Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 46, Issue 3, pp 775–788 | Cite as

Sociosexuality, Commitment, and Sexual Desire for an Attractive Person

Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Sociosexuality refers to a personal predisposition to engage in uncommitted sex. Romantically involved individuals are more likely to engage in infidelity when more unrestricted in their sociosexuality and less committed to their current partners. However, commitment reliably predicts relationship maintenance and the activation of pro-relationship behaviors, regardless of sociosexuality levels. In two studies (Study 1: N = 566 heterosexuals; M age = 21.24, SD = 4.45; Study 2: N = 168 heterosexuals; M age = 23.28, SD = 5.60), the association between sociosexuality and commitment was examined. Replicating previous findings, men were more sociosexually unrestricted than women, and single individuals were more sociosexually unrestricted than their romantically involved counterparts (Study 1). Results also showed that more committed individuals were more restricted in their sociosexuality (Studies 1 and 2) and that commitment was negatively associated with physical and sexual attraction to an attractive person, regardless of sociosexuality levels (Study 2). Furthermore, commitment, but not sociosexuality, predicted sexual infidelity in the current relationship and this effect emerged even among sociosexually unrestricted individuals (Studies 1 and 2). No additional gender differences were found across studies. These results converge with findings suggesting that individuals shift their mating strategies and restrict their sociosexuality when in a romantic relationship and that commitment prevents relationship threatening behaviors such as sexual attraction or sexual infidelity.

Keywords

Sociosexuality Commitment Sexual attraction Extradyadic sex Infidelity 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the grant SFRH/BPD/73528/2010, awarded by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia to the first author. The authors would like to thank Aleksandra Huić and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

References

  1. Agnew, C. R., Van Lange, P. A., Rusbult, C. E., & Langston, C. A. (1998). Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 939–954. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allison, R., & Risman, B. J. (2013). A double standard for “hooking up”: How far have we come toward gender equality? Social Science Research, 42, 1191–1206. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.04.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Aron, A. P., Mashek, D. J., & Aron, E. N. (2004). Closeness as including other in the self. In D. J. Mashek & A. P. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 27–41). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Arriaga, X. B., & Agnew, C. R. (2001). Being committed: Affective, cognitive, and conative components of relationship commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1190–1203. doi: 10.1177/0146167201279011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Asendorpf, J. B., & Penke, L. (2005). A mature evolutionary psychology demands careful conclusions about sex differences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 275–276. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X05220058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barchard, K. A., & Williams, J. (2008). Practical advice for conducting ethical online experiments and questionnaires for United States psychologists. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 1111–1128. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.4.1111.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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, 339–360. doi: 10.1177/0265407505052440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beaussart, M. L., & Kaufman, J. C. (2013). Gender differences and the effects of perceived internet privacy on self-reports of sexual behavior and sociosexuality. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2524–2529. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In R. Lerner & W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 793–828). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1989). Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 445–455. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr2404_4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Buss, D. M. (1998). Sexual strategies theory: Historical origins and current status. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 19–31. doi: 10.1080/00224499809551914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559–570. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251–255. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00038.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Buunk, B. P., & Bakker, A. B. (1995). Extradyadic sex: The role of descriptive and injunctive norms. Journal of Sex Research, 32, 313–318. doi: 10.1080/00224499509551804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Buunk, B. P., & Dijkstra, P. (2004). Gender differences in rival characteristics that evoke jealousy in response to emotional versus sexual infidelity. Personal Relationships, 11, 395–408. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00089.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York: Routledge Academic.Google Scholar
  19. Cohen, M. T. (2015). An exploratory study of individuals in non-traditional, alternative relationships: How “open” are we? Sexuality and Culture, 20, 295–315. doi: 10.1007/s12119-015-9324-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cook, W. L., & Kenny, D. A. (2005). The actor–partner interdependence model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 101–109. doi: 10.1080/01650250444000405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Crawford, M., & Popp, D. (2003). Sexual double standards: A review and methodological critique of two decades of research. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 13–26. doi: 10.1080/00224490309552163.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Drigotas, S. M., Rusbult, C. E., & Verette, J. (1999a). Level of commitment, mutuality of commitment, and couple well-being. Personal Relationships, 6, 389–409. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00199.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Drigotas, S. M., Safstrom, C. A., & Gentilia, T. (1999b). An investment model prediction of dating infidelity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 509–524. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.54.6.408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fisher, T. D. (2009). The impact of socially conveyed norms on the reporting of sexual behavior and attitudes by men and women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 567–572. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fletcher, G. J., Simpson, J. A., Thomas, G., & Giles, L. (1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 72–89. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Foster, C. A., Witcher, B. S., Campbell, W. K., & Green, J. D. (1998). Arousal and attraction: Evidence for automatic and controlled processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 86–101. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573–587. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X0000337X.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59, 93–104. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Hall, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2006). Relationship dissolution following infidelity: The roles of attributions and forgiveness. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25, 508–522. doi: 10.1521/jscp.2006.25.5.508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  32. 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, 382–391. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.04.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnson, D. J., & Rusbult, C. E. (1989). Resisting temptation: Devaluation of alternative partners as a means of maintaining commitment in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 967–980. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jonason, P. K. (2013). Four functions for four relationships: Consensus definitions of university students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 1407–1414. doi: 10.1007/s10508-013-0189-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Jones, M. (1998). Sociosexuality and motivations for romantic involvement. Journal of Research in Personality, 32, 173–182. doi: 10.1006/jrpe.1997.2212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1984). LISREL 6: User’s guide. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  37. Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta-analysis of the Investment Model. Personal Relationships, 10, 37–57. doi: 10.1111/1475-6811.00035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Le, B., Dove, N. L., Agnew, C. R., Korn, M. S., & Mutso, A. A. (2010). Predicting nonmarital romantic relationship dissolution: A meta-analytic synthesis. Personal Relationships, 17, 377–390. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01285.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lydon, J. E., Meana, M., Sepinwall, D., Richards, N., & Mayman, S. (1999). The commitment calibration hypothesis: When do people devalue attractive alternatives? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 152–161. doi: 10.1177/0146167299025002002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Marks, M. J., & Fraley, R. C. (2005). The sexual double standard: Fact or fiction? Sex Roles, 52, 175–186. doi: 10.1007/s11199-005-1293-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marks, M. J., & Fraley, R. C. (2006). Confirmation bias and the sexual double standard. Sex Roles, 54, 19–26. doi: 10.1007/s11199-006-8866-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Martins, A., Pereira, M., Andrade, R., Dattilio, F. M., Narciso, I., & Canavarro, M. C. (2016). Infidelity in dating relationships: Gender-specific correlates of face-to-face and online extradyadic involvement. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 193–205. doi: 10.1007/s10508-015-0576-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Mattingly, B. A., Clark, E. M., Weidler, D. J., Bullock, M., Hackathorn, J., & Blankmeyer, K. (2011). Sociosexual orientation, commitment, and infidelity: A mediation analysis. Journal of Social Psychology, 151, 222–226. doi: 10.1080/00224540903536162.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Meston, C. M., & Frohlich, P. F. (2003). Love at first fright: Partner salience moderates roller-coaster-induced excitation transfer. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 537–544.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Miller, R. S. (1997). Inattentive and contented: Relationship commitment and attention to alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 758–766. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mogilski, J. K., Memering, S. L., Welling, L. L., & Shackelford, T. K. (2015). Monogamy versus consensual non-monogamy: Alternative approaches to pursuing a strategically pluralistic mating strategy. Archives of Sexual Behavior,. doi: 10.1007/s10508-015-0658-2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Mulhall, J., King, R., Glina, S., & Hvidsten, K. (2008). Importance of and satisfaction with sex among men and women worldwide: Results of the global better sex survey. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 5, 788–795. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00765.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2015). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  49. Nogueira, C., Saavedra, L., & Costa, C. (2008). Gender (in)visibility in juvenile sexuality: Proposals for a new conception about sexual education and prevention against risky sexual behaviors. Pro-Posições, 19, 59–79. doi: 10.1590/S0103-73072008000200006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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. doi: 10.1177/0146167204264754.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 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. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Petersen, J., & Hyde, J. (2010). A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality, 1993–2007. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 21–38. doi: 10.1037/a0017504.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2011). Gender differences in sexual attitudes and behaviors: A review of meta-analytic results and large datasets. Journal of Sex Research, 48, 149–165. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2011.551851.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Pfeiffer, S. M., & Wong, P. T. (1989). Multidimensional jealousy. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6(2), 181–196. doi: 10.1177/026540758900600203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Regan, P. C., & Berscheid, E. (1995). Gender differences in beliefs about the causes of male and female sexual desire. Personal Relationships, 2, 345–358. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1995.tb00097.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Regan, P. C., & Berscheid, E. (1997). Gender differences in characteristics desired in a potential sexual and marriage partner. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 9, 25–37. doi: 10.1300/J056v09n01_02.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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. doi: 10.1300/J056v12n03_01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rodrigues, D., & Lopes, D. (2013a). The impact of general and moral commitment in derogating attractive alternatives. In A. Garcia & J. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Relações românticas, conjugais e parassociais (pp. 39–52). Vitória, Brazil: UFES.Google Scholar
  59. Rodrigues, D., & Lopes, D. (2013b). The Investment Model Scale (IMS): Further studies on construct validation and development of a shorter version (IMS-S). Journal of General Psychology, 140, 16–28. doi: 10.1080/00221309.2012.710276.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Rodrigues, D., Lopes, D., & Pereira, M. (2016). Sociosexuality, commitment, sexual infidelity and perceptions of infidelity: Data from the Second Love website. Journal of Sex Research Online First,. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2016.1145182.Google Scholar
  61. Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the Investment Model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172–186. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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, 101–117. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rusbult, C. E., & Buunk, B. P. (1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 175–204. doi: 10.1177/026540759301000202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357–387. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schmitt, D. P. (2003). Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual variety: Tests from 52 nations, 6 continents, and 13 islands. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 85–104. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 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. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X05000051.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Seal, D. W., Agostinelli, G., & Hannett, C. A. (1994). Extradyadic romantic involvement: Moderating effects of sociosexuality and gender. Sex Roles, 31, 1–22. doi: 10.1007/BF01560274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Shackelford, T. K., & Buss, D. M. (1997). Cues to infidelity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1034–1045. doi: 10.1177/01461672972310004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Shaw, A. M., Rhoades, G. K., Allen, E. S., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2013). Predictors of extradyadic sexual involvement in unmarried opposite-sex relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 50, 598–610. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2012.666816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.870.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1992). Sociosexuality and romantic partner choice. Journal of Personality, 60, 31–51. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00264.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Simpson, J. A., Gangestad, S. W., & Biek, M. (1993). Personality and nonverbal social behavior: An ethological perspective of relationship initiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 434–461. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1993.1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Simpson, J. A., Gangestad, S. W., & Lerma, M. (1990). Perception of physical attractiveness: Mechanisms involved in the maintenance of romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1192–1201. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 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 Associates.Google Scholar
  75. Sprecher, S., Treger, S., & Sakaluk, J. K. (2013). Premarital sexual standards and sociosexuality: Gender, ethnicity, and cohort differences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 1395–1405. doi: 10.1007/s10508-013-0145-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Whitton, S. W. (2010). Commitment: Functions, formation, and the securing of romantic attachment. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 2, 243–257. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00060.x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  77. Tempelhof, T. C., & Allen, J. S. (2008). Partner-specific investment strategies: Similarities and differences in couples and associations with sociosexual orientation and attachment dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 41–48. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2008.02.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Vangelisti, A. L., & Gerstenberger, M. (2004). Communication and marital infidelity. In J. Duncombe, K. Harrison, G. Allan, & D. Marsden (Eds.), The state of affairs: Explorations in infidelity and commitment (pp. 59–78). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  79. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2006.08.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699–727. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.699.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), CIS-IULLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Goldsmiths, University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations