Personality and Individual Dierences 43 (2007) 15061516

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Big Five and HEXACO model personality correlates

of sexuality
Joshua S. Bourdage
a

a,*

, Kibeom Lee a, Michael C. Ashton b, Alissa Perry

Department of Psychology, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive N.W., Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4
b
Department of Psychology, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada
Received 5 December 2006; received in revised form 12 April 2007; accepted 17 April 2007
Available online 8 June 2007

Abstract
The present study examined the relations of sexuality variablesspecically, the Sexy Seven scales
and Sociosexual Orientationwith personality dimensions of the HEXACO model and the Five-Factor
model (FFM). The Extraversion factors of both models were associated with the Sexy Seven scales of Emotional Investment and Sexual Attractiveness, whereas HEXACO HonestyHumility and FFM Agreeableness were related to restricted Sociosexual Orientation and to the Sexy Seven variables of Relationship
Exclusivity and (low) Erotophilic Disposition. The two personality frameworks showed similar levels of
multiple correlations with the sexuality variables, although the HEXACO model showed some advantage
in predicting Sexual Attractiveness, Relationship Exclusivity, and Sociosexuality.
2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: HEXACO; Big Five; Sexuality; Personality Structure

1. Introduction
Individuals dier in sexual behaviors, preferences, and attitudes. Understanding these individual dierences in sexuality is important from both a practical and a theoretical standpoint. From
*

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 403 220 2867; fax: +1 403 282 8249.
E-mail address: jbordage@ucalgary.ca (J.S. Bourdage).

0191-8869/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.008

J.S. Bourdage et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 43 (2007) 15061516

1507

the practical point of view, individual dierences in sexuality have important implications for individuals in their daily lives. For example, a violation of relationship delity can result in divorce
(Symons, 1979), and certain sexual behaviors may have important implications for individuals
health (e.g., Hoyle, Fejfar, & Miller, 2000). From a theoretical standpoint, individual dierences
in sexuality may have direct implications for reproductive success, which suggests an important
role for such variation during the human evolutionary past (e.g., Belsky, Steinberg, & Draper,
1991; Gangestad & Simpson, 1990).
During the past 20 years, an increasing volume of research has examined individual dierences
in sexuality (e.g., Schmitt, 2004; Schmitt & Buss, 2000; Simpson & Gangestad, 1991). In the present study, we attempted to extend these eorts by investigating how the various dimensions of sexuality can be related to an important domain of individual dierences, namely, personality.
Research suggests that personality may be an important predictor of such individual dierences
in sexuality. For example, Psychoticism in the PEN model (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985) has been
positively related to sexual aggression in males (Malamuth, 1988), whereas Neuroticism in the
Five-Factor model (FFM) has been negatively related to both marital stability and marital satisfaction (Karney & Bradbury, 1995). In the present examination of the relationship between
personality and sexuality, we assessed personality in terms of both the FFM and a relatively
new six-dimensional framework known as the HEXACO model. We describe these personality
frameworks below, but rst we provide an overview of the sexuality variables examined in the
present study. Specically, we review the recent identication of several sexuality dimensions
by Schmitt and Buss (2000), and we describe the Sociosexuality construct as developed by Simpson and Gangestad (1991).
1.1. Sexuality variables
1.1.1. The Sexy Seven dimensions
Schmitt and Buss (2000) adopted a lexical strategy in attempting to identify the major dimensions of sexuality. Specically, they selected 67 English terms that describe various aspects of human sexuality. Many of these adjectives had not previously been included in English lexical
studies of personality structure because they were judged to fall beyond the domain of personality proper, or to be more applicable to one sex than the other (see Schmitt & Buss, 2000, for
details).
Schmitt and Buss (2000) factor analyzed ratings on these 67 sexuality-descriptive adjectives and
identied seven factors that became the basis of the Sexy Seven model of sexuality. These seven
dimensions include (1) Sexual Attractiveness (e.g., sexy, stunning, seductive), (2) Relationship
Exclusivity (e.g., faithful and monogamous versus promiscuous and adulterous), (3) Gender Orientation (e.g., feminine versus masculine), (4) Sexual Restraint (e.g., virginal, celibate, and chaste), (5)
Erotophilic Disposition (e.g., obscene, vulgar, lewd), (6) Emotional Investment (e.g., loving,
romantic, aectionate), and (7) Sexual Orientation (e.g., homosexual versus heterosexual).
1.1.2. Sociosexuality
During the past 15 years, one of the most widely studied individual dierence variables in the
domain of sexuality has been Sociosexual Orientation, or Sociosexuality, a dimension that

1508

J.S. Bourdage et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 43 (2007) 15061516

contrasts two opposing mating strategies (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991). Sociosexuality refers to
ones willingness to engage in uncommitted sexual relations, such that persons having a restricted
Sociosexual Orientation generally require closeness and commitment prior to engaging in sex with
a partner, whereas persons having an unrestricted Sociosexual Orientation are comfortable engaging in sex without a sense of closeness or commitment.
1.2. Personality models: The Five-Factor and HEXACO models
As mentioned previously, the Sexy Seven sexuality dimensions and Sociosexuality will be examined within the frameworks of two personality models known as the FFM and HEXACO model.
We now provide an overview of these two models.
By the 1990s, there had emerged a near-consensus that human personality variation can be explained in terms of the ve dimensions known as the Big Five (Goldberg, 1990). These factors are
commonly labeled as Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability (versus
Neuroticism), and Intellect/Imagination or Openness to Experience (see Goldberg, 1993, for a review). The Big Five originally emerged from a series of English-language lexical studies of personality structure, in which self- and/or peer ratings on many personality-descriptive adjectives were
factor analyzed (e.g., Goldberg, 1990). These ve factors have since become widely known in the
context of the questionnaire-based Five-Factor model (Costa & McCrae, 1992).
A recent re-analysis of several lexical studies, however, indicated the existence of six, not just
ve, robust personality dimensions. Those six factors were recovered across seven languages,
including Dutch, French, German, Hungarian, Italian, Korean, and Polish (Ashton et al.,
2004). Subsequently, similar sets of six factors have also been found in other languages, such
as English (Ashton, Lee, & Goldberg, 2004), Turkish (Wasti, Lee, Ashton, & Somer, in press),
and Filipino, Greek, and Croatian (Ashton & Lee, 2007).
These six factors observed across languages have become the basis of the personality framework known as the HEXACO model, an acronym that reects the number and names of the factors: HonestyHumility, Emotionality, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and
Openness to Experience. Three factors of the HEXACO model, namely Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience, are very similar to those of the FFM. Importantly, however, the other three factors do not show isomorphic correspondence with the FFM variables.
First, the variance of the HonestyHumility factorwhich subsumes traits such as sincerity, fairness, greed-avoidance, and modestyis not very well represented in the FFM (Lee, Ogunfowora,
& Ashton, 2005). Second, HEXACO Agreeableness includes content related to even-temper versus anger, which chiey denes Neuroticism in the FFM. Moreover, Emotionality in the HEXACO model includes content related to sentimentality and sensitivity, which typically denes
FFM Agreeableness.
Given these important dierences between the FFM and HEXACO model, it is possible that
sexuality variables might show rather dierent relations with the personality space, depending
on which model is used in summarizing the personality domain. Below, we will rst discuss the
research that has been conducted to date regarding the FFM and these sexuality variables. We
will then suggest possible links between the HEXACO model and sexuality variables, as there
has been no research thus far specically relating these two sets of constructs.

J.S. Bourdage et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 43 (2007) 15061516

1509

1.3. Sexuality and the Big Five

1.3.1. Sexy Seven
As mentioned, the main published investigation of the relations between the Sexy Seven and the
dimensions of a comprehensive personality taxonomy is that of Schmitt and Buss (2000). Their
ndings indicated that the sexuality dimensions showed some meaningful relations with the Big
Five variables as measured by Goldbergs (1992) 100 Big Five marker adjectives. Although some
sexuality dimensions (e.g., Gender Orientation and Sexual Orientation) showed rather weak relations (i.e., multiple correlations in the .30 s), others (e.g., Sexual Attractiveness, Erotophilic Disposition, and Emotional Investment) showed quite strong relations (i.e., multiple correlations in
the .50 s). Two other Sexy Seven variables, Relationship Exclusivity and Sexual Restraint, showed
relations whose strength was intermediate (i.e., multiple correlations in the .40 s).
The results of Schmitt and Buss (2000) indicated that three of the FFM variables were substantially correlated with one or more dimensions of sexuality. Extraversion was associated with
the dimensions whose common component appears to suggest general sexual arousal (Sexual
Attractiveness, Sexual Restraint, and Erotophilic Disposition), and was also associated to a lesser
degree with Emotional Investment (dened by loving, lovable, cuddlesome, and romantic). Agreeableness showed a strong correlation with Emotional Investment and some moderate correlations
with Relationship Exclusivity and with (low) Erotophilic Disposition. Conscientiousness was correlated with Relationship Exclusivity and with (low) Erotophilic Disposition (see also Schmitt,
2004). Emotional Stability and Openness to Experience did not correlate strongly with the sexuality dimensions, except for a modest correlation of Openness to Experience with Sexual Orientation
(r = .20 s, such that higher Openness was weakly associated with a non-heterosexual orientation).
1.3.2. Sociosexuality
A substantial portion of the variation in Sociosexuality has been found to be accounted for by
sex dierences (Schmitt, 2005), but there remains much within-sex variation in this variable (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991). Moreover, previous research suggests that some of this variance can be
explained by personality traits. For example, Wright and Reise (1997) found that low Agreeableness and high Extraversion predicted an unrestricted Sociosexual Orientation. In general, however, the extent to which the FFM variables are related to Sociosexual Orientation has been
somewhat weak.
1.4. Sexuality and the HEXACO model
We expect that many of the relations described above between sexuality variables and the Big
Five personality factors will also emerge when personality is examined using the HEXACO factors. For example, the close similarities between the FFM and HEXACO variants of Openness to
Experience, Conscientiousness, and Extraversion suggest that the results observed for these Big
Five dimensions will generalize to the corresponding HEXACO factors. However, we also predict
some dierences between the two models in their relations with sexuality variables.
First, we expect that the HonestyHumility factor of the HEXACO model will be positively
associated with Relationship Exclusivity of the Sexy Seven and with restricted Sociosexuality.
One basis for this prediction is the study by Simpson, Gangestad, and Biek (1993), in which

1510

J.S. Bourdage et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 43 (2007) 15061516

participants were placed in a situation where they could interact with an attractive opposite sex
interviewer. Non-verbal behaviors displayed by males high on Sociosexuality were perceived to
be phony and arrogant by the observers, which are characteristics of low HonestyHumility
in the HEXACO model. Another relevant nding is that Machiavellianism (Christie & Geis,
1970), a tendency to manipulate and exploit others, is associated with promiscuity (especially
among men) and permissive sexual attitudes (McHoskey, 2001). Given the strong negative link
between HonestyHumility and Machiavellianism (Lee & Ashton, 2005), the results of the above
studies suggest that HonestyHumility would be associated with Relationship Exclusivity and
with restricted Sociosexuality.
In addition to the predicted links involving HonestyHumility as described above, a negative
association between HonestyHumility and (self-rated) Sexual Attractiveness can be predicted
on the basis of a recent nding by Lee et al. (2005). They reported that HEXACO Honesty
Humility correlated negatively with the Seductiveness scale of the Supernumerary Personality
Inventory (SPI; Paunonen, 2002). Considering that content related to SPI Seductiveness tends
to load highly on the Sexual Attractiveness factor of the Sexy Seven (e.g., seductive, sensual,
and alluring), it is plausible that HonestyHumility will contribute, in the negative direction, to
the prediction of the Sexy Seven Sexual Attractiveness dimension.
Finally, we should note that previous ndings of signicant relations between sexuality variables and FFM Agreeableness do not necessarily lead to the prediction that those aspects of sexuality would relate to HEXACO Agreeableness. We remind readers that HEXACO
Agreeableness is not identical to FFM Agreeableness. Instead, HEXACO Agreeableness includes
a prominent element of patience and tolerance versus anger and hostility; these traits dene FFM
Emotional Stability, not FFM Agreeableness.
On the basis of the above analyses of the conceptual links between sexuality variables and the
HEXACO personality factorsparticularly HonestyHumilitywe proposed the following
hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: HonestyHumility will be correlated positively with the Relationship Exclusivity
dimension of the Sexy Seven.
Hypothesis 2: HonestyHumility will be correlated negatively with Sociosexuality (i.e., negatively related to unrestricted Sociosexuality).
Hypothesis 3: HonestyHumility will be correlated negatively with the Sexual Attractiveness
dimension of the Sexy Seven.

2. Method
2.1. Participants and procedure
Undergraduate students at a Canadian university participated in exchange for course credit or
cash payment. Of the 230 participants, 122 were women and 108 were men. The mean age of participants was 22.5 years (SD = 3.9), with a range from 19 to 52 and a median of 22 years.
Due to the sensitive nature of the questions, every eort was made to ensure that participants
felt comfortable answering questions forthrightly. Specically, participants were seated at their

J.S. Bourdage et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 43 (2007) 15061516

1511

own tables, separated from other participants by a large opaque dividing board. When nished,
participants placed completed answer sheets in an envelope and inserted this envelope into a box
at the front of the room.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Personality variables
The half-length form (96 items) of the HEXACO personality inventory was used to operationalize the six lexically derived factors from previous studies (see Lee & Ashton, 2004). To measure
the FFM variables, we used the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992, NEO-FFI),
which consists of 60 items (12 items per factor). For all items of both personality inventories, responses were made on a ve-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).
2.2.2. The Sexy Seven
Participants were also administered the 67 adjectives that constitute the Sexy Seven scales, which
assess the sexuality dimensions identied by the factor analysis of Schmitt and Buss (2000). The
seven scales were found to show acceptable reliabilities in the study by Schmitt and Buss, ranging
from .77 (Sexual Orientation) to .95 (Gender Orientation), and to display strong convergent correlations with existing measures of variables that are conceptually related to the Sexy Seven scales.
All adjectives were administered in self-rating format in this study, using a 17 response scale.
2.2.3. Sociosexuality
The Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI, Simpson & Gangestad, 1991) was used to assess
Sociosexual Orientation. This 7-item scale assesses attitudes and behaviors relevant to the tendency to engage in uncommitted sexual relations. A low score on this scale indicates a restricted
Sociosexual Orientation, while a high score indicates an unrestricted Sociosexual Orientation. Psychometric properties of the SOI are well established, and this measure has been widely used across
a diverse range of modern cultures (Schmitt, 2005).

3. Results
Before describing the major results of the study, we briey mention the correlations among the
personality variables within each inventory. Within the HEXACO-PI, HonestyHumility and
Agreeableness correlated .43, a value that is somewhat higher than those observed in previous
studies, but all other correlations fell below .30. Within the NEO-FFI, Extraversion correlated
.31 with Neuroticism and .32 with Conscientiousness, but all other correlations fell below .30.
Among the Sexy Seven dimensions, Sexual Attractiveness correlated .48 with Erotophilic Disposition and .44 with Emotional Investment, and Erotophilic Disposition correlated .53 with Relationship Exclusivity. All other correlations fell below .40. Sociosexuality showed strong
correlations with three of the Sexy Seven dimensions: Relationship Exclusivity (r = .70), Erotophilic Disposition (r = .56) and Sexual Restraint (r = .50).
Table 1 shows correlations of the sexuality variables with the personality variables, both before
and after controlling for participant sex by standardizing all variables within each sex. In general,

1512

HEXACO-PI
HonestyHumility (.86)
Emotionality (.84)
Extraversion (.86)
Agreeableness (.86)
Conscientiousness (.81)
Openness to Experience (.82)

NEO-FFI
Neuroticism (.88)
Extraversion (.79)
Openness to Experience (.76)
Agreeableness (.76)
Conscientiousness (.81)

Relationship
Exclusivity
(.86)

Emotional
Investment
(.77)

Sexual
Attractiveness
(.89)

Erotophilic
Disposition
(.86)

Gender
Orientation
(.95)

Sexual
Restraint
(.86)

Sexual
Orientation
(.82)

(Unrestricted)
Sociosexuality
(.86)

.38
.18
.09
.16
.23
.05

(.36)
(.10)
( .08)
(.20)
(.23)
( .04)

.09
.27
.35
.02
.13
.09

(.05)
(.24)
(.37)
( .01)
(.13)
(.09)

.21
.01
.40
.19
.07
.11

( .21)
( .03)
(.42)
( .18)
( .07)
(.13)

.34
.18
.17
.23
.29
.01

( .31)
( .07)
(.16)
( .27)
( .30)
( .02)

.11
.55
.01
.13
.04
.09

( .04)
(.17)
(.10)
(.04)
(.07)
( .04)

.17
.05
.14
.09
.03
.03

(.17)
(.06)
( .15)
(.08)
(.02)
( .04)

.04
.15
.12
.16
.10
.07

(.00)
(.02)
( .07)
( .13)
( .11)
(.09)

.36
.24
.07
.20
.18
.10

( .33)
( .14)
(.07)
( .25)
( .19)
(.10)

R = .45

R = .44

R = .52

R = .49

R = .23

R = .26

R = .22

R = .44

.06
.03
.02
.34
.11

.00
.37
.10
.21
.10

.11
.27
.08
.12
.03

.01
.03
.01
.41
.22

.30
.02
.02
.16
.02

.05
.07
.10
.10
.09

.22
.22
.11
.07
.04

.00
.03
.11
.33
.06

( .14)
(.04)
( .04)
(.32)
(.13)

R = .35

( .06)
(.39)
(.08)
(.19)
(.11)

R = .41

( .15)
(.29)
(.09)
( .13)
( .02)

R = .42

(.10)
(.02)
( .01)
( .39)
( .24)

R = .48

( .04)
(.08)
( .07)
(.09)
(.09)

R = .14

(.06)
( .08)
( .10)
(.10)
(.08)

R = .22

(.15)
( .22)
(.10)
( .12)
( .03)

R = .28

(.08)
( .03)
(.15)
( .31)
( .08)

R = .36

Note. N = 228230. R = Multiple correlations based on within-sex standardized scores on predictor and criterion scales. Values in parentheses next to variable names are
internal-consistency reliabilities (coecient alpha). Correlations in parentheses are based on within-sex standardized scores on predictor and criterion scales.

J.S. Bourdage et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 43 (2007) 15061516

Table 1
Correlations of sexuality scales with HEXACO-PI scales and NEO-FFI scales

J.S. Bourdage et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 43 (2007) 15061516

1513

the sex-controlled correlations were similar to the zero-order correlations, except for some of the
relations involving Sexy Seven Gender Orientation or HEXACO-PI Emotionality (see below).
Table 1 also displays the multiple correlations achieved by the HEXACO-PI scales and by the
NEO-FFI scales in predicting the sexuality variables. Note that these multiple correlations are
based on the within-sex standardized scores on the personality and sexuality scales, and thus control for sex dierences in those variables. Where comparisons are made between the multiple correlations obtained by the HEXACO-PI and the NEO-FFI, signicance tests were conducted
following the procedure suggested by Graf and Alf (1999). We describe these ndings below.
Personality variables were rather weak predictors of three of the Sexy Seven dimensions,
namely Gender Orientation (GO), Sexual Restraint (SR), and Sexual Orientation (SO); for these
Sexy Seven scales, the multiple correlations obtained with either personality model were rather
small, all falling below .30. Although HEXACO-PI Emotionality correlated strongly with GO
(r = .55), the correlation dropped to .17 after controlling for sex.
To varying degrees, the other sexuality variables were associated more strongly with personality
variables than were GO, SR, and SO. Both HEXACO-PI and NEO-FFI variables obtained moderate multiple correlations with Emotional Investment (EI) and Sexual Attractiveness (SA). Within both personality models, the dimension that was primarily responsible for these multiple
correlations was Extraversion. HEXACO-PI Extraversion correlated .35 with EI and .40 with
SA, whereas NEO-FFI Extraversion correlated .37 with EI and .27 with SA. The two personality
models showed similar multiple correlations with EI, whereas the multiple correlation obtained by
the HEXACO model (R = .52) was greater than that obtained by the FFM (R = .42) in predicting
SA (Rdi = .10, p < .05, one tailed). Moreover, consistent with Hypothesis 3, HonestyHumility
was negatively related to self-rated Sexual Attractiveness (r = .21). However, although a small
portion of the advantage of the HEXACO model in accounting for SA can be attributed to the
presence of HonestyHumility, the major advantage of the HEXACO model appears to be due to
the stronger correlation of Sexual Attractiveness with HEXACO Extraversion (r = .40) than with
the NEO-FFI Extraversion factor (r = .27). We return to this nding in Section 4. In addition,
several personality variables other than Extraversion were also signicantly related to SA (see
Table 1). Finally, HEXACO-PI Emotionality was related to EI (r = .27).
For the three remaining sexuality variables, namely Relationship Exclusivity (RE), Erotophilic
Disposition (ED), and Sociosexuality (SS), the main personality predictors were HEXACO-PI
HonestyHumility and NEO-FFI Agreeableness. These personality scales showed correlations
in the .30 s and .40 s with these three sexuality variables. Note that HonestyHumility correlated
signicantly in the expected direction with both RE and SS, providing support for Hypotheses 1
and 2. With regard to the overall predictive validity of the two personality models, the multiple
correlations were similar for ED (i.e., .49 for the HEXACO model and .48 for the FFM). However, the multiple correlations obtained by the HEXACO model were somewhat greater than
those obtained by the FFM in predicting RE (R = .45 versus .35, Rdi = .10, p < .05, one tailed)
and in predicting SS (R = .44 versus .36, Rdi = .08, p < .06, one tailed). HonestyHumility appears to be partly responsible for the predictive advantage of the HEXACO model over the
FFM: when we added HonestyHumility to the regression equations involving the NEO-FFI
variables, the multiple correlations for RE and SS increased to .41 (from .35) and .42 (from
.36), respectively. Finally, the Conscientiousness scales of both inventories were negatively related
to ED (r = .29 and .22 for the HEXACO-PI and NEO-FFI scales, respectively). In addition,

1514

J.S. Bourdage et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 43 (2007) 15061516

HEXACO-PI Conscientiousness was signicantly related to both RE (r = .23) and SS (r = .18),

but in both cases the relations were smaller than those observed for HEXACO-PI Honesty
Humility or NEO-FFI Agreeableness.

4. Discussion
The main purpose of this study was to investigate the important personality correlates of several dimensions of individual dierences in sexuality. These relations were examined using two
models of personality, namely, the FFM and the HEXACO model. One of the major ndings
was that Extraversion was strongly correlated with the Sexy Seven dimensions of Emotional
Investment and Sexual Attractiveness. One puzzling nding was that, in predicting Sexual Attractiveness, the HEXACO-PI Extraversion scale showed a stronger relation than did the NEO-FFI
Extraversion scale, despite the strong convergent correlation between the two Extraversion scales
(r = .74). Inspection of the correlations of Sexual Attractiveness with individual items in the two
Extraversion scales does not suggest that any particular facet of HEXACO-PI Extraversion is
responsible for the stronger relation with SA. More research is needed to determine whether this
nding is robust, and if so, to examine the nature of the observed dierence.
Consistent with our predictions, HonestyHumility was associated with Relationship Exclusivity and with restricted Sociosexuality. This result is thus consistent with the ndings of Simpson
et al. (1993), who found that sociosexually unrestricted men were perceived as phony and arrogant, and also with the ndings of McHoskey (2001), who found that promiscuity and permissive
attitudes were associated with Machiavellianism. Together, these results suggest that there is a robust and moderately strong association between HonestyHumility and faithfulness in sexual
relationships. This relation is readily understood in terms of our interpretation of Honesty
Humility as a dimension of reluctance versus willingness to exploit others (see, e.g., Ashton &
Lee, 2007), insofar as cheating on a partner is inherently an act of deceit or deception, and
one that is likely to reect a strong sense of entitlement on the part of the unfaithful partner.
Some dierences should be noted between the ndings of Schmitt and Buss (2000) and those of
the present research. For example, EI correlated with the Big Five Agreeableness much more
strongly (r = .50 for men, r = .59 for women) than was observed in our study (r = .21). A possible
explanation for this is that both the Sexy Seven and the personality scale used in the study by Schmitt and Buss were adjectival measures of personality, and that some of the adjectives of one measure are near-synonyms of adjectives of the other measure. One example involves the adjectives
warm and sympathetic in Goldbergs Big Five Agreeableness scale, which are similar in meaning
to aectionate and compassionate, two of the adjectives in the Sexy Seven Emotional Investment
scale. This may at least partially account for the much higher correlations observed by Schmitt
and Buss.
Our ndings regarding the relationship of Extraversion with (low) Sexual Restraint also contrasted with those observed by Schmitt and Buss (2000). Specically, Schmitt and Buss reported
that Extraversion was signicantly and negatively correlated with Sexual Restraint (r = .39 for
men, r = .33 for women), whereas we did not nd such signicant relations in this sample
(r = .14 for the HEXACO-PI, r = .07 for the NEO-FFI). This might once again be explained
by the dierent personality scales used in the present study and in Schmitt and Busss (2000) study.

J.S. Bourdage et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 43 (2007) 15061516

1515

Goldbergs Big Five Extraversion scale as used by Schmitt and Buss includes some terms describing social boldness (e.g., bold, active, and unrestrained versus inhibited and unadventurous), which
might be the component of Extraversion that is most relevant to SR. This explanation was partially supported by the present data. Specically, when we examined the correlations of the four
narrow facet-level scales within HEXACO-PI Extraversion (see facet descriptions in Lee &
Ashton, 2004) with SR, social boldness was signicantly correlated (r = .21), but the other three
facet measures, expressiveness (r = .02), sociability (r = .10), and liveliness (r = .08) were
not.
4.1. Limitations and future directions
One limitation of this study is that we obtained only self-report data from participants, and
thus some portion of the observed relations could have been due to a certain amount of common
method variance. However, given the relatively strong convergence between self-ratings and observer ratings of personality characteristics (Lee & Ashton, 2006), it is likely that a similar pattern
of relations would emerge in a study using observer ratings. Nevertheless, future studies adopting
multiple rating sources will be needed to establish the relations between sexuality and personality
more denitively.
Finally, in the present research, the seven sexuality dimensions were assessed using the adjectives that loaded strongly on each factor in the factor analysis performed by Schmitt and Buss
(2000). Although these adjectival scales provide a brief assessment that is valid and reliable, they
also have some limitations. For example, many adjectives used in these sexuality scales (e.g., faithful in Relationship Exclusivity, shameless in Erotophilic Disposition) can be interpreted broadly
as personality descriptors, and might not be used exclusively to refer to ones sexual proclivities,
even in the context of the instructions given in the Sexy Seven questionnaire. This could lead to a
problem of construct contamination when examining the relations between sexuality and personality. Therefore, it would be useful to develop for future research some sexuality scales whose
items are statements of typical behavioral tendencies, in which the contexts would be specied
in such a way that only sexuality-relevant traits are implicated. The links of sexuality variables
with personality dimensions might be more protably examined using such variables as measures
of sexuality constructs.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
grants 410-2003-0946 and 410-2003-1835.
References
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of
personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 150166.
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Goldberg, L. R. (2004). A hierarchical analysis of 1,710 English personality-descriptive
adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 707721.

1516

J.S. Bourdage et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 43 (2007) 15061516

Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Perugini, M., Szarota, P., de Vries, R. E., Di Blas, L., et al. (2004). A six-factor structure of
personality-descriptive adjectives: Solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 86, 356366.
Belsky, J., Steinberg, L., & Draper, P. (1991). Childhood experience, interpersonal development, and reproductive
strategy: An evolutionary theory of socialization. Child Development, 62, 647670.
Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor
Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual dierences. London: Plenum Press.
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (1990). Toward an evolutionary history of female sociosexual variation. Journal of
Personality, 58, 6996.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative description of personality: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 12161229.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4,
2642.
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 2634.
Graf, R. G., & Alf, E. F. Jr., (1999). Correlations redux: Asymptotic condence limits for partial and squared multiple
correlations. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 116119.
Hoyle, R. H., Fejfar, M. C., & Miller, J. D. (2000). Personality and sexual risk taking: A quantitative review. Journal of
Personality, 68, 12031231.
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory,
method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 334.
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO Personality Inventory. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 39, 329358.
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and Narcissism in the Five-Factor model and
HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Individual Dierences, 38, 15711582.
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2006). Further assessment of the HEXACO Personality Inventory: Two new facet scales and
an observer report form. Psychological Assessment, 18, 182191.
Lee, K., Ogunfowora, B., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Personality traits beyond the Big Five: Are they within the
HEXACO space? Journal of Personality, 73, 14371463.
Malamuth, N. M. (1988). Predicting laboratory aggression against female and male targets: Implications for sexual
aggression. Journal of Research in Personality, 22, 474495.
McHoskey, J. W. (2001). Machiavellianism and sexuality: On the moderating role of biological sex. Personality and
Individual Dierences, 31, 779789.
Paunonen, S. V. (2002). Design and construction of the Supernumerary Personality Inventory (Research Bulletin 763).
London, Ontario: University of Western Ontario.
Schmitt, D. P. (2004). The Big Five related to risky sexual behavior across 10 world regions: dierential associations of
sexual promiscuity and relationship indelity. European Journal of Personality, 18, 301319.
Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of
human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 247311.
Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Sexual dimensions of person description: Beyond or subsumed by the Big Five?
Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 141177.
Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual dierences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and
discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 11851204.
Simpson, J. A., Gangestad, S. W., & Biek, M. (1993). Personality and nonverbal social behavior: An ethological
perspective of relationship initiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 434461.
Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wasti, A., Lee, K., Ashton, M.C., & Somer, O. (in press). The Turkish personality lexicon and the HEXACO model of
personality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology.
Wright, T. M., & Reise, S. P. (1997). Personality and unrestricted sexual behavior: Correlations of sociosexuality in
Caucasian and Asian college students. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 166192.