Personality and Individual Differences 96 (2016) 155–158

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Machiavellianism, pretending orgasm, and sexual intimacy

Gayle Brewer a,⁎, Loren Abell a, Minna Lyons b
a
School of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK
b
School of Psychology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Machiavellianism is characterised by distrust, manipulation, and a willingness to exploit others. Previous research
Received 12 February 2016 indicates that Machiavellianism is associated with a preference for short-term sexual relationships and low levels
Received in revised form 26 February 2016 of relationship commitment. The present study investigated the relationships between Machiavellianism,
Accepted 27 February 2016
pretending orgasm, and need for sexual intimacy. Heterosexual women (N = 226) aged 17–57 years
Available online xxxx
(M = 27.06, SD = 8.63) completed the Mach IV (Christie & Geis, 1970), Reasons for Pretending Orgasm Inventory
Keywords:
(McCoy, Welling, & Shackelford, 2015), and Need for Sexual Intimacy Scale (Marelich & Lundquist, 2008). Machi-
Machiavellianism avellianism predicted the deception and manipulation but not improving partner's sexual experience or hiding
Sexual behaviour sexual disinterest reasons for pretending to experience orgasm. The influence of Machiavellianism on deception
Orgasm and manipulation was moderated by relationship length. Women with high levels of Machiavellianism were
Deception more likely to pretend to experience orgasm in order to deceive or manipulate their partner. Machiavellianism
Intimacy also predicted the sex, affiliation, and dominance needs for sexual intimacy. Those with high levels of Machiavel-
Motivation lianism reported a greater need for sex and for dominance but a lower need for affiliation as motivations for sexual
intimacy.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction partner's orgasm (McKibbin, Bates, Shackelford, Hafen, & LaMunyon,

Machiavellianism is characterised by distrust, manipulative
behaviour, and a willingness to exploit others (Christie & Geis, 1970;
Vecchio & Sussman, 1991). Previous research indicates that Machiavel-
lianism is associated with a preference for short-term sexual relation-
ships (Jonason, Luevano, & Adams, 2012), low levels of relationship
commitment (Jonason & Buss, 2012), and intentions to engage in sexual
infidelity (Brewer & Abell, 2015a). Those with high levels of Machiavel-
lianism are motivated to engage in sexual behaviour for physical rea-
sons (e.g. experience seeking), to attain goals (e.g. to obtain resources
or social status) or in response to insecurity (e.g. mate guarding)
(Brewer & Abell, 2015a). The present study further investigates
the relationship between Machiavellianism and sexual behaviour. Spe-
cifically, we consider the relationships between Machiavellianism,
pretending orgasm, and sexual intimacy.
1.1. Pretending orgasm
A substantial number of women (75–90%) do not consistently
orgasm during sexual activity (Bancroft, Loftus, & Long, 2003) and a
substantial minority (5–10%) do not experience orgasm at all (Lloyd,
2005). Despite this, men place considerable importance on their
⁎ Corresponding author at: School of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire,
Preston, Lancashire PR1 2HE, UK.
E-mail address: GBrewer@UCLan.ac.uk (G. Brewer).
2010) and women whose partners ask if they have experienced orgasm
may suffer guilt (Darling & Davidson, 1986). Therefore, women may ex-
plicitly signal sexual enjoyment or orgasm when this is not experienced.
For example, Brewer and Hendrie (2011) reported that a large propor-
tion of women vocalise (e.g. moan, scream) even when they are
not experiencing orgasm. Pretending orgasm is common, deceptive
copulatory behaviour, warranting further consideration. The relation-
ship between manipulative personalities (e.g., Machiavellianism) and
motivations to pretend orgasm has not been investigated in previous
research, something that we will address in the present study.
Pretending orgasm may serve a range of functions. For example,
women may pretend orgasm in order to maintain a partner's sexual in-
terest, avoid partner distress, and enhance mate retention (Kaighobadi,
Shackelford, & Weekes-Shackelford, 2012; Muehlenhard & Shippee,
2010). This seems to be an effective strategy, as men whose partners ap-
pear to frequently orgasm report higher relationship satisfaction
(Kaighobadi et al., 2012). In particular, pretending orgasm may facilitate
a dual strategy, whereby women maintain a long-term committed rela-
tionship and engage in short-term sexual relationships. Women are
most likely to pretend orgasm and thus display satisfaction with their
partner if they have previously engaged in sexual infidelity and if they
anticipate that they will engage in future infidelity (Ellsworth &
Bailey, 2013). Frequency of pretending orgasm is also associated with
the use of direct guarding, negative inducements, positive inducements,
public signals of possession, and intrasexual negative inducement to re-
tain a partner (Kaighobadi et al., 2012).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.084
0191-8869/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
156 G. Brewer et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 96 (2016) 155–158

The increased sexual infidelity (Brewer & Abell, 2015a; Jones &
Weiser, 2014) and mate retention (Brewer & Abell, 2015b) displayed
by those with high levels of Machiavellianism are suggestive of more
frequent pretending orgasm. Pretending orgasm would also be
consistent with previous research indicating that Machiavellianism is
associated with deceptive mating strategies (Dussault, Hojjat, &
Boone, 2013), blatant lying in order to engage in sexual behaviour
with a current or prospective partner, the use of self-serving deception
(i.e., to obtain specific rewards) and avoiding confrontation with a
partner (Brewer & Abell, 2015a). Based on previous evidence and the ex-
tent to which Machiavellianism is associated with manipulation, we pre-
dicted that Machiavellianism would be most closely associated with
pretending orgasm in order to deceive or manipulate a partner. Those
with high levels of Machiavellianism are less committed and more emo-
tionally distant to their romantic partners (Ali & Chamorro-Premuzic,
2010). Therefore we predict that women with high levels of Machiavel-
lianism would not be more likely to pretend orgasm in order to improve
their partner's sexual experience or hide sexual disinterest.
1.2. Sexual intimacy
Sexual intimacy is an important part of romantic relationships. It is
positively associated with relationship quality (Birnie-Porter & Lydon,
2013), and may even be a causal factor in developing emotional intimacy
(Yoo, Bartle-Haring, Day, & Gangamma, 2014).There are different moti-
vations for sexual intimacy, such as the need for sex, need for dominance,
and need for affiliation (Marelich & Lundquist, 2008). We expect Machi-
avellianism to play a role in need for sex, as Machiavellianism is associat-
ed with higher number of sexual partners and “one night stands”
(Koladich & Atkinson, 2016). Further, individuals high in Machiavellian-
ism desire power over others (McHoskey, 1999) and display a domi-
nance rather than affiliation orientation (Locke & Christensen, 2007),
therefore women with higher levels of Machiavellianism may report a
greater need for dominance. Machiavellianism is associated with emo-
tional detachment, distrust and suspicion of others as well as a lack of
connection to their own and others emotions (Christie & Geis, 1970;
Wastell & Booth, 2003). Those with higher levels of Machiavellianism
strive for independence and will only seek closeness in order to manip-
ulate others (Ináncsi, Láng, & Bereczkei, 2015). Therefore, it would be
expected that women with higher Machiavellianism will not report a
greater need for affiliation, instead their sexual intimacy needs will be
motivated by need for sex and dominance.
In summary, the present study adds to the existing literature on per-
sonality and sexual strategies by investigating the relationship between
Machiavellianism, reasons for pretending orgasm, and sexual intimacy
in women. We expect that individuals high in Machiavellianism pretend
orgasm in order to deceive and manipulate a sexual partner. Further-
more we expect the desire for sexual intimacy to be motivated by
dominance and sex rather than affiliation.
2. Method
(McCoy et al., 2015), and Need for Sexual Intimacy Scale (Marelich &
Lundquist, 2008).
The Mach IV (Christie & Geis, 1970) contains 20 items rated on a
seven point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). The
scale assesses interactions with others, morality, and cynicism. Example
items include “Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is asking for
trouble” and “Never tell anyone the real reason you did something un-
less it is useful to do so”. Ten items were reverse scored such that higher
scores indicate higher Machiavellianism.
The Reasons for Pretending Orgasm Inventory (McCoy et al., 2015) is
a 63 item measure of the reasons women pretend to experience orgasm.
Participants report the extent to which they agree or disagree with a se-
ries of statements such as “I don't want my partner to know that the sex
is not pleasurable” and “I enjoy tricking my partner into thinking that I
am having an orgasm” from 0 (never) to 9 (every time we had sex). The
measure contains three subscales: improve partner's experience
e.g., enhancing the sexual and emotional experience for the partner
(29 items); deception and manipulation e.g., enabling revenge or infi-
delity (21 items); and hiding sexual disinterest e.g., concealing a desire
to end the sexual act and lack of interest (12 items).
The Need for Sexual Intimacy Scale (Marelich & Lundquist, 2008) is a
22 item measure of motivations for sexual intimacy. Participants
indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with a series of state-
ments on a five point scale from 1 (disagree definitely) to 5 (agree
definitely). Example statements include “I need companionship” and
“I need control over my partner”. The measure contains three subscales:
need for sex (8 items); need for affiliation (9 items); and need for dom-
inance (5 items). One item was reverse coded such that higher scores
indicate higher motivations.
Cronbach's alphas were acceptable for each measure: Machiavellian-
ism (α = .73); Improving Partner's Sexual Experience: (α = .98);
Deception and Manipulation (α = .91); Hiding Sexual Disinterest
(α = .93); Need for Sex (α = .84); Need for Affiliation (α = .79);
Need for Dominance (α = .80).
3. Results
Participants completed standardised Machiavellianism, reasons for
pretending to experience orgasm, and motivations for sexual intimacy
measures. Descriptive statistics and correlations for all variables are
presented in Table 1.
Multiple regression analyses were conducted to investigate the
extent to which Machiavellianism predicted reasons for pretending to
experience orgasm and need for sexual intimacy. The influence of rela-
tionship length was also investigated, both as an individual predictor
and as a moderator of the relationships between Machiavellianism,
pretending orgasm, and need for sexual intimacy. To represent the
interaction between Machiavellianism and relationship length, these
Table 1
Descriptive statistics and correlations for Machiavellianism, reasons for pretending
orgasm, and need for sexual intimacy.

2.1. Participants MA PE DM HD NS NA ND

MA .04 .16⁎ .12 .24⁎⁎ −.28⁎⁎ .38⁎⁎

Heterosexual women (N = 226) aged 17–57 years (M = 27.06, PE .69⁎⁎ .45⁎⁎ .31⁎⁎ .21⁎⁎ .30⁎⁎
SD = 8.63) were recruited via online research websites and social DM .68⁎⁎ .37⁎⁎ .11 .42⁎⁎
networking sites. All participants were in an exclusive romantic HD .14 −.03 .16⁎
NS .20⁎⁎ .47⁎⁎
relationship of at least six months duration at the time of the study. NA .17⁎
Relationship lengths ranged from 6 months – 33 years (M = 4.61 years, ND
SD = 5.98 years). M 67.40 108.04 36.82 22.15 23.12 39.20 8.89
SD 13.00 70.29 23.34 16.58 7.02 5.37 4.20

2.2. Materials and procedure MA = Machiavellianism, PE = improve partner's sexual experience, DM = deception and
manipulation, HD = hiding sexual disinterest, NS = need for sex, NA = need for affilia-
tion, ND = need for dominance.
Each participant completed a series of measures including the Mach ⁎ p b .05.
IV (Christie & Geis, 1970), Reasons for Pretending Orgasm Inventory ⁎⁎ p b .01.
 G. Brewer et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 96 (2016) 155–158
variables were first mean centred and multiplied together (Aiken &
West, 1991). Both predictors and interaction term were then entered
into a simultaneous regression model.
Models significantly predicted the deception and manipulation
(R2 = .06, F(3, 168) = 3.589, p = .015) and hiding sexual disinterest
(R2 = .12, F(3, 169) = 7.394, p b .001) reasons for pretending to expe-
rience orgasm but not improving partner's sexual experience (R2 = .03,
F(3, 162) = 1.864, p = .138). Machiavellianism was a significant indi-
vidual predictor of deception and manipulation (β = .16, t = 2.19,
p = .030) and relationship length was a significant moderator of the
relationship (β = .16, t = 2.07, p = .040). Those with higher levels of
Machiavellianism were most likely to pretend orgasm in order to
deceive or manipulate their partner and Machiavellianism was
most influential for those in longer term relationships. Relationship
length was a significant individual predictor of hiding sexual interest
(β = .24, t = 3.31, p = .001) and Machiavellianism was a significant
moderator of the relationship (β = .23, t = 3.19, p = .002). Greater
relationship length was associated with increased pretending orgasm
in order to hide sexual disinterest and relationship length exerted the
greatest influence on those with higher levels of Machiavellianism.
Models significantly predicted each need for sexual intimacy:
sex (R2 = .08, F(3, 165) = 4.840, p = .003); affiliation (R2 = .08, F(3,
164) = 4.907, p = .003); and dominance (R2 = .16, F(3, 170) =
10.776, p b .001). Machiavellianism was a significant individual
predictor of the need for sex (β = .26, t = 3.49, p = .001), affiliation
(β = −.28, t = − 3.76, p b .001), and dominance (β = .38, t = 5.30,
p b .001), such that higher levels of Machiavellianism were associated
with increased need for sex and need for dominance and decreased
need for affiliation. Relationship length was not a significant individual
predictor of need for sexual intimacy (sex, affiliation, dominance) and
did not moderate the influence of Machiavellianism on these variables.
4. Discussion
The present study investigated the relationship between Machiavel-
lianism and sexual behaviour. As expected, women with high levels of
Machiavellianism were more likely to pretend to experience orgasm
in order to deceive or manipulate their partner. This relationship was
moderated by relationship length, such that Machiavellianism was
most influential for those in longer term relationships. Though Machia-
vellianism was not a significant individual predictor of hiding sexual
disinterest, it did moderate the influence of relationship length, such
that relationship length exerted the greatest influence on sexual
disinterest in those with higher levels of Machiavellianism. Women
with high levels of Machiavellianism also reported a greater need for
sex and for dominance but a lower need for affiliation as motivations
for sexual intimacy.
Pretending orgasm in order to deceive or manipulate the partner is
consistent with previous research. Deception is an important character-
istic of the Machiavellian interpersonal style (Christie & Geis, 1970).
Those with high levels of Machiavellianism tell more lies (Jonason,
Lyons, Baughman, & Vernon, 2014), engage in high stakes deception
(Azizli et al., 2016), display confidence in their ability to deceive, and en-
dorse lying for self-gain (Giammarco, Atkinson, Baughman, Veselka, &
Vernon, 2013; McLeod & Genereux, 2008). Similarly manipulation and
willingness to exploit others are core features of the Machiavellian in-
terpersonal style. Indeed, those with higher levels of Machiavellianism
are more likely to engage in sexual behaviour in order to obtain goals
such as resources or social status (Brewer & Abell, 2015a). Moderation
by relationship length may indicate greater rewards available to those
in longer term relationships for manipulating the partner. Indeed,
women with higher Machiavellianism scores in longer relationships
were more likely to hide their sexual disinterest. Individuals high on
Machiavellianism are more flexible with their mating strategies
(Furnham, Richards, & Paulhus, 2013) and women with higher Machia-
vellianism may benefit from maintaining long-term relationships whilst
157
also pursuing alternative mates via infidelity. Signalling sexual
satisfaction with the primary partner may help to prevent relationship
dissolution. The appearance of sexual satisfaction may increase men's
confidence in their partner's fidelity and reduce their use of mate reten-
tion behaviours.
The present study did not consider whether pretending orgasm was
successful in the desired goal (e.g., enhancing mate retention), or
whether the partner detected the deception. Research indicates that
women are often able to deceive their partner and men report that
their partner pretends orgasm significantly less often than their partner
actually does (Ellsworth & Bailey, 2013). However, when detected, men
react to the deception in a similar manner to knowledge of a partner's
infidelity (Shackelford, Leblanc, & Drass, 2000). Future research should
incorporate dyadic methodology to investigate the consequences of
pretending orgasm and the extent to which Machiavellianism influ-
ences these consequences.
Women with high levels of Machiavellianism were less likely to en-
dorse affiliation related motivations for sexual intimacy. This is consis-
tent with the preference for emotionally detached relationships
previously reported (Christie & Geis, 1970). Indeed, it may be difficult
for women with high levels of Machiavellianism, characterised by dis-
trust and cynicism, to develop intimacy. The development of intimate
relationships typically requires a willingness to be vulnerable and dis-
closure of personally revealing information. This is problematic for
those fearing exploitation. In the other contexts (i.e., same-sex friend-
ships), women high in Machiavellianism perceive others to be emotion-
ally manipulative and report that the relationship provides them with
less companionship, help, intimacy and emotional security than those
with low levels of Machiavellianism (Abell, Brewer, Qualter, & Austin,
2016). Hence, avoidance of sexual intimacy may be viewed as self-
protective.
Non-affiliation based motivations for sexual intimacy (i.e., sex and
dominance) are also consistent with the Machiavellian interpersonal
style. Machiavellianism is associated with a higher number of sexual
partners, a preference for short-term sexual relationships such as “one
night stands” or “booty calls (Koladich & Atkinson, 2016), and engaging
in sexual behaviour for physical reasons (Brewer & Abell, 2015a).
Hence, those with high levels of Machiavellianism in exclusive romantic
relationships may place greater emphasis on sexual activity. The emo-
tional closeness and investment which often characterise romantic rela-
tionships provide a degree of power and control over relationship
partners. This is especially advantageous for those with high levels
of Machiavellianism. Those with high levels of Machiavellianism
desire power over others (McHoskey, 1999) and Machiavellianism is as-
sociated with striving for dominance and ruthless self-advancement
(Semenyna & Honey, 2015).
4.1. Limitations and future research
Findings are limited by a reliance on self-report questionnaire data.
Though standard for this subject area, retrospective self-report re-
sponses are susceptible to random or inaccurate responding (Junco,
2013; Kahn, Ratan, & Williams, 2014; Patel et al., 2013). Furthermore,
though women were recruited online, we were reliant on English
speaking participants. Personality, sexual behaviour, and willingness
to disclose socially undesirable behaviour may each vary cross-
culturally (e.g., Middleton & Jones, 2000; Schmitt, 2006; Schmitt et al.,
2007). Therefore, more research is needed on cross-cultural samples,
using more diverse, ecologically valid methods.
The present study investigated the relationships between Machia-
vellianism, pretending orgasm, and sexual intimacy only in heterosexu-
al partnered women. Research indicates that heterosexual women are
less likely to pretend orgasm than lesbian or bisexual women (Cooper,
Conner, & Fauber, 2010). In future research, it would be interesting to
investigate Machiavellianism and reasons for pretending orgasm in
lesbian couples as well. Further, women are more likely than men to
158 G. Brewer et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 96 (2016) 155–158
pretend orgasm during intercourse (Thornhill, Gangestad, &
Comer, 1995), although heterosexual men pretend occasionally
too (Muehlenhard & Shippee, 2010). These sexual orientation and sex
differences, together with the suggestion that Machiavellianism exerts
a greater impact on male compared to female behaviour (McHoskey,
2001) highlight the importance of investigating the relationships be-
tween Machiavellianism, pretending orgasm, and sexual intimacy in
non-heterosexual and male samples.
To conclude, previous research has revealed the relationships be-
tween Machiavellianism and sexual behaviour. For example, Machiavel-
lianism is associated with the preference for short-term relationship
with low levels of relationship commitment. For those entering exclu-
sive romantic relationships, Machiavellianism is related to increased in-
fidelity, mate retention, and deception (Brewer & Abell, 2015a, 2015b).
We extend these findings to further demonstrate the impact of Machia-
vellianism on behaviour in long-term relationships. Findings indicate
that women with high levels of Machiavellianism were more likely to
pretend to experience orgasm in order to deceive or manipulate their
partner. Those with high levels of Machiavellianism reported a greater
need for sex and for dominance but a lower need for affiliation as moti-
vations for sexual intimacy. Additional studies investigating these be-
haviours in men and non-heterosexual relationships is recommended.
References
Abell, L., Brewer, G., Qualter, P., & Austin, E. (2016). Machiavellianism, emotional manip-
ulation, and friendship functions in women's friendships. Personality and Individual
Differences, 88, 108–113.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ali, F., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2010). The dark side of love and life satisfaction: Asso-
ciations with intimate relationships, psychopathy and Machiavellianism. Personality
and Individual Differences, 48, 228–233.
Azizli, N., Atkinson, B. E., Baughman, H. M., Chin, K., Vernon, P. A., Harris, E., & Veselka, L.
(2016). Lies and crimes: Dark triad, misconduct, and high stakes deception.
Personality and Individual Differences, 89, 34–39.
Bancroft, J., Loftus, J., & Long, J. S. (2003). Distress about sex: A national survey of women
in heterosexual relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 193–208.
Birnie-Porter, C., & Lydon, J. E. (2013). A prototype approach to understanding sexual
intimacy through its relationship to intimacy. Personal Relationships, 20, 236–258.
Brewer, G., & Abell, L. (2015a). Machiavellianism and sexual behavior: Motivations,
deception and infidelity. Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 186–191.
Brewer, G., & Abell, L. (2015b). Machiavellianism in long-term relationships: Competition,
mate retention and sexual coercion. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 56, 357–362.
Brewer, G., & Hendrie, C. A. (2011). Evidence to suggest that copulatory vocalizations in
women are not a reflexive consequence of orgasm. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40,
559–564.
Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. London: Academic Press.
Cooper, E. B., Conner, B. T., & Fauber, R. L. (2010, November). Motivations for faking
orgasm as predictors of sexual functioning and satisfaction. Paper presented at the
LGBT Special Interest Group sponsored symposium at the meeting of the Association for
Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies, San Diego, CA.
Darling, C., & Davidson, J. (1986). Enhancing relationships: Understanding the feminine
mystique of pretending orgasm. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 12, 182–196.
Dussault, M., Hojjat, M., & Boone, R. T. (2013). Machiavellianism and dating: Deception
and intimacy. Social Behavior and Personality, 41, 283–294.
Ellsworth, R. M., & Bailey, D. H. (2013). Human female orgasm as evolved signal: A test of
two hypotheses. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 1545–1554.
Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The dark triad of personality: A
10 year review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 199–216.
Giammarco, E. A., Atkinson, B., Baughman, H., Veselka, L., & Vernon, P. A. (2013). The
relation between antisocial personality and the perceived ability to deceive.
Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 246–250.
Ináncsi, T., Láng, A., & Bereczkei, T. (2015). Machiavellianism and adult attachment in gen-
eral interpersonal relationships and close relationships. Europe’s Journal of Psychology,
11, 139–154.
Jonason, P. K., & Buss, D. M. (2012). Avoiding entangling commitments: Tactics for
implementing a short-term mating strategy. Personality and Individual Differences,
52, 606–610.
Jonason, P. K., Luevano, V. X., & Adams, H. M. (2012). How the dark triad traits predict
relationship choices. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 180–184.
Jonason, P. K., Lyons, M., Baughman, H. M., & Vernon, P. A. (2014). What a tangled web we
weave: The dark triad traits and deception. Personality and Individual Differences, 70,
117–119.
Jones, D. N., & Weiser, D. A. (2014). Differential infidelity patterns among the dark triad.
Personality and Individual Differences, 57, 20–24.
Junco, R. (2013). Comparing actual and self-reported measures of Facebook use.
Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 626–631.
Kahn, A. S., Ratan, R., & Williams, D. (2014). Why we distort in self-report: Predictors of
self-report errors in video game play. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
19, 1010–1023.
Kaighobadi, F., Shackelford, T. K., & Weekes-Shackelford, V. A. (2012). Do women pretend
orgasm to retain a mate? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 1121–1125.
Koladich, S. J., & Atkinson, B. E. (2016). The dark triad and relationship preferences: A
replication and extension. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 253–255.
Lloyd, E. A. (2005). The case of the female orgasm: Bias in the science of evolution.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Locke, K., & Christensen, L. (2007). Re-construing the relational-interdependent self-
construal and its relationship with self-consistency. Journal of Research in
Personality, 41, 389–402.
Marelich, W. D., & Lundquist, J. (2008). Motivations for sexual intimacy: Development of a
needs-base sexual intimacy scale. International Journal of Sexual Health, 20, 177–186.
McLeod, B. A., & Genereux, R. I. (2008). Predicting the acceptability and likelihood of
lying: The interaction of personality traits with type of lie. Personality and Individual
Differences, 45, 591–596.
McCoy, M. G., Welling, L. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (2015). Development and initial psycho-
metric assessment of the reasons for pretending orgasm inventory. Evolutionary
Psychology, 13, 129–139.
McHoskey, J. W. (1999). Machiavellianism, intrinsic versus extrinsic goals and social in-
terest: A self-determination theory analysis. Motivation and Emotion, 23, 267–283.
McHoskey, J. (2001). Machiavellianism and sexuality: On the moderating role of
biological sex. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 779–789.
McKibbin, W. F., Bates, V. M., Shackelford, T. K., Hafen, C. A., & LaMunyon, C. W. (2010). Risk
of sperm competition moderates the relationship between men's satisfaction with
their partner and men's interest in their partner's copulatory orgasm. Personality and
Individual Differences, 49, 961–966.
Middleton, K. L., & Jones, J. L. (2000). Socially desirable response sets: The impact of
country culture. Psychology and Marketing, 17, 149–163.
Muehlenhard, C. L., & Shippee, S. K. (2010). Men's and women's reports of pretending
orgasm. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 552–567.
Patel, M., Perrin, K., Pritchard, A., Williams, M., Wijesinghe, M., Weatherall, M., & Beasley,
R. (2013). Accuracy of patient self-report as a measure of inhaled asthma medication
use. Respirology, 18, 546–552.
Schmitt, D. P. (2006). Cultural influences on human mating strategies: Evolutionary the-
ories, mechanisms, and explanations of change. Psychological Inquiry, 17, 116–117.
Schmitt, D. P., Allik, J., McCrae, R. R., Benet-Martinez, V., Alcalay, L., Ault, L., et al. (2007).
The geographic distribution of Big-Five personality traits: Patterns and profiles of
human self-description across 56 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38,
1–40.
Semenyna, S. W., & Honey, P. L. (2015). Dominance styles mediate sex differences in dark
triad traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 37–43.
Shackelford, T. K., LeBlanc, G. J., & Drass, E. (2000). Emotional reactions to infidelity.
Cognition and Emotion, 14, 643–659.
Thornhill, R., Gangestad, S. W., & Comer, R. (1995). Human female orgasm and mate
fluctuating asymmetry. Animal Behaviour, 50, 1601–1615.
Vecchio, R. P., & Sussman, M. (1991). Choice of influence tactics: Individual and organiza-
tional determinants. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 73–80.
Wastell, C., & Booth, A. (2003). Machiavellianism: An Alexithymic Perspective. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 22, 730–744.
Yoo, H., Bartle-Haring, S., Day, R. D., & Gangamma, R. (2014). Couple communication,
emotional and sexual intimacy, and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Sex &
Marital Therapy, 40, 275–293.