↓ Skip to main content

Theoretical Issues in the Study of Asexuality

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Sexual Behavior, May 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source


43 Dimensions

Readers on

113 Mendeley
Theoretical Issues in the Study of Asexuality
Published in
Archives of Sexual Behavior, May 2011
DOI 10.1007/s10508-011-9757-x
Pubmed ID

DeLuzio Chasin CJ, CJ DeLuzio Chasin


Academic interest in asexual people is new and researchers are beginning to discuss how to proceed methodologically and conceptually with the study of asexuality. This article explores several of the theoretical issues related to the study of asexuality. Researchers have tended to treat asexuality either as a distinct sexual orientation or as a lack of sexual orientation. Difficulties arise when asexual participants are inconsistent in their self-identification as asexual. Distinguishing between sexual and romantic attraction resolves this confusion, while simultaneously calling into question conceptualizations of the asexual population as a single homogenous group. Arguments are considered in favor of exploring diversity within the asexual population, particularly with respect to gender and romantic orientation, proposing that the categorical constructs employed in (a)sexuality research be replaced with continuous ones. Furthermore, given the recently noted bias toward including only self-identified asexuals, as opposed to non-self-identified asexuals or "potential-asexuals," in research about asexuality, the nature and meaning of asexual self-identification are discussed. Particular attention is paid to the theoretical importance of acknowledging asexual self-identification or lack thereof in future research into asexuality. This article discusses what these current theoretical issues mean for the study of asexuality and sexuality more generally, including a brief consideration of ethical implications for research with asexual participants. Finally, directions for future research are suggested.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 4%
United Kingdom 3 3%
France 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Unknown 103 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 21%
Student > Bachelor 24 21%
Researcher 13 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 18 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 46 41%
Social Sciences 26 23%
Arts and Humanities 18 16%
Unspecified 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 15 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 August 2013.
All research outputs
of 6,230,503 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Sexual Behavior
of 1,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 231,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Sexual Behavior
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,230,503 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 53rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,630 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 231,991 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.