Abstract
Past studies have indicated that individuals with an unrestricted sociosexual orientation (SO; ‘unrestricted’ reflects comfort with sex outside the confines of a committed relationship) emphasize attractiveness and desirability when pursuing romantic partners. Additionally, SO is related to decreased commitment, and ultimately increased infidelity, in a current romantic relationship. Thus, the current study investigates potential mediators between sociosexual orientation (SO) and romantic commitment. Perceptions of a romantic partner’s characteristics such as physical attractiveness, various personality traits, and perceived similarities were examined as mediators. The findings indicate perceived social skills, intellect, and perceived similarities with the partner were all significant mediators between SO and commitment. Additionally, physical attractiveness was a marginally significant mediator. The final mediation model suggests that individuals with unrestricted SOs may have lower commit in their current relationships because participants with an unrestricted SO, compared to participants with a restricted SO, rated their partners as having fewer social skills, less intellect, and also fewer similarities between themselves and their partners.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barta, W. D., & Kiene, S. M. (2005). Motivations for infidelity in heterosexual dating couples: the roles of gender, personality differences, and sociosexual orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(3), 339–360. doi:10.1177/0265407505052440.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
Bradbury, T. N., & Karney, B. R. (2010). Intimate relationships. New York: Norton.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–14.
Buss, D. M. (1998). Sexual strategies theory: historical origins and current status. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 19–31.
Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 559–570. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.559.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232.
Green, S. K., Buchanan, D. R., & Heuer, S. K. (1984). Winners, losers, and choosers a field investigation of dating initiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10(4), 502–511. doi:10.1177/0146167284104002.
Hendrick, S. S., Hendrick, C., & Adler, N. L. (1988). Romantic relationships: love, satisfaction, and staying together. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 980–988.
Jones, M. (1998). Sociosexuality and motivations for romantic involvement. Journal of Research in Personality, 32(2), 173–182. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092656697922121.
Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: a meta-analysis of the Investment Model. Personal Relationships, 10, 37–57.
Lundy, D. E., Tan, J., & Cunningham, M. R. (1998). Heterosexual romantic preferences: the importance of humor and physical attractiveness for different types of relationships. Personal Relationships, 5, 311–325.
Mattingly, B. A., Clark, E. M., Weidler, D. J., Bullock, M., Hackathorn, J., & Blankmeyer, K. (2011). Sociosexual orientation, commitment, and infidelity: a mediation analysis. The Journal of Social Psychology, 151(3), 222–226. doi:10.1080/00224540903536162.
Morry, M. M., Kito, M., & Ortiz, L. (2011). The attraction-similarity model and dating couples: projection, perceived similarity, and psychological benefits. Personal Relationships, 18, 125–143.
Ostovich, J. M., & Sabini, J. (2004). How are sociosexuality, sex drive, and lifetime number of sexual partners related? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(10), 1255–1266. doi:10.1177/0146167204264754.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.
Regan, P. C. (1998). Minimum mate selection standards as a function of perceived mate value, relationship context, and gender. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 10, 53–73.
Regan, P. C., Levin, L., Sprecher, S., Christopher, F. S., & Cate, R. (2000). Partner preferences: what characteristics do men and women desire in their short term sexual and long-term romantic partners. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 12, 1–21.
Rusbult, C. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: the development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 172–186.
Rusbult, C., & Buunk, B. P. (1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: an interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 175–201. doi:10.1177/026540759301000202.
Schmitt, D. P., Shackleford, T. K., & Buss, D. M. (2001). Are men really more ‘oriented’ toward short-term mating than women? A critical review of theory and research. Psychology, Evolution & Gender, 3(3), 211–239.
Seal, D. W., Agostinelli, G., & Hannett, C. A. (1994). Extradyadic romantic involvement: moderating effects of sociosexuality and gender. Sex Roles, 31(1–2), 1–22. doi:10.1007/BF01560274.
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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.870.
Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1992). Sociosexuality and romantic partner choice. Journal of Personality, 60, 31–51.
Simpson, J. A., Wilson, C. L., & Winterheld, H. A. (2004). The handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 87–111). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=g8MgPeV6_qIC&oi=fnd&pg=PA87&dq=Simpson, wilson, and winterheld.
Walster, E., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D., & Rottman, L. (1966). Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(5), 508–516. doi:10.1037/h0021188.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hackathorn, J., Brantley, A. To Know You is (Not) to Want You: Mediators Between Sociosexual Orientation and Romantic Commitment. Curr Psychol 33, 89–97 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-013-9199-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-013-9199-9