1 / 16

Male Sexual Arousal and Perceptions of Female Sexual Willingness

This study explores how male sexual arousal affects perceptions of female behavior in terms of sexual willingness. Results indicate that arousal can influence interpretation of women's behaviors as indicating sexual interest. The findings suggest that men, especially single men, rely on present sexual arousal to determine women's intentions. The research highlights the impact of arousal on sexual perceptions and how past sexual experiences may not significantly affect interpretations.

bever
Download Presentation

Male Sexual Arousal and Perceptions of Female Sexual Willingness

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Male Sexual Arousal and Perceptions of Female Sexual Willingness Peter Rerick, Tyler Livingston M.A., & Deborah Davis, Ph.D. University of Nevada, Reno

  2. Overview • Introduction • Study 1 • Study 2 • Discussion

  3. 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).

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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?

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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?

  15. Thank You! • Questions? prerick@nevada.unr.edu

  16. 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).

More Related