Development of a Dualistic Model of Sexual
Passion: Investigating Determinants andConsequences
Frederick L. Philippe, Robert
J. Vallerand, Geneviève BeaulieuPelletier, Gabrielle Maliha, Samuel
Laventure & Jean-Sébastien Ricard-StAubin
Archives of Sexual Behavior
The Official Publication of theInternational Academy of Sex Research
ISSN 0004-0002
Arch Sex Behav
DOI 10.1007/s10508-019-01524-w

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright andall rights are held exclusively by Springer
Science+Business Media, LLC, part ofSpringer Nature. This e-offprint is for personaluse only and shall not be self-archived inelectronic repositories. If you wish to selfarchive your article, please use the accepted
manuscript version for posting on your own
website. You may further deposit the accepted
manuscript version in any repository,
provided it is only made publicly available 12months after official publication or later andprovided acknowledgement is given to theoriginal source of publication and a link isinserted to the published article on Springer's
website. The link must be accompanied by
the following text: "The final publication isavailable at link.springer.com”.

1 23

Author's personal copy
Archives of Sexual Behavior
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01524-w

ORIGINAL PAPER

Development of a Dualistic Model of Sexual Passion: Investigating
Determinants and Consequences
Frederick L. Philippe1 · Robert J. Vallerand2 · Geneviève Beaulieu‑Pelletier2 · Gabrielle Maliha2 · Samuel Laventure3 ·Jean‑Sébastien Ricard‑St‑Aubin2
Received: 7 September 2017 / Revised: 18 July 2019 / Accepted: 23 July 2019
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
In empirical research, sexual passion has frequently been conceptualized as the interdependent dynamics experienced with apartner and as following a unidimensional continuum of intensity. A recent theoretical model conceptualized sexual passion
as an intrapersonal motivation, which can energize both partnered and non-partnered sexual behaviors (Philippe, Vallerand,
Bernard-Desrosiers, Guilbault, & Rajotte, 2017). This model also departs from the typical unidimensional continuum bypositing the existence of two types of sexual passion: harmonious sexual passion (HSP) and obsessive sexual passion (OSP).
The purpose of the present research was to extend the development of such a dualistic model by examining key theoretical
determinants and consequences of each type of sexual passion. Study 1 provided empirical evidence of discriminant validity
for such a model with respect to key-related constructs in the sex literature (e.g., sexual desire, hypersexuality, self-determined
motives). The results of Study 2 showed that both types of sexual passion were associated with a high engagement in various
sexual activities, but that only HSP combined it with couple adjustment. Finally, Study 3 indicated that both HSP and OSP
were associated with common as well as distinct determinants, while being conducive to different personal and interpersonalconsequences. Overall, there were very few moderations by biological sex. The results of these three studies provide empiricalsupport for the sexual passion model and pave the way for new research directions.
Keywords Sexual passion · Dualistic model · Sexual desire · Sexuality · RelationshipIntroduction
Sexual passion in the scientific literature has typically been
defined as sexual desire for union with a partner or as a
mixture of romance and physical attraction (e.g., Hatfield& Walster, 1978; Sternberg, 1986). Sometimes, it has been
described as an emotion (Fehr, 1988; Vohs & Baumeister,2004), other times as a relatively stable characteristic ofcouples (e.g., Davis, Shaver, & Vernon, 2004). In all cases,
sexual passion is expected to emerge from the interdynamics
between two partners engaged in a relationship. We believe* Frederick L. Philippe
philippe.frederick@uqam.ca
1

Department of Psychology, University of Quebec
at Montreal, Montreal, QC H3C 3P8, Canada

2

Department of Psychology, University of Quebec at Montreal,Montreal, QC, Canada

3

Department of Psychology, University of Montreal, Montreal,
QC, Canada

that such a definition is restrictive and relies on a conventional
conception that sexuality is only expressed and manifested
with a partner. In the present work, we propose to revisit theconcept of sexual passion by suggesting that sexual passion
may be experienced within a relationship or not and with apartner or alone. In addition, we posit the existence of two
distinct types of experience of sexual passion that differ intheir level of integration of sexual and relational representations and examine their consequences on both personal andinterpersonal outcomes.

Redefining Sexual Passion
A recent conceptualization (Philippe et al., 2017) has proposed to redefine the concept of sexual passion by drawing
from the concept of passion for activities (Vallerand, 2015;
Vallerand et al., 2003). In this literature, passion is definedusing affective, cognitive, and behavioral criteria. To be passionate about an activity entails that the person has a highinclination toward engaging in the activity and experiences a13Vol.:(0123456789)

Author's personal copy
Archives of Sexual Behavior

strong positive emotional connection with the activity. Cognitively, the person highly values and finds engaging in theactivity important. Finally, passion leads people to purse theactivity with energy on a long-term basis (Vallerand, 2015).
It has been suggested that the same conceptualization could
be applied to the sphere of sexuality since a sexual passion
should be reflected by people’s strong emotional connection
with sex, high valuation of it, and frequent engagement insexual activities (Philippe et al., 2017). Henceforth, we define
sexual passion as a stable motivational drive that can vary inintensity from an individual to another, that is not restricted tosexual desire for a partner, and that can lead to various kindsof behaviors, including both sexual and relational behaviors,
but also non-partnered sexual behaviors. Consequently, aperson who enjoys engaging in a variety of sexual activities
alone can be characterized by a high sexual passion to thesame extent as someone who experiences great pleasure fromsexual intercourses with a loved long-term partner.
Of importance, sexual passion is not just a sexual motivational force or sexual incentive motivation (Toates, 2009). The
literature on passionate activities (Vallerand, 2015; Vallerandet al., 2003) also proposes that two types of sexual passion
exist—harmonious and obsessive (Philippe et al., 2017). Bothtypes of passion are characterized by loving, valuing, and engaging frequently in the activity. However, they fundamentally differ in the way the activity has been cognitively processed andinternalized. An obsessive sexual passion (OSP) is developed
when the sphere of sexuality has been internalized in the self
in a controlled fashion (Vallerand, 2015). According to selfdetermination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2017), a controlled internalization occurs when people feel pressured to make choices,adopt values, and behave according to contingencies they havelearned in the past. For example, regarding sexuality, a person
could feel compelled to dress and look according to what media
promote, as a function of what is socially perceived as physicallyattractive, or to perform sexual intercourse as a function of commonly held beliefs (e.g., sexual intercourses should be vigorousand last long). These predetermined sexual attitudes, values, andbehaviors are much less likely to reflect the person’s authentic
values and self-aspects and are therefore experienced as alienating the self and do not facilitate a coherent and integrated self.
Consequently, they remain separated from other self-aspects
and are likely to conflict with them. Such a controlled internalization of sexuality therefore prevents the integration of sexual
representations to other types of mental representations, notably
relational representations (Philippe et al., 2017).
A harmonious sexual passion (HSP) stems from an autonomous internalization of sexuality in the self. An autonomousinternalization occurs when people make their own choice
regarding sexuality and orient their own values and behaviors according to what they believe is important and enjoyable(Deci & Ryan, 2000; Vallerand, 2015). Consequently, people
can orient these choices and behaviors in line with their other13

self-aspects, leading to a coherent and unified integration ofsexuality in their self without conflict with other self-aspects(Weinstein, Deci, & Ryan, 2011). An autonomous internalization of the sphere of sexuality that excludes contingencies istherefore more likely to be well integrated with other important
self-aspects, such as relational representations.

Evidence Supporting a Dualistic Model of Sexual
PassionRecent evidence (Philippe et al., 2017) supported the present
conceptualization of sexual passion. A scale of sexual passion
was developed to assess each type of sexual passion, and its
factor structure and reliability have been supported. Both typesof sexual passion were also found to be strongly positively correlated with the passion criteria of loving sex, valuing it, andinvesting time and energy in sexual activities. However, support
was also found for the hypothesis that HSP is underlain by agreater integration of sexual and relational representations, suggesting a more autonomous and less conflicted mental organization of sexual representations. Conversely, OSP revealed amuch weaker integration of those representations, suggesting amore controlled, segregated, and conflicted mental organizationof sexual representations. More specifically, participants wereasked to list as many words associated with the word “sex”
as they could in 1 min. HSP was positively associated with agreater ratio of words listed with both a relational and a sexual
connotation (e.g., intercourse, fellatio, intimate) as comparedto pure sexual words (e.g., tits, penis, vibrator). The exact opposite results were found for OSP, as it was positively associatedwith a greater report of sexual words as compared to relationalsexual words.
Given the way mental sexual representations are organized in
HSP and OSP, each type of sexual passion should be associatedwith distinct personal and interpersonal consequences. Morespecifically, because OSP is characterized by sexual representations that share little integration with other types of representations (notably relational), when those sexual representations areactivated, they remain strongly active. Consequently, intrusive
sexual thoughts and conflict between sexuality and other life
spheres are frequent. Conversely, under HSP, sexual representations are well integrated with other types of representations.
Consequently, activation freely flows through complex and varied networks of representations. HSP can therefore facilitate theprocessing of sexual stimuli and support their integration into
broader life spheres, such as romantic relationships. Corroborating these claims, OSP was found to be positively associatedwith intrusive sex thoughts (Philippe et al., 2017). In addition,
the mere unconscious activation of attractive targets under OSP
was enough to distract from a sex-unrelated task and increase
processing time to complete this task. Conversely, HSP wasunrelated to intrusive thoughts and helped to inhibit task-unrelated sexual stimuli activation. OSP was also associated with

Author's personal copy
Archives of Sexual Behavior

lower relationship quality and contributed to the dissolution of
long-term relationships over time, whereas HSP was positively
associated with relationship quality and was not contributing torelationship breakup over time.

The Present Research
A first purpose of the present research was to extend thedevelopment of a dualistic model of sexual passion by highlighting discriminant evidence of validity of sexual passion ascompared to other related constructs from the sex literature.
HSP and OSP have been found to be theoretically and empirically distinct from existing constructs such as attachment
anxiety and avoidance, psychological distress, personal selfcontrol, romantic passion, sexual satisfaction, relationshipquality, and sociosexuality (see Philippe et al., 2017). Yet,
there are still other existing constructs, such as sexual desire,sexual compulsivity, or self-determined sexual motives thatare in certain ways related to the present conceptualizationof sexual passion. However, we believe they are theoreticallydifferent in important ways.
Sexual desire takes different definitions in the sex literature (Brotto & Smith, 2013). It is often defined as a situational physiological, emotional, and cognitive response(e.g., Goldhammer & McCabe, 2011), closely associatedwith sexual arousal (Goldey & van Anders, 2012; Rosenet al., 2000), which can vary in intensity and from situation
to situation (Levine, 2002). However, clinical diagnosis or
empirical assessment of sexual desire typically focuses on
the frequency at which sexual desire is experienced (e.g.,
Rosen et al., 1997), thereby targeting the chronic level ofsexual desire rather than the intensity of single responses ortheir variability over different situations. Sexual passion is arelatively stable person–sexuality interface, which is closer
to the definition of experiencing chronically high levels of
sexual desire. However, there is no full overlap between those
two concepts. While having a sexual passion certainly entails
having sexual desire, having high sexual desire does not necessarily imply that one has sexual passion. In other words,
frequently feeling sexual desire or arousal does not meanthat one likes sexuality, finds it important, and spends timeand energy engaging in various sexual activities (Baumeister,
Catanese, & Vohs, 2001; Levine, 2002). Finally, according
to a dualistic model of sexual passion, its key aspect is not
how strong one sexual passion is or how frequently it is experienced, but rather how this sexual passion is cognitively
organized, either as HSP or OSP. This departs from the unidimensional intensity or frequency focus that has characterized
the topic of sexual desire.
Sexual passion is also distinct from sexual compulsivity or hypersexuality, defined as repetitive, continued sexual
behaviors that cause clinical distress and impairment (Kafka,2010). Both types of sexual passion should lead to a frequentengagement in sexual activities, but not to distress (Philippe
et al., 2017). Rather, HSP and OSP were shown to be associated with an enjoyment of sexual activities (Philippe et al.,2017), whereas sexual compulsivity should not.
Finally, the present dualistic model of sexual passion
extends the construct of self-determined sexual motives inthat two qualitatively distinct types of enjoyable and intrinsic
engagements are posited under the dualistic model of sexualpassion, whereas self-determination theory proposes that
intrinsically interesting activities do not require internalization or are internalized in an autonomous fashion (Deci &Ryan, 2000). Sexual passion also differs from extrinsic or
external motives as these refer to motivation to engage in
non-enjoyable activities (Deci & Ryan, 2000), whereas passion involves activities that the person deeply loves and finds
intrinsically enjoyable.
Study 1 sought to replicate the findings of past studies,while controlling for these related constructs, that is, solitary and dyadic sexual desire, sexual compulsion, and selfdetermined sexual motives. A second purpose of the present
research was to test that both types of sexual passion are
similarly associated with a high engagement in sexual activities, but that only HSP combines it with couple adjustment(Study 2). Finally, a third purpose investigated in Study 3 was
to show that both types of passion have common (e.g., sexual
self-definition, sexual desire), but also distinct determinants(e.g., internalization orientation, sexual contingencies),
which are associated with distinct personal and interpersonalconsequences, such as sexual satisfaction, couple adjustment,
and extradyadic intentions, with HSP being associated withmore adaptive outcomes overall. Study 3 tested a mediational sequence in which both types of sexual passion act as
distinct mediators between those specific determinants andoutcomes. Across studies, based on past findings (Philippe
et al., 2017; Guilbault, Bouizegarene, Philippe, & Vallerand,
in press), few moderations by biological sex were expected,
as the effects of sexual passion have typically been shown tobe similar for both men and women.

Study 1The purpose of Study 1 was to extend the dualistic conceptualization of sexual passion by distinguishing it from other known
constructs in the sex literature. Study 1 sought to replicate
past findings of sexual passion with personal and interpersonal outcomes, while controlling for key-related constructs.
We chose to replicate the results of Study 2 of Philippe et al.
(2017) which measured the passion criteria and outcomes ofrelationship quality, sexual satisfaction, sex conflict, attentiveness to alternatives, and reactions to jealousy. As explained
above, both HSP and OSP should be positively associated withthe passion criteria. However, they should differ in their prediction of outcomes. Following the results of Philippe et al.,13Author's personal copy
Archives of Sexual Behavior

HSP should be associated with relationship quality and sexual
satisfaction, whereas OSP should be positively associated with
sex conflict, attentiveness to alternatives, and violent behavior
in response to jealousy. We also sought to replicate the resultsthat OSP is associated with a predominance of sexual overrelational representations, whereas HSP is associated with amore balanced ratio. Potential moderations by sex, age, andrelational status were also examined. Based on past findings,
few moderations were expected, including those with sex, andall should be small. In addition, given that the conception ofsexual passion does not require a partner, results should be
the same for both people currently engaged in a romantic relationship (dating, living together, married) and singles. Finally,
we expected that all of the above associations would remain
significant even after controlling for three constructs related
to sexual passion: solitary and dyadic sexual desire, sexualcompulsivity, and self-determined sexual motives.

MethodParticipants and Procedure
Each study reported in this article was approved by an institutional review board and participants provided informed
consent prior to taking part in the studies and their rights
were protected. This information will not be repeated in theother studies. Participants in Study 1 were 280 adults (M =36.15 years, SD 12.53, 53% female) recruited from the Crowdflower interface, a crowdsourcing data acquisition platform.
The advertisement described a 15-min online study on sexuality, and participants were paid $0.25 CAD for completing thequestionnaire. This small amount is typical of crowdsourcing
platforms (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011). Partnered(64%) and single participants could respond to the survey, but
given the semantic task used in the study, we excluded people
for whom English was not their mother-tongue language (n =42, final n = 280). We based our power analysis on the analyses
requiring the most power, that is, moderations within multiple
regression analyses among sexual passion and demographics.
A power analysis in G*Power 3.1 (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner,& Lang, 2009) based on an alpha of .05 and a power of .80
revealed that a sample size of 279 participants was required todetect significant moderations of small effect sizes (f2 = .05)
among sexual passion, sex, age, and relational status (6 tested
predictors among 11 independent variables).

13

Measures
Sexual Passion
The Sexual Passion Scale (Philippe et al., 2017) is a 6-item scaleassessing the type of sexual passion people hold. Three items
measure HSP, that is, “Sex is in harmony with the other things thatare part of me,” “Sex is well integrated in my life,” and “Sex is inharmony with the other activities in my life.” Three items measure
OSP, that is, “I have almost an obsessive feeling for sex,” “Sex is
the only thing that really turns me on in my life,” and “I have theimpression that sex controls me.” The items of this scale and thoseof all other scales presented below (except when mentioned otherwise) were responded to on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly
disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Alphas in this study were .92 and.88 for HSP and OSP, respectively.
Passion Criteria
The passion criteria (Philippe et al., 2017) assess core characteristics of the definition of sexual passion, that is, how muchthe individual likes or loves the activity (“I love sex”), values it(“Sex is important for me”), and invests time and energy in it (“Ispend a significant amount of time engaging in various sexual
activities”). Alpha for these items was .75. The passion criteria
assess the intensity of the motivational force underlying sexualpassion, whereas the Sexual Passion Scale evaluates the extent
to which the sexual passion is harmonious or obsessive. The
present passion criteria were therefore used as a validity checkto ensure that both HSP and OSP correspond to the definitionof a sexual passion.

Control Variables
Self‑Determined Motives for Sex
We used an adapted version of the Perceived Locus of Causality for Sex (Brunell & Webster, 2013; Jenkins, 2003). This
scale assesses four types of motive to engage in sexual activities (“Why do you generally engage in sexual activities?”) thatvary on a scale of self-determination that includes intrinsic
motives (e.g., “Because I think it will feel good”), identified
regulation (e.g., “Because I see sex as a healthy activity or exercise”), introjected regulation (e.g., “Because I want to show that
I am capable of performing”), and external regulation (e.g.,“Because I want to feel more powerful or dominant”), withintrinsic motives being the most self-determined form of motivation and external regulation the least self-determined one. We
adapted this scale by deleting or modifying items that had a reference to a partner, so that participants who were single could
also respond to this scale. Each subscale of our adapted scale
had five items, except for identified regulation, which had four.
Alphas were .91 .87, .91, and .86 for the intrinsic, identified,

Author's personal copy
Archives of Sexual Behavior

introjected, and external regulation subscales, respectively. We
computed a composite index assessing self-determined motives
by weighting each subscale by a score reflecting their orderon the self-determination continuum (intrinsic*2 + identified*1 + introjected*−1 + external*−2), as is commonly doneby self-determination researchers (e.g., Brunell & Webster,
2013; Sheldon, Osin, Gordeeva, Suchkov, & Sychev, 2017).

Sexual Satisfaction

Solitary and Dyadic Sexual Desire

Perceived Relationship Quality

The Sexual Desire Inventory-2 (Spector, Carey, & Steinberg,
1996) was used to assess solitary and dyadic forms of sexualdesire. Nine items measure dyadic sexual desire (e.g., Whenyou first see an attractive person, how strong is your sexualdesire?), and four items target solitary sexual desire (e.g., How
strong is your desire to engage in sexual behavior by yourself?).
Alphas in this study were .91 and .88 for dyadic and solitarysexual desire, respectively.

Relationship quality was assessed with the 7-item Perceived
Relationship Quality Components Inventory (Fletcher, Simpson, & Thomas, 2000). This measure assesses seven components of romantic relationships (satisfaction, commitment, intimacy, trust, passion, love, and romance), each with one item.
The passion item was dropped in this study to avoid constructoverlap with sexual passion and sexual satisfaction. Participants
currently in a relationship were asked to respond to the scale
per this relationship, whereas singles responded as a functionof their last or most important prior relationship. Alpha was .91.

Sexual Compulsivity
Sexual compulsion or hypersexuality was measured with the
10-item Sexual Compulsivity Scale (Kalichman & Rompa,
1995), the most widely used scale in that area (Hook, Hook,
Davis, Worthington, & Penberthy, 2010). A sample item ofthis scale is “My sexual thoughts and behaviors are causing
problems in my life.” Alpha was .93 in the present study.

Outcomes

Sexual satisfaction was measured with three items from thePinney Sexual Satisfaction Inventory (Pinney, Gerrard, &Denney, 1987). We kept the items that had no reference to apartner or to sexual intercourse (e.g., “Generally, I am satisfied with my sex life”). Alpha was .89.

Attentiveness to Alternatives
Attention to alternative partners was assessed with the 6-item
Attentiveness to Alternatives Index scale (Miller, 1997). This
scale assesses the extent to which participants are alert toother potential partners (e.g., “I am distracted by other people
that I find attractive”). Alpha was .77.
Sex Conflict

Sexual/Relational Semantic Representations
The task used by Philippe et al. (2017) was used to measure theorganization of sexual and relational semantic representations.
Participants were asked to list as many words as they could thatare related to the word “sex” in 1 min by typing them down inseparate textboxes displayed on a web browser page. After theminute had elapsed, the page was automatically refreshed toanother page, data were saved, and participants were prevented
from going back to the previous page. Two judges, masked to theparticipants’ other data, coded these words for whether they corresponded to purely sexual words (e.g., penis, breasts, vibrator),
sexual-relational words (intimate, caress, intercourse), or other(e.g., energy). Inter-rater reliability was adequate, intraclass rs> .88. A ratio of sexual versus relational words was calculatedby dividing the number of sexual words (incremented by 1) by
the number of relational words (incremented by 1). As such, ahigh score on this index represents a greater number of sexual
over relational semantic representations.

A short 3-item scale assessed participants’ conflict between
sex and other aspects of their lives (e.g., “My sexuality conflicts with other aspects of my life”, Philippe et al., 2017).
Alpha was .81.
Violent Jealous Behavior in Response to Relational Threats
Participants read a scenario from Djkstra and Buunk (1998)
in which their current (or imaginary) partner is flirting witha member of the opposite sex:
You are at a party with your girlfriend [boyfriend] and you
are talking with some of your friends. You notice your girlfriend [boyfriend] across the room talking to a man [woman]
you do not know. You can see from his [her] face that he [she]is very interested in your girlfriend [boyfriend]. He [She] islistening closely to what she [he] is saying and you notice thathe [she] casually touches her [his] hand. You notice that he[she] is flirting with her [him]. After a minute, your girlfriend[boyfriend] also begins to act flirtatiously. You can tell fromthe way she [he] is looking at him [her] that she [he] likes him

13Author's personal copy
Archives of Sexual Behavior
Table 1  Multiple regressions of HSP and OSP on outcomes, controlling for demographics, and moderations by demographics: Study 1
Steps

Independent variables

Step 1 HSP
OSP
Step 2 HSP
OSPSexStatusAge
Step 3 HSP × sex
OSP × sex
HSP × status
OSP × status
HSP × age
OSP X age

Dependent variables
Passion criteria Ratio sex/relational

Sexual satisfaction

Relationshipquality

Attentiveness Sex conflict Violent behavior
to alternatives

.50**
.43**
.49**
.41**
.07
− .03
.01
.08
− .16*
− .08
.01
− .03
.03

.80**
− .07
.80**
− .14**.08*− .03− .11**
.02
.11
− .10
− .01
.07
.02

.61**
− .11*
.51**
− .07
.03
− .23**
.06
.05
.04
− .11
.11
− .05
.11*

− .19**
.55**
− .09
.51**
.06
.25**
.07
.20**
− .01
.17*
− .12
− .06
− .05

− .19**.24**− .15*.14*.08.04− .17**
− .09
− .04
− .02
.04
.06
.04

− .09*
.77**
− .03
.71**
.05
.13*
− .07
.09
− .08
.01
− .08
− .01
− .07

.08
.50**
.06
.40**
.09
− .13*− .26**
.01
− .06
.12
− .06
− .06
− .13*

N = 280. Each column represents a separate multiple regression analysis
HSP harmonious sexual passion, OSP obsessive sexual passion*p < .05; **p < .01[her] a great deal. They seem completely absorbed in eachother.
Participants were instructed to imagine experiencing thissituation with their current (or imaginary) partner and to imagine their reactions with respect to their partner and to the otherperson in the scenario and how they (participants) would feel.
They were then presented with 13 attitudes and behaviors ofwhich five included physical and verbal violence actions (e.g.,“I would yell at my partner,” “I would hit the person flirtingwith my partner”, α = .92). Other filler items measured partner distrust (e.g., “I would question the trustworthiness of mypartner”) and communicative actions (e.g., “I would discuss
this situation with my partner afterward”).

Results
A first objective was to examine the associations among eachtype of sexual passion and the measured outcomes. A second
objective was to investigate any moderation by sex, relational
status (0 = in a relationship; 1 = single), or age in these associations. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted to respond to these questions. At Step 1, the two typesof sexual passion were entered. At Step 2, demographics of sex,
relational status, and age were entered to control for these variables. Finally, at Step 3, the interaction terms among each typeof sexual passion and each demographic variable were entered.

13

Table 1 shows the results for each of these three steps and foreach dependent variable, separately. Step 1 shows the associations among HSP and OSP and the outcomes. Overall, results
corroborated past findings such that both HSP and OSP werepositively associated with the passion criteria. However, HSP
and OSP were differently associated with the other outcomes.
Replicating the findings of Philippe et al. (2017, Study 2),
HSP was negatively associated with a higher ratio of semantic
sexual representations over relational ones, whereas OSP was
positively associated with it. This result suggests that sexual
representations are predominant in OSP and poorly integrated
with relational representations, whereas sexual and relational
representations are more balanced and integrated with HSP.
HSP was also positively associated with sexual satisfaction andrelationship quality, whereas OSP was negatively associatedor unrelated to these variables. OSP was positively associatedwith attentiveness to alternatives, sex conflict, and endorsement of violent jealous behavior, whereas HSP was either
negatively associated or unrelated to these variables. At Step
2 (see Table 1), results showed that after controlling for thedemographics of sex, relational status, and age, most of thesignificant results of sexual passion remained significant anddecreased only slightly.
Finally, Step 3 included the interaction terms involving sexualpassion and each demographic variable. Results showed that
there were very few moderations, that is, five significant interaction terms out of 42 possibilities. There was a significant OSP X
Sex interaction on the passion criteria, such that, in females, OSP
was more strongly associated with the criteria of passion (β =Author's personal copy
Archives of Sexual Behavior
Table 2  Multiple regressions of HSP and OSP on outcomes, controlling for related constructs: Study 1
Steps

Independent variables

Dependent variables
Passion criteria Ratio sex/relational Sexual
satisfaction

Step 1 HSP
.50**
OSP
.43**
.37**
Step 2 HSP
OSP
.34**
Self-determined motives.18**
Solitary sexual desire.15**
Dyadic sexual desire.21**
Sexual compulsivity− .02− .19**.24**− .16*
.22*
− .04
.01
− .05
.02

.80**
− .07
.81**
.01
.05
− .08
− .01
− .09

RelationshipqualitySex conflict Violent behavior
Attentiveness alternatives.61**− .11*
.51**
− .04
− .07
− .06
.33**
− .27**− .19**.55**− .17**.22**− .19**
.02
.22**
.20**

− .09*
.77**
− .07
.40**
− .04
.10*
.07
.34**

.08
.50**
.10
.27**
− .28**
.02
.20**
.07

N = 280. Each column of dependent variables represents a separate multiple regression analysis. All associations with sexual passion also
remained significant after controlling for sexual satisfaction
HSP harmonious sexual passion, OSP obsessive sexual passion*p < .05; **p < .01.53, t[268] = 6.82, p < .01) than in males (β = .31, t[268] = 4.24,
p < .01), although both associations were significant. There wasalso a significant HSP × Sex on attentiveness to alternatives. HSP
was more negatively associated with attentiveness to alternatives in females (β = −.31, t[268] = 3.99, p < .01) than in males(β = −.03, t[268] = 0.29, ns). There was also a HSP × Statusinteraction on attentiveness to alternatives. In singles, HSP was
more negatively associated with attentiveness to alternatives (β= −.31, t[268] = 3.99, p < .01) than in partnered participants (β= −.03, t[268] = −0.23, ns). Finally, in terms of moderation byage, in older participants (+ 1 SD), OSP was not associated withrelationship quality (β = .03, t[268] = 0.28, ns), whereas it was
negatively associated with it in younger (− 1 SD) participants (β= −.27, t[268] = −2.67, p < .01). This last result may suggestthat people with OSP could learn to better regulate interpersonal
relationships as they age. Further reinforcing this claim was thesignificant OSP × Age interaction on violent jealous behavior,
showing that OSP was strongly positively associated with violence in younger participants (β = .58, t[268] = 5.54, p < .01)
but more moderately associated with it (β = .24, t[268] = 2.10, p< .05) in older participants. Interestingly, the positive association
between HSP and relationship quality was not moderated by status, indicating that even for those who were single and responded
to the scale according to their prior relationship, people with
HSP still considered that relationship as of high quality, despite
a separation. Overall, there were few moderations and those thatwere significant mostly showed that the relationship between
OSP or HSP and an outcome was slightly more significant for
one group of participants compared to another.
A third objective was to examine whether sexual passion
would still predict the measured outcomes after holding
constant the control variables, that is, theoretically related

constructs.1 To address this research question, multiple regression analyses were conducted again on each dependent variable. At Step 1, the two types of sexual passion were entered,and at Step 2, the control variables (e.g., self-determined
motives, solitary and dyadic sexual desire, and sexual compulsivity) were entered. As can be seen in Table 2, all relationships between sexual passion and the outcomes remained
significant, even after accounting for the control variables.
Some of the relationships were reduced by the inclusion of
the control variables, implicating that these constructs sharecommon variance. However, none of the outcomes were better explained by the control variables. These results also held
after controlling for sexual satisfaction in all regressions,further suggesting that sexual passion is also more than justsexual satisfaction. A noteworthy result, helping to distinguishsexual compulsivity from OSP, is that sexual compulsivity did
not predict the passion criteria, whereas OSP was positively
associated with them. This is supporting evidence for theclaim that sexual compulsivity should be conceptualized asa lack of pleasure withdrawn from sexual activities, whereas
for OSP sexual activities remain enjoyable. To be sure, thesame regression analysis was conducted again on the sole andspecific criterion of loving sex. Results were the same.
In sum, the results of Study 1 showed that both HSP and
OSP were distinct from some existing constructs in the sex
literature. In addition, the findings supported a dualistic
conceptualization of sexual passion as HSP and OSP were

1

HSP was correlated .39,* .21,* .24,* and .08 with dyadic sexualdesire, solitary sexual desire, self-determined motives for sex, and sexual compulsivity, respectively, whereas OSP was correlated .51,* .52,*−.26,* and .76* with those variables, respectively. *p < .05.

13

Author's personal copy
Archives of Sexual Behavior

successfully differentiated in their prediction of outcomes,
with HSP leading to more adaptive outcomes than OSP
overall.

Study 2The purpose of Study 2 was to test the claim that both HSP
and OSP can lead to a high and frequent engagement in various sexual activities, but that only HSP combines it with couple adjustment. In Study 2, we measured several constructs
and behaviors related to sexual activity engagement, such as
sexual desire, numbers of sex life partners, frequency of sexual activities, and frequency of engagement in various sexual
behaviors. It was expected that both HSP and OSP would be
independently and positively associated with those measuresand behaviors, implying that a high engagement in sexual
activities can reflect either HSP or OSP. However, becauseof the greater integration of the sexual representations to therelational representations in HSP, only HSP should combine
this high engagement with couple adjustment, whereas OSP
should not. In addition, it was posited that these relationships
should hold even at a high frequency of sexual engagement.
To test these hypotheses, two samples of participants wererecruited—students and attendees of an erotic exhibition—with the expectation that this latter sample would be composedof people with higher levels of sexual passion than student
populations. As per the results of Study 1 and of past studies(Philippe et al., 2017), we did not expect the hypothesized
associations to differ as a function of participants’ sex, relational status, or age. Therefore, we did not make hypotheses
to this effect, but controlled for these variables in the analyses.
Given the way one sample of participants was recruited (during an erotic exhibition), we used short scales to measure theconstructs in this study.

MethodParticipants and Procedure
As in Study 1, power analysis revealed that based on analpha of .05 and a power of .80, a sample size of 279 participants was required to detect significant moderations of small
effect sizes (f2 = .05) among sexual passion, sex, relational
status, and age. Final sample consisted of 336 attendees(58% females) of an erotic exhibition held in Montreal,
Quebec, of which 83% were engaged in a relationship withsomeone (i.e., at minimum a dating relationship or seeing
someone for romantic/sexual purposes on a regular basis).
Mean age was 27.27 years (SD 9.66). Three research assistants had a small booth with tables and chairs during theerotic exhibition, and they invited attendees to take part13

in a study on sexuality in exchange of being entered into adraw for three prizes of $125. We did not keep track of thenumber of participants who were approached and refused toparticipate, but the vast majority of the attendees acceptedto participate (approximately 70%). To compare this groupof participants characterized by a presumably higher levelof sexual passion to a group with a comparatively lower
level, another sample of senior undergraduate students was
also recruited. Power analysis revealed that to detect smallmean differences of η2 = .03 in effect size between the twogroups in an ANCOVA (controlling for age) at least 128
participants in each group was required. Accordingly, 167
students (62% females; M age = 23.47 years, SD 5.30; 58%
in a relationship) were recruited and administered a questionnaire in one of three different classrooms before thebeginning of their class. They were not offered compensation. Most students accepted to participate in the study witha few exceptions (i.e., approximately 5 or 6 students perclassroom refused).

Measures
Sexual Passion
The Sexual Passion Scale (Philippe et al., 2017) was usedagain. Alphas were .79 and .74 for HSP and OSP, respectively, in the attendee sample and .80 and .76 in the student
sample.
Sexual Desire
The two items measuring sexual desire from the International
Index of Erectile Function (Rosen et al., 1997) or the Female
Sexual Function Index scale (Rosen et al., 2000) were used.
These items were chosen because they reflect a general sexual
drive and correspond to a general subjective feeling with noreference to a partner or a romantic relationship. A sample
item is “How frequently do you feel sexual desire?” Bothitems were responded to on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = never,
7 = extremely often). Inter-item correlations were .75 and .59
in the attendee and student samples.
Number of Sex Partners in Life
Participants were asked to report the number of sex partners
they have had in their lives. No definition of a sex partner
was given to the participants. To avoid extreme values, thisvariable was log transformed.

Author's personal copy
Archives of Sexual Behavior

Frequency of Sex Engagement
We used one item to assess participants’ frequency of engagement in sexual activities: “At what frequency is it necessary
for you to engage in a sexual activity (e.g., sexual intercourse,
masturbation, oral sex, etc.)?” This item was responded to on a
Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 8 (several times per day),with 6 corresponding to several times per week and 7 to about
once per day. Given that a high level of sexual engagement isoften defined as engaging in at least seven sexual activities per
week that can lead to orgasms (Kafka & Hennen, 2003; Kinsey,
Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948), we were interested in people who
would score 7 and above.
Frequency of Sexual Behavior
Participants were asked to what frequency (1 = never, 8 = several times per day) they engaged in solo-masturbation, watchederotic films, looked at erotic photographs, and attended strip
clubs. Factorial analysis (maximum likelihood) revealed one
single factor accounting for 42.16% of the variance with factor loadings ranging from .40 to .77. Therefore, all items wereaveraged to measure the frequency of sexual behavior. Alphas
were .70 and .73 in the attendee and student samples.
Couple Adjustment
The short 4-item scale (Sabourin, Valois, & Lussier, 2005)of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976) was used toassess couple adjustment. A sample item is “Do you confide
in your mate?” It should be noted that this short version of the
DAS does not include any item assessing sexual satisfaction
or sexual communication within the couple. Participants currently in a relationship were asked to respond to the scale perthis relationship, whereas singles responded as a function of
their last or most important former relationship. Alphas were
.82 and .89 in the attendee and student samples, respectively.

Results
To ensure that the attendees of the erotic exhibition indeed
had high levels of sexual passion and desire and engaged frequently in sexual behaviors, we compared the means of HSP
and OSP, sexual desire, number of sex partners, and frequencyof sex engagement and sexual behavior between the attendees
and students. Separate ANCOVAs were conducted between
the two samples on each variable of interest, controlling forparticipants’ age. As expected, attendees reported higher
means on all variables (all Fs > 6.67, p < .001, η2 > .02),
thus confirming that the attendee sample included participants

displaying higher levels of passion and engagement in sexual
activities than the student sample.
Hierarchical multiple regressions analyses were conducted
on all key dependent variables: sexual desire, frequency of
sexual engagement, sexual behavior, number of sex partners,
and couple adjustment. At Step 1, independent variables were
the two types of sexual passion, sample type (1 = attendees,
0 = students), sex (1 = male, 0 = female), age, and relational
status (1 = in relationship; 0 = single). At Step 2, moderations
between each type of sexual passion and sample type, sex, age,and relational status were assessed. Results of Step 1, shown in
Table 3, revealed that both HSP and OSP were independently
and positively associated with all variables reflecting a highsexual engagement, that is, sexual desire, frequency of sexual
engagement, sexual behavior, and number of sex partners.
However, as expected, only HSP was positively associated withcouple adjustment, whereas OSP was unrelated to it.
At Step 2, results showed again few moderations. Only OSP
was moderated by sample type on sexual desire and frequencyof sex engagement. In both cases, results showed that OSP
was more strongly positively correlated with these dependent
variables in the student sample (sexual desire: t[490] = 10.15,
p < .01; frequency of engagement: t[490] = 5.71, p < .01) thanin the attendee sample (sexual desire: t[490] = 6.31, p < .01;
frequency of engagement: t[490] = 3.34, p < .01), but slopes inboth samples were statistically significant. OSP was also moderated by sex on sexual desire, revealing that this relationshipwas stronger for males (t[490] = 9.44, p < .01) than females(t[490] = 6.32, p < .01), but remaining significant for both
sexes. Again, the association between HSP and couple adjustment was not moderated by relational status, implying that thepositive association between HSP and couple adjustment heldeven when singles rated former relationships.
Given that a high level of sexual engagement is often
defined as engaging in at least seven sexual activities per weekthat can lead to orgasms (Kafka & Hennen, 2003; Kinsey et al.,1948), the frequency of sex engagement variable was split in
two at the cutoff score of 7 and above (about one or more sexual
activities every day) to create two groups: (1) low-to-moderate engagement in sexual activities and (2) high engagement.
A total of 23.5% of the participants in the erotic exhibition
attendee sample reported such a high level of engagement compared to 8.8% in the student sample, χ2(3) = 15.44, p < .001. A
logistic regression, with this group variable as the dependent
variable and with the same independent variables as above,
revealed that in addition to sex (B = .94, SE .27, Wald = 12.46,
p < .01), age (B = −.07, SE .02, Wald = 14.40, p < .01), andsample type (B = −1.12, SE .35, Wald = 10.48, p < .01), both
HSP (B = .37, SE .14, Wald = 7.36, p < .01) and OSP (B =.49, SE .10, Wald = 25.13, p < .01) independently predicted
membership to the high sex engagement group. These results
suggest that sexual engagement, even one at a very high level(one orgasm a day), can be the result of either a HSP or an OSP.

13

Author's personal copy
Archives of Sexual Behavior
Table 3  Standardized betas
coefficients of regression
analyses on sexual andrelational outcomes: Study 2

Steps

Step 1

Step 2

Independent variables

HSP
OSP
Sample type
Sex
StatusAge
HSP × sample type
OSP × sample type
HSP × sex
OSP × sex
HSP × status
OSP × status
HSP × age
OSP × age

Dependent variables
Sexual desire

Frq. sex
engagement

Sexual behavior

Sex partners

Coupleadjustment

.25**
.40**
.21**
.14**
− .03
− .04
.11
− .29**
− .03
.16**
− .01
− .08
− .02
.02

.21**
.24**
.12**
.18**
.17**
− .13**.14− .17**
− .03
.07
− .03
− .13
− .02
− .02

.11**
.27**
.26**
.41**
− .16**
− .02
.02
− .09
− .10
.01
.03
− .10
− .01
− .02

.12**
.11**
.15**
.05
− .07
.24**
− .02
− .03
.02
.00
− .06
− .10
− .05
− .08

.31**
− .06
.06
− .05
.33**
− .07
− .05
.06
.04
.05
.06
− .03
.03
.00

Sample type (0 = Students; 1 = Attendees)
HSP harmonious sexual passion, OSP obsessive sexual passion, Frq frequency*p < .05; **p < .01

However, only HSP combines it with the relational system, as
reflected by its positive association with couple adjustment.2

Study 3The purpose of Study 3 was to investigate some of the theoretical determinants of each type of sexual passion. As explainedin Introduction, having high sexual desire does not imply that
one has sexual passion, but having high sexual desire may
facilitate the development of a sexual passion. Therefore,
sexual desire should be a determinant of both types of sexualpassion. In addition, the literature on passionate activities (Vallerand, 2015) suggests that for a passion to emerge, the person
needs to strongly identify with the activity, defining himself/
herself according to it (e.g., as a guitarist and not merely as
someone who plays the guitar). Like the guitarist and his guitar, when sexuality turns into a sexual passion, the person canstrongly identify with sexuality and define himself/herself asa person with a high sex drive or as a sexual person (for an
inventory of sex-defining traits, see Schmitt & Buss, 2000).
As such, sexual self-definition should be associated with both
HSP and OSP.
2
We also examined whether this dichotomous variable assessing lowto-moderate and high level of engagement would moderate HSP and
OSP associations with the measured outcomes (sexual desire, sexual
behaviors, number of sex partners, and couple adjustment). All results
were non-significant, thereby implying that HSP and OSP lead to thesame consequences at all levels of sexual engagement.

13

Some other determinants are, however, expected to distinguish HSP from OSP. As explained in Introduction, a generalautonomous internalization should have a greater likelihood ofdeveloping a HSP, whereas a controlled orientation should be
associated with OSP. Similarly, OSP, but not HSP, should be
associated with contingencies related to sexuality and to stereotypical norms related to physical attractiveness. Thus, HSP and
OSP were expected to be predicted by some common (sexual
self-definition, sexual desire), but also distinct determinants(general internalization orientation, sexual contingencies).
We also sought to examine three expected outcomes ofsexual passion: sexual satisfaction, couple adjustment, andextradyadic sex intentions. As shown in Studies 1 and 2, only
HSP should be positively associated with sexual satisfaction
and couple adjustment. However, given the greater conflict
between sexuality and other life spheres characterizing OSP,
it was expected to be positively associated with extradyadic
sex intentions, whereas HSP should be negatively associatedor unrelated to them. Finally, we also expected that HSP and
OSP would fully mediate the relationships between the determinants (sexual self-definition, sexual desire, internalization
orientation, and sexual contingencies) and those outcomes.
Because current extradyadic sex intentions were assessed, only
participants engaged in a romantic relationship were recruitedin this study.

Author's personal copy
Archives of Sexual Behavior

MethodParticipants and Procedure
A Monte Carlo simulation (Muthén & Muthén, 2002) was
conducted in Mplus 8 to estimate the sample size required fora path analysis with mediational sequences to detect standardized coefficients of small (.20)-to-medium (.30) effect sizes
with a power of at least .80. Known associations among sexualpassion and planned determinants or outcomes (e.g., OSP andsexual desire; HSP and couple adjustment) were set basedon the results of past studies and at a maximum standardized
coefficient of .30, whereas unknown associations (OSP andcontingencies) were estimated at a smaller standardized coefficient of .20. Results revealed that a sample size of 170 was
required to detect significant effects at an alpha of .05 andpower of at least .80 for all estimated associations expected
to be significant. A total of 169 (87% females) undergraduate and graduate students currently involved in a romantic
relationship for at least three months took part in this study(age: M = 28.42 years, SD 8.36 years). They were contactedwith their institutional email and invited to take part in an
online study on couples and sexual behaviors. A total of 236
participants were recruited, and 67 were dropped because they
were currently single. In exchange for their participation, allparticipants were entered into a draw for one of three prizesof $125. The email invitation was sent to a randomly chosengroup of students, and it is therefore not possible to know how
many refused to participate or simply did not read the email.

Measures
Sexual Passion
Alphas were .90 and .77 for the Harmonious and Obsessive
Sexual Passion subscales in this study.
Sexual Desire
The Solitary Sexual Desire scale used in Study 1 was again
used in this study. Item inter-correlation was .72.
Sexual Self‑Definition
The extent to which people self-define themselves as sexual
was assessed with a single item derived from the Inclusionof Other in Self Scale (IOS: Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992).
This item is designed with seven pairs of overlapping circles
ranging from 1 (no overlap) to 7 (almost complete overlap).
One circle represented the self (Me) and the other circle
represented sexuality (Sex). Participants were thus asked tochoose the pair of circles that best represented their relationship with sex and sexuality at large.
Internalization Orientation
Participants’ types of internalization orientation were measured using the Global Motivation Scale (Pelletier, Dion,
Slovinec-D’Angelo, & Reid, 2004; Pelletier, Sharp, Huta, &Beaudry, 2016). This scale is composed of 18 items measuring six types of internalization of which three are autonomous
ways to internalize activities and values—intrinsic regulation(α = .65), integrated regulation (α = .81), identified regulation(α = .70)—and three others are controlled ways of internalization—introjected regulation (α = .82), external regulation (α= .83), and absence of regulation (α = .71). A sample item is“In general, I do things…for the pleasure of learning something new” (intrinsic regulation) or “to show others what I am
worth” (introjected regulation). A continuum index of internalization was then computed by assigning a weight of + 3
to − 3 to each type of regulation, from the most autonomousinternalization type (+ 3) to the most controlled internalization type (− 3). Scores for each subscale were then multipliedby its corresponding weight, and all product terms were added
to yield a continuum index of internalization orientation.
Thus, a positive correlation with this index corresponds to a
general autonomous internalization, while a negative correlation represents a general controlled internalization.
Sexual Contingencies
First, the Ideal Body Stereotype Scale Revised (IBSS-R; Stice,2001) was used to measure endorsement of feminine bodystereotypes with six items (e.g., “Slender women are more
attractive”). These same six items were also slightly modified
to assess masculine stereotypes. In line with past research thathas shown that sexual contingencies for men are associatedwith muscularity (e.g., Frederick & Haselton, 2007), wordings from the IBSS-R with respect to female thin weight weremodified to address muscularity (e.g., “Muscular men are
more attractive”). Also, a total of eight items from the Perceived Sociocultural Pressure Scale (Stice & Bearman, 2001)
were slightly modified to measure social pressure to dress in asexually attractive fashion (e.g., “I have felt pressure from myfriends to dress in a sexy or attractive manner”). Both males
and females indicated their degree of agreement with each
item (1 = do not agree at all, 7 = totally agree). All items wereaveraged together (correlations among feminine and masculine
stereotypes and social pressure ranged from .60 to .71). Alphafor the overall sexual contingencies scale was .90.

13

Author's personal copy
Archives of Sexual Behavior

Sexualself-definition

**

.13

.09

Sexual desire

.19*

.39

Harmonious
sexual passion

-.1
2

**
-.11

-.02

Internalization
orientation

.19*

**
.19
-.19**

5-.0-.19**.18*

Sexualsatisfaction

.49**

2
.3

.46**

.33**

Obsessive
sexual passion

*

.41*

.26**

*

*
1*
-.2

Coupleadjustment-.34**-.06.45*-.33***
Extradyadic
sex intentions

Sexualcontingencies

Fig. 1  Path analysis of sexual passion mediating sexual self-definition, sexual desire, internalization orientation, and sexual contingencies on sexual satisfaction, couple adjustment, and extradyadic sex

intentions. Dashed lines represent nonsignificant associations: Study
3. *p < .05. **p < .01

Sexual Satisfaction

to indicate a frequency to these items only for their actions
that would occur in violation of their relationship rules andconsensual understanding. Alpha was .88.

One item used in past research (Beaulieu-Pelletier, Philippe,
Lecours, & Couture, 2011) was used to assess participants’current sexual satisfaction (“To what extent are you currently
sexually satisfied in your life?”). This item was responded to
on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not satisfied at all, 5 = totally
satisfied).
Couple Adjustment
The short version of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier,1976) used in Study 2 was used again in this study. Alpha
was .86.
Extradyadic Sex Intentions
One item used in past research (Beaulieu-Pelletier et al.,2011) on extradyadic sex (“To what extent do you think
about being unfaithful to your partner?”) and two items fromthe Susceptibility to Infidelity Scale (Buss & Shackelford,1997) (To what extent is it probable that you… “kiss passionately someone else than your current partner within the next
year?”, “have a one-night stand with someone else than yourcurrent partner within the next year?”) were responded to ona scale from 1 (never) to 7 (extremely often) and averaged tomeasure extradyadic sex intentions. Participants were told

13

Results
A path analysis was used to examine the associations between
the determinants, sexual passion, and the outcomes. This typeof analysis allowed us to examine several dependent variables concomitantly along with mediation effects. The path
was conducted in Mplus 8 with maximum likelihood as themethod of estimation. Sexual desire, sexual self-definition,internalization orientation, and sexual contingencies weremodeled as exogenous variables (i.e., predictors). These variables predicted the two types of passion, which were modeled
as endogenous mediator variables, which, in turn, predicted
sexual satisfaction, couple adjustment, and extradyadic sex
intentions. In addition, covariances were freely estimatedamong the determinants, between the two types of passion,and among the three outcomes, so that each variable predicting
an outcome could be interpreted as being uniquely associatedwith this outcome.
Results of this model (see Fig. 1) revealed adequate fit
indices, χ2(12) = 19.53, ns, CFI = .98, TLI = .94, RMSEA= .061, SRMR = .033. The nonsignificant p value of thisAuthor's personal copy
Archives of Sexual Behavior

model indicates that it was not significantly different from amodel including all direct effects from all determinants to all
outcomes (a saturated model with zero degree of freedom),
therefore implying full mediations (i.e., no significant paths
from the determinants to the outcomes). As expected, bothsexual desire and sexual self-definition were independently
and positively associated with each type of passion. However,an autonomous internalization orientation was associated with
HSP, as shown by the positive association between these twovariables, whereas a controlled internalization orientation was
associated with OSP, as shown by the negative association
between these variables. In addition, sexual contingencies
were positively associated with OSP while being unrelated
to HSP. As for the outcomes, HSP was positively associatedwith sexual satisfaction and couple adjustment, and it was
marginally negatively related to extradyadic sex intentions (p< .10). Conversely, OSP was positively related to extradyadic sex intentions, negatively related to sexual satisfaction,and unrelated to couple adjustment. There was no interaction
as a function of biological sex in the whole model. Finally,
controlling for sexual satisfaction at the same level of sexualpassion did not affect the results, therefore ruling out again thealternative explanations that HSP is associated with couple
adjustment only because of an adequate sexual satisfaction in
the relationship or that OSP correlates with extradyadic sex
because of unsatisfactory sex.
Bootstrapping was used to examine the significance ofthe mediations of sexual passion in the relationships among
the determinants and the outcomes. A bootstrapping procedure was executed using a total of 5000 resamples. The 95%
confidence interval was calculated for each indirect effectfrom the determinants to the outcomes for which significant
associations between the variables of each sequence (a andb paths) were found in the above model. Results revealed
that all mediation effects were significant at p < .05, since allbootstrap 95% confidence intervals did not include the valueof zero (see Table 4).

Discussion
The present research extended a dualistic conceptualization ofsexual passion. First, findings showed that both HSP and OSP
were associated with a high sexual engagement, yet, each led
to distinct consequences. Both HSP and OSP were positively
associated with criteria of loving sex, finding it important, andinvesting time and energy in sexual activities (Study 1), with afrequent engagement in various sexual activities and behaviors(Study 2), with sexual desire (Studies 2 and 3), and with sexual
self-definition (Study 3). These results suggest that both HSP
and OSP correspond to the concept of a passion toward sex.
Nevertheless, each was shown to be associated with different
outcomes. Study 1 showed that HSP, through a high interest in

Table 4  95% Confidence intervals of bootstrap indirect effects of all
possible mediations of sexual passion between determinants and outcomes: Study 3Mediations

Bootstrap 95%
confidence intervals

Identification → HSP → sexual satisfaction
Sex drive → HSP → sexual satisfaction
Internalization → HSP → sexual satisfaction
Identification → OSP → sexual satisfaction
Sex drive → OSP → sexual satisfaction
Internalization → OSP → sexual satisfaction
Contingencies → OSP → sexual satisfaction
Identification → HSP → couple adjustment
Sex drive → HSP → couple adjustment
Internalization → HSP → couple adjustment
Identification → OSP → extradyadic sex
Sex drive → OSP → extradyadic sex
Internalization → OSP → extradyadic sex
Contingencies → OSP → extradyadic sex.063; .197*.000; .190*.005; .023*− .099; − .016*− .155; − .021*.001; .012*− .105; − .008*.045; .126*.000; .136*.003; .017*.061; .242*.111; .359*− .031; − .005*.040; .252*

HSP harmonious sexual passion, OSP obsessive sexual passion*p < .05

sex and sexual activities, may build solid personal and interpersonal resources. HSP was indeed positively associated withsexual satisfaction in Studies 1 and 3 and with relationship quality and couple adjustment in Studies 1, 2, and 3. Conversely,
despite being associated with an as high engagement in sexual
activities as HSP, OSP was more likely to be associated withless adaptive outcomes, such as attentiveness to alternatives(Study 1), extradyadic sex intentions (Study 3), sex conflict,and violent jealous behavior (Study 1). Furthermore, OSP waseither negatively associated or unrelated to sexual satisfaction(Studies 1 and 3) and relationship quality (Study 1) or couple
adjustment (Studies 2 and 3). Finally, across all three studies
there were very few moderations by biological sex, implyingthat the determinants and outcomes of sexual passion apply
similarly for both men and women. Overall, the present findings provide further evidence of validity for the existence of
two different types of sexual passion, each one being associatedwith distinct outcomes.
A second extension of the dualistic model of sexual passion is that novel evidence of discriminant validity was
obtained. Notably, HSP and OSP were found to be associatedwith important personal and interpersonal outcomes, aboveand beyond solitary and dyadic forms of sexual desire, sexualcompulsivity, and self-determined sexual motives. Study 3
further suggested that sexual desire, sexual self-definition,internalization orientation, and sexual contingencies aretheoretical determinants of sexual passion rather than fully
overlapping constructs. These findings support the idea thatboth HSP and OSP can fill in a void in the literature and are13

Author's personal copy
Archives of Sexual Behavior

important concepts that seem to energize sexual behaviorsof all kinds. One related concept that was not addressed in
the present research is sexual schema (Andersen & Cyranowski, 1994). Sexual schema is similar to sexual passion in the
cognitive perspective it takes to explain sexual behaviors.
Sexual schema, like sexual passion, also corresponds to aset of organized mental representations relative to sexuality,
which guides information processing. However, the similarity between the two concepts probably ends there, as sexual
representations in sexual passion are not organized the same
way as in sexual schema. While sexual schemas are typically organized as positive or negative, they mostly reflectapproach and avoidance drives with respect to sexuality.
The two types of sexual passion reflect two distinct approach
drives to sexuality that each differs in the way sexual representations are integrated with other types of representations,reflecting either an autonomous or a controlled internalization of sexuality. While two types of positive self-schemas
have been identified (romantic-passionate and behavioral
openness), it is not clear how each of these positive schemas
would tap into a specific type of sexual passion, as both HSP
and OSP have been shown to be associated with passion andbehavioral openness (Philippe et al., 2017). Future researchis needed to examine the extent to which sexual schema could
relate to sexual passion.
Third, the present research also highlighted common, butalso distinct determinants of each type of sexual passion.
Notably, a general autonomous internalization was foundto be related to HSP, whereas a controlled internalization
was rather found to be associated with OSP. OSP was also
found to be associated with greater contingencies related
to sexuality such as sexual social norms and stereotypes,
reflecting that, with OSP, sexual representations are imposedor externally driven and not coherently integrated with othertypes of representations. This was also clearly illustrated by
the finding that OSP is associated with a greater proportionof sexual semantic representations over relational representations, whereas HSP corresponds to a much more balanced
ratio. Finally, sexual desire and sexual self-definition werealso found to be important determinants of both types ofsexual passion and to be mediated by sexual passion in theirrelationship to outcomes. It is noteworthy that variables suchas sexual desire and sexual self-definition could indirectly
lead to adaptive outcomes such as sexual satisfaction andcouple adjustment through HSP, but at the same time be
conducive to less adaptive ones, such as extradyadic sex
intentions, through OSP. These results suggest that common
variables in the sex literature such as sexual desire can sometimes lead to adaptive or less adaptive outcomes, dependingon the type of sexual passion that they fuel.
Fourth, the present research supported an important assetof the dualistic model of sexual passion in that sexual passion exists and has similar consequences whether people are13

engaged in a romantic relationship or single. Indeed, Studies 1
and 2 showed virtually no moderation by relational status, suchthat the associations between HSP and OSP and outcomes were
the same, whether people were partnered or not. These findings
extend those of Philippe et al. (2017) who also found very few
moderations by relational status on several outcomes. Thesefindings contrast with the classical conceptualization of sexualpassion, which has always been defined as a dyadic phenomenon that emerges from the interdynamics developed with apartner. But sexual passion cannot be reduced to partner attraction only. In fact, this observation could go beyond the concept of sexual passion. So many sexuality-related scales makereferences to partners (e.g., self-determined sexual motives,sexual desire, sexual satisfaction), as if sexuality was necessarily a dyadic phenomenon. We recognize that sexuality ismost often expressed with a partner (e.g., partner attraction),but sexuality can also be experienced and fulfilled alone. Thisidea that sexuality requires a partner seems to be an old resistantstereotype which has perhaps masked the idea that sexuality is
initially an intrapersonal drive that can be oriented according
to the way sexual representations have been internalized andare cognitively organized. The encounter of a partner appears
here as a secondary step in this process.

Sexual Passion and Hypersexuality
The findings of the present research suggest that using thefrequency of engagement in sexual activities as a criterion todefine normality and pathology can be misleading, as one canengage in frequent sexual activities based on either HSP, OSP,and potentially sexual compulsivity. One obvious illustrationof this is the positive association between HSP and couple
adjustment, which remains positive even at high levels of sex
engagement (about one sexual activity per day), as shown inStudy 2. This raises serious concerns with respect to using criteria such as seven and more total sexual outlet/week (Kafka,2010), exaggerated frequency and focus on sexual behaviors(Reid, Carpenter, Spackman, & Willes, 2008), or high sexual desire (e.g., Štulhofer, Jurin, & Briken, 2016) to define
pathological sexual compulsivity or hypersexuality. It can bemisleading as constructs such as sexual desire or frequencyof sexual behaviors can lead to adaptive or less adaptive outcomes as function of what kind of sexual passion they fuel.

Limitations and Conclusion
Certain limitations related to the present research should
be underscored. First, all three studies used cross-sectional
designs. Therefore, no definitive claims can be made aboutcausality or even about the direction of the effects. Future
prospective studies are needed to determine whether sexual passion actually leads to the outcomes examined in theAuthor's personal copy
Archives of Sexual Behavior

present research. Experimental manipulation of sexual passion could also be used to examine causality on certain
outcomes (e.g., Bélanger, Lafreniere, Vallerand, & Kruglanski, 2013). Second, almost all samples of the present
studies were not representative of the general population(e.g., students or attendees of an erotic exhibition). Therefore, the generalization of the present findings should bedone with caution. Third, apart from Study 1 that used a
simple semantic task, all studies used self-reports. Futurestudies could use more objective markers of sexual engagement and behaviors in order to reduce the common variance
between the self-reported assessment of sexual passion andthe outcomes. Fourth, the sample of Study 3 included more
female than male participants. It is unknown whether the
results were biased by the composition of the sample. The
findings obtained may therefore need to be replicated witha more gender-balanced sample. Fifth, outcomes in thepresent study were quite common outcomes (e.g., sexual
satisfaction, extradyadic intentions). Future research could
examine more dysfunctional sexual behavior (e.g., exhibitionism, intrusive sex) and investigate the part that HSP,
OSP, and potentially hypersexuality play in those behaviors.
In sum, the present research provides new evidence ofvalidity for a dualistic model of sexual passion by examiningsome of its theoretical determinants and consequences. We
believe that the present concept of sexual passion could be
used in the future to better understand various types of sexual
attitudes and behaviors that could be fueled by sexual passion.

References
Andersen, B. L., & Cyranowski, J. (1994). Women’s sexual self-schema.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1079–1100.
https​://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1079.
Aron, A., Aron, E., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in theself scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612. https​://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596.
Baumeister, R. F., Catanese, K. R., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Is therea gender difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views,
conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 242–273. https​://doi.
org/10.1207/S1532​7957P​SPR05​03_5.
Beaulieu-Pelletier, G., Philippe, F. L., Lecours, S., & Couture, S.
(2011). The role of attachment avoidance in extradyadic sex.
Attachment & Human Development, 13, 293–313. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/14616​734.2011.56241​9.
Bélanger, J. J., Lafreniere, M.-A. K., Vallerand, R. J., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2013). When passion makes the heart grow colder:The role of passion in alternative goal suppression. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 126–147. https​://doi.
org/10.1037/a0029​679.
Brotto, L. A., & Smith, K. B. (2013). Sexual desire and pleasure.
In D. L. Tolman & L. M. Diamond (Eds.), APA handbook of
sexuality and psychology: Person-based approaches (Vol. 1, pp.

205–244). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https​://doi.org/10.1037/14193​-008.
Brunell, A. B., & Webster, G. D. (2013). Self-determination andsexual experience in dating relationships. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 39, 970–987. https​://doi.org/10.1177/01461​
67213​48544​2.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s
mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality,
data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. https​://doi.
org/10.1177/17456​91610​39398​0.
Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Susceptibility to infidelity
in the first year of marriage. Journal of Research in Personality,
31, 193–221. https​://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2175.
Davis, D., Shaver, P. R., & Vernon, M. L. (2004). Attachment styleand subjective motivations for sex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1076–1090. https​://doi.org/10.1177/01461​
67204​26479​4.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits:
Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. https​: //doi.org/10.1207/S1532​
7965P​LI110​4_01.
Djkstra, P., & Buunk, B. P. (1998). Jealousy as a function of rival
characteristics: An evolutionary perspective. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1158–1166. https​: //doi.
org/10.1177/01461​67298​24110​03.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statisticalpower analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation andregression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–
1160. https​://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149.
Fehr, B. (1988). Prototype analysis of the concepts of love and commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55,
557–579. https​://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.4.557.
Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., & Thomas, G. (2000). The measurement of perceived relationship quality components: A confirmatory
factor analytic approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 340–354. https​://doi.org/10.1177/01461​67200​26500​7.
Frederick, D., & Haselton, M. G. (2007). Why is muscularity sexy?
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1167–1183.
https​://doi.org/10.1177/01461​67207​30302​2.
Goldey, K. L., & van Anders, S. M. (2012). Sexual arousal and desire:Interrelations and responses to three modalities of sexual stimuli.
Journal of Sexual Medicine, 9, 2315–2329. https​://doi.org/10.1
111/j.1743-6109.2012.02845​.x.
Goldhammer, D. L., & McCabe, M. P. (2011). A qualitative exploration of the meaning and experience of sexual desire among partnered women. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 20, 19–29.
Hatfield, E., & Walster, G. W. (1978). A new look at love. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hook, J. N., Hook, J. P., Davis, D. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., &Penberthy, J. K. (2010). Measuring sexual addiction and compulsivity: A critical review of instruments. Journal of Sex andMarital Therapy, 36, 227–260. https​://doi.org/10.1080/00926​
23100​37196​73.
Jenkins, S. S. (2003). Gender and self-determination in sexual motivation. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64, 6330.
Kafka, M. P. (2010). Hypersexual disorder: A proposed diagnosis for
DSM-V. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 377–400. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s1050​8-009-9574-7.
Kafka, M. P., & Hennen, J. (2003). Hypersexual desire in males: Aremales with paraphilias different from males with paraphilia-relateddisorders? Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 15,
307–321. https​://doi.org/10.1177/10790​63203​01500​407.
Kalichman, S. C., & Rompa, D. (1995). Sexual sensation seeking andsexual compulsivity scales: Reliability, validity, and predicting
HIV risk behavior. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65, 586–
601. https​://doi.org/10.1207/s1532​7752j​pa650​3_16.

13

Author's personal copy
Archives of Sexual Behavior
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior
in the human male. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Levine, S. B. (2002). Reexploring the concept of sexual desire.
Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 28, 39–51. https ​ : //doi.
org/10.1080/00926​23023​17251​007.
Miller, R. S. (1997). Inattentive and contented: Relationshipcommitment and attention to alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 758–766. https ​ : //doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.758.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2002). How to use a Monte Carlostudy to decide on sample size and determine power. Structural
Equation Modeling, 9, 599–620. https​://doi.org/10.1207/S1532​
8007S​EM090​4_8.
Pelletier, L., Dion, S., Slovinec-D’Angelo, M., & Reid, R. (2004). Why
do you regulate what you eat? Relationships between forms of regulation, eating behaviors, sustained dietary behavior change, andpsychological adjustment. Motivation and Emotion, 28, 245–277.
https​://doi.org/10.1023/B:MOEM.00000​40154​.40922​.14.
Pelletier, L. G., Sharp, E., Huta, V., & Beaudry, S. (2016). The global
motivation scale: Its validity and usefulness in predicting successand failure at self-regulation. Unpublished manuscript, Universityof Ottawa, Ottawa, ON.
Philippe, F. L., Vallerand, R. J., Bernard-Desrosiers, L., Guilbault, V., &Rajotte, G. (2017). Understanding the cognitive and motivational
underpinnings of sexual passion from a dualistic model. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 769–785. https​://doi.
org/10.1037/pspp0​00011​6.
Pinney, E. M., Gerrard, M., & Denney, N. W. (1987). The Pinney Sexual
Satisfaction Inventory. Journal of Sex Research, 23, 233–251. https​://doi.org/10.1080/00224​49870​95513​59.
Reid, R., Carpenter, B., Spackman, M., & Willes, D. (2008). Alexithymia, emotional instability, and vulnerability to stress pronenessin patients seeking help for hypersexual behavior. Journal of Sex
and Marital Therapy, 34, 133–149. https​://doi.org/10.1080/00926​
23070​16361​97.
Rosen, R., Brown, C., Heiman, J., Leiblum, S., Meston, C., Shabsigh, R., … D’Agostino, R. (2000). The Female Sexual Function
Index (FSFI): A multidimensional self-report instrument for theassessment of female sexual function. Journal of Sex and Marital
Therapy, 26, 191–208. https:​ //doi.org/10.1080/009262​ 30027​ 8597.​
Rosen, R. C., Riley, A., Wagner, G., Osterloh, I., Kirkpatrick, J., &Mishra, A. (1997). The International Index Erectile Dysfunction(IIEF): A multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology, 49, 822–830. https​://doi.org/10.1016/S0090​-4295(97)00238​-0.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic
psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness.
New York: Guilford.
Sabourin, S., Valois, P., & Lussier, Y. (2005). Development and validation of a brief version of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale with a
nonparametric item analysis model. Psychological Assessment, 17,
15–27. https​://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.17.1.15.
Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Sexual dimensions of person
description: Beyond or subsumed by the Big Five? Journal of

13

Research in Personality, 34, 141–177. https​://doi.org/10.1006/
jrpe.1999.2267.
Sheldon, K. M., Osin, E. N., Gordeeva, T. O., Suchkov, D. D., & Sychev,
O. A. (2017). Evaluating the dimensionality of self-determination
theory’s relative autonomy continuum. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 1215–1238. https​://doi.org/10.1177/01461​
67217​71191​5.
Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scale forassessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of
Marriage & the Family, 38, 15–28. https​://doi.org/10.2307/35054​
7.
Spector, I. P., Carey, M. P., & Steinberg, L. (1996). The Sexual Desire
Inventory: Development, factor structure, and evidence of reliability. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 22, 175–190. https​://doi.org/10.1080/00926​23960​84146​55.
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological
Review, 93, 119–135. https:​ //doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.119.
Stice, E. (2001). A prospective test of the dual-pathway model ofbulimic pathology: Mediating effects of dieting and negative
affect. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 124–135. https​://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.110.1.124.
Stice, E., & Bearman, S. K. (2001). Body-image and eating disturbances
prospectively predict increases in depressive symptoms in adolescent girls: A growth curve analysis. Developmental Psychology,
37, 597–619. https​://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.37.5.597.
Štulhofer, A., Jurin, T., & Briken, P. (2016). Is high sexual desire afacet of male hypersexuality? Results from an online study.
Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 42, 665–680. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/00926​23X.2015.11135​85.
Toates, F. (2009). An integrative theoretical framework for understanding sexual motivation, arousal, and behavior. Journal of Sex
Research, 46, 168–193. https:​ //doi.org/10.1080/002244​ 90902​ 7477​
68.
Vallerand, R. J. (2015). The psychology of passion: A dualistic model.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Vallerand, R. J., Blanchard, C., Mageau, G. A., Koestner, R.,
Ratelle, C., Leonard, M., … Marsolais, J. (2003). Les passions
de l’ame: On obsessive and harmonious passion. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 756–767. https​://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.4.756.
Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2004). Sexual passion, intimacy, andgender. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closenessand intimacy (pp. 189–200). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Weinstein, N., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2011). Motivational determinants of integrating positive and negative past identities. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 527–544. https​://doi.
org/10.1037/a0022​150.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard tojurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.