CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 106Sexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyGambling Behavior and TreatmentsImpact of Technology on Adolescents

The assessment and treatment of adult heterosexual men with self-perceived problematic pornography use: A review

Sniewski, Luke, Farvid, Panteá, Carter, Phil·2018·Addictive Behaviors
DOI 10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.10.010
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Self-Perceived Problematic Porn Use (SPPPU) refers to an individual who self-identifies as addicted to porn because they feel they are unable to regulate their porn consumption, and that use interferes with everyday life. Although porn addiction has not been formally classified as its own distinct behavioral addiction, therapists and clinicians are advised to educate themselves on the current state of literature pertaining to pornography consumption given the widespread availability and consumption of sexually explicit material online. This review article begins with a general overview of pornography and porn use so that therapists and researchers can discern between non-intrusive and problematic pornography consumption patterns within their practice and understand the common characteristics of those that most commonly present with SPPPU. Thereafter, an overview and examination of therapeutic interventions for SPPPU will be identified and analysed. Finally, the review concludes with recommendations for therapists, clinicians, and future research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.10.010

Cites

80 of 80 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?

  • To the best of the authors' knowledge, there is no current systematic review about treatment and intervention studies on CSBD and PPU, but only narrative reviews showing that research has increased since 2015.

    “To the best of our knowledge there is no current systematic review about treatment and intervention studies on CSBD and PPU, but only narrative reviews showing that research has increased since 2015 (von Franqué, Klein, & Briken, 2015; Grubbs et al., 2020; Hook, Reid, Penberthy, Davis, & Jennings, 2014; Sniewski, Farvid, & Carter, 2018).”

    From Treatments and interventions for compulsive sexual behavior disorder with a focus on problematic pornography use: A preregistered systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as Sniewski, Farvid, & Carter, 2018

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Sniewski, L., Farvid, P., & Carter, P.
Affiliations
Auckland University of Technology (NZ)
Corresponding author
Sniewski, Luke
ORCID
Venue
Addictive Behaviors
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-02
Volume
77
Pages
217-224
ISSN
0306-4603 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.10.010
OpenAlex
W2766482018
Cited by
106
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1
FWCI
1.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Addictive Behaviors (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Sexuality, Behavior, and Technology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
Keywords
porn addiction, pornography use, behavioral addiction, therapeutic interventions, problematic internet use, clinical evaluation
MeSH terms
Adult, Erotica, Humans, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Behavior, Addictive, Heterosexuality, Internet

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