4.5 Article

Blatant sexual deception: Content, individual differences, and implications

Journal

PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
Volume 183, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2021.111118

Keywords

Narcissism; Sexual compulsivity; Gender; Sexual orientation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examined rates of sexual deception and found that men were more deceptive regarding wealth, resources, occupation, and physical characteristics compared to women, while sexual minorities were more likely to engage in sexual deception than heterosexual individuals. Sexual narcissism and sexual compulsivity were significantly correlated with sexual deception.
Given current cultural attention to issues surrounding sexual consent, the issue of sexual deception is pertinent. The current study examined rates of different forms of blatant sexual deception (i.e., intentionally misleading sexual partners) with a focus on individual predictors including demographic correlates and traits of narcissism and sexual compulsivity. We sought to extend existing literature on sexual deception by examining novel forms of deception in a gender- and sexual orientation- diverse sample. Participants (N = 1769) aged 16 to 81 years (M = 26.60) took part in an online study. Results showed no gender differences in overall rates of deception, though men were more deceptive regarding wealth and resources, occupation, and physical characteristics than women. Sexual minorities reported higher rates of sexual deception than heterosexual participants pertaining to sexual orientation and previous partner gender. Participant scores on sexual narcissism and sexual compulsivity were significantly correlated with sexual deception scores. Findings are discussed in relation to how sexual deception can be understood and potentially intervened upon within current cultures of consent.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available