Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2011, Vol. 100, No. 2, 309 329
2010 American Psychological Association 0022-3514/10/$12.00
DOI: 10.1037/a0022152
309
310
CONLEY
Women see far greater risk in the world than men do (Conley &
Peplau, 2010; Gustafson, 1998) and receive many more safety
messages than men do; therefore, the danger of a sexual encounter
seems more likely to be on womens mind than on mens. For
example, women are socialized to be a great deal more concerned
about their physical safety than men are (and especially about
sexual assault; see Burt & Estep, 1981). According to Gustafsons
(1998) gender role perspective on gender differences in risk perception, girls are protected against and warned about potential
threats to a greater extent than boys are. Women consistently
receive more precautionary advice from the media, police, friends,
and public officials about the danger of men (Burt & Estep, 1981;
Gustafson, 1998), which results in women ascribing greater risk
and being more cautious in the way they navigate the world than
men are.
To explain gender differences in casual sex proposals, risk
perception theory suggests that female and male proposers are
perceived differently, with male proposers being perceived as
more risky than female proposers. Further, risk perception predicts
that perceived safety of the proposer would be a strong predictor of
acceptance of a casual sex offer. In particular, women should be
relatively more likely to agree to a casual encounter with a familiar
person than with an unfamiliar person, because familiar people are
generally deemed safer than strangers. Finally, risk perception
theory suggests that differences between women and men in acceptance of casual sex offers would evaporate to the extent that
differences in perceived risk of the proposer were eliminated.
Next, I consider two perspectives that employ evolutionary
arguments: pleasure theory and sexual strategies theory.
Pleasure Theory
The central thesis of pleasure theory is that the pursuit of
pleasure is the central force that motivates sexual behavior
(Abramson & Pinkerton, 2002). According to this theory, sexual
reproduction is a by-product of sexual pleasure, rather than the
reverse. Pleasure theory asserts that pleasure itself is evolutionarily
favored; if humans are having pleasurable encounters, enough
instances of vaginal intercourse will occur to ensure the survival of
the species. Pleasure theory does not directly speak to the gender
differences between women and men in likelihood of responding
favorably to a casual sexual proposal. However, one can extrapolate from pleasure theorys premise that pleasure is the central
motivating factor in human sexuality. Because offers from women
are accepted more often than offers from men, pleasure theory
suggests that female proposers should be perceived differently
than male proposers, particularly in expectations about the proposers ability to provide sexual pleasure (i.e., his or her sexual
capabilities; see Armstrong, England, & Fogarty, 2010). Thus,
PROPOSER PERSONALITY
311
the extent that the male proposer is high status (so that the proposer
can support her and her children). A man would be more likely to
accept the CHSP to the extent that the female proposer would be
faithful to him, so that the paternity of his children can be assured.
A man should be especially likely to accept a casual sex offer from
a woman he perceives will be faithful to him, because a woman
who is faithful to him will give birth to and care for only his
children.
Methodological Approach
My perspective is that the gender differences demonstrated in
the CHSP and gender differences about casual sex more generally
may have as much to do with the gender of the proposer as the
gender of the participants. I have adopted a person-perception
technique to understand how women and men construe the CHSP
and related sexual proposals. I suggest, based on this approach,
that people have implicit personality theories about the types of
women and the types of men who propose casual sex (see Williams et al., 1992) and that these theories guide peoples decision
making about casual sex.
Of course, one of the reasons that the Clark and Hatfield (1989)
study is so appealing is that the authors used a naturalistic methodology. Participants, we assume, were not aware that they were in
a psychological study and therefore were likely to respond more
honestly to the situation than they might if a similar question were
posed to them in a laboratory setting. By contrast, the current study
necessarily utilized a pencil-and-paper version of the study. Thus,
participants were aware that they were in a psychology study from
the very beginning.
I adopted the paper-and-pencil technique for three main reasons:
1.
2.
3.
In sum, the only ethical and feasible way to approach the CHSP
was to utilize a paper-and-pencil methodological approach.
However, I appreciate the importance of documenting the gender dynamics of casual sex in situations that better approximate
actual casual sex encounters. Therefore, I supplemented these
approaches with studies that departed from the Clark and Hatfield
study; I employed participants actual experiences of having been
propositioned for casual sex. Although employing participants
actual experiences reduces the amount of experimental control
CONLEY
312
(i.e., because the time, place, and form of these casual sex proposals are not standardized across participants), these situations
would clearly have higher external validity than those of the
original CHSP. That is, I suspect that casual sex proposals probably very rarely happen in the middle of the day, completely out of
context, on a college campus. Thus, the CHSP itself may be an
exceptional event from which it is difficult to speculate about
casual sex more generally. In the studies presented here, I utilized
both experimentally controlled proposals and naturalistic proposals, which together can provide us with a firmer understanding of
the gender dynamics surrounding casual sex proposals in multiple
contexts.
In addition, I examined a broader range of responses to the
CHSP than was examined in the original studies. For example, the
original study assessed only whether the participant agreed to or
declined the sexual offer. In these studies, I variously measured the
personality traits of the proposers, the likelihood of acceptance of
the offer, the likelihood of engaging in a short-term relationship
with the proposer, and the appeal of the sexual offer.
Study 1a
Method
Participants and procedure. The sample consisted of 516
participants, of whom 62% were women. The sample was 14%
African American, 6% Asian American, 58% European American,
and 16% Latina/Latino. In this study and all subsequent studies,
the remaining participants identified as other ethnicities or failed to
state their ethnicity. The mean age was 21.9 years. Some individuals participated in the study to receive credit for their psychology
courses. They came to a designated laboratory room in groups of
three to five. Other participants were recruited in public areas of
campus and completed the questionnaire on the spot. In those
cases, the participants completed the questionnaire while a research assistant waited (providing enough physical distance to give
them privacy) and then returned the questionnaire to the research
assistant in a sealed envelope. Nonheterosexual participants were
excluded from the analyses.1
Materials.
Scenario. The scenario was worded to be as similar as possible to the script utilized by the confederates in Clark and Hatfield
(1989). First, participants were asked to please imagine the following situation. The basic scenario read as follows:
An attractive member of the opposite sex approaches you on campus
and says, I have been noticing you around campus and I find you to
be very attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?
PROPOSER PERSONALITY
313
CONLEY
314
frame of the classic CHSP is open ended (i.e., the women might
assume that a relationship could continue indefinitely, even though
the first encounter was spontaneous), the short-term relationship
question actually specifies that this is a short-term relationship.
Thus, embedded in the question is the assurance to participants that
the relationship will not continue in the future. If anything, women
should be less likely to accept the short-term offer than the casual
sex offer according to SST, given that casual sex experiences
frequently do become relationships (see Armstrong et al., 2010).
Study 1b
In Study 1b, I sought to understand how participants perceived
members of the opposite sex and members of the same sex who
approached them to propose a sexual encounter. If female participants are less likely than male participants to agree to casual sex
offers because of properties of the female participants, then women
should perceive male and female proposers equally negatively.
However, if womens reluctance to have casual sex in the CHSP
has to do with properties of the proposer (and particularly with
negative aspects of the perceived personality of male proposers), I
would expect women to perceive female casual sex proposers
more positively than male casual sex proposers. Moreover, consistent with Study 1a, I would also expect male participants to
perceive the female proposers more positively than the male proposers (independent of their desire for a sexual encounter with this
person).
The main goal in this study was to assess womens and mens
perceptions of the personality traits of the proposer, independent of
participants desire for a sexual encounter with the proposer.
However, for consistency with Study 1a, I also assessed likelihood
of acceptance of the casual sex offer.
Method
Participants and procedure. The sample (n 212) was
78% female and was 8% African American, 11% Asian American,
Table 1
Significant Participant Gender Differences in Response to the CHSP and Tests of Significance, Study 1a
Dependent variable
Would you have sex with this person?
How interested would you be in this person as a short-term
partner (e.g., a fling, an affair)?
Danger Scale
Sexual Capabilities Scale
Mental Illness Scale
Item: Has an STD
Status Scale
Sexual Faithfulness Scale
Warmth Scale
Gift-Giving Scale
1.37 (0.97)
3.74 (2.16)
2.43 (1.83)
4.19 (1.62)
2.82 (1.25)
3.77 (1.69)
5.17 (1.62)
2.99 (1.07)
2.19 (1.16)
2.62 (1.37)
2.86 (1.34)
4.03 (2.10)
2.75 (1.52)
3.83 (1.14)
3.57 (1.84)
5.00 (1.78)
3.34 (1.13)
2.31 (1.26)
3.30 (1.40)
3.05 (1.36)
t(514)
t(514)
t(514)
t(476)
t(476)
t(302)
t(302)
t(476)
t(302)
Note. CHSP Clark and Hatfield sexual proposal; STD sexually transmitted disease; n.s. nonsignificant.
PROPOSER PERSONALITY
Materials
Scenario. The scenario was the same as in Study 1a, with the
following crucial addition. Instead of receiving the questionnaire
reading that participants should imagine a member of the opposite
sex, both male and female participants received questionnaires
that indicated that either a woman or a man proposed a sexual
encounter to them.
Personality traits of the proposer. The measures were identical to those utilized in Study 1a. Scale reliabilities were as
follows: Sexual Capabilities ( .71), Danger ( .90), Mental
Illness ( .87), Status ( .94), Sexual Faithfulness ( .81),
Warmth ( .52), and Gift Giving ( .82). The individual item
concerning STDs was also included.
315
Study 1c
In Studies 1a and 1b, I hypothesized (and found) that female
sexual proposers are perceived more positively than male sexual
proposers. In this study, I assessed that hypothesis more directly;
participants provided their reactions to a person who has proposed
casual sex to a third party. To the extent that male proposers are
perceived more negatively than female proposers, this study provides further evidence that the gender differences in the CHSP can
be attributed not to the gender of the participants but to the gender
of the proposer.
Method
Participants and procedure.
Participants (n 64) were
recruited from psychology classes at a large urban university. The
sample was 66% female. Ethnically, the sample was 17% African
Table 2
Significant Participant Gender Proposer Gender Interactions in Likelihood of Accepting the
Sexual Proposal and Tests of Significance, Study 1b
Proposer gender
Participant gender
Female
Male
CONLEY
316
Table 3
Significant Differences in Perceptions of Female and Male Proposers and Tests of Significance,
Study 1b
Dependent variable
Female proposers
M (SD)
Male proposers
M (SD)
3.05 (1.11)
3.01 (1.19)
3.09 (1.49)
3.64 (1.72)
3.17 (1.27)
2.51 (0.98)
2.55 (1.27)
2.53 (1.22)
4.28 (1.73)
2.82 (1.03)
Materials
Scenario. The scenario was patterned directly after those of
the previous studies. Female and male participants were asked to
imagine that a woman approaches a man
on campus at your university and says, I have been noticing you
around campus and I find you to be very attractive. Would you go to
bed with me tonight?
3.77,
2.73,
2.93,
2.70,
2.17,
p
p
p
p
p
.0005, d 0.52
.008, d 0.38
.005, d 0.41
.009, d 0.37
.04, d 0.30
Study 1d
In this study, I recruited a sample of bisexual women and presented
them with a scenario in which they were approached by a woman or,
alternately, by a man. Bisexual women, by adopting a bisexual identity, have acknowledged their potential to be attracted to members of
either gender. To the extent that men are less appealing casual sex
partners than women, bisexual women should be more likely to agree
to casual sex with a woman than with a man.
Method
Participants and procedure. Ethnically, participants (n
103) were 77% European American, 8% Asian American, 5%
Latina/Latino, and 2% African American. The mean age was 20.5
years. Participants were recruited by writing to lesbian, gay, and
bisexual organizations and groups on college campuses and asking
them to post a link to the questionnaire in their newsletters,
websites, or listservs. The survey was administered online. Participants received the same scenario as in Study 1a; they received
either a version in which they were approached by a woman or a
version in which they were approached by a man. As in the
previous studies, participants indicated how likely they would be
to accept the sexual offer.
PROPOSER PERSONALITY
Method
Participants and procedure. The sample included 232 participants from a large urban university, of whom 43% were
women. The mean age was 21.7 years. The sample was 82%
European American.4 The procedure was the same as in Studies
1 a, b, and c.
Measures.
Scenario development. The first step in creating a scenario
was for a group of six research assistants to administer an openended survey to a convenience sample of acquaintances, colleagues, and coworkers. In the survey, participants were asked to
list five famous people of the opposite sex they found very attractive and another five people they found unattractive. Unattractive
personalities were elicited so that status and attractiveness would
not be confounded at all levels of the experiment. The names of the
10 most frequently mentioned attractive and unattractive individuals were developed into a questionnaire, with separate lists for
women and for men. The research assistants then each asked 10
women and 10 men to rate the attractiveness of each of the
individuals. Out of those 60 ratings, I developed survey materials
considering the four individuals who were rated (a) the most
attractive and (b) the least attractive, for each sex. Neither the
attractive man and the attractive woman nor the unattractive
man and the unattractive woman differed in their levels of
attractiveness. The final female personalities chosen by the 30 male
pilot study participants were actor Angelina Jolie (attractive) and
comedian Roseanne (unattractive). The two male personalities chosen
by the 30 female pilot study participants were actor Johnny Depp
(attractive) and real estate mogul Donald Trump (unattractive).
In addition, I included a condition in which male participants
responded to a sexual offer from former model Christie Brinkley.
This condition was included to determine if mens expected negative reactions to the unattractive proposer (Roseanne) could be
due to her older-than-procreational age, as would be suggested by
SST. Roseanne and Christie Brinkley are approximately the same
age and are past their childbearing prime. More important, a pilot
test of men in this population indicated that the two women are not
perceived to be of significantly different ages, as revealed by a
paired samples t test, t(11) 1.38, n.s., d 0.41. Moreover,
Christie Brinkley is actually perceived to be slightly older (M
55.6, SD 3.15) than Roseanne (M 52.4, SD 6.40), perhaps
because of Brinkleys longevity as a public figure. Therefore, if
men perceive either proposer (Roseanne or Christie Brinkley) as a
desirable sexual partner, this suggests that they are not overtly
influenced by the lack of reproductive capabilities in their decisions about whether or not to have sex with a given woman.
4
Study 2a
In this study, participants responded to the possibility of engaging in casual sex with a famous person. Pilot tests identified
attractive and unattractive public personalities and asked participants to imagine being approached sexually by one of these
people. Once the familiarity of the proposer is similar across
conditions, risk perception theory suggests, gender differences in
casual sex acceptance should dissipate.
317
African American women were excluded from this study because the
individuals they listed had very little overlap with those of other participants (in particular, many African American women put only African
American men on their lists of attractive individuals and did not rate
European American proposers, such as Johnny Depp, as particularly attractive). Therefore, a separate study would be necessary to develop a set
of attractive and unattractive proposers suitable for the African American
women in our sample. In addition, individuals who were unfamiliar with
the famous targets (e.g., those who were in the Johnny Depp condition but
did not know who Johnny Depp was) were excluded from the study.
CONLEY
318
Scenario.
Participants imagined a scenario in which they
were sexually propositioned by one of these individuals, again
using the wording of the sexual offer in the CHSP. For example:
You are fortunate enough to be able to spend your entire winter
vacation in Los Angeles. One day, about a week into your stay, you
decide to visit a trendy cafe in Malibu that overlooks the ocean. As
you are sipping your drink, you look over and notice that actor
Johnny Depp is just a few tables away. You can hardly believe your
eyes! Still more amazing, he catches your eye and then approaches
you. He says, I have been noticing you and I find you to be very
attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?
The remaining scenarios were the same, except that the famous
person referenced in the scenario varied. In addition, I included a
scenario in which participants responded to an unknown proposer.
That scenario was slightly different to accommodate the fact that
the proposer in the scenario was not famous.
Measures. I again utilized the dependent variable concerning
the likelihood of agreeing to the CHSP. In addition, I included two
items concerning the appeal of the sexual offer: Regardless of
whether or not you would actually agree to the sexual encounter,
how much would you LIKE TO agree to the encounter? and
Regardless of whether or not you would actually agree to the
sexual encounter, how APPEALING is the offer? These two items
were combined to form an offer appeal scale with an alpha of .93.
I also utilized four scales from the previous studies, Sexual Capabilities ( .79), Danger ( .80), and Mental Illness ( .83),
and the item has an STD. In addition, the four scales based on SST
were included: the abbreviated versions of the Status ( .72) and
Sexual Faithfulness ( .58) Scales and the Warmth ( .64)
and Gift-Giving ( .85) Scales.
Table 4
Means and Standard Deviations in Desire for Sexual
Relationships With Famous Attractive, Famous Unattractive,
and Unknown Proposers, Study 2a
Attractiveness level
Participant
gender
Female
Male
Unknown
High
Low
1.71 (1.61)
1.43 (0.84)
Female
Male
2.24 (1.88)
2.20 (1.80)
PROPOSER PERSONALITY
319
Study 2b
In Study 2b I endeavored to replicate the most important finding
from Study 2a, namely, the elimination of the large gender difference in reaction to the CHSP when participants considered familiar
(be they attractive or unattractive) proposers. The scenarios I
utilized in this experiment were slightly different because of the
geographical location of the sample. I also developed a different
set of proposers in case the perceived unattractiveness or attractiveness of the proposers differed from that in the location of the
prior study.
Method
Participants and procedure. Research assistants approached
potential participants in public areas of college campuses and
asked them to fill out a brief survey. Participants put their questionnaires in sealed envelopes and returned them to the researchers.
The sample (n 118) consisted of 59% women recruited on the
campus of a large urban university. The sample included 20%
African Americans, 27% Asian Americans, 21% European Americans, and 16% Latinas/Latinos, with an average age of 22 years.
Materials
Scenario development. Attractive and unattractive famous
people were identified in much the same method as in the previous
study. The two women chosen by the male pilot study participants
were actress/singer Jennifer Lopez (attractive) and, as in the previous study, comedian Roseanne (unattractive). The two men
chosen by the female pilot study participants were actor Brad Pitt
(attractive) and comedian Carrot Top (unattractive).
Scenario. Next, I presented participants with a scenario in
which I asked them to imagine having an encounter with one of the
individuals chosen in the pilot study. For example:
One day for a change of scenery you decide to head over to Malibu
to study in a cafe that overlooks the ocean. As you are studying, you
look over and notice that actor Brad Pitt is just a few tables away. You
can hardly believe your eyes! Still more amazing, he catches your eye
and then approaches you. He says, I have been noticing you and I
find you to be very attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?
CONLEY
320
Table 5
Means and Standard Deviations in Desire for Sexual
Relationships With Famous Attractive, Famous Unattractive,
and Unknown Proposers, Study 2b
Attractiveness level
Participant
gender
Female
Male
Unknown
High
Low
1.30 (0.61)
1.06 (0.24)
Study 2c
The findings from Studies 2a and b show that women and men
respond similarly to proposals from famous people. However, the
situation I presented to participants is fairly improbable. Perhaps
women and men are similar in their acceptance of a casual sex
proposal in a fantasy situation, but this situation does not translate
into their behavior in face-to-face encounters. Similarly, perhaps
the perceived gains in status afforded to individuals who have a
sexual encounter with an attractive famous individual are so great
that they offset any gender differences by reducing the stigma
associated with casual sex for women. Therefore, in Study 2c, I
asked participants to consider their reactions to a proposition of
casual sex from a familiar but not famous person: their best friend
of the opposite sex.
Method
Participants and procedure. The sample (n 109) was
66% female and 82% European American, with a mean age of 22
years. This study was conducted through an online survey pro-
PROPOSER PERSONALITY
Results
No gender differences emerged in closeness to the friend,
t(107) 0.88, n.s., d 0.17; in perceptions of the friends status,
t(102) 1.45, n.s., d 0.28; sexual faithfulness, t(102) 0.28,
n.s., d 0.06, dangerousness, t(102) 0.31, n.s., d 0.06;
mental stability, t(102) 0.82, n.s., d 0.16; or likelihood of
having an STD, t(101) 0.37, n.s., d 0.07. There was a
marginal difference in the perceived likelihood of the proposing
friend giving them gifts, t(102) 1.93, p .06, d 0.38, with
women slightly more likely to believe the proposer would give
them gifts (M 3.99, SD 1.45) than men were (M 3.43, SD
1.31). Significant gender differences emerged in the perceptions of
the warmth of the proposer, t(98) 2.04, p .04, d 0.41, and
the sexual capabilities of the proposer, t(102) 2.29, p .02, d
0.45. Women thought the proposing friend was warmer (M 5.58,
SD 1.15) than men did (M 5.06, SD 1.32); however, men
thought the friend had better sexual capabilities (M 4.60, SD
1.58) than women did (M 3.80, SD 1.72).
In this scenario, women were less likely to accept the sexual
proposal from the friend (M 1.97, SD 1.61) than men were
(M 2.84, SD 1.92), t(107) 2.49, p .01, d 0.48.
However, these differences evaporated upon the introduction of
sexual capabilities as a covariate, t(102) 0.84, n.s., d 0.17,
consistent with pleasure theory. None of the scales representing
other theoretical perspectives were significant covariates or eliminated the gender difference.
A similar pattern emerged on the Offer Appeal Scale. Although
men initially rated the offer as more appealing than women did,
t(98) 2.20, p .03, d 0.45, the gender difference was again
eliminated by introducing the Sexual Capabilities Scale as a covariate, t(102) 1.08, n.s., d 0.21.
These findings once again suggest that when women are presented with proposers who are equivalent in terms of safety
(Gustafson, 1998) and sexual prowess (Abramson & Pinkerton,
2002), they will be equally likely as men to engage in casual sex.
Further, the findings of this study argue against the possibility that
distinct, gendered evolutionary mechanisms are responsible for
gender differences in casual sex, as womens and mens responses
are similar when the circumstances surrounding the proposal are
more uniform for women and men.
321
Study 2d
Method
Participants, procedure, and materials. Participants (n
196) included 47% women. The sample was 64% European American, 13% Asian American, 10% Latina/Latino, and 5% African
American. The mean age was 20.7 years. The materials and
procedure were fundamentally the same as in Study 1d. Lesbian
participants received a scenario about being approached by a
woman; gay male participants received a scenario about being
approached by a man.
CONLEY
322
Method
Participants, procedure, and measures. For this study, I
utilized the same set of participants, procedures, and measures as
in Study 1. However, because Study 3 addresses a conceptually
different question, I discuss these analyses separately. I was particularly interested in the extent to which each of the theoretical
constructs described above (i.e., dangerousness, mental illness,
sexual capabilities, status, and sexual faithfulness) predicted (a)
responses to the CHSP sexual offer and (b) desire for a short-term
relationship with the proposer.
Table 6
Results of Hierarchical Regression of Acceptance of the CHSP on the Predictor Variables,
Study 3
Step
Variable
SE B
R2
R2
0.27
0.04
0.01
0.04
0.06
0.06
0.08
0.02
2.07
0.23
0.06
0.19
0.20
0.40
0.09
0.00
0.15
0.10
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.10
0.09
0.09
0.07
0.21
0.20
0.15
0.13
0.24
0.20
0.18
0.17
0.14
.18
.04
.01
.04
.04
.04
.06
.02
.53
.09
.03
.12
.07
.16
.04
.00
.09
.39
.39
.41
.02
Note. The values of B and are at step entry. The value of R2 is cumulative. The value of R2 represents the
change with the addition of the step. The multiple R is significant at Step 1 but not significant at Step 2. CHSP
Clark and Hatfield sexual proposal; STD sexually transmitted disease.
PROPOSER PERSONALITY
323
Table 7
Results of Hierarchical Regression of Desirability of the Proposer as a Short-Term Partner on
the Predictor Variables, Study 3
Step
Variable
SE B
R2
R2
0.46
0.01
0.11
0.03
0.15
0.17
0.20
0.05
0.98
0.39
0.18
0.38
0.07
0.29
0.03
0.06
0.29
0.12
0.09
0.07
0.14
0.02
0.10
0.10
0.08
0.26
0.24
0.18
0.15
0.28
0.24
0.22
0.20
0.17
.27
.01
.09
.02
.09
.11
.12
.04
.23
.14
.08
.21
.02
.11
.01
.02
.16
.28
.28
.31
.03
Note. The values of B and are at step entry. The value of R2 is cumulative. The value of R2 represents the
change with the addition of the step. The multiple R is significant at Step 1 but not at Step 2. STD sexually
transmitted disease.
324
CONLEY
Method
Participants. Participants were respondents to an online survey. Heterosexuals who reported on a heterosexual casual sex
proposal (i.e., a man who was propositioned by a woman or a
woman who was propositioned by a man) were retained for analysis. The sample (n 463) was 67% female. The sample was 74%
European American and 11% African American with a mean age
of 21 years.
Procedure. Participants were recruited through online classified ads (i.e., craigslist) and through the social networking sites
of student experimenters. Participants who had experienced casual
PROPOSER PERSONALITY
325
Table 8
Significant Differences in Perceptions of Actual Female and Male Proposers and Tests of
Significance, Study 4
Dependent variable
Female proposers
M (SD)
Male proposers
M (SD)
4.75 (1.32)
3.39 (1.37)
4.86 (1.18)
1.76 (0.91)
3.01 (1.57)
4.00 (1.58)
2.94 (1.19)
4.40 (1.34)
2.02 (1.13)
3.30 (1.44)
Note.
SE B
Exp(B)
Wald
0.46
0.19
0.05
0.08
0.02
0.22
0.09
1.13
0.09
0.13
0.12
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.17
0.24
1.59
0.83
1.05
1.08
0.98
0.80
1.09
3.09
30.66
2.04
0.19
0.75
0.09
6.74
0.27
22.70
p .01. p .001.
As in the hypothetical CHSP I utilized in Study 3, the relationship between gender and acceptance of the offer was significant on
its own (B 0.33, SE 0.05, p .00005). I then included the
anticipated mediator, proposer sexual capabilities. Participant gender significantly predicted the anticipated mediator (B 0.75,
SE 0.15, p .00005), again consistent with pleasure theory.
Sexual capabilities of the proposer also predicted acceptance of the
sexual offer (B 0.11, SE 0.14, p .00005). The relationship
between gender and acceptance of the sexual offer (B 0.25,
SE 0.05, p .00005) was weakened with the addition of this
mediator. The Sobel coefficient was statistically significant at .08
(SE .02, p .00005). Thus, concerns about the opposite-sex
proposers sexual abilities partially mediate the relationship between participant gender and acceptance of a casual sex offer both
in hypothetical situations (Study 3) and in real-world situations
(Study 4).
General Discussion
Much theoretical speculation has surrounded the large gender
differences in the original Clark and Hatfield (1989) study. Based
on the findings of the current research, several tentative explanations for this difference emerge. First, male sexual proposers (who
approached women) are uniformly seen as less desirable than
female sexual proposers (who approached men). Therefore, gender
differences in the original Clark and Hatfield study are due more
to the gender of the proposer than to the gender of the study
participants. Moreover, the idea that these gender differences reflect broad, evolved differences in womens and mens mating
strategies was not supported. Across studies involving both actual
and hypothetical sexual encounters, the only consistently significant predictor of acceptance of the sexual proposal, both for
women and for men, was the perception that the proposer is
sexually capable (i.e., would be good in bed). The perceptions of
sexual capabilities also mediated the relationship between gender
and acceptance of casual sex offers. Finally, indirect evidence
suggests that perceptions of risk may play a role in gender differences in casual sex attitudes.
326
CONLEY
PROPOSER PERSONALITY
a wealthy celebrity, but women rejected him as well. SST researchers might contend that this is because Carrot Top was
perceived to be very unattractive and not in possession of good
genes. But if perceived good genes are the central motivator for
sexual encounters of both sexes, then gender differences in response to casual sex offers cannot be explained in these terms.
A more parsimonious way to explain the results is that women
and men are both motivated by sexual pleasure and safety; when
men and women both expect high levels of sexual pleasure and
anticipate safe encounters, differences in likelihood of engaging in
casual sex are greatly diminished.
Critiques from SST. SST researchers may contend that these
findings are consistent with (or not inconsistent with) SST for a
number of reasons. I consider some of these possibilities in turn.
Women should not be choosy in casual sex encounters.
First, an argument could be made that these findings are consistent
with SST, because women should be perfectly willing to have a
casual sex encounter with someone of low status. Given this
argument, status should not influence womens likelihood of engaging in casual sex with a man; it should only affect womens
likelihood of engaging in sex that could lead to a long-term
relationship with a man. That is, women do not expect partners in
casual sex encounters to support them financially, and thus they
have no reason to be choosy in terms of casual sex. The real test,
it could be argued, would be to look at their preferences for
long-term relationships, not casual relationships.
We first depart from the premise that SST does not predict that
women would be choosier than men in terms of their reactions to
casual sex offers. Buss and Schmitt (1993) specifically cited the
Clark and Hatfield (1989) study as evidence in support of their
theory. That is, Buss and Schmitt argued that the large differences
in the CHSP, a casual sex proposal, were evidence of womens
greater choosiness vis-a`-vis men. To cite a source as evidence for
ones hypothesis in one context and disavow it in another is
logically inconsistent.
A related argument might be that the theory has progressed
since the initial Buss and Schmitt (1993) publication. Though they
initially expected gender differences in casual sex, subsequent
refinements of the theory suggested that this should not be the
case. Two problems emerge with this argument. First, Buss and
Schmitt (1993) is still regularly cited as an accurate statement of
the tenets of SST (Buss, 2009; Buunk, Park, & Duncan, 2010;
Currie & Little, 2009; Dixson, Dixson, Bishop, & Parish, 2010;
Kaptijn, Thomese, van Tilburg, Liefbroer, & Deeg, 2010; Michalski & Shackelford, 2010; Miner & Shackelford, 2010; Schmitt et
al., 2009). Thus, this paper has not been deemed passe or irrelevant. Second, the research presented here was designed to test
SST. These findings are inconsistent with SST (Buss & Schmitt,
1993). To the extent that proponents of the theory have updated,
revised, and expanded their ideas based on new data, the theory
they cite is no longer SST but rather an entirely different theory
(see Higgins, 2004). The new theory should be named, delineated,
and allowed to stand on its own merit (Higgins, 2004). It is
problematic to change the theory over time without such a formal
statement, as doing so makes it very hard to falsify the theory.
However, these considerations aside, I did include questions
about the participants desire for the sexual proposers as long-term
relationship partners, the question utilized by Buss and Schmitt
(1993). Just as status did not predict womens desire and faithful-
327
ness did not predict mens desire to engage in casual sex with the
proposer, status did not predict womens desire for a long-term
relationship with the proposer, nor did faithfulness predict mens
desire for a long-term relationship with the proposer. Thus, if it is
the case that a new incarnation of SST predicts that status should
predict womens desire to have a long-term (but not a short-term)
relationship with a man, I have tested this hypothesis and found no
support for it.
Pleasure is a different level of analysis.
Second, sexual
strategies theorists may argue that by examining the effects of
pleasure on acceptance of casual sex, but I am considering a
different level of analysis than SST. The argument might be that
people engage in sex because they want pleasure, whereas SST
addresses the mechanisms that precede the desire for sexual pleasure. I am not entirely convinced by the argument that sexual
pleasure is a different level of analysis. That is, the implications of
SST are clearly that women would forgo sexual pleasure to have
sex with a high-status man who would support them and their
potential children. Thus, for women, at least, pleasure is intentionally discounted within SST.
Nonetheless, pleasure theory and SST both speak to motivations
for engaging in sexual activity; one (SST) may speak to more
distal reasons for engaging in casual sex and the other (pleasure
theory) to more proximal reasons. If this is the case, I can still test
SSTs claims with the data available from these studies. That is, if
SST is simply a different level of analysis than pleasure theory,
then sexual strategies variables (i.e., status and faithfulness) should
predict whether women and men believe a proposer to be sexually
capable (which in turn, I have demonstrated, predicts acceptance
of the offer). I tested this hypothesis and found no support for it;
that is, there were no gender differences in the extent to which
status or faithfulness predicted the perception of sexual pleasure
for the casual sex proposers in this study.
Sexual strategies processes are unconscious. A related contention may be that the processes SST addresses are unconscious.
According to this logic, I did not find predictive support for SST
because I utilized conscious measures of status and faithfulness.
Likewise, I did not find differences in heterosexual mens preferences for Angeline Jolie versus Christie Brinkley in Study 2a
because men unconsciously feel that Christie Brinkley is younger
than she actually she is; though they are consciously aware that
Christie Brinkley is not of reproductive age, they unconsciously
believe that she is capable of reproducing because she does not
look her age.
This explanation is unsatisfying, however, given that I utilized
the measures developed by sexual strategies theorists and reported
in the primary theoretical article (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). It would
obviously be inappropriate to cite the unconscious nature of the
dynamics behind this theory only when the conscious data are
unsupportive of the theory. But more important, given that conscious self-report data have been utilized to support SST in the
past, it seems appropriate to consider conscious measures in the
current context. Perhaps some aspects of SST can be tested via
conscious measures and others through unconscious measures. It
would be useful for SST researchers to identify when these processes can be observed through conscious measures and when they
should be assessed through nonconscious means.
Other gender differences in sexuality explored. The current
research suggests that women are more similar to men in their
CONLEY
328
Conclusion
Why did women forgo sexual offers from a stranger in the
famous Clark and Hatfield studies? The current research can offer
some tentative conclusions. The current findings support a theory
with evolutionary foundations (i.e., pleasure theory) in showing
the primacy of pleasure in sexual decision making (Abramson &
Pinkerton, 2002). Women avoid casual sexual encounters of the
type instigated by Clark and Hatfield (1989) when they believe the
sexual encounters will be unpleasant. Perception of a greater
likelihood of a positive sexual experience is associated with a
higher probability of accepting the sexual offer. In that way,
women are a lot like men.
References
Abramson, P. R., & Pinkerton, S. D. (2002). With pleasure: Thoughts on
the nature of human sexuality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Alexander, M., & Fisher, T. D. (2003). Truth and consequences: Using the
bogus pipeline to examine sex differences in self-reported sexuality.
Journal of Sex Research, 40, 2735.
Armstrong, E. A., England, P., & Fogarty, A. C. K. (2010). Sexual
practices, learning, and love: Accounting for womens orgasm and
sexual enjoyment in college hookups and relationships. Manuscript
under review.
Aron, A., Mashek, D., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., Wright, S. C., Lewandowski, G., & Aron, E. N. (2005). Including close others in the cognitive
structure of the self. In M. W. Baldwin (Ed.), Interpersonal cognition
(pp. 206 232). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Social psychology articles from
the 1980s and 1990s: Some new classics and overlooked gems. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 193195.
Burt, M. R., & Estep, R. E. (1981). Apprehension and fear: Learning a
sense of sexual vulnerability. Sex Roles, 7, 511522.
Buss, D. (2009). How can evolutionary psychology successfully explain
personality and individual differences? Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 4, 359 366.
Buss, D., & Schmitt, D. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary
perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204 232.
Buunk, A., Park, J., & Duncan, L. (2010). Cultural variation in parental
influence on mate choice. Behavior Science Research, 44, 23 40.
Clark, R. D. (1990). The impact of AIDS on gender differences in willingness to engage in casual sex. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
20, 771782.
PROPOSER PERSONALITY
estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717731.
Schmiege, S., Levin, M., & Bryan, A. (2009). Regression mixture models
of alcohol use and risky sexual behavior among criminally-involved
adolescents. Prevention Science, 10, 335344.
Schmitt, D. P., Youn, G., Bond, B., Brooks, S., Frye, H., Johnson, S., . . .
Stoka, C. (2009). When will I feel love? The effects of culture, personality, and gender on the psychological tendency to love. Journal of
Research in Personality, 43, 830 846.
Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness:
Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
65, 293307.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural
equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982
(pp. 290 312). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sprecher, S., & McKinney, K. (1993). Sexuality. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
329
Voracek, M., Hofhansl, A., & Fisher, M. L. (2005). Clark and Hatfields
evidence of womens low receptivity to male strangers sexual offers,
revisited. Psychological Reports, 97, 1120.
Weaver, S. J., & Herold, E. S. (2000). Casual sex and women: Measurement and motivational issues. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 12, 23 41.
Williams, S. S., Kimble, D. L., Covell, N. H., Weiss, L. H., Newton, K. J.,
Fisher, J. D., & Fisher, W. A. (1992). College students use implicit
personality theory instead of safer sex. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 12, 921933.