Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39090436›Full record

ArticleArchives of sexual behavior2025

Psychometric Evidence That Paraphilia Is a Natural Kind.

J Michael Bailey, Kevin J Hsu

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

J Michael BaileyDepartment of Psychology, Northwestern University, 2029 Sheridan Rd., Evanston, IL, 60208, USA. jm-bailey@northwestern.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-4756-1705
Kevin J HsuDepartment of Psychological and Social Sciences, Pennsylvania State University, Abington, PA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Paraphilic DisordersAdultHomosexuality, MaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsYoung AdultAutogynephiliaDSM-5Internalized sexual interestMale sexualityParaphiliaSexual orientation

Identifiers

PMID39090436

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.