Pokaż uproszczony rekord

Traits Selection in Created Personal Ads and Sociosexuality: A New Method to Assess Sexual Strategy in Humans

dc.contributor.authorKajstura, Justyna
dc.contributor.authorPawłowski, Bogusław
dc.date.accessioned2025-07-07T06:50:41Z
dc.date.available2025-07-07T06:50:41Z
dc.date.issued2025-04-16
dc.identifier.issn1898-6773
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11089/55845
dc.description.abstractSociosexuality (SO) refers to preferring sexual interactions with or without commitment. Those who prefer long-term relationships have restricted SO, and those who pursue short-term relationships have an unrestricted SO. Sociosexuality may be assessed by Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI-R). Here, we test a new method to assess SO. Respondents are asked to create a personal ad by selecting six out of 10 suggested preferred traits in a partner. Among these 10 traits, there were two traits in each of five evolutionary relevant categories i.e., attractiveness, commitment, resources, cognitive and social skills. We hypothesize that seeking attractiveness/sensuality in a potential partner is related to concentrating on mating investments (higher SOI-R) and to commitment to parental investment (lower SOI-R). Out of 416 subjects who participated in the study, 299 (188 women) were included in the analysis. We found that choosing two traits of attractiveness is related to a less restricted SO, while preference for two commitment traits category characterizes those with a more restrictive SO. No relationship between SOI-R and the preference for cognitive skills or resources was found. Women with more and men with less restricted SO sought partners with better social skills. The proposed new method could be used to assess reproductive strategy.en
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherWydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiegopl
dc.relation.ispartofseriesAnthropological Review;2en
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
dc.subjectsociosexualityen
dc.subjectpreferred traitsen
dc.subjectattractivenessen
dc.subjectcommitmenten
dc.subjectsocial skillsen
dc.subjectsexual strategyen
dc.titleTraits Selection in Created Personal Ads and Sociosexuality: A New Method to Assess Sexual Strategy in Humansen
dc.typeArticle
dc.page.number1-15
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationKajstura, Justyna - Department of Human Biology, University of Wrocław, Wrocław, Polanden
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationPawłowski, Bogusław - Department of Human Biology, University of Wrocław, Wrocław, Polanden
dc.identifier.eissn2083-4594
dc.referencesAsendorpf J, Penke L. 2005. A mature evolutionary psychology demands careful conclusions about sex differences. Behav Brain Sci 28(2):275–276. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05220058en
dc.referencesBaron R, Markman G. 2000. Beyond social capital: How social skills can enhance entrepreneurs’ success. Acad Manage Perspectives 14:106–116. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2000.2909843en
dc.referencesBarta W, Kiene S. 2005. Motivations for infidelity in heterosexual dating couples: The roles of gender, personality differences, and sociosexual orientation. J Soc Pers Relat 22(3):339–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407505052440en
dc.referencesBeheshtifar M, Norozy T. 2013. Social skills: A factor to employees’ success. Int J Acad Resin Bus Soc Sci 3:2222-6990.en
dc.referencesBovet J, Raiber E, Ren W, Wang C, Seabright P. 2018. Parent-offspring conflict over mate choice: An experimental study in China. Brit J Psychol 109(4):674–693. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12319en
dc.referencesBrase GL, Adair L, Monk K. 2014. Explaining Sex Differences in Reactions to Relationship Infidelities: Comparisons of the Roles of Sex, Gender, Beliefs, Attachment, and Sociosexual Orientation. Evol Psychol 12(1):73–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470491401200106en
dc.referencesBrosnan SF, Salwiczek L, Bshary R. 2010. The interplay of cognition and cooperation. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biol Sci 365(1553):2699–2710. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0154en
dc.referencesBuss D. 1989. Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behav Brain Sci 12:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00023992en
dc.referencesBuss D, Schmitt D. 1993. Sexual Strategies Theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychol Rev 100(2):204–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204en
dc.referencesCampbell L, Ellis B. 2015. Commitment, Love, and Mate Retention. In: Buss D. The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, John Wiley, Sons, Inc. 419–442.en
dc.referencesCastro F, Lopes F. 2011. Romantic preferences in Brazilian undergraduate students: from the short term to the long term. J Sex Res 48:479–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2010.506680en
dc.referencesCornwell RE, Perrett DI. 2008. Sexy sons and sexy daughters: The influence of parents’ facial characteristics on offspring. Anim Behav 76(6):1843–1853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.07.031en
dc.referencesCsajbók Z, Berkics M. 2017. Factor, factor, on the whole, who’s the best fitting of all?: Factors of mate preferences in a large sample. Pers Indiv Differ 114:92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.03.044en
dc.referencesCsajbók Z, Berkics M, Havlicek J. 2022. Meeting minimum mate preference thresholds can be more important than the overall score. Pers Indiv Differ 95:111675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111675en
dc.referencesD’Augelli J, D’Augelli A. 1977. Moral reasoning and premarital sexual behavior: Toward reasoning about relationships. J Soc Issues 33(2):46–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1977.tb02005.xen
dc.referencesEysenck H. 1976. The structure of social attitudes. Br J Soc Clin Psychol 14(4):323–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1975.tb00188.xen
dc.referencesFales MR, Frederick DA, Garcia JR, Gildersleeve KA, Haselton MG, Fisher HE. 2016. Mating markets and bargaining hands: Mate preferences for attractiveness and resources in two national U.S. Studies. Pers Indiv Differ 88:78–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.08.041en
dc.referencesFletcher G, Tither J, O’Loughlin C, Friesen M, Overall N. 2004. Warm and homely or cold and beautiful? Sex differences in trading off traits in mate selection. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 30(6):659–672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203262847en
dc.referencesGangestad S. 1993. Sexual selection and physical attractiveness: Implications for mating dynamics. Hum Nature 4(3):205–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02692200en
dc.referencesHackathorn J, Brantley A. 2014. To know you is (not) to want you: Mediators between sociosexual orientation and romantic commitment. Curr Psychol 33:89–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-013-9199-9en
dc.referencesHendrick S, Hendrick C, Slapion-Foote M, Foote F. 1985. Gender differences in sexual attitudes. J Pers Soc Psychol 48(6):1630–1642. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1630en
dc.referencesJankowski KS. 2016. Charakterystyka psychometryczna polskiej wersji zrewidowanego Inwentarza Orientacji Socjoseksualnej (SOI-R). In: A Rynkiewicz, KS Jankowski, W Oniszczenko, editors. Wybrane metody i paradygmaty badawcze w psychologii. Warsaw: Scholar. 77–92.en
dc.referencesJessor R, Costa F, Jessor L, Donovan JE. 1983. Time of first intercourse: A prospective study. J Pers Soc Psychol 44(3):608–626. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.3.608en
dc.referencesJonason PK, Nolland M, Tyler MD. 2017. Incorporating geographic distance into mate preference research: Necessities and luxuries, 2.0. Pers Relationships 24(3):585–597. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12199en
dc.referencesJurich A, Jurich J. 1974. The effects of cognitive moral development upon the selection of premarital sexual standards. J Marriage Fam 36(4):736–741. https://doi.org/10.2307/350356en
dc.referencesKelley J. 1978. Sexual permissiveness: Evidence for a theory. J Marriage Fam 40(3):455–468. https://doi.org/10.2307/350927en
dc.referencesKenrick DG, Trost M, Sadalla EK. 1993. Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria. J Pers Soc Psychol 64(6):951–969. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.6.951en
dc.referencesKinsey AC, Pomeroy WB, Martin CE. 1948. Sexual behavior in the human male. Saunders. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.93.6.894en
dc.referencesKuhn P, Weinberger C. 2002. Leadership Skills and Wages. J Labor Econ 23. https://doi.org/10.1086/430282en
dc.referencesLancaster JB, Lancaster CS. 1987. The watershed: Change in parental-investment and family-formation strategies in the course of human evolution. In: JB Lancaster, J Altmann, AS Rossi, LR Sherrod, editors. Parenting across the life span: Biosocial dimensions. Aldine Publishing Co. 187–205.en
dc.referencesLi NP, Bailey JM, Kenrick DT, Linsenmeier JA. 2002. The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: testing the tradeoffs. J Pers Soc Psychol 82(6):947–955. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.947en
dc.referencesLi NP, Meltzer AL. 2015. The validity of sex-differentiated mate preferences: Reconciling the seemingly conflicting evidence. Evol Behav Sci 9(2):89–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000036en
dc.referencesLippa RA. 2009. Sex differences in sex drive, sociosexuality, and height across 53 nations: testing evolutionary and social structural theories. Arch Sex Behav 38(5):631–651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-007-9242-8en
dc.referencesMarcinkowska UM, Brewer G, Jaremba A, Jones I, Payne E, Lyons MT. 2021. Dark triad, sociosexual orientation, and mate preferences in short and long-term relationships – Exploratory study. Pers Indiv Differ 180:110968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110968en
dc.referencesMercer GW, Kohn PM. 1979. Gender differences in the integration of conservatism, sex urge, and sexual behaviors among college students. J Sex Res 15(2):129–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224497909551031en
dc.referencesMuggleton NK, Fincher CL. 2017. Unrestricted sexuality promotes distinctive short- and long-term mate preferences in women. Pers Indiv Differ 111:169–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.054en
dc.referencesMulder MB, Beheim BA. 2011. Understanding the nature of wealth and its effects on human fitness. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biol Sci 366(1563):344–356. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0231en
dc.referencesNelissen RMA, Meijers MHC. 2011. Social benefits of luxury brands as costly signals of wealth and status. Evol Hum Behav 32(5):343–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.12.002en
dc.referencesPaul ES, Harding EJ, Mendl M. 2005. Measuring emotional processes in animals: the utility of a cognitive approach. Neurosci Biobehav R 29(3):469–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.01.002en
dc.referencesPenke L, Asendorpf J. 2008. Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol 95(5):1113–1135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113en
dc.referencesPflüger LS, Oberzaucher E, Katina S, Holzleitner IJ, Grammer K. 2012. Cues to fertility: Perceived attractiveness and facial shape predict reproductive success. Evol Hum Behav 33(6):708–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.05.005en
dc.referencesRegan P, Berscheid E. 1997. Gender differences in characteristics desired in a potential sexual and marriage partner. J Psychol Hum Sex 9(1):25–37. https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v09n01_02en
dc.referencesRegan P, Levin L, Gate R, Sprecher S, Christopher F. 2000. Partner preferences: What characteristics do men and women desire in their short-term sexual and long-term romantic partners? J Psychol Hum Sex 12(3):1–21. https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v12n03_01en
dc.referencesRosenthal GG. 2017. Mate choice: The evolution of sexual decision making from microbes to humans. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.en
dc.referencesvon Rueden C. 2014. The roots and fruits of social status in small-scale human societies. In: JT Cheng, JL Tracy, C Anderson, editors. The psychology of social status. Springer Science + Business Media. 179–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0867-7_9en
dc.referencesSchacht R, Kramer KL. 2019. Are We Monogamous? A Review of the Evolution of Pair-Bonding in Humans and Its Contemporary Variation Cross-Culturally. Front Ecol and Evol 7:426706. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00230en
dc.referencesSchmitt D. 2005. Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behav Brain Sci 28(2):247–275. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x05000051en
dc.referencesSchwarz S, Klümper L, Hassebrauck M. 2020. Are sex differences in mating preferences really “overrated”? The effects of sex and relationship orientation on long-term and short-term mate preferences. Evol Psychol Sci 6(2):174–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-019-00223-yen
dc.referencesSimpson J, Gangestad S. 1991. Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. J Pers Soc Psychol 60(6):870–883. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.60.6.870en
dc.referencesSimpson J, Gangestad S. 1992. Sociosexuality and romantic partner choice. J Pers 60(1):31–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00264.xen
dc.referencesSprecher S, Regan P. 2002. Liking some things (in some people) more than others: Partner preferences in romantic relationships and friendships. J Soc Pers Relat 19(4):463–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407502019004048en
dc.referencesStewart S, Stinnett H, Rosenfeld LB. 2000. Sex differences in desired characteristics of short-term and long-term relationship partners. J Soc Pers Relat 17(6):843–853. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407500176008en
dc.referencesStewart-Williams S, Thomas AG. 2013. The ape that thought it was a peacock: Does evolutionary psychology exaggerate human sex differences? Psychol Inq 24(3):137–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2013.804899en
dc.referencesTaborsky B, Oliveira RF. 2012. Social competence: an evolutionary approach. Trends Ecol Evol 27(12):679–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.09.003en
dc.referencesThomas AG, Jonason PK, Blackburn JD, Ottesen Kennair LE, Lowe R, Malouff J, Stewart-Williams S, Sulikowski D, Li NP. 2020. Mate preference priorities in the East and West: A cross-cultural test of the mate preference priority model. J Pers 88(3):606–620. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12514en
dc.referencesTownsend J, Kline J, Wasserman TH. 1995. Low-investment copulation: Sex differences in motivations and emotional reactions. Ethol Sociobiol 16(1):25–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(94)00027-5en
dc.referencesWalter KV, Conroy-Beam D, Buss DM, Asao K, Sorokowska A, Sorokowski P, Aavik T, Akello G, Alhabahba MM, Alm C, Amjad N, Anjum A, Atama CS, Atamtürk Duyar D, Ayebare R, Batres C, Bendixen M, Bensafia A, Bizumic B, Boussena M, Butovskaya M, Can S, Cantarero K, Carrier A, Cetinkaya H, Croy I, Cueto RM, Czub M, Dronova D, Dural S, Duyar I, Ertugrul B, Espinosa A, Estevan I, Esteves CS, Fang L, Frackowiak T, Garduño JC, González KU, Guemaz F, Gyuris P, Halamová M, Herak I, Horvat M, Hromatko I, Hui CM, Jaafar JL, Jiang F, Kafetsios K, Kavčič T, Kennair LEO, Kervyn N, Khanh Ha TT, Khilji IA, Köbis NC, Lan HM, Láng A, Lennard GR, León E, Lindholm T, Linh TT, Lopez G, Van Luot N, Mailhos A, Manesi Z, Martinez R, McKerchar SL, Meskó N, Misra G, Monaghan C, Mora EC, Moya-Garófano A, Musil B, Natividade JC, Niemczyk A, Nizharadze G, Oberzaucher E, Oleszkiewicz A, Omar-Fauzee MS, Onyishi IE, Özener B, Pagani AF, Pakalniskiene V, Parise M, Pazhoohi F, Pisanski A, Pisanski K, Ponciano E, Popa C, Prokop P, Rizwan M, Sainz M, Salkičević S, Sargautyte R, Sarmány-Schuller I, Schmehl S, Sharad S, Siddiqui RS et al. 2020. Sex differences in mate preferences across 45 countries: A large-scale replication. Psychol Sci 31(4):408–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620904154en
dc.referencesWaters E, Sroufe LA. 1983. Social competence as a developmental construct. Dev Rev 3(1):79–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(83)90010-2en
dc.referencesWashburn SL, Lancaster GS. 1968. The Evolution of Hunting. In: RB Lee, I DeVore, editors. Man the Hunter. Routledge. 293–303.en
dc.referencesWebster G, Bryan A. 2007. Sociosexual attitudes and behaviors: Why two factors are better than one. J Res Pers 41(4):917–922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.08.007en
dc.referencesWicker AW. 1969. Attitudes versus actions: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. J Soc Issues 25(4):41–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1969.tb00619.xen
dc.referencesWiederman MW, Dubois SL. 1998. Evolution and sex differences in preferences for short-term mates: Results from a policy capturing study. Evol Human Behav 19(3):153–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(98)00006-3en
dc.referencesWilbur CJ, Campbell L. 2010. What do women want? An interactionist account of women’s mate preferences. Pers Indiv Differ 49(7):749–754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.06.020en
dc.referencesWitt LA, Ferris GR. 2003. Social skill as moderator of the conscientiousness-performance relationship: Convergent results across four studies. J Appl Psychol 88(5):809–82. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.809en
dc.contributor.authorEmailKajstura, Justyna - 316284@uwr.edu.pl
dc.contributor.authorEmailPawłowski, Bogusław - bogus@antropo.uni.wroc.pl
dc.identifier.doi10.18778/1898-6773.88.2.01
dc.relation.volume88


Pliki tej pozycji

Thumbnail
Nazwa:
1-15_Kajstura_et_al.pdf
Rozmiar:
309.8KB
Format:
PDF
Oglądaj/Otwórz

Pozycja umieszczona jest w następujących kolekcjach

Pokaż uproszczony rekord

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
Poza zaznaczonymi wyjątkami, licencja tej pozycji opisana jest jako https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0