Sexual Relationship Scale

Abstract

The Sexual Relationship Scale (SRS) is a 24-item, objective self-report instrument developed by Hughes and Snell (1990) to measure dispositional differences in how individuals approach their sexual relationships. Specifically, it assesses the degree to which a person adopts either a communal or an exchange orientation toward sexual intimacy. The SRS utilizes a 5-point Likert-type format, requiring respondents to rate how characteristic each statement is of them (from ‘Not at all characteristic of me’ to ‘Very characteristic of me’). This scale is rooted in the broader relationship theory proposed by Clark and Mills (1979), extending the concepts of communal and exchange relationships into the domain of sexual behavior and satisfaction.

The scale yields two subscale scores: the Exchange Approach to Sexual Relations and the Communal Approach to Sexual Relations. The SRS is designed to identify chronic interpersonal orientations, where a communal approach emphasizes caring for a partner’s sexual needs, and an exchange approach emphasizes a transactional, quid pro quo view of sexual benefits and obligations.

Keywords

Sexual Relationship Scale, SRS, Communal relationship, Exchange relationship, Relationship Orientation, Sexual Satisfaction, Relationship Satisfaction, Interpersonal Giving, Quid pro quo.

Authors

T. Hughes, William E. Snell, Jr.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Sexual Relationship Scale (SRS) is to provide a standardized, empirical measure of an individual’s chronic dispositional orientation toward sexual relationships. It seeks to quantify whether individuals primarily view sexual intimacy through a communal lens, focusing on a partner’s welfare and needs, or an exchange lens, emphasizing reciprocity and obligation.

The scale was designed to facilitate research into how these fundamental relationship orientations—derived from the work of Clark and Mills (1979)—manifest specifically within the context of sexual interactions. By distinguishing between these two approaches, researchers can better predict outcomes such as relationship satisfaction and behavioral patterns related to sexual giving and receiving, sexual debts, and perceived obligations.

Construct

The SRS measures two distinct psychological constructs regarding sexual intimacy, both derived from the foundational distinction between communal and exchange relationships:

• Communal Approach to Sexual Relations: This orientation is characterized by a high degree of caring, concern, and responsibility for a partner’s sexual satisfaction and overall welfare. Individuals with a strong communal orientation are motivated to respond to their partner’s needs without the expectation of immediate or comparable reciprocation, prioritizing the partner’s pleasure and sexual well-being, and demonstrating a desire to respond to that person’s sexual welfare.

• Exchange Approach to Sexual Relations: This orientation views sexual interactions as a form of quid pro quo transaction. Individuals operating under this framework are primarily concerned with the balance of benefits given and received, often involving perceived sexual debts and obligations. They do not feel an inherent responsibility for the partner’s satisfaction unless it is in response to a past benefit they have received or a benefit that has been promised in the future.

Validity

Preliminary evidence supports the construct validity of the SRS through both correlational and factor analytic methods. The subscales demonstrated expected correlations with established measures of relationship orientation. Specifically, the sexual communion subscale showed significant positive correlations with Clark’s Communal Orientation scale for females and the combined subject group. Similarly, the sexual exchange subscale was positively correlated with Clark’s Exchange Orientation scale across males, females, and the combined group, confirming that the SRS successfully extends these broader relationship concepts into the sexual domain.

Furthermore, the SRS subscales demonstrated predictive validity regarding relationship satisfaction. For males, a significant negative relationship was observed between an exchange approach to sexual relations and overall relationship satisfaction. Conversely, for females, a statistically significant positive correlation was found between adopting a communal approach and reporting higher relationship satisfaction. These patterns of correlation provide preliminary evidence that the SRS measures constructs that are meaningfully related to relationship quality, suggesting that a communal approach is associated with greater satisfaction, while an exchange approach is detrimental, particularly for males.

Reliability

The internal consistency of the two SRS subscales was assessed using Cronbach alpha coefficients, indicating sufficient reliability for research use (Hughes & Snell, 1990). The coefficients varied slightly by gender and subscale:

• Sexual Communion Subscale: Reliability coefficients were strong, measuring .77 for males, .79 for females, and .78 for the combined group.

• Sexual Exchange Subscale: Coefficients were lower but acceptable, recorded at .59 for males, and .67 for both females and the combined group.

These findings indicate that both subscales possess sufficient internal consistency to justify their application in research settings. Additionally, analyses revealed that among females, the two SRS subscales are essentially orthogonal (uncorrelated) to one another, suggesting they measure two distinct, independent dimensions of sexual relationship orientation.

Factor Analysis

A principal components factor analysis utilizing oblique rotation was conducted on the SRS items to determine if the statements would form two separate, conceptually distinct clusters. Initially, several items unrelated to the initial factor solutions were deleted, and the factor analysis procedure was then reconducted.

The revised analysis provided clear support for the hypothesized two-factor model, particularly within the female sample, where conceptually similar items clustered together. Factor I, identified as the sexual communion factor, demonstrated an eigenvalue of 4.81, accounting for 20% of the variance. Factor II, representing the sexual exchange factor, yielded an eigenvalue of 2.98, accounting for 12% of the variance. Although the results for the male sample were less clear due to a smaller sample size, the overall factor structure supports the independence of the communal and exchange constructs measured by the SRS.

Instrument

Test Type: Objective Self-report Instrument (Psychometric Scale)

Format: 24 items utilizing a 5-point Likert-type scale (A=Not at all characteristic of me to E=Very characteristic of me). Responses are typically recorded on a computer scan sheet.

Language Available: English (Original Publication)

Population Group: Adults involved in or reflecting upon intimate sexual relationships.

Age Group: Generally used with young adults and university populations in initial studies.

Population Details: Designed to assess chronic dispositional differences in sexual relationship orientation, based on the theoretical framework of communal versus exchange relationships developed by Clark and Mills (1979).

Test Methodology: Pencil-and-paper or computer-administered questionnaire. Completion typically requires 10–15 minutes.

Keywords

Sexual Communication, Reciprocity, Relationship Dynamics, Intimacy, Dispositional Differences, Psychological Measurement, Sexual Obligations, Welfare Concern.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not specified in source.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not specified in source.

Correspondence Address: William E. Snell, Jr., Southeast Missouri State University (Affiliation at time of publication).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Sexual Relationship Scale (SRS) was first published in 1990 by Hughes and Snell. The scale was based on earlier orientation scales developed by Clark and colleagues (1987, 1989). Information regarding current usage fees or specific permissions for commercial use is not provided in the original text. Academic researchers typically contact the primary author for permission regarding non-commercial use.

Reference’s

• Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 12–24.

• Clark, M. S., Ouellette, R., Powell, M. C., & Milberg, S. (1987). Recipient’s mood, relationship type, and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 94–103.

• Clark, M. S., Taraban, C., Ho, J., & Wesner, K. (1989). A measure of exchange orientation. Unpublished manuscript, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.

• Hughes, T., & Snell, W. E., Jr. (1990). Communal and exchange approaches to sexual relations. Annals of Sex Research, 3, 149–163.

Items of the Sexual Relationship Scale

Instructions: Listed below are several statements that concern the topic of sexual relationships. Please read each of the following statements carefully and decide to what extent it is characteristic of you. Some of the items refer to a specific relationship. Whenever possible, answer the questions with your current partner in mind. If you are not currently dating anyone, answer the questions with your most recent partner in mind. If you have never had a relationship, answer in terms of what you think your responses would most likely be. Then, for each statement fill in the response on the answer sheet that indicates how much it applies to you by using the following scale:

A = Not at all characteristic of me.

B = Slightly characteristic of me.

C = Somewhat characteristic of me.

D = Moderately characteristic of me.

E = Very characteristic of me.

Note: Remember to respond to all items, even if you are not completely sure. Your answers will be kept in the strictest confidence. Also, please be honest in responding to these statements.

1. It would bother me if my sexual partner neglected my needs.
2. When I make love with someone, I generally expect something in return.
3. If I were to make love with a sexual partner, I’d take that person’s needs and feelings into account.
4. If a sexual partner were to do something sensual for me, I’d try to do the same for him/her.
5. I’m not especially sensitive to the feelings of a sexual partner.
6. I don’t think people should feel obligated to repay an intimate partner for sexual favors. (R)
7. I don’t consider myself to be a particularly helpful sexual partner.
8. I wouldn’t feel all that exploited if an intimate partner failed to repay me for a sexual favor. (R)
9. I believe sexual lovers should go out of their way to be sexually responsive to their partner.
10. I wouldn’t bother to keep track of the times a sexual partner asked for a sensual pleasure. (R)
11. I wouldn’t especially enjoy helping a partner achieve their own sexual satisfaction.
12. When a person receives sexual pleasures from another, s/he ought to repay that person right away.
13. I expect a sexual partner to be responsive to my sexual needs and feelings.
14. It’s best to make sure things are always kept “even” between two people in a sexual relationship.
15. I would be willing to go out of my way to satisfy my sexual partner.
16. I would do a special sexual favor for an intimate partner, only if that person did some special sexual favor for me.
17. I don’t think it’s wise to get involved taking care of a partner’s sexual needs.
18. If my sexual partner performed a sexual request for me, I wouldn’t feel that I’d have to repay him/her later on. (R)
19. I’m not the sort of person who would help a partner with a sexual problem.
20. If my sexual partner wanted something special from me, s/he would have to do something sexual for me.‌‌‌
21. If I were feeling sexually needy, I’d ask my sexual partner for help.
22. If my sexual partner became emotionally upset, I would try to avoid him/her.
23. People should keep their sexual problems to themselves.
24. If a sexual partner were to ignore my sexual needs, I’d feel hurt.

Note. R = reverse-coded item.