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

ABSTRACT

Whilst some research has been conducted into those who engage in non-consensual condom removal, the aim of the study was to explore the relationship between Dark Triad of Personality traits (i.e. machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy) and arousal from, intention to engage in, and reported behavioural history of non-consensual condom removal (i.e. stealthing), which is a type of sexual violence. Results found that there were associations between all Dark Triad traits and all types of condom use resistance; individuals who were aroused by stealthing scenarios and who reported a behavioural history of stealthing scored significantly higher on machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy compared to those who were not aroused by or did not report a behavioural history of stealthing. Psychopathy and narcissism were found to be significant predictors of a person’s reported intention to engage in stealthing behaviour. Future research into the relationship between Dark Triad and other types of personality traits and stealthing behaviour is needed to inform assessment, prevention, and treatment for perpetrators of this type of sexual violence.

KEYWORDS:

• Stealthing
• condom removal
• psychopathy
• narcissism
• machiavellianism

Introduction

Identified as a global priority by the Cairo Consensus and Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (Cohen & Richards, 1994), increasing the sexual and reproductive health of women and girls, as well as people that identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer, asexual, and other sexually or gender diverse (LGBTIQA+) is pertinent in our society (Biblarz & Savci, 2010; Michelson, 2019; Perales et al., 2019). Whilst power imbalances and control often manifest themselves in non-heterosexual relationships, female sexual autonomy in the context of male-female heterosexual dynamics, is particularly susceptible to oppression and subjugation due to inherent notions of domination, violence, and control (Ebrahim, 2019). Despite rights and sexual autonomy amongst this population continuing to grow (Jozkowski & Peterson, 2013), examples of the oppression of women’s sexual and reproductive health remain replete in modern-day society (Imhoff et al., 2013).

When considering the oppression of sexual autonomy and freedom amongst women and minority groups, sexual violence – often perpetrated by a member of a priority group – is an important construct (Davis et al., 2018; Imhoff et al., 2013). Sexual violence can be defined as acts that are perpetrated by one or more perpetrators towards another person (victim), that violate the victim in a way that threatens their actual or perceived sexual safety and security (Boadle et al., 2021; Tarzia et al., 2020). Importantly, sexual violence can occur irrespective of whether there was consent given by the victim to the perpetrator to engage in a specified sexual act, when acts of sexual violence breach the agreed upon threshold of the acts in which the victim consented to. In this way, victims of sexual violence can belong to any class in society, regardless of their assigned gender, identified gender or sexual orientation (Czechowski et al., 2019).

One form of sexual violence that can be perpetrated by people with a penis, is the notion of non-consensual condom removal (NCCR) – colloquially known as stealthing (Czechowski et al., 2019; Davis, 2019; Ebrahim, 2019). Stealthing represents a contemporary form of sexual violence that appears to have become increasingly prevalent, especially amongst people younger than 30 years (Davis, 2019; Ebrahim, 2019). There are various propositions to account for the rise in reported prevalence of this form of sexual violence, such as an increase in coverage of stealthing across social media, as well as an acknowledgement from jurisdictions around the world who have now classified stealthing as a specific form of sexual assault (Boadle et al., 2021). Other factors include increased awareness around the notion of sexual consent, sexual autonomy and sexual rights for women and other minority groups (Ahmad et al., 2020; Bonar et al., 2019; Ebrahim, 2019), a rise in sexual and reproductive health literacy (Latimer et al., 2018), and most powerfully through exposure to stealthing-related content in social and digital media (Ahmad et al., 2020). Although the term stealthing is relatively new, the actual behaviour has long existed under various monikers, including ‘gift giving’, ‘protection deception’, or ‘stealth breeding’, especially amongst the gay population (Brennan, 2017; Dean, 2009). Despite this, there appears to be no unanimous consensus on a definition of stealthing, and particularly with respect to other forms of sexual violence, a comparative dearth of literature exists regarding investigating the characteristics that may be common amongst perpetrators of stealthing.

Synthesising definitions from previous research (Bonar et al., 2019; Czechowski et al., 2019; Davis et al., 2018; Ebrahim, 2019), the current study defines stealthing as the practice whereby a person with a penis deliberately removes, breaks, or otherwise sabotages a condom, either before or during sexual intercourse with another person, with or without the receptive partner’s knowledge of this act, when the partner explicitly consented to sex with a condom only. Stealthing has been classed as a punishable form of sexual violence in several jurisdictions through either legislation (Statute Law; for example, the Australian Capital Territory in Australia passed the Crimes [Stealthing] Amendment Bill 2021) or as decided in individual court cases by a Judge or Jury (Common Law/Case Law). The Australian Capital Territory’s amendment to s67(1)(h) of the Crimes Act 1990 specifies that ‘consent for sexual intercourse is negated if it is caused by an intentional misrepresentation by the other person about the use of a condom’.

One way that stealthing has been explored is through an interpersonal violence lens which focuses primarily on victims of stealthing (Alam & Alldred, 2021; Boadle et al., 2021; Bonar et al., 2019). Boadle et al. (2021) found that increased risk factors for women or men being a victim of stealthing include nonheterosexuality, having a nonexclusive relationship status, and having more sexual partners. Having a history of being a victim of stealthing also decreased the likelihood of being able to refuse unwanted sexual advances in the future. Latimer et al. (2018) used a large adult sample of females presenting to a sexual health clinic in Melbourne, Australia, and found that over one-third of these females reported having been a victim of stealthing by a male sexual partner. Czechowski et al. (2019) and Bonar et al. (2019) used more focussed populations of undergraduate college students aged 18–24 and found that approximately 19% of the participants reported being a victim of stealthing.

When considering perpetrators of stealthing, Davis and Logan-Greene (2012) first found that coercive condom-use resistance was relatively common in the U.S.A., with one-third of men endorsing the use of condom-use resistance to obtain condomless sex. Davis et al. (2014) extended upon this, using latent profile analysis to explore factors that were associated with an increase in condom-use resistance tactics. In general, men with moderate sexual sensation seeking and impulsivity, negative beliefs about condoms, and moderate (Condom Negative/Moderate Hostility) or high (Condom Negative/High Hostility) negative attitudes about women reported the most condom-use resistance tactics.

Davis et al. (2018) further explored sexual aggression history, alcohol intoxication, and partner condom negotiation as predictors of condom-use resistance perpetration, a construct which stealthing falls within. They found that men with more severe sexual aggression histories and who displayed stronger in-the-moment power and control responses, had greater coercive condom-use resistance and unprotected sex intentions. A significant interaction between sexual and physical aggression history, risk rationale (e.g. the reason that a person gives for wanting or not wanting to use a condom, such as to prevent pregnancy or STI), and alcohol condition (i.e. alcohol intoxication impeding cognitive functioning) also predicted coercive condom-use resistance intentions. Davis (2019) also specifically explored factors associated with young men’s NCCR, with nearly 10% of participants admitting to engaging in stealthing since age 14 and they had perpetrated on average 3.62 times.

Dark triad of personality

Building on previous research, this paper sought to investigate further factors that may predict the perpetration of stealthing. With risk factors such as sexual and physical aggression, risk rationale, alcohol intoxication, coercive qualities, high sensation seeking, high impulsivity, high hostility, and negative attitudes towards women having already been established, this study investigated the relationship between stealthing and personality, focusing on the Dark Triad of Personality (DTP; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Comprised of machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy, DTP is a collective term for three distinct constructs that each describe a specific set of characterological or personality traits. Touted as non-clinical personality traits, high scores on one or more DTP traits does not necessarily constitute a formal personality disorder or psychopathology, however, those personality traits share certain malevolent qualities and are often problematic for the individual.

Machiavellianism (Christie & Geis, 1970) describes traits consistent with a cynical worldview, a lack of morality, and manipulativeness. In distinguishing machiavellianism from psychopathy, higher machiavellianism is associated with a tendency to plan ahead, build alliances, and do one’s best to maintain a positive reputation. Regarding the trait of psychopathy, the literature points to two key elements – namely, deficits in affect (i.e. callousness) and deficits self-control (i.e. impulsivity) (Cleckley, 1941, 1976; Hare, 1970; Hare & Neumann, 2008). People higher on psychopathy will act impulsively, abandon friends and family, and pay little attention to their reputations (Hare & Neumann, 2008), which is distinguishable from the characteristics of a Machiavellian, which are to be more forward-thinking and strategic in maintaining social supports to help them achieve what they desire. Kernberg (1975) and Kohut and Wolf (1978) argued that narcissism is marked by manipulation and callousness, much like machiavellianism and psychopathy, however, aetiologically, narcissism was characterised by a clash between a grandiose identity and underlying insecurity that led the individual to have an inflated sense of self and importance.

Scholars such as Millon et al. (2004), posit that individuals that commit physical and sexual acts of violence and other deviant acts are more likely to score highly on DTP traits when compared to non-offenders. Thus, establishing a set of personality traits that can predict arousal by, intention to, or engagement in stealthing behaviour would help to further establish risk factors for members of the community who may engage in this behaviour, and clinically it may help with assessment, prevention, and intervention in this area. Furthermore, many of the factors that have been shown to predict stealthing align with the malevolent qualities that are captured by DTP traits (such as hostility towards women, sexual aggression history, sexual sensation seeking, impulsivity, high hostility, and risk rationale); thus support is shown that there may be a relationship between DTP traits, and participants reporting arousal by, intention to engage in, or reported history of NCCR

Aims

The proposed study aimed to explore the relationship between DTP traits and non-consensual condom removal, through the following research questions:

1. What are the associations between demographic characteristics and DTP traits as well as condom-use resistance tactics?

2. What are the associations between DTP traits and condom-use resistance tactics?

3. Are there significant differences in DTP traits between individuals who report arousal from or engagement in stealthing compared to those who do not?

4. Can we predict arousal from stealthing scenarios based on condom-use resistance and DTP traits?

Method

Participants

416 responses were recorded for the survey, with 10 responses removed due to failed attention checks and 148 responses deemed incomplete, as the participant either self-exited before the completion of the survey or did not meet full inclusion criteria to be eligible to participate in the survey. Of the remaining 258 participants to complete the full survey, a further 37 were discounted due to responses deemed to be bogus, almost impossible, or completed too quickly (i.e. ≤1 minute). This left 221 participant responses that were included in data analysis.

Screening items

The screening items included four items that were used to ensure that participants met the inclusion criteria: (1) Are you a person with a penis? (2) Are you aged 18 years or over? (3) Have you engaged in sexual intercourse with another partner over the past 6 months? (4) Have you used a condom for sexual intercourse with another partner in your lifetime?

Demographics, alcohol, forensic, and sexual history

The demographic information included nine items aimed at collecting information about the sample, and the alcohol, forensic and sexual history were comprised of eight items to gather further information about the sample, such as how many sexual partners have you had sexual intercourse with over the past 6 months. The sexual orientation item used was based on Legate and Rogge (2019) classification of one’s sexuality to exist on a continuum, whereby heterosexual exists at one end of the continuum, and homosexual exists on the other end of the continuum. Condom use self-efficacy was also measured with a single item visual analogue scale, 0 = not at all confident and 10 = very confident.

The short dark triad (SD3)

Jones and Paulhus (2014) SD3 is a 27-item scale that is a brief, but also reliable and valid measure of DTP. They reported subscales with modest, but acceptable reliability (machiavellianism α = .71, psychopathy α = .77, narcissism α = .70). The present study found strong Cronbach’s Alpha reliability for machiavellianism (α = .83) and psychopathy (α = .81), and modest reliability for narcissism (α = .65). Additionally, they supported the previous literature by finding positive correlations between psychopathy and machiavellianism, r = .50, psychopathy and narcissism, r = .34, and machiavellianism with narcissism, r = .18. All three values were significant at p < .001. The SD3 has stronger reliability and validity than the Jonason and Webster (2010) 12-item ‘Dirty Dozen’ scale, yet for reasons of brevity, it is still shorter than the original 41-item DTP scale.

Condom use resistance perpetration (CURP)

Davis et al. (2014) CURP scale consists of 35-items, categorised into 11 domains to describe the type of resistance a person may show towards condom-use, such as Seduction: ‘how many times have you gotten a partner so sexually excited that they agreed to have sex without a condom?’ Following the procedure set out by Davis et al. (2014), items were averaged within each subscale, and a response of 21 was used for participants who reported engaging in a tactic 21 times or more. Table 1 shows Cronbach’s Alpha values.

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

Stealthing scenarios

In line with previous approaches (Allen et al., 2022; Seto, 2019), items describing scenarios from a second-person perspective were generated by the authors. The three stealthing-scenarios were designed to reflect a different conceptualisation of stealthing behaviour as covered in the definition set out in this paper, such as Scenario 1: ‘you are having sex with a person, and you remove your condom during sex without that person knowing, and you continue to have sex without a condom’; Scenario 2: ‘your partner consents to sex with a condom, and you intentionally break the condom and continue having sex without telling your partner it is broken’; and Scenario 3: ‘you are having sex with a person, and you realise that your condom has “slipped off” unintentionally, however you continue with intercourse without informing the other person that you are no longer using a condom’.

Participant responses were able to gauge whether the participant was a) aroused by the activity, b) had reported that they had ever engaged in the activity, and c) whether they would ever engage in the activity that was described for each particular scenario. Responses were recorded on a four-point Likert scale (0 = not at all, 1 = mildly, 2 = moderately, 3 = very).

Procedure

A cross-sectional web-based survey explored the relationship between demographic characteristics, personality characteristics, and stealthing behaviour, through a variety of validated scales and measures. Ethics approval was granted by Human Research Ethics Committee. The survey was created with Qualtrics and shared online. This included sharing the survey via ‘sub-reddit’ pages on Reddit (e.g. r/SampleSize, r/psychologyresearch, r/psychologyofsex, r/sex), as well as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Amazon Mechanical Turk where participants were compensated for their time at a rate of $1USD to complete the survey. As participants were permitted to reside in any country, recruitment, and dissemination of the survey through these media was designed to be as far-reaching as possible, to gain a representative sample of the general population. The survey was removed after 6 months of recruitment, and data was exported and then analysed through IBM’s Statistical Package for Social Sciences.

Data analysis

The authors take responsibility for the integrity of the data, the accuracy of the data analyses, and have made every effort to avoid inflating statistically significant results and have also reported how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions (if any), all manipulations, and all measures in the study. Assumption testing for data analysis was carried out prior to results being interpreted. The assumption of normality was upheld, as although most tests of normality were statistically significant at < .001 on Shapiro–Wilk and Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests of normality, pursuant to Tabachnick and Fidell (2019) and Allen et al. (2014) who warn of the sensitivity of these tests, a visual inspection of the output was also conducted, indicating mostly normal distributions. Sufficient ratio of cases to predictors was achieved with Tabachnick and Fidell (2019) suggesting participant numbers (N = 221) should exceed the formula of 104 + k (number of individual predictors, which is 6). Minimum expected frequencies were also achieved, and univariate outliers were identified and removed during the data cleaning phase (Allen et al., 2014; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2019). Univariate outliers (n = 36) were identified as participants reporting age of first consensual sexual intercourse being excessively young (e.g. 8 years old or younger), and also a pattern of excessive frequency responses for condom use resistance tactics which often coincided with less than 2 minutes to complete the survey. Multicollinearity of predictor variables were tested next, and whilst correlations between predictors were significant at p < .05, a Pearson’s r < .80 meant that there was limited evidence to support a breach to this assumption. Given that Levene’s test of homogeneity of variance indicated that equal variances cannot be assumed, Welch’s test was used as a robust method to interpret t tests appropriately, and Spearman Rho’s test was used to interpret correlation tables (Allen et al., 2014).

In terms of statistical analyses, bivariate correlations were used to examine the relationship between condom-use resistance and demographic variables, and between DTP traits and condom-use resistance scales. A series of t-tests were used to determine between-group differences for those who did or did not report arousal based on stealthing scenarios, and those who did or did not report a behavioural history of stealthing based on the scenarios. Finally, a binary logistic regression was used to estimate the probability for participants reporting that they would engage in stealthing (i.e. a behavioural intention for stealthing) based on their DTP trait scores.

Results

Research questions 1 and 2

Bivariate correlations were used to examine the relationship between condom-use resistance, demographic variables, and other items (Table 2), and between DTP traits and condom-use resistance sub-scales (Table 3). Additionally, bivariate correlation analyses were conducted to identify significant relationships between Condom Use Self-Efficacy and other demographic variables as well as DTP traits. There was a weak negative relationship between Condom Use Self-Efficacy and psychopathy, r(219) = −.239, p < .001, and a weak negative relationship between Condom Use Self-Efficacy and sexual partners r(219) = −.251, p < .001. Furthermore, there was a medium positive relationship between psychopathy and number of sexual partners r(219) = .518, p < .001, a weak positive relationship between psychopathy and binge drinking r(219) = .202, p =.02, a weak positive relationship between machiavellianism and sexual partners r(219) = .338, p < .001, a weak positive relationship between narcissism and sexual partners r(219) = .173, p =.01, and a weak positive relationship between narcissism and alcohol consumption r(219) = .185, p =.03.

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).

Research question 3

Stealthing arousal

An initial evaluation revealed that those who endorsed arousal towards one or more of the stealthing scenarios (n = 123) had significantly higher condom-use resistance, t(194.84) = −9.27, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 1.92, machiavellianism t(193.41) = −9.16, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.65, narcissism, t(183.36) = −7.07, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.55, and psychopathy, t(212.45) = −12.76, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.62, compared to those who were not aroused (n = 97). The results of specific comparisons between those who were and were not aroused by the stealthing scenarios are shown in Tables 4 (Scenario 1), Table 5 (Scenario 2), and Table 6 (Scenario 3).

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.

Stealthing behaviour

An initial analysis revealed that those who endorsed having engaged in one or more of the acts depicted in the stealthing scenarios (n = 110) had significantly higher condom-use resistance, t(167.61) = −9.83, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 1.85, machiavellianism t(211.65) = −8.15, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.67, Narcissism, t(206.58) = − 8.70, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.53, and Psychopathy, t(206.32) = −13.91, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.59, compared to those who were not aroused (n = 111). The results of specific comparisons between those who did or did not endorse having engaged in one or more of the acts depicted in the stealthing scenarios are shown in Tables 4 (Scenario 1), Table 5 (Scenario 2), and Table 6 (Scenario 3).

Research question 4

To estimate the probability of participants reporting that they would engage in NCCR (behavioural intention for stealthing), a binary logistic regression analysis was conducted. The probability of behavioural intention for stealthing was based on any of the three stealthing scenarios, and was categorical (i.e. either the person would engage in one or more of the scenarios or they would not engage in any of the scenarios) and was estimated using mean scores on condom-use resistance and DTP traits. The omnibus model for the logistic regression analysis was statistically significant χ² (df = 4, N = 221) = 156.49, p < .001, Cox and Snell R² = .51, Nagelkerke R² = .68. Coefficients for the model’s predictors are presented in Table 7. The model was 84% accurate in its predictions of behavioural intention for stealthing. Hosmer and Lemeshow’s test results confirmed that the model was a good fit for the data, χ² (df = 8, N = 221) = 7.16, p = .520. The point-biserial correlations between machiavellianism and narcissism were r = .45, p < .01, between machiavellianism and psychopathy r = .68, p < .01, between machiavellianism and Condom-Use Resistance r = .34, p < .01, between narcissism and psychopathy r = .47, p < .01, between narcissism and Condom-Use Resistance r = .29, p < .01, between psychopathy and Condom-Use Resistance r = .43, p < .01. The odds ratio for psychopathy indicated that if a participant’s score on psychopathy increased by one unit, they were 4.24 times more likely to report an intention to engage in a stealthing behaviour. Condom-use resistance and narcissism also appeared to significantly influence the probability of a participant reporting an intention to engage in stealthing behaviour.

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.

Discussion

The aim of the study was to explore the relationship between DTP traits (i.e. machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy) and arousal from, intention to engage in or reported behavioural history of non-consensual condom removal. Additional demographic information and variables including condom use self-efficacy, and condom-use resistance tactics also allowed further phenomena to be observed that may contribute to or be a predictor of stealthing behaviour.

Overall, findings of the associations between DTP traits and condom-use resistance further the understanding of factors that may be associated with or contribute to non-consensual condom removal. The present research, in establishing correlations between personality constructs and types of condom-use resistance, builds upon existing findings by Davis et al. (2018) who found significant positive correlations between a variety of variables, such as sexual abuse perpetration and power/control responses, sexual abuse perpetration and emotional manipulation, condom-use resistance intentions and sexual abuse and unprotected sex intentions.

Behavioural history and arousal from stealthing

When looking at the between-group differences on DTP traits and condom-use resistance across measures of both arousal by stealthing scenarios and reported behavioural history of engaging stealthing scenarios, individuals who reported arousal from any of the stealthing scenarios and or a behavioural history of any of the stealthing scenarios, respectively, scored significantly higher on measures of condom-use resistance, as well as machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy compared to those who did not report arousal and did not report behavioural history, respectively. Of note, the largest effect size consistently across all three stealthing scenarios was for psychopathy, indicating that there roughly two standard deviations difference on mean measures of psychopathy between those who were aroused and those who were not aroused by each stealthing scenario and between those who reported a behavioural history and those with no reported behavioural history of each stealthing scenario. Furthermore, large effect sizes of >0.8 for machiavellianism, narcissism and condom-use resistance were also found across all three stealthing scenarios between groups who either reported arousal or reported no arousal, and who reported a behavioural history and reported no behavioural history.

Risk factors

Whilst the cross-sectional design limits the authors from commenting on the direction or causality of the results found, we can conclude that a risk factor for both arousal from stealthing scenarios and engaging in stealthing behaviour is higher DTP traits. Given that all DTP traits showed large effect sizes across arousal and behavioural history, respectively, it is appropriate to conclude that it is not just one DTP trait in isolation that is the main predictor.

The sense of entitlement and dominance showed by a narcissist, the desire for a short term gain common of a psychopath and the strategy and manipulativeness of a Machiavellian, all share a common trait in that they will use people as a means to an end in order to gain what they want or what they feel they deserve, such using non-consensual condom removal to obtain condomless sex.

Predictors of behavioural intent of stealthing

Using a binary logistic regression analysis, our model showed that psychopathy, narcissism, and condom-use resistance were significant predictors of participant’s reported intention of engaging in stealthing based on the scenarios presented to them. Of these, psychopathy was the strongest predictor, increasing the odds of behavioural intention by 424%, whereas narcissism increased the odds of behavioural intention by 284%, and machiavellianism by 192%. Overall, this model was quite accurate in its predictions, accounting for 84% of variance contributing to a behavioural intention to engage in stealthing.

Explanations for psychopathy being the strongest predictor of a behavioural intention may be explained by Paulhus and Williams (2002) findings that a wide variety of antisocial behaviour accounted for by self-report measures (such as the SD3) were significantly predicted by psychopathy but not by machiavellianism or narcissism. Further informing the present findings, Davis (2019) found that sexual abuse perpetration history towards women and stronger in-the-moment power and control responses predicted stronger coercive condom-use resistance tactics and intention to engage in unprotected sex against the person’s consent. Therefore, stronger in-the-moment power and control responses that were shown to be strong predictors in Davis (2019) may be explained primarily by psychopathy – given the impulsivity and desire for short-term gains, as well as partly by a type of narcissism termed sexual narcissism. Widman and McNulty (2009) posit that sexual narcissism is an extension of general narcissism, including feelings of entitlement, limited empathy, exploitive manipulation and grandiose beliefs which are specifically activated in sexual situations.

One explanation for machiavellianism being a non-significant predictor of behavioural intention when compared to psychopathy and narcissism could be the influence of a socially desirable response. Machiavellians are often more grounded, and reality based in their sense of self (Christie & Geis, 1970), compared to a self-deception or poorer insight said to be common to both the narcissist (Raskin et al., 1991) and psychopath (Hart & Hare, 1998). Therefore, those higher in machiavellianism may be less likely to report they have an intention to engage in a behaviour if they aware that it is either illegal or socially undesirable, given their ability to plan ahead, and their preoccupation with maintaining their reputation to other people. Conversely, psychopaths have a lack of emotionality including empathy and anxiety (Paulhus & Williams, 2002), while narcissists have an inflated sense of self-importance (Jones & Paulhus, 2014), and so may lack the insight to realise that stealthing is a socially undesirable act, as it violates the rights and autonomy of the victim.

Condom-use self efficacy

In exploring factors associated with condom use self-efficacy, it was discovered that the higher someone scored on psychopathy, the less effective they were likely to be in their use of condoms. Additionally, the more efficacious someone reported they were in using condoms, the less their reported number of sexual partners in the last six months was. Age positively correlated with condom-use resistance scores, and the more education participants reported, the lower their condom-use resistance scores. Participants’ number of sexual partners shared the strongest positive relationship with condom-use resistance scores.

DTP traits and demographic characteristics

Regarding demographic characteristics and DTP traits, participants with a higher psychopathy score were also likely to report a higher number of sexual partners in the last six months. Similar to previous findings (Gardiner & Lawson, 2022), psychopathy was also positively associated with binge drinking, which extends upon Davis and colleagues’ research, who demonstrated that alcohol alone is a risk factor for coercive condom-use resistance. Psychopathy may therefore increase a person’s chance of engaging in coercive condom-use resistance, as they are more likely to consume alcohol through binge drinking and so even more likely to engage in condom-use resistance behaviours. Machiavellianism was only positively associated with number of sexual partners, whilst higher narcissism was associated with higher alcohol consumption – which is supported by Gardiner and Lawson (2022) - and more sexual partners.

Establishing condom-use resistance tactics as being positively correlated with individual DTP traits bolsters theoretical support for a number of existing positive associations from previous literature. For example, Davis et al. (2018) identified positive relationships between emotional manipulation condom-use resistance intentions and unprotected sex intentions, power/control responses and deception condom-use resistance intentions, power/control responses and unprotected sex intentions, and emotional manipulation condom-use resistance intentions and power/control responses. Our findings extend upon the understanding of these associations by including condom-use resistance, condom use self-efficacy, and DTP traits. For instance, the negative association between education and condom-use resistance presents a potential protective factor, in education, for developing pro-condom attitudes and condom self-efficacy. Moreover, despite being bidirectional, a potential risk factor identified for low condom self-efficacy may be elevated DTP traits, while higher sexual partners may be a risk factor for condom-use resistance. Interestingly, a higher number of sexual partners was also positively associated with higher reported condom usage.

Machiavellianism and condom-use resistance

In identifying the positive relationship between machiavellianism and condom-use resistance, one explanation could be that those high in machiavellianism have been shown to be motivated by physical reasons (i.e. increased sensitivity in sex) as well as goal attainment (the victory of obtaining condomless sex when the person may have originally consented only to sex-with-a-condom), in driving their sexual behaviour (Brewer & Abell, 2015, 2017). Furthermore, the deception involved in condom sabotage (i.e. removing or damaging the condom without the other person’s permission before or at any course during sexual intercourse), would align with Machiavellian’s tendency for avoiding confrontation. In such circumstances, deception and sabotage avoid the need for argument or manipulation altogether to attain the goal (Brewer et al., 2016). Finally, using physical threats and or force to obtain sex without a condom would fall under the self-serving motivator where the only goal is to achieve their desired feeling of sex without a condom (Brewer & Abell, 2015).

Narcissism and condom-use resistance

For moderate correlations with withholding sex, condom sabotage and physical threat, one explanation is that sexual narcissism could see a person view acts of sexual coercion and aggression as functional strategies to use, pursuant to their sense of entitlement to obtain the sexual gratification of sex without a condom. Acts of sabotaging a condom by intentionally damaging it, withholding sex from the partner as a weapon to obtain condomless sex, and using physical threat and even force to obtain sex are perhaps more aligned with what Millon et al. (2004) deemed the unprincipled narcissist. This combines the self-confidence and grandiosity of a regular narcissist with the more vindictive and antisocial personality patterns of a psychopath.

On the other hand, narcissism was also associated with the condom-use resistance subscales of threatening emotional consequences, of reassuring the victim that there is no risk of sexually transmissible infection or pregnancy and of deceiving a person into condomless sex. This could be explained by some narcissists’ tendency to exploit people and satisfy their erotic needs through the use of seduction, affection and deception, often masked as trying to meet the partner’s need for intimacy, connection, and exclusivity in a relationship.

Psychopathy and condom-use resistance

Given decades of research indicating higher psychopathy scores are present amongst criminal populations when compared to the general population (Hare et al., 1990, 1991), it is unsurprising that higher scores on psychopathy are correlated with higher scores on overall condom-use resistance and all 11 condom-use resistance subscales, which are all different conceptualisations of sexual violence. The seduction and direct request subscales may be captured by the superficial charm of someone high in psychopathy, who attempts to attain their goal by charming the person into consenting to condomless sex, whilst risk reward, reduced sensitivity, emotional consequences, relationship trust, arousal loss, withholding sex and deception subscales largely appear to be explained by the manipulativeness of someone high in psychopathy. Finally, the impulsivity and irresponsibility driven by a desire for short-term gain – that is, the perceived increased sensation involved in condomless sex – is likely to drive higher scores on condom sabotage and physical threat and or force subscales for those high in psychopathy. This aligns to previous research showing that offenders higher in psychopathy are more likely to have sexual paraphilias or engage in sexually violent acts than those lower in psychopathy (Hare et al., 2000; Woodworth et al., 2013).

Implications

Several clinical implications may be drawn from the results of the present study. When considering forms of sexual assault and sexual violence, identifying risk factors for engaging in stealthing behaviour is exceptionally important for reasons of assessment, detection and prevention. When working with clients in forensic, clinical or sub-clinical populations, identifying a client who is high in one or more DTP traits and or condom-use resistance, can inform us that the person is significantly more likely to be aroused by the idea of stealthing, have previously engaged in stealthing and have future intent to engage in stealthing. From this angle, specific clinical interviewing and risk management around a person’s arousal or intention to engage in stealthing behaviour, and if necessary psychological education and intervention through strategies to avoid an in-the-moment or impulsive response, could be vital in preventing the perpetration of non-consensual condom removal.

Limitations and future directions

Whilst the present study was able to extend upon the existing literature and incorporate a novel angle in investigating the relationship between individual DTP traits, non-consensual condom removal and condom-use resistance, there are some limitations of the study that have been identified as well as future directions for research.

Given a web-based, cross-sectional survey design, gathering 416 responses who met strict inclusion criteria was seen as a positive of this study, however with only 221 participant responses being included in data analysis due to incomplete, or inappropriate responses, a more robust recruitment protocol in future research could increase sample size and the overall standard of participant responses. Additionally, the authors may have been limited by using Amazon’s MTurk as the predominant method of participant recruitment, as MTurk sampling can result in inattentiveness and in some cases artificial responding through the use of computer scripts. Thus, the authors implemented a number of methods to ensure the sample was of high quality, for instance, the data was screened for inattentiveness by examining attention-check items, screened for invariability in responding, and for fast completion times (Meade & Craig, 2012).

Using the SD3 as brief measure of individual DTP traits was an appropriate and well-validated scale to use in the context of this novel research, however given the provision of research-specific scales, such as Widman & McNulty (2009) Sexual Narcissism Scale that explores narcissism as it occurs in the context of sexual situations, utilising the Sexual Narcissism Scale to see if differences exist on stealthing outcomes between general narcissism and sexual narcissism could be a future direction of research. Notwithstanding this, an important consideration of this study in being the first to broach this area was to start general and use it as a foundation for future research, so the SD3 was an effective tool for this approach and can now inform more specific measures to be included in the future.

The use of latent profile analysis, as seen by Davis et al. (2014), could be considered in future iterations of this research, to gain further insight into how specific DTP traits as well as other personality traits measured by the Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 (PID-5) can contribute to stealthing behaviour (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Another future direction could be the collection of data in a forensic population, and the use of longitudinal designs rather than cross-sectional. Overall, though, a web-based sample size of over 200 participants can still be viewed as a strength of the study, given that it was time and resource-limited in that it formed part of a Master of Clinical Psychology research thesis.

Conclusion

The present study sought to explore the relationship between non-consensual condom removal and DTP traits. Extending upon research that has shown a variety of predictive factors for condom-use resistance and non-consensual condom removal, the present study found that there were associations between all DTP traits and all types of condom-use resistance. Individuals who were aroused by stealthing scenarios and reported a behavioural history of stealthing scored significantly higher on all DTP traits compared to those who were not aroused or did not report a behavioural history of stealthing. Furthermore, psychopathy and narcissism were significant predictors of a person’s intention to engage in stealthing behaviour.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

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