Next Article in Journal
Outsourcing Love, Companionship, and Sex: Robot Acceptance and Concerns
Previous Article in Journal
Self-Inflicted Foreign Bodies in the Lower Urinary Tract Associated with Sexual Activities—A Case Series
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sexes
Volume 6
Issue 2
10.3390/sexes6020016
sexes-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Evaluation of Psychosexual Profiles in Dominant and Submissive BDSM Practitioners: A Bayesian Approach

by
Daniele Mollaioli
1,*,
Tommaso B. Jannini
2,
Diana Piga Malaianu
3,
Andrea Sansone
4,
Elena Colonnello
4,5,
Erika Limoncin
3,
Giacomo Ciocca
3 and
Emmanuele A. Jannini
4
1
Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Messina, 98124 Messina, Italy
2
Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, 00133 Rome, Italy
3
Department of Dynamic Clinical and Health Psychology, University of Rome Sapienza, 00189 Rome, Italy
4
Chair of Endocrinology and Medical Sexology (ENDOSEX), Department of Systems Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, 00133 Rome, Italy
5
Section of Medical Pathophysiology, Food Science and Endocrinology, University of Rome Sapienza, 00185 Rome, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sexes 2025, 6(2), 16; https://doi.org/10.3390/sexes6020016
Submission received: 12 January 2025 / Revised: 25 March 2025 / Accepted: 1 April 2025 / Published: 7 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue 2nd Edition: Exclusive Papers Collection of the Editorial Board of Sexes)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Bondage/discipline, Dominance/submission, Sadism/Masochism (BDSM) is a multifaceted spectrum of consensual sexual practices, that has long intrigued the psychological community for its implications on mental health and personality. While previous research has shed light on its psychopathological aspects, less is known about the distinct psychosexual dimensions that characterize individuals who assume dominant or submissive roles within these dynamics. Our research aims to identify differences in personality traits between dominant and submissive individuals and explore the relationship between BDSM roles and mental health outcomes. While previous studies have explored personality traits in BDSM practitioners, research specifically examining the associations between BDSM roles and multiple psychological constructs remains limited. To address this, we employed Bayesian methods with non-informative priors, including ANOVA and linear regression, to evaluate the associations between self-identified BDSM roles and psychological constructs with the specific intent to build informative priors for future research. A sample of 99 BDSM practitioners from online forums participated, providing responses across several psychometric instruments. The study utilized comprehensive psychometric evaluations, including the Big Five Inventory for personality assessment, the Hypersexual Behavior Inventory for hypersexuality, the Brief Sensation Seeking Scale for sensation seeking, the Patient Health Questionnaire for depression, and the General Anxiety Disorder scale for anxiety. Bayesian regression analysis revealed that dominant practitioners exhibit lower hypersexuality and agreeableness, while submissive practitioners show higher levels of agreeableness, depression, hypersexuality, and sensation seeking. These findings highlight distinct psychosexual profiles associated with BDSM roles and provide several implications for mental health professionals working with BDSM practitioners, emphasizing the need to assess and address underlying psychological factors. Future research should further explore these psychosexual dynamics to develop targeted interventions for enhancing psychological well-being and relationship satisfaction within the BDSM community.

1. Introduction

The study of psychosexual dynamics within the Bondage/discipline, Dominance/submission, and Sadism/Masochism (BDSM) community offers profound insights into human sexual behavior and psychological underpinnings. This term broadly covers various activities, from role-playing and sensory deprivation (such as using blindfolds) to impact play, all themed around dominance and submission. The roles participants adopt in BDSM are pivotal, typically categorized as dominant (those who exercise power and control), submissive (those who yield power and control), and switch (individuals who fluidly adopt dominant, submissive, or other roles depending on the context or partner) [1]. BDSM encompasses, as for other atypical sexual interests [2,3,4], a spectrum ranging from individuals who reach sexual arousal through kinky fantasies or observing the SSC triad (Safe, Sane, and Consensual) rules, to those who believe the formula of RACK (Risk Aware Consensual Kink) [1,5,6,7]. Interestingly, studies indicate a higher prevalence of these interests among men, with notable exceptions in submissive and masochistic fantasies, which are more common in women [8,9,10]. This gender-specific variance in sexual preferences and fantasies is crucial for understanding the psychosexual dynamics that characterize BDSM [11].
Contrary to classic authors like S. Freud or R. von Krafft-Ebing, who first described paraphilic behaviors, BDSM is widely not considered a psychopathological condition. Early and recent findings have indeed largely suggested the need to depathologize many nonconforming, non-heterosexual, non-monogamous, and non-genital modes of sexual expression [12]. However, a recent study reported higher stigma-mediated levels of suicidal ideation among BDSM practitioners, suggesting a significant degree of psychiatric comorbidity, such as with depression [13].
Previous research has explored how BDSM roles correlate with practitioners’ personalities and psychological profiles. A study found that BDSM participants typically exhibit higher levels of extraversion, openness to new experiences, and conscientiousness [8]. Moreover, it is well-described in the literature that these traits manifest distinctly across different BDSM roles: dominants are often characterized by higher extraversion and self-esteem, whereas submissives tend to display increased emotionality [14,15]. Another study suggests that, while BDSM roles might correspond with certain personality characteristics, they do not imply a substantial deviation from the general population’s personalities [16]. These personality dimensions provide a window into the motivations and interpersonal behaviors inherent in BDSM relationships.
Furthermore, several studies have shown that individuals engaged in BDSM are more inclined toward sensation-seeking and tend to utilize more active coping strategies when compared to the general population [17,18]. These heightened personality traits align with the inherently intense and dynamic nature of BDSM activities [19].
Relationship satisfaction within the BDSM community presents a complex picture. Overall, BDSM practitioners show a similar range of relationship satisfaction as the general population, with no significant differences noted across various demographics such as age, gender, or sexual orientation [20,21]. However, within the BDSM subgroup, subtle but distinct characteristics become apparent. Submissives, for instance, often report lower levels of satisfaction in relationships compared to dominants and switches [20], highlighting distinct relational dynamics within BDSM practices.
To the best of our knowledge, there is a dearth of evidence investigating sexual behaviors in the BDSM community. However, an early study found a positive correlation between hypersexuality, sexual compulsivity, and sensation seeking, suggesting an interplay between sexual behaviors and psychological traits among BDSM practitioners [22]. Additionally, the authors highlighted how social power dynamics and attachment styles influenced BDSM orientations [23], offering a unique perspective on individual psychological tendencies and social interactions shaping sexual preferences and behaviors.
Upon these premises, this study aims to identify the differences in personality traits, such as agreeableness and sensation seeking, and the prevalence of psychopathological symptoms, like depression and hypersexuality, among individuals who identify as dominant or submissive within BDSM practices. Although prior research has examined personality traits in BDSM practitioners, there is limited evidence specifically assessing the interplay between BDSM roles and a broad range of psychological constructs using advanced statistical approaches. To address this gap, we chose to employ a Bayesian approach in our analysis. The specific aim of our study is to explore these relationships and set the foundation for informative priors in future research. Utilizing non-informative priors allows us to objectively assess the initial associations without the influence of preconceived assumptions, thus providing a robust basis for the derivation of more precise priors in subsequent studies [24]. To our knowledge, this study represents one of the first Bayesian analyses exploring BDSM-related psychological characteristics.

2. Materials and Methods

One hundred twenty-four (124) Italian BDSM practitioners were consecutively recruited through dedicated kinky forums and social communities (e.g., Fetlife). Once informed consent forms had been signed, subjects were invited to fill out a set of questionnaires upon a specific online platform. The exclusion criteria were uncompleted questionnaires (N = 20), the absence of sexual activity in the last four weeks (N = 2) and not taking part in kinky practices in the year prior to the investigation (N = 3). Based on the exclusion criteria, the final sample comprised 99 subjects. After being included in the study, we asked subjects to indicate which practices and which roles they assume during kinky practices. According to their responses, the study samples were divided according to domination (top, dom, master/mistress, sadic, daddy/mommy, etc.) and submission (bottom, sub, slave, masochist, Babyboy/girl, sissy, etc.) roles.
We asked the study subjects to fill in a demographic and psychosexual questionnaire, concerning information about kinky sexuality (activities, roles, sexual partners), and several validated questionnaires.
Personality traits were assessed through the Big Five Questionnaire-10 (BFI-10). The BFI-10 is a concise ten-item measure developed to efficiently evaluate the Big Five personality dimensions [25]. Each of the five dimensions is represented by two items, phrased in contrasting manners. Responses are gauged on a seven-point Likert scale, extending from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The BFI-10 is notable for its stable five-factor structure and exhibits commendable psychometric properties. The Italian version of this scale has undergone validation, confirming its internal consistency (with the Spearman–Brown coefficient between two items of each scale being higher than 0.50), as well as its convergent and concurrent validities. [26]
The presence of affective disorders, specifically depression and anxiety, was assessed with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and with the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-7 (GAD-7). The PHQ-9 is a brief, self-administered tool for assessing depression severity in primary care, consisting of 9 items reflecting DSM-IV depression symptoms. Scores range from 0 to 27, with 10 as the optimal cutoff for clinically relevant depression [27,28]. In its validation studies, it showed high reliability and validity indices both in English speaking countries [29] and an Italian context [30]. The GAD-7 is a 7-item self-rated scale for screening and measuring GAD severity. It has a cutoff score of 10 for optimal sensitivity and specificity, categorizing anxiety severity from moderate to severe [31]. The Italian version of the instrument showed optimal internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha and the composite reliability index equal to 0.89 and 0.90, respectively [32].
Hypersexual behavior was measured with the Hypersexual Behavior Inventory-19 (HBI-19). This tool is a 19-item self-report tool measuring hypersexuality across three factors: control, coping, and consequences. It shows high internal reliability [33,34], with an Italian version validating its 3-factor structure, and the reliability coefficients both overall and for its subscales ranged from 0.81 to 0.92 [18].
Sensation seeking was assessed with the Brief Sensation Seeking Scale (BSSS), an 8-item scale derived from Zuckerman’s Sensation Seeking Scale [35,36]. It assesses four components of sensation seeking and has demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties in English [37] and Italian [38] adult populations, with an adequate reliability coefficient (0.73).
The research was approved by the local Ethical Committee. All participants were informed of the objectives and scope of the research and their rights according to the Declaration of Helsinki [39]. The participants who agreed to participate in the study signed informed consent forms. Participation in this study was voluntary and did not involve payment. The instructions placed emphasis on giving answers that were honest, anonymous, and focused on the content of the items. Continuous variables were statistically represented as means and standard deviations (SD).
Bayesian methods were chosen for their advantages in handling small sample sizes, providing flexibility in modeling complex relationships, and offering a probabilistic interpretation of results [40].
To assess the adequacy of the sample size, we computed Effective Sample Size (ESS), which measures how well the posterior distribution is estimated. ESS accounts for the autocorrelation in Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling, providing an estimate of the number of effectively independent samples in the posterior distribution [41]. In our Bayesian models, we computed the ESS for each parameter using 10,000 replications of simulated posterior samples to ensure that our estimates were stable and well mixed. Higher ESS values indicated well-mixed posterior distributions with minimal autocorrelation, whereas low ESS values suggested potential convergence issues [42].
These methods were particularly suited for our study of psychosexual dimensions in BDSM practitioners, where intricate interactions between psychological constructs are expected, but not yet studied. Bayesian analysis allowed for the integration of new data with existing findings, facilitating ongoing research in this area. Due to the lack of specific prior knowledge in the existing literature, we employed non-informative (default) priors in our Bayesian analysis. This approach ensured that the data primarily drove the results, minimizing the influence of subjective prior beliefs and allowing for an objective assessment of the evidence. The use of Bayes Factors for model comparison provided a robust alternative to traditional p-values, enabling a more nuanced assessment of the evidence supporting different models.
Descriptive statistics were performed on the variables of interest; differences between BDSM roles were assessed using Bayesian ANOVA (for continuous data) and Bayesian Analysis of Contingency Tables (for nominal data).
Once subgroup differences in the variables of interest were analyzed, we employed two Bayesian Logistic Regression models to evaluate the associations between self-identified BDSM roles and psychological constructs. The models were fitted using a Bernoulli distribution with a logit link function, with the BDSM role as the binary outcome variable and psychological constructs as predictors, along with gender as a covariate. We specified non-informative priors, allowing the data to primarily inform the posterior distributions. Posterior estimation was performed using Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling with four chains, each consisting of 2000 iterations (including a 1000-iteration warmup), ensuring the adequate exploration of the parameter space.
Model convergence was assessed using the R-hat statistic, where values close to 1 indicated satisfactory mixing of the chains. Effective sample sizes were examined to ensure sufficient precision in posterior estimates.
Posterior mean and 95% credible intervals for each coefficient, which delineate the range within which the true value of the coefficient lies with 95% probability, were reported. For model comparison and selection, we utilized Bayes Factors, which quantify the evidence in favor of one model over another. This facilitated the identification of the model that best explained the data under the Bayesian paradigm.
Levels of evidence of the selected Bayes Factor were considered “weak” if its value ranged from 1 to 3; “moderate” if it ranged from 3 to 10; “strong” if it ranged from 10 to 30; “very strong” if it ranged from 30 to 100; and “extreme” if it was over 100 [43,44]. Estimates of the differences from the mean for each “significant” study variable and subgroup were reported. Moreover, a Bayesian Post Hoc ANOVA Test was computed to check if subgroup means differed from each other [45].
All tests including Bayesian linear regression analyses were performed with Jamovi, (version 2.6.0) [46], BayesFactor (version 0.9.12) [47] and brms packages (version 2.22.0) [48] of statistical software R (version 4.4.2) [49].

3. Results

Descriptive data from the study population, grouped in accordance with the role assumed during BDSM practices, are reported in Table 1. The study sample is composed of 60 males and 39 females. Concerning BDSM roles, 42 and 36 subjects preferred to be exclusively dominant and submissive, respectively. Moreover, 21 subjects preferred to assume either dominant or submissive roles (also known as being switch) during BDSM practices. According to Bayesian analyses, we found strong evidence of difference among the three subgroups in terms of gender (BF10 = 47.26), while moderate evidence was found in terms of sexual orientation (BF10 = 3.34) and relational status (BF10 = 3.69). Most males preferred to assume exclusively dominant roles during BDSM practices, while females mostly assumed exclusively submissive or both roles. Concerning relational status, subjects not engaged in any romantic relationship were polarized in dominant and submissive roles, while switch subjects were mostly engaged.
According to the sample’s responses on BDSM activities, bondage (79.8%) is the most frequent practice, followed by spanking (52.5%) and fetishism (40.4%). The less practiced BDSM activities were sissification—a sexual practice where feminization is forced (10.1%)—age play (9.1%), and, finally, Adult Baby Diaper Lovers (ABDL, 3.0%). All the percentages are presented in Figure 1. Due to the small sample size, we decided to list the percentages without differentiating them according to selected subgroups (dominant, submissive, switch).
The clinical outcomes are presented in Table 2. Evidence of difference among the study groups ranged from extremely decisive for Hypersexuality (BF10 = 1448.60) and sensation seeking (BF10 = 106.67), very strong for depression (BF10 = 31.08), and weak/anecdotal for openness (BF10 = 2.08) and anxiety (BF10 = 1.47). To assess the stability of our Bayesian ANOVA estimates, we computed the Effective Sample Size (ESS) for each model. ESS values ranged from 8393 to 10,000.
Figure 2 represents the study groups’ distributions for each evidenced variable, while Table 3 summarizes the differences within groups according to the Bayesian Post Hoc ANOVA test. Indeed, post hoc comparisons of depression and hypersexuality between the submissive and dominant groups revealed posterior odds of 34.875 and 1117.187 against the null hypothesis, thereby indicating very strong to extremely decisive evidence for a difference between the roles. Furthermore, a post hoc comparison of sensation seeking between the switch and dominant groups revealed posterior odds of 216.713 against the null hypothesis, indicating extreme evidence for a difference between the roles.
Two distinct Bayesian Logistic Regression (BLR) models were developed, one delineating the submissive role and the other characterizing the dominant role. The subjects categorized as ‘switch’ (N = 21) were included in both BLR analyses to provide a comprehensive examination of the two pivotal roles in BDSM contexts, ensuring a nuanced understanding of the psychological constructs associated with each dimension. Figure 3 illustrates the variable distributions as inferred by each respective model, encapsulated by caps that demarcate the 95% credible interval. The non-intersection of a variable’s credible interval with the zero line is indicative of its statistical significance at the 95% credibility level. The posterior coefficient plots, reflecting the relationship between various psychological dimensions and the roles of dominance and submission, were generated using non-informative priors to allow the data to drive the inferences.
For individuals assuming a dominant role, the variable of agreeableness showed a negative association (posterior mean = −0.068), with a 95% credible interval straddling zero. On the other hand, the hypersexuality variable indicated a more substantial negative association (posterior mean = −0.014), with a 95% credible interval entirely below zero, denoting a significant relationship where higher hypersexuality scores were less associated with the dominant role. The chosen Bayesian regression model for the dominant BDSM role accounted for 20.5% of the variance.
In contrast, those assuming a submissive role demonstrated a different pattern. Agreeableness was positively associated with the submissive role (posterior mean = 0.079), with a 95% credible interval not encompassing zero, highlighting a substantial and statistically significant association. Hypersexuality also had a significant positive association with submission (posterior mean = 0.012), with its credible interval not including zero, indicating a higher likelihood of a submissive role with increasing hypersexuality scores.
Depression was notably associated with the submissive role (posterior mean = 0.033), with a credible interval not crossing zero, suggesting that higher depression scores have a meaningful positive association with submissiveness. Additionally, sensation seeking was found to be positively associated with the submissive role (posterior mean = 0.010), and its credible interval did not include zero, denoting statistical significance.
The variables of extraversion, openness, emotional stability, conscientiousness, and anxiety did not demonstrate statistically significant associations with either role, as their 95% credible intervals included zero. The chosen Bayesian regression model for the submissive BDSM role accounted for 35.5% of the variance.
All the data from the BLRs are summarized in Supplementary Table S1 (with being dominant as the dependent variable) and Supplementary Table S2 (with being submissive as the dependent variable).

4. Discussion

The results of the study, based on the BLRs, help in differentiating characteristics between people who like to assume a dominant role compared to those who prefer to assume a submissive role. Primarily, it was highlighted that people who usually identify themselves in a dominant role in BDSM practice feature lower scores on the hypersexuality scale and, with respect to psychological characteristics, they are characterized by lower levels of agreeableness than subjects showing submissive roles.
This initial finding may be elucidated by referencing the earlier mentioned studies [8,14,15,23], which reveal that individuals with dominant tendencies often score higher in their desire for control. Practices of domination typically encompass leading the partner and, particularly in power exchange scenarios, a significant emphasis on the aspect of control.
Hypersexuality, on the other hand, refers to persistent and excessive sexual thoughts and behaviors that may be difficult to control and can lead to distress or functional impairment [18].
Maintaining control is important to achieve and maintain power play in BDSM practice. A submissive person must be trusted to leave control of their vulnerability in the hands of another individual. It must be stated that BDSM domination practices, by exercising control and power over their partners during these activities, can fulfill the need for control in a way that is both erotic and sexual. This process can be described as a form of sublimation, where a potentially non-productive or problematic psychological drive is transformed into a positive and acceptable activity within the context of their sexual relationships [14].
As regards the “agreeableness” component [14,15], previous evidence confirms our study’s results. In psychology, agreeableness is one of the fundamental traits of a personality according to the Big Five theoretical model [50]. This trait reflects individual differences in dimensions such as cooperation with others and social harmony and is manifested in individual behavioral characteristics such as kindness, likability, cooperativeness, friendliness, and thoughtfulness.
It has been noted, in fact, in studies carried out by other researchers, that this trait appears to show higher scores in people who identify with submissive roles, while, instead, it is lower in people who normally adopt dominant roles [9,14].
In this context, it might be posited that the observed data could stem from the connection between prevalent submission practices and the motivation to gratify the dominant partner. Typically, a significant portion of submissive behavior is characterized by acts of adoration, empathetic engagement, and reverence towards a partner [51].
Our study found that individuals in submissive roles demonstrated higher scores on measures of depression, hypersexuality, and sensation seeking. These differences suggest that submissive practitioners may have distinct psychological profiles, characterized by heightened emotional responsiveness and exploratory tendencies, as indicated by correlations established in prior research [1,8,14,15]。
Starting from Italian studies [52,53], it has been observed, in fact, that hypersexuality may be associated with broader psychological patterns related to emotional regulation and attachment.
Additionally, research has underscored a substantial link between depressive patterns and hypersexuality, which in turn leads to increased usage of dating apps, primarily to augment opportunities for sexual encounters. In a broader context, dating apps might indirectly serve as coping mechanisms to mitigate depressive symptoms and problematic sexual behaviors, particularly in individuals prone to emotional regulation issues [52,53].
Recent research reinforcing the connection between insecure attachment and hypersexuality underscores its significant impact on individual development and highlights associations with depressive and post-traumatic symptoms [54]. This suggests that sexuality may be utilized as a method to manage negative emotions like loneliness and sadness [53] or may positively influence relational and psychological health [55].
Additionally, emerging studies are progressively validating the hypothesis that hypersexuality could be linked to specific psychological patterns affecting natural sexual function [56]. Furthermore, insights from previous studies reveal a link between hypersexuality and submission fantasies, which appears to corroborate our findings [57,58,59].
Contrasting with other studies that have noted elevated Sensation Seeking Scale scores among BDSM practitioners [17], our research uniquely identifies a subdivision of this trait based on a preference for submissive roles versus dominant ones. Zuckerman defines ‘sensation seeking’ as a trait characterized by the pursuit of risky, varied, and intense behaviors and experiences, and the willingness to take physical, social, legal, and financial risks for the enjoyment of such situations [36].
In this context, we propose a potential connection between this correlation and underlying elements related to depressive aspects influencing the psychological functions of individuals who align with submissive roles. As previously indicated by some researchers [17,60], sensation seeking might serve as a coping strategy to fill emotional or stimulus gaps experienced by individuals with depressive moods. Furthermore, variations in emotional regulation could lead individuals to seek heightened sensory experiences as a way to enhance the positive emotions associated with these events.
Mood fluctuations are closely linked to an individual’s self-esteem. Previous studies [14,15] showed that people who prefer to assume dominant roles report higher scores for self-esteem, while submissive people report higher scores on the depression scale and lower scores on the self-esteem scale.
Research on reward and punishment sensitivity has identified individual differences in how people respond to these stimuli. In BDSM dynamics, the dominant party often punishes or rewards the submissive subject to educate them or bend them to their own will. It has been observed that individuals with depressive feelings can be hypersensitive to punishment or be in a condition of learned helplessness. Depending on the task, patients can either perform worse after punishment (demonstrating increased sensitivity) or fail to perform better (demonstrating blunted responses to reinforcement) [61].
Shame and humiliation are complex emotions that can manifest in different psychological and social contexts. Previous research has identified correlations between shame and depression [22,58], but it is important to consider the role of cultural stigma as a contributing factor [13]. BDSM practitioners often navigate societal misconceptions and discrimination, which may influence their experiences of shame. Within consensual BDSM dynamics, shame and humiliation play can serve as intentional and negotiated aspects of power exchange, distinct from distress-related experiences of shame in non-consensual contexts [62].
Our findings support existing research on the psychosexual characteristics of BDSM practitioners while also offering a novel perspective by employing Bayesian methods to analyze these traits across different BDSM roles. Unlike previous studies, which have primarily focused on isolated personality traits, our approach integrates multiple psychological constructs, allowing for a more comprehensive understanding of these role-related differences.
Finally, the observed association between hypersexuality and depressive feelings in submissive participants may reflect complex psychological dynamics. Some psychodynamic theories have historically linked hypersexuality to existential concerns [63], though contemporary perspectives emphasize the diversity of motivations behind BDSM engagement [6,8,14,15,16,17,51].
Although our findings indicate that gender was not a significant predictor of BDSM role preferences in our Bayesian Logistic Regression models, further investigations with larger and more diverse samples may be needed to explore potential interactions between gender, sexual orientation, and psychological traits. Future research could implement a Bayesian factorial ANOVA to examine these nuanced relationships more effectively.
Our study is not without limitations, particularly concerning the “switch” role. Our focus was primarily on dominant and submissive roles due to the lesser prevalence of switch roles in our sample (N = 21). Notably, BDSM often involves role fluidity, where individuals may experiment with roles contrary to their primary identification. This is especially pertinent for dominants, who may engage in submissive experiences to better comprehend and safely conduct BDSM practices, thereby enhancing the experience for their partners.
Previous studies have similarly acknowledged this limitation, citing the challenge in delineating the psychosexual characteristics of the switch role, likely due to its relatively rare self-identification. Individuals who predominantly identify as dominant or submissive may still exhibit behavioral fluidity, whereas those identifying as switches typically alternate between dominant and submissive roles equally. Future research should consider measuring BDSM role identification on a spectrum rather than as discrete categories. Utilizing a continuous scale, such as a Likert scale ranging from exclusively submissive to exclusively dominant, may better capture the nuances of role fluidity and provide a more comprehensive understanding of BDSM role preferences.
Another limitation of this study is the lack of non-cisgender participants, which restricts the generalizability of our findings across the full spectrum of gender identities within the BDSM community. Additionally, the categorization of relational status may not fully capture the diversity of relationship structures in this population. Future research should aim to include more diverse gender identities and relational dynamics to provide a more comprehensive understanding of these aspects.
Another constraint of our research was its exclusive online execution on platforms like Facebook and Fetlife, limiting our ability to authenticate the accuracy of participant responses. Despite this, online methodologies, also employed in prior studies, offer a broader reach, and the anonymity provided may potentially enhance the honesty of responses.

5. Conclusions

This research has found distinct psychosexual characteristics between BDSM practitioners identifying with dominant roles and those inclined to submissive roles. A critical finding of our study is the pivotal role of depressive feelings in the context of submissive behavior, which appears to be intricately linked with hypersexual tendencies and sensation-seeking behaviors.
This discovery opens new avenues for further investigation, particularly regarding whether depressive feelings act as a mediating factor in the psychosexual functioning of BDSM practitioners. This underlines the importance of a nuanced understanding of BDSM practices, moving beyond simplistic interpretations to a more comprehensive, psychodynamic comprehension.
Finally, the novelty of this study’s results can contribute to further research using the Bayesian approach since they can be used for prior estimation.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/sexes6020016/s1; Table S1: Bayesian Linear Regression with being dominant as dependent variable; Table S2: Bayesian Linear Regression with being submissive as dependent variable.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.M. and E.A.J.; Formal Analysis, D.M., T.B.J., D.P.M. and A.S.; Methodology, D.M., T.B.J. and A.S.; Project Administration, D.M. and E.A.J.; Supervision, E.A.J.; Validation, D.M., T.B.J., D.P.M. and A.S.; Writing—Original Draft, D.M., T.B.J. and D.P.M.; Writing—Review and Editing, A.S., E.C., E.L., G.C. and E.A.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The research was approved by the Ethical Committee of the University of Rome Sapienza (protocol n° 593/2020 and 10 July 2020). All participants were informed of the objectives and scope of the research and their rights according to the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Written informed consent has been obtained from the patient(s) to publish this paper.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. De Neef, N.; Coppens, V.; Huys, W.; Morrens, M. Bondage-Discipline, Dominance-Submission and Sadomasochism (BDSM) From an Integrative Biopsychosocial Perspective: A Systematic Review. Sex. Med. 2019, 7, 129–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Limoncin, E.; Carta, R.; Gravina, G.L.; Carosa, E.; Ciocca, G.; Di Sante, S.; Isidori, A.M.; Lenzi, A.; Jannini, E.A. The Sexual Attraction toward Disabilities: A Preliminary Internet-Based Study. Int. J. Impot. Res. 2014, 26, 51–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Enquist, M.; Aronsson, H.; Ghirlanda, S.; Jansson, L.; Jannini, E.A. Exposure to Mother’s Pregnancy and Lactation in Infancy Is Associated with Sexual Attraction to Pregnancy and Lactation in Adulthood. J. Sex. Med. 2011, 8, 140–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Scorolli, C.; Ghirlanda, S.; Enquist, M.; Zattoni, S.; Jannini, E.A. Relative Prevalence of Different Fetishes. Int. J. Impot. Res. 2007, 19, 432–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Connolly, P.H. Psychological Functioning of Bondage/Domination/Sado-Masochism (BDSM) Practitioners. J. Psychol. Hum. Sex. 2006, 18, 79–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Martinez, K. BDSM Role Fluidity: A Mixed-Methods Approach to Investigating Switches Within Dominant/Submissive Binaries. J. Homosex. 2018, 65, 1299–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Joyal, C.C. Defining “Normophilic” and “Paraphilic” Sexual Fantasies in a Population-Based Sample: On the Importance of Considering Subgroups. Sex. Med. 2015, 3, 321–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wismeijer, A.A.J.; van Assen, M.A.L.M. Psychological Characteristics of BDSM Practitioners. J. Sex. Med. 2013, 10, 1943–1952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Paarnio, M.; Sandman, N.; Källström, M.; Johansson, A.; Jern, P. The Prevalence of BDSM in Finland and the Association between BDSM Interest and Personality Traits. J. Sex. Res. 2023, 60, 443–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dawson, S.J.; Bannerman, B.A.; Lalumière, M.L. Paraphilic Interests. Sex. Abus. 2016, 28, 20–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Simula, B.L.; Sumerau, J. The Use of Gender in the Interpretation of BDSM. Sexualities 2019, 22, 452–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Monteiro Pascoal, P.; Cardoso, D.; Henriques, R. Sexual Satisfaction and Distress in Sexual Functioning in a Sample of the BDSM Community: A Comparison Study Between BDSM and Non-BDSM Contexts. J. Sex. Med. 2015, 12, 1052–1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Roush, J.F.; Brown, S.L.; Mitchell, S.M.; Cukrowicz, K.C. Shame, Guilt, and Suicide Ideation among Bondage and Discipline, Dominance and Submission, and Sadomasochism Practitioners: Examining the Role of the Interpersonal Theory of Suicide. Suicide Life Threat. Behav. 2017, 47, 129–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hebert, A.; Weaver, A. An Examination of Personality Characteristics Associated with BDSM Orientations. Can. J. Hum. Sex. 2014, 23, 106–115. [Google Scholar]
  15. Brown, A.; Barker, E.D.; Rahman, Q. A Systematic Scoping Review of the Prevalence, Etiological, Psychological, and Interpersonal Factors Associated with BDSM. J. Sex. Res. 2020, 57, 781–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Jansen, K.L.; Fried, A.L.; Chamberlain, J. An Examination of Empathy and Interpersonal Dominance in BDSM Practitioners. J. Sex. Med. 2021, 18, 549–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Schuerwegen, A.; Huys, W.; Coppens, V.; De Neef, N.; Henckens, J.; Goethals, K.; Morrens, M. The Psychology of Kink: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study Investigating the Roles of Sensation Seeking and Coping Style in BDSM-Related Interests. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2021, 50, 1197–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ciocca, G.; Nimbi, F.; Limoncin, E.; Mollaioli, D.; Marchetti, D.; Verrocchio, M.C.; Simonelli, C.; Jannini, E.; Fontanesi, L. Italian Validation of the Hypersexual Behavior Inventory (HBI): Psychometric Characteristics of a Self-Report Tool Evaluating a Psychopathological Facet of Sexual Behavior. J. Psychopathol. 2020, 26, 169–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ciocca, G.; Di Stefano, R.; Collazzoni, A.; Jannini, T.B.; Di Lorenzo, G.; Jannini, E.A.; Rossi, A.; Rossi, R. Sexual Dysfunctions and Problematic Sexuality in Personality Disorders and Pathological Personality Traits: A Systematic Review. Curr. Psychiatry Rep. 2023, 25, 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Klement, K.R.; Sagarin, B.J.; Lee, E.M. Participating in a Culture of Consent May Be Associated With Lower Rape-Supportive Beliefs. J. Sex. Res. 2017, 54, 130–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rogak, H.M.E.; Connor, J.J. Practice of Consensual BDSM and Relationship Satisfaction. Sex. Relatsh. Ther. 2018, 33, 454–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gilliland, R.; South, M.; Carpenter, B.N.; Hardy, S.A. The Roles of Shame and Guilt in Hypersexual Behavior. Sex. Addict. Compulsivity 2011, 18, 12–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Santtila, P.; Sandnabba, N.K.; Alison, L.; Nordling, N. Investigating the Underlying Structure in Sadomasochistically Oriented Behavior. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2002, 31, 185–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Grzenda, W. Informative Versus Non-Informative Prior Distributions and Their Impact on the Accuracy of Bayesian Inference. Stat. Transition. New Ser. 2016, 17, 763–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Rammstedt, B.; John, O.P. Measuring Personality in One Minute or Less: A 10-Item Short Version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. J. Res. Pers. 2007, 41, 203–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Guido, G.; Peluso, A.M.; Capestro, M.; Miglietta, M. An Italian Version of the 10-Item Big Five Inventory: An Application to Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Values. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2015, 76, 135–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Spitzer, R.L. Validation and Utility of a Self-Report Version of PRIME-MD. The PHQ Primary Care Study. JAMA 1999, 282, 1737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gilbody, S.; Richards, D.; Barkham, M. Diagnosing Depression in Primary Care Using Self-Completed Instruments: UK Validation of PHQ-9 and CORE-OM. Br. J. Gen. Pr. 2007, 57, 650–652. [Google Scholar]
  29. Kalkbrenner, M.T.; Ryan, A.F.; Hunt, A.J.; Rahman, S.R. Internal Consistency Reliability and Internal Structure Validity of the English Versions of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7: A Psychometric Synthesis. Meas. Eval. Couns. Dev. 2023, 56, 124–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mazzotti, E.; Fassone, G.; Picardi, A.; Sagoni, E.; Ramieri, L.; Lega, I.; Camaioni, D.; Abeni, D.; Pasquini, P. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) for the Screening of Psychiatric Disorders: A Validation Study versus the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I (SCID-I). Ital. J. Psychopathol. 2003, 9, 235–242. [Google Scholar]
  31. Spitzer, R.L.; Kroenke, K.; Williams, J.B.W.; Löwe, B. A Brief Measure for Assessing Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Arch. Intern. Med. 2006, 166, 1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Bolgeo, T.; Di Matteo, R.; Simonelli, N.; Dal Molin, A.; Lusignani, M.; Bassola, B.; Vellone, E.; Maconi, A.; Iovino, P. Psychometric Properties and Measurement Invariance of the 7-Item General Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7) in an Italian Coronary Heart Disease Population. J. Affect. Disord. 2023, 334, 213–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Reid, R.C.; Li, D.S.; Gilliland, R.; Stein, J.A.; Fong, T. Reliability, Validity, and Psychometric Development of the Pornography Consumption Inventory in a Sample of Hypersexual Men. J. Sex Marital Ther. 2011, 37, 359–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Reid, R.C.; Carpenter, B.N. Exploring Relationships of Psychopathology in Hypersexual Patients Using the MMPI-2. J. Sex Marital Ther. 2009, 35, 294–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hoyle, R.H.; Stephenson, M.T.; Palmgreen, P.; Lorch, E.P.; Donohew, R.L. Reliability and Validity of a Brief Measure of Sensation Seeking. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2002, 32, 401–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zuckerman, M.S. Sensation Seeking: Beyond the Optimal Level of Arousal; Psychology Press: East Sussex, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  37. Litvin, S.W. Sensation Seeking and Its Measurement for Tourism Research. J. Travel. Res. 2008, 46, 440–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Primi, C.; Narducci, R.; Benedetti, D.; Donati, M.; Chiesi, F. Validity and Reliability of the Italian Version of the Brief Sensation Seeking Scale (BSSS) and Its Invariance across Age and Gender. TPM-Test. Psychom. Methodol. Appl. Psychol. 2011, 18, 231–241. [Google Scholar]
  39. World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki. JAMA 2013, 310, 2191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kruschke, J.K.; Liddell, T.M. The Bayesian New Statistics: Hypothesis Testing, Estimation, Meta-Analysis, and Power Analysis from a Bayesian Perspective. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2018, 25, 178–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zhang, L.; Bujkiewicz, S.; Jackson, D. Three New Methodologies for Calculating the Effective Sample Size When Performing Population Adjustment. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2024, 24, 287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Vehtari, A.; Gelman, A.; Simpson, D.; Carpenter, B.; Bürkner, P.-C. Rank-Normalization, Folding, and Localization: An Improved R-hat for Assessing Convergence of MCMC. arXiv 2020, arXiv:1903.08008. [Google Scholar]
  43. Jeffreys, H. The Theory of Probability, 3rd ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1961. [Google Scholar]
  44. Lee, M.D.; Wagenmakers, E.-J. Bayesian Cognitive Modeling; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014; ISBN 9781107603578. [Google Scholar]
  45. Westfall, P.; Johnson, W.O.; Utts, J. A Bayesian Perspective on the Bonferroni Adjustment. Biometrika 1997, 84, 419–427. [Google Scholar]
  46. The jamovi Project. jamovi (Version 2.6) [Computer Software]. 2025. Available online: https://www.jamovi.org (accessed on 31 March 2025).
  47. Rouder BayesFactor: Computation of Bayes Factors for Common Designs; 2023. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/BayesFactor/BayesFactor.pdf (accessed on 31 March 2025).
  48. Bürkner, P.-C. Advanced Bayesian Multilevel Modeling with the R Package Brms. R J. 2018, 10, 395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Core Team: Vienna, Austria, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  50. McAdams, D.P. The Five-Factor Model In Personality: A Critical Appraisal. J. Pers. 1992, 60, 329–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Luo, S.; Zhang, X. Empathy in Female Submissive BDSM Practitioners. Neuropsychologia 2018, 116, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ciocca, G.; Fontanesi, L.; Robilotta, A.; Limoncin, E.; Nimbi, F.M.; Mollaioli, D.; Sansone, A.; Colonnello, E.; Simonelli, C.; Di Lorenzo, G.; et al. Hypersexual Behavior and Depression Symptoms among Dating App Users. Sexes 2022, 3, 298–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ciocca, G.; Pelligrini, F.; Mollaioli, D.; Limoncin, E.; Sansone, A.; Colonnello, E.; Jannini, E.A.; Fontanesi, L. Hypersexual Behavior and Attachment Styles in a Non-Clinical Sample: The Mediation Role of Depression and Post-Traumatic Stress Symptoms. J. Affect. Disord. 2021, 293, 399–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Di Lorenzo, G.; Longo, L.; Jannini, T.B.; Niolu, C.; Rossi, R.; Siracusano, A. Oxytocin in the Prevention and the Treatment of Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. J. Psychopathol. 2020, 26, 107–118. [Google Scholar]
  55. Mollaioli, D.; Sansone, A.; Ciocca, G.; Limoncin, E.; Colonnello, E.; Di Lorenzo, G.; Jannini, E.A. Benefits of Sexual Activity on Psychological, Relational, and Sexual Health During the COVID-19 Breakout. J. Sex. Med. 2021, 18, 35–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kingston, D.A. Hypersexuality: Fact or Fiction? J. Sex. Med. 2018, 15, 613–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Jozifkova, E.; Kolackova, M. Sexual Arousal by Dominance and Submission in Relation to Increased Reproductive Success in the General Population. Neuro Endocrinol. Lett. 2017, 38, 381–387. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  58. Young, C.M.; Neighbors, C.; DiBello, A.M.; Traylor, Z.K.; Tomkins, M. Shame and Guilt-Proneness as Mediators of Associations Between General Causality Orientations and Depressive Symptoms. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 2016, 35, 357–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Öngen, D.E. The Relationships between Self-Criticism, Submissive Behavior and Depression among Turkish Adolescents. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2006, 41, 793–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Carton, S.; Jouvent, R.; Bungener, C.; Widlöcher, D. Sensation Seeking and Depressive Mood. Personal. Individ. Differ. 1992, 13, 843–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Eshel, N.; Roiser, J.P. Reward and Punishment Processing in Depression. Biol. Psychiatry 2010, 68, 118–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Guimón, J.; Las Hayas, C.; Guillén, V.; Boyra, A.; González-Pinto, A. Shame, Sensitivity to Punishment and Psychiatric Disorders. Eur. J. Psychiatry 2007, 21, 124–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ciocca, G.; Limoncin, E.; Lingiardi, V.; Burri, A.; Jannini, E.A. Response Regarding Existential Issues in Sexual Medicine: The Relation Between Death Anxiety and Hypersexuality. Sex. Med. Rev. 2018, 6, 335–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sexes 06 00016 g001
Figure 1. Percentages of BDSM activities practiced according to responses of study sample.
Figure 1. Percentages of BDSM activities practiced according to responses of study sample.
Sexes 06 00016 g001
Sexes 06 00016 g002
Figure 2. Raincloud plots of study subgroup distributions for clinical outcomes with evidence.
Figure 2. Raincloud plots of study subgroup distributions for clinical outcomes with evidence.
Sexes 06 00016 g002
Sexes 06 00016 g003
Figure 3. The Bayesian Logistic Regression of psychosexual dimensions in BDSM roles. Each point represents the posterior mean of the regression coefficient for a specific psychological construct, with the horizontal error bars indicating the 95% credible intervals. The statistically significant associations are highlighted in orange, denoting predictors whose credible intervals do not include zero. The dashed vertical line at zero represents the threshold for practical significance.
Figure 3. The Bayesian Logistic Regression of psychosexual dimensions in BDSM roles. Each point represents the posterior mean of the regression coefficient for a specific psychological construct, with the horizontal error bars indicating the 95% credible intervals. The statistically significant associations are highlighted in orange, denoting predictors whose credible intervals do not include zero. The dashed vertical line at zero represents the threshold for practical significance.
Sexes 06 00016 g003
Table 1. Sample characteristics and univariate comparisons among dominant, submissive, and switch roles in BDSM practices.
Table 1. Sample characteristics and univariate comparisons among dominant, submissive, and switch roles in BDSM practices.
Variable SampleDominantsSubmissiveSwitchBF10
Gender aMale60 (60%)33 (78.5%)20 (55.6%)7 (33.3%)47.26
Female39 (40%)9 (21.5%)16 (44.4%)14 (66.7%)
Age b 31.4 ± 11.4 29.6 ± 11.1232.2 ± 12.6133.7 ± 9.50.22
Sexual Orientation aHeterosexual71 (71.7%)33 (78.6%)28 (77.8%)10 (47.6%)3.34
Non-heterosexual29 (28.3%)9 (21.4%)8 (22.2%)11 (52.4%)
Relational Status aSingle53 (53.5%)24 (57.1%)25 (69.5%)4 (19.1%)3.69
Engaged36 (36.4%)16 (38.1%)7 (19.4%)13 (61.8%)
Married10 (10.1%)2 (4.8%)4 (11.1%)4 (19.1%)
N° of sex partners b 2.24 ± 2.721.77 ± 2.122.81 ± 3.212.81 ± 2.600.92
a Listed as N (%)—comparison made through Bayesian Analysis of Contingency Table. b Listed as M ± SD—comparison made through Bayesian ANOVA. Coefficients with credible intervals that do not overlap zero are bolded.
Table 2. Clinical outcomes and comparisons among dominant, submissive, and switch roles in BDSM practices through Bayesian ANOVA.
Table 2. Clinical outcomes and comparisons among dominant, submissive, and switch roles in BDSM practices through Bayesian ANOVA.
VariableTestSampleDominantsSubmissiveSwitchBF10
DepressionPHQ-97.28 ± 5.614.93 ± 4.589.03 ± 5.309.00 ± 6.4531.08
AnxietyGAD-75.99 ± 4.674.64 ± 4.427.25 ± 4.396.52 ± 5.111.47
ExtraversionBFI-106.25 ± 1.536.21 ± 1.226.33 ± 1.606.19 ± 1.960.10
NeuroticismBFI-106.19 ± 1.786.50 ± 1.716.06 ± 1.475.58 ± 2.310.26
OpennessBFI-107.25 ± 1.767.09 ± 1.687.53 ± 1.788.38 ± 1.632.08
AgreeblenessBFI-105.71 ± 1.565.42 ± 1.296.09 ± 1.495.62 ± 2.060.41
ConscientiousnessBFI-106.93 ± 1.706.71 ± 1.537.06 ± 1.797.14 ± 1.900.16
HypersexualityHBI-1939.28 ± 12.9232.67 ± 11.1445.39 ± 12.4442.05 ± 11.211448.60
Sensation SeekingBSSS-823.27 ± 8.7819.90 ± 8.8323.78 ± 8.4129.14 ± 5.80106.67
Coefficients with credible intervals that do not overlap zero are bolded.
Table 3. Post hoc comparison of study variables in which Bayesian ANOVA had highlighted differences among study groups.
Table 3. Post hoc comparison of study variables in which Bayesian ANOVA had highlighted differences among study groups.
Depression (PHQ-9)Prior OddsPosterior OddsBF10, U
SubmissivevsSwitch0.5870.1620.28
vsDominant0.58734.87559.38
SwitchvsDominant0.5874.5657.77
Anxiety (GAD-7)Prior OddsPosterior OddsBF10, U
SubmissivevsSwitch0.5870.1850.31
vsDominant0.5872.4394.15
SwitchvsDominant0.5870.4070.69
Hypersexuality (HBI-19)Prior OddsPosterior OddsBF10, U
SubmissivevsSwitch0.5870.2480.42
vsDominant0.5871117.1871901.92
SwitchvsDominant0.5878.24914.04
Sensation Seeking (BSSS-8)Prior OddsPosterior OddsBF10, U
SubmissivevsSwitch0.5872.3534.01
vsDominant0.5870.7311.24
SwitchvsDominant0.587216.713368.93
Openness (BFI-10)Prior OddsPosterior OddsBF10, U
SubmissivevsSwitch0.5870.6081.03
vsDominant0.5870.2340.40
SwitchvsDominant0.5874.6217.87
The coefficients with credible intervals that do not overlap zero are bolded. The posterior odds have been corrected for multiple testing by fixing the prior probability that the null hypothesis holds across all comparisons to 0.5 [45]. The Individual comparisons are based on the default t-test with a Cauchy (0, r = 1/sqrt(2)) prior. A “U” in a Bayes Factor denotes that it is uncorrected.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mollaioli, D.; Jannini, T.B.; Piga Malaianu, D.; Sansone, A.; Colonnello, E.; Limoncin, E.; Ciocca, G.; Jannini, E.A. The Evaluation of Psychosexual Profiles in Dominant and Submissive BDSM Practitioners: A Bayesian Approach. Sexes 2025, 6, 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/sexes6020016

AMA Style

Mollaioli D, Jannini TB, Piga Malaianu D, Sansone A, Colonnello E, Limoncin E, Ciocca G, Jannini EA. The Evaluation of Psychosexual Profiles in Dominant and Submissive BDSM Practitioners: A Bayesian Approach. Sexes. 2025; 6(2):16. https://doi.org/10.3390/sexes6020016

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mollaioli, Daniele, Tommaso B. Jannini, Diana Piga Malaianu, Andrea Sansone, Elena Colonnello, Erika Limoncin, Giacomo Ciocca, and Emmanuele A. Jannini. 2025. "The Evaluation of Psychosexual Profiles in Dominant and Submissive BDSM Practitioners: A Bayesian Approach" Sexes 6, no. 2: 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/sexes6020016

APA Style

Mollaioli, D., Jannini, T. B., Piga Malaianu, D., Sansone, A., Colonnello, E., Limoncin, E., Ciocca, G., & Jannini, E. A. (2025). The Evaluation of Psychosexual Profiles in Dominant and Submissive BDSM Practitioners: A Bayesian Approach. Sexes, 6(2), 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/sexes6020016

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop