Sociosexuality from argentina to zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (2):247-275 (2005)
| Abstract | 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 | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,705 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesJeffry A. Simpson (1999). The Dual Selection Model: Questions About Necessity and Completeness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (2):235-235.
David M. Buss (2005). Sex Differences in the Design Features of Socially Contingent Mating Adaptations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (2):278-279.
Martin Voracek (2005). Shortcomings of the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory: Can Psychometrics Inform Evolutionary Psychology? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (2):296-297.
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.
Steve Stewart-Williams (2005). Fitting Data to Theory: The Contribution of a Comparative Perspective. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (2):294-295.
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.
John Lazarus (2005). Sociosexuality and Sex Ratio: Sex Differences and Local Markets. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (2):288-288.
David P. Barash (2005). Sex Differences: Empiricism, Hypothesis Testing, and Other Virtues. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (2):276-277.
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.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads8 ( #123,161 of 549,128 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,361 of 549,128 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
