Advertisement

Men’s Mating Orientation Does Not Moderate the Accuracy with which they Assess Women’s Mating Orientation from Facial Photographs

  • Tara DeLecce
  • Robert L. Matchock
  • Virgil Zeigler-Hill
  • Todd K. ShackelfordEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

Previous research indicates that men can accurately assess women’s mating orientation from facial photographs (DeLecce et al. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 319–327, 2014). The current study investigated whether this ability is moderated by men’s own mating orientation. To that end, 89 men completed the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI)—an assessment of mating orientation—and rated the perceived faithfulness of 55 women (who also completed the SOI) depicted in facial photographs. Although men were indeed accurate in their faithfulness perceptions of the female targets, men’s mating orientation did not moderate the negative association between their faithfulness ratings and the self-reported mating orientation of the female targets. Limitations of the current study and directions for future research are addressed in the discussion.

Keywords

Mating orientation Sociosexual orientation Facial perception accuracy 

Notes

References

  1. Arnocky, S., Carré, J. M., Bird, B. M., Moreau, B. J., Vaillancourt, T., Ortiz, T., & Marley, N. (2018). The facial width-to-height ratio predicts sex drive, sociosexuality, and intended infidelity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47, 1375–1385.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1070-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Barta, W. D., & Kiene, S. M. (2005). Motivations for infidelity in heterosexual dating couples: the roles of gender, personality differences, and sociosexual orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 339–360.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407505052440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borkenau, P., & Liebler, A. (1992). Trait inferences: sources of validity at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 523–534.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.4.645.Google Scholar
  4. Brase, G. L., & Walker, G. (2004). Male sexual strategies modify ratings of female models with specific waist-to-hip ratios. Human Nature, 15, 209–224.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-004-1020-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models in social and behavioral research: applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park: SAGE.Google Scholar
  6. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00023992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell, L., Cronk, L., Simpson, J. A., Milroy, A., Wilson, C. L., & Dunham, B. (2009). The association between men’s ratings of women as desirable long-term mates and individual differences in women’s sexual attitudes and behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 509–513.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.12.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DeLecce, T. L., Polheber, J. P., & Matchock, R. L. (2014). Sociosexual orientation and 2D: 4D ratios in women: relationship to men’s desirability ratings as a long-term pair bond. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 319–327.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0201-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., & Buchner, A. (1996). GPOWER: a general power analysis program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 1–11.Google Scholar
  11. Fink, B., & Matts, P. J. (2008). The effects of skin colour distribution and topography cues on the perception of female facial age and health. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, 22, 493–498.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3083.2007.02512.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hackathorn, J., & Brantley, A. (2014). To know you is (not) to want you: mediators between sociosexual orientation and romantic commitment. Current Psychology, 33, 89–97.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-013-9199-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hughes, S. M., & Gallup, G. G. (2003). Sex differences in morphological predictors of sexual behavior: shoulder-to-hip and waist-to-hip ratios. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 173–178.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(02)00149-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Leivers, S., Rhodes, G., & Simmons, L. W. (2014). Sperm competition in humans: mate guarding behavior negatively correlates to ejaculate quality. PLoS One, 9, e108099.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108099.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Leivers, S., Simmons, L. W., & Rhodes, G. (2015). Men’s sexual faithfulness judgments may contain a kernel of truth. PLoS One, 10, e0134007.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134007.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Mogilski, J. K., Wade, T. J., & Welling, L. L. (2014). Prioritization of potential mates’ history of sexual fidelity during a conjoint ranking task. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 884–897.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214529798.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: a more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1113–1135.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Rodrigues, D., Lopes, D., & Pereira, M. (2017). Sociosexuality, commitment, sexual infidelity, and perceptions of infidelity: data from the second love web site. The Journal of Sex Research, 54, 241–253.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1145182.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2001). Human mate poaching: tactics and temptations for infiltrating existing mateships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 894–917.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.80.6.894.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Shackelford, T. K., Goetz, A. T., LaMunyon, C. W., Pham, M. N., & Pound, N. (2015). Human sperm competition. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (2nd ed., pp. 427–443). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Shieh, G. (2009). Detecting interaction effects in moderated multiple regression with continuous variables power and sample size considerations. Organizational Research Methods, 12(3), 510–528.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428108320370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870–883.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.870.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Townsend, J. M., & Wasserman, T. (1997). The perception of sexual attractiveness: sex differences in variability. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26, 243–268.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024570814293. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Townsend, J. M., & Wasserman, T. (1998). Sexual attractiveness: sex differences in assessment and criteria. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 171–191.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(98)00008-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Weiser, D. A., Niehuis, S., Flora, J., Punyanunt-Carter, N. M., Arias, V. S., & Baird, R. H. (2018). Swiping right: sociosexuality, intentions to engage in infidelity, and infidelity experiences on Tinder. Personality and Individual Differences, 133, 29–33.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zelazniewicz, A. M., & Pawlowski, B. (2011). Female breast size attractiveness for men as a function of sociosexual orientation (restricted vs. unrestricted). Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 1129–1135.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9850-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tara DeLecce
    • 1
  • Robert L. Matchock
    • 2
  • Virgil Zeigler-Hill
    • 1
  • Todd K. Shackelford
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Oakland UniversityRochesterUSA
  2. 2.Pennsylvania State UniversityAltoonaUSA

Personalised recommendations