Associative responses to double entendre words as a function of repression-sensitization and sexual stimulation.

Abstract

The sexual associations and associative latencies of repressers and sensitizers to double entendre and asexual stimulus words were studied under conditions of sexual arousal and nonarousal. The results indicated (a) that sexual arousal led to an increment in sexual responses primarily for sensitizers, (6) that sensitizers gave more sexual associations than repressers, with the effect being more marked under sexual arousal conditions, and (c) that sexual stimulation produced a decrement in the speed with which sensitizers give discrete associations to asexual stimulus words. The independent variables had no effects on the speed with which associations were given to double entendre sexual words. The results seemed generally consistent with prior data and theory concerning repression-sensitization.Research concerning differences between repressers and sensitizers in their responses to sexual stimuli and to ambiguous stimuli has constituted an important part of the attempt to collect construct validity evidence for the Repression-Sensitization scale (Byrne, 1961). The construct of repression-sensitization was, in fact, historically formulated partially on the basis of research dealing with perceptual and associative reactions to words with sexual connotations (Bruner & Postman, 1947;Byrne, 1964).Theoretically, it has generally been assumed that sexual stimuli constitute conditioned anxiety elicitors for a sizable segment of the American population. Since repressers presumably cope with anxiety by attempts to avoid the anxiety-arousing stimulus and its consequents while sensitizers cope with anxiety by attempts to approach and master the stimulus and its consequents, there should be predictable differences between the two groups in their responses to a wide variety of sexual stimuli. In addition, part of the theory concerning repression-sensitization concerns the fashion in which repressers and sensitizers interpret ambiguous stimulus materials. Given stimulus materials that permit either an anxiety-arousing interpretation or an

Expectancies, alcohol, and sexual arousal in male social drinkers.

“…Similarly, the WAT proved to be insufficiently discriminating among the experimental variables. The only near significant finding was the unsurprising effect for double-entendre versus neutral words in which associative responses to the former had longer latencies (Galbraith & Lieberman, 1972).…”

Coping dispositions and the processing of ambiguous stimuli.

“…The fact that a substantial part of reactions could unequivocally be assigned to the hypothesized categories underscores the usefulness of the proposed more differentiated assessment of reactions to ambiguous stimuli. Previous research based on the repression–sensitization construct has considered solely the relative balance (e.g., frequency) in the activation of threatening and nonthreatening meaning alternatives of ambiguous stimuli (e.g., Blaylock, 1963; Galbraith & Lieberman, 1972; Haney, 1973). This procedure appears to rest on the implicit assumption that in the majority of cases either one or the other of these two interpretations is actually made.…”

“…More encouraging results were reported by Galbraith and Lieberman (1972), who assessed associations to double entendre words with alternative sexual and asexual meanings. The authors found that sensitizers gave more sexual associations than repressers, especially when participants were led to expect the occurrence of stimuli with sexual connotations in advance.…”

“…They may then consciously choose to report only those interpretations that they believe are con-gruent with a favorable self-presentation or with perceived situational demands and expectations (Mogg et al, 1994). This raises doubts on the interpretability of the results obtained, including the positive findings reported by Galbraith and Lieberman (1972) and Haney (1973). The argument also seems to apply to more recent studies (Eysenck, MacLeod, & Mathews, 1987;Mathews, Richards, &Eysenck, 1989;Mogg etal., 1994), which, by means of a test procedure similar to the one Blaylock (1963) used, assessed differences between high-and low-anxious individuals and produced inconsistent results as well.…”

Effects of sex guilt, repression, sexual "arousability," and sexual experience on female sexual arousal during erotica and fantasy.

“…The sensitizer uses the intellectualizing defense of approaching and identifying with overtly threatening material. Similarly to low sex-guilt individuals, sensitizers have been shown to provide more sexual word associations than repressers under neutral conditions (Schill, 1969) and after exposure to an erotic stimulus (Galbraith & Lieberman, 1972). However, these theoretically expected differences have often not been demonstrated for female subjects.…”