In search of moderators of sex differences in forced-choice jealousy responses: Effects of 2D:4D digit ratio and relationship infidelity experiences

Bendixen, Mons; Kennair, Leif Edward Ottesen; Ringheim, Henriette Kaasa; Isaksen, Lise Widding; Pedersen, Lars Haastrup; Svangtun, Stine; Hagen, Kristen

doi:10.1080/19012276.2015.1013975

Cited by 15 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding supports previous findings in Scandinavia using the forced choice method (Bendixen, Kennair, Ringheim, et al, 2015;Kennair, Nordeide, Andreassen, Strønen, & Pallesen, 2011;Wiederman & Kendall, 1999). These large sex differences were predicted by Buss, Larsen, Westen, and Semmelroth (1992), who suggested that in cultures where fathers invest more, one might expect larger sex differences in jealousy.…”

Section: The Current Studysupporting

confidence: 81%

Forgiving the unforgivable: Couples’ forgiveness and expected forgiveness of emotional and sexual infidelity from an error management theory perspective.

Bendixen

Kennair

Grøntvedt

2018

Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From an Error Management Theory (EMT) perspective, we expect a negative forgiveness bias, in which one underestimates a romantic partner’s forgiveness following one’s own transgressions. The function would be to secure that the transgressions are fully mended through reparative behavior. The extent to which this bias is related to infidelity and type of infidelity has not yet been examined. Both parties in heterosexual couples (N = 92) responded independently to questionnaires about their reactions to hypothetical emotional and sexual infidelity scenarios: forgiveness of unfaithful partner’s hypothetical infidelity and likelihood of believing in cheated partner’s forgiveness. Question order was balanced for self and partner transgressions. The results suggest strong negative forgiveness bias effects. Participants reported less belief in their infidelity being forgiven compared with 2 different criteria of partner forgiveness (self-rated and expressed by partner). This negative forgiveness bias was present for both emotional and sexual infidelity scenarios, and for male and female participants. However, this bias was clearly less pronounced for emotionally unfaithful men. In addition, as predicted, relative to women, men imagining being victims of emotional infidelity perceived this to be less threatening to the relationship compared with being victim of sexual infidelity: They also expressed more forgiveness and less need of keeping distance. Need for revenge and likelihood of breaking up because of partner’s infidelity evinced no sex differentiated patterns. The study provides novel and deeper insights into how men and women perceive and react to the distress of emotional and sexual infidelity.

show abstract

Section: The Current Studysupporting

confidence: 81%

Forgiving the unforgivable: Couples’ forgiveness and expected forgiveness of emotional and sexual infidelity from an error management theory perspective.

Bendixen

Kennair

Grøntvedt

2018

Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Direct comparison of the effect sizes with those reported by Galperin et al (2013) reveal that the sex differences in sexual regret show no diminution in this highly sexually egalitarian culture. This adds to a growing body of findings that fail to support the social role explanation for sex differences (Bendixen, 2014; Bendixen & Kennair, 2015; Bendixen, Kennair, Ringheim, et al, 2015; Fernandes, Kennair, Hutz, Natividade, & Kruger, 2015; Grøntvedt & Kennair, 2013; Kennair, Nordeide, Andreassen, Strønen, & Pallesen, 2011; Kennair et al, 2009).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Sexual Regret

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current study sought to answer three key questions about explaining the emotion of regret in the domain of casual sex: Are sex differences in sexual regret robust or attenuated in a highly egalitarian culture? What proximate psychological variables might explain sex differences in sexual regret? And what accounts for within-sex variation in experiences of sexual regret about casual sex. We conducted a study of 263 Norwegian students (ages 19-37) who reported how much they regretted having either engaged in, or passed up, their most recent casual sexual experience. Sex differences in sexual regret are not attenuated in this sexually egalitarian culture. The study revealed sex differences in worries about pregnancy, STIs, and reputation; however, these predictors did not succeed in accounting for the sex differences in regret engaging in casual sex. Sexual gratification and socio-sexual orientation both predicted the sex differences in casual sex regret. In contrast, only socio-sexual orientation attenuated the sex difference in regret passing up casual sex. Predictors of within-sex variation in casual sexual regret included worry about sexual reputation, experienced gratification during the encounter, and socio-sexual orientation. Discussion focuses on implications for the psychological design features of this relatively neglected emotion.

show abstract

“…If social role theory is correct, we should find that sex differences in mating psychology should decrease or disappear in cultures that are relatively more gender egalitarian-with Norway serving as an ideal natural lab given its extremely high ranking in gender equality. A limited number of studies have investigated sexual or mating psychology in Norwegian samples (Bendixen 2014;Bendixen and Kennair 2014;Bendixen et al 2015;Grøntvedt and Kennair 2013;Grøntvedt, Kennair, and Mehmetoglu 2015;Kennair, Nordeide, Andreassen, Strønen, and Pallesen 2011;Kennair et al 2009), and although these support the predictive power of SST over social role theory, further samples from more egalitarian societies are needed in order to test the predictions from theories emphasizing cultural influences on human sexuality. Because cross-cultural studies that have included Norwegian samples typically have small samples (e.g., Buss, 1989;Lippa 2009), larger samples from more egalitarian societies, such as Norway, are scientifically needed in order to test the predictions from theories emphasizing cultural influences on human sexuality.…”

Section: Norway As a Natural Lab For Testing Claims Of Universalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Sex and Mating Strategy Impact the 13 Basic Reasons for Having Sex

Kennair

Grøntvedt

Mehmetoglu

et al. 2015

Evolutionary Psychological Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a large number of varied reasons for having sexual intercourse, ranging from sexual joy and pleasure to less frequent reasons such as wanting to hurt a person or feeling obliged to have sex with someone. The current paper investigated to what degree the reasons for having sex found by Meston and Buss are predicted systematically and independently by sexual strategies theory. The contribution of the paper is threefold: (1) the first reproduction of the factor structure found in the original study, (2) the reproduction in a more gender-egalitarian population investigates claims from social role theory, and (3) a novel set of contributions as preferred mating strategy and sex of respondents interact to predict reasons for having sex. We tested our predictions in a sample of 1372 students. The original factor structure was reproduced. Sex differences were abundant and showed mostly support for sexual strategies theory. Mating context also influenced reasons for having sexual intercourse in accordance with sexual strategies theory, rather than social role theory. The results are discussed with regard to both social role theory and sexual strategies theory, and the impact of studying reasons for sex in an egalitarian society.

show abstract

In search of moderators of sex differences in forced-choice jealousy responses: Effects of 2D:4D digit ratio and relationship infidelity experiences

Cited by 15 publications

References 37 publications

Forgiving the unforgivable: Couples’ forgiveness and expected forgiveness of emotional and sexual infidelity from an error management theory perspective.

Forgiving the unforgivable: Couples’ forgiveness and expected forgiveness of emotional and sexual infidelity from an error management theory perspective.

Sexual Regret

Sex and Mating Strategy Impact the 13 Basic Reasons for Having Sex

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About