Sexual Polarity Scale

1. Abstract

The Sexual Polarity Scale (SPS) is an authoritative psychometric instrument developed by Donald L. Mosher and James Sullivan at the University of Connecticut to operationalize and quantify ideological polarization regarding human sexuality and broader socio-philosophical worldviews. Grounded in the sociosexual sociology of Murray S. Davis (1983) and the ideological polarity theory of Silvan Tomkins (1963, 1965), the SPS synthesizes two distinct but interconnected psychological domains: sexual ideology and generalized ideological polarity. The instrument comprises 60 forced-choice dyadic items distributed evenly across two primary orthogonal dimensions: the 30-item Jehovanist versus Naturalist sexual ideology subscale and the 30-item Normative versus Humanist worldview subscale, the latter adapted directly from Tomkins’s Polarity Scale (TPS). In the sexual domain, the Jehovanist orientation conceptualizes sexuality as an intrinsically dangerous, corrupting, and disruptive impulse that threatens individual psychological integrity and social equilibrium unless strictly constrained by sacred marital bounds; conversely, the Naturalist perspective frames sex as a benign, biologically natural, and psychologically enriching dimension of animal and human life. In the worldview domain, the Normative pole asserts that human nature is innately corrupted and requires external discipline, hierarchical authority, and absolute standards, whereas the Humanist pole conceptualizes human beings as inherently good, valuing self-realization, empathy, and creative play. Psychometric evaluations on university cohorts confirm robust internal consistency, yielding Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of .86 for the Sexual Polarity subscale and .79 for the General Polarity subscale. Construct validation demonstrates significant convergence with measures of sex guilt, church attendance, intolerance of ambiguity, hypermasculinity (“macho” personality), and the acceptance of rape myths. The SPS remains a vital psychometric instrument for clinical assessments, sociosexual research, political psychology, and cross-cultural investigations into ideological script formation.

2. Keywords

Sexual Polarity Scale, Donald L. Mosher, Silvan Tomkins, sexual ideology, Jehovanist, Naturalist, Normative ideology, Humanist ideology, sex guilt, script theory, psychometrics, sexual conservatism, forced-choice format.

3. Authors

The Sexual Polarity Scale was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically validated by:

• Donald L. Mosher, Ph.D.: Emeritus Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, United States. Renowned internationally for his pioneering empirical programs on sex guilt, the Mosher Forced-Choice Guilt Inventory (FCGI), affective script theory, and the Macho Personality Constellation. (Contact correspondence originally directed to: 648 Ternberry Forest Drive, The Villages, FL 32162; email: [email protected]).
• James Sullivan, Ph.D.: Research collaborator and psychologist affiliated with the Department of Psychology at the University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Sexual Polarity Scale is to provide a standardized, theoretically rigorous instrument capable of diagnosing an individual’s latent ideological architecture regarding sexuality and universal human nature. Rather than assessing isolated sexual behaviors, somatic dysfunctions, or peripheral sexual opinions, the SPS measures deep-seated ideological scripts that organize perception, evaluate moral dilemmas, and guide affective reactions across sexual and interpersonal domains.

Ideology, as conceptualized in clinical and social psychology, serves as a comprehensive heuristic framework. Individuals do not experience erotic arousal or interpersonal conflict in an emotional vacuum; rather, they rely on pre-existing cognitive scripts that structure how sensory data are interpreted, evaluated, and translated into behavior. The SPS was engineered to achieve three critical scientific and diagnostic objectives:

• Theoretical Integration of Affect and Script Theory: Mosher and Sullivan sought to bridge Tomkins’s script theory with sexual science, establishing how fundamental affective orientations (e.g., excitement and joy versus fear, distress, and shame) manifest systematically in sociopolitical and sexual worldviews.
• Differentiation of Opposing Sexual Mentalities: By operationalizing Davis’s sociophilosophical constructs of “Jehovanism” and “Naturalism,” the scale provides an empirical baseline for distinguishing individuals who perceive sexuality as a hazardous, demonic, or sacredly restricted urge from those who regard it as an organic, non-mystical, biological phenomenon shared across the animal kingdom.
• Investigation of Clinical and Societal Pathologies: The scale functions as an explanatory tool for investigating the psychological etiology of severe sex guilt, erotophobia, sexual aggression, rape myth acceptance, and rigid authoritarian thinking. In clinical contexts, it facilitates the identification of deep ideological cognitive distortions that underpin dyspareunia, erectile dysfunction rooted in moral anxiety, intra-marital sexual aversion, and obsessive-compulsive scrupulosity. In social psychological research, it elucidates the cognitive mechanics underpinning culture wars, censorship, and institutional policies regarding comprehensive sexuality education, reproductive rights, and LGBTQ+ integration.

5. Psychological Construct

The Sexual Polarity Scale operationalizes two primary bipolar psychometric dimensions, each containing antithetical ideological scripts:

1. The Sexual Ideology Polarity: Jehovanism versus Naturalism

This 30-item dimension measures the respondent’s cognitive-affective orientation toward sexual impulses, practices, institutions, and moral boundaries:

• The Jehovanist Ideology (Right-Wing Sexual Script): Derived from patriarchal theological frameworks and traditional Judeo-Christian orthodoxy, the Jehovanist script perceives human sexuality as inherently perilous, chaotic, and destabilizing. Left unpoliced, sexual desire is believed to undermine the rational self, dissolve ego boundaries, and erode the moral fabric of civilized society. Sex is viewed as fundamentally tainted or “dirty” unless strictly purified and sequestered within the sacred, procreative institution of heterosexual marriage. Jehovanist cognitive schemas emphasize asceticism, contamination aversion, severe punitive retribution for sexual deviance, condemnation of autoeroticism and non-coital variations (e.g., masturbation, oral and anal intimacy), and acute suspicion of sexually explicit media, sex education, and bodily nudity.
• The Naturalist Ideology (Left-Wing Sexual Script): Rooted in the post-Enlightenment scientific revolution, evolutionary biology, and secular modernism, the Naturalist script strips sexuality of supernatural, demonic, or cosmic meanings. Sexual activity is classified as a wholesome, organic biological function observed across human cultures and diverse animal taxa. Naturalists emphasize personal autonomy, consent, hedonistic legitimacy, and mutual pleasure. Guilt and shame are viewed not as divine warnings, but as irrational socialization artifacts that impede healthy psychological adjustment. Sexual exploration, scientific inquiry (e.g., the Kinsey Reports), reproductive choice, and diverse relational configurations are embraced as benign manifestations of natural human diversity.

2. The Universal Worldview Polarity: Normative versus Humanist

This 30-item dimension, drawn from Silvan Tomkins’s foundational Polarity Scale, operationalizes generalized philosophical postures regarding human nature, epistemological truth, child rearing, and social order:

• The Normative Ideology (Right-Wing Epistemic Script): Grounded in Platonic idealism and essentialism, the Normative posture asserts that ultimate reality, truth, and moral value reside in external, transcendent Essences, Rules, and Institutions. Human beings are perceived as naturally flawed, weak, or intrinsically corrupt. Consequently, socialization demands rigorous discipline, conditional affection, compliance with hierarchical authority, and the subordination of personal inclinations to moral duty. Science is valued solely for establishing rigid truth and law, while government exists to enforce order, suppress deviance, and punish transgressors.
• The Humanist Ideology (Left-Wing Epistemic Script): Anchored in the Protagorean maxim that “man is the measure of all things,” the Humanist posture views human beings as fundamentally benevolent, imaginative, and capable of constructive self-actualization. Feelings, empathy, play, and subjective experience are treated as primary avenues to authentic reality. Socialization requires unconditional love, curiosity, and psychological nurturance rather than corporal correction. Science and governance are conceptualized as evolutionary tools intended to alleviate suffering, expand human potential, and safeguard democratic welfare.

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the Sexual Polarity Scale rests at the intersection of three major traditions in personality psychology, sociology, and psychoanalytic ego psychology:

1. Silvan Tomkins’s Ideological Polarity Theory

Silvan S. Tomkins (1963, 1965) posited that ideology constitutes “any organized set of ideas about which humans are most passionate and for which there is no evidence and about which they are least certain.” Tomkins observed a persistent, trans-historical dialectic in Western thought spanning over two millennia—from Protagoras versus Plato, through Renaissance humanism versus scholastic dogmatism, to modern ideological conflicts. Tomkins postulated that this ideological cleavage is driven by an underlying ideo-affective posture: human beings selectively resonate with intellectual systems that mirror their primary affective socialization. Individuals socialized through positive affect (excitement, joy, interpersonal trust) gravitate toward Humanism, whereas those socialized through negative affect, boundary enforcement, shame, and fear gravitate toward Normativism.

2. Murray S. Davis’s Sociological Taxonomy of Smut and Eroticism

Sociologist Murray S. Davis, in his seminal 1983 work Smut: Erotic Reality and the Pornographic Imagination, analyzed the social construction of sexual reality. Davis demonstrated that attitudes toward sexual explicit materials and bodily conduct bifurcate into two coherent, adversarial worldviews: the “Jehovanist” paradigm (named in reference to the patriarchal, rule-issuing Yahweh/Jehovah archetype) and the “Naturalist” paradigm. Davis detailed how Jehovanism requires elaborate symbolic barriers to isolate the sacred from the profane, treating physiological arousal as an existential assault on self-control. Mosher and Sullivan adopted Davis’s qualitative sociological categories and translated them into empirical, psychometric indicators.

3. Donald L. Mosher’s Script Theory of Sexuality and Sex Guilt

Mosher synthesized Tomkins’s affect-script theory with his own decades of clinical research on sex guilt. In Mosher’s model, a sexual script represents a cognitive blueprint that instructs the individual on who, what, where, when, why, and how to feel sexually. A Jehovanist orientation functions as an inhibitory, guilt-laden script: sexual arousal immediately cues defensive affective reactions—principally moral anxiety, self-disgust, and anticipatory punishment. Conversely, a Naturalist script enables an unconflicted experience of pleasure, orgasmic abandonment, and interpersonal intimacy without activating internalized punitive sanctions.

7. Validity

The construct, convergent, and discriminant validity of the Sexual Polarity Scale has been empirically demonstrated through focused psychometric investigations, most notably the criterion-validation study conducted by Mosher and Sullivan (1986) utilizing a cohort of 140 undergraduate males at the University of Connecticut.

Convergent and Criterion Validity

Correlation analyses confirmed that scores on both the Jehovanist and Normative dimensions aligned precisely with theoretical predictions:

• Religiosity and Ecclesiastical Engagement: High Jehovanist scores demonstrated statistically significant positive correlations with organized religious behaviors, including frequency of church attendance, r(138) = .23, p < .01, and active personal involvement in institutional church functions, r(138) = .33, p < .001. This demonstrates that the Jehovanist construct faithfully reflects ecclesiastical behavioral commitments.
• Dispositional Sex Guilt: As hypothesized by script theory, the Jehovanist scale exhibited strong convergent validity with the Mosher Forced-Choice Guilt Inventory (FCGI) sex-guilt subscale, r(138) = .56, p < .001. Individuals who adopt a Jehovanist sexual ideology systematically harbor profound internalized moral self-punishment and anxiety concerning erotic thoughts and behaviors.
• Cognitive Rigidity and Intolerance of Ambiguity: High Jehovanist scores correlated positively with measureable intolerance of cognitive ambiguity, r(138) = .32, p < .001. Similarly, Normative scores correlated significantly with ambiguity intolerance, r(138) = .20, p < .05, establishing that both dimensions tap into underlying psychological preferences for dogmatic certainty, black-and-white categorization, and structural rigidity.
• Hypermasculinity and Machismo: Normative worldview scores correlated positively with the Macho Personality Constellation (hypermasculine affect and callous sexual beliefs), r(138) = .22, p < .01.
• Aggression and Rape Proclivity: Endorsement of a Jehovanist sexual script showed a significant positive association with the acceptance of cultural rape myths, r(138) = .16, p < .05. Furthermore, endorsement of a Normative worldview was significantly associated with self-reported proclivity to commit rape under hypothetical conditions of legal impunity, r(138) = .19, p < .05.

Inter-Scale Structural Validity

A crucial validity test involved assessing the correspondence between the sexual domain (SPS) and the universal worldview domain (TPS). Pearson correlation confirmed that Jehovanism and Normativism are positively and significantly intercorrelated, r(138) = .36, p < .001. This demonstrates that sexual ideology is meaningfully nested within a broader philosophical architecture: an individual who perceives human nature as fallen and demanding punitive control (Normative) is substantially more likely to perceive sexuality as a dangerous, corrupting drive requiring ascetic containment (Jehovanist).

8. Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the Sexual Polarity Scale was established through internal consistency item analyses during scale development and subsequent structural evaluations:

• Item Discrimination Analysis: The original experimental item pool comprised 40 sexual polarity dyads and 59 Tomkins Polarity Scale dyads administered to a validation sample of 140 undergraduate men. Rigorous item discrimination analyses demonstrated that 37 out of 40 sexual dyads discriminated significantly between high and low scorers at the p < .05 level. From this vetted pool, the top 30 discriminating items were retained to constitute the final sexual polarity scale. Similarly, 45 of the 59 Tomkins items significantly discriminated the Normative/Humanist continuum, from which the 30 most robustly discriminating items were selected.
• Internal Consistency Coefficients: For the finalized 30-item Jehovanist/Naturalist sexual polarity subscale, Cronbach’s alpha reached .86, reflecting high internal homogeneity and low measurement error. For the 30-item Normative/Humanist general worldview subscale, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient reached .79. These coefficients satisfy standard psychometric benchmarks for both research and exploratory diagnostic applications.
• Measurement Precision: The balanced forced-choice dyadic format minimizes common rating errors, such as central tendency bias and acquiescence response sets (“yea-saying”), ensuring that the observed variance reflects authentic ideological preference rather than response styles.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the SPS was initially explored through classical item-total correlation and exploratory item factor analytic protocols conducted by Mosher and Sullivan during item reduction:

Dimensional Structure

Principal axis factor extraction confirms a clear two-factor broad structure corresponding to the two designed domains, accompanied by well-defined lower-order facet clusters:

• Factor 1: Sexual Ideology (Jehovanism vs. Naturalism): Accounts for the largest portion of the sexual item variance. Strong positive loadings on the Jehovanist pole are observed for items explicitly endorsing theological boundaries, moral panic regarding pornography, punitive stances toward non-marital coitus, and fear of bodily contamination. Inverse loadings mark naturalist items endorsing biological parity, pleasure legitimacy, and empirical scientific evaluation of sex.
• Factor 2: Universal Worldview (Normativism vs. Humanism): Captures generalized assumptions about governance, science, epistemology, and child socialization. Normative items load positively on themes of punitive discipline, hierarchical compliance, and fixed Essences; Humanist items load on themes of exploratory science, empathy, and personal self-determination.

Sub-facet Latent Dynamics

Within the Sexual Ideology domain, secondary exploratory decompositions identify four recurring thematic clusters:

1. Ascetic Contamination vs. Biological Hedonism: Items contrasting ideas that sex is dirty or bestial against sex as a natural mammalian function (e.g., Items 11, 29, 44).
2. Censorship and Moral Contagion vs. Expressive Autonomy: Items addressing pornography, sex education, and public nudity (e.g., Items 1, 14, 19, 20).
3. Ecclesiastical Morality vs. Scientific Modernism: Items weighing biblical/clerical guidance against empirical psychology and sexology (e.g., Items 16, 51, 52).
4. Rigid Sexual Categorization vs. Relational Pluralism: Items addressing non-coital acts and homosexuality (e.g., Items 9, 22, 40, 41).

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational administration details, structural characteristics, and scoring rules for the Sexual Polarity Scale are summarized below:

• Instrument Name: Sexual Polarity Scale (SPS)
• Authors: Donald L. Mosher, Ph.D., and James Sullivan, Ph.D.
• Developmental Institution: University of Connecticut
• Test Type: Forced-choice self-report psychological inventory
• Target Population: Adults and adolescents (reading level: grade 10 or higher)
• Total Number of Items: 60 paired forced-choice items (dyads)
• Subscales / Dimensions:
  • Jehovanist / Naturalist Subscale: 30 items measuring sexual ideology
  • Normative / Humanist Subscale: 30 items measuring general philosophical worldview (selected from Tomkins’s Polarity Scale)
• Item Arrangement: The 30 sexual items and 30 general worldview items are systematically intermixed to obscure test intent and mitigate response fatigue.
• Administration Time: Approximately 12 to 15 minutes (average: 13 minutes)
• Response Modality: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire, optical mark sheet, or digital computer-based administration. For each paired dyad, respondents must select either alternative (a) or alternative (b).
• Scoring Paradigm:
  • Binary scoring (0 or 1 point per item).
  • Jehovanist Scoring: Award 1 point when the Jehovanist alternative is chosen; award 0 points when the Naturalist alternative is chosen. The specific Jehovanist alternatives are:
    1a, 4b, 8a, 9b, 10b, 11a, 14a, 15b, 16b, 17b, 19b, 20a, 22b, 23b, 25b, 27b, 28b, 29a, 30b, 35a, 36a, 37b, 39b, 40a, 41b, 43b, 44a, 46b, 51b, 52a.
  • Normative Scoring: Award 1 point when the Normative alternative is chosen; award 0 points when the Humanist alternative is chosen. The specific Normative alternatives are:
    2b, 3b, 5a, 6b, 7b, 12a, 13a, 18a, 21b, 24a, 26b, 31a, 32b, 33a, 34a, 38b, 42b, 45b, 47b, 48b, 49a, 50b, 53a, 54a, 55b, 56b, 57a, 58a, 59b, 60a.
  • Score Range:
    • Sexual Polarity Score: 0 to 30. A score of 0 represents extreme Naturalism; a score of 30 represents extreme Jehovanism.
    • Normative Polarity Score: 0 to 30. A score of 0 represents extreme Humanism; a score of 30 represents extreme Normativism.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Sexual Polarity Scale was formally introduced in 1986 by Donald L. Mosher and James Sullivan. It is published in open academic literature and standardized sourcebooks of human sexuality measures (e.g., Davis et al., Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures). The instrument is considered an open-access assessment tool available without royalties or licensing fees for legitimate non-commercial scientific research, academic dissertations, and educational evaluations. Inquiries regarding broad clinical deployment, reproduction, or adaptation should reference Donald L. Mosher’s original archival works or contact the Department of Psychology at the University of Connecticut.

12. References

• Davis, C. M., Yarber, W. L., Bauserman, R., Schreer, G., & Davis, S. L. (Eds.). (1998). Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452233277
• Davis, M. S. (1983). Smut: Erotic Reality and the Pornographic Imagination. University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo3632943.html
• Mosher, D. L. (1966). The development and multitrait-multimethod matrix analysis of three measures of three aspects of guilt. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 30(1), 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023023
• Mosher, D. L., & Sirkin, M. (1984). Measuring a macho personality constellation. Journal of Research in Personality, 18(2), 150–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(84)90026-6
• Mosher, D. L., & Sullivan, J. (1986). Sexual Polarity Scale. In C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, B. R. Bauserman, G. Schreer, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures. University of Connecticut.
• Tomkins, S. S. (1963). Left and right: A basic dimension of ideology and personality. In R. W. White (Ed.), The Study of Lives: Essays on Personality in Honor of Henry A. Murray (pp. 388–411). Atherton Press.
• Tomkins, S. S. (1965). The psychology of being right—and left. Trans-action, 3(1), 23–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03180479
• Tomkins, S. S. (1987). Script theory: The differential magnification of affects. Journal of Personality, 55(4), 555–596. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1987.tb00454.x

13. Items of the Scale