Sexual Arousal in East Asian and Euro-Canadian Women: A Psychophysiological Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Studies of ethnic differences in self-report measures of sexuality have shown East Asian women to be more sexually conservative and less sexually experienced than Caucasian women. There is also strong evidence supporting the notion of ethnic group differences in general measures of nonsexual psychophysiological arousal; however, there have been no previous studies exploring ethnicity and physiological sexual arousal. AIM: The objective of this study was to explore group differences in self-reported and physiological sexual arousal in Euro-Canadian and East Asian women living in Canada; we also aimed to explore the association between level of acculturation (both mainstream and heritage) and sexual arousal in East Asian women only. METHODS: Seventy-five women (N=38 Euro-Canadian, N=37 East Asian) completed a battery of questionnaires and underwent psychophysiological sexual arousal testing using the vaginal photoplethysmograph. They also completed a self-report measure of subjective arousal before and after erotic stimulus exposure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All women completed the Female Sexual Function Index, Vancouver Index of Acculturation, and Sexual Beliefs and Information Questionnaire. Change in genital sexual arousal (vaginal pulse amplitude; VPA), and change in subjective sexual arousal were measured during exposure to erotic stimuli. RESULTS: The groups did not differ in the percent increase in VPA induced by erotic stimuli, nor was there a correlation between VPA and subjective sexual arousal. Among East Asian women alone, neither heritage nor mainstream acculturation was correlated with change in VPA. CONCLUSIONS: East Asian and Euro-Canadian women who show similar ratings of sexual behaviors and self-reported sexual arousal do not differ in physiological or subjective arousal induced by erotic stimuli in the laboratory.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".