The distinctiveness of sexual motives in relation to sexual desire and desirable partner attributes.

The distinctiveness of eight dispositional sexual motives and global sexual desire was examined to extend evidence concerning the construct validity of a multidimensional conceptualization of sexual motivation. Sexual motives were measured by the Affective and Motivational Orientation Related to Erotic Arousal Questionnaire (AMORE; Hill & Preston, 1996). As predicted, self-reported arousal to scenarios describing eight motive-relevant situations were correlated most strongly with the theoretically most relevant of the eight sexual motives. Although global sexual desire ratings were moderately correlated with responses to all eight sexual scenarios, the correlations were eliminated or substantially reduced when controlling for the theoretically most relevant sexual motive scores. Similarly, ratings of desirable partner attributes were more highly and consistently correlated with specific sexual motives than with global sexual desire. The results provide further evidence of the validity of the sexual motive construct and the AMORE instrument. The results also demonstrate the usefulness of focusing on specific aspects of sexual motivation as opposed to global sexual desire.

Early approaches to the study of human sexual behavior (e.g., Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948; Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953; Masters & Johnson, 1966) focused relatively little attention on the motivational basis for sexual behavior. More recently, theoretical models have been advanced to address the lack of attention to motivational factors, incorporating such concepts as sexual desire (Beck, Bozman, & Qualtrough, 1991; Kaplan, 1977, 1979) and sexual arousal (Rosen & Beck, 1988). However, the exact nature of the motivational processes involved in sexual behavior has yet to be thoroughly articulated in any particular model, much less agreed upon by a consensus of theorists (Rosen & Beck, 1988). Although physiological factors are clearly involved in sexual desire and arousal, cognitive and emotional factors are also strongly implicated as components of sexual motivation that are crucial to the activation of sexual behavior (Bancroft, 1989; Rosen & Beck, 1988).

The Construct of Sexual Motivation

Hill and Preston (1996) recently proposed a theoretical framework that incorporates concepts from traditional learning and personality theories as a context within which to understand sexual motivation. According to traditional approaches, motivation involves the process of initiating, energizing, maintaining, and directing behavior toward a goal (Buck, 1988; Heckhausen, 1991). That is, motivation is a state of increased interest in attaining a particular goal and involves the marshaling of cognitive, affective, and motor activities toward the attainment of the goal. Also within traditional perspectives, motivational processes are thought to be heightened or activated by the presence and accessibility of relevant incentives, while being diminished by the absence or inaccessibility of such incentives (Heckhausen, 1991).

Consistent with views of other types of motivation, Hill and Preston (1996) conceived of sexual motivation as interest in attainment of a general class of related incentives, all of which provide the same basic type of satisfaction (i.e., that associated with sexual expression). These researchers proposed that eight specific types of incentives intrinsic to sexual expression motivate sexual behavior: (a) feeling valued by one's partner, (b) expressing value for one's partner, (c) obtaining relief from stress or negative psychological states, (d) providing nurturance through sexual interaction to improve a partner's psychological condition, (e) enhancing feelings of personal power, (f) experiencing the power of one's partner, (g) experiencing pleasure, and (h) procreating.

In addition to the situational factors of incentive presence and accessibility, Hill and Preston (1996) proposed that factors internal to the individual--specifically, the value an individual places on incentives--also influence motivational states. Stable interest in a particular type of incentive is a dispositional motive (Heckhausen, 1991) or a need (Murray, 1938). The influence of dispositional motives results in individual differences in reactions to available incentives. Individuals who value the particular incentives that are available in a given situation tend to experience a heightened motivational state, whereas individuals who place less value on available incentives tend to experience a smaller increase in motivation. Therefore, those with stronger dispositional motives are assumed to be more likely to initiate behavior toward the attainment of the incentives. Because dispositional motives also organize emotion and perception around motive-relevant goals, individuals with stronger motives are also likely to experience an increased interest in elements of the situation that are relevant to the incentive. To some extent, the heightened motivational state therefore often includes a subjective awareness of increased arousal and interest, as well as an awareness of the potential for experiencing satisfaction in that situation.

In keeping with the view that eight distinguishable types of incentives are intrinsic to sexual expression, Hill and Preston (1996) further proposed that individuals may possess different levels of interest in each of the eight incentives. For this reason, a distinct motive was hypothesized to correspond to each sexual incentive. To provide support for this view, Hill and Preston developed a self-report instrument to measure interest in the eight types of incentives, called the Affective and Motivational Orientation Related to Erotic Arousal Questionnaire (AMORE). Confirmation of the existence of eight separate motive dimensions was obtained through factor analysis of responses to the AMORE items. Evidence for the construct validity of the instrument was provided by examining the relationship of the eight scales to theoretically relevant personality measures, a measure of global sexual desire, and self-reports of sexual behavior. The results therefore supported the position that a variety of dispositional. motives are likely to influence sexual motivation and sexual behavior, rather than sexual motivation being determined by interest in only one or two aspects of sexual behavior (e.g., a desire for procreation or pleasure, or a "drive to orgasm"). A corollary of these findings is that an individual may experience a variety of reasons or motives for interest in sex.

The Distinction Between Sexual Motive and Sexual Desire

In comparing the sexual motive construct to related theoretical concepts (Hill & Preston, 1996), sexual desire was defined as a global, relatively non-specific sensation associated with heightened sexual interest, based on earlier definitions of the construct (American Psychiatric Association, 1994; Beck et al., 1991; Kaplan, 1979). The tendency to experience characteristic levels of sexual desire was hypothesized by Hill and Preston to be related to the stable, ongoing influence of dispositional sexual motives. In other words, dispositional sexual motives were theorized to activate sexual interest on a consistent, recurring basis, thereby affecting the levels of sexual desire typically experienced by a given individual. Correlations between scores on the AMORE sexual motive scales and scores on a measure of global sexual desire supported this prediction.

Beyond their relationship with characteristic levels of sexual desire, sexual motives were also expected to relate independently to sexual behavior in situations specifically affording motive-relevant incentives. Sexual motives were theorized to exert a unique influence in such situations because they are more specific in their focus than the construct of global sexual desire. In fact, it is conceivable that sexual motives often correlate more strongly with sexual behavior in motive-relevant situations because the effect of global sexual desire may be due solely to its relationship with the relevant sexual motive. Some evidence was provided by Hill and Preston (1996) for the distinctive relationship between specific sexual motives and sexual behavior, controlling for the influence of global sexual desire. Independent of global sexual desire, the AMORE sexual motive scales were correlated in theoretically consistent ways with ratings of the likelihood of engaging in particular types of sexual behavior (i.e., romantic lovemaking; wild, pleasure-oriented sexual behavior; aggressive sexual behavior). However, the sexual behaviors rated in the previous study (Hill & Preston, 1996) were not uniquely specific to each of the eight sexual motives. Stronger confirmation of the theoretical distinctiveness of the eight motives would be provided by a demonstration that incentive-specific behaviors (e.g., arousal to nurturance-relevant sexual situations) correlate most strongly with scores on the corresponding AMORE scales (i.e., the Nurturance scale).

The relationship of sexual motives and global sexual desire to sexual responding. The current study was conducted to provide further evidence for the construct validity of the multidimensional conceptualization of sexual motivation. More specifically, the study was designed to provide additional convergent validity evidence by demonstrating that the eight sexual motives correlate most strongly with reactions to the theoretically most relevant types of situations. A second purpose of the current study was to provide additional discriminant validity evidence by demonstrating the theoretical distinctiveness of the eight sexual motives and global sexual desire with respect to reactions to different situations. Participants were presented with eight different scenarios, each constructed to emphasize one of the eight sexual motive dimensions, and were asked to indicate how sexually arousing and satisfying they found each situation to be. The arousal ratings were expected to correlate most highly with scores on the theoretically most relevant AMORE scale. In contrast, global sexual desire was not expected to be significantly correlated with the arousal ratings after controlling for the theoretically most relevant sexual motive scale. Stepwise multiple regression analyses were conducted on the ratings of sexual arousal for each scenario, with the AMORE scales and participant gender and age tested as predictors (correlates) in the regression models. This procedure permitted the examination of the unique relationship of sexual motives with specific arousal ratings, independent of all other significant factors, including global sexual desire.

The relationship of sexual motives and sexual desire to desirable partner attributes. To extend the notion of motive distinctiveness to include interest in particular types of potential partners, the AMORE scales were also correlated with ratings of desirable romantic and sexual partners. Participants were asked to indicate the attributes they felt are associated with a desirable partner. The attributes were personality traits derived from the Five-Factor Model of personality (McCrae & Costa, 1987), as measured by McCrae and Costa's (1985) revision of Goldberg's (1983) instrument. The personality traits of expressiveness and instrumentality were also evaluated employing the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ; Spence & Helmreich, 1978).

According to the Five-Factor Model, personality is sufficiently and satisfactorily described by five fundamental traits: extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness to experience, and conscientiousness. The model has become one of the most influential models to date in dispositional. trait psychology (Goldberg, 1990) and has received substantial empirical support as a useful conceptualization of fundamental personality traits (Digman, 1990; John, 1990; McCrae, 1989). The PAQ is a measure of two broad personality traits, expressiveness and instrumentality, also called communion and agency, respectively. Expressiveness involves the disposition to be interpersonally sensitive, warm, and caring, whereas instrumentality comprises the tendency to be assertive, independent, and self-reliant. Various philosophers and theorists have argued that the two traits account for basic differences between men and women in terms of personality tendencies (Bakan, 1966; Parsons & Bales, 1955; Spence & Helmreich, 1978; Wiggins, 1991).

Based on the model of eight distinct sexual motives discussed previously, it is possible to draw a theoretical connection between the various personality traits desired for romantic partners and the specific sexual motives. Theoretically, the partner traits of extraversion, agreeableness, and expressiveness are likely to increase positive interaction and therefore to enhance feelings of warmth and concern between individuals. These three partner attributes may be expected to correlate most highly with the participant sexual motives that focus on the interpersonal incentive of expressing value for one's partner and, to some extent, on the incentives of providing nurturance and being valued by one's partner (Hill & Preston, 1996). The partner trait of neuroticism involves the tendency to experience negative emotions, such as anxiety, insecurity, and self-consciousness. Because the sexual motive of enhancing feelings of personal power focuses on the desire for controlling and dominating one's sexual partner, individuals with a strong need for sexual power were hypothesized to find as more desirable partners who would be receptive to being dominated and controlled. Therefore, high scores on the AMORE Power scale were expected to correlate with desire for partners who score high on neuroticism because they might be more likely to submit to attempts at control. The personality trait of openness to experience involves being imaginative, creative, and curious, whereas conscientiousness refers to the tendency to be organized, reliable, and hardworking. No specific predictions were advanced for either of the latter traits, nor for instrumentality, because of their less obvious conceptual relationship to the eight sexual motives. Although not derived from a particular personality theory, participants also rated the intensity of sex drive associated with a desirable partner, a characteristic most directly relevant to the participant characteristic of global sexual desire rather than specific sexual motives.

In addition to rating the desirability of these personality traits in partners, participants were asked to rate how important the following partner resources would be in determining the sexual attractiveness of a potential sexual partner: the partner's likelihood of remaining "in love" with the participant (i.e., romantic commitment), the degree to which the partner is respected by the participant's friends, the partner's potential to become a good parent, and the partner's potential to become financially secure. Finally, participants rated how desirable the attribute of physical attractiveness is for a partner. The additional characteristics have been examined within traditional research on desirable partner characteristics (Sprecher, 1989) and have been advanced as factors relevant to mate selection within evolutionary theories of human sexual motivation, such as sexual strategies theory (Buss, 1994) and sociosexuality theory (Simpson & Gangestad, 1992).

Because they focus on emotional intimacy, the partner resources of romantic commitment and being respected by participants' friends were expected to be most highly correlated with the sexual motives of expressing value for one's partner, being valued by one's partner, and providing nurturance to one's partner. A potential partner who is interested in commitment is more likely to be concerned about the emotional well-being of the participant and to develop interpersonal abilities that will allow the expression of emotional concerns for the participant. Feeling valued by one's partner would therefore be most likely to occur when one is involved with a partner who is likewise concerned about the emotional aspects of relationships. In a related vein, a potential partner who is capable of attaining the respect of one's friends is likely to be someone who is capable of relating to others in interpersonally appropriate and effective ways, an attribute relevant to the expression of emotional concern for others.

The physical attractiveness of a partner is theoretically most relevant to the sexual motive to experience sensual pleasure because attractive individuals generally elicit pleasurable affective reactions in others. Therefore, a greater desire for physically attractive sexual partners was expected to correlate most strongly with the sexual motive to experience pleasure (i.e., higher scores on the AMORE Pleasure scale). The potential for a partner to be a good parent is conceptually most related to the sexual motive to procreate and, therefore, was expected to be most highly correlated with the AMORE Procreation scale. Finally, no specific prediction was made regarding a partner's potential to become financially secure. Global sexual desire was not expected to be significantly correlated with any of these additional partner resources, after controlling for the theoretically most relevant sexual motive scale.

Summary of Hypotheses

It was hypothesized that (a) ratings of sexual arousal for each scenario would be most highly correlated with scores on the theoretically most relevant subscale of the eight AMORE sexual motive subscales; (b) ratings of sexual arousal for the scenarios would not be correlated with ratings of global sexual desire after controlling for the theoretically most relevant sexual motive scale; (c) ratings of the desirability of the partner attributes of extraversion (from the Five Factor model of personality), agreeableness (from the Five Factor model), and expressiveness (from the literature on gender differences) would be most highly correlated with the sexual motive dimension of showing Value for Partner, and to lesser extents with the dimensions of Nurturance and being Valued by Partner; (d) ratings of the desirability of partner neuroticism, (from the Five Factor model) would be most highly correlated with the sexual motive dimension of Power; (e) ratings of the desirability of partner sex drive would be most highly correlated with ratings of global sexual desire; (f) ratings of the importance of partner romantic commitment and respect from friends would be most highly correlated with the sexual motive dimensions of Value for Partner, Nurturance, and Valued by Partner; (g) ratings of the desirability of partner physical attractiveness would be most highly correlated with the sexual motive dimension of Pleasure; (h) ratings of the importance of partner potential to be a good parent would be most highly correlated with the sexual motive dimension of Procreation; and, finally, (i) global sexual desire would not be correlated with any partner attribute ratings, except partner sex drive, after controlling for the theoretically most relevant sexual motive scale. Specific predictions were not made for the partner attributes of openness to experience, conscientiousness, instrumentality, and financial potential.

Method

Participants

Participants were 330 introductory psychology students who received course credit for participating in the research. Four participants had missing values for several measures and were dropped from analyses. Analyses presented in the following sections are based on 326 participants, 192 women and 134 men.

The average age of eligible respondents was 22.49, with 33.13% being older than 21 years. With respect to legal marital status, 79.19% were single (never married), 13.98% were legally married, 6.21% were divorced, and 0.62% were widowed. In terms of romantic involvement, 59.00% were involved in a serious romantic relationship (including marriage), 20.81% were dating or seeing someone, and 20.19% were not dating anyone at the time of the study.

Measures

Sexual motives. The Affective and Motivational Orientation Related to Erotic Arousal Questionnaire (AMORE; Hill & Preston, 1996) is a 62-item self-report questionnaire measuring 8 dispositional sexual motives: the desire to (a) feel valued by one's partner, (b) express value for one's partner, W obtain relief from stress or negative psychological states, (d) provide nurturance to improve a partner's psychological condition, (e) enhance feelings of personal power, (f) experience the power of one's partner, (g) experience pleasure, and (h) procreate. Examples of items from each motive scale, respectively, are "Often when I need to feel loved, I have the desire to relate to my partner sexually because sexual intimacy really makes me feel warm and cared for" (Valued By Partner scale); "Sharing affection and love during sexual intercourse is one of the most intense and rewarding ways of expressing my concern for my partner" (Value For Partner scale); "Many times when I am feeling unhappy or depressed, thinking about sex or engaging in sexual activity will make me feel better" (Relief From Stress scale); "Often the most pleasurable sex I have is when it helps my partner forget about his or her problems and enjoy life a little more" (Nurturance scale); "I really enjoy having sex as a way of exerting dominance and control over my partner" (Power scale); "I often find it a real turn-on when my partner takes charge and becomes authoritative during sexual activity or fantasy" (Partner Power scale); "The sensations of physical pleasure and release are major reasons that sexual activity and fantasy are so important to me" (Pleasure scale); and, finally, "One of the main reasons I am interested in sex is for the purpose of having children" (Procreation scale).

Instructions at the beginning of the AMORE ask respondents to indicate how true or descriptive each statement is of them, employing a five-point Likert scale ranging from not at all true to moderately true to completely true. Internal consistency coefficients (alphas) for the scales have been found to range across several samples from .76 (for the Procreation scale) to .94 (for the Relief From Stress and Partner Power scales), with most coefficients typically being greater than .85 (Hill & Preston, 1996). The internal consistency coefficients for the AMORE scales in the current study ranged from .77 for the Pleasure and Procreation scales to .94 for the Partner Power scale, with the majority being greater than or equal to .85.

Global sexual desire. The global sexual desire of participants was assessed with a composite of ratings, several of which were developed by Beck et al. (1991), and the remainder were developed by Hill and Preston (1996). The seven items are How often do you experience sexual desire? How often do you feel sexual desire without engaging in some kind of sexual behavior (e.g., sexual intercourse or masturbation)? How strong is your sex drive? How easily are you sexually aroused physically? How easily are you sexually aroused emotionally? How much do you think or fantasize about sex? and How strong is your sexual stamina--that is, your interest in engaging in long periods of sexual activity (e.g., masturbation or any kind of sexual behavior with a partner)? Ratings are made on five-point Likert scales, with appropriate labels at the extremes and the midpoint (see Hill & Preston, 1996). The alpha coefficient was .84 for the sexual desire ratings in the Hill and Preston study (1996) and .80 in the current study.

Sexual scenario ratings. Participants read eight scenarios in which bogus individuals experienced specific types of sexual feelings. Each scenario was approximately two short paragraphs and was constructed to emphasize emotional experiences and outcomes relevant to the eight sexual motive dimensions advanced within the Hill and Preston model (1996). Eight different questionnaire packets were constructed to vary the order in which participants responded to the scenarios. Each of the eight scenarios was presented first in the series of scenarios across the eight different questionnaire packets. The order of the other seven scenarios within a given questionnaire packet was random. After reading a given scenario, participants rated how sexually arousing and satisfying they found the situation and how similar the feelings of the individual in the scenario were to their own feelings.

The scenarios were described in the instructions as case histories of women (for female participants) or of men (for male participants). The instructions stated that the "interviewees" had been asked to describe the types of sexual experiences they find most enjoyable and to identify the specific factors contributing most intensely to their interest in and enjoyment of sexual activity. The individuals had also supposedly been asked to recount a specific incident that best illustrates what they find most exciting about sex. Participants were asked to try to imagine themselves experiencing the situation and the feelings as vividly as they could. The scenarios were identical for men and women, with the exception that references to interviewee gender matched the gender of the participants and references to partner gender were to an other-sex partner. Two examples of the eight scenarios are presented in the Appendix.

The specific ratings that followed each scenario were (a) How sexually arousing do you find the description? (b) How sexually aroused are you likely to become if you yourself were to experience a situation like that described by the person? (c) How similar are the sexual feelings described by the person to the way that you typically respond yourself? (d) How satisfying and exciting would you find the experiences described by the person if you were to experience them yourself? (e) How often do you experience feelings and desires similar to those expressed by the person in the description? and (f) How often would you like to experience the situations that produce such feelings if you could do so as often as you wanted? Ratings were made on five-point Likert scales. The anchor labels for the ratings pertaining to arousal (i.e., a and b) ranged from 1, Not at all sexually arousing, to 3, Moderately sexually arousing, to 5, Extremely sexually arousing. The anchor labels for similarity of feelings (i.e., c) ranged from 1, Not at all similar, to 3, Moderately similar, to 5, Extremely similar. The anchor labels for how satisfying and exciting the experience would be (i.e., d) ranged from 1, Not at all satisfying or exciting, to 3, Moderately satisfying and exciting, to 5, Extremely satisfying and exciting. The anchor labels for the final two ratings referring to the frequency of experiencing feelings (i.e., e and f) ranged from 1, Not very often, to 3, Moderately often, to 5, Extremely often. The alpha coefficients for the ratings for each scenario were .92 for the scenario relevant to the Valued By Partner dimension, .90 for the Value For Partner dimension, .91 for the Stress Relief dimension, .92 for the Nurturance dimension, .94 for the Power dimension, .94 for the Partner Power dimension, .91 for the Pleasure dimension, and .92 for the Procreation dimension.

Personality traits associated with desirable partners. Perceptions of personality traits associated with a desirable partner were measured employing two instruments, a revision by McCrae and Costa (1985) of Goldberg's (1983) trait adjective questionnaire and the PAQ (Spence & Helmreich, 1978). The intensity of sex drive associated with a desirable partner was also rated by participants.

Goldberg's trait adjective questionnaire is a bipolar measure of the five fundamental trait dimensions associated with the Five-Factor Model of personality (McCrae & Costa, 1987). The five traits identified within this model are extraversion, agreeableness, openness, neuroticism, and conscientiousness. Because of time constraints in the study, five bipolar adjective pairs were selected from the scale measuring each trait dimension, based on McCrae and Coata's (1987) factor analysis of the revised measure. The bipolar adjective pain having the highest factor loadings were selected to include in a shortened version of the questionnaire. The instrument was presented following the measure of global sexual desire. Instructions requested that participants indicate what an especially desirable romantic partner would be like if they could become involved with any-one they wanted. They were asked not to rate their current romantic partner or spouse if they were currently involved in a relationship, even though they may have been satisfied with him or her The ratings were made on five point scales, with the two opposite adjectives positioned at either end of the scale. The alpha coefficient was .69 for the extraversion ratings, .63 for the agreeableness ratings, .65 for the openness ratings, .61 for the neuroticism ratings, and .64 for the conscientiousness ratings.

The PAQ is a measure of two global personality traits that have been proposed to account for basic personality differences between men and women, expressiveness and instrumentality. Because of the amount of information that was being requested from respondents, only five items from the eight-item expressivity scale were selected for this study: "very kind," "very understanding of others," "very helpful to others," "very warm in relations with others," and "very aware of the feelings of others." Likewise, five items from the eight-item instrumentality scale were selected: "very self-confident," "feels very superior," "never gives up easily," "very independent," and "stands up well under pressure." Participants were asked to rate the ideally desirable romantic partner on each trait, with response options ranging from not very descriptive of a person to very descriptive. The alpha coefficient was .80 for the expressiveness scale and .69 for the instrumentality scale.

The intensity of sex drive associated with a desirable partner was assessed employing six ratings: strong sex drivel not so strong sex drive, lust-full/not lustful, seductive/not seductive, romantic/not romantic, sensual/ not sensual, and kinky/not kinky, largely derived from sexuality descriptors compiled by Schmitt and Buss (1993). The alpha for the sex drive ratings was .73.

Partner resources influencing sexual attractiveness. Participants were asked to indicate the importance of five resources in determining the attractiveness of a desirable partner. Four resources were rated in terms of the extent to which they influence a partner's sexual attractiveness, specifically the person's likelihood of remaining "in love" with the participant, the degree to which the person is respected by the participant's friends, the person's potential to become a good parent, and the person's potential to become financially secure or even wealthy. Ratings were made on five-point Likert scales, ranging from 1, not very important, to 3, moderately important, to 5, extremely important. The importance of the physical attractiveness of a desirable partner was assessed with ratings of the attributes, physically attractive, has a good body, and sexy (a = .76), made on five-point bipolar rating scales (e.g., physically attractive versus not physically attractive).

Procedure

Participants completed the packet of questionnaires outside of their regular class session in groups that were generally smaller than 30 individuals, seated far enough apart to ensure confidentiality while responding to the questionnaires. Participants were informed prior to volunteering that the study concerned attitudes about sex, reactions to descriptions of different types of sexual experiences that others of their gender find the most enjoyable, and their typical reactions when they experience sexual feelings. Participants were also told that the descriptions they would be asked to read would be excerpts from discussions by eight individuals of their gender, in which each person described the conditions and emotions that are typically associated with their most enjoyable sexual experiences. They were told that scenarios would not include explicit descriptions of specific sexual behaviors, but rather would involve general feelings about the individual's romantic or sexual partner and what the experiences meant to them personally. Furthermore, participants were informed that they would not be asked to place their names or any other identifying information on the questionnaires.

Results

Stepwise multiple regression analyses were conducted on each composite scenario rating and partner attribute rating (i.e., personality traits and resources) separately. The AMORE scales, the global sexual desire scale for participants, participant gender, and participant age were tested as "predictor" variables for each set of ratings (the term predictor is used only in the regression sense and does not imply chronological prediction). The purpose of conducting regression analyses was to control simultaneously for various personal characteristics that conceivably might influence sexual behavior Predictors were entered into regression models one at a time, based on the level of significance, until no other participant characteristics were statistically significant at the .05 level. Only statistically significant predictors were, therefore, included in final regression equations, resulting in "trimmed" models so that effects could be examined independently of all other significant effects (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). Using the Bonferroni correction procedure, the critical value employed to determine the statistical significance of overall regression models was adjusted for the number of analyses conducted for the scenario ratings, the desirable partner attribute ratings, and the partner resource ratings.

Scenario Ratings

Simple correlations. The correlations of composite scenario ratings with the AMORE sexual motive scales, participant gender, and participant age are presented in Table 1. With the exception of the ratings for the Relief from Stress scenario, the highest correlations for each sexual scenario rating occurred with the theoretically most relevant AMORE sexual motive scale. The highest correlation for the Relief from Stress scenario was with the AMORE Value By Partner scale (r = .42), although the correlation with the AMORE Relief From Stress scale was extremely close (r = .39). Correlations of the scenario ratings with the theoretically most relevant AMORE scales ranged from .37 to .68. The Sexual Desire composite for participants was significantly correlated with all scenario ratings, except for the Procreation scenario ratings, with significant correlations ranging from .19 to .33. Gender was significantly correlated with the Value for Partner, Power, and Pleasure scenario ratings, women having higher scores on the Value for Partner scenario ratings and men having higher scores on the other two scenario ratings. Age was significantly negatively related to the Value for Partner, Partner Power, and Pleasure scenario ratings.

Table 1 Correlations of Scenario Ratings with AMORE Scales, Sexual Desire, Gender, and Age

                                   Scenario Rating Composites

                                 Value by   Value for   Relief from
Personal Characteristics          Partner    Partner       Stress

AMORE Value By Partner scale        .37         .32        .42
AMORE Value For Partner scale       .31         .41        .29
AMORE Relief From Stress scale      .27         .17        .39
AMORE Nurturance scale              .34         .29        .33
AMORE Power scale                   .24         .05        .29
AMORE Partner Power scale           .26         .12        .25
AMORE Pleasure scale                .27         .19        .31
AMORE Procreation scale             .05         .06        .01
Sexual Desire composite             .19         .26        .22
Gender                             -.07        -.13       -.07
Age                                -.09        -.05       -.09

                                 Nurturance    Power    Power

AMORE Value By Partner scale        .38         .19      .22
AMORE Value For Partner scale       .33         .15      .21
AMORE Relief From Stress scale      .37         .24      .21
AMORE Nurturance scale              .40         .17      .17
AMORE Power scale                   .16         .57      .43
AMORE Partner Power scale           .14         .51      .68
AMORE Pleasure scale                .20         .33      .27
AMORE Procreation scale             .14        -.08      .01
Sexual Desire composite             .23         .22      .29
Gender                             -.08         .13      .10
Age                                -.05        -.06 -    .25

                                 Partner
                                 Pleasure    Procreation

AMORE Value By Partner scale        .25         .03
AMORE Value For Partner scale       .28         .09
AMORE Relief From Stress scale      .26        -.01
AMORE Nurturance scale              .25         .04
AMORE Power scale                   .26         .03
AMORE Partner Power scale           .26         .02
AMORE Pleasure scale                .37        -.09
AMORE Procreation scale            -.02         .53
Sexual Desire composite             .33        -.06
Gender                              .12        -.09
Age                                -.12        -.00

Note: N = 326, although N varies because of missing data. AMORE = Affective and Motivational Orientation Related to Erotic Arousal questionnaire. Sexual Desire composite is the composite variable comprising the seven sexual desire ratings. rs [is greater than or equal to].11 are significant at the .05 level. Gender is coded as 1 = Women and 2 = Men. Bolded coefficients are the theoretically most relevant correlations for a given scenario.

Regression analyses. As stated previously, the purpose of regression analyses was to examine the relationship of the AMORE sexual motive scales with scenario ratings, independent of other participant characteristics. The results of the stepwise regression analyses are presented in Table 2. As with the simple correlations, the strongest relationships for the scenario ratings occurred with the theoretically most relevant AMORE motive scales, again with the exception of the Relief from Stress scenario ratings. Although the strongest correlation for the Relief from Stress scenario ratings was with the AMORE Value By Partner scale ([Beta] = .29), the AMORE Relief From Stress scale nonetheless was significantly independently correlated ([Beta] = .22) with this sexual scenario. Standardized regression coefficients (betas) for the theoretically most relevant AMORE scales ranged from .22 for the Relief from Stress scenario to .69 for the Partner Power scenario.

Table 2 Regression Analyses of Scenario Ratings on AMORE Sexual Motive Scales

                                 [Beta]      t             F
Predictor                       Valued by Partner Scenario
AMORE Valued By Partner scale      .28     4.27(***)      22.18
AMORE Nurturance scale             .17     2.61(**)
Age                               -.10    -2.06(*)
                                Value for Partner Scenario
AMORE Value For Partner scale      .33      6.21(***)     27.27
Sexual Desire composite            .19      3.52(***)
Gender                            -.13     -2.39(*)
                                Relief from Stress Scenario
AMORE Valued By Partner scale      .29      4.87(***)     43.12
AMORE Relief From Stress scale     .22      3.67(***)
                                Nurturance Scenario
AMORE Nurturance scale             .27      4.84(***)     21.36
AMORE Relief From Stress scale     .21      3.46(***)
Gender                            -.16     -3.13(**)
AMORE Procreation scale            .15      3.04(**)
Sexual Desire composite            .14      2.49(*)
                                Power Scenario
AMORE Power scale                  .42      6.97(***)     87.85
  RE Partner Power scale           .22      3.59(***)
                                Partner Power Scenario
AMORE Partner Power scale          .69     15.48(***)     97.89
Age                               -.09     -2.14(*)
AMORE Nurturance scale            -.09     -2.02(*)
                                Pleasure Scenario
AMORE Pleasure scale               .27     5.42(***)      33.74
Sexual Desire composite            .22     3.46(***)
                                Procreation Scenario
AMORE Procreation scale            .53     11.38(***)    129.60

                                  Overall
                                    df        [R.sup.2]

AMORE Valued By Partner scale     3,322         .16
AMORE Nurturance scale
Age

AMORE Value For Partner scale     3,322         .20
Sexual Desire composite
Gender

AMORE Valued By Partner scale     2,323         .21
AMORE Relief From Stress scale

AMORE Nurturance scale            5,320         .24
AMORE Relief From Stress scale
Gender
AMORE Procreation scale
Sexual Desire composite

AMORE Power scale                 2,323         .35
  RE Partner Power scale

AMORE Partner Power scale         3,322         .47
Age
AMORE Nurturance scale

AMORE Pleasure scale              3,323         .17
Sexual Desire composite

AMORE Procreation scale           1, 324        .28

Note: N = 326. AMORE = Affective and Motivational Orientation Related to Erotic Arousal questionnaire. Sexual Desire composite is the composite variable comprising the seven sexual desire ratings. Overall F, df, and [R.SUP.2] are the statistics for the overall regression model containing the indicated AMORE scale and statistically significant covariates. [R.sup.2] is the adjusted value for the amount of variance accounted for by the entire model. Only the AMORE scales that were significant are presented in this table. (*) p <.05 (**) p <.01 (***) p <.001

In addition to the relationships with the theoretically most relevant AMORE scales, a number of scenario ratings were also related to other AMORE scales. The Valued by Partner scenario ratings were correlated with the AMORE Nurturance motive scale ([Beta] = .17), the Relief from Stress scenario ratings were correlated with the AMORE Valued By Partner motive scale ([Beta] = .29), the Nurturance scenario ratings were correlated with the AMORE Relief From Stress and Procreation motive scales ([Beta]s = .21 and .15, respectively), the Power scenario ratings were correlated with the AMORE Partner Power motive scale ([Beta] = .22), and the Partner Power scenario ratings were correlated with the AMORE Nurturance motive scale ([Beta] = -.09). However, other than for the Relief from Stress scenario ratings, all relationships with the theoretically most relevant AMORE motive scales were greater than the relationships with other AMORE motive scales.

The participant Sexual Desire composite was independently related only to the Value for Partner, Nurturance, and Pleasure scenario ratings. That is, although global sexual desire was correlated with all scenario ratings at the simple level (Pearson correlations), only three relationships remained statistically significant when controlling for the AMORE sexual motive scales. Moreover, for all three remaining significant relationships, the relationship between the Sexual Desire composite and scenario ratings was substantially reduced by controlling for AMORE sexual motive scales.

Gender was independently related to the Value for Partner and Nurturance scenario ratings in regression analyses, with women having higher ratings on both. The relationships of gender with the Power and Pleasure scenario ratings that occurred at the simple level were no longer statistically significant after controlling for AMORE scores. However, gender was significantly correlated with Nurturance scenario ratings only after controlling for the AMORE Nurturance motive scale in the regression analysis. Participant age was independently related only to the Valued by Partner and Partner Power scenario ratings, with younger participants rating these scenarios as more arousing and satisfying than did older participants. Although age was significantly correlated with the Partner Power and Pleasure scenario ratings at the simple level (Pearson correlations), only the relationship with the Partner Power scenario ratings remained significant after controlling for other factors. In contrast to simple correlations, age was correlated with the Value by Partner scenario ratings only after controlling for the AMORE Valued By Partner and Nurturance motive scales.

Desirable Partner Trait Ratings

Simple correlations. As predicted, the ratings of extraversion, agreeableness, and expressiveness as desirable partner attributes were most highly correlated with the AMORE Value For Partner motive scale (see Table 3). However, the AMORE Valued By Partner and Nurturance motive scales were correlated only with the partner expressiveness ratings. The partner neuroticism ratings were most strongly related to the AMORE Power motive scale of all motive scales. Although no predictions were advanced regarding the ratings of openness, conscientiousness, and instrumentality associated with a desirable partner, several significant relationships did occur. The desirability of partner openness was most highly correlated with the AMORE Pleasure motive scale (although the Sexual Desire composite was most strongly correlated with the partner trait overall). Conscientiousness as a desirable partner trait was most strongly related to participant gender, although participant age, the AMORE Value For Partner motive scale, and the participant Sexual Desire composite were all close in value to participant gender. Instrumentality as a desirable partner trait was significantly correlated with only participant gender.

Table 3 Correlations of Desirable Partner Traits with AMORE Scales, Sexual Desire, Gender, and Age

                        Desirable Partner Ratings
                                  Extra-      Agreeableness
Personal Characteristics          version

AMORE Value By Partner scale       .08           .09
AMORE Value For Partner scale      .22(***)      .15(**)
AMORE Relief From Stress scale    -.07          -.03
AMORE Nurturance scale             .09           .08
AMORE Power scale                 -.01          -.15(**)
AMORE Partner Power scale          .08          -.12(*)
AMORE Pleasure scale               .10           .02
AMORE Procreation scale            .01          -.05
Sexual Desire composite            .09           .08
Gender                            -.20(***)     -.18(**)
Age                               -.06           .13(*)

                                                          Conscien-
                                 Neuroticism   Openness   tiousness
AMORE Value By Partner scale       .05          .06         .10
AMORE Value For Partner scale     -.01          .17(**)     .15(**)
AMORE Relief From Stress scale     .10          .07        -.02
AMORE Nurturance scale             .08          .08         .04
AMORE Power scale                  .16(**)      .10        -.05
AMORE Partner Power scale          .13(*)       .12(*)     -.04
AMORE Pleasure scale               .01          .23(***)    .10
AMORE Procreation scale            .06         -.21(***)   -.05
Sexual Desire composite            .03          .31(***)    .14(*)
Gender                             .21(***)    -.04        -.17(**)
Age                               -.13(**)     -.01         .14(**)

                                 Expressiveness    Instrumentality

AMORE Value By Partner scale          .17(**)           -.02
AMORE Value For Partner scale         .31(***)           .08
AMORE Relief From Stress scale       -.05               -.05
AMORE Nurturance scale                .16(**)            .02
AMORE Power scale                    -.07                .01
AMORE Partner Power scale            -.11(*)             .02
AMORE Pleasure scale                  .11(*)             .07
AMORE Procreation scale               .08                .05
Sexual Desire composite               .10                .04
Gender                               -.28(***)          -.18(***)
Age                                   .08                .04

                                     Sex
                                     Drive

AMORE Value By Partner scale        .19(***)
AMORE Value For Partner scale       .20(***)
AMORE Relief From Stress scale      .20(***)
AMORE Nurturance scale              .11(*)
AMORE Power scale                   .23(***)
AMORE Partner Power scale           .27(***)
AMORE Pleasure scale                .37(***)
AMORE Procreation scale            -.16(**)
Sexual Desire composite             .45(***)
Gender                              .03
Age                                -.12(*)

Note: N = 326, although N varies because of missing data. AMORE = Affective and Motivational Orientation Related to Erotic Arousal questionnaire. Sexual Desire composite is the composite variable comprising the seven sexual desire ratings. Gender is coded as 1 = Women and 2 = Men. (*) p <.05 (**) p <.01 (***) p <.001

Regression analyses. Correlations of participant ratings of partner traits and resources with sexual motives and with global sexual desire were examined employing forward stepwise regression analyses. Participant characteristics (i.e., AMORE scores, gender, and age) were entered into regression models involving each of the separate ratings of partner traits and resources. This procedure permitted the identification of participant characteristics that were uniquely correlated with desired partner attributes, independent of all other significant factors, including global sexual desire. Consistent with expectations, the ratings concerning extraversion, agreeableness, and expressiveness as desirable partner traits were all correlated with the AMORE Value For Partner motive scale (see Table 4). The Value For Partner motive scale, in fact, was the only AMORE scale correlated with extraversion ratings ([Beta] = .19), and it was correlated more strongly with the expressiveness ratings ([Beta] = .30) than was the AMORE Partner Power motive scale ([Beta] = -.23, the only other motive scale that was correlated with the expressiveness ratings). However, the AMORE Value For Partner motive scale ([Beta] = . 17) was only one of four correlates of agreeableness as a desirable partner trait that were essentially comparable in strength, specifically, the AMORE Power motive scale ([Beta] = -.23), the participant Sexual Desire composite ([Beta] = .16), and participant gender ([Beta] = -.17). Neuroticism was positively related to the AMORE Power motive scale ([Beta] = .18), as hypothesized, and also was related to the term carrying the interaction between the AMORE Partner Power scale and gender ([Beta] = .36). To examine the form of this interaction, predicted values for typical high and low Partner Power motive scores were calculated employing values one standard deviation above and below the mean value. Men with lower AMORE Partner Power motive scores rated neuroticism as less desirable for partners (Y = 8.25) than did men with higher Partner Power motive scores (Y = 9.41). Both types of men rated neuroticism as less desirable than did women with lower Partner Power motive scores (Y = 9.79) and women with higher Partner Power motive scores (Y = 9.52). Ratings of strong sex drive as a desirable partner attribute were positively correlated only with the participant global Sexual Desire composite ([Beta] = .36) and the AMORE Pleasure motive scale ([Beta] = .23).

Table 4 Regression Analyses of Desirable Partner Personality Traits on AMORE Sexual Motive Scales

Predictor                          [Beta]       t
                                       Extraversion
AMORE Value For Partner scale      .19      3.50(***)
Gender                            -.18      3.23(**)
                                       Agreeableness
AMORE Power scale                 -.23     -3.95(***)
Gender                            -.17     -2.91(**)
Sexual Desire composite            .16      2.66(**)
AMORE Value For Partner scale      .17      2.44(*)
                                       Expressiveness
AMORE Value For Partner scale      .30      5.37(***)
Gender                            -.25     -4.60(***)
AMORE Partner Power scale         -.23     -4.10(***)
Sexual Desire composite            .15      2.61(**)
                                     Neuroticism
AMORE Power scale                  .18      2.27(*)
AMORE Partner Power scale          .08      1.03
Gender                            -.14     -0.86
Partner Power X Gender             .36      2.21(*)
                                       Sex Drive
Sexual Desire composite            .36      6.77(***)
AMORE Pleasure scale               .23      4.24(***)
                                        Openness
Sexual Desire composite            .31      5.73(***)
AMORE Procreation scale           -.17     -3.14(**)
Gender                            -.13     -2.38(*)
                                    Conscientiousness
Gender                            -.21     -3.76(***)
Sexual Desire composite            .21      3.73(***)
Age                                .15      2.68(**)
                                  Instrumentality
AMORE Pleasure scale               .22      3.38(***)
Gender                            -.17     -3.03(**)
AMORE Relief From Stress scale    -.13     -1.98(*)

                                             Overall
Predictor                              F        df       [R.sup.2]

AMORE Value For Partner scale         13.40     2,322      .07
Gender

AMORE Power scale                      8.57     4,314      .09
Gender
Sexual Desire composite
AMORE Value For Partner scale

AMORE Value For Partner scale        20.08       4,319      .19
Gender
AMORE Partner Power scale
Sexual Desire composite

AMORE Power scale                     6.18       5,318      .07
AMORE Partner Power scale
Gender
Partner Power X Gender

Sexual Desire composite              52.00       2,316       .24
AMORE Pleasure scale

Sexual Desire composite              16.50       3,319       .13
AMORE Procreation scale
Gender

Gender                                9.98       3,321        .08
Sexual Desire composite
Age

AMORE Pleasure scale                  7.21       3,315        .06
Gender
indicated AMORE scale
AMORE Relief From Stress scale

Note. N = 326. AMORE = Affective and Motivational Orientation Related to Erotic Arousal questionnaire. Sexual Desire composite is the composite variable comprising the seven sexual desire ratings. Overall F, df, and [R.sup.2] are the statistics for the overall regression model containing the indicated AMORE scale and statistically significant covariates. [R.sup.2] is the adjusted value for the amount of variance accounted for. Only the AMORE scales that were significant are presented in this table. (*)p < .05 (**)p < .01 (***)p < .001

Although predictions were not made regarding the relationship between the desirability of partner openness and instrumentality and sexual motives, both were related to various AMORE motive scales. Ratings of openness as a desirable partner trait were correlated with the participant Sexual Desire composite ([Beta] = .31), the AMORE Procreation motive scale ([Beta] = -.17), and participant gender ([Beta] = .13). Instrumentality as a desirable partner trait was correlated with the AMORE Pleasure motive scale ([Beta] = .22), the AMORE Relief From Stress motive scale ([Beta] = -.13), and participant gender ([Beta] = -.17, women found instrumentality more desirable). None of the AMORE motive scales was related to the desirability of partner conscientiousness.

Partner Resources Influencing Sexual Attractiveness

Simple correlations among participant characteristics and desirable partner resources are presented in Table 5. Examining the results of stepwise regression analyses (Table 6), the importance of a potential sexual partner remaining, "in love" (i.e., romantically committed) with participants was correlated, as predicted, with the AMORE Value For Partner motive scale ([Beta] = .18) and participant gender ([Beta] = - .14, women rated this factor as more important). The ratings for the importance of partners having the respect of participant's friends were correlated with the AMORE Value By Partner motive scale ([Beta] = .26), the AMORE Nurturance motive scale ([Beta] = -.15), and participant age ([Beta] = .16).

Table 5 Correlations of Desirable Partner Resources with AMORE Scales, Sexual Desire, Gender, and Age

                                    Desirable Partner Ratings

                                     Remain     Respect by
Personal Characteristics          "In Love"     Friends

AMORE Value By Partner scale       .13(*)       .17(**)
AMORE Value For Partner scale      .20(***)     .09
AMORE Relief From Stress scale     .02          .03
AMORE Nurturance scale             .10          .00
AMORE Power scale                 -.03          .07
AMORE Partner Power scale         -.02          .02
AMORE Pleasure scale               .08          .09
AMORE Procreation scale            .11(*)      -.07
Sexual Desire composite            .07         -.01
Gender                            -.17(**)     -.11(*)
Age                                .10          .18(***)

                                    Desirable Partner Ratings

                                      Physical          Potential
Personal Characteristics            Attractiveness     as Parent

AMORE Value By Partner scale            .09                .01
AMORE Value For Partner scale           .12(*)             .07
AMORE Relief From Stress scale          .10               -.15(**)
AMORE Nurturance scale                  .07               -.03
AMORE Power scale                       .15(*)            -.08
AMORE Partner Power scale               .19(***)          -.02
AMORE Pleasure scale                    .22(***)          -.04
AMORE Procreation scale                -.05                .16(**)
Sexual Desire composite                 .24(***)          -.01
Gender                                  .12(*)            -.17(**)
Age                                    -.13(*)             .03

                                 Desirable Partner Ratings
                                       Financial
Personal Characteristics              Potential

AMORE Value By Partner scale            .10
AMORE Value For Partner scale           .10
AMORE Relief From Stress scale         -.06
AMORE Nurturance scale                 -.00
AMORE Power scale                       .13(*)
AMORE Partner Power scale               .06
AMORE Pleasure scale                    .08
AMORE Procreation scale                 .02
Sexual Desire composite                -.06
Gender                                 -.27(***)
Age                                     .07

Note: N = 326, although N varies because of missing data. AMORE = Affective and Motivational Orientation Related to Erotic Arousal questionnaire. Sexual Desire composite is the composite variable comprising the seven sexual desire ratings. Gender is coded as 1 = Women and 2 = Men. (*)p < .05 (**)p < .01 (***)p < .001

Table 6 Regression Analyses of Partner Resources on AMORE Sexual Motive Scales

Predictor                        [Beta]         t

                                  Remaining "In Love"

AMORE Value For Partner scale      .18         3.24(**)
Gender                            -.14        -2.65(**)
                                   Respect by Friends
AMORE Value By Partner scale       .26         3.74(***)
AMORE Nurturance scale            -.15        -2.20(*)
Age                                .16         2.89(**)
                                  Physical Attractiveness
AMORE Pleasure scale               .15         2.34(*)
Age                               -.12        -2.27(*)
Sexual Desire composite            .13         2.11(*)
AMORE Nurturance scale             .03         0.42
AMORE Value For Partner scale     -.01        -0.12
Gender                             .08         0.32
Nurturance X Gender                .98         3.85(***)
Value For Partner X Gender        -.99        -3.24(***)
                                  Potential as a Good Parent
Gender                            -.16        -2.85(**)
AMORE Procreation scale            .15         2.85(**)
AMORE Relief From Stress scale    -.17        -2.78(**)
Sexual Desire composite            .12         2.02(*)
                                   Financial Potential
Gender                            -.75        -4.71(***)
AMORE Power scale                  .17         2.38(*)
AMORE Partner Power scale          .03         0.39
Partner Power X Gender             .49         3.09(**)

                                               Overall
Predictor                            F          df       [R.sup.2]

AMORE Value For Partner scale      10.28          2,323        .05
Gender

AMORE Value By Partner scale        8.22          3,322        .06
AMORE Nurturance scale
Age

AMORE Pleasure scale                6.36          8,317        .12
Age
Sexual Desire composite
AMORE Nurturance scale
AMORE Value For Partner scale
Gender
Nurturance X Gender
Value For Partner X Gender

Gender                               6.56          4,321        .06
AMORE Procreation scale
AMORE Relief From Stress scale
Sexual Desire composite

Gender                               11.36       4,321       .11
AMORE Power scale
AMORE Partner Power scale
Partner Power X Gender

Note: N = 326. AMORE = Affective and Motivational Orientation Related to Erotic Arousal questionnaire. Sexual Desire composite is the composite variable comprising the seven sexual desire ratings. Overall F of and [R.sup.2] are the statistics for the overall regression model containing the indicated AMORE scale and statistically significant covariates. [R.sup.2] is the adjusted value for the amount of variance accounted for. Only the AMORE scales that were significant are presented in this table. (*)p < .05 (**)p < .01 (***)p < .001

The importance of partner physical attractiveness was independently related to the AMORE Pleasure motive scale ([Beta] = .15), as predicted, as well as participant age ([Beta] = -.12) and the participant Sexual Desire composite (0 = .13). Additionally, the term carrying the interaction of the AMORE Nurturance motive scale and gender and the term carrying the interaction of the AMORE Value For Partner motive scale and gender were both significant. Predicted values were calculated based on raw regression weights from the regression model, with typical high and low AMORE scores represented by values one standard deviation above and below the mean. Although women with low scores on the Nurturance motive scale rated physical attractiveness as more important (Y = 13.34) than did low Nurturance men (Y = 12.54), high Nurturance women rated physical attractiveness as less important (Y = 12.06) than did high Nurturance men (Y = 13.56). With respect to the interaction between the AMORE Value For Partner motive scale and gender, although men with low scores on the Value For Partner motive scale rated physical attractiveness as more important (Y = 13.40) than did women with low scores on this scale (Y 12.31), men and women with high scores on the Value For Partner motive scale both rated physical attractiveness as moderately important (Ys = 12.70 and 13.09, respectively).

The importance of the potential for a partner to be a good parent was correlated with gender ([Beta] = -.16, women valued the attribute more than did men), the AMORE Procreation motive scale ([Beta] = .15), the AMORE Relief From Stress motive scale ([Beta] = -.17), and the participant Sexual Desire composite ([Beta] = .12). Finally, ratings of the importance of a partner's financial potential were correlated with participant gender ([Beta] = -.75, women valued the attribute more than did men), the AMORE Power motive scale ([Beta] = . 17), and the interaction between the AMORE Partner Power motive scale and participant gender ([Beta] = .49). Predicted values indicated that, although a partner's financial potential was more important for women in general (Ys = 4.18 and 3.86 for women with low and high Partner Power scores, respectively), the attribute was somewhat more valuable for men with high scores (Y = 2.5 1) than for men with low scores (Y = 2.07) on the Partner Power motive scale.

Discussion

The purpose of the current study was to establish the distinctiveness of the eight sexual motives with respect to each other and sexual desire. As predicted, composite ratings of arousal and satisfaction in response to the eight incentive-specific sexual scenarios were most strongly correlated with the theoretically most relevant scales on a measure of sexual motives (the AMORE; Hill & Preston, 1996). The only exception involved ratings for the sexual scenario intended to represent relief from stress, which was equally correlated with the theoretically most relevant AMORE Relief From Stress motive scale and the less relevant AMORE Valued By Partner motive scale.

Furthermore, although a composite of participants' global sexual desire was correlated with all eight sexual scenario ratings at the simple level, global sexual desire remained significantly correlated with only three scenario ratings after controlling for the theoretically relevant sexual motives (specifically, Value For Partner, Nurturance, and Pleasure). However, for these three remaining significant relationships, the regression coefficients were smaller than the Pearson correlations, and they were substantially lower than the coefficients for the scenario ratings with the most theoretically relevant sexual motives. The elimination or reduction of relationships between global sexual desire and specific sexual scenarios indicates that simple correlations involving sexual desire were accounted for entirely or partially by the overlap of sexual desire with specific sexual motives. The pattern of results, therefore, supports the prediction that individual sexual motives are uniquely correlated with sexual behavior in situations specifically affording motive-relevant incentives. The results additionally support the prediction that reactions to incentive-specific sexual situations are more strongly related to relevant sexual motives than to global sexual desire. Both predictions were based on the premise that the eight sexual motives are more directly linked to specific rewards associated with sexual behavior, relative to global sexual desire.

Support was also provided for the unique relationship between sexual motives and personality traits considered desirable in potential partners. As predicted, the AMORE Value For Partner motive scale was independently correlated with the desirability of extraversion, agreeableness, and expressiveness in a partner, although the global sexual desire of participants was also correlated with partner expressiveness and agreeableness, controlling for significant sexual motive scales. However, consistent with predictions, the relationship of partner expressiveness with global sexual desire was substantially smaller than its relationship with the AMORE Value For Partner scale. Likewise, as predicted, the AMORE Power scale was related to the greater desirability of neuroticism in a potential partner, whereas the desirability of a stronger sex chive in a potential partner correlated most strongly with greater participant sexual desire. Overall, participant scores on the sexual motive scales were independently correlated with desire for theoretically relevant traits in partners, whereas participant global sexual desire was less consistently and less strongly related to such traits.

Finally, the hypothesized relationships of participants' sexual motives with desire for theoretically relevant partner resources were also obtained. The AMORE Value For Partner motive scale was positively correlated with the importance of a partner remaining "in love" with participants, whereas the AMORE Value By Partner motive scale was positively correlated with the importance of a potential partner being respected by participants' friends. An unexpected relationship was the negative correlation of participants' scores on the AMORE Nurturance scale with the partner being respected by friends, after controlling for the Valued By Partner sexual motive. In addition, participant global sexual desire was not correlated with either of these partner resources, a finding consistent with predictions. Participant global sexual desire, however, was independently correlated with ratings of the importance of partner physical attractiveness and the potential for the partner to be a good parent, at levels comparable to the theoretically most relevant AMORE scale. In the case of partner physical attractiveness, the most relevant sexual motive was Pleasure, which was independently correlated with the importance of partner physical attractiveness. For the ratings of the importance of partners being a good parent, the most relevant sexual motive was procreation, which was also significantly correlated independent of participant global sexual desire. Although no predictions were advanced regarding the importance of partner financial potential, participants' scores on the AMORE Power scale were independently correlated with this partner resource, as were gender and the interaction between participants' scores on the AMORE Partner Power scale and gender. In summary, participants' scores on the sexual motive scales were generally related to desirable partner resources in theoretically consistent ways, although participant global sexual desire was independently correlated with the physical attractiveness and parenting potential of partners.

As a whole, the results of the current study lend support to the construct validity and the distinctiveness of sexual motives and global sexual desire. In many instances, sexual motives were independently related to the importance of theoretically relevant dimensions in partners, as predicted, although participant sexual desire was not independently correlated with partner attributes after controlling for sexual motives. This pattern indicates that sexual motives are more directly related to behavior in theoretically relevant situations because of their more specific focus.

The more direct relationship of sexual motives, compared to global sexual desire, has important theoretical and methodological implications. A generalized concept of "heightened sexual interest" or "sexual arousal," as implied in the notion of "sexual desire," may be conceptually too vague and inexact to provide a meaningful explanation of human sexual motivation. Such a global construct does not appear to capture adequately the qualitative differences in emotional and subjective experience that occur within different personal and social contexts of sexual interaction (e.g., tender moments of emotional intimacy; emotionally detached, abandoned lust). That is, although different individuals may report that they are sexually aroused and may also exhibit signs of overt physical and genital arousal, very different events and situations may have in fact led to their sexual excitement. Moreover, specific situations and stimuli that cause sexual arousal for one individual may not produce sexual arousal for another individual, who may be indifferent or even revolted, disgusted, or distressed by these stimuli. It would therefore be inaccurate to consider the various motivational states as experientially and semantically equivalent for different individuals.

Furthermore, the various sexual motives are likely to lead to different strategies and behaviors for attaining the types of satisfaction associated with each sexual motive. For example, individuals interested in nurturance or showing value for a partner are likely to engage in affectionate, reassuring expressions of sexual intimacy. Individuals desiring comfort and relief may seek out or construct sexual situations that are relatively free of interpersonal demands or performance pressures. Those interested in dominance and power may be more likely to express their sexual interest through gruff, even forceful, aggressive actions. In each case, individuals have engaged in very different behaviors designed to elicit desirable responses from their sexual partner to attain specific types of satisfaction. Evidence of such differences in sexual strategy is provided by the correlations of sexual motives with desired partner traits and resources. Thus, individuals possessing a stronger motive for experiencing a particular sexual outcome (e.g., power over a sexual partner) prefer contact with partners who possess attributes consistent with the desired sexual outcome (e.g., emotional insecurity, or a disposition relevant to deference and being controlled by others), thereby increasing the chance of experiencing that outcome. The linkage of specific desirable partner attributes and sexual situations with different sexual motives suggests that the construct of global sexual desire has limited utility, both conceptually and in terms of accurately predicting behavior. The multidimensional perspective of sexual motives, in contrast, provides a more inclusive and accurate characterization of the various motivational functions and goals served by different sexual behavior patterns.

Gender was significantly related at the zero-order level to the Value for Partner, Partner Power, and Pleasure sexual scenarios. However, after controlling for the effect of sexual motives, gender differences were statistically significant only for the Value For Partner and Nurturance scenarios, with women rating these sexual scenarios as more arousing and interesting than men. This pattern of gender differences in sexual scenario ratings is not entirely consistent with the differences that occurred for the AMORE scales themselves. Rather, gender differences in sexual motives occurred for the Relief From Stress, Partner Power, and Value For Partner motive scales, but not for the Nurturance and Pleasure motive scales. Consistent with the gender differences obtained in the current study, women scored higher on the AMORE Value For Partner motive scale, whereas men scored higher on the Partner Power motive scale, in at least two of three earlier samples of respondents (Hill & Preston, 1996). On the other hand, the earlier research consistently found gender differences on the AMORE Relief From Stress motive scale across the three samples, despite the fact that no gender differences in the scenario ratings for this motive were obtained in the current study. It is possible that the Relief from Stress scenario employed in the current study contained elements that minimized motivational differences between men and women, such as focusing on a specific stressful event that resulted in the protagonist being extremely emotionally and physically exhausted. Given that gender differences on the AMORE Relief From Stress motive scale in the current study are consistent with previous results, it is likely that the absence here of gender differences in the theoretically relevant scenario is the exception to rule. Finally, although men obtained higher scores than women on the Pleasure motive scale in two of the three samples in the previous study (Hill & Preston, 1996), the discrepancy between the Pleasure motive scale and Pleasure scenario ratings in the current study--as well as the lack of gender differences in the scale for one sample in the previous study--suggest that the stability of gender differences for this sexual motive remains uncertain.

With respect to ratings of desirable partner attributes, gender was correlated at the simple level with the desirability of all partner traits and resources except partner openness and sex drive. Where gender differences in desirable partner characteristics occurred, women rated the partner traits and resources as more desirable than did men, with the exception of partner neuroticism and physical attractiveness. In contrast to the scenario ratings, however, gender remained correlated with almost all partner traits and resources after controlling for the sexual motive scales. Thus, perhaps not too surprisingly, differences in partner attributes found desirable by women and men were not entirely accounted for by differences in sexual motives. Apparently, other motivational, personality, and cultural factors besides sexual motivation affect gender differences in the desirability of romantic and sexual partners. One particularly noteworthy aspect of this finding is that gender differences in the importance placed on partner resources (e.g., remaining "in love," parenting potential, financial potential) were hardly diminished at all by controlling for theoretically relevant sexual motives. The almost complete independence of sexual motives and gender in affecting romantic and sexual partner choice is in striking contrast to the evolutionary perspective embraced within sexual strategies theory (Buss, 1994). Theorists advocating this viewpoint maintain that sexual partner choice is influenced by selection pressures that have operated throughout the evolutionary process to produce gender differences in motivation for particular types of sexual partners. At least some noticeable overlap in gender and sexual motive effects on partner preference would therefore be expected based on this theoretical account of gender differences in partner selection.

Furthermore, gender differences for the partner attributes of neuroticism, physical attractiveness, and financial potential were all qualified by interactive effects with AMORE motive scales. With respect to neuroticism and physical attractiveness, the effect of gender was entirely accounted for by its interaction with sexual motives, specifically with the Partner Power motive in the case of neuroticism and with the Value For Partner and Nurturance motives in the case of physical attractiveness. Examination of the interactive effect related to partner neuroticism, revealed that only men who scored lower on the Partner Power motive scale preferred less neurotic partners. In general, women rated partner neuroticism as more desirable, a finding that appears to be inconsistent with the evolutionary theory proposal that women are more likely to prefer strong, courageous mates who can protect them and provide for them and their offspring. With respect to physical attractiveness, both women and men evaluated the attribute on the basis of their sexual motives. Women with a lower Nurturance motive were more interested in partner physical attractiveness than were men with a lower Nurturance motive. Both women and men with a stronger Value For Partner motive placed moderate value on a partner's physical attractiveness compared to men with a lower Value For Partner motive, for whom partner physical attractiveness was very important. Although evolutionary theory maintains that partner physical attractiveness is typically more important for men, in the current study the desirability of physical attractiveness varied for both men and women as a function of the motive for interest in sex. The only outcome in the current study that was largely consistent with evolutionary theory involved the importance of financial potential in determining the sexual attractiveness of a partner. Women were substantially more likely to rate partner financial potential as important, although men with stronger Partner Power motives viewed this partner resource as somewhat more important than men with lower Partner Power motives.

The current study has provided further support for the usefulness of the sexual motive construct advanced by Hill and Preston (1996). Each motive dimension was uniquely correlated with arousal and interest in sexual scenarios that emphasized specific motive-relevant incentives and was correlated with desire for motive-relevant attributes in potential partners. Future research is needed to demonstrate that sexual motives as assessed by the AMORE predict arousal to similar types of situations in real-world settings. The sexual motives must also be shown to predict actual choice of romantic and sexual partners, as well as their experience of satisfaction with sexual interactions and in relationships. Theoretically, overall relationship satisfaction can be expected to reflect the goodness of fit among one's sexual experiences in the relationship, the motives and characteristics of one's partner, and the motives of the individual. The associations among motives and the quality of sexual relationships must also be examined across more diverse samples of men and women, including those from different racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, educational, and sexual orientation groups. Finally, the extent to which differences in sexual motives may be related to difficulties experienced by couples seeking sex therapy is an issue of utmost importance for future research on sexual motivation.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: APA.

Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in Western man. Boston: Beacon.

Bancroft, J. (1989). Human sexuality and its problems (2nd ed.). Edinburgh, Scotland: Churchill Livingstone.

Beck, J. G., Bozman, A. W., & Qualtrough, T. (1991). The experience of sexual desire: Psychological correlates in a college sample. The Journal of Sex Research, 28, 443-456.

Buck, R. (1988). Human motivation and emotion. New York: Wiley.

Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P, (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. In M. F. Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (pp. 417-440). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

Goldberg, L. R. (1983, June). The magical number five, plus or minus two: Some considerations on the dimensionality of personality descriptors. Paper presented at a Research Seminar, Gerontology Research Center, NIA/NIH, Baltimore, MD.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "Description of Personality": The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229.

Heckhausen, H. (1991). Motivation and action. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Hill, C. A., & Preston, L. K. (1996). Individual differences in the experience of sexual motivation: Theory and measurement of dispositional sexual motives. The Journal of Sex Research, 33, 27-45.

John, O. P, (1990). The "Big Five" factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural language and in questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 66-100). New York: Guilford.

Kaplan, H. S. (1977). Hypoactive sexual desire. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 3, 3-9.

Kaplan, H. S. (1979). Disorders of sexual desire and other new concepts and techniques in sex therapy. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.

Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. H. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.

Masters, W. H., & Johnson, V. E. (1966). Human sexual response. Boston: Little & Brown.

McCrae, R. R. (1989). Why I advocate the five-factor model: Joint factor analyses of the NEO-PI with other instruments. In D. M. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 237-245). New York: Springer-Verlag.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1985). Updating Norman's "adequate taxonomy": Intelligence and personality dimensions in natural language and in questionnaires. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 710-721.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P T., Jr. (1987). Validation of the Five-Factor Model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90.

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.

Parsons, T., & Bales, R. F. (1955). Family, socialization and interaction process. New York: Free Press.

Rosen, R. C., & Beck, J. G. (1988). Patterns Of sexual arousal: Psychophysiological processes and clinical applications. New York: Guilford.

Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (June 1993). Sexuality language descriptors form three orthogonal factors and an interpersonal circumplex. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society, Chicago.

Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1992). Sociosexuality and romantic partner choice. Journal of Personality, 60, 31-51.

Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Sprecher, S. (1989). The importance to males and females of physical attractiveness, earning potential, and expressiveness in initial attraction. Sex Roles, 21, 591-607.

Wiggins, J. S. (1991). Agency and communion as conceptual coordinates for the understanding and measurement of interpersonal behavior. In W. M. Grove & D. Cicchetti (Eds.), Thinking clearly about psychology: Volume 2. Personality and psychopathology (pp. 89-113). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Appendix

Examples of Scenarios Employed as Stimulus Materials

"Case Histories of Intimate Encounters Descriptions by Women/Men"

Value for Partner Scenario

One of the most rewarding and satisfying aspects of my life is seeing the sparkle of joy and delight in my partner's eyes when I do something to let him/her know how much I care or simply just tell him/her that I love him/her. The light that beams from his/her eyes when I squeeze him/her with a hug or gently brush my lips against his/her face warms my soul with an intensity that makes me feel like I will just explode sometimes. I love sensing that my closeness and intimacy with him/her can invigorate him/her and make him/her feel important and good about himself/herself. When he/she responds to my soft words and whispers with a sudden outpouring of passion and energy, I just want to wrap him/her in my love and warmth. I am often overpowered by the urge to make mad, passionate love to him/her.

That reminds me of a day late last Spring when we had escaped to a remote area of the beach along the lake. We hadn't necessarily intended to wander so far away, but we simply got involved in talking about our plans for the future and how we were going to spend the rest of our lives together. He/she turned and smiled at me at one point and I was flooded with an incredible respect and pride about what he/she had done and what he/she was like. I just couldn't stop myself from smothering him/her with kisses and telling him/her how wonderful he/she is and how good he/she makes me feel. I was swept away in the moment and I wanted to make love to him/her right there in the sand to experience the beauty of what he/she was like--to let him/her know what a beautiful and exciting person I think he/she is. I'll never forget the wonder of that time, because we've replayed that moment I don't know how many times since then. I just cant seem to get close enough to him/her or to be able to tell him/her just how much I care for him/her. And, bonding with him/her sexually is one of the best ways I know to experience the intimacy that I want to show him/her and to satisfy the craving for him/her.

Relief from Stress Scenario

One particular time I can remember that happened not too long ago is a good example of some of the conditions under which I am really interested in making love with my partner. Some of the best sex I have had is when I have been under incredible pressure and my partner can help me "unwind" with some really intense lovemaking. Like not too long ago--things had gotten pretty tense at work because of a series of reviews that were being conducted in our area by high-level management. The supervisor of my area had taken a lot of heat during the reviews and we had worked overtime several weeks in a row, as well as working a couple of weekends. Everyone was overworked and on edge when our supervisor "went off" on a group of us; we ended up staying even later that night.

By the time I got home, I was exhausted and frazzled and just wanted to kick my shoes off and relax. My partner had been working around the house while he/she was waiting on me to get home and he/she wanted to finish the project he/she was doing. As I was watching his/her work, I started thinking about what he/she looked like--how sexy and attractive he/she was--and, even though I was exhausted, I wanted him/her to pay attention to me, not that stupid project. I went up behind him/her and started caressing his/her back and whispered in his/her ear that I wanted to have sex with him/her. I told him/her I wanted him/her to make me feel good, to help me forget about my worries. I asked him/her to start with a massage and sparks flew from that point on. It was a tremendous feeling! I was completely exhausted that night after our lovemaking. I'll tell you one thing, the warm, tingling glow I felt afterwards made me feel like I was drifting in heaven. My problems didn't seem like such a big deal by that time, as I lay there stroking his/her body and kissing his/her face. Anymore, making love is one of my favorite ways to relax and unwind when I am really "stressed out" and when I'm not feeling very good about things at the time.

Manuscript accepted June 4, 1996

I thank Yukti Ahuja for assistance in collecting data. I also thank Mary Ziemba-Davis, Carol Lawton, and Patrick Drumm for extremely helpful comments on an earlier version of the article. Address correspondence to Craig A. Hill, Ph.D., Department of Psychological Sciences, Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne, Fort Wayne, IN 46805-1499.

Craig A. Hill Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne