Sexual Excitation and Inhibition Moderate the Strength of Concordance Between Paraphilic Interests and Behaviors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concordance between paraphilic interest and behavior is moderate to strong in previous studies. In the present study, we examined whether sexual excitation (SE) and sexual inhibition (SI) moderate the concordance between paraphilic interest and behavior, across several paraphilic themes. We expected that stronger concordance would be found at high levels of SE and weaker concordance would be found at high levels of SI, for both men and women. We expected stronger effects when high levels of SE are combined with low levels of SI and when low levels of SE are combined with high levels of SI, for both genders. To test this, we sampled 219 men and 351 women (Mage = 28.42, SDage = 10.58) and conducted moderated moderation analyses with bootstrapping, separately for each gender and paraphilic theme. Consistent with our hypotheses, for paraphilic themes where SE was a significant moderator, the concordance between paraphilic interest and behavior was stronger at higher levels of SE. In contrast, for themes moderated by SI, the concordance was weaker at higher levels of SI. Sexual excitation and sexual inhibition only moderated concordance between paraphilic interest and behavior for masochism and voyeurism in women, in the expected direction: the highest concordance was observed at higher SE/lower SI and the lowest concordance was observed at lower SE/higher SI. SE and SI moderated concordance between paraphilic interest and behavior across several different paraphilic themes for men and women, suggesting that different sexuality traits may be involved across genders and across themes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".