Knowing the Desires of
Potential Sex Partners:
A Slice of Mating Intelligence
Glenn Geher
State University of New York at
New Paltz
A Brief History of Ideas ...
Mating Intelligence:
Sex, Relationships,
and the Mind's
Reproductive System
Glenn Geher
Geoffrey Miller
Should Mating Psychology
and Intelligence be Linked?
How reasonable is the
integration of mating and
intelligence in the minds of
scientists?
Analysis of articles in
Intelligence for content tied to
mating:
Only 3 (0.8%) of 811 articles
dealt with mating at all.
Frequency of articles in Intelligence
dealing with mating at all
1000
800
600
400
200
0
mating
non-mating
Analysis of articles in Evolution
and Human Behavior for
content tied to intelligence:
Only 1 (0.3%) of 311 articles
dealt with intelligence at all.
Frequency of articles in Evolution and
Human Behavior dealing with Intelligence
400
300
200
100
0
intelligence
no intelligence
Analysis of articles in Journal
of Social and Personal
Relationships for content tied
to intelligence:
Only 2 (0.2%) of 939 articles
dealt with intelligence at all.
Articles in J. of Social and Personal
Relationships dealing with Intelligence
1000
800
600
400
200
0
intelligence
no intelligence
In a SciSearch conducted for
our book, of all 51,477,995
records, only 121 associated
‘mating’ and ‘intelligence.’
... by contrast, 178 connected
‘mating’ and ‘Norway’
... and 168 connected ‘mating’
with ‘cockroach’
Is a scholarly marriage
between ‘mating’ and
‘intelligence’
sheer madness?#!?*!&!!
... not necessarily ...
As of September 19, 2006,
The Mating Mind was ranked
9,797 (of over a million) on
Amazon’s list of sales.
It was first published in 2000.
... compared with Glenn’s first
book, Measuring Emotional
Intelligence (2004), which
ranks (on September 19,
2006) 999,106 in sales ...
... ouch!!!
... but back to the
main ideas of this
talk ...
The Mating Mind’s
provocative thesis:
Perhaps human intelligence
evolved primarily as a Sexually
Selected Fitness Indicator …
Why do some people hold
incredible intellectual abilities
that seem totally unrelated to
survival?
Such as the ability to generate
complex mathematical formulas to
represent the physical world ...
MSNBC News Services -
8:10 p.m. ET July 10, 2006:
“New letters shed light on
Einstein’s love life …
Einstein admitted he spent time
with six other women while
married”
What is Mating Intelligence?
Miller’s answer: All aspects of human
intelligence that were primarily
designed for courtship purposes
(roughly: all indices of creative
intelligence with no clear survival
value)
Miller’s conceptualization
proposes that all intelligence
is mating intelligence, on one
hand – but his link between
such intelligence and mating
is decidedly indirect ...
But what about all the
cognitive abilities that relate
directly to human mating?
 Cross-Sex Mind-Reading
 Detecting Infidelity
 Assessing One’s Own Mate-Value
 Assessing Value of Potential Mates
 Strategic Flexibility in the Mating
Market
A Model of Mating Intelligence
(Geher & Miller, in press; Geher, Camargo, & O’Rourke, in press)
Cognitive
Mating
Mechanisms
Mental
Fitness
Displays
Mating
Success
A Study of Mating-Relevant
Cross-Sex Mind-Reading
How well do you know the
desires of potential mates?
Are there systematic biases
in mind-reading that are
relatively intelligent?
Just a Slice of Mating
Intelligence
Emotional Intelligence:
A Model for Studying Mating
Intelligence
The Ability-Based Method for Studying Emotional
Intelligence (Mayer & Geher, 1996)
Operationalizing
Mating Intelligence
A. The degree to which participants can accurately
guess which personal ads were rated as most
attractive to members of the opposite sex
B. The degree to which participants’ errors in judging
desires of the opposite-sex are adaptive
Participants
Heterosexual Young Adults (Males: 152; Females: 329)
Materials
1. Index of General Intelligence (Army Alpha
Vocabulary Test):
Sample item: Plenary:
Complete – Candid – Culpable – Cloying
2. Indices of both Long-Term and Short-Term Mating
Intelligence
Short-Term Mating Intelligence
(Male Example)
A: I love sex, generally, and … BLEEPED … in particular. No
strings, no reciprocation necessary (although I wouldn’t be
adverse to it!). You call the shots as much or as little as you
wish. I’ve explored the Kinky.
B: I grow more humble but no less passionate about life every
waking day. I laugh at myself, care about a lot, and strive to
transform the ordinary into the extraordinary. I’m pretty simple,
but have many talents: play several instruments, and I’m a
decent gardener.
C: I fully recognize that succeeding means drawing on multiple
talents, the best that everyone has to offer—so it seems with
relationships. I enjoy many of life’s fine refinements, but I also
realize that the best things in life are free.
The Task at Hand
To guess which of these three ads was chosen by most women as
the most attractive for a short-term, sexual relationship.
4 Total Indices were computed in this study:
Male
Female
Short-Term MI Short-Term MI
Male
Long-Term MI
Female
Long-Term MI
Analyses (Phase 1): How
Good Were Participants at
This Task?
Male Short-Term Mating Intelligence:
Option
A: I love sex, generally, and … BLEEP …
in particular ...
O E
58 44.40
B: I grow more humble but no less
passionate about life every waking day ...
34 38.25
C: I fully recognize that succeeding means 31 40.34
drawing on multiple talents ...
2(2) = 6.80, p < .05; N = 123
Overall Trends for
all Types of Judgments
Male Long-Term
Judgments
Female Long-Term
Judgments
Generally Accurate
(Mean 2 = 6.09, p < .05)
Not Too Shabby
(Mean 2 = 13.54, p < .01)
Shabby
(Mean 2 = 35.81, p < .01)
Female Short-Term
Judgments
Very Shabby
(Mean 2 = 62.67, p < .01)
Male Short-Term
Judgments
A rare case of males
demonstrating superiority in a
social skill compared with
females …
But … Does “Accurate”
Correspond to “Intelligent?”
Not Necessarily ... Haselton & Buss (2000) – Error Management
Theory
Males tend to overestimate sexual interest on the part of
females
(The “I think she likes me that way” Bias)
Females tend to be Commitment Skeptics
(The “all men are pigs” Bias)
Error Management Effects in
the Current Study
All ads were rated by two independent judges in terms of
presence of sexual content (categorically defined as present or
not)
Sample Male Short-Term Item coded as having sexual content:
I love sex, generally, and … BLEEP … in particular...
___________________________________________________
Sample Female Short-Term Item coded as having sexual content:
I am searching for a fling of epic proportions, someone to caress
my face as we kiss and who will write me love notes and leave
them under my door—but will not get upset with me if I decide to
kiss another man. Human beings are not meant to be paired for
life, like lobsters.
Defining Male Error
Management
Instances in which:
A. Male overall guessing was significantly off
B. Errors were such that males tended to overestimate degree
to which females would choose sexually charged item
Option (from male short-term scale)
A (SEXUALLY CHARGED ITEM): I love
sex, generally, and … BLEEP … in
particular ...
B: I grow more humble but no less
passionate about life every waking day
...
C: I fully recognize that succeeding
means drawing on multiple talents ...
2(2) = 6.80, p < .05; N = 123
O
58
(overest.)
34
E
44.40
31
40.34
38.25
Summary of Male Results
Long-Term Judgments – Accurate overall – did not
overestimate degree to which females were interested in
sexual items
Short-Term Judgments – 5 of 10 items had one or more
sexual ads – IN EACH CASE (5 of 5), males overestimated the
degree to which females chose the sexually charged ad
Defining Female Error
Management
Instances in which:
•
Female overall guessing was significantly off
•
Errors were such that sexually charged items were
overestimated
Option (from female short-term scale)
A: ... I will make your favorite sandwich
when you wake up in the night ...
O
102
B (SEXUALLY CHARGED ITEM): ...
looking for a fling of epic proportions
... Human beings are not meant to be
paired for life, like lobsters ...
C: I am the kind of girl who loves to
sing. I know all the words to Grease ...
156
71.25
(overest.)
2(2) = 133.83, p < .05; N = 289
31
E
157.97
40.34
Summary of Female Results
Long-Term Judgments – 5 of 10 items had one or more
sexual ads – IN EACH CASE (5 of 5), females overestimated
the degree to which males chose the sexually charged ad
Short-Term Judgments – 4 of 10 items had one or more
sexual ads – IN 3 of 4 cases, females overestimated the
degree to which males chose the sexually charged ad
Evidence for a ‘Men are Always Pigs’ bias?
Is Either Accuracy or Adaptive
Mind-Reading g-Loaded?
Not for Females: Neither accuracy nor commitmentskepticism-bias was associated with vocabulary scores.
Maybe for Males???
Correlations between IQ and
Indices of Accuracy and Adaptive
Bias (for Males)
IQ____________
Accuracy in Long-Term Mating Judgments
.06
Accuracy in Short-Term Mating Judgments
.13
Overestimating Sexual Qualities (LT)
.05
Overestimating Sexual Qualities (ST)
.30*1
____________________________________________________
N = 127 for all; *p < .05; 1significantly predictive of IQ after
controlling for other predictors in standard regression.
(F(4, 123) = 3.21, p < .05; R2 = .10)
Implications
Sex Differences
Males are more accurate overall (consistent with findings from
Bromley & Camargo (in prep.); DeBacker, Braeckman, &
Farinpour, in press)
Males Rarely are Better than
Females at Social Intelligence
Tasks ...
Female superiority has been demonstrated in:
● Emotional intelligence (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 1999)
● Social Intelligence (Connellana, Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright,
Batkia, Jag, & Ahluwaliab, 2000)
● Interpersonal Intelligence (Rammstedt, Thomas H. Rammsayer,
1999)
● Nonverbal abilities (Nowicki, 1994)
● Decoding in Communication (Noller, 1986)
Two hypothesized effects may
account for this sex difference
A. Heterosexual men may have more motivation to be accurate
given the notoriously discriminating nature of the objects of their
desire.
B. Given the reputation of males in the mating game, women may
be wisest to employ a simple “all he wants is sex” heuristic.
(Commitment Skepticism may pay in the long-run)
The Future of Mating
Intelligence Research
1. How g-loaded are facets of mating intelligence?
1A. are courtship-display components more g-loaded than mating
mechanisms?
2. Is our model of mating intelligence factorially valid?
3. Are mating mechanisms more designed for accuracy or
adaptive bias (Fletcher & Simpson, 2000)?
4. Are the elements of mating intelligence predictive of mating
success (Camargo, in progress)?
5. Would the the cross-sex mind-reading abilities
documented in this study transfer to effectiveness in
choosing the correct bachelor or bachelorette on The Dating
Game?
Will the Mating Intelligence
construct live up to its introduction
in this presentation as the best
thing since sliced bread?
We’ll have to wait and see!
Acknowledgements
Thanks to my wonderful research assistants from SUNY New
Paltz:
Eli Boyle, Mike Camargo, Michelle Coombs, Elisabeth
Dewispelaere, Jason Diffenderfer, Warren Greig, Kelly
Fairweather, Rachel Fetters, Kimona Hanson, Krystle Hearns,
John Johnson, Jill Lavallee, Justin Lee, Heather Mangione,
Nilerisha Mollette, Regina Musicaro, Uzoma Ugonabo, Erica
White.
... and to others who’ve provided
input and/or guidance:
Alice Andrews, David Buss, Kathy Geher, Scott Barry
Kaufman, Jack Mayer, Geoffrey Miller, Kaja Perina – and all
the contributors to our book (coming soon to a bookshelf
near you!).
For more information on my research, see:
glenngeher.com
... and thanks for listening!