Conflict in Love: An Examination of the Role of Dark Triad Traits in Romantic Relationships among Women

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is an interesting study, well written and structured. However, it has certain limitations that must be addressed before publication.

Abstract

 

Add average age.

 

Introduction

 

The introduction is well written. However, throughout it he talks about the differences between men and women and it is not sufficiently justified why only a sample of women is taken. If there are so many differences in the literature, why not take a sample of both genders and then analyze it separately? Also being able to analyze those differences.

 

Analysis

 

This study has a very broad age sample and the introduction does not mention possible differences. Apart from controlling this variable, have the authors not thought of analyzing how age affects the variables studied?

It is clear that jealousy, for example, is not going to be the same in a 25-year-old person as in a 60-year-old person.

 

Discussion

 

The discussion is well written, but could be expanded by adding the previous suggestions.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Abstract: Add average age.

R: We included the mean age and SD in the abstract.

 

Introduction: The introduction is well written. However, throughout it he talks about the differences between men and women and it is not sufficiently justified why only a sample of women is taken. If there are so many differences in the literature, why not take a sample of both genders and then analyze it separately? Also being able to analyze those differences.

R: We included two more sections as a means to justify why we focused solely on women.

 

Analysis: This study has a very broad age sample and the introduction does not mention possible differences. Apart from controlling this variable, have the authors not thought of analyzing how age affects the variables studied? It is clear that jealousy, for example, is not going to be the same in a 25-year-old person as in a 60-year-old person.

R: Controlling the variable in the regression model was our way of showing how age predicted the study variables, and that was the reason we included age in our model. To exemplify the prediction of age for all variables (i.e., jealousy as suggested).

 

Discussion: The discussion is well written, but could be expanded by adding the previous suggestions.

R: We have reviewed the discussion in its’ entirety in order to provide a better understanding for readers.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewed manuscript investigated the relationship between three personality constructs (Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism) with infidelity intentions, jealousy, and conflict tactics, in a moderately large sample of women. While the paper is well written and easy to read, I have significant issues that temper my excitement for the paper. I have outlined these concerns and recommendations below.

 

1.      Be careful with language and of labeling people – instead of saying “narcissists” or “narcissistic people”, say “people with elevated narcissistic traits” This sort of language is present throughout and should be changed accordingly.

2.      Also – we are trying to get away from the term “Dark Triad”. As mentioned in Rose et al, “the term ‘‘dark’’ sensationalistic, potentially harmful, non-specific, and under-operationalized…we believe this term should be avoided and/or replaced with a more useful term, such as ‘‘antagonistic’’—which captures the shared component across the three constructs.” As such, I would recommend changing the paper to use the new term, Antagonistic Triad in the introduction, and then use this throughout the paper (and update the title as well to reflect this change in language and rhetoric).

Citation: Rose, L., Lynam, D. R., & Miller, J. D. (2024). Measuring the “dark” triad: Comparing the five-factor model antagonistic triad measure to other commonly used self-report instruments. Assessment, 31(4), 863-874.

3.      I would also suggest the authors read Miller and colleagues (2019) paper, as it provides a detailed and thorough review of the issues with the DT/Antagonistic Triad literature, many points which are also issues in the current paper and should be addressed as best as possible, as they are currently not addressed at all (e.g., measurement issues including unidimensionality and indistinctness; multivariate stats and interpretive difficulties; convenience sampling).

Citation: Miller, J. D., Vize, C., Crowe, M. L., & Lynam, D. R. (2019). A critical appraisal of the dark-triad literature and suggestions for moving forward. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(4), 353-360.

4.      The authors do not provide a strong rationale for studying these constructs only in women, especially given that these traits tend to occur at higher levels in men, especially in certain contexts/environments. For example, see the following papers below (these are just examples as there are others out there as well for reference). As such, a much stronger rationale for the current study is warranted. And the authors should also review the research that provides context for the sex differences in the three traits in the introduction.

Citations: Jonason, P. K., & Davis, M. D. (2018). A gender role view of the Dark Triad traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 125, 102-105.

Jonason, P. K., Foster, J. D., Kavanagh, P. S., Gouveia, V. V., & Birkás, B. (2018). Basic values and the dark triad traits. Journal of Individual Differences, 39(4), 220.

Jonason, P. K., Żemojtel‐Piotrowska, M., Piotrowski, J., Sedikides, C., Campbell, W. K., Gebauer, J. E., ... & Yahiiaev, I. (2020). Country‐level correlates of the dark triad traits in 49 countries. Journal of personality, 88(6), 1252-1267.

5.      Related to my previous point, what were the range of scores in the sample? How many people were 1 SD above the mean, how many were 2 SD above the mean? There is no context provided for the sample descriptions of the Antagonistic Triad traits and thus there is no way to fully interpret the results of the study. I’d also like to see descriptions of the other measures included in the study (jealousy, infidelity, etc.) to demonstrate that the sample indeed has individuals scoring at the high end on these behaviors and traits. This is especially important given the context of how the data was collected.

6.      The research the authors discuss in the introduction related to jealousy and such is all framed from a heteronormative perspective centered around the idea of mate preferences in heterosexual relationships (i.e., an evolutionary explanation for personality and relationships). This is not addressed in the paper, and the authors fail to consider this in the data cleaning or data interpretation stages of the study.

7.      I would strongly consider fixing the tables (not sure if this is for the authors or what but this version has the spacing off and makes it very challenging to read and interpret all of the tables).

8.      Almost all the correlations are small in effect size, but this is not explicitly stated in the results section. Also, the authors talk about the correlations as being the “largest” and the like, but there is not a statistical difference test done to know whether one correlation is statistically significantly larger than another, so I would change that language and present the results in a different format (e.g., “X and Y were correlated at r=0.22, indicating a small relationship.”).

9.      It is unclear why the authors chose to enter age into step one of the regression models. This was not presented in the introduction as a variable that relates to the constructs in the study, so it is unclear why this is done in the model.

10.  It is unclear why the authors did both a hierarchical regression analyses and an SEM model. What is the model telling us that the regressions do not already tell us? It seems a bit redundant and odd to first look at the individual traits and outcome tactics, and then put them all as latent variables in a model.

 

11.  Are the beta weights in the tables included the raw weights or the adjusted values? This makes it difficult to know how to interpret the results and I would recommend including both of them. Again, similar to the correlations, the beta weights are almost all small in size, thus impacting the interpretation of the results. The changes in R-squared are also quite small, and worth noting in the results and discussion as well (the changes in r-squared range from .009 to .115). Again, the authors talk about the results as if it is this super clear cut, strong finding, but looking at the numbers, they are almost all exclusively small effect sizes, thus indicating that these relationships, while significant statistically, are not that significant/impactful in the real world. The large sample size over 500 ensures almost all values above around .20 will be significant, which is why including effect sizes is so important (and also supposed to be done for all journal articles at this point). 

Author Response

Reviewer 2

1. Be careful with language and of labeling people – instead of saying “narcissists” or “narcissistic people”, say “people with elevated narcissistic traits” This sort of language is present throughout and should be changed accordingly.

R: We reviewed the text in order to remove the labels mentioned.

 

2. Also – we are trying to get away from the term “Dark Triad”. As mentioned in Rose et al, “the term ‘‘dark’’ sensationalistic, potentially harmful, non-specific, and under-operationalized…we believe this term should be avoided and/or replaced with a more useful term, such as ‘‘antagonistic’’—which captures the shared component across the three constructs.” As such, I would recommend changing the paper to use the new term, Antagonistic Triad in the introduction, and then use this throughout the paper (and update the title as well to reflect this change in language and rhetoric).

Citation: Rose, L., Lynam, D. R., & Miller, J. D. (2024). Measuring the “dark” triad: Comparing the five-factor model antagonistic triad measure to other commonly used self-report instruments. Assessment, 31(4), 863-874.

R: We appreciate the point brought up by reviewer 2 regarding the use of Dark Triad versus Antagonistic Triad. However, considering that the term is a key identifier for papers regarding antagonistic behavior and that our paper does not seek to discuss the implications of using Dark Triad, we opted to keep the original name proposed by Paulhus and Williams (2002).

 

3. I would also suggest the authors read Miller and colleagues (2019) paper, as it provides a detailed and thorough review of the issues with the DT/Antagonistic Triad literature, many points which are also issues in the current paper and should be addressed as best as possible, as they are currently not addressed at all (e.g., measurement issues including unidimensionality and indistinctness; multivariate stats and interpretive difficulties; convenience sampling).

Citation: Miller, J. D., Vize, C., Crowe, M. L., & Lynam, D. R. (2019). A critical appraisal of the dark-triad literature and suggestions for moving forward. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(4), 353-360.

R: We understand the point raised by the reviewer, and we have included the reference suggested appropriately. However, we chose not to discuss information regarding (e.g., measurement issues including unidimensionality and indistinctness; multivariate stats and interpretive difficulties; convenience sampling) for two reasons. First, we do not have enough space in our manuscript to introduce a topic that would be minor to our purpose. Second, our study uses the Dark Triad as a means to an end, not being the main focus of existing problems with the Dark Triad itself, although we acknowledge it and we included some of this information in the limitations section.

 

4. The authors do not provide a strong rationale for studying these constructs only in women, especially given that these traits tend to occur at higher levels in men, especially in certain contexts/environments. For example, see the following papers below (these are just examples as there are others out there as well for reference). As such, a much stronger rationale for the current study is warranted. And the authors should also review the research that provides context for the sex differences in the three traits in the introduction.

Citations: Jonason, P. K., & Davis, M. D. (2018). A gender role view of the Dark Triad traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 125, 102-105.

Jonason, P. K., Foster, J. D., Kavanagh, P. S., Gouveia, V. V., & Birkás, B. (2018). Basic values and the dark triad traits. Journal of Individual Differences, 39(4), 220.

Jonason, P. K., Żemojtel‐Piotrowska, M., Piotrowski, J., Sedikides, C., Campbell, W. K., Gebauer, J. E., ... & Yahiiaev, I. (2020). Country‐level correlates of the dark triad traits in 49 countries. Journal of personality, 88(6), 1252-1267.

R: We included two more paragraphs as a means to justify why we focused solely on women. Thank you for the article suggestions.

 

5. Related to my previous point, what were the range of scores in the sample? How many people were 1 SD above the mean, how many were 2 SD above the mean? There is no context provided for the sample descriptions of the Antagonistic Triad traits and thus there is no way to fully interpret the results of the study. I’d also like to see descriptions of the other measures included in the study (jealousy, infidelity, etc.) to demonstrate that the sample indeed has individuals scoring at the high end on these behaviors and traits. This is especially important given the context of how the data was collected.

R: We have included more descriptive information in Table 1 to provide a better view of the study variables.

 

6. The research the authors discuss in the introduction related to jealousy and such is all framed from a heteronormative perspective centered around the idea of mate preferences in heterosexual relationships (i.e., an evolutionary explanation for personality and relationships). This is not addressed in the paper, and the authors fail to consider this in the data cleaning or data interpretation stages of the study.

R: Thank you for pointing out the heteronormative framing of our discussion related to jealousy, infidelity, and relationship conflict. We agree that much of the literature we referenced focused on heterosexual relationships and evolutionary explanations, which may not fully capture the dynamics of non-heterosexual relationships. To address this, we included a statement in the Limitations section acknowledging that our theoretical framework is primarily heteronormative.

 

7. I would strongly consider fixing the tables (not sure if this is for the authors or what but this version has the spacing off and makes it very challenging to read and interpret all of the tables).

R: We apologize for the placement of our tables. In the original document, the pages were in landscape, and in the journal template, they were in portrait. We have now fixed their display.

 

8. Almost all the correlations are small in effect size, but this is not explicitly stated in the results section. Also, the authors talk about the correlations as being the “largest” and the like, but there is not a statistical difference test done to know whether one correlation is statistically significantly larger than another, so I would change that language and present the results in a different format (e.g., “X and Y were correlated at r=0.22, indicating a small relationship.”).

R: We removed the idea of the largest/strongest correlation from our results section.

 

9. It is unclear why the authors chose to enter age into step one of the regression models. This was not presented in the introduction as a variable that relates to the constructs in the study, so it is unclear why this is done in the model.

R: Age was included as a control variable because previous literature suggests that relationship dynamics and personality traits can vary significantly across different life stages. While this was not explicitly discussed in the Introduction, we agree that clarifying this rationale in the text would improve the transparency of the analysis. We revised the Introduction to better explain the potential influence of age on conflict tactics, jealousy, and infidelity.

 

10. It is unclear why the authors did both a hierarchical regression analyses and an SEM model. What is the model telling us that the regressions do not already tell us? It seems a bit redundant and odd to first look at the individual traits and outcome tactics, and then put them all as latent variables in a model.

R: We tested both models because the regression analyses allowed us to examine each conflict tactics in relation to other study variables, while the SEM allowed us to test the different paths from the Dark Triad to conflict tactics. Overall, this informed us of two things: first, the Dark Triad is indeed associated with conflict tactics, and second, what are the specific tactics used by women with elevated Dark Triad traits. We included more information in the methods section to provide a better understanding to readers.

 

11. Are the beta weights in the tables included the raw weights or the adjusted values? This makes it difficult to know how to interpret the results and I would recommend including both of them. Again, similar to the correlations, the beta weights are almost all small in size, thus impacting the interpretation of the results. The changes in R-squared are also quite small, and worth noting in the results and discussion as well (the changes in r-squared range from .009 to .115). Again, the authors talk about the results as if it is this super clear cut, strong finding, but looking at the numbers, they are almost all exclusively small effect sizes, thus indicating that these relationships, while significant statistically, are not that significant/impactful in the real world. The large sample size over 500 ensures almost all values above around .20 will be significant, which is why including effect sizes is so important (and also supposed to be done for all journal articles at this point).

R: We included effect size for all regression models and presented in the discussion a disclaimer about the interpretation of our results.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

INTRODUCTION

 

I’m unclear on what the authors mean by “subclinical psychopathy” (p. 1, in both Introduction and Abstract sections).  Psychopathy is not a clinical diagnosis, so there is no “clinical cutoff” for this characteristic, and moreover people who score extraordinarily highly on measures of psychopathy would still be considered as having Dark Triad traits.

 

Throughout the Introduction, the authors provide a broad overview of common relationship patterns seen in people who have Dark Triad traits, but their discussion of this research is a bit superficial.  What are the proposed mechanisms by which the Dark Triad causes people to behave these ways in their relationships, specifically?  

 

I find the authors’ discussion of infidelity to be a bit limited.  For example, stating that men commit infidelity more than women is overly simplistic and potentially damaging – there is extensive research on cultural factors that might contribute to this, differences in men’s vs. women’s willingness to disclose infidelity due to similar cultural factors, etc.  Additionally, while it is true that “one reason” for infidelity is relationship dissatisfaction, this is a very narrow view that perpetuates painful beliefs about the causes of cheating (for instance, a much better predictor of infidelity is attitudes toward infidelity in one’s social circle, rather than a defect of one’s relationship).  I’d suggest the authors add more nuance to their coverage of this topic (p. 2).

 

I do not find this study to be particularly well-motivated.  As the authors acknowledge, there is already research examining jealousy, IPV, and infidelity in the context of the Dark Triad – simply “investigating all variables together solely in women” does not seem a sufficient motivation for this study.

 

METHOD

 

The Cronbach’s alpha for the narcissism subscale of Short Dark Triad measure falls within the “questionable” range, meaning any interpretations of this subscale should be made with caution.  The authors should note this where appropriate throughout the manuscript.  Similarly, the sexual coercion subscale of the CTS2 is unacceptable, and this measure should not be used or interpreted at all.

 

RESULTS

 

The means for all CTS2 subscales (besides psychological aggression) are quite low, which is to be expected when assessing IPV in participants recruited via convenience sampling.  The authors therefore very likely have a floor effect for IPV, and all IPV results should be interpreted in this context throughout the manuscript.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The authors were not able to establish temporal precedence in their results due to the cross-sectional nature of their study design, and therefore any language implying temporal precedence in the interpretation of the results should be used with extreme caution.

 

The authors’ discussion of the implications of their findings (p. 9) currently underscores the potential lack of novelty of these results.  The idea that individuals with Dark Triad traits would benefit from conflict resolution training is in line with extensive existing research.  The authors should discuss that new implications can be taken from the novel findings of their study. 

Author Response

Reviewer 3

INTRODUCTION: I’m unclear on what the authors mean by “subclinical psychopathy” (p. 1, in both Introduction and Abstract sections). Psychopathy is not a clinical diagnosis, so there is no “clinical cutoff” for this characteristic, and moreover people who score extraordinarily highly on measures of psychopathy would still be considered as having Dark Triad traits.

R: We have removed the mention of subclinical psychopathy.

 

Throughout the Introduction, the authors provide a broad overview of common relationship patterns seen in people who have Dark Triad traits, but their discussion of this research is a bit superficial.  What are the proposed mechanisms by which the Dark Triad causes people to behave these ways in their relationships, specifically? 

R: We agree that this section could be expanded to provide more detail on the specific ways in which Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy contribute to jealousy, infidelity, and conflict in romantic relationships.

 

I find the authors’ discussion of infidelity to be a bit limited.  For example, stating that men commit infidelity more than women is overly simplistic and potentially damaging – there is extensive research on cultural factors that might contribute to this, differences in men’s vs. women’s willingness to disclose infidelity due to similar cultural factors, etc. Additionally, while it is true that “one reason” for infidelity is relationship dissatisfaction, this is a very narrow view that perpetuates painful beliefs about the causes of cheating (for instance, a much better predictor of infidelity is attitudes toward infidelity in one’s social circle, rather than a defect of one’s relationship).  I’d suggest the authors add more nuance to their coverage of this topic (p. 2).

R: We chose to remove the phrase about infidelity being more commonly shown by men and reviewed the paragraph in order to present a more nuanced version of the idea of infidelity.

 

I do not find this study to be particularly well-motivated.  As the authors acknowledge, there is already research examining jealousy, IPV, and infidelity in the context of the Dark Triad – simply “investigating all variables together solely in women” does not seem a sufficient motivation for this study.

R: We have included two more paragraphs to justify our study.

 

METHOD: The Cronbach’s alpha for the narcissism subscale of Short Dark Triad measure falls within the “questionable” range, meaning any interpretations of this subscale should be made with caution.  The authors should note this where appropriate throughout the manuscript.  Similarly, the sexual coercion subscale of the CTS2 is unacceptable, and this measure should not be used or interpreted at all.

R: We agree that the low results for sexual coercion could lead to interpretation problems. However, not interpreting it would lead readers to make their own interpretations. Thus, we improved the sentence indicating that such results should be interpreted with caution.

 

RESULTS: The means for all CTS2 subscales (besides psychological aggression) are quite low, which is to be expected when assessing IPV in participants recruited via convenience sampling.  The authors therefore very likely have a floor effect for IPV, and all IPV results should be interpreted in this context throughout the manuscript.

R: We have included more descriptive information about all of our variables in order to provide readers with a broader understanding of our variables.

 

DISCUSSION: The authors were not able to establish temporal precedence in their results due to the cross-sectional nature of their study design, and therefore any language implying temporal precedence in the interpretation of the results should be used with extreme caution.

R: We reviewed the text in order to remove any language implying temporality.

 

The authors’ discussion of the implications of their findings (p. 9) currently underscores the potential lack of novelty of these results.  The idea that individuals with Dark Triad traits would benefit from conflict resolution training is in line with extensive existing research.  The authors should discuss that new implications can be taken from the novel findings of their study.

R: In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the discussion to emphasize the unique contributions of our research, particularly the mediating role of jealousy and infidelity in the relationship between Dark Triad traits and conflict tactics in women.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All suggested changes have been made

Author Response

Reviewer 1

All suggested changes have been made.

R: We thank you, the reviewer, for their original comments and appreciation of our manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have previously reviewed the original submission of this paper and provided a thorough summary and review. As such, I will forgo highlighting the strengths of the manuscript and will focus on how well I believe the authors responded to my comments. Of note, I typically review author responses to all reviewers, but for this journal system, I am unable to do so. As such, I will focus on their responses to my specific review.  

 

 

1. 1. I appreciate the authors openness to adjusting their language to reflect a more modern approach to discussing personality traits instead of labeling individuals.  

2. 2. Given the identifiers, I understand the authors want to include the term Dark Triad. I still believe that a brief 1-2 sentence mention of Dark Triad versus Antagonistic Triad is warranted and should be included. Something like “The authors acknowledge the challenges of using the term “Dark Triad” and the utility of other terms such as “Antagonistic Triad”, however, given how widely used Dark Triad is at this time in the literature, we have opted to keep the original name proposed by Paulhus and Williams (2002).” 

3. I3. understand the authors choosing not to include much discuss regarding the use of certain Dark Triad measures, and appreciate that they did include a statement in their discussion about this potential limitation.  

4. 4. I appreciate the addition to the paper that provides a more detailed justification for studying this in women.  

5. 5. Thank you for adding in the max and min values for the measures, though readers would not know the potential max and min from the article, as this information is not included in the measurement section. Readers might be able to estimate based on the information (e.g., if a scale ranges from 1 to 5 with 10 questions that means the total score could range from 10 to 50), but providing a more direct statement for each measure would eliminate the potential miscalculation of the reader. Additionally, providing the max and min did not alleviate my other concerns, which was providing a good picture of the sample by providing the number of participants who were 1 SD above the mean and how many were between 1 and 2 SD above the mean. As previously stated, I’d also like to see descriptions of the other measures included in the study (jealousy, infidelity, etc.) to demonstrate that the sample indeed has individuals scoring at the high end on these behaviors and traits. This is especially important given the context of how the data was collected.  

6. 6. Thank you for addressing this comment!  

7. 7. Thanks for fixing the tables! They look great in this version!  

8. 8. I appreciate the authors tempering the language of the results and being more open and clear about the small effect sizes found in the study.  

9. 9. Thank you for addressing the concern of why age was included in the models.  

10. 10. Thank you for providing a rationale for both regression and SEM in the current study. I think this could actually be added right before the results section to orient the reader as to what results are coming and why.  

11. 11. While I appreciate the authors adding in effect sizes for all models and mentioning the small effects in the results and discussion, I don’t think the authors have clarified whether the beta weights are standardized or unstandardized in the tables or model. Please provide this information.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

1. I appreciate the authors openness to adjusting their language to reflect a more modern approach to discussing personality traits instead of labeling individuals.

R: We thank you, the reviewer, for their original comments and appreciation of our manuscript.

 

2. Given the identifiers, I understand the authors want to include the term Dark Triad. I still believe that a brief 1-2 sentence mention of Dark Triad versus Antagonistic Triad is warranted and should be included. Something like “The authors acknowledge the challenges of using the term “Dark Triad” and the utility of other terms such as “Antagonistic Triad”, however, given how widely used Dark Triad is at this time in the literature, we have opted to keep the original name proposed by Paulhus and Williams (2002).”

R: We have included a sentence as suggested.

 

3. I understand the authors choosing not to include much discuss regarding the use of certain Dark Triad measures, and appreciate that they did include a statement in their discussion about this potential limitation.

R: We thank you, the reviewer, for their original comments and appreciation of our manuscript.

 

4. I appreciate the addition to the paper that provides a more detailed justification for studying this in women.

R: We thank you, the reviewer, for their original comments and appreciation of our manuscript.

 

5. Thank you for adding in the max and min values for the measures, though readers would not know the potential max and min from the article, as this information is not included in the measurement section. Readers might be able to estimate based on the information (e.g., if a scale ranges from 1 to 5 with 10 questions that means the total score could range from 10 to 50), but providing a more direct statement for each measure would eliminate the potential miscalculation of the reader. Additionally, providing the max and min did not alleviate my other concerns, which was providing a good picture of the sample by providing the number of participants who were 1 SD above the mean and how many were between 1 and 2 SD above the mean. As previously stated, I’d also like to see descriptions of the other measures included in the study (jealousy, infidelity, etc.) to demonstrate that the sample indeed has individuals scoring at the high end on these behaviors and traits. This is especially important given the context of how the data was collected.

R: We have included the range for each measure. However, we believe that the inclusion of additional statistical details may not significantly enhance the understanding of our findings and could potentially detract from the study's primary focus. Our current approach provides a comprehensive overview of the sample characteristics through means, standard deviations, and ranges. These statistics effectively capture the central tendency and variability of the data, which we believe are most relevant to the study's aims. These descriptions offer sufficient detail to demonstrate the presence of individuals with varying levels of these traits, which aligns with our study's objectives.

 

6. Thank you for addressing this comment!

R: We thank you, the reviewer, for their original comments and appreciation of our manuscript.

 

7. Thanks for fixing the tables! They look great in this version!

R: We thank you, the reviewer, for their original comments and appreciation of our manuscript.

 

8. I appreciate the authors tempering the language of the results and being more open and clear about the small effect sizes found in the study.

R: We thank you, the reviewer, for their original comments and appreciation of our manuscript.

 

9. Thank you for addressing the concern of why age was included in the models.

R: We thank you, the reviewer, for their original comments and appreciation of our manuscript.

 

10. Thank you for providing a rationale for both regression and SEM in the current study. I think this could actually be added right before the results section to orient the reader as to what results are coming and why.

R: We have included the rationale before the results.

 

11. While I appreciate the authors adding in effect sizes for all models and mentioning the small effects in the results and discussion, I don’t think the authors have clarified whether the beta weights are standardized or unstandardized in the tables or model. Please provide this information.

R: We included that beta weights were standardized for both the Tables and SEM.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have adequately addressed the majority of my concerns.  However, I still feel that the sexual coercion subscale of the CTS-2 should not be interpreted due to its low reliability, particularly given the use of convenience sampling to examine IPV, and am not swayed by their argument that "readers will draw their own interpretations" if the authors do not interpret the sexual coercion results.  In my opinion, the sexual coercion subscale should be removed from all analyses and therefore there should be nothing to interpret - the scale is unusable based on the reliability analysis.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

The authors have adequately addressed the majority of my concerns.  However, I still feel that the sexual coercion subscale of the CTS-2 should not be interpreted due to its low reliability, particularly given the use of convenience sampling to examine IPV, and am not swayed by their argument that "readers will draw their own interpretations" if the authors do not interpret the sexual coercion results.  In my opinion, the sexual coercion subscale should be removed from all analyses and therefore there should be nothing to interpret - the scale is unusable based on the reliability analysis.

R: We understand and respect your apprehension regarding the interpretation of the sexual coercion subscale of the CTS-2, particularly given the low reliability and the use of convenience sampling. However, we believe that retaining the subscale in the analysis, despite its limitations, provides a more comprehensive understanding of the data, especially in the context of our specific research question. While we acknowledge the reliability concerns, we have taken them into account in our interpretation and have been transparent about these limitations in the discussion section. Our intent is to offer a balanced view, allowing readers to consider the results critically, with full awareness of the subscale's limitations.