Printer Friendly

The development and validation of the motives for feigning orgasms scale.

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

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

INTRODUCTION

Human behaviour, including in the context of social and sexual relationships, is rarely without motive. Recent research in the area of sexual motivation has focused on motives for engaging in sex (e.g., Cooper, Shapiro, & Powers, 1998; Impett, Peplau, & Gable, 2005; Meston & Buss, 2007; Meston, Hamilton, & Harte, 2009; Muise, 2011; Muise, Impett, Kogan, & Desmarais, 2012) and indicates that motivations for sex can impact sexual and relationship satisfaction. The approach-avoidance theoretical framework, where approach motives are adopted to gain something positive from an experience (e.g., pursuing sex to gain emotional closeness with a partner), and avoidance motives, to avoid a negative experience (e.g., engaging in sex to avoid losing a partner's interest; Impett et al.) has been put forth as a framework for organizing sexual motivations. The framework also allows for the generation of specific hypotheses regarding the relationship between specific motives and sexual and relational outcomes. Impett et al. (2005) argued that if an individual has sex for approach motives such as to pursue physical pleasure or to promote emotional closeness, the experience can be felt to be inherently rewarding and could lead to other positive outcomes such as increased satisfaction. On the other hand, if an individual engages in sex for avoidance motivations such as to avoid upsetting a partner, or to cope with one's own negative emotions, they posited that it would at best provide some relief, and at worst lead to negative emotional and relationship consequences. The approach-avoidance framework is grounded in Gray's (1987) and Cooper et al.'s (1998) work on behavioural motivation.

Although motives for sex have previously been studied (e.g., Cooper et al., 1998; Impett et al., 2005; Meston & Buss, 2007; Meston, et al., 2009; Muise, 2011; Muise et al., 2012), little research exists on motives for other types of sexual behaviours such as feigning orgasm. Parallel to research on reasons for sex, feigning orgasm for love or intimacy reasons may have beneficial sexual and/or relational outcomes. In contrast, feigning orgasm for negative affective reasons, such as insecurity, might degrade sexual or relationship satisfaction. However, research on motivations for feigning orgasm is limited in several respects, not the least of which is a lack of a comprehensive measurement tool to assess motivations for feigning among men and women.

Virtually all research on pretending orgasm has focused on women (e.g., Darling & Davidson, 1986; Dove & Wiederman, 2000; Wiederman, 1997). This research typically examined the prevalence of feigning orgasm, or investigated potential factors that may be associated with this behaviour; such as, cognitive distraction during sexual activity (Dove & Wiederman, 2000), sexual experience, sexual attitudes, and self-perceived physical attractiveness (Wiederman, 1997). Findings regarding the prevalence of feigning orgasm among women have been relatively consistent, indicating at least half of women have feigned orgasm during sexual activity. Among a sample of 161 female university students, 55.6% reported having feigned orgasm during penile-vaginal intercourse (Wiederman, 1997). Similarly, in another sample of female college students who had experienced oral sex, genital petting and penile-vaginal intercourse, 65% reported having feigned orgasm or given the impression that an orgasm had occurred when it had not (Bryan, 2001). In contrast, studies examining the prevalence of pretending orgasm among men are rare (e.g., Muehlenhard & Shippee, 2010; Steiner, 1981). This may be due, in part, to the assumption that since men's orgasms are usually accompanied by ejaculation, it is either more difficult for men to pretend orgasm, or it is impossible for them to do so (e.g., Braun, Gavey, & McPhillips, 2003). However, recent research suggests that some men do feign orgasm. In a sample of 281 university students, Muehlenhard and Shippee found that approximately 25% of men (compared to 50% of women) had done so during partnered sex (vaginal intercourse, oral sex, or manual stimulation).

Although some research has explored factors associated with women's feigning orgasm, very few studies have examined individuals' reported motives for doing so. Studies which have investigated this phenomenon indicate that individuals pretend orgasm for a variety of reasons. In an interview study involving 73 heterosexual college students, women reported pretending orgasm to reassure their partners of their adequacy as lovers, or to avoid that their partners get upset (Roberts, Kippax, Waldby, & Crawford, 1995). Other reported reasons include wanting the sexual encounter to end (e.g., Bryan, 2001) reinforcing their partners for a behaviour that they liked (e.g., Hite, 1976), and to keep their partners from leaving them (Bryan, 2001; Hite). Muehlenhard and Shippee (2010) explored both men's and women's reasons for pretending orgasm, and found that, men and women had engaged in this behaviour because orgasm was unlikely or taking too long (84% of men; 71% of women), they wanted the sexual encounter to end (82% of men; 61% of women), they desired to avoid a negative consequence such as to avoid upsetting a partner (58% of men; 78% of women), or to attain a positive outcome such as to please a partner (13% of men; 47% of women). Recently, Cooper et al. (2014) published a scale validation paper focused on women's motivations for feigning orgasm, which supported four primary motivations: altruistic deceit (faking orgasm out of concern for a partner's feelings); fear and insecurity (faking orgasm to avoid negative emotions); elevated arousal (faking orgasm to increase her own arousal); and sexual adjournment (faking orgasm to quickly end sexual intercourse). However, construct validity and test-retest reliability was not assessed, the measure was developed with an undergraduate sample, and was designed to assess only women's motivations for feigning orgasm.

Given that motives for engaging in sex were previously shown to have an impact on levels of sexual desire, and relationship and sexual satisfaction (e.g., Impett et al., 2005; Impett, Strachman, Finkel, & Gable, 2008; Katz & Tirone, 2009; Muise, 2011; Stephenson, Ahrold, & Meston, 2011), it is plausible that motives for feigning orgasm may also be impactful on sexual function and relationship wellbeing. However, it is very difficult to assess these impacts without a comprehensive, validated measure to assess individuals' motives to pretend orgasms. While previous research investigated individuals' motives for feigning orgasm, no measure was used or developed to assess them. The purpose of the current investigation was twofold. First, we aimed to develop and validate a scale to assess men's and women's motives for pretending orgasm. Second, we sought to investigate gender differences in motivations for feigning orgasm using the new measure. In Study 1, items were developed and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to develop the Motives for Feigning Orgasms Scale (MFOS). In Study 2, confirmatory factor analysis was used to validate the factor structure, and construct validity and test-retest reliability was assessed. In addition, gender differences on the MFOS's subscales were investigated.

STUDY 1

Methods

Participants

Participants were recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), a crowdsourcing Internet marketplace. MTurk is a website where Requesters can post tasks known as Human Intelligence Tasks (HITs) for MTurk users (known as Workers) to complete for a nominal fee. Requesters are able to ask that Workers fulfill certain qualifications before engaging in a task. Social science and psychology researchers have used MTurk for data collection for studying a wide variety of topics including fame (Greenwood, Long, & Dal Cin, 2013), cognitive behaviour (Crump, McDonnell, & Gureckis, 2013), and impulsivity and sensation-seeking (Webster & Crysel, 2012). Research shows that MTurk data meets acceptable psychometric standards, with mean alphas in the good to excellent range ([alpha] = .73 to .93 across multiple scales and levels of participant compensation; Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011). Test-retest reliability in a set of individual difference measures has also been supported (r = .80 to .94; Buhrmester et al., 2011). Moreover, some research demonstrated that MTurk data are virtually indistinguishable from laboratory data (Casler, Bickel, & Hackett, 2013). Typical MTurk compensation ranges anywhere between $0.05 and $0.10 for small tasks (approximately 5 to 10-minute tasks), and awarding $.50 for 30-minute tasks has been shown to have good response rates (Buhrmester et al., 2011).

For the purpose of this study, MTurk workers were only able to access the survey if they had a 95% HIT approval rate, and had had completed a minimum of 100 approved HITs. Participants were required to be between the ages of 18 and 29 to maximize variability in terms of education, relationship length and status while minimizing the likely influence of other confounding variables such as menopause and declining health. Eligibility criteria for the analyses also included being in a relationship for a minimum of 4 weeks (to maximize the chances that they would be sexually active), and being a Canadian or American citizen. Lastly, participants were excluded from analyses if they reported taking antidepressants. This exclusion criterion is founded in research suggesting that antidepressants can negatively impact orgasmic function (Rosen et al., 1999; Rothschild, 2000).

Procedure

Participants were registered workers on the MTurk website. On the main HIT page, Workers are able to read about current HITs or search within available HITS for tasks appropriate to their demographic characteristics or skill sets. Interested participants on MTurk were directed to a University Guelph website, on which a link to the survey on SurveyMonkey was posted. Once on the SurveyMonkey website, and before beginning the survey, interested participants viewed an Informed Consent page, and upon indicating their consent, individuals were required to answer screening questions to ensure that they were eligible to participate. Eligible participants then filled out a series of measures and questions pertaining to their personal background, sexual desire, sexual and relationship satisfaction, and feigning orgasm. When the survey was completed, participants were redirected to a debriefing page onto which a survey code was posted. Participants were required to provide this survey code on the corresponding HIT page on MTurk to confirm that they completed the survey. By providing the survey code, participants also secured compensation, which was wired directly to

their MTurk accounts approximately one week after completing the survey. Data was collected over a period of two days in January, 2013.

Five hundred and twenty-five (307 men, 218 women) completed the questionnaire. Given that the purpose of this study was to develop a scale measuring men's and women's motives for feigning orgasm with their current partner, only participants who reported feigning orgasm with their current partner were retained for subsequent analyses. The analytic sample therefore comprised of 147 participants (53 men, 94 women). In terms of prevalence, this indicates that approximately 17% of men and 43% of women have simulated having an orgasm with their current partner.

Measures

Demographic and sexual history questionnaire. The survey began with several questions pertaining to demographic characteristics and sexual history. Demographic characteristics included, but were not limited to, age and sex. The sexual history questionnaire included items related to orgasm feigning behaviour, such as "Do you occasionally pretend to have an orgasm during sexual activity with your current partner?," and "At what age did you first have vaginal/anal/oral sex with a partner?"

Motives for feigning orgasm scale (MFOS). A questionnaire measuring individuals' motives for pretending orgasm was developed based on past research on feigning orgasm. Most motives were directly taken from findings generated by Muehlenhard and Shippee's (2010) study, which identified a total of six broad motives: 1) the orgasm was unlikely to happen, or it was taking too long (e.g., my partner was unattractive), 2) I wanted the sex to end (e.g., I felt tired or wanted to sleep), 3) my partner's orgasm seemed imminent (e.g., My partner was about to have an orgasm), 4) To avoid a negative consequence (e.g., I wanted to avoid hurting my partner's feelings), 5) To get a positive consequence (e.g., I wanted my partner to think that s/he did a good job), and 6) I did not want to have an orgasm. Given that the sixth motive was extremely uncommon (only 2 men, and none of the women, endorsed this reason), items were not developed related to this motive. The remaining items were developed based on Bryan's (2001; e.g., I wanted to avoid losing partner) and Hite's (1976) (e.g., I wanted to reinforce a sexual technique that my partner used) findings. A total of 60 items were developed. Participants were asked, "From 1--Not at all important to 7--Extremely important, please rate how important each of the following reasons were in influencing your decision to pretend to have an orgasm with your current partner (from the first time, to the most recent time you pretended to have an orgasm with your current partner)." Motives were presented in random order throughout the questionnaire to minimize question order bias.

Data Analysis

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to determine the factor structure. One item, with a typographic error, was removed from the data set leaving a total of 59 items. The data were analyzed using maximum likelihood factor analysis with oblimin rotation. Maximum likelihood factor analysis was selected because of the theoretical nature of the investigation. Oblique rotation was considered to be appropriate because the items were based on a theoretical model of independent overarching motives, with potentially correlated sub-motives within each (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Cronbach's alphas were also computed for internal consistency evaluation.

An initial factor analysis was run and communalities were examined. Given that communalities were relatively high (>.50; Neill, 2013), no items were removed on this basis. Following the initial factor analysis, communalities were not examined. In the subsequent analyses, items were removed in a systematic fashion. Items that had factor loadings lower than .32 and higher than 1.00 were removed. According to Comrey and Lee (1992), loadings of .32 (10% overlapping variance) are poor, loadings of .45 (20% overlapping variance) are fair, loadings of .55 (30% overlapping variance) are good, loadings of .63 (40% overlapping variance) are very good, and loadings of .71 (50% overlapping variance) are excellent. However, factor loadings greater than 1 may be indicative of multicollinearity (Babakus, Ferguson, & Joreskog, 1987). In addition, items that loaded on more than one factor and two-item factors were removed. Finally, to minimize redundancy, three items were removed (i.e., my partner was not very good in bed; I was exhausted and felt like sleeping; my partner seemed as though s/he was about to have an orgasm) due to their contribution to very high Cronbach's alphas (i.e., [alpha] [greater than or equal to] .94). Although relatively high Cronbach's alphas are considered to be good, very high alpha coefficients are an indicator that a subscale is too narrow, or that its items are redundant (see review by Boyle, 1991). A total of 10 sequential factor analyses were conducted. The tenth factor solution comprised 6 factors which accounted for 63.78 of the variance. This solution was selected as the final solution because it was clean (no non-loading items, no double loading items, and no single or two-item factors), and all eigenvalues were greater than 1. Eigenvalues are an indicator of variance, and because the variance that each standardized variable contributes to a principal components extraction is 1, factors with eigenvalues lower than 1 are not considered to be important (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Communalities for the items ranged from .368 to .976, and almost three-fourths (72%) of the communalities were higher than .500. Scree plots also indicated that a 6-factor solution would sufficiently represent the MFOS data. The chi square goodness-of-fit test was significant (chi square = 207.44, p = .014). However, this test is very sensitive to sample size and may not be reliable with a data set of this size (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Finally, the final factor solution was interpretable and theoretically meaningful. All items in the final factor structure met the .32 criterion. Fourteen of the 25 items in the final factor structure had loadings that are "excellent," 3 that are considered "very good," 2 that are "good," 4 that are "fair," and 2 that would be considered "poor" according to the Comrey and Lee's (1992) standard.

To create subscales based on factors, the mean of items loading on a factor was calculated.

Results

Participant Characteristics

Of the 147 participants, 36% identified as male and 64% identified as female. The mean age of the sample was 24.9 (SD = 2.81, range = 18-29). Relationship length ranged from 2 to 210 months; the mean relationship length was 39.56 months (SD = 34.30) (See Table 1 for the sample's demographics).

Most (94.5%) reported having engaged in vaginal (98.6%) and oral sex (96.6%) in their lifetimes, with 18.10 years (SD = 2.98) as the mean age for first vaginal intercourse, and 18.02 years (SD = 3.19) for first oral sex experience. Two-thirds of the sample (66%) indicated having engaged in anal sex, with 19.37 years (SD = 2.71) as the mean age for first anal intercourse. While not every participant reported having engaged in vaginal, oral, or anal sex, all have reported engaging in at least one of these three sexual activities.

Exploratory Factor Analysis

The exploratory factor analyses resulted in a 25-item 6-factor solution (see Table 2). Five of the six factor scales fell within normal range for skewness (between 1 and -1); the Partner Self-Esteem scale did not. Four of the six factor scales fell within normal range for kurtosis (between 2 and -1); both the Partner Self-Esteem and the Desireless Sex scales did not. The factor scales were correlated from weak to moderate levels (Cohen, 1988), suggesting that they are distinct and independent factors. Cronbach's alphas for the final factor scales ranged from .822 to .936, and the mean alpha for all six subscales was .858. Table 3 displays factor scales and factor loadings for each item, and Table 4 displays inter-subscale correlation coefficients.

Factor 1: Intoxication. The first factor consisted of 3 items and accounted for 22.39% of the variance ([alpha] = .936). Factor loadings ranged from .733 to .945. All items loading on Factor 1 pertain to alcohol and/or drug use that lead some individuals to feign orgasm. The mean score for this factor was 2.70 (SD = 1.99). High scores on this factor indicate that high alcohol consumption and/or drug use was an influential reason in a person's decision to having feigned an orgasm with their current partner.

Factor 2: Partner Self-Esteem. The second factor comprised 5 items and accounted for 18.85% of the variance ([alpha] = .830). Factor loadings ranged from .343 to .900. Items loading on Factor 2 emphasized the importance of a partner's happiness or self-esteem in influencing a person's decision to pretend orgasm. The mean score for this factor was 5.71 (SD = 1.20). High scores on this factor reflect a desire to increase a partner's self-esteem or happiness by delivering an orgasm.

Factor 3: Poor Sex/Partner. The third factor was composed of 4 items and accounted for 8.31% of the variance ([alpha] = .863). Factor loadings ranged from .524 to .906. Items loading on Factor 3 pertained to discomfort or displeasure attributable to the sexual experience or to the sexual partner, both of which may hamper an individual's willingness or ability to reach orgasm. The mean score for this factor was 2.60 (SD = 1.61). High scores on this subscale indicate that discomfort with a sexual partner, or a lack of pleasure from the overall sexual experience, were influential factors in an individual's decision to feign an orgasm with their partner.

Factor 4: Desireless Sex. The fourth factor was made up of 4 items and accounted for 5.45% of the variance ([alpha] = .822). Factor loadings ranged from -.353 to -.906. Three out of the four items loading on Factor 4 pertained to being uninterested in sex as a factor in one's decision to have feigned an orgasm with their partner. The item with the lowest factor loading (i.e., "I wanted to avoid discussing my not having an orgasm") is more of an indicator that a person might be motivated to pretend orgasm to avoid discussing sex. The mean score for this factor was 3.97 (SD = 1.71). Higher scores indicate that having sex without desire is an important factor in the person's decision to pretend orgasm.

Factor 5: Timing. The fifth factor was made up of 3 items and accounted for 4.59% of the variance (a = .853). Factor loadings ranged from -.575 to -.898. All items loading on Factor 3 emphasized the importance of having an orgasm at the same time as one's partner, or of not having an orgasm after one's partner. As such, endorsement of items loading on Factor 5 suggests an individual would like to create the impression that he or she is having an orgasm when his or her partner is. The mean score for this factor was 4.33 (SD = 1.89), with higher scores indicating that a person's past decisions to feign an orgasm with a current partner were related to his or her perception of the timing of his or her partner's orgasm.

Factor 6: Insecurity. The sixth factor was made up of 6 items and accounted for 3.68% of the variance ([alpha] = .841). Factor loadings ranged from .519 to .761. The first 3 items are self-oriented and pertain to a desire to present an image of oneself as sexy and sexually healthy or "normal." The last 3 items are relationship-oriented, one concerned with the maintenance of the relationship with the partner and two of which pertain to the maintenance of a pleasant sexual activity. The mean score for this factor was 3.67 (SD = 1.61). Taken together, the majority of the items on this factor reflect insecurities related to the self or relationship. Higher scores indicate that feelings of insecurity with regards to oneself or to the relationship were influential in that person's decision to pretend orgasm with his or her partner.

STUDY 2

In Study 1, the MFOS was developed with EFA. The purpose of Study 2 was to perform a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to validate the factor structure, evaluate the measure's construct validity and test-retest reliability, and to assess gender differences on the MFOS subscales.

Methods

Participants

Inclusion criteria were identical to those used in Study 1. Given that the purpose of this study was to assess the MFOS's validity, and to perform CFA, it was important that similar samples be used. Again, participants were recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), and those who completed the survey were each compensated $0.50.

Procedure

The same process of following study links to a SurveyMonkey survey, reading informed consent material, indicating consent, and answering screening questions developed for Study 1 was adopted in Study 2. Eligible participants then filled out a series of measures and questions pertaining to their personal background, and motives for feigning orgasm and engaging in sex. To assess the MFOS's construct and discriminant validity, measures assessing sexual goals, inhibition/activation, and sexual compulsivity were included.

When the survey was completed, participants were redirected to a debriefing page onto which a survey code was posted. Participants were required to provide this survey code on the corresponding HIT page on MTurk to confirm that they completed the survey. Data was collected over a period of 8 days in March, 2013.

Measures

Demographics. See study Study 1 and Table 1 for demographic data on the study participants.

Motivations for Feigning Orgasms Scale (MFOS). Developed in Study 1, the 25-item MFOS comprised of six subscales was administered.

Sexual Goals questionnaire. Impett, et al.'s (2005) nine-item questionnaire of sexual goals, adapted from Cooper et al.'s (1998) work, measures five approach and four avoidance goals that have been commonly endorsed by individuals in past research. Each given approach and avoidance goal is rated on 7-point scales with answers ranging from 1--not at all important, to 7--extremely important. Over a 14-day

study, the average within-person reliability coefficients were .71 for approach motives and .90 for avoidance motives (Impett et al., 2005, 2008).

We hypothesized that, because they measure similar motives, scores obtained on the Approach Motives subscale of the Sexual Goals questionnaire would positively correlate with those obtained on the MFOS's Partner Self-Esteem and Timing subscales, and that they would not correlate with scores obtained on the Intoxication, Poor Sex/Partner, and Desireless Sex subscales. For similar reasons, we hypothesized that scores obtained on the Avoidance Motives subscale would correlate positively with those obtained on the Insecurity subscale of the MFOS, and not correlate with scores obtained on the Partner Self-Esteem and Timing subscales.

Behavioural Inhibition System/Behavioural Activation System Scale (BIS/BAS). The BIS/BAS (Carver & White, 1994) is a 24-item questionnaire measuring individuals' affective response to future rewards (BAS) and punishments (BIS). This questionnaire includes four subscales; the BIS, the BAS Drive, the BAS Fun Seeking, and the BAS Reward Responsiveness. Test-retest reliability has been evaluated during an 8-week span among a sample of 113 college students, yielding a coefficient of .66 for the BIS, .66 for the BAS Drive, .59 for the BAS Reward Responsiveness, and .69 for the BAS Fun Seeking (Carver & White, 1994). The BIS and BAS have also been shown to be distinct constructs, with research demonstrating very low correlation coefficients between the BIS and all BAS subscales (Carver & White, 1994).

Scores obtained on the BAS Drive were expected to positively correlate with the Poor Sex/Partner and Desireless Sex subscales of the MFOS, given that feigning orgasm in these situations is likely to function as a way of bringing the sexual encounter to an end. On the other hand, scores obtained on the BAS Fun-Seeking subscale were hypothesized to be uncorrelated with any of the MFOS subscales, given that persons who seek fun and excitement would be more likely to engage in behaviours that would enhance fun and pleasure during sex rather than in behaviours that will only give semblance of it. Scores obtained on the BAS Reward-Responsiveness were expected to correlate with the Intoxication, Poor Sex/Partner, Desireless Sex, and Insecurity subscales of the MFOS because they measure self-focused motives, all of which would lead to a desired result (i.e., the end of an unpleasant or undesired sexual encounter, or a desired perception of oneself on the part of their partners). Lastly, scores obtained on the BIS were expected to positively correlate with those obtained on the Insecurity subscale of the MFOS given that it measures motives geared toward avoiding negative consequences (e.g., losing a partner, appearing frigid or inadequate, etc.).

Sexual Compulsivity Scale (SCS). The Sexual Compulsivity Scale (SCS; Kalichman, et al., 1994) is a 10-item scale designed to assess insistent, intrusive, and uncontrolled sexual thoughts and behaviours, and has demonstrated excellent internal consistency across different populations (e.g., [alpha] = .77 in female college students, and [alpha] = .81 in male college students; Dodge, Reece, Cole, & Sandfort, 2004). Test-retest reliability over a period of two weeks sits at r = .95 (Kalichman & Rompa, 1995), and at r = .64 over a period of three months (Kalichman et al., 1994).

Scores obtained on the SCS were hypothesized to positively correlate with the MFOS's Intoxication and Poor Sex/Partner subscales, as sexually compulsive individuals might also be theoretically likely to engage in other compulsive behaviours such as excessive drinking and/or drug use before having sex, and to exhibit poor decision-making in terms of choosing a sexual partner. In addition, scores obtained on the SCS were hypothesized to be uncorrelated with the Partner Self/Esteem or the Timing subscales, which underlie the desire to please a partner rather than to compulsively satisfy one's own needs and desires.

Analyses

To assess the MFOS's factor structure, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted. Models were tested using AMOS 7. Analyses were conducted on covariance matrices with results of the final models reported as standardized estimates for ease of interpretation. Factor scaling was conducted by setting one factor loading to 1.0 for each factor. The chi-square difference test ([DELTA][chi square]; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1982) was used to determine whether model modifications provided significant improvement at each step. The critical value used for all comparisons was p < .01.

Model fit was evaluated by examining the following fit indexes; model [chi square] and the ratio of [chi square]/df (Bollen, 1989); Normed Fit Index (NFI; Bentler & Bonett, 1980); Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI; Bentler & Bonett); Comparative Fit Index (CFI; Bentler, 1990); and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA; Steiger, 1990). The model was determined to fit well if a consensus measures met or exceeded generally accepted levels. It is assumed that model [chi square] should be non-significant if the model fits well. Moreover, NFI, TLI, and CFI values were consulted. These values should exceed .9 to indicate acceptable fit. RMSEA, which demonstrates the amount of error variance per degree of freedom in the model and should result in values smaller than .5, was also consulted.

Pearson correlation coefficients were used to assess the MFOS's test-retest reliability, as well as its convergent and discriminant validity for the Sexual Goals questionnaire, the BIS/BAS, and the SCS.

Finally, t-tests were computed to determine whether men's and women's scores on the MFOS's subscales differ.

Results

Participant Characteristics

Of the 194 participants, 47.9% identified as male, and 52.1%, as female. The mean age of the sample was 25.1 (SD = 2.61). For this sample, relationship length ranged from 1 to 174 months, and the mean relationship length was 34.5 months (SD = 29.35).

Motives for Feigning Orgasm

Table 5 presents mean scores for each MFOS item for men and women, as well as the percentage of men and women who endorsed the items. The motivation for pretending orgasm that was most commonly endorsed by men was "I wanted to boost my partner's self-esteem" (87.1%), while women most commonly endorsed the item "I wanted to make my partner feel good about himself/herself" (95%). The least endorsed reason for pretending orgasm among men was "My partner was unskilled" (26.9), while women least commonly endorsed "I regretted my choice of partner" (12.9%).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

First, the possibility that a unidimensional model fit the MFOS's items was assessed. This model resulted in an unacceptable fit (see Table 6). An analysis of the six factors defined by 25 MFOS items, including modelling correlations among all factors, resulted in a better, yet still unacceptable fit. Modification indices indicated that by correlating the factors Poor Sex/Partner and Desireless Sex, Partner Self-Esteem and Timing, and Intoxication and Insecurity, the overall model fit (as assessed by the [chi square]) would improve by up to 123.32. Mean scores on these factor pairs were more highly correlated at the bivariate level than other combinations of factors. In addition, these pairs of factors seemed to represent similar underlying phenomena. Poor Sex/Partner and Desireless Sex seemed to reflect one's desire for the sexual encounter to end, Partner Self-Esteem and Timing seemed to reflect pro-social motives for feigning orgasm, and Intoxication and Insecurity both appeared to reflect anxiety-reduction strategies. Further, modification indices indicated that by correlating the error terms of items "I wanted to avoid appearing frigid" and "I wanted to avoid appearing abnormal or inadequate," and items "I wanted to avoid hurting my partner's feelings" and "I wanted to avoid discussing my not having an orgasm," the overall model fit ([chi square]) would improve by a value of approximately 84.86.

A second analysis of the six factors with the added three factor correlations and two residuals correlations did yield a significantly better model fit, but it was still judged to be inadequate. Modification indices resulting from this analysis indicated that by correlating residual terms of items "I wanted to avoid losing my partner" and "I wanted to avoid hurting my partner's feelings," the overall model fit ([chi square]) would improve by approximately 27.59.

A third analysis of the six factors with the added three residuals correlations produced, albeit significantly different, only a slightly better model fit. Modification indices resulting from this analysis did not suggest any further residuals correlations that would greatly improve the model fit. Thus, a six factor model was judged to be unable to accurately represent the MFOS's 25 items. Consequently, a different approach was sought, and three different two-factor models (Partner-Self-Esteem --Timing, Poor Sex/Partner--Desireless Sex, and Intoxication--Insecurity) were tested.

An analysis of the Partner Self-Esteem--Timing two-factor model (the Pro-social Model) in which both factors were correlated (r = .45), resulted in a good model fit (see Figure 1). All factor loadings were statistically significant and ranged from .46 to .89, with an average standardized factor loading of .68. Squared multiple correlations ranged from .22 to .80, with a mean of .48.

Next, an analysis of the Poor Sex/Partner--Desireless Sex two-factor model (the Get it Over with Model) in which both factors were correlated (r = .61), resulted in a good model fit (see Figure 2). All factor loadings were statistically significant and ranged from .45 to .81, with an average standardized factor loading of .72. Squared multiple correlations ranged from .20 to .66, with a mean of .53.

Finally, an analysis of the Intoxication--Insecurity two-factor model (the Anxiety Reduction Model) in which both factors were correlated (r = .37), resulted in a fair model fit. Modification indices indicated that by correlating residuals of items "I wanted to avoid appearing frigid" and "I wanted to avoid appearing abnormal or inadequate," and of items "I wanted to add a bit of excitement to our lovemaking" and "I wanted to appear or feel sexy," the model's overall fit would improve by a value of 64.24. A second analysis of this two-factor model with two added residuals correlations produced a significantly different, and acceptable model fit (see Figure 3). All factor loadings were statistically significant and ranged from .61 to .91, with an average standardized factor loading of .71. Squared multiple correlations ranged from .38 to .83, with a mean of .53 indicating that, on average, 53% of the variance in observed variables was accounted for by the latent variables. Although this model well represented the MFOS's Intoxication and Insecurity factor scales, the data contained within the Insecurity factor was found to be theoretically represented by two sub-factors. Three of its items, "I wanted to avoid appearing frigid," "I wanted to avoid losing my partner," and "I wanted to avoid appearing abnormal or inadequate," represented avoidance motives for pretending orgasm that stem from insecurity (the Insecurity sub-factor), while "I wanted to reinforce a sexual technique that my partner used," "I wanted to appear or feel sexy," and "I wanted to add a bit of excitement to our lovemaking" represented approach motives (the Improve Sex sub-factor). Cronbach's alphas revealed good internal consistency for the Insecurity ([alpha] = .752) and Improve Sex ([alpha] = .791) sub-factors. Confirmatory factor analysis of this new model, comprising the Insecurity, Improve Sex, and Intoxication factors (the Feel Better Model) in which all factors were inter-correlated (refer to Figure 4) resulted in a good model fit. All factor loadings were statistically significant and ranged from .61 to .91, with an average standardized factor loading of .78. Squared multiple correlations ranged from .37 to .83, with a mean of .62. Given that this model offered a better theoretical representation of the MFOS data compared to the former two-factor model, this model was retained.

Consequently, the MFOS's data was found to be better represented by three models (two comprised of two factors, and a third comprised of 3 factors) rather than by one six-factor model correlate. This suggests that, although they all lead to the same behaviour, reasons for feigning orgasm may represent different sexual strategies. Alternatively, it may also suggest that there is not an overarching model representing motives for pretending orgasm.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Pearson correlation coefficients were used to assess the MFOS's convergent and discriminant validity.

Sexual Goals Questionnaire. The expectations of positive correlations between the Approach Motives subscale of the Sexual Goals questionnaire and the Partner Self-Esteem, Timing, and Improve Sex subscales of the MFOS were supported (see Table 7). Although the strength of these relationships is only moderate, they nonetheless suggest that individuals who engage in sex with their partners for approach reasons (e.g., to please my partner; to promote intimacy in my relationship), tend to also be the ones to feign orgasm for reasons related to their partner's emotional wellbeing (e.g., to make my partner feel good about him/herself; I wanted to make my partner happy), or for reasons related to the pursuit of intimate experiences with their partner such as reaching orgasm simultaneously. As expected, the Approach Motives subscale was also found to not correlate with the Intoxication, Poor Sex/Partner, Desireless Sex, and Insecurity subscales, providing additional supporting evidence for the MFOS's discriminant validity. This lack of correlation suggests that individuals who endorse having sex for approach reasons (e.g., to pursue my own sexual pleasure; to feel good about myself) would be less likely to consume alcohol and/or drugs before sex (at least for reasons stemming from anxiety), feign orgasm because they are having an unsatisfying sexual experience (e.g., my partner was unskilled; the sex was awkward), or because they had sex without desire.

Contrary to expectations, all of the MFOS subscales were correlated with the Avoidance Motives subscale of the Sexual Goals questionnaire. Though these correlations are all statistically significant, most range from low to moderate. As expected, a strong correlation was found for the Insecurity subscale, suggesting that the more a person endorses having sex for avoidance reasons (e.g., to avoid conflict in my relationship; to prevent my partner from getting angry at me), the more likely he or she is to feign orgasm for similar reasons (e.g., to avoid losing my partner; I wanted to avoid appearing abnormal or inadequate).

Behavioural Inhibition System/Behavioural Activation System Scale. As expected, although relatively low, significant positive relationships were found between the BAS Drive subscale and the Poor Sex/Partner and Desireless Sex subscales of the MFOS, suggesting that driven people are likely to feign orgasm to put an end to a sexual encounter they did not desire or that was unpleasant. No significant correlations were found for the BAS Fun-Seeking subscale, which supports the posited hypotheses, and provides supporting evidence of the MFOS's discriminant validity. The expectation of positive correlations between the BAS Reward-Responsiveness subscale and the Intoxication, Poor Sex/Partner, Desireless Sex, and Insecurity subscales of the MFOS was supported. However, contrary to expectations, BIS scores were found to be uncorrelated with the Insecurity subscale, suggesting that individuals who tend to be motivated by feelings of anxiety are not necessarily motivated to feign orgasm for reasons related to feelings of insecurity.

Sexual Compulsivity Scale. Consistent with the hypotheses, the MFOS's Intoxication and Poor Sex/Partner subscales were found to positively correlate with scores on the Sexual Compulsivity Scale. However, low and moderate positive correlations were also found between SCS and Desireless Sex, Insecurity, and Improve Sex scores. Nonetheless, the stronger relationships (i.e., Intoxication and Poor Sex/Partner) reflect posited hypotheses and provide good supporting evidence of the MFOS's convergent validity. Moreover, as expected, scores obtained on the SCS did not significantly correlate with the Partner Self/Esteem or the Timing subscales, demonstrating good discriminant validity.

Test-Retest Reliability

Eighty-eight participants accessed the Time 2 survey, two weeks after completing it for the first time. Of these 88 participants, two were dropped from analyses because they indicated not having feigned an orgasm with their current partner, and seven more participants were excluded because they no longer met one or more eligibility criteria. In addition, 5 more participants were excluded from analyses due to missing data. The final sample consisted of a total of 74 participants.

Test-retest Pearson coefficients were .82 for Intoxication, .59 for Partner Self-Esteem, .81 for Poor Sex/Partner, .76 for Desireless Sex, .51 for Timing, .71 for Insecurity, and .76 for Improve Sex.

Gender differences on the MFOS

The mean scores on all seven factors are displayed in Table 8. Independent sample 1-tests indicated that compared to their female counterparts, men scored higher on the Intoxication (t(177.94) = -5.619, p < .001), the Poor Sex/Partner (1(171.02) = -3.873, p < .001), and the Insecurity (1(192) = -4.562, p < .001) subscales of the MFOS. No significant gender difference was found for the Partner Self-Esteem (1(192) = 1.291, p > .05), Desireless Sex (1(192) = -1.044, p > .05), Timing (1(192) = -.281, p > .05), and Improve Sex (1(192) = -1.757, p > .05) subscales.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this investigation was twofold; 1) to develop and validate a scale to assess men's and women's motives for pretending orgasm; and 2) to investigate gender differences in motivations for feigning orgasm using the new measure. Participants reported feigning orgasm for a variety of reasons, which exploratory factor analysis indicated could be organized into six categories: Intoxication, Partner Self-Esteem, Poor Sex/Partner, Desireless Sex, Timing, and Insecurity. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was also conducted; however this analysis supported three models, two of which were comprised of two factors, and the third, of three factors. That CFA did not support a six-factor model but rather three models with a total of seven factors suggests that there may not be an overarching model representing motives for pretending orgasm. The MFOS's test-retest reliability was also assessed, and found to be only moderate, which suggests that individuals' motives for pretending orgasm may be event-specific. Men's and women's motives for feigning orgasm might then vary from one sexual encounter (or from one partner) to the next. While both men and women were found to pretend orgasm for all reasons listed in the MFOS, men scored higher on the Intoxication, Poor Sex/Partner, and Insecurity subscales. No gender differences were found on the Partner Self-Esteem, Desireless Sex, Timing, and Improve Sex subscales.

In Study 1, approximately one-third of individuals (approximately one-fifth of men and just over 40% of women) occasionally pretended orgasm with their current dating or marital partner, which is consistent with Muehlenhard and Shippee's (2010) findings. The finding that many people feign orgasms supports existing sexual scripts (e.g., Simon & Gagnon, 1986; Wiederman, 2005). Interpersonal scripts operate as guidelines for context-specific behaviours that have been influenced by relevant cultural scripts (Simon & Gagnon, 1986). Findings from the current study suggest that interpersonal sexual scripts give individuals guidelines for what is considered a normal timeframe for a person to experience an orgasm, that people "should" experience one during sex (i.e., the Insecurity subscale), and that sexual activity is expected to end with an orgasm (i.e., the Poor Sex/Partner and Desireless Sex subscales). In addition, the current findings support a discourse of reciprocity (i.e., the Timing subscale; Braun, et al., 2003). In the context of partnered sex, this discourse translates to both partners experiencing pleasure and orgasm during a sexual encounter (Braun et al., 2003). Reciprocally pleasurable or orgasmic sex has been found to be perceived as desirable, and non-reciprocal sexual encounters (e.g., during which only one partner experiences orgasm), as problematic or 'unfair' (Braun et al., 2003).

It is interesting to note that men and women did not significantly differ in their levels of endorsement of partner-focused approach reasons for feigning orgasm (e.g., I wanted to boost my partner's self-esteem; I wanted to make my partner happy). These results conflict with those of past research. For example, Muehlenhard and Shippee (2010) found that women were more likely than men to pretend orgasm to please their partner. In another study, Roberts et al. (1995) found that many women reported pretending orgasm to reassure their partners that they are indeed sexually adequate; their orgasm serving as 'proof' of their male partners' sexual prowess. Moreover, Nicolson and Burr (2003) found that while women often did not expect to achieve orgasm during intercourse with their male partners, nor did they feel that it was directly tied to their sexual satisfaction, they indicated that achieving orgasm in this context was desired for their partner's sake. These findings suggest that women are aware and sensitive to their male partners' need to perceive themselves as sexually skilled and desired partners, supporting sexual script theory. One of the most prominent sexual scripts for men is the male performance script (e.g., Sakaluk, Todd, Milhausen, Lachowsky, & Undergraduate Research Group in Sexuality URGiS, 2014). According to this theory, men tie their adequacy as a sexual partner to their skills, their ability to read and respond to their partner's sexual needs, and to their partner's experience of pleasure (e.g., Roberts et al.; Wiederman, 2005). In Sakaluk et al., both male and female participants were well aware of the male performance script. Similarly, the current investigation's findings suggest that women were aware of the male performance script and feigned orgasm to support their partner's perception of himself as sexually skilled. However, our results suggest that men are also sensitive to their partners' need to perceive themselves as good sexual partners (i.e., sexually attractive, sexually skilled, exciting, desirable, etc.). In keeping with this, Sakaluk et al. also found evidence for a new sexual script surrounding the need for women to be sexual skilled. Thus, it appears, based on the current research, that both men and women may feign orgasm to support their partner's sexual self-esteem; providing tacit endorsement for male and female sexual performance scripts.

No significant gender differences were found in scores obtained on the Timing subscale (e.g., because my partner's orgasm seemed imminent). Again, this finding contradicts Muehlenhard and Shippee's results (2010), which indicated women were more likely than men to have feigned orgasm for this reason. Nonetheless, the present study's results further support the reciprocity discourse. Specifically, if one perceives their partner's orgasm to be imminent, they may feign orgasm to create the appearance of mutual and simultaneous orgasms. Alternatively, some participants may have already felt satiated by the time their partners reached orgasm, and therefore simulated orgasm to avoid the extra undesired "work" required by their partners for them to genuinely reach orgasm, while at the same time fulfilling their partner's expectations of reciprocal pleasure.

The male performance script, along with the finding that the male orgasm is considered a normative and imperative end point in the sequence of heterosexual sex (Braun et al., 2003) can together explain feigning behaviour in men. For men, feigning orgasm can serve to ensure that their partners perceive them as 'normal' or 'adequate' sexual partners. In the current study, men were more likely than women to pretend orgasm for reasons related to feelings of insecurity and sexual inadequacy (e.g., I wanted to avoid appearing frigid; I wanted to avoid losing my partner). If a man perceives his orgasm to be the normative, and therefore expected, end point in the sequence of a given sexual encounter, he might then be more likely to feign orgasm to preserve an appearance of competence and normalcy.

In addition, pretending orgasm can offer men a certain degree of control during a sexual encounter in that it allows them to put an end to it without running the risk of potentially offending their partner or of hurting his or her feelings. Moreover, given that a woman's perception of herself as a desirable sexual partner is centred on being visually attractive (Wiederman, 2005), it is possible that some men choose to feign orgasm as a way of reassuring their female partners that they find them attractive and sexually desirable. By making their female partners feel attractive and sexually adequate, men increase the probability of retaining them as future sexual and relationship partners. In addition, the reciprocity discourse surrounding heterosexual encounters can also shed light on men's feigning behaviour. This discourse posits that 'fair' sexual encounters involve pleasure and orgasm for both partners, and that a lack of reciprocity in these matters is viewed as problematic or 'unfair' (Braun et al., 2003). Men (and women) might then pretend orgasm to give their partner the semblance of equality in the sexual exchange (i.e., one orgasm for another), thereby fulfilling their partner's expectations and preventing him or her from experiencing feelings of guilt from not having 'given' what was 'deserved'.

In support of these points, men in the current sample were more likely than women to endorse pretending orgasm for reasons related to a poor partner choice or a poor sexual experience. Despite potentially failing to find a partner or sexual activity appealing, men may have feigned orgasm to buttress their partner's self-esteem or contribute to her perception of mutuality or reciprocity. Our findings parallel those of Muehlenhard and Shippee's (2010), in which men were more likely than women to pretend orgasm because they found their partner to be unattractive, regretted their choice of partner, and because they were uncomfortable with a partner. Men might be more likely than women to feign orgasm for these reasons because they feel less able to turn down sex (Sakaluk et al., 2014), perhaps leading them to find themselves engaging in sex with less than optimally desired partners. For example, Clark and Hatfield (1989) found that most men were very receptive to sexual offers from a stranger, compared to virtually none of the women. Similarly, in a sample of college students, Njus and Bane (2009) found that compared with women, men reported being more willing to engage in intercourse with partners they had only known for a short period. Alternatively, evolutionary theories suggest women should be "choosier" with regard to sex partners (Buss & Schmitt, 1993), thus potentially finding themselves more likely to engage sexually with partners they consider desirable.

This study found that men were significantly more likely than their female counterparts to endorse feigning orgasm for reasons related to intoxication. This finding corroborates Muehlenhard and Shippee's (2010), in which 29% of the men in their sample reported having feigned orgasm because they were too intoxicated, compared to only 4% of the women Men might be more likely to pretend orgasm due to intoxication compared to women either because they are more likely to drink to intoxication (Roberts, 2012), and/or because these substances impair men's sexual functioning in a way that make intercourse difficult or impossible.

Strengths and Limitations

By providing participants with a sense of privacy and anonymity, conducting an online survey study helped to increase the probability of obtaining honest responses from participants, thus increasing the accuracy of results. In addition, recruiting this sample online allowed for a more heterogeneous sample in terms of ethnicity, education, and student and employment status compared to past study samples which were predominantly comprised of American college or university students (e.g., Impett et al., 2005; 2008; Katz & Tirone, 2009; Muehlenhard & Shippee, 2010; Stephenson et al., 2011). Furthermore, by restricting this study to emerging adults (individuals aged between 18 and 29 years), the effect of other confounding variables on orgasm function, such as menopause and declining health, has been diminished.

In spite of its strengths, this study also has limitations. It is possible that those who chose to participate in this study are not representative of the general population in that they may generally be more sex-positive or feel more comfortable discussing sex, relationships, and orgasms. In addition, MTurk workers might have taken the survey out of curiosity, lying on some eligibility criteria and/or about whether they have indeed ever feigned an orgasm with their current partner to access the portion of the survey pertaining to motives for pretending orgasm. Given that compensation was so low ($0.50), dishonesty for the motive of obtaining compensation is less probable. Finally, the survey relied on participants' retrospection of past instances of feigning orgasm in their current relationship, which could span over several years, which may decrease the accuracy of results. That many of the subscales' test-retest reliability coefficients only ranged from low to moderate, may be the result of poor recall, or to the possibility that motives for pretending orgasm are event-specific rather than relatively constant over time. Future research should, therefore, investigate this possibility.

The finding that Improve Sex and Insecurity motives, which seemingly oppose each other in nature (akin to approach and avoidance motives), both loaded on the same factor, is puzzling. Future research pertaining to motives for feigning orgasm should investigate how participants interpreted these subscales' items, via additional survey questions or by means of face-to-face interviews. It is possible, for example, that some of the Improve Sex subscale items may be measuring motives that stem from feelings of insecurity, especially given the moderate but significant correlation found between scores obtained on this subscale and those obtained on the Insecurity subscale. For example, one individual may report feigning orgasms because they fear losing their partner's sexual interest (avoidance motive) if they are not sexually responsive, whereas another may endorse the item similarly, but to feel or appear sexy because they think it will amplify their sexual experience (approach motive).

Implications

This study produced a new, comprehensive measure of women's and men's motivations for feigning orgasm that can be used in future research. The MFOS can enhance our understanding of human motivation in the realm of sexuality, and can be administered concurrently with other measures and questionnaires to gain insight on the impact of motives for pretending orgasm on sexual function and satisfaction, or to reach a better understanding of possible factors that may lead some individuals to pretend orgasm for given motives.

This study contributes to our understanding of men's feigning behaviour; results suggest that pretending orgasm is not only a 'female' behaviour. Given that between 17 (this study's findings) and 25 percent of men (Muehlenhard & Shippee, 2010) occasionally feign orgasm, researchers should continue to include men in research pertaining to this type of behaviour. In addition, as elaborated above, the inclusion of men's data in this study further inform current cultural and interpersonal sexual scripts for both men and women.

doi: 10.3138/cjhs.2613

REFERENCES

Babakus, E., Ferguson, C.E.J., & Joreskog, K.G. (1987). The sensitivity of confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis to violations of measurement scale and distributional assumptions. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 24(2), 222-228. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3151512

Bender, P.M. (1990). Fit indices, LaGrange multipliers, constraint changes, and incomplete data in structural models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 163-172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_3

Bender, P.M., 8c Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588-606. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00332909.88.3.588

Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118619179.

Boyle, G.J. (1991). Does item homogeneity indicate internal consistency or item redundancy in psychometric scales? Retrieved from http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgifarticle= 10018ccontext=greg_boyle http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/01918869(91)90115-R.

Braun, V., Gavey, N., & McPhillips, K. (2003). The "fair deal"? Unpacking accounts of reciprocity in heterosex. Sexualities, 6(2), 237-261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1363460703006002005

Bryan, T.S. (2001). Pretending to experience orgasm as a communicative act: How, when, and why some sexually experienced college women pretend to experience orgasm during various sexual behaviors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence.

Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S.D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980

Buss, D.M., & Schmitt, D.P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204 Medline:8483982

Carver, C.S., & White, T.L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 319-333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319

Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon's MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2156-2160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.009

Clark, R.D., 8t Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 2(1), 39-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J056v02n01_04

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Comrey, A.L., & Lee, H.B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cooper, E.B., Fenigstein, A., 8t Fauber, R.L. (2014). The faking orgasm scale for women: psychometric properties. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(3), 423-435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/sl0508-013-0212-z Medline:24346866

Cooper, M.L., Shapiro, C.M., & Powers, A.M. (1998). Motivations for sex and risky sexual behavior among adolescents and young adults: a functional perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(6), 1528-1558. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00223514.75.6.1528 Medline:9914665

Crump, M.J.C., McDonnell, J.V., & Gureckis, T.M. (2013). Evaluating Amazon's Mechanical Turk as a tool for experimental behavioral research. PLoS ONE, 8(3), e57410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057410 Medline:23516406

Darling, C.A., & Davidson, J.K., Sr. (1986). Enhancing relationships: understanding the feminine mystique of pretending orgasm. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 12(3), 182-196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00926238608415405 Medline:3761371

Dodge, B., Reece, M., Cole, S.L., & Sandfort, T.G. (2004). Sexual compulsivity among heterosexual college students. Journal of Sex Research, 41(4), 343-350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224490409552241 Medline:15765274

Dove, N.L., & Wiederman, M.W. (2000). Cognitive distraction and women's sexual functioning. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 26(1), 67-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/009262300278650 Medline:10693117

Gray, J.A. (1987). Perspectives on anxiety and impulsivity: A commentary. Journal of Research in Personality, 21(4), 493-509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(87)90036-5

Greenwood, D., Long, C.R., & Dal Cin, S. (2013). Fame and the social self: The need to belong, narcissism, and relatedness predict the appeal of fame. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(5), 490-495. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.04.020

Hite, S. (1976). The Hite report. New York: Macmillan.

Impett, E.A., Peplau, L.A., & Gable, S.L. (2005). Approach and avoidance sexual motives: Implications for personal and interpersonal well-being. Personal Relationships, 12(4), 465-482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111 /j. 1475-6811.2005.00126.x

Impett, E.A., Strachman, A., Finkel, E.J., 8c Gable, S.L. (2008). Maintaining sexual desire in intimate relationships: the importance of approach goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(5), 808-823. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.5.808 Medline: 18444740

Joreskog, K.G., & Sorbom, D. (1982). Recent developments in structural equation modeling. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 404-416. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3151714

Kalichman, S.C., Johnson, J.R., Adair, V., Rompa, D., Multhauf, K., & Kelly, J.A. (1994). Sexual sensation seeking: scale development and predicting AIDS-risk behavior among homosexually active men. Journal of Personality Assessment, 62(3), 385-397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/sl5327752jpa6203_16Medline:8027907

Kalichman, S.C., & Rompa, D. (1995). Sexual sensation seeking and Sexual Compulsivity Scales: reliability, validity, and predicting HIV risk behavior. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65(3), 586-601. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/sl5327752jpa6503_16 Medline:8609589

Katz, J., & Tirone, V. (2009). Women's sexual compliance with male dating partners: Associations with investment in ideal womanhood and romantic well-being. Sex Roles, 60(5-6), 347-356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/slll99-008-9566-4

Meston, C.M., & Buss, D.M. (2007). Why humans have sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36(4), 477-507. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/si0508-007-9175-2 Medline: 17610060

Meston, C.M., Hamilton, L.D., & Harte, C.B. (2009). Sexual motivation in women as a function of age. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 6(12), 3305-3319. http://dx.doi.org/10.lll 1/j.17436109.2009.01489.x Medline:19751384

Muehlenhard, C.L., & Shippee, S.K. (2010). Men's and women's reports of pretending orgasm. Journal of Sex Research, 47(6), 552-567. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224490903171794 Medline: 19707929

Muise, A. (2011). Getting' it on vs. getting it up: The association between sexual goals, interdependence and sexual desire in long-term relationships. (Doctor of Philosophy thesis).

Muise, A., Impett, E.A., Kogan, A., & Desmarais, S. (2012). Keeping the spark alive: Being motivated to meet a partner's sexual needs sustains sexual desire in long-term romantic relationships. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 00(0), 1-7.

Neill, J. (2013). Survey research and design in psychology [PowerPoint presentation]. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/jtneill/exploratory-factor-analysis

Nicolson, P., & Burr, J. (2003). What is 'normal' about women's (hetero)sexual desire and orgasm?: a report of an in-depth interview study. Social Science & Medicine, 57(9), 1735-1745. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00012-1 Medline: 12948581

Njus, D.M., & Bane, C.M.H. (2009). Religious identification as a moderator of evolved sexual strategies of men and women. Journal of Sex Research, 46(6), 546-557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224490902867855 Medline:19343580

Roberts, C., Kippax, S., Waldby, C., & Crawford, J. (1995). Faking it: The story of "ohh!". Women's Studies International Forum, 18(5/6), 523-532.

Roberts, S.C.M. (2012). Whether men or women are responsible for size of gender gap in alcohol consumption depends on alcohol measure: A study across U.S. states. Contemporary Drug Problems, 39(2), 195-212. Medline:23248388

Rosen, R.C., Lane, R.M., & Menza, M. (1999). Effects of SSRIs on sexual function: a critical review. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, 19(1), 67-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004714199902000-00013 Medline:9934946

Rothschild, A.J. (2000). Sexual side effects of antidepressants. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 61(Suppl 11), 28-36. Medline: 10926052

Sakaluk, J.K., Todd, L.M., Milhausen, R., Lachowsky, N.J., & Undergraduate Research Group in Sexuality URGiS. (2014). Dominant heterosexual sexual scripts in emerging adulthood: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Sex Research, 51(5), 516531. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.745473 Medline:23672338

Simon, W., & Gagnon, J.H. (1986). Sexual scripts: permanence and change. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15(2), 97-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01542219 Medline:3718206

Steiger, J.H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modifications: An internal estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173-180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/sl5327906mbr2502_4

Steiner, A.E. (1981). Pretending orgasm by men and women: An aspect of communication in relationships. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology, Berkeley=Alameda.

Stephenson, K.R., Ahrold, T.K., 8t Meston, C.M. (2011). The association between sexual motives and sexual satisfaction: gender differences and categorical comparisons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(3), 607-618. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/sl0508-0109674-4 Medline:20967494

Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Webster, G.D., 8r Crysel, L.C. (2012). "Hit me, maybe, one more time": Brief measures of impulsivity and sensation seeking and their prediction of blackjack bets and sexual promiscuity. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(5), 591-598. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.07.001

Wiederman, M.W. (1997). Pretending orgasm during sexual intercourse: correlates in a sample of young adult women. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 23(2), 131-139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00926239708405314 Medline:9230494

Wiederman, M.W. (2005). The gendered nature of sexual scripts. Family Journal (Alexandria, Va.), 13(4), 496-502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1066480705278729

Lea J. Seguin, (1) Robin R. Milhausen, (2) and Tuuli Kukkonen (2)

(1) Department of Sexology, Universite du Quebec a Montreal, Montreal, QC

(2) Department of Family Relations and Applied Nutrition, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON

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

Table 1. Study 1 and Study 2 Sample Characteristics

                                            Study 1     Study 2
                                            Sample      Sample
                                           (n = 147)   (n = 194)
Characteristic                                 %           %

Gender
  Men                                        36.1        47.9
  Women                                      63.9        52.1
Citizenship
  American                                   97.3        99.0
  Canadian                                    2.7         1.0
Ethnicity
  White/Caucasian                            61.9        51.0
  Asian                                      19.7        30.9
  Latino/Latina                               6.1         4.6
  Black                                       5.4         5.7
  Other                                       6.9         5.6
Highest Level of Education Completed
  High school diploma                         4.8         8.2
  Some college/university                    32.7        21.1
  College/undergraduate degree               51.7        47.4
  Graduate degree                            10.2        22.2
Student Status
  Student                                    34.0        28.9
  Already graduated                          58.5        57.2
  Never attended a post-secondary             3.4         8.2
    institution
Employment Status
  Working full time                          45.6        60.3
  Working part time                          27.9        23.2
  Not working                                25.9        14.9
Religious Affiliation
  Yes                                        35.4        46.9
  No                                         61.9        51.0
Sexual Orientation
  Heterosexual                               84.4        82.0
  Bisexual/Pansexual                         13.6        14.9
  Gay/Lesbian                                 0.7         0.5
  Uncertain/Questioning                       0.7          0
Relationship Status
  Casually dating one or more partners        3.4        10.8
  Seriously dating one partner               42.2        46.4
  In a polyamorous/multipartnered             0.7         2.1
    relationship
  Living with a partner but not married      27.2        16.5
  Married                                    26.5        23.2
Children
  Yes                                        26.5        19.1
  No                                         72.8        79.9

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

Factor                Mean    SD    Skewness   Kurtosis

Intoxication          2.70   1.99      .788      -.801
Partner Self-Esteem   5.71   1.20    -1.37       2.25
Poor Sex/Partner      2.60   1.61      .715      -.767
Desireless Sex        3.97   1.71     -.189     -1.04
Timing                4.33   1.89     -.455      -.986
Insecurity            3.67   1.61      .072     -1.08

Factor                % of Variance   Alpha

Intoxication              22.39       .936
Partner Self-Esteem       18.85       .830
Poor Sex/Partner           8.31       .863
Desireless Sex             5.45       .822
Timing                     4.59       .853
Insecurity                 3.65       .841

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

Table 3. Study 1: Factor Scales and Factor Loadings from
Exploratory Factor Analysis

                                                      Factor
Factor and item                                       loading

Intoxication
  I had too much to drink                              .945
  I was too drunk                                      .900
  I was too intoxicated                                .733
Partner Self-Esteem
  I wanted my partner to think s/he did a good job     .900
  I wanted to make my partner feel good about          .820
    himself/herself
  I wanted to boost my partner's self-esteem           .786
  I wanted to make my partner happy                    .633
  I wanted to avoid hurting my partner's feelings      .343
Poor Sex/Partner
  I felt uncomfortable with my partner                 .906
  The sex was awkward                                  .814
  I regretted my choice of partner                     .654
  My partner was unskilled                             .525
Desireless Sex
  I was not in the mood                                -.906
  I did not feel like having sex                       -.778
  I felt tired or wanted to sleep                      -.732
  I wanted to avoid discussing my not having           -.353
    an orgasm
Timing
  My partner seemed ready to have an orgasm            -.898
  My partner was about to have an orgasm               -.844
  My partner's orgasm seemed imminent                  -.575
Insecurity
  I wanted to avoid appearing frigid                   .761
  I wanted to feel or appear sexy                      .644
  I wanted to avoid appearing abnormal or              .578
    inadequate
  I wanted to add a bit of excitement to our           .538
    lovemaking
  I wanted to avoid losing my partner                  .523
  I wanted to reinforce a sexual technique             .519
    that my partner used

Table 4. Study 1: Correlations among the MFOS's Factor Scores

Factor                      1          2         3

1. Intoxication             --
2. Partner Self-Esteem   -.051        --
3. Poor Sex/Partner       .488 **   .120        --
4. Desireless Sex         .331 **   .264 **   .434 **
5. Timing                 .273 **   .455 **   .324 **
6. Insecurity             .453 **   .367 **   .569 **

Factor                      4         5      6

1. Intoxication
2. Partner Self-Esteem
3. Poor Sex/Partner
4. Desireless Sex          --
5. Timing                .361 **     --
6. Insecurity            .460 **   .446 **   --

Note: * p < .005 ** p < .001

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

                                      Mean (SD)           % Endorsed *

MFOS Item                         Men          Women      Men    Women

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

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

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

Model                       [X.sup.2]   df    [X.sup.2]/df

1 Factor                    1717.51 *   275       6.25
6 Factor (first analyses)   1101.83 *   275       4.01
6 Factor (second             859.18 *   270       3.18
  analyses)
6 Factor (third analyses)    826.12 *   269       3.07
2 Factor (Pro-Social)         47.99 *    19       2.53
2 Factor (Get it Over         57.21 *    19       3.01
  with)
2 Factor (Anxiety            122.88 *    26       4.73
  Reduction)
2 Factor (Anxiety             58.24 *    24       2.43
  Reduction, second
  analyses)
3 Factor (Feel Better)        48.50 *    24       2.02

Model                       [X.sup.2]diff   NFI    TLI    CFI    RMSEA

1 Factor                                    .393   .377   .429   .165
6 Factor (first analyses)                   .610   .643   .673   .125
6 Factor (second              242.65 *      .696   .741   .767   .106
  analyses)
6 Factor (third analyses)      33.06 *      .708   .754   .780   .104
2 Factor (Pro-Social)                       .914   .919   .945   .089
2 Factor (Get it Over                       .915   .912   .941   .102
  with)
2 Factor (Anxiety                            .86   .841   .885   .139
  Reduction)
2 Factor (Anxiety              64.64 *      .934   .939   .959   .086
  Reduction, second
  analyses)
3 Factor (Feel Better)                      .945   .956   .971   .073

Note: * p < .01

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

                       Sexual     Sexual
                       Goals       Goals       BAS          BAS
MFOS Factors          Approach   Avoidance    Drive     Fun-Seeking

Intoxication           .025       .368 **     .016         -.040
Partner Self-Esteem    .387 **    .199 **    -.021         -.050
Poor Sex/Partner      -.077       .503 **     .249 **       .122
Desireless Sex        -.140       .327 **     .168 *        .052
Timing                 .243 **    .168 **     .072          .116
Insecurity             .082       .606 **     .129          .153 *
Improve Sex            .381 **    .478 **     .052          .069

                        BAS Reward                Sexual
MFOS Factors          Responsiveness    BIS    Compulsivity

Intoxication               .289 **      .090     .463 **
Partner Self-Esteem       -.078        -.020     .020
Poor Sex/Partner           .443 **      .041     .479 **
Desireless Sex             .367 **     -.085     .192 **
Timing                     .072        -.038     .120
Insecurity                 .330 **      .034     .371 **
Improve Sex                .139         .125     .324 **

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

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

                        Women          Men

                      Mean    SD    Mean    SD      t      sig

Intoxication          2.21   1.63   3.68   1.99   -5.619   .000
Partner Self-Esteem   5.84   1.04   5.64   1.15    1.291   .192
Poor Sex/Partner      2.37   1.41   3.29   1.86   -3.873   .000
Desireless Sex        3.54   1.65   3.80   1.76   -1.044   .298
Timing                4.77   1.83   4.84   1.62    -.281   .779
Insecurity            2.90   1.65   4.06   1.87   -4.562   .000
Improve Sex           4.49   1.83   4.95   1.85   -1.757   .081

Note: Test significance was determined at p < .05
COPYRIGHT 2015 SIECCAN, The Sex Information and Education Council of Canada
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2015 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Seguin, Lea J.; Milhausen, Robin R.; Kukkonen, Tuuli
Publication:The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality
Article Type:Report
Date:Apr 1, 2015
Words:12515
Previous Article:Effectiveness of a sexual assault awareness and prevention workshop for youth: A 3-month follow-up pragmatic cluster randomization study.
Next Article:Perks, problems, and the people who play: a qualitative exploration of dominant and submissive BDSM roles.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters