{"rubric":{"version":"2.0","name":"Master Research Evaluation Framework (7-Domain), evidence-grounded edition","summary":"Every study is scored on the seven Master Framework domains Daniel Burgess developed for this database (Construct Validity, Neuroimaging Methodology, Statistical Rigor, Confound Control across the five critical confounds, Research Design, Addiction Criteria, and Interpretation & Bias Control), each 0-10, with Neuroimaging and Addiction Criteria marked N/A when a study makes no such claims. The raw total is normalised to a percentage of the maximum possible (70, 60 or 50) and reported as a 1-10 quality score with a rating label, exactly as the original evaluator does. What is new in v2 is that every domain's level descriptors are anchored to the appraisal instruments and methodological literature that evidence-based medicine and psychological science already use (GRADE, Cochrane RoB 2, ROBINS-I, AMSTAR 2, STROBE/CONSORT/PRISMA, the neuroimaging power and reproducibility literature, the ICD-11 CSBD criteria, and the sexuality-research measurement and sampling literature), an 11-point rapid red-flag screen is applied, and a GRADE-style certainty label is derived. AI appraisals are generated from the abstract and metadata only and are labelled as such; expert-reviewed entries are marked separately.","dimensions":[{"key":"construct_validity","label":"1. Construct validity & operational definitions","nullable":false,"question":"Are the key constructs (pornography use, masturbation, 'problematic use', 'addiction', distress) defined and measured with validated instruments, and is behaviour frequency measured separately from subjective distress or self-perceived addiction? Scales that define addiction by the distress it supposedly causes are circular.","anchors":["kohut2020_shaky_science","short2012_ip_methods_review","fernandez2021_ppu_instruments","bothe2018_ppcs","grubbs2021_current_directions"],"levels":{"9-10":"Validated, psychometrically evaluated instruments; behaviour and distress measured separately; objective or physiological measures where relevant","7-8":"Validated instruments for most constructs; minor reliance on single-item self-report","5-6":"Mixed validated and ad hoc measures; frequency measured but crudely","3-4":"Mostly unvalidated or single-item measures; 'addiction' inferred from self-label","0-2":"Circular or undefined measures; constructs not operationalised"}},{"key":"neuroimaging","label":"2. Neuroimaging methodology","nullable":true,"question":"Only for studies that use or make claims from EEG/ERP, fMRI, structural MRI, PET or other neural measures (otherwise N/A). Adequate sample for the imaging method, matched control group, correction for multiple comparisons, and no reverse inference (BOLD signal is not dopamine; cortical EEG is not striatal activity).","anchors":["button2013_power","poldrack2017_horizon","prause2015_lpp","prause2017_lancet_psych","stark2018_behav_neurosci","kowalewska2018_neurocognitive","kuhn2014_jama"],"levels":{"9-10":"Pre-registered, adequately powered (per-group N appropriate to the method), matched controls, whole-brain correction, claims limited to what the measure can show","7-8":"Matched controls and correction, modest sample; inference appropriately hedged","5-6":"Small sample or no active control; some over-interpretation","3-4":"Small cross-sectional sample interpreted as causal change, or reverse inference from BOLD/EEG to neurotransmitters","0-2":"Neural claims without neural data, or method cannot support the claim"}},{"key":"statistics","label":"3. Statistical rigor, power & effect sizes","nullable":false,"question":"Adequate power, effect sizes with confidence intervals, correction for multiple comparisons, pre-registration or a registered report, no signs of undisclosed analytic flexibility.","anchors":["sterne2019_rob2","simmons2011_false_positive","nosek2018_prereg","osc2015_reproducibility","button2013_power"],"levels":{"9-10":"Pre-registered or registered report; effect sizes and CIs; power justified; open data or code","7-8":"Appropriate models, effect sizes reported, multiple comparisons handled","5-6":"Conventional NHST with p-values; effect sizes partly reported","3-4":"Underpowered (N < 60 for a between-groups comparison), many uncorrected tests, or results reported only as significant/non-significant","0-2":"Analysis inappropriate for the design or not described"}},{"key":"confounds","label":"4. Confound control (masturbation, moral incongruence, mental health, dyadic/partner, trauma/ACEs)","nullable":false,"question":"Were the five critical confounds measured and statistically controlled? For any outcome involving distress, 'perceived addiction' or problematic use, moral incongruence/religiosity is the single most important control; pornography use co-occurs with masturbation in the large majority of episodes, so the two must be separated; depression/anxiety, relationship/partner effects and trauma/ACEs are the other established alternative explanations. Non-sexuality studies are judged on the standard ROBINS-I confounding domain.","anchors":["sterne2016_robins_i","grubbs2019_ppmi_meta","grubbs2020_cps_moral_incongruence","grubbs2020_jabn_moral_incongruence","lewczuk2020_ppmi_test","jennings2021_csb_religiosity_review"],"levels":{"9-10":"Moral incongruence/religiosity, masturbation, mental health and partner/trauma covariates all measured and modelled; sensitivity analyses","7-8":"Most of the five controlled, including moral incongruence or religiosity","5-6":"Some controls (demographics, mood); moral incongruence not measured but acknowledged","3-4":"Minimal controls; obvious alternative explanations untested","0-2":"No controls; conclusions ignore alternative explanations"}},{"key":"design","label":"5. Research design, causal architecture & sampling","nullable":false,"question":"Does the design support the kind of claim being made, and was the sample drawn in a way that lets the result generalise? Synthesis of randomised or longitudinal evidence sits at the top; a single cross-sectional convenience survey or a case series sits near the bottom. Sexuality research is particularly prone to volunteer and WEIRD-sample bias, and treatment-seeking or abstinence-forum samples cannot be generalised to all users.","anchors":["guyatt2008_grade","shea2017_amstar2","page2021_prisma","schulz2010_consort","vonelm2007_strobe","stang2010_nos","henrich2010_weird","strassberg1995_volunteer_bias","wiederman1999_volunteer_bias","dawson2019_volunteer_bias"],"levels":{"9-10":"Meta-analysis/systematic review with risk-of-bias assessment, pre-registered RCT, or nationally representative probability sample with longitudinal follow-up","7-8":"RCT or controlled laboratory experiment, longitudinal/cohort design with temporal precedence, or large representative cross-sectional sample","5-6":"Cross-sectional design with a large community sample or multiple samples","3-4":"Single cross-sectional convenience survey (students, treatment-seekers, forums), retrospective chart review, qualitative study","0-2":"Case report, commentary, narrative review without method, or no empirical data"}},{"key":"addiction_criteria","label":"6. Addiction criteria evaluation (tolerance vs habituation, withdrawal, compulsivity, neurobiology, ICD-11 alignment)","nullable":true,"question":"Only for studies that invoke, test or treat an addiction/compulsivity/CSBD construct (otherwise N/A). Does the study actually test the defining criteria (tolerance distinguished from habituation, withdrawal, loss of control, continued use despite harm) rather than assuming them? Is it consistent with the ICD-11 CSBD definition, including the exclusion of distress that is entirely due to moral disapproval?","anchors":["kraus2018_icd11_csbd","ley2014_emperor","prause2017_lancet_psych","grubbs2020_cps_moral_incongruence","stark2018_behav_neurosci"],"levels":{"9-10":"Criteria operationalised and tested directly; habituation and moral incongruence ruled out; ICD-11-consistent","7-8":"Most criteria addressed; appropriate caveats about the construct","5-6":"Addiction framing assumed from a screening scale; some criteria untested","3-4":"Addiction asserted from self-label, frequency or distress alone","0-2":"Criteria contradicted by the study's own data yet addiction claimed"}},{"key":"interpretation","label":"7. Interpretation, diagnostic alignment & bias control","nullable":false,"question":"Do the conclusions stay within what the design can show, are limitations and conflicts of interest reported, and is the framing free of advocacy in either direction (pro-pathology or anti-pathology)? Correlational data presented as causal, neuroimaging differences presented as 'damage', or self-perceived addiction presented as clinical addiction are overreach.","anchors":["ioannidis2005_false","vonelm2007_strobe","schulz2010_consort","page2021_prisma","ley2014_emperor","grubbs2021_current_directions"],"levels":{"9-10":"Conclusions precisely matched to design; alternative explanations weighed; limitations and COI stated; clinical claims consistent with ICD-11/DSM-5 status","7-8":"Appropriately hedged with minor overstatement in abstract or discussion","5-6":"Some causal language from correlational data, or findings over-interpreted","3-4":"Conclusions substantially exceed the evidence; advocacy framing; limitations missing","0-2":"Claims contradicted by the study's own data or design"}}],"scoring":"raw_total = sum of the scored domains; max_possible = 10 x number of scored domains (70, 60 or 50 depending on whether Neuroimaging and Addiction Criteria apply); pct_score = raw_total / max_possible x 100; quality_score = round(pct_score / 10), range 1-10; rating: Excellent >= 85%, Good >= 72%, Fair >= 58%, Poor >= 45%, otherwise Inadequate.","certainty":"GRADE-style certainty starts at the design tier (synthesis/RCT = high, longitudinal/experimental = moderate, cross-sectional = low, case/commentary = very low) and is downgraded one step for each of: serious risk of bias (confounds or construct validity <= 4), imprecision (statistics <= 4), or overreach (interpretation <= 4). It is upgraded one step when a lower design shows a well-controlled, well-analysed, cautiously interpreted effect (confounds, statistics and interpretation all >= 8).","confounds_checked":{"moralIncongruence":"Moral disapproval, religiosity or moral incongruence measured and modelled","masturbationSeparated":"Masturbation or solitary sexual behaviour measured separately from pornography viewing","mentalHealthControlled":"Depression, anxiety or other mental-health covariates measured","dyadicOrPartnerAssessed":"Partner, relationship or dyadic effects assessed","traumaACEsAssessed":"Trauma, ACEs or abuse history assessed"},"red_flags":[{"key":"no_mi_control","label":"No moral-incongruence / religiosity control","detail":"Outcome is distress, 'perceived addiction' or problematic use and the study did not measure moral disapproval or religiosity."},{"key":"masturbation_not_isolated","label":"Masturbation not isolated from pornography use","detail":"Pornography effects claimed without measuring masturbation, which co-occurs in the large majority of viewing episodes."},{"key":"circular_addiction_scale","label":"Circular / non-validated addiction scale","detail":"'Addiction' measured by a self-label or a scale that defines it by the distress it is then said to cause (e.g., 'I feel addicted')."},{"key":"causal_from_correlational","label":"Cross-sectional correlation claimed as causation","detail":"Associations from a single time point described as effects, harms, rewiring or consequences."},{"key":"fmri_reverse_inference","label":"fMRI reverse inference","detail":"BOLD activation differences interpreted as dopamine or receptor changes without PET or neurochemical measurement."},{"key":"eeg_spatial_overclaim","label":"EEG spatial-resolution overclaim","detail":"Cortical EEG/ERP signal interpreted as evidence about subcortical (striatal, mesolimbic) activity."},{"key":"underpowered_sample","label":"Underpowered sample","detail":"N < 60 for a between-groups comparison (or clearly under-powered for the design); high winner's-curse risk."},{"key":"self_selected_sample","label":"Self-selected or treatment-seeking sample generalised","detail":"Recruited from treatment programmes, abstinence/reboot forums or advocacy audiences and generalised to all users without a comparison group."},{"key":"selective_reporting","label":"Selective reporting / no pre-registration","detail":"Outcomes or analyses appear chosen after seeing the data; many comparisons without correction and no pre-registration."},{"key":"advocacy_or_coi","label":"Advocacy framing or undisclosed conflict of interest","detail":"Language or funding indicates a predetermined conclusion in either direction; conflict of interest not disclosed."},{"key":"retracted_or_notice","label":"Retraction or editorial notice","detail":"The paper carries a retraction, expression of concern or correction (checked via scite)."}],"stance_scale":{"label":"Position on the pathology ('sex/porn addiction') model","values":{"strongly-opposes":"Evidence directly challenges the addiction/pathology model (e.g., moral incongruence explains distress; cue-reactivity opposite to addiction)","opposes":"Evidence weighs against the model, or supports a sexual-health / agency framework, with limitations","neutral":"Does not clearly bear on the model, is domain-general, or findings are mixed","supports":"Evidence consistent with a dysregulation/addiction account, with notable limitations","strongly-supports":"Advocates the disease/addiction model"}},"citation_value":{"essential":"Foundational, high-quality; cite extensively","useful":"Good quality; supports or refines arguments","strategic":"Engage with it as the strongest counter-evidence or opposing view","avoid":"Low quality or misleading; do not cite as evidence","background":"Context only (commentary, policy, non-empirical)"},"scite":"Smart Citation tallies (supporting / contrasting / mentioning) come from scite.ai, which classifies the sentences in which later papers cite a study. A high contrasting ratio is a reason to read a study's critics; a high supporting count is corroboration, not proof. See Nicholson et al. 2021.","statuses":{"ai":"AI appraisal from abstract and metadata only (Cloudflare Workers AI, gpt-oss-120b, rubric v2). Not peer review. May be wrong on details only visible in the full text.","expert":"Reviewed by Daniel A. Burgess, LMFT against the full paper, with the 7-domain Master Rubric scores recorded.","community":"Submitted through the Community Hub evaluator and scored by the original rule-based 7-domain engine; not yet expert-reviewed.","ai_flagged":"AI appraisal where the model reported low confidence or the abstract was thin; treat with caution."}},"sources":[{"key":"guyatt2008_grade","doi":"10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD","title":"GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations","authors":["Gordon H. Guyatt","Andrew D. Oxman","Gunn E. Vist"],"year":2008,"journal":"BMJ","role":"appraisal_standard","tally":{"supporting":22,"contrasting":3,"citingPublications":24275},"editorialNotices":null,"isOa":true},{"key":"sterne2019_rob2","doi":"10.1136/bmj.l4898","title":"RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials","authors":["Jonathan A. C. Sterne","Jelena Savović","Matthew J. Page"],"year":2019,"journal":"BMJ","role":"appraisal_standard","tally":{"supporting":17,"contrasting":3,"citingPublications":35788},"editorialNotices":null,"isOa":true},{"key":"sterne2016_robins_i","doi":"10.1136/bmj.i4919","title":"ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions","authors":["Jonathan A. C. Sterne","Miguel A. Hernán","Barnaby C. Reeves"],"year":2016,"journal":"BMJ","role":"appraisal_standard","tally":{"supporting":21,"contrasting":2,"citingPublications":21720},"editorialNotices":null,"isOa":true},{"key":"shea2017_amstar2","doi":"10.1136/bmj.j4008","title":"AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both","authors":["Beverley J. Shea","Barnaby C. Reeves","George A. Wells"],"year":2017,"journal":"BMJ","role":"appraisal_standard","tally":{"supporting":28,"contrasting":0,"citingPublications":11666},"editorialNotices":null,"isOa":true},{"key":"stang2010_nos","doi":"10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z","title":"Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses","authors":["Andreas Stang"],"year":2010,"journal":"European Journal of Epidemiology","role":"appraisal_standard","tally":{"supporting":14,"contrasting":3,"citingPublications":18596},"editorialNotices":null,"isOa":false},{"key":"vonelm2007_strobe","doi":"10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296","title":"The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies","authors":["Erik von Elm","Douglas G. Altman","Matthias Egger"],"year":2007,"journal":"PLoS Medicine","role":"appraisal_standard","tally":{"supporting":35,"contrasting":0,"citingPublications":23125},"editorialNotices":null,"isOa":true},{"key":"schulz2010_consort","doi":"10.1136/bmj.c332","title":"CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials","authors":["Kenneth F. Schulz","Douglas G. Altman","David Moher"],"year":2010,"journal":"BMJ","role":"appraisal_standard","tally":{"supporting":24,"contrasting":3,"citingPublications":11813},"editorialNotices":null,"isOa":true},{"key":"page2021_prisma","doi":"10.1136/bmj.n71","title":"The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews","authors":["Matthew J. Page","Joanne E. McKenzie","Patrick M. Bossuyt"],"year":2021,"journal":"BMJ","role":"appraisal_standard","tally":{"supporting":110,"contrasting":8,"citingPublications":116711},"editorialNotices":null,"isOa":true},{"key":"button2013_power","doi":"10.1038/nrn3475","title":"Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience","authors":["Katherine S. Button","John P. A. Ioannidis","Claire Mokrysz"],"year":2013,"journal":"Nature Reviews Neuroscience","role":"reproducibility","tally":{"supporting":128,"contrasting":32,"citingPublications":8290},"editorialNotices":null,"isOa":true},{"key":"poldrack2017_horizon","doi":"10.1038/nrn.2016.167","title":"Scanning the horizon: towards transparent and reproducible neuroimaging research","authors":["Russell A. Poldrack","Chris I. Baker","Joke Durnez"],"year":2017,"journal":"Nature Reviews Neuroscience","role":"reproducibility","tally":{"supporting":43,"contrasting":1,"citingPublications":1654},"editorialNotices":null,"isOa":true},{"key":"ioannidis2005_false","doi":"10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124","title":"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False","authors":["John P. A. Ioannidis"],"year":2005,"journal":"PLoS Medicine","role":"reproducibility","tally":{"supporting":83,"contrasting":12,"citingPublications":11539},"editorialNotices":null,"isOa":true},{"key":"simmons2011_false_positive","doi":"10.1177/0956797611417632","title":"False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant","authors":["Joseph P. Simmons","Leif D. Nelson","Uri Simonsohn"],"year":2011,"journal":"Psychological Science","role":"reproducibility","tally":{"supporting":19,"contrasting":1,"citingPublications":6842},"editorialNotices":null,"isOa":false},{"key":"nosek2018_prereg","doi":"10.1073/pnas.1708274114","title":"The preregistration revolution","authors":["Brian A. Nosek","Charles R. Ebersole","Alexander C. DeHaven"],"year":2018,"journal":"Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences","role":"reproducibility","tally":{"supporting":11,"contrasting":2,"citingPublications":2381},"editorialNotices":null,"isOa":true},{"key":"henrich2010_weird","doi":"10.1017/S0140525X0999152X","title":"The weirdest people in the world?","authors":["Joseph Henrich","Steven J. Heine","Ara Norenzayan"],"year":2010,"journal":"Behavioral and Brain Sciences","role":"reproducibility","tally":{"supporting":147,"contrasting":13,"citingPublications":13890},"editorialNotices":null,"isOa":false},{"key":"osc2015_reproducibility","doi":"10.1126/science.aac4716","title":"Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science","authors":["Open Science Collaboration"],"year":2015,"journal":"Science","role":"reproducibility","tally":{"supporting":69,"contrasting":5,"citingPublications":9203},"editorialNotices":null,"isOa":true},{"key":"grubbs2019_ppmi_meta","doi":"10.1007/s10508-018-1248-x","title":"Pornography Problems Due to Moral Incongruence: An Integrative Model with a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":["Joshua B. Grubbs","Samuel L. Perry","Joshua A. Wilt"],"year":2019,"journal":"Archives of Sexual Behavior","role":"domain","tally":{"supporting":27,"contrasting":3,"citingPublications":411},"editorialNotices":null,"isOa":false},{"key":"kraus2018_icd11_csbd","doi":"10.1002/wps.20499","title":"Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder in the ICD-11","authors":["Shane W. Kraus","Richard B. Krueger","Peer Briken"],"year":2018,"journal":"World Psychiatry","role":"domain","tally":{"supporting":1,"contrasting":1,"citingPublications":527},"editorialNotices":null,"isOa":true},{"key":"grubbs2020_cps_moral_incongruence","doi":"10.1177/2167702620922966","title":"Addiction or Transgression? Moral Incongruence and Self-Reported Problematic Pornography Use in a Nationally Representative Sample","authors":["Joshua B. Grubbs","Brinna N. Lee","K. Camille Hoagland"],"year":2020,"journal":"Clinical Psychological Science","role":"domain","tally":{"supporting":1,"contrasting":1,"citingPublications":67},"editorialNotices":null,"isOa":false},{"key":"prause2015_lpp","doi":"10.1016/j.biopsycho.2015.06.005","title":"Modulation of late positive potentials by sexual images in problem users and controls inconsistent with \"porn addiction\"","authors":["Nicole Prause","Vaughn R. Steele","Cameron Staley"],"year":2015,"journal":"Biological Psychology","role":"domain","tally":{"supporting":9,"contrasting":3,"citingPublications":136},"editorialNotices":null,"isOa":false},{"key":"kuhn2014_jama","doi":"10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.93","title":"Brain Structure and Functional Connectivity Associated With Pornography Consumption: The Brain on Porn","authors":["Simone Kühn","Jürgen Gallinat"],"year":2014,"journal":"JAMA Psychiatry","role":"domain","tally":{"supporting":10,"contrasting":1,"citingPublications":260},"editorialNotices":null,"isOa":false},{"key":"ley2014_emperor","doi":"10.1007/s11930-014-0016-8","title":"The Emperor Has No Clothes: A Review of the 'Pornography Addiction' Model","authors":["David Ley","Nicole Prause","Peter Finn"],"year":2014,"journal":"Current Sexual Health Reports","role":"domain","tally":{"supporting":1,"contrasting":0,"citingPublications":279},"editorialNotices":null,"isOa":false},{"key":"grubbs2015_transgression","doi":"10.1007/s10508-013-0257-z","title":"Transgression as Addiction: Religiosity and Moral Disapproval as Predictors of Perceived Addiction to Pornography","authors":["Joshua B. Grubbs","Julie J. Exline","Kenneth I. Pargament"],"year":2015,"journal":"Archives of Sexual Behavior","role":"domain","tally":{"supporting":15,"contrasting":0,"citingPublications":296},"editorialNotices":null,"isOa":false},{"key":"fernandez2021_ppu_instruments","doi":"10.1177/0163278719861688","title":"Psychometric Instruments for Problematic Pornography Use: A Systematic Review","authors":["David P. Fernandez","Mark D. Griffiths"],"year":2021,"journal":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","role":"domain","tally":{"supporting":2,"contrasting":0,"citingPublications":130},"editorialNotices":null,"isOa":false},{"key":"bothe2018_ppcs","doi":"10.1080/00224499.2017.1291798","title":"The Development of the Problematic Pornography Consumption Scale (PPCS)","authors":["Beáta Bőthe","István Tóth-Király","Ágnes Zsila"],"year":2018,"journal":"The Journal of Sex Research","role":"domain","tally":{"supporting":20,"contrasting":4,"citingPublications":323},"editorialNotices":null,"isOa":false},{"key":"nicholson2021_scite","doi":"10.1162/qss_a_00146","title":"scite: A smart citation index that displays the context of citations and classifies their intent using deep learning","authors":["Joshua M. Nicholson","Milo Mordaunt","Patrice Lopez"],"year":2021,"journal":"Quantitative Science Studies","role":"domain","tally":{"supporting":1,"contrasting":0,"citingPublications":165},"editorialNotices":null,"isOa":true},{"key":"grubbs2021_current_directions","doi":"10.1177/0963721420979594","title":"Pornography Use and Psychological Science: A Call for Consideration","authors":["Joshua B. Grubbs","Shane W. Kraus"],"year":2021,"journal":"Current Directions in Psychological Science","role":"domain","tally":{"supporting":1,"contrasting":0,"citingPublications":98},"editorialNotices":null,"isOa":false},{"key":"prause2017_lancet_psych","doi":"10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30441-8","title":"Data do not support sex as addictive","authors":["Nicole Prause","Erick Janssen","Janniko Georgiadis"],"year":2017,"journal":"The Lancet Psychiatry","role":"discovery_a","tally":{"supporting":1,"contrasting":0,"citingPublications":30},"editorialNotices":null,"isOa":true},{"key":"stark2018_behav_neurosci","doi":"10.1007/s40473-018-0162-9","title":"A Current Understanding of the Behavioral Neuroscience of Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder and Problematic Pornography Use","authors":["Rudolf Stark","Tim Klucken","Marc N. Potenza"],"year":2018,"journal":"Current Behavioral Neuroscience Reports","role":"discovery_a","tally":{"supporting":4,"contrasting":0,"citingPublications":186},"editorialNotices":null,"isOa":false},{"key":"kowalewska2018_neurocognitive","doi":"10.1007/s11930-018-0176-z","title":"Neurocognitive Mechanisms in Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder","authors":["Ewelina Kowalewska","Joshua B. Grubbs","Marc N. Potenza"],"year":2018,"journal":"Current Sexual Health Reports","role":"discovery_a","tally":{"supporting":3,"contrasting":0,"citingPublications":113},"editorialNotices":null,"isOa":false},{"key":"kohut2020_shaky_science","doi":"10.1080/00224499.2019.1695244","title":"Surveying Pornography Use: A Shaky Science Resting on Poor Measurement Foundations","authors":["Taylor Kohut","Rhonda N. Balzarini","William A. Fisher"],"year":2020,"journal":"The Journal of Sex Research","role":"discovery_b","tally":{"supporting":3,"contrasting":0,"citingPublications":175},"editorialNotices":null,"isOa":true},{"key":"short2012_ip_methods_review","doi":"10.1089/cyber.2010.0477","title":"A Review of Internet Pornography Use Research: Methodology and Content from the Past 10 Years","authors":["Mary B. Short","Lora Black","Angela H. Smith"],"year":2012,"journal":"Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking","role":"discovery_b","tally":{"supporting":3,"contrasting":1,"citingPublications":301},"editorialNotices":null,"isOa":false},{"key":"lewczuk2020_ppmi_test","doi":"10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.11.259","title":"Evaluating Pornography Problems Due to Moral Incongruence Model","authors":["Karol Lewczuk","Agnieszka Glica","Iwona Nowakowska"],"year":2020,"journal":"The Journal of Sexual Medicine","role":"discovery_c","tally":{"supporting":5,"contrasting":1,"citingPublications":135},"editorialNotices":null,"isOa":true},{"key":"grubbs2020_jabn_moral_incongruence","doi":"10.1037/abn0000501","title":"Moral incongruence and compulsive sexual behavior: Results from cross-sectional interactions and parallel growth curve analyses","authors":["Joshua B. Grubbs","Shane W. Kraus","Samuel L. Perry"],"year":2020,"journal":"Journal of Abnormal Psychology","role":"discovery_c","tally":{"supporting":2,"contrasting":1,"citingPublications":98},"editorialNotices":null,"isOa":false},{"key":"jennings2021_csb_religiosity_review","doi":"10.1556/2006.2021.00084","title":"Compulsive sexual behavior, religiosity, and spirituality: A systematic review","authors":["Todd L. Jennings","Tayler Lyng","Neil Gleason"],"year":2021,"journal":"Journal of Behavioral Addictions","role":"discovery_c","tally":{"supporting":0,"contrasting":0,"citingPublications":46},"editorialNotices":null,"isOa":true},{"key":"strassberg1995_volunteer_bias","doi":"10.1007/BF01541853","title":"Volunteer bias in sexuality research","authors":["Donald S. Strassberg","Kristie Lowe"],"year":1995,"journal":"Archives of Sexual Behavior","role":"discovery_d","tally":{"supporting":3,"contrasting":0,"citingPublications":278},"editorialNotices":null,"isOa":false},{"key":"wiederman1999_volunteer_bias","doi":"10.1080/00224499909551968","title":"Volunteer bias in sexuality research using college student participants","authors":["Michael W. Wiederman"],"year":1999,"journal":"The Journal of Sex Research","role":"discovery_d","tally":{"supporting":0,"contrasting":1,"citingPublications":244},"editorialNotices":null,"isOa":false},{"key":"dawson2019_volunteer_bias","doi":"10.1007/s10508-019-1451-4","title":"Effects of Individual Difference Variables, Gender, and Exclusivity of Sexual Attraction on Volunteer Bias in Sexuality Research","authors":["Samantha J. Dawson","Jackie S. Huberman","Katrina N. Bouchard"],"year":2019,"journal":"Archives of Sexual Behavior","role":"discovery_d","tally":{"supporting":0,"contrasting":0,"citingPublications":80},"editorialNotices":null,"isOa":false}]}