Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T23:58:17.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

18 - Experimental Methods in Sexual Psychology

from Part II - Middle-Level Theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2022

By
Carey J. Fitzgerald  and
Jody A. Thompson
Edited by
Todd K. Shackelford
Todd K. Shackelford
Affiliation:
Oakland University, Michigan
Get access

Summary

Psychological research is often organized into three broad categories: true experiments, quasi-experiments, and nonexperiments. Evolutionary psychology is no exception to this. In this chapter, we define and describe these categories, and discuss various evolutionary psychological studies (and their results) within these categories. The benefits and limitations of these designs are also discussed. Evolutionary psychologists have employed a wide array of true experiments, quasi-experiments, and nonexperiments to examine sexual behaviors. These methods range from simple self-reports (both quantitative and qualitative) and validated scales to naturalistic observations, complex manipulations of participants’ environments, longitudinal studies, meta-analyses, and creative dependent measures of perception, preferences, and behavior. Journals that may serve as publication outlets for evolutionary perspectives on sexual psychology are also mentioned.

Keywords

nonexperimentsresearch methodssex researchtrue experimentsquasi-experiments
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Sexual Psychology , pp. 414 - 432
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arnocky, S., & Vaillancourt, T. (2012). A multi-informant longitudinal study on the relationship between aggression, peer victimization, and dating status in adolescence. Evolutionary Psychology, 10(2), 253–270.Google Scholar
Asendorpf, J. B., & Penke, L. (2005). A mature evolutionary psychology demands careful conclusions about sex differences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 275–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, R. R., & Bellis, M. A. (1993). Human sperm competition: Ejaculate adjustment by males and the function of masturbation. Animal Behaviour, 46, 861–885.Google Scholar
Barrada, J. R., Castro, Á., Correa, A. B., & Ruiz-Gómez, P. (2018). The tridimensional structure of sociosexuality: Spanish validation of the Revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 44(2), 149–158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bendixen, M., Kennair, L. E. O., & Buss, D. M. (2015). Jealousy: Evidence of strong sex differences using both forced choice and continuous measure paradigms. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 212–216.Google Scholar
Blount, B. G. (1990). Issues in bonobo (Pan paniscus) sexual behavior. American Anthropologist, 92(3), 702–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1988a). The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate attraction. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 54, 616–628.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1988b). From vigilance to violence: Tactics of mate retention in American undergraduates. Ethology and Sociobiology, 9, 291–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, D. M. (2018). Sexual and emotional infidelity: Evolved gender differences in jealousy prove robust and replicable. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 155–160.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3(4), 251–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buunk, B. P., Angleitner, A., Oubaid, V., & Buss, D. M. (1996). Sex differences in jealousy in evolutionary and cultural perspective: Tests from the Netherlands, Germany, and the United States. Psychological Science, 7(6), 359–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornelissen, P. L., Hancock, P. J., Kiviniemi, V., George, H. R., & Tovée, M. J. (2009). Patterns of eye movements when male and female observers judge female attractiveness, body fat and waist-to-hip ratio. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30(6), 417–428.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Del Giudice, M. (2011). Sex differences in romantic attachment: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(2), 193–214.Google Scholar
Del Zotto, M., & Pegna, A. J. (2017). Electrophysiological evidence of perceived sexual attractiveness for human female bodies varying in waist-to-hip ratio. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 17(3), 577–591.Google Scholar
DeSteno, D. A., & Salovey, P. (1996). Evolutionary origins of sex differences in jealousy? Questioning the “fitness” of the model. Psychological Science, 7(6), 367–372.Google Scholar
Discovery Communications, Inc. (2009). The Science of Sex Appeal [Film]. The Incubator.Google Scholar
Dutton, D. G., & Aron, A. P. (1974). Some evidence for heightened sexual attraction under conditions of height anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 510–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, B. J., McFadyen-Ketchum, S., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1999). Quality of early family relationships and individual differences in the timing of pubertal maturation in girls: A longitudinal test of an evolutionary model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(2), 387.Google Scholar
Engelhardt, A., Hodges, J. K., Niemitz, C., & Heistermann, M. (2005). Female sexual behavior, but not sex skin swelling, reliably indicates the timing of the fertile phase in wild long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis). Hormones and Behavior, 47(2), 195–204.Google Scholar
Fink, B., Neave, N., Manning, J. T., & Grammer, K. (2006). Facial symmetry and judgements of attractiveness, health and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(3), 491–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzgerald, C. J., Horgan, T. G., & Himes, S. M. (2016). Shaping men’s memory: The effects of a female’s waist-to-hip ratio on men’s memory for her appearance and biographical information. Evolution and Human Behavior, 37, 510–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzgerald, C. J., Kruger, D. J., Loeffler, C., Shackelford, T. K., & Weekes-Shackelford, V. (2013, May). Short-term sex ratio manipulations affect men’s self-reported and perceived life history strategies. Oral presentation. Northeastern Evolutionary Psychology Society, Annville, PA.Google Scholar
Fox, E. A. (2002). Female tactics to reduce sexual harassment in the Sumatran orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus abelii). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 52(2), 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furnham, A., Swami, V., & Shah, K. (2006). Body weight, waist-to-hip ratio and breast size correlates of ratings of attractiveness and health. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(3), 443–454.Google Scholar
Goetz, A. T., & Shackelford, T. K. (2006). Sexual coercion and forced in-pair copulation as sperm competition tactics in humans. Human Nature, 17(3), 265–282.Google Scholar
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Ackerman, J. M., Delton, A. W., Robertson, T. E., & White, A. E. (2012). The financial consequences of too many men: Sex ratio effects on saving, borrowing, and spending. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(1), 69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guitar, A. E., Geher, G., Kruger, D. J., Garcia, J. R., Fisher, M. L., & Fitzgerald, C. J. (2016). Defining and distinguishing sexual and emotional infidelity. Current Psychology. doi: 10.1007/s12144-016-9432-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haley, M. P., Deutsch, C. J., & Le Boeuf, B. J. (1994). Size, dominance and copulatory success in male northern elephant seals, Mirounga angustirostris. Animal Behaviour, 48(6), 1249–1260.Google Scholar
Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Error management theory: A new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(1), 81.Google Scholar
Henss, R. (1995). Waist-to-hip ratio and attractiveness: Replication and extension. Personality and Individual Differences, 19(4), 479–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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(6), 382–391.Google Scholar
Jamieson, A. (2016). Smell dating: Sniffing out potential lovers (and their sweaty t-shirts). Guardian. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/apr/27/smell-dating-does-sniffing-out-potential-loversGoogle Scholar
Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Little, A. C. (2007). The role of symmetry in attraction to average faces. Perception & Psychophysics, 69(8), 1273–1277.Google Scholar
Kaighobadi, F., Shackelford, T. K., & Weekes-Shackelford, V. A. (2012). Do women pretend orgasm to retain a mate? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(5), 1121–1125.Google Scholar
Karimi-Malekabadi, F., & Esmaeilinasab, M. (2019). Religiosity, intrasexual rivalry, and mate retention behaviors in Iran. Personality and Individual Differences, 149, 135–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Komori, M., Kawamura, S., & Ishihara, S. (2009). Averageness or symmetry: Which is more important for facial attractiveness? Acta Psychologica, 131(2), 136–142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kościński, K. (2014). Assessment of waist-to-hip ratio attractiveness in women: An anthropometric analysis of digital silhouettes. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(5), 989–997.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kruger, D. J., Fisher, M. L., Edelstein, R., Chopik, W. J., Fitzgerald, C., & Strout, S. L. (2013). Was that cheating? Perceptions vary by sex, attachment anxiety, and behavior. Evolutionary Psychology, 11, 159–171.Google Scholar
Kruger, D. J., Fisher, M., & Fitzgerald, C. J. (2015). Factors influencing the intended likelihood of exposing sexual infidelity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 1697–1704.Google Scholar
Kruger, D. J., Fisher, M. L., Fitzgerald, C. J., Garcia, J. R., Geher, G., & Guitar, A. E. (2015). Sexual and emotional aspects are distinct components of infidelity and unique predictors of anticipated distress. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 1, 44–51.Google Scholar
Kruger, D. J., & Fitzgerald, C. J. (2011a). Sexual conflict and the operational sex ratio. In Shackelford, T. K. & Goetz, A. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of sexual conflict in humans (pp. 283–294). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kruger, D. J., & Fitzgerald, C. J. (2011b). Reproductive strategies and relationship preferences associated with prestigious and dominant men. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(3), 365–369.Google Scholar
Kruger, D. J., Fitzgerald, C. J., & Peterson, T. (2010). Female scarcity reduces women’s marital ages and increases variance in men’s marital ages. Evolutionary Psychology, 8(3), 420–431.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Little, A. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Jones, B. C. (2011). Exposure to visual cues of pathogen contagion changes preferences for masculinity and symmetry in opposite-sex faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 278(1714), 2032–2039.Google Scholar
Lopes, G. S., Shackelford, T. K., Santos, W. S., Farias, M. G., & Segundo, D. S. (2016). Mate Retention Inventory-Short Form (MRI-SF): Adaptation to the Brazilian context. Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 36–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meskó, N., Láng, A., & Kocsor, F. (2014). The Hungarian version of Sociosexual Orientation Inventory Revised (SOI-R): Sex and age differences. Interpersona, 8(1), 85–99.Google Scholar
Miller, S. L., and Maner, J. K. (2010). Scent of a woman: Testosterone responses to olfactory ovulation cues. Psychological Science, 21, 276–283.Google Scholar
Moore, M. M., & Butler, D. L. (1989). Predictive aspects of nonverbal courtship behavior in women. Semiotica, 76(3–4), 205–216.Google Scholar
Moss, J. H., & Maner, J. K. (2016). Biased sex ratios influence fundamental aspects of human mating. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(1), 72–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murray, H. A. (1943). Thematic apperception test manual. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ohba, N. (2004). Flash communication systems of Japanese fireflies. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 44(3), 225–233.Google Scholar
Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 29.Google Scholar
Pazhoohi, F., Macedo, A. F., Doyle, J. F., & Arantes, J. (2020). Waist-to-hip ratio as supernormal stimuli: Effect of contrapposto pose and viewing angle. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49(3), 837–847.Google Scholar
Penke, L. (2006). Development of the revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI-R). Unpublished manuscript, Institute of Psychology, Humboldt University of Berlin.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Perilloux, C., Easton, J. A., & Buss, D. M. (2012). The misperception of sexual interest. Psychological Science, 23, 146–151.Google Scholar
Perrett, D. I., Burt, D. M., Penton-Voak, I. S., Lee, K. J., Rowland, D. A., & Edwards, R. (1999). Symmetry and human facial attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 295–307.Google Scholar
Platek, S. M., & Singh, D. (2010) Optimal waist-to-hip ratios in women activate neural reward centers in men. PLoS One, 5(2), e9042.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pusey, A. E., Pintea, L., Wilson, M. L., Kamenya, S., & Goodall, J. (2007). The contribution of long‐term research at Gombe National Park to chimpanzee conservation. Conservation Biology, 21(3), 623–634.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rhodes, G., Yoshikawa, S., Palermo, R., Simmons, L. W., Peters, M., Lee, K., … Crawford, J. R. (2007). Perceived health contributes to the attractiveness of facial symmetry, averageness, and sexual dimorphism. Perception, 36(8), 1244–1252.Google Scholar
Roney, J. R., & Simmons, Z. L. (2012). Men smelling women: Null effects of exposure to ovulatory sweat on men’s testosterone. Evolutionary Psychology, 10(4), 703–713.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Shackelford, T. K., & Goetz, A. T. (2007). Adaptation to sperm competition in humans. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(1), 47–50.Google Scholar
Shackelford, T. K., LeBlanc, G. J., Weekes-Shackelford, V. A., Bleske-Rechek, A. L., Euler, H. A., & Hoier, S. (2002). Psychological adaptation to human sperm competition. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 123–138.Google Scholar
Shackelford, T. K., Pound, N., & Goetz, A. T. (2005). Psychological and physiological adaptations to sperm competition in humans. Review of General Psychology, 9(3), 228–248.Google Scholar
Shin, J. E., Suh, E. M., & Jang, D. (2018). Mate value at a glance: Facial attractiveness reveals women’s waist-to-hip ratio and men’s household income. Personality and Individual Differences, 135, 128–130.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870–883.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. A., Wilson, C. L., & Winterheld, H. A. (2004). Sociosexuality and romantic relationships. In Harvey, J. H., Wenzel, A., & Sprecher, S. (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 87–111). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 293.Google Scholar
Singh, D., Dixson, B. J., Jessop, T. S., Morgan, B., & Dixson, A. F. (2010). Cross-cultural consensus for waist–hip ratio and women’s attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(3), 176–181.Google Scholar
Singh, D., & Luis, S. (1995). Ethnic and gender consensus for the effect of waist-to-hip ratio on judgment of women’s attractiveness. Human Nature, 6(1), 51–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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(6), 483–507.Google Scholar
Suschinsky, K. D., Lalumiere, M. L., & Chivers, M. L. (2009). Sex differences in patterns of genital sexual arousal: Measurement artifacts or true phenomena? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(4), 559–573.Google Scholar
Sutherland, C. A., Rhodes, G., & Young, A. W. (2017). Facial image manipulation: A tool for investigating social perception. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(5), 538–551.Google Scholar
Swedell, L., & Schreier, A. (2009). Male aggression toward females in hamadryas baboons: Conditioning. In Muller, M. N. & Wrangham, R. W. (Eds.), Sexual coercion in primates and humans: An evolutionary perspective on male aggression against females (pp. 244–268). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Townsend, J. M., Kline, J., & Wasserman, T. H. (1995). Low-investment copulation: Sex differences in motivations and emotional reactions. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 25–51.Google Scholar
Vingilis-Jaremko, L., & Maurer, D. (2013). The influence of symmetry on children’s judgments of facial attractiveness. Perception, 42(3), 302–320.Google Scholar
Voracek, M. (2005). Shortcomings of the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory: Can psychometrics inform evolutionary psychology? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 296–297.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wedekind, C., & Füri, S. (1997). Body odour preferences in men and women: Do they aim for specific MHC combinations or simply heterozygosity? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 264, 1471–1479.Google Scholar
Wedekind, C., Seebeck, T., Bettens, F., & Paepke, A. J. (1995). MHC-dependent mate preferences in humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 260, 245–249.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×