The Journal of Sex Research

ISSN: 0022-4499 (Print) 1559-8519 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjsr20

The brief sexual attitudes scale

Clyde Hendrick , Susan S. Hendrick & Darcy A. Reich
To cite this article: Clyde Hendrick , Susan S. Hendrick & Darcy A. Reich (2006) The brief sexual
attitudes scale, The Journal of Sex Research, 43:1, 76-86, DOI: 10.1080/00224490609552301
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224490609552301

Published online: 11 Jan 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1027

View related articles

Citing articles: 42 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hjsr20
Download by: [National Cheng Kung University]

Date: 01 December 2016, At: 07:57

The Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale

Clyde Hendrick, Susan S. Hendrick, and Darcy A. Reich
Texas Tech University

The measurement of sexual attitudes is important, and ease of scale usability is one key aspect of measurement. This paper
details three studies conducted to develop a briefer and thus more efficient version of the multidimensional Sexual Attitudes
Scale (43 items; S. Hendrick & Hendrick, 1987b). The first two studies (I and II) employed existing data sets to develop a
23-item version of the Sexual Attitudes Scale, using exploratory factor analysis in Study I and confirmatory factor analysis
in Study II. The same four subscales of Permissiveness, Birth Control (formerly called Sexual Practices), Communion, and
Instrumentality were retained in the 23-item measure, called the Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale. Study III was a prospective
data collection using only the 23 items composing the Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale. The four subscales were hypothesized to
correlate with a number of relationship measures in predictable ways. Results indicated that the Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale
is a reliable and valid measure of the four sexual attitudes and has strong psychometric properties. It should be effective and
efficient for both research and clinical uses.
The Sexual Attitudes Scale (S. Hendrick & Hendrick,
1987b) was originally constructed in the early 1980s because
of difficulty in identifying a measure that assessed sexual
attitudes in a multidimensional fashion. Original scale development was empirically driven, since there was not a prevailing multidimensional theory of sexual attitudes at that
time (see S. Hendrick & Hendrick, 1987b, p. 524). Although
instruments were available to assess such constructs as attitudes toward sexual permissiveness (e.g., Reiss, 1964), attitudes toward erotica (e.g., Green & Mosher, 1985), and attitudes toward premarital sexuality (e.g., MacCorquodale &
DeLamater, 1979), scales were not readily available that
encompassed several attitudinal dimensions within a single
measure. Reiss' widely-used sexual permissiveness scale
included the sexual behaviors of kissing, petting, and full
sexual relations; however, the emotional and attitudinal
aspects of sexual relating were not addressed.
The existing clinical literature at that time (e.g., Kaplan,
1974) suggested that sexual relating is a complex web of
emotions, attitudes, and behaviors, multiply determined
and enacted. Although we do not equate sexual attitudes
with sexual behaviors, attitudes and behaviors are often
linked (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). The notion of sexual
behavior as having a substantial emotional component has
become much more widely accepted (Sprecher &
McKinney, 1993), as has the idea that sexual attitudes are
multidimensional. "Hendrick and Hendrick [1987b] identified four different dimensions underlying the set of items
that they studied, one of which corresponded to permissiveness. This same finding - that a single dimension cannot alone explain the full range of sexual attitudes - is
echoed in the results that we present" (Laumann, Gagnon,
Michael, & Michaels, 1994, p. 511).
Address correspondence to Clyde Hendrick, Ph.D., Department of
Psychology, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, 79409-2051; e-mail:
[email protected].

The Journal of Sex Research

Volume 43, Number 1, February 2006: pp. 76-86

The development of the original Sexual Attitudes Scale

was as follows: the first two authors generated an initial
pool of 150 items (by inspection reduced to 102 items) in
the early 1980s, reflecting a variety of values, attitudes,
and orientations to sex, attempting to address traditional
areas of sex attitudes (e.g., permissiveness, premarital
sex) as well as sexual responsibility, what sex "means" in
an emotional sense, and so on. Scale development (S.
Hendrick, Hendrick, Slapion-Foote, & Foote, 1985) was
initiated by reduction of these 102 items to a 58-item,
five-factor scale through principal components analysis of
data from 835 respondents. This initial work was replicated and revised with two large data collections (1,374
respondents) across two geographic locations, yielding
the final format of the Sexual Attitudes Scale (S. Hendrick
& Hendrick, 1987b). In its final form, this 43-item scale
measured four aspects of sexual attitudes: Permissiveness
(casual sexuality), Sexual Practices (responsible, tolerant
sexuality), Communion (idealistic sexuality), and
Instrumentality (biological, utilitarian sexuality).
Our analytic approach for constructing the final form
was to use principal components analysis with varimax
rotation. Our criterion for item retention was to preserve
only items that loaded less than .30 on any of the other
three factors and that (ideally) loaded .50 or higher on
their own factor (4 of 43 items loaded slightly below
.50). This approach resulted in the deletion of 15 items
in the initial 58-item version and slight rewrites of 7 of
the 43 retained items. This analytic approach guaranteed
conceptual independence among the four components
that defined the four sex attitude subscales. The actual
empirical correlations among the four subscales were
modest; the highest was .44 between Permissiveness and
Instrumentality (see S. Hendrick & Hendrick, 1987b,
p. 510). We concluded that the Sexual Attitudes Scale
measured four important, relatively independent sexual
attitudes.
76

77

Hendrick, Hendrick, and Reich

Research With the Sexual Attitudes Scale

Our research. The scale has been used in our own
research in a number of studies, only a few of which are
discussed below. Very early in our research, we theorized
that romantic love and sex are often linked together and
should be studied together. We had developed a measure of
love, the Love Attitudes Scale, which assessed passionate
(Eros), game-playing (Ludus), friendship (Storge), practical (Pragma), possessive (Mania), and altruistic (Agape)
orientations toward love (C. Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986).
We employed both the Love Attitudes Scale and the Sexual
Attitudes Scale in a number of studies designed to increase
understanding of romantic relationships and the variables
that influence their continuation or termination. Initially,
however, we correlated the love and sex scales and found
that Permissiveness and Instrumentality were correlated
positively with game-playing love at .48 and .32, respectively. Communion was correlated positively with passionate love (.30) and altruistic love (.25). We subsequently factored the four sex subscales and six love subscales together in order to assess their common features (S. Hendrick &
Hendrick, 1987b). We obtained three factors that seemed to
represent (a) game-playing and instrumental love and sex,
(b) emotional and responsible love and sex, and (c) stable
love. We subsequently used both the love and sex scales in
several studies. For example, we found that persons who
were in love differed from those not in love (C. Hendrick &
Hendrick, 1988), with the former more passionate, altruistic, and less game-playing in love attitudes and less permissive and instrumental in sexual attitudes than were persons not in love. We also examined gender differences and
similarities in sexual attitudes (S. Hendrick & Hendrick,
1995), often finding that men and women differed on two
of the four subscales, with men more endorsing of
Permissiveness and Instrumentality.
We also used the Sexual Attitudes Scale and additional
relationship measures to assess cultural differences in attitudes between Mexican American (both Hispanic-oriented
and bicultural) and Anglo American married couples
(Contreras, Hendrick, & Hendrick, 1996). We found that
although the groups of couples did not differ across a
number of relational dimensions, they did differ on two
subscales of the Sexual Attitudes Scale: Sexual Practices
and Communion. "The Anglo American group most
strongly endorsed responsible sexual practices, differing
from the two Mexican American groups. Finally, the
Anglo American and bicultural groups had more idealistic
sexual attitudes (Communion) than did the Hispanic-oriented group" (p. 411).
Others' research. A variety of other research on sexuality-related topics has also included the Sexual Attitudes
Scale. In the United States, for example, Cann, Mangum,
and Wells (2001) used the Sexual Attitudes Scale as one
central measure in their study of emotional and sexual infidelity and its differential impacts on men and women.
They found that for women, lower Instrumentality (bio-

logical sex) predicted higher distress due to partners' emotional infidelity, whereas for men, higher Communion
(idealistic sex) predicted higher distress due to partners'
sexual infidelity. The scale was also used by Shafer (2001)
in a study of personality and sexuality, and items from the
Permissiveness subscale have been used in studies of such
topics as alcohol use and date rape (Abbey, Buck,
Zawacki, & Saenz, 2003) and development of the construct of hyperfemininity (McKelvie & Gold, 1994). The
measure was also considered in one of the most comprehensive meta-analyses to date of sexual attitude differences across genders (Oliver & Hyde, 1993).
The Sexual Attitudes Scale has also been used internationally. LeGall, Mullet, and Riviere-Shafighi (2002)
employed it in a study of sexual attitudes of French adults
across several age ranges. The authors found some cultural differences between their French participants and
American participants, as reported in previous research,
noting that "the French appear as more permissive, less
responsible, more instrumentalist, and less interested in
communion than the U.S. participants" (p. 213). Other
results, such as women endorsing Permissiveness less than
men and persons holding religious beliefs endorsing
Permissiveness less than persons not holding such beliefs,
were consistent with previous findings (S. Hendrick &
Hendrick, 1987a). Le Gall et al. found the measure useful
and referred to it as "one of the most complete instruments
for studying sexual attitudes" (p. 207).
Indications for a Revised Sexual Attitudes Scale
Despite the fact that the Sexual Attitudes Scale has been
used widely, some limitations of the scale have been noted
recently. For example, Le Gall et al. (2002) re-factored the
scale with their French sample, finding that the original
four-factor solution did not represent the scale well. Le
Gall et al. used principal components analyses to achieve
a satisfactory six-factor solution, with the resulting six factors named Permissiveness, Responsibility, Pleasure,
Instrumentality, Communion, and Depersonalization.
Although confirmatory factor analysis resulted in a final
five-factor solution and three of these factors were reasonably faithful to three of the original subscales, it appeared
that the scale might not be as stable as is desired, at least
in the French sample.
Stimulated by the work of Le Gall et al. (2002) and others, we reanalyzed some of our own Sexual Attitudes Scale
data sets collected over several years (S. Hendrick &
Hendrick, 2002). Results indicated that, for example, the
correlations between the four sex scales and other relevant
measures continued to be similar across the years.
However, when we reanalyzed the 43 items of the Sexual
Attitudes Scale using principal components analysis with
varimax rotation, we found that the structure of the components changed somewhat over time, using our original
criteria of an item loading .50 on its primary factor and less
than .30 on the other three factors. Given some variation

78

across data sets, the problems found included a few items

no longer loading .50 or higher on any factor; two to three
items being complex, loading too highly on two or more
factors; and shifts of a few items occurring so that their
highest loading changed to a factor other than their original primary factor.
Discussions with colleagues and doctoral students suggested some possible reasons for such shifts. Some of the
items appeared either dated in their phrasing (e.g., "Using
'sex toys' during lovemaking is acceptable") or not centrally relevant to sexual attitudes in an intimate relationship (e.g., "Prostitution is acceptable"). It is not surprising
that some specific attitudes and language usage can change
more rapidly in some areas now than occurred in previous
generations, given greater mobility and new communication technology (e.g., widespread use of the internet).
More broadly, in social science research generally, there
is an increasing pressure for brief assessment measures that
can be used for interviews and telephone surveys and that
can be included in longer batteries, including sexual assessment and other relationship assessment batteries. Of course,
brief reduced measures should be as comparable as possible
to the longer "parent" measures in terms of such features as
factor structures, reliability, subscale intercorrelations, relationships with other measures, and gender differences.
Development of the Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale
This article reports our development of the Brief Sexual
Attitudes Scale, designed to offer a shorter, updated version of a well-utilized measure. Analyses were conducted
on three data sets, including two existing data sets (Studies
I and II) using item subsets from the original 43-item form
of the Sexual Attitudes Scale, and one prospective study
(Study III) using only the brief version. Our primary goal
was to ascertain whether this brief version was psychometrically comparable to the original measure. Therefore, the
brief measure was subjected to a variety of analyses and
comparisons with the longer, original form. Like the original Sexual Attitudes Scale, we expected the Brief Sexual
Attitudes Scale to conform to the same four-factor structure, to have similar levels of reliability and subscale correlations, and to show similar gender differences.
Furthermore, the direction and approximate magnitude
of correlations of the four sex subscales with subscales of
the Love Attitudes Scale, as well as with satisfaction,
commitment, and self-disclosure, should be similar for the
original and brief versions of the scale and should conform
to the relationships found in previous research. Lengthy
theoretical rationales for each relationship are beyond the
scope and purpose of this paper and can be found in the
works cited below, but a general summary perspective is
presented after the hypotheses.
HI: Permissiveness and Instrumentality will correlate
positively with Ludus, and Communion will correlate positively with both Eros and Agape (S. Hendrick &
Hendrick, 1987a).
H2: Permissiveness and Instrumentality will correlate

The Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale

negatively with relationship satisfaction, and Communion

will correlate positively with relationship satisfaction (S.
Hendrick & Hendrick, 1995).
H3: Permissiveness and Instrumentality will correlate
negatively with commitment, and Communion will correlate positively with commitment (S. Hendrick & Hendrick,
1995).
H4: Permissiveness and Instrumentality will correlate
negatively with self-disclosure (C. Hendrick & Hendrick,
1988).
H5: Gender differences will be found for two of the four
subscales, with men more endorsing than women of both
Permissiveness and Instrumentality (C. Hendrick &
Hendrick, 1988).
As noted previously, the original Sexual Attitudes Scale
was developed on an empirical basis. Consequently, the
hypotheses listed above flowed from prior empirical work
relating the sexual attitudes to other relationship variables.
However, a general theoretical principle can be induced
from the hypotheses as well as from previous work. That
principle is that relationship variables that reflect a selforientation (i.e., egocentrism) tend to be positively related
to each other; relationship variables that reflect an otherorientation tend to be positively related to each other; and
self-oriented variables tend to be related negatively to
other-oriented variables.
For example, among the sex attitudes, Permissiveness
and Instrumentality are clearly self-oriented, and
Communion and Sexual Practices (to a lesser extent) are
other-oriented. Among the love attitudes, Ludus (clearly)
and Pragma and Mania (to some extent) are self-oriented,
whereas Eros, Storge, and Agape are strongly other-oriented. Other relational variables, such as commitment and
self-disclosure, tend to be other-oriented. Further, otheroriented variables relate positively to satisfaction with a
relationship, whereas self-oriented variables relate negatively to relationship satisfaction. Given this general theoretical perspective, four of the five empirically-supported
hypotheses described above follow readily. H5 on gender
differences requires different consideration, unless one
gender can be shown to be generally more egocentric than
the other, something on which we do not focus.
STUDYI

Method
Sample and procedure. The sample consisted of 674
participants; 70% were women and 30% were men. In age,
93% of the sample was 22 or younger. European
Americans comprised 71% of the sample, with 8%
Hispanic, 4% African American, 3% Asian or Pacific
Islander, and 13.5% reporting Other. Some 59.5% of participants reported being in a romantic relationship, and
40.5% reported not currently being in a relationship.
(Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.)
The sample was comprised of undergraduates at a large
southwestern university who volunteered to participate in

Hendrick, Hendrick, and Reich

the research as part of their class requirement in introductory psychology. Groups of participants were administered
a detailed relationship-oriented survey questionnaire. The
data from this sample were also reported in S. Hendrick
and Hendrick (2002). (Data for Studies II and III were
used in S. Hendrick and Hendrick, 2005.)
Measures. Demographic information and relationshiprelevant background information were assessed. All alphas
were standardized and refer to results for Study I. The
Sexual Attitudes Scale (S. Hendrick & Hendrick, 1987b) is
a 43-item scale that includes subscales of Permissiveness
(21 items, alpha = .94), Sexual Practices (7 items, alpha =
.77), Communion (9 items, alpha = .79), and
Instrumentality (6 items, alpha = .80). The Love Attitudes
Scale: Short Form (C. Hendrick et al., 1998) is a 24-item
scale composed of six subscales of four items each, including Eros (passionate love, alpha = .80), Ludus (game-playing love, alpha = .68), Storge (friendship love, alpha =
.86), Pragma (practical love, alpha = .79), Mania (possessive, dependent love, alpha = .74), and Agape (altruistic
love, alpha = .88). The Relationship Assessment Scale (S.
Hendrick, 1988) is a unidimensional, seven-item scale
measuring overall relationship satisfaction (alpha = .87).
The Commitment Scale includes four items assessing
commitment, adapted from Lund (1985; alpha = .90). The
Self-Disclosure Index (Miller, Berg, & Archer, 1983) is a
10-item scale measuring self-disclosure to a target person,
which in this study was a romantic partner (alpha = .90).
(For all three studies, the scales used a Likert format.
Additional scales were included that were not relevant to
the current paper.)
Results
Our analytic strategy for this study was to develop a
briefer version of the Sexual Attitudes Scale using
exploratory factor analysis, and if successful, to compare
this new version of the scale with the original scale in
terms of internal reliability (alphas), subscale intercorrelations, correlations with relevant relationship measures, and
gender differences. These analyses (correlations with other
measures and ANOVAs for gender) were selected because
they provided the best replication of previous research
using the Sexual Attitudes Scale, and at the same time
began a validation of the briefer measure.
Creating a brief scale. In the interest of shortening the
scale, we sought to identify and exclude items that did not
load highly (near .50) on any factor, items that loaded
highly (more than .35) on more than one factor, items with
highest loadings on a factor other than their appropriate
factor, and items that contained outdated language. In
addition, we sought to reduce the Permissiveness subscale
in order to balance the size of the subscales. To begin this
process, we performed an exploratory factor analysis using
principal factor extraction on the original 43-item Sexual
Attitudes Scale, using a varimax rotation. There were five
factors with eigenvalues greater than one. Three factors
adequately represented three of the four subscales of the

79

Sexual Attitudes Scale, with the exception of Sexual

Practices, discussed below. Most items loaded on their
appropriate factors; however, eight items loaded .35 or
above on more than one factor, a violation of previously
established criteria. The fifth factor contained four
Permissiveness items with loadings of .35 or higher.
Changes to the subscales are discussed in order. For
Permissiveness (21 items), we dropped four factoriallycomplex items, three reverse-scored items that linked sex
with love, friendship, etc. (and thus were not as directly
related to casual sexuality), and four items reflecting content that seemed either less timely, or negative rather than
simply casual (e.g., "Sex is more fun with someone you
don't love.") Thus, ten Permissiveness items were
retained. For Sexual Practices, three (of seven) items had
loadings of .63 or higher and reflected the theme of birth
control. Of the remaining four items, one item had a loading of only .47, and three items did not load on Sexual
Practices but had higher loadings on two other factors.
Thus, the three birth control items were retained, and the
factor was renamed "Birth Control." For Communion, five
(of nine) items loaded .48 or higher on the proper factor
and no higher than .17 on the other three factors, and
emphasized the relational aspects of sex. Thus, these five
items were retained. Four other items had content that was
less relational (e.g., "Orgasm is the greatest experience in
the world") or that were more general in content (e.g.,
"Sex is fundamentally good."). These items were dropped.
Finally, for Instrumentality, five (of six) items loaded .48
or higher and faithfully reflected the subscale's theme.
One additional item was complex and was dropped. Five
items were retained.
Following this procedure, we had selected a subset of
23 items. To examine the factor structure of this potential
23-item scale and to examine possible correlations
between the factors, an exploratory factor analysis using
principal factors extraction and Harris-Kaiser oblique rotation was conducted on the 23 items. Four factors had
eigenvalues greater than 1.0. Five of the six correlations
between the factors were modest (correlations ranging
from .26 to -.04), but there was a moderate correlation
between Permissiveness and Instrumentality (r = .48).
Because only one sizable factor correlation was found, and
because varimax rotation was used in the original construction of the Sexual Attitudes Scale, the factor loadings
for a varimax solution are reported in Table 1, along with
those for the oblique-rotated solution (shown in parentheses). Both solutions achieved good simple structure (as
clarified by Thurstone, 1947) with similar loadings, and
both showed four factors with eigenvalues greater than
one. Items loaded highly on their respective factors, as
shown, and low on the other three factors.
More specifically, for the varimax rotation, the ten
Permissiveness items loaded .60 or higher on their factor,
the three Sexual Practices (Birth Control) items loaded .63
or higher on their factor, the five Communion items loaded
.49 or higher on their factor, and the five Instrumentality

The Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale

80

Table 1. Factor Loadings for the Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale for Study I
Permiss.
BC
Commun.
Instrum
Subscales
Permissiveness
.79 (.82)
I do not need to be committed to a person to have sex with him/her.
.86 (.89)
Casual sex is acceptable.
.77 (.79)
I would like to have sex with many partners.
.82 (.84)
One-night stands are sometimes enjoyable.
.75 (.76)
It is okay to have ongoing sexual relationships with more than one person at a time.
.77 (.78)
Sex as a simple exchange of favors is okay if both people agree to it.
.65 (.63)
The best sex is with no strings attached.
.70 (.68)
Life would have fewer problems if people could have sex more freely.
.60 (.62)
It is possible to enjoy sex with a person and not like that person very much.
.65 (.66)
It is okay for sex to be just good physical release.
Birth Control
.63 (.64)
Birth control is part of responsible sexuality.
.85 (.86)
A woman should share responsibility for birth control.
.83
(.84)
A man should share responsibility for birth control.
Communion
.56 (.58)
Sex is the closest form of communication between two people.
.64 (.65)
A sexual encounter between two people deeply in love is the ultimate human interaction.
.63 (.63)
At its best, sex seems to be the merging of two souls.
.50 (.50)
Sex is a very important part of life.
.49 (.49)
Sex is usually an intensive, almost overwhelming experience.
Instrumentality
.52 (.56)
Sex is best when you let yourself go and focus on your own pleasure.
.63(.69)
Sex is primarily the taking of pleasure from another person.
.67 (.71)
The main purpose of sex is to enjoy oneself.
.60 (.62)
Sex is primarily physical.
.56 (.57)
Sex is primarily a bodily function, like eating.
Note. N = 67'4. Permiss. = Permissiveness; BC = Birth Control; Commun. = Communion; Instrum. = Instrumentality. Loadings are shown for both
varimax rotation and oblique rotation (latter in parentheses).

items loaded over .50 on their factor. All items had loadings below .22 on the remaining three factors, with two
exceptions. Two Instrumentality items loaded .33 and .34
on the Permissiveness factor. The results suggested that a
23-item brief version of the Sexual Attitudes Scale would
be feasible.
Alphas. For the Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale, the alphas
were as follows: Permissiveness = .93; Birth Control =
.84; Communion = .71; Instrumentality = .77. These
alphas were quite similar to the alphas for the longer version and were deemed adequate for brief scales.
Subscale intercorrelations. The six correlations among
the four subscales of the Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale were
comparable in every case, if not slightly smaller than the
respective six correlations for the Sexual Attitudes Scale.
The
correlation
between
Permissiveness
and
Instrumentality was .41 for the brief measure (compared to
.46 for the original, longer measure), but the other five correlations were .19 or lower.
Correlations with other measures. The Sexual Attitudes
Scale and the Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale were correlated
with the six love attitudes, relationship satisfaction, commitment, and self-disclosure. Results for Study I are
shown in Table 2 as the correlations without parentheses.
The two measures of sexual attitudes showed virtually
identical correlations with the other measures; the correlations did not differ significantly. Hypothesis 1 stated that

the Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale subscales of

Permissiveness and Instrumentality would be correlated
positively with game-playing love (Ludus), and that
Communion would be positively correlated with passionate love (Eros) and altruistic love (Agape). Hypothesis 2
predicted negative correlations between Permissiveness
and Instrumentality and relationship satisfaction, and
a positive correlation between Communion and relationship satisfaction. Both hypotheses were supported.
Hypothesis 3 predicted negative correlations between both
Permissiveness and Instrumentality and commitment, and
a positive correlation between Communion and commitment. This hypothesis was supported. Hypothesis 4 predicted that Permissiveness and Instrumentality would be
negatively related to self-disclosure. This hypothesis was
also supported. There were several additional significant
relationships between the Brief Sexual Attitude Scale subscales and the other variables of interest, such as the negative correlation between Instrumentality and altruistic
love (Agape); however, these correlations were modest for
the most part.
Gender differences. Men and women were compared on
both versions of the sexual attitude scales (see top panel of
Table 3 for Study I). Means were very similar for the two
versions of the Sexual Attitudes Scale. Gender differences
occurred for Permissiveness and Instrumentality, with men
more endorsing of both subscales. Thus, Hypothesis 5

Hendrick, Hendrick, and Reich

81

Table 2. Correlations Between Both Versions of the Sexual Attitudes Scales and Other Relationship Variables for Studies I
and II
Measures
Love Attitudes
Eros

Permissiveness
22** (-.22**)
23** (..23**)

Ludus

44** (.45**)
44** (.45**)
23** (-.18**)
24** (-.18**)
17** (-.18**)
17** (-.16**)
02 (.01)
04 (.02)
09 (-.13)
08 (-.12)

Storge
Pragma
Mania
Agape
Other Measures
Satisfaction

25** (-.22**)
26** (-.23**)
31** (-.26**)
33** (..27**)

Commitment
Self-disclosure

29** (-.18**)
30** (-.18**)

BC

Communion

.10 (-.05)
.10 (-.06)
.04 (.09)
-.05 (-.05)
-.03 (-.17**)
.01 (-.11)
-.14** (-.19**)
-.10 (-.15**)
-.01 (-.01)
-.06 (-.04)
-.04 (-.06)
-.06 (-.07)
.02 (-.04)
.00 (-.01)
-.02 (-.02)
-.01 (-.00)
.13 (.06)
.16** (.07)

Instrum.

.21** (.11)
.16** (.11)
-.01 (.04)
-.02 (-.00)
.08 (-.05)
.07 (-.05)
.05 (-.02)
.04 (.02)
.13(.13)
.11 (.14**)
.17** (.12)
.14** (.16**)

-.21** (-.18**)
-.18** (-.16**)
.33** (.31**)
.30** (.27**)
..14** (-.14)
-.12 (-.12)
.04 (-.06)
.05 (-.03)
.11 (.10)
.10 (.10)
-.13** (-.18**)
-.13** (-.18**)

.15** (.07)
.12 (.08)
.14** (.05)
.10 (.05)
.17** (.05)
.13** (.05)

-.23** (-.20**)
-.19** (-.18**)
-.20** (-.22**)
-.16** (-.20**)
-.20** (-.17**)
-.17** (-.17**)

Note. N = 674 for Study I and 528 for Study I I . Correlations for the original scale are listed above, and those for the brief version are listed below.
Correlations without parentheses are for Study I. Correlations in parentheses are for Study II. BC = Birth Control; Instrum. = Instrumentality.
**p < .001

(which was generated based on previous empirical work,

rather than our theory about self-oriented versus other-oriented constructs) was supported. For the 23-item scale,
women were more endorsing of Birth Control than were
men, a finding we had not predicted.

Table 3. Means and F-Ratios For Sexual Attitudes Scale

Subscales as a Function of Gender for Studies I, II,
and III

Discussion

Study I
Permissiveness

The findings for Study I indicated that the shortened form

of the original Sexual Attitudes Scale had the same fourfactor structure as the original scale and performed similarly to the original scale (and consistently with previous
research) when correlated with the other scales. These
results suggested that the 23-item Brief Sexual Attitudes
Scale is a viable instrument that could replace the 43-item
Sexual Attitudes Scale. The shortened scale was extracted
from the longer scale in a large, existing data set. Such a
procedure, though a reasonable way to shorten a scale initially, may also capitalize on factors unique to that particular data set. Thus, in Study II, we performed an independent replication on another large data set.
STUDY II

Method
Sample and procedure. The sample consisted of 528
participants; 67% were women and 33% were men. Most
of the sample were age 22 or younger (97%). The sample
was comprised of 73% European Americans, 9%
Hispanics, 5% African Americans, 4% Asian or Pacific
Islander, and 9% Other. Fifty percent of participants

Means
Subscales

Birth Control
Communion
Instrumentality
Study II
Permissiveness
Birth Control
Communion
Instrumentality
Study m
Permissiveness
Birth Control
Communion
Instrumentality

Men

Women

F-Ratio

(3.63)
3.38
(1.80)
1.62
(2.11)
2.15
(3.30)
3.27

(4.47)
4.47
(1.81)
1.33
(2.17)
2.20
(3.61)
3.50

241.04***
244.96***
.02
27.09***
1.27
.68
21.84***
11.42***

(3.61)
3.36
(1.83)
1.63
(2.04)
2.03
(3-35)
3.34

(4.41)
4.39
(1.90)
1.49
(2.15)
2.16
(3.54)
3.45

145.14***
149.00***
1.58
3.45
2.83
2.81
6.52*
2.21

3.31
1.83
2.09
3.38

4.37
1.74
2.02
3.53

164.69***
1.04
1.31
4.98*

Note. N = Study I (202 men, 472 women); Study II (172 men, 356
women); Study III (219 men, 299 women). Means for the original measure (Studies I and II only) are in parentheses. Lower means indicate
more of the sexual attitude.

*p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001

82

reported being in a current romantic relationship, and 50%

reported not currently being in a relationship. Participants
were introductory psychology students at a large southwestern university who volunteered to complete a lengthy
relationship-oriented survey as part of their course requirements. Participants were tested in groups.
Measures. Demographic information and relationshiprelevant background information were assessed. The
Sexual Attitudes Scale (S. Hendrick & Hendrick, 1987b)
had the following alphas: Permissiveness (alpha = .95),
Sexual Practices (alpha = .77), Communion (alpha = .82),
and Instrumentality (alpha = .82). The Love Attitudes
Scale: Short Form (C. Hendrick et al., 1998), included
Eros (alpha = .82), Ludus (alpha = .70), Storge (alpha =
.86), Pragma (alpha = .79), Mania (alpha = .70), and
Agape (alpha = .87). The Relationship Assessment Scale
(S. Hendrick, 1988) had an alpha of .89; Commitment
Scale (Lund, 1985) had an alpha of .89; and the SelfDisclosure Index (Miller et al., 1983) had an alpha of .91.
Results
The analytic strategy for this study was similar to that of
Study I and included comparisons of the long and short
versions of the Sexual Attitudes Scale (via confirmatory
factor analyses), alphas, subscale intercorrelations, correlations with other measures, and gender differences on the
four subscales.
Replicating the structure of the Brief Sexual Attitudes
Scale. We performed confirmatory factor analyses on both
the Sexual Attitudes Scale and the Brief Sexual Attitudes
Scale. The 43-item Sexual Attitudes Scale had a Goodness
of Fit Index (GFI) of .96, a GFI adjusted for degrees of
freedom (AGFI) of .92, a Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA) of .08, a Bentler's Comparative
Fit Index (CFI) of .97, and X2 (29, 528) = 117.0. The Brief
Sexual Attitudes Scale had a GFI of .98, AGFI of .96,
RMSEA of .05, CFI of .99, and X2 (21, 528) = 44.7. The
chi-square difference test indicated that the difference
between the two models was highly significant (p < .001).
The four-subscale structure of the Brief Sexual Attitudes
Scale was clearly replicated on an independent data set and
provided a better model fit than the 43-item version.
An additional CFA was performed on a 20-item version
of the Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale, with the three Birth
Control items deleted. The 20-item version had a GFI of
.98, AGFI of .96, RMSEA of .06, CFI of .99, and X2 (11,
528) = 29.88. The chi-square difference test indicated that
the difference between the two models was not significant.
We decided to retain the four-factor, 23-item version of the
scale because we wished to preserve the structure of the
original scale; however, the scale could be used without
the birth control items.
Alphas. For the Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale, the alphas
were as follows: Permissiveness = .95; Birth Control =
.87; Communion = .79; Instrumentality = .80.
Subscale intercorrelations. Once again, the six correlations among the four subscales of the Brief Sexual

The Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale

Attitudes Scale (BSAS) were comparable to the respective

correlations for the Sexual Attitudes Scale (SAS). For the
Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale, the correlation between
Permissiveness and Instrumentality was .44, as compared
to .41 in Study I, and the other five correlations were .20
or lower (.19 in Study I). In summary, the intercorrelation
pattern for the Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale in Study II was
virtually identical to the correlation pattern in Study I.
Correlations with other measures. The correlation
results from Study II were similar to those for Study I and
are shown in parentheses in Table 2. Differences between
the SAS correlations and BSAS correlations were not significant, and differences between the SAS correlations in
Studies I and II and the BSAS correlations in Studies I and
II did not differ significantly. (Only correlation pairs in
which at least one correlation was significant were tested.)
Table 2 allows readers to compare correlations of the original version of the scale in one study (e.g., Study I) with
correlations of the brief version in the other study (e.g.,
Study II, and vice versa). These comparisons eliminate the
possibility that similarities between the two versions are
due to chance factors within a single study.
Gender differences. As in Study I, means were very
similar for the original and short forms of the scale (see
middle panel of Table 3). For the original version, women
were significantly less endorsing of Permissiveness and
Instrumentality than were men. For the short version, the
same difference was shown for Permissiveness, but for
Instrumentality, the difference fell short of significance.
Discussion
The independent replication in Study II closely matched
the results from Study I. The Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale
appears to have scaling properties that are similar and perhaps superior to the longer Sexual Attitudes Scale. Some
content was lost from Sexual Practices (e.g., sex education, masturbation), but this subscale is now a concise
measure of attitudes toward Birth Control. Although the
current results argue against the notion that the results of
Study I simply capitalized on chance, the 23-item Brief
Sexual Attitudes Scale was still a set of items selected out
of a larger context of 43 items. That context might, in
unknown ways, have caused the particular results that
were obtained. Establishment of context independence as
well as replication of results were the purposes of prospective Study III.
STUDY III

Method
Sample and procedure. The sample consisted of 518
participants; 58% were women and 42% were men. Most
of the sample were age 22 or younger (96%). The sample
was comprised of 73% European Americans, 11%
Hispanics, 3% African Americans, 3.5% Asian or Pacific
Islander, and 9.5% Other. Some 42% of participants
reported being in a current romantic relationship, and 58%

Hendrick, Hendrick, and Reich

83

respect for one's partner (S. Hendrick & Hendrick, 2005).

reported that they were not in a current romantic relationship. Participants were introductory psychology students
at a large southwestern university who volunteered to
complete a relationship-oriented survey as part of their
course requirements. Participants were assessed in groups.
Measures. This study employed all previous measures
(with the exclusion of the original Sexual Attitudes Scale),
and three new measures were added in Study III to
strengthen the construct validity of the Brief Sexual
Attitudes Scale. Demographic information and relationship-relevant information were assessed. The Brief Sexual
Attitudes Scale consisted of 23 items: Permissiveness (10
items, alpha = .95), Birth Control (3 items, alpha = .88),
Communion (5 items, alpha = .73), and Instrumentality (5
items, alpha = .77). The Love Attitudes Scale: Short Form
(C. Hendrick et al., 1998) included Eros (alpha = .80),
Ludus (alpha = .71), Storge (alpha = .88), Pragma (alpha =
.80), Mania (alpha = .71), and Agape (alpha = .84). The
Relationship Assessment Scale (S. Hendrick, 1988) had an
alpha of .86. The Commitment Scale (Lund, 1985) had an
alpha of .87. The Self-Disclosure Index (Miller et al.,
1983) had an alpha of .92.
For new measures, two items measuring the possibilities
for attracting an Alternative Partner (alpha = .63) were
based on Lund (1985). The Perceptions of Love and Sex
Scale (S. Hendrick & Hendrick, 2002) is a measure of people's attitudinal linkages between love and sex and includes
the following subscales: Love is Most Important (alpha =
.79); Sex Demonstrates Love (alpha = .84); Love Comes
Before Sex (alpha = .79); and Sex is Declining (alpha = .59).
The Respect Toward Partner Scale (alpha = .87) measures

Results
The analytic strategy for Study III was similar overall to
that for Study II. We sought to confirm the four-factor
structure of the Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale by confirmatory factor analysis when the scale was administered independently of the 20 items dropped from the original version. The alphas were noted above, and the intercorrelations among the subscales are described below.
Correlations between the Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale and
other measures are shown in Table 4. Test-retest reliability
correlations were conducted with a separate sample and
are reported at the end of this section.
Structure of the Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale. The fourfactor structure was confirmed by a confirmatory factor
analysis. The Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale had a GFI of .98,
AGFT of .95, RMSEAof .05, CFI of .99, and X2 (21,518) =
52.3. The final set of items for this scale is given in
Appendix 1, along with the instructional format that is used.
Subscale intercorrelations. Five of the six subscale intercorrelations were .20 or lower. The correlation between
Permissiveness and Instrumentality was .40. This pattern of
scale intercorrelations for the Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale
was thus virtually identical across all three studies.
Correlations with other measures. The correlations of
the four sexual attitude scales and additional relationship
variables are shown in Table 4. We expected to replicate
the results for the Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale subscales
and the love scales, relationship satisfaction (shown in row
designated RAS), commitment, and self-disclosure found

Table 4. Correlations Between the Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale and Other Relationship Variables for Study III
Other measures
Love Styles
Eros
Ludus
Storge
Pragma
Mania
Agape
Relational Satisfaction
RAS
Partner Connectedness
Commitment
Self-disclosure
Alternative partner
Perceptions of Love and Sex
Love is most important
Sex demonstrates love
Love comes before sex
Sex is declining
Respect
Respect toward partner
Note. N= 518.
** p < .001 ***p < .0001

Permissiveness

Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale

Birth Control

Communion

Instrumentality

_ 24***
.53***
-.23***
-.17***
.06
-.05

.03
.09
-.05
-.02
.05
.01

.26***
.02
.11
.14**
.19***
.12

-.14
29***
-.02
-.07

-.27***

-.04

.13

-.17**

-.31***
_29***
.28***

.05
.09
.11

.10
.17***
.05

-.16**
-.15**
.10

-.28***
.04
_ 4i***
.20***

.11
.16**
.03
.07

.15**
.28***
.16**
-.08

-.15**
.13
-.14
.13

-.28***

-.00

.18***

.11

-.09

-.14

84

in Studies I and II, and indeed, these correlations look very

similar. (The greatest correlation change from Study II to
Study III was a change of .15 for the correlation between
Eros and Communion.) For the alternative partner scale,
we expected to find a positive correlation with
Permissiveness and a negative correlation with
Communion. For the Perceptions of Love and Sex Scale,
based on S. Hendrick & Hendrick (2002), we expected
Permissiveness to correlate negatively with the subscales
of Love is Most Important and Love Comes Before Sex.
We expected Birth Control to correlate positively with Sex
Demonstrates Love. We expected Communion to correlate
positively with Love is Most Important and Sex
Demonstrates Love. And finally, we expected
Instrumentality to correlate negatively with Love is Most
Important and Love Comes Before Sex. The Respect
Toward Partner Scale is a relatively new measure. We
expected that it would correlate negatively with both
Permissiveness and Instrumentality and positively with
Birth Control and Communion.
Because of the large N, we used a criterion of .15 or
higher for considering a correlation as meaningful. A correlation of .15 accounts for 2.25% of the variance between
two measures, enough to suggest that a real relationship
may exist.
For Permissiveness, correlations for Study III with the
scales also used in Studies I and II were consistent with
correlations for the previous studies. For the new scales
introduced in Study III, as expected, Permissiveness was
correlated negatively with Love is Most Important, Love
Comes Before Sex, and Respect Toward Partner.
Birth Control had few significant correlations and performed fairly similarly to the way it had for Studies I and
II. For the new scales, it correlated only with Sex
Demonstrates Love, as expected. Though modest, the correlation makes sense, since persons who believe that sex
can demonstrate love should likely feel that responsible
birth control is important. We had expected Birth Control to
be correlated positively with respect, but it was not.
Communion correlated with the love and satisfaction
variables comparable to the way it had in Study I. For the
new measures, Communion did not correlate with alternative partner, though a negative correlation had been
expected. As expected, it correlated positively with Love is
Most Important, Sex Demonstrates Love, Love Comes
Before Sex, and respect.
Instrumentality also exhibited correlations that were relatively similar across all three studies, although only that
with the love attitude of Ludus exceeded the criterion of
.15. For the new measures, although several relationships
had been predicted, only the negative correlation with
Love is Most Important reached the criterion of .15.
Gender differences. Consistent with Studies I and II,
women in Study III were less endorsing of Permissiveness
and Instrumentality than were men, and the genders did
not differ on Birth Control or Communion (see bottom
panel of Table 3).

The Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale

Scale reliability across time. Test-retest analyses were

conducted with 79 students drawn from an undergraduate
human sexuality class at a large southwestern university.
The Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale was administered twice
with a one-month interval between administrations. No
course credit was received, and students completed the
survey in class after taking an examination. Test-retest correlations for the subscales were Permissiveness = .92;
Birth Control = .57; Communion = .86; and
Instrumentality = .75.
Discussion
Study III successfully concluded development of the Brief
Sexual Attitudes Scale. This 23-item scale emerged with
better psychometric properties than the longer 43-item
Sexual Attitudes Scale. Subscale intercorrelations and correlations with other measures were consistent for both versions of the scale.
This research has some limitations. First, participants
were university students; thus, the generalizability of the
results to other age groups may be limited. In addition, the
sample lacked the racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity that would be desirable and is surely needed in future
research. Finally, the test-retest reliability for the threeitem Birth Control subscale was low, and thus results for
this subscale should perhaps be interpreted with caution.
The alpha was excellent for Birth Control, however, and it
may be that the test-retest correlation of .57 accurately
reflects the inconsistency (and ambivalence) among college students in their use of birth control, as well as their
attitudes about it.
CONCLUSION

This research might be viewed as a case study in the historical mutability of psychosocial measuring instruments.
When researchers initially create a reliable and valid measure, the massive effort required to create the measure
implicitly suggests that the scale should last for a considerable period of time; and some measures do. Yet the
rapidity of social and linguistic change may require more
revalidation of existing scales, necessitating the type of
work discussed in this paper. We set out to shorten and
update the Sexual Attitudes Scale, employing three separate samples and conducting numerous analyses in the
process. No one relishes the work required to revalidate a
scale; but the original Sexual Attitudes Scale has been
widely used, as we detailed in the introduction, and we felt
it should be revalidated. We are pleased with the results,
especially the fact that the new Brief Sexual Attitudes
Scale retains 23 of the original 43 items in identical form.
We hope this new version of the scale will be useful to
both researchers and clinicians for years to come.
REFERENCES
Abbey, A., Buck, P. O., Zawacki, T., & Saenz, C. (2003). Alcohol's effects
on perceptions of a potential date rape. Journal of Studies on Alcohol,
64, 669-677.
Cann, A., Mangum, J. L., & Wells, M. (2001). Distress in response to rela-

Hendrick, Hendrick, and Reich

tionship infidelity: The roles of gender and attitudes about relationships.
The Journal of Sex Research, 38, 185-190.
Contreras, R., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1996). Perspectives on marital love and satisfaction in Mexican American and Anglo couples.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 74, 408-415.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando,
FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Green, S. E., & Mosher, D. L. (1985). A causal model of sexual arousal to
erotic fantasies. The Journal of Sex Research, 21, 1-23.
Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 392-402.
Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1988). Lovers wear rose colored glasses.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 5, 161-183.
Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S. S., & Dicke, A. (1998). The Love Attitudes Scale:
Short Form. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 147-159.
Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 93-98.
Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1987a). Love and sex attitudes and religious beliefs. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 5, 391-398.
Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1987b). Multidimensionality of sexual attitudes. The Journal of Sex Research, 23, 502-526.
Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1995). Gender differences and similarities
in sex and love attitudes. Personal Relationships, 2, 55-65.
Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (2002). Linking romantic love with sex:
Development of the Perceptions of Love and Sex Scale. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships 19, 361-378.
Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (2005). Measuring respect in close relationships. Manuscript under review.
Hendrick, S. S., Hendrick, C., Slapion-Foote, M. J., & Foote, F. H. (1985).

85
Gender differences in sexual attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 48, 1,630-1,642.
Kaplan, H. S. (1974). The new sex therapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T, & Michaels, S. (1994). The
social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
LeGall, A., Mullet, E., & Riviere-Shafighi, S. (2002). Age, religious beliefs,
and sexual attitudes. The Journal of Sex Research, 39, 207-216.
Lund, M. (1985). The development of investment and commitment scales
for predicting continuity of personal relationships. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 2, 3-23.
MacCorquodale, P., & DeLamater, J. (1979). Self-image and premarital sexuality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 327-339.
McKelvie, M., & Gold, S. R. (1994). Hyperfemininity: Further definition of
the construct. The Journal of Sex Research, 31, 219-228.
Miller, L. C., Berg, J. H., & Archer, R. L. (1983). Openers: Individuals who
elicit intimate self-disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 44, 1,234-1,244.
Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29-51.
Reiss, I. L. (1964). The scaling of premarital sexual permissiveness. New
York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Shafer, A. B. (2001). The big five and sexuality trait terms as predictors of
relationships and sex. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 313-338.
Sprecher, S., & McKinney, K. (1993). Sexuality. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Thurstone, L. L. (1947). Multiple factor analysis. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Manuscript accepted September 22, 2005

86

The Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale

APPENDIX 1. THE BRIEF SEXUAL ATTITUDES SCALE

Listed below are several statements that reflect different attitudes about sex. For each statement fill in the response on the
answer sheet that indicates how much you agree or disagree with that statement. Some of the items refer to a specific sexual relationship, while others refer to general attitudes and beliefs about sex. Whenever possible, answer the questions with
your current partner in mind. If you are not currently dating anyone, answer the questions with your most recent partner in
mind. If you have never had a sexual relationship, answer in terms of what you think your responses would most likely be.
For each statement:
A = Strongly agree with statement
B = Moderately agree with the statement
C = Neutral - neither agree nor disagree
D = Moderately disagree with the statement
E = Strongly disagree with the statement
Permissiveness
I do not need to be committed to a person to have sex with him/her.
Casual sex is acceptable.
I would like to have sex with many partners.
One-night stands are sometimes very enjoyable.
It is okay to have ongoing sexual relationships with more than one person at a time.
Sex as a simple exchange of favors is okay if both people agree to it.
The best sex is with no strings attached.
Life would have fewer problems if people could have sex more freely.
It is possible to enjoy sex with a person and not like that person very much.
It is okay for sex to be just good physical release.
Birth Control
Birth control is part of responsible sexuality.
A woman should share responsibility for birth control.
A man should share responsibility for birth control.
Communion
Sex is the closest form of communication between two people.
A sexual encounter between two people deeply in love is the ultimate human interaction.
At its best, sex seems to be the merging of two souls.
Sex is a very important part of life.
Sex is usually an intensive, almost overwhelming experience.
Instrumentality
Sex is best when you let yourself go and focus on your own pleasure.
Sex is primarily the taking of pleasure from another person.
The main purpose of sex is to enjoy oneself.
Sex is primarily physical.
Sex is primarily a bodily function, like eating.
Note. The BSAS includes the instructions shown at the top. The items are given in the order shown. The BSAS is usually part of a battery with items
numbered consecutively. The scoring may be reversed, so that A = strongly disagree, etc. The scale names and lines separating scales are not shown
to participants.