Sociosexual Orientation: a Historical Critique and Contemporary Analysis of Its Relationship to Social Hierarchy

Home , Sociosexuality

Sociosexual Orientation: A Historical Critique and Contemporary Analysis of its Relationship to Social Hierarchy

by Courtney Lyell

A THESIS

submitted to

Oregon State University

University Honors College

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Honors Baccalaureate of Science in Psychology (Honors Associate)

Presented December 2, 2015 Commencement June 2016

AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF

Courtney Lyell for the degree of Honors Baccalaureate of Science in Psychology presented on December 2, 2015. Title: Sociosexual Orientation: A Historical Critique and Contemporary Analysis of its Relationship to Social Hierarchy

Abstract approved:______Robert Nye

Sociosexual Orientation (SSO) is a measure of individual differences in the willingness to engage in uncommitted sexual relations. This study explores the relationship between SSO and two preferences for hierarchy in society, including Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) and Social Values Orientation (SVO). All of these constructs share the common element of social exchange. Participants (n= 91) completed a series of scales measuring SSO, SDO, and SVO. Self-reported stress regulation was also assessed. Men demonstrated higher total scores and were more unrestricted overall. For women, the behavioral facet of SSO was positively associated with stress regulation and the attitudinal facet was negatively associated with SVO. For both men and women, unrestricted sociosexual desire was positively associated with SDO. This study also aims to provide a historical critique of contemporary sociosexuality literature.

Key Words: sociosexuality, sexuality, hierarchy, social dominance, social values

Corresponding e-mail address: [email protected]

Sociosexual Orientation: A Historical Critique and Contemporary Analysis of its Relationship to Social Hierarchy

by Courtney Lyell

A THESIS

submitted to

Oregon State University

University Honors College

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Honors Baccalaureate of Science in Psychology (Honors Associate)

Presented December 2, 2015 Commencement June 2016

Honors Baccalaureate of Science in Psychology project of Courtney Lyell presented on December 2, 2015.

APPROVED:

Robert Nye, Mentor, representing History

Sarina Saturn, Committee Member, representing Psychological Sciences

Kathy Greaves, Committee Member, representing Human Development and Family Sciences

Toni Doolen, Dean, University Honors College

I understand that my project will become part of the permanent collection of Oregon State University, University Honors College. My signature below authorizes release of my project to any reader upon request.

Courtney Lyell, Author

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Sarina Saturn, Ph.D. for generously providing me with the opportunity to undertake this research project. Her nurturing nature and calm sense of guidance throughout the process have been absolutely foundational to my success.

Robert Nye, Ph.D. for his unrelenting patience and dedication towards my success as a young scholar. As my first professor in the honor’s college, Dr. Nye has been an important role model and source of support throughout my career as an undergraduate. It’s been an honor to have him as my mentor for this thesis.

Kathy Greaves, Ph.D. for her participation and support throughout the long duration of this project. Her humor and positive energy have been contagious and greatly appreciated.

My parents, Deanna and Phil, for their unconditional love and support. If it weren’t for them none of this would be possible.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION...... 4

Dynamic Nominalism...... 5

An Overview of Alfred Kinsey...... 6

A History of Sexuality at the turn of the 20th century...... 10

Sexual Revolution?...... 12

A Historical Question:…………………………………………………………………………14

An Overview of Sociosexual Orientation……………………………………………………...15

Sociosexual Orientation and Social Hierarchy……………………………………...…………18

Current Study: Aims and Hypotheses…………………………………………...……………..21

METHODS...... 22

Participants and Procedures...... 22

Materials...... 22

Sociosexual Orientation...... 22 Social Dominance Orientation ...... 23 Social Values Orientation...... 23 Stress Regulation…...... 24

RESULTS...... 24

DISCUSSION...... 25

Exploratory Analysis…………………………………………………………………………..25

Historical Critique…………………………………………………………………………...... 28

Limitations and Future Research………………………………………………………………32

REFERENCES...... 34

APPENDICIES...... 36

Appendix A The revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI-R)...... 36 Appendix B Social Dominance Orientation Scale………………...…………………...... 39 Appendix C Social Values Orientation………………….……………………………………..41 Appendix D Stress Regulation Scale…………………………………………………………..44 3

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page

Appendix A The revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI-R) …...... 36

Appendix B Social Dominance Orientation Scale……...... 39

Appendix C Social Values Orientation ……………………………………..……..…...41

Appendix D Stress Regulation Scale………………………………………...... …..44

Sociosexual Orientation: A Historical Critique and Contemporary Analysis of its Relationship to

Social Hierarchy

INTRODUCTION

Empirical investigation is heavily influenced by the specific social, political, and cultural conditions of its time. This means that research questions and the various scientific processes by which researchers go about answering them tend to reflect not only their own personal interests and values, but also the larger societal assumptions and concerns of a given time period. These forces shape the ways that individuals experience their social reality by influencing what is perceived as “normal” or “abnormal” behavior, in as much as humans tend to rely on empirical data as the basis for self-evaluation, and, conversely, allow their latent assumptions to influence what counts as data. These realities direct our attention to the influence of historical context in the interpretation of scientific literature and this is particularly relevant for the subject of human sexuality.

Humans have speculated about and debated the role and meaning of sex since the beginning of time, but only in recent years has human sexuality become a serious field of academic study. From the very beginning, sex researchers have been forced to manage their surveys and results with the controversial nature of their work in mind. In order to gain a truly comprehensive understanding of modern sexuality, it is essential that research findings be interpreted in light of their relevant historical background; any failure to do so constitutes one of the current limitations of sexuality research. Researchers who attempt to unveil universal truths about human sexuality may be misled by the fact that all scientific findings are inescapably relative to a particular time and place. There is no universal sexuality, only historical sexualities. 5

Sex surveys will never fully divulge the fundamental nature of sexuality because the expression of human sexuality has been and will forever be a dynamic and ever-changing cultural process, a process that cannot be teased apart from the historical context in which it takes place, but they will be informative to the extent that this reality can be thoroughly understood and accounted for.

Dynamic Nominalism

In support of these ideas is the theory of dynamic nominalism, which asserts that there are no universal essences in reality; rather, apparent truths are nothing more than the words assigned to them. Ian Hacking explains that according to dynamic nominalism, the scientific processes of observation, discovery, and defining interact with the object they seek to understand. Sometimes, Hacking explains, our sciences create kinds of people that in a certain sense did not exist before. In a very real sense, the categories and labels we use to describe people influence the forms of experience that are possible for them, and the language used to define our actions translates into ways of being that shape who individuals are and how they interact in society (Hacking, 2006). It is for this reason that concepts and truths about sexuality are “emergent,” that is they are conceptualized about the time that they begin to first appear in reality. In an example relevant to human sexuality, Hacking explains how homosexuality emerged around the 1870s as a medical typology and as a kind of behavior, but it wasn’t until the term was redefined through individual and collective action, culminating in the gay rights movement, that individuals could openly experience themselves in such a way. The essential role of language is illustrated by the fact that homosexuality as we know it did not really exist prior to the development of the specific word homosexual. It is for this reason that researchers must remain sensitive to the influence of language in their endeavors, making sure that modern 6 vocabulary is not being applied to historical contexts in which the objects being described did not yet exist.

The United States has undergone a historically unprecedented shift in social and sexual mores throughout the past century. By exploring the history of sex surveys themselves, which have simultaneously reflected and shaped these changes over time, experts have come to illustrate the social construction of human sexuality. Ericksen and Steffen (1999) insist that the history and practice of sexuality is most thoroughly understood by investigating changes in the questions that surveyors ask in addition to the responses elicited, maintaining that the underlying assumptions of research questions help create and form the sexuality that is revealed (p. 11).

Recognizing this interplay and developing ways to mitigate bias in future work is essential, but we must also recognize that even the best approaches contain inherent flaws. This reality may be partly mitigated to the extent that we can demonstrate an understanding and respect for the scientific process and its imperfections. This requires an understanding and respect for the role of historical context in the interpretation of scientific literature. We must use this knowledge to enlighten the study of human sexuality by eliminating questions or information that reflects personal bias or interest, even something that seems harmless. We must be honest and upfront about the limitations of our work. Reporting all limitations within one’s own research and reliably bringing attention to any unacknowledged limitations found in others’ research are two primary responsibilities that we must honor in order to uphold the integrity of empirical investigation.

An Overview of Alfred Kinsey

Biologist Alfred Kinsey launched the first comprehensive survey of human sexual behavior in the late 1930s. Prior to this landmark research, published in 1948 and 1953 7 respectively for men and women, it can be argued that sexuality was one of the least explored fields of human nature. The extant literature's narrow focus on sex within the confines of heterosexual marriage reflected the influence of the particular societal values and assumptions that dominated the time period. The sociocultural landscape of the 1930s rigidly upheld the notion that heterosexual intercourse between married couples was the only appropriate type of sexual activity; behavioral and attitudinal deviations from this traditional model were heavily stigmatized and were believed to indicate a condition of “abnormality” or maladaptive psychological adjustment. Psychiatrists played a key role in the treatment of these conditions, many of which also carried strict legal penalties. Homosexuality, for example, was included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders until 1973 as a pathological perversion; engaging in homosexual acts was considered a serious criminal offense and often resulted in imprisonment. Kinsey audaciously challenged the sexual status quo of this deeply heteronormative society in an attempt to prove that there existed a natural range of variation in human sexual behavior. Whereas previous sex researchers had been prudish and fearful of offending, Kinsey viewed and presented himself as a scientific pioneer who would explore where others could or would not go (Ericksen & Steffen, 1999, p. 141). He grounded his work in a biological frame of reference, insisted on scientific objectivity and stressed the importance of remaining neutral on morally controversial issues, two responsibilities that Kinsey felt past sexuality research had not upheld. In chapter one of Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, Kinsey reveals the aims of his study: “to accumulate an objectively determined body of fact about sex which strictly avoids social or moral interpretations of the fact” (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin,

1948, p. 5). 8

Kinsey criticized previous sexuality research for its inconsistencies and habitually dismissed it as unscientific, arguing that because these past endeavors were inextricably linked to unwarranted social and moral assumptions of “normality,” prescribed by religious and legal standards, the extent of legitimacy that could be attributed to them is questionable at best. What the field had been lacking, prior to Kinsey’s time, was an accumulation of scientific fact about human sexual behavior that did not entail preconceptions of what was rare or common, morally or socially significant, or normal and abnormal. Working under the presumption that all behaviors occurring in the natural world have biological foundations, Kinsey believed that humans are born with a biologically determined need for sexual release. He firmly disagreed with the categorization of (sexual) behavior as “normal” or “abnormal,” suggesting that the ready acceptance and maintenance of this distinction is the single largest obstacle to scientific determination of fact. He argued that such representations are socially constructed phenomena and have no place in scientific investigations, because this kind of labeling is essentially an expression of personal morality or cultural bias and is thus too easily associated with judgments of right versus wrong (Kinsey et al., 1948, p. 7). If individuals who deviate from the resulting image of socially appropriate sexuality feel guilt and shame, it is not because such deviations are inherently unnatural, abnormal, or wrong, but because the presumption of some kind of "normal" sexuality represses the human biologic potential for naturally varying forms of sexual expression.

Kinsey was also aware of the danger that the scientific endorsement and publicity of sexual norms might reinforce the number and type of avenues and opportunities individuals perceive as acceptable for fulfilling their biologically determined need for sexual release. Kinsey understood that society’s notion of orthodox sexuality had in effect stigmatized a wide range of 9 behavior that would otherwise fall on the spectrum of the actual, acknowledged behavior reported by his interviewees. In a very real sense, according to Kinsey, society plays a significant role in helping create and shape the very behavior it then condemns in scientific and medical discourse. Unhindered by the pertinent moral values and social customs of his cultural context,

Kinsey set out to archive all biologically-based variations of human sexual behavior, envisioning himself as an objective observer of all types of sexual activities as they occurred in nature.

In order to obtain an objectively determined body of fact about sex, Kinsey needed a way to quantify the range of biologically based variation in human sexual behavior. He believed that humans possess a biologically programmed need for sexual release that took the forms of

“outlets,” a view that challenged society’s relatively narrow version of “normal” marital sex with the concept of a variety of sexual releases. He used the physiological orgasm to objectively measure the frequencies of a variety of sexual behaviors, introducing the term “total sexual outlet” to refer to the sum of the orgasms derived from the various types of sexual activity in which that individual had engaged. The following six sources of orgasm were included in the analysis: masturbation, nocturnal emissions, heterosexual petting, heterosexual intercourse, homosexual relations, and intercourse with animals (Kinsey et al., 1948, p. 193). In asking each of his respondents how they satisfied the basic human need for sexual release, Kinsey’s biological frame of reference and taxonomic approach was primarily concerned with describing and measuring the magnitude of this variation in “sexual outlet” across the entire population. In comparison to previous studies that were limited in scope, grounded in societal assumptions of

“normality,” and likely to underestimate rates of sexual activity by examining only one outlet at a time, such as the frequency of marital intercourse, Kinsey’s notion of “total outlets” brought the bigger picture of human sexual behavior to the forefront of public and scientific discussion. 10

What followed was the growth of a new discourse that was enlightened by a greater acknowledgement and understanding of the various sexual activities that were frequently occurring outside the confines of socially acceptable, “normal” sex. Kinsey pushed these boundaries by investigating a wide range of variation in human sexual behavior, showing that it occurs frequently within the general population, and explaining how perception of this sexual variety as an indication of abnormality is statistically fallacious; in doing so he legitimized the scientific study of sexuality with a quantitative approach that the field had been lacking and successfully laid the foundations for modern sexuality research.

A History of Sexuality at the turn of the 20th century

Earlier we discussed how the content addressed in sex surveys tend to reflect the personal interests and values of the researcher, as well as larger societal assumptions and concerns of the time period. As an individual struggling with his own homoerotic feelings in the repressive sociopolitical environment of the early twentieth century, Kinsey’s research was in many ways driven by personal stakes. In addition to this personal agenda that significantly influenced the direction of his work, Kinsey’s research in the 1930s reflects an evolution of and concern with attitudes and behaviors surrounding sexual permissiveness/promiscuity that first appeared in the early 1900s. Historians have identified a number of factors influencing the development of new forms of sexual expression that emerged around the turn of the century. The general decline of

Victorian culture and morality, followed by the events of World War I (1914-1918) stimulated a general challenge to traditional, conservative attitudes with new ways of thinking about topics such as dating, sex, gender roles, and marriage. Victorian sexual morality, which decreed that sex was shameful and should be hidden, was gradually being replaced by conceptions of sex as a more positive thing to be enjoyed. New domestic technologies, such as laundry machines and 11 ovens, permitted women to feel less exhausted and granted them more leisure time, a point that allowed for new notions of romance and the eroticization of marriage to bloom in Western life.

Women now took on a more active sexual role with the ideal of mutuality in sexual relations between married couples and these views found a large public audience in the 1920s (Chesler in

Nye, 1999, p. 312). World War I also triggered an assortment of social and political changes that contributed to a new freedom of sexual expression in the early twentieth century.

Throughout this time, traditional gender roles were challenged by an increasing female presence in the work force and improvements in female higher education, developments that allowed women to support themselves and become more autonomous in various social and political affairs. By the end of the war, divorce was legal and nearly all marital advice books stressed that sexual happiness was crucial to a good marriage; the absence of satisfactory sex between married couples now warranted legal separation and it is clear that sexual satisfaction as a goal emerged around this time. Societal structures were changing and becoming more sexualized; the open expression of individual sexuality was publicly encouraged for the first time and these changes shocked and instilled fear within a large segment of the population. Kinsey’s emphasis on the natural diversity of human sexuality in the 1930s can be viewed both as reflecting many of those larger societal assumptions and also the concerns associated with the erosion of traditional values and the growing tolerance for the new kinds of sexual expression that initially appeared in the early 1900s. What followed was a generally increasing culture of liberal experimentation that took over the West in the second half of the 20th century in which behavioral change outpaced the traditional culture of sexual values.

Sexual Revolution?

Western civilization throughout the latter half of the 20th century underwent a period of major change in sexual attitudes and behaviors, with the 1960s and 1970s understood by many as the years of the Sexual Revolution. However, when the events of these years are viewed in a longer historical context, the changing patterns seem to appear more evolutionary than revolutionary. If ‘revolution’ is defined as some event or series of events that are completely new and take place with the consequence of completely overturning established values and practices, then one could argue that the changes observed during those years were not really revolutionary because, as previously demonstrated, traditional sexual mores started changing at the turn of the century. For example, contrary to the belief that the arrival of oral contraceptives in 1964 is to blame for the normalization of premarital and casual sex, the rate of premarital intercourse had actually been on the rise since the 1920s and half of all American women had engaged in sex before marriage by the early 1950s. In a very real sense, attitudes were finally catching up with behaviors, and social perceptions of certain events as responsible for sparking major changes in sexual behavior were more imagined than they were real (May, 2010, p.75).

While some historians dismiss notions of either time period as truly revolutionary, others contend that the West has experienced two “sexual revolutions” throughout its history, with the first beginning as early as the 1920s and the second during the 1960s. The latter period is believed to have resulted not so much from actual changes in behavior as from an increased freedom to talk about that behavior and to admit it without shame or guilt. Along with the growing tolerance of sex outside of traditional, monogamous relationships, the ability to openly communicate about sexual activities and different variations is probably the most profound and lasting achievement of the “Sexual Revolution” of the 1960s. The term revolution is always 13 suspect because sexual and attitudinal change is continuously evolving, and while it may be impossible to ever declare with certainty whether or not these historical events were in fact revolutionary, Kinsey’s research appears to have served as a catalyst for these developments in many ways. By scientifically documenting the diversity of human sexual expression in the

1930s, Kinsey’s reports stimulated nationwide attention to the topic of sexuality, successfully delivering a language and vocabulary that was necessary for open sexual dialogue to flourish throughout the West.

Historians of sexuality have firmly established that attitudes and behaviors related to sexual expression and promiscuity in particular have undergone dramatic transformation in recent decades. As we have already demonstrated, sexually permissive attitudes and behaviors began to change for much of western culture in the early 20th century, with Kinsey being the first to statistically validate these trends. His research seems to have accelerated an already growing trend that transformed the cultural climate by bringing human sexuality and its various manifestations to the forefront of public discussion, and it was revolutionary in the sense that such open dialogue about sex had been traditionally taboo. The dissemination of Kinsey's work throughout the United States initially sparked great controversy and fear because his findings were interpreted as a significant threat to the social and moral order of the time period, but by the late 1980s, what contemporaries had been calling the “sexual revolution” had deepened and spread more widely the behavior that Kinsey had first noticed in the 1930s. In a sense the “sexual revolution” was simply the cultural acknowledgement of this phenomenon, an instance of the

“cultural lag” in periods of rapid social transformation. By the 1990s one might say that the changes in sexual behavior and the willingness and ability of social scientists to find new ways to study sexuality had caught up with one another and a new research paradigm could take shape. 14

The new generations of researchers were not burdened by the kind of need that Kinsey and his colleagues had felt to present their findings as biological truths and to carefully distinguish between their scientific findings and the traditional moral concerns of their society. The entire spirit of the research enterprise had changed, though many of them still saw Kinsey as a pioneer and guiding light in their work.

A Historical Question:

While it is not uncommon practice for modern sexuality researchers to reference Alfred

Kinsey’s impact on the scientific study of sex in their own publications, there is one area of contemporary sexuality research in which Kinsey’s early efforts appear significantly misrepresented. It seems that many of the researchers studying Sociosexual Orientation (SSO), a construct focusing on the willingness to have uncommitted sexual relations, have misread

Kinsey, but at the same time have attempted to legitimate their own work by presenting their research as springing from his insights. For example, Penke and Asendorpf (2008) reported the following: “Kinsey introduced the term sociosexuality to describe interindividual differences in people’s willingness to engage in uncommitted sexual relationships” (p. 1113). There is a real historical question here, which requires an explanation for why SSO researchers feel obliged to attribute their use of the term “sociosexual” to Kinsey when all of the evidence suggests that

Kinsey’s aim was to establish a universal, though socially differentiated, need and expression of a biological sexual outlet. While Kinsey did make reference to the term, he did so in an entirely different sense and this understandably raises questions about its appropriation. Although it is true that Kinsey was the first to provide scientific evidence that sexual promiscuity is a more common phenomenon than his contemporaries understood, the term sociosexual orientation, in its modern context, is conceptually different from the social determinants of sexual outlet that 15

Kinsey described in his research in previous years. We conclude that modern sociosexuality researchers do not have an accurate historical perspective in their work.

An Overview of Sociosexual Orientation

In a society that had only recently come to accept pre-marital sex and cohabitation as new norms, notions of commitment began to take on new meanings that extended beyond the traditional confines of heterosexual marriage. The changing nature of sexuality, courtship, and increasing levels of cohabitation in the 1990s had a significant influence on the questions that sexuality researchers began to ask and the language in which they expressed their findings. In the early 1990s, Simpson and Gangestad (1991) introduced the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory

(SOI), a short self-report measure designed to assess individual differences in the willingness to have sex outside of a committed relationship. Whereas much prior research on sexual promiscuity had focused only on the willingness to engage in pre-marital sexual relations,

Simpson and Gangestad argued that pre-marital sexual permissiveness is considerably different from sexual permissiveness in the absence of commitment to and emotional closeness with a sexual partner (1991, p. 871). They introduced the construct of SSO, or sociosexuality, to reflect differences in the overall orientation toward uncommitted sex. The emergence of SSO marked part of an overall investigative shift to a focus on wholly uncommitted sexual dynamics. The question itself was a product of sociocultural developments in which pre-marital sex and temporary cohabitation gradually had become accepted features of social life. Earlier researchers used the term ‘pre-marital’ sex because nearly everyone got married or aspired to marriage, but with as many people cohabitating as getting married near the turn of the 21st century, “pre- marital,” “promiscuity,” and other analytic terms were becoming relatively dated and the language that SSO researchers adopted surely reflects this. It’s not just about two regimes, pre- 16 marital and marital, but about extended periods of experimentation and courtship to a later age in both sexes than in Kinsey’s era, capped off by cohabitation or marriage.

When viewed in light of the historical context, it becomes clear how researchers’ shifting interests were significantly influenced by these larger sociocultural factors of the time period.

The SSO construct became widely popular and its use spread quickly throughout the social science community, especially among social and evolutionary psychologists and sexuality researchers whose work at the time was drawn toward an examination of the differences in long- term versus short-term mating strategies in humans. It proved to be a valuable tool in a number of published studies, the majority of which honed in on its relationship to mate choice preferences and dating behaviors. SSO was originally measured along a single broad dimension, with an individual’s total score being an amalgamation of various behavioral, attitudinal, and fantasy components. In 2008, Penke and Asendorph brought attention to the need for a more differentiated approach and introduced the SOI-R, a revised version of the SOI that allowed for the separate assessment of these items, arguing that the global perspective may shroud the unique contributions of each component. Although measuring it as a unitary construct is informative to a certain point, using the revised SOI-R to independently assess sociosexual behaviors, sociosexual attitudes, and sociosexual desires can be extremely beneficial as it provides deeper insight and leads to a greater understanding of the construct as a whole.

Sociosexual orientation (SSO) is an individual difference variable measuring the willingness to participate in sexual activity outside of an established relationship. It is the assessment of various sexual behaviors, attitudes, and desires, with lower scores indicating a more restricted sociosexuality and higher scores indicating a more unrestricted orientation.

Individuals with a restricted SSO are less likely to engage in casual sex and more likely to prefer 17 greater love, commitment, and emotional closeness with romantic partners. Conversely, individuals exhibiting an unrestricted SSO are more likely to feel comfortable engaging in sex without love, commitment, or closeness. Empirical evidence suggests that an unrestricted sociosexuality is associated with earlier sexual experiences, a greater number of sex partners, more frequent sexual activity, and the tendency to be involved in relationships characterized by lower levels of investment, less commitment, and weaker affectional ties. Moreover, unrestricted individuals, relative to restricted ones, are known to place greater value on physical attractiveness and social visibility over personal and potential parental qualities in a romantic partner (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991, 1992).

Although men on average report being more unrestricted than women, there appears to exist greater variation within the sexes than between them. Interestingly, studies comparing men and women have suggested that an unrestricted SSO may be more troublesome among males in the population. Yost and Zurbriggen (2006) found than an unrestricted SSO is associated with more undesirable behaviors, attitudes, and personality characteristics in men than women. For example, while women’s sexual permissiveness was associated with lower levels of sexual conservatism and sexual fantasies of dominating others, sexually permissive males demonstrated higher levels of rape myth acceptance, more conservative attitudes toward women, and a history of sexual aggression (Yost & Zurbriggen, 2006). Sociosexuality in men is also associated with a variety of attitudes related to sexism and traditional masculinity. The literature suggests that restricted men are more likely to believe in sex role egalitarianism, to hold liberal feminist attitudes, and to seek to transcend traditional masculinity, a concept that generally includes themes of social dominance and aggression (Walker, Tokar, & Fischer, 2000). With regard to mating behaviors, unrestricted men used direct competitive strategies when competing for a date; 18 restricted men, on the other hand, accentuated their positive personality characteristics and presented themselves as “nice guys” (Simpson, Gangestad, Christensen, & Leck, 1999).

Additionally, in the beginning stages of a romantic relationship, an unrestricted sociosexuality was associated with greater dominance, social engagement, and phoniness (Simpson, Gangestad,

& Biek, 1993).

Sociosexual Orientation and Social Hierarchy

Previous research has illustrated significant differences in individual SSO with relation to gender, personality traits, attachment styles, mating strategies, flirtation biases, dating behaviors, romantic partner preferences, and various social and political attitudes. However, very little is known about how it relates to individual differences in preferences for social hierarchies. In the following, we aim to expand on the current literature by exploring the relationship between sociosexuality and some preferences for social hierarchy that may correlate with important differences in human sexual expression. Preferences for hierarchy in society are frequently demonstrated through individual constructs such as Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), a variable indicating one’s overall tolerance for dominance and discrimination, and Social Values

Orientation (SVO), a reflection of how much weight a person attaches to the welfare of others in relation to their own. These preferences for social hierarchy share the common element of social exchange and it is theorized that SSO is related to these constructs because the expression of human sexuality also involves varying types of social exchange. One focus of the proposed study is to discover the ways in which SSO relates to individual differences in preferences for social hierarchy, including SDO and SVO. Another focus will involve a historical critique of the contemporary literature that is intended to provide readers with an accurate account of the 19 relation of Alfred Kinsey’s work to sociosexual orientation, especially regarding the term’s appropriation.

Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) is an individual difference variable that measures one’s preference for unequal relationships among social groups. It is best conceptualized as a social-attitudinal orientation toward intergroup relations, reflecting differences in the general desire for hierarchy versus equality. Items on the SDO scale are separated into two associated subscales, group-based dominance (GBD) and opposition to equality (OEQ); the former explores attitudes pertaining to in-group versus out-group competition while the latter examines general attitudes toward egalitarianism in the social system. Those scoring high in SDO have a greater preference for group-based discrimination and domination over lower-status groups, these individuals are more likely to support hierarchy-enhancing ideologies and policies that increase or maintain inequality in the social order. Those who score low in SDO prefer more equal relations between distinct social groups and are more likely to support hierarchy-attenuating ideologies and policies that reduce inequality between social groups. Not surprisingly, males consistently report higher levels of social dominance than their female counterparts and high social dominance has been shown to share a negative relationship with variables such as empathy, communality, and altruism; this remains true even after controlling for sex. Indeed, high social dominance-oriented people tend to express less concern for others than do low social dominance-oriented people (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994). Research also supports

SDO as a personality trait for predicting social and political attitudes. Pratto et al. demonstrated that scores on SDO scales have been found to predict, among other things, political and economic conservatism, cultural elitism, racism, sexism, and the belief in a just world (1994).

These variables illustrate several examples of social exchange. SDO involves hierarchal 20 exchanges of power and it is theorized that SSO relates to this construct because human sexual expression also deals with power exchanges, as highlighted by individual differences in the adoption of particular mating strategies of a more or less dominant nature.

Social Values Orientation (SVO) is a measure of individual differences in how people choose to allocate resources between themselves and others. It addresses the extent of concern an individual attaches to the welfare of others in relation to his or her own. It is best to conceptualize SVO on a continuum from proself to prosocial tendencies: proself individuals seek to maximize their own personal gains and prosocial individuals are relatively more concerned with the gains and losses of others. The four general categories on the SVO spectrum are individualistic, competitive, cooperative, and altruistic. Individualistic and competitive orientations are proself and demonstrate lower SVO scores while cooperative and altruistic orientations are more prosocial with higher SVO scores. We chose to measure SVO through a nine-item decomposed economic game that sorts people between prosocial, individualistic, and competitive categories (Van Lange, De Bruin, Otten, & Joireman, 1997). Each item forces people to choose between three types of point allocations to oneself and one hypothetical other person: a prosocial choice that maximizes collective gain between oneself and another, an individualistic choice that maximizes gain for the participant taking the task, and a competitive choice that maximizes the difference between oneself and another. Van Lange et al. (1997) found most people were consistently prosocial, some people acted individualistically, and relatively few acted competitively.

Components of the SVO spectrum are likely to influence modern dating strategies and sexual practices. For example, prosocial individuals might invest more time and positive energy into mate pursuance out of a general respect for individual persons; they may be increasingly 21 able to demonstrate both patience and understanding with real or potential partners, even in the face of adversarial circumstances where they may not directly benefit from a given situation.

These individuals can feel comfortable giving more than they receive out of a genuine concern for the welfare of others. Proself individuals, on the other hand, might be less likely to pursue a real or potential mate when faced with circumstances in which they’re expected to put more into a relationship than they feel they’ve received, or when challenged by the perception alone that greater personal benefit could be reaped by focusing efforts elsewhere. SVO involves the social exchange of resources and it is theorized that SSO relates to this construct because human sexual expression also deals with resource exchange, as highlighted by individual differences in the endorsement of particular mating strategies of a more or less altruistic nature.

Current Study: Aims and Hypotheses

The proposed study is designed to address the relationship between SSO and some key constructs in the preference for social hierarchy, including SDO and SVO. The hypothesis is that significant correlations exist among these constructs because human sexuality involves complex interpersonal dynamics of social exchange that have been linked to various preferences for hierarchy in previous research (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991, 1992; Yost & Zurbriggen, 2006;

Walker et al., 2000; Simpson et al., 1993, 1999). For the purposes of this project, the concept of social exchange is intended to illustrate the ways in which these constructs are interconnected.

We hypothesize that SSO will share a positive association with SDO and a negative association with SVO. This honors thesis project is expected to yield novel and stimulating information about how human sexual expression relates to key constructs in preferences for social hierarchies, including differences in the tolerance for group-based dominance and discrimination, and how much weight a person attaches to the welfare of others in relation to their own. Due to 22 the historically taboo and stigmatizing nature of sexually permissive behavior in Western society, we included self-reported stress regulation as a miscellaneous variable in the analysis to provide supplementary data in this study. In addition, a historical overview and critique of the sociosexuality literature aims to provide readers with concrete facts regarding Kinsey’s use of the term “sociosexual” versus the “sociosexual orientation” construct that researchers are using today. This research will be of interest to a wide variety of disciplines, including psychology, history, anthropology, sociology, political science, and behavioral neuroscience.

METHODS

Participants and Procedures

The sample (N=91) consisted of ninety-one participants taking part in the study, including 65 females and 35 males. All participants were undergraduate students at Oregon State

University currently enrolled in a psychology course. Students were recruited through the online

SONA registration system available for students in psychology classes who would like to partake in psychology studies. Participants completed each self-report scale through an online survey system outside of the laboratory environment; these scales were part of a larger set of questionnaires that took about one hour to complete.

Materials

Sociosexual Orientation (SSO)

The personality construct of ‘sociosexual orientation’ or, in short, ‘sociosexuality’ describes interindividual differences in the tendency to engage in sexual relationships without deeper emotional commitment. Participants completed a 9-item self-report SOI-R questionnaire

(Penke & Asendorpf, 2008), which is divided into three facets to assess their sexual behaviors, attitudes, and desires. Responses were assessed along a single dimension from “restricted” to 23

“unrestricted,” with lower scores indicating a more restricted orientation and higher scores indicating a more unrestricted orientation (See Appendix A).

Social Dominance Orientation (SDO)

Social Dominance Orientation was measured by a series of scales containing a balance of pro- and contra-trait statements or phrases (See Appendix B). A 7-point Likert scale is used for each item, where participants rate their agreement or disagreement with the statements from 1

(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Individual’s who are high in SDO score higher on the scale. Items on the SDO scale are separated into two associated subscales, group-based dominance (GBD) and opposition to equality (OEQ). The former explores attitudes pertaining to in-group vs. out-group competition while the latter examines general attitudes toward egalitarianism in the social system (Pratto et al., 1994).

Social Values Orientation (SVO)

Social Values Orientation, a measure of how people behave when assessing and allocating economic value between themselves and others, is a powerful tool for classifying individual differences in prosocial behavior. It is measured through a nine-item decomposed economic game that sorts people between prosocial, individualistic, and competitive categories

(Van Lange, De Bruin, Otten, & Joireman, 1997). It is important to recognize that these should be conceptualized on a continuum; no single individual is exclusively proself or prosocial. Each item forces people to choose between three types of point allocations to oneself and one hypothetical other person: a prosocial choice that maximizes collective gain between oneself and another, an individualistic choice that maximizes gain for the participant taking the task, and a competitive choice that maximizes the difference between oneself and another. Van Lange et al.

(1997) found most people were consistently prosocial, some people acted individualistically, and 24 relatively few acted competitively. Respondents who responded in the same fashion at least seven times were assigned a category along a spectrum of competitive to prosocial, with individualistic being intermediate. For the purpose of analyzing non-parametric correlations along this dimension, competitive participants were assigned a value of ‘1’, individualistic participants received a value of ‘2’, and prosocial participants a value of ‘3’ (See Appendix C).

Those who were not consistent in their responses were treated as missing data.

Stress Regulation

Stress regulation was included as a miscellaneous variable to provide supplementary data in this study (See Appendix D). The stress regulation scale is a self-reported measure of how individuals tend to deal with stressful situations, both behaviorally and cognitively, with higher scores indicating an increased capacity to regulate perceived stress (Saturn, S.R., Saslow, L.R.,

& John, O. (unpublished). It is modeled after the Gross & John Emotion Regulation Questionaire

(2003).

RESULTS

A correlational analysis was performed in order to explore the relationship between SSO and individual differences in preferences for social hierarchies, including SDO and SVO, as well as stress regulation. Gender differences were also examined. Consistent with previous research, men reported higher composite SOI scores and were more unrestricted overall (r=-.39; p<.001).

Recall that SSO encompasses three interdependent subscales: sociosexual behaviors, attitudes, and desires. The separate assessment of these items through the SOI-R provided us with several novel findings that were not apparent in the global scoring approach, including some profound gender differences in the enactment of sociosexuality. The behavioral facet of SSO was independently and positively correlated with stress regulation for women (r=.27; p=.03), 25 indicating that women who engage in casual sexual encounters reported a greater capacity to regulate perceived stress. This is particularly interesting because the majority of current literature tends to focus on the negative aspects of female promiscuity. The attitudinal facet of sociosexuality showed an independent and negative association with SVO (more competitive profile) for women (r=-.25; p=.09). This suggests that women holding unrestricted evaluative dispositions toward uncommitted sex displayed greater competitive tendencies when faced with decisions surrounding resource allocation. For both men and women, the desire facet of SSO was independently and positively correlated with the entire SDO scale (r=.24; p= .01). Sociosexual desire is comparable to general sexual desire in that both describe a motivational state characterized by heightened sexual interest, often combined with subjective sexual arousal and sexual fantasies. However, sociosexual desire is distinguished by a clear motivational component in that one’s sexual attraction is specifically targeted at potential mates with whom no romantic relationship yet exists (Penke & Asendorpf, 2008). Our finding suggests that those with increasingly higher levels of unrestricted sociosexual desire may be more likely to possess certain preferences for domination and discrimination within social relations. Possible interpretations and implications of these findings will be covered in more detail in the discussion section.

DISCUSSION

Exploratory Analysis

Sociosexual orientation (SSO) is a measure of individual differences in the willingness to engage in sexual activity with partners outside of a committed relationship. People with a more restricted orientation are less likely to engage in casual sex and more likely to prefer greater love, commitment, and emotional closeness with romantic partners. Those with an unrestricted 26 orientation are more likely to feel comfortable engaging in sex without love, commitment, or closeness. While the construct was originally assessed along a single broad dimension, researchers have since developed a method that allows for the independent assessment of the three separate components of sociosexuality: behaviors, attitudes, and desires. The literature suggests that while the global construct is informative to a certain extent, testing the unique contributions of each component should help shed light on the measure as a whole, allowing us to increase our overall understanding and provide fruitful direction for future research. The current study examined the relationship between SSO and some preferences for hierarchy in society, all of which manifest through various types of social exchange. Previous research has demonstrated a number of links between individual SSO and the endorsement of certain hierarchal themes related to social dominance, competition, and varying altruistic tendencies

(Simpson & Gangestad, 1991, 1992; Yost & Zurbriggen, 2006; Walker et al., 2000; Simpson et al., 1993, 1999). Consistent with the evidence, we found a significant gender difference in that men reported higher global scores and were more unrestricted overall. We hypothesized that

SSO would be positively associated with SDO and negatively associated with SVO. While the global SOI was unrelated to both SDO and SVO in this study, independent assessments of each of the three facets of sociosexuality yielded some interesting differences that have yet to be covered in the current literature. Our results confirm that the differentiated system of measurement can be useful for identifying some of the unique contributions of each component.

Due to the historically taboo and stigmatizing nature of sexually permissive behavior in

Western society, we believed that stress regulation would be an interesting variable to include for supplementary data in the analysis. Indeed, the behavior component of SSO, reflecting the quantity of past short-term encounters, shows strong, positive, and unique links to self-reported 27 stress regulation in women. One way to interpret these results is that greater stress regulation evolved as a protective mechanism for women who frequently engage in casual sexual encounters. Sexually unrestricted women may use this adaptation to deflect the damaging impression of easy promiscuity, and it’s understandable that gender differences exist here because sexual permissiveness has always been more acceptable for males in the population, so they in effect probably feel less stress from an unrestricted sexual expression. Furthermore, if restricted women feel pressures in their social milieu to conform to more unrestricted patterns of behavior, this could account for their lower self-reported ability to regulate stress.

This finding was only trending in the analysis. The attitudinal component of SSO was negatively associated with SVO (more competitive profile) in women, suggesting that women holding relatively unrestricted attitudes toward casual sex demonstrated less concern for the welfare of others when assessing and allocating resources. By endorsing attitudes that accept casual sex, unrestricted women are violating the traditional feminine gender role that emphasizes monogamy and emotional commitment. In their selfish allocation of resources and ultimate lack of concern for others, they are also violating the traditional gender role that emphasizes altruism and nurturance and are instead acting assertively, independently, and competitively. This finding was very close to being statistically significant and is a fertile area for future research to explore.

Sociosexual desire was positively associated with the entire SDO scale, suggesting that individuals who desire sexual relations with uncommitted partners demonstrated a greater tolerance for group-based dominance and discrimination. It could be that men and women with high levels of unrestricted sociosexual desire may experience fantasies and desires involving themes of dominance more often. This is consistent with past evidence that suggests unrestricted

SSO is associated with aggressive behavior in males and fantasies of dominating others in 28 females (Yost & Zurbriggen, 2006). This tolerance for rough sex in both men and women may be viewed as a kind of acting out of attitudes of dominance and discrimination as “natural” parts of social power exchange. These individuals may also be more likely to act upon those sexual fantasies and desires, which could make this group increasingly likely to cheat on a significant other due to their higher motivational inclination towards short-term encounters.

Historical Critique

Despite its undeniable success as a research construct, a problematic theme running through the sociosexuality literature is a tendency for researchers to misinterpret and inaccurately express Alfred Kinsey’s connection to this modern construct, with many studies suggesting that

Kinsey himself is responsible for the introduction and coinage of the term. A closer examination reveals that while Kinsey did make use of the term “sociosexual” in his early reports of human sexuality, he uses it in an entirely different sense than modern researchers like to claim. The term

“socio-sexual” is found precisely three times in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. The first use, on p. 633, is preceded by a discussion on p. 632 of the problems that homosexual men have in finding “outlets” for their desires. Unlike heterosexual men, who, when they are married, have reliable sexual outlets with their wives, homosexual men, who are often timid and, according to

Kinsey, very particular in their tastes, may go years without any “outlet.” Other homosexuals, who have knowledge of how to “find them [partners] in abundance” may have “outlet” rates higher than most heterosexual males. But the combination of timidity and pickiness may result in long periods without sexual relations. Then, on p. 633 is the paragraph: “There are some males who are primarily or even exclusively homosexual in their psychic responses,” by which he means psychological fantasy or desire, “but who may completely abstain from overt relations for moral reasons or for fear of social difficulties,” by which he is referring to law and reputation, 29

“left without any socio-sexual contacts, some of these persons have essentially no outlet, and some of them are, therefore, very badly upset” (Kinsey et al., 1948).

The term is then used in two graphs on p. 656 and on p. 658. The first is a bar graph rating % of men falling on the 0-6 spectrum in % of the total population. The category X, which is the smallest of all, is reserved for the men who “have no socio-sexual contacts or reactions;” by reactions he means men who have been approached by other men and “reacted” to them. The second graph shows males from birth to age 45 according to their degree of heterosexual or homosexual response in their life experiences. Heterosexual peaks out at 90% by age 45 and homosexual goes from a high at age ten down to about 5% at age 45. The third line is labeled:

“no socio-sexual response,” which clearly means a vanishingly small number [the line bottoms out at age 20 and stays there] who have never had any sexual contact [or reaction to contact] at all (Kinsey et al., 1948). They are, in effect, asexual for Kinsey’s purposes, since he is concerned only with what can be measured. The available evidence suggests that Alfred Kinsey’s use of the term “sociosexual” in the 1940s meant nothing more than sexual relations in society, in other words contact with another person. He means to contrast “psychic” sexuality with “social” or

“real” sexuality and it is so general a notion that it has no analytic value at all.

Earlier we discussed how Kinsey’s goal was to establish the universal, though socially differentiated, need and expression of sexual outlet. He suggested that social determinants such as religion, education, and class influence what is, at bottom, a biological drive toward sexual release. Modern SSO researchers are not using the same type of explanatory framework; they seem to be more interested in finding the correlates of “restricted”/”unrestricted” categories, which is a far different thing than Kinsey’s far more ambitious attempt to establish causal channels of the biological and social influences that drive individuals toward particular “outlets.” 30

However, Kinsey does mention that if sexual behavior were “unrestricted,” rates of sexual contact and orgasm would be much higher than they are now because the human “biologic” capacity for orgasm is much higher than actual sexual practice; he explains that “it is not simple to determine the extent to which an individual’s total outlet represents something less than the rate to which he would rise if there were no restrictions on his behavior” (Kinsey et al., 1948, p.

205). The “restrictions” he refers to here are the social, moral, and religious prohibitions against sex that individuals internalize, a process that significantly alters the number and types of avenues and opportunities one perceives as appropriate/acceptable for fulfilling their biologically determined need for sexual release. In this sense he does make the “unrestricted”/”restricted” distinction, but the “unrestricted” category applies to so few people that it amounts to a kind of utopian situation. Whereas contemporary SSO researchers use “unrestricted” as a relative category of analysis, Kinsey believed that an unrestricted sexuality was essentially unattainable in the Western society of his time period. While SSO research is certainly valid for its time, that is, the recent present, the expression of human sexuality is constantly changing and will be different in the future in ways that researchers cannot anticipate. The questions we ask and the answers we reveal will remain relative to their specific historical circumstances. This is why the role of historical context in the interpretation of scientific literature cannot be ignored.

Modern SSO researchers are lacking the appropriate historical perspective in their work.

They do not seem to appreciate the extent to which their work differs from Kinsey’s nor the extent to which dating, courtship, marriage and cohabitation patterns are rapidly changing and may make what they are finding now not applicable to patterns ten years from now. Instead, they seem to present themselves as Kinsey’s heirs, which they are, but perhaps not as directly or unambiguously as they claim. Kinsey used the term “sociosexual” very differently and he saw 31

“unrestricted” sexuality as a more or less utopian concept achievable by very few individuals, while everyone else was restricted in some or multiple ways. SSO researchers must understand why it is inaccurate and misleading to apply the modern construct of sociosexuality to a historical period when such a concept did not yet exist. To suggest that the modern construct of sociosexual orientation is a direct product of Alfred Kinsey’s efforts in the early twentieth century is to suggest that contemporary notions of “uncommitted sex” are conceptually similar to those that would have existed during Kinsey’s era. However, the open endorsement of casual sex during Kinsey’s time would have been unheard of since conceptualizations of “committed” and uncommitted” sex were still tied to sociocultural attitudes about pre-marital versus marital intercourse. Pre-marital sex and cohabitation were widely accepted by the 1990s and it was these sociocultural changes that set the stage for the introduction of the SSO construct. Consistent with the theory of dynamic nominalism, an “unrestricted sociosexual orientation” was not a real form of experience until the emergence of the SOI in the early 1990s. In other words, people did not experience themselves in such a way; they did not interact with their friends, their families, their employers, in such a way. However, in 1991, it was a way to be a person, to experience oneself, to live in society (Hacking, 2006).

The vital role of historical context is emphasized by the very fact that contemporary literature now has terminology to describe and assess attitudes and behaviors that would be incomprehensible to earlier generations. Earlier sexuality researchers, both guided and constrained by the specific social, political, and cultural conditions of their time, would not have yet possessed the basic linguistic or cognitive tools necessary to comprehend and appropriately visualize the implications that modern sexuality research entails. While SSO researchers today see unrestricted sexuality as common, Kinsey believed that such a concept was effectively 32 unobtainable for the majority of the population in the 1940s. In order to uphold the integrity of empirical investigation, SSO researchers must strive to distinguish their efforts from Kinsey’s by paying greater attention to the role of historical context. We suggest that knowledge of the history of sexuality is essential for a comprehensive understanding of contemporary scientific findings.

Limitations and Future Research

The current study contains several limitations. First, as is the case with all correlational designs, no implications for causation can be determined from the data provided. The use of self- report questionnaires poses an additional set of concerns. We must be weary of response bias and particularly social desirability bias. This occurs whenever participants respond to questions in ways that make them look better, such as over-reporting desirable behavior or under-reporting undesirable behavior. Due to the highly personal nature of the content being assessed in this research, we cannot be certain that every person in our sample answered honestly and without the desire to conform to societal norms of the present time period. There is also the risk that individuals might understand the same questions differently or carry different perceptions of rating scales used. The nature of the non-probability sampling procedure could result in a self- selection bias because participants recruited themselves through a university psychology class. In addition, our analysis only included subjects who identified as heterosexual. Future work might explore differences among individuals identifying as homosexual. Our findings may not be generalizable to the entire population and future research might benefit from replicating this study with a larger and more diverse sample. Subsequent research might also look into age differences with SSO, as younger generations will likely display much more unrestricted sexual expression in comparison to older cohorts. Furthermore, a longitudinal analysis may help shed 33 light on changes in individual SSO over the lifespan. It seems reasonable to believe that sociosexuality may become increasingly more restricted as a natural part of the aging process.

An investigation of SSO in prisoners could also be a fruitful area for future research, although gaining access to this vulnerable and protected population will likely be difficult. Instead, we might settle for individuals on parole; it could be informative to understand the ways that time spent behind bars may impact the enactment of individual sociosexuality. Other areas worth exploring in future research might include comparisons across racial, ethnic, and regional constructs. Lastly, follow-up research should include a through investigation of the female volume of Kinsey’s work, as the male version was the sole focus of this study. This will allow for a more comprehensive picture regarding Kinsey’s use of “socio-sexual” and how his early efforts have contributed to our understanding of contemporary sexuality research.

REFERENCES

Chesler, E. (1999). The Origins of the Birth Control Movement. In R. A. Nye (Ed.), Sexuality

(pp. 312-314). Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.

Ericksen, J.A., & Steffen, S.A. (1999). Kiss and Tell: Surveying Sex in the 20th Century.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gross, J.J., & John, O.P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes:

Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 85, 348-362.

Hacking, I. (2006, August 17). Making up people. Retrieved from http://www.generation-

onlie.org/c/fcbiopolitics2.htm

Kinsey, A.C., Pomeroy, W.B., & Martin, C.E. (1948). Sexual Behavior in Human Male.

Philidelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Company.

May, E.T. (2010). America and The Pill. New York, NY: Basic Books.

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, 1113-1135.

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L.M., & Malle, B.F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A

personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 67, 741-763.

Saturn, S.R., Saslow, L.R., & John, O.P. (unpublished). Modeled after the Gross & John

Emotion Regulation Questionaire (2003). 35

Simpson, J.A., & Gangestad, S.W. (1991). Individual Differences in Sociosexuality: Evidence

for Convergent and Discriminant Validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

60, 870-883.

Simpson, J.A., & Gangestad, S.W. (1992). Sociosexuality and Romantic Partner Choice. Journal

of Personality, 60, 31-51.

Simpson, J.A., Gangestad, S.W., & Biek, M. (1993). Personality and non-verbal social behavior:

An ethological perspective of relationship initiation. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 29, 434-461.

Simpson, J.A., Gangestad, S.W., Christensen, P.N., & Leck, K. (1999). Fluctuating asymmetry,

sociosexuality, and intrasexual competitive tactics. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 76, 159-172.

Van Lange, P.A., De Bruin, E., Otten, W., & Joireman, J.A. (1997). Development of prosocial,

individualistic, and competitive orientations: theory and preliminary evidence. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 733.

Walker, D.F., Tokar, D.M., & Fischer, A.R. (2000). What are eight popular masculinity-related

instruments measuring? Underlying dimensions and their relations to sociosexuality.

Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 1, 98-108.

Yost, M.R., & Zurbriggen, E.L. (2006). Gender Differences in the Enactment of Sociosexulity:

An Examination of Implicit Social Motives, Sexual Fantasies, Coercive Sexual Attitudes,

and Aggressive Sexual Behavior. Journal of Sex Research, 43, 163-173.

APPENDIX A

The revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI-R)

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, 1113-1135.

Please respond honestly to the following questions: 1. With how many different partners have you had sex within the past 12 months? □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 0 1 2 3 4 5-6 7-9 10-19 20 or more

2. With how many different partners have you had sexual intercourse on one and only one occasion? □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 0 1 2 3 4 5-6 7-9 10-19 20 or more

3. With how many different partners have you had sexual intercourse without having an interest in a long-term committed relationship with this person? □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 0 1 2 3 4 5-6 7-9 10-19 20 or more

4. Sex without love is OK. 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □ 6 □ 7 □ 8 □ 9 □ Strongly disagree Strongly agree

5. I can imagine myself being comfortable and enjoying "casual" sex with different partners. 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □ 6 □ 7 □ 8 □ 9 □ Strongly disagree Strongly agree

6. I do not want to have sex with a person until I am sure that we will have a long-term, serious relationship. 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □ 6 □ 7 □ 8 □ 9 □ Strongly disagree Strongly agree

7. How often do you have fantasies about having sex with someone you are not in a committed romantic relationship with? □ 1 – never □ 2 – very seldom □ 3 – about once every two or three months 38

□ 4 – about once a month □ 5 – about once every two weeks □ 6 – about once a week □ 7 – several times per week □ 8 – nearly every day □ 9 – at least once a day

8. How often do you experience sexual arousal when you are in contact with someone you are not in a committed romantic relationship with? □ 1 – never □ 2 – very seldom □ 3 – about once every two or three months □ 4 – about once a month □ 5 – about once every two weeks □ 6 – about once a week □ 7 – several times per week □ 8 – nearly every day □ 9 – at least once a day

9. In everyday life, how often do you have spontaneous fantasies about having sex with someone you have just met? □ 1 – never □ 2 – very seldom □ 3 – about once every two or three months □ 4 – about once a month □ 5 – about once every two weeks □ 6 – about once a week □ 7 – several times per week □ 8 – nearly every day □ 9 – at least once a day

APPENDIX B

Social Dominance Orientation Scale

Social dominance orientation (SDO) is a personality trait which predicts social and political attitudes, and is a widely used social psychological scale. SDO is conceptualized as a measure of individual differences in levels of group-based discrimination; that is, it is a measure of an individual's preference for hierarchy within any social system and the domination of inferior groups. It is a predisposition toward anti-egalitarianism within and between groups.

Social Dominance Orientation was measured by a series of scales containing a balance of pro- and contra-trait statements or phrases. A 7-point Likert scale is used for each item, where participants rate their agreement or disagreement with the statements from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

1. Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups.

2. In getting what you want, it is sometimes necessary to use force against other groups.

3. It's OK if some groups have more of a chance in life than others.

4. To get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to step on other groups.

5. If certain groups stayed in their place, we would have fewer problems.

6. It's probably a good thing that certain groups are at the top and other groups are at the bottom.

7. Inferior groups should stay in their place.

8. Sometimes other groups must be kept in their place.

9. It would be good if groups could be equal.

10. Group equality should be our ideal.

11. All groups should be given an equal chance in life.

12. We should do what we can to equalize conditions for different groups.

13. Increased social equality.

14. We would have fewer problems if we treated people more equally.

15. We should strive to make incomes as equal as possible.

16. No one group should dominate in society. 41

APPENDIX C

Social Values Orientation

Social values orientation (SVO) is a psychological construct rooted in social psychology defined as a person's preference about how to allocate resources (e.g. money) between the self and another person. That is, SVO corresponds to how much weight a person attaches to the welfare of others in relation to the own. Since people are assumed to vary in the weight they attach to other people’s outcomes in relation to the own, SVO is an individual difference variable. The general concept underlying SVO has become widely studied in a variety of different scientific disciplines, such as economics, sociology, and biology under a multitude of different names (e.g. social preferences, other-regarding preferences, welfare tradeoff ratios, social motives, etc.).

In this next task we ask you to imagine that you have been randomly paired with another person, whom we will refer to simply as the “Other.” This other person is someone you do not know and that you will not knowingly meet in the future. Both you and the “Other” person will be making choices by circling either the letter A, B, or C. Your own choices will produce points for both yourself and the “Other” person. Likewise, the other’s choice will produce points for him/her and for you. Every point has value: The more points you receive, the better for you, and the more points the “Other” receives, the better for him/her.

Here’s an example of how this task works:

A B C You 500 500 550 get Other 100 500 300 gets

In this example, if you chose A you would receive 500 points and the other would receive 100 points; if you chose B, you would receive 500 points and the other 500; and if you chose C, you would receive 550 points and the other 300. So, you see that your choice influences both the number of points you receive and the number of points the other receives. Before you begin making choices, please keep in mind that there are no right or wrong answers—choose the option that you, for whatever reason, prefer most. Also, remember that the points have value: The more of them you accumulate, the better for you. Likewise, from the “other’s” point of view, the more points s/he accumulates, the better for him/her.

INSTRUCTIONS: For each of the nine choice situations, circle A, B, or C, depending on which column you prefer most:

(1) A B C You get 480 540 480 Other 80 280 480 gets (2) A B C You get 560 500 500 Other 300 500 100 gets 43

(3) A B C You get 520 520 580 Other 520 120 320 gets (4) A B C You get 500 560 490 Other 100 300 490 gets (5) A B C You get 560 500 490 Other 300 500 90 gets (6) A B C You get 500 500 570 Other 500 100 300 gets (7) A B C You get 510 560 510 Other 510 300 110 gets (8) A B C You get 550 500 500 Other 300 100 500 gets (9) A B C You get 480 490 540 Other 100 490 300 gets

APPENDIX D

Stress Regulation Scale

The stress regulation scale is a self-reported measure of how individuals tend to deal with stressful situations, both behaviorally and cognitively (Saturn, S.R., Saslow, L.R., & John, O.P., unpublished). It is modeled after the Gross & John Emotion Regulation Questionaire (2003).

The next set of items asks about how you deal with feeling stressed:

Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree

1. When I want to feel more relaxed and calm, I change what I'm thinking about.

2. I keep my stressful feelings to myself.

3. When I want to feel less stressed, I change what I'm thinking about.

4. When I am feeling stressed out, I am careful not to express it.

5. I control my feelings of being overwhelmed by not expressing them.

6. When I want to feel more relaxed and calm, I change the way I'm thinking about the situation.

7. I control my stressful feelings by changing the way I think about the situation I'm in.

8. When I am feeling like I am under a lot of pressure, I make sure not to express it.

9. When I want to feel less stressed, I change the way I'm thinking about the situation.