Citation
The formulation of an instrument to assess interpersonal meanings of sexual experience

Material Information

Title:
The formulation of an instrument to assess interpersonal meanings of sexual experience
Creator:
Bernstein, David Norman, 1948- ( Dissertant )
Grater, Harry ( Thesis advisor )
Algina, James ( Reviewer )
Miller, Patricia ( Reviewer )
Nevill, Dorothy ( Reviewer )
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Copyright Date:
1982
Language:
English
Physical Description:
viii, 105 leaves ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Adjectives ( jstor )
Affection ( jstor )
Factor analysis ( jstor )
Human sexual behavior ( jstor )
Morality ( jstor )
Psychological attitudes ( jstor )
Psychology ( jstor )
Self reports ( jstor )
Sex linked differences ( jstor )
Women ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- UF ( lcsh )
Psychology thesis Ph. D ( lcsh )
Sensuality ( lcsh )
Sex (Psychology) ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
This research attempted to validate an instrument devised to assess interpersonal meanings of sexual experience. Little empirical research has been conducted in this area but there is a consensus in the theoretical literature that dimensions of meaning such as affiliation, dominance, and pleasure do exist for sexual experience, and that they are differentially salient for males and females. It has been suggested that an individual's sexual attitudes and behaviors would be more comprehensible if the meaning that sexual experience has for the person were known as well. The Meaning of Sexual Experience (MOSE) adjective list includes seventy adjectives that are scored on a seven-point scale depending on how descriptive the adjective is of the individual's meaning of sexual experience. A factor analysis of the data collected from 326 undergraduates at the University of Florida yielded five statistically and conceptually valid dimensions of meaning which were labeled affiliation, inadequate/undesirable, achievement, moral, and erotic dominance. Males' and females' average factor scores were compared and significant differences were found with males scoring higher on achievement and erotic dominance, and females scoring higher on affiliation and moral. No significant difference was found on the inadequate/undesirable dimension.. Another sample, including thirty males and thirty females, completed the MOSE adjective list twice, once for themselves and once as they believed a typical member of the opposite sex would. The self-reports yielded relatively small sex differences on the five meaning dimensions, but substantial differences were found between the self-report perceptions and the perceptions reported by the opposite sex. Both sexes scored themselves higher on the affiliation dimension, for example, than they were scored by the opposite sex. Females scored males highest on erotic dominance and achievement followed by affiliation whereas males scored themselves highest on affiliation followed by achievement and erotic dominance. It was concluded that the validity and reliability of the MOSE were supported. Several research investigations using the newly devised instrument were suggested to provide further support for its validity and to accumulate more information on between group differences with respect to the meanings that emerged in this study.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1982.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographic references (leaves 98-104).
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by David N. Bernstein.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
028535612 ( AlephBibNum )
08910290 ( OCLC )
ABU4871 ( NOTIS )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text













THE FORMULATION OF AN INSTRUMENT TO ASSESS
INTERPERSONAL MEANINGS OF SEXUAL EXPERIENCE








By

DAVID N. BERNSTEIN


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

1982





























Copyright 1982

by

David N. Bernstein





























Dedicated to my father for his support
in this venture and to my mother who
would have been very proud.














ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my committee chairperson, Dr. Harry Grater,

whose provocative questions and insightful comments continually

challenged me to reach the upper limits of my creative potential. His

friendship and sense of humor were a constant source of encouragement

and enjoyment.

I would also like to thank my other committee members, Drs. Algina,

Froming, Miller, and Nevill for their helpful suggestions. I am very

grateful for their support. The ideas contributed by Nina Issenberg

were also greatly appreciated as were the time and energy she spent

typing the data cards. To Cheryl Phillips, who always seemed to

know what was going on, I owe more favors that I can ever repay. I

am grateful for her kindness, cheerful outlook, and genuine willing-

ness to listen. Somehow she was always able to smooth the roughest

parts of this journey.

There is probably no way to endure in a difficult graduate

program without good friends. I have been very lucky in this regard.

I especially want to thank Jim Ansel, whose warmth and laughter I

will miss. To Jim Huber, my alter ego since the beginning, go my

sincerest thanks for allowing me to adopt his family as my own. I

cannot imagine what the graduate school experience would have been

like without him.















TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. ..... . . . . . . . iv

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

CHAPTERS

I INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . .. 1

A. Historical Overview . . . . . . . 3
Recent Research on Sex . . . . . . . 8
Research on the Interpersonal Meaning of Sexual
Experience . . . . . . . . . . 12
Theories on the Meaning of Sexual Experience . .. 19
Instrument Development: Factor Analysis . . . 27
Instrument Development: Assessing Reliability and
Validity . . . . . . . .. .. 28
Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . 31

II METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Subjects . . . . . . . .... . . 33
Procedure . . . . . . . . . . 33
iInstruments... . . . . . . . . 35

III RESULTS .. .... .. .. ... .. . .. . . 38

Analysis of the Meaning of Sexual Experience
Questionnaire--Il ..... . . . . 38
Analysis of the Meaning of Sexual Experience
Questionnaire--III .. . .. .... . 42
Sex Differences in the Meaning of Sexual Experience. 56
Summary . . . . . . . . . . ... 63

IV DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . 65

The Interpersonal Meanings of Sexual Experience. . 66
Sex Differences in the Meanings of Sexual Experience 72
Generalizability of the Results . . . . ... 79
Counseling and Clinical Applications . . . .. 80
Directions for Future Research . . . . .. 81











APPENDICES PAGE

A THE MEANING OF SEXUAL EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE--II. . 85

B ADJECTIVES INCLUDED ON THE MEANING OF SEXUAL EXPERIENCE
QUESTIONNAIRE--III . . . . . . . . 88

C SEXUAL FUNCTIONS MEASURE . . . . . . .... 90

D THE INTERPERSONAL MEANING OF SEXUAL EXPERIENCE ADJECTIVE
SCALE . . . . . . . . ... . . . 94

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . ... ...... 98

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . . . . .... .... .10














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 Philosophy


THE FORMULATION OF AN INSTRUMENT TO ASSESS
INTERPERSONAL MEANINGS OF SEXUAL EXPERIENCE

By

David N. Bernstein

May 1982

Chairman: Harry Grater
Major Department: Psychology

This research attempted to validate an instrument devised to

assess interpersonal meanings of sexual experience. Little empirical

research has been conducted in this area but there is a consensus in

the theoretical literature that dimensions of meaning such as affilia-

tion, dominance, and pleasure do exist for sexual experience, and that

they are differentially salient for males and females. It has been

suggested that an individual's sexual attitudes and behaviors would

be more comprehensible if the meaning that sexual experience has for

the person were known as well.

The Meaning of Sexual Experience (MOSE) adjective list includes

seventy adjectives that are scored on a seven-point scale depending

on how descriptive the adjective is of the individual's meaning of

sexual experience. A factor analysis of the .data collected from 326











undergraduates at the University of Florida yielded five statistically

and conceptually valid dimensions of meaning which were labeled

affiliation, inadequate/undesirable, achievement, moral, and erotic

dominance. Males' and females' average factor scores were compared

and significant differences were found with males scoring higher on

achievement and erotic dominance, and females scoring higher on

affiliation and moral. No significant difference was found on the

inadequate/undesirable dimension..

Another sample, including thirty males and thirty females,

completed the MOSE adjective list twice, once for themselves and

once as they believed a typical member of the opposite sex would.

The self-reports yielded relatively small sex differences on the

five meaning dimensions, but substantial differences were found

between the self-report perceptions and the perceptions reported by

the opposite sex. Both sexes scored themselves higher on the

affiliation dimension, for example, than they were scored by the

opposite sex. Females scored males highest on erotic dominance and

achievement followed by affiliation whereas males scored themselves

highest on affiliation followed by achievement and erotic dominance.

It was concluded that the validity and reliability of the MOSE

were supported. Several research investigations using the newly

devised instrument were suggested to provide further support for its

validity and to accumulate more information on between group

differences with respect to the meanings that emerged in this study.














CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE


Only in the last hundred years has research in human sexuality

become firmly established. The accumulation of knowledge has been

punctuated by major breakthroughs such as the works of Ellis (1936,

1942), Freud (1963), Kinsey (1948), Masters and Johnson (1956), all

of whom had in common their willingness to challenge social mores by

delving into forbidden realms. An area that has not been empirically

researched is the interpersonal meaning of the sexual experience.

"Meaning" is defined here as the "why" of sex. It describes the

needs that an individual satisfies by participating in sexual experi-

ences, and the personality styles adopted in pursuing sexual experi-

ence. Terms such as dominance, aggression, and affiliation will

describe some of the meanings that may be ascribed to sexual experience.

Although some authors have stressed the importance of understanding

the meaning that the sexual experience holds for the individual involved,

and although many authors list dimensions of meaning, there have been

practically no studies validating the various theories. The present

study seeks to provide confirming or disconfirming evidence for the

existence of some of these hypothesized meanings of sexual experience

through: (1) the construction and validation of an instrument designed

to elicit the meanings, and (2) an examination of male-female differ-

ences with respect to the instrument.







2

Due to the paucity of research on this issue, a literature review

that focused solely on studies determining the meaning of the sexual

experience would be exceedingly brief and not very helpful- It is

instructive, however, to review the literature on sexuality for the

purpose of inferring the meanings. This can be accomplished in two

ways. First, the role that sexuality played in people's lives during

any particular historical period can imply dimensions of meaning.

Secondly, and especially useful more recently, the types of studies

being conducted at any time implyes both what was deemed important

about sexuality and what was deemed permissible to study.

The following review combines these types of evidence for the

dual purposes of examining how the meaning of sexual experience has

changed or remained the same historically, and theorizing what it

might be today. The review begins with an historical overview because

it is the author's belief that sexual experience can only be meaning-

fully understood within the context of societal evolution. Following

this review, the more recent literature will be discussed to illuminate

the types of questions prevalent in today's research and, therefore,

to infer the meaning of the sexual experience in today's scientific

community. The third section will review theories and hypotheses

with respect to the interpersonal meaning of the sexual experience,

some of which will form the theoretical underpinnings for this study.

As this study focuses on the design and validation of an instrument,

the fourth section of this review will discuss literature pertaining

to factor analysis, reliability, and validity.










A.i Historical Overview


Early in history, love was not a crucial part of sexual experi-

ence. J. McCary (1976) notes that "Christianity, following the

Jewish tradition......idealized the purity of love apart from sex.

Love of God was the only''pure' love and celibacy became a means of

proving one's love for God" (p. 46). Sex was for the purposes of

procreation only.

Later, the relationship between a knight and a lady whose husband

was off at the Crusades was perceived as romantic love but tended not

to include sexual intercourse. Chivalry and chastity were the rules.

During the Renaissance, love as an aspect of marriage occurred only

accidentally. Not until the 1800's were romantic love and marriage

and, therefore, romantic love and sex, gradually blended. McCary

cites the Industrial Revolution as the period during which the first

attempts were made to combine sex, love, and marriage into one unique

experience for men and women. For the first time the interpersonal

meaning of sexual experience began to include affiliation or love.

During the 1800's the meaning of sex changed, especially for

women, as the Puritan view of the female as sexual temptress gave way

to the Victorian view of her inherent purity and innocence (Wilson,

Strong, Robbins, & Johns, 1980). Chastity wasiimportant for both

males and females but the males' chastity resulted from an internal

struggle while females simply had no sexual feelings. As scientific

materialism replaced religious authority, moral codes were enforced

by scientific proof of inevitable disease and insanity rather than








4

religious warnings of mortal sin. In the 1830's, marriage manuals

and books on sexual physiology began to appear. Shade (1978) describes

the Victorian's emphasis on the female's role as guardians of the

morals of society but adds that the late Victorians were not quite as

repressed as pictured. Evidently, then, the meaning of sexual experi-

ence remained different for males and females. It was thought that

part of the male's nature was to seek sex whereas the female's role

was to allow sex when it was appropriate. Here the dominance and

submission themes of sexuality with strong overarching moral themes

can be inferred. As will be seen, current theories of the interpersonal

meaning of sexual experience often continue to echo these sex differ-

ences.

The Victorian decency wave lasted through the nineteenth century

suppressing information about sexuality and leaving many people unin-

formed and anxious. Havelock Ellis was among them and his studies on the

psychology of sex (Ellis, 1936, 1942) resulted from his discomfort. He

states: "I determined that I would make it the main business of my life

to get to the real natural facts of sex apart from all would-be moral-

istic or sentimental notions, and so spare the youth of future genera-

tions the trouble and perplexity which this ignorance has caused me"

(1936, p. ix). He reasoned that the study of sex should properly be

within the domain of science: "Now I do not consider that sexual matters

concern the theologian alone, and I deny altogether that he is compe-

tent to deal with them" (1936, p. xxix). Ellis' work created a furor

and resulted in the arrest, in 1898, of one George Bedborough for

selling Ellis' works. Interestingly, Ellis himself was not arrested.


__









Despite the outcry, the doors to the scientific study of sex had

been opened and sexual experience was no longer solely confined to

the purview of the moralists.

During the early 1900's, Freud (1963) caused changes in the

meaning of sexuality by proclaiming it as one of the primary human

motivations. He discussed the existence of sexuality in infancy and

childhood, and its role in adult emotional problems. He dismissed

the Victorian notion that females did not have sexual feelings. The

meaning of sexual experience for females could nolonger be restricted

to submission and procreation. Although Freud was a benefactor of

women in the sense that he supported their sexual feelings, his theories

of male-female differences (especially penis envy) were not well re-

ceived by female theorists and are still a sore spot among today's

feminists, with many male theorists concurring. Clara Thompson (1950)

wrote that the problems of women's sexual life is not penis envy but

cultural attitudes of the unimportance of the female sex drive.

Despite the arguments over the validity of Freud's claims, the meaning

of sexuality, especially for females, was changed. The sex drive was

no longer restricted to men. Freud's theories led to much discussion

but, unfortunately, prompted little research, and, although sexuality

was now appropriate for scientific study, it was not until 1947 that

sexology, the study of sex, truly emerged with the publication of

Kinsey's data on sexual behavior and attitudes (Kinsey et al., 1948,

1953). Kinsey's work illuminated what was actually occurring and

legitimized, by sheer weight of numbers, much ongoing sexual experience.

Gecas and Libby (1976) note, however, that one of the greatest shortcomings







6

in Kinsey's work was his failure to take into account the meanings

that sexual activity has for people. Nevertheless, the meaning of

sexual experience in the society was again changed, especially the

notion that one rarely, if ever, discusses these matters.

Bringing sex further into the open seemed to lead inevitably to

the cultural demand for competence. LoPiccolo and Herman (1977) write

that earlier societalmessages were that sex is good, but only for men,

while the post-1940's message was that sex is okay for both males

and females, and you had better be good at it. They add that "Over

time a number of negative themes regarding sexual conduct have emerged;

it was seen first as sinful, then as physically dangerous, next as a

symptom of psychological immaturity, and finally as a required ability"

(p. 182). To the interpersonal meanings of sexual experience previously

described we now add competence, mastery, or achievement.

Kinsey's research spurred many others to study sexual attitudes

and behaviors and the meaning of the sexual experience for the scientific

community came.to be: What do people do and under what circumstances

do they believe it is proper to do it? As the research grew, sexology

gave rise to its own journals, further establishing sex as a scientific

field of inquiry. The Journal of Sex Education, edited by Norman Haire,

and the International Journal of Sexology, edited by A.R. Pillay, ceased

publication with the death of their editors in the 1950's. In 1957,

the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex was founded by Hugo Beigel,

Albert Ellis, Henry Guze, Robert V. Sherman, and Hans Lehfeldt, leading

to the publication, in 1965, of the first issue of The Journal of Sex

Research. Money (1976) describes four current branches of sexology:








7

experimental and investigative, clinical and therapeutic, education

and training, and standards and certification.

Closely following the inception of the new journal, Masters and

Johnson (1966) published their studies of the physiological and ana-

tomical aspects of sexual response. They presented a case for the

similarity of male and female sexual response. By scientifically

validating females! ability to have orgasms, they extended the perfor-

mance and achievement meanings of sex to women. Women had gained

the right to orgasm, but with the right came the obligation.

Through the 1960's the scientific community was attempting to

understand the how, what, where, and when of sex. The acceptance of

sex as a valid topic for scientific study helped change the meaning

of sexual experience to a more natural and acceptable aspect of life

for both men and women. But science had also helped create the

current atmosphere wherein people are overly concerned about their

performance. Witness Masters and Johnson (1970): "It should be

restated that fear of inadequacy is the greatest known deterrent to

effective sexual functioning, simply because it so completely distracts

the fearful individual from his or her natural responsivity by blocking

recognition of sexual stimuli either created by or reflected from the

sexual partner" (p. 12-13). The position taken here is not that

science caused this performance anxiety but, rather, that there is

an interaction between sex as perceived by society and sex as studied

by science. Given this assumption, it is important to be aware of how

science is studying sex. The following section examines some of the

types of research currently being published.


____










Recent Research on Sex

A great number of studies have been published as an outgrowth

of Kinsey's (1948) work representing a continuing focus on the sexual

beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of the culture. The simplest

research design is the tabulation of activities or attitudes. Bentler

(1968a, 1968b) describes scales which assess the extent to which a

male or female has engaged in heterosexual behavior, and Podell and

Perkins (1957) use a similar scale to ascertain whether heterosexual

experiences can be ordered along a unidimensional, cumulative scale.

Similar studies are still being published today. McBride and Ender

(1977) sampled college students' sexual behaviors and their attitudes

as to which sex is responsible for birth control, initiation of sexual

activity, and sexual satisfaction. Mancini and Orthner (1978) com-

puted husbands' and wives' preferences for sexual and affectional

activity at different stages in marriage. Attitude data have been

compiled for a sufficient amount of time now so that research can

examine changes in sex behaviors and attitudes over twenty-five years

(Finger, 1975).

Related to this line of research are studies which questioned who

is responsible for influencing sexual encounters (McCormick, 1979;

LaPlante, McCormick, & Brannigan, 1980). Generally the stereotypic

beliefs that males are expected to use influence strategies for having

sex, and females are expected to use strategies for avoiding sex,

were supported.








9

A more complex research design attempts to correlate the above-

mentioned behaviors and attitudes with other psychological constructs.

Androgyny is a commonly used variable analyzed in research such as

Walfish and Myerson's (1980) study relating sex-role identity to

sexual attitudes. Jurich and Jurich (1974) had limited success In

their attempt to relate cognitive moral development to premarital

sexual standards, and Jurich (1979) was unsuccessful in determining

which of several demographic, personality, and environmental variables

was the best predictor of premarital sexual standards.

Another outgrowth of Kinsey has been the development of assessment

scales. A scale for the comparison of attitudes of couples was

devised by Foster (1977) in an attempt to determine sexual compatibil-

ity. LoPiccolo and Steger (1974) created the Sexual Interaction

Inventory using behavior-based items to assess sexual dysfunction.

Although this scale has since been used often in other studies, it has

been criticized by McCoy and D'Agostino (1977) who report that their

factor analysis of the items yields."factor sets which are multiple and

essentially psychologically meaningless" (p. 30).

Another variable that has been related to sexual attitudes and

behaviors is sex guilt. Mosher (1968) reported that it was possible

to discriminate subcomponents of guilt such as sexi:guilt, and D'Augelli

and Cross (1975) found some indications of relationships among sex

guilt, moral reasoning, and premarital sex. Gerrard (1980) and Mercer

and Kohn (1979) published similar studies again comparing sex guilt


to premarital sex.








10

The attention paid to attitudes and behaviors has uncovered

important information, but when attitudes and behaviors become the

sole basis for understanding sexuality it is misleading. Kelley

(1978), for example, presents a theory of human sexuality that relies

on attitudes and behaviors, to the total neglect of the interpersonal

meaning of the sexual experience. Using a five-point scale, items

such as "I really enjoy sex" and "Strictly from the physical point of

view, sex isn't all that enjoyable" are presented. The author, while

correctly questioning whether sex is enjoyable to the individual,

neglects to ascertain what it is about sex that makes it enjoyable:

What does it mean to the individual? Hornick (1978) creates a complex

path diagram of a theoretical model of premarital sexual attitudes

and behavior including background variables, family and peer group

variables, psychological variables such as religiosity and self-esteem,

and attitudinal and behavioral variables but, again, omits variables

relating to the meaning of sexual experience.

The concern with attitudes and behaviors has also led,' to studies

examining family dynamics that may lead to sexual activity in adolescents

(Young-Hyman, 1977). Kristal (1979) looked at the influence of father-

daughter relationships in particular. Attitudes toward sexuality

have been further studied in research designed to test the efficacy

of intervention. Changes in attitudes resulting from courses in human

sexuality were assessed by Dearth and Cassell (1976), Zuckerman, Tushup,

and Finner (1976), and Story (1979). Changes in attitudes resulting

from sex therapy werestudied by Clement and Pfafflin (1980). In the

latter study, both the men:and women became less sex-role stereotyped








11

in their attitudes. Perhaps the attitude change resulted from or

parallelled a change in the interpersonal meaning.

Despite a distinct emphasis, sex research has not been confined

to attitudes and behaviors. Attempts to understand what stimulates us

sexually have led to the study of slide presentations (Sigushi, Schmidt,

Reinfeld, and Wiedermann-Sutor, 1970) and fantasies (Hariton and Singer,

1974). Personality variables have also been examined with respect to

sexuality. Eysenck (1971a) found extraverts to have earlier and more

diverse sexual experiences. In other personality research, the MMPI

was used by Husted and Edwards (1976) to correlate personality dimen-

sions with sexual arousal and behavior. They found the important MMPI

scales to be depression, social introversion, defensiveness, and

experience seeking. Self-actualization has also been studied with

respect to sexual enjoyment (Paxton & Turner, 1978; Waterman, Chiauzzi,

& Gruenbaum, 1979).

Sexual arousal has also been related to aggression. Barclay (1971)

reported that sexual arousal led to increases both in sex motivation

and in aggression motivation. Gelles (1975) found men more likely

than women to associate sex and violence in fantasies.

The above studies represent a sampling of types of research in

the field today. The focus is clearly on the what, when, where, and

how of sex. But studies of attitudes, behaviors, and physiology,

while important, are all somewhat reductionistic in their approach to

sex. It is felt by this author that these approaches could become

more three-dimensional with the addition of "meaning," the "why" of

sex, to our knowledge of attitudes, behaviors, and physiology. Eysenck








12

(1971b) pointed out that taking part in a sexual activity is not the

same as enjoying it. Certainly ittcould be important to know whether

an individual partakes in kissing.due to submissiveness or due to

affection.

The studies that follow have been sifted out because they do, to

differing degrees, begin to examine the meaning dimension. Since the

interpersonal meaning of sexual experience has not often been directly

studied, it has been difficult to differentiate between those studies

that do touch on this issue and those that do not. Therefore, no

implication is intended that the following studies are clearly discrete

from those already discussed.


Research on the Interpersonal Meaning of Sexual Experience


Schildmyer (1977) combined reports from college students with

those from members of community organizations. Over two hundred and

fifty subjects were interviewed, ranging in age from sixteen to sixty-

four, in an attempt to identify variables relating to the positive

sexual experience. The psychological components, not the physical

components, were found to be the most frequently reported aspect of

the positive sexual experience with the primary factor being the

quality of the relationship between the two people. In light of current

concerns about expertise in technique, it is noteworthy that the physical

components were not primary. It also confirms the importance of

attending to the psychological variables in research.on sex.

Hessellund (1971) attempted to understand the meaning of sex for

men and women by questioning the individual's motivations for involving







13

themselves in coital acts. Hessellund reasoned that this motivation

could not simply be relief from physiological tension for, if it was,

masturbation would suffice, and it could not be reproduction except

in a small fraction of the cases. This reasoning again points to

psychological motives. Open-ended questions were used such as "Give

a brief characteristic of your reactions to your first coitus"'" Females

responded negatively to this question much more frequently than did

males. By using questions such as the above, the author could only

indirectly judge the meaning of the sexual experience, but it was

possible to support some sex differences. For example, males more

often felt that their first coitus had a great effect on their lives.

In another study of male-female differences, Kanin, Davidson,

and Scheck (1970) examined the experience of love. The romanticism

studied has relevance to the meaning of sexual experience. Males

were found to be more romantic in that they tended to experience the

feeling of being in love; earlier in the relationship. Once in love,

however, the stereotyped romantic reactions such as "floating on a

cloud" or "having trouble concentrating" were associated more with

the females. Although the authors in this study were not examining

sexual experience, anpanalogy may be drawn if the meaning of the

sexual experience is found to change over the course of a relationship

as did the experiences of love. Perhaps, for example, sexual experi-

ences have one meaning for males when they aremot in love and another

when they are.

The following two studies questioned peoples' reasons for having

or avoiding sex, and are therefore closer to being precursors to the








.14

current research. Finger's (1975) study has been mentioned previously

as a comparison of attitudes and behaviors of males over a twenty-five

year period (1943 to 1967). In additionto attitudes and behaviors,

Finger looked at the reasons given for justifying premarital sex.

In 1943, male college students gave "acquisition of knowledge and

skill" as a justification, believing that sexual skill would increase

the likelihood of success of the marriage. Interestingly, those

abstaining also justified their behavior as increasing the likelihood

of success in marriage but, in this case, due to trust and respect.

The students in 1967 added to the earlier justifications the belief

that the success of the marriage depends on sexual compatibility which

therefore should be evaluated in advance. They also added that sex is

a pleasant experience, so why wait? Finger notes that although some

moral and religious grounds were mentioned in 1943 as reasons for

abstinence, almost none were mentioned in 1967. These justifications

imply meanings of sexual experience such as competence, trust, pleasure,

andlmorality. Peplau, Rubin, and Hill (1977) found females more likely

than males to mention ethical standards (morality) as justifying

abstention: from sex. Sex was a more important component of a relationship

for males and was also more important as a dating goal. This implies

some gender differences in the meaning of sex. Interestingly, although

the ;authors had hypothesized that sexual satisfaction would be more

closely associated with love for females than for males, this difference

was not supported.

The interpersonal meaning of sexual experience is also important

to understand in::cases of sexual dysfunction. Kaufman and Krupka (1973),








15

reporting on a sexual therapy group program at Michigan State University,

discuss six dynamic interpersonal processes which produced sexual dys-

function in their clients: (1) Early deprivation of affectional needs

leading to the sexualization of the need for intimacy. This might

correspond to a highly affectional meaning of sexual experience.

(2) Guilt: In many cases the parents had not given their opposite-sex

children permission to seek sexual gratification. Sexual experience

had highly moral meanings to these clients. (3) Power struggles: In

this situation winning or being right becomes more important than being

close. The authors believe this meaning to be rooted in earlier parental

relationships. (4) Hostility: Unexpressed anger can lead to impotence,

avoidance of sex, lack of orgasm, or a retreat into helplessness.

(5) Expectations: A competency meaning of sexual experience can lead

to debilitating anxiety. This has been previously noted in a quotation

from Masters and Johnson (1970). (6) Adequacy and potency: Closely

related to expectations, a feeling of potency may lead to fear of

reprisals. People may have not only a fear of adequacy, but also fears

of potency. These categories are based on case studies and clinical

reports from the groups that were run. They highlight different meanings

of sexuality such as morality and affiliation that have becomecover-

emphasized to the point of dysfunction.

Previously mentioned studies examined ties between sexuality and

violence. Libby and Straus (1980) hypothesized that the relationship

varies depending on the meaning of sex to the individual. For example,

if the meaning of sex is warm and affectionate, the authors believe

that high levels of sexual activity will be associated with low levels








16
of violence, whereas if sex means exploitation and dominance, sex

and violence will vary directly. The meanings of sexual experience

were determined here by factor analyzing sex items in a questionnaire

to create three indices: a Sexual Activity Index, an Affectionate

Sex Index, and a Dominant Sex Index. These scores were then combined

so as to yield a "net warmth" measure called the Warm Sexual Activity

Index. Their own comparison of the Sexual Activity Index with the

Violent Acts Index did not yield a correlation coefficient different

from zero, but when they used the Warm Sexual Activity Index they were

able to plot a nearly linear relationship, especially for men. They

had too few women in their study to achieve any meaningful results.

The authors concluded that neglecting the meaning of sexual experience

could account for the mixed evidence in the literature about the

relationship between sex and violence.

Factor analysis has been used in two other studies to identify

or confirm dimensions related to sexual experience. Farley, Nelson,

Knight, and Garcia-Colberg (1977) collected data on sexual attitudes

and behaviors, individual differences in stimulation-seeking, personality,

and political orientation. A factor analysis yielded six factors for

the females and five for the males. Three of the female factors related

to sexuality: (1) a "sick" factor, including neurotic conflict over

sex, sexual frustration, loss of sex controls; (2) a "Victorian"

factor including sexual repression and frigidity; and (3) a "homosexuality"

factor. (The names of these factors are written as described by the

authors.) The three male factors that related to sexuality were:

(1) a "sick" factor almost identical to that for females; (2) an








17
unrepressedd, heterosexual experience-seeking" factor; and (3) an

"ambivalent homosexual extrovert" factor. Interestingly, the intravert-

extrovert personality variable did not load on the sex factors contra-

dicting Eysenck's (1971a) results discussed earlier. Meanings of

sexual experience such as morality, control or lack of control, and

pleasure can be inferred from these factors.

Nelson (1978) asked students to respond to fifty-six reasons for

having sexual relations. Items included "Because it's a way of proving

yourself," and "Because sex allows me to feel vulnerable,' and subjects

responded on a four-point scale from "Not important at all" to "Very

important"' A factor analysis of the data yielded five factors:

pleasurable stimulation, conformity-acceptance, personal love and

affection, power, and recognition-competition. Four of these categories

correspond closely to those listed by Apperson (1974); deference

(conformity-acceptance), dominance (recognition-competition), affilia-

tion (personal love and affection), and aggression (power).

The final study to be reviewed here was the springboard for the
current study. Grater and Downing (currently under review) selected

five meaning dimensions of sexual experience: morality, affiliation,

pleasure, achievement, and dominance. They selected 476 adjectives

from the Adjective Checklist (Gough, 1952), the Semantic Differential

(Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, 1957), and the Bem Sex-Role Inventory

(Bem, 1974) and supplemented these by use of a thesaurus. The adjectives

were scored by 302 unmarried college students as to.,whether or not each

adjective described the students' personal meaning of sexual experience

using the categories "yes," "no.' or "maybe~' In addition, at least








18

two of three trained judges agreed on which of the dimensions was

represented by each adjective. Sixteen adjectives for each of the

five dimensions were found to be useful in discriminating among the

students. That is, they tended not to fall substantially in either the

"yes" or "no" category. The Meaning of Sexual Experience Questionnaire--

II included these 80 adjectives. Four additional words that were

uniformly scored "yes" were also included to be used as a "lie" scale

for detecting invalid response sets. It was'hypothesized that males

would tend to rate words in the pleasure, achievement and dominance

categories as descriptive, while females would tend to choose words

in the morality and affiliation categories. Other variables studied

included experienced versus non-experienced, and sex role (masculinity,

femininity, and androgyny). The results confirmed the males' greater

use of achievement adjectives and the females' greater use of affilia-

tion adjectives although the other expected differences were not

confirmed. Experienced subjects also tended to use more achievement

adjectives whereas, for the non-experienced, sexual experience had a

greater moral meaning. This study begins to provide evidence for the

existence and utility of these categories, but the authors note that

the adjectives must be more carefully evaluated to determine empirically

if they are actually tapping the hypothesized meaning dimensions. It

is from this suggestion that the current research evolved.

Although inferences from some studies are possible, the meaning

of sexual experience has rarely been directly assessed as can be judged

by the limited number of related studies discussed here. It is therefore

necessary to rely more heavily on theories rather than research to








19

provide a foundation for this study. The following section reviews

literature relating different conceptualizations of the interpersonal

meaning of sexual experience after which it will be possible to clearly

delineate the current research.


Theories on the Meaning of Sexual Experience


To review the preceding sections, it has been shown that sexology,

as a research field, has appeared relatively recently. The history of

sexuality indicates a shifting of meanings from early religious tradi-

tions, through the age of chivalry, the Victorian age, and the current

scientific age. Research to this point has focused to a great extent

on sexual attitudes and behaviors, and on the physiology of the human

sexual response. Only in the past few years have attempts been made to

study, empirically, the meaning of sexual experience. At the Nebraska

Symposium on Motivation in 1973, William Simon (1974) said: "In no way

that I can see is there a way of establishing the meaning of sexual

pleasure . ." (p. 77). Yet he felt that this meaning had been wrong-

fully neglected and was very important. He listed aggression, affection,

competence, and eroticism as possible meanings.

Despite the paucity of research in this area, theorizing has long

been active. Havelock Ellis (1936, 1942) wrote at the turn of the

century that the sexual emotions of females are more closely associated

with the level of the relationship than those of males. In addition he

wrote: "The masculine tendency is to delight in domination, the

feminine tendency is to delight in submission" (Ellis, 1942; p. 82).

Whether this remains valid today or not is an empirical question that








20

can be answered by examining a dominance/submission meaning of sexual

experience.

Gagnon (1977) describes sexual scripts, a construct that relates

easily to meanings of sexual experience. The components of a sexual

script include who one does sex with, what one does sexually, when

(age or time of day), where, and why humans do approved or disapproved

sexual things. All the components of scripts save the last have been

included in the attitude and behavior studies. As for the "why,"

Gagnon lists the following reasons for having sex: having kids,

pleasure, lust, fun, passion, love, variety, intimacy, rebellion,

degradation, instinct/needs, exploitation, relaxation; achievement,

and service. Of these, the first, "having kids," pertains relatively

infrequently. The others are psychological meanings, and it remains

to be verified whether they are all separate or somewhat intercorrelated.

Gagnon notes that "in less than a century we have moved from sexuality

as reproduction and a pivotal form of conduct in our judgements of good

and evil to . sex as an expression of emotional intimacy, sex as

interpersonal competence, and sex as passion and rebellion" (p. 408).

In brief, he has included morality, affection, competence, and rebellion

as meanings of sexual experience.

In an earlier article on sexual scripts, Gagnon (1974) notes that

personal motives are embedded in these scripts. Young males, according

to Gagnon, learn that their sexual script calls for male initiation

and dominance. Gagnon and Simon (1973) include aggressiveness, achieve-

ment, conquest, and potency in the male script, and romance and attrac-

tiveness in the female script. They state, "Rarely do we turn from a








21

consideration of the organs themselves to the sources of meanings

that are attached to them,. .. .and the ways in which... ..activities

are integrated into larger social scripts and social arrangements

where meaning and social behavior come together to create sexual

conduct" (p. 5).

Sexual scripts can also be applied to Mosher's (1980) theoretical

discussion of dimensions of involvement in human sexual response. He

views involvement as a complex of psychological processes including

the interaction of emotions, cognition, and actions described by

three dimensions: sexual role enactment, sexual trance, and engage-

ment with sex partner. The script here depends on the preferred

dimension of involvement. Preference for sex role enactment results

in playful, adventurous sexual experiences; preference for sexual trance

results in very private, self-absorbed sexual experiences; and preference

for engagement with partner results in romantic, affectionate sexual

experiences. Mosher's theory is very complex and purposefully written

to provoke research.

Using transactional analysis to examine life scripts, Steiner (1974)

writes that sex role scripting creates gaps that limit our potential

to become whole human beings. He concludes that men and women therefore

feel incomplete without a partner of the opposite sex, implying an

interpersonal meaning of sexual experience that might be termed fulfill-

ment or completion. This notion of incompleteness leads Schwartz (1979)

to conclude that androgynous humans, as described by Bem (1974), are

healthier emotionally. Schwartz believes fulfilling sexual relationships

require androgyny but she adds pessimistically that this will require a

significant cognitive restructuring in this society.








22
Looking further at sex differences, Tavris and Offir (1977)

argue that "the.sexual gap between men and women..... is a matter of

the two sexes-attaching somewhat different meanings to the sexual act"

(p. 60). One-difference:;they note is that: "Women, more often than

men, use sex to get love; men use love to get sex" (p. 68). Bardwick

(1971) discovered that college women admitted accepting sex as the

price of a romantic relationship, not participating in it because they

physically enjoyed it. It is, in fact, rather common for the inter-

personal meaning of sexual experience to be viewed as different for

males than for females. Morris (1978) claims that females are more

deeply committed to the relational aspects of sex, males to the recrea-

tional aspects. The author adds that this may explain some marital

conflict. Gross (1978) writes that "Compared to women, men tend . .

to isolate sex from other aspects of heterosexual relating" (p. 92),

and adds that men are socialized to goal-orientation, control and

power, and aggression and violence as meanings of sex. Pleck (1976)

states that two fundamental themes in the male sex role are stress on

achievement and suppression of affect.

Reik (1960) contends that those who analyze heterosexual relations
often fail to distinguish needs for affection fiom sexual desire and

recognize that the first is stronger in women and the second is stronger

in men. Meanings of sexual experience for men derive from the fact

that "the sexual urge of the male has an aggressive and even a sadistic

character, and the wish to intrude the female body amounts to a kind

of forceful incursion......" (p. 118).








23

Several other authors have theorized on the interpersonal meanings

of sexual experience. Wilson, Strong, Robbins, and Johns (1980) write

that "sexual intercourse can be used to: show love, have children,

give pleasure, receive pleasure, show tenderness, gain revenge, make a

commitment, end an argument, gain acceptance, show rejection, prove

masculinity/femininity, degrade someone, degrade yourself, touch or be

touched. Sex can be used to keep a person interested in you, to relieve

loneliness, to dominate another, to make yourself or another feel guilty,

to relieve physical tension,to express liking or love" (p. 333-334).

They make the claim that, with marriage, the motivation for a sexual

relationship changes from ego gratification, including motives of con-

quest, aggression, and power, to a motivation for mutual personal grati-

fication. They do not explain what it is about marriage that foments

this change.

Observing the sexual revolution from a psychoanalytic viewpoint,

Gershman (1978) laments that the "sex revolution is placing too much

emphasis on achieving physiological-mechanical success" (p. 149) and

adds "In healthy sexuality.;. the relationship is characterized by

a measure of affection and mutuality, and a desire to obtain, as well

as to give, pleasure" (p. 151). Here the competence, affiliation, and

pleasure meanings of sexual experience are expressed in somewhat judge-

mental terms. Another psychoanalytical viewpoint, expressed by Chodorow

(1976), is that "females' apparent romanticism is an emotional and

ideological mask for their very real economic dependency" (p. 462).

The masculine personality, resulting from much greater cross-parent

feelings, comes to be founded more on repression of affect and denial

of relational needs.








24

Gershman (1978) above put forth healthy sexuality as representa-

tive of mental health. Reich (1973) goes onestep further regarding

healthy sexuality as necessary to physiological health. He therefore

decries the moralistic appraisal that views sexuality as an unfortunate

concomitant of the preservation of the species. Rather than sexuality

being a fucntion of procreation, Reich contends that procreation is

only one function of sexuality. Reich's contention that orgasms lead

to tension reduction and are therefore necessary to physical health

does not necessarily explain why intercourse is different from mastur-

bation, but he presents a strong case for sexual gratification as

opposed to sexual repression.

Operating from the constructs of symbolic interactionism, Gecas

and Libby (1976) see sexual experiences as being created by sexual

symbolism. They use the language of sexual interaction as symbolic

evidence for four "identifiable and coherent philosophies or codes

regarding sexual behavior: the traditional-religious, romantic, recrea-

tional, and utilitarian-predatory" (p. 37). The authors remark on the

paradox that freeing sex from the constraints of religion and romance

has elevated enjoyment to the role of primary requirement-. Thus our

attention has been focused on technique and mechanics, causing the

character of sexual experience to be more like work than play. By

freeing sex we are no longer able to take it lightly. Slater (1976)

concurs, writing that "the use of an engineering term like 'adequacy'

in relation to an-act of pleasure exemplifies the American gift for

turning everything into a task" (p. 85). The author's position becomes

even more cynical with the argument that whereas women are able to love









older, ugly men, men tend to favor only specific females types which

is interpreted as evidencethat men do not really like women. Whether

these rather negative espousals are valid, they raise the issue of

sex as work as opposed to sex as play. Comfort (1976) describes the

three human uses of sex as: sex for procreation, sex for intimacy,

and sex as physical play. He refers to the latter two as relational

sex and recreational sex respectively, and contends that contraception

has, for the first time, separated the three. Foote (1976) further

supports the notion of sex as play, adding that this meaning is not

necessarily amoral because any kind of play generates its own morality

and values.

One of the clearest, most cohesive lists of psychological dimensions

of sexuality has been formulated by Mitchell (1972) for adolescents.

Included are: (1) The need for intimacy: Sex behavior fosters an

openness which facilitates intimacy at other levels, not the reverse

as commonly believed. (2) The need for belonging: Included in Maslow's

hierarchy and Murray's list of psychological needs, the need for belonging

differs from the need for intimacy in that it does not have to be

experienced directly. (3) The desire for dominance: This refers both

to Fromm's need for dominance in daily living, and Adler's compensatory

strivings resulting from feelings of inferiority. (4) The desire for

submissiveness: Being submissive allows other needs such as intimacy

to be met, especially for women. (5) Curiosity and competency motives.

(6) Desire for passion and intensity: Everything about an adolescent's

style is intense. Nothing is paced. (7) Identification and imitation:

Exposure to the media not only presents models but can also be sexually








26

arousing in itself. (8) Rebelliousness and negative identity:

Although not believed by the author to be a major motive in adolescent

sex, negative identity, as used by Erikson, describes a type of drive

satisfaction obtained by engaging in behavior that is contrary to what

is desired or expected.

The above model is excellent but it must be added that adolescents

are in a transitory phase of life and their sexual motives may be very

changeable. Schoof-Tams, Schlaegel, and Walczak (1976) present a

cognitive-developmental model of sexual morality between 11 and 16

years of age. They believe that eleven year olds tend to be more

traditional, viewing:sexuality as mainly for procreation and not to be

engaged in until after marriage. By fifteen or sixteen, adolescents

are much more permissive, seeing sexuality as governed by love and

fidelity. The authors relate this to the transition from Kohlberg's

conventional to post-conventional stage of morality which is also

believed to rely on cognitive development. One wonders, however, if

this might also be related to some biological changes occurring during

this period making sexual needs and desires more a reality and less of

a philosophical issue.

The above theories all hypothesize meanings of sexual experience,

but Heath (1978) notes that few scientific studies of the psychological

meaning of sexuality have been published. Heath goes on to challenge:

"Not until researchers are willing to explore more systematically and

as conscientiously the subjective psychological meanings of different

sexual experiences, and not just their frequency or physiology, will we

secure the information necessary to understand more objectively the








27

significance of sexuality to the psychological health and continued

maturing of a person" (p. 475). This study begins to respond to that

challenge. It attempts to lend supporting evidence to some of the

psychological meanings of sexual experience that have been the focus

of the above theories by devising an instrument to measure a person's

preference for the different meanings. In addition, sex differences

are examined in terms of whether males and females differentially

describe their personal meanings of sexual experience.

Since the greatest portion of this study is the development of an

instrument to measure the interpersonal meaning of sexual experience,

it is important to review theories of instrument design and validation.

The following sections outline relevant literature on factor analysis,

the procedure to be used in designing the instrument, and on assessing

reliability and validity of instruments.

Instrument Development: Factor Analysis

A major issue that arises in the literature on factor analysis is

the number of subjects needed for a stable analysis. Comrey (1978)

suggests using at least five times the number of variables as expected

factors and at least 200 subjects. Other sources vary in the recommended

number of subjects between five and ten subjects per item (Nunnally,

1978). As for the scale itself, Comrey (1978) suggests that a seven-

point scale is most appropriate for factor analysis, and that the items

should be selected to fit the hypothesized factor structure. There is

some disagreement as to whether factor analysis is the best technique

for data analysis. Loevinger (1948) prefers a technique of homogeneous








28

tests, claiming that it involvesless work and more plausible hypoth-

eses, and Nunnally (1978) warns that "one important reason for not

beginning test construction with factor analysis,is that such analyses

are seldom highly successful" (p. 275). The advent of computer programs

has nullified at least one of Loevinger's objections and has increased

the popularity of factor analysis.

Instrument Development: Assessing Reliability and Validity

The form of reliability test to be used will be Cronbach's (1951)

alpha which is the mean of the distribution of split-half reliability

coefficients resulting from differentisplittings of a test. Cronbach

criticized a simple split-half approach because the reliability coeffi-

cient obtained depends on how the test is split. He describes coeffi-

cient alpha as a lower bound to the "true reliability." Nunnally (1978)

and Stanley (1971) support the use of coefficient alpha as a measure

of internal consistency. Nunnally adds that reliability estimated from

internal consistency is usually very close to reliability tested in

other ways such as test-retest, and, for the early stages of research,

suggests .70 as the criterion level for alpha.

Although most authors separate the issues of reliability and

validity, Campbell and Fiske (1959) prefer to conceptualize them as

lying along a continuum depending on the degree of independence of

approaches used to define the coefficient. Validity requires the

convergence of independent measures while reliability, as in the test-

retest method, requires the convergence of non-independent measures

(a test with itself). In this context, the split-half method of








29

reliability assessment is closer to validity than the test-retest

method.

There is general agreement on the four types of validity described

by the American Psychological Association (1954): content, predictive,

concurrent, and construct. Some authors such as Cronbach (1971) prefer

to join predictive and concurrent validity in their discussions since

both are criterion-oriented validities differing only in their time

frame. Predictive validity relies on the correlation that the test

scores will have with subsequent criterion measures, while concurrent

validity examines the relationship between the test score and criterion

scores obtained at the same time.

Content validity indicates the basis for claiming the representa-

tiveness of the test content. Nunnally (1978) sees a successful factor

analysis as providing evidence for content validity. Construct validity

has received a lot of attention in the literature, and is critical to

groundbreaking research such as this. The APA (1954) defines construct

validity as investigating what psychological qualities an instrument

measures. Cronbach (1971) gives three procedures for confirming con-

struct validity: (1) Correlational: Determine how people with high or

low scores differ in everyday life or in the lab; (2) Experimental:

Attempt to.alter test performance by some controlled procedure; and

(3) Logical analysis of content and scoring. Cronbach and Meehl (1955)

regard factor analysis as a most important type of construct validation

since it can be used explicitly to test hypotheses about constructs.

Other procedures suggested by those authors include identifying differences

between groups on the instrumentand, again, studies of change after

experimental intervention, for example, a sex education class.








30

Nunnally (1978) suggests three steps in construct'validation to

be followed in the given order. First, the domain of observables

related to the construct should be specified. Second, the extent to

which the observables:tend to measure the same thing or several

different things should be determined from empirical research and

statistical analysis. Finally, studies of individual differences and/or

controlled experiments should be performed to determine the extent to

which supposed measures of the construct produce results which are

predictable from highly accepted theoretical hypotheses concerning

the construct. These suggestions will be followed in the proposed

study.

The most comprehensive design for construct validation is

Campbell and Fiske's (1959) multitrait-multimethod matrix wherein

both convergent and discriminant validity are assessed. The authors

explain that "any conceptual formulation of trait will usually include

implicitly the proposition that this trait is a response tendency which

can be observed under more than one experimental condition and that

this trait can be meaningfully differentiated from other traits"

(p. 100). Convergent validity is represented as the tendency to be

observed under more than one condition and discriminant validity is

represented as the ability to be meaningfully differentiated from other

traits. Discriminant validity is, of course, impossible to prove as

one can never test a presumed trait against all other traits.

The issue of construct validity ends here with a quote from

Nunnally (1978): ". . all this fuss about construct validity really

boils down teosomething rather homespun--namely,' circumstantial









evidence for the usefulness of a new measurement method" (p. 109).

This study provides some evidence to support the usefulness of an

instrument that assesses interpersonal meanings of sexual experience.

The review of the literature having been concluded, the following

section delineates the hypotheses that were tested in this study.

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses were examined in this research:

(1) The interpersonal meaning of the sexual experience for

college students can be categorized along the following

dimensions: morality, dominance/submission, aggression,

affiliation, and pleasure.

(2) Males, on the average, score higher on the meaning dimensions

of dominance/submission, aggression, and pleasure, while

females, on the average, score higher on the dimensions of

morality and affiliation.

(3) When males and females are asked to rate the interpersonal

meaning of the sexual experience for a typical member of the

opposite sex, the resulting dimension scores will again yield

higher average scores for males (as judged by females) on

dominance/submission, aggression, and pleasure, and higher

average scores for females (as judged by males) on morality

and affiliation. These stereotypical views are expected to

show greater differences in this cross-sex experiment than

will be yielded by the results for hypothesis (2).








32

In addition to testing the above hypotheses, the reliability and

validity of the newly devised instrument is assessed. The next

chapter will more precisely explain the steps taken in creating and

validating the instrument, and in testing the hypotheses listed above.














CHAPTER II
METHOD


Subjects


All subjects in this research were students in General Psychology

classes at the University of Florida who were expected to participate

in psychological experiments as part of their course requirements.

A total of over 700 students participated in the various stages of

this research. Further demographic information about the students

appears in the following chapter.

Procedure


Factor Analysis--Stage I

The first stage in this research was an attempt to confirm the

existence of the hypothesized dimensions of meanings of sexual experi-

ence. The 84 adjectives identified by Grater and Downing (currently

under review) as appropriate to the meaning of dimensions of morality,

affiliation, pleasure, achievement, and dominance were adopted for use

here. These adjectives were administered to 256 students who were

directed to score each adjective along a seven-point scale. (See

Appendix A for the Meaning of Sexual Experience Questionnaire--II.)

Due to the number of subjects needed, the administration of the adjective

list was conducted in large groups. This procedure was advantageous








34

in that it created an atmosphere of anonymity and increased confidentiality

so that the students could feel more comfortable responding truthfully

to the adjectives. The students were given the Meaning of Sexual

Experience Questionnaire--II and were instructed to answer the three

demographic questions. The directions for the adjective list were then

read and students were given the opportunity to ask questions. They

were then instructed to complete the adjective list. They were told to

ask the administrator about any adjectives that they did not understand.

The data collected were then submitted to several factor analyses

with the author manipulating the inclusion or exclusion of adjectives

in the analysis and the number of factors requested in order to find

the most meaningful factors both statistically and conceptually. The

criteria levels for maintaining items were factor loadings of at least

.40 on one factor and less than .30 on every other factor. In addition,

oblique factor rotation was permitted as long as the correlation between

factors was not substantially greater than .30 for any two factors.

The specific results of these analyses are discussed in the next chapter.

Factor Analysis--Stage 2

After factor analyzing the data from the Meaning of Sexual Experience

Questionnaire--II, a new list of adjectives was prepared using the

retained items from that form and new ones that the author judged as

fitting the emerging factors. The new questionnaire, the Meaning of

Sexual Experience Questionnaire--III (MOSE), includes 70 adjectives.

(See Appendix B for the MOSE adjective list.) The directions were

retained from the Meaning of Sexual Experience Questionnaire--II.

The MOSE was administered to 326 students following the same procedure








35

as was outlined above, and the data were again submitted to a factor

analysis. The criteria described above for acceptability of items

was once again applied. The factors that emerged were then analyzed

as to male-female differences on the factor scores.

Validity Studies

Three studies were conducted to elicit data with regard to the

validity of the MOSE adjective list. First, to ensure that students

understood the meanings of the words being used, a sample of 67 students

was asked to indicate for each adjective whether they didn't understand

it at all, had some idearas to what it meant, or knew what it meant.

A second study was conducted to test the MOSE's sensitivity to

experimental intervention, and also to examine stereotyping of views

of the opposite sex. Thirty males and thirty females were instructed

to complete the MOSE. After they finished, they were given a second

copy of the instrument and asked to complete it as they believed an

average or typical member of the opposite sex would.

A final study was then conducted to compare scores on the MOSE

with those on another instrument which purports to measure similar

constructs. In this study, 37 males and 33 females completedithe MOSE

and Nelson's (1978) Sexual Functions Measure (SFM). (See Appendix C

for the complete SFM.)

Instruments

The Meaning of Sexual Experience Questionnaire, Forms II and III,

were constructed for the purpose of this study. Both forms list a

series of adjectives and ask the subject to indicate'how closely each








36
adjective describes his or her personal meaning of sexual experience

on a scale from 1 to 7. (See Appendices A and B.) As the analysis

and validation of this instrument is the primary goal of this research,

data pertaining to the reliability and validity of the final form,

the Meaning of Sexual Experience Questionnaire--IIIi (MOSE), will be-

detailed in the next chapter.

Nelson's (1978) Sexual Functions Measure (SFM) lists 56 reasons

that people have given for having sexual relations. (See Appendix C.)'

The subject is asked to indicate, on a four-point scale, how important

each reason is or would be to him or herself. Nelson's factor analysis

yielded five factors which he labeled pleasurable stimulation, conformity-

acceptance, personal love and affection, power, and recognition-

competition. Forty-seven of the 56 reasons loaded acceptably on these

factors, having loadings of at least .40 on one factor. Only seven

reasons had additional loadings greater than .30 on any other factor.

There are some weaknesses in the factor analysis of Nelson's

scale. First, a four-point scale is not considered sufficient for an

adequate factor analysis. As noted previously, Comrey (1978) suggests

the use of a seven-point scale. Comrey also suggests using at least

five times the number of items as expected factors and at least 200

subjects. Nelson clearly meets the sample size criterion, testing 180

males and 215 females. He does not, however, meet the item number

criterion. Although he begins with 56 items which would be acceptable

for five factors, his final analysis includes only 47 of these. As a

result, his last factor, recognition-competition, is fairly weak. It

includes only four items, three of which load between .36 and .39 on a

factor other than recognition-competition.








37

Despite these weaknesses, Nelson's scale will be used to assess

the convergent validity of the MOSE. It appears to be the only

instrument available which measures constructs similar to those of the

MOSE, and Nelson's sample of college students is very similar to the

sample used for the factor analysis of the MOSE in terms of sex, age,

and ethnic group. Nelson's sample was comprised of 45.6 percent males

as opposed to 38.0 percent for the MOSE. Both samples included a high

proportion of college age students. The MOSE sample had 85.5 percent

of the males and 94.6 percent of the females below age 22. For Nelson's

sample the figures were 78.9 percent of the males and 90.7 percent of

the females. For the MOSE, 93.6 percent of the males and 88.7 percent

of the females were white. Nelson reported 89.4 percent of males and

87.4 percent of females as being white. Finally, as both samples were

drawn from General Psychology classes at the University of Florida,

they are probably similar in many other characteristics such as

cultural values.















CHAPTER III
RESULTS


Analysis of the Meaning of Sexual Experience Questionnaire--II.


The preliminary stage in the development of the final MOSE adjective

list was the analysis of the data collected dn the Meaning of Sexual

Experience Questionnaire--II., A total of 256 subjects completed the

questionnaire and the data were submitted to a principal components

analysis using a statistical package from the Biomedical Computer

Programs: P-Series 1979 (Dixon and Brown, 1979). The hypothesis to

be tested was that five factors would emerge matching the hypothesized

dimensions of morality, affiliation, pleasure, achievement, and domi-

nance. Several computer runs were used to vary the adjectives included

in the analyses and to specify different numbers of factors so that a

final analysis might provide the best fit of the adjectives into stati-

stically and conceptually meaningful factors. A direct quartimin

rotation, which is the oblique rotation recommended for this statistical

package, was employed.

The analysis yielded four factors including 53 adjectives. The

adjectives with their factor loadings appears in Table 1. The criteria

used for acceptability of adjectives were that they (1) load on their

primary factor at a level no less than .40, and (2) load on every other

factor at a level lower than .30. In addition, an oblique rotation was











TABLE 1
Oblique Factor Loadings for the
Meaning of Sexual Experience Questionnaire--II.

Factors
Adjectives 1 2 3 4

inept .67 .07 -.03 .19
frigid .66 -.09 -.14 .06
timid .64 .23 -.12 -.18
awkward .62 -.05 -.28 -.07
inhibited .62 .02 -.13 -.11
inadequate .61 -.01 -.15 -.09
submissive .60 -.07 .05 .30
futile .57 .07 .19 -.19
infantile .53 .07 .03 .08
flat .51 -.07 -.00 -.12
evasive .51 .02 .16 -.23
muted .49 .10 .12 -.08
distant .47 -.05 .10 -.40
distrustful .48 -.13 .12 .00
offensive .43 -.05 .23 -.23

honorable -.08 .71 .08 -.08
proper -.04 .70 .08 -.05
moral .20 .69 -.21 .09
pure .17 .65 -.16 .08
sincere -.07 .64 -.14 .28
dignified .08 .62 .28 -.13
righteous .16 .62 .13 -.18
clean -.09 .54 .19 .04
virtuous .33 .52 .04 .08
correct -.21 .50 .36 -.08
appropriate -.28 .47 .12 .01
unselfish -.11 .42 .03 .29

masterful .05 -.06 .70 .14
victorious .09 .04 .66 -.07
dominant .07 -.23 .66 .15
winning .07 .26 .63 -.06
mighty -.14 .14 .62 -.14
demanding .07 .25 .59 -.00
forceful .27 -.25 .52 .18
capable -.22 .21 .51 .17
potent .02 .08 .51 .40
successful -.21 .38 .50 .15
outgoing -.09 .08 .50 .30
aggressive .02 -.27 .44 .39










TABLE 1--Continued

Factors
Adjectives 1 2 3 4

titillating .04 .15 .27 .63
erotic .00 -.13 .31 .61
affectionate -.10 .21 -.10 .60
ecstatic .01 .18 .09 .60
amorous .05 .14 -.01 .59
hot -.02 -.21 .29 .42
uninhibited -.22 -.17 .15 .39
fond -.14 .35 .06 .38
remote .41 .04 .16 -.46

imperfect* .36 -.06 .05 -.32
contented* -.26 .25 -.08 .35
demanding* .44 -.02 .47 .07
fussy* .45 .18 .26 -.17
yielding* .25 .09 .22 .16


*Adjectives not
naire--III.


retained for the Meaning of Sexual


Experience Question-








41

permitted with the restriction that no two factors correlate at a

level substantially higher than .30. The factor intercorrelations

are presented in Table 2. The criteria were not applied rigidly to

TABLE 2
Factor Intercorrelations for the
Meaning of Sexual Experience Questionnaire--IIl

Factors 1 2 3 4

1 1.00

2 -.04 1.00

3 .12 .14 1.00

4 -.26 .07 .23 1.00


this list of adjectives since it was a first analysis. The word

"aggressive," for example, was retained because of its highiloading on

Factor 3 (.44) despite a higher than desired loading on Factor 4 (.39).

Five adjectives of the 53 that remained in the final computer run

were dropped. "Imperfect," "contented;" and "yielding" were eliminated

as they did not load highly enough on any factor. "Demanding" was

eliminated since it loaded too closely on two factors; .44 on Factor 1

and .47 on Factor 3. "Fussy" was eliminated,=although it met the

criteria, because its factor had more than sufficient number of adjec-

tives. The remaining list of 48 adjectives was then augmented by 22

new adjectives selected from Grater and Downing's original list of 476

words. Adjectives were added if they appeared, in the authors judgement,

to conceptually fit one of the four factors. More adjectives were added








42

to the smaller factors than to the larger ones in an attempt to

equalize the number of adjectives in each factor. These 70 adjectives

make up the current Meaning of Sexual Experience Questionnaire--Ill

and their analysis is described below.


Analysis of the Meaning of Sexual Experience Questionnaire--Ill


Sample Characteristics

The Meaning of Sexual Experience Questionnaire--III (MOSE) was

administered to 326 students. Table 3 gives the distribution of the

sample by age for each sex. Table 4 gives the distribution of the sample

by ethnic group for each sex. The majority of the sample was in the


MOSE Factor Analysis Sample:


Category

Seventeen

Eighteen

Nineteen

Twenty

Twenty-one

Twenty-two

Twenty-three

Twenty-four
or Older

Totals


Absolute
Frequency
(M) (F)


6

124


7

202


BLE 3
Frequency Distribution--Age,


Relative
Frequency*
(M) (F)


1.6

21.0

30.6

18.5

13.7

7.3

2.4

4.8

100.0


2.0

42.6

30.2

16.3

3.5

1.0

1.0

3.5

100.0


Cumulative
Frequency*
(M) (F)


1.6

22.6

53.2

71.8

85.5

92.7

95.2


2.0

44.6

74.8

91.1

94.6

95.5

96.5


100.0 100.0


*Percent











TABLE 4
MOSE Factor Analysis Sample:
Frequency Distribution-- Ethnic Group


Absolute Kelative Cumulative
Frequency Frequency* Frequency*
Category (M) (F) (M) (F) (M) (F)

White 110 189 88.7 93.6 88.7 93.6

Black 6 6 4.8 3.0 93.5 96.5

Spanish 5 3 4.0 1.5 97.6 98.0

Other 3 4 2.4 2.0 100.0 100.0

Totals 124 202 100.0 100.0


*Percent


typical college age level of 18 to 21 years, the male population being

slightly older than the female. The ethnic group distribution shows

that most of the subjects were white with a very small proportion

representing Black, Spanish, and other groups.

Factor Analysis

The analysis involved here was the same as that described previously

for the Meaning of Sexual Experience Questionnaire--II;. After several

computer runs, factor groupings were achieved that almost completely

fit the desired criteria as described above. Fifty-four of the 70

adjectives were included in this final analysis and five factors

emerged. Table 5 gives the oblique factor loadings of the 54 adjectives

on the five factors and Table 6 gives the factor intercorrelations.

All the adjectives fit the criteria of loading at least at the .40

level on their primary factor and only three load at more than .30 on a


RJ I


q m D


m










TABLE 5
Oblique Factor Loadings for the
MOSE Adjective List

Factors
Adjectives 1 2 3 4 5

caring .85 .06 -.01 -.02 -.07
warm .83 .05 -.02 -.04 .04
kind .81 .08 .10 .01 -.09
loving .77 .03 -.01 .01 .06
sincere .75 .05 -.05 .15 -.09
gentle .70 .12 -.00 .11 -.11
affectionate .64 -.13 -.04 -.04 .20
fond .63 .04 .05 .11 .06
intimate .59 -.17 -.03 .03 .28
trusting .50 -.25 .21 .06 -.06
mature .48 -.10 .24 .17 -.06

distant -.05 .60 -.02 .00 .02
futile .01 .59 .22 .04 -.19
evasive -.07 .59 .15 .01 -.01
inadequate .13 .58 -.26 -.23 .12
resentful -.17 .58 .12 -.05 -.06
timid .14 .57 -.36 .05 -.01
inhibited -.01 .56 -.24 .15 .01
remote .02 .55 .04 .16 -.01
disagreeable -.02 .54 .18 -.08 -.13
flat -.15 .54 -.03 .07 -.07
infantile .03 .54 .04 -.10 .08
awkward -.09 .53 -.37 .00 .15
frigid -.18 .51 -.18 .07 -.05
inept .09 .50 .04 -.10 -.22
distrustful -.26 .48 -.02 -.10 .09
undesirable -.26 .43 -.16 -.04 .07

daring .08 .04 .70 -.18 .07
imaginative .19 -.03 .64 -.15 .05
inventive .06 -.13 .60 -.14 .13
determined -.04 .25 .55 .11 .10
outgoing .13 -.10 .54 .13 .01
victorious -.12 .16 .53 .20 .28
assertive -.00 -.03 .53 -.04 .07
capable .14 -.27 .52 .09 -.10
winning .03 .18 .49 .22 .25
mighty -.06 .16 .49 .28 .35
successful .06 -.17 .49 .25 .11








45

TABLE 5--Continued


Factors
Adjectives 1 2 3 4 5

proper -.03 -.00 -.02 .79 -.09
moral .07 -.13 -.27 .72 .06
pure .11 -.04 -.24 .68 .14
dignified .03 -.01 .07 .62 -.05
righteous -.07 .14 .17 .62 -.02
clean .18 -.13 .03 .59 -.04
correct .09 -.19 .23 .59 -.13
honorable .19 -.05 -.05 .56 -.09
virtuous .10 .17 .03 .56 .05

hot .11 -.10 .17 -.05 .59
forceful -.08 .22 .19 -.11 .57
titillating .10 -.14 -.12 .05 .57
erotic -.00 -.21 .02 -.13 .52
aggressive -.07 -.08 .128 -.16 .48
demanding -.10 .22 .11 .06 .48
ecstatic .15 .22 ..21 .13 .46








46

second factor (intimate, timid, and awkward). .Of the factor inter-

correlations, only Factors 1 and 2, and Factors 1 and 4 correlate

TABLE 6
Factor Intercorrelations for the
MOSE Adjective List


Factors 1 2 3 4 5

1 1.00

2 -.32 1.00

3 .13 -.09 1.00

4 .32 -.03 .12 1.00

5 .01 -.08 .24 -.01 1.00


higher than .30. The analysis is judged successful in that it so

closely meets the pre-determined criteria and also in that the groups

of adjectives are conceptually as well as statistically meaningful.

In addition to the oblique analysis, an orthogonal analysis was

run to determine how well the factors would be maintained with no inter-

correlations. The results, presented in Table 7, are very similar to

those obtained in the oblique analysis. None of the words loads

primarily on a factor that is different from the one ascertained in

the oblique analysis. Although the factors are not as clearly differ-

entiated as in the oblique analysis, an outcome that was anticipated due

to the more restricted nature of the rotation, the differentiation is

stronger than expected. Once again all the adjectives load at least at

the .40 level on their primary factor, and only ten of the adjectives










TABLE 7
Orthogonal Factor Loadings for the
MOSE Adjective List

Factors
Adjectives 1 2 3 4 5

caring .81 -.11 .03 .12 -.06
warm .79 -.11 .04 .10 .05
kind .79 -.09 .13 .15 -.09
loving .74 -.13 .06 .13 .06
sincere .74 -.10 -.00 .27 -.08
gentle .68 -.02 .02 .22 -.11
fond .62 -.09 .11 .21 .06
affectionate .62 -.26 .05 .06 .21
intimate .59 -.30 .07 .12 .28
trusting .53 -.35 .24 .15 -.04
mature .52 -.21 .27 .26 -.04

distant -.12 .61 -.04 -.02 -.00
resentful -.24 .60 .08 -.07 -.07
evasive -.13 .59 .13 -.00 -.02
futile -.04 .58 .17 .04 -.19
flat -.20 .57 -.07 .04 -.09
inhibited -.06 .57 -.24 .14 -.02
awkward -.17 .56 -.36 -.03 .11
timid .06 .56 -.36 .06 -.04
frigid -.23 .56 -.21 .03 -.07
inadequate .01 .55 -.26 -.22 .09
remote .02 .54 .04 .16 -.02
disagreeable -.08 .54 .13 -.08 -.13
infantile -.05 .52 .03 -.10 .06
distrustful -.32 .52 -.04 -.15 .07
inept .02 .49 -.03 -.09 -.23
undesirable -.32 .48 -.18 -.09 .04

daring .08 -.01 .70 -.15 .10
imaginative .20 -.10 .65 -.10 .08
inventive .09 -.18 .62 -.11 .16
victorious -.07 .14 .59 .19 .30
mighty -.01 .13 .57 .27 .36
determined -.02 .22 .56 .11 -.12
outgoing .19 -.16 .56 .17 .03
winning .06 .13 .56 .23 .26
assertive .02 -.06 .54 -.03 .10
successful .15 -.22 .54 .27 .13
capable .21 -.32 .53 .13 -.06








48

TABLE 7--Continued

Factors
Adjectives 1 2 3

proper .10 .01 .03
moral .18 -.13 -.19
pure .20 -.05 -.15
dignified .13 -.02 .12
clean .29 -.16 .08
correct .22 -.22 .27
righteous .03 .15 .21
honorable .28 -.08 -.01
virtuous .17 .15 .09

hot .11 -.15 .29
forceful -.13 .19 .28.
titillating .11 -.18 .01
erotic -.01 -.23 .12
aggressive -.08 .11 .36
demanding -.12 .21 .20
ecstatic .19 .28 .32


-.09
.04
.13
-.05
-.03
-.11
-.02
-.09
.05


-.04
-.13
.06
-.13
-.17
.04
.15








49

load above .30 on a second factor. This provides further evidence

for the statistical meaningfulness of the factors. The explained

variances, shown in Table 7, indicate that four of the five factors

are approximately equal in the amount of variance they explain, with

the fifth factor being relatively less explanatory. Means, standard

deviations, and maximum and minimum values for each of the 54 adjectives

are given in Table 8. These data were used to determine whether any

adjectives should be discarded as not useful in differentiating among

people. For example, any adjective scored with all ones or all sevens

would not have discriminated between people.

The five conceptually and statistically meaningful factors that

emerged in this analysis coincided with several of the hypothesized

factors of morality, affiliation, pleasure, achievement, and dominance.

Factor 1 describes an "affiliation" dimension and was predicted as was

Factor 3, the "achievement" dimension, and Factor 4, the "moral"

dimension. Factor 2, as it emerged in this study, contains adjectives

with a very negative tone. It is labeled "inadequate/undesirable" and

it does not coincide with any of the hypothesized factors. Factor 5,

the least strong of the factors in terms of number of items and the

amount of variance explained, is the most difficult to label. It appears

to be somewhat of a combination of the hypothesized pleasure and dominance

dimensions and, as such, is tentatively labeled "erotic dominance'."

Reliability and Validity Analysis

Before a new instrument can be acceptable, evidence must be

accumulated as to its reliability and validity. Reliability of the

factors that emerged from the analysis of the MOSE data was assessed











TABLE 8
Descriptive Statistics for the
MOSE Adjective List

Standard
Adjectives Mean Deviation Minimum Maximum

caring 6.3 1.0 2 7
warm 6.3 1.0 1 7
kind 6.1 1.0 1 7
loving 6.3 1.0 1 7
sincere 6.1 1.2 1 7
gentle 6.0 1.0 2 7
affectionate 6.4 0.8 3 7
fond 5.8 1.3 1 7
intimate 6.0 1.2 2 7
trusting 5.9 1.2 1 7
mature 5.9 1.0 2 7

distant 2.4 1.3 1 7
futile 2.3 1.3 1 6
evasive 2.8 1.4 1 7
inadequate 2.3 1.2 1 7
resentful 2.1 1.2 1 7
timid 3.0 1.3 1 7
inhibited 2.8 1.5 1 7
remote 2.8 1.6 1 7
disagreeable 2.3 1.2 1 7
flat .2 2.2 1.2 1 7
infantile 2.2 1.3 1 7
awkward 2.5 1.2 1 6
frigid 2.1 1.3 1 7
inept 2.2 1.2 1 7
distrustful 2.3 1.3 1 7
undesirable 1.9 1.1 1 7

daring 4.8 1.5 1 7
imaginative 5.2 1.4 1 7
inventive 4.6 1.5 1 7
determined 4.8 1.6 1 7
outgoing 5.1 1.4 1 7
victorious 3.7 1.9 1 7
assertive 4.5 1.4 1 7
capable 5.9 1.1 1 7
winning 4.2 1.8 1 7
mighty 3.8 1.7 1 7
successful 5.4 1.4 1 7








51


TABLE 8--Continued


Standard
Deviation


Minimum Maximum


Mean


Adjectives

proper
moral
pure
dignified
righteous
clean
correct
honorable
virtuous

hot
forceful
titillating
erotic
aggressive
demanding
ecstatic








52

by use of Cronbach's (1951) coefficient alpha, the average of all

possible split-half reliability coefficients. The reliability coeffi-

cients calculated for the factors are .91 for affiliation, .86 for

inadequate/undesirable, .84 for achievement, .85 for moral, and .69

for erotic dominance. With the exception of the last dimension, all

the factors easily meet Nunnally's (1978) suggested criterion level of

.70.

The issue of validity was approached from several directions. A

preliminary step was the administration of the list of 70 adjectives

to 67 students who were asked to categorize the words as "don't under-

stand at all,"' "have some idea," and "know what it means Only two

of the 70 words were scored as "don't understand at all" by more than

two students. "Amorous" was not understood by six of the students and

"titillating" was not understood by nine of the students. This survey

indicates that the adjective list does not present definitional problems

that would be severe enough to interfere with the validity of the in-

strument.

Evidence for the content validity comes from the fact that the

adjectives themselves were selected according to conceptual guidelines.

In addition, the factor analysis supports three of the five hypothesized

dimensions: affiliation, morality, and achievement. The other two

factors, although not predicted, provide some evidence of their validity

in the conceptual cohesiveness of the adjectives they include. There-

fore it can be concluded that the factor analysis supports the content

validity and, to some extent, the construct validity of the instrument.







53
Further experimentation was conducted to assess convergent

validity. Convergent validity is an element of construct validity

described by Campbell and Fiske (1959) as relating to the tendency of

a trait to be observed under more than one condition. Seventy students,

37 males and 33 females, completed both the MOSE adjective list and
Nelson's (1978) Sexual Functions Measure (SFM) which appears to measure

some of the same constructs as the MOSE adjective list. Nelson's

factor analysis of the SFM yielded five factors which he labeled

pleasurable stimulation, conformity and acceptance, personal love and

affection, power, and recognition and competition. To support the

convergent validity of each of these instruments the following corre-

lations between MOSE and SFM dimensions were predicted: affiliation
(MOSE) with personal love and affection (SFM), achievement (MOSE) with
power (SFM), achievement (MOSE) with recognition and competition (SFM),

and erotic dominance (MOSE) with pleasurable stimulation (SFM). The
SFM does not appear to have any factors that are analogous to the
MOSE's moral factor. Also, while the MOSE's inadequate/undesirable

factor may be related to the SFM's conformity and acceptance factor,

the relationship does not appear to be straightforward enoughtto be

hypothesized here. The correlation coefficients between the factor

scores from the two measures appear in Table 9Vas they were calculated
for the entire sample. The correlations for males alone appear in

Table 10, and those for females alone appear in Table 11.

The affiliation (MOSE) and personal love and affection (SFM) factors
correlate highly for the entire sample but this is apparently due mostly

to the extremely high correlation for males (.77). The females'















N = 20


TABLE 9
MOSE and SFM Factor Correlations-- Entire Sample

Inadequate/ Erotic
Affiliation Undesirable Achievement Moral Dominance


Pleasurable .34**
PlStimulaon -.24* .04 .25* -.32** 34**
Stimulation

Conformity & -.42*** .24* .07 -.21 .10
Acceptance
Personal Love 57*** -.12 11 44*** 14
& Affection

Power -.04 .20:' .30* .10 .30*

Recognition & -.23 -.11 .30* -.16 .32**
Competition

*R <.05
**p <.01
***R <.001


TABLE 10
MOSE and SFM Factor Correlations-- Males Only

Inadequate/ Erotic
N = 37 Affiliation Undesirable Achievement Moral Dominance

Pleasurable -.30 .26 .07 -.39* .16
Stimulation

Conformity & .43** .25 -.01 -.26 .11
Acceptance
Personal Love 77*** -.16 .24 56*** .24
& Affection

Power -.10 .43** .22 .13 .25

Recognition & -.07 -.01 .25 -.20 .29
Competition

*p < .05
**B < .01
***p < .001










TABLE 11
MOSE and SFM Factor Correlations-- Females Only


Inadequate/ Erotic
N = 33 Affiliation Undesirable Achievement Moral Dominance

Pleasurable -.04 -.14 .32 -.17 .42*
Stimulation

Conformity & -.28 .31 .01 .00 .02
Acceptance
Personal Love 24 -.10 07 .22 .15
& Affection

Power .02 .01 .38* .06 .34

Recognition & -.31 .24 .28 -.00 .33
Competition

*_ < .05


correlation does not approach significance. The second predicted

correlation between achievement (MOSE) and power (SFM) is supported for

females at a moderate level but not for males. The correlation between

achievement (MOSE) and recognition and competition (SFM) is statistically

significant but not very strong for the entire sample and the correlations

for males and females are about equal to that of the entire sample

although the statistical significance does not hold for either subgroup.

The correlation between erotic dominance (MOSE) and pleasurable stimu-

lation (SFM) is supported for females but not for males. Of all the

correlations computed between factors of the MOSE and SFM, none is-

significant for both males and females. These results offer only weak

support for the convergent validity of the MOSE except in certain cases

for subsets of the sample.








56

Two other analyses aimed at supporting the construct validity of

the MOSE were a comparison of between group differences on the instru-

ment and a study of change related to experimental intervention. Both

of these approaches to construct validation are suggested by Cronbach

and Meehl (1955), and the results of these experiments follow.

Sex Differences in the Meaning of-Sexual Experience


The data from the 326 subjects participating in the factor analysis

study were examined as to the male-female differences in the mean values

for the five factor scores. It was hypothesized that males would score

higher on the achievement and erotic dominance dimensions while females

would score higher on the affiliation, inadequate/undesirable, and

moral dimensions. T-tests were performed and the results are presented

in Table 12. A significant difference between variances of the two

groups occurs on the inadequate/undesirable dimension. Therefore, the

t-statistic used in this case was a two-sample statistic. For the

other dimensions, the t-statistic was computed using a pooled variance

estimate from the two groups as their variances were assumed to be equal.

The differences between the factor scores of males and females are signi-

ficant for two of the dimensions, affiliation and erotic dominance.

The difference between the mean scores on the achievement dimension

approaches significance, while the inadequate/undesirable and moral

dimensions yield insignificant differences. In all the dimensions, with

the exception of inadequate/undesirable, the differences are in the

predicted direction. Note that due to the large number of statistical

tests being conducted, .01 has been adopted as the criterion level for













Sex Differences


TABLE 12
for MOSE Factor Analysis Sample


Standard
Factor Sex Mean t-Statistic Deviation Minimum Maximum

Male 64.6 8.8 27 77
Affiliation -4.09**
Female 68.4 7.8 37 77

Inadequate/ Male 38.3 10.0 16 70
Inadequate/ 0.21
Undesirable Female 38.0 12.7 16 78

Male 53.9 9.7 31 76
Achievement 2.39*
Female 51.0 10.9 19 72

Male 40.8 9.5 10 57
Moral -1.75
Female 42.8 10.4 11 63

Erotic Male 34.0 5.7 21 48
Dominance Female 31.7 6.3 14 48
Dominance male 31.7 6.3 14 48


Note: N =

*P < .05
**B < .001


124 males, 202 females








58

statistical significance throughout the research to avoid interpreting

chance differences as significant.

Sex differences were also analyzed for the data resulting from the

comparison of the MOSE and the SFM. A MANOVA was performed to examine

the effect due to sex on the ten dimensions of the two instruments.

Using Pillai's Trace as the F approximation, the MANOVA is found to be

significant; F(10,59) = 2.70, p < .01. The results of the ten ANOVA's

appear in Table 13. No male-female significant differences are supported

on the MOSE dimensions. The magnitude of these differences are almost

identical to those computed for the factor analysis sample and the

differences are in the same direction for all five dimensions. The

E-values are lower for this sample due to the smaller sample size. On

the SFM factors, males score significantly higher on the pleasurable

stimulation, conformity and acceptance, and recognition-competition

dimensions. The females' higher score on the personal love and affection

dimension approaches significance (F = 4.47, p = .045).

For the final experiment in this research program, 30 males and

30 female students completed the MOSE adjective list. After they had

finished they were given another copy and asked to complete it again

but this time as they believed an average or typical member of the

opposite sex would. The purposes of this study were twofold. First,

it was a further study of construct validation in the sense of deter-

mining whether the instrument was sensitive to experimental intervention.

Secondly, this was an attempt to ascertain whether the hypothesized

male-female differences, which were-only weakly supported by the

previous data, might be amplified in people's perceptions of the

opposite sex.











Sex Differences


TABLE 13
for MOSE and SFM Comparison Study


Factor Sex Mean F-Statistic p-value

Male 63.7
Affiliation 3.71 .058
Female 67.7

Male 38.4
Inadequate/ 0.00 .990
Undesirable Female 38.4

Male 51.7
Achievement 2.29 .135
Female 47.8

Male 40.3
Moral 1.24 .269
Female 43.4

Erotic Male 32.01.39 .243
Erotic 1.39 .243
Dominance Female 30.1


Pleasurable Mae 36 11.30 .001
Stimulation Female 29.7

Male 17.8
Conformity & 13.37 .001
Acceptance Female 14.2

Male 28.0
Personal Love e 284.17 .045
& Affection Female 30.2

Male 17.1
Power .02 .885
Female 16.9

Male 7.8
Recognition- Mae 8.36 .005
Competition Female 6.3


Note: N = 37 males, 33 females








60
Table 14 presents the male and female means both for self-reports

and for perceptions of the opposite sex, and Table 15 presents the

results of MANOVA's used to test fbr significant differences between

the means. The first MANOVA compares males and females as they scored

themselves. The results are completely analogous to the male-female


TABLE 14
Mean Scores for Self and
Perception of Opposite Sex Study

Inadequate/ Erotic
Affiliation Undesirable Achievement Moral Dominance

Males' views
Males' views 65.6 38.1 53.4 42.4 34.9
of selves

Maleemaviews 60.2 49.2 48.8 42.7 32.4
of females

Females' view
ofselves'v s 70.5 36.5 50.8 46.9 27.1

Females' view
o males v 52.8 48.5 61.0 36.8 39.4


Note: N = 30 males, 30 females


comparisons reported in the earlier analyses. (See Tables 12 and 13.)

All the differences found here are in the same direction as those re-

ported previously. The magnitude of these differences also tends to

parallel those reported above with the exception of the erotic dominance

factor where there is a larger difference. Again the only dimension

where the differences do not occur in the predicted direction is the

inadequate/undesirable dimension and, as before, the difference here

is the least of any dimension.



















~n
00
CM *


00.-O

3-0
I *
91 0)
P,7C.


U

.. C

02
c,








> 0



i J



x c a




0- r_
> >






L L 0)

C-

r3 c
(I C


UU 0 c:
)- 4)








0 *








0. C
o a 4-0






S4-
J 0
_1C



0.



4-












Q0 --


CN "C N *CD


000 l 1 -0




*CO 0
Mo *0 *.0
In **







o M *
m mCA C3
9 L" C


.00
0
r- 0


in *0o
S0
*= C


0 mo czf CM b - r-N
*CO r-C
u *0o o
o I) *


w.ior CM C m JCM)
*-CM -C00 *-4O
Ct 'C O *C r *C
I) o 0 o
in i r


C *
O


to m r n o "r i- CM M r". in r, ,co 7 d
*.-- *ON o C o *"CO
r-.L)i *oo *o *O O -0 N *O
o 0 -. *-o r-*n *-o o


co -
-.O
cOO


crs
0c
C' 0


tn,

0

> 4-
a
-> 2


00 9 -
,c


C0 t0o-


S0
c lM







co CM


.0 0 'o0 -o
9- 0 LiO CnO
C* -


>
4 -
*-Wd
U>
U)
-- a)
Un U) -
--2


Z E 4-


U) 4-
> 0

4- a





Sa)


Li1 4-

Ll-1-


4-
S0
>3
4-.4!
>

U) -
U)
- 0)


GM@


4-
V)O

S0

U) U)
4- o





Li- S 4-


In CMJ Cn OC 0 CMi
*3'M *co

N ) o







Z CN C3
Ln *, o
N *CM C *C
-* C 0
CM


--------------- ------ -------








62

A second MANOVA analyzes the differences between the males'

perceptions of females and the females' perceptions of males. Somewhat

more meaningful differences are noted here. In all cases except,

once again, for inadequate/undesirable, differences in perceptions

of the opposite sex are in the same direction as differences in self-

reports. The "view of opposite sex" differences are greater than the

self-report differences for three of the dimensions, however, and at

least in one case, achievement, the difference is substantially greater.

The next two MANOVA's compare self-reports to perceptions of the

opposite sex to ascertain how much difference people perceive between

the opposite sex and themselves. Some large differences appear. Males

score themselves significantly higher on affiliation and somewhat higher

on achievement and erotic dominance. They score females as substantially

higher on inadequate/undesirable. There is no difference on the moral

dimension. Females score themselves and typical males substantially

differently on all dimensions. They score themselves higher on

affiliation and moral, and they score males higher on inadequate/

undesirable, achievement, and erotic dominance.

The last two MANOVA's in Table 14 compare the scores males and

females gave themselves to the scores given them by the opposite sex.

Substantial differences occur on the affiliation and inadequate/undesirable

dimensions. Males perceive themselves as very much higher on affiliation

and much lower on inadequate/undesirable than females perceive them to

be. Females, likewise, perceive themselves as much higher on affiliation

and much lower on inadequate/undesirable than males perceive them to be.

Several other significant differences appear in this MANOVA although








63

the magnitude is not as great. Females perceive males higher on the

achievement and erotic dominance dimensions and lower on the moral

dimensions than the males perceive themselves. Males perceive females

higher on the erotic dominance dimension and somewhat lower on the moral

dimension than the females perceive themselves.

This study produced a great deal of supporting evidence for the

construct validity of the MOSE. Except for the inadequate/undesirable

dimension, male-female differences again occur in the predicted direc-

tion. Whereas differences in the self-reports may not be as great as

was expected, these predicted differences clearly occur in the students'

perceptions of the opposite sex. The results also support the sensiti-

vity of the instrument to experimental intervention. A summary of the

reliability and validity evidence follows.

Summary

The results of the analyses described above tend to support the

reliability and validity of the Meaning of Sexual Experience adjective

list. The validity of the five meaning dimensions is supported by

their frequent appearance in the theoretical literature and by the

conceptual cohesiveness of the adjectives within each dimension.

Statistically, the validity is supported by the factor analysis and by

the tendency of the sex differences in the factor scores to be very

consistent across different studies. For four out of the five factors,

the sex differences in the factor scores consistently occur in the

predicted direction. The validity is further supported by showing the

instrument to be sensitive to experimental manipulation. Students








64

completing the MOSE first as self-reports and then as their perception

of a typical member of the opposite sex changed their factor scores

significantly. The reliability of the instrument is supported by the

computation of Cronbach's coefficient alpha. These reliability coeffi-

cients easily meet the criterion level of .70 for four of the factors,

and fall just short of the criterion for the fifth. Other forms of

validity need to be assessed before the usefulness and meaningfulness

of this instrument is completely understood. The following chapter

reviews the empirical evidence described here and suggests future

directions in the continual process of evaluating the validity of the

MOSE adjective list.















CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION


This research was based on the premise that sexual experience

has different meanings to different people. The literature abounds

with essays theorizing about the nature of these meanings, how they

changed through historical eras, and how they are differentially salient

to males and females. These hypotheses appear to be accepted not only

by psychologists, but by the general populace. Witness the popularity
of literary works such as Erica Jong's Fear of Flying (Jong, 1973)

wherein the heroine attempts to fulfill her sexual fantasies by over-

coming the restrictive meaning that sexual experience has for her.

Then there is Norman Mailer's Prisoner of Sex (Mailer, 1971), a male's

graphic description of sexual experiences as war: ". . there was a

subterranean war of the will when a man and a woman made love.. ..."

(p. 151). The line of research begun here is important precisely because

attention is being focused on sexuality, perhaps to a greater extent

than ever before, and the meanings of sexual experience are changing

for males and females.

When the meaning of sexual experience for an individual can be

understood, the interpersonal transactions used to have or avoid the

experience and the motivations behind the individual's behaviors will

become clearer. Yet sexual experience is just one of numerous inter-

personal experiences that a human being encounters in a lifetime.








66

These other experiences may also have different meanings. The same

work experience may have an overarching meaning of competence or

achievement to one person and a meaning of submission to another. It

is possible that the meanings isolated in this research would be equally

applicable to other spheres of life and, if this is so, a person's

meaning of sexual experience may be only one outgrowth of an overall

personality trait. For example, a person who is largely motivated by

a need to achieve may experience every interpersonal encounter, sexual

or otherwise, in terms of achievement. If this is true then future

research may wish to focus more on the general interpersonal style

rather than focus specifically on the sexual experience. Until there

is evidence that meanings of one type of experience can be subsumed

under a more general category, however, it remains useful to focus on

the one specific type of experience.

What follows is a review of the empirical evidence for some

meanings of sexual experience as provided by this research. The initial

section discusses the dimensions that emerged from the principal com-

ponents analysis. This is followed by a discussion of the differential

descriptive power that these meanings have for males and females. The

sample characteristics are then reviewed to assess the generalizability

of the results. The final two sections present implications of this

research for counseling and clinical psychology, and suggestions for
.1
future investigations into the meaning of sexual experience.

The Interpersonal Meanings of Sexual Experience

To gather data concerning people's behaviors and attitudes with

respect to sexual experiences is a relatively simple task. Of course,








67

due to the private nature of sexuality, complete confidentiality

must be assured but, once that issue is resolved, it is easy for

someone to delineate his or her behaviors due to their concrete and

observable nature, and almost as easy for them to delineate their atti-

tudes, which are less concrete but have usually been clarified in the

individual's own mind. It is not as easy for the individual to report

on the meanings of his or her sexual experience. Meanings are far

more abstract than attitudes or behaviors and more difficult to define

or delineate. The effort in this research has been to develop a con-

crete and relatively easy and nonthreatening task that would uncover

the subject's meaning of sexual experience. The approach chosen, scoring

adjectives on their descriptive accuracy, is a somewhat indirect method

for elucidating meanings but the results seem to indicate that meanings

can be derived in this manner.

Two disclaimers are necessary before the meanings that emerged in

this study are discussed. First, the meanings that emerged clearly

depended on the adjectives selected for use. It would seem unlikely

that all possible meanings have been exhausted by this list. Secondly,

no claim is being made that these meanings are stable or universal.

Meanings appear to be culture bound. The adoption of this methodology

for attempts at understanding meaning dimensions in other cultures

would be more useful than a rigid adherence to the dimensions supported

here.

The five groups of adjectives that emerged from the MOSE adjective

list appear to represent five different meanings that sexual experience

may have for individuals. To simplify the discussion of these dimensions









each has been given a brief and hopefully descriptive label: affilia-

tion, inadequate/undesirable, achievement, moral, and erotic dominance.

Anyone using these labels is encouraged to refer often to the list

itself (Table 5) to retain a more complete understanding of the meaning

described by that list. It seems clear that one or two adjectives

cannot accurately describe ten.

The first dimension that emerged from the principal components

analysis has been labeled "affiliation."' It includes eleven adjectives:

caring, warm, kind, loving, sincere, gentle, fond, affectionate, inti-

mate, trusting, and mature. A person finding these adjectives descrip-

tive would appear to be receiving sexual experience as a very positive

interpersonal encounter. "Caring," "loving," and "affectionate"

describe an emotional tone, "gentle" and "kind" seem to describe the

physical interaction, while "intimate" and "trusting" imply a feeling

of safety and a level of respect for the other person. Sexual experi-

ence for this individual has a meaning of emotional and physical

responsiveness and involvement in the context of a trusting relationship.

One gets a clear picture of the type of sexual relationship described

by these adjectives and this picture, in addition to the statistical

cohesiveness of these words, supports a meaning dimension often

theorized in the literature.

The second dimension, labeled "inadequate/undesirable, includes

sixteen adjectives: distant, resentful, evasive, futile, flat, inhibited,

awkward, timid, frigid, inadequate, remote, disagreeable, infantile,

distrustful, inept, and undesirable. This meaning is almost diametrically

opposite to the first. Rather than the affiliation dimension's emotional









tone of "caring," "loving," and "affectionate," the tone here is

described as "distant," "resentful," "flat," and "disagreeable."

Physically, the experience is perceived as "futile," "inhibited,"

"awkward," "timid," "frigid," "inadequate," and "inept." Whereas the

affiliation factor includes "mature," this factor includes "infantile."

While the affiliation factor describes the experience as "trusting" and

"intimate," this factor describes it as "distrustful" and "remote."

A person using these adjectives to describe their meaning of sexual

experience is perceiving it very negatively. Such a person might have

great difficulty in developing close interpersonal relationships as

the sexual aspects of those relationships would more likely lead to

distance than intimacy.

The third dimension, labeled "achievement," includes eleven

adjectives: daring, imaginative, inventive, victorious, mighty, deter-

mined, outgoing, winning, assertive, successful, and capable. Concep-

tually, this is an extremely cohesive group of words. Taken out of

context they might be thought to describe a great athlete or highly

successful businessman. The person selecting these adjectives as highly

descriptive would appear to perceive sexual experiences as a game or a

competitive interpersonal encounter. Achievement is noted in adjectives

such as "successful" and "capable" but this dimension is more complex

than that. It includes a dominance facet suggested by "victorious,"

"mighty," and "winning." It also requires a creative and persevering

strategy described as "daring," "imaginative," "inventive," "determined,"

"outgoing," and "assertive." It would not be totally facetious to

describe this as the "football coach" meaning of sexual experience.








70
It is of note again how different this meaning is from the preceding

two. The first factor seemed to describe a closeness and a balance;

a perception of two people sharing an experience. The second factor

indicates a distance; a perception of two people losing closeness

through an experience. Thisithird factor does notlimply two people

moving together or apart but, rather, one person moving against another.

In essence, the first three factors could be viewed as analogous to

Karen Homey's three modes of interaction: moving towards others,

moving away from others, and moving against others.

The fourth dimension, labeled "moral includes nine adjectives:

proper, moral, pure, dignified, clean, correct, righteous, honorable,

and virtuous. This factor emerged early in the analysis of the first

form of the instrument and can be seen as being almost identical to

the second factor listed in Table 1. It was the most consistent and

persevering factor in the continual analysis of the adjective lists.

"Moral" was selected as the label for this factor because the adjectives

convey an image of a person with a very reserved, almost religious,

meaning of sexual experience. The element of play is not included in

this meaning and, in fact, neither is the element of affection. A

person with a strong commitment to participating in sexual experiences

only within the context of a marriage or long-term relationship might

score high on this factor.

The final factor, "erotic dominance," includes seven adjectives:

hot, forceful, titillating, erotic, aggressive, demanding, and ecstatic.

Since a principal components analysis extracts factors in diminishing

order of strength, this factor is statistically the weakest of the five.








71

Conceptually, this factor is also relatively weaker. Four of the

adjectives, "hot," "titillating,! "erotic," and "ecstatic" denote a

highly sensual and emotional meaning of sexual experience. The other

three, "forceful,' "demanding," and "aggressive,' were expected to load

on the achievement factor and yet their loadings on that factor are low

(.19, .11, and .28 respectively). Responding to the four sensual

adjectives alone, one gets a sense of sex as play or pleasure. But

the other three adjectives suggest that the pleasure is somewhat based

on dominance. What distinguishes this factor from the achievement

factor is the intense sensuality it includes. The dominance described

here is related to sensual pleasure whereas the dominance in the achieve-

ment factor is related to winning. Although one might hesitate to

interpret this factor with as much confidence as the others due to its

relative weakness, both conceptually and statistically, it is not clear

that it should be disregarded entirely. Future research may be able

to clarify this factor by adding more adjectives to the instrument,

possibly resulting in this factor splitting into two more cohesive~e

factors.

To this point the analysis has centered on an explication of the

adjectives within each factor. The images that have been drawn are

simplistic. A more complete understanding of a person's meaning of

sexual experience would result from an analysis of the profile of scores

on all five factors. For example, an individual scoring high on moral

and also scoring high on affiliation would have a very different meaning

of sexual experience compared to one who scores high on moral and high

on inadequate/undesirable. This is due to the non-emotional tone of








72

the moral factor being augmented by two factors of opposite emotional

tones. Similarly, a high score on erotic dominance would be inter-

preted differently if it were associated with a high affiliation score

than if it were associated with a high achievement score. Of course,

the complexity of interpretations multiplies as more factors are

included in the analysis.

It is concluded from this discussion that the instrument devised

for this research has successfully elicited several meanings of sexual

experience. Profiles of individuals' scores on the five dimensions can

yield clues as to their personal meanings. This leads to an examination

of average responses of males and females in an attempt to validate

theoretical differences.

Sex Differences in the Meanings of Sexual Experience


Male-female stereotypes would predict clear differences on the

dimensions of meaning being discussed. They would predict higher female

scores on the affiliation, inadequate/undesirable, and moral dimensions,

and higher male scores on the achievement and erotic dominance dimen-

sions. Three samples of college students have been compared in this

research. The factor analysis sample (Table 12) included 124 males and

202 females, the MOSE-SFM comparison sample (Table 13) included 37 males

and 33 females, and the self-perception versus perception by opposite

sex sample (Table 14) included 30 males and 30 females. Table 16 allows

for the comparison of mean differences in the three studies. Females

scored higher on affiliation and moral, males on inadequate/undesirable,

achievement, and erotic dominance. With the exception of inadequate/










TABLE 16
Mean Differences Between Male and Female Factor Scores


Inadequate/ Erotic
Affiliation Undesirable Achievement Moral Dominance

Factor Analysis 3.8 0.3 2.9 2.0 2.3

MOSE-SFM 4.0 0.0 3.9 3.1 1.9

Perception of 4.9 1.6 2.6 4.5 7.8
Opposite Sex

Total/(Higher 4.0 0.4 2.8 2.3 2.8
scoring sex) (females) (males) (males) (females) (males)



undesirable these differences are in the predicted direction. The

differences on the inadequate/undesirable dimension were the smallest

and basically indicated no difference between the sexes. To some extent,

then, these results support theoretical differences. Not only are the

directions of the differences for the three samples completely consistent

within dimensions, but the magnitude of these differences is fairly

consistent as well.

To better understand the sex differences, a profile of scores on

all five factors should be examined. Since the factors include different

numbers of adjectives, it is not possible to compare scores across

factors unless they are standardized. This is accomplished by dividing

the scores by the number of adjectives in the factor. Table 17 shows

the results of this standardization. Affiliation is scored highest by

both sexes and inadequate/undesirable is scored lowest. The other

three factors seem to cluster somewhat although their ordering is

different for the two sexes. Overall, there appear to be as many










TABLE 17
Standardized Mean Scores


Inadequate/ Erotic
Affiliation Undesirable Achievement Moral Dominance

Males 5.87 2.39 4.85 4.56 4.83

Females 6.24 2.37 4.60 4.81 4.43

Differences 0.37 0.02 0.25 0.25 0.40


Note: N = 191 males, 265 females


similarities as there are differences between the sexes in their factor

profiles. As these results were not submitted to a statistical analysis,

any inferences drawn from them would be highly tentative.

The most intriguing data in these studies are the perceptions of

the opposite sex. Table 18 includes the means for perception of the

opposite sex from Table 14 rewritten in standardized form. The differ-

ences between Table 17 and Table 18 are remarkable although, again,

inferences described here are speculative. Females appear to perceive

the male profile as placing the greatest importance on the erotic

dominance and achievement meanings, less importance on affiliation,

followed by moral and inadequate/undesirable. They score the males

higher than five and one-half on a seven-point scale on both erotic

dominance and achievement. Males appear to perceive affiliation as the

most important Imeaning to females, and score it at about the same level

as females score erotic dominance and achievement for males. The order

for the remaining dimensions is moral, erotic dominance, achievement,










TABLE 18
Perception of the Opposite Sex


Inadequate/ Erotic
Affiliation Undesirable Achievement Moral Dominance

Males' View
MoFemales' 5.47 3.08 4.44 4.74 4.63
of Females

Females' View 4.80 3.03 5.55 4.09 5.63
of Males

Differences 0.67 0.05 1.11 0.65 1.00


Note: N = 30 males, 30 females


and inadequate/undesirable. The differences between the perceptions of

opposite sex scores (Table 18) seem to be far greater than differences

in the self-report scores (Table 17).

There is apparently a great difference between students' perceptions

of self and the opposite sexes' perceptions of them as evidenced by

Tables 14 and 15. Males and females each perceive themselves as being

higher on affiliation and each perceive the opposite sex as being higher

on inadequate/undesirable. They both perceive the males as being higher

on achievement and erotic dominance, and thecfemales as being higher on

moral. In terms of the agreement between self-report and perception of

the opposite sex, males score females similarly to females' self-reports

on the achievement, moral, and erotic dominance dimensions but strongly

disagree with females' self-reports on affiliation where they perceive

the opposite direction and on inadequate/undesirable where their per-

ception of the difference (11.1 points) is far in excess of the difference

between male and female self-reports (1.6). Females perceive far greater








76

differences on all dimensions than the self-report comparisons exhibit

although their perceived differences are in the same direction as the

differences between self-reports. Interestingly, the two dimensions

where the perceived differences do not concur with theoretical predictions

both show the "selves" looking emotionally healthier than the theories

would predict. That is to say, males see- themselves as more affiliative

than females despite the opposite stereotype and also in contrast to

the differences in self-reports. Females see themselves as much lower

on inadequate/undesirable relative to males than they actually are

despite the opposite stereotype. It would probably be considered

"healthier" to be high on affiliation and low on inadequate/undesirable.

It is important to note that these results may have been affected by

the fact that the subjects were comparing a real person, themselves,

to a composite person, the average or typical member of the opposite sex.

To draw the results of the perception of opposite sex study

together it is easiest to examine each dimension separately. On

affiliation, females score somewhat higher than males (4.9 points) but

not nearly as much higher as they believe (17.7 points). Their percep-

tion of male scores (52.8 points) is far lower than the males' self-

reports are (65.6 points). Males perceive themselves as higher on this

dimension, scoring females lower than the females score themselves

(60.2 versus 70.5). Although they both perceive the other as lower on

this dimension than the "others" perceive themselves, the amount of

underestimation is relatively equal for both sexes so that the difference

between perceived scores (7.4) is actually quite close to the actual

difference (4.9).








77

The second dimension, inadequate/undesirable, is interesting in

that the perceived differences are so great compared to the insigni-

ficant difference in self-reports. This is the factor on which males

and females scored almost identically not only in this study but in

all three studies (see Tables 12 and 13). Yet both males and females

score the other sex substantially higher (11 or 12 points) than they

score themselves. It may not be surprising to find the males responding

in this fashion as the stereotype would support them scoring females

higher than themselves. However, females scoring males higher than

themselves on a dimension that includes adjectives such as inadequate,

resentful, inhibited, disagreeable, frigid, and inept, lends support to

the notion thatssexual meanings are changing and casts doubt on theories

that sex has a far more negative meaning for females than for males.

On the achievement dimension the males' self-report score (53.4)

is slightly higher than that of the females (50.8). Males score females

quite similarly to the females' self-reports and so perceive a difference

between themselves and females similar to the difference between self-

reports. Females, however, perceive males as being much higher on

achievement than males perceive themselves to be (61.0 versus 53.4).

They score males substantially higher on achievement than they score

themselves (10.2 points), whereas males score females fairly close to

themselves (4.6 points). Both sexes support the stereotype that males

score higher than females on this dimension, but females judge the

difference as much greater than it appears from the self-reports (10.2

versus 2.6).








78

For the moral factor, the difference between self-reports (4.5

points) approaches significance in the predicted direction of higher

female scores. Males score females as about equal to themselves while

females score males substantially lower than themselves. Females'

perceptions are more in line with stereotypes than are male perceptions

and, in this case, the difference between self-reports of males and

females is greater than the males' perception of the difference but not

as great as the females' perception. The males' and females' perceptions

of the opposite sex both disagree (almost equally) with the opposite

sex' self-report. Both score the opposite sex lower than the opposite

sex scores itself."

The final dimension is erotic dominance. The hypothesized difference

was supported with males' self-reports significantly higher than females'

self-reports. Males and females both scored the opposite sex about

five points above the opposite sex' self-report. In so doing, males

perceived a smaller difference than the self-reports showed by perceiving

females' scores as closer to their own, while females perceived a greater

difference than the self-reports showed.

The examination of the differences in scores from Tables 14 and 15

and the difference in profiles from Table 17 and 18 leads to the most

intriguing question to arise from this research. Who is right? In an

interpersonal domain such as this, are self-perceptions or other's

perceptions more accurate? It is unlikely that either "self" or "others"

can be particularly objective. The current data cannot resolve this

issue, but clearly it has shown some significant and interesting

differences.











Generalizability of the Results

The hundreds of students sampled in th4s research were all

required to participate in experiments as part of their General Psychol-

ogy: course. Self-selection is an issue in that the students were free
to choose from many different experiments. Although the announcement

for this research stated that students would be scoring adjectives (as

opposed to responding to questions about their sexual experiences),

some students may have declined to participate due to the nature of

the topic under study. To whatever extent :this occurred, the sample

is biased, but the nature of this bias is unclear. The limitation that

is placed on all the preceding analyses results from the age and ethnic

group distribution as shown in Tables 3 and 4. Approximately 89 percent

of the males and 94 percent of the females were white. Also, approxi-

mately 84 percent of the males and 93 percent of the females were between

the ages of 18 and 21. All the interpretations that have been made and

all the conclusions drawn from the data can be said to apply to a white,

college-aged population. Whether they are applicable to other popula-

tions as well can be empirically determined in future research.

A second issue of generalizability arises from the issue of pre-

dictive and concurrent validity of the MOSE adjective list. Can a

MOSE profile be generalized to describe how an individual interacts

or will interact with a sex partner? Can the profile describe the types

of intimate relationships the individual will prefer or their style in

establishing these relationships. If a MOSE profile can provide some

information pertaining to these issues it will be far more useful than








80

if it has no applicability to a person's life. It is hoped that future

research will support the MOSE's ability to contribute to the under-

standing of a person's style of interaction.

Counseling and Clinical Applications


It was stated earlier that a method for gaining information about

the meaning of sexual experience for an individual would be a valuable

addition to our knowledge of sexual attitudes and behaviors. As meanings

are more abstract and internal than are attitudes or behaviors, they are

less visible to observers. An apparent result of this lack of visibility

has been significantly different perceptions of the opposite sex than

the opposite sex has of itself. It appears that, on a broad scale,

males and females have not accurately communicated to each other their

own personal meanings of sexual experience or their perceptions of their

partner's meanings. If further research supports the differences

between self-perceived and other-perceived meanings for males and females,

it will be important for Counseling Psychologists to work toward in-

creased communication and understanding.

The MOSE adjective list may prove to have several clinical applica-

tions. Psychological sexual dysfunctions may be better understood by

ascertaining the meaning of the sexual experience to the individual and

this may lead to more effective treatment. Kaufman and Krupka (1973)

found that in certain cases of sexual dysfunction, early deprivation

of affectional needs has led to the sexualization of the need for intimacy.

In other cases they noted issues such as guilt feelings, power struggles,

hostility, and perceived expectations of competency to be underlying








81

the dysfunction. As some of these issues relate closely to the meaning

dimensions discussed in this study, the MOSE might be useful in yielding

such information. Couples in marital therapy might reveal conflicting

MOSE profiles as to their meanings of sexual experience. Having them

complete the MOSE as they believe their spouse would might be an alter-

nate strategy for uncovering conflicts or miscommunications.

Another population for which the MOSE could prove useful is sex

offenders. Perhaps a typical rapist's or exhibitionist's profile might

be discovered. At the very least, gaining some insight as to the

individual's meaning of sexual experiences would be helpful in under-

standing his or her actions and might facilitate treatment.

It may be presumptuous to confer so much applicability on a new

instrument. Clearly research with the above populations needs to be

conducted first. Still, it would seem that the possibilities for

counseling and clinical applications of the MOSE are numerous.

Directions for Future Research


The studies presented here are a beginning. They represent the

first steps in the development of a methodology to empirically analyze

an issue that has only been theoretically analyzed before. Several

areas of research that were begun here are as yet incomplete and several

other areas are ripe for exploration. It might be useful, for example,

to devise an instrument using bipolar rather than unipolar dimensions.

The subject could be asked to respond to an adjective pair such as

hot-cold on a scale of 1 (hot) to 7 (cold). Bipolar adjective pairs

have both advantages and disadvantages compared to unipolar scales and









they might yield different information about the meanings of sexual

experience. In addition, to further examine male-female differences,

sufficient data should be collected to allow for separate factor

analyses for each sex to determine whether they tend to define sexual

experience along the same meaning dimensions.

Another research direction to be taken is a series of validity

studies to further confirm what has been reported above. The convergent

validity study previously discussed was unsuccessful in correlating

results of the MOSE with Nelson's (1978) Sexual Functions Measure.

The lack of significant correlations may have been due to the four-

point scale of the SFM reducing the possible range of scores. It may

also be true that the two sets of factors are simply not measuring the

same constructs. In any case it is left for future research to confirm

the convergent validity of the MOSE. In addition, other studies should

evaluate what the MOSE is not measuring in a continual process of pro-

viding evidence for the discriminant validity of the instrument.

Predictive and concurrent validity have been mentioned as other

research areas left open by the current studies. These would support

the usefulness of the MOSE as a clinical as well as a research instrument.

At some point research should begin to compare data from behavior,

attitude, and meaning scales to be able to incorporate all three

dimensions into a more complete understanding of human sexuality. It

would also be important to assess social desirability ratings to deter-

mine whether the adjectives on the one highly negativistic dimension,

inadequate/undesirable, are being responded to less candidly. It is

conceivable that these adjectives correlate with one another partially








83

because they are all negative. This would be a critical element in

understanding the clear delineation between the factors.

Several research studies are already being implemented. The

first major study is designed to assess the utility of a new set of

directions. This latest version of the MOSE (see Appendix D) attempts

to clarify and shorten the directions and also changes the scoring

categories. The adjectives on the older version were scored on a

frequency scale from "almost never" to "almost always" (see Appendix A).

It is believed that the ability of an adjective to describe a person's

meaning of sexual experience is directly related to the frequency with

which that adjective is descriptive. The new MOSE attempts to avoid

this inferential leap by supplying end point labels of "not descriptive"

and "highly descriptive." The data collected on the new-MOSE will be

factor analyzed and compared to the original data to determine whether

the new directions significantly alter the factors that have been

described here.

Other researchers may wish to look for factors other than those

reported in this study. The factors of affiliation, inadequate/

undesirable, achievement, moral, and erotic dominance are not presented

as the only meanings of sexual experience. Other adjectives may be

combined with those currently on the MOSE in attempts to elicit support

for other meanings or finer gradations of the meanings that emerged

here.

Much of the research described above is intended to further clarify

and validate the MOSE adjective list. Another suggestion for future

research is the comparison of different populations as to their profiles








84

on the MOSE. Males and females are the groups compared here. The

suggestion has been raised previously that groups of sex offenders be

studied. Their profiles could be compared both between different

offender categories, and between offenders and non-offenders. Hetero-

sexuals and homosexuals could also be compared. Age groups could be

compared either to assess cohort differences or to begin to formulate

a developmental model of meanings of sexual experience.

Whenever the results of these studies have been presented, sugges-

tions have arisen for new studies or new groups to compare. There

appear to be numerous research possibilities for this instrument. The

results of the studies described above are intriguing to say/the least.

It is hoped that the results of future research will prove equally

meaningful and that the MOSE adjective list will make a worthwhile

contribution to the understanding of human sexuality.














APPENDIX A
THE MEANING OF SEXUAL EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE--II


Part I. Please answer the following questions.

1. AGE

2. ETHNIC GROUP (check one): WHITE_ BLACK

SPANISH OTHER (specify)

3. SEX: MALE FEMALE

Part II. On the following pages you will find a list of 84 adjectives.

We would like you to use these adjectives to describe the

personal meaning that sexual experience has for you. That is,

we would like you to indicate, on a scale from 1 to 7, how

descriptive these adjectives are of the unique meaning of

your sexual experiences. Please respond according to the

enduring and consistent meanings that you ascribe to sexual

experience rather than your immediate feelings about sexual

experience. The meaning you ascribe to sexual experience may

be derived from the range of your actual sexual experiences or

from your thoughts, fantasies, or readings about sexual

experience. Read these adjectives quickly and PLEASE DO NOT

LEAVE ANY ADJECTIVE UNMARKED.

Coding: 1 NEVER OR ALMOST NEVER 5 OFTEN

2 USUALLY NOT 6 USUALLY

3 SOMETIMES BUT INFREQUENTLY 7 ALWAYS OR ALMOST ALWAYS

4 OCCASIONALLY










Adjective list:

1. hot

2. contented

3. mighty

4. ambitious

5. appropriate

6. inhibited

7. aloof

8. inadequate

9. affectionate

10. lush

11. fond

12. aggressive

13. industrious

14. honorable

15. controlled

16. distant

17. imperfect

18. excitable

19. rapturous

20. unselfish

21. dominant

22. masterful

23. moral

24. frigid

.25. distrustful


26. awkward

27. unkind

28. uninhibited

29. attached

30. forceful

31. victorious

32. virtuous

33. cool

34. yielding

35. futile

36. ugly

37. titillating

38. sincere

39. accomplishing

40. clean

41. fussy

42. muted

43. obliging

44. inept

45. erotic

46. sociable

47. capable

48. dignified

49. infantile

50. flat










51. passive

52. devilish

53. ecstatic

54. strong .

55. persevering

56. correct

57. robust

58. wary

59. feminine

60. naughty

61. zany

62. demanding

63. successful

64. proper

65. complex

66. remote

67. dependent


mischievous

amorous

masculine

triumphant

pure

hurried

evasive

timid

offensive

outgoing

potent

winning

righteous

reserved

egotistical

submissive

unscrupulous














APPENDIX B
ADJECTIVES INCLUDED ON THE
MEANING OF SEXUAL EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE--III-


1. inept

2. honorable

3. masterful

4. titillating

5. demanding

6. muted

7. submissive

8. unselfish

9. dignified

10. remote

11. erotic'

12. aggressive

13. frigid

14. victorious

15. futile

16. proper

17. hot

18. forceful

19. righteous

20. offensive

21. dominant


22. moral

23. clean

24. infantile

25. timid

26. affectionate

27. capable

28. uninhibited

29. distrustful

30. appropriate

31. flat

32. potent

33. ecstatic

34. winning

35. distant

36. virtuous

37. inhibited

38. awkward

39. pure

40. outgoing

41. inadequate

42. correct


43. mighty

44. sincere

45. evasive

46. amorous

47. successful

48. fond

49. caring

50. exciting

51. gentle

52. discrete

53. disagreeable

54. assertive

55. intimate

56. mature

57. daring

58. loving

59. imaginative

60. kind

61. undesirable

62. sensual

63. sacred










64. tactful

65. resentful

66. inventive


89

67. trusting

68. determined

69. serious


70. warm















APPENDIX C
SEXUAL FUNCTIONS MEASURE

Directions: 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 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. After considering each of the reasons listed below

carefully, indicate on the answer sheet how important that reason is

in your own sexual behavior.

Coding: 1 NOT IMPORTANT AT ALL

2 NOT TOO-IMPORTANT

3 PRETTY IMPORTANT

4 VERY IMPORTANT


Reasons:

1. Because

2. Because

3. Because

4. Because

5. Because

6. Because

7. Because


it gives me such a high feeling.

I want to be as good or better at it than other people.

I like the feeling that I have someone in my grasp.

I enjoy the feeling of being overwhelmed by my partner.

I want to fit in and be a part of what's happening.

it's the way I show that I really care about someone.

it's a good way to overcome boredom.








9T

Because I really enjoy indulging my appetite.

Because it's a way of proving yourself.

Because like many people I enjoy the conquest.

Because sex allows me to feel vulnerable.

Because otherwise I would begin to feel like an outsider.

Because it makes me feel like someone cares about me.

Because it adds novelty to my life.

Because I am really a physical person.

Because a lot of men/women keep telling me how good I am in bed.

Because it makes me feel masterful.

Because after an argument it's a good way to let my partner know

that I don't want to fight anymore.

Because the expectations of one's partner and peers are hard to resist.

Because it makes me feel as one with another person.

Because I'm always seeking something different.

Because of rather demanding physical needs.

Because it adds to my feelings of competence.

Because I like the feeling of having another person submit to me.

Because I enjoy the feeling of giving in to my partner.

Because there's so much pressure to be sexually active nowadays.

Because sex and love are as one to me.

Because there is nothing better to do.

Because I am a pleasure seeker.

Because I'd like to be known as a good lover.

Because I like teaching less experienced people how to get off.

Because it makes my partner want to look after me and take care of me.




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
fcla fda yes
dl
!-- formulation of an instrument to assess interpersonal meanings sexual experience ( Book ) --
METS:mets OBJID UF00098268_00001
xmlns:METS http:www.loc.govMETS
xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3
xmlns:xlink http:www.w3.org1999xlink
xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance
xmlns:daitss http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss
xmlns:sobekcm http:digital.uflib.ufl.edumetadatasobekcm
xsi:schemaLocation
http:www.loc.govstandardsmetsmets.xsd
http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-3.xsd
http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitss.xsd
http:digital.uflib.ufl.edumetadatasobekcmsobekcm.xsd
METS:metsHdr CREATEDATE 2010-09-20T08:52:00Z ID LASTMODDATE 2010-02-15T00:00:00Z RECORDSTATUS NEW
METS:agent ROLE CREATOR TYPE ORGANIZATION
METS:name UF
METS:note server=TC
projects=
OTHERTYPE SOFTWARE OTHER
Go UFDC - FDA Preparation Tool
INDIVIDUAL
UFAD\mariner1
METS:dmdSec DMD1
METS:mdWrap MDTYPE MODS MIMETYPE textxml LABEL Metadata
METS:xmlData
mods:mods
mods:genre authority marcgt bibliography
non-fiction
mods:identifier type AlephBibNum 000318041
OCLC 08910290
NOTIS ABU4871
mods:language
mods:languageTerm text English
code iso639-2b eng
mods:location
mods:physicalLocation University of Florida
UF
mods:name personal
mods:namePart Bernstein, David Norman
given David Norman
family Bernstein
date 1948-
mods:role
mods:roleTerm Main Entity
mods:note thesis Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1982.
bibliography Bibliography: leaves 98-104.
statement responsibility by David N. Bernstein.
Typescript.
Vita.
mods:originInfo
mods:place
mods:placeTerm marccountry xx
mods:dateIssued marc 1982
point start 1982
mods:copyrightDate 1982
mods:recordInfo
mods:recordIdentifier source ufdc UF00098268_00001
mods:recordCreationDate 821101
mods:recordOrigin Imported from (ALEPH)000318041
mods:recordContentSource University of Florida
marcorg fug
FUG
mods:languageOfCataloging
English
eng
mods:relatedItem original
mods:physicalDescription
mods:extent viii, 105 leaves : ; 28 cm.
mods:subject SUBJ650_1 lcsh
mods:topic Sex (Psychology)
SUBJ650_2
Sensuality
SUBJ690_1
Psychology thesis Ph. D
SUBJ690_2
Dissertations, Academic
Psychology
mods:geographic UF
mods:titleInfo
mods:nonSort The
mods:title formulation of an instrument to assess interpersonal meanings of sexual experience /
mods:typeOfResource text
DMD2
OTHERMDTYPE SobekCM Custom
sobekcm:procParam
sobekcm:Collection.Primary UFIR
sobekcm:Collection.Alternate VENDORIA
sobekcm:SubCollection UFETD
sobekcm:MainThumbnail formulationofins00bern_Page_001thm.jpg
sobekcm:Download
sobekcm:fptr FILEID UR2
sobekcm:EncodingLevel I
sobekcm:bibDesc
sobekcm:BibID UF00098268
sobekcm:VID 00001
sobekcm:Source
sobekcm:statement UF University of Florida
sobekcm:Type Book
sobekcm:SortDate -1
METS:amdSec
METS:digiprovMD AMD_DAITSS
DAITSS
daitss:daitss
daitss:AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT PROJECT UFDC
METS:fileSec
METS:fileGrp USE reference
METS:file GROUPID G1 J1 imagejpeg SIZE 67390
METS:FLocat LOCTYPE OTHERLOCTYPE SYSTEM xlink:href formulationofins00bern_Page_001.jpg
G2 J2 41210
formulationofins00bern_Page_002.jpg
G3 J3 35853
formulationofins00bern_Page_003.jpg
G4 J4 42553
formulationofins00bern_Page_004.jpg
G5 J5 203049
formulationofins00bern_Page_005.jpg
G6 J6 195115
formulationofins00bern_Page_006.jpg
G7 J7 85744
formulationofins00bern_Page_007.jpg
G8 J8 193871
formulationofins00bern_Page_008.jpg
G9 J9 250104
formulationofins00bern_Page_009.jpg
G10 J10 236953
formulationofins00bern_Page_010.jpg
G11 J11 267378
formulationofins00bern_Page_011.jpg
G12 J12 252560
formulationofins00bern_Page_012.jpg
G13 J13 269524
formulationofins00bern_Page_013.jpg
G14 J14 279643
formulationofins00bern_Page_014.jpg
G15 J15 281492
formulationofins00bern_Page_015.jpg
G16 J16 278443
formulationofins00bern_Page_016.jpg
G17 J17 237230
formulationofins00bern_Page_017.jpg
G18 J18 261921
formulationofins00bern_Page_018.jpg
G19 J19 281201
formulationofins00bern_Page_019.jpg
G20 J20 263065
formulationofins00bern_Page_020.jpg
G21 J21 270164
formulationofins00bern_Page_021.jpg
G22 J22 265373
formulationofins00bern_Page_022.jpg
G23 J23 273284
formulationofins00bern_Page_023.jpg
G24 J24 276365
formulationofins00bern_Page_024.jpg
G25 J25 272707
formulationofins00bern_Page_025.jpg
G26 J26 274197
formulationofins00bern_Page_026.jpg
G27 J27 280937
formulationofins00bern_Page_027.jpg
G28 J28 257396
formulationofins00bern_Page_028.jpg
G29 J29 265204
formulationofins00bern_Page_029.jpg
G30 J30 270986
formulationofins00bern_Page_030.jpg
G31 J31 264176
formulationofins00bern_Page_031.jpg
G32 J32 274349
formulationofins00bern_Page_032.jpg
G33 J33 275320
formulationofins00bern_Page_033.jpg
G34 J34 274990
formulationofins00bern_Page_034.jpg
G35 J35 269981
formulationofins00bern_Page_035.jpg
G36 J36 266464
formulationofins00bern_Page_036.jpg
G37 J37 262491
formulationofins00bern_Page_037.jpg
G38 J38 276812
formulationofins00bern_Page_038.jpg
G39 J39 263179
formulationofins00bern_Page_039.jpg
G40 J40 218972
formulationofins00bern_Page_040.jpg
G41 J41 68273
formulationofins00bern_Page_041.jpg
G42 J42 193538
formulationofins00bern_Page_042.jpg
G43 J43 274209
formulationofins00bern_Page_043.jpg
G44 J44 243992
formulationofins00bern_Page_044.jpg
G45 J45 281668
formulationofins00bern_Page_045.jpg
G46 J46 172611
formulationofins00bern_Page_046.jpg
G47 J47 221395
formulationofins00bern_Page_047.jpg
G48 J48 171570
formulationofins00bern_Page_048.jpg
G49 J49 99217
formulationofins00bern_Page_049.jpg
G50 J50 209382
formulationofins00bern_Page_050.jpg
G51 J51 192202
formulationofins00bern_Page_051.jpg
G52 J52 212246
formulationofins00bern_Page_052.jpg
G53 J53 185846
formulationofins00bern_Page_053.jpg
G54 J54 102460
formulationofins00bern_Page_054.jpg
G55 J55 203895
formulationofins00bern_Page_055.jpg
G56 J56 181098
formulationofins00bern_Page_056.jpg
G57 J57 115671
formulationofins00bern_Page_057.jpg
G58 J58 266610
formulationofins00bern_Page_058.jpg
G59 J59 145072
formulationofins00bern_Page_059.jpg
G60 J60 83133
formulationofins00bern_Page_060.jpg
G61 J61 248762
formulationofins00bern_Page_061.jpg
G62 J62 274155
formulationofins00bern_Page_062.jpg
G63 J63 151567
formulationofins00bern_Page_063.jpg
G64 J64 208051
formulationofins00bern_Page_064.jpg
G65 J65 275337
formulationofins00bern_Page_065.jpg
G66 J66 124615
formulationofins00bern_Page_066.jpg
G67 J67 272650
formulationofins00bern_Page_067.jpg
G68 J68 169731
formulationofins00bern_Page_068.jpg
G69 J69 207727
formulationofins00bern_Page_069.jpg
G70 J70 166005
formulationofins00bern_Page_070.jpg
G71 J71 279296
formulationofins00bern_Page_071.jpg
G72 J72 250542
formulationofins00bern_Page_072.jpg
G73 J73 133385
formulationofins00bern_Page_073.jpg
G74 J74 222150
formulationofins00bern_Page_074.jpg
G75 J75 269349
formulationofins00bern_Page_075.jpg
G76 J76 259520
formulationofins00bern_Page_076.jpg
G77 J77 264972
formulationofins00bern_Page_077.jpg
G78 J78 265349
formulationofins00bern_Page_078.jpg
G79 J79 265565
formulationofins00bern_Page_079.jpg
G80 J80 268279
formulationofins00bern_Page_080.jpg
G81 J81 252301
formulationofins00bern_Page_081.jpg
G82 J82 220075
formulationofins00bern_Page_082.jpg
G83 J83 222327
formulationofins00bern_Page_083.jpg
G84 J84 223141
formulationofins00bern_Page_084.jpg
G85 J85 272014
formulationofins00bern_Page_085.jpg
G86 J86 260297
formulationofins00bern_Page_086.jpg
G87 J87 259515
formulationofins00bern_Page_087.jpg
G88 J88 258231
formulationofins00bern_Page_088.jpg
G89 J89 268490
formulationofins00bern_Page_089.jpg
G90 J90 252286
formulationofins00bern_Page_090.jpg
G91 J91 269624
formulationofins00bern_Page_091.jpg
G92 J92 259691
formulationofins00bern_Page_092.jpg
G93 J93 161730
formulationofins00bern_Page_093.jpg
G94 J94 188635
formulationofins00bern_Page_094.jpg
G95 J95 121057
formulationofins00bern_Page_095.jpg
G96 J96 93562
formulationofins00bern_Page_096.jpg
G97 J97 150270
formulationofins00bern_Page_097.jpg
G98 J98 46603
formulationofins00bern_Page_098.jpg
G99 J99 194508
formulationofins00bern_Page_099.jpg
G100 J100 216670
formulationofins00bern_Page_100.jpg
G101 J101 205655
formulationofins00bern_Page_101.jpg
G102 J102 71150
formulationofins00bern_Page_102.jpg
G103 J103 176664
formulationofins00bern_Page_103.jpg
G104 J104 127389
formulationofins00bern_Page_104.jpg
G105 J105 123614
formulationofins00bern_Page_105.jpg
G106 J106 96267
formulationofins00bern_Page_106.jpg
G107 J107 248957
formulationofins00bern_Page_107.jpg
G108 J108 284735
formulationofins00bern_Page_108.jpg
G109 J109 278125
formulationofins00bern_Page_109.jpg
G110 J110 303130
formulationofins00bern_Page_110.jpg
G111 J111 288263
formulationofins00bern_Page_111.jpg
G112 J112 300518
formulationofins00bern_Page_112.jpg
G113 J113 222154
formulationofins00bern_Page_113.jpg
G114 J114 198669
formulationofins00bern_Page_114.jpg
G115 J115 190220
formulationofins00bern_Page_115.jpg
G116 J116 120088
formulationofins00bern_Page_116.jpg
E1 imagejp2 172497
formulationofins00bern_Page_001.jp2
E2 85072
formulationofins00bern_Page_002.jp2
E3 63370
formulationofins00bern_Page_003.jp2
E4 87836
formulationofins00bern_Page_004.jp2
E5 534254
formulationofins00bern_Page_005.jp2
E6 534267
formulationofins00bern_Page_006.jp2
E7 220654
formulationofins00bern_Page_007.jp2
E8 533099
formulationofins00bern_Page_008.jp2
E9 534328
formulationofins00bern_Page_009.jp2
E10 534318
formulationofins00bern_Page_010.jp2
E11 534279
formulationofins00bern_Page_011.jp2
E12 534305
formulationofins00bern_Page_012.jp2
E13 534325
formulationofins00bern_Page_013.jp2
E14 534308
formulationofins00bern_Page_014.jp2
E15 533456
formulationofins00bern_Page_015.jp2
E16 534276
formulationofins00bern_Page_016.jp2
E17 533445
formulationofins00bern_Page_017.jp2
E18 534315
formulationofins00bern_Page_018.jp2
E19 534327
formulationofins00bern_Page_019.jp2
E20 533455
formulationofins00bern_Page_020.jp2
E21 535550
formulationofins00bern_Page_021.jp2
E22 534662
formulationofins00bern_Page_022.jp2
E23 534684
formulationofins00bern_Page_023.jp2
E24 535552
formulationofins00bern_Page_024.jp2
E25
formulationofins00bern_Page_025.jp2
E26 534678
formulationofins00bern_Page_026.jp2
E27 535553
formulationofins00bern_Page_027.jp2
E28 534656
formulationofins00bern_Page_028.jp2
E29 534659
formulationofins00bern_Page_029.jp2
E30 535519
formulationofins00bern_Page_030.jp2
E31 535548
formulationofins00bern_Page_031.jp2
E32 535889
formulationofins00bern_Page_032.jp2
E33 536761
formulationofins00bern_Page_033.jp2
E34 535873
formulationofins00bern_Page_034.jp2
E35 535859
formulationofins00bern_Page_035.jp2
E36 535894
formulationofins00bern_Page_036.jp2
E37 535878
formulationofins00bern_Page_037.jp2
E38 533941
formulationofins00bern_Page_038.jp2
E39 535827
formulationofins00bern_Page_039.jp2
E40 537124
formulationofins00bern_Page_040.jp2
E41 168243
formulationofins00bern_Page_041.jp2
E42 537109
formulationofins00bern_Page_042.jp2
E43 538012
formulationofins00bern_Page_043.jp2
E44 537141
formulationofins00bern_Page_044.jp2
E45 537990
formulationofins00bern_Page_045.jp2
E46 499841
formulationofins00bern_Page_046.jp2
E47 537128
formulationofins00bern_Page_047.jp2
E48 505715
formulationofins00bern_Page_048.jp2
E49 273652
formulationofins00bern_Page_049.jp2
E50 537575
formulationofins00bern_Page_050.jp2
E51 538672
formulationofins00bern_Page_051.jp2
E52 537559
formulationofins00bern_Page_052.jp2
E53 537490
formulationofins00bern_Page_053.jp2
E54 280995
formulationofins00bern_Page_054.jp2
E55 537574
formulationofins00bern_Page_055.jp2
E56 538776
formulationofins00bern_Page_056.jp2
E57 326549
formulationofins00bern_Page_057.jp2
E58 538777
formulationofins00bern_Page_058.jp2
E59 427123
formulationofins00bern_Page_059.jp2
E60 220491
formulationofins00bern_Page_060.jp2
E61 539985
formulationofins00bern_Page_061.jp2
E62 540002
formulationofins00bern_Page_062.jp2
E63 444743
formulationofins00bern_Page_063.jp2
E64 540024
formulationofins00bern_Page_064.jp2
E65 540017
formulationofins00bern_Page_065.jp2
E66 345079
formulationofins00bern_Page_066.jp2
E67 539997
formulationofins00bern_Page_067.jp2
E68 496343
formulationofins00bern_Page_068.jp2
E69 539988
formulationofins00bern_Page_069.jp2
E70 493785
formulationofins00bern_Page_070.jp2
E71 541152
formulationofins00bern_Page_071.jp2
E72 541207
formulationofins00bern_Page_072.jp2
E73 367573
formulationofins00bern_Page_073.jp2
E74 541249
formulationofins00bern_Page_074.jp2
E75 541238
formulationofins00bern_Page_075.jp2
E76 541246
formulationofins00bern_Page_076.jp2
E77 542468
formulationofins00bern_Page_077.jp2
E78 542425
formulationofins00bern_Page_078.jp2
E79 542449
formulationofins00bern_Page_079.jp2
E80 542433
formulationofins00bern_Page_080.jp2
E81 543582
formulationofins00bern_Page_081.jp2
E82 543685
formulationofins00bern_Page_082.jp2
E83 544812
formulationofins00bern_Page_083.jp2
E84 543693
formulationofins00bern_Page_084.jp2
E85 543703
formulationofins00bern_Page_085.jp2
E86 544813
formulationofins00bern_Page_086.jp2
E87 545232
formulationofins00bern_Page_087.jp2
E88 546332
formulationofins00bern_Page_088.jp2
E89 546347
formulationofins00bern_Page_089.jp2
E90 546346
formulationofins00bern_Page_090.jp2
E91 547555
formulationofins00bern_Page_091.jp2
E92 547567
formulationofins00bern_Page_092.jp2
E93 465034
formulationofins00bern_Page_093.jp2
E94 546443
formulationofins00bern_Page_094.jp2
E95 341313
formulationofins00bern_Page_095.jp2
E96 251569
formulationofins00bern_Page_096.jp2
E97 452375
formulationofins00bern_Page_097.jp2
E98 99012
formulationofins00bern_Page_098.jp2
E99 548792
formulationofins00bern_Page_099.jp2
E100 549999
formulationofins00bern_Page_100.jp2
E101 550007
formulationofins00bern_Page_101.jp2
E102 170910
formulationofins00bern_Page_102.jp2
E103 524761
formulationofins00bern_Page_103.jp2
E104 342822
formulationofins00bern_Page_104.jp2
E105 339057
formulationofins00bern_Page_105.jp2
E106 257181
formulationofins00bern_Page_106.jp2
E107 552444
formulationofins00bern_Page_107.jp2
E108 552482
formulationofins00bern_Page_108.jp2
E109 553995
formulationofins00bern_Page_109.jp2
E110 554067
formulationofins00bern_Page_110.jp2
E111 555193
formulationofins00bern_Page_111.jp2
E112 555333
formulationofins00bern_Page_112.jp2
E113 555236
formulationofins00bern_Page_113.jp2
E114 557673
formulationofins00bern_Page_114.jp2
E115 556561
formulationofins00bern_Page_115.jp2
E116 349990
formulationofins00bern_Page_116.jp2
archive
F1 imagetiff 6.0 4253402
formulationofins00bern_Page_001.tif
F2
formulationofins00bern_Page_002.tif
F3 4269024
formulationofins00bern_Page_003.tif
F4 4271900
formulationofins00bern_Page_004.tif
F5 4278860
formulationofins00bern_Page_005.tif
F6
formulationofins00bern_Page_006.tif
F7
formulationofins00bern_Page_007.tif
F8
formulationofins00bern_Page_008.tif
F9
formulationofins00bern_Page_009.tif
F10
formulationofins00bern_Page_010.tif
F11
formulationofins00bern_Page_011.tif
F12
formulationofins00bern_Page_012.tif
F13
formulationofins00bern_Page_013.tif
F14
formulationofins00bern_Page_014.tif
F15
formulationofins00bern_Page_015.tif
F16
formulationofins00bern_Page_016.tif
F17
formulationofins00bern_Page_017.tif
F18
formulationofins00bern_Page_018.tif
F19
formulationofins00bern_Page_019.tif
F20
formulationofins00bern_Page_020.tif
F21 4288696
formulationofins00bern_Page_021.tif
F22 4281720
formulationofins00bern_Page_022.tif
F23
formulationofins00bern_Page_023.tif
F24
formulationofins00bern_Page_024.tif
F25
formulationofins00bern_Page_025.tif
F26
formulationofins00bern_Page_026.tif
F27
formulationofins00bern_Page_027.tif
F28
formulationofins00bern_Page_028.tif
F29
formulationofins00bern_Page_029.tif
F30
formulationofins00bern_Page_030.tif
F31
formulationofins00bern_Page_031.tif
F32 4291540
formulationofins00bern_Page_032.tif
F33 4298532
formulationofins00bern_Page_033.tif
F34
formulationofins00bern_Page_034.tif
F35
formulationofins00bern_Page_035.tif
F36
formulationofins00bern_Page_036.tif
F37
formulationofins00bern_Page_037.tif
F38 4275810
formulationofins00bern_Page_038.tif
F39
formulationofins00bern_Page_039.tif
F40 4301360
formulationofins00bern_Page_040.tif
F41 4308368
formulationofins00bern_Page_041.tif
F42
formulationofins00bern_Page_042.tif
F43
formulationofins00bern_Page_043.tif
F44
formulationofins00bern_Page_044.tif
F45
formulationofins00bern_Page_045.tif
F46 4320664
formulationofins00bern_Page_046.tif
F47
formulationofins00bern_Page_047.tif
F48 4313636
formulationofins00bern_Page_048.tif
F49
formulationofins00bern_Page_049.tif
F50 4304852
formulationofins00bern_Page_050.tif
F51
formulationofins00bern_Page_051.tif
F52
formulationofins00bern_Page_052.tif
F53
formulationofins00bern_Page_053.tif
F54
formulationofins00bern_Page_054.tif
F55
formulationofins00bern_Page_055.tif
F56 4314652
formulationofins00bern_Page_056.tif
F57
formulationofins00bern_Page_057.tif
F58
formulationofins00bern_Page_058.tif
F59
formulationofins00bern_Page_059.tif
F60
formulationofins00bern_Page_060.tif
F61 4324452
formulationofins00bern_Page_061.tif
F62
formulationofins00bern_Page_062.tif
F63
formulationofins00bern_Page_063.tif
F64
formulationofins00bern_Page_064.tif
F65
formulationofins00bern_Page_065.tif
F66
formulationofins00bern_Page_066.tif
F67
formulationofins00bern_Page_067.tif
F68
formulationofins00bern_Page_068.tif
F69
formulationofins00bern_Page_069.tif
F70 4334252
formulationofins00bern_Page_070.tif
F71
formulationofins00bern_Page_071.tif
F72
formulationofins00bern_Page_072.tif
F73
formulationofins00bern_Page_073.tif
F74
formulationofins00bern_Page_074.tif
F75
formulationofins00bern_Page_075.tif
F76
formulationofins00bern_Page_076.tif
F77 4344052
formulationofins00bern_Page_077.tif
F78
formulationofins00bern_Page_078.tif
F79
formulationofins00bern_Page_079.tif
F80
formulationofins00bern_Page_080.tif
F81 4352916
formulationofins00bern_Page_081.tif
F82 4353852
formulationofins00bern_Page_082.tif
F83 4362736
formulationofins00bern_Page_083.tif
F84
formulationofins00bern_Page_084.tif
F85
formulationofins00bern_Page_085.tif
F86
formulationofins00bern_Page_086.tif
F87 4366102
formulationofins00bern_Page_087.tif
F88 4375010
formulationofins00bern_Page_088.tif
F89
formulationofins00bern_Page_089.tif
F90
formulationofins00bern_Page_090.tif
F91 4384830
formulationofins00bern_Page_091.tif
F92
formulationofins00bern_Page_092.tif
F93
formulationofins00bern_Page_093.tif
F94 4375902
formulationofins00bern_Page_094.tif
F95 4394650
formulationofins00bern_Page_095.tif
F96
formulationofins00bern_Page_096.tif
F97
formulationofins00bern_Page_097.tif
F98
formulationofins00bern_Page_098.tif
F99
formulationofins00bern_Page_099.tif
F100 4404470
formulationofins00bern_Page_100.tif
F101
formulationofins00bern_Page_101.tif
F102 4414290
formulationofins00bern_Page_102.tif
F103
formulationofins00bern_Page_103.tif
F104
formulationofins00bern_Page_104.tif
F105 4424110
formulationofins00bern_Page_105.tif
F106
formulationofins00bern_Page_106.tif
F107
formulationofins00bern_Page_107.tif
F108
formulationofins00bern_Page_108.tif
F109 4436386
formulationofins00bern_Page_109.tif
F110 4437152
formulationofins00bern_Page_110.tif
F111 4446206
formulationofins00bern_Page_111.tif
F112 4446952
formulationofins00bern_Page_112.tif
F113
formulationofins00bern_Page_113.tif
F114 4465846
formulationofins00bern_Page_114.tif
F115 4456752
formulationofins00bern_Page_115.tif
F116
formulationofins00bern_Page_116.tif
R1 textx-pro 7880
formulationofins00bern_Page_001.pro
R3 1290
formulationofins00bern_Page_003.pro
R4 2905
formulationofins00bern_Page_004.pro
R5 32377
formulationofins00bern_Page_005.pro
R6 46145
formulationofins00bern_Page_006.pro
R7 14114
formulationofins00bern_Page_007.pro
R8 30121
formulationofins00bern_Page_008.pro
R9 39217
formulationofins00bern_Page_009.pro
R10 36917
formulationofins00bern_Page_010.pro
R11 42182
formulationofins00bern_Page_011.pro
R12 40105
formulationofins00bern_Page_012.pro
R13 44156
formulationofins00bern_Page_013.pro
R14 43938
formulationofins00bern_Page_014.pro
R15 45119
formulationofins00bern_Page_015.pro
R16 43293
formulationofins00bern_Page_016.pro
R17 37299
formulationofins00bern_Page_017.pro
R18 41073
formulationofins00bern_Page_018.pro
R19 44513
formulationofins00bern_Page_019.pro
R20 42904
formulationofins00bern_Page_020.pro
R21 40408
formulationofins00bern_Page_021.pro
R22 43233
formulationofins00bern_Page_022.pro
R23 44288
formulationofins00bern_Page_023.pro
R24 44941
formulationofins00bern_Page_024.pro
R25 44280
formulationofins00bern_Page_025.pro
R26 44489
formulationofins00bern_Page_026.pro
R27 45130
formulationofins00bern_Page_027.pro
R28 41948
formulationofins00bern_Page_028.pro
R29 43171
formulationofins00bern_Page_029.pro
R30 44378
formulationofins00bern_Page_030.pro
R31 42014
formulationofins00bern_Page_031.pro
R32 44951
formulationofins00bern_Page_032.pro
R33 44189
formulationofins00bern_Page_033.pro
R34 44139
formulationofins00bern_Page_034.pro
R35 42954
formulationofins00bern_Page_035.pro
R36 42096
formulationofins00bern_Page_036.pro
R37 41950
formulationofins00bern_Page_037.pro
R38 45046
formulationofins00bern_Page_038.pro
R39 42571
formulationofins00bern_Page_039.pro
R40 34136
formulationofins00bern_Page_040.pro
R41 7121
formulationofins00bern_Page_041.pro
R42 28458
formulationofins00bern_Page_042.pro
R43 44792
formulationofins00bern_Page_043.pro
R44 38426
formulationofins00bern_Page_044.pro
R45 45480
formulationofins00bern_Page_045.pro
R46 26720
formulationofins00bern_Page_046.pro
R47 34362
formulationofins00bern_Page_047.pro
R48 48141
formulationofins00bern_Page_048.pro
R49 20756
formulationofins00bern_Page_049.pro
R50 33798
formulationofins00bern_Page_050.pro
R51 28765
formulationofins00bern_Page_051.pro
R52 35067
formulationofins00bern_Page_052.pro
R53 48081
formulationofins00bern_Page_053.pro
R54 23571
formulationofins00bern_Page_054.pro
R55 31963
formulationofins00bern_Page_055.pro
R56 50840
formulationofins00bern_Page_056.pro
R57 17140
formulationofins00bern_Page_057.pro
R58 43767
formulationofins00bern_Page_058.pro
R59 44896
formulationofins00bern_Page_059.pro
R60 5996
formulationofins00bern_Page_060.pro
R61 40951
formulationofins00bern_Page_061.pro
R62 44619
formulationofins00bern_Page_062.pro
R63 26972
formulationofins00bern_Page_063.pro
R64 34552
formulationofins00bern_Page_064.pro
R65 43669
formulationofins00bern_Page_065.pro
R66 20844
formulationofins00bern_Page_066.pro
R67 44677
formulationofins00bern_Page_067.pro
R68 26922
formulationofins00bern_Page_068.pro
R69 34097
formulationofins00bern_Page_069.pro
R70 28842
formulationofins00bern_Page_070.pro
R71 45102
formulationofins00bern_Page_071.pro
R72 40981
formulationofins00bern_Page_072.pro
R73 18306
formulationofins00bern_Page_073.pro
R74 35949
formulationofins00bern_Page_074.pro
R75 43895
formulationofins00bern_Page_075.pro
R76 43223
formulationofins00bern_Page_076.pro
R77 43786
formulationofins00bern_Page_077.pro
R78 44157
formulationofins00bern_Page_078.pro
R79 43964
formulationofins00bern_Page_079.pro
R80 44132
formulationofins00bern_Page_080.pro
R81 41555
formulationofins00bern_Page_081.pro
R82 38069
formulationofins00bern_Page_082.pro
R83 35833
formulationofins00bern_Page_083.pro
R84 37221
formulationofins00bern_Page_084.pro
R85 44618
formulationofins00bern_Page_085.pro
R86 42601
formulationofins00bern_Page_086.pro
R87 42533
formulationofins00bern_Page_087.pro
R88 43050
formulationofins00bern_Page_088.pro
R89 42551
formulationofins00bern_Page_089.pro
R90 42164
formulationofins00bern_Page_090.pro
R91 44736
formulationofins00bern_Page_091.pro
R92 42061
formulationofins00bern_Page_092.pro
R93 23758
formulationofins00bern_Page_093.pro
R94 28966
formulationofins00bern_Page_094.pro
R95 17201
formulationofins00bern_Page_095.pro
R96 10001
formulationofins00bern_Page_096.pro
R97 23263
formulationofins00bern_Page_097.pro
R98 2857
formulationofins00bern_Page_098.pro
R99 30739
formulationofins00bern_Page_099.pro
R100 33385
formulationofins00bern_Page_100.pro
R101 33645
formulationofins00bern_Page_101.pro
R102 6591
formulationofins00bern_Page_102.pro
R103 30151
formulationofins00bern_Page_103.pro
R104 10800
formulationofins00bern_Page_104.pro
R105 30478
formulationofins00bern_Page_105.pro
R106 11396
formulationofins00bern_Page_106.pro
R107 41415
formulationofins00bern_Page_107.pro
R108 48457
formulationofins00bern_Page_108.pro
R109 46791
formulationofins00bern_Page_109.pro
R110 53120
formulationofins00bern_Page_110.pro
R111 49831
formulationofins00bern_Page_111.pro
R112 52728
formulationofins00bern_Page_112.pro
R113 38566
formulationofins00bern_Page_113.pro
R114 31457
formulationofins00bern_Page_114.pro
R115 28300
formulationofins00bern_Page_115.pro
R116 14887
formulationofins00bern_Page_116.pro
T1 textplain 468
formulationofins00bern_Page_001.txt
T3 109
formulationofins00bern_Page_003.txt
T4 167
formulationofins00bern_Page_004.txt
T5 1407
formulationofins00bern_Page_005.txt
T6 2112
formulationofins00bern_Page_006.txt
T7 628
formulationofins00bern_Page_007.txt
T8 1428
formulationofins00bern_Page_008.txt
T9 1646
formulationofins00bern_Page_009.txt
T10 1593
formulationofins00bern_Page_010.txt
T11 1801
formulationofins00bern_Page_011.txt
T12 1714
formulationofins00bern_Page_012.txt
T13 1879
formulationofins00bern_Page_013.txt
T14 1832
formulationofins00bern_Page_014.txt
T15 1921
formulationofins00bern_Page_015.txt
T16 1852
formulationofins00bern_Page_016.txt
T17 1595
formulationofins00bern_Page_017.txt
T18 1761
formulationofins00bern_Page_018.txt
T19 1895
formulationofins00bern_Page_019.txt
T20 1838
formulationofins00bern_Page_020.txt
T21 1744
formulationofins00bern_Page_021.txt
T22 1841
formulationofins00bern_Page_022.txt
T23
formulationofins00bern_Page_023.txt
T24 1907
formulationofins00bern_Page_024.txt
T25
formulationofins00bern_Page_025.txt
T26 1908
formulationofins00bern_Page_026.txt
T27 1915
formulationofins00bern_Page_027.txt
T28 1813
formulationofins00bern_Page_028.txt
T29 1846
formulationofins00bern_Page_029.txt
T30 1891
formulationofins00bern_Page_030.txt
T31 1807
formulationofins00bern_Page_031.txt
T32 1933
formulationofins00bern_Page_032.txt
T33 1894
formulationofins00bern_Page_033.txt
T34 1843
formulationofins00bern_Page_034.txt
T35 1834
formulationofins00bern_Page_035.txt
T36
formulationofins00bern_Page_036.txt
T37 1799
formulationofins00bern_Page_037.txt
T38 1920
formulationofins00bern_Page_038.txt
T39 1823
formulationofins00bern_Page_039.txt
T40 1616
formulationofins00bern_Page_040.txt
T41 336
formulationofins00bern_Page_041.txt
T42 1343
formulationofins00bern_Page_042.txt
T43
formulationofins00bern_Page_043.txt
T44 1688
formulationofins00bern_Page_044.txt
T45 1948
formulationofins00bern_Page_045.txt
T46 1151
formulationofins00bern_Page_046.txt
T47 1523
formulationofins00bern_Page_047.txt
T48 2705
formulationofins00bern_Page_048.txt
T49 1135
formulationofins00bern_Page_049.txt
T50
formulationofins00bern_Page_050.txt
T51 1385
formulationofins00bern_Page_051.txt
T52 1668
formulationofins00bern_Page_052.txt
T53 2824
formulationofins00bern_Page_053.txt
T54 1291
formulationofins00bern_Page_054.txt
T55 1500
formulationofins00bern_Page_055.txt
T56 2835
formulationofins00bern_Page_056.txt
T57 1017
formulationofins00bern_Page_057.txt
T58 1865
formulationofins00bern_Page_058.txt
T59 2699
formulationofins00bern_Page_059.txt
T60 279
formulationofins00bern_Page_060.txt
T61 1748
formulationofins00bern_Page_061.txt
T62 1904
formulationofins00bern_Page_062.txt
T63 1442
formulationofins00bern_Page_063.txt
T64 1581
formulationofins00bern_Page_064.txt
T65 1868
formulationofins00bern_Page_065.txt
T66 1212
formulationofins00bern_Page_066.txt
T67 1902
formulationofins00bern_Page_067.txt
T68 1559
formulationofins00bern_Page_068.txt
T69 1651
formulationofins00bern_Page_069.txt
T70 1794
formulationofins00bern_Page_070.txt
T71 1922
formulationofins00bern_Page_071.txt
T72 1778
formulationofins00bern_Page_072.txt
T73 795
formulationofins00bern_Page_073.txt
T74 1578
formulationofins00bern_Page_074.txt
T75 1931
formulationofins00bern_Page_075.txt
T76 1854
formulationofins00bern_Page_076.txt
T77 1842
formulationofins00bern_Page_077.txt
T78 1837
formulationofins00bern_Page_078.txt
T79 1890
formulationofins00bern_Page_079.txt
T80 1872
formulationofins00bern_Page_080.txt
T81 1784
formulationofins00bern_Page_081.txt
T82 1752
formulationofins00bern_Page_082.txt
T83 1625
formulationofins00bern_Page_083.txt
T84 1662
formulationofins00bern_Page_084.txt
T85
formulationofins00bern_Page_085.txt
T86 1815
formulationofins00bern_Page_086.txt
T87 1820
formulationofins00bern_Page_087.txt
T88 1819
formulationofins00bern_Page_088.txt
T89 1831
formulationofins00bern_Page_089.txt
T90
formulationofins00bern_Page_090.txt
T91 1866
formulationofins00bern_Page_091.txt
T92
formulationofins00bern_Page_092.txt
T93 1029
formulationofins00bern_Page_093.txt
T94
formulationofins00bern_Page_094.txt
T95 814
formulationofins00bern_Page_095.txt
T96 486
formulationofins00bern_Page_096.txt
T97 1126
formulationofins00bern_Page_097.txt
T98 141
formulationofins00bern_Page_098.txt
T99 1412
formulationofins00bern_Page_099.txt
T100 1455
formulationofins00bern_Page_100.txt
T101 1477
formulationofins00bern_Page_101.txt
T102 318
formulationofins00bern_Page_102.txt
T103 1532
formulationofins00bern_Page_103.txt
T104 664
formulationofins00bern_Page_104.txt
T105
formulationofins00bern_Page_105.txt
T106 763
formulationofins00bern_Page_106.txt
T107 1861
formulationofins00bern_Page_107.txt
T108 2122
formulationofins00bern_Page_108.txt
T109 2018
formulationofins00bern_Page_109.txt
T110 2314
formulationofins00bern_Page_110.txt
T111 2175
formulationofins00bern_Page_111.txt
T112 2286
formulationofins00bern_Page_112.txt
T113 1686
formulationofins00bern_Page_113.txt
T114 1339
formulationofins00bern_Page_114.txt
T115
formulationofins00bern_Page_115.txt
T116 742
formulationofins00bern_Page_116.txt
UR1 11952
formulationofins00bern_Page_001thm.jpg
applicationpdf 2355247
formulationofins00bern.pdf
AR1 26905
formulationofins00bern_Page_001.QC.jpg
AR2 17749
formulationofins00bern_Page_002.QC.jpg
AR3 10064
formulationofins00bern_Page_002thm.jpg
AR4 17326
formulationofins00bern_Page_003.QC.jpg
AR5 9626
formulationofins00bern_Page_003thm.jpg
AR6 19401
formulationofins00bern_Page_004.QC.jpg
AR7 10929
formulationofins00bern_Page_004thm.jpg
AR8 82421
formulationofins00bern_Page_005.QC.jpg
AR9 27572
formulationofins00bern_Page_005thm.jpg
AR10 77812
formulationofins00bern_Page_006.QC.jpg
AR11 24177
formulationofins00bern_Page_006thm.jpg
AR12 38737
formulationofins00bern_Page_007.QC.jpg
AR13 14966
formulationofins00bern_Page_007thm.jpg
AR14 72135
formulationofins00bern_Page_008.QC.jpg
AR15 25536
formulationofins00bern_Page_008thm.jpg
AR16 97369
formulationofins00bern_Page_009.QC.jpg
AR17 31537
formulationofins00bern_Page_009thm.jpg
AR18 94972
formulationofins00bern_Page_010.QC.jpg
AR19 30753
formulationofins00bern_Page_010thm.jpg
AR20 105766
formulationofins00bern_Page_011.QC.jpg
AR21 33709
formulationofins00bern_Page_011thm.jpg
AR22 100195
formulationofins00bern_Page_012.QC.jpg
AR23 31798
formulationofins00bern_Page_012thm.jpg
AR24 104934
formulationofins00bern_Page_013.QC.jpg
AR25 34533
formulationofins00bern_Page_013thm.jpg
AR26 110905
formulationofins00bern_Page_014.QC.jpg
AR27 34972
formulationofins00bern_Page_014thm.jpg
AR28 114865
formulationofins00bern_Page_015.QC.jpg
AR29 36043
formulationofins00bern_Page_015thm.jpg
AR30 107238
formulationofins00bern_Page_016.QC.jpg
AR31 33869
formulationofins00bern_Page_016thm.jpg
AR32 93109
formulationofins00bern_Page_017.QC.jpg
AR33 30199
formulationofins00bern_Page_017thm.jpg
AR34 103453
formulationofins00bern_Page_018.QC.jpg
AR35 33118
formulationofins00bern_Page_018thm.jpg
AR36 109097
formulationofins00bern_Page_019.QC.jpg
AR37 34883
formulationofins00bern_Page_019thm.jpg
AR38 101756
formulationofins00bern_Page_020.QC.jpg
AR39 33306
formulationofins00bern_Page_020thm.jpg
AR40 106145
formulationofins00bern_Page_021.QC.jpg
AR41 34096
formulationofins00bern_Page_021thm.jpg
AR42 105055
formulationofins00bern_Page_022.QC.jpg
AR43 33077
formulationofins00bern_Page_022thm.jpg
AR44 107211
formulationofins00bern_Page_023.QC.jpg
AR45 34949
formulationofins00bern_Page_023thm.jpg
AR46 112298
formulationofins00bern_Page_024.QC.jpg
AR47 35788
formulationofins00bern_Page_024thm.jpg
AR48 109115
formulationofins00bern_Page_025.QC.jpg
AR49 33750
formulationofins00bern_Page_025thm.jpg
AR50 106640
formulationofins00bern_Page_026.QC.jpg
AR51 34758
formulationofins00bern_Page_026thm.jpg
AR52 108662
formulationofins00bern_Page_027.QC.jpg
AR53 34296
formulationofins00bern_Page_027thm.jpg
AR54 103225
formulationofins00bern_Page_028.QC.jpg
AR55 33502
formulationofins00bern_Page_028thm.jpg
AR56 102792
formulationofins00bern_Page_029.QC.jpg
AR57 34154
formulationofins00bern_Page_029thm.jpg
AR58 105821
formulationofins00bern_Page_030.QC.jpg
AR59 34670
formulationofins00bern_Page_030thm.jpg
AR60 105189
formulationofins00bern_Page_031.QC.jpg
AR61 33592
formulationofins00bern_Page_031thm.jpg
AR62 109624
formulationofins00bern_Page_032.QC.jpg
AR63 34247
formulationofins00bern_Page_032thm.jpg
AR64 109223
formulationofins00bern_Page_033.QC.jpg
AR65 34678
formulationofins00bern_Page_033thm.jpg
AR66 109779
formulationofins00bern_Page_034.QC.jpg
AR67 35510
formulationofins00bern_Page_034thm.jpg
AR68 105047
formulationofins00bern_Page_035.QC.jpg
AR69 34229
formulationofins00bern_Page_035thm.jpg
AR70 105636
formulationofins00bern_Page_036.QC.jpg
AR71 34035
formulationofins00bern_Page_036thm.jpg
AR72 102808
formulationofins00bern_Page_037.QC.jpg
AR73 34083
formulationofins00bern_Page_037thm.jpg
AR74 109936
formulationofins00bern_Page_038.QC.jpg
AR75 35940
formulationofins00bern_Page_038thm.jpg
AR76 105790
formulationofins00bern_Page_039.QC.jpg
AR77 34601
formulationofins00bern_Page_039thm.jpg
AR78 87563
formulationofins00bern_Page_040.QC.jpg
AR79 30975
formulationofins00bern_Page_040thm.jpg
AR80 28573
formulationofins00bern_Page_041.QC.jpg
AR81 13574
formulationofins00bern_Page_041thm.jpg
AR82 75757
formulationofins00bern_Page_042.QC.jpg
AR83 26967
formulationofins00bern_Page_042thm.jpg
AR84 109646
formulationofins00bern_Page_043.QC.jpg
AR85 35141
formulationofins00bern_Page_043thm.jpg
AR86 96203
formulationofins00bern_Page_044.QC.jpg
AR87 31481
formulationofins00bern_Page_044thm.jpg
AR88 110615
formulationofins00bern_Page_045.QC.jpg
AR89 36074
formulationofins00bern_Page_045thm.jpg
AR90 68709
formulationofins00bern_Page_046.QC.jpg
AR91 24674
formulationofins00bern_Page_046thm.jpg
AR92 85314
formulationofins00bern_Page_047.QC.jpg
AR93 29214
formulationofins00bern_Page_047thm.jpg
AR94 64525
formulationofins00bern_Page_048.QC.jpg
AR95 22178
formulationofins00bern_Page_048thm.jpg
AR96 40045
formulationofins00bern_Page_049.QC.jpg
AR97 16307
formulationofins00bern_Page_049thm.jpg
AR98 83790
formulationofins00bern_Page_050.QC.jpg
AR99 27440
formulationofins00bern_Page_050thm.jpg
AR100 79186
formulationofins00bern_Page_051.QC.jpg
AR101 28917
formulationofins00bern_Page_051thm.jpg
AR102 84559
formulationofins00bern_Page_052.QC.jpg
AR103 28549
formulationofins00bern_Page_052thm.jpg
AR104 69384
formulationofins00bern_Page_053.QC.jpg
AR105 24976
formulationofins00bern_Page_053thm.jpg
AR106 41189
formulationofins00bern_Page_054.QC.jpg
AR107 16724
formulationofins00bern_Page_054thm.jpg
AR108 81817
formulationofins00bern_Page_055.QC.jpg
AR109 26443
formulationofins00bern_Page_055thm.jpg
AR110 68828
formulationofins00bern_Page_056.QC.jpg
AR111 23981
formulationofins00bern_Page_056thm.jpg
AR112 45408
formulationofins00bern_Page_057.QC.jpg
AR113 17949
formulationofins00bern_Page_057thm.jpg
AR114 108524
formulationofins00bern_Page_058.QC.jpg
AR115 34286
formulationofins00bern_Page_058thm.jpg
AR116 58350
formulationofins00bern_Page_059.QC.jpg
AR117 21405
formulationofins00bern_Page_059thm.jpg
AR118 34208
formulationofins00bern_Page_060.QC.jpg
AR119 15577
formulationofins00bern_Page_060thm.jpg
AR120 101922
formulationofins00bern_Page_061.QC.jpg
AR121 33643
formulationofins00bern_Page_061thm.jpg
AR122 109247
formulationofins00bern_Page_062.QC.jpg
AR123 34669
formulationofins00bern_Page_062thm.jpg
AR124 62944
formulationofins00bern_Page_063.QC.jpg
AR125 22714
formulationofins00bern_Page_063thm.jpg
AR126 86448
formulationofins00bern_Page_064.QC.jpg
AR127 29437
formulationofins00bern_Page_064thm.jpg
AR128 106637
formulationofins00bern_Page_065.QC.jpg
AR129 35215
formulationofins00bern_Page_065thm.jpg
AR130 49749
formulationofins00bern_Page_066.QC.jpg
AR131 19733
formulationofins00bern_Page_066thm.jpg
AR132 107755
formulationofins00bern_Page_067.QC.jpg
AR133 34676
formulationofins00bern_Page_067thm.jpg
AR134 67840
formulationofins00bern_Page_068.QC.jpg
AR135 25980
formulationofins00bern_Page_068thm.jpg
AR136 80953
formulationofins00bern_Page_069.QC.jpg
AR137 28776
formulationofins00bern_Page_069thm.jpg
AR138 63687
formulationofins00bern_Page_070.QC.jpg
AR139 23899
formulationofins00bern_Page_070thm.jpg
AR140 108658
formulationofins00bern_Page_071.QC.jpg
AR141 35402
formulationofins00bern_Page_071thm.jpg
AR142 97304
formulationofins00bern_Page_072.QC.jpg
AR143 33334
formulationofins00bern_Page_072thm.jpg
AR144 53293
formulationofins00bern_Page_073.QC.jpg
AR145 20536
formulationofins00bern_Page_073thm.jpg
AR146 88296
formulationofins00bern_Page_074.QC.jpg
AR147 28755
formulationofins00bern_Page_074thm.jpg
AR148 105638
formulationofins00bern_Page_075.QC.jpg
AR149 34420
formulationofins00bern_Page_075thm.jpg
AR150 102904
formulationofins00bern_Page_076.QC.jpg
AR151 33829
formulationofins00bern_Page_076thm.jpg
AR152 104134
formulationofins00bern_Page_077.QC.jpg
AR153 35183
formulationofins00bern_Page_077thm.jpg
AR154 105718
formulationofins00bern_Page_078.QC.jpg
AR155 33090
formulationofins00bern_Page_078thm.jpg
AR156 105586
formulationofins00bern_Page_079.QC.jpg
AR157 34408
formulationofins00bern_Page_079thm.jpg
AR158 103553
formulationofins00bern_Page_080.QC.jpg
AR159 33986
formulationofins00bern_Page_080thm.jpg
AR160 99922
formulationofins00bern_Page_081.QC.jpg
AR161 34075
formulationofins00bern_Page_081thm.jpg
AR162 90021
formulationofins00bern_Page_082.QC.jpg
AR163 30558
formulationofins00bern_Page_082thm.jpg
AR164 87422
formulationofins00bern_Page_083.QC.jpg
AR165 29535
formulationofins00bern_Page_083thm.jpg
AR166 85860
formulationofins00bern_Page_084.QC.jpg
AR167 30116
formulationofins00bern_Page_084thm.jpg
AR168 106503
formulationofins00bern_Page_085.QC.jpg
AR169 34771
formulationofins00bern_Page_085thm.jpg
AR170 101156
formulationofins00bern_Page_086.QC.jpg
AR171 31934
formulationofins00bern_Page_086thm.jpg
AR172 99138
formulationofins00bern_Page_087.QC.jpg
AR173 33719
formulationofins00bern_Page_087thm.jpg
AR174 101947
formulationofins00bern_Page_088.QC.jpg
AR175 32460
formulationofins00bern_Page_088thm.jpg
AR176 101340
formulationofins00bern_Page_089.QC.jpg
AR177 33883
formulationofins00bern_Page_089thm.jpg
AR178 101490
formulationofins00bern_Page_090.QC.jpg
AR179 32308
formulationofins00bern_Page_090thm.jpg
AR180 102600
formulationofins00bern_Page_091.QC.jpg
AR181 33526
formulationofins00bern_Page_091thm.jpg
AR182 100256
formulationofins00bern_Page_092.QC.jpg
AR183 33656
formulationofins00bern_Page_092thm.jpg
AR184 66673
formulationofins00bern_Page_093.QC.jpg
AR185 23644
formulationofins00bern_Page_093thm.jpg
AR186 71976
formulationofins00bern_Page_094.QC.jpg
AR187 26569
formulationofins00bern_Page_094thm.jpg
AR188 55021
formulationofins00bern_Page_095.QC.jpg
AR189 21511
formulationofins00bern_Page_095thm.jpg
AR190 39232
formulationofins00bern_Page_096.QC.jpg
AR191 17358
formulationofins00bern_Page_096thm.jpg
AR192 62338
formulationofins00bern_Page_097.QC.jpg
AR193 24757
formulationofins00bern_Page_097thm.jpg
AR194 22599
formulationofins00bern_Page_098.QC.jpg
AR195 11838
formulationofins00bern_Page_098thm.jpg
AR196 77730
formulationofins00bern_Page_099.QC.jpg
AR197 27210
formulationofins00bern_Page_099thm.jpg
AR198 91923
formulationofins00bern_Page_100.QC.jpg
AR199 30488
formulationofins00bern_Page_100thm.jpg
AR200 86861
formulationofins00bern_Page_101.QC.jpg
AR201 28526
formulationofins00bern_Page_101thm.jpg
AR202 29427
formulationofins00bern_Page_102.QC.jpg
AR203 14417
formulationofins00bern_Page_102thm.jpg
AR204 72810
formulationofins00bern_Page_103.QC.jpg
AR205 27144
formulationofins00bern_Page_103thm.jpg
AR206 60327
formulationofins00bern_Page_104.QC.jpg
AR207 25072
formulationofins00bern_Page_104thm.jpg
AR208 60621
formulationofins00bern_Page_105.QC.jpg
AR209 23887
formulationofins00bern_Page_105thm.jpg
AR210 46581
formulationofins00bern_Page_106.QC.jpg
AR211 20157
formulationofins00bern_Page_106thm.jpg
AR212 89059
formulationofins00bern_Page_107.QC.jpg
AR213 29685
formulationofins00bern_Page_107thm.jpg
AR214 102433
formulationofins00bern_Page_108.QC.jpg
AR215 32668
formulationofins00bern_Page_108thm.jpg
AR216 103307
formulationofins00bern_Page_109.QC.jpg
AR217 34417
formulationofins00bern_Page_109thm.jpg
AR218 108374
formulationofins00bern_Page_110.QC.jpg
AR219 35212
formulationofins00bern_Page_110thm.jpg
AR220 103359
formulationofins00bern_Page_111.QC.jpg
AR221 33632
formulationofins00bern_Page_111thm.jpg
AR222 105342
formulationofins00bern_Page_112.QC.jpg
AR223 35448
formulationofins00bern_Page_112thm.jpg
AR224 79521
formulationofins00bern_Page_113.QC.jpg
AR225 27820
formulationofins00bern_Page_113thm.jpg
AR226 78031
formulationofins00bern_Page_114.QC.jpg
AR227 26876
formulationofins00bern_Page_114thm.jpg
AR228 66661
formulationofins00bern_Page_115.QC.jpg
AR229 23964
formulationofins00bern_Page_115thm.jpg
AR230 43595
formulationofins00bern_Page_116.QC.jpg
AR231 18328
formulationofins00bern_Page_116thm.jpg
AR232 144964
UF00098268_00001.mets
METS:structMap STRUCT1 mixed
METS:div DMDID ORDER 0 main
D1 1 Main
P1 Page i
METS:fptr
P2 i-a 2
P3 ii 3
P4 iii 4
P5 iv 5
P6 v 6
P7 vi 7
P8 vii 8
P9 viii 9
P10 10
P11 11
P12 12
P13 13
P14 14
P15 15
P16 16
P17 17
P18 18
P19 19
P20 20
P21 21
P22 22
P23 23
P24 24
P25 25
P26 26
P27 27
P28 28
P29 29
P30 30
P31 31
P32 32
P33 33
P34 34
P35 35
P36 36
P37 37
P38 38
P39 39
P40 40
P41 41
P42 42
P43 43
P44 44
P45 45
P46 46
P47 47
P48 48
P49 49
P50 50
P51 51
P52 52
P53 53
P54 54
P55 55
P56 56
P57 57
P58 58
P59 59
P60 60
P61 61
P62 62
P63 63
P64 64
P65 65
P66 66
P67 67
P68 68
P69 69
P70 70
P71 71
P72 72
P73 73
P74 74
P75 75
P76 76
P77 77
P78 78
P79 79
P80 80
P81 81
P82 82
P83 83
P84 84
P85 85
P86 86
P87 87
P88 88
P89 89
P90 90
P91 91
P92 92
P93 93
P94 94
P95 95
P96 96
P97 97
P98 98
P99 99
P100 100
P101 101
P102 102
P103 103
P104 104
P105 105
P106 106
P107 107
P108 108
P109
P110 110
P111 111
P112 112
P113 113
P114 114
P115 115
P116 116
METS:behaviorSec VIEWS Options available the user for viewing this item
METS:behavior VIEW1 STRUCTID Default View
METS:mechanism Viewer JPEGs Procedure xlink:type simple xlink:title JPEG_Viewer()
VIEW2 Alternate
zoomable JPEG2000s JP2_Viewer()
VIEW3
Related image viewer shows thumbnails each Related_Image_Viewer()
INTERFACES Banners or interfaces which resource can appear under
INT1 Interface
UFDC_Interface_Loader



PAGE 1

THE FORMULATION OF AN INSTRUMENT TO ASSESS INTERPERSONAL MEANINGS OF SEXUAL EXPERIENCE By DAVID N. BERNSTEIN 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 1982

PAGE 2

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 3 1262 08666 452

PAGE 3

Copyright 1982 by David N. Bernstein

PAGE 4

Dedicated to my father for his support in this venture and to my mother who would have been very proud.

PAGE 5

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my committee chairperson, Dr. Harry Grater, whose provocative questions and insightful comments continually challenged me to reach the upper limits of my creative potential. His friendship and sense of humor were a constant source of encouragement and enjoyment. I would also like to thank my other committee members, Drs. Algina, Froming, Miller, and Nevill for their helpful suggestions. I am \/ery grateful for their support. The ideas contributed by Nina Issenberg were also greatly appreciated as were the time and energy she spent typing the data cards. To Cheryl Phillips, who always seemed to know what was going on, I owe more favors that I can ever repay. I am grateful for her kindness, cheerful outlook, and genuine willingness to listen. Somehow she was always able to smooth the roughest parts of this journey. There is probably no way to endure in a difficult graduate program without good friends. I have been very lucky in this regard. I especially want to thank Jim Ansel, whose warmth and laughter I will miss. To Jim Huber, my alter ego since the beginning, go my sincerest thanks for allowing me to adopt his family as my own. I cannot imagine what the graduate school experience would have been like without him. IV

PAGE 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv ABSTRACT . . vii CHAPTERS I INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 1 A;; Historical Overview 3 Recent Research on Sex 8 Research on the Interpersonal Meaning of Sexual Experience 12 Theories on the Meaning of Sexual Experience .... 19 Instrument Development: Factor Analysis 27 instrument Development: Assessing Reliability and : Validity 28 jHypotheses 31 II METHOD. 33 Subjects 33 ^Procedure. 33 [instruments. . . 35 III RESULTS ... 38 Analysis of the Meaning of Sexual Experience Questionnaire--! I i 38 Analysis of the Meaning of Sexual Experience Questionnaire— IIIa. 42 Sex Differences in the Meaning of Sexual Experience. 56 Summary 63 IV DISCUSSION. ..... 65 The Interpersonal Meanings of Sexual Experience. . . 66 Sex Differences in the Meanings of Sexual Experience 72 General izability of the Results. ... 79 Counseling and Clinical Applications 80 Directions for Future Research ... 81

PAGE 7

APPENDICES PAGE A THE MEANING OF SEXUAL EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIREII I. ... 85 B ADJECTIVES INCLUDED ON THE MEANING OF SEXUAL EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIREII n 88 C SEXUAL FUNCTIONS MEASURE 90 D THE INTERPERSONAL MEANING OF SEXUAL EXPERIENCE ADJECTIVE SCALE 94 REFERENCES. . 98 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . 106 VI

PAGE 8

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 Philosophy THE FORMULATION OF AN INSTRUMENT TO ASSESS INTERPERSONAL MEANINGS OF SEXUAL EXPERIENCE By David N. Bernstein May 1982. ' Chairman: Harry Grater Major Department: Psychology This research attempted to validate an instrument devised to assess interpersonal meanings of sexual experience. Little empirical research has been conducted in this area but there is a consensus in the theoretical literature that dimensions of meaning such as affiliation, dominance, and pleasure do exist for sexual experience, and that they are differentially salient for males and females. It has been suggested that an individual's sexual attitudes and behaviors would be more comprehensible if the meaning that sexual experience has for the person were known as well. The Meaning of Sexual Experience (MOSE) adjective list includes seventy adjectives that are scored on a seven-point scale depending on how descriptive the adjective is of the individual's meaning of sexual experience. A factor analysis of the data collected from 326 vn

PAGE 9

undergraduates at the University of Florida yielded five statistically and conceptually valid dimensions of meaning which were labeled affiliation, inadequate/undesirable, achievement, moral, and erotic dominance. Males' and females' average factor scores were compared and significant differences were found with males scoring higher on achievement and erotic dominance, and females scoring higher on affiliation and moral. No significant difference was found on the inadequate/undesirable dimension.. Another sample, including thirty males and thirty females, completed the MOSE adjective list twice, once for themselves and once as they believed a typical member of the opposite sex would. The self-reports yielded relatively small sex differences on the five meaning dimensions, but substantial differences were found between the self-report perceptions and the perceptions reported by the opposite sex. Both sexes scored themselves higher on the affiliation dimension, for example, than they were scored by the opposite sex. Females scored males highest on erotic dominance and achievement followed by affiliation whereas males scored themselves highest on affiliation followed by achievement and erotic dominance. It was concluded that the validity and reliability of the MOSE were supported. Several research investigations using the newly devised instrument were suggested to provide further support for its validity and to accumulate more informatipn on between group differences with respect to the meanings that emerged in this study. vm

PAGE 10

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Only intthe last hundred years has research in human sexuality become firmly established. The accumulation of knowledge has been punctuated by major breakthroughs such as the works of Ellis (1936, 1942), Freud (1963), Kinsey (1948), Masters and Johnson (1966), all of whom had in common their willingness to challenge social mores by delving into forbidden realms. An area that has not been empirically researched is the interpersonal meaning of the sexual experience. "Meaning" is defined here as the "why" of sex. It describes the needs that an individual satisfies by participating in sexual experiences, and the personality styles adapted in pursuing sexual experience. Terms such as dominance, aggression, and affiliation will describe some of the meanings that may be ascribed to sexual experience. Although some authors have stressed the importance of understanding the meaning that the sexual experience holds for the individual involved, and although many authors list dimensions of meaning, there have been practically no studies validating the various theories. The present study seeks to provide confirming or disconfirming evidence for the existence of some of these hypothesized meanings of sexual experience through: (1) the construction and validation of an Instrument designed to elicit the meanings, and (2) an examination of male-female differences with respect to the instrument. 1

PAGE 11

2 Due to -the paucity of research on this issue, a literature review that focused solely on studies determining the meaning of the sexual experience would be exceedingly brief and not very helpful v It is instructive, however, to review the literature on sexuality for the purpose of inferring the meanings. This can be accomplished in two ways. First, the role that sexuality played in people's lives during any particular historical period can imply dimensions of meaning. Secondly, and especially useful more recently, the types of studies being conducted at any time implye;; both what was deemed important about sexuality and what was deemed permissible to study. The following review combines these types of evidence for the dual purposes of examining how the meaning of sexual experience has changed or remained the same historically, and theorizing what it might be today. The review begins with an historical overview because it is the author's belief that sexual experience can only be meanings fully understood within the context of societal evolution. Following this review, the more recent literature will be discussed to illuminate the types of questions prevalent in today's research and, therefore, to infer the meaning of the sexual experience in today's scientific community. The third section will review theories and hypotheses with respect to the interpersonal meaning of the sexual experience, some of which will form the theoretical underpinnings for this study. As this study focuses on the design and validation of an instrument, the fourth section of this review will discuss literature pertaining to factor analysis, reliability, and validity.

PAGE 12

A:! Historical Overview Early in history, love was not a crucial part of sexual experience. J. McCary (1976) notes that "Christianity, following the Jewish tradition.. ,. ..idealized the purity of love apart from sex. Love of God was the only "pure' love and celibacy became a means of proving one's love for God" (p. 46). Sex was for the purposes of procreation only. Later, the relationship between a knight and a lady whose husband was off-at the Crusades was perceived as romantic love but tended not to include sexual intercourse. Chivalry and chastity were the rules. During the Renaissance, love as an aspect of marriage occurred only accidentally. Not until the 1800's were romantic love and marriage and, therefore, romantic love and sex, gradually blended. McCary cites the Industrial Revolution as the period during which the first attempts were made to combine sex, love, and marriage into one unique experience for men and women. For the first time the interpersonal meaning of sexual experience began to include affiliation or love. During the 1800 's the meaning of sex changed, especially for women, as the Puritan view of the female as sexual temptress gave way to the Victorian view of her inherent purity and innocence (Wilson, Strong, Robbins, & Johns, 1980). Chastity was 1 important for both males and females but the males' chastity resulted from an internal struggle while females simply had no sexual feelings. As scientific materialism replaced religious authority, moral codes were enforced by scientific proof of inevitable disease and insanity rather than

PAGE 13

4 religious warnings of mortal sin. In the 1830's, marriage manuals and books on sexual physiology began to appear. Shade (1978) describes; the Victorian's emphasis on the female's role as guardians of the morals of society but adds that the late Victorians were not quite as repressed as pictured. Evidently, then, the meaning of sexual experience remained different for males and females. It was thought that part of the male's nature was to seek sex whereas the female's role was to allow sex when it was appropriate. Here the dominance and submission themes of sexuality with strong overarching moral themes can be inferred. As will be seen, current theories of the interpersonal meaning of sexual experience often continue to echo these sex differences . The Victorian decency wave lasted through the nineteenth century suppressing information about sexuality and leaving many people uninformed and anxious. Havelock Ellis was among them and his studies on the psychology of sex (Ellis, 1936, 1942) resulted from his discomfort. He states: "I determined that I would make it the main business of my life to get to the real natural facts of sex apart from all would-be moralistic or sentimental notions, and so spare the youth of future generations the trouble and perplexity which this ignorance has caused me" (1936, p. ix). He reasoned that the study of sex should properly be within the domain of science: "Now I do not consider that sexual matters concern the theologian alone, and I deny altogether that he is competent to deal with them" (1936, p. xxix). Ellis' work created a furor and resulted in the arrest, in 1898, of one George Bedborough for selling Ellis' works. Interestingly, Ellis himself was not arrested.

PAGE 14

5 Despite the outcry, the doors to the scientific study of sex had been opened and sexual experience was no longer solely confined to the purview of the moralists. During the early 1900's, Freud (1963) caused changes in the meaning of sexuality by proclaiming it as one of the primary human motivations. He discussed the existencjSf of sexuality in infancy and childhood, and its role in adult emotional problems. He dismissed the Victorian notion that females did not have sexual feelings. The meaning of sexual experience for females could noilonger be restricted to submission and procreation. Although Freud was a benefactor of women in the sense that he supported their sexual feelings, his theories of male-female differences (especially penis envy) were not well received by female theorists and are still a sore spot among today's feminists, with many male theorists concurring. Clara Thompson (1950) wrote that the problems of women's sexual life is not penis envy but cultural attitudes of the unimportance of the female sex drive. Despite the arguments over the validity of Freud's claims, the meaning of sexuality, especially for females, was changed. The sex drive was no longer restricted to men. Freud's theories led to much discussion but, unfortunately, prompted little research, and, although :sexuality was now appropriate for scientific study, it was not until 1947 that sexology, the study of sex, truly emerged with the publication of Kinsey's data on sexual behavior and attitudes (Kinsey et al . , 1948, 1953). Kinsey's work illuminated what was actually occurring and legitimized, by sheer weight of numbers, much ongoing sexual experience. Gecas and Libby (1976) note, however, that one of the greatest shortcomings

PAGE 15

6 in Kinsey's work was his failure to take into account the meanings that sexual activity has for people. Nevertheless, the meaning of sexual experience in the society was again changed, especially the notion that one rarely, if ever, discusses these matters. Bringing sex further into the open seemed to lead inevitably to the cultural demand for competence. LoPiccolo and Herman (1977) write that earlier societal -messages were that sex is good, but only for men, while the post-1 940 's message was that sex is okay for both males and females, and you had better be good at it. They add that "Over time a number of negative themes regarding sexual conduct have emerged; it was seen first as sinful, then as physically dangerous, next as a symptom of psychological immaturity, and finally as a required ability" (p. 182). To the interpersonal meanings of sexual experience previously described we now add competence, mastery, or achievement. Kinsey's research spurred many others to study sexual attitudes and behaviors and the meaning of the sexual experience for the scientific community cametto be: What do people do and under what circumstances do they believe it is proper to do it? As the research grew, sexology gave rise to its own journals, further establishing sex as a scientific field of inquiry. The Journal of Sex Education , edited by Norman Ha ire, and the International Journal of Sexology , edited by A.R. Pi Hay, ceased publication with the death of their editors in the 1950's. In 1957, the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex was founded by Hugo Beigel , Albert Ellis, Henry Guze, Robert V. Sherman, and Hans Lehfeldt, leading to the publication, in 1965, of the first issue of The Journal of Sex Research . Money (1976) describes four current branches of sexology:

PAGE 16

7 experimental and investigative, clinical and therapeutic, education and training, and standards and certification. Closely following the inception of the new journal. Masters and Johnson (1966) published their studies of the physiological and anatomical aspects of sexual response. They presented a case for the similarity of male and female sexual response. By scientifically validating femalesi ability to have orgasms, they extended the performance and achievement meanings of sex to women. Women had gained the right to orgasm, but with the right came the obligation. Through the 1960 's the scientific community was attempting to understand the how, what, where, and when of sex. The acceptance of sex as a valid topic for scientific study helped change the meaning of sexual experience to a more natural and acceptable aspect of life for both men and women. But science had also helped create the current atmosphere wherein people are overly concerned about their performance. Witness Masters and Johnson (1970): "It should be restated that fear of inadequacy is the greatest known deterrent to effective sexual functioning, simply because it so completely distracts the fearful individual from his or her natural responsivity by blocking recognition of sexual stimuli either created by or reflected from the sexual partner" (p. 12-13). The position taken here is not that science caused this performance anxiety but, rather, that there is an interaction between sex as perceived by society and sex as studied by science. Given this assumption, it is important to be aware of how science is studying, sex. The following section examines some of the types of research currently being published.

PAGE 17

Recent Research on Sex A great number of studies have been published as an outgrowth of Kinsey's (1948) work representing a continuing focus on the sexual beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of the culture. The simplest research design is the tabulation of activities or attitudes. Bentler (1968a, 1968b) describes scales which assess the extent to which a male or female has engaged in heterosexual behavior, and Podell and Perkins (1957) use a similar scale to ascertain whether heterosexual experiences can be ordered along a unidimensional , cumulative scale. Similar studies are still being published today. McBride and Ender (1977) sampled college students' sexual behaviors as to which sex is responsible for birth control. and their attitudes initiation of sexual activity, and sexual satisfaction. Mancini and Orthner (1978) computed husbands' and wives' preferences for sexual and affectional activity at different stages in marriage. Attitude data have been compiled for a sufficient amount of time now so that research can examine changes in sex behaviors and attitudes over twenty-five years (Finger, 1975). Related to this line of research are studies which questioned who is responsible for influencing sexual encounters (McCormick, 1979; Laplante, McCormick, & Brannigan, 1980). Generally the stereotypic beliefs that males are expected to use influence strategies for having sex, and females are expected to use strategies for avoiding sex, were supported.

PAGE 18

9 A more complex research design attempts to correlate the abovementioned behaviors and attitudes with other psychological constructs. Androgyny is a corranonly used variable analy2ed in research such as Walfish and Myerson's (1980) study relating sex-role identity to sexual attitudes. Jurich and Jurich (1974) had limited success in their attempt to relate cognitive moral development to premarital sexual standards, and Jurich (1979) was unsuccessful in determining which of several demographic, personality, and environmental variables was the best predictor of premarital sexual standards. Another outgrowth of Kinsey has been the development of assessment scales. A scale for the comparison of attitudes of couples was devised by Foster (1977) in an attempt to determine sexual compatibility',.'. LoPiccolo and Steger (1974) created the Sexual Interaction Inventory using behavior-based items to assess sexual dysfunction. Although this scale has since been used often in other studies, it has been criticized by McCoy and D'Agostino (1977) who report that their factor analysis of the items yields "factor sets which are multiple and essentially psychologically meaningless" (p. 30). Another variable that has been related to sexual attitudes and behaviors is sex guilt. Mosher (1968) reported that it was possible to discriminate subcomponents of guilt such as sexiguilt, and D'Augelli and Cross (1975) found some indications of relationships among sex guilt, moral reasoning, and premarital sex. Gerrard (1980) and Mercer and Kohn (1979) published similar studies again comparing sex guilt to premarital sex.

PAGE 19

10 The attention paid to attitudes and behaviors has uncovered important information, but when attitudes and behaviors become the sole basis for understanding sexuality it is misleading. Kelley (1978), for example, presents a theory of human sexuality that relies on attitudes and behaviors, to the total neglect of the interpersonal meaning of the sexual experience. Using a five-point scale, items such as "I really enjoy sex" and "Strictly from the physical point of view, sex isn't all that enjoyable" are presented. The author, while correctly questioning whether sex is enjoyable to the individual, neglects to ascertain what it is about sex that makes it enjoyable: What does it mean to the individual? Hornick (1978) creates a complex path diagram of a theoretical model of premarital sexual attitudes and behavior including background variables, family and peer group variables, psychological variables such as religiosity and self-esteem, and attitudinal and behavioral variables but, again, omits variables relating to the meaning of sexual experience. The concern with attitudes and behaviors has also ledd to studies examining family dynamics that may lead to sexual activity in adolescents (Young-Hyman, 1977). Kristal (1979) looked at the influence of fatherdaughter relationships in particular. Attitudes toward sexuality have been further studied in research designed to test the efficacy of intervention. Changes in attitudes resulting from courses in human sexuality were assessed by Dearth and Cassell (1976), Zuckerman, Tushup, and Finner (1976), and Story (1979). Changes in attitudes resulting from sex therapy wetcestudied by Clement and Pfafflin (1980). In the latter study, both the men/and women became less sex-role stereotyped

PAGE 20

n in their attitudes. Perhaps the attitude change resulted from or parallelled a change in the interpersonal meaning. Despite a distinct emphasis, sex research has not been confined to attitudes and behaviors. Attempts to understand what stimulates us sexually have led to the study of slide presentations (Sigushi, Schmidt, Reinfeld, and Wiedermann-Sutor, 1970) and fantasies (Hariton and Singer, 1974). Personality variables have also been examined with respect to sexuality. Eysenck (1971a) found extraverts to have earlier and more diverse sexual experiences. In other personality research, the MMPI was used by Husted and Edwards (1976) to correlate personality dimensions with sexual arousal and behavior. They found the important MMPI scales to be depression, social introversion, defensiveness, and experience seeking. Self-actualization has also been; studied with respect to sexual enjoyment (Paxton & Turner, 1978; Waterman, Chiauzzi, & Gruenbaum, 1979). Sexual arousal has also been related to aggression. Barclay (1971) reported that sexual arousal led to increases both in sex motivation and in aggression motivation. Gelles (1975) found men more likely than women to associate sex and \^iolence in fantasies. The above studies represent a sampling of types of research in the field today. The focus is clearly on the what, when, where, and how of sex. But studies of attitudes, behaviors, and physiology, while important, are all somewhat reductionistic in their approach to sex. It is felt by this author that these approaches could become more three-dimensional with the addition of "meaning;" the "why" of sex, to our knowledge of attitudes, behaviors, and physiology. Eysenck

PAGE 21

12 (1971b) pointed out that taking part in a sexual activity is not the same as enjoying it. Certainly ittcould be important to know whether an individual partakes in kissing due to submissiveness or due to affection. The studies that follow have been sifted out because they do, to differing degrees, begin to examine the meaning dimension. Since the interpersonal meaning of sexual experience has not often been directly studied, it has been difficult to differentiate between those studies that do touch on this issue and those that do not. Therefore, no implication is intended that the following studies are clearly discrete from those already discussed. Research on the Interpersonal Meaning of Sexual Experience Schildmyer (1977) combined reports from college students with those from members of community organizations. Over two hundred and fifty subjects were interviewed, ranging in age from sixteen to sixtyfotifi in an attempt to identify variables relating to the positive sexual experience. The psychological components, not the physical components, were found to be the most frequently reported aspect of the positive sexual experience with the primary factor being the quality of the relationship between the two people. In light of current concerns about expertise in technique, it is noteworthy that the physical components were not primary. It also confirms the importance of attending to the psychological variables in research. on sex. Hessellund (1971) attempted to understand the meaning of sex for men and women by questioning the individual's motivations for involving

PAGE 22

13 themselves in coital acts. Hessellund reasoned that this motivation could not simply be relief from physiological tension for, if it was, masturbation would suffice, and it could not be reproduction except in a small fraction of the cases. This reasoning again points to I psychological motives. Open-ended questions were used such as "Give a brief characteristic of your reactions to your first coitus':'.' Females responded negatively to this question much more frequently than did males. By using questions such as the above, the author could only indirectly judge the meaning of the sexual experience, but it was possible to support some sex differences. For example, males more often felt that their first coitus had a great effect on their lives. In another study of male-female differences, Kanin, Davidson, and Scheck (1970) examined the experience of love. The romanticism studied has relevance to the meaning of sexual experience. Males were found to be more romantic in that they tended to experience the feeling of being in love earlier in the relationship. Once in love, however, the stereotyped romantic reactions such as "floating on a cloud" or "having trouble concentrating" were associated m6r?e with the females. Although the authors in this study were not examining sexual experience, anEanalogy may be drawn if the meaning of the sexual experience is found to change over the course of a relationship as did the experiences of love. Perhaps, for example, sexual experiences have one meaning for males when they aremot in love and another when they are. The following two studies questioned peoples' vreasons for having or avoiding sex, and are therefore closer to being precursors to the

PAGE 23

14 current research. Finger's (1975) study has been mentioned previously as a comparison of attitudes and behaviors of males over a twenty-five year period (1943 to 1967). In addition , to attitudes and behaviors, Finger looked at the reasons given for justifying premarital sex. In 1943, male college students gave "acquisition of knowledge and skill" as a justification, believing that sexual skill would increase the likelihood of success of the marriage. Interestingly, those abstaining also justified their behavior as increasing the likelihood of success in marriage but, in this case, due to trust and respect. The students in 1967 added to the earlier justifications the belief ! that the success of the marriage depends on sexual compatibility which therefore should be evaluated in advance. They also added that sex is a pleasant experience, so why wait? Finger notes that although some moral and religious grounds were mentioned in 1943 as reasons for abstinence, almost none were mentioned in 1967. These justifications imply meanings of sexual experience such as competence, trust, pleasure, and morality. Peplau, Rubin, and Hill (1977) found females more likely than males to mention ethical standards (morality) as justifying abstentionnfrom sex. Sex was a more important component of a relationship ) for males and was also more important as a dating goal. This implies some gender differences in the meaning of sex. Interestingly, although thenauthors had hypothesized that sexual satisfaction would be more closely associated with love for females than for males, this difference was not supported. The interpersonal meaning of sexual experience is also important to understand irircases of sexual dysfunction. Kaufman and Krupka (1973),

PAGE 24

15 reporting on a sexual therapy group program at Michigan State University, discuss six dynamic interpersonal processes which produced sexual dysfunction in their clients: (1) Early deprivation of affectional needs leading to the sexual ization of the need for intimacy. This might correspond to a highly affectional meaning of sexual experience. (2) Guilt: In many cases the parents had not given their opposite-sex children permission to seek sexual gratification. Sexual experience had highly moral meanings to these clients. (3) Power struggles: In this situation winning or being right becomes more important than being close. The authors believe this meaning to be rooted in earlier parental relationships. (4) Hostility: Unexpressed anger can lead to impotence, avoidance of sex, lack of orgasm, or a retreat into helplessness. (5) Expectations: A competency meaning of sexual experience can lead to debilitating anxiety. This has been previously noted in a quotation from Masters and Johnson (1970). (6) Adequacy and potency: Closely related to expectations, a feeling of potency may lead to fear of reprisals. People may have not only a fear of adequacy, but also fears of potency. These categories are based on case studies and clinical reports from the groups that were runj They highlight different meanings of sexuality such as morality and affiliation that have becomeooveremphasized to the point of dysfunction. Previously mentioned studies examined ties between sexuality and violence. Libby and Straus (1980) hypothesized that the relationship varies depending on the meaning of sex to the individual. For example, if the meaning of sex is warm and affectionate, the authors believe that high levels of sexual activity will be associated with low levels

PAGE 25

16 of violence, whereas if sex means exploitation and dominance, sex and violence will vary directly. The meanings of sexual experience were determined here by factor analyzing sex items in a questionnaire to create three indices: a Sexual Activity Index, an Affectionate Sex Index, and a Dominant Sex Index. These scores were then combined so as to yield a "net warmth" measure called the Warm Sexual Activity Index. Their own comparison of the Sexual Activity Index with the Violent Acts Index did not yield a correlation coefficient different from zero, but when they used the Warm Sexual Activity Index they were able to plot a nearly linear relationship, especially for men. They had too few women in their study to achieve any meaningful results. The authors concluded that neglecting the meaning of sexual experience could account for the mixed evidence in the literature about the relationship between sex and violence. Factor analysis has been used in two other studies to identify or confirm dimensions related to sexual experience. Farley, Nelson, Knight, and Garcia-Colberg (1977) collected data on sexual attitudes and behaviors, individual differences in stimulation-seeking, personality, and political orientation. A factor analysis yielded six factors for the females and five for the males. Three of the female factors related to sexuality: (1) a "sick" factor, including neurotic conflict over sex, sexual frustration, loss of sex controls; (2) a "Victorian" factor including sexual repression and frigidity; and (3) a "homosexuality" factor. (The names of these factors are written as described by the authors.) The three male factors that related to sexuality were: (1) a "sick" factor almost identical to that for females; (2) an

PAGE 26

17 "unrepressed, heterosexual experience-seeking" factor; and (3) an "ambivalent homosexual extrovert" factor. Interestingly, the intravertextrovert personality variable did not load on the sex factors contradicting Eysenck's (1971a) results discussed earlier. Meanings of sexual experience such as morality, control or lack of control, and pleasure can be inferred from these factors. Nelson (1978) asked students to respond to fifty-six reasons for having sexual relations. Items included "Because it's a way of proving yourself," and "Because sex allows me to feel vulnerable,',' and subjects responded on a four-point scale from "Not important at all" to "Very important:!' A factor analysis of the data yielded five factors: pleasurable stimulation, conformity-acceptance, personal love and affection, power, and recognition-competition. Four of these categories correspond closely to those listed by Apperson (1974); deference (conformity-acceptance), dominance (recognition-competition), affiliation (personal love and affection), and aggression (power). The final study to be reviewed here was the springboard for the current study. Grater and Downing (currently under review) selected five meaning dimensions of sexual experience: morality, affiliation, pleasure, achievement, and dominance. They selected 476 adjectives from the Adjec^tive Checklist (Gough, 1952), the Semantic Differential (Osgood, Sucijand Tannenbaum, 195?), and the Bern Sex-Role Inventory (Bem, 1974) and supplemented these by use of a thesaurus. The adjectives were scored by 302 unmarried college students as to* whether or not each adjective described the students' personal meaning of sexual experience using the categories"yesyv "no,'' or "maybe." In addition, at least

PAGE 27

18 two of three trained judges agreed on which of the dimensions was represented by each adjective. Sixteen adjectives for each of the five dimensions were found to be useful in discriminating among the students. That is, they tended not to fall substantially in either the "yes" or "no" category. The Meaning of Sexual Experience Questionnaire-II included these 80 adjectives. Four additional words that were uniformly scored "yes" were also included to be used as a "lie" scale for detecting invalid response sets. It washhypothesized that males would tend to rate words in the pleasure, achievement and dominance categories as descriptive, while females would tend to choose words In the morality and affiliation categories. Other variables studied included experienced versus non-experienced, and sex role (masculinity, femininity, and androgyny). The results confirmed the males' greater use of achievement adjectives and the females' greater use of affiliation adjectives although the other expected differences were not confirmed. Experienced subjects also tended to use more achievement adjectives whereas, for the non-experienced, sexual experience had a greater moral meaning. This study begins to provide evidence for the existence and utility of these categories, but the authors note that the adjectives must be more carefully evaluated to determine empirically if they are actually tapping the hypothesized meaning dimensions. It is from this suggestion that the current research evolved. Although inferences from some studies are possible, the meaning of sexual experience has rarely been directly assessed as can be judged by the limited number of related studies discussed here. It is therefore necessary to rely more heavily on theories rather than research to

PAGE 28

19 provide a foundation for this study. The following section reviews literature relating different conceptualizations of the interpersonal meaning of sexual experience after which it will be possible to clearly delineate the current research. Theories on the Meaning of Sexual Experience To review the preceding sections, it has been shown that sexology, as a research field, has appeared relatively recently. The history of sexuality indicates a shifting of meanings from early religious traditions, through the age of chivalry, the Victorian age, and the current scientific age. Research to this point has focused to a great extent on sexual attitudes and behaviors, and on the physiology of the human sexual response. Only in the past few years have attempts been made to study, empirically, the meaning of sexual experience. At the Nebraska Symposium on Motivation in 1973, William Simon (1974) said: "In no way that I can see is there a way of establishing the meaning of sexual pleasure . . ." (p. 77). Yet he felt that this meaning had been wrong-^ fully neglected and was \/ery important. He listed aggression, affection, competence, and eroticism as possible meanings. Despite the paucity of research in this area, theorizing has long been active. Havelock Ellis (1936, 1942) wrote at the turn of the century that the sexual emotions of females are more closely associated with the level of the relationship than those of maizes. In addition he wrote: "The masculine tendency is to delight in domination, the feminine tendency is to delight in submission" (Ellis, 1942; p. 82). Whether this remains valid today or not is an empirical question that

PAGE 29

20 can be answered by examining a dominance/submission meaning of sexual experience. Gagnon (1977) describes sexual scripts, a construct that relates easily to meanings of sexual experience. The components of a sexual script include who one does sex with, what one does sexually, when (age or time of day), where, and why humans do approved or disapproved sexual things. All the components of scripts save the last have been included in the attitude and behavior studies. As for the "why'^" Gagnon lists the following reasons for having sex: having kids, pleasure, lust, fun, passion, love, variety, intimacy, rebellion, degradation, instinct/needs, exploitation, relaxationtj achievement, and service. Of these, the first, "having kids;',' pertains relatively infrequently. The others are psychological meanings, and it remains to be verified whether they are all separate or somewhat intercorrelated. Gagnon notes that "in less than a century we have moved from sexuality as reproduction and a pivotal form of conduct in our judgements of good and evil to . . . sex as an expression of emotional intimacy, sex as interpersonal competence, and sex as passion and rebellion" (p. 408). In brief, he has included morality, affection, competence, and rebellion as meanings of sexual experience. In an earlier article on sexual scripts, Gagnon (1974) notes that personal motives are embedded in these scripts. Young males, according to Gagnon, learn that their sexual script calls for male initiation and dominance. Gagnon and Simon (1973) include aggressiveness, achieve-' ment, conquest, and potency in the male script, and romance and attractiveness in the female script. They state, "Rarely do we turn from a

PAGE 30

21 consideration of the organs themselves to the sources of meanings that are attached to them,. ,. ,. and the ways in which, activities are integrated into larger social scripts and social arrangements where meaningsand social behavior come together to create sexual conduct" (p. 5). Sexual scripts can also be applied to Mosher's (1980) theoretical discussion of dimensions of involvement in human sexual response. He views involvement as a complex of psychological processes including the interaction of emotions, cognition, and actions described by three dimensions: sexual role enactment, sexual trance, and engagement with sex partner. The script here depends on the preferred dimension of involvement. Preference for sex role enactment results in playful, adventurous sexual experiences; preference for sexual trance results in very private, self-absorbed sexual experiences; and preference for engagement with partner results in romantic, affectionate sexual experiences. Mosher's theory is \/ery complex and purposefully written to provoke research. Using transactional analysis to examine life scripts, Steiner (1974) writes that sex role scripting creates gaps that limit our potential to become whole human beings. He concludes that men and women therefore feel incomplete without a partner of the opposite sex, implying an interpersonal meaning of sexual experience that might be termed fulfillment or completion. This notion of incompleteness leads Schwartz (1979) to conclude that androgynous humans, as described by Bern (1974), are healthier emotionally. Schwartz believes fulfilling sexual relationships require androgyny but she adds pessimistically that this will require a significant cognitive restructuring in this society.

PAGE 31

22 Looking further at sex differences, Tavris and Offir (1977) argue that "the sexual gap between men and women.. -.. .. is a matter of the two sexes attaching somewhat different meanings to the sexual act" (p. 60). Onecdifferencesthey note is that: "Women, more often than men, use sex to get love; men use love to get sex" (p. 68). Bardwick (1971) discovered that college women admitted accepting sex as the price of a romantic relationship, not participating in it because they physically enjoyed it. It is, in fact, rather common for the interpersonal meaning of sexual experience to be viewed as different for males than for females. Morris (1978) claims that females are more deeply committed to the relational aspects of sex, males to the recreational aspects. The author adds that this may explain some marital conflict. Gross (1978) writes that "Compared to women, men tend . . . to isolate sex from other aspects of heterosexual relating" (p. 92), and adds that men are socialized to goal -orientation, control and power, and aggression and violence as meanings of sex. Pleck (1976) states that two fundamental themes in the male sex role are stress on achievement and suppression of affect. Reik (1960) contends that those who analyze heterosexual relations often fail to distinguish needs for affection from sexual desire and recognize that the first is stronger in women and the second is stronger in men. Meanings of sexual experience for men derive from the fact that "the sexual urge of the male has an aggressive and even a sadistic character, and the wish to intrude the female body amounts to a kind of forceful incursion.. ,. ." (p. 118).

PAGE 32

23 Several other authors have theorized on the interpersonal meanings of sexual experience. Wilson, Strong, Robbins, and Johns (1980) write that "sexual intercourse can be used to: sshow love, have children, give pleasure, receive pleasure, show tenderness, gain revenge, make a commitment, end an argument, gain acceptance, show rejection, prove masculinity/femininity, degrade someone, degrade yourself, touch or be touched. Sex can be used to keep a person interested in you, to relieve loneliness, to dominate another, to make yourself or another feel guilty, to relieve physical tension, to express liking or love" (p. 333-334). They make the claim that, with marriage, the motivation for a sexual relationship changes from ego gratification, including motives of conquest, aggression, and power, to a motivation for mutual personal gratification. They do not explain what it is about marriage that foments this change. Observing the sexual revolution from a psychoanalytic viewpoint, Gershman (1978) laments that the "sex revolution is placing too much emphasis on achieving physiological -mechanical success" (p. 149) and adds "In healthy sexuality,. =. ..the relationship is characterized by a measure of affection and mutuality, and a desire to obtain, as well as to give, pleasure" (p. 151). Here the competence, affiliation, and pleasure meanings of sexual experience are expressed in somewhat judgemental terms. Another psychoanalytical viewpoint, expressed by Chodorow (1976), is that "females' apparent romanticism is an emotional and ideological mask for their very real economic dependency" (p. 462). The masculine personality, resulting from much greater cross-parent feelings, comes to be founded more on repression of affect and denial of relational needs.

PAGE 33

24 Gershtnan (1978) above put forth healthy sexuality as representative of mental health. Reich (1973) goes onesstep further regarding healthy sexuality as necessary to physiological health. He therefore decries the moralistic appraisal that views sexuality as an unfortunate concomitant of the preservation of the species. Rather than sexuality being a fucntion of procreation, Reich contends that procreation is only one function of sexuality. Reich's contention that orgasms lead to tension reduction and are therefore necessary to physical health does not necessarily explain why intercourse is different from masturbation, but he presents a strong case for sexual gratification as opposed to sexual repression. Operating from the constructs of symbolic interact ion ism, Gecas and Libby (1976) see sexual experiences as being created by sexual symbolism. They use the language of sexual interaction as symbolic evidence for four "identifiable and coherent philosophies or codes regarding sexual behavior: the traditional -religious, romantic, recreational, and utilitarian-predatory" (p. 37). The authors remark on the paradox that freeing sex from the constraints of religion and romance has elevated enjoyment to the role of primary requirement;. Thus our attention has been focused on technique and mechanics, causing the character of sexual experience to be more like work than play. By freeing sex we are no longer able to take it lightly. Slater (1976) concurs, writing that "the use of an engineering term like 'adequacy' in relation to ahr;act of pleasure exemplifies the American gift for turning everything into a task" (p. 85). The author's position becomes even more cynical with the argument that whereas women are able to love

PAGE 34

25 older, ugly men, men tend to favor only specific females types which is interpreted as evidence that men do not really like women. Whether these rather negative espousals are valid, they raise the issue of sex as work as opposed to sex as play. Comfort (1976) describes the three human uses of sex as: sex for procreation, sex for intimacy, and sex as physical play. He refers to the latter two as relational sex and recreational sex respectively, and contends that contraception has, for the first time, separated the three. Foote (1976) further supports the notion of sex as play, adding that this meaning is not necessarily amoral because any kind of play generates its own morality and values. One of the clearest, most cohesive lists of psychological dimensions of sexuality has been formulated by Mitchell (1972) for adolescents. Included are: (1) The need for intimacy: Sex behavior fosters an openness which facilitates intimacy at other levels; not the reverse as commonly believed. (2) The need for belonging: Included in Maslow's hierarchy and Murray's list of psychological needs, the need for belonging differs from the need for intimacy in that it does not hive to be experienced directly. (3) The desire for dominance: This refers both to Fromm's need for dominance in daily living, and Adler's compensatory strivings resulting from feelings of inferiority. (4) The desire for submissiveness: Being submissive allows other needs such as intimacy to be met, especially for women. (5) Curiosity and competency motives. (6) Desire for passion and intensity: Everything about an adolescent's style is intense. Nothing is paced. (7) Identification and imitation: Exposure to the media not only presents models but can also be sexually

PAGE 35

26 arousing in itself. (8) Rebelliousness and negative identity: Although not believed by the author to be a major motive in adolescent sex, negative identity, as used by Erikson, describes a type of drive satisfaction obtained by engaging in behavior that is contrary to what is desired or expected. The above model is excellent but it must be added that adolescents are in a transitory phase of life and their sexual motives may be very changeable. Schoof-Tams, Schlaegel, and Walczak (1976) present a cognitive^developmental model of sexual morality between 11 and 16 years of age. They believe that eleven year olds tend to be more traditional, viewingssexuality as mainly for procreation and not to be engaged in until after marriagel By fifteen or sixteen, adolescents are much more permissive, seeing sexuality as governed by love and fidelity. The authors relate this to the transition from Kohl berg's conventional to post-conventional stage of morality which I is also believed to rely on cognitive development. One wonders, however, if this might also be related to some biological changes occurring during this period making sexual needs and desires more a reality and less of a philosophical issue. The above theories all hypothesize meanings of sexual experience, but Heath (1978) notes that few scientific studies of the psychological meaning of sexuality have been published. Heath goes on to challenge: "Not until researchers are willing to explore more systematically and as conscientiously the subjective psychological meanings of different sexual experiences, and not just their frequency or physiology, will we secure the information necessary to understand more objectively the

PAGE 36

11 significance of sexuality to the psychological health and continued maturing of a person" (p. 475). This study begins to respond to that challenge. It attempts to lend supporting evidence (to some of the psychological meanings of sexual experience that have been the focus of the above theories by devising an instrument to measure a person's preference for the different meanings. In addition. Sex differences are examined in terms of whether males and females differentially describe their personal meanings of sexual experience. Since the greatest portion of this study is the development of an instrument to measure the interpersonal meaning of sexual experience, it is important to review theories of instrument design and validation. The following sections outline relevant literature on factor analysis, the procedure to be used in designing the instrument, and on assessing reliability and validity of instruments. Instrument Development: Factor Analysis A major issue that arises in the literature on factor analysis is the number of subjects needed for a stable analysis. Comrey (1978) i suggests using at least five times the number of variables as expected factors and at least 200 subjects. Other sources vary in the recommended number of subjects between five and ten subjects per item (Nunnally, 1978). As for the scale itself, Comrey (1978) suggests that a sevenpoint scale is most appropriate for factor analysis, and that the items should be selected to fit the hypothesized factor structure. There is some disagreement as to whether factor analysis is the best technique for data analysis. Loevinger (1948) prefers a technique of homogeneous

PAGE 37

28 tests, claiming that it involvessless work and more plausible hypoth6ses't3 and Nunnally (1978) warns that "one important reason for not beginning test construction with factor analysis is that such analyses are seldom highly successful" (p. 275). The advent of computer programs has nullified at least one of Loevinger's objections and has increased the popularity of factor analysis. Instrument Development: Assessing Reliability arid Validity The form of reliability test to be used will be Cronbach's (1951) alpha which is the mean of the distribution of split-half reliability coefficients resulting from different; splittings of a test. Cronbach criticized a simple split-half approach because the reliability coefficient obtained depends on how the test is split. He describes coefficient alpha as a lower bound to the "true reliability." Nunnally (1978) and Stanley (1971) support the use of coefficient alpha as a measure of internal consistency. Nunnally adds that reliability estimated from internal consistency is usually very close to reliability! tested in other ways such as test-retest, and, for the early stages; of research, suggests .70 as the criterion level for alpha. Although most authors separate the issues of reliability and validity, Campbell and Fiske (1959) prefer to conceptualize them as lying along a continuum depending on the degree of independence of approaches used to define the coefficient. Validity requires the convergence of independent measures While reliability, as in the testretest method, requires the convergence of non-independent measures (a test with itself). In this context, the split-half method of

PAGE 38

29 reliability assessment is closer to validity than the test-retest method. There is general agreement on the four types of validity described by the American Psychological Association (1954): content, predictive, concurrent, and construct. Some authors such as Cronbach (1971) prefer to join predictive and concurrent validity in their discussions since both are criterion-oriented validities differing only in their time frame. Predictive validity relies on the correlation that the test scores will have with subsequent criterion measures, while concurrent validity examines the relationship between the test score and criterion scores obtained at the same time. Content validity indicates the basis for claiming the representativeness of the test content. Nunnally (1978) sees a successful factor analysis as providing evidence for content validity. Construct validity has received a jlot of attention in the literature, and is critical to groundbreaking research such as this. The APA (1954) defines construct validity as investigating what psychological qualities an instrument measures. Cronbach (1971) gives three procedures for confirming construct validity: (1) Correlational: Determine how people with high or low scores differ in everyday life or in the lab; (2) Experimental: Attempt tonal ter test performance by some controlled procedure; and (3) Logical analysis of content and scoring. Cronbach and Meehl (1955) regard factor analysis as a most important type of construct validationn since it can be used explicitly to test hypotheses about constructs. Other procedures suggested by those authors include identifying differences between groups on the instrument and, again, studies of change after experimental intervention, for example, a sex education class.

PAGE 39

30 Nunnally (1978) suggests three steps in construct ^validation to be followed in the given order. First, the domain of observables related to the construct should be specified. Second, the extent to which the observables tend to measure the same thing or several different things should be determined from empirical research and statistical analysis. Finally, studies of individual differences and/or controlled experiments should be performed to determine the extent to which supposed measures of the construct produce results which are predictable from highly accepted theoretical hypotheses concerning the construct. These suggestions will be followed in the proposed study. The most comprehensive design for construct validation is Campbell and Fiske's (1959) multitrait-multimethod matrix wherein both convergent and discriminant validity are assessed. The authors explain that "any conceptual formulation of trait will usually include implicitly the proposition that this trait is a response tendency which can be observed under more than one experimental condition and that this trait can be meaningful lly differentiated from other traits" (p. 100). Convergent validity is represented as the tendency to be observed under more than one condition and dlscriminanttvalidity is represented as the ability to be meaningfully differentiated from other traits. Discriminant validity is, of course, impossible to prove as one can never test a presumed trait against all other traits. The issue of construct validity ends here with a quote from Nunnally (1978): ". . .all this fuss about construct validity really boils down to something rather homespun ~ namely, /, circumstantial

PAGE 40

37 evidence for the usefulness of a new measurement method" (p. 109). This study provides some evidence to support the usefulness of an instrument that assesses interpersonal meanings of sexual experience. The review of the literature having been concluded, the following section delineates the hypotheses that were tested in this study. Hypotheses The following hypotheses were examined in this research: (1) The interpersonal meaning of the sexual experience for college students can be categorized along, the following dimensions: morality, dominance/submission, aggression, affiliation, and pleasure. (2) Males, on the average, score higher on the meaning dimensions of dominance/submission, aggression, and pleasure, while females, on the average, score higher on the dimensions of morality and affiliation. (3) When males and females are asked to rate the interpersonal meaning of the sexual experience for a typical member of the opposite sex, the resulting dimension scores will again yield higher average scores for males (as judged by females) on dominance/submission, aggression, and pleasure, and higher average scores for females (as judged by males) on morality and affiliation. These stereotypical views are expected to show greater differences in this cross-sex experiment than I will be yielded by the results for hypothesis (2).

PAGE 41

32 In addition to testing the above hypotheses, the reliability and validity of the newly devised instrument is assessed. The next chapter will more precisely explain the steps taken in creating and validating the instrument, and in testing the hypotheses listed above.

PAGE 42

CHAPTER II METHOD Subjects All subjects in this research were students in General Psychology classes at the University of Florida who were expected to participate in psychological experiments as part of their course requirements. A total of over 700 students participated in the various stages of this research. Further demographic information about the students appears in the following chapter. Procedure Factor Analysis— Stage I The first stage in this research was an attempt to confirm the existence of the hypothesized dimensions of meanings of sexual experience. The 84 adjectives identified by Grater and Downing (currently under review) as appropriate to the meaning of dimensions of morality, affiliation, pleasure, achievement, and dominance were adopted for use here. These adjectives were administered to 256 students who were directed to score each adjective along a seven-point scale. (See Appendix A for the Meaning of Sexual Experience Questionnaire— II.) Due to the number of subjects needed, the administration of the adjective list was conducted in large groups. This procedure was advantageous 33

PAGE 43

34 in that it created an atmosphere of anonymity and increased confidentiality so that the students could feel more comfortable responding truthfully to the adjectives. The students were given the Meaning of Sexual Experience Questionnaire-I I and were instructed to answer the three demographic questions. The directions for the adjective list were then read and students were given the opportunity to ask questions. They were then instructed to complete the adjective list. They were told to ask the administrator about any adjectives that they did not understand. The data collected were then submitted to several factor analyses with the author manipulating the inclusion or exclusion of adjectives in the analysis and the number of factors requested in order to find the most meaningful factors both statistically and conceptually. The criteria levels for maintaining items were factor loadings of at least .40 on one factor and less than .30 on esiery other factor. In addition, oblique factor rotation was permitted as long as the correlation between factors was not substantially greater than .30 for any two factors. The specific results of these analyses are discussed in the next chapter. Factor Analysis— Stage 2 After factor analyzing the data from the Meaning of Sexual Experience Questionnaire— II, a new list of adjectives was prepared using the retained items from that form and new ones that the author judged as fittimg the emerging factors. The new questionnaire, the Meaning of Sexual Experience Questionnaire--III (MOSE), includes 70 adjectives. (See Appendix B for the MOSE adjective list.) The directions were retained from the Meaning of Sexual Experience Questionnaire--II. The MOSE was administered to 326 students following the same procedure

PAGE 44

35 as was outlined above, and the data were again submitted to a factor analysis. The criteria described above for acceptability of items was once again applied. The factors that emerged were then analyzed as to male-female differences on the factor scores. Validity Studies Three studies were conducted to elicit data with regard to the validity of the MOSE adjective list. First, to ensure that students understood the meanings of the words being used, a sample of 67 students was asked to indicate for each adjective whether they didn't understand it at all, had some idearas to what it meant, or knew what it meant. A second study was conducted to test the MOSE's sensitivity to experimental intervention, and also to examine stereotyping of views of the opposite sex. Thirty males and thirty females were instructed to complete the MOSE. After they finished, they were given a second copy of the instrument and asked to complete it as they believed an average or typical member of the opposite sex would. A final study was then conducted to compare scores on the MOSE with those on another instrument which purports to measure similar constructs. In this study, 37 males and 33 females completed the MOSE and Nelson's (1978) Sexual Functions Measure (SFM). (See Appendix C for the complete SFM.) Instruments The Meaning of Sexual Experience Questionnaire, Forms II and III, were constructed for the purpose of this study. Both forms list a series of adjectives and ask the subject to indicatehhow closely each

PAGE 45

36 adjective describes his or her personal meaning of sexual experience on a scale from 1 to 7. (See Appendices A and B.) As the analysis and validation of this instrument is the primary goal of this research, data pertaining to the reliability and validity of the final form, the Meaning of Sexual Experience Questionnaire--! II I (MOSE), will be^ detailed in the next chapter. Nelson's (1978) Sexual Functions Measure (SFM) lists 56 reasons that people have given for having sexual relations. (See Appendix C.)' The subject is asked to indicate, on a four-point scale, how important each reason is or would be to him or herself. Nelson's factor analysis yielded five factors which he labeled pleasurable stimulation, conformityacceptance, personal love and affection, power, and recognitioncompetition. Forty-seven of the 56 reasons loaded acceptably on these factors, having loadings of at least .40 on one factor. Only seven reasons had additional loadings greater than .30 on any other factor. There are some weaknesses in the factor analysis of Nelson's scale. First, a four-point scale is not considered sufficient for an adequate factor analysis. As noted previously, Comrey (1978) suggests the use of a seven-point scale. Comrey also suggests using at least five times the number of items as expected factors and at least 200 subjects. Nelson clearly meets the sample size criterion, testing 180 males and 215 females. He does not, however, meet the item number criterion. Although he begins with 56 items which woDld be acceptable for five factors, his final analysis includes only 47 of these. As a result, his last factor, recognition-competition, is fairly weak. It includes only four items, three of which load between .36 and .39 on a factor other than recognition-competition.

PAGE 46

37 Despite these weaknesses. Nelson's scale will be used to assess the convergent validity of the MOSE. It appears to be the only instrument available which measures constructs similar to those of the MOSE, and Nelson's sample of college students is very similar to the sample used for the factor analysis of the MOSE in terms of sex, age, and ethnic group. Nelson's sample was comprised of 45.6 percent males as opposed to 38.0 percent for the MOSE. Both samples included a high proportion of college age students. The MOSE sample had 85.5 percent of the males and 94.6 percent of the females below age 22. For Nelson's sample the figures were 78.9 percent of the males and 90.7 percent of the females. For the MOSE, 93.6 percent of the males and 88.7 percent of the females were white. Nelson reported 89.4 percent of males and 87.4 percent of females |as being white. Finally, as both samples were drawn from General Psychology classes at the University of Florida, they are probably similar in many other characteristics such as cultural values.

PAGE 47

CHAPTER III RESULTS Ariailysis of the Meaning of Sexual Experience Questionnaire--ri .i The preliminary stage in the development of the final MOSE adjective list was the analysis of the data collected on the Meaning of Sexual Experience Questionnaire--in, A total of 256 subjects completed the questionnaire and the data were submitted to a principal components analysis using a statistical package from the Biomedical Computer Programs: P-Series 1979 (Dixon and Brown, 1979). The hypothesis to be tested was that five factors would emerge matching the hypothesized dimensions of morality, affiliation, pleasure, achievement, and dominance. Several computer runs were used to vary the adjectives included in the analyses and to specify different numbers of factors so that a final analysis might provide the best fit of the adjectives into statistically and conceptually meaningful factors. A direct quartimin rotation, which is the oblique rotation recortmiended for this statistical package, was employed. The analysis yielded four factors including 53 adjectives. The adjectives with their factor loadings appears in Table 1. The criteria used for acceptability of adjectives wer^e that they (1) load on their primary factor at a level no less than .40, and (2) load on every other factor at a level lower than .30. In addition, an oblique rotation was 38

PAGE 48

39 TABLE 1 Oblique Factor Loadings for the Meaning of Sexual Experience Questionnaire-Ii:

PAGE 49

40 TABLE 1— Continued

PAGE 50

41 permitted with the restriction that no two factors correlate at a level substantially higher than :i30. The factor intercorrelations are presented in Table 2. The criteria were not applied rigidly to TABLE 2 Factor Intercorrelations for the Meaning of Sexual Experience Questionnaire— Ii: Factors

PAGE 51

42 to the smaller factors than to the larger ones in an attempt to equalize the number of adjectives in each factor. These 70 adjectives make up the current Meaning of Sexual Experience Questionnaire-II U,; and their analysis is described below. Analysis of the Meaning of Sexual Experience Questionnaire— III :: Sample Characteristics The Meaning of Sexual Experience Questionnaire— IIII (MOSE) was administered to 326 students. Table 3 gives the distribution of the sample by age for each sex. Table 4 gives the distribution of the sample by ethnic group for each sex. The majority of the sample was in the TABLE 3 MOSE Factor Analysis Sample: Frequency Distribution— Age; Category

PAGE 52

43 TABLE 4 MOSE Factor Analysis Sample: Frequency Distribution — Ethnic Group Category

PAGE 53

44

PAGE 54

45 TABLE 5--Continued

PAGE 55

46 second factor (intimate, timid, and awkward). Of the factor intercorrelations, only Factors 1 and 2, and Factors 1 and 4 correlate . TABLE 6 Factor Intercorrelations for the MOSE Adjective List Factors

PAGE 56

47

PAGE 57

TABLE 7— Continued

PAGE 58

49 load above .30 on a second factor. This provides further evidence for the statistical meaningful ness of the factors. The explained variances, shown in Table 7, indicate that four of the five factors are approximately equal in the amount of variance they explain, with the fifth factor being relatively less explanatory. Means, standard deviations, and maximum and minimum values for each of the 54 adjectives are given in Table 8. These data were used to determine whether any adjectives should be discarded as not useful in differentiating among people. For example, any adjective scored with all ones or all sevens would not have discriminated between people. The five conceptually and statistically meaningful factors that emerged in this analysis coincided with several of the hypothesized factors of morality, affiliation, pleasure, achievement, and dominance. Factor 1 describes an "affiliation" dimension and was predicted as was Factor 3, the "achievement" dimension, and Factor 4, the "moral" dimension. Factor 2, as it emerged in this study, contains adjectives with a ^ery negative tone. It is labeled "inadequate/undesirable" and it does not coincide with any of the hypothesized factors. Factor 5, the least strong of the factors in terms of number of items and the amount of variance explained, is the most difficult to label. It appears to be somewhat of a combination of the hypothesized pleasure and dominance dimensions and, as such, is tentatively labeled "erotic dominance':" Reliability and Validity Analysis Before a new instrument can be acceptable, evidence must be accumulated as to its reliability and validity. Reliability of the factors that emerged from the analysis of the MOSE data was assessed

PAGE 59

50 TABLE 8 Descriptive Statistics for the MOSE Adjective List

PAGE 60

51 TABLE 8— Continued

PAGE 61

52 by use of Cronbach's (1951) coefficient alpha, the average of all possible split-half reliability coefficients. The reliability coefficients calculated for the factors are .91 for affiliation, .86 for inadequate/undesirable, .84 for achievement, .85 for moral, and .69 for erotic dominance. With the exception of the last dimension, all the factors easily meet Nunnally's (1978) suggested criterion level of .70. The issue of validity was approached from several directions. A preliminary step was the administration of the list of 70 adjectives to 67 students who were asked to categorize the words as "don't understand at all'^" "have some idea," and "know what it means .1' Only two of the 70 words were scored as "don't understand at all" by more than two students. "Amorous" was not understood by six of the students and "titillating" was not understood by nine of the students. This survey indicates that the adjective list does not present definitional problems that would be severe enough to interfere with the validity of the instrument. Evidence for the content validity comes from the fact that the adjectives themselves were selected according to conceptual guidelines. In addition, the factor analysis supports three of the five hypothesized dimensions: affiliation, morality, and achievement. The other two factors, although not predicted, provide some evidence of their validity in the conceptual cohesiveness of the adjectives they include. Therefore it can be concluded that the factor analysis supports the content validity and, to some extent, the construct validity of the instrument.

PAGE 62

53 Further experimentation was conducted to assess convergent validity. Convergent validity is an element of construct val4dity described by Campbell and Fiske (1959) as relating to the tendency of a trait to be observed under more than one condition. Seventy students, 37 males and 33 females, completed both the MOSE adjective list and Nelson's (1978) Sexual Functions Measure (SFM) which appears to measure some of the same constructs as the MOSE adjective list. Nelson's factor analysis of the SFM yielded five factors which he labeled pleasurable stimulation, conformity and acceptance, personal love and affection, power, and recognition and competition. To support the convergent validity of each of these instruments the following correlations between MOSE and SFM dimensions were predicted: affiliation (MOSE) with personal love and affection (SFM), achievement (MOSE) with power (SFM), achievement (MOSE) with recognition and competition (SFM), and erotic dominance (MOSE) with pleasurable stimulation (SFM). The SFM does not appear to have any factors that are analogous to the MOSE's moral factor. Also, while the MOSE's inadequate/undesirable factor may be related to the SFM's conformity and acceptance factor, the relationship does not appear to be straightforward enoughtto be hypothesized here. The correlation coefficients between the factor scores from the two measures appear in Table 97as they were calculated for the entire sample. The correlations for males alone appear in Table 10, and those for females alone appear in Table 11. The affiliation (MOSE) and personal love and affection (SFM) factors correlate highly for the entire sample but this is apparently due mostly to the extremely high correlation for males (.77). The females'

PAGE 63

54 TABLE 9 MOSE and SFM Factor Correlations-Entire Sample N = 20

PAGE 64

55 TABLE n MOSE arid SFM Factor Correlations-Females Only N = 33

PAGE 65

56 Two other analyses aimed at supporting the construct validity of the MOSE were a comparison of between group differences on the instrument and a study of change related to experimental intervention. Both of these approaches to construct validation are suggested by Cronbach and Meehl (1955), and the results of these experiments follow. Sex Differences in the Meaning ofSSexual Experience The data from the 326 subjects participating in the factor analysis study were examined as to the male-female differences in the mean values for the five factor scores. It was hypothesized that males would score higher on the achievement and erotic dominance dimensions while females would score higher on the affiliation, inadequate/undesirable, and moral dimensions. T-tests were performed and the results are presented in Table 12. A significant difference between variances of the two groups occurs on the inadequate/undesirable dimension. Therefore, the t-statistic used in this case was a two-sample statistic. For the other dimensions, the t-statistic was computed using a pooled variance estimate from the two groups as their variances were assumed to be equal. The differences between the factor scores of males and females are significant for two of the dimensions, affiliation and erotic dominance. The difference between the mean scores on the achievement dimension approaches significance, while the inadequate/undesirable and moral dimensions yield insignificant differences. In all the dimensions, with the exception of inadequate/undesirable, the differences are in the predicted direction. Note that due to the large number of statistical tests being conducted, .01 has been adopted as the criterion level for

PAGE 66

57 TABLE 12 Sex Differences for MOSE Factor Analysis Sample Factor Sex

PAGE 67

58 statistical significance throughout the research to avoid interpreting chance differences as significant. Sex differences were also analyzed for the data resulting from the comparison of the MOSE and the SFM. A MANOVA was performed to examine the effect due to sex on the ten dimensions of the two instruments. Using Pillai's Trace as the F approximation, the MANOVA is found to be significant; F(10,59) = 2.70, 2^ < .01. The results of the ten ANOVA's I appear in Table 13. No male-female significant differences are| supported on the MOSE dimensions. The magnitude of these differences are almost identical to those computed for the factor analysis sample and the differences are in the same direction for all five dimensions. The £-values are lower for this sample due to the smaller sample size. On the SFM factors, males score significantly higher on the pleasurable stimulation, conformity and acceptance, and recognition-competition dimensions. The females' higher score on the personal love and affection dimension approaches significance (£ = 4.47, p^ = .045). For the final experiment in this research program, 30 males and 30 female students completed the MOSE adjective list. After they had finished they were given another copy and asked to complete it again but this time as they believed an average or typical member of the opposite sex would. The purposes of this study were twofold. First, it was a further study of construct validation in the sense of determining whether the instrument was sensitive to experimental intervention. Secondly, this was an attempt to ascertain whether the 1 hypothesized male-female differences, which wereoonly weakly supported by the previous data, might be amplified in people's perceptions of the opposite sex.

PAGE 68

59 TABLE 13 Sex Differences for MOSE and SFM Comparison Study Factor

PAGE 69

60 Table 14 presents the male and female means both for self-reports and for perceptions of the opposite sex, and Table 15 presents the results of MANOVA's used to test for significant differences between the means. The first MANOVA compares males and females as they scored themselves. The results are completely analogous to the male-female TABLE 14 Mean Scores for Self and Perception of Opposite Sex Study

PAGE 70

61 X 0) to Q. Q. O O

PAGE 71

62 A second MANOVA analyzes the differences between the males' perceptions of females and the females' perceptions of males. Somewhat more meaningful differences are noted here. In all cases except, once again, for inadequate/undesirable, differences in perceptions of the opposite sex are in the same direction as differences in selfreports. The "view of opposite sex" differences are greater than the self-report differences for three of the dimensions, however, and at least in one case, achievement, the difference is substantially greater. The next two MANOVA 's compare self -reports to perceptions of the opposite sex to ascertain how much difference people perceive between the opposite sex and themselves. Some large differences appear. Males score themselves significantly higher on affiliation and somewhat higher on achievement and erotic dominance. They score females as substantially higher on inadequate/undesirable, There is no difference on the moral dimension. Females score themselves and typical males substantially differently on all dimensions. They score themselves higher on affiliation and moral, and they score males higher on inadequate/ undesirable, achievement, and erdtic dominance. The last two MANOVA 's in Table 14 compare the scores males and females gave themselves to the scores given them by the opposite sex. Substantial differences occur on the affiliation and inadequate/undesirable dimensions. Males perceive themselves as yery much higher; on affiliation and much lower on inadequate/undesirable than females perceive them to be. Females, likewise, perceive themselves as much higher on affiliation and much lower on inadequate/undesirable than males perceive them to be. Several other significant differences appear in this MANOVA although

PAGE 72

63 the magnitude is not as great. Females perceive males higher on the achievement and erotic dominance dimensions and lower on the moral dimensions than the males perceive themselves. Males perceive females higher on the erotic dominance dimension and somewhat lower on the moral dimension than the females perceive themselves. This study produced a great deal of supporting evidence for the construct validity of the MOSE. | Except for the inadequate/undesirable dimension, male-female differences again occur in the predicted direction. Whereas differences in the self -reports may not be as great as was expected, these predicted differences clearly occur in the students' perceptions of the opposite sex. The results also support the sensitivity of the instrument to experimental intervention. A summary of the rel iabi 1 i ty and val i di ty evi dence f ol 1 ows . Summary The results of the analyses described above tend to support the reliability and validity of the Meaning of Sexual Experience adjective list. The validity of the five meaning dimensions is supported by their frequent appearance in the theoretical literature and by the conceptual cohesiveness of the adjectives within each dimension. Statistically, the validity is supported by the factor analysis and by the tendency of the sex differences in the factor scores to be \fery consistent across different studies. For four out of the five factors, the sex differences in the factor scores consistently occur in the predicted direction. The validity is further supported by showing the instrument to be sensitive to experimental manipulation. Students

PAGE 73

64 completing the MOSE first as self-reports and then as their perception of a typical member of the opposite sex changed their factor scores significantly. The reliability of the instrument is supported by the computation of Cronbach's coefficient alpha. These reliability coefficients easily meet the criterion level of .70 for four of the factors, and fall just short of the criterion for the fifth. Other forms of validity need to be assessed before the usefulness and meaningful ness of this instrument is completely understood. The following chapter reviews the empirical evidence described here and suggests future directions in the continual process of evaluating the validity of the MOSE adjective list.

PAGE 74

CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION This research was based on the premise that sexual experience has different meanings to different people. The literature abounds with essays theorizing about the nature of these meanings, how they changed through historical eras, and how they are differentially salient to males and females. These hypotheses appear to be accepted not only by psychologists, but by the general populace. Witness the popularity of literary works such as Erica Jong's Fear of Flying (Jong, 1973) wherein the heroine attempts to fulfill her sexual fantasies by overcoming the restrictive meaning that sexual experience has for her. Then there is Norman Mailer's Prisoner of Sex (Mailer, 1971), a male's graphic description of sexual experiences as war: "... there was a subterranean war of the will when a man and a woman made love,. ,. .." (p. 151). The line of research begun here is important precisely because attention is being focused on sexuality, perhaps to a greater extent than ever before, and the meanings of sexual experience are changing for males and females. When the meaning of sexual experience for an individual can be understood, the interpersonal transactions used to have or avoid the experience and the motivations behind the individual's behaviors will become clearer. Yet sexual experience is just one of numerous interpersonal experiences that a human being encounters in a lifetime. 65

PAGE 75

66 These other experiences riiay also have different meanings. The same work experience may have an overarching meaning of competence or achievement to one person and a meaning of submission to another. It is possible that the meanings isolated in this research would be equally applicable to other spheres of life and, if this is so, a person's meaning of sexual experience may be only one outgrowth of an overall personality trait. For example* a person who is largely motivated by a need to achieve may experience every interpersonal encounter, sexual or otherwise, in terms of achievement. If this is true then future research may wish to focus more on the general interpersonal style rather than focus specifically on the sexual experience. UntiT there is evidence that meanings of; one type of experience can be subsumed under a more general category, however, it remains useful to focus on I the one specific type of experience. What follows is a review of the empirical evidence for some meanings of sexual experience as provided by this research. The initial section discusses the dimensions that emerged from the principal components analysis. This is followed by a discussion of the differential descriptive power that these meanings have for males xind females. The sample characteristics are then reviewed to assess the general izability i of the results. The final two sections present implications of this research for counseling and clinical psychology, and suggestions for future investigations into the meaning of sexual experiience. j The Interpersonal Meanings of Sexual Experience To gather data concerning people's behaviors and attitudes with respect to sexual experiences is a relatively simple task. Of course.

PAGE 76

67 due to the private nature of sexuality, complete confidentiality must be assured but, once that issue is resolved, it is easy for someone to delineate his or her behaviors due to their concrete and observablie nature, and almost as easy for them to delineate their attitudes, which are less concrete but have usually been clarified in the individual's own mind. It is not as easy for the individual to report on the meanings of his or her sexual experience. Meanings are far more abstract than attitudes or behaviors and more difficult to define or delineate. The effort in this research has been to develop, a concrete and relatively easy and nonthreatening task that would uncover the subjectils meaning of sexual experience. The approach chosen, scoring adjectives on their descriptive accuracy, is a somewhat indirect method for elucidating meanings but the results seem to indicate that meanings can be derived in this manner. Two disclaimers are necessary before the meanings that emerged in this study are discussed. First, the meanings that emerged clearly depended on the adjectives selected for use. It would seem unlikely that all possible meanings have been exhausted by this list. Secondly, no claim is being made that these meanings are stable or universal. Meanings appear to be culture bound. The adoption of this methodology for attempts at understanding meaning dimensions in other cultures would be more useful than a rigid adherence to the dimensions supported here. The five groups of adjectives that emerged from the MOSE adjective list appear to representtfive different meanings that sexual experience may have for individuals. To simplify the discussion of these dimensions

PAGE 77

68 each has been given a brief and hopefully descriptive label: affiliation, inadequate/undesirable, achievement, moral, and erotic dominance. Anyone using these labels is encouraged to refer often to the list itself (Table 5) to retain a more complete understanding of the meaning described by that list. It seems clear that one or two adjectives cannot accurately describe ten. The first dimension that emerged from the principal components analysis has been labeled "affiliation." It includes eleven adjectives: caring, warm, kind, loving, sincere, gentle, fond, affectionate, intimate, trusting, and mature. A person finding these adjectives descriptive would appear to be preceiving sexual experience as a very positive interpersonal encounter. "Caring," "lovingly and '-!affectionate" describe an emotional tone, "gentle" and "kind" seem to describe the physical interaction, while "intimate" and "trusting" imply a feeling of safety and a level of respect for the other person. Sexual experience for this individual has a meaning of emotional and physical responsiveness and involvement in the context of a trusting relationship. One gets a clear picture of the type of sexual relationship described by these adjectives and this picture, in addition to the statistical cohesiveness of these words, supports a meaning dimension often theorized in the literature. The second dimension, labeled "inadequate/undesirable j" includes sixteen adjectives: distant, resentful, evasive, futile, flat, inhibited, awkward, timid, frigid, inadequate, remote, disagreeable, infantile, distrustful, inept, and undesirable. This meaning is almost diametrically opposite to the first. Rather than the affiliation dimension's emotional

PAGE 78

69 tone of "caring," "loving," and "affectionate," the tone here is described as "distant," "resentful," "flat," and "disagreeable." Physically, the experience is perceived as "futile," "inhibited," "awkward," "timid," "frigid," "inadequate," and "inept." Whereas the i affiliation factor includes "mature," this factor includes "infantile." While the affiliation factor describes the experience as "trusting" and "intimate," this factor describes it as "distrustful" and "remote." A person using these adjectives to describe their meaning of sexual experience is perceiving it very negatively. Such a person might have great difficulty in developing close interpersonal relationships as the sexual aspects of those relationships would more likely lead to distance than intimacy. The third dimension, labeled "achievement," includes eleven adjectives: daring, imaginative, inventive, victorious, mighty, determined, outgoing, winning, assertive, successful, and capable. Conceptually, this is an extremely cohesive group of words. Taken out of context they might be thought to describe a great athlete or highly successful! businessman. The person selecting these adjectives as highly descriptive would appear to perceive sexual experiences as a game or a competitive interpersonal encounter. Achievement is noted in adjectives such as "successful" and "capable" but this dimension is more complex than that. It includes a dominance facet suggested by "victorious," "mighty," and "winning." It also requires a creative and persevering strategy described as "daring," "imaginative," "inventive," "determined," "outgoing," and "assertive." It would not be totally facetious to describe this as the "football coach" meaning of sexual experience.

PAGE 79

70 It is of note again how different this meaning is from the preceding two. The first factor seemed to describe a closeness and a balance; a perception of two people sharing an experience. The second factor indicates a distance; a perception of two people losing closeness through an experience. This.ithird factor does notiimply two people moving together or apart but, rather, one person moving against another. In essence, the first three factors could be viewed as analogous to Karen Horney's three modes of interaction: moving towards others, moving away from others, and moving against others. The fourth dimension, labeled "moral v' includes nine adjectives: proper, moral, pure, dignified, clean, correct, righteous, honorable, and virtuous. This factor emerged early in the analysis of the first form of the instrument and can be seen as being almost identical to the second factor listed in Table 1 . It was the most consistent and persevering factor in the continual analysis of the adjective lists. "Moral" was selected as the label for this factor because the adjectives convey an image of a person with a very reserved, almost religious, meaning of sexual experience. The element of play is not included in this meaning, and, in fact, neither is the element of affection. A person with a strong conmitment to participating in sexual experiences only within the context of a marriage or long-term relationship might score high on this factor. The final factor, "erotic dominance;" includes seven adjectives: hot, forceful, titillating, erotic, aggressive, demanding, and ecstatic. Since a principal components analysis extracts factors in diminishing order of strength, this factor is statistically the weakest of the five.

PAGE 80

71 Conceptually, this factor is also relatively weaker. Four of the adjectives, "hot;" "titillating;!,' "erotic^" and "ecstatic" denote a highly sensual and emotional meaning of sexual experience. The other three , "forceful ," "demanding^'' and "aggressive;" were expected to load on the achievement factor and yet their loadings on that factor are low (.19, .11, and .28 respectively). Responding to the four sensual adjectives alone, one gets a sense of sex as play or pleasure. But the other three adjectives suggest that the pleasure is somewhat based on dominance. What distinguishes this factor from the achievement factor is the intense sensuality it includes. The dominance described here is related to sensual pleasure whereas the dominance in the achievement factor is related to winning. Although one mightihesitate to interpret this factor with as much confidence as the others due to its relative weakness, both conceptually and statistically, it is not clear that it should be disregarded entirely. Future research may be able to clarify this factor by adding more adjectives to the instrument, possibly resulting in this factor splitting into two more coheslvec factors . i To this point the analysis has centered on an explication of the adjectives within each factor. The images that have been drawn are I simplistic. A more complete understanding of a person's meaning of sexual experience would result from an analysis of the profile of scores on all five factors. For example, an individual scoring high on moral and also scoring high on affiliation would have a very different meaning of sexual experience compared to one who scores high on moral and high on inadequate/undesirable. This is due to the non-emotional tone of

PAGE 81

72 the moral factor being augmented by two factors of opposite emotional tones. Similarly, a high score on erotic dominance would be interpreted differently if it were associated with a high affiliation score than if it were associated with a high achievement score. Of course, the complexity of interpretations multiplies as more factors are included in the analysis. It is concluded from this discussion that the instrument devised for this research has successfully elicited several meanings of sexual experience. Profiles of individuals' scores on the five dimensions can yield clues as to their personal meanings. This leads to an examination of average responses of males and females in an attempt to validate theoretical differences. Sex Differences in the Meanings of Sexual Experience Male-female stereotypes would predict clear differences on the dimensions of meaning being discussed. They would predict higher female scores on the affiliation, inadequate/undesirable, anci moral dimensions, and higher male scores on the achievement and erotic dominance dimensions. Three samples of college students have been compared in this research. The factor analysis sample (Table 12) included 124 males and 202 females, the MOSE-SFM comparison sample (Table 13) included 37 males perception by opposite females. Table 16 allows and 33 females, and the self -perception versus sex sample (Table 14) included 30 males and 30 for the comparison of mean differences in the three studies. Females scored higher on affiliation and moral, males on inadequate/undesirable, i achievement, and erotic dominance. With the exception of inadequate/

PAGE 82

73 TABLE 16 Mean Differences Between Male and Female Factor Scores

PAGE 83

74 TABLE 17 Standardized Mean Scores

PAGE 84

75 TABLE 18 Perception of the Opposite Sex

PAGE 85

76 differences on all dimensions than the self-report comparisons exhibit although their perceived differences are in the same direction as the differences between self-reports. Interestingly, the two dimensions where the perceived differences do not concur with theoretical predictions both show the "selves" looking emotionally healthier than the theories would predict. That is to say, males see;' themselves as more affiliative than females despite the opposite stereotype and also in contrast to the differences in self-reports. Females see themselves as much lower on inadequate/undesirable relative to males than they actually are despite the opposite stereotype. It would probably be considered "healthier" to be high on affiliation and low on inadequate/undesirable. It is important to note that these results may have been affected by the fact that the subjects were comparing a real person, themselves, to a composite person, the average or typical member of the opposite sex. To draw the results of the perception of opposite sex study together it is easiest to examine each dimension separately. On affiliation, females score somewhat higher than males (4.9 points) but not nearly as much higher as they believe (17.7 points). Their perception of male scores (52l8 points) is far lower than the males' selfreports are (65.6 points). Males perceive themselves as higher on this dimension, scoring females lower than the females score themselves (60.2 versus 70.5). Although they both perceive the other as lower on "others" perceive themselves, the amount of underestimation is relatively equal for both sexes so that the difference between perceived scores (7.4) is actually quite close to the actual difference (4.9). this dimension than the

PAGE 86

77 The second dimension, inadequate/undesirable, isi:interesting in that the perceived differences are so great compared to the insignificant difference in self-reports. This is the factor on which males and females scored almost identically not only in this study but in all three studies (see Tables 12 and 13). Yet both males and females score the other sex substantially higher (11 or 12 points) than they score themselves. It may not be surprising to find the males responding in this fashion as the stereotype would support them scoring females higher than themselves. However, females scoring males higher than themselves on a dimension that includes adjectives such as inadequate, resentful, inhibited, disagreeable, frigid, and inept, lends support to the notion thatssexual meanings are changing and casts doubt on theories that sex has a far more negative meaning for females than for males. On the achievement dimension the males' self-report score (53.4) is slightly higher than that of the females (50.8). Males score females quite similarly to the females' self-reports and so perceive a difference between themselves and females similar to the difference between selfreports. Females, however, perceive males as being much higher on achievement than males perceive themselves to be (61.0 versus 53.4). They score males substantially higher on achievement than they score themselves (10.2 points), whereas males score females fairly close to themselves (4.6 points). Both sexes support the stereotype that males score higher than females on this dimension, but females judge the difference as much greater than it appears from the self -reports (10.2 versus 2.6).

PAGE 87

78 For the moral factor, the difference between self -reports (4.5 points) approaches significance in the predicted direction of higher female scores. Males score females as about equal to themselves while females score males substantially lower than themselves. Females' perceptions are more in line with stereotypes than are male perceptions and, in this case, the difference between self -reports of males and females is greater than the males' perception of the difference but not as great as the females' perception. The males' and females' perceptions of the opposite sex both disagree (almost equally) with the opposite sex' self-report. Both score the opposite sex lower than the opposite sex scores itself Lv The final dimension is erotic dominance. The hypothesized difference was supported with males' self-reports significantly higher than females' self -reports. Males and females both scored the opposite sex about five points above the opposite sex' self -report. In so doing, males perceived a smaller difference than the self-reports showed by perceiving females' scores as closer to their own, while females perceived a greater difference than the self -reports showed. The examination of the differences in scores from Tables 14 and 15 and the difference in profiles from Table 17 and 18 leads to the most intriguing question to arise from this research. Who is right? In an interpersonal domain such as this, are self -perceptions or other's perceptions more accurate? It is unlikely that either "self" or "others" can be particularly objective. The current data cannot resolve this issue, but clearly it has shown some significant and interesting differences.

PAGE 88

79 General izability of the Results The hundreds of students sampled in th4s research were all required to participate in experiments as part of their General Psycholbgy: course. Self -selection is an issue in that the students were free to choose from many different experiments. Although the announcement for this research stated that students would be scoring adjectives (as opposed to responding to questions about their sexual experiences), some students may have declined to participate due to the nature of the topic under study. To whatever extent ;this occurred, the sample is biased, but the nature of this bias is unclear. The limitation that is placed on all the preceding analyses results from the age and ethnic group distribution as shown in Tables 3 and 4. Approximately 89 percent of the males and 94 percent of the females were white. Also, approximately 84 percent of the males and 93 percent of the females were between the ages of 18 and 21. All the interpretations that have been made and all the conclusions drawn from the data can be said to apply to a white, college-aged population. Whether they are applicable to other populations as well can be empirically determined in future research. A second issue of general izability arises from the issue of predictive and concurrent validity of the MOSE adjective list. Can a MOSE profile be generalized to describe how an individual interacts or will interact with a sex partner? Can the profile describe the types of intimate relationships the individual will prefer or their style in establishing these relationships. If a MOSE profile can provide some information pertaining to these issues it will be far more useful than

PAGE 89

80 if it has no applicability to a person's life. It is hoped that future research will support the MOSE's ability to contribute to the understanding of a person's style of interaction. Counseling and Clinical Applications It was stated earlier that a method for gaining information about the meaning of sexual experience for an individual would be a valuable addition to our knowledge of sexual attitudes and behaviors. As meanings are more abstract and internal than are attitudes or behaviors, they are less visible to observers. An apparent result of this lack of visibility has been significantly different perceptions of the opposite sex than the opposite sex has of itself. It appears that, on a broad scale, males and females have not accurately communicated to each other their own personal meanings of sexual experience or their perceptions of their partner's meanings. If further research supports the differences between self-perceived and other-perceived meanings for males and females, it will be important for Counseling Psychologists to work toward increased communication and understanding. The MOSE adjective list may prove to have several clinical applications. Psychological sexual dysfunctions may be better understood by ascertaining the meaning of the sexual experience to the individual and this may lead to more effective treatment. Kaufman and Krupka (1973) found that in certain cases of sexual dysfunction, early deprivation of affectional needs has led to the sexual ization of the need for intimacy. In other cases they noted issues such as guilt feelings, power struggles, hostility, and perceived expectations of competency to be underlying

PAGE 90

81 the dysfunction. As some of these issues relate closely to the meaning dimensions discussed in this study, the MOSE might be useful in yielding such information. Couples in marital therapy might reveal conflicting MOSE profiles as to their meanings of sexual experience. Having them complete the MOSE as they believe their spouse would might be an alternate strategy for uncovering conflicts or mi scommuni cations. Another population: if or which the MOSE could prove useful is sex offenders. Perhaps a typical rapist's or exhibitionist's profile might be discovered. At the \/ery least, gaining some insight as to the individual's meaning of sexual experiences would be helpful in understanding his or her actions and might facilitate treatment. It may be presumptuous to confer so much applicability on a new instrument. Clearly research with the above populations needs to be conducted first. Still, it would seem that the possibilities for counseling and clinical applications of the MOSE are numerous. Directions for Future Research The studies presented here are a beginning. They represent the first steps in the development of a methodology to empirically analyze an issue that has only been theoretically analyzed before. Several areas of research that were begun here are as yet incomplete and several other areas are ripe for exploration. It might be useful, for example, to devise an instrument using bipolar rather than unipolar dimensions. The subject could be asked to respond to an adjective pair such as hotrcold on a scale of 1 (hot) to 7 (cold). Bipolar adjective pairs have both advantages and disadvantages compared to unipolar scales and

PAGE 91

82 they might yield different information about the meanings of sexual experience. In addition, to further examine male-female differences, sufficient data should be collected to allow for separate factor analyses for each sex to determine whether they tend to define sexual experience along the same meaning dimensions. Another research direction to be taken is a series of validity studies to further confirm what has been reported above. The convergent validity study previously discussed was unsuccessful in correlating results of the MOSE with Nelson's (1978) Sexual Functions Measure. The lack of significant correlations may have been due to the fourpoint scale of the SFM reducing the possible range of scores. It may also be true that the two sets of factors are simply not measuring the same constructs. In any case it is left for future research to confirm the convergent validity of the MOSE. In addition, other studies should evaluate what the MOSE is not measuring in a continual process of providing evidence for the discriminant validity of the instrument. Predictive and concurrent validity have been mentioned as other research areas left open by the current studies. These would support the usefulness of the MOSE as a clinical as well as a research instrument. At some point research should begin to compare data from behavior, attitude, and meaning scales to be able to incorporate all three dimensions into a more complete understanding of human sexuality. It would also be important to assess social desirability ratings to determine whether the adjectives on the one highly negativistic dimension, inadequate/undesirable, are being responded to less candidly. It is conceivable that these adjectives correlate with one another partially

PAGE 92

83 because they are all negative. This would be a critical element in understanding the clear delineation between the factors. Several research studies are already being implemented. The first major study is designed to assess the utility of a new set of directions. This latest version of the MOSE (see Appendix D) attempts to clarify and shorten the directions and also changes the scoring categories. The adjectives on the older version were scored on a frequency scale from "almost never" to "almost always" (see Appendix A). It is believed that the ability of an adjective to describe a person's meaning of sexual experience is directly related to the frequency with which that adjective is descriptive. The new MOSE attempts to avoid this inferential leap by supplying end point labels of "not descriptive" and "highly descriptive:" The data collected on the new/MOSE will be factor analyzed and compared to the original data to deltermine whether the new directions significantly alter the factors that have been described here. Other researchers may wish to look for factors other than those reported in this study. The factors of affiliation, inadequate/ undesirable, achievement, moral, and erotic dominance are not presented as the only meanings of sexual experience. Other adjectives may be combined with those currently on the MOSE in attempts to elicit support for other meanings or finer gradations of the meanings that emerged here. Much of the research described above is intended to further clarify and validate the MOSE adjective list; Another suggestion for future research is the comparison of different populations as to their profiles

PAGE 93

84 on the MOSE. Males and females are the groups compared here. The suggestion has been raised previously that groups of sex offenders be studied. Their profiles could be compared both between different offender categories, and between offenders and non-offenders. Heterosexuals and homosexuals could also be compared. Age groups could be compared either to assess cohort differences or to begin to formulate a developmental model of meanings of sexual experience. Whenever the results of these studies have been presented, suggestions have arisen for new studies or new groups to compare. There appear to be numerous research possibilities for this instrument. The results of the studies described above are intriguing to say; the least. It is hoped that the results of future research will prove equally meaningful and that the MOSE adjective list v;ill make a wohthwhile contribution to the understanding of human sexuality.

PAGE 94

APPENDIX A THE MEANING OF SEXUAL EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE— II : Part I . Please answer the following questions. 1 . AGE 2. ETHNIC GROUP (check one): WHITE SEX : MALE BLACK SPANISH OTHER (specify) FEMALE Part II . On the following pages you will find a list of 84 adjectives. We would like you to use these adjectives to describe the personal meaning that sexual experience has for you. That is, we would like you to indicate, on a scale from 1 to 7, how descriptive these adjectives are of the unique meaning of your sexual experiences. Please respond according to the enduring and consistent meanings that you ascribe to sexual experience rather than your immediate feelings about sexual experience. The meaning you ascribe to sexual experience may be derived from the range of your actual sexual experiences or from your thoughts, fantasies, or readings about sexual experience. Read these adjectives quickly and PLEASE DO NOT LEAVE ANY ADJECTIVE UNMARKED. Coding: 1 NEVER OR ALMOST NEVER 5 2 USUALLY NOT 6 3 SOMETIMES BUT INFREQUENTLY 7 4 OCCASIONALLY OFTEN USUALLY ALWAYS OR ALMOST ALWAYS 85

PAGE 95

86 Adjective list: 1. hot 2. contented 3. mighty 4. ambitious 5. appropriate 6. inhibited 7. aloof 8. inadequate 9. affectionate 10. lush 11. fond 12. aggressive 13. industrious 14. honorable 15. controlled 16. distant 17. imperfect 18. excitable 19. rapturous 20. unselfish 21 . dominant 22 . masterful 23. moral 24. frigid 25. distrustful 26. awkward 27. unkind 28. uninhibited 29. attached 30. forceful 31 . victorious 32. virtuous 33. cool 34. yielding 35. futile 36. ugly 37. titillating 38. sincere 39. accomplishing 40. clean 41 . fussy 42. muted 43. obliging 44. inept 45. erotic 46. sociable 47. capable 48. dignified 49. infantile 50. flat

PAGE 96

51. passive 52. devilish 53. ecstatic 54. strong 55. persevering 56. correct 57. robust 58. wary 59. feminine 60. naughty 61 . zany 62. demanding 63. successful 64. proper 65 . compl ex 66 . remote 67. dependent 87 68. mischievous 69. amorous 70. masculine 71. triumphant 72 . pure 73. hurried 74. evasive 75. timid 76. offensive 77. outgoing 78. potent 79. winning 80. righteous 81 . reserved 82. egotistical 83. submissive 84. unscrupulous

PAGE 97

MEANING APPENDIX B ADJECTIVES INCLUDED ON THE OF SEXUAL EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE-I II: 1.

PAGE 98

89 64. tactful 67. trusting 70. warm 65. resentful 68. determined 66. inventive 69. serious

PAGE 99

APPENDIX C SEXUAL FUNCTIONS MEASURE Directions : 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 these reasons are important in your own sexual behavior, and some of you will find only a few important. We would like to know aVI^ the reasons that are involved in your own sexual behavior, and how important each of these i reasons is to you. After considering each of the reasons listed below carefully , indicate on the answer sheet how important that reason is in your own sexual behavior. Coding: 1 NOT IMPORTANT AT ALL 2 NOT TOO IMPORTANT 3 PRETTY IMPORTANT 4 VERY IMPORTANT Reasons : 1. Because it gives me such a high feeling. 2. Because I want to be as good or better at it than other people. 3. Because I like the feeling that I have someone in my grasp. 4. Because I enjoy the feeling of being overwhelmed by my partner. 5. Because I want to fit in and be a part of what's happening. 6. Because it's the way I show that I really care about someone. 7. Because it's a good way to overcome boredom. SO

PAGE 100

8. Because I really enjoy indulging my appetite. 9. Because it's a way of proving yourself. 10. Because like many people I enjoy the conquest. 11. Because sex allows me to feel vulnerable. 12. Because otherwise I would begin to feel like an outsider. 13. Because it makes me feel like someone cares about me. 14. Because it adds novelty to my life. 15. Because I am really a physical person. 16. Because a lot of men/women keep telling me how good I am in bed. 17. Because it makes me feel masterful. 18. Because after an argument it's a good way to let my partner know that I don't want to fight anymore. 19. Because the expectations of one's partner and peers are hard to resist. 20. Because it makes me feel as one with another person. 21. Because I'm always seeking something different. 22. Because of rather demanding physical needs. 23. Because it adds to my feelings of competence. 24. Because I like the feeling of having another person submit to me. 25. Because I enjoy the feeling of giving in to my partner. 26. Because there's so much pressure to be sexually active nowadays. 27. Because sex and love are as one to me. 28. Because there is nothing better to do. 29. Because I am a pleasure seeker. 30. Because I'd like to be known as a good lover. 31. Because I like teaching less experienced people how to get off. 32. Because it makes my partner want to look after me and take care of me.

PAGE 101

92 33. Because otherwise I would feel odd, almost abnormal. 34. Because it makes me feel intimate with my partner. 35. Because I'm a person who appreciates variety in life. 36. Because it helps to reduce tension. 37. Because others admire a person who is sexually experienced. 38. Because in the act of sex more than at any other time I get the feeling that I can really influence how someone feels and behaves. 39. Because I like the feeling of being out of control and dominated by another. 40. Because it's a way of avoiding disapproval. 41. Because of the feeling of closeness it brings to a relationship. 42. Because there are so many different horizons to explore. 43. Because I'm just plain horny. 44. Because it makes me feel like I am physically desirable. 45. Because I like it when my partner is really open and vulnerable to me. 46. Because when my partner wants to have sex I feel like I should oblige him/her. 47. Because it's the accepted thing to do and everyone else does it. 48. Because it's the way I show iT\y partner I love him/her. 49. Because I'm curious to know whether there's something I haven't yet experienced. 50. Because it feels good mostly. 51. Because I don't want people to think I'm inadequate. 52. Because when my partner finally surrenders to me I get this incredibly satisfying feeling.

PAGE 102

93 53. Because of the feelings that go along with being held tight and close in a protective way. 54. Because I want to be like everyone else. 55. Because I enjoy being affectionate and sharing of my feelings. 56. Because it's an adventure of sorts.

PAGE 103

APPENDIX D THE INTERPERSONAL MEANING OF SEXUAL EXPERIENCE ADJECTIVE SCALE Directions : Sexual experiences have various meanings for different people. The unique meanings that sexual experience has for you may be the result of your actual experiences with Icissing, petting, intercourse, etc., or they may be the result of^your thoughts^, fantasies, or readings about sexual experience. On the following pages you will find a list of 70 adjectives. Indicate, by circling a number from 1 to 7, how descriptive each of the adjectives is of your personal meaning of sexual experience. Circle VI" to indicate that the adjective is NOT DESCRIPTIVE. Circle "7" to indicate that the adjective is HIGHLY DESCRIPTIVE. Usei?the numbers "2^; "3," "4^'; "5^'^ or "6" if the adjective is between being NOT DESCRIPTIVE and being HIGHLY DESCRIPTIVE. PLEASE DO NOT LEAVE ANY ADJECTIVE UNMARKED.

PAGE 104

95

PAGE 105

96

PAGE 106

97

PAGE 107

REFERENCES APA Technical recommendations for psychological tests and diagnostic techniques. Psychological Bulletin . 1954, 51_ (#2, Part 2). Apperson, J. Sex, self-esteem and psychological motivation for sexual behavior (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1973). Dissertation Abstracts International . 1974. 34, 6205A. (University Microfilms No. 74-13, 858 J ~ Barclay, A. Linking sexual and aggressive motives: Contributions of "irrelevant" arousals. Journal of Personality , 1971, 39, 481-492. Bardwick, J. Psychology of women: A study of bio-cultural conflicts . New York: Harper & Row, 1971. Bem, S. The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology . 1974. 42^. 155-162. Bentler. P. Heterosexual behavior assessment--!: ; Males. Behavior Research and Therapy . 1968a. 6, 21-25. Bentler, P. Heterosexual behavior assessment--IIi : Females. Behavior Research and Therapy , 1968b, 6, 27-30. | Campbell, D., & Fiske, D. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological JBulletin . 1959, 56, 81-105. Chodorow, N. Oedipal assymetries and heterosexual knots. Social Problems , 1976, 23_, 454-468. Clement, U., & Pfafflen, F. Changes in personality scores among couples subsequent to sex therapy. Archives of Sexual Behavior , 1980. 9, 235-244. Comfort, A. Sexuality in a zero growth society. In C. Gordon & G. Johnson (Eds.), Readings in human sexuality: Contemporary perspectives . New York : harper & Row, 1976. Comrey, A. Common methodological problems in factor analytic studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 1978, 46, 648-659. 98

PAGE 108

9S Cronbach, L. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika . 1951. 16, 297-334. Cronbach, L. Test validation. In R. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd Ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1 971 . Cronbach, L., & Meehl , P. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin , 1955, 52, 281-302. D'Augelli, J., & Cross, H. Relationship of sex guilt and moral reasoning to premarital sex in college women and in couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 1975, 43, 40-47. Dearth, P., & Cassell, C. Comparing attitudes. of male and female university students before and after a semester course on human sexuality. Journal of School Health , 1976, 46, 593-598. Dixon, W., & Brown, M. (Eds.) Biomedical computer programs: P-series 1979 . Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979. Ellis, H. Studies on the psychology of sex . (Vol. 4). New York: Random House, 1936. Ellis, H. Studies on the psychology of sex . ((Vol. 1). New York: Random House, 1942. Eysenck, H. Personality and sexual adjustment. British Journal of Psychiatry . 1971a, m, 593-608. Eysenck, H. Masculinity-femininity, personality and sexual attitudes. The Journal of Sex Research , 1971b, 7. 83-88. Farley, F., Nelson, J., Knight, W., & Garcia-Colberg, E. Sex, politics and personality: A multidimensional study of college students. Archives of Sexual Behavior , 1977, 6, 105-119. Finger. F. Changes in sex practices and beliefs of male college students over 30 years. The Journal of Sex Research , 1975, 11_> 304-317. Foote, N. Sex as play. Hn C. Gordon & G. Johnson (Eds.), Readings in human sexuality: Contemporary perspectives . New York: Harper & Row, 1976. Foster, A. The sexual compatibility test. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 1977, 45_, 332-333. Freud, S. Sexuality and the psychology of love . New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1963.

PAGE 109

100 Gagnon, J. Scripts and the coordination of sexual conduct. In J. Cole & R. Dienstbier (Eds.), Nebraska^symposiurn on motivation 1973 . Lincoln: University of Nebraska iPress, 1974. Gagnon, J. Human sexual itites . Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman I Co., 1977: Gagnon, J., & Simon, W. Sexual conduct: The social source of human sexuality . Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1973. Gecas, V., & Libby, R. Sexual behavior as symbolic interaction. The Journal of Sex Research . 1976, 12^, 33-49. Gelles, R. On the association of sex and violence in the fantasy production of college students. Suicide , 1975, 5^, 78-84. Gerrard, M. Sex guilt and attitudes toward sex in sexually active and inactive female college students. Journal of Personality Assessment , 1980, 44, 258-261 . Gershman, H. A psychoanalyst's evaluation of the sexual revolution. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis , 1978, 38, 143-154. Gough, H. The adjective check list . Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists PressTT^52r Grater, H., & Downing, N. The meaning of sexual experience. Under review. Gross, A. The male role and heterosexual behavior. Journal of Social Issues , 1978, 34, 87-107. Hariton, E., & Singer, J. Women's fantasies during sexual intercourse; Normative and theoretical implications. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology . 1974, 42^, 313-32?; Heath, D. Marital sexual enjoyment and frustration of professional men. Archives of Sexual Behavior , 1978, 7, 463-476. Hessellund. H. On some sociosexual sex differences. The Journal of Sex Research . 1971, 7^, 263-273. Hornick, J. Premarital sexual attitudes and behavior. Sociological Quarterly , 1978, 19., 534-544. Husted, J., & Edwards, A. Personality correlates of male sexual arousal and behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior , 1976, 5_, 149-156. Jong, E. Fear of flying . New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973.

PAGE 110

101 Jurlch, A. Differential determinants of premarital sexual standards among college students. Adolescence , 1979, 1[4, 797-810. Jurich, A., & Jurich, J. The effect of cognitive moral development upon the selection of premarital sexual standards. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 1974, 36^, 736-741, Kanin, E., Davidson, K. , & Scheck, S. A research note on male-female differentials in the experience of heterosexual love. Journal of Sex Research . 1970, 6, 64-72. Kaufman, G., & Krupka, J. Integrating one's sexuality: Crisis and change. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy , 1973, 23, 445-464. Kelley, J. Sexual permissiveness: Evidence for a theory. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 1978, 40, 455-468. Kinsey, A., Pomeroy, W., & Martin, C. Sexual behavior in the human male . Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1948. Kinsey, A., Pomeroy, W., Martin, C, & Gebhard, P. Sexual behavior in the human female . Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1953. Kristal, J. The influence of the early father-daughter relationship on feminine sexual behavior (Doctoral dissertation. University of Texas at Austin, 1978). Dissertation Abstracts International , 1979, 39, 4584B-4585B. (University Microfilms No. 7900590J LaPlante, M., McCormick, N., & Brannigan, G. Living the sexual script: College students' views of influence in sexual encounters. The Journal of Sex Research , 1980, 16, 338-355. Libby, R., & Straus, M. Make love not war? Sex, sexual meanings, and violence in a sample of university students. Archives of Sexual Behavior , 1980, 9, 133-148. Loevinger, J. The technic of homogeneous tests compared with some aspects of "scale analysis" and factor analysis. Psychological Bulletin , 1948, 45, 507-529. LoPlccolo, J., & Herman, J. Cultural values and the therapeutic definition of sexual function and dysfunction. Journal of Social Issues , 1977, 33, 166-183. LoPlccolo, J., & Steger, J. The Sexual Interaction Inventory: A new instrument for assessment of sexual dysfunction. Archives of Sexual Behavior , 1974, 3, 585-595. Mailer, N. The prisoner of sex . Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1971.

PAGE 111

102 Mancini, J., & Orthner, D. Recreational sexuality preferences among middle-class husbands and wives. The Journal of Sex Research . 1978, 14., 96-106. ~ Masters, W., & Johnson, V. Human sexual response . Boston: . Little, Brown. & Co., 1966. Masters, W., & Johnson, V. Human sexual inadequacy . Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1970. McBride, M., & Ender, K. Sexual attitudes and sexual behavior among college students. Journal of College Student Persohiiel , 1977, 18^, 183-187. McCary, J. Historic development of romantic love. In C. Gordon & G. Johnson (Eds.), Readings in human sexuality: Contemporary perspectives . New York: Harper & Row, l976v McCormick, N. Come-ons and put-offs: Unmarried students' strategies for having and avoiding sexual intercourse. Psychology of Women Quarterly , 1979, 4. 194-211. McCoy, N., & D'Agostino, P. Factor analysis of the Sexual Interaction Inventory. Archi ves of Sexual Behavi or , 1977, 6, 25-35. Mercer, G., & Kohn, P. Gender differences in the integration of conservatism, sex urge, and sexual behaviors among colege students, The Journal of Sex Research , 1979, 15, 129-142. Mitchell, J. Some psychological dimensions of adolescent sexuality. Adolescence , 1972, 7, 447-458. Money, J. The development of sexology as a discipline. The Journal of Sex Research , 1976, 12^, 83-87. Morris, M. The "three R's" of sex. Journal of Religion and Health , 1978, n, 48-56. Mosher, D. Measurement of guilt in females by self-report inventories. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 1 968 , 32 , 690-695 . Mosher, D. Three dimensions of involvement in human sexual response. The Journal of Sex Research , 1980, 16, 1-42. Nelson, P. Personality, sexual functions, and sexual behavior: An experiment in methodology (Doctoral dissertation. University of Florida, 1978). Dissertation Abstracts. International , 1979, 39, 6134B. (University Microfilms No. 7913307) Nunnally, J. Psychometric theory . (2nd Ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.

PAGE 112

103 Osgood, C, Suci, G., & Tannenbaum, P. The measuremehtoofomeaning . Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1957. Paxton, A., & Turner, E. Self-actualization and sexual permissiveness, satisfaction, prudishness, and drive among female undergraduates. The Journal of Sex Research , 1978, U, 65-80. Peplau, L., Rubin, Z., & Hill, C. Sexual intimacy in dating relationships. Journal of Social Issues , 1977, 31, 86-109. Pleck, J. The male sex role: Definitions, problems, and sources of change. Journal of Social Issues , 1976, 32^, 155-164. Podell, L., & Perkins, J. A Guttman scale for sexual experience A methodological note. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology . 1957, 54, 420-422. Reich, W. The function of the orgasm . (Translated by V. Carfagno). New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1973. Reik, T. Sex in men and women: Its emotional variations . New York:, Noonday Press, 1960. Schildmyer, J. An exploratory study: Correlates and variables of positive sexual experiences (Doctoral dissertation. University of Missouri Kansas City, 1976). Dissertation Abstracts International , 1977, 38, 641A. (University Microfilms No. 77-16, 874) Schoof-Tams, K., Schlaegel , J., & Walczak, L. Differentiation of sexual morality between 11 and 16 years. Archives of Sexual Behavior , 1976, 5, 353-370. Schwartz, A. Androgyny and the art of loving. Psychotherapy : Theory , Research and Practice . 1979, 16, 405-4(38. Shade, W. "A mental passion": Female sexuality in Victorian America. International Journal of Women's Studies , 1978. 1, 13-29. Sigushi, v., Schmidt, G.. Reinfeld, A., & Widermann-Sutor, I. Psychosexual stimulation: Sex differences. The Journal of Sex Research , 1970, 6, 10-24. Simon, W. The social, the erotic, and the sensual: The complexities of sexual scripts. In J. Cole & R. Dienstbier (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation 1973 . ::hlTneoTn: University of Nebraska Press, 1974. Slater, P. Sexual adequacy in America. In C. Gordon & G. Johnson (Eds.), Readings in human^ sexuality: Contemporary perspectives . New York1 Harper & Row. 1976. ~~

PAGE 113

104 Stanley, J. Reliability. In R. Thbrndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd Ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1 971 . Stelner, C. Scripts people live: Transactional analysis of life scripts . New Yorkl Bantam Books, 1974. Story, M. A longitudinal study of the effects of a university human sexuality course on sexual attitudes. Journal of Sex Research , 1979, 15, 184-204. Tavris, C. , & Of fir, C. The longest war: Sex differences in perspective . New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1977. Thompson, C. Some effects of the derogatory attitude towards female sexuality. Psychiatry , 1950, 3^, 349-354. Walfish, S., & Myerson, M. Sex role identity and attitudes toward sexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior , 1980, 9, 199-203. Waterman, C, Chiauzzi, E., & Gruenbaum, M. The relationship between sexual enjoyment and actualization of self and sexual partner. Journal of Sex Research . 1979, 1_5, 253-263. Wilson, S., Strong, B., Robbins, M., & Johns, T. Human sexuality: A texttwithhreadings (2nd Ed.). St. Paul: West Publishing Co. , 1980. Young -Hyman,D. Family dynamics of sexual activity in adolescent females (Doctoral dissertation, Adelphi University, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International . 1977, 38, 1913B-1914B. (University Microfilms No. 77-22, 575) Zuckerman, M., Tushup, R., & Finneri-, S. Sexual attitudes and experience: Attitude and personality correlates and changes produced by a course in sexuality. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 1976, 44, 7-19.

PAGE 114

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH David N. Bernstein was born in Brooklyn, New York, on February 12, 1948. He received his early education in the New York City Public School system, graduating from high school in June, 1965. In June, 1969, he received his Bachelor of Science degree from the State University of New York at Stony Brook, majoring in mathematics. From 1969 through 1978, David taught mathematics at Jamaica High School in Queens, New York. During that time he attended . Queens College of the City University of New York and was granted a Master of Arts degree in mathematics/secondary education in January, 1973. He also completed the requirements for certification as a reality therapist. In September, 1978, he requested a leave of absence from teaching, and began his studies in counseling psychology at the University of Florida. In September, 1981, David began interning at the Veterans Administration Medical Center in East Orange, New Jersey. The Doctor of Philosophy degree is expected to be conferred in May, 1982. At the completion of his graduate studies, David plans to seek employment as a Counseling Psychologist in a setting that offers the opportunity of working in conjunction with other health care professionals. 105

PAGE 115

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adiequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. fi^ Jami^ Algina Assistant Professor of Foundations of Education I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 'William From in Assistant Prof I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Associate Professor of Psychology

PAGE 116

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. irnthv NpuiTtl ' ' Dorothy Nevi' Associate Professor of Psychology This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of Psychology in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. May 1982 : Dean, Graduate School