{"id":9704,"date":"2026-10-02T11:21:30","date_gmt":"2026-10-02T11:21:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ashadocs.org\/scales\/aggressive-sexual-behavior-inventory-asbi\/"},"modified":"2026-10-02T11:21:30","modified_gmt":"2026-10-02T11:21:30","slug":"aggressive-sexual-behavior-inventory-asbi","status":"publish","type":"psych_scale","link":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/?psych_scale=aggressive-sexual-behavior-inventory-asbi","title":{"rendered":"Aggressive Sexual Behavior Inventory"},"content":{"rendered":"

Abstract<\/h2>\n

The Aggressive Sexual Behavior Inventory<\/a> (ASBI; Mosher & Anderson, 1986) is an established self-report psychometric instrument designed to assess the frequency and severity of sexually aggressive tactics perpetrated by men against women within dating and heterosocial contexts. Developed to address the profound psychometric shortcomings of single-item direct queries and hypothetical “likelihood-to-rape” vignettes\u2014which consistently suffer from social desirability bias, defensive underreporting, and extreme measurement error\u2014the ASBI employs an act-specific, behavioral frequency methodology. The instrument comprises 20 items rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never<\/em>) to 7 (extremely frequently<\/em>), yielding total scores between 20 and 140, alongside an empirically validated 10-item short form (scores ranging from 10 to 70). Orthogonal varimax factor analysis delineates six distinct behavioral dimensions: Sexual Force, Drugs and Alcohol, Verbal Manipulation, Angry Rejection, Anger Expression, and Threat. The inventory demonstrates exceptional internal consistency, with Cronbach\u2019s alpha coefficients of .94 for the full 20-item instrument and .87 for the 10-item brief form. Extensive construct, convergent, and discriminant validity studies confirm robust associations between ASBI scores and the Hypermasculinity Inventory<\/a> (specifically callous sexual attitudes, the belief that violence is manly, and the view that danger is exciting), illicit substance use, and significant negative associations with sex-guilt and hostility-guilt. Furthermore, experimental laboratory investigations employing guided imagery paradigms demonstrate that high scorers exhibit unique patterns of subjective sexual arousal coupled with affective distress, reflecting the reactivation of mood-congruent state memories. The ASBI remains an indispensable operational tool in clinical, forensic, and social psychological research investigating the etiology, maintenance, and prevention of sexual violence.<\/p>\n

Keywords<\/h2>\n

Aggressive Sexual Behavior Inventory, ASBI, Donald L. Mosher, sexual aggression, hypermasculinity, date rape, callous sexual attitudes, behavioral self-report, psychometrics, sexual coercion<\/p>\n

Authors<\/h2>\n

The Aggressive Sexual Behavior Inventory was authored by Donald L. Mosher, Ph.D., and Ronald D. Anderson, M.A., at the University of Connecticut (Department of Psychology, Storrs, Connecticut, USA). Dr. Donald L. Mosher is widely recognized as a pioneering psychologist in the domains of human sexuality, guilt dispositions, and male sexual aggression. His foundational research established the psychometric conceptualization of the “macho personality constellation” (hypermasculinity) and developed widely cited instruments including the Mosher Forced-Choice Guilt Inventory and the Hypermasculinity Inventory (Mosher & Sirkin, 1984). Correspondence regarding historical archival records of the ASBI was directed to Donald L. Mosher at the University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06268.<\/p>\n

Purpose<\/h2>\n

The primary purpose of the Aggressive Sexual Behavior Inventory is to provide a reliable, behavioral, and continuous measure of sexually aggressive tactics utilized by men to obtain sexual access to non-consenting women in dating, courtship, and casual heterosocial interactions. Prior to the development of the ASBI, empirical investigations into sexual assault and acquaintance rape relied predominantly on two flawed measurement strategies: direct categorical questions asking whether a respondent had ever committed “rape” or “assault,” and hypothetical projective scenarios asking male participants how likely they would be to commit a rape if they were guaranteed not to get caught (the “rape-with-impunity” paradigm). Psychometric investigations demonstrated that direct categorical inquiries yield widespread false-negative reports due to legal defensiveness, pejorative labeling, and denial, while hypothetical intention items measure abstract cognitive tolerance rather than actual historical behavioral enactment.<\/p>\n

Mosher and Anderson (1986) formulated the ASBI to circumvent these methodological barriers by stripping away legalistic and socially stigmatizing nomenclature. Instead of utilizing words such as “rape,” “coercion,” or “assault,” the inventory operationalizes aggression through granular, descriptive behavioral statements that capture a spectrum of coercive practices. These range from psychological pressure and verbal manipulation to substance-facilitated incapacitated assault, intimidation, physical restraint, and explicit physical violence. By quantifying the reported frequency of these concrete acts, the ASBI provides a sensitive gradient of individual differences in perpetration history.<\/p>\n

In research contexts, the ASBI functions both as an individual-differences independent variable\u2014classifying men into low, moderate, or high tiers of sexually aggressive propensity\u2014and as an essential dependent variable for evaluating the efficacy of sexual violence prevention interventions, assessing the predictive power of hypermasculine personality structures, and analyzing laboratory paradigms involving emotional and physiological reactivity to erotic and violent stimuli. In clinical and forensic settings, while not intended as a standalone diagnostic instrument, the scale serves as an informative checklist for identifying specific behavioral patterns, cognitive scripts, and risk factors in batterer intervention and sexual offender assessment programs.<\/p>\n

Psychological Construct<\/h2>\n

The ASBI operationalizes sexual aggression<\/a> not as an isolated, impulsive legal infraction, but as a multi-dimensional behavioral continuum embedded in patriarchal and coercive sociosexual dating scripts. The overarching construct reflects the willingness to override a woman’s lack of consent through psychological, chemical, or physical domination. Factor-analytic investigations by Mosher and Anderson (1986) revealed that this overarching construct is composed of six distinct behavioral facets:<\/p>\n

1. Sexual Force<\/h3>\n

This dimension encompasses overt, physically violent, and non-consensual acts of penetration and restraint. Behaviors in this subscale involve physical subjugation, tearing off clothing, pinning the victim down, or engaging in multi-perpetrator (“gang”) sexual abuse. Items reflecting this dimension capture unambiguous felony-level acts of forcible rape (e.g., bringing a date home and forcing intercourse, participating in a group assault, or physically immobilizing a woman). In the original normative sample of college men, 28% endorsed having perpetrated one or more of these behaviors at least once.<\/p>\n

2. Drugs and Alcohol<\/h3>\n

The chemical facilitation dimension captures the intentional exploitation, provision, or administration of intoxicating substances\u2014such as alcohol, sedatives, or illicit narcotics\u2014to diminish a woman’s capacity to evaluate situations, resist unwanted advances, or assert boundary control. This includes using alcohol deliberately to induce incapacitation or offering expensive drugs with the explicit psychological expectation of an obligatory sexual transaction. This behavioral tactic is the most widely prevalent form of coercive strategy within collegiate dating contexts, endorsed by 75% of the normative sample.<\/p>\n

3. Verbal Manipulation<\/h3>\n

This subscale captures psychological coercion, emotional exploitation, and manipulation grounded in traditional sexual script expectations. Tactics include weaponizing relationship termination (threatening to break up if sex is denied), fabricating false emotional intimacy, inducing guilt regarding male physiological discomfort (e.g., the “blue balls” myth), and deceptive negotiation to enter private physical spaces. Approximately 64% of respondents endorsed using verbal manipulation strategies.<\/p>\n

4. Angry Rejection<\/h3>\n

Angry rejection represents a retaliatory response to sexual boundary setting and refusal. When sexual access is denied, the perpetrator reacts with overt hostility, verbal disparagement, derogatory name-calling, physical pushing, and explicit threats of abandonment or relationship replacement. Endorsed by 43% of respondents, this facet operationalizes the cognitive entitlement that views a woman’s sexual autonomy as a personal injury justifying punitive behavioral retaliation.<\/p>\n

5. Anger Expression<\/h3>\n

This facet involves the instrumental exhibition of male rage designed to intimidate and terrify the victim into compliance. Behaviors include sudden explosive displays of anger, swearing, property destruction, forceful gripping, and physical intimations of impending assault. Unlike direct sexual force, anger expression relies on creating an immediate, visceral fear of violence, communicating to the victim that failure to comply will result in severe physical harm. Approximately 46% of men endorsed this tactic.<\/p>\n

6. Threat<\/h3>\n

The threat dimension encompasses explicit, calculated verbal warnings of physical bodily harm if compliance is not granted, juxtaposed with conditional promises of safety if the victim fully capitulates (e.g., warning a woman she could get hurt unless she relaxes, or stating that harm will be withheld only if she obeys instructions). Endorsed by 13% of the collegiate sample, this subscale represents extreme, terroristic coercion bordering on hostage-taking behavioral dynamics.<\/p>\n

Theoretical Framework<\/h2>\n

The ASBI is grounded in the theoretical framework of the Macho Personality Constellation<\/strong>, also termed hypermasculinity<\/a>, articulated by Donald L. Mosher and Mark Sirkin (1984). Hypermasculinity is conceptualized as an organized cognitive-affective dynamic consisting of three interrelated components:<\/p>\n