David A Boothroyd

Psychopathy & Sexual Offending

200249144

January 2021

Supervised by Dr Luna Centifanti and Dr James Reilly

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the degree of Doctorate in Clinical Psychology, University of Liverpool

1

Word Count

Total (including appendices): 21,372

Chapter One: 8,936

Chapter Two: 8,393

Chapter Three: 959

2 Contents

CONTENTS ...... 3 Acknowledgements ...... 5 CHAPTER ONE: PSYCHOPATHY AND RAPE MYTH ACCEPTANCE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW & META-ANALYSIS .. 6

ABSTRACT ...... 7 INTRODUCTION ...... 8 Psychopathy ...... 8 Rape myth acceptance (RMA) ...... 10 Psychopathy and RMA ...... 13 METHOD ...... 15 Aims ...... 15 Searches ...... 15 Inclusion & exclusion criteria ...... 16 Data extraction & transformation ...... 16 Risk of bias assessment ...... 18 Meta-analyses ...... 18 RESULTS ...... 20 Study setting, population & design ...... 22 Measures ...... 23 Risk of bias ...... 33 Primary psychopathy & RMA ...... 37 Publication bias ...... 38 Secondary psychopathy & RMA ...... 40 Publication bias ...... 41 DISCUSSION ...... 43 CHAPTER TWO: THE ROLE OF PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS, REJECTION SENSITIVITY AND EMOTION REGULATION IN PREDICTING SEXUAL COERCION AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS RAPE, WITHIN UNDERGRADUATE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS...... 49 ABSTRACT ...... 50 INTRODUCTION ...... 51 Psychopathy & rape myth acceptance (RMA) ...... 52 Psychopathy & sexual coercion ...... 53 Rejection sensitivity ...... 54 Emotion regulation ...... 56 The present study ...... 57 METHOD ...... 59 Participants ...... 59 Procedure ...... 59 Measures ...... 60 DATA ANALYSIS PLAN ...... 65 RESULTS ...... 68 Does psychopathy relate to rape myth acceptance after controlling for emotion regulation and rejection sensitivity? ...... 70 Does psychopathy relate to sexual coercion after controlling for emotion regulation and rejection sensitivity? ...... 71 DISCUSSION ...... 74 CHAPTER THREE: CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR PSYCHOPATHY – RELATED SEXUAL VIOLENCE...... 82

REFERENCES ...... 87 LIST OF APPENDICES ...... 110 APPENDIX A – AXIS TOOL ...... 110 APPENDIX B – ETHICS APPROVAL LETTER ...... 111

3 APPENDIX C – PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET ...... 112 APPENDIX D – PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM ...... 117 APPENDIX E – SELF REPORT PSYCHOPATHY SCALE (SRP-4) ...... 118 APPENDIX F - THE POST REFUSAL SEXUAL PERSISTENCE SCALE (PSP) ...... 120 APPENDIX G - THE ILLINOIS RAPE MYTH ACCEPTANCE SCALE SHORT-FORM (IRMA-SF) ...... 122 APPENDIX H - THE REJECTION SENSITIVITY QUESTIONNAIRE (RSQ) ...... 123 APPENDIX I - THE EMOTION REGULATION QUESTIONNAIRE (ERQ) ...... 127 APPENDIX J – DEBRIEF SHEET ...... 128 APPENDIX K – POWER CALCULATION ...... 130

4 Acknowledgements

First of all, massive thanks to Luna for sharing all your knowledge and expertise around psychopathy and quantitative statistics especially. I don’t feel as though I have been the easiest person to supervise and I have appreciated your patience in helping me to get through the research process. I cannot believe how much my writing skills have improved since we began working together.

A huge thanks to you, James for your continued support and encouragement. Your clinical knowledge has provided another dimension to this research. Moreover, your ability to keep me calm and focussed was invaluable, as well as your ‘eagle eye’ for spotting grammatical/wording errors (e.g., “IRMER”) within this work!

I don’t think I could have asked for a better supervision pair in you both.

Thanks to you, Andy for teaching me how to conduct meta-analyses over just a few skype videos. You managed to make something so complex, seem relatively easy.

A big thanks to Laura Golding who, as my personal tutor, has supported me with much more than just my thesis during the last 3 years.

Thank you to Peter Dargan for helping me to even get into psychology in the first place and for your continued advice and support.

Thank you, mum, dad and Bobes for everything you have done to help me to get to this point.

Finally, thanks to my fiancée, Hannah for putting up with me throughout this extremely challenging research process and for all of your love, support and encouragement.

5 Chapter One: Psychopathy and rape myth acceptance: a systematic review & meta-analysis

6 Abstract

Introduction: Research suggests an association between psychopathy and rape myth acceptance (RMA). Prior to the perpetration of sexual violence, many people hold attitudes that justify, defend and minimize violence. In this case, it would be useful to understand the extent to which myths about rape relate to psychopathy and its various facets. This is the first review which has systematically reviewed the evidence for the relationship between both primary and secondary psychopathy and RMA.

Aims: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the evidence for i) the relationship between primary psychopathic traits and RMA and ii) the relationship between secondary psychopathic traits and RMA.

Method: Systematic searches of nine databases were performed, using search terms relating to psychopathy and RMA. Articles which reported zero-order correlations specifically for primary and secondary psychopathy and RMA were included. Two meta-analyses were conducted to synthesise effect sizes for both primary and secondary psychopathy and RMA.

Results: Thirteen peer-reviewed studies were included in the meta-analyses. A significant small association was found between primary psychopathy and RMA, r =0.26 (95% CI [0.19,

0.33] p <.001). A significant small association was found between secondary psychopathy and RMA, r = 0.25 (95% CI [0.20, 0.29] p <.001).

Conclusion: Both primary and secondary psychopathic traits are significantly associated with RMA. Researchers should begin to address the methodological and philosophical issues that surround both the fundamental constructs of psychopathy and rape myths, to inform future therapeutic interventions.

7 Introduction

Psychopathy

Psychopathy is a complex, multifaceted construct (Hare & Neumann, 2010), characterized by selfish, callous, egotistical and impulsive behaviour and deficits in empathy

(Hare, 1996). Psychopathy has been extensively researched – particularly within the context of forensic settings, where its association with violent behaviour has been well established

(Evans & Tully, 2016). However, more recent empirical evidence indicates that psychopathic traits are also present within the community and are continuously distributed (Neumann et al.,

2012). Indeed, approximately 1% of all adults within the general population would meet clinical levels of psychopathic traits (Freeman, Samson & Palk, 2011). Amongst the male undergraduate population, there is an association between psychopathic traits and perpetration of sexual assault (Payne, Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1999).

The most validated and widely used measure of psychopathy in offending samples is the Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R, Hare, 1991) and measures more appropriate for community samples have been developed based on the content of the PCL-R as the ‘gold- standard.’ Having measures that can be used in the community means that we can anticipate who might perpetrate antisocial behaviour – those most at risk. People’s safety may depend on our ability to understand who is most at risk of perpetrating violence. Since men score higher on psychopathy measures (Neumann et al., 2012), the most likely beneficiary of this assessment of potential risk would be women. Prior to the perpetration of violence, many people hold attitudes that justify, defend and minimize it (Burt 1978, p. 282; Mouilso &

Calhoun, 2013). In this case, we need to know how myths about rape relate to psychopathy and its various facets.

8 The increased interest in measuring psychopathy in non-clinical/forensic samples has given rise to the development of several well-validated self-report instruments which are suitable for use within general populations (Lilienfeld et al., 2014). However, there is considerable debate surrounding the nature and construct of psychopathy and how it should be measured. Psychopathy can be separated into personality and behavioural features (Hare,

1991; Hare, Hart & Harpur, 1991; Harpur, Hare & Hakstian, 1989). The PCL-R, alongside most other measures of psychopathy, generally focus on two distinct yet correlated factors.

Within the PCL-R, primary psychopathy (also known as Factor One) represents the interpersonal and affective personality traits of psychopathy. These relate to deceitful, manipulative and immoral behaviour. Secondary psychopathy (also known as Factor Two) centres on behavioural impulsiveness, sensation-seeking and social deviance. Lilienfeld &

Andrews (1996) noted that measures of psychopathy in support of this conventional two- factor structure had been created and validated using offending samples. They argued that using these instruments to measure psychopathy in community samples is therefore problematic, given that they contain a high proportion of items specific to anti-social behaviour.

The Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI) (Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996) was created with a more specific focus on the personality traits associated with psychopathy, which would be more suited to general populations. The PPI contains a three-factor structure including ‘fearless dominance’ (FD), (low anxiety and social dominance) ‘self-centred impulsiveness’ (SCI) (impulsivity and selfishness) and ‘cold-heartedness’ (CH) (low empathy and attachment for others) (O’Connell & Marcus, 2016). Patrick (2010) proposed an alternative, ‘triarchic’ model of psychopathy (TriPM), containing three main factors,

‘meanness’, ‘disinhibition’ and ‘boldness’, which broadly correspond to the PPI’s ‘CH’,

9 ‘SCI’ and ‘FD’ respectively (O’Connell & Marcus, 2016). This conceptualisation attempted to integrate more contemporary neuro-etiological perspectives for understanding and measuring psychopathy (Patrick, Fowles & Krueger, 2009). Patrick, Drislane and Strickland

(2012) argue that this triarchic conceptualisation is not a new or replacement theory of psychopathy but focuses more on ‘boldness’ rather than ‘meanness’.

Individuals with psychopathy are significantly more likely to be incarcerated for being violent (including sexual violence) and consume a disproportionately high amount of both criminal justice and clinical recourses (Kiehl & Hoffman, 2010). The designations of primary and secondary psychopathy are used throughout this review, given that these forms of psychopathy have predominantly been investigated in relation to sexual violence. It should also be acknowledged that focussing on the two factor (primary and secondary) structure of psychopathy, further serves the pragmatic function of making more studies eligible for this review.

Rape myth acceptance (RMA)

Sexual violence may be defined as anything ranging from sexual harassment to rape

(Lyons et al., 2021). It is a significant public health issue which particularly affects female victims worldwide (Lyons et al., 2021; Abrahams et al., 2014). Victims of sexual violence frequently suffer from a range of longstanding mental health difficulties such as anxiety and depression (World Health Organization, 2013). Approximately 20% of women have suffered sexual violence within the UK (Office for National Statistics, 2018), yet only 15% of incidents are reported (Ministry of Justice, 2013). In 2019, 57,882 people were investigated

10 for rape within England and Wales, yet only 1,925 (3.3%) were convicted by the Crown

Prosecution Service (CSP) (Dearden, 2019).

Consequently, most perpetrators of sexual violence are not detected and continue to re-offend (Yapp & Quale, 2018). Therefore, it is important to develop an understanding of the function and motivation underpinning this type of offending behaviour in order to inform prevention strategies. Cognitive distortions associated with sexual violence, have been identified as a potentially important predictor which help explain the reasoning, denial of, justification for and minimisation of sexual offending (Mouilso & Calhoun, 2013; Helmus et al., 2013).

Cognitive distortions associated with sexual violence are frequently referred to throughout the literature, as attitudes in support of rape and ‘rape myths’ (Yapp & Quale,

2018). Lonsway and Fitzgerald (1994) define rape myths as beliefs about rape which are false yet widely held. Rape myth acceptance (RMA) refers to attitudes and beliefs about rape, which serve to justify sexual offending (Yapp & Quale, 2018). Indeed, rape myths could serve to function as “psychological releasers or neutralizers” that allow individuals to justify rape (Burt 1978, p. 282; Mouilso & Calhoun, 2013). Rape myths can for example include exonerating the perpetrator, victim blaming, minimising the incident and believing that only particular kinds of women are raped (Burt, 1980; Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994, 1995).

Lonsway and Fitzgerald (1994, 1995) explored gender differences within RMA and suggested that whilst RMA allows the justification of rape amongst men, it also helps women to minimize the extent of their personal vulnerability. Thus, both men and women may hold rape myths albeit for different reasons.

11 The rape myth construct was originally developed by Brownmiller (1975) and Burt

(1980) and has since been extensively investigated in relation to sexual violence (Suarez &

Gadalla, 2010). The construct of RMA has been the subject of some criticism which may cast some doubt surrounding the strength of this field of knowledge (Suarez & Gadalla, 2010).

Buddie and Miller (2001) highlight that RMA has often been used as a single causal factor of rape. Furthermore, RMA has predominantly been measured using Burt’s (1980) Rape Myth

Acceptance Scale (RMAS). However, there are inconsistencies in the definitions and methodologies within the RMA literature, particularly with regards to the RMAS (Lonsway

& Fitzgerald, 1994). Within their comprehensive review, Lonsway & Fitzgerald (1994) concluded that Burt’s (1980) RMAS was gender-biased because it only addressed acceptance of sexual violence toward women. Moreover, earlier measures of RMA (such as the RMAS) appear to primarily assess hostility towards women (Forbes, Adam-Curtis & White, 2004) which may relate to and be associated with rape myths (but is not the same). A further criticism of the scale itself has to do with the items included. The RMAS almost exclusively focuses on more extreme rape myths which reference characteristics of the victim and describes sexual behaviour with outdated language (Mouilso & Calhoun, 2013).

In response to these limitations, Payne, Lonsway and Fitzgerald (1999) developed the psychometrically validated Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (IRMA). Despite the credentials of the IRMA, issues of validity persist regarding some of its language and its ability to capture more subtle rape myths. It was deemed that the measure required updating as colloquial phrases (e.g., rape mainly occurs on the “bad side of town”) and sexual slang

(e.g., if a woman is willing to “make out” with a guy...), that were used at the time of the first version were likely to have changed amongst community samples. As noted by McMahon and Farmer (2011), rape myth measures are time and culture bound. To address this issue, in

12 2011, the IRMA (Payne, Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1999; McMahon & Farmer, 2011) was updated. This modernised version excludes dated colloquial phrases and sexual slang. It is also better equipped to capture more subtle rape myths (e.g., “if both people are drunk, it can’t be rape”), which are arguably more relevant amongst non-offending samples

(McMahon & Farmer, 2011). Irrespective of the previous psychometric and theoretical limitations of RMA, the RMA literature can still make important contributions to further understanding the psychological reasoning, justification, denial and minimisation of rape and its consequences upon victims (Suarez & Gadalla, 2010).

Psychopathy and RMA

People with psychopathy are likely to endorse more favourable attitudes and beliefs about rape (Cooke et al., 2020; Watts et al., 2017; Methot-Jones, Book & Gauthier, 2019).

Cognitions associated with sexual violence are thought to be a prominent feature of psychopathy (Lyons et al., 2021; Mouilso & Calhoun, 2013) and attitudes are understood to be accurate predictors of behaviour (Lyons et al., 2021: Young & Thiessen, 1992). Hence, recent research has investigated the relationship between psychopathy and attitudes towards sexual violence, namely RMA. The limited existing research indicates that psychopathy is linked with RMA and that primary and secondary psychopathy traits are differentially related to attitudes towards rape. For example, the primary psychopathic traits of being callous and lacking in empathy have been demonstrated to be moderately positively associated with

RMA (Watts et al., 2017; Methot-Jones, Book & Gauthier, 2019). The secondary psychopathy traits of being disinhibited and impulsive were positively associated with RMA, albeit to a lesser extent (Watts et al., 2017).

13 The current review aims to investigate the strength of the evidence for the positive associations between both primary psychopathy and RMA and secondary psychopathy and

RMA. Further, this review aims to provide a summary estimate of the strengths of these relationships through meta-analyses, whilst also reporting on the sources of heterogeneity within the studies that have explored these relationships.

14 Method

A systematic review protocol was pre-registered with the National Institute for Health

Research’s (NIHR) international prospective register of systematic reviews (Prospero) before any database searches were performed.

Aims

• To perform a systematic literature search in order to identify relevant studies which

have measured the relationship between psychopathy and RMA.

• To undertake a systematic review of these studies, including a quality assessment.

• To perform two separate meta-analyses (for both primary and secondary psychopathy

and RMA), to support understanding of the psychopathy factors that best predict

RMA across the available studies.

• To explore the sources of heterogeneity within the studies that have investigated these

relationships.

Searches

Literature searches were performed on the National Institute for Clinical Excellence

(NICE) Open Athens advanced search platform. Databases included were AMED, BNI,

CINAHL, EMBASE, EMCARE, HMIC, Medline, PsychINFO and PubMed. Search terms relating to psychopathy and RMA were used to capture a sample of all related studies. The following search was conducted; psychopath* OR dark OR triarch* AND rape OR sexual*

15 OR predat* AND attitud* OR accept* OR endorse* OR cogniti* OR thought OR opinion OR belief OR percept* OR view OR perspect* OR justif* OR minimis* OR denial OR rational*.

The search was conducted in March 2020 and repeated again November 2020. Searches were limited to articles published in English where possible. No restrictions were set regarding publication date. Backward and forward searches were undertaken on full text articles which met inclusion criteria.

Inclusion & exclusion criteria

Studies deemed to be eligible for inclusion needed to meet the following criteria:

• Quantitative methodology, which reported zero-order correlations.

• Psychopathy related measures used, so that correlations for primary and secondary

psychopathy in relation to RMA, could be extracted or calculated.

• RMA related measures used, so that correlations for RMA in relation to primary and

secondary psychopathy could be extracted or calculated.

• Published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Studies were excluded for any of the following:

• Where psychopathy was not differentiated into primary and secondary facets and

neither could be calculated.

• Studies that did not directly measure RMA or use measures specific enough to RMA.

• Full-text articles not written in English.

• Dissertations and/or conference proceedings.

Data extraction & transformation

16 Database searches were merged in Open Athens and duplicates were extracted. Titles and abstracts of retrieved articles were screened to extract studies deemed as not relevant or failing to meet inclusion criteria. The reference lists of selected articles were also reviewed and any additional studies, not identified within the original systematic search were read in full by the author. These processes were independently undertaken by the author, as well as a second research collaborator. The collaborator was a published author in a peer-reviewed journal, with an MSc level qualification. Results were then compared, and consensus reached between the author and collaborator. The suitability of five of these articles were discussed between the author and co-author and three of these studies were removed. Two were removed because their attitudinal measures were not considered relevant enough to RMA

(Costello et al., 2019; Russell & King, 2020) and one was removed because the analysis was not correlational (Degue & DiLillo, 2004). For two studies (Debowska, Boduszek &

Willmott, 2018; Willis et al., 2017), it was agreed that more information was required, and the authors were contacted via email to obtain zero-order correlations supplementary data.

Key study findings and characteristics were presented using two separate standardized templates for data extraction. The first set of extracted data included the main study characteristics; the author, year, study location, sample details (i.e., gender, ethnicity, population type). The second stage included extraction of data pertaining to the aims of the study, the measures used to assess both psychopathic traits and RMA, the method of analysis used and the key outcomes from the analyses such as effect sizes and p-values. Zero order correlations between primary psychopathy, secondary psychopathy and RMA were extracted alongside sample size. Where included studies did not report correlations specifically for the association between primary and secondary psychopathy and RMA, correlation coefficient conversions were undertaken, so that comparisons could be made. For example, correlations

17 for ‘fearless dominance’ and ‘cold-heartedness’ were combined (by calculating the mean) to convert into a single summary statistic, representing primary psychopathy.

Risk of bias assessment

All included studies were appraised by using the AXIS tool (Downes et al., 2016)

(Appendix A). This tool enables a more comprehensive assessment than alternative options for addressing cross sectional studies, because it assesses characteristics of both study reporting and analysis with a variety of items (Yapp & Quayle, 2018). The first author used the AXIS to independently and critically appraise the included studies. A random (38%) sample of these papers were then allocated to the research collaborator to undertake a second independent critical appraisal of the included articles. Assessments of quality were then compared to identify any discrepancies, which were subsequently resolved by means of discussion.

Meta-analyses

Correlation coefficients were converted to Fisher’s Z (Z = 0.5*LN ((1+r)/(1-r)) before the meta-analysis was conducted in order to improve normality. In accordance with the procedures outlined by Borenstein et al. (2009), the resulting aggregate effect and confidence intervals were converted back into a correlation coefficient. The I² % statistic was used as a measure of heterogeneity. It measures the proportion of variance across studies, owing to heterogeneity as opposed to sampling error (Higgins et al., 2003). A value of 25% or below indicates low heterogeneity and where I² is above 75%, this indicates substantial

18 heterogeneity and suggests the presence of a high degree of inconsistency across studies

(Higgins et al., 2003). Meta-analyses were performed on JASP (version 0.14.1; JASP Team,

2020) using the meta-analysis function. Separate meta-analyses were performed to examine the association between psychopathy and RMA: (i) primary psychopathy and RMA, (ii) and secondary psychopathy and RMA.

Publication bias was evaluated by examining funnel plot asymmetry with the ‘Trim and Fill’ method (Begg & Mazumdar, 1994; Duval & Tweedie, 2000; Egger et al., 1997).

Trim and Fill identifies effect sizes needed to achieve funnel plot symmetry and imputes

(‘fills’) these effect sizes, recalculate the overall pooled estimate when taking these into account. Cross validation was undertaken by performing a ‘leave one out cross validation’

(LOOCV) analysis (Viechtbauer & Cheung, 2010), to assess to what extent omitting each article effected the results of each meta-analysis.

19 Results

Database searches resulted in 4,649 identified publications. Exclusion of duplicated articles resulted in a total of 4,511 articles for title and abstract review. Initial screening led to

4,489 articles being excluded. The remaining articles were included for a full text review, alongside a further two publications from hand searches. This resulted in the omission of a further 11 articles, leaving 13 publications remaining for inclusion in the meta-analyses.

20

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram (Moher et al., 2009).

21 Study setting, population & design

Studies were predominantly conducted in the USA (nine), with three in the UK

(Brewer et al., 2019; Debowska, Boduszek & Willmott, 2018; Debowska at al., 2015) and one in Canada (Methot-Jones, Book & Gauthier, 2019). Most studies (eight) recruited undergraduate students from university populations. Two studies (Kasowski & Anderson,

2019; LeBreton et al. 2013) recruited from general community samples and one study

(DeLisle et al., 2019) recruited from a military population. Two studies (Debowska,

Boduszek & Willmott, 2018; Degue et al., 2010) recruited from prison samples. Debowska et al. (2015) recruited two samples, one consisting of undergraduates and the other prisoners.

Seven studies recruited all-male samples, while five studies (Debowska et al., 2015; DeLisle et al., 2019; O’Connell & Markus, 2015; Watts et al., 2017; Willis et al., 2017) recruited both men and women. Only one study (Brewer et al., 2019) recruited an all-female sample.

All 10 studies that reported sample ethnicity reported their sample to be predominantly White/Caucasian, accounting for 63.2% of the total participants, across the ten studies. Eight studies reported the proportion of Black/African American participants, which accounted for 14.8% of the total sample for these eight studies. Six studies reported the proportion of Asian/Asian American participants within their samples, which accounted for

14.6% of the total sample for these six studies. The total sample size of the 13 included studies was 5,123 and twelve studies had sample sizes which exceeded 100 participants. All

13 studies were cross-sectional.

22 Measures

Study characteristics are summarised in Table 1. To measure psychopathy, the majority of studies (seven) used either the full or shorter (30-item) version of The Self-Report

Psychopathy Scale (SRP-3 or SRP-4) (Neumann et al., 2012). The SRP was initially constructed to examine psychopathy within community samples. It has been used extensively within undergraduate samples, demonstrating very good reliability and validity (Paulhus et al., 2016). As expected, the dimensions of the SRP have been shown to relate with the known gold-standard PCL-R (Neumann et al., 2012). Alongside the PCL-R factor structure of psychopathy, confirmatory factor analyses and logistic regressions support the four-factor oblique model for the SRP-4 (Mehmet et al., 2011). The full version of the SRP has 64 items

(from four distinct categories: ‘affective’, ‘interpersonal’, ‘antisocial’ and ‘lifestyle’) and asks people to rate the extent to which they agree with various statements (using a five-point

Likert scale (1 = “disagree strongly” to 5 = “agree strongly”) (e.g., “I enjoy doing wild things” and “I have never tried to force someone to have sex”). Using a sample of 788 undergraduates, Paulhus et al., (2016) reported excellent internal consistency for both primary and secondary psychopathy (Cronbachs alpha of 0.88 and 0.85 respectively).

Five studies used the full or shorter (56-item) version of the Psychopathic Personality

Inventory – Revised (PPI-R) (Lilienfeld & Windows, 2005). The PPI-R is a self-report instrument, containing 154 items, (e.g., “if I really want to, I can persuade most people of almost anything”). It is answered using a four-point Likert scale (1 = “false”, 2 = “mostly false”, 3 = “mostly true”, 4 = “true”) and provides scores across eight subscales. Factor analyses have demonstrated that seven out of the eight subscales can be arranged into 2 factors: ‘Fearless dominance’ (FD) and ‘self-centred impulsivity’ (SCI). The eighth subscale

23 regarded as a separate factor is ‘cold-heartedness’ (CH). Using a community sample of 675 people, Uzieblo et al. (2010) reported the PPI-R to have excellent internal consistency for

FD, SCI and CH (Cronbachs alpha of 0.91, 0.89 and 0.79 respectively).

Debowska, Boduszek & Willmott (2018) used the Psychopathic Personality Traits

Scale (PPTS) (Boduszek et al., 2016). The PPTS is a self-report instrument for use with both forensic and community populations. It contains 20 items (e.g., “I don’t care if I upset someone to get what I want”) and participants are asked to either answer (1 = ”agree”) or (2

= “disagree”), with higher cumulative scores indicating higher levels of psychopathic traits.

Boduszek et al. (2016) constructed the PPTS with the aim of focussing on the personality traits of psychopathy as opposed to the behavioural aspects of psychopathy. Items are arranged across four separate factors: ‘affective responsiveness’, ‘cognitive responsiveness’,

‘interpersonal manipulation’ and ‘egocentricity’. With their prison sample of 1,126,

Debowska, Boduszek & Willmott, (2018) reported the internal consistency to be good

(Cronbachs alpha of 0.86, 0.76, 0.84 and 0.69 respectively).

Watts et al. (2017) used the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM) (Patrick, 2010).

The TriPM was developed with the aim of integrating more present-day perspectives of psychopathy (e.g., neuro-etiological) and a more specific focus on ‘boldness’ (Evans &

Tully, 2016). The TriPM is a self-report instrument that consists of three separate factors:

‘meanness’ (19-items), ‘boldness’ (19-items) and ‘disinhibition’ (20-items). Participants are asked to complete each item (e.g., “am a born leader”) on a four-point Likert scale (1 =

“true”, 2 = “mostly true”, 3 = “mostly false”, 4 = “false”). The scale generates a total score for each factor. Using a sample of 836 participants (consisting of both prisoners and undergraduate students), Sellbom & Philips (2013) reported the measure to have good

24 internal reliability (prisoners/undergraduates) (Cronbachs alpha of 0.90/0.88, 0.89/0.82 and

0.89/0.84 respectively).

Kasowski and Anderson (2016) used the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5)

(Krueger et al., 2012, APA, 2013). This is an instrument which is used to measure personality psychopathology, opposed to being specific to psychopathy. The PID-5 is a 220-item self- report measure which is used to assess the five domains (‘extraversion’, ‘neuroticism’,

‘agreeableness’, ‘conscientiousness’ and ‘openness’) of personality within section three of the DSM-5. These five domains are then broken down into 27 facets. Participants are asked to complete a four-point Likert scale (e.g., “I feel like I act totally on impulse”) from “very false or often false” to “very true or often true”. Within their comprehensive review, Al-

Dajani, Gralnick & Bagby (2016) reported Cronbachs apha for the five domains as adequate:

‘negative affectivity’ (0.93), ‘detachment’ (0.96), ‘antagonism’ (0.94), ‘disinhibition’ (0.84) and ‘psychotism’ (0.96). Cronbachs alpha for facet scores ranged from between 0.96

(eccentricity) to 0.72 (grandiosity).

The psychopathy questionnaires summarised here have different subscales based on the factor model of psychopathy that they were developed under. It was therefore necessary to convert all subscale correlations into values for primary and secondary psychopathy, so comparison was possible. For the SRP, primary psychopathy values were generated from calculating the mean of the ‘interpersonal’ and ‘affective’ subscale correlations. This was also undertaken in order to calculate secondary psychopathy (using ‘lifestyle’ and ‘antisocial’ correlations). For the PPI-R, values for primary psychopathy were derived by calculating the mean of the subscale correlations for ‘cold-heartedness’ and ‘fearless dominance’, whereas

‘self-centred impulsivity’ was used as a direct correlation for secondary psychopathy. The

25 PPTs essentially measures primary psychopathy, hence no correlation for secondary could be derived and the total score was used as the primary psychopathy correlation. It was not necessary to convert the TriPM as the study that used this measure (Watts et al., 2017) used multiple psychopathy measures, including the SRP. In this case, we used the SRP only, since it was more directly comparable to other studies and to the ‘gold standard’ of the PCL-R. The

PID-5 is not a specific measure of psychopathy, so the average of subscale facet scores from this measure were used to generate correlations for primary psychopathy (‘callousness’,

‘deceitfulness’, ‘grandiosity’ and ‘manipulativeness’) and secondary psychopathy

(‘impulsivity’, ‘irresponsibility’ and ‘risk taking’), based on the theoretical alignment of personality and behavioural facets across primary and secondary psychopathy.

To measure RMA, two studies (DeLisle et al., 2019; Mouilso & Calhoun, 2013) used the original version of the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (IRMA) (Payne, Lonsway &

Fitzgerald, 1999). Three studies (Debowska et al., 2015; Kasowski & Anderson, 2019;

Methot-Jones, Book & Gauthier, 2019) used the shorter, modernised version of the IRMA

(McMahon & Farmer, 2011). This modified version was devised to try to capture more subtle rape myths, which could be more salient for use with non-offending samples (McMahon &

Farmer, 2011).

The IRMA is separated into four subscales; “She lied” (5-items) (e.g., “rape accusations are often used as a way of getting back at guys”). “She asked for it” (6-items),

(e.g., “if a girl acts like a slut, eventually she is going to get into trouble”). “It wasn’t really rape” (5-items) (e.g., “if a girl doesn’t say “no” she can’t claim rape”). “He didn’t mean to” (6-items) (e.g., “if both people are drunk, it can’t be rape”). Participants are asked to respond to these 22 statements using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1-5, (1 =

26 “strongly agree” and 5 = “strongly disagree”). Scores are totalled to gain a cumulative score, with higher scores indicating greater levels of RMA.

Both measures have demonstrated good reliability and validity within undergraduate populations (McMahon & Farmer, 2011). Moreover, the IRMA has been demonstrated to be correlated with male sexual aggression and rape proclivity (Stephens & George, 2009) and other related variables such as hostile sexism toward women (Chapleau, Oswald & Russell,

2007). Using a sample of 951 undergraduates, McMahon & Farmer (2011) found the overall measure to have good internal consistency (Cronbachs alpha of 0.87).

Watts et al. (2017) used the Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (RMAS) which was formed from the original IRMA (Payne, Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1999) and Burt’s (1980) original

Rape Myth Acceptance Scale. Burt’s (1980) original scale consists of 19 statements relating to victim blaming (e.g., “women who get raped while hitch-hiking get what they deserve”).

Eleven items are responded to on a seven-point Likert scale (raging from “strongly agree” to

“strongly disagree”). Two items are measured on a five-point Likert scale (ranging from

“almost all” to “almost none”) and three items are measured on a five-point Likert scale

(ranging from “always” to “never”). Burt (1980) reported the instrument to have good internal consistency (Cronbachs alpha of 0.87). The RMAS version used by Watts et al.

(2017) consists of 53 items which measure the extent to which participants blames the rape victim.

Two studies (Watts et al., 2017; Willis et al., 2017) used the Attitudes Towards Rape

Victims Scale (ARVS) (Ward, 1988). The ARVS is a 25-item scale which measures favourable and unfavourable attitudes towards rape victims (e.g., “women who have had

27 prior sexual relationships should not complain about rape”). Participants are asked to rate how much they agree with each item, using a five-point Likert scale. Scores for each item are collated to provide a total score (with higher scores indicating higher RMA). Using an undergraduate sample, Ward (1998) reported the instrument to have good internal consistency (Cronbachs alpha of 0.88).

(Marcus & Norris, 2014) used the Attitudes Towards Sexually Predatory Behaviour

Scale (ATSPB) (Marcus & Norris, 2014). The ATSPB is a 32-item self-report scale which participants are asked to complete after reading 16 vignettes, describing tactics that undergraduate men could use when trying to persuade their dates to have sex with them.

Following each vignette (e.g., “keeps buying date drinks to get her drunk”), participants are asked to provide both an acceptability and probability rating. For the acceptability rating the respondent selects from a seven-point Likert scale to score the acceptability of the protagonist’s behaviour (1 = “completely unacceptable”, 7 = “completely acceptable”).

People are then asked to rate the likelihood that they would engage in the same behaviour, on a scale from 0 (“would never do it”) to 100 (“would definitely do it”).

Using an undergraduate sample of 170 males, Marcus & Norris (2014) reported the measure to have good internal consistency (Cronbachs alpha of 0.91). O’Connell & Marcus

(2016) used a modified version of the ATSPB (ATSB-R). The ATSB-R was amended so that the vignettes were gender neutral (i.e., participants were asked to assume that they were the same gender as the perpetrator and the opposite of the victim). Additionally, eight further vignettes were added, in an attempt to capture a broader range of sexually coercive behaviours (e.g., “use of exploitation via blackmail”).

28 DeGue, DiLillo & Scalora (2010) used the Rape Scale (Bumby, 1996). This is a 36- item instrument which measures cognitive distortions associated with sexual offences.

Participants are asked to rate the extent to which they agree with each item (e.g., “women who get raped probably deserved it”), on a four-point Likert scale (1 = “strongly agree”, 4 =

“strongly disagree”). Bumby (1996) reported the internal consistency to be excellent

(Cronbachs alpha of 0.96).

LeBreton et al. (2013) used the Negative Attitudes Regarding Women Scale which was derived from taking rape-specific items from the original IRMA (Payne, Lonsway &

Fitzgerald, 1999) and the Rape Scale (Bumby, 1996), (nine items in total). LeBreton et al.

(2013) report that they used a seven-point Likert-type response scale, but they provide no further information about this measure.

Debowska, Boduszek & Willmott (2018) used the Attitudes Towards Male Sexual

Dating Violence Scale (AMDV-Sex) (Price et al., 1999). The AMDV-Sex is a 12-item instrument which assesses to what extent participants agree with supportive views surrounding sexual violence against women in dating relationships (e.g., “when a guy pays on a date, it is O.K. for him to pressure his girlfriend for sex”). Items are scored on a four-point

Likert scale (1 = “disagree”, 4 = “agree”), with higher scores indicating greater acceptance of sexual violence towards women. Using a sample of 823 adolescent students, Price et al.

(1999) reported the internal consistency of the AMDV-Sex to be very good (Cronbachs alpha of 0.87).

29 Brewer et al. (2019) used a modified version of the Sexual Harassment Attitudes

Questionnaire (Malovich & Stake, 1990). This instrument contains two scenarios relating to sexual harassment, (e.g., “Suppose that a close woman friend of yours is attending this campus. Through the course of the semester, you notice that a professor in one of your classes frequently seems to be staring at her. When talking with him after class one day about an upcoming essay exam, he puts his arm around her and touches her hair. He then suggests that she come to his office at the end of the day so that the exam can be discussed further. He adds that if she fails to do so, she will probably not do as well on the exam as expected”).

Participants are then asked to complete a series of statements measuring ‘victim blame’,

‘perpetrator blame’ and ‘no blame’ on a nine-point Likert scale. (e.g., ‘victim blame’ - “the student is probably hoping that getting to know the professor personally will help her get a better grade”) (1 = “strongly disagree”, 9 = “strongly agree”).

The Sexual Harassment Attitudes Questionnaire measures attitudes and behaviours towards sexual violence more broadly, as opposed to specifically measuring RMA.

Therefore, to justify inclusion in the meta-analyses, it was considered necessary to include the correlations from Brewer et al. (2019) ‘victim blame’ subscale only. The ‘Victim blame’ subscale was deemed more salient to RMA, given that most measures of RMA contain a significant proportion of items corresponding with blaming sexual assault victims. Using a sample of 142 female undergraduates, Brewer et al. (2019) reported the internal consistency to be acceptable for ‘victim blame’ items (Cronbachs alpha of 0.63).

30 Table 1. Summary of study characteristics for psychopathy and rape myth acceptance. Author (Year) Design Population Ethnicity Size % Average Country Psychopathy RMA Correlation Correlation Female Age Measure Measure Between Between RMA & RMA & Primary Secondary Brewer et al. Cross- Undergraduate Not stated 142 100 20.86 UK SRP Sexual 0.36 0.19 (2019) Sectional Harassment Attitudes Questionnaire DeLisle et al. Cross- Military 84.3% White/non- 67 58.8 43.73 USA SRP-4 IRMA (1999) 0.33 0.17 (2019) Sectional Hispanic 7.2% Black/African American 6.0% Hispanic 2.4% Other Kasowski & Cross- Community 77% White/Caucasian, 196 0 36.86 USA PID-5 IRMA (2011) 0.34 0.20 Anderson Sectional 7.7% Black/African (2019) American 7.1% Asian/Asian American, 5.1% Latino/Hispanic American 3.0% Other Methot-Jones et Cross- Undergraduate 53.7% White 514 0 29.31 Canada SRP-4 IRMA (2011) 0.37 0.27 al. Sectional (2019) Debowska et al. Cross- Prisoner Not stated 1126 0 34.26 UK PPTS AMDV-Sex 0.17 N/A (2018) Sectional Watts et al. Cross- Undergraduate 40.92% Caucasian 608 73 19.13 USA TriPM ARVS 0.42 (with 0.29 (with (2017) Sectional 26.41% Asian PPI-R RMAS PPI) PPI) 22.17% African SRP American 10.5% Other

31 Willis et al. Cross- Undergraduate 39.7% Caucasian 262 74.8 Not USA PPI-R ARVS 0.11 0.34 (2017) Sectional 33.8% African Stated American 17.6% Asian 3.4% Hispanic 6.5% biracial O’Connell & Cross- Undergraduate 76.8% Caucasian 452 76.5 20.3 USA PPI-R ATSPB- 0.24 0.35 Markus Sectional 7.5% Asian Revised (2016) 6.3% Hispanic 4.4% African American Debowska et al. Cross- Undergraduate Not stated 319 45.1 25.16 UK SRP-3 IRMA (2011) 0.29 0.21 (2015) Sectional Prison 129 0 27.08 Markus & Norris Cross- Undergraduate 71.8% Caucasian 170 0 19.93 USA PPI-R ATSPB 0.16 0.33 (2014) Sectional 7.1% Asian 6.5% African American 14.6% Other LeBreton et al. Cross- Community 73% White 470 0 23.67 USA SRP (30- Negative 0.28 0.18 (2013) Sectional item) Attitudes (antisocial) Regarding Women Mouilso & Cross- Undergraduate 79.5% White or 308 0 19.72 USA SRP-3 IRMA (1999) 0.22 0.12 Calhoun Sectional Caucasian (2013) 8.1% Asian 7.5% Black/African American 1.6% Hispanic/Latino 3.3% other DeGue et al. Cross- Prisoner 65.6% Caucasian 369 0 32.1 USA PPI (SF) Rape Scale 0.02 0.19 (2010) Sectional 16.9% African American 8.1% Hispanic/Latino 3.1% Native American 6.4% Multiracial

32 Risk of bias

The risk of bias assessment is summarised in Table 2. Several trends in the quality of the reporting in this research are apparent. Strengths of the literature included clear aims and objectives followed by appropriate study designs, clearly defined target populations and appropriate targeting of population bases. Studies appropriately selected Psychopathy and

RMA measures, most of which had previously been frequently used and well validated throughout the literature. There were some exceptions to this, with Marcus & Norris (2014) introducing their own measure of attitudes towards sexually predatory behaviour (ATSPB).

Moreover, two studies (Watts et al., 2017; LeBreton et al., 2013) used their own versions of

RMA scales which were formed from combining other well-established instruments.

The statistical methods were adequately described, and the analyses outlined in the study methods were generally consistent with what was carried out within the statistical analyses. Basic data was described for most studies (although three studies did not provide any descriptive statistics). All authors reported appropriate indicators of statistical significance and stated that their results had adequate internal consistency, with the lowest being the ‘victim blame’ scale used by Brewer et al. (2019) (Cronbachs alpha of 0.63). All authors included discussions and conclusions which were appropriate for their results as well as discussion of their study limitations.

There were also several identified limitations. Only two studies (DeLisle et al., 2019;

Kasowski & Anderson, 2019) included power calculations to justify their sample sizes. These studies were among the most recent, where this practice was more common. None of the studies discussed response rates or whether they addressed non-responders. For example,

33 both Debowska et al. (2015) and Debowska, Boduszek and Willmott (2018) recruited their prison samples by approaching prisoners but did not discuss the people who declined to participate. However, for the studies who used social network advertising (Brewer et al.,

2019; DeLisle et al., 2019) or Mechanical Turk (a recruiting programme run by Amazon)

(Kasowski & Anderson, 2019; Methot-Jones, Book & Gauthier, 2019) to recruit participants, identifying non-responders would be difficult, given that they would have no information on people who previewed studies and then declined to participate (Yapp & Quale, 2018). In spite of this, these studies could have reported how many people began responding but didn’t complete the process. However, no study did disclose this information. The remaining seven studies recruited from undergraduate university samples. These studies also did not give enough information about their recruitment method to determine why non-responder information was not provided.

All studies except one (O’Connel & Marcus, 2016) used measures for RMA which are based specifically on male-on-female sexual violence. Whereas most studies did not state the sexual orientation of participants to be important, some studies (Brewer et al., 2019;

LeBreton et al., 2013) specifically stated their intent to recruit heterosexual female and heterosexual male participants respectively. Another study (Mouilso & Calhoun, 2013) appeared to target heterosexual men given that they chose a version of the Sexual

Experiences Survey, specifically for male participants (e.g., a version which makes reference to “vaginal intercourse”) (Koss, Gidycz & Wisniewski, 1987). The three studies which reported their intention to specifically recruit heterosexual participants did state that they asked about sexual orientation within their demographic’s questionnaires. However, they did not discuss the proportion of people who reported being non-heterosexual, or how these respondents were managed (i.e., whether they were excluded from their study or not).

34 Seven studies did not mention whether ethical approval was obtained and six of these same studies also failed to disclose whether participant consent was obtained. Only five studies stated that no external funding had been received, while six studies failed to discuss external funding at all, and two studies disclosed their external funding sources. Only five studies stated there were no other sources of conflict, while the other eight studies did not disclose any sources of conflict.

35 36 Primary psychopathy & RMA

We first looked at the result of the meta-analysis including primary psychopathy measures. The effect sizes from three of the studies included in the omnibus meta-analysis

(see Figure 2) were not statistically significant (r = 0.02, 0.11 and 0.16). The remaining ten studies had effect sizes in the small to medium range (r = 0.17 to 0.45) according to Cohen

(1988). Effect sizes indicated positive and significant correlations between primary psychopathy and RMA. The pooled correlation coefficient was r = 0.26 (95% CI [0.19, 0.33] p <.001), which indicates that there is a small significant correlation between primary psychopathy and RMA. The I2 statistic was 83.0% (95% CI [65.0%; 93.6%]) and the Q test was significant (Q (12) = 74.35, p < .001) which indicates that heterogeneity between studies was both large and statistically significant. This is also indicated by the fact that studies varied in the quality of the instruments they used.

37

Figure 2. Meta-analysis: correlation (r) between primary psychopathy and RMA. Squares show individual r values with 95% CI. Smaller squares represent smaller sample sizes.

Publication bias

Examination of the funnel plot (Figure 3) indicated potential for publication bias because of signs of asymmetry. However, given that there were no augmented data points in the trim and fill modelling (Duval & Tweedie, 2000), this suggests that there is low risk of publication bias. Influence analysis using a leave-one-out method (Viechtbauer & Cheung,

2010) was also conducted. This analysis repeats the meta-analysis calculation 13 times (each time, omitting one of the included studies) and produces a hypothetical pooled effect size for the 12 remaining studies. The pooled effect size ranged from 0.24 to 0.28, which were close

38 to the main pooled effect size (0.26). Additionally, I2 statistics ranged between 76.23% and

84.58%, which indicates that no single study overly influenced the summary effect. It also indicates that none significantly contributed to heterogeneity more so than the other studies as part of the omnibus analysis. All models remained statistically significant when each of the

13 studies were omitted during the analysis.

Figure 3. Funnel plot to examine publication bias after trim and fill modelling (primary psychopathy and RMA).

39 Secondary psychopathy & RMA

We next examined the meta-analysis for secondary psychopathy. Debowska,

Boduszek & Willmott (2018) did not have an effect size for secondary psychopathy and

RMA and was therefore omitted from this analysis. From the remaining 12 studies included in the omnibus meta-analysis (Figure 4), the effect size from two studies were not statistically significant (r = 0.12 and 0.17). The remaining ten studies had effect sizes in the small to medium range (r = 0.18 to 0.37) and indicated positive and significant correlations between secondary psychopathy and RMA. The pooled correlation coefficient was r = 0.25 (95% CI

[0.20, 0.29] p <.001), which indicates that there is a small significant correlation between secondary psychopathy and RMA. The I2 statistic was 53.90% (95% CI [4.91%; 83.61%]) and the Q test was significant (Q (12) = 23.21, p = 0.02) which indicates that heterogeneity between studies was statistically significant.

40

Figure 4. Meta-analysis: correlation (r) between secondary psychopathy and RMA. Squares show individual r values with 95% CI. Smaller squares represent smaller sample sizes.

Publication bias

Examination of the funnel plot (Figure 5) indicated potential for publication bias because of signs of asymmetry. As there was one augmented data point in the trim and fill modelling (Duval & Tweedie, 2000), this suggests some evidence of publication bias. This modelling analysis indicated the potential for an additional study with a medium effect of

0.40 (95% CI [0.29; 0.52]). Influence analysis was again conducted, and the pooled effect size ranged from 0.23 to 0.26, which were close to the main pooled effect size (0.25) I2 statistics ranged between 52.02% and 57.23%. Again, this indicates that no single study

41 overly influenced the summary effect, or significantly contributed to heterogeneity more so than the other studies as part of the omnibus analysis. All models remained statistically significant.

Figure 5. Funnel plot to examine publication bias after trim and fill modelling (secondary psychopathy and RMA).

42

Discussion

The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the evidence which has explored the association between psychopathy and RMA. Thirteen studies that reported on these associations were reviewed and their results combined by calculating standardised effect sizes.

Regardless of the variability between studies, particularly with regards to the measurement of psychopathy and RMA, findings indicated that both primary and secondary psychopathy were positively and significantly associated with RMA. These associations were based on data from

5,123 participants and were small to medium in effect size (Cohen, 1988).

The primary psychopathy personality traits of callousness and meanness have been associated with RMA (Mouilso & Calhoun, 2013; Methot-Jones, Book & Gauthier, 2019; Watts et al., 2017). Considering that psychopathy is also linked with cognitive distortions relating to sexual offending, rape myths could be regarded as a specific kind of cognitive distortion (Lyons et al., 2021; Mousilo & Calhoun, 2013). Mouilso & Calhoun (2013) note, for example, how rape myths such as “some women deserve to be raped” and “women secretly want to be raped” are consistent with characteristics of primary psychopathic traits such as being manipulative, deceptive and lacking in empathy. Primary psychopathy traits are also believed to include an enhanced sense of entitlement to sex (irrespective of a partner’s desire to reciprocate) (Campbell,

Rudich & Sedikides, 2002; Raskin & Novacek, 1989). Likewise, individuals with higher levels of primary psychopathy traits are more likely to believe that women should be punished if they deny them sex (Baumeister, Smart & Boden, 1996; Bushman, Bonacci, van Dijk & Baumeister,

2003; Twenge & Campbell, 2003; Lamarche & Seery, 2019). Thus, primary psychopathy traits appear to relate to rape myths possibly based on cognitive distortions that put the perpetrator’s needs first, whilst distorting other’s roles in meeting their needs.

43

The secondary psychopathy traits of being disinhibited and impulsive were also significantly associated with RMA in the meta-analysis. This is consistent with research on personality traits associated with psychopathy being correlated with RMA (Cooke et al., 2020).

Also, both RMA (Yapp & Quale, 2017; Helmus, Hanson, Babchishin & Mann, 2013) and psychopathy (Evans & Tully, 2016; Kiehl & Hoffman, 2010), have been linked with sexual violence. Taken together, then, it would seem to make sense that characteristics such as being callous, mean, disinhibited and impulsive would be related to stronger attitudes and beliefs concerned with sexual offending.

Owing to the cross-sectional nature of studies within this area of research, it is difficult to ascertain to what extent RMA or psychopathic personality traits themselves relate to sexual offending, or whether a third variable affects both. It could also be that the multiplicative effect of RMA and psychopathy affect the likelihood of acting on these attitudes toward victims. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to examine the overlap between these two constructs and examining sexual offending was outside the scope of the review. Yet, it is important for future research to examine how these two factors might relate to sexual violence, since interventions may depend on these interrelationships.

The studies reviewed used a wide range of psychometrics to measure psychopathy and

RMA (all of which were self-report), and some studies developed their own instruments.

Although all studies included here used measures which were deemed specific enough to RMA

(sharing common conceptual grounds), it is important to note that some assessments were not created to specifically measure RMA. Additionally, limitations with even well-established RMA measures should be acknowledged. Buhi (2005) outlined the problems with reliability estimates as reported by studies which have used Burt’s (1980) RMAS. However, within the current

44

review only one study (Watts et al., 2017) used this measure, hence this is unlikely to have significantly affected results. Two of the most popular measures of RMA are the RMAS (Burt,

1980) and the IRMA (Payne, Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1999; McMahon & Farmer, 2011) which vary in different ways. For example, the RMAS literature seems to be predominantly concerned with sexual hostility towards women. Given the differences across measures, the overall conceptual validity of the rape myth construct has been criticised (Forbes et al., 2005).

Based on the review of the studies on RMA and psychopathy, there are criticisms of

RMA that need to be addressed if this literature is to move forward. First and foremost is the operationalisation of the construct of RMA. Almost all RMA measures contain items which exclusively focus on male-on-female sexual violence. These measures fail to acknowledge that male-on-male, female-on-male and female on female rape exists. Payne, Lonsway and Fitzgerald

(1999) argue that the overwhelming majority of rape perpetrators are men, and the victims are women. They also assert that widespread cultural beliefs exist which serve to specifically deny or indeed justify male sexual violence towards women, hence by definition, rape myths should be considered specific to male-on-female sexual offending.

However, this is inconsistent with the definition of rape myths provided by Burt (1980, p.217), defining them as “prejudicial, stereotyped or false beliefs about rape, rape victims and rapists”. If both rape myths and measures of rape myths are time and culture bound (McMahon and Farmer, 2011), then researchers must also be responsive to the fact that the definition of rape myths will continually evolve with time. For example, results within the National Intimate

Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NIPSVS) suggest that 23.6% of men will experience a form of sexual violence, including rape, sexual coercion and/or unwanted sexual contact (Black et al., 2011). Turchik and Edwards (2012) reported that 17.1% of their sample of undergraduate

45

men had experienced rape. These statistics would seem to highlight the potential need to recognise and account for the fact that sexual victimisation of men exists in today’s society which may consequently give rise to rape myths specific to male rape.

Operational definitions also have important implications for recruitment of participants.

Most studies did not report taking steps to ensure that recruited participants were heterosexual

(i.e., the same gender/sexuality as the perpetrator described within most RMA measures). If researchers are trying to measure RMA based on male-on-female sexual violence, amongst participants who have no sexual interest in women, then it is questionable how valid these RMA measures are for this population. It is possible that researchers are actually measuring a more general uncaring attitude for others (women), which is essentially synonymous with psychopathic traits. Thus, it is incumbent on future research to continuously revisit the theoretical roots of rape myths, in terms of how rape myths are defined, and the validity of psychometrics used to measure them.

Similar methodological issues are relevant for psychopathy. Psychopathy is a complex, multifaceted construct (Hare & Neumann, 2010) and there are different perspectives regarding its measurement amongst people who study psychopathy (Lilienfeld et al., 2014). The most well- validated and widely used measure of psychopathy is the PCL-R (Hare, 1991), which consists of many items relating to anti-social behaviour and is therefore predominantly used for incarcerated populations. Alternatively, the PPI-R (Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996) is composed of a higher proportion of items relating to the personality traits associated with psychopathy and deemed more valid for use within community samples. Evidently then, the construct of psychopathy and the way it should be measured conforms to the ontological position of the researcher. Indeed, psychopathy is currently the subject of much philosophical debate. Benning, Venables & Hall

46

(2018) question, for example, the logic of psychopathy being defined as disorder of one’s personality traits (i.e., a ‘personality disorder’) in the absence of any corresponding pathological or problematic behaviour.

Several strengths and limitations should be considered when interpreting the results. This review contained published studies only, hence only peer reviewed literature was selected.

Although this should be acknowledged as a strength, excluding grey literature also gives rise to the potential for relevant and valuable studies to be overlooked. Our results are therefore susceptible to publication bias. There was some degree of subjectivity when undertaking the quality assessment procedure with the Axis tool. In an attempt to manage this, the research collaborator performed a second independent critical appraisal of a random 38% of the included articles. Although discrepancies were deemed to be negligible and easily resolved by means of discussion, it should be acknowledged that this is a subjective process in itself and also susceptible to bias. Given that the Axis tool does not provide a numerical score, it was not possible to quantify any discrepancies, which differs from ‘gold-standard’ methods for cross checking quality assessment.

There was only a small number of studies that provided adequate data to enable statistical pooling of results. As a result of this, it was not possible to conduct any moderation analyses

(Hayes & Rockwood, 2017), to examine any other factors underlying the association between psychopathy and RMA in more detail. All studies used within this meta-analysis were cross- sectional in design which means that causal relationships between psychopathy and RMA cannot be inferred. Among the studies reviewed, there was a large overrepresentation of university undergraduate samples, consisting mostly of white Caucasian participants which means that there may be limits to how generalisable results are to other populations. Conversely,

47

undergraduate university students should not be considered as just a convenience population, given the overrepresentation of statistics concerning sexual violence on college campuses

(Dematteo et al., 2015; Payne, Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1999). Regardless of these limitations this is the first meta-analysis of the literature, investigating the associations between psychopathy and

RMA and provides further evidence for the relationship between both primary and secondary psychopathy and RMA.

To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis to review the literature which has investigated the association between psychopathy and RMA. Our results indicate that both primary psychopathy and secondary psychopathy traits are significantly associated with RMA.

Future researchers need to begin to address the methodological and philosophical issues that surround both the fundamental constructs of psychopathy and rape myths, as well as the way they are measured. It is imperative that these steps are taken, not only for this area of research to progress, but also to guide the development of future therapeutic interventions, which are of benefit to the person with psychopathic traits, as well as society.

48

Chapter Two: The role of psychopathic traits, rejection sensitivity and emotion regulation in predicting sexual coercion and attitudes towards rape, within undergraduate university students.

49

Abstract

Introduction: Research suggests an association between psychopathy and attitudes towards rape. There is even more evidence for the link between psychopathic traits and sexual coercion and primary psychopathy has emerged as being particularly important within this relationship.

Being sensitive to rejection or having difficulties regulating emotions could potentially explain why people with higher levels of psychopathic traits are more likely to endorse rape myths and be more sexually coercive. To date, to our knowledge, no study has considered rejection sensitivity or emotion regulation whilst exploring these associations.

Aims: The present study investigated i) the relationship between psychopathic traits, rape myth acceptance and sexual coercion, ii) the roles of rejection sensitivity and emotion regulation as possible explanatory variables within these relationships.

Method: Two hundred undergraduate students from UK universities (% female = 75.5, mean age = 21.2, SD = 1.95) were recruited between December 2019 and March 2020. Included measures were the Self Report Psychopathy Scale (SRP-4), Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire

(RSQ), Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ), Post Refusal Sexual Persistence Scale (PSP) and the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale Short-Form (IRMA-SF).

Results: Both primary and secondary psychopathy had a significant effect on rape myth acceptance. Only secondary psychopathy had a unique effect on sexual coercion. Emotion regulation (suppression) was a significant predictor of sexual coercion. Neither rejection sensitivity nor emotion regulation were significant predictors of rape myth acceptance.

Conclusion: Personality traits relating to psychopathy could be an important focus for future research and clinical practice. However, the study was limited by including mainly women.

Future research would benefit from considering other potential underlying factors which may mediate these relationships and from using more diverse sample populations.

50

Introduction

It is estimated that approximately 1% of all non-incarcerated adults would meet clinical levels of psychopathic traits (Werner, Few & Bucholz, 2015). People with psychopathy are much more likely to be imprisoned for committing violent crimes and consume a disproportionate amount of criminal justice and clinical recourses (Kiehl & Hoffman, 2011). People with psychopathy are also more likely to hurt other people for their own personal gain and this can include the use of sexual coercion (Khan et al., 2017). Sexual coercion may be defined as imposed, forced and undesired sexual attention from which its victim cannot escape and can also involve physical violence, such as rape (Pavlovic, Markotic & Bartolin, 2019). Individuals higher in psychopathic traits are also likely to endorse more favourable beliefs and attitudes about rape (Watts et al., 2017; Methot-Jones, Book & Gauthier, 2019). We don’t yet know exactly why people with psychopathy are more likely to possess more positive attitudes and beliefs about rape and use sexually coercive behaviour. It could be because they are more sensitive to romantic rejection (Conradi et al., 2016; Khan et al., 2017) and less able to regulate their emotions (Blair, 2005; Hare & Neumann, 2008; Kosson, Vitacco, Swogger & Steuerwald,

2016; Patrick et al., 2009; Garofalo, Neumann & Velotti, 2018), following rejection.

Different forms of psychopathy (primary and secondary) have been shown to be associated with attitudes that both promote sexual coercion and the perpetration of sexual coercion (Khan et al., 2017). Research exploring the association between psychopathy and sexual coercion has frequently been generated from incarcerated samples (Evans & Tully, 2016).

Yet, psychopathic traits are also associated with sexual coercion within the general population.

The rate of reported sexual assault within university campuses is a growing concern (Dematteo et al., 2015). A recent UK study found that 62% of undergraduates had experienced some form of sexual violence and 8% of women reported that they had been raped at university (Revolt Sexual

51

Assault & The Student Room, 2018). Prevalence rates of experienced sexual coercion amongst undergraduates, have been reported as 13% to 30% for women and 5% to 31% for men

(Hoffman & Verona, 2019).

Psychopathy is a multifaceted and complex construct (Hare & Neumann, 2010), characterized by callous, selfish, impulsive, and egotistical behaviour, alongside a lack of empathy (Hare, 1996). Psychopathy may be divided into both personality and behavioural features (Hare, 2003; Hare, Hart & Harpur, 1991; Harpur, Hare & Hakstian, 1989). Measures typically identify two correlated yet distinct factors. Within the Hare Psychopathy Checklist

Revised (PCL-R, Hare, 2003), Factor One (primary) represents the affective and interpersonal aspects of psychopathy, relating to manipulative, deceitful, and immoral behaviour. Factor Two

(secondary) centres on social deviance, impulsiveness and sensation-seeking. These factors are sometimes labelled as fearless dominance or impulsive-antisocial traits (Khan et al., 2017). We will use the designation of primary and secondary psychopathy, because these two forms of psychopathy have frequently been investigated in relation to sexual coercion.

Psychopathy & rape myth acceptance (RMA)

Cognitive distortions around sexual violence are believed to be a prominent feature of psychopathy (Mouilso & Calhoun, 2013) and attitudes are known to be good predictors of human behaviour (Lyons et al., 2021; Young & Thiessen, 1992). Therefore, more recently, researchers have also investigated the association between psychopathy and attitudes towards sexual aggression, namely rape myth acceptance (RMA). RMA refers to beliefs about rape, victims, and perpetrators that either blame the victim or make excuses for the perpetrator

(DeLisle et al., 2019). Rape myths may function as “psychological releasers or neutralizers” that

52

allow people to justify rape (Burt 1978, p.282; Mouilso & Calhoun., 2013). The limited existing research suggests that psychopathic traits are associated with RMA and that primary and secondary psychopathy factors are differentially related to rape attitudes. The primary psychopathy traits of being mean (i.e., callous) have been shown to be moderately positively associated with rape attitudes (Watts et al., 2017; Methot-Jones, Book & Gauthier, 2019). The secondary psychopathy traits of being disinhibited were positively associated with rape attitudes albeit but to a lesser extent (Watts et al., 2017).

However, prior research on psychopathy and RMA is limited because there are many ways to measure RMA. Until recently, acceptance of rape myths has primarily been measured using

Burt’s (1980) Rape Myth Acceptance Scale. However, this scale almost exclusively focuses on more harsh rape myths pertaining to characteristics of the victim and describes sexual behaviour with language which is now considered dated (Mouilso & Calhoun, 2013). The Illinois Rape

Myth scale (McMahon & Farmer, 2011) is preferable because it excludes dated colloquial phrases and sexual slang and has the ability to capture more subtle rape myths, which could be more relevant for use with non-offending samples (McMahon & Farmer, 2011). Several studies

(i.e., DeLisle et al., 2019; Debowska et al., 2015; Mouilso & Calhoun 2013; Methot-Jones, Book

& Gauthier, 2019; Kasowiski & Anderson, 2019) who have used this measure in relation to psychopathy, have found primary psychopathy to be a stronger predictor of RMA than secondary psychopathy.

Psychopathy & sexual coercion

Sexual coercion is one of the most prevalent forms of sexual aggression investigated by researchers, in relation to psychopathy. Both primary and secondary psychopathy dimensions are

53

associated with increased levels of sexual coercion (Kahn et al., 2017; Hoffman & Verona,

2019). Primary psychopathic traits including the use of manipulation and charm, seem to matter more in terms of explaining sexual coercion than secondary traits, such as impulsivity (DeGue &

DiLillo, 2004). Since people with psychopathy are charming, manipulative, impulsive and lack in planning, it seems likely that they would pressure or force other people to have sexual contact and this force could even include intoxication with alcohol or drugs (Struckman-Johnson,

Struckman-Johnson & Anderson, 2003; Hughes, Brewer & Khan, 2020). These individuals may pursue sex without the usual emotional attachment, making it easier for them to use charm, flattery and lies to manipulate victims without breaking the law (Munoz, Khan & Cordwell,

2011). Characteristics such as charm and narcissism are specifically related to primary psychopathy and may even help to attract a victim (Falkenbach, Howe & Falki, 2013; Khan et al., 2017). Sexual coercion may serve a strong need to physically control others for selfish sexual gratification (Muñoz-Centifanti et al., 2015), power and dominance (Hoffmann & Verona, 2019).

Whilst attempting to understand the link between psychopathy and sexual coercion, it could therefore be important to consider motivational factors which may mediate this relationship.

Rejection sensitivity

Research suggests that sexual coercion could also arise from motives around self-defence

(Archer, 2000; Johnson, 2006; Hoffmann & Verona, 2018), namely around rejection sensitivity

(Conradi et al., 2016). Rejection sensitivity (RS) is characterized by intensified anger and/or anxiety in reaction to anticipated rejection from another (Downey, Bonica & Rincon, 1999). The

RS model draws from attachment, social, cognitive and interpersonal theories and hypothesizes that RS develops when children’s emotional needs are repeatedly rejected by significant caregivers (Downey, Bonica & Rincon 1999; Levy, Ayduk & Downey, 2001; Volz & Kerig,

54

2010). As a consequence of experiences of rejection, RS is intended to defend the self from rejection whilst preserving social connections to the source of threat. RS therefore triggers rapid defensive responses to social threats (Romero-Canyas et al., 2010), such as sexual coercion.

Sexual coercion is a tactic that people can use to increase the likelihood of compliance

(Davis, 2006; Lamarche & Seery, 2019). Indeed, numerous studies have reported associations between RS and the perpetration of sexual coercion when rejection is anticipated from a partner

(Downey, Feldman & Ayduk, 2000; Romero-Canyas et al., 2010; Volz & Kerig, 2010). Hoffman

& Verona (2019) also report evidence of an association between sexual coercion and the drive to meet needs for love or attention. This sentiment is consistent with other research, citing that people with high levels of borderline personality disorder (BPD) traits may respond aggressively to perceived rejection from sexual partners (Cheavens, Lazarus & Herr, 2014; Muñoz-Centifanti et al., 2015).

Furthermore, it has also been suggested that individuals with psychopathy have an increased risk of experiencing social rejection (Masui, Fujiwara & Ura, 2013, Falkenbach,

Poythress & Creevy, 2008; Fowles & Dindo, 2009; Hoffmann & Verona, 2019) and are more likely to express hostile reactions in such situations (Koenigs, Kruepke & Newman, 2010; Masui et al., 2012; Rilling et al., 2007; Masui, Fujiwara & Ura, 2013). This may be because these individuals hold an exaggerated sense of entitlement, which makes the prospect of rejection particularly threatening (Brennan et al., 2018). Within the context of romantic relationships, RS seems to be linked with the same impulsive and irresponsible traits associated with secondary psychopathy (Conradi et al., 2016; Khan et al., 2017). However, the relationships between psychopathy, rejection sensitivity and processing of rejection remain poorly understood

(Brennan et al., 2018). Nevertheless, the way that individuals with psychopathy perceive

55

rejection and their ability to emotionally process such experiences, could be important for understanding why they are more sexually coercive.

Emotion regulation

Rejection by another person can activate strong emotions, particularly for people with higher levels of psychopathic traits (Brennan et al., 2018). It could be that anticipating rejection also triggers negative emotions, so that it becomes necessary to try and regulate these emotions

(Romero-Canyas et al., 2010). Gross (2001) defines emotion regulation as any strategy that a person might use to increase, maintain or decrease one or more components of an emotional response. It may be considered as a process involving an awareness, understanding and acceptance of emotions, with the ability to control subsequent behaviours and use situationally appropriate emotion regulation strategies (Shorey et al., 2011). Examples include attentional deployment (distraction) or avoidance (Gross, 2001). Emotion regulation problems are related to a wide range of metal health difficulties, including anxiety, aggression (Bushman, Baumeister &

Phillips, 2001; Donahue, McClure & Moon, 2014), deliberate self-harm, chronic depression, eating disorders (Leinehan, 2014) and psychopathy (Garofalo, Neumann & Velotti, 2020).

Clearly then, the ability to effectively regulate emotions is paramount for the development and maintenance of mental health (Gross & Muñoz, 1995).

Emotion regulation may be even more significant because research has also identified a direct link between difficulties in regulating emotions and psychopathy (Donahue, McClure &

Moon, 2014). Miller et al. (2010) found that both primary and secondary psychopathy dimensions were associated with difficulties regulating emotions. Glass & Newman (2008) reported that secondary psychopathy traits were negatively associated with attempts to maintain

56

positive affect or repair negative affect states. In another study, secondary psychopathy was negatively associated with emotional intelligence (Vidal, Skeem & Camp, 2010). These findings are important because previous research has also identified emotional dysregulation as a risk factor for the perpetration of sexual coercion (Kirwan et al., 2018). This may be a consequence of difficulties controlling behavioural impulses after sexual advances are thwarted (Craig et al.,

2020). Taking these findings into account, it could be that the emotion regulatory problems associated with secondary psychopathy mediate the link between psychopathy and sexual coercion.

The present study

We know that psychopathy is linked to acceptance of rape myths. We also know that there is an association between both primary and secondary psychopathic traits and sexual coercion and that the primary dimension of psychopathy (for example manipulation, charm) could be particularly important. However less clear, are the underlying factors that mediate these relationships. Given that attitudes and beliefs are important predictors of behaviour (Lyons et al.,

2021; Young & Thiessen, 1992), the aforementioned sense of entitlement associated with psychopathy, could make it especially difficult for people high in psychopathic traits to process feelings of romantic rejection. Specifically, it could be that these individuals are more sensitive to rejection and are less able to regulate the corresponding emotions. To our knowledge, no study has considered rejection sensitivity or emotion regulation whilst investigating the relationship between psychopathy and sexual coercion or the acceptance of rape myths. By further developing our understanding of such relationships we could help to identify potential interventions for psychopathy and reduce sexual victimization (Donahue & Moon, 2014).

57

Being sensitive to rejection or having difficulties regulating emotions potentially explains why people high in psychopathy are more likely to endorse rape myths and be sexually coercive.

The present study investigated two aims: i) the relationship between psychopathic traits (both primary and secondary dimensions), RMA and sexual coercion, ii) the roles of rejection sensitivity and emotion regulation as possible explanatory variables within these relationships.

The present study was conducted within a large community sample of undergraduate students.

This was for two reasons. Firstly, the expression of psychopathic traits may be most prevalent in young adulthood, (when more casual sexual encounters are more common) (Muñoz, Kahn &

Cordwell, 2011). Secondly, there is serious concern about the number of sexual assaults which are happening within university campuses within the UK (Dematteo et al., 2015). An on-line survey was used to include students from across universities in the UK.

58

Method

Participants

Responses from 213 participants were collected. Prior to undertaking any statistical analysis, the data were screened for any indications of disingenuous answering behaviour. The data from participants who completed the study in less than seven minutes (as a probable lower limit to completing all the questionnaires) and/or failed to answer three or more questions from any one questionnaire, were removed. In all, 13 participants were removed from the study due to inconsistent and inappropriate completion of data. Thus, 200 participants were retained (female =

151, 75.5%) with an age range of 18-25 years (M = 21.2, SD = 2.0).

Procedure

Recruitment was undertaken between December 2019 and March 2020 via online questionnaires using Qualtrics (Provo, UT). Ethical approval was granted by The University of

Liverpool (reference 5325; Appendix B). The study was advertised around university campuses via posters and via social media. The study was also advertised via the University of Liverpool’s experiment participation requirement (EPR) points system for research participation via the

School of Psychology participant pool. Recruited participants were told that they would be offered the chance to be entered into a draw for one of three £50 Amazon vouchers. Participants took part in the study via a web link to the on-line Qualtrics survey, containing an information sheet (Appendix C), consent form (Appendix D), study questionnaires (Appendices E-I) and debriefing sheet (Appendix J) (appearing in this order). The debrief sheet contained information

59

pertaining to the aims of the study as well as information (including contact details) for a range of various sexual assault support organisations. At the end of the debrief, people were presented with the opportunity to ‘opt-in’ to receiving a one-page summary of the results of the study, as well as the draw for an Amazon voucher. Only undergraduate university students between the ages of 18-25 were eligible to participate. Any people attempting to participate who answered that they did not meet this criteria were directed to directed to the end of the study and informed that they were ineligible to participate.

Measures

Demographics: Participants were asked to state both their age (years) and gender (“male”,

“female” or “other”).

Psychopathy: The Self Report Psychopathy Scale Version 4 (SRP-4) (Neumann et al.,

2012) (Appendix E) was used to measure both primary and secondary psychopathy. This scale was initially developed to examine psychopathic traits within community samples and has been extensively used with undergraduate samples, demonstrating excellent reliability and validity

(Paulhus, Neumann & Hare, 2016). The dimensions of the SRP have been shown to relate with the known gold-standard Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R) in expected ways (Neumann et al., 2012). Consistent with the PCL-R factor structure of psychopathy, confirmatory factor analyses and logistic regressions support the four-factor oblique model for the SRP-4 (Mehmet et al., 2011).

The SRP consists of 64 items (from four distinct categories: ‘affective’, ‘interpersonal’,

‘lifestyle’ and ‘antisocial’) and asks participants to rate to what extent they agree with various

60

statements (utilising a five-point Likert scale (1 = “disagree strongly” to 5 = “agree strongly”)

(e.g., “I like to have sex with people I barely know”). Primary and secondary psychopathy scores were generated by calculating the sum of the overall scores for primary (M = 37.90, SD = 12.30) and secondary (M = 33.10, SD = 9.24). Using an undergraduate sample (N = 788), Paulhus,

Neumann & Hare (2016) reported good internal consistency for both primary and secondary psychopathy (Cronbachs alpha of 0.88 and 0.85 respectively). Consistent with prior research, the internal consistency of the scales in the present study was good for both primary and secondary psychopathy (Cronbachs alpha of 0.95 and 0.90 respectively).

Sexual Coercion: The Post refusal sexual persistence scale (PSP) (Struckman-Johnson,

Struckman-Johnson & Anderson, 2003) (Appendix F) was specifically developed for use with undergraduates and is used to measure sexual coerciveness. In terms of prevalence, the most common coercive tactics used were initiating sexual arousal, using emotional manipulation and telling lies (Struckman-Johnson, Struckman-Johnson & Anderson, 2003). The full version of this scale asks people about acts of sexual coercion they have perpetrated, as well as their experience as victims. However, only the perpetrator questions were used in the present study.

The questionnaire includes 19 items (19 tactics of sexual coercion), arranged into four subscales, measuring exploitation of the intoxicated (2-items) (e.g., “purposefully getting a target drunk”), emotional manipulation and deception (8-items) (e.g., “telling lies”), sexual arousal (3-items) (e.g., “Persistent kissing and touching”) and the use of threats or physical force

(e.g., “tying up a target”) (6-items). Participants are asked “Since the age of 16 years, have you used any of the tactics on the list below to have sexual contact with someone, after they have indicated ‘no’ to your sexual advances?” For each question, participants answer either yes (1) or

61

no (0). The number of “yes” answers are then added up to give a total score, with higher values indicating a greater variety of reported coercion.

Previous research has demonstrated differing levels of internal consistency across the four subscales. For example, Khan et al (2017) found ‘sexual arousal’ and ‘exploitation of the intoxicated’ to be adequate (Cronbachs alpha of 0.81 for both), whereas ‘emotional manipulation and deception’ was unacceptable (Cronbachs alpha of 0.49). In the current study, internal consistency was found to be good for all the subscales; ‘sexual arousal’, ‘emotional manipulation and deception’, ‘exploitation of the intoxicated and ‘physical force, threats or harm’ (Cronbachs alpha of 0.74, 0.72, 0.79 and 0.88 respectively).

RMA: The Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale Short-Form (IRMA-SF) (Payne,

Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1999; McMahon & Farmer, 2011) (Appendix G) was used to measure attitudes towards rape myths. This measure has demonstrated good reliability and validity within undergraduate populations (McMahon & Farmer, 2011). It has also shown to be correlated with actual male rape proclivity and sexual aggression (Stephens & George, 2009) and other related variables such as hostile sexism toward women (Chapleau, Oswald & Russell, 2007).

Respondents are asked to answer 22 attitude statements using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1-5, (1 = “strongly agree” and 5 = “strongly disagree”). The instrument is separated into four subscales; “She lied” (5-items) (e.g., “rape accusations are often used as a way of getting back at guys”). “She asked for it” (6-items), (e.g., “if a girl acts like a slut, eventually she is going to get into trouble”). “It wasn’t really rape” (5-items) (e.g., “if a girl doesn’t say “no” she can’t claim rape”). “He didn’t mean to” (6-items) (e.g., “if both people are drunk, it can’t be rape”). Scores are totalled for a cumulative score, with lower scores

62

indicating greater levels of RMA. Using a sample of 951 undergraduates, McMahon & Farmer

(2011) found the overall measure to have good internal consistency (Cronbachs Alpha of 0.87).

Within the present study, the internal consistency was good (Cronbachs alpha of 0.95). Higher scores on the IRMA are indicative of rape myth rejection. Therefore, we reverse scored these data so that higher values indicated greater acceptance of rape myths.

Rejection Sensitivity (RS): The Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire (RSQ) (Downey &

Feldman, 1996) (Appendix H) is an 18-item questionnaire, specifically designed for use with adult, undergraduate samples and has demonstrated good reliability and validity with this population (Downey & Feldman, 1996). This instrument has significant interpersonal content and was correlated with the ‘neuroticism’ component (Brookings, Zembar & Hochstetler, 2003), of the Interpersonal Adjectives Scales Big Five Version (IASR-B5) (Wiggins & Trobst, 2002).

The 18 items outline hypothetical situations which ask respondents to imagine making requests of significant others. For each item, they are asked to indicate: (a) their level of anxiety about the person’s reaction to the request; and (b) their level of expectation that their request will be granted. For the full measure, each item is calculated by multiplying the level of rejection concern by the reverse score for acceptance expectancy. The mean of the resulting 18 items is obtained to generate a total score for rejection sensitivity, with higher scores indicating greater rejection sensitivity. For the current study, only the first part of the measure was used, scores were added up to obtain a total score.

Other studies (i.e., Volz & Kerig, 2010; Mozley, Modrowski & Kerig, 2017) have used

The Children’s Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire (CRSQ) (Downey et al., 1998), but this instrument does not contain any items relating to romantic rejection. The adult version of the

RSQ was chosen because it contains a significant proportion (7/18) items which specifically

63

relate to romantic rejection. For example, ‘‘you ask your boyfriend/girlfriend to move in with you’’. For the full measure, Downey & Feldman (1996) used a sample of 584 undergraduates to establish good internal consistency, (Cronbachs alpha of 0.83), and test-re-test reliability across four months was 0.77. Within the current study the internal consistency for the first part of the measure was good (Cronbachs alpha of 0.91).

Emotion Regulation: The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) (Gross & John,

2003) (Appendix I) was used to measure two distinct aspects of emotion regulation strategies:

“emotional reappraisal” (6-items) and “emotional suppression” (4-items). Gross & John (2003) demonstrated the measure to have good reliability and validity using an undergraduate sample (N

= 1483). The reappraisal subscale was found to be correlated with other cognitive regulatory strategies such as ‘reinterpretation’ and ‘negative mood repair’. Suppression was found to be most correlated with ‘inauthenticity’ and ‘venting’ (Gross and John, 2003).

The ERQ contains 10-items in total for both emotion suppression (e.g., “I control my emotions by not expressing them”) and emotion regulation (e.g., “I control my emotions by changing the way I think about the situation I’m in”). Each question is answered on a seven- point scale ranging from 1-7 (1 = “strongly disagree”, 7 = “strongly agree”). Scores for each scale are averaged with higher scores indicating greater use of emotion regulation strategies.

Gross & John (2003) reported adequate levels of internal consistency for both reappraisal and suppression (Cronbachs alpha of 0.79 and 0.73 respectively), whilst test-retest reliability across 3 months was 0.69 for both scales. In the current study, internal consistency scores for both reappraisal and suppression were good (Cronbachs alpha of 0.87 and 0.80 respectively).

64

Data Analysis Plan

In order to determine the number of participants that would be required for sufficient statistical power, G*Power 3.1 (Faul et al., 2009) was used (Appendix K). The number of tested effects was two, with the total effects tested (including rejection sensitivity, gender and the two subscales of emotion regulation) being six. For a linear hierarchical regression analysis corresponding with our hypotheses, with a “F-test - special (increase of R²), fixed model”, it was calculated that for a medium effect size of 0.15, an alpha of 0.95 and power of 0.95, a minimum sample size of 107 participants would be required.

As the proportion of missing data was below 5%, missing data was accounted for by replacing missing data with the mean of the answered items from each scale. Data were analysed with Jamovi (Version 1.2). Preliminary analyses were conducted to examine descriptive statistics

(i.e., means and standard deviations) (Table 3). Part of the data were analysed using the module

GAMLj: General analyses for linear models (Version 1.2) (Gallucci, 2019). In order to determine if the demographic variables (gender and age) were related to our predictor variables and explanatory variables, correlations were performed. Results informed our inclusion of possible covariates.

The normality of the data was assessed before and after transformations, by ‘eyeballing’ histograms, boxplots, scatterplots and conducting z-tests using skewness and kurtosis. For medium sized samples between 50 and 300, Hae-Young (2013) states that data with Z-scores above 3.29 should be regarded as non-normally distributed. Primary psychopathy was positively skewed and leptokurtic (Z = 7.71, 4.71 respectively) so a natural log (LN) transformation was undertaken to bring the skewness to 0.49 (SE = 0.17) and kurtosis to 0.12 (SE = 0.34) since a

65

square root transformation was not a strong enough transformation in this case. The same was true for secondary psychopathy which was extremely positively skewed and leptokurtic (Z =

7.29, 7.29 respectively). A natural log (LN) transformation reduced the level of positive skewness to 0.28 (SE = 0.17) and kurtosis reduced to 0.37 (SE = 0.34). Two outliers were identified on the IRMA. These scores of 106 and 108 were 3.92 and 4.04 standard deviations

(respectively) above the mean. The next highest score was 94, so these outliers were adjusted to the next highest values (95 and 96 respectively) to reduce their extremity and to ensure they were relatively higher than the rest. It could be seen that this showed a marked improvement on the violin plot, however the data was still positively skewed and leptokurtic (Z = 10.29, 8.91 respectively). The data was therefore transformed using a natural log (LN) which brought the skewness to 0.84 (SE = 0.17) and kurtosis to 0.02 (SD = 0.34). All of these new values were within the acceptable range of 3.29 (Hae-young, 2013).

Table 3. Means and standard deviations for study variables All (SD) Male (SD) Female (SD) Other (SD) N = 200 N = 44 N = 161 N = 5 Age 21.20 (1.95) 21.40 (1.97) 21.20 (1.94) 20.60 (2.19) Study Variables Psychopathy 35.50 (10.10) 41.60 (11.40) 33.60 (9.14) 39.60 (3.75) Primary Psychopathy 37.90 (12.30) 45.50 (14.10) 35.50 (11.00) 42.20 (4.97) Secondary Psychopathy 33.10 (9.24) 37.70 (10.40) 31.70 (8.55) 37.00 (5.13) Emotion Reappraisal 4.84 (1.15) 4.82 (1.29) 4.86 (1.12) 4.53 (1.23) Emotion Suppression 3.72 (1.35) 4.37 (1.10) 3.51 (1.35) 4.45 (1.56) Rejection Sensitivity 65.10 (17.90) 58.70 (20.10) 66.90 (17.00) 66.20 (15.50) Coercion 0.98 (2.26) 1.89 (3.45) 0.70 (1.68) 1.40 (2.61) Rape Myth Acceptance 38.10 (17.30) 46.70 (18.20) 35.90 (16.50) 29.60 (9.50) Note: These values are for non-transformed data.

Zero-order correlations were used to investigate the relationships between all of the study variables (Table 4). To test whether psychopathy (primary and secondary) was associated with

RMA, whilst controlling for gender, emotion regulation (emotion reappraisal and emotion

66

suppression subscales) and RS we performed a hierarchical multiple linear regression. To determine whether psychopathy (primary and secondary) was associated with sexual coercion, whilst controlling for demographic variables, emotion regulation, (suppression and reappraisal) and RS, we performed another hierarchical regression. However, the sexual coercion subscale was very highly positively skewed towards zero (Z = 20.12) and had a high degree of dispersion.

140 out of the 200 participants answered “no” to all coercion items and the overall average score was 0.98/19. It was important to account for the fact that sexual coercion was therefore a ‘count variable’ within this analysis, which resulted in a skewed, non-continuous data set. Thus, a negative binomial regression with zero-inflation was required. This type of analysis corrects for data conforming to this distribution (Browne & Cudeck, 1992).

For the model predicting RMA, ERQ (suppression and reappraisal), gender, and RS scores were entered into the model first to test their explanatory variance of RMA. At step 2, we added the primary and secondary psychopathy subscales at once, to test if psychopathy would add incremental variance in explaining RMA after emotion regulation and RS. For the model predicting sexual coercion, Akaike’s Information Criteria (AIC) value was used as an indication of model fit when including gender, emotion regulation (suppression and reappraisal) and RS.

Lower AIC scores indicate a better and more parsimonious model. A second regression was performed where we added gender, emotion regulation, and RS as well as primary and secondary psychopathy. The change between the two AIC values was noted, such that any reduction in AIC was taken as supporting retention of the full model with primary and secondary psychopathy included. That is, this would indicate that primary and secondary psychopathy added enough variance to the model to improve the fit significantly. We also examined the deviance values with scores close to 1 indicating better fit.

67

Results

Zero-order correlations are shown in Table 4. These correlations were performed with no transformation on sexual coercion and with Pearson’s correlations except for gender where we used Spearman’s rank correlations. RMA was positively and significantly related to both primary and secondary psychopathy scales, with higher levels of RMA associated with higher levels of psychopathy. Primary and secondary psychopathy scales were moderately positively correlated with sexual coercion, with higher coercion reported by those with higher psychopathy. RMA was not significantly related to age but there was a moderate correlation between RMA and gender.

Men scored higher on RMA. Men also scored higher on psychopathy, coercion, and emotional suppression. Male participants reported significantly lower RS. Male participants reported less anxiety that they would experience rejection. As expected, sexual coercion and RMA were strongly positively correlated.

There was a weak but significant negative correlation between RMA and RS and a significant negative correlation between sexual coercion and RS. These correlations suggest that people who report low levels of anxiety about being rejected, report greater RMA and sexual coercion perpetration. There was not a significant association between RMA and emotional reappraisal. However, there was a weak but significant positive correlation between RMA and emotional suppression, suggesting that people who report greater suppression of emotions also report greater RMA. There was a weak but significant negative correlation between sexual coercion and emotional reappraisal, but the association with suppression was not significant.

This association suggests that those who use greater reappraisal report less sexual coercion.

68

Table 4. Zero order correlations between main study variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Primary Psychopathy — 2. Secondary Psychopathy 0.72 *** — 3. Emotional Reappraisal -0.04 -0.05 — 4. Emotional Suppression 0.36 *** 0.21 ** <-0.01 — 5. Rejection Sensitivity -0.30 *** -0.24 ** -0.19** 0.12 — 6. Rape Myth Acceptance 0.63 *** 0.55 *** -0.01 0.19 ** -0.27 *** — 7. Coercion 0.48 *** 0.54 *** -0.16* 0.01 -0.26 *** 0.54 *** — 8. Age -0.05 -0.05 0.06 0.04 0.03 -0.01 -0.06 — 9. Gender (male = 1, other =0) 0.33 *** 0.25 *** -0.01 0.27 *** -0.19 ** 0.32 *** 0.23 *** 0.05 — (Spearman's Rho) Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

69

Does psychopathy relate to rape myth acceptance after controlling for emotion regulation and rejection sensitivity?

Table 5 notes the betas, SE, 95%CI, R2 and p-values. The confidence intervals can be taken as effect sizes with values not including 1 as significant. Step 1 (including the covariates) explained approximately 17% of the variance in RMA (R2 = .15, F (4,195) = 9.68, p < .001). In examining the betas, RS was significantly negatively associated with RMA, such that those who reported less anxiety about being rejected reported greater RMA. Emotional suppression and gender were both significantly positively associated with RMA. Male participants reported greater RMA. Participants who were more emotionally suppressed reported greater RMA.

The addition of primary and secondary psychopathy at step 2 led to a significant increase in R2, accounting for an additional 25% of the variance in RMA over and above step 1 (ΔR2 =

0.25, ΔF (2,193) = 43.30, p < .001). The full model (including step 1 and step 2) (Table 5) was statistically significant and explained 42% of the variance in RMA (R2 = .42, F (6,193) = 23.68, p < .001). Primary and secondary psychopathy were both significant and unique positive predictors of RMA (see unstandardized betas in Table 5). The 95% confidence intervals indicate that the predictive effects of primary and secondary psychopathy were moderate to small. Within this step, rejection sensitivity, emotional suppression and gender were no longer significantly associated with RMA, because of their overlaps with primary and secondary psychopathy. Thus, the contribution that psychopathy brings to understanding RMA is important, over and above the contribution of rejection sensitivity, emotion suppression and gender.

70

Table 5. Hierarchical regression with emotion regulation, rejection sensitivity and psychopathy predicting rape myth acceptance Predictor Estimate SE 95% CI R2 Step 1 0.17 Intercept 3.80 *** 0.17 3.47, 4.13 Emotion Reappraisal -0.02 0.02 -0.06, 0.02 Emotion Suppression 0.05 * 0.02 0.01, 0.09 Rejection Sensitivity -0.01*** <0.01 -0.01, <-0.01 Male (1=male, 0=non-male) 0.19 ** 0.07 0.05, 0.31 Step 2 0.42 Intercept 0.69 0.37 -0.03, 1.41 Emotion Reappraisal 9.02e-5 0.02 -0.04, 0.04 Emotion Suppression -0.01 0.02 -0.04, 0.03 Rejection Sensitivity <-0.01 <0.01 <-0.01, <0.01 Male (1=male, 0=non-male) 0.09 0.05 -0.02, 0.19 Primary Psychopathy 0.57 *** 0.11 0.35, 0.78 Secondary Psychopathy 0.27 * 0.11 0.05, 0.50 R2 change = 0.25 Note *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001; step 1 F (4, 195) = 9.68***; step 2 F (6, 193) = 23.68***; step 2 - step 1 F (2, 193) = 43.30***

Does psychopathy relate to sexual coercion after controlling for emotion regulation and rejection sensitivity?

Table 6 notes the betas, SE, 95% CI, exp(B) and p-values. The confidence intervals can be taken as effect sizes with values not including 1 as significant. Step 1 (including the covariates) resulted in a deviance value of 0.90, AIC value of 477.80 and R2 of 0.12. In examining the betas, RS was significantly negatively associated with sexual coercion, such that those who reported less anxiety over being rejected reported greater sexual coercion. Emotional reappraisal was significantly negatively associated with sexual coercion, such that people who used less emotional reappraisal reported more sexual coercion.

71

The addition of primary and secondary psychopathy at step 2 led to a reduction in AIC of

35.05 and an increase in R2 of .24. The full model (including step 1 and step 2) (Table 6) resulted in a deviance value higher than 1 (1.27), an AIC value of 442.75 and an R2 value of 0.36. The change from step 1 to step 2 suggested the addition of both primary and secondary psychopathy added explanatory variance, resulting in a better fitting and more parsimonious model.

Secondary psychopathy was a significant and unique positive predictor of sexual coercion.

Emotional suppression also emerged as a significant predictor in the final model, suggesting that people who used less emotional suppression, reported more sexual coercion.

However, the zero-order correlation showed no association between coercion and suppression, so this effect may be due to multicollinearity of measures and statistical suppression. In all, the results show that secondary psychopathy was a unique predictor, but primary was not significant once controlling for emotion regulation and RS. Thus, the contribution that secondary psychopathy brings to our understanding of sexual coercion is important, beyond what gender, emotion regulation and RS explain. However, overlaps between primary psychopathy and gender, emotion regulation and RS rendered it nonsignificant at step 2

72

Table 6. Summary of negative binomial regression predicting sexual coercion Predictor Estimate SE exp (B) 95% CI Z p AIC Step 1 477.80 (Intercept) -0.25 0.16 0.78 0.57, 1.01 -1.52 0.13 Emotion Reappraisal -0.33 * 0.14 0.72 0.54, 0.94 -2.36 0.02 Emotion Suppression -0.13 0.13 0.88 0.66, 1.16 -1.03 0.30 Rejection Sensitivity -0.02 * 0.01 0.98 0.96, 0.99 -2.39 0.02 Gender (1 = male, 0 = female) 0.58 0.41 1.79 0.79, 4.30 1.41 0.16 Step 2 442.75 (Intercept) -0.65 *** 0.15 0.52 0.39, 0.70 -4.36 < .001 Emotion Reappraisal -0.18 0.12 0.83 0.65, 1.05 -1.56 0.12 Emotion Suppression -0.30 * 0.12 0.74 0.57, 0.95 -2.60 0.01 Rejection Sensitivity 0.01 0.01 1.01 0.99, 1.03 1.01 0.31 Gender (1 = male, 0 = female) 0.36 0.33 1.43 0.74, 2.80 1.08 0.28 Primary Psychopathy 1.41 0.74 4.10 0.90, 19.05 1.91 0.06 Secondary Psychopathy 2.58 *** 0.78 13.23 2.68, 70.04 3.29 < .001 Note *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001.

73

Discussion

The current study investigated whether primary and secondary psychopathy relate to

RMA and sexual coercion after taking into account gender differences as well as emotion regulation and RS. This study investigated whether people with higher levels of psychopathic traits were more likely to support rape myths and be sexually coercive, while accounting for the fact that rape myths or sexual coercion could be associated with interpersonal anxiety relating to fear of romantic rejection. Emotion regulation was also controlled for because of its association with psychopathy and sexual coercion. Both primary and secondary psychopathy were found to be significant unique predictors of RMA, (suggesting that regardless of emotion regulation, rejection sensitivity and gender differences in accepting rape myths), traits related to psychopathy were important. That is, although people who had greater RMA suppressed emotions more, were male, and reported less RS, these were no longer significant when psychopathy was included. Secondary psychopathy (but not primary psychopathy, although it was borderline) was a significant unique predictor of sexual coercion when including emotion regulation, RS and gender.

Emotion suppression was a significant predictor of sexual coercion. RS had an opposite association with what we would expect, and we discuss this below. Our final model indicated that that both primary and secondary psychopathy were predictors of RMA. Of note, primary psychopathy had a large effect size, whereas secondary psychopathy had a small effect size (Cohen, 1988). The primary psychopathy personality traits of being callous and mean have been linked with RMA (Mouilso & Calhoun, 2013; Methot-Jones, Book &

Gauthier, 2019; Watts et al., 2017). Given that psychopathy is linked with cognitive distortions around sexual violence, rape myths could be considered as a particular type of

74

cognitive distortion (Lyons et al., 2021; Mouilso & Calhoun, 2013). Mouilso & Calhoun

(2013) highlight for example, how rape myths such as “rape is a trivial act” and “women lie about rape” correspond with characteristics of primary psychopathy traits such as being deceptive, manipulative and lacking in empathy. Secondary psychopathy traits of being disinhibited have also been found to be associated with RMA, but to a lesser extent (Watts et al., 2017). Taken together, it would seem to make sense that traits such as being mean, callous and disinhibited would be associated with harsher attitudes and beliefs around sexual violence.

We found that only secondary psychopathy was associated with sexual coercion, as primary psychopathy did not reach significance in the final model (but was borderline). Prior research has found both primary and secondary psychopathic traits to be associated with sexual coercion (Khan et al., 2017; Hoffman & Verona, 2019). The same impulsive and irresponsible traits associated with secondary psychopathy, seem to be linked with emotion dysregulation (Miller et al., 2010; Malterer, Glass & Newman, 2008; Vidal, Skeem & Camp,

2010). Individuals high in secondary traits could therefore be more inclined to use sexually coercive behaviour, in an attempt to help them to use other people as a means of managing their emotions (Munoz Centifanti et al., 2015; Hoffman & Verona, 2019). A number of studies who have also used non-incarcerated samples of undergraduate university students, have reported primary psychopathy to be particularly important for predicting sexually coercive behaviour (Khan et al., 2017; Hoffman & Verona, 2018; Muñoz, Khan & Cordwell,

2011). Although this is not consistent with our findings on sexual coercion, this is likely because we controlled for rejection sensitivity and emotion regulation. This is the only

75

known study to control for rejection sensitivity and emotion regulation, whilst exploring the relationship between psychopathy and sexual coercion or RMA.

The finding that only secondary psychopathy predicted sexual coercion within our model, may also have been partly because our sample consisted of mainly females (75.5%).

Psychopathy can present differently between men and women (Munoz-Centifanti et al.,

2015), who may perpetrate sexual coercion for different reasons (Hoffmann & Verona, 2018;

Shorey, Meltzer & Cornelius, 2010). Female sexual coercion is believed to be more likely to arise from self-defence motives (Archer, 2000; Johnson, 2006; Hoffmann & Verona, 2018) and rejection sensitivity (Conradi et al., 2016). In one study, men were motivated to perpetrate physical aggression due to anger and wanting to get attention (Shorey, Meltzer &

Cornelius, 2010). However, women were motivated to retaliate aggressively due to feeling emotionally hurt and as a way of expressing subsequent feelings of rejection (Shorey et al.,

2011).

Within the context of romantic rejection, this expression of aggression would appear to be linked with the same irresponsible and impulsive traits associated with secondary psychopathy (Conradi et al., 2016; Khan et al., 2017). Sexually coercive behaviour could therefore be regarded as a form of aggression, happening within a particular social context which may manifest differently for men and women. Future research could further explore gender differences, both in terms of what motivates people to use sexual coercion and also the underlying pathways.

In our final models, we found gender to be a predictor of RMA, whereby males were more likely to endorse rape myths. However, when psychopathy was introduced, gender was

76

no longer a significant predictor of RMA. Given that our measure for RMA consisted entirely of rape myths pertaining to sexual violence towards women, this finding would seem to make sense. No association was found in our model, between gender and sexual coercion.

In the present study, RS was a significant predictor of coercion and RMA, but this was prior to including psychopathy in the models. Our findings showed that RS was negatively associated with sexual coercion and RMA, which was unexpected. RS is believed to arise in response to one’s emotional needs being repeatedly rejected by significant caregivers (Downey, Bonica & Rincon 1999; Levy, Ayduk & Downey, 2001; Volz & Kerig,

2010). As a consequence of these childhood experiences, RS may be considered as a self- defence mechanism, whereby people experience intensified anxiety when they anticipate rejection from another person (Downey, Bonica & Rincon, 1999). Sexual coercion could be considered as one such defensive response (Archer, 2000; Johnson, 2006; Hoffmann &

Verona, 2018), aiming to fulfil needs for attention and love (Hoffman & Verona, 2019), given that it increases the likelihood of sexual compliance (Davis, 2006; Lamarche & Seery,

2019).

Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that people higher in RS are more likely to perpetrate sexual violence (Downey, Feldman & Ayduk, 2000; Volz & Kerig, 2010; Mozley,

Modrowski & Kerig, 2017). However, it may be important to consider that rejection sensitivity can be measured in different contexts. Both Volz & Kerig (2010) and Mozley,

Modrowski & Kerig, (2017) used The Children’s Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire

(CRSQ) (Downey et al., 1998), which does not contain any items associated with romantic rejection. Conversely, in the present study we used the adult version of the Rejection

Sensitivity Questionnaire (RSQ), whereby 7/18 items specifically relate to romantic rejection.

77

For example, “you ask someone you don’t know well out on a date – how concerned or anxious would you be over whether or not the person would want to go out with you?”

Therefore, the unexpected finding that people who reported less anxiety about being rejected were actually more sexually coercive and accepting of rape myths, could be because they were less anxious about being romantically rejected. In fact, this finding could even suggest that they had an increased sense of romantic entitlement.

Feeling more entitled to sex, regardless of a partner's willingness to participate, is a trait which is linked with primary psychopathy (Campbell, Rudich & Sedikides, 2002; Raskin

& Novacek, 1989). Indeed, people higher in primary psychopathy are more aggressive in the face of rejection, hold more rape-supportive beliefs, feel less empathetic towards victims of sexual assault and are more likely to believe that women who deny them sex should be punished (Baumeister, Smart & Boden, 1996; Bushman et al., 2003; Twenge & Campbell,

2003) (Lamarche & Seery, 2019). Our results do not directly address whether a heightened sense entitlement explains our findings, but entitlement is something that future researchers could consider controlling for, alongside rejection sensitivity and emotion regulation.

Emotion suppression was found to be a significant predictor of RMA, but this was prior to the inclusion of psychopathy in the model. Surprisingly our final model indicated that emotion suppression negatively predicted sexual coercion; despite there being no association within step one. Finally, prior to adding psychopathy to the model, we found emotional reappraisal to be a significant negative predictor of sexual coercion. This suggests that people who are able to reappraise their emotions may be less inclined to be sexually coercive.

Indeed, emotion regulation involves the use of situationally appropriate strategies to control

78

subsequent behaviour (Shorey et al., 2011) and dysregulation of emotions has been identified as a risk factor for the perpetration of sexual coercion (Kirwan et al., 2019).

Problems with emotion regulation could make it more difficult for people high in psychopathy to control behavioural impulses, when they perceive their sexual advances to be rejected (Craig et al., 2020). The association between emotion suppression and RMA within our study is interesting. Burt (1978, p282) describes rape myths as “psychological releasers or neutralizers” that allow people to justify rape. Consistent with this idea, rape myths could also serve as a type of defence mechanism, helping people who endorse sexual violence to suppress any corresponding feelings they have such as anxiety or guilt. Future researchers could further explore the role of emotion suppression within more favourable attitudes and beliefs about sexual violence. Nonetheless, our final models indicated that personality traits unique to psychopathy could be particularly important for predicting RMA and sexual coercion.

There are several limitations which should be considered when interpreting our results. This study was limited by the fact that self-report instruments were used for data collection. This is significant given that people with psychopathic traits are skilled at moderating their social impressions on questionnaires (Kelsey, Rogers & Robinson, 2015).

However self-report is the most common and feasible method of data collection throughout the psychopathy literature. Our sample was comprised of mostly female participants (75.5%) and this could have had implications for some of our findings. As discussed above, psychopathy (Munoz-Centifanti et al., 2015) and sexual coercion (Hoffmann & Verona,

2018; Shorey, Meltzer & Cornelius, 2010), can present differently between men and women.

This study also has some methodological strengths. Our sample consisted of undergraduate

79

university students and this area of research is salient to this population because of the high rates of sexual assault within universities (Dematteo et al., 2015). We are confident that our results are applicable to this high-risk population, given that our findings are consistent with previous literature. To our knowledge this is the first study to control for RS and emotion regulation, whilst investigating the relationship between psychopathy, sexual coercion and

RMA.

We found that people who supress their emotions are more likely to endorse rape myths and people who use less emotional reappraisal are more sexually coercive. This suggests that interventions for RMA and sexual coercion could focus on helping people to better regulate their emotions. Emotion dysregulation is understood to be a core feature of psychopathy (Blair, 2005; Cleckley, 1941/1988; Hare & Neumann, 2008; Kosson et al.,

2016; Lykken, 1995; Patrick, Fowles & Krueger, 2009). Moreover, it seems to be related to the same self-centred impulsivity associated with secondary traits (Miller et al. 2010; Vidal,

Skeem & Camp, 2010; Preston & Anestis, 2019) and linked with the perpetration of reactive aggression (Long et al., 2014; Marsee and Frick 2007; Preston & Anestis, 2019). Given that emotion regulation is a dynamic factor, shaped throughout development (Frick & Morris,

2004), it could potentially be targeted with treatment interventions (Garofalo et al., 2017;

Roberton, Daffern & Bucks, 2015; Garofalo, Neumann & Velotti, 2018). Nonetheless, our final models indicated that personality traits unique to psychopathy could be particularly important for predicting RMA and sexual coercion. This suggests that personality traits associated with psychopathy, such as dominance and callousness could also be a useful target for interventions.

80

People with higher levels of psychopathy are much more likely to be imprisoned for committing violent crimes and consume a significant proportion of clinical and criminal justice recourses (Kiehl & Hoffman, 2010). Individuals with psychopathy are more likely to have favourable attitudes and beliefs about rape (Watts et al., 2017; Methot-Jones, Book &

Gauthier, 2019) and use sexually coercive tactics for their own personal gain (Khan et al.,

2017). Future treatment interventions could benefit from helping people to challenge their attitudes and beliefs surrounding sexual violence. Future research should explore the extent to which entitlement helps to explain the link between psychopathy and sexual coercion and

RMA.

81

Chapter Three: Clinical implications for psychopathy – related sexual violence.

82

Given that psychopathy is generally associated with varying degrees of harm to society, interventions for individuals with psychopathic traits should be an important goal for research (Polaschek & Skeem, 2018). Despite this, there has been a lack of research on how personality traits (e.g. callous/unemotional traits) associated with psychopathy can be effectively treated. This is at least partially owing to the lack of consensus about what psychopathy is, what causes it and how it should be measured (Polaschek & Skeem, 2018).

Considering that the same methodological concerns exist with regards to rape myths

(Lonsway and Fitzgerald 1994, 1995), it is not surprising that it is difficult to draw many firm conclusions from the literature which has explored the relationship between psychopathy and

RMA.

From a clinical perspective, the identification and development of an understanding of a person’s psychological difficulties, through assessment and formulation, is a prerequisite for good therapeutic intervention (Johnstone & Dallos, 2014). Hence, if there is little consensus on how psychopathy should be defined or measured, it is questionable how feasible it is to develop interventions for psychopathy related personality traits. Most of the published research suggests that people with high levels of psychopathic traits can benefit from interventions which focus on modifying anti-social behaviour (Polaschek & Skeem,

2018). However, this has almost exclusively been conducted with incarcerated samples, using the PCL-R (Hare, 1991), given its utility in assessing the risk of violent and anti-social behaviour (Skeem, Polaschek, Patrick & Lilienfeld, 2011). Taking into account that the anti- social behaviours associated with psychopathy are problematic within society, it is understandable that the efficacy of interventions for psychopathy have usually been based on behavioural change (Polaschek & Skeem, 2018).

83

However, there is a lack of research which has focussed on the treatment for psychopathy related difficulties in mental health settings (Galietta & Rosenfeld, 2012).

Considering that individuals with high levels of psychopathy are often labelled as having a specific personality disorder (i.e., ‘psychopathic personality disorder’), this is surprising.

Moreover, it perhaps generates more philosophical and ethical issues surrounding the best way to define psychopathy and what constitutes ‘treatment’. If it is predominantly the anti- social behaviour characteristics of psychopathy which are targeted by interventions, then arguably, these are interventions benefitting society opposed to the individual with psychopathy. The personality traits associated with psychopathy, such as callousness and lack of empathy should surely be worthy of treatment in their own right, before any intervention could be considered as ‘therapeutic’ for the individual.

There is extensive evidence for the efficacy of therapeutic methods such as cognitive restructuring, and psychoeducation to help individuals to alter beliefs and attitudes (Beck,

2011). If we know that individuals with psychopathic traits have higher levels of RMA

(Lyons et al., 2021; Cooke et al., 2020; Watts et al., 2017; Methot-Jones, Book & Gauthier,

2019) and rape myths can be thought of as a specific kind of cognitive distortion associated with psychopathy (Lyons et al., 2021; Mouilso & Calhoun, 2013), then theoretically, interventions for psychopathy related personality traits could target cognitive distortions associated with psychopathy. In spite of this, these interventions were not developed to target the unique cognitive-affective presentations associated with psychopathy (Baskin-Sommers,

Curtis & Newman, 2015). Moreover, there is a lack of research investigating the effectiveness of interventions which for example, have tried to help people with high levels of psychopathy develop empathy.

84

Using an offending sample of people with psychopathy, Baskin-Sommers, Curtis &

Newman (2015) investigated the effectiveness of a ‘brief cognitive remediation’ intervention.

Centring on the ‘response modulation hypothesis’, this treatment aimed to help participants to develop their ability to allocate more attention to affective stimuli, outside the scope of their current motivational goals. Following the completion of this intervention, participants demonstrated significant improvements in their ability to recognise important interpersonal and situational cues. Within another study, Dadds et al. (2012) used a cognitive intervention to specifically target callous-unemotional psychopathic traits. They found that empathic functioning could be significantly improved by helping participants to notice and interpret human emotions.

Although these studies report promising findings, it is important to acknowledge that the literature has predominantly investigated the efficacy of therapeutic interventions for psychopathic traits, with offending samples and/or people with clinical levels of psychopathy.

Yet, studies which have explored therapeutic interventions for people with sub-clinical levels of psychopathy are virtually non-existent within the literature. Furthermore, with regards to research on psychopathy, RMA and sexual violence, particularly within university populations, there are practical, methodological and theoretical issues to account for. Firstly, we know that people with sub-clinical levels of psychopathic traits are also prevalent within community samples (Neumann et al., 2012) and this could include for example, young people within universities who endorse rape myths. This raises an important issue as to how such individuals could even be identified as people who could potentially benefit from therapy.

One possible way of addressing these issues may be to enforce mandatory psycho- educational programmes for all undergraduates within universities, which highlight and challenge rape myths.

85

On the other hand, engaging people within such a programme would inevitably be an issue, particularly those with higher levels of psychopathy. Primary psychopathy traits consist of narcissism, grandiosity and a lack of empathy (Hare, 1996), reducing the likelihood that the person will recognise and accept that they have a ‘problem’. Additionally, why would people with psychopathy be motivated to engage in any intervention programme which seemingly centres on benefiting others in society? Researchers and clinicians alike must therefore consider how to make such interventions more relevant and incentivised for individuals with psychopathic traits. It may be necessary to emphasise the potential benefits for such an intervention, for the person with psychopathic traits (e.g., if treatment could be help them to obtain sex without resorting to sexual aggression, breaking the law and facing punishment).

86

References

Abrahams, N., Devries, K., Watts, C., Pallitto, C., Petzold, M., Shamu, S., & García-Moreno,

C. (2014). Worldwide prevalence of non-partner sexual violence: A systematic review.

The Lancet, 383(9929), 1648-1654. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62243-6

Al-Dajani, N., Gralnick, T. M., & Bagby, R. M. (2016). A psychometric review of the

personality inventory for DSM–5 (PID–5): Current status and future directions. Journal

of Personality Assessment, 98(1), 62-81. doi:10.1080/00223891.2015.1107572

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental

disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-

analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651–680.

Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to

violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103,

5–33. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.1.5

Beck, J. S. (2011). Cognitive Behavior Therapy: Basics and Beyond. (2nd ed.). New York

City, NY: Guilford Press.

Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994). Operating Characteristics of a Rank Correlation Test

for Publication Bias. Biometrics, 50(4), 1088. doi.org/10.2307/2533446

Benning, S. D., Venables, N. C., and Hall, J. R. (2018). Successful psychopathy. In C. J.

Patrick (Ed.) Handbook of Psychopathy, 2nd Edn, ed. (pp. 585–609). New York, NY:

Guilford Press.

87

Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M. L., Merrick, M. T., . . .

Stevens, M. R. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey

(NISVS): 2010 summary report. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention.

BLAIR, R. J. R. (2005). Applying a cognitive neuroscience perspective to the disorder of

psychopathy. Development and Psychopathology, 17(3), 865-891.

doi:10.1017/S0954579405050418

Boduszek, D., Debowska, A., Dhingra, K., & DeLisi, M. (2016). Introduction and validation

of Psychopathic Personality Traits Scale (PPTS) in a large prison sample. Journal of

Criminal Justice, 46, 9-17. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2016.02.004

Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to

meta-analysis. West Sussex, UK: Wiley & Sons.

Brennan, G. M., Crowley, M. J., Wu, J., Mayes, L. C., & Baskin-Sommers, A. (2018). Neural

processing of social exclusion in individuals with psychopathic traits: Links to anger and

aggression. Psychiatry Research, 268, 263-271. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2018.07.024

*Brewer, G., Lyons, M., Perry, A., & O’Brien, F. (2019). Dark triad traits and perceptions of

sexual harassment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, doi:10.1177/0886260519827666

Brookings, J. B., Zembar, M. J., & Hochstetler, G. M. (2003). An interpersonal

circumplex/five-factor analysis of the rejection sensitivity questionnaire. Personality and

Individual Differences, 34(3), 449-461. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00065-X

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological

Methods & Research, 21(2), 230-258. doi:10.1177/0049124192021002005

88

Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our will: Men, women and rape. Martin, Secker & Warburg.

London

Buddie, A. M., & Miller, A. G. (2001). Beyond rape myths: A more complex view of

perceptions of rape victims. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 45(3-4), 139.

doi:10.1023/a:1013575209803

Buhi, E. R. (2005). Reliability reporting practices in rape myth research. Journal of School

Health, 75(2), 63.

Bumby, K. M. (1996). Assessing the cognitive distortions of child molesters and rapists:

Development and validation of the MOLEST and RAPE scales. Sexual Abuse: A Journal

of Research and Treatment, 8, 37-54. doi.org/10.1177%2F107906329600800105

Burt, M. R. (1978). (Eds.). Attitudes supportive of rape in American culture. In House

Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Domestic and International

Scientific Planning, Analysis and Cooperation, Research into violent behavior: Sexual

assaults. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office

Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 38(2), 217–230. doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.2.217

Bushman, B. J., Baumeister, R. F., & Phillips, C. M. (2001). Do people aggress to improve

their Mood? Catharsis beliefs, affect regulation opportunity, and aggressive responding.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 17-32.

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.

89

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (5), 1027. doi.org/10.1037/0022-

3514.84.5.1027

Campbell, W. K., Rudich, E. A., & Sedikides, C. (2002). Narcissism, self-esteem, and the

positivity of self-views: Two portraits of self-love. Personality & Social Psychology

Bulletin, (3), 358. doi/10.1177/0146167202286007

Chapleau, K. M., Oswald, D. L., & Russell, B. L. (2007). How ambivalent sexism toward

women and men support rape myth acceptance. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 57(1-

2), 131. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9196-2

Cheavens, J. S., Lazarus, S. A., & Herr, N. R. (2014). Interpersonal partner choices by

individuals with elevated features of borderline personality disorder. Journal of

Personality Disorders, 28(4), 594-606. doi:10.1521/pedi_2013_27_069

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Cooke, E. M., Lewis, R. H., Hayes, B. E., Bouffard, L. A., Boisvert, D. L., Wells, J., . . .

Armstrong, T. A. (2020). Examining the relationship between victimization,

psychopathy, and the acceptance of rape myths. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, ,

886260520966669. doi:10.1177/0886260520966669

Costello, T. H., Watts, A. L., Murphy, B. A., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2020). Extending the

nomological network of sexual objectification to psychopathic and allied personality

traits. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 11(4), 237-248.

doi:10.1037/per0000377

90

Craig, A. N., Peterson, Z. D., Janssen, E., Goodrich, D., & Heiman, J. R. (2020). The impact

of sexual arousal and emotion regulation on men's sexual aggression proclivity. Journal

of Interpersonal Violence, doi:10.1177/0886260520915544

Dadds, M. R., Cauchi, A. J., Wimalaweera, S., Hawes, D. J., & Brennan, J. (2012).

Outcomes, moderators, and mediators of empathic-emotion recognition training for

complex conduct problems in childhood. Psychiatry Research, 199, 201–207.

doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2012.04.033

Davis, D. (2006). Attachment-related pathways to sexual coercion. In M. Mikulincer, & G. S.

Goodman (Eds.), Dynamics of romantic love: Attachment, caregiving, and sex (pp. 293–

336). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Dearden, L. (2019, September 17) Only 1.7% of reported rapes prosecuted in England and

Wales, new figures show. The Independent. Retrieved from

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rape-prosecution-england-wales-victims-

court-cps-police-a8885961.html

*Debowska, A., Boduszek, D., Dhingra, K., Kola, S., & Meller-Prunska, A. (2015). The role

of psychopathy and exposure to violence in rape myth acceptance. Journal of

Interpersonal Violence, 30(15), 2751-2770. doi:10.1177/0886260514553635

*Debowska, A., Boduszek, D., & Willmott, D. (2018). Psychosocial correlates of attitudes

toward male sexual violence in a sample of financial crime, property crime, general

violent, and homicide offenders. Sexual Abuse, 30(6), 705-727.

doi.org/10.1177/1079063217691966

91

DeGue, S., & DiLillo, D. (2004). Understanding perpetrators of nonphysical sexual coercion:

Characteristics of those who cross the line. Violence and Victims, 19, 673-688

*DeGue, S., DiLillo, D., & Scalora, M. (2010). Are all perpetrators alike? comparing risk

factors for sexual coercion and aggression. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and

Treatment, 22(4), 402-426. doi:10.1177/1079063210372140

*DeLisle, A., Walsh, H. C., Holtz, P. M., Callahan, J., & Neumann, C. S. (2019). Rape myth

acceptance, male gender role norms, attitudes towards women, and psychopathic traits in

a military sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 144, 125-131.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2019.03.005

DeMatteo, D., Galloway, M., Arnold, S., & Patel, U. (2015). Sexual assault on college

campuses: A 50-state survey of criminal sexual assault statutes and their relevance to

campus sexual assault. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21(3), 227-238.

doi:10.1037/law0000055

Donahue, J. J., McClure, K. S., & Moon, S. M. (2014). The relationship between emotion

regulation difficulties and psychopathic personality characteristics. Personality

Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 5(2), 186-194. doi:10.1037/per0000025

Downes, M. J., Brennan, M. L., Dean, R. S., & Williams, H. C. (2016). Development of a

critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS). BMJ Open,

6(12) doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011458

Downey, G., Bonica, C., & Rinco ́n, C. (1999). Rejection sensitivity and adolescent romantic

relationships. In W. Furman, B. B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.), The development of

92

romantic relationships in adolescence (pp. 148–174). New York, NY: Cambridge

University Press.

Downey, G., & Feldman, S. I. (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate

relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 1327.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1327

Downey, G., Feldman, S., & Ayduk, O. (2000). Rejection sensitivity and male violence in

romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 7, 45-61. doi:10.1111/j.1475-

6811.2000.tb00003.x

Downey, G., Lebolt, A., Claudia Rincón, & Freitas, A. L. (1998). Rejection sensitivity and

children's interpersonal difficulties. Child Development, 69(4), 1074-1091.

doi:10.2307/1132363

Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). A nonparametric “trim and fill” method of accounting for

publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association,

95(449), 89-98. doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2000.10473905

Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected

by a simple, graphical test measures of funnel plot asymmetry. BMJ, 315(7109), 629-

634. doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629

Evans, L., & Tully, R. J. (2016). The triarchic psychopathy measure (TriPM): Alternative to

the PCL-R? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 27, 79-86. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2016.03.004

Examining psychopathy from an attachment perspective: The role of fear of rejection and

abandonment. (2016). The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 27(1), 92-109.

doi:10.1080/14789949.2015.1077264

93

Falkenbach, D. M., Howe, J. R., & Falki, M. (2013). Using self-esteem to disaggregate

psychopathy, narcissism, and aggression. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(7),

815-820. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.12.017

Falkenbach, D., Poythress, N., & Creevy, C. (2008). The exploration of subclinical

psychopathic subtypes and the relationship with types of aggression. Personality and

Individual Differences, 44(4), 821-832. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.012

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. (2009). Statistical power analyses using

G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods,

41(4), 1149. doi:10.3758/brm.41.4.1149

Forbes, G. B., Adams-Curtis, L. E., & White, K. B. (2004). First and second generation of

measures of sexism, rape myths and related beliefs, and hostility towards women: Their

interrelationships and association with college students’ experiences with dating

aggression and sexual coercion. Violence Against Women, 10, 236-261.

Forbes, G. B., Jobe, R. L., White, K. B., Bloesch, E., & Adam-Curtis, L. E. (2005).

Perceptions of dating violence following a sexual or nonsexual betrayal of trust: Effect

of gender, sexism, acceptance of rape myths, and vengeance motivation. Sex Roles, 52,

165-173. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-1292-6

Fowles, D. C., & Dindo, L. (2009). Temperament and psychopathy: A dual-pathway model.

Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(3), 179-183. doi:10.1111/j.1467-

8721.2009.01632.x

94

Freeman, James E., Samson, Freya., & Palk, Gavan R. (2011). Identifying the presence of

psychopathy in the community. Proceedings of the National Conference on APS

Forensic Psychology, 2011. (Unpublished).

Frick, P. J., & Morris, A. S. (2004). Temperament and developmental pathways to conduct

problems. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 33(1), 54-68.

doi:10.1207/S15374424JCCP3301_6

Galietta, M., & Rosenfeld, B. (2012). Adapting Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT) for the

treatment of psychopathy. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 11, 325–

335.

Gallucci, M., & GAMLj. (2019). General Analyses for Linear Models. [Jamovi Module].

Retrieved from https://gamlj.github.io/

Garofalo, C., Neumann, C. S., & Velotti, P. (2020). Psychopathy and aggression: The role of

emotion dysregulation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,

doi:10.1177/0886260519900946

Garofalo, C., Neumann, C. S., & Velotti, P. (2018). Difficulties in emotion regulation and

psychopathic traits in violent offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 57, 116-125.

doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2018.05.013

Garofalo, C., Velotti, P., Zavattini, G. C., & Kosson, D. S. (2017). Emotion dysregulation

and interpersonal problems: The role of defensiveness. Personality and Individual

Differences, 119, 96-105. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.07.007

Glass, S. J., & Newman, J. P. (2006). Recognition of facial affect in psychopathic offenders.

Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115(4), 815-820. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.115.4.815

95

Gross, J. J. (2001). Emotion regulation in adulthood: Timing is everything. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 10(6), 214. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00152

Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes:

Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, (2), 348. Doi/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348

Gross, J. J., & Munoz, R. F. (1995). Emotion regulation and mental health. Clinical

Psychology: Science and Practice, 2, 151-164. doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-

2850.1995.tb00036.x

Hae-Young Kim. (2013). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Assessing normal

distribution using skewness and kurtosis. Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics, (1), 52-

54. doi:10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.52

Hare, R. D. (1996). Psychopathy: A clinical construct whose time has come. Criminal Justice

and Behavior, 23(1), 25-54. doi.org/10.1177/0093854896023001004

Hare, R. D. (2003). Manual for the Revised Psychopathy Checklist (2nd ed.). Toronto, ON:

Multi-Health Systems.

Hare, R. D., Hart, S. D., & Harpur, T. J. (1991). Psychopathy and the DSM-IV criteria for

antisocial personality disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100(3), 391–

398. doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.100.3.391

Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2010). The role of antisociality in the psychopathy construct:

Comment on Skeem and Cooke (2010). Psychological Assessment, 22, 446–454.

doi:10.1037/a0013635

96

Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2008). Psychopathy as a clinical and empirical construct.

Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 217-246.

doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091452

Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare psychopathy checklist-revised (PCL-R). Toronto, ON: Multi-

Health Systems.

Harpur, T. J., Hare, R. D., & Hakstian, A. R. (1989). Two-factor conceptualization of

psychopathy: Construct validity and assessment implications. Psychological Assessment,

1(1), 6-17. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.1.1.6

Hayes, A. F., & Rockwood, N. J. (2017). Regression-based statistical mediation and

moderation analysis in clinical research: Observations, recommendations, and

implementation. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 98, 39–57.

doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2016.11.001

Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring

inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 327, 557–560.

doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414. 557

Hoffmann, A. M., & Verona, E. (2018). Psychopathic traits and sexual coercion against

relationship partners in men and women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,

doi:10.1177/0886260518754873

Hoffmann, A. M., & Verona, E. (2019). Psychopathic traits, gender, and motivations for sex:

Putative paths to sexual coercion. Aggressive Behavior, (5), 527. doi:10.1002/ab.21841

Hughes, A., Brewer, G., & Khan, R. (2020). Sexual coercion by women: The influence of

pornography and narcissistic and histrionic personality disorder traits. Archives of Sexual

97

Behavior: The Official Publication of the International Academy of Sex Research, 49(3),

885. doi:10.1007/s10508-019-01538-4

Johnson, M. P. (2006). Conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic

violence SAGE publications.

Johnstone, L., & Dallos, R. (2014). Formulation in psychology and psychotherapy: Making

sense of people's problems (2nd ed.). Hove, United Kingdom: Routledge.

*Kasowski, A. E., & Anderson, J. L. (2020). The association between sexually aggressive

cognitions and pathological personality traits in men. Violence Against Women, 26(12),

1636-1655. doi:10.1177/1077801219873436

Kelsey, K. R., Rogers, R., & Robinson, E. V. (2015). Self-report measures of psychopathy:

What is their role in forensic assessments? Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral

Assessment, 37(3), 380. doi:10.1007/s10862-014-9475-5

Khan, R., Brewer, G., Kim, S., & Centifanti, L. C. M. (2017). Students, sex, and

psychopathy: Borderline and psychopathy personality traits are differently related to

women and men's use of sexual coercion, partner poaching, and promiscuity. Personality

and Individual Differences, 107, 72-77. doi/10.1016/j.paid.2016.11.027

Kiehl, K. A., & Hoffman, M. B. (2010). The criminal psychopath: History, neuroscience,

treatment, and economics. Jurimetrics, 51(4), 355-398.

Kirwan, M., Lanni, D. J., Warnke, A., Pickett, S. M., & Parkhill, M. R. (2019). Emotion

regulation moderates the relationship between alcohol consumption and the perpetration

of sexual aggression. Violence Against Women, 25(9), 1053-1073.

doi:10.1177/1077801218808396

98

Koenigs, M., Kruepke, M., & Newman, J. P. (2010). Economic decision-making in

psychopathy: A comparison with ventromedial prefrontal lesion patients. Great Britain:

Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam.

Koss, M. P., Gidycz, C. A., & Wisniewski, N. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and

prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher

education students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162–170.

doi:110.1037//0022-1006X.1055.1032.1162

Kosson, D. S., Vitacco, M. J., Swogger, M. T., Steuerwald, B. L., & Gacono, C. B. (2016).

Emotional experiences of the psychopath. The clinical and forensic assessment of

psychopathy: A Practitioner's guide (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Krueger, R. F., Eaton, N. R., Clark, L. E., Watson, D., Markon, K. E., Derringer, J., &

Livesley, W. J. (2012). Deriving an empirical structure of personality pathology for

DSM-5. Journal of Personality Disorders, 25, 170-191.

doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2011.25.2.170

Lamarche, V. M., & Seery, M. D. (2019). Come on, give it to me baby: Self-esteem,

narcissism, and endorsing sexual coercion following social rejection. Personality and

Individual Differences, doi:10.1016/j.paid.2019.05.060

*LeBreton, J. M., Baysinger, M. A., Abbey, A., & Jacques-Tiura, A. (2013). The relative

importance of psychopathy-related traits in predicting impersonal sex and hostile

masculinity. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(7), 817-822.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.07.009

99

Leslie, H., Karl, H. R., Babchishin Kelly M., & Mann Ruth E. (2013). Attitudes supportive of

sexual offending predict recidivism : A meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence & Abuse,

14(1), 34-53.

Levy, S., Ayduk, O., & Downey, G. (2001). The role of rejection sensitivity in people’s

relationships with significant others and valued social groups. In M. Leary (Ed.),

Interpersonal rejection (pp. 251–289). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Lilienfeld, S. O., & Andrews, B. P. (1996). Development and preliminary validation of a self-

report measure of psychopathic personality traits in noncriminal population. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 66(3), 488. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6603_3

Lilienfeld, S. O., & Windows, M. (2005). Manual for the Psychopathy Personality Inventory-

Revised. Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Linehan, M. M. (2014) DBT Skills Training Manual. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford

Press.

Long, K., Felton, J. W., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Lejuez, C. W. (2014). The role of emotion

regulation in the relations between psychopathy factors and impulsive and premeditated

aggression. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 5(4), 390-396.

doi:10.1037/per0000085

Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1994). Rape myths in review. Psychology of Women

Quarterly, 18(2), 133–164. doi.org/10.1111/j.14716402.1994.tb00448.x

Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1995). Attitudinal antecedents of rape myth acceptance:

A theoretical and empirical re-examination. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 68(4), 704. doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.4.704

100

Lykken, D. T. (1995). The antisocial personalities. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lyons, M., Rowe, A., Waddington, R., & Brewer, G. (2021). Situational and Dispositional

Factors in Rape Cognitions: The Roles of Social Media and the Dark Triad Traits.

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1(17), 1-17. doi: 10.1177/0886260520985499

Mahmut, M. K., Menictas, C., Stevenson, R. J., & Homewood, J. (2011). Validating the

factor structure of the self-report psychopathy scale in a community sample.

Psychological Assessment, 23(3), 670-678. doi:10.1037/a0023090

Malovich, N. J., & Stake, J. E. (1990). Sexual harassment on campus: Individual differences

in attitudes and beliefs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14, 63-81. doi:10.1111/j.1471-

6402.1990.tb00005.x

Malterer, M. B., Glass, S. J., & Newman, J. P. (2008). Psychopathy and trait emotional

intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(3), 735-745.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.007

*Marcus, D. K., & Norris, A. L. (2014). A new measure of attitudes toward sexually

predatory tactics and its relation to the triarchic model of psychopathy. Journal of

Personality Disorders, 28, 247– 261.

Marsee, M. A., & Frick, P. J. (2007). Exploring the cognitive and emotional correlates to

proactive and reactive aggression in a sample of detained girls. Journal of Abnormal

Child Psychology, 35, 969–981. doi/10.1007/s10802-007-9147-y

Masui, K., Fujiwara, H., & Ura, M. (2013). Social exclusion mediates the relationship

between psychopathy and aggressive humor style in noninstitutionalized young adults.

Personality and Individual Differences, 55(2), 180-184. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.03.001

101

Masui, K., Iriguchi, S., Terada, M., Nomura, M., & Ura, M. (2012). Lack of family support

and psychopathy facilitates antisocial punishment behavior in college students.

Psychology (Irvine), (3), 284. doi.org/10.4236/psych.2012.33040

McMahon, S., & Farmer, G. L. (2011). An updated measure for assessing subtle rape myths.

Social Work Research, 35(2), 71-81. doi.org/10.1093/swr/35.2.71

*Methot-Jones, T., Book, A., & Gauthier, N. Y. (2019). Less than human: Psychopathy,

dehumanization, and sexist and violent attitudes towards women. Personality and

Individual Differences, doi:10.1016/j.paid.2019.06.002

Miller, J. D., Dir, A., Gentile, B., Wilson, L., Pryor, L. R., & Campbell, W. K. (2010).

Searching for a vulnerable dark triad: Comparing factor 2 psychopathy, vulnerable

narcissism, and borderline personality disorder. Journal of Personality, (5), 1529.

doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00660.x

Ministry of Justice. (2013). An overview of sexual offending in England and Wales.

Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/an-overview-of-sexual-

offending-in-england-and-wales.

*Mouilso, E.R., & Calhoun, K.S. (2013). The role of rape myth acceptance and psychopathy

in sexual assault perpetration. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 22,

159-174. doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2013.743937

Mozley, M. M., Modrowski, C. A., & Kerig, P. K. (2018). The roles of trauma exposure,

rejection sensitivity, and callous-unemotional traits in the aggressive behavior of justice-

involved youth: A moderated mediation model. Aggressive Behavior, (3), 268.

doi:10.1002/ab.21749

102

Muñoz, L. C., Khan, R., & Cordwell, L. (2011). Sexually coercive tactics used by university

students: A clear role for primary psychopathy. Journal of Personality Disorders, 25,

28-40. doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2011.25.1.28

Muñoz Centifanti, L. C., Thomson, N. D., & Kwok, A. H. (2016). Identifying the

manipulative mating methods associated with psychopathic traits and BPD features.

Journal of Personality Disorders, 30, 721-741. doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2015_29_225

Neumann, C. S., Schmitt, D. S., Carter, R., Embley, I., & Hare, R. D. (2012). Psychopathic

traits in females and males across the globe. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 30(5), 557-

574. doi:10.1002/bsl.2038

*O'Connell, D., & Marcus, D. K. (2016). Psychopathic personality traits predict positive

attitudes toward sexually predatory behaviors in college men and women. Personality

and Individual Differences, 94, 372-376. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.011

Office for National Statistics. (2018). Sexual offences in England Wales: Year ending March

2017. Retrieved from

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/sexual

offencesinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2017.

Patrick, C. J. (2010). Triarchic psychopathy measure. Retrieved from

https://www.phenxtoolkit.org/index.php?pageLink=browse.protocoldetails&id=121601

Patrick, C. J., Drislane, L. E., & Strickland, C. D. (2012). Conceptualizing psychopathy in

triarchic terms: Implications for treatment. International Journal of Forensic Mental

Health, 11, 253–266.

103

Patrick, C. J., Fowles, D. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2009). Triarchic conceptualization of

psychopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness.

Developmental Psychopathology, 21, 913–938.

Paulhus, D. L., Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. (2016). Manual of the Hare Self-Report

Psychopathy Scale. Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems.

Pavlović, T., Markotić, A., & Bartolin, A. (2019). Dark triad and estimated probability of

sexual coercion. Personality and Individual Differences, 151

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2019.109527

Payne, D. L., Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1999). Rape myth acceptance: Exploration

of its structure and its measurement using the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale.

Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 27-68.

Polaschek, D. L. L., and Skeem, J. L. (2018). Successful psychopathy. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.)

Handbook of Psychopathy, 2nd Edn, ed. (pp. 210–731). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Preston, O. C., & Anestis, J. C. (2020). The indirect relationships between psychopathic traits

and proactive and reactive aggression through empathy and emotion dysregulation.

Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 42(3), 409.

doi:10.1007/s10862-019-09760-z

Price, E. L., Byers, E. S., & the Dating Violence Research Team (1999). The attitudes

towards dating violence scales: Development and initial validation. Journal of Family

Violence, 14, 351-375. doi:10.1023/A:1022830114772

104

Qualtrics software, Version [03/20] of Qualtrics. Copyright © [2020] Qualtrics. Qualtrics and

all other Qualtrics product or service names are registered trademarks or trademarks of

Qualtrics, Provo, UT, USA. Retrieved from https://www.qualtrics.com

Raskin, R., & Novacek, J. (1989). An MMPI description of the narcissistic personality.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 53(1), 66. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa5301_8

Revolt Sexual Assault and The Student Room. (2018). Students’ experience of sexual

violence. Retrieved from https://revoltsexualassault.com/wp-

content/uploads/2018/03/Report-Sexual-Violence-at-University-Revolt-Sexual-Assault-

The-Student-Room-March-2018.pdf.

Rilling, J. K., Glenn, A. L., Jairam, M. R., Pagnoni, G., Goldsmith, D. R., Elfenbein, H. A.,

& Lilienfeld, S. O. (2007). Neural correlates of social cooperation and non-cooperation

as a function of psychopathy. Biological Psychiatry, 61(11), 1260-1271.

doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.07.021

Roberton, T., Daffern, M., & Bucks, R. S. (2015). Beyond anger control: Difficulty attending

to emotions also predicts aggression in offenders. Psychology of Violence, 5(1), 74-83.

Romero‐Canyas, R., Downey, G., Berenson, K., Ayduk, O., & Kang, N. J. (2010). Rejection

sensitivity and the Rejection–Hostility link in romantic relationships. Journal of

Personality, 78(1), 119-148. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00611.x

Russell, T. D., & King, A. R. (2020). Distrustful, conventional, entitled, and dysregulated:

PID-5 personality facets predict hostile masculinity and sexual violence in community

men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(3-4), 707-730.

doi:10.1177/0886260517689887

105

Sarah, V., Jennifer, S., & Jacqueline, C. (2010). Emotional intelligence: Painting different

paths for low-anxious and high-anxious psychopathic variants. Law and Human

Behavior, 34(2), 150-163.

Scott, O. L., Robert, D. L., Watts, A. L., Sarah, F. S., & eDutton, K. (2014). Correlates of

psychopathic personality traits in everyday life: Results from a large community survey.

Frontiers in Psychology, 5 doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00740

Sellbom, M., & Phillips, T. R. (2013). An examination of the triarchic conceptualization of

psychopathy in incarcerated and non-incarcerated samples. Journal of Abnormal

Psychology, 122, 208– 214.

Shorey, R. C., Brasfield, H., Febres, J., & Stuart, G. L. (2011). An examination of the

association between difficulties with emotion regulation and dating violence

perpetration. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 20(8), 870-885.

doi:10.1080/10926771.2011.629342

Shorey, R. C., Meltzer, C., & Cornelius, T. L. (2010). Motivations for self-defensive

aggression in dating relationships. Violence & Victims, 25(5), 662-676.

Skeem, J. L., Polaschek, D. L. L., Patrick, C. J., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2011). Psychopathic

personality: Bridging the gap between scientific evidence and public policy.

Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 95–162.

Stephens, K. A., & George, W. H. (2009). Rape prevention with college men: Evaluating risk

status. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(6), 996-1013.

106

Struckman-Johnson, C., Struckman-Johnson, D., & Anderson, P. B. (2003). Tactics of sexual

coercion: When men and women won't take no for an answer. The Journal of Sex

Research, 40(1), 76-86. doi:10.1080/00224490309552168

Suarez, E., & Gadalla, T. M. (2010). Stop blaming the victim: A meta-analysis on rape

myths. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(11), 2010-2035.

Turchik, J. A., & Edwards, K. M. (2012). Myths about male rape: A literature review.

Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 13, 211.

Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2003). "Isn't it fun to get the respect that we're going to

deserve?" narcissism, social rejection, and aggression. Personality & Social Psychology

Bulletin, 29(2), 261-272. doi:10.1177/0146167202239051

Uzieblo, K., Verschuere, B., Van den Bussche, E., & Crombez, G. (2010). The validity of the

psychopathic personality inventory-revised in a community sample. Assessment, 17(3),

334-346.

Viechtbauer, W., & Cheung, M. W. L. (2010). Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-

analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(2), 112-125. doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.11

Volz, A. R., & Kerig, P. K. (2010). Relational dynamics associated with adolescent dating

violence: The roles of rejection sensitivity and relational insecurity. Journal of

Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 19(6), 587-602.

doi:10.1080/10926771.2010.502088

Ward, C. (1988). The attitudes toward rape victims scale. Psychology of Women Quarterly,

12, 127–146. doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1471-6402.1988.tb00932.x

107

*Watts, A. L., Bowes, S. M., Latzman, R. D., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2017). Psychopathic traits

predict harsh attitudes toward rape victims among undergraduates. Personality and

Individual Differences, 106, 1-5. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.022

Werner, K. B., Few, L. R., & Bucholz, K. K. (2015). Epidemiology, comorbidity, and

behavioral genetics of antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy. Psychiatric

Annals, 45(4), 195-199. doi:10.3928/00485713-20150401-08

Wiggins, J. S., & Trobst, K. K. (2002). The Interpersonal Adjective Scales—Big Five

version. In B. De Raad, & M. Perugini (Eds.), Big Five assessment (pp. 263–280).

Gottingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber.

*Willis, M., Birthrong, A., King, J. S., Nelson-Gray, R., & Latzman, R. D. (2017). Are

infidelity tolerance and rape myth acceptance related constructs? an association

moderated by psychopathy and narcissism. Personality and Individual Differences, 117,

230-235. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.06.015

World Health Organization. (2013). Global and regional estimates of violence against

women: Prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner

sexual violence. Retrieved from

https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/85239/9789241564625_eng.pdf?sequen

ce=1&isAllowed=y

Yapp, E. J., & Quayle, E. (2018). A systematic review of the association between rape myth

acceptance and male-on-female sexual violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 41,

1-19. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2018.05.002

108

Young, R. K., & Thiessen, D. (1992). The texas rape scale. Ethology & Sociobiology, 13(1),

19-33. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(92)90004-N

109

List of Appendices

Appendix A – AXIS Tool

110

Appendix B – Ethics Approval Letter

111

Appendix C – Participant Information Sheet

Participant Information Sheet (Version 3, 05/10/2019)

Title of Study: The Role of Psychopathic Traits, Rejection Sensitivity and Emotion Regulation in Predicting Sexual Coercion and Attitudes Towards Rape.

You are being invited to participate in a research study. Prior to deciding whether to participate, it is important that you understand why the research is being done and what will be involved. Please take time to read the following information carefully and please ask us if you would like more information or if there is anything that you would like further explanation. Please also feel free to discuss this with your friends, relatives and/or your GP if you wish. We would like to stress that you do not have to accept this invitation and you should only agree to take part if you wish to.

1. What is the purpose of the study? This study intends to investigate the psychology behind sexual coerciveness (i.e., persuading others to partake in sexual activity) and attitudes towards rape. We will be specifically exploring how psychopathic traits, ability to regulating emotions and sensitivity to rejection influence these.

2. Why have I been chosen to take part? We are looking for volunteers who are currently undergraduate students and aged between 18 and 25 years old.

3. Do I have to take part? No. Participation in this research is completely voluntary. You are free to withdraw at any time without explanation.

4. What will happen if I take part? You will complete five online questionnaires. You will be asked to answer questions on a website about times you may have used sexual coercion, your attitudes towards rape and questions which assess your

112

callousness, antisocial personality traits and attitudes towards antisocial behaviour. The questions will also ask about your ability to deal with rejection and manage emotions. Some of these questions will ask about illegal sexual behaviours which may make you feel uncomfortable. You will also be asked to provide your gender. We expect that the study will take no longer than 30 minutes to complete.

5. How will my data be used? Under UK data protection legislation, the University acts as the Data Controller for personal data collected as part of the University’s research. The Principal Investigator acts as the Data Processor for this study, and any queries relating to the handling of your personal data can be sent to Dr Luna Centifanti ([email protected]). Further information on how your data will be used can be found in the table below. How will my data be collected? Data will be collected via ‘Qualtrics’. This is a simple web-based survey tool which will allow you to answer the questionnaires for the study on- line. How will my data be stored? On password-protected University of Liverpool computers, by the researchers.

In the event of the researchers leaving the University of Liverpool, the data will be transferred to the University of Liverpool's Active Datastore. How long will my data be stored Data will be stored for 10 years for? and then destroyed in accordance with the University’s Research Data management policy.

What measures are in place to Only anonymous data will be protect the security and stored, in line with the General confidentiality of my data? Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Data Protection Act 2018. The data will only be securely stored on University of Liverpool password-protected

113

computers, on university owned and managed encrypted drives. A back up copy will be stored on an external encrypted hard drive and kept in a drawer in the principal investigator’s locked office. Will my data be anonymised? Yes. How will my data be used? Your data will be used as part of a University of Liverpool doctoral level postgraduate student research thesis project. Who will have access to my Only the primary and principal data? research investigators will have access to your anonymous data. Will my data be archived for use Yes. Anonymised data will be in other research projects in the stored on The University of future? Liverpool’s secure archive. This anonymous data may be shared with researchers who may want to use the data in their research in the future. How will my data be destroyed? After 10 years, the electronic files will be deleted.

6. Expenses and / or payments There are no expenses or payments for taking part in this study, however, anyone who completes the full set of questionnaires will be invited to provide their email address to be entered into a draw to gain one of three £50 Amazon vouchers. Providing your email address will not jeopardise the anonymity of any of the data that you provide within the study. People who are drawn to gain a voucher will be notified before March 2020.

7. Are there any risks in taking part? There are minimal risks to you if you take part. However, it is possible that you could find the nature of these questions distressing (particularly if you have ever been a victim of rape or sexual coercion). Likewise, these questions might also make you inclined to think about your own past experiences where you might have perpetrated sexual coercion/sexual assault. Therefore, following completion of the five

114

questionnaires, you will be directed towards an electronic debriefing sheet with advice and guidance on accessing support.

8. Are there any benefits in taking part? There are no direct benefits from taking part apart from the opportunity to contribute to psychology research that may guide clinical practice within the future.

9. What will happen to the results of the study? All the information collected about you during the course of the research will be kept strictly confidential. All the data you provide will be stored in an anonymized format (identified by a random number only). We intend to publish the results from this study in a scientific journal and present the results at, at least one research conference. We will make the anonymized data available to any other organisations or researchers who request access to it. However, it is important that you understand that your results will be completely anonymous, which means there is no way that you can be identified.

10. What will happen if I want to stop taking part? You are under no obligation to take part in this study; it is completely your choice. If you do decide to take part, you are free to withdraw at any time and without giving any reason or explanation. Please note that once you submit your data (i.e., at the end of the study) your data will be anonymised, and you will no longer be able to withdraw it, because we will be unable to identify it.

11. What if I am unhappy or if there is a problem? If you are unhappy about the way the research is being conducted, please do let us know by contacting the Principal Investigator, Dr Luna Centifanti ([email protected]), Doctorate in Clinical Psychology Training Programme, Whelan Building, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3GB. David Boothroyd, Doctorate in Clinical Psychology Training Programme, Whelan Building, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3GB. Email: [email protected] Tel: 0151 794 5534 If you remain unhappy or have a complaint which you feel you cannot come to us with then you could also contact the Research Ethics and Integrity Office at [email protected]. When contacting the Research Ethics and Integrity Office, please provide details of the name or description of the study (so that it can be identified), the researchers involved, and the details of the complaint you wish to make.

115

The University strives to maintain the highest standards of rigour in the processing of your data. However, if you have any queries about the way in which the University processes your personal data, it is important that you are aware of your right to make a complaint with the Information Commissioner's Office by calling 0303 123 1113.

116

Appendix D – Participant Consent Form

Online Participant Consent Form Version 3, 17/01/20 Research ethics approval number: 5325 Title of the research project: The Role of Psychopathic Traits, Rejection Sensitivity and Emotion Regulation in Predicting Sexual Coercion and Attitudes Towards Rape. Name of researchers: David Boothroyd, Dr Luna Centifanti, Dr James Reilly.

1. I confirm that I have read and understood the information sheet dated 29/09/19 for the above study. I have had the opportunity to consider the information, ask questions and had these answered satisfactorily.

2. I understand that taking part in the study involves completing an online questionnaire.

3. I understand that participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw from the study prior to submitting my responses without providing any reason and without my rights being affected. I understand that I can still be debriefed if I select the option to end my participation early, at the bottom of each page.

4. I understand that once my responses have been submitted, the data will be anonymous and therefore I will not be able to request access to it or withdraw the information I have provided.

5. I understand that the information that I provide will be held securely and in line with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Data Protection Act 2018 at the University of Liverpool and then anonymised information will be deposited in a relevant archive for sharing and use by other authorised researchers to support other research in the future.

6. I understand that only my anonymised data will be retained for ten years, on University of Liverpool computers, on the university’s secure password protected, encrypted hard drive and that a backup copy will be stored on an external encrypted hard drive and kept in a drawer in the principal investigator’s locked office.

7. I agree to take part in the above study.

117

Appendix E – Self Report Psychopathy Scale (SRP-4)

(Removed for Copyright )

118

(Removed for Copyright)

119

Appendix F - The Post refusal sexual persistence scale (PSP)

Post Refusal Sexual Persistence Scale

The purpose of this questionnaire is to look at the different tactics people use on their partners to have sexual contact with them, when they have already said no to their advances. In addition to looking at people experiencing the tactics it is also necessary to look at whether you have perpetrated the tactics, therefore looking at if you have tried the tactics on your partner to have sexual contact, when they have already said no.

When answering the question to each item, please write “Y” or “N” to indicate either “yes” or “no”.

Since the age of 16, have you ever used any of the tactics on the list below to have sexual contact with anyone after they have indicated ‘no’ to your sexual advances?

Tactics Perpetrated the Tactic Sexual Arousal Persistent kissing and touching Taking off your clothes Taking off their clothes Emotional Manipulation and Deception Repeatedly asking Telling lies Using authority of older age Questioning their sexuality Threatening to break up Using your position of authority Threatening self-harm Threatening blackmail Exploitation of the intoxicated Taking advantage while they were intoxicated Purposely getting them drunk Physical force, threats, harm Blocking their retreat

120

Using physical restraint Using physical harm Threatening physical behavior Tying up the person Threatening with a weapon

121

Appendix G - The Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale Short-Form (IRMA-SF)

Updated Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (IRMA)

Strongly agree Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Subscale 1: She asked for it 1. If a girl is raped while she is drunk, she is at least somewhat responsible for letting things get out of hand. 2. When girls go to parties wearing slutty clothes, they are asking for trouble. 3. If a girl goes to a room alone with a guy at a party, it is her own fault if she is raped. 4. If a girl acts like a slut, eventually she is going to get into trouble. 5. When girls get raped, it’s often because the way they said “no” was unclear. 6. If a girl initiates kissing or hooking up, she should not be surprised if a guy assumes she wants to have sex. Subscale 2: He didn’t mean to 7. When guys rape, it is usually because of their strong desire for sex. 8. Guys don’t usually intend to force sex on a girl, but sometimes they get too sexually carried away. 9. Rape happens when a guy’s sex drive goes out of control. 10. If a guy is drunk, he might rape someone unintentionally. 11. It shouldn’t be considered rape if a guy is drunk and didn’t realize what he was doing. 12. If both people are drunk, it can’t be rape. Subscale 3: It wasn’t really rape 13. If a girl doesn’t physically resist sex—even if protesting verbally—it can’t be considered rape. 14. If a girl doesn’t physically fight back, you can’t really say it was rape. 15. A rape probably doesn’t happen if a girl doesn’t have any bruises or marks. 16. If the accused “rapist” doesn’t have a weapon, you really can’t call it rape. 17. If a girl doesn’t say “no” she can’t claim rape. Subscale 4: She lied 18. A lot of times, girls who say they were raped agreed to have sex and then regret it. 19. Rape accusations are often used as a way of getting back at guys. 20. A lot of times, girls who say they were raped often led the guy on and then had regrets. 21. A lot of times, girls who claim they were raped have emotional problems. 22. Girls who are caught cheating on their boyfriends sometimes claim it was rape.

• Scoring: Scores range from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). • Scores may be totaled for a cumulative score. • Higher scores indicate greater rejection of rape myths.

(Payne, Lonsway, & Fitzgerald, 1999; McMahon & Farmer, 2011)

122

Appendix H - The Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire (RSQ)

123

124

125

126

Appendix I - The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ)

127

Appendix J – Debrief Sheet

Debrief

Thank you for taking part in this study.

What was the study about?

This study intended to investigate the psychology behind sexual coerciveness and attitudes towards rape. It aimed to explore how people’s levels of psychopathic traits, ability to regulate emotions and their sensitivity to rejection influence these.

The questionnaires you have completed allow us to investigate this and see what the most important processes are for understanding sexual coerciveness and attitudes towards rape.

It is findings could add to the existing research base within this area and contribute towards the evidence base for influencing clinical practice in the future.

Please feel free to ask the researcher if you have any further questions.

What if I want advice or I am worried about my own health, wellbeing or behaviour following the research?

We are not qualified to offer advice ourselves. We would recommend that you talk to your GP if you are worried about your health or wellbeing or contact one of the below organisations, ‘Safeline’, ‘SAFEPlace’ or ‘Stopitnow’. If you are worried about your own behaviour you could also contact the ‘Samaritans’ or ‘Stopso’ for support (please find details of these recourses below):

Samaritans – A UK based, unique charity dedicated to reducing feelings of isolation and disconnection for anyone who needs to talk. https://www.samaritans.org

Safeline – A UK based organisation that provides support for victims of sexual abuse regardless of age, gender, sexuality or race. https://www.safeline.org.uk

SAFEPlace – A local, Liverpool based organization, who offer advice, support and medical treatment for anyone who has suffered sexual assault. http://www.safeplacemerseyside.org.uk

128

Stopitnow! - A UK based organisation for anyone with concerns about child sexual abuse. https://www.stopitnow.org.uk

Stopso - A UK based charity which offers support to potential sex offenders, sex offenders and their families. https://stopso.org.uk

What should I do if I need to report any offenses?

If you believe that you have knowledge of asexual offense or attempted sexual offense, we would recommend that you contact your local police station or Crimestoppers (0800 555 111) as soon as possible.

Can I find out about the results of the study?

If you would like to be sent a one-page summary of the results of the study, please tick the box at the bottom of this page and enter an email address that we can use to send the summary to you. Please note that providing your email address will not jeopardize the anonymity of any data that you have submitted during the study.

Who can I contact if I have further questions about the research?

If you have any questions please contact me: David Boothroyd, Doctorate in Clinical Psychology Training Programme, Whelan Building, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3GB. Email: [email protected] Tel: 0151 794 5534.

If you do not feel you can come to me you can alternatively contact my supervisor Dr Luna Centifanti Tel: 0151 794 5658 Email: [email protected], Doctorate in Clinical Psychology Training Programme, Whelan Building, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3GB. If you remain unhappy or have a complaint which you feel you cannot come to me with then you should contact the Research Governance Officer at [email protected]. When contacting the Research Governance Officer, please provide details of the name or description of the study (so that it can be identified), the researcher(s) involved, and the details of the complaint you wish to make.

Please tick this box and supply your email address if you wish to be entered into the draw to receive one of three £50 Amazon vouchers

Please tick this box and supply an email address if you wish to receive a one-page summary of the results of the study

129

Appendix K – Power Calculation

130