Research Methods in
Sexuality Research
Uniqueness of
Sexuality Research
• Role of theory
• What can be observed? Recorded?
• Sensitive nature of sexuality research - data
collection method could profoundly affect results
• What role does culture play? Diversity?
• What does data mean?
• What ethical factors need to be considered?
Participant Selection
• Sexually Active?
–
–
–
–
Frequency of sexual activity
Type of sexual activity
Level of commitment
Sexual orientation
Participant Selection
• Generalizability
– Who volunteers for sexuality studies?
– What characteristics might they have that differ
from those who don’t volunteer?
– Does financial compensation affect who
volunteers?
Data Collection
• Participant comfort:
– Data collection confidential?
– Data collection anonymous?
– Researcher sensitive to participants feelings,
concerns?
• Special population? (e.g., sexual abuse,
dysfunction)
• Same sex researcher preferable
• appearance of researcher
Data Collection
• Human Studies
– Self-report measures
– Direct observation/measurement
– Focus Groups
• Animal Studies
Data Collection
• Self-report measures (survey, interview)
– Is the measure validated?
• On the population you are assessing?
• Is the measure up to date?
– Is the measure reliable?
Data Collection
• Self-report measures
– Pros:
• Able to assess wide range of sexual issues (e.g.,
behaviors, beliefs, fantasies)
• Not invasive
Data Collection
• Self-report measures
– Cons:
• selection/sampling bias
• self-report bias:
– Purposeful Distortion - Social Desirability: restricted by persons willingness to selfdisclose (e.g., “I have had anal sex.”)
– affected by persons subjective interpretation
(e.g., “I have sexual fantasies at least once a day.” - what constitutes a sexual
fantasy?)
– Accuracy of memory
– Ability to estimate
• correlational - no cause and effect (correlation b/w depression & low desire)
Data Collection
• Direct observation
– at home or in a laboratory
– participant, laboratory observations, animal
research
– observer bias?
Data Collection
• Direct observation
– Reliability: would we get the same result if we
observed it again?
– Generalizability: ecological validity
– Determining categories: no overlap, all areas covered
– Observer role: is the participant or researcher the
observer?
– Ethical issues
Data Collection
• Direct observation: at home
– example:
• daily dairy
• record experiences after sexual activity (e.g.,
intensity of orgasm)
– pros: more natural, more generalizable, greater
ecological validity
– cons: difficult to control variables (e.g., time
spent in foreplay)
Data Collection
• Dairies
– structured vs. unstructured
– Pros:
• reduces memory biases: ability to record
behavior/feeling immediately
– Cons:
• attrition due to amount of time needed
• failure to complete the diary as instructed (e.g.,
within time limit)
Data Collection
• Direct Observation: in the laboratory
– two rooms: one for subject, one for experimenter
•
•
•
•
privacy
minimize influence of sounds/noises
permits training
standardization of study situation - experimenters behavior could
affect outcome
– stimulus:
• erotica that is designed for male vs. female audience
– auditory? Visual?
– Acceptable sexual behaviors?
– characteristics of erotica (e.g., women with plastic surgery?)
• standardization of erotica
Data Collection
• Direct observation: in the laboratory
– Pros: able to obtain direct measures of sexual behavior
(e.g., sexual arousal, orgasm)
– Cons: invasive, not generalizable, less ecological
validity, subject selection bias
Data Collection
• Psychophysiological data: Sexual Arousal
– Men
• air volumetric plethysmograph
• strain gauge
• Rigiscan Plus monitor - penile circumference and
rigidity
Rigiscan Plus
Data Collection
• Psychophysiological data: Sexual Arousal
– Women:
• vaginal photoplethysmograph
– vaginal pulse amplitude (VPA)
– vaginal blood volume (VBV)
• labial temperature
• changes in oxygen pressure
Vaginal Photoplethysmograph
Data Collection
• Psychophysical data: orgasm
– Men & Women
– latency to orgasm
– measure muscular contractions
Data Collection
• Focus Groups
– exploratory research (e.g., developing
questionnaires)
– to explore areas not amenable to direct
observation
– to gain understanding of a group with which
there is relatively little information
Data Collection
• Animal studies
– Pros: able to conduct experiments - manipulate
variables
•
•
•
•
conduct studies that would be unethical in humans
conduct studies that would be logistically difficult in humans
conduct studies that would be expensive in humans
test hypotheses in animals prior to humans
– Cons: generalizability to humans
• Is the animal physiology similar?
• Is the animal behavior comprable? (e.g., lordosis)
Characteristics of Sex Research
Participants
• Are people willing to volunteer for sexuality studies?
Conclusion: more invasive the study, fewer volunteers (Wolchik et
al.)
• What is the difference between those who do/do not
volunteer for an intrusive study?
Conclusion: different in sex-related personality (e.g., sex guilt) but
not different in general personality (e.g., extraversion, lying)
(Farkas, Sine, & Evans)
Characteristics of Research
Participants
% Volunteered
Men
Women
film
50%
49%
subjective arousal
57%
44%
physiological arousal - forehead
66%
41%
physiological arousal - clothed lap
67%
38%
physiological arousal - unclothed
30%
13%
genital gage
26%
13%
(Wolchik)
Interpreting Research Results
• Sampling Considerations
– Is a significant proportion of the population absent?
– Were the participants selected based on sexual characteristics?
– Did any subjects withdraw from the study? What characteristics
might they have that differ from those who did not withdraw?
– Was there any measurement error such that the true mean and the
sample mean might differ?
Interpreting Research Results
• Threats to interpretation:
– researchers’ beliefs, measurement issues, statistical results (statistical vs
meaningful differences)
– misunderstanding the mean
• the degree to which it applies to individuals (e.g., 28 day menstrual cycle)
• relative importance of being average (e.g., frequency of sexual activity vs.
sexual compatibility and satisfaction
– poor operational definitions (e.g., measuring attempted vs. completed
sexual assault)
Think of the six women closest to you.
Now guess which one will be raped this year.
Interpreting Research Results
• Threats to interpretation:
– researchers’ beliefs, measurement issues, statistical results (statistical vs
meaningful differences)
– misunderstanding the mean
• the degree to which it applies to individuals (e.g., 28 day menstrual cycle)
• relative importance of being average (e.g., frequency of sexual activity vs.
sexual compatibility and satisfaction
– poor operational definitions (e.g., measuring attempted vs. completed
sexual assault)
– researchers’ language (e.g., “Have you had sex when you didn’t want to
because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?” regret vs. rape?)
– consider assumptions (e.g., woman as victims of sexual assault - what
about men?)
• Interpret results at a societal level