All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Thank you for your resubmitted paper. I am delighted to inform you that this can now be accepted for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Claire Fletcher-Flinn, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Comments on reference errors are corrected
The questions on research question and purpose are answered. .
The results are clearified and expanded and so is the discussion
No comment
Thank you for your submission, both reviewers have raised a number of concerns that should be addressed.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
The article does not provide sufficient introduction and background to demonstrate how the work fits into the broader field of knowledge. In particular, it would be helpful to explicitly locate this work theoretically within the context of evolutionary psychology approaches to sexuality (with all the assumptions that this contains). Without explaining this to the reader, some of the text is difficult to follow – especially for a reader unfamiliar with this approach. For example, in the following text it is not clear what is meant by an ‘exploitative short-term mating strategy’ or ‘mate-value’:
75 dark traits are expected to use an exploitative short-term mating strategy that is associated with 76 strategies and tactics to avoid entangling commitments in mate-value
In addition, key terms are used interchangeably and without explanation within the background review of the literature. For example:
• In what ways does promiscuous behaviour represent an ‘outlook of separation’ (line 61).
• Why are these character traits labelled as ‘dark’ or ‘malevolent’ when they can also be conceptualised as include positive or socially useful qualities?
• The malevolent character is also labelled as is labelled as ‘immature’ without explanation (line 59).
There are a set of value judgements about sexuality in operation throughout this paper which are not explored or articulated. For example, swearing and promiscuous sexual behaviour are both identified as ‘dirty’ behaviour without comment or explanation (line 113). However, these are not self-evidently ‘dirty’.
The paper would also benefit from a more clearly articulated rationale. Why is it important for us to know whether people with different combinations of personality/character traits engage in more swearing and/or view swearing as less offensive? Why is it important for us to know whether people with different combinations of personality/character traits are more willing to engage in sexual behaviours without commitment or closeness?
It is not clear whether this paper fits the remit of PeerJ to publish articles in Biological Sciences, Environmental Sciences, Medical Sciences, and Health Sciences. The authors do not explicitly connect their work to any of these areas.
It would be useful to provide some information about the psychometric properties of the different measures used.
The study has not been subject to ethical review as the author state that this is not required within Sweden for this type of study.
The discussion of the results would have benefited from interpretation in the light of the original research questions and the underlying theory.
The references in the text is not in accordance with references given in the reference section. There are very many discrepancies. Sometimes the reference is lacking in the text and sometimes it is lacking in the reference section. My guess is that something went wrong when writing the reference section that is easy to correct.
The reference to Garcia & González says 2017 in the text but 2016a in the reference section. It is difficult to find the reference in Time and Society since there is no issue. The reference was not found in a journal search between 2015 and 2017.
The purpose and objectives of the two studies are described, but it is difficult to discern a clear research question.
If the research question is the same as the purpose, it should be clarified.
The general discussion is well written and very interesting.
One suggestion is to describe the result of this study more clearly. The discussions under headings "result and discussion" for each studie could be more extensive.
Thank you for an interesting and well written study on the Dark Cube and the relation between the dark traits and promiscuous behavior.
The proposed replications may further deepen the knowledge of the dark triad. A comparison with a dark dyad instead of triad is also an interesting idea.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.