Cited by 14Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesSexuality, Behavior, and Technology

Domain-specific relationships in sexual measures of impulsive behavior

Mahoney, Colin T., Lawyer, Steven R.·2018·Archives of Sexual 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

Crossref · 10.1007/s10508-018-1210-y

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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