Research Articles: When Gender Differences in Sexual Selectivity Disappear

The Nature–Nurture Debates: 25 Years of Challenges in Understanding the Psychology of Gender

Spurred largely by these predictions of evolutionary psychology, researchers documented a variety of ways in which men are more promiscuous than women (see Buss & Schmitt, 2011). However, the accuracy of this basic generalization about sexuality has been challenged, based in part on ques- tions about the appropriate statistical treatment of highly skewed distributions of self-reported preferences (Peder- sen, Putcha-Bhagavatula, & Miller, 2011). Moreover, spe- cific findings suggesting men’s greater promiscuity have been increasingly linked to nurture causes—especially social norms for sexuality. For example, the classic find- ing that men are more likely than women to agree to have casual sex with a stranger (Clark & Hatfield, 1989) depends on the social context and the sexual opportu- nity. No sex differences in interest in casual sex emerged when the potential partner was a famous, attractive person or someone reputed to be sexually skilled (Conley, 2011).

Casual Sex: Are Men and Women So Different?

“Sperm are cheap and eggs are expensive.”  For decades, psychologists have relied on this mantra to explain why women are sexually choosy and men are sexually promiscuous.  However, if women are so prudish, who exactly are men getting lucky with?  Perhaps “sperm are cheap and eggs are expensive” is only half of the story, and something besides the scarcity of their eggs drives female sexuality … In a classic study by Clark and Hatfield (1989), women solicited a one-night stand to male strangers and men solicited a one-night stand to female strangers on a college campus.  Results showed that men were much more willing to accept sex with a stranger than were women.  In fact, women declined casual sex offers 100 percent of the time; men only declined casual sex offers 25 to 31 percent of the time.  These findings dramatically demonstrated that men and women differ in their mating behaviors, with women appearing sexually prude compared to men.  The study became quite influential in academic psychology, and it has been cited in over 350 published reports.

Despite the startling results of Clark and Hatfield’s (1989) study, it is possible that differences in the solicitors influenced the results.  That is, women might have perceived male solicitors as aggressive and violent, while men might have perceived female solicitors as nurturing and warm.  Perhaps women avoid casual sexual encounters with unfamiliar partners because they want to avoid potentially unpleasant or dangerous sexual experiences, and men accept these encounters more readily because they expect women to be nurturing, pleasant sexual partners.

Psychologist Terri Conley (2011) recently explored these possibilities by reconstructing the Clark and Hatfield study with several new manipulations.  In particular, Conley (2011) found that women and men do indeed have different perceptions of one another in a casual sex scenario: female solicitors were considered warmer, more generous, and better sexual partners overall than were males.  To test whether these perceptual differences influenced peoples’ willingness to accept casual sex offers, she examined whether bisexual women were more likely to accept a casual sexual encounter with another woman than with a man.  As expected, bisexual women were much more likely to accept casual sex offers from women than from men.

Conley (2011) conducted a second study that asked participants to consider whether or not they would accept a casual sex proposition from their best friend of the opposite sex.  Initially, it appeared that women were less likely than men to accept such an offer.  However, when controlling for perceived sexual capabilities of the partner, women accepted the propositions just as often as men.  This finding suggests that one’s expected receipt of sexual pleasure is a strong determinant of human sexuality, and that differences in the perceived sexual capabilities of partners provide the best explanation for different mating behaviors between the sexes.  That is, men tend to be perceived as less sexually capable than women, which might be why most women might turn down casual sex offers from male proposers.

Conley (2011) also tested whether women would be more willing to accept casual sex with an attractive celebrity than with an unattractive celebrity.  Intriguingly, women were just as likely to say “yes” to Johnny Depp and “no” to Donald Trump as men were to say “yes” to Angelina Jolie and “no” to Roseanne Barr.  Thus, it appears that under the right circumstances, women are just as interested in casual sex as are men.  This is especially true if the proposer is female, perceived to be sexually capable, and physically attractive.

Boiling sexual behavior down to eggs and sperm suggests that women are less interested in casual sex than are men.  Indeed, classic psychological studies seemed to confirm this presumption.  However, more recent research shows that social factors play an important role in determining mating behaviors, and when we account for these social factors, women are not necessarily opposed to casual sex (see Conley, 2011).  In fact, if a sexual proposal comes from someone who is viewed as safe, familiar, attractive, and supposedly pleasurable, then women are as likely as men to accept a casual sex offer.  So dust off those Kama Sutra books, boys, because when it comes to getting a woman to sleep with you, safety and sexual prowess can be strong aphrodisiacs.

Sexual Selectivity

Also, the lesser selectivity of men than women is influenced by the social norm in which men approach women. In a speed-dating context, the physical act of approaching potential romantic part- ners engendered more favorable assessments of them, and the sex difference in selectively disappeared when the women approached and the men stayed put (Finkel & Eastwick, 2009). In these ways, nurture-oriented researchers explain the sex difference in promiscuity emphasized by evolutionary psychologists.

Arbitrary Social Norms Influence Sex Differences in Romantic Selectivity

ABSTRACT : Men tend to be less selective than women when evaluating and pursuing potential romantic partners. The present experiment employed speed-dating procedures to test a novel explanation for this sex difference: The mere act of physically approaching a potential romantic part- ner (vs. being approached), a behavior that is more characteristic of men than of women, increases one’s at- traction to that partner. This hypothesis was supported in a sample of speed daters (N 5 350) who attended a het- erosexual event where either men (eight events) or women (seven events) rotated from one partner to the next while members of the other sex remained seated. Rotators were significantly less selective than were sitters, which meant that the tendency for men to be less selective than women at events where men rotated disappeared at events where women rotated. These effects were mediated by increased self-confidence among rotators relative to sitters.

Discussion : Results supported the hypothesis that speed daters who ap- proached partners (rotators), relative to those who stayed seated (sitters), would experience greater romantic desire toward and greater romantic chemistry with their speed-dating partners, and that they would respond ‘‘yes’’ to their partners at a higher rate. These results replicated the well-established finding (Fisman et al., 2006; Kurzban & Weeden, 2005; Todd et al., 2007) that women are more selective than men at speed-dating events—but this replication emerged only when men rotated.

When women rotated (a procedural feature absent from previous speed-dating studies), sex differences in romantic desire, ro- mantic chemistry, and percentage of ‘‘yes’’ responses disap- peared. The Sex Rotation Sex interaction effects were significantly mediated through feelings of self-confidence on the speed date, with participants who rotated experiencing greater self-confidence than those who sat.

Conclusion : In summary, we experimentally manipulated a small component of the gender script across speed-dating events: who physically approaches whom. Having women approach and men sit caused women to behave more like men (less selective than usual) and men to behave more like women (more selective than usual), thereby eradicating the robust sex difference in romantic se- lectivity. It would be fascinating to examine whether changes over time in embodied-approach sex differences (who physically approaches whom) predict changes over time in romantic-se- lectivity sex differences. To the degree that romantic-approach sex differences disappear, perhaps romantic-selectivity sex differences will follow suit.

Why make this post? To challenge the assumption of a biological basis for certain gender norms regarding casual sex and sexual selectivity which serve as a basis for RP theory.

Thoughts, questions, comments?