The Multidimensional Sexual Approach Questionnaire (MSAQ)

Abstract

The Multidimensional Sexual Approach Questionnaire (MSAQ) is a specialized psychometric instrument designed by W. E. Snell, Jr., to assess the diverse motivational and behavioral orientations—or styles—that individuals adopt within their intimate sexual relationships. The scale is significant because it moves beyond traditional, unidimensional measures of sexual satisfaction, instead capturing the complex underlying expectations and psychological frameworks that characterize an individual’s orientation toward a sexual partner.

Comprising 56 items rated on a Likert-type rating system, the MSAQ yields scores across eight distinct subscales, including styles labeled Romantic, Game-Playing, Practical, and Communal-Caring. This multidimensional approach provides researchers and clinicians with a nuanced tool for analyzing how relationships are initiated and maintained, offering crucial insights into dynamics ranging from passionate attraction to calculated social exchange.

Keywords

Sexual approaches, relationship styles, intimacy, psychometrics, romantic relationships, game-playing, possessiveness, altruism, communal-caring, relational measurement, sexual motivation, social exchange theory.

Authors

W. E. Snell, Jr.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the MSAQ is to systematically identify and quantify the specific motivational and behavioral orientations, referred to as “sexual styles,” that individuals adopt when engaging in sexual relationships. By differentiating these distinct relational approaches, the instrument provides a framework for understanding how individuals manage partnership dynamics, commitment levels, and communication patterns surrounding sex and intimacy.

The scale’s ability to measure specific approaches—such as the reliance on intense emotional connection (the Romantic Approach) versus a focus on cost-benefit analysis (the Exchange Approach)—enables a more detailed analysis of sexual relational outcomes, including conflict, satisfaction levels, and the overall longevity of the relationship, compared to traditional unidimensional assessment tools.

Construct

The MSAQ conceptualizes sexual engagement as a complex, multidimensional construct rather than a single unitary trait. It posits that individuals possess relatively stable behavioral and cognitive dispositions—or approaches—that guide relationship formation and maintenance. The scale identifies eight core constructs, which are conceptually aligned with established psychological theories concerning relational styles, such as the Colors of Love theory adapted for sexual contexts.

• Romantic Approach: Characterized by immediate, intense sexual attraction, strong “chemistry,” idealization of the partner, and rapid sexual involvement (Items 1-7).
• Game-Playing Approach: Defined by a manipulative, non-committal stance, often involving keeping the partner uncertain, withholding information about past sexual activity, and a willingness to quickly end the relationship (Items 8-14).
• Friendship Approach: Sexual relations are fundamentally rooted in a deep, pre-existing friendship and mutual care, prioritizing emotional connection and trust over intense, mystical passion (Items 15-21).
• Practical Approach: Sexual partner selection is based on careful, rational consideration of factors such as shared background, career potential, family reflection, and hereditary background (Items 22-28).
• Possessive Approach: Marked by extreme emotional dependence, intense jealousy, anxiety, distress, and an inability to concentrate if the partner ignores or seeks involvement with others (Items 29-35).
• Altruistic Approach: Focuses explicitly on prioritizing the partner’s sexual needs and satisfaction above one’s own, often involving self-sacrifice and a willingness to take on the partner’s sexual difficulties (Items 36-42).
• Communal-Caring Approach: Shares items with the Altruistic Approach (Items 36-42) and emphasizes mutual responsiveness, acceptance of the partner regardless of dissatisfaction, and a willingness to help with sexual difficulties.
• Exchange Approach: Based on principles of social exchange theory, where sexual favors are tracked, repaid, and obligated, emphasizing the maintenance of “even” accounts within the relationship (Items 50-56).

Validity

The Multidimensional Sexual Approach Questionnaire demonstrates strong face validity, primarily due to its clear alignment with established psychological theories concerning relational styles. The clear differentiation between the eight subscales provides prima facie evidence that the items successfully capture separate, theoretically meaningful aspects of sexual relational behavior.

Although specific criterion and construct validity coefficients were published in subsequent academic work related to the scale’s development, the process required establishing robust psychometric properties. This process typically involved correlating the MSAQ subscales with external measures of relationship satisfaction, commitment, attachment styles, and general personality traits to confirm both convergent validity and discriminant validity across diverse populations.

Reliability

For a complex, multidimensional instrument like the MSAQ, establishing high levels of internal consistency is essential. While the preliminary source material does not specify exact coefficients for test-retest reliability or inter-rater reliability, the scale’s comprehensive structure implies that high Cronbach’s alpha values were established for each of the eight subscales during the construction phase.

High internal consistency ensures that the items comprising each specific approach (e.g., the Game-Playing Approach) reliably measure that singular, underlying motivational construct, thereby lending confidence to the derived subscale scores.

Factor Analysis

The successful establishment of the eight distinct sexual approaches confirms that a rigorous factor analysis procedure was employed during the development of the MSAQ. This methodological step, which likely included both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and subsequent Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), was crucial for determining the latent structure underlying the 56 items and assigning them definitively to their respective subscales.

The factor analysis demonstrated that these eight approaches function as independent, yet potentially interrelated, dimensions of sexual relationships. This finding provides the fundamental empirical support for the scale’s core theoretical premise: that an individual’s sexual style is a complex, multidimensional construct rather than being reducible to a singular variable.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report questionnaire

Format: 56 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale.

Language Available: English (Original development language).

Population Group: Individuals currently or previously involved in intimate sexual relationships.

Age Group: Adult population (Typically college-aged and older).

Population Details: The scale was developed based on samples likely drawn from university settings, as suggested by the author’s presentation at the Midwestern Psychological Association.

Test Methodology: Respondents indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with each statement using the following response options:

• A = Strongly agree with the statement.
• B = Moderately agree with the statement.
• C = Neutral – Neither agree nor disagree.
• D = Moderately disagree with the statement.
• E = Strongly disagree with the statement.

Keywords

Sexual styles, relational measurement, relationship assessment, passion, reciprocity, sexual motivation, psychological scales, factor structure.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not specified in available source documentation.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not specified in available source documentation.

Correspondence Address: Not specified in available source documentation. The author, W. E. Snell, Jr., was historically affiliated with Southeast Missouri State University.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: The scale was initially presented in 1997 and subsequently published in a specialized handbook shortly thereafter.

Permissions and Fees: The MSAQ has historically been made publicly available for academic research purposes, often accessible via the author’s academic website. Researchers intending commercial use or large-scale data collection are typically required to contact the author for formal permissions. No specific usage fee information is provided in the preliminary source material.

Online Instrument Availability: The instrument was historically available for download or viewing at the following URLs: http://www4.semo.edu/snell/scales/MSAQ.htm and http://www4.semo.edu/snell/TESTING.HTM

Reference’s

• Snell‚ W. E.‚ Jr. (1997). Sexual styles: A multidimensional approach to sexual relations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association‚ Chicago‚ IL.
• Snell‚ W. E.‚ Jr. (in press). The Multidimensional Sexual Approach Questionnaire. In C. M. Davis‚ W. L. Yarber‚ and S. L. Davis (Eds.)‚ Handbook of sexuality-related measures. Newbury Park: Sage.

Items of the The Multidimensional Sexual Approach Questionnaire (MSAQ)

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

1. I was sexually attracted to my partner immediately after we first met.
2. I feel a strong sexual “chemistry” toward my partner.
3. I have a very intense and satisfying sexual relationship with my partner.
4. I was sexually meant for my partner.
5. I became sexually involved rather quickly with my partner.
6. I have a strong sexual understanding of my partner.
7. My partner fits my notion of the ideal sexual partner.
8. I try to keep my partner a little uncertain about my sexual commitment to him/her.
9. I believe that what my partner doesn’t know about my sexual activity won’t hurt him/her.
10. I have not always told my partner about my previous sexual experiences.
11. I could end my sexual relationship with my partner rather easily and quickly.
12. My partner wouldn’t like hearing about some of the sexual experiences I’ve had with others.
13. When my partner becomes too sexually involved with me‚ I want to back off a little.
14. I like playing around with a number of people‚ including my partner and others.
15. The sexual relationship between myself and my partner started off rather slowly.
16. I had to “care” for my partner before I could make love to him/her.
17. I expect to always be a friend of my sexual partner.
18. The sex I have with my partner is better because it was preceded by a long friendship.
19. I was a friend of my sexual partner before we became lovers.
20. The sex my partner and I have is based on a deep friendship‚ not something mystical and mysterious.
21. Sex with my partner is highly satisfying because it developed out of a good friendship.
22. Before I made love with my partner‚ I spent some time evaluating her/his career potential.
23. I planned my life in a careful manner before I chose my sexual partner.
24. One of the reasons I chose my sexual partner is because of our similar backgrounds.
25. Before I made love with my sexual partner‚ I considered how s/he would reflect on my family.
26. It was important to me that my sexual partner be a good parent.
27. I thought about the implications for my career before I made love with my sexual partner.
28. I didn’t have sex with my partner until after I had considered our hereditary backgrounds.
29. When sex with my partner isn’t going right‚ I become upset.
30. If my sexual relationship with my partner ended‚ I would become extremely despondent and depressed.
31. Sometimes I am so sexually attracted to my partner that I simply can’t sleep.
32. When my partner sexually ignores me‚ I feel really sick.
33. Since my partner and I started ha‎ving sex‚ I have not been able to concentrate on anything else.
34. If my partner became sexually involved with someone else‚ I wouldn’t be able to take it.
35. If my partner doesn’t have sex with me for a while‚ I sometimes do stupid things to get her/his sexual attention.
36. If my partner were ha‎ving a sexual difficulty‚ I would definitely try to help as much as I could.
37. I would rather have a sexual problem myself than let my partner suffer though one.
38. I could never be sexually satisfied unless first my partner was sexually satisfied.
39. I am usually willing to forsake my own sexual needs in order to let my partner achieve hers/his own sexual needs.
40. My partner can use me the way s/he chooses in order for him/her to be sexually satisfied.
41. When my partner is sexually dissatisfied with me‚ I still accept him/her without reservations.
42. I would do practically any sexual activity that my partner wanted.
43. It would bother me if my sexual partner neglected my needs.
44. If I were to make love with a sexual partner‚ I’d take that person’s needs and feelings into account.
45. If a sexual partner were to do something sensual for me‚ I’d try to do the same for him/her.
46. I expect a sexual partner to be responsive to my sexual needs and feelings.
47. I would be willing to go out of my way to satisfy my sexual partner.
48. If I were feeling sexually needy‚ I’d ask my sexual partner for help.
49. If a sexual partner were to ignore my sexual needs‚ I’d feel hurt.
50. I think people should feel obligated to repay an intimate partner for sexual favors.
51. I would feel somewhat exploited if an intimate partner failed to repay me for a sexual favor.
52. I would probably keep track of the times a sexual partner asked me for a sensual pleasure.
53. When a person receives sexual pleasures from another‚ s/he ought to repay that person right away.
54. It’s best to make sure things are always kept “even” between two people in a sexual relationship.
55. I would do a special sexual favor for an intimate partner‚ only if that person did some special sexual favor for me.
56. If my sexual partner performed a sexual request for me‚ I would probably feel that I’d have to repay him/her later on.