Men’s Self-Reported and Psychophysiological Affective Responses to Sexual Violence and Their Associations with Rape Myths, Personality, and Sexual Traits: A Preliminary Study

Figures & data

Figure 1. Physiological recording equipment, electrodes placement, and general laboratory setup.

Figure 2. (a) Pairwise comparisons of sexual arousal and self-reported positive and negative affect. (b) Pairwise comparisons of zygomatic EMG, corrugator EMG, and EDA.

Table 1. Pearson product-moment correlations (with Holm’s correction) between participants’ endorsement of rape myths, personality, psychopathic, and sexual traits, and the emotional responses to the rape scene.

	Self-reported positive affect	Self-reported negative affect	Subjective sexual arousal	fEMG zygomatic	fEMG corrugator	EDA
Rape myths
Total score	.16	−.35	.27	.03	.03	−.08
Personality traits
Neuroticism	.24	−.12	.41*	.12	.07	−.30
Extroversion	−.01	.21	−.34	.16	.08	.05
Openness	−20	−.19	.07	−.21	.15	.06
Agreeableness	−.16	.18	−.53**	−.02	−.07	.13
Conscientiousness	−.07	.25	−.52**	−.07	−.05	.01
Psychopathic traits
Grandiosity-manipulative	.35	.10	.55**	.26	−.02	−.04
Callous-unemotional	.21	−.00	.17	−.03	.17	.23
Impulsive-irresponsible	.30	.03	.63**	.35	.26	−.18
Sexual propensities
SES	.04	−.14	.23	.27	−.16	−.04
SIS1	.10	−.16	−.13	.13	−.20	−.10
SIS2	−.28	−.04	−.46*	.10	-.09	.10

SES: Sexual excitation; SIS1: inhibition due to the threat of sexual performance failure; SIS2: sexual inhibition due to the threat of sexual performance consequences. *p < .05, **p < .001.

Table 2. Pearson product-moment correlations (with Holm’s correction) between participants’ subjective responses and psychophysiological activation.

	Self-reported positive affect	Self-reported negative affect	Subjective sexual arousal
fEMG zygomatic	.01	−.01	.45*
fEMG corrugator	.01	.41*	−.08
EDA	−.11	.06	−.11

*p < .05.