Skip to main content

The Empirical Status of the Preparation Hypothesis: Explicating Women’s Genital Responses to Sexual Stimuli in the Laboratory

A Commentary to this article was published on 04 January 2021

A Commentary to this article was published on 04 January 2021

A Commentary to this article was published on 02 November 2020

A Commentary to this article was published on 09 October 2020

A Commentary to this article was published on 18 July 2020

A Commentary to this article was published on 15 July 2020

Abstract

Research conducted in our laboratory and in other laboratories has revealed that (1) women’s genital responses to visual and auditory stimuli are strongly affected by the presence of sexual cues, but that (2) specific sexual cues (e.g., gender of actors, the presence of sexual violence) often have little impact on the magnitude of the responses—that is, similar genital responses are observed to very different sexual stimuli. In addition, (3) women’s genital responses do not strongly correspond with self-reported sexual partner and activity preferences, or (4) with self-reported sexual arousal during the presentation of sexual stimuli. Taken together, these facts represent a puzzle, especially considering that men’s genital responses are highly affected by specific sexual cues and strongly correspond to stated preferences and self-reported sexual arousal. One hypothesis to explain female low cue-specificity and low concordance (relative to men) is the preparation hypothesis: Women’s indiscriminate genital responses serve a protective function. That is, they do not indicate or necessarily promote sexual interest and motivation, but rather prepare the vaginal lumen for possible sexual activity and therefore prevent injuries that may occur as a result of penetration. We review evidence for and against this hypothesis. We conclude that the evidence is favorable but not entirely convincing, and more work is required to reach a firm conclusion. We offer directions for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Genital responses are typically measured with vaginal photoplethysmography for women and penile plethysmography for men. The two measures are quite different, a topic we discuss below. In this Target Article, we specify the type of genital measure used in a given study when it is not one of these two.

  2. 2.

    Here and elsewhere we use the sexual orientation terms used by the authors cited.

  3. 3.

    These results were replicated twice in Suschinsky and Lalumière (2011b), but Wan and Lalumière (2017) found higher responses to consensual sex than to nonconsensual sex for both women and men.

  4. 4.

    Of note, evolutionary adaptations do not solely involve automatic, unlearned, and unconscious mechanisms.

  5. 5.

    We are not aware of any evidence supporting this explanation.

  6. 6.

    The finding that women reported some sexual arousal to stimuli describing non-sexual violence lends further support to the idea that women are not concealing their sexual arousal to sexual stimuli when self-reporting.

  7. 7.

    Velten, Margraf, Chivers, and Brotto (2018) reviewed other studies in which manipulations directing attention toward or away from sexual stimuli affect sexual responding.

  8. 8.

    Thermistors also assess genital responses by measuring changes in genital skin temperature (Payne & Binik, 2006; Prause & Heiman, 2009), but there is no published research employing this measure in the study of cue-specificity.

  9. 9.

    Although low cue-specificity was replicated for heterosexual women across the three studies, the design of the experiment involving homosexual participants (i.e., no neutral comparison) left open the possibility that homosexual women’s appraisals were also affected by male stimuli, but to a lesser degree than the female stimuli. If homosexual women associated both genders with sex (unlike the heterosexual men, whose performance did not differ between male and neutral stimuli), this would be consistent with other studies that demonstrate that both heterosexual and homosexual women are less cue-specific relative to men.

  10. 10.

    Tryon (2016) wrote that “no single study should ever be trusted” (p. 236), in the sense that a single study cannot on its own be sufficient to establish a fact.

  11. 11.

    Using vaginal thermoconductance, Fisher et al. (1983) observed responses during REM sleep that were similar to penile erections.

  12. 12.

    In a clever study, Watts, Holmes, Raines, Orbell, and Rieger (2018) reported that six female heterosexual twins displayed low genital specificity for gender cues, but that their homosexual identical co-twins were more cue-specific (but not as cue-specific as five male heterosexual and their homosexual identical co-twins).

  13. 13.

    With regard to concordance between physiological responses and self-reported arousal, there is a wide variation in concordance scores within groups of women, from very large negative correlations to very large positive correlations (e.g., Bouchard, Chivers, & Pukall, 2017; Handy & Meston, 2018; Suschinsky & Lalumière, 2011b; reviewed in Suschinsky, Dawson, & Chivers, 2017), making us wonder if describing women as having lower concordance than men is appropriate.

  14. 14.

    Bossio, Suschinsky, Puts, and Chivers (2014) indirectly assessed test–retest reliability of cue-specificity in a sample of 22 naturally cycling heterosexual women. Women were presented with videos of male and female exercise, solitary masturbation, and intercourse during two phases during their menstrual cycle (i.e., the follicular or fertile phase and the luteal or non-fertile phase). Bossio et al. (2014) found that the women’s genital responses were cue-nonspecific for gender for both testing sessions, regardless of testing order, providing some evidence for the stability of cue-nonspecificity at the group level.

  15. 15.

    In a study of the anatomy of the vulva, Yang, Cold, Yilmaz, and Maravilla (2005) wondered “[w]hat significance the engorgement of vascular structures has to female sexual function” (p. 770).

References

  1. Astrup, B. S., Ravn, P., Lauritsen, J., & Thomsen, J. L. (2012). Nature, frequency and duration of genital lesions after consensual sexual intercourse–implications for legal proceedings. Forensic Science International, 219, 50–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.11.028.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Bergeron, S., Corsini-Munt, S., Aerts, L., Rancourt, K., & Rosen, N. O. (2015). Female sexual pain disorders: A review of the literature on etiology and treatment. Current Sexual Health Reports, 7, 159–169.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bossio, J. A., Singh, M., & Pukall, C. F. (2018). Concurrent assessment of penile blood flow and circumference as indicators of male sexual arousal. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 15, 1570–1578.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bossio, J. A., Suschinsky, K. D., Puts, D. A., & Chivers, M. L. (2014). Does menstrual cycle phase influence the gender specificity of heterosexual women’s genital and subjective sexual arousal? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 941–952.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Bouchard, K. N., Chivers, M. L., & Pukall, C. F. (2017). Effects of genital response measurement device and stimulus characteristics on sexual concordance in women. Journal of Sex Research, 54, 1197–1208.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Bouchard, K. N., Dawson, S. J., Shelley, A. J., & Pukall, C. F. (2019). Concurrent measurement of genital lubrication and blood flow during sexual arousal. Biological Psychology, 145, 159–166.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Bradley, M. M., Costa, V. D., & Lang, P. J. (2015). Selective looking at natural scenes: Hedonic content and gender. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 98, 54–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2015.06.008.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Brauer, M., Laan, E., & ter Kuile, M. M. (2006). Sexual arousal in women with superficial dyspareunia. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 191–200.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Brauer, M., ter Kuile, M. M., & Laan, E. (2009). Effects of appraisal of sexual stimuli on sexual arousal in women with and without superficial dyspareunia. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 476–485.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Brotto, L. A., Knudson, G., Inskip, J., Rhodes, K., & Erskine, Y. (2010). Asexuality: A mixed-methods approach. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 599–618.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Brotto, L. A., & Yule, M. A. (2011). Physiological and subjective sexual arousal in self-identified asexual women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 699–712.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chivers, M. L. (2005). A brief review and discussion of sex differences in the specificity of sexual arousal. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 20, 377–390.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Chivers, M. L. (2017). The specificity of women’s sexual response and its relationship with sexual orientations: A review and ten hypotheses. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 1161–1179.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chivers, M. L., & Bailey, J. M. (2005). A sex difference in features that elicit genital response. Biological Psychology, 70, 115–120.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Chivers, M. L., Bouchard, K. N., & Timmers, A. D. (2015). Straight but not narrow; Within-gender variation in the gender-specificity of women’s sexual response. PLoS ONE, 10, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chivers, M. L., Rieger, G., Latty, E., & Bailey, J. M. (2004). A sex difference in the specificity of sexual arousal. Psychological Science, 15, 736–744.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Chivers, M. L., Roy, C., Grimbos, T., Cantor, J. M., & Seto, M. C. (2014). Specificity of sexual arousal for sexual activities in men and women with conventional and masochistic sexual interests. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 931–940.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Chivers, M. L., Seto, M. C., & Blanchard, R. (2007). Gender and sexual orientation differences in sexual response to sexual activities versus gender of actors in sexual films. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 1108–1121.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Chivers, M. L., Seto, M. C., Lalumière, M. L., Laan, E., & Grimbos, T. (2010). Agreement of self-reported and genital measures of sexual arousal among men and women: A meta-analysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 5–56.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Chivers, M. L., & Timmers, A. D. (2012). Effects of gender and relationship context in audio narratives on genital and subjective sexual response in heterosexual women and men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 185–197.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Dawson, S. J., & Chivers, M. L. (2014). Gender differences and similarities in sexual desire. Current Sexual Health Reports, 6, 211–219.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Dawson, S. J., & Chivers, M. L. (2016). Gender-specificity of initial and controlled visual attention to sexual stimuli in androphilic women and gynephilic men. PLoS ONE, 11(5), e0155651. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dawson, S. J., & Chivers, M. L. (2018). The effect of static versus dynamic stimuli on visual processing of sexual cues in androphilic women and gynephilic men. Royal Society Open Science, 5, 172286. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.172286.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Dawson, S. J., & Chivers, M. L. (2019). The effect of task demands on gender-specificity of visual attention biases in androphilic women and gynephilic men. Personality and Individual Differences, 146, 120–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.04.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Dawson, S. J., Fretz, K. M., & Chivers, M. L. (2017). Visual attention patterns of women with androphilic and gynephilic sexual attractions. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 141–153.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Dawson, S. J., Lalumière, M. L., Allen, S. W., Vasey, P. L., & Suschinsky, K. D. (2013a). Can habituation of sexual responses be elicited in men and women when attention is maintained? Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 45, 274–285.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Dawson, S. J., Sawatsky, M. L., & Lalumière, M. L. (2015). Assessment of introital lubrication. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 1527–1535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0519-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Dawson, S. J., Suschinsky, K. D., & Lalumière, M. L. (2012). Sexual fantasies and viewing times across the menstrual cycle: A dairy study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 173–183.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Dawson, S. J., Suschinsky, K. D., & Lalumière, M. L. (2013b). Habituation of sexual responses in men and women: A test of the preparation hypothesis of women’s genital responses. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 10, 990–1000.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ebsworth, M., & Lalumière, M. L. (2012). Viewing time as a measure of bisexual sexual interest. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 161–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-9923-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Falkus, H. (1991). Salmon fishing: A practical guide. London, England: H. F. & G. Witherby Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Finke, J. B., Deuter, C. E., Hengesch, X., & Schächinger, H. (2017). The time course of pupil dilation evoked by visual sexual stimuli: Exploring the underlying ANS mechanisms. Psychophysiology, 54, 1444–1458. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Fisher, C., Cohen, H. D., Schiavi, R. C., Davis, D., Furman, B., Ward, K., & Cunningham, J. (1983). Patterns of female sexual arousal during sleep and waking: Vaginal thermo-conductance studies. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 12, 97–122.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Gerritsen, J., van der Made, F., Bloemers, J., van Ham, D., Kleiverda, G., Everaerd, W., & Tuiten, A. (2009). The clitoral photoplethysmograph: A new way of assessing genital arousal in women. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 6, 1678–1687.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Gnambs, T. (2014). A meta-analysis of dependability coefficients (test-retest reliabilities) for measures of the Big Five. Journal of Research in Personality, 52, 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.06.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hall, C., Hogue, T., & Guo, K. (2011). Differential gaze behavior towards sexually preferred and non-preferred human figures. Journal of Sex Research, 48, 461–469.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Handy, A. B., & Meston, C. M. (2018). Interoception and awareness of physiological sexual arousal in women with sexual arousal concerns. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 44, 398–409.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Handy, A. B., & Meston, C. M. (2019). A novel technique for measuring lubrication. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  39. Handy, A. B., Stanton, A. M., Pulverman, C. S., & Meston, C. M. (2018). Differences in perceived and physiologic genital arousal between women with and without sexual dysfunction. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 15, 52–63.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Hoffmann, H. (2017). Situating human sexual conditioning. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 2213–2229.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Huberman, J. S., & Chivers, M. L. (2015). Examining gender specificity of sexual response with concurrent thermography and plethysmography. Psychophysiology, 52, 1382–1395. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Huberman, J. S., Dawson, S. J., & Chivers, M. L. (2017). Examining the time course of genital and subjective sexual responses in women and men with concurrent plethysmography and thermography. Biological Psychology, 129, 359–369.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Hunsley, J., & Mash, E. J. (2018). A guide to assessments that work (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Imhoff, R., Schmidt, A. F., Nordsiek, U., Luzar, C., Young, A. W., & Banse, R. (2010). Viewing time effects revisited: Prolonged response latencies for sexually attractive targets under restricted task conditions. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 1275–1288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-9595-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Imhoff, R., Schmidt, A. F., Weiß, S., Young, A. W., & Banse, R. (2012). Vicarious viewing time: Prolonged response latencies for sexually attractive targets as a function of task- or stimulus-specific processing. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 1389–1401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9879-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Israel, E., & Strassberg, D. S. (2009). Viewing time as an objective measure of sexual interest in heterosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 551–558. https://doi.org/10.1037/e705072007-001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Janssen, E., Everaerd, W., Spiering, M., & Janssen, J. (2000). Automatic processes and the appraisal of sexual stimuli: Toward an information processing model of sexual arousal. Journal of Sex Research, 37, 8–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490009552016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kranz, F., & Ishai, A. (2006). Face perception Is modulated by sexual preference. Current Biology, 16, 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2005.10.070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Kukkonen, T. M., Binik, Y. M., Amsel, R., & Carrier, S. (2007). Thermography as a physiological measure of sexual arousal in both men and women. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 4, 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2006.00399.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Laan, E. (1994). Determinants of sexual arousal in women: Genital and subjective components of sexual response. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.

  51. Laan, E., & Everaerd, W. (1995a). Determinants of female sexual arousal: Psychophysiological theory and data. Annual Review of Sex Research, 6, 32–76.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Laan, E., & Everaerd, W. (1995b). Habituation of female sexual arousal to slides and film. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 24, 517–541.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Laan, E., Everaerd, W., & Evers, A. (1995). Assessment of female sexual arousal: Response specificity and construct validity. Psychophysiology, 32, 476–485.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Laan, E., Everaerd, W., Van Aanhold, M.-T., & Rebel, M. (1993). Performance demand and sexual arousal in women. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 31, 25–35.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Laan, E., Everaerd, W., van Bellen, G., & Hanewald, G. J. F. P. (1994). Women’s sexual and emotional responses to male- and female- produced erotica. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23, 153–169.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Laan, E., & Janssen, E. (2007). How do men and women feel? Determinants of subjective experience of sexual arousal. In E. Janssen (Ed.), The psychophysiology of sex (pp. 278–290). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Laan, E., van Driel, E. M., & van Lunsen, R. H. W. (2008). Genital responsiveness in healthy women with and without sexual arousal disorder. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 5, 1424–1435.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Lalumière, M. L. (2017). On the concept of category-specificity [Commentary]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 1187–1190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-0965-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Lalumière, M. L., Babchishin, K. M., & Ebsworth, M. (2018). The use of film clips in a viewing time task of sexual interests. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47, 627–635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1108-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Lalumière, M. L., Harris, G. T., Quinsey, V. L., & Rice, M. E. (2005). The causes of rape: Understanding individual differences in the male propensity for sexual aggression. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Ledoux, J. E. (1996). The emotional brain. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Levin, R. J. (2003). The ins and outs of vaginal lubrication. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 18, 509–513.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Levin, R. J., & van Berlo, W. (2004). Sexual arousal and orgasm in subjects who experience forced or non-consensual sexual stimulation: A review. Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine, 11, 82–88.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Levin, R. J., & Wiley, K. (2008). Vaginal vasomotion: Its appearance, measurement, and usefulness in assessing the mechanisms of vasodilatation. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 5, 377–386.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Lippa, R. A. (2012). Effects of sex and sexual orientation on self-reported attraction and viewing times to images of men and women: Testing for category specificity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9898-y.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Lippa, R. A. (2017). Category specificity of self-reported sexual attraction and viewing times to male and female models in a large U.S. sample: Sex, sexual orientation, and demographic effects. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0844-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Lippa, R. A., Patterson, T. M., & Marelich, W. D. (2010). Looking at and longing for male and female “swimsuit models”. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1(3), 238–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550609359814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Lykins, A. D., Meana, M., & Strauss, G. P. (2008). Sex differences in visual attention to erotic and non-erotic stimuli. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37(2), 219–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-007-9208-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Mader, D. R. D. (1984). Sexual arousal to hostility in sexual fantasy: A test of Stoller’s theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.

  70. Masters, W. H., & Johnson, V. E. (1966). Human sexual response. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  71. McLean, I., Roberts, S. A., White, C., & Paul, S. (2011). Female genital injuries resulting from consensual and non-consensual vaginal intercourse. Forensic Science International, 204, 27–33.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Meston, C. M. (1997). Aging and sexuality. Western Journal of Medicine, 167, 285–290.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Meston, C. M., Rellini, A. H., & McCall, K. (2010). The sensitivity of continuous laboratory measures of physiological and subjective sexual arousal for diagnosing women with sexual arousal disorder. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 7, 938–950.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Nummenmaa, L., Hietanen, J. K., Santtila, P., & Hyönä, J. (2012). Gender and visibility of sexual cues influence eye movements while viewing faces and bodies. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(6), 1439–1451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-9911-0.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Payne, K. A., & Binik, Y. M. (2006). Reviving the labial thermistor clip [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 111–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-005-9017-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Poeppl, T. B., Langguth, B., Rupprecht, R., Safron, A., Bzdok, D., Laird, A. R., & Eickhoff, S. B. (2016). The neural basis of sex differences in sexual behavior: A quantitative meta-analysis. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 3022, 28–43.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Ponseti, J., & Bosinski, H. A. (2010). Subliminal sexual stimuli facilitate genital response in women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 1073–1079.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Ponseti, J., Bosinski, H. A., Wolff, S., Peller, M., Jansen, O., Mehdorn, H. M., & Siebner, H. R. (2006). A functional endophenotype for sexual orientation in humans. NeuroImage, 33, 825–833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.08.002.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Poulos, C. A., & Sheridan, D. J. (2008). Genital injuries in postmenopausal women after sexual assault. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 20, 323–335.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Prause, N., Cerny, J., & Janssen, E. (2005). The labial photoplethysmograph: A new instrument for assessing genital hemodynamic changes in women. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 2, 58–65.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Prause, N., & Heiman, J. R. (2009). Assessing female sexual arousal with the labial thermistor: Response specificity and construct validity. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 72, 115–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2008.11.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Pulverman, C. S., Hixon, J. G., & Meston, C. M. (2015). Uncovering category specificity of genital sexual arousal in women: The critical role of analytic technique. Psychophysiology, 52, 1396–1408. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Rieger, G., Cash, B. M., Merrill, S. M., Jones-Rounds, J., Dharmavaram, S. M., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (2015). Sexual arousal: The correspondence of eyes and genitals. Biological Psychology, 104, 56–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2014.11.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Rieger, G., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (2012). The eyes have it: Sex and sexual orientation differences in pupil dilation patterns. PLoS ONE, 7, e40256. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040256.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Rieger, G., Savin-Williams, R. C., Chivers, M. L., & Bailey, J. M. (2016). Sexual arousal and masculinity-femininity of women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 265–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Rogers, G. S., Van de Castle, R. L., Evans, W. S., & Critelli, J. W. (1985). Vaginal pulse amplitude response patterns during erotic conditions and sleep. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14, 327–342.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Rullo, J. E., Strassberg, D. S., & Israel, E. (2010). Category-specificity in sexual interest in gay men and lesbians. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 874–879.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Rupp, H. A., & Wallen, K. (2007). Sex differences in viewing sexual stimuli: An eye-tracking study in men and women. Hormones and Behavior, 51, 524–533.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Safron, A., Sylva, D., Klimaj, V., Rosenthal, A. M., & Bailey, J. M. (2019). Neural responses to sexual stimuli in heterosexual and homosexual men and women: Men’s responses are more specific. Archives of Sexual Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01521-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Sarin, S., Amsel, R., & Binik, Y. M. (2016). A streetcar named “derousal”? A psychophysiological examination of the desire-arousal distinction in sexually functional and dysfunctional women. Journal of Sex Research, 53, 711–729.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Sarlo, M., & Buodo, G. (2017). To each its own? Gender differences in affective, autonomic, and behavioral responses to same-sex and opposite-sex visual sexual stimuli. Physiology & Behavior, 171, 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.01.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Sawatsky, M. L., Dawson, S. J., & Lalumière, M. L. (2018). Genital lubrication: A cue-specific genital response? Biological Psychology, 134, 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2018.02.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Sawatsky, M. L., & Lalumière, M. L. (2019). Effect of a condom cover on vaginal photoplethysmographic responses. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  94. Sawatsky, M. L., Lavrinsek, S., Dawson, S. J., & Lalumière, M. L. (2019a). The time course of genital response cue-specificity. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  95. Sawatsky, M. L., Suschinsky, K. D., Lavrinsek, S., Chivers, M. L., Huber, J., & Lalumière, M. L. (2019b). Can the vaginal photoplethysmograph and its associated methodology be used to assess anal vasocongestion in men and women? Manuscript in preparation.

  96. Slaughter, L., Brown, C. R. V., Crowley, S., & Peck, R. (1997). Patterns of genital injury in female sexual assault victims. American Journal of Obstetrical Gynecology, 176, 609–616.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Snowden, R. J., Curl, C., Jobbins, K., Lavington, C., & Gray, N. S. (2016). Automatic direction of spatial attention to male versus female stimuli: A comparison of heterosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 843–853. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0678-y.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. Snowden, R. J., & Gray, N. S. (2013). Implicit sexual associations in heterosexual and homosexual women and men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 475–485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-9920-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Snowden, R. J., Wichter, J., & Gray, N. S. (2008). Implicit and explicit measurements of sexual preference in gay and heterosexual men: A comparison of priming techniques. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 558–567.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Spape, J., Timmers, A. D., Yoon, S., Ponseti, J., & Chivers, M. L. (2014). Gender-specific genital and subjective sexual arousal to prepotent sexual features in heterosexual women and men. Biological Psychology, 102, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2014.07.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Staunton, C., & Hammond, S. (2016). Investigation of the labial photoplethysmograph (LPG) in the idiographic assessment of female sexual interest: its viability in the forensic context. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 27, 110–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2015.1090620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Suschinsky, K. D. (2012). An exploration of genital arousal category-specificity and sexual concordance in men and women. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, AB.

  103. Suschinsky, K. D., Dawson, S. J., & Chivers, M. L. (2017). Assessing the relationship between sexual concordance, sexual attractions, and sexual identity in women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 179–192.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Suschinsky, K. D., Dawson, S. J., & Chivers, M. L. (2019a). Assessing gender-specificity of clitoral responses. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  105. Suschinsky, K. D., Huberman, J. S., Maunder, L., Brotto, L. A., Hollenstein, T., & Chivers, M. L. (2019b). The relationship between sexual functioning and sexual concordance in women. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 45, 230–246.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Suschinsky, K. D., & Lalumière, M. L. (2011a). Prepared for anything? An investigation of female genital arousal in response to rape cues. Psychological Science, 22, 159–165.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Suschinsky, K. D., & Lalumière, M. L. (2011b). Category-specificity and sexual concordance: The stability of sex differences in sexual arousal patterns. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 20, 93–108.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Suschinsky, K. D., & Lalumière, M. L. (2012). Is sexual concordance related to awareness of physiological states? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 199–208.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Suschinsky, K. D., Lalumière, M. L., & Chivers, M. L. (2009). Sex differences in patterns of genital sexual arousal: Measurement artifacts or true phenomena? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 559–573.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Suschinsky, K. D., Shelley, A. J., Gerritsen, J., Tuiten, A., & Chivers, M. L. (2015). The clitoral photoplethysmograph: A pilot study examining discriminant and convergent validity. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 12, 2324–2338. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.13047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Sylva, D., Safron, A., Rosenthal, A. M., Reber, P. J., Parrish, T. B., & Bailey, J. M. (2013). Neural correlates of sexual arousal in heterosexual and homosexual women and men. Hormones and Behavior, 64, 673–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2013.08.003.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  112. Timmers, A. (2013). Category specificity and prepotent sexual cues. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Queens University, Kingston, ON.

  113. Tryon, W. W. (2016). Replication is about effect size: Comment on Maxwell, Lau, and Howard (2015). American Psychologist, 71, 236–237.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Tsujimura, A., Miyagawa, Y., Takada, S., Matsuoka, Y., Takao, T., Hirai, T., & Okuyama, A. (2009). Sex differences in visual attention to sexually explicit videos: A preliminary study. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 6, 1011–1017. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.01031.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. van Lunsen, R. H. W., & Laan, E. (2004). Genital vascular responsiveness and sexual feelings in midlife women: Psychophysiologic, brain, and genital imaging studies. Menopause, 11, 741–748.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  116. Velten, J., Chivers, M. L., & Brotto, L. A. (2018a). Does repeated testing impact concordance between genital and self-reported sexual arousal in women? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47, 651–660.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  117. Velten, J., Margraf, J., Chivers, M. L., & Brotto, L. A. (2018b). Effects of a mindfulness task on women’s sexual response. Journal of Sex Research, 55, 747–757.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  118. Wan, C., & Lalumière, M. L. (2017). Can music cue sexual arousal? Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 26, 238–248.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Watts, T. M., Holmes, L., Raines, J., Orbell, S., & Rieger, G. (2018). Sexual arousal patterns of identical twins with discordant sexual orientations. Scientific Reports, 8, 14970. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-33188-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  120. Watts, T. M., Holmes, L., Savin-Williams, R. C., & Rieger, G. (2017). Pupil dilation to explicit and non-explicit sexual stimuli. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 155–165.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  121. Waxman, S. E., & Pukall, C. F. (2009). Laser Doppler imaging of genital blood flow: A direct measure of female sexual arousal. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 6, 2278–2285.

    Google Scholar 

  122. Williams, G. C. (1992). Natural selection: Domains, levels, and challenges. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Wright, L. W., & Adams, H. E. (1994). Assessment of sexual preference using a choice reaction time task. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 16, 221–231.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Yang, C. C., Cold, C. J., Yilmaz, U., & Maravilla, K. R. (2005). Sexually responsive vascular tissue of the vulva. BJU International, 97, 766–772.

    Google Scholar 

  125. Yong, E. (2012). Replication studies: Bad copy. Nature, 485, 298–300.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funding for some of the empirical research described in this article was provided by a Discovery Grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (M.L.L.), and graduate scholarships from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (M.L.S.), the Ontario Trillium Foundation (S.J.D.), and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (K.D.S.). A brief version of this paper was given at the Puzzle of Sexual Orientation Conference at the University of Lethbridge, Alberta (July 2015). We thank Andrea Ashbaugh, Meredith Chivers, Gail Hepburn, Danny Krupp, Vern Quinsey, and Michael Seto for providing helpful suggestions on the article.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin L. Lalumière.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no personal conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article is a work of synthesis and thus does not involve research with human or animal participants.

Informed Consent

Informed consent is not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lalumière, M.L., Sawatsky, M.L., Dawson, S.J. et al. The Empirical Status of the Preparation Hypothesis: Explicating Women’s Genital Responses to Sexual Stimuli in the Laboratory. Arch Sex Behav (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01599-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Cue-specificity
  • Category-specificity
  • Sexual concordance
  • Preparation hypothesis
  • Genital responses
  • Sexual arousal