Examining the Sexual Double Standards and Hypocrisy in Partner Suitability Appraisals Within a Norwegian Sample.

IF 1.1 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Evolutionary Psychology Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1177/14747049231165687
Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair, Andrew G Thomas, David M Buss, Mons Bendixen
{"title":"Examining the Sexual Double Standards and Hypocrisy in Partner Suitability Appraisals Within a Norwegian Sample.","authors":"Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair,&nbsp;Andrew G Thomas,&nbsp;David M Buss,&nbsp;Mons Bendixen","doi":"10.1177/14747049231165687","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Sexual double standards are social norms that impose greater social opprobrium on women versus men or that permit one sex greater sexual freedom than the other. This study examined sexual double standards when choosing a mate based on their sexual history. Using a novel approach, participants (N = 923, 64% women) were randomly assigned to make evaluations in long-term or short-term mating contexts and asked how a prospective partner's sexual history would influence their own likelihood of having sex (short-term) or entering a relationship (long-term) with them. They were then asked how the same factors would influence the appraisal they would make of male and female friends in a similar position. We found no evidence of traditional sexual double standards for promiscuous or sexually undesirable behavior. There was some evidence for small sexual double standard for self-stimulation, but this was in the opposite direction to that predicted. There was greater evidence for sexual hypocrisy as sexual history tended to have a greater negative impact on suitor assessments for the self rather than for same-sex friends. Sexual hypocrisy effects were more prominent in women, though the direction of the effects was the same for both sexes. Overall, men were more positive about women's self-stimulation than women wee, particularly in short-term contexts. Socially undesirable sexual behavior (unfaithfulness, mate poaching, and jealous/controlling) had a large negative impact on appraisals of a potential suitor across all contexts and for both sexes. Effects of religiosity, disgust, sociosexuality, and question order effects are considered.</p>","PeriodicalId":47499,"journal":{"name":"Evolutionary Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10303487/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evolutionary Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14747049231165687","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Sexual double standards are social norms that impose greater social opprobrium on women versus men or that permit one sex greater sexual freedom than the other. This study examined sexual double standards when choosing a mate based on their sexual history. Using a novel approach, participants (N = 923, 64% women) were randomly assigned to make evaluations in long-term or short-term mating contexts and asked how a prospective partner's sexual history would influence their own likelihood of having sex (short-term) or entering a relationship (long-term) with them. They were then asked how the same factors would influence the appraisal they would make of male and female friends in a similar position. We found no evidence of traditional sexual double standards for promiscuous or sexually undesirable behavior. There was some evidence for small sexual double standard for self-stimulation, but this was in the opposite direction to that predicted. There was greater evidence for sexual hypocrisy as sexual history tended to have a greater negative impact on suitor assessments for the self rather than for same-sex friends. Sexual hypocrisy effects were more prominent in women, though the direction of the effects was the same for both sexes. Overall, men were more positive about women's self-stimulation than women wee, particularly in short-term contexts. Socially undesirable sexual behavior (unfaithfulness, mate poaching, and jealous/controlling) had a large negative impact on appraisals of a potential suitor across all contexts and for both sexes. Effects of religiosity, disgust, sociosexuality, and question order effects are considered.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在挪威样本中检查性伴侣适宜性评估中的双重标准和虚伪。
性别双重标准是社会规范,它对女性施加了比男性更大的社会谴责,或者允许一种性别比另一种性别更大的性自由。这项研究考察了基于性史选择伴侣时的性双重标准。采用一种新颖的方法,参与者(N = 923, 64%的女性)被随机分配在长期或短期的交配环境中进行评估,并询问未来伴侣的性史如何影响他们自己发生性行为(短期)或进入关系(长期)的可能性。然后,他们被问及相同的因素会如何影响他们对处于相似位置的男性和女性朋友的评价。我们没有发现传统的性双重标准对滥交或性不良行为的证据。有证据表明,自我刺激存在小小的性双重标准,但这与预测的方向相反。有更多的证据表明性虚伪,因为性史往往对求婚者对自己的评价产生更大的负面影响,而不是对同性朋友的评价。性虚伪效应在女性中更为突出,尽管两性的影响方向是相同的。总的来说,男性比女性更积极地看待女性的自我刺激,尤其是在短期的情况下。社会上不受欢迎的性行为(不忠、偷偶、嫉妒/控制)对所有情况下对潜在追求者的评价都有很大的负面影响。考虑了宗教虔诚、厌恶、社会性取向和问题顺序的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Evolutionary Psychology
Evolutionary Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
22
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Evolutionary Psychology is an open-access peer-reviewed journal that aims to foster communication between experimental and theoretical work on the one hand and historical, conceptual and interdisciplinary writings across the whole range of the biological and human sciences on the other.
期刊最新文献
The Role of Intrasexual Competition and the Big 5 in the Perpetration of Digital Dating Abuse. The Relation Between War, Starvation, and Fertility Ideals in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Life History Perspective. Jealousy as Predicted by Allocation and Reception of Resources in an Economic Game. Sex Differences in the Etiology of Victimization in Adulthood. Paternal Filicide in Sweden: Background, Risk Factors and the Cinderella Effect.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1