Cited by 26Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesSexual function and dysfunction studies

Methamphetamine administration dose effects on sexual desire, sexual decision making, and delay discounting

Open access
Berry, Meredith S., Bruner, Natalie R., Herrmann, Evan S., Johnson, Patrick S., Johnson, Matthew W.·2022·Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology

Abstract

= 19) participated in this within-subject, placebo-controlled study comparing the effects of 0 mg, 20 mg, and 40 mg of oral methamphetamine. Compared to placebo, methamphetamine caused dose-related and time-related increases in a single-item sexual desire rating and some standard stimulant abuse liability ratings, as well as dose-related increases in the Sexual Arousal and Desire Inventory (SADI; a multidimensional scale capturing positive and negative aspects of desire/arousal). However, methamphetamine caused no significant mean differences in likelihood of condom use within the Sexual Delay Discounting Task or the Monetary Discounting Task. SADI scores were negatively correlated with change from placebo in condom use likelihood in the Sexual Delay Discounting Task for some partner conditions (i.e., decreased reported likelihood of condom use in participants who experienced increased desire/arousal and vice versa). These mixed results may be consistent with methamphetamine's role as both a treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and as a drug of abuse associated with increased delay discounting, and they suggest that methamphetamine's effects on discounting may be modulated by the reinforcing properties of what is being discounted. Delay discounting may be an understudied element of risky sexual decision making, particularly among individuals who use methamphetamine. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

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 · 10.1037/pha0000398

Cites

67 of 67 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?

  • Stimulants are associated with increased risk-taking and delay discounting.

    “They are associated with increased risk-taking and delay discounting (Berry et al., 2022;Skryabin et al., 2020;Volkow et al., 2007).”

    From A motivation model of sex addiction – Relevance to the controversy over the concept (2022) · cites this paper as Berry et al., 2022

    The Introduction (page unavailable) associates dopaminergic stimulants with increased sexual risk and reports greater delay discounting among people who misuse methamphetamine. The claim broadens sexual risk to risk-taking generally and leaves out the paper’s qualification that acute stimulant effects on delay discounting are mixed; the Discussion also reports varied responses to methamphetamine. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Bickel WK, & Johnson MW (2003b). Delay discounting: A fundamental behavioral process of drug dependence. (pp. 419– 440). New York, NY, US: Russell Sage Foundation.
  2. Johnson MW, Strain EC, & Griffiths RR (2010). Effects of oral caffeine pretreatment on response to intravenous nicotine and cocaine. Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology, 18(4), 305– 315. doi: 10.1037/a0020509 20695686 PMC3528786 · DOI
  3. Rapport MD, & Kelly KL (1993). Psychostimulant effects on learning and cognitive function. (pp. 97– 136). Needham Heights, MA, US: Allyn & Bacon.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Berry, M. S., Bruner, N. R., Herrmann, E. S., Johnson, P. S., & Johnson, M. W.
Corresponding author
  • Berry, Meredith S.
  • Johnson, Matthew W.
Venue
Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology
Published
2022-04
Volume
30
Issue
2
Pages
180-193
ISSN
  • 1064-1297 (ISSN-L)
  • 1936-2293
OpenAlex
W3091468177
Cited by
26
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 1
FWCI
1.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (R21DA032717; R01DA032363, T32DA07209)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Sexual function and dysfunction studies
Keywords
methamphetamine, sexual desire, sexual decision-making, delay discounting, condom use, sexual arousal, sexual risk behavior, ADHD treatment, dosage effect
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Humans, Methamphetamine, Sexual Behavior, Condoms, Safe Sex, 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