MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005448666 · doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.01.007

High-Frequency Pornography Use May Not Always Be Problematic

2020· article· en· W3005448666 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsHEC MontréalConcordia UniversityUniversité de Montréal
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNemzeti Kutatási Fejlesztési és Innovációs HivatalNational Research, Development and Innovation OfficeEmberi Eroforrások MinisztériumaConcordia University
KeywordsPornographyBoredomPsychologyFeelingClinical psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Previously, variable-centered analytic approaches showed positive, weak-to-moderate associations between frequency of pornography use (FPU) and problematic pornography use (PPU). However, person-centered studies are sparse in the literature, and these could provide insight into whether there are individuals who use pornography frequently and do not experience problems or whether there are individuals with comparable high-frequency use who differ on reported experiencing of negative consequences. AIM: The aims of the present study were (i) to identify profiles of pornography use based on FPU and PPU by applying a person-centered analytic approach and (ii) to examine whether the identified profiles could be distinguished based on theoretically relevant demographic and psychological constructs. METHODS: Latent profile analyses were conducted on 3 nonclinical samples recruited from general websites and a pornography site (study 1: N = 14,006; study 2: N = 483; study 3: N = 672). RESULTS: Results were consistent across all studies. 3 distinct pornography-use profiles emerged: nonproblematic low-frequency pornography use (68-73% of individuals), nonproblematic high-frequency pornography use (19-29% of individuals), and problematic high-frequency use (3-8% of individuals). Nonproblematic and problematic high-frequency-use groups showed differences in several constructs (ie, hypersexuality, depressive symptoms, boredom susceptibility, self-esteem, uncomfortable feelings regarding pornography, and basic psychological needs). CLINICAL TRANSLATION: FPU should not be considered as a sufficient or reliable indicator of PPU because the number of people with nonproblematic high-frequency use was 3-6 times higher than that with problematic high-frequency use. These results suggest that individuals with PPU use pornography frequently; however, FPU may not always be problematic. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: Self-report cross-sectional methods have possible biases that should be considered when interpreting findings (eg, underreporting or overreporting). However, the present research included 3 studies and involved large community samples and visitors of a pornography website. The present study is the first that empirically investigated pornography-use profiles with a wide range of correlates using both severity of PPU and FPU as profile indicators on specific and general samples. CONCLUSION: The present study is a first step in the differentiated examination of pornography-use profiles, taking into consideration both PPU and FPU, and it provides a foundation for further clinical and large-scale studies. Different psychological mechanisms may underlie the development and maintenance of FPU with or without PPU, suggesting different treatment approaches. Therefore, the present results may guide clinical work when considering reasons for seeking treatment for PPU. Bőthe B, Tóth-Király I, Potenza MN, et al. High-Frequency Pornography Use May Not Always Be Problematic. J Sex Med 2020;17:793-811.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it