From an evolutionary perspective, the perception and interpretation of sexual advances depend on sex-specific mechanisms, individual differences in the perceivers’ mating strategies, and the actor’s attractiveness. In two studies (N = 1516), participants evaluated hypothetical situations of sexual advances from a coworker varying in attractiveness (study 1) and physical appearance or status (study 2). In both studies, men perceived sexual advances as less negative than women, especially when the advances arise from a (physically) attractive actor. Furthermore, the higher the sociosexual orientation of the participants, the less harmful these sexual advances are perceived. Finally, the same behavior from an attractive or physically attractive actor is perceived as less harmful than from an unattractive actor. Results are discussed from an evolutionary perspective on the perception of sexual advances.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
All data and material are available from the corresponding author upon request.
Abbey, A., Cozzarelli, C., McLaughlin, K., & Harnish, R. J. (1987). The effects of clothing and dyad sex composition on perceptions of sexual intent: Do women and men evaluate these cues differently. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 108–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1987.tb00304.xa.
Abbey, A., & Melby, C. (1986). The effects of nonverbal cues on gender differences in perceptions of sexual intent. Sex Roles, 15, 283–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00288318.
Agthe, M., Spörrle, M., & Maner, J. K. (2011). Does being attractive always help? Positive and negative effects of attractiveness on social decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1042–1054. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211410355.
Angelone, D. J., Mitchell, D., & Carola, K. (2009). Tolerance of sexual harassment: A laboratory paradigm. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 949–958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-008-9421-2.
Asendorpf, J. B., Penke, L., & Back, M. D. (2011). From dating to mating and relating: Predictors of initial and long-term outcomes of speed-dating in a community sample. European Journal of Personality, 25, 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.768.
Baßfeld, L., & Schwarz, S. (2018). Sexuelle Belästigung oder chance? Wahrnehmung mehrdeutiger Verhaltensweisen am Arbeitsplatz [sexual harassment or opportunity? Perception of ambiguous behavior at the workplace]. In C. Schwender, S. Schwarz, B. P. Lange, & A. Huckauf (Eds.), Geschlecht und Verhalten aus evolutionärer Perspektive [sex and behavior from an evolutionary perspective]. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers.
Bendixen, M., & Kennair, L. E. O. (2017). Advances in the understanding of same-sex and opposite-sex sexual harassment. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38, 583–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2017.01.001.
Biernat, M., & Hawley, P. H. (2017). Sexualized images in professional contexts: Effects on anticipated experiences and perceived climate for women and men. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47, 568–583. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12461.
Biggs, J., Hawley, P. H., & Biernat, M. (2018). The academic conference as a chilly climate for women: Effects of gender representation on experiences of sexism, coping responses, and career intentions. Sex Roles, 78, 394–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0800-9.
Bleske, A. L., & Buss, D. M. (2000). A comprehensive theory of human mating must explain between-sex and within-sex differences in mating strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 593–594. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00293370.
Browne, K. R. (2006). Sex, power, and dominance: The evolutionary psychology of sexual harassment. Managerial and Decision Economics, 27, 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.1289.
Buchanan, N. T., Settles, I. H., Wu, I. H., & Hayashino, D. S. (2018). Sexual harassment, racial harassment, and well-being among Asian American women: An intersectional approach. Women and Therapy, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/02703149.2018.1425030.
Buss, D. M. (2019). Evolutionary psychology (6th ed.). New York: Routledge.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00023992.
Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books.
Buss, D. M. (2006). Strategies of human mating. Psychological Topics, 15, 239–260.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204.
Colarelli, S. M., & Haaland, S. (2002). Perceptions of sexual harassment: An evolutionary perspective. Psychology, Evolution and Gender, 4, 243–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616661.2002.10383127.
Cyrus, K., Schwarz, S., & Hassebrauck, M. (2011). Systematic cognitive biases in courtship context: women’s commitment–skepticism as a life-history strategy? Evolution and Human Behavior, 32, 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.07.006.
Diehl, C., Rees, J., & Bohner, G. (2012). Flirting with disaster: Short-term mating orientation and hostile sexism predict different types of sexual harassment. Aggressive Behavior, 38, 521–531. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21444.
Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033731.
Duncan, L. A., Park, J. H., Faulkner, J., Schaller, M., Neuberg, S. L., & Kenrick, D. T. (2007). Adaptive allocation of attention: Effects of sex and sociosexuality on visual attention to attractive opposite-sex faces. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 359–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.05.001.
Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.168.
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1971). Love and hate. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Farris, C., Treat, T. A., Viken, R. J., & McFall, R. M. (2008). Perceptual mechanisms that characterize gender differences in decoding women’s sexual intent. Psychological Science, 19(4), 348–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02092.x.
Feingold, A. (1990). Gender differences in effects of physical attractiveness on romantic attraction: A comparison across five research paradigms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 981–993. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.1241.
Finkel, E. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2010). Attraction and rejection. In R. F. Baumeister & E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Advanced social psychology: The state of the science (pp. 419–459). New York, NY US: Oxford University Press.
Fisman, R., Iyengar, S. S., Kamenica, E., & Simonson, I. (2006). Gender differences in mate selection: Evidence from a speed dating experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121, 673–697. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2006.121.2.673.
Fitzgerald, L. F., & Cortina, L. M. (2018). Sexual harassment in work organizations: A view from the 21st century. In C. B Travis, J. W. White, A. Rutherford, W. S. Williams, S. L. Cook, & K. F. Wyche (Eds.), APA handbooks in psychology series. APA handbook of the psychology of women: Perspectives on women’s private and public lives (pp. 215-234). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0000060-012
Fletcher, G. O., Kerr, P. G., Li, N. P., & Valentine, K. A. (2014). Predicting romantic interest and decisions in the very early stages of mate selection: Standards, accuracy, and sex differences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 540–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213519481.
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Science, 23, 573–587. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0000337X.
Graziano, W. G., & Bruce, J. W. (2008). Attraction and the initiation of relationships: A review of the empirical literature. In S. Sprecher, A. Wenzel, & J. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of relationship initiation (pp. 269–295). New York: Guilford Press.
Grøntvedt, T. V., Kennair, L. E. O., & Mehmetoglu, M. (2015). Factors predicting the probability of initiating sexual intercourse by context and sex. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 56, 516–526. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12215.
Gutek, B. A., Morasch, B., & Cohen, A. G. (1983). Interpreting social behavior in a work setting. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22, 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(83)90004-0.
Haselton, M. G. (2003). The sexual overperception bias: Evidence of a systematic bias in men from a survey of naturally occurring events. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(1), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00529-9.
Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Error management theory: A new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/110022-35126.96.36.199.
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Hendrix, W. H., Rueb, J. D., & Steel, R. P. (1998). Sexual harassment and gender differences. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13, 235–252.
Henningsen, D. D., & Henningsen, M. L. M. (2010). Testing error management theory: Exploring the commitment skepticism bias and the sexual overperception bias. Human Communication Research, 36, 618–634. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01391.x.
Kennair, L. E. O., & Bendixen, M. (2012). Sociosexuality as predictor of sexual harassment and coercion in female and male high school students. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 479–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.01.001.
Kohl, C., & Robertson, J. (2014). The sexual overperception bias: An exploration of the relationship between mate value and perception of sexual interest. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 8(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0097247.
Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. (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//0022-35188.8.131.527.
Lichty, L. F., & Campbell, R. (2012). Targets and witnesses: Middle school students’ sexual harassment experiences. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 32, 414–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431610396090.
Lorenzo, G. L., Biesanz, J. C., & Human, L. J. (2010). What is beautiful is good and more accurately understood. Physical attractiveness and accuracy in first impressions of personality. Psychological Science, 21, 1777–1782. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610388048.
Malamuth, N. M., & Malamuth, E. Z. (1999). Integrating multiple levels of scientific analysis and the confluence model of sexual coercers. Jurimetrics, 39, 157–179.
Maner, J. K., Kenrick, D. T., Becker, D. V., Delton, A. W., Hofer, B., Wilbur, C. J., & Neuberg, S. L. (2003). Sexually selective cognition: Beauty captures the mind of the beholder. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1107–1120. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-35184.108.40.2067.
McKelvie, S. J., & Matthews, S. J. (1976). Effects of physical attractiveness and favourableness of character on liking. Psychological Reports, 38, 1223–1230. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1976.38.3c.1223.
Medlin, M. M., Brown, M., & Sacco, D. F. (2018). That’s what she said! Perceived mate value of clean and dirty humor displays. Personality and Individual Differences, 135, 192–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.07.017.
Moore, M. M. (2010). Human nonverbal courtship behavior – A brief historical review. Journal of Sex Research, 47, 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490903402520.
Murray, D. R., Murphy, S. C., von Hippel, W., Trivers, R., & Haselton, M. G. (2017). A preregistered study of competing predictions suggests that men do overestimate women’s sexual intent. Psychological Science, 28(2), 253–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616675474.
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/10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.113.
Perilloux, C., Easton, J. A., & Buss, D. M. (2012). The misperception of sexual interest. Psychological Science, 23, 146–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611424162.
Perilloux, C., & Kurzban, R. (2015). Do men overperceive women’s sexual interest? Psychological Science, 26, 70–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614555727.
Perilloux, C., & Kurzban, R. (2017). Reply to “a preregistered study of competing predictions suggests that men do overestimate women’s sexual intent”. Psychological Science, 28(2), 256–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616684001.
Rotundo, M., Nguyen, D. H., & Sackett, P. R. (2001). A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 914–922. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.5.914.
Russell, B. L., & Trigg, K. Y. (2004). Tolerance of sexual harassment: An examination of gender differences, ambivalent sexism, social dominance, and gender roles. Sex Roles, 50, 565–573. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000023075.32252.fd.
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, 247–275. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05000051.
Schnoll, J. S., Connolly, J., Josephson, W. J., Pepler, D., & Simkins-Strong, E. (2015). Same-and cross-gender sexual harassment victimization in middle school: A developmental-contextual perspective. Journal of School Violence, 14, 196–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2014.906311.
Schwarz, S., & Hassebrauck, M. (2012). Sex and age differences in mate-selection preferences. Human Nature, 23, 447–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-012-9152-x.
Seidman, G., & Miller, O. S. (2013). Effects of gender and physical attractiveness on visual attention to Facebook profiles. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 16, 20–24. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0305.
Sheets, V. L., & Braver, S. L. (1999). Organizational status and perceived sexual harassment: Detecting the mediators of a null effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1159–1171. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672992512009.
Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870–883. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.1680.
Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1992). Sociosexuality and romantic partner choice. Journal of Personality, 60, 31–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00264.x.
Soper, D.S. (2018). Significance of the difference between two slopes calculator [Software]. Available from http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc
Studd, M. (1996). Sexual harassment. In D. M. Buss & N. Malamuth (Eds.), Sex, power, conflict: Evolutionary and feminist perspectives (pp. 54–89). New York: Oxford University Press.
Studd, M. V., & Gattiker, U. E. (1991). The evolutionary psychology of sexual harassment in organizations. Ethology and Sociobiology, 12, 249–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(91)90021-H.
Tangri, S. S., & Hayes, S. M. (1997). Theories of sexual harassment. In W. O’Donohue (Ed.), Sexual harassment: theory, research, and treatment (pp. 112–128). Needham Heights, MA, US: Allyn & Bacon.
Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
Vandermassen, G. (2011). Evolution and rape: A feminist Darwinian perspective. Sex Roles, 64, 732–747. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9895-y.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
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 was obtained from all individual participants. The participants were encouraged to contact the authors for any questions.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
About this article
Cite this article
Klümper, L., Schwarz, S. Oppression or Opportunity? Sexual Strategies and the Perception of Sexual Advances. Evolutionary Psychological Science 6, 142–153 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-019-00215-y
- Sex differences
- Mating strategies
- Sociosexual orientation
- Sexual advances