No abstract

Friends bolster health and happiness, with friend preferences directing us toward friends who can facilitate this. Intuition and research alike suggest people prefer friends to be kind and trustworthy and disfavor viciousness and indifference (and befriend the similar, familiar, nearby). Taking a target-specific approach, we predict and find people possess preferences not only for how friends should behave toward us, but—because our friends interact with others, and these interactions can affect us—people also possess nuanced, distinct preferences for how friends should behave toward others: (a) When targets of friends’ behavior are unspecified (reflecting previous work), preferences track how people want friends to behave toward us. In line with that work, (b) people want friends to be kinder and more trustworthy than not. But (c) people also want friends to be more prosocial toward us than toward others and (d) sometimes want friends to be more vicious than prosocial—toward our rivals.

The reproductive self-interest model of morality (RSIMM) is a framework for understanding moral judgments associated with sexual behavior. This model posits that individual differences in sexual strategies, mediated by one’s religiosity and political orientation, casually influence people’s moral judgments toward social hot-button issues. Previous work on the RSIMM has explained individual differences in attitudes toward abortion, prostitution, and contraception. Individuals more interested in long-term mating judged these behaviors as morally wrong. In this preregistered study, we proposed the RSIMM would account for individual differences in rape myth acceptance (RMA). We examined the relationship between political orientation, attitudes third-party casual sex, and RMA in a sample of 308 participants (137 women). We predicted that more negative attitudes toward third parties’ casual sex would correlate with increased RMA. Our hypothesis was supported for men but not women: Men who condemned others’ casual sex, had more unrestricted attitudes about their own casual sex, and desired more casual sex were statistically more likely to accept more rape myths. In the discussion, we speculate that sex differences in the relationship between attitudes towards casual sex and RMA may be due to the costs of rape incurred by women but not men.

No abstract

Research on men's sexual exploitation of women has documented that men's psychology tracks cues associated with the ease of women's exploitability. In the current studies, we examined a different class of cues hypothesized to aid men's use of sexually exploitative strategies: environmental cues to the likelihood of discovery. We defined likelihood of discovery as the perceived probability of identification when engaging in exploitative behavior (e.g., presence of others). We test the hypothesis that men's likelihood to rape increases when their perception of the likelihood of discovery is low in three studies. In Study 1, we conducted a content analysis of individuals’ responses ( N = 1,881) when asked what one would do if they could stop time or be invisible. Besides the “other” category whereby there were no specific category for nominated behaviors, the most nominated category included sexually exploitative behavior—representing 15.3% of reported behaviors. Both Studies 2 ( N = 672) and 3 ( N = 614) were preregistered manipulations of likelihood of discovery surreptitiously testing men's rape likelihood to rape across varying levels of discovery. We found men, compared to women, reported a statistically higher likelihood to rape in both Studies 2 and 3: 48% compared to 39.7% and 19% compared to 6.8%, respectively. Across Studies 2 and 3, we found no statistical effect of the likelihood of discovery on participants’ likelihood to rape. We discuss how the presence of one's peers may provide social protection against the costs of using an exploitative sexual strategy if a perpetrator is caught.