Does exposure to erotica reduce attraction and love for romantic partners in men? Independent replications of Kenrick, Gutierres, and Goldberg (1989) Study 2
Balzarini, Dobson, & Campbell (2016)
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 10.1016/j.jesp.2016.11.003
All studies comply with the Basic 4 (retroactive) reporting standard:
  1. Excluded data (subjects/observations): Full details reported in article.
  2. Experimental conditions: Full details reported in article.
  3. Outcome measures: Full details reported in article.
  4. Sample size determination: Full details reported in article.
Date of retroactive disclosure: May 6, 2018.
Replications 3
playboy effect
Abstract
Kenrick, Gutierres, and Goldberg (1989; Study 2) demonstrated that men, but not women, in committed relationships exposed to erotic images of opposite-sex others reported lower ratings for their partner's sexual attractiveness (d = 0.91) and less love for their partner (d = 0.69) than men exposed to images of abstract art. This research has implications for understanding the possible effects of erotica on men in relationships, but has not been replicated. We conducted three preregistered, high-powered close replications, and meta-analyzed the effects of the original and replication studies. We did not find support for the original finding that exposure to attractive images of opposite-sex others affects males' ratings of their partners' sexual attractiveness or love for their partner.
Transparency Key Figures/Tables Replication Details
Original.Study Target.Effect Rep.Method.Similarity Rep.Differences Auxiliary.Hypotheses o.N Orig.Effect.Size r.N Rep.Effect.Size Rep.Outcome IVs DVs Other.Outcomes
Study 1
Study 1 Materials Replication Protocol (Study 1 and 2).pdf View file on OSF Study materials available in preregistered study protocol

Study 1 complies with the Basic 4 (retroactive) reporting standard:
  1. Excluded data (subjects/observations): Full details reported in article.
  2. Experimental conditions: Full details reported in article.
  3. Outcome measures: Full details reported in article.
  4. Sample size determination: Full details reported in article.
Date of retroactive disclosure: May 6, 2018.
Kenrick et al. (1989) Study 2 playboy effect Close
Same:
  • IV/DV operationalizations
  • physical setting
  • population
  • Updated pictures of abstract art & male/female nudes
  • Two attention check questions
  • Nudes rated as more pleasant than abstract art
65 Δd = -.53 ± .64 223 Δd = .29 ± .46 no signal - inconsistent
  • Playboy centerfolds vs. control
  • Participant sex
  • Love for partner (Rubin Love-scale)
  • partner attraction (same pattern of results observed)
Study 2
Study 2 Materials Replication Protocol (Study 1 and 2).pdf View file on OSF Study materials available in preregistered study protocol

Study 2 complies with the Basic 4 (retroactive) reporting standard:
  1. Excluded data (subjects/observations): Full details reported in article.
  2. Experimental conditions: Full details reported in article.
  3. Outcome measures: Full details reported in article.
  4. Sample size determination: Full details reported in article.
Date of retroactive disclosure: May 6, 2018.
Kenrick et al. (1989) Study 2 playboy effect Close
Same:
  • IV/DV operationalizations
  • physical setting
  • population
  • Updated pictures of abstract art & male/female nudes
  • Two attention check questions
  • Nudes rated as more pleasant than abstract art
65 Δd = -.53 ± .64 263 Δd = .30 ± .42 no signal - inconsistent
  • Playboy centerfolds vs. control
  • Participant sex
  • Love for partner (Rubin Love-scale)
  • partner attraction (same pattern of results observed)
Study 3
Study 3 Materials Replication Protocol (Study 3).docx View file on OSF Study materials available in preregistered study protocol

Study 3 complies with the Basic 4 (retroactive) reporting standard:
  1. Excluded data (subjects/observations): Full details reported in article.
  2. Experimental conditions: Full details reported in article.
  3. Outcome measures: Full details reported in article.
  4. Sample size determination: Full details reported in article.
Date of retroactive disclosure: May 6, 2018.
Kenrick et al. (1989) Study 2 playboy effect Close
Same:
  • IV/DV operationalizations
  • physical setting
  • population
  • Updated pictures of abstract art & male/female nudes
  • Two attention check questions
  • Nudes rated as more pleasant than abstract art
65 Δd = -.53 ± .64 225 Δd = -.38 ± .46 no signal - inconsistent
  • Playboy centerfolds vs. control
  • Participant sex
  • Love for partner (Rubin Love-scale)
  • partner attraction (same pattern of results observed)
Hover over badges to reveal curated transparency components
Hover over figures to reveal expanded version of figures
Related Articles/Collections
Self-esteem, relationship threat, and dependency regulation: Independent replication of Murray, Rose, Bellavia, Holmes, and Kusche (2002) Study 3
Campbell, Balzarini, Kohut, Dobson, Hahn, Moroz, & Stanton (2018)
Replications 1
self-esteem buffers relationship threat