CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 83Sexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyPersonality Traits and PsychologyStalking, Cyberstalking, and Harassment

I’ll Show You Mine so You’ll Show Me Yours: Motivations and Personality Variables in Photographic Exhibitionism

Oswald, Flora, Lopes, Alex, Skoda, Kaylee, Hesse, Cassandra L., Pedersen, Cory L.·2020·The Journal of Sex Research
DOI 10.1080/00224499.2019.1639036
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Given that the sharing of genital images - colloquially known as "dick pics" - has become a widespread phenomenon, the purpose of the present study was to explore men's motivations for sending unsolicited images of their genitalia. A secondary purpose was to investigate the personality and sexuality characteristics of men who send dick pics relative to those who do not. 1,087 men completed an online survey, which included a demographic questionnaire and measures of narcissism, exhibitionism, erotophilia-erotophobia, and sexism. Also included was a measure developed specifically for the current study exploring the motivations behind sending unsolicited genital pictures as well as reactions senders hoped to elicit from their recipients. We determined that the most frequently reported motivational category for sending genital images was a transactional mindset (i.e., motivated by hopes of receiving images in return), while the most commonly desired reaction from recipients was that of sexual excitement. Further, we determined that men who reported having sent unsolicited dick pics demonstrated higher levels of narcissism and endorsed greater ambivalent and hostile sexism than their non-sending counterparts. This study is among the first to provide empirical evidence into the motivations and personality characteristics of men who send unsolicited dick pics.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00224499.2019.1639036

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Oswald et al. (2020) found 48.0% of heterosexual men had sent unsolicited 'dick pics' (n = 1,087).

    “Oswald et al. (2020) found that 48.0% of heterosexual men had sent unsolicited “dick pics” (n = 1,087).”

    From Image-Based Sexual Abuse Perpetration: A Scoping Review (2024) · cites this paper as Oswald et al. (2020)

  • Oswald et al. (2020) found few senders hoped to provoke negative emotions including shock (17.0%), fear (15.0%), or disgust (11.0%).

    “In contrast, few senders indicated that they hoped to provoke negative emotions, including shock (17.0%), fear (15.0%), or disgust (11.0%).”

    From Image-Based Sexual Abuse Perpetration: A Scoping Review (2024) · cites this paper as Oswald et al. (2020)

  • Oswald et al. (2020) found another common motivation was 'partner hunting' (33.0%).

    “Another common motivation was “partner hunting” (33.0%)”

    From Image-Based Sexual Abuse Perpetration: A Scoping Review (2024) · cites this paper as Oswald et al. (2020)

  • Oswald et al. (2020) found many respondents expressed expectation/hope receiver would feel 'sexual excitement' (82.0%) or feel attractive (50.0%).

    “Many respondents also expressed the expectation or hope that the person on the receiving end would feel “sexual excitement” (82.0%) or feel attractive (50.0%).”

    From Image-Based Sexual Abuse Perpetration: A Scoping Review (2024) · cites this paper as Oswald et al. (2020)

  • Oswald et al. (2020) found most common reason for sending unsolicited sexual image related to transactional mindset (44.0%).

    “According to Oswald et al. (2020), the most common reason for sending an unsolicited sexual image generally related to a transactional mindset (44.0%)”

    From Image-Based Sexual Abuse Perpetration: A Scoping Review (2024) · cites this paper as Oswald et al. (2020)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 69 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Oswald, F., Lopes, A., Skoda, K., Hesse, C. L., & Pedersen, C. L.
Affiliations
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • Kwantlen Polytechnic University (CA)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
Corresponding author
Oswald, Flora
ORCID
Venue
The Journal of Sex Research
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2019-07-18
Volume
57
Issue
5
Pages
597-609
ISSN
  • 0022-4499 (ISSN-L)
  • 1559-8519
DOI
10.1080/00224499.2019.1639036
OpenAlex
W2964324822
Cited by
83
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 7
FWCI
10.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Sex Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Sexuality, Behavior, and Technology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Stalking, Cyberstalking, and Harassment
Keywords
narcissism, hostile sexism, ambivalent sexism, male sexuality
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Canada, Exhibitionism, Genitalia, Male, Humans, Male, Men, Middle Aged, Motivation, Narcissism, Personality, Photography, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sexuality, Sexism

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review