Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Sexual Intent Scale

Abstract

Men have been found to attribute more sexual meaning to cross-gender interactions than women do—a finding that has come to be known as the oversexualization effect. Despite the large body of research supporting the notion that men are more biased in their perceptions than women, researchers are moving beyond gender differences and examining personality variables to identify factors that can explain and predict the oversexualization effect. However, results have been mixed. Thus, the goal of this study was to develop a measurement tool, the Sexual Intent Scale, which assesses individual differences in attributing sexual intent. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the Sexual Intent Scale revealed the scale has three components we termed Sexual Facility, Friendship Facility, and Sexual Empathy. Temporal reliability and convergent and construct validity as well as norms and subscale correlations are presented. Results are discussed in terms of the scale's utility and directions for future research are explored.

Acknowledgments

We wish to acknowledge helpful comments from Antonia Abbey, Aaron Pincus, John Wincze, and two anonymous reviewers on earlier drafts of this manuscript. This research was partially supported by an Internal Research Development Grant by The Pennsylvania State University to the first author.

Notes

¹As noted earlier, little, if any, research has been done exploring differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals in terms of their ability to infer sexual intent. Because of this, we decided to develop a scale based on a homogeneous population (i.e., heterosexual college students).

Note. Bold loadings indicate the factor on which the item was retained; F1–F3 = Factor 1–Factor 3.

Note. RMR = root mean square residual; GFI = goodness of fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; NFI = normative fit index; IFI = incremental fix index; N/A = not applicable to root mean square error of approximation.

Note. Directions for the Sexual Intent Scale were as follows: “We are interested in finding out about your understanding of behaviors that convey sexual intent when interacting with others. In answering the following questions, please keep your own experiences in mind. No two statements are exactly the same so please consider each statement carefully before answering.” The response scales for Sexual Facility and Friendship Facility subscales were 1 = Never connotes sexual intent; 2 = Rarely connotes sexual intent; 3 = Sometimes connotes sexual intent; 4 = Usually connotes sexual intent; and 5 = Always connotes sexual intent. The response scale for the Sexual Empathy subscale was 1 = Never; 2 = Rarely; 3 = Sometimes; 4 =Usually; and 5 = Always.

Note. Men: n = 241; women: n = 481.

^a n = 495.

^b n = 227.

*p < .01, two-tailed.

*p < .05 two-tailed. **p < .01 two-tailed.

²Because men scored higher than women on the Sexual Intent Scale, partial correlations were conducted controlling for gender. Controlling for gender had little effect on the strength of the relationships among the variables, so zero-order correlations are reported.

*p < .05 two-tailed. **p < .01 two-tailed.