The impact of sexual arousal on elements of sexual decision making: Sexual self-restraint, motivational state, and self-control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual arousal has been shown to have an impact on risk-taking and intentions to engage in risky sexual behaviour (e.g., Ariely & Loewenstein, 2006; Shuper & Fisher, 2008; Skakoon-Sparling, Cramer, & Shuper, 2016); however, the mechanisms underlying this effect are not well understood. To further investigate the effects of sexual arousal on sexual health decision-making, the current study was designed to examine the associations among self-control, sexual self-restraint, and motivational state, as well as the impact of sexual arousal on these factors. Forty-nine female and 26 male participants viewed either sexually arousing (experimental condition) or control video clips and responded to inventories designed to measure their self-control, sexual self-restraint, and meta-motivational state balance (within the Rules domain of Reversal Theory). A moderate positive correlation was found across all participants between self-control and self-restraint. Participants in the sexual arousal condition scored significantly lower on measures of self-control and sexual self-restraint; no effect was found for the meta-motivational state measure used. The results of this study suggest that sexual arousal either functions to deplete individuals' internal reserves of self-control or that it creates conditions that make it difficult to access the cognitive capacity to engage in self-control. This effect, combined with the correspondingly low score on our measure of sexual self-restraint, suggest that this may be an avenue through which sexual arousal negatively impacts sexual health decision-making.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".