API tools faq
paste
BlindMaestro

Sociosexual orientation excerpts

BlindMaestro
Jul 11th, 2022 (edited)
117
0
Never
Add comment
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 10.73 KB | None | 0 0
raw download clone embed print report
  1. copy/paste: https://pastebin.com/89vtbdmE
  2.  
  3. > sociosexual orientation
  4.  
  5. >> a dimension of personality that describes people’s comfort with and preference for sexual activity in the absence of love or commitment. People who are said to have an unrestricted sociosexual orientation (usually but not exclusively men) report more sexual activity outside of committed intimate relationships (e.g., one-night stands, short-term relationships, extramarital affairs). In evolutionary theorizing, sociosexual orientation is considered a determinant of preferences about the enactment of short-term versus long-term mating strategies.
  6.  
  7. https://dictionary.apa.org/sociosexual-orientation (https://archive.ph/7A6dF)
  8.  
  9. > We have recently attempted to understand the evolutionary history behind genetic variation in a specific behavioral trait, one we refer to as sociosexuality. As we conceive of it, this trait refers to differences in individuals' implicit prerequisites to entering a sexual relationship (Simpson & Gangestad, 1989b). Individuals at one extreme, those of restricted sociosexuality, require relatively more time and stronger attachment to, commitment to, and closeness with their romantic partners before they are willing to enter a sexual relationship with them. People at the other end of the dimension, those who possess unrestricted sociosexuality, require relatively less time with and weaker attachment to their partners before engaging in sex with them. (pg.70-71)
  10.  
  11. https://imgur.com/V1WlDof.jpg
  12.  
  13. 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
  14.  
  15. .
  16.  
  17. > Thus, for example, approximately half of the men and women in the top (within-sex) quintiles of sociosexuality had been sexually unfaithful to a steady partner; this was more than a tenfold increase over the corresponding rate for people in the bottom quintiles. (pg.543)
  18.  
  19. https://imgur.com/n7MmY0z.jpg
  20.  
  21. Bailey, J. M., Kirk, K. M., Zhu, G., Dunne, M. P., & Martin, N. G. (2000). Do individual differences in sociosexuality represent genetic or environmentally contingent strategies? Evidence from the Australian twin registry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(3), 537–545. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.78.3.537
  22.  
  23. .
  24.  
  25. > The behavior component, reflecting the quantity of past short-term sexual encounters, shows strong and unique links to the diversity of past romantic and sexual relationships, as well as the occurrence of sexual infidelity… Our results also confirmed the prediction that men and women who had more experience with short-term relationships in the past (i.e., those with high Behavior facet scores) were more likely to have multiple sexual partners and unstable relationships in the future. The behaviorally expressed level of sociosexuality thus seems to be a fairly stable personal characteristic. (pg.1131)
  26.  
  27. https://i.imgur.com/k3ZcwTn.jpg
  28.  
  29. 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), 1113–1135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113
  30.  
  31. .
  32.  
  33. > sociosexually unrestricted individuals are more likely to: 1) engage in sex at an earlier point in their relationships; 2) engage in sex with more than one partner at a time; and 3) be involved in sexual relationships characterized by less investment, commitment, love, and dependency. Sociosexual orientation (just like all other personality traits) is a relatively stable trait of individuals over the life course; in other words, people are either sociosexually restricted or unrestricted most of their lives… As you can imagine, sociosexual orientation has a great impact on the risk of divorce. Sociosexually unrestricted individuals are far more likely to experience divorce than sociosexually restricted individuals because they are more likely to engage in extramarital affairs.
  34.  
  35. https://i.imgur.com/TD8LjrS.jpg
  36.  
  37. Kanazawa, S. (2008). The 50-0-50 rule in action: Sociosexual orientation and risk of divorce. Psychology Today. Retrieved 23 December 2021, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/the-50-0-50-rule-in-action-sociosexual-orientation-and (https://archive.md/dPUZ3)
  38.  
  39. .
  40.  
  41. > sociosexuality, but not sex drive, was an independent predictor of lifetime number of sex partners. It seems that sex drive predicts number of sex partners only for those with an unrestricted sociosexual orientation; for those with a restricted sociosexual orientation, sex drive is irrelevant to lifetime number of sex partners. (pg.1264)
  42.  
  43. > Our results suggest that sex drive and sociosexuality are related but that sociosexuality retains its predictive power with regard to number of sex partners, whereas sex drive loses its predictive power once variation due to the other variable is controlled for. (pg.1265)
  44.  
  45. https://imgur.com/Pgn3GaU.jpg
  46.  
  47. Ostovich, J. M., & Sabini, J. (2004). How are sociosexuality, sex drive, and lifetime number of sexual partners related? Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(10), 1255–1266. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204264754
  48.  
  49. .
  50.  
  51. > Those with a restricted SO prefer to engage in sexual behaviors within the context of a close and committed romantic relationship, whereas those with an unrestricted SO do not need a committed relationship in order to have sex. Not surprisingly, an unrestricted SO has been associated with a greater willingness to engage in infidelity when using either self-report (Barta & Kiene, 2005; Ostovich & Sabini, 2004) or behavioral measures (Seal, Agostinelli, & Hannett, 1994). Previous studies have shown that those with an unrestricted SO are generally less committed to their romantic partners (Jones 1998; Simpson & Gangestad, 1991), and low commitment is often a predictor of infidelity (Drigotas, Safstrom, & Gentilia, 1999). Similarly, those with an unrestricted SO are often looking for new, attractive partners (Simpson, Wilson, & Winterheld, 2004). (pg.222-223)
  52.  
  53. https://imgur.com/Ae1Kt3k.jpg
  54.  
  55. Mattingly, B. A., Clark, E. M., Weidler, D. J., Bullock, M., Hackathorn, J., & Blankmeyer, K. (2011). Sociosexual orientation, commitment, and infidelity: a mediation analysis. The Journal of Social Psychology, 151(3), 222–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540903536162
  56.  
  57. .
  58.  
  59. > Individuals exhibiting sexually permissive attitudes and those who have had a high number of past sexual relationships are more likely to engage in infidelity (Feldman & Cauffman, 1999). In a study of supposedly exclusive dating couples, it was found that individuals exhibiting an ‘unrestricted’ sociosexual orientation (SO) were significantly more likely to pursue extra-pair involvement (Seal, Agostinelli, & Hannett, 1994). Individuals are said to be unrestricted if they score high on the Sociosexual Orientation Index (SOI). (pg.344)
  60.  
  61. https://imgur.com/ArxNEJP.jpg
  62.  
  63. 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(3), 339–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407505052440
  64.  
  65. .
  66.  
  67. > a slightly higher proportion of the unrestricted phenotype is present in both sexes (males approx. 62%, females approx. 50%). (pg.2)
  68.  
  69. > Previous research has found that female sociosexuality is more responsive to environmental shifts than male sociosexuality [4,22], and our data confirm this: while both sexes exhibit a shift (towards a restricted strategy in males, but towards unrestricted in females), the magnitude of the shift is larger in women than in men. While there is strong evidence that additive genetic factors best predict adult sociosexuality [23], differences in behaviour are in part likely to reflect cultural or environmental fine tuning of underlying genetic strategies in response to local circumstances as each sex tries to maximize overall fitness. (pg.4)
  70.  
  71. https://imgur.com/POwbAe4.jpg
  72.  
  73. Wlodarski, R., Manning, J., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2015). Stay or stray? Evidence for alternative mating strategy phenotypes in both men and women. Biology Letters, 11(2), 20140977. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2014.0977
  74.  
  75. .
  76.  
  77. > As might be expected, attitudes toward infidelity specifically, permissive attitudes toward sex more generally and a greater willingness to have casual sex and to engage in sex without closeness, commitment or love (i.e., a more unrestricted sociosexual orientation) are also reliably related to infidelity (pg.71)
  78.  
  79. https://i.imgur.com/vCvZmQR.jpg
  80.  
  81. Fincham, F. D., & May, R. W. (2017). Infidelity in romantic relationships. Current opinion in psychology, 13, 70–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.008
  82.  
  83. .
  84.  
  85. > unrestricted sociosexuality may be a particularly debilitating enduring vulnerability that can render established long-term relationships such as mar- riage vulnerable to declines in satisfaction and stability (see Penke & Asendorpf, 2008). Consistent with this possibility, research has shown that unrestricted indi- viduals report lower commitment (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991), fewer relationship-maintenance motivations ( Jones, 1998), decreased sexual interest in their partners (Hebl & Kashy, 1995), increased attention to attractive extra-pair partners (McNulty, Meltzer, Makhanova, & Maner, 2018), and more frequent infidelity (Penke & Asendorpf, 2008). Together, the extant literature sug- gests that unrestricted sociosexuality may undermine processes inherent to long-term relationship mainte- nance that negatively impact intimates’ relationship sat- isfaction and long-term stability. (pg.2)
  86.  
  87. > unrestricted (vs. restricted) intimates began their marriages less satisfied and remained less satisfied over time; although intimates with unrestricted (vs. restricted) partners began their marriages no more or less satisfied, they experienced steeper declines in satisfaction over time.2 Notably, unrestricted partner sociosexuality indirectly predicted marital dissolution through intimates’ declines in marital satisfaction… unrestricted (vs. restricted) intimates may experience poorer long-term relationship outcomes because they may be more likely to engage in infidelity. Indeed, prior research has dem- onstrated that such individuals are more likely to report being unfaithful in their long-term relationships (e.g., Penke & Asendorpf, 2008), a link that might be explained by increased attention to extra-pair partners (pg.11)
  88.  
  89. https://imgur.com/ivxaKm3.jpg
  90.  
  91. French, J. E., Altgelt, E. E., & Meltzer, A. L. (2019). The implications of sociosexuality for marital satisfaction and dissolution. Psychological Science, 30(10), 1460–1472. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619868997
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Public Pastes
We use cookies for various purposes including analytics. By continuing to use Pastebin, you agree to our use of cookies as described in the Cookies Policy.  OK, I Understand
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!