Oppression or Opportunity? Sexual Strategies and the Perception of Sexual Advances
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.
KeywordsSex differences Mating strategies Sociosexual orientation Sexual advances Attractiveness
Compliance with Ethical Standards
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.
- 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Buss, D. M. (2006). Strategies of human mating. Psychological Topics, 15, 239–260.Google Scholar
- 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1971). Love and hate. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Hendrix, W. H., Rueb, J. D., & Steel, R. P. (1998). Sexual harassment and gender differences. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13, 235–252.Google Scholar
- 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Malamuth, N. M., & Malamuth, E. Z. (1999). Integrating multiple levels of scientific analysis and the confluence model of sexual coercers. Jurimetrics, 39, 157–179.Google Scholar
- 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar