Perceived Proposer Personality Characteristics and Gender Differences in Acceptance of Casual Sex Offers

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Volumn 100, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 309-329

  Conley, Terri D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Casual sex; Gender differences; Pleasure; Sexual strategies theory

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PERCEPTION; PERSONALITY; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; SEX DIFFERENCE; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SEXUALITY;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PERSONALITY; SEX FACTORS; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL PARTNERS; SOCIAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79951572148     PISSN: 00223514     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0022152     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Abramson P.R., Pinkerton S.D. With pleasure: Thoughts on the nature of human sexuality 2002, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
2. Alexander M., Fisher T.D. Truth and consequences: Using the bogus pipeline to examine sex differences in self-reported sexuality. Journal of Sex Research 2003, 40:27-35.
3. Armstrong, E. A., England, P., & Fogarty, A. C. K. (2010). Sexual practices, learning, and love: Accounting for women's orgasm and sexual enjoyment in college hookups and relationships. Manuscript under review.
4. Aron A., Mashek D., McLaughlin-Volpe T., Wright S.C., Lewandowski G., Aron E.N. Including close others in the cognitive structure of the self. Interpersonal cognition 2005, 206-232. Guilford Press, New York, NY. M.W. Baldwin (Ed.).
5. Baumeister R.F., Vohs K.D. Social psychology articles from the 1980s and 1990s: Some new classics and overlooked gems. Psychological Inquiry 2003, 14:193-195.
6. Burt M.R., Estep R.E. Apprehension and fear: Learning a sense of sexual vulnerability. Sex Roles 1981, 7:511-522.
7. Buss D. How can evolutionary psychology successfully explain personality and individual differences?. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2009, 4:359-366.
8. Buss D., Schmitt D. Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review 1993, 100:204-232.
9. Buunk A., Park J., Duncan L. Cultural variation in parental influence on mate choice. Behavior Science Research 2010, 44:23-40.
10. Clark R.D. The impact of AIDS on gender differences in willingness to engage in casual sex. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1990, 20:771-782.
11. Clark R.D., Hatfield E. Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality 1989, 2:39-55.
12. Clark R.D., Hatfield E. Love in the afternoon. Psychological Inquiry 2003, 14:227-231.
13. Conley T.D., Collins B.E. Gender, relationship status, and stereotyping about sexual risk. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2002, 28:1483-1494.
14. Conley T.D., Peplau L.A. Gender and perceptions of romantic partners' sexual risk. Journal of Sexual Medicine 2010, 7:794-802.
15. Currie T., Little A. The relative importance of the face and body in judgments of human physical attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior 2009, 30:409-416.
16. Dixson B., Dixson A., Bishop P., Parish A. Human physique and sexual attractiveness in men and women: A New Zealand-U.S. comparative study. Archives of Sexual Behavior 2010, 39:798-806.
17. Eagly A., Mladinic A., Otto S. Are women evaluated more favorably than men? An analysis of attitudes, beliefs, and emotions. Psychology of Women Quarterly 1991, 15:203-216.
18. Fisher T.D. The impact of socially conveyed norms on the reporting of sexual behavior and attitudes by men and women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2009, 45:567-572.
19. Geen R.G. Aggression and antisocial behavior. The handbook of social psychology 1998, 317-356. McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA. 4th ed. D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, G. Lindzey (Eds.).
20. Gustafson P.E. Gender differences in risk perception: Theoretical and methodological approaches. Risk Analysis 1998, 18:805-811.
21. Hald G.M., Høgh-Olesen H. " Would you go to bed with me? Gender differences in receptivity to sexual invitations. Human characteristics: Evolutionary perspectives on human mind and kind 2009, 366-381. Cambridge Scholars, Cambridge, England. H. Høgh-Olesen, H.J. Tonnesvang, P. Bertelsen (Eds.).
22. Helgeson V. The psychology of gender 2004, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
23. Higgins E.T. Making a theory useful: Lessons handed down. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2004, 2:138-145.
24. Kanazawa S. Bowling with our imaginary friends. Evolution and Human Behavior 2004, 23:167-171.
25. Kaptijn R., Thomese F., van Tilburg T.G., Liefbroer A.C., Deeg D.J.H. Low fertility in contemporary humans and the mate value of their children: Sex-specific effects on social status indicators. Evolution and Human Behavior 2010, 31:59-68.
26. Li Y., Cohen A., Weeden J., Kenrick D. Mating competitors increase religious beliefs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2010, 46:428-431.
27. Michalski R., Shackelford T. Evolutionary personality psychology: Reconciling human nature and individual differences. Personality and Individual Differences 2010, 48:509-516.
28. Miller L.C., Putcha-Bhagavatula A., Pedersen W.C. Men's and women's mating preferences: Distinct evolutionary mechanisms?. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2002, 11:88-93.
29. Miner E., Shackelford T. Mate attraction, retention and expulsion. Psicothema 2010, 22:9-14.
30. Parker J., Burkley M. Who's chasing whom? The impact of gender and relationship status on mate poaching. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2009, 45:1016-1019.
31. Pedersen W.C., Miller L.C., Putcha A.D., Yang Y. Evolved sex differences in the number of partners desired? The long and the short of it. Psychological Science 2002, 13:157-161.
32. Peplau L.A. Human sexuality: How do men and women differ?. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2003, 12:37-40.
33. Peterson J., Hyde J. A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality, 1993-2007. Psychological Bulletin 2010, 136:21-38.
34. Preacher K.J., Hayes A.F. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 2004, 36:717-731.
35. Schmiege S., Levin M., Bryan A. Regression mixture models of alcohol use and risky sexual behavior among criminally-involved adolescents. Prevention Science 2009, 10:335-344.
36. Schmitt D.P., Youn G., Bond B., Brooks S., Frye H., Johnson S., Stoka C. When will I feel love? The effects of culture, personality, and gender on the psychological tendency to love. Journal of Research in Personality 2009, 43:830-846.
37. Singh D. Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1993, 65:293-307.
38. Sobel M.E. Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. Sociological methodology 1982 1982, 290-312. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. S. Leinhart (Ed.).
39. Sprecher S., McKinney K. Sexuality 1993, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
40. Voracek M., Hofhansl A., Fisher M.L. Clark and Hatfield's evidence of women's low receptivity to male strangers' sexual offers, revisited. Psychological Reports 2005, 97:11-20.
41. Weaver S.J., Herold E.S. Casual sex and women: Measurement and motivational issues. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality 2000, 12:23-41.
42. Williams S.S., Kimble D.L., Covell N.H., Weiss L.H., Newton K.J., Fisher J.D., Fisher W.A. College students use implicit personality theory instead of safer sex. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1992, 12:921-933.