See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/236913615

Psychological Characteristics of BDSM Practitioners

Article  in  Journal of Sexual Medicine · May 2013

DOI: 10.1111/jsm.12192 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
108 16,039

2 authors:

Andreas A J Wismeijer Marcel A.L.M. van Assen

Tilburg University Tilburg University
28 PUBLICATIONS   489 CITATIONS    157 PUBLICATIONS   6,669 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Treatment effects and cost-effectiveness of Autonomy Enhancing Treatment: A person-centred approach to anxiety disorders View project

van Assen, M. A., van Aert, R., & Wicherts, J. M. (2015). Meta-analysis using effect size distributions of only statistically significant studies. Psychological methods, 20(3),
293. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Marcel A.L.M. van Assen on 17 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1943

Psychological Characteristics of BDSM Practitioners

Andreas A.J. Wismeijer, PhD* and Marcel A.L.M. van Assen, PhD†
*Department of Clinical Psychology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands; †Department of Methodology and
Statistics, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

DOI: 10.1111/jsm.12192

ABSTRACT

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 c2 tests of independence with j and Cramer’s V as effect size measures and eta or
Pearson’s correlation. Group differences were tested using analysis of covariance, with partial h2 as effect size
measure. A priori contrasts were tested using a = 0.01 to correct for multiple testing; for all other tests we used
a = 0.05, two tailed.
Main Outcome Measures. The study used Big Five personality dimensions (NEO Five-Factor Inventory), attach-
ment 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. Wismeijer AAJ and van Assen MALM. Psychological characteristics of BDSM
practitioners. J Sex Med 2013;10:1943–1952.
Key Words. BDSM; SM; Recreational Leisure; Paraphilia; Personality; Attachment; Subjective Well-Being

Introduction sessions, such as the dominant role (or the “dom”;

the person that exerts control), the submissive role

B DSM is a sexual practice characterized by

suppression, physical restriction, practicing
role playing games, power exchange, and some-
(“sub”; the person that gives up control), or
switching between both roles depending on the
occasion (“switches”).
times even the administration of pain [1,2]. BDSM Although most laypersons think of BDSM as a
is an acronym for bondage-discipline, dominance- form of erotic behavior, most BDSM practitioners
submission, sadism-masochism [3], and encom- participate in BDSM activities for sensory pleasure
passes a broad range of sexual behaviors [4]. The and not so much for erotic pleasure [6]. BDSM is
interests of BDSM participants also diverge: some often misconceived to be “all about pain” [7],
are only attracted to a limited range of BDSM whereas it is more about games and play charac-
activities (such as bondage), while others may have terized by power, and humiliation. An implicit
broad and more flexible BDSM preferences [5]. assumption in much past and recent BDSM
Various roles can be distinguished during BDSM research has been that the practice of BDSM is in
some form associated with psychopathology [8,9],
Reprints are not available from the authors. and that participants are vulnerable to abuse [10].

© 2013 International Society for Sexual Medicine J Sex Med 2013;10:1943–1952

1944 Wismeijer and van Assen

This view stems from the psychopathology/ Demographic, Psychosocial, and Psychosexual
medical-model contention at the end of the 19th Characteristics of BDSM Participants
century [9,11], and is still predominant in some Various studies were conducted mapping the
contexts. For instance, BDSM is to some degree sociodemographic characteristics of BDSM prac-
still pathologized in the upcoming fifth edition of titioners [2,14,17]. Arguably the most important
the American Psychological Association Diagnostic empirical study on demographic and psychosexual
and Statistical Manual because it will consider characteristics of BDSM participants was con-
sexual masochism and sexual sadism as paraphilias, ducted by Richters et al. [5] Using representative
and as paraphilic disorders if they cause distress data drawn from a national Australian survey, they
or impairment to self or others (http://www. assessed a host of sociodemographic and sexuality
dsm5.org). variables such as likelihood of a history of sexual
There is, however, also evidence pointing at the coercion, sexual preferences and experience, and
relative good psychological health of those subjective well-being. From the 19,370 surveyed
involved in BDSM activities [5,12–14]. These respondents, 1.8% (2.2% of the men and 1.3%
findings led Newmahr to conclude that BDSM of the women) reported participation in BDSM
should be regarded as a recreational leisure activity activities. Comparing these individuals with
rather than a deviant/pathological activity [6]. respondents that had no BDSM experience
Notwithstanding, little has changed since Moser showed that BDSM practitioners were not more
stated that “the lack of understanding of BDSM likely to have been coerced into sexual activity in
has lead to many misconceptions as well as fear, the past and that BDSM participation was not
which may further alienate those who are active in associated with elevated levels of psychological
the lifestyle” [15] (in Stiles and Clark [16], p. 159). distress or sexual difficulties. Others reported
Considering calls for research on how BDSM is similar results [18–20]. These findings are impor-
experienced by its participants [10], and that “the tant because they assessed BDSM and non-BDSM
stigma attached to BDSM is tremendous and the samples on both nonclinical and clinical variables.
myths and negative press associated with BDSM However, to the best of our knowledge, no study
are rampant” ([16], p. 159), it is striking that little has mapped the basic and normal personality traits
is known about the basic psychological character- and attachment styles of BDSM participants.
istics of this subgroup. In what way do BDSM Considering scores on normal and basic human
practitioners differ from a non-BDSM control characteristics of BDSM practitioners and com-
group? To answer this question we assessed, using paring them to non-BDSM controls allow for a
self-reports, the five most important basic dimen- better estimate of the normality or abnormality of
sions of personality (the Big Five), rejection sensi- the BDSM participants relative to non-BDSM
tivity, attachment style, and level of subjective controls.
well-being in a sample of BDSM participants and a
sample of non-BDSM controls, and compared Five-Factor Model of Personality
their scores. In the last two decades, an increasing volume of
First we review earlier studies that investigated research has examined personality factors in sexu-
several demographic, psychosocial, and psycho- ality [21]. The relation between personality and
sexual characteristics of BDSM participants. Then sexual practices is usually studied using narrow
we turn our focus to the main variables of this personality traits (such as self-esteem, sensation
study: the basic psychological dimensions of seeking, etc) that are limited in generalizability, as
personality, attachment, rejection sensitivity, and opposed to using broader traits that give a more
subjective well-being. Our focus will be on the general overview of one’s psychological makeup
associations between these variables and the [22]. A variety of personality traits and theories
BDSM roles we consider in this study (Dom, have been proposed over the last decades, yet there
Switch, Sub) and the non-BDSM control group. is no theory of personality that has received more
As there is hardly any theory or empirical findings consensus than the five-factor (Big Five) model of
regarding the associations between practicing personality. The model consists of the higher-
BDSM and the psychological variables examined order dimensions: Neuroticism, Extraversion,
in this study, all associations except one are exam- Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Con-
ined exploratively. The exception is the relation scientiousness [23].
between BDSM participation and subjective well- The Big Five dimensions have to some
being, which has been studied previously. extent been studied in relation to normal sexuality.

J Sex Med 2013;10:1943–1952

Exploring BDSM 1945

Neuroticism was negatively related to both marital Avoidant Attachment (consisting of the Discom-
stability and marital satisfaction [24]. Extraversion fort with Closeness and Relationships as Second-
was positively associated with sexual attractiveness, ary dimensions), and Anxious Attachment (Need
and Agreeableness was negatively associated with for Approval and Preoccupation dimensions).
erotophilic disposition (describing oneself as Research by Hazan et al. [32] showed that
obscene and vulgar) [21]. Openness to Experience Secure Attachment is related to experiencing plea-
positively predicted sexual attitudes and knowl- sure in a variety of sexual behaviors and openness
edge, and Conscientiousness was negatively asso- to exploration in terms of sexual behavior. In addi-
ciated with sexual liberal attitudes and promiscuity tion, securely attached people are more likely to
[25]. Actual participation in BDSM activities likely give a partner control during sexual intercourse, as
requires awareness and acceptance of one’s own they are more comfortable and experienced with
sexual orientation. BDSM participation may also relationships involving mutual trust and has been
be regarded a liberal sexual choice involving new shown to be negatively associated with engaging in
and unusual experiences [6]. Given aforemen- sex to please one’s partner [33], thereby reducing
tioned findings, it is likely to find meaningful rela- insecurity [34,35]. Given these relations between
tions between the Big Five and BDSM behavior. attachment and sexual practices, it is obvious to
However, as there are no published empirical find- compare attachment scores of BDSM participants
ings linking personality directly to BDSM, we with those of a non-BDSM control group.
choose to examine the associations exploratively.
Subjective Well-Being
Rejection Sensitivity
It is generally thought by the lay public that
A narrow personality trait that may be of particular
BDSM practitioners may be psychologically
importance to a BDSM population is rejection
damaged and even dangerous [5,36]. However,
sensitivity. Rejection sensitivity is characterized by
studies examining the psychosocial functioning of
the overestimation of the possibility to be rejected
BDSM practitioners found that BDSM partici-
by others and of the emotional impact that will
pants exhibited higher, rather than lower, levels of
occur following rejection [26]. Feldman and
subjective well-being compared with non-BDSM
Downey found that rejection sensitivity is the
practitioners [5,12–14]. Indeed, male BDSM prac-
expression of both the avoidant and anxious pat-
titioners (but not female) were significantly less
terns of insecure attachment behavior [27]. As
likely to report psychological distress [5]. We
being rejected, dominated, and abused or raped
therefore hypothesize that BDSM participants will
are common themes of BDSM practices and
score higher on subjective well-being than the
fantasy role-play, it is relevant to examine how
control group.
rejection sensitivity scores are distributed over the
BDSM subgroups in comparison with the control
group. Materials and Methods
Attachment Style Participants and Procedure
Attachment is the persistent and emotionally sig- The BDSM respondents responded to a call
nificant affectional bond that individuals form with posted on the largest BDSM web forum in The
others [28]. One’s attachment style develops in the Netherlands, http://www.bdsmzaken.nl, to partici-
first interactions with significant others during pate in the study. A superficial introduction to the
infancy and childhood, and subsequently guides study was provided online (a study mapping the
stable predictions about future interpersonal and psychology of the practice of BDSM), and those
sexual interactions and instances of possible rejec- interested in participating could click on a link
tion [29,30]. There are various ways to classify leading to the online questionnaire. Respondents
attachment styles based on the distinction between could anonymously fill out the questionnaire
secure and insecure attachment. A widely used including scales concerning psychological charac-
instrument to assess five dimensions of attachment teristics, a question on their preferred role during
is the Attachment Styles Questionnaire (ASQ) BDSM (dom, switch, or sub), and some additional
[31]. This questionnaire assesses five dimensions questions on BDSM behavior. In total 1,571 sub-
of attachment that can be combined into three jects started filling out the questionnaire, of which
attachment styles: Secure Attachment (consisting 902 subjects (57.4%) had no missing values. This
of the Confidence in Relationships dimension), subsample was used for analysis and consisted of

J Sex Med 2013;10:1943–1952

1946 Wismeijer and van Assen

464 males (51.3%) and 438 females (48.6%). Men with others are generally superficial.” Guttman’s
(M = 45.5, standard deviation [SD] = 11.12) were l2 showed good reliability for both groups
significantly older than women (M = 37.05, (BDSM/controls) for the five subscales (0.72 to
SD = 10.8) (t[900] = 11.5, P < 0.001, two tailed). 0.83 for BDSM, and 0.71 to 0.83 for controls), as
Respondents of the control group responded to well as for the three styles Secure Attachment
a call to participate in online secrecy research. (0.77/0.82), Avoidant Attachment (0.86/0.86), and
People were made aware of our study by a call in a Anxious Attachment (0.86/0.84). Guttman’s l2 is,
popular Dutch women’s magazine (the “Viva”), in just as the more widely known Cronbach’s a, a
newspaper interviews of the first author on his lower bound estimate of the reliability of a scale,
secrecy research, via the website of the university but l2 yields both a higher and more accurate
or via http://www.geheimenvan.nl, a Dutch estimate of the reliability compared with Cron-
website that allows visitors to post their personal bach’s a [37].
secrets. We did not disclose the purpose of the Personality was assessed using the NEO Five
study in any of these calls and simply called it a Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI), the 60-item short
“study about human behavior.” Those interested version of the NEO Personality Inventory [38].
could click on a link leading to an online test The NEO-FFI consist of five 12-item subscales:
battery that contained the same scales that were Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeable-
administered to the BDSM participants, a control ness, and Conscientiousness. The items are rated
question asking if the repondent has had any on a five-point Likert scale ranking from 1 (“not at
BDSM experience, and various other scales that all applicable to me”) to 5 (“very applicable to
are not used in this study. The questionnaire was me”). An item example of Neuroticism is “I rarely
designed so that one could only proceed to the feel lonely or sad.” The NEO FFI displayed good
next question if the preceding question was reliability: Guttman’s l2 showed good reliability
answered. Of the 2,775 participants who started for both groups on the five dimensions, ranging
filling out the test battery, 448 (16.1%) had no from 0.71 (for Conscientiousness in the control
missing values on the scales used in this study. Of group) to 0.88 (for Neuroticism in the control
these, 14 respondents indicated having had previ- group).
ous BDSM experience (3.1%) and were excluded Rejection sensitivity was measured with the
from the analyses. The final group consisted of Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire (RSQ) [26].
434 participants of which 129 were male (29.7%) The RSQ assesses anxious expectations of rejec-
and 305 were female (70.3%). The male controls tion from significant others and consists of 16 sce-
(M = 40.3, SD = 14.4) were significantly older nario’s that are rated on a six-point Likert scale
than the female controls (M = 34.1, SD = 13.0) ranking from 1 (“not at all”) to 5 (“very much”).
(t[432] = 4.3, P < 0.001, two tailed). For each scenario, the respondent indicates his or
her degree of concern or anxiety about the
outcome, as well as the perceived likelihood of
Measures that outcome. A scenario example is “How
Attachment was assessed using the Dutch version of worried or anxious will you be if your classmate
the ASQ [31]. The ASQ consists of 40 items that won’t lend you his notes?” and subsequently “Do
are rated on a five-point Likert scales ranking from you expect that this person will lend you his
1 (“totally disagree”) to 5 (“totally agree”). The notes?”. The RSQ showed good reliability: Gutt-
ASQ asks about perceptions on themselves and man’s l2 was 0.89 in both the BDSM and the
relationships and has five subscales (Confidence in control group.
Relationships, Discomfort with Closeness, Rela- Subjective well-being was measured using the
tionships as Secondary, Need for Approval, and World Health Organization-Five Well-being
Preoccupation). Using these five subscales, the Index (WHO-5) [39]. By means of five items, par-
three major attachment styles can be constructed: ticipants were asked how they had felt in the last 2
Secure Attachment (using the Confidence in weeks, expressing their feeling using answer cat-
Relationships subscale), Avoidant Attachment egories “not at all” (score 0), “sometimes” (score
(summing the subscales Discomfort with Close- 1), “less than half of the time” (score 2), “more
ness and Relationships as Secondary), and Anxious than half of the time” (score 3), “most of the time”
Attachment (summing the subscales Need for (score 4), “constantly” (score 5). Guttman’s l2 for
Approval and Preoccupation). An item example of the WHO-5 was 0.85 in the BDSM group and
Relationships as Secondary is “My relationships 0.87 in the control group.

J Sex Med 2013;10:1943–1952

Exploring BDSM 1947

Data Analytic Strategy more participants of the BDSM group having had
First, the associations between the background higher education (70.1%) than the control group
characteristics gender, age, and education were (61.3%). Both groups were more highly educated
examined using c2 tests of independence and j and than the general Dutch population (34%).
Cramer’s V as effect size measures. Then the asso- The first three rows and columns of Table 1
ciations of background characteristics with psy- present the associations of the background charac-
chological characteristics were examined using teristics gender, age, and education with the psy-
eta (for education) or Pearson’s correlation (for chological characteristics in the control and
gender and age). Associations among psychologi- BDSM group, respectively. Many associations
cal characteristics were also examined using were significant, although most effects were small
Pearson’s correlation. All these analyses were (0.1) to medium (0.3). Because the background
conducted for the BDSM and control group characteristics were different across the two
separately. groups and had an effect on the psychological
The association between gender and BDSM characteristics, we controlled for their effects
roles in the BDSM sample was tested using the c2 when testing the effects of BDSM group on the
test of independence. The effect of group (control, psychological characteristics.
Sub, Switch, Dom) on psychological characteris- The scores on the attachment scales were
tics, controlled for the effect of gender, age, and mostly strongly associated to each other (some
education, was tested using analysis of covariance correlations of 0.5 or even stronger). Associations
(ANCOVA), with partial h2 as effect size measure. among the personality scales were small to
Preliminary analyses showed that nonlinear effects medium, with the exception of the strong negative
of age and interaction effects with education were correlations between Neuroticism and Extraver-
not significant, hence these effects were not sion (-0.55 and -0.44), and Neuroticism and Con-
included in the analyses. If the gender ¥ group scientiousness (-0.39 and -0.40), in the control
effect was significant, the ANCOVA was carried and BDSM group, respectively. Some of the per-
out for men and women separately, otherwise the sonality scales were also strongly correlated to the
ANCOVA was carried out on the data of both attachment scales. Whereas Openness to Experi-
sexes combined. Finally, seven a priori contrasts ence and Conscientiousness had generally small to
were tested comparing the BDSM group with the medium correlations with the attachment scales
control group (1), each of the BDSM groups with (<0.3), Agreeableness, Extraversion, and in par-
the control group (3), and the BDSM groups ticular Neuroticism, had strong correlations with
among each other (3). some attachment scales (0.5 or higher). Rejection
All analyses were carried out using SPSS Sensitivity was strongly associated to the attach-
(PASW) 17.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA), ment scales Neuroticism and Extraversion, but
using two-tailed tests. The seven contrasts were weakly to the other personality scales. Finally,
tested using a = 0.01 to correct for multiple Subjective Well-being had medium to strong
testing, whereas all other tests were tested using negative associations with the attachment scales
a = 0.05. and Rejection Sensitivity, a strong negative asso-
ciation with Neuroticism, a medium to strong
positive association with Extraversion, and a small
Results
to medium association with Agreeableness.
The proportion of female respondents in the The association of BDSM role and gender was
control group (71.2%) was higher than in the strong and significant (c2(2) = 202.15, P < 0.001,
BDSM group (48.6%) (c2(1) = 71.1, P < 0.001, V = 0.47). Among the men 33.4%, 18.3%, and
j = 0.22). The average age of the participants in 48.3%, were Sub, Switch, or Dom, respectively,
the control group (35.8 years, SD = 13.4 years) was whereas these percentages were 75.6%, 16.4%,
lower than in the BDSM group (41.4 years, and 8% for women. Hence, relatively more men
SD = 11.8 years). Whereas the average age in the assumed the dominant role and relatively more
BDSM group was comparable with the average women assumed the submissive role.
age of the Dutch population (41.1 years), the SD Columns 3 to 6 of Table 2 present the averages
of age was smaller in both groups than in the on the psychological characteristics for all groups.
general population. Finally, the distribution of The result of the test of the effect of group after
educational levels was different across the two controlling for the effects of sex, age, and gender,
groups (c2(3) = 27.8, P < 0.001, V = 0.14), with is presented in the penultimate column, with the

J Sex Med 2013;10:1943–1952

1948 Wismeijer and van Assen

corresponding effect size (Partial h2) presented in

0.10*
0.15*
0.51‡
-0.35‡
-0.28‡
-0.46‡
-0.53‡
-0.37‡
-0.55‡
-0.68‡
0.44‡

0.26‡
0.26‡
-0.43‡
-0.02
-0.11

—
the last column. No effect of group on attachment
_17

-0.15† scales Discomfort with Closeness and Preoccupa-

-0.66‡
0.40‡
-0.34‡
0.54‡
0.47‡
0.43‡
-0.56‡
0.62‡
-0.50‡

-0.29‡
-0.35‡

-0.45‡
tion was found. The effects on the other attach-
0.03

0.07

-0.02

—
_16

ment scales were small (0.006) to medium (0.038),

with the exception of the effect on Need for
0.22‡
0.15†
0.37‡
-0.17‡

-0.29‡
0.69‡
-0.15‡
-0.30‡
-0.39‡
0.36‡
-0.18‡
0.17‡

-0.29‡
0.35‡
0.03

-0.06
Approval for males, which was medium to strong

—
_15

(0.089). BDSM group had an effect on all person-

ality scales, with small (e.g., 0.008 on Extraversion)
0.22‡
0.15†
0.19‡
0.35‡
-0.52‡
-0.62‡
-0.28‡
-0.35‡
-0.63‡
-0.35‡
-0.32‡
0.30‡

-0.12‡
0.19‡
0.02

0.05
—
to medium (with 0.045 being the strongest effect
_14

on Openness to Experience) effect sizes. Finally,

0.08*
0.15†

0.26‡

0.13‡ effect of group on Rejection Sensitivity was small

-0.07

0.01
0.09
-0.07
-0.09
-0.02
0.03
-0.06
-0.05
0.02

-0.06
-0.07
—
_13

to medium (0.022) and small on Subjective Well-

Notes. Upper right triangle presents correlations between variables for the control group; lower left triangle presents correlations between variables for the BDSM group.
being (0.008).
0.15†
0.65‡
-0.50‡
-0.33‡
-0.42‡
-0.31‡
-0.49‡
-0.40‡
-0.55‡

-0.15‡
0.30‡
0.29‡
-0.35‡
0.46‡
-0.01
0.02

Table 3 summarizes the results of seven a priori

—
_12

contrasts comparing the adjusted averages of

groups on psychological characteristics after con-
0.15†
-0.26‡
0.19‡
-0.67‡
0.49‡
0.39‡
0.72‡
0.69‡
0.51‡
0.77‡

-0.44‡

-0.18‡
-0.40‡
0.59‡
-0.62‡
-0.06
—

trolling for the effect of gender, age, and educa-

_11

tion. For reasons of transparency, only results of

0.14*
0.14†
-0.22‡

-0.66‡
0.52‡
0.44‡
0.89‡
0.92‡
0.55‡

0.72‡
-0.36‡
-0.14‡
-0.18‡
-0.27‡
0.63†
-0.55‡

significant contrasts are presented. No results are

—
_10

shown for Discomfort with Closeness, Avoidant

Attachment, and Preoccupation because no con-
-0.08*
0.15*
-0.15†

-0.58‡
0.93‡
0.81‡
0.52‡
0.48‡

0.56‡
0.39‡
-0.45‡
-0.19‡
-0.49‡

0.43‡
-0.36‡
-0.06

trast was significant for these three attachment

—
_9

scales at the 0.01 level.

Overall, from the 56 contrasts on attachment
-0.08*
-0.18‡

-0.56‡
0.46‡
0.83‡
0.64‡

0.45‡
0.91‡
0.63‡
-0.32‡

-0.21‡
-0.21‡
0.53‡
-0.52‡
0.11*

0.12

variables, 25 were significant and all of them

_8
Correlations between variables for control group and BDSM group separately

showed the same pattern; if scores were different,

0.14*
0.14†
-0.23‡

-0.64‡
0.48‡
0.42‡

0.61‡
0.57‡
0.88‡
0.66‡
-0.32‡
-0.19‡

-0.28‡
0.59‡
-0.46‡
-0.11†

then the control group had the lowest scores, fol-

—

lowed by the subs, the switches, and finally the

_7

doms with the highest scores on attachment. For

0.12*
-0.17‡
-0.17‡

-0.42‡
0.55‡

0.47‡
0.32‡
0.79‡
0.43‡
0.26‡
-0.26‡
-0.26‡
-0.46‡

0.30‡
-0.24‡
-0.01

instance, the female control group scored lower on

—
_6

Confidence in Relationships compared with the

female doms, switches, subs, and the collapsed
0.15*
-0.57‡

0.50‡
0.51‡
0.44‡
0.92‡
0.53‡
0.39‡
-0.47‡
-0.10†
-0.41‡
-0.10†
0.42‡
-0.36‡
-0.11*
0.02

female BDSM group, whereas the male doms

_5

scored higher than the male subs (first row

-0.12*
0.23‡

-0.59‡
-0.37‡
-0.56‡
-0.50‡
-0.58‡
-0.59‡
-0.58‡
0.57‡
0.16‡
0.30‡
0.30‡
-0.58‡
0.53‡

Table 3).
0.13
—

Regarding personality, 18 out of 35 contrasts

BDSM = bondage-discipline, dominance-submission, sadism-masochism
_4

were significant. The BDSM group scored higher

0.09*

0.10*
0.37‡

0.14‡

0.15‡
0.13†

0.15‡
0.17‡

0.25‡

0.15‡
0.11†
0.09

0.09

0.09
0.08
—

than the control group on Extraversion, Openness

_3

to Experience, and Conscientiousness, and lower

-0.08*

-0.08*
-0.20‡

0.18‡

-0.22‡

-0.16‡
-0.20‡

0.12‡
-0.10†
0.12‡

on Neuroticism and Agreeableness. For Neuroti-

0.09
-0.06
-0.03

-0.06

-0.01
0.03
—

cism, the doms scored lower than all other groups,

_2

whereas the other groups did not differ from each

-0.10*
-0.36‡

-0.19‡
0.13‡

0.10†
0.21‡

0.13‡
0.26‡

0.15‡
-0.10†
0.11†
0.01
0.04

0.06
-0.05

other. On Extraversion, the only difference we

—
_1

found was that subs were more extravert than the

control group. The control group scored lower
Confidence in Relationships_4
Discomfort with Closeness_5

Anxious Attachment Style_10

Avoidant Attachment Style_9

Openness to Experience_13

*P < 0.05, †P < 0.01. ‡P < 0.001

than each BDSM group on Openness to Experi-

Relations as Secondary_6

Subjective Well-being_17

ence, and both the switches and doms scored

Rejection Sensitivity_16
Conscientiousness_15
Need for Approval_7

higher than the subs. With respect to Agreeable-

Agreeableness_14

ness, the doms scored lower than both the subs and
Preoccupation_8

Extraversion_12
Neuroticism_11

the control group.

Education_3
Gender_1

On Conscientiousness both the subs and doms

Table 1

Age_2

scored higher than the control group. Concerning

Rejection Sensitivity, the control group scored

J Sex Med 2013;10:1943–1952

Exploring BDSM 1949

Table 2 Means and standard deviations for all dependent variables for all groups,§ including F-tests and partial h2¶
BDSM Control F Partial h2
Variable** Sub Switch Dom
Confidence in Relationships 씹 28.05 (5.64) 28.93 (6.02) 30.11 (4.77) 29.16 (5.97) 3.23* 0.016
F = 5.45, P = 0.001 씸 28.93 (5.64) 30.36 (4.89) 31.06 (5.88) 27.48 (6.27) 7.46‡ 0.029
Discomfort with Closeness 31.35 (7.79) 30.20 (7.19) 30.68 (6.72) 32.14 (7.34) 1.66 0.004
F = 0.44, P = 0.723
Relations as Secondary 13.94 (4.77) 13.50 (4.61) 13.38 (4.32) 13.77 (4.54) 6.62‡ 0.014
F = 2.12, P = 0.096
Need for Approval 씹 19.99 (5.66) 18.80 (5.18) 15.96 (4.45) 19.08 (4.91) 19.23‡ 0.089
F = 3.96, P = 0.008 씸 19.77 (5.35) 18.21 (5.18) 16.57 (5.47) 20.72 (5.15) 8.74‡ 0.034
Preoccupation 23.40 (6.29) 22.85 (6.19) 21.77 (5.93) 23.05 (6.14) 1.71 0.004
F = 1.53, P = 0.204
Avoidant Attachment 45.29 (10.97) 43.69 (10.20) 44.06 (9.65) 45.90 (10.52) 2.91* 0.006
F = 0.716, P = 0.543
Anxious Attachment 씹 43.25 (11.25) 41.64 (9.89) 37.82 (9.20) 41.11 (9.49) 7.78 ‡
0.038
F = 2.82, P = 0.038 씸 43.24 (10.33) 41.07 (10.29) 37.77 (10.71) 44.17 (10.30) 4.47† 0.018
Neuroticism 30.31 (8.56) 29.23 (7.47) 24.41 (6.51) 31.26 (9.38) 16.16‡ 0.033
F = 1.52, P = 0.208
Extraversion 40.40 (7.69) 40.15 (8.04) 40.05 (7.67) 39.00 (8.33) 3.73* 0.008
F = 1.77, P = 0.151
Openness to Experience 43.57 (7.13) 44.99 (6.09) 44.92 (6.48) 41.98 (6.99) 22.37‡ 0.045
F = 2.26, P = 0.079
‡
Agreeableness 44.86 (5.99) 43.64 (6.46) 41.92 (6.15) 45.30 (5.93) 8.65 0.018
F = 1.18, P = 0.318
Conscientiousness 44.71 (7.14) 43.60 (7.72) 45.77 (7.33) 42.17 (7.69) 9.38‡ 0.019
F = 1.12, P = 0.340
‡
Rejection Sensitivity 5.41 (2.52) 4.87 (2.12) 4.19 (1.80) 5.43 (2.44) 10.25 0.022
F = 0.52, P = 0.671
Subjective Well-being 14.54 (5.19) 14.66 (5.04) 16.02 (4.94) 13.69 (5.64) 3.76* 0.008
F = 0.81, P = 0.488

*P < 0.05, †P < 0.01, ‡P < 0.001

§Unadjusted means and standard deviations are presented. In case of a significant group ¥ gender interaction, results are presented for both genders.
¶The F-test and partial h2 are of the test of the effect of group after controlling for the effects of gender, age, and education. Each F-test has df = 3, and a very
1
high df2.
**The F-test and significance correspond to the test of the interaction effect of group ¥ gender, after controlling for the effects of group, gender, age, and education.
Each F-test has df1 = 3, and a very high df2.
BDSM = bondage-discipline, dominance-submission, sadism-masochism; Dom = dominant; Sub = submissive

higher than the BDSM group, with both the several normal and basic human characteristics,
control group and subs scoring higher than the such as the Big Five personality, attachment, rejec-
doms. Finally, the BDSM group scored higher on tion sensitivity, and subjective well-being.
Subjective Well-being, with the doms scoring Regarding the major personality dimensions,
higher than the control group. our findings suggest that BDSM participants as a
group are, compared with non-BDSM partici-
pants, less neurotic, more extraverted, more open
Discussion
to new experiences, more conscientious, yet less
With this study we aimed to contribute to agreeable. BDSM participants also were less rejec-
the BDSM literature that until now has shown tion sensitive, whereas female BDSM participants
a predominant focus on sociodemographic, psy- had more confidence in their relationships, had a
chosocial, and sexual characteristics of BDSM lower need for approval, and were less anxiously
practitioners. Information on core psychological attached compared with non-BDSM participants.
characteristics of BDSM practitioners is missing, Finally, the subjective well-being of BDSM par-
in spite of the ongoing and heated debate of ticipants was higher than that of the control group.
whether BDSM participation should be regarded Together, these findings suggest that BDSM prac-
as deviant, pathological psychosexual behavior, or titioners are characterized by greater psychologi-
rather as a recreational leisure activity. The aim of cal and interpersonal strength and autonomy,
this study was therefore to compare a sample of the rather than by psychological maladaptive charac-
most commonly distinguished groups of BDSM teristics. However, effect sizes were generally weak
participants (subs, switches, and doms) with a to medium, and differences among BDSM roles
sample of non-BDSM participating controls on were observed. Overall, a picture emerges of the

J Sex Med 2013;10:1943–1952

1950 Wismeijer and van Assen

Table 3 Results of a priori contrasts in the ANCOVAs

BDSM vs. Dom vs. Switch vs. Sub vs. Sub vs. Sub vs. Switch vs.
Control Control Control Control Switch Dom Dom
Confidence in Relationships 씹 Dom
t = 2.92†
씸 BDSM Dom Switch Sub
t = 4.59‡ t = 2.99† t = 3.85‡ t = 2.69†
Relations as Secondary Control Sub
t = 3.32‡ t = 4.23‡
Need for Approval 씹 Control Sub Switch
t = 4.55‡ t = 7.19‡ t = 4.34‡
씸 Control Control Control Sub Sub
t = 4.82‡ t = 3.81‡ t = 3.87‡ t = 2.92† t = 3.15†
Anxious Attachment Style 씹 Sub Switch
t = 4.63‡ t = 2.84†
씸 Control Control Sub
t = 3.25† t = 2.97† t = 2.74†
Neuroticism Control Control Sub Switch
t = 4.09‡ t = 6.68‡ t = 6.14‡ t = 4.23‡
Extraversion BDSM Sub
t = 3.18‡ t = 2.86†
Openness to Experience BDSM Dom Switch Sub Switch Dom
t = 7.72‡ t = 7.45‡ t = 5.57‡ t = 3.93‡ t = 2.88‡ t = 4.54‡
Agreeableness Control Control Sub
t = 4.17‡ t = 5.05‡ t = 3.65‡
Conscientiousness BDSM Dom Sub
t = 4.21‡ t = 4.06‡ t = 4.63‡
Rejection Sensitivity Control Control Sub
t = 3.04‡ t = 4.77‡ t = 5.22‡
Subjective Well-being BDSM Dom
t = 2.80‡ t = 3.30‡
†P< 0.01, ‡P < 0.001
Notes. Only significant results are reported. Absolute t-values are presented, and the group that scored highest.
BDSM = bondage-discipline, dominance-submission, sadism-masochism; Dom = dominant; Sub = submissive

psychological characteristics of the average BDSM the higher attachment scores of doms compared
practitioner that, compared with non-BDSM with subs.
practitioners, is quite favorable. These findings Our results replicate earlier studies showing
corroborate earlier findings [5,18,20,40]. that BDSM participation is associated with a
Attachment processes are mostly genetically higher level of subjective well-being [5,18,40].
determined in combination with diffusely acting One’s subjective well-being has been shown to be
experiences over a prolonged period of time in affected by being conscient about one’s own sexual
early childhood [41]. A popular assumption identity and desires and being able to adequately
regarding attachment and BDSM is that the pref- and explicitly communicate these to sexual part-
erence for BDSM activities is likely the result of ners [42]. As BDSM play requires the explicit
having a history of traumatic (sexual) experiences consent of the players regarding the type of actions
or being generally insecurely attached [9]. This to be performed, their duration and intensity, and
view is particularly strongly held regarding female therefore involves careful scrutiny and communi-
BDSM participants and especially regarding cation of one’s own sexual desires and needs, this
female subs. Our results contest this view; if dif- may be one possible explanation for the positive
ferences in attachment were found, the control association between BDSM practitioning and sub-
group had the lowest attachment scores, whereas jective well-being.
the doms scored highest. In addition, the subs Several limitations warrant caution when inter-
scored either similar to or better than the control preting these findings. First, although the online
group on attachment. Hence we conclude that our BDSM questionnaire was accessible for everybody
data do not support the persistent assumption that interested in participating in the study, likely the
BDSM is associated with inadequate developmen- far majority of respondents responded to the
tal attachment processes (either because of a call at http://www.bdsmzaken.nl, the largest
history of sexual violence or because of other Dutch online community for BDSM participants.
reasons). We do not have an explanation for This may have caused a possible selection bias.

J Sex Med 2013;10:1943–1952

Exploring BDSM 1951

Similarly, the control group consists mainly of par- Statement of Authorship

ticipants that responded to a call on http:// Category 1
www.geheimenvan.nl, a Dutch website where (a) Conception and Design
visitors can anonymously post their biggest secrets Andreas A.J. Wismeijer; Marcel A.L.M. van Assen
for others to read and comment. The majority of (b) Acquisition of Data
the visitors of this site are women, which is Andreas A.J. Wismeijer
reflected in the relatively high percentage of (c) Analysis and Interpretation of Data
females in the control group. Hence, caution must Marcel A.L.M. van Assen; Andreas A.J. Wismeijer
be made before extrapolating the findings to the
general population. We note, however, that it may Category 2
never be possible to sample BDSM practitioners (a) Drafting the Article
and controls from a comparable population. Andreas A.J. Wismeijer; Marcel A.L.M. van Assen
Finally, only a limited number of broad BDSM (b) Revising It for Intellectual Content
roles was distinguished in this study (subs, Andreas A.J. Wismeijer; Marcel A.L.M. van Assen
switches, doms), whereas a host of other role dis-
tinctions could have been made, based on type of Category 3
role or specific BDSM activity that is practiced (a) Final Approval of the Completed Article
such as bondage and/or discipline, dominance Andreas A.J. Wismeijer; Marcel A.L.M. van Assen
and/or submission, including or excluding physical
pain or sexual intercourse, etc. Future research References
may further refine the knowledge regarding the
1 Alison L, Santtila P, Sandnabba NK, Nordling N. Sadomas-
personality profile of BDSM participants by ochistically oriented behavior: Diversity in practice and
adopting a more comprehensive measure of per- meaning. Arch Sex Behav 2001;30:1–13.
sonality, such as the NEO-PI-R [38], a 240-item 2 Sandnabba NK, Santtila P, Alison L, Nordling N. Demo-
questionnaire that not only assesses the five graphics, sexual behaviour, family background and abuse expe-
riences of practitioners of sadomasochistic sex: A review of
dimensions of human personality, but also six addi- recent research. Sex Relation Ther 2002;17:39–55.
tional traits for each dimension. 3 Fedoroff PJ. Sadism, sadomasochism, sex, and violence. Can J
We showed that the psychological profile of Psychiatry 2008;53:637–46.
4 Wright S. Survey of violence & discrimination against sexual
BDSM participants is characterized by a set of
minorities. 2008. National Coalition for Sexual Freedom.
balanced, autonomous, and beneficial personality Available at: https://www.ncsfreedom.org (accessed June 14,
characteristics and a higher level of subjective 2011).
well-being compared with non-BDSM partici- 5 Richters J, De Visser RO, Rissel CE, Grulich AE, Smith AMA.
Demographic and psychosocial features of participants in
pants. These results, in line with the more recent bondage and discipline, “sadomasochism” or dominance and
literature on psychosocial and clinical characteris- submission (BDSM): Data from a national survey. J Sex Med
tics of BDSM participants [43], falsify the view 2008;5:1660–88.
that BDSM practitioners are psychologically dis- 6 Newmahr S. Rethinking kink: Sadomasochism as serious
leisure. Qual Sociol 2010;33:313–31.
turbed or characterized by maladaptive psycho- 7 Barker M, Iantaffi A, Gupta C. Kinky clients, kinky counsel-
logical processes or even psychopathology, and ling? The challenges and potentials of BDSM. In: Moon L, ed.
suggest it is unlikely that having experienced one Feeling queer of queer feelings: Radical approaches to Coun-
or more traumatic (sexual) experiences is a major selling sex, sexualities, and genders. London, UK: Routledge;
2007:106–24.
cause for developing a preference for BDSM 8 Ritchie A, Barker M. Explorations in feminist participant-led
activities. We therefore conclude that these results research: Running a focus group discussion with polyamorous
favor the view of Newmahr [6] that BDSM may be women. Psychol Women Section Rev 2005;7:47–57.
thought of as a recreational leisure, rather than the 9 Taylor GW, Ussher JM. Making sense of S&M: A discourse
analytic account. Sexualities 2001;4:293–314.
expression of psychopathological processes. 10 Cowan S. To buy or not to buy? Vulnerability and the crimi-
nalisation of commercial BDSM. Fem Leg Stud 2012;20:
Corresponding Author: Andreas Anne Johannes Wis- 263–79.
11 Von Krafft-Ebing R. Psychopathia sexualis with especial ref-
meijer, PhD, Department of Clinical Psychology,
erence to the antipathic sexual instinct: A medico-forensic
Tilburg University, Prisma Building, P106a, Warande- study. Trans. Rebman F. J. from 12th German ed. New York:
laan 2, PO Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Nether- Special Books; 1965:129–218, 533–43.
lands. Tel: +31 (13) 466-2988; Fax: +31 (13) 466-2067; 12 Gosselin C, Wilson GD. Sexual variations: Fetishisism, sado-
E-mail: andreas.wismeijer@icloud.com masochism, and transvestism. New York: Simon & Schuster;
1980.
Conflict of Interest: The authors report no conflicts of 13 Moser C. When is an unusual sexual interest a mental disor-
interest. der? Arch Sex Behav 1999;38:323–5.

J Sex Med 2013;10:1943–1952

 1952 Wismeijer and van Assen

14 Moser C, Levitt E. An exploratory-descriptive study of a sado- 29 Cassidy J. The nature of the child’s ties. In: Cassidy J, Shaver
masochistically orientated sample. In: Weinberg T, ed. S&M: PR, eds. Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clini-
Studies in dominance and submission. Amherst, NY: cal applications. New York: Guilford Press; 1999:3–20.
Prometheus Books; 1995:93–112. 30 Pietromonaco PR, Feldman Barrett L. Attachment theory as
15 Moser C. Sadomasochism. J Soc Work Hum Sex 1988;7: an organizing framework: A view from different levels of analy-
43–56. sis. Rev Gen Psychol 2000;4:107–10.
16 Stiles BL, Clark RE. BDSM: A Subcultural analysis of 31 Feeney JA, Noller P, Hanrahan M. Assessing adult attachment.
sacrifices and delights. Deviant Behav 2011;32:158–89. In: Sperling MB, Berman WH, eds. Attachment in adults:
17 Damon W. Dominance, sexism, and inadequacy: Testing a Clinical and developmental perspectives. New York: Guilford;
compensatory conceptualization in a sample of heterosexual 1994:122–58.
men involved in SM. J Psychol Human Sex 2003;14:25–45. 32 Hazan C, Zeifman D, Middleton K. Adult romantic attach-
18 Connolly PH, Haley H, Gendelman J, Miller J. Psychological ment, affection, and sex. Paper presented at the 7th Interna-
functioning of bondage/domination/sado-masochism practi- tional Conference on Personal Relationships, Groningen, The
tioners. J Psychol Human Sex 2006;18:79–120. Netherlands, 1994.
19 Cross PA, Matheson K. Understanding sadomasochism: 33 Impett EA, Gordon AM, Strachman A. Attachment and daily
An empirical examination of four perspectives. J Homosex sexual goals: A study of dating couples. Pers Relatsh 2008;15:
2006;50:133–66. 375–90.
20 Sagarin BJ, Cutler B, Cutler N, Lawler-Sagarin KA, Matusze- 34 Collins NL, Read SJ. Adult attachment, working models and
wich L. Hormonal changes and couple bonding in consensual relationship quality in dating couples. J Pers Soc Psychol
sadomasochistic activity. Arch Sex Behav 2009;38:186– 1990;58:644–63.
200. 35 Schachner DA, Shaver PR. Attachment dimensions and
21 Bourdage JS, Lee K, Ashton MC, Perry A. Big Five and motives for sex. Pers Relatsh 2004;11:179–95.
HEXACO model personality correlates of sexuality. Pers 36 Kolmes K, Stock W, Moser C. Investigating bias in psycho-
Individ Dif 2007;43:1506–16. therapy with BDSM clients. J Homosex 2006;50:301–24.
22 Shafer AB. The Big Five and sexuality trait terms as predictors 37 Sijtsma K. On the use, the misuse, and the very limited use-
of relationships and sex. J Res Pers 2001;35:313–38. fulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika 2009;74:107–20.
23 Barrick MR, Mount MK, Judge TA. Personality and perfor- 38 Costa PT, McCrae RR. NEO PI-R. Professional manual.
mance at the beginning of the new Millennium: What do we Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc; 1992.
know and where do we go next? Int J Sel Assess 2001;9:9–30. 39 Bech P. Quality of life in the psychiatric patient. London:
24 Karney BR, Bradbury TN. The longitudinal course of marital Mosby-Wolfe; 1998.
quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. 40 Richters J, Rissel C. Doing it down under: The sexual lives of
Psychol Bull 1995;118:3–34. Australians. Sydney: Allen & Unwin; 2005.
25 Meston C, Trapnell P, Gorzalka B. Sex and the five factor 41 Vaughn BE, Bost KK, van IJzendoorn MH. Attachment and
model of personality. Paper presented at annual meeting of temperament: Additive and interactive influences on behavior,
the international academy of sex research, Pacific Grove, CA affect, and cognition during infancy and childhood. In: Cassidy
1993. J, Shaver P, eds. Handbook of attachment. New York: Guilford
26 Downey G, Feldman SI. Implications of rejection sensitivity Press; 2008:192–216.
for intimate relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol 1996;70:1327– 42 Byers ES. Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction: A
43. longitudinal study of individuals in long-term relationships. J
27 Feldman S, Downey G. Rejection sensitivity as a mediator of Sex Res 2005;42:113–8.
the impact of childhood exposure to family violence on adult 43 Ahlers CJ, Schaefer GA, Mundt IA, Roll S, Englert H, Willich
attachment behavior. Dev Psychopathol 1994;6:231–47. SN, Beier KM. How unusual are the contents of paraphilias?
28 Bowlby J. Attachment and loss. Vol. 1. Attachment. 2nd Paraphilia-associated sexual arousal patterns in a community-
edition. New York: Basic Books; 1982. based sample of men. J Sex Med 2011;8:1362–70.

J Sex Med 2013;10:1943–1952

View publication stats