1

Running head: Beliefs about revenge pornography

Development and validation of the Beliefs about Revenge Pornography Questionnaire

Craig A. Harper*1, Lorraine Smith1, Jessie Leach1, Neil A. Daruwala2, & Dean Fido2

1 Department of Psychology, Nottingham Trent University (UK) 2 School of Psychology, University of Derby (UK)

Correspondence about this article should be addressed to Dr. Craig Harper, Department of Psychology, Nottingham Trent University, 50 Shakespeare Street, Nottingham, NG1 4FQ, UK. Tel.: +44 (0)115 848 4718. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @CraigHarper19

2

Abstract Revenge pornography has become an increasingly prominent topic in social and legislative discussions about sexual crime, but has received relatively little attention within psychological research. Here, we leveraged existing theorizing in the area of sexual offending proclivity to systematically develop and validate of a measure of beliefs about revenge pornography. Using a large international community sample (N = 511) we found our ‘Beliefs about Revenge Pornography Questionnaire (BRPQ)’ to be comprised of three underpinning domains: ‘Victims as Responsible’, ‘Sociological Explanations’, and ‘Revenge Pornography as a Sexual Offense’. Concurrent validity is demonstrated through relationships with trait empathy, belief in a just world, dark personality traits, and rape myth acceptance. Randomly dividing the sample, we also show that the BRPQ predicts both revenge pornography proclivity (n = 227) and social judgements of this type of offending (n = 233). Implications and future directions are discussed.

Key words: revenge pornography; scale development; offense proclivity; victim blaming; image-based sexual abuse

3

Development and validation of the Beliefs about Revenge Pornography Questionnaire

Introduction The high profile leaking of private sexual images of celebrities such as Jennifer Lawrence, Kim Kardashian, and Kate Upton has helped to not only catapult the term ‘revenge pornography’ into the public’s consciousness, but has also captured the attention of legislative bodies, politicians, legal scholars, and social scientists (e.g., Fido & Harper, 2020; Hall & Hearn, 2017; Henry & Powell, 2016; McGlynn et al., 2017). Now identified as a criminal offense in a number of countries and local jurisdictions (for review of global legislative developments, see Fido & Harper, 2020), revenge pornography is defined as the non-consensual distribution of explicit, private sexual images or videos of another individual, which typically are designed to cause shame, humiliation, embarrassment, or distress to that person (Citron & Franks, 2014; Patella-Rey, 2018). There is currently a lack of clarity over how to best conceptualize revenge pornography. At the social level, one approach (likely related to the label of ‘revenge pornography’) asserts that this behavior is exclusively committed by ex-lovers following the breakdown of a relationship. In such scenarios, images are disseminated with the expectation of vengeance in response to a perceived of being wronged, causing humiliation or damaging the reputation of their former lover (Bothamley & Tully, 2018; Burris, 2014). Although a notably common motivation (Burris, 2014; Walker & Sleath, 2017), the term ‘revenge’ depicts a narrow, incomplete view of this type of behavior. This narrow view ignores the possibility of other motivations, such as financial gain, blackmail, coercion, entertainment, notoriety, or sexual gratification (Franks, 2015; Harper, Fido et al., 2020; Henry & Powell, 2016). To help address this issue, terms such as non-consensual pornography (Walker & Sleath, 2017) and image-based sexual abuse (McGlynn et al., 2017) have been adopted by scholars in this area. Although we acknowledge the shortcomings of the ‘revenge pornography’ label in terms of the messages implicit within it, we do adopt it here for several reasons. A lot of work has been conducted already using this label that examine public judgements of this behavior (e.g., Bothamley & Tully, 2018; Hall & Hearn, 2017; Walker & Sleath, 2017). In addition to this, we believe that it is important to use language that most people will recognize, particularly when surveying public attitudes (such is our aim here). The decision to use the lay label of ‘revenge pornography’ should therefore not be taken as our endorsement of this narrow conceptualization as a legitimate or accurate depiction of the motivations underpinning this behavior, but merely represents a pragmatic 4 decision in the context of this project. In this work, our aim is to develop and validate a domain-specific measure of beliefs about revenge pornography in a manner consistent with other areas of the sexual offending literature.

Why Do We Need a Measure of Beliefs about Revenge Pornography? There is a vast amount of work within the sexual offending literature that examines the role of offense-supportive cognition in predicting a proclivity towards sexual aggression (e.g., Bohner er al., 2005; Bumby, 1996; Hermann et al., 2012; Polaschek & Gannon, 2004; Polaschek & Ward, 2002; Ward, 2000) and judgements of sexual aggression (e.g., Harper, Franco et al., 2020; Süssenbach et al., 2012). At a societal level we refer to widespread offense-supportive beliefs as rape myths. These are defined as a complex set of prejudicial, stereotyped, and false beliefs about rape victims, rape perpetrators and the crime of rape (Burt, 1980). Although some aspects of this definition have been queried (see Reece, 2012), such beliefs may commonly serve to place blame on the victim, absolve or excuse the perpetrator of sexual violence, and minimize or justify the crime of rape (Bumby 1996; Burt, 1980; Harper, Franco et al., 2020; Hermann et al., 2012). Common examples of rape myths include that victims ‘ask for it’ by wearing sexually provocative clothing, that men commonly do not mean to rape (but rather their sexual arousal gets the better of them), that some women report rapes that did not really happen, and that women can manipulate men into behaving in sexually inappropriate ways (McMahon & Farmer, 2011; Polaschek & Gannon, 2004; Polaschek & Ward, 2002). The endorsement of such beliefs has profound effects on judgements of sexual aggression, with subsequent effects of victims blaming themselves for their experiences, decreased willingness to seek support after victimization, and low conviction rates (Hildebrand & Najdowski, 2014; Watts et al., 2017). Although rape myths and beliefs about sexual assault are widely studied, there has been virtually no systematic examination of such cognitive processes in relation to revenge pornography. In one related study, Branch et al. (2017) found that participants believed that those who sext would be more likely to ‘hook up’, indicating the presence of subtle rape myths linking normative sexual behavior in the modern era with sexual promiscuity. This supports the research of Hatcher (2016), wherein rape myth acceptance predicted revenge pornography victim blaming. It may be that in the case of a rape a woman is seen as ‘asking for it’ because of her sexual promiscuity or dress (Edwards et al., 2011), with this same judgement being made in revenge pornography cases when a victim has previously distributed self-produced sexually suggestive images. In this context we highlight why we 5 seek to study beliefs about revenge pornography, rather than myths. Although it is accurate to state that no victim is responsible for their experiences, it is equally true to suggest that the self-production and consensual dissemination of private sexual images does place somebody at a greater level of vulnerability to become a victim of revenge pornography. This is highlighted in psychoeducational programs designed to reduce risk of victimization, wherein education providers speak about the inherent dangers of making such material privately available, and thus losing control over its dissemination (Döring et al., 2014). We also know that around 80% of revenge pornography victims self-produce the sexual content that is ultimately shared (Citron & Frank, 2014), and it may be that this self-production leads to victim blaming at a social level (Campbell & Raja, 2005). As such, it is likely that some ‘victim blaming’ is present within society due to this known increased vulnerability. This subsequently has the potential to change the emphasis of legislators about the urgency with which this type of sexual offending should be addressed at the policy level. This all said, there are currently no systematically developed or validated measures of beliefs about revenge pornography as a specific behavioral pattern. Such beliefs have been measured in relative ad-hoc ways thus far. For example, Bothamley and Tully (2018) used eight self-written items to measure perceptions of victim blame and the psychological harms associated with being a victim of revenge pornography. This scale was subsequently used in Fido et al. (2019) as a single-factor measure of ‘offence leniency’. Zvi and Bitton (2020) used a similar approach, instead using a smaller number of face-valid items tapping into victim blame. Alternatively, other studies have simply adapted belief scales from the broader rape myth and cognitive distortion literature (e.g., Starr & Lavis, 2018). In the only specific measure of beliefs about revenge pornography, Powell et al. (2019) used existing rape myth scales to develop their ‘Sexual Image-Based Abuse Myth Acceptance Scale’. Although this measure was a positive step forward for the field, the paper reported minimal psychometric data, information about item construction, and scale validation. As such, we believe that there is still room within the literature for a new, systematically developed and validated, measure of beliefs about revenge pornography.

Existing Work on Social Attitudes about Revenge Pornography In recent American research there was a high level of support for the criminalization of revenge pornography (Lageson et al., 2018). This was particularly the case among women in this sample. However, this support for criminalization waivered in cases whereby the victim had previous self-produced and initially distributed such material themselves. This is an 6 important finding in light of the statistics around the increasing prevalence of sexting within the general community (Dake et al., 2012; Lippman & Campbell, 2014) and the rates of image self-production among known victims of revenge pornography offenses (Citron & Frank, 2014). These findings may suggest an important role for the belief in a just world (Lerner, 1980) in predicting judgements of revenge pornography. This is the tendency of an individual to make assumptions that the world is fair, and people get what they deserve. In this regard, crimes involving innocent victims pose a threat to the belief that the world is fair, and as such the process of victim blaming may serve the motivated function of preserving the view that the world is inherently fair (Strömwall et al., 2013). There is a lack of data available at this point in relation to how just world beliefs predict judgements of revenge pornography, but there has been some suggestion that some people think of this behavior as a form of “naiveté rather than gender-based violence” (Henry & Powell, 2015, p. 104; see also Bothamley & Tully, 2018). This indicates that some may believe that revenge pornography victims who have self-produced and disseminated private sexual images determine their own fate by putting themselves in a position of vulnerability for images to be disseminated, in a manner consistent with the belief in a just world (Dustagheer, 2018). On the other hand of just world beliefs, some with a higher degree of trait-level empathy might be better able to appreciate the true social positioning of people with a history of sexting, and recognize the normative (or, at times, coercive) nature of this emergent socio- sexual behavior. Empathy is considered the “glue” that keeps society together, with its various facets helping people to act in altruistic ways and acquire social and moral norms (Decety & Cowell, 2014; Zaki, 2018). In order to act empathically, individuals’ require a set of skills which include emotional knowledge, emotional regulation and perspective taking and where an individual is unable or unwilling to act empathically, antisocial or criminal behavior including sexual violence occurs (Ward & Durrant, 2013). In the only existing work to examine the effects of empathy on judgements of revenge pornography, Fido et al. (2019) reported weak relationships (r < .20) between empathy and leniency judgements about a case of revenge pornography, potentially suggesting an attenuating effect of empathy over the direct effects of other factors, rather than empathy having a direct effect on judgements in its own right. One constellation of traits that empathy might attenuate are colloquially referred to as the ‘dark tetrad’ of personality (Jonason & Tost, 2010). This is a collection of traits, such as:

7

1. Sadism; characterized by causing purposeful humiliation, pain and suffering in others for the purposes of pleasure or power (O’Meara et al., 2011). 2. Narcissism; characterized by self-perceived entitlement and grandiosity (Wright, 2016) 3. Machiavellianism; characterized by ruthless social manipulation (DeShong et al., 2017; Jones & Paulhus, 2014). 4. Psychopathy; characterized by a lack of empathic concern for others (Lishner et al., 2015).

Sadism manifests as a continuum from ‘everyday’ sadism to ‘pathological’ sadism. Although these labels indicate different severities of traits, even lower level sadism has been found to be predictive of sexual and non-sexual violence (Buckels, Jones et al., 2013; Russell & King, 2016). The role of sadism in online [sexual] violence is less well understood, and the extant literature presents some inconsistencies in research findings. For example, Buckels, Trapnell et al. (2014) found sadism to be predictive of online trolling, but Pina et al. (2017) found it to be unrelated to beliefs about revenge pornography. Other research has found that those with heightened levels of sadism show more approving attitudes of sexual violence, higher victim blaming and less punitive attitudes towards the perpetrator (Jonason et al., 2017). As such, it logically follows that sadistic personality traits – even those of relatively low level – could predict specific clusters of judgements of revenge pornography. In addition to sadism, the other dark tetrad traits; narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy may also play a role in beliefs about revenge pornography. Together these traits make up the socially aversive and fundamentally malevolent constellation of personality traditionally referred to as the “dark triad” (for a review, see Muris et al., 2017). They make for a callous and unempathic individual, with a propensity for exploiting others without remorse in order to meet their own goals (Jones & Paulhus, 2014; Köhn et al., 2018). Such a callousness has been found to be exercised as short-term actions for immediate gratification (Jones & Paulhus, 2011), perhaps reflective of a revenge pornography perpetrator vengefully using previously shared sexual images, or impulsively releasing material for other reasons. Previous research found the dark triad to be a significant predictor revenge pornography proclivity (Pina et al., 2017). In addition, Fido et al. (2019) reported moderate relationships between callous-unemotional traits and leniency about revenge pornography offending (r > .35). As such, it is important to control for these kinds of personality characteristics when 8 examining the effects of beliefs about revenge pornography on proclivity and social judgements.

Aims and Structure of this Paper To date, little research has been conducted to understand not only what beliefs are associated with revenge pornography, but also how these beliefs might be predicted, or indeed how they might predict both a proclivity to offend in this way and social judgements of revenge pornography cases. In this paper we document the systematic development and validation of a scale designed to measure beliefs about revenge pornography offending as a form of image-based sexual abuse. We used a large sample to examine the component structure of our draft Beliefs about Revenge Pornography Questionnaire (BRPQ) and to examine predictors of scores on its sub-domains using the constructs discussed thus far in the paper (Studies 1 and 2). We then randomly allocated this initial sample to analyses of self- reported proclivities to engage in this type of sexual offending (Study 3) and judgements of revenge pornography (Study 4). These latter analyses represent our attempts to offer an initial validation of the BRPQ. Owing to our use of a large sample and its subsequent division across studies, we first describe the methods of the omnibus project before transparently describing the numbers within each branch in Studies 3 and 4. In our structuring of the message of the paper we offer detailed discussions of the findings within each study analysis, before offering a general discussion of implications, limitations, and future directions.

Methods Participants and Recruitment We used an online cross-sectional survey design to run this project. In total, 683 people started the survey, with all participants who completed the draft BRPQ being retained. This left a final sample of 511 participants (56% female; Mage = 30.05 years, SD = 10.69). All participants were recruited online, using institutional research participation schemes and posts on social media websites. We posted study advertisements on personal and community Facebook pages, Twitter (with tags #revengeporn, #revengepornography, and #imagebasedsexualabuse), and selected forums on Reddit.com (r/SampleSize, r/love, r/relationships, r/porn, and r/dating). This approach to data collection allowed us to gain a 9 more representative general community sample1 than merely relying on student participation schemes or populations who sign up to survey participation platforms, such as Amazon’s MTurk, or Prolific. The inclusion criteria were an age over 18 years, and fluency in English. Most participants were from the UK (47%), US (26%), Canada (7%), or Australia (4%).

Procedure and Materials The data reported in this paper stem from a large sample of community members (see above) who all participated in a single online survey. Within this survey, everybody completed the first draft of the BRPQ (Study 1), and subsequently completed a series of other measures to validate the questionnaire (Study 2). Following this, participants were randomly assigned to one of two subsequent study branches, wherein they completed either a measure of revenge pornography proclivity (Study 3), or a task asking them to judge cases of revenge pornography (Study 4). As such, Studies 3 and 4. represent independent samples.

Demographics. Participants were asked to report their age (in years), sex (male/female/other), political ideology, and nationality.

Beliefs about Revenge Pornography Questionnaire (BRPQ). Originally, 91 items comprised the draft BRPQ. These items were produced in a manner such that they related to a range of themes evident within the revenge pornography literature, as well as related concepts in the areas of rape myths, implicit theories of sexual offending, and rape culture. We used several existing measures for inspiration when writing the initial items of the BRPQ, including Burt’s (1980) rape myth measure, and the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (IRMA; Payne et al., 1999). In addition, we reviewed popular, legal, and academic discourses about revenge pornography to add themes that were not represented in traditional sexual offending literatures. Participants responded using a six-point Likert scale anchored from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’.

Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (Spreng et al., 2009). The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire is a 16-item scale developed by Spreng et al. (2009), who combined a multitude of empathy questionnaires to gain an all-encompassing measure. It conceptualizes

1 We do not suggest that we have recruited a representative sample. However, we believe that the range of recruitment methods employed in this project has helped us to recruit a more generalizable sample than would have been possible if using these other common methods in isolation. 10 empathy as a primarily emotional process, with each item measuring a single factor of empathic concern (Lamothe et al., 2014). Items include “it upsets me to see someone being treated disrespectfully”, with response options scores from ‘1 – Never’ to ‘5 – Always’. Responses were averaged, with higher scores indicate greater levels of empathy.

Belief in a Just World Scale (Lipkusa et al., 1996). The Belief in a Just World Scale (Lipkusa et al., 1996) is a measure designed to assess the extent to which its respondents believe other people get what they deserve and deserve what they get (Lerner & Miller, 1978). Items include “I feel that people get what they deserve” and are rated using a six-point scale anchored from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. Responses were averaged, with higher scores indicating a greater just world belief.

Short Dark Triad (SD3; Jones & Paulhus, 2014). The Short Dark Triad Scale (SD3; Jones & Paulhus, 2014) consists of three separate nine-item subscales that measure trait scores of Machiavellianism (e.g., “Most people can be manipulated”), narcissism (e.g. “People see me as a natural leader”), and psychopathy (e.g. “Payback needs to be quick and nasty”). All items are responded to using a five-point scale, anchored from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’, before being averaged for each dark triad domain. Higher scores represent a greater presence of each trait.

The Assessment of Sadistic Personality (ASP; Plouffe et al., 2019). The Assessment of Sadistic Personality (ASP; Plouffe et al., 2019) is comprised of nine items designed to be used alongside SD3 to measure sadism, which allows for the measurement of each trait within the Dark Tetrad model of personality. Items such as “I would hurt somebody if it meant that I would be in control”) are rated using a five-point scale anchored from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. Following relevant reverse coding, an average score across all items was calculated, with higher scores indicating greater levels of sadism.

Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (McMahon & Farmer, 2011). The updated Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance scale (IRMA; McMahon & Farmer, 2011) is a 22-item measure of adherence to myths about rape victims, rape perpetrators and the crime of rape (e.g. “When guys rape, it is usually because of their strong desire for sex”). The scale has a general rape myth construct and seven subscales. In this study, we used the IRMA to obtain an index of participants’ general adherence to rape myths. Each item was rated using a five- 11 point scale anchored from ‘strongly disagree” to ‘strongly agree’, before an average score across all items was calculated. Higher scores indicated more rape myth acceptance.

Revenge Pornography Proclivity Scale (Study 2 only). The measure of revenge pornography proclivity produced by Watson & Bartels (2017) was used to present a selection of short scenarios describing a case of revenge pornography. These cases were driven by one of five different motivations (relationship breakdown, infidelity, bragging, sabotage, or amusement) and were each approximately 150 words in length. To avoid participant fatigue, each respondent received five of the ten possible scenarios in a randomized order, ensuring that each revenge pornography motivation was presented once. We coupled each scenario with a brief proclivity measure used in Pina et al. (2017). This ten-item measure asked about participants’ direct proclivity to engage in revenge pornography offending (“In this situation, how likely is it that you would do the same?”), anticipated enjoyment (e.g., “How much excitement would this situation bring you?”; five items), and social approval (e.g., “In this situation, would you feel any regret over sharing the images?”; four items). Although Pina et al. (2017) used a five-point scale, we asked our participants to use a six-point scale (anchored from ‘not at all’ to ‘very much’) to avoid the use of a neutral scale midpoint.

Revenge Pornography Judgements Scale (Study 3 only). To test social judgements of revenge pornography offending we adapted three scenarios from Scott and Gavin (2018). These scenarios depicted cases of revenge pornography committed against a female victim who previously posted images of herself online in either sexually provocative or conservative poses. The third scenario omitted information about previous posting behavior. Following each scenario, participants used a six-point scale anchored from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’ to provide ratings of victim blame (e.g., “How likely do you think it is that [victim’s name] could have avoided the incident?; four items), perceived criminality of the behavior (e.g., “Do you think police intervention is necessary for the resolution of this situation?”; three items), and victim harm (e.g., “To what extent do you think the situation will have affected [victim’s name]’s trust of others?”; five items). Scores across items on each domain were averaged, with higher scores indicating increased levels of victim blame, perceived criminality, and victim harm judgements.

12

Study 1 - BRPQ Scale Development Responses to the draft BRPQ were entered into a principal components analysis (PCA) to reduce the dimensionality of the draft scale. An oblique rotation (direct oblimin) was used to allow components to correlate with one another. To begin with we instead visually inspected the scree plot (Figure 1) to identify how many components to extract.

Figure 1. Scree plot related to the draft BRPQ

This plot suggested that four components underpinned the data (observing an initial point of inflexion at component number five). As such, we re-ran the PCA with a specific instruction to extract four components. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was .944, suggesting that our data were suitable for studying in this manner. In addition, Bartlett’s test for sphericity was significant, 휒2(4095) = 24069.30, p < .001. We retained items in components where their loadings were <.40 (Field, 2005), while discounting items that cross-loaded on to multiple components at >.40. This latter decision was taken to leave clear and distinct components within the final scale. These item loadings are presented in Table 1 (full item loadings for the complete draft BRPQ can be obtained from https://osf.io/3t6rh/?view_only=38b794744d4d4ecd9c7da9226061bbcd). 13

Table 1. Significant item loadings for the first draft of the BRPQ Component Item 1 2 3 4 If a person has been sent pictures or videos of someone or had permission to take them, you can’t really call it .778 revenge pornography when they are shared If a person shares sexual photos or videos with someone, then it should be seen as ‘fair game’ for that person’s .770 friends to also see the content People who show off their bodies or post provocatively on social media deserve to be victims of revenge .753 pornography Only promiscuous individuals are victims of revenge pornography .740 It’s not a big deal to share naked pictures of an ex who cheated on you .740 It cannot be classed as revenge pornography if the images/videos are shared by a partner .733 If an individual isn’t a virgin, then it shouldn’t be a big deal if sexual pictures or videos are shared of them .732 It is only individuals that dress in a sexualised way who become victims of revenge pornography .725 Revenge pornography should only be a crime if the victim did not know that a picture or video was being taken .724 If an individual is willing to send a nude or sexual image to someone they just met, then it’s no big deal if that .710 person goes a little further by showing it to their friends In the majority of revenge pornography cases, the victim is promiscuous .704 In a lot of cases, individuals who claim to be victims of revenge pornography just have emotional problems .699 Victims of revenge pornography should feel flattered that their images have been shared .691 Most victims of revenge pornography are secret exhibitionists .690 14

Some people provoke perpetrators of revenge pornography by behaving in a promiscuous way .672 One reason that individuals report revenge pornography is that they want others to see intimate images of .665 themselves Only individuals from working class communities commit revenge pornography .657 People exaggerate the impact that being a victim of revenge pornography has on their lives .654 In the majority of revenge pornography cases, the victim has a reputation for sleeping around .645 An individual who sexts others should expect to be a victim of revenge pornography .643 Revenge pornography isn’t as big as issue as the media wants us to believe .642 An individual who sends illicit photos or videos of themselves to others should expect them to be shared .639 The act of revenge pornography can create feelings of fear for victims -.637 Celebrities deserve to have their private images shared more so than non-celebrities .632 Victims of revenge pornography enjoy the attention it brings .627 Being a victim of revenge pornography can cause psychological distress -.614 An individual shouldn’t get upset if their partner sends nude pictures of them to others .611 Victims of revenge pornography often experience feelings of humiliation -.608 .439 Revenge pornography isn’t as big a problem as some people think .606 A victim of revenge pornography is a less desirable sexual partner .597 An individual should expect for their intimate pictures or videos to be shared if they give them to somebody else .593 -.408 Society should devote more effort into preventing revenge pornography -.588 Celebrities who take explicit pictures or videos of themselves should not expect that those images will remain .583 private 15

Being a victim of revenge pornography can affect other relationships with family and friends -.579 .415 Revenge pornography happens when an individual’s sex drive gets out of control .577 Becoming a victim of revenge pornography only happens to people who have had sex .572 If an individual sends a sexual image/video to their partner, they should not be surprised if it ends up online .570 It is only revenge pornography if the victim explicitly says they do not consent for their pictures to be shared .565 Revenge pornography is only committed against adults .562 It is easy to avoid being a victim of revenge pornography if you behave correctly .553 Police intervention is necessary when revenge pornography has occurred -.552 Being a victim of revenge pornography negatively impacts an individual’s self-esteem -.540 .417 Revenge pornography is a serious sexual crime -.539 .456 If a person shares a nude or sexual picture of their partner to their friends when they are drunk, they can’t really be .538 held responsible Revenge pornography is only committed by strangers .512 Victims of revenge pornography find it difficult to trust others -.504 People should know better than to take sexually explicit selfies or videos in the first place, even if they never send .504 -.476 them to anyone When an individual teases other people with sexual images, eventually those images are going to be shared .503 Revenge pornography accusations are often used as a way of getting back at the perpetrator .487 Revenge pornography is only when an individuals’ pictures and videos of a sexual nature are shared to social media .467 Anyone can be a victim of revenge pornography -.457 An individual’s ability to trust others is not impacted by becoming a victim of revenge pornography .450 16

News outlets should not release the names of victims of revenge pornography to the public -.449 Most charges of revenge pornography are unfounded .443 People who commit revenge pornography are usually scorned ex-lovers .499 People commit revenge pornography in order to embarrass the victim .497 People commit revenge pornography to feel a sense of dominance and control over the victim -.419 .480 Revenge pornography is the expression of an uncontrolled desire to assert power .474 In reality, most revenge pornography cases are committed by current or former romantic partners .414 A person convicted of revenge pornography should have to register as a sex offender .614 Revenge pornography is the worst crime that could happen to someone .611 Being a victim of revenge pornography isn’t as bad as being raped -.545 Perpetrators of revenge pornography should be given harsh criminal sentences -.423 .526 Certain people enjoy lots of individuals looking at intimate pictures or videos of them -.423 Sharing naked pictures of another with your friends is not as bad as posting them on the internet -.420 Revenge pornography is unlikely to be committed by strangers .468 People should not allow their partner to take a nude picture of them -.416 Revenge pornography is only committed by an individual known to the victim .409

17

In examining Table 1, we chose to retain components where psychometric properties could be said to be strong. This meant that either there were at least five items within a component (Osborne & Costello, 2009), or where there were fewer than five items, these held together in a conceptually meaningful way (Worthington & Whittaker, 2006). Three of the four components met these criteria. However, component four did not, being comprised of only three items which seemed to contradict each other (two being suggestive of revenge pornography perpetrators typically being known to victims, and one suggesting the safety of individuals known to each other owning nude pictures). For this reason, we discarded component four and proceeded with a three-component solution. Component one was labelled “Victims as Responsible” and taps into themes related to the victims of revenge pornography being complicit or culpable in their victimization. Example items included “If an individual is willing to send a nude or sexual image to someone they just met, then it’s no big deal if that person goes a little further by showing it to their friends”, “It’s not a big deal to share naked pictures of an ex who cheated on you”, and “Only promiscuous individuals are victims of revenge pornography”. While many items loaded onto this initial component (54 items), a substantial proportion of these cross-loaded on one of the other components. We were also concerned with redundancy of items, repetition, and so we took the top-loading ten items for inclusion in the final scale. This component had excellent internal consistency (ɑ = .93). The second component was labelled “Sociological Explanations for Revenge Pornography” and represents a cluster of items that link to theoretical ideas about the motivations behind the perpetration of this type of offending. These items correspond to those sociological ideas linked to power and control that have been advanced by McGlynn et al. (2017) and include “Revenge pornography is the expression of an uncontrolled desire to assert power” and “People commit revenge pornography in order to embarrass the victim”. There were five items loading on to this component, with one of these cross-loading on to component one. As such, we retained four items, with these having borderline acceptable internal consistency (ɑ = .69). The third component of the BRPQ was labelled “Revenge Pornography as a Sexual Offence”, and relates to the perceived criminality of revenge pornography, is equivalent to other sexual offences, and the belief that those convicted of this should be subject to similar criminal sanctions to other individuals who engage in sexual offending. Example items include “Being a victim of revenge pornography isn’t as bad as being raped” (reverse-scored) and “A person convicted of revenge pornography should have to register as a sex offender”. 18

Six items loaded on to this component, although one of these cross-loaded on to component one. The five items retained in this component demonstrated good levels of internal consistency (ɑ = .72).

Study 2 - Predictors of Beliefs about Revenge Pornography After identifying the component structure of the BRPQ in Study 1, we went on to predict scores on each of these components using constructs that were theoretically associated with associated outcomes (e.g., rape myth acceptance and judgements of revenge pornography offending). Specifically, we used demographic predictors (e.g., sex, age, political orientation) alongside psychometric measures of empathy, belief in a just world, sadism, dark triad personality traits, and rape myth acceptance.

Sample Information While not all participants completed all measures, a total of 511 individuals completed at least one of these control measures alongside the full BRPQ (56% female, Mage = 30.05 years, SD = 10.69). Samples sizes for each measured variable are provided in Table 2, alongside descriptive statistics and inter-scale correlations.

Results and Discussion Consistent with expectations, viewing victims of revenge pornography offences as responsible for their experiences with negatively correlated with empathy, but positively with constructs such as political conservatism, belief in a just world, dark triad and sadistic personality traits, and rape myth acceptance. In most of these cases, the magnitude of the relationships between the variables corresponded to a medium effect size (rs = .22 - .65). These correlations were inverted (though with slightly smaller effect sizes) when examining participant perceptions about whether revenge pornography is a sexual offence (rs = .15 - .33). In relation to the endorsement of sociological (i.e., power and control) explanations of revenge pornography, we observed relatively weak associations (rs = .09 - .26) with political liberalism, empathy (a positive correlation), and belief in a just world, psychopathy, and rape myth acceptance (all negative correlations). There were small-to-medium sized relationships between seeing victims as being responsible for revenge pornography offences and both sociological explanations for revenge pornography offending (r = -.26) and seeing revenge pornography as a sexual offence (r = - .21). These relationships suggest that viewing revenge pornography offending as being driven 19 by perpetrators’ desires for power and control is associated with seeing victims as less responsible for their experiences, and victims are seen as less responsible as perceptions of revenge pornography being a sexual offence increase. There was no relationship between explanations of revenge pornography offending and perceptions as to whether this constitutes a sexual offence - a finding that suggests the perceptions of our sample are at-odds with legal authors who suggest that this behavior is a sexual offence specifically precisely because of these motivations (e.g., McGlynn, 2018). To examine the predictors of BRPQ factor scores, we ran three linear multiple regression analyses (one per BRPQ factor) with all measured demographic and psychological control variables as predictors. All three models were statistically significant, with the predictors explaining a substantial proportion of the variance in BRPQ factor scores; ‘Victims as Responsible’: adj. R2 = .455, F(15, 400) = 24.07, p < .001; ‘Sociological Explanations’: adj. R2 = .149, F(15, 400) = 5.83, p < .001; ‘Revenge Pornography as a Sexual Offence’: adj. R2 = .145, F(15, 400) = 5.71, p < .001. Model coefficients are presented in Table 3a-c.

20

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and correlations between the measured variables (Study 2) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1. Sex - 2. Age .22*** - 3. Education .03 .08 - 4. Politics .15** .17*** -.02 - 5. Empathy -.35*** .02 -.02 -.18*** - 6. BJWS .14** .04 -.04 .26*** -.21*** - 7. Sadism .11* -.15** .04 .15** -.40*** .15** - 8. Machiavellianism .20*** -.13** .01 .22*** -.44*** .12* .46*** - 9. Narcissism .11* -.09* .03 .15** -.11* .13** .38*** .37*** - 10. Psychopathy .19*** -.03 -.03 .14** -.39*** .12* .64*** .50*** .42*** - 11. IRMA .34*** .06 -.02 .36*** -.43*** .28*** .45*** .48*** .27*** .44*** - 12. BRPQ 1: Victims as .32*** .07 -.03 .30*** -.42*** .34*** .35*** .30*** .22*** .39*** .65*** - Responsible 13. BRPQ 2: Sociological -.05 -.07 .05 -.09* .18*** -.18*** .03 .08 -.03 -.11* -.11* -.26*** - Explanations 14. BRPQ 3 - Revenge -.33*** .01 -.05 -.06 .26*** -.03 -.15** -.24*** -.03 -.15** -.31*** -.21*** -.00 - Pornography as a Sexual Offence M 0.43 30.05 15.03 2.35 2.81 2.78 1.99 2.86 2.48 2.09 1.81 1.56 4.41 3.47 SD 0.50 10.69 4.39 1.11 0.48 0.87 0.61 0.68 0.63 0.61 0.67 0.72 0.75 0.85 α - - - - .79 .88 .80 .81 .78 .75 .94 .93 .69 .72 n 502 506 468 507 486 487 484 485 484 484 485 511 509 509

21

Table 3a. Multiple linear regression predicting scores on the BRPQ ‘Victims as Responsible’ component BRPQ 1: Victims as Responsible B (SE) β t p 95% CI (B) (Constant) .76 (.31) 2.44 .015 [.15, 1.38] 1. Sex .09 (.06) .06 1.63 .104 [-.02, .21] 2. Age .00 (.00) .00 .11 .916 [-.01, .01] 3. Education -.00 (.01) -.01 -.41 .684 [-.01, .01] 4. Politics .03 (.03) .05 1.31 .191 [-.02, .08] 5. Empathy -.22 (.07) -.15 -3.39 .001 [-.35, -.09] 6. BJWS .12 (.03) .14 3.86 < .001 [.06, .18] 7. Sadism -.01 (.06) -.01 -.18 .857 [-.12, .10] 8. Machiavellianism -.12 (.05) -.11 -2.43 .015 [-.21, -.02] 9. Narcissism .03 (.05) .03 .72 .475 [-.06, .12] 10. Psychopathy .14 (.06) .12 2.46 .014 [.03, .26] 11. IRMA .54 (.05) .50 10.94 < .001 [.44, .63]

Table 3b. Multiple linear regression predicting scores on the BRPQ ‘Sociological Explanations’ component BRPQ 2: Sociological Explanations of Revenge Pornography B (SE) β t p 95% CI (B) (Constant) 3.11 (.42) 7.378 < .001 [2.28, 3.94] 1. Sex .10 (.08) .06 1.241 .215 [-.06, .25] 2. Age -.00 (.00) -.02 -.407 .684 [-.01, .01] 3. Education .01 (.01) .04 .808 .419 [-.01, .02] 4. Politics -.03 (.03) -.04 -.764 .445 [-.09, .04] 5. Empathy .39 (.09) .25 4.393 < .001 [.21, .56] 6. BJWS -.11 (.04) -.13 -2.734 .007 [-.19, -.03] 7. Sadism .26 (.08) .21 3.314 .001 [.11, .41] 8. Machiavellianism .30 (.07) .27 4.641 < .001 [.17, .43] 9. Narcissism -.06 (.06) -.05 -1.024 .306 [-.19, .06] 10. Psychopathy -.26 (.08) -.21 -3.231 .001 [-.41, -.10] 11. IRMA -.11 (.07) -.10 -1.612 .108 [-.24, .02]

22

Table 3c. Multiple linear regression predicting scores on the BRPQ ‘Revenge Pornography as a Sexual Offence’ component BRPQ 3: Revenge Pornography as a Sexual Offense B (SE) β t p 95% CI (B) (Constant) 3.53 (.46) 7.63 < .001 [2.62, 4.44] 1. Sex -.43 (.08) -.25 -5.06 < .001 [-.59, -.26] 2. Age .01 (.00) .06 1.36 .174 [-.00, .01] 3. Education -.01 (.01) -.05 -1.11 .269 [-.03, .01] 4. Politics .04 (.04) .05 .98 .327 [-.04, .11] 5. Empathy .13 (.10) .07 1.33 .184 [-.06, .32] 6. BJWS .06 (.05) .06 1.36 .174 [-.03, .15] 7. Sadism .00 (.09) .00 .03 .979 [-.17, .17] 8. Machiavellianism -.13 (.07) -.10 -1.83 .068 [-.27, .01] 9. Narcissism .12 (.07) .09 1.82 .069 [-.01, .26] 10. Psychopathy .03 (.09) .02 .29 .774 [-.14, .20] 11. IRMA -.28 (.07) -.22 -3.81 < .001 [-.42, -.13]

In relation to viewing victims as responsible for revenge pornography offending, lower levels of empathy (β = -.15, p = .001), higher levels of belief in a just world (β = .14, p < .001), lower levels of Machiavellianism (β = -.11, p = .015), and higher levels of both psychopathy (β = .12, p = .014) and rape myth acceptance (β = .50, p < .001) were associated with a more exaggerated belief that victims were at least somewhat culpable for their experiences with revenge pornography. These associations are consistent with what we might expect in relation to this outcome. For example, if somebody has the belief that the world is a fair place they may assume that revenge pornography victimization is deserved in some way (see also Dustagheer, 2018), which may also be the case among those high in psychopathy (via the mechanism of aggressive narcissism) and rape myth acceptance (whereby victims of sexual violence as seen as playing a role in their own victimization through the wearing of provocative clothing or the outward appearance of sexual availability; Burt, 1980; McMahon & Farmer, 2011; Payne et al., 1999). Those low in empathy may fail to have the ability to identify with those who become victims of revenge pornography, and assume image-taking behavior leaves the victim vulnerable (and thus somewhat culpable) to having such images shared. This is particularly the case among those who score low on cognitive indices of empathy. The negative association of Machiavellianism with victim blaming is contrary to 23 what may be expected from a theoretical perspective. A post-hoc evaluation of the items within the SD3 Machiavellianism subscale may highlight why we obtained this result. That is, the items are framed as general views about people’s vulnerability to manipulation (rather than their propensity to engage in manipulation themselves). For example, agreeing with the item “Most people can be manipulated” (an SD3 item for Machiavellianism) is a general perception, while “I manipulate many people” (the behavioral manifestation of Machiavellianism) is congruent with the classic conceptualization of this trait. As such, acknowledging vulnerabilities of some people to being manipulated is congruent with lower victim blame scores, as such a vulnerability would lead to lower levels of victim culpability. When predicting the endorsement of sociological (i.e., power and control) explanations for revenge pornography offending, several factors emerged as being associated with this outcome. Higher levels of empathy (β = .25, p < .001), sadism (β =.21, p = .001) and Machiavellianism (β = .27, p < .001) all predicted greater endorsement of these arguments. This could be related to empathy having a link to the care for the victims of such offences (and thus a recognition of the loss of power and control experienced as a result of victimization; Bates, 2017), as well as sadistic and Machiavellian impulses to endorse exploitative and aggressive tactics associated with a striving for control to achieve a particular goal (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). In contrast, lower levels of belief in a just world (β = -.13, p = .007) and psychopathy (β = -.21, p = .001) predicted these viewpoints. These data are suggestive of those who do not believe that the world is a fair place endorsing the view that victimization is a manifestation of societal or interpersonal injustice, while those who score lower on indices of psychopathy may be more able to take the perspective or infer the motivations of somebody committing these offences. Only two factors predicted seeing revenge pornography as a sexual offence. These were our sex demographic variable (β = -.25, p < .001), with men being less likely to view revenge pornography as a sexual offence, and rape myth acceptance (β = -.22, p < .001), where those scoring higher on the acceptance of rape myths being less likely to label revenge pornography as a sexual offence. The finding in relation to respondent sex may be reflective of the typical demographics of revenge pornography victims. Given that victims are typically female (McGlynn et al., 2017), these participants may feel a greater affinity to those who have been victimized in this way, and associate the negative effects of such experiences as being similar to other sexual offences. It is particularly interesting that rape myth acceptance was associated with lower levels of endorsing the view that revenge pornography is a sexual offence. This may be suggestive of the idea that ‘rape’ myth acceptance is not limited to a 24 particular offence context. That is, the effects of these beliefs translate into judgements of several types of sexual offences, rather than just to those judgements related to rape. This is perhaps unsurprising, and reflective of a broader pattern of misunderstanding, victim blaming, and offence minimization in large portions of the general population (this is also consistent with the large correlation between IRMA scores and responses to the ‘Victims as Responsible’ component of the BRPQ; see Table 2).

Study 3 - Predicting Revenge Pornography Proclivity Sample Information A total of 230 participants were assigned to this branch of the survey. However, one participant was removed as their stated age was below 18 years (despite us asking participants to confirm this minimum age at sign-up), while two participants had missing data on all proclivity questions. This left a final sample of 227 participants for analysis (56% female; Mage = 29.92 years, SD = 10.27).

Results and Discussion As above, we ran correlational analyses between all our measured variables, save for the IRMA measure. We used the conservative recommendations advanced by Vatcheva et al. (2016) who, in simulation studies, reported that correlations of a moderate magnitude (r > .50) can indicate issues with multicollinearity. For this reason, the correlation in Study 2 between the IRMA and the BRPQ ‘Victims as Responsible’ component became problematic. Given the aims of the paper, we dropped the IRMA in these analyses and retained the BRPQ component. All inter-scale correlations are presented in Table 4. A direct proclivity for engaging in revenge pornography (measured by averaging proclivity items framed as “In this situation, how likely is it that you would do the same?”) was significantly correlated to a moderate degree with lower levels of empathy (r = -.30) and higher levels of belief in a just world (r = .16), sadism (r = .42), narcissism (r = .20), psychopathy (r = .45), and the belief that victims of revenge pornography offending are responsible for their plight (r = .43). Participant perceptions that they would enjoy engaging in revenge pornography offending was negatively related to empathy (r = -.31), but positively related to belief in a just world (r = .14), sadism (r = .45), narcissism (r = .19), Machiavellianism (r = .18), psychopathy (r = .45), the belief that victims of revenge pornography offending are responsible (r = .36), and direct revenge pornography proclivity (r = .83). 25

The approval facet of the proclivity measure was reverse-framed, meaning that higher scores reflected disapproval of revenge pornography offending. Such disapproval was positively associated with higher levels of empathy (r = .36) and the endorsement of sociological beliefs about the motivations underpinning revenge pornography (r = .23). However, it was negatively related to sadism (r = - .22), narcissism (r = -.19), psychopathy (r = -.29), and the belief that victims of revenge pornography offending are responsible for their victimization (r = -.44). Further, disapproval of revenge pornography offending was negatively associated with an explicit self-reported proclivity for revenge pornography offending (r = -.37) and the perception that participants would enjoy engaging in this behavior (r = -.34).

26

Table 4. Zero-order correlations between the measured variables (Study 3) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1. Sex - 2. Age .15*** - 3. Education .03 .09* - 4. Politics .17*** .16*** -.06 - 5. Empathy -.35*** .01 -.02 -.20*** - 6. BJWS .14** .06 -.04 .26*** -.22*** - 7. Sadism .14** -.12** .04 .16** -.50*** .16** - 8. Machiavellianism .20*** -.11* .01 .21*** -.45*** .12* .51*** - 9. Narcissism .11* -.07 .03 .15** -.13** .13** .37*** .36*** - 10. Psychopathy .19** -.02 -.03 .14** -.43*** .12* .70*** .50*** .42*** - 11. BRPQ 1: Victims as .32*** .05 -.03 .30*** -.44*** .34*** .39*** .30*** .22*** .39*** - Responsible 12. BRPQ 2: Sociological -.05 -.09* .05 -.09* -.18*** -.18*** .00 .08 -.03 -.11* -.26*** - Explanations 13. BRPQ 3 - Revenge -.33*** -.01 -.05 -.06 -.03 -.03 -.18*** -.24*** -.03 -.15** -.21*** -.00 - Pornography as a Sex Offense 14. Direct Proclivity .06 -.07 -.01 -.06 .16* .16* .42*** .11 .20** .45*** .43*** -.06 .08 - 15. Enjoyment Proclivity .09 -.15* .02 -.04 .14* .14* .45*** .18** .19** .45*** .36*** -.03 .02 .83*** - 16. Approval Proclivity -.10 .06 .05 .02 -.03 -.03 -.22** -.11 -.19** -.29*** -.44*** .23** -.03 -.37*** -.34*** -

27

We ran three linear regression models, aimed at predicting (a) a direct proclivity for revenge pornography offending, (b) anticipated enjoyment when engaging in revenge pornography offending, and (c) disapproval of revenge pornography offending. All demographic and psychological control variables were entered as predictors. All three models were statistically significant and explained a substantial proportion of the variance in proclivity ratings; ‘direct proclivity’: adj. R2 = .328, F(13, 204) = 8.64, p < .001; ‘anticipated enjoyment’: adj. R2 = .244, F(13, 204) = 6.36, p < .001; ‘disapproval of revenge pornography’: adj. R2 = .271, F(13, 204) = 6.84, p < .001. Model coefficients are presented in Tables 5a-c. In predicting a direct proclivity for revenge pornography offending, we found that having a more liberal political orientation (β = -.24, p < .001), lower levels of Machiavellianism (β = -.17, p = .024), and higher levels of psychopathy (β = .24, p = .014) were all significantly associated with this outcome. Examining the BRPQ specifically, all components were positively associated with revenge pornography proclivity; ‘Victims as Responsible’ (β = .34, p < .001), ‘Sociological Explanations’ (β = .15, p = .022), ‘Revenge Pornography as a Sexual Offence’ (β = .18, p = .005). When using anticipated enjoyment of engaging in revenge pornography as the outcome, this was predicted by participants having a more liberal political orientation (β = -.16, p = .022), lower levels of empathy (β = -.17, p = .033), and higher levels of sadism (β = .23, p = .013). The BRPQ components of ‘Victims as Responsible’ (β = .18, p = .028) and ‘Sociological Explanations of Revenge Pornography’ (β = .15, p = .036) were significant predictors, but ‘Revenge Pornography as a Sexual Offence’ (β = .11, p = .090) was not. Disapproval of revenge pornography offending was predicted by political conservatism (β = .18, p = .010), higher levels of empathy (β = .27, p = .001), and lower scores on the ‘Victims as Responsible’ component of the BRPQ (β = -.44, p < .001), and, paradoxically, lower scores on the ‘Revenge Pornography as a Sexual Offence’ component (β = -.14, p = .041). ‘Sociological Explanations of Revenge Pornography’ were unrelated to revenge pornography approval (β = .02, p = .785).

28

Table 5a. Multiple linear regression predicting direct revenge pornography proclivity B (SE) β t p 95% CI (B) (Constant) -.03 (.57) -.06 .955 [-1.15, 1.09] 1. Sex -.12 (.09) -.09 -1.32 .190 [-.31, .06] 2. Age .00 (.00) .01 .14 .893 [-.01, .01] 3. Education -.01 (.01) -.06 -.95 .343 [-.03, .01] 4. Politics -.16 (.04) -.24 -3.68 < .001 [-.24, -.07] 5. Empathy -.18 (.10) -.15 -1.90 .059 [-.37, .01] 6. BJWS .07 (.05) .09 1.40 .162 [-.03, .17] 7. Sadism .18 (.09) .17 1.91 .058 [-.01, .36] 8. Machiavellianism -.18 (.08) -.17 -2.28 .024 [-.33, -.02] 9. Narcissism .04 (.08) .03 .46 .648 [-.12, 19] 10. Psychopathy .29 (.11) .24 2.49 .014 [.06, .51] 11. BRPQ1: Victims as Responsible .35 (.08) .34 4.34 < .001 [.19, .50] 12. BRPQ2: Sociological Explanations .13 (.06) .15 2.32 .022 [.02, .25] 13. BRPQ3: Revenge Pornography as a Sexual Offense .15 (.05) .18 2.87 .005 [.05, .26]

29

Table 5b. Multiple linear regression predicting revenge pornography proclivity (enjoyment) B (SE) β t p 95% CI (B) (Constant) .51 (.65) .78 .439 [-.78, 1.80] 1. Sex -.03 (.11) -.02 -.27 .786 [-.24, .18] 2. Age -.01 (.01) -.09 -1.29 .197 [-.02, .00] 3. Education -.00 (.01) -.02 -.35 .726 [-.02, .02] 4. Politics -.11 (.05) -.16 -2.31 .022 [-.21, -.02] 5. Empathy -.24 (.11) -.17 -2.15 .033 [-.46, -.02] 6. BJWS .07 (.06) .09 1.28 .203 [-.04, .18] 7. Sadism .27 (.11) .23 2.50 .013 [.06, .48] 8. Machiavellianism -.16 (.09) -.14 -1.75 .081 [-.33, .02] 9. Narcissism .01 (.09) .01 .08 .940 [-.17, .18] 10. Psychopathy .26 (.13) .20 1.96 .052 [-.00, .52] 11. BRPQ1: Victims as Responsible .20 (.09) .18 2.22 .028 [.02, .39] 12. BRPQ2: Sociological Explanations .14 (.07) .15 2.11 .036 [.01, .27] 13. BRPQ3: Revenge Pornography as a Sexual Offense .11 (.06) .11 1.70 .090 [-.02, .23]

30

Table 5c. Multiple linear regression predicting revenge pornography proclivity (approval) B (SE) β t p 95% CI (B) (Constant) 3.74 (.68) 5.51 < .001 [2.40, 5.09] 1. Sex .18 (.11) .11 1.62 .107 [-.04, .41] 2. Age .00 (.01) .02 .33 .746 [-.01, .01] 3. Education .01 (.01) .07 1.21 .228 [-.01, .03] 4. Politics .13 (.05) .18 2.61 .010 [.03, .24] 5. Empathy .40 (.12) .27 3.42 .001 [.17, .63] 6. BJWS .10 (.06) .11 1.70 .091 [-.02, .22] 7. Sadism .07 (.11) .06 .67 .505 [-.15, .29] 8. Machiavellianism .04 (.09) .04 .44 .660 [-.14, .22] 9. Narcissism -.15 (.11) -.12 -1.59 .114 [-.33, .04] 10. Psychopathy -.04 (.14) -.03 -.25 .797 [-.31, .24] 11. BRPQ1: Victims as Responsible -.52 (.10) -.44 -5.40 < .001 [-.71, -.33] 12. BRPQ2: Sociological Explanations .02 (.07) .02 .27 .785 [-.12, .15] 13. BRPQ3: Revenge Pornography as a Sexual Offense -.13 (.07) -.14 -2.06 .041 [-.26, -.01] Note. Higher scores on the ‘approval’ outcome indicates a more exaggerated disapproval of revenge pornography proclivity

31

Study 4 - Predicting Judgements of Revenge Pornography Sample Information A total of 235 participants were assigned to this branch of the survey. However, two participants were removed from the dataset as they had incomplete data on the response variables. This left a final sample of 233 participants for analysis (56% female; Mage = 31.07 years, SD = 12.66).

Results and Discussion We ran correlational analyses between all of our measured variables (save for the IRMA, which was excluded as in Study 3). Inter-scale correlations are presented in Table 6. Victim blaming was associated with male sex (r = .41), older age (r = .15), and right- leaning politics (r = .35). Psychologically, beliefs in a just world (r = .28), sadism (r = .28), Machiavellianism (r = .29), narcissism (r = .15), and psychopathy (r = .21) were all associated with higher victim blame. This outcome was also associated with the BRPQ component of ‘Victims as Responsible’ (r = .60), which offers convergent validity of this domain of beliefs, as measured by the BRPQ. Perceptions of revenge pornography’s criminality were associated with male sex (r = - .32) and left-leaning politics (r = -.29). The only psychological constructs associated with crimiality perceptions were belief in a just world (r = -.28) and sadism (r = -.13). All BRPQ components were significant associated with these judgements. Seeing ‘Victims as Responsible’ was associated with lower levels of criminality perception (r = -.53), while increased judgements of revenge pornography’s criminality were associated with adhering to ‘Sociological Explanations’ (r = .14) and seeing ‘Revenge Pornography as a Sexual Offense’ (r = .18). Anticipated victim harm was associated with male sex (r = -.17) and left-leaning politics (r = -.20). Psychologically, these judgements were correlated with lower levels of belief in a just world (r = -.35). However, the BRPQ components of ‘Victims as Responsible’ (r = -.44) and ‘Sociological Explanations (r =.24) were associated with less and more anticipated harm, respectively. Each of the outcomes were significantly correlated to each other to a moderate-to-large degree. Victim blaming was associated with less perceived criminality (r = -.46) and reduced anticipations of victim harm (r = -.31). In contrast, perceptions of criminality and victim harm were positively correlated (r =.63).

32 Table 6. Zero-order correlations between the measured variables (Study 4) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1. Sex - 2. Age .19** - 3. Education .05 .03 - 4. Politics .25*** .23*** -.02 - 5. Empathy -.06 -.06 -.02 .10 - 6. BJWS .27*** .10 -.02 .19** -.06 - 7. Sadism .13* -.11 -.00 .16* .13 .16* - 8. Machiavellianism .16* -.10 -.02 .22** .11 .20** .49*** - 9. Narcissism -.00 -.02 .04 .09 .31*** .11 .40*** .50*** - 10. Psychopathy .19** -.04 .00 .17* .14* .12 .65*** .60*** .46*** - 11. BRPQ 1: Victims as .32*** .04 -.04 .33*** -.04 .38*** .25*** .29*** .10 .25*** - Responsible 12. BRPQ 2: Sociological -.09 -.16* -.01 -.09 .08 -.19** .12 .11 .12 .08 -.21** - Explanations 13. BRPQ 3 - Revenge -.04 -.11 .04 -.13 .14* -.03 .23*** .26*** .30*** .15** .03 .31*** - Pornography as a Sex Offense 14. Victim Blame .41*** .15* -.03 .35*** -.10 .28*** .28*** .29*** .15* .21** .60*** -.09 -.00 - 15. Perceived Criminality -.32*** .01 .01 -.29*** .07 -.29*** -.13* -.13 .07 -.09 -.53*** .14* .18** -.46*** - 16. Victim Harm -.17* -.05 -.09 -.20** .11 -.35*** -.09 -.01 .10 -.05 -.44*** .24*** .13 -.31*** .63*** -

33

We ran a series of linear regression models predicting (a) victim blame judgements, (b) perceived criminality, and (c) anticipated victim harm, separately for each condition. All models were statistically significant and explained a substantial proportion of the variance in offense judgements. Tables 7a-c present model statistics and individual predictor coefficients. In the control condition (with no previous social media posting context), victim blaming was only predicted by the BRPQ component of ‘Victims as Responsible’ (β = .49, p < .001). This suggests that an impulse to place culpability on victims is linked to victim blaming even in the absence of any contextual cues to self-increased vulnerability. Higher scores on this BRPQ component also predicted lower perceived criminality of the offense (β = -.32, p = .018). Taken together, this suggests an intricate link between perceptions of victim culpability on the one hand, and the criminality of an act on the other. These perceptions did not translate to judgements of victim harm, which were only predicted by lower levels of belief in a just world (β = -.28, p = .023). This indicates a potentially malicious view that harm is lower when victims ‘deserve’ what happens to them. When the victim had previously posted sexually provocative images online, men (β = .26, p = .029) attributed more blame to her. Similarly, those with higher just world beliefs (β = .25, p = .040) and endorsing the ‘Victims as Responsible’ BRPQ items (β = .36, p = .006) attributed more victim blame. Contrastingly, and perhaps surprisingly, higher levels of psychopathic personality traits predicted lower victim blame scores in this case (β = -.33, p = .012). Each of the BRPQ components predicted perceived criminality in this case. Expectedly, the ‘Revenge Pornography as a Sexual Offense’ component was positively associated with criminality judgements (β = .32, p = .010), and seeing ‘Victims as Responsible’ was negatively associated with this outcome (β = -.42, p = .003). Those who endorsed ‘Sociological Explanations of Revenge Pornography’ were less likely to view this case as a requiring of criminal sanctions (β = -.32, p = .006). This is an important finding suggesting that sexualized victims may be less supported by those endorsing a standard social science explanation of revenge pornography. Lower levels of victim harm were predicted by a propensity to see ‘Victims as Responsible’ (β = -.32, p = .045). When the victim had a history of sexually conservative social media posting, viewing ‘Victims as Responsible’ was significantly positively predictive of victim blame attributions (β = .59, p < .001), and negatively associated with both perceived criminality (β = -.51, p < .001) and anticipated victim harm (β = -.38, p = .005). Left-leaning politics were associated with greater levels of perceived criminality (β = -.23, p = .038), and lower levels of education were associated with greater levels of anticipated victim harm β = -.27, p = .013). 34

Table 7a. Multiple linear regression predicting judgements of revenge pornography (control condition) Victim Blame Perceived Criminality Victim Harm B [95% CI] β B [95% CI] β B [95% CI] β (Constant) .85 [2.31, 4.00] 5.29 [2.14, 8.45] 5.70 [3.07, 8.33] 1. Sex .35 [-.15, .86] .15 -.42 [-.92, .08] -.21 .09 [-.33, .51] .06 2. Age .01 [-.01, .02] .10 .00 [-.01, .02] .06 .00 [-.01, .01] .01 3. Education .00 [-.05, .06] .02 -.01 [-.07, .04] -.06 .01 [-.04, .05] .03 4. Politics .22 [-01, .45] .20 -.01 [-.24, .22] -.01 -.13 [-.32, .047] -.17 5. Empathy -.70 [-1.41, .01] -.19 -.30 [-1.01, .41] -.09 .09 [-.51, .68] .03 6. BJWS -.19 [-.48, .10] -.13 -.11 [-.40, .18] -.09 -.28 [-.52, -.04] -.28* 7. Sadism .36 [-.07, .78] .23 -.28 [-.71, .14] -.22 .03 [-.33, .38] .03 8. Machiavellianism -.01 [-.46, .44] -.01 .08 [-.38, .53] .05 .20 [-.18, .58] .17 9. Narcissism .42 [-.28, 1.11] .14 .26 [-.44, .95] .10 .36 [-.22, .95] .18 10. Psychopathy -.17 [-.93, .58] -.08 .17 [-.58, .93] .09 -.44 [-1.07, .20] -.29 11. BRPQ1: Victims as Responsible .99 [.54, 1.44] .49*** -.55 [-1.00, -.10] -.32* -.24 [-.62, .13] -.18 12. BRPQ2: Sociological Explanations .04 [-.33, .41] .02 -.09 [-.46, .28] -.06 .25 [-.06, .56] .22 13. BRPQ3: Revenge Pornography as a Sexual Offense -.13 [-.65, .39] -.05 .66 [.15, 1.18] .31* -.01 [-.45, .42] -.01 * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

35

Table 7b. Multiple linear regression predicting judgements of revenge pornography (provocative dress condition) Victim Blame Perceived Criminality Victim Harm B [95% CI] β B [95% CI] β B [95% CI] β (Constant) 1.16 [-2.33, 4.66] 7.08 [4.16, 10.00] 9.24 [6.44, 12.05] 1. Sex .63 [.07, 1.18] .26* -.45 [-.92, .02] -.24 -.11 [-.56, .34] -.07 2. Age .01 [-.0, .03] .07 .00 [-.02, .02] .00 -.01 [-.03, .01] -.11 3. Education -.02 [-.10, .06] -.05 .04 [-.03, .10] .13 -.01 [-.07, .06] -.03 4. Politics -.06 [-.32, .20] -.06 .03 [-.19, .25] .03 .02 [-.19, .23] .02 5. Empathy -1.11 [-2.33, .11] -.20 -.34 [-1.36, .68] -.08 -.63 [-1.61, .35] -.17 6. BJWS .37 [.02, .72] .25* -.11 [-.41, .18] -.10 -.07 [-.35, .22] -.07 7. Sadism .22 [-.31, .76] .11 -.23 [-.68, .22] -.15 -.07 [-.50, .36] -.05 8. Machiavellianism .23 [-.28, .74] .13 .04 [-.39, .46] .03 .15 [-.26, .56] .13 9. Narcissism .58 [-.15, 1.31] .20 .00 [-.61, .61] .00 -.10 [-.69, .49] -.05 10. Psychopathy -.81 [-1.44, -.18] -.33* .24 [-.29, .76] .12 -.18 [-.69, .32] -.11 11. BRPQ1: Victims as Responsible .58 [.18, .98] .36** -.52 [-.86, -.18] -.42** -.33 [-.66, -.01] -.32* 12. BRPQ2: Sociological Explanations .22 [-.14, .57] .13 -.42 [-.72, -.12] -.32** -.20 [-.48, .09] -.18 13. BRPQ3: Revenge Pornography as a Sexual Offense -.06 [-.53, .41] -.03 .52 [.13, .92] .32* .20 [-.45, .42] .15 * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

36

Table 7c. Multiple linear regression predicting judgements of revenge pornography (conservative dress condition) Victim Blame Perceived Criminality Victim Harm B [95% CI] β B [95% CI] β B [95% CI] β (Constant) -.74 [-4.43, 2.94] 5.66 [2.54, 8.78] 4.71 [1.86, 7.57] 1. Sex .55 [-.10, 1.20] .19 -.13 [-.68, .42] -.05 .13 [-.37, .63] .06 2. Age .01 [-.02, .04] .06 .01 [-.01, .04] .11 .01 [-.01, .04] .14 3. Education .01 [-.06, .08] .03 -.05 [-.11, .01] -.18 -.07 [-.12, -.01] -.27* 4. Politics .16 [-.11, .42] .13 -.24 [-.46, .01] -.23* -.08 [-.28, .13] -.08 5. Empathy .17 [-1.17, 1.52] .03 .43 [-.71, 1.57] .09 .57 [-.48, 1.61] .14 6. BJWS -.09 [-.47, .30] -.05 -.01 [-.33, .32] .00 -.29 [-.58, .10] -.22 7. Sadism -.06 [-.80, .68] -.02 .22 [-.41, .85] .09 -.31 [-.88, .27] -.14 8. Machiavellianism .21 [-.38, .80] .09 -.23 [-.73, .27] -.11 .18 [-.27, .64] .10 9. Narcissism .21 [-.71, 1.13] .06 .26 [-.52, 1.04] .09 .19 [-.53, .90] .07 10. Psychopathy .22 [-.75, 1.18] .06 -.18 [-.99, .64] -.06 .30 [-.45, 1.04] .12 11. BRPQ1: Victims as Responsible 1.04 [.59, 1.49] .59*** -.76 [-1.14, -.38] -.51*** -.51 [-.85, -.16] -.38** 12. BRPQ2: Sociological Explanations -.01 [-.48, .46] -.00 .27 [-.13, .67] .16 .21 [-.16, .57] .14 13. BRPQ3: Revenge Pornography as a Sexual Offense -.26 [-.92, .41] -.08 .09 [-.48, .65] .03 .17 [-.35, .68] .07 * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

37

General Discussion In this paper we set out with the aim to systematically develop and validate a measure of beliefs about revenge pornography offending. Our motivation in doing so was rooted in the existing literature either using brief measures of judgements about revenge pornography offending (Bothamley & Tully, 2018; Fido et al., 2019) or not using transparent and systematic measures of scale development (Powell et al., 2019). Given the importance of offense-supportive cognition in contributing to both a proclivity towards and judgements of sexual offending (Bohner et al. 2005; Harper, Franco et al., 2020; Hermann, et al., 2012, 2018) the project reported here offers a domain-specific measure of empirically supported clusters of beliefs about revenge pornography. The belief clusters of ‘Victims as Responsible’, ‘Sociological Explanations’, and ‘Revenge Pornography as a Sexual Offense’ very clearly correspond to distinct domains of beliefs, which appear to have important links to both a proclivity towards engaging in revenge pornography offending. Importantly, they correspond to different aspects of views about revenge pornography, including its victims and their perceived culpability in their experiences (‘Victims as Responsible’), perpetrator motivations (‘Sociological Explanations’), and the legal status of revenge pornography (‘Revenge Pornography as a Sexual Offense’). It is here where we make a distinction between the BRPQ and related measures of cognitive distortions and rape myths within the broader literature. Our measure is not a measure of ‘myths’ or distortions, but rather beliefs that may be best subsumed under the heading of offense-supportive cognition. The systematic validation of the BRPQ identified several predictors of each cluster of beliefs, as well as establishing the measure’s predictive validity itself. Endorsing rape myths was a substantial predictor of viewing revenge pornography victims as being responsible for their experiences. This belief was also predicted by lower levels of empathy and Machiavellianism (suggestive of the view that victims are not ‘tricked’ into victimization, but instead play an active role), and higher levels of psychopathy and belief in a just world. Endorsing sociological explanations of revenge pornography (i.e., viewing the motivations of perpetrators as being rooted in misogynistic desires for power and control), was most strongly predicted by higher levels of empathy, sadism, and Machiavellianism, and lower levels of psychopathy and belief in a just world. This suggests that people who endorse these motivational beliefs view revenge pornography not only as criminal, but also as a form of social oppression. A greater likelihood of viewing revenge pornography as a sexual offense was predicted by sex (specifically, being female) and a lower level of endorsement of rape 38 myths. Collectively, these findings are consistent with literature that finds judgements of sexual violence – in a general sense – are associated with beliefs about the fairness of the world, ‘dark’ personality traits, and stereotypical beliefs about sexual violence. The data are therefore supportive of the view that revenge pornography, as a form of image-based sexual abuse, should be classified as a sexual offense from a legislative perspective (Fido & Harper, 2020; McGlynn et al., 2017). Importantly, however, they also suggest that views about revenge pornography may be less dimensional than they are in relation to other forms of sexual violence, and be centered around views about victim culpability and offense motivations. Importantly, the BRPQ does seem to possess good predictive validity. This is particularly the case for the ‘Victims as Responsible’ domain, which is predictive of self- reported revenge pornography proclivity, anticipated enjoyment, and greater levels of approval of this kind of offending. In addition, seeing the victims of revenge pornography as being responsible for their experiences was associated with greater levels of victim blame and lower rates of perceived criminality and victim harm (irrespective of their previous online posting activity). This is consistent with broader work in the area of sexual offending, where victim blaming and other offense-supportive cognitions are associated with a host of undesirable outcomes, including increased rates of sexual aggression proclivity and more lenient judgements of offense case studies (Bohner et al., 2005; Harper, Franco et al., 2020). As such, the argument that revenge pornography operates as a sexual offense from both a legislative and psychological perspective is supported here (Fido & Harper, 2020; McGlynn et al., 2017). The existing literature within the area of image-based sexual abuse is rooted in sociological conceptualizations of this behavior, and explains it as a gendered type of sexual offending with desires for power, control, and dominance as its core motivations (e.g., McGlynn, 2018; McGlynn et al., 2017). Beliefs consistent with this conceptualization of revenge pornography predicted higher levels of self-reported proclivity (including anticipated enjoyment), and lower levels of perceived criminality (when victims had previously posted sexually provocative images online). These data may suggest a disconnect between elite (sociological) views about revenge pornography, and the opinions held and expressed by the lay public. Arguably this lay conceptualization is more representative of social thinking about revenge pornography, and has clear links to jury decision-making and offense motivations. That is, although the academic zeitgeist is to view revenge pornography (among a constellation of image-based sexual abuse offenses; Harper, Fido et al., 2020) through the 39 sociological lens, if the public do not endorse this view (favoring, for example, explanations that focus on sexual arousal) then cases that do not possess these sex-related features may be viewed less harshly. This becomes even more important when considering that the legislative discussions around image-based sexual abuse lay on the foundations of academic discourse, and thus may omit important details needed to ensure convictions – and therefore justice – after victimization.

Limitations and Future Use of the BRPQ Like any empirical study, our project here does have some limitations. The initial draft of the BRPQ was based on parallel items that were constructed using existing rape myth questionnaires and measures of other sexual offense-supportive cognitions. Although we did not pre-test these items using an expert panel, we make the full draft available via the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/3t6rh/?view_only=38b794744d4d4ecd9c7da9226061bbcd). We invite other research teams to examine this draft list of candidate items and seek to confirm our factor structure in independent samples, and in other legislative contexts. We believe that the BRPQ has the potential to inform our understanding of the psychological responses of lay members of the public to revenge pornography, and perhaps to other forms of image-based sexual abuse. It may be that similar themes are related to views about behaviors such as upskirting, cyber-flashing, and deepfake pornography production – all of which have been identified as forming the constellation of image-based sexual abuse (Fido & Harper, 2020). Parallel versions of the BRPQ may be developed to test these ideas in relation to the full range of image-based sexual abuse offences. It may also be said that we studied only a select number of correlates of the BRPQ. Although these were constructs known to be associated with judgements of revenge pornography (Dustagheer, 2018; Fido et al., 2019), we did not examine the relationships between the BRPQ and constructs such as ambivalent sexism, masculinity, or attitudes related to the sexual double standard. These may all be related in meaningful ways to proclivities towards and judgements of revenge pornography as they relate to gendered interactions and relationships. Further validation is necessary to identify the unique contributions of the BRPQ’s belief domains after controlling for these other notable covariates.

40

Conclusions Despite knowing that offense-supportive cognitions are important predictors of sexual offending proclivity and judgements of sexual aggression, no authors had previously developed a measure of such beliefs in relation to revenge pornography. Our new BRPQ fills this gap in the literature, reporting beliefs that take a tripartite structure and cover domains related to victim culpability, offense motivations, and the legal status of revenge pornography as a behavior. The development of such a measure opens up many possibilities for specifically examining this type of offending behavior as a specific sexual crime. We believe that it is likely that – as in the case of sexual violence in a general sense – attitudes that blame victims and endorse stereotypical beliefs act as barriers to effective legislative action. It is only by systematically exploring the structure of these beliefs in the manner that we have done here, by understanding their correlates and effects, and by seeking to address antisocial beliefs through education, that we can begin to turn the tide on revenge pornography as a growing social problem.

41

References Bohner, G., Jarvis, C. I., Eyssel, F., & Siebler, F. (2005). The causal impact of rape myth acceptance on men's rape proclivity: Comparing sexually coercive and noncoercive men. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(6), 819–828. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/ejsp.284 Bothamley, S., & Tully, R. J. (2018). Understanding revenge pornography: Public perceptions of revenge pornography and victim blaming. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 10(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1108/JACPR-09-2016- 0253

Branch, K., Hilinski-Rosick, C. M., Johnson, E., & Solano, G. (2017). Revenge porn victimization of college students in the United States: An exploratory analysis. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 11(1), 128–142. https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.495777

Buckels, E. E., Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). Behavioral confirmation of everyday sadism. Psychological Science, 24(11), 2201–2209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613490749

Buckels, E. E., Trapnell, P. D., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Trolls just want to have fun. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 97–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.016

Bumby, K. M. (1996). Assessing the cognitive distortions of child molesters and rapists: Development and validation of the MOLEST and RAPE Scales. Sexual Abuse, 8(1), 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02258015

Burris, A. (2014) Hell hath no fury like a woman porned: Revenge porn and the need for a federal nonconsensual pornography statute. Florida Law Review, 66, 2325–2359.

Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(2), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.2.217

Campbell, R., & Raja, S. (2005). The Sexual Assault and Secondary Victimization of Female Veterans: Help-Seeking Experiences with Military and Civilian Social Systems. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29(1), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471- 6402.2005.00171.x 42

Citron, D. K., & Franks, M. A. (2014). Criminalizing revenge porn. Wake Forest Law Review, 49, 345.

Dake, J. A., Price, J. H., Maziarz, L., & Ward, B. (2012). Prevalence and correlates of sexting behavior in adolescents. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 7(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2012.650959

Decety, J., & Cowell, J. A. (2014). Friends or foes: Is empathy necessary for moral behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(4), 525–537. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614545130

DeShong, H. L., Helle, A. C., Lengel, G. J., Meyer, N., & Mullins-Sweatt, S. N. (2017). Facets of the Dark Triad: Utilizing the Five-Factor Model to describe Machiavellianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 105, 218–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.053

Döring, N. (2014). Consensual sexting among adolescents: Risk prevention through abstinence education or safer sexting? Cyberpsychology, 8(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2014-1-9

Dustagheer, E. (2018, May). Public perceptions of revenge pornography. Paper presented at the British Psychological Society Annual Conference. Nottingham, UK

Edwards, K. M., Turchik, J. A., Dardis, C. M., Reynolds, N., & Gidycz, C. A. (2011). Rape myths: History, individual and institutional-level presence, and implications for change. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 65(11-12), 761–773. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199- 011-9943-2

Fido, D., & Harper, C. A. (2020). Non-consensual image-based sexual abuse: Bridging legal and psychological perspectives. Palgrave

Fido, D., Harper, C. A., Davis, M. A., Petronzi, D., & Worrall, S. (2019). Intrasexual competition as a predictor of women’s judgments of revenge pornography offending. Sexual Abuse. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063219894306

Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). Sage

Franks, M. A. (2015). Protecting sexual privacy: New York needs a ‘revenge porn’ law. Atticus 27(1), 15–21 43

Hall, M., & Hearn, J. (2017). Revenge pornography: Gender, sexualities and motivations. Routledge

Harper, C. A., Fido, D., & Petronzi, D. (2020). Delineating non-consensual sexual image offending: Towards an empirical approach. Available at https://psyarxiv.com/vpydn/

Harper, C. A., Franco, V., & Wills, M. (2020). Excusing and justifying rape cognitions in judgments of sexually coercive dating scenarios. Sexual Abuse, 32(5), 543–566. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063219825869

Hatcher, R. (2016, June). Who is to blame for ‘revenge pornography’? The contribution of relationship duration, nature of media capture and victim behaviour on public perceptions. Paper presented at the BPS Division of Forensic Psychology Annual Conference. Brighton, UK

Henry, N., & Powell, A. (2015). Beyond the ‘sext’: Technology-facilitated sexual violence and harassment against adult women. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 48(1), 104–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865814524218

Henry, N., & Powell, A. (2016). Technology-facilitated sexual violence: A literature review of empirical research. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 19(2), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838016650189

Hermann, C. A., Babchishin, K. M., Nunes, K. L., Leth-Steensen, C., & Cortoni, F. (2012). Factor structure of the Bumby RAPE scale: A two-factor structure. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(7), 869–886. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812436802

Hildebrand, M. M., & Najdowski, C. J. (2015). The potential impact of rape culture on juror decision making: Implications for wrongful acquittals in sexual assault trials. Albany Law Review, 78, 1059–1086.

Jonason, P. K., Girgis, M., & Milne-Home, J. (2017). The exploitative mating strategy of the Dark Triad traits: Tests of rape-enabling attitudes. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(3), 697–706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-0937-1

Jonason, P. K., & Tost, J. (2010). I just cannot control myself: The dark triad and self-control. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(6), 611–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.031 44

Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2011). Differentiating the Dark Triad within the interpersonal circumplex. In L. M. Horowitz & S. Strack (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal psychology: Theory, research, assessment, and therapeutic interventions (p. 249–267). Wiley

Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3): A brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21(1), 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113514105

Köhn, M. A., Okan, C., & Jonason, P. K. (2018). A primer on the Dark Triad traits. Australian Journal of Psychology, 71(1), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12198

Lageson, S. E., McElrath, S., & Palmer, K. E. (2018). Gendered public support for criminalizing “revenge porn”. Feminist Criminology, 14, 560–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085118773398

Lerner, M. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. Springer.

Lipkusa, I. M., Delbert, I., & Siegler, I. C. (1996). The importance of distinguishing the belief in a just world for self versus for others: Implications for psychological well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(7), 666–677. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167296227002

Lippman, J. R., & Campbell, S. W. (2014). Damned if you do, damned if you don’t … if you’re a girl: Relational and normative contexts of adolescent sexting in the United States. Journal of Children and Media, 8(4), 371–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2014.923009

Lishner, D. A., Hong, P. Y., Jiang, L., Vitacco, M. J., & Neumann, C. S. (2015). Psychopathy, narcissism, and borderline personality: A critical test of the affective empathy-impairment hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 257–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.05.036

McGlynn, C. (2018). ‘Revenge porn’ and upskirting remind us sexual offending is not about sexual arousal. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/revenge-porn- and-why-sexual-offending-is-not-about_uk_5b45c9e7e4b00db1492ffe9f 45

McGlynn, C., Rackley, E., & Houghton, R. (2017). Beyond ‘revenge porn’: The continuum of image-based sexual abuse. Feminist Legal Studies, 25(1), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-017-9343-2

McMahon, S., & Farmer, G. L. (2011). An updated measure for assessing subtle rape myths. Social Work Research, 35(2), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/35.2.71

Muris, P., Merckelbach, H., Otgaar, H., & Meijer, E. (2017). The malevolent side of human nature: A meta-analysis and critical review of the literature on the dark triad (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(2), 183-204. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616666070

O'Meara, A., Davies, J., & Hammond, S. (2011). The psychometric properties and utility of the Short Sadistic Impulse Scale (SSIS). Psychological Assessment, 23(2), 523–531. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022400

Osborne, J. W., & Costello, A. B. (2009). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pan-Pacific Management Review, 12(2), 131-146.

Patella-Rey, P. (2018). Beyond privacy: Bodily integrity as an alternative framework for understanding non-consensual pornography. Information, Communication & Society, 21(5), 786–791. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1428653

Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556– 563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6

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(1), 27–68. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1998.2238

Pina, A., Holland, J., & Edward, J. M. (2017) The malevolent side of revenge porn proclivity: Dark personality traits and sexist ideology. International Journal of Technoethics, 8(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJT.2017010103 46

Plouffe, R. A., Smith, M. M., & Saklofske, D. H. (2019). A psychometric investigation of the Assessment of Sadistic Personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 140, 57– 60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.002

Polaschek, D. L. L., & Gannon, T. A. (2004). The implicit theories of rapists: What convicted offenders tell us. Sexual Abuse, 16(4), 299–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/107906320401600404

Polaschek, D. L. L., & Ward, T. (2002). The implicit theories of potential rapists: What our questionnaires tell us. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7(4), 385–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(01)00063-5

Powell, A., Henry, N., Flynn, A., & Scott, A. J. (2019). Image-based sexual abuse: The extent, nature, and predictors of perpetration in a community sample of Australian residents. Computers in Human Behavior, 92, 393–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.009

Russell, T. D., & King, A. R. (2016). Anxious, hostile, and sadistic: Maternal attachment and everyday sadism predict hostile masculine beliefs and male sexual violence. Personality and Individual Differences, 99, 340–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.05.029

Scott, A. J., & Gavin, J. (2018). Revenge pornography: the influence of perpetrator-victim sex, observer sex and observer sexting experience on perceptions of seriousness and responsibility. Journal of Criminal Psychology, 8(2), 162–172. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCP-05-2017-0024

Spreng, R. N., McKinnon, M. C., Mar, R. A., & Levine, B. (2009). The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire: Scale development and initial validation of a factor-analytic solution to multiple empathy measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(1), 62–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890802484381

Starr, T. S., & Lavis, T. (2018). Perceptions of revenge pornography and victim blame. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 12(2), 427–438. https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.3366179 47

Strömwall, L. A., Alfredsson, H., & Landström, S. (2013). Blame attributions and rape: Effects of belief in a just world and relationship level. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18(2), 254–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8333.2012.02044.x

Süssenbach, P., Bohner, G., & Eyssel, F. (2012). Schematic influences of rape myth acceptance on visual information processing: An eye-tracking approach. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(3), 660–668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.005

Vatcheva, K. P., Lee, M., McCormick, J. B., & Rahbar, M. H. (2016). Multicollinearity in regression analyses conducted in epidemiologic studies. Epidemiology, 6(2), 227. https://doi.org/ 10.4172/2161-1165.1000227

Walker, K., & Sleath, E. (2017). A systematic review of the current knowledge regarding revenge pornography and non-consensual sharing of sexually explicit media. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 36, 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.06.010

Ward, T. (2000). Sexual offenders' cognitive distortions as implicit theories. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5(5), 491–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(98)00036-6

Watson, R., & Bartels, R. M. (2017). Understanding revenge pornography proclivity. [Unpublished manuscript]

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. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.022

Worthington, R., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research. The Counselling Psychologist, 38(6), 806–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127

Wright, A. G. C. (2016). On the measure and mismeasure of narcissism: A response to “Measures of narcissism and their relations to DSM-5 pathological traits: A critical reappraisal”. Assessment, 23(1), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115599054

Zaki, J. (2018). Empathy is a moral force. In K. Gray & J. Graham (Eds.), Atlas of moral psychology (p. 49–58). The Guilford Press.

Zvi, L., & Bitton, M. S. (2020). Perceptions of victim and offender culpability in non- consensual distribution of intimate images. Psychology, Crime & Law. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2020.1818236