Written by Esther Israel in August 2021
Scholarly works were copyrighted © in 2006 and 2008 by Esther Israel when I submitted them for publication with the University of Utah. I filed a separate copyright on May 9, 2008, with the United States Copyright Office for my original materials, published and unpublished, that enabled me to conduct my research at the University of Utah. All Rights Reserved.
I moved to Salt Lake City, Utah in 2002 to attend a Clinical Psychology doctoral program at the University of Utah. Although I earned a masters degree in Forensic Psychology from John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, in 1999, the University of Utah Department of Psychology required me to complete a second masters degree in order to be advanced to doctoral candidacy in the PhD program to which I had already been accepted. (Something about my masters degree being a masters of art and it didn’t involve conducting a research project.) I really wanted to do a study on the discrepancy between women’s subjective reports of sexual arousal and objective measures of sexual arousal. My advisor had other plans and instructed me to conduct a pilot study on “Evaluations of Sexually Explicit Pictures.” In particular, he stated to me, we were curious as to how men and women, whether gay, straight or bisexual, are similar and different in their evaluation of sexually explicit pictures. (There was very little talk about gender non-binary at this time.) After the pilot data was collected in the fall semester of 2004, my advisor informed me that we would not be using sexually explicit pictures for our research and that the study was not substantial to qualify as a masters research project. I ended up analyzing the data on my own in 2008 and writing up the results for presentations at conferences. The poster presentation won an American Psychological Association Division 1 (General Psychology) certificate of recognition for excellent student research poster in 2008. I originally titled the paper “Gender Differences in the Evaluation of Sexually Explicit Pictures” but now I think a better title is “Sex Differences in the Evaluation of Male and Female Pictures.” An interesting historical fact about this study is that it was exempt by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Utah. Please contact me if you would like to view the IRB exemption, the poster presentation of this paper, the PowerPoint slides (with pictures) and to obtain a copy of the paper. Here is the abstract and the table of contents of the Evaluations of Sexually Explicit Pictures pilot study.
ABSTRACT
This study identified pictures that heterosexual men (N = 35) and women (N = 50) found most and least sexually appealing. Stimulus pictures consisted of a nude or semi-nude man or woman. Before rating the sexual appeal of the pictures, participants completed questionnaires on their sexual orientation and sexual attitude. Sex differences were found in dimensional ratings of sexual orientation, sexual attitude, and stimuli ratings. Results indicated female pictures were rated more sexually appealing than male pictures, and male participants provided more categorical ratings, while female participants provided more dimensional ratings. These main effects are explained by the interaction between sex of picture and participant sex. Findings are consistent with the literature supporting the idea that male sexual interest is more category-specific than female sexual interest. Results are considered in terms of sociobiological predictions and sex role socialization.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ..………..…………………………….………………..……………..…...................................................…... 3
LIST OF FIGURE .........…………………………………...……………………..……..................................................... 5
LIST OF TABLES …......................................................………………………...……………………………..……....... 6
INTRODUCTION ………………………………………..................................................…………………….…….....… 7
METHOD …………………………………………………....................................................………………….…...……... 9
Participants…………………………..…………………………………..…...…….................................................…. 9
Stimulus Material .……………...…...…………………………………….............................................…………..10
Measures ..….………………………………………………………..……………….................................................. 11
Procedure …….….………………………………………………………………...................................................…. 13
RESULTS .…………...…………………………………………...………………..................................................….….. 14
Sexual Orientation Survey…….…...……..…….……………..…...…….......................................……………..14
Sexual Opinion Questionnaire ..……………………………………………………......................................... 15
Picture Analysis ……………….…………………………………………………….................................................17
Sex Differences……... …...…….……………………………………………..............................................…….....18
DISCUSSION …………................................................…………..……….………………………...……….........….… 20
Appendix
SEXUAL OPINION QUESTIONNAIRE.………...........................................…………………………..….…. 28
REFERENCES ..……………………………………….………………………..….................................................…….29
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure Page
1. Mean Sexual Appeal Rating by Sex of Picture and Participant Sex ..……..…..….................. 18
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Frequency (N) and Percent (%) of Heterosexual Participants’ Kinsey Ratings …..........…15
2. Descriptive Statistics for the Sexual Opinion Questionnaire …………………..................……17
Immediately after completing data collection for my pilot study, my advisor reminded me that I was delayed in starting my masters thesis research project. In order to remain in good standing in my program, I shifted away from data analysis and write up for the pilot study. I submitted a masters thesis research project on “Viewing Time as an Objective Measure of Sexual Interest.” This data was collected over the summer and fall semesters in 2005 and analyzed in the spring of 2006. After I submitted my masters thesis paper to my thesis committee and obtained their approval signatures, and after obtaining signatures from chairpersons in the Department of Psychology and the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences, it was published at the University of Utah in the summer of 2006. Due to my masters thesis participant demographics, I specified in the scholarly paper title, this is a study on “Viewing Time as an Objective Measure of Sexual Interest in Heterosexual Men and Women.” Here is a copy of the abstract and table of contents for your reading pleasure. Please contact me if you would like to review the 2005 IRB application and approval, the 2006 poster presentation, slide presentation and publication.
ABSTRACT
This study assessed viewing time as measure of sexual interest in self-identified heterosexual males and females. Participants were asked to subjectively rate the sexual appeal of a set of sexually provocative pictures (i.e., of a man or a woman in either a bathing suit or underwear). While making their ratings, the length of time participants spent viewing each picture was unobtrusively measured. As hypothesized: (1) male and female participants viewed opposite sex pictures significantly longer than same sex pictures, (2) male participants viewed opposite sex pictures significantly longer than did female participants, and (3) female participants viewed same sex pictures significantly longer than did male participants. Contrary to our prediction, ratings of sexual appeal and viewing time were uncorrelated for either male or female participants when viewing opposite sex pictures. The results of this study suggest that viewing time is a good measure of categorical sexual interest but a poor measure of within-category sexual interest for heterosexual men and women. The participant gender by slide type interaction noted in both subjective ratings and viewing times is consistent with the literature supporting the idea that male sexual interest is more strongly category-specific than is female sexual interest.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ..………………………………………………………..…........................................………………. iv
LIST OF FIGURES ........…………………………………...………....................................................………. viii
LIST OF TABLES ….......………………………...………………...............................................…………........ ix
INTRODUCTION ………..………………………………………………………….........................................… 1
Subjective vs. Objective Measures of Arousal .……….……………………...........................….. 2
The Penile Plethysmograph as a Measure of Male Sexual Arousal ……....….................. 4
The Vaginal Photoplethysmograph as a Measure of Female Sexual Arousal …....… 4
Viewing Time as a Measure of Sexual Interest ..………………………………...…..................... 5
Advantages of Viewing Time over Plethysmography ..………………..………................…… 9
The Present Study .………………………………………….............................................………..….….. 10
METHOD ……………………………………………………………………….....….…....................................... 12
Stimulus Material ……………………………………………………….…......……...............................… 12
Participants ……………………….....…………………………………….….….....................................…. 12
Measures ..………………………………………………….………..………..……..................................…. 13
Procedure …….…………………………………………………………….…................................................13
RESULTS .…………..…………………………………………...………….………….......................................... 16
Data Transformation …………………………………………………….………….................................. 16
Sexual Appeal Ratings .………………………………………………….…………................................. 16
Viewing Time …………………………………….…………………...................................................…..…. 19
Correlational Analyses …...……………………….…………………………........................................... 22
Additional Self-Report Measures …..…………….………………………….……........................…. 22
Classification Analysis ………………...……………………………….................................................... 24
DISCUSSION …………………………….………………………...………......…….......................................… 26
Clinical and Research Implications ……..…….……………………………...................................... 30
Theoretical Implications ……………………….……………………….................…............................... 31
Limitations ...…………………………………….………………………….................................................…. 31
Future Research ...……………………………….…………………………………..................................... 32
Summary ..……………………………………….…………………………..…….......................................…. 34
Appendices
A. SEXUAL ORIENTATION SURVEY .…………..………………............................................…....……. 35
B. SEXUAL OPINION SURVEY .…………………..……………………………..….................................... 36
C. EXIT QUESTIONS ………………….……………..…..………………...................................................….. 37
D. INSTRUCTIONS FOR RATING THE PICTURES ..……….........................................................…. 38
E. INTRODUCTORY INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE STUDY .…...................................…….….…..… 39
F. RELIABILITY ACROSS TRIALS …..…………………….….............................................………...…..... 40
REFERENCES ..……………………………………..…...............................................…………...……………….41
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Mean Sexual Appeal Rating by Participant Gender and Slide Type .…………................. 18
2. Mean Viewing Time by Participant Gender and Slide Type ..……….…….......……............... 21
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Frequencies Variables for Opposite Sex Picture Rating…………...........................……….....19
2. Frequencies Variables for Same Sex Picture Ratings……………....................……….........…19
3. Participants’ Experience with Pictures Similar to Study Pictures...…......................…........23
4. Self-Report of Participant Comfort While Viewing Pictures …….……...................................24
5. Classification Results …………………………………………….…………................................................25
My sex research career ended with the publication of my masters thesis. Afterwards, my advisor locked me out of the room where I collected research data with University of Utah participants and shifted all my work to his new graduate student. I was acutely aware this was ethically wrong, and felt terribly hurt by my research advisor’s betrayal, yet I did not know where to bring my complaint. Furthermore, because I was barred from accessing my own materials, I only had hunches about what might be going on. Every office and officer I turned to at the University of Utah - from the Office of General Counsel to the Office of Research Integrity and Compliance, told me to let it go, “don’t ruin the career of another graduate student,” and focus on something else. Because I refused to let my academic career go, it was presumably determined behind the scenes that it would be politically expedient to let me go as a graduate student from the PhD program in the Department of Psychology at the University of Utah. (My presumption about how the University of Utah was responding to my complaints was verified in 2018 with discovery provided to me by the office of the Utah Attorney General. That is, after I reported the plagiarism I discovered to the University of Utah Research Misconduct Officer, he contacted and advised the Department of Psychology on how to immunize themselves from legal responsibility for their infractions.)
An accusation of cheating on a preliminary examination was made about me by the clinical psychology faculty in the Department of Psychology at the University of Utah. Here is a link to the audio of this meeting that I took (with knowledge and permission of the others present) on May 26, 2009. https://www.dropbox.com/s/q86erya72qpqwlx/Appendix%20A%20prelimmeeting52609.wav?dl=0
The clinical faculty voted that my behaviors suggest poor scholarship and character and I was dismissed from the Department of Psychology graduate program. This began a snowball effect and all the appeals I made within and outside of the Department of Psychology were upheld so eventually I was discharged from the University of Utah. Here is a link of the audio recording taken by the person who held the hearing on September 21, 2009, (with knowledge and permission from all parties present at the meeting). https://www.dropbox.com/s/4dzwlko6gkxdaxa/Esther%20Israel%20Hearing%20-%209-21--09.wav?dl=0
What do you make of the static interference when my former research advisor is responding to my questions about copyright violations?
I had all the feelings that come with institutional betrayal including helpless rage. My career as a psychologist was over. I moved back to New York and attended my alma mater to complete the masters level coursework required to practice as licensed mental health professional. A year and a half later, when I was offered a job in Utah, I moved back and continued to pursue licensure to practice as a clinician. Read my blog on “My Years at Utah State Hospital.” I had let it go and was focusing on other things. Then I came upon a few 2015 publications of my former research advisor and his students that were based on my copyrighted materials. Finally I had evidence! I decided to file a copyright infringement lawsuit against the University of Utah and the individual psychologists that were involved in violating of my copyright. Guess what happened with that? Read my blog titled “Something Is Rotten in the State of Utah” to find out more.
For the record, I did not and do not authorize the use of my original materials and its derivatives, and I did not and do not authorize the dissemination of my masters thesis work by any other individual or agency. Publications using my work and bearing my name and the names of others, or publications using my work and not bearing my name, were done without my approval or informed consent and constitutes copyright infringement, False Endorsement Federal Lanham Act 15 USC 1125, False Endorsement Utah Code Ann.§ 13-lla-3 and Failure To Endorse- Federal Lanham Act 15 USC 1125.
Comments