Ch 2 - Sexology Research: History, Methods, and Ethics

Intro

• John B. Watson

• interest in human sexuality.

• vocal about the need for sex to be studied scientifically

• one of the first psychologists to study sex in a laboratory setting, even going so far as to develop scientific instruments that could record human sexual responses

• served as his own subject, as did his mistress, Rosalie Rayner (assisted Watson in his research with Little Albert)

• took detailed notes on all of his “sexperiments.”

• When Watson’s wife and the university at which he was working discovered his sexual exploits with Rayner, he lost both his marriage and job

• Watson was willing to acknowledge the important role of sex in human life

  and the relative dearth of scientific knowledge on the subject.

• Alfred Kinsey, William Masters, and

  Virginia Johnson, all of whom were willing to stand against the prevailing social norms and values

  of their time and declare sex a worthy topic of scientific inquiry.

• The result of these early researchers’ efforts is the modern field of sexology, the scientific study of sex

  • relatively young field

  • The goal of sexology is to increase our understanding of all aspects of human sexuality, including everything from why different sexual orientations exist, to the frequency of

    specific sexual practices across cultures, to the motivations behind rape and other sex crimes, to

    therapies that can treat sexual problems.

  • sexologists necessarily consist of a diverse group of scientists who employ a wide range of

    research methodologies; these scientists include psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists,

    biologists, and many others.

A Brief History of Sexology

• the study of sex dates back as early as the ancient Greeks

• Some of the most prominent figures of that period, including Hippocrates, Aristotle, and

  Plato, wrote and theorized about a variety of topics pertaining to sex.

• the scientific

  study of sex as we know it today did not begin to take shape until the mid-nineteenth

  century, when several physicians, such as Heinrich Kaan and Richard von Krafft-Ebing, began

  publishing books on sexual behavior. These books signified a radical shift in perspective

  because rather than viewing sexual “aberrations” and dysfunctions as moral failings (as most

  cultures and societies had for centuries), they reconceptualized them as medical and mental issues.

• psychology took center stage at the

  turn of the twentieth century, when Sigmund Freud began the psychoanalytic movement.

  Psychoanalytic theory increased momentum for the idea that a true understanding of sexual

  behavior rests with an in-depth exploration of human psychology.

• researchers began to move sex into the laboratory.

• Those who attempted scientific studies of sex in the pioneer days faced numerous challenges.

  • the prevailing attitudes of society were still negative, if not outright hostile, toward

    any open discussion of sex. As a result, few scientists were willing to risk their careers to even

    speak publicly about this topic, let alone research it (John Watson was an exception).

    Those researchers who did were confronted with funding agencies that were unwilling to back

    their work, a significant segment of the population that was either too embarrassed or too

    offended to participate in their studies, and publishers who rejected their articles outright, especially

    if the researchers were studying “deviant” sexual behaviors (e.g., masturbation, homosexuality).

  • Even research on topics that many people would consider mundane today (people’s

    attitudes toward sex outside of marriage) sparked public outcry and those who dared to study

    them risked ending their careers.

  • this heightened level of secrecy combined with a lack of formal oversight, led to some ethical lapses that threatened some researchers’ reputations and the legitimacy of their work.

• The scientific study of human sexuality remained almost completely underground until the 1940s and 50s with Dr. Alfred Kinsey

  • Kinsey’s interest in the study of sex

    came about after he began teaching a college-level marriage course and, in the process, discovered

    that our scientific knowledge of sex was incredibly narrow and rife with inaccuracies.

  • Kinsey and his team of colleagues to travel across the

    United States and interview thousands of Americans regarding their sexual lives.

  • Kinsey published two books based upon the results of his research (Sexual Behavior in the Human

    Male and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female). They were very risqué. for the time and resulted in controversy and

    scandal. Not only did the FBI begin compiling a dossier on Kinsey and his associates, but his work

    resulted in a congressional investigation

    of the Rockefeller Foundation, the source of Kinsey’s

    research funding.

  • had a strong interest in studying sex from a more biological standpoint.

  • wanted to observe systematically how the body reacts to sexual stimulation.

  • realized that if wanted to study the mechanics of sexual response, he would need to do it rather discreetly.

    Thus, it was in the attic of Kinsey’s house that his lesser-known observational studies of sex took

    place. Kinsey and his research associates filmed each other while engaging in various sexual activities,

    sometimes with their wives, and sometimes with each other’s wives.

  • systematic and enlightening studies of sex

  • he became a little too personally “involved” in his work toward the end.

• in the 1950s and 60s that the husband and wife team of William Masters and Virginia Johnson came along and brought a renewed sense of objectivity to the study of sex.

  • Masters (gynecologist) and Johnson (student of psychology and aspiring country singer) sought to conduct the most elaborate and scientifically-grounded observational research on sex to date.

  • All of their work was conducted in a laboratory setting with the latest technology and with the utmost professionalism.

  • observed thousands of complete sexual responses in both men and women and published several influential books based upon their findings, with Human Sexual Response being perhaps the most wellknown.

  • did not escape controversy. For example, as part of their research, they interviewed prostitutes, filmed individuals and couples as they engaged in sexual activity, and even created a sex toy with a built-in camera that allowed them to observe the physical changes that happen inside the vagina during sexual arousal and orgasm. In light of this, and society’s negative attitudes toward sex at the time, many people considered their work immoral. In fact, part of the reason Masters and Johnson (and Kinsey too) published their work in book format was because most academic journals deemed their research “pornographic.”

• The popularity of Masters and Johnson’s books, coupled with the sexual revolution of the

  1960s and 70s, moved the study of human sexuality further into the open.

• societal and cultural attitudes toward sex have gradually become more progressive and sexuality

  research has come to achieve greater levels of acceptance.

• it was not until the 1990s that the first nationally representative survey

  of sexual behavior was conducted in the United States!

• Even today, despite the fact that

  there are several academic journals that exclusively publish sex research, and the popular media

  frequently highlights this work, the legitimacy of sexuality research is still questioned. For

  example, there are some politicians who regularly threaten to rescind federal grant funding

  from research projects that focus on sexuality or relationships, even though those projects have

  already been deemed worthy of study by a panel of scientific experts. Studies of sexual and

  gender minorities, prostitutes, and the sex lives of older adults are particularly prone to political

  criticism as topics that are “inappropriate” for government grants.

• the benefits gained by these

  research endeavors have far outweighed the costs.

  • It is through this research that we have

    begun to correct a multitude of myths and misconceptions about sex and the human body,

    reset our expectations about what is “normal” when it comes to sexual attitudes and behaviors,

    and discovered how to prevent and treat various sex and relationship problems.

• sexology is still a very young field of science and much remains that we do not yet know.

Sexology as a Science

Table 2.1	A Summary of Sexology Research Methods
Research method	Definition	Strengths	Limitations
Survey	A large number of participants report on their own sexual attitudes and practices via an interview or questionnaire.	Quick and easy way of collecting data. Several modes of administration.	Nonresponse. Self-selection. Social desirability and other response biases. Writing a good survey requires skill and effort.
Direct Observation	Researchers observe participants and record what they see.	Less chance of response biases. Observations can be preserved on film.	Self-selection. Reactivity.
Case Report	One participant or a small group of participants is studied in great detail.	In-depth information is provided about an unusual case.	Limited generalizability. Often rely upon subjective self-reports.
Experiment	Researchers manipulate or change one variable (the independent variable) in order to see what effect this has on a measurable outcome (the dependent variable).	Precise control of variables. Ability to infer cause and effect.	Not possible or ethical to implement for all research questions. Several threats to external validity.

• sexology operates in a similar way to any other field of science.

• The only real difference

  is that sexologists use some unique technologies and have more fun!

• the basic building blocks of research still apply (the scientific

  method, the principles and values that scientists must uphold)

• sometimes it is impossible or unethical to use certain methods in answering some research questions.

• nonexperimental approaches (which include surveys, direct observation, and case

  reports) and the experimental method

Sample Selection

• In sexology research, we typically gather data from a very small group of individuals and use that

  information to draw conclusions about a much larger group of people.

• researchers must first identify their target population, or the group of people about whom they wish to learn.

  • For example, assume a sexologist is interested in determining whether there is a link between taking birth control pills and sexual satisfaction. This researcher might identify their target population as pre-menopausal, sexually active, heterosexual women. It would not be sufficient to simply state that “women” are the target population in this case, because the researcher is not interested in learning about all women – only those women who might be taking “the pill” in order to prevent pregnancy.

• Once the target population is specified, researchers choose a sample, or a smaller group of people

  who will actually participate in the study. A sample is chosen because it is not practical to study

  every single member of the target population.

  • EX: many millions (if not billions) of pre-menopausal, sexually active, heterosexual women there are in the world and what an impossible task it would be to survey all of them.

• 2 main types of samples researchers can recruit: convenience samples and random samples.

• Convenience samples consist of those individuals who are most readily accessible for research purposes. Because a large number of sexologists work in university settings, convenience samples often consist exclusively of undergraduate students.

  • EX: we might recruit a group of sexually active, female students enrolled in introductory psychology courses to participate.

  • The advantage of this type of sampling is that we can complete our study quickly and easily

    without spending any money, given that psychology students are sometimes required to

    participate in studies in exchange for course credit.

  • there are numerous drawbacks,

    with the main concern being whether the sample is representative enough of the target population

    to allow us to draw conclusions. College samples have a notoriously limited demographic

    composition. Not only are they more highly educated than average, but they tend to be very

    young, mostly White, and most of them are from the United States. Thus, we must be very cautious about the generalizations we make

    from college samples, especially if we are at all concerned about how the variables we are

    studying might be affected by age, race, culture, and education.

• To get around the limitations of convenience sampling, researchers sometimes turn to random selection.

  • involves identifying all members of the target

    population and contacting a subset of them at random to participate. In this process, each

    member of the population has an equal chance of being selected to take part in the study.

  • EX: if a sexologist were interested in studying attitudes toward legalizing prostitution

    among likely voters in their city, they might get a list of all registered voters and contact 500 of

    them at random about being in the study. When the randomization procedure is implemented

    appropriately, it typically results in a sample that is reflective of the broader population from which it was drawn.

  • much more challenging to

    implement. It is difficult to get people outside the university community to participate unless

    you have some incentive to offer. Convenience samples with college

    students often involve no financial cost because participants typically receive course credit as

    compensation.

• sexology, like most other fields of science, relies heavily on studies

  that employ convenience samples, which means that much of our knowledge base is

  limited and may not necessarily

  be reflective of or generalizable to all sexual and gender

  minority groups.

Nonexperimental Research

• Nonexperimental research methods allow us to describe people’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in a systematic manner with as much objectivity as possible.

• researchers do not directly manipulate or change any variables; rather, they simply make observations and

  note which variables seem to go together.

Surveys

• The vast majority of our knowledge on human sexuality comes from survey research, in which

  people are simply asked to report on their own sexual attitudes and practices.

• There are multiple

  modes of survey administration: face-to-face interviews, questionnaires administered

  over the phone or online, and the increasingly antiquated pencil-and-paper format.

• ideal for researchers who want to consider general trends in attitudes and behaviors across a

  relatively large group of people.

• Strengths and Limitations of Surveys:

  • The primary advantage of the survey method is that data can be collected quickly and easily from

    large numbers of people.

  • online surveys have opened up a new and much more diverse audience than the typical college

    student subject pool, with online samples typically yielding more variation in age, socioeconomic

    status, and geographic location. Online surveys also offer enhanced anonymity and privacy to participants.

  • Another advantage of this method is that there are multiple methods of administration, and

    researchers can choose the one that best fits their budget and needs. For example, if you wanted to

    survey people about whether they have ever cheated on their romantic partner, an anonymous online

    survey might be your best bet to ensure honest responding. In comparison, if you wanted to find out

    how people first learned about sex and what that experience was like for them, a face-to-face interview

    might be most appropriate. Interviews provide much greater depth of information than surveys

    and are advantageous in that they can be adapted to each interviewee. For instance, both the

    interviewer and interviewee can seek clarification if they find anything to be confusing or unclear.

  • notable limitations:

  • First, no matter how much effort

    you put into identifying the right sample, not everyone you contact will want to participate in your

    study. This problem is known as nonresponse, and it has always been a major issue in sex research. There are many reasons individuals might refuse to participate, which can

    include anything from lack of time or interest to discomfort with the research topic. Nonresponse

    ultimately hurts the representativeness of your sample because those who refused to participate

    may be different in some way from those who agreed to take part in the study. For example, to the

    extent that people who opt out of sexuality surveys are more likely be virgins, have more conservative

    religious or political backgrounds, or have unusual sexual interests or desires, researchers’

    ability to make accurate generalizations about their findings is dramatically reduced.

  • an issue known as self-selection: refers

    to all of the ways that research volunteers differ from nonvolunteers. For example, in published

    research on sexuality and relationships, it is often the case that women far outnumber men. Likewise, those who sign up to

    participate in sexuality studies tend to be more sexually experienced and have more favorable attitudes

    about sex than those who do not. This reduces our ability to make inferences about target populations.

  • Response biases and self-presentational concerns are another factor complicating sexuality surveys.

    These biases encompass everything from whether subjects are accurately remembering the

    past, are lying, or are misrepresenting themselves. Perhaps the largest concern here is socially desirable responding, or the tendency for subjects to present themselves in the most favorable

    light possible. Divulging one’s sexual history

    can be embarrassing or threatening, especially when it is unclear who might eventually see or

    hear about this information. In order to cope with this uncertainty and maintain a positive sense

    of self, research participants may intentionally skip questions when they are afraid answering

    would make them look bad, or they may respond in a way that makes them look good, even if it

    is not the truth. EX: consider that female participants

    completing sex surveys report less sexual experience (e.g., less masturbation and less exposure

    to pornography) when they believe their responses might become known to others compared to

    when they are assured anonymity. Thus, when women are concerned

    that their sexual history might become public knowledge, they are inclined to present themselves

    in a way that society is more likely to approve of. Assuring participants that their responses will remain anonymous and confidential helps to address this problem, but no safeguards can completely eliminate all tendencies toward socially desirable responding.

  • the overall quality of a survey depends upon the quality

    of the individual questions and how they are organized. Writing high-quality survey questions is

    not as easy as it sounds. For one thing, you must ensure that your word choices are appropriate and

    understandable for your audience. For instance, if you were conducting a survey of sexual behaviors

    among inner-city adolescents, it would be ill-advised to ask them whether they have ever given

    or received fellatio or cunnilingus. Although these are technically the correct terms for oral stimulation

    of the penis and vulva respectively, they are very clinical and some adolescents may not know

    what they mean. With such an audience, slang terms such as blowjob or eating out may be more appropriate.

  • Researchers must also take great care to avoid the use of leading and double-barreled questions.

    Leading questions direct participants to a specific answer. EX: “Most Americans believe

    that abortion should be legal. Do you support a woman’s right to choose?” A question like this

    pressures participants to respond in a certain way. To avoid such bias, the question should instead

    be phrased more generally, such as: “Do you favor or oppose legalized abortion?” Double-barreled

    questions inquire about multiple things, thereby muddling responses. EX: “Do you consider

    yourself to be experienced and knowledgeable about sex?” Participants may not know how

    to respond to such a question because sexual experience and knowledge are completely different

    things. Two separate questions should be asked instead.

  • it is vital to consider the order in which you ask the questions in your survey. EX: public opinion polls regarding legal recognition of same-sex relationships have found that

    Americans’ support for legalizing civil unions is higher when they are first asked their opinions on same-sex marriage, but lower if opinions on marriage are assessed later in the survey. It appears that people’s support for same-sex civil unions depends upon whether they

    think about them in reference to same-sex marriage (and when compared to marriage, civil unions

    seem to be viewed as a more acceptable alternative to many people).

• Examples of Major Sex Surveys

  • The Kinsey reports.

    • Perhaps the most famous sexuality surveys ever conducted are those of Alfred

      Kinsey, a former professor at Indiana University. Kinsey’s goal was to provide the first comprehensive

      examination of men’s and women’s sexual behavior in the United States. In his bestselling and

      highly controversial books, he and his research team detailed the results of their interviews with

      5,300 men and 5,940 women. Although people of different racial backgrounds were initially

      interviewed, only data from White participants were included in the final publications because

      Kinsey felt that his racial minority samples were of inadequate size to draw conclusions. Moreover,

      although his sampling efforts were admirable and ambitious for the time, his participants were disproportionately young, well-educated, Protestant, and from larger cities.

    • His actual data-collection techniques have always been well respected. Kinsey collected most of his

      data during face-to-face interview sessions that followed a very careful and elaborate protocol.

      This involved working hard to establish a rapport with interviewees as a means of putting them at

      ease, building in checks for false responding, and only allowing a select group of highly trained

      researchers to conduct the interviews.

    • Kinsey’s research reports shocked the American public because they suggested that masturbation,

      homosexual behavior, extramarital sex, and many other historically “deviant” sexual activities

      were occurring with much greater frequency than anyone ever thought possible. For instance,

      Kinsey found that most men (92%) and women (62%) had masturbated before, that a significant

      number of men (37%) and women (13%) reported at least one sexual experience with a member

      of the same sex, and that the vast majority of men (69%) reported having at least one sexual

      experience with a prostitute. Although some of Kinsey’s findings have held up in subsequent

      research (e.g., findings about masturbation), others have not (e.g., findings about the prevalence of same-sex activity).

  • The National Health and Social Life Survey.

    • For the better part of the past two decades, the National

      Health and Social Life Survey has been

      considered the definitive survey of sexual attitudes and behaviors in the United States. It was the first attempt to conduct a comprehensive survey of Americans’ sexual practices since Kinsey’s work in the 1940s. The NHSLS originally came about in response to the AIDS crisis that emerged in the 1980s. In the wake of this devastating disease, the US government recognized

      that our scientific knowledge of sexuality was extremely limited and this lack of information was

      hampering efforts to stop the spread of AIDS.

    • A team of researchers at the University of Chicago was initially granted enough government

      funding to conduct a national survey of 20,000 people. This financial support was later revoked by a conservative congress that felt taxpayer money should not be spent studying sex. The research team was not deterred and went to private sources in order to secure funding that would

      allow them to complete their project. They did not raise enough money to carry out the study as

      originally intended, but they achieved enough to finish the project on a smaller scale. In the end, a

      representative sample of 3,432 individuals across the US was surveyed. Participants ranged in age

      from 18 to 59 and exhibited some variability in terms of race, with the two largest racial minority

      groups (African Americans and Hispanics) well-represented.

    • The study involved a mix of face-to-face interviews and pencil-and-paper questionnaires. Interviews

      were conducted first in order to obtain more in-depth and detailed information from interviewees,

      but also because it was believed that starting with an interview would yield a higher compliance rate

      than starting with a written survey. The interviewees then filled out a written questionnaire that

      addressed more personal topics (e.g., questions about masturbation), which they returned in a sealed

      envelope. This was done in order to provide them with more privacy on the most sensitive matters.

    • Upon their release, the results of the NHSLS provoked controversy, but not in the way that

      Kinsey’s studies did. For one thing, the NHSLS suggested that Americans were more sexually conservative

      than previously thought! For example, most people reported having sex only a few times

      each month. Likewise, one in five men and nearly one in three women reported having had only

      one sexual partner in their lifetime. Furthermore, the reported prevalence of same-sex activity was

      much lower than Kinsey’s estimates.

    • Since its publication, the NHSLS has been lauded by the scientific community for the quality of

      its sample and research design. Of course, it is not without its limitations. For example, older adults

      and some racial minority groups, including Asian Americans and Native Americans, were not adequately

      reflected in the sample. In addition, given that the survey was carried out a few decades ago,

      the NHSLS may not be an accurate account of the sexual practices of Americans today

  • The National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior.

    • American sexuality has changed dramatically

      since the NHSLS. EX: Viagra and other medications for sexual dysfunction have been

      introduced, online dating and hooking up have become increasingly common, and societal attitudes

      toward homosexuality have become more accepting. In order to keep up with such changes and to

      address the problem of the aging NHSLS dataset, the National Survey of Sexual Health and

      Behavior was conducted.

    • The NSSHB is the largest and most diverse nationally representative survey of sexuality ever

      completed, with a sample consisting of 5,865 adolescents and adults ages 14 to 94 living in the

      United States. The project was carried out by researchers at the Center for Sexual Health Promotion

      at Indiana University (the same university where Alfred Kinsey spent most of his career). Participants

      for this study were initially recruited by mail or phone, which yielded a high response rate of 82%

      for adults. However, recruiting adolescent participants (one of the unique strengths of this survey)

      was more challenging, because it was necessary to seek parental permission first. Only 62% of

      parents contacted were willing to let their children under age 18 participate, which is revealing of

      Americans’ attitudes toward adolescent sexuality.

    • NSSHB did not involve face-to-face

      interviews. Instead, all data were collected entirely over the Internet. For people who wanted to

      participate but did not have Internet access, it was provided for them by the researchers. The first

      results from the NSSHB were published in 2010 in the Journal of Sexual Medicine and were greeted

      with relatively little controversy, which suggests attitudes toward sex have come a long way since Kinsey.

    • Among adults, 7% of women and 8% of men identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

    • 85% of men and 64% of women reported reaching orgasm during their most recent sexual experience.

    • Among participants who were single, only one in three acts of vaginal intercourse involved condom use.

    • Black and Hispanic men were more likely to use condoms during intercourse than White men.

    • Adolescents reported being more likely to use condoms during intercourse than adults over age 40.

    • Sex means a lot of different things to Americans. Adults reported a total of 41 different ways of “getting busy” during their most recent sexual encounter.

    • When adults have sex, they do not just have intercourse – they typically engage in multiple sexual activities during each sexual event, which may include oral sex, anal sex, mutual masturbation, and other activities.

  • Other prominent sex surveys.

    • Several large scale sexuality surveys have been conducted outside of the United States. The results of national sex surveys in Britain and Australia reveal trends that are similar in many ways to those observed in the United States. EX: across most Western countries, sex surveys reveal that men report having more sexual partners than women. In addition, the age of first intercourse appears to have decreased in recent years.

    • National sex surveys in non-Western countries are more difficult to come by, due to cultural differences

      in the acceptability of talking about sex publicly. However, the few surveys that have been

      administered have enlightened us considerably with respect to the role that culture and society play

      in shaping sexual behavior. EX: a national sex survey in China revealed that most people do

      not begin having sex until their early to mid-20s, compared to ages 16 or 17 in many Western countries. Likewise, Chinese men and women typically get married

      very quickly (i.e., within a year or two) after they begin having premarital sex, whereas Westerners

      often wait a decade or more between when they first have sex and when they get married.

• surveys require participants to report their own behavior,

  and they may or may not provide accurate descriptions

Direct Observation

• a seemingly more objective research technique: direct observation.

• rather than having subjects describe their own behavior, researchers

  watch them with their own eyes and record what they see. Although observing the subject directly may result in a more accurate account of behavior, this method is not commonly utilized in sexology for many reasons.

• Strengths and Limitations of Direct Observation

  • The major strength of direct observation is that it takes a number of response biases out of the

    picture by eliminating participants’ subjective reports of their own behavior. Another benefit is

    that observations can be filmed, thereby allowing researchers to go back in case they missed something

    or want to look at the behaviors in a different way.

  • However, there are obvious drawbacks. First and foremost, think for a moment about whether

    you would be willing to have sex on camera or in front of a researcher, while various pieces of recording

    equipment are attached to your genitalia. Many of you would probably be reluctant to agree to

    this. Thus, self-selection is a big concern with studies of this nature, perhaps because it is only the

    exhibitionists among us who are willing to participate in such research.

  • As support for this idea, a survey of 485 college undergraduates found that only 15% said they would be willing to participate

    in an observational study of sexual arousal. Another major concern is reactivity, which refers to the idea that research participants sometimes alter their behavior when they know others are watching. Some people acting more inhibited than usual, and others getting especially excited. Finally, observational studies are expensive to conduct and often require a lot of special equipment and technology that can be hard to come by.

• The Research of Masters and Johnson

  • The most famous and well-known example of observational research in sexology

  • William Masters and Virginia Johnson.

  • The data reported in their book Human Sexual Response

    came from laboratory studies of 694 men and women, who ranged in age from 18 to 89. Subjects

    consisted mostly of White, highly educated students from the local community in St Louis,

    Missouri. Efforts were made to screen out exhibitionists and individuals with emotional problems

    during the recruitment process. Although the sample was far from representative of the US population,

    Masters and Johnson deserve some credit for finding such a large number of people willing

    to participate in their research, especially given that they were conducting their work in a time and

    setting that was not overly enthusiastic about sexual science.

  • Masters and Johnson sought to understand exactly how men’s and women’s bodies respond to

    sexual stimulation. To do so, they had subjects engage in sexual activities in their lab, including

    masturbation, sexual intercourse, and simulated intercourse, all while various pieces of technology

    recorded the changes that happened to their bodies (e.g., changes in muscle tension and blood

    flow). The simulated intercourse trials refer to instances in which female

    participants were stimulated with an “artificial coition machine” (i.e., sex toy with a built in camera). It was essentially a motorized dildo that had a remote control women could use to adjust the speed and depth of thrusting. After engaging in sexual activity, participants were thoroughly interviewed, which provided an extra level of depth to the data obtained.

  • The results of Masters and Johnson’s research were greeted with much controversy, but they provided a wealth of information and new insights into human sexuality. It is also important to

    note that the data they collected on the bodily changes that accompany sexual arousal appear to be consistent across diverse groups of people, despite their sampling limitations.

• Technologies Used in Observational Sex Research

  • Masters and Johnson were among the first sex researchers to use electronic devices for studying

    sexual arousal. Variations of these devices are still in use today and are frequently mentioned in

    published reports of both observational and experimental sex studies.

  • To measure male sexual arousal, a device called a penile strain gauge is often employed. It consists

    of a small circular tube that is placed around the base of the penis, just like a “cock ring.”

    Attached to this tube are wires that connect to a recording device. The strain gauge works by

    measuring changes in penile circumference. In other words, as blood flows into the penis, leading

    it to increase in size, the machine records this—and it is very sensitive to even the tiniest changes

    in size. To avoid potential embarrassment and maintain privacy, male participants in sex studies

    usually attach this device to themselves.

  • To measure female sexual arousal, a vaginal photoplethysmograph is usually employed. This device consists of a small, acrylic rod that is inserted into the vagina. Like the penile strain gauge, wires are attached

    that connect it with a recording instrument. The photoplethysmograph works by giving off light,

    and then measuring how much of that light is reflected back from the vaginal walls. When women

    are sexually aroused, the vaginal walls fill with blood, which decreases the amount of reflected light.

  • They are similar in that they both measure sexual arousal in terms of increased blood flow to the genital

    region. Other devices for measuring female sexual arousal have been developed, including the

    labial photoplethysmograph and the clitoral photoplethysmograph, but they have not yet achieved widespread use.

  • Although these and

    other tools for measuring physiological arousal are increasingly used, they are not without controversy.

    One concern is that while a person’s genitals may show signs of arousal, the individual may

    not feel aroused psychologically. Thus, it is not always clear what these measures are telling us.

  • One other technology frequently used in studies of sexual arousal in men and women is functional

    magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). With fMRI scans, we can see what areas of the brain respond

    when individuals are turned on or experience orgasm. EX: fMRI scans of men and women

    viewing erotic videos have revealed some similarities and some differences in the way that the sexes’ brains operate. Specifically, while viewing erotic stimuli, both men and women

    show increased activation of the amygdala; in contrast, men show significant activation of the

    hypothalamus, whereas women do not. Both the amygdala and hypothalamus are part of the limbic

    system, a part of the brain that helps regulate sexual behavior. Such findings

    can not only help us to better understand differences in how men and women experience sex

    psychologically, but they can also potentially help us to better understand cases of sexual dysfunction

    (e.g., a brain scan of a person with arousal difficulties could help to identify whether there is a neurological basis for the problem based upon the pattern of activation observed).

Case Reports

• Researchers who utilize this method study either one participant or a small group of participants in great depth

  and detail. In general, the subject selected for a report of this nature is unusual in some way. EX: a sexologist might perform a case study on someone with a sexual dysfunction, someone

  who has a rare sexual desire (e.g., a fetish), or a prostitute.

• Case reports were a reasonably common method of data collection among early sex researchers,

  particularly Sigmund Freud (Anna O. and Little Hans). Such studies still appear in the sexology literature

  today, but they are primarily conducted by those who have clinical or medical training (e.g.,

  clinical psychologists or psychiatrists).

• Strengths and Limitations of Case Reports

  • The major benefit of case reports is that they provide great depth of information about an unusual

    subject. If a similar subject is encountered in the future, the case report can provide a very valuable

    source of information for guiding therapeutic intervention (e.g., if the subject suffered from a sexual

    problem, a therapist could review the report to see what treatments worked and what did not).

  • However, case reports are of inherently limited value from the standpoint that they sample either

    a single individual or a very small group of people who are not representative of the broader population.

    Thus, generalizing the findings of case studies to larger groups of people is difficult, if not

    impossible. In addition, case reports rely heavily on participants’ subjective reports of the past, which

    are subject to the same self-presentational issues and responses biases that affect survey research.

Experimental Research

• Up until this point, all of the research designs we have considered are correlational. Surveys, direct observation, and case reports can tell us what sexuality variables are related to one

  another, but they cannot tell us anything about the causes of sexual behavior.

• The only way sexologists can establish cause and effect is to conduct an experiment. In an experiment, researchers manipulate or change one variable in order to see what effect this has on a measurable outcome. The manipulated variable is known as the independent variable, while the measured outcome is known as the dependent variable. Thus, the independent variable is presumed to be the cause of any changes in the dependent variable.

• In order to make inferences about cause and effect in an experiment, researchers must hold all

  factors constant other than the independent variable. If other factors change alongside the independent

  variable (this is known as confounding), it becomes impossible to determine why the results

  turned out the way they did. One of the most vital methods of protecting the integrity of an

  experiment is to ensure participants are randomly assigned to different experimental conditions. In

  other words, the level of the independent variable a participant receives (e.g., placebo vs. active

  drug) should be determined at random. Random assignment helps to ensure that the groups of

  participants you are comparing have a similar composition, thereby preventing third variables

  (e.g., group differences in attitudes or demographic composition) from serving as alternative

  explanations for the findings.

A Sample Sexperiment

• a study conducted by Galliot and Baumeister (2007). The idea behind this study was to examine

  the link between self-control and sexual behavior. To give you a little theoretical background,

  research shows that human beings have a limited capacity for self-control. That is, no matter how strong we are, sometimes our willpower gives out

  and we subsequently find it difficult to curb our impulses. Self-control

  can thus be thought of as a muscle, such that when we use it too much, it gets tired and leads us

  to act in uncontrollable ways.

• What Galliot and Baumeister wanted to do was see whether depletion

  of self-control affects how people behave sexually.

• To test this idea, college students in romantic relationships brought their partner to the lab. The

  independent variable was a self-control manipulation, such that couples were randomly assigned

  to either expend their self-control abilities or not. This was accomplished by having each couple

  watch a silent video that depicted a woman talking. At the bottom of the screen, words would

  flash for a few seconds at a time. Half of the couples were asked to refrain from looking at the

  words (the depletion condition), whereas the other half were given no such instructions (the no-depletion condition). The thought here is that consciously avoiding the words on the screen

  requires effort, thereby depleting self-control reserves for those participants.

• The dependent variable was the extent of the couple’s sexual behavior after watching the video.

  Specifically, couples were given a private room and were asked to express some type of physical

  intimacy with their partner (they could do anything as long as it was consensual). Afterward,

  participants

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

• Results indicated that participants in the depletion condition “kissed open-mouthed for prolonged

  periods of time, groped and caressed each other… and even removed articles of clothing

  so as to expose themselves” (pp. 182–183). However, these findings only held for couples who were

  sexually inexperienced. It is thought that sexually inexperienced couples may have been more

  depleted to begin with because they must engage in more sexual self-control on a daily basis. As a

  result, they may have experienced double depletion.

Strengths and Limitations of the Experimental Method

• The major strength of experiments is the ability to control variables precisely, thereby allowing us

  to make claims about causality. Thus, if we find differences in the dependent variable across conditions,

  we may be able to infer that they were caused by the independent variable. No other research

  method allows us to draw such conclusions.

• Unfortunately, however, experiments are not always a viable option for sexology studies because

  certain research questions do not lend themselves readily to this method. Sometimes it is impossible

  or unethical to manipulate a variable of interest.EX: if we wanted to study the impact of

  parental divorce on children’s academic performance, we could not randomly assign some couples

  to get divorced and some to stay together! To address that topic, we would have to take a nonexperimental

  approach. Another limitation of experiments is that people may act differently in a laboratory

  setting than they do in the real world, thereby threatening external validity (i.e., the ability to

  generalize the findings beyond the lab). EX:, subjects may purposely alter their behavior

  because they like/dislike the experimenter or because they have guessed the purpose of the study

A Note on Statistics

• Means and Medians

  • In statistical terms, the mean refers to the average

    value of all of the scores in a dataset. Sometimes it is also useful to consider the median, which is

    the middle score in a distribution.

  • When it comes to

    sexual behavior, it is important to keep in mind that there is huge variability. As a result, “normal”

    does not represent a single value, but rather a large range of values. Thus, please do not fall into

    the habit of comparing yourself to every single average presented in this book and make judgments

    about your own normalcy. Chances are that even if you seem pretty far from average, you

    would still be considered normal.

• Incidence and Prevalence

  • Incidence refers to the rate at which new cases of a problem or disease

    occur. It is usually expressed as the number of new cases that appeared in a given time (e.g., one

    year) divided by the total size of the population. Thus, incidence is useful for helping us to understand

    how quickly a problem is spreading.

  • Prevalence is a broader measure of the total

    number of people who are currently afflicted with a given problem or disease. It is often expressed

    in terms of the number of people per 100,000 who have it. Thus, prevalence helps us to understand

    the overall scope of the issue.

• Correlation

  • Correlation refers to the statistical association between two variables (i.e., the degree to which

    two variables are related).

  • A correlation can be negative, positive, or zero.

  • Negative correlations

    refer to cases where two variables move in opposite directions (i.e., as one variable increases, the

    other decreases). For example, the frequency of condom use is negatively correlated with likelihood

    of contracting a sexually transmitted infection, such that as condom use goes up, infection

    risk goes down.

  • Positive correlations refer to cases where two variables move in the same direction

    (i.e., both variables increase together and decrease together). For instance, the number of sexual

    partners you have is positively correlated with the risk of contracting a sexually transmitted infection,

    such that as number of partners increases, so does infection risk.

  • a correlation of zero occurs when two variables have no relationship whatsoever. One example of this would be the size

    of a woman’s breasts and the amount of breast milk she produces. This may surprise you, but

    women with larger breasts do not necessarily produce more milk.

  • correlations are useful for summarizing patterns in data, but they tell us

    nothing about cause and effect. Thus, just because two variables are correlated does not mean that one

    is causing the other. As one example of this, consider that a strong, positive correlation has been found

    between the stork population and the birth rate in several European countries. As

    children, some of you probably learned that storks delivered human babies—and this correlation

    would seem to support that theory, right? Wrong. This is but one of many examples of a spurious correlation

    (i.e., an association that exists due to some third factor that links the variables together—in this

    case, what was happening is that as the human population increased, so did the number of houses, and

    more houses provided more roofs for storks to build nests).

Ethics in Sexology Research

• Ethics is something that should be at the forefront of any researcher’s mind, whether that researcher studies

  sexuality or not. Historically, however, this has not always been the case.

• Sexology has had its own ethically questionable

  moments in the past, and these have served to shape the field’s modern-day approach to

  research ethics.

• Laud Humphreys’ (1970) Tearoom Trade Study.

  • Humphreys was a sociologist

    who wanted to understand why some men are motivated to have anonymous sexual encounters

    with other men in public restrooms. Note that in the 1970s, the

    bathrooms where men would meet up for this purpose were known colloquially as “tearooms,”

    hence the name of this study. At that time, a lot of men were being

    arrested for tearoom sex all across the United States. Humphreys believed that attempting to

    understand who these men were and what motivated them to engage in this behavior would be of

    inherent value to society.

  • In carrying out his research, Humphreys visited a number of tearooms, where he volunteered

    to be the “lookout” for men who wanted to have a quick sexual encounter in a stall. His job was to

    cough or otherwise signal the men in the stall if police were coming. As if this behavior were not

    questionable enough for a scientist, Humphreys sometimes followed these tearoom visitors back

    to their cars and surreptitiously recorded their license plate numbers. One year later, he used this

    information to track the men down. Specifically, he showed up at their homes unannounced (disguised,

    of course, so that he would not be recognized) and proceeded to interview them to learn more about their lives, supposedly as part of a completely unrelated study.

  • Humphreys’ results were interesting and influential from the standpoint that they disproved a number of stereotypes about the typical tearoom patron. For example, more than half of the men were actually married to women and, aside from the occasional tearoom rendezvous,

    many of them appeared to be in model marriages. Furthermore, after Humphreys’ research was published, police departments began to devote less attention and resources to investigating and prosecuting tearoom sex, which many would view as a positive outcome (e.g., some would argue that limited police resources should be spent preventing and punishing nonconsensual sex crimes, such as sexual assault, rather than regulating the sexual activities of consenting adults).

  • However, it is clear that Humphreys deceived those who took part in his research. In fact, many of the subjects were not even aware that they were taking part in a study. Humphreys also invaded his subjects’ privacy in more than one way.

• the Tuskegee Syphilis Study.

  • This study was conducted by the United States Public Health Service from the 1930s until the 1970s. The goal of this research was to track the normal progression of syphilis among a

    group of 399 low-income, African American men from Tuskegee, Alabama (hence the name of the study). All of the men already had syphilis, but none were told they had it. Instead, participants

    were told that they had “bad blood” and would receive free medical treatment for their condition

    along with meals in exchange for their participation in the study.

  • If these researchers had simply been tracking patients with an incurable disease to see what

    happened, that would be one thing. However, a cure for syphilis, penicillin, was developed in

    the 1940s and was intentionally withheld from the men. Even more egregious than just withholding

    treatment, the men were told that they would lose their benefits if they sought treatment elsewhere for their “bad blood.”

  • Researchers also went out of their way to inform local

    doctors that they were not to provide these patients with antibiotics! By the time this study became public knowledge, it was too late for these men; they had suffered irreparable physical harm and many had died as a result of the disease.

  • In the end, not only were the participants seriously deceived, but they experienced substantial physical harm and some died as a result. There is no justifying that under any circumstances. To add insult to injury, the US government did not even issue a public apology for this horrendous study until the 1990s.

• In the early 1970s, these studies came to light (right around the same time as the controversial

  Milgram studies and the Stanford Prison Experiment). Ethical concerns in psychology

  and sexology had reached a boiling point and more strict research regulations were put into place.

  As a result, modern sexology research is subject to much higher levels of scrutiny and must meet

  certain ethical standards before it can be carried out.

• However, it is possible that we may have

  overcorrected because we now subject even very minor and routine sex surveys to extremely high

  levels of scrutiny, even though they pose little risk of harm to participants.

• The specific ethical guidelines followed by sexologists vary somewhat depending upon their

  field of study, the requirements of their university’s ethics board, the organization that funds their

  work, as well as local and federal laws. However, there are several general principles all sexologists

  must uphold, including the requirements of informed consent, debriefing, and confidentiality, all

  of which apply in psychological research more broadly.

Informed Consent

• Before beginning any research study, participants must provide their informed consent. This

  means that individuals must be told up front the nature of the study, their rights as a research participant,

  and the potential risks and rewards associated with their involvement. With this information

  in mind, individuals must make a conscious decision as to whether they want to participate,

  free from pressure or coercion.

• During the informed consent process, researchers cannot withhold significant information

  about the study.

• Does this mean that deception (i.e., intentionally withholding certain information

  from subjects or misleading them) is never ethically permissible?

• Certain types of deception

  are acceptable and appropriate, especially if they are necessary to ensure the validity of your data.

  For example, during informed consent, you do not have to explicitly tell subjects the hypothesis

  you are testing and the true purpose of your study.

• However, you cannot withhold or lie about something that could potentially affect a subject’s decision to participate. For example, if you

  planned to expose subjects to violent pornography in order to see how it affects their acceptance

  of violence toward women, it would not be ethically permissible to tell subjects that they will

  simply

  be “watching some videos and answering some questions.” The informed consent process

  would need to make clear that subjects may be viewing sexually explicit materials and answering

  questions about their personal views.

Debriefing

• At the end of any study, participants must receive a thorough debriefing. This means that after

  completing all study requirements, participants must be told the true purpose of the research and

  be informed of any deception that took place. In other words, researchers must give subjects all of

  the information they did not receive up front in order to ensure that they do not walk away with

  any misconceptions. This is especially important in any instances in which participants are intentionally

  misled about facts or information.

• For example, the study by Dana Bramel (1963).

  • Male college student participants were hooked up to a machine that measured galvanic skin response (GSR).

    Subjects were told that GSR was a reliable indicator of one’s sexual arousal and that, when aroused, the needle on the measurement instrument would move higher. Participants were then shown photographs of men who varied in their degree of attractiveness and how much clothing they were wearing. Unbeknownst to the subject, the machine was rigged, such that the experimenter was controlling the movement of the needle! Regardless of participants’ own sexual orientation, many of them saw the machine register very high levels of arousal in response to the photos of attractive and semi-nude men. Thus, some men were falsely led to believe that they possessed “latent homosexuality.”

• The value of debriefing should be apparent from a study like this. It would not be ethically acceptable to simply allow these participants to walk away from this study without correcting such misinformation. Subjects should never leave a research study harboring false impressions or feeling any kind of stress or anxiety.

Confidentiality

• maintaining confidentiality, or protecting the privacy of your research subjects.

• In sexuality studies, keeping confidentiality is vital

  for several reasons. First, sexologists sometimes collect very personal information from their

  subjects, and this information could potentially damage people’s lives if it got out.

• Second, if research participants are not

  assured confidentiality, they will be less likely to respond honestly and accurately, thereby undermining

  the validity of the data.

• On a side note, researchers may need to break confidentiality on very rare occasions if it is

  required by law. For example, if a developmental psychologist studying children or adolescents

  discovered that a participant was the victim of sexual abuse, that scientist would have a legal duty

  to report this information to the authorities, even though it means violating a research subject’s trust.

Evaluating Sex Research

• Researchers

  in this field take great care in designing each and every study by giving ample consideration to how

  they select their participants, how they phrase and order their questions, as well as how they manipulate

  and measure their variables.

• For example, many men’s and women’s magazines (e.g., Playboy,

  Men’s Health, Cosmopolitan, Glamour) regularly report the results of reader sex surveys.

• Likewise,

  many major news websites have a daily “quick poll,” in which a single question (sometimes pertaining

  to sexual matters) is asked of visitors.

• People who do not have a strong research background

  may look at these results and accept them as fact, or at least ascribe some importance to them.

• such “research” requires scrutiny. Specifically, you should always ask:

  • Who conducted the study and why? Do they have the training and credentials necessary to

    conduct research of this nature? Also, are they truly seeking to increase our understanding of

    human sexuality, or do they simply want to sell you a product?

  • What are the characteristics of the sample? To whom can we generalize these results? Be wary

    of research reports that provide no information or only very limited information about the

    sample.

  • Were the survey questions high-quality and free from bias?

  • Are the results consistent with what you learned in this book?

• we need to carefully consider the

  source of our information.

• John Watson said it best when he argued that we deserve to

  have our questions answered not by those who are pushing a social or moral agenda, but “by scientifically- trained students of sex.”

Key Terms

• sexology

• survey research

• convenience samples

• random selection

• nonresponse

• self-selection

• socially desirable responding

• direct observation

• reactivity

• penile strain gauge

• vaginal photoplethysmograph

• case report

• experiment

• mean

• median

• incidence

• prevalence

• correlation

• minimal risk

• informed consent

• deception

• debriefing

• confidentiality