Investigating the relationship between non-consensual condom removal and the dark triad of personality

Figures & data

Table 1. Cronbach’s Alpha values for CURP scale cited in the previous and current research.

Domains	Davis et al. (2014)	Current Paper
Risk-Level Reassurance (4 items)	.80	.78
Seduction (3 items)	.89	.82
Reduced Sensitivity (3 items)	.92	.88
Direct Request (3 items)	.90	.91
Relationship and Trust (3 items)	.82	.86
Emotional Consequences (3 items)	.64	.83
Deception (4 items)	.73	.91
Condom Sabotage (3 items)	.90	.93
Withholding Sex (3 items)	.98	.89
Physical Threat/Force (3 items)	-	.90
Arousal Loss (3 items)	-	.92

Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and correlations between condom use resistance and demographic variables (N = 221).

Variable	M(SD)	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Condom-use resistance	1.84(2.22)	-	.181**	−.133*	.105	.445**	0.72
2. Age	32.69(9.77)		-	−.143*	−.060	−.073	−.105
3. Education	2.39(.88)			-	−.148	−.097	.037
4. Alcohol Consumption	6.06(9.11)				-	.098	−.064
5. Sexual Partners	1.73(.93)					-	.277**
6. Condom Usage	3.58(2.17)						-

Education = Highest Level of Schooling/Educational Achievement, Alcohol Consumption = Average Number of Standard Drinks Consumed per Week over Last 6 Months, Sexual Partners = Number of sexual partners in the previous six months, Condom Usage Frequency = Number of Times Used a Condom over Past 6 Months. **p < .01(two-tailed), *p < .05(two-tailed).

Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations, and correlations for the dark triad traits and condom use resistance (N = 221).

Variable	M(SD)	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8		9		10	11	12	13	14	15
1. Mach.	3.35(.77)	-	.536**	.692**	.877**	.331**	.430**	.483**		.376**		.394**	.527**	.304**	.537**	.538**	.510**	.428**
2. Narc.	3.02(.61)		-	.516**	.756**	.329**	.393**	.413**		.295**		.339**	.507**	.255**	.469**	.524**	.516**	.391**
3. Psyc.	2.73(.81)			-	.893**	.387**	.562**	.608**		.459**		.492**	.666**	.404**	.670**	.674**	.659**	.534**
4. Sed.	2.91(4.15)				-	.709**	.713**	.702**		.760**		.718**	.609**	.626**	.600**	.604**	.595**	.854**
5. EC	1.95(3.00)					-	.826**	.828**		.803**		.837**	.822**	.782**	.836**	.805**	.798**	.886**
6. RT	1.82(2.91)						-	.778**		.784**		.774**	.852**	.667**	.876**	.852**	.823**	.837*
7. RR	2.04(2.70)							-		.812**		.815**	.710**	.765**	.738**	.693**	.679**	.904**
8. RS	2.09(3.28)									-		.810**	.727**	.822**	.735**	.702**	.690**	.878**
9. AL	1.76(2.98)											-	.841**	.731**	.856**	.832**	.810**	.856**
10. WS	1.45(2.48)												-	.665**	.962**	.962**	.954**	.798**
11. DR	2.41(3.81)													-	.679**	.641**	.626**	.868**
12. Dec.	1.30(1.95)														-	.953**	.933**	.810**
13. CS	1.31(1.96)															-	.951**	.787**
14. PTF	1.18(1.83)																-	.775**
15. CUR	1.84(2.22)																	-

Mach.= Machiavellianism; Narc. = Narcissism, Psych. = Psychopathy, Sed. = Seduction, EC = Emotional Consequences, RT = Relationship Trust, RR = Risk Reassurance, RS = Reduced Sensitivity, AL = Arousal Loss, WS = Withholding Sex, DR = Direct Request, Dec. = Deception, CS = Condom Sabotage, PTF = Physical Threat and Force, CUR = Condom Use Resistance. **p < .001(two-tailed).

Table 4. Mean group differences for sexual arousal and reported engagement in behaviour for Scenario 1.

Dependent Variable	Sexual Arousal				Behavioural History
	Aroused (n = 113)	Unaroused (n = 108)	t-test results	Effect size	Have Engaged (n = 102)	Have Not Engaged (n = 119)	t-test results	Effect size
	M(SD)	M(SD)	t-value(df)	Cohen’s d	M(SD)	M(SD)	t-value(df)	Cohen’s d
CUR	2.92(2.37)	0.71(1.32)	−8.61***	1.15	3.15(2.37)	0.72(1.28)	−9.26***	1.28
Mach.	3.73(0.60)	2.95(0.72)	−8.75***	1.18	3.78(0.58)	2.98(0.71)	−9.10***	1.23
Narcissism	3.31(0.47)	2.73(0.60)	−7.92***	1.08	3.38(0.40)	2.72(0.60)	−9.79***	1.29
Psychopathy	3.22(0.65)	2.21(0.62)	−11.87***	1.59	3.32(0.49)	2.22(0.67)	−14.08***	1.87

df = degrees of freedom; Mach. = Machiavellianism; *** p < .001 (two-tailed); ** p < .005 (two-tailed); * p < .05 (two-tailed); CUR = Condom Use Resistance. Equal variances not assumed for all t-tests.

Table 5. Mean group differences for sexual arousal and reported engagement in behaviour for Scenario 2.

Dependent Variable	Sexual Arousal				Behavioural History
	Aroused (n = 101)	Unaroused (n = 120)	t-test results	Effect size	Have Engaged (n = 95)	Have Not Engaged (n = 126)	t-test results	Effect size
	M(SD)	M(SD)	t-value(df)	Cohen’s d	M(SD)	M(SD)	t-value(df)	Cohen’s d
CUR	3.16(2.31)	0.72(1.37)	−9.30***	1.28	3.27(2.30)	0.75(1.40)	−9.44***	1.32
Mach.	3.77(0.57)	3.00(0.73)	−8.85***	1.18	3.80(0.57)	3.00(0.72)	−9.27***	1.23
Narcissism	3.35(0.39)	2.75(0.63)	−8.75***	1.15	3.38(0.38)	2.76(0.61)	−9.25***	1.22
Psychopathy	3.36(0.45)	2.20(0.66)	−15.48***	2.05	3.38(0.41)	2.23(0.67)	−15.64***	2.07

df = degrees of freedom; Mach. = Machiavellianism; *** p < .001 (two-tailed); ** p < .005 (two-tailed); * p < .05 (two-tailed); CUR = Condom Use Resistance. Equal variances not assumed for all t-tests.

Table 6. Mean group differences for sexual arousal and reported engagement in behaviour for Scenario 3.

Dependent Variable	Sexual Arousal				Behavioural History
	Aroused (n = 108)	Unaroused (n = 113)	t-test results	Effect size	Have Engaged (n = 103)	Have Not Engaged (n = 118)	t-test results	Effect size
	M(SD)	M(SD)	t-value(df)	Cohen’s d	M(SD)	M(SD)	t-value(df)	Cohen’s d
CUR	3.04(2.35)	0.69(1.31)	−9.16***	1.24	3.13(2.28)	0.71(1.41)	−9.38***	1.28
Mach.	3.74(0.61)	2.98(0.71)	−8.56***	1.15	3.74(0.60)	3.00(0.72)	−8.29***	1.12
Narcissism	3.29(0.50)	2.77(0.60)	−6.96***	0.95	3.36(0.44)	2.73(0.59)	−9.03***	1.21
Psychopathy	3.26(0.57)	2.22(0.67)	−12.49***	1.67	3.33(0.48)	2.20(0.66)	−14.53***	1.96

df = degrees of freedom; Mach. = Machiavellianism; *** p < .001 (two-tailed); ** p < .005 (two-tailed); * p < .05 (two-tailed); CUR = Condom Use Resistance. Equal variances not assumed for all t-tests.

Table 7. Condom-use resistance, Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy as predictor coefficients for the model predicting behavioural intention for stealthing.

	B	SE (b)	P	Exp(B) [95% CI]
Constant	−10.08
Condom-use resistance	0.61	0.14	<.001	1.85[1.40, 2.43]
Machiavellianism	0.65	0.38	.082	1.92[0.92, 4.00]
Narcissism	1.04	0.38	.007	2.84[1.34, 6.02]
Psychopathy	1.44	0.36	<.001	4.24[2.09, 8.58]

SE = Standard Error; CI = confidence interval.

Davis, K. C., Stappenbeck, C. A., Norris, J., George, W. H., Jacques-Tiura, A. J., Schraufnagel, T. J., & Kajumolo, K. F. (2014). Young men’s condom- use resistance tactics: A latent profile analysis. International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering, 51(4), 454–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.776660

 Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The data that supports the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author (AA) upon reasonable request.