Advertisement

Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 48, Issue 8, pp 2389–2402 | Cite as

Exploring Comfort Levels and the Role of Compensation in Sexual Psychophysiology Study Participation

  • Jackie S. Huberman
  • Meghan K. McInnis
  • Katrina N. Bouchard
  • Samantha J. Dawson
  • Caroline F. Pukall
  • Meredith L. ChiversEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

A number of devices have been developed to assess physiological sexual response. Some come into direct contact with the genitals (e.g., vaginal/clitoral/penile plethysmography [VPP/CPP/PPG], labial thermistors [LT]), whereas others capture images of the genitals remotely (e.g., thermal imaging [TI], laser Doppler imaging [LDI]). Researchers have speculated about the relative invasiveness of these measurement tools, with limited empirical work examining participants’ perceptions of different devices and how these may impact volunteer bias. We investigated individuals’ levels of comfort with participating in hypothetical sexual psychophysiology studies and their reasons for discomfort. We also examined the relationship between comfort level and compensation for participation. Men (n = 291) and women (n = 716) completed an online survey where they were presented with vignettes describing studies using VPP, CPP, PPG, LT, TI, and LDI. Participants reported their comfort level with the idea of participating in each study, the amount of compensation that would be reasonable, and factors influencing their decision not to participate if they were unwilling. Participants were similarly comfortable with some studies involving genital contact (VPP) or remote imaging (TI), and somewhat less comfortable with others (LDI, LT, PPG; small or small-medium effect sizes). Along with our qualitative analysis, these findings reveal that direct genital contact is one aspect of study intrusiveness, but that it is not necessarily the most important study feature influencing comfort with participation. Our results suggest that providing additional information regarding protocols at screening and offering $50 compensation might attract wider samples of participants.

Keywords

Volunteer bias Sexual psychophysiology Gender 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by grants from the Canadian Institute for Health Research New Investigator Awards awarded to MLC and to CFP and by scholarships awarded to JSH from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship and Joseph-Armand Bombardier Canada Graduate Scholarships Master’s Scholarship) and the Ontario Graduate Scholarship. This paper was presented at the annual meetings of the Canadian Sex Research Forum in Kelowna, BC, Canada, 2015 and the Society for Sex Therapy and Research in Montreal, QC, Canada, 2017.

References

  1. Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist,63, 602–614.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.7.602.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bouchard, K. N., Chivers, M. L., & Pukall, C. F. (2017). Effects of genital response measurement device and stimulus characteristics on sexual concordance in women. Journal of Sex Research,54, 1197–1208.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1265641.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Brotto, L. A., Heiman, J. R., & Tolman, D. L. (2009). Narratives of desire in mid-age women with and without arousal difficulties. Journal of Sex Research,46, 387–398.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490902792624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chivers, M. L., Seto, M. C., & Blanchard, R. (2007). Gender and sexual orientation differences in sexual response to sexual activities versus gender of actors in sexual films. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,93, 1108–1121.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.1108.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Chivers, M. L., Suschinsky, K. D., Timmers, A. D., & Bossio, J. A. (2013). Experimental, neuroimaging, and psychophysiological methods in sexuality research. In L. A. Diamond & D. Tolman (Eds.), APA handbook of sexuality and psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 99–109). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  6. Cowart, D. A., & Pollack, R. H. (1979). A Guttman scale of sexual experience. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy,5, 3–6.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01614576.1979.11074629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dawson, S. J., Huberman, J. S., Bouchard, K. N., McInnis, M. K., Pukall, C. F., & Chivers, M. L. (2019). Effects of individual difference variables, gender, and exclusivity of sexual attraction on volunteer bias in sexuality research. Archives of Sexual Behavior.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-1451-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fisher, W. A., White, L. A., Byrne, D., & Kelley, K. (1988). Erotophobia-erotophilia as a dimension of personality. Journal of Sex Research,25, 123–151.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498809551448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–135.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Huberman, J. S., & Chivers, M. L. (2015). Examining gender specificity of sexual response with concurrent thermography and plethysmography. Psychophysiology,52, 1382–1395.  https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12466.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders Company.Google Scholar
  12. Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. H. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders Company.Google Scholar
  13. Kukkonen, T. M. (2014). What is the best method of measuring the physiology of female sexual arousal? Current Sexual Health Reports,6, 30–37.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-013-0010-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kukkonen, T. M., Binik, Y. M., Amsel, R., & Carrier, S. (2007). Thermography as a physiological measure of sexual arousal in both men and women. Journal of Sexual Medicine,4, 93–105.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2006.00399.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  16. Morokoff, P. J. (1986). Volunteer bias in the psychophysiological study of female sexuality. Journal of Sex Research,22, 35–51.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498609551288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Plaud, J. J., Gaither, G. A., Hegstad, H. J., Rowan, L., & Devitt, M. K. (1999). Volunteer bias in human psychophysiological sexual arousal research: To whom do our research results apply? Journal of Sex Research,36, 171–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Prause, N., Cerny, J., & Janssen, E. (2005). The labial photoplethysmograph: A new instrument for assessing genital hemodynamic changes in women. Journal of Sexual Medicine,2, 58–65.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2005.20106.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Prause, N., & Heiman, J. R. (2009). Assessing female sexual arousal with the labial thermistor: Response specificity and construct validity. International Journal of Psychophysiology,72, 115–122.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2008.11.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Rosen, R., Brown, C., Heiman, J., Leiblum, S., Meston, C., Shabsigh, R., … D’Agostino, R. (2000). The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): A multidimensional self-report instrument for the assessment of female sexual function. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 26, 191–208.  https://doi.org/10.1080/009262300278597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rosen, R. C., Riley, A., Wagner, G., Osterloh, I. H., Kirkpatrick, J., & Mishra, A. (1997). The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF): A multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology, 49, 822–830.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00238-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Saunders, D. M., Fisher, W. A., Hewitt, E. C., & Clayton, J. P. (1985). A method for empirically assessing volunteer selection effects: Recruitment procedures and responses to erotica. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,49, 1703–1712.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.49.6.1703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Strassberg, D. S., & Lowe, K. (1995). Volunteer bias in sexuality research. Archives of Sexual Behavior,24, 369–382.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01541853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Toothaker, L. E. (1991). Multiple comparisons for researchers. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  25. Waxman, S. E., & Pukall, C. F. (2009). Laser Doppler imaging of genital blood flow: A direct measure of female sexual arousal. Journal of Sexual Medicine,6, 2278–2285.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01326.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Wolchik, S. A., Braver, S. L., & Jensen, K. (1985). Volunteer bias in erotica research: Effects of intrusiveness of measure and sexual background. Archives of Sexual Behavior,14, 93–107.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01541656.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Wolchik, S. A., Spencer, S. L., & Lisi, I. S. (1983). Volunteer bias in research employing vaginal measures of sexual arousal. Archives of Sexual Behavior,12, 399–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations