MIAMI UNIVERSITY The Graduate School

Certificate for Approving the Dissertation

We hereby approve the Dissertation

of

Steven Almaraz

Candidate for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

______Director Kurt Hugenberg

______Reader Allen McConnell

______Reader Jonathan Kunstman

______Graduate School Representative Monica Schneider

ABSTRACT

APPARENT SOCIOSEXUAL ORIENTATION: FACIAL CORRELATES AND CONSEQUENCES OF WOMEN’S UNRESTRICTED APPEARANCE

by

Steven M. Almaraz

People make quick work of forming a variety of impressions of one another based on minimal information. Recent work has shown that people are able to make judgments of others’ Apparent Sociosexual Orientation (ASO) – an estimation of how interested another person is in uncommitted sexual activity – based on facial information alone. In the present work, I used three studies to expand the understanding of this poorly understood facial judgment by investigating the dimensionality of ASO (Study 1), the facial predictors of ASO (Study 2), and the consequences of these ASO judgments on men’s hostility and benevolence towards women (Study 3). In Study 1, I showed that men’s judgments of women’s Apparent Sociosexual Orientation were organized into judgments of women’s appearance of unrestricted attitudes and desires (Intrapersonal ASO) and their appearance of unrestricted behaviors (Behavioral ASO). Study 2 revealed that more attractive and more dominant appearing women were perceived as more sexually unrestricted. In Study 3, I found that women who appeared to engage in more unrestricted behavior were subjected to increased benevolent sexism, though this effect was primarily driven by unrestricted appearing women’s attractiveness. However, women who appeared to have sexually unrestricted attitudes and desires were subjected to increased hostility, even when controlling for the effects of the facial correlates found in Study 2. Taken together, this work sheds light on how men make judgments of women’s Apparent Sociosexual Orientation and reveals the effects these judgments have on which women are subjected to hostile and benevolent sexism.

APPARENT SOCIOSEXUAL ORIENTATION: FACIAL CORRELATES AND CONSEQUENCES OF WOMEN’S UNRESTRICTED APPEARANCE

A DISSERTATION

Presented to the Faculty of

Miami University in partial

fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Psychology

by

Steven M. Almaraz

The Graduate School Miami University Oxford, Ohio

2019

Dissertation Director: Kurt Hugenberg

©

Steven Michael Almaraz

2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ...... v List of Figures ...... vi Dedication ...... vii Acknowledgments ...... viii Introduction ...... 1 Individual Sociosexual Orientation ...... 3 Apparent Sociosexual Orientation ...... 6 Downstream Implications of ASO for Social Judgment: The Case of Ambivalent Sexism ...... 9 Present Work ...... 11 Study 1: Judgments of Women’s Sociosexuality ...... 12 Preliminary Study 1 ...... 15 Method ...... 15 Results ...... 18 Discussion ...... 20 Study 2: Predicting Apparent Sociosexuality Judgments from Targets’ Facial Cues ...... 21 Preliminary Study 2 ...... 22 Method ...... 24 Results ...... 24 Discussion ...... 27 Study 3: Are Hostile and Benevolent Sexism Differentially Targeted at Women Varying in Apparent Sociosexual Orientation? ...... 28 Preliminary Study 3 ...... 31 Method ...... 31

iii Results ...... 33 Discussion ...... 36 General Discussion ...... 36 Moving Forward ...... 42 Limitations and Future Directions ...... 44 Conclusion ...... 47 References ...... 48 Tables ...... 57 Figures ...... 61 Appendix A – Preliminary Study 1 ...... 63 Appendix B – Apparent Sociosexual Orientation Inventory ...... 67 Appendix C – Revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory ...... 69 Appendix D – Preliminary Study 2 ...... 71 Appendix E – Preliminary Study 3 ...... 74 Appendix F – Individual Ambivalent Sexism Inventory ...... 77 Appendix G – ASI-I Item 7 Results ...... 78

iv LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 – Study 1 Factor Loadings for the ASOI ...... 57 Table 2 – Study 2 Partial Correlations of ASO Judgments ...... 58 Table 3 – Study 3 Factor Loadings for the ASI-I ...... 59 Table 4 – Study 3 Results of Multiple Regression Analyses ...... 60

v LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 – Example Stimuli ...... 61 Figure 2 – Apparent Behavioral Unrestrictedness in Study 2 ...... 62

vi DEDICATION

To Jaclyn, For picking me up when I’m down For never giving me an inch For helping me to think differently For challenging me to always be better For weathering the storm For pushing me when I need to be pushed For listening when I need an ear I can’t imagine what this journey would have been like if I had done it alone, but I’m glad I’ll never find out This is your accomplishment too In short, you a’ight

vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This dissertation is the culmination of years of hard work by both myself and countless others who have been with me along the way. First, I’d like to thank my advisor Kurt Hugenberg. Kurt, you have been an incredible advisor. You always seem to know the perfect thing to say, both in research conversations and in life. These two components of your mentorship –academic support and social support – have helped transform me into the scientist and the person that I am today. Thank you. So many other professors, mentors, and colleagues are worthy of acknowledgment. Without Kerri Johnson and D.J. Lick guiding me into the world of Social Psychology at UCLA, I may never have even begun this journey. At Miami, I have been advised and taught by so many amazing professors in the social psychology area, but I would especially like to thank Jonathan Kunstman, Allen McConnell, and Heather Claypool, each of whom served on multiple committees for me in the last five years. And to my amazing classmates and colleagues, Paige Lloyd, Jason Deska, Kathleen Stanko, Taylor Tuscherer, and Pirita See, your mentorship and friendship was critical to my development. Thank you all for your contributions to my education and to this work. I would be remiss not to mention my various support networks, including my Miami Psychology cohort, the SISPP inequality crew, the Diekenbergers, and the Almaraz-Sim-Stanko reading group. Being able to share experiences with all of you has made the ups and downs of graduate school bearable. Finally, I owe a big thank you to my most recent labmate and officemate, Mattea Sim. You get a special thank you for helping me wrestle with these ideas basically every day for a year. I couldn’t have imagined how impactful sharing an office with you would be. Occasionally, we probably could have gotten more actual work done, but discussing (and arguing about) Psychology is it’s own reward. Thank you. I wish you the best and I know you’ll do amazing things.

viii Apparent sociosexual orientation: Facial correlates and consequences of women’s unrestricted appearance People make quick work of forming a variety of impressions of one another based on minimal information present in the face. Almost immediately upon viewing a face, people infer race, sex, and approximate age (Macrae & Martin, 2007; Richeson & Trawalter, 2005; Wright & Stroud, 2002). We also use information from facial expressions to interpret others’ emotions (e.g., Baron­Cohen, Wheelwright, Hill, Raste, & Plumb, 2001), how they might behave in a given situation (e.g., Van’t Wout & Sanfey, 2008), and whether they are likely to interact with us (e.g., Cary, 1978), among other impressions (for a review, see Hugenberg & Wilson, 2013). Further, people also use others’ facial information to infer their personality traits and mental capacities. For instance, people whose features appear babyish are inferred to be trustworthy and warm, but also relatively naïve and unintelligent (i.e., like babies; Zebrowitz & Montepare, 1992). Conversely, individuals with more mature faces (e.g., smaller eyes; lower brows) are inferred to be comparatively more dominant and powerful (Oosterhof & Todorov, 2008; Todorov, Said, Engell, & Oosterhof, 2008). Trait impressions like these can be formed after quite minimal exposure to faces (as little as 100 milliseconds), and are made with a high degree of consensus for many traits (e.g., trustworthiness, dominance, competence, attractiveness; Willis & Todorov, 2006). The importance of these face-based impressions is underscored by evidence showing that they predict important downstream social judgments. For example, people tend to vote for candidates whose faces appear attractive, trustworthy, mature, and competent (Franklin & Zebrowitz, 2016; Todorov, Mandisodza, Goren, & Hall, 2005). Recent research has indicated that people also make inferences about others’ sexual interest and behavior from their faces at zero acquaintance. Indeed, several research groups have begun to investigate judgments of Apparent Sociosexual Orientation (ASO), here defined as perceivers’ beliefs about targets’ tendencies to engage in or to be open to brief sexual encounters or sexual relationships without love, based solely on targets’ faces or non-verbal behaviors (e.g., Boothroyd, Jones, Burt, DeBruine, & Perrett, 2008; Stillman & Maner, 2009). Although recent work has begun to consider how perceivers make judgments of Apparent Sociosexual Orientation, these investigations have, in general, been restricted either to the accuracy of ASO judgments or the relationship between ASO judgments and signals in targets’ faces and non- verbal behavior (e.g., women’s attractiveness or smiling predicting ASO judgments; Boothroyd

1 et al., 2008). Notably, reactions to women who are actually unrestricted are often negative, with unrestricted women subject to increased hostility and decreased benevolence (e.g., Sibley & Wilson, 2004), suggesting women who merely appear unrestricted may be subjected to similar treatment. Here, I seek to advance this nascent literature by expanding past work on the structure, facial correlates, and consequences of men’s judgments of women’s ASO. To this end, I will first briefly survey past work examining individuals’ actual sociosexual orientation, a key conceptual precursor to ASO, and consider how theory and measurement of individual differences in actual sociosexual orientation might inform judgments of others’ Apparent Sociosexual Orientation. Then, I will discuss the established causes and consequences of hostile and benevolent sexism. Finally, I will present three studies that investigate the dimensional structure (Study 1) and facial correlates of ASO judgments (Study 2), and test whether men’s hostile and benevolent evaluations of women are predicted by those women’s ASO (Study 3). In the present work, I focus on heterosexual men’s judgments of women’s ASO in particular. I do this for multiple reasons. First, appearing unrestricted may have substantively different consequences for heterosexual men and women. Whereas stereotypes of men paint them as relatively sexually unrestricted in their thoughts and behavior, women are traditionally expected to remain chaste and pure. It may not be surprising then that men often subject women who engage in unrestricted sex or in behavior that may suggest unrestrictedness (e.g., initiating a date) to harmful treatment, such as hostile sexism and victim blaming (Muehlenhard, Friedman, & Thomas, 1985; Sibley & Wilson, 2004). Considering these reactions to women who engage in unrestricted behavior, women who merely appear unrestricted may also face unique negative consequences, compared to their unrestricted appearing male counterparts. Second, men are often in higher power roles than are women, putting them more commonly in position to sexually harass potentially vulnerable (female) subordinates, behavior which could be guided by or exacerbated by judgments of women’s sociosexuality. Indeed, men in powerful positions often over-perceive sexual interest from subordinate women, which may contribute to sexual harassment in the workplace (Kunstman & Maner, 2011). Because perceived sexual interest plays a role in such harassment decisions, closely related judgments of women’s ASO (i.e., perceived interest in unrestricted sex, generally) may be of acute practical interest, and therefore a sensible place to begin this investigation.

2 Individual Sociosexual Orientation Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin (1948) first used the term sociosexual orientation to refer to an individual’s tendency to engage in or be open to brief sexual encounters or sexual relationships without love. Sexually restricted individuals, compared to relatively more unrestricted individuals, believe more emotional closeness is required before engaging in sexual activities and are less interested in sexual encounters that are not accompanied by a monogamous committed relationship. Unsurprisingly, more restricted individuals tend to pursue fewer romantic partners (Seal, Agostinelli, & Hannett, 1994), engage in less sexual intercourse (Ostovich & Sabini, 2004), and are more committed in romantic relationships than relatively unrestricted individuals (Mattingly, Clark, Weidler, Bullock, Hackathorn, & Blankmeyer, 2011; Simpson, 1987). In the past three decades, extensive research has investigated possible causes of variation across individuals’ sociosexuality, personality traits that are related to variations in sociosexuality, and the consequences of being sexually restricted or unrestricted. One of the most consistent findings in this literature is that women, in general, are more sexually restricted than men (Hyde, 2005; Schmitt, 2005). That said, there is actually more variability within the sexes than between them (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991). According to the Strategic Pluralism Model (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), women evaluate men along dimensions of gene quality, which is closely related to attractiveness, and parent quality, which is more akin to relationship investment. Men with good gene quality (i.e., attractive men) should be in high demand and, as such, should not need to invest in relationships in order to mate (unrestricted sociosexuality), whereas men with less optimal gene quality must display relationship commitment in order to attract mates (restricted sociosexuality). For women, Gangestad and Simpson suggest a number of situational factors, including the relative safety of the environment and women’s access to resources, that may influence whether or not individual women will prefer committed or uncommitted relationships. Thus, this model articulates why one might observe a good deal of variability within the sexes, despite the consistent between-sex differences. Although other established theories of sociosexuality also exist (e.g., life-history theory; Stearns, 1992), the Strategic Pluralism Model was among the first to focus on explaining both between- and within- sex differences in sociosexual orientation.

3 Relatedly, many researchers have investigated other personality characteristics that are related to variability in sociosexuality. Among other things, unrestricted individuals tend to be more aggressive, immoral, disinhibited, and socially distant, and less agreeable, trustworthy, and conscientious than restricted individuals (Gangestad & Simpson, 1990; Probst, 1999; Schmitt & Buss, 2000; Wright, 1999; Wright & Reise, 1997). In addition, restricted individuals are generally more conservative than their unrestricted counterparts (Wright, 1999). Interestingly, although there is notable overlap across the sexes in these traits, many traits related to individual differences in sociosexual orientation are related to the stereotypically masculine trait of dominance (e.g., high aggressiveness, low agreeableness), reflecting the gendered nature of sociosexual orientation as a whole. Other work has more directly connected gendered characteristics to variation in sociosexuality. For example, there is some evidence that individual differences in testosterone may also predict sociosexual orientation (e.g., Townsend, 1999). Because testosterone plays a key role in generating sexual desire, it may be reasonable to propose that testosterone levels could be related to sexual restrictedness (Ellison, 2001; see also Regan & Berscheid, 1999). Supporting this possibility, Gray, Kahlenberg, Barrett, Lipson, and Ellison (2002) found that men higher in testosterone invest less into their romantic relationships, as evidenced by them spending less time with their romantic partners. Relatedly, Clark (2004) found that women with relatively more masculine digit ratios in their hands, a trait indicative of high prenatal testosterone levels, were more sexually unrestricted than women with more feminine digit ratios. Further, both men and women with more unrestricted sociosexual orientations rate themselves and are rated by others as having more stereotypically masculine traits (e.g., forceful, dominant) than their restricted counterparts (for review, see Simpson, Wilson, & Winterheld, 2004). Thus, past work has found that both men and women with more dominant personalities and more masculine biology and morphology tend to have more unrestricted sociosexual orientations. Recent research has shifted focus from the personality correlates of sociosexuality to questions about whether sociosexuality is a multidimensional construct. Indeed, whereas past research on sociosexuality typically assessed individuals’ engagement in, opinions about, and desire for uncommitted sex as representative of a single trait sociosexual orientation, multiple research groups have shown sociosexuality to have a multidimensional structure. For example, Webster and Bryan (2007) suggested that investigations using the original measure of

4 sociosexuality (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991) should distinguish between items that assess interpersonal behaviors and those that assess intrapersonal attitudes. They had a large number of participants complete Simpson and Gangestad’s Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI) and tested both one-dimensional and two-dimensional factor structures. Indeed, they found that a two-dimensional model representing intrapersonal and behavioral questions fit the data best. Further, whereas the SOI as a whole was related to both hostility and narcissism, using their two- dimensional model showed participants’ hostility was primarily related to their behavior, whereas their narcissism was related to intrapersonal unrestrictedness, suggesting their multidimensional model allowed for more predictive precision than the averaged score. Extending this work, Penke and Asendorpf (2008) investigated whether intrapersonal sociosexuality can be further separated into overt beliefs about unrestricted sex and desires and fantasies about unrestricted sex. To investigate this possibility, they constructed the Revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI-R), which includes items related to individuals’ unrestricted sexual actions (behavior subcomponent), their attitudes about unrestricted sex (attitudes subcomponent), and their fantasies about unrestricted sex (desire subcomponent). As they predicted, Penke and Asendorpf found that these subcomponents formed distinct aspects of sociosexuality. In fact, the correlations between the behavior, attitudes, and desire subcomponents of the SOI-R were small to moderate (rs between .17 and .55), indicating that collapsing them into a single score may obscure relationships between the individual subcomponents. Importantly, these components vary in their unique relationships to behaviors, personality traits, and relationship outcomes previously linked to sociosexual orientation (Penke & Asendorpf, 2008). Unrestricted sexual desires were uniquely related to worse overall relationship quality and increased possibility of and engagement in extra-pair sexual encounters in both men and women. Restricted attitudes, but not behaviors or desires, were related to increased religiosity. Additionally, the behavior subcomponent was related to both men’s and women’s flirting behavior in a staged interaction with an attractive confederate. The fact that these sub- components showed discriminant and unique predictive validity indicates that behavior, attitudes, and desire are important and distinct facets of individuals’ sociosexuality. Across this research on sociosexuality, the methodology has focused primarily on individuals’ ratings of their own sociosexuality and how this orientation is related to their past

5 and future behavior, attitudes, global personality characteristics, and life histories (e.g., Simpson & Gangestad, 1991; Stearns, 1992; Wright, 1999; etc.). In the present work, I focus not on individuals’ ratings of their own sociosexual orientation, but instead on ratings of others’ sociosexual orientation made from facial appearance at zero acquaintance, which I refer to as Apparent Sociosexual Orientation. Apparent Sociosexual Orientation The present work is not the first attempt to understand visual judgments of Apparent Sociosexual Orientation. In fact, a small number of previous studies have investigated whether perceivers can make accurate or consensual judgments of targets’ ASO. Though research on ASO is still in its nascent stage, this work has yielded important conceptual and empirical advances. For example, Stillman and Maner (2009) recorded dyadic interactions between a large number of women and a male confederate. In this task, each woman was videotaped while completing a puzzle with the male confederate. Stillman and Maner also measured each woman’s sexual restrictedness (via the SOI; Simpson & Gangestad, 1991), and had naïve participants view these videotaped interactions and attempt to assess the women’s sociosexual orientations. In essence, this allowed Stillman and Maner to measure accuracy in ASO judgment based on women’s appearance and behavior. Not only were participants able to make consensual judgments of others’ sociosexuality based on these short clips of behavior, participants’ inferences about sociosexual orientation showed above-chance accuracy, although they also included inaccuracies caused by the use of misleading cues, such as how much time targets spent smiling. Relevant to the present work, Boothroyd and colleagues (2008) also investigated perceivers’ ASO judgments, this time focusing on perceptions of static images of faces. In a series of studies, participants rated either faces of individuals that varied in their actual sexual restrictedness or rated composite images of restricted and unrestricted men and women. Boothroyd and colleagues found that more masculine-appearing men and more facially attractive women were rated as more unrestricted. Indeed, multiple studies have linked women’s attractiveness to perceivers’ beliefs about their sociosexuality (e.g., Batres, Russell, Simpson, Campbell, Hansen, & Cronk, 2018; Boothroyd, Cross, Gray, Coombes, & Gregson-Curtis, 2011; Stillman & Maner, 2009).

6 Although the question of accuracy was a primary goal of many initial investigations into Apparent Sociosexual Orientation, these initial findings are also helpful in generating predictions about what facial dimensions may elicit inferences of sexual restrictedness or unrestrictedness in women. First, based on the consistent finding that more attractive women are judged to be more unrestricted than their less attractive counterparts, I hypothesize that I will replicate this finding and women’s facial attractiveness will be related to men’s judgments of their ASO. This previously observed relationship could be a consequence of perceivers believing that attractive women are more able to engage in unrestricted sexual behavior. If attractiveness facilitates mate interest, attractive women likely have more opportunities to engage in uncommitted sex. Supporting this possibility, multiple studies have found that more attractive women actually engage in more sexually unrestricted behavior and have more unrestricted sexual orientations (Boothroyd et al., 2008; Clark, 2004; Perriloux, Cloud, & Buss, 2013; Simpson & Gangestad, 1992; cf. Stillman & Maner, 2009). Whereas these previous studies have shown that judgments of sociosexuality are related to women’s perceived attractiveness, past work has largely left untested whether other facial characteristics (such as facial dominance) account for unique variance in ASO judgments over and above the effects of attractiveness. This is likely because, as mentioned above, much of the focus in these past studies is on the accuracy or inaccuracy of apparent sociosexuality judgments, rather than on the facial correlates of ASO itself (cf. Stillman & Maner, 2009). Thus, I was further interested in other possible facial correlates of judgments of women’s ASO that may have been overlooked in past work. As noted above, a good deal of past work has found that more unrestricted individuals tend to have more dominant personality characteristics (e.g., aggressiveness) and even more masculine face and body morphologies (for review, see Simpson et al., 2004). Further, recent work has shown that these two are linked; women’s facial masculinity predicts their dominant beliefs and behavior (Quist, Watkins, Smith, DeBruine, & Jones, 2011). A number of studies have found similar relationships between men’s facial masculinity and their interpersonal dominance (see Puts, 2010 for a review). Thus, insofar as past work has linked behavioral dominance and masculinity with sociosexual unrestrictedness, it is possible perceivers may infer that women whose faces appear more dominant are more sexually unrestricted. Put simply,

7 perceivers may employ stereotypes of unrestricted individuals as dominant to form sociosexuality impressions based on faces. Whereas it is possible to make some predictions about the facial correlates of ASO, it is difficult to test these hypotheses consistently with existing data for multiple reasons. First, past research investigating the contributors to and consequences of ASO has often run afoul of methodological issues that may obscure relationships between facial cues and ASO. For example, given that these analyses of variations across targets in face traits require a by-stimulus analysis (i.e., stimulus level variation in face traits predicting stimulus level variation in ASO), few previous studies employ sufficient stimuli to conduct a fully powered test of these hypotheses. Additionally, in the handful of past investigations of Apparent Sociosexual Orientation, researchers have either used a single item assessment (Batres et al., 2018; Boothroyd et al., 2008; Boothroyd et al., 2011; Stillman & Maner, 2009) or collapsed across items adapted from Simpson and Gangestad’s original SOI measure (Boothroyd et al., 2008; Stillman & Maner, 2009). Thus, these studies are unable to test for the possibility of a multidimensional structure in ASO, and therefore cannot investigate either unique predictors of each subcomponent or unique consequences of appearing unrestricted in behavior, attitudes, or desires, independently. This is especially pertinent because, as mentioned above, attractiveness may be related to an individual’s ability to engage in unrestricted sexual behavior, but is less clearly related to attitudes about or desire for unrestricted sex. In the present work, I aimed to directly address these concerns. Specifically, my first goal (addressed in Study 1) was to establish whether ASO judgments have the same multidimensional structure that individual sociosexual orientation has, while also investigating whether ASO judgments at zero acquaintance are made consensually across perceivers. My second goal (addressed in Study 2) was to test plausible facial correlates of ASO, especially above and beyond the previously established finding that attractive women are perceived as sexually unrestricted. In particular, I predicted that when individuals make judgments of others’ ASO based only on facial images, these judgments would be related to both women’s attractiveness and their facial dominance. In the case that ASO judgments did have a multidimensional structure, I also expected that attractiveness would be particularly closely related to women’s appearance of unrestricted behavior.

8 Downstream Implications of ASO for Social Judgment: The Case of Ambivalent Sexism Up to this point, I have discussed what Apparent Sociosexual Orientation is, and what face traits or characteristics may predict men’s ASO judgments for female faces. However, men’s judgments of women’s sexuality are of particular interest here because of the possibility they may influence men’s sexist perceptions and treatment of women. As noted above, because stereotypes about the sexual behavior of men and women are distinct, the consequences for appearing sexually unrestricted are likely also distinct. In particular, because women are traditionally expected to be chaste, they may be especially vulnerable to harmful consequences of appearing unrestricted. Indeed, women’s actual sexual behavior is related to the types of sexism to which they are subject. Glick and Fiske’s (1996, 2001) model of Ambivalent Sexism has become the dominant theoretical perspective to explain how and why some women are set on pedestals and others are targeted with derision. Specifically, Glick and Fiske argue that sexism toward women is composed of two subcomponents: benevolent sexism and hostile sexism. Benevolent sexism involves positive evaluations and protective motivations and is targeted at women who belong to caretaking subtypes that are often seen as warm but low in competence, such as homemakers, mothers, and schoolteachers (e.g., Becker, 2010; Glick, Wilkerson, & Cuffe, 2015; Sibley & Wilson, 2004). In essence, these women are beloved, but seen as needing protection from the harsh realities of the world. Hostile sexism, however, is targeted at women who violate traditional gender norms or stereotypes, such as feminists or career women, who are seen as competent but not warm (Glick & Fiske, 2011; Sibley & Wilson, 2004). These subtypes of women targeted with hostile sexism are disliked, seen as in competition with men, and believed to use manipulative strategies to gain control over men. Thus, these seemingly contradictory benevolent and hostile beliefs about women can co-exist within a single individual in part because they are targeted at different women; benevolence toward women who follow traditional gender norms and hostility toward those who violate those norms. Notably, both women and men show some endorsement of ambivalent sexism. Men are far more likely to endorse hostile sexist beliefs than are women, but for both sexes, support for benevolent sexism is consistently positively correlated with hostile sexism, both at the level of the individual and at the level of the society (Glick & Fiske, 1996, 2001). Further, although women in general endorse both benevolent and hostile sexism less than men, in countries whose

9 men strongly support hostile sexism, women’s endorsement of benevolent sexism approaches or exceeds men’s (Glick & Fiske, 2001). In essence, in cultures where women are especially likely to be targeted with overt hostility, women must endorse paternalistic ideologies of protection of women (Glick et al., 2000). Unfortunately, this may only serve to perpetuate role rigidity between the sexes (see Becker & Wright, 2011; Hammond & Sibley, 2011). These highly sexist societies tend to have conservative gender roles and extreme gender inequality (Glick et al., 2000; Glick et al., 2004). This link between ambivalent sexism and gender role rigidity is seen within-cultures as well. For example, Christopher and Mull (2006) investigated the extent to which hostility and benevolent sexism were related on an individual difference basis to endorsement of other ideologies that suppress variability in gender norms, such as right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), social dominance orientation (SDO), and Protestant work ethic (PWE). As predicted, all three of these conservative and suppressive ideologies (RWA, SDO, and PWE) were correlated with both hostile and benevolent sexism. Thus, conservatism is related simultaneously to chivalrous attitudes toward and the systematic oppression of women. For women who do not conform to traditional gender norms in heterosexual romantic contexts, the negative effects of ambivalent sexism may be especially pertinent. For example, within heterosexual romantic relationships, men who endorse hostile sexism to a greater extent perceive their partners’ behavior as more negative and manipulative than men low in hostile sexism (Hammond & Overall, 2013). Individual differences in benevolent sexism are also related to negative beliefs about women in romantic relationships. Perceivers with stronger benevolent sexist attitudes were more likely to have negative perceptions of women who engaged in sex while unmarried (Sakalh-Ugurlu & Glick, 2003). Further, men who endorse benevolent sexism are more accepting of rape myths, and are more likely to place blame on the victims of acquaintance rape, than perceivers lower in benevolent sexist endorsement (Viki & Abrams, 2002; see also Masser, Lee, & McKimmie, 2010). Important for the present work, past research has highlighted how women who are perceived as sexually unrestricted are targeted with hostility. Sibley and Wilson (2004), for example, manipulated the extent to which target women fit into ‘chaste’ (i.e., sexually restricted) or ‘promiscuous’ (i.e., sexually unrestricted) sexual subtypes, and found that men targeted women described as promiscuous with more hostile sexism and less benevolent sexism than chaste women. Similarly, when women behave in manners suggestive of sexual unrestrictedness

10 (i.e., initiate a first date, pay for the date, or go to the man’s apartment), they are seen as more sexually active, and when these women are believed to have been victimized by acquaintance rape, the rapists’ actions are seen as more justified (Muehlenhard et al., 1985; Muehlenhard & Scardino, 1985). Thus, the proscriptive nature of beliefs about women’s sexual behavior makes women who do not conform to sexually restrictive norms likely targets of hostility. Considering these past findings that women’s sociosexual behavior is related to the sexist treatment to which they are subject, the third goal of the present work (addressed in Study 3) is to investigate whether men’s facial judgments of women’s sociosexuality would also predict which women were targeted with hostility and benevolence. Based on the above findings, I predicted that women who appeared sexually unrestricted would be subjected to increased hostility and decreased benevolence compared to restricted appearing women. Present Work In the present work, I aimed to further our understanding of how people form impressions of others’ sexual restrictedness, based only on static facial information, and the consequences of these judgments. As noted above, I focus specifically on men’s judgments of women’s apparent sociosexuality because of the implications for the sexist treatment of women. In Study 1, I investigated whether male perceivers are able to consensually extract the Apparent Sociosexual Orientation of women, and whether these judgments differentiate between targets’ restricted or unrestricted behaviors, attitudes, and desires. Study 2 tested for a number of plausible facial correlates of ASO judgments, including women’s attractiveness and facial dominance. Finally, in Study 3, I investigated whether target-level variations in ASO predicted men’s hostile and benevolent sexist evaluations of those targets. Notably, in Studies 2 and 3, I investigated whether variations in women’s Apparent Sociosexual Orientation are related to other judgments of those women, including judgments of attractiveness, personality judgments, and sexist evaluations. More generally, this means I was interested in the relationships between various stimulus-level judgments and impressions. Thus, in these studies I employed by-stimulus methodologies, using the targets as the units of analysis. In some ways, this decision violates the norm in social psychology of using participants as the unit of analysis. However, by-stimulus analyses are quite common in the face processing literature (e.g., Batres et al., 2018; Oosterhof & Todorov, 2008) because they afford a number of inferential advantages. Foremost among these advantages, by-stimulus analyses allow face

11 perception researchers to investigate how different facial structures or impressions covary with one another. Further, because a by-stimulus approach allows all facial characteristics (e.g., ASO) to vary naturally among stimuli, I was also able to test for unique relationships between facial judgments and structures, when accounting for related variables. The consideration of these unique relationships crucial to the goals of Studies 2 and 3, and would be hindered by the use of a by-participant approach. I believe this work represents a substantive advance over existing theory and evidence for multiple reasons. First, I extend the Apparent Sociosexual Orientation literature by being the first to test whether judgments of apparent behaviors, thoughts, and desires are separable. This allowed me to further test whether these subcomponents of ASO have distinct patterns of facial correlates and distinct consequences. Second, whereas much of the past work on hostile and benevolent sexism has focused on either individual differences in endorsement of hostile and benevolent sexism (e.g., Good & Rudman, 2010) or target behaviors that elicit hostility or benevolence (e.g., Sibley & Wilson, 2004), the present work tested whether relatively uncontrollable aspects of women’s facial structure may affect whether they are subjected to hostile or benevolent sexism. Importantly, these findings would show that, beyond merely using women’s behavior or roles to determine their treatment, men might actually treat women with different types of sexism based only on their faces. Study 1: Judgments of Women’s Sociosexuality The goal of Study 1 was to investigate the consensus among and the dimensionality of judgments of others’ Apparent Sociosexual Orientation at zero acquaintance. As noted above, whereas a handful of studies have investigated the question of consensus, the dimensionality of ASO is relatively unknown. Put simply, in Study 1, I tested whether men can consensually judge women’s sociosexuality based only on facial information, and whether Apparent Sociosexual Orientation as a construct had a similar dimensional structure to its self-report predecessor, sociosexual orientation. Hence, a close look at how past researchers have conceptualized and measured both sociosexual orientation, as a self-report, and judgments of others’ sociosexuality is important. Simpson and Gangestad (1991) developed the first reliable measure of sociosexuality, the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI), which employed seven items to assess global sociosexual orientation. These questions assessed the number of uncommitted sexual encounters

12 an individual has had in their life or in the recent past (Questions 1 – 3; e.g., With how many different partners have you had sex [sexual intercourse] within the past year?), the individual’s opinions on uncommitted sex (Question 5 – 7; e.g., Sex without love is OK), and their desire for uncommitted sex (Question 4; How often do you fantasize about having sex with someone other than your current dating partner?). The answers to these questions were then combined to compute a single general sociosexual orientation score for each individual. Over the years, the specific questions researchers used when assessing individuals’ sociosexuality have changed numerous times, but some combination of these three components – engagement in, opinions about, and desire for uncommitted sex – is present in nearly all investigations (Asendorpf & Penke, 2005; Fletcher, Simpson, Thomas, & Giles, 1999; Jackson & Kirkpatrick, 2007; Kokko & Jennions, 2003; Simpson & Gangestad, 1991; Simpson, Gangestad, & Nations, 1996; Webster & Bryan, 2007). However, one potential issue with Simpson and Gangestad’s operationalization is that using a single score to represent an individual’s sociosexuality may obscure the possibility that the construct of sociosexuality is multidimensional. Put simply, people may engage in one dimension (e.g., uncommitted fantasies) without another (e.g., uncommitted behavior). As noted above, several research groups have investigated the dimensionality of sociosexuality. Webster and Bryan (2006) and Jackson and Kirkpatrick (2007) empirically distinguished between ‘intrapersonal’ attitudes and ‘interpersonal’ behaviors. Penke and Asendorpf (2008) attempted to further split the ‘intrapersonal’ aspects of sociosexuality into attitudes and desires by constructing the Revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI-R). The SOI-R adapted four of the original questions used by Simpson and Gangestad (1991) and added five novel questions, including three questions designed to more effectively measure the proposed desire subcomponent of sociosexuality (e.g., In everyday life, how often do you have spontaneous fantasies about having sex with someone you have just met?). The SOI-R, therefore, contains three questions each measuring behavior, attitudes, and desire. A factor analysis on responses to the SOI-R did indeed reveal a three-factor solution, with each factor meaningfully predicting relevant behaviors and attitudes. In Study 1, of primary interest was whether perceivers’ judgments of ASO reflect the dimensionality of individuals’ actual sociosexual orientation. Do perceivers differentiate between targets’ apparent sociosexual behavior, attitudes, and desires when judging others, or might they

13 simply form an impression of others’ global sociosexuality? I did not have strong a priori hypotheses about the factor solution, but multiple possibilities were plausible. First, perceivers may represent ASO as a single dimension, even though they represent the sociosexuality for the self as multidimensional. Because people often only have access to information about others’ tendency to engage in unrestricted sexual behavior (i.e., we can only see what others do, not what they think), it was possible perceivers simply assume others’ attitudes and desires align with their behavior. Men as perceivers seemed especially likely to fall victim to this assumption because their own behaviors, attitudes, and desires are more highly intercorrelated than women’s (Penke & Asendorpf, 2008). Second, a three-factor solution reflecting the same structure as individual level sociosexuality observed by Penke and Asendorpf (2008) seemed plausible as well. The inclusion of multiple questions about the distinct components of individual sociosexuality may allow people to assess separately how others might behave, what their opinions might be, and whether they desire unrestricted sex. Perceivers seem to have intuited that more attractive women tend to be more unrestricted. Perhaps people can similarly intuit that the behaviors they have, may or may not completely represent their own feelings (e.g., perhaps others have sex despite not really desiring it, or perhaps they desire it and think it acceptable, but do not have an available partner). Indeed, insofar as perceivers make judgments about others using the self as a starting place or anchor, perhaps the same dimensional structure as self-reported sociosexuality may be used when judging others. Finally, a two-factor solution separating interpersonal behavior from intrapersonal attitudes and desires was also plausible. Indeed, in making attributions about others, we often distinguish between what a person did and why they did it. Thus, we may attribute others’ behavior to either external factors that allowed for or caused the behavior (e.g., situational pressures) or internal factors that lead the individual to act (e.g., desires and attitudes; e.g. Kim, Dirks, Cooper, & Ferrin, 2006; Schmitt & Branscomb, 2002). However, more nuanced attributions distinguishing between other’s attitudes and desires may be more rare. Thus, although it is logically possible to distinguish between others’ attitudes and their desires (e.g., one can crave something that they know is harmful), it is also plausible that perceivers conceptually collapse others’ inner states into a single dimension. If so, this may result in a two-

14 factor solution distinguishing overt behavior from covert or inner attitudes and desires, as observed by Webster and Bryan (2007). A secondary goal of Study 1 was to replicate past findings that men show consensus in judgments of women’s ASO at zero acquaintance. Though this secondary goal is not theoretically novel, it was an essential step in the present work because I was interested in how women’s restricted or unrestricted appearance may be related to how they are treated by others. Thus, the succeeding studies hinge on ASO ratings being at least somewhat consensual. Preliminary Study 1 I first conducted a preliminary study to investigate the consensus in ASO ratings (reported in the original proposal; see Appendix A for a full presentation of the methods and findings of Preliminary Study 1). Following the convention in the extant literature of using a unidimensional measure of ASO (e.g., Batres et al., 2018; Boothroyd et al., 2008; Boothroyd et al., 2011; Stillman & Maner, 2009), I used a similar single-item measure of ASO in my preliminary study. Participants were asked to “Please indicate the extent to which this person is open to short-term relationships, one night stands, and the idea of sex without love,” on a 1 (Not at all) to 7 (Extremely) scale. Notably, as predicted, the mean intercorrelation between raters’ ASO judgments, � = .130 (SD = .211), 95% CI [.125 , .136], were significantly greater than zero, suggesting these ratings were made with acceptable consensus. That said, this method leaves unclear whether perceivers conceptualize others’ sociosexuality as a single general tendency, or if perceivers separately consider others’ sociosexual behavior, attitudes, and desires. From the initial support for the consensus hypothesis, I designed Study 1 described below with the dual goals of replicating past work showing that men consensually judge women’s ASO based only on facial information, while also testing whether these judgments have a multidimensional structure. To this end, in Study 1, male participants judged the apparent sociosexuality of women from the Chicago Face Database (Ma et al., 2015) using a novel ASO scale modeled after the SOI-R (Penke & Asendorpf, 2008). Method Participants. As mentioned above, I was primarily interested in men’s judgments of women’s ASO because men tend to hold positions in society in which they stand to engage in hostile (and benevolent) actions toward women. In addition, because past work has shown that attractiveness is a correlate of ASO, and that perceiver and target race can influence judgments

15 of attractiveness (e.g., Bernstein, Lin, McClellan, 1982; Jankowiak, Hill, & Donovan, 1992; Rhodes et al., 2005), to avoid any race or sexual orientation interactions I decided to employ straight White male participants as raters of the White female targets. This is a point to which I return in the General Discussion. To establish stable average ASO ratings values for each target, I had each face rated by at least 25 raters. This is consistent with other by-stimulus analyses in the literature, with procedures similar to the present design, assessing personality traits from facial information (e.g., Wilson & Rule, 2015). However, because it was unclear what proportion of the participants in my sample would meet my a priori criteria (i.e., straight White males), data was collected in waves to assure each target was responded to by at least 25 raters. No analyses were performed until all data were collected. In the first wave, participants responded to 30 target women, but reported that the time allotted was not always sufficient to rate all faces. To ameliorate this issue, I reduced the number of targets to 15 target women in subsequent waves. Thus, participants responded to the ASO for between 15 and 30 target women. In total, 500 mTurk workers, including 133 straight White males, recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk participated in exchange for payment. This ensured each target was rated by at least 25 straight White male participants. Stimuli. As in the preliminary studies, I employed images from the Chicago Face Database (CFD; Ma et al., 2015), which has high quality, highly standardized photos that have been pre-rated on multiple face traits (e.g., attractiveness, dominance). Because statistical power in by-stimulus analyses is bounded by the number of stimuli (rather than the number of participants), I used all of the White female targets available in the CFD to maximize statistical power with the given stimulus set. Thus, 90 female faces with neutral expressions were used in this study. All images were resized to 700 x 492 pixels and displayed in color (see Figure 1 for an example stimulus). Materials. To have targets’ Apparent Sociosexual Orientation judged, I constructed the Apparent Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (ASOI; see Appendix B for full scale), closely modeled after the SOI-R (Penke & Asendorpf, 2008; see Appendix C for full scale). The ASOI was designed to allow participants to judge targets’ sociosexual behavior, desire, and attitudes. In this scale, the questions are framed relevant to a target, rather than to the respondent. As in Penke and Aspendorpf’s (2008) original SOI-R measure, three questions each were used to assess the

16 behavior (e.g., With how many different partners has she sex in the past 12 months?) and desire (e.g., How often does she have fantasies about having sex with someone with whom she does not have a committed romantic relationship?) components of apparent sociosexuality. For the attitudes component, I included items assessing restricted attitudes and unrestricted attitudes separately. This was to ensure participants were not simply assessing the appearance of ‘promiscuous’ attitudes, but also the appearance of ‘chaste’ attitudes. Indeed, past work has shown that individuals’ short-term (i.e., unrestricted) and long-term (i.e., restricted) mating orientations are distinct from one another (Jackson & Kirkpatrick, 2007). Thus, in addition to adapted versions of the three items used to assess sociosexual attitudes by Penke and Asendorpf, I included three novel items. Three of these six total attitudes items (two old and one new) assessed affirmations of unrestricted attitudes (e.g., She believes sex without love is OK) and three assessed affirmations of restricted attitudes (e.g., She would only be interested in sex with a person she was in involved with in a long-term relationship). As in Penke and Asendorpf’s original work, participants responded to each question on a 1-9 scale, with scale endpoints varying depending on the question. It is worth mentioning here that the questions in both the ASOI (used in the present work) and in the SOI-R on which it was based have response options that vary based on the specific questions. This is noteworthy particularly because the response options are similar within the behavior, attitudes, and desire subscales, but are different across them. This format may make a multifactor solution more likely by the mere similarity between the response options within each subscale. Thus, it was important to exercise some caution in interpretation here, especially if a three-factor solution obtained distinguishing between the three response option types. Additionally, if multiple factors emerged, it was further important to test for distinct patterns of predictors and unique predictive validity among these factors. Procedure. After providing informed consent, participants responded to demographics information, including race, ethnicity, sex, and sexual orientation, so I could perform target randomization among only straight White male participants (my population of interest). This helped ensure individual faces were rated by relatively equal numbers of participants. Next, participants were provided with a description of sociosexual orientation. Specifically, they learned that an individual’s sociosexual orientation includes behavior, attitudes, and desires. Participants were then instructed they would be rating a series of faces at zero acquaintance on

17 their Apparent Sociosexual Orientation. For the sake of time, each participant was assigned to rate only a randomly selected subset of targets. Thus, each participant then responded to the ASOI scale for a series of between 15 and 30 women, presented one at a time in a randomized order. Questions were presented on separate screens so that participants could respond to the items while viewing the target. Items were presented in the same order for all faces and were grouped based on the answering scales. Thus, each target image was presented directly above the three behavior questions on the first screen, above the attitudes questions on the second screen, and above the desire items on the third. Participants were instructed to “Please respond to the following questions with respect to the pictured woman” using 1 to 9 scales with endpoints appropriate for the questions (See Appendix B). Participants responded to all items for a given face before moving on to the next face. After responding to the ASOI for each target, participants were debriefed and thanked for their participation.

Results The goals of Study 1 were twofold. First, of interest was whether the ratings on the new ASOI measure demonstrated a uni-or multi-dimensional. Of secondary interest was whether participants would make consensual judgments of ASO across the factors that emerged. Factor Structure of the ASOI. I began by conducting an exploratory factor analysis to determine whether the behavior, attitudes, and desire components of the ASOI represent distinct factors in participants’ judgments. Because my primary analyses were conducted on a by- stimulus basis, I also conducted this factor analysis on a by-stimulus basis. For each target, I averaged raters’ judgments of each ASOI item and submitted these items to a factor analysis using a maximum likelihood estimation with promax rotation. This factor analysis extracted two primary factors based on an eigenvalue cutoff of 1.00 (λ1 = 9.462, λ2 = 1.002). Using an item loading cutoff of .5, the first factor included the six attitudes items and the three desire items (α = .971) and the second factor included the three behavior items (α = .902). Factor loadings are available in Table 1. Additionally, these distinct subscales were correlated with one another (r = .751), as one would expect for a multidimensional construct. Thus, whereas Penke and Asendorpf (2008) demonstrated that people have correlated, but distinct, sociosexual behavior, attitudes, and desires, here I found men’s judgments of

18 women’s ASO appear composed of only two separate factors, more similar to the findings of Webster and Bryan (2007). Specifically, responses to the attitudes and desires items were distinct from the behavior items. Perceivers appear to distinguish between target-level variations in ‘interpersonal’ behaviors and ‘intrapersonal’ emotions and cognitions. Although my factor analysis did not recover the three-factor solution observed by Penke and Asendorpf, this distinction between observable behavior and unobservable internal states may be the reason. Perceivers apparently lump together the internal states of others that may be more differentiated for the self. Thus, the factor structure observed in Study 1 is quite sensible. The interpersonal nature of the behavior items is conceptually distinguishable from the intrapersonal nature of attitudes and desires. Whereas unrestricted sexual behavior (as measured here) requires a consenting partner, the intrapersonal attitudes and desires require only one’s own emotions and cognitions. Thus, perhaps perceivers distinguish between intent and action, as constrained by available partners. This possibility would be bolstered if perceptions of women’s unrestricted behavior are more closely related to their attractiveness than are perceptions of their apparent attitudes and desires. Hereafter, I refer to these factors as Intrapersonal ASO (reflecting attitudes and desires) and Behavioral ASO. Consensus in judgments of apparent sociosexuality. Next, I sought to establish whether ASO judgments can be made with relative consensus among raters. To this end, I first computed averages for each of the Behavioral ASO and Intrapersonal ASO subscales for each participant/target combination. All ASOI items were scored such that higher scores represented unrestricted Apparent Sociosexual Orientation for all subscales. In addition, I computed a Global ASO score for each participant/target combination by averaging together the Behavioral and Intrapersonal subscales, giving equal weight to each subscale. I next calculated the mean intercorrelations between raters separately for Global ASO, for Interpersonal ASO, and for Behavioral ASO to serve as a measure of consensus (see Rule et al., 2013 for similar analyses). To assess whether these mean intercorrelations were reliably different from chance, for each ASO variable, I calculated zero order correlations between raters, which I standardized using Fisher r-to-z conversions. The mean intercorrelations between raters’ judgments of Global ASO, � = .153 (SD = .352), 95% CI [.140 , .166], Behavioral ASO, � = .208 (SD = .337), 95% CI [.194 , .221], and Intrapersonal ASO, � = .096 (SD = .330), 95% CI [.083 , .110], were each

19 significantly greater than zero1 (all ps < .001), suggesting these judgments were made with acceptable consensus across raters. Although others’ sociosexual orientation is essentially invisible, and judgments of Apparent Sociosexual Orientation are often fraught with the use of cues unrelated to a target’s actual sexual (un)restrictedness (Stillman & Maner, 2009), people still make at least somewhat consensual judgments of others’ sociosexuality based only on facial information. Discussion In Study 1, I constructed and tested the factor structure of a scale designed to measure judgments of others’ Apparent Sociosexual Orientation, adapted from Penke and Asendorpf’s (2008) SOI-R measure. Notably, the ASOI does not reflect the factor structure of the SOI-R (Penke & Asendorpf, 2008). Instead, I found only two factors. Attitudes and desires formed one factor (Intrapersonal ASO) and the behavior items formed a second (Behavioral ASO). Although this may be surprising given that the present scale was adapted from the SOI-R scale, which obtained a three-factor solution, and given the distinct response options across the attitudes and desire subscales, the two-factor solution is consistent with work contemporaneous to Penke and Asendorpf’s that separated behavioral sociosexuality and intrapersonal sociosexuality (e.g., Jackson & Kirkpartick, 2007; Webster & Bryan, 2007). This two-factor solution may also reflect a simplification of judgments of others’ internal states relative to the self. That is, perhaps we make distinctions between our own attitudes and desires in ways we do not make for others. Further, this may also reflect the different conceptual structure of external behavior versus internal drives and attitudes. Unrestricted sexual activity, by its very nature, is interpersonal (i.e., it requires another person). Thus, it may be the case that men differentiate between the beliefs and desires women have and the behavior they are able to engage in. If so, they may use distinct facial characteristics to assess Behavioral and Intrapersonal ASO, a matter to which I return in Study 2. In particular, because of its inherently reciprocal nature, Behavioral ASO may be especially closely related to attractiveness. Finally, I also replicated past work by showing that participants were consensual in their judgments of others’ sociosexuality. Further, they can also consensually judge women’s Behavioral and Intrapersonal ASO separately. This finding was of particular import so that I

1 Although I present r-scores here for clarity, all analyses were conducted with Fisher z-scores.

20 could use these judgments to better understand the facial correlates of ASO (Study 2) and the consequences of these judgments for hostile and benevolent sexism (Study 3). Study 2: Predicting Apparent Sociosexuality Judgments from Targets’ Facial Cues Whereas Study 1 was designed to investigate the consensus and dimensionality of Apparent Sociosexual Orientation as a construct, Study 2 was designed to better understand the facial correlates of ASO judgments in Study 2. Perceivers’ ability to make consensual judgments of targets’ apparent sociosexuality indicates there is some regularity in the cues perceivers are extracting and using to make ASO judgments. Based on the literature on sociosexual orientation broadly, I predicted that facial attractiveness and facial dominance were promising candidates for influencing judgments about others’ restrictedness. As outlined above, multiple studies have found that more attractive women are believed to have (and may actually have) more unrestricted sociosexual orientations on average than less attractive women (e.g., Boothroyd et al., 2008; Clark, 2004; Maner & Stillman, 2009; Perriloux et al., 2013; cf. Stillman & Maner, 2009). Thus, in line with this past work, I hypothesized that women’s facial attractiveness would be a robust correlate of their ASO. A second plausible correlate of Apparent Sociosexual Orientation is facial dominance, with more facially dominant female targets seen as more unrestricted. This second hypothesis is based on the observation that dominance and masculinity are common themes of the personality characteristics related to unrestricted sociosexuality. As noted above, sexual unrestrictedness is related to more aggression, disinhibition, immorality, and less trustworthiness, sociability, and conscientiousness (Gangestad & Simpson, 1990; Probst, 1999; Schmitt & Buss, 2000; Wright, 1999; Wright & Reise, 1997), many of which are related to interpersonal dominance. In addition, past work has also provided evidence that individuals’ sociosexual orientation is related to their masculine facial and bodily morphology (Simpson et al., 2004). It was of interest in the present work whether these in vivo relationships between sociosexuality and dominance (and masculinity, more generally) would be reflected in men’s judgments of women’s sociosexuality. Thus, of interest was whether more facially dominant women were also judged to be more unrestricted. Because dominance and masculinity share both conceptual overlap and overlap in the facial characteristics related to them (e.g., Bem, 1974; Keating, Randall, Kendrick, & Gutshall, 2003), I did not make a strong a priori prediction about whether targets’ facial dominance or

21 facial masculinity would be more closely related to judgments of ASO. However, relevant to this discussion is the relationship between women’s attractiveness and their facial femininity. For female faces in particular, ratings of attractiveness tend to be closely related to ratings of femininity, whereas men’s attractiveness is more weakly related to masculinity (Ma et al., 2015). This is notable because masculinity and femininity tend to covary strongly in judgments of women’s faces, so much so that some researchers collapse masculinity and femininity into a single dimension in facial judgment (e.g., Boothroyd et al., 2008). The close relationship between facial femininity and attractiveness may call into question whether facial masculinity will be sufficiently separable from attractiveness and, by extension, whether masculinity will be able to predict unique variance in ASO judgments (above and beyond the effects of attractiveness). Indeed, in the Chicago Face Database, women’s facial masculinity is strongly negatively correlated with their attractiveness (r = -.680), whereas women’s facial dominance is unrelated to their attractiveness, suggesting facial dominance may be a more likely candidate to uniquely predict men’s judgments of women’s ASO. Based on this, it seemed plausible that dominance rather than masculinity would predict ASO judgments over and above attractiveness, however this was not a strong a priori hypothesis. Instead, I investigated this on an exploratory basis. Although I predicted that both facial attractiveness and facial dominance (or masculinity) would directly predict Apparent Sociosexual Orientation, I also considered that facial attractiveness and facial dominance might interact in predicting ASO. Considering the robust relationship between attractiveness and sociosexuality observed in past research (Batres et al., 2018; Boothroyd et al., 2008; Boothroyd et al., 2011), perhaps some attractiveness levels are unaffected by facial perceptions of dominance or masculinity. For example, perhaps these facial judgments play a relatively minor role in contributing to ASO judgments at especially low attractiveness levels. At these low levels of attractiveness, a dominant, masculine appearance may not singlehandedly increase perceived sociosexuality. However, at higher attractiveness, variations in perceived facial dominance may determine which women are seen as hypersexual (i.e., sexually unrestricted) and which appear chaste (i.e., sexually restricted). Preliminary Study 2 I conducted a second preliminary study (reported in the original proposal; see Appendix D for a full presentation of the methods and findings of Preliminary Study 2) to test on an exploratory basis whether variations in the single-item ASO ratings (from Preliminary Study 1)

22 were predicted by variations in targets’ facial characteristics. Because past work has indicated that attractiveness is closely related to judgments of women’s Apparent Sociosexual Orientation (Batres et al., 2018; Stillman & Maner, 2009), I first ran a correlation between attractiveness and ASO. As expected, men’s judgments of women’s ASO was positively related to their Attractiveness, r(86) = .659, p < .001, such that more attractive women were rated as more unrestricted. Next, I conducted a series of exploratory partial correlations controlling for attractiveness. This allowed me to investigate whether facial dominance and/or masculinity predicted ASO over and above the robust attractiveness effect. Facial Dominance was marginally correlated with women’s ASOs, r(87) = .204, p = .055. I found a similar, albeit non-significant, trend for facial Masculinity, r(87) = .164, p = .124. Because facial dominance was marginally related to ASO judgments when controlling for facial attractiveness, I also tested the possible interactive relationship that facial attractiveness and facial dominance may play in determining ASO. I simultaneously entered facial Attractiveness, facial Dominance, and their interaction term into a multiple regression. The results revealed that facial Attractiveness, β = .379, p < .001, and facial Dominance (marginally), β = .087, p = .055, both predicted ASO judgments, but the interaction term was not significant, β = .030, p = .487. Thus, these data suggest facial attractiveness and facial dominance may have separate, non-interactive roles in predicting target-level variability in ASO ratings. In all, these findings lend preliminary support to the possibility that both facial attractiveness and facial dominance may play a role in men’s judgments of women’s sociosexuality. However, these data should be interpreted with caution. As mentioned previously, this preliminary work was conducted with a single item measure of ASO. Therefore, the increased precision of the present ASO scale may allow me to find significant interactions for either the global rating of ASO or the individual dimensions. Study 2 was designed to address this issue directly by employing the novel ASOI measure and stimuli employed in Study 1. However, because the present studies used a different measure of ASO than the preliminary work, these relationships were subject to change. For example, by using a single item to assess ASO in Preliminary Study 1, perceivers may have disproportionately weighed the most visually relevant component: Behavioral ASO.

23 Thus, in Study 2, I explored the facial correlates of the ASO judgments made in Study 1. On a by-stimulus basis, I tested whether facial attractiveness and facial dominance, either individually or interactively, predict judgments of women’s sociosexuality. Then, on an exploratory basis, I tested whether other facial characteristics (e.g., ratings of facial threat) predict sociosexuality judgments when accounting for any significant predictors in the first test. Method Targets. As noted above, Study 2 used a by-stimulus approach, with the targets as the unit of analysis. For this by-stimulus analysis, I employed the 90 target female faces used in Study 1. This afforded the stimulus-level variance in ASO ratings previously made in Study 1. Additionally, as part of their inclusion in the CFD, these 90 faces have been pre-rated on the dimensions of facial attractiveness, facial dominance, and facial masculinity, which allowed for tests of my a priori hypotheses regarding facial correlates. The Chicago Face Database also includes ratings of other facial dimensions that may be relevant to sociosexuality judgments (e.g., trustworthiness). I employed multiple of these other facial dimensions in exploratory analyses. CFD Raters. For the archival judgments and structures of the targets in this study, I used ratings made by participants from Ma and colleagues’ (2015) original work. I this work, each target was rated by between 21 and 99 raters. Results In Study 2, I investigated the facial correlates of men’s ASO judgments of female faces. In particular, I made the a priori hypothesis that women’s attractiveness and dominant appearance would each predict unique variance in judgments of their apparent sociosexuality, with more attractive and more dominant appearing women being judged as more unrestricted. I was further interested in whether facial attractiveness and dominance would reveal interactive effects. For example, perhaps facial dominance is particularly relevant to men’s judgments of the apparent sociosexuality of women who are highly attractive. Finally, I also aimed to test a few exploratory possibilities for what other facial characteristics may contribute to the appearance of sexual unrestrictedness. A Priori Predictors: Attractiveness and Facial Dominance. First, I used a data driven approach to test whether I should use facial masculinity or facial dominance as my primary a priori predictor of ASO judgments, alongside facial attractiveness. This was an important step

24 because if entered simultaneously into a regression model, facial dominance and facial masculinity may be unable to uniquely predict ASO, due to the visual and conceptual overlap between them. Thus, before conducting my primary analyses, I entered attractiveness, facial masculinity, and facial dominance into a linear regression predicting Global ASO judgments. These variables explained 55.1% of the variance in Global ASO (R2 = .551, F(3,86) = 35.19, p < .001). Replicating past work, Attractiveness significantly predicted Global ASO (β = 0.700, p < .001). Critically, facial Dominance also significantly predicted Global ASO (β = .238, p = .005), whereas facial Masculinity did not (β = -0.035, p = .757)2. Thus, for all tests herein, I used facial dominance, rather than facial masculinity, as a predictor variable. Next, to investigate potential relationships between women’s facial ASO and their facial attractiveness and facial dominance, I computed averages for each of the Behavioral ASO and Intrapersonal ASO subscales separately for each target. As in Study 1, higher scores represented more unrestricted Apparent Sociosexual Orientations. In addition, I computed a Global ASO score for each target by averaging together the Behavioral and Intrapersonal subscales, giving equal weight to each subscale. I next centered Attractiveness and facial Dominance and calculated their interaction term (i.e., Attractiveness x Dominance) to test for interactive effects. Then, I entered Attractiveness, facial Dominance, and their interaction term into a linear regression predicting the ASO judgments from Study 1 on a by-stimulus basis. I conducted this test once on the Global ASO score and once for each component factor (i.e., Behavioral and Intrapersonal ASO). For Global ASO, the model explained 56.4% of the variance (R2 = .564, F(3,86) = 37.055, p < .001). Attractiveness (β = 0.732, p < .001) and facial Dominance (β = 0.226, p = .002) both significantly predicted ASO, however, the interaction term did not (β = 0.115, p = .110). For the Intrapersonal ASO, the model explained 40.3% of the variance (R2 = .403, F(3,86) = 19.362, p < .001). Again, Attractiveness (β = 0.581, p < .001) and facial Dominance (β = 0.302, p = .001) were significant predictors, but the interaction term was not (β = 0.083, p = .323). Finally, for Behavioral ASO, this model explained 60.5% of the variance (R2 = .605, F(3,86) = 43.917, p < .001). Again, Attractiveness (β = 0.773, p < .001) and facial Dominance (β

2 The same pattern emerged for the subcomponents of ASO, with only attractiveness and dominance significantly predicting Behavioral and Intrapersonal ASO.

25 = 0.150, p = .030) each significantly predicted behavioral unrestrictedness. In addition, the interaction term was a marginally significant predictor of Behavioral ASO (β = 0.128, p = .063). Although marginal effects should be interpreted with caution, this interaction showed that at low levels of attractiveness (one standard deviation below the mean), facial Dominance does not predict the perception of unrestricted behavior (β = 0.025, p = .792). However, at high levels of Attractiveness (one standard deviation above the mean), facial Dominance positively predicts unrestricted behavior (β = 0.274, p = .005; see Figure 2). I was further interested in whether facial attractiveness and facial dominance more strongly predict Behavioral versus Intrapersonal ASO. For example, perhaps the interpersonal nature of the behavior items leads participants to believe women must be attractive to engage in unrestricted behavior. If true, facial attractiveness would be more strongly related to Behavioral ASO than to Interpersonal ASO. To investigate this possibility, I calculated 95% confidence intervals for the unstandardized regression coefficients for facial Attractiveness predicting Behavioral ASO, B = .584, SE = .051, 95% CI [.483 , .685], and Intrapersonal ASO, B = .314, SE = .046, 95% CI [.223 , .405], ASO. These confidence intervals do not overlap, indicating that attractiveness predicts Behavioral ASO more strongly than it does Intrapersonal ASO. Although I did not have clear predictions about whether facial dominance would more strongly predict Behavioral or Intrapersonal ASO, I also calculated 95% confidence intervals for the unstandardized regression coefficients for facial Dominance predicting Behavioral ASO, B = .191, SE = .087, 95% CI [.018 , .364], and Intrapersonal ASO, B = .279 SE = .077, 95% CI [.126 , .432]. Because each interval includes the opposing unstandardized coefficient, it is clear that facial dominance does not differentially predict Behavioral ASO and Intrapersonal ASO. Thus, as predicted, attractiveness and facial dominance were independent predictors of Apparent Sociosexual Orientation, such that more attractive and more dominant appearing women were rated as more unrestricted. Attractiveness was more strongly predictive of judgments of women’s likely engagement in unrestricted behavior than unrestricted attitudes and desires. Further, the marginally significant interactive effect suggests that dominant appearance had a stronger influence on behavioral ratings for more attractive targets. Exploratory Predictors. Whereas above, I tested facial attractiveness and dominance as correlates of ASO on an a priori basis, I next tested whether two face judgments (i.e., trustworthiness and threat) and 8 facial structures (i.e., face shape, brow height, eye size, chin

26 length, nose width and length, mouth width, and facial width-to-height ratio) predict ratings of ASO. These 9 exploratory dimensions were selected on the basis of 1) the ratings of the dimensions being available in the published CFD pre-ratings, and 2) being conceptually (if sometimes tangentially) related to facial dominance or sexual behavior (Mazur & Booth, 1998; Toscano, Schubert, & Sell, 2014; Weston, Friday, & Liò, 2007). For example, facial width-to- height ratio and chin width are both related to facial dominance (Deska, Lloyd, & Hugenberg, 2018; Toscano et al., 2014). Similarly, eye size and face shape are correlates of babyfacedness, which is negatively related to facial dominance (Keating et al., 2003; MacArthur & Apatow, 1984; Mazur & Mueller, 1996; Zebrowitz & Montepare, 1992). To investigate whether these various face judgments and structures are also related to Apparent Sociosexual Orientation, I conducted a partial correlation predicting Global ASO. I entered facial Attractiveness and facial Dominance as covariates to account for my previously observed a priori effects. I entered each exploratory predictor (e.g., facial Trustworthiness, Mouth Width) into a separate partial correlation. Given that these were exploratory analyses, I used a Bonferroni corrected comparison p-value for these correlations (p = .0053) to avoid inflating Type I error. Only facial Trustworthiness was significantly correlated with Global ASO, r = -.295, p = .005, such that women who appeared less facially trustworthy were judged to be more sexually unrestricted overall. No other predictors were significant, rs < .213, ps > .04 (See Table 2 for all partial correlations). By conventional Alpha standards, Trustworthiness was also significantly correlated with the specific Behavioral ASO, r = -.276, p = .009, and Intrapersonal ASO subcomponents of the measure, r = -.258, p = .015, but these effects were not significant using Bonferroni-corrected comparisons. Discussion In sum, although more attractive women appear to have more unrestricted behavioral and intrapersonal sociosexual orientations (replicating past work), Study 2 also finds that more dominant appearing women are perceived as more unrestricted, both intrapersonally and behaviorally. Interestingly, at low levels of attractiveness (more than one standard deviation below the mean), more facially dominant appearing women were not rated as engaging in increased unrestricted behavior. Instead, it appears facial dominance is more closely related to the appearance of behavioral unrestrictedness at relatively higher levels of attractiveness. Men

27 also appear to use facial trustworthiness to judge women’s apparent unrestrictedness. Although this was not predicted a priori, individual differences in trustworthiness are also related to sociosexual orientation (e.g., Probst, 1999), such that more unrestricted individuals tend to be less trustworthy. It appears here that men’s facial stereotype of women’s ASO conforms to these individual difference findings in self-reports of sociosexual orientation. This pattern of results suggests men may be employing a somewhat accurate facial stereotype of individual differences in sociosexuality to make judgments of women’s ASO. Although tests of judgment accuracy are beyond the scope of the present work, as outlined in the introduction, more attractive people are relatively more likely to have unrestricted sociosexual orientations and actually engage in more unrestricted sexual activity (Boothroyd et al., 2008; Clark, 2004; Perriloux et al., 2013; Simpson & Gangestad, 1992). Likewise, women (and men) with more dominant and less trustworthy personalities also tend to have more unrestricted sociosexual orientations (Gangestad & Simpson, 1990; Probst, 1999; Schmitt & Buss, 2000; Wright, 1999; Wright & Reise, 1997). However, when forming impressions of others’ sociosexuality based on only facial information, perceivers do not have access to information about targets’ actual dominant or trustworthy characteristics. Instead, if perceivers have a good understanding that trustworthiness and dominance are relevant to sociosexuality, they may use facial dominance and trustworthiness in place of information about targets’ personalities. Indeed, this may seem to be a valid strategy in low-information contexts (such as judgments at zero acquaintance), but given the quite limited accuracy of facial information in trait judgments (i.e., low correlation between facial trustworthiness and trustworthy behavior; e.g., Porter, England, Juodis, Ten Brink, & Wilson, 2008; Rule et al., 2013), this strategy is likely of questionable utility in mating judgments. However, it may have implications for when women are targeted with hostile sexist responses (e.g., because of perceived unrestrictedness) or benevolent sexist responses (e.g., because of perceived restrictedness). Study 3: Are Hostile and Benevolent Sexism Differentially Targeted at Women Varying in Apparent Sociosexual Orientation? Whereas, in Studies 1 and 2, I investigated the structure and correlates of men’s judgments of women’s ASO, in Study 3, I shifted focus to the consequences of these ASO judgments. In particular, Study 3 was designed to test whether men differentially target women with hostile and benevolent sexism depending on the women’s Apparent Sociosexual

28 Orientation. Past work has shown that women who do not conform to traditional gender stereotypes (e.g., feminists) or traditional gendered sexual expectations (e.g., seemingly promiscuous female targets) are targeted with hostility (Glick & Fiske, 2011; Sibley & Wilson, 2004). Thus, I hypothesized that women who merely appear interested in short-term relationships (i.e., apparently unrestricted women) will also be subject to more hostility and less benevolence. To test this hypothesis, a new sample of participants made hostile and benevolent sexist evaluations of each target, using items adapted from the original Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (Glick & Fiske, 1996). This allowed me to conduct a by-stimulus analysis, testing the relationship between stimulus-level variations in ASO and stimulus-level variations in hostile and benevolent sexist responding using a regression model. Put simply, this allows me to investigate which women are more likely to be targeted with hostility and benevolence, and whether this is related to ASO. Overall, I predicted that unrestricted appearing women would be subject to increased hostile sexism compared to restricted looking women. This was based on the assumption that these women appear to not conform to traditional expectations about women’s sexuality. However, one can also make more specific predictions about Behavioral ASO and Intrapersonal ASO, and their relationship to hostile and benevolent sexist responding. Notably, predictions for Behavioral and Interpersonal ASO should be driven by whether they differentially suggest nonconformity to proscriptions about women’s sexuality. Unrestricted sexual behavior seems clearly counter to stereotypes about women as chaste. Indeed, women and girls are often punished for their unrestricted behavior (Baumeister & Twenge, 2002; Du Bois-Reymond and Ravesloot, 1994; Sibley & Wilson, 2004; Tarvis & Wade, 1984). Thus, a straightforward prediction is a positive relationship between Behavioral ASO and hostile sexism. However, considering this taboo against sexual unrestrictedness in women, perhaps women’s perceived positive attitudes toward and desires for unrestricted sex will also elicit hostile sexism. In fact, it’s possible that women’s unrestricted sexual behavior is punished in part because it is seen as a product of their attitudes and desires. Put differently, perhaps internal attributions make sexual unrestrictedness particularly problematic to the sexist perceiver, and thus perhaps unrestricted desires and attitudes of women will elicit more hostile sexism. Thus, perhaps women with relatively unrestricted Intrapersonal ASOs will be subjected to increased hostile sexism. Although there has been quite a bit of previous research demonstrating that

29 unrestricted women are punished, past investigations into the relationship between women’s sexual behavior and men’s sexist responding do not consider separately women’s behavior and thoughts. Instead, these investigations have (likely unintentionally) combined intrapersonal and behavioral sociosexuality by describing women as “enjoying casual flings” (e.g., Fowers & Fowers, 2010; Sibley & Wilson, 2004). Thus, such previous studies have confounded enjoying (i.e., Intrapersonal ASO) and engaging in (Behavioral ASO) casual sex. Because of this, it is difficult to draw strong predictions about whether Intrapersonal or Behavioral ASO will be more closely related to hostile sexism. But precisely because of this ambiguity, the findings here may shed some light on whether men target unrestricted behavior or desire/attitudes with more hostility. For benevolent sexism, I had conceptually congruent predictions as for hostile sexism. Just as hostile sexism can be thought of as a punishment for eschewing traditional norms of female sexuality, perhaps benevolent sexist treatment is the seemingly kinder (yet insidiously subordinating) “reward” for chastity. In other words, women who appear relatively unrestricted in their behavior or in their attitudes and desires will be withheld benevolence. Although plausible, I did have one concern in making this prediction. Namely, Study 2 showed that Behavioral ASO is closely related to facial attractiveness. Because attractive individuals tend to be treated kindly and ascribed positive traits (Dion, Berschied, & Walster, 1972; Kalick, Zebrowitz, Langlois, & Johnson, 1998; Zebrowitz, Hall, Murphy, & Rhodes, 2002), it was also possible that I would find that unrestricted appearing women would actually be subjected to increased benevolent sexism, but by virtue of their relatively high attractiveness, rather than their unrestrictedness. In essence, because attractive people are viewed positively along multiple social dimensions, men may be inclined to treat them with more benevolence. If a positive relationship between unrestricted ASO and benevolence obtained, however, it may be accounted for by such facial attractiveness effects. Again, because no work to date has considered separately women’s unrestricted behavior and attitudes and desires, I did not have strong a priori hypotheses about the subcomponents. I did predict that women who appeared globally unrestricted would be subjected to more hostile and less benevolent sexism than their restricted appearing counterparts.

30 Preliminary Study 3 I conducted a third Preliminary Study (reported in the original proposal; see Appendix E for a full presentation of the methods and findings of Preliminary Study 3) as an initial test of whether men respond with more hostility and less benevolence toward women whose faces appear sexually unrestricted, compared to women whose faces appear more restricted. Participants made hostile and benevolent evaluations of women using the individual ambivalent sexism inventory (ASI-I; see Appendix F for full scale), which was created by re-wording original items focusing on perceivers’ endorsement of sexist ideologies to instead refer to an individual woman’s characteristics or behaviors that align with hostile and benevolent sexism (see below for a full description). In this preliminary study, I held attractiveness constant by creating an unrestricted group of targets and a restricted group matched on attractiveness. My analyses revealed the predicted interaction between target group and sexism type, F(1,45) = 2 10.258, p = .003, ηp = .186. Men responded to unrestricted appearing women with more hostile (p = .009) and less benevolent evaluations (p = .033) than restricted appearing women. Drawing upon these preliminary findings, in my Study 3, I conducted a similar test of the hypothesis that women who appear relatively unrestricted would be subject to more hostile and less benevolent sexism than women who appear restricted. On a by-stimulus basis, I investigated whether women’s naturally varying apparent sociosexuality predicts men’s hostile and benevolent evaluations of them above and beyond the effects of the facial correlates of ASO found in Study 2. Method

Participants. Because the analyses in Study 3 are by-stimulus, I needed enough participants to establish stable averages for hostile and benevolent sexist responding to each face. Following the procedure of Study 1, as well as best practices established in past work (Wilson & Rule, 2015), I aimed to have each face rated by at least 25 raters. Each participant rated a randomly selected subset of 15 of the 90 target faces (see Procedure below). In all, 619 participants, including 133 straight White men, recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk participated in the study in exchange for payment. Stimuli. For this study, I employed the same 90 CFD women used in Studies 1 and 2. From these 90 target images, I created six randomly selected sets of 15 targets each. Each participant was assigned to view only the 15 target women from one of these groups.

31 Measures. Whereas past research has typically focused on individual differences in ambivalent sexism at the perceiver level, in Study 3, I assessed hostile and benevolent sexism aimed at individual women (i.e., which women are targeted with hostility or benevolence, rather than which perceivers hold omnibus hostile or benevolent attitudes). To this end, I followed the methodology of Sibley and Wilson (2004) and modified the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI; Glick & Fiske, 1996), in such a way so as to reference specific women. I refer to this scale as the Individual Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI-I). Participants indicated the extent to which they believed a target woman would possess a number of qualities aligning with hostile and benevolent sexism. For example, they indicated whether a given target is likely to “have a quality of purity few men possess” (Benevolent Sexism) or to “seek to gain power by getting control over men” (Hostile Sexism; see Appendix F for all ASI-I scale items). Responses to these statements were made on a 1 (Not at all) to 9 (Extremely) scale. The ASI-I includes 15 items adapted from the original 22 ASI items, with nine items referring to hostile sexism and six referring to benevolent sexism. Seven items from the original ASI were dropped because they could not easily be reworded to focus on individual targets. Notably, because I aimed to keep as close to the original items in the original ASI, two types of questions emerged. For all hostile evaluations and three benevolent evaluations (items 1- 12), participants indicated how they believed the target woman may behave or the qualities she may possess. However, for three of the benevolent evaluations (items 13-16), the questions were instead assessing how the target woman may be treated by others, and notably not by the participant. Thus, this second set of questions may simply be an estimation of societal impressions, rather than the participants’ own impressions of these women. It will be important to test whether this second category of benevolent evaluations appear to reflect the personal judgments, which precede them and more precisely assess participants’ personal impressions. Procedure. As in Study 1, after providing informed consent, participants responded to demographics information, including race, ethnicity, sex, and sexual orientation, so that randomization could occur among straight White male participants to assure individual faces were rated by relatively equal numbers of participants. Next, participants were informed they would evaluate women’s faces along a number of dimensions. Then, one at a time, participants responded to the ASI-I for 15 of the 90 possible targets, in a randomized order. Each target image was presented directly above the ASI-I

32 statements. Participants were instructed to “Please rate the person pictured above on how likely you believe they would engage in the following behaviors or have the following qualities” using a 9-point Likert-type scale. Items were presented in the same order for all faces, and participants responded to all items for a given face before moving on to rate the next face. After completing the 15 ASI-I items for each of the 15 targets, participants were thanked and debriefed. Results Study 3 was designed to investigate whether men subjected women to hostile and benevolent sexism differently depending on their appearance of sexual (un)restrictedness, as well as whether such effects obtained even when controlling for the previously-established facial correlates of ASO. Finally, I was interested in the unique contributions of individual subcomponents of ASO on these evaluations. Preliminary Factor Analysis of Hostile and Benevolent Sexism. To investigate whether ASO judgments predicted hostile and benevolent judgments, I first needed to establish that the hostile and benevolent sexism items form the predicted two factor structure. Thus, I conducted an exploratory factor analysis to test whether the ASI-I reflects the two-factors of hostile and benevolent sexism, reflecting the ASI upon which it was based. As before, because the primary analyses in Study 3 were conducted by-stimulus, this factor analysis was conducted by-stimulus. For each target, I averaged together participants’ evaluations for each item of the ASI-I and submitted these scores to a factor analysis using maximum likelihood estimation with promax rotation. This factor analysis produced a two-factor solution based on an eigenvalue cutoff of

1.00 (λ1 = 7.815, λ2 = 4.006). With an item loading cutoff of .5, the first factor included eight of the nine hostile sexism items (items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9; α = .967) and the second factor included the six benevolent sexism items (α = .962). Item 7, “tease men sexually” cross loaded onto both factors and thus was not included in either Hostile or Benevolent evaluations moving forward. These subscales were modestly correlated with one another, r = .260. Notably, this also replicates the well-established pattern in the literature for hostile and benevolent sexism to be modestly positively correlated (see Glick & Fiske, 2001 for a review; see Table 3 for factor loadings). Primary Analyses. Global ASO. For the primary test of whether women who appear restricted versus unrestricted are subjected to different forms of sexism, I first tested the relationship between

33 Global ASO and hostile and benevolent judgments of women. Thus, I averaged together the eight hostile sexism items and the six benevolent sexism items separately for each stimulus. Next, I ran a pair of zero order correlations between Global ASO and Hostile evaluations and Global ASO and Benevolent evaluations. As expected, Global ASO was positively correlated with Hostile (r = .395, p < .001) evaluations, such that women rated as more unrestricted were subjected to increased hostile evaluations. However, more unrestricted appearing women were also subjected to increased Benevolent evaluations (r = .628, p < .001). To investigate the nature of these relationships, I next tested the independent contributions of the subcomponents of ASO. Thus, to test whether men’s hostility and benevolence are uniquely predicted by target women’s apparent sexual behavior or their apparent attitudes and desires, I entered the Behavioral ASO and Intrapersonal ASO as predictors into multiple regressions predicting first benevolent sexist responses, and then hostile sexist responses. Hostile Evaluations as Predicted by Behavioral and Intrapersonal ASO. For hostile evaluations, this model accounted for 16.3% of the variance, R2 = .163, F(2,87) = 8.493, p < .001. Intrapersonal ASO was a unique predictor, β = 0.517, p = .002, but Behavioral ASO was not, β = -0.160, p = .314. Thus, women who appear to have unrestricted desires and attitudes are targeted with increased hostility, an effect that does not obtain for unrestricted behavior. It was further important to test whether the effects of ASO exist over and above the previously established trait-to-ASO links. Thus, I entered facial Attractiveness, facial Dominance, and facial Trustworthiness (the facial predictors of ASO established in Study 2) along with Intrapersonal ASO into a multiple regression to predict men’s Hostile sexist responding. Here, only facial Dominance, β = 0.245, p = .023, and Intrapersonal ASO, β = 0.325, p = .011, emerged as significant predictors of Hostile evaluations, R2 = .259, F(4,85) = 7.414, p < .001 (see Table 4). Attractiveness, β = 0.032, p = .834, and facial Trustworthiness, β = -0.161, p = .233, were not significant predictors. The fact that Intrapersonal ASO continued to predict hostile sexist responses over and above the facial correlates of ASO (from Study 2) is notable. Thus, although facial dominance is also important to the hostility women are subject to, men seem to punish women with hostility when they appear to have unrestricted attitudes and desires in particular, a point to which I return in the discussion below.

34 Benevolent Evaluations predicted by Behavioral and Intrapersonal ASO. I next investigated whether stimulus-level variations in benevolent evaluations were predicted by stimulus-level variations in Behavioral and Intrapersonal ASO. Specifically, I entered Behavior ASO and Intrapersonal ASO as unique predictors into a multiple regression, predicting hostile sexist responding. Here, Behavioral ASO was a unique predictor (β = 0.690, p < .001), but Intrapersonal ASO was not (β = -0.038, p = .770; R2 = .436, F(2,87) = 33.637, p < .001). Thus, when women are perceived as likely to engage in unrestricted behavior, men subject these women to increased benevolent sexism. It may seem counterintuitive that women who appear to engage in unrestricted behavior would be evaluated with benevolence, however, because attractiveness predicts Behavioral ASO, it is possible this observed apparent behavioral unrestrictedness-to-benevolence link is actually driven entirely by facial attractiveness. In other words, it may not be a true ASO-to-benevolence link, but instead an attractiveness-to- benevolence link. To investigate this possibility, I entered facial Attractiveness, facial Dominance, and facial Trustworthiness (the facial predictors of ASO established in Study 2) along with Behavioral ASO into a multiple regression predicting Behavioral ASO. If the previous unrestricteness-to-benevolence findings are actually driven by attractiveness, then including attractiveness in the model should eliminate these effects. Alternatively, if women who appear to engage in unrestricted behavior are subjected to increased benevolent sexism regardless of their attractiveness, Behavioral ASO should remain a significant predictor with facial attractiveness (and other facial correlates) entered into the model. This analysis revealed that Attractiveness, β = 0.637, p < .001, was the only significant predictor of unique variance in Benevolent evaluations, R2 = .636, F(4,85) = 39.958, p < .001 (see Table 4). With the facial correlates of ASO in the model, Behavioral ASO was reduced to a nonsignificant (albeit marginal) predictor of benevolent sexist responding, β = 0.178, p = .089. Neither facial Dominance, β = -0.080, p = .262, nor facial Trustworthiness, β = 0.034, p = .715, predicted benevolent evaluations in this model. This pattern of results suggests the previous finding that women who appear to engage in unrestricted sex are subjected to increased benevolent evaluations is primarily driven by the increased attractiveness of unrestricted appearing women.

35 Discussion In Study 3, I was primarily interested in how stimulus-level variations in men’s hostile and benevolent judgments of women may be predicted by stimulus-level variations in women’s appearance of sexual (un)restrictedness. I initially found that more unrestricted appearing women were targeted with increased hostile and benevolent evaluations, but this was not uniformly predicted by the subcomponents of ASO. First, women who appeared to have more unrestricted sexual desires and attitudes (but not behaviors) were subjected to increased hostility. Further, despite the unique relationship between dominant appearance and hostile sexism, women’s Intrapersonal ASO remained a significant predictor of men’s hostile evaluations, above and beyond the effects of the facial correlates of ASO (i.e., facial dominance, facial trustworthiness, facial attractiveness). Thus, women who appear interested in and accepting of unrestricted sex are targeted with hostile sexism. Interestingly, although women are typically punished for their sexual behavior, men’s hostility was aimed at women primarily based on their apparent intrapersonal sociosexuality, not their apparent behavior. For benevolence, women who appeared more unrestricted in their behavior (but not in their attitudes and desires) were subjected to increased benevolent evaluations compared to their restricted counterparts. However, this effect was primarily driven by these women’s attractiveness. Thus, attractive women seem to be rewarded with benevolence, regardless of their apparent sociosexuality. This finding is at odds with both past work showing that relatively unrestricted women are subjected to decreased benevolent sexism (Sibley & Wilson, 2004) and indeed my own preliminary work (Preliminary Study 3). It may be the case that allowing facial attractiveness to vary naturally, which was impossible for Sibley and Wilson because they did not use visual stimuli, allows men to use attractiveness almost exclusively to make benevolent evaluations. Indeed, facial attractiveness accounted for 63.2% of the variance in men’s benevolent sexist evaluations. General Discussion Recent work has begun to investigate how people judge others’ sexual unrestrictedness from minimal information. In the present work, I investigated the dimensional structure (Study 1) and facial correlates (Study 2) of men’s judgments of women’s Apparent Sociosexual Orientation based only on their faces, and tested the potential consequences of these ASO judgments for men’s sexist evaluations of women (Study 3). In Study 1, I found that men

36 consensually rated women’s apparent sociosexuality, but these judgments did not reflect the three-factor structure of individuals’ sociosexuality with behavior, attitudes, and desires subcomponents. Instead, men’s judgments of women’s apparent unrestricted attitudes and desires formed a single dimension (Intrapersonal ASO) and their apparent unrestricted behaviors formed a second (Behavioral ASO). Study 2 revealed that both facial attractiveness and facial dominance were reliable, a priori predictors of Apparent Sociosexual Orientation judgments, but that facial attractiveness was especially predictive of Behavioral ASO, compared to Intrapersonal ASO. Facial dominance, by comparison, predicted Behavioral and Intrapersonal ASO similarly. Further, exploratory analyses revealed that facial trustworthiness also obtained as a predictor of ASO, suggesting that perceivers may rely on a somewhat accurate facial stereotype of sexual unrestrictedness when judging others (i.e., individual differences in dominance, trustworthiness, and attractiveness each predict self-reported sexual unrestrictedness). Finally, in Study 3, I showed that apparently unrestricted women were subjected to increased hostile sexism – an effect that occurred over and above the previously established ASO predictors – and increased benevolent sexism – an effect primarily driven by their relatively high attractiveness. These studies shed light on a number of unanswered questions in the apparent sociosexuality literature. Whereas past work has commonly examined the causes and consequences of an individual’s self-reported (un)restrictedness, and more recently whether people can accurately detect others’ sociosexuality, the present work is the first to investigate the dimensional composition of judgments of others’ apparent sociosexuality. Early critics of the original SOI measure (Simpson and Gangestad, 2001) suggested sociosexuality should be separated into external behaviors and internal attitudes (Jackson & Kirkpatrick, 2007; Webster & Bryan, 2006). In the present work, I also tested whether internal and external aspects of apparent sociosexuality were separable. Further, just as Penke and Asendorpf (2008) differentiated between the unrestricted attitudes and desires a person may have, I adapted questions from Penke and Asendorpf’s SOI-R to test whether apparent attitudes and desires formed one or multiple factors. However, unlike Penke and Asendorpf’s work on individual differences in sociosexuality, apparent attitudes and desires formed a single factor and apparent unrestricted behavior formed the second. I believe the primary difference between these two sets of items is their interpersonal or intrapersonal nature. In essence, in order to engage in unrestricted behavior, one must find a partner willing to engage in this behavior, whereas unrestricted attitudes and

37 desires can be present without any consideration of others. A person can believe sex without love is okay without ever having met another person. Thus, I predicted that behavioral items (Behavioral ASO) would be closely related to attractiveness, in comparison to the attitudes and desire items (Intrapersonal ASO). Indeed, Behavioral ASO was more strongly predicted by attractiveness than was Intrapersonal ASO, supporting the possibility that the interpersonal nature of Behavioral ASO is a distinguishing characteristic. Beyond merely being associated with distinct patterns of correlated facial features, Behavioral and Intrapersonal ASO were also differently related to men’s sexist evaluations of women. In Study 3, men evaluated women who appeared more likely to engage in unrestricted sexual behavior with increased benevolence. However, this effect seems to have been driven by their increased attractiveness. Behavioral ASO was no longer a significant predictor of benevolent evaluations when accounting for the effect of attractiveness. Simply put, men evaluate more attractive women with increased benevolence. In contrast, women’s Intrapersonal ASO – their appearance of unrestricted attitudes and desires – predicted men’s hostile evaluations of them, such that men evaluated women who appeared to have unrestricted attitudes and desires with more hostility compared to restricted appearing women. This was true above and beyond the effects of the facial attractiveness, facial dominance, and facial trustworthiness. More dominant appearing women were also subjected to increased hostile responses, but this did not account for the unique effect of Intrapersonal ASO. Thus, women who appear intrapersonally unrestricted were still subjected to relatively more hostile sexism, regardless of their facial dominance. This finding in particular may suggest an important difference between Behavioral and Intrapersonal ASO beyond the differing strengths of their relationships with attractiveness. Past work has done little to explicitly consider whether women’s unrestricted sexual behavior and their attitudes about and desires for unrestricted sex lead to distinct consequences. Thus, it may be difficult to understand why women’s appearance of unrestricted attitudes and desires would predict men’s hostile sexism towards them above and beyond the effects of perceived unrestricted behavior (e.g., sex with multiple partners). As noted above, in recent work investigating the relationship between women’s sociosexuality and the sexism to which they are subject, researchers have confounded intrapersonal and behavioral sociosexuality by describing women as “enjoying casual flings,” not merely engaging in them (i.e., Fowers & Fowers, 2010;

38 Sibley & Wilson, 2004). Thus, it is impossible to know whether it was the internal attitudes about and desires for uncommitted sex implied by their ‘enjoyment’ or the behavior itself that led to the findings. In the present work, the unique influence of Intrapersonal ASO on hostile evaluations suggests the enjoyment of casual may have been more important than the mere act of casual sex in these studies. If so, why might this be the case? Perhaps unrestricted sexual behavior is less stereotypically inconsistent for women than unrestricted attitudes and desires. Indeed, Penke and Asendorpf (2008) did not find differences in sociosexual behavior between men and women, whereas men had more unrestricted attitudes and desires than women. In fact, in dyadic heterosexual mating, men and women must have equivalent mean levels of sexual behavior. Glick and Fiske (1996) noted a similar dynamic between men and women in all sexual behavior, in which men are more interested in sex than women. Further, they suggested that men’s reliance on women for sex and love may have contributed to the construction of the gender hierarchy that is supported by hostile and benevolent sexism. In particular, women are sometimes construed as using men’s relatively greater sexual desire to gain control over them. Thus, women may be seen as using sex to accomplish some power-oriented goal or as obligatory participants, engaging in sex only for the appeasement of their partners (e.g., Khoei, Whelan, Cohen, 2008), but they are not expected to enjoy sexual activity. Therefore, it may be the case that women are perceived to have similar obligatory roles in unrestricted sex. If so, prejudice against women who engage in unrestricted behavior (e.g., “slut-shaming”) may be less a reaction against women’s sexual behavior per se, but instead a punishment for inferred unrestricted attitudes about and desires for casual sex. Future work may benefit from further testing the independent effects of women’s sociosexual behavior and their sociosexual attitudes and desires. Interestingly, in my endeavor to understand the facial correlates of Behavioral and Intrapersonal ASO, I found that my a priori predicted correlates (facial attractiveness and facial dominance) accounted for nearly 60% of the variance in judgments of Behavioral ASO (R2 = .589), whereas they only accounted for around 40% of the variance in Intrapersonal ASO (R2 = .396). Perhaps this difference is indicative of more ambiguity in participants’ judgments of women’s Intrapersonal ASO. Indeed, these intrapersonal judgments (� = .096) were made less consensually than behavioral judgments (� = .208). However, this somewhat reduced consensus is not accompanied by reduced predictive power for men’s hostile sexist responding. Notably,

39 this was found in spite of the fact that ASO ratings and sexism ratings were made by different participants across Studies 1 and 3. Further, assessments of Intrapersonal ASO predicted men’s sexist responding above and beyond the effects of both Behavioral ASO and the facial correlates of ASO. Thus, the effect of Intrapersonal ASO on men’s hostile evaluations was not merely reducible to its facial correlates, at least not those investigated in the present work. Together, these findings suggest the distinction between Behavioral and Intrapersonal ASO is an important one, and that future research in Apparent Sociosexual Orientation should consider them separately. That said, additional work is necessary to more fully understand the causes and consequences of these judgments. Additionally, whereas several studies have shown that judgments of women’s sociosexuality is related to their attractiveness (e.g., Batres et al, 2018; Boothroyd et al., 2008; Boothroyd et al., 2011; Stillman & Maner, 2009) no studies to date have linked women’s facial dominance to apparent sociosexuality judgments. Here, I found, in addition to their attractiveness, women’s sociosexual appearance is related to their facial dominance. A marginal interaction revealed this may be especially true for whether highly attractive women appeared to engage in unrestricted behavior. Considering men’s apparent sociosexuality is related to their facial masculinity (Boothroyd et al., 2008; Boothroyd et al., 2011), which is closely related to dominance in both stereotypical overlap and in relevant facial correlates, perhaps people perceive sexual unrestrictedness to be related to stereotypes of dominance, regardless of target gender. Although beyond the scope of the present research, this perception might reflect real differences between unrestricted and restricted men and women in terms of their alignment with stereotypes related to dominance. In other words, people may accurately understand the personality characteristics of restricted and unrestricted others, in general, and they use the appearance of these traits to infer unrestrictedness in faces. Thus, the relative inaccuracy of judgments of Apparent Sociosexual Orientation may be caused by the application of facial trait judgments that are themselves inaccurately made (i.e., dominance, trustworthiness). Beyond these contributions to how we understand Apparent Sociosexual Orientation, the present findings have a number of implications for Ambivalent Sexism Theory. Past work on ambivalent sexism has primarily focused on the endorsement of hostile and benevolent sexism by an individual. Indeed, the focus of the classic model is on perceivers’ representations of women (Glick & Fiske, 1996, 2001). More recently, some researchers have shifted focus to the

40 characteristics of roles or behaviors that are differentially targeted with hostility and benevolence (e.g., Sibley & Wilson, 2004). The present work extends this more recent vein of research by showing that men differentially target women with hostility and benevolence depending on women’s facial characteristics, cues over which women have relatively little control. Although the effects of facial attractiveness on hostile and benevolent sexism was not of primary interest in this work, in Study 3, I found that facial attractiveness was the only significant predictor of benevolent sexism, by itself accounting for 63.7% of the variance in men’s benevolent evaluations of women. However, women’s facial attractiveness was unrelated to hostile sexism. These findings are interesting for a number of reasons. First, no work to my knowledge has previously found that any physical characteristic of women is related to the benevolent sexism to which they are subject. However, this finding is in line with research on the “halo effect,” which finds that attractive women, and attractive people in general are evaluated very favorably and are ascribed positive characteristics (Dion et al., 1972; Kalick et al., 1998; Zebrowitz et al., 2002). These findings are also consistent with work showing that more attractive women are evaluated more positively for non-managerial jobs, but less favorably for managerial jobs (i.e., stereotypically male jobs; Heilman & Saruwatari, 1979). This selective positivity is relevant because it highlights the double-edged sword of ambivalent sexism. Although benevolent sexism can often seem subjectively positive (to the actor, at least), it is accompanied by questions of competence. Of potentially equal interest is that facial attractiveness was not robustly related to hostile sexism. A relationship between facial attractiveness and hostile sexism was certainly plausible. First, hostility seems the conceptual opposite of a positivity halo. Second, Glick and Fiske (2001) posited that men may grow resentful of women’s ability to use attractiveness to gain control over them. However, the implication here is that women’s attractiveness would be used as a tool for power. The ASI-I question that best matches this description was “tease men sexually” (Question 7), and this item did not load cleanly onto either the hostile or the benevolent factor (See Appendix G for exploratory analyses of ASI-I Item 7). Perhaps attractive women are only targeted with hostility specifically for the use of their attractiveness. Indeed, I did not find that women’s facial attractiveness predicted hostile evaluations. Instead, women’s appearance of intrapersonal unrestrictedness and facial dominance predicted increased hostile sexism. Thus, it

41 may be that attractive women at zero-acquaintance are given the benefit of the doubt and treated benevolently, without other behavioral evidence. These findings also reveal the possibility that stimulus-level variations in other possible physical characteristics may play a role in predicting variation in which women are targeted with hostility and benevolence. For example, physical characteristics that are related to women’s sexual attractiveness and reproductive health (e.g., breast size, waist-to-hip ratio; Furnham, Dias, & McClelland, 1998; Jasieńska, Ziomkiewicz, Ellison, Lipson, & Thune, 2004; Singh, 1995; Singh & Young, 1995) may also be contributors to how sexually restricted or unrestricted women appear. Thus, these sexually dimorphic features may similarly affect whether women are likely to encounter hostile or benevolent sexism. Recent research indicates that women with low waist-to-hip ratios (i.e., curvy women) are perceived as sexually unrestricted (Lloyd, McConnell, Deska, Almaraz, & Hugenberg, in prep) suggesting women who differ in waist-to-hip ratio may be differentially targeted with benevolent and hostile sexism as well. Importantly, these sexist evaluations could have consequences in a wide range of situations. For example, a good deal of past work has linked hostile and benevolent sexism to relationship problems. For example, men high in hostile sexism use more hostile communication styles toward their partners, are less open in communication, and have worse relationship outcomes than men lower in hostile sexism (Overall, Sibley, & Tan, 2011). Additionally, Hammond and Overall (2013) found that men who are high in hostile sexism view their relationship partners as more manipulative, and evaluate them more negatively overall, than do men low in hostile sexism. Individual differences in hostile and benevolent sexism also predict the legitimizing of spousal abuse (Glick et al., 2002). Relatedly, several studies have shown that ambivalent sexist attitudes are related to the likelihood that men will perpetrate or blame the victims of acquaintance or romantic partner rape as well (e.g., Duran, Moya, Megias, & Viki, 2010; Masser, Viki, & Power, 2006). Thus, individual differences in endorsed hostile and benevolent sexism play important roles in both individuals’ behavior and their perception of others’ behavior. However, left unclear is whether targets’ physical characteristics may affect the hostility and benevolence in these situations as well. Moving Forward This dissertation had the novel goals of testing whether Apparent Sociosexual Orientation is a multidimensional construct, validating the dimensions that emerged by assessing their facial

42 correlates and predictive power for hostile and benevolent evaluations. However, moving forward with this project, I will need to take additional steps to more fully establish this work as a valuable contribution to the literature. First, I will need to replicate the two-dimensional structure of ASO. Because no past work has shown a multidimensional structure in ASO judgments, and because the current work was exploratory with regard to the various possible structures, a confirmatory demonstration of the separate components of Intrapersonal and Behavioral ASO would greatly strengthen the case made herein. Second, although I have shown that women’s ASO is related to men’s hostile and benevolent evaluations of them, the real world applicability of this work would be highlighted by additional studies showing that men’s harmful sexist behavior is guided by women’s sociosexual appearance. In other words, do women who appear interested in unrestricted sex actually receive harmful treatment more so than do women who appear relatively restricted? Perhaps one of the most relevant candidates for behavior that may be guided by women’s ASO is men’s engagement in sexual harassment. Workplace sexual harassment affects between 4 to 7 percent of women in the United States every year (Blackstone, McLaughlin, & Uggen, 2018). Past researchers investigating which women tend to be subjected to sexual harassment have found that women who have gender non-conforming roles or personalities may be especially at risk of workplace sexual harassment (McLaughlin, Uggen, & Blackstone, 2012). For the perpetrators, both men’s endorsement of hostile sexism and their short-term mating interest are related to their engagement in sexual harassment against women. Thus, considering women who appear relatively unrestricted are defined by the appearance of short-term mating interest, which is more stereotypical of men than women, and are subjected to more hostile sexism than restricted appearing women (Study 3), men may disproportionately target these women in particular with sexual harassment. To supplement the present findings that women who appear interested in unrestricted sex are evaluated with more hostile sexism than their unrestricted appearing counterparts, I will test whether these women may also be subjected to increased sexual harassment. One way of answering this question would be to adopt the Computer Harassment Paradigm originally developed by Dall’Ara and Maass (2000; see also Maass, Cadinu, Guarnieri, & Grasselli, 2003). In this paradigm, participants are allowed to interact with an online partner, ostensibly a female participant, and send her images throughout the interaction. Critically,

43 participants can choose to send these women pornographic images, a practice that has been identified as a form of harassment common in workplace environments (e.g., Dekker & Barling, 1998). By employing this paradigm here with target women whose faces appear more or less sexually unrestricted, I can directly test whether more unrestricted appearing women, who are subjected to increased hostile evaluations, may actually be more likely victims of sexual harassment. It is important to note here that these biases would be related merely to differences in women’s facial appearance, holding constant any target-level differences in behavior, clothing, or personality. This would establish women’s Apparent Sociosexual Orientation a facial characteristic that could impact their treatment across a vast range of situations. Limitations and Future Directions The present work is not without its limitations, many of which may be addressed with future research. Female Perceivers. First, this work focuses only on men as perceivers. Here again, this focus was intentional because the men are more likely to engage in a variety of actions against women, including sexual harassment and sexual assault that are relevant to both sociosexuality and ambivalent sexism. However, Baumeister and Twenge (2002) suggest that women may play a critical role in suppressing other women’s sexuality, with women as well as men both “rewarding” other women who appear sexually restricted and “punishing” women who appear unrestricted. Indeed, Fowers and Fowers (2010) found that, similar to men, women targeted other women who seemed sexually unrestricted with hostile sexism and women who seemed sexually restricted with benevolence. Further, in my own preliminary work, I found that women’s pattern of sexist responding was identical to men’s (Preliminary Study 3). Specifically, women evaluated other women who appeared sexually unrestricted with more hostile and less benevolent sexism than restricted appearing women. Future work would benefit from testing whether women generally agree with men’s ASO judgments, and whether their judgments predict similar outcomes for sexist responding. Men’s ASO. Another limitation of this work is that I focus only on judgments of women’s sociosexuality. This was intentional, because past work has shown that women often bear the more extreme consequences of appearing sexually unrestricted, relative to men. However, there are several questions left unanswered about judgments of men’s ASO. Whereas past work has shown that participants consensually judge men’s ASO (e.g., Boothroyd et al., 2008), it is

44 unclear whether judgments of men’s ASO would have the same conceptual structure as women’s ASO in the present work. In vivo, men’s behavior, attitudes, and desires align more closely than do women’s (Penke & Asendorpf, 2008). Perhaps perceivers can intuit this close relationship and may consider men’s ASOs to be unidimensional. However, just as women’s attractiveness was more strongly predictive of their Behavioral ASO than their Intrapersonal ASO, men’s facial attractiveness may also be especially closely related to their Behavioral ASO. Unattractive men may even be perceived as unable to engage in, but especially desirous of, unrestricted sex. Thus, a multidimensional solution also seems plausible. Because the personality correlates of actual sociosexuality, which participants in the current work may have used in their facial evaluations, tend to be similar for men and women, facial dominance and trustworthiness will likely also be related to men’s ASO. Indeed, in my preliminary work, I found that judgments of men’s ASO were related to their facial dominance (and masculinity; see Appendix D for Preliminary Study 2 methods and results). Further, just as women’s ASO is related to the sexism to which men subject them, men’s ASO may also have important implications for how they are treated. One possibility is that all targets that appear unrestricted will be evaluated negatively. In this case, unrestricted appearing men would be evaluated more negatively overall. If, however, the hostile evaluation of women is based closely on their apparent non-adherence to traditional gender norms, men who appear sexually unrestricted may not necessarily receive a penalty. Indeed, male sexual activity is often positively evaluated by peers, whereas sexually active females are punished by their peers (Fetterolf & Sanchez, 2015; Kreager & Staff, 2009). Instead, perhaps restricted appearing men could be subjected to mistreatment. Future work could benefit from investigating whether facial judgments of sociosexuality affect both men and women in conceptually comparable ways. Non-White Targets’ ASO. Another limitation of the present work is the exclusive use of White perceivers and targets. These groups were chosen for this initial endeavor for a number of reasons. The foremost reason is availability. For target stimuli, more White women were available for use from the CFD (Ma et al., 2015) than any other races. This was important because in these studies, I conducted by-stimulus analyses where power is limited by the number of stimuli, so I sought to maximize the number of targets available. Likewise, the participants from both Amazon mTurk and the subject pools available to me are primarily White, making collection of other participant racial groups more difficult and costly. However, now that I have

45 established the effect women’s ASO has on sexist responding among White participants and targets, it will be important to test whether similar biases exist among other race targets and perceivers. A likely possibility is that similar stereotypes and facial correlates will be implicated regardless of the racial group of the targets. This assertion is based on past work showing that Black people are stereotyped as both more masculine than White people and as more sexually unrestricted (Nagel, 2003). Thus, perhaps racial stereotypes about sociosexuality are based on complementary stereotypes about those groups’ dominance. When applied to individuals’ Apparent Sociosexual Orientation, facial judgments of attractiveness, dominance, and trustworthiness will likely be related, regardless of race and gender. However, targets’ racially prototypical appearance should not lead to uniform sociosexuality judgments. For example, Black women with more Afrocentric facial features should be judged as unrestricted, whereas White women with Eurocentric facial features may be seen as restricted. Further, because Black women are perceived as less attractive overall than White women (e.g., Goff, Thomas, & Jackson, 2008), the relationship between ASO and attractiveness may be weaker for them. Thus, unrestricted appearing Black women may be especially targeted with hostility and not benevolence. Future work could benefit from investigating how perceivers judge the ASO of members of other races and the sexist consequences of these judgments. Responses to Sexism. Finally, it is important to note that, although benevolent sexism consists of chivalrous and helpful behaviors and hostile sexism involves more overtly harmful behaviors, neither component of ambivalent sexism is good. Instead, they work together to perpetuate the male dominated gender hierarchy (Glick & Fiske, 1996). This is perhaps especially true when women perceive they must conform to gender norms in order to avoid punishment. Thus, in the pursuit of gender equality, it is important to oppose both forms of sexism. However, opposing benevolent sexism presents a challenge. Often, women who are the beneficiaries of benevolence are the most likely to endorse benevolent sexism and therefore the system as a whole (Jost & Kay, 2005). However, the converse of this is that women who are exposed to hostile sexism are inclined to reject both hostile and benevolent forms of sexist behavior (Becker & Wright, 2011). This may lead to interesting hypotheses for variations amongst women in who opposes benevolent sexism. For example, women who appear unrestricted – who therefore may be chronically subjected to hostility – could be especially motivated to oppose these system-justifying ideologies. If true, variation in women’s ASO may

46 actually predict variation in their endorsement of sexist ideologies. Although certainly beyond the scope of the present research, taking ASO seriously as a construct, including the potential differential costs paid by women for being targeted with hostility and benevolence, may lead to interesting predictions about who is most likely to resist traditional gender hierarchy. Conclusion In sum, this work makes contributions to both the understanding of men’s facial judgments of women’s sexual (un)restrictedness and to the consequence of these judgments. Men can consensually judge women’s sexuality in terms of their intrapersonal unrestrictedness (attitudes and desires) and their behavioral unrestrictedness, both of which are related to these women’s facial attractiveness and their dominant appearance. In addition, men targeted attractive women with benevolent sexism, and targeted women who appear to have more positive attitudes about and increased desire for unrestricted sex with hostile sexism. Thus, these Apparent Sociosexual Orientation judgments are consensual, reliable, and may have important consequences for women’s daily experience with sexism.

47 References Asendorpf, J. B., & Penke, L. (2005). A mature evolutionary psychology demands careful conclusions about sex differences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 275-276. Baron‐Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Hill, J., Raste, Y., & Plumb, I. (2001). The “reading the mind in the eyes” test revised version: A study with normal adults, and adults with Asperger syndrome or high‐functioning autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 241-251. Batres, C., Russell, R., Simpson, J. A., Campbell, L., Hansen, A. M., & Cronk, L. (2018). Evidence that makeup is a false signal of sociosexuality. Personality and Individual Differences, 122, 148–154. Baumeister, R. F., & Twenge, J. M. (2002). Cultural suppression of female sexuality. Review of General Psychology, 6, 166-203. Becker, J. C. (2010). Why do women endorse hostile and benevolent sexism? The role of salient female subtypes and internalization of sexist contents. Sex Roles, 62, 453-467. Becker, J. C., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Yet another dark side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 62-77. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155. Bernstein, I. H., Lin, T. D., & McClellan, P. (1982). Cross-vs. within-racial judgments of attractiveness. Perception & Psychophysics, 32, 495-503. Blackstone, A., McLaughlin, H., & Uggen, C. (2018) Workplace sexual harassment. Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality. Retrieved from https://inequality.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Pathways_SOTU_2018_harassment.pdf Boothroyd, L. G., Jones, B. C., Burt, D. M., DeBruine, L. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2008). Facial correlates of sociosexuality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 211-218. Boothroyd, L. G., Cross, C. P., Gray, A. W., Coombes, C., & Gregson-Curtis, K. (2011). Perceiving the facial correlates of sociosexuality: Further evidence. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 422-425. Cary, M. S. (1978). The role of gaze in the initiation of conversation. Social Psychology, 41, 269.

48 Christopher, A. N., & Mull, M. S. (2006). Conservative ideology and ambivalent sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 223-230. Clark, A. P. (2004). Self perceived attractiveness and masculinization predict women's sociosexuality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 113–124. Dekker, I., & Barling, J. (1998). Personal and organizational predictors of workplace sexual harassment of women by men. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 7–18. Deska, J. C., Lloyd, E. P., & Hugenberg, K. (2018). Facing humanness: Facial width-to-height ratio predicts ascriptions of humanity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114, 75. Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285-290. du Bois-Reymond, M., & Ravesloot, J. (1994). The role of parents and peers in the sexual and relational socialization of adolescents. Social Networks and Social Support in Childhood and Adolescence, 16, 217. Durán, M., Moya, M., Megías, J. L., & Viki, G. T. (2010). Social perception of rape victims in dating and married relationships: The role of perpetrator’s benevolent sexism. Sex Roles, 62, 505-519. Ellison, P. T. (2001). On fertile ground: A natural history of human reproduction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Fetterolf, J. C., & Sanchez, D. T. (2015). The costs and benefits of perceived sexual agency for men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 961-970. Fletcher, G. J., Simpson, J. A., Thomas, G., & Giles, L. (1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 72-89. Fowers, A. F., & Fowers, B. J. (2010). Social dominance and sexual self-schema as moderators of sexist reactions to female subtypes. Sex Roles, 62, 468-480. Franklin Jr, R. G., & Zebrowitz, L. A. (2016). The influence of political candidates’ facial appearance on older and younger adults’ voting choices and actual electoral success. Cogent Psychology, 3, 1151602. Furnham, A., Dias, M., & McClelland, A. (1998). The role of body weight, waist-to-hip ratio, and breast size in judgments of female attractiveness. Sex Roles, 39, 311-326. Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (1990). Toward an evolutionary history of female

49 sociosexual variation. Journal of Personality, 58, 69 –96. Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573–644. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109-118. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2011). Ambivalent sexism revisited. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 530-535. Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., ... Lopez Lopez, W. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763–775. Glick, P., Lameiras, M., Fiske, S. T., Eckes, T., Masser, B., Volpato, C., ... & Castro, Y. R. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 713-728. Glick, P., Wilkerson, M., & Cuffe, M. (2015). Masculine identity, ambivalent sexism, and attitudes toward gender subtypes favoring masculine men and feminine women. 46, 210– 217. Glick, P., Sakalli-Ugurlu, N., Ferreira, M. C., & Souza, M. A. D. (2002). Ambivalent sexism and attitudes toward wife abuse in Turkey and Brazil. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 292-297. Goff, P. A., Thomas, M. A., & Jackson, M. C. (2008). “Ain’t I a woman?”: Towards an intersectional approach to person perception and group-based harms. Sex Roles, 59, 392- 403. Good, J. J., & Rudman, L. A. (2010). When female applicants meet sexist interviewers: The costs of being a target of benevolent sexism. Sex Roles, 62, 481-493. Gray, P. B., Kahlenberg, S. M., Barrett, E. S., Lipson, S. F., & Ellison, P. T. (2002). Marriage and fatherhood are associated with lower testosterone in males. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 193-201.

50 Hammond, M. D., & Overall, N. C. (2013). Men’s hostile sexism and biased perceptions of intimate partners: Fostering dissatisfaction and negative behavior in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1585-1599. Hammond, M. D., & Sibley, C. G. (2011). Why are benevolent sexists happier?. Sex Roles, 65, 332-343. Heilman, M. E., & Saruwatari, L. R. (1979). When beauty is beastly: The effects of appearance and sex on evaluations of job applicants for managerial and nonmanagerial jobs. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 360-372. Hugenberg, K., & Wilson, J. P. (2013). Faces are central to social cognition. In Carlston, D. E. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Social Cognition (pp. 167-193), New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581-592. Jackson, J. J., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2007). The structure and measurement of human mating strategies: Toward a multidimensional model of sociosexuality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 382-391. Jankowiak, W. R., Hill, E. M., & Donovan, J. M. (1992). The effects of sex and sexual orientation on attractiveness judgments: An evolutionary interpretation. Ethology and Sociobiology, 13, 73-85. Jasieńska, G., Ziomkiewicz, A., Ellison, P. T., Lipson, S. F., & Thune, I. (2004). Large breasts and narrow waists indicate high reproductive potential in women. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 271, 1213-1217. Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 498-509. Kalick, S. M., Zebrowitz, L. A., Langlois, J. H., & Johnson, R. M. (1998). Does human facial attractiveness honestly advertise health? Longitudinal data on an evolutionary question. Psychological Science, 9, 8-13. Keating, C. F., Randall, D. W., Kendrick, T., & Gutshall, K. A. (2003). Do babyfaced adults receive more help? The (cross-cultural) case of the lost resume. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 27, 89-109.

51 Khoei, E. M., Whelan, A., & Cohen, J. (2008). Sharing beliefs: What sexuality means to Muslim Iranian women living in Australia. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 10, 237-248. Kim, P. H., Dirks, K. T., Cooper, C. D., & Ferrin, D. L. (2006). When more blame is better than less: The implications of internal vs. external attributions for the repair of trust after a competence-vs. integrity-based trust violation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 49-65. Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: Saunders. Kokko, H., & Jennions, M. (2003). It takes two to tango. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18, 103-104. Kreager, D. A., & Staff, J. (2009). The sexual double standard and adolescent peer acceptance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72, 143-164. Kunstman, J. W., & Maner, J. K. (2011). Sexual overperception: Power, mating motives, and biases in social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 282. Lloyd, E. P., McConnell, A. R., Deska, J. C., Almaraz, S. M., & Hugenberg, K. (in prep). Targets’ waist-to-hip ratio predicts sexual perception and responses to sexual assault. Manuscript in preparation. Ma, D. S., Correll, J., & Wittenbrink, B. (2015). The Chicago face database: A free stimulus set of faces and norming data. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 1122-1135. McArthur, L. Z., & Apatow, K. (1984). Impressions of baby-faced adults. Social Cognition, 2, 315-342. Macrae, C. N., & Martin, D. (2007). A boy primed Sue: feature‐based processing and person construal. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 793-805. Masser, B., Lee, K., & McKimmie, B. M. (2010). Bad woman, bad victim? Disentangling the effects of victim stereotypicality, gender stereotypicality and benevolent sexism on acquaintance rape victim blame. Sex Roles, 62, 494-504. Masser, B., Viki, G. T., & Power, C. (2006). Hostile sexism and rape proclivity amongst men. Sex Roles, 54, 565-574. Mattingly, B. A., Clark, E. M., Weidler, D. J., Bullock, M., Hackathorn, J., & Blankmeyer, K. (2011). Sociosexual orientation, commitment, and infidelity: A mediation analysis. The Journal of Social Psychology, 151, 222-226.

52 Mazur, A., & Booth, A. (1998). Testosterone and dominance in men. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 353-363. Mazur, A., & Mueller, U. (1996). Facial dominance. In Somit, A., & Peterson, S., (Eds.), Research in Biopolitics, Volume 4 (pp. 99-111). London: JAI Press. McLaughlin, H., Uggen, C., & Blackstone, A. (2012). Sexual harassment, workplace authority, and the paradox of power. American Sociological Review, 77, 625-647. Muehlenhard, C. L., Friedman, D. E., & Thomas, C. M. (1985). Is date rape justifiable? The effects of dating activity, who initiated, who paid, and men's attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 297-310. Muehlenhard, C. L., & Scardino, T. J. (1985). What will he think? Men's impressions of women who initiate dates and achieve academically. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 560. Nagel, J. (2003). Race, ethnicity, and sexuality: Intimate intersections, forbidden frontiers. New York: Oxford University Press. Oosterhof, N. N., & Todorov, A. (2008). The functional basis of face evaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 11087-11092. Ostovich, J. M., & Sabini, J. (2004). How are sociosexuality, sex drive, and lifetime number of sexual partners related?. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1255-1266. Overall, N. C., Sibley, C. G., & Tan, R. (2011). The costs and benefits of sexism: Resistance to influence during relationship conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 271-290. 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. Perilloux, C., Cloud, J. M., & Buss, D. M. (2013). Women’s physical attractiveness and short- term mating strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 490-495. Porter, S., England, L., Juodis, M., Ten Brinke, L., & Wilson, K. (2008). Is the face a window to the soul? Investigation of the accuracy of intuitive judgments of the trustworthiness of human faces. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 40, 171. Probst, S. S. (1999). Long- and short-term mating strategies and the five-factor model of personality. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 0560B.

53 Puts, D. A. (2010). Beauty and the beast: Mechanisms of sexual selection in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 157-175. Quist, M. C., Watkins, C. D., Smith, F. G., DeBruine, L. M., & Jones, B. C. (2011). Facial masculinity is a cue to women’s dominance. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 1089-1093. Regan, P. C., & Berscheid, E. (1999). Lust: What we know about human sexual desire. Sage Publications. Rhodes, G., Lee, K., Palermo, R., Weiss, M., Yoshikawa, S., Clissa, P., ... & Jeffery, L. (2005). Attractiveness of own-race, other-race, and mixed-race faces. Perception, 34(3), 319-340. Richeson, J. A., & Trawalter, S. (2005). On the categorization of admired and disliked exemplars of admired and disliked racial groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 517-530. Rule, N. O., Krendl, A. C., Ivcevic, Z., & Ambady, N. (2013). Accuracy and consensus in judgments of trustworthiness from faces: Behavioral and neural correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 409-426. Sakalh‐Uğurlu, N., & Glick, P. (2003). Ambivalent sexism and attitudes toward women who engage in premarital sex in Turkey. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 296-302. Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 247-275. Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Sexual dimensions of person description: Beyond or subsumed by the big five?. Journal of Research in Personality, 34(2), 141-177. Schmitt, M. T., & Branscombe, N. R. (2002). The internal and external causal loci of attributions to prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 620-628. Seal, D. W., Agostinelli, G., & Hannett, C. A. (1994). Extradyadic romantic involvement: Moderating effects of sociosexuality and gender. Sex Roles, 31, 1-22. Sibley, C. G., & Wilson, M. S. (2004). Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes toward positive and negative sexual female subtypes. Sex Roles, 51, 687-696. Simpson, J. A. (1987). The dissolution of romantic relationships: Factors involved in relationship stability and emotional distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 683- 692. Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence

54 for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870–883. Simpson, J. A., Gangestad, S. W., & Nations, C. (1996). Sociosexuality and relationship initiation: An ethological perspective of nonverbal behavior. Knowledge Structures in Close Relationships: A Social Psychological Approach, 121-146. Simpson, J. A., Wilson, C. L., & Winterheld, H. A. (2004). Sociosexuality and romantic relationships. Handbook of Sexuality in Close Relationships, 87-112. Singh, D. (1995). Female health, attractiveness, and desirability for relationships: Role of breast asymmetry and waist-to-hip ratio. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 465-481. Singh, D., & Young, R. K. (1995). Body weight, waist-to-hip ratio, breasts, and hips: Role in judgments of female attractiveness and desirability for relationships. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 483-507. Stearns, S. C. (1992). The evolution of life histories. New York: Oxford University Press. Stillman, T. F., & Maner, J. K. (2009). A sharp eye for her SOI: Perception and misperception of female sociosexuality at zero acquaintance. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30, 124-130. Tavris, C., & Wade, C. (1984). The longest war. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace. Todorov, A., Mandisodza, A. N., Goren, A., & Hall, C. C. (2005). Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308, 1623-1626. Todorov, A., Said, C. P., Engell, A. D., & Oosterhof, N. N. (2008). Understanding evaluation of faces on social dimensions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 455-460. Toscano, H., Schubert, T. W., & Sell, A. N. (2014). Judgments of dominance from the face track physical strength. Evolutionary Psychology, 12, 1-18. Townsend, J. M. (1999). Extraversion, sexual experience, and sexual emotions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 537-537. Van’t Wout, M., & Sanfey, A. G. (2008). Friend or foe: The effect of implicit trustworthiness judgments in social decision-making. Cognition, 108, 796-803. Viki, G. T., & Abrams, D. (2002). But she was unfaithful: Benevolent sexism and reactions to rape victims who violate traditional gender role expectations. Sex Roles, 47, 289-293. Webster, G. D., & Bryan, A. (2007). Sociosexual attitudes and behaviors: Why two factors are better than one. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 917-922.

55 Weston, E. M., Friday, A. E., & Liò, P. (2007). Biometric evidence that sexual selection has shaped the hominin face. PLoS One, 2, e710. Willis, J., & Todorov, A. (2006). First impressions: Making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science, 17, 592-598. Wilson, J. P., & Rule, N. O. (2015). Facial trustworthiness predicts extreme criminal-sentencing outcomes. Psychological Science, 26, 1325-1331. Wright, T. M. (1999). Female sexual behavior: Analysis of big five trait facets and domains in the prediction of sociosexuality. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59, 5611B. Wright, T. M., & Reise, S. P. (1997). Personality and unrestricted sexual behavior: Correlations of sociosexuality in Caucasian and Asian college students. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 166-192. Wright, D. B., & Stroud, J. N. (2002). Age differences in lineup identification accuracy: People are better with their own age. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 641-654. Zebrowitz, L. A., Hall, J. A., Murphy, N. A., & Rhodes, G. (2002). Looking smart and looking good: Facial cues to intelligence and their origins. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 238-249. Zebrowitz, L. A., & Montepare, J. M. (1992). Impressions of babyfaced individuals across the life span. Developmental Psychology, 28, 1143-1152.

56 Table 1

Study 1 Factor Loadings and Communalities Based on a Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis with Promax Rotation for the 12 Items from the Apparent Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (ASOI). Intrapersonal Behavioral Communalities ASO ASO Q1. Sexual partners in the last 12 .919 .937 months Q2. Sexual partners on only one .983 .916 occasion Q3. Sexual partners without a long-term .955 .972 relationship Q4. Comfortable with casual sex .804 .917

Q5. Sex without love is OK .763 .951 Q6. Interested in sex without .893 .926 commitment Q7. Sex only in a serious relationship -.874 .746

Q8. Sex only when in love -.877 .767

Q9. Sex only in long-term relationship -.762 .748 Q10. Fantasies without a committed .944 .795 relationship Q11. Sexual arousal without a .802 .685 committed relationship Q12. Fantasies about a stranger .833 .731 Note. Factor loadings < .5 are not presented.

57 Table 2

Study 2 Partial Correlations of ASO Judgments with Facial Judgments and Structures Controlling for Attractiveness and Dominance.

Global ASO Intrapersonal Behavioral ASO ASO Facial Judgments

Trustworthy -.295 (.005) -.285 (.015) -.276 (.009)

Threatening .109 (.314) .037 (.732) .152 (.156)

Facial Structures

Nose Width -.006 (.952) -.098 (.363) .075 (.488)

Nose Length -.024 (.821) -.114 (.291) .058 (.592)

Face Shape -.114 (.292) -.007 (.946) -.187 (.081)

Eye Size -.213 (.047) -.253 (.017) -.140 (.192)

Right Brow Height -.017 (.878) -.097 (.371) .056 (.602)

Left Brow Height -.008 (.941) -.079 (.464) .056 (.606)

Mouth Width -.098 (.362) -.019 (.862) -.151 (.160)

Chin Length .002 (.983) .091 (.400) -.076 (.483)

Facial Width-to-Height Ratio -.102 (.345) -.009 (.935) -.166 (.123) Note. Unadjusted p-values are presented in parentheses. Significance testing was conducted using a .0053 bonferroni adjusted cutoff for significance for Global ASO.

58

Table 3

Study 3 Factor Loadings and Communalities Based on a Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis with Promax Rotation for the 15 Items from the Individual Ambivalent Sexism Scale (ASI-I). Hostile Benevolent Communalities Sexism Sexism Q1. Exaggerate problems at work .968 .875 Q2. Be easily offended .926 .803 Q3. Interpret innocent remarks as sexist .934 .856 Q4. Lose fairly and then claim discrimination .972 .898 Q5. Seek special favors under the guise of equality .942 .869 Q6. Seek power by gaining control over men .815 .814 Q7. Tease men sexually .545 .560 .770 Q8. Put her man on a tight leash .709 .640 Q9. Fail to appreciate all that men do for her .852 .757 Q10. Have superior moral sensibility .510 .453 Q11. Have a quality of purity few men possess .603 .422 Q12. Have a refined sense of culture and taste .705 .519 Q13. Be set on a pedestal .959 .888 Q14. Be cherished and protected by a man .992 .918 Q15. Be rescued first in a disaster .890 .775 Note. Factor loadings < .5 are not presented.

59 Table 4 Study 3 Results of Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Hostile and Benevolent Sexism from the Subcomponents of Apparent Sociosexual Orientation and Facial Predictors of ASO. Benevolent Sexism Hostile Sexism

Intrapersonal ASO 0.362 (0.363)**

Behavioral ASO -0.115 (-0.178) †

Attractiveness 0.310 (0.637)*** 0.051 (0.093) ns

Dominance -0.066 (-0.080)ns 0.201 (0.218)*

Trustworthiness 0.037 (0.034) ns -0.204 (-0.165) ns

Note. Standardized coefficients are presented in parentheses. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001, †p < .10, ns p > .10

60

Figure 1. Target stimuli for all studies were images of White women from the Chicago Face Database (Ma et al., 2015).

61 5

4.5 Attractiveness

4 +1 SD

Mean 3.5 -1 SD 3

2.5 Apparent Behavioral Unrestrictedness

2 -1 SD Mean +1 SD Dominance

Figure 2. The interactive effect of women’s Attractiveness and facial Dominance on judgments of their behavioral unrestrictedness (Behavioral ASO). At low levels of attractiveness, dominance does not predict the perception of unrestricted behavior (β = 0.025, p = .792). However, at high levels of attractiveness (one standard deviation above the mean), dominance significantly predicts unrestricted behavior (β = 0.274, p = .005).

62 Appendix A Preliminary Study 1: Methods and Results Method

Participants. Because apparent sociosexuality is essentially an estimation of sexual beliefs and behavior, a person’s motivations for assessing sociosexuality are likely distinct depending on the target. When a target is a potential romantic partner, motivations for assessing sociosexuality should revolve around assessing the chances of a successful initial encounter or assessing fit with the perceiver’s own sociosexuality. However, motivations are likely completely different when assessing the sociosexuality of potential competitors. Thus, considering both the sex and sexual orientation of the perceiver is crucial to understanding these judgments. Because ambivalent sexism is bound up with heterosexual mating (Glick & Fiske, 1996), I focus on heterosexual participants’ judgments in all studies. Additionally, because perceptions of attractiveness – which are closely related to the assessment of sociosexuality (Batres et al., 2018) – differ depending on perceiver race (e.g., Ali, Rizzo, & Heiland, 2013), the current work will hold both perceiver race and target race constant, employing white targets and white participants due to ease of recruitment. I return to a discussion how race may or may not play a qualifying role in the potential results in the General Discussion. To establish stable average ASO ratings values for each target, I aimed to have each face rated by between 25 and 30 male and female raters. This is consistent with other by-stimulus analyses in the literature, with procedures similar to the present design, assessing personality traits from facial information (Wilson & Rule, 2015). Each participant rated half of the target faces (see below), so I targeted at least 50 men and 50 women as participants. Because I did not restrict recruitment by race or sexual orientation (to ensure equal opportunities for all participants), I intentionally oversampled, recruiting 219 mTurk participants to complete the study. Of these, 112 participants met the selection criteria (Mage = 37.70, SD = 11.48), including 57 women and 55 men. Satisfying my a priori criteria, each target face was rated by at least 28 men and at least 27 women. Subsequent analyses focus on these participants. Stimuli. In this study, I employed images from the Chicago Face Database (Ma et al., 2015), which has high quality, highly standardized photos that have been pre-rated on multiple face traits, such as attractiveness and dominance (among others). Because statistical power in by- stimulus analyses is bounded by the number of stimuli available (rather than the number of

63 participants), I used all of the White female and male targets available in the CFD to maximize statistical power. Thus, 180 total faces (90 male, 90 female) with neutral expressions were used. All images were resized to 700 x 492 pixels and displayed in color. Procedure. After providing informed consent, participants were provided with a description of sociosexual orientation. Specifically, they learned that an individual’s sociosexual orientation includes behavior, attitudes, and desire. Thus, it is not simply how much sexual intercourse a person engages in, but also includes how they feel about the concepts of sex without love and short-term relationships, as well as their desire for “casual” sex. Participants were then instructed that they would rate a series of targets at zero acquaintance on their apparent sociosexual orientation. Each participant viewed one of two sets of 90 faces (45 men and 45 women each), presented one at a time in a randomized order. For each face, they responded to a single questions, “Please indicate the extent to which this person is open to short-term relationships, one night stands, and the idea of sex without love,” on a 1 (Not at all) to 7 (Extremely) scale. Next, participants completed the revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI-R; Penke & Asendorpf, 2008) to assess their own sociosexual orientation. This scale includes items related to participants’ behavior (e.g., With how many different partners have you had sex within the past 12 months?), attitudes (e.g., Sex without love is OK), and desires (e.g., How often do you have fantasies about having sex with someone you are not in a committed romantic relationship with?). Each item was responded to using a 1 to 9 scale, with scale points specific to the questions.

Finally, participants were asked to provide demographic information (e.g., sex, sexual orientation, age, race), debriefed, and thanked for participation. Results

The goal of Preliminary Study 1 was to establish ASO values for each face from male and female raters, and to investigate whether there was some consensus in ratings of ASO. To establish whether ASO judgments were made with relative consistency across raters, I calculated the mean intercorrelations between raters for ASO judgments to serve as a measure of consensus (see Rule et al., 2013 for similar analyses). I calculated zero order correlations between raters, and standardized them using Fisher r-to-z conversions. These z-scores were used for all analyses.

64 The mean intercorrelation between raters’ judgments of ASO, � = .130 (SD = .211), 95% CI [.125 , .136], was significantly greater than zero (p < .001), suggesting ASO ratings are made with acceptable consensus. Next, although I had the a priori assumption that men and women may have distinct motivations in judging women’s ASO and should thus be considered separately, I wanted to test for the similarities and differences between these ratings. To this end, I first tested the correlation between ratings made by men and ratings made by women. This analysis revealed ratings made by men and women were indeed correlated for male targets, r(88) = .600, p < .001, female targets, r(88) = .580, p < .001, and all targets combined, r(178) = .580, p < .001. However, these correlations indicate that, although men’s and women’s ratings share similarities, they are not identical, sharing at best 36% of variance. To investigate whether there were mean differences in ASO ratings between male and female participants’ ratings of male and female targets, I first averaged together participants’ ASO ratings separately for male and female targets. This produced two ASO scores for each target, with lower numbers indicating that targets appear more sexually restricted and higher numbers indicating more sexually unrestricted appearance. I then submitted these mean values to a 2 (Target Sex: Male v. Female) x 2 (Participant Sex: Male v. Female) mixed model ANOVA with repeated measures for target sex. Replicating 2 past work, this analysis revealed a main effect of Target Sex, F(1,178) = 122.094, p < .001, ηp = .407, in which women (M = 3.90, SD = 0.51) were rated as appearing more sexually restricted than men (M = 4.65, SD = 0.38). Although there was no main effect of Participant Sex, F(1,178) 2 = 1.608, p = .206, ηp = .009, I did observe a significant interaction between Participant and 2 Target Sex, F(1,178) = 12.102, p = .001, ηp = .064. Whereas women rated male targets (M = 4.73, SD = 0.46) as less sexually restricted than did men (M = 4.65, SD = 0.38; p < .001), female targets were not rated differently by women (M = 3.86, SD = 0.59) and men (M = 3.94, SD = 0.56), and were descriptively in the opposite direction (p = .175). There may be good reason for the middling correlations between men’s and women’s ASO ratings, and the interaction between Participant and Target Sex in ASO ratings, considering men and women may have somewhat different mating goals and different motives in extracting ASO from faces (e.g., Haselton & Buss, 2000). Given these differences in ratings, there is good reason to consider ASO ratings made by men and women separately moving forward.

65 Ancillary Analyses. Of additional interest is whether participants’ own sociosexuality is related to their judgments of others’ ASO. A relationship between one’s own sociosexual orientation and their perception of others’ sociosexual orientation could exist for a number of reasons. First, people who are relatively restricted or unrestricted may be under the impression that other people are similarly inclined (i.e., a false consensus effect). Or perhaps people are motivated to see opportunities for intimacy in the environment and, therefore, over-perceive other-sex individuals as ‘desirable’ (i.e., matching their own sociosexuality). If either of these were the case, one would expect scores on the SOI-R to be positively related to ASO judgments, either overall, or for cross-sex ratings. Alternatively, given the strong consensus reported above, perhaps the facial signals that are employed in the judgment are relatively impervious to individual difference variations in perceivers’ motives. To investigate this question, I calculated participants’ scores on the SOI-R and averaged participants’ ratings of targets’ SOI separately for male and female targets. Of interest was whether participants’ SOI-R scores predicted ASO ratings. Thus, I calculated zero-order correlations between these variables separately for male and female targets and raters. For neither male nor female raters nor targets were personal SOI-R scores related to the ratings of others’ sociosexuality (all rs between .13 and -.09, all ps > .37). Thus, there was no evidence that ratings of sociosexuality within- or across-sex were biased by raters’ personal sexual restrictedness. Discussion In this study, I found reasonable consensus in ratings of Apparent Sociosexual Orientation from faces at zero acquaintance, which is a necessary condition for the subsequent studies. Given these findings, this preliminary study also provides a large population of target faces that are now rated by a large body of participants on ASO, a necessary procedural hurdle for subsequent studies as well.

66 Appendix B

Apparent Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (ASOI; adapted from Penke & Asendorpf, 2008)

Items 1-3 assess sociosexual behavior. Items 4-9 assess sociosexual attitudes, with items 4-6 assessing unrestricted attitudes and items 7-9 (reversed) assessing restricted attitudes. Items 10- 12 assess sociosexual desires.

Please respond to the following questions with respect to the pictured woman: 1. With how many different partners has she sex in the past 12 months? 0 1 2 3 4 5–6 7–9 10–19 20 or more 2. With how many different partners has she 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 has she had sexual intercourse without having an interest in a long-term committed relationship? 0 1 2 3 4 5–6 7–9 10–19 20 or more 4. She could be comfortable with and enjoy “casual” sex with different partners. 1 (Strongly disagree) to 9 (Strongly agree) 5. She believes sex without love is OK. 1 (Strongly disagree) to 9 (Strongly agree) 6. She could be interested in sex with another person without commitment to a relationship. 1 (Strongly disagree) to 9 (Strongly agree) 7. She does not want to have sex with a person until she is sure that they will have a serious relationship. 1 (Strongly disagree) to 9 (Strongly agree) 8. She believes sex should only occur when two people are in love. 1 (Strongly disagree) to 9 (Strongly agree) 9. She would only be interested in sex with a person she was in involved with in a long-term relationship. 1 (Strongly disagree) to 9 (Strongly agree) 10. How often does she have fantasies about having sex with someone with whom she does not have a committed romantic relationship? 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 11. How often does she experience sexual arousal when she is in contact with someone with whom she does not have a committed romantic relationship? 1 – never 2 – very seldom

67 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 12. In everyday life, how often does she have spontaneous fantasies about having sex with someone she has 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

68 Appendix C

The Revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI–R; Penke & Asendorpf, 2008)

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 (Strongly disagree) to 9 (Strongly agree) 5. I can imagine myself being comfortable and enjoying “casual” sex with different partners. 1 (Strongly disagree) to 9 (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 (Strongly disagree) to 9 (Strongly agree) 7. How often do you have fantasies about having sex with someone with whom you do not have a committed romantic relationship? 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 8. How often do you experience sexual arousal when you are in contact with someone with whom you do not have a committed romantic relationship? 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

69 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

70 Appendix D Preliminary Study 2: Methods and Results Method For this by-stimulus analysis, I employed the 90 target female faces used in Preliminary Study 1, thus allowing me to use the ASO ratings from that study. As noted above these 90 faces from the CFD have been pre-rated on the dimensions of facial attractiveness, facial dominance, and facial masculinity (Ma et al., 2015), which allowed for a priori and exploratory tests of potential facial correlates of ASO judgments.

Results In Study 2, I was interested in exploring the relationship between ASO and other facial characteristics and judgments. Past work has indicated that facial judgments of women’s sociosexuality are related to targets’ attractiveness, with more attractive women rated as more sexually unrestricted (Batres et al., 2018; Stillman & Maner, 2009). In related work investigating facial correlates of targets’ actual sociosexual orientation, Boothroyd and colleagues (2008, 2011) found that sexually unrestricted women were rated as more attractive than restricted women. This previously established relationship between attractiveness and women’s apparent and actual sexual restrictedness may be reasonable given that more attractive individuals likely have access to more romantic partners and, therefore, may be more likely to engage in sexual activity. Given this past research, I had the a priori prediction that target attractiveness would predict ASO. Likewise, I also predicted that targets’ age would predict ASO, with younger adults seen as less restricted. I made this prediction because younger adults engage in more sexual behavior than older adults in general (Herbenick, Reece, Schick, Sanders, Dodge, & Fortenberry, 2010). Therefore, participants may perceive older targets to have more restricted sociosexuality than younger targets. To test these a priori predictions, I conducted zero-order correlations between ASO and target attractiveness and age, separately for male and female targets and raters. As expected, for both male and female targets and raters, more attractive targets were also seen as more sexually unrestricted. For female targets, younger targets were also seen as more unrestricted. However, this was not true for male targets, for whom there was no significant relationship between ASO and age.

71 As predicted, I observed robust correlations between ASO and both target attractiveness and age for female targets, who are of particular interest in the present work. Further, given that attractiveness and age effects are quite robust in impression formation generally (e.g., Murphy, Jako, & Anhalt, 1993; Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2008), it seemed important to be sure other correlates with ASO could not be explained by attractiveness or age effects. Therefore, in all other analyses testing the relationships between facial traits (i.e., femininity, masculinity, babyfacedness, dominance, trustworthiness, and threat) or facial structural features (i.e., facial width to height ratio [fWHR], face roundedness, lip fullness, and eye size) and ASO, I controlled for target attractiveness and target age. These specific exploratory traits and characteristics were chosen because they overlap with stereotypes about femininity and masculinity, and are therefore relevant to the broad question of whether unrestricted appearing women may seem less feminine and therefore less likely targets of benevolence and more likely targets of hostility (e.g., Fink, Neave, & Seydel, 2007; Lefevre, Etchells, Howell, Clark, & Penton-Voak, 2014; Zebrowitz, Collins, & Dutta, 1998). Next, to explore potential facial correlates of targets’ ASO, I used a series of partial correlations to explore the relationship between ASO and the facial impressions and structural features of interest. Across all target and rater sex combinations, there is a general trend that ASO is negatively related to feminine attributes (i.e., femininity, trustworthiness, babyfaced) and positively related to masculine attributes (i.e., masculinity, dominance, threatening). For male perceivers judging female targets (i.e., the groups of specific interest in the current work), this trend was less clear than with other groups. Still, women’s ASOs as rated by men were significantly correlated with ratings of dominance, r(86)=.218, p=.041, and marginally correlated with trustworthiness, r(86)=-.177, p=.098, such that women with a more dominant and less trustworthy appearance were rated as more unrestricted. In addition, all correlations were descriptively in the same directions as indicated above. For the structural features, men with smaller eyes and women with smaller eyes, fuller lips, and more oval faces were seen as more sexually unrestricted. Discussion. This preliminary study also allowed for the exploration of which face traits predicted ASO, and whether such ratings differed by participant sex. Consistent with past work, I found that judgments of sociosexuality were positively correlated with judgments of attractiveness.

72 Further, as predicted, women’s ASOs were also negatively related to their age, although contrary to hypotheses, this was not true for judgments of men’s faces. Of additional interest, when controlling for targets’ attractiveness, I also found that ASO was related to a number of gendered perceptions. In general, faces rated as masculine, dominant, untrustworthy, threatening, and mature also tended to be rated as more sexually unrestricted. Thus, whereas past work has only linked perceptions of sociosexuality with the evaluatively positive trait attractiveness, these findings suggest there may be sexist consequences for women who appear sexually unrestricted and perhaps counter-stereotypical (i.e., dominant and untrustworthy). This may be particularly important in men’s ratings of women’s faces, given the current research interest in ambivalent sexism. Hostile sexism in particular involves seeing women as domineering and controlling. Although not a direct test of the link between ASO and hostile sexism, insofar as men are rating women’s faces who facially appear sexually unrestricted as higher in dominance and lower in trustworthiness, this is consistent with the existence of such a link.

73 Appendix E Preliminary Study 3: Methods and Results Method

Participants. Because no previous work has tested the downstream consequences of 2 ASO for expressions of ambivalent sexism, I estimated a medium effect size, ηp = .09. A G*Power (V3.1; Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009) a priori power analysis suggested collecting at least 24 participants to achieve 95% power for a paired samples t-test. To be conservative, I aimed to collect at least 48 straight white male participants. Based on previous experience with mTurk, I estimated approximately 1/3 of participants would self-categorize as straight white males. Thus, I aimed to collect 144 participants. In actuality, 139 participants completed this study, which provided 46 straight white males (Mage = 37.76, SD = 13.09), who were the target population of interest for the reasons outlined above. Stimuli. For this study, I used a subset of female faces from the Chicago Face Database that were rated on ASO in the Preliminary Study. Specifically, I selected 16 pairs of women that were each matched on attractiveness (within a tenth of a scale point) and were within five years of one another in age, but that varied by at least 0.75 scale points on ASO as rated by male participants in Preliminary Study 1. I employed male ASO ratings to create these sets of images because, in this study, I focus on how variations in targets’ ASO elicit differential sexist responses from men in particular. A series of paired samples t-tests ensured that these groups were not significantly different in attractiveness, t(15) = -0.027, p = 979, or age, t(15) = 0.780, p = .447, but that the unrestricted set was rated as less restricted than the restricted set, t(15) = - 34.130, p < .001, d = -8.533 Measures. Whereas past research has focused on individual differences in ambivalent sexism at the perceiver level, in the present research I sought to assess hostile and benevolent sexism aimed at individual women (i.e., which women are targeted with hostility, rather than which perceivers hold omnibus hostile or benevolent attitudes). To this end, I followed the methodology of Sibley and Wilson (2004) and modified the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI; Glick & Fiske, 1996), in such a way to reference specific women. I refer to this scale as the Individual Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI-I). Participants indicated the extent to which a target woman would possess a number of hostile and benevolent sexist qualities. For example, the ASI item “Many women have a quality of purity few men possess” (a benevolent sexism

74 item) became “Have a quality of purity few men possess.” Similarly the item, “Women seek to gain power by getting control over men” (a hostile sexism item) became “Seek to gain power by getting control over men.” Responses to these statements were made on a 1 (Not at all) to 9 (Extremely) scale. The ASI-I includes 15 items adapted from the original 22 ASI items, with 9 items referring to hostile sexism and 6 referring to benevolent sexism. Seven items were dropped from the original ASI because they could not easily be reworded to focus on individual targets. Procedure. After completing informed consent, participants were informed that they would be evaluating faces of women on a number of dimensions. Then, they were presented with 16 of the 32 possible targets (8 pairs), one at a time. For each target, they made hostile and benevolent evaluations of each target using the ASI-I. After completing the ASI-I for each target, participants responded to demographics (e.g., sex, sexual orientation, age, race) and were thanked and debriefed. Results Of primary interest was the extent to which male participants evaluated restricted and unrestricted appearing women with hostile and benevolent sexism. I hypothesized that, because sexual restrictedness is congruent with traditional stereotypes and gender roles involving fidelity and commitment, the restricted appearing women would be ‘rewarded’ with more benevolence than the unrestricted group, whereas the unrestricted appearing women would be ‘punished’ with more hostility than the restricted group. To test these hypotheses, I first computed average individual hostile sexism and individual benevolent sexism scores separately for the facially restricted and unrestricted groups. For hostile sexism, I averaged together items 1 through 9 and for benevolent sexism, I averaged together items 10 through 15. A factor analysis using maximum likelihood estimation with promax rotation extracted two primary factors based on an eigenvalue cutoff of 1.00 (λ1=10.831, λ2=2.163). The first factor included the nine hostile sexism items (α=.985). The second factor included the six benevolent sexism items (α=.949). I next submitted participants’ ASI-I scores to a 2 (Targets’ Apparent Sociosexuality: Restricted v. Unrestricted) x 2 (Sexism Type: Hostile v. Benevolent) repeated-measures ANOVA. This analysis did not reveal a main effect of men’s hostile and benevolent beliefs, 2 F(1,45) = 1.382, p = .246, ηp = .030, nor did it reveal a main effect of target group, F(1,45) = 2 1.853, p = .180, ηp = .040. However, the ANOVA did yield the predicted interaction between 2 target group and sexism type, F(1,45) = 10.258, p = .003, ηp = .186. Men responded to

75 unrestricted appearing women with more hostile (p = .009) and less benevolent evaluations (p = .033) than restricted appearing women. Considering target groups independently, whereas men responded to the restricted appearing women with similar amounts of hostile and benevolent sexist evaluations (p=.871), they evaluated unrestricted appearing women with more hostile than benevolent sexism (p=.017).

Discussion As expected, men targeted apparently unrestricted women with more hostile sexist responses, relative to apparently unrestricted women. Conversely, apparently restricted women were targeted with more benevolent sexist responses, relative to apparently unrestricted women. These findings shed light on which individual women are likely to be the targets of different types of sexist responding, based purely on facial structural cues. Importantly, I see this as a substantively different way of conceiving of who is targeted with sexism. Whereas most classic work on sexism focuses on individual differences in sexist ideology (e.g., Hammond & Overall, 2013), or how women in different roles are differentially targeted with sexism (e.g., Sibley & Wilson, 2004), in the present work, I demonstrate that individual level variations in target level facial structural cues are differentially targeted with sexist responding as well. Thus, not only are different people likely to hold sexist attitudes, but different women are likely to be targeted with sexist attitudes, purely for their facial appearance. If men believe that some women are (for example) more likely to “seek to gain power by getting control over men,” this may bias their perceptions of these women’s actions to seem more aggressive or manipulative (Hammond & Overall, 2013). These biased perceptions could cause men to see these women as competitors, worthy of adversarial action. Likewise, restricted appearing women may be given the benefit of the doubt in various situations, considering they are seen as having “a quality of purity few men possess.”

76 Appendix F

Individual Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI-I; adapted from Glick & Fiske, 1996)

Participants responded to the following questions on 1 (Not at all) to 9 (Extremely) scales. Items that represent Hostile sexism are represented by an (H) and items that represent Benevolent sexism are represented by a (B).

“Please rate the person pictured above on how likely you believe they would engage in the following behaviors or have the following qualities” 1. Exaggerate problems at work (H) 2. Be easily offended (H) 3. Interpret innocent remarks as sexist (H) 4. Lose fairly and then claim discrimination (H) 5. Seek special favors under the guise of equality (H) 6. Seek power by gaining control over men (H) 7. Tease men sexually (H) 8. Put her man on a tight leash (H) 9. Fail to appreciate all that men do for her (H) 10. Have superior moral sensibility (B) 11. Have a quality of purity few men possess (B) 12. Have a refined sense of culture and taste (B) 13. Be set on a pedestal (B) 14. Be cherished and protected by a man (B) 15. Be rescued first in a disaster (B)

77 Appendix G ASI-I item 7 as Predicted by Behavioral and Intrapersonal ASO. Because item 7 of the ASI-I did not load cleanly onto either the hostile or benevolent factor, I next investigated whether this item, “tease men sexually” was predicted by Behavioral and Intrapersonal ASO. Specifically, I entered Behavior ASO and Intrapersonal ASO as unique predictors into a multiple regression, predicting Item 7. Here, Intrapersonal ASO, β = 0.577, p < .001, was a significant predictor of Item 7, but Behavioral ASO was not, β = 0.165, p = .175, R2 = .510, F(2,87) = 45.193, p < .001. Women who appear to have unrestricted desires and attitudes are seen as likely to tease men sexually. As with the analysis for hostile and benevolent evaluations more broadly, it was important to test whether the effects of ASO exist over and above the previously established trait-to-ASO links. Thus, I entered facial Attractiveness, facial Dominance, and facial Trustworthiness (the facial predictors of ASO in Study 2) along with Intrapersonal ASO into a multiple regression to predict men’s Hostile sexist responding. Unlike the pattern of results for either the hostile evaluations or the benevolent evaluations, here, both facial Attractiveness, β = 0.422, p < .001, and Intrapersonal ASO, β = 0.486, p < .001, emerged as significant predictors of Item 7, R2 = .576, F(4,85) = 28.874, p < .001. Facial Dominance, β = -0.002, p = .985, and facial Trustworthiness, β = -0.143, p = .163, were not significant predictors. Thus, whereas the other hostile evaluations were related to women’s intrapersonal sociosexual appearance and facial dominance, whether women appear likely to tease men sexually is predicted by their intrapersonal ASO and their attractiveness. More attractive women and women who appear unrestricted in their attitudes and desires are perceived as likely to tease men sexually. Thus, the explicitly sexual nature of this item seems to bring attractiveness into relevance. However, despite the shift from facial dominance to attractiveness in this item, intrapersonal ASO remains a significant predictor above and beyond the other facial correlates of ASO, bolstering the findings from above.

78