This article was downloaded by: [University of Massachusetts, Amherst] On: 05 September 2012, At: 06:42 Publisher: Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sex Research

Gender differences in the content of cognitive distraction during sex

Department of Psychology, University of Nevada, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Box 455030, Las Vegas, Nevada, 891545030 E-mail:
b

University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Version of record first published: 11 Jan 2010

To cite this article: Marta Meana & Sarah E. Nunnink (2006): Gender differences in the content of cognitive distraction during sex, Journal of Sex Research, 43:1, 59-67 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224490609552299

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Gender Differences in the Content of Cognitive Distraction During Sex

Downloaded by [University of Massachusetts, Amherst] at 06:42 05 September 2012

This study compared 220 college men and 237 college women on two types of self-reported cognitive distraction during sex, performance- and appearance-based. We assessed affect, psychological distress, sexual knowledge, attitudes, fantasies, experiences, body image, satisfaction, and sexual function with the Dewgatis Sexual Functioning Inventory and the Sexual History Form to determine associations with distraction. Between-gender analyses revealed that women reported higher levels of overall and appearance-based distraction than did men, but similar levels of performance-based distraction. Withingender analyses revealed that women reported as much of one type of distraction as the other, while men reported more performance- than appearance-based distraction. In women, appearance-based distraction was predicted by negative body image, psychological distress, and not being in a relationship, while performance-based distraction was predicted by negative body image, psychological distress, and sexual dissatisfaction. In men, appearance-based distraction was predicted by negative body image, sexual dissatisfaction, and not being in a relationship, while performance-based distraction was predicted by negative body image and sexual dissatisfaction. Investigating the content of cognitive distraction may be useful in understanding gender differences in sexual experience and in refining cognitive components of sex therapy.

Researchers investigating the cognitive processing of sexual stimuli have reported consistent gender differences (see Geer & Manguno-Mire, 1996, for a review) that may inform the differential role of distraction in the sexual arousal of men and women. For example, sexual content-induced delay (slower response in identifying stimuli when an erotic element is present) is longer in women. Men are also faster and more accurate in memory for sexual information and have a more complex organization of knowledge for sexually-oriented words, while women have a more complex organization of relationship-oriented words. The extent to which these differences relate to distraction is unknown. They might, however, suggest a gender difference in distractibility within the context of sexual situations. Women's hesitation in identifying erotic content, relative memory under-performance for sexual information, and less complex organization of explicit sexual information could all indicate a sexual focus more easily shifted than that of men. Distraction and Sexual Arousal Numerous studies on sexual arousal have focused on distraction, generally understood to denote attention to nonsexual thoughts. Most of these studies have tested male participants in laboratory settings. Distraction operationalizations have ranged from tones to mathematical tasks, and these have been pitted in the laboratory against a variety of erotic stimuli intended to produce sexual arousal (Abrahamson, Barlow, Sakheim, Beck, & Athanasiou, 1985; Adams, Haynes, & Brayer, 1985; Farkas, Sine, & Evans, 1979; Geer & Fuhr, 1976). Performance demands, specifically, have been targeted as potentially interfering
Address correspondence to Marta Meana, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Box 455030, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89154-5030; e-mail: [email protected].

with arousal. These have been operationalized as instructional sets to achieve erection as quickly as possible, continuous self-monitoring of arousal levels, and shock threats contingent on insufficient arousal (Abrahamson, Barlow, & Abrahamson, 1989; Beck & Barlow, 1986a, 1986b; Farkas et al., 1979; Heiman & Rowland, 1983; Lange, Wincze, Zwick, Feldman, & Hughes, 1981). Results indicate that cognitive distraction has an arousalinhibiting effect for sexually functional men, although some specific performance demands actually enhance arousal. Cognitive distraction and performance demands do not seem, however, to have as great an effect on sexually dysfunctional men. The reason for this apparently paradoxical finding may lie in the possibility that the distraction introduced experimentally does not add significantly to the interference these men already experience (Abrahamson et al., 1985). Cranston-Cuebas and Barlow (1990) summarized this body of research as suggesting that sexual dysfunction in men is partly associated with attention that is focused on non-sexual thoughts. The impact of distraction on the sexual arousal of women remains largely uninvestigated. A handful of laboratory studies using a combination of self-report and physiological measures of arousal indicated that distraction also interferes with their arousal, although a difference has yet to be found between sexually functional and dysfunctional women (Adams et al., 1985; Elliott & O'Donohue, 1997; Przybyla & Byrne, 1984). There is also a preliminary indication that women's arousal may be even more affected by distraction than that of men (Przybyla & Byrne). Content of Cognitive Distraction A few recent non-laboratory studies on female sexual arousal have focused on the content of cognitive distraction and on body image. Faith and Schare (1993) were able
59

The Journal of Sex Research

Volume 43, Number 1, February 2006: pp. 59-67

60

Cognitive Distraction During Sex

to predict frequency of sexual behavior in both male and female participants with body image scores from the Derogatis Sexual Functioning Inventory (DSFI: Derogatis, 1975). Women in this study, however, endorsed more negative body image than their male counterparts. The authors concluded that negative body image probably resulted in self-spectatoring during sex (a focus on self instead of the sexual activity or the partner) and, consequently, in sexual avoidance. Trapnell, Meston, and Gorzalka's (1997) replication of these findings led them to a different conclusion. They posited that the valence of the self-focus may determine whether it interferes with arousal. Self-focused women who liked their bodies probably did not experience the self-spectatoring as distracting, but rather, as arousing. The importance of the valence of sexual thoughts rather than their simple occurrence has been demonstrated repeatedly in the work of Byers and colleagues (Little & Byers, 2000; Renaud & Byers, 2001). None of the aforementioned studies focused on the actual content of distracting thoughts during sexual activity. Dove and Wiederman (2000) were the first to attempt it. They designed and administered a cognitive distraction questionnaire to 74 women, inquiring about two potential distractors or concerns during sex: performance and bodily appearance. Finding no difference in scores between the two scales in their sample, they speculated that women may consider being attractive equivalent to performing well during sex. They thus combined scale scores to arrive at a general cognitive distraction score which was negatively associated with sexual esteem, sexual satisfaction, and orgasm consistency. Dove and Wiederman called for the further validation of this measure and the investigation of gender differences in appearance- versus performance-based distraction. Using a different instrument, the Body Image Self-Consciousness Scale, Wiederman (2000) found body self-consciousness to be negatively related to sexual experience and sexual assertiveness, and positively associated with sexual avoidance. Considering a now-voluminous research indicating that Western women are ailing from a normative bodily discontent and self-objectification (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Tiggemann & Lynch, 2001), it seems theoretically sound to propose that this body dissatisfaction may be a common theme in the content of women's cognitive distraction during sex. Thirty-five percent of Wiederman's (2000) sample reported body self-consciousness during sex. Roberts and Gettman (2004) found that, when women were primed toward self-objectification by a scrambled sentence task, their ratings of negative emotions were higher and their ratings of the appeal of physical sex were lower than in a body-competence priming condition. In contrast, men's ratings were unaffected by the primes. Body image distraction may be the female equivalent of the performance distraction purportedly common in male sexual arousal problems. On the other

hand, we still know little about the body image concerns of men during sex. Origins of Potential Gender Differences in Cognitive Distraction The possibility that women may be more distractable during sex and that their distraction may focus more on appearance concerns than on performance aligns with both essentialist and constructivist theories of gender differences in sexuality. Evolutionary psychology posits that natural selection may have favored males with low thresholds for sexual arousal and females who were discriminating and slow to arouse, as a function of gender differences in degree of parental investment (Ellis & Symons, 1990). This same theory would predict that women may consequently not be as aroused subjectively by visual stimuli (i.e., more distractable) in order to delay copulation and allow for a thorough assessment of "mate value." Conversely, males may demonstrate immediate arousal (more focus) to visual stimuli, perhaps owing to a lower degree of parental investment. The greater variation in female sexual physiological arousal can also pose some challenges to males, perhaps explaining their performance concerns (Mah & Binik, 2001). Variation in the female orgasmic pattern is greater than in the standard pattern of ejaculation (Basson, 2000; Masters & Johnson, 1966). Males may need to focus on and constantly adjust their sexual technique as a result of the unpredictability and delay of onset of the female response; a standard technique probably would not be effective across all partners. Considering that male ejaculation is more predictable, women may be less focused on performance in favor of their own appearance. The focus on their own appearance may even be an adaptive reaction to the importance males place on the visual elements of a sexual stimulus (Chick & Gold, 1987-1988; Ellis & Symons, 1990; Gold & Gold, 1991; Rosegrant, 1986; Winick, 1985). Men and women may simply be more concerned about those sexual matters most relevant to them: performance for men and appearance for women. On the other hand, social constructionist arguments, such as objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997), hypothesize that Western culture in our time is engaging in unprecedented levels of female objectification. The alleged result has been that women have internalized this culturally-encouraged, objectifying gaze and have become highly critical of their bodies, to the detriment of their emotional and sexual health. Thus, both socio-evolutionary and social constructionist theories would predict that men and women would be differentially concerned about their bodily appearance. Research Questions and Hypotheses Cognitive theory contends that attention is a requisite information processing step in any endeavor, including sex. Additionally, existing theory and research suggest more sexual distractatibility and body concerns in women

Downloaded by [University of Massachusetts, Amherst] at 06:42 05 September 2012

Meana and Nunnink

61

Downloaded by [University of Massachusetts, Amherst] at 06:42 05 September 2012

than in men, who may be more performance-oriented. In light of this literature, we sought to (a) examine gender differences in the self-reported content of cognitive distraction during sex and (b) explore the association of each type of distraction on specific aspects of sexual experience. Dove and Wiederman's (2000) cognitive distraction measure was used, as it was the only measure simultaneously targeting performance and appearance concerns. We hypothesized that women would report more overall and appearance-based distraction than would men and that men would report more performance-based distraction than would women. Within gender, we hypothesized that women would endorse more appearance- than performance-based distraction, while men would exhibit the opposite pattern. Because we did not expect to find a high prevalence of sexual dysfunction in a healthy college population (Laumann, Paik, & Rosen, 1999), we explored the relationship of these two types of distraction with a number of aspects of sexuality theoretically and empirically related to sexual function (sexual attitudes, knowledge, experience, fantasies, satisfaction, body image, affect, and psychological distress). The contention was that, even if deficits in these areas had not yet resulted in dysfunction, due to the participants' youth and lack of sexual experience, continued problems in these areas might be risk factors for dysfunction later.
METHOD

Measures Participants completed a questionnaire packet consisting of a variety of sexuality measures of interest. A demographic background form containing questions regarding participants' age, racial background, and sexual status/relationship was administered. The measures used in the current study included the Cognitive Distraction Scale, the Global Sexual Functioning Score of the Sexual History Form (SHF), and the Derogatis Sexual Functioning Inventory (DSFI). Cognitive Distraction Scale. Cognitive distraction as separated into two distinct areas of concern, appearanceand performance-based, was evaluated with the Cognitive Distraction Scale, developed by Dove and Wiederman (2000). The scale consists of 20 items inquiring about cognitive concerns during sex, 10 of which focus on appearance and 10 of which focus on performance. An example of an appearance-related item is, "If the lights are on during sexual activity, I worry too much about how appealing my body is to my partner." An example of a performancerelated item is, "During sexual activity, I think too much about whether my partner is happy with the way I am touching his/her body." Each item is accompanied with a Likert-type scale, from \(always) to 6(never). For ease of interpretation, all of the items were reverse-scored so that higher scores indicated higher levels of cognitive distraction. The range of scores for each of these scales is 10-60. The internal consistency coefficient for both scales in Dove and Wiederman's (2000) sample was .95 for both scales, and the scales were highly related (r = .83). In our sample, the internal consistency coefficient was .94 for both scales, but they were not as highly related (r = .64). We conducted a principal components analysis with VARIMAX rotation on the cognitive distraction scale on our sample, and it yielded two separate factors. The first factor consisted of the appearance-based distraction items and had an eigenvalue of 10.82, accounting for 54.11% of the variance. The second factor consisted of the performancebased distraction items and had an eigenvalue of 2.35, accounting for 11.74% of the variance. Global Sexual Functioning Score of the Sexual History Form. The Global Sexual Functioning Score is a single summary score extracted from the Sexual History Form (SHF) assessing sexual functioning (Creti et al., 1998). A global sexual functioning score that is calculated from the 46 SHF items results in a mean value that is greater than 0 and less than 1, with higher scores indicating more dysfunction. This scoring system has demonstrated good reliability, with temporal stability ranging from .92-.98 and internal consistency coefficients in the .50-.70 range. In terms of validity, the measure has demonstrated the ability to differentiate between sexually functional and dysfunctional males and females (Creti et al.). Derogatis Sexual Functioning Inventory (DSFI). To assess a variety of aspects of sexuality that have been theoretically linked to sexual function, the Derogatis Sexual Functioning Inventory (DSFI) was administered (Derogatis,

Participants A total of 623 participants completed the protocol, and no student refused to participate after a detailed description of the sexual nature of the study was disclosed. Analyses, however, were limited to individuals who had coital experience and were under the age of 30. The final sample thus consisted of 457 participants: 220 men and 237 women. Each participant received research credit for participation in the experiment. The majority (78%) of participants were between 1820 years of age, college freshmen or sophomores (85%), and currently involved in a steady romantic relationship (55.5%) ranging in length from 1-80 months (M = 19.47, SD = 16.68). In terms of ethnic distribution, 56.5% of the sample self-identified as Caucasian, 14% as Asian American, 11% as African American, 9% as Hispanic American, and 6% as other unidentified ethnic groups. Tests of significance performed on the demographic variables yielded no significant differences between the male and female samples in terms of age, year of study, or ethnic distribution. Men and women did differ, however, in relationship status and length of relationship. Women were more likely than men to be currently involved in a steady relationship, %2(\,N = 457) = 29.57, p < .001, and women reported relationships of longer length (M = 12.73, SD - 15.78) than did men (M = 8.33, SD = 15.26), F (1,455) = 9.15, p < .01. We controlled for the influence of relationship status in all regression analyses.

62

Cognitive Distraction During Sex

1975). The DSFI assesses the individual's current state of sexual functioning and is composed of 254 items arranged into 10 subsets. Comprehensive reliability and validity data for the DSFI scales were reported by Derogatis and Melisaratos (1979). Only eight of the subtests were administered in this study, including the following: Sexual Information, Experiences, Attitudes, Psychological Distress, Affect, Fantasy, Body Image, and Sexual Satisfaction. The DSFI Sexual Information subscale is scored as the sum of correctly-answered 26 true-false items designed to measure the participant's knowledge of sexual functioning. Scores thus range from 0-26, and higher scores indicate more knowledge. The DSFI Sexual Experience subscale consists of 24 distinct sexual behaviors that reflect the spectrum of sexual experience, from fundamental to relatively advanced. The subscale score is defined as the number of activities endorsed as having been experienced and ranges from 0-24, with higher scores indicating more experiences. The DSFI Attitude sub-test score is the algebraic sum of 30 items thought to reflect liberal versus conservative sexual attitudes, after a specific adjustment for positive or negative valence. Participants are asked to respond to each item via a 5-point Likert-type scale in which there are two degrees of agreement, a neutral point and two degrees of disagreement. Scores range from -60 to +60, and higher scores indicate more liberal sexual attitudes. The DSFI Psychological Symptoms subtest consists of 53 psychological symptoms which participants endorse as having been bothersome anywhere from 0 (not at all) to 4 (extremely) over the past two weeks. This sub-test yields a Global Severity Index (GSI) indicating psychological distress. The GSI ranges from 0-4, with higher scores indicating more psychological distress. The DSFI Affects subtest measures the balance between positive and negative emotions. Participants are asked to endorse 40 different one-word emotion items from 0 (never) to 4 (always). Eight emotion scores (joy, contentment, vigor, affection, anxiety, depression, guilt, hostility) are entered into an equation that yields an Affect Balance Index ranging from -4 to +4, with higher scores indicating more positive affect. The DSFI Fantasy subscale score is the sum of positively endorsed fantasies out of 20 presented fantasy themes and thus ranges from 0-20, with higher scores indicating more fantasies. The DSFI Body Image subscale consists of 10 general items and 5 gender-specific ones, resulting in a score that ranges from 0-60, with higher scores denoting dissatisfaction with one's appearance. The 15 statements reflecting sentiments about one's body are accompanied by a Likerttype scale from 0 (not at all) to 4 (extremely). The DSFI Sexual Satisfaction sub-test consists of 10 true-false items that are scored positively if answered in an adaptive direction, resulting in a total score that ranges from 0-10. Studies suggest that the DSFI is a highly reliable and valid measure of sexual functioning, and the inventory is widely-utilized within sexual research. Derogatis and Melisaratos (1979) reported internal consistency reliabili-

ty coefficients between .60 and .97 and test-retest coefficients across a 14-day interval ranging from the high .70s to the low .90s with an N of 325. Howell et al. (1987) also reported test-retest coefficients over .70 within a 14 dayperiod. Procedure Formal approval for this study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board Committee at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Students interested in fulfilling the research participation requirement of Psychology 101 indicated their intention to participate on sign-up sheets for what was described as a "health study." After arrival at the testing site, the sexual nature (but not the purpose) of the study was described. Participants were informed that participation was voluntary and could be terminated without penalty at any point during the questionnaire's administration. Groups of approximately 15-25 participants were given a questionnaire packet, which was completed in the presence of a researcher. Students sat at a considerable distance from each other to ensure privacy. Participants were informed that all accumulated data would remain anonymous. Participants placed completed questionnaires into a closed box and were given a participation slip verifying credit earned.
RESULTS

Downloaded by [University of Massachusetts, Amherst] at 06:42 05 September 2012

Cognitive Distraction Women reported more overall cognitive distraction (M = 47.89, SD = 19.80) than did men (M = 43.06, SD = 14.87), t (455) = -2.93, p < .01. To test for gender differences in the content of cognitive distraction, two independent sample /-tests were performed instead of one MANOVA, because the correlation between the appearance- and performance-based scales was sufficiently high (r = .64) to violate MANOVA assumptions regarding the independence of dependent measures. Considering that a Bonferroni correction would lower alpha to .025 (.05/2 = .025), only comparisons at the level of .01 were considered significant. Women reported significantly more appearance-based distraction (M = 24.11, SD = 11.42) than did men (M = 18.72, SD = 7.97), t (455) = -5.81, p < .001. However, men did not report significantly more performance-based distraction (M = 24.33, SD = 8.43) than did women (M = 23.77, SD = 10.10). Paired sample /-tests were conducted to determine within-gender differences between appearance- and performance-based distraction. There was no significant difference found between the two types of distraction in women, t (236) = .60, p < .55. Men, however, endorsed more performance- than appearance-based distraction, t (219) = -12.06, p<. 001. Predictors of Cognitive Distraction To investigate the gender-specific contribution of affect, psychological distress, knowledge of sexuality, sexual atti-

Meana and Nunnink

63

Downloaded by [University of Massachusetts, Amherst] at 06:42 05 September 2012

tudes, sexual fantasies, sexual experience, body image, sexual satisfaction, sexual functioning, and relationship status in predicting performance- and appearance -based distraction, we performed separate regression analyses for men and women. We entered relationship status into the regression equation as a dichotomous variable denoting whether or not the individual was currently in a relationship (the continuous version of this variable, "relationship length," yielded almost identical results). A Bonferroni correction was applied (.05/4 = .01), and only comparisons with/? values of less than .01 were considered significant. All 10 predictors were entered simultaneously into the multiple regression equation in all four analyses. Women. Table 1 presents the possible range of scores, means, standard deviations, and inter-correlations for all of the independent variables and dependent variables (appearance- and performance-based distraction) for the female sample. Table 2 presents the results of two separate multiple regressions of independent variables onto appearance- and performance-based distraction in women. The regression for appearance-based distraction was significant, F (10, 226) = 19.22, p < .001, and accounted for 46% of the variance. However, only psychological distress, body image, and relationship status were unique predictors; psychological distress and negative body image predicted higher levels of appearance-based distraction, as did not being in a relationship. The regression for performance-based distraction was also significant, F (10, 226) = 19.10, p < .001, and accounted for 46% of the variance. However, only psychological distress, body image, and

sexual satisfaction were unique predictors; psychological distress and negative body image predicted higher levels and sexual satisfaction predicted lower levels of performance-based distraction. Men. Table 3 presents the possible range of scores, means, standard deviations, and inter-correlations for all of the independent variables and dependent variables (appearance- and performance-based distraction) for the male sample. Table 4 presents the results of two separate multiple regressions of independent variables onto appearance- and performance-based distraction in men. The regression for appearance-based distraction was significant, F (10, 209) = 24.17, p < .001, and accounted for 54% of the variance. However, only body image, sexual satisfaction, and relationship status were unique predictors; negative body image and not being in a relationship predicted higher levels of appearance-based distraction, and sexual satisfaction predicted lower levels of appearancebased distraction. The regression for performance-based distraction was also significant, F(10, 209) = 13.16, p < .001, and accounted for 39% of the variance. However, only body image and sexual satisfaction were unique predictors; negative body image predicted higher levels and sexual satisfaction predicted lower levels of performance based distraction.
DISCUSSION

The main objectives of this study were to investigate gender differences in the report of cognitive distraction during sex, the content of this distraction, and its association with

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Inter-Correlations of Sexuality-Related Measures and Two Types of Cognitive Distraction (Appearance/Performance) for the Female Sample
Measure (Range) 1. Appearance Distraction (10-60) 2. Performance Distraction (10-60) 3. Positive Affect (-4 - +4) 4. Psychological Distress (0-4) 5. Knowledge (0-26) 6. Liberal Attitudes (-60 - +60) 7. Fantasies (0-20) 8. Experiences (0-24) 9. Negative Body Image (0-60) 10. Satisfaction (0-10) 11. Dysfunction M 24.11 23.78 1.45 .82 18.98 18.17 5.97 19.93 21.20 7.75 .45 SD 11.4 10.10 1.01 .62 2.95 14.30 3.73 3.44 9.09 2.04 .12 .69* -.34* .41* -.12 -.13 .10 -.14 .58* -.32* .15 -.44* .52* -.15 -.14 .10 -.17 .43* -.50* .22 -.64* .05 .08 -.14 .04 -.42* .33* .06 -.17 -.05 .21 -.06 .31* -.35* .05 .36* .28* .27* -.04 .16 -.18 .39* .36* -.11 .16 -.32* .33* -.02 -.11 -.35* -.13 .15 -.36* -.23* -.19 -.31* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

*p < .001 in accordance with a Bonferroni correction of .05/11.

64

Cognitive Distraction During Sex

Table 2. Regression Analyses Summary for SexualityRelated Variables Predicting Appearance- and Performance-Based Distraction in Women
Appearance Distraction Variable B SEB b Performance Distraction B SEB b

Downloaded by [University of Massachusetts, Amherst] at 06:42 05 September 2012

Positive -.41 -.04 Affect .91 .11 .08 .68 Psychological Distress 3.90 1.24 .21* 4.59 1.10 .28* Sexual -.16 .21 -.04 -.01 -.02 Knowledge .19 Liberal -.04 .04 Attitudes -.00 .05 -.00 -.02 .33 Fantasies .19 .11 .17 .17 .06 -.01 -.02 -.14 Experiences .19 .17 -.05 Negative Body Image .62 .07 .50* .26 .06 .24* Sexual Satisfaction -.43 .32 -.08 -1.31 .29 -.26* Sexual 4.54 5.72 6.54 5.07 Dysfunction .05 .08 Relationship Status -4.22 1.24 -.18* -1.85 1.01 -.09 2 Note. Appearance Distraction R = .46 (N= 236, p <.001), Performance Distraction R2 = .46 ( A T = 236, p <.001). *p < .01

being. Women in this sample reported higher levels of overall cognitive distraction and appearance-based distraction than did men. However, men did not report more performance-based distraction than did women, as we had

predicted. Women reported as much of one type of distraction as the other, also contrary to our prediction. Men did, however, report more performance- than appearancebased cognitive distraction. The strongest predictor for appearance-based distraction in both men and women was negative body image. In women, this predictor was followed by psychological distress and not being in a relationship; in men, by not being in a relationship and by sexual dissatisfaction. In terms of performance-based distraction, psychological distress was the strongest predictor for women, followed by sexual dissatisfaction and negative body image. For men, performance-based distraction was significantly predicted by negative body image and, secondly, by sexual dissatisfaction. Women's higher levels of distractability, as measured in this study, tentatively lend support to the possibility that female sexual arousal may be derailed more easily by both internal and external distractors of a non-sexual nature. This contention is consistent with the implications of some of the research on gender differences in the processing of sexual stimuli (Geer & Manguno-Mire, 1996), but also with a substantial literature suggesting that female sexuality is more contextually-sensitive than male sexuality (Baumeister, 2000). It is also consistent with a large body of evidence supporting a gender difference in strength of sex drive (Baumeister, Catanese, & Vohs, 2001), the argument being that a less powerful drive would be more vulnerable to distraction. Less consistent with extant literature and theory are the mixed findings on the content of cognitive distraction in

Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations, and Inter-Correlations of Sexuality-Related Measures and Two Types of Cognitive Distraction (Appearance/Performance) for the Male Sample
Measure (Range) 1. Appearance Distraction (10-60) 2. Performance Distraction (10-60) 3. Positive Affect (-4 - +4) 4. Psychological Distress (0-4) 5. Knowledge (0-26) 6. Liberal Attitudes (-60 - +60) 7. Fantasies (0-20) 8. Experiences (0-24) 9. Negative Body Image (0-60) 10. Satisfaction (0-10) 11. Dysfunction M 18.72 24.34 1.49 .75 18.63 20.99 6.90 19.93 20.32 7.69 .33 SD 1.91 8.43 1.06 .63 2.83 13.99 3.26 3.44 3.65 1.69 .08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

.65* -.38* .32* -.14 -.18 .10 -.21 .65* -.50* .08 -.34* .29* .03 -.13 .17 -.13 .51* -.45* .01 -.66* -.09 .13 -.06 .10 -.44* .32* -.08 -.15 -.17 .02 -.23* .36* -.37* .12 .42* .21 .16 -.09 .17 -.27* .31* .23* -.15 .13 -.38* .22 .05 -.09 -.20 -.27* .20 -.21 -.45* .01 -.21

*p < .001 in accordance with a Bonferroni correction of .05/11.

Meana and Nunnink

65

Table 4. Regression Analyses Summary for Sexuality-Related Variables Predicting Appearance- and PerformanceBased Distraction in Men
Appearance Distraction B SEB -.41 .00 .00 -.01 .13 .00 .47 -.92 .50 .83 .15 .03 .13 .12 .05 .27 Performance Distraction B SEB b -.53 .35 .45 -.10 .28 .01 .33 -1.25 .61 1.01 .19 .04 .15 .14 .06 .33 .07 .03 .15 .17 .11 .03 .35* - .25* .10 - .13

Downloaded by [University of Massachusetts, Amherst] at 06:42 05 September 2012

Variable Positive Affect Psychological Distress Sexual Knowledge Liberal Attitudes Fantasies Experiences Negative Body Image Sexual Satisfaction Sexual Dysfunction Relationship Status

b -.05 .00 .01 -.10 .06 .02 .52* -.20* -.04 -.21*
2

-4.03 5.38 -3.44 .82

-11.02 6.55 -2.28 .99

Note. Appearance Distraction R = .54 (N = 219, p < .001), Performance Distraction R2 = .39 (N = 219, p < .001). *p < .01

this study. Although women reported being more concerned than men about their bodies during sex, they were not more concerned about their bodies than about their performance. The fact that women did not report more of one type of distraction than another is consistent with a Dove and Wiederman (2000) study, which found similar levels of both performance- and appearance-based distraction in their women-only sample. They speculated that women may equate sexual performance with conforming to a socially-sanctioned "sexually attractive" norm. The message may be that male arousal is more dependent upon how women look than on what they actually do. Research has suggested (Ellis & Symons, 1990; Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997) that men typically view others as objects of their desire, whereas women commonly view themselves as objects of desire. Perhaps women consider that being good-looking (however that may be culturally-defined) is analogous to "being good at sex." Furthermore, the lack of a gender difference on performance-based distraction also indicates that women may worry as much about performance as do men, however they may define this performance. It could be that when women read an item such as "I am usually worried about my partner's satisfaction with my actions while engaged in sexual activity," they interpret "actions" to mean they way they move and expose their bodies to their partner, while men may read "actions" to denote an actual technique aimed at mechanically inducing arousal. It is impossible to tease that apart in this study or with this measure of distraction. A more in-depth investigation of distracting thoughts during sex, possibly of a qualitative nature, might provide some clarity.

In our attempt to explore gender-specific predictors of cognitive distraction, psychological distress emerged as a mediator of both types of distraction for women in our sample. The link between distress and sexual difficulties is not a finding unique to this study (Bancroft, Loftus, & Long, 2003; Hawton, Gath, & Day, 1994; Laumann et al., 1999). What remains unclear is why this relationship was not present in the men. Males may be more focused on the task at hand, and only when the distraction is related directly to that task (i.e., performance concerns) or is very intense, does it influence the experience. Women, who seem more susceptible to influences from their environment, may also be more attentive to their emotional well-being, which may, in turn, distract from their sexual experience. Although we did not expect or find much sexual dysfunction in this sample, we imagined (if not hypothesized) that sexual satisfaction would be significantly associated with distraction in both sexes. Interestingly, however, sexual satisfaction was not a predictor of appearance-based distraction in women, although it was a predictor of performance-based distraction (and of both types of distraction in men). It could be that bodily discontent in women, at least at low levels, is so normative that it does not interfere with what they consider satisfaction in any discernable way. Or, perhaps sexual satisfaction in women is defined more relationally (Tiefer, Hall, & Travis, 2002) and performance-based distraction reflects concerns about the more interactional and relational component of sex. Studies have repeatedly shown a weak relationship between sexual problems and satisfaction in women (Bancroft et al., 2003; Frank, Anderson, & Rubenstein, 1978; Snyder & Berg, 1983). Body image was a predictor of both types of cognitive distraction in men and women. It is hardly surprising that this was the case in terms of the appearance-based distraction, but the relationship was also present for performancebased distraction for both sexes. This finding is consistent with Schiavi, Karstaedt, Schreiner-Engel, and Mandeli (1992), who found that body image and sexual satisfaction emerged as the two most impaired DSFI dimensions in a sexually-dysfunctional group. Perhaps more surprising is the fact that negative body image was an even stronger predictor of sexual distraction in men than it was in women. Clearly, body image is emerging as an issue of importance in the sexual adjustment of men. It is possible that our focus on thinness as the culprit in eating disorders and body image concerns for women may have blinded us to the muscularity concerns of men (McCreary & Sasse, 2000). With an increasing societal emphasis on muscularity as the male ideal, it is predictable that men will begin to suffer similar consequences to women as they also start to self-objectify (Cafri & Thompson, 2004). Finally, relationship status was predictive of appearance-based distraction in both men and women. It seems intuitive that body image concerns might be assuaged by a steady partner whose presence may endorse the individual's attractiveness. Concerns about bodily attractiveness

66

Cognitive Distraction During Sex

Downloaded by [University of Massachusetts, Amherst] at 06:42 05 September 2012

would be heightened in unpartnered individuals reporting on sexual episodes from a relationship that ended or on more fleeting encounters that did not result in a steady romantic relationship. When interpreting our findings, some caveats are in order. The first and most important of these relates to our measurement of cognitive distraction. In designing this study, we chose Dove and Wiederman's (2000) cognitive distraction measure, as it was the only available instrument investigating the content of cognitive distraction during sex, albeit with limited psychometric data. In adding to the data on this measure's psychometric properties, we have developed some concerns. The 10 items relating to appearance-based distraction resemble each other so closely as to raise the possibility that most are re-wordings of a single, repeated item about overall body self-consciousness. The performance-based distraction items are also quite similar to each other, although to a lesser extent. However, even if the appearance and performance scales are functioning as single item measures of cognitive distraction, they seem to be doing that well enough to correlate with sexuality-related measures as one would expect. The results in this study confirm much of what theory and extant empirical research might predict about the relationship of cognitive distraction to sexual experience. Furthermore, the measure's reliance on retrospective self-report is clearly limited. A superior methodology might be to ask individuals about one sexual episode in particular, rather than to have them estimate modifiers such as "usually," which individuals can interpret differently. Further research into this question would be well-advised to engage in both qualitative and sampling methodologies to address both interpretative and recall concerns, as well as to provide data for the construction of a more nuanced cognitive distraction measure. We also utilized a convenience sample of mostly college freshmen and, therefore, results may not generalize to the broader population. The relatively low levels of both distraction and sexual problems reported by our sample speak to their youth, health, and sexual inexperience. Older samples, as well as men and women who are clinically diagnosed with sexual dysfunction, may be experiencing appearance- and performance-based distraction at much higher levels than a relatively healthy college population. Distraction in an older sample may also be related to different factors than it is in college students. Attempts to understand the potential sources of distraction during sex may be fruitful in the refinement of cognitive-behavioral treatment for sexual problems. Both appearance concerns and performance demands appear to be on the minds of men and women when they have sex. Current performance-focused therapy techniques and sensate focus may not account for the role of a detrimental type of self-focus (Wiederman, 2001). Some researchers have called for treatment to encompass a cognitive component (e.g., Sbrocco & Barlow, 1996), rather than to focus solely on the traditional belief that anxiety reduction (i.e., performance-concern reduction) is central to all sex-

ual dysfunction. Changing negative beliefs about sexuality and one's own desirability may be more relevant to some individuals.
REFERENCES Abrahamson, D. J., Barlow, D. H., & Abrahamson, L. S. (1989). Differential effects of performance demand and distraction on sexually functional and dysfunctional males. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 98 (3), 241-247. Abrahamson, D. J., Barlow, D. H., Sakheim, D. K., Beck, J. G., & Athanasiou, R. (1985). Effects of distraction on sexual responding in functional and dysfunctional men. Behavior Therapy, 16, 503-515. Adams, A. E., Haynes, S. N., & Brayer, M. A. (1985). Cognitive distraction in female sexual arousal. Psychophysiology, 22 (6), 689-696. Bancroft, M. D., Loftus, J., & Long, J. S. (2003). Distress about sex: A national survey of women in heterosexual relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32 (3), 193-208. Basson, R. (2000). The female sexual response: A different model. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 26, 51-65. Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Gender differences in erotic plasticity: The female sex drive as socially flexible and responsive. Psychological Bulletin, 126 (3), 347-374. Baumeister, R. F., Catenese, K. R., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Is there a gender difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views, conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5 (3), 242-274. Beck, J. G., & Barlow, D. H. (1986a). The effects of anxiety and attentional focus on sexual respondingI. Physiological patterns in erectile dysfunction. Behavior Research and Therapy, 24 (1), 9-17. Beck, J. G., & Barlow, D. H. (1986b). The effects of anxiety and attentional focus on sexual respondingII. Cognitive and affective patterns in erectile dysfunction. Behavior Research and Therapy, 24 (1), 19-26. Cafri, G., & Thompson, J. K. (2004). Measuring male body image: A review of the current methodology. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 5 (1), 18-29. Chick, D., & Gold, S. (1987-1988). A review of influences on sexual fantasy: Attitudes, experience, guilt, and gender. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 7, 61-76. Cranston-Cuebas, M. A., & Barlow, D. H. (1990). Cognitive and affective contributions to sexual functioning. Annual Review of Sex Research, 1, 119-161. Creti, L., Fichten, C. S., Amsel, R., Brender, W. Schover, L. R., Kalegoropoulos, D., et al. (1998). Global sexual functioning: A single summary score for Nowinski and LoPiccolo's Sexual History Form. In C. Davis, W. Yarber, R. Bauserman, G. Schreer, & S. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 261-263). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Derogatis, L. (1975). Derogatis Sexual Functioning Inventory (DSFI): Preliminary Scoring Manual. Baltimore: Clinical Psychometric Research. Derogatis, L., & Melisaratos, N. (1979). The DSFI: A multidimensional measure of sexual functioning. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 5, 244-248. Dove, N. L., & Wiederman, M. W. (2000). Cognitive distraction and women's sexual functioning. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 26, 67-78. Elliott, A. N., & O'Donohue, W. T. (1997). The effects of anxiety and distraction on arousal in a nonclinical sample of heterosexual women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26, (6), 607-624. Ellis, B., & Symons, D. (1990). Sex differences in sexual fantasy: An evolutionary psychological approach. The Journal of Sex Research, 27 (4), 527-555. Faith, M. S., & Schare, M. L. (1993). The role of body image in sexually avoidant behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 22 (4), 345-356. Farkas, G. M., Sine, L. F., & Evans, I. M. (1979). The effects of distraction, performance demand, stimulus explicitness and personality on objective and subjective measures of male sexual arousal. Behavior Research and Therapy, 17, 25-32. Frank, E., Anderson, B., & Rubenstein, D. (1978). Frequency of sexual dysfunction in "normal" couples. New England Journal of Medicine, 299, 111-115.

Meana and Nunnink Fredrickson, B., & Roberts, T. (1997). Objectification theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173-206. Geer, J. H., & Fuhr, R. (1976). Cognitive factors in sexual arousal: The role of distraction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44 (2), 238-243. Geer, J. H., & Manguno-Mire, G. (1996). Gender differences in cognitive processes in sexuality. Annual Review of Sex Research, 7, 90-125. Gold, S., & Gold, R. (1991). Gender differences in first sexual fantasies. Journal of Sex Education & Therapy, 17 (3), 207-216. Hawton, K., Gath, D., & Day, A. (1994). Sexual function in a community of middle-aged women with partners: Effects of age, marital, socioeconomic, psychiatric, gynecological and menopausal factors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23, 375-395. Heiman, J. R., & Rowland, D. L. (1983). Affective and physiological sexual response patterns: The effects of instructions on sexually functional and dysfunctional men. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 27 (2), 105-116. Howell, J. R., Reynolds, C. F., Thase, M. E., Frank, E.. Jennings, J. R., Houck, P. R., et al. (1987). Assessment of sexual function, interest, and activity in depressed men. Journal of Affective Disorders, 13, 61-66. Lange, J. D., Wincze, J. P., Zwick, W., Feldman. S., & Hughes, K. (1981). Effects for performance, self-monitoring of arousal, and increased sympathetic nervous system activity on male erectile response. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 10 (5), 443-464. Laumann, E., Paik, A., & Rosen, R. (1999). Sexual dysfunction in the United States: Prevalence and predictors. Journal of the American Medical Association, 6, 537-544. Little, C. A., & Byers, E. S. (2000). Differences between positive and negative sexual cognitions. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality. 9 (3), 167-180. Mah, K., & Binik, Y. M. (2001). The nature of human orgasm: A critical review of major trends. Clinical Psychology Review. 21 (6), 823-856. Masters, W. H., & Johnson, V. E. (1966). Human Sexual Response. Oxford, England: Little, Brown. McCreary, D. R., & Sasse. D. K. (2000). An exploration of the drive for muscularity in adolescent boys and girls. Journal of American College Health, 48, 297-304. Przybyla, D. P. J., & Byme, D. (1984). The mediating role of cognitive

67
processes in self-reported sexual arousal. Journal of Research in Personality, 18, 54-63. Renaud, C. A., & Byers, E. S. (2001). Positive and negative sexual cognitions: Subjective experience and relationships to sexual adjustment. The Journal of Sex Research. 38 (3), 252-262. Roberts, T. A., & Gettman, J. Y. (2004). Mere exposure: Gender differences in the negative effects of priming a state of self-objectification. Sex Roles. 51 (1/2), 17-27. Rosegrant, J. (1986). Contributions to psychohistory: Fetish symbols in playboy centerfolds. Psychological Reports, 59, 623-631. Sbrocco, T., & Barlow, D. (1996). Conceptualizing the cognitive component of sexual arousal: Implications for sexuality research and treatment. In Salkovskis, P. (Ed.) Frontiers of Cognitive Therapy (pp. 419-449). New York: Guilford Press. Schiavi, R., Karstaedt, A., Schreiner-Engel, P., & Mandeli, J. (1992). Psychometric characteristics of individuals with sexual dysfunction and their partners. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 18 (3), 219-230. Snyder, D. K., & Berg, P. (1983). Determinants of sexual dissatisfaction in sexually distressed couples. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 12, 237-246. Tiefer, L.. Hall, M., & Travis. C. (2002). Beyond dysfunction: A new view of women's sexual problems. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 28, 225-232. Tiggemann, M., & Lynch, J. E. (2001). Body image across the life span in adult women: The role of self-objectification. Developmental Psychology. 37 (2), 243-253. Trapnell, P. D., Meston, C. M., & Gorzalka, B. B. (1997). Spectatoring and the relationship between body image and sexual experience: Self-focus or self-valence? The Journal of Sex Research, 34 (3), 267-278. Wiederman. M. (2000). Women's body image self-consciousness during physical intimacy with a partner. The Journal of Sex Research, 37 ( 1), 60-69. Wiederman, M. (2001). "Don't look now": The role of self-focus in sexual dysfunction. Family Journal Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families. 9 (2), 210-214. Winick, C. (1985). A content analysis of sexually explicit magazines sold in an adult bookstore. The Journal of Sex Research. 21 (2), 206-210. Manuscript accepted September 2, 2005

Downloaded by [University of Massachusetts, Amherst] at 06:42 05 September 2012