Sexual Deception Scale

Abstract

The Sexual Deception Scale (SDS) is a 15-item instrument designed to quantitatively measure the degree to which individuals employ deceptive practices and lies to engage in sexual activity with a current or prospective partner. Developed for use in research concerning intimate and close relationships, the scale is grounded in Social Exchange Theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). This framework interprets sexual intimacy as a resource—either a benefit sought through deception (e.g., lying to gain sex) or a cost expended to maintain other resources (e.g., having sex to avoid conflict or gain material items). The scale is structured around three distinct subscales: Blatant Lies, Self-Serving Lies, and Lies Told to Avoid Confrontation.

Keywords

Sexual deception, intimate relationships, deception, social exchange theory, relationship maintenance, blatant lies, self-serving deception, conflict avoidance.

Authors

WILLIAM D. MARELICH, RHONA I. SLAUGHTER

[quads id=5]

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Sexual Deception Scale is to systematically quantify and categorize the specific behavioral lies and deceptive strategies used by individuals within the context of sexual engagement. By focusing on observable behaviors, the scale provides a measure of manipulative tactics employed to achieve sexual access or to utilize sex as a mechanism for resource management.

The instrument is specifically tailored for research applications involving general populations, with particular utility among college populations studying patterns of deception in close relationships. It offers researchers a tool to differentiate between various motivations behind sexual deception, thereby enhancing the understanding of how cost-benefit analyses drive sexual behavior.

Construct

The scale measures the construct of Sexual Deception, which is defined as the deliberate use of lies or misleading practices to facilitate sexual activity or to achieve non-sexual goals through sexual interaction. This construct is theoretically rooted in the principles of Social Exchange Theory, which views relationship dynamics as an exchange of costs and benefits (Marelich et al., 2008).

The scale is multidimensional, comprised of three empirically derived subscales that reflect distinct deceptive strategies:

• Blatant Lies: These items capture deceptive tactics employed explicitly to gain sexual favors, where sex itself is the primary benefit sought (e.g., false declaration of affection to initiate intercourse).
• Self-Serving Lies: This dimension addresses the use of sexual behavior as a means to obtain or maintain specific non-sexual resources, such as companionship, money, or material items.
• Lies Told to Avoid Confrontation: This category measures the willingness to engage in sexual behaviors—often unwanted—in order to mitigate relationship conflict, prevent a breakup, or avoid negative interactions, positioning sexual intimacy as a cost expended for relationship maintenance.

Validity

The structural validity of the Sexual Deception Scale was established through a rigorous process involving both exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The CFA confirmed that the final 15 items and their three respective subscales represented a good model fit. Furthermore, a second-order factor analysis indicated that the three factors reflect a broader, unitary Sexual Deception construct.

Construct and Criterion Validity were assessed by correlating the subscales with various attitude and behavioral measures related to sexual intimacy. Consistent findings across all three subscales showed that individuals reporting higher levels of sexual deception also reported a greater number of lifetime sexual partners, increased engagement in one-night stands, and a tendency to misrepresent their total number of partners to prospective partners. The strongest associations with these risk behaviors were observed in the Blatant Lying subscale.

Additionally, individuals demonstrating greater use of Self-Serving Deceptions were significantly associated with a higher perceived sexual need and a greater desire to manipulate their partners. Conversely, the use of deceptions specifically designed to Avoid Confrontation correlated positively with intimacy-related attitudes, such as the desire to be in or maintain the current relationship, consistent with the scale’s theoretical foundation regarding sex as a cost/benefit exchange.

Reliability

Following the validation of the factor structure using Confirmatory Factor Analysis, internal consistency reliability coefficients were calculated for the three subscales. The resulting coefficient alpha values ranged from .71 to .75. This range indicates acceptable and adequate internal consistency reliability for the subscales, suggesting that the items within each specific dimension cohere well and consistently measure the intended type of deceptive behavior.

Factor Analysis

Scale development utilized Principal Components Analysis (PCA) as an initial exploratory step. An oblique rotation was employed to allow the resulting components to correlate, reflecting the expectation that different types of sexual deception might be related. The PCA confirmed that the items loaded well onto three distinct factors, which were designated as Blatant Lying, Self-Serving, and Avoiding Confrontation.

Subsequent Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) validated the three-factor structure derived from the PCA, demonstrating a robust fit for the final 15-item model. Although the scale is typically scored using the three subscales, a secondary analysis—a second-order factor analysis—suggested that a total score measure representing an overall sexual deception construct may also be viable, as the three subscales load onto a broader factor.

Instrument

Test Type: Behavioral Self-Report Scale

Format: 15-item questionnaire utilizing a forced-choice, dichotomous response format.

Language Available: English (Original)

Population Group: General population and college populations.

Age Group: Adults and young adults.

Population Details: Designed for research focusing on behaviors within intimate and close relationships.

Test Methodology: Can be administered via traditional paper-and-pencil methods or through online data collection techniques. The measure requires approximately 5 minutes for completion.

Scoring and Interpretation

The Sexual Deception Scale utilizes three individual subscales for scoring: Blatant Lying (Items 1, 2, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15), Self-Serving (Items 4, 7, 8), and Avoiding Confrontation (Items 3, 5, 6, 10, 14).

To calculate a score for each subscale, the following steps are generally followed, based on the methodology outlined by Marelich et al. (2008):

1. Initially, items may be assigned a value (e.g., 1 for Yes, 2 for No).
2. For final subscale computation, all scale items must be reverse coded (0 = No, 1 = Yes).
3. The scores of the items belonging to the particular subscale are summed.
4. The resulting sum is divided by the total number of items in that specific subscale.

The scores yielded for each subscale are interpreted as the amount of deception used within that motivational domain. Higher numerical scores signify a greater reported frequency or use of sexually deceptive practices.

Keywords

Psychological assessment, dating behavior, cost/benefit analysis, internal consistency, behavior-based scale, sex research, relationship assessment.

[quads id=5]

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Information not provided in source material.

Affiliation Email addresses: [email protected]

Correspondence Address: William D. Marelich, Dept. of Psychology, CSU Fullerton, 800 N. State College Blvd., Fullerton, CA 92834.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Sexual Deception Scale was formally developed and published in 2008 by Marelich, Lundquist, Painter, & Mechanic.

The original publication of the scale appeared in The Journal of Sex Research. Researchers seeking permission for use or information regarding licensing fees should contact the primary author, William D. Marelich, directly using the provided correspondence details.

Reference’s

Marelich, W. D., Lundquist, J., Painter, K., & Mechanic, M. B. (2008). Sexual deception as a social-exchange process: Development of a behavior-based sexual deception scale. The Journal of Sex Research, 45, 27–35.

Thibaut, J., & Kelley, H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.

[quads id=5]

Items of the Sexual Deception Scale

Directions: Below are a number of items addressing things you may or may not have done sometime in your life. Please answer each item Yes or No. “Sex” below can refer to intercourse or other forms of sexual intimacy (e.g., oral sex, manual stimulation).

Have you ever . . .

1. Told someone “I love you” but really didn’t just to have sex with them?

   Yes    No        

2. Told someone “I care for you” just to have sex with them?

   Yes    No        

3. Had sex with someone so they would leave you alone?

   Yes    No        

4. Had sex with someone so you would have someone to sleep next to?

   Yes    No        

5. Had sex with someone even though you didn’t want to?

   Yes    No        

6. Had sex with someone in order to maintain your relationship with them?

   Yes    No        

7. Had sex with someone in order to maintain resources you get from them (e.g., money, clothes, companionship)?

   Yes    No        

8. Had sex with someone in order to get resources from them (e.g., money, clothes, companionship)?

   Yes    No        

9. Had sex with someone just so you could tell your friends about it?

   Yes    No        

10. Had sex with someone so they wouldn’t break up with you?

    Yes    No        

11. Gotten a partner really drunk or stoned in order to have sex with them?

    Yes    No        

12. Told someone they’d be your boyfriend/girlfriend just so they would have sex with you?

    Yes    No        

13. Had sex with someone, then never returned their calls after that?

    Yes    No        

14. Had sex with someone because you wanted to please them?

    Yes    No        

15. Faked “who you are” in order to have sex with somebody?

    Yes    No