Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Measurement of Nontraditional Sexuality in Women

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Archives of Sexual Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Women’s Nontraditional Sexuality Questionnaire (WNSQ) was developed, and its factor structure, reliability, and convergent and concurrent validity assessed, in two samples of midwestern U.S. college women. Study 1 (N = 243) used exploratory factor analysis to assess the instrument dimensionality. In Study 2 (N = 627), the fit of the four-factor solution derived from Study 1 was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis. Results supported a four-factor solution comprising: Involvement in Casual Sex, Self-Pleasuring, Degree of Sexual Interest, and Using Sex as a Means to an End. WNSQ total score and subscales had acceptable internal consistency reliability. Convergent validity was supported by significant correlations of the WNSQ and its subscales with a measure of casual sex (the Sociosexual Orientation Index), and with a measure of adherence to traditional feminine sexual norms (the Purity subscale of the Femininity Ideology Scale). The WNSQ showed weak relationships with a measure of risky sexual health communication practices (Health Protective Sexual Communication Scale). The WNSQ offers promise for study of women’s sexual attitudes and behaviors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander, M. G., & Fisher, T. D. (2003). Truth and consequences: Using the bogus pipeline to examine sex differences in self-reported sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 27–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Binson, D., Dolcini, M. M., Pollack, L. M., & Catania, J. A. (1993). Multiple sexual partners among young adults in high-risk cities. Family Planning Perspectives, 25, 268–272.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Catania, J. A. (1998). Health protective sexual communication scale. In J. Nageotte (Ed.), Sexual risk (pp. 544–547). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, M. K. (2004). A conceptual model of sexual health practices of older adolescent college women. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B. Sciences and Engineering, 64(11-B), 5446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooney, T. M., & Uhlenberg, P. (1991). Change in work-family connection among the highly educated men and women: 1970–1980. Journal of Family Issues, 12, 69–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, & Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finney, S. J., & DiStefano, C. (2006). Nonnormal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 269–314). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaughan, M. (2002). The substitution hypothesis: The impact of premarital liaisons and human capital on marital timing. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 407–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldscheider, F. K., & Waite, L. J. (1986). Sex differences in the entry into marriage. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 91–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helms, J. E., Henze, K. T., Sass, T. L., & Mifsud, V. A. (2006). Treating Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients as data in counseling research. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 630–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hynie, M., Lydon, J. E., Cote, S., & Wiener, S. (1998). Relational sexual scripts and women’s condom use: The importance of internalized norms. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 370–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, J. H. (2006). Factor analysis in counseling psychology research, training, and practice: Principles, advances, and applications. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 684–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levant, R. (1996). The new psychology of men. Professional Psychology, 27, 259–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levant, R. (1997). Nonrelational sexuality in men. In R. Levant & G. Brooks (Eds.), Men and sex: New psychological perspectives (pp. 9–27). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levant, R. F., Richmond, K., Cook, S., House, A., & Aupont, M. (2007). The Femininity Ideology Scale: Factor structure, reliability, validity, and social contextual variation. Sex Roles, 57, 373–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ménard, A. D., & Offman, A. (2009). The interrelationships between sexual self-esteem, sexual assertiveness and sexual satisfaction. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 18, 35–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meston, C. M., & Buss, D. M. (2007). Why humans have sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 477–507.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2007). Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.

  • O’Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32, 396–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Paul, E. L., McManus, B., & Hayes, A. (2000). ‘Hookups’: Characteristics and correlates of college students’ spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. Journal of Sex Research, 37, 76–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality, 1993–2007. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pleck, J. H. (1981). The myth of masculinity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pleck, J. H. (1995). The gender role strain paradigm: An update. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 11–32). New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, I. E., & Jedlicka, D. (1982). Change in sexual attitudes and behavior of college students from 1965–1980: A research note. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 237–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samberg, S. E., & Bursik, K. (2007, August). Hooking up as contemporary adolescent female sexual behavior. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.

  • Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870–883.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, L. M., & Rivadeneyra, R. (1999). Contributions of entertainment television to adolescents’ sexual attitudes and expectations: The role of viewing amount versus viewer involvement. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 237–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, B. E., & Twenge, J. M. (2005). Changes in young people’s sexual behavior and attitudes, 1943–1999: A cross-temporal meta-analysis. Review of General Psychology, 9, 249–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the statistical consultation assistance of Professor Dimitre Stefanov of The University of Akron. We also gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Korenna Barto, Samantha Gregus, Tiffany M. Kral, and Britney A. Kurtz, The University of Akron; Katherine Frank, University of Wisconsin, Madison; Kristin David and Chassity Angeny, Nova Southeastern University; and Katherine Richmond, Muhlenberg College.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, The University of Akron, College of Arts & Sciences Building, Room 350, Akron, OH, 44325-4301, USA

    Ronald F. Levant, Thomas J. Rankin & Christine M. Williams

  2. Department of Psychology, The University of Akron, College of Arts & Sciences Building, Room 301, Akron, OH, 44325-4301, USA

    Rosalie J. Hall

  3. Department of Psychology, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA, USA

    K. Bryant Smalley

Authors
  1. Ronald F. Levant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas J. Rankin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rosalie J. Hall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. K. Bryant Smalley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christine M. Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ronald F. Levant.

Appendix: Sexual Practices and Attitudes Survey [WNSQ]

Appendix: Sexual Practices and Attitudes Survey [WNSQ]

[To save space, the formatting of the WNSQ is altered below, Likert scales are summarized and prefatory material is omitted. The actual scale is available from the first author upon request.]

  1. 1.

    Current Relationship Status: (a) Married/partnered/engaged; (b) Single: Dating one person with the expectation of exclusivity; (c) Single: Casual, non-exclusive dating; (d) Single: Not currently dating anyone.

For the following questions, please consider the term “sex” to refer to any form of intimate physical contact involving more than kissing between you and another person (opposite or same sex).

  1. 2.

    Have you ever had sex (based on the above definition)? (a) Yes; (b) No

  2. 3.

    Are you currently sexually active (based on the above definition)? (a) Yes; (b) No

  3. 4.

    Are you currently involved in a sexual relationship in which you and your partner have agreed not to have sex (based on the above definition) with other people? (a) Yes (b) No

  4. 5.

    Are you currently or have you recently been sexually active (based on the above definition) with someone who is not your exclusive sexual partner (e.g., one night stand; having sex with two or more people in a short time period; or casual sexual activity)? (a) Yes; (b) No

  5. 6.

    Whether or not you are sexually active, would your preferred sexual partner be: (a) Always male; (b) Usually male, but sometimes female; (c) Equally likely to be either; (d) Usually female, but sometimes male; (e) Always female

[After a reminder that the above definition of sex applies, questions 7–32 use this Likert scale:]

Never

Frequently

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

  1. 7.

    Given the chance, how often would you choose to have sex?

  2. 8.

    How often have you had sex to end a fight?

  3. 9.

    How often do you go somewhere (e.g., bar, social event) to find someone to have sex with?

  4. 10.

    How often would you have anonymous sex with someone you are very attracted to if you are/were single?

  5. 11.

    How often do you masturbate?

  6. 12.

    How often do you use sex toys alone?

  7. 13.

    How often have you been paid for sex?

  8. 14.

    How often do you fantasize about having sex with someone other than your current partner?

  9. 15.

    How often have you had sex to keep your partner in the relationship?

  10. 16.

    How often have you had sex to help get a promotion or some other benefit at work or school?

  11. 17.

    How often do you cheat sexually on a partner?

  12. 18.

    How often do you purchase sex toys?

  13. 19.

    How often do you pay for sex?

  14. 20.

    How often do you talk to your friends about your sexual experiences?

  15. 21.

    How often do you say what you want or need during sex?

  16. 22.

    How often do you have sex outside of an exclusive relationship?

  17. 23.

    How often would you have anonymous sex with someone you were very attracted to if you were in a relationship and knew for sure that your partner would not find out?

  18. 24.

    How often do you buy an X-rated video?

  19. 25.

    How often do you go to a strip club?

  20. 26.

    How often do you use sex to get something you want?

  21. 27.

    How often do you fantasize about having sex with your current partner?

  22. 28.

    Do you ever have sex with a friend with whom you are not interested in dating (so-called “friends with benefits”)?

  23. 29.

    How often do you have sex with someone you just met?

  24. 30.

    How often have you had sex to get someone to do something for you?

  25. 31.

    How often do you watch pornography alone?

  26. 32.

    How often do you have phone-sex or cyber-sex with someone you are not in a relationship with?

[After a reminder that the above definition of sex applies, questions 33–40 use this Likert scale:]

Strongly Disagree

 

Neutral

Strongly Agree

1

2

3

4

5

  1. 33.

    Sex should be unplanned, rather than planned ahead of time.

  2. 34.

    One should always be ready for sex.

  3. 35.

    Sex can be a useful tool in some situations.

  4. 36.

    Hugging and kissing should not always lead to sex.

  5. 37.

    I am not sexually satisfied with any behavior other than intercourse.

  6. 38.

    Orgasm is not a necessary part of sex for me.

  7. 39.

    I would not use sex to get something I wanted.

  8. 40.

    Sex should only take place between two people who are in love.

  • Reverse Scored Items: 36, 38, 39, 40.

Scales:

  • Nontraditional Attitudes About Sex: 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40.

  • Degree of Sexual Interest: 7, 11, 14, 20, 21, 27.

  • Involvement in Casual Sex: 9, 10, 17, 22, 23, 28, 29.

  • Self-Pleasuring: 12, 18, 24, 25, 31, 32.

  • Using Sex as a Means to an End: 8, 15, 16, 26, 30.

  • Involvement in Commercial Sex: 13, 19.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Levant, R.F., Rankin, T.J., Hall, R.J. et al. Measurement of Nontraditional Sexuality in Women. Arch Sex Behav 41, 283–295 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9793-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9793-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation