Empathy and sexual impulsiveness among medical students who admit to sexting partners’ intimate images
Keywords:Sexting, University Students, Empathy
Introduction: Sexting behaviors among medical students have scarcely been researched. Although there are diverse types of sexting involving the exchange of different sexual content, two scenarios will be examined here: (a) the exchange of intimate images solely between two partners; and (b) sharing intimate images exchanged between partners with others outside the relationship.
Objective: To verify empathy-related differences between sexting within consensual relationships and non-consensual distribution of intimate images.
Methods: This was a cross-sectional study in which participants provided information through a self-reported questionnaire. Inventories for empathy and sexual impulsiveness and measures of sociodemographic features and sexting behaviors were applied.
Results: This study included 202 medical students. The groups of students engaged in sexting (with or without sharing partners’ intimate images) demonstrated higher sexual impulsiveness and lower personal distress than the reference group. Only the students who admitted to sharing partners’ intimate images showed lower empathic concern and perspective taking than the reference group (affective and cognitive empathy, respectively). Overall, the results of this study support previous findings that individuals engaged in sexting demonstrate lower personal discomfort with their actions than people not engaged in sexting.
Conclusion: Despite knowing the legal consequences of the exposure of intimate images from partners or colleagues, some students seem to prefer taking this risk.
2. Freitas D. The happiness fffect. How social media is driving a generation to appear perfect at any Cost. New York: Oxford University Press; 2017.
3. Chalfen R. 'It's only a picture' : Sexting, "smutty" snapshots and felony charges. Visual Studies. 2009;24(3):258-68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14725860903309203
4. Strassberg DS, McKinnon RK, Sustaita MA, Rullo J. Sexting by high school students: an exploratory and descriptive study. Arch Sex Behav. 2013;42(1):15-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-9969-8
5. Gordon-Messer D, Bauermeister JA, Grodzinski A, Zimmerman M. Sexting among young adults. J Adolesc Health. 2013;52(3):301-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.05.013
6. Shariff S. Sexting and Cyberbullying: Defining the line for digitally empowered kids. New York: Cambridge Press, 2015.
7. Benotsch EG, Snipes DJ, Martin AM, Bull SS. Sexting, substance use, and sexual risk behavior in young adults. J Adolesc Health. 2013;52(3):307-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.06.011
8. Reyns BW, Burek MW, Henson B, Fisher BS. The unitended consequences of digital technology: Exploring the relationship between sexting and cybervictimization. J Crim Just. 2013;36(1):1-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2011.641816
9. Dake JA, proce JH, Maziarz L, Ward B. Prevalence and correlates of sexting behavior in adolescents. Am J Sex Educ. 2012;7(1):1-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2012.650959
10. Ferguson CJ. Sexting behaviors among young Hispanic women: Incidence and association with other high-risk sexual behaviors. Psychiatr Q. 2011;82(3):239-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11126-010-9165-8
11. Delevi R,Weisskirch RS. Personality factors as predictors of sexting. Comput Hum Behav. 2013;29(6):2589-94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.003
12. Dir AL, Coskunpinar A, Steiner JL, Cyders MA. Understanding differences in sexting behaviors across gender, relationship status, and sexual identity, and the role of expectancies in sexting. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2013;16(8):568-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0545
13. Gamez-Guadix M, Santisteban P, Resett S. Sexting among Spanish adolescents: Prevalence and personality profiles. Psicothema. 2017;29(1):29-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.222
14. Melchers MC, Li M, Haas BW, Reuter M, Bischoff L, Montag C. Similar personality patterns are associated with empathy in four different countries. Front Psychol. 2016;7:290. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00290
15. Bernstein JY, Watson MW. Children who are targets of bullying: a victim pattern. J Interpers Violence. 1997;41(2):483-98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/088626097012004001
16. Çelík S, Atak H, Erguzen A. The effect of personality on cyberbullying among University Students in Turkey. Eur J Educ Res. 2012;(49):129-50.
17. Gibb ZG, Devereux PG. Who does that anyway? Predictors and personality correlates of cyberbullying in college. Comput Hum Behav. 2014;38:8-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.009
18. Goodboy AK, Martin MM. The personality profile of a cyberbully: Examining the Dark Triad. Comput Hum Behav. 2015;49:1-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.052
19. Davis MH, Hull JG, Young RD, Warren GG. Emotional reactions to dramatic film stimuli: the influence of cognitive and emotional empathy. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1987;52(1):126-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-35126.96.36.199
20. Sampaio LR, Guimarães PRB, Camino CP S, Formiga NS, Menezes IG. Estudos sobre a dimensionalidade da empatia: Tradução e adaptação do Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI). Psico. 2011;42(1):67-76.
21. Carnes PJ, Hopkins TA, Green BA. Clinical relevance of the proposed sexual addiction diagnostic criteria: relation to the Sexual Addiction Screening Test-Revised. J Addict Med. 2014;8(6):450-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ADM.0000000000000080
22. Silva RASA, Baltieri DA. A Preliminary Model of Motivation for Pornography Consumption Among Men Participating in Zoophilic Virtual Environments. J Sex Marital Ther. 2016;42(2):143-57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2014.996930
23. Davis MH. Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1983;4491):113-26. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.52
24. Tabachnick BG, Fidel LS. Using multivariate statistics. Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon, 2001.
25. Carlo G, Mestre MV, McGinley MM, Samper P, Tur A, Sandman D. The interplay of emotional instability, empathy, and coping on prosocial and aggressive behaviors. Pers Individ Dif. 2012;53(5):675-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.05.022
26. Mooradian TA, Davis M, Matzler K. Dispositional empathy and the hierarchical structure of personality. Am J Psychol. 2011;124(1):99-109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.124.1.0099
27. Song Y, Shi M. Associations between empathy and big five personality traits among Chinese undergraduate medical students. PloS One. 2017;12(2):e0171665. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171665
28. Akhtar S. Narcissistic personality disorder. Descriptive features and differential diagnosis. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 1989;12(3):505-29.
29. Baskin-Sommers A, Krusemark E, Ronningstam E. Empathy in narcissistic personality disorder: From clinical and empirical perspectives. Personal Disord. 2014;5(3):323-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000061
30. Massey-Abernathy A, Byrd-Craven J. Seeing but not feeling: Machiavellian traits in relation to physiological empathetic responding and life experiences. Adap Hum Behav Physiol. 2016;2(3):252-66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40750-016-0041-0
31. Pohontsch NJ, Stark A, Ehrhardt M, Kotter T, Scherer M. Influences on students' empathy in medical education: an exploratory interview study with medical students in their third and last year. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(231). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1335-7