Advertisement

Human Nature

, 19:347 | Cite as

Sex Differences in Detecting Sexual Infidelity

Results of a Maximum Likelihood Method for Analyzing the Sensitivity of Sex Differences to Underreporting
  • Paul W. AndrewsEmail author
  • Steven W. Gangestad
  • Geoffrey F. Miller
  • Martie G. Haselton
  • Randy Thornhill
  • Michael C. Neale
Article

Abstract

Despite the importance of extrapair copulation (EPC) in human evolution, almost nothing is known about the design features of EPC detection mechanisms. We tested for sex differences in EPC inference-making mechanisms in a sample of 203 young couples. Men made more accurate inferences (φmen = 0.66, φwomen = 0.46), and the ratio of positive errors to negative errors was higher for men than for women (1.22 vs. 0.18). Since some may have been reluctant to admit EPC behavior, we modeled how underreporting could have influenced these results. These analyses indicated that it would take highly sex-differentiated levels of underreporting by subjects with trusting partners for there to be no real sex difference. Further analyses indicated that men may be less willing to harbor unresolved suspicions about their partners’ EPC behavior, which may explain the sex difference in accuracy. Finally, we estimated that women underreported their own EPC behavior (10%) more than men (0%).

Keywords

Accuracy Bias Error Evolutionary psychology Extrapair copulation Infidelity Jealousy Sex differences 

Notes

Acknowledgments

PWA was supported by a National Research Service Award from the National Institutes of Health, P32 MH-20030 (PI: Michael C. Neale). Rosalind Arden, Judith Easton, Todd Shackelford, Andy Thomson, Tina Wagers, and two anonymous reviews provided comments. Chuck Gardner provided statistical advice.

References

  1. Anderson, K. G., Kaplan, H., & Lancaster, J. (1999). Paternal care by genetic fathers and stepfathers I: Reports from Albuquerque men. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 405–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  3. Buss, D. M. (2000). The dangerous passion: Why jealousy is as necessary as love and sex. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  4. Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). From vigilance to violence: Mate retention tactics in married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 346–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Feldman, S. S., & Cauffman, E. (1999). Sexual betrayal among late adolescents: Perspectives of the perpetrator and the aggrieved. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 235–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fenigstein, A., & Preston, M. (2007). The desired number of sexual partners as a function of gender, sexual risks, and the meaning of “ideal”. Journal of Sex Research, 44, 89–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1997). The evolutionary psychology of extrapair sex: The role of fluctuating asymmetry. Evolution and Human Behavior, 18, 69–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Garver, C. E. (2002). Changes in women’s sexual interests and their partners’ mate-retention tactics across the menstrual cycle: Evidence for shifting conflicts of interest. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 269, 975–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Garver, C. E. (2005). Adaptations to ovulation. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 344–371). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Geary, D. C. (1998). Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  11. Hansen, G. L. (1985). Dating jealousy among college students. Sex Roles, 12, 713–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harris, C. R., & Christenfeld, N. (1996). Jealousy and rational responses to infidelity across gender and culture. Psychological Science, 7, 378–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Error management theory: A new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 81–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haselton, M. G., & Gangestad, S. W. (2006). Conditional expression of women’s desires and men’s mate guarding across the ovulatory cycle. Hormones and Behavior, 49, 509–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lenoir, C. D., Adler, N. E., Borzekowski, D. L. G., Tschann, J. M., & Ellen, J. M. (2006). What you don’t know can hurt you: Perceptions of sex-partner concurrency and partner-reported behavior. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38, 179–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Neale, M. C., Boker, S. M., Xie, G., & Maes, H. H. (2003). Mx: Statistical modeling (6th ed.). Richmond: Department of Psychiatry, Virginia Commonwealth University.Google Scholar
  18. Schaeffer, N. C. (2000). Asking questions about threatening topics: A selective overview. In N. Schwarz, & S. Sudman (Eds.), Autobiographical memory and the validity of retrospective reports (pp. 141–160). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shackelford, T. K., & Buss, D. M. (1997). Cues to infidelity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1034–1045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shackelford, T. K., Buss, D. M., & Weekes-Shackelford, V. A. (2003). Wife killings committed in the context of a lovers’ triangle. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 137–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tourangeau, R., & Smith, T. W. (1996). Asking sensitive questions: The impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 275–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Turner, C. F., Forsyth, B. H., O’Reilly, J., Cooley, P. C., Smith, T. K., Rogers, S. M., et al. (1998). Automated self-interviewing and the survey measurement of sensitive behaviors. In M. P. Couper, R. P. Baker, J. Bethlehem, C. Z. F. Clark, J. Martin, W. L. Nicholls, & J. M. O’Reilly (Eds.), Computer-assisted survey information collection (pp. 455–473). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Weisfeld, G. E. (1999). Evolutionary principles of human adolescence. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  25. Wilson, M., Daly, M., & Daniele, A. (1995). Familicide: the killing of spouse and children. Aggressive Behavior, 21, 275–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yarab, P. E., Allgeier, E. R., & Sensibaugh, C. C. (1999). Looking deeper: Extradyadic behaviors, jealousy, and perceived unfaithfulness in hypothetical dating relationships. Personal Relationships, 6, 305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul W. Andrews
    • 1
    Email author
  • Steven W. Gangestad
    • 2
  • Geoffrey F. Miller
    • 2
  • Martie G. Haselton
    • 3
  • Randy Thornhill
    • 4
  • Michael C. Neale
    • 1
  1. 1.Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral GeneticsVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA
  3. 3.Communication StudiesUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  4. 4.Department of BiologyUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA

Personalised recommendations