Abstract
In this study, we review the psychometric literature on mating effort and find that extant instruments (1) have not been adequately evaluated in terms of internal structure and measurement invariance, and (2) disproportionately focus on mate retention and intrasexual competition tactics designed to repel competitors, relative to attraction and investment effort. To address these gaps in the literature, we carried out two studies to develop and validate a new Mating Effort Questionnaire (MEQ). In Study 1, we report a pilot study in which participants’ responses to an item pool were submitted to exploratory factor analysis. In Study 2, we replicated the structure found in Study 1 using confirmatory factor analysis in an independent sample. A three-factor solution yielded the best fit. The three factors reflected respondents’ allocation of energy to attracting high mate value partners when already mated, seeking out romantic partners when single, and investing in their current romantic partner and relationships. Strong partial measurement invariance held across the sexes, implying that observed scores may be used to compare them. We also found evidence of concurrent validity via associations between the MEQ and constructs such as sociosexual orientation, K-factor, mate retention behaviors, and respondents’ sexual behavior. These findings suggest that the MEQ is a valid and novel measure of individual differences in mating effort which is well suited to complement existing mating effort measures.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The countries that these respondents were from: Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Canada, Ecuador, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, Latvia, Mexico, Nicaragua, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, The Dominican Republic, The Phillipines, The Republic of Lithuania, and Venezuela.
These countries were: Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, Ecuador, Estonia, Indonesia, Italy, Jamaica, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, The Dominican Republic, The Phillipines, The UK, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, and Venezuela.
A report of the EFA and CFA for the MRI-SF can be found in the supplement.
For the exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of all scales, please see the supplement.
We did not include the behavior factor of the SOI-R in these analyses because we viewed this factor as an outcome of mating effort, not a predictor of mating effort.
References
Apostolou, M., Papadopoulou, I., & Georgiadou, P. (2019). Are people single by choice? Involuntary singlehood in an evolutionary perspective. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 5(1), 98–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-018-0169-1.
Apostolou, M., Shialos, M., Kyrou, E., Demetriou, A., & Papamichael, A. (2018). The challenge of starting and keeping a relationship: Prevalence rates and predictors of poor mating performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 122, 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.004.
Apostolou, M., & Wang, Y. (2018). Parent–offspring conflict over mating in Chinese families: Comparisons with Greek Cypriot families. Evolutionary Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704918764162.
Arnocky, S., Sunderani, S., & Vaillancourt, T. (2013). Mate-poaching and mating success in humans. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 11(2), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1556/JEP.11.2013.2.2.
Benjamin, D. J., Berger, J. O., Johannesson, M., Nosek, B. A., Wagenmakers, E. J., Berk, R., … Cesarini, D. (2018). Redefine statistical significance. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0189-z.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.107.2.238.
Brown, T. A. (2003). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire: Multiple factors or method effects? Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41(12), 1411–1426. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(03)00059-7.
Brown, T. A. (2014). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
Buss, D. M., Goetz, C., Duntley, J. D., Asao, K., & Conroy-Beam, D. (2017). The mate switching hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 143–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.07.022.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204.
Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., & McKibbin, W. F. (2008). The Mate Retention Inventory-Short Form (MRI-SF). Personality and Individual Differences, 44(1), 322–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.08.013.
Buunk, A. P., & Fisher, M. (2009). Individual differences in intrasexual competition. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 7(1), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1556/JEP.7.2009.1.5.
Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2156–2160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.009.
Charles, K. E., & Egan, V. (2005). Mating effort correlates with self-reported delinquency in a normal adolescent sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(5), 1035–1045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.06.021.
Figueredo, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. M., Kauffman, I. A., Weil, E., & Gladden, P. R. (2012). The interplay of behavioral dispositions and cognitive abilities: Sociosexual orientation, emotional intelligence, executive functions and life history strategy. Temas em Psicologia, 20(1), 87–100.
Figueredo, A. J., Vásquez, G., Brumbach, B. H., Schneider, S. M., Sefcek, J. A., Tal, I. R., … Jacobs, W. J. (2006). Consilience and life history theory: From genes to brain to reproductive strategy. Developmental Review, 26(2), 243–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2006.02.002.
Fisher, M., & Cox, A. (2011). Four strategies used during intrasexual competition for mates. Personal Relationships, 18(1), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01307.x.
Fisher, M., Cox, A., Bennett, S., & Gavric, D. (2008). Components of self-perceived mate value. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2(4), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0099347.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104.
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (1990). Toward an evolutionary history of female sociosexual variation. Journal of Personality, 58(1), 69–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00908.x.
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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0000337X.
Greiling, H., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Women’s sexual strategies: The hidden dimension of extra-pair mating. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(5), 929–963. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00151-8.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466(7302), 29. https://doi.org/10.1038/466029a.
Jackson, J. J., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2007). The structure and measurement of human mating strategies: Toward a multidimensional model of sociosexuality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(6), 382–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.04.005.
Jonason, P. K., & Buss, D. M. (2012). Avoiding entangling commitments: Tactics for implementing a short-term mating strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(5), 606–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.12.015.
Kruger, D. J. (2017). Brief self-report scales assessing life history dimensions of mating and parenting effort. Evolutionary Psychology, 15(1), 1474704916673840.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130.
Marlowe, F. (1999). Male care and mating effort among Hadza foragers. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 46(1), 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002650050592.
Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58(4), 525–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294825.
Millsap, R. E. (2012). Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203821961.
Patch, E. A., & Figueredo, A. J. (2017). Childhood stress, life history, psychopathy, and sociosexuality. Personality and Individual Differences, 115, 108–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.023.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113.
Preacher, K. J., & MacCallum, R. C. (2003). Repairing Tom Swift’s electric factor analysis machine. Understanding Statistics, 2(1), 13–43. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328031US0201_02.
Revelle, W. (2018). Psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
Richardson, G. B., Chen, C. C., Dai, C. L., Brubaker, M. D., & Nedelec, J. L. (2017). The psychometrics of the Mini-K: Evidence from two college samples. Evolutionary Psychology, 15(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704916682034.
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36.
Rowe, D. C., Vazsonyi, A. T., & Figueredo, A. J. (1997). Mating-effort in adolescence: A conditional or alternative strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 23(1), 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00005-6.
Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(2), 172–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4.
Rusbult, C. E. (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(1), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.101.
Rusbult, C. E., & Buunk, B. P. (1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10(2), 175–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/026540759301000202.
Sabini, J., & Green, M. C. (2004). Emotional responses to sexual and emotional infidelity: Constants and differences across genders, samples, and methods. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(11), 1375–1388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204264012.
Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2001). Human mate poaching: Tactics and temptations for infiltrating existing mateships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 894–917. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.894.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.870.
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4.
Stijsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74(1), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11336-008-9101-0.
Sugiyama, L. S. (2015). Physical attractiveness: An adaptationist perspective. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 1–68). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291170.
Valentova, J. V., Junior, F. P. M., Štěrbová, Z., Varella, M. A. C., & Fisher, M. L. (2020). The association between Dark Triad traits and sociosexuality with mating and parenting efforts: A cross-cultural study. Personality and Individual Differences, 154, 109613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109613.
van Buuren, S., & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, K. (2011). mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 45(3), 1–67. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v045.i03.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002.
Wang, S., Chen, C. C., Dai, C. L., & Richardson, G. B. (2018). A call for, and beginner’s guide to, measurement invariance testing in evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 4(2), 166–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-017-0125-5).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
GA, SA, and ZS generated the items. GA came up with the study design. GA conducted all analysis with critical support, and advice from GBR. GA and GBR wrote the manuscript, while SA and CHS provided critical feedback. All authors have consented to the submission of the current draft.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. All study procedures were approved by the Boston University Institutional Review Board.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Albert, G., Richardson, G.B., Arnocky, S. et al. The Development and Psychometric Evaluation of a New Mating Effort Questionnaire. Arch Sex Behav 50, 511–530 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01799-4
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01799-4