Advertisement

How the Presence of Others Affects Desirability Judgments in Heterosexual and Homosexual Participants

  • John E. ScofieldEmail author
  • Bogdan Kostic
  • Erin M. Buchanan
Original Paper

Abstract

Mate-choice copying is a mating strategy wherein women rely on contextual information to assist in securing accurate assessments of potential mates. Mate-choice copying has been extensively studied in non-human species and has begun to be examined in humans as well. Hill and Buss (2008) found evidence of opposing effects for men and women in desirability judgments based on the presence of other opposite-sex people. The current study successfully replicated these findings with 73 and 44 heterosexual men and women, respectively. Heterosexual men exhibited the desirability diminution effect, and heterosexual women exhibited the desirability enhancement effect. The current study also extended these findings to include 73 gay men and 32 lesbian women. Findings for gay and lesbian participants were inverted compared to heterosexual participants. Gay men exhibited the desirability enhancement effect, and lesbian women exhibited the desirability diminution effect, revealing sex differences in mate-choice copying spanning different sexual orientations.

Keywords

Desirability judgments Mate-choice copying Sexual orientation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This project was in partial fulfillment of the thesis requirements for a Master of Science in Experimental Psychology at Missouri State University. Funding for this project was provided by the Graduate College at Missouri State University. We would like to thank Sarah E. Hill for sharing experimental materials.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors. This study was approved by Missouri State University’s Institutional Review Board.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study, and all data upon analysis were completely anonymous.

References

  1. Andersson, M. B. (1994). Sexual selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bailey, J. M., Gaulin, S., Agyei, Y., & Gladue, B. A. (1994). Effects of gender and sexual orientation on evolutionarily relevant aspects of human mating psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(6), 1081–1093.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.6.1081.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey, J. M., Kim, P. Y., Hills, A., & Linsenmeier, J. A. (1997). Butch, femme, or straight acting? Partner preferences of gay men and lesbians. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(5), 960–973.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.5.960.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bailey, J. M., & Zucker, K. J. (1995). Childhood sex-typed behavior and sexual orientation: A conceptual analysis and quantitative review. Developmental Psychology, 31(1), 43–55.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.31.1.43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowers, R. I., Place, S. S., Todd, P. M., Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2011). Generalization in mate-choice copying in humans. Behavioral Ecology, 23(1), 112–124.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arr164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bressan, P., & Stranieri, D. (2008). The best men are (not always) already taken: Female preferences for single versus attached males depends on conception risk. Psychological Science, 19(2), 145–151.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02060.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Briggs, S. E., Godin, J.-G. J., & Dugatkin, L. A. (1996). Mate-choice copying under predation risk in the Trinigad guppy (Poecilia reticulate). Behavioral Ecology, 7(2), 151–157.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/7.2.151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buss, D. M. (2015). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3(4), 251–255.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00038.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deng, Y., & Zheng, Y. (2015). Mate-choice copying in single and coupled women: The influence of mate acceptance and mate rejection decisions of other women. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(1), 89–105.  https://doi.org/10.1177/147470481501300106.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Dugatkin, L. A. (1996). Copying and mate choice. In B. G. Galef (Ed.), Social learning in animals: The roots of culture (pp. 85–105). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dugatkin, L. A. (2000). The imitation factor: Evolution beyond the gene. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dugatkin, L. A., & Godin, J.-G. J. (1993). Female mate copying in the guppy (Poecilia reticulate): Age-dependent effects. Behavioral Ecology, 4(4), 289–292.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/4.4.289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eva, K. W., & Wood, T. J. (2006). Are all the taken men good? An indirect examination of mate-choice copying in humans. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 175(12), 1573–1574.  https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.061367.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.  https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Field, A., Miles, J., & Field, Z. (2012). Discovering statistics using R. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Galef, B. G., Lim, T. C., & Gilbert, G. S. (2008). Evidence of mate choice copying in Norway rats, Rattus norvegicus. Animal Behaviour, 75(3), 1117–1123.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.08.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Galef, B. G., & White, D. J. (2000). Evidence of social effects on mate choice in vertebrates. Behavioural Processes, 51(1–3), 167–175.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0376-6357(00)00126-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hill, S. E., & Buss, D. M. (2008). The mere presence of opposite-sex others on judgments of sexual and romantic desirability: Opposite effects for men and women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(5), 635–647.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207313728.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hill, S. E., & Ryan, M. J. (2006). The role of model female quality in the mate choice copying behaviour of sailfin mollies. Biology Letters, 2(2), 203–205.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2005.0423.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Jankowiak, W. R., Hill, E. M., & Donovan, J. M. (1992). The effects of sex and sexual orientation on attractiveness judgments: An evolutionary interpretation. Ethology and Sociobiology, 13(2), 73–85.  https://doi.org/10.1016/062-3095(92)90019-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kenrick, D. T., Keefe, R. C., Bryan, A., Barr, A., & Brown, S. (1995). Age preferences and mate choice among homosexuals and heterosexuals: A case for modular psychological mechanisms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(6), 1166–1172.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.6.1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mery, F., Varela, S. A. M., Danchin, E., Blanchet, S., Parejo, D., Coolen, I., & Wagner, R. H. (2009). Public versus personal information for mate copying in an invertebrate. Current Biology, 19(9), 730–734.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.02.064.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Miller, G. A., & Chapman, J. P. (2001). Misunderstanding analysis of covariance. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110(1), 40–48.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.110.1.40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Milonoff, M., Nummi, P., Nummi, O., & Pienmunne, E. (2007). Male friends, not female company, make a man more attractive. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 44(5), 348–354.Google Scholar
  27. Nakagawa, S., & Schielzeth, H. (2012). A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4(2), 133–142.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), 1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5), 411–419.Google Scholar
  30. Parker, J., & Burkley, M. (2009). Who’s chasing whom? The impact of gender and relationship status on mate poaching. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 1016–1019.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.04.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., & Sarkar, D. (2014). R Core Team (2014) nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-117. Available at http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme.
  32. Place, S. S., Todd, P. M., Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2010). Humans show mate copying after observing real mate choices. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(5), 320–325.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  34. Regan, P. C., Medina, R., & Joshi, A. (2001). Partner preferences among homosexual men and women: What is desirable in a sex partner is not necessarily desirable in a romantic partner. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 29(7), 625–633.  https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2001.29.7.625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schwartz, B. (2004). The paradox of choice: Why more is less. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  36. Shapiro, D. N., Chandler, J., & Mueller, P. A. (2013). Using Mechanical Turk to study clinical populations. Clinical Psychological Science, 1(2), 213–220.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702612469015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sigall, H., & Landy, D. (1973). Radiating beauty: Effects of having a physically attractive partner on person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28(2), 218–224.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Swaddle, J. P., Cathey, M. G., Correll, M., & Hodkinson, B. P. (2005). Socially transmitted mate preferences in a monogamous bird: A non-genetic mechanism of sexual selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 272(1567), 1053–1058.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2005.3054.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Uller, T., & Johansson, L. C. (2003). Human mate choice and the wedding ring effect. Human Nature, 14(3), 267–276.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-003-1006-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Vakirtzis, A., & Roberts, S. C. (2009). Mate choice copying and mate quality bias: Different processes, different species. Behavioral Ecology, 20(4), 908–911.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arp073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vakirtzis, A., & Roberts, S. C. (2012). Human nonindependent mate choice: Is model female attractiveness everything? Evolutionary Psychology, 10(2), 225–237.  https://doi.org/10.1177/147470491201000205.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Valentova, J. V., Stulp, G., Třebický, V., & Havlíček, J. (2014). Preferred and actual relative height among homosexual male partners vary with preferred dominance and sex role. PLoS ONE, 9(1), e86534.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086534.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Wade, M. J., & Pruett-Jones, S. G. (1990). Female copying increases the variance in male mating success. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 87(15), 5749–5753.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.87.15.5749.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Waynforth, D. (2007). Mate choice copying in humans. Human Nature, 18(3), 264–271.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-007-9004-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Westneat, D. F., Walters, A., McCarthy, T. M., Hatch, M. I., & Hein, W. K. (2000). Alternative mechanisms of nonindependent mate choice. Animal Behaviour, 59(3), 467–476.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1999.1341.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. White, D. J., & Galef, B. G. (1998). Social influence on avoidance of dangerous stimuli by rats. Animal Learning & Behavior, 26(4), 433–438.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yorzinski, J. L., & Platt, M. L. (2010). Same-sex gaze attraction influences mate-choice copying in humans. PLoS ONE, 5(2), e9115.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0009115.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyMissouri State UniversitySpringfieldUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychological SciencesUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations