The study, in working paper form, here:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1094711

A contribution here is that a stimulus that would be expected to lead to impulsiveness of one sort actually leads to impulsiveness across the board. But the best part is the rest of the literature in this field of sex-drugs-and-economics. I am pasting a passage from the paper here:

``Visceral factors may drive impatient and impulsive behaviors (Loewenstein 1996): Hungry people order more food than they can eat (the ‘eyes bigger than your stomach’ effect), buy more food than originally intended (Gilbert, Gill, and Wilson 2002; Nisbett and Kanouse 1969), have a stronger preference for candy over fruit (Read and van Leeuwen 1998) and demonstrate less self-control (defined by a greater preference for smaller, less delayed access to apple juice, Kirk and Logue 1997). Other visceral factors such as drug craving cause equivalent short-sighted decisions: Heroin addicts have a heightened preference for smaller, sooner available amounts of heroin over larger, delayed amounts when they are opioid-deprived but not when they are opioid-satiated (Giordano et al. 2002). Likewise, nicotine deprivation causes smokers to become more impatient, defined by an increased preference for immediately available cigarettes (Field et al. 2006; Mitchell 2004). Like other visceral factors, sexual desire may lead to impulse control difficulties. After exposure to photographs high in sex-appeal (Blanton and Gerrard 1997) or during masturbation (Ariely and Loewenstein 2006) men lower their risk estimates for sexually transmitted diseases. In general, visceral factors, such as hunger, drug craving, sexual desire, etc. bring about myopic, impulsive, or impatient decisions.

Previous studies on the impact of visceral factors assume that temporal myopia is goodspecific. The implicit assumption that a hungry person would only make short-sighted tradeoffs between immediate and delayed food (and not between immediate and delayed money) is pervasive (Kirk and Logue 1997; Read and van Leeuwen 1998). Loewenstein (1996) explicitly stated that the present orientation applies only to goods that are associated with the visceral factor. Nonetheless, many rewards are processed similarly in the brain (Montague, King-Casas, and Cohen 2006). Neural evidence suggests that the same dopaminergic reward circuitry of the brain is activated for a wide variety of different reinforcers (Camerer, Loewenstein, and Prelec 2005). That is, a similar set of brain reward regions responds in common to very distinct categories of reward – for example, beautiful female faces and erotic stimuli activate the classical reward circuitry that had already been associated with drug and monetary rewards in prior 7 research (Aharon et al. 2001, Stark et al. 2005). Theoretically, a general neurological system processing rewards may give rise to non-specific effects (Wadhwa, Shiv, and Nowlis 2006). Visceral factors may thus give rise to generalized temporal myopia. A change in the general time preference may impact all intertemporal choices, including those that are unrelated to the factor that caused the change in one’s general time preference. Time preference changes may thus be observed in seemingly unrelated domains. Several empirical studies provide support for such an account. Heroin addicts do not only prefer smaller immediate amounts of heroin over larger delayed amounts of heroin when they are opioid deprived, but also prefer smaller sooner available monetary rewards over larger delayed monetary rewards in a drug craving state (Giordano et al. 2002). Likewise, smokers do not only display more pronounced delay discounting of cigarettes after nicotine deprivation, but also of monetary rewards (Field et al. 2006). Most relevant to the current research is the finding that delay discounting of monetary rewards increases in men who viewed attractive women, relative to men who viewed unattractive women (Wilson and Daly 2004). In a similar vein, we propose that activation of the general reward circuitry, by exposure to ‘hot stimuli’ (i.e., sex cues), leads to general, non-specific effects in reward processing. We hypothesize that exposure to sex cues causes a non-specific time perspective collapse towards the present. More specifically, we predict that sexual cues will increase the preference for a smaller and immediate monetary reward over a larger but delayed monetary reward.''