The Dual Control Model: Gender, Sexual Problems, and Prevalence of Sexual Excitation and Inhibition Profiles Deanna L. Carpenter, Ph.D., University of Minnesota Medical School, Program in Human Sexuality Cynthia Graham, Ph.D., Oxford Doctoral Course in Clinical Psychology, University of Oxford Erick Janssen, Ph.D., The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction & Department of Psychology, Indiana University Harrie Vorst, M.A., Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam Jelte Wicherts, M.A., Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam

The Dual Control Model (Bancroft, 1999; Bancroft & Janssen, 2000)  Sexual arousal affected by independent conceptual excitatory & inhibitory CNS mechanisms.  Inhibitory system presumed adaptive, but…  central inhibitory tone increases proneness to sexual problems?  inhibition contributes to sexual risk- taking/compulsivity?

The Dual Control Model (Bancroft, 1999; Bancroft & Janssen, 2000) Central Excitatory Mechanism Central Inhibitory Mechanism Sexual Response “Love is a conflict between reflexes and reflection.” (Hirschfeld, 1935)

Dual Control Model: Central Inhibition & Sexual Arousal/Behavior  Inhibition: Requires low threat levels for response. Keeps individual safe, but may impair facile sexual response.  Inhibition: Response may occur despite presence of risk. Preserves ready sexual response, but may not protect individual from harm.  Excitation compensatory?  Excitation exacerbates risk?

The Sexual Inhibition/Sexual Excitation Scales: SIS/SES asks Ss to estimate sexual responses to 45 “If…then” statements: Items describe non-threatening sexual situations & situations involving risk/threat. “If I feel that I am being rushed, I am unlikely to get very aroused. Strongly DisagreeAgreeStrongly DisagreeAgree 1234

SIS/SES Factor Structure in ♂ EFA of undergraduate men’s scores (N = 408) yielded 3 factors accounting for 60% of response variability (Janssen et al., 2002). Acceptable internal consistency (  =.7 -.9), test- retest reliability (r = ), and convergent/ discriminant validity. SES Sexual Excitation SIS 1 Inhibition due to Threat of Performance Failure SIS 2 Inhibition due to Threat of Performance Consequences

SES: “Sexual Excitation” Items “If I am on my own watching a sexual scene in a film, I quickly become sexually aroused.” “Just thinking about a sexual encounter I have had is enough to turn me on sexually.” “When I see an attractive person, I start fantasizing about having sex with him/her.” “Sometimes I become sexually aroused just by lying in the sun.”

SIS1: “Threat of Performance Failure” Items “When I have a distracting thought, I lose my arousal.” “Using condoms or other safe-sex products can cause me to lose my arousal.” “If I am concerned about pleasing my partner sexually, it interferes with my arousal.” “If I feel that I’m expected to respond sexually, I have difficulty getting aroused.”

SIS2: “Threat of Consequences” Items “If there is a risk of unwanted pregnancy, I am unlikely to get sexually aroused.” “If having sex will cause my partner pain, I am unlikely to stay sexually aroused. “If I am masturbating on my own and realize that someone may come into the room…I will lose my sexual arousal.” “If I discovered that someone I find sexually attractive is too young, I would have difficulty getting sexually aroused with him/her.”

Sexual Inhibition of Special Importance to ♀ ? Parental Investment Theory: Given greater “costs” of offspring for ♀ vs. ♂ (Trivers, 1972) … ♂ benefit from: Sexual responsiveness Opportunistic/indiscriminant mate choice (Buss, 1998; Knoth, Boyd & Singer, 1988). ♀ strategize by: Avoiding casual sex Choosing mates carefully, based on attribute fitness (Bjorklund & Kipp, 1996; Symons, 1979).  Higher Inhibition?  Higher Excitation?

Inhibition and ♂ vs. ♀ Sexual Problems? ♀ issues include: Pain Pregnancy Reputation Negative body image Victimization ♂ concerns: Culture views male sexual arousal as exceptionally strong Male arousal problems uniquely impact sexual activity SIS1 more important?SIS2 more relevant?

Predictions: 1.Three-factor structure in ♀ SIS/SES scores. 2.  SES &  SIS scores in ♀ (vs. ♂ ) 3.Test-retest reliability & convergent/discriminant validity for ♀ similar to ♂. 4.  SIS will predict more sexual difficulties  SIS will predict more risk-taking 5. SIS1 “Failure” more relevant to ♂ sexual problems? SIS2 “Consequences” better predictor for ♀ ?

Participants (N = 2045) Undergraduates (1067 women, 978 men) Age ( = 19.8; range ) Predominantly university freshman (40.8%), Caucasian (87.6%), heterosexual (95.6%) and unmarried (95.1%). = 1.74 lifetime intercourse partners

Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis for ♀ Note: Better fit is reflected in higher coefficients (values approaching one) for the Goodness of Fit, Comparative Fit and Normed Fit Indices, and smaller values (lower bound = zero) for Chi sq./df ratios and Steiger-Lind RMSEA  Chi square test rejects complete model-data consistency for ♀.  Fit indices suggest acceptable fit.

Lower SES and Higher SIS Scores in ♀ ? MANOVA [F (3, 2004) = , df = 3, p  0.001] & ANOVAs revealed predicted gender differences: SES [F(1,2006) = , p  0.001) SIS1 [F(1,2006) = , p  0.001) SIS2 [F(1,2006) = , p  0.001)

SES “Sexual Excitation” Scores Mean (SD) = 56.7 (7.69)  =.88 Men (N =973)Women (N =1040) Mean (SD) = 51.5 (7.77)  =.87

SIS1 “Threat of Performance Failure” Scores Mean (SD) = 27.7 (4.43)  =.80 Men (N =971)Women (N =1040) Mean (SD) = 30.4 (5.01)  =.76

SIS2 “Threat of Consequences” Scores Mean (SD) = 27.6 (4.43)  =.71 Mean (SD) = 31.7 (4.54)  =.70 Men (N =972)Women (N =1038)

SIS/SES Factor Intercorrelations

Test-Retest Reliability for ♀ (N = 51):

SIS/SES Validation Results: ♀

SIS/SES Validation Results: ♀ [♂]

Frequencies of SIS/SES Profiles:

Predicting Sexual Problems

Predicting Sexual Risk-Taking

Discussion  Similar factor structure in ♀ & ♂ SIS/SES scores, but…  Reliability of SIS2 scores lower for ♀ Context-dependent? Influenced by cyclical fluctuations?  SIS/SES more related to behavior in nonsexual contexts for ♂ Sexual double-standard

Discussion (cont.) Lower SES & higher SIS1/SIS2 scores in ♀ vs. ♂ are consistent with sample gender differences… ♂ reported:  frequent masturbation  one-night stands  positive attitudes toward “casual” sex  exposure to sexually explicit materials  arousal to SEMs attributing  importance to sex ♀ reported:  frequent problems with orgasm/arousal attributing  importance to religion

Discussion (cont.) SIS1 “Performance Failure” predicts arousal problems best for ♀ & ♂, but…  SIS2 “Consequences” more relevant to ♀ Consistent w/gender differences re: sexual pain, coercion, pregnancy & reputation effects.  SES more important for ♂ Gender diffs. in ease/speed of arousal?

Discussion (cont.) SIS2 “Consequences” best predictor of sexual risk- taking for ♀ & ♂, but…  SES also predictive of risk-taking in ♀ Relates to availability of willing partners? Addressed by HIV/STI interventions?  Prediction more complex for riskier behaviors (SES for ♂ / SIS1 for ♀)

Limitations/Future Directions: Prevalence of SIS/SES profiles are not expected to represent the population. SIS/SES scores may vary across the lifespan. SES: Focus on sex changes with age/stage of relationship SIS1: Sexual problems increase with age. SIS2: Probability/meaning of sexual consequences change Published paper will include a sex-invariant version of the SIS/SES (in development).

References: Bancroft, J. (1999) Central inhibition of sexual response in the male: A theoretical perspective. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 23, Bancroft, J. & Janssen, E. (2000) The dual control model of male sexual response: A theoretical approach to centrally mediated erectile dysfunction. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 24, Bjorklund, D. F. & Kipp, K. (1996) Parental investment theory and gender differences in the evolution of inhibition mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin, 120(2), Buss, D. M. (1998) Sexual strategies theory: Historical origins and current status. The Journal of Sex Research, 35(1), Carver, C. S. & White, T. L. (1994) Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), Eysenck, H. J. & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975) Manual for the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Fisher, W. A., Byrne, D., White, L. A. & Kelley, K. (1988) Erotophobia-Erotophilia as a dimension of personality. The Journal of Sex Research, 25, Hays, R. D., Hayashi, T. & Stewart, A. L. (1989) A five-item measure of socially desirable response set. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, Holm, S. (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6,

References: Janssen, E., Vorst, H., Finn, P., & Bancroft, J. (2002). The Sexual Inhibition (SIS) and Sexual Excitation (SES) Scales: I. Measuring sexual inhibition and excitation proneness in men. Journal of Sex Research, in press. Knoth, R., Boyd, K. & Singer, B. (1988) Empirical tests of sexual selection theory: Predictions of sex differences in onset, intensity, and time course of sexual arousal. The Journal of Sex Research, 24, Simpson, J. & Gangestad, S. (1991) Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, Symons, D. (1979) The Evolution of Human Sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. Tellegen, A. & Waller, N. G. (1982) Exploring personality through test construction: Development of a multidimensional personality questionnaire. In S. R. Briggs & J. M. Cheek (Eds.), Personality measures: Development and Evaluation, (Vol. I.) Greenwich, CT: Jai press. Trivers, R. L. (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.) Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man (pp ). Chicago: Aldine.