Title: Personality, sexual functions, and sexual behavior
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00102835/00001
 Material Information
Title: Personality, sexual functions, and sexual behavior
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Nelson, Paul Anthony, 1949-
Copyright Date: 1978
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00102835
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: ltuf - AAL1175
oclc - 06349312

Full Text















PERSONALITY, SEXUAL FUNCTIONS,
AND SEXUAL BEHAVIOR: AN EXPERIMENT IN METHODOLOGY









By

PAUL A. NELSON


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1978









































Q 1978

PAUL ANTHONY NELSON



ALL RIGHTS RESERVED































Dedicated to my typist, who,
when I asked her to type my dissertation, said
"I don't come cheaply."















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


I would like to extend my gratitude to those who provided me

with assistance in completing this work. To Richard Kainz, who has

helped me on so many occasions, I would like to express thanks for

patiently listening to and helping me with the original formulations

of this design, for providing thoughtful suggestions regarding

statistical analyses, and for providing constant support and encourage-

ment. To Richard M. Swanson, my mentor and friend, I wish to

express gratitude for recognizing I had the abilitity to take on

this task and do it well, for insisting on a high level of quality

in my work, and for all he has taught me throughout my graduate years.

To my other committee members, Harry Grater, Ben Barger, Robert Ziller,

and Marilyn Zweig, I wish to express thanks for their support and

creative inspiration. Finally, I would like to express thanks to

James La Bella for the use of his typewriter and for putting up with

four months of typing with very few complaints.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES.................................................... vii

ABSTRACT......................... ................................. xi

INTRODUCTION........................................................ 1
Prediction and the Functions of Behavior ...................... 6
The Functions of Sexual Behavior............................... 9
Conceptualization ............................................ 13

METHOD........ .................................................... 20
Subjects..................................................... 20
Procedure .................................................... 20
Measures..................................................... 22

RESULTS........................................................... 31
Sample Characteristics ....................................... 31
Assessment of Scales' Internal Properties...................... 37
Personality Measures................................... 39
Sexual Functions Measure.................................. 41
Sexual Functions Rating Scale............................. 42
Assessment of Scales' Construct Validity....................... 47
Personality Measures................................... 49
Sexual Functions Measure ................................. 51
Sexual Activities Measure.............................. 53
Major Findings ................................... ............ 56
Hypothesis 1........................................ 56
Hypothesis 2......................................... 59

DISCUSSION....... ................................................. 95
Sample Characteristics ......................................... 95
Test Characteristics ......................................... 96
Major Findings .............................................. 99
Implications for Future Research.............................. 104
Clinical Implications........................................ 105













TABLE OF CONTENTS continued.



Page
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE.......................................... 108

APPENDIX B: TABLES 38-51 ....................................... 133

REFERENCES........................................................ 147

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH............................................... 152















LIST OF TABLES


Table Page
1 Frequency Distribution--Age....................... .. ..... 31

2 Frequency Distribution--Ethnicity......................... 33

3 Frequency Distribution--Religion.......................... 33

4 Frequency Distribution--Sex Object Choice................... 34

5 Frequency Distribution--Relationship Status................. 35

6 Frequency Distribution--Intercourse....................... 36

7 Frequency Distribution--Number of Coital Partners........... 37

8 Internal Properties of Personality and Sex Functions
Measures (N=395)....................................... 40

9 Factor Analysis of the Sexual Functions Scale (N=395)........ 43

10 Internal Properties of the Sexual Functions Rating
Scale (N=30)............................................... 47

11 Intercorrelations Between Measures of Personality (N=395)... 51

12 Correlations Between Subjects' and Significant Others'
Sexual Functions Subscale Scores (N=30)..................... 52

13 Intercorrelations Between Sexual Functions Subscales
(N=395) ..................................... .............. 54

14 Stepwise Regression of Sexual Behavior Against Personality
Variables for Males (N=174)............................... 60

15 Stepwise Regression of Sexual Behavior Against Personality
Variables and Sexual Functions for Males (N=174)............ 61

16 Stepwise Regression of Sexual Behavior Against Personality
Variables for Females (N=209).............................. 62

17 Stepwise Regression of Sexual Behavior Against Personality
Variables and Sexual Functions for Females (N=209).......... 63












LIST OF TABLES continued.


Table Page
18 Correlations Between Personality Variables and Sexual
Functions for Males (N=179)................................ 64

19 Correlations Between Personality Variables and Sexual
Functions for Females (N=214) ............................. 65

20 Pearson Product Moment Correlations: Personality
Variables and Sexual Behavior for Males (N=179)............. 66

21 Pearson Product Moment Correlations: Personality
Variables and Sexual Behavior for Females (N=214)........... 67

22 Pearson Product Moment Correlations: Sexual Functions
and Sexual Behavior for Males (N=179)...................... 68

23 Pearson Product Moment Correlations: Sexual Functions
and Sexual Behavior for Females (N=214) .................... 69

24 Stepwise Regression of Sexual Behavior Against Personality
Variables for Males Evidencing a Hedonism Preference
(N=31).................................................... 81

25 Stepwise Regression of Sexual Behavior Against Personality
Variables for Males Evidencing a Recognition Preference
(N=22).................................................... 82

26 Stepwise Regression of Sexual Behavior Against Personality
Variables for Males Evidencing a Dominance Preference
(N=16) .................................................... 83

27 Stepwise Regression of Sexual Behavior Against Personality
Variables for Males Evidencing a Submission Preference
(N=9)..................................................... 84

28 Stepwise Regression of Sexual Behavior Against Personality
Variables for Males Evidencing a Conformity Preference
(N=38).................................................... 85

29 Stepwise Regression of Sexual Behavior Against Personality
Variables for Males Evidencing a Personal Love and
Affection Preference (N=28) ................................. 86


viii












LIST OF TABLES continued.



Table Page
30 Stepwise Regression of Sexual Behavior Against Personality
Variables for Males Evidencing a Novelty Preference (N=30).. 87

31 Stepwise Regression of Sexual Behavior Against Personality
Variables for Females Evidencing a Hedonism Preference
(N=18) .................................................... 88

32 Stepwise Regression of Sexual Behavior Against Personality
Variables for Females Evidencing a Recognition Preference
(N=19).................................................... 89

33 Stepwise Regression of Sexual Behavior Against Personality
Variables for Females Evidencing a Dominance Preference
(N=17).................................................... 90

34 Stepwise Regression of Sexual Behavior Against Personality
Variables for Females Evidencing a Submission Preference
(N=37)................. ................................... 91

35 Stepwise Regression of Sexual Behavior Against Personality
Variables for Females Evidencing a Conformity Preference
(N=31).................................................... 92

36 Stepwise Regression of Sexual Behavior Against Personality
Variables for Females Evidencing a Personal Love and
Affection Preference (N=68)............................... 93

37 Stepwise Regression of Sexual Behavior Against Personality
Variables for Females Evidencing a Novelty Preference
(N=19)................................................... 94

38 Pearson Correlations: Personality and Sexual Behavior for
Males Evidencing a Hedonism Preference (N=31)............... 133

39 Pearson Correlations: Personality and Sexual Behavior for
Males Evidencing a Recognition Preference (N=22)............ 134

40 Pearson Correlations: Personality and Sexual Behavior for
Males Evidencing a Dominance Preference (N=17).............. 135

41 Pearson Correlations: Personality and Sexual Behavior for
Males Evidencing a Submission Preference (N=ll)............. 136












LIST OF TABLES continued.


Table Page
42 Pearson Correlations: Personality and Sexual Behavior for
Males Evidencing a Conformity Preference (N=37)............. 137

43 Pearson Correlations: Personality and Sexual Behavior for
Males Evidencing a Personal Love and Affection Preference
(N=28)....................................... ............. 138

44 Pearson Correlations: Personality and Sexual Behavior for
Males Evidencing a Novelty Preference (N=32)................ 139

45 Pearson Correlations: Personality and Sexual Behavior for
Females Evidencing a Hedonism Preference (N=19)............. 140

46 Pearson Correlations: Personality and Sexual Behavior for
Females Evidencing a Recognition Preference (N=21).......... 141

47 Pearson Correlations: Personality and Sexual Behavior for
Females Evidencing a Dominance Preference (N=17)........... 142

48 Pearson Correlations: Personality and Sexual Behavior for
Females Evidencing a Submission Preference (N=38)........... 143

49 Pearson Correlations: Personality and Sexual Behavior for
Females Evidencing a Conformity Preference (N=32)........... 144

50 Pearson Correlations: Personality and Sexual Behavior for
Females Evidencing a Personal Love and Affection
Preference (N=68)......................................... 145

51 Pearson Correlations: Personality and Sexual Behavior for
Females Evidencing a Novelty Preference (N=19).............. 146















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philisophy



PERSONALITY, SEXUAL FUNCTIONS,
AND SEXUAL BEHAVIOR: AN EXPERIMENT IN METHODOLOGY

By

Paul A. Nelson

December 1978

Chairman: Harry Grater
Major Department: Psychology

This research examined the relationship of sexual behavior and

personality variables. Previous research exploring relationships

between personality variables and sexual behavior indicated that the

two variable domains were not strongly related. However, these

findings appeared to be artifacts of research designs which were

simplistic and did not recognize the utility of approaches which

viewed the person and his behavior from the standpoint of a field of

personality and definitional variables. Therefore, using the field-

theory, social learning approach developed by Rotter, relationships

between personality and sexual behavior were examined anew.

Aspects of the person were assessed using personality measures

derived from past research and from social learning theory. These

variables were internal-external locus of control, alienation,












interpersonal trust, and self esteem. The definition of the situation

was assessed in terms of sexual functions; that is, the needs and

goals which organize expectancies and reinforcement values with respect

to sexual behavior. These sexual functions were derived both from

Rotter's higher order needs and sexual motives described by Mitchell

and Neubeck. They consisted of the following variables: hedonism,

recognition, dominance, submission, conformity, personal love and

affection, and novelty.

Three hundred and ninety-five volunteer college students, 180

males and 215 females, were administered a questionnaire packet con-

taining measures of personality variables, sexual functions, and self

reported sexual behavior. The hypotheses tested in the results obtained

with these questionnaires were as follows: 1) personality variables

and sexual functions together will yield better prediction of sexual

behavior than personality variables alone, and 2) the functions of

sexual behavior moderate the relationship between personality variables

and sexual behavior.

The results indicated that a linear combination of personality

variables and definition of the situation variables (sexual functions)

are better predictors of sexual behavior than personality variables

alone. Further, they indicated that the same definitional variables

(sexual functions) moderate the relationship between personality

variables and sexual behavior. That is, the classification of













individuals according to their dominant or preferred sexual function

tends to increase the prediction of sexual behavior by personality

variables.

It was concluded that there is greater predictive power in using

a multivariate, field-theoretical approach to the prediction of sexual

behavior than is obtained from using univariate, trait approaches.


xiii















INTRODUCTION


In the area of sexual behavior, sex research has increased

significantly in recent years. Inhibitions against investigating this

aspect of human activity have been relaxed. Sex is no longer the

private matter it once was. Rather, it is the subject of extensive

public discussion, of magazine articles, T.V. shows, and movies. A

plethora of nonfictional literature has been generated concerning

sexual behavior. There is literature reporting sexually related

statistics, revealing physiological parameters, providing recipes

for "good" sex, and describing sexual dysfunctions and ameliorative

therapy. Beginning with Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin (1948), the way

was prepared for the avalanche of literature and research which now

surrounds us. No longer is there fear of raising public sentiments

of moral indignation. The resistance to scientific consideration of

this previously very personal and sensitive area has all but disappeared.

One area of research in the field of human sexual behavior which

has received relatively little attention, however, is the study of

relationship between personality and sexual behavior. Freud, to be

sure, observed that personality and sexuality were related (Freud,

1965). He devoted the major part of his writings to elaborating upon

this relationship. He viewed biologically based sexual instincts as

playing a major role in the development of the psyche and psychoneurotic












symptomology. Moreover, he clearly delineated the relationship

between personality and aberrations in sexual behavior (Freud, 1962).

Similarly, the relationship between personality and sexuality was

fundamental in the thinking of Reich (1961). His view of the healthy

personality was that it reflected a condition which he referred to

as "orgastic potency." He remarks:


Psychic health depends upon orgastic potency, i.e., upon the
degree of which one can surrender and experience the climax
of excitation in the natural sex act. It is founded upon
the healthy character attitude of the individual's capacity
to love. Psychic illnesses are the result of a disturbance
of the natural ability to love. (Reich, 1961, p. 4)


Although these notions are interesting and may have some

validity, there is little empirical evidence to support them. Freud's

work was based upon clinical observation and speculation, while

Reich's work was primarily devoted to examining physiological

parameters associated with sexuality. Measures of personality were

not taken. These shortcomings are commonly recognized, yet few

researchers have attempted to verify or disprove these theoretical

stipulations. Only a handful of studies are available to help unravel

the relationship between personality and sexual behavior.

Maslow (1942) was one of the first to attempt to empirically

establish a relationship between personality and sexual behavior. In

a study of 100 women using interview techniques and objective data

gathered with Maslow's Social Personality Inventory, he studied the













relationship between dominance feeling and sexual behavior. By

dominance feeling he meant self esteem, vitality, and strength of

character. In general, he concluded from the results that high

dominance women were highly sexed and more inclined toward sexual

experimentation. Low dominance women, on the other hand, had almost

no sexual feeling. More specifically, most high dominance women

were nonvirgins. Further, they showed a greater tendency to

maturbate, to sleep with more than one partner and to engage in

various "deviations" such as oral sex and lesbianism. Maslow also

discovered that high dominance women received a greater "thrill" from

assuming the superior position in sex. Finally, he discovered a

relationship between ability to have orgasms and dominance feelings

in that highly dominant women who failed to respect their husbands

were unable to achieve orgasm. Maslow found it difficult to convince

low dominance women to submit to interviewing, but among those who

complied unmarried, low dominance women were found to be virgin and

nonmasturbators.

In a study similar to Maslow's, DeMartino (1963) examined the

relationship between dominance feeling, security-insecurity, and

sexual behavior in women. Using interview and objective measures

which included the Social Personality Inventory and the Security-

Insecurity Inventory, DeMartino obtained data from 30 women. The

findings of this study were numerous and only some of the more

interesting ones will be mentioned. For example, there was a slight












tendency for the sex drive of high dominance women to be greater than

that of low dominance women. High dominance women tended to be more

inclined to experiment sexually. Subjects who were of high dominance

generally tended to take a more active role in sexual encounters. The

sexual practices of subjects who were both of higher dominance

feeling and higher security status were more unconventional and

uninhibited. And, in general, the high dominance women tended to

have slightly more orgasms.

Much more recently Perlman (1974) investigated the relationship

between self esteem (a construct conceptually related to dominance

feeling) and sexual permissiveness. He administered two measures

of self esteem (Fiedler's Semantic Differential and the Rosenberg

Self Esteem Inventory) and a sexual permissiveness questionnaire

to 129 female and 113 male unmarried undergraduates. The results

showed that high self esteem subjects reported more coital partners.

These three studies focusing upon dominance feeling and self

esteem have yielded findings that lend support to the general

hypothesis that personality and sexual behavior are related. However,

other studies focusing upon different aspects of personality have

failed to yield support for this hypothesis.

For example, Ryan (1969, unpublished Master's Thesis) designed

a study to test the relationship between authoritarianism, dating

status, and premarital sexual permissiveness among male college

students. One hundred sixty-six male students were administered












Adorno's California F Test, Reiss' Premarital Sexual Permissiveness

Scale, and a demographic sheet. It was predicted that authoritarianism

and permissiveness would be inversely related; however, no empirical

support was found for this hypothesis.

Examining another aspect of the person, Siegal (1970) undertook

an investigation of the relationship between alienation and a variety

of social interaction/behavior parameters which included dates with

the opposite sex and frequency of sexual activities. Sampling 196

subjects, he found that more alienated respondents went out on fewer

dates with the opposite sex. However, he found no difference among

more or less alienated individuals in the frequency of sexual

activities with particular reference to "love play" and intercourse.

Finally, in three studies examining the relationship between

personality variables measured with the MMPI and sexual behavior, all

but one obtained negative findings. Diamant (1970), in a study of

premarital sexual behavior and adjustment, administered MMPI's, attitude

scales on sexual permissiveness, and sexual behavior questionnaires to

54 male and 62 female college students. No relationship between pre-

marital sexual intercourse, number of partners, and emotional adjustment

was found. Similarly, Husted and Edwards (1976) explored the relation-

ship between male sexual behavior and MMPI personality factors. Twenty

male, volunteer V.A. hospital patients with a history of long-term

sexual relationships were tested and required to keep a daily record

of sexual behavior. Results indicated that both introversion and













depression were significantly correlated in a positive direction with

autoerotic stimulation and arousal but not with heterosexual activity.

Findings obtained by Sulker and Kilpatrick (1973), on the other hand,

are in contrast to those reported above. These authors investigated

personality, biographical, and racial correlates of sexual attitudes

and behavior among 73 black and white male and female college students

and found that sexual experience was significantly correlated with

scale 9 of the MMPI for females but not for males.

As can be seen by this brief literature review, research

examining the relationship between personality variables and sexual

behavior certainly has been scarce. Perhaps even more importantly,

the results obtaining from this line of investigation do not lend

much support to the notion that personality and sexual behavior are

related. One possible explanation for this fact is provided by

recent empirical findings from studies examining the relationship

between personality variables and drug and alcohol abuse.



Prediction and the Functions of Behavior

Recent research and thinking related to the study of drug and

alcohol abuse suggest that the understanding and prediction of

behavior may be hampered by methodologies that fail to consider the

meaning or functions of behavior. Davis (1972), for example, in

discussing drug abuse, suggests that we cannot hope to fully understand

behavior unless we understand something about the reasons an individual












has for engaging in that behavior. In relation to drug abuse, he

remarks:


For our purposes a definition in terms of the effects of
drugs does not seem as promising as a definition in terms
of the intention of the prescriber and user. Although a
person may be mistaken about what a drug will do, the use
of the drug is intelligible only if the user believes that
some predictable effect will follow.(Davis, 1972, p. 518)


He goes on to say that drug users differ from one another in their

intentions or reasons for using drugs. He says:


Drugs serve a variety of functions. In addition to medical
and psychiatric uses, many societies use alcohol or drugs
such as mescaline or peyote as aids to religious inspiration
and ecstasy. In some cultures, alcohol or other drugs
play a part in social gatherings or ceremonial occasions. To
drink a toast to the bride and groom at a wedding is not
necessarily to drink with any intention of affecting one's
own physiological state; rather, it is a way of conveying
one's good wishes for the happy couple. Here, the relevant
intentions are social rather than personal or physiological.
(Davis, 1972, p. 519)


Sadava (1973), in a study of college student drug use, made use

of the conceptualization advanced by Davis (1972). Sadava hypothesized

that the reasons or functions of drug use mediate the relationship

between personality and behavior and that the patterns of drug using

behavior could be better understood by taking these functions into

consideration. Administering an elaborate questionnaire to 374

students, Sadava found that functions of drug use are predicted by

a field-theoretical combination of personality factors (i.e.,













independence, risk, I-E, interpersonal trust, alienation, delay of

gratification, and time perspective) and in turn are predictive of

patterns of drug using behavior.

Studying alcohol abuse Jessor, Young, and Tesi (1970) recognized

the methodological significance of conceptualizing behavior in terms

of functions. In a cross cultural study of alcohol use, they found

that for American youth there was a significant relationship between

personality attributes reflecting frustration, dissatisfaction, and

powerlessness, and measures of drinking behavior. However, the same

relationship failed to obtain among Italian youth. The authors

explained these results by noting "drinking may play quite a different

role in different cultures depending upon how it is socialized

and institutionalized" (Jessor et al. 1970, p. 220). For American

youth, drinking served, among other things, as an adaptive response

to frustration or as a way to cope with personal problems. For

Italians, on the other hand, drinking appeared to be associated with

actual success and personal optimism. It was concluded, then, that

variations in how drinking behavior is learned and the meanings

attached to the behavior will determine how personality attributes and

drinking are related.

Support for this thinking is provided by a study by Cahalan,

Cisin, and Crossley (1969). Investigating American drinking behavior

it was found that drinkers who drank for reasons of escape were more












alienated than those individuals who were nonescapist drinkers.

Similarly, in a study by Maddox and Williams (1968), it was found

that heavy drinking was associated with escapist reasons, and low

self esteem was highly related to heavy drinking.

These findings suggest that the meaning or functions of behavior

are important to understanding the relationship between personality

variables and drug and alcohol abuse. Apparently a significantly

greater proportion of the variance in behavior can be explained with

the aid of these meanings. Therefore, it is more than feasible that

the meaning or functions of sexual behavior may assist in the

prediction of sexual behavior by personality variables.




The Functions of Sexual Behavior

According to Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, and Gebhard (1953), among

lower animals sexual intercourse seems to be regulated by female

periodicity in a fashion designed to maximize the possibility of con-

ception. The so-called periods of heat or estrus are times when the

female readily accepts the male. Coition rarely occurs otherwise. In

contrast, the situation in humans is one where only a very small portion

of the coital activity that takes place in or out of marriage occurs

with the purpose of reproduction in mind. Moreover, one of the most

outstanding features of human sexual behavior is how much of it there

is. Foote (1976) suggests that there are basically two reasons for this












set of circumstances. One reason has already been implied. The human

female will allow intercourse at almost any time, not just prior to

menstruation when she is maximally excited. Another reason is that

the stimuli that evoke arousal in men and women are primarily symbolic

and psychological rather than physiological.

There are more than just physiological processes and instincts

guiding human sexual behavior. This fact was clearly recognized

early in the study of sexual behavior by Reich (1961) in his

insightful comments concerning his patients. He remarked:


The term "sexual intercourse" was used mechanically. It
usually denoted the desire "to prove oneself as a man!" It
included infantile desires to rest in the arms of a woman,
usually an older woman, or "to thrust into a woman!" In
short, the term could denote a great variety of things,
except genital sexual pleasure.(Reich, 1961, p. 49)


Reich was captivated by the "strange" fantasies and meanings which

lay hidden behind seemingly "ordinary" activities. He differentiated

his patients into two large groups. One group was characterized by

the fact that the penis functioned in the fantasy. Characterizing

these patients he comments:


An ejaculation took place, but it did not provide genital
pleasure. The penis was a murderous weapon or it was used
to "prove" that one is potent. The patients achieved an
ejaculation by pressing the genital against the mattress.
In this, the body was "as if dead." The penis was squeezed
with a towel, pressed between the lips, or rubbed against
the thigh. Only a rape fantasy was capable to compel an
ejaculation. . (Reich, 1961, p. 49)












The second group consisted of patients for whom neither fantasy nor

activity could be classified as genital. He says:


These patients squeezed the penis which was not erect. They
excited themselves with their finger in their anus. They
tried to get their penis into their mouth. They squeezed
it between their thighs and tickled it from behind. There
were fantasies of being beaten, bound or tortured, eating
excrement or having the penis sucked in which case it
represented a nipple. In short, though making use of the
genital organ, the fantasies had a non-genital goal. (Reich,
1961, p. 50)


More recently, Simon and Gagnon (1970) have also suggested that

an individual's sexual behavior is directed toward fulfillment of

many of his nonsexual needs. Mitchell (1972), in discussing the

psychological dimensions of sexuality among adolescents, elaborated

upon some of these needs and personality factors associated with

them. He says these needs include intimacy, belonging, dominance,

submissiveness, curiosity and competence, passion and intensity,

identification and imitation, and rebelliousness. According to

Mitchell, intimacy can be understood as the opposite of estrangement,

of alienation, and is characterized by personal closeness, by feelings

of fusion, and implies sharing and trust. Belonging implies group

membership, being accepted by the group, and is associated with the

gratification of esteem needs. Dominance involves control and mastery.

Borrowing from Adler, it is associated with inferiority such that

strivings for dominance may represent an attempt to compensate for

feelings of inferiority. Submissiveness is a form of relatedness












involving acceptance of control by another. It is suggested by

Mitchell that submissiveness is associated with alienation from one's

own powers. There is a general disowning of strength since these

powers are projected upon the love object. Curiosity and competence

may involve an attempt to develop greater efficacy, to overcome

isolation, and to learn. Passion and intensity involve psychological

rejuvenation which is uplifting for the person and provides self

validation or reinforcement of a sense of personal identity.

Identification and imitation may involve a striving for completeness

or conformity. Finally, rebelliousness and negative identity may

be associated with hostility and a desire for revenge.

Similarly, Neubeck (1974), in discussing the symbolic nature of

human sexuality, observes that if one were to examine the act of

copulation phenomenologically, a whole broad spectrum of deep and

important satisfactions would be found to be superimposed upon the

act. To the question, "what do we seek besides physical pleasures?"

he answers:


They are things in our head, cravings with many sources, they
may be images drawn from our own storehouse of memories and
fantasies, all built upon basic desires for physical
pleasure, for intimacy with another being, for desire to
break free of bonds of tedious and boring everyday
experience. (Neubeck, 1974, p. 91)


According to Neubeck, there is a mixture of these motives in everyone,

and they come in different proportions. He says these motives include












but are not limited to the following: affection, animosity, anxiety,

boredom, duty, lust, self affirmation, altruism, idiosyncratic needs,

and situational influences.

It is clear, then, that sexual behavior can be conceived from

the standpoint of a number of various functions which it serves.

Further, it is feasible that these functions can be operationalized

and incorporated in the study of the relationship between personality

and sexual behavior.



Conceptualization

It order to begin to investigate relationships between

personality, sexual functions, and sexual behavior, it is first

necessary to adopt a theoretical framework from which to conceptualize

an experimental design. One theory which seems particularly well

suited to this purpose is social learning theory (Rotter, 1954;

Jessor, Graves, Hanson, and Jessor, 1968). This approach is field-

theoretical in nature since behavior is predicted both by

characteristics of the person and his meaningful environment. Ac-

cording to the general field-theoretical paradigm advanced by Lewin

(1935), the relationship between behavior and predictor variables is

expressed in the formula B = f(P,E). This may be translated as

behavior (B) is some function of the person (P) and the meaningful

environment (E). Rotter has elaborated upon these relationships and

put forth the predictive formula BP = f(E & RV). This may be












understood to read behavior potential (BP) is some function of the

expectation (E) that a particular behavior will be followed by a

particular reinforcement, and the reward value (RV) of that particular

reinforcement. The expression E & RV is equivalent to P in Lewin's

formula, and although Rotter does not have an expression equivalent

to E in Lewin's formula, the meaningful environment or the psychological

situation, as Rotter terms it, is considered implicit in his formula.

Social learning theory suggests a different approach to research

in the area of personality and sexual behavior, and it is consistent

with what has been concluded in the review of the literature contained

in this text. It suggests that research efforts aimed at explaining

the variance in sexual behavior should include variables characterizing

the person and also variables characterizing the meaning of sexual

behavior or the meaningful environment as it is termed. Variables

characterizing the person have already been elaborated upon by this

theory, and variables characterizing the meaningful environment can be

nicely conceptualized as analogous to the functions of sexual behavior

discussed by other researchers.

Several social learning variables characterizing the person

are considered relevant to the study of sexual behavior. These

variables have been described by Rotter (1954, 1966, 1967) and Jessor

et al. (1968), and consist of generalized expectancies and attributes

of the person which include internal-external locus of control, inter-

personal trust, and alienation. Although not specifically derived as a












social learning variable, self esteem warrants inclusion as a measure

of an important aspect of the person.

Alienation and self esteem have been utilized in past research

in the area of sexual behavior and should be included because of the

attention given them previously. The rest of the variables warrant

selection; first, because they have been shown to correlate with one

another in past studies of complex social behavior (Jessor, et al.,

1968; Mobley and Swanson, 1972; Nelson, 1975, unpublished Master's

Thesis), and second, because they are generally considered important

to the understanding of interpersonal phenomena of which sexual

behavior is a specific instance. For example, trust has been

recognized as an important variable related to the understanding of

people and their ability to relate well with one another (Rotter, 1967;

Deutsch, 1973) and control has been a central variable in understanding

a person's fundamental orientation and relationship to others (Schutz,

1958, 1967; Leary, 1957).

Variables characterizing the functions of sexual behavior can

be derived from Rotter's theory. The functions of sexual behavior

may be considered aspects of the individual's meaningful environment,

or more precisely, the individual's definition of the situation. Rotter

says that situations should be described "by their cultural meanings

in terms of the characteristic reinforcements that are likely to oc-

cur. . That is, we characterize situations parallel to the way we

characterize psychological needs" (Rotter, 1954, p. 202). Rotter












outlines six need areas which include recognition status, protection-

dependency, dominance, independence, love and affection, and physical

comfort. He remarks that situations might be characterized in terms

of these needs as, for example, recognition situations, love and

affection situations, conformity situations, dominance situations,

etc. However, he also adds:


It is clear that no situation always brings one one kind of
reinforcement. Situations can be characterized as mixed
or they can be described in terms of the dominant, usual,
or most frequent reinforcements likely to occur in a given
culture.(Rotter, 1954, p. 202)


Therefore, since the individual's definition of the situation is

characterized in terms of needs or goals and sexual functions have

tended to be defined in terms of needs or goals, we might conceptualize

sexual functions in accordance with the higher order needs specified

by Rotter. However, these need areas specified by Rotter are by no

means exhaustive; also some of them are not entirely adequate for

purposes of characterizing the functions of sexual behavior. This

requires that several need categories be added and several modified for

purposes of this research. Therefore, based not only on Rotter (1954)

but also on Mitchell (1972) and Neubeck (1974), the final list of need

categories which serve to represent the functions of sexual behavior

is: hedonism, recognition, dominance, submission personal love and

affection, conformity, and novelty.

Numerous behaviors fall within the domain of sexual activity.

However, only a few will be investigated in this study. These have












been selected partly because they served as criteria in past research

and partly because they seemed likely to be related to the personality

variables being explored in this research. They are as follows:

1) Frequency of intercourse.

2) Frequency of intimate sex (associated with strong affection
and disclosure of important aspects of yourself).

3) Frequency of casual sex unassociatedd with strong affection
and disclosure of important aspects of yourself).

4) Number of partners.

5) Percentage of behavior devoted to pleasing others sexually.

6) Frequency of expression of sexual likes and dislikes.

7) Frequency with which sexual activities are initiated.

8) Frequency with which the individual assumes the superior
position.

9) Frequency with which the individual assumes the inferior
position.

10) Frequency of coital orgasms.

Based upon Rotter's postulate that behavior must be understood

in terms of the interaction of the individual and his meaningful

environment, we can conceive of more than one hypothesis concerning

the relationship between personality, sexual functions, and sexual

behavior.

First, given that the functions of sexual behavior have been

conceptualized as descriptors of the psychological situation, we can

conceive of their adding to the prediction of sexual behavior.

Besides expectancies, the way in which a person defines a particular












situation will influence the probability that certain behaviors

will occur. For example, Rotter remarks:


It is presumed that the manner in which a person perceives a
given situation will determine for him which behaviors are
likely to occur, to have reasonable probability, or the
highest probability of leading to some satisfaction. Thus
a person reacting to another person whom he classifies as
an enemy is more likely to utilize behaviors aimed at
harm avoidance than behaviors directed toward love and
affection.(Rotter, 1954, p. 200)


Therefore, based upon this reasoning we might hypothesize that

personality and sexual functions together will yield better prediction

of sexual behavior than personality variables alone.

Second, we can conceive of the functions of sexual behavior not

only as predictor variables but also as moderator variables. For

example, Rotter argues that a person's expectancy that a certain

behavior will lead to a particular reinforcement hinges upon how that

person characterizes the situation. Moreover, he adds that even

higher order abstractions, generalized expectancies such as I-E and

interpersonal trust, are situationally bound. He says:


(a person's) generalized expectancy that a particular
reinforcement will occur is also to some extent situationally
bound and we must know whether he classifies the present
situation as one where reinforcements of a given category
are likely to occur.(Rotter, 1954, p. 204)


Previously discussed findings by Jessor et al. (1970) and Cahalan et al.

(1969) showing that variations in the meanings attached to behavior






19





(the definition of the situation) determine how personality and

behavior are related provide empirical support for this reasoning.

Therefore, it is hypothesized that the functions of sexual behavior

moderate the relationship between personality variables and sexual

behavior.















METHOD


Subjects

Data were collected from 180 male and 215 female volunteer

subjects. Obtaining a sample of this size proved to be more dif-

ficult than anticipated. Originally, it had been thought that all

of these subjects could be obtained from sections of an undergraduate,

introductory psychology course. However, a low student enrollment

coupled with a big demand for experimental subjects precluded this

possibility. Therefore, it was necessary to turn to another source

for subjects. While the majority of subjects were still recruited

from different sections of the introductory psychology course, a

sizable percentage was recruited from undergraduate, introductory

level courses taught through the Department of Behavioral Studies.

Several sections of courses titled "Human Sexual Behavior" and

"Power and Violence" were approached for volunteers.



Procedure

The 395 volunteer subjects who participated in this study were

recruited in two ways: 1) a sign-up sheet was posted in the psychology

building asking for subjects to participate in a study of sexual

attitudes and behavior, and 2) visits were made to different sections

of behavioral studies courses entitled "Humal Sexual Behavior" and

"Power and Violence" asking people to participate in the study.












Subjects were administered an elaborate questionnaire containing

personality, sexual functions, and behavior measures. They were

given the questionnaire packet, a machine scored answer sheet, and

a pencil. Then, they were told to read the instructions on each

questionnaire and to mark their answer to each question in the ap-

propriate spaces on their answer sheet. It was stressed that their

answers would remain completely confidential and their identity

would remain undisclosed even to the experimenter since they would

not be asked to place their names on the answer sheets.

Subjects were tested in groups ranging in size from 3 to 50 in

a large room that provided enough distance between subjects to insure

privacy, and hopefully, honest responding. This procedure took

approximately one hour. After several of these testing sessions an

effort was made to recruit volunteers to participate in a portion of

the study designed to test the validity of the sexual functions

measure. Fifty subjects were recruited for this aspect of the study

and 30 subjects fully complied with the instructions. Each of these

subjects was given a copy of the sexual functions questionnaire to

take home for an individual familiar with their sexual behavior to

complete. They were instructed to tell their acquaintance to fill

out the questionnaire as they imagined it had been filled out in the

testing session. Subjects were instructed to avoid influencing



The questionnaire packet is contained in Appendix A.












responses to the questionnaire and to allow the significant other to

complete this questionnaire in private. A stamped return address

envelope was provided for the significant other to return the

questionnaire him/herself.



Measures

Assessment, then, was carried out with respect to three variable

domains. The first domain included self esteem and the social learning

variables alienation, internal-external locus of control, and

interpersonal trust. The second domain consisted of the functions

of sexual behavior, and the third domain consisted of sexual behavior

itself.

The Self Esteem Inventory developed by Rosenberg (1965) was

used to measure self esteem. It was a unidimensional scale measuring

self acceptance. The scale was designed for brevity and ease of

administration. It contained ten items asking for a response on

a continuum ranging from Strongly Agree toStrongly Disagree. The higher

the score the higher the self esteem. Examination of the adequacy

of this instrument has shown that it possesses high reliability and

validity. Silber and Tippett (1965), employing a student population

of 28, obtained a test-retest correlation over two weeks of .85.

Rosenberg (1965), using a sample of 5,024 high school juniors and

seniors from the randomly selected schools, obtained a Guttman scale

reproducibility coefficient of .92. With respect to validity, Silber












and Tippett (1965) examined both convergent and discriminant

properties. Rosenberg's scale was found to correlate between .56 and

.83 with several similar measures, thus supporting the measure's

convergent validity. Correlations with stability of ratings of

others and stability of perceptual performance were close to zero,

thus supporting the discriminant validity of the instrument.

In order to measure alienation, a modified version of a scale

used by Jessor et al. (1968) was employed. It was originally developed

to measure value isolation but was enlarged to include the properties

of estrangement, normlessness, and meaninglessness by Mobley and

Swanson (1972). Thus it was designed to measure all the components

of alienation specified by Seeman (1958) except powerlessness. The

scale contained fifteen items asking for a response on a four point

continuum ranging from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree, where a

high score indicated high alienation. The measure has been found to

have high reliability in past research. Mobley and Swanson (1972),

in a study of suburban delinquency, sampled 732 students and 183

juvenile delinquents. Reliability estimates were provided using

Cronbach's Alpha (Alpha) and Scott's Homogeneity Ratio (H.R.). For

the student sample the Alpha was .69 and the H.R. was .13. These

reliability coefficients met acceptable criteria and the instrument

was concluded to be adequate. Similarly, a study of correctional

settings by Nelson (1975, unpublished Master's Thesis) provided

support for the reliability of this instrument. Six hundred and twelve













prison inmates were tested and an Alpha of .80 and an H.R. of .25

obtained. In both these studies the construct validity of the

instrument was examined. Alienation was found to correlate significant-

ly in the anticipated direction with other theoretically related

variables such as I-E and freedom of movement. Therefore, it was

concluded that there was adequate support for the construct validity

of the scale.

A scale developed by Swanson (1971) was used to measure internal-

external locus of control. It contained twelve items asking for a

response on a five point continuum ranging from Strongly Agree to

Strongly Disagree. A higher score represented greater internal control.

This scale was designed to overcome the conceptual and methodological

uncertainties connected with past research upon internal-external

locus of control. It was a measure that had been demonstrated to

possess greater reliability and essentially the same validity as

Rotter's (1966) I-E measure. More specifically, Swanson (1971) studying

locus of control in correctional settings sampled 230 prison inmates and

found this instrument obtaining an Alpha of .79 and an H.R. of .24

as compared to an Alpha of .73 and an H.R. of .11 obtained with

Rotter's instrument. Examining the validity of these respective

instruments, it was found when comparing inmate responses on self

report measures of control with staff ratings of control that the I-E

measure was the more valid of the two scales. However, when comparing

control scales' predictive power across a number of dependent













variables, the I-E measure proved less valid. Therefore, it was

concluded that these measures were of comparable validity.

In order to measure interpersonal trust Rotter's (1967) Inter-

personal Trust Scale was employed. It was an additive scale in which

a high score indicated trust for a variety of social objects. It

employed Likert categories ranging from Strongly Agree to Strongly

Disagree. The scale contained a total of forty items, twelve

designed to test trust for agreeing and thirteen distrust for

agreeing. The remaining fifteen items were fillers designed to

obscure the purpose of the test. In order that it be appropriate for

a student population, it was necessary to revise some of the items.

However, Rotter's original intentions were not violated in the

revision.

Rotter (1967) established the reliability of this instrument using

a split half technique. With a sample of 248 male and 299 female

college students he obtained reliability estimates of .77 and .75,

respectively. The validity of the scale was established against

observations taken from two fraternities and two sororities at the

University of Connecticut using the Interpersonal Trust Scale and

several sociometric rating scales measuring trust, gullibility,

trustworthiness, and control variables of humor, popularity, and

friendship. The correlation between both trust scales was .37 which

is significant at the .01 level. This correlation was higher than

any of the correlations between trust and the control ratings, such












as humor, popularity, and friendship. Additional support for the

validity of Rotter's scale has been supplied by Hamsher, Geller, and

Rotter (1968) where it was shown that low trusters were less willing

to accept the findings of the Warren Commission than high trusters.

Similarly, a study by Katz and Rotter (1969) showed a high correlation

between trust scores of fathers with sons. Overall, there appears to

be adequate support suggesting the validity of Rotter's scale.

The functions of sexual behavior were assessed using a self

report measure previously developed for research in a prison setting

(Nelson and Swanson, unpublished research). As with the interpersonal

trust measure, it was necessary to revise this scale so that it would

be appropriate for a student population.

The instructions on the finally derived questionnaire were as

follows:


People have sexual relations (kissing, petting, oral sex,
intercourse, etc.) with others for many reasons. The
following list includes some of the reasons others have
given for their sexual behavior. Some of you will find
that nearly all of these reasons are important in your own
sexual behavior, and some of you will find only a few
important. We would like to know all the reasons that are
involved in your own sexual behavior, and how important
each of these reasons is to you.


Subjects were then asked to respond to fifty-six items on a four

point continuum ranging from Very Important to Not Important at All.

The fifty-six item scale was divided into seven subscales each of which

contained eight items. Items for each subscale were mixed such that

they appeared in every eighth position in the overall scale.












The hedonism subscale was designed to measure to what degree an

individual's sexual behavior was motivated by needs for gratification

obtained through pleasurable stimulation. A sample item from this

subscale is as follows:


"Because I'm a pleasure seeker."


The recognition subscale was constructed in order to determine

to what degree an individual engaged in sexual behavior out of a

need to be considered competent, good, or more skilled than others.

The following is a sample item:


"Because others admire a person who is sexually experienced."


The dominance subscale was designed to measure the degree to

which the need to control or impose one's will on another was a

motivating factor in an individual's sexual behavior. The following

is a sample item:


"Because it makes me feel masterful."


The submission subscale was constructed in order to measure the

degree to which sexual behavior was motivated by desires to relinquish

control or power and by desires for protection. A sample is as follows:


"Because sex allows me to feel vulnerable."












The conformity subscale focused upon the degree to which an

individual engaged in sexual behavior out of conformity to the

expectations of others in order to gain social acceptance. The

following is a sample item:


"Because I want to be like everyone else."


The personal love and affection subscale was designed to measure

to what degree an individual's sexual behavior was motivated by

needs to receive and share affection and intimacy with one another.

An example of an item from this scale is as follows:


"Because it makes me feel as one with another person."


Finally, the novelty subscale was designed to measure the degree

to which sexual behavior was motivated by the need for excitement

and relief from boredom. An example is as follows:


"Because I'm stimulated by curiosity."


The reliability of each of these subscales has been shown to

be high. Nelson and Swanson (unpublished research), in a study of

prison homosexuality, sampled 364 inmates using this instrument. In

the analysis of the scale's internal properties Alphas ranging from

.85 to .93 and H.R.'s ranging from .48 to .73 obtained. These

reliability coefficients were acceptable and suggested that the

instrument's subscales were measuring stable constructs. The H.R.'s












were high, however, suggesting that the subscale items were somewhat

redundant. Consequently, in the scale revision some of the items

were rewritten so as to elicit more differentiated responding. This

study also found support for the validity of the sexual functions

measure. In analyzing the discriminant properties of the instrument,

it was found that the scale correlated with itself more than it

correlated with scales of similar methodology used to measure different

constructs. Therefore, it was concluded to possess discriminant

validity.

Finally, the measurement of sexual activity was accomplished

using a self report technique. Subjects were asked to provide

quantitative information relative to each activity named earlier.

In general, the questions asked were of the form: "During the

past year how often have you" engaged in each of these acts,

"During the past year how many different partners have you" engaged

in these acts with, and "What percentage of your sexual behavior" is

characterized in these terms. The response options varied depending

upon the form of the question. Some questions were followed by eight

response options ranging from Never to More Than Once a Day. Others

were followed by ten response options that ranged from either None to

9 or More People or Never to 90 Percent of the Time or More. In

addition, subjects were asked to provide information pertaining to

their sex, age, ethnicity, religious preference, sex object choice,

and dating status in this questionnaire. Every effort was made to






30





convey that the information provided would be kept strictly con-

fidential. Since this technique had been utilized in the study of

sexual behavior in the past (Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin, 1948;

Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, and Gebhard, 1953; Reiss, 1960, 1967; Kaats

and Davis, 1970) and comparisons of findings are supportive of one

another, it was considered a valid means of obtaining information

about sexual behavior.















RESULTS


Sample Characteristics

In order to provide a better perspective from which to interpret

the major findings of this study, some of the more relevant sample

characteristics will be reported.

The age characteristics of this sample are presented in

Table 1. If we look at the age characteristics of the male subsample,


Category
Eighteen or Younge
Nineteen
Twenty
Twenty-One
Twenty-Two
Twenty-Three
Twenty-Four
Twenty-Five
Twenty-Six
Twenty-Seven or 01
To


Table 1

Frequency Distribution--Age

Absolute Relative
Frequency Frequency*
(M) (F) (M) (F)
r 47 87 26.1 40.5
35 57 19.4 26.5
36 35 20.0 16.3
24 16 13.3 7.4
13 7 7.2 3.3
7 4 3.9 1.9
6 0 3.3 0
2 0 1.1 0
3 0 1.7 0
der 7 9 3.9 4.2
tal 180 215 100.0 100.0


Cumulative
Frequency*
(M) (F)
26.1 40.5
45.6 67.0
65.6 83.3
78.9 90.7
86.1 94.0
90.0 95.8
93.3 0
94.4 0
96.1 0
100.0 100.0


Percent












we see that 26.1 percent are eighteen or younger, 19.4 percent are

nineteen, 20.0 percent are twenty and 13.3 percent are twenty-one.

This accounts for 78.9 percent of the total male subsample. Only

21.1 percent of the subsample are older than twenty-one. If we look

at the age characteristics of the female subsample, we see that

40.5 percent are eighteen or younger, 26.5 percent are nineteen,

16.3 percent are twenty, and 7.4 percent are twenty-one. This

accounts for 90.7 percent of the total female subsample. Only 9.8

percent are older than twenty-one years of age. It can be seen

from these statistics that the male subsample is slightly older as

a whole than the female subsample. However, both subsamples are

weighted in the direction of the eighteen or younger category and

as a whole fall between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one.

The ethnic characteristics of this sample are presented in

Table 2. As a whole the sample is predominantly white with 89.4 percent

of the males and 87.4 percent of the females falling in this category.

The religious characteristics of the sample are presented in

Table 3. For males, the two most highly represented religious

affiliations are Catholic and None, while for females they are Catholic

and Protestant. One might say that males are slightly less religious

than females, however, claiming a religious affiliation is not neces-

sarily synonomous with religiousity.

Sex object choice is presented in Table 4. It can be seen that

for both males and females the predominant orientation is heterosexual,













Table 2

Frequency Distribution--Ethnicity


Absolute
Frequency*
(M) (F)
161 188
5 20
10 4
4 3
180 215


Relative
Frequency*
(M) (F)
89.4 87.4
2.8 9.3
5.6 1.9
2.3 1.4
100.0 100.0


Cumulative
Frequency*
(M) (F)
89.4 87.4
92.2 97.2
97.8 99.1
100.0 100.0


Percent


Table 3

Frequency Distribution--Religion


Absolute
Frequency
Category (M) (F)
Fund. Protestant 11 14
Protestant 24 77
Catholic 37 43
Jewish 36 27
Other 25 28
None 47 28
Total 180 215


Relative
Frequency*
(M) (F)
6.1 6.5
13.3 35.8
30.6 20.0
20.0 12.1
13.9 12.6
26.2 13.0
100.0 100.0


Cumulative
Frequency*
(M) (F)
6.1 6.5
19.4 42.3
40.0 62.3
60.0 74.4
73.9 87.0
100.0 100.0


Percent


93.9 percent of the male subsample and 96.7 percent of the female sub-


sample.


Category
White
Black
Cuban
Other
Total












Table 4

Frequency Distribution--Sex Object

Absolute Relative
Frequency Frequency*
Category (M) (F) (M) (F)
Heterosexual 169 208 93.9 96.7
Homosexual 3 1 1.7 .5
Bisexual 8 5 4.5 2.3
Missing 0 1 0 .5
Total 180 215 100.0 100.0


Choice

Cumulative
Frequency*
(M) (F)
93.9 97.2
95.6 97.7
100.0 100.0


Percent


The relationship status characteristics of this sample are

presented in Table 5. A substantial portion of both the male and

female subsamples are involved in the relationships of one form or

another. Only 14.4 percent of the male subsample and 6.0 percent

of the female subsample are not dating at all. Eighty-four point

nine percent of the males and 93.9 percent of the females are involved

in relationships that range in commitment from marriage to going with

no one special. Males, however, seem to be slightly less actively

involved in relationships than females.

Frequency of intercourse is presented in Table 6. Approximately

one-fifth (21.1 percent) of the male subsample and one-quarter

(23.3 percent) of the female subsample report never having had sexual

intercourse. It appears as though the male subsample, although more



















Cat
Married
Engaged
Live W Lo
Live W Sc
Going Exc
Going Pri
Going W N
Not Datin


Table 5

Frequency Distribution--Relationship Status

Absolute Relative Cumulative
Frequency Frequency* Frequency*
egory (M) (F) (M) (F) (M) (F)
12 10 6.7 4.7 6.7 4.7
2 13 1.1 6.0 7.8 10.7
ver 10 16 5.6 7.4 13.4 18.2
meone 3 1 1.7 .5 15.1 18.7
:1. One Per. 29 58 16.1 27.0 31.3 45.8
n. One Per. 30 34 16.7 15.8 48.1 51.7
o One Spec. 66 69 36.7 32.1 84.9 93.9
g 26 13 14.4 6.0 100.0 100.0
Missing 2 1 1.2 .5
Total 180 215 100.0 100.0


*
Percent


sexually experienced, is less active than the female subsample since

only 36.1 percent of the males as opposed to 42.8 percent of the females

fall into categories that range from once a week to more than once

a day.

The number of sexual partners is presented in Table 7. Again,

approximately one-fifth (21.1 percent) of the male subsample and

one-quarter (24.7 percent) of the female subsample report having no

sexual partners. In contrast to the state of affairs with regard to

frequency of intercourse males are not only more likely to have a














Frequency



Category
Never
Once In Six Mon.
Once A Mon.
Every Two Weeks
Once A Week
Every Two-Three Days
Once A Day
More Than Once A Day
Total


Table 6

Distribution--Intercourse

Absolute Relative
Frequency Frequency*
(M) (F) (M) (F)
38 50 21.1 23.3
37 17 20.6 7.9
22 27 12.2 12.6
18 29 10.0 13.5
12 25 6.7 11.6
41 49 22.8 22.8
8 14 4.4 6.5
4 4 2.7 1.9
180 215 100.0 100.0


Cumulative
Frequency*
(M) (F)
21.1 23.3
41.7 31.2
53.9 43.7
63.9 57.2
70.6 68.8
93.3 91.6
97.8 98.1
100.0 100.0


*
Percent


partner, but they are slightly more inclined to have more partners

as can be seen by comparing the categories for both males and females.

In conclusion, the descriptive statistics pertaining to age,

religious affiliation, relationship status, and sexual activity indicate

that a fairly broad range of students was sampled. Whereas, the

descriptive statistics for ethnicity and sexual object choice suggest

the converse. Therefore, generalizations must be limited to the

coital activity of white, heterosexual, college students (male and

female).













Table 7

Frequency Distribution--Number of Coital Partners


Category
None
One Person
Two People
Three People
Four People
Five People
Six People
Seven People
Eight People
Nine People or More
Missing
Total


Absolute
Frequency*
(M) (F)
38 53
59 74
26 37
11 21
15 8
10 6
5 5
3 2
2 1
11 7


Relative
Frequency*
(M) (F)
21.1 24.7
32.8 34.4
14.8 17.2
6.1 9.8
8.3 3.7
5.6 2.8
2.8 2.3
1.7 .9
1.1 .5
6.1 3.1


1 0
215 100.0


Cumulative
Frequency*
(M) (F)
21.1 24.8
53.9 59.3
68.3 76.6
74.4 86.4
82.8 90.2
88.3 93.0
91.1 93.3
92.8 96.3
93.9 96.7
100.0 100.0


.5
100.0


Percent


Assessment of Scales' Internal Properties

There are several different experimental designs for establishing

the reliability of research measures. The American Psychological

Association's (1954) "Technical Recommendations" distinguishes three

such designs: a) internal consistency, b) equivalence, and

c) stability. In deciding on a design for use in this study several

factors had to be considered. The questionnaire packet was relatively













large taking approximately an hour to complete. A comparatively large

number of subjects was to be sampled. And, there were time constraints

which had to be met. Therefore, the last two designs were clearly

inappropriate. The equivalence design requires that parallel forms

of the same test be administered on the same occasion and the stability

design requires that the same test be administered on two separate

occasions. Both these procedures would have expanded the scope of

this study such that it might have been difficult to recruit subjects

or to trust the responses of subjects who did participate since

frustration and fatigue factors would have been greater. Therefore,

the internal consistency design was selected for utilization in this

study. This technique is more compact in that it considers different

parts of the data collected at one time parallel or conceptualizable

as repeated measurements that may be compared to obtain a coefficient

of reliability.

There are various statistical means of demonstrating internal

consistency. Two such statistics are Cronbach's (1951) Alpha and

Scott's (1960) Homogeneity Ratio (H.R.). The magnitude of Alpha

is dependent upon both test homogeneity (average interitem correlation)

and scale length. Scott's H.R., on the other hand, is not sensitive

to scale length and is a weighted interitem correlation. Scott's

H.R. then serves as an index of the redundancy or the vagueness of the

concept as measured. It was considered advantageous to have a

measure of the scale homogeneity so as to augment confidence in the












adequency of a scale. A scale will be considered adequate if Alpha

is .70 or greater and the H.R. is somewhere close to .33.


Personality Measures

The internal properties of the measures of personality are

reported in columns A through D in Table 8. Each of these scales

with the exception of self esteem required purification. That is,

items with low item-to-scale correlations were removed from the scales

in order to increase their reliability to within acceptable limits.

Three items were dropped from the I-E scale (items 57, 62, and 68),

five times were dropped from the alienation scale (items 70, 72, 73,

77, and 81), and six items were dropped from the trust scale (items

90, 95, 104, 120, 130, and 133). These scales are all located in

Appendix A where the items deleted from them in the analyses may be

examined.

The Alphas for these four personality scales are considered

acceptable. The lowest alpha is .72 for I-E and the highest Alpha

is .84 for self esteem. Correspondingly, the H.R.'s for these scales

are considered quite adequate. The lowest H.R. was .18 for inter-

personal trust and the highest H.R. is .36 for self esteem. Although

acceptable, the H.R. of .18 for interpersonal trust is low suggesting

a multifaceted concept. A factor analysis of this scale was completed

in order to answer this question and the results failed to yield

factors that could be conceptually distinguished from one another.

















































-tv

C )
0 S-
oL )



4-
0 1n
o, 0 L
aU .- Ch
+4- C'



0

CQ C
o
Lx


- -

r c

C-I


Y
co















*




co










ro
n, co


L) 00



















-



c)



Co
cr
0
0


U0
C--



E
0

II

0co


C\J
cN





LU
0
o I

II




-c






U,
E
0)
4-)



4-,
0
F-
C-

(0
4O


c


41-
0

*-
+->





c-



0




o 0
c-,

0 1


4- ) I













EC
O 0a










0 D
o a

























II II
L) e
s-
4--)













Therefore, this scale's low homogeneity may be interpreted as the result

of the generality in the conceptualization of this construct.

Overall, the above scales may be considered stable and obtaining

reliability estimates comparable with those obtained in past research.


Sexual Functions Measure

The internal properties of this scale are reported in Table 8 in

Columns E through K. None of the subscales of this overall scale

required purification. As can be seen from examining the table,

all of the Alphas are greater than .70, the lowest being .77 for

submission and the highest being .85 for both conformity and personal

love and affection. Similarly, all the H.R.'s are close to optimal,

the lowest being .30 for submission and the highest being .42 for

both conformity and personal love and affection. Therefore, we can

conclude that the reliability for each of the sexual functions

subscales is adequate.

The results of a factor analysis of the overall sexual functions

scale (see Table 9) reveal a factor structure which is compatible

with the conceptual definition of the sexual functions originally

put forth in this study. The first factor is named pleasurable

stimulation because items from the hedonism and novelty subscales

load most highly on this factor. The second factor is named


The factor loading cutoff was established at .40.












conformity-acceptance because the items loading most highly are

those from the conformity subscale and those from the recognition

subscale tending to connote acceptance. The third factor is named

personal love and affection because the items loading most highly

on this factor are from the personal love and affection subscale.

The fourth factor is named power because the items loading most

highly on this factor are those from the dominance and submission

subscales. Finally, the fifth factor is named recognition-competition

since the items loading most highly on this factor are primarily

those from the recognition subscale. These findings lend further

support to the reliability of the sexual functions scale.


Sexual Functions Rating Scale

As outlined before, subjects were randomly asked to take home a

copy of the sexual functions measure for a significant other person

to fill out as they imagined the subject filled it out. In order to

assess the adequacy of this technique Alphas and H.R.'s were computed

for each subscale of this rating scale. The results of this analysis

are presented in Table 10. None of these subscales required purifica-

tion, and it is apparent from examining the table that all of the

Alphas are high, the lowest being .86 for both submission and

conformity and the highest being .93 for personal love and affection.

The H.R.'s for these subscales are also acceptable; however, the

H.R.'s for recognition, .62, personal love and affection, .61, and
















00








I C


O 0 C -- L CM C NN N 0
---NO --- C -- i-oo







- C') It Nr- C) C CM c') NC ONC
- 0-0 -N -O C-.-

I


S-
0

4-LL






O
U-













o


LL-



S-
0

U



(o
LL.
5-







4--


C) CM LO R- r- N^- o
0 C o C) C)-
'" ***


NCC MOY C i i-0 -N 0 M-








CO t CO m0 CO) 0C C
* Ln O O 9 LO* . O


*
4-)

*O- C


C0 CL C


-0 0)

WEE ; S .-r
c- O .
S- 0 4- c-


*r- .r- -- E-
U 0) Or- 4-)
S- i- ao

-E
CO ) o EU

( 0-0 0 I0)
-) c *4-) ) C



3 r., a) a
1n 3S 0 r- r CD
E. *r- *- E-



WVC >,>

O AO 0 cO
U >J >, Q-_


'L)


0__ C C- -



L 0 U -U0 U -




- CM ~- A'0
* * 4* -> -
*I- *I- I- 1 -


E: C


>)
S4-

M ( C4 CA
P c 0a
A 0 o 0
-0 *- N 0

a) 0 r .--
C >.- -C

oL 0 4- s- -
U--0- C4C ) W-, 4-

ci a) 0a L 44-C 5-)
a>r a*U I) W IU) 0



C S-) aC- E .c- 0 P
0- S- S L- LS-









W tn 4-) O 3 O c- -0 I
3 0 E -a4- OS-


WO IC 0 O r- O
-O (On 0 1o ,- ( o 0 > 4-


-C O .t-OZ OCO S >OE U
C a r 0 i- r -' f EC I









aS-E 4- S- c 4-
ma) E Ea E m -









^ 0 OC 5-.
C O CO CO CO Q vCO >O C c




) a) *a) a) 0 a 0 a


O C L C






r0 0 oo Or- cMcn ^0 s-
1- i- 1- o

0
Ll-
O,


4-3
-0

C
r-



4- U
0
O




s-
0 3


CD




0
- o





- C
C -
r >




r rC0


CC

0-4-3
c



3- 3


m U ca u
a) -C a)
ca: o


LO C) m CM N on CM
-- oo CM o0
I I


000
y-oc


SCM
00


OCM
*


O0




4-
X-
0
c11n


SII









o
C.
c<


O-

U
U-
u-















o ,I- O
C C- C C


o 4 C\Io n -c
m~ ,-) C'.j


S-
o
L)
LL.










LU-





(0
L-.


m LI
C- C


--0
I I


- C
0 0


- Oc CM C. C- cNj-


O C\ o o
c 0 0c 0
*- o o o ,---


O LON OC
CN i C\


O U3 L O -
. .n .D 1


CM oCI"
CN :O
I I


LA C C n)(.
O -- O -
I


Cd ,- >, -.






0 (0 ro (n 0
0 o0 a > E
C E C 0n a)
0 4- o) sD- 4-* (O
4- Cd *r- O-- -) a)




S .. 0 "' Cd, 0c
o 0 0 0 0 -0r (>
+- -- -a --- *- -, -a c --
O a 0 r0- ---
aji o I a) 0 C1 o 4 a) c
o) ,u a U, -'--C > 0



O33 4---C 4- -0-)- ) ) -
o 0 0o 0 *C- C 4-P

-a Q a -aD -t 4 0( u :r
4- E (n E L.)0 L) 4-
4- C S+-'- 3 Cd C -' a) *r- (-



O 0 V O y- C3 4-
CD .W S- -O (U0 C 0 -
+*eo E >n3r (i (0 c
a) U U, a o -03 0 >3
a, 0)0 c, C 3 S c o --+-


0 ra m o LCO *- -0 - --

O 4- c -00 0 0 i -r- 4-i
5- c C t- C a) Cd
Q) CJ C a) O) 3 a) a) a) C0 30 0
c ( u, 0v (n E "T (/) EU n o U0 ,0 0,
:1 3 C0 3 > 3 = 3 S- 3 M >) :3 (3) :3
3 U, rca s- ca rC o0 ao) o o S.-d a) ( )
U04-) a) 0) 0U O) U 0a) X U 0)W> 0 M
CO0 m CL Co da CO COc a) COr -

C'-
o m ^ *- LA 'o. i^- o )i C s-


U
(0
Ll-


a)

U E





0 S4-
- (0 0 0E




C)C4 -
E aU a
f3 3 ( (C




O -- 0 O 4 .-
S- ,- ,-- E ---


0 4- 5












34- 0- U
0 0 0 0 C-
4-) 4-J I_ 4--)
S *- E- C-- V :
cE a) -

4- 4- 4-







- 0 0- X
o) cU U ,





*- E *-- U,- c .r-
0 a aca)
0). O aE a O O 0S-



aO 0 C 0 a a) a 0) C3d



i- CM Co I LA


1- U. CO C ) O -- 0 --
0 ,- - 0CD- 0 CO















- : i- LO
CN 00 0


I0 nm 10 rN
- on -


LO mo r- -
.0 LO in t


C r 0
.0 LO LO


0 0 0 -
o O o m
* C C


C r co 0n
0 0 0 0
O OO O


CM-- CM
* *n C~


r- C 0C)


: LO O's o0 LO O) o
C0 C CO 10 C 0 CO
~- ~0 -0 i 0


i- U30 .0
.- 00 i-
*: C*


0 C .0 ,
C\N C\N


0 0) E
o
4-
*-- 4 -

S0 0 -


V- i- ,c (0
- O -O 4-




S*r c-
Srd

C CW )C
t/ 4-) 0 )
U- 5- *r-
0 3 O>
o L E
C Q- Ur

a O r--l


4- S 4O4-
u o
0 O--
0 0 4-
( C C:


0) i-i a 0 -
-C C 0 )


4- a 4- u

o) CL4-) C 3 0--'
4 -C I I 4- O '-C



o S-- u o- L)i C








o


LL.
U)U)WU-u +a
m1- mr3- m

0i0u N- C o 0 L







U
I-


O S-L
a) 0 E
2 ->, -c,
c i- COE 4-P 0o
> () 0 1
c oE 0 C >-
L T ,
-C 2 >)*- = 4- r- U)
S- C -0 5- .

n -OC 4 0I -
> *- t- 0)i -0 a
0 *4 3 S CS
Sr O) c rez V O VL a-)
i 0- s- Lc V a) 0 S- a L
SL a). C > o 5- a
>_ E > 3c4-
*- C> C C S-
i-i 0 r- *r- CC *r- *5- U)
0 3 C0) 4-> O (0 W U S- ) 0
4' > u Oa-0 ) C: C
- 0 0- S-4-04- 4-)- S--- >,
r- .-' O O -" -& O -
4) 0 Oa 0 C OOd O 4-
0) a) 0) E 4-c 3 CL C )
0) C 4 r- C 0( *r-. r-
S*r- *r X- U C >,4- 4-
r-- O- 0- U 4-r-- *- E c
- -- ) w U a S (o
a) a) a 0)W () C: 0 C
Ca 4- C)4- 4- C4- )-0 a)4- >
4- E o0 4- o. = ---
Q- CU -* a>r i- a 4 3 (V S--O
( 0 0 UL.na 4-) ) U C: (V3 (0 (a -
C- +-'P-3l-' U ) 0O= C4-' .0-0
S-.- 0 ca4- ) 4-'--Cm- O U
0) >, a) E E S- >,s
a) o *r- 0ao a 0 0 E U
-z >,-) *- *-.C: C En _!he -U C C
-rE C C c 4- *r n- 4 Cr
r- a C X C +->a +0 C4O C >..CU)
i-*r-- 5- U) a- i-r r i-4 2 -
Cd 0> .C
d a) Cd 2 C C) S -' a)U a) ( co- ca P Cd4

3 03 >)Z3 3S= :3 c:3 S- 3 34-
SW MO E M M C4- M W W+- n3 C M W
U EU U S- UE C a) 0
a 0 ac >, ) aC C a) Q a 0 03) 0.W
co uO co -0 CO M CL CO-p- M U CO 0M F-4


.- CM (1; 1n


'.0 N- Co


OC
0 -


LO r0-
e- 0


CN0
c-d rO


0


LL.




0




5L-
0
u
L)







4-'-

U-














S-
0
SI
O
ro
LIL


N- CD fl d
- 7c -


(Y- O- ,--


0

4--





rO
a)
u-







ou
n-t






O

C"J C1.)C CM *rl 4

Os- O
0 0

o w


C

4 -
0
o





-) 0
4-' E 0



-)

L) ) -
4-
S- L S- (V
o ) aD ro
D) 4-J

O ro :
o C Eo



Q::E 4- -

O C0
EE 4-




0 Q
0 0)0 aC -
UT) 0 ) E




0- 4-J -



S-0 t- E0=~
U = U 0U CU
W-' 4- D (Wd) W)





O 00a t -

O- 0 7 2--
OUOCU 0U U-
a) -P ua) 0 ) 0


C) Q

II II
C) .


-4 N- o CM. o

ID r1- N- m0 C)







r- Co) m CMJ co










in c- t CMO l-

CM c- CM- -








C\- C C) O d- I1


C *


S.I
0





u
.LL.
S-
0









U-
U-













novelty, .54, are slightly high. This suggests that these subscales

are lacking in discriminatory power and the items may be somewhat

redundant. In general, though, these results support the reliability

of the sexual functions measure employed as a rating scale.


Table 10

Internal Properties of the Sexual
Rating Scale
(N=30)

A B C D
Alpha .91 .92 .87 .86
. .42 .62 .46 .42


Where: A =
B=
C=
D=
E =
F =
G =


Functions


E
.86
.42


8 8 8 8

Hedonism
Recognition
Dominance
Submission
Conformity
Personal Love and Affection
Novelty


Assessment of Scales' Construct Validity

In any research where scales are used to measure underlying

personality constructs there exists the task of demonstrating that

a particular scale measures the intended construct. According to

Cronbach and Meehl (1955), this involves determining the proportion

of test variance that is attributable to the construct and the


Cronbach's
Scott's H.R
Total Items


F
.93
.61


G
.87
.54


8 8












procedure has been termed construct validation. This procedure

necessitates a theory which relates constructs with one another and

observable behavior. Possessing such a framework, tests used to

measure constructs defined within the framework can be examined in

order to determine whether the test scores vary in relationship to

one another in a manner compatible with that specified by the theory.

More specifically, this would involve studying test results to

discover whether each of the measured variables correlated in the

expected direction with other theoretically related variables.

In this research Rotter's (1954) social learning theory was used

as the framework with which the validity of the measures of personality

were examined. The theory does not specify the linkages between

sexual function variables; therefore, another approach to instrument

validation was required to demonstrate the construct validity of the

sexual functions measure. The technique that was used was a variation

on that specified by Campbell and Fiske (1959).

Campbell and Fiske (1959) extended the notion of construct

validation by noting that the full explication of a construct

requires demonstrating what it measures as well as what it does not

measure. Consequently, they introduced the notion of convergent and

discriminant validity for distinguishing these features of a scale.

Convergent validity is assessed by the degree to which a scale is

correlated with another independent measure of the same trait.

Discriminant validity is assessed by noting the lack of correlation












of a scale with another measuring a trait conceived as different or

irrelevant. However, in this study support for convergent validity

was provided by comparing two different sources of information

concerning the amount of a characteristic present in an individual

and discriminant validity was supported if the reliabilities of

subscales exceeded the average intercorrelations between them. Together

these two procedures were employed in supporting the construct

validity of the sexual functions measure. The procedure for

assessing discriminant validity was also used to provide additional

support for the construct validity of the personality measures.


Personality Measures

Social learning theory makes several predictions regarding the

relationship between personality variables measured in this study

except self esteem. Self esteem is not strictly a social learning

theory variable; therefore, there are no explicit theoretical

predictions as to how self esteem should relate to the other social

learning theory variables. However, by conceptualizing self esteem

as analogous to Rotter's construct of freedom of movement, it is

possible to specify the linkages between self esteem and the other

social learning theory variables measured in this study. Support for

such a conceptualization is provided by Rotter in his remark that

"freedom of movement seems to be similar in its connotations to












concepts in other points of view which are used to imply important

aspects of adjustment, concepts such as anxiety and inadequacy feelings"

(Rotter, 1954, p. 194). Therefore, we would expect self esteem to be

linked to other personality variables in a manner similar to freedom

of movement.

It was predicted that I-E, alienation, interpersonal trust, and

self esteem, would correlate significantly with one another. Further,

alienation would relate negatively with each of the other variables.

The more alienated a person is the more externally oriented he would

be, the less trusting he would be, and the less self esteem he would

possess. In contrast, I-E, interpersonal trust, and self esteem

would be positively related. The more internally oriented a person

is the more trusting he would be, the higher his self esteem would be,

and vice versa. Examining the intercorrelations between personality

variables reported in Table 11, we can see that the relationships

that have obtained are consistent with these predictions. All

variables correlate at a level of significance equal to or less than

.001. Alienation is negatively correlated with internality, inter-

personal trust, and self esteem, while internality, interpersonal

trust, and self esteem are positively correlated with one another.

Therefore, we can conclude that these results support the construct

validity of the scales.

In Table 11 we can also find support for the discriminant

validity of each of these scales. On the diagonal of the correlation












Table 11

Intercorrelations Between Measures of Personality
(N=395)

I-E Alienation Trust Self Esteem
I-E (.72)
Alienation -.34* (.81)
Trust .23* -.30* (.81)
Self Esteem .26* -.61* .18* (.84)
Average Corr.
Between Scales .28 .43 .24 .37



p = .001


matrix are the reliability coefficients for each scale and beneath

the matrix are the average correlations between scales. It can be

seen that in each case the magnitude of the scale's reliability

exceeds the average correlation between that scale and all others.

Therefore, we can conclude that in each case there is evidence that

the construct being examined is measuring a separate aspect of the

person and therefore satisfies the requirements of discriminantvalidity.


Sexual Functions Measure

The convergent validity of the sexual functions instrument, it will

be remembered, was to be established by the convergence of subjects'

test results with those of an external source (a significant other). It

was expected that each subscale of the sexual functions instrument

completed by subjects would be positively correlated with the












corresponding sexual functions subscales filled out by significant

others. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 12.


Table 12

Correlations Between Subjects' and Significant
Others' Sexual Functions Subscale Scores
(N=30)

Hedonism .72*
Recognition .63*
Dominance .49*
Submission .47*
Conformity .30
Love .11
Novelty .53*
Average Corr.
Between Subscales .49



p = .01


It can be seen that for all subscales except two (conformity and

personal love and affection) the correlations between subjects' scores

and significant others' scores are significant at the .01 level. These

correlations range from .72 for hedonism to .47 for submission. The

correlations for conformity and personal love and affection were .30

and .11, respectively. The .30 correlation fell just short of the

.05 cutoff with a significance level of .056 while the .11 correlation

fell nowhere near an acceptable level of significance. The average

correlation for all scales was .49 and we can conclude that with the












exception of the personal love and affection scale and perhaps also the

conformity scale, there is strong support for the convergent validity

of the sexual functions subscales.

Evidence for the discriminant validity of the sexual functions

instrument is provided in Table 13. As can be seen on the diagonal,

each coefficient of reliability is greater than the average correlation

between that scale and other sexual functions subscales. Therefore,

there is support for the discriminant validity of each of the sexual

functions scales.

The results of these analyses lend support to the construct

validity of the sexual functions subscales. Although there was no

support for the convergent validity of the personal love and

affection subscale and only questionable support for the convergent

validity of the conformity subscale, there is adequate support for

the discriminant validity of these two subscales. It is possible

that there is something about these two sexual functions which make

it particularly difficult for a person knowledgeable about the

sexual characteristics of another to estimate. Therefore, the construct

validity of these two subscales may be tentatively accepted.


Sexual Activities Measure

The generally accepted technique for validating self report

measures of behavior is to obtain an independent measure of the same

behavior(s) and correlate the two. If the correlation is high the















Intercorrelations


A
A (.83)
B .59*
C .51*
D .35*
E .32*
F .18*
G .70*
Total Items 8
Average Corr.
Between Subscales .46

Where: A =


Table 13

Between Sexual
(N=395)

B C


(.83)
.66*
.42*
.62*
.15*
.63*


(.83)
.57*
.41*
.18*
.53*


.53 .42

Hedonism
Recognition
Dominance
Submission
Conformity
Personal Love
Novelty


Functions Subscales


D E


(.77)
.31*
.50*
.33*


(.85)
.04
.46*


(.85)
.05


and Affection


p = .001


self report measure is considered valid. However, since the subjects

sampled in this study were of all different dating status' (see Table 5)

it would have been impossible to obtain an independent measure of

sexual behavior. If the sample had contained only married subjects,


F G


(.84)
8

.47












this might have been possible, but it was not possible since the

sample included subjects who were dating more than one person or

were not dating at all. Even though no estimate of validity could

be generated from this data, there is reason to believe that subjects

may have responded honestly. First, subjects were all volunteers

and were guaranteed total anonymity. Secondly, subjects were clearly

informed of the importance of honest responding and were urged to

take plenty of time considering their answers to the sexual activity

questionnaire. Finally, self report techniques have been shown to

be adequate in other areas of research such as drug and alcohol abuse.

Cahalan (1970), in his book titled Problem Drinkers, cites a couple

of studies which show that with respect to "getting into trouble with

the police," between 65 and 85 percent of the respondents' reports

agreed with official court records. Jessor et al. (1968), using a

multiple indicator technique, sought to demonstrate the validity of

self reports of drinking rates. Official records, peer nominations,

and participant observation were all employed in this effort. Results

indicated that self reports of drinking rates can be considered, for

the most part, accurate. Davis (1971) attempted to validate a self

report measure of marijuana use employing a technique whereby peers

could report on other peoples' drug use without identifying the person

being rated. Comparisons between self reports of marijuana use and

ratings by peers yielded high correlations, greater than .70.












Major Findings

Hypothesis 1: Personality variables and sexual functions together will
yield better prediction of sexual behavior than
personality variables alone.

This hypothesis was tested by comparing the strength of the

relationship between personality variables and sexual behavior with

the strength of the relationship between personality variables, sexual

functions, and sexual behavior using a stepwise regression procedure.

That is, sexual behavior was regressed against personality variables

and these results were compared with sexual behavior regressed against

personality variables and sexual functions together. The results of

these analyses are presented in Tables 14 through 17. The far left

column of each table contains the criterion variables being predicted.

The middle four columns contain the predictor variables to enter, the

multiple R at each step, and the F value for the equation at each

step. Finally, the far right column contains the final multiple R

or the R obtaining at the last step.

Tables 14 and 15 contain the results of the regression analysis

for the male subsample. In Table 14 are the results of each of the

criterion behaviors regressed against personality variables alone. The

multiple R's range from .12 to .27. Most of these equations are

significant, yet the R's are considered small. In Table 15 are the



Since simply adding predictor variables to the regression equation will
increase the multiple R, a maximum of four predictor variables were
permitted to enter in both sets of analyses.












results of each of the criterion behaviors regressed against both

personality variables and sexual functions together. In contrast,

the multiple R's range from .18 to .46. Further, all of the regression

equations are significant. There is substantial evidence to suggest

an increase in prediction obtained as a result of adding sexual

function variables to the predictive model.

Tables 16 and 17 contain the results of the regression analysis

for the female subsample. In Table 16 are the results of each

criterion behavior regressed against personality variables alone.

The multiple R's range from .04 to .24, and, again, they are considered

small. In fact, they are even smaller than those obtaining for the

male subsample with only a few of the equations attaining significance.

The results obtained from the regression of personality variables

and sexual functions presented in Table 17 are in high contrast to

the results presented in Table 16. The multiple R's range from

.29 to .46 and all of the equations are significant. Once again, the

results suggest that prediction is enhanced by the inclusion of sexual

function variables.

It is apparent from the above findings that personality variables

and sexual functions account for different aspects of the variance

in sexual behavior. This can be further verified by examining the

zero order correlations between personality variables and sexual

behavior (see Tables 18 and 19). It is evident for both males and

females that personality variables and sexual functions share very












little variance in common. For males none of the correlations

exceed .30. Similarly for females none of the correlations exceed

.27.

It is also evident that sexual functions explain more of the

variance in sexual behavior than do personality variables. In

Tables 20 and 21 are the results of a correlational analysis of the

relationship between personality variables and sexual behavior for

males and females, respectively. For males, the relationship

between personality and sexual behavior is considered weak. The

significant correlations range from .14 to .19. Similarly, for

females the results show personality variables and sexual behavior

to be weakly correlated. The significant correlations range from

.12 to .17. In Tables 22 and 23 are the results of a correlational

analysis of the relationship between sexual functions and sexual

behavior for males and females, respectively. For males the cor-

relations range from .12 to .34 and for females the correlations

range from .13 to .32. In both instances it is evident that the

correlations are stronger than those obtained in the analysis of

the relationship between personality variables and sexual behavior.

These results, then, provide support for the hypothesis. They

show that if sexual functions are incorporated into a predictive model,

the prediction of sexual behavior will be increased above that

obtained with just personality variables alone. They also indicate

that both personality variables and sexual functions each account for












different portions of the variance in sexual behavior. Finally, they

indicate that sexual functions account for a larger share of the

variance than personality variables.

Hypothesis 2: The functions of sexual behavior moderate the relation-
ship between personality variables and sexual behavior.

Moderator effects were tested by examining variations in the

functions of sexual behavior to determine whether they effect the

strength of the relationship between personality variables and sexual

behavior. More specifically, the strength of the relationship between

personality variables and sexual behavior for groups of subjects

distinguished by their preference for different sexual functions were

compared with the sample as a whole.



Saunders (1956) was the first to employ the term "moderator variable"
to refer to "many examples of situations in which the predictive
validity of some psychological measure varies systematically in accord
with some other independent psychological variable" (Saunders, 1956,
p. 209). However, Frederiksen and Melville (1954) were the first to
demonstrate such an effect. They attempted to show that the correla-
tion between a predictor variable and a criterion varied as a function
of classification on a third variable later termed a moderator variable
(Saunders, 1956). The technique Frederiksen and Melville (1954) em-
ployed was to dichotomize their sample into groups based on scores ob-
tained on a presumed moderator variable. They then examined the
relationship between predictor and criterion variables for each group.
If the prediction was greater for one group compared to the other, the
stratifying variable was considered a moderator. A similar technique
was later employed by Frederiksen and Gilbert (1960), Steineman (1964),
and Ghiselli (1968). Saunders (1956) employed a different technique
using multiple regression. He argued that the same results obtained
by Frederiksen and Melville (1954) using dichotomous groups could be
obtained using multiple regression if certain modifications were made.
To the traditional multiple regression model of the form y = blxI +
b2x2 where x2 is presumed to be a moderator he added an interaction
term b3x1x2. If a moderator effect were present b3 or the interaction
term would be significant and prediction would be increased above that
obtained by a straight linear model.













Table 14

Stepwise Regression of Sexual Behavior Against
Personality Variables for Males
(N=174)


Cri terion
Variable
Frequency of
Intercourse

Frequency of
Intimate Sex

Frequency of
Casual Sex

Number of
Coital Partners

Pleasuring
Behavior

Stating Likes
and Dislikes

Frequency of
Initiation

Superior
Position

Inferior
Position

Frequency of
Coital Orgasms




p = .05
**
p = .01


Predictor Variables to Enter
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Multiple R


Alien
R= .152
F=4.07*
I-E
R= .208
F=7.07**
I-E
R= .195
F=6.78**
Trust
R= .153
F=4.10*
Esteem
R= .148
F=3.85*
Alien
R= .191
F=6.51*
Esteem
R= .181
F=5.81
Alien
R= .125
F=2.64
Alien
R= .067
F= .77
Trust
R= .134
F=3.12


Trust
R = .197
F=3.44*
Alien
R= .213
F=4.03*
Trust
R- .232
F=4.85**
Alien
R= .218
F=4.28*
Alien
R= .176
F=2.73
I-E
R= .200
F=3.57*
Trust
R= .226
F=4.58*
Trust
R= .207
F=3.74*
Trust
R= .105
F= .94
Alien
R= .193
F=3.28*


Esteem
R = .211
F=2.63*
Esteem
R= .215
F=2.74*
Esteem
R= .235
F=3.30*
I-E
R= .245
F=3.61*
I-E
R= .181
F=1.92
Esteem
R= .207
F=2.55
Alien
R= .258
F=4.04**
I-E
R= .245
F=3.53*
I-E
R= .117
F= .78
Esteem
R= .194
F=2.21


I-E
R= .214
F=2.02


Alien
R= .236
F=2.50*
Esteem
R= .256
F=2.96*
Trust
R= .187
F=1.53
Trust
R= .208
F=1.92
I-E
R= .265
F=3.19*
Esteem
F= .247
F=2.68*
Esteem
R= .120
F= .61
I-E
R= .196
F=1.67













Table 15

Stepwise Regression of Sexual Behavior Against
Personality Variables and Sexual Functions for Males
(N=174)


Criterion
Variable
Frequency of
Intercourse

Frequency of
Intimate Sex

Frequency of
Casual Sex

Number of
Coital Partners

Pleasuring
Behavior

Stating Likes
and Dislikes

Frequency of
Initiation

Superior
Position

Inferior
Position

Frequency of
Coital Orgasms


Predictor Variables to Enter


Step 1
Con
R= .288
F=15.52**
Love
R= .349
F=23.64**
I-E
R= .262
F=12.67**
Hed
R= .264
F=12.87**
Love
R= .191
F= 6.48**
Love
R= .224
F= 9.08**
Hed
R= .307
F=17.89**
Hed
R= .235
F= 9.78**
Love
R= .096
F= 1.58
Con
R= .180
F= 5.74*


Step 2 Step 3


Hed
R= .337
F=10.98**
Con
R= .442
F=20.63**


Nov
R=
F=11


.346
.60**


Love
R= .296
F= 8.19**
Esteem
R= .252
F= 5.79**
Alien
R= .286
F= 7.60**
Alien
R= .356
F=12.38**
Con
R= .306
F= 8.65**
Con
R= .127
F= 1.39
Rec
R= .292
F= 7.92**


Alien
R= .349
F= 7.87**
I-E
R= .458
F=14.97**
Con
R= .366
F= 8.74**
Alien
R= .317
F= 6.37**
Sub
R= .278
F= 4.75**
Dom
R= .319
F= 6.43**
I-E
R= .371
F= 9.06**
I-E
R= .318
F= 6.27**
Hed
R= .166
F= 1.59
Trust
R= .316
F= 6.24**


Final


Step 4 Multiple R
Trust
R= .361 .36
F= 6.32**
Trust
R= .463 .46
F=11.37**
Trust
R= .376 .38
F= 5.37**
Trust
R= .336 .34
F= 5.37**
Rec
R= .291 .29
F= 3.91**
Con
R= .372 .37
F= 6.78**
Trust
R= .391 .39
F= 7.61**
Alien
R= .340 .34
F= 5.41**
Trust
R= .177 .18
F= 1.35
Al i en
R= .334 .33
F= 5.26**


p = .05
**
p = .01













Table 16

Stepwise Regression of Sexual Behavior Against
Personality Variables for Females
(N=209)


Criterion
Variable
Frequency of
Intercourse

Frequency of
Intimate Sex

Frequency of
Casual Sex

Number of
Coital Partners

Pleasuring
Behavior

Stating Likes
and Dislikes

Frequency of
Initiation

Superior
Position

Inferior
Position

Frequency of
Coital Orgasms




p = .05
**
p = .01


Predictor Variables to Enter
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4


Esteem
R= .032
F= .21
Esteem
R= .167
F=5.85*
Esteem
R= .105
F=2.27
Al i en
R= .168
F=5.99*
Trust
R= .045
F= .42
Esteem
R= .123
F=3.18
Esteem
R= .074
F=1.15
Esteem
R= .097
F=1.92
I-E
R= .148
F=4.48*
Trust
R= .110
F=2.44


Trust
R= .040
F= .17
I-E
R= .179
F=3.36*
Al i en
R= .138
F=2.00
Esteem
R= .189
F=3.82*
Alien
R= .060
F= .37
I-E
R= .132
F=1.84
Trust
R= .093
F= .90
Alien
R= .140
F=2.00
Esteem
F= .182
F=3.43*
Alien
R= .136
F=1 .89


Alien
R= .044
F= .13
Alien
R= .182
F=2.31
Trust
R= .145
F=1.47
I-E
R= .193
F=2.64*
Esteem
R= .066
F= .30
Alien
R= .133
F=1.22
I-E
R= .113
F= .88
Trust
R= .144
F=1.41
Alien
R= .235
F=3.86*
I-E
R= .152
F=1.55


I-E
R= .152
F=1.19
Trust
R= .195
F=2.00


Trust
R= .133
F= .92
Alien
R= .114
F= .67
I-E
R= .145
F=1.07
Trust
R= .236
F=2.91*
Esteem
R= .155
F=1.23


Final
Multiple R

.04


.18


.15


.20


.07


.13


.11













Table 17

Stepwise Regression of Sexual Behavior Against
Personality Variables and Sexual Functions for Females
(N=209)


Criterion
Variable
Frequency of
Intercourse

Frequency of
Intimate Sex

Frequency of
Casual Sex

Number of
Coital Partners

Pleasuring
Behavior

Stating Likes
and Dislikes

Frequency of
Initiation

Superior
Position

Inferior
Position

Frequency of
Coital Orgasms


Step 1
Hed
R= .303
F=20.87**
Love
R= .303
F=20.60**
Con
R= .268
F=15.87**
Rec
R= .320
F=23.48**
Dom
R= .217
F=10.21**
Love
R= .187
F= 7.50**
Hed
R= .216
F=10.12**
Hed
R= .228
F=11.07**
Love
R= .233
F=11.55**
Hed
R= .256
F=14.10**


Predictor Variables to Enter


Step 2
Con
R= .387
F=18.14**
Con
R= .432
F=23.20**
Love
R= .354
F=14.65**
Con
R= .358
F=15.05**
Trust
R= .242
F= 6.36**
Con
R= .239
F= 6.25**
Con
R= .323
F=11.98**
Con
R= .309
F=10.63**
I-E
R= .269
F= 7.83**
Nov
F= .311
F=10.72**


Step 3
Love
R= .418
F=14.18**
Esteem
R= .448
F=16.86**
Nov
R= .402
F=13.05**
Al i en
R= .388
F=12.01**
Love
R= .260
F= 4.93**
Esteem
R= .259
F= 4.93**
Rec
R= .362
F=10.32**
Dom
R= .323
F= 7.75**
Esteem
R= .291
F= 6.14**
Trust
R= .333
F= 8.25**


Final


Step 4 Multiple R
Dom
R= .431 .43
F=11.66**
I-E
R= .452 .45
F=12.90**
Hed
R= .407 .41
F=10.04**
Hed
R= .414 .41
F=10.49**
Con
R= .281 .28
F= 4.17**
Sub
R= .267 .27
F= 3.91**
I-E
R= 375 .38
F= 8.34**
Sub
R= .335 .34
F= 6.30**
Alien
R= .313 .31
F= 5.36**
Sub
R= .356 .36
F= 7.20**


p = .05
**
p = .01









64



















IX

N CCO








x
I I I







C/)












I I I
ro



00



0 -0 r *P

CO0





H -O -I I I





Sro o4 -
0I I I











U,
0o -o X 4c

*- -- C 0 0





- I I I
O E











aj r) C *)
L L.








I-
U0 U, -




LL r- =- r
-I -- U 0 0.4
i- cz IX









65




















> o o o r-





> LO L C

I I I





= OcN L- r
cO .o







~ C -c
C XA CX
S.- r C X X -
a0 0 cij r- --
1- CM i- C'.J















r O cu C 0 00 r- CD
4O I I I




0-)




o ro
r- Q.*- g- 4c
.0 C I 4C 4C 4 )

















a i
O e-

'0 0 4( -

c- . .


SI I I
S-- C--
i- 4 L CM X









I-. 0 - C 4- 1-







I I I



PE



((I L X II
( C II
i -- II ro
L.- 4X


I r- I 0 0 0









*i 1- 1o n oc *













Table 20

Pearson Product Moment Correlations:
Personality Variables and Sexual Behavior for Males
(N=179)

I-E Alien Trust Esteem


Frequency of
Intercourse
Frequency of
Intimate Sex
Frequency of
Casual Sex
Number of
Coital Partners
Pleasuring
Behavior
Stating Likes
and Dislikes
Frequency of
Initiation
Superior
Position
Inferior
Position
Frequency of
Coital Orgasms



p = .05
**
p = .01


-.15* -.06


.19** -.09


-.09


-.01


-.11


-.06

-.10


-.10

-.12

-.03

-.09













Table 21

Pearson Product Moment Correlations:
Personality Variables and Sexual Behavior for Females
(N=214)


I-E Alien Trust Esteem


Frequency of
Intercourse

Frequency of
Intimate Sex
Frequency of
Casual Sex
Number of
Coital Partners
Pleasuring
Behavior
Stating Likes
and Dislikes
Frequency of
Initiation
Superior
Position
Inferior
Position
Frequency of
Coital Orgasms


.0

.10

-.01


-.09

-.01

-.01

.07

.01


.03

.05


.03

.16*


.06 -.11*


.17** -.05 -.04


.03

-.07

-.06

.03


.12*


-.06


-.02


.04

.02

-.04

.01

-.03

-.11


.0

.12*

.07

.09

.06

.03


*
p = .05
**
p = .01














Table 22


Pearson Product Moment
Sexual Functions and Sexual
(N=179)


Frequency of
Intercourse
Frequency of
Intimate Sex
Frequency of
Casual Sex
Number of
Coital Partners
Pleasuring
Behavior
Stating Likes
And Dislikes
Frequency of
Initiation
Superior
Position
Inferior
Position
Frequency of
Coital Orgasms



*
p = .05
** .01
p = .01
***
p = .001


Hed

.12*

-.08

.17*

.27***

-.05

.11

.30***

.24***

.07


Rec

-.06

-.11

.20**

.18**

.05

.05

.14*

.06

.02


.16*


Dom

-.10

-.10

.16*

.11

-.04

.13*

.02

.04

-.02


Correlations:
Behavior for Males


Sub

-.11

.0

.05

-.03

.01

.06

-.02

-.05

.08


Con

-.28***

-.26***

.21**

-.05

-.05

-.13*

-.03

-.12

-.09


Love

.02

.34***

-.25***

-.12*

.17*

.22**

.10

.02

.08


.05 -.04 -.18**


Nov

.0

-.13*

.23***

.24***

.01

.05

.19**

.09

.01













Table 23

Pearson Product Moment Correlations:


Sexual Functions and Sexual Behavior
(N=214)


for Females


Frequency of
Intercourse
Frequency of
Intimate Sex
Frequency of
Casual Sex
Number of
Coital Partners
Pleasuring
Behavior
Stating Likes
and Dislikes
Frequency of
Initiation
Superior
Position
Inferior
Position
Frequency of
Coital Orgasms



p = .05
**
p = .01
***
p = .001


Hed Rec Dom Sub

.28*** .03 .06 .11*

.0 -.05 .03 .07

.15* .17** .10 -.04

.30*** .31*** .32*** .10

.17** .15** .21*** .16**

.05 -.04 .06 .01

.22*** .17** .18** .01

.22*** .09 .18** .04

.12* .03 .03 .16**

.25*** .04 .10 .01


Con

-.14*

.25***

.27***

.03

-.02

-.11

-.16**

-.13*

.03

-.07


Love

.24***

.29***

-.18**

.02

.17**

.17**

.16**

.13*

.23**

.09


Nov

.10

-.09

.24***

.29***

.10

.10

.20***

.13*

.05

.05













The procedure adopted for carrying out this analysis involved

separately classifying the male and female subsamples into groups

based upon sexual functions subscale scores. Each subject was

classified on the basis of his highest subscale score relative to all
*
others. If a subject scored highest on the hedonism subscale relative

to the other six subscales, he/she was classified a member of the

hedonism group. If a subject scored highest on the recognition

subscale he/she was classified a member of the recognition group, and
**
so on. Using this procedure seven groups obtained: hedonism,

recognition, dominance, submission, conformity, personal love and

affection, and novelty. This procedure was considered to have ef-

fectively stratified the male and female subsamples into different

sexual preference groups. A stepwise regression procedure was then

employed to compare the relationship between personality variables and

sexual behavior for each preference groups with that obtaining for the
***
sample as a whole.



In order to facilitate comparison of subscale scores, raw scores were
converted to Z scores. The Z score variable transformation is the most
commonly used technique for standardizing the scale of an interval-
ratio variable. This procedure generates a new variable with a mean of
0 and a standard deviation of 1. For that variable each case is then
given a value equal to the number of standard deviation units it is
above or below the mean. The actual computation of Z scores is ac-
complished by subtracting the variable's value for each case from the
mean of the variable and then dividing by the standard deviation.
**
Cases were deleted where tie scores were in evidence.
The zero order correlations obtaining for each preference group are
contained in Tables 38 through 52 in Appendix B.












The results of these analyses are presented in Tables 24 through

37. Once again, the far left column of each table contains the

criterion variables being predicted. The middle four columns contain

the predictor variables to enter, the multiple R at each step, and

the F value for the equation at each step. Finally, the far right

column contains the final multiple R for both that preference group

and the sample as a whole.

In Table 24 are the results obtained from the regression analysis

of sexual behavior against personality variables with males evidencing

a hedonism preference. It is apparent from examining this table

that prediction is increased above that obtaining for the sample as

a whole. However, frequency of coitus, frequency of intimate sex,

frequency of casual sex, pleasuring behavior, and stating likes and

dislikes are the only criterion variables predicted by equations

obtaining significant F values. Frequency of coitus is predicted by

self esteem, alienation, I-E, and interpersonal trust, R=.55.

Frequency of intimate sex is predicted by self esteem, interpersonal

trust, I-E, and alienation, R=.61. Frequency of casual sex is

predicted by interpersonal trust, self esteem, and I-E, R=.50.

Pleasuring behavior is predicted by self esteem, R=.37. And, stating

likes and dislikes is predicted by self esteem, R=.38. Given that

these multiple correlations are stronger than those obtaining for the


*
The multiple R's for the sample as a whole are taken from Tables 13 and
15.












sample as a whole, it can be concluded that stratifying males according

to a hedonism preference enhances the association of personality

variables with sexual behavior.

In Table 25 are the results of the regression analysis of sexual

behavior against personality variables with males evidencing a recogni-

tion preference. Comparing the multiple R's obtained in this analysis

with those obtained for the sample as a whole, it is apparent that

there is a trend toward increased prediction. However, frequency of

coitus, number of coital partners, and frequency of initiation are

the only criterion variables predicted by regression equations ob-

taining significant F values. Frequency of coitus is predicted by

interpersonal trust, R=.44. Number of coital partners is predicted

by interpersonal trust and I-E, R=.54. And, frequency of initiation

is predicted by interpersonal trust, R=.42. Based upon these results,

it can be concluded that stratifying males according to a recognition

preference enhances the association of personality variables with

sexual behavior.

Table 26 contains the results of the regression analysis of

sexual behavior against personality variables with males evidencing

a dominance preference. If the results from this analysis are compared

with the results obtaining for the sample as a whole, it is evident

that once again there is a trend toward increased prediction. However,

only those equations predicting number of coital partners and pleasuring

behavior are significant. Number of coital partners is predicted by













alienation, R=.51, and pleasuring behavior is predicted by self

esteem and I-E, R=.65. These multiple R's are clearly stronger than

those obtaining for the sample as a whole. Therefore, it can be

concluded that stratifying males according to a dominance preference

enhances the association of personality variables with sexual behavior.

The results in Table 27 are those obtained from the regression

analysis of sexual behavior against personality variables with males

evidencing a submission preference. Comparing these results with

those obtaining for the sample as a whole, it is evident that there

is a strong trend toward increased prediction. Yet, frequency of

initiation, superior position, and frequency of coital orgasms are

the only criterion variables predicted by equations obtaining

significant F values. It should be noted that this may be due to the

small N in this group. Frequency of initiation is predicted by

interpersonal trust, I-E, and alienation, R=.89. Superior position

is predicted by alienation, R= .68. And, frequency of coital orgasms

is predicted by self esteem, R=.74. These multiple R's are sub-

stantially stronger than those obtaining for the sample as a whole.

Therefore, it can be concluded that stratifying males according to

a submission preference enhances the association of personality

variables with sexual behavior.

Table 28 presents the results of the regression analysis of sexual

behavior against personality variables for males evidencing a conformity

preference. In almost all instances these results exhibit a trend


I












toward increased prediction over that obtaining for the sample as a

whole. In addition, seven out of ten of these equations are signifi-

cant. Frequency of intimate sex is predicted by alienation and I-E,

R=.49. Frequency of casual sex is predicted by I-E and interpersonal

trust, R=.40. Pleasuring behavior is predicted by alienation and I-E,

R=.40. Stating likes and dislikes is predicted by alienation, I-E,

interpersonal trust, and self esteem, R=.56. Frequency of initiation

is predicted by alienation, interpersonal trust, self esteem, and

I-E, R=.56. Superior position is predicted by alienation, I-E,

interpersonal trust, and self esteem, R=.57. And, frequency of coital

orgasms is predicted by I-E, alienation, self esteem, and interpersonal

trust, R=.55. These multiple R's are all stronger than those obtaining

for the sample as a whole. Therefore, it can be concluded that

stratifying males according to a conformity preference enhances the

association of personality variables with sexual behavior.

In Table 29 are the results of the regression analysis of sexual

behavior against personality variables for males evidencing a personal

love and affection preference. These results, again, exhibit a trend

toward increased prediction over that obtaining for the sample as a

whole. Four of these equations obtained significant F values: fre-

quency of intimate sex, frequency of casual sex, pleasuring behavior,

and frequency of initiation. Frequency of intimate sex is predicted

by self esteem, interpersonal trust, I-E, and alienation, R=.62.

Frequency of casual sex is predicted by self esteem, interpersonal













trust, and alienation, R=.54. Pleasuring behavior is predicted by

I-E, self esteem, interpersonal trust, and alienation, R=.62. And,

frequency of initiation is predicted by I-E, alienation, interpersonal

trust, and self esteem, R=.58. These multiple R's are stronger than

those obtaining for the sample as a whole. Therefore, it can be

concluded that stratifying males according to a personal love and

affection preference enhances the association of personality variables

with sexual behavior.

Table 30 contains the results of the regression analysis of sexual

behavior against personality variables for males evidencing a novelty

preference. Most of the equations show an increase.in prediction over

that obtained for the sample as a whole. However, only two of these

equations obtained significant F values: stating likes and dislikes

and frequency of initiation. Stating likes and dislikes is predicted

by alienation, I-E, self esteem, and interpersonal trust, R=.64, and

frequency of initiation is predicted by self esteem, interpersonal

trust, I-E, and alienation, R=.65. Given that these multiple cor-

relations are stronger than those obtaining for the sample as a whole,

it can be concluded that stratifying males according to a novelty

preference enhances the association of personality variables with

sexual behavior.

Table 31 presents the results of the regression analysis of sexual

behavior against personality variables for females evidencing a

hedonism preference. Comparing these results with the sample as a


I II













whole, a trend toward increased prediction is apparent. However, the

equations predicting frequency of intimate sex, frequency of casual

sex, pleasuring behavior, and inferior position are the only ones

obtaining significant F values. Frequency of intimate sex is predicted

by alienation, self esteem, interpersonal trust, and I-E, R=.80.

Frequency of casual sex is predicted by alienation, I-E, and inter-

personal trust, R=.70. Pleasuring behavior is predicted by self

esteem, I-E, and alienation, R=.65. And, inferior position is

predicted by alienation, R=.49. These multiple R's are clearly

stronger than those obtaining for the sample as a whole. Therefore,

it can be concluded that stratifying females according to a hedonism

preference enhances the association of personality variables with

sexual behavior.

In Table 32 are the results of the regression analysis of sexual

behavior against personality variables for females evidencing a

recognition preference. The pattern of findings obtaining in this

analysis, as before, suggests that prediction is greater than that

obtaining for the sample as a whole. Yet, only two equations obtained

significant F values: frequency of coitus and frequency of initiation.

Frequency of coitus is predicted by interpersonal trust, R=.52.

Frequency of initiation is predicted by self esteem, interpersonal

trust, alienation, and I-E, R=.73. Based on these findings, it can

be concluded that stratifying females according to a recognition

preference enhances the association of personality variables with

sexual behavior.













The results in Table 33 are those obtained from the regression

analysis of sexual behavior against personality variables for females

evidencing a dominance preference. Most of the final multiple R's

exceed those obtained for the sample as a whole. However, pleasuring

behavior is the only equation to attain significance. Pleasuring

behavior is predicted by self esteem, alienation, and interpersonal

trust, R=.80. Given these findings, it can be concluded that

stratifying females according to a dominance preference enhances the

association of personality variables with sexual behavior.

In Table 34 are the results of the regression analysis of sexual

behavior against personality variables for females evidencing a

submission preference. Most of these findings evidence only a slight

increase in prediction over that obtaining for the sample as a whole.

Two of the equations obtained statistically significant F values:

stating likes and dislikes and inferior position. Stating likes and

dislikes is predicted by alienation, interpersonal trust, self

esteem, and I-E, R=.54, and inferior position is predicted by I-E,

R=.39. These multiple R's are stronger than those obtaining for the

sample as a whole. Therefore, it can be concluded that stratifying

females according to a submission preference enhances the association

of personality variables with sexual behavior.

In Table 35 are the results of the regression analysis of sexual

behavior against personality variables for females evidencing a

conformity preference. Examining the findings, it is apparent that













frequency of coitus, frequency of casual sex, number of coital

partners, superior position, and inferior position are all predicted

by equations obtaining significant F values. Frequency of coitus

is predicted by alienation, interpersonal trust, and self esteem,

R=.52. Frequency of casual sex is predicted by self esteem, aliena-

tion, interpersonal trust, R=.58. Number of coital partners is

predicted by alienation, interpersonal trust, self esteem, and I-E,

R=.61. Superior position is predicted by interpersonal trust and

I-E, R=.45. And, inferior position is predicted by alienation,

interpersonal trust, and self esteem, R=.54. These multiple R's are

clearly greater in magnitude than those obtaining for the sample as a

whole. Therefore, it can be concluded that stratifying males ac-

cording to a conformity preference enhances the association of

personality variables with sexual behavior.

Table 36 contains the results of the regression of sexual behavior

against personality variables for males evidencing a personal love

and affection preference. Compared to the results obtaining for the

sample as a whole, there is a general trend toward increased prediction

with the equations predicting frequency of coitus, frequency of

intimate sex, number of coital partners, frequency of initiation, and

superior position obtaining significant F values. Frequency of coitus

is predicted by self esteem and alienation, R=.30. Frequency of

intimate sex is predicted by self esteem and I-E, R=.34. Number of

coital partners is predicted by alienation and self esteem, R=.32.












Frequency of initiation is predicted by self esteem, interpersonal

trust, I-E, and alienation, R=.40. And, superior position is predicted

by self esteem, alienation, interpersonal trust, and I-E, R=.39.

Although these multiple R's are not dramatically greater than those

obtaining for the sample as a whole, they do represent an improvement

in prediction. Therefore, it can be concluded that stratifying

males according to personal love and affection preference enhances

the association of personality variables with sexual behavior.

In Table 37 are the results of sexual behavior regressed against

personality variables for females evidencing a novelty preference.

Once again, the trend is toward increased prediction over that obtained

for the sample as a whole. Equations predicting frequency of intimate

sex, pleasuring behavior, and inferior position were those obtaining

significant F values. Frequency of intimate sex is predicted by

alienation, R=.48. Pleasuring behavior is predicted by alienation

and self esteem, R=.60. And, inferior position is predicted by self

esteem and interpersonal trust, R=.56. From these results it can

be concluded that stratifying females according to a novelty preference

enhances the association of personality variables with sexual behavior.

In conclusion, using the previously described technique for

stratifying subjects according to preferred or dominant sexual

functions, it is clearly apparent for both males and females that the

strength of the relationship between personality variables and sexual

behavior is affected by each of the sexual functions measured in this






80





study. For each sexual function group the prediction of sexual

behavior was enhanced in at least one instance. These results,

therefore, furnish a strong basis for concluding that each of these

measures of sexual functions, hedonism, recognition, dominance,

submission, conformity, personal love and affection, and novelty, can

be classed as moderator variables.









Table 24


Stepwise Regression of Sexual Behavior Against
Personality Variables for Males Evidencing a Hedonism Preference
(N=31)


Criterion
Variable
Frequency of
Coitus

Frequency of
Intimate Sex

Frequency of
Casual Sex

Number of
Coital Partners

Pleasuring
Behavior

Stating Likes
and Dislikes

Frequency of
Initiation

Superior
Position

Inferior
Position

Frequency of
Coital Orgasms


Predictor Variables to Enter
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4


Esteem
R= .310
R=3.09
Esteem
R= .410
F=5.71*
Trust
R= .480
F=8.88**
Alien
R= .307
F=3.03
Esteem
R= .372
F=4.67*
Esteem
R= .38
F=4.78*
Trust
R= .299
F=2.86
Alien
R= .206
F=1.24
Alien
R= .146
F= .63
Esteem
R= .049
F= .07


Alien
R= .501
F=4.68*
Trust
R= .606
F=8.10**
Esteem
F= .494
F=4.52*
Esteem
R= .393
F=2.55
Trust
R= .389
F=2.50
Trust
F= .408
F=2.80
Alien
R= .315
F=1.54
Trust
R= .243
F= .85
I-E
R= .152
F= .33
Trust
R= .075
F= .08


I-E
R= .546
F=3.83*
I-E
R= .612
F=5.38**
I-E
F= .498
F=2.96*
I-E
F= .448
F=2.26
Alien
R= .390
F=1.61
I-E
F= .417
F=1.89
I-E
R= .318
F=1 .02


Trust
R= .548
F=2.80*
Alien
R= .612
F=3.90*
Alien
F= .503
F=2.20
Trust
R= .498
F=2.15
I-E
R= .390
F=1.17
Alien
R= .435
F=1.52
Esteem
R= .321
F= .75


.287
.78


Alien
R= .081
F= .06


Final
Multiple R

.55 (.21)***


.61 (.22)


.50 (.24)


.50 (.26)


.39 (.19)


.44 (.21)


.52 (.27)


.29 (.25)


.15 (.12)


.08 (.20)


*
p = .05
p = .01
***
The final multiple R's for the male subsample as a whole are
contained within the parentheses.













Table 25

Stepwise Regression of Sexual Behavior Against
Personality Variables for Males Evidencing a Recognition Preference
(N=22)


Criterion
Variable
Frequency of
Coitus

Frequency of
Intimate Sex

Frequency
Casual Sex

Number of
Coital Partners

Pleasuring
Behavior

Stating Likes
and Dislikes

Frequency of
Initiation

Superior
Position

Inferior
Position

Frequency of
Coital Orgasms


Predictor Variables to Enter Final
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Multiple R


Trust
R= .441
F=4.82*
I-E
R= .337
F=2.57
I-E
R= .340
F=2.62
Trust
R= .514
F=7.16*
Alien
F= .218
F= .99
I-E
R= .209
F= .92
Trust
R= .424
F= 4.38*
Esteem
R= .211
F= .89
Trust
R= .231
F=1.07
Esteem
R= .235
F=1.16


I-E
R= .467
F=2.64
Esteem
R= .452
F=2.44
Esteem
R= .382
F=1.62
I-E
R= .538
F=3.89*
Esteem
R= .248
F= .62
Alien
R= .269
F= .74
I-E
R= .489
F= 2.98
Alien
R= .358
F=1.33
I-E
R= .289
F= .82
Trust
R= .290
F= .87


Alien
R= .480
F=1.79
Alien
R= .466
F=1.67
Trust
R= .435
F=1.40
Alien
R= .547
F=2.56
I-E
R= .265
F= .45
Trust
R= .349
F= .83
Esteem
R= .496
F=1.96
Trust
R= .389
F=1.01
Esteem
R= .317
F= .63
Alien
R= .311
F= .64


Trust
R= .477
F=1.25
Alien
R= .440
F= .02
Esteem
R= .571
F=2.06
Trust
R= .270
F= .34
Esteem
R= .368
F= .67
Alien
R= .528
F=1.64


I-E
R= .313
F= .46


.48 (.21)**


.48 (.22)


.44 (.24)


.57 (.26)


.27 (.19)


.37 (.21)


.53 (.27)


.39 (.25)


.32 (.12)


.31 (.20)


p = .05
**
The final multiple R's for the male subsample as a whole are
contained within the parentheses.













Table 26

Stepwise Regression of Sexual Behavior Against
Personality Variables for Males Evidencing a Dominance Preference
(N=16)


Cri teri on
Variable
Frequency of
Coitus

Frequency of
Intimate Sex

Frequency of
Casual Sex

Number of
Coital Partners

Pleasuring
Behavior

Stating Likes
and Dislikes

Frequency of
Initiation

Superior
Position

Inferior
Position

Frequency of
Coital Orgasms


Predictor Variables to Enter
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4


Trust
R= .330
F= 1.71
Trust
R= .407
F=2.78
Trust
R= .439
F=3.35
Alien
R= .512
F=4.96*
Esteem
R= .591
F=7.50*
Trust
R= .359
F=2.08
Trust
R= .373
F=2.26
I-E
R= .229
F= .72
Trust
R= .237
F= .83


.255
.97


Alien
R= .415
F=1.35
Alien
R= .412
F=1.14
Alien
R= .455
F=1.69
Trust
R= .542
F=2.71
I-E
R= .654
F=4.87*
Alien
R= .523
F=2.44
Al i en
R= .439
F=1.55
Alien
R= .320
F= .68
I-E
R= .374
F=1.06
Esteem
R= .340
F= .85


I-E
R= .452
F=1 .03
I-E
R= .415
F= .83
Esteem
R= .458
F=l .07
I-E
R= .590
F=2.17
Trust
R= .662
F=3.11
I-E
R= .537
F=1.62
Esteem
R= .488
F=1.25
Trust
R= .358
F= .54
Alien
R= .407
F= .79


Esteem
R= .490
F= .84


I-E
R= .461
F= .74
Esteem
R= .595
F=1.51
Alien
R= .662
F=2.15
Esteem
R= .539
F=1.12
I-E
R= .516
F=1.00


Esteem
R= .435
F= .64


p = .05
**
The final multiple R's for the male subsample as a whole are
contained within the parentheses.


Final
Multiple R

.49 (.21)**


.42 (.22)


.46 (.24)


.60 (.26)


.66 (.19)


.54 (.21)


.52 (.27)


.36 (.25)


.44 (.12)


.34 (.20)













Table 27


Stepwise Regression of Sexual Behavior Against
Personality Variables for Males Evidencing a Submission Preference
(N=9)


Criterion
Variable
Frequency of
Coitus

Frequency of
Intimate Sex

Frequency of
Casual Sex

Number of
Coital Partners

Pleasuring
Behavior

Stating Likes
and Dislikes

Frequency of
Initiation

Superior
Position

Inferior
Position

Frequency of
Coital Orgasms


Predictor Variables to Enter Final
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 'Step 4 Multiple R


Trust
R= .294
F= .66
Trust
R= .582
F= 3.60
Trust
R= .439
F= 1.68
Trust
R= .236
F= .41
Trust
R= .557
F= 3.16
I-E
R= .478
F= 2.08
Trust
R= .833
F=15.87*
Alien
R= .681
F= 6.06*
I-E
R= .150
F= .16
Esteem
R= .740
F= 8.49*


I-E
R= .425
F= .66
Alien
R= .651
F=2.20
Esteem
R= .597
F=1.66
Alien
R= .297
F= .29
Esteem
R= .646
F=2.15
Esteem
R= .528
F=1.16
I-E
R= .868
F=9.16*
Esteem
R= .701
F=2.90
Esteem
R= .163
F= .08
Trust
R= .766
F=4.27


Esteem
R= .431
F= .26
Esteem
R= .773
F=2.47
Alien
R= .634
F=1.12
Esteem
R= .433
F= .38
Alien
R= .673
F=1.38
Trust
R= .531
F= .66
Alien
R= .885
F=6.00*


Trust
R= .218
F= .168
I-E
R= .781
F=2.61


I-E
R= .800
F=1.78
I-E
R= .701
F= .97
I-E
R= .529
F= .39
I-E
R= .674
F= .83


Esteem
R= .902
F=4.35


Alien
R= .293
F= .09
Alien
R= .797
F=1.74


.43 (.21)**


.80 (.22)


.70 (.24)


.53 (.26)


.67 (.19)


.53 (.21)


.90 (.27)


.70 (.25)


.29 (.12)


.74 (.20)


p = .05
**
The final multiple R's for the male subsample as a whole are
contained within the parentheses.









Table 28


Stepwise Regression of Sexual Behavior Against
Personality Variables for Males Evidencing a Conformity Preference
(N=38)


Criterion
Variable
Frequency of
Coitus

Frequency of
Intimate Sex

Frequency of
Casual Sex

Number of
Coital Partners

Pleasuring
Behavior

Stating Likes
and Dislikes

Frequency of
Initiation

Superior
Position

Inferior
Position

Frequency of
Coital Orgasms


Prefictor Variables to Enter
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4


Alien
R= .212
F=1.69
Alien
R= .418
F=7.40**
I-E
R= .281
F=3.09
Trust
R= .233
F=2.08
Alien
R= .278
F=3.01
Alien
R= .429
F=8.13**
Alien
R= .402
F=6.95*
Alien
R= .414
F=7.27**
I-E
R= .301
F=3.50
I-E
R= .381
F=5.94*


Esteem
R= .253
F=1.19
I-E
R= .490
F=5.38**
Trust
R= .397
F=3.28*
I-E
R= .253
F=1.20
I-E
R= .395
F=3.23*
I-E
R= .551
F=7.64**
Trust
R= .538
F=7.12*
I-E
R= .548
F=7.32**
Alien
R= .387
F=2.90
Alien
R= .528
F=6.58**


Trust
R= .264
F= .85
Trust
R= .495
F=3.56
Esteem
R= .483
F=3.45*
Alien
R= .262
F= .84
Esteem
R= .444
F=2.79
Trust
R= .559
F=5.15**
Esteem
R= .550
F=4.92**
Trust
R= .566
F=5.19**
Esteem
R= .390
F=1.97
Esteem
R= .542
F=4.57**


I-E
R= .266
F= .63
Esteem
R= .495
F=2.60
Alien
R= .495
F=2.68*


Trust
R= .475
F=2.41
Esteem
R= .562
F=3.80*
I-E
R= .558
F=3.73*
Esteem
R= .567
F=3.78*
Trust
R= .391
F=1.44
Trust
R= .553
F=3.52*


p = .05
**
p = .01
The final multiple R's for the male subsample as a whole are
contained within the parentheses.


Final
Multiple R

.27 (.21)***


.50 (.22)


.50 (.24)


.26 (.26)


.48 (.19)


.56 (.21)


.56 (.27)


.57 (.25)


.39 (.12)


.55 (.20)









Table 29

Stepwise Regression of Sexual Behavior Against Personality
Variables for Males Evidencing a Personal Love and Affection Preference
(N=28)


Criterion
Variable
Frequency of
Coitus

Frequency of
Intimate Sex

Frequency of
Casual Sex

Number of
Coital Partners

Pleasuring
Behavior

Stating Likes
and Dislikes

Frequency of
Initiation

Superior
Position

Inferior
Position

Frequency of
Coital Orgasms


Predictor Variable to Enter Final
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Multiple R


Esteem
R= .286
F=2.32
Esteem
R= .434
F=6.04*
Esteem
R= .428
F=5.82*
Trust
R= .216
F=1.25
I-E
R= .457
F=6.87*
Trust
R= .188
F= .96
I-E
R= .516
F=9.43**
Esteem
R= .151
F= .61
I-E
R= .218
F=1.29
Trust
R= .184
F= .91


Alien
R= .383
F=2.15
Trust
R= .556
F=5.61**
Trust
R= .505
F=4.28*
I-E
R= .263
F= .93
Esteem
R= .536
F=5.06*
I-E
R= .229
F= .69
Alien
R= .573
F=6.12*
Trust
R= .202
F= .53
Alien
R= .307
F=1.30


.216
.61


Trust
R= .393
F=1.46
I-E
R= .594
F=4.37*
Alien
R= .544
F=3.36*
Esteem
R= .278
F= .67
Trust
R= .600
F=4.50*
Esteem
R= .298
F= .78
Trust
R= .576
F=3.98*
I-E
R= .223
F= .42
Esteem
R= .372
F=1.28
Alien
R= .221
F= .41


I-E
R= .400
F=1.09
Alien
R= .619
F=3.57*
I-E
R= .556
F=2.57
Alien
R= .291
F= .53
Alien
R= .623
F=3.65*
Alien
R= .299
F= .56
Esteem
R= .582
F=2.95*
Alien
R= .225
F= .31


.40 (.21)***


.62 (.22)


.56 (.24)


.29 (.26)


.62 (.19)


.30 (.21)


.58 (.27)


.23 (.25)


.37 (.12)


.22 (.20)


p = .05
p = .01
***
The final multiple R's for the male subsample as a whole are
contained within the parentheses.









Table 30


Stepwise Regression of Sexual Behavior Against
ty Variables for Males Evidencing a Novelty Pr
(N=30)


Criterion
Variable
Frequency of
Coitus

Frequency of
Intimate Sex

Frequency of
Casual Sex

Number of
Coital Partners

Pleasuring
Behavior

Stating Likes
and Dislikes

Frequency of
Initiation

Superior
Position

Inferior
Position

Frequency of
Coital Orgasms


Predictor Variables to Enter Final
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Multiple R


Alien
R= .277
F= 2.33
I-E
R= .339
F= 3.63
I-E
R= .289
F= 2.56
Trust
R= .214
F= 1.35
Trust
F= .161
F= .74
Alien
R= .576
R=13.89**
Esteem
R= .634
F=18.79**
I-E
R= .337
F= 3.58
Alien
R= .251
F= 1.89
Trust
R= .078
F= .169


Esteem
R= .289
F=1.23
Trust
R= .361
F=2.03
Esteem
R= .344
R=1.82
I-E
R= .250
F= .90
I-E
R= .246
R= .87
I-E
R= .596
R=7.42**
Trust
R= .649
F=9.81**
Trust
R= .402
F=2.60
Esteem
R= .275
F=1.10
I-E
R= .096
F= .126


Trust
R= .292
F= .81
Alien
R= .368
F=1.36
Alien
R= .347
F=1.19
Alien
R= .302
F= .87
Esteem
R= .270
F= .273
Esteem
R= .616
F=5.30**
I-E
R= .649
F=6.34**
Esteem
R= .433
F=2. 00
I-E
R= .290
F= .80


I-E
R= .296
F= .60
Esteem
R= .369
F= .99


Esteem
R= .312
F= .67
Alien
R= .273
F= .50
Trust
R= .641
F=4.37**
Alien
R= .650
F=4.58**
Alien
R= .441
F=1.51
Trust
R= .297
F= .61


.30 (.21)***


.37 (.22)


.35 (.24)


.31 (.26)


.27 (.19)


.64 (.21)


.65 (.27)


.44 (.25)


.30 (.12)


.10 (.20)


p = .05
p = .01
***
The final multiple R's for the male subsample as a whole are
contained within the parentheses.


Personal


reference




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - Version 2.9.8 - mvs