Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 40, Issue 3, pp 565–574 | Cite as

Short- and Long-Term Relationship Orientation and 2D:4D Finger-Length Ratio

  • Sascha Schwarz
  • Maida Mustafić
  • Manfred Hassebrauck
  • Johannes Jörg
Original Paper

Abstract

Recent studies have shown that preferences for close relationships (Long-Term Relationship Orientation) are independent of preferences for various sexual partners (Short-Term Relationship Orientation). In the current studies, we hypothesized that Short-Term Relationship Orientation would be negatively related to 2D:4D finger-length ratio (i.e., the more masculine, the higher Short-Term Relationship Orientation). Study 1 found a negative relationship between Short-Term Relationship Orientation and right, but not left, hand 2D:4D among 91 male participants. Study 2 found a negative relationship between Short-Term Relationship Orientation and left, but not right, hand 2D:4D among 65 male participants, even after controlling for age, relationship status, social desirability, and sex drive. Female participants (n = 142) did not show this relationship in Study 2. This sex difference was discussed in terms of flexible female sexual strategies, which are supposed to be contingent on the local environment or menstrual cycle variations.

Keywords

2D:4D Finger-length ratio Sexual strategies Relationship orientation Sex difference Sociosexual orientation 

References

  1. Archer, J. (2006). Testosterone and human aggression: An evaluation of the challenge hypothesis. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 30, 319–345.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey, A. A., & Hurd, P. L. (2005). Finger length ratio (2D:4D) correlates with physical aggression in men but not in women. Biological Psychology, 68, 215–222.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron-Cohen, S., & Hammer, J. (1997). Is autism an extreme form of the male brain? Advances in Infancy Research, 11, 193–217.Google Scholar
  4. Bartels, A., & Zeki, S. (2000). The neural basis of romantic love. Neuroreport: For Rapid Communication of Neuroscience Research, 11, 3829–3834.Google Scholar
  5. Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Gender differences in erotic plasticity: The female sex drive as socially flexible and responsive. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 347–374.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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, 339–363.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berenbaum, S. A., Bryk, K. K., Nowak, N., Quigley, C. A., & Moffat, S. (2009). Fingers as a marker of prenatal androgen exposure. Endocrinology, 150, 5119–5124.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Breedlove, S. M. (2010). Organizational hypothesis: Instances of the fingerpost. Endocrinology, 151, 4116–4122.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bribiescas, R. G. (2002). Reproductive physiology of the human male: An evolutionary and life history perspective. In P. T. Ellison (Ed.), Reproductive ecology and human evolution (pp. 107–133). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, W. M., Hines, M., Fane, B. A., & Breedlove, S. M. (2002). Masculinized finger length patterns in human males and females with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Hormones and Behavior, 42, 380–386.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown, N. R., & Sinclair, R. C. (1999). Estimating number of lifetime sexual partners: Men and women do it differently. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 292–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carter, C. S. (1998). Neuroendocrine perspectives on social attachment and love. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 23, 779–818.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Charles, N. E., & Alexander, G. M. (in press). The association between digit ratios and sociosexuality: A failure to replicate. Archives of Sexual Behavior. Google Scholar
  16. Clark, A. P. (2004). Self-perceived attractiveness and masculinization predict women’s sociosexuality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 113–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clark, A. P. (2006). Are the correlates of sociosexuality different for men and women? Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 1321–1327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fink, B., Neave, N., Laughton, K., & Manning, J. T. (2006). Second to fourth digit ratio and sensation seeking. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 1253–1262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fisher, H. E. (1998). Lust, attraction, and attachment in mammalian reproduction. Human Nature, 9, 23–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fisher, H. E., Aron, A., Mashek, D., Li, H., & Brown, L. L. (2002). Defining the brain systems of lust, romantic attraction, and attachment. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31, 413–419.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Galis, F., Ten Broek, C., Van Dongen, S., & Wijnaendts, L. (2010). Sexual dimorphism in the prenatal digit ratio (2D:4D). Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 57–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gangestad, S. W., & Buss, D. M. (1993). Pathogen prevalence and human mate preferences. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14, 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573–587.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Greiling, H., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Women’s sexual strategies: The hidden dimension of extra-pair mating. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 929–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grimbos, T., Dawood, K., Burriss, R. P., Zucker, K. J., & Puts, D. A. (2010). Sexual orientation and the second to fourth finger length ratio: A meta-analysis in men and women. Behavioral Neuroscience, 124, 278–287.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Haselton, M. G., Mortezaie, M., Pillsworth, E. G., Bleske-Rechek, A., & Frederick, D. A. (2007). Ovulatory shifts in human female ornamentation: Near ovulation, women dress to impress. Hormones and Behavior, 51, 40–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hönekopp, J., Bartholdt, L., Beier, L., & Liebert, A. (2007). Second to fourth digit length ratio (2D:4D) and adult sex hormone levels: New data and a meta-analytic review. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 32, 313–321.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hönekopp, J., Voracek, M., & Manning, J. T. (2006). 2nd to 4th digit ratio (2D:4D) and number of sex partners: Evidence for effects of prenatal testosterone in men. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 31, 30–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. James-Jackson, J., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2007). The structure and measurement of human mating strategies: Toward a multidimensional model of sociosexuality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 382–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Johnson, A. M., Wadsworth, J., Wellings, K., Bradshaw, S., & Field, J. (1992). Sexual lifestyles and HIV risk. Nature, 360, 410–412.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kemper, C. J., & Schwerdtfeger, A. (2009). Comparing indirect methods of digit ratio (2D:4D) measurement. American Journal of Human Biology, 21, 188–191.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lutchmaya, S., Baron-Cohen, S., Raggatt, P., Knickmeyer, R., & Manning, J. T. (2004). 2nd to 4th digit ratios, fetal testosterone and estradiol. Early Human Development, 77, 23–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Malas, M. A., Dogan, S., Evcil, E. H., & Desdicioglu, K. (2006). Fetal development of the hand, digits and digit ratio (2D:4D). Early Human Development, 82, 469–475.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Manning, J. T. (2002). Digit ratio: A pointer to fertility, behavior, and health. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  37. McFadden, D., & Shubel, E. (2002). Relative lengths of fingers and toes in human males and females. Hormones and Behavior, 42, 492–500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McIntyre, M. H., & Hooven, C. K. (2009). Human sex differences in social relationships: Organizational and activational effects of androgens. In P. T. Ellison & P. B. Gray (Eds.), Endocrinology of social relationships (pp. 225–245). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Neave, N., Laing, S., Fink, B., & Manning, J. T. (2003). Second to fourth digit ratio, testosterone and perceived male dominance. Proceeding of the Royal Sciences of London Series B - Biological Sciences, 270, 2167–2172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Noë, R., van Hoff, J., & Hammerstein, P. (Eds.). (2006). Economics in nature: Social dilemmas, mate choice and biological markets. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Ökten, A., Kalyoncu, M., & Yariş, N. (2002). The ratio of second- and fourth-digit lengths and congenital adrenal hyperplasia due to 21-hydroxylase deficiency. Early Human Development, 70, 47–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ostovich, J. M., & Sabini, J. (2004). How are sociosexuality, sex drive, and lifetime number of sexual partners related? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1255–1266.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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, 1113–1135.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pillsworth, E. G., & Haselton, M. G. (2006). Male sexual attractiveness predicts differential ovulatory shifts in female extra-pair attraction and male mate retention. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 247–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interaction effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Puts, D. A., McDaniel, M. A., Jordan, C. L., & Breedlove, S. M. (2008). Spatial ability and prenatal androgens: Meta-analyses of congenital adrenal hyperplasia and digit ratio (2D:4D) studies. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 100–111.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Putz, D. A., Gaulin, S. J. C., Sporter, R. J., & McBurney, D. H. (2004). Sex hormones and finger length: What does 2D:4D indicate? Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 182–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rahman, Q., Korhonen, M., & Aslam, A. (2005). Sexually dimorphic 2D:4D ratio, height, weight, and their relation to number of sexual partners. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Reinisch, J. M. (1974). Fetal hormones, the brain, and human sex differences: A heuristic, integrative review of the recent literature. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 3, 51–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Röder, S., Brewer, G., & Fink, B. (2009). Menstrual cycle shifts in women’s self-perception and motivation: A daily report method. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 616–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 247–275.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Schwarz, S. (2008). Das 2D:4D-Fingerlängenverhältnis und die Vermeidung von Nähe als mögliche Determinanten der Beziehungsorientierung [Possible determinants of relationship orientation: 2D:4D finger length ratio and avoidant attachment]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bergische Universität, Wuppertal, Germany.Google Scholar
  53. Schwarz, S., & Hassebrauck, M. (2007). Interindividuelle Unterschiede in Beziehungspräferenzen: Das Konstrukt Beziehungsorientierung (BZO) und seine Messung [Individual differences in relationship preferences: Relationship orientation and its measurement]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 38, 179–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schwarz, S., & Hassebrauck, M. (2008). Self-perceived and observed variations in women’s attractiveness throughout the menstrual cycle: A diary study. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 282–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Simpson, J. A., Wilson, C. L., & Winterheld, H. A. (2004). Sociosexuality and romantic relationships. In J. H. Harvey, A. Wenzel, & S. Sprecher (Eds.), The handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 87–112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  57. Smith, T. W. (1992). Discrepancies between men and women in reporting number of sexual partners: A summary from four countries. Social Biology, 39, 203–211.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Stöber, J. (1999). Die Soziale Erwünschtheits-Skala-17 (SES-17): Entwicklung und erste Befunde zu Reliabilität und Validität [The Social Desirability Scale 17 (SES-17): Development and first indications of its reliability and validity]. Diagnostica, 45, 173–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (2008). The evolutionary biology of human female sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. van Anders, S. M., Hampson, E., & Watson, N. V. (2006a). Seasonality, waist-to-hip ratio, and salivary testosterone. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 31, 895–899.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. van Anders, S. M., Vernon, P. A., & Wilbur, C. J. (2006b). Finger-length ratios show evidence of prenatal hormone-transfer between opposite-sex twins. Hormones and Behavior, 49, 315–319.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Voracek, M. (2005). Shortcomings of the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory: Can psychometrics inform evolutionary psychology? A commentary to D. P. Schmitt. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 296–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Waynforth, D. (2001). Mate choice trade-offs and women’s preference for physically attractive men. Human Nature, 12, 207–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Webster, G. D., & Bryan, A. (2007). Sociosexual attitudes and behaviors: Why two factors are better than one. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 917–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wiederman, M. W. (1997). The truth must be in here somewhere: Examining the gender discrepancy in self-reported lifetime number of sex partners. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 375–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wilson, G. D. (1983). Finger-length as an index of assertiveness in women. Personality and Individual Differences, 4, 111–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sascha Schwarz
    • 1
  • Maida Mustafić
    • 2
  • Manfred Hassebrauck
    • 1
  • Johannes Jörg
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Psychology (Social Psychology)University of WuppertalWuppertalGermany
  2. 2.Department of Psychology (Applied Life-Management)University of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  3. 3.Department of NeurologyHELIOS Klinikum WuppertalWuppertalGermany

Personalised recommendations