Introduction It has been generally thought that the practice of bondage-discipline, dominance-submission, sadism-masochism (BDSM) is in some form associated with psychopathology. However, several more recent studies suggest a relative good psychological health of BDSM practitioners. Aim The aim of this study was to compare scores of BDSM practitioners and a control group on various fundamental psychological characteristics. Methods For this aim, 902 BDSM and 434 control participants completely filled out online questionnaires. Associations were examined using χ2 tests of independence with φ and Cramer's V as effect size measures and eta or Pearson's correlation. Group differences were tested using analysis of covariance, with partial η2 as effect size measure. A priori contrasts were tested using α = 0.01 to correct for multiple testing; for all other tests we used α = 0.05, two tailed. Main Outcome Measures The study used Big Five personality dimensions (NEO Five-Factor Inventory), attachment styles (Attachment Styles Questionnaire), rejection sensitivity (Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire), and subjective well-being (World Health Organization-Five Well-being Index). Results The results mostly suggest favorable psychological characteristics of BDSM practitioners compared with the control group; BDSM practitioners were less neurotic, more extraverted, more open to new experiences, more conscientious, less rejection sensitive, had higher subjective well-being, yet were less agreeable. Comparing the four groups, if differences were observed, BDSM scores were generally more favorably for those with a dominant than a submissive role, with least favorable scores for controls. Conclusion We conclude that BDSM may be thought of as a recreational leisure, rather than the expression of psychopathological processes.

ABSTRACT

We discuss and contrast 2 methods for investigating the dimensionality of data from tests and questionnaires: the popular principal components analysis (PCA) and the more recent Mokken scale analysis (MSA; Mokken, 1971). First, we discuss the theoretical similarities and differences between both methods. Then, we use both methods to analyze data collected by means of Larson and Chastain's (1990) Self-Concealment Scale (SCS). We present the different results and highlight the instances in which the methods complement one another so as to obtain a stronger result than would be obtained using only 1 method. Finally, we discuss the implications of the results for the dimensionality of the SCS and provide recommendations for both the further development of the SCS and the future use of PCA and MSA in personality research.

General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.-Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research-You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain-You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright, please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

No abstract