The Associations Among Dark Personalities and Sexual Tactics Across Different Scenarios

Summary and Predictions

In sexual situations, men high in narcissism appear to be most aggressive in response to perceived rejection from potential partners; especially those from whom they feel “owed” (e.g., Baumeister et al., 2002; Bushman et al., 2003). Social Dominance is different in that individuals high in this trait are most aggressive when they feel interpersonal propriety or feel they deserve obedience (Sidanius et al., 2000). Last, individuals high in psychopathy are sexually aggressive in general (Lalumiere & Quinsey, 1996; Williams, Cooper, Howell, Yuille, & Paulhus, 2009). As a consequence of these predispositions, we hypothesized that each trait would be related to sexual coaxing or coercion depending on the situation.

Although scenarios are not particularly impactful, and assessing individuals behaviorally in real situations is ideal, such situations are difficult (if not impossible) to reconstruct in the lab. As a consequence, considering few if any scenario studies have been conducted in conjunction with the Dark Triad and sexual coercion/coaxing, the present study might provide some evidence as to how these traits may differ in behavioral intentions across different scenarios. In particular, we predicted (a) psychopathy would predict coercion (but not coaxing) across all scenarios, (b) narcissism would predict coercion or coaxing in situations where they feel unjustly rejected, in this case, by an expensive date, and (c) Social Dominance will be related to coercion over romantic partners.

General Method

Participants were recruited through an online crowd-sourcing website called Mechanical Turk (MTurk). MTurk has a workforce of thousands of adults who search for tasks called Human Intelligence Tasks (HITS), and engage in these tasks for money, pleasure, or both (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011). Data from MTurk are superior to student data in both fidelity (e.g., reliability, validity, motivation, and attention) and diversity (e.g., age, life experience, education, region) according to many researchers (Buhrmester et al., 2011; Paolacci, Chandler, & Ipeirotis, 2010; Rand, 2012; see also Mason & Suri, 2012).

We recruited men for our survey with a post on MTurk’s website, which read, “Survey on sexual behavior—MEN only.” Given that the online MTurk system is anonymous, and there was no way to verify the actual gender of participants, a final question (at the end of the survey) was asked, which read: “Please indicate your gender again. If you are not a man, we will still pay you and give you full credit, we really need to know your true gender for data analysis purposes, please be honest.” Of the total 274 individuals in Sample 1, only 13 indicated that they were not men on the final page, and of the 188 participants in Sample 2, only 2 indicated that they were not men on the final page. These gender-discrepant participants were eliminated from analyses. As a consequence, we can be relatively certain that all participants were men.

In both samples, participants were presented with a series of scenarios, provided in an order randomized to each participant. It should be noted that controlling for order had no impact on the results. After reading each scenario, participants completed a series of questions, asking about the extent to which they would engage in coercing or coaxing behaviors. In Sample 1, participants were provided three scenarios describing an experience with (a) a romantic partner, (b) a stranger, and (c) an expensive date (see Appendix A). In Sample 2, participants were presented six scenarios, consisting of those provided to participants in Sample 1, and three additional scenarios: (d) powerful other; (e) bet; and (f) rival (see Appendix B). These additional scenarios were provided to add more diversity to the scenarios presented, and to hopefully capture relations between these scenarios with each of the dark traits.

Sample 1

Sample 2

Results

Means, standard deviations, kurtosis, and skew are reported for all variables in Table 1. We first correlated all variables in the present research (see Table 2). Inter-correlations among the predictors (i.e., Dark Triad and Social Dominance) were approximately what would be expected by previous research (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). In fact, correlations among the Dark Triad and Social Dominance were all moderate to strong and positive (i.e., .24-.56) across both samples.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, Skewness, and Kurtosis of All measures.

	Sample 1			Sample 2
	M (SD)	Skew	Kurtosis	M (SD)	Skew	Kurtosis
Psychopathy	2.12 (0.56)	0.60	168	2.39 (0.70)	−0.17	−0.74
Narcissism	1.34 (0.21)	0.54	−0.43	2.91 (0.55)	−0.17	0.28
Machiavellianism	2.84 (0.49)	0.18	0.24	3.36 (0.57)	−0.15	0.23
Social Dominance	2.21 (0.80)	0.32	−0.48	2.31 (0.78)	−.05	−0.81
Coerce (stranger)	1.40 (0.58)	2.44	8.31	1.64 (0.79)	1.47	1.40
Coerce (date)	1.43 (0.55)	2.30	8.07	1.73 (0.81)	1.40	1.25
Coerce (partner)	1.59 (0.62)	1.65	3.85	1.84 (0.80)	1.17	0.64
Coax (stranger)	2.96 (1.01)	−0.17	−0.64	2.83 (1.01)	−0.13	−0.62
Coax (date)	3.31 (0.88)	−0.36	−0.29	3.26 (0.93)	−0.55	0.05
Coax (partner)	3.86 (0.76)	−0.67	0.37	3.73 (0.85)	−0.94	1.19
Coerce (bet)	—	—	—	1.83 (0.90)	1.25	0.83
Coerce (power)	—	—	—	2.05 (0.79)	0.99	0.71
Coerce (rival)	—	—	—	2.01 (0.82)	0.82	0.10
Coax (bet)	—	—	—	2.48 (0.85)	0.06	−0.53
Coax (dare)	—	—	—	2.51 (0.99)	.00	−1.06
Coax (rival)	—	—	—	2.36 (0.94)	0.08	−0.99

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Pearson Product–Moment Correlations Between Study Variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Psychopathy	—	.46*	.47*	.53*	.22*	.02	.28*	.58*	.56*	.58*
2. Machiavellianism	.56*	—	.30*	.29*	.21*	.22*	.30*	19*	.22*	.22*
3. Narcissism	.32*	.27*	—	.24*	.18*	.09	.18*	.37*	.36*	.34*
4. Social Dominance	.36*	.32*	.19*	—	.11	−.04	.15	.44*	.42*	.43*
5. Coax (date)	.27*	.10	.20*	.10	—	.68*	.68*	.46*	.36*	.32*
6. Coax (partner)	.14*	.03	.11	.02	.67*	—	.49*	.21*	.26*	.13
7. Coax (stranger)	.22*	.05	.11	.02	.73*	.54*	—	.51*	.39*	.53*
8. Coerce (date)	.57*	.14*	.18*	.33*	.33*	.16*	.33*	—	.86*	.88*
9. Coerce (partner)	.56*	.16*	.21*	.32*	.32*	.23*	.28*	.90*	—	.82*
10. Coerce (stranger)	.56*	.15*	.17*	.28*	.32*	.15*	.41*	.92*	.87*	—
Sample 2 Only	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Psychopathy	—
2. Machiavellianism	.46*	—
3. Narcissism	.47*	.30*	—
4. Social Dominance	.53*	.29*	.24*	—
5. Coax (bet)	.34*	.24*	.31*	.28*	—
6. Coax (power)	.21*	.24*	.24*	.12	.79*	—
7. Coax (rival)	.33*	.30*	.19*	.23*	.73*	.72*	—
8. Coerce (bet)	.48*	.23*	.39*	.41*	.84*	.52*	.54*	—
9. Coerce (power)	.54*	.26*	.38*	.39*	.79*	.60*	.61*	.85*	—
10. Coerce (rival)	.52*	.27*	.32*	.41*	.79*	.51*	.69*	.86*	.87*	—

Note. In the top half of the table, Sample 1 is below the diagonal, Sample 2 is above.

*

p < .05.

Although we conducted research on two separate samples, the three scenarios used in Sample 1 were also used in Sample 2. However, we used different measures of the Dark Triad across the two samples. As a consequence, we used Multiple Group Structural Equations Modeling (MSEM) to (a) demonstrate that the samples were equivalent, (b) demonstrate that the two approaches to assessing the Dark Triad are equivalent, and (c) properly test our predictions by accounting for the overlap among the observed variables.

In the first (constrained) model, we modeled a common malevolent factor from the four predictors of interest (psychopathy, Machiavellianism, narcissism, and Social Dominance). Next, we modeled a separate Coaxing and Coercion factor, each indicated, respectively, by the three coaxing and coercion scenarios. Last, we included paths according to the appropriate hypotheses. To compare this model on both samples, we first standardized the variables within each sample. Then, we estimated a multiple group SEM in EQS (Bentler, 1995) and imposed configural and weak factorial invariance. Because variables were first standardized, and because we purposely wanted to compare constructs measures by different questionnaires, and in our case, with different measurement scales, we did not impose strong factorial invariance.

The constrained model fit well, χ²(73, N = 431) = 143.64, p < .01; RMSEA = .069(.052 − .085); CFI = .972; NFI = .946; NNFI = .966, suggesting that the relation between measures was structurally equivalent across both samples. We also examined the optimal number of parameters according to predictions. As was expected by the first prediction, psychopathy resulted in a unique and direct path to coercion. In particular, psychopathy did not predict coercion in any one scenario over the other. The second hypothesis received small support as narcissism had a small effect in predicting coaxing in the expensive date scenario. Contrary to the third hypothesis, however, Social Dominance had no unique associations. Finally, Machiavellianism had no unique associations with any of the relevant scenarios for coaxing or coercion (see Figure 1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Prediction model.

The second model we tested utilized data from all six scenarios and hence was restricted to Sample 2. The common variance across the three scenarios unique to Sample 2 was too great, causing problems in model estimation. As we did not find situation-specific effects in Sample 1, and because the variables of the first three scenarios (presented to Samples 1 and 2) were highly correlated with one another (see Table 2), as were the second three scenarios (presented to Sample 2), we decided these variables could be combined. We created two composite variables, one that was an average of the participants’ scale-level scores across the three previous scenarios (Coerce-First Set and Coax-First Set), and a second that was an average of the participants’ scale-level scores across the three new scenarios (averaged within each participant; Coerce-Sec Set and Coax-Sec Set). These composite variables were then used to indicate the coaxing and coercion latent factors. Once these composites were created, we then only had two indicators per latent factor. As a consequence, we imposed equality constraints on the two paths from the composite variables indicating that latent factor. Model fit was acceptable, except according to the RMSEA, χ²(16, N = 170) = 40.083, p < .05; RMSEA = .094(.058 − .131); CFI = .966; NFI = .946; NNFI = .941 (see Figure 2). Upon adding these new scenarios, Social Dominance and psychopathy both predicted general coercion (see Figure 3). No other paths were unique. However, it should be noted that Machiavellianism had a weak (but non-significant) negative path to coercion. However, eliminating this path did not significantly change the model fit, hence it was removed.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Multiple group structural equations model using The Dark Triad and Social Dominance Traits to predict coaxing and coercing in the partner, stranger, and dating scenarios (Samples 1 and 2).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Structural equations model using The Dark Triad and Social Dominance Traits to predict coaxing and coercing in the partner, stranger, dating, bet, power, and rival scenarios (Sample 2 Only).

General Discussion

The present research sought to determine how different dark personalities relate to different tactics to obtain sex. In general, the findings were fairly consistent across conditions. In other words, the scenarios had little impact on the intentions to coerce or coax partners into sex. Overall, psychopathy was the best predictor of coercion across two samples and assessments. When more nuanced scenarios were included (i.e., in Sample 2 only) both psychopathy and Social Dominance uniquely predicted coercion. Finally, there was a small effect for narcissism uniquely predicting coaxing across the expensive date scenario.

One critical piece of research that is added to the literature from the present study is the finding that the core of the dark traits (callousness and deception; Jones & Figueredo, in press) appears to significantly predict to coaxing but not coercion. The acts outlined in the coaxing scale of the TOSS are clearly amenable to those high in deception and callousness. Common core notwithstanding, the acts outlined in the coercion scale require an additional element: Aggression. Similar to previous research by Camilleri and colleagues (2009), psychopathy was the best predictor of sexual coercion. This finding makes sense, given that individuals high in psychopathy are the most aggressive and antisocial of the four dark traits studied (Jones & Paulhus, 2011a). Importantly, psychopathy predicted a likelihood of coercion across all scenarios. This finding highlights the indiscriminate and reckless nature by which individuals high in psychopathy engage in misbehavior. Previous research has shown that only individuals high in psychopathy engage in direct aggression in response to physical provocation (Jones & Paulhus, 2010). In fact, Reidy et al. (2008) have shown that individuals high in psychopathy sometimes aggress for no observable reason. With respect to other dark personalities, however, individuals high in narcissism only aggress when their ego is provoked, and individuals high in Machiavellianism are generally not aggressive (Jones & Paulhus, 2010).

With respect to narcissism, there was also a small but unique path predicting additional variance in coaxing in the expensive date scenario, as predicted. This finding makes sense given that individuals high in narcissism are likely to use coaxing as a first response to sexual rejection, given their overconfidence. Furthermore, men high in narcissism are most likely to be determined to obtain sexual contact when they have invested in a partner because of their sense of entitlement (Mouilso & Calhoun, 2012). In sum, men high in narcissism are likely to believe that they are attractive enough to eventually convince a partner to engage in sex (Holtzman, Vazire, & Mehl, 2010). It is entirely possible, however, that if these attempts fail, such individuals will turn to coercion. Future research should examine this possibility.

As predicted, Machiavellianism had no unique relationship to coaxing or coercion across any of the scenarios or models. Machiavellian individuals think in terms of long-term goals. A single night of sex might undermine long-term goals, and because such individuals are focused on the bigger picture, they are unlikely to engage in impulsive behaviors with future consequences. In fact, there was a marginally significant negative path from Machiavellianism to coercion. We surmise that sexual coercion may be too risky and aggressive for the cautious character found in those high in Machiavellianism, and they are unlikely to be as interested in sexual access as they are in instrumental gain (Jones & Paulhus, 2011a). As a consequence, they are not as motivated to engage in sex at any cost.

It should be noted that there may be an additional reason why Machiavellianism failed to predict coaxing or coercion in any of the scenarios: sex-specific tactics. It is possible that men typically are not in the position of gaining something when engaging in sexual acts. Instead, cultural wisdom would suggest that men usually are willing to pay a price for sex, more than women are willing to pay a price (Baumeister & Vohs, 2004). As a consequence, the scenarios may not have been sex appropriate and asking women high in Machiavellianism these questions across the same scenarios may have yielded different results. Nevertheless, the data suggest that Machiavellianism simply is not uniquely related to coaxing or coercion across any of the scenarios.

Social Dominance had no unique impact on sexual coercion or coaxing when examined across the scenarios common to Samples 1 and 2. However, using all six scenarios found in Sample 2, Social Dominance uniquely contributed to the prediction of coercion. This finding supports the idea that men high in Social Dominance are likely to feel propriety and entitlement over women. In fact, the invariance across conditions suggests that it is not just steady partners that men high in Social Dominance feel propriety over, but all women. The perception of superior group hierarchy, female oppression, and patriarchy, that men high in social dominance possess, make them most likely to perceive women as property. As a consequence, such men may simply believe that women should obey a man’s desires, and perhaps should be forced to comply if necessary. In general, Social Dominance loaded very highly on the common dark factor, which provides further evidence that it should be included in studies of dark personalities or individual differences.

One critical addition to the literature of the present research is the invariance between the two samples. This finding would suggest that the SD3 (Jones & Paulhus, 2013; Paulhus & Jones, 2011) is operating in an identical fashion to the original Dark Triad measures (Paulhus & Williams, 2002).

It is critical to note that although the Dark Triad concept has gained quite a bit of momentum (see Furnham et al., 2013), it is not always the case that these three traits are each uniquely associated with specific outcomes. Theory would predict that outcomes related to impulsive malevolence (such as sexual coercion) would best be accounted for by psychopathy. Similarly, Machiavellianism would account for outcomes dealing with strategic malevolence, and narcissism or Social Dominance would account for outcomes dealing with egotistical or group malevolence (respectively). The scenarios, however, appeared to be unable to differentiate these traits across conditions. Thus, coaxing appears to be a common strategy among dark personalities. Moreover, with respect to sexual coercion, it appears that psychopathy alone accounts for the majority of variance, irrespective of scenario.

Conclusion

In sum, it appears that men high in psychopathy and social dominance are willing to engage in coercive tactics, regardless of the situation. Men high in narcissism are willing to engage in coaxing tactics in a date rape situation. Future work should determine situations where Machiavellianism may predict coaxing or coercion. As aforementioned, proper motivation may be necessary for an individual high in Machiavellianism, and even then, such men may not engage in either tactic unless they have a helpless victim (e.g., child).