Predicting Sexual Risk Taking and Dysfunction in Women: Relevance of Sexual Inhibition and Sexual Excitation

Cynthia A. Graham, Ph.D.,1,2,6 Stephanie A. Sanders, Ph.D.,2,3,6Robin R. Milhausen, Ph.D.,4 & Kimberly McBride, M.A.5,6 1Oxford Doctoral Course in Clinical Psychology, Oxford, England; 2The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, & Reproduction, Indiana University; 3Department of Gender Studies, Indiana University; 4Emory Center for AIDS Research, Emory University, Atlanta; 5Department of Applied Health Science,

Indiana University; 6Rural Center for AIDS/STD Prevention, Indiana University

Higher scores on Sexual Arousability and Partner Characteristics and lower scores on Relationship Importance predicted propensity for casual sex. Higher age, higher scores on the subfactors of Setting and Smell and lower scores on Relationship Importance were all significant predictors of lifetime number of male sexual partners.

Overall experience of sexual problems was predicted by higher scores on the inhibition subfactors of Arousal Contingency and Concerns about Sexual Function as well as by Partner Characteristics and higher age.

The findings provide support for the Dual Control Model but suggest the importance of examining specific subfactors in relation to specific aspects of sexual risk-taking and sexual functioning.

Various factors affect how people behave in sexual situations. One understudied factor is the degree to which sexual arousal processes affect sexual behaviors and responses to sexual situations.

The Dual Control Model developed at The Kinsey Institute hypothesizes that sexual response is under the control of two opposing tendencies—the tendency to become excited sexually and the tendency to become inhibited sexually.

Individuals vary in their propensities for sexual excitation (SE) and sexual inhibition (SI). These individual differences may account for differences in sexual risk-taking and sexual dysfunction as illustrated in the model below.

Studies on men conducted by The Kinsey Institute support the model. Propensity for casual sex correlated negatively with inhibition factor SIS2 (threat of performance consequences) & positively with excitation factor (SES). Experience of erectile problems correlated positively with inhibition factor SIS1 (threat of performance failure) [Janssen et al., 2002].

Using a woman-centered approach, we used information collected from women in focus groups (Graham, Sanders, Milhausen, & McBride, 2004) to develop a questionnaire (SISE-W) to assess SI & SE. Factor analysis revealed 8 lower order factors and 2 higher order factors reflecting SI and SE.

BACKGROUND PURPOSE

This study examined the relationships among scores on the SISE-W and sexual risk taking and sexual dysfunction in women.

SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS

QUESTIONNAIRES

RESULTS

RISK TAKING

PARTICIPANTS

SEXUAL PROBLEMS

540 heterosexual womenMean age: 33.7 yrs. (sd 13.9; range 18-81)

Race: 92% White 5% Black/African-American 2% Asian 1% Other

Education: 52% had completed college

Marital status: 44% single/never married 38% married 13% separated/divorced 4% cohabiting 1% widowed

ModelModel

Low Inhibition

High Inhibition

‘RiskySex’?

SexualDysfunction?

High Excitation

Low Excitation

Demographic variables

Sexual Background - including experience of sexual problems

The Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI) - propensity for casual sex & risky sex (Simpson & Gangestad 1991; Seal & Agostinelli, 1994)

Sexual Inhibition & Sexual Excitation Scales for Women (SISE-W)

Sexual Excitation (SE) subfactors• sexual arousability • sexual power dynamics• partner characteristics• setting (unusual/unconcealed) • smell Sexual Inhibition (SI) subfactors• relationship importance • arousal contingency• concerns about sexual function

Percent Reporting Varying Degrees of Sexual Problems & the Corresponding Mean Scores (SD) for

Arousal Contingency & Concerns about Sexual Function

Sexual Problems %

Arousal Contingency

Concerns about Sexual Function

Not at all 23.4 1.9 (.54) 2.5 (.46)

Very little/a little 60.7 2.1 (.49) 2.6 (.48)

Moderately 10.4 2.5 (.67) 2.9 (.47)

Strongly 3.5 2.8 (.71) 3.0 (.61)

Very strongly 1.9 3.1 (.70) 3.2 (.53)

Results of Multiple Regression Analyses Using SISE-W Factor Scores & Age to Predict Sexual Problems, Arousal Difficulties,

& Low Sexual Interest: Standard Coefficients & R2

SISE-W FactorsSexual

ProblemsArousal

DifficultiesLow Sexual

Interest

Arousal Contingency .30*** .44*** .48***

Concerns about Sexual Function .21*** .09*

Partner Characteristics .11**

Age .13** .09* .13**

R2 .21 .25 .26

*** p <.0001 ** p <.01 * p <.05

SISE-W FactorsPropensity for Casual Sex

# Sexual Partners

Relationship Importance -.58*** -.24***

Sexual Arousability .18***

Partner Characteristics .09*

Setting .12**

Smell .12**

Age .31***

R2 .39 .16*** p <.0001 ** p <.01 * p <.05

Results of Multiple Regression Analyses Using SISE-W Factor Scores & Age to Predict Propensity for Casual Sex

(SOI) & Lifetime Number of Male Partners: Standard Coefficients & R2

The Kinsey Institutefor Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction