Psychopathic Sexuality: The Thin Line Between Fantasy and Reality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In two studies, we explored the relations between psychopathic traits and sexual fantasy content. In Study 1, we rated content themes in the fantasy narratives of 195 men and women recruited at a Canadian university. In Study 2, we administered a sexual fantasy questionnaire to a sample of 355 Canadian undergraduate students. In Study 1, we found that psychopathic traits predicted themes of anonymous, uncommitted, and nonromantic sexual activity after controlling for participant sex. In Study 2, we found that psychopathy added to the prediction of self-reported engagement in unrestricted, dominant, submissive, deviant, and adventurous sexual activity, even after controlling for participant sex and level of fantasizing about that activity. Furthermore, an interaction between psychopathy and level of fantasizing was observed for unrestricted and deviant sexual behavior, such that participants who reported high levels of fantasizing about these sexual themes were more likely to engage in that behavior if they also reported high levels of psychopathic traits. These findings suggest that psychopathy is related not only to interest in particular sexual behaviors, but also to whether individuals will translate these fantasized behaviors into reality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".