Sexual Psychology – Pop Culture Sexual Health Composition – Due Fri 12/3

­aaorTheoreticalPerspectivesonHumanSexuality 19

Singh, 1993). Each of the characteristics signifies a woman who is healthy and capable of hav- ing children. Specifically, younger women are more fertile, women with “hourglass” figures face fewer risks during childbirth, and long, silky hair indicates good physical health. It is theorized that our early ancestors recognized the reproductive value associated with such traits (either consciously or unconsciously) and developed preferences for them, thereby laying the seeds for what we in the modern era deem attractive.

Another key component of evolutionary psychology is the idea that men and women have developed different approaches to mating. From the perspective of sexual strategies theory (Buss & Schmitt, 1993), these differences evolved because the parental investment required to produce a child (i.e., the amount of time and bodily effort expended) differs across the sexes. Specifically, the investment required by men to make a baby is relatively small. In fact, some of them can do their part in under a minute. As a result, in order to maximize their chances of reproductive success, it is in men’s best interest to pursue sexual activity with a lot of fertile women. This could help to explain modern man’s well-documented desire for many sexual partners and his disproportionate attention to physical appearance. In contrast, the invest- ment required to make a baby is huge for women—pregnancy lasts nine months and after that, the child needs to be taken care of until it is self-sufficient. Thus, to maximize reproductive success, it is in women’s best interests to look for men who are going to stick around and pro- vide the resources necessary to help raise any children conceived. This may explain modern woman’s well-documented tendency to desire reliable men with high social status and good jobs. Numerous studies have found support for these sex differences in mating preferences (e.g., Okami & Shackelford, 2001).

While fascinating and heavily researched, the evolutionary perspective is not free of prob- lems or controversy. For example, evolutionary psychology has always struggled to explain why

Figure 1.8 Evolutionary theory posits that heterosexual men are attracted to women whose bodies are shaped like an hourglass and who have long, silky hair because these are signs of good health and fertility. ©domenicogelermo/123RF.COM.

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-10-28 23:18:11.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

1 Theoretical Perspectives on Human Sexuality20

variations in sexual orientation exist. If human beings are inherently motivated to reproduce, why would anyone be anything other than heterosexual? Additionally, recent research sug- gests that many of the noted sex differences in attraction and mating preferences have been overstated and that some of these differences can be reduced in size or eliminated completely when certain social factors are taken into account, such as the fact that women are judged more harshly than men for being sexually active (Conley, Moors, Matsick, Ziegler, & Valentine, 2011). Finally, some have argued that evolution-based interpretations of human sexuality are fun- damentally flawed and that modern mating preferences have little, and perhaps nothing, to do with parental investment and an inherently “selfish” drive to propagate one’s genes (Ryan & Jetha, 2010). We will consider these critiques in more detail in chapter 7.

The Perspective of This Text

As you probably noticed above, psychological theories of sexuality largely fall into one of two camps (DeLamater & Hyde,  1998). On the one hand, we have so-called “essentialist” theories, which view sexuality as an essential aspect of humans, rooted in evolution and biology. Such theories look to factors including hormones, genetics, evolved processes, or innate characteristics for the answers to their questions. On the other hand, we have so- called “social constructionist” theories, which view sexuality largely as a product of sociali- zation and cultural influences. Such theories argue that our sexuality is not “hardwired” and, instead, is largely learned.

My perspective is that taking a singular approach to the study of sexuality would be both misleading and unfulfilling. It is clear that human sexuality is determined by multiple factors. In addition, despite a vast range of theories designed to explain our sexual attitudes and behav- iors, each one offers only a partial explanation at best. In order to address this issue and to create a unifying theme and perspective to organize the remainder of this book, we will adopt a biopsychosocial perspective.

If you have ever taken a course in health psychology, you are probably familiar with the biopsy- chosocial model, which proposes that one’s health status is the result of a complex interaction of biological, psychological, and social factors (Engel, 1977). For example, a health psychologist might view coronary heart disease as the product of not just biological (e.g., cholesterol and blood pressure levels) and genetic factors (e.g., family history of heart problems), but also psychological traits (e.g., Type A personality pattern) and social variables (e.g., occupational and marital stress). The objective of this textbook is to view sexual health and behavior through a similar lens. For instance, if we want to understand why a given woman has difficulty reaching orgasm, we need to consider possible explanations at the biological (e.g., is intercourse painful due to the presence of a sexually transmitted infection or a lack of lubrication?), psychological (e.g., is she depressed or under a lot of stress?), and social levels (e.g., is there a lot of conflict in her relationship?).

Although the biopsychosocial approach is not often discussed in relation to sexuality, it is extremely applicable to this area. As discussed at length earlier, sexual behavior is a conse- quence of multiple disparate forces acting upon a person. Some of these forces are internal and specific to the individual, whereas others are broad, external factors that affect everyone in a given culture or society. Moreover, some of these factors are under our complete conscious control, while we are victims of circumstance to others. Some of these factors are certainly more important than others in helping us to understand human sexuality, and the relative importance of these factors can vary considerably across individuals and across the lifespan. However, the biopsychosocial perspective acknowledges this complexity and allows us to look

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-10-28 23:18:11.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

ThePerspectiveofThisText 21

at sexuality as a product of the whole person, with the mind and body being fundamentally and intimately interconnected.

One unique advantage of adopting a biopsychosocial perspective is that it allows us to put sexual health on a continuum, running from wellness to illness (just as health psychologists do with the more general concept of “health”). Thus, rather than seeing sexual health as simply the absence of disease or dysfunction, we can view it as having different degrees of wellness and illness. Individuals may move back and forth on this continuum from exhibiting healthy to unhealthy sexual behavior depending upon the unique biological, psychological, and social forces acting upon them at the time. For instance, imagine that someone were to experience an episode of clinical depression. The resulting emotional state and lack of energy might seriously undermine that person’s sex life, pushing them toward the unhealthy end of the continuum. However, after undergoing treatment and making some major life changes, the patient’s sex life might improve back to the point that it was before and possibly even exceed the previous level. The strength of looking at sexuality on such a continuum is that it offers a much more holistic approach where we consider the entire person, rather than just looking for a specific sexual problem. Thus, having an optimum state of sexual health is a function of possessing physical, psychological, and social well-being—it is so much more than just being free of physical dys- function and disease.

Another important implication of this model and its focus on the mind–body connection is that psychology can be viewed not only as a factor that causes or drives sexual behavior, but also as a product of sexual behavior. In other words, not only do our emotions, cognitions, and behaviors affect our sex lives, but our sex lives have a direct impact on our psychology.

Throughout the remainder of this book, we will consider sexuality from a biopsychosocial perspective. However, because this is inherently a psychological textbook, psychology will have a more prominent, front and center role than some of the other factors. This will allow you to see how the study of sex is approached in the field of psychology and understand how the mate- rial connects to other psychology courses, while still acknowledging the irreducible complexity of human sexuality.

Biology Genetics and evolution, prenatal environment, hormones, puberty,

menopause, substances

Psychology Personality, attitudes, learning and memory, mood and emotions

Sexual Health

Social Culture, religion, media, relationships, education, socio-economic status

Figure 1.9 The biopsychosocial model as applied to sexual health.

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-10-28 23:18:11.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

1 Theoretical Perspectives on Human Sexuality22

Key Terms

incest pederasty libido id ego superego classical conditioning operant conditioning

reparative therapy social or observational

learning comparison level exchange theories personality psychology big five erotophilia

erotophobia sensation seeking sociosexuality evolutionary psychology sexual strategies theory biopsychosocial

perspective

Discussion Questions: What is Your Perspective on Sex?

● We know that biological, psychological, and social factors all contribute to human sexual behavior; however, do you see one of these factors as being relatively more important than the others? Why?

● Does sexual content in television and film truly affect people’s sexual behavior, or does it simply reflect contemporary sexual practices?

● Some research has suggested that as gender equality has increased, men’s and women’s mat- ing preferences have become more similar. What does this mean for our understanding of evolution-based accounts of human sexuality?

References

Bagemihl, B. (1999). Biological exuberance: Animal homosexuality and natural diversity. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575–582. doi:10.1037/ h0045925

Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Sexual economics: Sex as female resource for social exchange in heterosexual interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 339–363. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_2

Beltz, A. M., Swanson, J. L., & Berenbaum, S. A. (2011). Gendered occupational interests: Prenatal androgen effects on psychological orientation to Things versus People. Hormones and Behavior, 60, 313–317. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2011.06.002

Boswell, J. (1980). Christianity, social tolerance, and homosexuality: Gay people in Western Europe from the beginning of the Christian era to the fourteenth century. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Bowater, D. (2011). Pornography is replacing sex education. The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8961010/Pornography-is-replacing-sex- education. html (accessed August 16, 2013).

Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: A contextual evolutionary analysis of human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204

Carpenter, L. M. (2001). The ambiguity of “having sex”: The subjective experience of virginity loss in the United States. Journal of Sex Research, 38, 127–140. doi:10.1080/00224490109552080

Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., Ziegler, A., & Valentine, B. A. (2011). Women, men, and the bedroom: Methodological and conceptual insights that narrow, reframe, and eliminate

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-10-28 23:18:11.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

References 23

gender differences in sexuality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 296–300. doi:10.1177/0963721411418467

Dawood, K., Bailey, J. M., & Martin, N. G. (2009). Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation. In Y. Kim (Ed.), Handbook of behavioral genetics (pp. 269–280). New York: Springer.

DeLamater, J. (1987). A sociological perspective. In J.H. Geer & W.T. O’Donohue (Eds.), Theories of human sexuality (pp. 237–256). New York: Plenum.

DeLamater, J. D., & Hyde, J. S. (1998). Essentialism vs. social constructionism in the study of human sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 10–18. doi:10.1080/00224499809551913

Engel, G. L. (1977). The need for a new medical model: A challenge for biomedicine. Science, 196, 129–136. doi:10.1126/science.847460.

Fisher, W. A., White, L. A., Byrne, D., & Kelley K. (1988). Erotophobia–erotophilia as a dimension of personality. Journal of Sex Research, 25, 123–151. doi:10.1080/00224498809551448

Gager, C. T., & Yabiku, S. T. (2010). Who has the time? The relationship between household labor time and sexual frequency. Journal of Family Issues, 31, 135–163. doi:10.1177/01925 13X09348753

Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (1990). Toward an evolutionary history of female sociosexual variation. Journal of Personality, 58, 69–96. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00908.x

Garcia, J. R., MacKillop, J., Aller, E. L., Merriwether, A. M., Wilson, D. S., & Lum, J. K. (2010). Associations between dopamine D4 receptor gene variation with both infidelity and sexual promiscuity. PLoS ONE 5(11): e14162. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014162

Geen, R. G. (1997). Psychophysiological approaches to personality. In J. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 387–416). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Gregersen, E. (1996). The world of human sexuality: Behaviors, customs, and beliefs. New York: Irvington.

Gullette, D. L., & Lyons, M. A. (2005). Sexual sensation seeking, compulsivity, and HIV risk behaviors in college students. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 22, 47–60. doi:10.1207/ s15327655jchn2201_5

Gunasekera, H., Chapman, S., & Campbell, S. (2005). Sex and drugs in popular movies: An analysis of the top 200 films. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 98, 464–470.

Halderman, D. C. (2003). Gay rights, patient rights: The implications of sexual orientation conversion therapy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 260–264. doi:10.1037//0735-7028.33.3.260

Heaven, P. C. L., Crocker, D., Edwards, B., Preston, N., Ward, R., & Woodbridge, N. (2003). Personality and sex. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 411–419. doi:10.1016/S0191- 8869(02)00203-9

Herdt, G. H. (1982). Rituals of manhood: Male initiation in Papua New Guinea. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hinsz, V. B., Matz, D. C., & Patience, R. A. (2001). Does women’s hair signal reproductive potential? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 166–172. doi:10.1006/jesp.2000.1450

Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior and its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.

Hoyle, R. H., Fejfar, M. C., & Miller, J. D. (2000). Personality and sexual risk taking: A quantitative review. Journal of Personality, 68, 1203–1231. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00132

Hurlbert, D. F., Apt, C., & Rabehl, S. M. (1993). Key variables to understanding female sexual satisfaction: An examination of women in nondistressed marriages. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 19, 154–165. doi:10.1080/00926239308404899

ILGA (2013). Lesbian and Gay Rights in the World. Retrieved from http://old.ilga.org/ Statehomophobia/ILGA_map_2013_A4.pdf (accessed September 2, 2013).

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-10-28 23:18:11.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

1 Theoretical Perspectives on Human Sexuality24

Kelley, K., Smeaton, G., Byrne, D., Przybyla, D. P. J., & Fisher, W. A. (1987). Sexual attitudes and contraception among females across five college samples. Human Relations, 40, 237–253. doi:10.1177/001872678704000404.

Malhotra, A. (1991). Gender and changing generational relations: Spouse choice in Indonesia. Demography, 28, 549–570.

Markey, P. M., & Markey, C. N. (2007). The interpersonal meaning of sexual promiscuity. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1199–1212. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2007.02.004

Masters, W., & Johnson, V. (1970). Human sexual inadequacy. Boston: Little, Brown. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across

instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81–90. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81

Meston, C. M., & Buss, D. M. (2007). Why humans have sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 477–507. doi:10.1007/s10508-007-9175-2

Miller, J. D., Lynam, D., Zimmerman, R. S., Logan, T. K., Leukefeld, C., & Clayton, R. (2004). The utility of the Five Factor Model in understanding risky sexual behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1611–1626. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2003.06.009

Nanda, S. (2001). Gender diversity: Crosscultural variations. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. O’Hara, R. E., Gibbons, F. X., Gerrard, M., Li, Z., & Sargent, J. D. (2012). Greater exposure

to sexual content in movies predicts earlier sexual debut and increased sexual risk taking. Psychological Science, 23, 984–993. doi:10.1177/0956797611435529

Okami, P., & Schackelford, T. K. (2001). Human sex differences in sexual psychology and behavior. Annual Review of Sex Research, 12, 186–241.

Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Plaud, J. J., & Martini, J. R. (1999). The respondent conditioning of male sexual arousal. Behavior

Modification, 23, 254–268. doi:10.1177/0145445599232004 Ripa, C. P. L., Hansen, H. S., Mortensen, E. L., Sanders, S. A., & Reinisch, J. M. (2001). A Danish

version of the Sensation Seeking Scale and its relation to a broad spectrum of behavioral and psychological characteristics. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 1371–1386. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00119-7

Ryan, C., & Jetha, C. (2010). Sex at dawn: How we mate, why we stray, and what it means for modern relationships. New York: HarperCollins.

Scanlon, T. F. (2005). The dispersion of pederasty and the athletic revolution in sixth-century BC Greece. Journal of Homosexuality, 49, 63–85. doi:10.1300/J082v49n03_03

Schenk, J., & Pfrang, H. (1986). Extraversion, neuroticism, and sexual behavior: Interrelationships in a sample of young men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15, 449–455. doi:10.1007/BF01542309

Seal, D. W., & Agostinelli, G. (1994). Individual differences associated with high-risk sexual behaviour: Implications for intervention programmes. AIDS Care, 6, 393–397. doi:10.1080/09540129408258653

Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S.W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870–883. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.870

Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 293–293. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.2.293

Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York: Macmillan. Strassberg, D. S., McKinnon, R. K., Sustaíta, M. A., & Rullo, J. (2013). Sexting by high school

students: An exploratory and descriptive study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 15–21. doi:10.1007/s10508-012-9969-8

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-10-28 23:18:11.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

References 25

Strauss, G. (2010). Sex on TV: It’s increasingly uncut – and unavoidable. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2010-01-20-sexcov20_CV_N.htm (accessed August 16, 2013).

Tan, M., Jones, G., Zhu, G., Ye, J., Hong, T., Zhou, S., . . . Zhang, L. (2009). Fellatio by fruit bats prolongs copulation time. PLoS ONE, 4(10), 1–5. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007595

Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Trobst, K K., Herbst, J. H., Masters, H. L., & Costa, P. T. (2002). Personality pathways to unsafe sex: Personality, condom use, and HIV risk behaviors. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 117–133. doi:10.1006/jrpe.2001.2334

Turchik, J.A., Garske, J. P., Probst, D. R., & Irvin, C. R. (2010). Personality, sexuality, and substance use as predictors of sexual risk taking in college students. Journal of Sex Research, 47, 411–419. doi:10.1080/00224490903161621

Van Lange, P.A., Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., Arriaga, X. B., Witcher, B. S., & Cox, C. L. (1997). Willingness to sacrifice in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1373–1395.

Walster, E., Walster, W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Wiesner-Hanks, M. (2000). Christianity and sexuality in the early modern world. London: Routledge.

Zuckerman, M., Eysenck, S. B., & Eysenck, H. J. (1978). Sensation seeking in England and America: Cross-cultural, age, and sex comparisons. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 139–149.

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-10-28 23:18:11.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

26

The Psychology of Human Sexuality, Second Edition. Justin J. Lehmiller. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Companion Website: www.wiley.com\go\lehmiller2e

©fuzzbones/123RF.COM.

CHAPTER OUTLINE

Introduction, 27 A Brief History of Sexology, 28 Sexology as a Science, 31 Sample Selection, 32 Nonexperimental Research, 33

Surveys, 33 Direct Observation, 37 Case Reports, 41

Experimental Research, 42 A Sample Sexperiment, 42 Strengths and Limitations of the Experimental Method, 43

A Note on Statistics, 43 Means and Medians, 43 Incidence and Prevalence, 44 Correlation, 44

Ethics in Sexology Research, 44 Informed Consent, 48 Debriefing, 48 Confidentiality, 49

Evaluating Sex Research, 50

Sexology Research: History, Methods, and Ethics

2

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-10-28 23:18:11.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

­IntroduntrI 27

Introduction

It is admittedly the most important subject in life. It is admittedly the thing that causes the most shipwrecks in the happiness of men and women. And yet our scientific knowledge is so meager. . . Those of us who try to salvage some of the shipwrecks need to have a thousand questions answered before we can guide other human beings intelligently. And we want them answered not by our mothers and grandmothers, not by priests and clergymen in the interest of middle-class mores, nor by general practitioners, not even by Freudians; we. . . want them answered by scientifically-trained students of sex.

John B. Watson (as cited in Magoun, 1981, p. 374)

The above quote comes from the writings of John B. Watson, one of the preeminent psy- chologists of the twentieth century. Perhaps you know him from other psychology courses as the founder of the behaviorism movement, or from his research on Little Albert (a young boy in whom Watson classically conditioned a fear of white rats). However, it is probably safe to assume that none of these other courses taught you about Watson’s interest in human sexuality. Not only was he very vocal about the need for sex to be studied scientifically, but he practiced what he preached. Watson was actually one of the first psychologists to study sex in a labora- tory setting, even going so far as to develop scientific instruments that could record human sexual responses (Magoun, 1981). Watson allegedly served as his own subject, as did his mis- tress, Rosalie Rayner (whom, as some of you may recall, assisted Watson in his research with Little Albert). Being the good scientist that he was, Watson took detailed notes on all of his “sexperiments.” However, that may have ultimately been his undoing. When Watson’s wife and the university at which he was working discovered his sexual exploits with Rayner, he lost both his marriage and job (McConnell, 1974).

Even though it was not politically popular at the time and may have “shipwrecked” his personal and professional life, Watson was willing to acknowledge the important role of sex in human life and the relative dearth of scientific knowledge on the subject. We owe a great debt to Watson and several like-minded researchers who followed, including Alfred Kinsey, William Masters, and Virginia Johnson, all of whom were willing to stand against the prevailing social norms and values of their time and declare sex a worthy topic of sci- entific inquiry.

The result of these early researchers’ efforts is the modern field of sexology, the scientific study of sex. Although sexology is a relatively young field, it has a rich, fascinating, and some- what scandalous history (including some wife-swapping scientists who filmed each other’s sex- ual exploits! For good and obvious reasons, that would be considered a research no-no today.) However, before we delve into those details, let me first paint a better picture of the field of sexology for you. The goal of sexology is to increase our understanding of all aspects of human sexuality, including everything from why different sexual orientations exist, to the frequency of specific sexual practices across cultures, to the motivations behind rape and other sex crimes, to therapies that can treat sexual problems. Given the broad array of topics studied within this field, sexologists necessarily consist of a diverse group of scientists who employ a wide range of research methodologies; these scientists include psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, biologists, and many others.

In this chapter, we will consider what it is that makes sexology a science, detail some of the major methodological tools utilized in this field, and highlight the unique ethical issues and difficulties associated with the study of sex. Before we do, let us first consider the evolution of sexology as a field and how we got where we are today.

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-10-28 23:18:11.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

2 Sexrlrgy Reseatuh: Htsnrty, Menhros, aIo Enhtus28

A Brief History of Sexology

In some ways, the study of sex dates back as early as the ancient Greeks (Haeberle, 1983). Some of the most prominent figures of that period, including Hippocrates, Aristotle, and Plato, wrote and theorized about a variety of topics pertaining to sex. However, the scientific study of sex as we know it today did not begin to take shape until the mid-nineteenth century, when several physicians, such as Heinrich Kaan and Richard von Krafft-Ebing, began publishing books on sexual behavior. These books signified a radical shift in perspective because rather than view- ing sexual “aberrations” and dysfunctions as moral failings (as most cultures and societies had for centuries), they reconceptualized them as medical and mental issues.

This medicalization of sexuality began to pick up steam and psychology took center stage at the turn of the twentieth century, when Sigmund Freud began the psychoanalytic move- ment. Psychoanalytic theory increased the momentum of the idea that a true understand- ing of sexual behavior rests with an in-depth exploration of human psychology. However, the Freudian approach, which largely relied upon case studies of highly unusual clinical patients (a research method we will discuss later in this chapter), was not satisfying to those who wanted the study of human sexuality to be grounded in science and experimentation. To meet this need, researchers began to move sex into the laboratory.

Those who attempted scientific studies of sex in the pioneer days faced numerous challenges. For one thing, the prevailing attitudes of society were still negative, if not outright hostile, toward open discussion of sex. As a result, few scientists were willing to risk their careers to even speak publicly about this topic, let alone research it (John Watson was clearly an excep- tion). Those researchers who did were confronted with funding agencies that were unwilling to back their work, a significant segment of the population that was either too embarrassed or too offended to participate in their studies, and publishers who rejected their articles out- right, especially if the researchers were studying “deviant” sexual behaviors (e.g., masturbation, homosexuality). Even research on topics that many people would consider mundane today (e.g., people’s attitudes toward sex outside of marriage) sparked public outcry and those who dared to study such topics risked ending their careers (Magoun, 1981). Early sex research thus necessitated some degree of secrecy. However, this heightened level of secrecy combined with a lack of formal oversight, led to some ethical lapses that arguably threatened some researchers’ reputations and the legitimacy of their work.

The scientific study of human sexuality remained almost completely underground until the 1940s and 50s when Dr. Alfred Kinsey entered the limelight. Kinsey’s interest in the study of sex came about after he began teaching a college-level marriage course and, in the process, discovered that our scientific knowledge of sex was incredibly narrow and rife with inaccura- cies. It was this glaring problem that eventually spurred Kinsey and his team of colleagues to travel across the United States and interview thousands of Americans regarding their sexual lives (we will discuss the specifics of his methods later in this chapter). Kinsey, who received his graduate training in biology, published two books based upon the results of his research (Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female). Both were national bestsellers and made Kinsey an instant celebrity; however, they were also very risqué for the time and resulted in controversy and scandal. Not only did the FBI begin compiling a dossier on Kinsey and his associates, but his work resulted in a congressional investigation of the Rockefeller Foundation, the source of Kinsey’s research funding.

Although Kinsey was most famous for the sex interviews he conducted, it is no big secret that he (like many early sexologists) had a strong interest in studying sex from a more biological standpoint. Specifically, Kinsey wanted to observe systematically how the body reacts to sexual stimulation. Given the harsh public criticism he endured after the publication of his first book,

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-10-28 23:18:11.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

­A tteef Htsnrty ref Sexrlrgy 29

Kinsey realized that if wanted to study the mechanics of sexual response, he would need to do it rather discreetly. Thus, it was in the attic of Kinsey’s house that his lesser-known observational studies of sex took place. Kinsey and his research associates filmed each other while engaging in various sexual activities, sometimes with their wives, and sometimes with each other’s wives (for a more colorful description of some of the activities they filmed, I encourage you to read the first chapter of Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex by Mary Roach. It provides an informative, albeit cheeky look at Kinsey’s life and work).

Certainly, we owe a lot to Kinsey for his systematic and enlightening studies of sex; however, it appears that he may have become a little too personally “involved” in his work toward the end. It was around this time (in the 1950s and 60s) that the husband and wife team of Wil- liam Masters and Virginia Johnson came along and brought a renewed sense of objectivity to the study of sex. Masters (a gynecologist) and Johnson (a student of psychology and aspiring country singer) sought to conduct the most elaborate and scientifically grounded observational research on sex to date. All of their work was conducted in a laboratory setting with the latest technology and with the utmost professionalism (we will discuss the details of their methods later in this chapter). Masters and Johnson observed thousands of complete sexual responses in both men and women and published several influential books based upon their findings, with Human Sexual Response being perhaps the most well-known. Despite their best efforts at keeping things on the up-and-up, Masters and Johnson’s work did not escape controversy. For example, as part of their research, they interviewed sex workers, filmed individuals and couples as they engaged in sexual activity, and even created a sex toy with a built-in camera that allowed them to observe the physical changes that happen inside the vagina during sexual arousal and orgasm. In light of this, and society’s negative attitudes toward sex at the time, it is perhaps not surprising that many people considered their work immoral. In fact, part of the reason Masters

Figure 2.1 Alfred Kinsey was a pioneer in the field of sex research and conducted some of the most well-known and highly cited sex research of all time. Photograph by William Dellenback and provided by The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction.

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-10-28 23:18:11.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

2 Sexrlrgy Reseatuh: Htsnrty, Menhros, aIo Enhtus30

and Johnson (and Kinsey too, for that matter) published their work in book format was because most academic journals deemed their research “pornographic.”

The popularity of Masters and Johnson’s books, coupled with the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 70s, moved the study of human sexuality further into the open. Since then, societal and cultural attitudes toward sex have gradually become more progressive and sexuality research has come to achieve greater levels of acceptance. Gradually is the key word here, though. Just consider that it was not until the 1990s that the first nation- ally representative survey of sexual behavior was conducted in the United States! Even today, despite the fact that there are several academic journals that exclusively publish sex research, and the popular media frequently highlights this work, the legitimacy of sexuality research is still questioned. For example, there are some politicians who regularly threaten to rescind federal grant funding from research projects that focus on sexuality or relation- ships, even though those projects have already been deemed worthy of study by a panel of scientific experts. Studies of sexual and gender minorities, sex workers, pornography, and the sex lives of older adults are particularly prone to political criticism as topics that are “inappropriate” for government grants. Thus, sexuality research still has its detractors, and probably always will.

The struggle to find sex a place within science may have cost some researchers their careers and ruffled the feathers of more than a few politicians, but the benefits gained by these research endeavors have far outweighed the costs. It is through this research that we have

Figure 2.2 William Masters and Virginia Johnson became household names after they began publishing books detailing the results of their observational sex research. As part of their work, they pioneered the use of electronic devices for recording sexual arousal. ©Bettmann/Getty Images.

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-10-28 23:18:11.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Sexrlrgy as a SuteIue 31

begun to correct a multitude of myths and misconceptions about sex and the human body, reset our expectations about what is “normal” when it comes to sexual attitudes and behav- iors, and discovered how to prevent and treat various sex and relationship problems. You will read more about these and other benefits of sex research as you progress through this book, but keep in mind that sexology is still a very young field of science and much remains that we do not yet know.

Sexology as a Science

In most regards, sexology operates in a similar way to any other field of science. The only real difference is that sexologists use some unique technologies and, of course, have more fun! Thus, the basic building blocks of research that you learned in other science classes still apply (e.g., the scientific method, the principles and values that scientists must uphold). For this reason, we will not review the fundamentals of how a science operates. Instead, we will focus primarily on understanding the specific research methods and techniques employed in the field of sexology and consider when such methods are appropriate for use. As you will soon discover, sometimes it is impossible or unethical to use certain methods in answering some research questions. We will divide our discussion of research techniques into two sections: nonexperimental approaches (which include surveys, direct observation, and case reports) and the experimental method. Table  2.1 provides a concise summary of these different method- ologies. Before detailing these methods, we will briefly cover the basics of sample selection, because the value and importance of any scientific study of sexuality (whether experimental or nonexperimental) depends upon the nature of the research participants. Without a good sample, it may be impossible to know how meaningful the findings really are and to what extent they might apply to the rest of the population.

Table 2.1 A summary of sexology research methods.

Research method Definition Strengths Limitations

Survey A large number of participants report on their own sexual attitudes and practices via an interview or questionnaire.

Quick and easy way of collecting data. Several modes of administration.

Nonresponse. Self-selection. Social desirability and other response biases. Writing a good survey requires skill and effort.

Direct Observation

Researchers observe participants and record what they see.

Less chance of response biases. Observations can be preserved on film.

Self-selection. Reactivity.

Case Report One participant or a small group of participants is studied in great detail.

In-depth information is provided about an unusual case.

Limited generalizability. Often rely upon subjective self- reports.

Experiment Researchers manipulate or change one variable (the independent variable) in order to see what effect this has on a measurable outcome (the dependent variable).

Precise control of variables. Ability to infer cause and effect.

Not possible or ethical to implement for all research questions. Several threats to external validity.

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-10-28 23:18:11.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

2 Sexrlrgy Reseatuh: Htsnrty, Menhros, aIo Enhtus32

Sample Selection

In sexology research, we typically gather data from a very small group of individuals and use that information to draw conclusions about a much larger group of people. In order to accomplish this, researchers must first identify their target population, or the group of people about whom they wish to learn. For example, assume a sexologist is interested in determining whether there is a link between taking birth control pills and sexual satisfaction. This researcher might iden- tify the target population as pre-menopausal, sexually active, heterosexual women. It would not be sufficient to simply state that “women” are the target population in this case, because the researcher is not interested in learning about all women—only those women who might be using this form of birth control.

Once the target population is specified, researchers choose a sample, or a smaller group of people who will actually participate in the study. A sample is chosen because it is not practical to study every single member of the target population. In our example, just think about how many millions (if not billions) of pre-menopausal, sexually active, heterosexual women there are in the world and what an impossible task it would be to survey all of them.

There are two main types of samples researchers can recruit: convenience samples and ran- dom samples. Convenience samples consist of those individuals who are most readily acces- sible for research purposes. Because a large number of sexologists work in university settings, convenience samples often consist exclusively of undergraduate students. Thus, in our exam- ple study of birth control and sexual satisfaction, we might recruit a group of sexually active, heterosexual, female students enrolled in introductory psychology courses to participate.

The advantage of this type of sampling is that we can complete our study quickly and easily without spending much (if any) money, given that psychology students are sometimes required to participate in studies in exchange for course credit. However, there are numerous drawbacks, with the main concern being whether the sample is representative enough of the target popula- tion to allow us to draw conclusions. College samples have a notoriously limited demographic composition. Not only are they more highly educated than average, but they tend to be very young, mostly White, and most of them are from the United States (Gosling, Vazire, Srivastava, & John,  2004). Thus, we must be very cautious about the generalizations we make from college samples, especially if we are at all concerned about how the variables we are studying might be affected by age, race, culture, and education—and when we are talking about sexual attitudes and behaviors, these are extremely important factors to take into account!

To get around the limitations of convenience sampling, researchers sometimes turn to ran- dom selection. This sampling procedure involves identifying all members of the target popula- tion and contacting a subset of them at random to participate. In this process, each member of the population has an equal chance of being selected to take part in the study. For example, if a sexologist were interested in studying attitudes toward legalizing prostitution among likely vot- ers in their city, they might get a list of all registered voters and contact 500 of them at random about being in the study. When the randomization procedure is implemented appropriately, it typically results in a sample that is reflective of the broader population from which it was drawn.

If random selection is so much better than convenience sampling, how come sexologists do not use it all of the time? The reason is because random selection is much more challenging to implement. It is difficult to get people outside the university community to participate unless you have some incentive to offer. As previously mentioned, convenience samples with college students often involve no financial cost because participants typically receive course credit as compensation.

Throughout this book, we will reference the results of studies employing random selection whenever possible in an attempt to provide the most definitive information. However, keep

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-10-28 23:18:11.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

­rIexxettieInal Reseatuh 33

in mind that sexology, like most other fields of science, relies heavily on studies that employ convenience samples, which means that much of our knowledge base is limited and may not necessarily be reflective of or generalizable to all sexual and gender minority groups.

Nonexperimental Research

Nonexperimental research methods allow us to describe people’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in a systematic manner with as much objectivity as possible. In studies of this nature, researchers do not directly manipulate or change any variables; rather, they simply make obser- vations and note which variables seem to go together. In this section, we will discuss three types of nonexperimental research. As we address each method, we will consider the nature of the information it can provide about human sexuality, as well as detail its unique strengths and limitations.

Surveys

The vast majority of our knowledge on human sexuality comes from survey research, in which people are simply asked to report on their own sexual attitudes and practices. There are multi- ple modes of survey administration, including face-to-face interviews, questionnaires adminis- tered over the phone or online, as well as the increasingly antiquated pencil-and-paper format. Surveys are ideal for researchers who want to consider general trends in attitudes and behav- iors across a relatively large group of people.

Strengths and Limitations of Surveys The primary advantage of the survey method is that data can be collected quickly and easily from large numbers of people. The advent of online research has made these advantages even more apparent, enabling sexologists to conduct research 24 hours per day all over the world! In addition, online surveys have opened up a new and much more diverse audience than the typi- cal college student subject pool, with online samples typically yielding more variation in age, socioeconomic status, and geographic location (Gosling et al., 2004). Online surveys also offer enhanced anonymity and privacy to participants. As we will see later in this section, anonymity is extremely important for gathering accurate data about people’s sex lives.

Another advantage of this method is that there are multiple methods of administration, and researchers can choose the one that best fits their budget and needs. For example, if you wanted to survey people about whether they have ever cheated on their romantic partner, an anonymous online survey might be your best bet to ensure honest responding. In comparison, if you wanted to find out how people first learned about sex and what that experience was like for them, a face-to-face interview might be most appropriate. Interviews provide much greater depth of information than surveys and are advantageous in that they can be adapted to each interviewee. For instance, both the interviewer and interviewee can seek clarification if they find anything to be confusing or unclear.

Of course, the survey method has some notable limitations. First, no matter how much effort you put into identifying the right sample, not everyone you contact will want to participate in your study. This problem is known as nonresponse, and it has always been a major issue in sex research (Wiederman, 2001). There are many reasons individuals might refuse to partici- pate, which can include anything from lack of time or interest to discomfort with the research topic. Nonresponse ultimately hurts the representativeness of your sample because those who refused to participate may be different in some way from those who agreed to take part in the

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-10-28 23:18:11.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

2 Sexrlrgy Reseatuh: Htsnrty, Menhros, aIo Enhtus34

study. For example, to the extent that people who opt out of sexuality surveys are more likely to be virgins, have more conservative religious or political backgrounds, or have unusual sexual interests or desires, researchers’ ability to make accurate generalizations about their findings is dramatically reduced.

The flip side of this problem is an issue known as self-selection. This is a broad term that refers to all of the ways that research volunteers differ from nonvolunteers. For example, in published research on sexuality and relationships, it is often the case that women far outnum- ber men (e.g., Lehmiller & Agnew, 2006; Lehmiller, VanderDrift, & Kelly, 2011). Likewise, those who sign up to participate in sexuality studies tend to be more sexually experienced and have more favorable attitudes about sex than those who do not (Plaud, Gaither, Hegstad, Rowan, & Devitt, 1999). Again, this reduces our ability to make inferences about target populations.

Response biases and self-presentational concerns are another factor complicating sexuality surveys. These biases encompass everything from whether subjects are accurately remember- ing the past, are lying, or are misrepresenting themselves. Perhaps the largest concern here is socially desirable responding, or the tendency for subjects to present themselves in the most favorable light possible. This is a concern in all psychological survey research, but it is especially problematic in studies of sexuality (Meston, Heiman, Trapnell, & Paulhus,  1998). Divulging one’s sexual history can be embarrassing or threatening, especially when it is unclear who might eventually see or hear about this information. In order to cope with this uncertainty and maintain a positive sense of self, research participants may intentionally skip questions when they are afraid answering would make them look bad, or they may respond in a way that makes them look good, even if it is not the truth. As one example of socially desirable respond- ing, consider that female participants completing sex surveys report less sexual experience (e.g., less masturbation and less exposure to pornography) when they believe their responses might become known to others compared to when they are assured anonymity (Alexander & Fisher, 2003). Thus, when women are concerned that their sexual history might become pub- lic knowledge, they are inclined to present themselves in a way that society is more likely to approve of. Assuring participants that their responses will remain anonymous and confiden- tial helps to address this problem, but no safeguards can completely eliminate all tendencies toward socially desirable responding.

Finally, it is important to recognize that the overall quality of a survey depends upon the quality of the individual questions and how they are organized. Writing high-quality survey questions is not as easy as it sounds. For one thing, you must ensure that your word choices are appropriate and understandable for your audience. For instance, if you were conducting a survey of sexual behaviors among inner-city adolescents, it would be ill-advised to ask them whether they have ever given or received fellatio or cunnilingus. Although these are technically the correct terms for oral stimulation of the penis and vulva respectively, they are very clinical and some adolescents may not know what they mean. With such an audience, slang terms such as blowjob or eating out may be more appropriate.

Researchers must also take great care to avoid the use of leading and double-barreled ques- tions. Leading questions direct participants to a specific answer. For example: “Most Americans believe that abortion should be legal. Do you support a woman’s right to choose?” A question like this pressures participants to respond in a certain way. To avoid such bias, the question should instead be phrased more generally, such as: “Do you favor or oppose legalized abor- tion?” Double-barreled questions inquire about multiple things, thereby muddling responses. For instance: “Do you consider yourself to be experienced and knowledgeable about sex?” Par- ticipants may not know how to respond to such a question because sexual experience and knowledge are completely different things. Two separate questions should be asked instead.

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-10-28 23:18:11.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

­rIexxettieInal Reseatuh 35

In addition, it is vital to consider the order in which you ask the questions in your survey. For example, when married people are first asked how satisfied they are with their life over- all before being asked how satisfied they are with their marriage, these two ratings are only modestly associated; however, when the question order is reversed, the ratings become very strongly associated (Schwartz, Strack, & Mai,  1991). It appears that when people reflect on their marital satisfaction first, the information brought to mind changes how they think about their life as a whole. As you can see, sexologists must think very carefully about how they put all aspects of their surveys together.

Examples of Major Sex Surveys Given their importance to the field of sexology, a few of the most influential sex surveys ever con- ducted are discussed below. These surveys are useful to consider not only for historical purposes, but also because they further highlight the strong and weak points of utilizing this method.

The Kinsey reports Perhaps the most famous sexuality surveys ever conducted are those of Alfred Kinsey, a former professor at Indiana University. Kinsey’s goal was to provide the first comprehensive examina- tion of men’s and women’s sexual behavior in the United States. In his bestselling and highly controversial books, he and his research team detailed the results of their interviews with 5,300 men and 5,940 women. Although people of different racial backgrounds were initially interviewed, only data from White participants were included in the final publications because Kinsey felt that his racial minority samples were of inadequate size to draw conclusions. More- over, although his sampling efforts were admirable and ambitious for the time, his participants were disproportionately young, well-educated, Protestant, and from larger cities.

Whereas Kinsey’s sampling methods have long been criticized for their lack of diversity, his actual data-collection techniques have always been well respected. Kinsey collected most of his data during face-to-face interview sessions that followed a very careful and elaborate protocol. This involved working hard to establish a rapport with interviewees as a means of putting them at ease, building in checks for false responding, and only allowing a select group of highly trained researchers to conduct the interviews.

Kinsey’s research reports shocked the American public because they suggested that masturba- tion, homosexual behavior, extramarital sex, and many other historically “deviant” sexual activities were occurring with much greater frequency than anyone ever thought possible. For instance, Kinsey found that most men (92%) and women (62%) had masturbated before, that a significant number of men (37%) and women (13%) reported at least one sexual experience with a mem- ber of the same sex, and that the vast majority of men (69%) reported having at least one sexual experience with a prostitute (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948; Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Geb- hard, 1953)! Even today, many of you are probably surprised by some of these numbers. However, it is important to note that although some of Kinsey’s findings have held up in subsequent research (e.g., his findings about masturbation), others have not (e.g., his findings about the prevalence of same-sex activity). Thus, Kinsey’s findings must be interpreted in light of his sampling limita- tions (e.g., restricted geographic diversity) and the time in which they were conducted. In order to understand sexuality in today’s world, it is necessary to consult more recent research efforts.

The National Health and Social Life Survey For the better part of the past two decades, the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS; Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels,  1994) has been considered the definitive survey of sexual attitudes and behaviors in the United States, and for good reason. It was the first attempt to conduct a comprehensive survey of Americans’ sexual practices since Kinsey’s work in the

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-10-28 23:18:11.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

2 Sexrlrgy Reseatuh: Htsnrty, Menhros, aIo Enhtus36

1940s. The NHSLS originally came about in response to the AIDS crisis that emerged in the 1980s. In the wake of this devastating disease, the US government recognized that our scien- tific knowledge of sexuality was extremely limited and this lack of information was hampering efforts to stop the spread of AIDS.

A team of researchers at the University of Chicago was initially granted enough government funding to conduct a national survey of 20,000 people. However, this financial support was later revoked by a conservative Congress that felt taxpayer money should not be spent studying sex. The research team was not deterred and went to private sources in order to secure funding that would allow them to complete their project. They did not raise enough money to carry out the study as originally intended, but they achieved enough to finish the project on a smaller scale. In the end, a representative sample of 3,432 individuals across the United States was surveyed. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 59 and exhibited some variability in terms of race, with the two largest racial minority groups (African and Hispanic Americans) well represented.

The study involved a mix of face-to-face interviews and pencil-and-paper questionnaires. Interviews were conducted first in order to obtain more in-depth and detailed information from interviewees, but also because it was believed that starting with an interview would yield a higher compliance rate than starting with a written survey (and they were right—nearly four out of five people contacted for the study were willing to participate!). The interviewees then filled out a written questionnaire that addressed more personal topics (e.g., questions about masturbation), which they returned in a sealed envelope. This was done in order to provide them with more privacy on the most sensitive matters.

Upon their release, the results of the NHSLS provoked controversy, but not in the way that Kinsey’s studies did. For one thing, the NHSLS suggested that Americans were more sexually conservative than previously thought! For example, most people reported having sex only a few times each month. Likewise, one in five men and nearly one in three women reported having had only one sexual partner in their lifetime. Furthermore, the reported prevalence of same-sex activity was much lower than Kinsey’s estimates.

Since its publication, the NHSLS has been lauded by the scientific community for the quality of its sample and research design. Of course, it is not without its limitations. For example, older adults and some racial minority groups, including Asian Americans and Native Americans, were not ade- quately reflected in the sample. In addition, given that the survey was carried out a few decades ago, the NHSLS may not be an accurate account of the sexual practices of Americans today.

The National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior American sexuality has changed dramatically since the NHSLS. For instance, Viagra and other med- ications for sexual dysfunction have been introduced, online dating and hooking up have become increasingly common, and societal attitudes toward homosexuality have become more accepting. In order to keep up with such changes and to address the problem of the aging NHSLS dataset, the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior (NSSHB; Herbenick et al., 2010) was conducted.

The NSSHB is the largest and most diverse nationally representative survey of sexuality ever completed, with a sample consisting of 5,865 adolescents and adults ages 14 to 94 living in the United States. The project was carried out by researchers at the Center for Sexual Health Promotion at Indiana University (the same university where Alfred Kinsey spent most of his career). Participants for this study were initially recruited by mail or phone, which yielded a high response rate of 82% for adults. However, recruiting adolescent participants (one of the unique strengths of this survey) was more challenging because it was necessary to seek paren- tal permission first. Only 62% of parents contacted were willing to let their children under age 18 participate, which is revealing of Americans’ attitudes toward adolescent sexuality (a topic we will return to in chapters 10 and 11).

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-10-28 23:18:11.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

­rIexxettieInal Reseatuh 37

Unlike the previous sex surveys discussed in this chapter, the NSSHB did not involve face- to-face interviews. Instead, all data were collected entirely over the Internet. For people who wanted to participate but did not have Internet access, it was provided for them by the research- ers. The first results from the NSSHB were published in 2010 in the Journal of Sexual Medicine and were greeted with relatively little controversy, which suggests attitudes toward sex have come a long way since Kinsey. We will continue to learn more from the NSSHB, given that new waves of data collection are being conducted annually each year through at least 2020. A sum- mary of some of the major findings from the NSSHB can be seen in Table 2.2. In later chapters, we will explore additional results from this and some of the other surveys mentioned above.

Other prominent sex surveys Several large scale sexuality surveys have been conducted outside of the United States. These include the British National Surveys of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal), a study that has taken place approximately every ten years since 1990, as well as the Australian Study of Health and Relationships, which was administered in 2001 and 2013. Extensive information about each of the surveys, including summaries of the key findings, is freely available online (for the Natsal, see http://www.natsal.ac.uk; for the Australian study, see http://www.ashr.edu .au). These surveys reveal trends that are similar in many ways to those observed in the United States. Among other things, across most Western countries, sex surveys reveal that the vast majority of adults are sexually active, men report having more sexual partners than women, and experiences with oral and anal sex appear to be on the rise.

National sex surveys in non-Western countries are more difficult to come by, due to cultural differences in the acceptability of talking about sex publicly. However, the few surveys that have been administered have enlightened us considerably with respect to the role that culture and soci- ety play in shaping sexual behavior. For example, a national sex survey in China revealed that most people do not begin having sex until their early to mid-20s, compared to ages 16 or 17 in many Western countries (Parish, Laumann, & Mojola, 2007). Likewise, Chinese men and women typi- cally get married very quickly (i.e., within a year or two) after they begin having sex, whereas West- erners often wait a decade or more between when they first have sex and when they get married.

Direct Observation

Although sex surveys are perhaps the most common research method in the field of sexology, they are far from perfect. This is largely because surveys require participants to report their

Table 2.2 Selected findings from the NSSHB.

Among adults, 7% of women and 8% of men identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. 85% of men and 64% of women reported reaching orgasm during their most recent sexual experience. Among participants who were single, one in three acts of vaginal intercourse involved condom use. Black and Hispanic men were more likely to use condoms during intercourse than White men. Adolescents reported being more likely to use condoms during intercourse than adults over age 40. Sex means a lot of different things to Americans. Adults reported a total of 41 different ways of “getting busy” during their most recent sexual encounter. When adults have sex, they do not just have intercourse—they typically engage in multiple sexual activities during each sexual event, which may include oral sex, anal sex, mutual masturbation, and other activities.

Source: The National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior, http://www.nationalsexstudy.indiana.edu/

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-10-28 23:18:11.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

2 Sexrlrgy Reseatuh: Htsnrty, Menhros, aIo Enhtus38

own behavior, and they may or may not provide accurate descriptions. The reasons for this may be unintentional (e.g., memory loss) or intentional (e.g., socially desirable responding). To get around this issue, sexologists sometimes turn to a seemingly more objective research technique: direct observation. This is exactly what it sounds like—rather than having subjects describe their own behavior, researchers watch them with their own eyes and record what they see. Although observing the subject directly may result in a more accurate account of behavior, this method is not commonly utilized in sexology for many reasons, which we discuss below.

Strengths and Limitations of Direct Observation The major strength of direct observation is that it takes a number of response biases out of the picture by eliminating participants’ subjective reports of their own behavior. Another benefit is that observations can be filmed, thereby allowing researchers to go back in case they missed something or want to look at the behaviors in a different way.

However, there are obvious drawbacks. First and foremost, think for a moment about whether you would be willing to have sex on camera or in front of a researcher, while various pieces of recording equipment are attached to your genitalia. Many of you would probably be reluctant to agree to this. Thus, self-selection is a big concern with studies of this nature, perhaps because it is only those of us who are very comfortable with our bodies and our sexuality who are willing to participate in such research. As support for this idea, a survey of 485 college undergradu- ates found that only 15% said they would be willing to participate in an observational study of sexual arousal (Plaud et al., 1999). Another major concern is reactivity, which refers to the idea that research participants sometimes alter their behavior when they know others are watching. How might people alter their sexual behavior when others are present or if they know they are being filmed? It probably depends upon the person, with some people acting more inhibited than usual, and others getting especially excited. Researchers need to take great care in how they code the results of observational studies, too, because two scientists could watch the same event, but document it in very different ways if the coding scheme is ambiguous. Consider this: I once attended a presentation at a sex research conference in which researchers talked about a study in which they content-coded hardcore online pornography for a variety of sex acts, including “fisting” and “double penetration.” This led to one of those interesting and entertain- ing debates that only occur at academic sex conferences: does inserting four fingers at once into the vagina or anus constitute “fisting,” or do all five fingers have to be inserted? And does it count as “double penetration” if someone has penises inserted in two different orifices at the same time, or do both penises have to be inserted in the same orifice? Put another way, sex researchers need to carefully operationalize the variables in observational studies so that they can be recorded as accurately and unambiguously as possible. Finally, observational studies are expensive to conduct and often require a lot of special equipment and technology that can be hard to come by (see section—“Technologies Used in Observational Sex Research”—for more on this).

The Research of Masters and Johnson The most famous and well-known example of observational research in sexology is the work of William Masters and Virginia Johnson. The data reported in their book Human Sexual Response came from laboratory studies of 694 men and women, who ranged in age from 18 to 89. Subjects consisted mostly of White, highly educated students from the local com- munity in St. Louis, Missouri. Efforts were made to screen out exhibitionists and individuals with emotional problems during the recruitment process. Although the sample was far from

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-10-28 23:18:11.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

­rIexxettieInal Reseatuh 39

representative of the US population, Masters and Johnson deserve some credit for finding such a large number of people willing to participate in their research, especially given that they were conducting their work in a time and setting that was not overly enthusiastic about sexual science.

Masters and Johnson sought to understand exactly how men’s and women’s bodies respond to sexual stimulation. To do so, they had subjects engage in sexual activities in their lab, including masturbation, sexual intercourse, and simulated intercourse, all while various pieces of technology recorded the changes that happened to their bodies (e.g., changes in muscle tension and blood flow). In case you are curious, the simulated intercourse trials refer to instances in which female participants were stimulated with an “artificial coition machine” (i.e., the sex toy with a built in camera previously mentioned). It was essentially a motorized dildo that had a remote control women could use to adjust the speed and depth of thrusting. Did this really happen in Missouri? In the 1960s? It sure did! After engaging in sexual activ- ity, participants were thoroughly interviewed, which provided an extra level of depth to the data obtained.

The results of Masters and Johnson’s research were greeted with much controversy, but they provided a wealth of information and new insights into human sexuality. It is also important to note that the data they collected on the bodily changes that accompany sexual arousal appear to be consistent across diverse groups of people, despite their aforementioned sampling limita- tions. As a result, you will see their research findings presented throughout this book.

Technologies Used in Observational Sex Research Masters and Johnson were among the first sex researchers to use electronic devices for studying sexual arousal. Variations of these devices are still in use today and are frequently mentioned in published reports of both observational and experimental sex studies. Below are some of the most common technologies used in sexuality research today.

To measure male sexual arousal, a device called a penile strain gauge is often employed. It consists of a small circular tube that is placed around the base of the penis, just like a “cock ring” (a sex toy that some men use to make their erections last longer by restricting blood flow out of the penis). Attached to this tube are wires that connect to a recording device. The strain gauge works by measuring changes in penile circumference. In other words, as blood flows into the penis, leading it to increase in size, the machine records this—and it is very sensitive to even the tiniest changes in size. To avoid potential embarrassment and maintain privacy, male participants in sex studies usually attach this device to themselves.

To measure female sexual arousal, a vaginal photoplethysmograph is usually employed. This device consists of a small, acrylic rod that is inserted into the vagina (again, this is something subjects can introduce to their bodies in private). Like the penile strain gauge, wires are attached that connect it with a recording instrument. The photoplethysmograph works by giving off light, and then measuring how much of that light is reflected back from the vaginal walls. When women are sexually aroused, the vaginal walls fill with blood, which decreases the amount of reflected light. Clearly, the strain gauge and photoplethysmograph operate very differently; however, they are similar in that they both measure sexual arousal in terms of increased blood flow to the genital region. Other devices for measuring female sexual arousal have been devel- oped, including the labial photoplethysmograph (Prause, Cerny, & Janssen, 2005) and the clito- ral photoplethysmograph (Gerritsen et al., 2009), but they have not yet achieved widespread use.

A somewhat newer technology that has the potential to be used in both men and women is thermal imaging. As blood flows to the genital region during sexual arousal, that part of the

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-10-28 23:18:11.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

2 Sexrlrgy Reseatuh: Htsnrty, Menhros, aIo Enhtus40

body literally “warms up,” and high-tech thermal cameras can be used to pick up on those temperature changes (Kukkonen, Binik, Amsel, & Carrier, 2007). Two advantages of thermal imaging over strain gauges and photoplethysmographs are that participants can remain fully clothed the entire time, and they do not have to attach anything to their genitals.

Although these and other tools for measuring physiological arousal are increasingly used, they are not without controversy. One concern is that while a person’s genitals may show signs of arousal, the individual may not feel aroused psychologically. Thus, it is not always clear what these measures are telling us. In addition, although many sex researchers believe these tools allow for more objective measurement of sexual arousal, some research has found that genital responses can be faked. For instance, one study found that men can successfully inhibit their erectile responses while viewing a pornographic image by thinking about something disgust- ing, such as a filthy bathroom (Trottier, Rouleau, Renaud, & Goyette, 2014).

One other technology frequently used in studies of sexual arousal in men and women is functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). With fMRI scans, we can see what areas of the brain respond when individuals are turned on or experience orgasm. For example, fMRI scans of men and women viewing erotic videos have revealed some similarities and some differ- ences in the way that the sexes’ brains operate (Karama et al., 2002). Specifically, while viewing erotic stimuli, both men and women show increased activation of the amygdala; in contrast, men show significant activation of the hypothalamus, whereas women do not. Both the amyg- dala and hypothalamus are part of the limbic system, a portion of the brain that helps regu- late sexual behavior (more on this in chapter 4). Such findings can not only help us to better understand differences in how men and women experience sex psychologically, but they can also potentially help us to better understand cases of sexual dysfunction (e.g., a brain scan of a person with arousal difficulties could help to identify whether there is a neurological basis for the problem based upon the pattern of activation observed).

Figure 2.3 A mercury-in-rubber penile strain gauge. The loop at the end of the wires is placed around the base of the penis and measures changes in penile circumference. ©Sarah Sudhoff.

Figure 2.4 An early-generation vaginal photo- plethysmograph. The acrylic rod is placed inside the vagina to measure changes in vaginal blood volume. ©Sarah Sudhoff.

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-10-28 23:18:11.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

­rIexxettieInal Reseatuh 41

Case Reports

The final method of nonexperimental research we will consider is the case report. Researchers who utilize this method study either one participant or a small group of participants in great depth and detail. In general, the subject selected for a report of this nature is unusual in some way or engages in sexual activities outside of the mainstream. For example, a sexologist might perform a case study on someone with a sexual dysfunction, someone who has an unusual sexual desire (i.e., a paraphilia), or a sex worker.

Case reports were a reasonably common method of data collection among early sex research- ers, particularly Sigmund Freud (some of you may recall his famous case reports of Anna O. and Little Hans from other psychology courses). Such studies still appear in the sexology lit- erature today, but they are primarily conducted by those who have clinical or medical training (e.g., clinical psychologists or psychiatrists). We will consider the findings of a couple of rel- evant case reports in chapter 4.

Strengths and Limitations of Case Reports The major benefit of case reports is that they provide great depth of information about an unusual subject. If a similar subject is encountered in the future, the case report can provide a very valuable source of information for guiding potential therapeutic intervention (e.g., if the subject suffered from a sexual problem, a therapist could review the report to see what treat- ments worked and what did not).

However, case reports are of inherently limited value from the standpoint that they sample either a single individual or a very small group of people who are not representative of the

Figure 2.5 fMRI and other neuroimaging techniques are increasingly being used in sex research to explore differences in how people process sex-related stimuli and to identify neurological and physiological causes of sexual dysfunction. ©Levent Konuk/123RF.COM.

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-10-28 23:18:11.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

2 Sexrlrgy Reseatuh: Htsnrty, Menhros, aIo Enhtus42

broader population. Thus, generalizing the findings of case studies to larger groups of people is difficult, if not impossible. In addition, case reports rely heavily on participants’ subjective reports of the past, which are subject to the same self-presentational issues and response biases that affect survey research.

Experimental Research

Up until this point, all of the research designs we have considered are correlational. In other words, surveys, direct observation, and case reports can tell us what sexuality variables are related to one another, but they cannot tell us anything about the causes of sexual behavior. The only way sexologists can establish cause and effect is to conduct an experiment. In an experi- ment, researchers manipulate or change one variable in order to see what effect this has on a measurable outcome. The manipulated variable is known as the independent variable, while the measured outcome is known as the dependent variable. Thus, the independent variable is presumed to be the cause of any changes in the dependent variable.

In order to make inferences about cause and effect in an experiment, researchers must hold all factors constant other than the independent variable. If other factors change alongside the independent variable (this is known as confounding), it becomes impossible to determine why the results turned out the way they did. One of the most vital methods of protecting the integ- rity of an experiment is to ensure participants are randomly assigned to different experimental conditions. In other words, the level of the independent variable a participant receives (e.g., placebo vs. active drug) should be determined at random. Random assignment helps to ensure that the groups of participants you are comparing have a similar composition, thereby prevent- ing third variables (e.g., group differences in attitudes or demographic composition) from serv- ing as alternative explanations for the findings.

A Sample Sexperiment

To give you a better idea of how the experimental method is employed in sexology, let us con- sider a study conducted by Galliot and Baumeister (2007). The idea behind this study was to examine the link between self-control and sexual behavior. To give you a little theoretical back- ground, research shows that human beings have a limited capacity for self-control (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice,  1998). That is, no matter how strong we are, sometimes our willpower gives out and we subsequently find it difficult to curb our impulses (e.g., just think about the last time you tried dieting. How long were you able to hold out before you gorged on junk food?). Self-control can thus be thought of as a muscle, such that when we use it too much, it gets tired and leads us to act in uncontrollable ways. What Galliot and Baumeister wanted to do was see whether depletion of self-control affects how people behave sexually.

To test this idea, college students in romantic relationships brought their partner to the lab. The independent variable was a self-control manipulation, such that couples were randomly assigned to either expend their self-control abilities or not. This was accomplished by having each couple watch a silent video that depicted a woman talking. At the bottom of the screen, words would flash for a few seconds at a time. Half of the couples were asked to refrain from looking at the words (the depletion condition), whereas the other half were given no such instruc- tions (the no-depletion condition). The thought here is that consciously avoiding the words on the screen would require effort, thereby depleting self-control reserves for those participants.

The dependent variable was the extent of the couple’s sexual behavior after watching the video. Specifically, couples were given a private room and were asked to express some type of physical intimacy with their partner (they could do anything as long as it was consensual).

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-10-28 23:18:11.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

­A ­rne rI Snantsntus 43

Afterward, participants filled out a questionnaire in which they reported the extent of their sexual behavior.

Results indicated that participants in the depletion condition “kissed open-mouthed for pro- longed periods of time, groped and caressed each other. . . and even removed articles of cloth- ing so as to expose themselves” (pp. 182–183). However, these findings only held for couples who were sexually inexperienced. It is thought that sexually inexperienced couples may have been more depleted to begin with because they must engage in more sexual self-control on a daily basis. As a result, they may have experienced a form of double depletion. We will return to the concept of self-control depletion in chapter 9 and consider further implications of this phenomenon for sexual behavior.

Strengths and Limitations of the Experimental Method

The major strength of experiments is the ability to control variables precisely, thereby allowing us to make claims about causality. Thus, if we find differences in the dependent variable across conditions, we may be able to infer that they were caused by the independent variable. No other research method allows us to draw such conclusions.

Unfortunately, however, experiments are not always a viable option for sexology studies because certain research questions do not lend themselves readily to this method. Sometimes it is impossible or unethical to manipulate a variable of interest. For example, if we wanted to study the impact of parental divorce on children’s academic performance, we could not ran- domly assign some couples to get divorced and some to stay together! To address that topic, we would have to take a nonexperimental approach. Another limitation of experiments is that people may act differently in a laboratory setting than they do in the real world, thereby threat- ening external validity (i.e., the ability to generalize the findings beyond the lab). For instance, subjects may purposely alter their behavior because they like/dislike the experimenter or because they have guessed the purpose of the study.

A Note on Statistics

As we go forward in this book, we will discuss the results of several sexuality studies, both experimental and nonexperimental. To understand the results of these studies, it is important for you to have knowledge of some basic statistical concepts. We will review these briefly here, but please do not be intimidated! You do not need to have a strong statistical background to comprehend this information.

Means and Medians

In sexuality research, we often want to speak in terms of what the average person does, rather than focus on the extremes (although we will certainly cover some extremes in chapter  14, when we discuss sexual behavior variations). In statistical terms, the mean refers to the average value of all of the scores in a dataset. Sometimes it is also useful to consider the median, which is the middle score in a distribution.

However, please do not confuse the terms mean and median with “normal.” When it comes to sexual behavior, it is important to keep in mind that there is huge variability. As a result, “normal” does not represent a single value, but rather a large range of values. Thus, please do not fall into the habit of comparing yourself to every single average presented in this book and make judgments about your own normalcy. Chances are that even if you seem pretty far from average, you would still be considered normal.

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-10-28 23:18:11.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .