Advertisement

Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 40, Issue 5, pp 915–919 | Cite as

Effects of Solicitor Sex and Attractiveness on Receptivity to Sexual Offers: A Field Study

Original Paper

Abstract

Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers have been found in previous studies conducted in the United States. However, this effect has never been replicated in another culture, and the impact of the attractiveness of the solicitor remains in question. An experiment was conducted in France in which male and female confederates of average versus high attractiveness approached potential partners of the opposite sex (120 males and 120 females) and asked them: “Will you come to my apartment to have a drink?” or “Would you go to bed with me?” The great majority of the men were willing to have a sexual liaison with a woman, especially when she was physically attractive. Women were more disinclined to have a drink, and none but one accepted the male’s sexual request. Such results confirm that men are apparently more eager for sexual activity than women are.

Keywords

Sexual offer Attractiveness Sex differences 

References

  1. Abbey, A. (1987). Misperception of friendly behavior as sexual interest: A survey of naturally occurring incidents. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 173–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bajos, N., & Bozon, M. (2008). Enquête sur la sexualité en France. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  3. Bleske-Rechek, A., Reminger, M. W., Swanson, M. R., & Zeug, N. M. (2006). Women more than men attend to indicators of good character: Two experimental demonstrations. Evolutionary Psychology, 5, 248–261.Google Scholar
  4. Bozon, M. (2009). Sociologie de la sexualité. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Personality & Human Sexuality, 2, 39–55.Google Scholar
  8. Grammer, K., Renninger, L., & Fischer, B. (2004). Disco clothing, female sexual motivation, and relationships status: Is she dressed to impress? Journal of Sex Research, 41, 66–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Greitemeyer, T., Hengsmith, S., & Fischer, P. (2005). Sex differences in the willingness to betray and switch romantic partners. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 64, 265–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guéguen, N. (2009a). Psychologie de la séduction. Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar
  11. Guéguen, N. (2009b). Menstrual cycle phases and female receptivity to a courtship solicitation: An evaluation in a night-club. Evolution & Human Behavior, 30, 351–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guéguen, N. (2009c). The receptivity of women to courtship solicitation across the menstrual cycle: A field experiment. Biological Psychology, 80, 321–324.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hatfield, E. (1983). What do women want from love and sex? In E. R. Allgeier & N. B. McComick (Eds.), Changing boundaries (pp. 103–134). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  14. Kenrick, D. T., Groth, G. E., Trost, M. R., & Sadalla, E. K. (1993). Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 951–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kenrick, D. T., Stringfield, D. O., Wagenhals, W. L., Dahl, R. H., & Randsdall, H. J. (1980). Sex differences, androgyny, and approach responses to erotica: A new variation on old volunteer problems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 517–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kurzban, R., & Weeden, J. (2005). Hurrydate: Mate preferences in action. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Molzer, K. (2003). 100 Frauen, eine Frage. Möchten Sie mit mir schlafen? Seitenblicke, pp. 66–69.Google Scholar
  18. Pawlowski, B. (1999). Loss of oestrus and concealed ovulation in human evolution: The case against the sexual-selection hypothesis. Current Anthropology, 40, 257–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rhodes, G., Simmons, L. W., & Peters, M. (2005). Attractiveness and sexual behavior: Does attractiveness enhance mating success? Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 186–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sadalla, E. K., Kenrick, D. T., & Vershure, B. (1987). Dominance and heterosexual attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 730–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shackelford, T. K., Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2005). Universal dimensions of human mate preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 447–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shotland, R. L., & Craig, J. M. (1988). Can men and women differentiate between friendly and sexually interested behavior? Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 66–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Todd, P. M., Penke, L., Fasolo, B., & Lenton, A. P. (2007). Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 104, 15011–15016.Google Scholar
  24. Townsend, J. M., & Wasserman, T. (1998). Sexual attractiveness: Sex differences in assessment and criteria. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 171–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Voracek, M., Hofhansl, A., & Fisher, M. (2005). Clark and Hatfield’s evidence of women’s low receptivity to male strangers’ sexual offers revisited. Psychological Reports, 97, 11–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département Lettres, Langues et Sciences HumainesUniversité de Bretagne-SudLorient CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations