Abstract
Objective
Trait mate value covaries with several socio-political attitudes. One’s dating popularity in a mating market can, however, shift one’s self-perceived mate value in that market. We tested whether dating popularity could therefore also shift socio-political attitudes, and whether trait mate value could moderate this effect.
Method
Heterosexual participants (N = 237) reported their trait mate value. Participants then recorded a video of themselves and received video responses from five opposite-sex peers, each consisting of either positive or negative romantic feedback—forming the manipulation (popularity: from low to high). Afterwards, we measured participants’ attitudes to traditional gender roles, casual sex, minimum wage and healthcare, and implicit sexual and political attitudes.
Results
Unpopular men reported less support for casual sex than popular men. There was no main effect on women. Unpopular men had lower positive affect than popular men, and in turn men with lower positive affect reported less support for casual sex and for increasing the minimum wage and access to healthcare than men with higher positive affect. Unpopular low mate-value women reported more support for casual sex than popular low mate-value women. Unpopular men of low and average mate value reported less support for casual sex than popular men of low and average mate value. There was no effect on average mate-value women and high mate-value women and men.
Conclusions
Changes in positive affect due to dating popularity influence some of men’s, but not women’s, socio-political attitudes, and trait mate value moderates the effects of popularity on attitudes to casual sex.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data and Code Availability
Data and code available at https://osf.io/hgeqc/?view_only=058b1889350b4d8ab62740fc4645bcc2.
References
Alexander, R. D. (1982). Biology and the moral paradoxes. Journal of Social and Biological Structures, 5, 389–395.
Alexander, R. D. (1987). The biology of moral systems. Aldine de Gruyter.
Andrighetto, L., Riva, P., & Gabbiadini, A. (2019). Lonely hearts and angry minds: Online dating rejection increases male (but not female) hostility. Aggressive Behavior, 45(5), 571–581. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21852
Arnocky, S., Desrochers, J., Rotella, A., Albert, G., Hodges-Simeon, C., Locke, A., Belanger, J., Lynch, D., & Kelly, B. (2021). Men’s Mate Value Correlates with a Less Restricted Sociosexual Orientation: A Meta-Analysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-01937-6
Ayduk, O., Downey, G., Testa, A., Yen, Y., & Shoda, Y. (1999). Does rejection elicit hostility in rejection sensitive women? Social Cognition, 17(2), 245–271. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1999.17.2.245
Banse, R., Seise, J., & Zerbes, N. (2001). Implicit attitudes towards homosexuality: Reliability, validity, and controllability of the IAT. Zeitschrift Für Experimentelle Psychologie, 48(2), 145–160.
Baranowski, A. M., & Hecht, H. (2015). Gender differences and similarities in receptivity to sexual invitations: Effects of location and risk perception. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(8), 2257–2265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0520-6
Baumeister, R. F., Catanese, K. R., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Is There a Gender Difference in Strength of Sex Drive? Theoretical Views, Conceptual Distinctions, and a Review of Relevant Evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 242–273. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0503_5
Baumeister, R. F., & Twenge, J. M. (2002). Cultural suppression of female sexuality. Review of General Psychology, 6(2), 166–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.6.2.166
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. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_2
Blackhart, G. C., Nelson, B. C., Knowles, M. L., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). Rejection Elicits Emotional Reactions but Neither Causes Immediate Distress nor Lowers Self-Esteem: A Meta-Analytic Review of 192 Studies on Social Exclusion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(4), 269–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309346065
Blake, K. R., Bastian, B., & Denson, T. F. (2018). Heightened male aggression toward sexualized women following romantic rejection: The mediating role of sex goal activation. Aggressive Behavior, 44(1), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21722
Brooks, R. C., Russo-Batterham, D., & Blake, K. R. (2022). Incel activity on social media linked to local mating ecology. Psychological Science, 33(2), 249–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211036065.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00023992
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
Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1996). Automatic activation of impression formation and memorization goals: Nonconscious goal priming reproduces effects of explicit task instructions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 464–478. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.464
Clark, A. P. (2004). Self-perceived attractiveness and masculinization predict women’s sociosexuality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(2), 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(03)00085-0
Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 2(1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v02n01_04
Cone, J., & Ferguson, M. J. (2015). He did what? The role of diagnosticity in revising implicit evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(1), 37–57. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000014
Conley, T. D. (2011). Perceived proposer personality characteristics and gender differences in acceptance of casual sex offers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 309–329. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022152
Edlund, J. E., & Sagarin, B. J. (2014). The mate value scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 64, 72–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.005
Ekehammar, B., & Sidanius, J. (1982). Sex differences in sociopolitical attitudes: A replication and extension. British Journal of Social Psychology, 21(3), 249–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1982.tb00546.x
Ferguson, M. J., Mann, T. C., Cone, J., & Shen, X. (2019). When and How Implicit First Impressions Can Be Updated. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(4), 331–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419835206
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (Third ed.). Sage Publications.
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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0000337X
Gawronski, B. (2019). Six Lessons for a Cogent Science of Implicit Bias and Its Criticism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(4), 574–595. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619826015
Gawronski, B., Morrison, M., Phills, C. E., & Galdi, S. (2017). Temporal Stability of Implicit and Explicit Measures: A Longitudinal Analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(3), 300–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216684131
George, J. M. (1991). State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial behaviors at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 299–307. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.2.299
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., Adetoun, B., Osagie, J. E., Akande, A., Alao, A., Annetje, B., Willemsen, T. M., Chipeta, K., Dardenne, B., Dijksterhuis, A., Wigboldus, D., Eckes, T., Six-Materna, I., Expósito, F., … López, W. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 763–775. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464
Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197
Greitemeyer, T. (2005). Receptivity to sexual offers as a function of sex, socioeconomic status, physical attractiveness, and intimacy of the offer. Personal Relationships, 12(3), 373–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2005.00121.x
Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical Mediation Analysis in the New Millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750903310360
Hudson, V. M., & Matfess, H. (2017). In plain sight: The neglected linkage between brideprice and violent conflict. International Security, 42(1), 7–40. https://doi.org/10.1162/ISEC_a_00289
Inquisit 5. (2016). [Computer Software]. In https://www.millisecond.com.
Kavanagh, P. S., Fletcher, G. J., & Ellis, B. J. (2014). The mating sociometer and attractive others: A double-edged sword in romantic relationships. The Journal of Social Psychology, 154(2), 126–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2013.872594
Kerry, N., & Murray, D. R. (2018). Conservative parenting: Investigating the relationships between parenthood, moral judgment, and social conservatism. Personality and Individual Differences, 134, 88–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.05.045
Kerry, N., & Murray, D. R. (2019a). Is Formidability Associated with Political Conservatism? Evolutionary Psychological Science, 5(2), 220–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-018-0181-5
Kerry, N., Murray, D. R. (2019b). Politics and Parental Care: Experimental and Mediational Tests of the Causal Link Between Parenting Motivation and Social Conservatism. Social Psychological and Personality Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619853598
Ko, A., Pick, C. M., Kwon, J. Y., Barlev, M., Krems, J. A., Varnum, M. E. W., Neel, R., Peysha, M., Boonyasiriwat, W., Brandstätter, E., Crispim, A. C., Cruz, J. E., David, D., David, O. A., de Felipe, R. P., Fetvadjiev, V. H., Fischer, R., Galdi, S., Galindo, O., Golovina, G., Gomez-Jacinto, L., Graf, S., Grossmann, I., Gul, P., Hamamura, T., Han, S., Hitokoto, H., Hřebíčková, M., Johnson, J. L., Karl, J. A., Malanchuk, O., Murata, A., Na, J., O, J., Rizwan, M., Roth, E., Salgado, S. A. S., Samoylenko, E., Savchenko, T., Sevincer, A. T., Stanciu, A., Suh, E. M., Talhelm, T., Uskul, A. K., Uz, I., Zambrano, D., Kenrick, D. T. (2019). Family Matters: Rethinking the Psychology of Human Social Motivation. Perspectives on Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619872986
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. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.0608
Landolt, M. A., Lalumière, M. L., & Quinsey, V. L. (1995). Sex differences in intra-sex variations in human mating tactics: An evolutionary approach. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(94)00012-v
Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 947–955. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.947
Li, N. P., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-term mates: What, whether, and why. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(3), 468–489. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.468
Luberti, F. R., Blake, K. R., & Brooks, R. C. (2020). The effects of the mating market, sex, age, and income on socio-political orientation: Insights from evolutionary theory and sexual economics theory. Human Nature, 31(1), 88–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-019-09361-5
Matsunaga, M. (2010). How to factor-analyze your data right: Do’s, don’ts, and how-to’s. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 97–110. http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=299023509007
Mikach, S. M., & Bailey, J. M. (1999). What distinguishes women with unusually high numbers of sex partners? Evolution and Human Behavior, 20(3), 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(98)00045-2
Millar, M., Westfall, R. S., & Lovitt, A. (2018). The influence of mate value on women’s desire for long and short-term mates: Implicit responses. Personality and Individual Differences, 130, 36–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.03.043
Miner, E. J., Starratt, V. G., & Shackelford, T. K. (2009). It’s not all about her: Men’s mate value and mate retention. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(3), 214–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.03.002
Murnen, S. K., & Byrne, D. (1991). Hyperfemininity: Measurement and initial validation of the construct. Journal of Sex Research, 28(3), 479–489. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499109551620
Noë, R. (2017). Local mating markets in humans and non-human animals. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 71(10), 148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-017-2376-3
Noë, R., van Hoof, J. A. R. A. M., Hammerstein, P. (2001). Economics in nature. Social dilemmas, mate choice and biological markets. Cambridge University Press.
Penke, L., & Denissen, J. J. (2008). Sex differences and lifestyle-dependent shifts in the attunement of self-esteem to self-perceived mate value: Hints to an adaptive mechanism? Journal of Research in Personality, 42(4), 1123–1129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.02.003
Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2011). Gender differences in sexual attitudes and behaviors: A review of meta-analytic results and large datasets. The Journal of Sex Research, 48(2–3), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2011.551851
Petersen, M. B. (2017). Reproductive interests and dimensions of political ideology. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39(2), 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2017.12.002
Petersen, M. B., & Laustsen, L. (2019). Upper-Body Strength and Political Egalitarianism: Twelve Conceptual Replications. Political Psychology, 40(2), 375–394. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12505
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612466415
Pinsof, D., & Haselton, M. (2016). The political divide over same-sex marriage: Mating strategies in conflict? Psychological Science, 27(4), 435–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615621719
Price, M. E., Brown, S., Dukes, A., & Kang, J. (2015). Bodily attractiveness and egalitarianism are negatively related in males. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(1), 140–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470491501300109
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0320-4
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2017.04.001
Reeve, S. D., Kelly, K. M., & Welling, L. L. M. (2017). The effect of mate value feedback on women’s mating aspirations and mate preference. Personality and Individual Differences, 115, 77–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.007
Regan, P. C. (1998). Minimum Mate Selection Standards as a Function of Perceived Mate Value, Relationship Context, and Gender. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 10(1), 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v10n01_04
Schmitt, D. P., Shackelford, T. K., & Buss, D. M. (2001). Are men really more “oriented” toward short-term mating than women? A critical review of theory and research. Psychology, Evolution & Gender, 3(3), 211–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616660110119331
Schützwohl, A., Fuchs, A., McKibbin, W. F., & Shackelford, T. K. (2009). How Willing Are You to Accept Sexual Requests from Slightly Unattractive to Exceptionally Attractive Imagined Requestors? Human Nature, 20(3), 282–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-009-9067-3
Sidanius, J., & Ekehammar, B. (1980). Sex-related differences in socio-political ideology. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 21(1), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.1980.tb00336.x
Smuts, B. (1995). The evolutionary origins of patriarchy. Human Nature, 6(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02734133
Snippe, E., Jeronimus, B. F., Aan Het Rot, M., Bos, E. H., de Jonge, P., Wichers, M. (2018). The Reciprocity of Prosocial Behavior and Positive Affect in Daily Life. Journal of Personality, 86(2), 139-146.https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12299
Sriram, N., & Greenwald, A. G. (2009). The Brief Implicit Association Test. Experimental Psychology, 56(4), 283–294. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.56.4.283
Stevens, J. (2012). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. (Fifth ed.). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Stratmoen, E., Greer, M. M., Martens, A. L., & Saucier, D. A. (2018). What, I′ m not good enough for you? Individual differences in masculine honor beliefs and the endorsement of aggressive responses to romantic rejection. Personality and Individual Differences, 123, 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.018
Surbey, M. K., & Brice, G. R. (2007). Enhancement of self-perceived mate value precedes a shift in men’s preferred mating strategy. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39(3), 513–522.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.024
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Bartels, J. M. (2007). Social exclusion decreases prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.56
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070.
Weeden, J., Cohen, A. B., & Kenrick, D. T. (2008). Religious attendance as reproductive support. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(5), 327–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.03.004
Weeden, J., & Kurzban, R. (2013). What predicts religiosity? A multinational analysis of reproductive and cooperative morals. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34(6), 440–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2013.08.006
Weeden, J., Kurzban, R., & Kenrick, D. T. (2016). The elephant in the pews: Reproductive strategy and religiosity. The Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology and Religion. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199397747.013.13
Whyte, S., Brooks, R. C., & Torgler, B. (2019). Sexual economic theory & the human mating market. Applied Economics, 51(57), 6100–6112. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2019.1650886
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about Mediation Analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1086/651257
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank UNSW and the Australian Research Council for supporting this research project. We would also like to thank the research confederates (i.e., the paid actors and actresses) who recorded the feedback videos for this experiment.
Funding
This work was funded by the Australian Research Council (DP160100459) and the University of New South Wales internal funds. The funding sources were not involved in the implementation of the research project.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical Approval
This research project was approved by the UNSW Human Research Ethics Committee. Approval Number HC17518. All procedures were performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. All participants provided informed consent before taking part in this research.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Luberti, F.R., Blake, K.R. & Brooks, R.C. Changes in Positive Affect Due to Popularity in an Experimental Dating Context Influence Some of Men’s, but Not Women’s, Socio-Political Attitudes. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology 8, 202–237 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40750-022-00188-6
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40750-022-00188-6