Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 17–31 | Cite as

Voluntary control of penile tumescence among homosexual and heterosexual subjects

  • Henry E. Adams
  • Patrice Motsinger
  • Richard D. McAnulty
  • Aubrey L. Moore


Voluntary control of erectile responses represents a major threat to the validity of penile plethysmography. This study was designed to determine whether individuals can mimic a sexual orientation that differs from their actual sexual orientation. Since the presumed mechanism underlying voluntary control of penile tumescence involves a shift in attentional focus, a recall test was employed to assess the relationship between the ability to influence erectile responses and recall of critical test stimuli. Homosexual and heterosexual subjects were exposed to sexual materials under standard and “faking” instructions. The faking instructions consisted of asking subjects to suppress erectile responses to preferred stimuli and to enhance penile tumescence in the presence of nonpreferred stimuli. Across groups, results revealed some degree of suppression of erections but no significant enhancement of erections. Self-reported cognitive arousal under both conditions was consistent with erectile data. However, subjects' perceived control over erectile responses tended to be greater than their actual performance. No significant differences in recall were obtained. The recall procedure appears to interfere with subjects' ability to control erectile responses. Implications for clinical applications of penile plethysmography are summarized with suggestions for future research.

Key words

penile plethysmography voluntary control sexual arousal penile erection 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abel, G. G., Barlow, D. H., Blanchard, E. B., and Mavissakalian, M. (1975). Measurement of sexual arousal in male homosexuals: Effects of instructions and stimulus modality.Arch. Sex. Behav. 4: 623–629.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Abel, G. G., Becker, J. V., Murphy, W. D., and Flanagan, B. (1981). Identifying dangerous child molesters. In Stuart, R. B. (ed.),Violent Behavior: Social Learning Approaches to Prediction, Management and Treatment Brunner/Mazel, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Abel, G. G., Blanchard, E. B., and Barlow, D. H. (1981). Measurement of sexual arousal in several paraphilias: The effects of stimulus modality, instructional set and stimulus content on the objective. Behav. Res. Ther. 19: 25–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Avery-Clark, C. A., and Laws, D. R. (1984). Differential erection response patterns of sexual child abusers to stimuli describing activities with children.Behav. Ther. 15: 71–83.Google Scholar
  5. Bancroft, J. H. J., Jones, H. G., and Pullan, B. R. (1966). A simple transducer for measuring penile erection with comments on its use in the treatment of sexual disorder.Behav. Res. Ther. 4: 230–241.Google Scholar
  6. Earls, C. M., and Marshall, W. L. (1983). The current state of technology in the laboratory assessment of sexual arousal patterns. In Greer, J. G., and Stuart, I. R. (eds.),The Sexual Aggressor: Current Perspectives on Treatment Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Farkas, G. M. (1978). Comments on Levin et al. and Rosen and Kopel: Internal and external validity issues.J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 46: 1515–1516.Google Scholar
  8. Freund, K. (1961). Laboratory differential diagnosis of homo- and heterosexuality: An experiment with faking.Rev. Czech, Med. 7: 20–31.Google Scholar
  9. Freund, K. (1963). A laboratory method for diagnosing predominance of homo- and hetero-erotic interest in the male.Behav. Res. Ther. 1: 85–93.Google Scholar
  10. Freund, K. (1967a). Diagnosing homo- or heterosexuality and erotic age-preference by means of a psychophysiological test.Behav. Res. Ther. 5: 209–228.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Freund, K. (1967b). Erotic preference in pedophilia.Behav. Res. Ther. 5: 339–348.Google Scholar
  12. Freund, K., Chan, S., and Coulthard, R. (1979). Phallometric diagnosis with “nonadmitters.”Behav. Res. Ther. 17: 451–457.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Freund, K., Langevin, R., Cibiri, S., and Zajac, Y. (1973). Heterosexual aversion in homosexual males.Br. J. Psychiat. 122: 163–169.Google Scholar
  14. Freund, K., Langevin, R., and Zajac, Y. (1974). Heterosexual aversion in homosexual males: A second experiment.Br. J. Psychiat. 125: 177–180.Google Scholar
  15. Freund, K., Langevin, R., Wescom, T., and Zajac, Y. (1975). Heterosexual interests in homosexual males.Arch. Sex. Behav. 4: 509–518.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Freund, K., Watson, R., and Rienzo, D. (1988). Signs of feigning in the phallometric test.Behav. Res. Ther. 26: 105–112.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hall, G. C. N., Proctor, W. C., and Nelson, G. M. (1988). Validity of physiological measures of pedophilic sexual arousal in a sexual offender population.J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 56: 118–122.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Henson, D. E., and Rubin, H. B. (1971). Voluntary control of eroticism.J. Appl. Behav. Anal. 4: 37–44.Google Scholar
  19. Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., and Martin, C. E. (1948).Sexual Behavior in the Human Male W. B. Sanders, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  20. Krisak, J., Murphy, W. D., and Stalgaitis, S. (1981). Reliability issues in the penile assessment of incarcerants.J. Behav. Assess. 3: 199–207.Google Scholar
  21. Laws, D. R., and Holmen, M. L. (1978). Sexual response faking by pedophiles.Crim. Justice Behav. 5: 343–356.Google Scholar
  22. Laws, D. R., and Rubin, H. B. (1969). Instructional control of an autonomic response.J. Appl. Behav. Anal. 2: 93–99.Google Scholar
  23. Malcolm, P. B., Davidson, P. R., and Marshall, W. L. (1985). Control of penile tumescence: The effects of arousal level and stimulus content.Behav. Res. Ther. 23: 273–280.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Mavissakalian, M., Blanchard, E. B., Abel, G. G., and Barlow, D. H. (1975). Responses to complex erotic stimuli in homosexual and heterosexual males.Br. J. Psychiat. 126: 252–257.Google Scholar
  25. McAnulty, R. D., and Adams, H. E. (1990). Patterns of sexual arousal of accused child molesters involved in custody disputes.Arch. Sex. Behav. 19: 541–556.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. McConaghy, N. (1967). Penile volume changes to moving pictures of male and female nudes in heterosexual and homosexual males.Behav. Res. Ther 5: 43–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Murphy, W. D., Krisak, J., Stalgaitis, S., and Anderson, K. (1984). The use of penile tumescence measures with incarcerated rapists: Further validity issues.Arch. Sex. Behav. 13: 545–554.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Quinsey, V. L., and Bergersen, S. G. (1976). Instructional control of penile circumference in assessments of sexual preference.Behav. Ther. 489–493.Google Scholar
  29. Quinsey, V. L., and Carrigan, W. F. (1978). Penile responses to visual stimuli.Crim. Justice Behav. 5: 333–342.Google Scholar
  30. Quinsey, V. L., and Chaplin, T. C. (1987). Preventing faking in phallometric assessments of sexual preference.Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 528: 49–58.Google Scholar
  31. Rosen, R. C., Shapiro, D., and Schwartz, G. E. (1975). Voluntary control of penile tumescence.Psychosom. Med. 37: 479–483.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Sakheim, D. K., Barlow, D. H., Beck, J. G., and Abrahamson, D. J. (1985). A comparison of male heterosexual and male homosexual patterns of sexual arousal.J. Sex Res. 21: 183–198.Google Scholar
  33. Tollison, C. D., Adams, H. E., and Tollison, J. W. (1979). Cognitive and physiological indices of sexual arousal in homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual males.J. Behav. Assess. 1: 305–314.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henry E. Adams
    • 1
  • Patrice Motsinger
    • 1
  • Richard D. McAnulty
    • 1
    • 2
  • Aubrey L. Moore
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  2. 2.University of North Carolina at CharlotteUSA

Personalised recommendations