The Political Divide Over Same-Sex Marriage Represents a Deeper Divide Between Conflicting Mating Strategies
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PSSXXX10.1177/0956797615621719Pinsof, HaseltonSame-Sex Marriage: Mating Strategies in Conflict? 621719research-article2016 Psychological Science OnlineFirst, published on February 26, 2016 as doi:10.1177/0956797615621719 Research Article Psychological Science 1 –8 The Political Divide Over Same-Sex © The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Marriage: Mating Strategies in Conflict? DOI: 10.1177/0956797615621719 pss.sagepub.com David Pinsof and Martie Haselton University of California, Los Angeles Abstract Although support for same-sex marriage has grown dramatically over the past decade, public opinion remains markedly divided. Here, we propose that the political divide over same-sex marriage represents a deeper divide between conflicting mating strategies. Specifically, we propose that opposition to same-sex marriage can be explained in terms of (a) individual differences in short-term mating orientation and (b) mental associations between homosexuality and sexual promiscuity. We created a novel Implicit Association Test to measure mental associations between homosexuality and promiscuity. We found that mental associations between homosexuality and promiscuity, at both the implicit and the explicit levels, interacted with short-term mating orientation to predict opposition to same-sex marriage. Our model accounted for 42.3% of the variation in attitudes toward same-sex marriage, and all predictors remained robust when we controlled for potential confounds. Our results reveal the centrality of mating psychology in attitudes toward same- sex marriage. Keywords attitudes, evolutionary psychology, social cognition, stereotyped attitudes, sex, sexual orientation, morality, open data, open materials Received 5/27/15; Revision accepted 11/19/15 Attitudes toward same-sex marriage have changed dra- Kenrick, 2008; Weeden & Kurzban, 2014). Specifically, we matically throughout the past decade, culminating in the argue that opposition to same-sex marriage arises primar- 2015 Supreme Court ruling in favor of legalization. Yet ily from sexually restricted individuals who believe, either same-sex marriage is still a divisive issue among Ameri- implicitly or explicitly, that gay men and women are sex- cans; 39% are opposed to it, and 7% are undecided ually promiscuous. As a result, these individuals oppose (Doherty, 2015). For many reasons, opposition to same- same-sex marriage out of fear that it will corrupt the insti- sex marriage is a puzzle for social scientists. Most puz- tution of marriage. zling, perhaps, is that opposition appears to be highest among individuals who most strongly support the institu- Mating Strategies and Ideology tion of marriage (Brumbaugh, Sanchez, Nock, & Wright, 2008; McVeigh & Maria-Elena, 2009). This is difficult to Social liberals and social conservatives exhibit stark dif- explain because the most widely recognized goals of ferences in sexual attitudes, sexual behavior, parental marriage—love, commitment, and children (Pew Research investment, and family formation patterns. For instance, Center, 2010)—are attainable by gay men and women. relative to social liberals, social conservatives have more Why, then, do the most vocal proponents of the institu- negative attitudes toward casual sex (Rowatt & Schmitt, tion of marriage tend to be the most vocal opponents of 2003), report fewer lifetime sexual partners (Brody et al., same-sex marriage? 1996), marry at higher rates (T. W. Smith, 2008), have Here, we offer a novel explanation for the political divide over same-sex marriage that draws from recent Corresponding Author: research on the relationship between mating strategies David Pinsof, Department of Psychology, University of California, Los and political ideology (Kurzban, Dukes, & Weeden, 2010; Angeles, 2548 Franz Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90025 Li, Cohen, Weeden, & Kenrick, 2010; Weeden, Cohen, & E-mail: [email protected] Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com at UCLA on February 27, 2016 2 Pinsof, Haselton children at a younger age (Weeden et al., 2008), and abortion attitudes than are views about the sanctity of life rear more children throughout their lifetimes (Cahn & (Weeden, 2003; Weeden & Kurzban, 2014). Carbone, 2010). Researchers have argued that these clus- ters of traits represent distinct mating strategies from Current Research which social and political conflicts of interest arise (Kurzban et al., 2010; Weeden et al., 2008; Weeden & Building from this line of research, we hypothesized that Kurzban, 2014). diverging concerns about sexual promiscuity might also One such conflict of interest arises from the prevalence underlie the left-right divide over same-sex marriage. and acceptance of sexual promiscuity. For instance, early This could be the case if individuals tended to view childrearing and large families hinder women’s occupa- same-sex relationships, either implicitly or explicitly, as tional attainment (Budig, 2003; Taniguchi, 1999), making antithetical to sexually exclusive, family-oriented partner- them economically dependent on breadwinner husbands. ships. Indeed, stereotypes of sexually promiscuous gay Women who depend on male breadwinners incur higher men have been prominent in antigay rhetoric (Ross, costs of abandonment than their more self-sufficient 2002), and other research suggests that some individuals counterparts; similarly, male breadwinners incur higher hold stereotypes of lesbians as hypersexual (Geiger, costs of cuckoldry than their less-contributive counter- Harwood, & Hummert, 2006). These stereotypes may be parts. Men and women in these unions may therefore feel perpetuated by depictions of same-sex couples in the particularly threatened by sexual promiscuity, which media. Whereas same-sex families have been histori- increases the risks of both cuckoldry and abandonment. cally underrepresented on scripted network television For people pursuing the mating strategies more typical (Capsuto, 2000), other research indicates that gay and of social liberals, by contrast, widespread sexual promis- lesbian characters are more likely than straight characters cuity poses less of a threat. Delayed family formation to appear in sexual situations (Netzley, 2010). allows men and women to engage in sexual opportuni- If same-sex relationships are mentally associated with ties with multiple partners throughout youth and into promiscuity, then same-sex marriage could be seen as adulthood. Moreover, women with fewer children and incompatible with the goals of marriage—or perhaps greater economic power are better equipped to abandon even as a threat to the institution itself. That is, some peo- philandering husbands—or even to pursue extramarital ple may fear that expanding the definition of marriage to sexual opportunities of their own (Lammers, Stoker, Jor- include seemingly promiscuous relationships could dan, Pollmann, & Stapel, 2011). Crucially, the two mating weaken the link between marriage and monogamy. If this strategies entail distinct sociosexual orientations: The first link became severed, marriage would offer no assurance strategy requires a firm rejection of short-term mating, of fidelity; like an outmoded currency, marriage would whereas the second strategy entails a greater openness to lose value as a social institution. Thus, individuals who short-term mating. are vigilant about protecting the institution of marriage These differences in short-term mating orientation (e.g., sexually restricted individuals) may feel threatened (STMO) may play a key role in explaining several politi- by same-sex marriage, particularly if they have strong cal divides. For instance, whereas debates over the legal- associations between homosexuality and promiscuity. If ity of recreational drugs are currently framed in terms of this line of thinking is correct, it could explain the puz- health and safety, recreational drugs may also be viewed zling connection found between support for the institu- as a feature of promiscuous lifestyles, making them a tion of marriage and opposition to same-sex marriage. salient threat to sexually restricted individuals. Indeed, In the current research, we measured participants’ research indicates that opposition to short-term mating is mental associations between homosexuality and promis- the strongest predictor of opposition to recreational cuity using the Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald, drugs across cultures, even when controlling for political McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). We also measured partici- orientation, social dominance orientation, and the Big pants’ explicit associations between homosexuality and Five personality traits (Kurzban et al., 2010; Quintelier, promiscuity using questionnaire items. We sought to test Ishii, Weeden, Kurzban, & Braeckman, 2013). Public dis- the hypothesis that STMO interacts with these measures agreement over the legality of abortion may also reflect of implicit and explicit mental associations to predict underlying differences in STMO. Without access to abor- opposition to same-sex marriage. We were also inter- tion and other forms of contraception, the prospect of an ested in whether these mental associations differ depend- unwanted pregnancy may function as an effective deter- ing on whether participants assess gay men or lesbians rent against uncommitted sexual relationships. Without and, if so, whether these differences moderate the pre- this deterrent in place, individuals may fear that society dicted interactions. To explore these possibilities, we will run rampant