Psychosexual correlates of viewing sexually explicit sex on television among women in the Netherlands.

During the last decade, the amount of sexually explicit programs on both public and commercial Dutch television has increased enormously. What is offered to the viewers varies from often soft, but sometimes hard-core, porn movies to very explicit documentaries about ordinary and less ordinary people's sexual lives. Although many commentators seem to wonder, it had not been investigated to what extent Dutch women watch these programs, what their reasons for watching would be, and what their reactions to these programs are. This study was designed to explore frequency, motives, and reactions related to watching sexually explicit sex on TV (SETV) among women in The Netherlands, with the aim to collect more descriptive data on the subject. Although this was a correlational study, and causal inferences cannot be made, self-report of reactions to SETV may shed some light on the effects exposure to SETV may have on women.

The international scientific literature in this area is remarkably sparse. Although we know a fair amount about the ubiquity of sexual content in the media, not in the least on television, we still know relatively little about the effects of exposure to sexual media content on sexual behaviors and attitudes (Brown, 2000a). Some studies have associated viewing of sexually oriented TV programs to more liberal sexual attitudes, and greater or earlier sexual experience among adolescents (e.g., Brown & Newcomer, 1991; Calfin, Carroll, & Shmidt, 1993; Kalof, 1999). These findings are supported by cultivation theory (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1994), which proposes that viewers gradually adopt the image of reality that is presented by television. Laboratory studies of the effects of exposure to sexually explicit material (SEM) have also shown subjects to become less sexually anxious, and have more favorable attitudes toward sexuality and SEM after exposure (see Davis & Bauserman, 1993, for a review).

However, besides these general associations, one thing stands out from some studies in this particular area as well as from (laboratory) studies in closely related areas: Individual differences in terms of motivations for watching, and of exposure effects are substantial. Personality characteristics such as higher conservatism, erotophobia, and negative attitudes toward sexually explicit media have, for example, been shown to be associated with less consumption of them among men as well as women (e.g., Coles & Shamp, 1984; Lawrence & Herold, 1988). Mosher (1988) argued that people are selective in their sexual media viewing habits, and that they are likely to choose the material that is congruent with their sexual scripts, fantasies, and disposition. Bogaert (2001), elaborating on this idea, found that individual differences (e.g., in intelligence and antisocial tendencies) were indeed predictive of undergraduate men's choices of, and preference for, various forms of sexual media.

In addition, exposure to sexually explicit media does not affect all people in the same way. There is a strong suggestion emerging from the literature that exposure to sexually explicit media and sexual stimuli needs to be studied as a cyclical process, in which personal identity, motivation, and evaluation interact in a mutually reinforcing way. Brown (2000b) and Steele (1999), for instance, have shown that teenagers' identity (their sense of themselves, and others) affects and is affected by the way they use, understand, appropriate, or resist mass media images, and messages about love, sex, and relationships, thereby putting an emphasis on media practice rather than media content or direct effects. And Ward and Rivadeneyra (1999), for example, found that the extent to which people were personally involved with TV comedies and dramas (i.e., the level of identification or connection with the content) was a better predictor of sexual outcomes (attitudes, expectations, and behavior) among university undergraduates than was the sheer viewing amount.

Studies in related areas have also indicated that personal factors may influence the effects of exposure through related variations in cognitive and emotional processing of the sexual stimuli (cf. Newhagen, 2000). Janssen and Bancroft (2000) and Janssen, Everaerd, Spiering, and Janssen (2000), for instance, present evidence that the effects of exposure to SEM on sexual arousal are mediated by the way the stimuli are given meaning in connection to personality aspects such as inhibition or excitation proneness among men. Laan (1994), Laan and Everaerd (1995), and Pearson and Pollack (1997) have found comparable evidence for women. The consistent evidence of differences between men and women in affective reactions and self-ratings of arousal after exposure to SEM (e.g., Davis & Bauserman, 1993; Malamuth, 1996) is a convincing illustration of personal differences in this respect in the first place. In addition, the mixed findings on the effects of exposure to pornography in men (e.g., Allen, Emmers, Gebhart, & Geary, 1995; Bauserman, 1996; Donnerstein, Linz, & Penrod, 1987; Malamuth & Check, 1985; Zgourides, Monto, & Harris, 1997) can be explained, in part, by the notion that exposure to pornography may have adversarial attitudinal and behavioral effects in some men, but not in others (cf. Vanwesenbeeck, Van Zessen, Ingham, Jarmazovic, & Stevens, 1999). Likewise, contradictory evidence in the area of the negative effects of exposure to ideal body media images on women's self-esteem and body image has led authors to stress that, depending on individual factors such as age, body mass, general body dissatisfaction, and frequency of exposure, and depending on the way body images are processed cognitively and emotionally, exposure to slim ideals may have negative consequences for some women, but not for others (e.g., Botta 1999; Henderson-King & Henderson-King, 1997; Posavac, Posavac, & Posavac, 1998; Shaw & Waller, 1995).

Although from a different vein, the studies mentioned suggest a cycle of cognitive and emotional practice and processing, through which reactions to SEM or other sexual stimuli are affected by personality and identity variables and connected individual meanings and motivations, that may, in their turn, be affected by past experience of specific reactions and evaluations in relation to SEM. Thus, when exploring reactions of women to SETV, it seems relevant to do so in relation to personal motives for watching and other relevant personal variables. In this study, frequency of watching SETV, motivations for watching, and reactions to watching have been measured among a convenience sample of Dutch women, and cross-sectionally related to some demographic, psychosexual, and behavioral variables that were considered relevant in an exploration of this kind. These variables are age, educational level, and relationship status, attitudes toward SEM, sexual self-image, sexual behavior variables, sexual experience variables, and some body-related measures. Taking it from the notion that specific psychosexual characteristics may enhance specific use and processing of SETV, thereby resulting in specific reactions to SETV that may in their turn be integrated in one's identity, it may be expected that identity, motivation, and reactions in relation to SETV are strongly and meaningfully related to each other.

METHOD

Procedure

In the summer of 1999, printed questionnaires, entitled Give your opinion about sex in the media were distributed, predominantly through agencies of The Body Shop, in the context of a national campaign about media images and self-esteem. The campaign was a collaboration between The Body Shop, The Netherlands Institute of Social Sexological Research (NISSO), and two national feminist organizations, Transact and Mama Cash. The campaign sought media attention for the subject; produced several posters, leaflets, and brochures on several aspects of women's self esteem, most often in relation to media images; and studied some questions about women's media consumption and their responses to media.

The questionnaire focused on three different domains of exposure to sexuality in the media: sexually tainted advertisements in the street scene, informative magazine articles about sexuality and relationships, and sexually explicit TV programs (SETV). Only the findings related to the latter will be reported here. The introduction to the questions asked in relation to SETV read as follows: "Many programs shown on television nowadays are meant to be sexually exciting. Imagine, for instance, erotic movies and programs that picture the sexual preferences and behavior of people." Questions were then asked about the frequency of watching, motives for watching, and reactions to these programs. Beforehand, questions were asked about demographics, and about psychosexual and behavioral variables. These will be discussed below.

Participants

A response rate of about 40% (assuming that all 500 questionnaires that were printed were indeed handed out to women by the shop attendants) resulted in a sample of 201 respondents, of whom some demographic characteristics are shown in Table 1. Ages varied from 15 to 65 years with an average of 31 years. The majority of respondents were from a White, Dutch background. The sample was highly educated, and four out of five women had jobs. Most identified as (predominantly) heterosexual. Half were married and/or living with a partner.

Measures

Frequency of viewing SETV was rated on a 5-point scale (1 = hardly ever, 2 = about once every couple of months, 3 = about once every month, 4 = about once every week, 5 = multiple times per week). Motives for watching SETV were assessed using a self-developed item list, comprised of 14 possible motives for which respondents were asked to rate (on a 5-point scale, ranging from very few times to very often) how often this motive applied to them. Factor analyses (principle components extraction, varimax rotation) identified four different sets of motives: information seeking, sensation seeking, leisure seeking, and partner related. Cronbach's alpha for these scales was, respectively, .89, .84, .71, and .65. In the remaining analyses, factor scores were used. Items and factor loadings are presented in Table 2.

Reactions to SETV were also assessed with a self-developed item list, comprising 16 items this time. Again respondents were asked to rate (on a 5-point scale, ranging from very few times to very often) how often this reaction occurred to them. Factor analyses (principle components extraction, varimax rotation) revealed five different factors: appreciative, ego-hurting, uncomfortable, ego-boosting, and sex-life-affirmative reactions. Cronbach's alphas were .86, .87, .65, .60, and .62, respectively. Factor scores were used in the remaining analyses. Items and factor loadings are presented in Table 3.

Attitudes toward SEM were assessed with an extended Dutch adaptation of the Attitudes Towards Erotica Questionnaire (Lottes, Weinberg, & Waller, 1993). The following four factors emerged in the factor solution (principle components extraction, varimax rotation): SEM is harmful, especially for women (12 items; e.g., "SEM enlarges the chance to sexual violence," "SEM is humiliating for women," alpha is .90), positive attitude toward SEM (8 items; e.g., "SEM is liberating for women," "SEM can teach people something about sexuality," alpha is .85), SEM is sexually stimulating (3 items; e.g., "SEM can enhance pleasure in masturbation," alpha is .64), and SEM is harmful for men (3 items; e.g., "SEM bothers men," alpha is .69). In addition, a Dutch scale measuring sexual liberalism was used (van Zessen & Sandfort, 1991).

Sexual self-image. Scores on short, translated versions of The Sex Anxiety Inventory (Janda & O'Grady, 1980), The Sexuality Scale (Snell & Papini, 1989), The Sexual Self-Esteem Inventory for Women (Zeanah & Swartz, 1996), and The Sexual Interactional Behavior Scales (Vanwesenbeeck, Bekker, & van Lenning, 1998) (all scored on a 5-point scale) were factor analyzed (principle components extraction, varimax rotation), and revealed the following subscales: sexual esteem (6 items; e.g., "I feel I am quite good at sex," [alpha] = .90), sexual depression (4 items; e.g., "I am disappointed about the quality of my sexual life," [alpha] = .92), sexual preoccupation (5 items; e.g., "I think about sex all the time," [alpha] = .87), sexual anxiety (4 items; e.g., "When I meet someone I find sexually attractive, I get nervous," [alpha] = .70), sexual insecurity (6 items; e.g., "I find it hard to be honest about my sexual feelings," [alpha] = .85), moral judgement (3 items; e.g., "Some things I do in sex are morally wrong," [alpha] = .62), and sexual symptoms (5 items; e.g., "I have difficulty to get or stay sexually excited," [alpha] = .74).

Sexual behavior variables. The following questions were asked, all for the previous 12 months: "With how many people have you had sex?" (Number of sexual partners, 4-point scale, ranging from none to four or more), "How often have you had sex with your partner, and/or someone else?" (Frequency of sexual contact, 7-point scale, ranging from never to at least four times a week), "How often have you masturbated?" (Frequency of masturbation, 7-point scale, ranging from never to at least four times a week), and "How often have you used a vibrator or other sex toys?" (Use of sex toys, 5-point scale, ranging from never to very often).

Sexual experience variables. Respondents were asked to indicate, on 5-point scales, the extent to which they had had negative sexual experiences in their sexual lives (ranging from never to always), the extent to which they had had positive sexual experiences (ranging from never to always), and the frequency of having had sex against their will (ranging from never to very often).

Body related measures. Respondents indicated their height, and weight, so that their Body Mass Index could be computed. They were also asked to indicate the extent of their dieting on a 5-point scale (ranging from never to always). In addition, they rated (on 4-point scales) the importance and the attractivity of 16 different aspects of their bodies (an adaptation of The Groninger Body Attitude Scale: see van de Wiel et al., 1995). Sum scores were computed for these separately, measuring self-rated body importance, and self-rated body attractivity. Scores were also combined, resulting in the variable computed body satisfaction.

RESULTS

Viewing SETV

Frequency of viewing. Sixty percent of women in the sample reported to watch SETV more often than hardly ever. A small quarter (23%) said they watched about once every couple of months, 29% about once per month, and 8% about once a week. None reported to watch more than once a week. The average frequency of viewing SEM for those who did it on a somewhat regular basis is slightly less than once a month in this sample.

Motives for viewing SETV. Table 4 lists the average item scores for the women in this sample and for those in a subsample of women watching more often than hardly ever (scores ranging from 1 to 5) for the four motivation scales. Relatively low scores are predominant on all four scales, but all motives are reported more often among the subsample of relatively frequent watchers. Leisure-seeking motives are endorsed most often; partner-related motives least often. To check whether this latter result had to do with the fact that only half the sample was living with a partner, the average item score for partner-related motives was also computed for women living with a partner only. They endorsed partner-related motives only slightly stronger (average item score 1.76) than the sample as a whole.

Reactions to SETV. Table 5 lists the average item scores for the women in this sample, and for those in a subsample of women watching more often than hardly ever (scores ranging from 1 to 5) for the five reaction scales. Again, low scores prevailed, with the exception of those for sex-life-affirmative reactions. These are endorsed most often; ego-boosting reactions least often. Relatively frequent watchers report less uncomfortable, and more ego-boosting reactions in comparison to the sample as a whole. Average scores higher than 3 for appreciative reactions are obtained by only 11% of the total sample.

Frequency and Motives for Watching Related to the Other Variables

Frequency of watching is significantly and positively related to sexual liberalism, and positive attitudes toward SEM (negatively to negative attitudes toward SEM), sexual preoccupation, frequency of masturbation, use of sex attributes, and self-rated body importance. Also sexual esteem and number of partners show small but significant positive correlations with frequency of watching. The higher educated watch less often.

Of all other variables investigated, motives for viewing SETV seem to be relatively strongly associated with the attitudinal variables. Where correlations are significant, we see positive relations between motivation and liberal, positive attitudes and negative relations between motivation and negative attitudes. When having positive attitudes toward SEM, women are simply more strongly motivated in whatever way to watch SETV, or vice versa. Remarkable in this context is the absence of a significant relation between partner-related motives and finding SEM sexually stimulating, whereas all other motives are related to this attitudinal variable.

Regarding demographic variables, associations are found between age and leisure seeking only, and between educational level and information seeking only, both in reverse directions. Those who are married, and/or living with a partner, on the other hand, report more partner-related motives but fewer sensation-seeking motives than those living without a partner. In relation to sexual self-image variables, sexual preoccupation is found to be positively related to both information- and sensation-seeking motives. The more sexually anxious, depressed, and insecure seem to entertain fewer leisure-seeking motives. In terms of sexual behavior, the stronger correlations are found between frequency of masturbation and sensation-seeking motives and between frequency of sex with a partner and partner-related motives. Partner-related motives are also, in a logical way, associated with previous sexual experiences. Finally, self-rated body importance is found to be positively associated with all but partner-related motives, whereas self-rated body attractivity is negatively associated with partner-related motives only.

Reactions to SETV Related to the Other Variables

Appreciative reactions, in particular, are strongly positively related to all motives for watching (especially information- and sensation-seeking) and frequency of watching. Another strong association is found between information-seeking motives and ego-boosting reactions. Appreciative reactions are stronger endorsed by those who are younger and not living with a partner. Ego-boosting reactions seem to be more present among the lower educated.

Appreciative, uncomfortable, and ego-boosting reactions are most strongly associated with attitudes toward SEM, all in the expected direction. Finding SEM sexually stimulating, however, is only positively related to appreciative reactions and does not seem to be a factor in discomfort or ego-boost. The sexual self-image variables are particularly strongly connected to the sex-life-affirmative reactions, and, to a somewhat lesser extent, to ego-hurting and uncomfortable reactions. Especially sexual depression, insecurity, and sexual symptoms show strong negative, and sexual esteem shows strong positive correlations with sex-life-affirmative reactions. Sexual anxiety and insecurity are also clearly positively, and sexual esteem clearly negatively, connected to ego-hurting (and uncomfortable) reactions. In addition, ego-hurting reactions are positively associated with report of sexual symptoms.

Other relations are found between ego-hurting reactions, and low self- and body-esteem and high frequency of dieting and between ego-hurting reactions and more negative and less positive experiences in sexuality. Positive sexual experiences are positively connected to sex-life-affirmative reactions, on the other hand. Correlations with sexual behavior variables, finally, show that the more sexually solo active report more appreciative reactions, while the more partnered sexually active report more sex-life-affirmative reactions. A higher number of sexual partners is associated with lesser discomfort with viewing SETV.

DISCUSSION

This study explored frequency, motives, and reactions in relation to viewing sexually explicit sex on TV (SETV) and their demographic, psychosexual, and behavioral correlates among a convenience sample of Dutch women. Sixty percent of this sample of (relatively highly educated) women watch SETV on a somewhat regular basis, with an average frequency of slightly less than once a month. Motivations for watching are most often leisure-seeking (in particular among the younger women) or sensation-seeking (in particular among those living without a partner). However, with regard to the report of leisure-seeking motives, social desirability may be presumed to have played a role. Noteworthy is the relatively low report of partner-related motives for watching, which is still only slightly higher among women who do indeed live with a partner. This is contrary to findings in relation to other sorts of sexually explicit media, such as X-rated movies or erotic magazines (cf. Lawrence & Herold 1988). Possibly the wide availability and ready access to SETV is a factor here. In addition, it needs to be noted that this sample was highly self-selected, and findings about the relative strength of motivations for watching SETV (as well as for reactions to it) cannot be generalized to the female (Dutch) population as a whole.

How do these particular women react to SETV? Sex-life-affirmative reactions are most prevalent, which basically is a disappreciative reaction to SETV, meaning "watching this makes me happy with my own sex life" (see Table 3). Feeling uncomfortable as a reaction is also quite prevalent in this sample. And although women's feelings about their sex lives may get a boost from watching SETV, ego-boosting reactions are reported least of all. Positive, notoriously appreciative reactions to SETV are strongly present among only about 1 in 10 women. Appreciative reactions are, of all sorts of reactions, most tightly linked to a strong motivation for watching, in particular to sensation- and information-seeking.

From the evidence presented in the introduction, it was expected that personal variables (such as sexual self-image, and behavioral and experiential variables), frequency, and motives for watching, and reactions to SETV would be strongly and meaningfully interrelated. There is evidence that this is indeed the case. Since this study was limited to a cross-sectional design, conclusions regarding causality cannot, in fact, be drawn. However, taking it from the proposition that identity, motivation, and reactions to SETV are mutually reinforcing of each other through a cyclical information-processing practice, the relations found are interpreted as mutual. The following suggestions may be made on the basis of the findings in this study. Sexually secure women (with positive sexual experiences, high sexual esteem, and low sexual depression and anxiety) seem to be relatively likely to seek leisure in SETV and to show relatively strong sex-life-affirmative reactions, and may thereby yet again become more sexually secure. Likewise, sexually preoccupied, solo-active women, relatively often seeking sensation and information in SETV, appear to show highly appreciative reactions, which may strengthen their view that SEM is positive and sexually exiting and may, once more, reinforce their sexual preoccupation and their solo sexual activities. High self-rated body importance and satisfaction was also found to be associated with leisure seeking in SETV and with appreciative reactions.

By contrast, highly insecure women (low body- and self-esteem, high frequency of dieting, high on sexual symptoms) seeking information and sensation in SETV, seem to get their egos hurt relatively often and may thus once more have their self-esteem trampled. And sexually anxious women, seeking sensation, seem to get highly uncomfortable with watching SETV and may thus once more have their anxiousness reinforced. Results suggest that the more vulnerable (anxious, insecure, symptomatic) women may get hurt by watching SETV, whereas the least vulnerable (self-respecting, sex-life-appreciative, nondepressed, sexually active) ones may profit.

Of course, these conclusions can indeed be no more than suggestions that would have to be confirmed in more detailed research. In particular, the nature of the sexually explicit material would have to be more precisely defined, because what was studied here comprises a very broad range of SETV, with all uncertainty of what respondents have actually responded to. Nor can these conclusions be extended to women in general, since this sample consisted of relatively highly educated, predominantly White, and predominantly heterosexual women.

Nevertheless, this study could be a stimulus to further look into interactions between identity, motivation, and evaluation of SEM, mediated by cognitive and emotional information processing. Clearly, there is no simple, straightforward relation between exposure to sexually explicit media and women's reactions to them. Reactions to SEM depend on women's personal identity and practice, motivation, and specific use and processing of SEM. This study has suggested more negative consequences for the more vulnerable women. Hopefully, more detailed research can identify conditions under which these vulnerable women may profit as well. Manipulation of content of the stimulus, and the context in which it is consumed, would have to be some of the primary objectives of this research. In addition, subjects may be provided with some training as to how to process certain information to their benefit. Without doubt, a very promising area of work is there to be explored.

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Sample

Variable               Category                             %

Age:                   Under 30 years of age                50
                       30 years or older                    50
Educational level:     Lower vocational or less              6
                       Middle vocational/high school        43
                       Higher vocational/university         51
Employment status:     Employed in a paid job               82
                       Unemployed                            8
                       Employed in unpaid job/work/school   11
Ethnic background:     White, Dutch                         91
                       Other (e.g. Surinam, Maroccan)        9
Relationship status:   Married/living with a partner        50
                       Partner, not living together         25
                       Multiple partners                     4
                       No partner(s)                        21
Sexual orientation:    Exclusively heterosexual             76
                       Predominantly heterosexual           21
                       Bisexual                              3
                       (Predominantly) homosexual            2

Note. N = 201. Results are in percentages.
Table 2. Factor Structure Item List of Motives for Watching Sexually
Explicit Programs on TV

                                             Information-   Sensation-
                                               seeking       seeking

I hope to get good tips                         .91522        .15014
Want to learn something about sexuality         .87837        .13481
I hope they will enhance my sex life            .73261        .20344
They're often about things that concern me      .68192        .21940
I find sex an interesting topic                 .53716        .29656

To get sexually incited                         .28548        .83868
As an entree to masturbation                    .16894        .78506
I find them exciting                            .49540        .56541

For leisure                                     .14197        .22548
For amusement                                   .13714       -.02232
By coincidence                                  .02823        .03243
Out of curiosity                                .41396        .35112

Because my partner wants to watch               .07291       -.01092
As an entree to sex with my partner             .25373        .35715

                                             Leisure-   Partner-
                                             seeking    related

I hope to get good tips                       .06170     .07912
Want to learn something about sexuality       .15675    -.03333
I hope they will enhance my sex life          .08894     .23508
They're often about things that concern me    .18912     .17502
I find sex an interesting topic               .37863     .14578

To get sexually incited                       .05125     .30582
As an entree to masturbation                  .10541    -.07573
I find them exciting                          .30997     .24715

For leisure                                   .61877     .17298
For amusement                                 .59588     .12631
By coincidence                                .58553    -.05365
Out of curiosity                              .49161     .07880

Because my partner wants to watch             .08605     .75867
As an entree to sex with my partner           .12872     .58663

Note. Principal axis factoring and varimax rotation were used in factor
analysis. N = 201. Table shows factor loadings.
Table 3. Factor Structure Item List of Reactions to Sexually Explicit
Programs on TV

                                                     Ego-      Uncom-
                                     Appreciative   hurting   fortable

I enjoy them                            .88339       .08987   -.17513
I find them exciting                    .73888       .02325    .14795
I find them inspiring                   .72720       .09111   -.03251
I appreciate them                       .65172       .13539   -.22485
They teach me something                 .57065       .12751    .02176

I feel insecure about my own body       .03737       .86847    .10037
They make me unhappy with myself        .06248       .80915    .21222
I feel jealous                          .19613       .76229    .11296

I feel guilty watching them             .10544       .05466    .71240
I feel uneasy                          -.05495       .36862    .64586
They disturb me                        -.27347       .14878    .50622
I find them boring                     -.24066       .05934    .28143

Good for my self-confidence             .24640       .11699   -.01852
I take comfort from them                .25181       .26169    .09226

I'm happy with my own sex life          .02039      -.13746    .05094
I feel my sex life could be better      .34085       .26664    .18592

                                                     Sex life
                                     Ego-boosting   affirmative

I enjoy them                            .10351         .00289
I find them exciting                    .02621        -.12307
I find them inspiring                   .31800        -.04994
I appreciate them                       .26363        -.01017
They teach me something                 .40669        -.11080

I feel insecure about my own body       .14191        -.07995
They make me unhappy with myself        .18348        -.05499
I feel jealous                          .06771        -.09545

I feel guilty watching them             .21206        -.04042
I feel uneasy                          -.00908        -.07597
They disturb me                        -.20284         .23656
I find them boring                     -.11747         .27596

Good for my self-confidence             .75378        -.06254
I take comfort from them                .53088         .02138

I'm happy with my own sex life          .05025         .85036
I feel my sex life could be better      .22946        -.44281

Note. Principal axis factoring and varimax rotation were used in factor
analysis. N = 201. Table shows factor loadings.
Table 4. Motives for Watching Sexually Explicit TV
Programs

                              Total sample   Subsample

Information-seeking motives       1.8           2.2
Sensation-seeking motives         2.1           2.5
Leisure-seeking motives           2.6           3.0
Partner-related motives           1.7           1.9

Note. Data from a convenience sample of Dutch women (N = 20l) and a
subsample of those who watch more than hardly ever (n = 124). Scores
were on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 to 5. Table shows average item
scores.
Table 5. Reactions to Sexually Explicit TV Programs

                                 Total
                                 sample   Subsample

Appreciative reactions            2.0        2.3
Ego-hurting reactions             1.7        1.8
Uncomfortable reactions           2.4        2.2
Ego-boosting reactions            1.4        1.6
Sex-life-affirmative reactions    3.7        3.6

Note. Data from a convenience sample of Dutch women (N = 201) and
a subsample of those who watch more than hardly ever (n = 124).
Scores were on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 to 5. Table shows average
item scores.
Table 6. Correlations between Motives for Watching SETV and
Demographic, Psychosexual, and Behavioral Variables

                               Frequency   Information   Sensation
                               watching      seeking      seeking

Demographic variables
  Age                          -.13        -.03          -.11
  Educational level            -.20 **     -.25 **       -.02
  Living with a partner        -.12        -.13          -.34 ***

Attitudinal variables
  Sexual liberalism             .21 **      .05           .29 ***
  SEM harmful                  -.21 **     -.15           .02
  SEM positive                  .27 ***     .34 ***       .04
  SEM sex. stimulating          .30 ***     .20 **        .29 ***
  SEM harmful for men          -.26 ***    -.23 **       -.06

Sexual self-image variables
  Sexual anxiety                .05         .14           .15 *
  Sexual depression            -.08         .10           .10
  Sexual esteem                 .15 *      -.02           .07
  Sexual insecurity            -.08         .14           .10
  Moral judgement               .03         .09          -.04
  Sexual preoccupation          .28 ***     .19 **        .32 ***
  Sexual symptoms              -.10         .12          -.02

Sexual behavior variables
  Number of partners            .14 *       .10           .04
  Frequency sexual contact      .13        -.07          -.15 *
  Frequency masturbation        .27 ***     .10           .31 ***
  Use of sex toys               .24 **      .16 *         .16 *

Sexual experience variables
  Positive experiences          .11        -.04          -.08
  Negative experiences          .01         .14           .08
  Frequency sex-against-will    .04        -.03           .03

Body related variables
  BMI                          -.05        -.12          -.02
  Self-rated attractivity       .14         .09           .15
  Self-rated importance         .28 ***     .19 *         .17 *
  Computed satisfaction         .21 *       .21 *         .20
  Frequency dieting            -.03        -.05          -.10

Self-esteem                    -.00        -.07          -.07

                               Leisure    Partner
                               seeking    related

Demographic variables
  Age                          -.26 ***   -.10
  Educational level            -.13       -.10
  Living with a partner        -.05        .21 **

Attitudinal variables
  Sexual liberalism             .11       -.01
  SEM harmful                  -.25 **    -.26 **
  SEM positive                  .26 ***    .21 **
  SEM sex. stimulating          .20 **    -.02
  SEM harmful for men          -.16 *     -.21 **

Sexual self-image variables
  Sexual anxiety               -.19 **    -.16 *
  Sexual depression            -.21 **    -.12
  Sexual esteem                 .13        .05
  Sexual insecurity            -.18 *     -.12
  Moral judgement              -.08        .13
  Sexual preoccupation          .07        .09
  Sexual symptoms              -.13       -.02

Sexual behavior variables
  Number of partners            .08        .05
  Frequency sexual contact      .14        .29 ***
  Frequency masturbation        .09       -.10
  Use of sex toys               .24 **     .05

Sexual experience variables
  Positive experiences          .17 *      .15 *
  Negative experiences         -.10       -.16 *
  Frequency sex-against-will    .03       -.15 *

Body related variables
  BMI                          -.07        .12
  Self-rated attractivity       .01       -.22 **
  Self-rated importance         .27 ***   -.04
  Computed satisfaction         .15       -.17
  Frequency dieting            -.10        .13

Self-esteem                     .07       -.00

Note. N = 201 Dutch women. Table shows Pearson's r.

* p < .05.

** p < .01.

*** p < .001.
Table 7. Correlations Between Reactions to SETV and Frequency of
Watching, Motives for Watching, and Demographic, Psychosexual
and Behavior Variables

                                Appre-      Ego-      Uncom-
                               ciative    hurting    fortable

Frequency of watching           .53 ***    .19 *     -.15 *

Motives for watching
  Information seeking           .44 ***    .19 *     -.04
  Sensation seeking             .63 ***    .12        .14
  Leisure seeking               .29 ***    .01       -.03
  Partner related               .30 ***    .02       -.05

Demographic variables
  Age                          -.20 **    -.14        .06
  Educational level            -.13       -.17 *      .11
  Living with a partner        -.23 **    -.08        .00

Attitudinal variables
  Sexual liberalism             .15 *     -.08       -.16 *
  SEM harmful                  -.19 *      .18 *      .28 ***
  SEM positive                  .34 ***   -.01       -.22 **
  SEM sexually stimulating      .37 ***    .02       -.06
  SEM harmful for men          -.18 *     -.05        .23 **

Sexual self-image variables
  Sexual anxiety                .06        .25 **     .28 ***
  Sexual depression             .01        .11        .16 *
  Sexual esteem                 .09       -.25 **    -.08
  Sexual insecurity             .09        .29 ***    .20 **
  Moral judgement              -.00        .12        .04
  Sexual preoccupation          .32 ***    .14       -.03
  Sexual symptoms              -.02        .37 ***    .13

Sexual behavior variables
  number of partners            .13       -.04       -.20 **
  Frequency sexual contact      .02       -.04       -.09
  Freq masturbation             .24 **     .05       -.06
  Use of sex toys               .21 **     .05       -.19 *

Sexual experience variables
  Positive experiences         -.00       -.18 *     -.08
  Negative experiences          .07        .20 **     .05
  Frequency sex-against-will   -.07        .14        .04

Body related variables
  BMI                          -.12        .06        .08
  Self-rated attractivity       .16       -.43 ***   -.16
  Self-rated importance         .21 **     .04       -.11
  Computed satisfaction         .29 **    -.43 ***   -.03
  Frequency dieting            -.11        .23 **    -.00
  Self-esteem                  -.02       -.48 ***   -.19 *

                                 Ego-      Sex-life
                               boosting   affirmative

Frequency of watching           .15 *        .02

Motives for watching
  Information seeking           .45 ***     -.08
  Sensation seeking            -.05         -.09
  Leisure seeking               .10          .22 **
  Partner related               .09         -.08

Demographic variables
  Age                          -.11         -.02
  Educational level            -.25 **       .03
  Living with a partner        -.02         -.03

Attitudinal variables
  Sexual liberalism            -.01         -.06
  SEM harmful                  -.23 **       .04
  SEM positive                  .37 ***     -.08
  SEM sexually stimulating      .12         -.01
  SEM harmful for men          -.18 *       -.01

Sexual self-image variables
  Sexual anxiety                .11         -.20 **
  Sexual depression             .05         -.68 ***
  Sexual esteem                 .03          .47 ***
  Sexual insecurity             .12         -.42 ***
  Moral judgement               .30 ***     -.20 **
  Sexual preoccupation          .15 *       -.07
  Sexual symptoms               .08         -.35 ***

Sexual behavior variables
  number of partners           -.02          .08
  Frequency sexual contact     -.03          .33 ***
  Freq masturbation             .03         -.02
  Use of sex toys               .07          .17 *

Sexual experience variables
  Positive experiences          .10          .23 **
  Negative experiences         -.08         -.10
  Frequency sex-against-will   -.06          .06

Body related variables
  BMI                          -.05          .12
  Self-rated attractivity       .02          .06
  Self-rated importance         .00          .02
  Computed satisfaction         .12          .08
  Frequency dieting             .00          .04
  Self-esteem                   .02          .09

Note. N = 201 Dutch women. Table shows Pearson's r.

* p < .05.

** p < .01.

*** p < .001.

REFERENCES

Allen, M., Emmers, T., Gebhardt, L., & Giery, M.A. (1995). Exposure to pornography, and acceptance of rape myths. Journal of Communication, 45, 5-26.

Bauserman, R. (1996). Sexual aggression and pornography: A review of correlational research. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18, 405-427.

Bogaert, A. F. (2001). Personality, individual differences, and preferences for the sexual media. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30, 29-53.

Botta, R. A. (1999). Television images, and adolescent girls' body image disturbance. Journal of Communication, 49, 22-41.

Brown, J. (2000a). The media. Paper prepared for the U.S. Surgeon General's Call to Action: Promoting Responsible Sexual Behavior, Janet Hyde, scientific editor.

Brown, J. (2000b). Adolescents' sexual media diets. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27 suppl., 35-40.

Brown, J., & Newcomer, S. (1991). Television viewing, and adolescents' sexual behavior. Journal of Homosexuality, 21, 77-91.

Calfin, M. S., Carroll, J. L., & Shmidt, J. (1993). Viewing music-videotapes before taking a test of premarital sexual attitudes. Psychological Reports, 72, 475-481.

Coles, C. D., & Shamp, M. J. (1984). Some sexual, personality, and demographic characteristics of women readers of erotic romances. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 13, 187-209.

Davis, C. M., & Bauserman, R. (1993). Exposure to sexually explicit materials: An attitude change perspective. Annual Review of Sex Research, 4, 121-209.

Donnerstein, E., Linz, D., & Penrod, S. (1987). The question of pornography. New York: Free Press.

Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1994). Growing up with television: The cultivation perspective. In. J. Bryant & D. Zillman (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory, and research (pp. 17-41). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.

Henderson-King, E., & Henderson-King, D. (1997). Media effects on women's body esteem: Social, and individual difference factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 27, 399-417.

Janda, L. H., & O'Grady, K. E. (1980). Development of a Sex Anxiety Inventory. Journal of Consulting, and Clinical Psychology, 48, 169-175.

Janssen, E., & Bancroft, J. (2000, June). Constitutional differences, and vulnerability to sexual dysfunction: Inhibition and excitation proneness, and the effects of mood. Paper presented at the 26th Annual Meeting of the International Academy of Sex Research, Pads, France.

Janssen, E., Everaerd, W., Spiering, M., & Janssen, J. (2000). Automatic processes, and the appraisal of sexual stimuli: Toward an information processing model of sexual arousal. The Journal of Sex Research, 37, 8-23.

Kalof, L. (1999). The effects of gender, and music video imagery on sexual attitudes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 378-386.

Laan, E. L. M. (1994). Determinants of sexual arousal in women: Genital and subjective components of sexual response. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.

Laan, E., & Everaerd, W. (1995). Determinants of female sexual arousal: Psychophysiological theory, and data. Annual Review of Sex Research, 6, 32-76.

Lawrence, K. & Herold, E. S. (1988). Women's attitudes toward and experiences with sexually explicit materials. The Journal of Sex Research, 24, 161-169.

Lottes, I. L., Weinberg, M. S., & Weller, I. (1993). Reactions to pornography on a college campus: For or against? Sex Roles, 29, 69-89.

Malamuth, N. M. (1996). Sexually explicit media, gender differences, and evolutionary theory. Journal of Communication, 46(3), 8-31.

Malamuth, N. M., & Check, J. V. P. (1985). The effects of aggressive pornography on beliefs in rape myths: Individual differences. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 299-320.

Mosher, D. L. (1988). Pornography defined: Sexual involvement theory, narrative context, and `goodness-of-fit.' Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 1, 67-85.

Newhagen, J. E. (2000). Information processing. A more inclusive paradigm for the study of mass media effects. Human Communication Research, 26, 99-103.

Pearson, S. E., & Pollack, R. H. (1997). Female response to sexually explicit films. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 9, 73-88.

Posavac, H. D., Posavac, S. S., & Posavac, E. J. (1998). Exposure to media images of female attractiveness and concern with body weight among young women. Sex Roles, 38, 187-201.

Shaw, J., & Waller, G. (1995). The media's impact on body image: Implications for prevention and treatment. Eating Disorders, 3, 115-123.

Snell, W. E., Jr., & Papini, D. R. (1989). The Sexuality Scale: An instrument to measure sexual-esteem, sexual-depression, and sexual-preoccupation. The Journal of Sex Research, 26, 256-263.

Steele, J. R. (1999). Teenage sexuality and media practice: Factoring in the influences of family, friends, and school. The Journal of Sex Research, 36, 331-341.

Vanwesenbeeck, I., Bekker, M., & van Lenning, A. (1998). Gender attitudes, sexual meanings, and interactional patterns in heterosexual encounters among college students in The Netherlands. The Journal of Sex Research, 35, 317-327.

Vanwesenbeeck, I., Van zessen, G., Ingham, R., Jaramazovic, E., & Stevens, D. (1999). Factors and processes in heterosexual competence and risk: An integrated review of the evidence. Psychology and Health, 14, 25-50.

Ward, L. M., & Rivadeneyra, R. (1999). Contributions of entertainment television to adolescent's sexual attitudes and expectations: The role of viewer amount versus viewer involvement. The Journal of Sex Research, 36, 237-249.

Wiel, H. B. M., van de, Weijmar Schulz, W. C. M., Molenaar, I. W., Vennix, P., Beens, H., & Vessies, D. (1995). Zelfbeoordeling van genitale sensaties en lichaamsbeoordeling bij vrouwen: de constructie van twee vragenlijsten. [Assessment of genital sensations and the body by women: The construction of two questionnaires.] Tijdschrift voor Seksuologie, 19, 119-131.

Zeanah, P. D., & Schwartz, J. C. (1996). Reliability and validity of the Sexual Self-Esteem Inventory for Women. Assessment, 3, 1-15.

Zessen, G., van, & Sandfort, T. (Eds.). (1991). Seksualiteit in Nederland. Seksueel gedrag, risico en preventie van aids. [Sexuality in The Netherlands. Sexual behavior, risk, and prevention of AIDS.] Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Zgourides, G., Monto, M., & Harris, R. (1997). Correlates of adolescent male sexual offense: Prior adult sexual contact, sexual attitudes, and use of sexually explicit materials. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 41, 272-283.

Manuscript accepted September 21, 2001

Ine Vanwesenbeeck
Rutgers Netherlands Institute of Social Sexological Research,
and Tilburg University, The Netherlands

Address correspondence to Dr. Ine Vanwesenbeeck, Rutgers Nisso Group, PO Box 9022, 3506 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands; e-mail: [e-mail].