Advertisement

Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 48, Issue 3, pp 753–761 | Cite as

Measuring Self-Perceived Effects of Pornography: A Short-Form Version of the Pornography Consumption Effects Scale

  • Dan J. MillerEmail author
  • Garry Kidd
  • Gert Martin Hald
Original Paper

Abstract

The Pornography Consumption Effects Scale (PCES) is a 47-item measure of self-perceived effects of pornography use. While the PCES is frequently used in the pornography research literature, its length may limit its applicability in some research situations. This study investigated if a short-form version of the PCES could be created for use with heterosexual men. The study employed an online sample of 312 self-identified heterosexual men. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to produce a 14-item version of the PCES. This short-form PCES (PCES-SF) showed excellent psychometric properties in terms of reliability, concurrent validity with the long-form PCES, and discriminant validity with respect to social desirability. Similar to the full-length PCES, the PCES-SF generates both an overall positive effect score and an overall negative effect score.

Keywords

Pornography Sexually explicit media Self-perceived effects Psychometrics Men 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The third author was supported by the Carlsberg Foundation Distinguished Associate Professor Fellowship, Grant CF16-0094, for the duration of 2017–2019.

References

  1. Barak, A., Fisher, W. A., Belfry, S., & Lashambe, D. R. (1999). Sex, guys, and cyberspace: Effects of internet pornography and individual differences on men’s attitudes toward women. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 11, 63–91.  https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v11n01_04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Birenbaum, M., & Montag, I. (1989). Style and substance in social desirability scales. European Journal of Personality, 3, 47–59.  https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410030106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456–466.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Deutskens, E., De Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M., & Oosterveld, P. (2004). Response rate and response quality of Internet-based surveys: An experimental study. Marketing Letters, 15, 21–36.  https://doi.org/10.1023/b:mark.0000021968.86465.00.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eisinga, R., te Grotenhuis, M., & Pelzer, B. (2013). The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? International Journal of Public Health, 58, 637–642.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-012-0416-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Ferrando, P. J., & Anguiano-Carrasco, C. (2009). The interpretation of the EPQ Lie scale scores under honest and faking instructions: A multiple-group IRT-based analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 552–556.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.12.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frable, D. E., Johnson, A. E., & Kellman, H. (1997). Seeing masculine men, sexy women, and gender differences: Exposure to pornography and cognitive constructions of gender. Journal of Personality, 65, 311–355.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00957.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Francis, L. J., Brown, L. B., & Pearson, P. R. (1991). The dual nature of the EPQ Lie Scale among university students in Australia. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 989–991.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(91)90028-A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Francis, L. J., Brown, L. B., & Philipchalk, R. (1992). The development of an abbreviated form of the Revised Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQR-A): Its use among students in England, Canada, the USA and Australia. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 443–449.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90073-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Galesic, M., & Bosnjak, M. (2009). Effects of questionnaire length on participation and indicators of response quality in a web survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73, 349–360.  https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Graham, J. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 549–576.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Gregorich, S. E. (2006). Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups? Testing measurement invariance using the confirmatory factor analysis framework. Medical Care, 44, S78–S94.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000245454.12228.8f.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Hald, G. M. (2006). Gender differences in pornography consumption among young heterosexual Danish adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 577–585.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-9064-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Hald, G. M., & Malamuth, N. M. (2008). Self-perceived effects of pornography consumption. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 614–625.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-007-9212-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Hald, G. M., Seaman, C., & Linz, D. (2014). Sexuality and pornography. In D. L. Tolman & L. M. Diamond (Eds.), APA handbook of sexuality and psychology: Vol. 2. Contextual approaches (pp. 3–35). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.  https://doi.org/10.1037/14194-001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hald, G. M., Smolenski, D., & Rosser, B. R. (2013). Perceived effects of sexually explicit media among men who have sex with men and psychometric properties of the Pornography Consumption Effects Scale (PCES). Journal of Sexual Medicine, 10, 757–767.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02988.x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Hald, G. M., Træen, B., Noor, S. W., Iantaffi, A., Galos, D., & Rosser, B. S. (2015). Does sexually explicit media (SEM) affect me? Assessing first-person effects of SEM consumption among Norwegian men who have sex with men. Psychology & Sexuality, 6, 59–74.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2014.984516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 115–135.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hirschfeld, G., & von Brachel, R. (2014). Multiple-Group confirmatory factor analysis in R: A tutorial in measurement invariance with continuous and ordinal indicators. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 19(7), 1–12. http://pareonline.net/pdf/v19n7.pdf.
  21. Hoyle, R. H. (2011). Structural equation modeling for social and personality psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
  23. Kvalem, I. L., Træen, B., Lewin, B., & Štulhofer, A. (2014). Self-perceived effects of Internet pornography use, genital appearance satisfaction, and sexual self-esteem among young Scandinavian adults. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 8(4), Article 1.  https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2014-4-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Little, T. D. (1997). Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses of cross-cultural data: Practical and theoretical issues. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 53–76.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3201_3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Miller, D. J., Hald, G. M., & Kidd, G. (2018). Self-perceived effects of pornography consumption among heterosexual men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 19, 469–476.  https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mulya, T. W., & Hald, G. M. (2014). Self-perceived effects of pornography consumption in a sample of Indonesian university students. Media Psychology, 17, 78–101.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2013.850038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Noor, S. W., Rosser, B. S., & Erickson, D. J. (2014). A brief scale to measure problematic sexually explicit media consumption: Psychometric properties of the Compulsive Pornography Consumption (CPC) scale among men who have sex with men. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 21, 240–261.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10720162.2014.938849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Olinsky, A., Chen, S., & Harlow, L. (2003). The comparative efficacy of imputation methods for missing data in structural equation modeling. European Journal of Operational Research, 151, 53–79.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00578-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Prause, N., Staley, C., & Fong, T. W. (2013). No evidence of emotion dysregulation in “hypersexuals” reporting their emotions to a sexual film. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 20, 106–126.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10720162.2013.772874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rosser, B. S., Noor, S. W., & Iantaffi, A. (2014). Normal, problematic, and compulsive consumption of sexually explicit media: Clinical findings using the Compulsive Pornography Consumption (CPC) scale among men who have sex with men. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 21, 276–304.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10720162.2014.959145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sass, D. (2011). Testing measurement invariance and comparing latent factor means within a confirmatory factor analysis framework. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 347–363.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911406661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schmitt, N., & Kuljanin, G. (2008). Measurement invariance: Review of practice and implications. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 210–222.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.03.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Steele, V. R., Staley, C., Fong, T., & Prause, N. (2013). Sexual desire, not hypersexuality, is related to neurophysiological responses elicited by sexual images. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 3(1), 20770.  https://doi.org/10.3402/snp.v3i0.20770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78–90.  https://doi.org/10.1086/209528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stöber, J. (2001). The Social Desirability Scale-17 (SDS-17): Convergent validity, discriminant validity, and relationship with age. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17, 222–232.  https://doi.org/10.1027//1015-5759.17.3.222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fiddel, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
  37. Voorhees, C. M., Brady, M. K., Calantone, R., & Ramirez, E. (2016). Discriminant validity testing in marketing: An analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44, 119–134.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0455-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wetterneck, C. T., Burgess, A. J., Short, M. B., Smith, A. H., & Cervantes, M. E. (2012). The role of sexual compulsivity, impulsivity, and experiential avoidance in Internet pornography use. Psychological Record, 62, 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Widaman, K. F., Little, T. D., Preacher, K. J., & Sawalani, G. M. (2011). On creating and using short form scales in secondary research. In K. H. Trzesniewski, M. Donnellan, & R. E. Lucas (Eds.), Secondary data analysis: An introduction for psychologists (pp. 39–61). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.  https://doi.org/10.1037/12350-003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dan J. Miller
    • 1
    Email author
  • Garry Kidd
    • 1
  • Gert Martin Hald
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Psychology, College of Healthcare Sciences, Division of Tropical Health and MedicineJames Cook UniversityTownsvilleAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Public HealthUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  3. 3.Clinic of SexologyCopenhagen University HospitalCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations