Traits Selection in Created Personal Ads and Sociosexuality: A New Method to Assess Sexual Strategy in Humans

Justyna Kajstura; Bogusław Pawłowski

doi:10.18778/1898-6773.88.2.01

Authors

Justyna Kajstura Department of Human Biology, University of Wrocław, Wrocław, Poland https://orcid.org/0009-0001-3429-3193
Bogusław Pawłowski Department of Human Biology, University of Wrocław, Wrocław, Poland https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7418-475X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1898-6773.88.2.01

Keywords:

sociosexuality, preferred traits, attractiveness, commitment, social skills, sexual strategy

Abstract

Sociosexuality (SO) refers to preferring sexual interactions with or without commitment. Those who prefer long-term relationships have restricted SO, and those who pursue short-term relationships have an unrestricted SO. Sociosexuality may be assessed by Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI-R). Here, we test a new method to assess SO. Respondents are asked to create a personal ad by selecting six out of 10 suggested preferred traits in a partner. Among these 10 traits, there were two traits in each of five evolutionary relevant categories i.e., attractiveness, commitment, resources, cognitive and social skills. We hypothesize that seeking attractiveness/sensuality in a potential partner is related to concentrating on mating investments (higher SOI-R) and to commitment to parental investment (lower SOI-R). Out of 416 subjects who participated in the study, 299 (188 women) were included in the analysis. We found that choosing two traits of attractiveness is related to a less restricted SO, while preference for two commitment traits category characterizes those with a more restrictive SO. No relationship between SOI-R and the preference for cognitive skills or resources was found. Women with more and men with less restricted SO sought partners with better social skills. The proposed new method could be used to assess reproductive strategy.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Asendorpf J, Penke L. 2005. A mature evolutionary psychology demands careful conclusions about sex differences. Behav Brain Sci 28(2):275–276. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05220058
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05220058

Baron R, Markman G. 2000. Beyond social capital: How social skills can enhance entrepreneurs’ success. Acad Manage Perspectives 14:106–116. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2000.2909843
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2000.2909843

Barta W, Kiene S. 2005. Motivations for infidelity in heterosexual dating couples: The roles of gender, personality differences, and sociosexual orientation. J Soc Pers Relat 22(3):339–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407505052440
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407505052440

Beheshtifar M, Norozy T. 2013. Social skills: A factor to employees’ success. Int J Acad Resin Bus Soc Sci 3:2222-6990.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v3-i7/6

Bovet J, Raiber E, Ren W, Wang C, Seabright P. 2018. Parent-offspring conflict over mate choice: An experimental study in China. Brit J Psychol 109(4):674–693. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12319
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12319

Brase GL, Adair L, Monk K. 2014. Explaining Sex Differences in Reactions to Relationship Infidelities: Comparisons of the Roles of Sex, Gender, Beliefs, Attachment, and Sociosexual Orientation. Evol Psychol 12(1):73–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470491401200106
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/147470491401200106

Brosnan SF, Salwiczek L, Bshary R. 2010. The interplay of cognition and cooperation. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biol Sci 365(1553):2699–2710. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0154
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0154

Buss D. 1989. Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behav Brain Sci 12:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00023992
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00023992

Buss D, Schmitt D. 1993. Sexual Strategies Theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychol Rev 100(2):204–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.100.2.204

Campbell L, Ellis B. 2015. Commitment, Love, and Mate Retention. In: Buss D. The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, John Wiley, Sons, Inc. 419–442.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470939376.ch14

Castro F, Lopes F. 2011. Romantic preferences in Brazilian undergraduate students: from the short term to the long term. J Sex Res 48:479–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2010.506680
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2010.506680

Cornwell RE, Perrett DI. 2008. Sexy sons and sexy daughters: The influence of parents’ facial characteristics on offspring. Anim Behav 76(6):1843–1853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.07.031
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.07.031

Csajbók Z, Berkics M. 2017. Factor, factor, on the whole, who’s the best fitting of all?: Factors of mate preferences in a large sample. Pers Indiv Differ 114:92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.03.044
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.03.044

Csajbók Z, Berkics M, Havlicek J. 2022. Meeting minimum mate preference thresholds can be more important than the overall score. Pers Indiv Differ 95:111675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111675
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111675

D’Augelli J, D’Augelli A. 1977. Moral reasoning and premarital sexual behavior: Toward reasoning about relationships. J Soc Issues 33(2):46–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1977.tb02005.x
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1977.tb02005.x

Eysenck H. 1976. The structure of social attitudes. Br J Soc Clin Psychol 14(4):323–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1975.tb00188.x
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1975.tb00188.x

Fales MR, Frederick DA, Garcia JR, Gildersleeve KA, Haselton MG, Fisher HE. 2016. Mating markets and bargaining hands: Mate preferences for attractiveness and resources in two national U.S. Studies. Pers Indiv Differ 88:78–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.08.041
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.08.041

Fletcher G, Tither J, O’Loughlin C, Friesen M, Overall N. 2004. Warm and homely or cold and beautiful? Sex differences in trading off traits in mate selection. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 30(6):659–672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203262847
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203262847

Gangestad S. 1993. Sexual selection and physical attractiveness: Implications for mating dynamics. Hum Nature 4(3):205–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02692200
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02692200

Hackathorn J, Brantley A. 2014. To know you is (not) to want you: Mediators between sociosexual orientation and romantic commitment. Curr Psychol 33:89–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-013-9199-9
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-013-9199-9

Hendrick S, Hendrick C, Slapion-Foote M, Foote F. 1985. Gender differences in sexual attitudes. J Pers Soc Psychol 48(6):1630–1642. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1630
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.48.6.1630

Jankowski KS. 2016. Charakterystyka psychometryczna polskiej wersji zrewidowanego Inwentarza Orientacji Socjoseksualnej (SOI-R). In: A Rynkiewicz, KS Jankowski, W Oniszczenko, editors. Wybrane metody i paradygmaty badawcze w psychologii. Warsaw: Scholar. 77–92.
View in Google Scholar

Jessor R, Costa F, Jessor L, Donovan JE. 1983. Time of first intercourse: A prospective study. J Pers Soc Psychol 44(3):608–626. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.3.608
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.44.3.608

Jonason PK, Nolland M, Tyler MD. 2017. Incorporating geographic distance into mate preference research: Necessities and luxuries, 2.0. Pers Relationships 24(3):585–597. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12199
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12199

Jurich A, Jurich J. 1974. The effects of cognitive moral development upon the selection of premarital sexual standards. J Marriage Fam 36(4):736–741. https://doi.org/10.2307/350356
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/350356

Kelley J. 1978. Sexual permissiveness: Evidence for a theory. J Marriage Fam 40(3):455–468. https://doi.org/10.2307/350927
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/350927

Kenrick DG, Trost M, 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(6):951–969. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.6.951
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.64.6.951

Kinsey AC, Pomeroy WB, Martin CE. 1948. Sexual behavior in the human male. Saunders. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.93.6.894
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.6.894

Kuhn P, Weinberger C. 2002. Leadership Skills and Wages. J Labor Econ 23. https://doi.org/10.1086/430282
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.310372

Lancaster JB, Lancaster CS. 1987. The watershed: Change in parental-investment and family-formation strategies in the course of human evolution. In: JB Lancaster, J Altmann, AS Rossi, LR Sherrod, editors. Parenting across the life span: Biosocial dimensions. Aldine Publishing Co. 187–205.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315126005-10

Li NP, Bailey JM, Kenrick DT, Linsenmeier JA. 2002. The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: testing the tradeoffs. J Pers Soc Psychol 82(6):947–955. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.947
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.947

Li NP, Meltzer AL. 2015. The validity of sex-differentiated mate preferences: Reconciling the seemingly conflicting evidence. Evol Behav Sci 9(2):89–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000036
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000036

Lippa RA. 2009. Sex differences in sex drive, sociosexuality, and height across 53 nations: testing evolutionary and social structural theories. Arch Sex Behav 38(5):631–651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-007-9242-8
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-007-9242-8

Marcinkowska UM, Brewer G, Jaremba A, Jones I, Payne E, Lyons MT. 2021. Dark triad, sociosexual orientation, and mate preferences in short and long-term relationships – Exploratory study. Pers Indiv Differ 180:110968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110968
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110968

Mercer GW, Kohn PM. 1979. Gender differences in the integration of conservatism, sex urge, and sexual behaviors among college students. J Sex Res 15(2):129–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224497909551031
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00224497909551031

Muggleton NK, Fincher CL. 2017. Unrestricted sexuality promotes distinctive short- and long-term mate preferences in women. Pers Indiv Differ 111:169–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.054
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.054

Mulder MB, Beheim BA. 2011. Understanding the nature of wealth and its effects on human fitness. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biol Sci 366(1563):344–356. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0231
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0231

Nelissen RMA, Meijers MHC. 2011. Social benefits of luxury brands as costly signals of wealth and status. Evol Hum Behav 32(5):343–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.12.002
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.12.002

Paul ES, Harding EJ, Mendl M. 2005. Measuring emotional processes in animals: the utility of a cognitive approach. Neurosci Biobehav R 29(3):469–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.01.002
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.01.002

Penke L, Asendorpf J. 2008. Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol 95(5):1113–1135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113

Pflüger LS, Oberzaucher E, Katina S, Holzleitner IJ, Grammer K. 2012. Cues to fertility: Perceived attractiveness and facial shape predict reproductive success. Evol Hum Behav 33(6):708–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.05.005
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.05.005

Regan P, Berscheid E. 1997. Gender differences in characteristics desired in a potential sexual and marriage partner. J Psychol Hum Sex 9(1):25–37. https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v09n01_02
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v09n01_02

Regan P, Levin L, Gate R, Sprecher S, Christopher F. 2000. Partner preferences: What characteristics do men and women desire in their short-term sexual and long-term romantic partners? J Psychol Hum Sex 12(3):1–21. https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v12n03_01
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v12n03_01

Rosenthal GG. 2017. Mate choice: The evolution of sexual decision making from microbes to humans. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.23943/princeton/9780691150673.001.0001

von Rueden C. 2014. The roots and fruits of social status in small-scale human societies. In: JT Cheng, JL Tracy, C Anderson, editors. The psychology of social status. Springer Science + Business Media. 179–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0867-7_9
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0867-7_9

Schacht R, Kramer KL. 2019. Are We Monogamous? A Review of the Evolution of Pair-Bonding in Humans and Its Contemporary Variation Cross-Culturally. Front Ecol and Evol 7:426706. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00230
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00230

Schmitt D. 2005. Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behav Brain Sci 28(2):247–275. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x05000051
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05000051

Schwarz S, Klümper L, Hassebrauck M. 2020. Are sex differences in mating preferences really “overrated”? The effects of sex and relationship orientation on long-term and short-term mate preferences. Evol Psychol Sci 6(2):174–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-019-00223-y
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-019-00223-y

Simpson J, Gangestad S. 1991. Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. J Pers Soc Psychol 60(6):870–883. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.60.6.870
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.60.6.870

Simpson J, Gangestad S. 1992. Sociosexuality and romantic partner choice. J Pers 60(1):31–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00264.x
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00264.x

Sprecher S, Regan P. 2002. Liking some things (in some people) more than others: Partner preferences in romantic relationships and friendships. J Soc Pers Relat 19(4):463–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407502019004048
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407502019004048

Stewart S, Stinnett H, Rosenfeld LB. 2000. Sex differences in desired characteristics of short-term and long-term relationship partners. J Soc Pers Relat 17(6):843–853. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407500176008
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407500176008

Stewart-Williams S, Thomas AG. 2013. The ape that thought it was a peacock: Does evolutionary psychology exaggerate human sex differences? Psychol Inq 24(3):137–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2013.804899
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2013.804899

Taborsky B, Oliveira RF. 2012. Social competence: an evolutionary approach. Trends Ecol Evol 27(12):679–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.09.003
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.09.003

Thomas AG, Jonason PK, Blackburn JD, Ottesen Kennair LE, Lowe R, Malouff J, Stewart-Williams S, Sulikowski D, Li NP. 2020. Mate preference priorities in the East and West: A cross-cultural test of the mate preference priority model. J Pers 88(3):606–620. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12514
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12514

Townsend J, Kline J, Wasserman TH. 1995. Low-investment copulation: Sex differences in motivations and emotional reactions. Ethol Sociobiol 16(1):25–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(94)00027-5
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(94)00027-5

Walter KV, Conroy-Beam D, Buss DM, Asao K, Sorokowska A, Sorokowski P, Aavik T, Akello G, Alhabahba MM, Alm C, Amjad N, Anjum A, Atama CS, Atamtürk Duyar D, Ayebare R, Batres C, Bendixen M, Bensafia A, Bizumic B, Boussena M, Butovskaya M, Can S, Cantarero K, Carrier A, Cetinkaya H, Croy I, Cueto RM, Czub M, Dronova D, Dural S, Duyar I, Ertugrul B, Espinosa A, Estevan I, Esteves CS, Fang L, Frackowiak T, Garduño JC, González KU, Guemaz F, Gyuris P, Halamová M, Herak I, Horvat M, Hromatko I, Hui CM, Jaafar JL, Jiang F, Kafetsios K, Kavčič T, Kennair LEO, Kervyn N, Khanh Ha TT, Khilji IA, Köbis NC, Lan HM, Láng A, Lennard GR, León E, Lindholm T, Linh TT, Lopez G, Van Luot N, Mailhos A, Manesi Z, Martinez R, McKerchar SL, Meskó N, Misra G, Monaghan C, Mora EC, Moya-Garófano A, Musil B, Natividade JC, Niemczyk A, Nizharadze G, Oberzaucher E, Oleszkiewicz A, Omar-Fauzee MS, Onyishi IE, Özener B, Pagani AF, Pakalniskiene V, Parise M, Pazhoohi F, Pisanski A, Pisanski K, Ponciano E, Popa C, Prokop P, Rizwan M, Sainz M, Salkičević S, Sargautyte R, Sarmány-Schuller I, Schmehl S, Sharad S, Siddiqui RS et al. 2020. Sex differences in mate preferences across 45 countries: A large-scale replication. Psychol Sci 31(4):408–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620904154
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620904154

Waters E, Sroufe LA. 1983. Social competence as a developmental construct. Dev Rev 3(1):79–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(83)90010-2
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(83)90010-2

Washburn SL, Lancaster GS. 1968. The Evolution of Hunting. In: RB Lee, I DeVore, editors. Man the Hunter. Routledge. 293–303.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203786567-39

Webster G, Bryan A. 2007. Sociosexual attitudes and behaviors: Why two factors are better than one. J Res Pers 41(4):917–922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.08.007
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.08.007

Wicker AW. 1969. Attitudes versus actions: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. J Soc Issues 25(4):41–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1969.tb00619.x
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1969.tb00619.x

Wiederman MW, Dubois SL. 1998. Evolution and sex differences in preferences for short-term mates: Results from a policy capturing study. Evol Human Behav 19(3):153–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(98)00006-3
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(98)00006-3

Wilbur CJ, Campbell L. 2010. What do women want? An interactionist account of women’s mate preferences. Pers Indiv Differ 49(7):749–754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.06.020
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.06.020

Witt LA, Ferris GR. 2003. Social skill as moderator of the conscientiousness-performance relationship: Convergent results across four studies. J Appl Psychol 88(5):809–82. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.809
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.809