Composition Vendor Newgen KnowledgeWorks (P) Ltd. PLoS One plos plosone PLOS One 1932-6203 Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA 10.1371/journal.pone.0329745 PONE-D-25-12929 Research Article Biology and life sciencesPsychologyPersonalityPersonality traits Social sciencesPsychologyPersonalityPersonality traits Biology and life sciencesPsychologyEmotions Social sciencesPsychologyEmotions Biology and life sciencesPsychologyPersonality Social sciencesPsychologyPersonality Medicine and health sciencesPublic and occupational healthBehavioral and social aspects of health Medicine and health sciencesMental health and psychiatryPersonality disorders Research and analysis methodsMathematical and statistical techniquesStatistical methodsMetaanalysis Physical sciencesMathematicsStatisticsStatistical methodsMetaanalysis Computer and information sciencesComputer networksInternet Biology and life sciencesPsychologyBehaviorHuman sexual behavior Social sciencesPsychologyBehaviorHuman sexual behavior Associations between big five personality traits, facets, and sexual fantasies Personality and sexual fantasies Cannoot Emily Formal analysis Visualization Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 1 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0956-9626 Moors Amy C. Conceptualization Data curation Investigation Methodology Writing – review & editing 2 3 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1748-8738 Chopik William J. Conceptualization Data curation Formal analysis Investigation Methodology Project administration Resources Supervision Visualization Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 1 * Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America Department of Psychology, Chapman University, Orange, California, United States of America The Kinsey Institute, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, United States of America Lenzo Vittorio Editor University of Catania: Universita degli Studi di Catania, ITALY

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

 * E-mail: chopikwi@msu.edu 422026 2026 21 2 e0329745 1032025 17122025 2026 Cannoot et al This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

The present study investigated associations between Big Five personality traits, their facets, and the frequency and variety of sexual fantasies in a sample of 5,225 adults (M = 58.30 years old; 56.5% men). People high in conscientiousness and agreeableness report fewer sexual fantasies across exploratory, intimate, impersonal, and sadomasochistic domains; these effects were primarily driven by respectfulness and responsibility facets. Negative emotionality, particularly the depression facet, was associated with more frequent sexual fantasizing. Extraversion and open-mindedness showed minimal relationships with sexual fantasy frequency. These results underscore the importance of personality dimensions in understanding sexual thoughts, emphasizing the heterogeneity of sexual fantasies across individuals. Having a broader appreciation of the heterogeneity of sexual experiences can foster more inclusive approaches to sexual well-being in psychological research and clinical practice.

 The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. Data Availability All data, syntax, and materials are available from OSF at https://osf.io/c9pzj/. Introduction

Sexual fantasies are common yet rarely discussed phenomena, often because of stigma and embarrassment around experiencing them [1,2]. Because they are less often discussed, there is some ignorance about how common sexual fantasies are, who is most likely to have them, and if types of fantasies vary according to people’s psychological traits. Among the little work done examining these questions, most has focused on broad indicators of personality while overlooking facet-level information on personality traits. Examining specific traits might provide a more complete description of “who” has sexual fantasies. The current study examined associations between Big Five personality traits and facets and the frequency and variety of sexual fantasies in a sample of over 5,000 adults.

Sexual fantasies and their role in people’s lives

In the broadest sense, sexual fantasies are defined as “any mental imagery that is sexually arousing or erotic to the individual” [1]. Common taxonomies characterize sexual fantasies as multidimensional and generally varying several domains including romantic, experimental, personal/impersonal, masochistic, and force dominance-related fantasies [3]. Although there is some uncertainty about the exact origin of sexual fantasies, there is at least some acknowledgement that they are at least partially shaped by social and societal processes [1,4]. Most people admit to fantasizing about sex and enjoy doing so, regardless of their age, gender identity, or sexual orientation [1,5]. Nevertheless, there are a few demographic differences. Specifically, men tend to fantasize more than women, but there is some evidence that women may be more likely to engage in fulfilling these fantasies, particularly more romantic/intimate fantasies, although actual engagement is less commonly studied [3,6]. Sexual fantasies are also more common among younger adults [7].

When trying to assess how sexual fantasies are associated with psychological characteristics, part of the difficulty in doing so is a historical framing of sexual fantasies as problematic or as reflective of psychopathology. In fact, many studies have focused on associations between sexual fantasies and exclusively antisocial behavior like aggressive tendencies or sex offending [8, 9]. However, the experience of sexual fantasies is so heterogeneous that merely knowing a person’s sexual fantasies does not necessarily map on to their mental health characteristics as seen in correlational studies and reviews of sexual fantasies [9,10]. In other words, non-aggressive people could have aggressive sexual fantasies; interpersonally dominant people might have submissive sexual fantasies; introverted people might have voyeuristic fantasies.

Given that sex is one of the more underappreciated sources of well-being in people’s lives [11], there is evidence to suggest that more frequent sexual fantasizing is associated with relationship promoting behaviors (e.g., verbalizing affection) and positive relationship outcomes [12,13]. Health and well-being benefits accompany positive and fulfilling relationships, so researchers have turned toward more deliberately included considerations of sex and sexuality in the study of health and well-being across the lifespan [7,14]. Given that sexual fantasies are both common and might have some positive effects on people’s happiness and relationships, what personality characteristics predict endorsement of various sexual fantasies?

 Personality traits and sexual fantasy

Personality traits reflect people's characteristic patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Currently, there is a general consensus regarding the Big Five as a framework for understanding variation in people’s personalities [15]. The Big Five personality traits are comprised of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, negative emotionality (i.e., neuroticism), and open-mindedness (i.e., openness to experience) [16]. Among the many life outcomes linked with personality, neuroticism is associated with more sexual dissatisfaction, negative emotions about sex, and symptoms of sexual dysfunction; openness is associated with more liberal attitudes toward sex [17]. Although the Big Five framework is the most commonly studied set of higher-order traits, there have been relatively few studies examining their associations with sexual fantasies (and no studies examining personality facets and sexual fantasies, from what we could find). In fact, there is little information at all about how sexual fantasizing is associated with any psychological traits (especially non-psychopathological traits).

This lack of research is apparent in one of the largest meta-analyses on personality and sexual behavior to date [17]. Among the 137 studies included in that paper, the authors could only identify between two to five effect sizes that implicated sexual fantasies, depending on the trait being studied. They found that people higher in openness (r = 24), extraversion (r = .10), and neuroticism (r = .13) tended to fantasize more often, although each of these studies collapsed across different types of sexual fantasies. Studies looking at more isolated traits (e.g., sensation seeking) that could reasonably be subsumed under the Big Five are also somewhat common [18,19]. In the work conducted since that 2018 meta-analysis, a more complicated picture of the association between personality and sexual fantasies has emerged, sometimes contradicting the meta-analysis. For example, extraverts and open-minded individuals are more likely to fantasize about extra-dyadic sex and consensual non-monogamy; people high in neuroticism were less likely to report these types of fantasies [10,20]. Yet, other research suggests that introverts might have more sexual fantasies than extraverts [21]. People high in conscientiousness or agreeableness were less likely to have aggressive sexual fantasies than those low in these traits [8,22]. Highly neurotic people tend to have both more positive and negative sexual thoughts, including violent fantasies [4,21,23]. People open to experience (i.e., open mindedness) tend to sexually daydream more often than those less open to experience [24]. Yet, other studies find few or no associations between personality and sexual fantasies of various types [25]. We revisited this question in a large sample of adults who reported on their personalities and how much they engaged in a variety of sexual fantasies.

One additional contribution our study makes to the literature is examining associations between sexual fantasies and personality facets. Personality facets are lower order traits, subsumed by the Big Five, that provide more specific information about people’s personalities [26,27]. Integrating facets into an analysis can reveal more complete insights into who is most likely to have certain sexual fantasies. For example, if extraverts have more sexual fantasies [20], is it primarily driven by their sociability, their assertiveness, or the energy level (all facets of extraversion)? Likewise, if conscientious people are less likely to have aggressive fantasies [8], it is likely because of the respectfulness and compassionate facets of the trait rather than the trust facet per se. In addition to focusing on links between people’s personality facets and sexual fantasies, we ran supplementary analyses in which we controlled for the covariation among the Big Five traits in their associations with sexual fantasies. Given the mixed results from previous research, and the lack of research about facets, we treated all analyses as exploratory.

 Method

The present exploratory study was not preregistered. All data, syntax, and materials can be found at https://osf.io/c9pzj/?view_only=b9672f35521f483c90a84701dfb105fc This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of Michigan State University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB# x16-1291e) and run online with informed consent being secured from all participants (by clicking a next arrow; documentation requirement waived). Data were analyzed anonymously.

Participants and procedure

Participants comprised of 5,225 internet respondents recruited from Qualtrics Panels who took part in an online study about close relationships in exchange for $10. Data were collected from March 15, 2021 through October 21, 2021. They ranged in age from 18 to 94 (Mage = 58.30, SD = 15.93). The sample was 56.5% men, 43.2% women, and .3% who described themselves as another gender. The sample was 87.7% White, 3.5% Asian, 3.2% Hispanic/Latinx, 3.1% Black/African American, and 2.5% other races/ethnicities.

Given the scope of the present study focused on close relationships, all participants were either married (94.5%) or dating (5.5%). Mean relationship length was 29.68 years (SD = 16.93). The sample was relatively sexually active, with 68.6% of participants having sex at least once per month. The inclusion criteria were that people were currently in a relationship and at least 18 years old. We collected as many participants as funding allowed (see below for power analysis though). We did not exclude any participants, and missing data were handled via listwise deletion.

 Measures Big five personality traits.

The Big Five Personality traits were measured using the short-form version of the Big Five-Inventory-2 [28]. The questionnaire contains 30 items (6 for each trait), and individuals respond to each statement according to how well it describes them on a scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly). Mean composites were computed for extraversion (e.g., “I am someone who is outgoing, sociable;” α = .71, M = 3.27, SD = .72), agreeableness (e.g., “I am someone who is compassionate, has a soft heart;” α = .81, M = 3.85, SD = .71), conscientiousness (e.g., “I am someone who is persistent, works until the task is finished;” α = .80, M = 3.93, SD = .73), negative emotionality (e.g., “I am someone who worries a lot;” α = .84, M = 2.37, SD = .84), and open-mindedness (e.g., “I am someone who is fascinated by art, music, or literature;” α = .73, M = 3.37, SD = .73).

Within each of the broader Big Five personality traits are three facets—smaller, more specific descriptors of personality. We also calculated the means for three facets (measured with two items each) of extraversion (sociability (α = .63), assertiveness (α = .65), and energy level (α = .68)), agreeableness (compassion (α = .61), respectfulness (α = .57), and trust (α = .61)), conscientiousness (organization (α = .74), productiveness (α = .59), and responsibility (α = .46)), negative emotionality (anxiety (α = .67), depression (α = .67), and emotional volatility (α = .63)), and open-mindedness (aesthetic sensitivity (α = .53), intellectual curiosity (α = .45), and creative imagination (α = .56)).

 Sexual fantasies.

Sexual fantasies were assessed with the Sexual Fantasies Questionnaire [29], which asked participants to indicate how often they fantasized about each of 40 themes on a scale ranging from 1 (never) to 6 (daily). In addition to an overall composite of sexual fantasizing (α = .97, M = 1.73, SD = .90), the responses can be subsumed into four 10-item composite scales: exploratory sexual fantasies (e.g., “participating in an orgy;” α = .94, M = 1.52, SD = .94), intimate sexual fantasies (e.g., “making love outdoors in a romantic setting;” α = .93, M = 2.45, SD = 1.21), impersonal sexual fantasies (e.g., “watching others have sex;” α = .91, M = 1.58, SD = .90), and sadomasochistic sexual fantasies (e.g., “being forced to do something;” α = .95, M = 1.37, SD = .89).

 Analytical approach

We began by running bivariate associations between personality traits, facets, and the different sexual fantasy outcomes (i.e., a composite total and each of the four composite scales). Then, to account for the covariation, we ran follow-up linear regressions that included all personality traits, age, and gender. From these models, partial correlations were extracted. For these models that featured control variables, we ran two models, one for the Big Five traits and another for the (15) facets. These were done separately because the broader Big Five are made up of the facets and including them all in one model would introduce multicollinearity problems. This information is presented in Table 1 in the form of partial correlations.

10.1371/journal.pone.0329745.t001Bivariate and Partial Correlations between Personality and Sexual Fantasies.
Construct Fantasy Total Exploration Intimate Impersonal Sadomasochistic
Bivariate Partial Bivariate Partial Bivariate Partial Bivariate Partial Bivariate Partial
Extraversion −0.001 0.058 −0.033 0.037 0.081 0.085 −0.034 0.037 −0.041 0.041
Agreeableness −0.228 −0.083 −0.243 −0.098 −0.123 −0.015 −0.260 −0.110 −0.233 −0.089
Conscientiousness −0.265 −0.131 −0.278 −0.141 −0.158 −0.068 −0.270 −0.119 −0.286 −0.150
Negative Emotionality 0.171 0.038 0.173 0.023 0.100 0.051 0.180 0.042 0.189 0.016
Open Mindedness −0.005 0.023 −0.033 0.008 0.080 0.075 −0.042 0.004 −0.052 −0.026
Sociability 0.004 0.061 −0.007 0.057 0.040 0.051 −0.016 0.053 −0.008 0.058
Assertiveness 0.004 −0.031 −0.020 −0.035 0.073 0.001 −0.011 −0.033 −0.045 −0.047
Energy Level −0.011 0.086 −0.046 0.064 0.067 0.087 −0.047 0.064 −0.039 0.081
Compassion −0.201 −0.021 −0.212 −0.024 −0.111 −0.002 −0.226 −0.029 −0.207 −0.026
Respectfulness −0.258 −0.085 −0.271 −0.093 −0.149 −0.034 −0.276 −0.085 −0.272 −0.103
Trust −0.115 0.028 −0.126 0.024 −0.052 0.026 −0.148 0.006 −0.108 0.045
Organization −0.187 0.005 −0.194 0.005 −0.126 −0.008 −0.183 0.016 −0.193 0.010
Productiveness −0.205 −0.034 −0.221 −0.037 −0.106 −0.017 −0.216 −0.035 −0.230 −0.038
Responsibility −0.283 −0.055 −0.294 −0.061 −0.168 −0.016 −0.289 −0.054 −0.306 −0.071
Anxiety 0.070 −0.081 0.075 −0.087 0.032 −0.025 0.078 −0.085 0.081 −0.101
Depression 0.384 0.276 0.380 0.270 0.263 0.171 0.382 0.274 0.402 0.290
Emotional Volatility 0.185 0.003 0.182 −0.005 0.123 0.013 0.190 0.007 0.196 −0.007
Aesthetic Sensitivity 0.039 0.055 0.020 0.054 0.086 0.055 0.004 0.043 0.012 0.037
Intellectual Curiosity −0.005 −0.020 −0.025 −0.021 0.064 0.005 −0.030 −0.025 −0.050 −0.041
Creative Imagination −0.051 −0.010 −0.078 −0.026 0.037 0.022 −0.078 −0.016 −0.092 −0.027

Note. Correlations r > |.03| and rp > |.027| are significant at p < .05. More intensely green cells correspond to more strongly positive correlations. More intensely red cells correspond to more strongly negative correlations. Yellowish cells fall in between these extremes and contain smaller correlations.

 Results

With our sample size of 5,225 people, we could detect effects as small as r = .039 with 80% power at α = .05. Because of the large sample size, many small correlations (even those slightly smaller than r = .039) were statistically significant at p < .05 (all rs > |.03| and rsp > |.027|). Thus, we primarily focus on the magnitude of the correlations and highlight the largest and most robust associations.

Table 1 presents a heat map of the associations between Big Five personality traits and sexual fantasy frequencies (both bivariate and after partialling out the other traits, age, and gender). More intensely green colors correspond to more positive correlations. More intensely red colors correspond to more negative correlations. Varying shades of yellow correspond to values between these intensely positive and negative correlations and are typically smaller and closer to zero. Bivariate and partial correlations greater than |.03| were significant at p = .05.

As seen in Table 1, the most consistent predictor of sexual fantasies was conscientiousness. Higher levels of conscientiousness were associated with a lower frequency of all four types of sexual fantasies (exploration, intimate, impersonal, and sadomasochistic). The next most consistent predictor was agreeableness; higher levels of agreeableness associated with a lower frequency of most types of fantasies. Extraverts tended to fantasize about all four types of sexual fantasies more, but only after the covariation between traits was controlled for. People with higher levels of negative emotionality fantasized about all four types of sexual fantasies. Open-mindedness was mostly unrelated to fantasies, particularly after controlling for covariation with other traits, age, and gender. One consistent pattern that emerged is that associations between personality traits and sexual fantasy were reduced after controlling for covariation between the traits and demographics (i.e., comparing the bivariate and partial correlation columns in Table 1).

In the bottom portion of Table 1 (run in separate models than the higher-order traits), the facet most largely correlated with higher levels of frequent fantasizing in all categories was depression (a facet of negative emotionality), such that people with more depressive personalities tended to fantasize about all four types of sexual fantasies. Respectfulness (for agreeableness) and responsibility (for conscientiousness) had the strongest negative associations with each type of sexual fantasy, although the magnitude of these associations was reduced dramatically in the covariate analysis. Most of the remaining facet associations had correlations smaller than r = |.20|, and many associations either became non-significant or even switched signs (albeit these associations were near-zero) after controlling for demographic characteristics and the covariation with the other facets. One surprising finding is that the open-mindedness facets, including creative imagination, were largely unrelated to any type of sexual fantasy, which one might expect because open people tend to fantasize about both sexual and non-sexual things more often [24,30].

 Discussion

We examined associations between sexual fantasies and the Big Five personality traits and facets. People high in agreeableness and conscientiousness reported less frequent sexual fantasies, both overall and for specific types of fantasies (e.g., exploration, intimate, impersonal, sadomasochistic). People high in negative emotionality tended to fantasize more. Measuring facets proved worthwhile in that we were able to discern the parts or facets of these traits that are related to sexual fantasy. Specifically, those with depressive personalities reported more frequent sexual fantasies. Those who were high in respectfulness and responsibility reported less frequent sexual fantasies. One implication of the current work is that individual differences in personality might be useful in predicting variation in sexual fantasy frequencies, although they are not wholly redundant with each other (and some associations are relatively small or modest). Knowing these associations further advances the predictive power of personality while showing that variation in sexual fantasies is common.

Big five personality and sexual fantasies

Despite most people experiencing sexual fantasies, sexual fantasies are relatively understudied or framed as pathological [1,9]. Research shows the utility in approaching the study of sexual fantasies in a value-neutral way has revealed that sexual fantasies are often linked to positive relationship and life outcomes and are also common across the lifespan [7,12–14]. There are relatively few studies examining associations between psychological predictors, like the Big Five personality traits [18]. However, those studies largely showed that people higher in agreeableness and conscientiousness are less likely to report sexual fantasizing, people higher in openness might be more likely to have sexual fantasies in some contexts, and people high in negative emotionality were more likely to have a variety of sexual fantasies [see 10, 18, 20, 23, 24].

We were able to replicate some of these findings but not others. Indeed, people higher in agreeableness or conscientiousness tended to report less frequent sexual fantasies. Although negative emotionality was associated with more frequent sexual fantasies (and sexual fantasies of different types), these associations dropped to near-zero (and in many cases non-significance). Openness to experience was largely unrelated to sexual fantasies (except a positive association with intimate sexual fantasies). Extraversion had a small positive association with sexual fantasies, but this mostly only occurred in the models with covariates (and the signs of the associations changed directions). Thus, the main take-aways for the broader trait level are that agreeableness and conscientiousness are negatively related to sexual fantasy frequencies; extraversion and negative emotionality are positively related to sexual fantasy frequencies—although it mostly depends on whether covariates are controlled for; and openness is mostly unrelated to sexual fantasies. These findings were seen across different types of fantasies, whether they were exploratory, intimate, impersonal, or sadomasochistic in nature. Agreeableness and conscientiousness are associated with norm endorsement, harm prevention, and traditionalism [31,32]. Thus, it seems reasonable to assume that they might be less likely to engage in fantasies that are non-traditional, bridge social norms, or simulate consensual aggression.

The findings with respect to negative emotionality were a bit harder to interpret. People high in negative emotionality are more likely to focus on negative stimuli, perseverate, and have negative thoughts overall [33,34]. They are also more likely to experience various types of disgust, including sexual disgust [23,35]. These observations together might be why they are more likely to think about certain types of sexual fantasies (e.g., sadomasochistic), but this does not explain why they are prone to more ostensibly positive or neutral fantasies as well. However, our study merely examined the frequency of sexual fantasies and not their utility. In other words, some researchers have suggested that people high in negative emotionality might engage in sexual fantasies as an emotion regulation tool to compensate for negative mood [22]. Indeed, when sexual fantasies are operationalized in terms of valence (e.g., positive or negative fantasies, people high in negative emotionality tend to have both positive and negative sexual thoughts and fantasies [22,23]. Thus, people high in negative emotionality tend to fantasize more overall, such that they have both positive and negative sexual fantasies.

 Facets and fantasy

Examining associations between Big Five personality facets (or subcomponents of the broader traits) enabled a more focused examination. Knowing more about these subcomponents has significantly advanced our understanding of personality-outcome associations as has been the case in intra- and interpersonal contexts [26,36,37]. Although some of the Big Five traits were associated with sexual fantasies, it is possible that there are subcomponents of those larger traits that can give us a clue for why people fantasize more or less.

Indeed, respectfulness (for agreeableness) and responsibility (for conscientiousness) were the drivers of the negative associations seen among their higher-order traits. What this reveals is that agreeable people may be less likely to sexually fantasize because of their respect for norms and others (hence the less common sadomasochistic fantasies) and not that tender feelings about others or perceptions of trust are holding them back from doing so (particularly in the covariate analyses). Likewise, people high in responsibility are likely to moralize themselves and others and avoid sexual thinking (and maybe sex) altogether [17]. What the facet analysis also tells us is that people who are more or less organized (or more or less productive) are no more or less likely to sexually fantasize. The large association with depression (a facet of negative emotionality) can also reveal some reasons why negative emotionality was positively associated with sexual fantasies. Specifically, the fact that depression was strongly related to sexual fantasy—and that anxiety and emotional volatility were not—provides support for the possible emotional regulatory function of sexual fantasies [22,23]. In other words, it is not the case that emotionally volatile people or anxious people were more likely to sexually fantasize (if anything, anxious people were slightly less likely to fantasize in some models). Rather, those more prone to negative emotionality were also those most likely to sexually fantasize, possibly as a way to have more positive cognitions [23]. The fact that open-mindedness was largely unrelated to sexual fantasies was a bit surprising, particularly given past research [24,30]. There is a precedent for null results in this literature [25], and future research can examine if these results might be attributable to the way open-mindedness is operationalized [38].

 Limitations and future directions

This study had many strengths, including having a large sample of adults providing information on their personality facets and a variety of sexual fantasies. Nevertheless, some limitations must be discussed.

First, we relied entirely on self-report data, which may be prone to bias [39], particularly when discussing sensitive topics like sexual fantasies, which many people find embarrassing or uncomfortable to discuss [2]. Worth noting, associations between personality and sexual fantasies and thoughts tend to transcend differences in social desirability [22]. Also, the anonymity of our questionnaire likely also reduced these concerns. Nevertheless, future research can investigate ways to circumvent the social desirability effects that accompany self-reports about sexual fantasies. We also hope that this future work recruits a more diverse sample, including those from non-US countries and among people with different relationship statuses (e.g., single people, partnered people, non-monogamous people).

Second, our data were cross-sectional and was merely a snapshot of people’s sexual fantasies and how they were related to personality traits. Stability information on sexual fantasies is relatively rare, but they do tend to fluctuate over the course of a few weeks and months [40,41] and tend to differ across the lifespan [7]. Future research can follow participants longitudinally to determine if personality traits prospective development of sexual fantasies. Further, it is possible that personality traits and sexual fantasies might co-develop together over time such that fantasies might become more or less common (or different types of fantasies might become more salient) as people’s personalities or life circumstances change.

 Conclusion

The present study demonstrated that personality meaningfully relates to patterns of sexual fantasy. At the broad trait level, conscientiousness and agreeableness were associated with lower fantasy frequency, whereas neuroticism predicted greater fantasy engagement. Importantly, examining personality facets revealed more specific psychological correlates of fantasy, with higher depressive tendencies and lower responsibility and respectfulness emerging as the most consistent predictors. This facet-level approach offers a more nuanced understanding of who fantasizes and how. This extends past work that has relied primarily on global traits and provides a preliminary assessment of how sexual fantasies and related to novel and more specific characteristics. Because sexual fantasies are common yet highly variable across individuals, identifying personality correlates may help clinicians and educators support more informed, sex-positive conversations that acknowledge differences in sexual thought and expression. Future work should continue refining these associations and examine whether personality dynamics predict changes in fantasy over time or across relational contexts.

 References Leitenberg H, Henning K. Sexual fantasy. Psychol Bull. 1995;117(3):469–96. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.117.3.469 7777650 Ziegler A, Conley TD. The importance and meaning of sexual fantasies in intimate relationships. In: Aumer K, editor. The psychology of love and hate in intimate relationships. 2016. p. 29–45. Wilson GD, Lang RJ. Sex differences in sexual fantasy patterns. Personality and Individual Differences. 1981;2(4):343–6. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(81)90093-3 Hawley PH, Hensley WA. Social dominance and forceful submission fantasies: feminine pathology or power?. J Sex Res. 2009;46(6):568–85. doi: 10.1080/00224490902878985 19353371 Leistner CE, et al. The co-existence of love and desire: Experiences of bisexual, lesbian, and heterosexual women. Sexuality & Culture. 2022;26(2):531–47. Bogaert AF, Visser BA, Pozzebon JA. Gender differences in object of desire self-consciousness sexual fantasies. Arch Sex Behav. 2015;44(8):2299–310. doi: 10.1007/s10508-014-0456-2 25567072 Kolodziejczak K, Rosada A, Drewelies J, Düzel S, Eibich P, Tegeler C, et al. Sexual activity, sexual thoughts, and intimacy among older adults: Links with physical health and psychosocial resources for successful aging. Psychol Aging. 2019;34(3):389–404. doi: 10.1037/pag0000347 31070402 Bondü R, Birke JB. Aggression-related sexual fantasies: prevalence rates, sex differences, and links with personality, attitudes, and behavior. J Sex Med. 2021;18(8):1383–97. doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.06.006 34281796 Lehmiller JJ, Gormezano AM. Sexual fantasy research: A contemporary review. Curr Opin Psychol. 2023;49:101496. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101496 36436469 Lehmiller JJ. Tell me what you want: The science of sexual desire and how it can help you improve your sex life. Boston: Da Capo Lifelong Books. 2018. Muise A, Schimmack U, Impett EA. Sexual Frequency Predicts Greater Well-Being, But More is Not Always Better. Social Psychological and Personality Science. 2015;7(4):295–302. doi: 10.1177/1948550615616462 Busch TM, et al. Exploring the impact of fantasizing on romantic relationships and attachment. Sexuality & Culture. 2024. Birnbaum GE, et al. What fantasies can do to your relationship: The effects of sexual fantasies on couple interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2019;45(3):461–76. Kolodziejczak K, Drewelies J, Deeg DJH, Huisman M, Gerstorf D. Perceived importance and enjoyment of sexuality in late midlife: Cohort differences in the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam (LASA). Sex Res Soc Policy. 2020;18(3):621–35. doi: 10.1007/s13178-020-00486-2 John OP, Srivastava S. The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In: Pervin LA, John OP, editors. Handbook of personality: Theory and research. 1999. p. 102–38. Soto CJ, John OP. The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2017;113(1):117–43. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000096 27055049 Allen MS, Walter EE. Linking big five personality traits to sexuality and sexual health: A meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull. 2018;144(10):1081–110. doi: 10.1037/bul0000157 29878796 Nowak B. Big five personality traits: Sexual fantasies. In: Shackelford TK, editor. Encyclopedia of Sexual Psychology and Behavior. Springer. 2023. p. 1–3. Bivona JM, Critelli JW, Clark MJ. Women’s rape fantasies: an empirical evaluation of the major explanations. Arch Sex Behav. 2012;41(5):1107–19. doi: 10.1007/s10508-012-9934-6 22544306 Lehmiller JJ. Fantasies about consensual nonmonogamy among persons in monogamous romantic relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2020;49(8):2799–812. Sierra J, Álvarez-Castro S, Miró E. Relación entre rasgos de personalidad y fantasías sexuales. Terapia Psicológica. 1995;3:7–12. Egan V, Campbell V. Sensational interests, sustaining fantasies and personality predict physical aggression. Personality and Individual Differences. 2009;47(5):464–9. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.04.021 Moyano N, Sierra JC. Relationships between personality traits and positive/negative sexual cognitions. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology. 2013;13(3):189–96. doi: 10.1016/s1697-2600(13)70023-1 Pérez-González S, Moyano N, Sierra JC. La capacidad de ensoñación sexual: su relación con la actitud hacia las fantasías sexuales y rasgos de personalidad. Cuadernos de Medicina Psicosomática y Psiquiatría de Enlace. 2011;99:9–20. Williams KM, et al. Inferring sexually deviant behavior from corresponding fantasies: The role of personality and pornography consumption. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 2009;36(2):198–222. Schwaba T, Rhemtulla M, Hopwood CJ, Bleidorn W. A facet atlas: Visualizing networks that describe the blends, cores, and peripheries of personality structure. PLoS One. 2020;15(7):e0236893. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236893 32730328 Bainbridge TF, Ludeke SG, Smillie LD. Evaluating the big five as an organizing framework for commonly used psychological trait scales. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2022;122(4):749–77. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000395 35025595 Soto CJ, John OP. Short and extra-short forms of the big five inventory–2: The BFI-2-S and BFI-2-XS. Journal of Research in Personality. 2017;68:69–81. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2017.02.004 Wilson GD. The sex fantasy questionnaire: An update. Sexual and Relationship Therapy. 2010;25(1):68–72. Sánchez-Bernardos ML, et al. Fantasy proneness and personality profiles. Imagination, Cognition and Personality. 2015;34(4):327–39. Wilmot MP, Ones DS. Agreeableness and its consequences: a quantitative review of meta-analytic findings. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2022;26(3):242–80. doi: 10.1177/10888683211073007 35220818 Roberts BW, Chernyshenko OS, Stark S, Goldberg LR. The structure of conscientiousness: an empirical investigation based on seven major personality questionnaires. Personnel Psychology. 2005;58(1):103–39. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00301.x Robinson MD, Wilkowski BM, Kirkeby BS, Meier BP. Stuck in a rut: perseverative response tendencies and the neuroticism-distress relationship. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2006;135(1):78–91. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.78 16478317 Clark LA, Watson D. Temperament: An ongoing paradigm for trait psychology. In: John OP, Robins RW, Pervin LA, editors. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research. New York: The Guilford Press. 2008. p. 265–86. Olatunji BO, Haidt J, McKay D, David B. Core, animal reminder, and contamination disgust: Three kinds of disgust with distinct personality, behavioral, physiological, and clinical correlates. Journal of Research in Personality. 2008;42(5):1243–59. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2008.03.009 Weidmann R, Purol MF, Alabdullah A, Ryan SM, Wright EG, Oh J, et al. Trait and facet personality similarity and relationship and life satisfaction in romantic couples. J Res Pers. 2023;104:104378. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2023.104378 37396145 Stewart RD, Mõttus R, Seeboth A, Soto CJ, Johnson W. The finer details? The predictability of life outcomes from Big Five domains, facets, and nuances. J Pers. 2022;90(2):167–82. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12660 34236710 DeYoung CG, Grazioplene RG, Peterson JB. From madness to genius: The Openness/Intellect trait domain as a paradoxical simplex. Journal of Research in Personality. 2012;46(1):63–78. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2011.12.003 Paulhus DL, Vazire S. The self-report method. In: Robins RW, Fraley RC, Krueger RF, editors. Handbook of Research Methods in Personality Psychology. New York: The Guilford Press. 2007. p. 224–39. Cascalheira CJ, McCormack M, Portch E, Wignall L. Changes in sexual fantasy and solitary sexual practice during social lockdown among young adults in the UK. Sex Med. 2021;9(3):100342. doi: 10.1016/j.esxm.2021.100342 33964603 Dawson SJ, Suschinsky KD, Lalumière ML. Sexual fantasies and viewing times across the menstrual cycle: a diary study. Arch Sex Behav. 2012;41(1):173–83. doi: 10.1007/s10508-012-9939-1 22406876 10.1371/journal.pone.0329745.r001 Decision Letter 0 Lenzo Vittorio Academic Editor 2026 Vittorio Lenzo This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Submission Version 0

28 May 2025

Dear Dr. Chopik,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

One reviewer supports the manuscript as is, while the other suggests several minor but important revisions that need to be addressed. These include clarifying the theoretical framework, elaborating on demographic variables, and improving the reporting of limitations. Please revise the manuscript accordingly.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 12 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Vittorio Lenzo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.-->--> -->-->Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at -->-->https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and -->-->https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf-->--> -->-->2. Please note that your Data Availability Statement is currently missing the repository name. If your manuscript is accepted for publication, you will be asked to provide these details on a very short timeline. We therefore suggest that you provide this information now, though we will not hold up the peer review process if you are unable.-->--> -->-->3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.-->?>

4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The paper addresses an important topic related to stress and resilience. However, some areas need improvement. Below is some feedback for improvement.

- Add literature review for second objective association between nurse’s demographic characteristics and both stress and resilience (eg: gender, age)

- State what is the theory being used in this study.

- Methodology- What is the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the targeted sample.

- Add more demographic characteristics in the table related to the study (eg: age)

- Limitation, hanging sentence. “As such”

- Add implication and conclusion related to the second objective of the study

Reviewer #2:  This interesting study of 5,225 adults examined the links between Big Five personality traits and sexual fantasies. High conscientiousness and agreeableness, driven by the facets of respectfulness and responsibility, were associated with fewer fantasies across various domains. Neuroticism, particularly the depression facet, correlated with more frequent fantasizing, while extraversion and open-mindedness showed minimal impact. The well-conducted study’s findings reveal how personality shapes sexual thoughts, aiding clinicians in fostering sex-positive therapy. It highlights the diversity of sexual fantasies and supports inclusive approaches to sexual well-being.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org

 10.1371/journal.pone.0329745.r002 Author response to Decision Letter 1 Submission Version 1

13 Jun 2025

Response to Reviewers (see appended letter for correct formatting)

We would like to thank the editor and reviewers for their thoughtful comments on the manuscript. We very much appreciate the constructive feedback and believe that the manuscript has improved significantly as a result of their suggestions. Below, we report how each of the reviewer issues was addressed and the corresponding changes to the manuscript. The reviewer comments are non-bolded, and our responses are bolded. We are happy to make any additional changes recommended by the Editor.

Editor

One reviewer supports the manuscript as is, while the other suggests several minor but important revisions that need to be addressed. These include clarifying the theoretical framework, elaborating on demographic variables, and improving the reporting of limitations. Please revise the manuscript accordingly.

Thank you for handling our manuscript. In evaluating the reviewers’ comments, we elected to add details related to the inclusion/exclusion criteria in the Method (p 7) and to add a brief remark on the Implications of the study (see pg 12-13).

Reviewer #1

The paper addresses an important topic related to stress and resilience. However, some areas need improvement. Below is some feedback for improvement.

- Add literature review for second objective association between nurse’s demographic characteristics and both stress and resilience (eg: gender, age)

- State what is the theory being used in this study.

- Methodology- What is the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the targeted sample.

- Add more demographic characteristics in the table related to the study (eg: age)

- Limitation, hanging sentence. “As such”

- Add implication and conclusion related to the second objective of the study

We thank the reviewer for taking the time to provide a review. In discussions with the Editor, they partially left it up to our discretion for how to integrate comments from this review. After reviewing the comments, we ultimately decided to add information related to our inclusion/exclusion criteria (see p 7) and about the implications of our study (see pages 12-13). The other remarks fell a bit beyond the purview of our study or did not correspond to our manuscript, so we elected not to make those particular changes.

Reviewer #2

This interesting study of 5,225 adults examined the links between Big Five personality traits and sexual fantasies. High conscientiousness and agreeableness, driven by the facets of respectfulness and responsibility, were associated with fewer fantasies across various domains. Neuroticism, particularly the depression facet, correlated with more frequent fantasizing, while extraversion and open-mindedness showed minimal impact. The well-conducted study’s findings reveal how personality shapes sexual thoughts, aiding clinicians in fostering sex-positive therapy. It highlights the diversity of sexual fantasies and supports inclusive approaches to sexual well-being.

We thank the reviewer for their positive evaluation of our manuscript!

Submitted filename: Response061325.docx

 10.1371/journal.pone.0329745.r003 Decision Letter 1 De Pascalis Vilfredo Academic Editor 2026 Vilfredo De Pascalis This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Submission Version 1

6 Nov 2025

Associations between Big Five Personality Traits, Facets, and Sexual Fantasies

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chopik,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 18 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Vilfredo De Pascalis

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Both Reviewers and I think that the manuscript can be accepted for publication. However, as suggested by Reviewer #3, they are invited to (1) check whether all the references used are appropriately related to the topic of this article; (2) provide a more detailed explanation of the figure to enhance clarity and interpretability; (3) to strengthen the concluding statements to summarize the study’s findings succinctly and clearly articulate the novelty of the work.

Thus, I invite the authors to resubmit their revised manuscript as soon as possible, in line with the points outlined above, for acceptance.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Reviewer #3: This article may be corrected as follows :

I have carefully examined the improvements made by the researchers to conclude that this article can be accepted and published by the PLOS ONE Journal. However, researchers must make improvements to relate the references used better to the topic of this article.

The figure should be explained in more detail to make it easy to understand. The conclusions compiled in paragraphs may need to be improved to explain the results of this study briefly and affirm the existence of novelty in this article.

*** I found the strengths of this article, but there are still weaknesses that need to be fixed.

This article is Acceptable in the PLOS ONE Journal.

Reviewer #4: The study presents the results of original research.

Results reported have not been published elsewhere.

Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail.

Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data.

The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English.

The research meets all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity.

The article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards for data availability.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #3: Yes: Muhammad Ali Equatora

Reviewer #4: Yes: Ana Carina Henriques Teodósio Moisão

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-12929_R1_reviewer_tcsw27.pdf

 10.1371/journal.pone.0329745.r004 Author response to Decision Letter 2 Submission Version 2

16 Dec 2025

Response to Reviewers

We would like to thank the editor and reviewers for their thoughtful comments on the manuscript. We very much appreciate the constructive feedback and believe that the manuscript has improved significantly as a result of their suggestions. Below, we report how each of the reviewer issues was addressed and the corresponding changes to the manuscript. The reviewer comments are non-bolded, and our responses are bolded. We are happy to make any additional changes recommended by the Editor.

Editor

Both Reviewers and I think that the manuscript can be accepted for publication. However, as suggested by Reviewer #3, they are invited to (1) check whether all the references used are appropriately related to the topic of this article; (2) provide a more detailed explanation of the figure to enhance clarity and interpretability; (3) to strengthen the concluding statements to summarize the study’s findings succinctly and clearly articulate the novelty of the work.

Thus, I invite the authors to resubmit their revised manuscript as soon as possible, in line with the points outlined above, for acceptance.

Thank you for serving as editor for this paper, expediting its review, and for the positive evaluation! We have now removed references that were tangentially related to the point being made near it in the text, inserted a stand-alone paragraph describing the table/figure, and revised the conclusion to more succinctly state the study findings while expanding our discussion on the novelty of this work and its importance for motivating more constructive conversations across domains. These changes are all detailed below in response to each reviewer comment.

Reviewer #3

1.) I have carefully examined the improvements made by the researchers to conclude that this article can be accepted and published by the PLOS ONE Journal.

However, researchers must make improvements to relate the references used better to the topic of this article.

Thank you for your positive evaluation of our manuscript. We now see that it might some of the citations might have too-distant a connection to what they are supporting in the text. We have now gone through and either added additional textual information (to more closely link the reference with the text) or removed/replaced a particular citation. These small changes can be seen throughout the manuscript, particularly in the Introduction and Discussion (see marked version of the manuscript).

2.) The figure should be explained in more detail to make it easy to understand.

We have now added a stand-alone paragraph describing Table 1 (see p 9, lns 184-189). We also expanded the table/figure note to be clearer about what the colors corresponded to. Here is that paragraph reproduced:

“Table 1 presents a heat map of the associations between Big Five personality traits and sexual fantasy frequencies (both bivariate and after partialling out the other traits, age, and gender). More intensely green colors correspond to more positive correlations. More intensely red colors correspond to more negative correlations. Varying shades of yellow correspond to values between these intensely positive and negative correlations and are typically smaller and closer to zero. Bivariate and partial correlations greater than |.03| were significant at p = .05.”

3.) The conclusions compiled in paragraphs may need to be improved to explain the results of this study briefly and affirm the existence of novelty in this article.

*** I found the strengths of this article, but there are still weaknesses that need to be fixed.

This article is Acceptable in the PLOS ONE Journal.

We have now more succinctly summarized the results of our study and more squarely focused the contribution of our work. We then make a linkage between this knowledge gained with how it can be leveraged to promote informed conversation in a variety of settings. This paragraph can be found on lns 322-335:

“The present study demonstrated that personality meaningfully relates to patterns of sexual fantasy. At the broad trait level, conscientiousness and agreeableness were associated with lower fantasy frequency, whereas neuroticism predicted greater fantasy engagement. Importantly, examining personality facets revealed more specific psychological correlates of fantasy, with higher depressive tendencies and lower responsibility and respectfulness emerging as the most consistent predictors. This facet-level approach offers a more nuanced understanding of who fantasizes and how. This extends past work that has relied primarily on global traits and provides a preliminary assessment of how sexual fantasies and related to novel and more specific characteristics. Because sexual fantasies are common yet highly variable across individuals, identifying personality correlates may help clinicians and educators support more informed, sex-positive conversations that acknowledge differences in sexual thought and expression. Future work should continue refining these associations and examine whether personality dynamics predict changes in fantasy over time or across relational contexts.”

Thank you again for your positive assessment of our manuscript.

Reviewer #4

1.) The study presents the results of original research. Results reported have not been published elsewhere. Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail. Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data. The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English. The research meets all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity. The article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards for data availability.

Thank you for your thorough review of our manuscript. We appreciate your recognition of how we contextualized the results and of our writing. We also feel that our revised concluding paragraph provides a succinct take-away of our findings and the important implications for having critical policy discussions. This paragraph can be found on lns 322-335:

“The present study demonstrated that personality meaningfully relates to patterns of sexual fantasy. At the broad trait level, conscientiousness and agreeableness were associated with lower fantasy frequency, whereas neuroticism predicted greater fantasy engagement. Importantly, examining personality facets revealed more specific psychological correlates of fantasy, with higher depressive tendencies and lower responsibility and respectfulness emerging as the most consistent predictors. This facet-level approach offers a more nuanced understanding of who fantasizes and how. This extends past work that has relied primarily on global traits and provides a preliminary assessment of how sexual fantasies and related to novel and more specific characteristics. Because sexual fantasies are common yet highly variable across individuals, identifying personality correlates may help clinicians and educators support more informed, sex-positive conversations that acknowledge differences in sexual thought and expression. Future work should continue refining these associations and examine whether personality dynamics predict changes in fantasy over time or across relational contexts.”

Thank you again for your positive assessment of our manuscript.

Submitted filename: Response111825.docx

 10.1371/journal.pone.0329745.r005 Decision Letter 2 De Pascalis Vilfredo Academic Editor 2026 Vilfredo De Pascalis This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Submission Version 2

30 Dec 2025

Associations between Big Five Personality Traits, Facets, and Sexual Fantasies

PONE-D-25-12929R2

Dear Dr. Chopik,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Vilfredo De Pascalis

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

I see that the authors have addressed the very minor suggested changes; thus, the manuscript can now be accepted for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

 10.1371/journal.pone.0329745.r006 Acceptance letter De Pascalis Vilfredo Academic Editor 2026 Vilfredo De Pascalis This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

PONE-D-25-12929R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chopik,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Vittorio Lenzo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE