Sex Roles

, Volume 64, Issue 9–10, pp 603–612

Sexual Strategies Theory: Built for the Short Term or the Long Term?

Original Article

Abstract

The evolutionary paradigm has provided psychology with a different perspective on human behavior, and with beneficial results. Sexual Strategies Theory (SST; Buss and Schmitt 1993) has been the primary evolutionary theory for studying human sexual behavior. A review of some SST-related research suggests that some of the paradigm’s anticipated female-male differences are supported. However, closer examination of this research also reveals substantial female-male similarities in sexual behavior, inconsistent or unclear definitions of several important SST concepts, and the functional omission of several important topics from the SST research agenda. Further, male-female differences in sexuality may be driven by a subset of males. Directions for future research are suggested, including greater attention to individual and contextual factors.

Keywords

Evolutionary psychology Critique Human sex differences Sexual behavior Gender roles Gender similarities Context 

References

  1. Aries, E. (2006). Sex differences in interaction: A reexamination. In K. Dindia & D. J. Canary (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication (pp. 21–36). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63, 602–614. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.7.602.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  4. Brooks-Gunn, J., & Paikoff, R. (1997). Sexuality and developmental transitions during adolescence. In J. Schulenberg, J. L. Maggs, & K. Hurrelmann (Eds.), Health risks and developmental transitions during adolescence (pp. 190–219). NY: Cambridge university press.Google Scholar
  5. Buss, D. M. (1995). Psychological sex differences: origins through sexual selection. American Psychologist, 50, 164–168. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.50.3.164.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Larsen, R. J. (2001). A half century of mate preferences: the cultural evolution of values. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 491–503. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00491.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell, L., & Ellis, B. J. (2005). Commitment, love, and mate retention. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 419–442). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Chrisler, J. C. (2007). The subtleties of meaning: still arguing after all these years. Feminism and Psychology, 17, 442–446. doi:10.1177/0959353507084323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark, R. D., III, & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2, 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crockett, L. J., Raffaelli, M., & Moilanen, K. L. (2003). Adolescent sexuality: Behavior and meaning. In G. R. Adams & M. B. Berzonsky (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of adolescence (pp. 371–392). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Darwin, C. (1853). The origin of species: By means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  13. Deutsch, F. M., & Saxon, S. E. (1998). Traditional ideologies, nontraditional lives. Sex Roles, 38, 331–362. doi:10.1023/A:1018749620033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eagly, A. (1995). The science and politics of comparing women and men. American Psychologist, 50, 145–158. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.50.3.145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eagly, A. H. (2009). The his and hers of prosocial behavior: an examination of the social psychology of gender. American Psychologist, 64, 642–658. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.64.8.644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ellis, H. (1905). Studies in the psychology of sex. NY: Random House.Google Scholar
  17. Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 429–456. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.429.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Firestone, R. W., Firestone, L. A., & Catlett, J. (2006). Sex and love in intimate relationships. Washington: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fisher, H. E. (1998). Lust, attraction, and attachment in mammalian reproduction. Human Nature, 9, 23–52. doi:10.1007/s12110-998-1010-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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. doi:10.1023/A:1019888024255.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gilmore, D. D. (1990). Manhood in the making: Cultural concepts of masculinity. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Graham, S. (1992). “Most of the subjects were White and middle class”: trends in published research on African Americans in selected APA journals, 1970–1989. American Psychologist, 47, 629–639. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.47.5.629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hagen, E. H. (2005). Controversial issues in evolutionary psychology. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 145–173). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Hare-Mustin, R. T., & Marecek, J. (1990). Gender and the meaning of difference: Postmodernism and psychology. In R. T. Hare-Mustin & J. Marecek (Eds.), Making a difference: Psychology and the construction of gender (pp. 22–64). New Haven: Yale university press.Google Scholar
  25. Harris, C. R. (2002). Sexual and romantic jealousy in heterosexual and homosexual adults. Psychological Science, 13, 7–12. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harris, C. R. (2003). A review of sex differences in sexual jealousy, including self-report data, psychophysiological responses, interpersonal violence, and morbid jealousy. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 102–128. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0702_102-128.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2000). Essentialist beliefs about social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 113–127. doi:10.1348/014466600164363.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hazan, C., & Diamond, L. M. (2000). The place of attachment in human mating. Review of General Psychology, 4, 186–204. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.4.2.186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hofstede, G. (1998). Comparative studies of sexual behavior: Sex as achievement or as relationship? In G. Hofstede (Ed.), Masculinity and femininity: Taboo dimensions of national culture (pp. 153–178). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kilmartin, C. T. (2007). The masculine self (3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  32. Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Oxford: Saunders.Google Scholar
  33. Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. H. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. Oxford: Saunders.Google Scholar
  34. Kirby, D. (2002). Antecedents of adolescent initiation of sex, contraceptive use, pregnancy. American Journal of Health Behavior, 26, 473–485.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Lucke, J. C. (1998). Gender roles and sexual behavior among young women. Sex Roles, 39, 273–297. doi:10.1023/A:1018806622585.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lytton, H., & Romney, D. M. (1991). Parents’ differential socialization of boys and girls: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 267–296. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Maticka-Tyndale, E., Herold, E. S., & Mewhinney, D. (1998). Casual sex on spring break: intentions and behaviors of Canadian students. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 254–264. doi:10.1080/00224499809551941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Maticka-Tyndale, E., Herold, E. S., & Oppermann, M. (2003). Casual sex among Australian schoolies. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 158–169. doi:10.1080/00224490309552177.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McBurney, D. H., Zapp, D. J., & Streeter, S. A. (2005). Preferred number of sexual partners: tails of distributions and tales of mating systems. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 271–278. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.09.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Meston, C. M., & Buss, D. M. (2007). Why humans have sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 477–507. doi:10.1007/s10508-007-9175-2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Miller, L. C., & Fishkin, S. A. (1997). On the dynamics of human bonding and reproductive success: Seeking windows on the adapted-for-human-environmental interface. In J. A. Simpson & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolutionary social psychology (pp. 197–236). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  42. Murdock, G. P. (1967). Ethnographic atlas. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  43. Offer, D., Offer, M. K., & Ostrov, E. (2004). Regular guys: 34 years beyond adolescence. NY: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  44. Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29–51. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pleck, J. H., Sonenstein, F. L., & Ku, L. C. (1993). Masculinity ideology: its impact on adolescent males’ heterosexual relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 11–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pleck, J. H., Sonenstein, F. L., & Ku, L. C. (1994). Attitudes toward male roles: a discriminant validity analysis. Sex Roles, 30, 481–501. doi:10.1007/BF01420798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Quinlan, R. J. (2008). Human pair-bonds: evolutionary functions, ecological variation, and adaptive development. Evolutionary Anthropology, 17, 227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Resnick, M. D., Bearman, P. S., Blum, R. W., Bauman, K. E., Harris, K. M., Jones, J., et al. (1997). Protecting adolescents from harm: findings from the national longitudinal study on adolescent health. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278, 823–832. doi:10.1001/jama.278.10.823.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Fundamentals of human mating strategies. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 255–271). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  50. Schmitt, D. P., Shackelford, T. K., & Buss, D. M. (2001). Are men really more ‘oriented’ toward short-term mating than women? A critical review of theory and research. Psychology, Evolution, & Gender, 3, 211–239. doi:10.1080/14616660110119331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schmitt, D. P., Alcalay, L., Allensworth, M., Allik, J., Ault, L., Autsters, I., et al. (2004). Patterns and universals of adult romantic attachment across 62 cultural regions: Are models of self and of other pancultural constructs. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 367–402. doi:10.1177/0022022104266105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schmitt, D. P., & 118 members of the International Sexuality Description Project (ISDP). (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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008). Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in big five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 168–182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.168.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shackelford, T. K., Pound, N., Goetz, A. T., & LaMunyon, C. W. (2005). Female infidelity and sperm competition. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 272–293). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  55. Simpson, J. A. (1999). Attachment theory in modern evolutionary perspective. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 115–140). NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
  56. Simpson, J. A., & Campbell, L. (2005). Methods of evolutionary sciences. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 119–144). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  57. Smiler, A. P. (2004). Thirty years after gender: concepts and measures of masculinity. Sex Roles, 50, 15–26. doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000011069.02279.4c.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Smiler, A. P. (2008). “I wanted to get to know her better”: adolescent boys’ dating motives, masculinity ideology, and sexual behavior. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 17–32. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.03.006.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Smiler, A. P., & Gelman, S. A. (2008). Determinants of gender essentialism in college students. Sex Roles, 58, 864–874. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9402-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Smiler, A. P., Ward, L. M., Caruthers, A., & Merriwether, A. (2005). Pleasure, empowerment, and love: factors associated with a positive first coitus. Sexual Research and Social Policy: Journal of NSRC, 2, 41–55. doi:10.1525/srsp.2005.2.3.41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sue, S. (1999). Science, ethnicity, and bias: where have we gone wrong? American Psychologist, 54, 1070–1077. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.12.1070.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tolman, D. L. (2001). Female adolescent sexuality: An argument for a developmental perspective on the new view of women’s sexual problems. In: E. Kaschak, & L. Tiefer (Eds.), A new view of women’s sexual problems (pp. 195–209). Haworth press.Google Scholar
  63. Tolman, D. L. (2002). Dilemmas of desire: Teenage girls talk about sexuality. Cambridge: Harvard university press.Google Scholar
  64. Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2005). Conceptual foundations of evolutionary psychology. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 5–67). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  65. Unger, R. (1979). Toward a redefinition of sex and gender. American Psychologist, 34, 1085–1094. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.34.11.1085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wade, J. C. (1998). Male reference group identity dependence: a theory of male identity. Counseling Psychologist, 26, 349–383. doi:10.1177/0011000098263001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Walker, D. F., Tokar, D. M., & Fischer, A. R. (2000). What are eight popular masculinity related instruments measuring? Underlying dimensions and their relations to psychosexuality. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 1, 98–108. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.1.2.98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wells, B. E., & Twenge, J. M. (2005). Changes in young people’s sexual behavior and attitudes, 1943–1999: a cross-temporal meta-analysis. Review of General Psychology, 9, 249–261. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.9.3.249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wight, D. (1994). Boys’ thoughts and talk about sex in a working class locality of Glasgow. The Sociological Review, 42, 703–737. doi:10.1111/1467-954X.ep9411295764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. William T. Grant Commission on Work, Family, and Citizenship. (1988). The forgotten half: Pathways to success for America’s youth and young families. Washington, DC: William T. Grant Commission on Work, Family and Citizenship.Google Scholar
  71. Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (1990). Sex and psyche: Gender and self viewed cross-culturally. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  72. Zeifman, D., & Hazan, C. (1997). Attachment: The bond in pair-bonds. In J. A. Simpson & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolutionary social psychology (pp. 237–263). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  73. Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Helfand, M. (2008). Ten years of longitudinal research on U.S. adolescent sexual behavior: developmental correlates of sexual intercourse, and the importance of age, gender and ethnic background. Developmental Review, 28, 153–224. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2007.06.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyWake Forest UniversityWinston-SalemUSA

Personalised recommendations