Human Nature

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 282–293

How Willing Are You to Accept Sexual Requests from Slightly Unattractive to Exceptionally Attractive Imagined Requestors?

  • Achim Schützwohl
  • Amrei Fuchs
  • William F. McKibbin
  • Todd K. Shackelford
Article

Abstract

In their classic study of differences in mating strategies, Clark and Hatfield (1989, Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2, 39–54) found that men and women demonstrated a striking difference in interest in casual sex. The current study examined the role of an imagined requestor’s physical attractiveness (slightly unattractive, moderately attractive, and exceptionally attractive) on men’s and women’s willingness to accept three different requests (go out, come to apartment, go to bed) as reflected in answers to a questionnaire. We tested two hypotheses with a sample of 427 men and 443 women from three countries. Hypothesis 1 states that men, relative to women, will demonstrate a greater willingness to accept the “come to apartment” and “go to bed” requests but not the “go out” request for all three levels of requestor attractiveness. This hypothesis reflects Clark and Hatfield’s main findings. Hypothesis 2 states that the physical attractiveness of a potential partner will have a greater effect on women’s than on men’s willingness to accept all three requests, and particularly for the explicit request for casual sex. The results partially supported Hypothesis 1 and fully supported Hypothesis 2. The discussion highlights limitations of the current research and presents directions for future research.

Keywords

Sex differences Mating Short-term mating Physical attractiveness 

References

  1. 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
  2. Buss, D. M. (1994). The strategies of human mating. American Scientist, 82, 238–249.Google Scholar
  3. Buss, D. M. (2007). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  4. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buss, D. M., Abbott, M., Angleitner, A., Biaggio, A., Blanco-Villasenor, A., et al. (1990). International preferences in selecting mates: a study of 37 societies. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 21, 5–47.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 Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2, 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (2003). Love in the afternoon. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 225–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ellis, B. J., & Symons, D. (1990). Sex differences in fantasy: an evolutionary psychological approach. Journal of Sex Research, 27, 527–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1999). Individual differences in developmental precision and fluctuating asymmetry: a model and its implications. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 12, 402–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Garver-Apgar, C. E. (2005). Adaptations to ovulation. In D. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 344–371). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Schmitt, D. P. (2005a). Fundamentals of human mating strategies. In D. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 258–291). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Schmitt, D. P. (2005b). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: a 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 247–275.Google Scholar
  15. Schmitt, D. P., Shackelford, T. K., Duntley, J., Tooke, W., & Buss, D. M. (2001). The desire for sexual variety as a key to understanding basic human mating strategies. Personal Relationships, 8, 425–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schmitt, D. P., Alcalay, L., Allik, J., Ault, L., Austers, I., Bennett, K. L., et al. (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
  17. Schützwohl, A. (2006). Judging female figures: a new methodological approach to male attractiveness judgments of female waist-to-hip ratio. Biological Psychology, 71, 223–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shackelford, T. K., Goetz, A. T., LaMunyon, C. W., Quintus, B. J., & Weekes-Shackelford, V. A. (2004). Sex differences in sexual psychology produce sex-similar preferences for a short-term mate. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33, 405–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 293–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Surbey, M. K., & Conohan, C. D. (2000). Willingness to engage in casual sex: the role of parental qualities and perceived risk of aggression. Human Nature, 11, 367–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Tovée, M. J., & Cornelissen, P. L. (2001). Female and male perceptions of female physical attractiveness in front-view and profile. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 391–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Townsend, J. M., Kline, J., & Wasserman, T. H. (1995). Low-investment copulation: sex differences in motivations and emotional reactions. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 25–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Achim Schützwohl
    • 1
  • Amrei Fuchs
    • 2
  • William F. McKibbin
    • 3
  • Todd K. Shackelford
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyBrunel University, West LondonUxbridgeUK
  2. 2.University of BielefeldBielefeldGermany
  3. 3.Florida Atlantic UniversityDavieUSA

Personalised recommendations