Slippery slope arguments, that small actions have severe consequences, are common; they predicted intolerance of outgroup freedoms; also, those beliefs predict intolerance of debated behaviors

On a Slippery Slope to Intolerance: Individual difference in slippery slope beliefs predict outgroup negativity. Levi Adelman et al. Journal of Research in Personality, August 3 2021, 104141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2021.104141

Highlights

• Slippery slope arguments, that small actions have severe consequences, are common.

• The likelihood of believing these arguments reflects an individual difference.

• A measure of slippery slope beliefs predicts negative intergroup attitudes.

• Slippery slope beliefs predict agreement with real-world slippery slope arguments.

Abstract: Slippery slope beliefs capture the idea that a non-problematic action will lead to unpreventable and harmful outcomes. While this idea has been examined in legal and philosophical literatures, there has been no psychological research into the individual propensity to hold slippery slope beliefs. Across five studies and six samples (combined N = 5,974), we developed and tested an individual difference measure of slippery slope beliefs, finding that it predicted intolerance of outgroup freedoms above and beyond key demographic and psychological predictors (Studies 1-2 and 5). We also found that slippery slope beliefs predict intolerance of debated behaviors in two countries (Study 3), and that it predicted agreement with real-world slippery slope examples across the political spectrum (Studies 4-5).

Keywords: Slippery SlopeToleranceOutgroupIndividual difference

Check also Perpetrator Religion and Perceiver’s Political Ideology Affect Processing and Communication of Media Reports of Violence. Samia Habib, Levi Adelman, Bernhard Leidner, Shaheen Pasha, and Razvan Sibii. Social Psychology, July 1, 2019. https://www.bipartisanalliance.com/2019/07/interpretation-of-reports-about-crimes.html

1. Slippery Slope Beliefs

The academic literature has primarily focused on slippery slope reasoning as a logical and philosophical investigation of (flawed) argumentations in which a first action is considered to lead to unacceptable consequences, such as by distinguishing the logical, empirical and apocalyptic types of slippery slope argumentation (e.g., Collins and Hahn, 2018; Schauer, 1998; van der Burg, 1998; Volokh, 2003; Walton, 2015). In psychology, very little research has been conducted on slippery slope beliefs or argumentation. In one article, Corner and colleagues (2011) investigated the psychological underpinning of this form of thinking, and found that people’s agreement with slippery slope arguments rests on how similar they consider the first (innocuous) action and the proposed (unacceptable) final consequence. Other empirical research (Haigh et al., 2016) suggests that people who hear slippery slope arguments make inferences about what the person making the argument believes about the initial action, and that these inferences can affect the persuasiveness of the slippery slope message.

In contrast to this focus on reasoning processes, the aim of the current research is to investigate individual differences in general slippery slope beliefs: the tendency to think that small or unobjectionable actions or events will inevitably lead to negative consequences. To our knowledge, no research has considered slippery slope beliefs as a general individual difference variable and investigated how these beliefs may relate to outgroup intolerance. Yet, individuals are likely to differ in their general propensity to see social events in terms of a slippery slope (Volokh, 2003; Walton, 2015). For example, when presented with a proposal regarding government spying on suspected terrorists or criminals, some individuals might be more likely to believe that if the government is permitted to spy on known criminals or terror suspects (unobjectionable action), it will end up using that power in an authoritarian manner to spy on ordinary citizens or political opponents (harmful consequence). These individuals will be inclined to perceive this as a likely chain of events because they in general tend to believe that an unobjectionable or a small action is a first step on an inevitable road to disaster (e.g., Corner et al., 2011, Volokh, 2003; Walton, 2015). Furthermore, the belief in this tendency for unobjectionable or small actions to lead to harmful outcomes goes beyond mistrust of other individuals in that it reflects how the world tends to work, beyond malevolent actors. It is the individual difference in general slippery slope beliefs that is examined here.

In introducing the concept of slippery slope beliefs, it is important to consider theoretically meaningful criterion measures. Specifically, as slippery slope beliefs involve the fear that any ground given up will result in the loss of a lot more, this may relate with the well-established concept of generalized trust for others (e.g., Delhey et al., 2011). Further, slippery slope beliefs reflect a feeling of the inability to control the consequences of small decisions and believing that they will inevitably lead to uncontrollable consequences, and therefore might reflect a weak sense of personal control (Lachman and Weaver, 1998). Alternatively, it might be that slippery slope beliefs, which usually involve believing in a catastrophic outcome, reflects the same irrationality of conspiratorial thinking (Brotherton et al., 2013, Van Prooijen et al., 2015). We also considered whether slippery slope beliefs might reflect a propensity to be less focused on the immediate present (and more focused on the future), by having a pessimistic outlook on life (optimism versus pessimism; Chang, 2001), or by thinking of all the potential (negative) consequences of present actions rather than the current unproblematic nature of these actions (Zhang et al., (2013)/). Based on our expectation that the slippery slope construct is a distinct individual belief, we predicted that slippery slope beliefs are empirically distinct from these other constructs. Using six large scale data sets from two countries, we tested this expectation by examining various measurement models in confirmatory factor analyses, by investigating the correlations between similar but distinct concepts, and by assessing the unique predictive value of slippery slope beliefs on intolerance.

1.1. Outgroup Intolerance

As illustrated in the quotes opening this article, one relevant risk of slippery slope beliefs is the reduced willingness to tolerate differences. This may be because slippery slope reflects a sense of threat to the status quo, which drives outgroup negativity and intolerance. Research on intergroup threat has demonstrated that various forms of threat predict prejudice toward many different outgroups and across different cultural contexts (e.g., Riek et al., 2006, Stephan et al., 2009). Given the importance of perceived threat in generating outgroup negativity, the risk of slippery slope beliefs become apparent. Individuals who are more susceptible to slippery slope thinking are more likely to consider a cascade of dangers as reasonably arising from accepting relatively benign outgroup practices and cultural expressions. As such, even these benign practices and cultural expressions can raise the specter of threatening outcomes leading to intolerance toward other groups.

We further consider the role of slippery slope beliefs for outgroup intolerance in relation to political orientation. Forms of slippery slope reasoning might be more common among conservatives than liberals because conservatives tend to score higher on measures of personal needs for structure and order, rigidity and cognitive closure, and focus more on respect for tradition and retaining the status quo (e.g., Jost et al., 2003, Jost, 2017). However, general slippery slope beliefs do not only have to characterize the psychology of the right, but might have a broader meaning and be used both by the political left and right (see opening quotes), in line with the ideological-conflict hypothesis (Brandt et al., 2014, Crawford and Brandt, 2020) and research on bipartisan bias (Ditto et al., 2019). We examine in all six samples the relation between slippery slope beliefs and political orientation, and then test whether these beliefs are uniquely associated with outgroup intolerance over and above other psychological constructs. Additionally, we examine the relevance of individual differences in general slippery slope beliefs for evaluating the possible negative implications of various real-world scenarios that either the political right or the political left is particularly concerned about. By testing whether slippery slope beliefs are associated with societal developments that align with or against ideological worldviews, we are able to examine whether these beliefs are a general phenomenon that occurs across the political spectrum, or rather whether it is specific to the political right.

1.2. Current Research

The goal of our research was to investigate the concept of general slope beliefs and to understand how these beliefs relate to outgroup intolerance. To accomplish this, we first focused on developing a brief scale that allows for assessing general slippery slope beliefs in various contexts.

We used a three-step procedure for developing such a scale (Hahn et al., 2015, Hinkin, 1998). First, based on the theoretical literature and our conceptualization of slippery slope beliefs, we developed a pool of twelve possible items and, through consultation with peers both individually and in groups, selected six that had high face validity. In a second step, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across the six large-scale national samples to examine the clustering of the items, evaluating the fit of different factor solutions and testing for measurement equivalence across Germany and the Netherlands. Furthermore, we examined different measurement models to determine whether a slippery slope beliefs construct empirically differs from measures of generalized trust, sense of control, conspiratorial thinking, present-oriented focus, pessimism, optimism, authoritarianism, open-mindedness, and close-mindedness. Additionally, we examine whether the slippery slope measure is distinct, but related to, these constructs.

In addition to establishing the psychometric properties and empirical distinctiveness of the measure, we tested the expectation that slippery slope beliefs predict unique variance in intolerance towards cultural diversity and Muslim minorities, and with real-world examples of slippery slope arguments. Specifically, we examined whether slippery slope beliefs predicted intolerance toward minorities, above and beyond additional measures (Study 2), including political orientation (Studies 1-5), as well as status-quo conservatism and normative conformity (Study 3) as two key predispositions underlying political orientation (Jost et al., 2003). We also examined whether individual difference in general slippery slope beliefs is related to the acceptance of slippery slope reasoning about concrete societal developments that are mainly of concern for conservatives or rather for liberals (Studies 4 and 5). This allows us to examine whether slippery slope beliefs are specifically relevant for the political right or rather is used across the political spectrum.

Misinformed beliefs to be broadly, but thinly, spread among the population; individuals who adopt one misinformed belief are not more likely to engage in pseudo-scientific or conspiratorial thinking across the board (no “slippery slope”)

Martí, Louis, and Celeste Kidd. 2021. “Fringe” Beliefs Aren’t Fringe. PsyArXiv. August 2. doi:10.31234/osf.io/8u5jn

Abstract: COVID-19 and the 2021 U.S. Capitol attacks have highlighted the potential dangers of pseudoscientific and conspiratorial belief adoption. Approaches to combating misinformed beliefs have tried to “pre-bunk” or “inoculate” people against misinformation adoption and have yielded only modest results. These approaches presume that some citizens may be more gullible than others and thus susceptible to multiple misinformed beliefs. We provide evidence of an alternative account it’s simply too hard for all people to be accurate in all domains of belief, but most individuals are trying. We collected data on a constellation of human beliefs across domains from more than 1,700 people on Amazon Mechanical Turk. We find misinformed beliefs to be broadly, but thinly, spread among the population. Further, we do not find that individuals who adopt one misinformed belief are more likely to engage in pseudo-scientific or conspiratorial thinking across the board, in opposition to “slippery slope” notions of misinformation adoption.

Higher Ukrainian famine mortality was an outcome of policy: Ukrainian ethnicity, rather than the administrative boundaries of the Ukrainian republic, mattered for famine mortality

The Political-Economic Causes of the Soviet Great Famine, 1932–33. Andrei Markevich, Natalya Naumenko & Nancy Qian. NBER Working Paper 29089, July 2021. DOI 10.3386/w29089

Abstract: This study constructs a large new dataset to investigate whether state policy led to ethnic Ukrainians experiencing higher mortality during the 1932–33 Soviet Great Famine. All else equal, famine (excess) mortality rates were positively associated with ethnic Ukrainian population share across provinces, as well as across districts within provinces. Ukrainian ethnicity, rather than the administrative boundaries of the Ukrainian republic, mattered for famine mortality. These and many additional results provide strong evidence that higher Ukrainian famine mortality was an outcome of policy, and suggestive evidence on the political-economic drivers of repression. A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that bias against Ukrainians explains up to 77% of famine deaths in the three republics of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus and up to 92% in Ukraine.

Decent living standards for all while reducing energy use: Per capita, 9 lbs/4 kg of new clothing/year, 177lbs/80 kg of washing/year, 20 washes per year; & 1 phone; per household, a cooker, a fridge, a laptop

Securing decent living standards for all while reducing global energy use. Leeds Univ press release, Jun 2021. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/512764

Fundamental changes in our economies are required to secure decent living standards for all in the struggle against climate breakdown, according to new research.

[...]

Lead author Jefim Vogel, PhD researcher at Leeds' Sustainability Research Institute, explained: "Decent living standards are crucial for human well-being, and reducing global energy use is crucial for averting catastrophic climate changes. Truly sustainable development would mean providing decent living standards for everyone at much lower, sustainable levels of energy and resource use.

"But in the current economic system, no country in the world accomplishes that - not even close. It appears that our economic system is fundamentally misaligned with the aspirations of sustainable development: it is unfit for the challenges of the 21st century."

Co-author Professor Julia Steinberger, from the University of Leeds and the University of Lausanne in Switzerland, added: "The problem is that in our current economic system, all countries that achieve decent living standards use much more energy than what can be sustained if we are to avert dangerous climate breakdown."

By 2050, global energy use needs to be as low as 27 gigajoules (GJ) of final energy per person to reach the aspirations of the Paris Agreement of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C without relying on speculative future technologies, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That means current global average energy use (55 GJ per person) needs to be cut in half, while affluent countries like the UK (81 GJ per person) or Spain (77 GJ per person) need to reduce their average energy use by as much as 65%, France (95 GJ per person) by more than 70%, and the most energy-hungry countries like the USA (204 GJ per person) or Canada (232 GJ per person) need to cut by as much as 90%.

A major concern, however, is that such profound reductions in energy use might undermine living standards, as currently only countries with high energy use accomplish decent living standards.

Even the energy-lightest of the countries that achieve decent living standards - spearheaded by Argentina (53 GJ per person), Cyprus (55 GJ per person), and Greece (63 GJ per person) - use at least double the 'sustainable' level of 27 GJ per person, and many countries use even much more.

On the other hand, in all countries with energy use levels below 27 GJ per person, large parts of the population currently suffer from precarious living standards - for example, in India (19 GJ per person) and Zambia (23 GJ per person), where at least half the population is deprived of fundamental needs.

It appears that in the current economic system, reducing energy use in affluent countries could undermine living standards, while improving living standards in less affluent countries would require large increases in energy use and thus further exacerbate climate breakdown.

But this is not inevitable, the research team show: fundamental changes in economic and social priorities could resolve this dilemma of sustainable development.

Co-author Dr Daniel O'Neill, from Leeds' School of earth and Environment, explained: "Our findings suggest that improving public services could enable countries to provide decent living standards at lower levels of energy use. Governments should offer free and high-quality public services in areas such as health, education, and public transport.

"We also found that a fairer income distribution is crucial for achieving decent living standards at low energy use. To reduce existing income disparities, governments could raise minimum wages, provide a Universal Basic Income, and introduce a maximum income level. We also need much higher taxes on high incomes, and lower taxes on low incomes."

Another essential factor, the research team found, is affordable and reliable access to electricity and modern fuels. While this is already near-universal in affluent countries, it is still lacking for billions of people in lower-income countries, highlighting important infrastructure needs.

Perhaps the most crucial and perhaps the most surprising finding is that economic growth beyond moderate levels of affluence is detrimental for aspirations of sustainable development.

Professor Steinberger explained: "In contrast with wide-spread assumptions, the evidence suggests that decent living standards require neither perpetual economic growth nor high levels of affluence.

"In fact, economic growth in affluent or even moderately affluent countries is detrimental for living standards. And it is also fundamentally unsustainable: economic growth is tied to increases in energy use, and thus makes the energy savings that are required for tackling climate breakdown virtually impossible."

"Another detrimental factor is the extraction of natural resources such as coal, oil, gas or minerals - these industries need to be scaled back rapidly."

Lead-author Jefim Vogel concluded: "In short, we need to abandon economic growth in affluent countries, scale back resource extraction, and prioritise public services, basic infrastructures and fair income distributions everywhere.

"With these policies in place, rich countries could slash their energy use and emissions whilst maintaining or even improving living standards; and less affluent countries could achieve decent living standards and end material poverty without needing vast amounts of energy. That's good news for climate justice, good news for human well-being, good news for poverty eradication, and good news for energy security.

[...] In my view, the most promising and integral vision for the required transformation is the idea of degrowth - it is an idea whose time has come."

Paper: Socio-economic conditions for satisfying human needs at low energy use: An international analysis of social provisioning. Jefim Vogel et al. Global Environmental Change, June 29 2021, 102287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102287

Highlights

• No country sufficiently meets human needs within sustainable levels of energy use.

• Need satisfaction and associated energy requirements depend on socio-economic setups.

• Public services are linked to higher need satisfaction and lower energy requirements.

• Economic growth is linked to lower need satisfaction and higher energy requirements.

• Countries with good socio-economic setups could likely meet needs at low energy use.

Abstract

Meeting human needs at sustainable levels of energy use is fundamental for avoiding catastrophic climate change and securing the well-being of all people. In the current political-economic regime, no country does so. Here, we assess which socio-economic conditions might enable societies to satisfy human needs at low energy use, to reconcile human well-being with climate mitigation.

Using a novel analytical framework alongside a novel multivariate regression-based moderation approach and data for 106 countries, we analyse how the relationship between energy use and six dimensions of human need satisfaction varies with a wide range of socio-economic factors relevant to the provisioning of goods and services ('provisioning factors'). We find that factors such as public service quality, income equality, democracy, and electricity access are associated with higher need satisfaction and lower energy requirements (‘beneficial provisioning factors’). Conversely, extractivism and economic growth beyond moderate levels of affluence are associated with lower need satisfaction and greater energy requirements (‘detrimental provisioning factors’). Our results suggest that improving beneficial provisioning factors and abandoning detrimental ones could enable countries to provide sufficient need satisfaction at much lower, ecologically sustainable levels of energy use.

However, as key pillars of the required changes in provisioning run contrary to the dominant political-economic regime, a broader transformation of the economic system may be required to prioritise, and organise provisioning for, the satisfaction of human needs at low energy use.

Check also Providing decent living with minimum energy: A global scenario. Joel Millward-Hopkins, Julia K. Steinberger, Narasimha D. Rao, Yannick Oswald. Global Environmental Change, Volume 65, November 2020, 102168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102168

Highlights

• Providing Decent Living with Minimum Energy: A Global Scenario.

• As ecological breakdown looms, the basic material needs of billions remain unmet.

• We estimate the minimal energy for providing decent living globally & universally.

• Despite population growth, 2050 global energy use could be reduced to 1960 levels.

• This requires advanced technologies & reductions in demand to sufficiency levels.

• But ‘sufficiency’ is far more materially generous than many opponents often assume.

Abstract: It is increasingly clear that averting ecological breakdown will require drastic changes to contemporary human society and the global economy embedded within it. On the other hand, the basic material needs of billions of people across the planet remain unmet. Here, we develop a simple, bottom-up model to estimate a practical minimal threshold for the final energy consumption required to provide decent material livings to the entire global population. We find that global final energy consumption in 2050 could be reduced to the levels of the 1960s, despite a population three times larger. However, such a world requires a massive rollout of advanced technologies across all sectors, as well as radical demand-side changes to reduce consumption – regardless of income – to levels of sufficiency. Sufficiency is, however, far more materially generous in our model than what those opposed to strong reductions in consumption often assume.

Keywords: Basic needsClimate changeDemandEnergyInequalitySufficiency

---

Critical view from Reason.com https://reason.com/2021/07/02/to-stop-climate-change-americans-must-cut-energy-use-by-90-percent-live-in-640-square-feet-and-fly-only-once-every-3-years-says-study:

In order to save the planet from catastrophic climate change, Americans will have to cut their energy use by more than 90 percent and families of four should live in housing no larger than 640 square feet. That's at least according to a team of European researchers led by University of Leeds sustainability researcher Jefim Vogel. In their new study, "Socio-economic conditions for satisfying human needs at low energy use," in Global Environmental Change, they calculate that public transportation should account for most travel. Travel should, in any case, be limited to between 3,000 to 10,000 miles per person annually.

Vogel and his colleagues set themselves the goal of figuring out how to "provide sufficient need satisfaction at much lower, ecologically sustainable levels of energy use." Referencing earlier sustainability studies they argue that human needs are sufficiently satisfied when each person has access to the energy equivalent of 7,500 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity per capita. That is about how much energy the average Bolivian uses. Currently, Americans use about 80,000 kWh annually per capita. With respect to transportation and physical mobility, the average person would be limited to using the energy equivalent of 16–40 gallons of gasoline per year. People are assumed to take one short- to medium-haul airplane trip every three years or so.

In addition, food consumption per capita would vary depending on age and other conditions, but the average would be 2,100 calories per day. While just over 10 percent of the world's people are unfortunately still undernourished, the Food and Agriculture Organization reports that the daily global average food supply now stands at just under 3,000 calories per person. Each individual is allocated a new clothing allowance of nine pounds per year, and clothes may be washed 20 times annually. The good news is that everyone over age 10 is permitted a mobile phone and each household can have a laptop.

[...]

To achieve [Paris Agreement goals], the researchers focus on what they call provisioning factors, which are intermediary institutions that people use to satisfy their needs. Provisioning factors that affect the amount of energy a society uses include public service, public health coverage, access to electricity and clean fuels, democratic quality, income equality, economic growth, and extractivism. These provisioning factors are the basis for providing sufficient human needs such as nourishment, drinking water, sanitation access, basic education, and a minimum income, all of which help secure the basic need of healthy life expectancy.

In order to stay below the 1.5°C temperature increase threshold, they cite earlier research that calculated that the average person should be limited to using annually as little as 18 gigajoules (equivalent to 136 gallons of gasoline or 5,000 kWh) of total energy, but allocated more generously for their study a cap of 27 gigajoules (equivalent to 204 gallons of gasoline or 7,500 kWh) annually. They then checked to see if any country in the world had met their definition of decent living standards using that amount of energy per capita. "No country in the world accomplishes that—not even close," admitted Vogel in an accompanying press release.

[...]

[...] So they proceed to jigger the various provisioning factors until they find that what is really needed is a "more fundamental transformation of the political-economic regime." That fundamental transformation includes free government-provided high-quality public services in areas such as health, education, and public transport.

"We also found that a fairer income distribution is crucial for achieving decent living standards at low energy use," said co-author Daniel O'Neill, from Leeds' School of Earth and Environment. "To reduce existing income disparities, governments could raise minimum wages, provide a Universal Basic Income, and introduce a maximum income level. We also need much higher taxes on high incomes, and lower taxes on low incomes."

[...]

---

Per capita: 9 lbs/4 kg of new clothing/year, 177lbs/80 kg of washing/year, 20 washes per year; 1 phone.

Per household: a cooker, a fridge, a laptop.

From the Millward-Hopkins paper above:

Food	2000–2150 kcal/cap/day	15%	–	3 KJ/kilocalorie	30%
Cooking appliances	1 cooker/household	–	0.8 KJ/kilocalorie	1 GJ/app+	50%
Cold Storage	1 fridge-freezer/household	–	0.44 GJ/app+/yr	4 GJ/app+	–
Shelter & living conditions
Household size	4 persons/household	−25%	–	–	–
Sufficient space	15 meters2 floor-space/cap*	80%	–	2–4 GJ/m2	100%
Thermal comfort	15 meters2 floor-space/cap*	80%	20–60 MJ/m2/yr	–	300%
Illumination	2500 lm/house; 6 hrs/day	100%	150 lm/W	14 MJ/house/yr	–
Hygiene
Water supply	50 Litres/cap/day	100%	–	5–17 KJ/L	–
Water heating	20 Litres/cap/day	100%	96–220 KJ/L	–	50%
Waste management	Provided to all households**	–	–	180 MJ/cap/yr	200%
Clothing
Clothes	4 kg of new clothing/year	33%	–	100 MJ/kg	–
Washing facilities	80 kg of washing/year	33%	2.4 MJ/kg	2 GJ/app+	–
Healthcare Hospitals	200 meters2 floor-space/bed	50%	410–560 MJ/m2/yr	14–23 GJ/m2	130%
Education Schools	10 meters2 floor-space/pupil	50%	100–130 MJ/m2/yr	4.5–7.5 GJ/m2	150%
Communication & information
Phones	1 phone/person over 10yrs old	–	28 MJ/phone/yr	110 MJ/phone	30%
Computers	1 laptop/household	–	220 MJ/laptop/yr	3 GJ/laptop	30%
Networks & data	High**	100%	–	~0.4 GJ/cap/yr	–
Mobility
Vehicle production	Consistent with pkm travelled**	–	–	0.1–0.3 MJ/pkm	50%
Vehicle propulsion	5000–15,000 pkm/cap/year	3–10%	0.2–1.9 MJ/pkm++	–	100%
Infrastructure	Consistent with pkm travelled**	–	–	0.1–0.3 MJ/pkm	–

* Assuming 10 m2 of living space/capita plus 20 m2 of communal space/house; with the latter divided by four, we get 15 m2/capita overall.

** Activity levels here are not straightforward to define.

+ ’App’ refers to ‘appliance’.

++ Large range as this covers different modes (public transport to passenger flights).

Appearance dissatisfaction is a sensitive issue and has been tied to depression, dissatisfaction in romantic relationships, and reduced sexual satisfaction

Øverup CS, Strizzi JM, Cipric A, et al. Appearance Satisfaction as a Predictor of Specific Sexual Problems and Associated Distress. J Sex Med 2021;XX:XXX–XXX. Aug 2 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.06.019

Abstract

Introduction: Appearance dissatisfaction is a sensitive issue and has been tied to depression, dissatisfaction in romantic relationships, and reduced sexual satisfaction.

Aim: This study sought to examine associations between appearance satisfaction and specific sexual problems and related distress, testing also the moderating role of relationship satisfaction.

Methods: A large web-sample of Norwegians in romantic relationships (N = 2,903) completed a one-time survey.

Outcomes: Participants reported on their experience of five different sexual problems and associated level of distress.

Results: We found that appearance satisfaction was associated with reporting fewer sexual problems, and specifically, with a smaller likelihood of experiencing problems with lack of enjoyment, lack of excitement, and lack of climax. Furthermore, appearance satisfaction was unrelated to overall sexual problem-related distress, but was associated with feeling less distress about lack of excitement and lack of climax. Relationship satisfaction did not serve as a moderator of the associations.

Clinical Translation: These findings suggest the importance of attending to appearance satisfaction when working with clients with multiple sexual problems, particularly those related to excitement and enjoyment.

Strengths and Limitations: Strengths of the study include a large sample of partnered adults and assessment of specific sexual problems and associated distress. A limitation is that outcomes were assessed using single items, rather than multi-item scales.

Conclusion: The study highlights the importance of examining the presence of sexual problems and associated distress separately, and to consider appearance satisfaction as a predictor of sexual functioning.

Key Words: Appearance satisfactionBody satisfactionBMISexual problemsSexual dysfunctionSexual distressRelationship satisfaction

Discussion

The current study is among the first to examine associations between appearance satisfaction and specific sexual problems and associated distress, as well as the cumulative number of sexual problems and overall distress related to any/multiple sexual problems, in a large sample of partnered Norwegian adults. A particular strength of the current study is the ability to look at the presence of specific sexual problems and the associated distress, as opposed to only general assessments of sexual functioning. Indeed, research highlights the distinction between sexual satisfaction and sexual difficulties,59,60 and that people who experience sexual problems may not necessarily experience distress related to those problems, especially at older age.28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 Moreover, much existing research has examined physiological predictors of sexual functioning, with a lesser focus on psychosocial factors. However, burgeoning research has begun to examine relational predictors of functioning and associated distress, putting sexual functioning squarely in the domain of relational functioning. The current research adds to this burgeoning field of study, by examining both psychological (appearance satisfaction) and social (relationship satisfaction) factors. In sum, it is important to examine the presence of sexual problems and the level of distress related to sexual problems separately, to understand the potentially disparate predictive ability of various factors, including psychosocial factors.

Number of Sexual Problems and the Presence of Specific Sexual Problems

Results demonstrated that appearance satisfaction was associated with reporting fewer sexual problems (H2), and specifically, with a smaller likelihood of reporting problems with sexual lack of enjoyment, excitement, and climax (H3). These findings are consistent with past research that has found that acceptance of one's body is associated with more sexual enjoyment,17 and that feeling negative about one's body is associated with decrements in orgasm,18,19 and overall sexual functioning61. Interestingly, and contrary to past research,17 we did not find an association between appearance satisfaction and lack of sexual interest (H3). It is unclear why we did not find this association; however, in the present sample, lack of interest was relatively common, with 30% of people endorsing this problem. Thus, it may be that other factors play a larger role than does appearance satisfaction in predicting whether people experience a lack of sexual interest. Factors may include age or sample population. Fooken used a sample of elderly women, while our study included both men and women of all ages.17

We also did not find that appearance satisfaction was associated with feeling anxious during sex (H3). It is noteworthy that only 4% of the sample endorsed this problem, and thus, there may have been too little variability in this sample to examine the association. Conversely, it may be that people experience less anxiety during sex, when the sex is with a committed romantic partner. Future research may wish to examine within a sample of people who all report issues with sexual anxiety whether body and appearance satisfaction predicts the level of sexual anxiety. Indeed, past research suggests that one reason for feeling anxious during sex may be body self-consciousness and an anxious attentional focus on the body.19,20,21,62

Distress Related to Sexual Problems

Results also suggested that appearance satisfaction was unrelated to overall sexual problem-related distress (RQ1) and distress related to sexual lack of interest and enjoyment, and feeling anxious during sex (RQ2). Appearance satisfaction was related to feeling less distress about sexual lack of excitement and climax (RQ2). It may be that the link between appearance dissatisfaction, cognitive distractions, and sexual problems and related distress provides an explanation. Previous research has found that body dissatisfaction is associated with cognitive distractions63 and that body dissatisfaction is associated with distress related to sexual problems. In fact, Pascoal and colleagues64 found that the association between body dissatisfaction and sexual functioning was mediated by cognitive distractions. In contrast to this study64, Pascoal et al. measured overall distress for all/any sexual problems. It could be that lower levels of appearance satisfaction lead to higher levels of cognitive distraction and these are more influential during the arousal and orgasm phases of the sexual response cycle and consequently be associated with higher levels of distress associated with lack of excitement and climax. Future research should examine whether there is a differential effect of body satisfaction and cognitive distractions on the diverse sexual problems and their associated distress. Although these associations are small in magnitude, they represent a first examination of the associations between appearance satisfaction and distress over specific sexual problems. Past research has found that lower appearance dissatisfaction was associated with less sexual problem-related distress;39,64 this research, however, examined general distress and not problem-specific distress.

The Role of Relationship Satisfaction

It is noteworthy that as people reported higher relationship satisfaction, they were less likely to endorse having a sexual problem, but felt more distress over lack of excitement. This is consistent with past research, which has found that relationship satisfaction is associated with better sexual functioning.25,40, 41, 42, 43 However, in committed relationships, people may feel that sexual interactions are normative, and thus, they may feel more distressed about lack of excitement for a partner for whom they otherwise care and love. Future research should seek to examine the role of perceptions of sexual norms and expectations in romantic relationships, and their importance in predicting distress associated with sexual problems, particularly problems related to arousal.

Relationship satisfaction was unrelated to the presence of all five specific sexual problems, and unrelated to overall distress and distress related to all other problems (except for distress over lack of excitement). This is inconsistent with past research, which has found that lower relationship satisfaction was associated with greater distress48,65 and greater emotional closeness during sex was associated with less distress35,45, 46, 47. However, one reason for this lack of associations may be the relatively high levels of relationship satisfaction in the sample. Indeed, the average level of relationship satisfaction was 5.91 out of 7 (see Table 1); thus, there may be have been a ceiling effect that restricted the range in scores, leading to reduced variability. Consequently, we did not find indications of moderation by relationship satisfaction (RQ3a and RQ3b).

The Role of Gender

Much extant research in both sexuality and appearance satisfaction has focused on gender, often examining these construct separately for men and women. Indeed, sexual problems may vary by sex (i.e., men may have issues with erection and ejaculation, while women may have issues with vaginal lubrication and pain during intercourse). Similarly, appearance ideals may vary by gender, as women may strive for thinness and men may strive for muscularity.66 However, it is recognized that, while ideals may vary, both genders experience dissatisfaction with their appearance,2 though research suggests that women experience higher levels of dissatisfaction than do men. One might therefore expect that the association between appearance satisfaction and sexual problems, and associated distress, may be stronger for women, as they may internalize the importance that society places on ideal women's body shapes and appearances.67 However, in the current study, we found that the association did not vary by gender. That is, the associations between appearance satisfaction and the presence of sexual problems, and their associated distress, were not stronger for women than for men, as one might expect. However, we did find general gender differences, such that women were more likely to report sexual problems (though, not consistently higher distress than men). These findings suggest that when appearance satisfaction and sexual problems are assessed in general, men's and women's experiences are similar. Especially considering that recent theory and research suggests that men and women are more similar than they are different across most psychological variables,68,69 this may be relevant in the context to experiences with sexual problems and appearance satisfaction. However, it may be that this pattern of results would be different, if sexual problems and appearance evaluations were assessed in gender-specific ways.

Limitations and Future Directions

There are strengths to the current study, including a large sample of partnered adults and assessment of specific sexual problems along with associated distress. However, the current study should also be viewed in terms of its limitations.

For one, while it is a benefit that we were able to examine individual and specific sexual problems, they were assessed using single items, and not an established scale. This may be a limitation, as sexual problems were addressed generally and not with respect to gender-specific problems, such as problems with erection, ejaculation, vaginal lubrication, or pain during sex. Moreover, single-item measures of sexual satisfaction have the disadvantage of being unidimensional and may have low test-retest reliability.70 Relatedly, appearance satisfaction was assessed using a single item that asked about satisfaction with physical appearance (“fysisk utseende”), and did not use existing scales of body or appearance dissatisfaction71. However, single items (rather than scales) were employed in an effort to maximize response rates and reduce participant burden, and is generally accepted and widely used in the field, as they may capture the construct to a satisfactory degree.72 Moreover, the generality of the items allowed us to assess sexual problems and feelings about appearance that may be relevant to all, regardless of gender.

Moreover, due to the general population sample and concerns about participant burden in responding to survey questions, we did not collect any data regarding any general health concerns, medications (specifically those with possible sexual side effects or appearance-related side effects such as weight gain), sexual pathologies or related therapies. Future research should consider collecting such data, as these can interfere with sexual activity or with body image. Similarly, future research may wish to include extended (and validated) measurement of gender-specific sexual problems, as well as gender-specific appearance evaluations, as such measurements may provide useful information regarding the link between body appearance and sexuality. Some research suggests that evaluation regarding specific body parts may be uniquely associated with sexual functioning73. Future research may also wish to examine potential mediators of the association between appearance satisfaction and sexual functioning. One such mediator may be inhibition/excitation. It has been demonstrated that, in women, self-perceived sexual attractiveness influence sexual responses by acting on the excitation and inhibition response pathways.74

Norwegian Sexual Behavior surveys have been conducted in previous years, yielding responses of 23% in 2008, 34% in 2002, 38% in 1997, 48% in 1992, and 63% in 198775. Thus, a low response rate seems to be a common finding in Norwegian questionnaire surveys. However, the response rate in this survey was higher than that in the 2008 survey. It has been demonstrated that dropout from the survey was unrelated to sexual behaviour, and random rather than systematic.76 As this study had a similar response rate to previous iterations of the survey, there is reason to believe that dropout in this survey also was random rather than systematic.

The data is cross-sectional in nature and therefore, we are precluded from making conclusions about causality. Future research may wish to examine these associations using more naturalistic methods, such as event-contingent diary methods or ecological momentary assessments. Such methods are relatively rare in sex research, though much knowledge is to be gained. That is, such methods allow for an examination of associations between constructs as they occurred in daily life, reducing retrospective bias. Currently, much work focus on general reports of sexual functions and memory of feelings of distress, which may be skewed by recency effects.77 Moreover, as sexual interactions and sexual functioning may be impacted by mood, and many daily and relational events may influence mood, future daily diary research may wish to include a measure of mood, to examine its predictive association with daily sexual functioning and associated distress. Indeed, it may be that mood serves as a mediator of the association between daily relational events and daily sexual functioning and associated distress.

Lastly, consistent with past research,43,78 the current research examined relationship satisfaction as a predictor of sexual problems or sexual functioning. However, it may be that relationship satisfaction may serve as the outcome, such that sexual functioning predicts relationship satisfaction. Likely, there is a bidirectional association between the two, and future research should seek to disentangle the mechanisms underlying this association. Indeed, it may be that the association between appearance satisfaction and relationship satisfaction is moderated by sexual problems, rather than the reverse, as we examined here. Relatedly, situating sexual problems and associated distress in a relational context, it may be interesting to examine the appearance satisfaction and BMI of both partners in a couple. Much research in the relationship sciences has demonstrated the presence of contagion effects79, and such a dynamic may be at play with appearance satisfaction, relationship satisfaction, and sexual problems/distress as well. That is, it may be that individuals who are dissatisfied with their appearance foster appearance dissatisfaction in their partners, and that jointly, this dissatisfaction influence their sexual behavior in negative ways.