Oppression or Opportunity? Sexual Strategies and the Perception of Sexual Advances | SpringerLink

First Online: 25 November 2019

Abstract

From an evolutionary perspective, the perception and interpretation of sexual advances depend on sex-specific mechanisms, individual differences in the perceivers’ mating strategies, and the actor’s attractiveness. In two studies (N = 1516), participants evaluated hypothetical situations of sexual advances from a coworker varying in attractiveness (study 1) and physical appearance or status (study 2). In both studies, men perceived sexual advances as less negative than women, especially when the advances arise from a (physically) attractive actor. Furthermore, the higher the sociosexual orientation of the participants, the less harmful these sexual advances are perceived. Finally, the same behavior from an attractive or physically attractive actor is perceived as less harmful than from an unattractive actor. Results are discussed from an evolutionary perspective on the perception of sexual advances.

Keywords

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (   https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-019-00215-y ) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

This is a preview of subscription content,

to check access.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants. The participants were encouraged to contact the authors for any questions.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary material

References

6. Geschlecht und Verhalten aus evolutionärer Perspektive [sex and behavior from an evolutionary perspective]

   . Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers.

   Google Scholar

11. Browne, K. R. (2006). Sex, power, and dominance: The evolutionary psychology of sexual harassment.

    Managerial and Decision Economics, 27

    , 145–158.

      https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.1289

    .

    CrossRef

    Google Scholar

13. Buss, D. M. (2019).

    Evolutionary psychology

    (6th ed.). New York: Routledge.

    CrossRef

    Google Scholar

14. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures.

    Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12

    , 1–14.

      https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00023992

    .

    CrossRef

    Google Scholar

15. Buss, D. M. (1994).

    The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating

    . New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar

16. Buss, D. M. (2006). Strategies of human mating.

    Psychological Topics, 15

    , 239–260.

    Google Scholar

21. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24

    , 285–290.

      https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033731

    .

    CrossRef

    PubMed Google Scholar

24. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1971).

    Love and hate Google Scholar

26. Feingold, A. (1990). Gender differences in effects of physical attractiveness on romantic attraction: A comparison across five research paradigms.

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59

    , 981–993.

      https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.981

    .

    CrossRef

    Google Scholar
27. Advanced social psychology: The state of the science

    (pp. 419–459). New York, NY US: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar

32. Handbook of relationship initiation

    (pp. 269–295). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar

35. Haselton, M. G. (2003). The sexual overperception bias: Evidence of a systematic bias in men from a survey of naturally occurring events.

    Journal of Research in Personality, 37

    (1), 34–47.

      https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00529-9

    .

    CrossRef

    Google Scholar

37. Hayes, A. F. (2018).

    Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. A regression-based approach

    (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar

38. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13

    , 235–252.

    Google Scholar

45. Jurimetrics, 39

    , 157–179.

    Google Scholar

49. Moore, M. M. (2010). Human nonverbal courtship behavior – A brief historical review.

    Journal of Sex Research, 47

    , 171–180.

      https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490903402520

    .

    CrossRef

    PubMed Google Scholar

57. 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.

      https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05000051

    .

    CrossRef

    PubMed Google Scholar

64. Soper, D.S. (2018). Significance of the difference between two slopes calculator [Software]. Available from

    http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc

65. Sex, power, conflict: Evolutionary and feminist perspectives

    (pp. 54–89). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar

67. Sexual harassment: theory, research, and treatment Google Scholar

68. Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.),

    Sexual selection and the descent of man

    (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.

    Google Scholar

69. Vandermassen, G. (2011). Evolution and rape: A feminist Darwinian perspective.

    Sex Roles, 64

    , 732–747.

      https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9895-y

    .

    CrossRef

    Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

• Lisa Klümper
  • 1
  Email author View author's OrcID profile
• Sascha Schwarz
  • 1

1. 1. School of Human and Social Sciences, Social and Personality Psychology Bergische Universität Wuppertal Wuppertal Germany