Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences

Living Edition
| Editors: Virgil Zeigler-Hill, Todd K. Shackelford

Sexually Exploitative Strategy

  • Cari D. GoetzEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1574-1


Exploitative resource acquisition strategies facilitate resource accrual by taking advantage of other individuals through deception, coercion, or force (Buss and Duntley 2008). More specifically, sexually exploitative strategies allow individuals to gain sexual access when a potential mate is not willing to grant it (Goetz et al. 2012).


Because sexual access has recurrently been a limiting resource for human males, we should expect sexually exploitative strategies to have evolved particularly in males. Mechanisms that produce sexually exploitative strategies are hypothesized to contain particular design features. First, such strategies require an assessment of potential victims to determine which targets represent a favorable risk-to-reward ratio should an attempt at exploitation be made (i.e., an assessment of cues to sexual exploitability). Second, there is evidence that mechanisms for sexual exploitation modulate feelings of sexual desire and attraction to...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Blinkhorn, V., Lyons, M., & Almond, L. (2015). The ultimate femme fatale? Narcissism predicts serious and aggressive sexually coercive behaviour in females. Personality and Individual Differences, 87, 219–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buss, D. M., & Duntley, J. D. (2008). Adaptations for exploitation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12, 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Conroy-Beam, D., Buss, D. M., Pham, M. N., & Shackelford, T. K. (2015). How sexually dimorphic are human mate preferences? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(8), 1082–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. DeGue, S., DiLillo, D., & Scalora, M. (2010). Are all perpetrators alike? Comparing risk factors for sexual coercion and aggression. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 22, 402–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Goetz, C. D., Easton, J. A., Lewis, D. M., & Buss, D. M. (2012). Sexual exploitability: Observable cues and their link to sexual attraction. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 417–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Goetz, C. D., Easton, J. A., & Buss, D. M. (2014a). Women’s perceptions of sexual exploitability cues and their link to sexual attractiveness. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(5), 999–1008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goetz, C. D., Easton, J. A., & Meston, C. M. (2014b). The allure of vulnerability: Advertising cues to exploitability as a signal of sexual accessibility. Personality and Individual Differences, 64, 121–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gunns, R. E., Johnston, L., & Hudson, S. M. (2002). Victim selection and kinematics: A point-light investigation of vulnerability to attack. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 26, 129–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lalumière, M. L., Harris, G. T., Quinsey, V. L., & Rice, M. E. (2005). The causes of rape: Understanding individual differences in male propensity for sexual aggression. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lewis, D. M., Easton, J. A., Goetz, C. D., & Buss, D. M. (2012). Exploitative male mating strategies: Personality, mating orientation, and relationship status. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 139–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Malamuth, N. M. (1998). The confluence model as an organizing framework for research on sexually aggressive men: Risk moderators, imagined aggression, and pornography consumption. In R. G. Geen & E. Donnerstein (Eds.), Human aggression: Theories, research, and implications for social policy (pp. 229–245). San Diego: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sakaguchi, K., & Hasegawa, T. (2006). Person perception through gait information and target choice for sexual advances: Comparison of likely targets in experiments and real life. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 30, 63–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Schatzel-Murphy, E. A., Harris, D. A., Knight, R. A., & Milburn, M. A. (2009). Sexual coercion in men and women: Similar behaviors, different predictors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(6), 974–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Struckman-Johnson, C., & Struckman-Johnson, D. (1994). Men pressured and forced into sexual experience. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23(1), 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Testa, M., & Dermen, K. H. (1999). The differential correlates of sexual coercion and rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 548–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyCalifornia State University, San BernardinoSan BernardinoUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Jon Sefcek
    • 1
  1. 1.Kent State UniversityKentUSA