Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: doi:10.22028/D291-40834
Volltext verfügbar? / Dokumentlieferung
Title: Sex drive: Theoretical conceptualization and meta-analytic review of gender differences
Author(s): Frankenbach, Julius
Weber, Marcel
Loschelder, David D.
Kilger, Helena
Friese, Malte
Language: English
Title: Psychological bulletin
Volume: 148
Issue: 9-10
Pages: 621-661
Publisher/Platform: American Psychological Association
Year of Publication: 2023
DDC notations: 150 Psychology
Publikation type: Journal Article
Abstract: Few spheres in life are as universally relevant for (almost) all individuals past puberty as sexuality. One important aspect of sexuality concerns individuals' sex drive-their dispositional sexual motivation. A vigorous scientific (and popular) debate revolves around the question of whether or not there is a gender difference in sex drive. Several theories predict a higher sex drive in men compared to women, with some theories attributing this difference to biased responding rather than true differences. Currently, there is little consensus on how to conceptualize sex drive, nor does a quantitative summary of the literature exist. In this article, we present a theory-driven conceptualization of sex drive as the density distribution of state sex drive, where state sex drive is defined as momentary sexual motivation that manifests in sexual cognition, affect, and behavior. We conduct a comprehensive meta-analysis of gender differences in sex drive based on 211 studies, 856 effect sizes, and 621,463 persons. The meta-analysis revealed a stronger sex drive in men compared to women, with a medium-to-large effect size, g = 0.69, 95% CI [0.58, 0.81]. Men more often think and fantasize about sex, more often experience sexual affect like desire, and more often engage in masturbation than women. Adjustment for biased responding reduced the gender difference (g = 0.54). Moderation analyses suggest that the effect is robust and largely invariant to contextual factors. There was no evidence of publication bias. The discussion focuses on validity considerations, limitations, and implications for psychological theory and people's everyday lives. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
DOI of the first publication: 10.1037/bul0000366
URL of the first publication: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2023-08884-001
Link to this record: urn:nbn:de:bsz:291--ds-408349
hdl:20.500.11880/36691
http://dx.doi.org/10.22028/D291-40834
ISSN: 0033-2909
1939-1455
Date of registration: 25-Oct-2023
Faculty: HW - Fakultät für Empirische Humanwissenschaften und Wirtschaftswissenschaft
Department: HW - Psychologie
Professorship: HW - Prof. Dr. Malte Friese
Collections:SciDok - Der Wissenschaftsserver der Universität des Saarlandes

Files for this record:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in SciDok are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.