The Association Between Sexually Aggressive Cognitions and Pathological Personality Traits in Men

Abstract

Sexual aggression, harassment, and sexually aggressive cognitions (victim blaming, sexual entitlement) are serious societal problems. Although research has examined attributes of individuals who engage in overt sexual assault, few studies have focused on individual characteristics of those who perpetuate problematic negative beliefs surrounding sexual assault. This study sought to examine the relationship between pathological personality and sexually aggressive cognitions among 242 community men. Results showed that traits including antagonism, disinhibition, and negative affectivity were associated with sexually aggressive cognitions. These results have implications for understanding sexual aggression and the role personality plays in perpetuating sexually aggressive attitudes.

Keywords

sexual aggression pathological personality rape myth acceptance victim blaming sexual entitlement

Sexual aggression is a globally pervasive problem. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), approximately 35.6% of women (or one in three) worldwide have experienced physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence, nonpartner sexual aggression, or both. More specifically, approximately 30% of women have experienced physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence and 7.2% of women (or approximately 1 in 14) have experienced nonpartner sexual aggression (García-Moreno et al., 2013). In the United States, where this study was conducted, roughly 18% of women (or nearly one in five) were victims of sexual aggression during their lives (Kilpatrick, Resnick, Ruggiero, Conoscenti, & McCauley, 2007). Furthermore, according to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, from 2014-2015, the estimated rate of rape in the United States went up to 6.3%; most recent records from the UCR show that more than 100,000 women were raped in 2014.

Numerous scholars across disciplines have attempted to understand the root causes of rape and other forms of sexual assault (e.g., Belknap, 1987; Mardorossian, 2002; Thornhill & Palmer, 2000). Importantly, sexual assault is an umbrella term (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, 2018) that refers to overt, forceful sexual contact that may or may not have included rape, whereas rape typically pertains to penetration without consent. A central theory from a feminist perspective asserts that sexual violence is motivated by societal patterns of male dominance and a desire for power and control among men (rather than sexual desire; e.g., Brownmiller, 1975; Millett, 2006). This suggests that societal attitudes and problematic beliefs about sex serve to perpetuate these problems and foster an environment where these problems can continue to exist. Given that sexual aggression is such a widespread societal problem, with far-reaching effects, it is imperative that we determine the characteristics of individuals who perpetuate maladaptive beliefs and myths regarding sexually aggressive behaviors. However, there is currently a gap in the scientific literature regarding the pathological personality traits associated with such attitudes. Therefore, this research sought to explore the relationship between pathological personality traits and sexually aggressive cognitions to aid in the development of a more well-rounded understanding of factors related to sexual aggression.

Factors Related to Sexual Aggression

Previous research on sexual aggression supports the idea that there is no one factor that can predict if an individual will commit a sexual offense (Bumby & Hansen, 1997; Malamuth, 2003; Mann, Hanson, & Thornton, 2010). However, several models have been proposed to better understand sexual aggression. One well-supported model for predicting sexual aggression is the Hierarchical-Mediational Confluence (HMC) model proposed by Malamuth (2003). The HMC model is an interactive model composed of environmental and personality risk factors. For instance, personality characteristics such as narcissism, dominance, hostility, and social isolation are included as primary risk factors for sexual aggression. In addition, personality traits such as impulsivity, irritability, and emotional dysfunction are included as distal risk factors, and low levels of empathy/nurturance is included as a moderator in predicting sexual aggression.

Other research has focused on characterological factors related to sexual aggression, many of which can be classified as sexually aggressive cognitions (i.e., thoughts, perceptions, and beliefs that are supportive of sexual aggression). Indeed, a previous meta-analysis conducted by Helmus, Hanson, Babchishin, and Mann (2013) showed that these attitudes and cognitions are empirically associated with sexually aggressive behaviors.

More specifically, past research has indicated that high levels of sexual entitlement, or a belief that one has an inherent right to sex, have been linked to sexually coercive (Hill & Fischer, 2001; Widman & McNulty, 2010) and aggressive (Bouffard, 2010; Widman & McNulty, 2010) behaviors. In addition, men who adhere to traditional gender roles or believe in rape myths (e.g., denial or justification of sexual assault) are more likely to endorse sexually aggressive thoughts and ideas (Hill & Fischer, 2001), report a history of sexually aggressive behaviors (Truman, Tokar, & Fischer, 1996), and have a higher level of acceptance for psychological, physical, and sexual dating aggression (McDermott, Naylor, McKelvey, & Kantra, 2016). Furthermore, perpetrators of rape have been shown to have a higher acceptance of rape myths than either perpetrators of sexual assault or nonperpetrators (Mouilso & Calhoun, 2013).

Misconceptions of consent have also been identified as a cognitive factor in sexual aggression (Wegner, Abbey, Pierce, Pegram, & Woerner, 2015). Previous research has shown that men considered explicit sexual consent to be less important and were more likely to assume consent rather than ask (Humphreys, 2007). In addition, women were most likely to indicate their consent verbally, whereas men were most likely to interpret consent by relying on nonverbal cues (Jozkowski, Sanders, Peterson, Dennis, & Reece, 2014). Finally, individuals who hold beliefs of token resistance to sex (i.e., a woman saying “no” to sex when she really means yes) were less likely to perceive incidents as rape (Osman, 2003) or harassment (Osman, 2007).

Previous research has consistently shown these sexually aggressive cognitions to be associated with problematic behaviors regarding sex, such as self-reported sexual aggression and rape-related behaviors. Although this body of research has contributed to our understanding of some of the cognitions that are associated with sexually aggressive behavior, we still do not have a comprehensive understanding of the individual characteristics of those who possess such cognitions. Furthermore, a large majority of research in this area has focused on overt sexually aggressive behaviors; however, individuals in the community who have never engaged in and may never engage in sexually assaultive behavior may still hold a problematic belief system that perpetuates this widespread problem. Therefore, it is pertinent to examine personality characteristics in relation to those sexually aggressive cognitions so that we may better understand the characteristics of individuals who hold these beliefs.

Personality and Sexual Aggression

Previous research has yielded a wide range of personality characteristics associated with sexual aggression. In comparison with nonsexual criminal offenders, sexual offenders have been found to have higher levels of anger, generalized anxiety, and attachment anxiety (Lyn & Burton, 2005). Sexual offenders were also found to be more likely to have schizoid, avoidant, depressive, and dependent personality traits (Ahlmeyer, Kleinsasser, Stoner, & Retzlaff, 2003) and less likely to have antisocial personality traits (Ahlmeyer et al., 2003; Fazel, Hope, O’Donnell, & Jacoby, 2002) when compared with nonsexual criminal offenders. When comparing convicted sexual offenders with nonconvicted sexual offenders, research has suggested that convicted sexual offenders have higher levels of neuroticism and nonconvicted sexual offenders have lower levels of conscientiousness (Carvalho & Nobre, 2019). In addition, rape-perpetrators, in comparison with other sexual aggressors, were found to be lower in agreeableness, extroversion, and conscientiousness (Voller & Long, 2010).

Mann and colleagues (2010) conducted a meta-analysis of sexual aggression risk factors and identified certain personality characteristics of sexual offenders as empirically supported risk factors for recidivism. Offense-supportive attitudes, a lack of emotionally intimate relationships, impulsivity, recklessness, and grievance/hostility were shown as risk factors in at least three studies. In addition, hostility toward women, Machiavellianism (i.e., manipulativeness), and callousness were identified as risk factors in at least one study. These authors also noted that there was some evidence that narcissism and sexual entitlement may also be risk factors worth exploring. Relatedly, consistent with Malamuth’s (2003) model, previous research has shown psychopathy to be associated with sexual aggression (Malamuth, 2003; Mann et al., 2010; O’Connell & Marcus, 2016; Williams, Cooper, Howell, Yuille, & Paulhus, 2009). Indeed, work in this area has found that psychopathic traits, such as cold-heartedness, boldness in men, and impulsivity in both men and women are positively associated with sexually assaultive behavior (O’Connell & Marcus, 2016).

Minimal previous research has explored the relationship between personality and sexual aggression in relation to comprehensive models of personality, such as the five-factor model (FFM; Carvalho & Nobre, 2019; Voller & Long, 2010). Although previous work has been valuable and adds to our knowledge of how personality is related to sexual aggression, there is still much we do not understand about how sexual aggression and sexually aggressive cognitions relate to a larger number of pathological personality traits (i.e., maladaptive traits). Therefore, an examination of the maladaptive traits that are most highly associated with problematic cognitions and beliefs regarding sexual assault may further improve our understanding of the ways in which a culture of sexual aggression continues in society.

This Study

This research aimed to better understand personality factors related to sexually aggressive beliefs and cognitions. Although previous research has provided some understanding of sexually aggressive cognitions, we remain limited in our understanding of the relationship between pathological personality traits and sexually aggressive cognitions. The more we understand about the personality factors related to sexually aggressive beliefs and cognitions, the more comprehensive our understanding of this widespread societal problem will be, and thus our future efforts to change problematic societal beliefs about sexual assault will be better informed.

Although the FFM is the currently most popular and well-researched dimensional model of personality, it is not the best fit for this research. Previous research suggests that the FFM places more of an emphasis on the adaptive expression of the five traits (e.g., Haigler & Widiger, 2001); however, this study is focused on the maladaptive variants of personality (i.e., personality psychopathology) and how these relate to sexually aggressive cognitions. Therefore, the recently developed dimensional trait model found in the Alternative Model for Personality Disorder (AMPD) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013) is a more fitting measure for this study. This model includes a dimensional trait model for personality disorder that better reflects empirical literature on personality psychopathology (APA, 2013). In addition, due to the sensitive nature of questions regarding an individual’s history of sexual aggression, this study focused on sexually aggressive cognitions in an effort to obtain information less likely to be swayed by response bias. Furthermore, considering that research has shown that males are responsible for most sexual aggression (e.g., Greenfeld, 1997), this study focused on the sexually aggressive cognitions of heterosexual males.

This research aimed to understand the empirical association between pathological personality traits (as measured by the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 [PID-5]; Krueger et al., 2012) and sexually aggressive cognitions in heterosexual males. More specifically, we examined broad pathological trait domains (i.e., Antagonism, Disinhibition, Negative Affectivity, Detachment, and Psychoticism), as well as the corresponding lower-order subfacets (e.g., Callousness, Risk Taking, and Emotional Lability, among others). Sexually aggressive cognitions encompassed the following: misconceptions of consent, sexual entitlement, adherence to traditional gender roles, belief in token resistance to sex, and belief in rape myths. Due to previous research that shows associations between many different facets of psychopathy and sexual aggression (Malamuth, 2003; O’Connell & Marcus, 2016; Williams et al., 2009), it was hypothesized that higher levels of antagonism and disinhibition would be associated with higher levels of all sexually aggressive cognitions. More specifically, in concordance with previous research (Malamuth, 2003; Mann et al., 2010; O’Connell & Marcus, 2016), manipulativeness and callousness (facets of antagonism) as well as impulsivity and risk taking (facets of disinhibition) were expected to best predict sexually aggressive cognitions. In addition to the domains of Antagonism and Disinhibition, there is some previous research that suggests that sexual aggression may be related to the Negative Affectivity (Lyn & Burton, 2005) and Detachment (Bumby & Hansen, 1997; Mann et al., 2010) domains as well. Due to a lack of previous research indicating a relationship between psychoticism and sexual aggression, no specific hypotheses were made regarding this domain and its facets.

Method

Participants

A sample size of 200 participants was determined using G*Power 3.1 software (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009), which predicted a power level of 0.996. A total of 242 individuals completed the survey. Only individuals who identified as male and heterosexual were invited to participate; therefore, two participants were excluded for indicating a sexual orientation other than heterosexual and 10 participants were excluded for being female. In addition, 27 participants were excluded for not passing a protocol validity indicator (described below), leaving a total of 196 participants for the analysis. The ages of the participants ranged from 19-75 with a mean of 36.86 (SD = 11.61). Of these participants, 77% were White or Caucasian, 7.7% were Black or African American, 7.1% were Asian or Asian American, 5.1% were Latino or Hispanic American, 1.0% were Native American, 1.0% identified as biracial or multiracial, and 1.0% identified as other. As previously noted, all participants included in the analyses were male and heterosexual.

Measures

The following measures were administered to all participants. Descriptive statistics for each measure are listed in Table 1.

Table 1.

Mean, Standard Deviation, and Range for All Variables.

Variable	M	SD	Range
AWS	45.57	12.49	26–79
SES	35.17	9.64	13–59
TRSS	19.35	9.46	6–54
IRMA-R	47.47	16.14	22–91
Consent	32.69	10.78	13–60
Negative Affectivity	1.06	0.58	0.00–2.67
Anxiousness	1.36	0.82	0.00–3.00
Emotional Lability	0.91	0.71	0.00–3.00
Hostility	0.91	0.64	0.00–2.70
Perseveration	0.94	0.66	0.00–2.89
Restricted Affectivity	1.11	0.66	0.00–3.00
Submissiveness	1.21	0.71	0.00–2.75
Depressivity	0.70	0.71	0.00–2.86
Suspiciousness	1.10	0.61	0.00–2.86
Detachment	0.89	0.60	0.00–2.44
Anhedonia	1.01	0.75	0.00–3.00
Depressivity	0.70	0.71	0.00–2.86
Intimacy Avoidance	0.63	0.64	0.00–2.50
Suspiciousness	1.10	0.61	0.00–2.86
Withdrawal	1.04	0.75	0.00–3.00
Antagonism	0.87	0.53	0.00–2.63
Attention Seeking	0.81	0.67	0.00–2.86
Callousness	0.58	0.53	0.00–2.14
Deceitfulness	0.78	0.62	0.00–2.70
Grandiosity	0.87	0.61	0.00–2.67
Manipulativeness	1.00	0.67	0.00–3.00
Hostility	0.91	0.64	0.00–2.70
Disinhibition	0.68	0.54	0.00–2.40
Distractibility	0.80	0.69	0.00–3.00
Impulsivity	0.79	0.65	0.00–2.33
Irresponsibility	0.52	0.53	0.00–2.43
Rigid Perfectionism	1.13	0.66	0.00–2.80
Risk Taking	1.20	0.57	0.00–2.93
Psychoticism	0.82	0.54	0.00–2.15
Eccentricity	0.95	0.80	0.00–3.00
Perceptual Dysregulation	0.65	0.54	0.00–1.92
Unusual Beliefs and Experiences	0.64	0.57	0.00–2.29

Note. AWS = Attitudes Towards Women Scale; SES = Sexual Entitlement Scale; TRSS = Token Resistance to Sex Scale; IRMA-R = Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale—Revised; Consent = Sexual Consent Scale.

Personality psychopathology

Participants completed the PID-5 (APA, 2013).¹ The PID-5 is a 220-item self-report inventory used to assess the five personality dimensions found in Section III of DSM-5 and their associated facets (e.g., Negative Affectivity: “My emotions sometimes change for no good reason.”; Detachment: “I prefer to keep romance out of my life.”; Antagonism: “I’m good at making people do what I want them to do.”; Disinhibition: “I feel like I act totally on impulse.”; Psychoticism: “I can have trouble telling the difference between dreams and waking life.”). Item responses were indicated on a four-point Likert-type scale from “Very False or Often False” to “Very True or Often True.” This measure has been widely used in recent research as a well-validated measure of personality psychopathology (e.g., Al-Dajani, Gralnick, & Bagby, 2016). Reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s α) indicated adequate internal consistency for each domain (α’s = .91 [Disinhibition] to .96 [Detachment]) and facet score (α’s = .76 [Suspiciousness] to .95 [Eccentricity]).

Sexual entitlement

Participants completed the Entitlement to Sex Scale (ESS). The ESS is a composite scale consisting of questions from two different entitlement inventories. Five items from the Hurlbert Index of Sexual Narcissism (HISN; Hurlbert, Apt, Gasar, Wilson, & Murphy, 1994) and eight items from the Hanson Sex Attitude Questionnaire (Hanson, Gizzarelli, & Scott, 1994) were combined for the purpose of this study to create a combined sexual entitlement scale. The HISN (Hurlbert et al., 1994) is a 25-item self-report survey used to measure the extent of an individual’s narcissistic beliefs in regards to sexual relationships. Previous studies have found this scale to have high test–retest reliability, validity, and internal consistency (Bouffard, 2010; Hurlbert et al., 1994). The five items chosen from the HISN for this study were targeted specifically at measuring beliefs of entitlement to sex (e.g., In a close relationship you should expect to get sex.) (Bouffard, 2010). Item responses were indicated on a five-point Likert-type scale from Completely Disagree to Completely Agree. The Hanson Sex Attitude Questionnaire (Hanson et al., 1994) is a 47-item self-report inventory used to gather information about an individual’s cognitive distortions regarding sex. Its original validation study found that the sexual entitlement scale had high levels of test–retest reliability and internal consistency (Hanson et al., 1994). The eight items taken from the Hanson Sex Attitude Questionnaire for this study were chosen because they were part of the sexual entitlement subscale in the questionnaire and included items such as “A person should have sex whenever it is needed.” Item responses were indicated on a five-point Likert-type scale from Completely Disagree to Completely Agree. Reliability coefficients indicated adequate internal consistency for the combined scale (α = .83).

Traditional gender roles

Participants completed the Attitudes Towards Women Scale (AWS; Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1973). This scale is a 25-item self-report survey measuring how an individual views the rights and roles of women. It includes items such as “Women should worry less about their rights and more about becoming good wives and mothers.” Item responses were indicated on a four-point Likert-type scale from Agree Strongly to Disagree Strongly. This scale has been found to be highly correlated with the original 55-item AWS (Spence & Hahn, 1997; Spence et al., 1973). Reliability coefficients indicated good internal consistency for the scale (α = .90).

Rape myths

Participants completed the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale—Revised (IRMA-R; McMahon & Farmer, 2011). The IRMA-R is a 22-item self-report inventory used to indicate the extent to which individuals believe common misconceptions about sexual assault. It includes items such as “If a girl goes to a room alone with a guy at a party, it is her own fault if she is raped.” Item responses were indicated on a five-point Likert-type scale from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. The IRMA-R has been found to be a reliable measure for adherence to rape myths (McMahon & Farmer, 2011). Reliability coefficients indicated good internal consistency for the scale (α = .93).

Perceptions of consent

Participants completed the Sexual Consent Scale (Consent), which required individuals to indicate to what extent they agreed that a behavior exhibited by a potential sexual partner would convey consent for sexual activity. This scale is a composite scale consisting of four items from the External Consent Scale (Jozkowski, Sanders, et al., 2014) and eight items from the Consent to Sex Scale (Jozkowski & Peterson, 2014). The External Consent Scale (Jozkowski, Sanders, et al., 2014) is an 18-item self-report survey used to gather information about how individuals express their consent to engage in sexual intercourse. The original validation study found it to be both a valid and a reliable measure (Jozkowski, Sanders, et al., 2014). The wording of all four items was modified slightly to fit the context of this survey (e.g., “Removed mine and/or partner’s clothing” became “Removing my and/or their clothing”), and items were measured on a five-point Likert-type scale from Completely Disagree to Completely Agree. The Consent to Sex Scale (Jozkowski & Peterson, 2014) is a 68-item self-report inventory used to assess verbal and behavioral cues individuals use to express their consent to engage in sexual intercourse. In 2014, Jozkowski and Peterson demonstrated that the Consent to Sex Scale is a valid and reliable measure. For the purpose of this study, the wording of all eight items used was modified slightly to fit the context of this survey (e.g., “I would kiss my partner” became “Allowing me to kiss them”). All items were measured on a five-point Likert-type scale from Completely Disagree to Completely Agree. Reliability coefficients indicated adequate internal consistency for the combined scale (α = .93).

Token resistance to sex

To measure the extent to which an individual believes in the idea of token resistance to sex, participants completed the Token Resistance to Sex Scale (TRSS; Osman, 1995). The TRSS is an eight-item self-report inventory used to indicate the extent to which an individual believes the notion that women say no during sexual encounters when they truly mean yes, and includes items such as “When a man only has to use a minimal amount of force on a woman to get her to have sex, it probably means she wanted him to force her.” Item responses were indicated on a seven-point Likert-type scale from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. Previous research has demonstrated that the TRSS is both a reliable and a valid measure of token resistance to sex (Osman, 2003, 2007). Reliability coefficients indicated adequate internal consistency for the scale (α = .89).

Validity indicator

To ensure that participants were paying attention to the item content in each survey (i.e., not randomly responding), six items to which individuals were expected to answer in a negative fashion (e.g., false, completely disagree) were dispersed throughout the survey. These items included phrases such as “I enjoy stealing from graves” and “I am close personal friends with the prime minister of Zanzibar”, which most if not all participants would likely answer in a negative direction. The responses to these items were indicated on the Likert-type scale of the measure in which they were embedded. Participants who answered three or more of these items in a positive manner were excluded from the data analysis.

Procedure

Ethics approval for this research was obtained through the authors’ university’s institutional review board. Participants were recruited and completed the survey process through Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Participants who completed this study to the specifications outlined below received US$1.00 of financial compensation for their time. The specifications for satisfactory completion included identifying as male and heterosexual, residing in the United States, and passing the validity checks dispersed throughout the survey. To attempt to control for the effect of fatigue on responses, the measures listed above were presented in a randomized order to each participant.

Results

Prior to analyzing the data, the data were screened to determine if they met the assumptions for parametric testing. Overall, a general trend of positive skewness was detected in the sexually aggressive cognition variables, the PID-5 domain variables, and the PID-5 facet variables. This trend indicated that the data collected from this sample of participants were not normally distributed and have restricted range, which was expected given the use of a community sample. Although restricted range may impact data analyses by obscuring relationships and impact the statistical power of analyses conducted, the use of parametric versus nonparametric statistics did not appear to impact the findings.² Finally, research has shown that the general structure of dimensional constructs (such as the personality constructs used in this study) should remain intact across samples despite range restriction (Krueger et al., 2012). Therefore, parametric statistics are reported below.

Correlation Analyses

To evaluate the relationship between the personality characteristics measured by the PID-5 and the sexually aggressive cognitions measured in this study, Pearson correlations were run between each sexually aggressive cognition scale (the ESS, TRSS, IRMA-R, Consent, and the AWS) and each of the PID-5 domains and facets. Results are shown in Table 2. At the domain level, ESS, TRSS, IRMA-R, and Consent showed moderate correlations with PID-5 Antagonism (rs = −.31 [Consent] to .43 [TRSS]). There were no additional moderate correlations between sexually aggressive cognition scales and PID-5 domains (rs = −.01 [Negative Affectivity/AWS] to .29 [Psychoticism/IRMA-R]). At the facet level, ESS showed moderate correlations with PID-5 Deceitfulness and Grandiosity (rs = .31 and .31); TRSS showed moderate correlations with PID-5 Unusual Beliefs and Experiences, Callousness, Deceitfulness, Grandiosity, and Manipulativeness (rs = .30 [Unusual Beliefs and Experiences] to .39 [Deceitfulness]); IRMA-R showed moderate correlations with PID-5 Rigid Perfectionism, Unusual Beliefs and Experiences, Suspiciousness, Callousness, Deceitfulness, and Grandiosity (rs = .32 [Rigid Perfectionism and Unusual Beliefs and Experiences] to .38 [Callousness]); and AWS showed moderate correlations with Perceptual Dysregulation, Irresponsibility, and Callousness (rs = .30 [Irresponsibility] to .33 [Perceptual Dysregulation]).

Table 2.

Correlations Between Problematic Attitudes Toward Sex and PID-5 Domains and Facets.

PID-5 domains	PID-5 facets	AWS	SES	TRSS	IRMA-R	Consent
Negative Affectivity		−.01	.23	.09	.12	−.06
	Anxiousness	−.17	.13	.05	.07	−.14
	Emotional Lability	.08	.18	.08	.11	−.04
	Hostility	.12	.22	.23	.29	−.14
	Perseveration	.12	.12	.15	.22	−.16
	Restricted Affectivity	.04	.00	.18	.26	−.07
	Separation Insecurity	.20	.06	.11	.16	−.08
	Submissiveness	.09	−.09	.01	.08	.00
	Depressivity	.10	.02	.13	.17	−.13
	Suspiciousness	.15	.24	.25	.36	−.27
Detachment		.05	−.00	.15	.23	−.15
	Anhedonia	.10	.06	.17	.23	−.19
	Depressivity	.10	.02	.13	.17	−.13
	Intimacy Avoidance	.11	−.01	.22	.18	−.03
	Suspiciousness	.15	.24	.25	.36	−.27
	Withdrawal	−.01	−.03	.03	.17	−.12
Antagonism		.26	.36	.43	.38	−.31
	Attention Seeking	.29	.15	.29	.22	−.15
	Callousness	.32	.23	.38	.38	−.21
	Deceitfulness	.23	.31	.39	.37	−.25
	Grandiosity	.29	.31	.39	.36	−.29
	Manipulativeness	.20	.29	.32	.26	−.25
	Hostility	.12	.22	.23	.29	−.14
Disinhibition		.25	.15	.18	.22	−.17
	Distractibility	.20	.07	.15	.20	−.14
	Impulsivity	.25	.23	.19	.23	−.20
	Irresponsibility	.30	.15	.22	.25	−.12
	Rigid Perfectionism	.09	.15	.11	.32	−.14
	Risk Taking	.18	.11	.23	.11	−.15
Psychoticism		.16	.14	.23	.29	−.11
	Eccentricity	.04	.00	.08	.19	−.12
	Perceptual Dysregulation	.33	.16	.28	.27	−.10
	Unusual Beliefs and Experiences	.29	.21	.30	.32	−.13

Note. Moderate correlations are in bold. PID-5 = Personality Inventory for DSM-5; AWS = Attitudes Toward Women Scale; SES = Sexual Entitlement Scale; TRSS = Token Resistance to Sex Scale; IRMA-R = Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale—Revised; Consent = Sexual Consent Scale; DSM-5 = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.).

Regression Analyses

Multiple regression analyses were conducted to identify the unique contribution of each personality domain to the prediction of sexually aggressive cognitions. Results are shown in Table 3. Overall, PID-5 domain scores significantly predicted the ESS, TRSS, IRMA-R, Consent, and AWS. More specifically, PID-5 Antagonism uniquely predicted the ESS total score (β = .41), the TRSS total score (β = .43), the IRMA-R total score (β = .32), and Consent total score (β = −.32). PID-5 Negative Affectivity uniquely predicted the ESS total score (β = .31) and PID-5 Disinhibition uniquely predicted the AWS total score (β = .34).

Table 3.

PID-5 Domains and Problematic Attitudes Toward Sex Regression Analyses.

	PID-5 scale	R ²	β	p
AWS		.14
	Negative Affectivity		−.25	.059
	Detachment		−.07	.558
	Antagonism		.17	.137
	Disinhibition		.34	.025
	Psychoticism		.03	.863
SES		.19
	Negative Affectivity		.31	.014
	Detachment		−.16	.166
	Antagonism		.41	<.001
	Disinhibition		−.08	.584
	Psychoticism		−.11	.445
TRSS		.19
	Negative Affectivity		−.05	.717
	Detachment		.08	.517
	Antagonism		.43	<.001
	Disinhibition		−.09	.520
	Psychoticism		.07	.633
IRMA-R		.18
	Negative Affectivity		−.10	.428
	Detachment		.13	.283
	Antagonism		.32	.005
	Disinhibition		−.05	.735
	Psychoticism		.16	.284
Consent		.11
	Negative Affectivity		.05	.699
	Detachment		−.13	.295
	Antagonism		−.32	.007
	Disinhibition		−.07	.623
	Psychoticism		.14	.371

Note. Significant predictors are in bold. PID-5 = Personality Inventory for DSM-5; AWS = Attitudes Toward Women Scale; SES = Sexual Entitlement Scale; TRSS = Token Resistance to Sex Scale; IRMA-R = Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale—Revised; Consent = Sexual Consent Scale; DSM-5 = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.).

After identifying the significant personality domain predictors, additional multiple regression analyses were conducted to identify the unique contribution of personality trait facets. In other words, for each PID-5 domain that uniquely predicted a sexually aggressive cognition, further evaluation of this trait domain was conducted by examining the unique contribution of each of the facets included under that domain. These results are shown in Table 4. The facets subsumed within PID-5 Antagonism (i.e., Attention Seeking, Callousness, Deceitfulness, Grandiosity, and Manipulativeness) significantly predicted the ESS total score, the TRSS total score, the IRMA-R total score, and the Consent total score. More specifically, PID-5 Grandiosity uniquely positively predicted the ESS total score (β = .24), the TRSS total score (β = .23), and the IRMA-R total score (β = .24) and negatively predicted the Consent total score (β = −.23). The facets within PID-5 Disinhibition (i.e., Distractibility, Impulsivity, Irresponsibility, Rigid Perfectionism, and Risk Taking) significantly predicted the AWS total score; more specifically, PID-5 Irresponsibility uniquely positively predicted the AWS total score (β = .27). The facets of PID-5 Negative Affectivity (i.e., Anxiousness, Emotional Lability, Hostility, Perseveration, Restricted Affectivity, Separation Insecurity, and Submissiveness) did not significantly predict the ESS total score.

Table 4.

PID-5 Facets and Problematic Attitudes Toward Sex Regression Analyses.

	PID-5 scale	PID-5 facet	R ²	β	p
AWS
	Disinhibition		.10
		Distractibility		−.05	.633
		Impulsivity		.06	.604
		Irresponsibility		.27	.013
		Rigid Perfectionism		.04	.557
		Risk Taking		.09	.262
SES
	Negative Affectivity		.07
		Anxiousness		.01	.947
		Emotional Lability		.04	.811
		Hostility		.26	.102
		Perseveration		−.02	.889
		Restricted Affectivity		−.08	.478
		Separation Insecurity		−.01	.912
		Submissiveness		−.12	.226
		Depressivity		−.33	.040
		Suspiciousness		.26	.041
	Antagonism		.14
		Attention Seeking		−.09	.318
		Callousness		−.05	.642
		Deceitfulness		.22	.070
		Grandiosity		.24	.011
		Manipulativeness		.07	.478
		Hostility		.01	.904
TRSS
	Antagonism		.23
		Attention Seeking		.08	.362
		Callousness		.15	.120
		Deceitfulness		.16	.171
		Grandiosity		.23	.012
		Manipulativeness		−.02	.883
		Hostility		−.10	.243
IRMA-R
	Antagonism		.21
		Attention Seeking		.02	.781
		Callousness		.18	.074
		Deceitfulness		.19	.105
		Grandiosity		.24	.008
		Manipulativeness		−.10	.338
		Hostility		.02	.810
Consent
	Antagonism		.11
		Attention Seeking		.05	.539
		Callousness		−.01	.945
		Deceitfulness		−.12	.325
		Grandiosity		−.24	.016
		Manipulativeness		−.06	.578
		Hostility		.08	.414

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to better understand the relationship between sexually aggressive cognitions and pathological personality traits. Previous research has focused on the personality of sexual aggressors using general personality traits (Carvalho & Nobre, 2019; Voller & Long, 2010) or narrower constructs such as psychopathy (Malamuth, 2003; O’Connell & Marcus, 2016; Williams et al., 2009). This research sought to expand the scientific community’s knowledge of the traits that perpetuate a culture of sexual assault by exploring the pathological personality traits associated with sexually aggressive cognitions.

As hypothesized, Antagonism was associated with the majority of sexually aggressive cognitions. In addition, in partial support of our hypotheses, Callousness (hypothesized) and Grandiosity (not hypothesized) were related to most cognitions, and Manipulativeness (hypothesized) was associated with token resistance to sex. These findings are consistent with past research that has found associations between lack of empathy, social dominance, and sensation seeking (all of which are associated with the PID-5 Antagonism domain [APA, 2013]) and positive attitudes toward sexually predatory behavior (O’Connell & Marcus, 2016). Moreover, these findings are in line with previous research on both psychopathy and narcissism, which have indicated a connection between psychopathic traits (e.g., callousness, guiltlessness, glibness, manipulativeness) and sexually aggressive attitudes and behaviors (Malamuth, 2003; O’Connell & Marcus, 2016; Williams et al., 2009), as well as between narcissism and both general (e.g., Rasmussen, 2016) and sexual (e.g., Mouilso & Calhoun, 2016) aggression.

In partial support of our hypotheses, Disinhibition was associated with one of the five sexually aggressive cognitions: adherence to traditional gender roles. In addition, at the facet level, Irresponsibility (not hypothesized) was uniquely predictive of adherence to traditional gender roles. Due to the lack of previous research indicating a relationship between Irresponsibility and sexual aggression, the reason for this finding is unclear. Furthermore, the hypotheses that Impulsivity and Risk Taking would both be associated with higher levels of all sexually aggressive cognitions were not supported. This was unexpected considering previous research indicating that Impulsivity (Malamuth, 2003; Mann et al., 2010; O’Connell & Marcus, 2016) and Risk Taking (Malamuth, 2003) are associated with sexual aggression. This lack of association may be due to limited variability in the present sample, or a difference in the way Impulsivity and Risk Taking are operationally defined in the PID-5 versus previously used methods. Regardless, additional research is needed to better understand the unexpected findings regarding the facets of Disinhibition (i.e., Irresponsibility, Impulsivity, and Risk Taking).

In addition, although previous research suggested a possible relationship between sexual aggression and Detachment, specifically the facet of Intimacy Avoidance (Bumby & Hansen, 1997; Mann et al., 2010), no such relationship was found in this research. Conversely, Negative Affectivity was significantly predictive of sexual entitlement, which is in line with previous research. Indeed, previous literature has shown associations between anxiousness (Lyn & Burton, 2005) and neuroticism (Carvalho & Nobre, 2019) and sexually aggressive behavior. It is also possible that this finding may relate to individuals with vulnerable narcissism, who are likely to exhibit traits related to both antagonism and negative affect, which was suggested to be a sexual recidivism risk factor worth exploring by Mann and colleagues (2010). However, additional research is needed to further explore this finding.

This research provides useful information about personality factors related to sexually aggressive cognitions. Indeed, this research suggests that individuals who perpetuate beliefs and attitudes supportive of sexual aggression in our society show increased levels of pathological personality traits. In other words, myths about sexual assault and sexually aggressive cognitions show associations with pathological traits, such as antagonism, disinhibition, and negative affectivity. Although this research does not identify specific focuses for improved intervention or prevention methods, it helps better define this societal problem by providing a more comprehensive understanding of characteristics associated with sexually aggressive beliefs and cognitions. Previous research has shown that the sexually aggressive cognitions measured in this study are correlated with sexually aggressive behaviors (Bouffard, 2010; Hill & Fischer, 2001; Humphreys, 2007; Jozkowski & Peterson, 2014; Jozkowski, Peterson, et al., 2014; Jozkowski, Sanders, et al., 2014; McDermott et al., 2016; Mouilso & Calhoun, 2013; Osman, 2003, 2007; Truman et al., 1996; Widman & McNulty, 2010). However, as posited by feminist theories of sexual assault, societal factors related to dominance and entitlement perpetuate a culture of sexual assault. This suggests that it is prudent to better understand the characteristics of individuals who believe rape myths and adhere to rigid traditional gender roles, in addition to individuals who have engaged in overt sexual aggression. This research provides a solid foundation for future research investigating the relationship between pathological personality traits and sexual aggression in a more broad sense in society.

Behaviors, such as sexual aggression, are the outward manifestation of underlying attitudes and personality traits (Ajzen, 2005); therefore, it is important to understand all aspects of a behavior, such as the maladaptive cognitions and personality traits associated with such behaviors and attitudes. Previous literature has attempted to understand sexual aggression from a variety of standpoints, including an evaluation of maladaptive cognitions (Bouffard, 2010; Hill & Fischer, 2001; Humphreys, 2007; Jozkowski, Peterson, et al., 2014; McDermott et al., 2016; Mouilso & Calhoun, 2013; Osman, 2003, 2007; Truman et al., 1996; Wegner et al., 2015; Widman & McNulty, 2010), specific personality disorders (e.g., psychopathy [Malamuth, 2003; Mann et al., 2010; O’Connell & Marcus, 2016; Williams et al., 2009] and narcissism [Mann et al., 2010; Mouilso & Calhoun, 2016]), environmental factors (Malamuth, 2003; Mann et al., 2010), and even broader models such as the HMC (Malamuth, 2003). However, information was lacking in some areas. Although much additional work is needed, this study provided evidence showing the association between broader personality psychopathology and sexually aggressive cognitions.

Although not a central purpose of this study, this research has implications for the utility of the AMPD in the DSM-5. This model is not presently the standard for personality disorder diagnosis, but it is included as an emerging model in the DSM-5, which is widely used throughout the mental health community. The utility of this dimensional trait model has become increasingly well established in the literature (Al-Dajani et al., 2016; Krueger & Markon, 2014) and the results from this study suggest that we now have reason to believe that this model can also aid clinicians in identifying individuals who possess sexually aggressive cognitions. Although identifying these individuals is not synonymous with identifying individuals who participate in sexually aggressive behavior, this information may still prove valuable in clinical treatment settings, particularly if this model is adopted in the future as the primary model for personality disorder diagnosis.

Limitations and Future Directions

There were a number of notable limitations to this study. This study was limited by the utilization of all self-report measures. This left the results vulnerable to response bias (although we attempted to control for this using a validity indicator) and introduced the possibility of inflation due to shared method variance. In addition, there could be potential carryover effects, given that scales were not presented in a randomized order. Therefore, future research may benefit from measuring personality psychopathology and sexual attitudes with varied methodologies, such as interviewer-rated measures, record review, or behavioral methods of data collection.

Furthermore, this study was limited by restricted range due to using a nonclinical community sample. It is possible that this restricted range resulted in reduced statistical power or obscured relationships that may have been present in samples with greater variability. Relatedly, these results may not be generalizable to samples with more extreme levels of personality psychopathology or sexually aggressive attitudes/behaviors due to range restriction. Future research in this area should expand on this study by including individuals who may be more likely to endorse both pathological personality traits, such as clinical psychiatric populations, and sexually aggressive behaviors, such as convicted sex offenders.

Finally, there remains substantial work needed to understand the complexities of sexual aggression, the characteristics of its perpetrators, and effective methods by which to prevent and treat sexual aggression. Notwithstanding the aforementioned limitations, this study provides a solid foundation for future research in the area of personality and sexual aggression. Future research should continue to investigate the potential relationship between pathological personality traits and sexually aggressive behaviors. With nearly 1 in 14 women worldwide experiencing nonpartner sexual victimization (García-Moreno et al., 2013) and 1 in 5 women in the United States experiencing sexual victimization during their lifetime (Kilpatrick et al., 2007), research should continue to further explore the relationships between pathological personality traits and sexual aggression, as this information may aid in the future formulation of more effective sexual aggression prevention efforts by better defining the characteristics of perpetrators.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Amanda E. Kasowski, MA, completed her Master of Arts in Clinical Psychology at Sam Houston State University in 2017. She is a psychological associate at Bricken & Associates.

Jaime L. Anderson, PhD, is an assistant professor of Psychology and director of the Assessment of Personality Psychopathology Lab at Sam Houston State University. Her work focuses on the assessment and utility of dimensional personality psychopathology constructs.

References

Ahlmeyer

Kleinsasser

Stoner

Retzlaff

(2003). Psychopathology of incarcerated sex offenders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 17, 306-318.

Ajzen

(2005). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill.

Al-Dajani

Gralnick

T. M.

Bagby

R. M.

(2016). A psychometric review of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5): Current status and future directions. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98, 62-81.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Belknap

(1987). Routine activity theory and the risk of rape: Analyzing ten years of national crime survey data. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 2, 337-356.

Bouffard

L. A.

(2010). Exploring the utility of entitlement in understanding sexual aggression. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 870-879.

Brownmiller

(1975). Against our will: Men, women and rape. New York, NY: Ballantine.

Bumby

K. M.

Hansen

D. J.

(1997). Intimacy deficits, fear of intimacy, and loneliness among sexual offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 315-331.

Carvalho

Nobre

P. J.

(2019). Five-factor model of personality and sexual aggression. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 63, 797-814. doi:10.1177/0306624X13481941

10.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A.-G.

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149-1160.

11.

Fazel

Hope

O’Donnell

Jacoby

(2002). Psychiatric, demographic and personality characteristics of elderly sex offenders. Psychological Medicine, 32, 219-226.

12.

García-Moreno

Pallitto

DeVries

Stöckl

Watts

Abrahams

(2013). Global and regional estimates of violence against women: Prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

13.

Greenfeld

(1997). Sex offenses and offenders: An analysis of data on rape and sexual assault. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

14.

Hanson

R. K.

Gizzarelli

Scott

(1994). Attitudes of incest offenders: Sexual entitlement and acceptance of sex with children. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 21, 187-202.

15.

Haigler

E. D.

Widiger

T. A.

(2001). Experimental manipulation of NEO-PI-R items. Journal of Personality Assessment, 77, 339-358.

16.

Helmus

Hanson

R. K.

Babchishin

K. M.

Mann

R. E.

(2013). Attitudes supportive of sexual offending predict recidivism: A meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 14, 34-53.

17.

Hill

M. S.

Fischer

A. R.

(2001). Does entitlement mediate the link between masculinity and rape-related variables? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 39-50.

18.

Humphreys

(2007). Perceptions of sexual consent: The impact of relationship history and gender. Journal of Sex Research, 44, 307-315.

19.

Hurlbert

D. F.

Apt

Gasar

Wilson

N. E.

Murphy

(1994). Sexual narcissism: A validation study. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 20, 24-34.

20.

Jozkowski

K. N.

Peterson

Z. D.

(2014). Assessing the validity and reliability of the perceptions of the Consent to Sex Scale. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 632-645.

21.

Jozkowski

K. N.

Peterson

Z. D.

Sanders

S. A.

Dennis

Reece

(2014). Gender differences in heterosexual college students’ conceptualizations and indicators of sexual consent: Implications for contemporary sexual assault prevention education. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 904-916.

22.

Jozkowski

K. N.

Sanders

Peterson

Z. D.

Dennis

Reece

(2014). Consenting to sexual activity: The development and psychometric assessment of dual measures of consent. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 437-450.

23.

Kilpatrick

D. G.

Resnick

H. S.

Ruggiero

K. J.

Conoscenti

L. M.

McCauley

(2007). Drug-facilitated, incapacitated, and forcible rape: A national study. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219181.pdf

24.

Krueger

R. F.

Eaton

N. R.

Clark

L. E.

Watson

Markon

K. E.

Derringer

Livesley

W. J.

(2012). Deriving an empirical structure of personality pathology for DSM-5. Journal of Personality Disorders, 25, 170-191.

25.

Krueger

R. F.

Markon

K. E.

(2014). The role of the DSM-5 personality trait model in moving toward a quantitative and empirically based approach to classifying personality and psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 477-501.

26.

Lyn

T. S.

Burton

D. L.

(2005). Attachment, anger and anxiety of male sexual offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 11, 127-137.

27.

Malamuth

N. M.

(2003). Criminal and noncriminal sexual aggressors. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 989, 33-58.

28.

Mardorossian

C. M.

(2002). Toward a new feminist theory of rape. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 27, 743-775.

29.

Mann

R. E.

Hanson

R. K.

Thornton

(2010). Assessing risk for sexual recidivism: Some proposals on the nature of psychologically meaningful risk factors. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 22, 191-217.

30.

McDermott

R. C.

Naylor

P. D.

McKelvey

Kantra

(2016). College men’s and women’s masculine gender role strain and dating violence acceptance attitudes: Testing sex as a moderator. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 18, 99-111. doi:10.1037/men0000044

31.

McMahon

Farmer

G. L.

(2011). An updated measure for assessing subtle rape myths. Social Work Research, 35, 71-81.

32.

Millett

(2016). Sexual politics. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

33.

Mouilso

E. R.

Calhoun

K. S.

(2013). The role of rape myth acceptance and psychopathy in sexual assault perpetration. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 22, 159-174.

34.

Mouilso

E. R.

Calhoun

K. S.

(2016). Personality and perpetration: Narcissism among college sexual assault perpetrators. Violence Against Women, 22, 1228-1242.

35.

O’Connell

Marcus

D. K.

(2016). Psychopathic personality traits predict positive attitudes toward sexually predatory behaviors in college men and women. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 372-376.

36.

Osman

S. L.

(1995). Token Resistance to Sex Scale. In Davis

Yarber

Bauserman

Schreer

Davis

(Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 567-568). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

37.

Osman

S. L.

(2003). Predicting men’s rape perceptions based on the belief that “no” really means “yes.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 683-692.

38.

Osman

S. L.

(2007). Predicting perceptions of sexual harassment based on type of resistance and belief in token resistance. Journal of Sex Research, 44, 340-346.

39.

Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network. (2018). Sexual assault. Retrieved from https://www.rainn.org/articles/sexual-assault

40.

Rasmussen

(2016). Entitled vengeance: A meta-analysis relating narcissism to provoked aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 42, 362-379.

41.

Spence

J. T.

Hahn

E. D.

(1997). The Attitudes Toward Women Scale and attitude change in college students. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 17-34.

42.

Spence

J. T.

Helmreich

Stapp

(1973). A short version of the Attitudes Toward Women Scale (AWS). Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 2, 219-220.

43.

Thornhill

Palmer

C. T.

(2000). Why men rape. SCIENCES-NEW YORK, 40, 30-36.

44.

Truman

Tokar

Fischer

(1996). Dimensions of masculinity: Relations to date rape supportive attitudes and sexual aggression in dating situations. Journal of Counseling & Development, 74, 555-562.

45.

Voller

E. K.

Long

P. J

. (2010). Sexual assault and rape perpetration by college men: The role of the big five personality traits. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 457-480.

46.

Wegner

Abbey

Pierce

Pegram

Woerner

(2015). Sexual assault perpetrators’ justifications for their actions: Relationships to rape supportive attitudes, incident characteristics, and future perpetration. Violence Against Women, 21, 1018-1037.

47.

Widman

McNulty

J. K.

(2010). Sexual narcissism and the perpetration of sexual aggression. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 926-939.

48.

Williams

K. M.

Cooper

B. S.

Howell

T. M.

Yuille

J. C.

Paulhus

D. L.

(2009). Inferring sexually deviant behaviors from corresponding fantasies: The role of personality and pornography consumption. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 198-222.