The Role of Inhibitory Control Mechanisms in the Regulation of Sexual Behavior.
Geraldine Rodriguez-Nieto, Franziska Emmerling, Marieke Dewitte, Alexander T Sack, Teresa Schuhmann
Author Information
Geraldine Rodriguez-Nieto: Department of Cognitive Neuroscience, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Oxfordlaan 55, 6229 EV, Maastricht, The Netherlands. geraldine.rodriguez@maastrichtuniversity.nl. ORCID
Franziska Emmerling: Department of Cognitive Neuroscience, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Oxfordlaan 55, 6229 EV, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Marieke Dewitte: Department of Clinical Psychological Science, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Alexander T Sack: Department of Cognitive Neuroscience, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Oxfordlaan 55, 6229 EV, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Teresa Schuhmann: Department of Cognitive Neuroscience, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Oxfordlaan 55, 6229 EV, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Sexual behavior is the open manifestation of a complex interplay between psychophysiological mechanisms that either facilitate or inhibit sexual thoughts, desires, and associated behaviors. Whereas sexual excitation has been widely studied, less is known about the impact of inhibitory control mechanisms that enable individuals to refrain from sexual cognition and behavior. The present study examined: (1) the relationship between general and sexual inhibitory mechanisms (as measured through self-reports and computer-based tasks), (2) the relation between sexual inhibitory processes at cognitive and motor-motivational levels and with sexual inhibition as an individual trait, and (3) the predictive value of these parameters on sexual thoughts (cognition) and behavior. We demonstrate that general inhibitory control (i.e., the ability to suppress any preponderant response) and the specific inhibition of sexual responses represent distinct processes that require at least partly different control mechanisms. Similarly, the ability to inhibit sexual visual input and the ability to suppress sexually driven responses seem to be two independent processes. The different inhibitory processes distinctively predicted the frequency of sexual thoughts and sexual behavior. We propose that these different inhibitory mechanisms are at play during different phases of sexual regulation (before and after the generation and unfolding of sexual arousal) and that a specific deficit in one of these processes may underlie the distinctive symptomatology and comorbidity of sexual disorders.
