Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32026221›Full record

ReviewArchives of sexual behavior2022

The Empirical Status of the Preparation Hypothesis: Explicating Women's Genital Responses to Sexual Stimuli in the Laboratory.

Martin L Lalumière, Megan L Sawatsky, Samantha J Dawson, Kelly D Suschinsky

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Archives of sexual behavior, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. The Preparation Hypothesis Bristles.Archives of sexual behavior · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Archives at 50 Years.Archives of sexual behavior · 2021
    Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Martin L LalumièreSchool of Psychology, University of Ottawa, 136 Jean-Jacques Lussier, Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5, Canada. martin.lalumiere@uottawa.ca.
Megan L SawatskySchool of Psychology, University of Ottawa, 136 Jean-Jacques Lussier, Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5, Canada.
Samantha J DawsonDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Kelly D SuschinskySubstance Abuse and Concurrent Disorders Program, The Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research conducted in our laboratory and in other laboratories has revealed that (1) women's genital responses to visual and auditory stimuli are strongly affected by the presence of sexual cues, but that (2) specific sexual cues (e.g., gender of actors, the presence of sexual violence) often have little impact on the magnitude of the responses-that is, similar genital responses are observed to very different sexual stimuli. In addition, (3) women's genital responses do not strongly correspond with self-reported sexual partner and activity preferences, or (4) with self-reported sexual arousal during the presentation of sexual stimuli. Taken together, these facts represent a puzzle, especially considering that men's genital responses are highly affected by specific sexual cues and strongly correspond to stated preferences and self-reported sexual arousal. One hypothesis to explain female low cue-specificity and low concordance (relative to men) is the preparation hypothesis: Women's indiscriminate genital responses serve a protective function. That is, they do not indicate or necessarily promote sexual interest and motivation, but rather prepare the vaginal lumen for possible sexual activity and therefore prevent injuries that may occur as a result of penetration. We review evidence for and against this hypothesis. We conclude that the evidence is favorable but not entirely convincing, and more work is required to reach a firm conclusion. We offer directions for future research.

Indexed as

ArousalLaboratoriesFemaleHumansMaleMenSexual BehaviorVaginaCategory-specificityCue-specificityGenital responsesPreparation hypothesisSexual arousalSexual concordance

Identifiers

PMID32026221

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.