Personality, Individual Differences, and Preferences ...

P1: FDO Archives of Sexual Behavior [asb]

PL186-228371

October 19, 2000

19:18

Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 30, No. 1, 2001

Personality, Individual Differences, and Preferences for the Sexual Media1 Anthony F. Bogaert, Ph.D.2

The extent to which personality and individual differences predict preferences for and choices of various forms of sexual media was examined. Personality (e.g., intelligence, aggression) and individual difference factors (e.g., prior sexual experience) were assessed in 160 undergraduate men. These men also indicated their preferences for and choices of various forms of sexual media (e.g., “erotic,” female insatiability, violent). As expected, individual differences were predictive, with, for example, men lower in intelligence and higher in aggressive/antisocial tendencies having a higher preference for violent sexual stimuli than men higher in intelligence and lower in aggressive/antisocial tendencies had. In addition, as much as 50% of the variation in the preference for violent sexual materials was accounted for by an additive combination of individual differences and self-report arousal to these materials. Finally, the results indicated that, when given a choice to view different media materials, the men chose a broad range of media materials, although the “female insatiability” films were more popular than the other sexual films (e.g., “erotic” or violent). Results are discussed in relation to recent research and psychological theories that view adults as active in choosing their own social environments. KEY WORDS: pornography; personality; erotica; insatiability; violence.

INTRODUCTION Increasingly, developmental, personality, and social psychologists (e.g., Buss, 1984; Plomin and Bergeman, 1991; Plomin et al., 1977; Scarr and McCartney, 1 This research was completed in partial fulfilment of the author’s Ph.D. requirements at the University

of Western Ontario. Portions of this manuscript were completed while the author was a postdoctoral fellow with the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto, Canada. 2 Community Health Sciences, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada L2S 3A1; e-mail: [email protected]. 29 C 2001 Plenum Publishing Corporation 0004-0002/01/0200-0029$19.50/0 °


PL186-228371

October 19, 2000

19:18

30


Bogaert

1983; Snyder and Ickes, 1985) are theorizing that individuals are active in choosing the situations or environments, including media environments, to which they are exposed. Although a vast array of environments is available, people will often be selective, choosing only those environments that are best suited to them and/or are congruent with their dispositions or personalities. This person/choice of environment association has recently been noted for sexuality as well (Money, 1986; Mosher, 1988). Mosher (1988), for example, argues that people will be selective in their sexual media viewing habits, directing their choices to material that is congruent with preexisting sexual scripts, fantasies, and dispositions. Thus, some people will never seek out sexual materials; others may have some inclination and seek out these materials only occasionally; and still others will be very inclined and will seek out these materials on a frequent basis. Also, some people will be more inclined than others to seek out or be interested in specific types of sexual media, including violent portrayals, or female sexual insatiability themes (i.e., sexually eager, nondiscriminating women), the latter of which have been reported to be prevalent in the sexual media (e.g., Brosius et al., 1993). In this study, these ideas are pursued further. Although there has been research on the relation between individual differences (e.g., personality dispositions) and an overall proclivity for the sexual media, there has been a relatively modest amount of work investigating individual difference correlates of interests in specific types of sexual media. This is the first purpose of the present study. In addition, previous sexual media preference research has typically investigated single or relatively few individual differences such as personality (Barnes et al., 1984a), fantasy (Malamuth and McIlwraith, 1988; McIlwraith and Josephson, 1985), positive sexual affect (Fisher et al., 1988), or prior exposure to the sexual media (e.g., Zillmann and Bryant, 1986). This work, though important in its own right, may well be limited because it fails to take a multivariate approach. A multivariate approach (e.g., principal components’ analysis, multiple regression analysis) assesses common content/variation among relevant individual difference predictors and the potential for additive, mediating, and/or interactive processes. Thus, a multivariate approach can provide a more complete, multidimensional account of sexual media preferences. This is the second purpose of the present study.

Individual Differences Theory and research suggests that a range of personality and individual difference variables may play a role in decisions regarding the viewing of sexual materials. The following discussion introduces these variables. First, antisocial tendencies may be relevant to the present investigation. Such constructs as aggressiveness and attraction to sexual aggression, which refer to a man’s belief system that sexual aggression is arousing for both the aggressor and the victim (Malamuth, 1989a,b), may relate to a preference for violent sexual


PL186-228371

Preferences for the Sexual Media

October 19, 2000

19:18


31

materials. Similarly, hypermasculine sex roles (e.g., Mosher and Sirkin, 1984), which consist of three violence-related components (i.e., calloused sexual attitudes, a conception of violence as manly, and a view of danger as exciting), and Eysenck’s third major personality type or psychoticism (e.g., Eysenck and Eysenck, 1976), also interpreted as antisocial personality (e.g., Claridge, 1983), may relate to preferences for violent sexual materials. All four of these constructs predict an interest in or experience with actual sexual violence. For example, aggressiveness has been related to prior and future sexual violence (e.g., Greendlinger and Byrne, 1987), whereas attraction to sexual aggression has been related to the endorsement of rape myths and elevated arousal to rape depictions in a laboratory (Malamuth, 1989a,b). Similarly, hypermasculine sex roles relate to less distaste for realistic portrayals of rape (Mosher and Anderson, 1986), and psychoticism relates to prior exposure to rape depictions (Barnes et al., 1984b). One explanation for why these antisocial tendencies (e.g., attraction to sexual aggression) may relate to an interest in these types of violent sex films is that these films serve as arousing and potentially pleasurable sexual stimuli. For example, some prior research suggests that people may choose to view sexual material because of its stimulation or arousal properties (Brown and Bryant, 1989; Winick, 1971). In addition, more aggressive/antisocial people, relative to less aggressive/antisocial people, may prefer violent sexual content because it is a more familiar and/or a more “cognitively accessible” theme (e.g., Huesmann, 1988). Aggressive/antisocial people (relative to those lower in these characteristics) may also experience these materials with less emotional disturbance (e.g., viewing them as less distasteful, as found by Mosher and Anderson, 1986), and, given that those higher in antisocial tendencies have more experience with violence, these aggressive materials may reinforce or validate their existing strategies of interpersonal relations. Finally, aggressive/antisocial people may be more likely than nonaggressive/antisocial people to choose antisocial or unconventional sexual materials because they may be more likely to be assertive about satisfying unconventional interests and curiosities. Second, dominance motives and related constructs, such as Machiavellianism, which is the tendency to use manipulation, power, and opportunism to achieve personal goals (Christie and Geis, 1970), may also relate to interest in violent sexual themes, in part because domineering and controlling behavior may be important motives in the appreciation of aggressive sexual acts against women and children (e.g., Burgess, 1984; Groth, 1979; Malamuth, 1986). Thus, those high in dominance motives may wish to view power or dominance motives being satisfied because these themes are familiar and/or cognitively accessible, viewed as acceptable and less distasteful, and reinforce existing (or at least desired) strategies of interpersonal relations. Some existing research supports an association between such constructs and exposure to violent films. For example, Tamborini et al. (1987) assessed Machiavellianism, along with masculinity and sensation seeking, and found that all three constructs were positively correlated with preference for graphic


32

PL186-228371

October 19, 2000

19:18


Bogaert

interpersonal violence in mainstream (nonsexual) films and, in combination with prior viewing habits, yielded a Multiple R of .51 in predicting preference for media violence. Such dimensions may also relate to preference for themes of female sexual insatiability, which also have been argued to satisfy dominance, control, and power motives (e.g., Cowen et al., 1988; Matacin and Burger, 1987). Dominance or related motives may be satisfied with these themes because females are portrayed as eager to succumb to, service, and satisfy the sexual interests of males. In addition to aggression/antisocial tendencies and dominance motives, those constructs related to sexual variety/novelty and experience are relevant to the present investigation. In particular, erotophilia/erotophobia or positive-to-negative sexual affect (Fisher et al., 1988), sensation seeking, the need for novel stimulation and arousal (Zuckerman, 1979), previous sexual experience, and previous pornography exposure may relate to general interest in the sexual media but also to more novel forms of it. One cognitive explanation for why these associations could occur is that high prior experience with a given behavior (e.g., prior exposure to the sexual media) provides an individual with highly “accessible” internal cues to the acceptability, normativeness, and rewards of that behavior. In addition, scoring higher on these types of variables should make viewing sexual materials a more positive emotional (e.g., erotophilia) or a more exciting and arousing (e.g., sensation seeking) experience. Some prior research does support the idea that these individual difference variables relate to sexual media preferences. For example, Becker and Byrne (1985) found that erotophiles, relative to erotophobes, are more likely to watch sexually explicit films and to have fewer errors of recall about these materials, and Zuckerman and Litle (1986) found that sensation seeking predicted prior attendance to sexually explicit films, including more novel sexual media forms. In addition, prior exposure to sexual materials relates to an interest in the general sexual media and the portrayal of more novel sexual activities (Kelley and Musialowski, 1986; Reifler et al., 1971; Tamborini et al., 1987; Zillmann and Bryant, 1986). Interestingly, however, some research suggests that men with a high level of sexual experience may view some forms of sexual material (e.g., aggressive) more realistically and hence more critically, perhaps because of having appropriate sexual comparisons (Malamuth and Check, 1983). Given these findings, men high in sexual experience may have a high interest in sexual materials generally, but may have a low interest in more extreme antisocial content within these media (e.g., sexual violence). Finally, intelligence may play a role in sexual media viewing habits. To the present author’s knowledge, no research has addressed directly whether this variable predicts media content preferences. However, given the association between lower intelligence and antisocial behavior (e.g., Giancola and Zeichner, 1994; Huesmann et al., 1987), individuals lower in IQ may prefer more aggressive media portrayals, including aggressive sexual materials, in part because they are more


PL186-228371

October 19, 2000

19:18



33

familiar and hence more cognitively accessible themes, and because they reinforce preexisting or recognized strategies of coping. They may also be more likely than individuals higher in intelligence to prefer aggressive material, including sexually aggressive material, perhaps because the portrayal of antisocial acts may be viewed less critically (e.g., Burnett, 1991; Jacobvitz et al., 1991). Summary and Objectives In the present investigation, 11 personality and individual difference variables (aggression, attraction to sexual aggression, dominance, erotophilia, hypermasculine sex roles, intelligence, machiavellianism, psychoticism, previous sexual media exposure, sensation seeking, and sexual experience) were used to predict preferences for content in the sexual media. However, given that many of these variables likely share variance, they were first subjected to principal components’ analysis to extract common factors. Then, multivariate analyses (e.g., multiple regression) were used to investigate the extent to which the resulting individual difference factors, alone and in combination, predict preference for and choice of different sexual media materials. In addition, the present study attempted to provide some insight into the consumption rates of various content (e.g., violent, female sexual insatiability themes) in sexually explicit materials. Current content analyses suggest that overt aggression (e.g., rape) is not prevalent whereas other themes such as female sexual insatiability are more common (e.g., Brosius et al., 1993). The present study tested whether similar consumption patterns occur within a laboratory setting. Consumption information (from field and lab studies) provides an ecological context to evaluate the impact of specific types of sexual media materials on society. Thus, if female sexual insatiability themes increase negative attitudes toward women (e.g., Zillmann and Bryant, 1989) and sexual violence can increase aggression (e.g., Donnerstein and Berkowitz, 1981), then consumption studies are necessary to establish whether these content elements are popular enough to have widespread societal effects. METHOD Participants University of Western Ontario undergraduates (160 males) with a mean age of 19.2 years were tested in groups of 5–15. These undergraduates received 2 credits toward their introductory psychology requirements for participating in this research. Men were tested because they are the primary consumers of explicit sexual materials. Some investigators report that men consume at least three times the amount of explicit sexual materials as compared to women (Shepher and Reisman,


PL186-228371

October 19, 2000

19:18

34


Bogaert

1985). In addition, if sexual materials contribute to men’s antisocial behaviors toward women, as some have argued (e.g., Zillmann and Bryant, 1989), then men should be the primary participants of sexual media studies that investigate or have implications for antisocial effects. Personality Measures To measure aggression and dominance, the 16-item true/false Aggression (e.g., “When I’m irritated I let it be known”) and Dominance (e.g., “I try to control others, rather than permit them to control me”) scales from the Personality Research Form were employed (PRF; Jackson, 1984a). In the present study, internal consistency levels (i.e., alpha coefficients) for these scales were .69–.77, respectively. To measure attraction to sexual aggression, six 11-point items comprising the short form of the Attraction to Sexual Aggression scale (Malamuth, 1989a) were employed. This scale contains items such as, “If you could be assured that no one would know and that you could in no way be punished, how likely are you to engage in rape?” The alpha coefficient for this scale in the present study was .80. To measure sexual affect or erotophilia/erotophobia, the twenty-one-item 7-point scale, The Sexual Opinion Survey (e.g., “Masturbation can be an exciting experience”), was used (Fisher et al., 1988). In the present study, the alpha coefficient for this scale was .76. To measure Machiavellianism, the twenty-item 7-point Mach IV scale (e.g. “Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so”) was used (Christie and Geis, 1970). In the present study, the alpha coefficient for this scale was .76. To assess hypermasculinity, the 30-item forced choice scale, The Hypermasculinity Inventory (e.g., “All is fair in love and war”) was used (Mosher and Sirkin, 1984). The internal consistency value for this scale in the present study was .82. The 24-item true/false Psychoticism (“Do you sometimes like to tease small animals?”) scale was also employed (EPQ; Eysenck and Eysenck, 1975). Originally reported alpha coefficients for this scale were relatively high, although recent studies have observed lower levels (e.g., .49; Malamuth, 1986). In the present study, the alpha coefficient for this scale was .52. To assess sensation seeking, the 40-item forced choice Sensation Seeking Scale (e.g., “I like wild uninhibited parties”) was used (Zuckerman, 1979). In the present study, the alpha coefficient for this scale was .76. Finally, to measure intelligence, four subscales, Spatial (50 items), Digit Symbol (35 items), Similarities (34 items), and Comprehension (28 items), comprising the short-form of the Multidimensional Aptitude Battery (MAB; Hill and Jackson, 1984; Jackson, 1984b) were included. The MAB is a timed, multiple choice, group-administered IQ test that is similar to the well-known WAIS-R. In the present study, internal consistency levels for these four scales were .86 and above. Although usually allotted 7 min, participants were restricted to 5 min per subscale because of time constraints. This time-saving


PL186-228371

October 19, 2000

19:18



35

procedure should have little bearing on the rank ordering of individuals in intelligence (see Jackson, 1984b, pp. 42, 43).3 Sexual Experience Prior (12 items) and current (12 items) sexual experience scales were also constructed (e.g., “Have you ever engaged in oral stimulation of a female’s genitals?” and “In the past two months, have you engaged in oral stimulation of a female’s genitals?,” respectively). Internal consistency values for these scales were .88 and .92, respectively. In addition, number of sexual partners in the participant’s lifetime was assessed and converted to a standard score and then added to the standardized sum of the prior sexual experience scale to form an aggregate measure of past sexual experience. Finally, prior exposure to sexual materials (14 items) in the past year was assessed (e.g., “How often have you seen films or videotapes showing explicit portrayals of sexual intercourse?”). In the present study, the alpha coefficient for this scale was .87. Additional Measure: Social Desirability The 16-item true/false Social Desirability scale (e.g., “I am always prepared to do what is expected of me”) was also used (PRF; Jackson, 1984a). In the present study, the internal consistency value for this scale was .64. This scale assesses the inclination to respond to questionnaires in a socially favorable manner. Given that some of the media material presented may be construed as socially undesirable, this measure was included as a possible control. In addition, this scale was included because, as Jackson (1984a) has pointed out, social desirability deserves some consideration as a valid personality measure of high socialization and social conformity. As such, this construct should relate negatively to preference for unconventional and/or antisocial sexual materials (e.g., sexually violent portrayals). Media Stimuli A review of available content analyses research of sexual materials indicates that a number of themes (e.g., female as sexually insatiable, violence) occur with varying degrees of frequency (e.g., Brosius et al., 1993). To establish an array of sexual media materials for participants’ choices that reflects this diversity, a pool of “promotional” descriptions of fictional films was produced. The primary emphasis 3 Self-report

delinquency and altruism were also assessed in this study, but they had very limited predictability. In addition, prior sexual aggression was assessed in this study, but it had little variation. Thus, these measures are not reported here (but see Bogaert, 1993).


PL186-228371

October 19, 2000

19:18


36

Bogaert

here was on ecological validity, where different sexual promotional descriptions were patterned after existing promotional materials in the sexual video market (e.g., Videolog, 1991). Two descriptions for each of the five sexual content themes were included: sexually violent; insatiable or sexually eager, nondiscriminating female; erotic or affectionate relationships; child sexuality; and sexual novelty (e.g., bestiality). In addition, two nonsexual control themes were included: violent nonsexual and nonviolent nonsexual media. The promotional descriptions used in the present study are shown in Table I.4 Dependent Measures and Manipulation Checks Participants rated their likelihood of viewing each of the 14 films under four different circumstances. These four viewing circumstances assessed different levels of effort and anonymity/confidentiality involved with viewing, important considerations for potentially socially undesirable materials. In addition, a composite or aggregate of four measures (as opposed to a single measure) increases reliability of measurement (e.g., Epstein, 1979). These likelihood-to-view measures were as follows: (1) renting each on video; (2) seeing each in a movie theatre; (3) ordering each through mail order; and (4) watching each if it happened to appear on late-night television. These ratings were on 7-point scales, where “1” indicated no likelihood of viewing and “7” indicated a high likelihood of viewing. In addition to these likelihood-to-view measures, from detailed descriptions of each film, participants could select two films to view in a supposed future testing session. After making the film selections and these likelihood-to-view ratings, participants used 7-point scales to assess the promotional descriptions for the content manipulations, including explicitness, sexual arousal, violence, affection, female’s eagerness to please men sexually (i.e., female sexual insatiability), novelty, and child sexualization.5 Procedure Volunteer bias (e.g., self-selection) has been reported in sexual research (e.g., Saunders et al., 1985). To reduce the possibility of such bias, participants were not recruited for an overtly sexual study. The present investigation was advertised merely as a “personality” study and as an opportunity to pretest films for future 4 Initially,

the descriptions were rated on various dimensions (e.g., violence, novelty) by a pretest sample of 39 male and female undergraduates. The descriptions differed in predictable ways, with, for example, the sexually violent films being the most violent of the sexual films (see Bogaert, 1993). The bestiality film was taken from Zillmann and Bryant (1986). 5 One procedural note: The students first read a list of all the film descriptions so that they could make their pretest choice. After this, they made their self-report ratings, following a presentation of each film description.


PL186-228371

October 19, 2000

19:18



37

Table I. Promotional Descriptions by Content Erotic sex Passionate Embrace. XXX. After a month-long separation Wendy and Tom return to one another’s arms for a night of mutual pleasure. The heat and sexual intensity of their passion sets the screen on fire! Explicit sexual behavior. Night Moves. XXX. Jim and Mary have been together for years and they know how to light one another’s sexual fires. See them come to life with passion and hot sexual desire! Explicit sexual behavior. Insatiable sex Lusty Woman. XXX. This woman craves sex! On the job, at home, or anywhere, the lusty action never stops, thanks to the hottest and most willing honey ever! Explicit sexual behavior. Working Girl. XXX. Anytime, anywhere with anyone—that’s her motto! This hot and horny working girl does everything for everybody! Explicit sexual behavior. Violent sex She Wanted It All Along. XXX. Ted manhandles sexy Alice until her pain turns to sexual pleasure. See her get spanked, beaten and mistreated, all in the name of love! Explicit sexual behavior. Spare the Rod and Spoil the Fun. XXX. Bill is on his way to the top, but one thing stands in his way—sweet and sexy Suzy. Her show of resistance is pretty convincing, but that’s nothing that an iron hand and a good stiff beating can’t cure. Soon she’s hot, horny, and begging for more! Explicit sexual behavior. Child sex On My Lap. XXX. Little Sally is the tender and sweet age of seven, but she knows just what to do to turn on her man! It all starts by sitting “on his lap.” Explicit sexual behavior. The Younger the Better. XXX. She’s only eight and still in grade school, but she is well-schooled in the ways of sex! See this little dynamo do her stuff! Explicit sexual behavior. Novel sex Strange Fantasies From the Far East. XXX. You won’t see this anywhere else guys! Fresh from Japan, this stuff is new, weird, and hot! Explicit sexual behavior. Beauties and the Beasties XXX. Get ready for the strange and bizarre! Karen finds ecstasy with a well-endowed specimen of “man’s best friend” whereas Bob finds counting sheep is not nearly as much fun as doing other things to them. Explicit sexual behavior. Violent control Hockey Fight Outtakes. Twenty minutes of the year’s best brawls. Watch the blood and teeth fly! Not rated. World of Boxing. Mohammed Ali, Mike Tyson, Sugar Ray Leonard, and others do some serious head-bashing. Not rated. Control The MTV Awards. The top 10 videos of the last 5 years are presented, including releases from U2, Peter Gabriel, New Kids on the Block, Tracy Chapman, and more. Not rated. Best of “Saturday Night Live.” Eddie Murphy, John Belushi, Bill Murray, and others are highlighted from the classic late night comedy show! Not rated.

research (i.e., “Personality and Pretesting Film Study”). Once they arrived, however, participants were told that the study contained sexual content, and that, along with needing undergraduates to pretest films, the experimenter was interested in “personality and sexual behavior.” The personality questionnaires were administered in the first hour, and the sexual questionnaires, along with ratings of the film descriptions and a question assessing whether the participant was interested in the “future” pretesting session,


PL186-228371

October 19, 2000

19:18


38

Bogaert

were administered in the second hour. The 14 promotional descriptions were presented to the participants in alphabetical order by title, so that they appeared to be in a “natural” order, as they might be found by browsing through a promotional catalogue or at a video store. Participants were informed that the promotions described real films to be used in future psychological research, but at the present time needed to be assessed for popularity and content, and then anonymously and confidentially pretested (e.g., to assess video quality, believability of the actors, etc.), for which they would receive additional credit. Those who chose to participate in the additional session were asked to indicate which two films they would most like to pretest. Those choosing not to pretest were asked to state why they did not want to participate, and to indicate two films they would have pretested if they had chosen to continue. To enhance the believability of the pretest session, a calender with various times, dates, and locations for pretesting was included. Participants were told that these times and dates could not be changed, so they should plan to arrive promptly to the pretesting session. As an additional procedure to enhance believability, participants were told that they needed to select two films from the array (instead of one) because the experimenter may not be able to schedule their first choice. When the participants finished the questionnaire, they were probed for their awareness of the true purpose of the study (e.g., whether they believed the future pretesting session was real). Finally, participants were given an extensive verbal and written debriefing and thanked for their participation. RESULTS Correlations among the personality and individual differences were consistent with expectations and prior research, with, for example, antisocial and aggression scales being related. Note as well that some of the scales were related to social desirability, particularly Machiavellianism, attraction to sexual aggression, psychoticism, dominance, and prior sexual experience (see Table II).6 Manipulations of Film Description Content Single factor repeated-measure ANOVAs with Scheffe post hoc contrasts, tested for film description differences on the content manipulations. As shown in Table III, the sexual films were rated as the most explicit, the erotic sex films as the most affectionate, the violent sex films and violent nonsexual films as the most violent, the female insatiable sex films (e.g., Lusty Woman) as most likely to have female characters that were the most eager to have sex with many men 6 The

correlations among the individual difference measures in this study have, in part, been reported elsewhere (see Bogaert, 1993, 1996).

—

.34∗∗∗ −.01

.20∗ — −.06 —

.01 .01

4

.19∗ −.03 —

.53∗∗∗ .18∗

5

.05 .12 .39∗∗∗ —

.21∗ .31∗∗∗

6

.17∗ −.07 .22∗∗ .14 —

.17∗ .14

7

−.15 .03 .42∗∗∗ .33∗∗∗ .16∗ —

.28∗∗ .29∗∗∗

8

.07 .13 .46∗∗∗ .18∗ .00 .32∗∗∗ —

.21∗ .07

9

.19∗ .08 .20∗ −.07 .04 .03 .17∗ —

.25∗∗ −.20∗

10

.16∗ −.02 .17∗ .01 .09 .04 .30∗∗∗ .37∗∗∗ —

.10 −.18∗

11

.03 .13 .12 .10 .34∗∗∗ .14 .28∗∗ .01 .12 —

.06 .12

12

.23∗∗ .09 −.11 −.39∗∗∗ −.13 −.35∗∗∗ .02 .24∗∗ .11 −.14 —

−.05 −.48∗∗∗

13

October 19, 2000 19:18

< .05; ∗∗ p < .01; ∗∗∗ p < .001.

—

1 Aggression 2 Attraction to sexual aggression 3 Dominance 4 Intelligence 5 Hypermasculinity 6 Machiavellianism 7 Prior sexual media exposure 8 Psychoticism 9 Sensation seeking 10 Sexual experience (prior) 11 Sexual experience (current) 12 Erotophilia 13 Social desirability

3

Table II. Correlations Among Individual Difference Variables 2

PL186-228371

∗p

1

Archives of Sexual Behavior [asb]

Predictor

P1: FDO Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Preferences for the Sexual Media 39


PL186-228371

October 19, 2000

19:18


40

Bogaert Table III. Mean Ratings of Film Descriptions and Likelihood-to-View Measures Aggregated Across Content Film content

Content manipulations Explicit Affection Violence Female promiscuity Child sexualized Novelty Arousal Viewing likelihood Video rental Movie viewing Mail order Night TV Combined self-report

Erotic sex

Insatiable sex

Violent sex

Child sex

Novel sex

Violent nonsexual

Control

6.5c 5.0d 1.8a 3.4bc 1.2a 3.4b 5.6d

6.7c 2.8c 2.3b 6.2d 1.2ab 4.1c 5.6d

6.7c 1.8b 6.1e 3.2b 1.2ab 5.6d 4.1c

6.7c 1.7b 4.2d 3.7bc 6.5c 6.3e 3.0b

6.7c 2.1b 3.4c 4.0c 1.4b 6.0de 4.0c

1.4b 1.1a 6.4e 1.3a 1.1a 2.8a 1.0a

1.0a 2.1b 1.5a 1.5a 1.1a 2.7a 1.1a

2.9c 1.6b 1.6b 5.4c 2.9c

3.1c 1.6b 1.7b 5.6c 3.0c

2.2b 1.3ab 1.4ab 4.3b 2.3b

1.6a 1.1a 1.2a 3.1a 1.8a

2.3b 1.4ab 1.4ab 4.7b 2.5b

4.1d 2.4c 2.4c 5.6c 3.6d

4.4d 3.0d 2.3c 5.7c 3.8d

Note. The contrasts occur across film content categories, such that, for example, explicitness scores are compared for the erotic sex films versus the insatiable sex films versus the violent sex films, etc. Means with different superscripts differ at the .05 level, using Scheffe’s test for multiple contrasts. Ratings are on 7-point scales, where 1 is low and 7 is high.

(i.e., nondiscriminant sexual behavior), and the child sex films as most likely to have a “child sexualized.” The violent, child, and novel sex films were generally rated as the most novel of all the films. The erotic and insatiable sex films were equal in arousal and found to be the most arousing of all the films. The sexually violent films and the novel sex films were found to be intermediate in terms of arousal, and the child sex films were the least arousing of the sexual films, but were rated as more arousing than the nonsexual films were. Overall, the promotional descriptions seemed to tap adequately a range of different sexual and nonsexual content from which the participants could make selections and indicate preference.7 Film Preferences As mentioned, the participants were asked whether they would be interested in participating in a future film “pretesting” session. Six men reported suspicion 7 Some

readers may note that some confounding of content occurred. For example, the child sexualization films were rated as more violent than the female insatiability, the novel sex, or the erotic films (although not quite as high as the sexually violent films) were. This is understandable and was considered acceptable because child sexualization, like rape in the sexually violent films, implies coercion; thus, a greater degree of discrimination between the child sexualization and the sexually violent films in level of violence would have lacked ecological validity.


PL186-228371


October 19, 2000

19:18


41

about the pretesting session (i.e., thought it would not occur) on questions that were designed to assess whether the participants surmised the hypothesis of the study and were eliminated from further analyses. Of the remaining 154 men, 51% chose not to participate in the pretesting session. A lack of interest in the pretesting session partly reflected the fact that participants were tested between November and March, and some would have had fulfilled their introductory course requirements after completing the present study. Indeed, 78% of the “nonpretesting” participants indicated that they did not participate because they did not have the time or because they already had enough credits; 18% indicated that they did not participate because they were not interested in any of the films. As mentioned, all the men were asked to indicate which 2 of the 14 films they would most like to watch (even if they chose not to participate in the future “pretesting” session). Figure 1 presents the percentage of choices made by these participants (i.e., including those who chose not to participate in the future “pretesting” session). In order, they are as follows: female insatiability films (i.e., 26.8%); control (e.g., Best of Saturday Night Live) films (21.3%); violent control films (18.9%); novel sex films (12.2%); erotic films (9.8%); child sex films

Fig. 1. Pretest film choices. “Insatiable” refers to female sexual insatiability films (e.g., “Working Girl”); “Control” refers to nonviolent control films (e.g., “Best of Saturday Night Live”); “Violent” refers to violent nonsexual control films (e.g., “Hockey Fight Outtakes”); “Novel” refers to novel activity sex films (e.g., “Strange Fantasies from the Far East”); “Erotic” refers to affectionate, mutually consenting sex films (e.g., “Passionate Embrace”); “Child” refers to child sex films (e.g., “On My Lap”); and “Violent Sex” refers to violent sex films (e.g., “She Wanted It All Along”).


42

PL186-228371

October 19, 2000

19:18


Bogaert

(5.9%); and violent sex films (5.6%). Given that there were seven film categories, one might propose that, all else being equal, each film category has approximately a 1 in 7 (or 14.3%) chance of being chosen at random (i.e., its “expected” value). Thus, to give some indication of the relative popularity of each film category, I tested whether its observed value (i.e., % of choices) significantly exceeded or was significantly lower than its expected value, using the z approximation to the binomial test. The insatiable sex films and both control film categories significantly ( p < .05) exceeded their expected values, whereas the erotic, child, and violent sex films were significantly lower than their “expected” values. In addition, I tested whether the percentage of sexual films chosen (i.e., all five sexual categories) differed from its expected or chance value (i.e., 5 of 7 film categories or 71.4%). It was significantly lower (60%) than its expected value.8 I also tested whether the percentage of choices for each film category differed from the other (and not just from their “expected” value). The insatiable sex film choices were chosen significantly ( p < .05) more frequently than all the other film category choices were; the two control film categories were not significantly different from one another but were chosen more frequently than the remainder of the film categories were; and the novel and erotic sex films did not significantly differ from one another but were chosen significantly more frequently than the sexually violent and child sex films were, which did not significantly differ from each other. I also analysed these data, based on whether the men had actually chosen to pretest a film. The “pretesting” participants showed the following pattern: insatiable sex = 31.3%; control = 16.0%; violent control = 13.3%; novel sex = 13.3%; erotic = 12.6%; sexually violent = 8.0%; child sex = 5.3%, with the insatiable sex category significantly exceeding its expected value and the sexually violent and child sex films significantly lower than their expected values. The percentage of sexual films chosen (70.7%) did not significantly differ from its expected value (71.4%). I also tested whether the percentage of choices for each film category differed from one another (and not just from their “expected” value). Again, the insatiable sex film choices were chosen significantly ( p < .05) more frequently than all the other film category choices were; the two control film categories, the erotic sex film category, and the novel sex film were not significantly different from one another but were chosen more frequently than the sexually violent and child sex film categories were, which did not significantly differ from one another. 8 It

is of note that selecting only those who showed some interest/willingness to view the films, that is, those signing up for a pretest and those saying they did not participate because they did not have time or already had enough credits, showed very similar results (insatiable sex = 27.9%; control = 18.9%; violent control = 18.5%; novel sex = 12.9%; erotic sex = 9.4%; child sex = 6.7%; violent sex = 5.5%). The insatiable and the nonviolent control films significantly ( p < .05) exceeded their expected values, and the erotic, child and violent sex films were significantly ( p < .05) lower than their expected values. In addition, the percentage of sexual films chosen (i.e., all four sexual categories) was significantly lower (63%) than its expected or chance value (i.e., 5 of 7 film categories or 71.4%).


PL186-228371

October 19, 2000

19:18



43

Film choices for the “nonpretesting” participants showed a somewhat different pattern, with the control films, the violent control films, and the insatiable sex films (27.2%, 24.3%, 23.5%, respectively) significantly exceeding their expected values, the novel sex films having an observed value (11%) not differing from its expected value, and the child sex films (6.6%), the erotic sex films (4.4%), and the sexually violent films (2.9%) having observed values less than their expected values. The percentage of sexual films chosen (48.1%) was significantly lower than its expected value (71.4%). I also tested whether the percentage of choices for each film category differed from the other (and not just from their “expected” value). The two control film categories and the insatiable sex film category did not differ but were significantly chosen more frequently than the other film categories were; the novel sex films did not differ from the child sex films, but the novel sex film category was chosen more frequently than the erotic and the sexual violence categories were; the child, the erotic, and sexual violence film categories did not significantly differ from one another. Within each film category (i.e., erotic, insatiable, control, etc.), the four likelihood-to-view measures (i.e., on video, in a theatre, etc.) were moderately related, with the mean correlation between these self-report likelihood ratings having a value of .41 and a mean alpha of .84 (see also Bogaert, 1993). These likelihood ratings for each film category (i.e., four likelihood ratings for each of the two films) were summed. Each participant, then, had seven aggregate self-report likelihood-to-view measures, one for each of the seven categories of films. On these aggregate self-report likelihood-to-view measures, the control films (i.e., the violent control and nonviolent control) were the most popular; the insatiable and erotic sex films, the second most popular; the novel sex and violent sex films, the third most popular; and finally, the child sex films, the least popular (see Table III). However, note that the extreme antisocial sexual films (e.g., violent sex and child sex films), even though they were less popular than the other films, had a modestly high propensity to be viewed under certain conditions, such as “if it happened to appear on late-night television.”

Principal Components’ Analysis of Individual Differences To reduce the number of individual difference predictors and extract more common factors, a principal components’ analysis with varimax rotation was performed. Five components with eigenvalues greater than 1 emerged. The loadings are shown in Table IV and are defined by (1) antisocial tendencies/low desirability, (2) dominance/aggression motives, (3) sexual experience, (4) interest in sexual variation, and (5) intelligence. Participants’ factor scores on each of the five components served as individual difference measures.


PL186-228371

October 19, 2000

19:18


44

Bogaert Table IV. Factor Structure of Individual Differences with Varimax Rotation Factor I II III IV (Antisocial/low (Dominance/ (Sexual (Sexual V desirability) aggression motives) experience) variation) (Intelligence)

Aggression Attraction to sexual aggression Dominance Intelligence Hypermasculinity Machiavellianism Pornography experience Psychoticism Sensation seeking Sex experience (past) Sex experience (current) Erotophilia Social desirability Eigenvalue Variance (%)

.345 .655

.742 .155

.147 −.319

−.069 .138

.046 −.011

−.232 .025 .526 .628 .139

.761 .019 .496 .144 .337

.075 −.068 .398 −.006 −.042

.222 .029 .023 .145 .701

−.005 .915 .033 .242 −.260

.745 .388 −.120 −.107

−.018 .062 .315 .025

.267 .609 .571 .763

−.065 .104 −.134 .166

.004 .242 −.037 −.164

.139 −.715

−.097 .257

.148 .178

.818 −.205

.250 .178

3.0 23.3

2.0 15.4

1.2 9.4

1.1 8.6

1.1 8.4

Individual Differences and Viewing Preferences As mentioned, the four likelihood-to-view measures (i.e., renting each on video; watching each in a movie theatre; ordering each through mail order; and watching each if it happened to appear on late-night television) for each film category were summed. These aggregate likelihood-to-view measures served as the primary preference criteria. In addition, whether the participant chose to view a sexual film in the putative “future” testing session was used to form a second preference criterion. Recall that all the men were asked to indicate which 2 of the 14 films they would most like to watch (even if they chose not to participate in the future “pretesting” session). For this measure, a score of 2 indicated that the participant had chosen two sexual films to pretest, “1” indicated that he had chosen one sexual film to pretest, and “0” indicated that he had not chosen any sexual film to pretest. This choice variable tested whether the individual differences could discriminate between the actual choice of a sexual film (e.g., erotic, insatiable, violent) and the choice of a nonsexual film (i.e., two control film categories). To maximize the number of cases, both the pretesting and nonpretesting participants (i.e., those not interested in the additional testing session) were included. Multiple regression analyses were conducted by “force entering” each individual difference component (Cohen and Cohen, 1983). Summary statistics for these analyses are shown in Table V. Note that the beta weights in these analyses

.127∗∗∗

.357

∗p

< .05; ∗∗ p < 01; ∗∗∗ p < .001.

.494∗∗∗ .244

−.242

−.110

.058∗∗ .470∗∗∗ .221

.348

−.018

.108

.050∗∗

unique variance contribution of predictor.

.019

.192∗∗∗ .224

.001

−.031

.000

.038∗

.195

.052∗∗

.282

Betaa

b

.012

.121∗∗∗

.000

.012

.079∗∗∗

rs2

.462∗∗∗ .214

−.068

.219

−.019

.258

.306

Betaa

b

.005

.048∗∗

.000

.066∗∗∗

.148∗∗∗

rs2

Child sex

.484∗∗∗ .235

−.080

.316

.091

.315

.148

Betaa

b

.007

.100∗∗∗

.008

.099∗∗∗

.022

rs2

Sexual film

19:18

a Standardized regression coefficient. b Squared semipartial correlation indicating

.535∗∗∗ .286

−.138

b

.096∗∗∗

rs2

Novel sex

October 19, 2000

.416∗∗∗ .194

.021

.438

.000

.011

.228

Betaa .309

b

Film type

.021

rs2

Violent sex

PL186-228371

−.143

.012

.003

.108

.143

.012

.109

Betaa

Factor I: antisocial/low desirability Factor II: dominance/ aggression Factor III: sexual experience Factor IV: variation Factor V: intelligence Multiple R R2

b

Betaa

Predictor

rs2

Insatiable sex


Erotic sex

Table V. Summary Statistics for Multiple Regression Analyses on Sexual Film Preferences




46

PL186-228371

October 19, 2000

19:18


Bogaert

are similar to zero-order correlations because the principal components with varimax rotation are uncorrelated.9 In general, the individual difference components were predictive. For example, for the sexually insatiable films, a Multiple R of .53 occurred, and two components, sexual variation and dominance/aggression motives, contributed uniquely to prediction (both ps < .01). In addition, note that for the sexually violent films, a Multiple R of .49 occurred, and 4 of the 5 individual difference components, that is, antisocial tendencies/low desirability, sexual variation, intelligence (negatively), and dominance/aggression motives, contributed uniquely to prediction (all ps < .05). Note as well that the analysis for the “sexual” choice measure yielded a Multiple R of .48 and had two components, sexual variation and dominance/aggression motives, that contributed uniquely to prediction (both ps < .01). However, a notable exception to these significant results was the sexual experience factor, which was unrelated to any of the film categories. (In addition, the nonsexual control films were unrelated to any of the individual difference factors and are not mentioned further.)10 Multiple regression analyses were also performed with the participant’s selfreport arousal rating for each particular sexual film category (see manipulation checks). These analyses were performed for two reasons. First, they indicated whether the participants’ self-report arousal to each film category contributes to prediction. As mentioned, some research suggests that people choose to view sexual material because of its stimulation or arousal properties (Brown and Bryant, 1989; Winick, 1971). Second, these analyses indicated whether the individual difference components could contribute to prediction over and above self-report arousal for that sexual film category. For example, arousal may mediate the relationship between some individual difference components and viewing preference for certain films; if this is the case, the previously observed relationships should be reduced or eliminated when arousal is controlled. As shown in Table VI, the individual difference components generally contributed to the prediction over and above self-report arousal. Note as well that the inclusion of the self-report arousal measures typically increased prediction beyond that achieved by an additive combination of the components. For example, for the sexually violent films, a Multiple R of .71 (R 2 = .50) occurred and three of the previously significant components, antisocial tendencies/low desirability, intelligence (negatively), and sexual variation, still contributed uniquely. 9 Correlational

analysis among the five factors verified that the five factors were, indeed, uncorrelated (i.e., all correlations were 0.00). 10 I also tested whether a number of interactions between the individual difference factors predicted interest in the sexual media. In particular, there is evidence that the interaction between factors similar to sexual variation and aggression/dominance predict exposure to Penthouse magazine (Malamuth and McIlwraith, 1988). In addition, I thought a number of these individual difference factors (e.g., antisocial/low desirability or aggression/dominance) may be particularly predictive of antisocial sexual content when the participant was lower in intelligence (e.g., an Intelligence × Aggression/Dominance interaction) . However, the addition of these interaction terms did not significantly add to prediction in any of the regression equations (all ps > .05).

.260

.003 .041∗∗ .018

.051 .223 −.134

unique contribution of predictor.

.705∗∗∗ .496

−.193

.129

.085

−.070

.034∗∗ .638∗∗∗ .407

.212

.045

.078

.016∗

.007

.012

.459 .276

Betaa

b

.005

.041∗∗

.002

.006

.186∗∗∗ .076∗∗∗

rs2

Novel sex

.735∗∗∗ .541

−.110

.085

.048

.156

.612 .186

Betaa

b

.012

.007

.002

.023∗

.326∗∗∗ .033∗∗

rs2

Child sex

.516∗∗∗ .266

−.068

.236

.122

.277

.203 .140

Betaa

b

.004

.046∗∗∗

.014

.073∗∗∗

.031∗ .020

rs2

Sexual film

19:18

a Standardized regression coefficient. b Squared semipartial correlation indicating ∗ p < .05; ∗∗ p < 01; ∗∗∗ p < .001.

.661∗∗∗ .429

.017

.056∗∗∗

.003

.111

.027∗

b

.252∗∗∗ .032∗∗

rs2

Film type

October 19, 2000

−.129

.167

Betaa .501 .184

b

.150∗∗∗ .026∗

rs2

Violent sex

PL186-228371

.511∗∗∗ .261

.053

.012

.110

.432 .160

.089∗∗∗ .016

.327 .126

Betaa

Self-report arousal Factor I: antisocial/low desirability Factor II: aggression/ dominance Factor III: sexual experience Factor IV: variation Factor V: intelligence Multiple R R2

b

Betaa

Predictor

rs2

Insatiable sex


Erotic sex

Table VI. Summary Statistics for Multiple Regression Analyses on Sexual Film Preferences with Self-Report Arousal




PL186-228371

October 19, 2000

48

19:18


Bogaert

Although the addition of self-report arousal generally added to prediction and many of the variables remained significant, it is also clear that many of the significant factors were reduced in magnitude, suggesting that self-report arousal may be partly mediating the relation between these individual difference factors and preference for different sexual content. To investigate this possibility further, I used structural equation modeling (i.e., EQS, Bentler, 1989) to test three different models of how the individual differences relate to the preference for insatiable and sexually violent films. (For these analyses, I focussed on these two types of films because the insatiable films are apparently popular and the sexually violent films have been well-studied for antisocial effects.) The models were (1) individual difference variables (including self-report arousal) having fully independent effects on viewing preference; (2) individual difference variables being partly mediated through self-report arousal, and (3) individual difference variables being fully mediated through self-report arousal. The “part mediation” models best accounted for the data, with the “Goodness-of-Fit” indices (i.e., NFI and CFI values) reaching upper bound values of 1.00 relative to .85 or lower for the other models.

DISCUSSION The results of this study support an individual difference and person/choice of environment approach to understanding preferences for types of sexual media. Preferences for viewing sexual films were related to a number of individual difference components and these increased prediction when they were allowed to combine additively. For example, using multiple regression analyses, the results were particularly strong for the sexually violent films, with 50% (R 2 = .50) of the variation being accounted for and three components (i.e., antisocial tendencies/ low desirability, lower intelligence, and sexual variation), along with self-report arousal, contributing uniquely to prediction. Thus, a man who has a combination of such characteristics—that is, a high self-report arousal to such films, is higher in antisocial tendencies (along with lower social desirability), is lower in IQ (e.g., has as an uncritical view of antisocial acts), and has a high interest in sexual variation—would be particularly likely to view sexually violent films. These results replicate and extend previous research investigating individual difference predictors of preferences for and choices of sexual materials, including sexually violent films (e.g., Barnes et al., 1984a; Fisher et al., 1988; Malamuth, 1989a,b; Mosher and Anderson, 1986). Future research should continue to investigate the important role that individual differences play in media preferences, including attempts to replicate the pattern of results in the present study. This is particularly so for the multiple regression analyses, which need replication to demonstrate stability across subject populations. Interestingly, and in contrast to the generally significant results, the “sexual experience” factor, which was primarily defined by current and prior sexual


PL186-228371


October 19, 2000

19:18


49

experience and sensation seeking, was unrelated to any sexual media preferences. It is of note that similar (nonsignificant) results occurred when the individual scales comprising this factor (e.g., sensation seeking and sexual experience) were used as predictors in these data (see Bogaert, 1993). Perhaps high sexual experience and sensation seeking may indicate a preference for more “active” types of social/ sexual behaviors (e.g., finding new sexual partners), whereas viewing sexual films may be reflective of more restrained, more sedentary types of social/sexual interests and activities. Regardless of the explanation, however, these results give little support to previous studies using these dimensions (e.g., Zuckerman and Litle, 1986). One additional area of future research would be to continue to study intelligence as a predictor of media effects. In the present study, intelligence was a defining variable of a principal component that predicted preference for violent sexual materials. In two recent studies (Bogaert et al., 1999), intelligence was also predictive of actual behavior after viewing different kinds of sexual material (e.g., violent vs. nonviolent), with men lower in intelligence (relative to those higher) being more likely to be sexually suggestive towards a young woman after viewing sexually violent content. Thus, not only might lower intelligence (relative to higher) predispose individuals to choosing more violent sexual media content, but it may also make them more susceptible to it once they have chosen to view it. It would be interesting to assess if such effects also occur, using a wider range of media content. It would also be of interest to assess a wider range of participants (e.g., nonuniversity students) because of the restriction of the range of IQ/intelligence scores that typically occurs with college samples. Future research should also further explore the relationship between aggressive/dominance motives and preference for sexual materials, particularly female insatiability themes. Dominance motives, as mentioned, may be partly satisfied by viewing these “insatiability” themes because women are portrayed as eager to succumb to, service, and satisfy the sexual interests of men. This view is consistent with the position taken by a number of feminist writers (e.g., Cowen et al., 1988; Matacin and Burger, 1987). One possible alternative explanation for this relationship is that men who are more dominant/aggressive (relative to those less dominant/aggressive) are merely more assertive about seeking out fairly common “male-oriented” sexual interests/strategies (e.g., having many willing and eager sexual partners or short-term mates, see Buss and Schmitt, 1993), and thus, are more likely than less assertive men to report a strong interest in such themes. Future research should evaluate the degree to which one or (perhaps) both of these explanations account for this relationship. Future research should also continue to investigate mediating mechanisms underlying the relationship between individual difference factors and preferences for sexual films. Although not the primary focus of the present study, I found some support for a “sexual arousal” mechanism. For example, although self-report arousal generally added to prediction and many of the individual differences remained


50

PL186-228371

October 19, 2000

19:18


Bogaert

significant once self-report arousal was controlled for, the regression and structural equation analyses indicated that self-report arousal is probably partly mediating the relations between the individual difference factors and preferences for different sexual content. Thus, some men (e.g., those higher in antisocial tendencies or dominance/aggression motives) may select to view antisocial sexual material partly because of its stimulation or arousal properties. Other plausible mediating mechanisms underlying the relationship among and preferences for sexual films include cognitive components (e.g., thoughts, imagery, and memories of aggression-related activities) and/or affective/emotional responses (e.g., lower levels of disgust, fear, anxiety, etc.). These additional mediating mechanisms, along with their possible relations to an arousal mechanism, should be tested in future research. Finally, it is of note that this study, although having a laboratory context and not assessing a full array of sexual and nonsexual themes in the media, did provide some insight into university men’s consumption pattern of (sexual) media materials. The results indicated that, when given a choice to view different media materials, the men chose a broad range of media materials, although the “female insatiability” films were more popular than the other sexual films were (e.g., “erotic” or violent). These data may suggest some limits to the external and ecological (i.e., “real life settings/environments”) validity of experimental studies assessing the impact of more extreme sexual materials (e.g., sexual violence). For example, extending the present findings to some of this well-cited research (e.g., Donnerstein and Berkowitz, 1981; Malamuth, 1981) suggests that only a small percentage (e.g., 5–6%) of the men in these types of studies would have voluntarily placed themselves in a position to view a sexually violent film, given an array of other options from which to choose. In addition, these results do not seem to support some feminist writers (e.g., MacKinnon, 1983) who imply that men are very interested in sexual aggression against women. Moreover, some of the men may have chosen to view some of the extreme materials because it was perceived as being sanctioned (even encouraged) by the experimenter, even though under normal circumstances these men may not have chosen to view such materials. On the other hand, perhaps 5–6% is not a trivial percentage, given the laboratory constraints of the study. Thus, although some men may have chosen to view extreme materials because it was sanctioned by the laboratory context, perhaps other (and even more) men may have been reluctant to choose to view such films in front of the experimenter because such films are perceived as socially undesirable and, ultimately, would have been viewed under unnatural (and potentially uncomfortable) conditions. In addition, it should be noted that the men reported a higher propensity to view such antisocial films under other conditions, such as if it happened to appear on late-night television. Regardless of the interpretation of the consumption rate for these extreme materials, however, future research should focus on or include material that content analyses and preference studies, such as the present one, indicate to be more prevalent and popular within the sexual media (i.e., female insatiability materials).


PL186-228371

October 19, 2000

19:18



51

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I appreciate the helpful comments from Ray Blanchard, Carolyn Hafer and several anonymous reviewers. I also acknowledge the guidance and support provided by my Ph.D. thesis advisors, W. A. Fisher and P. A. Vernon. REFERENCES Barnes, G. E., Malamuth, N. M., and Check, J. V. P. (1984a). Personality and sexuality. Pers. Indiv. Diff. 5: 159–172. Barnes, G. E., Malamuth, N. M., and Check, J. V. P. (1984b). Psychoticism and sexual arousal to rape depictions. Pers. Indiv. Diff. 5: 273–279. Becker, M. A., and Byrne, D. (1985). Self-regulated exposure to erotica, recall errors and subjective reactions as a function of erotophobia and Type A coronary prone behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 48: 760–767. Bentler, P. M. (1989). EQS: Structural Equation Program Manual, BMDP Statistical Software, Inc., University of California, Los Angeles. Bogaert, A. F. (1993). The Sexual Media: The Role of the Sexual Media. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. Bogaert, A. F. (1996). Volunteer bias in males: Evidence for both personality and sexuality differences. Arch. Sex. Behav. 25: 125–140. Bogaert, A. F., Woodard, U., and Hafer, C. L. (1999). Intelligence as a moderator of antisocial pornography effects. J. Sex Res. 36: 283–291. Brosius, H.-B., Weaver, J. W., and Staub, J. (1993) Exploring the social and sexual “reality” of contemporary pornography. J. Sex Res. 30: 161–170. Brown, D., and Bryant, J. (1989). The manifest content of pornography. In Zillmann, D., and Bryant, J. (eds.), Pornography: Research Advances and Policy Considerations, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 3–24. Burgess, A. W. (1984). Child Pornography and Sex Rings, Lexington Books, DC Heath, Lexington, MA. Burnett, J. J. (1991). Examining media habits of the affluent elderly. J. Advert. Res. 31: 33–41. Buss, D. (1984). Toward a psychology of person–environment (PE) correlation: The role of spouse selection. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 47: 361–377. Buss, D. M., and Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychol. Rev. 100: 204–232. Christie, R., and Geis, F. C. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism, Academic Press, New York. Claridge, G. (1983). The Eysenck Psychoticism Scale. In Butcher, J. N., and Speilberger, C. D. (eds.), Advances in Personality Assessment, Vol. 2, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 71–114. Cohen, J., and Cohen, P. (1983). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Ed., Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. Cowen, G., Lee, C., Levy, D., and Snyder, D. (1988). Dominance and inequality in X-rated videocassettes. Psychol. Women Quart. 12: 299–311. Donnerstein, E., and Berkowitz, L. (1981). Victim reactions in aggressive erotic films as a factor in violence against women. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 41: 710–724. Epstein, S. (1979). On stability of behaviour: I. On predicting most of the people much of the time. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37: 1097–1126. Eysenck, H. J., and Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, Hodder & Stoughton, London. Eysenck, H. J., and Eysenck, S. B. G. (1976). Psychoticism as a Personality Dimension, Hodder & Stoughton, London. Fisher, W. A., Byrne, D., White, L., and Kelley, K. (1988). Erotophobia–erotophilia as a dimension of personality. J. Res. Pers. 25: 123–151. Giancola, P. R., and Zeichner, A. (1994). Intellectual ability and aggressive behavior in nonclinical– nonforensic males. J. Psychopathology Beh. Assess. 16: 121–130.


52

PL186-228371

October 19, 2000

19:18


Bogaert

Greendlinger, V., and Byrne, D. (1987). Coercive sexual fantasies of college men as predictors of self-reported likelihood of rape and overt sexual aggression. J. Sex Res. 23: 1–11. Groth, A. N. (1979). Men Who Rape: The Psychology of the Offender, Plenum Press, New York. Hill, T. D., and Jackson, D. N. (1984). Brief form of the Multidimensional Aptitude Battery (MAB). (Research Bulletin No. 617), University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. Huesmann, L. R. (1988). An information processing model for the development of aggression. Aggressive Beh. 14: 13–24. Huesmann, L. R., Eron, L., and Yarmel, P. W. (1987). Intellectual functioning and aggression. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 52: 232–240. Jackson, D. N. (1984a). Personality Research Form Manual, Research Psychologists Press, Port Huron, MI. Jackson, D. N. (1984b). Multidimensional Aptitude Battery Manual, Research Psychologists Press, Port Huron, MI. Jacobvitz, R. S., Wood, M. R., and Albin, K. (1991). Cognitive skills and young children’s comprehension of television. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 12: 219–235. Kelley, K., and Musialowski, D. (1986). Repeated exposure to sexually explicit stimuli: Novelty, sex, and sexual attitudes. Arch. Sex. Behav. 15: 487–498. MacKinnon, C. (1983). Feminism, marxism, method, and the state: Toward feminist jurisprudence. Signs 8: 635–658. Malamuth, N. M. (1981). Rape fantasies as a function of exposure to violent sexual stimuli. Arch. Sex. Behav. 10: 33–47. Malamuth, N. M. (1986). Predictors of naturalistic sexual aggression. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50: 953– 962. Malamuth, N. M. (1989a). The Attraction to Sexual Aggression Scale: Part 1. J. Sex Res. 26: 26–49. Malamuth, N. M. (1989b). The Attraction to Sexual Aggression Scale: Part 2. J. Sex Res. 26: 324– 354. Malamuth, N. M., and Check, J. V. P. (1983). Sexual arousal to rape depictions. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 92: 55–67. Malamuth, N. M., and McIlwraith, R. D. (1988). Fantasies and exposure to sexually explicit material. Commun. Res. 15: 753–771. Matacin, M. L., and Burger, J. M. (1987). A content analysis of sexual themes in Playboy cartoons. Sex Roles 17: 179–186. McIlwraith, R. D., and Josephson, W. L. (1985). Movies, books, music, and adult fantasy life. J. Commun. 35: 167–179. Money, J. (1986). Lovemaps, Irvington Press, New York. Mosher, D. L. (1988). Pornography defined: Sexual involvement theory, narrative context, and “goodness-of fit.” J. Psychol. Hum. Sex. 1: 67–85. Mosher, D. L., and Anderson, R. D. (1986). Macho personality, sexual aggression, and reactions to guided imagery of realistic rape. J. Res. Pers. 20: 77–94. Mosher, D. L., and Sirkin, M. (1984). Measuring a macho personality constellation. J. Res. Pers. 18: 150–163. Plomin, R. C., and Bergeman, C. S. (1991). The nature of nurture: Genetic influences on “environmental” effects. Beh. Brain Sci. 14: 705–732. Plomin, R. C., Defries, J. C., and Loehlin, J. C. (1977). Genotype-environment interaction and correlation in the analysis of human behavior. Psychol. Bull. 84: 309–322. Reifler, C. B., Howard, J., Lipton, M. A., Liptzin, M. B., and Widmann, D. E. (1971). Pornography: An experimental study of effects. Am. J. Psych. 128: 575–582. Saunders, D. M., Fisher, W. A., Hewitt, E. C., and Clayton, J. P. (1985). A method for empirically assessing volunteer selection effects: Recruitment procedures and responses to erotica. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 49: 1703–1712. Scarr, S., and McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their own environments: A theory of genotypeenvironment effects. Child Dev. 43: 424–435. Shepher, J., and Reisman, J. (1985). Pornography: A sociobiological attempt at understanding. Ethol. Sociobiol. 6: 103–114. Snyder, M., and Ickes, W. (1985). Personality and social psychology. In Lindsey, G., and Aronson, E. (eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol II, 3rd Ed., Random House, New York, pp. 883–943.


PL186-228371


October 19, 2000

19:18


53

Tamborini, R., Stiff, J., and Zillmann, D. (1987). Preference for graphic horror featuring male versus female victimization. Hum. Commun. Res. 13: 529–552. Videolog. (1991). Trade Service Corporation, San Diego, CA. Winick, C. (1971). A study of consumers of explicitly sexual materials: Some functions served by adult movies. In Technical Reports of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, Vol. 4, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, pp. 245–262 Zillmann, D., and Bryant, J. (1986). Shifting preferences in pornography consumption. Commun. Res. 13: 560–578. Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation Seeking: Beyond the Optimal Level of Arousal, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. Zuckerman, M., and Litle, P. (1986). Personality and curiosity about morbid and sexual events. Pers. Indiv. Diff. 7: 49–56.

Personality, Individual Differences, and Preferences ...

Personality, Individual Differences, and Preferences ...

Suggest Documents

Personality and Individual Differences Personality ...

PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES

Differences in Dietary Preferences, Personality

PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES The ...

Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences

for Personality and Individual Differences Manuscript ...

Read Personality, Individual Differences and ... - Google Sites

Personality and Individual Differences, in press

Individual Differences in Students' Preferences for Lecturers ...

Personality Neuroscience: Explaining Individual Differences in Affect ...

1 Personality-trait-like Individual Differences

Individual Differences in Cognition - The Personality Project

PSY-847 TOPICS IN INDIViDUAL DIFFERENCES (PERSONALITY ...

Personality and Social Change: Individual Differences, Life Path, and ...

Sex and Personality Differences in Job Value Preferences - Scientific ...

PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL

Read Personality, Individual Differences and Intelligence Full Ebook

Personality and Individual Differences: the home for psychological ...

The Grand Challenges of Personality and Individual Differences for ...

Published in final form in Personality and Individual Differences, 53 ...

PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL

Review[PDF] Personality, Individual Differences and ... - Google Sites

[in press, Personality and Individual Differences, April 2013 ...

[PDF Online] Personality, Individual Differences and ... - Google Sites