Literature DB >> 20848175

Sexual attraction to others: a comparison of two models of alloerotic responding in men.

Ray Blanchard1, Michael E Kuban, Thomas Blak, Philip E Klassen, Robert Dickey, James M Cantor.   

Abstract

The penile response profiles of homosexual and heterosexual pedophiles, hebephiles, and teleiophiles to laboratory stimuli depicting male and female children and adults may be conceptualized as a series of overlapping stimulus generalization gradients. This study used such profile data to compare two models of alloerotic responding (sexual responding to other people) in men. The first model was based on the notion that men respond to a potential sexual object as a compound stimulus made up of an age component and a gender component. The second model was based on the notion that men respond to a potential sexual object as a gestalt, which they evaluate in terms of global similarity to other potential sexual objects. The analytic strategy was to compare the accuracy of these models in predicting a man's penile response to each of his less arousing (nonpreferred) stimulus categories from his response to his most arousing (preferred) stimulus category. Both models based their predictions on the degree of dissimilarity between the preferred stimulus category and a given nonpreferred stimulus category, but each model used its own measure of dissimilarity. According to the first model ("summation model"), penile response should vary inversely as the sum of stimulus differences on separate dimensions of age and gender. According to the second model ("bipolar model"), penile response should vary inversely as the distance between stimulus categories on a single, bipolar dimension of morphological similarity-a dimension on which children are located near the middle, and adult men and women are located at opposite ends. The subjects were 2,278 male patients referred to a specialty clinic for phallometric assessment of their erotic preferences. Comparisons of goodness of fit to the observed data favored the unidimensional bipolar model.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20848175      PMCID: PMC3310141          DOI: 10.1007/s10508-010-9675-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Sex Behav        ISSN: 0004-0002


  16 in total

1.  Generalization gradient shape and summation in steady-state tests.

Authors:  D S Blough
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1969-01       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  IQ, handedness, and pedophilia in adult male patients stratified by referral source.

Authors:  Ray Blanchard; Nathan J Kolla; James M Cantor; Philip E Klassen; Robert Dickey; Michael E Kuban; Thomas Blak
Journal:  Sex Abuse       Date:  2007-07-17

3.  The relation between peak response magnitudes and agreement in diagnoses obtained from two different phallometric tests for pedophilia.

Authors:  Amy D Lykins; James M Cantor; Michael E Kuban; Thomas Blak; Robert Dickey; Philip E Klassen; Ray Blanchard
Journal:  Sex Abuse       Date:  2009-11-03

4.  The female child as a surrogate object.

Authors:  K Freund; C K McKnight; R Langevin; S Cibiri
Journal:  Arch Sex Behav       Date:  1972-12

5.  Diagnosing homo- or heterosexuality and erotic age-preference by means of a psychophysiological test.

Authors:  K Freund
Journal:  Behav Res Ther       Date:  1967-08

6.  Sexual arousal to female children in gynephilic men.

Authors:  Amy D Lykins; James M Cantor; Michael E Kuban; Thomas Blak; Robert Dickey; Philip E Klassen; Ray Blanchard
Journal:  Sex Abuse       Date:  2010-06-18

7.  Sensitivity and specificity of the phallometric test for pedophilia in nonadmitting sex offenders.

Authors:  R Blanchard; P Klassen; R Dickey; M E Kuban; T Blak
Journal:  Psychol Assess       Date:  2001-03

8.  Gender and sexual orientation differences in sexual response to sexual activities versus gender of actors in sexual films.

Authors:  Meredith L Chivers; Michael C Seto; Ray Blanchard
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2007-12

9.  Pedophilia, hebephilia, and the DSM-V.

Authors:  Ray Blanchard; Amy D Lykins; Diane Wherrett; Michael E Kuban; James M Cantor; Thomas Blak; Robert Dickey; Philip E Klassen
Journal:  Arch Sex Behav       Date:  2008-08-07

10.  Men with sexual interest in transvestites, transsexuals, and she-males.

Authors:  R Blanchard; P I Collins
Journal:  J Nerv Ment Dis       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 2.254

View more
  8 in total

1.  Estimation of the Fraternal Birth Order Effect in the UK Biobank Data Reported by Abé et al. (2021).

Authors:  Ray Blanchard
Journal:  Arch Sex Behav       Date:  2021-05-20

Review 2.  Advances in the Assessment of Sexual Deviance.

Authors:  David Thornton; Gina Ambroziak; Rachel E Kahn; James Mundt
Journal:  Curr Psychiatry Rep       Date:  2018-07-21       Impact factor: 5.285

3.  Samoan Men's Sexual Attraction and Viewing Time Response to Male-to-Feminine Transgender and Cisgender Adults.

Authors:  Lanna J Petterson; Paul L Vasey
Journal:  Arch Sex Behav       Date:  2021-01-25

4.  Studying Fraternal Birth Order in Homosexual Women and Bisexual Men.

Authors:  Ray Blanchard
Journal:  Arch Sex Behav       Date:  2022-10-13

5.  New Data on Birth Order in Homosexual Men and Women and a Reply to Vilsmeier et al. (2021a, 2021b).

Authors:  Ray Blanchard; Malvina N Skorska
Journal:  Arch Sex Behav       Date:  2022-06-17

6.  Meta-Analyses of Fraternal and Sororal Birth Order Effects in Homosexual Pedophiles, Hebephiles, and Teleiophiles.

Authors:  Ray Blanchard; Klaus M Beier; Francisco R Gómez Jiménez; Dorit Grundmann; Jurian Krupp; Scott W Semenyna; Paul L Vasey
Journal:  Arch Sex Behav       Date:  2020-09-07

7.  The eyes have it: sex and sexual orientation differences in pupil dilation patterns.

Authors:  Gerulf Rieger; Ritch C Savin-Williams
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-08-03       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  A method yielding comparable estimates of the fraternal birth order and female fecundity effects in male homosexuality.

Authors:  Ray Blanchard; Jurian Krupp; Doug P VanderLaan; Paul L Vasey; Kenneth J Zucker
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2020-03-18       Impact factor: 5.349

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.