Use of the Bogus Pipeline Increases Sexual Concordance in Women But Not Men

Abstract

Sexual concordance—the agreement between physiological (genital) and psychological (emotional) sexual arousal—is, on average, substantially lower in women than men. Following social role theory, the gender difference in sexual concordance may manifest because women and men are responding in a way that accommodates gender norms. We examined genital and self-reported sexual arousal in 47 women and 50 men using a condition known to discourage conformity to gender norms (i.e., a bogus pipeline paradigm). Participants reported their feelings of sexual arousal during a sexually explicit film, while their genital arousal (penile circumference, vaginal vasocongestion), heart rate (HR), and galvanic skin (GS) responses were recorded. Half of the participants were instructed that their self-reported sexual arousal was being monitored for veracity using their HR and GS responses (bogus pipeline condition; BPC); the remaining participants were told that these responses were recorded for a comprehensive record of sexual response (typical testing condition; TTC). Using multi-level modeling, we found that only women’s sexual concordance was affected by testing condition; women in the BPC exhibited significantly higher sexual concordance than those in the TTC. Thus, we provide the first evidence that the gender difference in sexual concordance may at least partially result from social factors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    Given that the time scales for the individual items are different (e.g., the last month for masturbation frequency versus a lifetime for number of sexual partners), we also standardized the individual items into z-scores. The results are consistent when composite scores based on z-scores of the individual items are used.

References

  1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alexander, M. G., & Fisher, T. D. (2003). Truth and consequences: Using the bogus pipeline to examine sex differences in self-reported sexuality. Journal of Sex Research,40, 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490309552164.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ariely, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2005). The heat of the moment: The effect of sexual arousal on sexual decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,19, 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software,67, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bem, S. L. (1981). Bem Sex Role Inventory: Professional manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Braun, V., & Kitzinger, C. (2001). “Snatch”, “hole”, or honey-pot”? Semantic categories and the problem of nonspecificity in female genital slang. Journal of Sex Research,38, 146–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490109552082.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brotto, L. A., Chivers, M. L., Millman, R. D., & Albert, A. (2016). Mindfulness-based sex therapy improves genital-subjective arousal concordance in women with sexual desire/arousal difficulties. Archives of Sexual Behavior,45, 1907–1921. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0689-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chivers, M. L., Seto, M. C., Lalumière, M. L., Laan, E., & Grimbos, T. (2010). Agreement of self-reported and genital measures of sexual arousal among men and women: A meta-analysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior,39, 5–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-9556-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin,112, 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., Ziegler, A., & Valentine, B. A. (2011). Women, men, and the bedroom: Methodological and conceptual insights that narrow, reframe, and eliminate gender differences in sexuality. Current Directions in Psychological Science,20, 296–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411418467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Curtin, N., Ward, L. M., Merriwether, A., & Caruthers, A. (2011). Femininity ideology and sexual health in young women: A focus on sexual knowledge, agency, and embodiment. International Journal of Sexual Health,23, 48–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/19317611.2010.524694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Donnelly, K., & Twenge, J. M. (2017). Masculine and feminine traits on the Bem Sex-Role Inventory, 1993–2012: A cross-temporal meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 76(9-10), 556–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0625-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Edwards, L. J., Muller, K. E., Wolfinger, R. D., Qaqish, B. F., & Schabenberger, O. (2008). An R2 statistic for fixed effects in the linear mixed model. Statistics in Medicine,27, 6137–6157. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3429.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Emmerink, P. M. J., van den Eijnden, R. J. J. M., Vanwesenbeeck, I., & ter Bogt, T. F. M. (2016). The relationship between endorsement of the sexual double standard and sexual cognitions and emotions. Sex Roles,75, 363–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0616-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Fine, M. (1988). Sexuality schooling, and adolescent females: The missing discourse of desire. Harvard Educational Review,58, 29–54. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.58.1.u0468k1v2n2n8242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fine, M., & McClelland, S. (2006). Sexuality education and desire: Still missing after all these years. Harvard Educational Review,76, 297–338. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.76.3.w5042g23122n6703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Fisher, C., Gross, J., & Zuch, J. (1965). Cycle of penile erection synchronous with dreaming (REM) sleep. Archives of General Psychiatry,12, 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1965.01720310031005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Fisher, T. D. (2013). Gender roles and pressure to be truthful: The bogus pipeline modifies gender differences in sexual but not nonsexual behavior. Sex Roles,68, 401–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0266-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Fisher, T. D., Moore, Z. T., & Pittenger, M. (2012). Sex on the brain? An examination of frequency of sexual cognitions as a function of gender, erotophilia, and social desirability. Journal of Sex Research,29, 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2011.565429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gartrell, N., & Mosbacher, B. (1984). Sex differences in the naming of children’s genitalia. Sex Roles,10, 869–876. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00288510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gerritsen, J., Van Der Made, F., Bloemers, J., Van Ham, D., Kleiverda, G., Everaerd, W., … Tuiten, A. (2009). The clitoral photoplethysmograph: A new way of assessing genital arousal in women. Journal of Sexual Medicine,6, 1678–1687. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01228.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Good, J. J., & Sanchez, D. T. (2010). Doing gender for different reasons: Why gender conformity positively and negatively predicts self-esteem. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34, 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2010.01562.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hamburger, M. E., Hogben, M., McGowan, S., & Dawson, L. J. (1996). Assessing hypergender ideology: Development and initial validation of a gender-neutral measure of adherence to extreme gender-role beliefs. Journal of Research in Personality,30, 157–178. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1996.0011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hatch, J. P. (1979). Vaginal photoplethysmography: Methodological considerations. Archives of Sexual Behavior,8, 357–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01541879.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Heiman, J. R. (1977). A psychophysiological exploration of sexual arousal patterns in females and males. Psychophysiology,14, 266–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1977.tb01173.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Huberman, J. S., Dawson, S. J., & Chivers, M. L. (2017). Examining the time course of genital and subjective sexual responses in women and men with concurrent plethysmography and thermography. Biological Psychology,129, 359–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2017.09.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Huberman, J. S., Suschinsky, K. D., Lalumière, M. L., & Chivers, M. L. (2013). Relationship between impression management and three measures of women’s self-reported sexual arousal. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science,45, 259–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Jones, E. E., & Sigall, H. (1971). The bogus pipeline: A new paradigm for measuring affect and attitude. Psychological Bulletin,76, 349–364. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Katz-Wise, S. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2014). Sexuality and gender: The interplay. In D. L. Tolman & L. M. Diamond (Eds.), APA handbook of sexuality and psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 29–62). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: Saunders.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. H. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. Philadelphia: Saunders.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kukkonen, T. M., Binik, Y. M., Amsel, R., & Carrier, S. (2010). An evaluation of the validity of thermography as a physiological measure of sexual arousal in a non-university adult sample. Archives of Sexual Behavior,39, 861–873. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-9496-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Laan, E., Everaerd, W., & Evers, A. (1995). Assessment of female sexual arousal: Response specificity and construct validity. Psychophysiology,32, 476–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Laan, E., Everaerd, W., van der Velde, J., & Geer, J. H. (1995). Determinants of subjective experience of sexual arousal in women: Feedback from genital arousal and erotic stimulus content. Psychophysiology,32, 444–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Laan, E., & Janssen, E. (2007). How do men and women feel? Determinants of subjective experience of sexual arousal. In E. Janssen (Ed.), The psychophysiology of sex (pp. 278–290). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Maas, M. K., Shearer, C. L., Gillen, M. M., & Lefkowitz, E. S. (2015). Sex rules: Emerging adults’ perceptions of gender’s impact on sexuality. Sexuality and Culture,19, 617–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-015-9281-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Meston, C. M., & Buss, D. M. (2009). Why women have sex: Understanding sexual motivations from adventure to revenge (and everything in between). New York NY: Times Books.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Meston, C. M., & Gorzalka, B. B. (1995). The effects of sympathetic activation on physiological and subjective sexual arousal in women. Behaviour Research and Therapy,33, 651–664. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(95)00006-J.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Montemurro, B., Bartasavich, J., & Wintermute, L. (2015). Let’s (not) talk about sex: The gender of sexual discourse. Sexuality and Culture,19, 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-014-9250-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Ogletree, S. M., & Ginsburg, H. J. (2000). Kept under the hood: Neglect of the clitoris in common vernacular. Sex Roles,43, 917–926. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011093123517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Page-Gould, E. (2017). Multilevel modeling. In J. T. Cacioppo, L. G. Tassinary, & G. G. Berntson (Eds.), The handbook of psychophysiology (4th ed., pp. 662–678). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measurement of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17–59). New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Paulhus, D. L. (2002). Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In H. I. Braun, D. N. Jackson, & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 49–69). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Rellini, A. H., McCall, K. M., Randall, P. K., & Meston, C. M. (2005). The relationship between women’s subjective and physiological sexual arousal. Psychophysiology, 42, 116–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2005.00259.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Roese, N. J., & Jamieson, D. W. (1993). Twenty years of bogus pipeline research: A critical review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,114, 363–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.2.363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Rosen, R. C., & Beck, J. G. (1988). Patterns of sexual arousal: Psychophysiological processes and clinical applications. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Sanchez, D. T., & Crocker, J. (2005). How investment in gender ideals affects well-being: The role of external contingencies of self-worth. Psychology of Women Quarterly,29, 63–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00169.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Sanchez, D. T., Crocker, J., & Boike, K. R. (2005). Doing gender in the bedroom: Investing in gender norms and the sexual experience. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,31, 1445–1455. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205277333.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Sanchez, D. T., & Kiefer, A. K. (2007). Body concerns in and out of the bedroom: Implications for sexual pleasure and problems. Archives of Sexual Behavior,36, 808–820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-007-9205-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Sintchak, G., & Geer, J. H. (1975). A vaginal plethysmograph system. Psychophysiology,12, 113–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1975.tb03074.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Skakoon-Sparling, S., Cramer, K. M., & Shuper, P. A. (2016). The impact of sexual arousal on sexual risk-taking and decision-making in men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior,45, 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0589-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Steinman, D. L., Wincze, J. P., Sakheim, D. K., Barlow, D. H., & Mavissakalian, M. (1981). A comparison of male and female patterns of sexual arousal. Archives of Sexual Behavior,10, 529–547. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01541588.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Stöber, J., Dette, D. E., & Musch, J. (2002). Comparing continuous and dichotomous scoring of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Journal of Personality Assessment,78, 370–389. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA7802_10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Strang, E., & Peterson, Z. D. (2020). Use of a bogus pipeline to detect men’s underreporting of sexually aggressive behaviour. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,35, 208–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516681157.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Suschinsky, K. D., Dawson, S. J., & Chivers, M. L. (2017). Assessing the relationship between sexual concordance, sexual attractions, and sexual identity in women. Archives of Sexual Behavior,46, 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0874-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Suschinsky, K. D., & Lalumière, M. L. (2011a). Prepared for anything? An investigation of female genital arousal to rape cues. Psychological Science,22, 159–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610394660.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Suschinsky, K. D., & Lalumière, M. L. (2011b). Sexual arousal category-specificity and sexual concordance: The stability of sex differences in sexual arousal patterns. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality,20, 93–108.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Suschinsky, K. D., Lalumière, M. L., & Chivers, M. L. (2009). Sex differences in patterns of genital sexual arousal: Measurement artifacts or true phenomena? Archives of Sexual Behavior,38, 559–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-008-9339-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Tourangeau, R., Smith, T. W., & Rasinski, K. A. (1997). Motivation to report sensitive behaviors on surveys: Evidence from a bogus pipeline experiment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,27, 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb00629.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Wood, W., Christensen, N., Hebl, M. R., & Rothgerber, H. (1997). Conformity to sex-typed norms, affect, and the self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,73, 523–535. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.73.3.523.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding for the research described was provided by an Insight Development Award from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada awarded to M. L. Chivers. Additional support from post-doctoral fellowship awards was provided to K. D. Suschinsky from the Institute of Gender and Health (Canadian Institutes of Health Research) and L’Oreal Canada UNESCO for Women in Science. We would like to thank Lucas Hildebrand, Michelle McCowan, and Graham Hutchings for their assistance with data collection.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meredith L. Chivers.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

All experimental procedures were carried out following the ethical guidelines of the Canadian Tri-Council Policy Statement and were approved by the Health Sciences and Affiliated Hospitals Research Ethics Board at Queen’s University.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: Multi-level Model Specifications

Appendix: Multi-level Model Specifications

Model 1 and 2: Genital Response and Testing Condition Predicting CSR.

Level 1:

$$ y_{ij} \left( {\text{CSR}} \right) = \beta _{{0_{j} }} + \beta_{{1_{j} }} \left( {{\text{PPG}}\;or\;{\text{VPA}}} \right)_{{1_{ij} }} + e_{ij} $$

Level 2 random intercept model:

$$ \beta_{{0_{j} }} = \gamma_{00} + \gamma_{01} \left( {{\text{Testing}}\;{\text{Condition}}} \right)_{j} + u_{{0_{j} }} $$

Level 2 random slope model:

$$ \beta_{{1_{j} }} = \gamma_{10} + \gamma_{11} \left( {{\text{Testing}}\;{\text{Condition}}} \right)_{j} + u_{{1_{j} }} $$

Model 3 and 4: Genital Response, Gender Norm Conformity, and Testing Condition Predicting CSR.

Level 1:

$$ y_{ij} \left( {\text{CSR}} \right) = \beta_{{0_{j} }} + \beta_{{1_{j} }} \left( {{\text{PPG}}\;or\;{\text{VPA}}} \right)_{{1_{ij} }} + e_{ij} $$

Level 2 random intercept model:

$$ \begin{aligned} \beta_{{0_{j} }} & = \gamma_{00} + \gamma_{01} \left( {\text{Testing Condition}} \right)_{j} \\ & \quad + \gamma_{02} \left( {{\text{BEM}}\;{\text{Masculinity/Femininity }}or\;{\text{BEM}}\,{\text{Femininity}}} \right. \\ & \quad \left. {/{\text{Masculinity}}\;{\text{difference}}\,{\text{score}}} \right)_{j} + \gamma_{03} \left( {{\text{Testing}}\,{\text{Condition}}} \right)_{{1_{j} }} \\ & \quad *\left( {{\text{BEM}}\,{\text{Masculinity/Femininity }}or\;{\text{BEM}}\,{\text{Femininity}}} \right. \\ & \quad \left. {/{\text{Masculinity}}\;{\text{difference}}\,{\text{score}}} \right)_{j} + u_{{0_{j} }} \\ \end{aligned} $$

Level 2 random slope model:

$$ \begin{aligned} \beta_{{1_{j} }} & = \gamma_{10} + \gamma_{11} \left( {{\text{Testing}}\;{\text{Condition}}} \right)_{j} \\ & \quad + \gamma_{12} \left( {{\text{BEM}}\;{\text{Masculinity/Femininity }}or\;{\text{BEM}}\,{\text{Femininity}}} \right. \\ & \quad \left. {/{\text{Masculinity}}\;{\text{difference}}\,{\text{score}}} \right)_{j} + \gamma_{13} \left( {{\text{Testing}}\,{\text{Condition}}} \right)_{{1_{j} }} \\ & \quad *\left( {{\text{BEM}}\,{\text{Masculinity/Femininity }}or\;{\text{BEM}}\,{\text{Femininity}}} \right. \\ & \quad \left. {/{\text{Masculinity}}\;{\text{difference}}\,{\text{score}}} \right)_{{2_{j} }} + u_{{1_{j} }} \\ \end{aligned} $$

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Suschinsky, K.D., Fisher, T.D., Maunder, L. et al. Use of the Bogus Pipeline Increases Sexual Concordance in Women But Not Men. Arch Sex Behav 49, 1517–1532 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01737-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Sexual concordance
  • Gender differences
  • Sexual arousal
  • Bogus pipeline
  • Social role theory