Advertisement

Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 44, Issue 5, pp 1301–1312 | Cite as

The Psychometric Structure of Items Assessing Autogynephilia

  • Kevin J. Hsu
  • A. M. Rosenthal
  • J. Michael Bailey
Original Paper

Abstract

Autogynephilia, or paraphilic sexual arousal in a man to the thought or image of himself as a woman, manifests in a variety of different behaviors and fantasies. We examined the psychometric structure of 22 items assessing five known types of autogynephilia by subjecting them to exploratory factor analysis in a sample of 149 autogynephilic men. Results of oblique factor analyses supported the ability to distinguish five group factors with suitable items. Results of hierarchical factor analyses suggest that the five group factors were strongly underlain by a general factor of autogynephilia. Because the general factor accounted for a much greater amount of the total variance of the 22 items than did the group factors, the types of autogynephilia that a man has seem less important than the degree to which he has autogynephilia. However, the five types of autogynephilia remain conceptually useful because meaningful distinctions were found among them, including differential rates of endorsement and differential ability to predict other relevant variables like gender dysphoria. Factor-derived scales and subscales demonstrated good internal consistency reliabilities, and validity, with large differences found between autogynephilic men and heterosexual male controls. Future research should attempt to replicate our findings, which were mostly exploratory.

Keywords

Autogynephilia Erotic target location error Paraphilia Gender dysphoria Transvestic fetishism 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank William Revelle, Richard E. Zinbarg, and Matthew J. Jiang for their statistical help.

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  2. Beauchaine, T. P. (2007). A brief taxometrics primer. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36, 654–676.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blanchard, R. (1989a). The classification and labeling of nonhomosexual gender dysphorias. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 18, 315–334.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanchard, R. (1989b). The concept of autogynephilia and the typology of male gender dysphoria. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 177, 616–623.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blanchard, R. (1991). Clinical observations and systematic studies of autogynephilia. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 17, 235–251.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blanchard, R. (1992). Nonmonotonic relation of autogynephilia and heterosexual attraction. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 271–276.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blanchard, R. (1993a). Partial versus complete autogynephilia and gender dysphoria. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 19, 301–307.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blanchard, R. (1993b). Varieties of autogynephilia and their relationship to gender dysphoria. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 22, 241–251.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Briggs, N. E., & MacCallum, R. C. (2003). Recovery of weak common factors by maximum likelihood and ordinary least squares estimation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 38, 25–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deogracias, J. J., Johnson, L. L., Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F. L., Kessler, S. J., Schober, J. M., & Zucker, K. J. (2007). The Gender Identity/Gender Dysphoria Questionnaire for Adolescents and Adults. Journal of Sex Research, 44, 370–379.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Freund, K., & Blanchard, R. (1993). Erotic target location errors in male gender dysphorics, paedophiles, and fetishists. British Journal of Psychiatry, 162, 558–563.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Freund, K., Seto, M. C., & Kuban, M. (1996). Two types of fetishism. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 34, 687–694.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013). Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26, 213–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Krueger, R. B., & Kaplan, M. S. (2001). The paraphilic and hypersexual disorders: An overview. Journal of Psychiatric Practice, 7, 391–403.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lawrence, A. A. (2006). Clinical and theoretical parallels between desire for limb amputation and gender identity disorder. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 263–278.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lawrence, A. A. (2009). Erotic target location errors: An underappreciated paraphilic dimension. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 194–215.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lawrence, A. A. (2013). Men trapped in men’s bodies: Narratives of autogynephilic transsexualism. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411–419.Google Scholar
  21. Revelle, W., & Zinbarg, R. E. (2009). Coefficients alpha, beta, omega, and the glb: Comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika, 74, 145–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zinbarg, R. E., Yovel, I., Revelle, W., & McDonald, R. P. (2006). Estimating generalizability to a latent variable common to all of a scale’s indicators: A comparison of estimators for ω h. Applied Psychological Measurement, 30, 121–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin J. Hsu
    • 1
  • A. M. Rosenthal
    • 1
  • J. Michael Bailey
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations