Assessing Multiple Facets of Attraction to Women and Men<\/strong> is an assessment instrument conceptualized and developed by developmental and social psychologist Lisa M. Diamond<\/a>. Designed to transcend the psychometric constraints of unidimensional or aggregate measures of sexual orientation, such as the classic Kinsey Scale<\/a>, this multifaceted questionnaire captures the independent, nuanced, and dynamic parameters governing human sexual and affectional attractions. Structured into symmetrical evaluative blocks assessing responses toward women and men, the instrument disaggregates attraction across multiple distinct dimensions: continuous relative ratios (0% to 100% distribution across physical attraction, emotional attraction, and sexual fantasy), absolute frequency metrics over defined temporal windows (e.g., past 6 months and past month), breadth of attraction targets (differentiating singular, partner-specific attractions from generalized attraction profiles), and subjective intensity ratings (average intensity, peak intensity, and motivational sexual urge measured on 5-point Likert scales). Rather than yielding an arbitrary composite score, the instrument operates as a granular, item-specific measurement battery intended for contextual profile analysis, longitudinal trajectory mapping, and multidimensional modeling. The scale has served as a foundational empirical apparatus in longitudinal studies demonstrating sexual fluidity, erotic plasticity, and the operational independence of the sexual desire and romantic attachment motivational systems, particularly among sexual-minority women. Its clinical and empirical utility lies in its capacity to prevent construct conflation, map non-exclusive sexual configurations, and provide high psychometric sensitivity for diverse populations across the lifespan.<\/p>\n Lisa M. Diamond, sexual fluidity, multidimensional sexual orientation, physical attraction, emotional attraction, romantic attachment, sexual fantasy, erotic plasticity, measurement of sexual orientation, psychometrics of attraction<\/p>\n The scale was developed by Lisa M. Diamond, Ph.D.<\/strong>, Professor of Psychology and Gender Studies at the University of Utah<\/a>.<\/p>\n The primary purpose of the Assessing Multiple Facets of Attraction to Women and Men<\/em> scale is to provide a psychometrically rigorous, granular, and non-aggregative assessment of human sexual and affectional attraction. For decades, behavioral science relied predominantly on bipolar, unidimensional continua\u2014most notably the 7-point Kinsey Scale\u2014or static categorical typologies (e.g., heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual) to classify individuals. While these legacy tools facilitated early demographic classifications, they consistently failed to capture the complexity of sexual experience, conflated distinct psychological domains, and masked critical intraindividual variations.<\/p>\n Diamond designed this instrument to address several core measurement problems:<\/p>\n In research contexts, this instrument enables the empirical tracking of fluid sexual trajectories, the testing of neurobiological hypotheses regarding romantic attachment versus sexual desire, and the investigation of non-binary, bisexual, and queer identity transitions. In clinical and counseling psychology, the tool provides affirmative clinicians with an objective framework to help clients explore disparate feelings of attraction without forcing their multidimensional experiences into reductionist diagnostic or identity-based rubrics.<\/p>\n The construct measured by this instrument is multidimensional sexual and affectional attraction<\/em>. Rejecting the assumption that human sexuality can be captured by a single aggregate parameter, Diamond decomposes attraction into four coordinated yet theoretically and empirically dissociable psychological dimensions across female and male targets:<\/p>\n This facet assesses the cognitive allocation of an individual’s erotic and affectional attention across a gender binary using an intuitive 0% to 100% sliding metric. This domain is divided into three distinct operational expressions:<\/p>\n This dimension operationalizes the baseline activity rate of an individual\u2019s erotic and romantic orientations. It assesses the precise temporal recurrence of physical attraction, emotional attraction, and covert sexual fantasy separately for female targets and male targets. Measured on 6-point ordinal scales ranging from “Almost never”<\/em> to “About every day”<\/em> across established retrospective windows (past 6 months for real-world encounters; past month for internal fantasy), this facet allows researchers to differentiate between sexual orientation distribution and overall sexual arousability or motivation.<\/p>\n Target breadth quantifies the numerical distribution of individuals who elicit attraction within a defined window. The scale asks respondents to estimate the exact number of different women and different men who have triggered physical or emotional attractions in the past 6 months. Crucially, a contingency probe determines whether singular attractions (a response of “1”) represent an ongoing romantic\/sexual partner. This identifies whether an individual\u2019s same-sex or other-sex orientation reflects a generalized capacity for target selection or a situation-specific, bond-dependent attachment configuration.<\/p>\n The final facet quantifies the subjective magnitude of attraction experiences using standardized 5-point metric anchors:<\/p>\n The theoretical architecture of the instrument is grounded in Lisa M. Diamond\u2019s groundbreaking paradigm of Sexual Fluidity<\/strong> (Diamond, 2008b), integrated with the evolutionary and neurobiological framework of Helen Fisher<\/a> and the biobehavioral attachment models of John Bowlby<\/a> and Philip Shaver.<\/p>\n Traditional sexological paradigms operate on the premise that romantic attachment is downstream from, or an emotional consequence of, sexual desire. Diamond\u2019s model challenges this assumption by positing that the biological systems mediating sexual desire<\/em> (primarily regulated by gonadal estrogens and androgens, alongside dopaminergic reward pathways) and romantic love\/attachment<\/em> (mediated by oxytocin, vasopressin, endogenous opioids, and corticotropin-releasing systems) are neurobiologically and evolutionarily distinct.<\/p>\n Because these neurochemical systems are functionally autonomous, an individual may experience deep affectional and pair-bonding feelings toward a person of one sex while experiencing genital sexual arousal primarily toward another. By administering identical sets of physical and emotional items across both female and male targets, Diamond’s scale operationalizes this conceptual independence, enabling empirical tests of attachment-desire congruence or divergence.<\/p>\n Drawing on Roy Baumeister\u2019s theory of erotic plasticity, Diamond posits that female sexuality displays higher sociocultural and interpersonal plasticity than male sexuality. Women’s sexual desire is often more responsive to relationship context, emotional closeness, and interpersonal variables than to rigid category-based gender cues. Consequently, female sexual attraction frequently deviates from deterministic, category-specific arousal patterns. Diamond\u2019s scale incorporates target breadth questions precisely to detect this contextual responsiveness\u2014differentiating between a rigid dispositional attraction and a relationship-induced sexual or romantic awakening.<\/p>\n Unlike conventional psychological scales designed to produce an aggregate total score, Diamond\u2019s measure was constructed as a granular assessment battery. Construct, convergent, and discriminant validity have been evaluated across several landmark longitudinal investigations (Diamond, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2008a, 2008b).<\/p>\n The construct validity of the scale has been demonstrated in Diamond\u2019s decade-long longitudinal study tracking 100 sexual-minority women (initially aged 16\u201323). Across multiple waves (2-year, 5-year, 8-year, and 10-year follow-ups), the separate facets of the scale revealed distinct developmental trajectories:<\/p>\n Diamond (2000, 2003) demonstrated that relative percentage ratings (0\u2013100%) correlated robustly with traditional Kinsey-style categorizations ($r > .70$<\/span>), confirming convergent validity for macro-level orientation. However, the scale demonstrated superior discriminant validity by revealing that individuals with identical relative ratios displayed significant divergence in absolute frequencies and intensity metrics. Scatterplot analyses of fantasy frequency versus physical attraction frequency showed substantial interindividual discordance, establishing that internal sexual fantasy and external attraction operate as distinct psychological constructs that should not be forced into a single index.<\/p>\n Because the scale is explicitly conceptualized as a non-aggregative inventory rather than a congeneric measurement model, reporting a single omnibus Cronbach\u2019s alpha ($\u0007lpha$<\/span>) would violate fundamental psychometric assumptions. As Diamond notes, calculating internal consistency across items measuring distinct, independent parameters (e.g., pairing a continuous percentage ratio with an ordinal frequency count and a binary partner probe) creates artificial statistical artifacts.<\/p>\n However, when evaluating the specific homogeneous multi-item clusters within the scale, psychometric investigations show solid reliability:<\/p>\n The underlying dimensionality of Diamond\u2019s multifaceted framework has been evaluated through exploratory factor analysis (EFA<\/a>) and structural equation modeling (SEM<\/a>) in studies of sexual orientation architecture:<\/p>\n2. Keywords<\/h2>\n
3. Authors<\/h2>\n
\n
4. Purpose<\/h2>\n
\n
5. Psychological Construct<\/h2>\n
1. Relative Attraction Distribution (Cognitive-Affective Proportionality)<\/h3>\n
\n
2. Absolute Temporal Frequency (Behavioral-Affective Recurrence)<\/h3>\n
3. Breadth of Attraction Targets (Specificity vs. Generalization)<\/h3>\n
4. Affective-Motivational Intensity and Sexual Urge<\/h3>\n
\n
6. Theoretical Framework<\/h2>\n
Dissociation of the Erotic and Affectional Systems<\/h3>\n
Erotic Plasticity and Contextual Responsiveness<\/h3>\n
7. Validity<\/h2>\n
Construct and Longitudinal Validity<\/h3>\n
\n
Convergent and Discriminant Validity<\/h3>\n
8. Reliability<\/h2>\n
\n
9. Factor Analysis<\/h2>\n
\n
10. Instrument \/ Measurement Tool<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year<\/h2>\n
\n
12. References<\/h2>\n
\n
13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)<\/h2>\n