Content uploaded by Samuel Perry
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Samuel Perry on Dec 26, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Forthcoming at Journal of Sex Research
Only Bad for Believers?
Religion, Pornography Use, and Sexual Satisfaction among American Men
Samuel L. Perry
University of Oklahoma
Andrew L. Whitehead
Clemson University
Abstract
Research has often demonstrated a negative association between pornography use and various
intrapersonal and relationship outcomes, particularly for men. Several recent studies, however,
have suggested that the negative association between pornography use and these indicators is
stronger among more religious Americans, suggesting that moral incongruence (engaging in an
activity that violates one’s sacred values) and the attendant shame or cognitive dissonance, rather
than the pornography use per se, may be the primary factor at work. The current study tested and
extended this theory by examining how religion potentially moderates the link between
pornography use and sexual satisfaction in a national random sample of American adults
(N=1,501). Analyses demonstrated that, while pornography use was negatively associated with
sexual satisfaction for American men (not women), among men who rarely attended religious
services or held a low opinion of the Bible, this negative association essentially disappeared.
Conversely, the negative association between frequency of pornography consumption and sexual
satisfaction was more pronounced for men with stronger ties to conventional religion. These
findings suggest that the connection between pornography use and sexual satisfaction, especially
for men, depends largely on what viewing pornography means to the consumer and their moral
community, and less so on the practice itself.
Key words: religiosity, Bible, pornography, sex, gender, morality
2
Introduction
As pornography use has continued to increase around the world, owing largely to the rise of the
Internet and smartphone technology, a burgeoning literature has sought to understand its
potential implications for various measures of intrapersonal and relational well-being (for recent
reviews and meta-analyses, see Campbell & Kohut, 2017; Newstrom & Harris, 2016; Peter &
Valkenburg, 2016; Rasmussen, 2016; Wright, Tokunaga, & Kraus, 2016; Wright, Tokunaga,
Kraus, & Klann, 2017b). Among the more consistent findings of this research (while not always
establishing causal direction) has been that those who view pornography more often tend to
report lower levels of sexual satisfaction, and that this is particularly true for men (Bridges and
Morokoff, 2011; Cranney & Stulhofer, 2017; Morgan, 2011; Muusses, Kerkhof, & Finkenauer,
2015; Poulsen, Busby, & Galovan, 2013; Perry, 2016; Sun, Bridges, Johnason, & Ezzell, 2016;
Szymanski & Stewart-Richardson, 2014; Traeen & Daneback, 2013; Yucel & Gassanov, 2010;
Wright, Sun, Steffen, & Tokunaga, 2017a; Wright et al., 2017b; Zillmann & Bryant, 1988).
While a general (though often untested) assumption within much of the pornography
research has been that pornography use itself may influence human well-being and relationships
in negative ways (Campbell & Kohut, 2017), several recent studies have found that the negative
association between pornography use and various intrapersonal or relationship outcomes tends to
be stronger among Americans who are more closely connected to a religious community (Doran
& Price, 2014; Patterson & Price, 2012; Perry, 2016; Perry & Snawder, 2017). These findings
suggest that it is not pornography use per se that is influencing personal satisfaction and
relationships primarily, but rather the experience of what may be called “moral incongruence,”
that is, engaging in an activity that violates the sacred values of oneself and one’s community.
The current study sought to test and extend this idea by examining how religion moderated the
3
link between pornography consumption and sexual satisfaction, drawing on data from the 2017
Baylor Religion Survey, a national random sample of American adults. This analysis sheds
important light on religion’s role in contextualizing an increasingly common sexual practice in
pornography use, and its complex relationship to other life outcomes. It also contributes to the
burgeoning literature connecting pornography consumption to indicators of intrapersonal and
relational well-being by clarifying that the link between pornography use and sexual satisfaction
hinges largely on what viewing pornography means within American men’s religious and moral
context, not necessarily the pornography use itself.
Theoretical and Empirical Background
Pornography Use and Sexual Satisfaction
Though studies have been examining the association between pornography use and
indicators of sexual satisfaction for decades, research in this area has increased considerably with
the advent of Internet pornography (see the meta-analysis in Wright et al., 2017b). In their early
experimental study with college students, Zillmann and Bryant (1988) found that participants
who were exposed to weeks of non-violent sexually explicit videos reported lower satisfaction
with their sexual experience, in particular, their partner’s affection, physical appearance, sexual
curiosity, and sexual performance. Subsequently, the dominant assumption within pornography
research, whether using cross-sectional, longitudinal, or experimental data, has been that
pornography use itself has a direct influence on viewers’ sexual relationships and their
evaluation of those relationships (Wright et al., 2017b). This literature has suggested several
potential mechanisms. Some scholars, incorporating insights from social learning theory
(Bandura, 1977) and sexual script theory (Gagnon & Simon, 2005) have proposed that
pornography provides cognitive “scripts” or heuristics that consciously and unconsciously shape
4
viewers’ expectations about body image and sexual relationships in ways that lower their
satisfaction (Morgan, 2011; Sun et al., 2016; Wright et al., 2017a). A related view is social
comparison theory which simply argues that pornography depicts attractive sexual partners and
situations in ways that are likely to leave viewers disappointed with their own partner and sex
lives (Kenrick, Gutierres, & Goldberg, 1989; Staley & Prause, 2013; but see Balzarini, Dobson,
Chin, & Campbell, 2017).
Despite this general assumption about the directional effect of viewing pornography on
sexual satisfaction, scholars have also argued that the relationship is bi-directional since persons
who are dissatisfied with their sex life might turn to pornography as an alternative. For instance,
Peter and Valkenburg’s (2009) study of adolescents using three-wave panel data found that
exposure to online pornography between waves 1 and 2 reduced adolescents’ sexual satisfaction,
but their sexual dissatisfaction at wave 2 also predicted greater pornography consumption by
wave 3 (see also Baltazar et al., 2010; Peter & Valkenburg, 2011; Stack, Wasserman, & Kern,
2004). Another important caveat to highlight is that there are often differences in reported sexual
satisfaction between those who view pornography alone or with their partner. Maddox, Rhoades,
and Markman’s (2011) study of couples found that those who never viewed pornography at all
reported higher sexual satisfaction compared to those who did so alone, but not those who
viewed it together. And in their qualitative study of 430 men and women, Kohut, Fisher, and
Campbell (2017) found that a large number of participants reported pornography use actually
improved their sexual communication and experimentation (see also Daneback, Bente, &
Mansson, 2009; Grov, Gillespie, Royce, & Lever, 2011; Minarcik, Wetterneck, & Short, 2016;
Staley & Prause, 2013). This coupled use of pornography, however, is far less common than solo
use (Carroll, Busby, Willoughby, & Brown, 2017; Maddox et al., 2011; Minarcik et al., 2016),
5
which helps explain why the overall association between pornography use and sexual satisfaction
in the majority of studies has tended to be negative, particularly for men (Wright et al., 2017b).
Related to this last point, researchers have consistently found the connection between
pornography use and sexual satisfaction to be highly gendered. Studies of both married and
cohabitating couples, for example, have found pornography use was connected to lower sexual
satisfaction for men, but not necessarily for women (Bridges & Morokoff, 2011; Morgan, 2011;
Muusses et al., 2015; Poulsen et al., 2013; Traeen & Daneback, 2013; Yucel & Gassanov, 2010).
Several studies, in fact, have suggested that women’s pornography use might have salutary
effects on their sexual relationship. Poulsen et al. (2013), for example, found that women’s
pornography use was positively related to their own sexual satisfaction. And Bridges and
Morokoff (2011) reported that women’s pornography use was associated with higher sexual
satisfaction among their male partners. Scholars have theorized that these gender differences
likely stem from different pornography consumption patterns among men and women. Men are
far more likely than woman to view pornography in isolation for the purposes of masturbation
(Bridges & Morokoff, 2011; Maddox et al., 2011). Women, by contrast, are more likely to view
pornographic material within the context of a romantic relationship (Bridges & Morokoff, 2011;
Poulsen et al., 2013), and thus, their viewing may contribute to greater intimacy, communication,
and excitement for them and their partner (Grov et al., 2011; Kohut et al., 2017).
Religion, Sexual Satisfaction, and Pornography Use
While the association between pornography use and sexual satisfaction has received
considerable attention, the relationship between religion and sexual satisfaction is far less
understood. Though Burke (2016) has recently shown how having a satisfying sex life has
become a major theme among committed Christians, most studies looking at religious
6
commitment (measured as worship attendance or self-reported religious salience) and sexual
satisfaction, have found no significant association (Bridges & Morokoff, 2011; Davidson et al.,
1995; Hackathorn et al., 2016; Morgan, 2011; Perry, 2016). Findings from other studies have
painted conflicting pictures. In their comprehensive study of sexuality in the United States,
Laumann et al. (1994) found that women who were conservative Protestants or Catholics were
more likely to report “always” experiencing an orgasm with their partner compared to those with
no religious affiliation. And using data from the 2006 Portraits of American Life Study, Perry
(2016) reported that married Americans with religiously devout spouses tended to report higher
sexual satisfaction. Going in the opposite direction, however, Higgins et al. (2010) found in their
sample of college students that religiosity was negatively associated with reported physiological
sexual satisfaction at first intercourse among white women and men, and negatively associated
with psychological sexual satisfaction among white women. These authors have theorized that
the negative influence of religion on sexual satisfaction in their sample was largely due to guilt
or shame over having violated their religious value of virginity until marriage (see also Burke &
Hudec, 2015; Hackathorn et al., 2016; Regnerus, 2007).
The idea of religious guilt has played an increasingly prominent role in studies of
pornography use (see Grubbs & Hook, 2016). Research has showed that persons who are more
religious or theologically conservative are generally less likely to view pornography compared to
others (Bridges & Morokoff, 2011; Hardy et al., 2013; Patterson & Price, 2012; Perry, 2016;
Perry & Schleifer, 2017a; Poulsen et al., 2013; Regnerus, 2007; Wright, 2013; Wright et al.,
2013; but see Perry, 2017a and Whitehead & Perry, 2017). However, researchers also
demonstrate that those religious individuals who do view pornography are often consumed with
profound guilt over having violated their deeply held moral convictions about non-marital lust
7
and masturbation (e.g., Baltazar et al., 2010; Burke & Hudec, 2015; Grubbs et al., 2015; Grubbs
& Hook, 2016; Nelson et al., 2010; Thomas, Alper, & Gleason 2017). Grubbs et al. (2015), for
example, argued that religious pornography users are even susceptible to “pathological
interpretations” of their own life; specifically, religious pornography users are more likely than
non-religious users to consider themselves “addicted” to pornography, even though religious
persons view less pornography. In the current study, it was theorized that this subjective guilt-
response to pornography consumption among religious Americans would help explain the
connection between pornography use and sexual satisfaction.
Theorizing the Role of Moral Incongruence in Moderating the Association between
Pornography Use and Sexual Satisfaction
While a variety of theories have been proposed to explain pornography’s connection to
lower intrapersonal and relationship satisfaction, a less-explored theory has been what may be
termed the “moral incongruence” hypothesis. Using aggregated data from the General Social
Survey (GSS), Patterson and Price (2012) found a negative association between viewing an X-
rated movie in the previous year and general life satisfaction. They also found, however, that this
negative association was strongest among those who attended church at least monthly. Focusing
on marriage outcomes and also using aggregated GSS data, Doran and Price (2014) found that
viewing an X-rated movie in the previous year was associated with lower marital happiness and
a higher likelihood of divorce or an extramarital affair. They also found that among Americans
who attended church at least weekly, the magnitude of pornography’s association with marital
outcomes was larger than for less fess frequent attendees. Those who attended church weekly or
more and viewed an X-rated movie were more likely to report a divorce, have an extramarital
affair, and report lower marital happiness compared to those who did not attend weekly. These
8
authors theorized that for Americans embedded in religious communities that morally oppose
pornography use, viewing pornography exacts greater “psychic costs,” and thus affects the
religious more strongly (Doran & Price, 2014; Patterson & Price, 2012).
More recently, Perry (2016) found that the negative association between pornography use
and marital satisfaction was stronger for Americans with religiously devout spouses, again
suggesting that stronger connections to religious others who would disapprove of one’s
pornography use would result in lower personal satisfaction for the viewer. Directly relevant to
the current study, Perry also showed that having a religiously devout spouse intensified the
negative association between pornography use frequency and satisfaction with one’s sex life.
Elsewhere, in Cranney and Stulhofer’s (2017) study of Croation adults, religiosity moderated the
association between both mainstream and non-mainstream pornography use and sexual
satisfaction for women, such that women who were more religious and viewed pornography
reported lower sexual satisfaction. That finding did not hold for men, however (contra Doran &
Price, 2014; Perry, 2016; Perry & Snawder, 2016).
Religious communities, and particularly conservative Christian communities, almost
unanimously oppose pornography (Burke, 2016; Burke & Hudec, 2015; Lykke & Cohen, 2015;
Perry & Schleifer, 2017a; Sherkat & Ellison, 1997; Sumerau & Cragun, 2015; Thomas, 2013,
2016; Thomas et al. 2017); thus, it is likely that religious commitment (however measured) in
these studies represents a moral opposition to pornography use (Cranney & Stulhofer, 2017).
Moral incongruence theory suggests that Americans who violate their own moral convictions by
using pornography are more likely to experience shame and cognitive dissonance which may
lead them to either withdraw from social relationships or activities or simply find them less
enjoyable (Perry, 2017b, 2018). This theory has been supported by research describing a
9
connection between moral and religious values, pornography use, and guilt-related loneliness,
withdrawal, and depressive symptoms (Grubbs et al., 2015b; Grubbs & Hook, 2016; Nelson et
al., 2012; Patterson & Price, 2012; Perry, 2017b; Perry & Hayward, 2017; Thomas, 2016).
The current study sought to test and extend the moral incongruence hypothesis by
examining the extent to which religious factors may moderate the persistent association between
pornography use and sexual satisfaction, for both men and women. In light of previous research
showing pornography consumption to be negatively associated with sexual satisfaction, but
primarily for men (Wright et al., 2017b; Yucel & Gassanov, 2010), the first hypothesis stated:
Hypothesis 1: More frequent pornography use will be negatively associated with sexual
satisfaction for men, but not for women.
In order to test the moral incongruence hypothesis, the authors considered how religion
may moderate the connection between pornography use and sexual satisfaction, both in terms of
belonging and belief. Previous research exploring this idea (Doran & Price, 2014; Patterson &
Price, 2012; Perry & Snawder, 2017) has used religious service attendance as an indicator of
belonging to a moral community that likely opposes pornography use. Conceptualizing religious
service attendance primarily as a measure of embeddedness within a moral community, it is
likely that those who are more connected to such a community would be more likely to
experience greater “psychic costs” associated with pornography use and thus would experience a
stronger association with their sexual satisfaction. Stated more formally, it was expected that:
Hypothesis 2: The negative association between pornography use and sexual satisfaction
will be stronger for those who attend religious services more frequently and weaker or
non-existent for those who attend religious services less frequently or never.
Adding to previous research on this topic, the potential role of religious belief was also
considered. Sherkat and Ellison (1997) argued that conservative Protestants’ opposition to
pornography was rooted primarily in their fundamentalist views about the Bible. Specifically,
10
Americans who believed the Bible is the literal word of God were more likely to reject
pornography on moral grounds and believe it should be illegal (see also Lykke & Cohen, 2015;
Perry 2017a; Thomas, 2013, 2016; Thomas et al. 2017). Correspondingly, it was theorized that
Americans who hold a low view of the Bible, attributing little moral authority to it, would be less
likely to feel morally conflicted about pornography use and thus would likely experience less of
a connection between pornography use and sexual satisfaction. Thus, it was predicted:
Hypothesis 3: The negative association between pornography use and sexual satisfaction
will be stronger for those who attribute greater authority to the Bible and weaker or non-
existent for those who attribute less authority to the Bible.
Method
Participants
In order to test these hypotheses, data were drawn from a recent national random sample,
the 2017 Baylor Religion Survey (BRS). The 2017 BRS is the fifth wave of the Baylor Religion
Survey series which was first fielded in 2005. The 2017 BRS was an ideal data source to test
these hypotheses as no other recent national survey contains a measure of sexual satisfaction
alongside frequency of pornography consumption and various religion and socio-demographic
measures. The 2017 BRS was a self-administered pen and paper survey with a mail-based
collection conducted by the Gallup Organization. The sample was selected using ABS (Address
Based Sample) methodology based on a simple stratified sample design that helps mitigate the
ongoing coverage problems of telephone-based samples. A stratified sampling design was
employed to ensure adequate representation for various sub-populations (Hispanic, African
American, young (18-34)). The analyses used sample weights constructed to match the known
11
demographic characteristics of the U.S. adult population. A total of 1,501 completed surveys
were returned from a sampling frame of 11,000 for a 13.6 percent response rate.
1
Measures
Sexual Satisfaction. The sexual satisfaction measure used for the dependent variable
asked, “Overall, how satisfied are you with your sex life?” Possible response options included 1
= Not at all satisfied, 2 = Not very satisfied, 3 = Somewhat satisfied, 4 = Very satisfied, 5 =
Completely satisfied. The mean response for women was 3.20 while for men it was 2.98.
Ancillary analyses demonstrated that the difference in means between men and women for
sexual satisfaction was significant (see Table 1).
[Table 1 about here]
Independent variables of interest. The key independent variable of interest concerned
the frequency with which participants viewed pornography. The indicator used in this analysis
asked, “How OFTEN do you use the Internet to: Visit adult websites.” Possible response options
included 0 = Never, 1 = About once a month or less, 2 = About once a week, 3 = About once a
day, 4 = Several times per day. Consistent with previous research, men reported visiting adult
websites significantly more often than women (see Table 1).
In order to test hypotheses 2 and 3, the pornography frequency variable was interacted
with religious service attendance and various views toward the Bible.
2
The religious service
1
Though less than ideal, this response rate exceeds that of the average public opinion survey at 9 percent (Pew
Research Center, 2012), and recent analyses demonstrate that the accuracy of parameter estimates are minimally
related to response rates (American Association for Public Opinion Research 2008; Singer 2006). Moreover, Pew’s
(2012) analysis of the representativeness of public opinion surveys found that surveys that “are weighted to match
the demographic composition of the population continue to provide accurate data on most political, social and
economic measures.” Finally, the 2017 BRS was compared to the 2016 General Social Survey on a number of
measures central to the following analysis (see Supplementary Table 1). While some small differences exist, the
estimates from the 2017 BRS compare quite favorably.
2
Ancillary analyses (available upon request) examined whether other religion measures predicted sexual satisfaction
for men or women, including how religious/spiritual someone felt they were, their prayer frequency, and their
frequency of Bible reading. Only frequency of Bible reading was significantly associated for women, and none were
12
attendance indicator asked, “How often do you attend religious services at a place of worship?”
Responses ranged from 0 = Never to 7 = Several times a week. Regarding different views about
the Bible, the 2017 BRS asked, “Which one statement comes closest to your personal beliefs
about the Bible?” Possible response options included, “The Bible means exactly what it says. It
should be taken literally, word-for-word, on all subjects,” “The Bible is perfectly true, but it
should not be taken literally, word-for-word. We must interpret its meaning,” “The Bible
contains some human error,” “The Bible is an ancient book of history and legends,” and “I don't
know.” Following Franzen and Griebel (2013), a series of dichotomous variables were created
with the first response option, biblical literalism, serving as the contrast category.
Control variables. Multivariate models controlled for a number of additional measures.
Because sexual satisfaction was the predicted outcome with pornography use frequency as a
predictor, it is important to limit the possibility that both pornography use and sexual
dissatisfaction stemmed from a general lack of sex in one’s life, or, relatedly, that one is simply
unattached to a romantic partner at the time. Thus, models included measures for the frequency
with which participants reported having sex (1 = Not at all to 6 = More than once a week) as well
as whether they were in a relationship with a romantic partner (1 = Yes, 0 = No). Religious
affiliation was measured using six categories: Evangelical Protestant (contrast category),
Mainline Protestant, Black Protestant, Catholic, Other, and Unaffiliated. Jewish participants were
included in the “Other” category given their low numbers. Other sociodemographic controls
included age (in years), parental status (1 = at least 1 child under 18 currently living in
participant’s home, 0 = no children under 18 in participant’s home), race (1 = non-white, 0 =
significant for men. Because the Bible reading measure is similar enough to the biblical literalism measure, the
authors opted to only use the more conventional measures of religious community involvement (attendance) and
affirming theological beliefs consistent with fundamentalist Christian communities (literalism).
13
white), educational attainment (1 = 8th grade education or less to 9 = Postgraduate or professional
degree), and household income (1 = $10,000 or less to 7 = $150,001 or more). See
Supplementary Tables 2 and 3 for correlation matrixes of all variables for men and women.
Plan of Analysis
Due to fairly stark differences in the data for men and women in their pornography use
and the association between pornography use and sexual satisfaction, separate analyses were
conducted for each.
3
Table 1 contains the descriptive statistics for both women and men. In
Table 2, OLS regression estimates are presented for the full model predicting sexual satisfaction,
both with and without the pornography frequency measure, for women and men separately.
Table 3 displays the interaction effects between pornography frequency and the various views of
the Bible as well as pornography frequency and religious service attendance for women and men
separately. Figures 1 and 2 graph the significant interaction effects found in Table 3 regarding
men’s sexual satisfaction, pornography consumption, and religiosity.
In order to account for missing data, multiple imputation (MI) techniques were employed
using SAS 9.3. This procedure generated five imputations using multiple Markov Chains based
on all variables included in the models, resulting in an overall N of 7,505 (1,501 x 5). All
analyses drew on the MI datasets. The results reported in Tables 2 and 3 were from the MI
ANALYZE procedure in SAS. It combined all the results from the five imputations generating
overall estimates, standard errors, and significance tests. Standardized beta coefficients are
3
For women, there was very little variance in their pornography viewing compared to men which made cross-
product gender interactions unhelpful. When the pornography use measure is made binary (yes = 1, no = 0), thus
removing the distribution issue, there is a significant interaction between gender and pornography use predicting
sexual satisfaction (p < .01; models available upon request). Additionally, zero-order correlations (see
Supplementary Tables 2 and 3) show an essentially non-existent correlation between pornography use and sexual
satisfaction for women (r = -.016, p = ns), compared to men (r = -.124, p < .01). Lastly, a Chow test was run for the
full model with gender specified as the cut-off point for the structural change and the result was significant (p <
.001) indicating that separate models for men and women would be preferred because of the differences between the
two.
14
provided in order to examine substantive significance beyond merely statistical significance.
These standardized coefficients, as well as the adjusted r-square, were averages across all five
imputation models. Tests were also run to ensure the models satisfied assumptions regarding
OLS regression: the mean of the error residuals was near zero, the residuals were normally
distributed, and the residuals were not correlated with any independent variables. Finally, across
all of the models, no VIF score exceeded 4.6, well below the standard cut-off suggesting
multicollinearity issues.
Results
Results from Table 2 show that increasing frequency of pornography consumption was
not significantly associated with women’s sexual satisfaction. The strongest significant
associations with sexual satisfaction appeared to be sex frequency (β = .51; p < .001) and
religious service attendance (β = .14; p < .001) where increases in either were linked to greater
satisfaction. Women who were in a romantic relationship also tended to report lower (β = -.09; p
<.05) sexual satisfaction.
4
Turning to men, their frequency of pornography consumption was
significantly and negatively associated with their sexual satisfaction (β = -.09; p < .05), which
supported the first hypothesis. While the association was not particularly large, pornography use
was still among the top three predictors of sexual satisfaction behind greater sex frequency (β =
.58; p < .001) and equal to viewing the Bible as containing human error (β = -.09; p < .05).
Unlike women, men in a romantic relationship tended to report greater sexual satisfaction (β =
.09; p < .05) and religious service attendance was not significantly associated with sexual
4
This was a curious finding that contradicts previous research. In ancillary analyses, we examined models without
the sexual frequency measure. While there were no substantive differences for men, for women the romantic partner
measure became significantly and positively associated with sex satisfaction (results are available upon request).
Thus, the negative association could be due to a suppressor effect, with sex frequency mediating the positive link
between being in a relationship and women’s sexual satisfaction, causing the former to flip its sign from positive to
negative (see MacKinnon, Krull, & Lockwood, 2000 for their explanation of suppression effects).
15
satisfaction. Among men, it also appeared that those who believed the Bible contains human
error and those who don’t know how they view the Bible tended to report lower levels of sexual
satisfaction compared to biblical literalists.
[Table 2 about here]
Table 3 displays the interactions between frequency of pornography consumption and
views of the Bible as well as frequency of pornography consumption and religious service
attendance for women and men. There were no significant interactions between the various
religiosity measures and pornography consumption for women. As in the full model for women
in Table 2, sex frequency and religious service attendance maintained the strongest positive
associations with sexual satisfaction while romantic partnership maintained a negative and
significant association across all models.
[Table 3 about here]
Table 3 also contains the interactions between frequency of pornography consumption
and religious service attendance as well as frequency of pornography consumption and views of
the Bible for men. Here a different story emerged with a significant and negative interaction
between religious service attendance and frequency of pornography consumption on men’s
sexual satisfaction (β = -.11; p < .001), which was the second strongest predictor in the model. It
was apparent in Figure 1 that the association between men’s frequency of pornography
consumption and their sexual satisfaction was conditionally related to their frequency of
religious service attendance. For those who reported attending religious services infrequently or
never, pornography consumption was weakly associated with their sexual satisfaction. For those
men who attended religious services at least 2-3 times a month, however, the negative
association between pornography consumption and sexual satisfaction was more pronounced.
16
Simple slopes tests (available upon request) revealed that the significant moderating effect of
religious service attendance on pornography consumption and sex satisfaction was statistically
significant at all levels of religious service attendance, but the relationship was stronger for
higher levels of attendance (Preacher, Curran, & Bauer, 2006). Thus, men who attended services
regularly but also reported more frequent pornography consumption reported the lowest levels of
sexual satisfaction. This supported the second hypothesis.
[Figure 1 about here]
Table 3 also shows that the “Bible Legends” interaction term was significant and positive
(β = .27; p < .05). In this particular model the significant and negative pornography frequency
lower order effect represented the association between frequency of pornography consumption
and sexual satisfaction for those who identified as biblical literalists. The significant and negative
lower order coefficient for Bible Legends represented the association between believing the
Bible is a book of history and legends for those who reported no pornography consumption.
Figure 2 graphs the interaction to provide a clearer picture of these relationships. For those with
a lower view of the Bible―it is merely a book of history and legends―frequency of
pornography consumption was essentially unassociated with sexual satisfaction. For those with a
higher view of the Bible―those who believe that the Bible means exactly what it says and that it
should be taken literally, word-for-word, on all subjects―the association between increased
pornography consumption and sexual satisfaction was much more pronounced. Maintaining a
higher view of the Bible while also consuming pornography with increased frequency was
significantly associated with much lower levels of sexual satisfaction (1.53) compared to those
with a high view of the Bible but low reported levels of pornography consumption (3.01). Simple
slopes tests (available upon request) showed that there was a significant negative relationship
17
between pornography consumption and sexual satisfaction for biblical literalists (-.369; p = .03)
but the relationship between pornography consumption and sexual satisfaction for people who
believed the Bible is merely a book of history and legends was not significant (-.004; p = .970),
as evidenced by the essentially flat line in Figure 2 (Preacher et al. 2006). The third hypothesis
was thus supported.
[Figure 2 about here]
Discussion and Conclusion
This study sought to understand how religious factors moderate the persistent association
between pornography use and sexual satisfaction, particularly among men, using a national
random sample of American adults. Consistent with previous research, main effects models
showed that more frequent pornography use was negatively associated with sexual satisfaction
for men, but not for women. While the beta was not particularly large, this association held even
after controlling for sex frequency and relationship status, suggesting that the connection
between viewing pornography and lower sexual satisfaction is not spurious stemming from low
frequencies of sex or no sexual companionship. Indeed, this association for men existed across
their relationship statuses, since the sample included 65 percent who were in a relationship and
35 percent who were not.
5
Consistent with the moral incongruence hypothesis, however,
interaction effects showed that the negative association between pornography use and sexual
satisfaction among men did not seem to apply to those who were unattached to a religious
community or held a low opinion of the Bible. In other words, viewing pornography seemed to
be associated with lower sexual satisfaction, but only for those who would be violating religious
5
Ancillary analyses (available upon request) tested for interactions by pornography use and relationship status and
none were significant for men or women.
18
sanctions against it. This suggests moral incongruence plays a key role in explaining the
connection between pornography consumption and sexual satisfaction among American men.
The findings of this study contribute to our understanding of religion, pornography use,
and sexual life in several important ways. First, it affirms findings from previous studies with a
national probability sample that men who use pornography more often tend to report lower
sexual satisfaction (Wright et al., 2017b). But this study’s findings suggest that it is not
necessarily pornography use per se that negatively influences sexual satisfaction. If that were
strictly the case, the negative association between pornography use and sexual satisfaction would
have held regardless of participants’ religious characteristics. But the fact that the association
was contingent on participants’ religious belonging and belief suggests that “moral
incongruence” is an important factor to consider. This study’s findings in this regard are also
consistent with the Antecedents-Contexts-Effects (ACE) paradigm for understanding the link
between pornography use and relationship outcomes proposed by Campbell and Kohut (2017).
In this case, the specific moral “context” of the pornography use matters for understanding its
potential association with sexual satisfaction.
Previous research on pornography use and religion has suggested that religious persons
who use pornography often report feeling considerable guilt and cognitive dissonance for
violating their moral convictions about chastity and “lusting” (Baltazar et al., 2010; Grubbs et al.,
2015; Perry & Hayward, 2017; Thomas et al. 2017). Religious pornography users are more likely
to evaluate their lives more negatively than non-religious users (Grubbs et al., 2015). Thus it is
likely that men who attend worship services more often (indicating greater attachment to a
religious community) or have a higher opinion of the Bible (indicating it serves as a source of
moral authority in their lives), but also view pornography fairly regularly, are more likely to
19
experience guilt and shame that potentially colors their evaluation of their own sex lives. This
helps explain why the negative association between pornography consumption and overall
happiness (Patterson & Price, 2012), marital quality (Doran & Price, 2014; Perry 2016), or
parent-child relationship quality (Perry & Snawder, 2017) has tended to be stronger for those
who are more closely attached to religious others.
Conversely, American men who are less connected to a religious community and less apt
to view the Bible as authoritative show little to no connection between their sexual satisfaction
and pornography use. This finding also helps to qualify the few studies that have reported several
benefits of pornography use to viewers’ sexual relationships. Research has shown that
pornography use in isolation tends to be more negatively associated with sexual and relationship
satisfaction compared to coupled pornography use (Campbell & Kohut, 2017; Maddox et al.,
2011; Minarcik et al., 2016). Because religious proscriptions against viewing pornography
would likely preclude devout couples from incorporating mutual pornography use into their
lovemaking practice, it is likely that relatively irreligious couples would be comparatively more
likely to view pornography together, or at least would be more understanding of their partner’s
pornography use (Perry, 2016). Persons who are less attached to religion, in other words, would
be more apt to view pornography in the way that studies suggest can be beneficial to sexual
relationships (together), whereas religious persons would be more apt to do so in isolation, which
would more likely result in relational tensions surrounding hiding, lying, and possible discovery
(Bridges et al., 2003; Stewart & Szymanski, 2012; Zitzman & Butler, 2009).
Curiously, this study’s finding that religious factors moderated the link between
pornography use and sexual satisfaction for men, contradicted those of Cranney and Stulhofer
(2017) who reported a similar finding, but for women in their Croation sample. While our
20
gender-specific finding was consistent with other studies using American samples (Doran &
Price, 2015; Perry, 2016); the discrepancy between our findings and those of Cranney and
Stulhofer (2017) may point to differences between the two national samples or a different
combination of controls. Cross-national data exploring similar questions would ultimately help
resolve the issue.
Several data limitations should be acknowledged in order to consider future avenues for
research in this area. First, the BRS data were cross-sectional and thus causal direction could not
be definitively determined. While numerous longitudinal and experimental studies have shown
that pornography use can precede and influence sexual satisfaction (Wright et al., 2017b), other
studies have also shown that pornography use can stem from sexual dis-satisfaction as well (e.g.,
Peter & Valkenburg, 2009). Though this study did control for sex frequency and romantic
relationship involvement, and thus it is less likely that sexual dissatisfaction (as a result of too
little sex) was itself causing the pornography use, future research on this topic would ideally use
longitudinal or experimental data in order to demonstrate causal direction more clearly.
Second, the BRS provided only a single-item measure for pornography use. Moreover,
the measure did not ask about whether pornography was being viewed alone or with a partner.
Though isolated pornography use is far more common than coupled pornography use, especially
among men (Carroll et al., 2017; Maddox et al., 2011), previous work has suggested that this
distinction can influence the link between pornography use and sexual satisfaction, and help
explain why men seem to be more strongly influenced by pornography use than women (Bridges
& Morokoff, 2011; Poulsen et al., 2013; Wright et al., 2017b). Related to this limitation is that
while the BRS pornography use measure was an improvement on the frequently-used measure
from the GSS which only asks if a participant viewed any X-rated movie in a previous year
21
(Doran & Price, 2014; Patterson & Price, 2012; Perry & Schleifer, 2017a, 2017b; Wright, 2013;
Wright et al., 2013), it was limited by the fact that it did not elaborate on what constitutes an
“adult website.” Studies have shown that definitions of “pornography” can vary across groups
(Willoughby & Busby, 2016), and it is possible that deeply religious persons in particular may
expand the definition of “adult website” (e.g., to the Victoria’s Secret website or Maxim.com)
beyond what less religious persons would do. Ultimately, dyadic data (or at least an indicator of
whether participants viewed alone or with a partner) with more precise definitions of what
exactly is being viewed would be ideal to mitigate these issues.
At present, it remains unclear how the connection between religion, pornography use, and
sexual satisfaction in the United States will change in the future. On the one hand, pornography
use is increasing, both among the general population, and particularly among younger Americans
(Perry & Schleifer, 2017a; Price, Patterson, Regnerus, & Walley, 2016; Regnerus, Gordon, &
Price, 2016). If Americans’ attachment to religion, and with it traditional sexual mores, remains
roughly constant, it is possible that the connection between pornography use and sexual
satisfaction will intensify, as Americans experience greater religious guilt. Conversely, if young
Americans’ institutional religious participation or belief in the authority of the Bible is declining,
as many suggest that it is (Chaves, 2017), it is possible that average pornography users will feel
less conflicted about their use and more open to sharing this with their partner or spouse, who
may also be more understanding or even interested in mutual use. One future line of research,
then, would be to assess the changes in the association between these variables over time to
examine how broad cultural trends influence their relationship.
22
REFERENCES:
American Association for Public Opinion Research. (2008). Do response rates matter? Available
at: http://www.aapor.org/Education-Resources/For-Researchers/Poll-Survey-
FAQ/Response-Rates-An-Overview.aspx. Last accessed May 22, 2017.
Baltazar, A., Helm, H.W., McBride, D., Hopkins, G., & Stevens, J.V. (2010). Internet
pornography use in the context of external and internal religiosity. Journal of Psychology
and Theology, 38, 32-40.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.
Bridges, A. J., Bergner, R. M., & Hesson-McInnis, M. (2003). Romantic partner’s use of
pornography: its significance for women. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 29, 1-14.
Bridges, A. J., & Morokoff, P. J. (2011). Sexual media use and relational satisfaction in
heterosexual couples. Personal Relationships, 18, 562-585.
Burke, K. (2016). Christians under covers: Evangelicals and sexual pleasure on the Internet.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Burke, K., & Moff Hudec, A. (2015). Sexual encounters and manhood acts: Evangelicals, latter-
day saints, and religious masculinities. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 54(2),
330-344.
Campbell, L., & Kohut, T. (2016). The use and effects of pornography in romantic relationships.
Current Opinion in Psychology 13:6-10.
Carroll, J. S., Busby, D. M., Willoughby, B. J., & Brown, C. C. (2017). The porn gap:
Differences in men’s and women’s pornography patterns in couple relationships. Journal
of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 16(2), 146-163.
Chaves, M. (2017). American religion: Contemporary trends. 2nd Edition. Princeton, NJ:
23
Princeton University Press.
Cranney, S., & Stulhofer, A. (2017). “Whosoever looketh on a person to lust after them”:
Religiosity, the use of mainstream and nonmainstream sexually explicit material, and
sexual satisfaction in heterosexual men and women. Journal of Sex Research, 54(6), 694-
705.
Daneback, K., Bente T., Mansson S. (2009). Use of pornography in a random sample of
norwegian heterosexual couples. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 746-753.
Davidson, K., Darling, C., & Norton, L. (1995). Religiosity and the sexuality of women: Sexual
behavior and sexual satisfaction revisited. Journal of Sex Research, 32(3), 235-243.
Doran, K., & Price, J. (2014). Pornography and marriage. Journal of Family and Economic
Issues, 35, 489-498.
Franzen, A. B., & Griebel, J. (2013). Understanding a cultural identity: The confluence of
education, politics, and religion within the American concept of biblical literalism.
Sociology of Religion, 74(4), 521-543.
Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (2005). Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality. 2nd
Edition. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Grov, C., Gillespie, B., Royce, T., & Lever, J. (2011). Perceived consequences of casual online
sexual activities on heterosexual relationships: A U.S. online survey. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 40, 429-439.
Grubbs, J. B., Exline, J. J., Pargament, K. I., Hook, J. N., & Carlisle, R. D. (2015). Transgression
as addiction: Religiosity and moral disapproval as predictors of perceived addiction to
pornography. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 125–136.
Grubbs, J. B., & Hook, J. N. (Eds.) (2016). Special issue: Religion, spirituality and sexual
24
addiction. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 23.
Hackathorn, J. M., Ashdown, B. K., & Rife, S. C. (2016). The sacred bed: Sex guilt mediates
religiosity and satisfaction for unmarried people. Sexuality & Culture, 20, 153-172.
Hardy, S. A., Steelman, M. A., Coyne, S. M., & Ridge, R. D. (2013). Adolescent religious as a
protective factor against pornography use. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 34(3), 131-139.
Higgins, J. A., Trussell, J., Moore, N. B., & Davidson, J. K. (2010). Virginity lost, satisfaction
gained? Physiological and psychological sexual satisfaction at heterosexual debut.
Journal of Sex Research 47(4):384-394.
Kenrick, D., Gutierres, S., & Goldberg, L. (1989). Influence of popular erotica on judgments of
strangers and mates. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 159–167.
Kohut, T., Fisher, W. A., & Campbell, L. (2017). Perceived effects of pornography on the couple
relationship: Initial findings of open-ended, participant-informed, “bottom-up” research.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(2), 585-602.
Lykke, L. C., & Cohen, P. N. (2015). The widening gender gap in opposition to pornography,
1975-2012. Social Currents, 2(4), 307-323.
Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization
of sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
MacKinnon, D. P., Krull, J. L., & Lockwood, C. M. (2000). Equivalence of the mediation,
confounding, and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1(4), 173-181.
Maddox, A. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Markman, H. J. (2011). Viewing sexually-explicit materials
alone or together: Associations with relationship quality. Archives of Sexual Behavior,
40, 441-448.
25
Minarcik, J., Wetterneck, C. T., & Short, M. B. (2016). The effects of sexually explicit material
use on romantic relationship dynamics. Journal of Behavioral Addictions. doi:
10.1556/2006.5.2016.078
Morgan, E. M. (2011). Associations between young adults’ use of sexually explicit materials and
their sexual preferences, behaviors, and satisfaction. Journal of Sex Research, 48, 520-30.
Muusses, L. D., Kerkhof, P., & Finkenauer. (2015). Internet pornography and relationship
quality: A longitudinal study of within and between partner effects of adjustment, sexual
satisfaction and sexually explicit internet material among newly-weds. Computers in
Human Behavior, 45, 77-84.
Nelson, L. J., Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Carroll, J. S. (2010). “I believe it is wrong but I still do
it”: A comparison of religious young men who do versus do not use pornography.
Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 2, 136–147.
Newstrom, N. P., & Harris, S. M. (2016). Pornography and couples: What does the research tell
us? Contemporary Family Therapy, 38(4), 412-423.
Patterson, R., & Price, J. (2012). Pornography, religion, and the happiness gap: Does
pornography impact the actively religious differently? Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 51(1), 79–89.
Perry, S. L. (2016). From bad to worse? Pornography consumption, spousal religiosity, gender,
and marital quality. Sociological Forum, 31(2), 441-464.
Perry, S. L. (2017a). Not practicing what you preach: Religion and incongruence between
pornography beliefs and usage. Journal of Sex Research. doi:
10.1080/00224499.2017.1333569
Perry, S. L. (2017b). Pornography use and depressive symptoms: Examining the role of moral
26
incongruence. Society and Mental Health. doi: 10.1177/2156869317728373
Perry, S. L. (2018). Pornography use and marital quality: Testing the moral incongruence
hypothesis. Personal Relationships, forthcoming.
Perry, S. L., & Hayward, G. M. (2017). Seeing is (not) believing: How viewing pornography
shapes the religious lives of young Americans. Social Forces, 95(4), 1757-
1788.
Perry, S. L., & Schleifer, C. (2017a). Race and trends in pornography viewership, 1973-2016:
Examining the moderating roles of gender and religion. Journal of Sex Research. doi:
10.1080/00224499.2017.1404959
Perry, S. L., & Schleifer, C. (2017b). Till porn do us part? A longitudinal examination of
pornography use and divorce. Journal of Sex Research. doi:
10.1080/00224499.2017.1317709
Perry, S. L., & Snawder, K. J. (2017). Pornography, religion, and parent-child relationship
quality. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(6), 1747-1761.
Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2009). Adolescents’ exposure to sexually explicit internet
material and sexual satisfaction: A longitudinal study. Human Communication Research,
35, 171–194.
Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2011). The use of sexually explicit internet material and
its antecedents: A longitudinal comparison of adolescents and adults. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 40, 1015-1025.
Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2016). Adolescents and pornography: A review of 20 years of
research. The Journal of Sex Research, 53(4-5), 509-531.
Pew Research Center. (2012). Assessing the representativeness of public opinion surveys.
27
Available at: http://www.people-press.org/2012/05/15/assessing-the-representativeness-
of-public-opinion-surveys/#. Last accessed May 22, 2017.
Poulsen, F. O., Busby, D. M., & Galovan, A. M. (2013). Pornography use: Who uses it and how
it is associated with couple outcomes. Journal of Sex Research, 50, 72-83.
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interaction
effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis.
Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437-448.
Price, J., Patterson, R., Regnerus, M., & Walley, J. (2016). How much more XXX is Generation
X consuming? Evidence of changing attitudes and behaviors related to pornography since
1973.” Journal of Sex Research, 53(1), 12-20.
Rasmussen, K. (2016). A historical and empirical review of pornography and romantic
relationships: Implications for family researchers. Journal of Family Therapy & Review,
8, 173-191.
Regnerus, M. D. (2007). Forbidden fruit: Sex and religion in the lives of American teenagers.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Regnerus, M. D., Gordon, D., & Price, J. (2015). Documenting pornography use in America: A
comparative analysis of methodological approaches. Journal of Sex Research, 53, 873-
881.
Sherkat, D., & Ellison, C. (1997). The cognitive structure of a moral crusade: Conservative
Protestantism and opposition to pornography. Social Forces, 75, 957–980.
Singer, E. (2006). Special issue on nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 70(5), 639–810.
Stack, S., Wasserman, I., & Kern, R. (2004). Adult social bonds and use of internet pornography.
28
Social Science Quarterly, 85, 75-88.
Staley, C., & Prause, N. (2013). Erotica viewing effects on intimate relationships and self/partner
evaluations. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(4), 615-624.
Stewart, D. N., & Szymanski, D. M. (2012). Young adult women’s reports of their male
romantic partner’s pornography use as a correlate of their self-esteem, relationship
quality, and sexual satisfaction. Sex Roles, 67, 257-271.
Sumerau, J. E., & Cragun, R. T. (2015). ‘Don’t push your immorals on me’: Encouraging anti-
porn advocacy in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Sexualities, 18, 57-79.
Sun, C., Bridges, A. J., Johnason, J., & Ezzell, M. (2016). Pornography and the male sexual
script: an analysis of consumption and sexual relations. Archives of Sexual Behavior,
45(4), 983-994.
Thomas, J. N. (2013). Outsourcing moral authority: The internal secularization of Evangelicals’
anti-pornography narratives. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 52, 457-475.
Thomas, J. N. (2016). The development and deployment of the idea of pornography addiction
within American evangelicalism. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 23(2-3), 182-195.
Thomas, J. N., Alper, B. A., & Gleason, S. A. (2017). Anti-pornography narratives as self-
fulfilling prophesies: Religious variation in the effect that pornography viewing has on
the marital happiness of husbands. Review of Religious Research, 59(4), 471-497.
Traeen, B., & Daneback, K. (2013). The use of pornography and sexual behavior among
Norwegian men and women of differing sexual orientation. Sexologies, 22, e41–e48.
Whitehead, A. L., & Perry, S. L. (2017). Unbuckling the bible belt: A state-level analysis of
religious factors and Google searches for porn. Journal of Sex Research. doi:
10.1080/00224499.2017.1278736
29
Willoughby, B. J., & Busby, D. M. (2016). In the eye of the beholder: Exploring variations in the
perceptions of pornography. Journal of Sex Research, 53, 678-688.
Wright, P. J. (2013). U.S. males and pornography, 1973-2010: Consumption, predictors, and
correlates. Journal of Sex Research, 50, 60-71.
Wright, P. J., Bae, S., & Funk, M. (2013). United States women and pornography through four
decades: Exposure, attitudes, behaviors, and individual differences. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 42, 1131-1144.
Wright, P. J., Tokunaga, R. S., & Kraus, A. (2016). A meta-analysis of pornography
consumption and actual acts of sexual aggression in general population studies. Journal
of Communication, 66, 183-205.
Wright, P. J., Sun, C., Steffen, N. J., & Tokunaga, R. S. (2017). Associative pathways between
pornography consumption and reduced sexual satisfaction. Sexual and Relationship
Therapy. doi: 10.1080/14681994.2017.1323076
Wright, P. J., Tokunaga, R. S., Kraus, A., & Klann, E. (2017). Pornography consumption and
satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research doi: 10.1111/hcre.12108
Yucel, D., & Gassanov, M. A. (2010). Exploring actor and partner correlates of sexual
satisfaction among married couples. Social Science Research, 39(5), 725-738.
Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1988). Pornography’s impact on sexual satisfaction. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 18, 438-453.
Zitzman, S. T., & Butler, M. H. (2009). Wives’ experience of husbands’ pornography use and
concomitant deception as an attachment threat in the adult pair-bond relationship. Sexual
Addiction & Compulsivity, 16, 210-240.
30
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics
Women
Men
Description
Mean or %
SD
Mean or %
SD
Sex Satisfaction
1=Not at all satisfied,
5=Completely satisfied
3.20*
1.18
2.98
1.30
Porn Frequency
0=Never, 4=Several times
a day
0.23*
0.58
0.90
1.17
Sex Frequency
1=Not at all, 6=More than
once a week
3.00
1.77
3.35
1.95
Romantic Partner
1=Yes
59.83%
---
64.59%
---
Religious Service
Attendance
0=Never, 7=Several times
a week
3.35
2.40
2.79
2.67
Biblical Literalist
1=Biblical Literalist
20.69%
---
17.25%
---
Bible Inspired
1=Must interpret Bible’s
meaning
32.70%
---
32.44%
---
Bible Errors
1=Bible contains some
human error
12.42%
---
11.04%
---
Bible Legends
1=Bible is ancient book of
history & legend
21.46%
---
29.03%
---
Bible Don’t Know
1=I don’t know
12.63%
---
10.09%
---
Evangelical
Protestant
1=Evangelical Protestant
29.06%
---
28.15%
---
Mainline Protestant
1=Mainline Protestant
11.90%
---
12.63%
---
Black Protestant
1=Black Protestant
8.19%
---
5.84%
---
Catholic
1=Catholic
26.49%
---
23.49%
---
Other
1=Other
9.54%
---
7.41%
---
None
1=Unaffiliated
14.15%
---
22.07%
---
Age
In years (17-98)
49.96
17.96
49.45
18.32
Child <18 in home
1=At least 1 child under 18
currently living in home
33.17%
---
25.68%
---
Non-white
1=Non-white
38.10%
---
31.98%
---
Education
1=8th grade or less,
9=Postgraduate or
professional degree
5.00
2.18
5.30
2.40
Income
1=$10,000 or less,
7=$150,001 or more
3.91
1.65
4.45
1.87
Source: 2017 Baylor Religion Survey (Weighted MI Data)
* T-test demonstrates a significant difference between men and women at p<0.001; T-test run for
sex satisfaction and pornography frequency variables only (results available upon request)
31
Table 2: OLS Regression Estimates Predicting Sex Satisfaction by Frequency of Pornography Consumption among Women and Men
Women
Men
Predictors
β
se
β
se
β
se
β
se
Porn Frequency
---
---
-0.05
0.07
---
---
-0.09*
0.04
Sex Frequency
0.50***
0.03
0.51***
0.03
0.59***
0.03
0.58***
0.03
Romantic Partner
-0.09*
0.11
-0.09*
0.11
0.10*
0.11
0.09*
0.11
Religious Service
Attendance
0.14***
0.02
0.14***
0.02
-0.01
0.02
-0.02
0.02
Bible Inspired
-0.02
0.14
-0.02
0.14
-0.04
0.13
-0.03
0.13
Bible Errors
-0.03
0.17
-0.03
0.17
-0.10*
0.16
-0.09*
0.16
Bible Legends
-0.01
0.19
-0.02
0.18
-0.11†
0.16
-0.10†
0.16
Bible Don’t Know
-0.02
0.18
-0.02
0.18
-0.11*
0.17
-0.10*
0.17
Mainline
-0.03
0.17
-0.03
0.17
0.02
0.18
0.03
0.18
Black Protestant
-0.07†
0.19
-0.07†
0.18
-0.04
0.22
-0.04
0.22
Catholic
-0.07†
0.11
-0.07†
0.11
0.04
0.13
0.05
0.13
Other
-0.05
0.15
-0.05
0.15
0.06
0.19
0.06
0.18
None
-0.01
0.15
-0.01
0.16
0.02
0.17
0.04
0.17
Age
0.10*
0.00
0.09†
0.00
0.03
0.00
-0.01
0.00
Child <18 in home
-0.03
0.09
-0.04
0.09
-0.03
0.10
-0.04
0.11
Non-white
0.02
0.10
0.02
0.10
0.01
0.10
0.02
0.10
Education
-0.04
0.02
-0.04
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.02
Income
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.03
Intercept
1.98***
2.06***
1.48***
1.70***
N
871
871
630
630
Adj. R²
0.181
0.182
0.413
0.417
Source: 2017 Baylor Religion Survey (Weighted MI Data)
***p<0.001; **p<0.01; *p<0.05; †p<0.10
32
Table 3: OLS Regression Estimates Predicting Women’s Sex Satisfaction with Frequency of Pornography Consumption and Religion Variables
Interactions
Women
Men
Attendance
Bible Views
Attendance
Bible Views
Predictors
β
se
β
se
β
se
β
se
Porn Frequency
-0.05
0.10
-0.03
0.14
-0.02
0.06
-0.33*
0.04
Porn × Attendance
0.00
0.03
---
---
-0.11*
0.02
---
---
Porn × Bible Inspired
---
---
-0.03
0.19
---
---
0.15†
0.16
Porn × Bible Error
---
---
-0.06
0.21
---
---
0.09
0.18
Porn × Bible Legends
---
---
-0.02
0.20
---
---
0.27*
0.16
Porn × Bible Don’t Know
---
---
0.01
0.22
---
---
0.02
0.18
Sex Frequency
0.51***
0.03
0.51***
0.03
0.58***
0.03
0.58***
0.03
Romantic Partner
-0.09*
0.11
-0.10*
0.11
0.09*
0.10
0.10*
0.10
Religious Service
Attendance
0.14***
0.02
0.13**
0.02
0.02
0.02
-0.03
0.02
Bible Inspired
-0.02
0.14
-0.02
0.14
-0.02
0.13
-0.02
0.15
Bible Errors
-0.03
0.17
-0.01
0.17
-0.08†
0.17
-0.06
0.22
Bible Legends
-0.02
0.19
-0.03
0.17
-0.09
0.16
-0.15*
0.19
Bible Don’t Know
-0.02
0.18
-0.01
0.18
-0.09*
0.17
-0.03
0.21
Mainline
-0.03
0.17
-0.02
0.16
0.03
0.18
0.02
0.14
Black Protestant
-0.07†
0.19
-0.08†
0.18
-0.04
0.22
-0.02
0.21
Catholic
-0.07†
0.11
-0.07†
0.12
0.05
0.13
0.05
0.11
Other
-0.05
0.16
-0.05
0.16
0.06
0.18
0.07†
0.17
None
-0.01
0.16
0.00
0.16
0.02
0.17
0.05
0.14
Age
0.09†
0.00
0.09†
0.00
-0.01
0.00
-0.02
0.00
Child <18 in home
-0.04
0.09
-0.04
0.10
-0.03
0.11
-0.04
0.10
Non-white
0.02
0.10
0.02
0.10
0.03
0.10
-0.01
0.10
Education
-0.04
0.02
-0.04
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.04
0.02
Income
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.03
-0.01
0.03
0.00
0.03
Intercept
2.06***
2.12***
1.61***
1.66***
N
871
871
630
630
Adj. R²
0.182
0.179
0.422
0.439
Source: 2017 Baylor Religion Survey (Weighted MI Data)
***p<0.001; **p<0.01; *p<0.05; †p<0.10
33
Figure 1: Interaction Effect for Frequency of Pornography Consumption and Religious Service Attendance for Men’s Sexual
Satisfaction
Note: All other variables in model set to their means. Low, med, and high are computed using the mean as the medium value, one standard
deviation above the mean as high, and one standard deviation below the mean as low. This roughly corresponds to men never attending (low),
attending several times a year (med), and attending 2-3 times a month (high).
2.91 2.75
2.59
2.87
2.58
2.29
2.83
2.41
1.99
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
Low Med High
Sexual Satisfaction
Frequency of Pornography Consumption
Low
Med
High
Frequency
of Religious
Service
Attendance
34
Figure 2: Interaction Effect for Frequency of Pornography Consumption and Low View of Bible for Men’s Sexual Satisfaction
Note: All other variables in model set to their means
3.01
2.27
1.53
2.60 2.61 2.62
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
Low Med High
Sexual Satisfaction
Frequency of Pornography Consumption
Biblical Literalist
Bible Legends
35
Supplementary Table 1: Comparison of the 2017 BRS to the 2016 GSS
2017 BRS
2016 GSS
Pornography in last year:
Visited adult website
31.92
Pornography in last year:
Viewed X-rated movie
28.2
Sex Frequency
Sex Frequency
Not at all
29.1
Not at all
22.3
A few times
15.8
Once or twice
11.0
About once a month
9.7
Once a month
12.9
2-3x a month
16.4
2-3x a month
16.2
About once a week
12.5
Weekly
15.7
More than once a week
16.5
2-3x per week
16.6
4+ per week
5.2
Age
49.7
Age
47.6
Female
52.3
Female
54.8
Non-white
35.2
Non-white
26.5
Education
Education
Less than HS
9.0
Less than HS
13.5
HS grad
27.0
HS grad
29.2
Some college
31.4
Some college
26.3
BA
15.3
BA
16.8
Post-BA
17.3
Post-BA
14.3
Income
Income
$10,000 or less
9.0
$9,999 or less
6.9
$10,001-$20,000
12.4
$10,000-$19,999
9.0
$20,001-$35,000
14.3
$20,000-$34,999
15.9
$35,001-$50,000
15.4
$35,000-$49,999
12.9
$50,001-$100,000
26.2
$50,000-$109,999
35.1
$100,001-$150,00
12.4
$110,000-149,999
10.3
$150,001 or more
10.6
$150,000 or more
10.4
Attend religious services
Attend religious services
Never
27.2
Never
25.0
Less than once a year
6.9
Less than once a year
5.9
Once or twice a year
12.7
Once a year
13.3
Several times a year
11.5
Several times a year
11.1
Once a month
4.2
Once a month
7.0
2-3 times a month
8.3
2-3 times a month
8.7
About once a week
21.2
Nearly every week
4.4
Several times a week
8.0
Every week
17.5
More than once a week
7.2
Bible Views
Bible Views
Biblical literalist
19.1
Word of God
32.0
Bible Inspired
32.6
Inspired
44.3
Bible contains human error
11.8
Book of fables
22.5
Bible history & legends
25.1
Other
1.3
Don’t know
11.4
36
Supplementary Table 2: Correlations (Women Only)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1. Sex Satisfaction
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
2. Porn Frequency
-.016
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
3. Sex Frequency
.375***
.178***
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
4. Romantic
Partner
.150***
.070*
.593***
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
5. Religious
Service
Attendance
.127***
-.123***
-.145***
-.145***
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
6. Biblical
Literalist
.014
-.054
-.211***
-.165***
.313***
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
7. Bible Inspired
.064
-0.037
.096**
.085*
.195***
-.351***
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
8. Bible Errors
-.031
.059
-.099**
-.099**
.037
-.185***
-.261***
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
9. Bible Legends
-.053
.048
.081*
.129***
-.439***
-.266***
-.359***
-.197***
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
10. Bible Don’t
Know
-.003
-.000
.036
.036
-.146***
-.189***
-.260***
-.143***
-.198***
---
---
---
---
---
---
11. Evangelical
Protestant
.080*
-.070
-.050
.008
.207***
.282***
.044
-.028
-.261***
-.056
---
---
---
---
---
12. Mainline
Protestant
-.017
-.076*
-.054
-.061
-.036
-.064
.046
.060
-.024
-.021
-.231***
---
---
---
---
13. Black
Protestant
-.089*
.031
-.123***
-.098*
.053
.176***
-.028
-.067
-.070*
-.028
-.189***
-.109**
---
---
---
14. Catholic
.006
.035
.043
-.031
.133***
-.155***
.186***
.064
-.124***
.027
-.382***
-.219***
-.179***
---
---
15. Other
.000
-.039
.070*
.060
.029
-.053
-.057
.046
.106**
-.031
-.203***
-.119***
-.095**
-.191***
---
16. None
-.035
.132***
.081*
.096**
-.461***
-.192***
-.263***
-.071*
.489***
.075*
-.255***
-.149***
-.115**
-.240***
-.130***
17. Age
-.053
-.288***
-.344***
-.344***
.251***
.238***
.068
-.087*
-.193***
-.055
.101*
.010
-.040
.063
-.050
18. Child <18 in
home
.067
.074*
.331***
.239***
-.040
-.074*
-.024
-.003
.023
.099**
-.017
-.087*
.062
.009
.007
19. Non-white
.001
.121***
.015
-.092*
.068
.056
-.016
-.013
-.084*
.062
-.137**
.378***
.055
-.075*
20. Education
-.030
.035
.080*
.117**
-.060
-.128***
.046
.006
.212***
-.179***
-.095*
.030
-.063
-.046
.047
21. Income
.085*
-.071
.236***
.355***
-.049
-.121***
.105**
-.050
.117***
-.085*
-.012
.000
-.163***
.014
.002
*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001
37
Supplementary Table 2 cont.: Correlations (Women Only)
16
17
18
19
20
21
16. None
---
---
---
---
---
---
17. Age
-.207***
---
---
---
---
---
18. Child <18 in
home
.005
-.39***
---
---
---
---
19. Non-white
-.022
-.171***
.116***
---
---
---
20. Education
.166***
-.205***
-.057
-.060
---
---
21. Income
.124***
-.028
.096**
-.180***
.397***
---
*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001
38
Supplementary Table 3: Correlations (Men Only)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1. Sex Satisfaction
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
2. Porn Frequency
-.124**
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
3. Sex Frequency
.632***
-.029
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
4. Romantic
Partner
.384***
-.106**
.487***
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
5. Religious
Service
Attendance
.038
-.323***
-.025
.032
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
6. Biblical
Literalist
.056
-.239***
.004
-.013
.345***
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
7. Bible Inspired
.103*
-.132**
.059
.092*
.319***
-.311***
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
8. Bible Errors
-.069
.053
-.037
-.041
-.038
-.161***
-.243***
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
9. Bible Legends
-.050
.252***
-.014
-.037
-.483***
-.290***
-.443***
-.223***
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
10. Bible Don’t
Know
-.080*
.066
-.037
-.019
-.157***
-.153***
-.232***
-.118**
-.214***
---
---
---
---
---
---
11. Evangelical
Protestant
-.015
-.246***
-.014
-.032
.356***
.346***
.064
-.053
-.266***
-.072
---
---
---
---
---
12. Mainline
Protestant
-.027
.021
-.042
-.031
.012
-.089*
.016
.167***
-.081
.024
-.236***
---
---
---
---
13. Black
Protestant
-.021
.004
.026
.029
.008
.164***
-.045
-.004
-.070
-.024
-.156***
-.093*
---
---
---
14. Catholic
-.005
-.028
-.071
.022
.067
-.097*
.189***
.056
-.159***
.004
-.345***
-.209***
-.138***
---
---
15. Other
.091*
-.031
.077
.027
.022
-.090*
.032
.041
-.014
.043
-.177***
-.108**
-.070
-.155***
---
16. None
-.000
.296***
.064
.001
-.484***
-.241***
-.273***
-.155***
.579***
.014
-.333***
-.197***
-.131**
-.279***
-.146***
17. Age
-.100*
-.459***
-.238***
-.070
.206***
.176***
.036
-.016
-.159***
-.020
.060
.018
.076
.105*
.005
18. Child <18 in
home
.123**
-.027
.200***
.264***
.080*
-.020
.114
-.061
-.038
-.027
.037
-.084*
-.037
.019
.082
19. Non-white
.022
.082*
.056
-.116**
.004
.095*
-.051
-.022
-.031
.022
-.119**
-.141
.362***
.094*
.055
20. Education
.097*
.091*
.089*
.175***
.011
-.156***
.032
.011
.131**
-.062
-.167***
.090*
-.006
-.020
.125**
21. Income
.154***
-.015
.180***
.374***
-.041
-.109**
.043
-.012
.099*
-.057
-.126**
.036
-.078
-.013
.062
*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001
39
Supplementary Table 3 cont.: Correlations (Men Only)
16
17
18
19
20
21
16. None
---
---
---
---
---
---
17. Age
-.229***
---
---
---
---
---
18. Child <18 in
home
-.035
-.265
---
---
---
---
19. Non-white
-.085*
-.008
.034
---
---
---
20. Education
.057
-.111
.064
-.056
---
---
21. Income
.129**
-.014
.198***
-.156***
.443***
---
*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001
