Sociosexual Orientation Inventory

The Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI-R) is a 9-item self-report questionnaire designed to measure individuals differences in the tendency to have casual, uncommitted sexual relationships. This tendency, termed sociosexual orientation is divided into three facets measured by the inventory: behavior (in terms of number of casual and changing sex partners), attitude (towards uncommitted sex) and desire (for people not in a romantic relationship).[1] The most recent revision is from 2008.

History

Sociosexuality as a concept was introduced by Alfred Kinsey[2][3] to describe differences in individuals tendency to engage in uncommitted sexual relationships.

Minimal research was done until interest in the topic markedly increased when Gangestad and Simpson released their 5-item Sociosexual Orientation Inventory in 1991.[4] However, serious problems were found with the original scale with respect to sociosexuality as a single dimension, its sometimes low internal consistency, skewed score distribution, and one question inapplicable to singles.[5][6][7] It was these concerns that led Penke and Asendorpf to create the SOI-R to deal with these issues.

There currently exist two variations on the SOI-R currently available in 25 languages, a 9-point response scale for integration with the original Gangestad and Simpson SOI and a 5-point response scale for the majority of subjects. The language versions include Czech,[8] English,[9] Hungarian,[10] or Polish.[11]

Findings
Main article: Sociosexual orientation

Significant sex differences have been found between men and women on the scale, with a significantly larger correlation between the attitude and behavior facets of the SOI-R in women compared to men (proposed to be due to lower opportunity for behavior).[1] There were pronounced sex differences in desire, mediocre differences for attitude (with men scoring higher than women) no differences in behavior in heterosexual test-takers.

Improving on the previous Gangestad and Simpson Sociosexuality scale, the three factors appeared to make unique contributions and have discriminant validity. Desire made unique contributions to the prediction of past sexual and relationship behaviors, observer-rated attractiveness, self-perceived mate value, and male and female flirting behavior, as well as having links with sex drive and relationship quality. Attitude appears responsible for the effect of sociosexuality on mate preferences, assortative mating, and romantic partner's flirtatiousness outside the relationship.[12] Evening-oriented females (but not males) were more unrestricted in behavior, attitude, and desire.[11]

gollark: Nope. They don't reproduce. They get made and designed artificially.
gollark: No, Arch.
gollark: Cells can fix themselves a decent bit.
gollark: Yes, quite often.
gollark: Yes, several times.

See also

References
  1. Penke, L.; Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). "Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 95 (5): 1113–1135. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113. PMID 18954197.
  2. Kinsey, A., Pomeroy, W., & Martin, C. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: Saunders. ISBN 9780253334121
  3. Kinsey, A., Pomeroy, W., Martin, C., & Gebhard, E (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. Philadelphia: Saunders
  4. Simpson, J. A.; Gangestad, S.W. (1991). "Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 60 (6): 870–883. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.870.
  5. Webster, G.D.; Bryan, A. (2007). "Sociosexual attitudes and behaviors: Why two factors are better than one". Journal of Research in Personality. 41 (4): 917–922. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.08.007.
  6. Asendorpf, J.B.; Penke, L. (2005). "A mature evolutionary psychology demands careful conclusions about sex differences". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 28 (2): 275–276. doi:10.1017/s0140525x05220058.
  7. Voracek, M (2005). "Shortcomings of the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory: Can psychometrics inform evolutionary psychology?". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 28 (2): 296–297. doi:10.1017/s0140525x05430058.
  8. Roberts, SC; Klapilová, K; Little, AC; Burriss, RP; Jones, BC; DeBruine, LM Petrie M; Havlíček, J (2012). "Relationship satisfaction and outcome in women who meet their partner while using oral contraception". Proc. R. Soc. B. 279 (1732): 1430–1436. doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.1647. PMC 3282363. PMID 21993500.
  9. Swami, V; Miller, R; Furnham, A; Penke, L; Tove, MJ (2008). "The influence of men's sexual strategies on perceptions of women's bodily attractiveness, health and fertility". Personality and Individual Differences. 44: 98–107. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.07.017.
  10. Meskó, N; Láng, A; Kocsor, F (2014). "The Hungarian Version of Sociosexual Orientation Inventory Revised (SOI-R): Sex and Age Differences". Interpersona. 8: 85–99. doi:10.5964/ijpr.v8i1.130.
  11. Jankowski, Konrad S. (2014). "Morningness–eveningness and sociosexuality: Evening females are less restricted than morning ones". Personality and Individual Differences. 68: 13–17. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.04.006.
  12. Penke, L. (2011). Revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory. In T. D. Fisher, C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber & S. L. Davis (Eds.): Handbook of sexuality-related measures (3rd Ed.) (pp. 622-625). New York: Routledge.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.