Despite the personal and interpersonal significance, they hold, orgasms are attained less consistently by women compared to men (Wallen, 2006), possibly due to women encountering greater challenges in reaching orgasm (Barnett et al., 2019). During sexual intercourse without direct clitoral stimulation, only about one-third of all women experience an orgasm (Dawood et al., 2005; Prause et al., 2016). Approximately 70% of women report using clitoral stimulation during penetration to enhance sexual pleasure (Hensel et al., 2021). Additionally, only around 32% can reach orgasm while receiving oral sex (Vannier and O’Sullivan, 2012), and 14% of women have never had an orgasm or are unsure if they have (Dunn et al., 1999; Prause et al., 2016).

Despite societal pressure that links orgasm with femininity and normalcy (Ejder Apay et al., 2013; Nicolson and Burr, 2003), which could arise from both internal and various external influences (Chadwick et al., 2019), including magazines, novels, and pornography (Cabrera and Ménard, 2013; Lavie-Ajayi and Joffe, 2009; Séguin et al., 2018), a substantial proportion of women (50–70%) choose to fake orgasms (Csányi et al., 2022; Csányi et al., 2024; Muehlenhard and Shippee, 2010). Faking the climax of sexual activity can be defined as “acting or pretending as if you have had orgasm when you have not, through vocal confirmation and/or muscular contraction, regardless of the reason” (Cooper et al., 2014, p. 426). Female participants in study Bryan’s (2001) reported that they fake their orgasms most often during penetration without clitoral stimulation and least often when the intercourse is supplemented by clitoral stimulation.

As orgasm faking is a relational phenomenon, since faking has no meaning without the presence of another person, it is associated with various relational processes such as relationship and sexual satisfaction, love, commitment, and mate retention (Bode et al., 2024; Józefacka et al., 2023; Mostova et al., 2022). While 90% of men in relationships care if their female partner experiences orgasm (McKibbin et al., 2010), nearly 70% of participating women in study Muehlenhard and Shippee’s (2010) reported faking orgasm to avoid hurting their partner’s feelings, masculinity, and ego, or to please them.

Frith (2015) suggests that faking orgasm can interpreted as a rational response to gender disparities inherent in heteronormative sexual culture. Within this framework, women are less entitled to sexual pleasure compared to men (Klein and Conley, 2022); their orgasm primarily serves to bolster their partner’s masculinity and demonstrate their commitment to them (Lentz and Zaikman, 2021). In Western cultures, particularly through media representations, there is a strong emphasis on being a “good lover” (Dormandy, 2022). For men, this entails satisfying their female partner’s needs, while for women, it involves being sexually available and enhancing the masculinity of their male partner by achieving orgasm (Potts, 2000). Consequently, women may resort to faking orgasm to prevent their partners from feeling inadequate.

In contrast, feminist perspectives argue that the unrealistic expectation for women to climax during sexual intercourse (Ejder Apay et al., 2013; Nicolson and Burr, 2003) may lead women to fake orgasm as a means of avoiding stigmatization and being perceived as abnormal (Cooper et al., 2014). Regarding oral sex, the frequency of orgasm is associated with less faking, suggesting that women are more expected to reach orgasm during intercourse than when receiving oral sex (Bryan, 2001).

Sexual motivation can be defined as an individual’s intention for engaging in sexual intercourse (Meston and Buss, 2007), and this desire is one of the most fundamental motivational states for both men and women (Regan and Atkins, 2006). Meston and Buss (2007) observed that sexual motivations are more diverse and psychologically complex than previously thought. In contrary to earlier research that identified only a few motivations, they discovered 237 reasons, all capable of influencing participation in sexual intercourse. These reasons span a wide spectrum; for instance, sex might serve as a resource, incentive, reward, punishment, mate-guarding strategy, or as a means to intensify the relationship (Buss, 2003; Buss and Shackelford, 1997; Meskó et al., 2022; Meston and Buss, 2007).

While sexual satisfaction tends to decrease with the length of the relationship (McNulty et al., 2016), sexual motivations also decrease markedly among women (Klusmann, 2002). This decline may be associated with menopause, during which hormonal changes can directly cause sexual dysfunctions and decrease sexual desire. Additionally, hormonal changes may exert indirect effects through psychological mechanisms such as diminished self-esteem or negative body image due to weight gain and depression (Genazzani et al., 2007).

Research on sexual motivations has also revealed gender differences in attitudes toward sex and sexual behaviors (Meston and Buss, 2007). Generally, women’s sexual motivation tends to be more emotional, while men are more motivated by purely physical reasons to engage in sexual activities that may not require a deep understanding of the partner (Basson, 2000). Men tend to masturbate, consume pornographic content, and have sexual thoughts more frequently than women (Petersen and Hyde, 2010). Meskó et al. (2022) highlighted gender-specific patterns in sexual motivations, noting that men are driven by personal goals, leading them to be more impulsive and seek novelty, potentially resulting in infidelity more often.

In contrast, women’s sexual motivation is more characterized by coping with emotional difficulties, such as fear of abandonment, which may be interpreted as a form of subordination (Barbaro et al., 2015). Women are more likely to engage in sexual intercourse because they believe it will help maintain their partner, increase commitment to the relationship, and provide emotional closeness, bonding, and feelings of love (Impett et al., 2005).

Lehmiller (2023) suggests that sexual attitudes and behaviors are influenced not only by biological determinism but also by psychosocial factors, including societal expectations to conform to norms. Additionally, social pressures can also manifest in the perception of sexual availability as a commodity that can be exchanged for goods or resources (Meskó et al., 2022).

The Hungarian Short Form of Reasons for Having Sex Questionnaire (YSEX?-HSF; Meskó et al., 2022) was chosen for validating the Faking Orgasm Scale because it effectively captures a wide range of sexual motivations, including those focused on coping strategies. This focus on coping-driven sexual motivation is particularly relevant, as it likely relates to the reasons women may fake orgasms, providing deeper insight into the psychological factors influencing this behavior.

Although sexuality is typically understood within a relational framework, it is essential to consider not only general characteristics but also individual differences that influence the psychological functioning of the sexual system including associated motivations, emotions, and cognition when examining sexual activities (Birnbaum et al., 2014; Meskó and Õry, 2023). Birnbaum et al. (2014) developed a multidimensional assessment to evaluate experiences of heterosexual intercourse in women, providing a multifaceted emotional, cognitive, and motivational profile of women’s sexuality. These models of sexual functioning reveal individual patterns of attitudes, responses and behaviors within women’s sexual activities, helping to define the role of sexuality in women’s lives and enhancing comprehension of the complexities of female sexual behavior (Birnbaum et al., 2001). Additionally, they may unveil dyadic relationship dynamics, such as the connection between sexual activity and relationship satisfaction (Hassebrauck and Aron, 2001).

However, sexual functioning can also involve contradictory elements, as highlighted by Birnbaum and Reis (2006), where a woman may experience negative emotions during sexual activities despite believing in the importance of sex in maintaining her relationship. Women with such ambivalent sexual experiences may behave differently from those who have not encountered such experiences (Birnbaum, 2003). Therefore, to fully comprehend the intricate functioning of sexuality, models of sexual functioning must encompass various positive and negative emotions, affective responses to the sexual cycle, as well as thoughts and goals related to the self, the partner, the dyadic relationship, and the sexual act (Birnbaum et al., 2016).

The Women’s Sexual Working Models Scale (WSWMS; Birnbaum et al., 2014) was chosen for validating the Faking Orgasm Scale for Women (FOS) because it provides a comprehensive assessment of women’s internalized beliefs and expectations about sexual relationships. Its relevance lies in its ability to capture the psychological and relational dynamics that influence sexual behavior, making it a valuable tool for understanding the underlying motivations and attitudes that may drive behaviors like faking orgasms.

Over the last decade, there has been relatively limited research employing the original Faking Orgasm Scale for Women (Cooper et al., 2014), probably due to its extensive length (56 items). Compared to longer scales, concise questionnaires may be preferable for several reasons. Although longer scales can offer more extensive data, they also tend to induce respondent fatigue, increase response error rates, and reduce completion rates (Rolstad et al., 2011; Saucier, 1994). Furthermore, it is believed that shortening scales may have less impact on psychometric quality due to the reduction of redundancy. As a result, more condensed self-report instruments may exhibit even stronger validity indices (Burisch, 1997). Therefore, the development of short and multidimensional questionnaires with high psychometric properties benefits both researchers and participants (Jonason and Webster, 2010).

Data from Csányi et al. (2024) were utilized for the abbreviation and validation procedure of the FOS-24.

Sample 1

The factor analysis was conducted using responses from a sample of 2,220 individuals, all identifying their birth sex as female and current gender identity as woman. The average age of the sample was 24.40 years (SD = 7.48, min = 18 years, max = 80 years). Of these participants, 1,726 (77.7%) reported being in some form of relationship at the time of the study; 849 were in a relationship, 677 were in a cohabitation relationship with a partner, and 200 stated that they were married. Among the respondents, 752 (33.9%) reported faking orgasm during receiving oral sex, while 1,051 (47.3%) reported faking orgasm during sexual intercourse at least once in their life. Specifically, 155 participants reported faking orgasm only during receiving oral sex, 454 reported faking orgasm only during sexual intercourse, and 597 reported faking it in both situations.

Sample 2

A total of 768 women completed the questionnaire package used for validation. In addition to demographic questions, they completed three questionnaires investigating faking orgasm in two scenarios, psychological motives associated with women’s sexual working models, and motivations behind engaging in sexual intercourse. The age of participants ranged from 18 to 48 years (M = 22.6 years, SD = 4.54). Of these participants, 552 (71.9%) were in some form of relationship (dating, cohabitation, marriage). Among respondents, 278 (36.2%) reported faking orgasm while receiving oral sex, and 369 (52%) reported faking orgasm during sexual intercourse at least once in their life. 53 participants reported faking orgasm during oral sex only, 144 during sexual intercourse only, and 225 reported faking it in both situations. Information on sexual orientation was not collected in this survey. Therefore, it can be assumed that, as in previous Western surveys (e.g., Bailey et al., 2016; Ganna et al., 2019), predominantly same-sex attracted respondents make up less than 5% of the respondents in this sample.

All respondents filled out the questionnaires online, using Qualtrics. The link to the survey was disseminated via social media sites (e.g., Facebook, Instagram) and university mailing lists. Our goal was to obtain a heterogeneous sample and so we intentionally ensured that the survey was accessible to various segments of the population. All participants gave informed consent, and none of them were rewarded for participation. The studies received ethical approval from the Hungarian United Ethical Review Committee for Research in Psychology (Ref. No. 2017/21, 2022/107). The studies were not preregistered. A priori sample size calculation was not performed. All source data are available at: https://osf.io/96emq/?view_only=8eca7faedc0d4f67848c029eac2a0070.

As one questionnaire was not yet available in Hungarian the authors initially translated the items and instructions of the Women’s Sexual Working Models (WSWMS; Birnbaum et al., 2014) into Hungarian. The resulting Hungarian version underwent verification using the standard back-translation technique (Brislin, 1980). This involved retranslating the items and instructions back into English by an independent translator not associated with the study. Any discrepancies that arose during the back-translation process were resolved by the two translators. Following the validation process established by Csányi et al. (2024) for the 56-item version of the Hungarian FOS, we utilized the same measures, including the Short Form of Reasons for Having Sex Questionnaire (YSEX-HSF; Meskó et al., 2022) and Women’s Sexual Working Models (WSWMS; Birnbaum et al., 2014). This approach aimed to improve comparability between the newly developed shorter version and the longer version of FOS.

We used a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) first to confirm the unidimensionality of the latent variables, as that is a requirement of item response theory (IRT). We used the diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS) estimator. To evaluate model fit, we used the comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root mean squared residual index (SRMR). Cutoff values indicative of good model fit were CFI and TLI values of 0.95 or greater (Hu and Bentler, 1998; Babyak and Green, 2010), and RMSEA and SRMR values of 0.06 or lower (Babyak and Green, 2010).

In our analysis of the psychometric properties of each item, we employed the graded response model (GRM) developed by Samejima (1968). The GRM is particularly suited for ordinal variables such as Likert-type scales, as it accounts for varying levels of agreement across response categories. This model allows items to relate differently to a latent trait (i.e., the different dimensions of faking orgasms). Our focus was on discrimination parameter (a), which shows the slope of the scale at a given item location; a steeper slope indicates a better discrimination property of the item (Baker, 2001). A higher a value indicates that the item is more effective at distinguishing between individuals with similar levels of the latent trait. We retained the best items among the ones with very high discrimination ability (a > 1.7; Baker, 2001), as these items allow to discriminate between individuals precisely even in an abbreviated scale.

Next, we calculated McDonald’s ω coefficients to check the internal consistency of each questionnaire we used. We chose the McDonald’s omega over Cronbach’s alpha because it allows a more accurate measure of internal consistency when the assumptions of the tau-equivalent model (i.e., violation of the equal-item variance) are not met (Dunn et al., 2014).

To evaluate the psychometric properties of the FOS-24, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed for the two scales separately. The same model fit indicators as above described were used. The external validity of the FOS-24 was tested with Spearman’s coefficients to examine the correlations between each subscale of the two scales and each subscale of the WSWMS, YSEX?-HSF and the original version of the Hungarian FOS. Due to violations of normal distribution, Spearman correlations were used. The Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate (FDR) procedure was applied to correct for multiple testing (Benjamini and Hochberg, 1995; Verhoeven et al., 2005) with p-values accepted at an FDR-corrected threshold of q < 0.05. This method offers a more balanced approach as opposed to traditional and conservative methods (like the Bonferroni correction) and controls the proportion of false positives among significant results. The Benjamini-Hochberg corrected p-values were calculated using the spreadsheet available at http://www.biostathandbook.com/benjaminihochberg.xls. In our manuscript we report the p-values that remained significant after correction.

Differences between faking and non-faking women were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U tests, as the variables were not normally distributed.

Confirmatory factor analyses were run to confirm unidimensionality. For both scales, the results indicated that the four-four factor model provided an acceptable fit (Oral subscale: CFI = 0.985, TLI = 0983, RMSEA = 0.084 [90% CI: 0.079–0.089], SRMR = 0.096; Intercourse subscale: CFI = 0.983, TLI = 0.982, RMSEA = 0.081 [90% CI: 0.079–0.084], SRMR = 0.091). As the CFAs confirmed that all scales had a single latent variable, the FOS-24 was analyzed using GRM IRT.

First, we examined the Oral subscales. For Altruistic Deceit subscale, eight out of nine items (6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13) on the scale met the a priori threshold (1.7) for the parameter a. We decided to retain the three items with the highest parameter a value, items 7, 8, and 9, respectively. On the Insecure Avoidance subscale, three out of four items (1, 2, 4) met the threshold of 1.7, so we retained all three items. On the Elevated Arousal subscale, three out of five items (16, 17, 18) met the threshold, all of which we retained. On the Fear of Dysfunction subscale, three out of four items (15, 21, 22) met the necessary a value, so we retained them all. Thus, the shortened Oral subscales consist of 12 items, three for each subscale.

Next, the Intercourse subscales was analyzed. For Altruistic Deceit, 11 out of 14 items (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16) met the a priori threshold of 1.7 for parameter a, and we decided to retain the three items with the highest a value (items 3, 4, and 9). For the Fear and Insecurity subscale, eight out of ten items (7, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27) reached the threshold, of which we selected the three with the highest values (7, 22, 25). On the Elevated Arousal subscale, five out of seven items (29, 30, 32, 33, 34) had a parameter a value higher than 1.7, of which the retained items (32, 33, 34) had the highest. Finally, on the Sexual Adjournment subscale, all three items (15, 17, 19) reached the necessary threshold and were retained for the short version of the questionnaire. Thus, the shortened Intercourse subscales consist of 12 items, three for each subscale.

Details of parameter a values for all items are provided in Supplementary Table 1. The Supplementary Materials also include the final version of the FOS-24 with a short scoring guide in Hungarian.

To assess the psychometric properties of the FOS-24, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for each scale separately. For both scales, the results indicated that the four-four factor model provided an acceptable fit (Oral subscale: CFI = 0.991, TLI = 0.988, RMSEA = 0.029 [90% CI: 0.016–0.040], SRMR = 0.039; Intercourse subscale: CFI = 0.984, TLI = 0.978, RMSEA = 0.038 [90% CI: 0.0296–0.046], SRMR = 0.04; Factor loadings are provided in Supplementary Table 2).

Based on the McDonald’s omega, both scales of the brief version showed adequate internal consistency, similar to the other used questionnaires (WSWMS, YSEX?-HSF; for further details, refer to Table 1). The values for the shortened version were comparable to those of the original scales.

The external validity was analyzed by calculating the correlations between each subscale of the two main scales of FOS-24 with the original version of the Hungarian FOS (see Table 2), as well as each subscale of the WSWMS (Table 3) and YSEX?-HSF (Table 4). The results indicate that the correlations of FOS and FOS-24 were highly similar with the sexual working models and sexual motivations.

Using Mann-Whitney tests, we investigated whether there are differences in sexual functioning models (see Figure 1) and sexual motivations (see Figure 2) between women who reported faking orgasm and those who did not, both when receiving oral sex and during sexual intercourse. Among the different sexual functioning models, there is a significant difference in the Distancing and Caring Partner dimensions both during receiving oral sex and sexual intercourse (See the results of the Mann Whitney U test and the average scores of the factors in Supplementary Table 3) The differences in the mean scores suggest that women who fake orgasm are more inclined to maintain distance in sexual situations due to experienced indifference and detachment from the sexual event and the partner. Moreover, they perceive their sexual partners as caring for their needs to a lesser extent. This factor can predict both sexual and relational satisfaction (Birnbaum and Reis, 2006), indicating that those who do not perceive their partner’s care are less likely to experience satisfaction and may resort to faking orgasm.

Regarding the primary sexual motivations in both examined situations, based on mean scores, it is more characteristic of women who fake orgasm to engage in sexual activities to achieve personal goals and use sex as coping mechanism.

The primary aim of the study was to develop a shortened form of the Hungarian version of the Faking Orgasm Scale for Women (FOS) (Csányi et al., 2024). We employed Item Response Theory (IRT) to identify items with optimal discrimination parameters. Crucially, this abbreviated Hungarian version of the FOS retains the informational integrity of the original questionnaire concerning its four factors across both scales (Sexual Intercourse and Oral Sex). The final three-item short forms of the Hungarian FOS-24 subscales exhibited excellent reliability and internal consistency. Significantly, all subscales exhibited a positive shift on the latent trait, indicative of the instrument’s validity and effectiveness in examining potential motives across diverse samples. In summary, the FOS-24 demonstrates robust psychometric properties, offering valid and reliable assessments of the twice-four motivations for faking orgasm while accommodating individual differences within our Hungarian sample.

The secondary aim of the present study was to evaluate the external validity of the FOS-24 using self-report measures of motivations and models of sexuality.

The tertiary aim of current study was to assess the replicability of the original version of the Hungarian Faking Orgasm Scale (FOS) with 56 items. Comparing women who reported faking an orgasm with those who reported never faking an orgasm allows us to distinguish between the characteristics of these groups.

As predicted, significant differences were observed in the Distancing and Caring Partner dimensions of the Women’s Sexual Working Models Scale in both oral and intercourse situations. Women who reported faking orgasm exhibited higher scores in the Distancing subscale, aligning with previous research indicating that faking contributes to indifference toward sexual activity and the partner, resulting in decreased relationship satisfaction over time (Csányi et al., 2022). Conversely, women who reported not faking orgasm tend to report greater satisfaction with their sex lives and perceive their partners as more caring, valuing emotional connection over physical satisfaction (Fahs and Plante, 2016). However, contrary to our expectations, no significant differences were observed in behaviors related to negative self-schema and sexual anxiety between the two groups.

Regarding sexual motivations, as expected, significant differences were found between women who reported faking orgasm and those who did not in the YSEX?-HSF Sex as Coping and the Personal Goal Attainment main scales. Women who reported faking orgasm were less likely to engage in sexual activities for relational bonding but rather as a means to enforce their own sexual interests or cope with emotional difficulties. Although men tend to engage in sexual activities for self-centered reasons compared to women (Meskó et al., 2022), our results suggest that, in general, women who reported faking orgasm are more likely to participate in both oral sex and sexual intercourse for personal reasons, such as boosting self-esteem, compared to women who reported not faking orgasm.

Using sex as a coping mechanism is a motivation predominantly observed in women (Meskó et al., 2022), and our findings indicate this is significantly more characteristic of women who reported faking orgasm. This aligns with the mate-retaining elements of coping motivation (Meskó et al., 2022), with faking orgasm itself considered a mate retention strategy (Csányi et al., 2022), allowing women to increase their partner’s commitment to the relationship (Impett et al., 2005; Meston and Buss, 2007).