CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 584Sexual function and dysfunction studiesSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 230 of the 230 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Agreement of self-reported and genital measures of sexual arousal in men and women: a meta-analysis.

Open access
Chivers, Meredith L., Seto, Michael C., Lalumière, Martin L., Laan, Ellen, Grimbos, Teresa·2010·Archives of Sexual Behavior
DOI 10.1007/s10508-009-9556-9PMC PMC2811244
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The assessment of sexual arousal in men and women informs theoretical studies of human sexuality and provides a method to assess and evaluate the treatment of sexual dysfunctions and paraphilias. Understanding measures of arousal is, therefore, paramount to further theoretical and practical advances in the study of human sexuality. In this meta-analysis, we review research to quantify the extent of agreement between self-reported and genital measures of sexual arousal, to determine if there is a gender difference in this agreement, and to identify theoretical and methodological moderators of subjective-genital agreement. We identified 132 peer- or academically-reviewed laboratory studies published between 1969 and 2007 reporting a correlation between self-reported and genital measures of sexual arousal, with total sample sizes of 2,505 women and 1,918 men. There was a statistically significant gender difference in the agreement between self-reported and genital measures, with men (r = .66) showing a greater degree of agreement than women (r = .26). Two methodological moderators of the gender difference in subjective-genital agreement were identified: stimulus variability and timing of the assessment of self-reported sexual arousal. The results have implications for assessment of sexual arousal, the nature of gender differences in sexual arousal, and models of sexual response.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10508-009-9556-9

Cites

230 of 230 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Funnel graph of the (un-weighted) correlations between subjective and genital arousal, using selected samples (top and bottom horizontal lines represent the male and female unweighted averages, respectively)
Fig. 1 Funnel graph of the (un-weighted) correlations between subjective and genital arousal, using selected samples (top and bottom horizontal lines represent the male and female unweighted averages, respectively)CC BY-NC · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 225 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. *Chivers, M. L. (2003). A sex difference in the specificity of sexual arousal. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
  2. *Gaither, G. K. (2001). The reliability and validity of three new measures of male sexual preferences. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering, 61(9-B), 4981.
  3. Jones, G. E. (1995). Constitutional and physiological factors in heartbeat perception. In D. Vaitl & R. Schandry (Eds.), From the heart to the brain: The psychophysiology of circulation-brain interaction (pp. 173–192). Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
  4. *Stock, W. E. (1983). The effects of violent pornography on the sexual responsiveness and attitudes of women. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 401–500 of 582

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Chivers, M. L., Seto, M. C., Lalumière, M. L., Laan, E., & Grimbos, T.
Affiliations
  • Queen's University (CA)
  • Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (CA)
  • University of Lethbridge (CA)
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Chivers, Meredith L.
ORCID
Venue
Archives of Sexual Behavior
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2010-01-05
Volume
39
Issue
1
Pages
5-56
ISSN
  • 0004-0002 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2800
DOI
10.1007/s10508-009-9556-9
PMC
PMC2811244
OpenAlex
W2054026797
Cited by
584
References
225
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 46 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 45 · 2016: 42 · 2015: 41 · 2014: 38 · 2013: 52 · 2012: 34
FWCI
5.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Archives of Sexual Behavior (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  • Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Sexual function and dysfunction studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Sexuality, Behavior, and Technology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Keywords
sexual arousal, gender differences, stimulus variability, sexual dysfunction assessment, paraphilias
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Male, Self-Assessment, Sexual Behavior, Sex Characteristics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review