The Development and Psychometric Evaluation of a New Mating Effort Questionnaire

Abstract

In this study, we review the psychometric literature on mating effort and find that extant instruments (1) have not been adequately evaluated in terms of internal structure and measurement invariance, and (2) disproportionately focus on mate retention and intrasexual competition tactics designed to repel competitors, relative to attraction and investment effort. To address these gaps in the literature, we carried out two studies to develop and validate a new Mating Effort Questionnaire (MEQ). In Study 1, we report a pilot study in which participants’ responses to an item pool were submitted to exploratory factor analysis. In Study 2, we replicated the structure found in Study 1 using confirmatory factor analysis in an independent sample. A three-factor solution yielded the best fit. The three factors reflected respondents’ allocation of energy to attracting high mate value partners when already mated, seeking out romantic partners when single, and investing in their current romantic partner and relationships. Strong partial measurement invariance held across the sexes, implying that observed scores may be used to compare them. We also found evidence of concurrent validity via associations between the MEQ and constructs such as sociosexual orientation, K-factor, mate retention behaviors, and respondents’ sexual behavior. These findings suggest that the MEQ is a valid and novel measure of individual differences in mating effort which is well suited to complement existing mating effort measures.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    The countries that these respondents were from: Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Canada, Ecuador, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, Latvia, Mexico, Nicaragua, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, The Dominican Republic, The Phillipines, The Republic of Lithuania, and Venezuela.

  2. 2.

    These countries were: Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, Ecuador, Estonia, Indonesia, Italy, Jamaica, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, The Dominican Republic, The Phillipines, The UK, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, and Venezuela.

  3. 3.

    A report of the EFA and CFA for the MRI-SF can be found in the supplement.

  4. 4.

    For the exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of all scales, please see the supplement.

  5. 5.

    We did not include the behavior factor of the SOI-R in these analyses because we viewed this factor as an outcome of mating effort, not a predictor of mating effort.

References

  1. Apostolou, M., Papadopoulou, I., & Georgiadou, P. (2019). Are people single by choice? Involuntary singlehood in an evolutionary perspective. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 5(1), 98–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-018-0169-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Apostolou, M., Shialos, M., Kyrou, E., Demetriou, A., & Papamichael, A. (2018). The challenge of starting and keeping a relationship: Prevalence rates and predictors of poor mating performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 122, 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Apostolou, M., & Wang, Y. (2018). Parent–offspring conflict over mating in Chinese families: Comparisons with Greek Cypriot families. Evolutionary Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704918764162.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Arnocky, S., Sunderani, S., & Vaillancourt, T. (2013). Mate-poaching and mating success in humans. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 11(2), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1556/JEP.11.2013.2.2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Benjamin, D. J., Berger, J. O., Johannesson, M., Nosek, B. A., Wagenmakers, E. J., Berk, R., … Cesarini, D. (2018). Redefine statistical significance. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0189-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.107.2.238.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Brown, T. A. (2003). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire: Multiple factors or method effects? Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41(12), 1411–1426. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(03)00059-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Brown, T. A. (2014). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Buss, D. M., Goetz, C., Duntley, J. D., Asao, K., & Conroy-Beam, D. (2017). The mate switching hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 143–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.07.022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., & McKibbin, W. F. (2008). The Mate Retention Inventory-Short Form (MRI-SF). Personality and Individual Differences, 44(1), 322–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.08.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Buunk, A. P., & Fisher, M. (2009). Individual differences in intrasexual competition. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 7(1), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1556/JEP.7.2009.1.5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2156–2160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Charles, K. E., & Egan, V. (2005). Mating effort correlates with self-reported delinquency in a normal adolescent sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(5), 1035–1045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.06.021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Figueredo, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. M., Kauffman, I. A., Weil, E., & Gladden, P. R. (2012). The interplay of behavioral dispositions and cognitive abilities: Sociosexual orientation, emotional intelligence, executive functions and life history strategy. Temas em Psicologia, 20(1), 87–100.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Figueredo, A. J., Vásquez, G., Brumbach, B. H., Schneider, S. M., Sefcek, J. A., Tal, I. R., … Jacobs, W. J. (2006). Consilience and life history theory: From genes to brain to reproductive strategy. Developmental Review, 26(2), 243–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2006.02.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Fisher, M., & Cox, A. (2011). Four strategies used during intrasexual competition for mates. Personal Relationships, 18(1), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01307.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fisher, M., Cox, A., Bennett, S., & Gavric, D. (2008). Components of self-perceived mate value. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2(4), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0099347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (1990). Toward an evolutionary history of female sociosexual variation. Journal of Personality, 58(1), 69–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00908.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(04), 573–587. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0000337X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Greiling, H., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Women’s sexual strategies: The hidden dimension of extra-pair mating. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(5), 929–963. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00151-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466(7302), 29. https://doi.org/10.1038/466029a.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Jackson, J. J., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2007). The structure and measurement of human mating strategies: Toward a multidimensional model of sociosexuality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(6), 382–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.04.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Jonason, P. K., & Buss, D. M. (2012). Avoiding entangling commitments: Tactics for implementing a short-term mating strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(5), 606–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.12.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kruger, D. J. (2017). Brief self-report scales assessing life history dimensions of mating and parenting effort. Evolutionary Psychology, 15(1), 1474704916673840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Marlowe, F. (1999). Male care and mating effort among Hadza foragers. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 46(1), 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002650050592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58(4), 525–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Millsap, R. E. (2012). Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203821961.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Patch, E. A., & Figueredo, A. J. (2017). Childhood stress, life history, psychopathy, and sociosexuality. Personality and Individual Differences, 115, 108–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 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(5), 1113. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Preacher, K. J., & MacCallum, R. C. (2003). Repairing Tom Swift’s electric factor analysis machine. Understanding Statistics, 2(1), 13–43. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328031US0201_02.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Revelle, W. (2018). Psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Richardson, G. B., Chen, C. C., Dai, C. L., Brubaker, M. D., & Nedelec, J. L. (2017). The psychometrics of the Mini-K: Evidence from two college samples. Evolutionary Psychology, 15(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704916682034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Rowe, D. C., Vazsonyi, A. T., & Figueredo, A. J. (1997). Mating-effort in adolescence: A conditional or alternative strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 23(1), 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00005-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(2), 172–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Rusbult, C. E., & Buunk, B. P. (1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10(2), 175–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/026540759301000202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Sabini, J., & Green, M. C. (2004). Emotional responses to sexual and emotional infidelity: Constants and differences across genders, samples, and methods. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(11), 1375–1388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204264012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2001). Human mate poaching: Tactics and temptations for infiltrating existing mateships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 894–917. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.894.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(6), 870–883. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.870.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Stijsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74(1), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11336-008-9101-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Sugiyama, L. S. (2015). Physical attractiveness: An adaptationist perspective. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 1–68). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Valentova, J. V., Junior, F. P. M., Štěrbová, Z., Varella, M. A. C., & Fisher, M. L. (2020). The association between Dark Triad traits and sociosexuality with mating and parenting efforts: A cross-cultural study. Personality and Individual Differences, 154, 109613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. van Buuren, S., & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, K. (2011). mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 45(3), 1–67. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v045.i03.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Wang, S., Chen, C. C., Dai, C. L., & Richardson, G. B. (2018). A call for, and beginner’s guide to, measurement invariance testing in evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 4(2), 166–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-017-0125-5).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

GA, SA, and ZS generated the items. GA came up with the study design. GA conducted all analysis with critical support, and advice from GBR. GA and GBR wrote the manuscript, while SA and CHS provided critical feedback. All authors have consented to the submission of the current draft.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Graham Albert.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. All study procedures were approved by the Boston University Institutional Review Board.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Albert, G., Richardson, G.B., Arnocky, S. et al. The Development and Psychometric Evaluation of a New Mating Effort Questionnaire. Arch Sex Behav 50, 511–530 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01799-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Life history
  • Human mating
  • Measurement
  • Mating effort