Distinct personality traits found in those who use sex to cope

Recent psychological research has identified distinct personality profiles that shed light on why some individuals turn to sexual behavior to manage emotional distress while others do not. The findings suggest that hostility, impulsivity, and deep-seated self-criticism are key factors that distinguish hypersexual coping mechanisms from other forms of emotional insecurity. This research was published in the journal Sexual Health & Compulsivity.

Psychologists classify hypersexuality as a condition involving excessive sexual fantasies, urges, and behaviors. While high sexual desire is natural for many, hypersexuality becomes a clinical concern when it causes distress or disrupts daily life. Many experts view this behavior not merely as a drive for pleasure but as a coping strategy.

Individuals may engage in sexual activity to escape negative emotions such as anxiety, depression, boredom, or loneliness. This creates a cycle where the temporary relief provided by sexual activity reinforces the behavior. Eventually, this pattern can lead to feelings of guilt or shame, which may trigger further urges to cope through sex.

To understand this dynamic, researchers look to attachment theory. This psychological framework describes how early bonds with caregivers shape the way adults relate to others and regulate their emotions. People with secure attachment styles generally feel comfortable with intimacy and trust others.

Those with insecure attachment styles often struggle with these bonds. Anxious attachment involves a fear of abandonment and a constant need for approval. Avoidant attachment involves a discomfort with closeness and a desire for emotional distance.

Prior studies have linked insecure attachment to difficulties in regulating emotions. When individuals cannot manage their feelings effectively, they may seek external ways to soothe themselves. For some, this external method becomes sexuality.

However, not everyone with an insecure attachment style develops hypersexual behaviors. Camilla Tacchino and her colleagues at Sapienza University of Rome sought to understand what separates these groups. They aimed to identify specific psychological profiles based on attachment, self-criticism, and personality traits.

The researchers recruited 562 participants from the general population in Italy. The group was predominantly female and had an average age of roughly 31 years. The participants completed a series of detailed self-report questionnaires.

One survey measured the tendency to use sex as a coping mechanism to deal with emotional pain. Another assessed attachment styles, looking for signs of anxiety or avoidance in relationships. Additional surveys evaluated pathological personality traits and levels of self-criticism.

The team used a statistical method known as latent profile analysis. This technique allows researchers to group participants based on shared patterns across multiple variables. Instead of looking at averages for the whole group, this method identifies distinct “types” of people within the data.

The analysis revealed three specific profiles. The largest group, comprising 50% of the sample, was labeled “Secure without Sexual Coping.” These individuals showed low levels of attachment anxiety and avoidance. They also reported very low reliance on sex to manage their emotions.

Demographically, this secure group tended to be older than the other groups. They were also more likely to be in romantic relationships and to have children. Psychologically, they displayed the highest levels of emotional stability.

The second profile was labeled “Insecure with Sexual Coping.” This group made up about 13% of the sample. These participants exhibited high levels of attachment insecurity, characterized by both a fear of intimacy and a strong need for approval.

The defining feature of this second profile was their high score on using sex to cope. They frequently reported engaging in sexual acts to deal with life problems or negative feelings. This group was generally younger and less likely to be in a committed relationship.

The third profile was labeled “Insecure without Sexual Coping.” Comprising 37% of the sample, these individuals also scored high on attachment insecurity. They experienced significant worries about relationships and discomfort with closeness. However, unlike the second group, they did not use sex as a coping strategy.

The researchers then compared the personality traits and self-criticism levels of these three groups. The “Secure” group scored the lowest on all measures of pathology. They were generally less self-critical and had fewer negative personality traits.

The “Insecure with Sexual Coping” group displayed a specific set of personality markers. They scored highest in the domains of Antagonism and Disinhibition. Antagonism refers to behaviors that put an individual at odds with others, such as hostility or grandiosity.

Disinhibition involves an orientation toward immediate gratification and impulsive behavior. This suggests that for this group, the drive to use sex as a coping mechanism is linked to difficulties in impulse control. They may act on their urges without fully considering the long-term consequences.

This group also reported high levels of self-hatred. They experienced feelings of disgust and aggression toward themselves. The authors suggest that this self-loathing may be both a cause and a result of their compulsive sexual behavior.

The “Insecure without Sexual Coping” group presented a different psychological landscape. While they shared the attachment insecurities of the second group, they did not exhibit the same levels of impulsivity or hostility. Instead, they scored highest on a dimension called “Negative Affect.”

Negative Affect involves the frequent experience of unpleasant emotions like sadness, worry, and anxiety. This group also reported the highest levels of feeling “inadequate.” They viewed themselves as inferior or flawed but did not turn to impulsive behaviors to manage these feelings.

The researchers interpreted this distinction as a difference in how these groups process distress. The group that uses sex to cope appears to “externalize” their pain. They act out through impulsive and potentially risky behaviors.

In contrast, the insecure group that avoids sexual coping appears to “internalize” their distress. They may be more prone to rumination, depression, or self-blame. Their feelings of inadequacy might paralyze them or lead to withdrawal rather than active coping strategies like sex.

The study highlights that attachment insecurity is a vulnerability factor but does not guarantee hypersexuality. The presence of specific personality traits determines the direction that insecurity takes. Impulsivity and antagonism seem to steer individuals toward hypersexual coping.

Conversely, feelings of deep inadequacy and sadness may steer individuals away from sexual coping. It is possible that their low self-esteem inhibits sexual pursuit. They may fear rejection too deeply to engage with others sexually, even for coping purposes.

There are limitations to this study that contextualize the results. The participants were drawn from the general population rather than a clinical setting. This means the findings describe trends in everyday people rather than patients diagnosed with hypersexual disorders.

Additionally, the data relied entirely on self-report questionnaires. Participants may not always assess their own behaviors or feelings accurately. Social desirability bias could lead some to underreport sexual behaviors or negative traits.

The cross-sectional nature of the study is another consideration. The researchers collected data at a single point in time. This prevents them from determining causality. It is unclear if personality traits cause the sexual coping or if the behavior influences personality over time.

Future research could address these gaps by studying clinical populations. Investigating individuals who are seeking treatment for compulsive sexual behavior would provide a clearer picture of severe cases. Longitudinal studies could also track how these profiles develop over time.

The authors also suggest investigating the role of guilt and shame more deeply. While self-criticism was measured, the specific emotions following sexual acts could offer further insight. Understanding the cycle of shame is essential for treating hypersexuality.

These findings have implications for mental health treatment. They suggest that therapy for hypersexuality should not focus solely on the sexual behavior itself. Clinicians should also address the underlying attachment insecurities and personality traits.

For patients fitting the “Insecure with Sexual Coping” profile, interventions might focus on impulse control. Therapies that target emotion regulation and reduce antagonism could be beneficial. Helping patients find healthier ways to soothe themselves is a primary goal.

For those in the “Insecure without Sexual Coping” profile, treatment might differ. Although they do not present with hypersexuality, their high levels of negative affect require attention. Therapy for this group might focus on building self-esteem and combating feelings of inadequacy.

This study provides a nuanced view of the relationship between personality and sexual behavior. It challenges the idea that hypersexuality is simply a matter of high sex drive. Instead, it frames the behavior as a complex response to emotional and relational deficits.

By identifying these distinct profiles, the researchers have offered a roadmap for better assessment. Mental health professionals can use this information to tailor their approaches. Understanding the specific psychological makeup of a patient allows for more precise and effective care.

The study, “Decoding Hypersexuality: A Latent Profile Approach to Attachment, Self-Criticism, and Personality Disorders,” was authored by Camilla Tacchino, Guyonne Rogier, and Patrizia Velotti.