Online-dating predators: Examining the relation between psychopathic and narcissistic personality traits and acceptance towards inappropriate sexual behavior in an
online-dating context _______________________ A Bachelor Project Presented to
The Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences Department of Psychology
University of Amsterdam ______________________
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree BSc Psychology
Track: Clinical Psychology _____________________
by Nadia Babke
Supervised by: J.W.B. (Jamie) Elsey MSc June, 2018
Keywords: Online-dating, narcissism, psychopathy, inappropriate sexual behavior, entitlement, coercion, harassment.
Online-dating predators: Examining the relation between psychopathic and narcissistic personality traits and acceptance towards inappropriate sexual behavior in an online dating
context.
Abstract
Recently, there has been an increase in the amount of sexual offences against women linked to online-dating applications. Therefore, it has been speculated that predators are misusing dating-apps to target their victims. Former research has found men with narcissistic and psychopathic personality traits to be more at-risk in engaging in physical and non-physical forms of inappropriate sexual behaviors. However, this relationship has never been
established in an online-dating context. Moreover, previous research predominantly focused on explicit and physical forms of sexual abuse, and overlooked subtler inappropriate sexual behaviors, like entitlement, coercion and harassment. Therefore, the current study examined if individuals with narcissistic and psychopathic personality traits showed higher acceptance towards subtle forms of inappropriate sexual behavior in an online dating context. Hereby, we also aimed at establishing potential differences between men and women. Participants were presented with scenarios describing men engaging in inappropriate sexual behaviors during conversations on the Tinder dating-app, as well as during face-to-face meetings. These behaviors were roughly divided into subtle forms of entitlement, coercion and harassment. Participants rated how morally acceptable they found these scenarios to be. Hereafter,
narcissism and psychopathy (Factor 1 and 2) levels were measured. Results showed that men with narcissistic personalities showed more acceptance towards inappropriate sexual
behaviors. Psychopathy was also associated with higher acceptability in men, whereby psychopathy Factor 1 (interpersonal manipulation & callous affect) was found mostly responsible for this relationship. For women, only narcissism and psychopathy Factor 2
(erratic lifestyle & criminal tendencies) were associated with higher acceptability towards inappropriate sexual dating scenarios. We found that the traits were less prevalent in women than in men. Moreover, results suggested that the relations between traits and acceptability were less robust in women than in men. Although further research should be conducted, we argue that our findings give preliminary support to the idea that men narcissistic and
psychopathic personality traits are more likely to behave inappropriately when using online-dating apps.
Introduction
Online-dating applications (apps), such as Tinder and Grindr, have become increasingly popular as they provide a convenient way for people to make romantic and sexual connections (Gillett, 2017). However, since the rise of online-dating apps, there has been an increase in sexual abuse cases, predominantly perpetrated by men (Gillet, 2017). In the United Kingdom, the National Crime Agency (NCA, 2016) conducted a large-scale investigation and found that serious sexual offenses linked to online dating apps have six-folded between 2009 and 2014, with 85% of the victims being female.
Although it cannot be assumed that the growth of online-dating app usage can explain the total increase in sexual abuse cases, concerns are raised regarding the potential risks that come with people connecting online. More specifically, it has been speculated that so-called
predators are misusing dating- apps so to easily target their victims (NCA, 2016), although
limited research on sexual predatory behavior in relation to online-dating has actually been conducted. However, in order to find effective measures to reduce the risks when using these platforms, it is important to shed light on the characteristics of people who would be more likely to engage in inappropriate sexual behavior. Therefore, the current research examined the relationship between personality traits that are commonly associated with predatory
behavior, specifically psychopathy and narcissism (Jonason, 2015), and inappropriate sexual
behavior in an online dating context.
1.1 Inappropriate sexual behavior
Within a dating context, it is common for people to encounter inappropriate sexual behavior, which can take on many forms (Vagi et al., 2015). In the offenses previously mentioned, cases involve various types of physical abuse, such as groping, forced oral sex and rape (NCA, 2016). After initially connecting online, these offences usually take place during first face-to-face meeting between offender and victim (NCA, 2016). In addition, non-physical forms of inappropriate sexual behavior include the expression of entitlement, coercion, and various forms of harassment (Benbouriche & Parent, 2018; Kovera & Cass, 2002; Zimmer-Gembeck, Laurenne & O’Sullivan, 2015). Expressing entitlement involves a person stating that they deserve sexual interaction because they have invested time and effort into the other person (Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2015), or because victims have been “asking for it” by behaving provocatively making the victim feel like they owe the other sexual favors (Vagi et al., 2015). Coercion describes using consistent pressure or enforcing strategies in order to obtain sex, despite clear evidence of refusal (Bouffard & Miller, 2014). Coercive behaviors include manipulation (making the victim feel guilty), using verbal aggression, persistent touching and intoxicating the victim (Benbouriche & Parent, 2018). Sexual harassment involves making repetitive unwanted sexual advances, which are expressed in behaviors like making obscene sexual remarks, unwanted touching or adding pressure for dates after refusal (Kovera & Cass, 2002). Although these instances are not often reported, it is common for people to experience expression of entitlement, coercion and harassment during online conversations (Gillett, 2018), as well as during face-to-face meetings (NCA, 2016).
The current research uses the term inappropriate sexual behavior to cover the wide range of behaviors mentioned above. There has been no official consensus regarding terminology that can encompass the variations of inappropriate sexual behaviors, although
sexual aggression or sexual abuse are often used as umbrella terms (Donde, Ragsdale &
Zucker, 2018). Physical forms, including rape, are easier to classify because there is more chance of physical evidence and these cases can be enforced by law (Donde et al., 2018; Moyano, Monge & Sierra, 2017). With expression of entitlement, coercion, and harassment, boundaries are less defined and leave room for interpretation. Recently, there has been a lot of discussion whether these subtler forms of inappropriate sexual behaviors should be classified as sexual abuse or sexual aggression (Benbouriche & Parent, 2018). Research has shown that entitlement, coercion and harassment can be severely damaging to a victim’s self-esteem and can lead to depression, anxiety and insomnia (Donde et al., 2018; Hlavka, 2014; Kovera & Cass, 2002). Moreover, studies have found that people who engage in subtle forms of inappropriate sexual behavior are more likely to commit more serious forms, including rape (Benbouriche & Parent, 2018; Moyano et al., 2017). In light of this, the current research shall focus on entitlement, coercion and harassment.
1.2 Psychopathic and narcissistic traits
Former research has shown that men with high levels of psychopathic and narcissistic traits have the tendency to act aggressively towards others (Jones & Neria, 2015), and are more likely to engage in both physical and non-physical forms of inappropriate sexual behavior (Bushman, Bonacci, Van Dijk & Bausmeister, 2003; Jonason, Gigis, Milne-Home, 2017). Psychopathy and narcissism can be viewed as personality traits lying on a spectrum and can take on both clinical and subclinical forms (Jones & Olderbak, 2014).
Following the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), psychopathy can be divided into two independent factors. Factor 1 encompasses interpersonal and affective dysfunctions (Boccaccini et al., 2017), that are characterized by callousness, superficial relations, manipulation, lack of guilt and shallow emotions (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Factor 2 includes antisocial and impulsive tendencies, which can result in instrumental aggression and criminal behavior (Boccaccini et al., 2017).
Psychopathy is considered the only trait to be strongly associated with instrumental or
predatory aggression (including sexual aggression), where violent behavior is controlled,
purposeful and can occur without direct provocation or emotional triggers (Glenn & Raine, 2009). Recent neuroimaging research has found that psychopathy is characterized by under-stimulation in multiple brain regions, most importantly the orbitofrontal cortex and amygdala, which play a large part in emotional learning and fear responses (Glenn & Raine, 2009). This can explain why people with psychopathic personalities often remain emotionally
unresponsive when confronted with negative emotional contexts and fear provoking stimuli (Anderson & Kiehl, 2011). Whereas individuals usually experience negative arousal when others are hurt, psychopaths are found to stay unaffected (Decety, Chen, Harenski & Kiehl, 2013) and studies have even found that individuals with psychopathic personalities take pleasure out of other people’s pain (Anderson & Kiehl, 2011). In addition, lack of fear-response is said to lead to impulsivity and thrill-seeking behavior. Impulsivity combined with antisocial tendencies and lack of affect towards others can lead to predatory aggression especially when there is a clear objective (Vize et al., 2016), in this case, a sexual encounter. Narcissism is also associated with aggression, but unlike psychopathy, this usually results from a reaction to ego threat (Widman & McNulty, 2010). Narcissistic personality traits can be characterized by a grandiose sense of self, overconfidence, self-centeredness and an exaggerated sense of entitlement (Hepper, Hart, Meek, Cisek & Sedikides, 2014).
Narcissists show a strong need for admiration and superiority, and research has suggested that this need stems from underlying self-esteem issues, whereby an inflated ego is a means to overcompensate for actual insecurities (Zhang, Yun, Yimeng, Runzhu & Zhenhong, 2017). This can explain why people with narcissistic personalities are found to have a stronger emotional reaction to interpersonal rejection (Bushman et al., 2003). Moreover, a strong sense of superiority results in the idea that they are more deserving than others, which is why narcissist react more intensely when their sense of entitlement is questioned (Baumeister, Cantanese & Wallace, 2002). Therefore, when their self-view is challenged or when they are denied something they feel entitled to (as when sexual advances are rejected), narcissistic people can react forcefully or aggressively (Bushman et al., 2003).
Although both traits differ in onset towards aggression, narcissism and psychopathy do share common factors which are relevant in specifically predicting aggressive or
inappropriate sexual behavior, including forms of entitlement, coercion, and harassment (Jones & Olderbak, 2014; Zeigler- Hill, Enjaian & Essa, 2013).
First, both traits have been associated with low empathy towards victims of sexual assault (Ali et al., 2009; Jonason et al., 2017). For instance, Jonason and colleagues (2017) conducted a study in which they examined the association between narcissism and
psychopathy and rape-enabling attitudes. They found that men with psychopathic and narcissistic traits showed lower empathy towards victims of rape than men who did not possess these traits.
Secondly, men with psychopathic or narcissistic personality traits have shown to take on exploitative mating strategies (Jonason, Norman, Webster & Schmitt, 2008), which are tactics to obtain sexual relations with an (initially) unwilling partner, including using deception, manipulation, emotional blackmail and superficial charm (Buss, 2009). It is important to note that these strategies differ from inappropriate sexual behavior, because they
are enforced before explicit refusal. Exploitative mating strategies are often viewed as undesirable and maladaptive on an interpersonal or broader social level, but it has been argued that they might also be adaptive in terms of personal gain (Lyons, Marcinkowska, Helle & McGratch, 2014). According to an evolutionary explanatory model of narcissism and psychopathy, these traits exist because symptoms like showing disregard for others
(psychopathy) and having an inflated ego (narcissism) make it possible to take on these exploitative strategies, whereby short-term sexual relations are facilitated (Buss, 2009; Zeigler- Hill et al., 2013). In turn, high quantities of sexual partners can increase men’s chances of reproduction, making these mating tactics effective for the individual (Buss, 2009).
This model has been empirically supported by multiple studies, including Jonason, and colleagues (2008), who found that men who show narcissistic or psychopathic traits are more likely to use manipulation and deception in order to obtain sex in a dating context than men who do not show these traits, reflecting exploitative dating techniques. Jonason, Lyons and Blanchard (2015) have shown that both narcissism and psychopathy are related to a higher number of short-term sexual partners, which, in theory, would enhance their chance of reproduction and survival.
However beneficial on a personal level, combined with low empathy mentioned above, exploitative mating strategies have been found to easily turn into physical and non-physical forms of inappropriate sexual behavior, especially in case of rejection (Palmer, 1991; Zeigler- Hill et al., 2014). Widman and McNulty (2010) argue exploitative tendencies make people with narcissistic and psychopathic traits act forcefully when they feel the desire to engage in sexual relations, while low-empathy enables them to overlook the fact that they are hurting the receiver. Indeed, various studies have found that people with high levels of narcissism and psychopathy are at high risk for engaging in serious forms of sexual
aggression (Baumeister et al., 2002; Furnman, Richards & Paulhus, 2013). For instance, Hepper, Hart, Meek and Sedikides (2014) found that men with narcissistic traits showed more acceptance towards rape myths, where acceptance towards rape myths reflects false attitudes or beliefs held about various forms of inappropriate sexual behavior that deny, minimize or blame the victim for their victimization (Hayes, Lorenz & Bell, 2013). Moreover, Baumeister and colleagues (2002) conducted an experiment in which men who showed high levels of narcissism were sexually rejected by a female. After being rejected, these men behaved aggressively towards the person who had rejected them.
Psychopathy was also associated with high acceptance towards rape myths in a study by O’Connell and Marcus (2016). Moreover, men with psychopathic traits have been found to engage in sexual coercion (Jonason, 2015), and are more likely to report using physical force in order to make others participate in unwanted sexual interactions (Malamuth, 2003, quoted from Zeigler- Hill et al., 2013).
In the light of this research, it has been theorized that the increase in sexual offences related to dating apps might be due to the fact that dating apps are facilitating men with these at-risk personality traits to enforce exploitative mating strategies, in that it is easier to groom and deceive a large number of potential dating partners (NCA, 2016). Indeed, research has shown that in many of the sexual assault cases related to online dating, offenders have been pressuring victims into meeting them sooner than they would initially like (Gillett, 2018), and have been manipulating women into meeting them in private instead of public settings (NCA, 2016). These manipulations happen online, thereby making it harder for victims to pick up on non-verbal signs and judge whether these men are being deceptive (Gillett, 2018). Moreover, the initial anonymity that comes with people connecting online, has been found to promote sexual explicit conversation during in-app conversations, thereby increasing expectations and sense of sexual entitlement when meeting face-to-face (Hayes & Dragiewicz, 2018). When
sexual advances are rejected inappropriate sexual behavior is more likely to occur. In research referenced above, risk of sexual inappropriate behavior is commonly examined by measuring acceptance towards rape myths, because it is near impossible to otherwise conduct large-scale research with a sample of actual sexual offenders (Hayes et al., 2013). Rape myth acceptance score has been shown to predict problematic sexual attitudes (O’Donohue et al., 2003) and actual perpetration of sexual assault (including rape)
(Benbouriche & Parent, 2018). In light of this, measuring the acceptance of rape myths seems to be an effective way for researching tendencies towards inappropriate sexual behavior. However, the scales that have been used till now seem outdated in the current social climate. Lately, there has been greater awareness regarding physical and non-physical forms of inappropriate sexual behavior against women and many of the rape myths that were previously used are now openly frowned upon. Because men are more aware of what is deemed social acceptable behavior, former rape myths are more likely to elicit socially desirable answers (Reitz-Krueger, Mummert & Troupe, 2017). Moreover, former rape myths do not cover online forms of sexual inappropriate dating behavior. Because communication more often happens online (Hayes & Dragiewicz, 2018), especially in the current dating scene, it is important to reflect this form of communication when researching inappropriate sexual behaviors. Therefore, research methods should focus on measuring more subtle forms of inappropriate sexual behavior, which reflect the current dating climate and are at minimal risk of enabling socially desirable answer tendencies.
Moreover, women are usually excluded from the type research mentioned above. This can be expected seeing as women are far less likely to engage in inappropriate sexual
behavior (Jonason et al., 2017), and are also less likely to possess psychopathic and narcissistic traits (Jones & Olderbak, 2014). These findings support the evolutionary explanatory model mentioned above, seeing as women would not benefit from exploitative
mating strategies and short-term relationships in the same way men do (Jonason et al., 2008). However, differences between men and women in acceptance towards inappropriate dating behavior have not yet been established in a modern dating setting.
1.3 The current research
Therefore, this study presented men and women with different scenarios describing inappropriate sexual behavior in an online dating context. The scenarios were divided into entitlement, coercion and harassment, each of which had a scenario describing an in-app conversation as well as an in-person interaction. The scenarios were presented in a third-person narrative, because we believed that a certain amount of detachment would result in more honest responses than when rape myths are presented in a first-person narrative (as has been the case in former research). Each scenario described a man behaving inappropriately towards a woman. Moreover, in each scenario, the woman gives a clear refusal to the man’s sexual advances, so there was no confusion as to whether sexual advances were being rejected.
With these scenarios, our main aim was to examine whether individuals who showed high levels of narcissism and psychopathy were more acceptant towards the different forms of inappropriate sexual behaviors in an online dating context. It was expected that individuals who showed high levels of narcissism and psychopathy were more accepting towards both online and in-person inappropriate sexual behaviors than individuals who did not show these personality traits (1).
Hereby, we looked at differences between men and women and level of acceptance, as well as differences in the prevalence of both traits. We also examined if the association between the personality traits and acceptance towards inappropriate sexual behaviors was different in men and women. It was expected that, in general, women would show less
acceptance towards forms of inappropriate sexual behavior than men, seeing as women are less likely to engage in these behaviors (2.1.). Moreover, according to the evolutionary explanatory model psychopathic and narcissistic traits would be less prevalent for women. Therefore, we expected that women would display lower levels of both psychopathic and narcissistic traits (2.2). We also assumed that the association between narcissism and psychopathy and acceptability would be less strong in women than in men (2.3).
2. Methods
2.1 Participants
Participants (N=260) were recruited via Facebook and through the online research lab of the University of Amsterdam (UvA). One hundred and four participants were excluded from analyses, because they had either failed the attention check, had never used Tinder before or had indicated to have a non-heterosexual orientation. Therefore, the final sample for analyses was 156 (115 female, 41 male). Participants ranged from 18-38, with an average age of 21 (SD = 2.23). Participants who conducted the study via the UvA received research credit in exchange for their participation. All procedures were approved by The Ethical Review Board of the UvA.
2.2 Measures
2.2.1. Acceptance inappropriate sexual behavior
To measure the acceptance towards inappropriate sexual behavior, the researchers created a total of 10 scenarios describing men and women in either an app (online), or in-person dating situation. A total of 6 scenarios described situations wherein expression of entitlement, coercion or harassment occurred. Each form of inappropriate dating behavior had an online and an in-person version (see Appendix A). The other 4 scenarios described
non-inappropriate dating behaviors and were used as control. Using a digital slider, participants rated how morally acceptable they found the behavior described in each scenario, ranging from completely unacceptable (-50) to completely acceptable (50). The scores for the separate scenarios were averaged together to create a general score for acceptability of inappropriate sexual behavior.
2.2.2. Psychopathy
To measure psychopathy, the Dutch Self Report Psychopathy Scale Short Form (SRP-III-SF) was used. The original survey was created by Levenson, Kiehl & Fitzpatrick (1995) and has found to be successful in assessing psychopathy traits in non-clinical samples (Paulhus et al, 2015). It measures psychopathy on a two-factor system. The Dutch version consists of 28 items. Factor 1 consists of the facets Interpersonal Manipulation (facet 1) and Callous Affect (facet 2), while Factor 2 consists of the facets Erratic Lifestyle (facet 3) and Criminal Tendencies (facet 4). Items are scored on a 5-point Likert Scale, ranging from 1= completely disagree to 5 = completely agree. Items include: “For me, what's right is whatever I can get away with”. The total scale has been validated with an internal consistency of α=.90 (Elsey, 2016). The subscales also show a satisfactory Cronbach’s alpha when assessed
separately: Factor 1 psychopathy = .85, Factor 2 psychopathy = .81.
2.2.3. Narcissism
Participants filled in a translated version of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory – 16 (NPI-16), developed by Ames, Rose and Anderson (2005). This is a short measure for
narcissistic traits in a non-clinical population. The survey consists of 16 items, that are drawn from Raskin and Terry’s (1988) NPI-40. Each item consists of two statements and
scored 0 and one 1. The overall score is calculated by the mean and a higher score means a higher narcissism score. Items include: I think I am a special person, and, I like to be the
center of attention. The survey has shown sufficient internal, discriminant and predictive
validity ( = .72) (Ames et al., 2005).
2.2.4. Tinder usage
To ensure that participants had familiarity with Tinder, items were added to ask about usage. Participants were asked if they were currently active on Tinder or whether they had been in the past. Items also covered the amount of time spent on Tinder, ranging from “once or twice” to “everyday”.
Two additional items were added to gain insight into dating behaviors related to dating app usage. Participants were asked if they had ever met anyone they connected with on Tinder, and if they ever had sex with someone they had met through a dating-app.
2.3 Procedure
Participants were able to fill in the online-questionnaire by themselves. First, the participants were presented with a broad explanation about the overall study, privacy and the procedure. Instructions were given to assess the scenarios in terms of moral acceptance, and not in terms of the likelihood that the participant would actually engage in these behaviors. Then, the 10 scenarios were presented in random order. After assessing acceptance towards inappropriate sexual behavior, both psychopathic and narcissistic personality traits were measured. Lastly, participants were asked about their Tinder usage and demographical details (age, gender, orientation).
After checking if the attention checks had been passed, students of the UvA were given .5 research point for participating in the study.
3. Results
After exclusions, the final sample consisted of 156 participants (115 female, 41 male). There were no outliers in our sample.
To see whether acceptance towards inappropriate sexual behavior was actually measured, we tested if acceptance towards test-scenarios differed from acceptance towards control-scenarios. A Paired-sample t-test showed that the total average acceptance towards the inappropriate dating scenarios was lower (M = -215.54, SD = 77.24) than the total average acceptance towards the control-scenarios (M = 101.92, SD = 48.35). This difference was significant, with t(156) = - 44.28, p < .001. However, the assumption of normality was not met, because the Shapiro-Wilks showed significance for the inappropriate dating scenarios (p = .002) and the control-scenarios (p = .013). To make up for the violation of normality, the non-parametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test was conducted, which still gave significant result for the difference between the inappropriate and controlscenarios (Z = -10.87, p < .001).
After checking the manipulation, we conducted multiple Independent- t-tests to examine potential differences between men and women in acceptance towards the scenarios and levels of both personality traits. Because equal variance could not be assumed, we hereby reported the un-pooled variances (which corrects for un-equality within samples). Results showed that there was no difference between acceptance towards inappropriate dating scenarios (t(154) = 1.25, p = .213). There was also no difference between men and women when looking at acceptance towards entitlement, coercion and harassment separately. Hence, we did not find support for our prediction that men would show higher acceptability of inappropriate sexual behaviors than women.
As expected, women showed lower levels of overall psychopathy (M = 46.57, SD = 10.09) than men (M = 60.59, SD = 13.56). This difference was significant, with t(56.56) = 6.05, p < .001. There was also a significant difference in narcissism scores between men (M = 6.44, SD = 3.60) and women (M = 3.88, SD = 2.81). Women showed lower narcissism scores than men (t(58.356) = 4.13, p < .001).
Seeing as there was a difference between men and women in the prevalence of narcissism and psychopathic traits and it was expected that the relationship between trait and acceptance would differ between sexes, correlation and regression analyses used to examine relation between traits and acceptance were run separately. In order to correct for non-normally distributed data, analyses were run using a 1000 sample bootstrap in SPSS. This also adds robustness to results, by giving bias corrected 95% confidence intervals for each analysis (Field, 2009).
For correlation analyses, significance levels were assessed one-tailed, because there was a clear prediction that both psychopathy and narcissism would be positively correlated with acceptance towards scenarios. Pearson correlation coefficients as well as non-
parametric Spearman’s rho were used to examine relationships amongst the study variables. As expected, Spearman’s rho showed total psychopathy to be positively correlated with higher acceptance towards overall inappropriate dating scenarios for men (rs = .286, p = .035) (see table 1). When differentiating between the two factors of psychopathy,
Psychopathy Factor 1 (Interpersonal Manipulation and Callous Effect) was associated with higher acceptability for men (rs = .329, p = .018), while Psychopathy Factor 2 (Erratic Lifestyle and Criminal Tendencies) showed no relation with acceptance towards inappropriate dating scenarios (rs = .21, p= .098). For women, there was no association
between overall psychopathy and acceptance towards inappropriate dating scenarios (rs = .10,
between Psychopathy Factor 2 (rs = .228, p = .007), but there was no association between Psychopathy Factor 1 and acceptance towards inappropriate dating scenarios (rs = .027, p = .386).
Narcissism was associated with higher acceptance towards inappropriate dating scenarios for both men (rs = .338, p =.015) and women (rs = .157, p =.047).
When differentiating between the different types of inappropriate dating scenarios, men displayed the strongest association between overall psychopathy and entitlement
scenarios (rs =.278, p= .039), but showed no association between the coercion (rs = .233, p = .071) and harassment scenarios (rs = .211, p =. 093). Psychopathy Factor 1 was related to higher acceptance towards both entitlement (rs = .278, p =.039) and coercion scenarios (rs = .296, p=.030), while Psychopathy Factor 2 showed no association when looking at the behaviors individually (all p < .087). For women, overall psychopathy showed no
associations with the individual dating behaviors (all p < .232). However, psychopathy Factor 2 showed an association between acceptance towards harassment scenarios (rs = .251, p = .003).
For men, narcissism was related to higher acceptance towards entitlement (rs = .26, p = .050) and harassment scenarios (rs = .31, p = .025), but not for the coercion scenarios (rs = .215, p = .088). For women, narcissism was only associated with higher acceptance towards entitlement scenarios (rs = .158, p = .046), but not with the coercion and harassment scenarios (all p < .117).
Table 1. Associations between acceptance towards sexually inappropriate dating behavior
and psychopathic and narcissistic traits in men (n=41)
Sexually inappropriate behavior (total) = entitlement, coercion and harassment taken together; Entitlement = entitlement scenarios app and person; Coercion = coercion scenarios app and person; Harassment = harassment scenarios in-app and in-person; NPI_16 = Narcissistic Personality Inventory -16 all items; SRP Total = Self report psychopathy scale III short form all items; SRP 1 = Interpersonal manipulation and callous effect items; SRP 2 = Erratic lifestyle and criminal tendencies items; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval. All p values are presented one-tailed.
Table 2. Associations between acceptance towards sexually inappropriate dating behavior
and psychopathic and narcissistic traits in women (n=115)
Sexually inappropriate behavior (total) = entitlement, coercion and harassment taken together; Entitlement = entitlement scenarios app and person; Coercion = coercion scenarios app and person; Harassment = harassment scenarios in-app and in-person; NPI_16 = Narcissistic Personality Inventory -16 all items; SRP Total = Self report psychopathy scale III short form all items; SRP 1 = Interpersonal manipulation and callous effect items; SRP 2 = Erratic lifestyle and criminal tendencies items; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval. All p values are presented one-tailed.
Sexually inappropriate
behavior (total) Entitlement Coercion Harassment r [95% CI] p r [95% CI] p r [95% CI] p r [95% CI] p NPI_16 Pearson's r .35 [.03-.62] <.05 .23 [-.05-.48] .072 .26 [-.04-.53] <.05 .32 [.00-.59] <.05 Spearman's r .34 [.00-.58] <.05 .26 [-.10-.51] .050 .22 [-.12-.53] .088 .31 [-.03-.58] <.05 SRP Total Pearson's r .36 [.01-.64] <.05 .32 [-.01-.58] <.05 .18 [-.10-.49] .129 .33 [-.05-.60] <.05 Spearman's r .29 [-.06-.58] <.05 .26 [-.11-.60] <.05 .23 [-.90-.52] .071 .21 [-.12-.52] .093 SRP 1 Pearson's r .36 [.05-.61] <.01 .35 [.04-.58] <.05 .23 [-.02-.52] .072 .27 [-.05-.54] <.05 Spearman's r .33[-.00-.57] <.05 .28[-.09-.55] <.05 .30 [-.00-.55] <.05 .24 [-.10-.53] .069 SRP 2 Pearson's r .29 [-.08-.60] <.05 .23 [-.11-.52] .077 .07 [-.23-.44] .322 .35 [.02-.64] <.05 Spearman's r .20 [-.13-.52] .098 .17 [-.18-.48] .148 .14[-.19-.43] .201 .22 [-.11-.53] .086 Sexually inappropriate
behavior (total) Entitlement Coercion Harassment r [95% CI] p r [95% CI] p r [95% CI] p r [95% CI] p NPI_16 Pearson's r .18 [-.00-.35] <.05 .17 [-.01-.34] <.05 .12 [-.10-.33] .093 .13 [-.03-.31] .080 Spearman's r .16 [-.03-.34] <.05 .16 [-.03-.34] <.05 .05 [-.14-.22] <.332 .11 [-.06-.30] .117 SRP Total Pearson's r .12 [-.07-.29] .097 .04 [-.12-.22] .331 .18 [-.10-.43] <.05 .07 [-.10-.24] .240 Spearman's r .10 [-.10-.28] .157 .07 [-.12-.25] .240 .05 [-.13-.25] .283 .07 [-.13-.26] .233 SRP 1 Pearson's r .03 [-.14-.21] .360 -01[-.17-.15] .439 .11 [-.14-.37] .115 -.03 [-.20-.14] .382 Spearman's r .03 [-.16-.20] .386 .02 [-.17-.21] .411 .03 [-.16-.21] .381 -.02 [-.23-.18] .406 SRP 2 Pearson's r .28 [.05-.38] <.01 .10 [-.09-.29] .151 .25 [-.02-.47] <.01 .20 [.05-.37] <.05 Spearman's r .29 [.04-.41] <.01 .13 [-.06-.30] .082 .13[-.05-.32] .076 .25 [.07-.44] <.01
After establishing the relationships between the narcissism and psychopathy and acceptance towards inappropriate sexual dating scenarios, we conducted multiple regression analyses to determine if narcissism and psychopathy were also able to significantly predict men and women’s acceptability.
For men, the correlation analyses indicated that acceptability was most strongly correlated with narcissism. Therefore, we first created a regression model with narcissism as the independent variable and acceptance of inappropriate dating scenarios as the dependent variable, and then added two additional variables, psychopathy Factor 1 and 2, into the model to investigate if these traits increased the predictive power of the model. The regression analyses demonstrated that, for men, narcissism significantly predicted acceptability (F(1,39) = 5.35, p = .026), explaining 12.1% of the variance in acceptance towards inappropriate sexual dating scenarios. This is considered a small effect (Wuensch, 2015). After adding both factors of psychopathy to the model, the multiple regression analysis established that
psychopathy and narcissism together significantly predicted acceptability in men (F(2,38) = 3.96, p = .027), explaining 17.2% of the variance in acceptance towards inappropriate dating scenarios, which is viewed as a medium effect (Wuensch, 2015). However, the model with both traits did not add significant predictive power compared to the model with only narcissism, Fchange(1,38) = 2.38, p = .131. Moreover, in the model with both traits, the predictor for narcissism was not significant (β = 4.99, p = .183) and psychopathy Factor 1 (β = 2.13, p = .360) and psychopathy Factor 2 (β = .73, p = .779) were also unable to predict higher acceptance towards the dating scenarios.
It should be noted that the lack of significant predictors in the model containing all traits was probably due to the fact that the traits were all highly correlated with one another. In multiple regression analysis, each t-test can only show an individual predictor’s
Therefore, when all predictors are correlated, they reduce each other’s significance (Field, 2009).
For women, correlations indicated that psychopathy Factor 2 showed the strongest association with acceptance towards inappropriate dating scenarios. Therefore, we first assessed a model with psychopathy Factor 2 and then added narcissism and psychopathy Factor 1 to explore whether the traits added predictive power towards acceptability. Results indicated that the model with psychopathy Factor 2 could significantly predict acceptance (F(1,113) = 6.19, p = .015), and that the model explained 4.3% of the variation in acceptance towards inappropriate dating scenarios. This is a small effect (Wuensch, 2015). When adding narcissism and psychopathy Factor 1, the regression showed that the model including all traits could not predict acceptability (F(2,112) = 2.11, p = .126), with the model explaining 3,6% of the variance. This model did not add predictive power to the model with only psychopathy Factor 2, with Fchange(2,111) = 2.11, p = .125. Moreover, only psychopathy Factor 2 was able to individually predict higher acceptance towards the dating scenarios (β = 3.66, p = .010). Psychopathy factor 1 did not predict higher acceptance towards inappropriate dating scenarios (β = -1.69, p = .137), nor did narcissism (β = 3.34, p = .108). Again, traits were highly correlated, making significance of individual traits unlikely in a multiple regression model (Field, 2009).
Lastly, the Fisher R-to-Z Transformation test was used to see if there were significant differences between men and women in the strength of relationship between traits and
acceptance towards inappropriate dating scenarios. For total psychopathy, the strength of relation did not differ significantly for men compared to women (Z = 1.06, =.145). However, for psychopathy Factor 1, men showed a significantly higher association with acceptance towards inappropriate dating scenarios than women, (Z = 1.68, p = .047). There was no significant difference between men and women in the strength of relation between
psychopathy Factor 2 and acceptance towards inappropriate dating scenarios (Z = 0.06, p = .476). Although men showed a stronger relation between narcissism and acceptance than women (Z = 1.03, p = .152), this difference was not significant.
4. Conclusion
This study examined the relationship between narcissistic and psychopathic traits and acceptance towards entitlement, coercion and harassment in an online dating context. Results demonstrated that for men, both narcissism and psychopathy were associated with acceptance towards inappropriate sexual behaviors. Moreover, when taken together, these traits were not only associated with, but also predictive of, higher acceptance of inappropriate sexual
behaviors in men. When differentiating between the two factors of psychopathy, it was found that Factor 1 (interpersonal manipulation and callous effect) was associated with higher acceptance in men, whereas Factor 2 (erratic lifestyle and criminal behavior) was not. For women, narcissism was associated with higher acceptance, but total psychopathy was not. Women showed opposite relations to both factors of psychopathy, where only Factor 2 was associated with more acceptance towards inappropriate sexual behaviors, and Factor 1 was not. When both narcissism and psychopathic traits were taken together, they were unable to predict higher acceptance in women. With these findings, our main hypothesis, which stated that narcissism and psychopathy were related to higher acceptance towards inappropriate sexual behaviors, has been supported for men (1). For women, the hypothesis has only been partly supported, seeing as overall psychopathy was not related to acceptability and that the traits showed no predictive power.
As expected, results further showed that men were more likely to display
psychopathic and narcissistic traits than women (2.2). However, overall, women and men showed similar acceptance towards inappropriate sexual behaviors, which does not support
our hypothesis (2.1). However, we assumed that only men with high levels of narcissism and psychopathy would differ in acceptance compared to women. The acquired data consisted of a non-clinical population, predominantly college students, whereby the overall prevalence of the traits was low. The proportion of men scoring high on narcissism and psychopathy was probably was probably not large enough to establish a difference in acceptability between the sexes when looking at the entire sample. Moreover, participants were asked whether they found the scenarios to be morally acceptable, and not how likely it would be for them to actually engage in behaviors described in the scenarios. Therefore, men might realize that the behaviors described were morally wrong, yet still rate themselves to be able to engage in the inappropriate sexual behaviors when trying to obtain sex.
Results did suggest a difference between the sexes regarding the strength of
correlations between both traits and acceptance (2.3). Overall, there was a trend indicating that narcissistic and psychopathic traits were more strongly and consistently associated with acceptability in men. However, the differences between correlations were mostly not
significant, except for the association between psychopathy Factor 1 (interpersonal
manipulation/ callous affect) and acceptability, which was significantly stronger in men than in women. Lack of significance in differences between the correlations might be explained by the large uneven sample sizes (114 women, 41 men). Seeing as the sample size of men was small, results of the comparison are less certain. Therefore, future research should try and increase the precision of the estimate of the relationship in men, by using equal sample sizes with sufficient participants in each group (for example: 100 men and 100 women).
The main results are in line with research by Hepper and colleagues (2014) who found that men with narcissistic traits showed more acceptance towards rape myths, and research by O’Connell and Marcus (2016) who found that psychopathic personality traits predicted positive attitudes towards sexually predatory behavior. This research added to the
latter by differentiating between the different factors of psychopathy. The present findings suggest that the relationship between psychopathy and inappropriate sexual behaviors in men is mainly due to psychopathy Factor 1, which encompasses interpersonal symptoms like callous affect and interpersonal manipulation. This finding adds support to the theoretical framework of Zeigler- Hill and colleges (2013), who propose that men who display exploitative mating strategies (including manipulation methods) combined with under-emotionality regarding others (callous affect) are more likely to engage in sexual aggression when rejection occurs.
Interestingly, women showed opposite relations regarding the different factors op psychopathy. Although prior research has often excluded women, we found psychopathy Factor 2 to be a clear predictor for higher acceptance towards inappropriate sexual behaviors. Psychopathy Factor 2 reflects antisocial tendencies, including criminal behavior. This finding suggests that women who engage in antisocial behaviors, are also more accepting of other individuals behaving in an antisocial manner, or in this case, engaging in inappropriate sexual behaviors.
The current research has established relationships narcissism and psychopathy and inappropriate sexual behavior while using updated, and more subtle forms, of rape myths, reflecting the current social climate. Past studies, including research by Hayes and colleagues (2013) and Jonason & colleagues (2017), have found similar associations with more explicit forms of rape myths. By using scenarios with subtle forms of entitlement, coercion and harassment, this study has added robustness to the previously established relationship
between traits and acceptance towards inappropriate sexual behaviors. This also suggests that these behaviors lie on a spectrum (Gillet, 2017), which is in line with prior research by Moyano and colleagues (2017), who demonstrated that subtle forms of inappropriate sexual behavior are predictive of more serious forms. More importantly, associations were found
using scenarios related to online- dating apps, a context wherein inappropriate sexual behavior had not been formally researched before.
However, a limitation of the current research is that the scenarios that were
constructed to test different forms of inappropriate sexual behavior have not been formally validated. Therefore, internal and external consistency cannot be assumed. However, the experimental scenarios showed a large difference in acceptance compared to the control scenarios, indicating that, taken together, inappropriate sexual behavior was sufficiently measured for the purposes of this study. Future research should focus on developing validated measures to research rape myths connected to online dating.
This study established a relationship between personality traits that fit the profile of a predator and acceptance towards inappropriate sexual behavior both during in-app
conversation and during face-to-face meetings. This gives preliminary support for the idea that individuals (especially men) with narcissistic and psychopathic personalities are more at-risk of behaving inappropriately in an online dating context. Follow-up research is necessary to fully understand and establish the extent of the potential risk of these traits for
inappropriate sexual behavior. Furthermore, to gain more specific insight into the nature of inappropriate sexual behaviors related to online dating apps, further research could examine potential differences between acceptance towards these behaviors during in-app
conversations and face-to-face meetings.
Research should also evaluate practical measures to reduce the chances of sexual offences related to online-dating. For instance, users could be provided with information on how to signal predatory methods like grooming and manipulation during in-app conversation. Moreover, official safety guidelines for face-to-face encounters should be made more readily available in order to protect current and future users of online dating-apps.
References
Ali, F.I.S. & Camorro-Premuzic, T. (2009). Empathy deficits and trait emotional intelligence in psychopathy and Machiavellianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 758-762.
Ames, D.R., Rose, P. & Anderson, C.P. (2005). The NPI-16 as a short measure of narcissism. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 440-450. DOI:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.03.002
Anderson, N. E. & Kiehl, K. A. (2011). The psychopath magnetized: Insights from brain imaging. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(1), 52–60. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.11.008 Baumeister, R.F., Cantanese, K.R. & Wallace, H.M. (2002). Conquest by force: A
narcissistic reactance theory of rape and sexual coercion. Review of General
Psychology, 6(1), 92-135. DOI: 10.1037/1089-2680.6.1.92
Benbouriche, M. & Parent, G. (2018). Sexual coercion: Thinking and understanding sexual violence beyond sexual offenders. Sexologies: European Journal of Sexology and
Sexual Health, 27(2), 15-19. DOI: 10.1016/2018.02.001
Blair, R.J.R. (2001). Neurocognitive models of aggression, the antisocial personality disorders, and psychopathy. J Neural Psychiatry, 71(3), 727-731.
Boccaccini, M.T., Chevalier, C.S., Murrie,D. & Varela, J.G., (2017). Psychopathy Checklist- Revised use and reporting practices in sexually violent predator evaluations. Sexual
Abuse, 29(6), 592-614. DOI: 10.1177/1079063215612443.
Bouffard, J.A. & Miller, H.A. (2014). The role of sexual arousal and over perception of sexual intent within the decision to engage in sexual coercion. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 29(11), 1967-1986. DOI: 10.1177/0886260513515950
Buss, D.M. (2009). How can evolutionary psychology explain personality and individual differences? Perspetives of Psychological Sience, 4, 670-682.
Bushman, B.J., Bonacci, A.M., van Dijk, M. & Baumeister, R.F. (2003). Narcissism, sexual refusal, and aggression: Testing a narcissistic reactance model of sexual coercion.
Journal of Psychology and Social Psychology, 84(5), 1207-1040.
Decety, J., Chen, C., Harenski, C. & Kiehl, K. (2013). An fMRI study of affective
perspective taking in individuals with psychopathy: imagining another in pain does not evoke empathy. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 2-7.
DOI: 10.1016/2011.11.008
Donde, S.D., Ragsdale, S. K. A., Koss, M.P. & Zucker, A.N. (2018). Was it sexual assault? Comparing rape and sexual assault in college women who have experienced rape. Violence Against Women, 21(1), 3-21. DOI: 10.1016/2016.06.001
Elsey, J. (2017). Are utilitarians selfish psychopaths? The continued mismeasure of morals in hypothetical dilemmas.
Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London, England : SAGE.
Furnham, A., Richards, S.C. & Paulhus, D.L. (2013) The Dark Triad of personality: A 10 year review. Social and Personality Compass, 7(3), 199-216.
DOI: 10.1111/spc3.12018
Gillet, R. (2018). Intimate intrusions online: Studying the normalization of abuse in dating apps. Women’s Studies International Forum, 69(2), 15-23.
Glenn, A.L., Raine, A. (2009). Psychopathy and instrumental aggression: Evolutionary, neurobiological, and legal perspectives. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry,
32(4), 253-258. DOI: 10.1016/2009.04.002
Hayes, M.R. & Dragiewicz, M. (2018). Unsolicited dick pics: Erotica, exhibitionism or entitlement? Women’s Studies International Forum, 69(2), 52-60.
Hayes, R.M, Lorenz, K. & Bell, K. (2013). Victim blaming others: Rape myth acceptance and the just world belief. Feminist Criminology, 8(3), 202-220.
DOI: 10.1177/1557085113484788
Hepper, E., Hart, C., Meek, R., Cisek, S. & Sedikides, C. (2014). Narcissism and empathy in young offenders and non-offenders. European Journal of Personality, 28(2), 201– 210. DOI: 10.1002/per.1939
Hlavka, H.R. (2014). Normalizing sexual violence: Young women account for harassment and abuse. Gender & Society, 28(3), 337-358. DOI: 10.1177/0891243214526468 Jonason, P.K. (2015). An evolutionary perspective on interpersonal violence: Sex differences and personality links. In M. DeLisi & M. G. Vaugh (Eds.), International handbook of
biosocial criminology (pp. 32–45). New York, NY: Routledge.
Jonason, P.K., Girgis, M. & Milne-Home, J. (2017). The exploitive mating strategy of the dark triad traits: Test of rape-enabling attitudes. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(3), 697-706. DOI: 10.1007/s10508-017-0937-1
Jonason, P.K., Lyons, M., Blanchard, A. (2015). Birds of a “bad” feather flock together: The Dark Triad and mate choice. Personality and Individual Differences, 78, 34-38. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.01.018
Jonason, P.K., Norman, P., Webster, G.D. & Schmitt, D.P. (2008). The dark triad:
Facilitating a short- term mating strategy in men. European Journal of Personality,
23(1), 5-18. DOI: 10.1002/per.698
Jones, D.N. & Neria, A.L. (2015). The dark triad dispositional aggression. Personality and
Individual Differences, 86, 360-364. DOI: 10.1016/2015.06.021
Jones, D.N. & Paulhus, D.L. (2010). Different provocations trigger aggression in narcissists and psychopaths. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1(1), 12-18.
Jones, D.N., & Paulhus, D.L. (2011). The role of impulsivity in the Dark Triad of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 670-682.
Jones, D. & Olderbak, S. (2014). The associations among dark personalities and sexual tactics across different scenarios. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 1050–1070. Kovera, M.B. & Cass, S.A. (2002). Compelled mental health examinations, liability
decisions, and damage awards in sexual harassment cases: issues for jury research.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8(1), 98-114. DOI: 10.1037/1076-8971.8.1.96
Lyons, M.T., Marcinkowska, U.M., Helle, S. & McGrath, L. (2014). Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is the most masculine of them all? The dark triad, masculinity, and women’s mate choice. Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 153-158. DOI: 10.1016/ 2014.10.020 0191-8869
Moyano, N., Monge, F.S. & Sierra, J.C. (2017). Predictors of sexual aggression in
adolescents: Gender dominance vs. rape supportive attitudes. The European journal
of psychology applied to legal context, 9(1), 25-31. DOI: 10.1016/2016.06.001
National Crime Agency. (2016). Emerging new threat in online dating: Initial trends in
internet dating-initiated serious sexual assaults. London: UK.
O’Connell, D. & Marcus, D. (2016). Psychopathic personality traits predict positive attitudes towards sexually predatory behavior in men and women. Personality and Individual
Differences, 94, 372- 376. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.011
O’Donohue, W., Yeater, E. A. & Fanetti, M. (2003). Rape prevention with college males: The roles of rape myth acceptance, victim empathy, and outcome expectancies.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 513–531. DOI: 10.1177/0886260503251070
Palmer, C. (1991). Human rape: Adaptation or by-product? Journal of Sex Research, 28, 556- 563.
Paulhus, D., Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. (2015). The SRP-III. Toronto, Canada: Multi- Health Systems.
Paulhus, D., & Williams, K. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism,
Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556– 563. DOI: 10.1016/S0092- 6566(02)00505-6
Reitz- Krueger, C., Mummert, S.J. & Troupe, S.M. (2017). Real men can’t get raped: An examination of gendered rape myths and sexual assault among undergraduates. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace, 9(4), 314-323.
Vagi, K.J., O’Malley Olsen, E., Basile, K. & Vivlo-Kantor, A.M. (2015). Teen dating
violence (physical and sexual) among US students. Jama Pediatrics, 169(5), 474-482. DOI: 10.1001/.2014.3577
Vize, C., Lynam, D.R., Lamkin, J., Miller, J.D., Pardini, D. (2016). Identifying essential features of juvenile psychopathy in the prediction of later antisocial behavior: Is there an additive, synergistic or curvilinear role for fearless dominance? Clinical
Psychological Science, 4(3), 572-590.
Widman, L. & McNulty, J.K. (2010). Sexual Narcissism and the perpetration of sexual aggression. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(4), 926-939.
Wuensch, K. (2015). Cohen's conventions for small, medium, and large effects. Retrieved from http: //core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/docs30/EffectSizeConventions.pdf
Zeigler-Hill, V., Enjaian, B. & Essa, L. (2013). The role of narcissistic personality features in sexual aggression. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 32(2), 186-199. DOI: 10.1521/jscp.2013.32.2.186
Zhang, H., Yun, L., Yimeng, Z., Runzhu, Z. & Zhenhong, W. (2017). Differential relations of grandiose narcissism and vulnerable narcissism to emotion dysregulation: self-esteem
matters. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 20(3-4), 232-237. DOI: 10.1007/s10508-017-0937-1
Zimmer-Gembeck, M.J., Laurenne, S. & O’Sullivan, L. (2015) Young women’s satisfaction with sex and romance, and emotional reactions to sex: Associations with sexual entitlement, efficacy, and situational factors. Emerging Adulthood,3(2), 113-122. DOI:10.1177/2167696814548060
Appendix A. Inappropriate dating scenarios online and in-person (English)
Entitlement
Online
Milan and Roos have matched on Tinder and have been messaging each other back and forth each evening for about a week. Milan thinks Roos is really attractive in her profile pictures and their conversation over the app seems to be going well – Roos is responding to his messages positively and tends to write back quickly or initiate conversation with him.
After spending some more time messaging her, Milan asks if Roos wants to meet up for a date in person the following night. Roos says that she’s not comfortable yet meeting up with him as she does not really know much about him, so she’s not ready to meet him in person. Milan finds this really frustrating – he’s spent a load of time messaging on the app and does not think she should have kept on messaging him if she is not going to meet him. He decides he is going to send her a rude message to convey how annoyed he is and let her know what he thinks of her behavior.
How acceptable do you think it would be for Milan to send Roos a rude message in this situation?
In- person
Thomas and Heleen have met up for a date in person at a restaurant after first matching and chatting on Tinder. Now they are meeting in person, Thomas is definitely attracted to Heleen and thinks she might be into him too, as the date seems to be going pretty well - Heleen is laughing with him and reciprocating his flirtatious talk.
At the end of the date, Thomas pays for both of them and goes to call them a taxi. He asks if Heleen wants to come back to his place, hoping that they can take things further tonight. Heleen says she is not going to sleep with a guy she has only just met. Thomas is really annoyed at this: he has spent a long time messaging Heleen on the app, then come out for the night and paid for her to have a nice dinner. He decides that he is going to say something rude to Heleen to show her how much she is wasted his time and money.
How acceptable do you think it would be for Thomas to say something rude to Heleen in this situation?
Coercion Online
Noah and Lotte have matched on Tinder and been messaging with each other for a couple of days. Their chat looks like it is going well – Lotte seems to think Noah is a cool guy and she even sent him a picture with her dressed in a cute night gown – almost down to her underwear.
After sending some more messages between each other, Noah tells Lotte she should send him a more revealing picture of herself. Lotte says that the picture in her nighty should be enough. Although she likes him, she is not going to send nude pictures to someone she’s not actually met. Noah really wants to see another picture of Lotte and he knows she likes him. He decides he will tell her that if she really liked him, then she
In- person
Thijs and Sophie have met up for a date at a bar after matching on Tinder. The two of them seem to be having a good time together, laughing and sitting close to each other as they talk.
After having a deeper conversation, Thijs feels like he should kiss Sophie, as she really seems to be into him and it seems like they are connecting really well.
When he goes to kiss her, Sophie moves backwards to avoid it. She says she is sorry – she is really enjoying the date but she would like to take things slowly and doesn’t want to give the impression that she is only looking for something casual. Thijs would still like to kiss Sophie, so he decides he will tell her that she is just showing how immature she is, as any adult
should trust him and send the picture, or else she is being dishonest.
How acceptable do you think it would be for Noah to say this to Lotte in this situation?
woman would be comfortable to kiss a guy if she actually likes him, unless of course she does not like him and is just lying.
How acceptable do you think it would be for Thijs to say this to Sophie in this situation?
Harassment Online
Ruben and Esther have matched on Tinder and had a couple of messages back and forth. Ruben thinks Esther looks great in her profile pictures and wants to convey his interest in her as more than just a friend.
Ruben asks Esther if she wants to make things a bit more interesting in their conversation, and when she asks how, he says he would like to tell her what he wants to do with her when they meet. Esther responds by saying she thinks that it is a bit forward considering they have only just matched, but Ruben knows girls can be a bit of a tease, so he sends her a sexually suggestive message. Esther responds by saying that she’s not interested in talking with someone who is only interested in sex so early on and does not write anything else back. Ruben thinks that if she really was not interested in talking like this then she would just block him, and other guys send sexual messages all the time anyway. He decides he will send Esther a more explicit message about the sexual things he would do to her.
How acceptable do you think it would be for Ruben to send Esther this sexual message in this situation?
In- person
Tim and Femke have met up for a date at a bar after first matching and chatting on Tinder. In person, Tim is attracted to Femke and wants to take things further on their date. It seems like the date has been going well as Femke is being very talkative and seems interested in what Tim has to say as well.
After some more talking, Tim tries to spice up the conversation a bit by making a sexual remark about how attractive he thinks Femke is. Femke does not respond well to the comment and goes a bit quiet, but Tim knows that girls are often shy, so he makes another sexual comment. At this, Femke says that she is not into him talking like that and wants to keep things less intense and just get to know each other, or she is not interested in staying. Tim thinks Femke is probably just playing hard to get, so he decides he will make another more explicit comment about the sexual things he wants to do to her.
How acceptable do you think it would be for Tim to make this sexual comment to Femke in this situation?
