Gender Differences in Cognitive Interference with Sexual Arousal
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations 1-1-2002 Gender differences in cognitive interference with sexual arousal Sarah Elizabeth Nunnink University of Nevada, Las Vegas Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/rtds Repository Citation Nunnink, Sarah Elizabeth, "Gender differences in cognitive interference with sexual arousal" (2002). UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations. 1462. http://dx.doi.org/10.25669/ywu8-lqwd This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. ProQuest Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 UMI' Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. GENDER DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE INTERFERENCE WITH SEXUAL AROUSAL by Sarah E. Nunnink Bachelor of Arts San Diego State University 2000 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts in Psychology Department of Psychology College of Liberal Arts Graduate College University of Nevada, Las Vegas December 2002 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 1413615 UMI* UMI Microform 1413615 Copyright 2003 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Copyright by Sarah Nunnink 2003 All Rights Reserved Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Thesis Approval UNTV The Graduate College University of Nevada, Las Vegas November 18 .20 02 The Thesis prepared by Sarah E. Nunnink Entitled Gender Differences in Cognitive Interference with Sexual Arousal is approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master nf Arts in Psychology '~Examination Committee Chair Dean o f the Graduate College Examination Committee Memùet, /C Examination Committee Member Graduate College Facidhj Representative u Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT Gender Differences in Cognitive Interference with Sexual Arousal by Sarah E. Nunnink, B.A. Dr. Marta Meana, Examination Committee Chair Professor of Psychology University of Nevada, Las Vegas It is well documented that cognitive interference detrimentally influences sexuality, but little is known about the content of that interference. This study compared the self-reports o f220 college men and 337 college women on two types of cognitive interference during sex, performance-oriented and appearance-oriented. Also assessed via use of the Derogatis Sexual Ftmctioning Inventory and the Sexual History Form were: sexual satisfaction, psychological distress, sexual knowledge, sexual experiences, sexual attitudes, sexual fantasy, body image, affect, and sexual functioning, all areas thought to be related to sexual functioning. As predicted, findings indicated that women were more concerned with their own appearance during sexual activity than were men. Contrary to our hypothesis, however, men and women did not differ significantly in self-reported performance-interference. Data also suggested that certain constructs were gender- specific predictors of the two types of interference, as psychological distress was predictive for women and sexual attitudes were predictive for men only. Most constructs were non gender-specific, as sexual satisfaction, body image and our covariate, length of iii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. relationship, were predictive in both men and women. Implications are discussed, as results point to the need for gender-specific treatments for sexual dysfunction. IV Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT...........................................................................................................................üi LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................................vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...................................................................................................vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION...................................................................................... I CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................................5 Distraction Manipulations................................................................................................. 5 Performance Demand Interference.................................................................................. 9 Attentional Focus Manipulations....................................................................................15 Instructional Set to Supress Arousal.............................................................................. 22 Non-Laboratory Studies..................................................................................................24 Conclusion and Study Proposal......................................................................................27 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY................................................................................... 30 Participants.......................................................................................................................30 Measures..........................................................................................................................30 Cognitive Interference...............................................................................................30 Sexual Function......................................................................................................... 31 Hypothesized Correlates of Sexual Function............................................................32 Procedures........................................................................................................................33 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS ..................................................................................................34 Sample Description......................................................................................................... 34 Cognitive Interference.................................................................................................... 37 Predictors of Cognitive Interference.............................................................................. 45 Entire Sample............................................................................................................. 45 Gender-Specific Analyses ...............................................................................................48 Women Only...............................................................................................................50 Men Only ....................................................................................................................50 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................58 REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................73 VITA..................................................................................................................................... 81 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF TABLES Table 1.0 Demographic Characteristics of Participants...................................................35