Sociosexuality from argentina to zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (2):247-275 (2005)
The Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI; Simpson & Gangestad 1991) is a self-report measure of individual differences in human mating strategies. Low SOI scores signify that a person is sociosexually restricted, or follows a more monogamous mating strategy. High SOI scores indicate that an individual is unrestricted, or has a more promiscuous mating strategy. As part of the International Sexuality Description Project (ISDP), the SOI was translated from English into 25 additional languages and administered to a total sample of 14,059 people across 48 nations. Responses to the SOI were used to address four main issues. First, the psychometric properties of the SOI were examined in cross-cultural perspective. The SOI possessed adequate reliability and validity both within and across a diverse range of modern cultures. Second, theories concerning the systematic distribution of sociosexuality across cultures were evaluated. Both operational sex ratios and reproductively demanding environments related in evolutionary-predicted ways to national levels of sociosexuality. Third, sex differences in sociosexuality were generally large and demonstrated cross-cultural universality across the 48 nations of the ISDP, confirming several evolutionary theories of human mating. Fourth, sex differences in sociosexuality were significantly larger when reproductive environments were demanding but were reduced to more moderate levels in cultures with more political and economic gender equality. Implications for evolutionary and social role theories of human sexuality are discussed. Key Words: culture; gender; mating; reproduction; sex differences; sex roles; sexual strategies; sociosexuality.
|Keywords||culture gender mating reproduction sex differences sex roles sexual strategies sociosexuality|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Joseph Henrich, Steven J. Heine & Ara Norenzayan (2010). The Weirdest People in the World. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (2-3):61-83.
Achim Schützwohl, Amrei Fuchs, William F. McKibbin & Todd K. Shackelford (2009). How Willing Are You to Accept Sexual Requests From Slightly Unattractive to Exceptionally Attractive Imagined Requestors? Human Nature 20 (3):282-293.
Stefan Linquist & Alex Rosenberg (2007). The Return of the Tabula Rasa. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74 (2):476–497.
Marco Del Giudice (2009). Human Reproductive Strategies: An Emerging Synthesis? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32 (1):45-67.
Joseph A. Vandello & Vanessa E. Hettinger (2012). Parasite-Stress, Cultures of Honor, and the Emergence of Gender Bias in Purity Norms. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 35 (2):95-96.
Similar books and articles
Jeffry A. Simpson (1999). The Dual Selection Model: Questions About Necessity and Completeness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (2):235-235.
David P. Barash (2005). Sex Differences: Empiricism, Hypothesis Testing, and Other Virtues. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (2):276-277.
John Lazarus (2005). Sociosexuality and Sex Ratio: Sex Differences and Local Markets. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (2):288-288.
April L. Bleske & David M. Buss (2000). A Comprehensive Theory of Human Mating Must Explain Between-Sex and Within-Sex Differences in Mating Strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):593-594.
Steve Stewart-Williams (2005). Fitting Data to Theory: The Contribution of a Comparative Perspective. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (2):294-295.
Todd K. Shackelford, Gregory J. LeBlanc, Richard L. Michalski & Viviana A. Weekes (2000). Analyses of Mating Differences Within-Sex and Between-Sex Are Complementary, Not Competing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):621-621.
Martin Voracek (2005). Shortcomings of the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory: Can Psychometrics Inform Evolutionary Psychology? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (2):296-297.
David M. Buss (2005). Sex Differences in the Design Features of Socially Contingent Mating Adaptations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (2):278-279.
David P. Schmitt (2005). Measuring Sociosexuality Across People and Nations: Revisiting the Strengths and Weaknesses of Cross-Cultural Sex Research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (2):297-304.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads35 ( #114,483 of 1,902,209 )
Recent downloads (6 months)18 ( #39,710 of 1,902,209 )
How can I increase my downloads?