Assessment of sexual preference using a choice reaction time task

  • Lester W. WrightJr.
  • Henry E. Adams
Article

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the use of a choice reaction time task, during which slides of sexually explicit and neutral stimuli were used as an interference task, to differentiate between groups of individuals on the basis of their sexual preference. Twenty subjects, in each of the four groups (heterosexual males, heterosexual females, homosexual males, and homosexual females), participated in this study. Sexual orientation was determined by self-report. Subjects were given a choice reaction time with interference task, followed by a recall incidental learning task. A significant higher-order interaction was found among gender, orientation, and stimulus type for all four groups. This interaction indicated a longer reaction time to slides depicting preferred sexual partners than to nonpreferred sexual partners or neutral scenes. These results indicate that sexual arousal does interfere with cognitive processing. A main effect for gender was found for the incidental learning task, with males having the fewest errors.

Key words

sexual preference sexual arousal sexual assessment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Erickson, W. S., Luxenberg, M. G., Walbek, N. H., & Seely, R. K. (1987). Frequency of MMPI two-point code types among sex offenders.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 566–570.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Hall, G. C., Maiuro, R. D., Vitaliano, P. P., & Proctor, W. C. (1986). The utility of the MMPI with men who have sexually assaulted children.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 118–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948).Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.Google Scholar
  4. Masters, W. H., & Johnson, V. E. (1966).Human sexual response. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  5. McAnulty, R. D., Adams, H. E., & Andrew, M. (1989).Characteristics of individuals who deny the validity of child molestation accusations. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Washington, DC, Nov.Google Scholar
  6. Mehrabian, A. (1968). Inferences of attitude from posture, orientation, and distance of a communicator.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32, 298–308.Google Scholar
  7. O'Donohue, W., & Letourneau, E. (1992). The psychometric properties of penile tumescence assessment of child molesters.Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 14, 123–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Patterson, M. L. (1975). An arousal model of interpersonal intimacy.Psychological Review, 83, 235–245.Google Scholar
  9. Rosen, R. C., & Beck, G. (1988).Patterns of sexual arousal: Psychophysiological processes and clinical applications. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  10. Rosen, R. C., & Kopel, S. A. (1977). Penile plethysmography and biofeedback in the treatment of a transvestite-exhibitionist.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 908–916.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Singer, B. (1984). Conceptualizing sexual arousal and attraction.The Journal of Sex Research, 20, 230–240.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lester W. WrightJr.
    • 1
  • Henry E. Adams
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of GeorgiaAthens

Personalised recommendations