The mere presence of opposite-sex others on judgments of sexual and romantic desirability: Opposite effects for men and women

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Volumn 34, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 635-647

  Hill, Sarah E ^a,b   Buss, David M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Desirability assessment; Evolutionary psychology; Judgment biases; Mate choice; Mate choice copying; Social judgment

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; GENDER IDENTITY; HUMAN; MALE; MARRIAGE; MOTIVATION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL DESIRABILITY; SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; GENDER IDENTITY; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; MARRIAGE; MOTIVATION; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL DESIRABILITY; SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT;

EID: 42149175953     PISSN: 01461672     EISSN: 15527433     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0146167207313728     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. 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.
2. Abbey, A., & Melby, C. (1986). The effects of nonverbal cues on gender differences in perceptions of sexual intent. Sex Roles, 15, 283-298.
3. Betzig, L. (1986). Despotism and differential reproduction: A Darwinian view of history. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.
4. Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (1988). Is the polygyny threshold model relevant to humans? Kipsigis evidence. In C. G. N. Mascie-Taylor & A. J. Boyce (Eds.), Mating patterns (pp. 209-230). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
5. Buss, D.M. (1988). The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 616-628.
6. Buss, D.M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses testing in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.
7. Buss, D.M. (1991). Evolutionary personality psychology. Annual review of psychology. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc.
8. Buss, D.M. (2002). Human mate guarding. Neuroendocronology Letters Special Issue, 23, 23-29.
9. Buss, D.M. (2003). Evolution of desire. New York: Basic Books. (Original work published 1994 )
10. Buss, D.M. (2005). The murderer next door: Why the mind is designed to kill. New York: Penguin.
11. Buss, D.M., & Barnes, M.L. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559-570.
12. Buss, D.M., & Dedden, L.A. (1990). Derogation of competitors. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 395-422.
13. Buss, D.M., Larsen, R.J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251-255.
14. Buss, D.M. & Schmitt, D.P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.
15. Buss, D.M., & Shackelford, T.K. (1997). Susceptibility to infidelity in the first year of marriage. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 193-221.
16. Byers, E.S., & Lewis, K. (1988). Dating couples' disagreements over the desired level of sexual intimacy. Journal of Sex Research, 30, 270-282.
17. Clark, R.D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2, 39-55.
18. Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.
19. Daly, M., Wilson, M., & Weghorst, S.J. (1982). Male sexual jealousy. Ethology and Sociobiology, 3, 11-27.
20. Dawkins, R. (1986). Wealth, polygyny, and reproductive success. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 9, 190-191.
21. Dugatkin, L.A. (1992). Sexual selection & imitation: Females copy the mate choice of others. The American Naturalist, 139, 1384-1389.
22. Dugatkin, L.A. (1998). Genes, copying, and female mate choice: Shifting thresholds. Behavioral Ecology, 9, 323-327.
23. Fisher, M.L. (2004). Female intrasexual competition decreases female facial attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Biology Supplement, 271, S283 - S285.
24. Fisher, R.A. (1958). The genetical theory of natural selection (2 nd ed.). New York: Dover.
25. Ford, C.S., & Beach, F.A. (1951). Patterns of sexual behavior. New York: Harper & Row.
26. Gangestad, S.W., & Simpson, J.A. (2000). On the evolutionary psychology of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573-587.
27. Gigerenzer, G., & Todd, P.M. (1999). Fast and frugal heuristics: The adaptive toolbox. In G. Gigerenzer, P. M. Todd, & The ABC Research Group (Eds.), Simple heuristics make us smart (pp. 3-36). New York: Oxford University Press.
28. Graziano, W.G., Jensen-Campbell, L.A., Shebilske, L.J., & Lundgren, S.R. (1993). Social influence, sex differences, and judgments of beauty: Putting the interpersonal back in interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 522-531.
29. Gutierres, S.E., Kenrick, D.T., & Partch, J.J. (1999). Beauty, dominance, and the mating game: Contrast effects in self-assessment reflect gender differences in mate selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1126-1134.
30. Hill, S.E., & Ryan, M.J. (2006). The role of female quality in the mate copying behavior of sailfin mollies. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London: Biology Letters, 2, 203-205.
31. Jones, B.C., DeBruine, L.M., Little, A.C., Burriss, R.P., & Feinberg, D.R. (2007). Social transmission of face preferences among humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society Biological Sciences, 274, 899-903.
32. Kenrick, D.T., & Keefe, R.C. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in reproductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15, 75-133.
33. Cerra, M.M. (1994). Evolved mate preferences in women: Psychological adaptations for assessing a man's willingness to invest in offspring. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara, Department of Psychology.
34. Li, N.P., Bailey, J.M., Kenrick, D.T., & Linsenmeier, J.A.W. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947-955.
35. Mathes, E.W., Brennan, S.M., Haugen, P.M., & Rice, H.B. (1985). Ratings of physical attractivess as a function of age. Journal of Social Psychology, 125, 157-168.
36. Murdock, G.P. (1967). Ethnographic atlas. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
37. Orians, G.H. (1969). On the evolution of mating systems in birds and mammals. The American Naturalist, 103, 589-603.
38. Pruett-Jones, S. (1992). Independent versus non-independent mate choice: Do females copy each other ? The American Naturalist, 140, 1000-1009.
39. Schwartz, B. (2004). The paradox of choice: Why more is less. New York: Harper Collins.
40. Schlupp, I., Marler, C.A., & Ryan, M.J. (1994). Benefit to male sailfin mollies of mating with heterospecific females. Science, 263, 373-374.
41. Sigall, H., & Landy, D. (1973). Radiating beauty: Effects of having a physically attractive partner on person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 218-224.
42. Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of waist-to-hip ratio and female physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 293-307.
43. Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.
44. Townsend, J.M., & Levy, G.D. (1990). Effects of potential partner's costume and physical attractiveness on sexuality and partner selection. Journal of Psychology, 124, 371-389.
45. Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1871-1971 (pp. 136-179). Chicago: Aldine.
46. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1130.
47. Wade, M.J., & Pruett-Jones, S.G. (1990). Female copying increases the variance in male mating success. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 87, 5749-5753.
48. Walster, E., Walster, G.W., Piliavin, J., & Schmidt, L. (1973). " Playing hard to get": Understanding an elusive phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 113-121.
49. Williams, G.C. (1975). Sex and evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.