committed to a person to have sex with him/her. .79 2.34 3.82 < .05
65. Casual sex is acceptable. .77 2.29 3.49 < .05
120. 1 would like to have sex with many partners. .72 2.63 4.19 <.05
158. One-night stands are sometimes very enjoyable. .71 2.10 3.28 < .05
80. It is okay to have ongoing sexual relationships with more than one
person at a time. .78 3.08 4.28 < .05
89. It is okay to manipulate someone into having sex as long as no
future promises arc made. .61 3.38 4.43 < .05
117. Sex as a simple exchange of favors is okay if both people agree to it. .55 2.69 3.56 < .05
118. The best sex is with no strings attached. .55 3.26 4.12 <.05
68. Life would have fewer problems if people could have sex more freely. ' .54 2.83 3.49 <.05
71. It is possible to enjoy sex with a person and not like that person
very much. .57 2.84 3.85 < .05
73. Sex is more fun with someone you don't love. .52 4.04 4.57 < .05
79. It is all right to pressure someone into having sex. .49 3.98 4.73 <.05
122. Premarital sex is okay under most circumstances. .71 2.10 2.85 < .05
126. Unlimited premarital sexual experience is fine. .71 2.61 3.51 < .05
142. It is all right to have a limited amount of premarital sexual
experience. .50 2.13 2.65 <.05
134. Sex is permissible only within marriage. -.62 4.17 3.50 <.05
143. Extramarital affairs are all right as long as one's partner doesn't
know about them. .41 4.11 4.58 <.05
150. Extramarital affairs are unacceptable. -.40 2.39 1.87 <.05
111. Sex for its own sake is perfectly all right. .59 2.24 2.85 <.05
128. Women should he as free as men to ask someone to have sex. .45 1.72 2.35 <.05
135. I would feel comfortable having intercourse with my partner in the
presence of other people. .40 4.13 4.63 < .05
154. Prostitution should be accepted by society. .59 2.74 3.78 <.05
157. Any sexual activity is okay if both partners freely agree to it. .40 1.78 2.10 < .05
72. Sex is best when people approach il as good physical release. .42 3.00 3.62 <.05
62. To have good sex, two people have to know each other pretty well. -.56 3.10 2.14 < .05
82. Sex without love is meaningless. -.66 3.06 2.05 < .05
90. People should at least be friends before they have sex together. -.42 2.64 2.06 < .05
96. In order for sex to be good, it must also be meaningful. -.63 2.50 1.67 <.05
102. Sex is a sacred act. -.56 3.34 2.74 <.05

Note. The higher the mean, the greater the disagreement with the item: I = strongly agree, 2 = moderately agree,
3 = neutral, 4 - moderately disagree, 5 = strongly disagree. All items on Factor 1 were selected to construct a Sexual
Permissiveness scale. S2 = 32.2%.
 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN SEXUAL ATTITUDES 1635

Table 2
Loadings and Means for Other Factors

Ah
Factor
Item loading Men Women P
2
Factor 2: Sexual Responsibility (S -= 13.5%)
129. Birth control is part of responsible sexuality.8 .57 1.58 1.45 < .05
152. A woman should share responsibility for birth control." .59 1.64 .57 —
159. A man should share responsibility for birth control." .51 1.79 ,43 < .05
160. Much of sexual communication is non-verbal (touching, looking) .54 1.72 .57 <.05
108. Lovers should be able to communicate fully about their sexual
relationships." .45 1.45 .28 < .05
98. Sex is mostly an act of giving oneself to another. .49 2.61 .95 <.05
145. Adolescent pregnancy is a serious problem." .47 1.65 .33 < .05
151. Sex education for young people is of little value." -.46 4.15 4.26
—
124. Sexual techniques get better as a relationship progresses.3 .43 1.74 1.65
—
133. It is possible for a husband to rape his wife." .43 2.24 2.04 <.05

Factor 3: Sexual Communion (S2 = 10.5%)

84. Sex is the closest form of communication between two people." .56 2.58 2.33 < .05
92. A sexual encounter between two people deeply in love is the
ultimate human interaction." .52 1.67 1.52 <.05
86. Orgasm is the greatest experience in the world." .51 2.63 2.67
—
78. At its best, sex seems to be the merging of two souls," .48 2.20 1.77 < .05
91. Life without sex would be very dull." .47 1.97 2.14 < .05
76. Sex is usually an intensive, almost overwhelming experience." .41 1.99 1.86 <.05
67. During sexual intercourse, intense awareness of the partner is the
best frame of mind." .40 2.03 2.27 <.05
94. Sex is primarily emotional. .40 2.75 2.40 <.05
103. Sex is fundamentally good." .40 1.77 1.78 —

Factor 4: Sexual Instrumentality (S2 = 9.0%)

109. Sex is best when you let yourself go and focus on your own
pleasure." .68 3.23 2.81 <.05
116. Sex is primarily the taking of pleasure from another person." .56 3.71 3.67
—
136. The main purpose of sex is to enjoy oneself." .55 2.91 2.87
—
110. Sex is primarily physical." .53 3.02 3.24 < .05
114. Sex is primarily a bodily function, like eating." .50 3.22 3.48 <.05
104. Sex is mostly a game between males and females." .48 3.10 3.56 < .05

Factor 5: Sexual Conventionality (S2 = 8.6%)

155. Using "sex toys" during lovemaking is abnormal." .64 3.16 3.06 —
153. I am uncomfortable about masturbating." .62 3.33 2.92 < .05
139. Masturbation is all right." -.63 2.37 2.62 < .05
144. Masturbating one's partner during intercourse can increase the
pleasure of sex." -.43 1.94 2.24 < .05
162. Using or hearing "dirty" sex words is sometimes a turn-on for
me." -.41 3.05 3.51 < .05
127. Homosexual relations are just as acceptable as heterosexual
relations." -.50 3.81 3.81
—
132. Penile-vaginal intercourse is better than oral sex. .37 2.40 2.41 —

Factor 6: Sex Avoidance (iS"2 = 7 2%)

140. I sometimes wish I were not sexual at all. .57 4.21 4.18
—
100. Sometimes I am ashamed of my sexuality. .54 4.06 4.00
—
101. Sex can get boring. .52 3.36 3.36
95. I could live quite well without sex. .46 3.79 3.41 <—
.05

(Table 2 continued)
1636 HENDRICK, HENDRICK, SLAPION-FOOTE, AND FOOTE

Table 2 (continued)

Mi
Factor
Item loading Men Women P
2
Factor 7: Sexual Control (S = 7.2%)

146. Sex is best when it is carefully planned. .56 3.45 3.66 <.05
81. Sex is best when one keeps the emotions under cool control. .42 3.46 3.86 < .05
70. The first time you have sex with someone is the most exciting. .40 3.13 3.39 <.05

Factor 8: Sexual Power (S2 = 7.1%)

115. Sex has nothing to do with power. .58 2.71 2.43 <.05
119. Sex and power are highly related. -.49 3.57 3.84 < .05
74. Sex should occur between equals, not when one person has power
or authority over the other. .39 2.31 2.16
—
77. Sex is natural; one should never feel guilty about it. .37 1.68 1.91 < .05
66. Good sex gives one a feeling of power. -.37 2.47 2.83 <.05
93. To create sexual desire in someone is one of the best ways to
dominate that person. -.37 3.10 3.53 <.05
a
Selected to construct the given scale.

factor suggested sexual avoidance. Others size of the means does not suggest an excessive
might prefer "sex guilt," but the nature of degree of permissiveness, at least for female
the items did not suggest quite that strong an subjects. If 3.0 is taken as the true "neutral"
interpretation. point on the rating scale, then the male
Factor 7. Three items loaded on this small means often fell on the permissive side of the
factor. The nature of the items suggests a scale, whereas female means fell on the con-
concern with sexual control. servative side. For example, on Item 65,
Factor 8. Six items loaded on this factor. "Casual sex is acceptable," male subjects
The factor was defined by items connoting agreed with a mean of 2.29 and female
sexual power. Both pro and con power items subjects disagreed with a mean of 3,49. The
appeared on the factor. Some of the loadings reverse occurred for nonpermissive items.
were below .40, but the content (except per- For example, on Item 102, "Sex is a sacred
haps for Item 77) seemed consistent with act," men disagreed with a mean of 3.34 and
power motivation. Item 66, with a loading of women agreed with a mean of 2.74.
-.37, had a loading of .36 on Factor 3 as This type of conservative-permissive split
well. between men and women on each side of the
scale midpoint occurred for 12 of the 29
Gender Differences in Sexual Attitudes items in Table 1. At the same time, members
of both genders were relatively permissive on
The item means for male and female sub- some items having to do with premarital sex
jects are shown in Tables 1, 2, and 3. All (Items 122, 142, 134), although men were
items with a significant gender difference at more permissive. The strength of the state-
the .05 level or better are indicated in the ment made a difference. Item 126, "Unlimited
tables. The first thing to note is the large premarital sexual experience is fine," drew
number of significant differences between disagreement from the women with a mean
male and female subjects: 73 of 102 items of 3.51, whereas men agreed with a mean of
showed such differences. 2.61. In contrast with premarital sex, extra-
As shown in Table 1, every item loading marital sex (Items 143 and 150) drew oppo-
on the Sexual Permissiveness factor showed sition from both men and women; women
a significant mean difference between males were more opposed. Using mean values as
and females. In every instance, male subjects the criterion, one could characterize the men
scored in a more permissive direction. The across the range of items as moderately per-
 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN SEXUAL ATTITUDES 1637

missive and the women as moderately con- Men tended to score in a more instrumental
servative. direction (Factor 4), with one interesting ex-
There were significant differences on 7 of ception. For Item 109, "Sex is best when you
the 10 items on Sexual Responsibility (Table let yourself go and focus on your own plea-
2). The means for both genders were in the sure," women agreed with a mean of 2.81
direction of responsible sexuality, but female and men disagreed with a mean of 3.23.
ratings showed somewhat more responsibility Most of the means were in a relatively non-
than male ratings. instrumental direction for both genders.
Women tended to more strongly endorse Women scored in a more conservative
items reflecting sexual communion (Factor direction than did men on four of the seven
3), except for Item 91, "Life without sex items on Factor 5. However, only one gender
would be very dull," and Item 67, "During difference appeared on Factor 6: Men dis-
sexual intercourse, intense awareness of the agreed more than did women that they could
partner is the best frame of mind." For both live Quite well without sex (Item 95).
of these items, men agreed more strongly For Factor 7, women disagreed more than
than women. Gender differences appeared on did men that sex is best when carefully
seven of the nine items on the factor. planned (Item 146) and best when the emo-

Table 3
Means for Items Not Loading on Factors

Item Men Women

63. The most exciting part of sex is the initial conquest. 2.66 2.69
64. One of the best things about sex is giving pleasure to the other person. 1.73 1.75
—
69. Too much thinking about sex can spoil it. 2.70 2.59
—
75. It's okay to use sex to gain dominance over another. 4.09 4.47 < .05
83. The experience of sex is pretty much the same with different partners. 3.95 4.04 —
85. Life would be better if everyone could have good sex every day. 2.70 3.12 < .05
87. I think about sex a lot. 2.32 2.93 < .05
88. While having sex with someone, it is wrong to have fantasies about
someone else. 2.99 2.59 < .05
97. Most sexual relationships are fairly shallow. 2.96 3.00
—
99. Sex can sometimes be playful. 1.64 1.66
4.64 4.74 —
—
105. Sex is basically evil.
106. Basically, sex is a commodity of human exchange, just like any other
valuable commodity. 3.55 3.82 < .05
112. The feeling of surrender to another is an important part of the sex act. 2.98 2.87
—
113. Sex should be mutually desired by both partners. 1.46 1.23 < .05
121. Sexual communication is usually through words. 3.63 3.58 —
123. Male babies should be circumcised. 2.38 2.18 <.05
125. There is no perverted sex. 3.61 3.87 <.05
130. Sexually transmitted diseases are a major problem. 1.57 1.53 —
131. Celibacy is a good lifestyle option. 3.58 3.60
—
137. It is okay for a woman to fake an orgasm. 3.84 3.63 < .05
138. Sex before marriage is okay only if the partners plan to marry each
other. (Factor 9) 3.73 3.54 < .05
141. I am content with the size of my breasts (if I am female) or penis (if I
am male). 2.00 2.01
147. I like the way my body looks. 2.17 2.38 <—.05
148. Incest of any type is unacceptable. 2.12 1.63 <.05
149. If I had a sexual problem, I would seek help from a trained
professional. 2.62 2.48
—
156. I never worry about getting V.D. 3.53 2.95 < .05
161. Abortion is terrible. 2.97 2.78
—
163. The main purpose of sex is to conceive children. 3.99 4.03 —
1638 HENDRICK. H E N D R I C K , SLAPION-FOOTR, AND FOOTF,

Table 4
Reliability Analyses of the Five Scales

Type of analysis Permissiveness Responsibility Communion Instrumentality Conventionality

No. of items 29 9 8 6 6
Mean interitem correlation .32 .23 .21 .28 .29
Standardized item alpha .93 .72 .68 .70 .71
Split-half correlation .80 .54 .43 .57 .52
Spearman-Brown correction .89 .70 .60 .73 .68
Alpha for first half .88 .47 .53 .52 .58
Alpha for second half .88 .61 .57 .49 .55

tions are controlled (Item 81), apparently for only 14% of the systematic variance, and
affirming the value of spontaneity in sex. only six items (62, 80, 90, 96, 107, 158) had
However, women disagreed that sex with loadings of .40 or greater on the factor. In
someone is most exciting the first time carefully perusing the item content, means,
(Item 70). and loadings (see Table 1), we did not find
Men tended to associate sex with power that these items differed in any significant
(Factor 8) more than did women, although manner from the rest of the items. Because
neither men nor women were in favor of this subset of six items did not seem to have
linking sexuality to power motivation. The any basis for designation as a separate scale,
items not loading on a factor (see Table 3) we decided to retain them as part of a 29-
showed significant gender differences on 13 item permissiveness scale.
items. These items reflect a variety of con- Development of other scales. Factor anal-
texts. In general, the direction of the gender ysis is a valuable tool to suggest items for a
differences was consistent with the differences scale, but does not define a scale per se. We
found for factor items. studied the loadings, item means, and inter-
item correlations for Factors 2, 3, 4, 5, and
Sexual Attitudes Scale Development 8. We decided on a minimum of six items to
define a scale; thus the small Factors 6 and
Because of the clarity of the results of the 7 were excluded from consideration. A sub-
factor analysis, it seemed desirable to do stantial number of the interitem correlations
further preliminary work on formal scale approached zero for Factor 8, and we decided
development. Several different procedures that these items did not form a suitable scale.
were performed, including (a) further at- Also, Items 94 and 132 were dropped from
tempted factor reduction of the Sexual Per- consideration in Factors 3 and 5, respectively,
missiveness factor, (b) selection of items because of very low interitem correlations.
for other scales, (c) reliability analyses of In summary, careful analysis of the items
the preliminary scales, (d) intercorrelations based on the factor analysis suggested five
among total scale scores, and (e) a further viable scales to measure sexual attitudes.
examination of gender differences that was These scales were given the same names as
based on total scale scores. the factors. Thus, Sexual Permissiveness in-
Factor analysis of permissiveness scale. It cluded 29 items. Sexual Responsibility 9
is possible that the massive first factor in- items, Sexual Communion 8 items, Sexual
cluded several quasi-independent subfactors. Instrumentality 6 items, and Sexual Conven-
The most direct approach to assess this pos- tionality 6 items. The items defined as be-
sibility was to treat the 29 items loading on longing to a given scale include all items in
the Sexual Permissiveness factor as a total Table 1 and those footnoted in Table 2.
sample of items. We intercorrelated and fac- Scale reliability. We subjected each of the
tored these 29 items, using a principal com- live scales, as defined earlier, to a standard
ponents analysis with varimax rotation. Two reliability analysis, using the SPSS package
factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 re- program. A summary of these analyses is
sulted; however, the second factor accounted shown in Table 4. The average interitem
 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN SEXUAL ATTITUDES 1639

correlation varied from a low of .21 for Table 6

Communion to a high of .32 for Permissive- Means and F Ratios for the f-'ive Scales
ness. Of more importance is the standardized
item alpha. The value was a substantial .93
for Permissiveness. The other four scales Male Female
showed lower but quite respectable values Scale subjects subjects f\\, 810)
ranging from .68 to .72.
Permissiveness 82.6 107.2 337.9*
Analogous results are also shown for split-
Responsibility 15.6 14.1 25.4*
half correlations, the Spearman-Brown cor- Communion 16.8 16.3 3.1
rection, and alphas for first and second halves Instrumentality 19.2 19.6 1.8
of a given scale. Sexual Permissiveness appears Conventionality 16.7 18.2 21.2*
to be overdetermined because alpha for a
* p < .001.
split-half is hardly lower than alpha for the
entire scale. For the remaining scales, however,
split-half correlations and first and second
half alphas were reduced to approximately sibility also showed modest correlations with
.50. These results suggest that given the re- Communion and Conventionality, and Com-
spectable standardized item alphas, our de- munion and Instrumentality were significantly
cision to require at least six items per scale but trivially correlated with Conventionality.
was wise. The scales for Responsibility, Com- Given the method variance common to all
munion, Instrumentality, and Conventionality the scales, these results suggest that the five
appear adequate for further exploratory re- scales are tapping five different constructs. In
search. If test-retest reliability proves ade- brief, sexual attitudes are multidimensional.
quate, then these scales should be very useful Scale score gender differences. We per-
for researchers. It seems clear that the first formed analysis of variance on the summed
scale, Permissiveness, is a highly reliable mea- scale scores. The results are shown in Table
sure of the construct. 6. As expected, the consistent gender differ-
Scale relationships. By definition, items ence for Permissiveness found on individual
loading on different factors are independent items (Table 1) held true for sum scores. Men
of each other. However, it does not follow were much more permissive than women.
that scale scores based on a sum of items Likewise, women were significantly more re-
(defined by a specific factor) are independent sponsible and more conventional than men,
of each other. To assess degree of scale inde- although the mean differences were not ex-
pendence, we computed sum scores for each cessively large. For the summed scale scores
of the five scales and intercorrelated. The of Communion and Instrumentality, there
results are shown in Table 5. were no gender differences, which was a
The data in Table 5 suggest that the scales result different from what one might infer on
are reasonably independent of each other. the basis of examination of individual item
Permissiveness was modestly correlated with differences (Table 2). Because of the care in
Instrumentality (.35) and substantially cor- item selection in scale construction, the sum
related with Conventionality (.46). Respon- scores are perhaps better viewed as represen-
tative of the true state of affairs, rather than
a number of individual item differences.
Table 5 Therefore, the information in Table 6 suggests
Intercalations Among the Five Scales gender differences on some of the salient
dimensions of sexual attitudes, but not on all
Scales 1 2 3
of those dimensions.
1. Permissiveness 1.00 .05 -.03 .35** .46*
2. Responsibility 1.00 .27* -.05 .25"
Discussion
3. Communion 1.00 .04 .09*
4. Instrumentality 1.00 .11*
Our primary goals were to initiate devel-
5. Conventionality 1.00
opment of a more comprehensive sexual at-
*p< .05. ** p< .001. titudes scale than what had been previously
1640 HENDKK'K. HLNDRICK. SI.APION-FOOTE, AND FOOTE

used and to assess gender differences in sexual scored somewhat higher than men in sexual
attitudes. conventionality, whereas there were virtually
no gender differences in sex avoidance.
Scale Development Women appeared less affirming of sexual
control. Finally, neither men nor women
The initial questionnaire contained 102 appeared to favor linking sex to power issues,
items that covered a broad spectrum of sexual although men tended to endorse sexual power
attitudes and values. Of these items, 74 loaded somewhat more than did women.
on the eight factors that emerged, and only Analysis of the summed scale scores re-
one loaded on more than one factor. The vealed a slightly different pattern of gender
eight factors appeared to reflect clearly differ- differences. Although there were gender dif-
ent thematic areas of sexual attitudes: Sexual ferences for Permissiveness, Responsibility,
Permissiveness, Sexual Responsibility, Sexual and Conventionality (men scored higher on
Communion, Sexual Instrumentality, Sexual the first scale and women scored higher on
Conventionality, Sex Avoidance, Sexual Con- the other two), there were no gender differ-
trol, and Sexual Power. Additional analyses ences in Communion and Instrumentality.
resulted in a reduction to 58 items and five Inspection of the item means of the latter
scales for future research. Scale reliability two scales reveals that men and women did
ranged from .93 for Permissiveness to .68 for not differ as greatly on most of the items as
Communion, and intercorrelations among the they differed on items of the other scales,
five scales indicated that they were tapping such as Permissiveness. Thus the overall scale
different constructs. appears sensitive to the variability of gender
The revised Sexual Attitudes Scale appears differences in sexual attitudes, depending on
quite promising. It can be administered as a the sexual dimension being considered.
multidimensional scale, or the component Although the gender differences in this study
Sexual Permissiveness scale can be used alone are substantial, they must be placed within
to evaluate that single construct. The Per- the context of existing research. As noted
missiveness scale from this study may be earlier, women have generally reported more
preferred to Reiss's (1964) permissiveness conservative sexual attitudes than do men
scale, because the present scale items cover a (e.g., Jurich & Jurich, 1974), and societal
much wider range of content. stereotypes have portrayed women as more
conservative than men, if not actually prudish.
Gender Differences in Sexual Attitudes Although Kinsey et al.'s (1948) work revealed
various gender differences, the degree of sim-
Some of the most interesting data to emerge ilarity between men and women on a number
in this study were the differences between of sexual issues surprised many people. The
women and men in attitudes toward sex. Men surprise occurred largely because women re-
and women differed on 60 of the 74 items ported themselves to be much more sexual
that loaded on factors and, in addition, on than people thought they were. Such similarity
13 of the remaining items that did not load does not preclude the reality of a sexual
on any factor. double standard, but rather reveals that the
In the original item analyses, women and divergence between the genders may not
men differed on every one of the items in the have been as great as was supposed, even 35
Sexual Permissiveness factor: women scored years ago.
lower in every instance. Both genders ap- As attitudes (and presumably behavior)
peared to endorse sexual responsibility, but shifted in a more permissive direction during
women showed somewhat greater support for the 1970s, some scholars (e.g., Curran, 1975;
responsibility. Women more than men tended Singh, 1980) felt that the double standard
to endorse sexual communion as a viable was waning. Nonetheless, there were no sub-
approach to sexuality. Sexual instrumentality stantive indications that complete convergence
was endorsed more by men than by women, of male and female sexual attitudes had
although means for both genders were in a occurred. Thus research findings continued
relatively noninstrumental direction. Women to show such results as an approximate alti-
 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN SEXUAL ATTITUDES 1641

tudinal single standard of sexual permissive- sex in the seventies. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 42, 34-50.
ness with "limited indication" of a double
Curran, J. P. (1975). Convergence toward a single sexual
standard (Ferrell et al., 1977) and with re- standard. Social Behavior and Personality, 3, 189-195.
placement of an "old" double standard with D'Augelli, J. F., & D'Augelli, A. R. (1977). Moral reasoning
a "new" one (Robinson & Jedlicka, 1982). and premarital sexual behavior: Toward reasoning
The gender differences that emerged in our about relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 33(1),
46-66.
research are thus consistent with recent stud-
DeLamater, L, & MacCorquodale, P. (1979). Premarital
ies showing gradual but not complete conver- sexuality: Attitudes, relationships, behavior. Madison:
gence of men's and women's sex attitudes. University of Wisconsin Press.
We described women as "moderately conser- Ferrell, M. Z., Tolone, W. L., & Walsh, R. H. (1977).
Maturational and societal changes in the sexual double-
vative" and men as "moderately permissive."
standard: A panel analysis (1967-1971; 1970-1974).
We did not view the genders as radically Journal of Marriage and the Family, 39, 255-271.
different. Fretz, B. R. (1974). An altitude measure of sexual
Whether our sample reflects a level of behaviors. Paper presented at the annual Meeting of
gender differences in sex attitudes that is the American Psychological Association, New Orleans.
Glenn, N. D., & Weaver, C. N. (1979). Attitudes toward
typical of college students across the United
premarital, extramarital, and homosexual relations in
States remains an empirical question. Con- the U.S. in the 1970s. Journal of Sex Research, 15,
tinued use of the Sexual Attitudes Scale on 108-118.
the University of Miami campus, on other Helmreich, R. L., Spence, J. T., & Gibson, R. H. (1982).
Sex-role attitudes: 1972-1980. Personality and Social
campuses across the country, and with non-
Psychology Bulletin, S, 656-663.
student samples will clarify some existing Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S., Foote, F. H., & Slapion-
questions about the variability and magnitude Foote, M. J. (1984). Do men and women love differ-
of gender differences in sex attitudes. Perhaps ently? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1,
the genders are indeed converging in their 177-195.
Herold, E. S., & Goodwin, M. S. (1981). Adamant
sexual attitudes, and future researchers using virgins, potential nonvirgins and nonvirgins. Journal
this scale will show decreasing gender differ- of Sex Research, 17, 97-113.
ences. On the other hand, perhaps this study Hopkins, J. R. (1977). Sexual behavior in adolescence.
is echoing recent trends in sex role attitudes Journal of Social Issues, 13(2\ 67-85.
(Helmreich et al., 1982), which indicate a Hunt, M. (1974). Sexual behavior in the 1970s. Chicago:
Playboy Press.
slight shift toward conservatism for women. Jessor, R., Costa, F., Jessor, L., & Donovan, J. E. (1983).
There may have been some relaxation of the Time of first intercourse: A prospective study. Journal
liberal thrust that has been part of the wom- of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 608-626.
en's movement in recent years and a slight Jurich, A. P., & Jurich, J. A. (1974). The effect of
cognitive moral development upon the selection of
tendency toward more conservative sexual
premarital sexual standards. Journal of Marriage and
attitudes that is congruent with recent societal the Family. 36, 736-741.
trends toward economic and political conser- Kelley, J. (1978). Sexual permissiveness: Evidence for a
vatism. In sum, the issue appears to be still theory. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 40, 455-
open for research and debate. 468.
King, K., Abernathy, T. J., Robinson, I. E., & Balswick,
J. O. (1976). Religiosity and sexual attitudes and
References behavior among college students. Adolescence, I I , 535-
539.
King, K., Balswick. J. O., & Robinson, I. E. (1977). The
Bell, R. R., & Chaskes, J. B. (1970). Premarital sexual
continuing premarital sexual revolution among college
experience among coeds, 1958 and 1968. Journal of
females. Journal of Marriage and the Family, J9, 455-
Marriage and the Family, 32, 81-84.
459.
Bentler, P. M. (I968a). Heterosexual behavior assess-
ment—I. Males. Behavior Research and Therapy, 6, Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948).
21-25. Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia:
Bentler, P. M. (1968b). Heterosexual behavior assess- Saunders.
ment—II. Females. Behavior Research and Therapy, Laner, M. R., Laner, R. H., & Palmer, C. E. (1978).
6. 27-30. Permissive attitudes toward sexual behaviors: A clari-
Byrne, D., & Byrne, L. A. (Eds.) (1977). Exploring fication of theoretical explanations. Journal of Sex
human sexuality. New York: Harper & Row. Research, 14, 137-144.
Byrne, D., & Fisher, W. A. (1983). Adolescents, sex, and Leary, M. R., & Dobbins, S. E. (1983). Social anxiety,
contraception. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. sexual behavior, and contraceptive use. Journal of
Clayton, R. R., & Bokemeier, J. L. (1980). Premarital Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1347-1354.
1642 HENDRICK, HENDRICK, SLAPION-FOOTE, AND FOOTE

Libby, R. W., Gray. L., & White, M. (1978). A test and students' sexual standards. Archives of Sexual Behavior,
reformulation of reference group and role correlates 7, 545-558.
of premarital sexual permissiveness theory. Journal of Reiss, I. L. (1964). The scaling of premarital sexual
Marriage and the Family, 40, 79-92. permissiveness. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
Luckey, E. B., & Mass, G. D. (1969). A comparison of 26, 188-198.
sexual attitudes and behavior in an international sample. Reiss, I. L. (1967). The social context of premarital
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 31, 364-379. sexual permissiveness. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
MacCorquodale, P., & DeLamater, J. (1979). Self-image Winston.
and premarital sexuality. Journal of Marriage and the Reiss, I. L. (1982). Trouble in paradise: The current
Family, 41, 327-339. status of sexual science. Journal of Sex Research, 18,
Mahoney, E. R. (1978). Age differences in attitude change 97-113.
toward premarital coitus. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Robinson, I. E., & Jedlicka, D. (1982). Change in sexual
7, 493-501. attitudes and behavior of college students from 1965
Mahoney, E. R. (1980). Religiosity and sexual behavior to 1980: A research note. Journal of Marriage and the
among heterosexual college studens. Journal of Sex Family. 44, 237-240.
Research, 16, 97-113. Roper, B. S., & Labeff. E. (1977). Sex roles and feminism
Martin, J., & Westbrook, M. (1973). Religion and sex in revisited: An intergenerational attitude comparison.
a university sample: Data bearing on Mol's hypothesis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 39, 113-119.
Australian Journal of Psychology, 25, 71-79. Schiavi, R. C., Derogatis, L. R., Kuriansky, J., O'Connor,
Medora, N., & Woodward, J, C. (1982). Premarital D., & Sharpe, L. (1979). The assessment of sexual
sexual opinions of undergraduate students at a mid- function and marital interaction. Journal of Sex and
western university. Adolescence, 17, 213-224. Marital Therapy, 5, 169-224.
Mercer, G. W., & Kohn, P. M. (1979). Gender differences Singh, B. K. (1980). Trends in attitudes toward premarital
in the integration of conservatism, sex urge, and sexual sexual relations. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
behaviors among college students. Journal of Sex Re- 42, 387-393.
search, IS, 129-142. Walsh, R. H., Ferrell, M. L., & Tolone, W. L. (1976).
Mosher, D. [,. (1979). Sex guilt and sex myths in college Selection of reference groups, perceived reference group
men and women. Journal of Sex Research, 15, 224- permissiveness, and persona! permissiveness attitudes
234. and behavior: A study of two consecutive panels (1967-
O'Grady, K. E., Janda, L. H., & Gillen, H. B. (1979). A 1971; 1970-1974). Journal of Marriage and the Family.
multidimensional scaling analysis of sex guilt. Multi- 38, 495-507.
variate Behavioral Research, 14, 415-434. White, L. A., Fisher, W. A., Byrne, D., & Kingma, R.
Peplau, L. A., Rubin, Z., & Hill, C. T. (1977). Sexual (1977, May). Development and validation of a measure
intimacy in dating relationships. Journal of Social of affective orientation to erotica: The Sexual Opinion
Issues. 33(2), 86-109. Survey. Paper presented at the Meeting of the Mid-
Perlman. D. (1974), Self-esteem and sexual permissiveness. western Psychological Association, Chicago.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 36, 470-473.
Perlman, D., Josephson, W., Hwang, W. T., Begum, H., Received August 22, 1983
& Thomas, T. L. (1978). Cross-cultural analysis of Revision received January 27, 1984 •