Advertisement

Experimentally Inducing Disgust Reduces Desire for Short-Term Mating

  • Laith Al-Shawaf
  • David M. G. Lewis
  • Maliki Eyvonne Ghossainy
  • David M. Buss
Research Article

Abstract

Short-term mating strategies involve casual sex, multiple partners, and short-time intervals before initiating intercourse. Such strategies should be difficult to implement in the presence of high levels of sexual disgust. Researchers have therefore suggested—and found evidence for—the hypothesis that individuals with a stronger proclivity for short-term mating have lower levels of sexual disgust. Here, we suggest a related hypothesis: inducing sexual disgust should reduce desire for short-term mating. Experiment 1 (N = 341) and experiment 2 (N = 361) investigated the effects of disgust induction on desire for short-term mating. Both studies found that inducing disgust reduces desire for short-term mating, and that the effect of sexual disgust is particularly strong. These results support the novel hypothesis advanced here and corroborate the broader hypothesis that reduced sexual disgust is a previously undiscovered design feature of short-term mating strategies.

Keywords

Disgust Emotions Evolutionary psychology Sexual disgust Mating Short-term mating 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Al-Shawaf, L., & Lewis, D. M. (2013). Exposed intestines and contaminated cooks: Sex, stress, & satiation predict disgust sensitivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(6), 698–702.Google Scholar
  2. Al-Shawaf, L., Conroy-Beam, D., Asao, K., & Buss, D. M. (2015a). Human emotions: An evolutionary psychological perspective. Emotion Review, 8, 173–186.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073914565518.
  3. Al-Shawaf, L., Lewis, D. M. G., Alley, T. R., & Buss, D. M. (2015b). Mating strategy, disgust, and food neophobia. Appetite, 85, 30–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Al-Shawaf, L., Lewis, D. M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2015c). Disgust and mating strategy. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36(3), 199–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Al-Shawaf, L., Lewis, D. M., & Buss, D. M. (2018). Sex differences in disgust: Why are women more easily disgusted than men? Emotion Review, 10(2), 149–160.Google Scholar
  6. Ariely, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2006). The heat of the moment: the effect of sexual arousal on sexual decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19(2), 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borg, C., & de Jong, P. J. (2012). Feelings of disgust and disgust-induced avoidance weaken following induced sexual arousal in women. PLoS One, 7(9), e44111.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044111.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Burnham, T. C., Chapman, J. F., Gray, P. B., McIntyre, M. H., Lipson, S. F., & Ellison, P. T. (2003). Men in committed, romantic relationships have lower testosterone. Hormones and Behavior, 44(2), 119–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buss, D. M. (2015). Evolutionary psychology: the new science of the mind, 5th Edition. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  10. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buss, D. M., & Greiling, H. (1999). Adaptive individual differences. Journal of Personality, 67(2), 209–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Curtis, V. A., Aunger, R., & Rabie, T. (2004). Evidence that disgust evolved to protect from risk of disease. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 271, 131–133.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2003.0144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Curtis, V., De Barra, M., & Aunger, R. (2011). Disgust as an adaptive system for disease avoidance behaviour. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 366(1563), 389–401.Google Scholar
  14. DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., Tybur, J. M., Lieberman, D., & Griskevicius, V. (2010). Women’s preferences for masculinity in male faces are predicted by pathogen disgust, but not by moral or sexual disgust. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(1), 69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. de Jong, P. J., van Overveld, M., Schultz, W. W., Peters, M. L., & Buwalda, F. M. (2009). Disgust and contamination sensitivity in vaginismus and dyspareunia. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(2), 244–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. de Jong, P. J., van Lankveld, J., Elgersma, H. J., & Borg, C. (2010). Disgust and sexual problems–Theoretical conceptualization and case illustrations. International Journal of Cognitive Therapy, 3(1), 23–39.Google Scholar
  17. de Jong, P. J., van Overveld, M., & Borg, C. (2013). Giving in to arousal or staying stuck in disgust? Disgust-based mechanisms in sex and sexual dysfunction. Journal of Sex Research, 50(3–4), 247–262.Google Scholar
  18. Fessler, D. M., Pillsworth, E. G., & Flamson, T. J. (2004). Angry men and disgusted women: an evolutionary approach to the influence of emotions on risk taking. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95(1), 107–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fleischman, D. S., Hamilton, L. D., Fessler, D. M., & Meston, C. M. (2015). Disgust versus lust: exploring the interactions of disgust and fear with sexual arousal in women. PLoS One, 10(6), e0118151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gettler, L. T., McDade, T. W., Feranil, A. B., & Kuzawa, C. W. (2011). Longitudinal evidence that fatherhood decreases testosterone in human males. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(39), 16194–16199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Glasman, L. R., & Albarracin, D. (2006). Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: a meta-analysis of the attitude-behavior relation. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 778–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haidt, J., McCauley, C., & Rozin, P. (1994). Individual differences in sensitivity to disgust: a scale sampling seven domains of disgust elicitors. Personality and Individual Differences, 16(5), 701–713.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(94)90212-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jones, B. C., Feinberg, D. R., Watkins, C. D., Fincher, C. L., Little, A. C., & DeBruine, L. M. (2013). Pathogen disgust predicts women’s preferences for masculinity in men’s voices, faces, and bodies. Behavioral Ecology, 24(2), 373–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee, A. J., Dubbs, S. L., Von Hippel, W., Brooks, R. C., & Zietsch, B. P. (2014). A multivariate approach to human mate preferences. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35(3), 193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lippa, R. A. (2009). Sex differences in sex drive, sociosexuality, and height across 53 nations: testing evolutionary and social structural theories. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 631–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Little, A. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Jones, B. C. (2011). Exposure to visual cues of pathogen contagion changes preferences for masculinity and symmetry in opposite-sex faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 278(1714), 2032–2039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mazur, A., & Michalek, J. (1998). Marriage, divorce, and male testosterone. Social Forces, 77(1), 315–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McIntyre, M., Gangestad, S. W., Gray, P. B., Chapman, J. F., Burnham, T. C., O'Rourke, M. T., & Thornhill, R. (2006). Romantic involvement often reduces men’s testosterone levels–but not always: the moderating role of extrapair sexual interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 642–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mortensen, C. R., Becker, D. V., Ackerman, J. M., Neuberg, S. L., & Kenrick, D. T. (2010). Infection breeds reticence: the effects of disease salience on self-perceptions of personality and behavioral avoidance tendencies. Psychological Science, 21(3), 440–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (2011). 10 ways STDs impact women differently from men. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Google Scholar
  31. O’Shea, K.J., DeBruine, L.M., & Jones, B.C. (in press). Further evidence for associations between short-term mating strategy and sexual disgust. Personality and Individual Differences.Google Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Pliner, P., & Hobden, K. (1992). Development of a scale to measure the trait of food neophobia in humans. Appetite, 19, 105–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schaller, M., Miller, G. E., Gervais, W. M., Yager, S., & Chen, E. (2010). Mere visual perception of other people’s disease symptoms facilitates a more aggressive immune response. Psychological Science, 21, 649–652.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610368064.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Schaller, M., & Murray, D. R. (2008). Pathogens, personality, and culture: disease prevalence predicts worldwide variability in sociosexuality, extraversion, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 212–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(02), 247–275.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 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(1), 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stevenson, R. J., Case, T. I., & Oaten, M. J. (2011). Effect of self-reported sexual arousal on responses to sex-related and non-sex-related disgust cues. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(1), 79–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tybur, J. M., & Gangestad, S. W. (2011). Mate preferences and infectious disease: theoretical considerations and evidence in humans. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366(1583), 3375–3388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tybur, J. M., Lieberman, D., & Griskevicius, V. (2009). Microbes, mating, and morality: Individual differences in three functional domains of disgust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 103–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015474.Google Scholar
  41. Tybur, J. M., Lieberman, D., Kurzban, R., & DeScioli, P. (2012). Disgust: evolved function and structure. Psychological Review, 120, 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tybur, J. M., Bryan, A. D., Magnan, R. E., & Hooper, A. E. C. (2011). Smells like safe sex: olfactory pathogen primes increase intentions to use condoms. Psychological Science, 22(4), 478–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laith Al-Shawaf
    • 1
  • David M. G. Lewis
    • 2
  • Maliki Eyvonne Ghossainy
    • 3
  • David M. Buss
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of ColoradoColorado SpringsUSA
  2. 2.School of Psychology and Exercise ScienceMurdoch UniversityPerthAustralia
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyAmerican University of BeirutBeirutLebanon
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyThe University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations