Experimental Evidence for Sex Differences in Sexual Variety Preferences: Support for the Coolidge Effect in Humans

Abstract

We examined sex differences in preferences for sexual variety and novelty to determine whether the Coolidge effect plays a role in human sexuality. In two experimental studies that employed different manipulations, we found converging evidence that men showed a greater preference for variety in potential short-term mates than did women. In the first study, men (n = 281) were more likely than women (n = 353) to select a variety of mates when given the opportunity to distribute chances to have sex with different individuals in hypothetical situations. This sex difference was evident regardless of the targets’ attractiveness and age. Further, men found it more appealing if their committed romantic/sexual partners frequently changed their physical appearance, while women reported that they modified their physical appearance more frequently than did men, potentially appealing to male desires for novelty. In the second study, when participants were given a hypothetical dating task using photographs of potential short-term mates, men (n = 40) were more likely than women (n = 56) to select a novel person to date. Collectively, these findings lend support to the idea that sex differences in preferences for sexual variety and novelty are a salient sex-specific evolved component of the repertoire of human mating strategies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Allen, M. (1981). Individual copulatory preference and the “strange female effect” in a captive group-living male chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Primates,22, 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02382612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Banca, P., Morris, L. S., Mitchell, S., Harrison, N. A., Potenza, M. N., & Voon, V. (2016). Novelty, conditioning and attentional bias to sexual rewards. Journal of Psychiatric Research,72, 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2015.10.017.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Bermant, G. (1976). Sexual behavior: Hard times with the Coolidge effect. In M. H. Siegel & H. P. Ziegler (Eds.), Psychological research: The inside story (pp. 76–103). New York, NY: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Boies, S. C. (2002). University students’ uses of and reactions to online sexual information and entertainment: Links to online and offline sexual behavior. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality,11(2), 77–89.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Briere, J., Smiljanich, K., & Henschel, D. (1994). Sexual fantasies, gender, and molestation history. Child Abuse and Neglect,18(2), 131–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(94)90115-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bunnell, B. N., Boland, B. D., & Dewsbury, D. A. (1977). Copulatory behavior of golden hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus). Behaviour,61(3/4), 180–206. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853977X00342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,12(1), 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00023992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Buss, D. M. (2016). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating (Revised and updated edition). New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review,100(2), 204–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (2019). Mate preferences and their behavioral manifestations. Annual Review of Psychology,70, 77–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Carroll, J. S., Padilla-Walker, L. M., Nelson, L. J., Olson, C. D., Barry, C. M., & Madsen, S. D. (2008). Generation XXX: Pornography acceptance and use among emerging adults. Journal of Adolescent Research,23(1), 6–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558407306348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Caspar, H. (2010). Facity. Retrieved April 2017, from http://www.facity.com/.

  13. Cheetham, S. A., Thom, M. D., Beynon, R. J., & Hurst, J. L. (2008). The effect of familiarity on mate choice. In J. L. Hurst, R. J. Beynon, S. C. Roberts, & T. D. Wyatt (Eds.), Chemical signals in vertebrates 11 (pp. 271–280). New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73945-8_26.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1990.tb00437.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality,2(1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v02n01_04.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. D’Orlando, F. (2011). The demand for pornography. Journal of Happiness Studies,12, 51–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-009-9175-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Darling, C. A., & Davidson, J. K. (1986). Coitally active university students: Sexual behaviors, concerns, and challenges. Adolescence,21(82), 403–419.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Davis, J. A., & Gallup, G. G., Jr. (2006). Preeclampsia and other pregnancy complications as an adaptive response to unfamiliar semen. In S. Platek & T. Shackelford (Eds.), Female infidelity and paternal uncertainty: Evolutionary perspectives on male anti-cuckoldry tactics (pp. 191–204). New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511617812.010.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Delton, A., Robertson, T. E., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). The mating game isn’t over: A reply to Buller’s critique of the evolutionary psychology of mating. Evolutionary Psychology,4, 262–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490600400122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Dewsbury, D. A. (1981). Effects of novelty on copulatory behavior: The Coolidge effect and related phenomena. Psychological Bulletin,89, 464–482. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.89.3.464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dines, G., Jensen, R., & Russo, A. (1998). Pornography: The production and consumption of inequality. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Dunson, D. B., Baird, D. D., & Colombo, B. (2004). Increased infertility with age in men and women. Obstetrics and Gynecology,103(1), 51–56. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000100153.24061.45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ellis, L., Karadi, K., Hershberger, S., Field, E., Wersinger, S., Pellis, S., … Hetsroni, A. (Eds). (2008). Sex differences: Summarizing more than a century of scientific research. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ellis, B. J., & Symons, D. (1990). Sex differences in sexual fantasy: An evolutionary psychological approach. Journal of Sex Research,27(4), 527–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499009551579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Fiorino, D. F., Coury, A., & Phillips, A. G. (1997). Dynamic changes in nucleus accumbens dopamine efflux during the Coolidge effect in male rat. Journal of Neuroscience,17(12), 4849–4855. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.17-12-04849.1997.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Fisher, W. A., & Barak, A. (2001). Internet pornography: A social psychological perspective on internet sexuality. Journal of Sex Research,38(4), 312–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490109552102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Fox, C. W., & Rauter, C. M. (2003). Bet-hedging and the evolution of multiple mating. Evolutionary Ecology Research,5, 273–286.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Gallup, G. G., Jr., & Frederick, D. A. (2010). The science of sex appeal: An evolutionary perspective. Review of General Psychology,14, 240–250. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,23(4), 573–644. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0000337X.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Grammer, K. (1992). Variations on a theme: Age dependent mate selection in humans. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,15, 100–102. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00067704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gray, G. D., & Dewsbury, D. A. (1975). A quantitative description of the copulatory behavior of meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus). Animal Behaviour,23, 261–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(75)90074-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Guéguen, N. (2011). Effects of solicitor sex and attractiveness on receptivity to sexual offers: A field study. Archives of Sexual Behavior,40(5), 915–919. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9750-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hald, G. M. (2006). Gender differences in pornography consumption among young heterosexual Danish adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior,35(5), 577–585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-9064-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hale, E. B., & Almquist, J. O. (1956). Effect of changes in the stimulus field on responsiveness of bulls to a constant stimulus animal [Abstract]. Anatomical Record,125, 607.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Hatfield, E., & Walster, G. W. (1978). A new look at love. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Hicks, T. V., & Leitenberg, H. (2001). Sexual fantasies about one’s partner versus someone else: Gender differences in the incidence and frequency. Journal of Sex Research,38(1), 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490109552069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hill, K., & Hurtado, A. M. (1996). Ache life history: The ecology and demography of a foraging people. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Hughes, S. M., Harrison, M. A., & Gallup, G. J. (2004). Sex differences in mating strategies: Mate guarding, infidelity and multiple concurrent sex partners. Sexualities, Evolution, and Gender,6(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616660410001733588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Jackson, L. A., Sullivan, L. A., & Hymes, J. S. (1987). Gender, gender role, and physical appearance. Journal of Psychology,121(1), 51–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1987.9712642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Jokela, M. (2009). Physical attractiveness and reproductive success in humans: Evidence from the late 20th century United States. Evolution and Human Behavior,30(5), 342–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.03.006.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Jokela, M., Rotkirch, A., Rickard, I. J., Pettay, J., & Lummaa, V. (2010). Serial monogamy increases reproductive success in men but not in women. Behavioral Ecology,21(5), 906–912. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arq078.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Jordan, L. A., & Brooks, R. C. (2010). The lifetime costs of increased male reproductive effort: Courtship, copulation and the Coolidge effect. Journal of Evolutionary Biology,23(11), 2403–2409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02104.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Joseph, P. N., Sharma, R. K., Agarwal, A., & Sirot, L. K. (2015). Men ejaculate larger volumes of semen, more motile sperm, and more quickly when exposed to images of novel women. Evolutionary Psychological Science,1, 195–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-015-0022-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kekäläinen, J., Rudolfsen, G., Janhunen, M., Figenschou, L., Peuhkuri, N., Tamper, N., & Kortet, R. (2010). Genetic and potential non-genetic benefits increase offspring fitness of polyandrous females in non-resource based mating system. BMC Evolutionary Biology. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-10-20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Kelley, K., & Musialowski, D. (1986). Repeated exposure to sexually explicit stimuli: Novelty, sex, and sexual attitudes. Archives of Sexual Behavior,15, 487–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01542313.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kirsner, B. R., Figueredo, A. J., & Jacobs, W. J. (2003). Self, friends, and lovers: Structural relations among Beck Depression Inventory scores and perceived mate values. Journal of Affective Disorders,75, 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0327(02)00048-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Klusmann, D. (2002). Sexual motivation and the duration of partnership. Archives of Sexual Behavior,31(3), 275–287. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015205020769.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Koukounas, E., & Over, R. (2000). Changes in the magnitude of the eyeblink startle response during habituation of sexual arousal. Behaviour Research and Therapy,38, 573–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(99)00075-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Law Smith, M. J., Perrett, D. I., Jones, B. C., Cornwell, R. E., Moore, F. R., Feinberg, D. R., Boothroyd, L. G., … Hillier, S. G. (2006). Facial appearance is a cue to oestrogen levels in women. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 273(1583), 135–140. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2005.3296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Lisk, R. D., & Baron, G. (1982). Female regulation of mating location and acceptance of new mating partners following mating to sexual satiety: The Coolidge effect demonstrated in the female golden hamster. Behavioral and Neural Biology,36(4), 416–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-1047(82)90822-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Little, A. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Jones, B. C. (2014). Sex differences in attraction to familiar and unfamiliar opposite-sex faces: Men prefer novelty and women prefer familiarity. Archives of Sexual Behavior,43(5), 973–981. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0120-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Ma, D. S., Correll, J., & Wittenbrink, B. (2015). The Chicago face database: A free stimulus set of faces and norming data. Behavior Research Methods,47(4), 1122–1135. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0532-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Malamuth, N. M., Addison, T., & Koss, M. (2000). Pornography and sexual aggression: Are there reliable effects and can we understand them? Annual Review of Sex Research,11(1), 26–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/10532528.2000.10559784.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Meuwissen, I., & Over, R. (1990). Habituation and dishabituation of female sexual arousal. Behaviour Research and Therapy,28(3), 217–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(90)90004-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Michael, R. P., & Zumpe, D. (1978). Potency in male rhesus monkeys: Effects of continuously receptive females. Science,200(28), 451–453. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.417398.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Morton, H., & Gorzalka, B. B. (2015). Role of partner novelty in sexual functioning: A review. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy,41(6), 593–609. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2014.958788.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. O’Donohue, W. T., & Geer, J. H. (1985). The habituation of sexual arousal. Archives of Sexual Behavior,14(3), 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01542106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Olmstead, S. B., Negash, S., Pasley, K., & Fincham, F. D. (2013). Emerging adults’ expectation for pornography use in the context of future committed romantic relationships: A qualitative study. Archives of Sexual Behavior,42, 625–635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-9986-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. 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, 1113–1135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Pizzari, T., Cornwallis, C. K., Løvlie, H., Jakobsson, S., & Birkhead, T. R. (2003). Sophisticated sperm allocation in male fowl. Nature,426(6962), 70–74. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Plaud, J. J., Gaither, G. A., Amato-Henderson, S., & Devitt, M. (1997). The long-term habituation of sexual arousal in human males: A crossover design. Psychological Record,47(3), 385–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Richters, J., de Visser, R. O., Rissel, C. E., Grulich, A. E., & Smith, A. A. (2008). Demographic and psychosocial features of participants in bondage and discipline, ‘sadomasochism’ or dominance and submission (BDSM): Data from a national survey. Journal of Sexual Medicine,5(7), 1660–1668. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.00795.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Rudd, N. A., & Lennon, S. J. (2000). Body image and appearance-management behaviors in college women. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal,18(3), 152–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887302X0001800304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Schaefer, H., & Colgan, A. H. (1977). The effect of pornography on penile tumescence as a function of reinforcement and novelty. Behavior Therapy,8(5), 938–946. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(77)80163-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Schmitt, D. P., Alcalay, L., Allik, J., Austers, I., Bennett, K. L., Bianchi, G., & Zupanèiè, A. (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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. 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(4), 425–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2001.tb00049.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Steiger, S., Franz, R., Eggert, A., & Müller, J. K. (2008). The Coolidge effect, individual recognition and selection for distinctive cuticular signatures in a burying beetle. Proceedings of the Royal Society Biological Sciences Series B,275(1645), 1831–1838. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.0375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1999). Facial attractiveness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,3(12), 452–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01403-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Tlachi-López, J. L., Eguibar, J. R., Fernández-Guasti, A., & Lucio, R. A. (2012). Copulation and ejaculation in male rats under sexual satiety and the Coolidge effect. Physiology & Behavior,106(5), 626–630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2012.04.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Ventura-Aquino, E., Baños-Araujo, J., Fernández-Guasti, A., & Paredes, R. G. (2016). An unknown male increases sexual incentive motivation and partner preference: Further evidence for the Coolidge effect in female rats. Physiology & Behavior,158, 54–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2016.02.026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Ventura-Aquino, E., Fernández-Guasti, A., & Paredes, R. G. (2018). Hormones and the Coolidge effect. Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology,467, 42–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mce.2017.09.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. von Rueden, C., Gurven, M., & Kaplan, H. (2008). Multiple dimensions of male social status in an Amazonian society. Evolution and Human Behavior,29(6), 402–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.05.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Whalen, R. E. (1963). Sexual behavior of cats. Behaviour,20, 321–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Wilson, G. D. (1981). Cross-generational stability of gender differences in sexuality. Personality and Individual Differences,2(3), 254–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(81)90034-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Wilson, G. D. (1987). Male-female differences and sexual activity, enjoyment, and fantasies. Personality and Individual Differences,8(1), 125–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(87)90019-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Wilson, G. D. (1997). Gender differences in sexual fantasy: An evolutionary analysis. Personality and Individual Differences,22(1), 27–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(96)00180-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Wilson, J. R., Kuehn, R. E., & Beach, F. A. (1963). Modification in sexual behavior of male rats produced by changing stimulus female. Journal of Comparative Physiology,56, 636–644. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Wilson, G. D., & Lang, R. J. (1981). Sex differences in sexual fantasy patterns. Personality and Individual Differences,2(4), 343–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(81)90093-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Zurbriggen, E. L., & Yost, M. R. (2004). Power, desire, and pleasure in sexual fantasies. Journal of Sex Research,41(3), 288–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490409552236.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge the Albright Creative Research Experience (ACRE) program for its support of this project.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan M. Hughes.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

A schematic representation of the picture stimuli shown in Study 2. Participants viewed three different blocks, beginning with two paired pictures, A and B, in Block 1. As an example, if stimulus “A” was chosen as a preferred short-term dating partner, stimulus “A” would repeat and would be paired with a novel stimulus “C.” If “C” was chosen, “C” would repeat and be paired with a novel stimulus “D.” If “C” was chosen again, “C” would be paired with a novel stimulus “X.” After participants chose either “C” or “X,” Block 2 would begin, presenting pictures “E” and “F.” Note. A, B, C, E, F, G, I, J, K = facial images that could be repeated, dependent on participant’s input (gray); D, H, L, X, Y, Z = facial images were only presented once (white); End = end of the stimulus presentation.

figurea

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hughes, S.M., Aung, T., Harrison, M.A. et al. Experimental Evidence for Sex Differences in Sexual Variety Preferences: Support for the Coolidge Effect in Humans. Arch Sex Behav (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01730-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Sexual variety
  • Coolidge effect
  • Sexual novelty
  • Short-term mating
  • Mate selection
  • Appearance change