Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Effects of the Mating Market, Sex, Age, and Income on Sociopolitical Orientation

Insights from Evolutionary Theory and Sexual Economics Theory

  • Published:
Human Nature Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Sociopolitical attitudes are often the root cause of conflicts between individuals, groups, and even nations, but little is known about the origin of individual differences in sociopolitical orientation. We test a combination of economic and evolutionary ideas about the degree to which the mating market, sex, age, and income affect sociopolitical orientation. We collected data online through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk from 1108 US participants who were between 18 and 60, fluent in English, and single. While ostensibly testing a new online dating website, participants created an online dating profile and described people they would like to date. We manipulated the participants’ popularity in the mating market and the size of the market (i.e., the number of ideal partners in the market) and then measured participants’ sociopolitical attitudes. The sociopolitical attitudes were reduced to five dimensions via Principal Components Analysis (Sociosexuality, Benevolent Sexism, Wealth Redistribution, Nonconforming Behaviors, and Traditional Family Values). Both manipulations affected attitudes toward wealth redistribution but were largely not significant predictors of the other dimensions. Men reported more unrestricted sociosexual attitudes, and more support for benevolent sexism and traditional family values, than women did, and women supported wealth redistribution more than men did. There was no sex difference in accepting nonconforming behaviors. Younger people and people with lower incomes were more liberal than older people and people with higher incomes, respectively, regardless of sex. Overall, effects were largely not interactive, suggesting that individual differences in sociopolitical orientation may reflect strategic self-interest and be more straightforward than previously predicted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data for this manuscript are available at: https://osf.io/s2e3g/

References

  • Ainsworth, S. E., & Baumeister, R. F. (2012). Changes in sexuality: how sexuality changes across time, across relationships, and across sociocultural contexts. Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 9(1), 32–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., & Mendoza, J. P. (2011). Cultural variations in the sexual marketplace: gender equality correlates with more sexual activity. The Journal of Social Psychology, 151(3), 350–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., & Twenge, J. M. (2002). Cultural suppression of female sexuality. Review of General Psychology, 6(2), 166–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Sexual economics: sex as female resource for social exchange in heterosexual interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 339–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S. (1976). Economic approach to human behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besen, Y., & Zicklin, G. (2007). Young men, religion and attitudes towards homosexuality. Journal of Men, Masculinities and Spirituality, 1(3), 250–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (2009). Serial monogamy as polygyny or polyandry? Human Nature, 20(2), 130–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brase, G. L., & Guy, E. C. (2004). The demographics of mate value and self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(2), 471–484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(2), 217–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (1994). The strategies of human mating. American Scientist, 82(3), 238–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (2002). Human mate guarding. Neuroendocrinology Letters, 23(4), 23–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Duntley, J. D. (2011). The evolution of intimate partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(5), 411–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Haselton, M. (2005). The evolution of jealousy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(11), 506–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., & Westen, D. (1996). Sex differences in jealousy: not gone, not forgotten, and not explained by alternative hypotheses. Psychological Science, 7(6), 373–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chenoweth, S. F., & Blows, M. W. (2005). Contrasting mutual sexual selection on homologous signal traits in Drosophila serrata. American Naturalist, 165(2), 281–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornelis, I., Van Hiel, A., Roets, A., & Kossowska, M. (2009). Age differences in conservatism: evidence on the mediating effects of personality and cognitive style. Journal of Personality, 77(1), 51–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, M., Wilson, M., & Weghorst, S. J. (1982). Male sexual jealousy. Ethology and Sociobiology, 3(1), 11–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, M. (2004). Correlates of negative attitudes toward gay men: Sexism, male role norms, and male sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 41(3), 259–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawtry, R. J., Sutton, R. M., & Sibley, C. G. (2015). Why wealthier people think people are wealthier, and why it matters: from social sampling to attitudes to redistribution. Psychological Science, 26(9), 1389–1400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Draper, N. R., & John, J. A. (1988). Response-surface designs for quantitative and qualitative variables. Technometrics, 30(4), 423–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., Diekman, A. B., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Koenig, A. M. (2004). Gender gaps in sociopolitical attitudes: a social psychological analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(6), 796–816.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekehammar, B., & Sidanius, J. (1982). Sex differences in sociopolitical attitudes: a replication and extension. British Journal of Social Psychology, 21(3), 249–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (1990). Toward an evolutionary history of female sociosexual variation. Journal of Personality, 58(1), 69–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(04), 573–587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goetz, A. T., & Shackelford, T. K. (2009). Sexual conflict in humans: evolutionary consequences of asymmetric parental investment and paternity uncertainty. Animal Biology, 59(4), 449–456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Ackerman, J. M., Delton, A. W., Robertson, T. E., & White, A. E. (2012). The financial consequences of too many men: sex ratio effects on saving, borrowing, and spending. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(1), 69–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guttentag, M., & Secord, P. F. (1983). Too many women? The sex ratio question. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: correlates and gender differences. Journal of Sex Research, 25(4), 451–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., & Bloom, P. (2009). Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals. Cognition and Emotion, 23(4), 714–725.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jolliffe, I. (2011). Principal component analysis. In M. Lovric (Ed.), International encyclopedia of statistical science (pp. 1094–1096). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Judge, T. A., & Livingston, B. A. (2008). Is the gap more than gender? A longitudinal analysis of gender, gender role orientation, and earnings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 994–1012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaestle, C. E., & Allen, K. R. (2011). The role of masturbation in healthy sexual development: perceptions of young adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(5), 983–994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kettle, K. L., & Salerno, A. (2017). Anger promotes economic conservatism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(10), 1440–1454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurzban, R., Dukes, A., & Weeden, J. (2010). Sex, drugs and moral goals: reproductive strategies and views about recreational drugs. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 277(1699), 3501–3508.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lande, R., & Arnold, S. J. (1983). The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution, 37(6), 1210–1226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levant, R. F., Rankin, T. J., Williams, C. M., Hasan, N. T., & Smalley, K. B. (2010). Evaluation of the factor structure and construct validity of scores on the Male Role Norms Inventory-Revised (MRNI-R). Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11(1), 25–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y. J., Cohen, A. B., Weeden, J., & Kenrick, D. T. (2010). Mating competitors increase religious beliefs. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 46(2), 428–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim, V. K. (2002). Gender differences and attitudes towards homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 43(1), 85–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsunaga, M. (2015). How to factor-analyze your data right: do’s, don’ts, and how-to’s. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 97–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murnen, S. K., & Byrne, D. (1991). Hyperfemininity: measurement and initial validation of the construct. Journal of Sex Research, 28(3), 479–489.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nychka, D. W. (2000). Spatial-process estimates as smoothers. In M. G. Schimek (Ed.), Smoothing and regression: Approaches, computation, and application (pp. 393–424). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nychka, D. W., Furrer, R., Paige, J., & Sain, S. (2015). FIELDS: Tools for spatial data. (R package version 8 ed.).

  • Page, B. I., Bartels, L. M., & Seawright, J. (2013). Democracy and the policy preferences of wealthy Americans. Perspectives on Politics, 11(01), 51–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, M. B. (2017). Reproductive interests and dimensions of political ideology. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39(2), 203–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2011). Gender differences in sexual attitudes and behaviors: a review of meta-analytic results and large datasets. Journal of Sex Research, 48(2–3), 149–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, M. B., Sznycer, D., Sell, A., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2013). The ancestral logic of politics: upper-body strength regulates men’s assertion of self-interest over economic redistribution. Psychological Science, 24(7), 1098–1103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinsof, D., & Haselton, M. (2016). The political divide over same-sex marriage: mating strategies in conflict? Psychological Science, 27(4), 435–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinsof, D., & Haselton, M. (2017). The effect of the promiscuity stereotype on opposition to gay rights. PLoS One, 12(7), e0178534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, M. E., Pound, N., & Scott, I. M. (2014). Female economic dependence and the morality of promiscuity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(7), 1289–1301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, M. E., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Sidnaius, J., & Pound, N. (2017). Is sociopolitical egalitarianism related to bodily and facial formidability in men? Evolution and Human Behavior, 38(5), 626–634.

    Google Scholar 

  • Revelle, W. (2017). Psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research (version 1.8.4). Evanston: Northwestern University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, G., Simmons, L. W., & Peters, M. (2005). Attractiveness and sexual behavior: does attractiveness enhance mating success? Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(2), 186–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudman, L. A., & Kilianski, S. E. (2000). Implicit and explicit attitudes toward female authority. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(11), 1315–1328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacco, D. F., Young, S. G., Brown, C. M., Bernstein, M. J., & 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, S. P., & Metz, M. E. (2009). The attitudes toward prostitution scale: preliminary report on its development and use. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53(3), 334–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scelza, B. A. (2011). Female choice and extra-pair paternity in a traditional human population. Biology Letters, 7(6), 889–891.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schacht, R., & Bell, A. V. (2016). The evolution of monogamy in response to partner scarcity. Scientific Reports, 6, 32472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schacht, R., & Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (2015). Sex ratio effects on reproductive strategies in humans. Royal Society Open Science, 2(1), 140402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schacht, R., & Grote, M. (2015). Partner choice decision making and the integration of multiple cues. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36(6), 456–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schacht, R., & Kramer, K. L. (2016). Patterns of family formation in response to sex ratio variation. PLoS One, 11(8), e0160320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schluter, D. (1988). Estimating the form of natural selection on a quantitative trait. Evolution, 42(5), 849–861.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidanius, J., & Ekehammar, B. (1980). Sex-related differences in socio-political ideology. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 21(1), 17–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(6), 870–883.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, J. (2012). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (Fifth ed.). New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart-Williams, S., & Thomas, A. G. (2013). The ape that thought it was a peacock: does evolutionary psychology exaggerate human sex differences? Psychological Inquiry, 24(3), 137–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundie, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Vohs, K. D., & Beal, D. J. (2011). Peacocks, Porsches, and Thorstein Veblen: conspicuous consumption as a sexual signaling system. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(4), 664–680.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sznycer, D., Seal, M. F. L., Sell, A., Lim, J., Porat, R., Shalvi, S., et al. (2017). Support for redistribution is shaped by compassion, envy, and self-interest, but not a taste for fairness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(31), 8420–8425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terrizzi, J. A., Shook, N. J., & Ventis, W. L. (2010). Disgust: a predictor of social conservatism and prejudicial attitudes toward homosexuals. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(6), 587–592.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thórisdóttir, H., & Jost, J. T. (2011). Motivated closed-mindedness mediates the effect of threat on political conservatism. Political Psychology, 32(5), 785–811.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaus, D., & McAllister, I. (1989). The changing politics of women: gender and political alignment in 11 nations. European Journal of Political Research, 17(3), 241–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weeden, J., Cohen, A. B., & Kenrick, D. T. (2008). Religious attendance as reproductive support. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(5), 327–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickham, H. (2009). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1996). Male sexual proprietariness and violence against wives. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5(1), 2–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yost, M. R., & Zurbriggen, E. L. (2006). Gender differences in the enactment of sociosexuality: an examination of implicit social motives, sexual fantasies, coercive sexual attitudes, and aggressive sexual behavior. The Journal of Sex Research, 43(2), 163–173.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research project was supported by the Australian Research Council and University of New South Wales internal funds.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Evolution & Ecology Research Centre, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia

    Francesca R. Luberti, Khandis R. Blake & Robert C. Brooks

Authors
  1. Francesca R. Luberti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Khandis R. Blake
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert C. Brooks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesca R. Luberti.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

All procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the UNSW Human Research Ethics Committee (approval number HC16868) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(PDF 910 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Luberti, F.R., Blake, K.R. & Brooks, R.C. The Effects of the Mating Market, Sex, Age, and Income on Sociopolitical Orientation. Hum Nat 31, 88–111 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-019-09361-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-019-09361-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation