The dual control model: current status and future directions.

The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction, Indiana University, USA.
The Journal of Sex Research (Impact Factor: 2.53). 04/2009; 46(2-3):121-42. DOI: 10.1080/00224490902747222
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The Dual Control Model proposes that sexual responses involve an interaction between sexual excitatory and sexual inhibitory processes. The model further postulates that individuals vary in their propensity for both sexual excitation and sexual inhibition, and that such variations help us to understand much of the variability in human sexuality. The development of psychometrically validated instruments for measuring such propensities for men (Sexual Inhibition/Sexual Excitation Scales) and for women (Sexual Excitation/Sexual Inhibition Inventory for Women) is described. These measures show close to normal variability in both men and women, supporting the concept that "normal" levels of inhibition proneness are adaptive. The relevance of the model to sexual development, sexual desire, the effects of aging, sexual identity, and the relation between mood and sexuality are discussed, and the available evidence is reviewed. Particular attention is paid to gender differences and similarities in propensities for sexual excitation and inhibition. Research findings related to sexual problems, high-risk sexual behavior, and the relevance of this model to clinical management of such problems are also summarized. Last, ideas for future use and further development of the Dual Control Model are considered.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction: There is growing recognition of female sexual dysfunction (FSD) as an important women's health concern. Despite an increased awareness of the pathophysiologic components to FSD, currently, there are no drugs approved for the most common sexual complaint in women-decreased sexual desire. In response to an overwhelming demand for therapy for FSD, several drugs are undergoing development and testing. Areas covered: The aim of this paper is to provide the latest data on pharmacological treatments for FSD currently in Phase I and II clinical trials. These include topical alprostadil, bremelanotide (BMT), intranasal testosterone (TBS-2), intravaginal dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), sublingual testosterone with sildenafil, apomorphine (APO), bupropprion and trazodone. It should be noted that the definitions of FSD have recently been revised in the diagnostic and statistical manual for mental disorders (DSM) 5, with merging of hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) and female sexual arousal disorder (FSAD) into female sexual interest/arousal disorder (FSIAD). However, it is noted that the majority of clinical trials discussed in this paper use the DSM IV-R diagnoses of HSDD and FSAD. Expert opinion: Medications in early phase trials show promise for the treatment of FSD. These therapies focus on treating many possible causes of FSD. Concerns over gender bias within the FDA need to be resolved given the need for new treatment options for FSD.
    Expert Opinion on Investigational Drugs 11/2014; 24(2):1-9. DOI:10.1517/13543784.2015.978283 · 5.43 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The theoretical proximity of the Dual-Control Model of the Sexual Response and the Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory predicts at least moderate-size correlations of measurements based on these models. However, sexual inhibition has also been claimed to be domain-specific, suggesting smaller-size correlations and superior prediction of sexual outcomes using measures of sexual inhibition and excitation, compared with generic measures. The aim of this study (N = 254) was to investigate the predictive validity of the Sexual Inhibition and Sexual Excitation Scale (SIS/SES) for, respectively, sexual and non-sexual risk behavior beyond prediction using scores on the Behavioral Inhibition and Behavioral Activation Scale (BIS/BAS). Both instruments, however, were found to contribute to the prediction of both types of risk behavior. The findings were interpreted as providing only partial support for the notion of domain specificity of sexual inhibition and excitation.
    Personality and Individual Differences 06/2015; 79. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2015.01.048 · 1.86 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: IntroductionNumerous scales and assessments are available to assess sexual compulsivity (SC).AimThis study sought to conduct an item response theory (IRT) analysis of the Sexual Compulsivity Scale (SCS) to provide evidence about its measurement precision at the various levels of the SC construct in a sample of highly sexually active gay and bisexual men (GBM).MethodsSCS data from a sample of 202 GBM who are highly sexually active but who vary in their experiences of SC symptoms were modeled using Samejima's polytomous graded response IRT model. To describe the performance of the SCS relative to the Hypersexual Disorder Screening Inventory (HDSI), SCS scores were compared with participants' corresponding HDSI results to determine sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy.Main Outcome MeasuresThis study examined the correspondence between the SCS and the HDSI, a diagnostic instrument for the screening of hypersexuality.ResultsIRT analyses indicated that, although two of the SCS items had low reliability, the SCS as a whole was reliable across much of the SC continuum. Scores on the SCS and the HDSI were highly correlated; however, no potential cutoffs on the SCS corresponded strongly with the polythetic scoring criteria of the HDSI.Conclusion Comparisons of SCS scores with HDSI results indicated that the SCS itself could not serve as a substitute for the HDSI and would incorrectly classify a substantial number of individuals' levels of hypersexuality. However, the SCS could be a useful screening tool to provide a preliminary screening of people at risk for meeting criteria on the HDSI. Combining the SCS and the HDSI may be an appropriate evaluation strategy in classifying GBM as negative on both (i.e., “non-hypersexual/non-SC”), positive on the SCS only (i.e., “at risk”), and positive on both the SCS and the HDSI (i.e., “problematic hypersexuality/SC”). Ventuneac A, Rendina HJ, Grov C, Mustanski B, and Parsons JT. An item response theory analysis of the Sexual Compulsivity Scale and its correspondence with the Hypersexual Disorder Screening Inventory among a sample of highly sexually active gay and bisexual men. J Sex Med **;**:**–**.
    Journal of Sexual Medicine 01/2015; DOI:10.1111/jsm.12783 · 3.15 Impact Factor


Available from
Jun 1, 2014