Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 345–359 | Cite as

A Comparison of Volume and Circumference Phallometry: Response Magnitude and Method Agreement

  • Michael Kuban
  • Howard E. Barbaree
  • Ray Blanchard


Penile circumference and penile volumephallometry are laboratory methods of assessing sexualarousal. Volume phallometry is reportedly more sensitiveto responses, but comparative studies have beeninconclusive and beset with methodological problems. In thisstudy, 42 self-professed heterosexual volunteers wereassessed with both methods simultaneously, employing astandard test for erotic partner preference. Pearson correlations between test outcomeprofiles were very high (r > .80) for subjects whosecircumferential increase was >2.5 mm [10% of a fullerection (FE)]. However, among lower responders the agreement dropped precipitously (mean r =–.15). Moreover, as a group higher respondersdifferentiated adult and pubescent age female stimulifrom each other and all other categories with eithermethod, but lower responders made this differentiationonly with the volume method. We conclude that (1) athigh levels of response both methods are equally good,(2) at low levels of response volumetric phallometry is a more accurate measure of arousal, and (3)10% FE, or a 2.5-mm circumference increase, should bethe minimum response criterion for the circumferentialmeasure.

phallometry penile plethysmography sex offenders sexual arousal 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abel, G. G., Blanchard, E. B., Murphy, W. D., Becker, J.V., and Djenderedjian, A. (1981). Two methods of measuring penile response. Behav. Ther. 12: 320–328.Google Scholar
  2. Bancroft, J., Jones, H., and Pullan, B. (1966). A simple transducer for measuring penile erections with comments of its use in the treatment of sexual disorders. Behav. Res. Ther. 17: 215–222.Google Scholar
  3. Barbaree, H. E. (1996). Personal discussion, Clarke Institute of Psychiatry.Google Scholar
  4. Barbaree, H. E., Baxter, D. J., and Marshall, W. L. (1989). The reliability of the Rape Index in a sample of rapists and nonrapists. Violence Vict. 4: 299–306.Google Scholar
  5. Barlow, D., Becker, R., Leitenberg, H., and Agras, W. (1970). A mechanical strain gauge for recording penile circumference change. J. Appl. Behav. Anal. 3: 73–79.Google Scholar
  6. Batra, A. K., and Lue, T. F. (1990). Physiology and pathology of penile erection. Annu. Rev. Sex. Res. 1: 251–263.Google Scholar
  7. Card, R., and Olsen, S. (1996). Visual plethysmograph stimuli involving children: Rethinking some quasi-logical issues. Sex. Abuse J. Res. Treat. 8: 267–272.Google Scholar
  8. Castonguay, L. G., Proulx, J., Aubut, J., McKibben, A., and Campbell, M. (1993). Sexual preference assessment of sexual aggressors: Predictors of penile response magnitude. Arch. Sex. Behav. 22: 325–334.Google Scholar
  9. Earls, C., and Marshall, W. (1983). The current state of technology in the laboratory assessment of sexual arousal patterns. In Greer, J., and Stuart, I. (eds.), The Sexual Aggressor: Current Perspectives on Treatment, Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  10. Freund, K. (1963). A laboratory method of diagnosing predominance of homo-and hetero-erotic interest in the male. Behav. Res. Ther. 12: 355–359.Google Scholar
  11. Freund, K. (1967). Diagnosing homo-or heterosexuality and erotic age preference by means of a psychophysiological test. Behav. Res. Ther. 5: 209–228.Google Scholar
  12. Freund, K., and Blanchard, R. (1989). Phallometric diagnosis of pedophilia. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 57: 100–105.Google Scholar
  13. Freund, K., and Watson, R. (1991). Assessing the sensitivity and speci. city of the phallometric test: An update of “Phallometric Diagnosis of Pedophilia.” Psych. Assess. 3: 254–260.Google Scholar
  14. Freund, K., Langevin, R., Cibiri, S., and Zajac, Y. (1973). Heterosexual aversion in homosexual males.Br. J. Psych. 122: 163–169.Google Scholar
  15. Freund, K., Langevin, R., and Barlow, D. (1974). Comparison of two penile measures of erotic arousal.Behav. Res. Ther. 17: 451–457.Google Scholar
  16. Freund, K., Sedlacek, F., and Knob, K. (1965). A simple transducer for mechanical plethysmography of the male genital. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 8: 169–170.Google Scholar
  17. Furr, K. (1991). Penis size and magnitude of erectile change as spurious factors in estimating sexual arousal. Ann. Sex Res. 4: 265–279.Google Scholar
  18. Hanson, R. K., and Bussiè re, M. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 66(2): 348–362.Google Scholar
  19. Harris, G., Rice, M., Quinsey, V. L., Chaplin, T., and Earls, C. (1992). Maximizing the discriminant validity of phallometric assessment data. Psychol. Assess. 4: 502–511.Google Scholar
  20. Howes, R. (1995). A survey of plethysmographic assessment in North America. Sex. Abuse J. Res.Treat. 7: 9–24.Google Scholar
  21. Kuban, M. (1997). A Comparison of Volumetric and Circumferential Plethysmographic Methods: The Effect of Response Magnitude on Method Agreement, Unpublished master's thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  22. Lalumiè re, M. L., and Earls, C. (1992). Voluntary control of penile responses as a function of stimulus duration and instructions. Behav. Assess. 14: 121–132.Google Scholar
  23. Lalumiè re, M. L., and Harris, H. (1998). Common questions regarding the use of phallometric testing with sexual offenders. Sex. Abuse J. Res. Treat. 10: 227–237.Google Scholar
  24. Langevin, R.W. (1989). Sexual Preference Testing: A Brief Guide, Juniper Press, Toronto.Google Scholar
  25. Laws, D. R. (1996). Marching into the past: A critique of Card and Olsen. Sex. Abuse J. Res. Treat. 8: 273–278.Google Scholar
  26. Malcolm, B., Andrews, D., and Quinsey, V. L. (1993). Discriminant and predictive validity of phallometrically measured sexual age and gender preference. J. Interpers. Violence 8: 486–500.Google Scholar
  27. McAnulty, R., and Adams, H. (1992). Validity and ethics of penile circumference measures of sexual arousal: A reply to McConaghy. Arch. Sex. Behav. 21: 177–186.Google Scholar
  28. McConaghy, N. (1974). Measurements of change in penile dimensions. Arch. Sex. Behav. 3: 331–338.Google Scholar
  29. McConaghy, N. (1989). Validity and ethics of penile circumference measures of sexual arousal: A critical review. Arch. Sex. Behav. 18: 357–369.Google Scholar
  30. McConaghy, N. (1993). Sexual Behavior: Problems and Management, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  31. 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.Google Scholar
  32. Quinsey, V. L., and Lalumiè re, M. (1996). Assessment of Sexual Offenders Against Children, Sage, London.Google Scholar
  33. Quinsey, V. L., Steinman, C. M., Bergersen, S. G., and Holmes, T. F. (1975). Penile circumference, skin conductance, and ranking response of child molesters and “normals” to sexual and nonsexual visual stimuli. Behav. Ther. 6: 213–219.Google Scholar
  34. Rosen, R. C., and Beck, J. G. (1988). Patterns of Sexual Arousal, Guilford, New York.Google Scholar
  35. Tanner, J. M. (1978). Foetus into Man: Physical Growth from Conception to Maturity, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  36. Wheeler, D., and Rubin, H. (1987). A comparison of volumetric and circumferential measures of penile erection. Arch. Sex. Behav. 16: 289–301.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Kuban
    • 1
  • Howard E. Barbaree
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ray Blanchard
    • 1
  1. 1.Forensic Program, Clarke DivisionCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations