Synonyms

0–6 scale; Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale; Kinsey number; KS; Sexual orientation measure

Definition

The Kinsey Scale, originally called the Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale, is a continuum-based measure wherein sexual orientation is rated from zero (exclusively heterosexual) to six (exclusively homosexual).

Introduction

Until relatively recently, most Westernized societies viewed sexual orientation in categorical terms. Specifically, the full range of sexual and romantic desires towards a particular sex and/or gender (APA, 2015) was divided into being either heterosexual or not. In the late 1940s, Alfred Kinsey and colleagues introduced the Kinsey Scale, a scale that focused on sexual behavior and attraction rather than sexual identity. From Kinsey’s perspective, sexual identity categories were employed by society to limit and punish those who acted contrary to norms (Drucker, 2010; Galupo et al., 2014). As such, Kinsey believed that behavior, not people, should be labeled in terms of categories (e.g., “heterosexual” behavior). By using a continuum-based design and by separating identity from behavior, the Kinsey Scale distanced individuals from the stigma associated with sexual identity categories used at the time (e.g., “homosexual”; Drucker, 2010).

Historical Context and Original Structure

In 1948, Alfred Kinsey, Wardell Pomeroy, and Clyde Martin published the groundbreaking book titled Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. It is within this publication that Kinsey and colleagues introduced the Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale, which was to be later referred to as the Kinsey Scale. It is within this publication focused on men’s sexual behavior and a later publication focused on women’s sexual behavior (Kinsey et al., 1953) that the Kinsey Scale was described as a continuum, ranging from 0 “exclusively heterosexual” to 6 “exclusively homosexual,” with values 1–5 representing non-monosexual attraction and behavior to varying degrees. This numeric scale was accompanied by a visual graph, representing the continuous and linear nature of the scale points, and all seven scale points were given specific values (e.g., 2 = “predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual”). As such, the completion of the scale results in what is popularly termed one’s Kinsey number. However, in these original publications, individuals were more often ascribed intermediary numbers (e.g., between 4 and 5) than whole numbers (e.g., 4 and 5, respectively; Weinrich, 2014b). Another particularly unique aspect of the Kinsey Scale was the inclusion of the category X, representing those with no sexual desires (Kinsey et al., 1953) or those who had not engaged in sexual behaviors (Kinsey et al., 1948).

In the original publications and use of the Kinsey Scale, the scale was not employed in isolation but was instead part of a lengthy sexual history interview (Weinrich, 2014b). In Kinsey and colleagues’ original research, it was typically the interviewer who assigned a Kinsey number based on the responses obtained during the sexual history interview. Only participants who reported engaging in some form of same-sex thoughts or behavior were shown the Kinsey Scale and asked to place themselves on it. However, if the interviewers felt that the number endorsed by the participant was inaccurate, they would modify it themselves (Alexander & Suresha, 2008; Drucker, 2010). This was not an uncommon occurrence. For example, cultural beliefs at that time assumed that men who were recipients of oral sex from another man were not inherently homosexual (Weinrich, 2014b). As such, someone with such experiences may still rate themselves as a 0 on the scale but, in these instances, the researchers would modify their number accordingly.

Political and Social Influence

The Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female books were widely popular, selling nearly a million copies, and were translated into 13 different languages (Kinsey Institute, 2020). Given its popularity and the relatively scandalous nature of the data reported within these two books, it is perhaps not surprising that their influence extended beyond academia. The data presented in the Kinsey reports, some of which were derived from using the Kinsey Scale, had a direct impact on cultural views of sexuality, American politics, and even US Law. Although the data in the Kinsey reports were used as fodder for anti-homosexual campaigns (Allyn, 1996), they have also been credited for contributing to the sexual revolution of the 1960s and the gay liberation movement (Alexander & Suresha, 2008). In what was to become the most widely publicized statistic, Kinsey reported that 10% of the men sampled had a Kinsey number of 6 for at least 3 years; many people saw this as evidence that 10% of the US population was gay (Bancroft, 2004; Drucker, 2010). For sexual “minorities,” this became proof that they existed in sufficient numbers to warrant equal rights, which spurred the fight for gay and lesbian liberation (Bancroft, 2004). For example, the American Law Institute made a motion to revise the Model Penal Code in 1955, recommending that many of the sexual behaviors that were considered illegal (e.g., premarital sex, homosexual relationships, etc.) be decriminalized, so long as they are between consenting adults (Allyn, 1996; Bancroft, 2004).

Criticisms of the Kinsey Scale

Although the Kinsey Scale is arguably one of the most widely used and commonly known measures of sexual orientation (Galupo et al., 2018), three key criticisms of the scale have been raised. First, a critical limitation is that there is no detailed account of the psychometric properties of the original Kinsey Scale (Weinrich, 2014b). Likely due to the lack of access to computers, few statistics were calculated on the original Kinsey data, and instead, most of the reported data were descriptive frequencies. As modern data analysis procedures require a very different approach, one that is heavily reliant on statistics to demonstrate psychometric properties, it would be incredibly difficult to replicate the original Kinsey Scale data (Weinrich, 2014b).

A second limitation of the Kinsey Scale is rooted in the cultural era in which the scale was created (Burleson, 2008). The use of the term “homosexual” in the original scale is now considered outdated and inappropriate (APA, 2021). Moreover, gender identity is now seen as being best represented along a continuum (Hyde et al., 2019), and as such, assessments of sexual orientation must respect this diversity of attraction and behavior (Weinrich, 2014a). Because the Kinsey Scale was created at a time when gender and sex were considered binary, it lacks the nuance necessary for those who identify beyond the gender binary (and those who are attracted to such individuals) to complete the scale (Galupo et al., 2014, 2018). Moreover, people with certain sexual identities (e.g., pansexual) report difficulties in using the scale (Galupo et al., 2014). Perhaps owing to these difficulties, people with queer and pansexual identities, as well as those who are nonbinary and transgender, see the Kinsey Scale less positively (Galupo et al., 2018). Thus, although the Kinsey Scale was revolutionary for its time, it may further marginalize and alienate the very people who represent the sexual diversity that it was intended to illuminate. Additionally, the Kinsey Scale is a Western measure, created in a particular social context and era, and as such, it may be inappropriate to apply this scale to other cultures (Burleson, 2008).

A third limitation pertains to the limited scope of the Kinsey Scale. Specifically, the Kinsey Scale does not include romantic attractions or reference to love-based relationships (Swan, 2018), now considered an important component of sexual orientation (Diamond, 2003). Moreover, the Kinsey Scale does not include the number of partners or preference for the frequency of sex (Weinrich, 2014a). Further, the Kinsey Scale does not separate sexual behaviors from sexual desire (Weinrich, 2014a). Although Kinsey included both behavior and “psychic reactions,” current conceptualizations of sexuality see these experiences as distinct, and many see the Kinsey Scale as predominantly emphasizing sexual behavior (Swan, 2018). Lastly, the Kinsey Scale disregards sexual identity, and although Kinsey and colleagues saw this as a strength of the scale, current conceptualizations of sexual orientation situate identity as a key component (Swan, 2018).

Despite, or perhaps because of these criticisms, later researchers created new sexual orientation measures. For example, the Klein Grid (see “Sexual Orientation: Klein Grid,” this volume), which is seen by some as an extension of the Kinsey Scale (Alexander & Suresha, 2008), was created to address some of the limitations seen in the Kinsey Scale. For example, although women interviewed for the second book (Kinsey et al., 1953) were asked to complete the Kinsey Scale for every year of their life since age 40, the Kinsey Scale did not formally include reference to sexual fluidity. As such, the Klein Grid required participants to respond to sexual orientation items for multiple time periods in their lives (Klein et al., 1985).

Contemporary Uses of the Kinsey Scale

While the Kinsey Scale was radical at the time of its inception, more modern understandings of sexual orientation and gender identity have moved beyond the theories that provided the foundation of the Kinsey Scale. Although the Kinsey Scale has done a great deal to advance sex research, it is no longer the pinnacle measure of sexual orientation (Weinrich, 2014a). Despite this, the Kinsey Scale is still used today. In research settings, the Kinsey Scale is typically modified (Shively et al. 1983/1984). One of the most popular modifications is to employ the scale as a self-report measure and typically without the sexual history interview (Weinrich, 2014b). Another popular modification is to only allow participants to use whole numbers as allotted in the 7-point scale, instead of the decimals initially permitted (Weinrich, 2014b).

The Kinsey Scale is easily accessible through the Kinsey Institute webpage, wherein the scale values, the visual graphic used to describe the continuous nature of the scale, and a brief history are provided (Kinsey Institute, 2020). Given this public accessibility and the fact that the scale is the most infamous sexual orientation measure, there are numerous online reproductions of the Kinsey Scale found across the internet on forums and websites (Drucker, 2012). These reproductions provide online querents with an opportunity to explore their sexual orientation without discrete identity categories and their related stigmas, just as Kinsey had intended (Drucker, 2012). Indeed, the online environment appears to simultaneously provide anonymity and access to sexual minority communities required for supportive explorations of sexual identity. However, in a review of these online versions of the Kinsey Scale, Drucker (2012) noted that while some were relatively accurate or exact replications of the scale, others were not and went beyond what Kinsey and colleagues had intended.

Conclusion

The Kinsey Scale represents a revolutionary step towards understanding the diversity of sexual behavior and attraction (Bancroft, 2004; Drucker, 2010; Weinrich, 2014b). By focusing on sexual behaviors and desires, rather than sexual identities, Kinsey aimed to reduce the stigmas attached to criminalized sexual identities. Moreover, the implementation of a scale that conceptualized sexuality upon a continuum allowed researchers, and the general public, to focus on sexual behaviors and the fluidity of their expression over time. The rating scale also acknowledged the existence of those who did not experience sexual attraction at all, representing a monumental step in the recognition of asexual persons. In the nearly three-quarters of a century since the scale’s original introduction to the world, the language around sexual orientation has evolved to include such diverse sexual and gender identities as pansexual and nonbinary. Consequently, the original Kinsey Scale may not accurately represent the experiences of persons with these identities. Nevertheless, the Kinsey Scale has had an immeasurable impact on sex research and theory, Western politics, and the public’s understanding of sexuality.

Cross-References