Relationship Between Impression Management and ... - APA PsycNET

Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement 2013, Vol. 45, No. 3, 259 –273

© 2013 Canadian Psychological Association 0008-400X/13/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0033397

Relationship Between Impression Management and Three Measures of Women’s Self-Reported Sexual Arousal Jackie S. Huberman

Kelly D. Suschinsky and Martin L. Lalumière

Queen’s University

University of Lethbridge

Meredith L. Chivers Queen’s University Given that social messages encourage women to inhibit sexual responses, and that measures of women’s genital arousal are not always consistent with self-reported sexual arousal, we evaluated the relationship between impression management (IM) and 3 methods of assessing self-reported sexual arousal: continuously rated arousal, pre- and poststimulus discrete ratings of arousal, and change in arousal. In Study 1, women (N ⫽ 39) reported their sexual arousal continuously throughout neutral and erotic audio narratives and following each stimulus using discrete scales. In Study 2, women (N ⫽ 40) reported their sexual arousal prior to, continuously throughout, and following neutral and erotic films. Across studies, discrete measures of sexual arousal (pre- and poststimulus) were significantly negatively correlated with total IM scores (assessed using the IM subscale of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding [BIDR-6]), whereas continuously reported sexual arousal was not significantly associated with IM. In Study 2, change in arousal reported before and after each stimulus was not consistently related to IM, though IM was significantly negatively correlated with change in desire to masturbate. We recommend that researchers assess self-reported sexual arousal using continuous measures or change scores, rather than discrete measures, and consider controlling for IM. Keywords: sexual arousal, impression management, social desirability, self-report bias

A great deal of research in psychology, including human sexuality, relies on self-report to assess individuals’ subjective experiences. These measures have often been criticized for potentially being biased (McCallum & Peterson, 2012). One of

the most frequently studied response biases is socially desirable responding, or the tendency to respond in an unrealistically favourable manner (Paulhus, 1991). Social desirability may be particularly relevant to research on sexual arousal because attitudes about sexuality are highly influenced by cultural values. A traditional gender stereotype is that men are more sexual than women and women should inhibit sexual responsivity to avoid negative labels (Leitenberg & Henning, 1995). Further, traditional gender roles dictate sexual passivity and submissiveness for women but sexual agency for men (Kiefer & Sanchez, 2007). Gender stereotypes with regard to sexuality suggest that women may underreport sexual arousal in the laboratory to conform to social norms. Women who participate in sexuality research may also respond to performance demand (defined as explicit or implicit desire for increased sexual performance; Lange, Wincze, Zwick, Feldman, & Hughes, 1981). Laan, Everaerd, van Aanhold, and Rebel (1993) found that when performance demand was induced by asking women to become as sexually aroused as possible before presenting an erotic stimulus, women reported higher levels of sexual arousal compared with when they were told to focus on their sexual enjoyment and not on their sexual arousal levels. Participants in sexual response studies may believe that researchers expect them to become sexually aroused and may thus report higher arousal levels. Given that individual biases may lead women to either minimize or inflate their sexual responses, it is important for researchers to understand the effects of response biases and to evaluate how the effects of these biases can be minimized.

Jackie S. Huberman, Department of Psychology, Queen’s University; Kelly D. Suschinsky and Martin L. Lalumière, Department of Psychology, University of Lethbridge; Meredith L. Chivers, Department of Psychology, Queen’s University. Kelly D. Suschinsky is now at the Department of Psychology, Queen’s University. Martin L. Lalumière is now at the School of Psychology, University of Ottawa. This research was supported in part by grants from the American Institute of Bisexuality (Meredith L. Chivers) and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (Martin L. Lalumière), a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Post-Doctoral Fellowship (Meredith L. Chivers), and a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Doctoral Fellowship (Kelly D. Suschinsky). Jackie S. Huberman received the Society for Sex Therapy and Research, 2013 Sandra R. Leiblum Student Research Award for an earlier version of this article. We thank Mackenzie Becker, Jennifer Bossio, and Amanda Timmers for their assistance with participant recruitment, data collection, and data entry, and we thank Dr. Leandre Fabrigar, Dr. Jill Jacobson, and Dr. Mark Sabbagh for their assistance with statistical analyses. We are also grateful to the study participants. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Meredith L. Chivers, Department of Psychology, Queen’s University, 62 Arch Street, Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6. E-mail: [email protected] 259

260

HUBERMAN, SUSCHINSKY, LALUMIÈRE, AND CHIVERS

Patterns of Sexual Arousal Sexual arousal is a multidimensional state that involves a combination of emotional expression, physiological changes, and motivated behaviour (Frijda, 1986), which typically occurs in response to internal (e.g., fantasy) or external (e.g., visual, tactile) sexual stimuli. An individual’s subjective experience of sexual arousal involves the integration of psychological and physiological responses, and is often assumed to be an indicator of sexual interest (Chivers, 2005). Subjective sexual arousal refers mainly to an emotional state, whereas physiological sexual arousal refers to genital response or vasocongestion (Chivers, 2005). Many researchers have evaluated sexual concordance—the relationship between subjective (self-reported) and physiological (genital) measures of sexual arousal (reviewed in Chivers, Seto, Lalumière, Laan, & Grimbos, 2010). Although subjective and physiological measures of sexual arousal correlate positively, evidence suggests that women’s self-reported and genital arousal responses to sexual stimuli do not correlate strongly, at least in laboratory settings. In a recent meta-analysis, women had an average Pearson correlation of .26 between genital and self-reported arousal, which was significantly lower than the average correlation of .66 for men (Chivers et al., 2010). It is possible that the relatively low concordance between women’s self-reported sexual arousal and genital arousal is influenced by factors other than the connection between their emotional and physiological states of arousal. One potential explanation for women’s low sexual concordance is that self-reported sexual arousal is not a valid measure of women’s subjective experiences of sexual arousal. Specifically, response biases such as social desirability may influence women’s reported levels of sexual arousal in the laboratory. It has been suggested that women’s relatively low concordance between subjective and genital arousal is not a result of their underreporting sexual arousal (Boyer, Pukall, & Holden, 2012; Brody, Laan, & van Lunsen, 2003; Laan & Janssen, 2007); however, research on the relationship between social desirability and self-reported sexual arousal has produced mixed results (e.g., Beck, Bozman, & Qualtrough, 1991; Boyer et al., 2012). Assessment of the relationship between self-reported sexual arousal and social desirability is complicated by the fact that there are several different ways of measuring self-reported sexual arousal. The different measures of self-reported sexual arousal have never been directly compared for their vulnerability to response bias. As noted by McCallum and Peterson (2012), all forms of self-report research are potentially susceptible to sources of bias, including social desirability; different methods of self-report, however, may be differentially influenced by response biases. It would therefore be useful to explore the relationship between social desirability and different measures of women’s self-reported sexual arousal.

Measuring Subjective Sexual Arousal Subjective sexual arousal is typically measured using discrete items with Likert-type scales administered immediately following stimulus presentation (referred to throughout this article as “poststimulus”) or contiguously with stimulus presentation (referred to throughout this article as “continuous self-report”; Rellini, McCall, Randall, & Meston, 2005). As well, subjective sexual arousal is sometimes measured with discrete Likert-type scales prior to stimulus presentation (referred to as “prestimulus” in this article).

When both prestimulus and poststimulus measures are used, pre/ poststimulus difference scores may be calculated (referred to as “change scores” or “change in arousal” in this article). As described by Rellini and colleagues (2005), typical poststimulus questions ask about feelings of sexual arousal, physical or genital sexual arousal, affect, autonomic arousal, and anxiety (Heiman & Rowland, 1983); overall and strongest feelings of sexual arousal (Laan, Everaerd, & Evers, 1995); and strongest genital sensations (Henson & Rubin, 1978). Discrete poststimulus measures of sexual arousal do not distract participants from sexual stimuli; they allow for the assessment of various dimensions of sexual arousal because multiple questions may be posed, and they are technologically simple to administer with pen and paper. The primary weakness of discrete measures of sexual arousal is that they do not assess “in the moment” sexual arousal. Discrete measures rely on retrospective recall of sexual feelings (Rellini et al., 2005) or on an individual’s assessment of their current state of arousal once the erotic stimulus has ended. When discrete measures of sexual arousal are administered both before and after a stimulus (i.e., prestimulus and poststimulus), difference scores can be calculated to assess the relative change in self-reported sexual arousal following a stimulus with the additional advantage of accounting for variation in baseline sexual arousal (i.e., prestimulus levels). Continuous self-report measures of sexual arousal usually involve participants indicating their arousal throughout the presentation of a sexual stimulus by using an apparatus such as a lever, keypad, or mouse (e.g., Chivers, Rieger, Latty, & Bailey, 2004; Rellini et al., 2005; Suschinsky, Lalumière, & Chivers, 2009). Unlike discrete poststimulus reports of arousal, continuous selfreport does not rely on participants’ recall of previously experienced sexual feelings. A weakness of continuous measures of sexual arousal is that they may distract participants from becoming fully absorbed in the stimulus, which could lead to lower levels of subjective sexual arousal to erotica (Sheen & Koukounas, 2009). As well, with continuous self-report, it is possible that participants may forget to rate sexual arousal because they are attending to the stimulus. Despite these concerns, continuous sexual arousal ratings have been shown to discriminate between different types of stimuli (e.g., Chivers, Seto, & Blanchard, 2007), and continuous reporting of arousal does not affect women’s genital arousal responses (Wincze, Venditti, Barlow, & Mavissakalian, 1980), so it is unlikely that participants are forgetting to report arousal or are not attending to the stimulus. Continuous measures of sexual arousal may also be employed with prompts reminding participants to report arousal (e.g., Kukkonen, Binik, Amsel, & Carrier, 2010), although this may prime performance demand or distraction. A further limitation of continuous self-reported arousal is that this method may be technologically complex to administer and only one aspect of sexual arousal (i.e., only one emotion) can be assessed. Despite the differences in discrete and continuous measures of sexual arousal, few studies have compared these measures in terms of their psychometric properties, such as test–retest reliability (Chivers et al., 2010), or their propensity for biased reporting. Kukkonen and colleagues (2010) found that discrete (poststimulus) and continuous measures of self-reported sexual arousal were highly correlated (rs ⬎ .78, ps ⬍ .001), and Rellini and colleagues (2005) found that levels of poststimulus mental excitement signif-

IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT AND REPORTED SEXUAL AROUSAL

icantly predicted increases in continuous arousal during an erotic film. These findings suggest that continuous and discrete measures of sexual arousal are related; however, some studies have found different results across reporting methods. Salemink and van Lankveld (2006) found that completing a distraction task prior to viewing an erotic stimulus impeded poststimulus ratings of sexual arousal but not continuously reported sexual arousal. Rellini and colleagues (2005) found that continuously reported sexual arousal was significantly related to women’s genital arousal, whereas poststimulus ratings of sexual arousal were not significantly related to genital arousal. Other studies, however, have found that continuous and poststimulus measures of subjective sexual arousal correlated similarly with women’s genital arousal (see Chivers et al., 2010). Different modes of self-report of sexual behaviour may be differentially influenced by response bias, such as social desirability (McCallum & Peterson, 2012). In a meta-analysis examining response format and response bias, participants scored higher on measures of social desirability in face-to-face interviews compared with computer-based questionnaires, particularly when questions related to sensitive personal behaviour, and participants scored higher in pen-and-paper questionnaires compared with computerbased questionnaires when controlling for moderators such as sensitivity of item content and anonymity instructions (Richman, Kiesler, Weisband, & Drasgow, 1999). Sensitive item content, such as questions related to sexuality, may interact with mode of self-report to impact social desirability (Richman et al., 1999). Given that social desirability bias varies as a function of self-report method, it is possible that continuous and discrete measures of sexual arousal are differentially influenced by social desirability. Researchers have found that greater absorption in erotica is associated with greater sexual arousal for men and women (Koukounas & McCabe, 1997; Sheen & Koukounas, 2009), and that erotic films are perceived as more sexually arousing, absorbing, and pleasing than neutral films (Koukounas & McCabe, 1997). Comparatively, cognitive distraction during erotica results in significant decreases in continuously measured subjective sexual arousal (Adams, Haynes, & Brayer, 1985; Prause & Heiman, 2010), further supporting the notion that absorption in a sexual stimulus is an important element of sexual response and sexual arousal. When individuals are absorbed in a stimulus, they may not be engaging in high-level elaborative processing that would incorporate past learning and experiences (Craik & Lockhart, 1972), such as social norms and context. Socially desirable response bias may thus have more of an influence on reported sexual arousal when individuals have time to reflect on responses because they are not absorbed in a stimulus (i.e., discrete pre- and poststimulus reported arousal) compared with when individuals are attending to a stimulus (i.e., continuously reported arousal). Change in reported arousal from before to after a stimulus may also be robust to social desirability bias because change scores account for variation in baseline (prestimulus) levels of arousal. Women who score higher on a social desirability measure may report lower levels of prestimulus and poststimulus arousal than women who score lower on social desirability; however, the relative change in reported arousal may be affected by other factors such as interest in the erotic stimulus and performance demand. The combination of these factors may diminish the influence of social desirability on change in reported arousal.

261

Social Desirability and Sexuality: Mixed Results There have been mixed results in the literature regarding the relationship between social desirability and self-reported sexuality measures, and comparison of these studies is impeded by the variable methodologies employed. Commonly used measures of socially desirable responding include the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR; Paulhus, 1991), the MarloweCrowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960), and the Edwards Social Desirability Scale (Edwards, 1957). Women who score higher on social desirability tend to report more conservative sexual behaviours, sexual attitudes, or sexual arousal levels. Meston, Heiman, Trapnell, and Paulhus (1998) found that, even after personality and conservatism factors were partialed out, scores on the Impression Management (IM) subscale of the BIDR-6 (which assesses the deliberate distortion of responses to appear socially desirable) were significantly negatively correlated with women’s self-reported sex drive, sexual fantasy variety, and unrestricted sexual fantasies, attitudes, and behaviour. Researchers have also found significant negative associations between measures of social desirability and women’s frequencies of sexual thoughts (Fisher, Moore, & Pittenger, 2012), reported sexual arousal following an erotic film in women with provoked vestibulodynia (Boyer et al., 2012), and women’s levels of hyperfemininity (McKelvie & Gold, 1994). Some studies have found that measures of social desirability were not related to men and women’s reported sexual arousability or frequency of sexual desire (Beck et al., 1991), to self-reported sexual arousal following an erotic film in sexually functional women (Boyer et al., 2012), or to concordance between women’s self-reported and physiological sexual arousal (Boyer et al., 2012; Brody et al., 2003). In contrast, several studies have found a relationship between social expectancies and self-reported sexuality variables. Alexander and Fisher (2003) found that gender differences in reported sexual behaviour were greatest when participants believed their responses might be viewed by the experimenter and were negligible when they were told a polygraph could detect dishonest responses. Others have found that social messages affected self-reported sexual arousal in response to violent and nonviolent erotica (Norris, 1989, 1991). Similarly, Jonason and Fisher (2009) found that the gender difference in reported number of sexual partners was mediated by one’s belief in the degree of prestige associated with having multiple partners. In sum, social desirability in women tends to be associated with more conservative self-reports of sexual responses. This association, however, has not been consistently demonstrated across studies. The mixed results regarding the relationship between social desirability and reported sexual responses suggest that further research is needed to better evaluate which measures of sexual response, such as measures of self-reported sexual arousal, are most vulnerable to social desirability bias.

Current Studies In Study 1, we evaluated the relationship between IM and two measures of women’s self-reported sexual arousal— continuously reported arousal and discretely reported arousal (poststimulus)—in response to auditory stimuli. Participants in Study 1 were women (N ⫽ 39) who reported feelings of sexual arousal continuously throughout neutral (nonerotic) and erotic audio narratives, and

262


reported feelings of sexual arousal and perceptions of genital response following stimulus presentation. We conducted a second study to replicate the Study 1 findings using a different stimulus modality, and we extended Study 1 by including additional measures of self-reported sexual responding. In Study 2, we evaluated the relationship between IM and three measures of women’s self-reported sexual arousal: continuously reported arousal, discretely reported arousal (both pre- and poststimulus), and change in arousal in response to audiovisual stimuli. Participants in Study 2 were women (N ⫽ 40) who reported their sexual arousal levels continuously throughout neutral and erotic films, and reported feelings of sexual arousal, perceptions of genital response, desire to masturbate, and desire for sex with a partner before and after each film, along with their level of attention following each film. All participants completed the IM subscale of the BIDR-6, a measure of one’s tendency to respond in a socially desirable way (Paulhus, 1991). Given that women tend to report greater subjective sexual arousal to audiovisual erotic stimuli compared with audiotaped depictions of sexual activity (Heiman, 1980), the current studies examined whether the observed relationship between IM and selfreported sexual arousal is consistent across varying stimulus modalities that evoke a range of sexual arousal levels. Study 2 included prestimulus measures of sexual arousal so we could assess the relationship between IM and self-reported arousal immediately before exposure to sexual stimuli. As well, including prestimulus measures allowed us to evaluate associations with change in self-reported sexual arousal. We also examined the relationship between IM and self-reported sexual arousal in response to neutral and erotic stimuli (Studies 1 and 2) and to a neutral baseline stimulus (Study 2 only) to assess response bias at varying levels of expected sexual arousal. Women participating in a study that involves viewing erotic stimuli may experience some feelings of sexual arousal at the start of the testing session (baseline) and to neutral stimuli because of their expectation of a forthcoming sexual stimulus; women who score lower on IM may be more willing to report this arousal. Erotic stimuli, however, evoke greater levels of sexual arousal than neutral stimuli, which may trigger greater IM bias. In Study 2, we also examined the relationships between IM and discrete pre- and poststimulus items that are frequently included in more comprehensive assessments of women’s sexual arousal, such as women’s desire to masturbate, desire for sex with a partner, and level of attention (see Heiman & Rowland, 1983). Self-reported arousal is directly associated with the degree of attention to or absorption in an erotic stimulus (Basson, 2003; Dawson, Suschinsky, & Lalumière, 2013; Sheen & Koukounas, 2009) and with sexual desire (Prause & Heiman, 2010), self-reports of which may also be vulnerable to IM bias. We assessed women’s reported levels of sexual desire to masturbate because masturbation tends to be highly relevant to gender role norms proscribing a muted female sexuality (Alexander & Fisher, 2003).

Current Study Hypotheses We tested three hypotheses regarding the relationship between IM and self-reported sexual arousal. First, we expected a negative association between IM and women’s self-reported sexual arousal.

Second, we expected that the association between IM and selfreported sexual arousal would be stronger in response to erotic stimuli, when arousal levels would be high, compared with neutral or baseline stimuli. Third, we expected that women’s poststimulus and prestimulus sexual arousal ratings would be more consistently and more strongly related to IM compared with continuous selfreported arousal and change in reported sexual arousal. We tested three additional hypotheses. The fourth hypothesis was that IM would negatively relate to reported perceptions of genital response, sexual desire, and attention, with the same pattern outlined in the aforementioned three hypotheses. The fifth hypothesis was that women who scored lower on IM would be more likely to report above-zero levels of sexual arousal and desire at baseline than women who scored higher on IM, and the sixth hypothesis was that mean reported arousal levels would be higher in Study 2 (audiovisual stimuli) than in Study 1 (audio narratives).

General Method Overview In the two studies described here, we presented participants with neutral and erotic stimuli, and they reported their sexual arousal levels at various time points throughout testing. For both studies, data were collected as part of larger studies on women’s subjective and genital arousal patterns (Study 1: Suschinsky & Lalumière, 2011a, 2011b; Study 2: Bossio & Chivers, 2011 and Chivers, Bouchard, Timmers, & Haberl, 2012). Vaginal photoplethysmography was used in both studies to assess genital arousal; the details and results of this measure will not be discussed here because this article focuses on self-reported sexual arousal.

Participants Study 1 participants were 39 women aged 18 to 35 years (Mage ⫽ 21.6, SD ⫽ 3.3), and Study 2 participants were 43 women aged 18 to 39 years (Mage ⫽ 21.0, SD ⫽ 4.3). In Study 2, we excluded three participants who reported predominant sexual attractions to women; the final sample size was 40. Participants were recruited through advertisements at a university and a community college, and in Study 1, class announcements and e-mail advertisements to professors for distribution to students were also used for recruitment. In Study 1, most women were Caucasian, in a romantic relationship, and attending university or had already completed a bachelor’s degree. In Study 2, most women were European Canadian, single, and attending university or had already completed a bachelor’s degree (see Table 1). Eligibility criteria were: fluent in English; no history of psychiatric illness, substance abuse, or sexual dysfunction; regular menstrual cycles (i.e., between 25 and 32 days); sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex; not currently pregnant; and not currently using medication known to influence sexual functioning (e.g., psychotropics, neuroleptics, antihypertensives; Meston & Frohlich, 2000). In Study 1, eligible participants were aged 18 to 35, were sexually experienced (i.e., participants had engaged in partnered sexual activity and had used erotic material), and had no history of sexually transmitted infections. In Study 2, eligible participants were aged 18 to 40, were experienced with vaginal penetration (i.e., participants had experienced sexual or


263

Table 1 Participant Demographic and Descriptive Information Study 1 n (%) Age Relationship length (months) Impression management (total score) Ethnicity Caucasian/European Canadian African Canadian Asian Canadian East Indian Middle Eastern Hispanic Canadian Biracial Other Relationship status Single Dating Engaged Married Common law Separated Highest education completed High school (or equivalent) Community college (attending or completed) University (attending or completed bachelor’s degree) Employment status Full-time Part-time Full-time student Unemployed

33 (84.6) 2 (5.1) 1 (2.6) 1 (2.6)

Study 2 n (%)

Study 1 M (SD)

Study 2 M (SD)

21.6 (3.3) 25.5 (33.4) 69.1 (16.1)

21.0 (4.3) 14.0 (11.0) 73.7 (12.8)

25 (62.5) 1 (2.5) 8 (20.0) 2 (5.0) 1 (2.5)

1 (2.6) 1 (2.6) 10 (25.6) 24 (61.5) 1 (2.6) 1 (2.6) 3 (7.7)

3 (7.5) 23 (57.5) 16 (40.0)

1 (2.5) 1 (2.6) 1 (2.6)

1 (2.5) 3 (7.5)

37 (94.9)

36 (90.0)

4 (10.3) 16 (41.0) 18 (46.2) 1 (2.6)

2 (5.0) 12 (30.0) 24 (60.0) 2 (5.0)

Note. The samples from Study 1 and Study 2 were compared for age, relationship length, and impression management, and no significant differences were found, ps ⬎ .16.

nonsexual vaginal penetration such as penetrative intercourse, tampon insertion, or a pelvic examination), and had no active sexually transmitted infection. Note that these studies did not control for phase of women’s menstrual cycles, given evidence that this does not influence women’s patterns of self-reported or genital sexual arousal (e.g., Bossio & Chivers, 2011; Laan, Everaerd, van Bellen, & Hanewald, 1994; Suschinsky & Lalumière, 2011a).

Apparatus and Materials Experimental stimuli. The stimuli were neutral (nonsexual) and erotic audio narratives (Study 1) or audiovisual stimuli (Study 2), and are described in more detail in the specific study methodology sections. Self-reported sexual response. For the continuous measure of sexual arousal, participants continuously rated their feelings of mental or emotional sexual arousal (defined as “how turned on you feel”) during each stimulus on a scale of 0 (no sexual arousal) to 100 (most sexual arousal ever felt, level of arousal associated with orgasm) using a button press on a keypad. The button press manipulated a vertical bar that represented the individual’s sexual arousal on a monitor placed 5 ft away from the participant. The vertical bar was a visual reminder to participants to rate their sexual arousal during the stimuli. Participants were not reminded to use the bar during the stimuli to avoid increasing performance demand and to limit participants’ perceptions of being monitored.

We computed the average of each participant’s mean and peak continuous self-reported arousal for every trial and subtracted from this the prestimulus (baseline) value for that trial. Scores were then averaged for each participant across the two neutral exemplars for each study and across the two erotic exemplars in Study 1. The method of averaging mean and peak arousal is often used with genital arousal data because mean and peak arousal are highly correlated but assess different aspects of the arousal response; averaging the two measures minimizes the impact of anomalous responses, such as those with a high peak but low mean or vice versa (e.g., Blanchard, Klassen, Dickey, Kuban, & Blak, 2001; Freund, Scher, & Hucker, 1983). In the current studies, mean and peak arousal were highly correlated, rs ⬎ .80. For the discrete measures of sexual arousal, participants reported their sexual arousal before each stimulus (Study 2 only; “prestimulus”) and after each stimulus (Studies 1 and 2; “poststimulus”) by pressing numbers on a keypad. In Study 1, the scale ranged from 1 (no arousal) to 9 (maximum arousal); the scale used in Study 2 ranged from 0 (no arousal) to 9 (maximum arousal). Participants were asked to report how sexually aroused they felt (i.e., their emotional state of arousal or overall arousal, referred to as “poststimulus feelings of sexual arousal”) and how sexually aroused their genitals felt (referred to as “poststimulus perception of genital response”). In addition to reporting their levels of overall sexual arousal and perceptions of genital response, participants in Study 2 reported their desire for sex with a partner (also referred

264


to as “desire for partnered sex”) and desire to masturbate before and after each stimulus, and their level of attention following each stimulus by pressing numbers on the keypad from 0 (none) to 9 (maximum level). Responses to each prestimulus item (Study 2 only) and each poststimulus item (Studies 1 and 2) were averaged across the exemplars for each stimulus category. Because Study 2 included prestimulus and poststimulus discrete measures, we calculated change scores for each pre- and poststimulus item as additional measures of self-reported sexual arousal, and these were averaged across the two neutral exemplars (referred to as “change scores”). In Study 2, principal component factor analysis revealed a one-factor solution for the prestimulus items as well as the poststimulus items, provided the poststimulus attention item was excluded. The sum of all four prestimulus items and the sum of four poststimulus items (excluding attention) were thus computed and averaged across the neutral exemplars, respectively, to create a measure of “overall sexual excitement/interest”.

Self-Report Questionnaires Sexual orientation. Participants completed the Kinsey Sexual Attraction Scale (Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953) and reported sexual attractions over the past 6 months. Participants also reported their self-identified sexual orientation. In Study 1, all women reported having predominant or exclusive sexual attractions to men, and most women identified as heterosexual (94.9%), with some identifying as bisexual (2.6%) or heteroflexible (2.6%). Study 2 included women who reported at least frequent sexual attraction toward men. Most women in Study 2 (72.5%) identified as “heterosexual”, with the remaining women identifying as “bisexual” (12.5%), “no label” (7.5%), or “other” (7.5%; e.g., straight, heteroflexible, omnisexual). Because the sample in Study 2 included women with substantially mixed sexual attractions, Kinsey Sexual Attraction scores were partialed out of the main Study 2 analyses. Personal information. Participants completed a demographic questionnaire (see Table 1) and responded to questions related to their sexual interests, sexual experiences, sexual functioning, and personality characteristics. Socially desirable responding. The current studies employed the BIDR-6, one of the most widely validated measures of desirable responding, which consists of the Self-Deceptive Enhancement (SDE) subscale and the IM subscale (Paulhus, 1991). SDE refers to an honest but overly positive response style, whereas IM involves the deliberate tailoring of answers to create a positive social image (Paulhus, 1991). Meston and colleagues (1998) found that even after controlling for personality factors and social conservatism, scores on the IM scale, but not the SDE scale, were significantly and negatively correlated with self-reported sexual behaviours and attitudes. Meston and colleagues note that high SDE scores may reflect an energetic, optimistic orientation toward life, whereas high IM scores may reflect a tendency to regard oneself in an unrealistically favourable way. Although SDE is relatively stable, IM is more strongly influenced by context, namely, situations with high demands for positive self-presentation (Paulhus, 1991). Paulhus (1984) recommended that IM, but not SDE, be statistically controlled for in self-report research (particularly personality work), because scales that loaded highest on IM showed the greatest mean increases from anonymous to public

testing conditions; this suggests that IM is most influenced by social factors. Because we were interested in evaluating how women’s self-reported sexual arousal may be biased by social factors such as gender norms and stereotypes, we chose to assess women’s levels of IM. The IM subscale of the BIDR-6 consists of 20 items that are stated as propositions related to one’s tendency to respond in a socially desirable but not truthful way—for example, “I never cover up my mistakes”, “I have never dropped litter on the street” (Paulhus, 1991). Participants rated their agreement with each statement on a 7-point scale from 1 (not true) to 7 (very true). Scores on all negatively keyed items of the IM scale were reverse coded so that a higher score indicated a stronger tendency to deliberately distort responses to appear positive to others (Paulhus, 1991). The current studies employed the continuous scoring technique in which a total IM score is computed. The continuous scoring method has been shown to have higher reliability and higher convergent correlations with other measures of social desirability compared with the alternative dichotomous scoring technique (Stöber, Dette, & Musch, 2002). For participants who had a missing IM item (n ⫽ 3 in Study 1, n ⫽ 4 in Study 2), the missing value was replaced with their mean score on the remaining 19 items. No participant had more than one missing value. The mean total IM score was 73.7 (SD ⫽ 12.8) in Study 1 and 69.1 (SD ⫽ 16.1) in Study 2; these scores were not significantly different, p ⫽ .17. The mean IM scores in these studies were very similar to scores reported by Stöber and colleagues (2002) in two studies not related to sexuality, 66.3 (SD ⫽ 14.7) and 69.7 (SD ⫽ 16.0). The IM subscale of the BIDR-6 has been shown to be reliable, with coefficient alpha values ranging from .75 to .86 and a test– retest correlation of .65 over a 5-week period (Paulhus, 1991). In Study 1, coefficient alpha reliability of the IM scale was somewhat low (.60), and in Study 2, reliability was good (.78). Given that the results of the two studies were quite similar and the average IM scores were similar across studies, it is unlikely that the low reliability observed in Study 1 affected the findings of the current studies.

Procedure Prospective participants were screened via telephone or e-mail for eligibility and given a brief description of the study. Appointments were scheduled for eligible participants such that they did not participate during menstruation. Participants were asked to refrain from any sexual activity for 24 hrs, any physical exercise for 1 hr (because exercise results in sympathetic nervous system arousal that can influence genital responses; Meston & Gorzalka, 1996), and using substances that may influence their physiological and psychological sexual arousal on the day of testing (e.g., alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, cold medications, and recreational drugs). Participants were assessed individually. The female experimenter explained the study details and obtained consent. Participants were left alone in a dimly lit room to insert the vaginal photoplethysmograph. The stimuli were presented and participants rated their feelings of sexual arousal continuously during each stimulus, and their feelings of sexual arousal and perceptions of genital response after each stimulus. In Study 2, participants also reported their feelings of sexual arousal, perceptions of genital


response, desire for masturbation, and desire for partnered sex prior to each stimulus as well as their desire for masturbation, desire for partnered sex, and attention after each stimulus. The stimuli were presented in a predetermined random order, separated by intervals of approximately 3 mins to allow a return to baseline of genital arousal levels. After the sexual arousal assessment, participants completed the self-report questionnaires. The testing session took approximately 2.5 hrs and participants received monetary compensation for participating. All procedures were approved by the universities’ research ethics boards.

Data Analysis Table 2 shows descriptive information for each dependent variable. Normality was assessed by examination of skewness and kurtosis. Outlier data points, defined as values falling greater than three standard deviations from the mean (see Tabachnick & Fidell, 2012), were identified and removed from the normally distributed data; the relationship between IM and self-reported sexual arousal was assessed using Pearson correlations for these data. The relationship between IM and self-reported sexual arousal was assessed with Spearman correlations for non-normally distributed data; Spearman correlations transform data into rank orders, so outliers were retained for these analyses. When other statistical tests were used (ANOVAs), outlier data points were identified and removed from the non-normally distributed variables.

265

Study 1 In this study, we evaluated the relationship between IM and self-reported sexual arousal using audio narrative stimuli.

Method Experimental stimuli. The stimuli were four 2-min audio narratives told from a woman’s perspective by a female narrator, presented via headphones. Participants heard two exemplars (randomly selected from a possible five) from the erotic category, describing consensual sexual activities, including oral and penetrative sex, between a man and woman. The five possible stimuli were quite similar, varying only slightly to allow for diversity in stimulus content. The erotic stimuli included a few sentences at the beginning to set the scene and to describe the relationship between the man and the woman before the sexual activity began. Participants also heard two exemplars from the neutral category, describing nonsexual interactions between a man and woman. The narratives have been used in previous research and generate genital and subjective arousal in women (e.g., Suschinsky & Lalumière, 2011a, 2011b). The stimuli were presented in a quasi-random order, and exemplars from the same category (neutral or erotic) were never presented one after the other. One neutral and one erotic narrative were presented at the beginning of the session to acquaint partici-

Table 2 Descriptive Information for All Dependent Variables Baseline M (SD) Study 1 Poststimulus feelings of sexual arousal Poststimulus perception of genital response Continuous self-reported arousal Study 2 Prestimulus Feelings of sexual arousal Perception of genital response Desire to masturbate Desire for partnered sex Prestimulus total Poststimulus Feelings of sexual arousal Perception of genital response Desire to masturbate Desire for partnered sex Attention Poststimulus total (attention excluded) Change scores Feelings of sexual arousal Perception of genital response Desire to masturbate Desire for partnered sex Change total Continuous self-reported arousal

Neutral M (SD)

Erotic M (SD)

1.10 (0.43) 1.35 (0.79) 2.30 (4.19)

5.96 (1.59) 5.73 (1.64) 34.96 (19.56)

1.00 (1.05) 1.45 (1.41) 1.18 (1.23) 2.28 (2.37) 5.69 (4.74)

1.99 (1.31) 1.80 (1.28) 1.44 (1.61) 2.86 (2.26) 8.09 (5.39)

1.62 (1.43) 1.44 (1.37) 1.10 (1.33) 2.53 (2.55) 6.56 (5.83)

0.44 (0.72) 0.77 (0.78) 0.74 (0.99) 1.21 (1.42) 4.35 (2.90) 3.33 (3.10)

0.46 (0.72) 0.71 (0.90) 0.58 (0.81) 1.42 (1.48) 5.49 (2.44) 3.45 (3.39)

4.90 (2.11) 4.28 (2.16) 3.15 (2.52) 4.95 (2.42) 7.37 (1.67) 17.28 (8.00)

⫺0.60 (0.98) ⫺0.60 (1.06) ⫺0.56 (0.94) ⫺0.90 (1.24) ⫺2.55 (3.21) ⫺3.44 (6.98)

⫺1.46 (1.21) ⫺1.09 (0.92) ⫺0.79 (1.01) ⫺1.30 (1.26) ⫺4.64 (3.52) ⫺2.21 (3.97)

3.15 (2.14) 2.68 (2.02) 1.72 (1.61) 2.43 (1.82) 10.13 (6.45) 15.05 (17.28)

Note. These values represent means and standard deviations after outliers were removed from all variables. Continuous self-reported arousal represents the average of mean and peak continuous self-reported arousal rated on a scale from 0% (no arousal) to 100% (most sexual arousal ever felt, arousal associated with orgasm), relative to pretrial (baseline) arousal levels. Pre- and poststimulus items were rated on scales from 1 to 9 (Study 1) and from 0 to 9 (Study 2). Total scores are sums of all items scored from 0 to 36 (poststimulus total did not include attention), representing overall sexual interest/excitement. Change scores represent the difference between pre- and poststimulus scores on each item.

266


pants with the reporting procedures; the data for these trials are not presented.

Results Manipulation check. To ensure that the erotic stimuli elicited more sexual arousal than the neutral stimuli, separate repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted with stimulus category as the independent variable (neutral, erotic) and with each type of selfreported sexual arousal as the dependent variables (continuous self-reported arousal, poststimulus feelings of sexual arousal, poststimulus perception of genital response). Participants reported significantly more sexual arousal to the erotic stimuli compared with the neutral stimuli for each type of self-reported sexual arousal (all ps ⱕ .001; all ␩p2 ⱖ .76). Association between IM and measures of self-reported sexual arousal. To evaluate the relationship between IM and measures of self-reported sexual arousal and perception of genital response, Pearson and Spearman correlations were conducted. In general, IM scores were significantly negatively correlated with poststimulus ratings of sexual arousal and perception of genital response (see Table 3). IM did not significantly correlate with continuous self-reported arousal. To evaluate whether the strength of the correlations with IM were significantly different across stimulus conditions and reporting methods, we conducted William’s t tests (Williams, 1959; rec-

ommended by Steiger, 1980, and Howell, 2010, for comparisons between nonindependent correlations). There was no significant difference across stimulus conditions; the correlation between IM and arousal was not significantly greater for erotic versus neutral stimuli for either poststimulus sexual arousal, p ⫽ .86, or continuous self-reported arousal, p ⫽ .19. There was also no significant difference across reporting methods; the correlation between IM and arousal to the erotic stimulus was not significantly greater for poststimulus sexual arousal versus continuous self-reported arousal, p ⫽ .51. Continuous versus poststimulus sexual arousal levels. To evaluate how reporting method, IM, and stimulus interacted to influence self-reported arousal, we conducted a 2 (Reporting Method: poststimulus, continuous) ⫻ 2 (IM Group: low, high) ⫻ 2 (Stimulus: neutral, erotic) mixed-model ANOVA with selfreported sexual arousal as the dependent variable. The mixedmodel ANOVA was selected for this analysis because it suited the format of our variables and research question, and it works well with relatively small sample sizes. We conducted a median split of total IM scores to divide participants into low-IM (IM ⬍ 75) and high-IM (IM ⱖ 75) groups. This allowed us to evaluate how two levels of IM (high or low) interacted with reporting method and stimulus type to influence self-reported arousal. Note that although this analysis was limited by the fact that we dichotomized a continuous variable, the previous correlation analyses revealed a

Table 3 Correlations (Study 1) and Partial Correlations (Study 2) Between IM Score and Self-Reported Sexual Arousal Baseline Study 1 Poststimulus feelings of sexual arousal Poststimulus perception of genital response Continuous self-reported arousal Study 2 Prestimulus Feelings of sexual arousal Perception of genital response Desire to masturbate Desire for partnered sex Prestimulus total Poststimulus Feelings of sexual arousal Perception of genital response Desire to masturbate Desire for partnered sex Attention Poststimulus total (attention excluded) Change scores Feelings of sexual arousal Perception of genital response Desire to masturbate Desire for partnered sex Change total Continuous self-reported arousal

Neutral

Erotic

⫺.28 (37)b ⴚ.36 (37)bⴱ .01 (37)b

ⴚ.35 (37)aⴱ ⴚ.35 (37)aⴱ ⫺.31 (37)a

⫺0.28 (37)b ⫺0.21 (37)a ⴚ0.45 (37)bⴱⴱ ⴚ0.46 (37)aⴱⴱ ⴚ0.43 (36)aⴱⴱ

⫺0.20 (37)a ⫺0.14 (37)a ⫺0.16 (37)a ⫺0.22 (37)a ⫺0.22 (37)a

⫺0.28 (37)b ⫺0.31 (37)b ⴱ ⴚ0.40 (37)b ⴚ0.54 (37)bⴱⴱ ⫺0.25 (37)a ⴚ0.51 (36)aⴱⴱ

ⴚ0.33 (37)b ⫺0.27 (37)a ⴱ ⴚ0.39 (37)bⴱ ⴚ0.37 (37)b ⫺0.25 (37)a ⴚ0.44 (37)aⴱⴱ

ⴚ0.37 (37)aⴱ ⴚ0.35 (37)aⴱ ⴚ0.45 (37)aⴱⴱ ⴚ0.36 (37)aⴱ ⫺0.20 (37)b ⴚ0.44 (37)aⴱⴱ

⫺0.03 (37)a ⫺0.07 (37)a ⫺0.07 (37)a ⫺0.15 (37)a ⫺0.10 (37)a 0.10 (36)b

⫺0.16 (37)a ⫺0.16 (37)a ⴚ0.36 (37)bⴱ 0.001 (37)a ⫺0.17 (37)a ⫺0.21 (36)a

0.19 (37)a 0.17 (37)a 0.13 (37)b 0.30 (37)b 0.18 (37)a 0.11 (36)b

ⴚ0.35 (36)aⴱ ⫺0.31 (37)b ⴚ0.50 (37)bⴱⴱ ⴚ0.34 (37)aⴱ ⴚ0.44 (36)aⴱⴱ ⴱ

Note. Degrees of freedom are indicated in brackets. Kinsey’s Sexual Attraction scores were partialed out of all Study 2 analyses. Continuous self-reported arousal represents the average of mean and peak continuous self-reported sexual arousal relative to pretrial (baseline) arousal levels. Change scores represent the difference between pre- and poststimulus scores on each item. Statistically significant correlations are indicated in bold. a Pearson r (normally-distributed variable). b Spearman rho (non-normally distributed variable). ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.


Study 2 In this study, we evaluated the relationship between IM and self-reported sexual arousal using audiovisual stimuli.

Method Experimental stimuli. The stimuli consisted of four 90-s audiovisual films that were presented with sound, including music and sexual vocalizations, on a standard TV monitor located at eye level 5 ft away from the participant. These represented three categories: baseline (nature scenes), neutral (two landscape sequences), and erotic (male–female penile–vaginal intercourse). These stimuli were excerpted from commercially available films and have been shown to elicit both physiological and subjective sexual arousal in women (Chivers et al., 2007). Participants watched the baseline film followed by the remaining film clips, which were presented in a predetermined random order.

Results Manipulation check. To ensure that the erotic stimulus elicited more sexual arousal than the neutral and baseline stimuli, repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted with stimulus category as the independent variable (baseline, neutral, erotic) and self-reported sexual arousal measures as the dependent variables (continuous self-reported arousal, poststimulus feelings of sexual arousal, poststimulus overall sexual excitement/interest). For each dependent variable, participants reported significantly more sexual arousal to the erotic stimulus compared with the nonerotic stimuli (all ps ⬍ .001; all ␩p2 ⱖ .44), and arousal levels did not signifi-

a

80 70

***

Arousal (%)

Continuouus Reportinng Poststimulus Reporting ***

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Low L

High

Impressionn Managem ment b

80 70

Arousal (%)

significant linear relationship between IM and measures of selfreported sexual arousal. Poststimulus sexual arousal ratings were converted to percentage of total possible responses so that they were on the same scale as continuous self-reported arousal (0% to 100%). Because Study 1 scores ranged from 1 to 9, they were first converted to a scale of 0 to 8 for this analysis, which allowed for a proper comparison with the continuous self-reported arousal scale. For this analysis, continuous self-reported arousal was not baseline-adjusted in order to be comparable with the rating of poststimulus sexual arousal, which was also not expressed as a change score.1 Poststimulus sexual arousal levels were significantly positively correlated with continuous self-reported arousal (not baseline-adjusted) for the erotic stimulus category, Pearson r(37) ⫽ .51, p ⫽ .001, and for the neutral stimulus category, Spearman rho(36) ⫽ .40, p ⫽ .012. We found a significant Reporting Method ⫻ Stimulus interaction, F(1, 35) ⫽ 73.18, p ⬍ .001, ␩p2 ⫽ .68, such that for the erotic stimulus category, sexual arousal was significantly higher when reported poststimulus (M ⫽ 62.02, SD ⫽ 19.84) rather than continuously (M ⫽ 35.08, SD ⫽ 19.57), F(1, 38) ⫽ 74.81, p ⬍ .001, ␩p2 ⫽ .66 (see Figure 1a). In contrast, there was no significant difference in sexual arousal reported poststimulus (M ⫽ 1.01, SD ⫽ 2.76) compared with sexual arousal reported continuously (M ⫽ 2.04, SD ⫽ 3.76), p ⫽ .09, for the neutral stimulus category. There was no main effect of IM Group (p ⫽ .081), no significant IM Group ⫻ Reporting Method interaction (p ⫽ .35), and no significant IM Group ⫻ Stimulus interaction (p ⫽ .20).

267

* ***

60 50

Continnuous Repoorting Poststimulus Repe orting ***

40 30 20 10 0 L Low

High

ment Impressionn Managem Figure 1. Mean sexual arousal scores for (a) Study 1 and (b) Study 2 erotic stimuli using continuous reporting (average of mean and peak sexual arousal reported on a scale from 0% to 100%) and poststimulus reporting (poststimulus feelings of sexual arousal, expressed as % of total possible responses) by IM. Participants were divided into low- and high-IM groups based on a median split of total IM scores. Error bars represent standard error. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

cantly differ between the baseline and neutral stimuli (all ps ⱖ .59). To evaluate the prediction that self-reported arousal levels would be higher in response to erotic audiovisual stimuli (Study 2) compared with erotic audio narrative stimuli (Study 1), we conducted two independent samples t tests with study as the independent variable (Study 1, Study 2) and self-reported arousal in the erotic stimulus category as the dependent variables (poststimulus feelings of sexual arousal, continuous self-reported arousal). There was no significant difference across studies in poststimulus feelings of sexual arousal, t(77) ⫽ 1.55, p ⫽ .13, whereas continuous self-reported arousal was significantly higher in Study 1 (M ⫽

1 Note that baseline-adjusted and non-baseline-adjusted continuous selfreported arousal were highly positively correlated, correlated nearly equally negatively with IM, and yielded the same pattern of results.

268


34.96, SD ⫽ 19.56) than in Study 2 (M ⫽ 15.05, SD ⫽ 17.28), t(76) ⫽ 4.76, p ⬍ .001. Association between IM and measures of self-reported sexual arousal. To evaluate the relationship between IM and measures of self-reported sexual arousal, perception of genital response, desire to masturbate, desire for partnered sex, and attention, we conducted partial Pearson and Spearman correlations controlling for Kinsey’s Sexual Attraction scores, as Study 2 included women with mixed sexual attractions. IM scores were significantly negatively correlated with many pre- and poststimulus items. As seen in Table 3, IM was significantly negatively correlated with many variables in the erotic stimulus category, as well as with some variables in the neutral and baseline stimulus categories. Change scores were robust to IM bias, although for the erotic stimulus, change in desire to masturbate was significantly negatively correlated with IM. Overall, IM did not correlate with change scores as consistently as it did the discrete pre- and poststimulus items. Continuous sexual arousal did not significantly correlate with IM. To evaluate whether the strength of the correlations with IM were significantly different across stimulus conditions and reporting methods, we conducted William’s t tests. There was no significant difference across stimulus conditions: The correlation between IM and arousal was not significantly greater for erotic versus neutral stimuli for poststimulus sexual arousal, change in sexual arousal, or continuous self-reported arousal, ps ⬎ .22. There was also no significant difference across reporting methods: The correlation between IM and arousal to the erotic stimulus was not significantly greater for poststimulus sexual arousal versus continuous self-reported arousal, p ⫽ .40, for continuous selfreported arousal versus change in sexual arousal, p ⫽ .82, or for poststimulus sexual arousal versus change in sexual arousal, p ⫽ .08, though this comparison was marginally significant. Continuous versus poststimulus sexual arousal levels. As in Study 1, we conducted a 2 (Reporting Method: poststimulus, continuous) ⫻ 2 (IM Group: low, high) ⫻ 2 (Stimulus: neutral, erotic) mixed-model ANOVA with self-reported sexual arousal as the dependent variable. Participants were divided into low-IM (IM ⬍ 70) and high-IM (IM ⬎ 70) groups based on a median split of total IM scores, and continuous self-reported arousal was not baseline adjusted for this analysis.2 Poststimulus sexual arousal ratings were converted to percentage of total possible responses for this analysis. Poststimulus feelings of sexual arousal were significantly positively correlated with continuous self-reported arousal levels (not baseline-adjusted) for the erotic stimulus, Pearson r(37) ⫽ .34, p ⫽ .036, though these measures did not significantly correlate for the neutral stimulus category, Spearman rho(36) ⫽ ⫺.002, p ⫽ .99. We found a significant Reporting Method ⫻ Stimulus interaction, F(1, 35) ⫽ 56.40, p ⬍ .001, ␩p2 ⫽ .62, such that, for the erotic stimulus category, sexual arousal was significantly higher when reported poststimulus (M ⫽ 53.85, SD ⫽ 23.44) rather than continuously (M ⫽ 25.16, SD ⫽ 21.98), F(1, 38) ⫽ 46.82, p ⬍ .001, ␩p2 ⫽ .55, but for the neutral stimulus category, sexual arousal was significantly higher when reported continuously (M ⫽ 11.16, SD ⫽ 14.29) compared with poststimulus (M ⫽ 4.53, SD ⫽ 7.17), F(1, 37) ⫽ 6.22, p ⫽ .02, ␩p2 ⫽ .14. We also found a significant IM Group ⫻ Stimulus interaction, F(1, 35) ⫽ 7.14, p ⫽ .011, ␩p2 ⫽ .17, such that for the erotic stimulus, self-reported sexual arousal

was significantly higher in the low-IM group (M ⫽ 47.81, SD ⫽ 18.80) than in the high-IM group (M ⫽ 33.11, SD ⫽ 17.26), F(1, 38) ⫽ 6.63, p ⫽ .014, ␩p2 ⫽ .15, but for the neutral stimulus category, there was no significant difference in sexual arousal between the low-IM group (M ⫽ 8.86, SD ⫽ 7.97) and the high-IM group (M ⫽ 8.04, SD ⫽ 8.69), p ⫽ .76. We found a significant Reporting Method ⫻ IM Group interaction, F(1, 35) ⫽ 5.79, p ⫽ .022, ␩p2 ⫽ .14, such that when sexual arousal was measured poststimulus, arousal was significantly greater in the low-IM group (M ⫽ 36.39, SD ⫽ 7.43) than in the high-IM group (M ⫽ 24.44, SD ⫽ 14.69), F(1, 38) ⫽ 10.53, p ⫽ .002, ␩p2 ⫽ .22, whereas when sexual arousal was measured continuously, there was no significant difference in arousal between the low-IM group (M ⫽ 19.27, SD ⫽ 15.56) and the high-IM group (M ⫽ 17.79, SD ⫽ 14.88), p ⫽ .76. Sexual arousal levels were significantly higher when reported poststimulus rather than continuously for the low-IM group, F(1, 19) ⫽ 27.09, p ⬍ .001, ␩p2 ⫽ .59, but there was no difference in reporting methods for the high-IM group, p ⫽ .098. Given the Reporting ⫻ Stimulus interaction described here (a report method effect for the erotic but not for the neutral stimulus), we repeated this analysis with only the erotic stimulus and found that poststimulus sexual arousal was significantly higher than continuous self-reported arousal for both the low- and the high-IM groups, ps ⬍ .002, ␩p2 ⫽ .41 (see Figure 1b). Baseline arousal levels. We assessed the relationship between IM and women’s tendencies to report above-zero levels of pre- and postbaseline stimulus feelings of sexual arousal, perceptions of genital response, and sexual desire. Scores on each of these pre- and postbaseline stimulus items were transformed into “zero” or “above zero”. We conducted 2 (IM Group: low, high) ⫻ 2 (Rating: zero, above zero) contingency table analyses with the dependent variables being pre- and postbaseline stimulus reported sexual arousal, perception of genital response, desire to masturbate, and desire for partnered sex. IM group and arousal levels were significantly related for prestimulus perception of genital response, p ⬍ .01, and for poststimulus desire for partnered sex and perception of genital response, ps ⬍ .05 (see Table 4). For all items, the percentage of women in the low-IM group who reported above-zero arousal levels at baseline was higher than that in the high-IM group.

General Discussion Across both studies, IM was significantly negatively correlated with discrete measures of self-reported feelings of sexual arousal, perceptions of genital response, and, in Study 2, with sexual desire (prestimulus and poststimulus measures), consistent with findings that IM is related to more conservative sexual attitudes and behaviours (e.g., Boyer et al., 2012; Meston et al., 1998). IM did not significantly correlate with continuous self-reported arousal or with measures of change in arousal. As predicted, measures of change in arousal and continuous self-reported arousal were more robust to IM bias than discrete pre- and poststimulus responses. Women may therefore be biased to underreport sexual arousal in 2 Note that baseline-adjusted and non-baseline-adjusted continuous selfreported arousal were highly positively correlated, correlated nearly equally negatively with IM, and yielded the same pattern of results.


269

Table 4 Results of Two-Way Contingency Table Analyses, 2 (IM Group: Low, High) ⫻ 2 (Rating: Zero, Above Zero), for Pre- and Postbaseline Stimulus Items (Study 2)

Prestimulus Feelings of sexual arousal Perception of genital response Desire to masturbate Desire for partnered sex Poststimulus Feelings of sexual arousal Perception of genital response Desire to masturbate Desire for partnered sex

Pearson ␹2 (df, N)

Cramér’s V

% of low-IM group reporting abovezero rating

% of high-IM group reporting above-zero rating

2.17 (1, 39) 7.03 (1, 40)ⴱⴱ 3.31 (1, 39) 2.85 (1, 40)

.14 .42 .29 .27

68.4 85.0 73.7 80.0

45.0 45.0 45.0 55.0

2.51 (1, 39) 4.36 (1, 39)ⴱ 2.06 (1, 39) 4.74 (1, 29)ⴱ

.25 .33 .23 .35

45.0 75.0 57.9 78.9

21.1 42.1 35.0 45.0

Note. Statistically significant analyses are indicated in bold. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

the laboratory, as expected by social messages encouraging women to inhibit sexual responses (Kiefer & Sanchez, 2007; Leitenberg & Henning, 1995); however, this bias may be reduced by using continuous measures of arousal or measures of change in arousal. One explanation for differing relationships between IM and methods of self-reported arousal may relate to the stages of stimulus processing that occur during and after viewing a sexual stimulus. Craik and Lockhart (1972) propose that preliminary stages of stimulus perception involve the analysis of physical or sensory features, whereas later stages involve matching input with information from past learning experiences (i.e., deeper elaborative processing). During stimulus presentation and continuous reporting of sexual arousal, women are absorbed in the stimulus and may not engage in elaborative processing that would introduce social norms and context into women’s perceptions of and selfreports of their sexual responses. Before and after stimulus presentation, women are not focused on a sexual stimulus, which may allow them to reflect more on their responses, including the incorporation of past learning experiences and context, introducing a greater possibility of IM bias. In general, IM was negatively related to most of the discrete self-report items included in these studies. Specifically for the erotic stimuli, IM was significantly negatively correlated with poststimulus feelings of sexual arousal, perceptions of genital response, desire to masturbate, and desire for sex with a partner, suggesting that IM is related to measures of self-reported sexual arousal and to measures that have been found to correlate with sexual arousal (e.g., Prause & Heiman, 2010). Although research suggests that attention is related to sexual arousal (Basson, 2003; Dawson et al., 2013; Sheen & Koukounas, 2009), we found that poststimulus attention was not significantly correlated with IM. This suggests that reporting attention to erotic stimuli may not be as “taboo” as reporting sexual arousal or desire. An unexpected finding regarding reporting method emerged suggesting that performance demands may also differentially influence self-reports of sexual arousal. Performance demands refer to an explicit or implicit desire for increased sexual performance (Lange et al., 1981). Independent of IM, women reported significantly higher levels of poststimulus sexual arousal compared with

continuous self-reported arousal for the erotic stimuli. For the neutral stimulus, however, this effect was reversed; women reported lower levels of poststimulus sexual arousal compared with continuous self-reported arousal. A possible explanation may be that performance demands are less salient during continuous reporting, when women are absorbed in the stimulus, compared with poststimulus, when there is time to reflect on responses and the appropriateness of reporting sexual arousal to sexual and nonsexual stimuli. Laan and colleagues (1993) experimentally examined performance demand effects and found that women in a performance demand condition (instructed to become as sexually aroused as possible) reported higher levels of both continuous and poststimulus arousal to sexual stimuli. Unlike Laan and colleagues, we did not include an explicit performance demand condition in these studies; instead, performance demand may manifest as expectancies regarding women’s arousal to sexual versus nonsexual stimuli. An alternate explanation may be that, during erotic stimulus presentation, women were underreporting arousal because they were absorbed in the stimulus and were forgetting to use the keypad, though this is unlikely because continuous self-reported arousal levels varied across and within stimulus categories. As well, continuous self-reported arousal may have been lower than poststimulus sexual arousal for the erotic stimuli because mean continuous arousal represents the average of ratings across the entire stimulus length, including points of greater and weaker reported levels of arousal. This explanation does not entirely account for the reporting method effect, however, because additional analyses revealed that peak continuous self-reported arousal was also significantly lower than poststimulus sexual arousal for the erotic stimuli. Further research is needed to evaluate differential effects of performance demand on continuous versus poststimulus self-reported sexual arousal. Although women who scored higher on IM tended to report lower levels of pre- and poststimulus sexual arousal and desire, change in sexual arousal, perception of genital response, and desire for partnered sex did not vary consistently as a function of IM. The robustness of change scores to IM suggests that the magnitude of change in arousal and desire may be largely influenced by interest in the erotic stimulus, true sexual re-

270


sponse to that erotic stimulus, and possibly performance demands. One change score— change in desire to masturbate— was significantly negatively correlated with IM for the erotic stimulus, indicating that women who scored higher on IM tended to report lower levels of change in desire to masturbate. This finding is consistent with evidence that self-report of autoerotic sexual behaviour is related to social norms. For example, Alexander and Fisher (2003) found that women who believed their responses might be viewed by the experimenter reported lower frequencies of autonomous sexual behaviours, including masturbation, compared with women who believed that a polygraph could detect dishonest responses.

Stimulus Content and IM Women’s self-reported sexual arousal was most consistently associated with IM in response to the erotic stimuli; however, there was no significant difference in the magnitude of the correlations between IM and arousal to the erotic versus neutral stimuli. As well, even before women were presented with any erotic stimuli, their reported levels of sexual arousal and desire were not typically zero. Prior to and following the presentation of the baseline (nonerotic) stimulus (Study 2), many women reported above-zero levels of sexual arousal, perceptions of genital response, desire to masturbate, and desire for partnered sex (see Table 4). This suggests that many women participating in sexual arousal research begin testing sessions with some level of arousal and desire, possibly by anticipating an upcoming erotic stimulus, by misattributing general excitement as subjective sexual arousal (see Meston & Frohlich, 2003), or by elevated baseline levels of sexual interest among research volunteers. Women who scored lower on IM were more likely to report this baseline arousal and desire than women who scored higher on IM, suggesting it may be taboo to report arousal to nonerotic content or higher-thanzero baseline sexual interest. Similarly, IM was significantly negatively correlated with several prestimulus items and with some postneutral stimulus items, further suggesting that it is not socially acceptable to report arousal or desire in the absence of an erotic stimulus. The relationships between IM and self-reported sexual arousal were similar for auditory and audiovisual erotic stimuli, suggesting consistency across stimulus modalities that typically evoke differing levels of sexual arousal. Women usually report greater sexual arousal to audiovisual erotic stimuli compared with audiotaped erotic stimuli when presented with both modalities of sexual stimuli in a within-subjects design (Heiman, 1980). In the current studies, however, we found that there was no effect of stimulus modality (auditory vs. audiovisual) on poststimulus sexual arousal and that continuous self-reported arousal levels were in fact significantly higher in response to audio narratives (Study 1) compared with audiovisual stimuli (Study 2), counter to what was expected. Our studies were not designed to directly evaluate modality effects on self-reported arousal, and making comparisons across studies may not be meaningful, given each had somewhat differing methodologies. Nonetheless, the consistent relationship between IM and selfreported sexual arousal suggests that IM bias is robust across stimulus modalities.

Recommendations Based on our findings, we recommend that researchers avoid measuring self-reported arousal by solely using discrete poststimulus measures of sexual arousal and desire, and instead include both pre- and poststimulus measures of self-reported sexual arousal so that change scores can be computed. Some research suggests that change scores may not be reliable dependent variables because they reduce true score variance (May & Nicewander, 1998) and may be related to measurement error (Cronbach & Furby, 1970); however, most of this work is related to relatively long test–retest periods, such as before and after an intervention or treatment, and these factors are likely of less concern within the short test–retest time frames of sexual arousal studies. Continuous measures of sexual arousal throughout stimulus presentation are also recommended, as these seem to be more robust to IM bias than discrete measures. Disadvantages, though, of employing multiple measures of self-reported sexual arousal are increased testing times and technological complexity. Although IM significantly negatively correlated with poststimulus sexual arousal, and not with change in sexual arousal or with continuous self-reported arousal, the magnitude of the correlation between IM and continuous self-reported arousal was not significantly smaller than the magnitude of the correlation between IM and poststimulus sexual arousal. Likewise, the correlation between IM and change in sexual arousal was only marginally significantly smaller than the correlation between poststimulus sexual arousal and IM. Therefore, we advise researchers assessing self-reported sexual arousal to consider measuring response biases and to control for IM in their analyses as needed.

Limitations A concern regarding the external validity of most research in human sexuality is ascertainment bias. Compared with nonvolunteers, volunteers in sexuality studies report more positive sexual attitudes, less sexual guilt, and more sexual experience (Strassberg & Lowe, 1995), as well as more exposure to erotic materials and less concern regarding their sexual performance (Wolchik, Braver, & Jensen, 1985). Further, Strassberg and Lowe (1995) showed that fewer individuals were willing to participate in studies that involved psychophysiological testing, such as vaginal photoplethysmography (used in the current studies) and the viewing of erotic films, compared with interviews alone. Because of these factors, participants in sexuality research may report higher levels of sexual arousal to erotica compared with the general population, and may be less prone to IM bias in arousal reports. In the current studies, however, participants’ IM scores were in the high range compared with other studies that were not related to sexuality (Stöber et al., 2002). This reinforces the notion that even those who are comfortable with sexuality may be vulnerable to IM bias when reporting sexual arousal and desire. Although we did not examine relationships with genital arousal in this article, it is possible that the measurement of genital arousal in the current studies’ procedures influenced participants’ selfreported sexual arousal. Having one’s genital arousal measured could have made participants more aware of their genital sensations and of their sexual arousal levels, possibly resulting in higher levels of self-reported arousal. Conversely, women tend to report


that, with vaginal photoplethysmography, they do not notice the vaginal gauge after a habituation period.3 It would be interesting for a future study to assess the influence of genital arousal measurement on IM and self-reported sexual arousal. Despite the potential confounds of measuring genital arousal, the current studies still found a negative relationship between IM and some measures of reported sexual arousal, suggesting that genital arousal measurement does not prevent variation in sexual arousal as a function of IM. An additional limitation of this research is that we cannot make direct comparisons across the two studies discussed because these included different samples and somewhat different methodologies. However, the consistency in results across the two studies despite these differences suggests the IM and self-reported arousal relationship is robust. The current studies were also limited to one measure of one type of social desirability bias—impression management. Given the range of individual biases that could be assessed, it cannot be concluded that continuous or change score measures of sexual arousal are robust to all self-report biases. The IM scale has, however, been shown to have good convergent validity, correlating highly with other scales that assess one’s tendency to deliberately distort responses (e.g., Eysenck’s Lie Scale, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Lie Scale; Paulhus, 1991). Moreover, women’s self-reported sexual arousal may be particularly vulnerable to IM bias because attitudes about female sexuality are highly influenced by social norms (e.g., Leitenberg & Henning, 1995). The use of continuous measures of arousal or change scores rather than discrete measures is thus likely to enhance the validity of conclusions drawn using selfreported sexual arousal data.

Future Directions Future studies could investigate the relationship between IM and measures of self-reported sexual arousal in response to a wider range of sexual stimuli, including more taboo stimuli, such as nonpreferred stimuli and nonconsensual sexual activities, and more diverse sexual activities (e.g., masturbation, fellatio, anal intercourse). As well, this phenomenon could be evaluated in other populations that may have different attitudes toward sexuality, such as older women, men, same-sex-attracted individuals, and non-Western samples. Future research could also evaluate this effect in women with sexual dysfunction, who may be more prone to IM bias in reporting sexual arousal than sexually functional women (Boyer et al., 2012). It would also be useful to explore the relationship between IM and measures of women’s physiological arousal, considering that women’s genital responses are associated with sex guilt (Morokoff, 1985), performance demand (Laan et al., 1993), anxiety (Laan et al., 1995; Palace & Gorzalka, 1990), and self-consciousness (Meston, 2006). Future research could evaluate whether IM affects or possibly inhibits women’s genital arousal. Given that women’s genital arousal responses are not always consistent with their self-reported arousal (e.g., Chivers et al., 2010; Peterson, Janssen, & Laan, 2010), it would be interesting to continue evaluating the influence of IM on genital-subjective sexual concordance. Some studies have found that social desirability, including IM, is unrelated to women’s sexual concordance (Boyer et al., 2012; Brody et al., 2003), and Laan and Janssen (2007) suggest that it is unlikely that social desirability accounts

271

for the low agreement between women’s subjective and genital responses because women’s relatively low sexual concordance occurs quite systematically, women have reported sexual arousal to nonsocially acceptable stimuli, and more liberal sexual attitudes do not always predict self-reported sexual arousal. Nonetheless, our findings suggest that social factors that influence self-reporting of sexual arousal could affect the degree of agreement between subjective and objective measures of women’s sexual arousal. This hypothesis could be further assessed using different stimulus modalities, different populations, and comparing different measures of subjective arousal. It would also be interesting to evaluate how participants’ comfort with the laboratory environment and procedures relates to the relationship between IM and reported sexual arousal. This question could be assessed using time series analysis or by comparing responses to stimuli presented earlier compared with later in a study. Finally, future research could investigate the mechanism through which IM is related to women’s self-reported sexual arousal. Salemink and van Lankveld (2006) found that completing a distraction task prior to viewing an erotic stimulus impeded poststimulus sexual arousal but not continuously reported sexual arousal. IM bias could be conceptualised as a cognitive distractor that is present while participants are processing erotic (and possibly nonerotic) stimuli. In this sense, the results of the current studies may replicate those of Salemink and van Lankveld, because the IM “distractor” influenced poststimulus sexual arousal ratings but did not affect continuous reporting of arousal. Further research is necessary to explore this hypothesis.

Conclusions Findings from the current studies suggest that women’s selfreported levels of sexual arousal and desire to erotic and nonerotic stimuli are influenced by IM bias. Discrete pre- and poststimulus measures were most vulnerable to IM bias and should be avoided. Instead, we recommend the use of continuous measures of arousal or change scores, which were robust to IM bias, though researchers should consider statistically controlling for IM because these measures were still somewhat related to IM. Along with future investigations, the use of continuous measures and change scores has the potential to enhance the quality of research on female sexuality by minimizing social desirability biases, allowing a clearer understanding of women’s sexual arousal patterns.

3 Data were available in Study 2 to support this observation. 87.5% of women (n ⫽ 35) reported that the gauge was “not at all” (50.0%) or “a little bit” (37.5%) distracting. Very few women (n ⫽ 5) reported that it was “somewhat” (10.0%) or “definitely” (2.5%) distracting.

Résumé Étant donné que les messages sociaux encouragent les femmes a` inhiber leurs réactions sexuelles et que les mesures de l’excitation des organes génitaux féminins ne correspondent pas toujours a` l’excitation sexuelle autorapportée, les auteurs ont évalué la relation entre la désirabilité sociale (DS) et 3 méthodes d’évaluation de l’excitation sexuelle autorapportée : l’évaluation en continu de l’excitation; l’évaluation discrète pré et post-stimulus de l’excitation; le changement dans l’excitation. Dans l’Étude 1, des femmes (N ⫽


272

39) ont rapporté leur excitation sexuelle en continu durant des narrations audio neutres et érotiques, et après chaque stimulus au moyen d’échelles discrètes. Dans l’Étude 2, des femmes (N ⫽ 40) ont rapporté leur excitation sexuelle avant, durant (en continu), ainsi qu’après le visionnement de films neutres et érotiques. Dans les études, les mesures discrètes de l’excitation sexuelle (pré et poststimulus) étaient de façon significative négativement corrélées aux scores totaux de DS (établis au moyen de la sous-échelle DS du Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding [BIDR-6]), tandis que l’excitation rapportée en continu n’était pas corrélée de façon significative a` la DS. Dans l’Étude 2, le changement dans l’excitation rapportée avant et après chaque stimulus n’était pas relié de façon uniforme a` la DS, bien que celle-ci ait été, de façon significative, corrélée négativement avec le changement dans le désir de se masturber. Il est recommandé que les chercheurs évaluent l’excitation sexuelle autorapportée au moyen de mesures ou d’écarts, plutôt qu’avec des mesures discrètes, et qu’ils considèrent de vérifier la présence de DS. Mots-clés : excitation sexuelle, conduite stratégique des relations, désirabilité sociale, biais des données autorapportées.

References Adams, A. E., Haynes, S. N., & Brayer, M. A. (1985). Cognitive distraction in female sexual arousal. Psychophysiology, 22, 689 – 696. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1985.tb01669.x Alexander, M. G., & Fisher, T. D. (2003). Truth and consequences: Using the bogus pipeline to examine sex differences in self-reported sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 27–35. doi:10.1080/00224490309552164 Basson, R. (2003). Biopsychosocial models of women’s sexual response: Applications to management of desire disorders. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 18, 107–115. doi:10.1080/1468199031000061308 Beck, J. G., Bozman, A. W., & Qualtrough, T. (1991). The experience of sexual desire: Psychological correlates in a college sample. Journal of Sex Research, 28, 443– 456. doi:10.1080/00224499109551618 Blanchard, R., Klassen, P., Dickey, R., Kuban, M. E., & Blak, T. (2001). Sensitivity and specificity of the phallometric test for pedophilia in nonadmitting sex offenders. Psychological Assessment, 13, 118 –126. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.13.1.118 Bossio, J. A., & Chivers, M. L. (2011). Category specificity of women’s sexual arousal across the menstrual cycle. International Academy of Sex Research, Los Angeles, CA. Boyer, S. C., Pukall, C. F., & Holden, R. R. (2012). The relationship between female sexual arousal and response bias in women with and without provoked vestibulodynia. Journal of Sex Research, 49, 519 – 532. doi:10.1080/00224499.2011.604747 Brody, S., Laan, E., & van Lunsen, R. H. W. (2003). Concordance between women’s physiological and subjective sexual arousal is associated with consistency of orgasm during intercourse but not other sexual behavior. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 29, 15–23. doi:10.1080/713847101 Chivers, M. L. (2005). A brief review and discussion of sex differences in the specificity of sexual arousal. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 20, 377–390. doi:10.1080/14681990500238802 Chivers, M. L., Bouchard, K. N., Timmers, A. D., & Haberl, M. (2012). Specificity of women’s sexual arousal varies with degree of same-gender attraction. International Academy of Sex Research. Estoril, Portugal. Chivers, M. L., Rieger, G., Latty, E., & Bailey, J. M. (2004). A sex difference in the specificity of sexual arousal. Psychological Science, 15, 736 –744. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00750.x Chivers, M. L., Seto, M. C., & Blanchard, R. (2007). Gender and sexual orientation differences in sexual response to sexual activities versus

gender of actors in sexual films. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 1108 –1121. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.1108 Chivers, M. L., Seto, M. C., Lalumière, M. L., Laan, E., & Grimbos, T. (2010). Agreement of self-reported and genital measures of sexual arousal in men and women: A meta-analysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 5–56. doi:10.1007/s10508-009-9556-9 Craik, F. I., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 11, 671– 684. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X Cronbach, L. J., & Furby, L. (1970). How we should measure “change”: Or should we? Psychological Bulletin, 74, 68 – 80. doi:10.1037/h0029382 Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349 –354. doi:10.1037/h0047358 Dawson, S. J., Suschinsky, K. D., & Lalumière, M. L. (2013). Habituation of sexual responses in men and women: A test of the preparation hypothesis of women’s genital responses. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 10, 990 –1000. doi:10.1111/jsm.12032 Edwards, A. L. (1957). The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research. Fort Worth, TX: Dryden Press. Fisher, T. D., Moore, Z. T., & Pittenger, M. (2012). Sex on the brain? An examination of frequency of sexual cognitions as a function of gender, erotophilia, and social desirability. Journal of Sex Research, 49, 69 –77. doi:10.1080/00224499.2011.565429 Freund, K., Scher, H., & Hucker, S. (1983). The courtship disorders. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 12, 369 –379. doi:10.1007/BF01542881 Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Heiman, J. R. (1980). Female sexual response patterns: Interactions of physiological, affective, and contextual cues. Archives of General Psychiatry, 37, 1311–1316. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1980.01780240109013 Heiman, J. R., & Rowland, D. L. (1983). Affective and physiological sexual response patterns: The effects of instructions on sexually functional and dysfunctional men. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 27, 105–116. doi:10.1016/0022-3999(83)90086-7 Henson, D. E., & Rubin, H. B. (1978). A comparison of two objective measures of sexual arousal of women. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 16, 143–151. doi:10.1016/0005-7967(78)90060-8 Howell, D. C. (2010). Statistical methods for psychology (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Jonason, P. K., & Fisher, T. D. (2009). The power of prestige: Why young men report having more sex partners than young women. Sex Roles, 60, 151–159. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9506-3 Kiefer, A. K., & Sanchez, D. T. (2007). Scripting sexual passivity: A gender role perspective. Personal Relationships, 14, 269 –290. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00154.x Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. H. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders. Koukounas, E., & McCabe, M. (1997). Sexual and emotional variables influencing sexual response to erotica. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35, 221–230. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(96)00097-6 Kukkonen, T. M., Binik, Y. M., Amsel, R., & Carrier, S. (2010). An evaluation of the validity of thermography as a physiological measure of sexual arousal in a non-university adult sample. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 861– 873. doi:10.1007/s10508-009-9496-4 Laan, E., Everaerd, W., & Evers, A. (1995). Assessment of female sexual arousal: Response specificity and construct validity. Psychophysiology, 32, 476 – 485. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1995.tb02099.x Laan, E., Everaerd, W., van Aanhold, M. T., & Rebel, M. (1993). Performance demand and sexual arousal in women. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 31, 25–35. doi:10.1016/0005-7967(93)90039-W Laan, E., Everaerd, W., van Bellen, G., & Hanewald, G. (1994). Women’s sexual and emotional responses to male- and female-produced erotica. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23, 153–169. doi:10.1007/BF01542096

IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT AND REPORTED SEXUAL AROUSAL Laan, E., & Janssen, E. (2007). How do men and women feel? Determinants of subjective experience of sexual arousal. In E. Janssen (Ed.), The psychophysiology of sex (pp. 278 –290). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Lange, J. D., Wincze, J. P., Zwick, W., Feldman, S., & Hughes, K. (1981). Effects of demand for performance, self-monitoring of arousal, and increased sympathetic nervous system activity on male erectile response. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 10, 443– 464. doi:10.1007/BF01541436 Leitenberg, H., & Henning, K. (1995). Sexual fantasy. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 469 – 496. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.469 May, K., & Nicewander, W. A. (1998). Measuring change conventionally and adaptively. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 882– 897. doi:10.1177/0013164498058006002 McCallum, E. B., & Peterson, Z. D. (2012). Investigating the impact of inquiry mode on self-reported sexual behavior: Theoretical considerations and review of the literature. Journal of Sex Research, 49, 212– 226. doi:10.1080/00224499.2012.658923 McKelvie, M., & Gold, S. R. (1994). Hyperfemininity: Further definition of the construct. Journal of Sex Research, 31, 219 –228. doi:10.1080/ 00224499409551755 Meston, C. M. (2006). The effect of state and trait self-focused attention on sexual arousal in sexually functional and dysfunctional women. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 515–532. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2005.03 .009 Meston, C. M., & Frohlich, P. F. (2000). The neurobiology of sexual function. Archives of General Psychiatry, 57, 1012–1030. doi:10.1001/ archpsyc.57.11.1012 Meston, C. M., & Frohlich, P. F. (2003). Love at first fright: Partner salience moderates roller-coaster-induced excitation transfer. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 537–544. doi:10.1023/A:1026037527455 Meston, C. M., & Gorzalka, B. B. (1996). The effects of immediate, delayed, and residual sympathetic activation on sexual arousal in women. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 34, 143–148. doi:10.1016/00057967(95)00050-X Meston, C. M., Heiman, J. R., Trapnell, P. D., & Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Socially desirable responding and sexuality self-reports. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 148 –157. doi:10.1080/00224499809551928 Morokoff, P. J. (1985). Effects of sex guilt, repression, sexual “arousability,” and sexual experience on female sexual arousal during erotica and fantasy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 177–187. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.177 Norris, J. (1989). Normative influence effects on sexual arousal to nonviolent sexually explicit material. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 341–352. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1989.tb00059.x Norris, J. (1991). Social influence effects on responses to sexually explicit material containing violence. Journal of Sex Research, 28, 67–76. doi: 10.1080/00224499109551595 Palace, E. M., & Gorzalka, B. B. (1990). The enhancing effects of anxiety on arousal in sexually dysfunctional and functional women. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 99, 403– 411. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.99.4.403 Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598 – 609. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598 Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17–59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

273

Peterson, Z. D., Janssen, E., & Laan, E. (2010). Women’s sexual responses to heterosexual and lesbian erotica: The role of stimulus intensity, affective reaction, and sexual history. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 880 – 897. doi:10.1007/s10508-009-9546-y Prause, N., & Heiman, J. (2010). Reduced labial temperature in response to sexual films with distractors among women with lower sexual desire. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 7, 951–963. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009 .01525.x Rellini, A. H., McCall, K. M., Randall, P. K., & Meston, C. M. (2005). The relationship between women’s subjective and physiological sexual arousal. Psychophysiology, 42, 116 –124. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2005 .00259.x Richman, W. L., Kiesler, S., Weisband, S., & Drasgow, F. (1999). A meta-analytic study of social desirability distortion in computeradministered questionnaires, traditional questionnaires, and interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 754 –775. doi:10.1037/0021-9010 .84.5.754 Salemink, E., & van Lankveld, J. J. (2006). The effects of increasing neutral distraction on sexual responding of women with and without sexual problems. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 179 –190. doi: 10.1007/s10508-005-9014-2 Sheen, J., & Koukounas, E. (2009). The role of absorption in women’s sexual response to erotica: A cognitive-affective investigation. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 358 –365. doi:10.1080/00224490902775843 Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245–251. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.87.2.245 Stöber, J., Dette, D. E., & Musch, J. (2002). Comparing continuous and dichotomous scoring of the balanced inventory of desirable responding. Journal of Personality Assessment, 78, 370 –389. doi:10.1207/ S15327752JPA7802_10 Strassberg, D. S., & Lowe, K. (1995). Volunteer bias in sexuality research. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 24, 369 –382. doi:10.1007/BF01541853 Suschinsky, K. D., & Lalumière, M. L. (2011a). Category-specificity and sexual concordance: The stability of sex differences in sexual arousal patterns. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 20, 93–108. Suschinsky, K. D., & Lalumière, M. L. (2011b). Prepared for anything? An investigation of female genital arousal to rape cues. Psychological Science, 22, 159 –165. doi:10.1177/0956797610394660 Suschinsky, K. D., Lalumière, M. L., & Chivers, M. L. (2009). Sex differences in patterns of genital sexual arousal: Measurement artifacts or true phenomena? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 559 –573. doi: 10.1007/s10508-008-9339-8 Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics. New York, NY: Pearson. Williams, E. J. (1959). The comparison of regression variables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 21, 396 –399. Wincze, J. P., Venditti, E., Barlow, D., & Mavissakalian, M. (1980). The effects of a subjective monitoring task in the physiological measure of genital response to erotic stimulation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 9, 533–545. doi:10.1007/BF01542157 Wolchik, S. A., Braver, S. L., & Jensen, K. (1985). Volunteer bias in erotica research: Effects of intrusiveness of measure and sexual background. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14, 93–107. doi:10.1007/ BF01541656

Received June 15, 2012 Revision received March 26, 2013 Accepted May 1, 2013 䡲