MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392576440 · doi:10.1111/add.16431

Problematic pornography use across countries, genders, and sexual orientations: Insights from the International Sex Survey and comparison of different assessment tools

2024· article· en· W4392576440 on OpenAlexaff
Beáta Bőthe, Léna Nagy, Mónika Koós, Zsolt Demetrovics, Marc N. Potenza, Shane W. Kraus

Bibliographic record

VenueAddiction · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNemzeti Kutatási, Fejlesztési és Innovaciós AlapJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceTempus KözalapítványSecretaría Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e InnovaciónInternational Center for Responsible GamingNational Cheng Kung UniversityNarodowym Centrum NaukiUniverzita Karlova v PrazeAuckland University of Technology, New ZealandNational Research Foundation of KoreaRégion Hauts-de-FranceSmoking Research FoundationNational Social Science Fund of ChinaAgence Nationale de la RechercheNational Research Foundation
KeywordsPornographyPsychologySexual behaviorClinical psychologySocial psychologyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Problematic pornography use (PPU) is a common manifestation of the newly introduced Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder diagnosis in the 11th edition of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems. Although cultural, gender- and sexual orientation-related differences in sexual behaviors are well documented, there is a relative absence of data on PPU outside Western countries and among women as well as gender- and sexually-diverse individuals. We addressed these gaps by (a) validating the long and short versions of the Problematic Pornography Consumption Scale (PPCS and PPCS-6, respectively) and the Brief Pornography Screen (BPS) and (b) measuring PPU risk across diverse populations. METHODS: ) = 32.4 years, standard deviation = 12.5], a study across 42 countries from five continents, we evaluated the psychometric properties (i.e. factor structure, measurement invariance, and reliability) of the PPCS, PPCS-6, and BPS and examined their associations with relevant correlates (e.g. treatment-seeking). We also compared PPU risk among diverse groups (e.g. three genders). RESULTS: The PPCS, PPCS-6, and BPS demonstrated excellent psychometric properties [for example, comparative fit index = 0.985, Tucker-Lewis Index = 0.981, root mean square error of approximation = 0.060 (90% confidence interval = 0.059-0.060)] in the confirmatory factor analysis, with all PPCS' inter-factor correlations positive and strong (rs = 0.72-0.96). A total of 3.2% of participants were at risk of experiencing PPU (PPU+) based on the PPCS, with significant country- and gender-based differences (e.g. men reported the highest levels of PPU). No sexual orientation-based differences were observed. Only 4-10% of individuals in the PPU+ group had ever sought treatment for PPU, while an additional 21-37% wanted to, but did not do so for specific reasons (e.g. unaffordability). CONCLUSIONS: This study validated three measures to assess the severity of problematic pornography use across languages, countries, genders, and sexual orientations in 26 languages: the Problematic Pornography Consumption Scale (PPCS, and PPCS-6, respectively), and the Brief Pornography Screen (BPS). The problematic pornography use risk is estimated to be 3.2-16.6% of the population of 42 countries, and varies among different groups (e.g. genders) and based on the measure used.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations102
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAddictionSame topicSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207