ARTICLE

The development and validation of the motives for

feigning orgasms scale
Léa J. Séguin, 1 Robin R. Milhausen,2 and Tuuli Kukkonen 2
1 Department of Sexology, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montreal, QC
2 Department of Family Relations and Applied Nutrition, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON

Most research on feigning orgasm has focused exclusively on women and on potential predictors of this
behaviour, with little attention given to the underlying motives for doing so. There are currently no available
scales measuring individuals’ motives for feigning orgasm. The purpose of the current research was to
develop and validate a scale to assess motives for feigning orgasm among men and women. In Study 1,
53 men and 94 women completed a preliminary version of the Motives for Feigning Orgasms Scale
(MFOS). More women (43.1%) than men (17.3%) indicated that that they had pretended to have an
orgasm with their current relationship partner. Factor analysis was performed, yielding a six-factor solution
(i.e., Intoxication, Partner Self-Esteem, Poor Sex/Partner, Desireless Sex, Timing, and Insecurity). In Study
2, the MFOS was completed by 194 participants. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted; however
this analysis supported three models (i.e., two two-factor models, and one three-factor model). The Sexual
Goals Questionnaire, the Behavioural Inhibition System/Behavioural Activation System Scale, and the
Sexual Compulsivity Scale were also completed concurrently with the MFOS, and yielded results that
supported the MFOS’s convergent and discriminant validity. Men were more likely than women to report
pretending orgasm due to intoxication, discomfort or displeasure attributable to the sexual experience or
to their sexual partner, and feelings of insecurity. No other gender differences on the MFOS’s subscales
were found. The MFOS is a new comprehensive measure of individuals’ motivations for feigning orgasm
that can help enhance our understanding of human sexual motivation.

KEY WORDS: Orgasms, faking orgasms, sexual motives, motivation, scale development, scale validation

INTRODUCTION experience can be felt to be inherently rewarding and could

Human behaviour, including in the context of social and sexual
relationships, is rarely without motive. Recent research in the
area of sexual motivation has focused on motives for engaging
in sex (e.g., Cooper, Shapiro, & Powers, 1998; Impett, Peplau,
& Gable, 2005; Meston & Buss, 2007; Meston, Hamilton, &
Harte, 2009; Muise, 2011; Muise, Impett, Kogan, & Desmarais,
2012) and indicates that motivations for sex can impact sexual
and relationship satisfaction. The approach-avoidance theo-
retical framework, where approach motives are adopted to
gain something positive from an experience (e.g., pursuing
sex to gain emotional closeness with a partner), and avoidance
motives, to avoid a negative experience (e.g., engaging in sex
to avoid losing a partner’s interest; Impett et al.) has been put
forth as a framework for organizing sexual motivations. The
framework also allows for the generation of specific hypotheses
regarding the relationship between specific motives and sexual
and relational outcomes. Impett et al. (2005) argued that if an
individual has sex for approach motives such as to pursue
physical pleasure or to promote emotional closeness, the
lead to other positive outcomes such as increased satisfac-
tion. On the other hand, if an individual engages in sex for
avoidance motivations such as to avoid upsetting a partner,
or to cope with one’s own negative emotions, they posited
that it would at best provide some relief, and at worst lead
to negative emotional and relationship consequences. The
approach-avoidance framework is grounded in Gray’s (1987)
and Cooper et al.’s (1998) work on behavioural motivation.
Although motives for sex have previously been studied
(e.g., Cooper et al., 1998; Impett et al., 2005; Meston & Buss,
2007; Meston, et al., 2009; Muise, 2011; Muise et al., 2012),
little research exists on motives for other types of sexual be-
haviours such as feigning orgasm. Parallel to research on
reasons for sex, feigning orgasm for love or intimacy reasons
may have beneficial sexual and/or relational outcomes. In
contrast, feigning orgasm for negative affective reasons, such
as insecurity, might degrade sexual or relationship satisfac-
tion. However, research on motivations for feigning orgasm
is limited in several respects, not the least of which is a lack

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Léa J. Séguin. Email: seguin.lea@courrier.uqam.ca

The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 24(1), 2015, pp. 31–48; doi:10.3138/cjhs.2613 31
Léa J. Séguin et al.
of a comprehensive measurement tool to assess motivations
for feigning among men and women.
Virtually all research on pretending orgasm has focused on
women (e.g., Darling & Davidson, 1986; Dove & Wiederman,
2000; Wiederman, 1997). This research typically examined
the prevalence of feigning orgasm, or investigated potential
factors that may be associated with this behaviour; such as,
cognitive distraction during sexual activity (Dove & Wiederman,
2000), sexual experience, sexual attitudes, and self-perceived
physical attractiveness (Wiederman, 1997). Findings regard-
ing the prevalence of feigning orgasm among women have
been relatively consistent, indicating at least half of women
have feigned orgasm during sexual activity. Among a sample
of 161 female university students, 55.6% reported having
feigned orgasm during penile-vaginal intercourse (Wiederman,
1997). Similarly, in another sample of female college students
who had experienced oral sex, genital petting and penile-
vaginal intercourse, 65% reported having feigned orgasm or
given the impression that an orgasm had occurred when it
had not (Bryan, 2001). In contrast, studies examining the
prevalence of pretending orgasm among men are rare (e.g.,
Muehlenhard & Shippee, 2010; Steiner, 1981). This may be
due, in part, to the assumption that since men’s orgasms are
usually accompanied by ejaculation, it is either more difficult
for men to pretend orgasm, or it is impossible for them to
do so (e.g., Braun, Gavey, & McPhillips, 2003). However,
recent research suggests that some men do feign orgasm. In a
sample of 281 university students, Muehlenhard and Shippee
found that approximately 25% of men (compared to 50% of
women) had done so during partnered sex (vaginal inter-
course, oral sex, or manual stimulation).
Although some research has explored factors associated
with women’s feigning orgasm, very few studies have exam-
ined individuals’ reported motives for doing so. Studies which
have investigated this phenomenon indicate that individuals
pretend orgasm for a variety of reasons. In an interview study
involving 73 heterosexual college students, women reported
pretending orgasm to reassure their partners of their ade-
quacy as lovers, or to avoid that their partners get upset
(Roberts, Kippax, Waldby, & Crawford, 1995). Other reported
reasons include wanting the sexual encounter to end (e.g.,
Bryan, 2001) reinforcing their partners for a behaviour that
they liked (e.g., Hite, 1976), and to keep their partners from
leaving them (Bryan, 2001; Hite). Muehlenhard and Shippee
(2010) explored both men’s and women’s reasons for pretend-
ing orgasm, and found that, men and women had engaged in
this behaviour because orgasm was unlikely or taking too
long (84% of men; 71% of women), they wanted the sexual
encounter to end (82% of men; 61% of women), they desired
to avoid a negative consequence such as to avoid upsetting a
partner (58% of men; 78% of women), or to attain a positive
outcome such as to please a partner (13% of men; 47% of
women). Recently, Cooper et al. (2014) published a scale
validation paper focused on women’s motivations for feigning
orgasm, which supported four primary motivations: altruistic
deceit (faking orgasm out of concern for a partner’s feelings);
32 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 24(1), 2015, pp. 31–48; doi:10.3138/cjhs.2613
fear and insecurity (faking orgasm to avoid negative emo-
tions); elevated arousal (faking orgasm to increase her own
arousal); and sexual adjournment (faking orgasm to quickly
end sexual intercourse). However, construct validity and test-
retest reliability was not assessed, the measure was developed
with an undergraduate sample, and was designed to assess
only women’s motivations for feigning orgasm.
Given that motives for engaging in sex were previously
shown to have an impact on levels of sexual desire, and rela-
tionship and sexual satisfaction (e.g., Impett et al., 2005; Im-
pett, Strachman, Finkel, & Gable, 2008; Katz & Tirone, 2009;
Muise, 2011; Stephenson, Ahrold, & Meston, 2011), it is plau-
sible that motives for feigning orgasm may also be impactful
on sexual function and relationship wellbeing. However, it
is very difficult to assess these impacts without a compre-
hensive, validated measure to assess individuals’ motives to
pretend orgasms. While previous research investigated indi-
viduals’ motives for feigning orgasm, no measure was used
or developed to assess them. The purpose of the current in-
vestigation was twofold. First, we aimed to develop and validate
a scale to assess men’s and women’s motives for pretending
orgasm. Second, we sought to investigate gender differences
in motivations for feigning orgasm using the new measure.
In Study 1, items were developed and exploratory factor anal-
ysis (EFA) was conducted to develop the Motives for Feigning
Orgasms Scale (MFOS). In Study 2, confirmatory factor anal-
ysis was used to validate the factor structure, and construct
validity and test-retest reliability was assessed. In addition,
gender differences on the MFOS’s subscales were investigated.
STUDY 1
Methods
Participants
Participants were recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk
(MTurk), a crowdsourcing Internet marketplace. MTurk is a
website where Requesters can post tasks known as Human In-
telligence Tasks (HITs) for MTurk users (known as Workers)
to complete for a nominal fee. Requesters are able to ask that
Workers fulfill certain qualifications before engaging in a
task. Social science and psychology researchers have used
MTurk for data collection for studying a wide variety of
topics including fame (Greenwood, Long, & Dal Cin, 2013),
cognitive behaviour (Crump, McDonnell, & Gureckis, 2013),
and impulsivity and sensation-seeking (Webster & Crysel,
2012). Research shows that MTurk data meets acceptable
psychometric standards, with mean alphas in the good to
excellent range (a ¼ .73 to .93 across multiple scales and
levels of participant compensation; Buhrmester, Kwang, &
Gosling, 2011). Test-retest reliability in a set of individual
difference measures has also been supported (r ¼ .80 to .94;
Buhrmester et al., 2011). Moreover, some research demon-
strated that MTurk data are virtually indistinguishable from
laboratory data (Casler, Bickel, & Hackett, 2013). Typical
 The development and validation of the motives for feigning orgasms scale
MTurk compensation ranges anywhere between $0.05 and
$0.10 for small tasks (approximately 5 to 10-minute tasks),
and awarding $.50 for 30-minute tasks has been shown to
have good response rates (Buhrmester et al., 2011).
For the purpose of this study, MTurk workers were only
able to access the survey if they had a 95% HIT approval
rate, and had had completed a minimum of 100 approved
HITs. Participants were required to be between the ages of
18 and 29 to maximize variability in terms of education, rela-
tionship length and status while minimizing the likely influ-
ence of other confounding variables such as menopause and
declining health. Eligibility criteria for the analyses also in-
cluded being in a relationship for a minimum of 4 weeks (to
maximize the chances that they would be sexually active), and
being a Canadian or American citizen. Lastly, participants
were excluded from analyses if they reported taking antide-
pressants. This exclusion criterion is founded in research sug-
gesting that antidepressants can negatively impact orgasmic
function (Rosen et al., 1999; Rothschild, 2000).
Procedure
Participants were registered workers on the MTurk website.
On the main HIT page, Workers are able to read about current
HITs or search within available HITS for tasks appropriate to
their demographic characteristics or skill sets. Interested partic-
ipants on MTurk were directed to a University Guelph website,
on which a link to the survey on SurveyMonkey was posted.
Once on the SurveyMonkey website, and before beginning the
survey, interested participants viewed an Informed Consent
page, and upon indicating their consent, individuals were re-
quired to answer screening questions to ensure that they were
eligible to participate. Eligible participants then filled out a
series of measures and questions pertaining to their personal
background, sexual desire, sexual and relationship satisfac-
tion, and feigning orgasm. When the survey was completed,
participants were redirected to a debriefing page onto which
a survey code was posted. Participants were required to pro-
vide this survey code on the corresponding HIT page on
MTurk to confirm that they completed the survey. By provid-
ing the survey code, participants also secured compensation,
which was wired directly to their MTurk accounts appro-
ximately one week after completing the survey. Data was
collected over a period of two days in January, 2013.
Five hundred and twenty-five (307 men, 218 women) com-
pleted the questionnaire. Given that the purpose of this study
was to develop a scale measuring men’s and women’s motives
for feigning orgasm with their current partner, only participants
who reported feigning orgasm with their current partner were
retained for subsequent analyses. The analytic sample there-
fore comprised of 147 participants (53 men, 94 women). In
terms of prevalence, this indicates that approximately 17% of
men and 43% of women have simulated having an orgasm
with their current partner.
The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 24(1), 2015, pp. 31–48; doi:10.3138/cjhs.2613
Measures
Demographic and sexual history questionnaire. The survey
began with several questions pertaining to demographic char-
acteristics and sexual history. Demographic characteristics
included, but were not limited to, age and sex. The sexual his-
tory questionnaire included items related to orgasm feigning
behaviour, such as ‘‘Do you occasionally pretend to have an
orgasm during sexual activity with your current partner?,’’
and ‘‘At what age did you first have vaginal/anal/oral sex
with a partner?’’
Motives for feigning orgasm scale (MFOS). A question-
naire measuring individuals’ motives for pretending orgasm
was developed based on past research on feigning orgasm.
Most motives were directly taken from findings generated by
Muehlenhard and Shippee’s (2010) study, which identified a
total of six broad motives: 1) the orgasm was unlikely to
happen, or it was taking too long (e.g., my partner was un-
attractive), 2) I wanted the sex to end (e.g., I felt tired or
wanted to sleep), 3) my partner’s orgasm seemed imminent
(e.g., My partner was about to have an orgasm), 4) To avoid
a negative consequence (e.g., I wanted to avoid hurting my
partner’s feelings), 5) To get a positive consequence (e.g., I
wanted my partner to think that s/he did a good job), and 6)
I did not want to have an orgasm. Given that the sixth motive
was extremely uncommon (only 2 men, and none of the
women, endorsed this reason), items were not developed re-
lated to this motive. The remaining items were developed
based on Bryan’s (2001; e.g., I wanted to avoid losing partner)
and Hite’s (1976) (e.g., I wanted to reinforce a sexual tech-
nique that my partner used) findings. A total of 60 items
were developed. Participants were asked, ‘‘From 1 – Not at
all important to 7 – Extremely important, please rate how
important each of the following reasons were in influencing
your decision to pretend to have an orgasm with your current
partner (from the first time, to the most recent time you
pretended to have an orgasm with your current partner).’’
Motives were presented in random order throughout the
questionnaire to minimize question order bias.
Data Analysis
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to determine the
factor structure. One item, with a typographic error, was re-
moved from the data set leaving a total of 59 items. The data
were analyzed using maximum likelihood factor analysis with
oblimin rotation. Maximum likelihood factor analysis was
selected because of the theoretical nature of the investigation.
Oblique rotation was considered to be appropriate because
the items were based on a theoretical model of independent
overarching motives, with potentially correlated sub-motives
within each (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Cronbach’s alphas
were also computed for internal consistency evaluation.
An initial factor analysis was run and communalities were
examined. Given that communalities were relatively high
33
Léa J. Séguin et al.

(>.50; Neill, 2013), no items were removed on this basis. Table 1. Study 1 and Study 2 Sample Characteristics
Following the initial factor analysis, communalities were not
Study 1 Study 2
examined. In the subsequent analyses, items were removed
Sample Sample
in a systematic fashion. Items that had factor loadings lower (n ¼ 147) (n ¼ 194)
than .32 and higher than 1.00 were removed. According to Characteristic % %
Comrey and Lee (1992), loadings of .32 (10% overlapping
variance) are poor, loadings of .45 (20% overlapping variance) Gender
are fair, loadings of .55 (30% overlapping variance) are good, Men 36.1 47.9
loadings of .63 (40% overlapping variance) are very good, Women 63.9 52.1
Citizenship
and loadings of .71 (50% overlapping variance) are excellent.
American 97.3 99.0
However, factor loadings greater than 1 may be indicative of
Canadian 2.7 1.0
multicollinearity (Babakus, Ferguson, & Joreskog, 1987). In Ethnicity
addition, items that loaded on more than one factor and White/Caucasian 61.9 51.0
two-item factors were removed. Finally, to minimize redun- Asian 19.7 30.9
dancy, three items were removed (i.e., my partner was not Latino/Latina 6.1 4.6
very good in bed; I was exhausted and felt like sleeping; my Black 5.4 5.7
partner seemed as though s/he was about to have an orgasm) Other 6.9 5.6
due to their contribution to very high Cronbach’s alphas (i.e., Highest Level of Education Completed
a b .94). Although relatively high Cronbach’s alphas are High school diploma 4.8 8.2
considered to be good, very high alpha coefficients are an Some college/university 32.7 21.1
College/undergraduate degree 51.7 47.4
indicator that a subscale is too narrow, or that its items are
Graduate degree 10.2 22.2
redundant (see review by Boyle, 1991). A total of 10 sequen-
Student Status
tial factor analyses were conducted. The tenth factor solution Student 34.0 28.9
comprised 6 factors which accounted for 63.78 of the vari- Already graduated 58.5 57.2
ance. This solution was selected as the final solution because Never attended a post-secondary 3.4 8.2
it was clean (no non-loading items, no double loading items, institution
and no single or two-item factors), and all eigenvalues were Employment Status
greater than 1. Eigenvalues are an indicator of variance, and Working full time 45.6 60.3
because the variance that each standardized variable con- Working part time 27.9 23.2
tributes to a principal components extraction is 1, factors Not working 25.9 14.9
with eigenvalues lower than 1 are not considered to be im- Religious Affiliation
Yes 35.4 46.9
portant (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Communalities for the
No 61.9 51.0
items ranged from .368 to .976, and almost three-fourths
Sexual Orientation
(72%) of the communalities were higher than .500. Scree Heterosexual 84.4 82.0
plots also indicated that a 6-factor solution would sufficiently Bisexual/Pansexual 13.6 14.9
represent the MFOS data. The chi square goodness-of-fit test Gay/Lesbian 0.7 0.5
was significant (chi square ¼ 207.44, p ¼ .014). However, this Uncertain/Questioning 0.7 0
test is very sensitive to sample size and may not be reliable Relationship Status
with a data set of this size (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Casually dating one or more partners 3.4 10.8
Finally, the final factor solution was interpretable and theo- Seriously dating one partner 42.2 46.4
retically meaningful. All items in the final factor structure In a polyamorous/multipartnered 0.7 2.1
met the .32 criterion. Fourteen of the 25 items in the final relationship
Living with a partner but not married 27.2 16.5
factor structure had loadings that are ‘‘excellent,’’ 3 that are
Married 26.5 23.2
considered ‘‘very good,’’ 2 that are ‘‘good,’’ 4 that are ‘‘fair,’’
Children
and 2 that would be considered ‘‘poor’’ according to the Yes 26.5 19.1
Comrey and Lee’s (1992) standard. No 72.8 79.9
To create subscales based on factors, the mean of items
loading on a factor was calculated.
months (SD ¼ 34.30) (See Table 1 for the sample’s demo-
Results
graphics).
Participant Characteristics Most (94.5%) reported having engaged in vaginal (98.6%)
and oral sex (96.6%) in their lifetimes, with 18.10 years
Of the 147 participants, 36% identified as male and 64%
(SD ¼ 2.98) as the mean age for first vaginal intercourse,
identified as female. The mean age of the sample was 24.9
and 18.02 years (SD ¼ 3.19) for first oral sex experience.
(SD ¼ 2.81, range ¼ 18–29). Relationship length ranged from
Two-thirds of the sample (66%) indicated having engaged in
2 to 210 months; the mean relationship length was 39.56

34 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 24(1), 2015, pp. 31–48; doi:10.3138/cjhs.2613
 The development and validation of the motives for feigning orgasms scale

Table 2. Study 1: Descriptive Data for the Final Six-Factor Solution for the MFOS (N ¼ 147)

Factor Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis % of Variance Alpha

Intoxication 2.70 1.99 .788 .801 22.39 .936

Partner Self-Esteem 5.71 1.20 1.37 2.25 18.85 .830
Poor Sex/Partner 2.60 1.61 .715 .767 8.31 .863
Desireless Sex 3.97 1.71 .189 1.04 5.45 .822
Timing 4.33 1.89 .455 .986 4.59 .853
Insecurity 3.67 1.61 .072 1.08 3.65 .841

Note: Answers ranged from 1 ¼ Not at all important to 7 ¼ Extremely important.

anal sex, with 19.37 years (SD ¼ 2.71) as the mean age for Table 3. Study 1: Factor Scales and Factor Loadings from
first anal intercourse. While not every participant reported Exploratory Factor Analysis
having engaged in vaginal, oral, or anal sex, all have reported
Factor
engaging in at least one of these three sexual activities. Factor and item loading

Exploratory Factor Analysis Intoxication

I had too much to drink .945
The exploratory factor analyses resulted in a 25-item 6-factor I was too drunk .900
solution (see Table 2). Five of the six factor scales fell within I was too intoxicated .733
normal range for skewness (between 1 and 1); the Partner Partner Self-Esteem
Self-Esteem scale did not. Four of the six factor scales fell I wanted my partner to think s/he did a good job .900
within normal range for kurtosis (between 2 and 1); both I wanted to make my partner feel good about .820
the Partner Self-Esteem and the Desireless Sex scales did himself/herself
not. The factor scales were correlated from weak to moderate I wanted to boost my partner’s self-esteem .786
levels (Cohen, 1988), suggesting that they are distinct and I wanted to make my partner happy .633
I wanted to avoid hurting my partner’s feelings .343
independent factors. Cronbach’s alphas for the final factor
Poor Sex/Partner
scales ranged from .822 to .936, and the mean alpha for all
I felt uncomfortable with my partner .906
six subscales was .858. Table 3 displays factor scales and fac- The sex was awkward .814
tor loadings for each item, and Table 4 displays inter-subscale I regretted my choice of partner .654
correlation coefficients. My partner was unskilled .525
Factor 1: Intoxication. The first factor consisted of 3 Desireless Sex
items and accounted for 22.39% of the variance (a ¼ .936). I was not in the mood .906
Factor loadings ranged from .733 to .945. All items loading I did not feel like having sex .778
on Factor 1 pertain to alcohol and/or drug use that lead I felt tired or wanted to sleep .732
some individuals to feign orgasm. The mean score for this I wanted to avoid discussing my not having .353
factor was 2.70 (SD ¼ 1.99). High scores on this factor indi- an orgasm
Timing
cate that high alcohol consumption and/or drug use was an
My partner seemed ready to have an orgasm .898
influential reason in a person’s decision to having feigned an
My partner was about to have an orgasm .844
orgasm with their current partner. My partner’s orgasm seemed imminent .575
Factor 2: Partner Self-Esteem. The second factor com- Insecurity
prised 5 items and accounted for 18.85% of the variance I wanted to avoid appearing frigid .761
(a ¼ .830). Factor loadings ranged from .343 to .900. Items I wanted to feel or appear sexy .644
loading on Factor 2 emphasized the importance of a partner’s I wanted to avoid appearing abnormal or .578
happiness or self-esteem in influencing a person’s decision to inadequate
pretend orgasm. The mean score for this factor was 5.71 I wanted to add a bit of excitement to our .538
(SD ¼ 1.20). High scores on this factor reflect a desire to lovemaking
increase a partner’s self-esteem or happiness by delivering an I wanted to avoid losing my partner .523
I wanted to reinforce a sexual technique .519
orgasm.
that my partner used
Factor 3: Poor Sex/Partner. The third factor was com-
posed of 4 items and accounted for 8.31% of the variance
(a ¼ .863). Factor loadings ranged from .524 to .906. Items
2.60 (SD ¼ 1.61). High scores on this subscale indicate that
loading on Factor 3 pertained to discomfort or displeasure
discomfort with a sexual partner, or a lack of pleasure from
attributable to the sexual experience or to the sexual partner,
the overall sexual experience, were influential factors in an
both of which may hamper an individual’s willingness or
individual’s decision to feign an orgasm with their partner.
ability to reach orgasm. The mean score for this factor was

The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 24(1), 2015, pp. 31–48; doi:10.3138/cjhs.2613 35
Léa J. Séguin et al.
Table 4. Study 1: Correlations among the MFOS’s Factor Scores
Factor 1 2
1. Intoxication –
2. Partner Self-Esteem .051 –
3. Poor Sex/Partner .488** .120
4. Desireless Sex .331** .264**
5. Timing .273** .455**
6. Insecurity .453** .367**
Note: *p < .005 **p < .001
Factor 4: Desireless Sex. The fourth factor was made up
of 4 items and accounted for 5.45% of the variance (a ¼ .822).
Factor loadings ranged from .353 to .906. Three out of the
four items loading on Factor 4 pertained to being uninterested
in sex as a factor in one’s decision to have feigned an orgasm
with their partner. The item with the lowest factor load-
ing (i.e., ‘‘I wanted to avoid discussing my not having an
orgasm’’) is more of an indicator that a person might be
motivated to pretend orgasm to avoid discussing sex. The
mean score for this factor was 3.97 (SD ¼ 1.71). Higher scores
indicate that having sex without desire is an important factor
in the person’s decision to pretend orgasm.
Factor 5: Timing. The fifth factor was made up of 3 items
and accounted for 4.59% of the variance (a ¼ .853). Factor
loadings ranged from .575 to .898. All items loading on
Factor 3 emphasized the importance of having an orgasm at
the same time as one’s partner, or of not having an orgasm
after one’s partner. As such, endorsement of items loading
on Factor 5 suggests an individual would like to create the
impression that he or she is having an orgasm when his
or her partner is. The mean score for this factor was 4.33
(SD ¼ 1.89), with higher scores indicating that a person’s
past decisions to feign an orgasm with a current partner
were related to his or her perception of the timing of his or
her partner’s orgasm.
Factor 6: Insecurity. The sixth factor was made up of 6
items and accounted for 3.68% of the variance (a ¼ .841).
Factor loadings ranged from .519 to .761. The first 3 items
are self-oriented and pertain to a desire to present an image
of oneself as sexy and sexually healthy or ‘‘normal.’’ The last
3 items are relationship-oriented, one concerned with the
maintenance of the relationship with the partner and two of
which pertain to the maintenance of a pleasant sexual activity.
The mean score for this factor was 3.67 (SD ¼ 1.61). Taken
together, the majority of the items on this factor reflect
insecurities related to the self or relationship. Higher scores
indicate that feelings of insecurity with regards to oneself or
to the relationship were influential in that person’s decision
to pretend orgasm with his or her partner.
STUDY 2
In Study 1, the MFOS was developed with EFA. The purpose
of Study 2 was to perform a confirmatory factor analysis
36 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 24(1), 2015, pp. 31–48; doi:10.3138/cjhs.2613
3 4 5 6
–
.434** –
.324** .361** –
.569** .460** .446** –
(CFA) to validate the factor structure, evaluate the measure’s
construct validity and test-retest reliability, and to assess gen-
der differences on the MFOS subscales.
Methods
Participants
Inclusion criteria were identical to those used in Study 1.
Given that the purpose of this study was to assess the MFOS’s
validity, and to perform CFA, it was important that similar
samples be used. Again, participants were recruited via Amazon
Mechanical Turk (MTurk), and those who completed the
survey were each compensated $0.50.
Procedure
The same process of following study links to a SurveyMonkey
survey, reading informed consent material, indicating consent,
and answering screening questions developed for Study 1 was
adopted in Study 2. Eligible participants then filled out a
series of measures and questions pertaining to their personal
background, and motives for feigning orgasm and engaging
in sex. To assess the MFOS’s construct and discriminant
validity, measures assessing sexual goals, inhibition/activation,
and sexual compulsivity were included.
When the survey was completed, participants were re-
directed to a debriefing page onto which a survey code was
posted. Participants were required to provide this survey code
on the corresponding HIT page on MTurk to confirm that
they completed the survey. Data was collected over a period
of 8 days in March, 2013.
Measures
Demographics. See study Study 1 and Table 1 for demo-
graphic data on the study participants.
Motivations for Feigning Orgasms Scale (MFOS). Devel-
oped in Study 1, the 25-item MFOS comprised of six sub-
scales was administered.
Sexual Goals questionnaire. Impett, et al.’s (2005) nine-
item questionnaire of sexual goals, adapted from Cooper et
al.’s (1998) work, measures five approach and four avoidance
goals that have been commonly endorsed by individuals in
past research. Each given approach and avoidance goal is
rated on 7-point scales with answers ranging from 1 – not
at all important, to 7 – extremely important. Over a 14-day
 The development and validation of the motives for feigning orgasms scale

study, the average within-person reliability coefficients were .71 lege students; Dodge, Reece, Cole, & Sandfort, 2004). Test-
for approach motives and .90 for avoidance motives (Impett retest reliability over a period of two weeks sits at r ¼ .95
et al., 2005, 2008). (Kalichman & Rompa, 1995), and at r ¼ .64 over a period of
We hypothesized that, because they measure similar mo- three months (Kalichman et al., 1994).
tives, scores obtained on the Approach Motives subscale of Scores obtained on the SCS were hypothesized to posi-
the Sexual Goals questionnaire would positively correlate tively correlate with the MFOS’s Intoxication and Poor Sex/
with those obtained on the MFOS’s Partner Self-Esteem and Partner subscales, as sexually compulsive individuals might
Timing subscales, and that they would not correlate with also be theoretically likely to engage in other compulsive
scores obtained on the Intoxication, Poor Sex/Partner, and behaviours such as excessive drinking and/or drug use before
Desireless Sex subscales. For similar reasons, we hypothesized having sex, and to exhibit poor decision-making in terms of
that scores obtained on the Avoidance Motives subscale choosing a sexual partner. In addition, scores obtained on the
would correlate positively with those obtained on the In- SCS were hypothesized to be uncorrelated with the Partner
security subscale of the MFOS, and not correlate with scores Self/Esteem or the Timing subscales, which underlie the desire
obtained on the Partner Self-Esteem and Timing subscales. to please a partner rather than to compulsively satisfy one’s
Behavioural Inhibition System/Behavioural Activation own needs and desires.
System Scale (BIS/BAS). The BIS/BAS (Carver & White,
1994) is a 24-item questionnaire measuring individuals’ affec- Analyses
tive response to future rewards (BAS) and punishments (BIS).
To assess the MFOS’s factor structure, confirmatory factor
This questionnaire includes four subscales; the BIS, the BAS
analysis (CFA) was conducted. Models were tested using
Drive, the BAS Fun Seeking, and the BAS Reward Respon-
AMOS 7. Analyses were conducted on covariance matrices
siveness. Test-retest reliability has been evaluated during an
with results of the final models reported as standardized esti-
8-week span among a sample of 113 college students, yielding
mates for ease of interpretation. Factor scaling was conducted
a coefficient of .66 for the BIS, .66 for the BAS Drive, .59 for
by setting one factor loading to 1.0 for each factor. The chi-
the BAS Reward Responsiveness, and .69 for the BAS Fun
square difference test (Dw2; Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1982) was
Seeking (Carver & White, 1994). The BIS and BAS have also
used to determine whether model modifications provided
been shown to be distinct constructs, with research demon-
significant improvement at each step. The critical value used
strating very low correlation coefficients between the BIS and
for all comparisons was p < .01.
all BAS subscales (Carver & White, 1994).
Model fit was evaluated by examining the following fit in-
Scores obtained on the BAS Drive were expected to posi-
dexes: model w2 and the ratio of w2/df (Bollen, 1989); Normed
tively correlate with the Poor Sex/Partner and Desireless Sex
Fit Index (NFI; Bentler & Bonett, 1980); Tucker-Lewis Index
subscales of the MFOS, given that feigning orgasm in these
(TLI; Bentler & Bonett); Comparative Fit Index (CFI; Bentler,
situations is likely to function as a way of bringing the sexual
1990); and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA;
encounter to an end. On the other hand, scores obtained on
Steiger, 1990). The model was determined to fit well if a con-
the BAS Fun-Seeking subscale were hypothesized to be un-
sensus measures met or exceeded generally accepted levels. It
correlated with any of the MFOS subscales, given that persons
is assumed that model w2 should be non-significant if the
who seek fun and excitement would be more likely to engage
model fits well. Moreover, NFI, TLI, and CFI values were
in behaviours that would enhance fun and pleasure during
consulted. These values should exceed .9 to indicate accept-
sex rather than in behaviours that will only give semblance
able fit. RMSEA, which demonstrates the amount of error
of it. Scores obtained on the BAS Reward-Responsiveness
variance per degree of freedom in the model and should re-
were expected to correlate with the Intoxication, Poor Sex/
sult in values smaller than .5, was also consulted.
Partner, Desireless Sex, and Insecurity subscales of the MFOS
Pearson correlation coefficients were used to assess the
because they measure self-focused motives, all of which would
MFOS’s test-retest reliability, as well as its convergent and
lead to a desired result (i.e., the end of an unpleasant or un-
discriminant validity for the Sexual Goals questionnaire, the
desired sexual encounter, or a desired perception of oneself
BIS/BAS, and the SCS.
on the part of their partners). Lastly, scores obtained on the
Finally, t-tests were computed to determine whether men’s
BIS were expected to positively correlate with those obtained
and women’s scores on the MFOS’s subscales differ.
on the Insecurity subscale of the MFOS given that it measures
motives geared toward avoiding negative consequences (e.g.,
Results
losing a partner, appearing frigid or inadequate, etc.).
Sexual Compulsivity Scale (SCS). The Sexual Compul- Participant Characteristics
sivity Scale (SCS; Kalichman, et al., 1994) is a 10-item scale
Of the 194 participants, 47.9% identified as male, and 52.1%,
designed to assess insistent, intrusive, and uncontrolled
as female. The mean age of the sample was 25.1 (SD ¼ 2.61).
sexual thoughts and behaviours, and has demonstrated ex-
For this sample, relationship length ranged from 1 to 174
cellent internal consistency across different populations (e.g.,
months, and the mean relationship length was 34.5 months
a ¼ .77 in female college students, and a ¼ .81 in male col-
(SD ¼ 29.35).

The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 24(1), 2015, pp. 31–48; doi:10.3138/cjhs.2613 37
Léa J. Séguin et al.

Table 5. Study 2: Descriptive Statistics on Each MFOS Item for Men and Women

Mean (SD) % Endorsed*

MFOS Item Men Women Men Women

I had too much to drink 2.16 (2.16) 2.39 (1.92) 43.0 17.8
I was too drunk 3.45 (2.21) 2.09 (1.73) 43.0 13.7
I was too intoxicated 3.88 (2.21) 2.15 (1.70) 45.2 15.8
I wanted my partner to think s/he did a good job 5.57 (1.66) 6.06 (1.43) 79.6 91.1
I wanted to make my partner feel good about himself/herself 6.04 (1.40) 6.30 (1.08) 86.0 95.0
I wanted to boost my partner’s self-esteem 5.98 (1.46) 6.01 (1.35) 87.1 90.1
I wanted to make my partner happy 5.72 (1.65) 6.07 (1.44) 77.4 88.1
I wanted to avoid hurting my partner’s feelings 4.88 (2.05) 4.77 (2.16) 64.5 63.4
I felt uncomfortable with my partner 3.05 (2.15) 2.15 (1.63) 29.0 10.9
The sex was awkward 3.78 (2.24) 2.52 (1.84) 38.7 17.8
I regretted my choice of partner 3.06 (2.25) 2.04 (1.82) 32.3 12.9
My partner was unskilled 3.26 (2.10) 2.76 (1.97) 26.9 21.8
I was not in the mood 3.55 (2.15) 3.54 (2.29) 36.6 38.6
I did not feel like having sex 3.28 (2.28) 2.90 (2.19) 34.4 25.7
I felt tired or wanted to sleep 4.13 (2.24) 3.71 (2.21) 51.6 42.6
I wanted to avoid discussing my not having an orgasm 4.23 (2.10) 4.00 (2.31) 51.6 49.5
My partner seemed ready to have an orgasm 5.10 (1.81) 5.14 (2.05) 67.7 71.3
My partner was about to have an orgasm 5.05 (1.87) 4.81 (2.16) 70.0 63.4
My partner’s orgasm seemed imminent 4.38 (1.98) 4.37 (2.04) 53.8 53.5
I wanted to avoid appearing frigid 3.87 (2.22) 2.89 (2.06) 40.9 27.7
I wanted to feel or appear sexy 4.98 (2.19) 4.60 (2.25) 64.5 55.4
I wanted to avoid appearing abnormal or inadequate 4.16 (2.21) 3.14 (2.19) 46.2 32.7
I wanted to add a bit of excitement to our lovemaking 5.13 (2.13) 4.68 (2.31) 70.0 64.4
I wanted to avoid losing my partner 4.14 (2.32) 2.68 (2.12) 57.0 18.8
I wanted to reinforce a sexual technique that my partner used 4.74 (2.05) 4.17 (2.23) 60.2 51.5

Note: *The percentages displayed in this table include those who selected from a 5 to a 7 on a scale ranging from 1 – Not at all important, to 7 –
Extremely important.

Motives for Feigning Orgasm
Table 5 presents mean scores for each MFOS item for men
and women, as well as the percentage of men and women
who endorsed the items. The motivation for pretending
orgasm that was most commonly endorsed by men was ‘‘I
wanted to boost my partner’s self-esteem’’ (87.1%), while
women most commonly endorsed the item ‘‘I wanted to
make my partner feel good about himself/herself ’’ (95%).
The least endorsed reason for pretending orgasm among
men was ‘‘My partner was unskilled’’ (26.9), while women
least commonly endorsed ‘‘I regretted my choice of partner’’
(12.9%).
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
First, the possibility that a unidimensional model fit the
MFOS’s items was assessed. This model resulted in an un-
acceptable fit (see Table 6). An analysis of the six factors
defined by 25 MFOS items, including modelling correlations
among all factors, resulted in a better, yet still unacceptable
fit. Modification indices indicated that by correlating the
factors Poor Sex/Partner and Desireless Sex, Partner Self-
Esteem and Timing, and Intoxication and Insecurity, the over-
all model fit (as assessed by the w2) would improve by up to
123.32. Mean scores on these factor pairs were more highly
correlated at the bivariate level than other combinations of
factors. In addition, these pairs of factors seemed to represent
similar underlying phenomena. Poor Sex/Partner and Desire-
less Sex seemed to reflect one’s desire for the sexual encounter
to end, Partner Self-Esteem and Timing seemed to reflect
pro-social motives for feigning orgasm, and Intoxication and
Insecurity both appeared to reflect anxiety-reduction strat-
egies. Further, modification indices indicated that by correlat-
ing the error terms of items ‘‘I wanted to avoid appearing
frigid’’ and ‘‘I wanted to avoid appearing abnormal or inade-
quate,’’ and items ‘‘I wanted to avoid hurting my partner’s
feelings’’ and ‘‘I wanted to avoid discussing my not having an
orgasm,’’ the overall model fit (w2) would improve by a value
of approximately 84.86.
A second analysis of the six factors with the added three
factor correlations and two residuals correlations did yield
a significantly better model fit, but it was still judged to be
inadequate. Modification indices resulting from this analysis
indicated that by correlating residual terms of items ‘‘I wanted
to avoid losing my partner’’ and ‘‘I wanted to avoid hurting
my partner’s feelings,’’ the overall model fit (w2) would im-
prove by approximately 27.59.
A third analysis of the six factors with the added three
residuals correlations produced, albeit significantly different,
only a slightly better model fit. Modification indices resulting

38 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 24(1), 2015, pp. 31–48; doi:10.3138/cjhs.2613
 The development and validation of the motives for feigning orgasms scale

Table 6. Study 2: Goodness of Fit Indicators of Motives for Feigning Orgasm Models

Model w2 df w2/df w2diff NFI TLI CFI RMSEA

1 Factor 1717.51* 275 6.25 .393 .377 .429 .165

6 Factor (first analyses) 1101.83* 275 4.01 .610 .643 .673 .125
6 Factor (second analyses) 859.18* 270 3.18 242.65* .696 .741 .767 .106
6 Factor (third analyses) 826.12* 269 3.07 33.06* .708 .754 .780 .104
2 Factor (Pro-Social) 47.99* 19 2.53 .914 .919 .945 .089
2 Factor (Get it Over with) 57.21* 19 3.01 .915 .912 .941 .102
2 Factor (Anxiety Reduction) 122.88* 26 4.73 .86 .841 .885 .139
2 Factor (Anxiety Reduction, 58.24* 24 2.43 64.64* .934 .939 .959 .086
second analyses)
3 Factor (Feel Better) 48.50* 24 2.02 .945 .956 .971 .073

Note: *p < .01

from this analysis did not suggest any further residuals corre-
lations that would greatly improve the model fit. Thus, a six
factor model was judged to be unable to accurately represent
the MFOS’s 25 items. Consequently, a different approach
was sought, and three different two-factor models (Partner-
Self-Esteem – Timing, Poor Sex/Partner – Desireless Sex,
and Intoxication – Insecurity) were tested.
An analysis of the Partner Self-Esteem – Timing two-factor
model (the Pro-social Model) in which both factors were corre-
lated (r ¼ .45), resulted in a good model fit (see Figure 1). All
factor loadings were statistically significant and ranged from
.46 to .89, with an average standardized factor loading of .68.
Squared multiple correlations ranged from .22 to .80, with a
mean of .48.
Next, an analysis of the Poor Sex/Partner – Desireless Sex
two-factor model (the Get it Over with Model) in which both
factors were correlated (r ¼ .61), resulted in a good model fit
(see Figure 2). All factor loadings were statistically significant
and ranged from .45 to .81, with an average standardized
factor loading of .72. Squared multiple correlations ranged
from .20 to .66, with a mean of .53.
Finally, an analysis of the Intoxication – Insecurity two-
factor model (the Anxiety Reduction Model) in which both
factors were correlated (r ¼ .37), resulted in a fair model fit.
Modification indices indicated that by correlating residuals
of items ‘‘I wanted to avoid appearing frigid’’ and ‘‘I wanted
to avoid appearing abnormal or inadequate,’’ and of items ‘‘I
wanted to add a bit of excitement to our lovemaking’’ and ‘‘I
wanted to appear or feel sexy,’’ the model’s overall fit would
improve by a value of 64.24. A second analysis of this two-
factor model with two added residuals correlations produced
a significantly different, and acceptable model fit (see Figure
3). All factor loadings were statistically significant and ranged
from .61 to .91, with an average standardized factor loading
of .71. Squared multiple correlations ranged from .38 to .83,
with a mean of .53 indicating that, on average, 53% of the
variance in observed variables was accounted for by the latent
variables. Although this model well represented the MFOS’s
Intoxication and Insecurity factor scales, the data contained
within the Insecurity factor was found to be theoretically
represented by two sub-factors. Three of its items, ‘‘I wanted
to avoid appearing frigid,’’ ‘‘I wanted to avoid losing my
partner,’’ and ‘‘I wanted to avoid appearing abnormal or in-
adequate,’’ represented avoidance motives for pretending
orgasm that stem from insecurity (the Insecurity sub-factor),
while ‘‘I wanted to reinforce a sexual technique that my
partner used,’’ ‘‘I wanted to appear or feel sexy,’’ and ‘‘I
wanted to add a bit of excitement to our lovemaking’’ re-
presented approach motives (the Improve Sex sub-factor).
Cronbach’s alphas revealed good internal consistency for the
Insecurity (a ¼ .752) and Improve Sex (a ¼ .791) sub-factors.
Confirmatory factor analysis of this new model, comprising
the Insecurity, Improve Sex, and Intoxication factors (the
Feel Better Model) in which all factors were inter-correlated
(refer to Figure 4) resulted in a good model fit. All factor
loadings were statistically significant and ranged from .61
to .91, with an average standardized factor loading of .78.
Squared multiple correlations ranged from .37 to .83, with a
mean of .62. Given that this model offered a better theoretical
representation of the MFOS data compared to the former
two-factor model, this model was retained.
Consequently, the MFOS’s data was found to be better
represented by three models (two comprised of two factors,
and a third comprised of 3 factors) rather than by one six-
factor model correlate. This suggests that, although they all
lead to the same behaviour, reasons for feigning orgasm may
represent different sexual strategies. Alternatively, it may also
suggest that there is not an overarching model representing
motives for pretending orgasm.
Convergent and Discriminant Validity
Pearson correlation coefficients were used to assess the MFOS’s
convergent and discriminant validity.
Sexual Goals Questionnaire. The expectations of positive
correlations between the Approach Motives subscale of the
Sexual Goals questionnaire and the Partner Self-Esteem, Timing,
and Improve Sex subscales of the MFOS were supported (see
Table 7). Although the strength of these relationships is only
moderate, they nonetheless suggest that individuals who en-
gage in sex with their partners for approach reasons (e.g., to

The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 24(1), 2015, pp. 31–48; doi:10.3138/cjhs.2613 39
Léa J. Séguin et al.

Figure 1. The Prosocial Model (Partner Self-Esteem and Timing factors)

please my partner; to promote intimacy in my relationship),
tend to also be the ones to feign orgasm for reasons related to
their partner’s emotional wellbeing (e.g., to make my partner
feel good about him/herself; I wanted to make my partner
happy), or for reasons related to the pursuit of intimate expe-
riences with their partner such as reaching orgasm simultane-
ously. As expected, the Approach Motives subscale was also
found to not correlate with the Intoxication, Poor Sex/Partner,
Desireless Sex, and Insecurity subscales, providing additional
supporting evidence for the MFOS’s discriminant validity.
This lack of correlation suggests that individuals who endorse
having sex for approach reasons (e.g., to pursue my own sexual
pleasure; to feel good about myself ) would be less likely to
consume alcohol and/or drugs before sex (at least for reasons
stemming from anxiety), feign orgasm because they are hav-
ing an unsatisfying sexual experience (e.g., my partner was
unskilled; the sex was awkward), or because they had sex
without desire.
Contrary to expectations, all of the MFOS subscales were
correlated with the Avoidance Motives subscale of the Sexual
Goals questionnaire. Though these correlations are all statisti-
cally significant, most range from low to moderate. As ex-
pected, a strong correlation was found for the Insecurity sub-
scale, suggesting that the more a person endorses having sex

40 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 24(1), 2015, pp. 31–48; doi:10.3138/cjhs.2613
 The development and validation of the motives for feigning orgasms scale

Figure 2. The Get it Over with Model (Poor Sex/Partner and Desireless Sex factors)

for avoidance reasons (e.g., to avoid conflict in my relation-
ship; to prevent my partner from getting angry at me), the
more likely he or she is to feign orgasm for similar reasons
(e.g., to avoid losing my partner; I wanted to avoid appearing
abnormal or inadequate).
Behavioural Inhibition System/Behavioural Activation
System Scale. As expected, although relatively low, significant
positive relationships were found between the BAS Drive sub-
scale and the Poor Sex/Partner and Desireless Sex subscales of
the MFOS, suggesting that driven people are likely to feign
orgasm to put an end to a sexual encounter they did not
desire or that was unpleasant. No significant correlations
were found for the BAS Fun-Seeking subscale, which supports
the posited hypotheses, and provides supporting evidence of
the MFOS’s discriminant validity. The expectation of positive
correlations between the BAS Reward-Responsiveness sub-
scale and the Intoxication, Poor Sex/Partner, Desireless Sex,
and Insecurity subscales of the MFOS was supported. How-
ever, contrary to expectations, BIS scores were found to be
uncorrelated with the Insecurity subscale, suggesting that
individuals who tend to be motivated by feelings of anxiety
are not necessarily motivated to feign orgasm for reasons re-
lated to feelings of insecurity.

The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 24(1), 2015, pp. 31–48; doi:10.3138/cjhs.2613 41
Léa J. Séguin et al.

Figure 3. The Anxiety-Reduction Model (Intoxication and Insecurity factors)

Sexual Compulsivity Scale. Consistent with the hypotheses, Test-Retest Reliability

the MFOS’s Intoxication and Poor Sex/Partner subscales were
Eighty-eight participants accessed the Time 2 survey, two weeks
found to positively correlate with scores on the Sexual Com-
after completing it for the first time. Of these 88 participants,
pulsivity Scale. However, low and moderate positive correla-
two were dropped from analyses because they indicated not
tions were also found between SCS and Desireless Sex, In-
having feigned an orgasm with their current partner, and
security, and Improve Sex scores. Nonetheless, the stronger
seven more participants were excluded because they no longer
relationships (i.e., Intoxication and Poor Sex/Partner) reflect
met one or more eligibility criteria. In addition, 5 more par-
posited hypotheses and provide good supporting evidence of
ticipants were excluded from analyses due to missing data.
the MFOS’s convergent validity. Moreover, as expected, scores
The final sample consisted of a total of 74 participants.
obtained on the SCS did not significantly correlate with the
Test-retest Pearson coefficients were .82 for Intoxication,
Partner Self/Esteem or the Timing subscales, demonstrating
.59 for Partner Self-Esteem, .81 for Poor Sex/Partner, .76 for
good discriminant validity.

42 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 24(1), 2015, pp. 31–48; doi:10.3138/cjhs.2613
 The development and validation of the motives for feigning orgasms scale

Figure 4. The Feel Better Model (Intoxication, Improve Sex, and Insecurity factors)

Desireless Sex, .51 for Timing, .71 for Insecurity, and .76 for
Improve Sex.
Gender differences on the MFOS
The mean scores on all seven factors are displayed in Table 8.
Independent sample t-tests indicated that compared to their
female counterparts, men scored higher on the Intoxica-
tion (t(177.94) ¼ 5.619, p < .001), the Poor Sex/Partner
(t(171.02) ¼ 3.873, p < .001), and the Insecurity (t(192) ¼
4.562, p < .001) subscales of the MFOS. No significant
gender difference was found for the Partner Self-Esteem
(t(192) ¼ 1.291, p > .05), Desireless Sex (t(192) ¼ 1.044,
p > .05), Timing (t(192) ¼ .281, p > .05), and Improve
Sex (t(192) ¼ 1.757, p > .05) subscales.

The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 24(1), 2015, pp. 31–48; doi:10.3138/cjhs.2613 43
Léa J. Séguin et al.

Table 7. Study 2: Correlation Coefficients between the MFOS and Other Measures

Sexual Sexual
Goals Goals BAS BAS BAS Reward Sexual
MFOS Factors Approach Avoidance Drive Fun-Seeking Responsiveness BIS Compulsivity

Intoxication .025 .368** .016 .040 .289** .090 .463**

Partner Self-Esteem .387** .199** .021 .050 .078 .020 .020
Poor Sex/Partner .077 .503** .249** .122 .443** .041 .479**
Desireless Sex .140 .327** .168* .052 .367** .085 .192**
Timing .243** .168** .072 .116 .072 .038 .120
Insecurity .082 .606** .129 .153* .330** .034 .371**
Improve Sex .381** .478** .052 .069 .139 .125 .324**

Note: *p < .05 **p < .01

Table 8. Study 2: Gender Comparisons on MFOS Subscales Scores

Women Men
Mean SD Mean SD t sig

Intoxication 2.21 1.63 3.68 1.99 5.619 .000

Partner Self-Esteem 5.84 1.04 5.64 1.15 1.291 .192
Poor Sex/Partner 2.37 1.41 3.29 1.86 3.873 .000
Desireless Sex 3.54 1.65 3.80 1.76 1.044 .298
Timing 4.77 1.83 4.84 1.62 .281 .779
Insecurity 2.90 1.65 4.06 1.87 4.562 .000
Improve Sex 4.49 1.83 4.95 1.85 1.757 .081

Note: Test significance was determined at p a .05

DISCUSSION In Study 1, approximately one-third of individuals (approx-

The purpose of this investigation was twofold; 1) to develop
and validate a scale to assess men’s and women’s motives for
pretending orgasm; and 2) to investigate gender differences
in motivations for feigning orgasm using the new measure.
Participants reported feigning orgasm for a variety of reasons,
which exploratory factor analysis indicated could be organized
into six categories: Intoxication, Partner Self-Esteem, Poor
Sex/Partner, Desireless Sex, Timing, and Insecurity. Confir-
matory factor analysis (CFA) was also conducted; however
this analysis supported three models, two of which were com-
prised of two factors, and the third, of three factors. That
CFA did not support a six-factor model but rather three
models with a total of seven factors suggests that there may
not be an overarching model representing motives for pre-
tending orgasm. The MFOS’s test-retest reliability was also
assessed, and found to be only moderate, which suggests that
individuals’ motives for pretending orgasm may be event-
specific. Men’s and women’s motives for feigning orgasm
might then vary from one sexual encounter (or from one
partner) to the next. While both men and women were found
to pretend orgasm for all reasons listed in the MFOS, men
scored higher on the Intoxication, Poor Sex/Partner, and
Insecurity subscales. No gender differences were found on
the Partner Self-Esteem, Desireless Sex, Timing, and Improve
Sex subscales.
imately one-fifth of men and just over 40% of women) occa-
sionally pretended orgasm with their current dating or marital
partner, which is consistent with Muehlenhard and Shippee’s
(2010) findings. The finding that many people feign orgasms
supports existing sexual scripts (e.g., Simon & Gagnon, 1986;
Wiederman, 2005). Interpersonal scripts operate as guidelines
for context-specific behaviours that have been influenced by
relevant cultural scripts (Simon & Gagnon, 1986). Findings
from the current study suggest that interpersonal sexual
scripts give individuals guidelines for what is considered a
normal timeframe for a person to experience an orgasm, that
people ‘‘should’’ experience one during sex (i.e., the Insecurity
subscale), and that sexual activity is expected to end with an
orgasm (i.e., the Poor Sex/Partner and Desireless Sex sub-
scales). In addition, the current findings support a discourse
of reciprocity (i.e., the Timing subscale; Braun, et al., 2003).
In the context of partnered sex, this discourse translates to
both partners experiencing pleasure and orgasm during a
sexual encounter (Braun et al., 2003). Reciprocally pleasurable
or orgasmic sex has been found to be perceived as desirable,
and non-reciprocal sexual encounters (e.g., during which only
one partner experiences orgasm), as problematic or ‘unfair’
(Braun et al., 2003).
It is interesting to note that men and women did not
significantly differ in their levels of endorsement of partner-
focused approach reasons for feigning orgasm (e.g., I wanted

44 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 24(1), 2015, pp. 31–48; doi:10.3138/cjhs.2613
 The development and validation of the motives for feigning orgasms scale
to boost my partner’s self-esteem; I wanted to make my
partner happy). These results conflict with those of past re-
search. For example, Muehlenhard and Shippee (2010) found
that women were more likely than men to pretend orgasm to
please their partner. In another study, Roberts et al. (1995)
found that many women reported pretending orgasm to
reassure their partners that they are indeed sexually adequate;
their orgasm serving as ‘proof ’ of their male partners’ sexual
prowess. Moreover, Nicolson and Burr (2003) found that
while women often did not expect to achieve orgasm during
intercourse with their male partners, nor did they feel that it
was directly tied to their sexual satisfaction, they indicated
that achieving orgasm in this context was desired for their
partner’s sake. These findings suggest that women are aware
and sensitive to their male partners’ need to perceive them-
selves as sexually skilled and desired partners, supporting
sexual script theory. One of the most prominent sexual scripts
for men is the male performance script (e.g., Sakaluk, Todd,
Milhausen, Lachowsky, & Undergraduate Research Group in
Sexuality URGiS, 2014). According to this theory, men tie
their adequacy as a sexual partner to their skills, their ability
to read and respond to their partner’s sexual needs, and to
their partner’s experience of pleasure (e.g., Roberts et al.;
Wiederman, 2005). In Sakaluk et al., both male and female
participants were well aware of the male performance script.
Similarly, the current investigation’s findings suggest that
women were aware of the male performance script and
feigned orgasm to support their partner’s perception of him-
self as sexually skilled. However, our results suggest that men
are also sensitive to their partners’ need to perceive them-
selves as good sexual partners (i.e., sexually attractive, sexually
skilled, exciting, desirable, etc.). In keeping with this, Sakaluk
et al. also found evidence for a new sexual script surrounding
the need for women to be sexual skilled. Thus, it appears,
based on the current research, that both men and women
may feign orgasm to support their partner’s sexual self-
esteem; providing tacit endorsement for male and female
sexual performance scripts.
No significant gender differences were found in scores
obtained on the Timing subscale (e.g., because my partner’s
orgasm seemed imminent). Again, this finding contradicts
Muehlenhard and Shippee’s results (2010), which indicated
women were more likely than men to have feigned orgasm
for this reason. Nonetheless, the present study’s results fur-
ther support the reciprocity discourse. Specifically, if one
perceives their partner’s orgasm to be imminent, they may
feign orgasm to create the appearance of mutual and simul-
taneous orgasms. Alternatively, some participants may have
already felt satiated by the time their partners reached orgasm,
and therefore simulated orgasm to avoid the extra undesired
‘‘work’’ required by their partners for them to genuinely reach
orgasm, while at the same time fulfilling their partner’s ex-
pectations of reciprocal pleasure.
The male performance script, along with the finding that
the male orgasm is considered a normative and imperative
end point in the sequence of heterosexual sex (Braun et al.,
The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 24(1), 2015, pp. 31–48; doi:10.3138/cjhs.2613
2003) can together explain feigning behaviour in men. For
men, feigning orgasm can serve to ensure that their partners
perceive them as ‘normal’ or ‘adequate’ sexual partners. In the
current study, men were more likely than women to pretend
orgasm for reasons related to feelings of insecurity and sexual
inadequacy (e.g., I wanted to avoid appearing frigid; I wanted
to avoid losing my partner). If a man perceives his orgasm to
be the normative, and therefore expected, end point in the
sequence of a given sexual encounter, he might then be more
likely to feign orgasm to preserve an appearance of com-
petence and normalcy.
In addition, pretending orgasm can offer men a certain
degree of control during a sexual encounter in that it allows
them to put an end to it without running the risk of poten-
tially offending their partner or of hurting his or her feelings.
Moreover, given that a woman’s perception of herself as a
desirable sexual partner is centred on being visually attractive
(Wiederman, 2005), it is possible that some men choose to
feign orgasm as a way of reassuring their female partners
that they find them attractive and sexually desirable. By
making their female partners feel attractive and sexually ade-
quate, men increase the probability of retaining them as future
sexual and relationship partners. In addition, the reciprocity
discourse surrounding heterosexual encounters can also shed
light on men’s feigning behaviour. This discourse posits that
‘fair’ sexual encounters involve pleasure and orgasm for both
partners, and that a lack of reciprocity in these matters is
viewed as problematic or ‘unfair’ (Braun et al., 2003). Men
(and women) might then pretend orgasm to give their partner
the semblance of equality in the sexual exchange (i.e., one
orgasm for another), thereby fulfilling their partner’s ex-
pectations and preventing him or her from experiencing feel-
ings of guilt from not having ‘given’ what was ‘deserved’.
In support of these points, men in the current sample were
more likely than women to endorse pretending orgasm for
reasons related to a poor partner choice or a poor sexual ex-
perience. Despite potentially failing to find a partner or sexual
activity appealing, men may have feigned orgasm to buttress
their partner’s self-esteem or contribute to her perception
of mutuality or reciprocity. Our findings parallel those of
Muehlenhard and Shippee’s (2010), in which men were more
likely than women to pretend orgasm because they found
their partner to be unattractive, regretted their choice of
partner, and because they were uncomfortable with a partner.
Men might be more likely than women to feign orgasm for
these reasons because they feel less able to turn down sex
(Sakaluk et al., 2014), perhaps leading them to find them-
selves engaging in sex with less than optimally desired partners.
For example, Clark and Hatfield (1989) found that most men
were very receptive to sexual offers from a stranger, compared
to virtually none of the women. Similarly, in a sample of
college students, Njus and Bane (2009) found that compared
with women, men reported being more willing to engage in
intercourse with partners they had only known for a short
period. Alternatively, evolutionary theories suggest women
should be ‘‘choosier’’ with regard to sex partners (Buss &
45
Léa J. Séguin et al.
Schmitt, 1993), thus potentially finding themselves more
likely to engage sexually with partners they consider desirable.
This study found that men were significantly more likely
than their female counterparts to endorse feigning orgasm
for reasons related to intoxication. This finding corroborates
Muehlenhard and Shippee’s (2010), in which 29% of the
men in their sample reported having feigned orgasm because
they were too intoxicated, compared to only 4% of the women
Men might be more likely to pretend orgasm due to intoxica-
tion compared to women either because they are more likely to
drink to intoxication (Roberts, 2012), and/or because these
substances impair men’s sexual functioning in a way that
make intercourse difficult or impossible.
Strengths and Limitations
By providing participants with a sense of privacy and anonym-
ity, conducting an online survey study helped to increase the
probability of obtaining honest responses from participants,
thus increasing the accuracy of results. In addition, recruiting
this sample online allowed for a more heterogeneous sample
in terms of ethnicity, education, and student and employment
status compared to past study samples which were predomi-
nantly comprised of American college or university students
(e.g., Impett et al., 2005; 2008; Katz & Tirone, 2009; Muehlen-
hard & Shippee, 2010; Stephenson et al., 2011). Furthermore,
by restricting this study to emerging adults (individuals aged
between 18 and 29 years), the effect of other confounding
variables on orgasm function, such as menopause and declin-
ing health, has been diminished.
In spite of its strengths, this study also has limitations. It is
possible that those who chose to participate in this study are
not representative of the general population in that they may
generally be more sex-positive or feel more comfortable dis-
cussing sex, relationships, and orgasms. In addition, MTurk
workers might have taken the survey out of curiosity, lying
on some eligibility criteria and/or about whether they have
indeed ever feigned an orgasm with their current partner to
access the portion of the survey pertaining to motives for pre-
tending orgasm. Given that compensation was so low ($0.50),
dishonesty for the motive of obtaining compensation is less
probable. Finally, the survey relied on participants’ retrospec-
tion of past instances of feigning orgasm in their current
relationship, which could span over several years, which may
decrease the accuracy of results. That many of the subscales’
test-retest reliability coefficients only ranged from low to
moderate, may be the result of poor recall, or to the possibil-
ity that motives for pretending orgasm are event-specific
rather than relatively constant over time. Future research
should, therefore, investigate this possibility.
The finding that Improve Sex and Insecurity motives,
which seemingly oppose each other in nature (akin to
approach and avoidance motives), both loaded on the same
factor, is puzzling. Future research pertaining to motives for
feigning orgasm should investigate how participants inter-
preted these subscales’ items, via additional survey questions
46 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 24(1), 2015, pp. 31–48; doi:10.3138/cjhs.2613
or by means of face-to-face interviews. It is possible, for
example, that some of the Improve Sex subscale items may
be measuring motives that stem from feelings of insecurity,
especially given the moderate but significant correlation
found between scores obtained on this subscale and those ob-
tained on the Insecurity subscale. For example, one individual
may report feigning orgasms because they fear losing their
partner’s sexual interest (avoidance motive) if they are not
sexually responsive, whereas another may endorse the item
similarly, but to feel or appear sexy because they think it will
amplify their sexual experience (approach motive).
Implications
This study produced a new, comprehensive measure of
women’s and men’s motivations for feigning orgasm that can
be used in future research. The MFOS can enhance our under-
standing of human motivation in the realm of sexuality, and
can be administered concurrently with other measures and
questionnaires to gain insight on the impact of motives for
pretending orgasm on sexual function and satisfaction, or to
reach a better understanding of possible factors that may
lead some individuals to pretend orgasm for given motives.
This study contributes to our understanding of men’s feign-
ing behaviour; results suggest that pretending orgasm is not
only a ‘female’ behaviour. Given that between 17 (this study’s
findings) and 25 percent of men (Muehlenhard & Shippee,
2010) occasionally feign orgasm, researchers should continue
to include men in research pertaining to this type of behav-
iour. In addition, as elaborated above, the inclusion of men’s
data in this study further inform current cultural and inter-
personal sexual scripts for both men and women.
REFERENCES
Babakus, E., Ferguson, C.E.J., & Joreskog, K.G. (1987). The sensitivity
of confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis to violations
of measurement scale and distributional assumptions. JMR,
Journal of Marketing Research, 24(2), 222–228. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2307/3151512
Bentler, P.M. (1990). Fit indices, LaGrange multipliers, constraint
changes, and incomplete data in structural models. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 25(2), 163–172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
s15327906mbr2502_3
Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and
goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.88.3.588
Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New
York: John Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118619179.
Boyle, G.J. (1991). Does item homogeneity indicate internal consis-
tency or item redundancy in psychometric scales? Retrieved from
http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti-
cle=1001&context=greg_boyle http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-
8869(91)90115-R.
 The development and validation of the motives for feigning orgasms scale
Braun, V., Gavey, N., & McPhillips, K. (2003). The ‘‘fair deal’’?
Unpacking accounts of reciprocity in heterosex. Sexualities, 6(2),
237–261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1363460703006002005
Bryan, T.S. (2001). Pretending to experience orgasm as a communi-
cative act: How, when, and why some sexually experienced college
women pretend to experience orgasm during various sexual
behaviors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Kansas, Lawrence.
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(1), 3–5. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980
Buss, D.M., & Schmitt, D.P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An
evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review,
100, 204–232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204
Medline:8483982
Carver, C.S., & White, T.L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral
activation, and affective responses to impending reward and
punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 67(2), 319–333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.67.2.319
Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013). Separate but equal? A
comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s
MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Com-
puters in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2156–2160. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.009
Clark, R.D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity
to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 2(1),
39–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J056v02n01_04
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Comrey, A.L., & Lee, H.B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis
(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cooper, E.B., Fenigstein, A., & Fauber, R.L. (2014). The faking
orgasm scale for women: psychometric properties. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 43(3), 423–435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10508-013-0212-z Medline:24346866
Cooper, M.L., Shapiro, C.M., & Powers, A.M. (1998). Motivations
for sex and risky sexual behavior among adolescents and young
adults: a functional perspective. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 75(6), 1528–1558. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.75.6.1528 Medline:9914665
Crump, M.J.C., McDonnell, J.V., & Gureckis, T.M. (2013). Evaluat-
ing Amazon’s Mechanical Turk as a tool for experimental behav-
ioral research. PLoS ONE, 8(3), e57410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0057410 Medline:23516406
Darling, C.A., & Davidson, J.K., Sr. (1986). Enhancing relationships:
understanding the feminine mystique of pretending orgasm.
Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 12(3), 182–196. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/00926238608415405 Medline:3761371
Dodge, B., Reece, M., Cole, S.L., & Sandfort, T.G. (2004). Sexual
compulsivity among heterosexual college students. Journal of Sex
Research, 41(4), 343–350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00224490409552241 Medline:15765274
Dove, N.L., & Wiederman, M.W. (2000). Cognitive distraction and
women’s sexual functioning. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy,
The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 24(1), 2015, pp. 31–48; doi:10.3138/cjhs.2613
26(1), 67–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/009262300278650
Medline:10693117
Gray, J.A. (1987). Perspectives on anxiety and impulsivity: A
commentary. Journal of Research in Personality, 21(4), 493–509.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(87)90036-5
Greenwood, D., Long, C.R., & Dal Cin, S. (2013). Fame and the
social self: The need to belong, narcissism, and relatedness
predict the appeal of fame. Personality and Individual Differences,
55(5), 490–495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.04.020
Hite, S. (1976). The Hite report. New York: Macmillan.
Impett, E.A., Peplau, L.A., & Gable, S.L. (2005). Approach and
avoidance sexual motives: Implications for personal and inter-
personal well-being. Personal Relationships, 12(4), 465–482.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2005.00126.x
Impett, E.A., Strachman, A., Finkel, E.J., & Gable, S.L. (2008). Main-
taining sexual desire in intimate relationships: the importance of
approach goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
94(5), 808–823. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.5.808
Medline:18444740
Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1982). Recent developments in struc-
tural equation modeling. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research,
19(4), 404–416. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3151714
Kalichman, S.C., Johnson, J.R., Adair, V., Rompa, D., Multhauf, K.,
& Kelly, J.A. (1994). Sexual sensation seeking: scale development
and predicting AIDS-risk behavior among homosexually active
men. Journal of Personality Assessment, 62(3), 385–397. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6203_1 Medline:8027907
Kalichman, S.C., & Rompa, D. (1995). Sexual sensation seeking and
Sexual Compulsivity Scales: reliability, validity, and predicting
HIV risk behavior. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65(3), 586–
601. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6503_16
Medline:8609589
Katz, J., & Tirone, V. (2009). Women’s sexual compliance with male
dating partners: Associations with investment in ideal woman-
hood and romantic well-being. Sex Roles, 60(5-6), 347–356.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9566-4
Meston, C.M., & Buss, D.M. (2007). Why humans have sex. Archives
of Sexual Behavior, 36(4), 477–507. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10508-007-9175-2 Medline:17610060
Meston, C.M., Hamilton, L.D., & Harte, C.B. (2009). Sexual
motivation in women as a function of age. The Journal of Sexual
Medicine, 6(12), 3305–3319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-
6109.2009.01489.x Medline:19751384
Muehlenhard, C.L., & Shippee, S.K. (2010). Men’s and women’s
reports of pretending orgasm. Journal of Sex Research, 47(6),
552–567. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224490903171794
Medline:19707929
Muise, A. (2011). Getting’ it on vs. getting it up: The association
between sexual goals, interdependence and sexual desire in long-
term relationships. (Doctor of Philosophy thesis).
Muise, A., Impett, E.A., Kogan, A., & Desmarais, S. (2012). Keeping
the spark alive: Being motivated to meet a partner’s sexual needs
sustains sexual desire in long-term romantic relationships. Social
Psychological & Personality Science, 00(0), 1–7.
Neill, J. (2013). Survey research and design in psychology [PowerPoint
presentation]. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/jtneill/
exploratory-factor-analysis
47
Léa J. Séguin et al.
Nicolson, P., & Burr, J. (2003). What is ‘normal’ about women’s
(hetero)sexual desire and orgasm?: a report of an in-depth inter-
view study. Social Science & Medicine, 57(9), 1735–1745. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00012-1 Medline:12948581
Njus, D.M., & Bane, C.M.H. (2009). Religious identification as a
moderator of evolved sexual strategies of men and women.
Journal of Sex Research, 46(6), 546–557. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/00224490902867855 Medline:19343580
Roberts, C., Kippax, S., Waldby, C., & Crawford, J. (1995). Faking
it: The story of ‘‘ohh!’’. Women’s Studies International Forum,
18(5/6), 523–532.
Roberts, S.C.M. (2012). Whether men or women are responsible for
size of gender gap in alcohol consumption depends on alcohol
measure: A study across U.S. states. Contemporary Drug
Problems, 39(2), 195–212. Medline:23248388
Rosen, R.C., Lane, R.M., & Menza, M. (1999). Effects of SSRIs on
sexual function: a critical review. Journal of Clinical Psychophar-
macology, 19(1), 67–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004714-
199902000-00013 Medline:9934946
Rothschild, A.J. (2000). Sexual side effects of antidepressants.
The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 61(Suppl 11), 28–36.
Medline:10926052
Sakaluk, J.K., Todd, L.M., Milhausen, R., Lachowsky, N.J., & Under-
graduate Research Group in Sexuality URGiS. (2014). Dominant
heterosexual sexual scripts in emerging adulthood: Conceptual-
ization and measurement. Journal of Sex Research, 51(5), 516–
531. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.745473
Medline:23672338
Simon, W., & Gagnon, J.H. (1986). Sexual scripts: permanence and
change. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15(2), 97–120. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01542219 Medline:3718206
48 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 24(1), 2015, pp. 31–48; doi:10.3138/cjhs.2613
Steiger, J.H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modifications:
An internal estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 25(2), 173–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
s15327906mbr2502_4
Steiner, A.E. (1981). Pretending orgasm by men and women: An
aspect of communication in relationships. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology,
Berkeley=Alameda.
Stephenson, K.R., Ahrold, T.K., & Meston, C.M. (2011). The asso-
ciation between sexual motives and sexual satisfaction: gender
differences and categorical comparisons. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 40(3), 607–618. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-010-
9674-4 Medline:20967494
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics
(4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Webster, G.D., & Crysel, L.C. (2012). ‘‘Hit me, maybe, one more
time’’: Brief measures of impulsivity and sensation seeking and
their prediction of blackjack bets and sexual promiscuity. Journal
of Research in Personality, 46(5), 591–598. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jrp.2012.07.001
Wiederman, M.W. (1997). Pretending orgasm during sexual inter-
course: correlates in a sample of young adult women. Journal of
Sex & Marital Therapy, 23(2), 131–139. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/00926239708405314 Medline:9230494
Wiederman, M.W. (2005). The gendered nature of sexual scripts.
Family Journal (Alexandria, Va.), 13(4), 496–502. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/1066480705278729
Copyright of Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality is the property of University of Toronto
Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.