ArticleArchives of sexual behavior2025
Psychometric Evidence That Paraphilia Is a Natural Kind.
Article in Archives of sexual behavior, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does Autogynephilia Theory Still Provide a Useful Explanatory Framework for Understanding Transfeminine Identity and Sexuality?Archives of sexual behavior · 2026Article
- The Paraphilia Natural Kind Hypothesis Is Alive and Well: A Response to Lawrence (2026).Archives of sexual behavior · 2026Article
- Paraphilia Is Not a Natural Kind: Comment on Bailey and Hsu (2025).Archives of sexual behavior · 2026Article
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
Is the category paraphilia a natural kind? That is, do different paraphilias share anything scientifically interesting or are they classified together because they are unusual and sometimes problematic? We investigated this question systematically in 11 samples of paraphilic males (N = 4,617) and 11 samples of control males (N = 1,494). Primary data consisted of responses to the 11-item Paraphilic Interests Scale. Contrary to our initial hypothesis, the scale mean was similar for paraphilic and control samples. Using logistic regression and the same items, we derived three highly correlated measures that robustly discriminated paraphilic and control samples (ds ranging from 0.86 to 0.92). These successful measures capitalized on the unanticipated fact that some items (especially those assessing transvestism and masochistic humiliation) were positively associated with membership in paraphilic samples, while others (especially those assessing voyeurism) were negatively associated with such membership. Subsequent analyses focused on one of the measures, the Paraphilic Interests Scale Contrast (PISC). Consistent with prior findings distinguishing paraphilias and homosexual orientation, PISC was not elevated among homosexual males compared with heterosexual males among the control groups. Within four paraphilic samples, PISC was positively associated with additional paraphilic phenomena. Results provide tentative support for both the proposition that paraphilia is a natural kind and the usefulness of PISC as a measure of paraphilia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39090436What 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.