Advertisement

Human Nature

pp 1–24 | Cite as

The Effects of the Mating Market, Sex, Age, and Income on Sociopolitical Orientation

Insights from Evolutionary Theory and Sexual Economics Theory
  • Francesca R. LubertiEmail author
  • Khandis R. Blake
  • Robert C. Brooks
Article

Abstract

Sociopolitical attitudes are often the root cause of conflicts between individuals, groups, and even nations, but little is known about the origin of individual differences in sociopolitical orientation. We test a combination of economic and evolutionary ideas about the degree to which the mating market, sex, age, and income affect sociopolitical orientation. We collected data online through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk from 1108 US participants who were between 18 and 60, fluent in English, and single. While ostensibly testing a new online dating website, participants created an online dating profile and described people they would like to date. We manipulated the participants’ popularity in the mating market and the size of the market (i.e., the number of ideal partners in the market) and then measured participants’ sociopolitical attitudes. The sociopolitical attitudes were reduced to five dimensions via Principal Components Analysis (Sociosexuality, Benevolent Sexism, Wealth Redistribution, Nonconforming Behaviors, and Traditional Family Values). Both manipulations affected attitudes toward wealth redistribution but were largely not significant predictors of the other dimensions. Men reported more unrestricted sociosexual attitudes, and more support for benevolent sexism and traditional family values, than women did, and women supported wealth redistribution more than men did. There was no sex difference in accepting nonconforming behaviors. Younger people and people with lower incomes were more liberal than older people and people with higher incomes, respectively, regardless of sex. Overall, effects were largely not interactive, suggesting that individual differences in sociopolitical orientation may reflect strategic self-interest and be more straightforward than previously predicted.

Keywords

Evolutionary theory Mating market Sexual economics theory Sociopolitical orientation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research project was supported by the Australian Research Council and University of New South Wales internal funds.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

All procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the UNSW Human Research Ethics Committee (approval number HC16868) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Supplementary material

12110_2019_9361_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (910 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 910 kb)

References

  1. Ainsworth, S. E., & Baumeister, R. F. (2012). Changes in sexuality: how sexuality changes across time, across relationships, and across sociocultural contexts. Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 9(1), 32–38.Google Scholar
  2. Baumeister, R. F., & Mendoza, J. P. (2011). Cultural variations in the sexual marketplace: gender equality correlates with more sexual activity. The Journal of Social Psychology, 151(3), 350–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumeister, R. F., & Twenge, J. M. (2002). Cultural suppression of female sexuality. Review of General Psychology, 6(2), 166–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Sexual economics: sex as female resource for social exchange in heterosexual interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 339–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker, G. S. (1976). Economic approach to human behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Besen, Y., & Zicklin, G. (2007). Young men, religion and attitudes towards homosexuality. Journal of Men, Masculinities and Spirituality, 1(3), 250–266.Google Scholar
  7. Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (2009). Serial monogamy as polygyny or polyandry? Human Nature, 20(2), 130–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brase, G. L., & Guy, E. C. (2004). The demographics of mate value and self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(2), 471–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(2), 217–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buss, D. M. (1994). The strategies of human mating. American Scientist, 82(3), 238–249.Google Scholar
  12. Buss, D. M. (2002). Human mate guarding. Neuroendocrinology Letters, 23(4), 23–29.Google Scholar
  13. Buss, D. M., & Duntley, J. D. (2011). The evolution of intimate partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(5), 411–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Buss, D. M., & Haselton, M. (2005). The evolution of jealousy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(11), 506–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., & Westen, D. (1996). Sex differences in jealousy: not gone, not forgotten, and not explained by alternative hypotheses. Psychological Science, 7(6), 373–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chenoweth, S. F., & Blows, M. W. (2005). Contrasting mutual sexual selection on homologous signal traits in Drosophila serrata. American Naturalist, 165(2), 281–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cornelis, I., Van Hiel, A., Roets, A., & Kossowska, M. (2009). Age differences in conservatism: evidence on the mediating effects of personality and cognitive style. Journal of Personality, 77(1), 51–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Daly, M., Wilson, M., & Weghorst, S. J. (1982). Male sexual jealousy. Ethology and Sociobiology, 3(1), 11–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Davies, M. (2004). Correlates of negative attitudes toward gay men: Sexism, male role norms, and male sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 41(3), 259–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dawtry, R. J., Sutton, R. M., & Sibley, C. G. (2015). Why wealthier people think people are wealthier, and why it matters: from social sampling to attitudes to redistribution. Psychological Science, 26(9), 1389–1400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Draper, N. R., & John, J. A. (1988). Response-surface designs for quantitative and qualitative variables. Technometrics, 30(4), 423–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eagly, A. H., Diekman, A. B., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Koenig, A. M. (2004). Gender gaps in sociopolitical attitudes: a social psychological analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(6), 796–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ekehammar, B., & Sidanius, J. (1982). Sex differences in sociopolitical attitudes: a replication and extension. British Journal of Social Psychology, 21(3), 249–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (1990). Toward an evolutionary history of female sociosexual variation. Journal of Personality, 58(1), 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(04), 573–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Goetz, A. T., & Shackelford, T. K. (2009). Sexual conflict in humans: evolutionary consequences of asymmetric parental investment and paternity uncertainty. Animal Biology, 59(4), 449–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Ackerman, J. M., Delton, A. W., Robertson, T. E., & White, A. E. (2012). The financial consequences of too many men: sex ratio effects on saving, borrowing, and spending. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(1), 69–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Guttentag, M., & Secord, P. F. (1983). Too many women? The sex ratio question. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: correlates and gender differences. Journal of Sex Research, 25(4), 451–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., & Bloom, P. (2009). Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals. Cognition and Emotion, 23(4), 714–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jolliffe, I. (2011). Principal component analysis. In M. Lovric (Ed.), International encyclopedia of statistical science (pp. 1094–1096). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Judge, T. A., & Livingston, B. A. (2008). Is the gap more than gender? A longitudinal analysis of gender, gender role orientation, and earnings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 994–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kaestle, C. E., & Allen, K. R. (2011). The role of masturbation in healthy sexual development: perceptions of young adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(5), 983–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kettle, K. L., & Salerno, A. (2017). Anger promotes economic conservatism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(10), 1440–1454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kurzban, R., Dukes, A., & Weeden, J. (2010). Sex, drugs and moral goals: reproductive strategies and views about recreational drugs. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 277(1699), 3501–3508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lande, R., & Arnold, S. J. (1983). The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution, 37(6), 1210–1226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Levant, R. F., Rankin, T. J., Williams, C. M., Hasan, N. T., & Smalley, K. B. (2010). Evaluation of the factor structure and construct validity of scores on the Male Role Norms Inventory-Revised (MRNI-R). Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11(1), 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Li, Y. J., Cohen, A. B., Weeden, J., & Kenrick, D. T. (2010). Mating competitors increase religious beliefs. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 46(2), 428–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lim, V. K. (2002). Gender differences and attitudes towards homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 43(1), 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Matsunaga, M. (2015). How to factor-analyze your data right: do’s, don’ts, and how-to’s. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Murnen, S. K., & Byrne, D. (1991). Hyperfemininity: measurement and initial validation of the construct. Journal of Sex Research, 28(3), 479–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nychka, D. W. (2000). Spatial-process estimates as smoothers. In M. G. Schimek (Ed.), Smoothing and regression: Approaches, computation, and application (pp. 393–424). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  49. Nychka, D. W., Furrer, R., Paige, J., & Sain, S. (2015). FIELDS: Tools for spatial data. (R package version 8 ed.).Google Scholar
  50. Page, B. I., Bartels, L. M., & Seawright, J. (2013). Democracy and the policy preferences of wealthy Americans. Perspectives on Politics, 11(01), 51–73.CrossRefGoogle 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(5), 1113–1135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Petersen, M. B. (2017). Reproductive interests and dimensions of political ideology. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39(2), 203–211.CrossRefGoogle 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(2–3), 149–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Petersen, M. B., Sznycer, D., Sell, A., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2013). The ancestral logic of politics: upper-body strength regulates men’s assertion of self-interest over economic redistribution. Psychological Science, 24(7), 1098–1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pinsof, D., & Haselton, M. (2016). The political divide over same-sex marriage: mating strategies in conflict? Psychological Science, 27(4), 435–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pinsof, D., & Haselton, M. (2017). The effect of the promiscuity stereotype on opposition to gay rights. PLoS One, 12(7), e0178534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Price, M. E., Pound, N., & Scott, I. M. (2014). Female economic dependence and the morality of promiscuity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(7), 1289–1301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Price, M. E., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Sidnaius, J., & Pound, N. (2017). Is sociopolitical egalitarianism related to bodily and facial formidability in men? Evolution and Human Behavior, 38(5), 626–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Revelle, W. (2017). Psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research (version 1.8.4). Evanston: Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  60. Rhodes, G., Simmons, L. W., & Peters, M. (2005). Attractiveness and sexual behavior: does attractiveness enhance mating success? Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(2), 186–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rudman, L. A., & Kilianski, S. E. (2000). Implicit and explicit attitudes toward female authority. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(11), 1315–1328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sacco, D. F., Young, S. G., Brown, C. M., Bernstein, M. J., & Hugenberg, K. (2012). Social exclusion and female mating behavior: rejected women show strategic enhancement of short-term mating interest. Evolutionary Psychology, 10(3), 573–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sawyer, S. P., & Metz, M. E. (2009). The attitudes toward prostitution scale: preliminary report on its development and use. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53(3), 334–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Scelza, B. A. (2011). Female choice and extra-pair paternity in a traditional human population. Biology Letters, 7(6), 889–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schacht, R., & Bell, A. V. (2016). The evolution of monogamy in response to partner scarcity. Scientific Reports, 6, 32472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schacht, R., & Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (2015). Sex ratio effects on reproductive strategies in humans. Royal Society Open Science, 2(1), 140402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schacht, R., & Grote, M. (2015). Partner choice decision making and the integration of multiple cues. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36(6), 456–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schacht, R., & Kramer, K. L. (2016). Patterns of family formation in response to sex ratio variation. PLoS One, 11(8), e0160320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schluter, D. (1988). Estimating the form of natural selection on a quantitative trait. Evolution, 42(5), 849–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sidanius, J., & Ekehammar, B. (1980). Sex-related differences in socio-political ideology. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 21(1), 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(6), 870–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Stevens, J. (2012). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (Fifth ed.). New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  73. Stewart-Williams, S., & Thomas, A. G. (2013). The ape that thought it was a peacock: does evolutionary psychology exaggerate human sex differences? Psychological Inquiry, 24(3), 137–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sundie, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Vohs, K. D., & Beal, D. J. (2011). Peacocks, Porsches, and Thorstein Veblen: conspicuous consumption as a sexual signaling system. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(4), 664–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sznycer, D., Seal, M. F. L., Sell, A., Lim, J., Porat, R., Shalvi, S., et al. (2017). Support for redistribution is shaped by compassion, envy, and self-interest, but not a taste for fairness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(31), 8420–8425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Terrizzi, J. A., Shook, N. J., & Ventis, W. L. (2010). Disgust: a predictor of social conservatism and prejudicial attitudes toward homosexuals. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(6), 587–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Thórisdóttir, H., & Jost, J. T. (2011). Motivated closed-mindedness mediates the effect of threat on political conservatism. Political Psychology, 32(5), 785–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  79. Vaus, D., & McAllister, I. (1989). The changing politics of women: gender and political alignment in 11 nations. European Journal of Political Research, 17(3), 241–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Weeden, J., Cohen, A. B., & Kenrick, D. T. (2008). Religious attendance as reproductive support. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(5), 327–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wickham, H. (2009). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1996). Male sexual proprietariness and violence against wives. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5(1), 2–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Yost, M. R., & Zurbriggen, E. L. (2006). Gender differences in the enactment of sociosexuality: an examination of implicit social motives, sexual fantasies, coercive sexual attitudes, and aggressive sexual behavior. The Journal of Sex Research, 43(2), 163–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Evolution & Ecology Research CentreThe University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations