How Willing Are You to Accept Sexual Requests from Slightly Unattractive to Exceptionally Attractive Imagined Requestors?
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
In their classic study of differences in mating strategies, Clark and Hatfield (1989, Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2, 39–54) found that men and women demonstrated a striking difference in interest in casual sex. The current study examined the role of an imagined requestor’s physical attractiveness (slightly unattractive, moderately attractive, and exceptionally attractive) on men’s and women’s willingness to accept three different requests (go out, come to apartment, go to bed) as reflected in answers to a questionnaire. We tested two hypotheses with a sample of 427 men and 443 women from three countries. Hypothesis 1 states that men, relative to women, will demonstrate a greater willingness to accept the “come to apartment” and “go to bed” requests but not the “go out” request for all three levels of requestor attractiveness. This hypothesis reflects Clark and Hatfield’s main findings. Hypothesis 2 states that the physical attractiveness of a potential partner will have a greater effect on women’s than on men’s willingness to accept all three requests, and particularly for the explicit request for casual sex. The results partially supported Hypothesis 1 and fully supported Hypothesis 2. The discussion highlights limitations of the current research and presents directions for future research.
- Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49. CrossRef
- Buss, D. M. (1994). The strategies of human mating. American Scientist, 82, 238–249.
- Buss, D. M. (2007). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
- Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232. CrossRef
- Buss, D. M., Abbott, M., Angleitner, A., Biaggio, A., Blanco-Villasenor, A., et al. (1990). International preferences in selecting mates: a study of 37 societies. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 21, 5–47. CrossRef
- Clark, R. D. (1990). The impact of AIDS on gender differences in willingness to engage in casual sex. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 771–782. CrossRef
- Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2, 39–54. CrossRef
- Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (2003). Love in the afternoon. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 225–229. CrossRef
- Ellis, B. J., & Symons, D. (1990). Sex differences in fantasy: an evolutionary psychological approach. Journal of Sex Research, 27, 527–556. CrossRef
- Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1997). The evolutionary psychology of extrapair sex: the role of fluctuating asymmetry. Evolution and Human Behavior, 18, 69–88. CrossRef
- Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1999). Individual differences in developmental precision and fluctuating asymmetry: a model and its implications. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 12, 402–416. CrossRef
- Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Garver-Apgar, C. E. (2005). Adaptations to ovulation. In D. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 344–371). Hoboken: Wiley.
- Schmitt, D. P. (2005a). Fundamentals of human mating strategies. In D. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 258–291). Hoboken: Wiley.
- Schmitt, D. P. (2005b). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: a 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 247–275.
- Schmitt, D. P., Shackelford, T. K., Duntley, J., Tooke, W., & Buss, D. M. (2001). The desire for sexual variety as a key to understanding basic human mating strategies. Personal Relationships, 8, 425–455. CrossRef
- Schmitt, D. P., Alcalay, L., Allik, J., Ault, L., Austers, I., Bennett, K. L., et al. (2003). Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual variety: tests from 52 nations, 6 continents, and 13 islands. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 85–104. CrossRef
- Schützwohl, A. (2006). Judging female figures: a new methodological approach to male attractiveness judgments of female waist-to-hip ratio. Biological Psychology, 71, 223–229. CrossRef
- Shackelford, T. K., Goetz, A. T., LaMunyon, C. W., Quintus, B. J., & Weekes-Shackelford, V. A. (2004). Sex differences in sexual psychology produce sex-similar preferences for a short-term mate. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33, 405–412. CrossRef
- Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 293–307. CrossRef
- Surbey, M. K., & Conohan, C. D. (2000). Willingness to engage in casual sex: the role of parental qualities and perceived risk of aggression. Human Nature, 11, 367–386. CrossRef
- Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Tovée, M. J., & Cornelissen, P. L. (2001). Female and male perceptions of female physical attractiveness in front-view and profile. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 391–402. CrossRef
- Townsend, J. M., Kline, J., & Wasserman, T. H. (1995). Low-investment copulation: sex differences in motivations and emotional reactions. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 25–51. CrossRef
- How Willing Are You to Accept Sexual Requests from Slightly Unattractive to Exceptionally Attractive Imagined Requestors?
Volume 20, Issue 3 , pp 282-293
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer US
- Additional Links
- Sex differences
- Short-term mating
- Physical attractiveness