Erotophobia Erotophilia As A Dimension of Personality

This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]
On: 08 September 2012, At: 14:57

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:
1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,
London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Sex Research

Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjsr20
Erotophobia‐erotophilia as a
dimension of personality
a e
William A. Fisher Ph.D. , Leonard A. White
b d c
Ph.D. , Donn Byrne Ph.D. & Kathryn Kelley
c
Ph.D.
a
The University of Western Ontario,
b
Purdue University,
c
State University of New York, Albany
d
U.S. Army Research Institute, Alexandria,
Virginia, 22333
e
Department of Psychology, The University of
Western Ontario, London, Ontario, N6A 5C2,
Canada
Version of record first published: 11 Jan 2010
To cite this article: William A. Fisher Ph.D., Leonard A. White Ph.D., Donn Byrne
Ph.D. & Kathryn Kelley Ph.D. (1988): Erotophobia‐erotophilia as a dimension of
personality, Journal of Sex Research, 25:1, 123-151
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224498809551448
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/

terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study
purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,
reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make
any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or
up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher
shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or
costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 14:57 08 September 2012
The Journal of Sex Research Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 123-151 February, 1988
Erotophobia-Erotophilia as a
Dimension of Personality
WILLIAM A. FISHER, Ph.D. DONN BYRNE, Ph.D.
The University of Western Ontario State University of New York, Albany
LEONARD A. WHITE, Ph.D. KATHRYN KELLEY, Ph.D.
Purdue University State University of New York, Albany
This review discusses the measurement, antecedents, and consequents

of erotophobia-erotophilia—the disposition to respond to sexual cues
along a negative-positive dimension of affect and evaluation. Test con-
struction procedures which resulted in a 21-item measure of this per-
sonality construct are reported. Evidence indicates that the measure is
internally consistent, shows acceptable degrees of convergent and
discriminant validity, and is correlated as expected with related con-
structs such as authoritarianism, adherence to traditional sex roles,
indices of value orthodoxy, and various measures of sex-related evalua-
tions. Retrospective surveys and group contrasts suggest that eroto-
phobia-erotophilia is a learned disposition based on one's exposure to
sex-related restrictiveness and punishment during socialization. Conse-
quents of erotophobia-erotophilia involve avoidance versus approach
responses to sexuality in a wide range of situations; scores on this test
predict differential sexual experience, responses to erotica, likelihood of
engaging in sexual fantasy behavior, the tendency to learn about or
teach others about sex, engaging in sex-related health care, the proba-
bility of utilizing contraception, and behaving sexually during preg-
nancy and postpartum. Cross-cultural research provides evidence for the
generality of this construct beyond North America.
KEY WORDS: erotophobia, erotophilia, sexual attitudes, sexual

behavior
In a series of papers, Byrne (1977, 1983a, 1983b; see also Fisher,

1986) has presented a theoretical model delineating the determinants
of human sexual behavior. The Sexual Behavior Sequence rests on the
assumption that, beginning in earliest childhood, individuals acquire a
The authors would like to thank Clive Seligman for his comments on an earlier draft
of this manuscript. This research program was supported in part by grants
(410-81-0283, 451-84-2152 and 410-86-0716) from the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada to the first author.
Leonard A. White is now at the U.S. Army Research Institute, Alexandria, Virginia
22333.
Requests for reprints should be sent to William A. Fisher, Department of Psychol-
ogy, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, N6A 5C2.
123
124 FISHER, BYRNE, WHITE, AND KELLEY
series of response dispositions that mediate the effect of sexual

stimulation on subsequent sexual behavior. First, affective responses
become associated with a variety of sexual cues, and such responses
are transformed into relatively stable evaluative, attitudinal sets.
Second, informational responses (beliefs and expectancies) that are
relevant to sexuality are learned. Third, individuals acquire or create
imagery-based fantasy responses involving sexual themes. These
response dimensions are partially independent, though they frequent-
ly interact (e.g., negative affect can interfere with the acquisition of
information, and fantasy can be affect arousing). Sexual behavior is
initiated by both external stimulation (as mediated by these disposi-

tional variables) and internal processes such as self-initiated fantasy
and physiological activation.
Because affective, informational, and imaginai dispositions are
assumed to function as traits in terms of generality, persistence, and
consistency, it follows that the measurement of each theoretical
element is important in order to test the implications of the model and,
presumably, to predict sexual behavior. Over the past several years,
research has been concentrated on the affect-evaluation portion of the
model. The primary construct has been labeled erotophobia-eroto-
philia: the disposition to respond to sexual cues along a negative-
positive dimension of affect and evaluation. Research dealing with the
measurement, antecedents, and consequents of this disposition is
described in the present paper.
Operationalizing Erotophobia-Erotophilia
Test Construction: The Sexual Opinion Survey
The first step in the measurement process was the generation of 53
items that were intended to assess affective-evaluative responses to a
range of sexual themes, including autosexual, heterosexual, homo-
sexual behavior; sexual fantasies; and visual stimuli (White, Fisher,
Byrne, & Kingma, 1977). Each item describes a positive or negative
affective-evaluative response to a sexual activity or situation.
Subjects indicate agreement-disagreement on a seven-point scale.
To determine which of these theoretically derived items were valid
measures of erotophobia-erotophilia, a correlational, external-criterion
item analysis was undertaken. Because the construct is based on affec-
tive responses to sexual cues, items which could be shown empirically
to be associated with such emotional responses were assumed to be
indicants of the construct. White et al. (1977) had 88 male and 103
EROTOPHOBIA-EROTOPHILIA 125
female undergraduates respond to the 53-item pool and, in order to

eliminate one potential measurement problem, to a measure of social
desirability response set (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964). Subjects then
viewed 19 erotic slides that depicted a variety of sexual activities
Table 1
Item Selection and Cross-Validation: Correlations of 21 Items With Affective
Responses to Erotic Stimuli
Males Females
Item Selection Cross- Item Selection Cross-
Sample8 Validation^ Sample Validation

Item (N = 88) (N = 149) (N = 103) (AT = 1 1 8 )
1 .54 .40 .59 .39
2 .31 .29 .59 .29
3 .33 .31 .39 .30
4 .32 .34 .28 .44
5 .36 .19 .27 .18
6 .28 .29 .42 .19
7 .24 .38 .41 .22
8 .30 .30 .39 .28
9 .39 .46 .52 .44
10 .37 .34 .33 n.s.
11 .39 .25 .30 n.s.
12 .31 .30 .64 .33
13 .37 .25 .42 .22
14 .35 .22 .22 .19
15 .35 .32 .53 .34
16 .38 .40 .50 .33
17 .25 .36 .38 .30
18 .23 .41 .35 .38
19 .27 .24 .43 .30
20 .36 .40 .40 .36
21 .31 .15 .33 .18
Note. Unless otherwise indicated, p < .05 for each coefficient.
"Correlations indicate relationship between subjects' responses to individual items and
proportion of positive affect in their responses to erotic slides. Proportion of positive af-
fect was calculated by dividing each subject's positive affective responses by the sum
of their positive plus negative affective responses. This criterion was chosen because it
reflects the two dimensions of affective response to erotica that have been identified in
previous research (Byrne, Fisher, Lamberth, & Mitchell, 1974).
b
In the cross-validation research, an independent sample of 149 male and 118 female
undergraduates responded to the 21 selected items and indicated their affective
responses to a different set of explicit erotic slides.
c
For females in the cross-validation research, responses to items 10 and 11 were not
significantly correlated with affective responses. This inconsistency can perhaps be
explained by the fact that these items tap female attitudes about homosexuality;
because of an oversight, there were only slides of male and not female homosexual
activity in the cross-validation study.
126 FISHER, BYRNE, WHITE, AND KELLE Y
(Byrne & Lamberth, 1971; Levitt & Brady, 1965) and rated their
positive and negative emotional reactions to these stimuli (Byrne,
Fisher, Lamberth, & Mitchell, 1974).
It was found that responses to 21 of the preliminary items were
significantly correlated with affective responses to the erotic slides for
both male and female subjects. The results of this item analysis, to-
gether with those of a cross-validation study, are presented in Table 1;
these 21 items were found to be consistent predictors of emotional
responses to sexual stimuli.
Additional relevant data concerning the scale are presented in Table

2. As indicated, internal consistency is high. Evidence of convergent
and discriminant validity (Campbell & Fiske, 1959) is suggested by
correlations that indicate a significant relationship between scale
scores and affective responses to erotica and no relationship between
scale scores and the measure of social desirability response set.
Table 2
Internal Consistency and Correlations of Scale Scores with Two Criterion Variables
Males Females
Item Selection Cross- Item Selection Cross-
Sample Validation Sample Validation
Alpha coefficient .88 .86 .90 .82
Correlation of scale
scores with affective
response to erotica« .61 .60 .72 .54
Correlation of scale
scores with social
desirabilityb .05 -.11 -.05 -.01
«p < .001.
b
n.s.
The newly constructed test is known as the Sexual Opinion Survey
(SOS), and the items are presented in Table 3 along with a scoring key.
Table 3
The Sexual Opinion Survey and Scoring Key
The Sexual Opinion Survey
Please respond to each item as honestly as you can. There are no right or wrong
answers, and your answers will be completely confidential. (After each item, the follow-
ing response scale appears:
I strongly : : : : : : : : I strongly
agree disagree).
1. I think it would be very entertaining to look at hard-core pornography.
2. Pornography is obviously filthy and people should not try to describe it as
anything else.
3. Swimming in the nude with a member of the opposite sex would be an exciting ex-
perience.
4. Masturbation can be an exciting experience.
5. If I found out that a close friend of mine was a homosexual, it would annoy me.
6. If people thought I was interested in oral sex, I would be embarrassed.
7. Engaging in group sex is an entertaining idea.
8. I personally find that thinking about engaging in sexual intercourse is arousing.
9. Seeing a pornographic movie would be sexually arousing to me.
10. Thoughts that I may have homosexual tendencies would not worry me at all.
11. The idea of my being physically attracted to members of the same sex is not
depressing.
12. Almost all pornographic material is nauseating.
13. It would be emotionally upsetting to me to see someone exposing themselves ,

publicly.
14. Watching a gogo dancer of the opposite sex would not be very exciting.
15. I would not enjoy seeing a pornographic movie.
16. When I think about seeing pictures showing someone of the same sex as myself
masturbating, it nauseates me.
17. The thought of engaging in unusual sex practices is highly arousing.
18. Manipulating my genitals would probably be an arousing experience.
19. I do not enjoy daydreaming about sexual matters.
20. I am not curious about explicit pornography.
21. The thought of having long-term sexual relations with more than one sex partner
is not disgusting to me.
Scoring the Sexual Opinion Survey

(1) Score responses from 1 = 7 strongly agree to 7 = / strongly disagree, (2) add scores
from items 2, 5, 6,12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, and 20, (3) subtract from this total the sum of
items 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9,10,11,17,18, and 21, and (4) add 67 to this quantity. Scores range
from 0 (most erotophobic) to 126 (most erotophilic).
Revised Form of the Sexual Opinion Survey
The revised version of the SOS, described later in this paper, may be constructed by
replacing items 1, 2, 9,12,14,15, and 20 of the original scale (presented in Table 3) with
the following:
1. I think it would be very entertaining to look at erotica (sexually explicit books,
movies, etc.).
2. Erotica (sexually explicit books, movies, etc.) is obviously filthy and people should
not try to describe it as anything else.
9. Seeing an erotic (sexually explicit) movie would be sexually arousing to me.
12. Almost all erotic (sexually explicit) material is nauseating.
14. Watching a stripper of the opposite sex would not be very exciting.
15. I would not enjoy seeing an erotic (sexually explicit) movie.
20. I am not curious about explicit erotica (sexually explicit books, movies, etc.).
Normative data for the SOS are presented in Table 4. Across stu-
dent and nonstudent samples and in each culture studied, males
respond in a more positive (erotophilic) fashion than do females. This
difference may arise from any number of factors including the specific
content of scale items (e.g., females may find current male-oriented
pornography unappealing), norms that discourage the overt expres-
sion of female interest in sex, and actual male-female differences in
sex-related affect and evaluations. Whatever the reason or reasons for

sex differences, a key research issue is the establishment of patterns of
antecedent-trait-consequent relationships that are similar (or dis-
similar) across the genders (Malpass, 1977). The question then is
whether erotophobia-erotophilia develops and functions in the same
way for men and women. It may also be seen in Table 4 that erotophilic
responses are more characteristic of younger than older individuals
(although whether this is an age or a cohort effect is unclear), higher
rather than lower socioeconomic status persons, and in nonreligious
males rather than self-identified Protestants or Catholics.
Table 4
Normative Data for the Sexual Opinion Survey
Standard
N Mean Deviation Sample Characteristics
Students
U.S.A.
Males 149 71.62a 19.24 Volunteers for sex research from intro-
Females 118 53.74b 19.60 ductory psychology classes, midwestern
university.
Canada
Males 54 78.22a 14.28 Volunteers for sex research from intro-
Females 41 71.81b 16.04 ductory psychology classes, Ontario
university.
Adults
U.S.A.
Males 116 76.67a 22.19 Parents who agreed to take part in sex
Females 210 65.88b 23.91 education study at home (Gilbert &
Gamache, 1984)
Canada
Males 50 66.70a 19.82 Couples in prenatal education classes
Females 50 57.54b 25.85 (Fisher & Gray, 1986)
Samples from
Other Nations
India
Males 33 70.21a 4.92 The India, Hong Kong and Israel samples
Females 33 64.30b 8.01 were composed of university under-
graduates. The India and Hong Kong
Hong Kong
samples responded to the SOS in English;
Males 69 59.17a 12.63 the Israeli sample responded to a Hebrew
Females 114 47.89b 15.87
translation of the scale
Israel
Males 52 70.77a 12.79
Females 49 58.94b 21.69
(Continued on next page)

Table 4
Normative Data for the Sexual Opinion Survey—continued
Group
Comparisons
Age
34 or
below 195 74.04a 34.41 U.S. adults (Gilbert & Gamache, 1984)
35 or
above 132 66.04b 24.31
Socio-
economic
Status
High SES 149 77.79a 35.99 U.S. adults (GDbert & Gamache, 1984)
(55 or
above)
Low SES 178 64.97b 24.59
(54 or
below)
Religion
Males
Agnostic 24 81.88a 21.25 U.S. students, introductory psychology
Protes- volunteers at midwestern university
tant 64 70.88b 15.93
Catholic 41 69.27b 19.57
Females
Agnostic 11 61.91a 21.04
Protes-
tant 67 53.15a 18.74
Catholic 33 50.70a 20.86
Note. Means with different subscripts differ at the .05 level by t tests. We thank
Sukmar Bose, S. K. DasGupta, and A. K. Burman (India), Sing Lau (Hong Kong), and
Iris Levine (Israel) for providing the data in the non-North American samples. Socio-
economic status was based on Hollingshead (1975). In the comparison of religious
affiliations, agnostic was assumed when subjects responded "none" when asked about
their religious affiliation.
Factor Structure of the Sexual Opinion Survey

Despite the relatively high internal consistency of the SOS, factor
analytic research (Gilbert & Gamache, 1984) has identified three inter-
pretable clusters of items within the test. The first factor, open sexual
display, accounts for 34 percent of the variance and consists of Items
1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 20, and 21. The second factor, sexual variety,
accounts for 11 percent of the variance and consists of Items 4, 6, 8, 9,
17,18, and 19. The third factor, homoeroticism, accounts for 7 percent
of the variance and consists of the Items 5, 10, 11, and 16.
Though the bulk of the research to be reported was conducted prior
to the identification of these factors, it is possible that the use of sub-

scale rather than total scores will yield more precise relationships. Por
example, an individual's score on one specific factor might be maxi-
mally associated with a given characteristic (e.g., Factor 1 and sexual
dysfunction, Factor 2 and masturbatory guilt, or Factor 3 and homo-
phobia).
Short Form, Translation, and Revision of the SOS
Research with the SOS over several years has shown that the scale's
length and its sensitive sexual content can pose difficulties with cer-
tain populations (e.g., too long for using in a busy clinical setting, too
blatant for young teenagers, etc.). To minimize both the scale's length
and the absolute amount of sensitive content, Semph (1979) developed
a short form of the test. Regression analyses were used to identify five
items that were good predictors of total scale scores for each sex.
Table 5
Intercorrelations of the Short Form SOS, Standard SOS, and the Bentler Heterosexual
Experience Inventory
Short Form SOS Standard SOS
Males [N = 72)
Standard SOS .82**
Bentler .36* .35*
Females (AT = 173)
Standard SOS .71**
Bentler .38** .40**
*p < .01.
**p < .001.
These five items (4, 12, 13, 17, and 21) were then administered to 72
male and 173 female undergraduates at an Ontario university, along
with the standard SOS and the Bentler (1968a, 1968b) Sexual Experi-
ence Inventory in counterbalanced order. The intercorrelations among
these three measures (see Table 5) show that the 5-item short form
correlates highly with the original long form, and both forms are
equally associated with a criterion behavior (heterosexual experience).
Thus, when conditions suggest it, preliminary evidence supports use
of the short form as an acceptable alternative measure of erotophobia-
erotophilia.1
1
The short form SOS is administered and scored as follows: (1) administer Items 12, 4,
13,17, and 21 (in this order, renumbered 1-5) from the standard SOS, (2) score responses
from 1=I Strongly Agree to 7 = I Strongly Disagree, (3) add scores from Items 1 and
3, (4) subtract from this total the sum of Items 2, 4, and 5, and (5) add 19 to this quanti-
ty. Scores range from 0 (most erotophobic) to 30 (most erotophilic). In Semph's (1979)
sample, the mean score for male Canadian undergraduates was 19.09 (SD = 5.15); for
female Canadian undergraduates, the mean was 12.83 (SD = 5.54).
In addition to the short form, the SOS has been translated into
French, Hebrew, German, and Finnish2 and successfully backtrans-
lated by bilinguals, following accepted procedures for cross-cultural
research (cf. Brislin, Lonner, & Thorndike, 1973). Moreover, the scale
has been used successfully with English speaking respondents in
Hong Kong and India as described later in this paper.
Beyond the short form and translations of the SOS, a recent minor
revision has been undertaken to update the scale. Certain terms that
appear in the original SOS ("pornography" and "gogo dancer") have
either altered in meaning or become anachronistic since the mid-1970s

when the scale was created. To reflect such changes, a revision of the
test was prepared, substituting the term "erotica" (defined as "sexual-
ly explicit books, movies, etc." or "sexually explicit," as appropriate)
for "pornography." "Gogo dancer" was replaced by "stripper."
Copies of the original and revised scales (in counterbalanced order)
and a five-item sexual behavior self-report were completed by 323
undergraduate males and fe'males in a human sexuality course at an
Ontario university. The correlation between the original and the
revised scales was extremely high, r(321) = .92, p < .001, and the
mean scores of the SOS versions to which the subjects responded first
did not differ significantly (for men, M original SOS = 74.61, SD =
15.53, M revised SOS = 78.18, SD = 18.38, t (105) = 1.27, n.s.; for
females, M original SOS = 64.06, SD = 18.48, M revised SOS = 65.45,
SD = 18.59, t (214) = .55, n.s.).
Thus, the aging of some terms in the original SOS seems to be more
apparent than real; no empirical distinction between the two versions
could be identified. The revised scale appears to be more in keeping
with current usage, however, and it should probably be used in future
research.3
Relationship of Erotophobia-Erotophilia
to Other Dimensions of Personality
One aspect of the evaluation of a personality construct is its relation-
ship to other personality dimensions. We will examine some of the rele-
vant research that has been conducted.
A u thoritarianism
According to Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson, and Sanford
(1950), authoritarian individuals are rigidly conventional, opposed to
2
French, Hebrew, German, and Finnish versions of the Sexual Opinion Survey are
available on request from the first author.
3
Items from the revised SOS appear in Table 3.
deviant behavior, and sexually repressive. It follows that authori-

tarianism would be correlated with erotophobia-erotophilia, and
research has confirmed this hypothesis. In two studies using indepen-
dent samples, it was found that a revised F Scale (Cherry & Byrne,
1977) is associated with the SOS for both undergraduate males,
r(147) = -.36, p < .001, r(81) = -.31, p < .002, and females, r(116) =
-.38, p < .001, r(81) = -.44, p < .001; Greendlinger & Byrne, in press);
thus, authoritarian individuals tend to be erotophobic. It appears that
general authoritarianism is linked with the somewhat more specific
affective and evaluative negativity to sex that characterizes eroto-

phobia.
Sex-Role Identity
Walfish and Myerson (1980) have theorized about the possible rela-
tion between sex role identity and erotophobia-erotophilia. They
reason that men adhering to traditional sex roles suffer from exag-
gerated concerns about their sexual performance and hence should
develop sexual anxieties that would be expressed in erotophobic
responses. Females adhering to traditional sex roles would be expected
to be sexually passive, thus inhibiting sexual pleasure and also pro-
moting erotophobia. Androgynous men and women, in contrast,
should enjoy sex more and express a more erotophilic orientation.
These proposed relationships were confirmed in empirical research
(Walfish & Myerson, 1980). Using the Bern (1974) Sex-role Inventory
to classify undergraduates with respect to sex-role identification,
these investigators found that androgynous males tended to be more
erotophilic than traditional sex-role males (Ms = 92.75 vs. 81.10,
i(28) = 1.40, p < .08). Similarly, androgynous females were more
erotophilic than females with traditional sex roles (Ms = 72.94 vs.
61.81, ¿(67) = 2.25, p < .05). Clayton (1981) replicated this pattern of
findings. Such data are consistent with the hypothesis that traditional
sex roles interfere with the development of erotophilia.
Dimensions on Personality Research Form
In research by Saunders, Fisher, Hewitt, and Clayton (1985), the
SOS and the Personality Research Form A (Jackson, 1974) were ad-
ministered to 151 undergraduates. This omnibus personality measure
is based on Murray's theoretical framework and is designed to
describe normal "personality traits broadly relevant to the function-
ing of individuals in a wide variety of situations" (Jackson, 1974, p. 4);
its reliability and validity are supported by a considerable body of
research.
Correlational analyses indicated that, for males, SOS scores cor-

relate significantly with five of the 14 dimensions assessed by this per-
sonality test. Erotophilia is negatively associated with achievement
aspirations, r(77) = -.38, p < .001, endurance, r(77) = -.25, p < .03,
harm avoidance, r(77) = -.29, p < .05, nurturance, r(77) = -.36, p <
.001, and order, r(77) = -.25, p < .03. In several respects, erotophobic
males possess socially valued characteristics (achievement, order, en-
durance) that connote adherence to the "work ethic" while erotophilic
men tend to be located at the opposite end of this dimension.
For women, the SOS was correlated with only two of the Personality
Research Form dimensions. Erotophilia was negatively associated
with achievement aspirations, r(70) = -.25, p < .04, and positively
associated with understanding, r(70) = .31, p < .008.
Sex-related Dispositional Measures
Various scales have been developed to assess attitudes, beliefs, and
emotional reactions to different aspects of sexuality. Because each of
these measures tends to be conceptualized as involving a positive-
negative evaluative dimension and because reactions to sexual cues
tend to generalize widely, one would expect the SOS to be related to
these other measures.
The most widely used test in this area has been Mosher's (1966,
1968) measure of sex guilt. This construct is defined as "a generalized
expectancy for self-mediated punishment for violating or anticipating
violating standards of proper sexual conduct" (Mosher & Cross, 1971,
p. 27). Both the SOS and the Sex Guilt Scale contain wide-ranging
sexual content, and the two tests have been found to be associated
such that relatively erotophilic individuals are relatively low in sex
guilt. In one study of undergraduates (Greendlinger & Byrne, in press),
SOS and Sex Guilt Scale scores were correlated r(80) = -.39, p < .001,
for males and r(80) = -.52, p < .001 for females. Although the two
scales have been utilized in similar research (sometimes interchange-
ably), attempts at establishing differential predictive power have
generally been lacking. In one study where both scales were used to
predict affective responses to explicit heterosexual, lesbian, and gay
films, the SOS was found to be the more powerful predictor for both
males and females (Greendlinger & Byrne, in press). A possible
explanation for such differential findings is that erotophobia-eroto-
philia refers to a somewhat general conditioned emotional response to
sexual stimuli as a class, whereas sex guilt is based on self-mediated
punishment for improper sexual conduct. This distinction may provide
a basis for differential predictions. To take one example, marital

sexuality would not seem likely to evoke sex guilt, but it might well
elicit negative, erotophobic responses.
Greendlinger and Byrne (in press) also found significant (p < .001)
correlations between the SOS and the Negative Attitudes Toward
Masturbation Scale (Abramson & Mosher, 1975) (r = .53 for males and
.54 for females), the Index of Homophobia (Hudson & Ricketts, 1980)
(r = -.44 for males and -.45 for females), and attitudes toward female
homosexuals (r= .27, p < .006, for males and .41 for females) and male
homosexuals (r = .40 for males and .43 for females) as assessed by a
modified version of the Larsen, Reed, and Hoffman (1980) scale. Eroto-
philic persons indicated more positive attitudes towards masturba-
tion, and they were less homophobic than their erotophobic counter-
parts.
Altogether, these various findings suggest certain consistencies in
that erotophobia is related to personality measures involving
generalized value orthodoxy, including authoritarianism, traditional
sex roles, need for achievement, sex guilt, and negative reactions to
masturbation and homosexuality.
Antecedents of Erotophobia-Erotophilia
The learned disposition to respond to sexual cues with relatively
negative versus relatively positive affect and evaluation presumably
stems from socialization experiences in which sexuality was paired
with emotion-producing punishments and rewards (Byrne, 1977,
1983a, 1983b; Fisher, 1986; Fisher, Byrne, & White, 1983; Kelley,
1983). Repeated exposure to associations between sex and negative
emotions should result in a learned disposition to respond to sex with
negative affect. Moreover, because individuals tend to respond evalua-
tively on the basis of affect (Byrne, 1971; Byrne et al., 1974), this anti-
sexual socialization pattern would lead the individual to make con-
sistently negative evaluations of sexual cues as well (Kelley, 1979). Of
course, it is also possible to pair sexual content with rewarding events
and pleasant emotions. Such positive associations should generalize to
form an erotophilic disposition. Actually, because sexual behavior is
inherently rewarding, erotophilia would presumably be the norm were
it not for the effects of sex-related punishment.
In an attempt to verify some of these theoretical speculations, we
asked 153 male and 119 female undergraduates to complete the SOS
and to respond to detailed questionnaires regarding their socialization
to sex. Significant correlations between erotophobia-erotophilia and
questionnaire items are shown in Table 6. As expected, erotophobia is

associated with reports of parental strictness about sex, sex-related
guilt, fears, inhibitions, and conservative attitudes as well as with
avoidance of masturbation, erotica, and (for women, at least) multiple
premarital partners.
Table 6
Correlations Between SOS Scores and Retrospective Reports of Sexual Socialization
Experiences in Childhood (< age 13) and Adolescence (age 13 to Present)
Males
Childhood
Parents strict about sex play (not strict-strict) 23 < .003
Sex evoked guilt feelings (never-often) 30 < .001
Sex inhibited by fear of physically harming self (never-often) 18 < .02
Sex inhibited by guilt feelings (never-often) 22 < .005
Sex inhibited by religious training (never-often) 19 < .01
Sex inhibited by knowledge it was wrong (never-often) 23 < .003
Frequency of masturbation (never-often) 23 < .003
Parents embarrassed to discuss sex (not
embarrassed-embarrassed) 27 < .001
Parents good sex educators (good-poor) 31 < .001
Adolescence
Received sex information from parents (little-much) 32 < .001
Received sex information from erotica (little-much) 40 < .001
Sex led to feeling bad (never-often) 31 < .001
General fears inhibited free sexual expression (never-often) 22 < .005
Social disapproval inhibited free sexual expression (never-often) 19 < .001
Guilt inhibited free sexual expression (never-often) 23 < .003
Morals inhibited free sexual expression (never-often) 26 < .001
Religious training inhibited free sexual expression (never-often) 32 < .001
Knowledge it was wrong inhibited free sexual expression
(never-often) 22 < .004
Frequency of contact with erotica (never-often) 49 < .001
Frequency of masturbation (never-often) 42 < .001
Felt guilty about masturbation (disagree-agree) 42 < .001
Felt guilty about intercourse (disagree-agree) 26 < .001
Conservative sexual attitudes (liberal-conservative) 36 < .001
Parents not embarrassed to discuss sex (not
embarrassed-embarrassed) 31 < .001
Parents good sex educators (good-poor) 21 < .006
Despite the relatively negative emotional atmosphere surrounding

the sexual socialization of erotophobic individuals, inspection of Table
6 reveals several instances in which they indicate relatively positive
feelings about their parents as sex educators and about their own
sexualknowledge. This seeming disparity may simply represent a par-
ticular set of values about sex or it may be that the authoritarianism of
Table 6
Correlations Between SOS Scores and Retrospective Reports of Sexual Socialization
Experiences in Childhood (< age 13) and Adolescence (age 13 to Present)—Continued
Females
Chüdhood
Received sex information from older friends (little-much) .31 < .001
Received sex information from reading material (little-much) .26 < .002
Frequency of masturbation (never-often) .21 < .02
Frequency of dreams about sex (never-often) .24 < .006
Sexual knowledge adequate (adequate-inadequate) .23 < .008
Adolescence
Fear of parents' reactions inhibited free sexual expression
(never-often) .20 < .02
Religious training inhibited free sexual expression (never-often) .22 < .009
Morals inhibited free sexual expression (never-oftën) .23 < .008
Knowledge it was wrong inhibited free sexual expression
(never-often) .23 < .006
Sex led to feeling bad (never-often) .33 < .001
Conservative sexual attitudes (liberal-conservative) .48 < .001
Sexual attitudes similar to parents' (similar-dissimilar) .28 < .001
Embarrassed by nudity in gym class (never-often) .20 < .02
Embarrassed by petting (never-often) .31 < .001
Felt guilty about masturbation (disagree-agree) .50 < .001
Felt guilty about intercourse (disagree-agree) .30 < .001
Frequency of purchasing erotica (never-often) .43 < .001
Frequency of masturbation (never-often) .39 < .001
Number of premarital intercourse partners (none-many) .31 < .001
Sexual knowledge adequate (adequate-inadequate) .19 < .03
Parents make you feel guilty about sex (never-often) .18 < .03
Note. High scores on the SOS indicate relatively erotophilic responses. On sexual
socialization items, first word in parentheses indicates lowest score on item; second
word indicates highest score on item.
erotophobes prevents them from expressing anything negative about

their parents.
In addition to these retrospective self-reports—which are admittedly
limited and subject to distortion—we have further data that are perti-
nent to the socialization question. We would expect that erotophobic
parents are relatively nonaccepting of their children's sexuality,
whereas erotophilic parents should be relatively accepting. Recent
research provides data consistent with this assumption. In interviews
with 116 parents of preschool children, Yarber and Whitehill (1981)
found a correlation of .49 (p < .01) between fathers' SOS scores and
their scores on the "Are You an Askable Parent" questionnaire (Gor-
don, 1977). Erotophobic fathers, compared to erotophilic ones,
reported that they were less likely to provide frank answers to their
children's questions about sex. In another study of parent-child com-

munication about sex, Lemery (1983) found a correlation of .42 (p <
.05) between mothers' SOS scores and their reports of how much sex
information they had given to their six-to-nine year old children, such
that erotophobic mothers provided less sexual information. Moreover,
research on three separate samples of parents (Byrne, Becker, &
Przybyla, 1987; Fisher & Gray, 1986; Lemery, 1983) indicates a sub-
stantial correlation between husbands and wives on the SOS, r(54) =
.58, p < .001, r(48) = .52, p < .01, and r(27) = .59, p < .01. Thus,
erotophobic and erotophilic parents show differential acceptance of

their children's sexuality, and children are likely to have parents who
are relatively similar in this respect.
This line of research suggests that it may prove fruitful to pursue
more directly the verbal and nonverbal means by which parents com-
municate sexual feelings and attitudes to their offspring.
Consequents of Erotophobia-Erotophilia
According to our theoretical model, erotophobic persons have
negative affective and evaluative responses to sex and should there-
fore show generalized avoidance responses to sexual cues. Erotophilic
persons, who have positive affective and evaluative responses to sex,
should evidence generalized approach tendencies to sex. In this
section, we will review research dealing with erotophobia-erotophilia
and the avoidance or approach of overt sexual activity, contraceptive
acquisition and use, sexual fantasies, and homosexual and hetero-
sexual cues.
Erotophobia-Erotophilia and Sexual Behavior
Sexual experience. According to our conceptualization, erotophobic
persons should find sexual activity to be relatively aversive and should
avoid it, whereas erotophilic individuals should find sex more pleasant
and should seek out sexual experience. Consistent with this assump-
tion, research has shown that erotophilia is positively associated with
self-reports of undergraduates' autosexual activity. Frequency of
masturbation is correlated with erotophilic responses, r(143) = -42, p
< .001, for males, and r(109) = .39, p < .001, for females (Fisher et al,
1983). With respect to heterosexual behavior, research in two indepen-
dent samples of undergraduates shows a positive relationship between
erotophilia and amount of past sexual experience, r(70) = .35, p <
.001, for males, and r(171) = .40, p < .001, for females (Semph, 1979);
r(96) = .35, p < .001, formales, andr(206) = .37, p < .001, for females
138 FISHER, BYRNE, WHITE, AND KELLE Y
(Fisher, 1984a). Similarly, number of different intercourse partners is

associated with this dimension, r(96) = .40, p < .001, for males, and
r(206) = .28, p < .01, for females (Fisher, 1984a).
Sexual behavior during pregnancy and postpartum. It seems likely
that erotophobic or erotophilic dispositions will determine avoidance
or approach to sexual activity not only among undergraduates, but
also throughout the life span. As one example, pregnancy and child-
birth pose challenges to the sexual activity and satisfaction of millions
of parents each year. We propose that erotophobia interferes with,
whereas erotophilia facilitates, sexual adjustment during this time.
Specifically, for erotophobic persons, the stresses on sexuality

throughout this process (ranging from morning sickness to painful
episiotomy sites) should add to any existing tendencies to avoid sex.
Also, the presumed erotophobic avoidance of sexual communication
and experimentation should make satisfactory sexual adjustments to
pregnancy less likely to occur.
To examine these propositions, Fisher and Gray (1986) studied 50
couples who were at the sixth to eighth month of pregnancy and recon-
tacted half of these couples at 8 to 12 weeks postpartum. Correlational
analysis indicated a number of significant relationships between SOS
scores and sexual behavior during pregnancy. Erotophilic women
reported more sexual interest, activity, satisfaction, and experimenta-
tion during pregnancy than did erotophobic women. Erotophilic
(versus erotophobic) men reported more frequent autosexual and
heterosexual activity during pregnancy as well. With respect to post-
partum sexuality, significant relationships with the SOS were also
found. At two to three months after the delivery, erotophilic (versus
erotophobic) women indicated an earlier resumption of sexual inter-
course, more interest in sexual activity, and more frequent solitary
masturbation. Erotophilic women also more often breastfed their in-
fants. For male subjects, erotophilia was associated with attendance
at the child's birth.
Sexual dysfunction. It would be reasonable to assume that eroto-
phobia could be both a cause and an effect of sexual dysfunction. For
example, a highly erotophobic male might be likely to develop erectile
problems, and erectile problems in turn might bring about erotophobic
feelings and attitudes. Although research in this area is just begin-
ning, there are data consistent with this proposal. In a sample of men
with erectile dysfunction, mean responses on the SOS were nearly 20
points lower than among a matched sample of nondysfunctional males
(D. H. Barlow, personal communication, December, 1984). The possi-
bility also exists, incidentally, that extreme erotophilia may prove to

be linked with sexual problems (such as indiscriminate choice of in-
appropriate sex partners) as well, although no data now exist on this
issue.
Erotophobia-Erotophilia and Contraceptive Behavior
Because erotophobia-erotophilia determines avoidance versus ap-
proach responses to sex, various aspects of sex-related health care
behavior should be affected by these dispositional differences. Consis-
tent with this expectation, erotophilic individuals have been found to
be more likely than erotophobic ones to engage in breast self-examina-

tion, to schedule regular gynecological visits, and to engage in certain
preventive behaviors with respect to sexually transmitted diseases
(Fisher et al., 1983; Yarber & Fisher, 1983).
A somewhat more complex series of acts is required to take appro-
priate steps to avoid unwanted conception. The effective use of contra-
ception has been described as involving the performance of five
discrete acts: learning about sex and contraception, anticipating the
act of intercourse, acquiring contraceptives, discussing contraception
with a partner, and the consistent use of an effective contraceptive
method (Byrne, 1983a). The general prediction is that erotophobia-
erotophilia should be related to the avoidance of or approach to,
respectively, each of these contraceptive behaviors.
Differential learning of sexual and contraceptive information. Eroto-
phobic individuals are hypothesized to have greater difficulty than
erotophiles in attending to, processing, and retrieving sexual or
contraceptive information. Contact with such information has differ-
ential emotional values for those on opposite ends of this personality
dimension.
In an undergraduate human sexuality class, Fisher (1980) found that
students below the SOS median did less well on the midterm exam
(M= 71.16%) than did those scoring above the SOS median (M =
78.90%). This difference was statistically significant even when
students' past level of academic achievement was controlled by means
of analysis of covariance, F{1, 35) = 4.77, p < .04. Recently, this
research was replicated with medical students, and erotophobia-eroto-
philia was correlated with sexual knowledge even within this highly
trained professional group (Fisher et al., in press). Working within the
Hull-Spence model (e.g., Spence, Färber, & McFann, 1956), Kelley
(1985d) found erotophobe-erotophile differences in the motivational ef-
fects of erotic films. Only erotophiles were sufficiently aroused by a
sexually explicit movie to show performance differences on competi-

tive versus noncompetitive paired-associates lists. These two quite
different types of research suggest that any sex-related information-
such as contraception—is more easily learned by those with positive
feelings and attitudes about sex. Further, those with different scores
on the SOS are differentially interested in a variety of sex education
topics (Kelley, 1985b).
Not only do erotophobic attitudes lead to difficulties with learning
about sex, they also contribute to circumspection in teaching sexual
and contraceptive knowledge as well. Yarber and McCabe (1981,1984)
surveyed 269 Indiana health teachers with respect to numerous char-

acteristics, including age, religion, marital status, educational level,
teaching experience, and erotophobia-erotophilia along with their
ratings of how important it is to teach 60 sex education topics in public
schools. Of all the variables assessed, only SOS scores were con-
sistently correlated with the importance ratings. For example, eroto-
phobic teachers indicated that many "controversial" topics (such as
where to get and how to use birth control) were relatively unimportant
material to include in public school sex education courses. Similarly,
erotophobia-erotophilia was the single best predictor of what the
teachers reported that they actually taught in their classes. For exam-
ple, erotophobic teachers were less likely than erotophilic ones to teach
about birth control, abortion, and sexual alternatives to coitus.
The anticipation of intercourse probabilities as a function of sexual
attitudes. It is hypothesized that erotophobic persons should find it
relatively unpleasant to admit that they may soon be having sex; an
erotophilic individual would be expected to look forward to such an
eventuality.
To test this predicted link, Fisher (1978) administered the SOS to
145 male undergraduates and also asked them to indicate whether or
not they expected to have intercourse during the subsequent month.
With SOS scores divided at the median, 51.51% of the erotophobic
men and 77.30% of the erotophilic men indicated that intercourse
would occur. This difference is significant, even controlling for past
intercourse frequency by means of analysis of covariance, F(\, 128) =
5.21, p < .03.
The relationship between expectancies and actual behavior is also
relevant. One month later, subjects were asked whether or not they
had engaged in intercourse since last visiting the laboratory. It was
found that erotophobic men had tended to underestimate the likeli-
hood that they would have sex. Contraceptively, this may be a serious
error because unanticipated intercourse can (and in some instances

did) become unprotected intercourse. In contrast, erotophilic males
tended to overestimate the probability that they would have coitus.
Such overconfidence may lead to disappointment, but it is not as likely
to result in unprotected coitus.
Public acquisition of contraceptives as a function of sexual atti-
tudes. Erotophobic individuals are expected to find the acquisition of
contraceptive products or services more aversive than those who are
erotophilic, and differential avoidance of such behavior is hypothe-
sized. To test this proposal, Fisher et al. (1983) surveyed a group of
undergraduate females. All of these women reported being incon-

sistent users of contraception in the past. Some of these individuals
had decided to acquire contraceptive protection at a university clinic,
and others were taking no steps to acquire contraceptives. Those
females who were obtaining contraception were significantly more
erotophilic (M = 57.31) than were those who were failing to do so (M =
46.95), F{1, 60) = 4.57, p < .04.
Erotophobia-erotophilia and communicating sexual content. Accord-
ing to both anecdotal and survey evidence (Gross & Bellew-Smith,
1983), many adolescents are reluctant to talk about contraception
before they have sex, and silence on this topic increases the risk of
pregnancy. We propose that those who are erotophobic should find
such conversations particularly distressing. As a test of this hypothe-
sis, Fisher, Miller, Byrne, and White (1980) designed a laboratory
analogue of sexual communication. Undergraduate men and women
(N = 190) presented a prepared message about either a sexual or a
neutral topic to a video camera, ostensibly for a later taped presenta-
tion to a live audience. Subjects then indicated their reactions to
communicating the message. Erotophobic subjects had significantly
more negative reactions to communicating the sexual content than did
their erotophilic counterparts with respect to self-reported affect
during the talk and expectancies for negative audience evaluations of
them and their message. As expected, SOS scores were unrelated to
responses to communicating the neutral message.
Consistent contraceptive use as a function of erotophobia-eroto-
philia. The various erotophobe-erotophile differences reported in the
previous series of studies lead to the conclusion that such differences
should also be found with respect to the consistent use of contra-
ceptives in sexual intercourse.
This predicted relationship has been confirmed in various samples of
college-age students. Among 230 university women, Fisher et al.
(1979) found that erotophilia scores were lower across groups as one
examined consistent users of contraception (M = 61.70), inconsistent
users (M = 52.13), and those who were sexually inactive (M = 45.93),
F(2, 224) = 16.08, p < .0001 (the three means differ significantly from
one another by the Newman-Keuls procedure). Thus, those with the
most positive feelings about sex engage in sex and plan for it contra-
ceptively, those with less positive feelings engage in sex but avoid the
unpleasantness of contraceptive preparations, and those with the most
negative feelings avoid intercourse altogether. Inconsistent contracep-
tive use among erotophobic females has also been found in another
survey involving 722 undergraduate women on four midwestern U.S.

university campuses (Kelley, Smeaton, Byrne, Przybyla, & Fisher,
1987).
It is worth noting that a similar relationship between erotophobia-
erotophilia and contraceptive use holds for men as well as for women.
In a sample of 145 undergraduate males questioned twice over a one-
month interval, Fisher (1984b) found that 42 had engaged in inter-
course during that month. It was found that erotophobic males were
less likely to have used condoms, r(40) = -.33, p < .05, than their
erotophilic counterparts.
Sexual Fantasies: External and Internal
Erotophobia-erotophilia is presumed to determine avoidance or ap-
proach responses to external (i.e., erotica) and internal (i.e., self-
generated fantasy) sexual imagery. Specifically, erotophilic indi-
viduals should have more contact with external erotic images and
should be more inclined to manipulate such images internally (Kelley,
1986). Those with erotophobic tendencies should find both external
and internal images aversive and tend to avoid them (Kelley & Byrne,
1978).
External sexual imagery. By definition, erotophobia-erotophilia is
associated with affective responses to erotica (Greendlinger & Byrne,
in press). Depending on the specific situation, gender differences can
also play a role (Kelley, 1987). In an experiment dealing with repeated
exposure to erotic movies in a series of five daily sessions, Kelley and
Musialowski (1986) found that SOS scores predicted affective and
arousal responses better for females than for males. In response to ex-
plicit erotica shown in slides (Kelley, 1985c) and films (Kelley, 1985e),
interpersonal hostility is predicted by level of erotophobia.
In a laboratory experiment, Becker and Byrne (1985) allowed sub-
jects to set their own viewing times for a series of explicit heterosexual
photographic slides. Male and female erotophiles had longer exposure

times than their erotophobic counterparts and also made fewer errors
in recalling content.4 Such differences appear to generalize to non-
laboratory contacts with erotic material. Survey data indicate that
erotophobic persons report relatively infrequent exposure to erotica
(Fisher et al., 1983).
Internal sexual imagery. To examine fantasy activity as a function
of erotophobia-erotophilia, Walker (1983) surveyed male and female
undergraduates about the frequency of fantasy activity during
masturbation and coitus. The students were also shown erotic slides,
and each was asked to write a description of his or her favorite sexual
fantasy. Erotophilic females tended to fantasize more frequently dur-
ing masturbation, r(13) = .42, p < .06, and to write longer, r(27) = .38,
p < .02, and more explicit, r(25) = .44, p < .02, sexual fantasies than
erotophobic females. For males, the only significant correlation was
that indicating a positive relationship between SOS scores and the
explicitness of their sexual fantasies, r(23) = .34, p < .05. Kelley
(1985a) found positive relationships for both sexes between SOS scores
and several measures of self-generated fantasy production.
Other research (Byrne et al., 1987) has shown that, among un-
married male and female undergraduates, amount of self-reported
fantasy during masturbation is positively correlated with SOS scores.
Similarly, among married couples, both male and female erotophiles
report thinking about sex more frequently than do erotophobes. The
use of SOS scores as a covariate of responses to internal and external
sexual imagery has been examined in greater detail by Kelley,
Dawson, and Musialowski (in press).
Sexual Orientation and Erotophobia-Erotophilia
It was reported earlier that scores on the SOS are negatively related
to homophobia and restrictive attitudes about male and female homo-
sexuals. Consistent with this finding is Kelley's (1985a) laboratory
study in which subjects were shown pictures of males in sexually sug-
gestive poses and then asked to create fantasies. Males produced
briefer and more negatively toned fantasies than females, and the
briefest and most negative fantasies were those of erotophobic males.
It seems that these homophobic responses may be relatively
common among heterosexual males, and it is possible that hetero-
phobic responses are equally common among homosexual males. To
test this assumption, Clayton and Fisher (1983) administered the SOS
4
In this time-oriented situation, the erotophobe-erotophile behavior differences were
eliminated among those high on the dimension of Type A coronary-prone behavior.
to 24 homosexual males who were contacted through a campus homo-

phile organization. Their dominant sexual orientation was homosexual
(22 of the 24 males scored five or six on the Kinsey self-rating scale (0
= exclusively heterosexual, 6 = exclusively homosexual), and the
remaining two men scored four). A group of 130 predominantly hetero-
sexual undergraduate men were used for comparison purposes. Each
subject was scored on the homoeroticism items of the SOS (Gilbert &
Gamache, 1984) and on the two SOS items that explicitly involve
opposite sex contact (items 3 and 14). These two subscores were con-
ceptualized as assessing homophobic and heterophobic attitudes. As

may be seen in Table 7, heterosexual males score low in heterophobic
attitudes and high in homophobic attitudes whereas the reverse is true
of homosexual men.5
Table 7
Means of Heterophobic-Heterophilic and HomophobioHomophilic Attitudes For Males
as a Function of Sexual Orientation
Heterosexual Men Homosexual Men
(N = 130) (N = 24)
Heterosexual Attitudes 5.55a 2.58b
Homosexual Attitudes 2.93C 6.12d
Note. Means with different subscripts differ at the .001 level or beyond by independent
or dependent t tests. Scores range from 1.00 (extremely negative attitudes) to 7.00 (ex-
tremely positive attitudes.)
Cross-Cultural Findings with Erotophobia-Erotophilia

As an additional step in establishing the generality of this approach
to conceptualizing sexual behavior, it is important to seek relation-
ships in cultures other than the one in which the construct was devel-
oped. To date, research has been conducted on erotophobia-erotophilia
in two non-western cultures, India and Hong Kong.
Antecedents of Erotophobia-Erotophilia: India
Bose, DasGupta, and Burman (1978) tested two samples in Calcutta
that were known to differ in their practices relevant to socialization to
5
For parallel findings on the predominance of heterosexual fantasy among hetero-
sexuals and homosexual fantasy among homosexuals, see Storms (1980).
sex. The first group consisted of traditional, orthodox Bengalee-

Hindus (31 males, 29 females) who were recent graduates of Calcutta
University. According to independent ratings made by parents and
guardians, these students came from middle income homes where
parents are rigid, punishing, and conservative about children's sex-
uality. For example, sexual topics are taboo, and nocturnal emissions
or sexual arousal are assumed to indicate mental impurity. In addi-
tion, dating and courtship are frowned upon, and arranged marriages
are highly preferred. The second group (32 males, 30 females) came
from a more liberal, mixed Bengalee-Hindu community and were also
recent graduates of Calcutta University. These students were raised in

upper income homes which were less religious and less restrictive
about sex. For example, masturbation, homosexuality, and other
sexual topics were openly discussed (albeit negatively); erotica is more
common; petting and other premarital sex play is practiced; and
dating, courtship, and love-based marriages occur.
Both groups completed the English version of the SOS (English is
the language of instruction at the university they attended.) As shown
in Table 8, those who had a traditional sexual socialization were
relatively erotophobic, whereas those with more liberal socialization
experiences were more erotophilic. Within both groups, men scored as
Table 8
Erotophobia-Erotophilia as a Function of Sexual Socialization in a Calcutta, India,
Sample
Traditional Sexual Socialization Liberal Sexual Socialization
Males 65.16a 73.97b
Female 56.03c 71.13d
Note. Means with different subscripts differ at the .01 level or beyond by t tests for in-
dependent groups. Higher scores indicate greater erotophilia.
significantly more erotophilic than women (just as in the United

States and Canada), although the gender difference is dramatically
smaller among the more liberally socialized group. Such data are con-
sistent with our assumption about the antecedents of erotophobia-
erotophilia and provide preliminary evidence for its cross-cultural
generality.
Correlates of Erotophobia-Erotophilia: Hong Kong
Lau (1979) surveyed 69 male and 114 female undergraduates in
Hong Kong, administering the SOS and a series of questions dealing
with approach-avoidance responses to sex. Again, the students
attended an English-speaking university, so the measures were in that

language.
In this sample, erotophobic males were more likely than erotophilic
ones to indicate that the use of birth control techniques leads to birth
defects, r(63) = -.24, p < .03, and will not remove the worry of preg-
nancy, r(60) = .21, p < .05. Behaviorally, erotophobic males reported
less frequent daydreaming about sex, r(50) = .37, p < .004, less fre-
quent masturbation, r(55) = .28, p < .02, and a later age of first inter-
course among the sexually active, r(18) = -.46, p < .02.
Among females in Hong Kong, erotophobes were more likely than
erotophiles to indicate that using birth control was not natural,

r(107) = .23, p < .008, would cause major negative side effects,
r(105) = -.19, p < .03, and would cause them to experience guilt,
r(104) = -.23, p < .009. Erotophobia was also related to the belief that
birth control is unreliable, r(107) = .23, p < .006, and will not remove
the worry of becoming pregnant, r(102) = .23, p < .01, and the desire
to have more children, r(89) = -.27, p < .006. With respect to overt
behavior, erotophobic women reported less frequent masturbation,
r(79) = .39, p < .001, and intercourse, r(101) = .25, p < .006, than
erotophilic ones.
These findings suggest that erotophobia-erotophilia may have some
common socialization antecedents and common consequences that are
not limited by cultural boundaries. On a practical level, it is worth
noting that these data come from two of the world's most overpopu-
lated areas. If the construct is generalizable to these cultures, then
interventions that are based on this construct may be generalizable as
well. For example, North American research shows that erotophobic
emotions inhibit contraceptive use and suggests that interventions
that increase erotophilia will result in improved use of contraception
(Fisher et al., 1983). Future cross-cultural research is obviously needed
to test such predictions.
Concluding Comments
The specification of what a dispositional assessment device
measures is based on the content of the test, on its convergent and
discriminant validity, and on accumulated research on antecedent-
trait-consequent relationships that establishes the construct validity
of the trait. The research we have discussed demonstrates—in terms of
nearly a decade of content, convergent, discriminant, and construct
validation research—that erotophobia-erotophilia involves the disposi-
tion to respond to sexual cues with predictable degrees of negative-to-
positive affect and evaluations. This dimension of individual dif-

ferences appears to covary with other personality traits, and those
who are erotophobic show greater value orthodoxy than those who are
erotophilic. These dispositional differences appear to be learned in a
socialization context in which both parents tend to be simlarly punish-
ing or rewarding with respect to their children's sexuality. Eroto-
phobia-erotophilia appears to be a determinant of avoidance versus
approach responses toward a constellation of sex-related behaviors
ranging from contraceptive use to postpartum behavior. Several of
these same relationships have been established in more than one
culture.
It seems reasonable to conclude that the SOS measures a robust dis-
positional construct that is related in a theoretically meaningful
fashion to a coherent series of antecedent and consequent behaviors.
Although it may be tempting to try to judge the goodness or badness
of erotophobic and erotophilic dispositions, it should be kept in mind
that empirical research can identify relationships among constructs,
but it does not provide evaluations of these relationships. One's judg-
ments about erotophobia or erotophilia may ultimately rest on one's
evaluation of various sexual behaviors and the contexts in which they
take place. It is easy to imagine situations in which erotophilia is
adaptive and erotophobia is maladaptive, but it is also easy to imagine
the reverse. Moreover, it must be noted that erotophobia and eroto-
philia are relative terms. The SOS was constructed to assess normal
variations in affective-evaluative responses to sex, and, obviously, few
individuals fall at the extremes of this scale. Most respondents are
located at intermediate points along this dimension, and they can most
accurately be described as relatively positive or negative in their
responses to sexual cues.
In closing, let us recall that the erotophobia-erotophilia response
dimension is but one of three key mediators of sexual behavior
specified by the Sexual Behavior Sequence. Future research is
expected to pursue the measurement of dispositional differences in in-
formational and imaginai responses to sexuality. According to theory,
it is the joint effects of affect, information, and imagination that deter-
mine sexual behavior, and the direct and interactive effects of each
must be assessed in order to give a full account of human sexuality.
References
ABRAMSON, P. R., & MOSHER, D. L. (1975). Development of a measure of negative atti-

tudes toward masturbation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43,
485-490.
ADORNO, T. W., FRENKEL-BRUNSWICK, E., LEVINSON, D. J., & SANFORD, R. N. (1950).
The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper & Row.
BECKER, M. A., & BYRNE, D. (1985). Self-regulated exposure to erotica, recall errors, and
subjective reactions as a function of erotophobia and Type A coronary-prone be-
havior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 135-151.
BEM, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.
BENTLER, P. M. (1968a). Heterosexual behavior assessment—I. Males. Behavior

Research and Therapy, 6, 21-25.
BENTLER, P. M. (1968b). Heterosexual behavior assessment—II. Females. Behavior
Research and Therapy, 6, 27-30.
BosE, S., DASGUPTA, S. K., & BURMAN, A. K. (1978). Socialization antecedents of eroto-
phobia-erotophilia in traditional and liberal Indian students. Paper presented at the
Fourth World Congress of Sexology, Rome.
BRISLIN, R. W., LONNER, W. J., & THORNDIKE, R. M. (1973). Cross-cultural research
methods. New York: Wiley.
BYRNE, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
BYRNE, D. (1977). Social psychology and the study of sexual behavior. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 1, 3-30.
BYRNE, D. (1983a). Sex without contraception. In D. Byrne & W. A. Fisher (Eds.),
Adolescents, sex, and contraception (pp. 3-31). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
BYRNE, D. (1983b). The antecedents, correlates, and consequents of erotophobia-eroto-
philia. In C. Davis (Ed.), Challenges in sexual science: Current theoretical issues
and research advances (pp. 53-75). Philadelphia: Society for the Scientific Study of
Sex.
BYRNE, D., BECKER, M. A., & PRZYBYLA, D. P. J. (1987). Erotophobia-erotophilia as
a predictor of sexual functioning and dysfunctioning among married and unmarried
individuals. Manuscript submitted for publication.
BYRNE, D., FISHER, J. D., LAMBERTO, J., & MITCHELL, H. E. (1974). Evaluations of
erotica: Facts or feelings? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29,
111-119.
BYRNE, D., & LAMBERTH, J. (1971). The effect of erotic stimuli on sex arousal, evalu-
ative responses, and subsequent behavior. In Technical report of the Commission
on Obscenity and Pornography (Vol. 8, pp. 41-67). Washington, DC: U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office.
CAMPBELL, D. T., & FISKE, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the
multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
CHERRY, F., & BYRNE, D. (1977). Authoritarianism. In T. Blass (Ed.), Personality vari-
ables in social behavior (pp. 109-133). HUlsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
CLAYTON, J. (1981). Uncertainty orientation, sex role identity, and performance in
achievement situations. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Western
Ontario, London, Ontario.
CLAYTON, J., & FISHER, W. A. (1983, November). Heterosexuals' and homosexuals'
responses to the SOS. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for the Scien-
tific Study of Sex, Chicago.
CROWNE, D. P., & MARLOWE, D. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluative de-
pendence. New York: Wiley.
FISHER, W. A. (1978). Affective, attitudinal, and normative determinants of contra-

ceptive behavior among university men. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue
University, West Lafayette, IN.
FISHER, W. A. (1980). Erotophobia-erotophilia and performance in a human sexuality
course. Unpublished manuscript, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
FISHER, W. A. (1984a). Revising the Sexual Opinion Survey. Unpublished manuscript,
University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
FISHER, W. A. (1984b). Predicting contraceptive behavior among university men: The
roles of emotions and behavioral intentions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
14, 104-123.
FISHER, W. A. (1986). A psychological approach to human sexuality: The sexual
behavior sequence. In D. Byrne & K. Kelley (Eds.), Alternate approaches to the
study of sexual behavior (pp. 131-171). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

FISHER, W. A., BYRNE, D., EDMUNDS, M., MILLER, C. T., KELLEY, K., & WHITE, L. A.
(1979). Psychological and situation-specific correlates of contraceptive behavior
among university women. Journal of Sex Research, 15, 38-55.
FISHER, W. A., BYRNE, D., & WHITE, L. A. (1983). Emotional barriers to contraception.
In D. Byrne, & W. A. Fisher (Eds.), Adolescents, sex, and contraception (pp.
207-239). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
FISHER, W. A., & GRAY, J. (1986). Erotophobia-erotophilia and couples' sexual behavior
during pregnancy and postpartum. Manuscript submitted for publication.
FISHER, W. A., GRENIER, G., WATTERS, W. W., LAMONT, J., COHEN, M., & ASKWITH, J.
(in press). Medical students' erotophobia, sexual knowledge, and a willingness to
treat sexual concerns. Journal of Medical Education.
FISHER, W. A., MILLER, C. T., BYRNE, D., & WHITE, L. A. (1980). Talking dirty:
Responses to communicating a sexual message as a function of situational and per-
sonality factors. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1, 115-126.
GILBERT, F. S., & GAMACHE, M. C. (1984). The Sexual Opinion Survey: Structure and
use. Journal of Sex Research, 20, 293-309.
GORDON, S. (1977). Community family life education program for parents. Syracuse: In-
stitute for Family Research and Education.
GREENDLINGER, V., & BYRNE, D. (in press). Dispositional variables as predictors of emo-
tional and evaluative responses to heterosexual and homosexual films. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology.
GROSS, A. E., & BELLEW-SMITH, M. (1983). A social psychological approach to reducing
pregnancy risk in adolescence. In D. Byrne & W. A. Fisher (Eds.), Adolescents, sex,
and contraception (pp. 263-272). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
HOLLINGSHEAD, A. B. (1975). Four factor index of social position. Unpublished manu-
script. (Available from A. B. Hollingshead, Ph.D., Department of Sociology, Yale
University, 140 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06520. Enclose check for $2.00,
payable to the author.)
HUDSON, W. W., & RICKETTS, W. A. (1980). A strategy for the measurement of homo-
phobia. Journal of Homosexuality, 5, 357-372.
JACKSON, D. N. (1974). Personality Research Form manual Goshen, NY: Research
Psychologists Press.
KELLEY, K. (1979). Socialization factors in contraceptive attitudes: Roles of affective
responses, parental attitudes, and sexual experience. Journal of Sex Research, 15,
6-20.
KELLEY, K. (1983). Adolescent sexuality: The first lessons. In D. Byrne & W. A. Fisher
(Eds.), Adolescents, sex, and contraception (pp. 125-142). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
KELLEY, K. (1985a). Sexual fantasy and attitudes as functions of sex of subject and con-
tent of erotica. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 4, 339-347.
KELLEY, K. (1985b). Students' interest in human sexuality topics: Sexual attitudes and
sex differences. Manuscript submitted for publication.
KELLEY, K. (1985C). Sex, sex guilt, and authoritarianism: Differences in responses to
explicit heterosexual and masturbatory slides. Journal of Sex Research, 21, 68-85.
KELLEY, K. (1985d). Sexual attitudes as determinants of the motivational properties of
exposure to erotica. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 391-393.
KELLEY, K. (1985e). The effects of sexual and/or aggressive film exposure on helping,
hostility, and attitudes toward women and men. Journal of Research in Personality,
19, 472-483.
KELLEY, K. (1986). Integrating sex research. In D. Byrne & K. Kelley (Eds.), Alterna-
tive approaches to the study of human sexual behavior (pp. 201-207). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
KELLEY, K. (1987). Perspectives on females, males, and sexuality. In K. Kelley (Ed.),

Females, males, and sexuality: Theories and research (pp. 1-12). Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
KELLEY, K., DAWSON, & MUSIALOWSKI, D. (in press). Three faces of sexual explicitness:
The good, the bad, and the useful. In D. Zillmann & J. Bryant (Eds.), Pornography:
Recent research, interpretations, and policy considerations. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
KELLEY, K., & BYRNE, D. (1978). The function of imaginative fantasies in sexual
behavior. Journal of Mental Imagery, 2, 139-146.
KELLEY, K., & MUSIALOWSKI, D. (1986). Repeated exposure to sexually explicit stimuli:
Novelty, sex, and sexual attitudes. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15, 487-498.
KELLEY, K., SMEATON, G., BYRNE, D., PRZYBYLA, D. P. J., & FISHER, W. A. (1987).
Sexual attitudes and contraception among females across five college samples.
Human Relations, 40, 237-254.
LARSEN, K. S., REED, M., & HOFFMAN, S. (1980). Attitudes of heterosexuals toward
homosexuality: A Likert-type scale and construct validity. Journal of Sex
Research, 16, 245-257.
LAU, S. (1979). Erotophobia-erotophilia and contraceptive attitudes in a Hong Kong
student sample. Unpublished manuscript, Chinese University of Hong Kong.
LEMERY, C. R. (1983). Children's sexual knowledge as a function of parent's affective
orientation to sexuality and parent-child communication about sex: A causal
analysis. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Western Ontario, London,
Ontario.
LEVITT, E. E., & BRADY, J. P. (1965). Sexual preferences in young adult males and some
correlates. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 21, 347-359.
MALPASS, R. (1977). Theory and method in cross-cultural psychology. American Psy-
chologist, 32, 1069-1079.
MOSHER, D. L. (1966). The development and multitrait-multimethod matrix analysis of
three measures of three aspects of guilt. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 30,
25-29.
MOSHER, D. L. (1968). Measurement of guilt in females by self-report inventories. Jour-
nal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32, 690-695.
MOSHER, D. L., & CROSS, H. J. (1971). Sex guilt and premarital sexual experiences of
college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 36, 27-32.
SAUNDERS, D. M., FISHER, W. A., HEWITT, E. C , & CLAYTON, J. P. (1985). Sex of sub-
ject, recruitment procedure, and responses to an erotic film: A method of empiri-
cally assessing volunteer bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49,
1703-1712.
SEMPH, M. E. (1979). Emotional orientation toward sexuality: Its relation to expecting
and perceiving contraceptive side effects. Unpublished honors thesis, University of
Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
SPENCE, K. W., FARBER, I. E., & MCFANN, H. H. (1956). The relation of anxiety (drive)
level to performance in competitional and noncompetitional paired-associates
learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52, 296-305.
STORMS, M. D. (1980). Theories of sexual orientation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 38, 783-792.
WALFISH, S., & MYERSON, M. (1980). Sex role identity and attitudes toward sexuality.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 9, 199-203.
WALKER, J. (1983). Sexual activities and fantasies of university students as a function
of sex role orientation. Unpublished honors thesis, University of Western Ontario,
London, Ontario.
WHITE, L. A., FISHER, W. A., BYRNE, D., & KINGMA, R. (1977, May). Development
and validation of a measure of affective orientation to erotic stimuli: The Sexual
Opinion Survey. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological

Association, Chicago.
YARBER, W. L., & FISHER, W. A. (1983). Affective orientation to sexuality and venereal
disease preventive behaviors. Health Values, 7, 19-23.
YARBER, W. L., & MCCABE, G. P. (1981). Teacher characteristics and the inclusion of
sex education topics in grades 6-8 and 9-11. Journal of School Health, 51, 288-291.
YARBER, W. L., & MCCABE, G. P. (1984). Importance of sex education topics: Corre-
lates with teacher characteristics and inclusion of topics of instruction. Health
Education, 15, 36-41.
YARBER, W. L., & WHITEHILL, L. L. (1981). The relationship between parental affective
orientation toward sexuality and responses to sex-related situations of preschool-
age children. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 7, 36-39.

Erotophobia Erotophilia As A Dimension of Personality

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Erotophobia Erotophilia As A Dimension of Personality

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]

On: 08 September 2012, At: 14:57

Journal of Sex Research

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224498809551448

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/

This review discusses the measurement, antecedents, and consequents

KEY WORDS: erotophobia, erotophilia, sexual attitudes, sexual

In a series of papers, Byrne (1977, 1983a, 1983b; see also Fisher,

series of response dispositions that mediate the effect of sexual

initiated by both external stimulation (as mediated by these disposi-

female undergraduates respond to the 53-item pool and, in order to

Sample8 Validation^ Sample Validation

Additional relevant data concerning the scale are presented in Table

13. It would be emotionally upsetting to me to see someone exposing themselves ,

Scoring the Sexual Opinion Survey

sex-related affect and evaluations. Whatever the reason or reasons for

(Continued on next page)

Factor Structure of the Sexual Opinion Survey

to the identification of these factors, it is possible that the use of sub-

either altered in meaning or become anachronistic since the mid-1970s

deviant behavior, and sexually repressive. It follows that authori-

affective and evaluative negativity to sex that characterizes eroto-

Correlational analyses indicated that, for males, SOS scores cor-

a basis for differential predictions. To take one example, marital

questionnaire items are shown in Table 6. As expected, erotophobia is

Despite the relatively negative emotional atmosphere surrounding

erotophobes prevents them from expressing anything negative about

children's questions about sex. In another study of parent-child com-

erotophobic and erotophilic parents show differential acceptance of

(Fisher, 1984a). Similarly, number of different intercourse partners is

Specifically, for erotophobic persons, the stresses on sexuality

bility also exists, incidentally, that extreme erotophilia may prove to

be more likely than erotophobic ones to engage in breast self-examina-

sexually explicit movie to show performance differences on competi-

surveyed 269 Indiana health teachers with respect to numerous char-

error because unanticipated intercourse can (and in some instances

undergraduate females. All of these women reported being incon-

survey involving 722 undergraduate women on four midwestern U.S.

photographic slides. Male and female erotophiles had longer exposure

to 24 homosexual males who were contacted through a campus homo-

ceptualized as assessing homophobic and heterophobic attitudes. As

Cross-Cultural Findings with Erotophobia-Erotophilia

sex. The first group consisted of traditional, orthodox Bengalee-

recent graduates of Calcutta University. These students were raised in

significantly more erotophilic than women (just as in the United

attended an English-speaking university, so the measures were in that

erotophiles to indicate that using birth control was not natural,

positive affect and evaluations. This dimension of individual dif-

ABRAMSON, P. R., & MOSHER, D. L. (1975). Development of a measure of negative atti-

BENTLER, P. M. (1968a). Heterosexual behavior assessment—I. Males. Behavior

FISHER, W. A. (1978). Affective, attitudinal, and normative determinants of contra-

study of sexual behavior (pp. 131-171). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

KELLEY, K. (1987). Perspectives on females, males, and sexuality. In K. Kelley (Ed.),

Opinion Survey. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological

You might also like