CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 354Sexual function and dysfunction studiesSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyGender and Feminist Studies

Turning on and turning off: a focus group study of the factors that affect women’s sexual arousal

Open access
Graham, Cynthia A., Sanders, Stephanie A., Milhausen, Robin R., McBride, Kimberly R.·2004·Archives of Sexual Behavior
DOI 10.1023/b:aseb.0000044737.62561.fd
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The aim of this study was to inform the development of a questionnaire to assess a woman's tendency to respond with sexual excitation/inhibition in different situations. Nine focus groups, involving 80 women (M age = 34.3 years; range, 18-84), were conducted. Women described a wide range of physical (genital and nongenital), cognitive/emotional, and behavioral cues to arousal. The relationship between sexual interest (desire) and sexual arousal was complex; sexual interest was reported as sometimes preceding arousal, but at other times following it. Many women did not clearly differentiate between arousal and interest. Qualitative data on the factors that women perceived as "enhancers" and "inhibitors" of sexual arousal are presented, with a focus on the following themes: feelings about one's body; concern about reputation; unwanted pregnancy/contraception; feeling desired versus feeling used by a partner; feeling accepted by a partner; style of approach/initiation; and negative mood. The findings can help inform conceptualizations of sexual arousal in women.

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 · 10.1023/b:aseb.0000044737.62561.fd

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • A mixed-methods approach is beneficial for elucidating understudied aspects of human sexuality and developing new treatments.

    “Given the demonstrated benefits of a mixed-methods approach for elucidating understudied aspects of human sexuality and developing new treatments,44, 45, 46, 47, 48”

    From Preliminary Development of a Mindfulness-Based Group Therapy to Expand Couples’ Sexual Intimacy after Prostate Cancer: A Mixed Methods Approach (2021) · cites this paper as [45]

    The Introduction and Discussion (page numbers unavailable) say that focus groups helped explore women’s sexual arousal and could inform questionnaire development, future research, and clinical work. The paper reports qualitative findings, however; it does not demonstrate the benefits of a mixed-methods approach or report developing new treatments. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Bancroft, J., Janssen, E, Carnes, L, Strong, D. A., Goodrich, D., & Long, J. S. (in press). Sexual risk taking in young heterosexual men: The relevance of personality factors. Journal of Sex Research.
  2. Byers, P.Y., Zeller, R. A., & Byers, B. D. (2001). Focus group methods. In M. W. Wiederman & B. E. Whitley (Eds.), Handbook for conducting research on human sexuality (pp. 173- 194). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
  3. Everaerd, W., Laan, E., Both, S., & van der Velde, J. (2000). Female sexuality. In L. Szuchman & F. Muscarella (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on human sexuality (pp. 108-122). New York: Wiley.
  4. Heiman, J. R. (2001). Sexual desire in human relationships. In W. Everaerd, E. Laan, & S. Both. (Eds.), Sexual appetite, desire and motivation: Energetics of the sexual system (pp. 117- Women"s sexual arousal 30 134). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
  5. Lief, H. I. (1977). What"s new in sex research? Inhibited sexual desire. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 11(7), 94-95.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Graham, C. A., Sanders, S. A., Milhausen, R. R., & McBride, K. R.
Affiliations
Indiana University Bloomington (US)
Corresponding author
Graham, Cynthia A.
ORCID
Venue
Archives of Sexual Behavior
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2004-12
Volume
33
Issue
6
Pages
527-538
ISSN
  • 0004-0002 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2800
DOI
10.1023/b:aseb.0000044737.62561.fd
OpenAlex
W2031869173
Cited by
354
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 17
FWCI
6.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Archives of Sexual Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Brunel University Research Archive (BURA) (Brunel University London) (submittedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Eli Lilly and Company
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Sexual function and dysfunction studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Sexuality, Behavior, and Technology
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Feminist Studies
Keywords
female sexual arousal, sexual desire, sexual interest, body image, sexual reputation, unwanted pregnancy, contraception, partner acceptance, sexual initiation, negative mood, questionnaire development
MeSH terms
Adult, Affect, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anecdotes as Topic, Arousal, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Libido, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Concept, Sexual Behavior, Sexual Partners, United States, Women's Health, Focus Groups

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