Skip to main content
Log in

Extradyadic romantic involvement: Moderating effects of sociosexuality and gender

  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In two separate experiments, the role of both sociosexuality (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991) and gender in moderating individuals' tendencies to pursue extradyadic relationships was examined. Unmarried subjects, predominantly Anglo and Hispanic, reportedly in “exclusive” dating relationships were presented with opportunities to become involved in a romantic relationship across a variety of situations. Their willingness to disregard both their own involved relationship status as well as their potential partner's current relationship status was assessed. Across experiments, individuals with an unrestricted sociosexual orientation indicated a greater willingness to pursue extradyadic involvement as evidenced by both self-report (Experiments 1 and 2) and behavioral (Experiment 2) measures. Further, on self-report measures, men indicated a greater willingness than did women to pursue extradyadic involvement. Gender differences disappeared on the behavioral measure. Finally, across experiments, subjects were less likely to pursue potential partners who were described as currently involved (versus uninvolved). This latter factor failed to interact with either sociosexuality or gender. Results are discussed from both evolutionary and cultural-contingency perspectives. Implications for practitioners are also presented.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Byers, E. S., & Lewis, K. (1988). Dating couples' disagreements over the desired level of sexual intimacy.The Journal of Sex Research, 24, 15–29.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers.Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2, 39–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, M. R. (1989). Reactions to heterosexual opening gambits: Female selectivity and male responsiveness.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 27–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downey, J. L., & Vitulli, W. F. (1987). Self-report measures of behavioral attributions related to interpersonal flirtation situations.Psychological Reports, 61, 899–904.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, H. J. (1974). Personality, premarital sexual permissiveness and assortative mating.Journal of Sex Research, 10, 47–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, W. A., Byrne, D., White, L. A., & Kelley, K. (1988). Erotophobia-erotophilia as a dimension of personality.Journal of Sex Research, 25, 123–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gayford, J. J. (1979). Battered wives.British Journal of Hospital Medicine, 22, 496–503.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Griffitt, W., & Hatfield, E. (1985).Human Sexual Behavior. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C., Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1976). Breakups before marriage: The end of 103 affairs.Journal of Social Issues, 32, 147–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, G. L. (1987). Extradyadic relations during courtship.Journal of Sex Research, 23, 382–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (1990).Love, Sex & Intimacy. Harper Collins. New York: College Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jesser, C. J. (1978). Male responses to direct verbal sexual initiatives of females.Journal of Sex Research, 14, 118–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, B. (1988). Extrapremarital intercourse: Attitudes toward a neglected behavior.The Journal of Sex Research, 24, 291–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lund, M. (1985). The development of investment and commitment scales for predicting continuity of personal relationships.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2, 3–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maticka-Tyndale, E. (1992). Social construction of HIV transmission and prevention among heterosexual young adults.Social Problems, 39, 238–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, N. B., Brannigan, G. G., & LaPlante, M. N. (1984). Social desirability in the bedroom: Role of approval motivation in sexual relationships.Sex Roles, 11, 303–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roscoe, B., Cavanaugh, L. E., & Kennedy, D. R. (1988). Dating infidelity: behaviors, reasons and consequences.Adolescence, 23, 35–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, S., & Frieze, I. H. (1989). Young singles' scripts for a first date.Gender and Society, 3, 258–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, Z., Peplau, L. A., & Hill, C. T. (1981). Loving and leaving: Sex differences in romantic attachments.Sex Roles, 7, 821–835.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seal, D. W. (April, 1992).Attraction: Do I take that dare? Presentation to the Southwestern Psychological Association's annual conference. Austin, TX.

  • Seal, D. W. (Manuscript in progress).Safe sex behavior in young adult relationships. University of New Mexico.

  • Seal, D. W., & Agostinelli, G. (1994). Individual differences associated with high-risk sexual behaviour: Implications for intervention programmes.AIDS Care, 6(4), 393–397.

    PubMed  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, 870–883.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1992). Sociosexuality and romantic partner choice.Journal of Personality, 60, 31–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, M. (1974). The self-monitoring of expressive behavior.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526–537.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, M., Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1986). Personality and sexual relations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 181–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stets, J., & Pirog-Good, M. A. (1987). Violence in dating relationships.Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 237–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tellegen, A. (1982).Brief manual of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript. University of Minnesota.

  • Thompson, A. P. (1983). Extramarital sex: A review of the research literature.The Journal of Sex Research, 19, 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, A. P. (1984). Emotional and sexual components of extramarital relations.Journal of Marriage and Family, 46, 35–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodcock, A. J., Stenner, K., & Ingham, R. (1992). Young people talking about HIV and AIDS: Interpretations of personal risk of infection.Health Education Research, 7, 229–247.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Seal, D.W., Agostinelli, G. & Hannett, C.A. Extradyadic romantic involvement: Moderating effects of sociosexuality and gender. Sex Roles 31, 1–22 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01560274

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01560274

Keywords

Navigation