Evolutionary Bases of Intersexual Behavior/Interaction

Lea Kliem & Varun Dadlani Social Influence Spring 2012 [Marieke van Egmond]

Table of Contents
Introduction

Research
Sex Differences in Jealousy Sex Differences in Deception Sex Differences in Mate Preferences

Evaluation

Conclusion & Discussion

Introduction to Sex Differences

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPesKyIhGZg&feature=related 00:38 02:08

Why are males more interested in sex?

Why do females take some forms of deception more harshly than males?
Are males more affected by sexual infidelity or emotional infidelity?

Does physical attraction count? For who?

Behavioral Sex Differences

which ones can you observe?

How can we explain these differences?

Darwinian Theory?
SEXUAL SELECTION depends on the advantage which certain individuals have over other individuals of the same sex and species, in exclusive relation to reproduction. -Charles Darwin (1871) The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex

Two types of sexual struggle

Intrasexual
Fight competitors Attract partners

Intersexual

Jealousy from an evolutionary Jealousy from an evolutionary perspective perspective

Cuckolded male loses the paternity potential
Invest resources in competitors genes

Sexual Jealousy

Jealousy from an evolutionary perspective

Cuckolded female doesnt lose maternity potential Redirection of a mans investment is reproductively costly

Emotional Jealousy

Central Hypothesis
the events that activate jealousy physiologically and psychologically differ for men and women because of the different adaptive problems they have faced over human evolutionary history in the mating context

Results (Distress to Sex. Infid.)

Physical Measurements

Study 2
Participants were asked to imagine
emotionally neutral Walking to class. imagine partner committing sexual infidelity

imagine partner committing emotional infidelity

Confirmed results from 1st study

Study 3
Have you ever been in a committed romantic relationship?
If yes was this a sexual relationship?

Limitations
Limited to a certain age group

Limited to a culture

Thoughts of sex may be more interesting, arousing, disturbing to men

Thoughts of love to women

Intrasex vs. Intersex

In an ultimate senseamong sexually reproducing organisms, every conspecific is to a greater or lesser extent ones reproductive competitor.

IF

It is primarily between members of the same sex that reproductive competition is so intense.

THEN
Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford.

Why is conflict between sexes so ubiquitous?

Strategic Interference Theory

Men and women have confronted different adaptive problems.
E.g. After one act of sex, women must bear a child for 9 months + implications.

Consequently, evolution of divergent sexual strategies between men and women.

Sexual Assymetry: Some Examples

Women have evolved to desire men with status and resources; men place less emphasis on these qualities.
Mens short-term mating strategies are complex and important they want large number of sex partners over various time intervals.

Strategic Interference Theory

Negative emotions of anger and upset have evolved as solutions/responses to problems of strategic interference.
When a persons goals, desires, or strategies are blocked, arousal of subjective distress is proposed to serve four functions:
(a) drawing attention to interfering events (b) marking those events for storage in memory

(c) motivating actions that reduce/eliminate str. Interference

(d) motivating memorial retrieval for future situations

Deception Form
(1/2) Resource/Status Deception (3) Presex Commitment Deception (4) Sexual Deception (being led on) (5) Postsex commitment deception (6) Already committed to other (7) Exaggerated ambition (8) Sexual infidelity

Pattern Predicted
Women > Men Women > Men Men > Women Women > Men Women > Men Women > Men Men > Women

(9) Emotional infidelity

(10) Past promiscuity (11) Sexual fantasies (12) Youth (13) Pre / postsex commit deception (14) Sexual deception

Women > Men

Men > Women Men > Women Men > Women Low SOI > High SOI High SOI > Low SOI

Whats the difference then?

A summary of the predictions according to strategic interference theory

Studies 1 and 2:

Do emotions track sex-linked forms of deception?

American and German participants

Tests predictions about sex differences in emotional distress Scenarios hypothesized to elicit strategic interference and reported their likely emotional reactions.

Method
Study 1:
217 undergraduates (113m + 104f) A Midwestern university Average age: ~18.5

Study 2:
200 native Germans (100m + 100f) Average age: ~26

Procedure
Completely voluntary and anonymous.
How much would the following events upset you?
7 point scale; 1 = not at all upsetting, 4 = moderately upsetting, 7 = very upsetting.

Study 2 was a translation in German (initial translation, back-translation, and discrepancy resolution.)

Results (Studies 1+2)

Deception about resources and status
Women more than men reported they would be upset about discovering that a romantic partner exaggerated income or status. All differences were statistically significant, except income deception in the German sample.

Pre-sex deception about depth of feelings and likelihood of sexual access

Women upset if partner exaggerated feelings to have sex Men upset if they are led on Significant differences but larger sex differences in U.S. than Germany

Results (Studies 1+2)

Upset about post-sex long-term intentions
Women expressed greater upset than did men in response to a partners post-sex lack of interest in pursuing long-term relationship

Deception about existing commitments

Women would be more distressed if they found out their partner had concealed that he/she was involved with someone else.

Deception Form
(1/2) Resource/Status Deception (3) Presex Commitment Deception (4) Sexual Deception (being led on) (5) Postsex commitment deception (6) Already committed to other (7) Exaggerated ambition (8) Sexual infidelity

Pattern Predicted
Women > Men Women > Men Men > Women Women > Men Women > Men Women > Men Men > Women

(9) Emotional infidelity

(10) Past promiscuity (11) Sexual fantasies (12) Youth (13) Pre / postsex commit deception (14) Sexual deception

Women > Men

Men > Women Men > Women Men > Women Low SOI > High SOI High SOI > Low SOI

Study 1+2
A summary of the predictions according to strategic interference theory

Limitations Study 1+2

Most predictions involved women getting more upset
Studies have shown that women are more emotionally expressive than men (self-reports) Creates bias for confirming sex difference hypotheses

Primary focus was on deceptions in the long-term

Relationship desires depend on whether they are seeking short-term or long-term mates

Study 3
Emotional reactions to an Extended Set of Deceptions and Reports of Experienced Deceptions
Designed to extend the first two studies
Wider array of deceptive events Assessment of differences according to mating context (long-term vs. short-term)

Predictions
Deception Form
(7) Exaggerated ambition (8) Sexual infidelity (9) Emotional infidelity (10) Past promiscuity (11) Sexual fantasies

Pattern Predicted
Women > Men Men > Women Women > Men Men > Women Men > Women

(12) Youth
(13) Pre / postsex commit deception (14) Sexual deception

Men > Women

Low SOI > High SOI High SOI > Low SOI

Method
Participants
239 men (M age = 18.78) 240 women (M age = 18.40) University students

Procedure
Small same-sex groups with same-sex researcher Measures to increase participants comfort in responding Before: biographical questionnaire

Procedural Instruments
Sociosexuality Inventory
Seven-item instrument measuring willingness to engage in uncommitted sex

Event Ratings Deception Instrument

Short-term partners (one-night stands and/or brief affairs) and long-term partners (romantic relationships) considered

Relationships Experiences Instrument

Personal relationships

Results
Womens upset scores generally high ( heavy parental investment) in both contexts (long-term and short-term)
Mens reactions differ (+ upset in long-term relationships) Women are more upset about pre-sex and post-sex commitment deception Women are especially upset by deception about partners commitment and his in long-term relationships

Results
Sexual infidelity rated more upsetting by men, most upsetting for both sexes
Emotional infidelity equally upsetting for both sexes Men find sexual fantasies of their partners more upsetting than women do Past sexual promiscuity very upsetting for both sexes

Results
Youth deception does not differ between sexes
Compatibility and intelligence equally high on the list of desirable mate qualities Women are more upset about exaggerated kindness Partner hiding his/her emotions, exaggeration of enjoyment of sex, previous serious involvements: equally upsetting for both sexes People in short-term relationships are more upset about sexual deception

Deception Form
(1/2) Resource/Status Deception (3) Presex Commitment Deception (4) Sexual Deception (being led on) (5) Postsex commitment deception (6) Already committed to other (7) Exaggerated ambition (8) Sexual infidelity

Pattern Predicted
Women > Men

(9) Emotional infidelity

(10) Past promiscuity (11) Sexual fantasies (12) Youth (13) Pre / postsex commit deception (14) Sexual deception

LT Women > Men LT Men > Women Women > Men Women > Men Women > Men ST Men > Women LT Women > Men Men > Women Men > Women LT Men > Women Low SOI > High SOI High SOI > Low SOI
n

me

Study 3
A summary of the predictions according to strategic interference theory

Background Research

Womens offspring are more likely to survive given a mans economic contributions

Womens physical attractiveness confers information about her reproductive value

Background Research
Real life applicablity?
Inaccuarate a priori theories State of cool rationality vs. desire during emotional state of romantic attraction

Shot-term vs. long-term mindset

Speed dating study (163 undergraduates)

Hypothesis
H1: Sex differences in stated preferences

H2: Sex differences in initiation

H2A: Especially strong effects for long-term mindsets

H3: Individual differences in initiation

Procedures

Mate preferences physical attraction earning prospects personability 4 minutes 9 -13 interviews interaction records

Romantic desire Chemistry Excitement Initiation plans & hopes

206 matches

10 x

Questionare
Relationship status

Getting to know?
Date enjoyment & initation Sexual enjoyment & initiation Passion & commitment Good idea? Desire for relationship & sociosexuality Self- perceived mate value Partner- specific attachment anxiety

Results
H1: Sex differences in stated preferences

No sex differences in personability

H2: Sex differences in initiation

H2A: Especially strong effects for long-term mindsets

H3: Individual differences in initiation

Alternatives for H2
Interested in serious relationship
in general with a specific partner

Sociosexual orientation

Consensus of objective measures

Partner-specific attachment anxiety
moderate support!

Alternatives for H3
Self-perceived mate value

Interested in a serious relationship Self-ratings

Sociosexual orientation

Things to consider & limitations

No similarity effects
Men more likely to say yes to physically attractive Little introspection

Necessity vs. Luxury

Ideals in mate retention People do not truly know what they desire in a romantic partner

Conclusions
Jealousy

Mating Preferences

Sex Differences in Mating Behavior

Deception Types

Thank You for Your Attention!

Lea Kliem, Varun Dadlani

Discussion Questions
Do you think mate-selection preferences are consistent across cultures? Is evolutionary theory the ultimate explanation for gender roles today? What about social constructs? What factors apart from physical appearance, earning potential, and personability affect your matingpreferences? What decisive factors do you think play a role in mate retention?

Discussion Questions
Will evolutionary processes continue to increase the complexities of deception?

References

Buss, D., Larsen, R., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex Differences in Jealousy: Evolution, Physiology, and Psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 4, 251-255.

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, 2, 245-264 Haselton, M.G., Buss, D., Oubaid, V., Angleitner, A. (2005). Sex, Lies, and Strategic Interference: The Psychology of Deception Between the Sexes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1, 3-23