PREDICTING PREFERENCES FOR SHORT-TERM MATING IN WOMEN BASED
ON PERSONALITY AND CONTEXTUAL VARIABLES
A Thesis
Presented to the faculty of the Department of Psychology
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
Psychology
by
Rachael Christine Grippe
SPRING
2014
© 2014
Rachael Christine Grippe
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
PREDICTING PREFERENCES FOR SHORT-TERM MATING IN WOMEN BASED
ON PERSONALITY AND CONTEXTUAL VARIABLES
A Thesis
by
Rachael Christine Grippe
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Lisa Bohon, Ph. D.
__________________________________, Second Reader
Rachel August, Ph. D.
__________________________________, Third Reader
Emily Wickelgren, Ph. D.
____________________________
Date
iii
Student: Rachael Christine Grippe
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format
manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for
the thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator ___________________
JianJian Qin, Ph. D.
Date
Department of Psychology
iv
Abstract
of
PREDICTING PREFERENCES FOR SHORT-TERM MATING IN WOMEN BASED
ON PERSONALITY AND CONTEXTUAL VARIABLES
by
Rachael Christine Grippe
There is limited research analyzing the variables that contribute to the preference to engage in
short-term mating in strictly female samples. More specifically, the combination of the Big Five,
The Dark Triad, esteem, religiosity, physical attractiveness, presence of a father figure, ethnicity,
relationship status, and age. Participants in the current study were self-selected from the
Psychology research subject pool at California State University, Sacramento. The sample
consisted of 316 female participants whose ages ranged from 16 - 44 years, with an average age
of 20.5 years. The sample was ethnically diverse. A series of standard linear regression and oneway ANOVAs were used to analyze the data. Results indicated that personality, context variables,
and learning predicted unrestricted sexual behavior, as well as attitudes towards uncommitted
sexual activity and the desire to engage in short-term mating.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Lisa Bohon, Ph. D.
_______________________
Date
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge my advisor, Dr. Lisa Bohon and my committee, Dr. Emily
Wickelgren and Dr. Rachel August for making me a better writer and more competent researcher;
also many thanks to my research assistants, Jack Strelich, Miriam and Julia for helping run the
research sessions and making data collection possible. I would also like to acknowledge my
wonderful husband for supporting me in this endeavor and standing by my side through the hours
of hard work that it took to get me to here. Last, but not least, to my parents for making the
completion of this thesis and program even possible.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. vi
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... ix
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ...................... ……………………………………………………….. 1
Short-term versus Long-term Mating .......................................................................... 2
Short-term Mating Measures ...................................................................................... 6
Personality Factors in Short-term Mating .................................................................... 6
Contextual Factors in Short-term Mating .................................................................. 12
Current Research Project ........................................................................................... 16
2. METHOD ......................................................................................................................... 18
Overview .................................................................................................................... 18
Participants................................................................................................................. 18
Materials .................................................................................................................... 19
Procedure ................................................................................................................... 27
3. RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 30
Hypothesis 1 .............................................................................................................. 30
Hypothesis 2 .............................................................................................................. 33
Hypothesis 3 .............................................................................................................. 34
Hypothesis 4 .............................................................................................................. 36
Hypothesis 5 .............................................................................................................. 38
Hypothesis 6 .............................................................................................................. 39
vii
Hypothesis 7 .............................................................................................................. 43
Exploratory Analyses ................................................................................................. 44
4. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................... 53
Person Variables ........................................................................................................ 53
Context Variables ...................................................................................................... 58
Exploratory Analyses ................................................................................................. 59
Summary .................................................................................................................... 61
Limitations ................................................................................................................. 62
Future Research ......................................................................................................... 64
Appendix A. Demographics ................................................................................................. 66
Appendix B. The Big Five Inventory.................................................................................... 69
Appendix C. Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale ............................................................................ 72
Appendix D. Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale ......................................................................... 74
Appendix E. Body Esteem Scale .......................................................................................... 75
Appendix F. Machiavellianism Inventory ........................................................................... 77
Appendix G. Marlow-Crowne Social Desirability Scale ...................................................... 79
Appendix H. Narcissistic Personality Inventory .................................................................. 81
Appendix I. Religious Orientation Scale-Revised ............................................................... 84
Appendix J. Subclinical Psychopathy Inventory ................................................................. 85
Appendix K. Revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory ................................................... 87
References ............................................................................................................................... 89
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Page
1.
Descriptive Statistics for Personality Variables and Context Variables……………. 31
2.
Correlations Between Personality and Context Variables………………….……..... 32
3.
Regression Analyses Using Personality and Contextual Variables to Predict Sexual
Behavior in Women …………………………..………….………………………… 41
4.
Regression Analyses Using Personality and Contextual Variables to Predict Attitudes
Towards Uncommitted Sexual Activity in Women………….……….……………. 42
5.
Regression Analyses Using Personality and Contextual Variables to Predict the Sexual
Desire in Women……………………………….……..…………………………..... 43
6.
Exploratory Regression Analysis Using Personality and Contextual Variables to Predict
the Sexual Behavior in Women ………………………...……………………….…. 46
7.
Exploratory Regression Analysis Using Personality and Contextual Variables to Predict
Attitudes Towards Uncommitted Sex in Women………………………….……….. 48
8.
Exploratory Regression Analysis Using Personality and Contextual Variables to Predict
Sexual Desire in Women ……………………………….……....………………….. 50
ix
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Relationships like ‘‘hook ups’’ (Fielder & Carey, 2010; Townsend & Wasserman, 2011),
‘‘friends-with-benefits’’ (i.e., relationships between friends in which the friends engage in
sexual activity, but do not define their relationship as romantic; Epstein, Calzo, Smiler, &
Ward, 2009; Wentland & Reissing, 2011), and ‘‘booty- calls’’ (i.e., relationships where
there is solicitation from a non-long-term partner for the explicit or implicit intent of
engaging in sexual activity; Jonason et al., 2009a; Jonason, Li, & Richardson, 2010;
Wentland & Reissing, 2011) have come under recent investigation. Some of the
principle investigators of mating styles are psychologists who study behaviors from an
evolutionary point of view.
Evolutionary psychology (EP) focuses on human adaptations to the huntergatherer way of life that are believed to have shaped human psychology over
approximately two million years (Barkow, Cosmides, & Tooby, 1992; Buss, 1999;
Cosmides, & Tooby, 1987; Durrant & Ellis, 2003). This approach generally identifies
evolutionary influences on modern behavior in terms of cross-cultural universals such as
proposed universal sex differences in sexual jealousy and mate selection criteria (Geary,
1998), but recognizes that universal human characteristics, such as emotions, may find
different expression in different societies (Fessler, 2004). Buss and Schmitt (1993) have
proposed a contextual-evolutionary theory of human mating strategies; women (and men)
have evolved distinct psychological mechanisms that underlie their mating strategies.
2
These mechanisms function to solve the adaptive problems that arise when attempting to
effectively pursue short or long-term mating (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Evidence shows
that women are less oriented toward short-term mating than men. Their short-term mating
preferences do still correspond to the adaptive benefits that they could receive from shortterm mating; the data show the benefits to be primarily the access to resources and the
having the strength and protection from other non-mated males (Buss & Schmitt, 1993).
In contrast, “standard” social science focuses on the present, and attempts to
account for behavioral variation in terms of contemporary influences without reference to
the evolutionary past (Barber, N., 2005). It is my goal to build a bridge between the EP
realm and the social psychology realm. In the past, men have primarily been the focus of
research pertaining to short-term mating; it provides them with an evolutionary advantage
(over other men), leading them to evolve a stronger preference for short-term mating
compared to women (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Therefore, I will test evolutionary
hypotheses based on both the person and the context as they predict preferences for shortterm mating in strictly women.
Short-Term versus Long-term Mating
From an evolutionary perspective, personality and behavior have developed in
ways that are beneficial for the continuation of the individual’s genes (Barash & Lipton,
2001). Sexual Strategies Theory explains that even though men and women engage in
both short-term and long-term mating strategies, short-term mating provides men with an
evolutionary advantage (over other men) and thus, men have evolved a stronger
preference for short-term mating compared to women.
3
Starting with long-term mating for men, the primary reproductive advantage is
that it offers the possibility of monopolizing a woman’s lifetime reproductive resources
(Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Some other benefits for long-term mating would include:
attracting and retaining a women of high mate value; being in a current pair bond rather
than spending resources in pursuing a pair bond; increasing the genetic quality of
children by mating with a desirable mate; solving the problem of concealed ovulation in
women; decreasing the odds of being cuckolded; and reaping the benefits of mutual
cooperation and division of labor (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). This strategy does not come
without costs, mainly the opportunity cost: the copulations that the man could have
obtained if he were not committed to a long-term mate (Buss & Schmitt, 1993).
In theory a woman could obtain a more genetically and resource rich partner
through a brief encounter rather than through LTM. However, it is the male parental
investment from which she would benefit in long-term mating that may keep her away
from short-term mating (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Buss and Schmitt (1993) list the three
benefits that can come with long-term mating for women: immediate material advantage
to the woman and her children, enhanced reproductive advantage for her children through
acquired social and economic benefits, and genetic reproductive advantage for her
children if variations in the qualities that lead to resource acquisition are partly heritable.
The opportunity costs to women of long-term mating are generally less severe than those
incurred by men (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). For instance, limiting a woman’s mating
opportunities does not typically restrict the number of children that she can have, as it
does with men (Buss & Schmitt, 1993).
4
Moving to short-term mating, there are reproductive benefits that historically
would have come to men who were successful in pursuing this strategy, one being an
increase in the number of possible offspring (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). However, shortterm mating also comes with potential costs: the risk of contracting sexually transmitted
diseases, which increases with every new partner; the acquisition of a social reputation
as a womanizer, which could have a negative effect on mate value when trying to find a
long-term partner (if a woman has a high mate value, she may not want to commit to a
man who has previously been promiscuous, which would indicate poor prospects for
enduring parental investment); reduction in the survival and reproductive success of his
own offspring; and the risk of violence at the hands of family, or jealous husbands or
partners (Buss & Schmitt, 1993).
When women engage in short-term mating there are also some benefits. Buss
(1993) hypothesizes that there is a benefit in the possibility of obtaining better genes that
can be passed on to offspring. Other key benefits include: the immediate extraction of
resources, using short-term mating to evaluate long-term prospects, and gaining increased
protection (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). However, there are definite costs to women when
they choose to engage in short-term mating; while the costs are similar to those incurred
by men they are likely to be more severe (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Like men, women risk
contracting sexually transmitted diseases with increased sexual contact, also like men,
they risk damaging their long-term mate value by acquiring a social reputation as
promiscuous. This damage is likely to be more severe for women, because of the
asymmetry between men and women in confidence in parenthood (Buss & Schmitt,
5
1993). Men might be concerned with female infidelity leading to cuckoldry. Also,
women who have higher mate value tend to be more discriminating than women of low
mate value (Buss, 1988a). Therefore, sexual promiscuity might be interpreted as a sign
that a woman cannot obtain a long-term mate of high quality who is willing to commit
resources and parental investment (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Women are also at risk of
being subjected to abuse (both physical and sexual) if they are careless, because some
men are physically larger and stronger, and might abuse women in an attempt to control
them (Buss & Schmitt, 1993).
Focusing on the current research it is important to mention that the factors that
make a person desirable depend on whether that person is being considered for short-term
mating or long-term mating (Smiler, 2011). This is why women may have evolved
preferences for short-term relationship partners who demonstrate "honest" signals of
heritable fitness such as attractiveness, as there is a modest link between physical
attractiveness and health (Shackelford & Larsen, 1999). Therefore, it would make sense
that women seeking short-term mates would put more emphasis on the attractiveness of a
partner and deemphasize the importance of trustworthiness, status-resources, romance,
and other qualities that they would seek in long-term mates (Fletcher et al., 2000;
Fletcher, Tither, O'Loughlin, Friesen, & Overall, 2004; Gangestad & Thornhill, 1997;
Kenrick, Sadalla, Groth, & Trost, 1990; Li & Kenrick, 2006; Scheib, 2001). Supporting
this idea, women who have greater openness toward short-term sexual relationships
tended to favor an attractive, yet disloyal (i.e., untrustworthy) man over an average-
6
looking yet loyal man when asked to choose between the two (Simpson & Gangestad,
1992).
Short-term Mating Measures
Short-term mating is not a one-dimensional construct. Some individuals seek
short-term sexual relationships in addition to their long-term relationships, which is more
commonly known as infidelity (Wiederman, 1997). Others seek short-term partners as
their primary mode of mating (i.e., promiscuity; Paul, McManus, & Hayes, 2000). Still
others may possess high levels of interest in short-term mating, but are not able or willing
to engage in this activity (Jackson & Kirkpatrick, 2007; Webster & Bryan, 2007). Each of
these facets of short-term mating are likely interrelated, given that low levels of shortterm sexual interest would lead to relatively little short-term mating behavior.
Because of the potential differences between sexual interests and behaviors, I will
assess short-term mating by using multiple measures. An abundance of research has
focused on men and their preference for short-term mating (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Li,
2013; Jonason, 2011). Instead, I will focus on women, their personality profiles, their
contextual constraints and their preference for short-term mating. The combination of
these approaches may help to shed more light on some of the factors that contribute to a
preference for short-term mating in women.
Personality Factors in Short-Term Mating
Big Five Personality Traits
Personality traits and their relation to individual’s choices when it comes to dating
has been a focus of the growing body of research on the subject of mating. As part of the
7
International Sexuality Description Project, 13, 243 participants from 46 nations
responded to self-report measures of personality and mating behavior. From this data
Schmitt and Shackelford (2008) found in both men and women, that extraversion was
positively correlated with an interest in short-term mating. In addition, extraversion was
also positively related to unrestricted sociosexuality, or the willingness to engage in
sexual activities that are more casual in nature and not necessarily related to being in
love. Schmitt and Shackelford (2008) also found that these men and women who rated
higher in extraversion had engaged in short-term mate poaching attempts, had succumbed
to short-term poaching attempts of others, and lacked relationship exclusivity. Results
also showed that low levels of agreeableness and conscientiousness related to short-term
mating in both men and women.
The Dark Triad
Recently there has been a surge in the amount of research conducted on the
personality variables that are said to make up the Dark Triad: Psychopathy,
Machiavellianism, and Narcissism. Research suggests that the Dark Triad traits play an
important role in selecting short-term mates; individuals who are high in Dark Triad traits
tend to have low standards for their short-term partners and prefer game playing and
pragmatic love styles. This trend is observed more often in men, because they tend to
score higher on the measures comprising the Dark Triad (Jonason & Kavanagh, 2010;
Jonason et al., 2011). Jonason et al. (2012) found that the Dark Triad traits were each
associated positively with preferences for low-commitment relationships (i.e., one-night
stands, booty-call relationships, and friends-with-benefits) and negatively associated with
8
a preference for serious romantic relationships. In other words, high psychopathology,
Machiavellianism, and narcissism were positively correlated with preferences for shortterm relationships and negatively correlated with preferences for a long-term relationship.
Specifically, narcissism was correlated with preferences for one-night stands and friendswith-benefits, and psychopathy was correlated with preferences for booty-call
relationships. Both narcissism and psychopathy were negatively correlated with
preferences for serious romantic relationships. Using mediation analyses, psychopathy
partially mediated the sex difference in preferences for booty-call relationships, and
narcissism partially mediated the sex difference in preferences for one-night stands. In
addition, the sex difference in preference for serious romantic relationships was partially
mediated by both narcissism and psychopathy. This research suggests that being low on
both of these traits seemed to facilitate long-term mating in women (Jonason, Luevano &
Adams, 2012). It appears the Dark Triad traits facilitate the adoption of specific mating
environments providing fit with people’s personality traits (Jonason, Luevano, & Adams,
2012).
Esteem
Self-esteem is conceptualized as an important component of the self-concept
(Cast & Burke, 2002). The Sociometer Model, developed by Leary and his colleagues
(1995), is the most widely studied informational model of self-esteem; it is a statustracking property, which means that an individual’s self-esteem is dependent on his or her
level of relational value (Bale & Archer, 2013). Individuals with high self-esteem
generally feel worthwhile as human beings and respect themselves, yet they are aware of
9
their faults. Zeigler-Hill (2011) found that individuals with very high self-esteem were
viewed less positively on certain traits than individuals with more moderate self-esteem;
he mentions that one possibility for this is because those with extremely high self-esteem
may be seen as being narcissistic because they appear to think very highly of themselves.
It was also noted that this interpretation is different for women than it is for men; women
with high self-esteem are often seen as having feelings of self-worth that are more
extreme than those of men with similar levels of self-esteem. In other words, women with
high self-esteem may be perceived as somewhat narcissistic (Zeigler-Hill, 2011). In
contrast, low self-esteem individuals feel deficient, unworthy, and inadequate as human
beings and allow their perceived weaknesses to dominate how they feel about themselves
(Sciangula & Marian, 2009). Sociometer theory (Leary & Baumeister, 2000; Leary,
Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, 1995) proposes that self-esteem functions as an interpersonal
monitor of the extent to which an individual is valued or devalued by others as a
relational partner (Bale & Archer, 2013). This is important because the amount of
perceived acceptance we get from others might be integrated into a person's personal
feelings of self-worth (Sciangula, Antonella & Marian, 2009).
There have been several studies that have linked high self-esteem with the
perception of the person being highly desirable as a mate “Higher satisfaction with
romantic relationships and perceptions of the commitment of romantic partners are
associated with higher levels of self-esteem” (Bale & Archer, 2013). Thus one could
hypothesize that a woman with high self-esteem would be choosier and would have a
preference for LTM. Several studies (Brase & Guy, 2004; Penke & Dennisen, 2008;
10
Pass, Lindenberg & Park, 2010) provide evidence that self-esteem is especially sensitive
to people’s self-perceptions of their desirability as a mate. Specifically, Brase and Guy
(2004) found that indicators of mate value were associated with self-esteem such that,
individuals with higher mate value (or perceived themselves as having higher mate value)
tended to report higher self-esteem (Zeigler-Hill & Myers, 2011). In their own study,
Buss and Shackelford (2008) found that women with higher mate value expressed higher
standards for features considered important when looking for a long-term mate. These
included: good-gene indicators (e.g. masculinity), good investment indicators (e.g.
potential income), good parenting indicators (e.g. desire for home and children), and
good partner indicators (e.g. being a loving partner) (Buss & Shackelford, 2008). These
findings combined with Bale and Archer’s (2013) findings provide support for the theory
that individuals with higher self-esteem would prefer engaging in LTM.
The second type of esteem that is addressed in the current research is body
esteem. While research on the relation between body esteem and short-term mating is
limited, previous research has found that women who engage in spectoring (e.g. women
with negative views of their sexual bodies fixating on these negative aspects of their body
during sexual experiences), have an increased avoidance of sexual activity (Fink, Foran,
Sweeney & O’Hea, 2009). This would indicate avoidance of the activities that are
associated with short-term mating.
Religious Orientation
Rowatt and Schmitt (2003) found that religious orientation appears to account for
unique variation in some aspects of sexuality, above and beyond the variation accounted
11
for by gender, social desirability, and other aspects of personality. As such,
multidimensional measures of religiosity are theoretically important to include in future
scientific research on sexuality and personal relationships. Intrinsic religiosity refers to
the extent to which people feel they are “living” their religion; the reasons they have for
being religious are rooted within themselves and is often internalized as a primary motive
for life. If one tends to be more intrinsically motivated, religion affects more areas of life
than just the ‘religious aspects’ (Allport & Ross, 1967). Rowatt and Schmitt (2003) found
that intrinsic religious orientation (i.e., religion as an end rather than as a means to an
end) was negatively associated with the number of sex partners desired across time and
with willingness to consider having sex with a desirable person known for a ‘‘shorter’’
period of time (defined as six months or less). Njus and Bane (2009) found evidence that
intrinsic religiosity is an individual difference variable related to sexual attitudes.
Individuals high in intrinsic orientation expressed more conservative sexual preferences,
were less likely to be looking for a short-term mate, wanted fewer sexual partners in both
the short-term and long-term, and were less willing to engage in intercourse after
knowing a partner for both short and long periods of time (Njus & Bane, 2009).
Extrinsic religiosity refers to the idea that a person uses his or her religion as a
means to an end; individuals who are more extrinsically oriented when it comes to
religion tend to identify with religious ideologies to establish or maintain social networks
(Whitley & Kite, 2010). Gordon Allport stated that people high in external religious
orientation use religion, “to provide security and solace, sociability and distraction, status
and self-justification” (Allport & Ross, 1967, p. 434). As opposed to intrinsic religiosity,
12
extrinsic religiosity is seen as viewing religion as only one guiding source and is usually
compartmentalized; religion is used as a means for others ends (Allport & Ross, 1967).
Rowatt and Schmitt (2003) found that extrinsic religiosity (i.e., religion as a means to an
end) was positively correlated with number of sexual partners desired in the short-term
and willingness to engage in intercourse with a person after having known them for both
short and long periods of time.
Contextual Factors in Short-term Mating
Physical Attractiveness
While long-term mating preferences have been shown in females with higher
mate value regarding physical attractiveness (Buss & Shackelford, 2008), the research on
preference for short-term mating is limited and calls for expansion. Perilloux, Cloud and
Buss (2013), conducted research examining the effects of women’s physical
attractiveness and their short-term mating strategies. While previous research has
indicated that women who are more physically attractive, and thus have a higher mate
value, tend to engage in LTM (Buss & Shackelford, 2008), Perilloux et al. (2013), have
uncovered new research related to the role of physical attractiveness in short-term mating
strategies. In recent research Perilloux et al. (2013), results indicated that the more
women rated themselves to be attractive, the more recent sexual experiences they
reported and the more they endorsed the unrestricted mating strategy. Also related to their
mating strategy was women’s tendency to infer greater sexual interest – but not
commitment interest – from a hypothetical man; this finding replicates the effect in men
who pursue short-term mating strategies (Perilloux, Cloud & Buss, 2013).
13
Parental Investment
Parental investment or lack thereof can have a profound effect in shaping the
mating preferences of children when they mature. According to Barber (2005), previous
research on adults and college students suggests that the experience of parental divorce in
childhood is associated with a reduced ability to form and maintain friendships and
dating relationships that are supportive (Slater & Calhoun, 1988); these findings support
previous research by Wallerstein (1987) who found that 16-18 year-old children of
divorce, particularly young women, mentioned a sense of vulnerability and a fear of
being hurt in romantic relationships. Barber (2005) suggests a more stressful early
environment predisposes people to short-term or unstable, sexual relationships, as
manifested by the data on children of divorced parents.
In college students, Cashdan (1993) found that women’s and men’s sexual
behavior varies considerably as a function of his or her expectations about masculine
commitment in sexual relationships; she concluded that the less emotional commitment
women expected from men in their dating pool, the more short-term was their own
perspective. Barber (2005) explains how important it is to recognize that college students,
as a group, are arguably more immune to preconceived ideas about sexual behavior than
other segments of the population; and thus express evolved psychological tendencies
within their own environment (Barber, 2005). In a study of sexual relationships among
medical school students, Townsend (1998) found that female informants described
dozens of sexual relationships, many undertaken for trivial motives; some women slept
with physically attractive men primarily to demonstrate their own sexual desirability.
14
Some of the women even reported engaging in sexual activity with their former lover’s
best friend motivated solely by spite (Townsend, 1998; Barber, 2005).
Ethnicity
Ethnicity and its associations with behaviors, attitudes, and preference for shortterm mating are relatively unexplored areas within the research literature. However, it has
been found that people from Asian cultures tend to be sexually conservative and refrain
from discussing sex explicitly (Hom, 1998; Savin-Williams, 1996; Yoshio Ka &
Schustack, 2001). The research on people from African American cultures frequently
highlights the importance of church in day-to-day living. This includes being a place to
discuss values about relationships and appropriate sexual behavior; the discussions are
geared toward transmitting religious moral conduct and “traditional family values”
(Woodyward, Peterson, & Stokes, 2000). In more traditional Latino cultures, research has
shown similarities to both the African and Asian American groups; the discussion of sex
is a cultural taboo. In the Latino culture, the rigid gender roles pressure Latina women to
marry and be submissive, which are values that are inconsistent with short-term mating
(Calzo & Ward, 2009). In the current research, I will include ethnicity in the exploratory
analysis portion of the research to determine if ethnicity has an effect on participants’
sexual behavior, attitudes and desires to engage in short-term mating.
Relationship Status
Previous research on relationship status in women who are in the college
environment has shown that the majority of females are actually engaging in dating or in
romantic relationships as opposed to hooking-up (Siebenbruner, 2013). However for
15
many females, hooking-up may be seen as a potential starting point for dating or
developing a romantic relationship (Siebenbruner, 2013). This could explain why more
females who are not in a committed relationship engage in short-term mating activities
when compared to women in committed relationships. Furthermore, women who are in
committed relationship face greater costs for engaging in short-term mating activities
(e.g. one-night stands) compared to women who are single (Campbell, 2008). In the
current research, I will include relationship status in the exploratory analysis portion of
the research to determine if relationship status has an effect on participants’ sexual
behavior, attitudes and desires to engage in short-term mating.
Age
Age has shown to play a role in the decisions that women make when it comes to
the type of mating they choose to engage in. The median age at first marriage has
increased in the United States (Sassler, 2010), not to mention that there are many
unmarried older adults involved in intimate non marital relationships (Calasanti &
Kiecolt, 2007; King & Scott, 2005). Sassler (2010) mentions that research published over
the last decade suggests that the behaviors and goals of young adults are widely divergent
from older single adults, not to mention that more research on partnering among older
adults with the rise in internet dating, good health, changing sexual attitudes etc. (Sassler,
2010). However the role it plays in short-term mating preferences is still unclear. In the
current research, I will include age in the exploratory analysis portion of the research to
determine if age has an effect on participants’ sexual behavior, attitudes and desires to
engage in short-term mating.
16
Current Research Project
The results from past research have provided the foundation for the direction of
the current study. To date there has not been a research study published that has uniquely
combined the following personality variables: The Big Five (extraversion, agreeableness,
conscientiousness, openness and neuroticism), the Dark Triad (narcissism,
Machiavellianism, and psychopathy), self- and body esteem, religious orientation, and
attitudes towards sexuality; with the following contextual variables: physical
attractiveness, and whether a father is present in women’s lives status. This study
represents an effort to explore both possible personal and contextual factors that may
contribute to women’s preferences for short-term-mating. Much of the research has
examined the effects of strictly personality variables, or strictly contextual variables. I
propose that both, personality and contextual factors have an effect on an individual’s
preference for short-term mating. Examining both types of factors will answer some of
the questions regarding short-term mating from both an evolutionary and a social
psychology point of view. The following were my hypotheses:
1) Social desirability would mediate the relation between each of the independent
variables and the preference for short-term mating (Fisher, T., Moore, Z., &
Pittenger, M., 2012).
2) The current research would replicate the finding that participants who are high
in extraversion and low in agreeableness and conscientiousness would show a
greater preference for short-term mating (Shackelford, 2008).
17
3) Current research would replicate past research with males; females who scored
higher on the Dark Triad would score higher on the Sociosexual Orientation
Inventory subscales (higher preference for short-term mating) (Jonason &
Kavanagh, 2010; Jonason et al., 2011).
4) Lower self-esteem and higher body esteem would predict a preference for
short-term mating (Bale & Archer, 2013; Zeigler-Hill & Myers, 2011; Fink,
Foran, Sweeney & O’Hea, 2009).
5) Individuals who have an intrinsic religious orientation as compared to extrinsic
would have a decreased preference for short-term mating (Njus & Bane, 2009).
6) Participants rated less attractive by judges would show a stronger preference
for short-term mating compared to those rated as more attractive (Barber, 2005).
7) Participants who grew up without their biological father in the house would
have more of a preference for short-term mating (Slater & Calhoun, 1988; Barber,
2005).
8) I also conducted exploratory regression analyses to see which variables are the
strongest predictors of short-term mating and a series of one-way ANOVAs to
explore the effects of ethnicity and relationship status on the preference for shortterm mating.
18
Chapter 2
METHOD
Overview
The purpose of the current study is to predict a preference for short- and longterm mating in women, using the following set of predictor variables: Esteem (self and
body), extraversion, openness, agreeableness, neuroticism, conscientiousness,
psychopathy, Machiavellianism, narcissism, physical attractiveness, religious orientation,
attitudes towards sexuality, having a biological father present in childhood, ethnicity,
relationship status and social desirability. Participants were female undergraduate
students from California State University, Sacramento, and received one unit of research
credit for their participation. The data were analyzed using linear regression analyses in
SPSS.
Participants
Participants in the current study were self-selected from the Psychology research
subject pool at California State University, Sacramento. The sample consisted of 316
female participants whose ages ranged from 16 - 44 years, with an average age of 20.5
years. The sample was ethnically diverse Hispanic (27.2%), Caucasian (23.7%), African
American (8.2%), Asian American (26.6%), and Multi-Ethnic (8.9%). All participants
earned one hour of research credit as reimbursement for participating in the study.
Participants had the right to withdraw from the study at any point during the research
session. Anonymity was kept by only reporting group averages; confidentiality was kept
19
by storing the photographs on a password locked computer that only I had access to;
photographs were promptly deleted once data were collected. Once the participants
completed the research they were orally debriefed and given a debriefing sheet that
detailed the purpose of the study along with contact information for myself and the
psychological services provided by the university. All participants were treated in
accordance with APA ethical guidelines for human subjects.
Materials
Demographics
Demographic information was collected from each participant, including: gender,
age, major, ethnicity, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, religious affiliation,
political orientation, current relationship status, parents’ current marital status, and
finally, whether or not the participants’ biological father was living with them during
their childhood (if not, they were asked to provide the age at which their father left).
Responses to this demographic question will be used to assess the ‘presence of a father’
variable as a predictor in the analysis. It should be noted that this demographic question
was added in the middle of the data collection process, and thus has a reduced N in
comparison to the rest of the variables. Participants’ age, ethnicity and current
relationship status were used in the exploratory analyses.
Preference for Short-term Mating
The Revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI-R) (Penke, & Asendorpf,
2008) was used to measure the degree to which participants preferred to engage in shortterm mating (see Appendix K). The scale is comprised of three subscales with three items
20
for each, totaling nine items for the entire scale. The three subscales are: Behavior,
Attitude, and Desire. Examples of items from the Behavior subscale include “With how
many different partners have you had sexual intercourse on one and only one occasion?”
and “with how many different partners have you had sexual intercourse without having
an interest in a long-term committed relationship with this person?” Examples of items
from the Attitude subscale include “I can imagine myself being comfortable and enjoying
“casual” sex with different partners” and “Sex without love is OK.” These items utilize a
5-point response scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 3 = Both Disagree and Agree, 5 =
Strongly Agree). The Desire subscale includes items such as “How often do you
experience sexual arousal when you are in contact with someone you are not in a
committed romantic relationship with” and “In everyday life, how often do you have
spontaneous fantasies about having sex with someone you have just met?” The final three
items use a 5-point scale (1 = Never, 5 = Nearly every day). Each set of subscale items
can be aggregated to obtain individual scores on each facet, and all nine items can be
aggregated to obtain a total score of global Sociosexual orientation. The scoring
algorithm outlined by Simpson and Gangestad (1991) was used, with lower SOI scores
indicating a sexually restricted orientation (i.e., fewer sexual partners, high relationship
commitment) and higher values indicating a sexually unrestricted orientation (i.e., many
sexual partners, low relationship commitment). Higher scores on each of the subscales
indicate an unrestricted Sociosexual orientation. Reliability values for the behavior,
attitude and desire subscales were, .56, .83, .84, respectively; the reliability for the overall
measure was high (α = .83).
21
Social Desirability
The Marlow-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSD) (Tatman, A. W.,
Swogger, M. T., Love, K, & Cook, M. D., 2009) was used to measure social desirability
in participants (see Appendix G). This is a 33-item scale which measures the extent to
which an individual seeks to appear socially desirable to others; the scale is made up of
two subscales: Attribution and Denial, both of which will be scored in the current
research project. Examples of items on the Attribution subscale include: “I never hesitate
to go out of my way to help someone in trouble,” “No matter who I’m talking to, I’m
always a good listener,” and “My table manners at home area as good as when I eat out in
a restaurant.” Examples of items on the Denial subscale include: “It is sometimes hard for
me to go on with my work if I am not encouraged,” “If I could get into a movie without
paying and be sure I was not seen, I probably would do it,” and “There have been
occasions when I took advantage of someone.” The MCSD uses a True or False response
scale (1 = True, 2 = False); when scoring the subscales, participants received one point
for every True response on the Attribution subscale and one point for every False
response on the Denial subscale. Cronbach’s alpha for the entire scale was .96.
Person Variables
Personality. The Big Five Inventory (BFI; John, O., 1991). The BFI was used to
measure the following personality traits: extraversion, openness, neuroticism,
agreeableness, and conscientiousness (see Appendix B). The scale consists of 44 items
(brief personality descriptors) and uses a 5-point response scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 3
= Both Disagree and Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree). Extraversion was measured with items
22
such as “I see myself as someone who is talkative” and “I see myself as someone who is
full of energy.” Agreeableness was measured with items such as “I see myself as
someone who has a forgiving nature” and “I see myself as someone who is generally
trusting,” Conscientiousness was measured with items such as “I see myself as someone
who does a thorough job” and “I see myself as someone who is a reliable worker.”
Neuroticism was measured with items such as “I see myself as someone who is
depressed, blue” and “I see myself as someone who can be tense.” Finally, Openness was
measured with items such as “I see myself as someone who is original, comes up with
new ideas” and “I see myself as someone who likes to reflect, play with ideas.” Scores on
each of the subscales are aggregated (after the necessary reverse scoring is completed) to
obtain mean scores on each facet; higher scores are indicative of possessing more of the
designated trait. Cronbach’s alphas for extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,
neuroticism and openness were .85, .75, .75, .79 and .78 respectively.
The Dark Triad.
Machiavellianism Inventory (Christie & Geis, 1970). This inventory is
comprised of 20 items and utilizes a 5-point response scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 3 =
Both Disagree and Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree); a few of the items on the inventory
include “Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so”,
“one should take action only when sure it is morally right”, “generally speaking, people
won’t work hard unless they’re forced to do so.” Cronbach alpha for the subscale was
moderate, .58 (see Appendix F).
23
Subclinical Psychopathy Inventory (Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995). This
inventory is comprised of 26 items, and scored on a 4-point response scale (1 = Strongly
Disagree to 4 = Strongly Agree). Items on the Subclinical Psychopathy scale include:
“For me, what’s right is whatever I can get away with”, “I tell other people what they
want to hear so that they will do what I want them to do” and “I don’t plan anything very
far in advance.” Cronbach alpha for the subscale was good, .86 (see Appendix J).
Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) (Raskin & Hall, 1979). This is a 40item inventory; each item includes two statements from which the participant must
choose as the one they most identify with. Examples of items from the NPI inventory
include “I have a natural talent for influencing people OR I am not good at influencing
people” and “Modesty doesn’t become me OR I am essentially a modest person.”
Cronbach alpha for the subscale was good, .80 (see Appendix H).
Esteem.
Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale (SES; Rosenberg, 1965). This inventory has 10
items and uses a 4-point response scale (0 = Strongly Disagree, 3 = Strongly Agree).
Examples of items from this inventory include “I feel that I am a person of worth, at least
on an equal plane with others”, “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself”, “I take a
positive attitude toward myself.” Items 3, 5, 8, 9 and 10 are reversed scored; individual
responses are summed to obtain an overall score for self-esteem. The scale ranges from 0
– 30, scores between 15 and 25 are within the normal range; scores below 15 suggest low
self-esteem. Cronbach’s alpha for Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale was .88 (see Appendix
D).
24
Body Esteem Scale (BES: Franzoi and Shields, 1984). This scale uses 35 items to
measure participants’ global attitudes towards their bodies and also includes sex-specific
subscales. For women, these measure sexual attractiveness, weight concern, and physical
condition which are used separately in the current research, as compared to a composite
score for the whole scale. For men, they measure physical attractiveness, upper body
strength, and physical condition. The test consists of a list of body parts (e.g., “legs,”
“nose”) and physical attributes (e.g., “energy level,” “physical coordination”), and
participants indicate their feelings towards each of them on a 5-point response scale (1 =
have strong negative feelings, 3 = have both negative and positive feelings, 5 = have
strong positive feelings). Cronbach’s alpha for the overall body-esteem scale was .93;
reliability values for the sexual attractiveness, weight concern and physical attractiveness
subscales were .81, .87, and .85 respectively (see Appendix E).
Religiosity. Religiosity was measured using the Religious Orientation ScaleRevised (Gorsuch & McPherson, 1989) (see Appendix I). The inventory is comprised of
14 items and responses are made using a 5-point response scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 3
= Both Disagree and Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree). The scale can be broken up into two
subscales: Intrinsic and Extrinsic religiosity, both were used in the current research.
Examples of Intrinsic Religiously oriented items on the inventory include “I enjoy
reading about my religion”, “It is important to spend time in private thought and prayer”,
and “My whole approach to life is based on my religion.” Extrinsic Religiously oriented
items on the inventory include “I go to church mostly to spend time with my friends,” “I
go to church mainly because I enjoy seeing people I know there,” and “Although I
25
believe in my religion, many other things are important in life.” Responses are
aggregated for the entire scale with higher scores indicating a more extrinsic religious
orientation. Cronbach’s alphas for the Intrinsic and Extrinsic subscales were .79 and .72
respectively.
Attitudes Towards Sexuality. The Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale (BSAS)
(Hendrick, Hendrick, & Reich, 2006) was used to measure attitudes towards sexuality
(see Appendix C). The inventory has 23 items, which can be broken down into four
subscales: Permissive attitudes towards sexuality (items 1-10), attitudes towards Birth
Control (previously referred to as Sexual Practices) (items 11-13), Communion, or the
degree of investment in the relationship (items 14-18) and Instrumentality, the pleasure
oriented attitude towards sexuality (items 19-23). Participants respond to each item using
a 5-point response scale (1 = Strongly disagree with the statement, 3 = Both disagree and
agree with the statement, 5 = Strongly agree with the statement). A few examples of
items from the inventory include “One-night stands are sometimes very enjoyable”
(Permissive subscale), “Birth control is part of responsible sexuality” (Birth Control
subscale), “Sex is the closest form of communication between two people” (Communion
subscale) and “The main purpose of sex is to enjoy oneself” (Instrumentality subscale).
The four subscales were computed and analyzed separately as opposed to computing an
overall score for the scale. Cronbach’s alpha for Permissiveness, Birth Control,
Communion and Instrumentality were .87, .80, .72, and .74 respectively.
26
Context Variables
Physical Attractiveness. Past research has used several methods in the attempt to
measure physical attractiveness as objectively as possible; measuring females’ waist to
hip ratios, their Body Mass Index, and having judges rate photographs using a numeric
scale are among the most used methods (Bobadilla, Metze & Taylor, 2013; Cunningham,
M., 1986; Curran & Lippold, 1974; Koscinski, 2013; Perilloux, Cloud & Buss, 2013).
Given the Institutional Review Board and Psychology Department’s Human Subjects
Committee restrictions, a group of four individuals were the judges responsible for rating
the photographs of female participants. This approach has been used in previous research,
and has yielded reliable results (Perilloux, Cloud & Buss, 2013; Bobadilla, Metze &
Taylor, 2013).
Upon finishing the packet of inventories participants had two pictures taken: one
of just their faces, and the second of their entire body. After all data were collected three
graduate students and one professor from the Psychology department rated each of the
pictures using a 7-point response scale (7 = Very Attractive, 4 = Average, 1 = Very
Unattractive). For each picture the scores from all four judges were averaged together for
one composite score; participants received an average score for their face photograph and
an average score for their body photograph. An average of both scores was then
computed and used as an overall physical attractiveness value for each participant. Scores
for each picture will also be used as separate factors in the analyses. Photographs were
deleted at the end of the study when all data had been collected; only the ratings were
27
retained in the data set. Reliability analyses between raters when rating participants’ face
and full body pictures were good; Cronbach’s alphas were .85 and .89, respectively.
Parental Investment. The presence of a father was measured using one question
included in the demographic questionnaire; participants were asked to indicate whether or
not their father was present in their lives while they were growing up by responding with
a “yes” or “no.” If participants answered “no,” they were then asked to indicate the age at
which their father left home. The answer “yes” corresponded with the presence of a
father figure, whereas “no” was coded as the absence of a father figure. As previously
mentioned this question was added to the survey in the middle of data collection process
and therefore resulted in a reduced N.
Procedure
When students entered the research room they were seated at tables and signed-in
to document their participation. At this point, participants sat at a computer in a cubicle,
while the researcher read from a script that detailed the instructions for how to sign-in to
the Psychology Research website, accessing and completing the survey, and the
expectations for the session. The researcher then distributed the first of two consent forms
for them to sign. It described the questionnaire portion of the study. After signing and
returning them to the researcher, the consent forms were placed together in an envelope
to ensure they could not be traced back to the responses of each of the particular
participants.
The participants were then instructed to sign-in to the Psychology Research
website, navigate to the current research project, and use the password provided by the
28
researcher to access and complete the survey (see Appendix A). All responses were kept
anonymous.
Once participants completed the inventories, they submitted the survey and
logged out of their accounts. The participants then reported back to the researcher to have
two photographs taken: one of the participant’s face, and one of the participant’s face and
whole body. Participants were given a new consent form detailing what the photographs
were going to be used for and who would have access to them. Participants were asked to
read and sign it if they wish to contribute to this portion of the research. It was at this
point that the participant could opt out of having their photographs taken for the study
(without penalty of research credit loss); if the participant consented, the form was placed
in a separate envelope. Participants were given a participant number, which was noted by
the researcher on an excel spreadsheet which contained the participant’s user ID assigned
by the research website, and a corresponding photograph number (starting with #1). The
researcher wrote the participant number on a small white board, which the participant
held under her face and by her side for the full body photograph. All photographs were
kept on a password-protected computer.
The researcher then orally debriefed the participants, answered any questions
they may have had at the time, and handed out the debriefing page for participants to
keep. Again, participants were able to inform the researcher if they had a change of mind,
and wanted to have their photographs removed from the study. Everyone was thanked for
their participation and then dismissed.
29
After all of the data were collected, the photographs taken during the research
sessions were compiled and put into a slide show using the Microsoft program
PowerPoint. Two male graduate students, the researcher, and another female Psychology
professor at California State University, Sacramento, reviewed the PowerPoint slide
show. The graduate students and Psychology professor rated the physical attractiveness
of each photograph (one rating for the participant’s face and one rating for the
participants full body) using a 7-pt response scale (See Appendix B). Once all ratings had
been gathered they were entered into SPSS where one average score was obtained for
each participant’s face, their full body, and then a composite of both these scores for an
overall measure of physical attractiveness. After ratings were conducted, the photos were
deleted.
30
Chapter 3
RESULTS
Sociosexuality was measured using the SOI-R (Penke, & Asendorpf, 2008),
which has three subscales: Behavior, Attitude, and Desire. Each of the subscales was
treated as a separate criterion variable in order to more fully understand the associations
among variables. Descriptive statistics for all predictors on each of the SOI-R subscales
are presented in Table 1. Correlations between each of the predictors are presented in
Table 2.
Hypothesis 1
The first hypothesis that was tested was that social desirability would mediate the
relation between each of the independent variables and the preference for short-term
mating. Using PROCESS (Hayes, 2013), mediation analyses were run to determine
whether social desirability was a mediating factor between each of the predictor variables
and the preference for short-term mating. Results indicated that social desirability was
not a significant mediator between any of the predictor variables and the preference for
the short-term mating.
31
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Personality and Context Variables
Variables
N
M
SD
314
3.33
.76
-.20
Agreeableness
309
4.06
.58
-.57
Conscientiousness
316
3.76
.58
-.25
Neuroticism
314
3.07
.72
.08
Openness
315
3.58
.61
-.40
Machiavellianism
312
-.78
.59
.05
Psychopathy
309
2.20
.48
.23
Narcissism
304
.33
.15
.30
Self-esteem
236
1.66
.56
.59
Sexual. Attractive
312
3.68
.56
-.18
Weight Concern
316
3.39
.82
-.26
Physical Condition
316
3.54
.75
-.15
Intrinsic
288
2.90
.82
.44
Extrinsic
274
2.69
.73
-.48
Face Attractive
203
4.13
1.14
-.19
Body Attractive
199
4.13
1.34
-.50
Permissive
313
4.01
.80
-.67
Birth Control
313
1.51
.74
1.50
Communion
316
2.37
.81
.51
Instrumentality
309
3.24
.84
.17
The BFI
Extraversion
Skewness
The Dark Triad
Esteem
Religiosity
Physical Attractiveness
BSAS
Note. BSAS = Brief Sexual Attitudes Inventory
32
Table 2
Correlations Between Personality and Context Variables
Variables 1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
2
Extrav1 Agree1 .19* Consc1 .25* .37*
Neuro1 -.32* -.32*
Open1 .26* .16*
Mach2 -.23* -.40*
Psych2 -.06 -.43*
Narc2
.39* -.15*
Esteem3 .14 .15
SAttract3 .34* .19*
WghtC3 .22* .10
PhysC3 .34* .19*
Intrins4 .07 .13
Extrins4 .08 .05
FAttract5 .13 .11
BAttract5 - .07
Permis6 -.09 .06
BirthCon6 .05 -.06
Comm6 -.02 -.02
Instrum6 -.02 .12
3
4
5
-.45*
.11
-.30*
-.39*
.12
.20*
.34*
.27*
.34*
.15*
.10
.11
.05
-.16*
-.04
.04
-.09
.30*
.29*
-.06
-.15
-.32*
-.26*
-.35*
-.16*
-.08
.01
.01
-.05
-.01
-.03
6
7
-.14*
-.23* .51*
.25 .09 .22*
.16* -.29* -.29*
.21* -.25* -.17*
.15* -.08 -.07
.14 -.14 -.08
.04 -.08 -.13
-.06 -.06 .08
-.10 .04 -.04
-.14 .05
-.24* -.12 -.10
-.10 .11
.16
-.12
.02
.04 -.19* -.26*
8
9
.15
.31*
.24*
.21*
.01
.17*
.10
.02
-.02
.08
-.07
-.08
10
.21*
.12
.12
-.03
-.04
-.03
-.09
-.01
.04
.05
.10
.58*
.59*
.10
.08
-.08
-.08
-.05
-.16*
-
11
12
.74*
.05
.18*
.11
.19*
.01
-.10
-.04
.05
.16*
.11
.05
-.02
-.10
-.07
13
.39*
-.10
-.10
.37*
.13
.21*
14
15
16
.07
.13 .74*
.26*
.14
.07 -.10 .03
-.05 -.07 -.03
-.03
.12
17
18
19
.20*
.08
.44*
.22*
.07 .14*
20
-
Note. N = 316. A dash indicates a value < .01; 1 = Extrav = Extraversion, Agree = Agreeableness, Consc = Conscientiousness, Neuro = Neuroticism, Open = Openness. 2 = Mach = Machiavellianism,
Psych = Subclinical Psychopathy, Narc = Narcissism. 3 = Esteem = Self-esteem, SA Attract = Sexual Attractiveness, WghtC = Weight Control, PhysC = Physical Condition. 4 = Instrins = Intrinsic
Religious Orientation, Extrins = Extrinsic Religious Orientation, 5 = FAttract = Face Attractiveness, BAttract = Body Attractiveness. 6 = Permis = Permissive Attitudes Towards Sexuality, Birth Con =
Birth Control, Comm = Communion, Instrum = Instrumentality.
*Bolded numbers indicate p < .05, and a bolded * indicates p < .01.
33
Hypothesis 2
Standard multiple regression analyses were used to test the hypothesis that
participants who are high in extraversion and low in agreeableness and conscientiousness
would show a greater preference for short-term mating
Behavior
A standard multiple regression analysis was used with the Big Five personality
traits (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness) as
predictors and sexual behavior as the dependent variable. Table 3 presents the results of
the regression analysis, which indicated that none of the personality traits significantly
predicted unrestricted sexual behavior, F(5, 214) = 2.12, p = .06, R2 = .05, adjusted R2 =
.02. However, bivariate correlations showed that higher levels of openness (M = 3.61, SD
= .61; r = .14; p = .02) and lower levels of conscientiousness (M = 3.79, SD = .56; r = .11; p = .05) were associated with more unrestricted sexual behavior.
Attitude
A standard multiple regression analysis was used with the Big Five personality
traits (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness) as
predictors and attitudes towards uncommitted sexual activity as the dependent variable.
Table 4 presents the results of the regression analysis, which indicated that openness
significantly predicted attitudes towards uncommitted sexual activity, F(5, 297) = 4.16, p
= .001, R2 = .07, adjusted R2 = .05. Higher levels of openness predicted a more positive
attitude toward uncommitted sexual activity. While not significant predictors in the
model, bivariate correlations showed that lower levels of agreeableness (M = 4.07, SD =
34
.57; r = -.10; p = .05) and conscientiousness (M = 3.76, SD = .58; r = -.10; p = .05) and
higher levels of extraversion (M = 3.32, SD = .75; r = .10; p = .05) were associated with
more positive attitudes towards uncommitted sexual activity.
Desire
A standard multiple regression analysis was used with the Big Five personality
traits (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness) as
predictors and the desire to be with someone with whom they were not in a relationship
as the dependent variable. Table 5 presents the results of the regression analysis, which
indicated that agreeableness and openness significantly predicted a preference for shortterm mating, F(5, 294) = 3.59, p = .004, R2 = .06, adjusted R2 = .04. Lower levels of
agreeableness and higher levels of openness predicted a stronger desire to be with
someone with whom they were not currently in a relationship. The ratio of beta weights
for openness and agreeableness was 1.67, indicating that openness was a better predictor
of the desire for short-term mating than agreeableness.
Hypothesis 3
Standard multiple regression analyses were used to test the hypothesis that
participants who are high on The Dark Triad measures would show a greater preference
for short-term mating.
Behavior
A standard multiple regression analysis was used with Machiavellianism,
narcissism and subclinical psychopathy as predictors; sexual behavior was the designated
dependent variable. Table 3 presents the results of the regression analysis, which
35
indicated that the variables comprising the Dark Triad were not significant predictors of
sexual behavior, F(3, 211) = .738, p = .53, R2 = .01, adjusted R2 = -.004.
Attitude
A standard multiple regression analysis was used with Machiavellianism,
narcissism, and subclinical psychopathy as predictors; attitudes towards uncommitted
sexual activity was the designated dependent variable. Table 4 presents the results of the
regression analysis, which indicated that the variables comprising the Dark Triad were
not significant predictors of attitudes towards uncommitted sexual activity, F(3, 290) =
1.24, p = .295, R2 = .01, adjusted R2 = .002. However, a bivariate correlation showed that
higher levels of subclinical psychopathy (M = 2.2, SD = .48) were associated with
positive attitudes toward uncommitted sexual activity (r = .10; p = .05).
Desire
A standard multiple regression analysis was used with Machiavellianism,
narcissism, and subclinical psychopathy as predictors; the desire to engage in short-term
mating was the designated dependent variable. Table 5 presents the results of the
regression analysis, which indicated that Machiavellianism was a significant predictor of
the desire to be with someone with whom they were not currently in a relationship, F(3,
288) = 5.67, p = .001, R2 = .06, adjusted R2 = .05. Higher levels of Machiavellianism
predicted a stronger desire to engage in short-term mating. Furthermore, bivariate
correlations showed that higher levels of both subclinical psychopathy (M = 2.2, SD =
.48; r = .14; p = .01) and narcissism (M = .33, SD = .15; r = .10; p = .05) were associated
with a stronger desire to engage in short-term mating.
36
Hypothesis 4
Standard multiple regression analyses were used to test the hypothesis that
participants who have lower self-esteem and high body esteem would show a greater
preference for short-term mating.
Behavior
A standard multiple regression analysis was used in the analysis of the three
subscales that comprise body esteem (sexual attractiveness, weight concern, and physical
condition) and self-esteem as predictors and sexual behavior as the designated dependent
variable. The model was not significant, indicating that body and self-esteem did not
significantly predict sexual behavior, F(4, 161) = 1.46, p = .216, R2 = .04, adjusted R2 =
.01 (see Table 3). However, a bivariate correlations showed that higher levels of sexual
attractiveness (M = 3.67, SD = .57) were associated with more unrestricted sexual
behavior (M = 1.62, SD = 1.01; r = .15; p = .03).
A standard multiple regressions analysis was used with just the three subscales of
the body esteem scale as predictors and sexual behavior as the designated dependent
variable. Sexual attractiveness significantly predicted sexual behavior, F(3, 223) = 2.99, p
= .03, R2 = .04, adjusted R2 = .02. Higher levels of sexual attractiveness predicted higher
levels of sexual behavior.
Attitude
A standard multiple regression analysis was used in the analysis of the three
subscales that comprise body esteem (sexual attractiveness, weight concern, and physical
condition) and self-esteem as predictors and attitudes towards uncommitted sexual
37
activity as the designated dependent variable. The model was not significant, indicating
that body and self-esteem did not significantly predict attitudes towards uncommitted
sexual activity, F(2, 228) = .117, p = .889, R2 = .001, adjusted R2 = -.01 (see Table 4).
A standard multiple regression analysis was used with just the three subscales of
the body esteem scale as predictors and attitudes towards uncommitted sexual activity as
the designated dependent variable. Sexual attractiveness significantly predicted sexual
behavior, F(3, 305) = 2.92, p = .03, R2 = .03, adjusted R2 = .02. Higher levels of sexual
attractiveness predicted more positive attitudes toward uncommitted sexual activity.
Desire
A standard multiple regression analysis was used in the analysis of the three
subscales that comprise body esteem (sexual attractiveness, weight concern, and physical
condition) and self-esteem as predictors and the desire to engage in short-term mating
was the designated dependent variable. The model was not significant, indicating that
body and self-esteem did not predict the desire to engage in short-term mating, F(2, 225)
= 1.13, p = .324, R2 = .01, adjusted R2 = .001 (see Table 5).
A standard multiple regression analysis was used with just the three subscales of
the body esteem scale as predictors and the desire to engage in short-term mating was the
designated dependent variable. The model was not significant, indicating that body and
self-esteem did not predict the desire to engage in short-term mating, F(3, 305) = .123, p
= .957, R2 = .001, adjusted R2 = -.01 (see Table 5).
38
Hypothesis 5
Standard multiple regression analyses were used to test the hypothesis that
participants who are higher in intrinsic religious orientation, as compared to extrinsic
religious orientation, would show a greater preference for short-term mating.
Behavior
A standard multiple regression analysis was used with intrinsic and extrinsic
religiosity as predictor variables; sexual behavior was the designated dependent variable.
Table 3 presents the results of the regression analysis. Both intrinsic and extrinsic
religious orientations significantly predicted sexual behavior, F(2, 196) = 3.43, p = .03,
R2 = .03, adjusted R2 = .02. Lower levels of both, intrinsic and extrinsic religious
orientation predicted higher levels of sexual behavior. The ratio of beta weights for
intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientation was 2.22 indicating that extrinsic religious
orientation was a better predictor of sexual behavior than was intrinsic religious
orientation.
Attitude
A standard multiple regression analysis was used with intrinsic and extrinsic
religiosity as predictor variables; attitudes towards uncommitted sexual activity was the
designated dependent variable. Table 4 presents the results of the regression analysis;
both intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientations significantly predicted attitudes towards
uncommitted sexual activity, F(2, 269) = 29.48, p = .000, R2 = .18, adjusted R2 = .17.
Higher levels of both, intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientation predicted more negative
attitudes towards uncommitted sexual activity. The ratio of beta weights for intrinsic and
39
extrinsic religious orientation was 1.31 indicating that intrinsic religious orientation was a
better predictor of attitudes towards uncommitted sexual activity than was extrinsic
religious orientation.
Desire
A standard multiple regression analysis was used with intrinsic and extrinsic
religiosity as predictor variables; the desire to engage in short-term mating was the
designated dependent variable. Table 5 presents the results of the regression analysis;
both intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientations were significantly and negatively
associated with the preference for short-term mating, F(2, 267) = 9.53, p = .000, R2 = .07,
adjusted R2 = .06. Higher levels of both, intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientation
predicted a lower desire to be with someone with whom they were not currently in a
relationship. The ratio of beta weights for intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientation was
1.01 indicating that intrinsic religious orientation was a better predictor of no desire to
engage in short-term mating than was extrinsic religious orientation.
Hypothesis 6
Standard multiple regression analyses were used to test the hypothesis that
participants who are rated as less attractive by judges would show a stronger preference
for short-term mating.
Behavior
A standard multiple regression was analyzed with overall physical attractiveness
as the predictor variable and sexual behavior as the dependent variable. Table 3 presents
the results of the analysis; overall physical attractiveness did not significantly predict
40
sexual behavior, F(1, 144) = 2.48, p = .12, R2 = .02, adjusted R2 = .01. A standard
regression analysis was analyzed using face and body attractiveness as predictors (see
Table 2); results indicated that body attractiveness was significantly and negatively
associate with sexual behavior, F(1, 143) = 3.54, p = .03, R2 = .05, adjusted R2 = .03 (see
Table 1). Participants’ rated as less attractive in their full body photograph reported more
sexual behavior than those rated as more attractive.
Attitude
A standard multiple regression was analyzed with overall physical attractiveness
as the predictor variable and the attitude towards uncommitted sexual activity as the
dependent variable, the results are presented in Table 4. Results indicated that overall
physical attractiveness did not significantly predict attitude towards uncommitted sexual
activity, F(1, 195) = 2.32, p = .20, R2 = .01, adjusted R2 = .003. A standard regression
analysis was used with face and body attractiveness as predictors (see Table 2); results
indicated that body attractiveness was significantly associated with attitudes towards
uncommitted sexual activity, F(1, 194) = 3.08, p = .048, R2 = .03, adjusted R2 = .02.
Participants’ rated as less attractive in their full body photograph had more positive
attitudes towards uncommitted sexual activity than those rated as more attractive.
Desire
A standard multiple regression was analyzed with overall physical attractiveness
as the predictor variable and the desire to be with someone with whom they were not
currently in a relationships as the dependent variable. Table 5 presents the results of the
analysis; overall physical attractiveness did not significantly predict the desire to engage
41
in short-term mating, F(1, 194) = .689, p = .41, R2 = .004, adjusted R2 = -.002. Using
face and body attractiveness as predictors, a standard regression analysis indicated that
body and face attractiveness were not significant predictors for the desire to be with
someone with whom they were not currently in a relationship, F(1, 193) = 1.47, p = .23,
R2 = .02, adjusted R2 = .01 (see Table 3).
Table 3
Regression Analyses Using Personality and Contextual Variables to Predict Sexual
Behavior in Women
Structure
Variables
B
SEB
β
t
r
rsp2
Coefficient
Extraversion
.14
.10
.10
1.37
.10
.01
Agreeableness
.03
.13
.02
.23
-.01
-
-.05
Conscientiousness
.32
.15
-.18
-2.15*
-.11
.02
-.53
Neuroticism
-.04
.11
-.03
-.36
.02
-
.09
Openness
.22
.12
.13
1.91
.14
.02
.63
Machiavellianism
.18
.14
.12
1.29
.07
.01
.65
Psychopathy
-.17
.17
-.09
-1.02
-.01
-
-.13
Narcissism
.31
.46
.05
.66
.05
-
.44
Sexual Attractive
.45
.16
.25
2.88**
.14
.04
.73
Intrinsic
-.10
.10
-.10
-.82** -.13
-
-.72
Extrinsic
-.18
.10
-.14
-1.80** -.18
.02
.95
Face Attractiveness
.17
.11
.20
1.53
-.06
.02
-.27
Body Attractiveness
-.25
.10
-.33
-2.60** -.18
.04
-.96
Note. N = 316. A dash indicates a value < .01
* p < .05, ** p < .01
.45
42
Table 4
Regression Analyses Using Personality and Contextual Variables to Predict Attitudes
Towards Uncommitted Sexual Activity in Women
Structure
Variables
B
β
SEB
t
r
rsp2
Coefficient
Extraversion
.23
.18
.08
1.24
.09
-
.34
Agreeableness
-.46
.24
-.12
-1.86
-.09
.01
-.37
Conscientiousness
-.43
.25
-.11
-1.70
-.09
.01
-.36
Neuroticism
-.17
.20
-.06
-.86
-.01
-
.02
Openness
.72
.21
.20
3.35** .19
.04
.74
Machiavellianism
.15
.25
.04
.60
.08
-
.70
Psychopathy
.32
.32
.07
1.01
.10
-
.88
Narcissism
.64
.90
.04
.71
.06
-
.54
Sexual Attractive
.84
.29
.21
2.93** .12
.03
.74
Intrinsic
-.77
.16
-.29
-4.80** -.37
.07
-.88
Extrinsic
-.66
.18
-.22
-3.66** -.33
.04
-.78
Face Attractiveness
.33
.22
.16
-.02
.01
-.14
Body Attractiveness
-.45
.18
-.26
-2.46* -.14
.03
-.78
Note. N = 316. A dash indicates a value < .01
* p < .05, ** p < .01
1.56
43
Table 5
Regression Analyses Using Personality and Contextual Variables to Predict the Sexual
Desire in Women
Structure
Variables
B
β
SEB
t
r
rsp2
Coefficient
Extraversion
-.04
.14
-.02
-.26
.01
-
.05
Agreeableness
-.38
.18
-.13
-2.11*
-.11
.01
-.44
Conscientiousness
-.06
.19
-.02
-.31
-.05
-
-.20
Neuroticism
-.02
.15
-.01
-.14
.03
-
.13
Openness
.60
.16
.22
3.76** .20
.04
.81
Machiavellianism
.57
.18
.21
3.11**
.22
.03
.94
Psychopathy
.06
.23
.02
.28
.14
-
.59
Narcissism
.82
.65
.08
1.27
.10
-
.41
Intrinsic
-.32
.13
-.16
-2.50** -.22
.02
-.84
Extrinsic
-.33
.14
-.15
-2.34*
-.21
.02
-.82
Face Attractiveness
.17
.15
.12
1.13
-.01
.01
.12
Body Attractiveness
-.22
.13
-.18
-1.70
-.09
.01
-.75
Note. N = 316. A dash indicates a value < .01
* p < .05, ** p < .01
Hypothesis 7
Independent sample t-tests were used to test the hypothesis that participants who
grew up without their biological father would show a stronger preference for short-term
mating.
Behavior
An independent samples t-test was used with the presence of a father as the
grouping variable, and sexual behavior as the designated dependent variable. The onetailed t test revealed a trend for father presence such that participants whose father was
44
present (M = 1.52, SD =1.03) reported engaging in less sexual behavior than those who
did not grow up with their biological father in the home (M = 1.89, SD =1.01), t(69) =
1.34, p =.09.
Attitude
An independent samples t-test was used with the presence of a father as the
grouping variable, and attitudes towards uncommitted sexual activity as the designated
dependent variable. The one-tailed t test revealed a trend for father presence such that
participants who grew up with their biological father (M = 3.01, SD = 2.2) had more
negative attitudes about uncommitted sexual activity than those who did not (M = 3.36,
SD =2.25), t(107) = .69, p =.10.
Desire
An independent samples t-test was used with the presence of a father as the
grouping variable, and the desire to be with someone with whom they were not currently
in a relationship as the designated dependent variable. The one-tailed t test revealed a
trend for father presence such that participants who grew up with their biological father
(M = 2.32, SD =1.46) showed less desire to be engage in short-term mating than those
who did not (M = 2.83, SD =1.74), t(106) = 1.44, p =.08.
Exploratory Analyses
Three standard linear multiple regression procedures were conducted with esteem
(self and body), extraversion, openness, agreeableness, neuroticism, conscientiousness,
psychopathy, Machiavellianism, narcissism, physical attractiveness, religious orientation,
permissiveness, attitudes towards birth control, communion, instrumentality, and age as
45
predictor variables. The dependent measures were sexual behavior, attitudes towards
uncommitted sexual activity, and the desire to engage in short-term mating. Ratios of
beta weights were calculated to compare the relative contributions of significant
predictors in the model, and structure coefficients were calculated to evaluate the degree
to which each predictor variable was related to the variate; results are presented in Tables
6 - 8.
Behavior
Table 6 presents the results of the regression analysis predicting sexual behavior.
The results of the regression indicated that three of the predictors accounted for 19.0% of
the variance in the criterion. A more permissive attitude toward sexuality, being older,
and less conscientiousness significantly predicted sexual behavior, F(20, 295) = 4.69, p =
.000, R2 = .24, adjusted R2 = .19. The ratios of beta weights for permissive attitudes
towards sexuality and age and conscientiousness were 1.21 and 1.91, respectively; the
ratios indicated that a more permissive attitude toward sexuality was a better predictor of
sexual behavior than age and conscientiousness.
46
Table 6
Exploratory Regression Analysis Using Personality and Contextual Variables to Predict
the Sexual Behavior in Women
Structure
rsp2 Coefficient
B
SEB
β
t
r
.06
.07
.05
.85
.08
-
.17
.06
.09
.04
.68
.02
-
-.04
Conscientiousness -.26
.10
-.17
.02
-.17
Neuroticism
.04
.07
.03
.54
.02
-
.04
Openness
-.09
.08
-.06
-1.02
.11
-
.22
.05
.09
.04
.56
.04
-
.10
-.21
.12
-.12
-1.70
-.04
.01
-.10
Narcissism
.47
.37
.08
1.26
.04
-
.10
Self-esteem
-.09
.09
-.05
-.96
.01
-
.02
Sexually Attractive .16
.11
.10
1.44
.12
.01
.24
Weight Concern
.09
.09
.09
1.06
.01
-
.03
Physical Condition -.13
.10
-.12 -1.40
-.02
.01
-.04
Variables
The BFI
Extraversion
Agreeableness
-2.65** -.08
The Dark Triad
Machiavellianism
Psychopathy
Esteem
Religiosity
Intrinsic
-.01
.07
-.01
-.10
-.10
-
-.20
Extrinsic
-.05
.08
-.04
-.64
-.14
-
-.29
.06
.07
.06
.79
-.04
-
-.10
Body Attractiveness -.08
.06
-.11 -1.35
-.12
-
-.24
Permissive
-.36
.07
-.33 -4.94** -.38
.06
-
Birth Control
.02
.06
.01
.23
-.07
-
-.14
Communion
.03
.06
.02
.44
-
-
-
Instrumentality
.07
.06
.07 1.16
-.08
-
-.17
.07
.02
.28
.05
.65
Physical Attractiveness
Face Attractiveness
BSAS
Age
4.58**
Note. N = 316. A dash indicates a value < .01;* p < .05, ** p < .01
.32
47
Attitude
Table 7 presents the results of the regression analysis predicting attitudes towards
uncommitted sexual activity. The results of the regression indicated that two of the
predictors accounted for 63.1% of the variance in the criterion. Higher levels of extrinsic
religious orientation and sexual attractiveness and a more permissive attitude towards
sexuality significantly predicted unrestricted attitudes toward uncommitted sexual
activity, F(21, 294) = 26.69, p = .000, R2 = .66, adjusted R2 = .63. The ratio of beta
weights for permissive attitudes towards sexuality and extrinsic religious orientation and
sexual attractiveness was 6.96 for both, indicating that more permissive attitudes toward
sexuality were better predictors of attitudes towards uncommitted sexual activity than
were extrinsic religious orientation and sexual attractiveness.
48
Table 7
Exploratory Regression Analysis Using Personality and Contextual Variables to Predict
Attitudes Towards Uncommitted Sex in Women
Structure
Coefficient
B
SEB
β
t
r
rs 2
Extraversion
.05
.12
.02
.37
.08
-
.10
Agreeableness
-.22
.16
-.06
-1.31
-.10
-
-.13
Conscientiousness
-.24
.17
-.07
-1.43
-.07
-
-.09
Neuroticism
-.08
.13
-.03
-.63
-.01
-
-.01
Openness
-.12
.15
-.03
-.82
.18
-
.22
Machiavellianism
-.07
.17
-.02
-.40
.08
-
.10
Psychopathy
-.09
.22
-.02
-.38
-.07
-
.09
Narcissism
.86
.66
.06
1.30
.05
-
.06
Self-esteem
-.02
.16
-.01
-.14
.02
-
.03
Sexually Attractive
.43
.20
.11
2.20
.12
.01
.14
Weight Concern
-.12
.15
-.04
-.75
-.01
-
.01
Physical Condition
-.04
.17
-.01
-.22
.01
-
.01
Intrinsic
-.19
.12
-.07
-1.57
-.36
-
-.44
Extrinsic
-.35
.13
-.11
-2.61**
-.30
-
-.36
Face Attractiveness
-.02
.13
-.01
-.18
-.01
-
-.02
Body Attractiveness
-.01
.11
-.01
-.10
-.11
-
-.14
-2.04
.13
-.73
-15.90**
-.78
.30
-.97
Birth Control
-.13
.11
-.04
-1.11
-.20
-
-.25
Communion
-.03
.10
-.01
-.31
-.07
-
-.09
Instrumentality6
.13
.11
.05
1.16
-.29
-
-.36
.04
.03
.06
1.51
.26
-
.32
Variables
The BFI
The Dark Triad
Esteem
Religiosity
Physical Attractiveness
BSAS
Permissive
Age7
Note. N = 316. A dash indicates a value < .01; * p < .05, ** p < .01
49
Desire
Table 8 presents the results of the regression analysis predicting the desire to
engage in short-term mating. The results of the regression indicated that four of the
predictors accounted for 26.6% of the variance in the criterion. Greater levels of
Machiavellianism, a more permissive attitude towards sexuality, less communion
(investment in a relationship), and more instrumentality (pleasure-oriented attitude)
significantly predicted a stronger desire to be with someone with whom the participant
was not in a relationship, F(21, 294) = 6.44, p = .000, R2 = .32, adjusted R2 = .26. The
ratio of beta weights for more permissive attitudes towards sexuality and
Machiavellianism, instrumentality, and communion ranged from 2.46 to 3.16. A more
permissive attitude toward sexuality was a better predictor of the desire to be with
someone with whom the participant was not currently in a relationship, than was
Machiavellianism, instrumentality and communion.
50
Table 8
Exploratory Regression Analysis Using Personality and Contextual Variables to Predict
Sexual Desire Women
Structure
Coefficient
B
SEB
β
t
r
rs 2
.05
.12
.02
.37
.08
-
.10
Agreeableness
-.22
.16
-.06
-1.31
-.10
-
-.13
Conscientiousness
-.24
.17
-.07
-1.43
-.07
-
-.09
Neuroticism
-.08
.13
-.03
-.63
-.01
-
-.01
Openness
-.12
.15
-.03
-.82
.18
-
.22
Machiavellianism
-.07
.17
-.02
-.40
.08
-
.10
Psychopathy
-.09
.22
-.02
-.38
-.07
-
.09
Narcissism
.86
.66
.06
1.30
.05
-
.06
Self-esteem
-.02
.16
-.01
-.14
.02
-
.03
Sexually Attractive
-.32
.20
-.11
-1.62
-.02
.01
-.03
Weight Concern
-.04
.16
-.02
-.26
-.02
-
-.03
Physical Condition
.15
.17
.07
.89
-
-
-
Intrinsic
-.19
.12
-.07
-1.57
-.36
-
-.44
Extrinsic
-.35
.13
-.11
-2.61** -.30
-
-.36
Face Attractiveness
-.02
.13
-.01
-.18
-.01
-
-.02
Body Attractiveness
-.01
.11
-.01
-.10
-.11
-
-.14
-2.04
.13
-.73 -15.90** -.78
.30
-.97
Birth Control
-.13
.11
-.04
-1.11
-.20
-
-.25
Communion
-.03
.10
-.01
-.31
-.07
-
-.09
Instrumentality
.13
.11
.05
1.16
-.29
-
-.36
.04
.03
.06
1.51
.26
-
.32
Variables
The BFI
Extraversion
The Dark Triad
Esteem
Religiosity
Physical Attractiveness
BSAS
Permissive
Age
Note. N = 316. A dash indicates a value < .01;* p < .05, ** p < .01
51
Ethnicity
A series of one-way ANOVAs were run with ethnicity as the independent
variable, age as a covariate and sexual behavior, attitudes towards uncommitted sexual
activity and the desire to engage in short-term mating as the dependent variables.
Behavior. Ethnicity did not have association with sexual behavior, F(7, 221) =
1.43, p = .21, η2 = .04, however the overall model was significant. Results of a Tukey test
indicated that Asian American participants reported engaging in significantly less sexual
behavior (M = 1.34, SD = .57) than European American (M = 1.86, SD = 1.25) and
Latino/Hispanic American participants (M = 1.75, SD = 1.13).
Attitude. Ethnicity did have a significant association with attitudes towards
uncommitted sexual activity, F(7, 306) = 3.02, p = .01, η2 = .05. Results of a Tukey test
showed that participants who identified as “Multi-ethnic” had significantly more
permissive attitudes towards uncommitted sexual activity (M = 4.27, SD = 2.36) than
African American (M = 2.95, SD = 1.82), Latino/Hispanic American participants (M =
3.17, SD = 2.30), Asian American participants (M = 2.59, SD = 1.89) and those who
identified as “Other” (M = 2.42, SD = 1.83). Furthermore, European American
participants had significantly more permissive attitudes towards uncommitted sexual
activity (M = 3,86, SD = 2.40) compared to Asian American participants (M = 2.59, SD =
1.89) and those who identified as “Other” (M = 2.42, SD = 1.83).
Desire. Ethnicity did have a significant association with the desire to engage in
short-term mating, F(7, 303) = 2.60, p = .02, η2 = .05. Results of a Tukey test showed that
African American participants had a significantly stronger desire to engage in short-term
52
mating (M = 3.21, SD = 1.91) than Asian Americans (M = 1.94, SD = 1.24), European
Americans (M = 2.46, SD = 1.56) and Latino/Hispanic Americans (M = 2.40, SD = 1.62).
Furthermore, participants who identified as “Multi-ethnic” had a significantly stronger
desire to engage in short-term mating (M = 2.86, SD = 1.88) compared to Asian
American participants (M = 1.94, SD = 1.24).
Relationship Status
A series of one-way ANOVAs were run with relationship status as the
independent variable and sexual behavior, attitudes towards uncommitted sexual activity
and the desire to engage in short-term mating as the dependent variables. Results
indicated that status was not significantly associate with sexual behavior, F(3, 221) =
.591 p = .621, η2 = .01, or attitudes toward uncommitted sexual activity, F(3, 306) = 1.87,
p = .132, η2 = .04. However, relationship status did have a significant effect on the desire
to engage in short-term mating, F(3, 303) = 10.48, p = .000, η2 = .09. Results of a Tukey
test showed that participants who were single had a significantly stronger desire to
engage in short-term mating (M = 2.92, SD = 1.85) compared to participants who were in
a committed relationship (M = 1.99, SD = 1.25).
53
Chapter 4
DISCUSSION
Person Variables
Social Desirability
I hypothesized that social desirability would mediate the relations between each
of the variables and the preference for short-term mating. This hypothesis was not
supported; social desirability did not mediate the effect between any of the predictor
variables and the preference for short-term mating.
Past research has shown that social desirability has had a negative relation with
the number of sexual thoughts females report (measured with the SOI-R); women
provided frequency of sexual thoughts that they believed to be “normal” for a woman
(Fisher, Moore, & Pittenger, 2012). Given that this variable was not a significant
mediator in the present study, social desirability is not a significant alternative
explanation for the associations that I found, and thus my results are not considered to be
a result of self-presentation motives.
The Big Five
I hypothesized that participants who were high in extraversion and low in
agreeableness and conscientiousness would show a greater preference for short-term
mating, as indexed by the SOI-R subscales. This hypothesis was partially supported.
Less agreeableness did predict a stronger desire to engage in short-term mating and a
desire to be with someone with whom they were not currently in a relationship; while not
54
a significant predictor in the full model, lower levels of agreeableness were related to
having a more positive attitude towards uncommitted sex. Being less conscientiousness
was related to more sexual behavior and having a more positive attitude towards
uncommitted sex. While extraversion was not a significant model predictor of the
preferences for engaging in short-term mating, it was positively related to having more
positive attitudes towards uncommitted sexually activity. Although there was not a
hypothesis regarding openness, results did show that participants who exhibited higher
levels of openness did show significantly more positive attitudes towards uncommitted
sex.
Previous research has found that higher levels of extraversion and lower levels of
both agreeableness and conscientiousness predicted stronger preferences for short-term
mating (Schmidt & Shackelford, 2008). These findings are consistent with the current
research findings noted previously. Any discrepancies could be due to the fact that the
previous researchers utilized both, the Short-term Mating Interests scale as well as the
Sociosexual Orientation Inventory. Schmidt and Shackelford (2008) used a weighted
formula to create a composite score of overall socio-sexual orientation, which was
different from this study where I analyzed subscales separately. Another factor could be
that both men and women were sampled in the previous research, while my sample
consisted of only females.
Schmitt and Shackelford (2008) suggest that the strongest personality predictor of
short-term mating could be impulsive sensation seeking; this trait is closely associated
with the BFI dimensions of low agreeableness and low conscientiousness (Zuckerman,
55
1994; Zuckerman, Kuhlman, Joireman, Teta and Kraft, 1994). Extraversion has also been
linked with the endorsement of favorable attitudes toward having multiple sex partners
and engaging in sex with more partners than was introversion (Barnes, Malamuth &
Cheek, 1984; Cooper, Agocha, & Sheldon, 2000; Costa et al., 1992; Snyder, Simpson &
Gangestad, 1986) In addition, McCrae (1994) found that higher levels of openness were
related to being more informed about sex, having more sexual experience, and having
more liberal sexual attitudes. This could explain why openness in the present study was
associated with a permissive socio-sexual orientation.
The Dark Triad
I hypothesized that females who scored higher on each of the three Dark Triad
traits (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and subclinical psychopathy) would have a stronger
preference for short-term mating. The results supported the hypothesis; participants who
had higher levels of Machiavellianism did have a stronger desire to engage in short-term
mating. Subclinical psychopathy, while not a significant predictor in the model, was
positively related to having more unrestricted attitudes towards uncommitted sexual
activity and the desire to engage in short-term mating. Narcissism, also not a significant
model predictor, was related to a stronger desire to engage in short-term mating.
In previous research regarding the variables that comprise the Dark Triad, all
three traits have been shown to be significant predictors of preferences for short-term
mating using multiple regression analyses (Jonason & Kavanagh, 2010; Jonason et al.,
2011). The current research supports previous work even though my sample was female
and past samples have been male. Perhaps, the psychology required for short-term
56
mating is similar across the sexes. Short-term mating might require a more outgoing,
instrumental, and pleasure oriented focus, for both women and men.
Esteem
I hypothesized that lower levels of self-esteem and higher levels of body esteem
would predict a greater preference for short-term mating. Results showed that only sexual
attractiveness predicted sexual behavior and attitudes towards uncommitted sex. My
findings are inconsistent with previous research using the Rosenberg Self-esteem scale,
which showed that higher global self-esteem was linked to having a higher perceived
mate value, and thus being less likely to engage in short-term mating (Bale & Archer,
2013; Zeigler-Hill & Myers, 2011). This inconsistency could be a result of sample
differences in the studies. While my sample consisted of all women, past research on
self-esteem has included both men and women (Bale & Archer, 2013; Zeigler-Hill &
Myers, 2011). It is possible that men derive more self-esteem from short-term mating
than do women.
Even though self-esteem was not associated with Sociosexual orientation,
participants who had higher levels of self-esteem tended to have higher levels of body
esteem. Higher levels of self-esteem were related to having moderate or strong positive
feelings about each of their body parts on the body esteem scale. This supports previous
research conducted by Feingold (1992) that showed a positive correlation between selfperceived attractiveness and self-esteem in woman. Thus, from a sociometer model
perspective, if physical attractiveness contributes more to mate value in women their
57
global self-esteem should be related to their perceived attractiveness (Bale & Archer,
2013).
Religious Orientation
I hypothesized that participants who were higher in intrinsic religious orientation
would have less of a preference for short-term mating, when compared to participants
who were higher in extrinsic religious orientation. The results partially supported the
hypothesis. Participants who were higher in intrinsic religious orientation did have lower
levels of sexual behavior, more restricted attitudes towards uncommitted sex, and less of
a desire to be with someone with whom they were not currently in a relationship.
However, participants who were high in extrinsic religious orientation displayed much
the same behaviors, attitudes, and desires.
Previous research has indicated that it is only intrinsic religious orientation that
was a significant predictor of socio-sexual orientation (Njus & Bane, 2009). Intrinsic
religious orientation is a good predictor of conservative attitudes towards sexuality,
which oppose short-term mating. Higher extrinsic religious orientation is associated with
using religion as a means to an end and maintaining social networks; thus if short-term
mating is seen as sinful, then from an extrinsic perspective, avoiding such behavior may
be a way to conform, enhance one’s image, and gain approval from the dominant
religious social group.
58
Context Variables
Physical Attractiveness
I hypothesized that participants who were rated as less attractive by the judges
would have a stronger preference for short-term mating. The results did support the
hypothesis. Significant results were found when face and body attractiveness were used
as separate predictors. Participants whose full body photographs were rated as less
attractive did have higher levels of unrestrained sexual behavior and more permissive
attitudes towards uncommitted sex compared to participants who were rated as more
attractive, which is consistent with previous research (Buss & Shackelford, 2008). Body
and face attractiveness were not significant predictors of the desire to engage in shortterm mating.
Previous research has found that women who are rated as less attractive overall do
have a stronger preference for short-term mating; while those who are considered more
attractive are choosier as they have a higher perceived mate value (Barber, 2005; Sing,
2004). Thus, perhaps participants whose full body photographs were rated as less
attractive showed a higher preference for short-term mating, because they may realize
that their mate value is such that men will not offer them a committed relationship.
Presence of a Biological Father
I hypothesized that participants who grew up without their biological father in the
house would have a stronger preference for short-term mating. Results supported this
hypothesis as significance levels showed a trend (p ≤ .10) and means were in the
hypothesized direction. Finding a trend rather than a significant difference could be due
59
to the small sample size, as this variable was added in the middle of data collection
process. Those women who grew up with their fathers were more negative towards shortterm mating than those without their father’s in the home.
These findings are consistent with previous research (Slater & Calhoun, 1988;
Barber, 2005). Having a biological father present in the home while growing up can have
a positive effect in the daughter’s life. Biological father’s engage in “daughter guarding”,
where they impose curfews, monitor clothing, and enforce strict rules that limit sexual
freedom (Buss, 2011). When daughters have had a supportive father, they were more
likely to have long-term successful marriages, be satisfied with their romantic partners,
and have more successful intimate relationship (Buss, 2011). Conversely, when fathers
were absent from their daughters’ lives, their daughters were at a greater risk for
disruption in sociosexual development (Bowen, 1996).
Exploratory Analyses
The exploratory regression analyses were conducted using all of the person and
context variables (aside from presence of a father figure which had an N of 70) to
determine the best predictors of short-term mating. Results from the three exploratory
regression analyses indicated that having a more permissive attitude toward sexuality,
being less conscientious, and older best predicted unrestricted sexual behavior. A more
permissive attitude toward sexuality and lower levels of extrinsic religious orientation
significantly predicted positive attitudes toward uncommitted sexual activity. Finally, a
more permissive attitude toward sexuality, higher levels of Machiavellianism, a more
pleasure-oriented attitude, and lower levels of seeing sex as an act of communion and
60
investment in a relationship (a current or recent one), best predicted a stronger desire to
engage in short-term mating. These results show that attitudes, personality, and context
are important variables in understanding short-term mating, and can help to explain the
deviation from the cross-culture dominance of the female strategy of choosiness.
Ethnicity
In addition, a series of one-way ANOVA’s were conducted to explore whether or
not there was an effect of ethnicity and relationship status on the preference for shortterm mating. Results from the three ANOVA analyses revealed a significant effect of
ethnicity on each of the SOI-R subscale measures (behavior, attitude, and desire). Asian
American participants reported engaging in significantly less sexual behavior than
European American and Latino/Hispanic American participants. Participants who
identified as “Multi-ethnic” had significantly more permissive attitudes towards
uncommitted sexual activity than the other ethnicities Furthermore, European American
participants had significantly more permissive attitudes towards uncommitted sexual
activity compared to Asian American participants and those that identified as “Other.
African American participants had a significantly stronger desire to engage in
short-term mating compared to Asian American, European American and
Latino/Hispanic American participants. Furthermore, participants who identified as
“Multi-ethnic” had a significantly stronger desire to engage in short-term mating
compared to Asian American participants.
61
Relationship Status
Results from the three ANOVAs examining the associations between relationship
status and the preference for short-term mating analyses revealed a significant effect of
participant relationship status on the SOI-R subscale measuring the desire to engage in
short-term mating. Participants who were single had a significantly stronger desire to
engage in short-term mating activities compared to participants who were in a committed
relationship. The effect of relationships status on sexual behavior and attitudes towards
uncommitted sexual activity were not significant. These results showing differences by
ethnicity and relationship status, reveal the role of learning and immediate circumstances
in short-term mating.
Summary
Short-term mating is not a one-dimensional construct, and there are numerous
motivations for engaging in such activities; some people may engage in short-term sexual
relationships in addition to their long-term relationships, others look for short-term
partners as their main mode of mating, and others may have a strong interest in these
activities but may not be able to engage in them (Wiederman, 1997; Paul, McManus, &
Hayes, 2000; Jackson & Kirkpatrick, 2007; Webster & Bryan, 2007).
The abundance of research in this area has been done on men and has led to the
development of a well-defined explanation for why they engage in short-term mating
activities. The same cannot be said for women even though research has shown that they
do engage in short-term mating (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Just as for men, there are
adaptive benefits to engaging in short-term mating for women, such as immediate access
62
to resources. However, less is known about personality traits and contextual variables that
may be contributing to behaviors, attitudes and the desires associated with women and
their preference for short-term mating.
In the current research, I explored the influence of specific personality traits and
context variables (e.g. religious orientation and the presence of a biological father) on the
behaviors, attitudes and desire to engage in short-term mating activities in a strictly
female sample. Results indicated that personality traits and context variables predicted
unrestricted sexual behavior, as well as attitudes towards uncommitted sexual activity and
the desire to engage in short-term mating. Therefore, personality and context were shown
to be able to override the evolved psychological mechanism of choosiness that many
women across cultures seem to share (Buss & Schmitt, 1993).
Limitations
While there were a lot of strengths in this study, it was not without limitations. In
the current research three measures of physical attractiveness were used: a composite
score given by the raters; a face judgment; and body judgment. In the future, I would
also include waist-to-hip ratios, and body mass indices. The more measures of physical
attractiveness that can be contributed, the more complete picture of physical
attractiveness can be obtained. In addition, there were only four raters of photos. Ideally
there should be a larger number of trained raters of diverse ethnicities to ensure greater
reliability and validity.
There were a few limitations regarding the photograph rating process. During the
first semester of data collection, photographs were taken in which some participants left
63
their jackets, sweatshirts, scarves and other heavy clothing on which made rating their
body very challenging, thus resulting in potentially inaccurate physical attractiveness
scores. This occurred because some male research assistants found it awkward to ask
female participants to disrobe. Future studies would benefit by having all female
research assistants who could ensure that all participants remove heavy clothing. Another
way to control for this weakness would be to have all participants wear uniform clothing
provided by the researcher. The last limitation regarding the photographs was that not all
participants smiled in their photograph. It was only noticed during the rating process that
the act of smiling seemed to have an effect on the ratings. These issues were addressed
before the second round of data collection took place in the following semester; research
assistants asked all participants to remove any heavy jackets, scarves, bags etc., and to
smile in each of the photographs.
Initially participants were presented with a demographic question assessing the
relationship status of their parents to determine whether they had a father figure;
responses did not allow for the participants to indicate whether they had a stepfather or
biological father present in their lives. During the second period of data collection, a
question was added to the demographics section asking whether or not the participants’
biological father was living with them while they were growing up, and if not, at what
age he left. This question assessed whether or not the participant had a biological father
present in their lives growing up, better than asking them to provide their parents’ current
marital status. Future research would benefit from providing more in-depth questions to
64
assess whether the participants had their biological father living with them, or any other
male figure that they could consider a father figure (e.g. a step father, brother, uncle etc.).
The last potential limitation in the current research could be the measure used for
assessing preferences for short-term mating (SOI-R). There were several “decline to
answer” responses given on the SOI-R; this could indicate that the participants were
either uncomfortable answering the questions or they did not apply (e.g. they had not
engaged in the behaviors being assessed by the inventory). In the current literature, the
SOI-R is the most commonly used measure for short-term mating preferences (Jonason,
P. & Kavanagh, P, 2010; Perilloux, C., Cloud, J., & Buss, D. 2013; Penke, L. &
Asendorpf, J., 2008; Rowatt, W.C. & Schmitt, D, 2003; Smiler, A.,, 2011). Due to the
fact that each of the separate subscales have a different number of possible responses,
standardizing the raw scores to obtain z scores, as Simpson and Gangestad (1991)
suggest, would allow scale scores to be computed into one composite score measuring
Sociosexual orientation; this could be more illustrative than examining each of the
subscales separately and facilitate interpretation of high and low scores as reflecting
either an unrestricted or restricted sociosexual orientation respectively. However, a
consensus on the most appropriate way to score the inventory has not been reached
(Penke & Asendorpf, 2008).
Future Research
Even with the previously mentioned limitations, the current research has important
implications for short-term mating preferences in females. The current research has
shown that the preference for engaging in short-term mating may go beyond the
65
preliminary psychological mechanisms that have evolved with regards to mating. Like
most theories and phenomena the preference for short-term mating (incorporating
behaviors and attitudes) can be explained by both, personality traits, the contexts within
which we operate, and learning. Future research would benefit from revisiting the
methodology used in the current research; perhaps using a hierarchical regression
analysis to account for certain traits first would be more appropriate. In addition,
gathering data on participant socio-economic status would be an advantageous next step;
using a measure that is continuous in nature would be necessary. It may provide more
insight to other predictors that are contributing to the preference for engaging in shortterm mating activities. With regards to obtaining and judging the photographs for
physical attractiveness, using a larger number of trained ethnically diverse raters would
greatly increase the validity of the physical attractiveness ratings. In addition to refining
the judging method, the use of waist-to-hip ratio and body mass indices would give the
researchers a more objective measure of physical attractiveness.
66
APPENDIX A
Demographics
Instructions: Please respond to the following questions as accurately as possible. If it
would be helpful to clarify a particular answer, feel free to make a note in the
margin. Please write legibly.
1. Age: __________
2. Gender (please check one):
(1) _____ male
(2) _____ female
(3) _____ other gender identification
3. Year in school (please check one):
(1) _____ freshman
(3) _____ junior
(2) _____ sophomore
(4) _____ senior
(5) _____ unclassified
4. Major/ Intended Major: __________________________________________________
5. Ethnicity (please check one):
(1) _____ African American/Black
(2) _____ American Indian/Native American
(3) _____ Asian American/Pacific Islander
(4) _____ European American/Caucasian/White
(5) _____ Latino/Hispanic American
(6) _____ Multiethnic (please list ethnic groups): _________________________
(7) _____ Other ethnicity (please describe): _________________________
6. Do you consider yourself to belonging to a church/ synagogue/ temple/ hall,
denomination or religious community? (Please check one).
(1)___ Yes
(2)___ No (if no, please go to question 8).
7. If so, which one (please check one)?
___ Roman Catholic
___ Eastern Orthodox
___ Muslim/ Islamic
___ Hindu
___ Jewish
___ Buddhist
___ Protestant (list):_________________
___ Other (write in):_________________
67
8. Parental education:
(1) Mother - highest schooling completed: _________________________
(2) Father – highest schooling completed: _________________________
9. Parent’s current relationship status:
(1) Married
(2) Separated
(3) Divorced
(4) Widowed
10. Sexual orientation (please check one):
(1) _____ heterosexual
(2) _____ gay or lesbian
(3) _____ bisexual
(4) _____ other sexual orientation
11. Current employment status (please check one):
(1) _____ not employed
(2) _____ employed 20 hours per week or fewer
(3) _____ employed 21-39 hours per week
(4) _____ employed 40 or more hours per week
12. What is your household income:
(1) $8.00/hour or less
(2) $8.01/hour - $10.00
(3) $10.01/hour - $12.00
(4) $12.01/hour - $14.00
(5) $14.01/hour - $16.00
(6) $16.01/hour - $18.00
(7) $18.01/hour - $20.00
(8) $20 or more an hour
(9) Not Currently Employed
13. Housing (please check one):
(1) _____ dorm
(2) _____ off-campus
14. Relationship status (please check one):
(1) _____ single
(2) _____ in a committed relationship
(3) _____ married, living together
(4) _____ separated
68
(5) _____ divorced
(6) _____ other (please describe): _________________________
15. Was your biological father present in your life while growing up?
(1) _____ Yes
(2) _____ No
16. If no, at what age did he leave? _______
17. Please rate your political orientation on the following scale (circle the appropriate
number):
1
--2
--3
--4
--5
--6
--7
Liberal
Moderate
Conservative
69
APPENDIX B
The Big Five Inventory
(BFI; John, O., 1991)
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree a little
Both Agree and
Disagree
Agree a little
Agree Strongly
Instructions: Here are a number of characteristics
that may or may not apply to you. For example, do
you agree that you are someone who likes to spend
time with others? Please circle the number that
indicates the extent to which you agree or disagree
with that statement.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
3. I am someone who does a thorough job.
1
2
3
4
5
4. I am someone who is depressed, blue.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
I am someone who is helpful and unselfish
with others.
1
2
3
4
5
8. I am someone who can be somewhat careless.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
11. I am someone who is full of energy.
1
2
3
4
5
12. I am someone who starts quarrels with others.
1
2
3
4
5
13. I am someone who is a reliable worker.
1
2
3
4
5
14. I am someone who can be tense.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1. I am someone who is talkative.
2.
5.
I am someone who tends to find fault with
others.
I am someone who is original, comes up with
new ideas.
6. I am someone who is reserved.
7.
I am someone who is relaxed, handles stress
well.
I am someone who is curious about many
10.
different things.
9.
15.
I am someone who is ingenious, a deep
thinker.
16. I am someone who generates a lot of
70
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree a little
Both Agree and
Disagree
Agree a little
Agree Strongly
Instructions: Here are a number of characteristics
that may or may not apply to you. For example, do
you agree that you are someone who likes to spend
time with others? Please circle the number that
indicates the extent to which you agree or disagree
with that statement.
enthusiasm.
17. I am someone who has a forgiving nature.
1
2
3
4
5
18. I am someone who tends to be disorganized.
1
2
3
4
5
19. I am someone who worries a lot.
1
2
3
4
5
20. I am someone who has an active imagination.
1
2
3
4
5
21. I am someone who tends to be quiet.
1
2
3
4
5
22. I am someone who is generally trusting.
1
2
3
4
5
23. I am someone who tends to be lazy.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
I am someone who has an assertive
personality.
1
2
3
4
5
27. I am someone who can be cold and aloof.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
24.
I am someone who is emotionally stable, not
easily upset.
25. I am someone who is inventive.
26.
28.
I am someone who perseveres until the task is
finished.
29. I am someone who can be moody.
I am someone who values artistic, aesthetic
experiences.
I am someone who is sometimes shy,
31.
inhibited.
I am someone who is considerate and kind to
32.
almost everyone.
30.
33. I am someone who does things efficiently.
34.
I am someone who remains calm in tense
situations.
71
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree a little
Both Agree and
Disagree
Agree a little
Agree Strongly
Instructions: Here are a number of characteristics
that may or may not apply to you. For example, do
you agree that you are someone who likes to spend
time with others? Please circle the number that
indicates the extent to which you agree or disagree
with that statement.
I am someone who prefers work that is
35.
routine.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
I am someone who likes to reflect, play with
ideas.
1
2
3
4
5
41. I am someone who has few artistic interests.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
36. I am someone who is outgoing, sociable.
I am someone who is sometimes rude to
others.
I am someone who makes plans and follows
38.
through with them.
37.
39. I am someone who gets nervous easily.
40.
42.
I am someone who likes to cooperate with
others.
43. I am someone who is easily distracted.
44.
I am someone who is sophisticated in art,
music, or literature.
72
APPENDIX C
Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale
(Hendrick, Hendrick, & Reich, 2006)
Strongly Agree
Moderately Agree
Both Agree and Disagree
Moderately Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Instructions: Listed below are several statements that
reflect different attitudes about sex. For each statement
circle the response that indicates how much you agree or
disagree with that statement. Some of the items refer to a
specific sexual relationship, while others refer to general
attitudes and beliefs about sex. Whenever possible, answer
the questions with your current partner in mind. If you are
not currently dating anyone, answer the questions with
your most recent partner in mind. If you have never had a
sexual relationship, answer in terms of what you think
your responses would most likely be.
1. I do not need to be committed to a person to have sex
with him/ her.
1
2
3
4
5
2. Casual sex is acceptable.
1
2
3
4
5
3. I would like to have sex with many partners.
1
2
3
4
5
4. One-night stands are sometimes very enjoyable.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
10. It is okay for sex to be just good physical release.
1
2
3
4
5
11. Birth control is part of responsible sexuality.
1
2
3
4
5
12. A woman should share responsibility for birth
1
2
3
4
5
It is okay to have ongoing sexual relationships with
more than one person at a time.
Sex as a simple exchange of favors is okay if both
6.
people agree to it.
5.
7. The best sex is with no strings attached.
Life would have fewer problems if people could have
sex more freely.
It is possible to enjoy sex with a person and not like
9.
that person very much.
8.
73
Strongly Agree
Moderately Agree
Both Agree and Disagree
Moderately Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Instructions: Listed below are several statements that
reflect different attitudes about sex. For each statement
circle the response that indicates how much you agree or
disagree with that statement. Some of the items refer to a
specific sexual relationship, while others refer to general
attitudes and beliefs about sex. Whenever possible, answer
the questions with your current partner in mind. If you are
not currently dating anyone, answer the questions with
your most recent partner in mind. If you have never had a
sexual relationship, answer in terms of what you think
your responses would most likely be.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
16. At its best, sex seems to be the merging of two souls.
1
2
3
4
5
17. Sex is a very important part of life.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
21. The main purpose of sex is to enjoy oneself.
1
2
3
4
5
22. Sex is primarily physical.
1
2
3
4
5
23. Sex is primarily a bodily function, like eating.
1
2
3
4
5
control.
13. A man should share responsibility for birth control.
Sex is the closest form of communication between
two people.
A sexual encounter between two people deeply in
15.
love is the ultimate human interaction.
14.
Sex is usually an intensive, almost overwhelming
part experience.
Sex is best when you let yourself go and focus on
19.
your own pleasure.
Sex is primarily the taking of pleasure from another
20.
person.
18.
74
APPENDIX D
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
(Rosenberg, 1965)
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Instructions: Below is a list of statements dealing with
your general feelings about yourself. Please indicate
the extent to which you agree with each by using the
scale provided.
1
2
3
4
2. At times, I think I am no good at all.
1
2
3
4
3. I feel that I have a number of good qualities.
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5. I feel I do not have much to be proud of.
1
2
3
4
6. I certainly feel useless at times.
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
8. I wish I could have more respect for myself.
1
2
3
4
9. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1.
4.
7.
On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.
I am able to do things as well as most other
people.
I feel that I’m a person of worth, at least on an
equal plan with others.
10. I take a positive attitude toward myself.
75
APPENDIX E
Body Esteem Scale
(Franzoi & Shields, 1984)
Have Strong
Negative Feelings
Have Moderate
Negative Feelings
Have No Feeling
One Way or the
Other
Have Moderate
Positive Feelings
Have Strong
Positive Feelings
Instructions: On this page are listed a
number of body parts and functions.
Please read each item and indicated
how you feel about this part or function
of your own body using the scale
provided.
1
2
3
4
5
2. Appetite
1
2
3
4
5
3. Nose
1
2
3
4
5
4. Physical Stamina
1
2
3
4
5
5. Reflexes.
1
2
3
4
5
6. Lips.
1
2
3
4
5
7. Muscular Strength
1
2
3
4
5
8. Waist
1
2
3
4
5
9. Energy Level
1
2
3
4
5
10. Thighs
1
2
3
4
5
11. Ears
1
2
3
4
5
12. Biceps
1
2
3
4
5
13. Chin
1
2
3
4
5
14. Body Build
1
2
3
4
5
15. Physical Coordination
1
2
3
4
5
16. Buttocks
1
2
3
4
5
17. Agility
1
2
3
4
5
1.
Body Scent
76
Have Strong
Negative Feelings
Have Moderate
Negative Feelings
Have No Feeling
One Way or the
Other
Have Moderate
Positive Feelings
Have Strong
Positive Feelings
Instructions: On this page are listed a
number of body parts and functions.
Please read each item and indicated
how you feel about this part or function
of your own body using the scale
provided.
18. Width of Shoulders
1
2
3
4
5
19. Arms
1
2
3
4
5
20. Chest or Breasts
1
2
3
4
5
21. Appearance of Eyes
1
2
3
4
5
22. Cheeks/Cheekbones
1
2
3
4
5
23. Hips
1
2
3
4
5
24. Legs
1
2
3
4
5
25. Figure or Physique
1
2
3
4
5
26. Sex Drive
1
2
3
4
5
27. Feet
1
2
3
4
5
28. Sex Organs
1
2
3
4
5
29. Appearance of Stomach
1
2
3
4
5
30. Health
1
2
3
4
5
31. Sex Activities
1
2
3
4
5
32. Body Hair
1
2
3
4
5
33. Physical Condition
1
2
3
4
5
34. Face
1
2
3
4
5
35. Weight
1
2
3
4
5
77
APPENDIX F
Machiavellianism Inventory
All in all, it is better to be humble and
honest than important and dishonest.
Barnum was very wrong when he said
11.
there’s a sucker born every minute.
10.
Agree Strongly
9. It is wise to flatter important people.
Agree Somewhat
It is safest to assume that all people have
6. a vicious streak and it will come out
when they are a chance.
Never tell anyone the real reason you did
7.
something unless it is useful to do so.
One should take action only when sure it
8.
is morally right,
Agree Slightly
5. Honesty is the best policy in all cases.
Disagree Slightly
1. The best way to handle people is to tell
them what they want to hear.
When you ask someone to do something
for you, it is best to give the real reasons
2.
for wanting it rather than giving reasons
which might carry more weight.
Anyone who completely trusts anyone
3.
else is asking for trouble.
It is hard to get ahead without cutting
4.
corners here and there.
Disagree Somewhat
Instructions:
Each
statement
below
represents a commonly held opinion. You will
probably disagree with some statements and
agree with others. Read each statement
carefully, and indicate the extent to which you
agree or disagree with it using the scale
provided
Strongly Disagree
(Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. 1970)
-3
-2
-1
+1
+2
+3
-3
-2
-1
+1
+2
+3
-3
-2
-1
+1
+2
+3
-3
-2
-1
+1
+2
+3
-3
-2
-1
+1
+2
+3
-3
-2
-1
+1
+2
+3
-3
-2
-1
+1
+2
+3
-3
-2
-1
+1
+2
+3
-3
-2
-1
+1
+2
+3
-3
-2
-1
+1
+2
+3
-3
-2
-1
+1
+2
+3
78
Strongly Disagree
Disagree Somewhat
Disagree Slightly
Agree Slightly
Agree Somewhat
Agree Strongly
Instructions:
Each
statement
below
represents a commonly held opinion. You will
probably disagree with some statements and
agree with others. Read each statement
carefully, and indicate the extent to which you
agree or disagree with it using the scale
provided
People suffering from incurable diseases
12. should have the choice of being
painlessly put to death.
-3
-2
-1
+1
+2
+3
13. It is possible to be good in all respects.
-3
-2
-1
+1
+2
+3
14. Most people are basically good and kind.
-3
-2
-1
+1
+2
+3
-3
-2
-1
+1
+2
+3
-3
-2
-1
+1
+2
+3
-3
-2
-1
+1
+2
+3
-3
-2
-1
+1
+2
+3
-3
-2
-1
+1
+2
+3
-3
-2
-1
+1
+2
+3
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
There is no excuse for lying to someone
else.
Most men forget more easily the death of
their father than the loss of their property
Most people who get ahead in the world
lead clean, moral lives.
Generally speaking, men won’t work
hard unless they’re forced to do so.
The biggest difference between most
criminals and other people is that
criminals are stupid enough to get caught.
20. Most men are brave.
79
APPENDIX G
Marlow-Crowne Social Desirability Scale
False
Instructions: Listed below are a number of statements
concerning personal attitudes and traits. Read each item
and put an X through the “1” if the statement is True for
you, or put an X through the “2” if the statement is False
for you.
Before voting I thoroughly investigate the
1.
qualifications of all the candidates.
I never hesitate to go out of my way to help
2.
someone in trouble.
It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work
3.
if I am not encouraged.
4. I have never intensely disliked anyone.
On occasion I have had doubts about my ability to
5.
succeed in life.
I sometimes feel resentful when I don’t get my
6.
way.
7. I am always careful about my manner of dress.
My table manners at home are as good as when I
8.
eat out in a restaurant.
If I could get into a movie without paying and be
9.
sure I was not seen, I probably would do it.
On a few occasions, I have given up doing
10. something because I thought too little of my
ability.
11. I like to gossip at times.
There have been times when I felt like rebelling
12. against people in authority even though I knew
they were right.
No matter who I’m talking to, I’m always a good
13.
listener.
True
(Tatman, A. W., Swogger, M. T., Love, K, & Cook, M. D., 2009)
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
80
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
I can remember “playing sick” to get out of
something.
There have been occasions when I took advantage of
someone.
I’m always willing to admit it when I make a
mistake.
I always try to practice what I preach.
I don’t find it particularly difficult to get along with
loud-mouthed, obnoxious people.
I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and
forget.
When I don’t know something I don’t at all mind
admitting it.
I am always courteous, even to people who are
disagreeable.
At times I have really insisted on having things my
own way.
There have been occasions when I felt like smashing
things.
I would never think of letting someone else be
punished for my wrongdoings.
I never resent being asked to return a favor.
I have never been irked when people expressed ideas
very different from my own.
I never make a long trip without checking the safety
of my car.
There have been times when I was quite jealous of
the good fortunes of others.
I have almost never felt the urge to tell someone off.
I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of
me.
I have never felt that I was punished without cause.
I sometimes think when people have misfortune they
only got what they deserved.
I have never deliberately said something that hurt
someone’s feelings.
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
81
APPENDIX H
Narcissistic Personality Inventory
(Raskin, R., & Hall, C.S., 1979)
Instructions: Below you will find a list of statements about feelings. If a
statement describes how you usually feel, please circle the “A.” If a statement
does not describe how you usually feel, circle the “B.” Please answer honestly
and remember there are no right or wrong answers.
1. A. I have a natural talent for influencing people.
B. I am not good at influencing people.
2.
A. Modesty doesn’t become me.
B. I am essentially a modest person.
3.
A. I would almost anything on a dare.
B. I tend to be a fairly cautious person.
4.
A. When people compliment me I sometimes get embarrassed.
B. I know that I am good because everybody keeps telling me so.
5.
A. The thought of ruling the world frightens the hell out of me.
B. If I ruled the world it would be a better place.
6.
A. I can usually talk my way out of anything.
B. I try to accept the consequences of my behavior.
7.
A. I prefer to blend in with the crowd.
B. I like to be the center of attention.
8.
A. I will be a success.
B. I am not too concerned about success.
9.
A. I am no better or worse than most people.
B. I think I am a special person.
10.
A. I am not sure if I would make a good leader.
B. I see myself as a good leader.
11.
A. I am assertive.
B. I wish I were more assertive.
12.
A. I like to have authority over other people.
B. I don’t mind following orders.
82
13.
A. I find it easy to manipulate people.
B. I don’t like it when I find myself manipulating people.
14.
A. I insist upon getting the respect that is due to me.
B. I usually get the respect that I deserve.
15.
A. I don’t particularly like to show off my body.
B. I like to show off my body.
16.
A. I can read people like a book.
17.
B. People are sometimes hard to understand.
A. If I feel competent I am willing to take responsibility for making
decisions.
B. I like to take responsibility for making decisions.
18.
A. I just want to be reasonably happy.
B. I want to amount to something in the eyes of the world.
19.
A. My body is nothing special.
B. I like to look at my body.
20.
A. I try not to show off.
B. I will usually show off if I get the chance.
21.
A. I always know what I am doing.
B. Sometimes I am not sure of what I am doing.
22.
A. I sometimes depend on people to get things done.
B. I rarely depend on anyone else to get things done.
23.
A. Sometimes I tell good stories.
B. Everybody likes to hear my stories.
24.
A. I expect a great deal from other people.
B. I like to do things for other people.
25.
A. I will never be satisfied until I get all that I deserve,
B. I take my satisfactions as they come.
26.
A. Compliments embarrass me.
B. I like to be complimented.
27.
A. I have a strong will to power.
B. Power for its own sake doesn’t interest me.
28.
A. I don’t care about new fads and fashions.
83
B. I like to start new fads and fashions.
29.
A. I like to look at myself in the mirror.
B. I am not particularly interested in looking at myself in the mirror.
30.
A. I really like to be the center of attention.
B. It makes me uncomfortable to be the center of attention.
31.
A. I can live my life in any way I want to.
B. People can’t always live their lives in terms of what they want.
32.
A. Being an authority doesn’t mean that much to me.
B. People always seem to recognize my authority.
33.
A. I would prefer to be a leader.
B. It makes little difference to me whether I am a leader or not.
34.
A. I am going to be a great person.
B. I hope I am going to be successful.
35.
A. People sometimes believe what I tell them.
B. I can make anybody believe anything I want them to.
36.
A. I am a born leader.
B. Leadership is a quality that takes a long time to develop.
37
A. I wish somebody would someday write my biography,
B. I don’t like people to pry into my life for any reason.
38.
A. I get upset when people don’t notice how I look when I go out in public.
B. I don’t mind blending into the crowd when I go out in public.
39.
A. I am more capable than other people.
B. There is a lot that I can learn from other people.
40.
A. I am much like everybody else.
B. I am an extraordinary person.
84
APPENDIX I
Religious Orientation Scale-Revised
1. I enjoy reading about my religion.
I tend to
agree.
I strongly
agree.
Agree and
Disagree
Instructions: Please read each item carefully. Using the
scale on the right, please encircle the number that best
describes YOU. There are no correct answerer choices, just
answer honestly.
I strongly
disagree.
I tend to
disagree.
(Gorsuch & McPherson, 1989)
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
5. I have often had a strong sense of God’s presence.
1
2
3
4
5
6. I pray mainly to gain relief and protection.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Although I am religious, I don’t let it affect my daily
life.
1
2
3
4
5
11. I go to church mostly to spend time with my friends.
1
2
3
4
5
12. My whole approach to life is based on my religion.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
I go to church/ synagogue/ temple because it helps me
to make friends.
It doesn’t much matter what I believe so long as I am
3.
good.
It is important to spend time in private thought and
4.
prayer.
2.
I try hard to live all my life according to my religious
beliefs.
What religion offers me most is comfort in times of
8.
trouble and sorrow.
7.
9. Prayer is for peace and happiness.
10.
I go to church mainly because I enjoy seeing people I
know there.
Although I believe in my religion, many other things
14.
are important in life.
13.
85
APPENDIX J
Subclinical Psychopathy Inventory
I let others worry about higher values; my main concern
is with the bottom line.
People who are stupid enough to get ripped off usually
7.
deserve it.
6.
8. Looking out for myself is my top priority.
I tell other people what they want to hear so that they
will do what I want them to do.
I would be upset if my success came at someone else’s
10.
expense.
9.
11. I often admire a really clever scam.
I make a point of trying not to hurt others in pursuit of
my goals.
I feel bad if my words or actions cause someone else to
13.
feel emotional pain.
Even if I were trying very hard to sell something, I
14.
wouldn’t lie about it.
12.
15. Cheating is not justified because it is unfair to others.
Strongly
Agree
5. Making a lot of money is my most important goal.
Agree
In today’s world, I feel justified in doing anything I can
get away with and succeed.
My main purpose in life is getting as many goodies as I
4.
can.
3.
Agree and
Disagree
2. For me, what’s right is whatever I can get away with.
Disagree
Instructions: Please indicate the degree to which you
personally agree or disagree with each of the following
statements by encircling the number that reflects your
opinion.
1. Success is based on survival of the fittest; I am not
concerned about losers.
Strongly
Disagree
(Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M., 1995)
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
86
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Agree and
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Instructions: Please indicate the degree to which you
personally agree or disagree with each of the following
statements by encircling the number that reflects your
opinion.
I find myself in the same kinds of trouble, time after
16.
time.
1
2
3
4
5
17. I am often bored.
1
2
3
4
5
18. I find that I am able to pursue one goal for a long time.
1
2
3
4
5
19. I don’t plan anything very far in advance.
1
2
3
4
5
20. I quickly lose interest in tasks I start.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
25. Love is overrated.
1
2
3
4
5
26. I enjoy manipulating other people’s feelings.
1
2
3
4
5
Most of my problems are due to the fact that other
people just don’t understand me.
Before I do anything, I carefully consider the possible
22.
consequences.
I have been in a lot of shouting matches with other
23.
people.
When I get frustrated, I often “let off steam” by blowing
24.
my top.
21.
87
APPENDIX K
Revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory
(Simpson and Gangestad 1991)
Please respond honestly to the following questions:
1. With how many different partners have you had sex within the past 12 months?
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
0
1
2
3
4
5-6
7-9
10-19
20 or
more
2. With how many different partners have you had sexual intercourse on one and only
one occasion?
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
0
1
2
3
4
5-6
7-9
10-19
20 or
more
3. With how many different partners have you had sexual intercourse without having an
interest in a long-term committed relationship with this person?
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
0
1
2
3
4
5-6
7-9
10-19
20 or
more
4. Sex without love is OK.
1□
2□
3□
Strongly
Disagree
5.
4□
5□
6□
7□
8□
9□
Strongly Agree
I can imagine myself being comfortable and enjoying "casual" sex with different
partners.
1□
2□
3□
4□
5□
6□
7□
8□
9□
Strongly
Strongly Agree
Disagree
6. I do not want to have sex with a person until I am sure that we will have a long-term,
serious relationship.
1□
2□
3□
4□
5□
6□
7□
8□
9□
Strongly
Strongly Agree
Disagree
88
7. How often do you have fantasies about having sex with someone you are not in a
committed romantic relationship with?
□ 1 – never
□ 2 – very seldom
□ 3 – about once every two or three months
□ 4 – about once a month
□ 5 – about once every two weeks
□ 6 – about once a week
□ 7 – several times per week
□ 8 – nearly every day
□ 9 – at least once a day
8. How often do you experience sexual arousal when you are in contact with someone
you are not in a committed romantic relationship with?
□ 1 – never
□ 2 – very seldom
□ 3 – about once every two or three months
□ 4 – about once a month
□ 5 – about once every two weeks
□ 6 – about once a week
□ 7 – several times per week
□ 8 – nearly every day
□ 9 – at least once a day
9. In everyday life, how often do you have spontaneous fantasies about having sex with
someone you have just met?
□ 1 – never
□ 2 – very seldom
□ 3 – about once every two or three months
□ 4 – about once a month
□ 5 – about once every two weeks
□ 6 – about once a week
□ 7 – several times per week
□ 8 – nearly every day
□ 9 – at least once a day
89
References
Allport, G. & Ross, J. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 432-443.
Bale, C. & Archer, J. (2013). Self-perceived attractiveness, romantic desirability and selfesteem: A mating sociometer perspective. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 11(1),
68-84.
Barber, N. (2005). Evolutionary explanations for societal differences in single
parenthood. Evolutionary Psychology, 3, 142-174.
Barash, D. & Lipton, J. (2001). The myth of monogamy: Fidelity and infidelity in animals
and people. New York, New York: Henry Holt Company, LLC.
Bobadilla, L., Metze, A., & Taylor, J. (2013). Physical attractiveness and its relation to
unprovoked and reactive aggression. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(1), 7077.
Bowen, T. (1996). The impact of father absence on female sexual development and
attachment styles. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(10-B), 5790.
Buss, D. (2011). Evolutionary psychology the new science of the mind. Boston:Allyn &
Bacon.
90
Buss, D. & Schmitt, D. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on
human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204-232.
Buss, D. & Shackelford, T. (2008). Attractive women want it all: Good genes, economic
investment, parenting proclivities, and emotional commitment. Journal of
Evolutionary Psychology, 6(1), 134-146.
Calasanti, T. & Kiecolt, K.J. (2007). Diversity among late-life couples. Generations:
Journal of the American Society on Aging, 31(3), 10-17.
Calzo, J. P., & Ward, L. (2009). Contributions of parents, peers, and media to attitudes
toward homosexuality: Investigating sex and ethnic differences. Journal Of
Homosexuality, 56(8), 1101-1116.
Campbell, A. (2008). The morning after the night before: Affective reactions to one-night
stands among mated and unmated women and men. Human Nature, 19(2), 157-173.
Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Cunningham, M. (1986). Measuring the physical attractiveness: Quasi-experiments on
the sociobiology of female facial beauty. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 50(5), 925-935.
91
Curran, J. & Lippold, S. (1974). The effects of physical attraction and attitude similarity
on attraction in dating dyads. Journal of Personality, 43, 528-539.
Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 24(3), 285-290.
Epstein, M., Calzo, J. P., Smiler, A. P., & Ward, L. M. (2009). Anything from making
out to having sex: Men’s negotiations of hooking up and friends with benefits scripts.
Journal of Sexual Research, 46(5), 414-424.
Fessler, D. (2004). Angry men and disgusted women: An evolutionary approach to the
influence of emotions on risk taking. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 95(1), 107-123.
Fielder, R. L. & Carey, M. P. (2010). Predictors and consequences of sexual “hookups”
among college students: A short-term perspective study. Archives of Sexual Behavior,
39(5), 1105-1119.
Fink, S., Foran, K. A., Sweeney, A. C., & O’Hea E. (2009). Sexual body esteem and
mindfulness in college women. Body Image, 6, 326-329.
Fisher, M., Cox, A., Bennett, S., & Gavric, D., (2008). Components of self-perceived
mate value. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 13-25.
92
Fisher, T., Moore, & Pittenger, M. (2012). Sex on the brain?: An examination of
frequency of sexual cognitions of gender, erotophilia and social desirability. Journal
of Sex Research, 49(1), 69-77.
Forbes, G., Jobe, R., & Richardson, R. (2006). Associations between having a boyfriend
and the body satisfaction and self-esteem of college women: An extension of the Lin
and Kulik Hypothesis. Journal of Social Psychology, 146(3), 381-384.
Franzoi, S.L. & Shields, S.A. (1984). The Body-Esteem Scale: Multidimensional
structure and sex differences in a college population. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 48, 173-178.
Franzoi, S.L. (1994). Further evidence of the reliability and validity of the body esteem
scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 50, 237-239.
Geary, D. C. (1998). Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Hayes, A. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression-based approach. Gulliford Press.
Hom, A. Y. (1998). Stories from the homefront: perspectives of Asian American parents
with lesbian daughters and gay sons. In F. Ng (Ed) Asians in America: Asian
American women & gender (pp. 561–571). New York: Garland.
93
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Carson, M. J. (2009). The “booty call”: A compromise
between men and women’s ideal mating strategies. Journal of Sex Research, 46(5), 111.
Jonason, P. K. & Kavanagh, P. (2010). The dark side of love: Love styles and the dark
triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 606-610.
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Richardson, J. (2010). Positioning the booty-call on the
spectrum of relationships: Sexual but more emotional than one-night stands. Journal
of Sex Research, 47, 1-10.
Jonason, P. K., Valentine, K. A., & Li, N. P. (2011). Mate-selection and the dark triad:
Facilitating a short-term mating strategy and creating a volatile environment.
Personality and Individual Differences, 51(6), 759-763.
Jonason, P.K., Luevano, V.X., Adams, H.M. (2012) How the dark triad traits predict
relationship choices. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 180-184.
King, V. & Scott, M. E. (2005). A comparison of cohabitating relationships among older
and younger adults. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 271-285.
Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-esteem as an
interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 68(3), 518-530.
94
Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic
attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 68,151-158.
Njus, D.M. & Bane, C. (2009) Religious identification as a moderator of evolved sexual
strategies of men and women. Journal of Sex Research, 46(6), 546-557.
Perilloux, C., Cloud, J., & Buss, D. (2013) Women’s physical attractiveness and shortterm mating strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 490-495.
Penke, L. & Asendorpf, J.B. (2008) Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more
differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1113-1135.
Raskin, R. & Terry, H., (1988). A principle-components analysis of the narcissistic
personality inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 890-902.
Rowatt, W.C. & Schmitt, D.P. (2003) Associations between religious orientation and
varieties of sexual experience. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 42(3), 455–
465.
Rehbein-Narvaez, R., Vazquez, E. & Madison, L., (2006). The relation between selfesteem and sexual functioning in collegiate women. Journal of Clinical Psychology
146(2), 150-152.
95
Sacco, D., Young, S., Brown, C., Bernstein, M., & Hugenberg, K. (2012). Social
exclusion and female mating behavior: Rejected women show strategic enhancement
of short-term mating interest. Evolutionary Psychology, 10(3), 573-587.
Sassler, S. (2010). Partnering across the life course: Sex, relationships, and mate
selection. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 557-575.
Savin-Williams, R. C. (1996). Ethnic- and sexual-minority youth. In R. C. SavinWilliams, The lives of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals: Children to adults (pp. 152–
165). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Schmookler T., & Bursik, K. (2007). The value of monogamy in emerging adulthood: A
gendered perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(6), 819-835.
Schmitt, D. P. & Shackelford, T. K. (2008) Big five traits related to short-term mating:
From personality to promiscuity across 46 nations. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(2),
246-282.
Siebenbruner, J. (2013). Are college students replacing dating and romantic relationships
with hooking up? Journal of College Student Development, 54(4), 433-438.
Smiler, A. P. (2011). Sexual strategies theory: Built for the short-term or the long-term?
Sex Roles, (64), 603-612.
Soto, C.J., & John, O. P. (2009). Ten facet scales for the Big Five Inventory:
Convergence with NEO-PI R facets, self-peer agreement, and discriminant validity.
Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 84-90.
96
Siller, C. (2013). A father's supportive presence: Understanding how fathers influence
children's developmental outcomes. Dissertation Abstracts International, 73.
Todosijević, B, Ljubinković, S & Arančić, A. (2003). Mate selection criteria: A trait
desirability assessment study of sex differences in Serbia. Journal of Evolutionary
Psychology, 1, 116-126.
Townsend, J. M. & Wasserman, T. H. (2011). Sexual hookups among college students:
Sex differences in emotional reactions. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(6), 11731181.
Wade, T. (2000) Evolutionary theory and self-perception: Sex differences in body esteem
predictors of self-perceived physical and sexual attractiveness and self-esteem.
International Journal of Psychology, 35(1), 36-45.
Wentland, J. J. & Reissing, E. D. (2011). Taking casual sex not too casually: Exploring
definitions of casual sex relationships. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality,
20(3), 75-91.
Whitley, B.E. & Kite, M.E. (2010). The psychology of prejudice and discrimination.
Belmont, CA. Wadsworth.
Woodyward, J. L., Peterson, J. L. & Stokes, J. P. (2000). Let us go into the
house of the Lord: Participation in African American churches among young African
American men who have sex with men. Journal of Pastoral Care, 54, 4510–460.
Yoshioka, M., & Schustack, A. (2001). Disclosure of HIV status: Cultural issues of Asian
patients. AIDS Patient Care and STDs, 15(2), 77–82.
97
Zeigler-Hill, V. & Myers, E. (2011). An implicit theory of self-esteem: The consequences
of perceived self-esteem for romantic desirability. Journal of Evolutionary
Psychology, 9(2), 147-180.