» Articles » PMID: 32440927

Experimental Evidence for Sex Differences in Sexual Variety Preferences: Support for the Coolidge Effect in Humans

Overview
Journal Arch Sex Behav
Date 2020 May 23
PMID 32440927
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

We examined sex differences in preferences for sexual variety and novelty to determine whether the Coolidge effect plays a role in human sexuality. In two experimental studies that employed different manipulations, we found converging evidence that men showed a greater preference for variety in potential short-term mates than did women. In the first study, men (n = 281) were more likely than women (n = 353) to select a variety of mates when given the opportunity to distribute chances to have sex with different individuals in hypothetical situations. This sex difference was evident regardless of the targets' attractiveness and age. Further, men found it more appealing if their committed romantic/sexual partners frequently changed their physical appearance, while women reported that they modified their physical appearance more frequently than did men, potentially appealing to male desires for novelty. In the second study, when participants were given a hypothetical dating task using photographs of potential short-term mates, men (n = 40) were more likely than women (n = 56) to select a novel person to date. Collectively, these findings lend support to the idea that sex differences in preferences for sexual variety and novelty are a salient sex-specific evolved component of the repertoire of human mating strategies.

Citing Articles

Ejaculate Adjustment in Response to Sperm Competition Risk in Humans.

DeLecce T, Vance G, Zeigler-Hill V, Welling L, Shackelford T Arch Sex Behav. 2024; 54(1):277-287.

PMID: 39500803 DOI: 10.1007/s10508-024-03030-0.


Motivations for Endogamous Relationship Preferences.

Motzny S, Tratner A, McDonald M Arch Sex Behav. 2024; 53(8):3205-3228.

PMID: 38888703 DOI: 10.1007/s10508-024-02910-9.


Electrophysiological Evidence of Enhanced Processing of Novel Pornographic Images in Individuals With Tendencies Toward Problematic Internet Pornography Use.

Wang J, Chen Y, Zhang H Front Hum Neurosci. 2022; 16:897536.

PMID: 35814959 PMC: 9259837. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2022.897536.


COVID-19 Pandemic on Fire: Evolved Propensities for Nocturnal Activities as a Liability Against Epidemiological Control.

Varella M, Luoto S, Soares R, Valentova J Front Psychol. 2021; 12:646711.

PMID: 33828510 PMC: 8019933. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.646711.


Pandemic Leadership: Sex Differences and Their Evolutionary-Developmental Origins.

Luoto S, Varella M Front Psychol. 2021; 12:633862.

PMID: 33815218 PMC: 8015803. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.633862.

References
1.
Banca P, Morris L, Mitchell S, Harrison N, Potenza M, Voon V . Novelty, conditioning and attentional bias to sexual rewards. J Psychiatr Res. 2015; 72:91-101. PMC: 4683093. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2015.10.017. View

2.
Briere J, Smiljanich K, Henschel D . Sexual fantasies, gender, and molestation history. Child Abuse Negl. 1994; 18(2):131-7. DOI: 10.1016/0145-2134(94)90115-5. View

3.
Buss D, Schmitt D . Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychol Rev. 1993; 100(2):204-32. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.100.2.204. View

4.
Buss D, Schmitt D . Mate Preferences and Their Behavioral Manifestations. Annu Rev Psychol. 2018; 70:77-110. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103408. View

5.
Darling C, Davidson Sr J . Coitally active university students: sexual behaviors, concerns, and challenges. Adolescence. 1986; 21(82):403-19. View