Cited by 39Sexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyGambling Behavior and TreatmentsNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Performance on the Iowa Gambling Task in a sample of hypersexual men

Mulhauser, Kyler R. W., Struthers, William M., Hook, Joshua N., Pyykkonen, Benjamin A., Womack, Stephanie D., MacDonald, Mark·2014·Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity

Abstract

Executive dysfunction, characterized by impaired decision making and impulsivity, has been suspected among individuals seeking treatment for hypersexuality, yet few studies have formally investigated this topic. The present study used the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), an objective neuropsychological instrument, and the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS), a self-report measure, to assess decision-making characteristics and impulsivity in a sample of hypersexual men. Treatment-seeking males with clinically elevated scores on the Hypersexual Behavior Inventory (HBI-19) and who otherwise met criteria for hypersexuality completed the IGT and BIS. Results were compared to a control condition. The current analysis identified significant group differences on the IGT and the BIS. Hypersexual participants selected decks containing frequent loss penalties at a greater frequency than controls on the IGT and endorsed elevated levels of impulsivity on the BIS. The current results reflect non-normative responses on both measures and are consistent with a pattern of executive dysregulation in hypersexual individuals.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10720162.2014.908333

Cites

33 of 33 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?

  • Only around 50% of patients seeking help for problematic sexuality show evidence of the generalized impulsivity that would suggest inadequate general top-down controls.

    “However, only around 50% of patients seeking help for problematic sexuality show evidence of the generalized impulsivity that would suggest inadequate general top-down controls (Mulhauser et al., 2014).”

    From A motivation model of sex addiction – Relevance to the controversy over the concept (2022) · cites this paper as Mulhauser et al., 2014

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mulhauser, K. R. W., Struthers, W. M., Hook, J. N., Pyykkonen, B. A., Womack, S. D., & MacDonald, M.
Affiliations
  • Wheaton College - Illinois (US)
  • University of North Texas (US)
  • Mark MacDonald and Associates, Wheaton, Illinois
Corresponding author
Mulhauser, Kyler R. W.
Venue
Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity
Published
2014-04-03
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
170-183
ISSN
  • 1072-0162 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5318
OpenAlex
W2099172038
Cited by
39
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2
FWCI
2.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity The Journal of Treatment and Prevention (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Sexuality, Behavior, and Technology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
hypersexuality, Iowa Gambling Task, impulsivity, executive dysfunction, decision-making, Barratt Impulsiveness Scale

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