Domain-specific relationships in sexual measures of impulsive behavior
Abstract
Impulsivity is an important construct for understanding sexual behaviors, but behavioral and self-report measures of impulsivity often are not correlated. One possible explanation for this is that there is little shared variance in the measures because behavioral measures index impulsivity by asking questions about monetary preferences, while self-report measures index impulsivity by asking about a broad range of real-world outcomes (including those of a sexual nature) largely unrelated to money-related preferences. Undergraduate students (total N = 105; female n = 77, male n = 28) completed laboratory measures-delay discounting (DD) and probability discounting (PD)-for two different outcomes-money and sexual activity. Participants also completed the Delaying Gratification Inventory (DGI), which measures difficulty with delaying gratification (i.e., impulsivity) across different domains, including money and physical pleasures. Findings indicated that DD and PD for money were not related to any of the DGI subscales. However, DD for sexual activity was significantly related to the DGI Physical Pleasures subscale, but not other subscales. These findings suggest that the relationship between behavioral and self-report measures of impulsive choice may be stronger when both are measuring domain-specific rather than domain-general behavioral patterns, but further research is warranted.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The literature describes two types of impulsivity: domain-general, which is evident regardless of the task, and domain-specific, where the level of impulsivity depends upon the context.
“The literature describes two types of impulsivity: domain-general, which is evident regardless of the task, and domain-specific, where the level of impulsivity depends upon the context (Perales et al., 2020;Mahoney and Lawyer, 2018).”
From A motivation model of sex addiction – Relevance to the controversy over the concept (2022) · cites this paper as Mahoney and Lawyer, 2018
Cites
Personality disorders and the five factor model of personality
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1990) · Journal of Personality Disorders · doi:10.1521/pedi.1990.4.4.362 · Cited by 1,653 · see citing works
Age norms for impulsiveness, venturesomeness and empathy in adults
Eysenck, S. B. G., Pearson, P. R., Easting, G., & Allsopp, J. F. (1985) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/0191-8869(85)90011-x · Cited by 1,163 · see citing works
Petry, N. M. (2001) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s002130000638 · Cited by 761 · see citing works
An algorithm for identifying nonsystematic delay-discounting data.
Johnson, M. W., & Bickel, W. K. (2008) · Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1037/1064-1297.16.3.264 · Cited by 555 · see citing works
The dual control model: current status and future directions
Bancroft, J., Graham, C. A., Janssen, E., & Sanders, S. A. (2009) · The Journal of Sex Research · doi:10.1080/00224490902747222 · Cited by 438 · see citing works
Bancroft, J., & Janssen, E. (2000) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0149-7634(00)00024-5 · Cited by 433 · see citing works
Performance on the Iowa Gambling Task in a sample of hypersexual men
Mulhauser, K. R. W., Struthers, W. M., Hook, J. N., Pyykkonen, B. A., Womack, S. D., & MacDonald, M. (2014) · Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity · doi:10.1080/10720162.2014.908333 · Cited by 39 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The IGT, DD, PD, and the BART have also shown limited relationships with self-report measures (e.g., Fernie, Cole, Goudie, & Field, 2010; Mitchell, 1999; Mulhauser et al., 2014).”
Method
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A motivation model of sex addiction – Relevance to the controversy over the concept
Toates, F. (2022) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104872 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
“The literature describes two types of impulsivity: domain-general, which is evident regardless of the task, and domain-specific, where the level of impulsivity depends upon the context (Perales et al., 2020; Mahoney and Lawyer, 2018).”
Background
- Authors
- Mahoney, C. T., & Lawyer, S. R.
- Affiliations
- Idaho State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Mahoney, Colin T.
- Venue
- Archives of Sexual Behavior
- Published
- 2018-04-25
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1591-1599
- ISSN
- 0004-0002 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-2800
- OpenAlex
- W2800888712
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2024: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 2.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Archives of Sexual Behavior (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Sexuality, Behavior, and Technology
- Keywords
- impulsivity, sexual behavior, delay discounting, probability discounting, self-report measures, physical pleasure, impulsive choice, undergraduate students
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Impulsive Behavior, Male, Middle Aged, Personality Inventory, Probability, Sexual Behavior, Students, Young Adult, Self Report, Delay Discounting
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