Bailey J Michael, Hsu Kevin J
Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, 2029 Sheridan Rd., Evanston, IL, 60208, USA.
Department of Psychological and Social Sciences, Pennsylvania State University, Abington, PA, USA.
Arch Sex Behav. 2024 Aug 1. doi: 10.1007/s10508-024-02941-2.
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.
性偏好障碍这一类别是一种自然类别吗?也就是说,不同的性偏好障碍是否有任何科学上有趣的共同之处,还是它们被归在一起仅仅是因为它们不寻常且有时存在问题?我们在11个性偏好障碍男性样本(N = 4617)和11个对照男性样本(N = 1494)中系统地研究了这个问题。主要数据包括对11项性偏好量表的回答。与我们最初的假设相反,性偏好障碍样本和对照样本的量表平均分相似。使用逻辑回归和相同的项目,我们得出了三个高度相关的指标,这些指标能够有力地区分性偏好障碍样本和对照样本(效应量范围从0.86到0.92)。这些成功的指标利用了一个意外的事实,即一些项目(特别是那些评估异装癖和受虐羞辱的项目)与性偏好障碍样本的成员身份呈正相关,而其他项目(特别是那些评估窥阴癖的项目)与这种成员身份呈负相关。后续分析集中在其中一个指标,即性偏好量表对比(PISC)上。与之前区分性偏好障碍和同性恋取向的研究结果一致,在对照组中,同性恋男性的PISC得分并不高于异性恋男性。在四个性偏好障碍样本中,PISC与其他性偏好现象呈正相关。研究结果为性偏好障碍是一种自然类别的观点以及PISC作为性偏好障碍测量工具的有效性提供了初步支持。