Why Do People Watch Pornography? Cross-Cultural Validation of the Pornography Use Motivations Scale (PUMS) and Its Short Form (PUMS-8)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motivations for pornography use may vary across gender identities, sexual orientations, and geographical regions, warranting examination to promote individual and public health. The aims of this study were to validate the Pornography Use Motivations Scale (PUMS) in a diverse, multicultural sample, and develop a short form (PUMS-8) that can assess a wide range of pornography use motivations. Using data from 42 countries (N = 75,117; Mage = 32.07; SDage = 12.37), enabled us to thoroughly evaluate the dimensionality, validity, and reliability of the Pornography Use Motivations Scale (PUMS), leading to the development of the more concise PUMS-8 short scale. Additionally, language-, nationality-, gender-, and sexual-orientation-based measurement invariance tests were conducted to test the comparability across groups. Both the PUMS and the PUMS-8 assess eight pornography use motivations, and both demonstrated excellent psychometric properties. Sexual Pleasure emerged as the most frequent motivation for pornography use across countries, genders, and sexual orientations, while differences were observed concerning other motivations (e.g. self-exploration was more prevalent among gender-diverse individuals than men or women). The motivational background of pornography use showed high similarity in the examined countries. Both the PUMS and the PUMS-8 are reliable and valid measurement tools to assess different types of motivations for pornography use across countries, genders, and sexual orientations. Both scales are recommended for use in research and clinical settings.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".