The initiating heterosexual contact scale: A factor analysis

  • Peter B. Anderson
  • Maria Newton
Research and Clinical Articles

Abstract

Recent studies of college women’s initiation of heterosexual contact have focused on the relationships among predictors of women's heterosexual initiating behaviors, initiating strategies, and theories concerning sexuality and indicate the importance of establishing the psychometric properties of the research measurements. The present study of 212 college women (mean age =22.3 years) investigated the factor structure underlying one of these tools, the Initiating Heterosexual Contact Scale (IHCS). The IHCS was developed to assess behaviors and motives relative to initiating heterosexual contact. subjects were administered a survey that included their self-report of initiating sexual contact with men. Factor analysis of the 26-item scale revealed a 19-item scale comprised of six factors—Sexual Arousal, Hidden Motives, Verbal Pressure, Retaliation or Gain, Physical Force, and Exploitation—accounting for 59.8% of the response variance. The internal reliability of the subscales ranged from .43 to .75. Recommendations for further refinement of the IHCS and areas of future research are suggested.

Key words

aggressive sexuality dating behaviors female sexuality sexual contact 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, P., & Aymami, R. (1993). Reports of female initiation of sexual contact: Male and female differences.Archives of Sexual Behavior, 22, 335–343.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Byers, S. (1996). How well does the traditional sexual script explain sexual coercion? Review of a program of research.Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 8, 7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Craig, M. (1988). The sexually coercive college female: An investigation of attitudinal and affective characteristics. In C. L. Muehlenhard (Chair),Sexually coerced men and sexually coercive women. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex, San Francisco, Nov.Google Scholar
  4. Gorsuch, R. (1983).Factor analysis. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.Google Scholar
  5. Hogben, M., Byrne, D., & Hamburger, M. (1996). Coeroive heterosexual sexuality in dating relationships of college students: Implications of differential male-female experiences.Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 8, 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kinsey, A., Pomeroy, W., & Martin, C. (1948).Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.Google Scholar
  7. Koss, M., & Gidycz, C. (1985). Sexual experiences survey: Reliability and validity.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 422–423.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Koss, M., & Oros, C. (1982). Sexual experiences survey: A research instrument investigating sexual aggression and victimization.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 455–457.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Muehlenhard, C., & Cook, S. (1988). Men's self-reports of unwanted sexual activity.Journal of Sex Research, 24, 58–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Nunnally, J. (1978).Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  11. O'Sullivan, L., & Byers, S. (1993). Eroding stereotypes: College women's attempts to influence reluctant male sexual partners.Journal of Sex Research, 30, 270–282.Google Scholar
  12. O'Sullivan, L., & Byers, S. (1996). Gender differences in responses to discrepancies in desired level of sexual intimacy.Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 8, 49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sarrel, P., & Masters, W. (1982). Sexual molestation of men by women.Archives of Sexual Behavior, 11, 117–131.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Stevens, S. (1992).Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Story, M. (1986).Factors affecting the incidence of partner abuse among university students. Unpublished manuscript. University of Northern Iowa, Waterloo, Home Economics Department.Google Scholar
  16. Struckman-Johnson, C. (1988). Forced sex on dates: It happens to men too.Journal of Sex Research, 24, 234–241.Google Scholar
  17. Struckman-Johnson, D., & Struckman-Johnson, C. (1996). College men's reactions to hypothetical forceful sexual advances from women.Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 8, 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter B. Anderson
    • 1
  • Maria Newton
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Human Performance and Health PromotionUniversity of New OrleansNew Orleans

Personalised recommendations