The Malevolent Side of Revenge Porn Proclivity: Dark Personality Traits and Sexist Ideology
Open accessAbstract
This paper presents a novel study, exploring a form of technology facilitated sexual violence (TFSV) known as revenge porn. Despite its emerging prevalence, little is known about the characteristics of revenge porn perpetrators. In the current study, a revenge porn proclivity scale was devised to examine participants' behavioural propensity to engage in revenge porn. One hundred adults, aged 18-54, were recruited online from a community sample. The correlational relationship between revenge porn proclivity and the self-reported endorsement of the Dark Triad, sadism, and ambivalent sexism was examined. Additional proclivity subscales of revenge porn enjoyment and revenge porn approval were also created. The study's main findings revealed a positive correlation between a greater behavioural propensity to engage in revenge porn and higher levels of the Dark Triad and ambivalent sexism. Moreover, endorsement of psychopathy was found to be the only Dark Triad trait that independently predicted revenge porn proclivity. The results suggest that perpetrators of revenge porn may have distinct personality profiles. Limitations and directions for future research are discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The review did not include studies that focused on proclivity to perpetrate IBSA, or studies that only focused on viewing or storing nonconsensual images.
“And finally, we did not include studies that focused on proclivity to perpetrate IBSA (e.g., Pina et al., 2017), or those studies which only focused on viewing or storing nonconsensual images (e.g., visiting “slutpages” or storing nonconsensual images in an app or on a Cloud drive).”
From Image-Based Sexual Abuse Perpetration: A Scoping Review (2024) · cites this paper as Pina et al., 2017
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 54 · Cited by 92
- Authors
- Pina, A., Holland, J., & James, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Kent (GB)
- ORCID
- Pina, Afroditi
- Venue
- International Journal of Technoethics
- Publisher
- IGI Global Scientific Publishing
- Published
- 2017-01
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 30-43
- ISSN
- 1947-3451 (ISSN-L)
- 1947-346X
- OpenAlex
- W2591552207
- Cited by
- 92
- References
- 54
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 6.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- International Journal of Technoethics (publishedVersion)
- Create (Canterbury Christ Church University) (acceptedVersion)
- Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Sexuality, Behavior, and Technology
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Stalking, Cyberstalking, and Harassment
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
- Keywords
- revenge porn, technology-facilitated sexual violence, Dark Triad, psychopathy, sadism, ambivalent sexism, offender personality
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
