ReviewCurrent psychiatry reports2020
Sex Doll Ownership: An Agenda for Research.
Review in Current psychiatry reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Human-Robot Interaction and Sexbots: A Systematic Literature Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Pooled it
- Are Gender Identities and Gender Ideologies Associated with the Variety and Type of Owned Sex Toys? Evidence from a Large Italian Sample of Cisgender Individuals.Archives of sexual behavior · 2024Article
- Exploring the Ownership of Child-Like Sex Dolls.Archives of sexual behavior · 2022Article
- Investigating the differences between females perceive same-gender and heterogender sex robots regarding adoption and intentions.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- A Thing like a Human? A Mixed-Methods Study on Sex Doll Usage.International journal of sexual health : official journal of the World Association for Sexual Health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewThe topic of sex doll ownership is becoming an increasingly discussed issue from both a social and legal perspective. This review aims to examine the veracity of the existing psychological, sexological, and legal literature in relation to doll ownership. RECENT
findingsStrong views exist across the spectrum of potential socio-legal positions on sex doll ownership. However, there is an almost total lack of empirical analyses of the psychological characteristics or behavioral implications of doll ownership. As such, existing arguments appear to represent the philosophical positions of those scholars expressing them, rather than being rooted in any objective evidence base. Despite an absence of empirical data on the characteristics and subsequent effects of doll ownership, discussions about the ethical and legal status of doll ownership continue. This highlights a real and urgent need for a coherent research agenda to be advanced in this area of work.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.