Presentation on theme: "Carpenter, D. (1), Janssen, E. (2), Graham, C. A. (3,1), Vorst, H. (4), & Wicherts, J. (4) (1) Department of Psychology, Christopher Newport University,"— Presentation transcript:
Carpenter, D. (1), Janssen, E. (2), Graham, C. A. (3,1), Vorst, H. (4), & Wicherts, J. (4) (1) Department of Psychology, Christopher Newport University, Newport News, Virginia 23606 USA (email: firstname.lastname@example.org); (2) The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction, Morrison Hall 313, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405 USA; (3) Oxford Doctoral Course in Clinical Psychology, Isis Education Centre, Warneford Hospital, Headington, Oxford, England OX3 7JX; (4) University of Amsterdam, Department of Psychology, Psychological Methodology, Roetersstraat 15, 1018wb Amsterdam, The Netherlandsdeanna.email@example.com Appendix Findings suggest that gender differences in factors that influence sexual excitation and inhibition do exist. However…many central themes are clearly shared. The primary advantage of the SIS/SES—Short Form…it highlights shared themes in sexual inhibition & sexual excitation. The complementary primary limitation…it eliminates potentially important differences between women & men. The Short Form SIS/SES: Reflects our belief that the processes underlying men’s & women’s sexual arousal are more alike than different. Can aid research on gender similarities in sexuality. Complements recent suggestions (Hyde, 2005) for more research focus on such factors. Note: Depending on the project at hand, a measure of broader scope may be preferred. The original 45-item SIS/SES remains a good option when participants are only male or only female. Aims To examine gender similarities in arousal themes To identify SIS/SES items that represent the three-factor structure equally well for women & men. To examine the reliability and convergent/discriminant validity of scores on a short form version of the SIS/SES comprised of gender-invariant items. Background The Sexual Inhibition/Sexual Excitation Scales (SIS/SES) consist of 45 items that assess individual propensities to become sexually aroused and to inhibit arousal. Prior research suggests: Men’s and women’s data share a similar factor structure featuring one excitation factor (SES) & two inhibitory factors (SIS1/Threat of Performance Failure and SIS2/Threat of Performance Consequences.) Women score higher on sexual inhibition & lower on sexual excitation compared with men. Social Desirability Scale (SDSR-5). (Hays, Hayashi & Stewart, 1989). Behavioral Inhibition/Behavioral Activation Scales (BIS/BAS). (Carver & White, 1994). Sexual Opinion Survey (SOS). Measures erotophobia- erotophilia, or tendency to have positive or negative emotional and evaluative responses to sexual stimuli (Fisher, Byrne, White & Kelley, 1988). Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI). Assesses attitudes toward and participation in “casual” sex, as well as condom use during sexual encounters (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991). Analyses. Using a process of elimination, CFAs specifying equal factor loadings, residual variances, and item intercepts identified a subset of 14 SIS/SES items with similar psychometric properties in men and women. Test-retest data provided by a subset of female participants (N = 51) was used to examine the reliability of scores on a short form version of the SIS/SES. Correlations between SES, SIS1 & SIS2 and other theoretically- relevant measures were used to assess the validity of men’s & women’s short-form SIS/SES scores. Correlations between the 45-item & Short Form SIS/SES were equal for men & women for SES (r = +.90), SIS1 (r = +.80) and SIS2 (r = +.80). Reliability: Women’s scores appeared less stable on the 14-item SIS/SES [Short Form: (SES: r =.61, SIS1: r =.52; SIS2: r =.38) Original version: (SES: r =.76, SIS1: r =.67; SIS2: r =.74)] Removing outliers increased women’s Short Form test-retest coefficients for SIS1 (r =.61) and SIS2 (r =.63). Criterion validity: The Short Form SIS/SES globally resembled the original version: SES and SIS2 showed strongest associations with other sexuality-related measures for both men & women. Men’s SIS/SES scores showed stronger relationships with some general measures (e.g., SES with BIS, BAS-Reward Responsiveness, and BAS-Drive; SIS1 with the Harm Avoidance subscale of the MPQ). However, there was a modest trend for women’s SIS1 scores to overlap more with other measures on the Short Form SIS/SES. Gender Similarities in Dual Control Model Processes: A Short Version of the Sexual Inhibition and Excitation Scales (SIS/SES-Short Form) Method Participants. 2045 Indiana University undergraduates (1067 women & 978 men), aged 16-44 (mean = 19.8 years). Participants reported having had sexual intercourse with a mean of 1.7 partners (SD = 2.86, range = 0-50, N = 2004) in the past year, and having had 1.4 unprotected intercourse partners during the past three years (SD = 2.08, range = 0-30, N = 1996). Measures. Sexual Inhibition/Sexual Excitation Scales (SIS/SES) describe hypothetical situations, some of which incorporate elements of threat (e.g., risk of contracting an STD, being intruded upon, or being unable to perform sexually). The SIS/SES yields three scores: Excitation (SES), SIS1/Threat of Performance Failure, & SIS2/Threat of Consequences. Background Questionnaire. Number of sexual partners, use of contraceptives, perceived importance of sex, history of sexual problems, etc. Neuroticism and Extraversion/Introversion Scales of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ). (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975). Harm Avoidance Scale of the Minnesota Personality Questionnaire (MPQ-H). (Tellegen & Waller, 1982). Results A 3-factor solution with equal factor loadings for men & women was obtained, using 19 out of 45 total SIS/SES items. Residual variances and item intercepts were not identical, preventing direct comparison of female and male SIS/SES scores. Specifying equal residual variances and item intercepts eliminated 5 items and solved the problem, resulting in a 14-item solution. (See Appendix.) Inhibition themes of shared relevance to men & women: Threat of Performance Failure (SIS1): Distraction, focus on sexual performance, and tendency to lose arousal easily. Threat of Performance Consequences (SIS2): Risk of getting caught or contracting an STD. Inhibition themes of differential relevance to men & women: SIS1: Concerns about pleasing a partner sexually SIS2: Concerns about pregnancy and pain Shared sexual excitation themes: Arousal from social interactions, versus less relational activities (e.g., arousal from fantasies or sexually-explicit materials.) Conclusion Prior to this report, two measures assessing dual control model processes have been reported: SIS/SES (validated in men by Janssen et al., 2002) SESII-W (validated in women by Graham, Sanders & Milhausen, 2006). This study offers a third. The SIS/SES—Short Form: Focuses on items with similar psychometric properties in women & men. Exhibits reliability & convergent/discriminant validity that largely resemble the original version.