160 likes | 168 Vues
Male Sexual Arousal and Perceptions of Female Sexual Willingness. Peter Rerick, Tyler Livingston M.A., & Deborah Davis, Ph.D. University of Nevada, Reno. Overview. Introduction Study 1 Study 2 Discussion. Introduction.
E N D
Male Sexual Arousal and Perceptions of Female Sexual Willingness Peter Rerick, Tyler Livingston M.A., & Deborah Davis, Ph.D. University of Nevada, Reno
Overview • Introduction • Study 1 • Study 2 • Discussion
Introduction • In cases of alleged acquaintance rape, a commonly disputed issue is whether the alleged victim had consented to sex (Villalobos, Davis, & Leo, 2016). • Often, the accuser claims that she had indicated nonconsent, the accused claims that the accuser did nothing to clearly indicate nonconsent and that she indicated consent (Anderson, 2002). • Men’s perception that women’s behavior indicates sexual interest when it in fact does not is known as the overperception bias (Farris et al., 2008).
Introduction • This sex difference has been eliminated recently when men and women report on behaviors performed by women generally (Wood & Davis, 2016, 2017). • Women might also be underreporting their own intentions (e.g., Engeler & Raghubir, 2018). • While most of these studies and judgments take place in a lab setting, real sexual interactions take place in different contexts.
Introduction • Situation-specific goals might direct interpretation toward confirmation of expectations or desires, i.e., motivated perception (e.g., Spencer, Fein, Zanna, & Olson, 2003). • Aroused men: • Will endorse more coercive sexual strategies (Bouffard & Miller, 2014) • Report increased willingness to engage in unsafe sex (Ariely & Lowenstein, 2006) • Under conditions of sexual arousal, men might perceive women’s behaviors as consistent with their goal of having sex.
Study 1: Method • 201 undergraduate men participated online (60% white) • Participants assigned to arousal or non-arousal • Answered demographic questions and past sexual experiences questionnaire • Arousal manipulation • Answered 25 questions about the meaning of women’s behaviors (Sexual Intent Perception Questionnaire SIP-Q) • Women: • 1 Often do this even when not willing to have intercourse • 2 Sometimes do this even when they are not willing to have intercourse • 3 Never do this unless willing to have intercourse
Study 1: Results • Manipulation successful (t = 24.43, p<.001). • M = 6.57 for arousal group, M = 1.2 for non-arousal group. • SIP-Q was reliable (α=.92, ω=.95). • Arousal group (M=1.92) interpreted more sexual intent than non-arousal group(M = 1.81, t=2.22, p=.03). • Single participants (n = 118, p = .04) • Non-single participants (p = .35) • Interaction between relationship status and arousal nonsignficant
Study 1: Results • Several questions had little or no variance • SIP-QS made of 10 questions that at least 10% agreed indicated at least some sexual willingness (α=.86, ω=.90) • Full sample (t = 3.01, p=.003) • Single participants (p = .002), non-single (p = .37) • No significant interactions between relationship status and arousal condition • Arousal and SIP-Q Scores unrelated to past sexual experiences
Study 1: Discussion • Participants relied more on present state sexual arousal to interpret women’s behavior • Past sexual experiences were unrelated to interpretations of behavior (Similar to Bouffard & Miller, 2014) • Perhaps for single men only?
Study 2 : Method Differences • 117/215 participated in lab (no differences on relevant variables) • More intuitive SIP-Q response scale • 7 point scale asking, “How likely is it this behavior means she wants to have sex?” • Visual manipulation rather than writing task • Arousal group viewed 10 pictures of women in lingerie • Non-arousal group viewed 10 pictures of women in winter clothing
Study 2: Results • Arousal manipulation successful but less powerful (t = 4.26, p < .001) • 1 point difference in means, compared to 5 point difference in Study 1 • SIP-Q reliable (α=.96, ω=.97) but still had problems with floor effects • Same 10 questions had normal variability (SIP-QS, α=.92, ω=.94). • Significant interaction between relationship status (n = 107 single) and the arousal manipulation (F = 5.42, p = .02) on SIP-QS • Arousal manipulation successful for single participants (t = 2.34, p = .02) • Unsuccessful for participants in a relationship (t = .87, p = .39) • Past sexual experiences unrelated to arousal or interpretations of sexual intent
Study 2: Discussion • Much weaker manipulation, weaker effect • Visual stimuli less arousing than fantasies? • Lends support to patterns from Study 1 • Sexual arousal increases perceptions of sexual intent in women’s behaviors
General Discussion • Past sexual experiences were not related to perceptions of women’s behaviors in either study • Men (especially single men) rely on present state sexual arousal to interpret women’s behaviors • Perhaps single men have increased motivation to perceive behaviors as indicating sexual interest if sex is more scarce than for men in relationships
Future Directions • Women, of course! • Do they interpret men’s behaviors differently? • What about their own behavior? • More precise measures of sexual arousal • Penile plethysmography • Are the relationship status findings stable?
Thank You! • Questions? prerick@nevada.unr.edu
References Anderson, M. J. (2002). From chastity requirement to sexuality license: Sexual consent and a new rape shield law. George Washington Law Review, 70, 51-162. Ariely, D., & Loewenstein, G. F. (2006). The heat of the moment: The effect of sexual arousal on sexual decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19, 87-98. doi:10.1002/bdm.501 Bouffard, J. A., & Miller, H. A. (2014). The role of sexual arousal and overperception of sexual intent within the decision to engage in sexual coercion. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(11), 1967-1986. doi:10.1177/0886260513515950 Engeler, I., & Raghubir, P. (2018). Decomposing the cross-sex misprediction bias of dating behaviors: Do men overestimate or women underreport their sexual intentions? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114, 95-100. doi:10.1037/pspi0000105 Farris, C., Treat, T. A., Viken, R. J., & McFall, R. M. (2008). Sexual coercion and the misperception of sexual intent. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 48–66. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2007.03.002 Spencer, S. J., Fein, S., Zanna, M. P., & Olson, J. M. (2003). Motivated social perception: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 9). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Villalobos, J. G., Davis, D., & Leo, R. A. (2016). His story, her story: Sexual miscommunication, motivated remembering, and intoxication as pathways to honest false testimony regarding sexual consent. In R. Burnett (Ed.), Vilified: Wrongful allegations of person abuse. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723301.003.0010 Wood, E. F. Davis, D. (2016). “Perceived and actual probative and definitive value of sexual behaviors in college students: Which behaviors have most potential for miscommunication?”, Society for Personality and Social Psychology. (January). Wood, E. F., & Davis, D. (2017). "Perceived versus actual links between intoxication and sexual availability", American Psychology Law Society. (March).