Abstract
Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers have been found in previous studies conducted in the United States. However, this effect has never been replicated in another culture, and the impact of the attractiveness of the solicitor remains in question. An experiment was conducted in France in which male and female confederates of average versus high attractiveness approached potential partners of the opposite sex (120 males and 120 females) and asked them: “Will you come to my apartment to have a drink?” or “Would you go to bed with me?” The great majority of the men were willing to have a sexual liaison with a woman, especially when she was physically attractive. Women were more disinclined to have a drink, and none but one accepted the male’s sexual request. Such results confirm that men are apparently more eager for sexual activity than women are.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abbey, A. (1987). Misperception of friendly behavior as sexual interest: A survey of naturally occurring incidents. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 173–194.
Bajos, N., & Bozon, M. (2008). Enquête sur la sexualité en France. Paris: La Découverte.
Bleske-Rechek, A., Reminger, M. W., Swanson, M. R., & Zeug, N. M. (2006). Women more than men attend to indicators of good character: Two experimental demonstrations. Evolutionary Psychology, 5, 248–261.
Bozon, M. (2009). Sociologie de la sexualité. Paris: Armand Colin.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.
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.
Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Personality & Human Sexuality, 2, 39–55.
Grammer, K., Renninger, L., & Fischer, B. (2004). Disco clothing, female sexual motivation, and relationships status: Is she dressed to impress? Journal of Sex Research, 41, 66–74.
Greitemeyer, T., Hengsmith, S., & Fischer, P. (2005). Sex differences in the willingness to betray and switch romantic partners. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 64, 265–272.
Guéguen, N. (2009a). Psychologie de la séduction. Paris: Dunod.
Guéguen, N. (2009b). Menstrual cycle phases and female receptivity to a courtship solicitation: An evaluation in a night-club. Evolution & Human Behavior, 30, 351–355.
Guéguen, N. (2009c). The receptivity of women to courtship solicitation across the menstrual cycle: A field experiment. Biological Psychology, 80, 321–324.
Hatfield, E. (1983). What do women want from love and sex? In E. R. Allgeier & N. B. McComick (Eds.), Changing boundaries (pp. 103–134). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co.
Kenrick, D. T., Groth, G. E., Trost, M. R., & Sadalla, E. K. (1993). Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 951–969.
Kenrick, D. T., Stringfield, D. O., Wagenhals, W. L., Dahl, R. H., & Randsdall, H. J. (1980). Sex differences, androgyny, and approach responses to erotica: A new variation on old volunteer problems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 517–524.
Kurzban, R., & Weeden, J. (2005). Hurrydate: Mate preferences in action. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 227–244.
Molzer, K. (2003). 100 Frauen, eine Frage. Möchten Sie mit mir schlafen? Seitenblicke, pp. 66–69.
Pawlowski, B. (1999). Loss of oestrus and concealed ovulation in human evolution: The case against the sexual-selection hypothesis. Current Anthropology, 40, 257–275.
Rhodes, G., Simmons, L. W., & Peters, M. (2005). Attractiveness and sexual behavior: Does attractiveness enhance mating success? Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 186–201.
Sadalla, E. K., Kenrick, D. T., & Vershure, B. (1987). Dominance and heterosexual attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 730–738.
Shackelford, T. K., Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2005). Universal dimensions of human mate preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 447–458.
Shotland, R. L., & Craig, J. M. (1988). Can men and women differentiate between friendly and sexually interested behavior? Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 66–73.
Todd, P. M., Penke, L., Fasolo, B., & Lenton, A. P. (2007). Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 104, 15011–15016.
Townsend, J. M., & Wasserman, T. (1998). Sexual attractiveness: Sex differences in assessment and criteria. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 171–191.
Voracek, M., Hofhansl, A., & Fisher, M. (2005). Clark and Hatfield’s evidence of women’s low receptivity to male strangers’ sexual offers revisited. Psychological Reports, 97, 11–20.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Guéguen, N. Effects of Solicitor Sex and Attractiveness on Receptivity to Sexual Offers: A Field Study. Arch Sex Behav 40, 915–919 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9750-4
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9750-4