The Sexuality Scale<\/strong> (SS) is an objective, multidimensional self-report psychometric instrument developed by William E. Snell, Jr.<\/a> and Dennis R. Papini in 1989. Designed to assess dispositional tendencies and affective-cognitive evaluations regarding human sexuality, the scale operationalizes three distinct, robust psychological dimensions: sexual esteem<\/em>, sexual depression<\/em>, and sexual preoccupation<\/em>. Comprising 30 items administered across a 5-point bipolar Likert response format ranging from -2 (“Disagree”) to +2 (“Agree”), the instrument isolates two 10-item dimensions alongside an 8-item affective dimension and two non-scored filler items. Psychometric validation studies demonstrate that the subscales possess high internal consistency reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients consistently ranging from .79 to .94 across diverse collegiate, adult community, and clinical cohorts. Test-retest reliability across multiple assessment waves yields stable correlation coefficients between .67 and .76.<\/p>\n Extensive factor-analytic evaluations via principal components analysis with orthogonal and oblique rotations substantiate the empirical isolation of these three conceptual clusters, accounting for substantial portions of variance. Convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity investigations establish that the Sexuality Scale effectively predicts differential patterns of sexual behavior, relational satisfaction, sexual dysfunction, contraceptive risk-taking, and psychological distress. While sexual esteem exhibits positive linkages with relationship quality, sexual depression associates strongly with broader depressive symptomatology and performance anxiety, and sexual preoccupation reveals notable sex-moderated divergences. This article provides a comprehensive academic review of the Sexuality Scale, examining its theoretical architecture, psychometric properties, structural stability, scoring algorithms, short-form adaptations, clinical utility, and complete verbatim item inventory.<\/p>\n Sexuality Scale, sexual esteem, sexual depression, sexual preoccupation, psychometrics, human sexuality, sexual self-concept, sexual dysfunction, Snell, factor analysis<\/p>\n The Sexuality Scale was conceptualized, developed, and empirically validated by psychometricians and behavioral researchers specializing in social psychology, interpersonal dynamics, and human sexuality:<\/p>\n Subsequent psychometric short-form adaptations and clinical validation investigations were advanced by independent researchers, notably Michael W. Wiederman, Ph.D.<\/strong> and Elizabeth R. Allgeier, Ph.D.<\/strong> at Bowling Green State University, as well as David F. Hurlbert, Ph.D.<\/strong> in clinical sexology and behavioral medicine settings.<\/p>\n The primary purpose of the Sexuality Scale (SS) is to provide empirical researchers, clinical psychologists, relationship counselors, and sexologists with a standardized, objective, and conceptually distinct measure of psychological and affective orientations toward one’s sexuality. Prior to the instrument’s construction in 1989, contemporary sexuality research lacked unified psychometric tools capable of evaluating cognitive self-appraisals and emotional states specific to the sexual domain. Clinicians and behavioral scientists frequently relied upon omnibus personality inventories or generalized self-esteem and depression indices, such as the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale<\/a> or the Beck Depression Inventory<\/a>. Although informative regarding global psychological functioning, these generic scales systematically failed to capture domain-specific affective liabilities, feelings of inadequacy, or obsessive ruminations tied exclusively to sexual expression and intimate interactions.<\/p>\n The clinical and empirical rationale behind the Sexuality Scale stems from the principle of domain specificity in social cognition. An individual can display high generalized self-esteem and academic or occupational efficacy while simultaneously experiencing profound feelings of inadequacy, failure, or sadness regarding their sexual performance and physical intimacy. Conversely, hyper-vigilance and persistent cognitive fixation on erotic stimuli (sexual preoccupation) may manifest independently of general obsessive-compulsive traits. Consequently, the Sexuality Scale was engineered to resolve these diagnostic ambiguities by operationalizing three crucial psychological vectors: feelings of confidence and personal efficacy as a sexual partner, persistent dysphoria or disappointment regarding sexual experiences, and pervasive, intrusive cognitive absorption in sexual thoughts.<\/p>\n In clinical practice, the SS serves as an indispensable baseline assessment and outcome evaluation tool for individuals presenting with sexual dysfunctions, such as hypoactive sexual desire disorder, erectile dysfunction, female orgasmic disorder, or dyspareunia. Therapists utilize the subscales to pinpoint whether an individual’s difficulties arise from acute sexual self-doubt (low sexual esteem), pervasive affective distress (high sexual depression), or intrusive cognitive distractions (elevated sexual preoccupation). In academic and social-psychological research, the SS facilitates the systematic modeling of risky sexual behaviors, intimate relationship stability, gender differences in sexual socialization, and psychological adjustment across the adult lifespan.<\/p>\n The Sexuality Scale models human sexuality as an intricate composite of domain-specific self-schemas, affective evaluations, and cognitive habits. Rather than conceptualizing sexual health merely through physiological parameters or behavioral frequency counts, the instrument assesses three core psychological dimensions:<\/p>\n Sexual esteem<\/strong> is defined as a person’s positive regard for, and confidence in, their capacity to experience their sexuality in a satisfying, fulfilling, and enjoyable manner. It reflects an internalized affective-evaluative appraisal of sexual competence, physical attractiveness, desirability, and performance capabilities within intimate encounters. Individuals demonstrating elevated sexual esteem maintain stable self-efficacy regarding their interpersonal erotic communication, possess confidence in their ability to experience pleasure, and derive genuine emotional satisfaction from sexual relations. Illustrative scale items measuring this construct include “I am a good sexual partner”<\/em> (Item 1), “I would rate my sexual skill quite highly”<\/em> (Item 4), and reverse-coded declarations such as “I am not very confident in sexual encounters”<\/em> (Item 13R). Deficits in sexual esteem often manifest as intense performance anxiety, vulnerability to shame, avoidant attachment behaviors, and reticence to initiate or communicate intimate desires.<\/p>\n Sexual depression<\/strong> constitutes the subjective experience of feelings of sadness, demoralization, disappointment, and dysphoria regarding one’s sex life and erotic relationships. It operates as the emotional antithesis of sexual fulfillment. Rather than mirroring temporary situational displeasure, sexual depression captures chronic cognitive resignation, sorrow, and affective alienation anchored in perceived sexual inadequacies, failed intimate connections, or chronic intimacy deficits. Typical statements tapping this dimension comprise “I am depressed about the sexual aspects of my life”<\/em> (Item 2), “I am disappointed about the quality of my sex life”<\/em> (Item 8), and “I feel sad when I think about my sexual experiences”<\/em> (Item 26). Individuals scoring high on sexual depression frequently internalize sexual difficulties as fundamental personal shortcomings, cultivating feelings of helplessness that exacerbate sexual dysfunctions and relational friction.<\/p>\n Sexual preoccupation<\/strong> is characterized as the dispositional tendency to think about, ruminate upon, and obsess over sex to an excessive, pervasive degree. This construct assesses the proportion of attentional and cognitive bandwidth consumed by erotic daydreams, sexual ideation, and intrusive intimate thoughts. Unlike healthy sexual desire or interest, high sexual preoccupation implies an intrusive, recurring cognitive absorption that may interfere with daily executive functioning or indicate compensatory escapism. Items defining this subscale include “I think about sex all the time”<\/em> (Item 3), “I think about sex more than anything else”<\/em> (Item 6), and “I tend to be preoccupied with sex”<\/em> (Item 12), balanced by reverse-scored items such as “I seldom think about sex”<\/em> (Item 21R). Research indicates that while moderate sexual preoccupation may align with healthy sexual vitality, pathological elevations often link to hypersexual behaviors, emotional avoidance, and compulsive sexual patterns.<\/p>\n The structural underpinnings of the Sexuality Scale are deeply rooted in Social Cognitive Theory<\/a>, primarily Albert Bandura’s<\/a> conceptualization of self-efficacy, integrated with self-schema theory<\/a> as formulated by Hazel Markus. Markus posited that individuals construct cognitive generalizations about the self based on past behavioral experiences, cultural conditioning, and social interactions. These self-schemas systematically organize and direct the processing of self-relevant information. Snell and Papini (1989) extended this framework directly to human sexuality, arguing that an individual develops a distinct “sexual self-concept” comprising cognitive-affective sub-structures that dictate how intimate experiences are perceived, evaluated, and enacted.<\/p>\n Within this theoretical paradigm, sexual esteem<\/strong> functions as a manifestation of sexual self-efficacy. Bandura posited that individuals with high self-efficacy approach challenging endeavors as challenges to master rather than threats to avoid. Applied to sexuality, individuals who perceive themselves as possessing high behavioral competence and interpersonal communicative skills enter sexual scenarios with minimal anxiety, which facilitates positive physiological arousal and relational bonding. Conversely, when sexual self-efficacy is compromised, individuals develop negative cognitive distortions regarding their performance capacity, giving rise to acute anticipatory distress.<\/p>\n The construct of sexual depression<\/strong> integrates the cognitive model of depression articulated by Aaron T. Beck<\/a>. Beck asserted that depression is driven by negative cognitive triads regarding the self, the immediate world, and the future. In the context of the Sexuality Scale, sexual depression represents the domain-specific application of this negative triad: the self is viewed as an inadequate, defective sexual partner; the person’s sexual history and present relationships are evaluated as disappointments; and the future of their sexual fulfillment is viewed with pessimistic resignation. This cognitive feedback loop suppresses intimate motivation and triggers behavioral withdrawal, reinforcing chronic relational dissatisfaction.<\/p>\n Finally, sexual preoccupation<\/strong> derives from cognitive absorption and rumination theories. Cognitions regarding sexual stimuli can become functionally autonomous, sustained by neurobiological reward loops or utilized as maladaptive coping mechanisms for managing negative affect, loneliness, or emotional stress. By simultaneously assessing these three dimensions, Snell and Papini’s theoretical framework acknowledges that cognitive evaluations (esteem), emotional dysregulation (depression), and attentional allocation (preoccupation) operate interactively to form the overarching sexual personality structure.<\/p>\n The validity of the Sexuality Scale has been corroborated across numerous empirical investigations evaluating construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity across diverse developmental, gender, and clinical samples:<\/p>\n In their seminal validation study, Snell and Papini (1989) analyzed a cohort of 296 university students and observed predictable, theoretically consistent correlational patterns. Across both female and male cohorts, sexual esteem<\/em> was significantly negatively correlated with sexual depression<\/em> (with correlations ranging from -.35 to -.55, demonstrating substantial magnitude among male respondents). This negative association robustly validates the construct assumption that positive regard for one’s sexual capacity inversely tracks emotional sorrow and dissatisfaction regarding intimacy.<\/p>\n Fascinating sex-moderated divergences emerged regarding sexual preoccupation<\/em>, providing profound construct and discriminant validity evidence. Among women, sexual esteem demonstrated a statistically significant positive relationship with sexual preoccupation, suggesting that for women, thinking frequently about sexuality often aligns with a positive, healthy, and self-efficacious sexual identity. In contrast, among men, sexual depression correlated positively with sexual preoccupation. For men, excessive cognitive preoccupation often co-occurred with feelings of disappointment, sexual frustration, and affective demoralization, demonstrating that high preoccupation can signify distinct psychological dynamics across different genders.<\/p>\n Snell, Fisher, and Schuh (1992) conducted extensive psychometric examinations demonstrating that the Sexuality Scale subscales correlate logically with established psychological constructs while maintaining conceptual independence. Sexual esteem correlated positively with global self-esteem, internal locus of control, sexual assertiveness, and erotic pleasure, yet the magnitude of these correlations (typically between .30 and .50) confirmed that sexual esteem is not merely a redundant reflection of generalized self-worth. Sexual depression converged significantly with generalized depressive inventories and neuroticism, while diverging from measures of physical self-concept and cognitive mastery.<\/p>\n Furthermore, Wiederman and Allgeier (1993) demonstrated that men generally report higher sexual preoccupation scores than women, while also examining the discriminant boundaries between sexual esteem and social desirability. Their findings affirmed that the SS captures authentic self-evaluations rather than pervasive impression management response biases.<\/p>\n The clinical utility of the Sexuality Scale was confirmed by Hurlbert, White, Powell, and Apt (1993) in an outcome study evaluating behavioral and orgasmic consistency training in women diagnosed with hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD)<\/a>. Over the course of therapeutic intervention, participants exhibited statistically significant elevations in sexual esteem alongside marked decreases in sexual depression. These systematic shifts paralleled physiological improvements in orgasm frequency and subjective sexual satisfaction, demonstrating the instrument’s clinical sensitivity to therapeutic change.<\/p>\n The Sexuality Scale exhibits exceptional psychometric reliability across multiple independent evaluations, consistently meeting and exceeding standard thresholds for internal consistency and temporal stability:<\/p>\n In the original normative sample of 296 participants (209 females, 87 males; mean age ~23.5 years), Snell and Papini (1989) calculated Cronbach’s alpha coefficients<\/a> for each subscale:<\/p>\n Replication studies by Snell, Fisher, and Schuh (1992) provided further confirmation of internal consistency across expanded cohorts: sexual esteem alpha coefficients ranged from .90 to .92; sexual depression coefficients ranged from .85 to .93; and sexual preoccupation coefficients ranged from .87 to .91.<\/p>\n For the widely cited 15-item short-form developed by Wiederman and Allgeier (1993), five items were retained per subscale. Despite reducing the subscale lengths by half, internal consistencies remained extraordinarily robust: for sexual esteem, alphas were .92 (men) and .94 (women); for sexual depression, .89 (men) and .89 (women); and for sexual preoccupation, .96 (men) and .92 (women).<\/p>\n Temporal stability assessments conducted across varying test-retest intervals (ranging from two to four weeks) verified that the Sexuality Scale captures stable dispositional traits rather than transient situational fluctuations. Snell, Fisher, and Schuh (1992) reported test-retest stability coefficients across the subscales as follows:<\/p>\n These values demonstrate that while subscale scores are capable of reflecting meaningful therapeutic changes over extended interventions, they retain high rank-order stability over shorter intervals.<\/p>\n The structural validity of the Sexuality Scale was empirically established through principal components analysis (PCA)<\/a> conducted on the original 30-item pool (Snell & Papini, 1989). A three-factor solution was specified a priori based on theoretical modeling, followed by an orthogonal Varimax rotation<\/a> to achieve simple structure.<\/p>\n The exploratory factor analytic model successfully separated the items into three conceptually clean, robust components:<\/p>\n During the factor analysis, two items originally drafted for the depression dimension exhibited factor loadings below the .20 retention criterion: Item 11 (“Thinking about sex makes me happy”<\/em>) and Item 14 (“I derive pleasure and enjoyment from sex”<\/em>). Because these two statements failed to load substantially or consistently onto the sexual depression factor or any other primary dimension, the authors designated them as “filler items.” Consequently, these two items are excluded from scoring algorithms, leaving the final scored sexual depression subscale with 8 items.<\/p>\n Subsequent psychometric investigations (e.g., Wiederman & Allgeier, 1993) subjected both the full 30-item scale and the 15-item short-form to confirmatory factor analyses. The three-factor latent structure exhibited superior model fit indices (e.g., CFI > .92, RMSEA < .06) compared to alternative unidimensional or two-factor models, corroborating that sexual esteem, sexual depression, and sexual preoccupation represent psychometrically separable constructs<\/span>.<\/p>\n The Sexuality Scale (SS) is structured as follows:<\/p>\n The Sexuality Scale was formally introduced into the peer-reviewed literature in 1989<\/strong> through publication in The Journal of Sex Research<\/em> by William E. Snell, Jr. and Dennis R. Papini. As an academic instrument developed for research and educational purposes, the Sexuality Scale is placed in the public domain for non-commercial scholarly research, clinical training, and academic assessments. No licensing fees, commercial royalties, or formal administrative registration processes are required to utilize the scale in scholarly inquiries.<\/p>\n Investigators, psychometricians, and clinicians employing the Sexuality Scale are expected to maintain academic attribution by citing the foundational validation articles (Snell & Papini, 1989; Snell et al., 1992; Wiederman & Allgeier, 1993). In the event that commercial software products, digital platforms, or fee-generating clinical tools incorporate the SS, appropriate written consent and authorization must be sought directly from the primary copyright holders and publisher (Taylor & Francis \/ Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality).<\/p>\n Hurlbert, D. F., White, L. C., Powell, R. D., & Apt, C. (1993). Orgasm consistency training in the treatment of women reporting hypoactive sexual desire: An outcome comparison of women-only groups and couples-only groups. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry<\/em>, 24(1), 3–13. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/0005-7916(93)90003-V<\/a><\/p>\n Snell, W. E., Jr., Fisher, T. D., & Schuh, T. (1992). Reliability and validity of the Sexuality Scale: A measure of sexual-esteem, sexual-depression, and sexual-preoccupation. The Journal of Sex Research<\/em>, 29(2), 261–273. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/00224499209551646<\/a><\/p>\n Snell, W. E., Jr., & Papini, D. R. (1989). The Sexuality Scale: An instrument to measure sexual-esteem, sexual-depression, and sexual-preoccupation. The Journal of Sex Research<\/em>, 26(2), 256–263. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/00224498909551510<\/a><\/p>\n2. Keywords<\/h2>\n
3. Authors<\/h2>\n
\n
4. Purpose<\/h2>\n
5. Psychological Construct<\/h2>\n
Sexual Esteem<\/h3>\n
Sexual Depression<\/h3>\n
Sexual Preoccupation<\/h3>\n
6. Theoretical Framework<\/h2>\n
7. Validity<\/h2>\n
Construct and Correlational Validity<\/h3>\n
Convergent and Discriminant Validity<\/h3>\n
Criterion and Clinical Validity<\/h3>\n
8. Reliability<\/h2>\n
Internal Consistency Reliability<\/h3>\n
\n
Test-Retest Stability<\/h3>\n
\n
9. Factor Analysis<\/h2>\n
Factor Extraction and Variance Explained<\/h3>\n
\n
Identification of Filler Items<\/h3>\n
Confirmatory Factor Analytic (CFA) Support<\/h3>\n
10. Instrument \/ Measurement Tool<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year<\/h2>\n
12. References<\/h2>\n