Self-perceived sociosexuality and mate value asymmetry in heterosexual romantic relationships

• Authors: Aleksandra Gomula , Natalia Nowak-Szczepanska , Dariusz P. Danel
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Previous works have shown that sociosexuality may affect mate choice and correspond to partners’ mate value (MV). However, there is a lack of studies that directly show how a difference between both partners’ mate values (MVD) relates to reproductive strategies. In this study we investigated a possible link between self-reported measures of individual differences in human mating strategies (SOI-R) and self-perceived mate value asymmetry (difference between partners’ MV) in heterosexual romantic relationships. Two hundred forty-nine heterosexual participants (all in romantic relationships) completed an online questionnaire. Their sociosexuality was measured using Revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI-R) (Penke and Asendorpf 2008). The assessment of the participant’s and his/her partner’s MVs were obtained using the MV measure by Graham-Kevan and Archer (2009). MVD was calculated by deducting the assessment of partner’s MV and MV self-assessment. Our results revealed that in men, with the increase of the discrepancy in mate value in favor of their female partners, male global sociosexuality and sociosexual desire decreased. In contrast, in women no significant correlations were found. We propose several possible explanations, based on evolutionary psychology, discussing our results within the context of potential benefits for reproductive success in both sexes due to the lower male sociosexuality

Keywords

EN

reproductive strategies; mate value difference; mate choice

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Anthropological Review
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 77
• Issue: 3
• Pages: 287-298

Dates

published

2014-12-01

received

2014-06-17

accepted

2014-11-03

online

2014-12-20

Contributors

author

Aleksandra Gomula

• Polish Academy of Sciences Anthropology Unit in Wroclaw, Poland

author

Natalia Nowak-Szczepanska

• Polish Academy of Sciences Anthropology Unit in Wroclaw, Poland

author

Dariusz P. Danel

• Polish Academy of Sciences Anthropology Unit in Wroclaw, Poland

References

• Betzig LL. 1986. Despotism and differential reproduction: A Darwinian view of history. Hawthorne, NY, US: Aldine Publishing Co.
• Boothroyd LG, Jones BC, Burt DM, DeBruine LM, Perrett DI. 2008. Facial correlates of sociosexuality. Evol Hum Behav 29:211-18.[WoS][Crossref]
• Brase GL, Guy EC. 2004. The demographics of mate value and self-esteem. Pers Indiv Differ 36:471-84.[Crossref]
• Buss DM. 1989. Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behav Brain Sci 12:1-14.[Crossref]
• Buss DM, Barnes M. 1986. Preferences in human mate selection. J Pers Soc Psychol 50:559-70.[Crossref]
• Buss DM, Schmitt DP. 1993. Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychol Rev 100:204-32.[PubMed][Crossref]
• Buss DM, Shackelford TK. 1997. From vigilance to violence: Mate retention tactics in married couples. J Pers Soc Psychol 72:346-61.[PubMed][Crossref]
• Buss DM, Shackelford TK, Kirkpatrick LA, Larsen RJ. 2001. A half century of mate preferences: The cultural evolution of values. J Marriage Fam 63:491-503.[Crossref]
• Chamorro-Premuzic T. 2007. Personality and individual differences (BPS textbooks in psychology). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
• Chara P, Kuennen LM. 1994. Diverging gender attitudes regarding casual sex: A cross-sectional study. Psychol Rep 74:57-58.[PubMed][Crossref]
• Clark AP. 2006. Are the correlates of sociosexuality different for men and women? Pers Indiv Differ 41:1321-27.[Crossref]
• Clark RD, Hatfield E. 1989. Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. J Psychol Hum Sex 2:39-55.[Crossref]
• Dawkins R. 1986. Wealth, polygyny, and reproductive success. Behav Brain Sci 9:190-91.[Crossref]
• Figueredo AJ, McCloskey LA. 1993. Sex, money, and paternity: The evolutionary psychology of domestic violence. Ethol Sociobiol 14:353-79.[Crossref]
• Gangestad, SW. 1993. Sexual selection and physical attractiveness. Human Nature 4:205-35.[Crossref]
• Gangestad SW, Simpson JA. 2000. The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behav Brain Sci 2z:573-587.[Crossref]
• Goodwin R, Marshall T, Fulop M, Adonu J, Spiewak S, Neto F, et al. 2012. Mate value and self-esteem: Evidence from eight cultural groups. Plos One 7:e36106.[WoS][Crossref]
• Gosling SD, Vazire S, Srivastava S, John OP. 2004. Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. Am Psychol 59:93-104.[Crossref][PubMed]
• Graham-Kevan N, Archer J. 2009. Control tactics and partner violence in heterosexual relationships. Evol Hum Behav 30:445-52.[WoS][Crossref]
• Hill SE, Reeve HK. 2004. Mating games: the evolution of human mating transactions. Behav Ecol 15:748-56.[Crossref]
• Kardum I, Hudek- Knežević J, Gračanin A. 2006. Sociosexuality and mate retention in romantic couples. Psychological Topics 15:277-96.
• Kenrick DT, Groth GE, Trost MR, Sadalla EK. 1993. Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria. J Pers Soc Psychol 64:951-69.[Crossref]
• Kinsey AC, Pomeroy WB, Martin CE. 1949. Sexual behavior in the human male. J Nerv Ment Dis 109:283.[Crossref]
• Jonason PK, Luevano VX, Adams HM. 2012. How the Dark Triad traits predict relationship choices. Pers Indiv Differ 53:180-84.[WoS][Crossref]
• Li NP, Bailey JM, Kenrick DT, Linsenmeier JAW. 2002. The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. J Pers Soc Psychol 82:947-55.[Crossref][PubMed]
• Little AC, Jones BC, DeBruine LM. 2011. Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary based research. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 366:1638-59.
• Miller GF. 2007. Sexual selection for moral virtues. Q Rev Biol 82:97-125.[PubMed][WoS][Crossref]
• Nieuwenhuis S, Forstmann BU, Wagenmakers EJ. 2011. Erroneous analyses of interactions in neuroscience: A problem of significance. Nature Neuroscience 14:1105-07.[PubMed][WoS][Crossref]
• Nowak N, Danel D. 2014. Mate value asymmetry and relationship satisfaction in female opinion. J Sex Marital Ther 40:425-33.[PubMed][Crossref][WoS]
• Pawlowski B. 2000. The biological meaning of preferences on the human mate market. Anthropol Rev 63:39-72.
• Penke L, Asendorpf JB. 2008. Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol 95:1113-35.[Crossref][WoS]
• Penke L, Denissen JJA. 2008. Sex differences and lifestyle-dependent shifts in the attunement of self-esteem to self-perceived mate value: Hints to an adaptive mechanism? J Res Pers 42:1123-29.[Crossref][WoS]
• Provost MP, Kormos C, Kosakoski G, Quinsey VL. 2006. Sociosexuality in women and preference for facial masculinization and somatotype in men. Arch Sex Behav 35:305-12.[Crossref][PubMed]
• Provost MP, Troje N, Quinsey V. 2008. Shortterm mating strategies and attraction to masculinity in point-light walkers. Evol Hum Behav 29:65-69.[Crossref][WoS]
• Reise SP, Wright TM. 1996. Personality traits, cluster B personality disorders, and sociosexuality. J Res Pers 30:128-36.[Crossref]
• Schmitt DP. 2005. Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behav Brain Sci 28:247-311.[PubMed]
• Schmitt DP, Buss DM. 1996. Strategic self-promotion and competitor derogation: Sex and context effects on the perceived effectiveness of mate attraction tactics. J Pers Soc Psychol 70:1185-204.[Crossref][PubMed]
• Simpson JA, Gangestad SW. 1991. Idividual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. J Pers Soc Psychol 60:870-83.[Crossref]
• Simpson JA, Gangestad SW. 1992. Sociosexuality and romantic partner choice. J Pers 60:31-52.[Crossref]
• Stanisz A. 2006. Przystępny kurs statystyki. StatSoft Polska Sp. z oo, Kraków. In Polish.
• Surbey M, Conohan C. 2000. Willingness to engage in casual sex. Human Nature 11:367-86.[Crossref]
• Symons D. 1995. Beauty is in the adaptations of the beholder: The evolutionary psychology of human female sexual attractiveness. Sexual nature, sexual culture. Chicago, IL, US: University of Chicago Press.
• Thiessen D, Gregg B. 1980. Human assortative mating and genetic equilibrium: An evolutionary perspective. Ethol Sociobiol 1:111-40.[Crossref]
• Trivers RL. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. In: B. Campbell, editor. Sexual selection and the descent of man. Chicago, IL: Aldine. 136-79.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/anre-2014-0022