Receptivity to sexual invitations from strangers of the opposite gender

Hald, Gert Martin; Høgh‐Olesen, Henrik

doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.07.004

Cited by 49 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Whereas former studies (Guéguen, 2011;Hald & Høgh-Olesen, 2010) found that the confederate's attractiveness was a good predictor of subject's consent, we found a low correlation between attractiveness and consent. The confederate's per- …”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 83%

“…Conley, Schützwohl et al, and Voracek et al asked participants how they hypothetically would react to the Clark and Hatfield scenario, varying systematically the attractiveness of the requestor. They found that women were significantly more likely to accept sexual advances from a very attractive male requestor, a finding not present in field studies (Gué-guen, 2011;Hald & Høgh-Olesen, 2010).…”

Section: Evidence Of Gender Differencesmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…In 2009, two Danish researchers replicated the original Clark and Hatfield (1989) study and added measures of subjects' relationship status, age, rating of confederate attractiveness, and subject awareness, asking if the subject was in any form aware that it was not an authentic request (Hald & Høgh-Olesen, 2010). We prefer to call this''suspiciousness''and later introduced a measure of it (see Exp.…”

Section: Evidence Of Gender Differencesmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Gender Differences and Similarities in Receptivity to Sexual Invitations: Effects of Location and Risk Perception

Baranowski

Hecht

2015

Arch Sex Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the publication of the seminal paper by Clark and Hatfield (1989), there has been an ongoing discussion about their finding that men accept sexual invitations from females more willingly than vice versa. We focused on two questions that have not yet been answered: First, what happens when the same request for casual sex is made in a different setting where social pressure is lower and such a request more common? To address this issue, 6 male and 8 female average looking confederates approached 162 men and 119 women either at a university campus or in a nightclub and asked for a date or for casual sex. The gender difference remained, with significantly more men than women consenting to a sexual invitation. The second issue concerned the perceived risk for women of accepting such an offer. We made up an elaborate cover story and invited 60 male and female participants into our laboratory. They were shown 10 pictures of persons of the opposite sex and led to believe that these people either consented to date or to have sex with them. The participants then could choose from the pictures who they wanted to meet to engage in a date or sex. In this subjectively safer environment, the gender difference disappeared, with the same proportion of men and women consenting to a date or sex. However, men were more liberal in their choice in either condition, compared to the female subjects. We conclude that while gender differences remained in both experiments, women were more liberal in a subjectively safer situation.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 83%

Section: Evidence Of Gender Differencesmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Evidence Of Gender Differencesmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gender Differences and Similarities in Receptivity to Sexual Invitations: Effects of Location and Risk Perception

Baranowski

Hecht

2015

Arch Sex Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Along with lowering their standards for a sexual partner, men can increase the numbers of partners they have by decreasing the amount of time they wait to engage in sexual intercourse with a new partner (Buss and Schmitt, 1993). Sexual attraction to a partner more quickly develops in men than in women (Clark and Hatfield, 1989;Clark et al, 1999;Hald and Høgh-Olesen, 2010;Rubin et al, 1981) and men frequently misperceive women's friendliness as a signal of sexual interest (Abbey, 1982;Haselton, 2003;Haselton and Buss, 2000;Perilloux et al, in press). Sexual attraction to a partner more quickly develops in men than in women (Clark and Hatfield, 1989;Clark et al, 1999;Hald and Høgh-Olesen, 2010;Rubin et al, 1981) and men frequently misperceive women's friendliness as a signal of sexual interest (Abbey, 1982;Haselton, 2003;Haselton and Buss, 2000;Perilloux et al, in press).…”

Section: Short-term Matingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human Mate Choice, Evolution of

Easton

Goetz

Buss

2015

International Encyclopedia of the Social &Amp; Behavioral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Previous research suggests that men generally desire a much larger number of short-term relationships compared with women (Buss & Schmitt, 1993;Schmitt, 2003). Similarly, men are less choosy when it comes to short-term mating partners but as choosy as women when it comes to long-term romantic partners (Clark & Hatfield, 1989;Kenrick, Groth, Trost, & Sadalla, 1993;Hald & Høgh-Olesen, 2010). Thus, selfenhancers might be less choosy than people with a more realistic or low self-perception when choosing dating partners for short affairs, as they regard quantitative mating success as an achievement, a phenomenon that should be particularly true for men.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Good Enough for An Affair. Self–Enhancement of Attractiveness, Interest in Potential Mates and Popularity as A Mate

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using data from the Berlin Speed Dating Study, we tested rival hypotheses concerning the effects of self‐enhancement of attractiveness on dating outcomes. Three hundred eighty‐two participants took part in one of the 17 speed‐dating sessions. After each speed‐dating interaction, participants indicated how interesting they found the respective person as a long‐term and short‐term partner. Using social relations analyses, we computed perceiver effects (being more or less choosy) and target effects (being rated as more or less interesting) of long‐term and short‐term partner ratings. Self‐enhancement was operationalized as the discrepancy between self‐rated attractiveness and four components of actual attractiveness (observer‐rated facial and vocal attractiveness, height and body mass index). Results indicated that self‐enhancers were less choosy with respect to their interest for short‐term partners, which was especially true for men, but more choosy with respect to long‐term partners. With regard to popularity as a mate, potential partners indicated that they found self‐enhancers more interesting as short‐term partners but not as long‐term partners. As self‐enhancement is a key component of narcissism, these results are consistent with findings that narcissists perceive many sexual affairs as an achievement, while preferring selected ‘trophy’ long‐term partners, and narcissists have a charming appeal for short‐term, but not lasting, social relationships. Copyright © 2015 European Association of Personality Psychology

show abstract

Receptivity to sexual invitations from strangers of the opposite gender

Cited by 49 publications

References 24 publications

Gender Differences and Similarities in Receptivity to Sexual Invitations: Effects of Location and Risk Perception

Gender Differences and Similarities in Receptivity to Sexual Invitations: Effects of Location and Risk Perception

Human Mate Choice, Evolution of

Good Enough for An Affair. Self–Enhancement of Attractiveness, Interest in Potential Mates and Popularity as A Mate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About