How did you lose your virginity? Maybe it was in a romantic garden under a full moon with the scent of roses all around, in the arms of your one true love? Maybe it was at the drunken party after prom night, with your underwear around your ankles, hoping no one could see you to take pictures? Maybe it was on your wedding night, maybe it was long before. Maybe it was even long after. Regardless, I hope you enjoyed it, because a recent study has shown that your sexual well-being today has a lot to do with how much you enjoyed it then. But there’s a major problem (one of several, really) with this study: This study is WEIRD.
Yes, it’s certainly odd that the researchers were checking whether how you lose your virginity influences your future sex life, but this is WEIRD in a methodological context. WEIRD is the phenomenon that plagues a lot of psychology and other social science studies: Their participants are overwhelming Western, educated, and from industrialized, rich, and democratic countries. They’re WEIRD. And not only are they WEIRD, they are overwhelmingly college students in the United States participating in studies for class credit. Thinking about the source of the data for a lot of hyped, overinterpreted psychology research puts the results into a whole new light.
WEIRD subjects (perhaps you were one?) are still human, of course, so you might think that what’s generalizable to them must be generalizable to the rest of humanity. But in fact, that’s not the case. WEIRD subjects, from countries that represent only about 12 percent of the world’s population, differ from other populations in moral decision making, reasoning style, fairness, even things like visual perception. This is because a lot of these behaviors and perceptions are based on the environments and contexts in which we grew up. There’s a big dose of sociology in our psychology. For example, WEIRD people are better at optical illusions involving line length, possibly because our environments contain a lot of straight lines in things like buildings.
Something that doesn’t make it into the WEIRD acronym is the participants’ age. Sixty-seven percent of American psychology studies use college students, for example. This means that many or even most of the subjects are teenagers. And this has big consequences for behavior. Throughout life, the brain is changing connections: building some, losing others. While most of the major neural developments have taken place during adolescence, they are by no means complete when you hit the magic age of 18. Adolescents and college students differ in risk evaluation compared to adults, for example, and are more sensitive to reward.Such changes could drastically impact the outcomes of a psychology study.
When recruiting for many of these WEIRD studies, scientists often make the sample as homogeneous as possible, in an effort to detect small differences. Take the virginity study I mentioned above. The researchers eliminated from the sample anyone whose first exposure to sex involved “physical force” (that is, anyone who had been raped). This eliminated a small number (12 out of 331 participants). And they eliminated anyone who did not have heterosexual intercourse. The sample is so homogeneous that it applies only to heterosexual college students—who on average, according to information they supplied to the researchers, had lost their virginity only two years before.
Human studies have other limitations, of course. Often you can get people to participate for only a short period of time. In the case of the virginity study, subjects kept an “intimate relations” diary for two weeks. Out of about 300 participants, the researchers got records of a total of 639 intimate encounters, about two per person. From these two intimate encounters per person, in college students who had lost their virginity on average two years before, the authors concluded that sexual satisfaction in the present was strongly affected by how you lost your virginity and that the effects of how you lost your virginity could persist for years to come.
The majority of these “intimate relations” were not actually sexual intercourse; they were experiences where the “goal was sexual arousal.” The authors don’t report what these experiences included, but it could have been everything from first base to a home run. And, as with many human studies, the encounters were all measured by participant report. You can’t help it, of course—you can hardly keep people in the lab and having sex with each other for weeks, but self-report studies are always open to things like exaggeration or covering up, especially when it comes to studies about sex, where a lot of cultural pressure comes into play.