Human Nature

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 93–104 | Cite as

Partner Status Influences Women’s Interest in the Opposite Sex

  • Heather Rupp
  • Giliah R. Librach
  • Nick C. Feipel
  • Ellen D. Ketterson
  • Dale R. Sengelaub
  • Julia R. Heiman
Article

Abstract

Previous research has demonstrated that hormones, relationship goals, and social context influence interest in the opposite sex. It has not been previously reported, however, whether having a current sexual partner also influences interest in members of the opposite sex. To test this, we obtained explicit and implicit measures of interest by measuring men’s and women’s subjective ratings and response times while they evaluated photos of opposite-sex faces. Fifty-nine men and 56 women rated 510 photos of opposite-sex faces for realism, masculinity, attractiveness, or affect. We found that these subjective ratings were not influenced by partner status in either men or women. However, women who did not report having a current sexual partner spent more time evaluating the photos than women who did have partners, demonstrating greater interest in the photos. Sexual partner status did not predict men’s response times. These findings may reveal that relationship commitment in women suppresses interest in alternative partners.

Keywords

Sex differences Response time Viewing time Mate choice Face processing 

References

  1. Bateson, M., & Healy, S. D. (2005). Comparative evaluation and its implications for mate choice. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20, 659–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown, M. (1979). Viewing time of pornography. Journal of Psychology, 102, 83–95.Google Scholar
  3. Conaglen, H. M., & Evans, I. M. (2006). Pictorial cues and sexual desire: an experimental approach. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 197–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Field, M., Mogg, K., Zetteler, J., & Bradley, B. P. (2004). Attentional biases for alcohol cues in heavy and light social drinkers: the roles of initial orienting and maintained attention. Psychopharmacology, 176, 88–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gangestad, S. W., Garver-Apgar, C. E., Simpson, J. A., & Cousins, A. J. (2007). Changes in women’s mate preferences across the ovulatory cycle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 151–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gonzaga, G. C., Haselton, M. G., Smurda, J., Davies, M., & Poore, J. C. (2008). Love, desire, and the suppression of thoughts of romantic alternatives. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 119–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Quinsey, V. L., & Chaplin, T. C. (1996). Viewing time as a measure of sexual interest among child molesters and normal heterosexual men. Behavioral Research Therapy, 34, 389–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Havlicek, J., Roberts, S. C., & Flegr, J. (2005). Women’s preference for dominant male odour: effects of menstrual cycle and relationship status. Biology Letters, 1, 256–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jones, B. C., Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Boothroyd, L., DeBruine, L. M., Feinberg, D. R., et al. (2005). Commitment to relationships and preferences for femininity and apparent health in faces are strongest on days of the menstrual cycle when progesterone levels are high. Hormones and Behavior, 48, 283–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Keogh, E., Dillon, C., Georgiou, G., & Hunt, C. (2001). Selective attentional biases for physical threat in physical anxiety sensitivity. Anxiety Disorders, 15, 299–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Laws, D. R., & Gress, C. L. Z. (2004). Seeing things differently: the viewing time alternative to penile plethysmography. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 9, 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lindgren, K., Shoda, Y., & George, W. H. (2007). Sexual or friendly? Associations about women, men, and self. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 190–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lydon, J. E., Fitzsimons, G. M., & Naidoo, L. (2003). Devaluation versus enhancement of attractive alternatives: a critical test using the calibration paradigm. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 349–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Maner, J. K., Gailliot, M. T., & DeWall, C. N. (2007). Adaptive attentional attunement: evidence for mating-related perceptual bias. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 28–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Miller, R. S. (1997). Inattentive and contented: relationship commitment and attention to alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 758–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Miller, G. F., & Todd, P. M. (1998). Mate choice turns cognitive. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 190–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Miller, G., Tybur, J. M., & Jordan, B. D. (2007). Ovulatory cycle effects on tip earnings by lap dancers: economic evidence for human estrus? Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 375–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mogg, K., Bradley, B. P., Hyare, H., & Lee, S. (1998). Selective attention to food-related stimuli in hunger: are attentional biases specific to emotional and psychopathological states, or are they also found in normal drive states? Behavior Research and Therapy, 36, 227–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moore, M. M. (1985). Nonverbal courtship patterns in women; context and consequences. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6, 237–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. O’Hagan, S., Johnson, A., Lardi, G., & Keenan, J. P. (2003). The effect of relationship status on perceived attractiveness. Social Behavior and Personality, 31, 291–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pillsworth, E. G., & Haselton, M. G. (2006). Male sexual attractiveness predicts differential ovulatory shifts in female extra-pair attraction and male mate retention. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 247–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Provost, M. A., Kormos, C., Kosakoski, G., & Quinsey, V. L. (2006). Sociosexuality in women and preference for facial masculinization and somatotype in men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 305–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Quinsey, V. L., Ketsetzis, M., Earls, C., & Karamanoukian, A. (1996). Viewing time as a measure of sexual interest. Ethology and Sociobiology, 17, 341–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rowland, D. A., & Perrett, D. I. (1995). Manipulating facial appearance through shape and color. Computer Graphics and Applications, 15, 70–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rupp, H. A., & Wallen, K. (2007a). Sex differences in viewing sexual stimuli: an eye tracking study in men and women. Hormones and Behavior, 51, 524–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rupp, H. A., & Wallen, K. (2007b). Relationship between testosterone and interest in sexual stimuli: the effect of experience. Hormones and Behavior, 52, 581–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rupp, H. A., & Wallen, K. (2008a). Sex specific content preferences for visual sexual stimuli. Archives of Sexual Behavior (in press). (doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9402-5).
  30. Rupp, H. A., & Wallen, K. (2008b). Sex differences in response to visual sexual stimuli: a review. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 206–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schultheiss, O. C., Dargel, A., & Rohde, W. (2003). Implicit motives and gonadal steroid hormones: effects of menstrual cycle phase, oral contraceptive use, and relationship status. Hormones and Behavior, 43, 293–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Waynforth, D., Delwadia, S., & Camm, M. (2005). The influence of women’s mating strategies on preference for masculine facial architecture. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 409–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wilcox, A. J., Dunson, D. B., Weinberg, C. R., Trussell, J., & Baird, D. D. (2001). Likelihood of conception with a single act of intercourse: providing benchmark rates for assessment of post-coital contraceptives. Contraception, 63, 211–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heather Rupp
    • 1
  • Giliah R. Librach
    • 1
  • Nick C. Feipel
    • 1
  • Ellen D. Ketterson
    • 2
  • Dale R. Sengelaub
    • 3
  • Julia R. Heiman
    • 1
  1. 1.The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and ReproductionIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Psychological and Brain SciencesIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations