Introduction: 'Sex addiction' appears to have been largely accepted within clinical
fields and popular culture. However, despite its 30 year history, the concept
remains ill-defined and lacking in empirical data. Indeed, proponents of sex
addiction continue to debate its terminology, definition, nosology, and aetiology,
with a coherent model of the 'disorder' yet to be offered. An alternative account
presented by the social constructionist model argues that the reason for this
contention is because, rather than a pathological disorder, sex addiction represents
a social construction. Those who argue from this perspective suggest that sex
addiction has been created to pathologize sexualities which fail to promote
dominant sexual norms. Whilst this argument appears convincing, it is not clear
why some may be more influenced by these dominant sexual norms and thus
pathologize their sexuality, whilst others do not consider their sexuality to be
problematic. The answer to this may lie in certain individual differences, in
particular, personality, thinking dispositions, sexual attitudes, and religiosity.
Aims: This was an exploratory piece of research which aimed to compare sex
addicts (SAs) to 'non-addicts' (NSAs) on the dependent variables: sexual
behaviour, the Big Five personality traits, categorical thinking, sexual attitudes, and
religiosity.
Design: A convergent parallel design was employed, using questionnaires to
collect quantitative and qualitative data.
