Relationships Between Sexual Arousal,Relationship Status,and Men's Ratings of Women's Sexual Willingness: Implications for Research and Practice

Abstract

Legal scholars and psychological researchers have identified the visceral state of sexual arousal as a potential contributing factor to the perpetration of sexual violence. Visceral states such as sexual arousal might systematically influence social perception and perhaps lead to misinterpretations of behavior, such as overestimates of others' willingness to have sex. The current study used an experimental design to assess effects of sexual arousal and relationship status on men's perceptions of the extent to which women's behaviors indicate sexual willingness. Our manipulation of sexual arousal was successful only among single men. Among these single men, sexual arousal was associated with ratings of the extent to which women's behaviors indicate sexual willingness. We consider explanations for why men in relationships responded differently to manipulations of sexual arousal and how this effect might contribute to equivocal findings in this literature. Results suggested that sexually aroused single men are uniquely motivated to misinterpret women's sexual willingness. These findings underscored the importance of interventions that identify and address the sources of sexual misunderstanding.

Introduction

A fundamental topic of social scientific inquiry is how visceral cognitive and physiological influences, such as emotions and cravings, affect social behavior (Loewenstein 1996). Influences such as these predict greater tolerance of risk in the attainment of immediate gratification (Ditto et al. 2006). Sexual arousal represents one visceral influence that can have unique implications for social perception and perhaps the perpetration of sexual violence. Indeed, sexual arousal positively predicts men's perceptions of women's physical attractiveness (Foster et al. 1998), willingness to engage in risky sexual behavior (Ariely and Loewenstein 2006), and ratings of women's willingness to have sex (Rerick et al. 2019).

Effects of the visceral state of sexual arousal on interpretations of behavior are pertinent to the study of sexual violence, as sexually aroused men might overestimate women's willingness to have sex. Findings from research examining such phenomena can inform lay observers, researchers, and the legal system as to how to understand the social context of sexual miscommunication. The current research investigated the effect of manipulated sexual arousal on men's interpretations of women's behaviors, replicating previous findings and revealing directions for future research.

The consideration of sexual arousal in the legal system

Sexual desire is perhaps the one common variable present in most instances of sexual assault and harassment. Attorneys and judges seem to recognize that misplaced or unrequited sexual desire can contribute to illicit sexual behavior punishable by law. For example, in 2016, U.S. Army Sergeant Travis Hernandez was found guilty of abusive sexual contact for entering an occupied shower and touching its occupant without consent. In his subsequent appeal, Hernandez's defense team claimed he was “sexually aroused and believed it was a good time to make his move” (U.S. v. Hernandez 2019, p. 5), suggesting that his sexual arousal might have altered his judgment as to how welcome his behavior was. Although the appellate judge affirmed the offender's guilt, this argument demonstrates that some defense attorneys might perceive the visceral state of sexual arousal to affect judgment.

This notion is further underscored in legal proceedings referring to ways in which sexual arousal “primes the offender before committing sexual abuse” (Reynolds v. Cook 2020, p. 26) or causes an offender to engage in sexual violence “because he was stimulated and desired to have sex” (People v. Newman 1988). Beliefs such as these, which can place blame on victims of sexual assault rather than on perpetrators, are relatively common among the general population (Suarez and Gadalla 2010) and can affect jurors' perceptions of sexual assault cases (Rerick et al. 2019). Empirical research as to the effects of sexual arousal on social judgment is necessary to evaluate these arguments.

Psychological investigations of sexual arousal and social judgment

Empirical investigations of social judgment under conditions of sexual arousal have attempted to address these claims. Psychological research largely demonstrates that manipulated and self-reported sexual arousal can affect men's cognition and behavior. In an early investigation of effects of manipulated sexual arousal, researchers informed male participants that they would go on a blind date with a woman and provide impressions of her before and after the date (Stephan et al. 1971). These same men first read a sexually arousing or nonarousing vignette, ostensibly as part of an unrelated study, and subsequently provided their first impressions of their dates based on the date's description and her photograph. Men who read the sexual arousal versus nonarousal vignette rated the woman as significantly more physically attractive. This finding documented a direct relationship between manipulated sexual arousal and social perception, but stopped short of predicting subsequent sexual behavior.

Similar investigations of manipulated sexual arousal have revealed effects on sexual risk-taking and impulsivity. Researchers have operationalized sexual risk-taking as intentionality to engage in unsafe (e.g., condomless) sex (Skakoon-Sparling et al. 2016), particularly among men living with HIV/AIDS (Shuper and Fisher 2008). After viewing 2-min video clips of either pornography (experimental condition) or a sportscast (control condition), HIV+ men assigned to the experimental condition reported greater intentions to engage in condomless sex than did HIV+ men assigned to the control condition (Shuper and Fisher 2008). These findings supported the efficacy of manipulating sexual arousal in a laboratory environment via pornography, and suggested that sexual arousal can influence sexual judgment.

Other studies addressed similar research questions using alternative manipulations and measures of sexual arousal. Ariely and Loewenstein (2006) manipulated sexual arousal in a within subjects design. Participants answered questions regarding behaviors they would engage in either in a natural nonaroused state or after having masturbated to a specified level of sexual arousal while viewing diverse erotic images. Sexual arousal increased the extent to which participants were sexually attracted to unusual stimuli (e.g., the smell of cigarette smoke) and whether they reported willingness to engage in illegal, immoral, or unsafe sexual behaviors (e.g., slip a woman a drug or tell her you love her to increase the likelihood of sex; not wear a condom during sex).

Of particular importance to issues of sexual assault, several studies have examined the effects of sexual arousal on interpreting a potential partner's willingness to engage in sex. One such study demonstrated that men's self-reported sexual arousal after viewing pornographic material positively predicted perceptions of women's sexual intent, as well as men's willingness to coerce a woman into having sex (Bouffard and Miller 2014). However, effects of manipulated sexual arousal were null.

Rerick et al. (2020) also investigated effects of sexual arousal on perceptions of women's sexual intentions. Rather than manipulating sexual arousal via pornography, these authors asked participants to write a 500-word narrative describing a sexual fantasy (experimental condition) or a boring first date (control condition) as a manipulation of sexual arousal (Study 1). Participants subsequently rated the extent to which women's behaviors indicated sexual willingness. These authors found a significant effect of manipulated sexual arousal on the dependent measure such that men assigned to the experimental condition rated women's behaviors as more indicative of sexual willingness. However, this effect was primarily present among participants who reported that they were single or dating around as opposed to being in a romantic relationship. The authors speculated that the manipulation oriented single men toward perceiving sexual interest from a potential casual sex partner.

After observing this effect of relationship status, Rerick et al. (2020, Study 2) conducted a follow-up study with two modifications. First, they manipulated men's sexual arousal via pornographic images rather than a narrative-writing prime. Second, they included a 7-point continuous (vs. 3-point categorical) response scale on their dependent measure assessing interpretations of women's behaviors. Although the modified continuous dependent measure was more reliable than the original categorical measure, as the previous study, the sexual arousal manipulation increased interpretations of sexual intent only among single versus nonsingle men. The two studies together provided evidence that relationship status and written sexual arousal manipulations could influence ratings of sexual intent. Such findings warrant further investigation.

Overview of the current study

The current study attempted to replicate the findings of Rerick et al. (2020) utilizing their more effective prime of sexual arousal from Study 1 (i.e., the fantasy narrative) and the more reliable dependent measure from Study 2. In so doing, the current study aimed to establish this narrative-writing method of priming sexual arousal as an effective means to increase self-reported sexual arousal, and the more reliable rating scale method from Rerick et al. Study 2 as a more sensitive method to study consequent effects on ratings of women's sexual willingness.

We also sought to address two issues that arose in our previous studies. First, the findings from our previous studies that our arousal manipulation (1) more strongly affected arousal for single mean, and (2) more strongly affected ratings of women's sexual willingness for single men were both consistent across studies and unexpected. Moreover, if these effects of relationship status are indeed reliable, they carry important implications for future research relying on manipulation of sexual arousal. Thus, an important goal of the current research was to determine whether the relationship status effect would again replicate. Accordingly, the current study examined effects of experimental condition and relationship status on both the manipulation check item and on the primary dependent variable that measures interpretations of sexual willingness.

Second, the control prime in the Rerick et al. (2020) study was to write about a boring first date. It therefore potentially confounded the positivity of the interaction imagined with whether it specifically primed sexual arousal. To address this concern in the current study, we used two positively valanced primes, only one of which specifically primed sexual arousal.

Method

The current study utilized a two-group between-subjects experimental design. Consistent with previous findings (Rerick et al. 2020), we expected men primed to think about a sexually arousing fantasy to subsequently rate women's behaviors as indicating more sexual willingness compared to men assigned to the control condition. We additionally hypothesized that the effect of sexual arousal on interpretations of women's behaviors would be larger for single men compared to men in a relationship. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at a large university in the western United States.

Participants

Eligibility criteria listed on the online study signup page stated that participants must be self-identified heterosexual men. We specified these criteria to utilize the same sample as Rerick et al. (2020) and because that the study's hypotheses relate most strongly to heterosexual men's interpretations of women's behaviors. Moreover, men's perceptions of women's sexual willingness are particularly relevant to the legal system because cases of acquaintance rape often involve a male perpetrator and a female victim (Edwards et al. 2015; Villalobos et al. 2016).

An a-priori sample size calculation performed in G*Power (Erdfelder et al. 1996) indicated that N = 70 participants was appropriate to test hypothesized effects in a 2 × 2 analysis of variance (ANOVA) given an effect size of Cohen's d = 0.50 and power (1 − β) of 0.95. In total, 94 men participated in the study. The final sample size consisted of 70 heterosexual male participants after removing those who opted not to perform the experimental priming task (n = 22) or who indicated that they were “more than incidentally homosexual” (n = 2) on a measure of sexual orientation (Kinsey et al. 1948). The mean age among the remaining 70 participants was 22.6 years (SD = 7.7 years). The majority of the sample self-identified as White (62.9%) followed by Latin (11.4%), Asian (10.0%), Black (4.3%), and “other” (11.4%). Participants received research participation credits as compensation.

Materials and procedure

Participants voluntarily enrolled in the online study, which was advertised on a multidepartmental research participant pool. Each participant completed the study online in a location of their choosing.

Manipulation of sexual arousal

After indicating their informed consent to participate, the Qualtrics survey distribution platform randomly assigned participants to one of two experimental conditions. In the experimental (sexual arousal) condition, participants received instructions to describe their most arousing sexual fantasy. The prompt read:

In this section we would like you to write about a scenario involving a sexual interaction that you would (or have) found extremely arousing. Something, for example, that you might think of while masturbating to arouse yourself as much as possible.

In the control (nonarousal) condition, participants received instructions to describe a coffee date with friends. We chose this narrative topic for the control condition because it maintains a similarly positive valance to the experimental condition, but it does not activate concepts related to sexual gratification. The prompt read:

In this section, we would like you to write about a coffee date with one or more close friends. What kinds of things would you talk about that would make the conversation stimulating or interesting?

In both conditions, the instruction ended by reminding participants that their responses are anonymous and by informing participants to write ∼500 words “describing, in detail, who is involved and what, exactly, you and the other(s) are doing.” Finally, participants responded to a manipulation check item measuring self-reported present-state sexual arousal from 1 (not at all aroused) to 7 (extremely aroused).

Measure of interpretations of sexual willingness

Participants then proceeded to the main dependent measure assessing their interpretations of the extent to which women's behaviors indicated sexual willingness. The measure consists of 25 items and has been highly reliable in prior research (Livingston and Davis 2020; Rerick et al. 2020). The measure instructs participants as follows: “Imagine that a woman engages in each of these behaviors. Then, indicate how likely it is that this behavior means she wants to have sex.” Behaviors include, “She tells a man how great he looks,” “She sends a man nude pictures,” “She goes to a man's residence during a date to be alone,” and others (see Table 1 for the full dependent measure and mean ratings for each item).

Table 1.

Mean Ratings of Sexual Willingness Separated by Experimental Condition

Item	Experimental, M (SD)	Control, M (SD)	Overall, M (SD)
She touches a man's bare genitals.	5.73 (1.66)	2.97 (2.17)	4.54 (2.33)^***
She lets a man perform oral sex on her.	5.45 (1.69)	3.10 (2.31)	4.44 (2.99)^***
She sends a man nude pictures.	5.23 (1.75)	3.30 (1.80)	4.40 (2.00)^***
She takes off her pants/skirt and underwear around a man.	5.55 (1.63)	2.67 (2.22)	4.31 (2.38)
She lets a man touch her breasts through her clothes.	4.98 (1.59)	2.53 (1.98)	3.93 (2.14)^***
She takes off her shirt and bra around a man.	5.00 (1.55)	2.40 (1.92)	3.89 (2.14)^***
She goes to a man's residence during a date to be alone.	4.60 (1.65)	2.90 (1.75)	3.87 (1.88)^***
She does not resist when a man initiates intercourse.	4.85 (2.26)	2.40 (2.04)	3.80 (2.48)^***
She acts very affectionate toward a man at a party.	3.73 (1.52)	3.53 (2.01)	3.64 (1.74)
She spends the night at a man's residence.	4.30 (1.73)	2.73 (1.64)	3.63 (1.85)^***
She becomes intoxicated with alcohol at a party and leaves the party with a man she just met.	3.43 (2.04)	3.80 (1.69)	3.59 (1.89)
She tells a man how great he looks.	3.33 (1.44)	3.80 (1.40)	3.53 (1.43)
She gives a man her phone number.	2.95 (1.43)	4.23 (1.70)	3.50 (1.67)^**
She invites a man to her house for dinner.	4.00 (1.65)	2.78 (1.65)	3.47 (1.75)^**
She becomes intoxicated with alcohol on a date with a man she has not had sex with before.	2.28 (1.47)	4.47 (2.19)	3.21 (2.11)^***
She says yes to an invitation to watch a movie at a man's residence.	3.48 (1.74)	2.37 (1.38)	3.00 (1.68)^**
She sits or stands close to a man.	2.13 (1.38)	3.93 (2.21)	2.90 (1.99)^***
She dresses very sexily.	3.25 (1.82)	2.27 (1.68)	2.83 (1.82)^*
She becomes intoxicated with alcohol at a party without a date.	2.03 (1.48)	3.57 (1.68)	2.69 (1.73)^***
She leans up against a man.	3.08 (1.42)	2.10 (1.52)	2.66 (1.53)^**
She uses marijuana on a date with a man she has not had sex with before.	2.45 (1.58)	2.50 (1.31)	2.47 (1.46)
She wears perfume.	1.93 (1.42)	2.90 (1.37)	2.34 (1.47)^**
She goes out to lunch with a man.	1.95 (1.36)	2.73 (1.57)	2.29 (1.50)^*
She approaches a man to initiate conversation.	2.08 (1.23)	2.30 (1.42)	2.17 (1.31)
She drinks alcohol with a man she just met.	2.03 (1.46)	2.17 (1.02)	2.09 (1.28)
Grand, M (SD)	3.59 (1.11)	2.98 (0.96)	3.33 (1.09)^**

Imagine that a woman engages in each of these behaviors. Then, indicate how likely it is that this behavior means she wants to have sex.

Items are arranged in order of highest to lowest mean rating among the full sample. Asterisks represent significant differences between experimental and control conditions: ^*p < 0.05; ^**p < 0.01; ^***p < 0.001.

Participants rated each item on a scale from 1 (this behavior does NOT AT ALL mean she wants to have sex) to 7 (this behavior DEFINITELY means she wants to have sex). The measure presented each of the 25 hypothetical behaviors to participants in the absence of a specific social context (e.g., at a party, on a romantic date) in line with previous research on similar topics (e.g., Greer and Buss 1994; Murray et al. 2017; Perilloux and Kurzban 2015) to allow for greater variability in participants' interpretations of ambiguous behaviors that do not necessarily convey sexual willingness.

Demographic information

Following the dependent measure, participants provided information about their personal characteristics, including their gender, sexual orientation (Kinsey et al. 1948), age, race/ethnicity, and relationship status. Response options for the relationship status item included single, dating around, long-term relationship, engaged, married, divorced, and widowed.

Results

We used t-test and ANOVA to examine the effectiveness of our manipulation and test hypotheses related to ratings of women's sexual willingness.

Manipulation check

A two-way ANOVA examining the effects of experimental condition and participants' relationship status (single vs. nonsingle)* on self-reported sexual arousal produced one main effect. Participants in the experimental condition (M = 4.65, SD = 1.91) reported higher levels of sexual arousal compared to participants in the control condition [M = 3.04, SD = 1.97; F(1,56) = 9.10, p = 0.004, d = 0.84]. The main effect of relationship status was nonsignificant (p > 0.9), as was the two-way interaction (p > 0.8). However, previous research indicated that single men respond more strongly than nonsingle men to written manipulations of sexual arousal (Rerick et al. 2020), we conducted a follow-up t-test examining the difference in self-reported sexual arousal between single and nonsingle men assigned the experimental condition.

The effect of experimental condition on self-reported sexual arousal was significant among single men [M_experimental = 4.68, SD = 2.10; M_control = 3.00, SD = 1.65; t(39) = 2.72, p = 0.01, d = 0.87] but nonsignificant among nonsingle men [M_experimental = 4.58, SD = 1.56; M_control = 3.09, SD = 2.43; t(27) = 1.74, p = 0.10, d = 0.74]. Thus, the main effect of experimental condition was driven by single participants.

Effects of sexual arousal and relationship status on ratings of sexual willingness

To test our primary hypotheses, we combined the 25 items from the dependent measure into one composite scale measuring men's ratings of women's sexual willingness. The scale was highly reliable (Cronbach's α = 0.92; Cronbach 1951), indicating that it was appropriate to use the composite score in our analyses. A t-test examining the effect of experimental condition on men's ratings of women's sexual willingness was significant [t(68) = 2.47, p = 0.02, d = 0.58]. Men assigned to the experimental condition reported higher ratings of women's sexual willingness compared to men assigned to the control condition (M_experimental = 3.59, SD = 1.11; M_control = 2.97, SD = 0.96).

We further analyzed this effect among single and nonsingle men. To do so, we dichotomized our categorical variable measuring relationship status. Twenty-eight participants self-identified as single (40%), 13 as dating around (18.6%), 28 as in a long-term relationship (40%), and 1 as married (1.4%). We classified single and dating around participants as “single” (58.6%) and all others as “nonsingle” (41.4%), consistent with Rerick et al. (2020).

The two-way ANOVA examining the effects of experimental condition and participant relationship status (single vs. nonsingle) on men's ratings of women's sexual willingness produced two significant main effects. Participants in the experimental condition (M = 3.59, SD = 1.11) reported higher ratings of women's sexual willingness compared to participants in the control condition [M = 2.98, SD = 0.96; F(1,66) = 7.64, p = 0.007, d = 0.60]. Similarly, single participants (M = 3.52, SD = 1.07) reported higher ratings of women's sexual willingness compared to nonsingle participants [M = 3.05, SD = 1.07; F(1,66) = 5.26, p = 0.03, d = 0.44]. The interaction effect between experimental condition and relationship status was nonsignificant (p = 0.16).

Although the interaction did not reach significance, there was some evidence that the effect of sexual arousal on ratings of sexual willingness was due to the effect for single men. Two t-tests examining the effect of experimental condition on ratings of sexual willingness separately for single and nonsingle men demonstrated that experimental condition affected single men's ratings [M_experimental = 3.89, SD = 0.95; M_control = 3.00, SD = 1.03; t(39) = 2.85 p = 0.007, d = 0.91], but not nonsingle men's ratings [M_experimental = 3.14, SD = 1.20; M_control = 2.95, SD = 0.91; t(27) = 0.46, p = 0.65, d = 0.17; see Fig. 1]. These results replicated previous findings that the effect of arousal on ratings of sexual willingness is significant among single, but not nonsingle, men (Rerick et al. 2020).

FIG. 1.

Manipulated sexual arousal primarily affected single men's ratings of women's sexual willingness. Standard error bars appear in the figure. The interaction between experimental condition and relationship status was nonsignificant (p = 0.16).

Discussion

In the legal system and in the research laboratory, attorneys and psychologists have hypothesized that the visceral state of sexual arousal can affect social judgment about issues of sexual willingness (Rerick et al. 2020; U.S. v. Hernandez 2019). Empirical examinations of this hypothesis suggest that sexual arousal can orient men (Bouffard and Miller 2014), and particularly single men (Rerick et al. 2020), toward greater perceptions of women's sexual willingness. To investigate the possibility that sexually aroused men might interpret women's behaviors as indicating greater sexual interest than do non-aroused men, Rerick et al. (2020) manipulated sexual arousal and measured men's ratings of the extent to which women's behaviors were perceived to indicate sexual willingness.

The present study was designed to build upon these results, and to address a pair of methodological issues raised by the previous studies. Study 1 of Rerick et al. (2020) utilized a dependent measure with low variability and a control condition that might have confounded the valence of the prime with whether it specifically primed sexual arousal. For their Study 2, the manipulation of sexual arousal produced a much smaller effect on the manipulation check than that of Study 1. The current investigation attempted to replicate and extend previous findings using a dependent measure with greater range and a manipulation of sexual arousal that more effectively induced sexual arousal and that did not involve a negative control prime.

Moreover, the current study further investigated the unexpected finding that sexual arousal affected perceptions of the implications of women's behaviors for sexual willingness only among single men, but not among men in committed relationships (Rerick et al. 2020).

The current study utilized a two-group experimental design that manipulated sexual arousal by instructing participants to write about a sexual fantasy (experimental condition) or a fun coffee date with friends (control condition). Following this manipulation, participants rated the extent to which they believed women's behaviors indicated willingness to have sex. We expected men in the experimental condition to interpret greater sexual willingness from women's behaviors. Moreover, because previous investigations found this effect to occur primarily among single men (Rerick et al. 2020), we expected this effect to be stronger, or only present, among single men. Results supported these hypotheses. Results also supported the use of this narrative-writing method of manipulating sexual arousal (Rerick et al. 2020). Methodological and theoretical implications for research on sexual arousal and sexual violence follow from these findings.

Experimental manipulations of sexual arousal

The present data indicated that writing about a sexual fantasy can increase sexual arousal among single men, replicating prior findings. Compared to pornography, the narrative-writing manipulation utilized in the present study might be equally successful, or more successful, at increasing sexual arousal among single men because it relies on participants to generate individualized fantasies or call to mind personal memories. Content that contributes to sexual arousal is relatively variable from person-to-person as a function of individual preferences and experiences (Joyal et al. 2015). Pornographic manipulations are limited in that they require participants to view IRB-approved photo or video content that might not be uniformly arousing [cf. Lang et al. (2008) for standardized pictures that elicit sexual arousal].

These limitations might be exacerbated by individual differences in sexual excitation (Bancroft and Janssen 2000); that is, men who are less easily sexually aroused might respond minimally to pornographic content selected by researchers. The current manipulation accommodates individual differences in sexual interest. Instructing participants to elaborate on a fantasy through narrative writing might promote a greater depth of processing and relatively large effect sizes (d = 0.58–0.91 in the present study) compared to more passive manipulations.

In allowing for individual variability in sexual fantasy, the current narrative-writing manipulation sacrifices some experimental control. Participants in the present study could write about any sexual topic of their choosing to prime feelings of sexual arousal. Some of these topics might have incidentally primed other constructs related to sexual arousal, such as power dynamics (Livingston and Vik 2021) or aggression (Abbey et al. 2011). Increased salience of either of these constructs could have affected our participants' ratings of women's sexual willingness, as both power (Livingston and Davis 2020) and aggression (Abbey et al. 2001) are related to judgment in sexual contexts. Incidental effects such as these are possible in response to other manipulations of sexual arousal as well, such as pornographic videos.

Experimental data suggest that sexual arousal can automatically enhance feelings of power (Bargh et al. 1995), and that pornography consumption can increase aggression (Wright et al. 2016). To measure and control for the possibility of priming related constructs in research manipulating sexual arousal, researchers should prompt participants to report on additional present-state feelings [e.g., feelings of power, aggression, emotionality, etc.; Both et al. (2004); Hinzmann et al. (2020)]. These measures can serve as covariates in statistical analyses and inform future methodologies for manipulating sexual arousal with greater precision.

The effects of sexual arousal on ratings of sexual willingness might further vary as a function of the context provided for each behavior described in the dependent measure. Single or sexually aroused men might imagine the behavior, “She tells a man how great he looks” occurring in the context of a romantic date, whereas nonsingle or sexually nonaroused men might imagine the same behavior occurring among friends or family. Future research could systematically alter the context of the dependent measure (e.g., among casual vs. long-term dating partners) to further specify the conditions under which sexual arousal or relationship status influences ratings of sexual willingness.

For instance, some research materials instruct participants to imagine interpreted behaviors to occur in the context of a date or at a party (Haselton and Buss 2000). It is possible that sexually aroused participants may imagine a significantly different context compared to sexually nonaroused participants. Future examinations should specify the context of such behaviors to control for possible differences in the context that participants choose to imagine while responding to the dependent measure.

Researchers should also explore alternative control tasks to the one used in the current study (i.e., instructing participants to write about a coffee date with friends). The benefit of this control task is that it is positively valenced like the experimental task, but it does not prime sexual arousal. The topic of this control task is also social in nature and allows for parallel instructions in the writing prompt (i.e., to describe “who is involved and what, exactly, you and the other(s) are doing”). Future research could implement a control task that instructs participants to describe a physiologically arousing, but not sexually arousing, experience to demonstrate the extent to which sexual arousal specifically affects the dependent measure, as opposed to arousal in any form.

For instance, participants in the control condition could describe an experience of skydiving or visiting a haunted house. Each of these prompts should enhance general arousal, but not sexual arousal. Although data from the current manipulation check (i.e., “How sexually aroused are you?”) indicated that single participants felt significantly more sexually aroused after responding to the experimental writing prompt versus the control prompt, it is nonetheless valuable to compare the effects of various control tasks to the present experimental prime. Third variables that could enhance both sexual arousal and ratings of sexual willingness should be a focus of future research aimed at developing a more thorough account of sexual intent perception.

The relevance of relationship status to investigations of sexual thinking and arousal

The current study replicated previous findings (Rerick et al. 2020) that single men's ratings of women's sexual willingness are more easily influenced by sexual arousal than are nonsingle men's ratings. Our dependent measure asked participants to assume “a woman,” in general terms, performs each of the listed behaviors. Future research should investigate whether effects of primed sexual arousal on ratings of sexual willingness exist among nonsingle men asked to assume “your relationship partner” performs a modified version of each behavior. If sexual arousal like other visceral influences orients people toward gratification (Ditto et al. 2006), nonsingle men might be motivated to perceive sexual willingness in only their partner's behavior.

If men in relationships think of their partners when asked about the implications of various behaviors, sexual arousal might exert weaker effects simply because these men have knowledge of what such behaviors actually mean for their partner. Alternatively, men in relationships might be generally more sexually satisfied and therefore either less motivated to fantasize or less emotionally engaged by the fantasies they produce. Compared to nonsingle men, single men might be more motivated to perceive a hypothetical woman as sexually willing as a means of obtaining a partner (Rerick et al. 2020). In fact, single men did rate women's behaviors as significantly more indicative of sexual willingness overall in the current study. Future research can test this hypothesis by examining whether single men's interest in sex and dating is positively associated with their ratings of women's sexual willingness.

The manipulation of sexual arousal in the present study was relatively unsuccessful for men in a relationship, which would render the absent main effect of arousal on perceptions of women's behaviors unsurprising. If this pattern continues to replicate, it has important implications for examinations of effects of sexual arousal. At minimum, these findings suggest that researchers should include relationship status in their analyses.

Researchers should also address the question of why men in relationships are not as aroused by their own fantasies, as well as questions of whether this same relationship status effect occurs in response to other manipulations of sexual arousal [e.g., pornographic content; Ariely and Loewenstein (2006); Both et al. (2004); Bouffard and Miller (2014); Shuper and Fisher (2008); Skakoon-Sparling and Cramer (2014); Skakoon-Sparling et al. (2016)]. Perhaps some of the equivocal findings in this literature are the result of the presence of many men in relationships in research samples.

It is additionally worth investigating whether a lack of sexual arousal in response to sexual stimuli serves the function of protecting men in existing relationships from engaging in relational infidelity. For example, men in relationships sometimes report lower perceived attractiveness of alternative women (Petit and Ford 2015), presumably, in part, to protect their current relationship. Future research could examine whether men's responsiveness to sexual arousal manipulations is negatively associated with their commitment to a current relationship partner. Attempts at addressing these hypotheses can clarify the effects of relationship status on sexual arousal and social judgment.

Implications for interventions that address the sources of sexual misunderstanding

Although perhaps an uncomfortable topic, interventions designed to identify sources of sexual misunderstanding should address influences of sexual arousal among single men. Much as implicit bias training prompts consideration of prejudice to minimize its discriminatory effects (Devine et al. 2012), sexual violence prevention programs can encourage analysis of visceral emotional states. Acknowledgement of how such states can bias judgment might facilitate more deliberative consideration of whether both parties have indicated willingness to engage in sex.

Future research should examine whether training material designed to prompt separation of sexual arousal from social perception can influence subjective ratings of sexual willingness. Current strategies focus aggressors' attention on targets' behavior [e.g., affirmative consent policies that teach “yes means yes” to sexual contact; for review, see Curtis and Burnett (2017)] rather than on aggressors' psychological and physiological states. Although university students generally agree that consistent and clearly conveyed messages of agreement to sexual contact are advisable, many students indicate discomfort engaging in such explicit sexual communication (Shumlich and Fisher 2020). Students might choose instead to infer sexual willingness from behavioral cues, such as the 25 behaviors tested in the current study. When sexually aroused, the present data suggest that single men might misinterpret the meaning of those behaviors as in some way indicative of women's desire to engage in sex.

Perhaps university students should receive additional training to identify their own sexual arousal as a predictor of sexual misinterpretations. Such training can intentionally place more of the burden on the aggressor to correct erroneous social judgments, and less of the burden on the target to defensively convey sexual unwillingness to an audience motivated to misunderstand.

Conclusion

The question of whether an alleged victim of sexual assault consented to sexual activity is often the centerpiece of litigation (Villalobos et al. 2016). The current findings supported those of previous studies suggesting that under conditions of sexual arousal, single men, who are often defendants in such cases, might honestly misinterpret the intent underlying women's behaviors (Rerick et al. 2020). These data do not provide an excuse for offenders' behavior. Instead, they contribute to a more complete understanding of the context for sexual interactions and underscore the importance of interventions that identify and address the sources of sexual misunderstanding (Davis and Loftus 2019).

Footnotes

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

Funding Information

No funding was received to conduct this research.

References

Abbey

, Jacquez-Tiura

, LeBreton

. (2011). Risk factors for sexual aggression in young men: An expansion of the confluence model. Aggress Behav. 37, 450–464.

Abbey

, McAuslan

, Zawacki

, et al. (2001). Attitudinal, experiential, and situational predictors of sexual assault perpetration. J Interpers Violence. 16, 784–807.

Ariely

, Loewenstein

. (2006). The heat of the moment: The effect of sexual arousal on sexual decision making. J Behav Decis Mak. 19, 87–98.

Bancroft

, Janssen

. (2000). The dual control model of male sexual response: A theoretical approach to centrally mediated erectile dysfunction. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 24, 571–579.

Bargh

, Raymond

, Pryor

, Strack

. (1995). Attractiveness of the underling: An automatic power → sex association and its consequences for sexual harassment and aggression. J Pers Soc Psychol. 68, 768–781.

Both

, Spiering

, Everaerd

, LaanE. (2004). Sexual behavior and responsiveness to sexual stimuli following laboratory-induced sexual arousal. J Sex Res. 41, 242–258.

Bouffard

, Miller

. (2014). The role of sexual arousal and overperception of sexual intent within the decision to engage in sexual coercion. J Interpers Violence. 29, 1967–1986.

Cronbach

. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 16, 297–334.

Curtis

, Burnett

. (2017). Affirmative consent: What do college student leaders think about “yes means yes”. as the standard for sexual behavior? Am J Sexual Educ. 12, 201–214.

10.

Davis

, Loftus

. (2019). Title IX and “trauma-focused”. investigations: The good, the bad, and the ugly. J Appl Res Mem Cogn. 8, 403–410.

11.

Devine

, Forscher

, Austin

, Cox

WTL

. (2012). Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention. J Exp Soc Psychol. 48, 1267–1278.

12.

Ditto

, Pizarro

, Epstein

, et al. (2006). Visceral influences on risk taking behavior. J Behav Decis Mak. 19, 99–113.

13.

Edwards

, Sylaska

, Barry

, et al. (2015). Physical dating violence, sexual violence, and unwanted pursuit victimization: A comparison of incidence rates among sexual-minority and heterosexual college students. J Interpers Violence. 30, 580–600.

14.

Erdfelder

, Faul

, Buchner

. (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behav Res Meth Instrum Comput. 28, 1–11.

15.

Foster

, Witcher

, Campbell

, Green

. (1998). Arousal and attraction: Evidence for automatic and controlled processes. J Pers Soc Psychol. 74, 86–101.

16.

Greer

, Buss

. (1994). Tactics for promoting sexual encounters. J Sex Res. 31, 185–201.

17.

Haselton

, Buss

. (2000). Error management theory: A new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. J Pers Soc Psychol. 78, 81–91.

18.

Hinzmann

, Borg

, Verwoerd

JRL

, de Jong

. (2020). The reciprocal relationship between sexual arousal and disgust as evidenced in automatic approach-avoidance behavior. J Sex Res. 57, 384–396.

19.

Joyal

, Cossette

, Lapierre

. (2015). What exactly is an unusual sexual fantasy?. J Sexual Med. 12, 328–340.

20.

Kinsey

, Pomeroy

, Martin

. (1948). Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. (Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN).

21.

Lang

, Bradley

, Cuthbert

. (2008). International Affective Picture System (IAPS): Affective Ratings of Pictures and Instruction Manual. (Technical Report. A-8). University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

22.

Livingston

, Davis

. (2020). Power affects perceptions of sexual willingness: Implications for litigating sexual assault allegations. Violence Gender. 7, 116–120.

23.

Livingston

, Vik

. (2021). “Empowering, humbling, and of course arousing”: A qualitative analysis of experiences with power in sexual relationships. Sexual Cult. 25, 1204–1226. DOI: 10.1007/s12119-021-09834-9

24.

Loewenstein

. (1996). Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 65, 272–292.

25.

Murray

, Murphy

, von Hippel

, et al. (2017). A preregistered study of competing predictions suggests that men do overestimate women's sexual intent. Psychol Sci. 28, 253–255.

26.

Petit

, Ford

. (2015). Effect of relationships status on perceptions of physical attractiveness for alternative partners. Pers Relat. 22, 348–355.

27.

People v. Newman, B255339 (California, 1988).

28.

Perilloux

, Kurzban

. (2015). Do men overperceive women's sexual interest?. Psychol Sci. 26, 70–77.

29.

Rerick

, Livingston

, Davis

. (2019). Rape and the jury. In Handbook of Sexual Assault and Sexual Assault Prevention. W O'Donohue, P Schewe, eds. pp. 551–571. New York, NY: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-23645-8_33

30.

Rerick

, Livingston

, Davis

. (2020). Does the horny man think women want him too?. Effects of male sexual arousal on perceptions of female sexual willingness. J Soc Psychol. 160, 520–533.

31.

Reynolds v. Cook, 1:2019cv01935 (Indiana, 2020).

32.

Shumlich

, Fisher

. (2020). An exploration of factors that influence enactment of affirmative consent behaviors. J Sex Res. 57, 1108–1121.

33.

Shuper

, Fisher

. (2008). The role of sexual arousal and sexual partner characteristics in HIV+ MSM's intentions to engage in unprotected sexual intercourse. Health Psychol. 27, 445–454.

34.

Skakoon-Sparling

, Cramer

. (2014). Paratelic/telic state, sexual arousal, and sexual risk-taking in university students. J Motiv Emot Personal. 2, 32–37.

35.

Skakoon-Sparling

, Cramer

, Shuper

. (2016). The impact of sexual arousal on sexual risk-taking and decision-making in men and women. Arch Sex Behav. 45, 33–42.

36.

Stephan

, Berscheid

, Walster

. (1971). Sexual arousal and heterosexual perception. J Pers Soc Psychol. 20, 93–101.

37.

Suarez

, Gadalla

. (2010). Stop blaming the victim: A meta-analysis on rape myths. J Interpers Violence. 25, 2010–2035.

38.

United States v. Hernandez, WL 451220 (2019).

39.

Villalobos

, Davis

, Leo

. (2016). His story, her story: Sexual miscommunication, motivated remembering, and intoxication as pathways to honest false testimony regarding sexual consent. In Vilified: Wrongful Allegations of Person Abuse. R Burnett, ed. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom).

40.

Wright

, Tokunaga

, Kraus

. (2016). A meta-analysis of pornography consumption and actual acts of sexual aggression in general population studies. J Commun. 66, 183–205.