Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Phallometric Assessments of Sexual Interests: An Update

  • Problematic Sexual Behaviors (JP Fedoroff, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Psychiatry Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reviews recent evidence on the value of phallometric (i.e., erectile) measures of sex offenders plus earlier crucial papers. Distinctions are made between types of measuring devices with the volumetric instrument appearing to be the most sensitive. Considering the meaning of responses it is concluded that arousal below 10 % of full erection is not reliably interpretable and that only deviant profiles (those displaying equal or greater arousal to deviant sex) can be confidently interpreted. The specificity and sensitivity of phallometry is satisfactory with child molesters but not with other types of sex offenders, although there remains a need to satisfactorily distinguish among subtypes of child molesters. There are enduring disagreements concerning the meaning of rapists' responses and no test has yet reliably identified deviance among exhibitionists. It is concluded that despite its long history, problems remain with phallometric assessments and clinicians should be cautious in interpreting the meaning of these responses.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. McGuire RJ, Carlisle JM, Young BG. Sexual deviations as conditioned behaviour: A hypothesis. Behav Res Ther. 1965;2:185–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Zuckerman M. Physiological measures of sexual arousal in the human. Psychol Bull. 1971;75:297–329.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rosen RC, Beck JG. Patterns of sexual arousal: Psychopysiological processes and clinical applications. New York: Guilford Press; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Thornton D, Laws DR. Cognitive approaches to the assessment of sexual interest in sexual offenders. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2009.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Freund K. Diagnostika homosexuality u muszu. Ceskoslovak Med. 1957;53:382–93.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bancroft JH, Gwynne Jones HC, Pullan BP. A simple transducer for measuring penile erections with comments on its use in the treatment of sexual disorders. Behav Res Ther. 1966;4:239–41.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Barlow DH, Becker R, Leitenberg H, Agras WS. A mechanical strain gauge for recording penile circumference change. J Appl Behav Anal. 1970;3:73–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Earls CM, Marshall WL. The simultaneous and independent measurement of penile circumference and length. Beh Res Methods and Instrum. 1982;14:447–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fernandez YM. Phallometric testing with sexual offenders: An examination of reliability and validity issues. Doctoral thesis, Queen’s University, Canada; (2001).

  10. Howes RJ. A survey of plethysmographic assessment in North America. Sex Abuse A J Res Treat. 1995;7:9–24.

    Google Scholar 

  11. O’Donohue WT, Letourneau W. The psychometric properties of the penile tumescence assessments of child molesters. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 1992;14:123–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Laws DR, Gulayets JJ, Frenzel RR. Assessment of sex offenders using standardized slide stimuli and procedures: A multisite study. Sex Abuse A J Res Treat. 1995;7:45–66.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Howes RJ. Circumferential change scores in phallometric assessment: Normative data. Sex Abuse A J Res Treat. 2003;15:365–75.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lykins AD, Cantor JM, Kuban ME, Blak T, Dickey R, Klassen PE, et al. Sexual arousal to female children in gynephilic men. Sex Abuse A J Res Treat. 2010;23:279–89.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Marshall WL, Fernandez YM. Phallometric testing with sexual offenders: Limits to its value. Clin Psychol Rev. 2000;20:807–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Marshall WL, Fernandez YM. Phallometric testing with sexual offenders: Theory, research, and practice. Brandon: Safer Society Press; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kuban M, Barbaree HE, Blanchard R. A comparison of volume and circumference phallometry: Response magnitude and method agreement. Arch Sex Behav. 1999;28:345–59.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Blanchard R, Kuban ME, Blak T, Cantor JM, Klassen PE, Dickey R. Absolute versus relative ascertainment of pedophilia in men. Sex Abuse A J Res Treat. 2009;21:431–41.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Freund K, Watson RJ, Rienzo D. Signs of feigning in the phallometric test. Behav Res Ther. 1988;26:105–12.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Laws DR, Holmen ML. Sexual response faking by pedophiles. Crim Justice Behav. 1978;5:343–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wydra A, Marshall WL, Earls CM, Barbaree HE. Identification of cues and control of sexual arousal by rapists. Behav Res Ther. 1983;21:469–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Marshall WL. Pedophilia: Psychopathology and theory. In: Laws DR, O’Donohue W, editors. Sexual deviance: Theory, assessment, and treatment. New York: Guilford Press; 1997. p. 152–74.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Marshall WL. Diagnostic issues, multiple paraphilias, and comorbid disorders in sexual offenders: Their incidence and treatment. Aggress Violent Behav. 2007;12:16–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Marshall WL, Marshall LE. The paraphilias. In: Hofmann SG, editor. The Wiley handbook of cognitive behavioral therapy. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2014. p. 763–91.

    Google Scholar 

  25. O’Donohue WT, Regev LG, Hagstrom A. Problems with the DSM-IV diagnosis of pedophilia. Sex Abuse A J Res Treat. 2000;12:95–105.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Freund K, Blanchard R. Phallometric diagnosis of pedophilia. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1989;57:1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Wormith JS. Assessing deviant sexual arousal: Psychological and cognitive aspects. Adv Behav Res Ther. 1986;8:101–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Day D, Miner M, Sturgeon V, Murphy J. Assessment of sexual arousal by means of physiological and self-report measures. In: Laws DR, editor. Relapse prevention with sex offenders. New York: Guilford Publications; 1989. p. 115–23.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Harris GT, Rice ME, Quinsey VL, Chaplin TC, Earls CM. Maximizing the discriminant validity of phallometric assessment data. Psychol Assess A J Consult Clin Psychol. 1992;4:502–11.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Barbaree HE, Peacock EJ. Phallometric assessment of sexual preferences as an investigative tool in cases of alleged child abuse. In: Ney T, editor. Allegations of child sexual abuse: Assessment and case management. New York: Brunner/Mazel; 1995. p. 242–59.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Malcolm PB, Andrews DA, Quinsey VL. Discriminant and predictive validity of phallometrically measured sexual age and gender preference. J Interpersonal Violence. 1993;8:486–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Laws DR. Penile plethysmography: Will we ever get it right? In: Ward T, Laws DR, Hudson SM, editors. Sexual Deviance: Issues and controversies. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2001. p. 82–102.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Gress CLZ, Laws DR. Measuring sexual deviance: Attention-based measures. In: Beech AR, Craig LA, Browne KD, editors. Assessment and treatment of sex offender. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2009. p. 109–28.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Marshall WL, Marshall LE. Affiliative and nonaffiliative child molesters: A suggestion for new subcategories. J Sex Aggress. (in press)

  35. Freund K. Reflections on the development of the phallometric method of assessing sexual preferences. Ann Sex Res. 1991;4:221–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Freund K, Chan S, Coulthard R. Phallometric diagnoses with “nonadmitters”. Behav Res Ther. 1979;17:451–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Freund K, Watson RJ. Assessment of the sensitivity and specificity of a phallometric test: An update of phallometric diagnosis of pedophilia. Psychol Assess A J Consul Clin Psychol. 1991;3:254–60.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Barbaree HE, Marshall WL. Erectile responses amongst heterosexual child molesters, father-daughter incest offenders, and matched nonoffenders: Five distinct age preference profiles. Can J Behav Sci. 1989;21:70–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Michaud P, Proulx J. Penile-response profiles of sexual aggressors during phallometric testing. Sex Abuse A J Res Treat. 2009;21:308–34.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lalumière ML, Quinsey VL. The discriminability of rapists from non-sex offenders using phallometric measures: A meta-analysis. Crim Justice Behav. 1994;21:150–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Barbaree HE, Marshall WL, Lanthier RD. Deviant sexual arousal in rapists. Behav Res Ther. 1979;8:229–39.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Baxter DJ, Marshall WL, Barbaree HE, Davidson PR, Malcolm PB. Deviant sexual behavior: Differentiating sex offenders by criminal and personal history, psychometric measures, and sexual responses. Crim Justice Behav. 1984;11:477–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Barbaree HE. Stimulus control of sexual arousal. In: Marshall WL, Laws DR, Barbaree HE, editors. Handbook of sexual assault: Issues, theories, and treatment of the offender. New York: Plenum Press; 1990. p. 115–42.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  44. Looman J. Sexual arousal in rapists as measured by two stimulus sets. Sex Abuse A J Res Treat. 2000;12:235–48.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Looman J, Marshall WL. Sexual arousal in rapists. Crim Justice Behav. 2005;32:367–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Marshall WL, Yates PM. Diagnostic issues in sexual sadism among sexual offenders. Journal of Sex Aggress. 2004; 10:21–27. Marshall, W. L., & Marshall, L. E. (in press).

  47. Proulx J, Blais E, Beauregard E. Sadistic sexual aggressors. In: Marshall WL, Fernandez YM, Marshall LE, Serran GA, editors. Sexual offender treatment: Controversial issues. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2006. p. 61–77.

    Google Scholar 

  48. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. Washington, DC: Author; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Marshall WL, Hucker SJ, Nitschke J, Mokros A. Assessment of sexual sadism. In L. A. Craig & M. Rettenberger (Eds., The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook on the assessment, treatment and theories of sexual offending (Volume: Assessment). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. (in press).

  50. Nitschke J, Osterheider M, Mokros A. A cumulative scale of severe sexual sadism. Sex Abuse A J Res Treat. 2009;21:262–78.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Kolarsky A, Madlafousek J. The inverse role of preparatory erotic stimulation in exhibitionists: Phallometric studies. Arch Sex Behav. 1983;12:123–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Freund K, Scher H, Hucker S. The courtship disorders. Arch Sex Behav. 1983;12:369–79.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Freund K, Scher H, Hucker S. The courtship disorders: A further investigation. Arch Sex Behav. 1984;13:133–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Langevin R, Paitich D, Ramsey G, Anderson C, Kamrad J, Pope S, et al. Experimental studies in the etiology of genital exhibitionism. Arch Sex Behav. 1979;8:307–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Murphy WD, Abel GG, Becker JB. Future research issues. In: Cox DJ, Daitzman RJ, editors. Exhibitionism: Description, assessment, and treatment. New York: Garland STPM Press; 1980. p. 339–92.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Marshall WL, Payne K, Barbaree HE, Eccles A. Exhibitionists: Sexual preferences for exposing. Behav Res Ther. 1991;29:37–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Golde JA, Strassberg DB, Turner CM. Psychophysiological assessment of erectile responses and its suppression as a function of stimulus media and precious experience with plethysmography. J Sex Res. 2000;37:53–59.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

ᇵ

Conflict of Interest

W.L. Marshall declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by the author.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rockwood Psychological Services, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

    W. L. Marshall

Authors
  1. W. L. Marshall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to W. L. Marshall.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Sexual Disorders

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Marshall, W.L. Phallometric Assessments of Sexual Interests: An Update. Curr Psychiatry Rep 16, 428 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-013-0428-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-013-0428-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation