Arch Sex Behav DOI 10.1007/s10508-016-0927-8
ORIGINAL PAPER
Pornography, Religion, and Parent–Child Relationship Quality Samuel L. Perry1 • Kara J. Snawder1
Received: 8 January 2016 / Revised: 16 December 2016 / Accepted: 19 December 2016 Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017
Abstract Frequent pornography use is often negatively associated with marital quality. Recent research has argued that this negative association is particularly strong for those who are embedded in religious communities, likely due to the greater stigma and shame associated with viewing pornography. In order to test and extend this theory, the current study examined how religious service attendance moderates the link between parents’ pornography consumption and four measures of parent–child relationship quality. Analyses of 2006 Portraits of American Life Study data (N = 2610) revealed that greater pornography viewing predicted negative outcomes on two out of four measures of parent–child relationship quality, while religious service attendance was associated with more positive parent–child relationship outcomes. Interaction effects, however, affirmed that the negative association between porn viewing frequency and three parent–child relationship outcomeswasstrongerforparticipantswhoattendedreligiousservices more often. Analyzing fathers (N = 771) and mothers (N = 904) separately revealedthat the observed relationshipsheld moreconsistentlyforfathersthanmothers.Evidencefordirectionality was presented by incorporating re-interview data from 2012. While pornography use may be negatively associated with some aspects of parent–child relationship quality, this association was particularly strong for those embedded within religious communities, possibly owing to greater attendant guilt and shame. Keywords Pornography Parenting Religion Religiosity Relationship quality
& Samuel L. Perry
[email protected] 1
Department of Sociology, University of Oklahoma, 780 Van Vleet Oval, Kaufman Hall 335A, Norman, OK 73019, USA
Introduction The regular viewing of‘‘sexually explicit media’’or‘‘pornography’’has become increasingly pervasive in the U.S. over the past fewdecades,owinginlargeparttotheincreasedprivacyandaccess providedbytheInternet(Short,Black,Smith,Wetterneck,&Wells, 2012). Though obtaining reliable data on Americans’ porn consumption is difficult given both the moral stigma surrounding it anditsusetypicallybeinginprivate,variousstudiesreportthatsomewhere between one quarter to over a third of Americans access some form of pornography once a month or more (Carroll et al., 2008; Edelman, 2009; Patterson& Price, 2012; Short et al., 2012). As pornography use has become more widespread in the U.S., researchers have sought to understand its impact on adolescent sexual and psychological development as well as important social institutions, most prominently romantic or marriage relationships (Doring, 2009; Manning, 2006) and, recently, religion (Perry, 2015, 2016a, b; Perry & Hayward, 2017). The current study seeks to extend this literature in two important ways. First, despite the large body of research examining how frequent pornography viewing potentially shapes couples’ outcomes, few if anystudies have sought to understandhow,and to what extent,parents’pornography use might influenceimportantaspectsoftheparent–childrelationship.Second,researchon pornography use and family relationships largely ignores the influence of religion, despite the fact that religious factors are strongly relatedtobothpornographyconsumption(Patterson&Price,2012; Perry, 2016b, c; Short, Kasper, & Wetterneck, 2015; Wright, 2013; Wright,Bae,&Funk,2013)andfamilyoutcomes(Mahoney,2010; Perry, 2016c, d). Rather, religion measures are most often included only as control variables. Among the recent exceptions, some research suggests that, while religious participation is often thought to have a salutary effect on marriage, religious service attendance may actually exacerbate the negative relationship between pornographyuseandmaritalquality(Doran&Price,2014;Perry,2016c).
123
Arch Sex Behav
By targeting the parent–child relationship as the primary outcome while also utilizing religiosity as a key predictor, the current study can inform these particular gaps within the literature.
Pornography Viewing and Family Relationships Research examining the potential consequences of porn use for intimate relationships and family life has focused almost completely on dating and marriage relationships. While some family care practitioners argue that couples viewing sexually explicit materials together, for the purposes of fantasy stimulation, education, and mutual gratification, may actually benefit romantic relationships (see Grov, Gillespie, Royce, & Lever, 2011; Maddox, Rhoades, & Markman, 2011; Manning, 2006), studies often find that pornography use is negatively associated with various measures of relationship quality and stability, both for those in unmarried romantic relationships and married couples (see Doring, 2009; Manning, 2006; Short et al., 2012). In experimental, quantitative, and qualitative studies of heterosexual romantic couples, researchers have often shown that frequent porn viewing is associated with lower commitment to the relationship, sexual satisfaction, sexual attraction, feelings of intimacy, and overall satisfaction with one’s romantic partner (Bergner & Bridges, 2002; Lambert, Negash, Stillman, Olmstead, & Fincham, 2012; Perry, 2016c, d; Yucel & Gassanov, 2010; Zillmann & Bryant, 1988). Regarding marriage relationships specifically, research finds that pornography consumption is associated with lower marital quality by a variety of different measures, greater chance of infidelity, and higher likelihood of divorce (Doran & Price, 2014). Most relevant for this study, researchers have shown that pornography use is associated with decreased feelings of intimacy between partners (Bergner & Bridges, 2002; Zitzman & Butler, 2009) and lower commitment to the relationship itself (Doran & Price, 2014; Lambert et al., 2012). To be sure, many of these studies are cross sectional; thus, marital troubles could also lead to greater pornography consumption (for exceptions, see Muusses, Kerkhof, & Finkenauer, 2015; Perry, 2016d). However, qualitative and experimental studies suggest that it is more often pornography use that leads to relational problems rather than the alternative (Bergner & Bridges, 2002; Lambert et al., 2012; Zillmann & Bryant, 1988; Zitzman & Butler, 2009). Exceptions to these trends must also be noted. Some research, for example, suggests that viewing pornography can be positively related to certain relationship outcomes. Women and men, for example, report greater sexual satisfaction when pornography is watched together within the context of the relationship rather than watching it alone (e.g., Grov et al., 2011; Maddox et al., 2011). These findings lead some researchers to suggest that it is not the content of the pornography per se that negatively influences relationships, but rather the compulsivity,
123
isolation, and stigma potentially associated with it (Grov et al., 2011; Maddox et al., 2011; Manning, 2006; Olmstead, Negash, Pasley, & Fincham, 2013; Perry, 2016a, c; Perry & Hayward, 2017; Willoughby, Carroll, Busby, & Brown, 2016). This theory will come into play as the potential moderating effect of religion is considered below. Little to no quantitative research has been conducted on the relationship of pornography use to parent–child relationship quality, and none using nationally representative data. Schneider (2000, 2003) conducted a qualitative study of 94 individuals (91 women and 3 men) who had experienced negative consequences from their partner’s online sexual behavior. While Schneider’s studies were limited by the unrepresentativeness of the sample, they provide insight into the possible mechanisms that might link frequent porn use to parenting outcomes. Participants often reported that their partner’s frequent porn viewing negatively influenced parenting in a practical way by diverting one or both parents’ attention away from the children either by focusing on the computer or due to relational conflict arising from one partner’s pornography addiction. In Manning’s (2006) review of research on pornography and the family, it was discussed how parents’ pornography use might also negatively influence children indirectly, perhaps through the loss of a job due to a parent using pornography at work. Furthermore, this review indicated that among families that had been affected by pornography addiction, associated events such as encountering a parent’s pornographic material or encountering a parent masturbating could negatively impact children. In light of this latter possibility, studies have argued that parents’ frequent use of pornography may create distance between parent and child due to parents’ hope to protect the child from exposure to the parent’s pornography use (Corley & Schneider, 2003; Maltz & Maltz, 2010). And while not directly measuring parent–child relationship quality, Perry (2015) found that parents who more frequently viewed pornography reported less frequently talking or reading with their children about religion, suggesting that pornography use might diminish some level of interaction and cultural transmission between parents and children, possibly owing to guilt. In sum, more frequent consumption of pornography could be negatively related to parent–child relationships in at least three ways. First, more time spent viewing pornography (most likely in private and with sufficient distance to prevent oneself from getting caught) necessarily takes up time that might otherwise be spent interacting with one’s children, which means less opportunity to verbally communicate with one’s children. Second, more frequent porn viewing may foster social and emotional distance between parents and children as parents seek to protect their children from‘‘adult’’influences or simply feel disconnected because of shame. And third, a habit of frequent pornography consumption might negatively influence the quality and nature of interaction between parents and children as parents, either
Arch Sex Behav
hoping to get back to pornography or dealing with shame and cognitive dissonance, might be shorter in their interactions with children. Pornography Viewing and Religion The vast majority of research linking religion and pornography has showed that‘‘religiosity’’(measured in various ways) is negatively associated with consuming pornography (Baltazar, Helm, McBride, Hopkins, & Stevens, 2010; Doran & Price, 2014; Grubbs, Exline, Pargament, Hook, & Carlisle, 2015; Nelson, Padilla-Walker,& Carroll,2010; Patterson&Price,2012; Perry, 2016b, c; Poulsen, Busby, & Galovan, 2013; Short, Kasper, & Wetterneck, 2015; Stack, Wasserman, & Kern, 2004; Wright, 2013; Wright et al., 2013). Scholars theorize that religion may reduce porn consumption to the extent that (1) religious–moral values are actually internalized by adherents, guiding their private behavior and (2) religious adherents are embedded within networks of co-religionists that provide a measure of social control and support by probing into one another’s private lives and discouraging sexual‘‘deviance.’’ Violations of religious community standards for sexual morality may have a dampening effect on one’s personal religiosity as wellasone’srelationshipswithfriendsandfamily.Studiesofporn use among religious undergraduates suggest that students (and especially males) who used pornography more often felt discouraged in their faith because of their repeated failure in the area of sexual purity (Baltazar et al., 2010; Nelson et al., 2010; Short et al., 2015). Such students were also less likely to practice their faith publically. Explaining this outcome, Short et al. speculated that religious persons experience feelings of‘‘scrupulosity’’when their behaviors are inconsistent with their internalized community values. Scrupulosity refers to the extreme guilt that is derived from violationsofdeeplyheldreligiousormoralconvictionsandcanbeassociated with some forms of obsessive–compulsive disorder. This canimpairsocialfunctioningbycausingpersonstowithdrawthemselvesphysicallyandpsychologicallyfromclosefriendsandfamily members (Miller & Hedges, 2008). Thus, for persons who are deeply embedded within religious communities that prohibit viewing sexually explicit media, frequent pornography use can be associatedwithguilt,shame,andfeelingsofscrupulositythatpotentially influence such individuals to withdraw from family, like spouses or children. Conversely, for irreligious adults who may not have personal or community influences discouraging certain sexual behaviors, more frequent pornography use may not greatly affect their intimate relationships. This theory is supported by recent research on pornography, religion, and marriage outcomes. Doran and Price (2014) found thatpornographyconsumptionwasnegativelyrelatedtomeasures of marital quality, particularly among men. However, Doran and Price also found that the negative relationship between participants’pornographyuseandmarital qualitywasstrongerforthose
who attended religious services more frequently. Similarly, PattersonandPrice(2012)foundthatthenegativeassociationbetween pornography use and personal happiness was also stronger among thosewhoattendedreligiousservicesmorefrequently.Bothstudies theorized that those who belong to religious groups with greater social norms against pornography use would experience greater guilt or shame for engaging in that activity, thereby affecting them and their relationships more negatively. In these studies, it was not the‘‘religiosity’’or‘‘religious commitment’’of the participant per se that was measured in religious service attendance, but the participants’ embeddedness within a religious group that stigmatized pornography use. In their account, the social guilt or shame of viewing pornography while belonging to such a group is what might decrease marital quality more severely. Supporting this idea, research by Perry (2016c) has shown that the negative association betweenpornuseandmarital qualityisexacerbated as the religious commitment of one’s spouse increases, indicating that strong ties to persons who discourage porn viewing might increase the psychic costs for frequent consumers. Hypotheses Becauseofthepotentialshame,emotionaldistance,andparental distraction associated with frequent pornography use (Corley & Schneider, 2003; Maltz & Maltz, 2010; Manning, 2006; Schneider, 2000, 2003), it is proposed that: Hypothesis 1 More frequent pornography viewing will be negatively associated with measures of parent–child relationship quality. Relatedly, following research showing that the negative relationship between pornography consumption and marital quality isstrongerforthosewhoaremoredeeplyembeddedinareligious community (Doran & Price, 2014; Perry, 2016c), it is expect that: Hypothesis 2 Any negative relationship between parents’ pornography viewing frequency and parent–child relationship outcomes will be stronger for those who attend religious services more often. Lastly, research on the links being viewing pornography and heterosexual romantic relationships finds that the effects of porn useareoftengendered,withmalesbeingmorenegativelyaffected withintimacyandcommitment issuesrelativeto women(Bridges & Morokoff, 2011; Doran & Price, 2014; Maddox et al., 2011; Poulsen et al., 2013; Yucel & Gassanov, 2010). This is possibly owing to different use patterns between men and women, with men being more likely to use pornography alone to masturbate rather than as a part of relational intimacy (Bridges & Morokoff, 2011). Moreover, due to a variety of cultural and structural factors that gender labor force participation and the division of household labor, fathers already tend to spend less time with children than mothers (Folbre & Bittman, 2004). Thus, fathers’ connection to
123
Arch Sex Behav
theirchildrenisalreadymoretenuousthanthatofmothers,which is bolstered by the mechanisms that perpetuate gender inequality. Given these realities, it is predicted that: Hypothesis 3 The negative association between pornography viewing frequency and parent–child relationship quality will be stronger for fathers.
March to September 2012, with 1314 participants successfully reinterviewed. After accounting for participants from 2006 who died or where mentally incapacitated, the Wave 2 response rate was 53%. The second wave was administered through self-administered Web survey, computer-assisted telephone interviewing, and face-to-face interviewing (Emerson & Sikkink, 2006– 2012). Measures
Method Parent–Child Relationship Outcomes Participants DataforthisstudyweredrawnprimarilyfromWave1ofthePortraits of American Life Study (PALS), which was fielded in 2006. PALS is a nationally representative panel survey with questions focusing on a variety of topics, including social networks, moralandpoliticalattitudes,andreligiouslife.ThePALSsampling frame included the civilian, non-institutionalized household population in the continental U.S. who were 18 years of age or older at the time the survey was conducted. Surveys were administered in English or Spanish. From April to October 2006, face-to-face interviews were conducted with 2610 participants in their homes. Interviewers used audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (ACASI) for more sensitive questions (e.g., how often they viewed pornography).Theresponseratewas58percent.PALSdataincludedsamplingweightsthat,onceapplied,bringthePALSsampleinlinewith the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) 3year average estimates for 2005–2007 (Emerson, Sikkink, & James,2010). Theseweightswere usedinall analyses. Because this study focuses on parent–child relationships, only participants who had children at the time of the study were included in the analytical sample. The full models ultimately used data from participants who provided valid responses to focal measures used in theanalyses. Specifically, these modelsemployed foursamples ranging from 1668 to 1676 participants, with variation in size due to slight response fluctuations across each of the dependent variables. Although the second wave of PALS data from 2012 are available, the 6-year lag between waves made these data less appropriate as the focal data set for this study linking pornography use to parent–child relationship outcomes. Because questions about pornography use were only asked in 2006, models must predict parent–child relationship outcomes in 2012 based on parents’ pornographyconsumptionin2006.Withinthe6-yearlagbetween waves, it may be that family disruptions have occurred or children mayhavesimplygrownandmovedoutofthehouse.Nevertheless, the ability to make use of the longitudinal panel design is important if only to provide supporting evidence of temporal precedence and directionality. Thus, while this study primarily made use of the 2006 data in the analyses, the study included a supplementary analysis incorporating 2006 and 2012 data as a check for causal ordering. The second wave of PALS was conducted from
123
The dependent variables for this study were measures of parent– child relationship quality. PALS included three measures tapping the frequency and nature of interactions between parents and their children:‘‘How often do you communicate with your child or children, whether in person or through other means?’’ ‘‘How often do you eat at the table with your child or children?’’ And ‘‘How often do you yell at your children?’’ Responses for these three questions ranged from 1 = never to 7 = more than once a day. Participants were also asked about their perceived closeness with their child(ren):‘‘Overall, how close do you feel to your children?’’Responses ranged from 1 = not at all close to 5 = extremely close. Because each of these measures had five values or more, modelswere estimated using ordinary least squares (OLS)regression.Alternateestimationproceduresweretestedsuch as ordinal logistic regression, and the results were substantively the same. The data, however, did not fully meet the proportional odds assumption of ordinal regression, and thus, OLS was the most appropriate estimation procedure.
Focal Predictor Variables The focal independent variables for this study were participants’ frequency of pornography consumption and their religious service attendance. To measure frequency of pornography use among American adults, PALS asked participants,‘‘In the past 12 months, how often have you viewed pornographic materials?’’To mitigate thepossibilityofsocialdesirabilitybias,eachPALSparticipant wore earphones to hear this question prerecorded and then entered theirresponsesdirectlyintothecomputerapartfromtheknowledge or help of the interviewer (Emerson et al., 2010). Responses ranged from 1 = onceadayormoreto8 = never.Responseswerereversecoded so that higher values indicate more frequent porn viewing. Frequencyofreligiousserviceattendancewasmeasuredwith aPALSquestionaskinghowoftenparticipantsattendedworship servicesnot includingweddingsandfunerals. Responsesranged from 1 = never to 8 = three times a week or more. While Doran and Price (2014) dichotomized church attendance into weekly attendeesandthosewhoattendedlessoften,the8-valuemeasure wasretained.Bothpornographyviewingfrequencyandworship attendance were centered at their mean for the multivariate
Arch Sex Behav
analyses and to construct the interaction terms (Kraemer & Blasey, 2004).
Results Bivariate Analyses
Controls Multivariate analyses included a variety of sociodemographic and religious controls, following previous research on pornography use and family outcomes (Bridges, Bergner, & HessonMcInnis2003;Bridges&Morokoff,2011;Doran&Price,2014; Perry, 2016c, d; Poulsen et al., 2013; Short et al., 2015; Stack et al., 2004). Age was measured in years from 19 to 80. Dichotomous dummy variables were constructed for gender (male = 1), whether participants were married (yes = 1), whether participants had children in the home (yes = 1), whether participants had children not in the home (yes = 1), education (Bachelors degree or higher = 1), and region (South = 1). A series of dummy variables were used for race (white = reference). Household income was measured from (1) less than $5000 to (19) $200,000 or more.1 Apart from religious service attendance, the analyses included controls for religious factors that might also be related both to pornography consumption and parent–child interaction. Religious tradition was measured with a modified version of the RELTRAD classification scheme (Steensland et al., 2000). Categories included conservative Protestant, mainline Protestant, Other Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Other, and None or Unaffiliated. Conservative Protestants were the reference category. Theological conservatism was measured with a PALS question asking participants about whether they believed their religious text to be‘‘fully inspired by God.’’Responses included 1 = fully inspired by God, 2 = partly inspired by God, 3 = not inspired by God, and 4 = I have never heard of that religious text. This measure was dichotomized so that 1 = fully inspired by God, 0 = other. Participantswitha 1forthismeasurewouldbemorelikely to view the moral teachings of their sacred text as authoritative.Table 1showsdescriptivestatisticsforall variablesinthe analysis.
1
The two variables about having children either in or out of the home are not mutually exclusive. Though several of the outcomes like eating at the same table with one’s children or yelling at one’s children would primarily take place when children are in the home, and less so when children are out of the home, we include them both in order to account for parents who are either in blended families (with younger and older children) or have simply been parents longer. Supplementary analyses alternated including either variable across all models to test for whether including both variables made any difference in the substantive findings. No significant differences were detected.
Table 2 shows the zero-order correlations between the dependent variables and focal independent variables. Several significant correlations are worth noting. While researchers would not evaluate yelling at one’s children as a positive indicator of parent–child relationship quality, it was positively associated with other constructive outcomes, such as frequency of communication with one’s children (r = .39, df = 1663, p\.001), eating atthesametablewithchildren(r = .40,df = 1663,p\.001),and feeling close to one’s children (r = .12, df = 1663, p\.001). This is likely because parents who interact more frequently with theirchildrenwouldnaturallyhavemoreoccasiontoyellatthem thanparentswhoseldom talkorinteractwiththeirchildren.Regarding the focal independent variables, pornography viewing frequency was positively associated with yelling at one’s children (r = .12, df = 1663, p\.001), but negatively associated with feeling close to one’s children (r = -.06, df = 1663, p = .01). Surprisingly, frequency of pornography use was positively (though weakly) associated with communicating with one’s children at the bivariate level (r = .05, df = 1663, p = .032). Religious service attendance was positively related to eating at the same table with children (r = .07, df = 1663, p = .002) and negatively related to yelling at one’s children (r = -.06, df = 1663, p = .006). While these bivariate associations were somewhat small, multivariate analyses were used to assess their robustness with relevant controls in place as well as to observe the ways they potentially moderate one another’s relationship with parent–child relationship outcomes. Multivariate Analyses Pornography Use and Parent–Child Relationship Quality Table 3 shows the OLS regression models predicting the four different parent–child relationship outcomes. For each dependent variable, a main effects model and a model that includes the interaction term have been measured. Models present both unstandardized (b) and standardized (b) beta coefficients along with standard errors. Predicting communication with one’s children, more frequent porn viewing was nonsignificant. In the second outcome, the association between pornography viewing frequency and how often parents ate at the same table with their children was significant and negative in the main effects model (b = -.08, b = -.06, p = .004). As in the bivariate results, pornography viewing frequency was positively associated with the third outcome, how often parents yelled at their children (b = .06, b = .05, p = .03), though this was not among the strongest predictors in the model. Lastly, frequency of pornography use was not associated with feeling close to one’s children in the main effects model.
123
Arch Sex Behav Table 1 Descriptive statistics and mean comparisons. Source 2006 PALS (weighted) Variables
Description
Full
Male
Female
Mean SD or %
Mean SD or %
Mean SD or %
Never = 1, more than once a day = 7
5.9
1.5 5.5c
1.7 6.1
1.4
How often do you eat at same table with your children? Never = 1, more than once a day = 7
4.5
2.0 4.3c
2.0 4.6
2.0
How often do you yell at your children? How close do you feel to your children?
Never = 1, more than once a day = 7 Not at all close = 1, extremely close = 5
2.7 4.4
1.8 2.5c .8 4.2c
1.7 2.8 .9 4.5
1.8 .7
Pornography viewing
Never = 1, once a day or more = 8
1.8
1.4 2.4c
1.9 1.3
.9
c
How often do you communicate with your children?
Religious service attendance
Never = 1, three or more times a week = 8
3.7
Conservative Protestant (ref.)
Conservative Protestant = 1
33%
2.2 3.5
22%
Mainline Protestant
Mainline Protestant = 1
15%
10%
12%
Other Protestant
Other Protestant = 1
3%
5%a
3%
2.2 4
Catholic
Catholic = 1
27%
29%
30%
Jewish
Jewish = 1
2%
1%
1%
Other
Other = 1
5%
6%
5%
None
None = 1
14%
17%c
11%
Scriptural inspiration
Full inspiration = 1
62%
61%c
67%
Male
Male = 1
37%
Age
In years, from 18 to 80
49
15.3 48
14.5 46 c
68% 51% 50%
Children in home
Lives with any child(ren) = 1
64%
57%
Children not in home Married
Has child(ren) not living in household = 1 Married = 1
56% 56%
64% 68%c
Bachelors or higher
Bachelors or higher = 1
22%
Household income
Less than $5000 = 1, $200,000 or more = 19 8.6
26% 4.6 9.6c
15.7
20% 4.4 8
White (ref.)
White = 1
49%
51%
48%
Black
Black = 1
22%
20%
23%
Hispanic
Hispanic = 1
22%
21%
22%
Asian
Asian = 1
6%
7%
6%
Native American
Native American = 1
1%
1%
1%
South
South = 1
35%
35%
34%
a
2.2
24%
4.7
Difference significant at .05
b
Difference significant at .01
c
Difference significant at .001
Religious Service Attendance, Pornography Use, and Parent–Child Relationship Quality Unlike frequency of porn viewing, religious service attendance was positively associated with communicating with one’s childrenandwasamongthefivestrongestpredictorsinthemaineffects model (b = .06, b = .09, p\.001). In the interaction model, the interaction term was statistically significant and negative (b = -.03, b = -.07, p = .003). This indicates that, as pornography consumption increased, parents who attended religious services more frequently showed declining communication with their children, compared to those who attended religious services less often. For the second outcome, how often parents ate at the same table with their children, religious service attendance showed a positive association (b = .10, b = .11, p\.001). Frequency of
123
pornography use and worship attendance were the fifth and third strongest predictors, respectively. The interaction term, however, was negative and statistically significant (b = -.03, b = -.05, p = .02), indicating that among parents who attended religious services more often, viewing pornography more frequently wasassociatedwith adeclineineatingat thesametablewithone’s children. Religious service attendance was not significantly related to the third outcome, yelling at one’s children. However, the interaction term was positive and significant (b = .03, b = .05, p = .026). Thus, while religious service attendance was not associated with yelling at one’s children in the main effects, among parents who attended religious services more frequently, those who viewed pornography more often were more likely to yell at their children.
Arch Sex Behav Table 2 Correlations between major variables of interest. Source 2006 PALS (weighted) Variables
1
2
3
4
5
6
1. How often do you communicate with your children?
1
2. How often do you eat at same table with your children?
.58***
1
3. How often do you yell at your children?
.39***
.40***
1
4. How close do you feel to your children?
.46***
.35***
.12***
1
5. Pornography viewing
.05*
.04
.12***
-.06**
1
6. Religious service attendance
.04
.07**
-.07**
.03
-.20***
1
* p B .05; ** p B .01; *** p B .001 (two-tailed tests)
Lastly, like viewing pornography, religious service attendance was not associated with feeling close to one’s children in the main effects model. While the interaction term also did not attain statistical significance (p = .07), pornography viewing frequencybecamestatisticallysignificantintheinteractionmodel(b = -.04,b = -.07,p\.021).Withbothlower-ordertermscenteredat their means, this suggests that among those of average worship attendance, pornography use was a negative predictor of feeling close to one’s children. Figure 1 illustrates the moderating effect of religious service attendance on the link between pornography viewing frequency and each measure of parent–child relationship quality. Because bothmeasurescontainmultiplevalues,foreaseofinterpretation, the lowest, middle, and highest values of religious service attendance are plotted across the lowest and highest frequencies of pornographyuse.Amongthosewhoneverviewedpornography, those who reported higher religious service attendance more frequently communicated with their children and ate at the same table with their children compared to those with lower service attendance. Frequent worship attenders were about the same as those who never attended religious services in their tendency to yell at their children and in how close they feel to their children. As pornography consumption increased, however, those who attendedreligiousservicesmostoften showedthe steepest decline intheirfrequencyofcommunicationoreatingatthesametablewith their children, the greatest increase in their tendency to yell at their children, and the strongest decline in feelings of closeness to their children. By contrast, those who never attended religious services appeared to be relatively unaffected by their frequency of viewing pornography.
table with one’s children (b = -.08, p = .10) and feeling close to one’s children (b = -.04, p = .034). Religious service attendance was positively related to communicating with one’s children (b = .08, p = .002) and eating at the same table with one’s children (b = .09, p = .003). The interaction terms for pornography consumption 9 religious service attendance were significant for how often fathers communicated with their children (b = -.04, p = .01), how often they ate with their children (b = -.03, p = .035), and how often they yelled at their children (b = .04, p = .007). These findings are similar to those for the full sample. Higher frequencies of pornography viewing were more strongly associated with negative parent–child relationship outcomes for fathers who attended worship services more often. For mothers, viewing pornography more frequently was negatively associated only with how often they ate at the same table with their children (b = -.18, p = .026), while religious service attendance was a positive predictor of how often they communicated with (b = .04, p = .033) and ate at the same table with their children (b = .10, p\.001). In the interaction models, only the interaction term for how often mothers communicated with their children was significant (b = -.05, p = .026). The more consistently significant findings for fathers over and against mothers are particularly noteworthy since the analytic sample for fathers was considerably smaller (D\100 cases) than that for mothers. Thus, it would appear that the moderating effect of religious service attendance on the link between pornography consumption and parent–child relationship quality, while applying to mothers to some degree, was particularly salient among fathers.
Differences by Gender
While the causal ordering assumed here (that pornography consumption influences parent–child relationship outcomes) has precedent in the literature on pornography use and romantic relationships and certainly makes more intuitive sense than the alternative, cross-sectional data cannot demonstrate causal ordering definitely. As a cross-check, supplementary analyses incorporating the 2012 PALS data are listed in Table 5.3 While
Table 4 splits up the sample by gender. For the sake of space and simplicity, only unstandardized beta coefficients for the focal independent variables and the interaction terms are shown. All models included the full array of controls used in Table 3.2 Regarding fathers, in the main effects, pornography consumptionwassignificantlyandnegativelyrelatedtoeatingatthesame
Supplementary Analyses
3 2
Full results are available upon request from the corresponding author.
Descriptive statistics from the 2012 PALS data are available upon request from the corresponding author.
123
123
Married
Children not in home
Children in home
Male
Age
(.07)
.13
(.08)
-.02
(.08)
1.39***
(.06)
-.35***
(.00)
-.02***
(.07)
.01
(.11)
.32**
Unaffiliated
Scripture inspired
-.01 (.16)
(.25)
.30
(.09)
.11
(.17)
.20
(.10)
.21*
(.02)
.06***
(.02)
-.02
Other religion
Jewish
Catholic
Other Prot.
Mainline Prot.
Conservative Prot. (ref.)
Porn viewing 9 attendance
Religious attendance
Pornography viewing
b
.04
-.01
.45
-.12
-.15
.00
.08
.00
.03
.03
.03
.05
.09
-.02
b
(.07)
.14
(.01)
-.03
(.08)
1.39***
(.06)
-.34***
(.00)
-.02***
(.07)
.02
(.11)
.30**
-.05 (.16)
(.25)
.31
(.09)
.12
(.17)
.20
(.10)
.21*
(.01)
-.03**
(.02)
.05**
(.03)
-.05
b
.04
-.01
.45
-.12
-.16
.01
.07
-.01
.03
.04
.02
.05
-.07
.07
-.05
b
(.09)
.21*
(.11)
-.12
(.11)
1.80***
(.08)
.06
(.00)
-.03***
(.09)
.11
(.13)
.18
-.37 (.20)
(.32)
.78*
(.11)
.18
(.21)
-.09
(.12)
-.07
(.02)
.10***
(.03)
-.08**
b
.05
-.03
.44
.02
-.21
.03
.03
-.04
.05
.04
-.01
-.01
.11
-.06
b
(.09)
.21*
(.11)
-.14
(.11)
1.80***
(.08)
.06
(.00)
-.03***
(.09)
.12
(.14)
.15
-.41* (.20)
(.32)
.79*
(.11)
.19
(.21)
-.09
(.12)
-.06
(.01)
-.03*
(.02)
.09***
(.03)
-.12***
b
.05
-.03
.44
.02
-.21
.03
.03
-.04
.05
.04
-.01
-.01
.05
.10
-.09
b
Interaction model
Main model
Main model
Interaction model
How often do you eat at the same table with children?
How often do you communicate with children?
Table 3 OLS regression predicting parent–child relationship outcomes. Source 2006 PALS (weighted)
(.03)
.09**
b
(.10) (.30)
-.06
.07
(.08)
.22**
(.13)
-.04 -.17
-.03 -.17 (.19)
.00
-.01 -.05
(.20)
-.04 -.33
(.12)
-.04 -.21
(.01)
.03*
(.02)
-.03 -.01
.05
b
Interaction model
.31
(.10)
1.11***
(.08)
-.03 -.11
(.00)
(.09)
-.03
(.10)
(.09)
-.01 -.04
(.10)
-.38*** -.11 -.37***
(.10)
1.10***
(.08)
-.10
(.00)
-.02*** -.18 -.02***
(.08)
.23**
(.13)
-.20
-.20 (.19)
(.30)
-.05
(.10)
-.05
(.20)
-.33
(.12)
-.21
(.02)
-.02
(.03)
.06*
b
Main model
-.01
-.11
.32
-.03
-.18
.06
-.04
-.02
.00
-.01
-.04
-.04
.05
-.01
.08
b
b
(.01)
-.01
(.02)
-.01
(.05)
.06
(.07)
(.00)
-.03 -.00
.03
-.05 -.12
-.01 -.05 (.10)
(.17)
-.05 -.31
(.06)
-.01 -.01
(.11)
-.03 -.13
(.06)
-.01 -.03
.00
(.02)
-.05 -.04*
b
Interaction model
(.05)
.13**
(.05)
.04
(.05)
.38***
(.04)
.07
.02
.22
(.05)
.13**
(.05)
.03
(.05)
.37***
(.04)
-.20*** -.12 -.20***
(.00)
-.00
(.05)
.06
(.07)
-.11
-.04 (.10)
(.17)
-.31
(.06)
-.02
(.11)
-.13
(.06)
-.03
(.01)
-.00
(.02)
-.03
b
Main model
.07
.02
.22
-.12
-.04
.04
-.05
-.01
-.05
-.01
-.03
-.01
-.01
-.02
-.07
b
How often do you yell at children? How close do you feel to children?
Arch Sex Behav
1675
Adjusted R2
N
* p B .05; ** p B .01; *** p B .001 (two-tailed tests)
Standard errors in parentheses
(.18) .36 1675
5.37***
(.06)
.11
(.40)
-.18
(.16)
-.23
(.10)
-.23*
(.10)
-.04
(.18) .35
.03
-.01
-.03
-.05
-.01
5.38***
(.06)
.11
(.40)
-.20
(.16)
-.25
(.10)
-.23*
(.10)
-.04
(.01)
(.08) .03***
.00
b
Constant
South
Native American
Asian
Hispanic
Black
White (ref.)
.10
(.08) .03***
Household income
(.01)
.00
b
.00
b
.04
-.01
-.03
-.05
-.01
.10
.00
b
1668
(.25) .41
4.10***
(.08)
-.02
(.51)
-.21
(.21)
.23
(.13)
.46***
(.13)
-.32*
(.01)
(.10) .02
.36***
b
-.01
-.01
.02
.08
-.05
.04
.08
b
1668
(.25) .41
4.08***
(.08)
-.02
(.51)
-.18
(.21)
.25
(.13)
.46***
(.13)
-.31*
(.01)
(.10) .02
.35***
b
.00
-.01
.03
.08
-.05
.04
.08
b
Interaction model
Main model
Main model
Interaction model
How often do you eat at the same table with children?
How often do you communicate with children?
Bachelors or higher
Table 3 continued
1673
(.24) .29
3.22***
(.08)
-.22**
(.48)
.27
(.20)
.32
(.12)
-.31*
(.12)
.13
(.01)
(.10) .00
-.06
b
b
Interaction model
(.12)
.13
(.01)
(.10) .00
.30
(.47)
.25
(.20)
1673
(.23) .29
3.27***
(.08)
-.06 -.23**
.01
.04
(.12)
-.06 -.31*
.02
.01
-.02 -.05
b
Main model
-.06
.01
.04
-.06
.02
.00
-.01
b
1676
(.13) .08
4.17***
(.04)
-.05
(.26)
.11
(.11)
.11
(.07)
-.02
(.07)
.03
(.01)
(.05) .01
-.02
b
b
Interaction model
(.07)
.03
(.01)
(.05) .01
.11
(.26)
.12
(.11)
1676
(.13) .08
4.16***
(.04)
-.03 -.04
.01
.03
(.07)
-.01 -.01
.01
.03
-.01 -.02
b
Main model
-.03
.01
.03
-.01
.01
.03
-.01
b
How often do you yell at children? How close do you feel to children?
Arch Sex Behav
123
Arch Sex Behav Fig. 1 Predicted values of parent–child relationship quality measures by pornography viewing and religious service attendance
Eat at Table with Children
Communication with Children 7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2 1
1 No Porn Viewing
No Porn Viewing
Highest Porn Viewing
Highest Porn Viewing
Never Attend Middle Attend Highest Attend
Never Attend Middle Attend Highest Attend
Yelling at Children
Closeness with Children
7
5
6 4 5 4
3
3 2 2 1
1 No Porn Viewing
Highest Porn Viewing
Never Attend Middle Attend Highest Attend
the 2012 PALS data are limited in several regards described above, to provide a check of causal ordering, OLS regression models with lagged dependent variables were estimated, predicting the four parent–child relationship outcomes in 2012 with the 2006 measure of pornography viewing frequency. Controls from the 2012 data that were as comparable as possible to the models in Table 3 were included.4 The results indicate that more frequent pornography use in 2006 was significantly and negatively associated with how close parents felt to their children in 2012 (b = -.05, p = .007). Further analyses (not shown) showed thatthiseffectwassignificantforfathers,butnotmothers.Pornographyviewingfrequencyin2006wasnotasignificant predictorof the other parent–child relationship outcomes in 2012, though the direction of the effects was largely consistent with findings in Table 3. There were no significant interactions between pornography viewing in 2006 and religious service attendance in 2012 on parent–child relationship outcomes in 2012. Because of attrition, theNforthesemodels(N = 808)waslessthanhalfthatofmodelsin Table 3.Thus,itishighlypossiblethatthenonsignificanteffectsare due in large part to sample size. Nevertheless, the significant effect 4
The only significant difference in the measures from Table 3 and the analyses with 2012 PALS data are that the 2006 PALS data asked participants whether they had children in the home and whether they had children out of the home. Wave 2 of PALS only asked participants how manychildrentheyhad,sothiswastheonlycontrolaboutchildrenincluded.
123
No Porn Viewing
Highest Porn Viewing
Never Attend Middle Attend Highest Attend
of 2006 pornography consumption on how close parents felt to their children in 2012 suggests that more frequent pornography consumption can temporally precede and contribute to parent– child relationship outcomes over time.
Discussion The findings of this research fill two important empirical gaps in the literature. First, research has shown that more frequent pornography consumption is negatively associated with marital quality by a variety of different measures. However, little to no quantitative research, and none with nationally representative data, had yet tested for whether pornography consumption might be negatively associated with measures of parent–child relationship quality as well. Findings from this study supported that notion, though only partially. Specifically, parents who more frequently view pornography eat at the same table with their children less often and yell at their children more often, even after controlling for a host of relevant ideological and sociodemographic correlates. Splitting the sample by gender showed that fathers replicate these outcomes completely, while mothers who view pornography more often eat at the same table with their children less often. Moreover, making use of both waves of PALS data suggest a directional effect—that
Arch Sex Behav Table 4 Ordinary least squares regression predicting parent–child relationship outcomes across gender. Source 2006 PALS (weighted) How often do you communicate with children?
How often do you eat at the same How often do you yell at How close do you feel to table with children? children? children?
Main model
Interaction model
Main model
Interaction model
Main model
Interaction model
Main model
Interaction model
-.03
-.06*
-.08**
-11***
.05
.10**
-.04*
-.05*
(.03)
(.03)
(.03)
(.04)
(.03)
(.03)
(.02)
(.02)
.08**
.07**
.09**
.08**
-.02
-.01
-.01
-.02
(.02)
(.02)
(.03)
(.04)
(.03)
(.04)
(.02)
Fathers Pornography viewing Religious attendance Porn viewing 9 attendance
-.04**
-.03*
(.01)
.04**
(.02)
(.02) -.01
(.02)
(.01)
Adjusted R2
.42
.42
.46
.46
.30
.31
.09
.09
N
771
771
768
768
771
771
772
772
-.03
-.04
-.18*
-.18*
.11
.11
.01
.00
(.06)
(.06)
(.08)
(.08)
(.03)
(.07)
(.04)
(.04)
.04*
.01
.10***
.09*
-.03
-.03
.01
-.01
(.02)
(.03) -.05*
(.03)
(.04) -.02
(.03)
(.03) -.00
(.01)
(.02) -.01
Adjusted R2
.29
.29
.38
.38
.29
.29
.04
.04
N
904
904
900
900
902
902
904
904
Mothers Pornography viewing Religious attendance Porn viewing 9 attendance
(.02)
(.03)
(.03)
(.02)
Unstandardized betas with standard errors in parentheses. All models control for religious tradition, theological conservatism, age, marriage, whether a participant lives with child(ren), whether a participant has children not living in the household, education, income, region, race/ethnicity, full models are available upon request * p B .05; ** p B .01; *** p B .001 (two-tailed test)
pornography use does influence closeness between parents and children over time, and particularly for fathers. Second, research has also shown that religious attendance is positively associated with measures of family functioning, particularly marital quality (Mahoney, 2010). Recent research, however, argued that the negative link between porn viewing and marital quality might actually be worse for persons who attend religious services more frequently (Doran & Price, 2014; Perry, 2016c). The current study extended and tested this hypothesis by focusing on parent–child relationship quality. Analyses showed that parents (both mothers and fathers) who attended religious services more frequently reported communicating and eating at the same table with their children more often. Interaction effects between porn viewing frequency and religious service attendance, however, showed that the negative effect of pornography consumption on parent–child relationship quality was particularly strong for those who attended religious services more often. This moderating relationship applied more to fathers than to mothers. These empirical findings make several theoretical contributions to research on pornography use, family life, and religion. While a number of studies have suggested that more frequent pornography use, under certain conditions, is associated with lower quality romantic relationships. The current study sug-
gested that this association may extend to parent–child relationships as well. While some researchers have suggested that pornographyuse(particularlywhendoneinisolationandsecrecy) might damage intimate relationships by fostering distrust and insecurity and reducing sexual interest, these are not likely the mechanismsconnectingpornographyusetoparent–childrelationshipquality. Rather, it is more likely that more frequent pornography consumption among parents may be associated with guilt or distraction that might limit interactions between parents and children or make those interactions tense (Manning, 2006). Indeed, the findings that the negative relationship between pornography consumptionandparent–childrelationshipqualitywasparticularlystrong for those who attended religious services more frequently lend furthersupporttothenotionofguiltorshamelimitingparent–child interactions. Research on religion and pornography suggests that frequent violations of the religious–moral stigma against porn use may lead to feelings of shame and scrupulosity that might lead adherents to distance themselves from friends and family (Short et al., 2012). For parents who are more deeply embedded within religious communities who oppose the use of pornography, violationsoftheirmoralcodearemorelikelytobeattendedwithshame andscrupulosity,potentiallyaffectingtheirparent–childrelationships in negative ways (see Perry, 2015). In this regard, the findings of this studyandpreviousworkonpornography,religiousparticipation,and
123
Arch Sex Behav
marriage(Doran&Price,2014;Perry,2016c)areentirelyconsistent. Future research on this topic would do well to incorporate qualitative interviewsthatwouldfurtherfleshoutthemechanismsatworkinthis relationship between pornography and family relationships, and particularlyforpeople with strong religious compunctions about pornography use. Moreover, the relationship between pornography use and parent–child relationship outcomes, as well as themoderating effect of religious service attendance, while somewhat present for both genders, applied more consistently to fathers. These differences are possibly due to the twin situation of fathers on average viewing pornography more often than mothers and being more practically and emotionally disconnected from children than mothers (see Table 1). These trends are corroborated by previous work, showing that pornography use is more strongly associated with negative relationship outcomes for men relative to women (Doran & Price, 2014; Patterson & Price, 2012; Yucel & Gassanov, 2010). Moreover, because the fathers’ pornography use receives more negative attention within religious communities (e.g., Driscoll, 2009), it is unsurprising that the moderating effect of worship attendance and the link between pornography viewing andparent–childrelationshipqualitywouldbemoreconsistentfor fathers. From a more society-wide perspective, as more individuals are consuming sexually explicit media due to the increased cultural acceptance of such media and greater access and privacy afforded by the Internet (Attwood, 2011; Short et al., 2012), the observed link between pornography viewing and parent–child relationship quality may change. For instance, as the consumption of sexually explicit media becomes more culturally accepted and prevalent within families, or least not viewed as‘‘deviant’’or stigmatizing, it is conceivable that parent–child relationships will be less affected by parents feeling shame or the need to distance themselves due to their porn use. In light of this possibility, future studies should make use of longitudinal data that would allow researchers to view how the effects of porn use on family relationships potentially change over time with the culture. This should also be considered in light of those who remain deeply involved in religious communities who frown upon porn viewing. As stigma toward porn use declines among the general public and particularly irreligious people while remaining high among the religious, it is possible that the negative association between pornography use and parent–child relationship quality will only apply to religious persons in the future for whom the activity is still associated with guilt and shame. Limitations Several limitations of the study should be addressed in order to establish directions for future research. Most obviously, the 2006 PALSdataarecrosssectional,andthus,causaldirectioncannotbe definitively determined. However, as demonstrated above, there
123
are reasons to have confidence in the direction proposed in this article (that pornography consumption influences parent–child relationship quality rather than vice versa). First, as stated above, qualitative and experimental research on the issue of pornography and romantic/marriage relationships suggests that it is more often pornography consumption that leads to relational problems, rather than relational problems that lead to greater pornography use. Second and related to this last point, while the possibility of romantic relationship problems leading to greater pornography use certainly makes sense (e.g., a frustrated sex life with one’s partner might reasonably lead to viewing pornography as a release), it is more difficult to see how characteristics of the parent–child relationship would lead to greater pornography consumption. Third, the supplementary analysis incorporating 2006 and 2012 PALS data (see Table 5) showed that pornography viewing in 2006 predicted how close parents felt to their children in 2012, giving further evidence for the directional relationshipassumedinthisstudy.Whiletherearegoodreasonsto hold the directional argument proposed here, stronger causal claims could be made with data that could observe change in porn use between T1 and T2, including panel studies, longitudinal qualitative studies, and perhaps, experimental designs. Second, although the analyses included controls for having ‘‘children in home’’and‘‘children out of home,’’the analysis cannot completely rule out the possibility that questions about conversations with children, time spent eating with children, yelling at children, or closeness with children are not proxies for someof the parents’ children having left the home. If this were the case, the observed associations in Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5 might indicate that parents with children out of the home (with whom they less frequentlyinteract)simplyviewpornographymoreoften.While this is a possibility, it makes less theoretical sense to argue that older parents (those with some children already out of the home) are the ones viewing pornography more often, when, in fact, it is youngeradultswhoviewpornographyfarmorefrequently.Moreover, the fact that pornography use was positively associated with yelling at one’s children (see Tables 2, 3) would suggest that it is not parents who are living away from their children who view pornographymoreoften,but those who currently livewiththeir children. Nevertheless, future research would ideally use more specific measures to ensure that the life stage of the parent–child relationship is more directly controlled for. A third possible limitation was the single measure of pornography consumption. While the PALS measure is helpful in that it is straightforward and allows the researcher to view a range of ‘‘pornography’’viewing (never to several times a day), which is an improvement upon the commonly used General Social Survey (GSS) measure which only asked whether participants had ever viewed an X-rated movie in the past year (Doran & Price, 2014; Wright, 2013, Wright et al., 2013), it is limited, first, in that itdoesnotdefinepornographybutleavesthattotheparticipantto make that determination. While the broad term‘‘pornography’’
Arch Sex Behav Table 5 Ordinary least squares regression models predicting 2012 parent–child relationship outcomes. Source 2006–2012 PALS (weighted) How often do you communicate with children?b
How often do you eat How often do you How close do at the same table with yell at children?b you feel to children?b children?b
b
SE
b
SE
b
SE
b
SE
Pornography viewinga
-.01
.02
-.01
.03
-.01
.00
-.05**
.02
How often do you communicate with your children?a (lagged)
.25***
.02 .30***
.03 .29***
.03
How often do you eat at the same table with children?a (lagged) a
How often do you yell at your children? (lagged) How close do you feel to children?a (lagged) Religious attendanceb
.38***
.03
.01
.01
.06*
.03
.04*
.02
.02
.01
-.09
.11
.03
.19
-.11
.17
-.11
.10
Conservative Protestant (ref.)b Mainline Protestantb Other Protestant
b
-.15
.11
-.10
.20
.08
.18
.12
.11
Catholicb
-.09
.08
.07
.15
.12
.13
-.09
.08
Jewishb
-.31
.21
.28
.37
.06
.33
-.08
.20
Other religionb
-.09
.16
.19
.28
-.21
.25
-.05
.15
-.07
.10
.28
.18
-.03
.16
.04
.10
Scripture inspired Ageb
.22** -.01**
.07 .00
-.07 -.04***
.13 .01
-.29** -.05***
.11 .00
.19** -.01*
.07 .00
Maleb
-.13*
.06
-.16
.11
-.02
.10
-.16**
.06
Number of childrenb
.03
.02
.08*
.03
.08*
.03
-.01
.02
Marriedb
-.05
.07
-.00
.13
.36**
.16
.03
.07
-.09
.08
.16
.13
-.08
.12
-.05
.07
-.00
.01
.01
.01
-.03*
.01
.00
.01
Blackb
.07
.10
.44**
.17
.27
.15
.22*
.09
Hispanicb
.14
.10
.33
.15
-.15
.15
.15
.09
.16
.17
.33
.30
.01
.27
-.10
.16
Unaffiliatedb b
Bachelors or higherb Household income
b
White (ref.)b
Asianb Native American
b
.12
.46
1.45
.81
.90
.72
.36
.44
Southb
-.11
.06
-.07
.11
-.06
.10
.05
.06
Constant
4.33***
.26
3.95***
.41
4.17***
.34
2.91***
.25
Adjusted R2
.22
.34
.39
.23
N
808
808
808
808
* p B .05; ** p B .01; *** p B .001 (two-tailed test) a
2006 PALS
b
2012 PALS
has precedent in most social science studies and numerous data sets, there may be some slippage for participants depending on whattheyconsiderpornographic(e.g.,Internetvideoswheresex is performed, magazines with nude photographs but no sex, erotic fiction, lingerie catalogs). Recent work by Willoughby and Busby (2016) has shown that participants can vary significantly in how they define pornography and often across different characteristics like gender, religious attendance, marital status, and use patterns. Future survey instruments should therefore ask about the specific media used. Related to this, due to rapidly evolving media technologies, and the evolving culture surrounding the consumption of media, our pornography use data from 2006 may already be
somewhatdated.Lastly,themeasuredidnotindicatewhattypesof pornography were consumed. This latter issue is worth exploring further since viewing sexually explicit media that most would defineas‘‘standardfare’’(e.g.,adultheterosexualsex)mighthavea different influenceonone’sintimateand family relationshipsthan media containing more culturally‘‘deviant’’sexual activities (e.g., child pornography, bestiality, or various fetishes). Frequent consumers of the latter more-stigmatized type of pornography might bemorestronglyaffectedbyshameandcognitivedissonancethan those whohabituallyview theformer. Futureresearchon thetopic of how pornography use influences family relationships would thus benefit from using measures of pornography that provide
123
Arch Sex Behav
greater detail about how the participant qualifies‘‘pornography’’ and what types are typically used. Funding This study did not receive any direct funding. Compliance with Ethical Standards Conflict of interest The author declares that he/she has no conflict of interest. Ethical Approval This article does not contain any studies with human participants by any of the authors. Secondary data are used.
References Attwood, F. (2011). The paradigm shift: Pornography research, sexualization and extreme images. Sociology Compass, 5, 13–22. 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. Bergner, R. M., & Bridges, A. J. (2002). The significance of heavy pornography involvement for romantic partners: Research and clinical implications. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 28, 193–206. Bridges, A. J., Bergner, R. M., & Hesson-McInnis, M. (2003). Romantic partner’s use of pornography: Its significance for women. Journal of Sex and 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. Carroll, J. S., Padilla-Walker, L. M., Nelson, L. J., Olson, C. D., McNamara Barry, C., & Madsen, S. D. (2008). Generation XXX: Pornography acceptance and use among emerging adults. Journal of Adolescent Research, 23, 6–30. Corley, M. D., & Schneider, J. P. (2003). Sex addiction disclosure to children: The parents’ perspective. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 10, 291– 324. Doran, K., & Price, J. (2014). Pornography and marriage. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 35, 489–498. Doring, N. M. (2009). The internet’s impact on sexuality: A critical review of 15 years of research. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 1089–1101. Driscoll, M. (2009). Porn again Christian: A frank discussion on pornography and masturbation. The Resurgence: E-book. Edelman, B. (2009). Red light states: Who buys on-line adult entertainment. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23, 209–220. Emerson, M. O., & Sikkink, D. (2006–2012). Portraits of American Life Study, 2006–2012. Emerson, M. O., Sikkink, D., & James, A. (2010). The Panel Study on American religion and ethnicity: Background, methods, and selected results. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 49, 162–171. Folbre, N., & Bittman, M. (2004). Family time: The social organization of care. New York: Routledge. Grov, C., Gillespie, B. J., 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. Kraemer, H. C., & Blasey, C. M. (2004). Centering in regression analyses: A strategy to prevent errors in statistical inference. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 13, 141–151. Lambert,N. M., Negash, S., Stillman, T.F., Olmstead, S. P.,& Fincham, F. D. (2012). A love that doesn’t last: Pornography consumption and
123
weakened commitment to one’s romantic partner. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 31, 410–438. Maddox,A.M.,Rhoades,G.K.,&Markman,H.J.(2011).Viewing sexuallyexplicit materials alone or together: Associations with relationship quality. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 441–448. Mahoney, A. (2010). Religion in families, 1999–2009: A relational spirituality framework. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 805–827. Maltz, W., & Maltz, L. (2010). The porn trap: The essential guide to overcoming problems caused by pornography. New York: Harper. Manning, J. C. (2006). The impact of internet pornography on marriage and the family: A review of the research. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 13, 131–165. Miller, C. H., & Hedges, D. W. (2008). Scrupulosity disorder: An overview and introductory analysis. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 22, 1042– 1058. Muusses, L. D., Kerkhof, P., & Finkenauer, C. (2015). Internet pornography and relationship quality: A longitudinal study of within and between partnereffectsofadjustment,sexualsatisfactionandsexuallyexplicitmaterial among newlyweds. 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. Olmstead, S. B., Negash, S., Pasley, K., & Fincham, F. D. (2013). Emerging adultsexpectationsforpornography use in the context of future committed romanticrelationships: A qualitative study.Archivesof Sexual Behavior, 42, 625–635. 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, 79–89. Perry, S. L. (2015). Pornography consumption as a threat to religious socialization. Sociology of Religion, 76, 436–458. Perry, S. L. (2016a). Does viewing pornography diminish religiosity over time? Evidence from two-wave panel data. Journal of Sex Research. doi:10.1080/00224499.2016.1146203 Perry, S. L. (2016b). Spousal religiosity, religious bonding, and pornography consumption. Archives of Sexual Behavior. doi:10.1007/s10508-0160896-y Perry, S. L. (2016c). From bad to worse? Pornography consumption, spousal religiosity, gender, and marital quality. Sociological Forum, 31, 441– 464. Perry, S. L. (2016d). Does viewing pornography reduce marital quality over time? Evidence from longitudinal data. Archives of Sexual Behavior. doi:10.1007/s10508-016-0770-y Perry, S. L., & Hayward, G. M. (2017). Seeing is (not) believing: How viewing pornography shapes the religious lives of young Americans. Social Forces. doi:10.1093/sf/sow106 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. Schneider, J. P. (2000). Effects of cybersex addiction on the family: Results of a survey. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 7, 31–58. Schneider, J. P. (2003). The impact of compulsive cybersex behaviors on the family. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 18, 329–354. Short, M. B., Black, L., Smith, A. H., Wetterneck, C. T., & Wells, D. E. (2012). A review of internet pornography use research: Methodology and content from the past 10 years. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 13–23. Short, M. B., Kasper, T. E., & Wetterneck, C. T. (2015). The relationship between religiosity and internet pornography use. Journal of Religion and Health, 54, 571–583. Stack, S., Wasserman, I., & Kern, R. (2004). Adult social bonds and use of internet pornography. Social Science Quarterly, 85, 75–88. Steensland, B., Park, J. Z., Regnerus, M. D., Robinson, L., Wilcox, W. B., & Woodberry, R. (2000). The measure of American religion: Toward improving the state of the art. Social Forces, 79, 291–318.
Arch Sex Behav 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. Willoughby, B. J., Carroll, J. S., Busby, D. M., & Brown, C. C. (2016). Differences in pornography use among couples: Associations with satisfaction, stability, and relationship processes. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 145–158. 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.
Yucel, D., & Gassanov, M. A. (2010). Exploring actor and partner correlates of sexual satisfaction among married couples. Social Science Research, 39, 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.
123
