Issues in the Laboratory Study of Human Sexual Response: A Synthesis for the Nontechnical Sexologist

Journal of Sex Research, Feb, 1999 by David L. Rowland

Laboratory-based studies on sexual response represent a significant part of the current volume of research on sexuality. Such studies share the common goal of measuring sexual arousal and response as the dependent variable to any number of possible independent, predictor, or correlated variables within a controlled laboratory setting. Because these studies are often limited in scope and utilize procedures unfamiliar to many students of sexology, findings may sometimes seem tangential to mainstream issues of sexuality. Yet, these studies have enabled the testing of various theoretical perspectives pertaining to sexual dysfunctions and deviancies, and it behooves the contemporary sexologist not only to understand the value of such research, but also to become a critical consumer of it. In the following pages, I present an overview of advantages and drawbacks of laboratory based sex research so that nonlab sexologists can develop an appreciation of it. Special attention is paid to some issues currently faced by laboratory researchers of sexuality.

ROOTS OF THE LABORATORY STUDY OF HUMAN SEXUALITY

Although many believe that the laboratory study of human sexuality began with the groundbreaking work of Masters and Johnson (1966), historical documents suggest that isolated studies on this topic were carried out as early as the beginning of the twentieth century. These studies were aimed at describing physiological correlates of sexual response, and most took advantage of the developing technology that enabled measurement of autonomic responses such as heart rate and EEG during sexual stimulation (e.g., Mosovich & Tallafero, 1954). Among these early investigations was the covert work of the behaviorist John B. Watson (Magoun, 1981). Watson's work on sexuality mired him in deep trouble: As if the topic of his research was not shocking enough, there were hints that Watson carried out the research with the involvement of his female assistant (McConnell, 1974). Not surprisingly, Watson's wife filed for divorce, and Watson himself was forced to resign his academic position and move into the world of advertising. From the perspective of sexology, data that might have helped usher in a new era of sex research was lost to the scandal.

It took the pioneering efforts of Masters and Johnson (1966) to lend legitimacy to the idea that sexual response could and should be subjected to laboratory analysis. Their bold studies, begun in the 1950s and first published in 1966, provided basic information not only about the sexual response cycle but also about creative ways to measure it. Equally important, their studies paved the way for a growing number of scholars interested in studying sexuality from the perspective of a natural science, one that emphasizes precise measurement of physiological responses and control over independent and/or extraneous variables. From those seminal studies emerged the field of sexual psychophysiology, a field that has since undergone a number of conceptual and methodological transformations. In this paper, I provide an assessment of the current state of the laboratory investigation of sexual response.

SCOPE OF LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS

Description of Functional and Dysfunctional Sexual Response

Early laboratory studies of human sexual response were primarily descriptive in nature and attempted to characterize physiological changes associated with self-induced sexual arousal or orgasm. In these studies, measurement of nongenital autonomic responses that generated bioelectric signals (Davis & Buchwald, 1957: EEG, electrodermal response, heart rate, EMG) was sometimes supplemented with the direct observation of the subject by the investigator. Following the comprehensive work of Masters and Johnson (1966), precise measurement of genital response became more feasible as instrumentation was developed that could respond to the shape and mechanical changes of the genitals during arousal. In fact, because remote genital-measuring devices eliminate the need for direct observation of the subject by the researcher--a situation that might influence sexual response--there is strong interest in continued refinement of monitoring devices which afford privacy, precision, and ease.

Long after the publication of Masters and Johnson's (1966) initial research, basic descriptive analysis of sexual arousal and response still continues to be an important goal of sexual psychophysiological research (e.g., Meston & Gorzalka, 1996; Rowland, Cooper, Houtsmuller, & Slob, 1997). Improved instrumentation for assessing physiological response, in conjunction with psychological scales that measure the subject's perceptions and affects during arousal, has expanded the view of sexual response to include multiple and interrelated dimensions. For example, a number of studies have demonstrated that in normal (as opposed to deviant) sexually-functional male and female subjects, increased genital response and sexual arousal is typically associated with increased positive affect (Barlow, 1986; Heiman, 1980; Koukounas & McCabe, 1997; Morokoff & Heiman, 1980; Rowland, Cooper, & Slob, 1996).