Hostname: page-component-8678677fb7-n2cvw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-10-22T12:59:37.428Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Psychometric Properties of a Portuguese Version of the Revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2016

Félix Neto
Félix Neto*
Affiliation:
Universidade do Porto, Portugal
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE: Félix Neto, Faculdade de Psicologia e de Ciências da Educação, Universidade do Porto, rua Alfredo Allen, 4200-135 Porto, Portugal. Email: fneto@fpce.up.pt
Get access

Abstract

Sociosexuality refers to the propensity to engage in sexual relations without closeness or commitment, varying from a restricted to an unrestricted orientation. The aim of this research was to scrutinise the psychometric properties of a Portuguese version of the revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI-R; Penke & Asendorpf, 2008). The study included 549 persons (50% women) aged 18–75 years (M = 38.73; SD = 17.77). The psychometric properties of the SOI-R were analysed by means of confirmatory factor analysis, internal consistency, and validity. Confirmatory factor analysis showed the expected three-factor structure of the measure. The SOI-R presented adequate internal consistency. Women were less unrestricted than men in all facets of sociosexuality. This Portuguese version of the SOI-R seems to be reliable and valid for evaluating sociosexuality in a Portuguese-speaking population, and can be utilised for experimental and applied works. The significance and limitations of the results are discussed.

Keywords

measurementsex differencesSociosexual Orientation Inventorysociosexuality

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Relationships Research , Volume 7 , 2016 , e5
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brislin, R.W. (2000). Some methodological concerns in intercultural and cross-cultural research. In Brislin, R.W. (Ed.), Understanding culture's influence on behaviour (2nd ed., pp. 349–411). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt.Google Scholar
Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen, K. A. & Long, J. S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park : Sage.Google Scholar
Buss, D., & Schmitt, D. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: A contextual evolutionary analysis of human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, A.P. (2006). Are the correlates of sociosexuality different for men and women? Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 1321–1327. doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.05.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R.L. (1995). Love and sex: Cross-cultural perspectives. New York: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Jackson, J.J., & Kirkpatrick, L.A. (2007). The structure and measurement of human mating strategies: Toward a multidimensional model of sociosexuality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 382–391. doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.04.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jankowski, K.S., Diaz-Morales, J.F., Vollmer, C., & Randler, C. (2014). Morningness-evingness and sociosexuality: Evening females are less restricted than morning ones. Personality and Individual Differences, 68, 13–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinsey, A.C., Pomeroy, W.B., & Martin, C.E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: Saunders.Google Scholar
Le Gall, A., Mullet, E., & Shafighi, S.R. (2002). Age, religious beliefs, and sexual attitudes. The Journal of Sex Research, 39, 207–216. doi.org/10.1080/00224490209552143 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lippa, R.A. (2009). Sex differences in sex drive, sociosexuality, and height across 53 nations: Testing evolutionary and social structures theories. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 631–651. doi.org/10.1007/s10508-007-9242-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meskó, N., Láng, A., & Kocsor, F. (2014). The Hungarian version of Sociosexual Orientation Inventory Revoised (SOI-R): Sex and age differences. Interpersona: An International Journal on Personal Relationships, 8, 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neto, F. (2012). The Satisfaction With Sex Life Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 45, 18–31. doi.org/10.1177/0748175611422898 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neto, F. (2015). Revisiting correlates of sociosexuality for men and women: The role of love relationships and psychological maladjustment. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 106–110. doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neto, F., & Pinto, M.C. (2015). A cross-cultural investigation of satisfaction with sex life among emerging adults. Social Indicators Research, 120, 545–557. doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0604-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penke, L. (2010). The revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory. In Fisher, T.D., Davis, C.M., Yarber, W.L., & Davis, S.L. (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality related measures (3rd ed., pp. 622–625). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J.B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1113–1135. doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robins, R.W., Hendin, H.M., & Trzesniewski, K.H. (2001). Measuring global self-esteem: Construct validation of a single measure and the Rosenberg self-esteem scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 151–161. doi.org/10.1177/0146167201272002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, D., Peplau, L., & Cutrona, C. (1980). The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and discriminate validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 472–480. doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.3.472 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmitt, D.P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 247–311. doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05000051 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simpson, J.A., & Gangestad, S.W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evience for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, J.A., Wilson, C.L., & Winterheld, H.A. (2004). Sociosexuality and romantic relationships. In Harvey, J. H., Wenzel, A., & Sprecher, S. (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 87–112). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sprecher, S., Treger, S., & Sakaluk, J. (2013). Premarital sexual standards and sociosexuality: Gender, ethnicity, and cohort differences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 1395–1405. doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0145-6 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Townsend, J.M. (1995). Sex without emotional involvement: An evolutionary interpretation of sex differences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 24, 173–205. doi.org/10.1007/BF01541580 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zheng, W., Zhou, X., Wang, X., & Hesketh, T. (2014). Sociosexuality in Mainland China. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 621–629. doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0097-x CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed