The Dark Triad

Running head: THE DARK TRIAD
A Study of Opportunistic Human Sexuality:
The Dark Triad as a Predictor o f Affective Dispositions towards Date Rape
A Dissertation
Presented to the Faculty
of
The Gordon F. Demer
Institute o f Advanced Psychological Studies
Adelphi University
In Partial Fulfillment
O f the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor o f Philosophy
by
Annette Attolini-Fertuck
January, 2015
UMI Number: 3662634
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Di!ss0?t&Ciori Publishing
UMI 3662634
Published by ProQuest LLC 2015. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Dissertation Committee
Lawrence Josephs, P h .D .------------------- Chairperson
Robert Mendelsohn, P h .D .---------------- Committee member
Robert Bomstein, P h .D .------------------- Committee member
Devin Thornburg, P h .D .------------------- Reader

Abstract
Differences in sexuality create miscommunication and conflict in a variety o f social situations.
Nonconsensual sex, which can take the form o f date rape, makes up approximately 70% o f all
reported rape incidents in the United States. Interestingly, independent o f nonconsensual sex,
there are overall differences in the interpretations men and women ascribe to consensual casual
sex and neutral-nonsexual scenarios.
This study examined the personality variables that moderate those sex differences to
investigate how personality subtypes o f men and women affect sexual and romantic
interpretations o f these scenarios. The personality variables examined were the Dark Triad o f
narcissism, Machiavellian intelligence, and psychopathy, as well as attachment style, disgust
sensitivity, disgust propensity, and sex drive.
Participants were randomly assigned to one o f three experimental groups. The first group
read a scenario o f nonconsensual sexuality, the second o f consensual casual sex, and the third of
a neutral nonsexual situation. Participants were then asked how sexually arousing, romantic, and
disgusting the story was to them.
The present study hypothesized that individuals who are high on Dark Triad, more
insecurely attached, low in disgust sensitivity and propensity, and high in sex drive would
respond to the scenarios with more arousal and less disgust. We hypothesized that these
individuals tend to sexualize social situations more so than individuals low on those traits. Those
hypotheses were partially confirmed. Individuals high on the Dark Triad, high on anxious
attachment, high on disgust sensitivity, and high on the number o f weekly orgasms responded
with more sexual arousal to all three scenarios. In addition, men high on the Dark Triad found all
the scenarios more sexually arousing than men low on the Dark Triad. We found that women
who have more orgasms found the sexploitation story less disgusting than women with fewer
orgasms.
This study contributes to understanding the personality characteristics that predict who
will sexualize social situations. These personality variables moderate gender differences in
sexual and romantic responses to a variety o f social situations.
iv
Acknowledgements
I first wish to acknowledge and thank my committee members. To my chair, Dr. Lawrence
Josephs, I am deeply grateful for all your guidance and help through your commitment and
support over the long course o f this study. It was a great privilege working with you.
Dr. Lawrence Josephs, your thoughtfulness and enthusiasm for this study have been
inspiring; I am indebted to you for the countless hours that you put into this study. You have
been a very helpful, reliable, and encouraging presence over the past 5 years. I have truly
enjoyed working closely with you and am so thankful to have had you as a mentor.
To members o f my research committee, Drs. Robert Bomstein, Roberto Mendelsohn, and
Devin Thornburg, I thank you for generously contributing your time and expertise to this work.
Finally, I would like to recognize the invaluable support from my husband, Eric Fertuck, my
family, especially my mother, Lorna Smithers, and my friends. I would like to thank them for the
support, love, help, and patience they gave me during these 5 years. Without them, this would
not be possible.
I dedicate this dissertation to my mother and my husband, Eric.
v
Table of Contents
Dissertation Committee and Readers ii

Abstract iii
Acknowledgments v
Table o f Contents vi
List o f Tables vii
List o f Figures ix
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 5
The Relationship between Sex Drive and Character Structure In Psychoanalytic Theory 5
The Oral Stage 5
The Anal Stage 6
The Phallic Stage 7
The Latency Stage 7
The Genital Stage 8
Phallic-Narcissistic Character Structure 8
The Syndrome o f Malignant Narcissism 11
Narcissism and Adult Sexuality 12
The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) 15
Machiavellian Intelligence 16
Psychopathy 18
The Dark Triad 20
The Original Dark Triad Measure 22
The Dirty Dozen Measure 23
Attachment Style and Adult Sexuality 23
Sex Drive 27
Disgust 28
Pathogen Disgust 29
Moral Disgust 30
Sexual Disgust 31
Disgust Components 33
Disgust Sensitivity 33
Disgust Propensity 33
Disgust Measures 33
Mindset Priming 34
Hypotheses 35
III. METHODOLOGY 36
Participants 36
vi
Materials 37
Procedure 40
IV. RESULTS
Demographic Information 43
Gender Differences on Personality Variables 43
Correlations Among the Personality Variables 44
Main Effects o f Priming Condition and Gender 45
How Sexually Arousing 46
How Romantic 48
How Disgusting 51
Implicit Sex Drive 53
The Impact o f Personality 53
The Dark Triad and Sexual Arousal 54
The Dark Triad and How Romantic 55
The Dark Triad and Disgust 57
The Dark Triad and Implicit Sexual Arousal 57
Disgust Propensity and Sexual Arousal 58
Disgust Propensity and How Romantic 59
Disgust Propensity and Disgust 60
Disgust Propensity and Implicit Sexual Arousal 62
Disgust Sensitivity and Sexual Arousal 63
Disgust Sensitivity and How Romantic 64
Disgust Sensitivity and Disgust 65
Disgust Sensitivity and Implicit Sexual Arousal 66
Anxious Attachment and Sexual Arousal 66
Anxious Attachment and How Romantic 67
Anxious Attachment and Disgust 68
Anxious Attachment and Implicit Sexual Arousal 68
Avoidant Attachment and How Romantic 69
Avoidant Attachment and Disgust 70
Avoidant Attachment and Implicit Sexual Arousal 70
Sex Drive and Sexual Arousal 71
Sex Drive and How Romantic 72
Sex Drive and Disgust 73
Sex Drive and Implicit Sexual Arousal 73
Number o f Orgasms and How Romantic 74
Number o f Orgasms and Disgust 74
Number o f Orgasms and Implicit Sexual Arousal 77
V. DISCUSSION 79
Predictors o f Sexual Arousal 80
Predictors o f Romantic Feelings 86
Predictors o f Disgust 90
Predictors o f Implicit Sexual Arousal 91
vii
Responses to Sexploitation 93
Responses to Consensual Casual Sex 98
Neutral Nonsexual Situations 101
Limitations 104
Conclusion and Future Research 104
VI. REFERENCES 107
VII. APPENDICES
A. Recruitment Script 129
B. Informed Consent Form 130
C. The Dark Triad/ Dirty Dozen Scale 132
D. Experiences in Close Relationships Measures 133
E. Primes 135
F. Word Completion Task 136
G. Prime Questions 137
H. Disgust Sensitivity and Propensity 138
I. Demographic Information Questionnaire 139
J. Debriefing For The Study 140
VIII. List o f Tables

Table Number
I .T Tests: Gender Differences 44
2.Correlations 45
3.Gender and Priming Condition 46
4.Pairwise Comparisons (LSD) by Priming Condition 47
5. Pairwise Comparisons (LSD) o f Gender by Priming Condition 47
6. How Romantic by Priming Condition and Gender 49
9. How Disgusting by Gender and Priming Condition 51
10. Pairwise Comparisons (LSD) o f Gender by Priming Condition on Disgust 51
11. Pairwise Comparisons (LSD) o f Gender by Priming Condition on Disgust 51
12. Implicit Sexual Arousal by Priming Condition and Gender 53
13. How Sexually Arousing: The interaction between The Dark Triad, Gender and 54
Priming Condition
14. How Sexually Arousing: The Interaction between the Dark Triad and Gender 55
15. How Romantic: The interaction between the Dark Triad, Gender and Priming Condition 56
16. How Romantic: The Interaction between the Dark Triad, Gender, and Priming 56
condition
17. How Disgusting by Dark Triad, Gender and Priming condition 58
18. Implicit Sexual Arousal by Dark Triad, Gender and Prime Condition 58
19. Sexually Arousing by Disgust Propensity, Gender and Priming condition 59
20. How Sexually Arousing: The interaction between Disgust Propensity, Gender, and 59
viii
Priming condition
21. How Romantic by Disgust Propensity Triad, Gender and Priming condition 60
22. How Romantic by Disgust Propensity by Gender x Priming condition 61
23. How Disgusting by Disgust Propensity, Gender and Priming condition 61
24. How Disgusting by Disgust Propensity by Priming condition 62
25. How Disgusting by Disgust Propensity, Gender and Priming condition 63
26. Total Sex Words by Disgust Propensity by Gender 64
27. How Sexually Arousing by Disgust Sensitivity, Gender and Priming condition 64
28. How Romantic by Disgust Sensitivity, Gender and Priming condition 65
29. How Disgusting by Disgusting Sensitivity, Gender and Priming condition 65
30. How Disgusting by Dark Triad, Gender and Priming condition 66
31. How Sexually Arousing by Anxious Attachment, Gender and Priming condition 67
32. How Romantic by Anxious Attachment, Gender and Priming condition 67
33. How Disgusting by Anxious Attachment, Gender and Priming condition 68
34. Implicit Sexual arousal by Anxious Attachment, Gender and Priming condition 68
35. How Sexually Arousing by Avoidant Attachment, Gender and Priming condition 69
36. How Romantic by Avoidant Attachment, Gender and Priming condition 69
37. How Disgusting by Avoidant Attachment, Gender and Priming condition 70
38. Implicit Sexually arousing by Avoidant Attachment, Gender and Priming condition 70
39. How Sexually Arousing by Sex Drive, Gender and Priming condition 71
40. How Romantic by Sex Drive, Gender and Priming condition 71
41. How Romantic by Sex Drive by Gender 72
42. How Disgusting by Sex Drive, Gender and Priming condition 72
43. How Disgusting by Sex Drive by Gender 73
44. Implicit Sexually Arousing by Sex Drive, Gender and Priming condition 73
45. How Sexually Arousing by The Number o f Orgasms, Gender and Priming condition 74
46. How Romantic by The Number o f Orgasms, Gender and Priming condition 74
47. How Disgusting by Number o f Orgasms, Gender and Priming condition 75
48. How Disgusting by Gender x The Number o f Orgasms 76
49. How Disgusting by Number o f Orgasms by Gender x Priming condition 77
50. Implicit Sexually arousing by Sex Drive, Gender and Priming condition 78
List o f Tables
Table Number
1. How Sexual Arousing 48
2. How Romantic 50
3. How Disgusting 52
ix
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
According to the National Center for Victims o f Crime, more than 70% o f completed
rapes in the United States are committed by persons that victims are already acquainted with
(non-strangers). These statistics attest that many more rapes are committed by social
acquaintances or non-strangers than by strangers. Furthermore, these numbers could reflect less
than full reportage, as not every woman reports incidents o f rape to the authorities (Koss, 1992).
There are two types o f rape (nonconsensual sex) that can be seen in the literature: (1) rape
committed by a stranger with another stranger (stranger rape), and (2) rape committed by a non
stranger with a non-stranger (acquaintance rape) (Marx, Van Wie, & Gross, 1996). More
specifically, Bechhofer and Parrot (1991) define date rape as nonconsensual sex between two
individuals who are dating.
Whatever the causal factor(s), the vast majority o f victims o f rape are women (Cook,
Gidycz, Koss, & Murphy, 2011) as men are more likely to engage in nonconsensual sex than
women. In one study, 15% o f men sampled reportedly had attempted or completed an act of
rape (Abbey, Parkhill, Clinton-Sherrod, & Zawacki, 2007). Abbey et al. also found that
assaulters “were lower in empathy, lower in adult attachment, [with] more positive attitudes
about casual sex, and stronger sexual dominance motives compared with non-assaulters” (p.
1574). Men feel more social pressure o f fulfilling a role as the stronger sex and the dominator o f
women (Abbey, et al., 2007). In addition to pressure and gender role conditioning, there are
biological factors such as high levels o f testosterone (sex drive) and low empathy that may
influence men’s behavior (Baron-Cohen, 2008).
1
Though men are more prone to engage in non-consensual sex than women, there appear
to be significant personality differences among both sexes that reveal the propensity to engage in
non-consensual sex. As noted above, there are some personality factors, like low empathy, that
might predict this tendency (Gerber & Chemeski, 2006). Research on autism has found that men
tend to score lower on tests o f empathy than women, but found that men score higher on tests o f
recognizing rules (Baron-Cohen, 2002). This suggests that men’s low empathy is a product o f
biology, not just an aspect o f gender role conditioning.
As construct that includes low empathy, the Dark Triad (DT) is a relatively new
personality measure that looks at individuals who are simultaneously high in narcissism,
Machiavellianism, and psychopathy (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). The Dark Triad might predict
tendencies to engage in nonconsensual sex because individuals high on the Dark Triad measure
may possess an opportunistic mating strategy that tends to be sexually exploitative. The lack o f
guilt, the novelty-seeking behavior, and the impulsivity (Jonason et al., 2010) therein might help
predict promiscuity and infidelity among individuals who score high on the Dark Triad. As
research has shown Dark Triad individuals to have more facility in finding new partners
(Jonason, et al., 2009), they can be seen to succeed in having a more exploitive social style
(Jonason, Li, & Buss, 2010). In terms o f gender, there are more men than women who score high
on the Dark Triad (Jonason & Kavanagh, 2010; Jonason, et al., 2010).
Research on attachment theory has become one o f the most influential theories in personality
and social psychology (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). However, very little research has studied the
associations between attachment and sexuality (Bogaert & Sadava, 2002; Diamond, Blatt, &
Lichtenberg, 2007; Dewitte, 2012; Sprecher, 2013).
2
For this study, attachment theory is important for understanding the impact o f a nonconsensual
sex scenario on the degree o f sexual arousal. Based on prior research, men high on avoidant attachment
have a tendency to seduce others just for sex (Jonason, Luevano, & Adams, 2012). Therefore, men with
a higher avoidant attachment might have a propensity to be interested in nonconsensual sex scenarios.
In contrast, women with a more anxious attachment tend to engage more in unwanted sex to please
their partners (Kirkpatrick, 1998). That may make women high in terms o f anxious attachment more
vulnerable to being victims o f nonconsensual sex.
Disgust is an automatic emotion that functions as an inhibitor to prevent physical
contamination, such as from disease (Olatunji & Sawchuk, 2005). In this way, disgust protects
organisms from infections, as it helps us avoid what we feel is disgusting (e.g., a rotten piece o f fruit)
or not attractive (Curtis, Barra, & Aunger, 2011; Rozin & Fallon, 1987). For this study, disgust is
important for understanding the impact that it could have on sexual arousal. According to Freud,
disgust is a vehicle o f sexual inhibition, so that people low on disgust should also be low on sexual
inhibition. Therefore, it is predicted that individuals who are high in terms o f disgust would respond
less favorably towards nonconsensual sex.
An important aspect o f this study is sex drive. It could be speculated that individuals who
engage in nonconsensual sex have a higher sex drive and are more driven by sex than those who do not
engage in nonconsensual sex. Sex drive refers to “sexual motivation, usually focused on a craving for
sexual activity and sexual pleasure” (Baumeister, Catanese, & Vohs, 2001, p. 244). It is predicted that
individuals with a high sex drive might be more favorably predisposed towards nonconsensual sex.
This research explored some o f the affective dispositions that may enable men high on the Dark
Triad to engage in non-consensual sex and that may make women high on the Dark Triad more
vulnerable to being victims o f nonconsensual sex. It is also hypothesized that the Dark Triad, insecure
3
attachment, and high sex drive would generally lead to greater sexual and romantic interest as well as
less disgust towards nonconsensual sex, especially for men. In addition, it is hypothesized that both
men and women high on the Dark Triad will possess higher sex drives and less disgust propensity in
general than those low on the measure.
4
CHAPTER 2
Review of the Literature
The Relationship between Sex Drive and Character Structure
In Psychoanalytic Theory
Human sexuality can be seen in the literature since the ancient Greeks, such as in Plato’s
Symposium describing his ideal or form for beauty as it informed the concept o f love (Plato, 416
BC/1989). Yet it was only relatively recently that Sigmund Freud introduced the concept o f
psychosexual stages o f development. Freud proposed a model, where libidinal energy is
manifested in five stages: oral, anal, phallic, latency, and genital (Freud, 1905).
According to Freud, an infant will normally go through each stage in succession; but if a
child is not successful, then he or she would be said to be fixated upon a certain stage o f
development (1905). From such a fixation, mental disorders can occur (Abraham, 1924). These
points o f psychosexual fixation can be seen as related to character styles that arise from Freud’s
five stages which proceed generally chronologically from infancy until adolescence, although
stage overlap is seen in individual character examples that follow.
The Oral Stage
The oral stage o f development is from zero to eighteen months o f life. In this stage, libido
gratification is from the mouth, tongue, and lips, as usually during this stage infants start sucking
their thumbs and using their mouths to discover the world (Freud, 1905). Someone who has a
fixation at this oral stage could be an individual who finds pleasure through their mouths, such as
smokers (Fisher & Fisher, 1975), alcoholics (Scaturo, 1987), compulsive eaters (Abraham,
1924/1968), et cetera.
5
According to Abraham (1921), psychopathology originates at the oral and anal stages o f
development. People with an oral dependent character treat the world as helpless babies that
depend on someone in order to survive; in other words, they always need help (Bomstein &
Bowen, 1995). These individuals are like baby extensions, feeling hungry yet needing their
mother in order to survive (Abraham, 1924). Individuals who are orally dependent cannot have
an equal relationship with another; they need a relationship where they are dependent on the
other person like they were dependent on their mother (Bomstein, 1998).
The Anal Stage
The anal stage is when the child is from 18 months to 3 years old (Freud, 1905). During this
stage, the child perceives that he/she has control o f their feces through toilet training, as the child
has learned how and when to use the toilet (Jones, 1918/1950). Freud (1908/1959) was one o f
the first theorists to talk about the obsessive personality, attributing it to inappropriate toilet
training during the anal stage o f development. A posited field view for many years was that
obsessive personalities were caused by very harsh, demanding, and controlling parents’ impact
during the toilet training stage. Now, research has shown that parents who are controlling about
toilet training are controlling about oral and Oedipal issues, too (McWilliams, 1994). From this
standpoint, the mother of a obsessive-compulsive child is probably very rigid with her child’s
food and activity schedules, and is possibly obsessive-compulsive herself beyond just toilet
training.
Individuals with a fixation at the anal stage can be very obsessive with order and
cleanliness, and very strict with their rituals and schedules; this includes those who are
considered either anal sadistic or anal retentive. For Freud (1905), individuals who pay
particular attention to detail sustain an anal-retentive structure. These individuals are aware o f
6
details that not everyone notices and can be very annoying to other people, such as when
speaking in far too much detail. The anal-sadistic stage occurs when sadism becomes present at
stages o f libidinal pleasure, such as when the infant wants to devour its mother or the mother’s
breast (Klein, 1930).
The Phallic Stage
The phallic stage occurs during ages 3 to 6 years old. During this stage children notice the
differences between genders and masturbation usually starts (Freud, 1905). According to Freud,
children become aware o f the existence o f the penis, during which period girls realize that they
do not have one.
The phallic stage reveals the Oedipus complex (Freud, 1908), which is named for the
Greek tragedy wherein a son kills a father to intimately possess his mother. The boy desires his
mother as a sexual object and feels jealousy toward his father. In Freud’s view, later on a son
identifies with his father, “letting him be” with his mother, and the boy goes forward in life to
eventually be with someone like his mother. A young female in this theoretical model wants her
father early on, only to later identify with her mother (Freud, 1923). Narcissistic personality
disorder seems to be fixated at this stage o f development. In addition, Freud suggested that a
negative resolution o f the Oedipus complex for females could lead to their seeking very
controlling men as partners. Women who are attracted to narcissistic types are commonly
hysterics and masochists. The female hysteric is more or less the oedipal fixated counterpart o f
the phallic narcissistic male (Reich, 1933).
Oedipal splitting. Freud introduced the theory o f Oedipal splitting (1910) as part o f his
Oedipus complex framework. Boys and girls resolve the oedipal complex differently. A boy
splits the image o f his mother into two types: monogamous and promiscuous, or respectively
7
“Madonna and whore,” while a girl splits the image o f the father into distinct categories, namely
“cad and dad” (Josephs & Shimberg, 2010). Splitting the mother into Madonna and whore and
the father into cad and dad gives us two romanticized models for identification: either a more
monogamously oriented parent, or a more promiscuously oriented parent. Thus it is possible that
people more prone to be promiscuous, cheat, or “love them and leave them” might be more
identified with the promiscuous role model.
Freud further suggested that a boy feels betrayed by his mother for her having a sexual
relationship with his father, and the boy thereby feels left out. Freud suggested that individuals
have a universal conflict around monogamy and infidelity because adults tend to split love and
lust, and he traced this to the oedipal conflict. Character style reflects how individuals resolved
their childhood psychosexual conflicts, particularly their oedipal conflict.
For Freud, when the child is left out o f the primal scene by their parents, he/she perceives
the act as an oedipal betrayal and wants to have revenge. The Oedipal betrayal is a narcissistic
wound that leaves narcissistic scars that could be covered with narcissistic defenses.
Unconsciously, those who suffer more oedipal betrayal may be more oriented in their sex lives
towards getting revenge on the desired but unfaithful oedipal parent, so their sex lives might be
more characterized by seducing and betraying others, and being more exploitative and
opportunistic (Josephs, 2006). Women as well as men could be more identified with a more
promiscuous or adulterously inclined parent; such identification would not be unique to the
phallic narcissistic male.
The Latency Stage
The latency stage o f development begins at age six and continues until puberty (Freud,
1905). During the latency stage the Oedipus complex has been resolved and the child starts to
8
identify with the parent o f the opposite sex (Freud, 1923). In this phase the child is in school;
playgrounds reveal boys playing with boys and girls playing with girls.
The Genital Stage
The genital stage o f development is the last o f the five stages, beginning at puberty. This
stage starts during the adolescent period when the sexual organs become developed (Freud
1905). Individuals with a genital character structure are focused on sexual satisfaction. In the
Freudian model, if no fixation developed during the other stages, the individual would have
achieved optimal development and satisfactory sexual relationships; yet it should be noted that
Freud considered it extremely difficult not to become fixated at one o f the other stages o f
development.
Phallic-Narcissistic Character Structure
Wilhelm Reich was a psychoanalyst who was also very interested in character structure.
Reich talks about the phallic narcissistic character, which can be seen as an early forerunner o f
the Dark Triad model. Reich was interested in the psychology o f promiscuous, unfaithful, and
womanizing men.
The phallic-narcissistic (PN) character type can be seen in a man who has a sexually
exploitative way o f relating to women. A male with phallic-narcissistic character structure is
characterized by having feelings o f being superior to others. A PN male can be very energetic, he
will look very self-confident, and he is “often impressive in his bearing” (Reich, 1933, p. 217).
This author’s paradigmic phallic-narcissistic man is athletic; yet on the one hand, while such
men appear to be very masculine, on the other hand they can look very feminine, with a “so-
called baby face” (p. 217).
9
In terms o f object relations, phallic-narcissistic men experienced strong disappointments
with their mothers during childhood (Reich, 1933); unconsciously, such males thought that by
showing their phalluses to their mothers, their mothers would pay attention to them. Starting in
childhood, PN men learn to use the phallus as an instrument o f attention to show their mothers
how “potent” they are. According to Reich, the mothers o f phallic-narcissistic men were usually
the disciplinarian parents in the house, and the fathers were usually absent.
Phallic-narcissistic women have fantasies o f having a penis (Reich, 1933) and have penis
envy (Abraham, 1920; Bernstein, 1983; Freud, 1905). PN women—as revenge for perceived
slights, indignities, or transgressions-treat men as if they have been castrated during sexual
intercourse, making the men feel impotent in acts o f “genital revenge” (p. 221) as the PN
woman’s lead tendency. Since one o f the characteristics o f phallic-narcissistic men is that they
feel proud o f the phallus, the feeling that they are impotent can be devastating for them. In terms
o f object relations theory, phallic-narcissistic women experience betrayal by their fathers because
the father is physically intimate with their mother, and such women feel severe frustration with
their fathers (Reich, 1933).
Aligning with the description above, it may be that phallic-narcissistic men have
difficulties maintaining monogamous relationships, and they are more oriented to causal sex than
other men. Phallic-narcissistic men see women as objects, and as soon as they get what they want
from a woman they will leave her and find another woman. For Reich (1933), the phallic-
narcissistic man is a womanizer who just relates to women as sex objects to be seduced and used;
some women are very attracted to this type o f male, even though they are “heartbreakers”
because they love and leave, or seduce and betray women.
10
Some women feel very attracted to these men; although generally these women employ
good judgment, they are very vulnerable to male sexploitation, such as seen among hysterics and
masochistic women who are commonly attracted to narcissistic men. For Reich, the female
hysteric is more or less the female counterpart o f the phallic narcissistic male. Hysteric women
tend to idealize and romanticize narcissistic men, and they are surprised, if not shocked, when
men disappoint them (Kemberg, 1995). Women as well as men may identify with the more
promiscuous or adulterously inclined side o f their parent, so this identification would not be
unique to the phallic narcissistic male.
In her sexual life, a woman with a masochistic personality disorder experiences,
“fantasies o f being raped by a powerful, dangerous, unknown man, and humiliated by exhibiting
herself to others” (Kemberg, 1995, p. 132). According to Kerriberg (1995), during sexual
performance the female masochist will even invite attempts at being humiliated by her partner.
Reich (1993) holds that individuals with masochistic character structure experience sexual
pleasure through physical punishment. It seems that afflicted individuals have a need to pay a
price for their pleasure; the masochistic personality needs to be punished first, and only then does
it allow itself to feel pleasure (Reich, 1993).
The intimate life o f a hysteric is such that she can present with sexual inhibition, and it is
also very common to see that she idealizes her sexual partner (Kernberg, 1974). According to
Reich (1993), the hysterical character presents with a sexual inhibition that is underlined by
intense genital impulses that have not been gratified (p. 206). In their need to idealize their
partner, hysterics have difficulties realizing that their partner is talking advantage o f them.
Therefore, masochistic women are very vulnerable to being exploited by sexually opportunistic
11
men. In addition, masochists and hysterics have an unconscious Oedipal guilt in common
(Kemberg, 1988).
There are two types o f women who might be more vulnerable to sexual exploitation: (1)
game-playing narcissistic women who “get in over their heads,” and (2) more naive hysteric or
masochistic women who are over-accommodating and over trusting. We used the Dark Triad to
assess the first model, and will use anxious attachment to assess the second.
The Syndrome o f Malignant Narcissism
There are a number o f psychoanalytic theorists who focus on severe personality
disorders, traits, and what can be termed generally as character pathology, including Freud,
Reich, Kemberg, and others. Yet for the purposes o f this research, most interesting are those
aspects that populate an intermediate zone o f character style; such an individual is not merely a
womanizer, nor is he a brutal psychopath. Instead, one such “middle-ground” diagnosis is
termed malignant narcissism as recently identified in practice. Eric Fromm (1964) was the first
psychologist who used the term malignant narcissism, yet it was not until 1984 that it entered the
mainstream when Kemberg extended the concept and introduced the Syndrome o f Malignant
Narcissism.
Intensive clinical observation identified a group o f patients occupying the diagnostic
space between narcissistic personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder (Kemberg,
1984). From a differential diagnostic perspective, these patients did not meet the criteria for
either narcissistic personality or antisocial personality, as individuals with malignant narcissism -
in contrast to those with antisocial personality—have the capacity to understand that the other
person can be honest, that not everybody is dishonest like themselves. Further, the malignant
narcissist (MN) also has the capacity to care about the future and leam from the past, and they
12
exhibit “guilt” and “remorse” (Kemberg, 1992, p. 75) in the differential diagnosis from antisocial
personality disorder. After years o f clinical exposure to patients in this condition, Kemberg
introduced the idea that these patients carry the Syndrome o f Malignant Narcissism. A
significant difference between psychopaths and malignant narcissists is that the latter can be
treatable (Kemberg, 2009).
While treatable, the Syndrome o f Malignant Narcissism (Kemberg, 1984; 1995; 2009) is
a severe affliction that is characterized by the combination o f narcissistic personality disorder,
antisocial behavior, ego-syntonic aggression against self or others, and paranoid trends
(Kernberg, 1984; 1992, pp. 77-78). Individuals with malignant narcissism have difficulties
tolerating criticism, need recognition from others, experience severe feelings o f emptiness, and
tend to be envious when other people are happy and successful; yet while malignant narcissists
can be very accomplished, they are often dishonest, unempathic, and they lead very extravagant
lives (Kernberg, 1984).
Malignant narcissistic men tend to have more than one sexual partner. They have
difficulties committing themselves to a long relationship. In their romantic relationships they can
be very promiscuous, charming, unfaithful, and exploitive, taking advantage o f their romantic
partners.
Women who have more than one sex partner and who are more prone to promiscuity,
infidelity, and who maintain opportunistic, exploitative ways o f relating to romantic partners
may also sustain the diagnosis o f malignant narcissism.
Narcissism and Adult Sexuality
Healthy narcissism is a mainstream concept whereby people embodying realistic self-
confidence reflect to others appropriate levels o f necessary self-esteem. This can impact intimate
13
human interactions including adult sexuality, the latter being a crucial element o f a healthy,
solid, and gratifying romantic relationship (Bimbaum, Mikulincer, Reis, Gillath, & Orpaz, 2006;
Sprecher, 2002).
Yet the archetypal narcissist resembles the self-absorbed man or Narcissus o f Greek
mythology (Spotnitz & Resnikoff, 1954) who fell in love with his own reflection in the water
and who then behaved accordingly. This latter image is that o f psychopathology, one that can be
seen on a continuum of limiting, damaging, or destructive narcissism that dominates literature
(Foster & Campbell, 2007). Reflecting the Greek myth from that prior age, it was in the late 19th
century that sexologist Ellis (1898) surfaced the term narcissus-like to reference individuals who
become their own sex objects. Other human sexuality studies followed closely on the heels o f
this work whereby the term narcissism more fully entered the psychological lexicon (Ellis,
1927).
According to the DSM-IY-TR (American Psychiatric Association, 2000), individuals
with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) are characterized as feeling superior to others in
terms o f several aspects: deserving special treatment, experiencing feelings o f grandiosity,
lacking empathy, and having a sense o f entitlement; further, those suffering from NPD can be
destructively high in terms o f their tendencies to be envious, be exploitive o f others, enjoy
power, and feel unique. Indeed, approximately 50% to 75% o f individuals who are diagnosed as
NPD are male (American Psychiatric Association, 2000).
Clinical psychology studies discuss narcissism as a disorder, with narcissistic
interpersonal relationships characterized by a “lack o f interest in forming close, caring, and
warm relationships” (Tanchotsrinon, Maneesri, & Campbell, 2007, p. 724). Instead o f enjoying
caring and close relations, narcissists exploit their relationships with the purpose o f profiting
14
from them; for example, they look to achieve better social status (Campbell, 1999). Campbell
also found that narcissists prefer relationships that are more superficial rather than emotional.
This can be seen whereby narcissists prefer to have attractive or good-looking partners, as
opposed to having intimate and loving partners.
Narcissists seek “status” in their love relations (Campbell, Foster, & Finkel, 2002, p. 341)
and therefore find partners who meet these needs; they see the relationship as a “source of
power” (p. 353) and such individuals can view their romantic partners as a “trophy” (Campbell,
1999, p. 341). Campbell et al. (2002) found that narcissists use “game playing” as their style of
love and that narcissists just “get what they want” (p. 342) from the relationship. In other words,
the game is fun, as long as they have what they want. Additionally, Campbell’s (1999) study
suggests that due to assortative mating strategies, narcissists are attracted to other narcissists,
which is relevant as women who measure high on the Dark Triad may be more attracted to men
who are high on the Dark Triad and are therefore more vulnerable to nonconsensual sex.
In terms o f their sexual life, narcissists have difficulties integrating intimacy and sex
(Sperry, 2003). They tend to prefer sexual relationships (Wryobeck & Wiederman, 1999), are
preoccupied with their sexual performance, and see themselves as “accomplished lovers” (p. 96).
In fact, “the heightened sexual skill perceived by sexual narcissists may predict higher levels of
sexual satisfaction in themselves and/or their partners” (Widman & McNulty, 2010, p. 936 ). In
addition, narcissists show a lack commitment to their partners and have difficulties maintaining
just one sexual partner (Campbell & Foster, 2002). Most narcissists are constantly seeking new
sexual partners (Foster, Shrira, & Campbell, 2006), and individuals exhibiting high narcissism in
their sexual relationships seek pleasure rather than emotional intimacy. These authors found that
it may be that narcissists avoid the experience o f being sexually bored; therefore, they seek
15
different partners, and if they have short-term relationships they do not have to be close to their
partners. A recent study has found that these individuals prefer one-night stands and friends with
benefits rather than long-term relationships (Jonason, Luevano, & Adams, 2012). This is
consistent with Foster et al.’s (2006) study where the researchers found that narcissists engaged
in more one night stands than non-narcissists. Since individuals who exhibit high narcissism are
seeking new sexual partners, they tend to be or are more prone to cheating (Buss & Shackelford,
1997).
Some researchers have raised questions regarding who would be attracted to a narcissistic
person (Campbell, Foster, & Finkel, 2002). Considering the negative characteristics that are
typical o f narcissists, it may be difficult to believe that other individuals are attracted to them. It
is important to note that at first narcissists can be very charming, fun, and quite interesting
people, but as the relationship evolves the element o f their grandiosity becomes evident
(Paulhus, 1998). O f note regarding assortative mating strategies, narcissists are attracted to other
narcissists (Campbell, 1999).
Men high on narcissism are more likely to engage in sexual coercion (Baumeister,
Catanese, & Wallace (2002). Bushman, Bonacci, Van Dijk, and Baumeister (2003) found three
possible explanations for this. First, their low level o f empathy makes it harder for them to see
that the other person is suffering. Second, narcissists also feel that women owe them sexual
favors. Third, narcissists could misunderstand that the victim wants to have sex too. Bushman et
al. (2003) found that narcissistic men feel less empathy towards sexual victims.
The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI)
The NPI is the most used measure to assess narcissism for psychological research
(Raskin & Hall, 1979). The NPI is a 40-item measure that was developed to study differences in
16
narcissism compared with the general population (Raskin & Terry, 1988). In addition, these
authors found seven factors o f the NPI that are similar to the description o f narcissistic
personality disorder (NPD) that the DSM - IV TR (2000) described. While practitioners
commonly use NPI to assess narcissistic traits, the NPI does not assess more severe forms o f
narcissism (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). In addition, other investigators stated that the NPI just
assesses “adaptive narcissism” (Watson, Trumpeter, O ’Leary, Morris, & Culhane, 2005-2006).
Pincus, Ansell, Pimentel, Cain, Wright, and Levy (2009) found that the NPI does not assess
“subclinical narcissism” (p. 366); these researchers found that the NPI assesses the adaptive
component o f the NPD diagnosis (e.g., achievement motivation and self-esteem). The main
critique o f the NPI cofounds the two aspects (healthy and pathological narcissism) o f narcissism.
A recent review o f the literature found a telling difference between healthy and
pathological narcissism: specifically, the narcissist’s dimensions o f grandiosity and vulnerability
(Pincus & Lukowitsky, 2010). These authors depict pathological narcissism as characterized by
overvalued ideas o f the self, grandiose fantasies, and exploitive behavior. Further, these authors
highlight another important characteristic o f pathological narcissism as a severe vulnerability to
criticism and rejection by others. Pincus et al. (2009) developed the Pathological Narcissism
Inventory (PNI), a 52-item inventory and measures seven aspects o f narcissism. The seven PNI
aspects include low self-esteem, interpersonal distress, shameful affects, aggression, borderline
personality organization, and low empathy (p. 376).
Machiavellian Intelligence
The term “Machiavellianism” was first used by Christie and Geis (1970) to describe a
type o f person who is deceitful and manipulative in order to get their way, and cynical or tending
to distrust others and continuously trying to seek status for themselves. The writing o f Niccolo
17
Machiavelli in his book titled The Prince inspired these characterizations. A Machiavellian
individual feels that the end justifies the means, and that they intend to get their way through the
use of methods including manipulation. Some individuals are quite malleable, and
Machiavellians may use various means to deceive and manipulate them. Research has shown that
Machiavellians are more focused on short-term than long-term rewards (Wilson, Near, & Miller,
1996). In addition, they have difficulties understanding that their behavior has consequences,
especially in the long-term, and they regularly look for short cuts (Gunnthorsdottir, McCabe, &
Smith, 2002). Machiavellians are good at hiding intentions and they lie with facility (Wilson et
al., 1996). They are also associated with misreporting information (Murphy, 2012).
In a recent study, Czibor and Bereczkei (2012) found that a Machiavellian will
“evaluate” (pp. 205) their partner’s behavior and change their own behavior accordingly in a
form o f situational mimicry. Consequently, this makes them very successful in social situations
and able to get what they want from others. In addition, they are good at hiding and controlling
their emotions. Research has shown that individuals high on Machiavellianism believe that they
are going to be exploited if they do not exploit the other first (Jones & Paulhus, 2009; Mclllwain,
2003; Wilson et al., 1996), and they evince a clever way o f thinking.
In terms o f love relations, Machiavellians tend to be unfaithful, promiscuous, selfish,
aggressive, and to feign love in order to have sex (Jonason, Li, Webster, & Schmitt, 2009;
McHoskey, 2001). In terms o f sexuality, McHoskey (2001) found that the trait is more apparent
in men than in women, and is seen in males’ “sexual hostility, willingness to pose nude, number
o f previous sexual partners, cheating, kiss and tell, and intoxicating a partner to secure sex” (pp.
787). Machiavellians seem to experience low levels o f life satisfaction and intimacy (Ali &
Chamorro-Premuzic, 2010). Individuals high on Machiavellian Intelligence perceive a lover’s
18
gullibility as an opportunity to deceive and get away with infidelities. Further, previous research
has shown that individuals high on Machiavellianism do not experience a relationship preference
among choices including “one-night stands, booty-calls, friends-with-benefits, and serious
romantic relationships” (Jonason, Luevano, & Adams, 2012, p. 1).
Researchers have developed different measures to assess Machiavellianism such as the
clinically popular Mach-IV inventory, which has 20 items that assess lack o f interest in normal
morality and the use o f deceit in intimate relationships (Christie & Geis, 1970). Another is the
16-item Machiavellian Personality Scale (Dahling, Whitaker, & Levy, 2009).
Psychopathy
This affliction is epitomized by individuals with several tendencies. They tend to lie
without compunction, lack guilt or remorse, pretend to be charming, are manipulative, and
exhibit superficial affect, callousness, and lack o f responsibility (Cleckley, 1941). Hare (1980)
introduced psychopathy as a classification whose main characteristic is seen in individuals
suffering from a lack o f empathy or empathic dysfunction (Hare, 1991). Psychopathy usually
appears during childhood (Harpur & Hare, 1994), and psychopaths have a deficit in processing
disgust, fearful, and sad facial expressions (Pham & Philippot, 2010; Hansen, Johnsen, Hart,
Waage, & Thayer, 2008; Blair 2005)
According to Blair (2005), the deficit is more specifically identified as emotional
empathy. Further, a recent study found that the deficit in emotional empathy exists among males
across all ages but not females (Dadds, Hawes, Frost,Vassallo, Bunn, Hunter, & Merz, 2009).
According to the description above, it may be that individuals high on measures o f psychopathy
do not see anything wrong with date rape. It also may be that they fail to read facial expressions
such as fear and disgust, and would think that their partner is enjoying such sexual encounters.
19
Psychopathy consists o f two forms, primary psychopathy and secondary psychopathy
(Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995). Primary psychopathy is characterized by low anxiety,
aggression, impulsivity, self-confidence, and extraversion (Blackburn & Fawcett, 1999).
Secondary psychopath individuals have low self-esteem, social anxiety, introversion, and
moodiness (Blackburn & Fawcett, 1999).
In terms o f relationship preference, individuals high on psychopathy prefer short-term
sexual relationships (Harris, Rice, Hilton, Lalumiere, & Quinsey, 2007). A recent study has
shown that, given choices including “one-night stands, booty-calls, friends-with-benefits, and
serious romantic relationships” (Jonason et al., 2012), individuals high on psychopathy prefer
booty-call relationships. A booty-call relationship occurs when “individuals use others for sex by
a late night phone call” (Jonason, Li, & Caso, 2009 pp.461 ). Booty-calls have a higher degree o f
exploitation as they involve using the other person just for sex. In addition, research has shown
that psychopaths have an exploitive, opportunistic mating strategy (Jonason et al., 2009).
Infidelity is an important characteristic o f psychopaths’ relationships (Egan & Angus,
2004) as they operate without feeling guilt or remorse. Acts o f sexual aggression have been
found in psychopaths’ relationships as well (Hersh & Gray-Little, 1998). One study (Ali et al.,
2010) indicated that the finding that primary psychopathy was positively correlated with
“intimacy, passion, and commitment is counterintuitive” (pp. 231). Since psychopaths are very
manipulative, the better they know the partner, the easier it is for them to manipulate them. That
is, the closer psychopaths are with someone the more they can know about their “weaknesses”
(Ali et al., 2010, p. 231) in order to take advantage o f them. This may account for the finding that
the spouses of the individulas with anitsocial behaviour are very alike (Galbaud du Fort,
Boothroyd, Bland, Newman, & Kakuma, 2002).
20
Researchers have developed different measures to diagnose psychopaths. Most popular is
the Hare (1991) psychopathy checklist revised (PCL-R). The purpose o f the PCL-R is to rate an
individual’s psychopathy tendencies, including those o f sex offenders. In fact, it was originally
designed for people who had committed crimes and was at first used primarily in the courtroom.
Currently, the PCL-R is used for research purposes and consists o f a 20 behavioral-item rating
scale which is scored with a semi-structured interview and a file review, and has been found to
be a valid and reliable measure.
The Dark Triad
The Dark Triad (Paulhus & Williams, 2002) is a relatively new concept in the field. The
authors combine narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy into a singular construct. With
those three distinct traits residing in the combinatorial “Dark Triad” subclinical form, it does not
appear in the DSM-IV (2000). Still, it has been studied from a social psychology as well as a
clinical perspective (Lee & Ashton, 2005). Respectively, regarding the above three components,
individuals who are high on the Dark Triad measure are characterized by artificially inflated self
perceptions, goal-seeking manipulation o f others, and a lack o f empathy or remorse (Crysel,
Crosier, & Webster, 2013). Further, individuals who score high on the Dark Triad scale exhibit
several behaviors: taking risks without considering the consequences (Jonason & Tost, 2010),
constantly seeking new experiences (Jonason, Li, & Buss, 2010), unpleasant dispositions (Jones
& Paulhus, 2010; Lee & Ashton, 2005; Paulhus & Williams, 2002), impulsivity (Jones &
Paulhus, 2011; Jonason & Tost, 2010),use humor as interpersonal strategy (Veselka, Schermer,
& Vernon, 2011), and a short-term mating strategy (Jonason, Li, Webster, & Schmitt, 2009).
Furthermore, Dark Triad traits can facilitate mating as well as exploitive short-term
sexual relations, as it is easy for men who were studied and carry these traits to find many sexual
21
partners (Jonason et al., 2009; Jonason, et al., 2011). First, among aspects o f the Dark Triad is a
lack o f empathy characterized by individuals who score high in its measurement; this
characteristic facilitates an exploitive short-term mating strategy without feeling remorse or guilt
(Jonason et al., 2009). Those who are high in the Dark Triad appear to be open, sociable, and
able to handle risk; therefore, it is easy for them to handle the feelings that come with exploiting
others, and exploiting is how they get what they want from the environment (Jonason, Li, &
Teicher, 2010).
In addition, research has shown that individuals who score high on the Dark Triad
measure are less interested in having long-term romantic relationships, reflected in research
viewpoints suggesting that they do not like commitment (Foster, Shrira, & Campbell, 2006;
Jonason et al.,2012). These individuals might have diminished capacity to feel love with their
partners, and instead may have the capacity, perhaps on a relative basis that can be most
effectively depicted on a continuum, to “use” them (Jonason, Li, & Buss, 2010; Jonason &
Kavanagh, 2010).
While Dark Triad carriers benefit by having an effective short-term mating strategy, research
indicates that they can have long term difficulties, such as in retaining their partners (Jonason, Li, &
Buss, 2010). Dark Triad elements may appear to some observers to confer short-term advantages on
those high on Dark Triad in terms o f their ability to mate and obtain multiple partners over time, yet
if this behavior is driven by a desire for sexual variety and sexual conquest the long-term result
might be misery whereby such Dark Triad individuals may engage in relatively unsuccessful long
term relationships.
In terms o f its presentation among the genders, men tend to score higher on the Dark
Triad than do women (Cale & Lilienfeld, 2002; Fumham & Trickey, 2011 ;Jonason et al., 2010;
22
Jonason, Valentine, Li, & Harbeson, 2011; Jonason et al., 2009; Jonason & Webster, 2010;
Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Webster & Jonason, 2012). This is consistent with other studies
where evidence shows that men score higher in the three separate components o f narcissism,
Machiavellianism, and psychopathy (Jonason, Li, & Buss, 2010). In general but not exclusively,
men tend to have more exploitive behavior than women, and research has found that they tend to
benefit more from social exploitation (Buss & Duntley, 2008). There are almost no papers
looking at sex differences on the Dark Triad. It was difficult to locate any research regarding
women who score high on the Dark Triad measure, while there is growing literature on men and
the incidence with Dark Triad.
The literature describes Dark Triad men as very seductive whereby it is easy for them to
attract women, with field voices even invoking the James Bond lady-killer archetype (Jonason,
Li, & Teicher, 2010) to better foment the discipline’s conceptual grasp. Indeed, because o f the
high narcissism component attributed to them, Dark Triad males tend to appear very secure and
grandiose, and many women are attracted to that type o f man. Jonason is cited as suggesting that
women with avoidant attachment are more attracted to Dark Triad men (Longrigg, 2013).
The Original Dark Triad Measure
The original Dark Triad construct was developed as a 91-item 3-scale composite measure
that was derived from three separate and distinct measures (Jonason & Webster, 2010) whose
item counts are added together. The three measures are: (1) narcissism, from the 40-item
Narcissism Personality Inventory (Raskin & Terry, 1988); (2) sub-clinical psychopathy, from a
31-item measure that has experienced several revisions, the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale-Ill
(Paulhus, Hemphill, & Hare, in press); and (3) Machiavellianism, from the 20-item MACH-IV
(Christie & Geis, 1970). Importantly and possibly implied from these disparate measures in
23
combination, scoring the Dark Triad is time consuming and can be complicated, at times causing
tiredness in some participants (Jonason & Webster, 2010). One positive aspect o f using this 91-
item scale is that each o f the three above measures has shown a high validity from previous
research: NPI measured as Cronbach’s a = .87, psychopathy scaled as Cronbach’s a = .74, and
Mach IV as Cronbach’s a = .57 (Jonason, Li, & Teicher, 2010).
The Dark Triad Dirty Dozen Measure
In the hopes o f reducing participant fatigue and frustration, as well as allowing the three
disparate constructs to be measured with the same response scale format, Jonason and Webster
(2010) developed the “Dirty Dozen” measure for scoring the Dark Triad. The Dirty Dozen
instrument is utilized to measure the Dark Triad and is comprised o f only twelve (12) questions:
4-items on narcissism, 4-items on anti-social behavior (psychopathy), and 4-items on
Machiavellianism. An advantage here is that the measure takes less than ten minutes to
administer and takes only five minutes to score. Additionally, participants do not get tired o f
taking the test, and among volunteer populations researchers can find it easy to attract
individuals for their sample.
Since Jonason and Webster (2010) developed the Dirty Dozen measure, many studies
using the Dirty Dozen have been added to the literature (Crysel, et al., 2013; Jonason, Luevano,
& Adams, 2012; Jonason, Koening, & Tost, 2010; Jonason & McCain, 2012; Jonason, Slomski,
& Partyka, 2012; Jonason & Webster, 2012; Lee, Ashton, Wiltshire, Bourdage, Visser, &
Gallucci, 2012; Rauthmann & Kolar, 2012; Webster & Jonason, 2012).
The Dark Triad might predict tendencies to engage in nonconsensual sex because people
high on the measure may possess an opportunistic mating strategy that may be seen among men
who are reported as indicating sexual arousal toward forced sex (Malamuth, 1989).
24
Attachment Style and Adult Sexuality
A number o f researchers have investigated sexuality from an attachment perspective
(Bimbaum, 2010; Diamond, Blatt, & Lichtenberg, 2007; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). A central
purpose o f attachment theory surrounded why infants develop attachments to their caregivers and
why infants can experience distress when they are separated from their caregivers. When an
infant is in certain circumstances, he/she may seek solace or protection from their caregiver or an
attachment figure (Bowlby, 1982). If the caregiver provides to the child a “safe haven” (Collins
& Feeney, 2000, p. 1054) then the child, when he/she feels afraid, sick, or uncomfortable due to
unfamiliar surroundings, can perceive protection being afforded to them by the caregiver. These
authors further hold that a child’s capacity to rely on their caregiver for comfort and protection
can be crucial to the child’s healthy development, including the development o f satisfactory
attachments with other individuals. Further, the attachment theory perspective implies that when
adults experience distress or feel afraid they will seek comfort from a perceived safe haven, but
that the specific way in which adults will cope with distress will depend on their attachment style
(Bowlby, 1988).
In terms o f potential attachments among adults, the types o f attachment that the multi
partner male or female may have developed according to a three-style model include: (1) secure,
(2) preoccupied or anxious, and (3) avoidant (Bowlby, 1980). Again, the attachment style that
different individuals develop depends upon their emotional attachment as infants (Bowlby, 1979)
and the relationship that they had with their caregivers (Pearce & Pezzot-Pearce, 2007). Bowlby
(1979) finds that individuals are bom with a need to find close relationships where they can feel
protected; for example, if the relationship is strong between the caregiver(s) and the infant, the
infant can develop a secure attachment style. Differentially, when parents and caregivers fail to
25
provide adequate responses to their infants, the individual can develop a preoccupied or avoidant
attachment style. While these outcomes could certainly be the result o f other or multiple factors,
the topic o f attachment style appears to beg research questions regarding multi-factorial inputs.
Other researchers have proposed multiple attachment style taxonomies. Ainsworth,
Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978) found three types o f attachment: (1) secure, whereby the infant
feels a strong positive bond with the caregiver; (2) avoidant, wherein the infant avoids and
behaves indifferently to the caregiver; and (3) anxious-ambivalent, seen when the infant appears
stressed as he/she reacts with anger and protest to the caregiver. Hazan and Shaver (1987) found
four adult attachment styles: (1) secure, (2) anxious-preoccupied, (3) dismissive-avoidant, and
(4) fearful-avoidant. Interestingly, despite such variegated classification schemes, Levy and
Kelly (2010) found no discernible differences between the genders in terms o f infant attachment.
Yet in adults differences may be seen, as Levy et al. (1998) found that more men than women
have avoidant, insecure, dismissive attachment styles.
In terms o f adult romantic relationships and sexuality, Cooper (2006) found that securely
attached individuals are satisfied with their sexuality. Securely attached adults feel comfortable
having intimacy with their partners (Cooper, Pioli, Levitt, Telley, Micheas, & Collins, 2006), and
such individuals seek serious romantic relationships instead o f one-night stands (Hazan, Campa,
& Gur-Yaish, 2006). Securely attached respondents described their romantic relationship as
satisfactory, happy, and usually long lasting (Feeney & Noller, 1990; Hazan & Shaver, 1987),
and further described their sexuality as satisfying, reporting trust and pleasure (Schachner &
Shaver, 2004). In addition, securely attached individuals do not present fears o f abandonment,
and feel tranquil when they are with others; they can tolerate that others depend on them, as well
as that they depend on others (Simpson, 1990). Since they do not have a fear o f being close to
26
their partners, securely attached individuals enjoy sex with their partners and satisfy each other’s
needs (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).
According to Hazan et al. (2006), insecurely or anxiously attached individuals are more
excited about one-night stands, multiple partners, and casual sex, yet with significant differences
among men and women. Further, women who are anxiously attached tend to have more than one
sexual partner and usually begin having sex earlier in life, while similarly anxious men have
fewer partners due to anxieties in finding partner. Generally, anxiously-attached individuals have
the desire to form serious (Feeney & Noller, 1990) and reciprocal relationships (Hazan &
Shaver, 1987), yet their relationships are unstable and jealous (Edenfield, Adams, & Briihl,
2012 ).
Anxiously attached individuals are sensitive to rejection (Collins & Feeney, 2000). Since
they are afraid o f rejection, anxiously attached individuals are often preoccupied with their
sexual performance and tend to ignore their partner’s wishes and expectations (Bimbaum, 2007).
On the other hand, they could be seen as sexual pleasers who ignore their own needs to please
their partners (Davis, Shaver, Widaman, Vernon, Folette, & Beitz, 2006). Perhaps anxiously
attached women would be more vulnerable to nonconsensual sex as they are overly
accommodating and overly eager to please.
Individuals with an avoidant attachment in terms o f sexuality just want to seek their own
sexual satisfaction without considering their partner (Davis et al., 2006). In addition, avoidant
individuals use sexuality for reasons including exerting personal power, impressing their peers,
and seeking pleasure (Davis, Shaver, & Vernon, 2004). Brassard, Shaver, and Lussier (2007)
found that when such avoidant individuals are involved in a romantic relationship they might
avoid sex with their partner. Not surprisingly, avoidant individuals tend to have more
27
promiscuous relationships, and autonomy is highly important for them (Brennan & Shaver, 1995;
Simpson, 1990). Feeney and Noller (1990) found that avoidant individuals avoid intimacy.
Avoidant individuals experience a lack o f guilt and low empathy, and therefore are more prone
to be unfaithful to their partners and more open to having more than one sexual partner. They
have a fear o f closeness, and it is difficult for them to trust people (Feeney & Noller, 1990;
Hazan & Shaver, 1987). The Dark Triad and avoidant attachment seem to be highly correlated.
Sex Drive
An important aspect of this study is sex drive. It could speculated that individuals who
engage in nonconsensual sex have a higher sex drive, are more driven by sex, than those who do
not engage in nonconsensual sex. Sex drive refers to “sexual motivation, usually focused on
craving for sexual activity and sexual pleasure” (Baumeister, Catanese, & Vohs, 2001, p. 244).
The reason that individuals want to have sex can vary. For example, Hill (1997) noticed that
people have sexual relations for different rationales such as for stress relief, desire for power, and
for procreation. Baumesiter et al. (2001) found that men have a stronger sex drive than women.
The explanation for this was that men produce more testosterone than women (Dabbs, 2000),
which is essential in producing sex drive.
A common stereotype in societal discourse is that men think o f sex more often than
women. Yet a study conducted by Fisher, Moore, and Pittenger (2012) found that the idea o f
men always thinking about sex should be revised as they found that men also think o f food and
sleep, not just sex. In addition, they found that young women can think about sex just as much as
men, with the difference being that women do not report those thoughts. Many individuals might
not be aware o f their arousal when their sexual response is not socially acceptable. Therefore, for
the purpose o f this study, sex drive was measured implicitly and explicitly. Additionally, one
28
way to measure sex drive is by examining desirability o f sex. It is predicted that individuals who
report a high sex drive will have more desire to have sex. Baumiester et al. (2001) found another
possible measure for high sex drive is the desire for many different partners. It is predicted that
individuals with a high sex drive will want to have sex with more than one partner. As mentioned
above, one o f the characteristics o f high Dark Triad individuals is that they have many sexual
partners. This could indicate that individuals high on the Dark Triad have a strong sex drive.
Additionally, individuals were asked their sexual orientation and monthly frequency o f orgasm
to assess strength o f sex drive. It is predicted that individuals with a strong sex drive will report
more orgasms per week. It should be noted that some individuals have a strong sex drive but do
not reach orgasm.
Baumiester et al. (2001) made the distinction between sexual capacity, sex drive, and
sexual enjoyment. Sexual capacity is the highest “limit o f sexual activity that someone can do,”
(Baumeister et al., 2001, p. 244). Sexual enjoyment refers to the amount o f enjoyment an
individual can have during sexual activity.
Disgust
An important aspect o f the present study is disgust. Individuals high on the Dark Triad
will likely react with less disgust to a nonconsensual situation. An individual’s reaction of
disgust is known in the field as Freud examined disgust and attributed it to human sexuality as it
serves to place limitations on childhood sexual behavior (1905). According to Freud, disgust is a
vehicle o f sexual inhibition, so that people low on disgust should be low on sexual inhibition.
Therefore, we want to see if people high on the Dark Triad are low on disgust. We assume that
nonconsensual sexual behavior should evoke more disgust than sexual arousal in most people,
though that response tendency might be attenuated among those high on the Dark Triad.
29
While a commonly held interpretation o f the disgust construct is that it is an often
visceral reaction to negative food-related sights and smells, there is evidence that it is not just
related to food. Research indicates that its occurrence can be categorized in three functionally
specialized domains: pathogen disgust, moral disgust, and sexual disgust (Tybur, Lieberman, &
Griskevicius, 2009). Prior investigators have defined these three disgust domains in some detail,
described below. The present study primarily focuses on one o f these three domains, sexual
disgust. Further in this study, potential linkages between sexual disgust and the Dark Triad are
considered in terms o f sensitivity to nonconsensual sex acts.
Pathogen Disgust
First, pathogen disgust is an automatic emotion that functions as an inhibitor to prevent
physical contamination, such as from disease (Olatunji & Sawchuk, 2005). In this form, disgust
protects organisms from infections, helping us avoid what we feel is disgusting or not attractive
(Curtis, Barra, & Aunger, 2011; Rozin & Fallon, 1987). For example, regarding rotting or
decomposing food, if it was not for the fact that a rotten piece o f fruit or a decomposed portion of
food repulses us, many individuals would eat the item in question and potentially become very
physically ill. The expected reaction after feeling disgust is avoidance (Izard, 1993), which
functions to help the individual move away from and avoid the abhorrent stimulus (e.g., feces or
vomit). Rozin (2000) remarks that this type o f disgust “can be understood as a defense against a
universal fear o f death” (p. 643).
Researchers confirm a strong connection between pathogen disgust and eating behaviors
(Houben & Havermans, 2012). These authors suggest that individuals with anorexia develop an
intense disgust for food. Many researchers have suggested that there is evidence that disgust is
associated with psychopathology as well (Olatunji, Cisler, McKay, & Phillips, 2010). For
30
example, individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) have an intense fear o f getting
dirty. This suggests that - for OCD-afflicted individuals - disgust is a powerful response, as
getting dirty or contaminated is a significant fear to such individuals, more so than is seen in
other types o f personalities.
In another pathogen disgust case, in China, it is not disgusting to eat animals that are
domestic pets in Western society, indicating certain cross-cultural differences regarding disgust.
Separately, research has shown that African Americans reported being more preoccupied with
contamination than European Americans (Williams, Abramowitz, & Olatunji, 2012).
Moral Disgust
Moral disgust refers to “social transgressions” (Tybur, Lieberman, & Griskevicius, 2009,
p. 106) such as antisocial activities like lying, stealing, and cheating, among others. Moral
disgust also includes a reaction o f disgust about a perceived amoral story. For example, hearing a
story about a crime or rape can elicit one’s experiencing moral disgust (Jones & Fitness, 2008).
These authors suggested that experiencing moral disgust “could promote adaptive behavior” (p.
613), such as the personally beneficial behavior o f not wanting to be around criminals. The
function o f moral disgust is to help the individual avoid persons or situations that are potentially
dangerous or threatening to them (Hutcherson & Gross, 2011).
As seen with pathogen disgust, moral disgust serves to protect individuals from
potentially physical threatening circumstances, including the participation o f the individual
themselves in situations involving moral transgressions. It is expected that healthy individuals
should have more moral disgust to nonconsensual sex. This is the first study that looks at the
Dark Triad and disgust.
Sexual Disgust
31
Next, disgust can encompass sexual activities, held to be related to evolutionary issues
(Tybur, Lieberman, & Griskevicius, 2009) whereby individuals are naturally impelled to locate
mating partners that are healthy, physically attractive, and who evince potentially optimal
prospects for procreative success. Fessler and Navarrete (2003) define sexual disgust as “an
adaptation designed to reduce the likelihood that suboptimal sexual behaviors will occur” (p.
408). Examples o f this type include sex with relatives, sex with members o f a different animal
species, or sex that is non-procreative in nature (deemed unnatural acts) as perceived among
same-sex individuals (Chapman & Anderson, 2012). Differently, for Tomkins (1963) the
reaction to nonconsensual sex can be disgust.
Also, research suggests that incest elicits disgust (Antfolk, Karlsson, Backstrom, &
Santtila, 2012), seen as individuals disapprove o f sex between siblings. The normal reaction to
someone thinking about having sex with one o f their parents is that it elicits a disgust or
repulsion response; this is said to help prevent incest from occuring, as incest can lead to
inbreeding that can produce defective offspring (Bittles & Neel, 1994). In addition to the feelings
of disgust and repulsion that individuals can experience related to incest, incest in many societies
is a criminal act (Bergelson, 2012). Bergelson suggests that the main reason individuals avoid
incest is related to disgust and repulsion.
Clearly, the disgust that stimulates sexual avoidance is different from the disgust that
provokes pathogen avoidance; someone experiencing sexual disgust will avoid a behavior (e.g., a
sexual encounter) (Tybur, Lieberman, & Griskevicius, 2009). Tybur et al. argue that the function
o f sexual disgust is to avoid sexual behaviors that could result in unhealthy offspring. It is
predicted that women would be disgusted by nonconsensual sex because they could get
impregnated by an undesirable partner. Men could be disgusted by nonconsensual sex because
32
they do not want other men raping their partners (e.g., girlfriends or wives) but on the other
hand, men might be less disgusted by nonconsensual sex because it could increase their
reproductive output by impregnating multiple partners. Some studies have shown that antisocial
males start having sex earlier and ultimately become teenage fathers o f children with various
partners (Harris et al., 2007).
Perceptual differences. While disgust about incest and pedophilia seems universal
(Fessler & Navarrete, 2004; Haidt, McCauley, & Rozin, 1994), individuals from various cultures
and genders can experience different levels o f sexual disgust on different topics such as
homosexuality, female sexuality, etc. Many individuals respond to homosexuality with disgust,
perceiving that it is an immoral act (Inbar, Pizarro, Knobe, & Bloom, 2009).
Research has found that women are more disgusted by incest than men (Antfolk et al.,
2012). Also, women tend to find marriage more unwanted with someone that they grew up with
compared to other, unknown men (Walter & Buyske, 2003). Research indicates that incest
between and a parent and a child elicits more disgust than incest between siblings; perhaps in
reaction to the latter, most cultures prohibit marriage between siblings (La Fontaine, 1986;
Patterson, 2005; Walter & Buyske, 2003).
Other perceptual differences are seen regarding rape. Included here are cross-cultural
differences, such as in some circumstances when rape has been used as a tool o f war (Swiss &
Giller, 1993) and also in situations in which cultures as a whole can be said to blame the victims
o f rape (Lamb, 1999).
Recent research has shown that disgust can be seen as divided into two components:
disgust propensity and disgust sensitivity.
33
Disgust sensitivity. This component refers to how individuals experience disgust in
terms o f their own dislike perception o f something (Van Overveld, de Jong, Peters, Cavanagh, &
Davey, 2006). Individual sensitivity in this area can vary widely, as some individuals are very
sensitive while others are less affected by the same stimulus. This term has been used in many
social, clinical, and personality psychopathology studies (Lieberman, Tybur, & Latner, 2011).
Disgust propensity. This is the tendency that a particular individual has in experiencing
disgust and how he/she responds to that, such as with sexual dysfunction (de Jong, van Overveld,
Weijmar Schultz, Peters, & Buwalda, 2009). A fear o f spiders (Matchett & Davey, 1991; Vernon
& Berenbaum, 2008) indicates disgust propensity.
Disgust Measures
One o f the most popular disgust measures is the Disgust Scale (DS) developed by Haidt,
McCauley, and Rozin (1994) that measures the intensity o f disgust reaction across food, death,
sex, et cetera. An alternative measure o f disgust is the Disgust Emotional Scale (DES) developed
by Kleinknecht, Liebknecht, and Thorndike (1997) which assesses disgust across several areas:
odors, blood, rotting food, and so on.
Tybur et al. (2009) developed the Three Domain Disgust Scale (TDDS). The “TDDS
measures disgust sensitivity across pathogen, moral and sexual domains” (p. 105). This measure
looks at disgust sensitivity to pathogen disgust (general disgust) and disgust sensitivity to
sexual/moral disgust.
One of the first measures for disgust propensity and sensitivity was developed by
Cavanagh and Davey (2000). Their Disgust Propensity and Sensitivity Scale Revised (DPSS-R)
is a questionnaire that consists o f 12 statements about disgust. This measure was assessed by
using the Disgust Propensity and Sensitivity Scale-Revised (Fergus & Valentiner, 2009).
34
Mindset Priming
Mindset priming is a social psychology concept. The purpose o f mindset priming is to
activate conscious or unconscious responses to a certain stimulus (Bargh & Chartrand, 2000).
Mindset priming can be conscious, such as where participants must read a story, or unconscious,
using subliminal exposure. Such stories or exposures are termed “primes.” Such priming is an
experimental tool for researchers (Bargh & Chartrand, 2000). Once a story or a subliminal object
activates the mindset (priming it), researchers can analyze whether there is an impact on the
other measures.
One study was conducted by Hunyady, Josephs, and Jost (2008) where they utilized
mindset priming to activate feelings associated with being betrayed. The participants o f this
research had to read a short vignette whereby a protagonist walks in on his/her partner and the
partner is having sex with someone else. In the absence o f the priming manipulation, men high
on narcissism reported more positive attitudes towards infidelity than either women or men low
on narcissism. Interestingly, with the presence o f the priming manipulation, participants high on
narcissism reported having negative attitudes towards infidelity. Men high on narcissism are
more commonly the “cheaters” in relationships, and these results showed that once there is
identification by the narcissist with the betrayed victim, the narcissist’s attitude toward cheating
becomes more negative.
The present research utilized mindset priming manipulation whereby participants
encounter circumstances that hypothetically activate disgust or sexual arousal as they read stories
about either nonconsensual casual sex or consensual casual sex. The purpose o f the mindset
priming in this study is to see if individuals with different personality traits respond to situations
differently or have diverse affective responses.
35
Hypotheses
T Tests
T Tests were conducted on the following hypotheses:
1. Men would score higher on the Dark Triad measure than women.
2. Men would score higher on implicit sex drive than women.
3. Men would score higher on explicit sex drive than women
4. Men would score lower on disgust propensity and sensitivity than women
5. Men would score higher on avoidant attachment than women
Correlations
Correlations were conducted on the following hypotheses:
1) Individuals high on the Dark Triad would have higher implicit sex drive
2) Individuals high on the Dark Triad would have higher explicit sex drive
3) Individuals high on the Dark Triad would have more avoidant attachment
4) Individuals high on the Dark Triad would have less disgust propensity and sensitivity
ANOVA
ANOVAs were conducted based on the following hypotheses
1) Individuals high on the Dark Triad would respond to the sexploitation prime with less
disgust, more implicit sexual arousal, more explicit sexual arousal, and more arousal o f
romantic feelings than individuals low on the Dark Triad.
2) Women would respond to the sexploitation prime with more disgust, less implicit sexual
arousal, less explicit sexual arousal, and less romantic feelings than men.
3) There would be an interaction between sex and the Dark Triad so that men who are high on
the Dark Triad will respond with the least sexual disgust, the most implicit sexual arousal,
36
the most explicit sexual arousal, and the most romantic feelings to the sexploitation prime o f
any subjects in the study while women low on the Dark Triad will respond with the most
sexual disgust, the least implicit sexual arousal, the least explicit sexual arousal, and the least
romantic feelings.
CHAPTER 3
Method
Participants
Five hundred and fifteen undergraduate students and individuals from the general
population (28.7% men and 71.3% women) aged 18- 52 (M=20.65 and SD=4.74) participated on
the study. Research participants were recruited from undergraduate psychology students at
Adelphi University who need to participate in empirical studies in order to obtain credits for their
classes. Adelphi undergraduate students completed the study through the web-based system
named the Adelphi Sona-system. The Sona-system is web-based software for managing
participant pools. Subjects from the general population were recruited via email and “word-of-
mouth” techniques and accessed the study through survey monkey. The only exclusion criteria
were English reading fluency and the requirement that participants be age 18 or older.
Measures
The Dark Triad: Narcissism, anti-social behavior, and Machiavellianism. These
elements were assessed with the Dark Triad Inventory called the “Dirty Dozen” (Jonason &
Webster, 2010). The Dirty Dozen consisted o f a 12-item measure: 4-items on narcissism, 4-items
on anti-social behavior, and 4-items on Machiavellianism. Sample items on narcissism included:
“I tend to want others to admire me,” and “I tend to want others to pay attention to me.” Sample
items on anti-social behavior included: “I tend to lack remorse,” and “I tend to be cynical.”
37
Sample items on Machiavellianism included: “I tend to manipulate others to get my way,” and “I
have used deceit or lied to get my way.” Participants indicated agreement or disagreement with
each item on a 5 point scale ranging from 1= “disagree strongly” to 5= “agree s t r o n g l y and a
mean score was calculated for each participant.
From the perspective o f reliability, the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen measure (Jonason & Webster,
2012) was assessed by using Cronbach’s alpha (a). The 12 items were averaged together: narcissism
(Cronbach’s a = .81), Machiavellianism (a = .69), and psychopathy (a = .65). Taken altogether, the 12-
items comprise a single Dark Triad index of all three (a = .85). The three Dark Triad traits were
positively inter-correlated (rs = .34-.60, ps < .01). Another study reported Dirty Dozen measures of:
narcissism (Cronbach’s a = .85), Machiavellianism (a = .79), psychopathy (a = .79), and all three (a =
.86) (Jonason, Slomski, & Partyka, 2012). The Dirty Dozen has been said to be a reliable and valid
measure to assess the three constructs simultaneously (Jonason et al., 2010; Jonason & McCain, 2012;
Jonason & Webster, 2010). A number o f studies have confirmed the construct validity o f the Dirty
Dozen for the assessment o f the Dark Triad in sub-clinical samples (e.g., Jonason & Kavanagh, 2010;
Rauthmann, 2012).
Experience of close relationship measure (ECR). This measure was assessed by
applying the Attachment Scale (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). Items referenced one’s
feelings in romantic relationships in order to assess how he/she experiences relationships in
general. The Attachment Scale consisted o f 36 questions: 18 items on anxious attachment, and
18 items on attachment-related avoidance, on a 7 point scale from 1= “strongly disagree” to 7=
""strongly a g r e e Sample items related from the anxiety scale include the following: “I worry
about being abandoned,” and “When I'm not involved in a relationship, I feel somewhat anxious
and insecure.” Sample items related to the avoidant scale include the following: “I feel
38
comfortable sharing my private thoughts and feelings with my partner,” and “I want to get close
to my partner, but I keep pulling back.” Brennan et al. (1998) reported the internal consistency as
an alpha o f .94 for the avoidance scale, and .91 for the anxiety scale. In terms o f support for the
validity o f the ECR measure, prior studies have demonstrated a positive correlation between the
ECR instrument and the Adult Attachment Interview (Stanojevic, 2004). Lopez, Mitchell, and
Gomley (2002) reported a test-retest reliability o f .68 and .71 respectively for Anxiety and
Avoidance scales over a 6-month period. Other studies also showed an internal consistency (a
ranges from .89 to .92) for the Anxiety subscale, and an internal consistency (a ranges from .91
to .95) on the Avoidance scale (Lopez, Mauricio, Gormley, Simko, & Berger, 2001; Wei,
Heppner, & Mallinckrodt, 2003).
Word completion task of sex-related words. Participants had to fill out a blank space
with letters in order to complete each word. This task consisted o f 29 word fragments, nine of
which can be completed with either a neutral or sexual arousal-related word. For example: the
fragment S_X can be completed as SEX (sexual arousal-related word) or as SIX (neutral word).
The possible sex sexual arousal-related words were moist, wet, hard, erect, horny, hot, cum, sex,
and laid. The neutral words were radio, plant, clock, poster, flower, tree, look, picture, noise,
sing, kings, table, window, paper, must, major, water, bottle, core, and chart. After the word
completion task, participants were asked three questions about the previous vignette.
Questions about vignettes. Participants answered three questions that were rated on a
scale o f 1 to 7, with answers ranging from 1= ‘Wot at a ll” to 7= “ Very” : How romantic is the
story? How sexually arousing is the story? How disgusting is the story? These self-report
questions were used as manipulation checks to ensure that the primes activate the affective
39
dispositions they were designed to activate, as well as to assess individual differences in
response to priming conditions.
Disgust Propensity and Sensitivity Scale Revised (DPSS-R). This measure was
assessed by using the Disgust Propensity and Sensitivity Scale-Revised (Fergus & Valentiner,
2009). The DPSS-R is a questionnaire that consists o f 12 statements about disgust. Sample items
from Disgust Propensity include the following: “I feel repulsed,” and “I avoid disgusting things.”
Sample items from Disgust Sensitivity include the following: “When I feel disgusted, I worry
that I might pass out,” and “It scares me when I feel nauseous.” Participants responded on a 5-
point Likert scale ranging from 1= “N ever” to 5= “Always. ”
Previous research has showed that the DPSS-R was internally consistent with alpha
coefficients o f .79 for Sensitivity and .78 for Propensity (Fergus & Valentiner, 2009). In
addition, the internal consistency was indicated for Disgust Propensity and Sensitivity Scale-
Revised Propensity (DPSS-RP) with an alpha o f .66, for the Disgust Propensity and Sensitivity
Scale-Revised Sensitivity (DPSS-RS) with an alpha o f .75, and for the Disgust Scale (DS) with
an alpha o f .82.
Demographic questionnaire. Personal information was obtained by a questionnaire
(Attolini, 2010). Items asked questions regarding gender, marital status, level o f education,
employment, ethnicity, age, and date o f birth. Participants also were asked about their sexual
orientation, and responded on a 6-point scale from 0= “Exclusively homosexual,” to 6=
“Exclusively heterosexual.” Finally, participants were asked about their number o f orgasms per
week and sex drive. Sex drive was operationalized into explicit versus implicit measures o f sex
drive.
Procedures
40
Each participant was asked to complete an online study survey that consists o f seven
parts. All participants were first directed to an online informed consent form, where they were
asked to fill out their names and email addresses. After consent was obtained, each participant
was redirected to a separate link to the online survey in order to ensure that their names and
emails were kept anonymous. Each participant completed an online survey that consisted o f the
following parts: the Dark Triad measure, an attachment scale, a mindset priming task
(participants were randomly assigned to one o f three different experimental conditions), a word
completion task, three questions about the vignette, a disgust propensity and sensitivity scale, a
demographic questionnaire, and a debriefing.
The participants first completed the Dark Triad inventory and the Experience o f Close
Relationships measure. Then subjects read one o f three vignettes that served as a mindset
priming manipulation. In the sexual exploitation scenario (XS), a situation o f nonconsensual sex,
participants read the following:
(XS) Jack is flirting at the bar with a number o f different women. He goes to this bar often, and
today is hitting on girls in his off hours and having a lot to drink. Marie is more intoxicated than
he is; it is the end o f the night and they are checking out each other’s bodies. Jack starts kissing
Marie but she is very drunk. Jack says, “Let’s go home together.” Marie is not sure if that is a
good idea, but Jack convinces her and she leaves the bar with him to go to his home.
In the consensual casual sex case scenario (RS), a situation o f consensual sex, participants read
the following:
(RS) Jack met Marie at a nice restaurant where both are having dinner. They are having a good
time, as both o f them are casually chatting in general and flirting with each other. They are
looking at each other with an adoring gaze in their eyes. Jack and Marie are clearly having a
great time at this restaurant. Jack then asks Marie, “Why don’t we go to my place to have
another cup o f coffee?” She responds in the affirmative with “sure!”, and they leave together,
chatting further while laughing a bit as evidence o f their equally enjoyable afternoon.
In the neutral control scenario (NS), participants read the following:
(NS) Tom meets a friend for lunch. They pal around and chat, having a good time together as
they update one another on recent life developments. After having a nice lunch Tom says, “Let’s
41
get together again next month.” His friend replies by accessing a calendar and offering a couple
o f dates to have another lunch. They agree to a day and time and both make a mental note o f it.
They get up to leave, share a friendly hug, and then go their separate ways.
After reading one o f the three vignettes, subjects completed a word completion task to
assess their implicit sexual arousal as measured by how many o f the 9 words that could be
completed as a sex word were completed as a sex word. Then subjects were asked to answer
three questions about the story to assess how disgusting, how sexually arousing, and how
romantic the subjects found the particular story that they read to be. The three questions were
rated on a scale o f 1 to 7, with answers ranging from 1= “Not at a ll” to 7= “ V e r y The questions
were: How romantic is the story? How sexually arousing is the story? How disgusting is the
story? These self-report questions were used as manipulation checks to ensure that the primes
activate the affective dispositions they were designed to activate, as well as to assess individual
differences in response to the different priming conditions.
Subjects were then presented with a disgust propensity scale. Finally, participants were
asked to fill out a demographic questionnaire in which they were asked to disclose information
about themselves, their sexual orientation, their sex drive, and number o f orgasms per week.
After participants completed all seven parts o f the study, they were fully debriefed. Participants
were informed about the specific hypotheses, and in addition they were provided with
psychological services contact information in case they needed to talk to someone about
upsetting issues that were raised during the study.
42
CHAPTER 4
Results
Demographic Information
The final sample for this study consists o f 148 men (28.7%) and 367 women (71.3%)
aged 18-52. On average, the sample is nearly twenty-one years o f age (mn=20.65, sd=4.75).
With respect to race, the sample is predominantly Caucasian (67.6%) with relatively small
complements o f Black/African Americans (7.8%), Asian/Pacific Islanders (6.8%) Latin
Americans (14%) and Other (3.9%). A Chi-Square test revealed no significant differences
between men and women in terms o f ethnicity %2 (4, 515) =2.88, p=.57. An independent samples
t-test also indicated that males were significantly older than their female counterparts (t = 2.11
df= 230.571, p = .036). Specifically, males were slightly more than a year older (mn = 21.41, sd
= 5.41) than were females (mean = 20.35, sd = 4.43).
Gender Differences on Personality Variables
In order to evaluate whether men and women scored significantly higher on any o f the individual
difference variables, a series o f independent groups t-tests was conducted (see Table 1). As
predicted, men possessed significantly higher mean scores on the Dark Triad (p = .001) Explicit
Sex Drive self-reported (p = .001) and number o f orgasms (p = .027) than did females. Males
reported significantly lower mean scores on both disgust propensity (p = .001), disgust
sensitivity (p = .001) and anxious attachment (p= .001) than did their female counterparts.
However, contrary to expectation, there were no statistically significant mean differences
43
between males and females on implicit sex drive, as measured by the word completion test or
avoidant attachment.
Table 1: T Tests: Gender Differences
Men Women
Variables N M SD N M SD t df Cohen’s P
d
Dark Triad 148 32.26 8.82 367 29.48 7.25 3.39 230.98 0.34 .001
Total
Implicit Sex 144 4.31 1.50 358 4.07 1.45 1.62 500 0.16 .11
Drive
Orgasms 148 9.72 41.26 367 2.13 2.79 2.23 147.54 0.25 .027
Explicit Sex 148 4.75 1.00 367 4.07 1.19 6.15 513 0.61 .001
Drive
Disgust 148 16.05 4.02 367 17.94 3.62 -5.18 513 0.49 .001
Propensity
Disgust 148 11.87 4.41 367 14.84 4.15 -7.18 513 0.69 .001
Sensitivity
Anxious 148 63.89 20.12 367 71.01 20.05 -3.64 513 2.33 .001
Attach
Avoidant 148 52.63 17.29 367 53.27 19.77 -0.36 308.53 0.03 .72
Attach
Correlations Among the Personality Variables
Pearson correlations were computed to assess the relationship between the Dark Triad and the
other individual difference variables (i.e. anxious attachment, avoidant attachment, disgust
sensitivity, disgust propensity, explicit self-reported sex drive, implicit sex drive as measure by
44
the word completion test, and number o f self-reported orgasm per week). There were significant
positive correlations o f moderate strength between the Dark Triad and both anxious attachment
(r=.36, p =.01) and avoidant attachment (r = .25, p = .01). There was a small correlation between
the Dark Triad and number o f orgasms (r=.08, p=.01). In addition, the more avoidant attachment
the least sex drive (r= -.22, p=.01).
Table 2: Correlations
Dark Orgasms Explicit Disgust Disgust Anxious A void Implicit
Triad Sex Propensity Sensitivity Attach ant Sex
Total Drive ment Attach Drive
Score ment
Dark Triad
-
Total Score
Orgasms .02 -
Explicit Sex
.08* .15** -
Drive
Disgust
.08* -.04 -.08* -
Propensity
Disgust .57**
.03 -.05 -.14** -
Sensitivity
Anxious .28**
.36*’ .06 -.01 .26** -
Attachment
Avoidant .20 -
.25** -.07 -.22** .05 .08*
Attachment
Implicit .02 -
.01 -.02 .12** .03 .03 .04
Sex Drive
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).
Main Effects o f Priming Condition and Gender
There were three priming conditions in the study: 1) The sexploitation prime in which a man
takes home a drunken woman at a bar, 2) The consensual sex prime in which a couple flirts at a
coffee shop and goes home together, and 3) A neutral prime that describes a social situation
45
without explicit sexual or romantic content. There were four dependent variables. After reading
one o f the three scenarios subjects were asked how sexually arousing the story was, how
romantic the story was, and how disgusting the story was. The subjects then took a word
completion test o f incomplete sex words as well as neutral words.
ANOVA was conducted to assess the main effects o f the primes and gender on each o f
the four dependent variables to see if the primes activated the emotions that they were designed
to activate and to see if gender moderated subjects’ responses to the primes independently o f the
personality variables examined in the study.
How Sexually Arousing
ANOVA examining the effects o f priming condition and gender on how sexually
arousing is the story found a significant main effect for priming condition (p = 0), a significant
main effect o f gender (p = .013). The two way interaction between gender and priming condition
was not significant. (See table 3 and graph 1).
Table 3: Gender and Priming Condition

Source Type III Sum o f Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
prime.condition 60.637 2 30.319 36.614 .000
Gender 5.118 1 5.118 6.181 .013

prime.condition *
1.590 2 .795 .960 .384
gender
Least Significant Difference Tests (LSD) were conducted to assess the significant
differences between the priming conditions in how sexually arousing the stories were. The
consensual sex prime was the most arousing prime. It was significantly more sexually arousing
46
than both sexploitation (p = .012) and the neutral prime (p = 0). The sexploitation prime was
significantly more arousing than the neutral prime (p = 0).
Table 4: Pairwise Comparisons (LSD) by Priming Condition
Condition Mean Condition Mean Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence

Difference (I-J)
(I) (I) (J) Interval for
Difference1*
Sexploitatio Consensual 2.068 -.251’ .099 .012 -.445 -.056

1.794
n Sex
Consensual 1.150 .881’ .100 .000 .684 1.078
2.068 Neutral
Sex
Neutral 1.150 Sexploitation 1.794 -.630' .095 .000 -.818 -.441
The error term is Mean Square(Error) = .828.
* Significant at the .05 level.
LSD tests were conducted to assess how men and women responded differently to priming
condition. Men found the consensual sex prime significantly more arousing than did the women
(p = .011). There was no significant difference between men and women in the other two
priming conditions.
Table 5: Pairwise Comparisons (LSD) o f Gender by Priming Condition
Relationship Primes Men Women Mean Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval
(I) (J) Difference for Difference1*
(I-J) Lower Bound Upper
Bound
Sexploitation 1.880 1.709 .171 .168 .257 -.125 .467
Consensual Sex 2.264 1.873 .392" .160 .011 .089 .694
Neutral 1.200 1.099 .101 .162 .522 -.208 .410
47
b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Least Significant Difference (equivalent to no adjustments).

Estim ated Marginal Means of 2. How sexual arousing is the story?

gender
Male
Fem ale
£> 1.75
1 .00 -
prim e.condition
1= Sexploitation, 2= Consensual Sex, and 3= Neutral
How Romantic
ANOVA examining the effects o f priming condition and gender on how romantic the subjects
found the stories discovered a main effect o f priming condition (p = 0) and a main effect o f
gender (p = 0). The interaction between gender and priming condition was not significant.
48
Table 6: How Romantic by Priming Condition and Gender
prime.condition 174.482 2 87.241 178.908 .000
Gender 8.213 1 8.213 16.844 .000

prime.condition *
1.096 2 .548 1.124 .326
gender
LSD tests found that the consensual sex prime was significantly more romantic than both the
sexploitation prime (p = 0) and the neutral prime (p = 0). The neutral prime was significantly
more romantic than the sexploitation prime (p = 0).
Prime Condition Mean (I) Prime Condition Mean Std.Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval
Difference for Differenceb
(I-J) Lower Upper Bound
Bound
Sexploitation 1.165 Neutral -.318* .0736 .000 -.463 -.173
Consensual Sex 2.669 Sexploitation 1.476* .0761 .000 1.326 1.62
Neutral 1.520 Consensual Sex -1.157* .0769 .000 1.006 -1.30

LSD tests found that men find both the consensual sex (p = .001) and the neutral primes (p =
.016) significantly more romantic than women do. There was no difference between how
romantic men and women found the sexploitation primes.
49
Relationship Men Women Mean Difference Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for
Primes (I) (J) (I-J) Differenceb
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Sexploitation 1.240 1.090 .150 .116 .194 -.077 .378
Consensual Sex 2.868 2.471 .397* .118 .001 .165 .630

Neutral 1.667 1.374 .293* .121 .016 .056 .530
*Significant at the .05 level.
E stim ated Marginal M eans of 1. How rom antic is th e sto ry ?

gender
3.00-
■Male
■F em ale
w 2.50-
C
«
01
s
" re
c
"5>
re 2.00-
■o
ot
15
E
«A
Ul 1.50-
1 .0 0 -
—I—
1.0 2.00 3.00
p rim e.co n d itio n
1= Sexploitation, 2= Consensual Sex, and 3= Neutral
50
How Disgusting
ANOVA found a main effect o f priming condition on how disgusting the stories were (p = 0).
The main effect o f gender on how disgusting the stories were approached significance (p = .066).
There was no interaction between priming condition and gender in predicting how disgusting the
stories were.
Table 9: How Disgusting by Gender and Priming Condition

Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Gender 2.363 1 2.363 3.383 .066
prime.condition 396.47 2 198.23 283.724 .000
gender *
2.766 2 1.383 1.980 .139
prime.condition
LSD tests found that the sexploitation prime was significantly more disgusting than both the
consensual sex prime (p = 0) and the neutral prime (p = 0). There was not any difference
between how disgusting the consensual sex and the neutral primes were.
Table 10: Pairwise Comparisons (LSD) o f Gender by Priming Condition on Disgust
Prime Mean Prime Mean Mean Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence
Condition (I) Condition (J) Difference Interval for Differenceb
(I) (J) (I-J) Lower Upper Bound

Bound
Consensual
Sexploitation 3.165 1.140 2.095* .091 .000 1.91 2.274
Sex
00
to
Consensual Sex 1.140 Neutral 1.105 .052 .092 .568 .233

i
Neutral 1.105 Sexploitation 3.165 -2.147* .088 .000 -2.320 -1.97

51
Since the main effect o f gender on disgust approached significance an LSD test was conducted to
see where gender impacted disgust. Women found the sexploitation prime significantly more
disgusting than did the men (p = .008). There were no differences between men and women in
how much the other two primes were found disgusting.
Table 11: Pairwise Comparisons (LSD) o f Gender by Priming Condition on Disgust
Condition Male Female Mean Difference Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval
(I) (J) (I-J) for Difference1*

Lower Bound Upper
Bound
Sexploitation 2.980 3.351 -.371' .139 .008 -.643 -.099
Consensual Sex 1.094 1.186 -.092 .142 .516 -.370 .186
Neutral 1.111 1.099 .012 .144 .935 -.272 .296
Estim ated Marginal M eans of 3. How disgusting is the story?

gender
3.50-
Male
— Female
3 .00-
(ft
C
19
0
s
19 2.50-
c
*L.o>
19
2
2 .00 -
(9
E
111
1.50-
1 .0 0 “
T T
1.00 2.00 3.00
prime.condition
52
Implicit Sexual Arousal
ANOVA found no significant main effects o f either priming condition or gender on implicit
sexual arousal as measured by the number o f sex word in the word completion test. There was no
significant interaction between priming condition and gender in predicting implicit sexual
arousal.
Table 12: Implicit Sexual Arousal by Priming Condition and Gender

prime.condition 2.815 2 1.407 .656 .519

Gender 5.201 1 5.201 2.425 .120
prime.condition *
.732 2 .366 .171 .843
gender
The Impact of Personality
The priming manipulation obtained the results that were anticipated. Sexploitation was
the most disgusting condition, consensual sex was the most sexually arousing as well as the most
romantic condition. Unfortunately, priming condition had no impact on implicit sexual arousal as
assessed by a sex word completion test. The results for gender were consistent with what has
been found in the literature. Men find consensual sex both more sexually arousing and romantic
than do women. Women find the sexploitation prime more disgusting than do men. The next
round o f statistical analysis assesses the extent to which individual difference variables moderate
those results. Do personality differences moderate the impact o f the primes and gender on the
four dependent variables assessed in the study?
53
ANOVA was performed to examine the main effect o f each personality variable on the
four dependent variables as well as see if there were significant two way interactions with gender
and priming condition or a three way interaction with the personality variable, gender, and
priming condition. There were seven personality variables that were examined: 1) The Dark
Triad, 2) Anxious Attachment, 3) Avoidant Attachment, 4) Disgust Propensity, 5) Disgust
Sensitivity, 6) Explicit sex drive, and 7) Number o f orgasms per week.
The Dark Triad and Sexual Arousal
ANOVA was used to examine the interactions between Priming Condition, Gender, and the Dark
Triad in predicting how sexually arousing subjects found the three stories. ANOVA revealed a
main effect o f the Dark Triad (F = 7.79, (1,503), p < .01) and a 2-way interaction between the
Dark Triad and Gender (F = 5.15, (1,503), p < .03) in predicting how sexually arousing were the
stories (Table 13).
Table 13: How Sexually Arousing: The interaction between The Dark Triad, Gender and Priming
Condition
D ark T riad 6.355 1 6.355 7.785 .005
gender * Dark Triad 4.205 1 4.205 5.151 .024
prime.condition * .137 2 .068 .084 .920
D ark T riad
gender * prime.condition * 2.222 2 1.111 1.361 .257
D ark T riad
Computed using alpha=.05
54
A regression analysis was conducted to estimate the main effect o f the Dark Triad on how
sexually arousing were the stories. There was a modest but positive association between the
scores on the Dark Triad and how sexually arousing the participants found the stories ((3 = .11, p
< .02). That means that individuals high on the Dark Triad tended to find all the stories more
sexually arousing than those low on the Dark Triad. Next, a regression analysis (see Table 14)
revealed that males higher on the Dark Triad find the stories more sexually arousing than males
lower on the Dark ((3 = .25, p < .01). Females higher on the Dark Triad do not find the stories
more sexually arousing than those low on the Dark Triad ((3 - .00, p < .98). The Dark Triad leads
men but not women to find all the stories more sexually arousing regardless o f the different
content o f the stories.
Table 14: How Sexually Arousing: The Interaction between the Dark Triad and Gender
Gender Model T Sig.
Beta
.251 3.135 .002
Male 1 D ark T riad
Female 1 D ark T riad .002 .035 .972
The Dark Triad and How Romantic
ANOVA examined the interaction between the Dark Triad, Gender, and Priming Condition in
predicting how romantic subjects found the stories (see Table 15). There was a significant three
way interaction between the Dark Triad, Gender, and Priming condition (F = 4.67, (2,503), p =
.01) in predicting how romantic subjects found the stories.
55
Table 15: How Romantic: The interaction between the Dark Triad, Gender and Priming Condition
D ark T riad .230 1 .230 .477 .490

gender * Dark Triad .137 1 .137 .283 .595
prime.condition * 1.606 2 .803 1.663 .191
D arkT riad
gender * 4.507 2 2.253 4.668 .010
prime.condition *
D arkT riad
Regression analysis explored the significant three way interaction between Gender, Priming
condition , and the Dark Triad (See Table 16). Though none o f the regression analyses were
significant there was a trend for high Dark Triad men to find the neutral story more romantic (P
= .24, p = .11) than low Dark Triad men and for high Dark Triad men to find the Consensual Sex
story less romantic (P = -.21, p = .14) and for high Dark Triad women to find the Consensual Sex
story more romantic (P = .14, p = .17).
Table 16: How Romantic: The Interaction between the Dark Triad, Gender, and Priming
condition
Relationship Primes Gender Model T Sig.
Beta
Sexploitation Male 1 D arkT riad -.012 -.085 .933
Female 1 D arkT riad -.052 -.603 .548
Consensual Sex Male 1 D arkT riad -.205 -1.494 .141
56
Female 1 Dark_Triad .137 1.381 .170
Neutral Male 1 D arkT riad .240 1.620 .113

Female 1 Dark_Triad .020 .229 .819
The Dark Triad and Disgust
ANOVA was conducted to examine the interaction between Gender, Dark Triad, and Priming
condition in predicting how disgusting the stories were (see Table 17), there are no statistically
significant findings.
Table 17: How Disgusting by Dark Triad, Gender and Priming condition
D ark T riad .227 1 .227 .324 .569

gender * Dark Triad 1.440 1 1.440 2.059 .152
prime.condition * Dark Triad 1.655 2 .828 1.184 .307
.064 2 .032 .045 .956
gender * prime.condition * Dark Triad
The Dark Triad and Implicit Sexual Arousal
ANOVA was conducted to examine the relationships between the Dark Triad, Gender, and
Priming condition in predicting implicit sexual arousal to the stories (i.e. as measured by the
word completion test). As seen in Table 18, there are no statistically significant results.
Table 18: Implicit Sexual Arousal by Dark Triad, Gender and Prime Condition
Dark_Triad .001 1 .001 .000 .988
gender * Dark Triad .681 1 .681 .317 .574
57
prime.condition * Dark Triad .516 2 .258 .120 .887
gender * prime.condition * Dark Triad 6.551 2 3.275 1.522 .219

Disgust Propensity and Sexual Arousal
ANOVA was used to examine the interaction between Priming condition, Gender, and Disgust
Propensity in predicting how sexually arousing subjects found the stories. ANOVA revealed a 3-
way interaction between Gender, Priming condition and Disgust Propensity (F = 6.40, (2,503), p
< .01) in predicting how sexually arousing were the stories. (See Table 19)
Table 19: Sexually Arousing by Disgust Propensity, Gender and Priming condition

Disgust_Propensity .419 1 .419 .517 .472
gender * Disgust_Propensity 2.34 1 2.34 2.89 .089
prime.condition * D isgustPropensity .122 2 .061 .075 .928
D isgustPropensity
Regression analysis was employed to examine the significant three-way interaction between
Disgust Propensity, gender, and priming condition in predicting how sexually arousing the
stories were (see Table 20). As seen in this table, greater levels o f Disgust Propensity are
significantly, albeit modestly, associated with greater self-reported sexual arousal in the male,
Consensual Sex Condition (P = .27, p = .05), and in the female, Neutral Condition (P = .28, p <
58
.01). On the other hand, females in the Consensual Sex Condition with relatively higher levels of
Disgust Propensity report lower levels o f sexual arousal (P = - .28, p < .01).
Table 20: How Sexually Arousing: The interaction between Disgust Propensity, Gender, and
Priming condition
Relationship Primes Gender Model t Sig.

Beta
Sexploitation Male D isgustPropensity .021 .146 .884
Female D isgustPropensity .033 .384 .702
Consensual Sex Male D isgustPropensity .270 2.002 .051
Female D isgustPropensity -.275 -2.861 .005
Neutral Male Disgust_Propensity -.025 -.165 .869
Female D isgustPropensity .282 3.344 .001
Disgust Propensity and How Romantic
ANOVA examined the interaction between the Disgust Propensity, Gender, and Priming
condition in predicting how romantic subjects found the stories (see Table 21). There was a three
way interaction between the Disgust Propensity, Gender, and Priming condition (F = 3.90,
(2,503), p = .02).
Table 21: How Romantic by Disgust Propensity Triad, Gender and Priming condition
Source Type III Sum o f df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
D isgustPropensity .014 1 .014 .028 .868
gender * Disgust Propensity .002 1 .002 .004 .949
59
prime.condition * Disgust Propensity 1.071 2 .535 1.103 .333

D isgustPropensity
Regression analysis was used to explore the statistically significant three way interaction
between Gender, Priming condition, and Disgust Propensity (See Table 22). None o f the
regression analyses was statistically significant but there is some suggestion that high disgust
propensity men in the Consensual Sex Condition find the story more romantic (P = .18, p = .20)
whereas men in the Neutral Condition with greater levels o f disgust propensity report finding the
story less romantic (P = -.23, p = .13).
Table 22: How Romantic by Disgust Propensity by Gender x Priming condition

Source Type III Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Disgust_Propensity .014 1 .014 .028 .868

prime.condition * Disgust Propensity 1.071 2 .535 1.103 .333

D isgustPropensity
Disgust Propensity and Disgust
ANOVA examined the interaction between Disgust Propensity, Gender, and Priming condition
in predicting how disgusting subjects found the stories (see Table 23). There was a statistically
60
significant main effect o f the covariate, Disgust Propensity (F = 6.21, (1,503), p < .02), and a two
way interaction between Disgust Propensity and Priming condition (F = 3.14, (2,503), p < .05).
Table 23: How Disgusting by Disgust Propensity, Gender and Priming condition
D isgustPropensity 4.261 1 4.261 6.205 .013
prime.condition * Disgust_Propensity 4.313 2 2.156 3.140 .044
gender * prime.condition 1.657 2 .829 1.206 .300

*Di sgustPropensity
A regression analysis conducted to estimate the main effect o f the covariate, Disgust Propensity,
on the dependent variable finds that there is a modest, positive relationship between
Disgust Propensity and how disgusting the participants found the stories (p = .16, p < .001).
The significant two way interaction between Disgust Propensity and Priming condition was
deconstructed by examining the relationship between the covariate, Disgust Propensity, and how
disgusting the respondents found the stories within each o f the three prime conditions. Table 24
presents these findings. As seen in this table, there is a statistically significant, positive
relationship between Disgust Propensity and the degree o f disgust reported by the participants
assigned to the Sexploitation Condition (P = .20, p < .01). Participants higher in disgust
propensity found the sexploitation prime more disgusting. For the other two priming conditions,
61
Consensual Sex and Neutral, there is no relationship between these two variables (both, p > .05).
Table 24: How Disgusting by Disgust Propensity by Priming condition
Relationship Primes Model Beta T Sig.
Sexploitation 1 D isgustPropensity .202 2.776 .006
Consensual Sex 1 D isgustPropensity .083 1.035 .302
Neutral 1 D isgustPropensity .082 1.084 .280
Disgust Propensity and Implicit Sexual Arousal
ANOVA was conducted to examine the relationships between Disgust Propensity, Gender, and
Priming condition in predicting Implicit Sexual arousal to the stories. As seen in Table 25, there
are two statistically significant effects at the conventionally used p <= .05 level and one
“essentially” significant effect using the same criterion. Specifically, there is a statistically
significant main effect o f Disgust Propensity (F= 4.07, (1,490), p< .05) and a statistically
significant, two way interaction between Gender and Disgust Propensity (F =5.93, (1,490), p<
. 02 ).
Table 25: How Disgusting by Disgust Propensity, Gender and Priming condition
Source Type III df Mean F Sig.
Sum o f Square
Squares
D isgustPropensity 8.674 1 8.674 4.069 .044
62
gender * Disgust_Propensity 12.650 1 12.650 5.934 .015
prime.condition * Disgust Propensity .682 2 .341 .160 .852
gender * prime.condition * .586 2 .293 .137 .872
D isgustPropensity
Using a regression analysis to examine the main effect o f Disgust Propensity finds that the
relationship between this covariate and the total number o f sex words is not statistically
significant (P = .04, p = .41).
The two way interaction between Gender and Disgust Propensity was examined by estimating
the relationship between Disgust Propensity and the total number o f sex words separately for
men and women. As seen in Table 26, there is a statistically significant, positive relationship
between Disgust Propensity and the total number o f sex words reported for men (p = .23, p <
.01), but not for women (P = -.03, p < .58).
Table 26: Total Sex Words by Disgust Propensity by Gender

Gender Model T Sig.
Beta
Men 1 Disgust_Propensity .233 2.859 .005
Women 1 D isgustPropensity -.030 -.564 .573
Disgust Sensitivity and Sexual Arousal
ANOVA was used to examine the interaction between Priming condition , Gender, and the
Disgust Sensitivity in predicting how sexually arousing subjects found the stories. ANOVA
revealed a main effect o f the Disgust Sensitivity (F = 4.56, (1,503), p < .04) (Table 27).
63
Table 27: How Sexually Arousing by Disgust Sensitivity, Gender and Priming condition

Disgust_Sensitivity 3.747 1 3.747 4.561 .033
gender * Disgust_Sensitivity .001 1 .001 .001 .979
prime.condition * 1.241 2 .621 .755 .470

Disgust_Sensitivity
D isgustSensitivity
Disgust Sensitivity and How Romantic
ANOVA examined the interaction between the Disgust Sensitivity, Gender, and Priming
condition in predicting how romantic subjects found the stories (see Table 28), there are no
statistically significant findings.
Table 28: How Romantic by Disgust Sensitivity, Gender and Priming condition
Source Type III Sum df Mean F Sig.
of Squares Square
gender * Disgust Sensitivity .109 1 .109 .224 .636
prime.condition * Disgust Sensitivity .335 2 .167 .344 .709
gender * prime.condition * Disgust Sensitivity .696 2 .348 .716 .489
Disgust Sensitivity and Disgust
ANOVA was conducted to examine the interaction between Gender, Disgust Sensitivity, and
Priming condition in predicting how disgusting the stories were (see Table 29). There is a
64
significant main effect of Disgust Sensitivity (F=7.74 (1,503), p < .01)
Based on a regression analysis in which how disgusting the respondents found the stories was
regressed upon Disgust Sensitivity, there is a modest, positive and statistically relationship
between these two variables (P = .13, p < ,01).
Table 29: How Disgusting by Disgusting Sensitivity, Gender and Priming condition
D isgustSensitivity 5.314 1 5.314 7.739 .006
gender * Disgust_Sensitivity .145 1 .145 .212 .646
prime.condition * Disgust Sensitivity 2.771 2 1.386 2.018 .134
D isgustSensitivity
Disgust Sensitivity and Implicit Sexual Arousal
ANOVA was conducted to examine the relationships between Disgust Sensitivity, Gender, and
Priming condition in predicting implicit sexually arousing to the stories. As seen in Table 30,
there are no statistically significant findings.
Table 30: How Disgusting by Dark Triad, Gender and Priming condition
Source Type III Sum o f df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
gender * Disgust_Sensitivity 3.095 1 3.095 1.444 .230
prime.condition * Disgust Sensitivity .697 2 .348 .163 .850
D isgustSensitivity
65
Anxious Attachment and Sexual Arousal
ANOVA was used to examine the interaction between Priming condition , Gender, and Anxious
Attachment in predicting how sexually arousing subjects found the stories. ANOVA revealed a
statistically significant main effect o f the Anxious Attachment (F = 6.54, (1,503), p < .02) in
predicting how sexually arousing the stories were found (See Table 31). Using regression
analysis to examine the main effect o f Anxious Attachment finds, counterintuitively, that the
relationship between this covariate and how sexually arousing the respondents found the stories
is not statistically significant (P = .06, p = .16).
Table 31: How Sexually Arousing by Anxious Attachment, Gender and Priming condition
A nxiousA ttachm ent 5.343 1 5.343 6.538 .011
gender * Anxious_Attachment .205 1 .205 .251 .617
prime.condition * 2.000 2 1.000 1.224 .295
Anxious_Attachment
Anxious_Attachment
Anxious Attachment and How Romantic
66
ANOVA examined the interaction between the Anxious Attachment, Gender, and Priming
Table 32: How Romantic by Anxious Attachment, Gender and Priming condition
A nxiousA ttachm ent .019 1 .019 .038 .846

gender * Anxious_Attachment .170 1 .170 .347 .556
prime.condition * Anxious Attachment .453 2 .226 .461 .631

A nxiousA ttachm ent
Anxious Attachment and Disgust
ANOVA was conducted to examine the interaction between Gender, Anxious Attachment and
Priming condition in predicting how disgusting the stories were (see Table 33), there are no
Table 33: How Disgusting by Anxious Attachment, Gender and Priming condition
A nxiousA ttachm ent .284 1 .284 .403 .526
Gender * Anxious_Attachment .344 1 .344 .489 .485
prime.condition * Anxious Attachment .849 2 .425 .604 .547
Gender * prime.condition * .152 2 .076 .108 .897
Anxious Attachment and Implicit Sexual Arousal
67
ANOVA was conducted to examine the relationships between Anxious Attachment, Gender, and
Table 34: Implicit Sexual arousal by Anxious Attachment, Gender and Priming condition
A nxiousA ttachm ent 3.377 1 3.377 1.585 .209
gender * Anxious Attachment 1.844 1 1.844 .865 .353

prime.condition * Anxious_Attachment 9.229 2 4.615 2.166 .116

Avoidant Attachment and Sexual Arousal
ANOVA was used to examine the interaction between Priming condition , Gender, and the
Avoidant Attachment in predicting how sexually arousing subjects found the stories (See Table
35), there are no statistically significant findings.
Table 35: How Sexually Arousing by Avoidant Attachment, Gender and Priming condition

Avoidant_Attachment .105 1 .105 .128 .721
gender * A voidantA ttachm ent .081 1 .081 .098 .754
prime.condition * Avoidant Attachment 3.81 2 1.90 2.32 .099
A voidantA ttachm ent
Avoidant Attachment and How Romantic
68
ANOVA examined the interaction between the Avoidant Attachment, Gender, and Priming
condition in predicting how romantic subjects found the stories (see Table 36); there are no
Table 36: How Romantic by Avoidant Attachment, Gender and Priming condition

gender * Avoidant_Attachment .267 1 .267 .547 .460

prime.condition * Avoidant Attachment .544 2 .272 .557 .574

Avoidant_Attachment
Avoidant Attachment and Disgust
ANOVA was conducted to examine the interaction between Gender, Avoidant Attachment and
Priming condition in predicting how disgusting the stories were (see Table 37), there are no
Table 37: How Disgusting by Avoidant Attachment, Gender and Priming condition
prime.condition * Avoidant Attachment .469 2 .234 .334 .716
Avoidant Attachment and Implicit Sexual Arousal
69
ANOVA was conducted to examine the relationships between Avoidant Attachment, Gender,
and Priming condition in predicting implicit sexual arousal to the stories. As seen in Table 38,
Table 38: Implicit Sexually arousing by Avoidant Attachment, Gender and Priming condition.
A voidantA ttachm ent .739 1 .739 .346 .556
prime.condition * Avoidant_Attachment 9.769 2 4.884 2.289 .102
gender * prime.condition * 1.054 2 .527 .247 .781

Sex Drive and Sexual Arousal
ANOVA was used to examine the interaction between Priming condition , Gender, and the Sex
Drive in predicting how sexually arousing subjects found the stories. ANOVA revealed no
statistically significant effects. (See Table 39)
Table 39: How Sexually Arousing by Sex Drive, Gender and Priming condition
Sexdrive 1.593 1 1.593 1.949 .163
gender * sexdrive 1.626 1 1.626 1.990 .159
prime.condition * sexdrive .077 2 .039 .047 .954
gender * prime.condition * sexdrive 1.324 2 .662 .810 .446
Sex Drive and How Romantic
70
ANOVA was used to examine the interaction between Priming condition , Gender, and the Sex
Drive in predicting how romantic the subjects found the stories. ANOVA revealed statistically
significant two-way interaction between the covariate, Sex Drive, and Priming condition (F =
5.75, (1,503), p < .02) (See Table 40).
Table 40: How Romantic by Sex Drive, Gender and Priming condition
Sexdrive .437 1 .437 .901 .343

gender * sexdrive 2.789 1 2.789 5.751 .017
gender * prime.condition * sexdrive .089 2 .044 .092 .912
The two way interaction between Gender and Sex Drive was examined by estimating the
relationship between Sex Drive and how romantic the respondents reported finding the stories
separately for men and women. As seen in Table 41, the relationship between how romantic
respondents found the stories and Sex Drive is not statistically significant for either men (P = -
.06, p = .50) or women (P = .06, p = .27).
Table 41: How Romantic by Sex Drive by Gender
Gender Model Standardized Coefficients t Sig.

Beta
Men 1 Explicit Sex Drive -.055 -.671 .503
Women 1 Explicit Sex Drive .058 1.104 .270
Sex Drive and Disgust
71
ANOVA was conducted to examine the interaction between Gender, Sex Drive, and Priming
condition in predicting how disgusting the stories were (see Table 42). There are two, two-way
interactions Gender by Sex Drive (F = 5.21, (1,503) p < .03).
Table 42: How Disgusting by Sex Drive, Gender and Priming condition
Sexdrive .079 1 .079 .116 .734
gender * sexdrive 3.54 1 3.54 5.21 .023
gender * prime.condition * sexdrive 3.86 2 1.931 2.84 .059

With respect to the second, two-way interaction between Gender and Sex Drive, this interaction
was deconstructed by examining the relationship between how disgusting the respondents found
the stories and Sex Drive, separately for each o f the two Genders. As seen in Table 43, the
relationship between these two variables was not found to be statistically significant for either
men or women.
Table 43: How Disgusting by Sex Drive by Gender

Gender Model T Sig.
Beta
Men 1 Explicit Sex Drive .118 1.438 .152
Women 1 Explicit Sex Drive -.084 -1.615 .107
Sex Drive and Implicit Sexual Arousal
72
ANOVA was conducted to examine the relationships between Sex Drive, Gender, and Priming
condition in predicting implicit sexually arousing to the stories. As seen in Table 44, there are no
Table 44: Implicit Sexually Arousing by Sex Drive, Gender and Priming condition
Sexdrive 6.184 1 6.184 2.921 .088
gender * sexdrive .636 1 .636 .300 .584

prime.condition * sexdrive 2.638 2 1.319 .623 .537
gender * prime.condition * sexdrive 11.658 2 5.829 2.754 .065
Number o f Orgasms and Sexual Arousal
ANOVA was used to examine the interaction between Priming condition, Gender, and the
Number o f Orgasms in predicting how sexually arousing subjects found the stories. ANOVA
revealed a main effect o f the Number o f Orgasms (F = 3.88, (1,498), p < .05 in predicting how
sexually arousing were the stories. (See Table 45)
Table 45: How Sexually Arousing by The Number o f Orgasms, Gender and Priming condition

N u m b e ro fO rg a sm s 3.193 1 3.193 3.878 .049
gender * Number_of_Orgasms 1.187 1 1.187 1.441 .230
prime.condition * Number o f Orgasms 2.706 2 1.353 1.643 .194
gender * prime.condition * 1.451 2 .725 .881 .415
N umber_of_Orgasms
73
A regression analysis used to estimate the main effect o f the covariate, Number o f Orgasms, on
the dependent variable finds that there is a rather modest, positive relationship between the
scores on the Number o f Orgasms predictor and how sexually arousing the participants found the
stories (|3 = .10, p < .03).
Number o f Orgasms and How Romantic
ANOVA examined the interaction between the Number o f Orgasms, Gender, and Priming
Table 46: How Romantic by The Number o f Orgasms, Gender and Priming condition
Number_of_Orgasms .367 1 .367 .766 .382

gender * Number of Orgasms 1.01 1 1.01 2.11 .147
prime.condition * Number o f Orgasms .712 2 .356 .743 .476
gender * prime.condition * 1.638 2 .819 1.70 .182
Number_of_Orgasms
Computed using alpha=,05
Number o f Orgasms and Disgust
ANOVA was conducted to examine the interaction between Gender, Number o f Orgasms, and
Priming condition in predicting how disgusting the stories were (see Table 47). There is a
significant main effect Gender by the Number o f Orgasms (F = 4.10 (1,498), p < .05). Finally,
74
there is also a statistically significant three way interaction between Gender, Priming condition
and the Number o f Orgasms (F = 3.54, (2,498), p = .03).
Table 47: How Disgusting by Number o f Orgasms, Gender and Priming condition
N u m b e ro fO rg a sm s 1.55 1 1.55 2.24 .134
gender * Number_of_Orgasms 2.82 1 2.82 4.09 .044
Prime.condition * Number of Orgasms .556 2 .278 .403 .668

N umber_of_Orgasms
With respect to the two-way, Gender x Number o f Orgasms interaction, Table 48 presents the
regression coefficients estimating the relationship between the Number o f Orgasms and how
disgusting the respondents found the story, separately for men and women. As seen in this table,
this relationship is positive and marginally significant albeit modest ((3 = .15, p = .08). For
women, however, this relationship is negative and statistically significant (P = -.16, p < .01).
Substantively, these findings indicate that, among men, more orgasms are associated with higher
reported levels o f disgust whereas the converse is true for women. That is, among women, more
orgasms are associated with less disgust.
Table 48: How Disgusting by Gender x The Number o f Orgasms

Gender Model Standardized Coefficients T Sig.
Beta
1 Number_of_Orgasms .146 1.755 .081
75
Men -.162 -3.135 .002

1 Number of Orgasms
Women
Regression analysis explored the significant three way interaction between Gender, Priming
condition , and the Number o f Orgasms. (See Table 49) Only one o f the regression analyses was
statistically significant, i.e., among women in the Sexploitation Condition, a greater number o f
orgasms is predictive o f less disgust (p = -.21 , P < .02). Although not statistically significant, the
corresponding relationship among men in this condition is positive implying that a greater
number o f orgasms is associated with more disgust (P = .13, p < .37). The findings for men and
women in the Consensual Sex suggest that more orgasms are associated with less disgust
whereas for men and women in the Neutral Condition there is no apparent relationship between
the Number o f Orgasms and disgust. Taken as a set, the relationships between the levels o f
disgust and the Number o f Orgasms do appear to differ depending on both the Gender o f the
respondents and the Priming condition to which they were assigned.
Table 49: How Disgusting by Number o f Orgasms by Gender x Priming condition

Relationship Primes gender Model Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients
Beta
Male 1
N u m b ero fO rg asm s .133 .907 .369
Sexploitation
Female 1 -.213 .014
N u m b e ro fO rg a sm s
2.501
Consensual Sex Male 1
76
-.168 .242
Number_of_Orgasms
1.183
Female 1 -.109 .277

Number_of_Orgasms
1.094
Male 1
N u m b ero fO rg asm s -.009 -.061 .952
Neutral
Female 1
N u m b e ro fO rg a sm s -.059 -.672 .503
Number o f Orgasms and Implicit Sexual Arousal
ANOVA was conducted to examine the relationships between Number o f Orgasms, Gender, and
Table 50: Implicit Sexually arousing by Sex Drive, Gender and Priming condition
.328 1 .328 .15 .698
Nu m b e ro fO rg a sm s
1
.100 1 .100 .04 .830
gender * Number o f Orgasms
6
1.635 2 .818 .37 .686
prime.condition * Number_of_Orgasms
7
gender * prime.condition * 2.559 2 1.280 .59 .555
Number_of_Orgasms 0
77
CHAPTER 5
Discussion
Much research on adult romantic relationships and human sexuality is focused on
discerning sex differences and then debating over whether those sex differences are grounded in
human evolutionary biology or gender role conditioning. There is a smaller but growing research
literature on how personality variables such as attachment style and the Dark Triad influence
adult romantic relationships. There is even less research on how gender and personality style
interact in predicting attitudes and behavior in particular romantic or sexual situations. This study
was designed to contribute to understanding the person by situation interactions that shape how
men and women o f different personality subtypes respond to different kinds o f romantic and
sexual situations.
It was hypothesized that the Dark Triad, insecure attachment, and high sex drive would
generally lead to greater sexual and romantic interest as well as less disgust towards
nonconsensual sex, especially for men. In contrast, it was thought that high disgust sensitivity
and propensity would generally inhibit sexual and romantic responses to nonconsensual sex,
especially for women. Results suggested confirmation o f many o f these hypotheses as these
personality variables significantly moderated men and women’s responses to different kinds o f
romantic and sexual situations.
As expected, all subjects find the sexploitation prime the most disgusting while all
subjects find the consensual casual sex prime the most sexually arousing as well as the most
romantic. Presumably, to whatever degree the sexploitation prime is sexually arousing or
romantic that response is suppressed by the disgust response. The gender differences were also
what would be expected on the basis o f gender role stereotypes as well as the research literature.
79
Women find the sexploitation prime more disgusting than the men. Research shows that in
general women have stronger disgust responses than men (Olatunji, Sawchuk, Arrindell, & Lohr,
2005; Williams, Abramowitz, & Olatunji, 2012). Men respond more romantically and sexually to
both consensual casual sex and the neutral condition than women do. This is consistent with the
research literature that suggests that men are more interested in casual sex than women (Buunk,
Dijkstra, Kenrick, & Warntjes, 2001; Grello, Welsh, & Harper, 2006; Jonason, Luevano, &
Adams, 2012) and respond sexually to situations that women perceive as non-sexual (Petersen &
Hyde, 2010).
The current study shows that personality variables significantly moderate these results. It
is important to take into consideration these personality variables as it shows that there are
significant individual differences in how men and women respond to situations o f sexploitation,
consensual casual sex, and non-sexual situations so that one should not over-generalize upon the
basis o f gender role stereotypes. Subtypes o f men and women do appear to respond to these
situations in significantly different ways.
Predictors of Sexual Arousal
Research has shown that the Dark Triad personality variable has an impact on the types o f
romantic relationships individuals engage in. Individuals high on the Dark Triad have been
shown to have a preference for short-term exploitive relationships (Jonason & Webster, 2012), in
which they take advantage o f vulnerable individuals. This may be explained by other findings,
which suggest that individuals high on Dark Triad have low empathy, allowing them to exploit
others without feeling any guilt about the harm they are doing to their victims (Wai &
Tiliopoulos, 2012). This study expanded upon the investigation o f the effect o f Dark Triad on
adult romantic relationships by evaluating individuals’ level o f sexual arousal in response to
80
various romantic and sexual situations. As hypothesized, the Dark Triad was found to have a
significant effect on an individual’s level o f sexual arousal in response to the stories as
individuals high on the Dark Triad found all o f the stories more sexually arousing than
individuals lower on the Dark Triad. However, the results suggest that this effect was moderated
by gender. Specifically, while men high on the Dark Triad found all the stories more sexually
arousing than men low on Dark Triad, the same effect was not found for women. This may be
explained by previous findings, which suggests that casual sexual conquests boosts narcissism in
males, whereas such an effect is not found in women (Foster, Shrira, & Campbell, 2006). Studies
have shown that while men place great emphasis on their casual sexual lives and conquests,
women place greater emphasis on their appearance than on their sexual lives and on cultivating
successful long-term relationships (Gabriel, Critelli, & Ee, 1994).
Previous research has shown that attachment style impacts the types o f romantic
relationships people engage in (Feeney, 1999). For example, individuals with an anxious
attachment style are very concerned about pleasing their partners, trying to please them even if
doing so is not on their own best interests (Kirkpatrick, 1998). Anxiously attached women
exhibit a more permissive sexuality than anxiously attached men and securely attached
individuals (Gentzler & Kerns, 2004; Schmitt & Jonason, 2015; Sprecher, 2013). An explanation
o f this could be that women high in anxious attachment engage in unwanted sex to please their
partners (Kirkpatrick, 1998).
This study expanded upon the investigation o f the effect o f anxious attachment on adult
romantic relationships by evaluating individuals’ level o f sexual arousal in response to various
romantic and sexual situations. As hypothesized, anxious attachment was found to have a
significant effect on an individual’s level o f sexual arousal in response to the stories about these
81
situations, as individuals high in anxious attachment found all o f the stories more sexually
arousing than securely attached individuals. The results suggested that individuals high in
anxious attachment perceived all the primes as more sexually arousing, even those which did not
include sexual content. One explanation for this result is that individuals who are high in anxious
attachment view sex as a means o f gratifying their dependent attachment style and receiving the
intimacy and affection they crave from others (Fraley & Shaver, 2000). In their efforts to
reassure themselves that someone cares for them, they may mistake sex for love. In addition,
highly anxious individuals tend to be very passionate and prone to clinging, with a strong desire
to merge with a partner (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). It is possible that they view sex as a route o f
merging with others; therefore, they see sexuality as emotional closeness and emotional
reassurance. It could be that this is why they perceive even neutral scenarios as sexually
arousing; they might think that if they have sex with someone, that person will care for them.
This is consistent with the idea that highly anxious individuals, especially women, confuse
sexual desire with commitment, caregiving, or affection (Bimbaum et al., 2006).
In contrast to what was hypothesized, higher levels o f disgust propensity in men were
found to be associated with greater self-reported sexual arousal for the consensual casual sex
condition. Women with higher levels o f disgust propensity were found to report less sexual
arousal in the consensual casual sex condition; however, in the neutral condition, they were
found to self-report higher levels o f sexual arousal in the neutral condition. Disgust propensity is
the disposition to experience disgust and how quickly someone experiences it (van Overveld, de
Jong, Peters, Cavanagh, & Davey, 2006). Individuals high in disgust propensity experience an
intense fear of contamination, and in extreme cases it could be pathological. For example,
obsessive compulsive individuals tend to be high in disgust propensity (e.g., washing hands
82
compulsively). From an evolutionary perspective, disgust is an emotional reaction that protects
us from infections (Rozin & Fallon, 1987). Research has shown that sexual stimuli can evoke
feelings o f disgust (Koukounas & McCabe, 1997). Empirical evidence shows that women who
are high in disgust propensity sometimes avoid any sexual contact (de Jong et al., 2007). It is
possible that the participants who were high in disgust propensity found the neutral condition
more arousing because it is safer for them than consensual causal sex, where it might be that sex
is inevitable. Disgust sensitivity differs from disgust propensity in that it refers to the way in
which individuals acknowledge and are emotionally impacted by disgusting or unpleasant
situations. While disgust propensity refers to how quickly individuals feel disgust, disgust
sensitivity refers to the intensity o f their reactions to the stimulus.
Another variable considered was disgust sensitivity. Disgust sensitivity “refers to the
degree to which an individual experiences disgust toward common elicitors,” (Tybur, Bryan,
Lieberman, Hooper & Merriman, 2010, p. 342), such as feces, spoiled food, vomit etc. Disgust
sensitivity differs from disgust propensity in that it refers to the way in which individuals
acknowledge and are emotionally impacted by disgusting or unpleasant situations. While disgust
propensity refers to how quickly individuals feel disgust, disgust sensitivity refers to the intensity
o f their reactions to the stimulus. Research has shown that disgust propensity is associated with
psychopathology such as sexual dysfunctions, blood phobia, and spider phobia (Matchett &
Davey, 1991; Vernon & Berenbaum, 2008), whereas there does not appear to be an association
between disgust sensitivity and these variables.
In contrast to the hypothesis that disgust sensitivity would inhibit sexual arousal in the
nonconsensual condition, the findings suggested that individuals high on disgust sensitivity
found all the stories, even regarding the nonconsensual condition, to be more sexually arousing.
83
A possible explanation for this could be that people who are sensitive to cues o f disgust might
also be sensitive to cues for sexual arousal. They get aroused more easily than individuals who
are low on disgust sensitivity. Maybe individuals high in disgust sensitivity are just sensitive
individuals in general. It is not surprising that individuals high in disgust sensitivity are more
sensitive people. Indeed Cisler, Olantuji, & Lohr, (2008) found that people high in disgust
sensitivity have difficulty regulating disgust and emotions, and they are more impulsive while
experiencing disgust.
The results o f the study did not confirm the prediction that individuals high on avoidant
attachment would find the stories more sexually arousing. Such a finding was not consistent with
the literature, which suggests that individuals high on avoidant attachment have difficulties
integrating love and lust (Brassard, Shaver, & Lussier, 2007), and therefore demonstrated more
interest in sexual and romantic relationships. One possible reason for this is that individuals who
are avoidantly attached have difficulty trusting others, and therefore, they may find it too risky to
become sexually aroused by strangers, such as those portrayed in the stories.
It was hypothesized that people who have a greater sex drive would be more likely to find
situations sexually arousing. In this study, sex drive and number o f orgasms were measured in
two different ways, by asking the strength o f their sex drive on a Likert scale and by asking the
number o f orgasms per week. Those two measures had a small but significant positive
correlation with one another suggesting that they are measuring related but different
psychological processes. Individuals that reported generally having a higher self-reported sex
drive did not respond with more sexual arousal to any o f the priming scenarios. In contrast, there
was a main effect o f number o f orgasms per week on the level o f sexual arousal to the stories.
Thus one way o f operationalizing high sex drive, number o f weekly orgasms, does predict as
84
hypothesized the level o f sexual arousal to all situations be it consensual, nonconsensual, or
neutral.
In sum, the results suggest that higher levels o f the Dark Triad, Anxious Attachment,
Disgust Sensitivity, and Number o f Self-reported orgasms resulted in increased levels o f self-
reported sexual arousal in response to all o f the stories. Thus, it appears that certain personality
variables significantly affect the level o f sexual arousal individuals experience in various sexual
and romantic situations as well as neutral situations. The findings suggest that such personality
variables are only moderated by sex for the Dark Triad. Specifically, it was found that only high
Dark Triad men found all o f the stories more sexually arousing but not high dark triad women.
Yet women high on anxious attachment, high on disgust sensitivity, and high on number o f
weekly orgasms do respond with more sexual arousal to all o f the stories just as the men do.
Thus a variety o f personality variables moderate the strength o f sexual arousal to situations that
are exploitative or even nonsexual as well as consensually sexual.
Predictors of Romantic Feelings
In general the personality variables did not have as much impact on how romantic
participants found the stories. There were no main effects o f any o f the personality variables on
how romantic participants found the stories. Nevertheless, there were a number o f interesting
interactions between personality variables gender, and priming condition in predicting how
romantic participants found the stories.
High Dark Triad men found the neutral story to be more romantic than did low Dark
Triad men, whereas, high Dark Triad men found the consensual casual sex story less romantic
than did low Dark Triad men. High Dark Triad women found the consensual casual sex story
85
more romantic than did low Dark Triad women. It would seem that men high on the Dark Triad
see even a neutral situation as an opportunity for something romantic that may become sexual
while ironically they see an opportunity for casual consensual sex as just an opportunity for sex.
In contrast, low Dark Triad men see more romantic possibilities in casual consensual sex as do
high Dark Triad women. The research literature makes clear that high Dark Triad men have a
more exploitative and opportunistic approach to sexual relationships that the current results
replicate. Yet the research literature has been unclear as to exactly how women high on the Dark
Triad conduct their love lives as they do not seem to be as oriented to casual sex as the high Dark
Triad men (Jonason, Hatfield & Boler, 2015).
The current results suggest that high Dark Triad women might see more romantic
possibilities in casual consensual sex than do low Dark Triad women. Perhaps high Dark Triad
women have a more opportunistic approach to romance rather than sex so would be more
inclined to see the romantic possibilities o f casual sex, ironically, like low Dark Triad men.
Future research is needed to further clarify the romantic psychology o f high Dark Triad women.
High Disgust Propensity men reported more romantic feelings in the consensual casual
sex condition than low Disgust Propensity men, whereas in the neutral condition, high Disgust
Propensity men reported less romantic feelings than did low Disgust Propensity men. Disgust
propensity in men appears to operate analogously to the Dark Triad in men in having opposite
effects in different conditions. In general, it was assumed that the disgust measures would be
associated with less sexual and romantic responses to the scenarios. Nevertheless, there have
been some counterintuitive results as sometimes participants high on the disgust measures
respond with more sexual and/ or romantic arousal to the stories. The regression analyses
suggested that the effect o f disgust propensity on how romantic the stories were perceived to be
86
was quite weak as none o f the regression analyses came out significant but since the effects on
consensual casual sex and on the neutral scenario were in the opposite directions the ANOVA
did reveal a significant three way interaction between gender, priming condition, and disgust
propensity. It is not clear why individuals relatively higher on disgust propensity may be slightly
more inclined to perceive romantic possibilities in consensual casual sex while less inclined to
see romantic possibilities in neutral situations.
Men with higher self-reported sex drive found all o f the stories to be slightly less
romantic than did men with lower self-reported sex drive. In contrast, women with higher self-
reported sex drives tended to find all o f the stories slightly more romantic than did women with
lower self-reported sex drive. The effect was not strong for either sex but the ANOVA came out
significant because the effect was in opposite directions. Ironically, higher self-reported sex drive
generally leads men to be less romantic but leads women to be more romantic. The gender role
stereotype that men tend to split love and lust more so than women may reflect a tendency for
high sex drive men to be less inclined to see the romantic possibilities in various situations. Yet
lower sex drive men, men that feel less driven by sex, may be more inclined to see the romantic
possibilities. The gender role stereotype that women are driven by love whereas men are driven
by lust may need to qualified as it appears that the women most driven by lust are also the
women most inclined to see the romantic possibilities o f social situations. Lower self-reported
sex drive appears to make men more romantic but women less. Thus considering an individual
difference variable, intensity o f self-reported sex drive, requires revising standard gender role
stereotypes by revealing a more complicated picture. Many o f the individual difference variables
in the study have the same effects on men as women but on occasion the individual difference
variable has an opposite sex. Either way it demonstrates the limitations o f making
87
generalizations about the effects o f biological sex on adult romantic relationships without
recognizing the many subtypes o f men and women that respond quite differently to similar
situations.
Men who have high sex drive and a strong desire for lust do not necessarily associate sex
and lust with romance, as women tend to do. Diamond (2003) points out that women are more
drawn to find men whose personalities they like and who show the ability to provide emotional
support. In contrast, men are more drawn to partners who provide a more satisfying sexual
relationship. It is possible that men who have a higher sex drive are looking for a sexual
relationship rather than a romantic relationship in order to satisfy their sexual needs. Men with
lower sex drives do not need to satisfy these sexual needs as much.
Anxious attachment, avoidant attachment, disgust sensitivity, and frequency o f weekly
orgasms had no impact on how romantic the stories were perceived to be. Overall, the individual
difference variables had little impact on how romantic sexploitation was perceived to be.
Contrary to expectations, individuals high on the Dark Triad and insecurely attached did not find
sexploitation any more romantic than individuals low on those personality variables. Yet
personality variables did distinguish romantic responses to both the consensual casual sex and
neutral situations. Men low in the Dark Triad, high in disgust propensity, and low in sex drive as
well as women high in the Dark Triad find casual consensual sex more romantic. Men that are
high in the Dark Triad, low in disgust propensity, and low in sex drive are more likely to find
neutral situations more romantic. Though the results do not reveal a clear-cut pattern there may
be some tendency for more sexually opportunistic men to see neutral situations as potentially
romantic whereas less opportunistic men but more opportunistic women may tend to see the
romantic possibilities in situations o f consensual casual sex.
88
Predictors of Disgust
It is generally thought that disgust inhibits sexual arousal. The assumption was therefore
that participants would have the least sexual arousal and most disgust to the sexploitation
condition. That hypothesis was confirmed. In addition, it was assumed that scoring high on the
disgust measures would be associated a tendency to be more disgusted by the priming scenarios.
There were significant main effects for both the disgust propensity and the disgust sensitivity
measures on how disgusting all the stories were perceived to be. The hypothesis was confirmed
that individuals that score high on measures o f trait disgust would respond with more disgust to
various social situations be they sexual or nonsexual or be they consensual or nonconsensual.
The general tendency for individuals high on trait disgust to respond with more disgust
was particularly pronounced for the sexploitation condition. In conducting regression analyses, it
was found that individuals with greater levels o f Disgust Propensity found the sexploitation
prime to be more disgusting than individuals low on Disgust Propensity. The effect o f Disgust
Propensity on how disgusting either consensual casual sex or the neutral condition did not
achieve significance though the trend was in the predicted direction. Thus participants high on
disgust propensity were particularly reactive to the sexploitation prime. Ironically, though trait
disgust does lead to more state disgust in response to various social situations, it is not clear that
being high on trait disgust makes one’s sexual response to sexploitation any less. It is possible
that higher disgust propensity and sensitivity may spoil one’s pleasure in gratifying a forbidden
sexual desire without necessarily diminishing the perceived strength o f that desire. The disgust
measures had no discemable impact on how sexually arousing the sexploitation prime was
perceived to be. Ironically, trait disgust could lead to greater sexual and romantic arousal to the
89
two non-exploitative priming conditions as previously discussed. Thus trait disgust may have a
more complicated relationship to sexual arousal than previously assumed.
Self-reported sex drive as well as number o f weekly orgasms appears to have the opposite
effect on men and women when it comes to how disgusting the stories are perceived to be. Men
that reported a higher frequency o f weekly orgasms or a higher self-reported sex drive found all
the conditions more disgusting than men with lower weekly orgasms or self-reported sex drive.
For women the result was the exact opposite. Women that reported a higher frequency o f weekly
orgasms or higher self-reported sex drive reported less disgust in all conditions. Regression
analysis suggested that this effect o f sex drive on women’s disgust was particularly strong for
women that reported a higher frequency o f orgasm when responding to ihe sexploitation
condition. Women that reported a higher frequency o f weekly orgasms found the sexploitation
condition significantly less disgusting than women that report a lower frequency.
The Dark Triad, anxious attachment, and avoidant attachment did not predict strength o f
how disgusting sexploitation was found to be. It was hypothesized that individuals high on those
personality traits would find sexploitation more socially acceptable so respond with less disgust
to that priming condition. That hypothesis was not supported. Though high Dark Triad and high
anxious attachment does lead to greater sexual arousal to the sexploitation condition it does not
appear to be associated with diminished disgust. Thus certain personality traits may lead to
greater sexual arousal in a nonconsensual sexual situation without diminishing the disgust
aroused by nonconsensual sex. The relationship between various personality traits, sexual desire,
and disgust appears to be more complicated than originally hypothesized.
Predictors o f Implicit Sexual Arousal
90
A measure o f implicit sexual arousal was included in the study because it was assumed
that participants might not admit to being sexually aroused by nonconsensual sex because o f its
social unacceptability. Nevertheless, it was hypothesized that certain personality variables, like
the Dark Triad or insecure attachment, might indeed elicit greater sexual desire but that desire
would be expressed implicitly rather than explicitly. Implicit sexual arousal was assessed by
measuring the number o f sex words generated on a word completion test, in which 9 out o f 29
words could be completed as sex-related words. The results indicated that the measure possessed
a weak positive correlation with self-reported sex drive, meaning that individuals with higher
self-reported sex drive were slightly more likely to generate sex-related words on the word
completion test.
Only one personality variable, Disgust Propensity, was found to have an impact on
implicit sexual arousal. Individuals higher on Disgust Propensity reported significantly more sex-
related words though this was a relatively weak effect. There was a significant interaction effect
between gender and Disgust Propensity in predicting implicit sexual arousal. The results
indicated that only high Disgust Propensity men, but not high Disgust Propensity women,
reported more sex words. These results might support Freud’s idea o f reaction-formation, at least
for men. Unconsciously, men with high disgust propensity might be repudiating an implicit
tendency to think about sex more so than men with lower disgust propensity.
Disgust Sensitivity, Anxious Attachment, Avoidant Attachment, Self-reported Sex
Drive, and Number o f Orgasms did not appear to have a significant effect on implicit sexual
arousal. There may have been a problem with using a word completion test to assess implicit
sexual arousal as it is puzzling why subjects exposed to explicitly sexual situations would not
have greater access to sex words than subjects exposed to a neutral situation. Nevertheless, the
91
study may not have required inclusion o f an implicit measure o f sexual arousal as subjects high
on both the Dark Triad and Anxious Attachment did explicitly report greater sexual arousal to
the sexploitation prime though presumably it is socially unacceptable to report sexual arousal to
nonconsensual sex. Inclusion o f an implicit measure is most important when there is a
dissociation between explicit and implicit responses. In this case, the self-report o f sexual arousal
to the various priming conditions did differentiate subjects low and high on both the Dark Triad
and anxious attachment.
Responses to Sexploitation
The study was designed to explore person by situation interactions; how personality
variables interact with various social situations to predict to what degree participants read sexual
and romantic implications into those situations. The three social situations that were explored
were: a situation o f nonconsensual casual sex that would be considered exploitative and
opportunistic, a situation o f consensual casual sex, and a neutral situation that is not explicitly
sexual. It is important to appreciate how individual difference variables effect responses to all
three situations. Though everybody recognizes that nonconsensual sex is problematic, there may
be personality variables that predict who is more likely to perpetrate it as well as who is more
likely to be victim to it. It is also appreciated that individuals vary in their enthusiasm for
consensual casual sex, as some individuals prefer sex in a more relational context. In addition, it
is appreciated that some people are more prone to misinterpreting neutral situations as sexual
than others. In all three scenarios, significant sex differences have been reported. Men appear to
be more interested in nonconsensual as well as casual sex and are more likely to interpret neutral
situations as more sexual than women. The study was designed to see if these gender typical
responses to various social situations were moderated by a variety o f personality variables.
92
Not surprisingly, participants found the sexploitation prime to be the most disgusting
condition, and found it to be significantly less sexually arousing or romantic than consensual
casual sex. In line with gender role stereotypes, women found sexploitation more disgusting than
did men. Nevertheless, personality variables moderate the response to sexploitation. All
anxiously attached individuals, high disgust sensitivity individuals, individuals that report
frequent weekly orgasms, as well as high Dark Triad men in particular, respond with greater
sexual arousal to sexploitation. Individuals with less trait disgust, both disgust sensitivity and
propensity, respond to sexploitation with less disgust. Women with a greater number o f weekly
orgasms responded with less disgust to the sexploitation prime. Individuals low on the Dark
Triad and securely attached individuals, and/ or high on trait disgust responded with the least
sexual arousal to sexploitation.
The results for the disgust measures are paradoxical as both disgust measures predict
higher disgust to the sexploitation prime. Yet the disgust sensitivity measure predicts greater
sexual arousal. Being high in disgust sensitivity appears to mean being more sexually aroused
and more disgusted by sexploitation simultaneously than those low on disgust sensitivity. Given
that sexploitation can result in STDs and/ or unwanted pregnancy it is puzzling and
counterintuitive that high disgust sensitivity individuals would find sexploitation more arousing.
A more Freudian explanation could be that the greater disgust is a reaction formation to greater
sexual arousal.
Participants that responded more positively to the sexploitation prime would be
characterized by traits such as a tendency to engage in exploitative relationships, viewing sex as
a means o f obtaining love, and having a stronger need for more frequent orgasms. It appears that
individuals respond least favorably to the sexploitation prime when their relationships are
93
characterized by mutuality and secure attachment and are not driven by a higher need for
orgasms. Given that the sexploitation prime posed the male as the perpetrator and the female as
the victim, it could be suggested that men high on the Dark Triad, anxious attachment, and that
have frequent weekly orgasms are most likely to be perpetrators, while women high on anxious
attachment and frequent weekly orgasms might be most likely to be victims as these groups have
the most favorable responses to sexploitation (i.e. more sexual arousal or less disgust).
High Dark Triad individuals, especially men, and high anxious individuals reported more
sexual arousal than did those low on those traits. Nevertheless, individuals high and low on those
traits were still equally disgusted by sexploitation. Thus, although high Dark Triad and anxiously
attached individuals are as disgusted by sexploitation as everyone else, they are still more
aroused by it despite knowing it is wrong. Disgust did not seem to dampen the heightened sexual
response that high Dark Triad and anxiously attached individuals have to sexploitation.
High Dark Triad men presumably respond with more sexual arousal to sexploitation
because their approach to sexual relationships tends to be exploitative and opportunistic. Thus
Dark Triad men are more likely to be perpetrators in nonconsensual sexual situations. We found
that individuals high on anxious attachment, men as well as women, exhibited more sexual
arousal to the sexploitation prime than did individuals low on anxious attachment. Such findings
are important because they indicate that anxiously attached women may be more likely to find
themselves in situations o f sexploitation whereas anxiously attached men may be more likely to
be perpetrators. There was a significant correlation between high Dark Triad and anxious
attachment. Anxiously attached individuals may be more likely to mistake sex for love so find
nonconsensual sexual situations to be more arousing (Bimbaum et al., 2006). This finding is
consistent with previous research, which suggests that anxiously attached individuals are
94
motivated to please their romantic partners with the hope that they will receive love in return
(Kirkpatrick, 1998). Perhaps anxiously attached men would be more likely to be perpetrators o f
sexploitation because fearing rejection in consensual casual situations, they exploit opportunities
for casual sex, like with a drunken woman, where sexual rejection is less likely (Collins & Read,
1990; Mikulincer, Orbach, & Iavnieli, 1998).
Individuals higher on both disgust propensity and sensitivity responded with more disgust
to sexploitation than they did to the consensual casual sex and neutral situations. Individuals high
on Disgust Propensity have a fear o f being contaminated, and therefore they are likely to view
the sexploitation condition as more disgusting, as they associate such a situation with a risk o f
contracting a sexually transmitted disease. Individuals high on disgust propensity responded
most strongly to the sexploitation prime where the risk o f contracting a sexually transmitted
disease would seem the highest of the three priming situations.
Sex drive as operationalized by frequency o f weekly orgasms but not by self-reported sex
drive appears to result in increased sexual arousal to all social situations. Though frequency o f
self-reported sex drive and frequency o f weekly orgasms possess a weak positive correlation,
only frequency o f orgasm predicts how sexually arousing the priming scenarios are perceived.
Thus frequency o f weekly orgasms might be a more accurate predictor o f action tendencies, be it
a propensity to engage in sexploitation or misperceive nonsexual situations as sexual. In
addition, women that reported higher weekly orgasms saw the sexploitation prime as
significantly less disgusting as well as more sexually arousing, perhaps creating a vulnerability to
sexploitation.
In sum, personality variables do affect responses to nonconsensual sex as does gender.
From an evolutionary perspective, men might be more predisposed to casual sex in general, be it
95
consensual or nonconsensual, in order to increase reproductive output. Yet for women,
nonconsensual casual sex is an evolutionary disaster as the cost could be an unwanted
pregnancy, single motherhood, and loss o f quality control over the paternal genes o f one’s
offspring (Carter, Campbell, & Muncer 2013). Personality variables moderate those sex
differences as securely attached men that are low on the Dark Triad are less aroused by
sexploitation and men high on trait disgust are more disgusted by it. Unfortunately, women high
in anxious attachment, low in disgust, and those who have a need for a high frequency o f weekly
orgasms might be more vulnerable to a situation o f sexploitation in which they might suffer the
traumas o f rape, unwanted pregnancy, and sexually transmitted diseases.
In regards to nonconsensual sex or rape, many explanations have been put forth for why
such behavior arises in humans. These include personality differences, mental illness, drug and
alcohol use, and enculturation (Bergen & Bukovec, 2006; Dean & Malamuth, 1997). McKibbin
et al. (2008) asserted that there are five types o f rapists:
1) Disadvantaged men, or men who do not have other means to secure sex; 2) Specialized
rapists, men who are aroused by violent sex; 3) Opportunistic rapists, men who seek out
receptive women. McKibbin et al. (2008) note that opportunistic rapists can transform into
nonconsensual rapists when women are not receptive to their sexual advances 4) High-mating-
effort rapists, characterized as aggressive, dominant, and having elevated self-esteem
(psychopathy). Such men resort to nonconsensual rape when consensual tactics fail; 5) Partner
rapists, men who rape their wives because they suspect them o f cheating. This study contributes
to understanding the personality characteristics o f men that are more likely to be sexually
opportunistic. They are more likely to be high on the Dark Triad, high on anxious attachment,
and low on disgust propensity and sensitivity.
96
In regards to attachment, the Dark Triad has been positively correlated with both avoidant
attachment and anxious attachment styles (Schmitt & Jonason, 2015).
Individuals with avoidant attachment styles have difficulty establishing closeness, intimacy, and
trust with others (Brassard, Shaver, & Lussier, 2007). These individuals may develop a more
permissive sexual life (Simpson, 1999). Individuals with anxious attachment tend to have more
sexual partners and start their sexual life when they are younger (Bogaert & Sadava, 2002;
Kirkpatrick, 1998). In contrast, securely attached individuals will try to find more long-term
relationships and have one sexual partner (Cooper, Shaver, & Collins, 1998).
Consensual Casual Sex
Individual differences in response to opportunities for consensual casual sex are
important to delineate as not all individuals are as interested in opportunities for consensual
casual sex as others, as some individuals prefer sex within a more relational context. As
expected, men find consensual casual sex significantly more sexually arousing and romantic than
do women. Neither find consensual casual sex particularly disgusting in contrast to
nonconsensual casual sex as in the sexploitation prime. Nevertheless, there were individual
differences in response to this priming condition.
Individuals high on the Dark Triad, especially men, and individuals high on anxious
attachment find consensual casual sex more sexually arousing than individuals low on those
traits. The Dark Triad appears to make men, especially, perceive opportunities for consensual
casual sex as more sexually arousing whereas anxious attachment appears to make both men and
women see consensual casual sex as more sexually arousing. The Dark Triad and anxious
attachment contribute to intensifying the sexual response to sexual situations.
Individuals high on disgust sensitivity, female as well as male, found all the stories,
97
including consensual casual sex, more sexually arousing than those low in disgust sensitivity.
Why that is remains puzzling, as it seems that trait disgust should decrease, rather than increase
sexual arousal. Paradoxically, high disgust sensitivity individuals perceive consensual casual sex
as more sexually arousing at the same time that they experience it as more disgusting.
Heightened disgust may be a response to heightened sexual arousal for high disgust sensitivity
individuals. Exactly why that is requires further research.
Interestingly, high Disgust Propensity men perceived the consensual casual sex condition
as more sexually arousing whereas high disgust propensity women perceived consensual casual
sex less as less sexually arousing. Disgust serves to protect us from infections such as sexually
transmitted diseases. So high disgust women may be less inclined to be aroused by consensual
casual sex due to the possibility o f contracting an STD that occurs when having sex outside o f a
long-term intimate relationship with a known person. Why high disgust propensity men see
consensual casual sex as more sexually arousing than low disgust propensity men is puzzling and
counterintuitive, as they should have the same fear o f STDs as high disgust propensity women.
Sex drive as operationalized by number o f weekly orgasms did predict greater sexual
arousal to the consensual casual sex prime. Not surprisingly individuals with a higher sex drive
did find all opportunities for sex more arousing than those with a lower sex drive. Thus women
with a higher sex drive, just like men, may be more inclined to be aroused by opportunities for
consensual casual sex. Though men may have a stronger sex drive than women on average
(Baumeiter, Catanese & Vohs, 2001), there may still be significant variability within the sexes as
to the strength o f sex drive, so that men with low sex drive and women with high sex drive may
respond in ways that go against gender role stereotypes.
98
Personality variables also influenced how romantic consensual casual sex was perceived.
Women high on Dark Triad perceived the consensual casual sex prime as more romantic than
women low on the Dark Triad whereas high Dark Triad men found it less romantic. One possible
explanation for this finding is that women high on Dark Triad may mistakenly believe that
consensual casual sex can lead to a romantic relationship, whereas low Dark Triad women may
be more likely to realize that casual sex is very impersonal and unlikely to lead to a deep
emotional relationship. Since women low on the Dark Triad may have a more secure attachment,
they are less likely to assume that consensual casual sex will lead to secure attachment so do not
see it as romantic as high Dark Triad women that are not as securely attached. High Dark Triad
women might use sex in a more Machiavellian way than low Dark Triad women do, as a means
o f surreptitiously luring men into a romantic relationship.
In summary, the study replicates findings that attitudes towards consensual casual sex
appear to be moderated by gender. Previous research suggests that men have less negative
attitudes toward consensual casual sex than women do (Bersamine, 2012). As predicted, men
found the consensual casual sex prime to be significantly more arousing than women did. This
finding is consistent with previous research, which suggests that men are less restrictive in their
mating style (Jonason, Luevano, & Adams, 2012) and that men who are high on Dark Triad
report more sexual partners, causal sex, and uncommitted relationships (Jonason et al., 2009). In
contrast, women tend to report less enjoyment o f sexual intercourse and more feelings o f regret
and guilt after having casual sex (Fisher, Worth, Garcia, & Meredith, 2012). Campbell (2008)
found that women perceived one-night stands more negatively than men, a finding which may be
explained by the fact that Western and Eastern societies tend to be more permissive o f men who
have one-night stands than women who have one-night stands. From the evolutionary
99
perspective, one-night stands, casual sex, and booty calls are short-term mating strategies which
benefit men more than they do women (Jonason, Hatfield & Boler, 2015). For men, casual sex is
an adaptive behavior because it requires minimal commitment and having multiple sexual female
partners means impregnating more women and having as many offspring as possible. On the
other hand, casual sex poses greater risks for women such as: unwanted pregnancy, contracting
an STD, or suffering from a mental injury.
Despite these established sex differences in attitudes towards consensual casual sex,
personality differences moderate these results. Anxious attachment, disgust sensitivity, frequency
of weekly orgasms, and the Dark Triad, especially in men, tend to make consensual casual sex
seem more sexually arousing. In contrast, high disgust propensity and sensitivity makes it seem
more disgusting without necessarily making it any less sexually arousing. Paradoxically, high
disgust sensitivity appears to make consensual casual sex more sexually arousing at the same
time that it also makes it more disgusting. High Dark Triad women go against gender role
stereotypes in finding consensual casual sex more romantic than do low Dark Triad women. In
contrast, the gender role stereotype is accentuated among high Dark Triad men that just see
consensual casual sex as impersonal sex without romantic implications whereas low Dark Triad
men go against gender role stereotypes in perceiving more romantic possibilities in consensual
casual sex. Personality variables can sometimes accentuate gender role stereotypes, as in the
effects o f the Dark Triad on men, or sometimes go against gender role stereotypes as in the
effects o f anxious attachment and disgust sensitivity on a woman that inclines her to perceive
consensual casual sex as more sexually arousing.
Neutral Nonsexual Situations
100
The neutral prime served as a control group to obtain a baseline response to a nonsexual
situation that could be compared with explicitly sexual situations. Nevertheless, the research
literature suggests that men, especially, may be inclined to interpret nonsexual situations as
sexual situations (Hundhammer & Mussweiler, 2012). That makes it interesting to see if
individual difference variables lead some individuals to see a neutral situation as more sexual or
more romantic than others. As it turns out, even a neutral situation may be perceived as more
sexual, romantic, or even disgusting, by individuals with certain personality traits.
As expected the neutral prime was seen as the least sexually arousing prime while being
significantly less disgusting than sexploitation and significantly less romantic than consensual
casual sex. The neutral situation was perceived as significantly more romantic than sexploitation
but as equally disgusting as consensual casual sex.
Men, the anxiously attached, high disgust sensitivity individuals, individuals with a high
frequency o f weekly orgasms, and high Dark Triad individuals, especially men, responded with
higher sexual arousal to this priming condition. Participants with these traits may be more
inclined to perceive sexual implications in situations in which there is no explicit sexual content
than individuals lacking these traits. Misunderstanding can arise when sexual significance is
perceived in non-sexual situations. Certain personality traits may prime individuals to respond to
the sexual implications o f social situations, even neutral ones. The main effects o f the Dark
Triad, anxious attachment, frequency o f weekly orgasms, and disgust sensitivity, on sexual
arousal suggest that those personality traits may prime individuals to perceive even neutral
situations as more sexually arousing than individuals low on those traits.
Previous studies have suggested that men who are high on the Dark Triad are more likely
to misperceive situations (Ali, Amorim, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2009), and have asserted that
101
this tendency is due to their lack o f empathy. High Dark Triad men are more likely to interpret
sexual content when none exists. Anxious attachment also appears to increase the tendency to
see sexual significance in non-sexual situations. Again, why individuals high on disgust
sensitivity would read sexual implications into a neutral situation is puzzling as such individuals
also find neutral situations more disgusting. The paradoxical impact o f sexual disgust requires
further research and clarification. Thus certain personality traits may increase the tendency
towards “sexualization;” perceiving nonsexual situations or neutral situations as implicitly sexual
situations. O f course, friendly nonsexual situations do have the possibility o f becoming sexual
and it seems that some personality types more than others see the potential for developing the
sexual possibilities o f friendly nonsexual situations.
An interesting question which emerges from these findings is: Why are high Dark Triad
men, relative to low Dark Triad men, more likely to perceive non-sexual situations as sexually
arousing? We suggest one possible answer to this question, which is that high Dark Triad men
have a grandiose (narcissistic) belief that everyone wants to have sex with them and that the
world is their “oyster.” Individuals high on the Dark Triad are self-centered, lack empathy, use
others to get what they want (Paulhus & Williams, 2002), and sexually seduce others for “sport”
and “revenge” (Smith, Hadden, Webster, Jonason, Gesselman, & Crystel, 2014, p. 35). In
addition, men high on the Dark Triad have been shown to have antisocial tendencies, such as a
desire to take advantage o f others.
Like men who are high on Dark Triad, individuals who are high on anxious attachment
also found all o f the stories to be more sexually arousing, even when they did not contain sexual
content. This misperception of sexual content in non-sexual situations is consistent with
anxiously attached individuals’ tendency to mistake sex for love. Thus, when viewing a neutral,
102
non-sexual situation, their strong desire to establish a fulfilling, intimate connection, may cause
them to perceive sexual or romantic content in situations in which none exists.
Limitations
There are several limitations to our study. First, the majority o f findings reported here
were based on a predominantly undergraduate sample from a private university in Long Island,
New York, which is likely to have fewer individuals at the very high end o f the Dark Triad range
or at the high end of the range o f any o f the personality measures. On average, our sample was
21 years o f age with a little deviation from the mean. In addition, the use o f college students may
lead to conclusions that do not accurately reflect the general population (Peterson & Merunka,
2014). Second, the present study is limited by the fact that many o f the findings are based on
self-report data. The manipulative and antisocial nature associated with individuals high on the
Dark Triad must be taken into consideration with all self-report data. Another important
limitation o f this study is that we did not analyze the Dark Triad subscales (Machiavellianism,
narcissism, and psychopathy) separately. Each subscale predicts different things. For example,
Machiavellianism refers to manipulation, deceiving others to get what one wants. Narcissism
included grandiosity, entitlement, and superiority. Psychopathology includes high impulsivity
and thrill seeking along with low empathy and anxiety. In addition, it is important to note that
people of different cultures and races can perceive the stories differently. For example, a
participant from a Hispanic country could rate the sexploitation story as socially accepted and
not disgusting.
Curiously, the self-report measures gave results; only the implicit measure did not. For
one o f the implicit measures, the participants had to fill out a blank space with letters in order to
complete each word. This task consisted o f 29 word fragments, nine o f which could be
103
completed with either a neutral or sexual arousal-related word. For example, the fragment S_X
can be completed as SEXJsexual arousal-related word) or as SIX (neutral word). We thought
that depending on the story participants read (sexploitation, consensual casual sex, or neutral),
the participants would identify different numbers o f sex words. Most o f the participants
identified the word SEX regardless o f the prime they read. Finally, another limitation is that the
current study was an analog study, meaning that the way subjects respond to stories might not be
the same way that they would respond to a real life situation (Heyman, Malik, & Smith-Slep,
2010 ).
Conclusion and Future Research
In conclusion, the results o f this study suggest that gender and personality variables
interact to predict attitudes and behavior in various romantic, sexual, and non-sexual situations.
The results suggest that high Dark Triad individuals, individuals high on anxious attachment,
individuals high on disgust sensitivity and individuals that report a higher number o f weekly
orgasms responded with more sexual arousal to all priming conditions in the study. Individuals
high on disgust sensitivity and propensity responded with more disgust to all o f the scenarios but
that did not diminish their sexual arousal. In fact, sometimes trait disgust increased sexual
arousal as it did across the board for disgust sensitivity. The study replicates the sex differences
usually found in the research literature but demonstrates how a variety o f personality variables
moderate those results. Sometimes the personality variables accentuate gender role stereotypes
but other times diminish the impact o f those stereotypes.
The implications o f such findings are that malignant narcissism (i.e. high Dark Triad),
anxious attachment, and high disgust sensitivity lead individuals to respond more strongly to the
sexual implications o f various social situations in which there may be opportunities for casual
104
sex. In contrast, low Dark Triad, securely attached, and low disgust sensitivity individuals
respond less strongly to the sexual implications o f social situations. The study suggests that the
relationship between sexual arousal and disgust is more complicated than originally thought as
sometimes higher sexual disgust can co-exist with higher levels o f sexual arousal. There is not
always an inverse relationship between the two. Thus, future research needs to explore the
complicated relationship between disgust and sexual arousal and to physiological as well as to
self-report measures o f sexual arousal.
Certain personality variables, such as the Dark Triad, anxious attachment, disgust
sensitivity, and orgasmic frequency, cause people to respond with more sexual arousal to sexual
and nonsexual situations and consensual and nonconsensual sexual situations. Future research
would have to be designed to discover the psychological mechanism underlying these results. Is
there some underlying variable that people high in the Dark Triad, anxious attachment, disgust
sensitivity, and orgasmic frequency share in common that might reflect the underlying
mechanism that “causes” them to respond with more sexual arousal?
These personality variables (high Dark Triad, anxious attachment, disgust sensitivity, and
orgasmic frequency) might reflect sexualization. One theory is that people who have problems
with emotion regulation might over utilize sex to facilitate emotion regulation (Coen, 1981; Tice
& Bratslavsky, 2000). Some people use food, some use alcohol, some use drugs, and others use
sex. Future research should focus to see if people high in the Dark Triad, high in anxious
attachment, high in disgust sensitivity, and with the need to have frequent weekly orgasms have
underlying problems o f emotion regulation and utilize sex as a stress management tool more than
most.
105
Another interesting result in the study is that high disgust sensitivity can be
simultaneously associated with both more sexual arousal and more disgust to the primes. That is
a bit counterintuitive. So the future research should be designed to answer the questions o f
“why.” If individuals high in disgust sensitivity have underlying problems o f emotion regulation,
they might have stronger emotional responses across the board, stronger sexual and disgust
responses, as well as perhaps overly strong emotional responses, such as sadness or anger. Future
research could see if disgust sensitivity reflects a more general sensitivity or vulnerability to
emotional hyperarousal.
106
References
Abbey, A., Parkhill, M. R., Clinton-Sherrod, A. M., & Zawacki, T. (2007). A comparison o f men
who committed different types o f sexual assault in a community sample. Journal o f
Interpersonal Violence, 22(12), 1567-1580.
Abraham, K. (1920). Manifestations o f the female castration complex. In Selected Papers on
Psycho-Analysis New York: Basic Books, 1953 (pp. 338-369).
Abraham, K. (1921). Contributions to the Theory o f the Anal Character. In K. Abraham (Ed.),
Selected Papers on Psycho-Analysis (pp. 370-392). London, UK: Hogarth Press.
Abraham, K. 1924 The Influence o f Oral Erotism on Character-Formation In: Selected Papers on
Psycho-Analysis London: Hogarth Press, 1927 pp. 393-406
Abraham, K. 1925 Character-Formation on the Genital Level o f Libido In: Selected Papers on
Psycho-Analysis London: Hogarth Press, 1927 pp. 407-417
American Psychiatric Association (APA). (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual o f mental
disorders DSM-IV-TR text revision (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric
Publishing.
Ainsworth, M., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns o f attachment. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Ali, F., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2010). The dark side o f love and life satisfaction:
Associations with intimate relationships, psychopathy and Machiavellianism. Personality
and Individual Differences, 48(2), 228-233.
Antfolk, J., Karlsson, M., Backstrom, A., & Santtila, P. (2012). Disgust elicited by third-party
incest: The roles o f biological relatedness, co-residence, and family relationship.
Evolution and Human Behavior, 55(3), 217-223.
107
Baron-Cohen, S. (2002). The extreme male brain theory o f autism. Trends in Cognitive Science,
6(6), 248-254.
Baron-Cohen, S. (2008). Theories o f the autistic mind. Psychologist, 27(2), 112-116.
Baumeister, R. F., Catanese, K. R., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Is there a gender difference in strength
o f sex drive? Theoretical views, conceptual distinctions, and a review o f relevant
evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 242-272.
Baumeister, R. F., Catanese, K. R., & Wallace, H. M. (2002). Conquest by force: A narcissistic
reactance theory o f rape and sexual coercion. Review o f General Psychology, 6, 92-135.
Bechhofer, L., & Parrot, A. (1991). What is acquaintance rape? In A. Parrot & L. Bechhofer
(Eds.), Acquaintance rape: The hidden crime (pp. 9-25). New York, NY: John Wiley &
Sons.
Bernstein, D. (1983). The female superego: A different perspective. International Journal o f
Psycho-Analysis, 64(2), 187-201.
Bergelson, V. (2012). Vice is nice but incest is best: The problem o f a moral taboo. Criminal
Law and Philosophy, 1-17.
Blair, R. J. R. (2005). Responding to the emotions o f others: Dissociating forms o f empathy
through the study o f typical and psychiatric populations. Consciousness and Cognition,
14(4), 698-718.
Brassard, A., Shaver, P. R., & Lussier, Y. (2007). Attachment, sexual experience, and sexual
pressure in romantic relationship: A dyadic approach. Personal Relationships, 14, 4 7 5 -
493.
108
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement o f adult
attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.),
Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46-76). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Brennan, K. A., & Shaver, P. R. (1995). Dimensions o f adult attachment, affect regulation, and
romantic relationship functioning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2 1 ,267-
283.
Brook, M., & Kosson, D. S. (2013). Impaired cognitive empathy in criminal psychopathy:
Evidence from a laboratory measure o f empathic accuracy. Journal o f Abnormal
Psychology, 122, 156-166.
Bimbaum, G. E. (2007). Attachment orientations, sexual functioning, and relationship
satisfaction in a community sample o f women. Journal o f Social and Personal
Relationships, 24, 21-35
Bimbaum, G. E., Mikulincer, M., Reis, H. T., Gillath, O., & Orpaz, A. (2006). When sex is more
than just sex: Attachment orientations, sexual experience, and relationship quality.
Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 929-943.
Bittles, A. H., & Neel, J. V. (1994). The costs o f human inbreeding and their implications for
variations at the DNA level. Nature Genetics, 8(2), 117-121.
Blackburn, R., & Fawcett, D. J. (1999). The Antisocial Personality Questionnaire: An inventory
for assessing deviant traits in offender populations. European Journal o f Psychological
Assessment, 15, 14-24.
Bogaert, A. F., & Sadava, S. (2002). Adult attachment and sexual behavior. Personal
Relationships, 9, 191-204.
109
Bomstein, R. F. (1998). Depathologizing dependency. Journal o f Nervous and Mental Disease,
186(2), 67-73.
Bomstein, R. F., & Bowen, R. F. (1995). Dependency in psychotherapy: Toward an integrated
treatment approach. Psychotherapy, 32(4), 520-534.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Attachment (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Buunk, B.P., Dijkstra, P., Kenrick, D.T., and Wamtjes, A. (2001). Age preferences for mates as
related to gender, own age, and involvement level. Evolution and Human Behavior, 241 -
250
Bushman, B. J., Bonacci, A. M., Van Dijk, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2003). Narcissism, sexual
refusal, and aggression: Testing a narcissistic reactance model o f sexual coercion.
Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 84(5), 1027-1040.
Buss, D. M., & Duntley, J. D. (2008). Adaptations for exploitation. Group Dynamics, 72(1), 53-
62.
Cale, E. M., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2002). Sex differences in psychopathy and antisocial personality
disorder: A review and integration. Clinical Psychology Review, 22(8), 1179-1207.
Campbell, W. K. (1999). Narcissism and romantic attraction. Journal o f Personality and Social
Psychology, 77(6), 1254-1270.
Campbell, W. K., & Foster, C. A. (2002). Narcissism and commitment in romantic relationships:
An investment model analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(4), 484-
495.
110
Campbell, W. K., Foster, C. A., & Finkel, E. J. (2002). Does self-love lead to love for others? A
story o f narcissistic game playing. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 83(2),
340-354.
Carter, G.L., Campbell, A., & Muncer, S. (2013) The Dark Triad personality: Attractiveness to
women. Personality and Individual Differences.
Chapman, H. A., & Anderson, A. K. (2012). Understanding disgust. Annals o f the New York
Academy o f Sciences, 1251, 62-76.
Chapman, H. A., Kim, D. A., Susskind, J. M., & Anderson, A. K. (2009). In bad taste: Evidence
for the oral origins o f moral disgust. Science, 325(5918), 1222-1226.
Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Cleckley, H. (1941). The mask o f sanity: An attempt to clarify some issues about the so-called
psychopathic personality. Whitefish, MO: Literary Licensing.
Coen, S.J. (1981). Sexualization as a Predominant Mode o f Defense. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn.,
29, 893-920.
Cook, S. L., Gidycz, C. A., Koss, M. P., & Murphy, M. (2011). Emerging issues in the
measurement o f rape victimization. Violence Against Women, 17(2), 201-218.
Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2000). A safe haven: An attachment theory perspective on
support seeking and caregiving in intimate relationships. Journal o f Personality and
Social Psychology, 78(6), 1053-1073.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality
in dating couples. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 58,644-663.
Cooper, M. L., Pioli, M., Levitt, A., Telley, A. E., Micheas, L., & Collins, N. L. (2006).
Attachment styles, sex motives, and sexual behavior. In M. Mikulincer & G. S. Goodman
111
Dynamics o f romantic love: Attachment, caregiving, & sex (pp. 243-274). New York,
N Y : Guilford Press.
Curtis, V., Barra, M. D., & Aunger, R. (2011). Disgust as an adaptive system for disease
avoidance behaviour. Philosophical Transactions o f the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences, 366( 1563), 389-401.
Crysel, L. C., Crosier, B. S., & Webster, G. D. (2013). The Dark Triad and risk behavior.
Personality and Individual Differences, 54(1), 35-40.
Czibor, A., & Bereczkei, T. (2012). Machiavellian people's success results from monitoring their
partners. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(3), 202-206.
Dabbs, J. M. Jr. (2000). Heroes, rogues, and lovers: Testosterone and behavior. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Dadds, M. R., Hawes, D. J., Frost, A. D. J., Vassallo, S., Bunn, P., Hunter, K., et al. (2009).
Learning to 'talk the talk': The relationship o f psychopathic traits to deficits in empathy
across childhood. Journal o f Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines,
50(5), 599-606.
Dahling, J. J., Whitaker, B. G., & Levy, P. E. (2009). The development and validation o f a new
Machiavellianism scale. Journal o f Management, 55(2), 219-257.
Davis, D., Shaver, P. R., Widaman, K. F., Vernon, M. L., Folette, W. C., & Beitz, K. (2006). “I
can’t get no satisfaction” : Insecure attachment, inhibited sexual communication, and
sexual dissatisfaction. Personal Relationships, 13, 465—483.
Davis, D., Shaver, P. R., & Vernon, M. L. (2004). Attachment style and subjective motivations
for sex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1076-1090.
112
de Jong, P. J., van Overveld, M., Weijmar Schultz, W., Peters, M. L., & Buwalda, F. (2009).
Disgust and contamination sensitivity in vaginismus and dyspareunia. Archives o f Sexual
Behavior, 3 8 ,244-252.
Dean, K. E., & Malamuth, N. M. (1997). Characteristics o f men who aggress sexually and o f
men who imagine aggressing: Risk and moderating variables. Journal o f Personality and
Social Psychology, 72, 449-455.
Dewitte, M. (2012). Different perspectives on the sex-attachment link: Towards an emotional-
motivational account. Journal o f Sex Research, 49, 105-124.
Diamond, L.M. (2000). Sexual identity, attractions, and behavior among young sexual-minority
women over a two-year period. Developmental Psychology, 36, 241-250.
Diamond, D., Blatt, S. J., & Lichtenberg, J. D. (Eds.) (2007). Attachment & sexuality. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Edenfield, J. L., Adams, K. S., & Briihl, D. S. (2012). Relationship maintenance strategy use by
romantic attachment style. North American Journal o f Psychology, 14(1), 149-162.
Ellis, H. (1898). Auto-eroticism, a psychological study. Alienist and Neurologist, 19, 260-299.
Ellis, H. (1927). The conception o f narcissism. The Psychoanalytic Review, 14, 129-153.
Egan, V., & Angus, S. (2004). Is social dominance a sex-specific strategy for infidelity?
Fergus, T. A., & Valentiner, D. P. (2009). The Disgust Propensity and Sensitivity Scale-Revised:
An examination o f a reduced-item version. Journal o f Anxiety Disorders, 23(5), 703-710.
Feeney, J. A. (1999). "Adult Romantic Attachment and Couple Relationships." In Handbook o f
Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications, ed. J. Cassidy and P. R.
Shaver. New York: Guilford Press.
113
Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor o f adult romantic
relationships. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 58(2), 281-291.
Fessler, D. M. T., & Navarrete, C. D. (2004). Third-party attitudes toward sibling incest:
Evidence for Westermarck's hypotheses. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(5), 277-294.
Fessler, D. M. T., & Navarrete, C. D. (2003). Domain-specific variation in disgust sensitivity
across the menstrual cycle. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24(6), 406-417.
Freud, S. (1905). Three essays on the theory o f sexuality. Standard Edition, 1, 125-45.
Freud, S. (1908). On the sexual theories o f children. Standard Edition, 9, 205-226.
Freud, S. (1910). A special type o f choice o f object made by men. Standard Edition, 11, 163—
175.
Freud, S. (1923). The ego and the id. Standard Edition 19, 1-66.
Freud, S. (1957). On narcissism: An introduction. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The standard
edition o f the complete psychological works o f Sigmund Freud (Vol. 14, pp. 67-104).
London, UK: Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1914).
Freud, S. (1959). Character and anal eroticism. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The standard edition o f the
complete psychological works o f Sigmund Freud (vol. 9, pp. 170-171). London, UK:
Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1908).
Fisher, T. D., Moore, Z. T., & Pittenger, M. J. (2012). Sex on the brain? An examination o f
frequency o f sexual cognitions as a function o f gender, erotophilia, and social
desirability. Journal o f Sex Research, 49( 1), 69-77.
Fisher, M. L., Worth, K., Garcia, J. R., & Meredith, T. (2012). Feelings o f regret following
uncommitted sexual encounters in Canadian university students. Culture, Health, and
Sexuality, 14(1), 45-57.
114
Fisher, J. M., & Fisher, S., (1975). Response to cigarrete deprivation as a function o f oral
fantasy. Journal o f Personality Assesment, 39(4), 381- 385.
Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical developments,
emerging controversies, and unanswered questions. Review o f General Psychology,
4 ,132-154.
Fromm, E. (1964). The Heart o f Man. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Foster, J. D., & Campbell, W. K. (2007). Are there such things as "Narcissists" in social
psychology? A taxometric analysis o f the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Personality
and Individual Differences, 43(6), 1321-1332.
Foster, J. D., Shrira, I., & Campbell, W. K. (2006). Theoretical models o f narcissism, sexuality,
and relationship commitment. Journal o f Social and Personal Relationships, 25(3), 367-
386.
Fumham, A., & Trickey, G. (2011). Sex differences in the dark side traits. Personality and
Individual Differences, 50, 517-522.
Gabriel, M. T., Critelli, J. W., & Ee, J. S. (1994). Narcissistic Illusions in Self-Evaluations o f
Intelligence and Attractiveness. Journal o f Personality, 62(1), 143-155.
Galbaud du Fort, G., Boothroyd, L. J., Bland, R. C., Newman, S. C., & Kakuma, R. (2002).
Spouse similarity for antisocial behaviour in the general population. Psychological
Medicine, 52(8), 1407-1416.
Gentzler, A. L., & Kerns, K. A. (2004). Associations between insecure attachment and sexual
experiences. Personal Relationships, 11, 249-265.
Gerber, G. L., & Chemeski, L. (2006). Sexual aggression toward women: Reducing the
prevalence. Annals o f the New York Academy o f Sciences, 1087, 35-46.
115
Gunnthorsdottir, A., McCabe, K., & Smith, V. (2002). Using the Machiavellianism instrument to
predict trustworthiness in a bargaining game. Journal o f Economic Psychology, 23, 4 9 -
66 .
Grello, C. M., Welsh, D. P., & Harper, M. S. (2006). No strings attached: The nature o f casual
sex in college students. Journal o f Sex Research, 4 3 ,255-267.
Hansen, A. L., Johnsen, B. H., Hart, S., Waage, L., & Thayer, J. F. (2008). Brief communication:
Psychopathy and recognition o f facial expressions o f emotion. Journal o f Personality
Disorders, 22(6), 639-646.
Haidt, J., Rozin, P., McCauley, C., & Imada, S. (1997). Body, psyche, and culture: The
relationship between disgust and morality. Psychology and Developing Societies, 9(1),
107-131.
Haidt, J., McCauley, C., & Rozin, P. (1994). Individual differences in sensitivity to disgust: A
scale sampling seven domains o f disgust elicitors. Journal o f Personality and Individual
Differences, 16, 701-713.
Hazan, C., Campa, M., & Gur-Yaish, N. (2006). What is adult attachment? In M. Mikulincer &
G. S. Goodman (Eds.), Dynamics o f romantic love: Attachment, caregiving, and sex (pp.
47-70). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hazan, C. & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal
o f Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.
Hare, R. D. (1980). A research scale for the assessment o f psychopathy in criminal populations.
Personality and Individual Differences, 1, 111-119.
Hare, R. D. (1991). The hare psychopathy checklist-revised. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health
Systems.
116
Harpur, T. J., & Hare, R. D. (1994). Assessment o f psychopathy as a function o f age. Journal o f
Abnormal Psychology, 103, 604-609.
Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Hilton, N. Z., Lalumiere, M. L., & Quinsey, V. L. (2007). Coercive
and precocious sexuality as a fundamental aspect o f psychopathy. Journal o f Personality
Disorders, 27(1), 1-27.
Hersh, K., & Gray-Little, B. (1998). Psychopathic traits and attitudes associated with self
reported sexual aggression in college men. Journal o f Interpersonal Violence, 13, 456-
471.
Heyman, R. E., Malik, J., & Smith Slep, A. M. (2010). Analog research methods. Corsini
Encyclopedia o f Psychology.
Hill, C. A. (1997). The distinctiveness o f sexual motives in relation to sexual desire and
desirable partner attributes. Journal o f Sex Research, 34, 139-153.
Hutcherson, C. A., & Gross, J. J. (2011). The moral emotions: A social-functionalist account o f
anger, disgust, and contempt. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 100(4), 719-
737.
Hundhammer, T., & Mussweiler, T. (2012). How sex puts you in gendered shoes: sexuality-
priming leads to gender-based self-perception and behavior. Journal o f personality and
social psychology, 705(1), 176.
Hunyady, O., Josephs, L., & Jost, J. T., (2008). Priming the primal scene: Betrayal trauma,
narcissism, and attitudes toward sexual infidelity. Journal o f S e lf an Identity, 7, 278-294.
Houben, K., & Havermans, R. C. (2012). A delicious fly in the soup. The relationship between
disgust, obesity, and restraint. Appetite, 55(3), 827-830.
117
Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., Knobe, J., & Bloom, P. (2009). Disgust sensitivity predicts intuitive
disapproval o f gays. Emotion, 9(3), 435-439.
Izard, C. E. (1993). Organizational and motivational functions o f discrete emotions. In M. Lewis
& J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook o f emotions (pp. xx-xx). New York, N Y : The
Guilford Press.
Jonason, P.K., Hatfield, E., & Boler, V.M. (2015). Who engages in serious and casual sex
relationships? An individual differences perspective. Personality and Individual
Differences, 7 5 ,205-209
Jonason, P. K., & McCain, J. (2012). Using the HEXACO model to test the validity o f the Dirty
Dozen measure o f the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(7), 935-
938.
Jonason, P. K., Luevano, V. X., & Adams, H. M. (2012). How the Dark Triad traits predict
relationship choices. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(3), 180-184.
Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2012). A protean approach to social influence: Dark Triad
personalities and social influence tactics. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(A),
521-526.
Jonason, P. K., Valentine, K. A., Li, N. P., & Harbeson, C. L. (2011). Mate-selection and the
Dark Triad: Facilitating a short-term mating strategy and creating a volatile environment.
Jonason, P. K., Koenig, B. L., & Tost, J. (2010). Living a fast life: The Dark Triad and life
history theory. Human Nature, 21(A), 428-442.
Jonason, P. K., & Tost, J. (2010). I just cannot control myself: The Dark Triad and self-control.
118
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Buss, D. M. (2010), The costs and benefits o f the Dark Triad:
Implications for mate poaching and mate retention tactics. Personality and Individual
Differences, 48(4), 373-378.
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Teicher, E. A. (2010). Who is James Bond?: The Dark Triad as an
agentic social style. Individual Differences Research, 8(2), 111-120.
Jonason, P. K., & Kavanagh, P. (2010). The dark side o f love: Love styles and the Dark Triad.
Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The dirty dozen: A concise measure o f the Dark Triad.
Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 420-432.
Jonason, P., Li, N., Webster, G., & Schmitt, D. (2009). The dark triad: Facilitating a short-term
mating strategy in men. European Journal o f Personality, 23, 5-18.
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Cason, M. J. (2009). The “ booty-call” : A compromise between men
and women’s ideal mating strategies. Journal o f Sex Research, 46, 1-11
Jones, E. (1950). Anal-erotic character traits. In Papers on psycho-analysis (5 ed.) (pp. 413-
437). Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins. (Original work published in 1918).
Jones, A., & Fitness, J. (2008). Moral hypervigilance: The influence o f disgust sensitivity in the
moral domain. Emotion, 5(5), 613-627.
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D.L. (2009). Machiavellianism. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.),
Handbook o f individual differences in social behavior (pp. 93-108). New York: Guilford
Josephs, L. (2006). The impulse to infidelity and oedipal splitting. International Journal o f
Psychoanalysis, 87, 423—437.
Josephs, L., & Shimberg, J. (2010). The dynamics o f sexual fidelity: Personality style as a
reproductive strategy. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 27(3), 273-295.
119
Kemberg, 0 . F. (1974). Mature love: prerequisites and characteristics. Journal o f the American
Psychoanalytic Association, 22(4), 743-768.
Kemberg, O. F. (1995). Love relations: Normality and pathology. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Kemberg, O. F. (1988). Clinical dimensions o f masochism. Journal o f the American
Psychoanalytic Association, 36(4), 1005-1029.
Kemberg, 0 . F. (1984). Severe personality disorders: Psychotherapeutic strategies. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Kernberg, O. F. (1992). Aggression: In personality disorders and perversions. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Kemberg, O. F. (2009). Narcissistic personality disorders: Part 1. Psychiatric Annals, 39(3), 105-
110 .
Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1998). Evolution, pair bonding, and reproductive strategies: A
reconceptualization of adult attachment. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.),
Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 353-393). New York: Guilford.
Klein, M. (1930). The importance o f symbol formation in the development o f ego. The
International Journal o f Psychoanalysis, 11, 24-39.
Kleinknecht, R. A., Kleinknecht, E. A., & Thorndike, R. M. (1997). The role o f disgust and fear
in blood and injection-related fainting symptoms: A structural equation model. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 35, 1075-1087.
Koukounas, E., & McCabe, M. (1997). Sexual and emotional variables influencing sexual
response to erotica. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 35, 221-230.
120
Koss, M. P., & Oros, C. J. (1992). Sexual experiences survey: A research instrument
investigating sexual aggression and victimization. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 50, 455-457.
La Fontaine, J. (1986). Child sexual abuse and the incest taboo: Practical problems and
theoretical issues. Man, 23, 1-18.
Lamb, S. (1999). The trouble with blame: Victims, perpetrators, and responsibility. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic attributes in
a noninstitutionalised population. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 151-
158.
Levy, K. N., Blatt, S. J., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Attachment style and parental representations.
Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 407—419.
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism in the Five-
Factor Model and the HEX AC 0 model o f personality structure. Personality and
Individual Differences, 38(7), 1571-1582.
Lieberman, D. L., Tybur, J. M., & Latner, J. D. (2011). Disgust sensitivity, obesity stigma, and
gender: Contamination psychology predicts weight bias for women, not men. Obesity,
20(9), 1803-1814.
Longrigg, C. (Ed.). (2013). W hat’s so right about Mr. wrong? Psychologies. Retrieved from
http://www.psychologies.co.uk/love/whats-so-right-about-mr-wrong.html
Lopez, F. G., Mauricio, A. M., Gormley, B., Simko, T., & Berger, E. (2001). Adult attachment
orientations and college student distress: The mediating role o f problem coping styles.
Journal o f Counseling and Development, 79(4), 459-464.
121
Lopez, F. G., Mitchell, P., & Gormley, B. (2002). Adult attachment orientations and college
student distress: Test o f a mediational model. Journal o f Counseling Psychology, 49(4),
460-467.
Malamuth, N. M. (1989). The attraction to sexual aggression scale: Part two. Journal o f Sex
Research, 26(3), 324-354.
Marx, B. P., Van Wie, V., & Gross, A. M. (1996). Date rape risk factors: A review and
methodological critique o f the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7(1), 27-45.
Matchett, G., & Davey, G. C. L. (1991). A test o f disease-avoidance model o f animal phobias.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 29, 91-94.
Mckibbin, W. F., Shackelford, T. K., Goetz, A. T., & Starratt, V. G. (2008). Why do men rape?
An evolutionary psychological perspective. Review o f general psychology, 12, 86-97.
Mclllwain, D. (2003). Bypassing empathy: A Machiavellian theory o f mind and sneaky power.
In B. Repacholi & V. Slaughter (Eds.), Individual differences in theory o f mind:
Macquarie monographs in cognitive science (pp. 39-46). E. Sussex, UK: Psychology
Press.
McHoskey, J. W. (2001). Machiavellianism and sexuality: On the moderating role o f biological
sex. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 779-789.
McWilliams, N. (1994). Psychoanalytic diagnosis: Understanding personality structure in the
clinical process. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Mikulincer, M., Orbach, I., & Iavnieli, D. (1998). Adult attachment style and affect regulation:
Strategic variations in subjective self-other similarity. Journal o f Personality and Social
Psychology, 75, 436—448.
122
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and
change. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Murphy, P. R. (2012). Attitude, Machiavellianism and the rationalization o f misreporting.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 57(4), 242-259.
Nicholson, E., & Bames-Holmes, D. (2012). Developing an implicit measure o f disgust
propensity and disgust sensitivity: Examining the role of implicit disgust propensity and
sensitivity in obsessive-compulsive tendencies. Journal o f Behavior Therapy and
Experimental Psychiatry, 43(3), 922-930.
Olatunji, B. O., Cisler, J., McKay, D., & Phillips, M. L. (2010). Is disgust associated with
psychopathology? Emerging research in the anxiety disorders. Psychiatry Research,
775(1-2), 1-10.
Olatunji, B. O., Haidt, J., McKay, D., & David, B. (2008). Core, animal reminder, and
contamination disgust: Three kinds o f disgust with distinct personality, behavioral,
physiological, and clinical correlates. Journal o f Research in Personality, 42, 1243-1259.
Olatunji, B. O., Sawchuk, C. N., Arrindell, W. A., & Lohr, J. M. (2005). Disgust sensitivity as a
mediator o f the sex differences in contamination fears. Personality and Individual
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad o f personality: Narcissism,
Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal o f Research in Personality, 36(6), 556-563.
Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness o f trait self-enhancement: A
mixed blessing? Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1197-1208.
Patterson, M. (2005). Coming too close, going too far: Theoretical and cross-cultural approaches
to incest and its prohibitions. Australian Journal o f Anthropology, 76(1), 95-115.
123
Pham, T. H., & Philippot, P. (2010). Decoding o f facial expression o f emotion in criminal
psychopaths. Journal o f Personality Disorders, 24(4), 445-459.
Pearce, J. W., & Pezzot-Pearce, T. D. (2007). Pschotherapy o f abused and neglected children
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). A meta-analytic review o f research on gender differences in
sexuality, 1993-2007. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 21-38.
Peterson, R., & Merunka, D. (2013). Convenience samples o f college students and research
reproducibility. Journal o f Business Research, 67, 1035-1041.
Pincus A. L., Ansell E. B., Pimentel C. A., Cain N. M.,Wright A. G. C., & Levy K. N. (2009).
Initial construction and validation o f the Pathological Narcissism Inventory.
Psychological Assessment, 21, 365-79.
Pincus, A. L., & Lukowitsky, M. R. (2010). Pathological narcissism and narcissistic personality
disorder. Annual Review o f Clinical Psychology, 6, 421-446.
Plato. (416 BC/1989). Symposium. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
Raskin, R., & Hall, C. S. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological Reports, 45,
590.
Raskin, R. N., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis o f the Narcissistic
Personality Inventory and further evidence o f its construct validity. Journal o f
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 890-902.
Rauthmann, J. F., & Kolar, G. P. (2012). How "dark" are the Dark Triad traits? Examining the
perceived darkness o f narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Personality and
Individual Differences, 53(1), 884-889.
Reich, W. (1933). Character analysis. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
124
Royzman, E. B., Leeman, R. F., & Sabini, J. (2008). "You make me sick": Moral dyspepsia as a
reaction to third-party sibling incest. Motivation and Emotion, 32(2), 100-108.
Rozin, P., & Fallon, A. E. (1987). A perspective on disgust. Psychological Review, 94( 1), 23-41.
Scaturo, D. J. (1987). Toward an adult developmental conceptualization o f alcohol abuse: A
review o f the literature. British Journal o f Addiction, 52(8), 857-870.
Schachner, D. A., & Shaver, P. R. (2004). Attachment dimensions and sexual motives. Personal
Relationship, 11, 179-195.
Scherer, K. R. (1997). Profiles o f emotion-antecedent appraisal: Testing theoretical predictions
across cultures. Cognition and Emotion, 11(2), 113-150.
Schmitt, D.P., & Jonason, P.K. (2015). Attachment and sexual permissiveness: Exploring
differential associations across genders, cultures, and facets o f short-term mating. Journal
o f Cross Cultural Psychology, 46, 119-133.
Simpson, J. A. (1990). Influence o f attachment styles on romantic relationships. Journal o f
Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 971-980.
Simpson, J., Carter, S., Anthony, S. H., & Overton, P. G. (2006). Is disgust a homogeneous
emotion? Motivation and Emotion, 30(1), 31-41.
Smith, C.V., Hadden. B., Webster, G.D., Jonason, P.K., & Crysel, L., & Gesselman, A. (2014).
Mutually Attracted or repulsed?: Actor-Partner Interdependence Models o f Dark Triad
traits and relationship outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 35-41.
Sperry, L. (2003). Sex, priestly ministry, and the church. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.
Sprecher, S. (2013). Attachment style and sexual permissiveness: The moderating role o f gender.
Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 428-432.
125
Sprecher, S., Treger, S., & Sakaluk, J. K. (2013). Premarital sexual standards and sociosexuality:
Gender, ethnicity, and cohort differences. Archives o f Sexual Behavior, 41, 1395-1405.
Sprecher, S. (2002). Sexual satisfaction in premarital relationships: Associations with
satisfaction, love, commitment, and stability. Journal o f Sex Research, 39,190-196.
Spotnitz, H., & Resnikoff, P. (1954). The myths o f Narcissus. The Psychoanalytic Review, 41,
173-181.
Swiss, S., & Giller, J. E. (1993). Rape as a crime o f war. Journal o f the American Medical
Association, 270(5), 612-615.
Tanchotsrinon, P., Maneesri, K., & Campbell, W. K. (2007). Narcissism and romantic attraction:
Evidence from a collectivistic culture. Journal o f Research in Personality, 41(3), 723-
730.
Tice, D. M., & Bratslavsky, E. (2000). Giving in to feel good: The place o f emotion regulation in
the context o f general self-control. Psychological Inquiry, 11(3), 149-159.
Tsai, J. L., & Chentsova-Dutton, Y. (2003). Variation among European Americans in emotional
facial expression. Journal o f Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34(6), 650-657.
Tsai, J. L., Simeonova, D. I., & Watanabe, J. T. (2004). Somatic and social: Chinese Americans
talk about emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(9), 1226-1238.
Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Foster, J. D., Campbell, W. K., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Egos
inflating over time: A cross-temporal meta-analysis o f the narcissistic personality
inventory. Journal o f Personality, 76(4), 875-902.
Tybur, J. M., Lieberman, D., & Griskevicius, V. (2009). Microbes, Mating, and Morality:
Individual Differences in Three Functional Domains o f Disgust. Journal o f Personality
and Social Psychology, 97(1), 103-122.
126
Van Overveld, M., de Jong, P. J., & Peters, M. L. (2010). The disgust propensity and sensitivity
scale - revised: Its predictive value for avoidance behavior. Personality and Individual
Van Overveld, W. J. M., de Jong, P. J., Peters, M. L., Cavanagh, K., & Davey, G. C. L. (2006).
Disgust propensity and disgust sensitivity: Separate constructs that are differentially
related to specific fears. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(7), 1241-1252.
Veselka, L., Schermer, J. A., & Vernon, P. A. (2011). Beyond the Big Five: The Dark Triad and
the Supernumery Personality Inventory. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 14, 158-
168.
Vernon, L. L., & Berenbaum, H. (2008). Fear and disgust propensity in spider phobic distress.
Journal o f Anxiety Disorders, 22(8), 1285-1296.
Wai, M., & Tiliopoulos, N. (2012). The affective and cognitive empathic nature o f theDark Triad
o f personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 794-799
Watson, P. J., Trumpeter, N., O ’Leary, B. J., Morris, R. J., & Culhane, S. E. (2005-2006).
Narcissism and self-esteem in the presence o f imagined others: Supportive versus
destructive object representations and the continuum hypothesis. Imagination, Cognition
and Personality, 25, 253-268.
Walter, A., & Buyske, S. (2003). The Westermarck effect and early childhood co-socialization:
Sex difference in inbreeding-avoidance. British Journal o f Developmental Psychology,
21,3530365.
Webster, G. D., & Jonason, P. K. (2012). Putting the "IRT" in "Dirty": Item response theory
analyses o f the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen-An efficient measure o f narcissism,
127
psychopathy, and Machiavellianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 302-
306.
Wei, M., Heppner, P. P., & Mallinckrodt, B. (2003). Perceived coping as a mediator between
attachment and psychological distress: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal
o f Counseling Psychology, 50, 438-447.
Widman, L., & McNulty, J. K. (2010). Sexual narcissism and the perpetration o f sexual
aggression. Archives o f Sexual Behavior, 39(4), 926-939.
Wilson, D. S., Near, D., & Miller, R. R. (1996). Machiavellianism: A synthesis o f the
evolutionary and psychological literatures. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2),
285-299.
Williams, M. T., Abramowitz, J. S., & Olatunji, B. O. (2012). The relationship between
contamination cognitions, anxiety, and disgust in two ethnic groups. Journal o f Behavior
Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 43, 632-637.
Wryobeck, J. M., & Wiederman, M. W. (1999). Sexual narcissism: Measurement and correlates
among college men. Journal o f Sex and Marital Therapy, 25, 321-331
128
Appendix A
Email Solicitation Script
The Dark Triad and Human Sexuality Study

Dear friends and fellow students,
My name is Annette Attolini Smithers and I am a current doctoral candidate at the Demer
Institute at Adelphi University. As part o f my second year project and my dissertation, I am
conducting a research project under the supervision o f Dr. Lawrence Josephs entitled the “The
Dark Triad and Human Sexuality Study.” I am asking for volunteers to complete an online
survey.
If you would like to participate in this study, you will need to complete the two steps as listed
below.
1) You will need to agree to participate, by clicking the “Yes” button on the Online Informed
Consent Form. The consent form will explain the study in detail, tell you about your
involvement, and ask you to provide your name and email address should you agree to
participate. This information will be used strictly to obtain consent, but will not be attached to
your responses in the survey.
2) At the end o f the Online Informed Consent Form, you will be redirected to the “The Dark Triad
and Human Sexuality.” This survey will take approximately 20 minutes and will ask you
questions about your personality, what do you think about hypothetical situations, complete a
word completion task, and your background information.
If you are not 18 years old, unfortunately, you cannot participate in this study. If you have any
questions please do not hesitate to contact me at aas2738@umail.com
Here is the link:
http://www.survevmonkev.eom/s/N83FFC9
Thank you for your help!
Sincerely,
Annette Attolini Smithers
129
Appendix B
Informed Consent Form
Please Read Carefully Before Signing
The Study: I am invited to take part in a study named “The Dark Triad a
nd Human Sexuality.” The study is being conducted by Annette Attolini Smithers who is the
principal investigator and by Prof. Lawrence Josephs, co-investigator. Annette Attolini Smithers
may be reached at (917) 723-9128 or at aas2738@gmail.com mailto:Lisaeharris@gmail.com:
Prof. Lawrence Josephs can be reached at (516) 877-4814 or at iosephs@adelphi.edu.
Its Purpose: The study is designed to learn more about the relationship between some
personality traits and human sexuality.
Its Procedures: If I agree to participate in this study I will be required to do the following: Fill
out questionnaires o f my own personality regarding my feelings in romantic relationships. I will
also read a brief story and rate my feelings about the story. Also, I will fill out a questionnaire
about my experience o f disgust. Finally, I will fill out a questionnaire about my age, ethnicity,
marital status and other demographic information.
Its Benefits: I will receive no direct benefits from participation in this study. The study may
make me more aware about my personality and my feelings towards different life situations.
Its Risks: There are no known risks associated with this study. Nevertheless, the study does ask
two direct questions about private sexuality that some subjects might feel uncomfortable
answering. The questionnaires ask personal questions about my feelings, and m yself which may
be uncomfortable for me. I will be able to ask questions about the study to help me understand it
better. If any untoward psychological events occur, I am able to request and receive a referral to
a mental health professional for counseling.
Privacy: The data will be locked in a secure location and be maintained for 7 years before being
destroyed by a paper shredder, and all electronic records will be erased. None o f my professors
will be able to access my answers to my name, and the content o f my responses w on’t influence
my academic evaluation in any way. My information will be strictly confidential. There is,
however, a limit to the confidentiality that can be guaranteed due to the nature o f online data
collection. As with any information collected online, no guarantees can be made regarding the
interception o f data sent via the Internet by any third parties. Moreover, the information obtained
during this research (research records) will be kept confidential to the extent permitted by law.
However, this research record may be reviewed by government agencies (such as the Department
o f Health and Human Services), the agency sponsoring this research, individuals who are
authorized to monitor or audit the research, or the Institutional Review Board (the committee that
oversees all research in human subjects at Adelphi University) if required by applicable laws or
regulations.
Consent: Participation in this study is voluntary. Non-participation or withdrawal will not affect
my grade or academic standing. I may withdraw from the study at any point during my
participation.
Debriefing: When I complete this study, a written explanation o f it will be provided.
Estimated Time Commitment: 20-30 minutes.
The investigator and the above have informed me about this study and answered my current
questions to my satisfaction. Therefore, I agree to participate in it. If I have any additional
130
questions I may reach the principal investigator, Annette Attolini Smithers, or the co
investigator, Prof. Lawrence Josephs. I have received a copy o f this consent document to keep.
This research has been reviewed and approved by the Adelphi University Institutional Review
Board. If you have any questions, concerns, or comments, please contact Dr Carolyn Springer,
Chair o f the Adelphi University IRB, at 516-877-4276 springer@adelphi.edu.
To indicate your consent, please select the yes button as listed below. From here, you will have
a chance to input your name and email address. After completed, you will be directed to a
separate survey, so that none o f your personal information will be attached to your answers in the
survey.
^ Yes, I agree to participate in the survey
□ No, I do not agree to participate in the survey
131
Appendix C
Dark Triad / Dirty Dozen
Please rate the degree to which you agree with the following statements. Please remember that
there are no right or wrong answers and please be as honest as possible.
1 2 3 4 5
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree
Strongly Strongly
1. I tend to manipulate others to get my way. 1 2 3 4 5

2. I have used deceit or lied to get my way. 12 3 4 5
3. I have use flattery to get my way. 1 2 3 4 5
4. I tend to exploit others towards my own end. 1 2 3 4 5
5. I tend to lack remorse. 1 2 3 4 5
6. I tend to not be too concerned with morality or the morality o f my actions. 1 2 3 4 5
7. I tend to be callous or insensitive. 1 2 3 4 5
8. I tend to be cynical. 1 2 3 4 5
9. I tend to want others to admire me. 1 2 3 4 5
1 0 .1 tend to want others to pay attention to me. 1 2 3 4 5
1 1 .1 tend to seek prestige or status. 1 2 3 4 5
12.1 tend to expect special favors from others. 1 2 3 4 5
132
Appendix D
Attachment Scale #2
The following statements concern how you feel in romantic relationships. We are interested in
how you generally experience relationships, not just in what is happening in a current
relationship. If you circle 1, you indicate that you strongly disagree with the statement. If you
circle 2 or 3, you indicate that you disagree with the statement. By circling 4, you indicate that
you have mixed or neutral feelings about the statement. By circling 5 or 6, you indicate that you
agree with the statement. Finally, if you circle 7, you signal that you strongly agree. Please
remember that there are no right or wrong answers and please be as honest as possible.
strongly mix strongly

disagree
__________________________ neutral___________ agree_________________
1 .1 prefer not to show a partner how I feel deep 1 2 3 4
down. 5 6 7
2 . 1 worry about being abandoned. 1 2 3 4
5 6 7
3 . 1 am very comfortable being close to romantic 1 2 3 4
partners. 5 6 7
4 . 1 worry a lot about my relationships. 1 2 3 4
5 6 7
5. Just when my partner starts to get close to me I 1 2 3 4
find m yself pulling away. 5 6 7
6 . 1 worry that romantic partners won't care about 1 2 3 4
me as much as I care about them 5 6 7
7 . 1 get uncomfortable when a romantic partner 1 2 3 4
wants to be very close. 5 6 7
8 . 1 worry a fair amount about losing my partner. 1 2 3 4
5 6 7
9 . 1 don't feel comfortable opening up to 1 2 3 4
romantic partners. 5 6 7
1 0 .1 often wish that my partner's feelings for me 1 2 3 4
were as strong as my feelings for him/her. 5 6 7
1 1 .1 want to get close to my partner, but I keep 1 2 3 4
pulling back. 5 6 7
1 2 .1 often want to merge completely with 1 2 3 4
romantic partners, and this sometimes scares 5 6 7
them away.
1 3 .1 am nervous when partners get too close to 1 2 3 4
me. 5 6 7
1 4 .1 worry about being alone. 1 2 3 4
5 6 7
1 5 .1 feel comfortable sharing my private 1 2 3 4
133
thoughts and feelings with my partner. 5 6 7

16. My desire to be very close sometimes scares 1 2 3 4
people away. 5 6 7
1 7 .1 try to avoid getting too close to my partner 1 2 3 4
5 6 7
18.1 need a lot o f reassurance that I am loved by 1 2 3 4
my partner. 5 6 7
1 9 .1 find it relatively easy to get close to my 1 2 3 4
partner. 5 6 7
20. Sometimes I feel that I force my partners to 1 2 3 4

show more feeling, more commitment. 5 6 7
21.1 find it difficult to allow myself to depend 1 2 3 4
on romantic partners. 5 6 7
2 2 .1 do not often worry about being abandoned. 1 2 3 4
5 6 7
2 3 .1 prefer not to be too close to romantic 1 2 3 4
partners. 5 6 7
24. If I can't get my partner to show interest in 1 2 3 4
me, I get upset or angry. 5 6 7
2 5 .1 tell my partner just about everything. 1 2 3 4
5 6 7
2 6 .1 find that my partner(s) don't want to get as 1 2 3 4
close as I would like. 5 6 7
2 7 .1 usually discuss my problems and concerns 1 2 3 4
with my partner. 5 6 7
28. When I'm not involved in a relationship, I 1 2 3 4
feel somewhat anxious and insecure. 5 6 7
2 9 .1 feel comfortable depending on romantic 1 2 3 4
partners. 5 6 7
3 0 .1 get frustrated when my partner is not 1 2 3 4
around as much as I would like. 5 6 7
31.1 don't mind asking romantic partners for 1 2 3 4
comfort, advice, or help. 5 6 7
3 2 .1 get frustrated if romantic partners are not 1 2 3 4
available when I need them. 5 6 7
33. It helps to turn to my romantic partner in 1 2 3 4
times o f need. 5 6 7
34. When romantic partners disapprove o f me, I 1 2 3 4
feel really bad about myself. 5 6 7
3 5 .1 turn to my partner for many things, 1 2 3 4
including comfort and reassurance. 5 6 7
3 6 .1 resent it when my partner spends time away 1 2 3 4 5
from me. 6 7
134
Appendix E
Sexual Exploitation Case Scenario Prime:
Jack is flirting at the bar with a number o f different women. He goes to this bar often,
and today is hitting on girls in his off hours and having a lot to drink. Marie is more intoxicated
than he is; it is the end o f the night and they are checking out each other’s bodies. Jack starts
kissing Marie but she is very drunk. Jack says, “Let’s go home together.” Marie is not sure if
that is a good idea, but Jack convinces her and she leaves the bar with him to go to his home.
Romantic Case Scenario Prime:
Jack met Marie at a nice restaurant where both are having dinner. They are having a
good time, as both o f them are casually chatting in general and flirting with each other. They are
looking at each other with an adoring gaze in their eyes. Jack and Marie are clearly having a
great time at this restaurant. Jack then asks Marie, “Why don’t we go to my place to have
another cup o f coffee?” She responds in the affirmative with “sure!”, and they leave together,
chatting further while laughing a bit as evidence o f their equally enjoyable afternoon.
Control Group Case Scenario Prime:
Tom meets a friend for lunch. They pal around and chat, having a good time together as
they update one another on recent life developments. After having a nice lunch Tom says, “Let’s
get together again next month.” His friend replies by accessing a calendar and offering a couple
o f dates to have another lunch. They agree to a day and time and both make a mental note o f it.
They get up to leave, share a friendly hug, and then go their separate ways.
135
Appendix F
Please complete the following by filling letters in the blanks to create words. Please fill in the
blanks with the first word that comes to mind. Write one letter per blank.
1. M O _S _
2. R _D I _
3. P LA _ _
4. C L _ _ K
5. W _ T
6. P 0 S T _ _
7. S _X
8. F L_ W _ R
9. T R_ _
10. L A I _
11. L _ _ K
12. P _ _ T U R E
13. N _ _ S E
14. W _ T
15. _ _ N G
16. M U _ _
17. H A _ D
18. K _ N G S
19. T A B _ _
20. W _ _ D O W
21. E _ E C T
22. P _ P _ R
23. _ O R N Y
24. M _ J _ R
25. H _ T
26. W A T _ _
27. C O _ E
28. B _ T _ L E
29. C H A
136
Appendix G
Please read the following questions. We will ask you about the story you previously read. Please
indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement by circling a number on
the scale following each item.
Not at all Somewhat Very

Romantic Romantic Romantic
1. How romantic is the story? 1 2

Arousing Arousing Arousing
2. How sexual arousing is the story? 1

Disgusting Disgusting Disgusting
3. How disgusting is the story? 1 2
137
Appendix H
The statements below examine disgust in regards to different situations. Please rate the degree to
which you agree with the following statements. Circle 1 if you do not identify with what the
statement suggests. If you circle 2, you seldom engage in what the statement suggests. Circle 3
if you find yourself sometimes relating to the statement and circle 4 if you frequently relate to
what the statement proposes. Finally, circle 5 if you “always” identify with what the statement
says.
1 2 3 4 5
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always
1. I avoid disgusting things. 1 2 3 4 5

2. When I feel disgusted, I worry that Imight pass out. 1 2 3 4 5
3. It scares me when I feel nauseous. 1 2 3 4 5
4. I feel repulsed. 1 2 3 4 5
5. Disgusting things make my stomach turn. 1 2 3 4 5
6. I scrunch up my face in disgust. 1 2 3 4 5
7. When I notice that I feel nauseous, I worry about vomiting. 1 2 3 4 5
8. I experience disgust. 1 2 3 4 5
9. It scares me when I feel faint. 12 3 4 5
1 0 .1 find something disgusting. 1 2 3 4 5
11. It embarrasses me when I feel disgusted. 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 .1 think feeling disgust is bad for me. 1 2 3 4 5
138
Appendix I
1. Gender: Male Female
2. A g e :______________________
3. Date o f birth:____________________
4. Ethnicity:_______________________
5. What is your highest level o f education:__________
6. What is your employment status?_____________________
7. How do you define your sexual orientation?

Exclusively Homosexual 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Exclusively Heterosexual
8. How strong is your sex drive? Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 Extremely
9. Number o f orgasm per w eek:______________
10. Marital status: single in a relationship divorced separated widowed
139
Appendix J
DEBRIEFING FOR THE STUDY OF
“The Dark Triad and Human Sexuality”
Your participation in this study is greatly appreciated. Although the goal o f the study is stated in
the informed consent form you signed, there is a more specific goal that we hope to achieve with
the data collected in this study. The first two questionnaires you filled out are personality
measures that assess three different types o f personalities and experiences in close relationships.
The brief case scenarios you read and answered three questions about are an experimental
manipulation with the implication that feelings are attached in regards to (a) a sexual exploitation
scenario, (b) a couple engaging in a romantic exchange at a restaurant, (c) neutral friends’
interaction. The word completion tasks that you filled out are a measure consisting o f 29 words
fragments, seven of which can be completed as a neutral or a sexual arousal related word. The
word completion task implicitly measures sexual arousal. Finally, the last three questions you
filled out measure your inclination towards sexual exploitation, a romantic scene or a neutral
scenario. Our expectation is that people who are less exploitative, have a high degree o f
empathy, and are low in narcissism will predictably respond to a romantic scenario with more
sexual arousal than people who are highly exploitative, low in empathy and high in narcissism.
We believe that people who are highly exploitative, low in empathy, and high in narcissism have
a high sex drive and low aversion and are therefore more likely to have opportunistic sexual
relationships.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact Annette Attolini (917-723-9128;
aas2738@gmail.com) or Prof. Lawrence Josephs (516-877-4814; josephs@adelphi.edu). If you find
that any part o f your participation in the study is upsetting and you would like to talk, it is
recommended you contact the experimenters or seek professional help at the Center for
Psychological Services at the Demer Institute o f Advanced Psychological Studies at Adelphi
University (516-877-4820).
Please do not discuss this study with other students because we are still in the process o f recruiting
people.
Again, we thank you for your help.
140

The Dark Triad

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Dark Triad

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running head: THE DARK TRIAD

A Study of Opportunistic Human Sexuality:

The Dark Triad as a Predictor o f Affective Dispositions towards Date Rape

Presented to the Faculty

The Gordon F. Demer

Institute o f Advanced Psychological Studies

O f the Requirements for the Degree

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

Lawrence Josephs, P h .D .------------------- Chairperson

Robert Mendelsohn, P h .D .---------------- Committee member

Robert Bomstein, P h .D .------------------- Committee member

Devin Thornburg, P h .D .------------------- Reader

Differences in sexuality create miscommunication and conflict in a variety o f social situations.

sex and neutral-nonsexual scenarios.

narcissism, Machiavellian intelligence, and psychopathy, as well as attachment style, disgust

sensitivity, disgust propensity, and sex drive.

disgusting the story was to them.

sexual and romantic responses to a variety o f social situations.

To members o f my research committee, Drs. Robert Bomstein, Roberto Mendelsohn, and

I dedicate this dissertation to my mother and my husband, Eric.

Dissertation Committee and Readers ii

VI. REFERENCES 107

VIII. List o f Tables

individuals who are dating.

influence men’s behavior (Baron-Cohen, 2008).

biology, not just an aspect o f gender role conditioning.

Lichtenberg, 2007; Dewitte, 2012; Sprecher, 2013).

vulnerable to being victims o f nonconsensual sex.

Disgust is an automatic emotion that functions as an inhibitor to prevent physical

less favorably towards nonconsensual sex.

general than those low on the measure.

Review of the Literature

The Relationship between Sex Drive and Character Structure

psychosexual stages o f development. Freud proposed a model, where libidinal energy is

stage overlap is seen in individual character examples that follow.

The Oral Stage

The Anal Stage

breast (Klein, 1930).

The Phallic Stage

do not have one.

the phallic narcissistic male (Reich, 1933).

identified with the promiscuous role model.

their childhood psychosexual conflicts, particularly their oedipal conflict.

phallic narcissistic male.

The Latency Stage

The Genital Stage

Phallic-Narcissistic Character Structure

exploitative way o f relating to women. A male with phallic-narcissistic character structure is

called baby face” (p. 217).

In terms o f object relations, phallic-narcissistic men experienced strong disappointments

their fathers (Reich, 1933).

because they love and leave, or seduce and betray women.

unique to the phallic narcissistic male.

In her sexual life, a woman with a masochistic personality disorder experiences,

it allow itself to feel pleasure (Reich, 1993).

The Syndrome o f Malignant Narcissism

There are a number o f psychoanalytic theorists who focus on severe personality

womanizer, nor is he a brutal psychopath. Instead, one such “middle-ground” diagnosis is

Intensive clinical observation identified a group o f patients occupying the diagnostic

either narcissistic personality or antisocial personality, as individuals with malignant narcissism -

treatable (Kemberg, 2009).

a severe affliction that is characterized by the combination o f narcissistic personality disorder,

lives (Kernberg, 1984).