Is Short-Term Mating the Maladaptive Result of Insecure Attachment? A Test of Competing Evolutionary Perspectives
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
PERSONALITY
10.1177/0146167204271843
Schmitt / SHORT-TERM
AND SOCIAL
MATING
PSYCHOLOGY
AND INSECURE
BULLETIN
ATTACHMENT
Is Short-Term Mating the Maladaptive
Result of Insecure Attachment?
A Test of Competing Evolutionary Perspectives
David P. Schmitt
Bradley University
Different evolutionary perspectives offer competing views on Author’s Note: Correspondence concerning this article may be ad-
dressed to David P. Schmitt, Department of Psychology, Bradley Uni-
short-term mating and attachment. Some theories argue that versity, Peoria, IL 61625, USA; e-mail: dps@bradley.edu. The author
short-term mating results from insecure attachment, particu- would like to thank the reviewers for their thoughtful suggestions, es-
larly the maladaptive attachment features of low self-esteem, pecially their ideas concerning age and relationship status. The author
interpersonal distrust, social avoidance, and emotional insta- would also like to thank all the members of the International Sexuality
Description Project, including Lidia Alcalay, Pontificia Universidad
bility. Other theories posit that short-term mating is adaptive,
Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile; Juri Allik, University of Tartu, Tartu,
having evolved as an ecologically contingent reproductive strat- Estonia; Lara Ault, University of Louisville, USA; Ivars Austers, Univer-
egy. In this view, short-term mating has multiple origins—devel- sity of Latvia, Riga, Latvia; Kevin L. Bennett, University of New Mexico,
opmental, heritable, and situational—and may not be associ- USA; Gabriel Bianchi, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Slovak
ated with the maladaptive traits of insecure attachment. Across Republic; Fredric Boholst, University of San Carlos, Cebu City, Philip-
pines; Mary Ann Borg Cunen, University of Malta, Msida, Malta; Johan
several different cultures, short-term mating was moderately Braeckman, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium; Edwin G. Brainerd Jr.,
associated with insecure attachment, and insecure attachment Clemson University, USA; Leo Gerard A. Caral, University of San
was strongly related to maladaptive personality. However, short- Carlos, Cebu City, Philippines; Gabrielle Caron, Université Laval, Qué-
term mating was largely independent of maladaptive personal- bec, Québec, Canada; Maria Martina Casullo, University of Buenos Ai-
res, Buenos Aires, Argentina; Michael Cunningham, University of
ity. In some cases, especially among young men, short-term mat-
Louisville, USA; Ikuo Daibo, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan; Charlotte
ing was associated with adaptive personality traits, especially De Backer, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium; Eros De Souza, Illinois
higher self-esteem. It is argued that although insecure romantic State University, USA; Rolando Diaz-Loving, National Autonomous
attachment is somewhat associated with short-term mating, the University of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico; Gláucia Diniz, University of
causal links between early parent-child attachment and short- Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil; Kevin Durkin, The University of Western Aus-
tralia, Crawley, Australia; Marcela Echegaray, University of Lima, Lima,
term mating are rather limited. Peru; Ekin Eremsoy, Bogaziçi Üniversitesi, Istanbul, Turkey; Harald A.
Euler, University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany; Ruth Falzon, University of
Malta, Msida, Malta; Maryanne L. Fisher, York University, Toronto, On-
tario, Canada; Dolores Foley, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Aus-
Keywords: short-term mating; romantic attachment; personality tralia; Douglas P. Fry, Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland; Sirpa
traits Fry, Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland; M. Arif Ghayur, Al-
Akhawayn University, Ifrane, Morocco; Vijai N. Giri, Indian Institute of
Among those who use the principles of evolution to Technology, Kharagpur, India; Debra L. Golden, University of Hawaii-
Manoa, USA; Karl Grammer, Ludwig-Boltzmann-Institute for Urban
understand human mating, there has been considerable Ethology, Vienna, Austria; Liria Grimaldi, University of Catania,
debate over the adaptive value of short-term mating (i.e., Catania, Italy; Jamin Halberstadt, University of Otago, Dunedin, New
brief affairs, one-night stands, etc.). Some theorists pos- Zealand; Shamsul Haque, University of Dakah, Dakah, Bangladesh;
tulate that short-term mating can have significant adap- Dora Herrera, University of Lima, Lima, Peru; Janine Hertel,
Technische Universität Chemnitz, Chemnitz, Germany; Heather
tive value (e.g., Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Gangestad & Hoffmann, Knox College, USA; Danica Hooper, University of
Simpson, 2000; Kenrick, Sadalla, Groth, & Trost, 1990), Queensland, Brisbane, Australia; Zuzana Hradilekova, Comenius Uni-
at times increasing both the quantity and quality of versity, Bratislava, Slovak Republic; Jasna Hudek-Kene-evi, University
genetic offspring (Birkhead, 2000; Smith, 1984). A grow- of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia; Jas Jaafar, University of Malaya, Kuala
ing body of empirical evidence tends to support this view Lumpur, Malaysia; Margarita Jankauskaite, Vilnius University, Vilnius,
(Baker & Bellis, 1995; Barash & Lipton, 2001; Gangestad PSPB, Vol. XX No. X, Month 2005 1-23
DOI: 10.1177/0146167204271843
& Thornhill, 1997). Indeed, the psychology of short- © 2005 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
12 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
Lithuania; Heidi Kabangu-Stahel, Centre d’Enseignement les Ga- Brussel,Brussels, Belgium; Ine Vanwesenbeeck, Netherlands Institute
zelles, Kinsasha-Gombe, Democratic Republic of the Congo; Igor of Social Sexological Research, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Paul L.
Kardum, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia; Brigitte Khoury, Ameri- Vasey, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada; João
can University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon; Hayrran Kwon, Kwangju Verissimo, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal; Martin Voracek,
Health College, Shinchang-dong, Republic of Korea; Kaia Laidra, Uni- University of Vienna Medical School, Vienna, Austria; Wendy W. N.
versity of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia; Anton-Rupert Laireiter, Institute of Psy- Wan, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; Ta-Wei Wang, Yuan Ze
chology, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria; Dustin Lakerveld, University, Chung-Li, Taiwan; Peter Weiss, Charles University, Prague,
University of Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Ada Lampert, The Czech Republic; Andik Wijaya, Couple Clinic Indonesia, Surabaya, In-
Ruppin Institute, Emek Hefer, Israel; Maryanne Lauri, University of donesia; Liesbeth Woertman, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Nether-
Malta, Msida, Malta; Marguerite Lavallée, Université Laval, Québec, lands; Gahyun Youn, Chonnam National University, Kwangju,
Québec, Canada; Suk-Jae Lee, National Computerization Agency, Republic of Korea; Agata Zupanèiè, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana,
Yongingsi Gyonggido, Republic of Korea; Luk Chung Leung, City Uni- Slovenia. The author also thanks Susan Sprecher (USA), Del Paulhus
versity of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; Kenneth D. Locke, University of (Canada), Glenn D. Wilson (England), Qazi Rahman (England), Alois
Idaho, USA; Vance Locke, The University of Western Australia, Craw- Angleitner (Germany), Angelika Hofhansl (Austria), Mircea Miclea
ley, Australia; Ivan Luksik, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Slo- (Romania), Tamio Imagawa (Japan), Minoru Wada (Japan), Junichi
vak Republic; Ishmael Magaisa, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Taniguchi (Japan), and Yuji Kanemasa (Japan) for their help with data
Zimbabwe; Dalia Marcinkeviciene, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithua- collection and for contributing significantly to the samples used in this
nia; André Mata, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal; Rui Mata, Uni- study.
versity of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal; Barry McCarthy, University of
Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom; Michael E. Mills,
Loyola Marymount University, USA; Nhlanhla J. Mkhize, University of term mating displays many of the classic hallmarks of
Natal, Scottsville, South Africa; João Moreira, University of Lisbon, Lis- human adaptation (Greiling & Buss, 2000; Symons,
bon, Portugal; Sérgio Moreira, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal; 1979), including the possession of “special design”
Miguel Moya, University of Granada, Granada, Spain; M. Munyae, Uni-
features (see Thornhill, 1997).
versity of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana; Patricia Noller, University of
Queensland, Brisbane, Australia; Hmoud Olimat, University of Jordan, One such design feature is that short-term mating
Amman, Jordan; Adrian Opre, Babes Bolyai University, Cluj Napoca, functions particularly well in a distinct subset of repro-
Romania; Alexia Panayiotou, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus; ductive environments (Burton, 1990; Draper &
Nebojsa Petrovic, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia; Karolien Harpending, 1982). For example, short-term mating
Poels, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium; Miroslav Popper, Slovak
tendencies have been functionally linked to environ-
Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Slovak Republic; Maria Poulimenou,
KPMG Kyriacou Counsultants SA, Athens, Greece; Volodymyr mental levels of pathogens (Gangestad & Buss, 1993),
P’yatokha, Volyn Regional Hospital, Lutsk, Volyn, Ukraine; Michel operational sex ratios (Barber, 2000; Lancaster, 1989),
Raymond, Université de Montpellier II, Montpellier, France; Ulf- self-perceived mate value (Landolt, Lalumiere, &
Dietrich Reips, Universität Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland; Susan E. Quinsey, 1995), partner-related attributes (Simpson &
Reneau, University of Alabama, USA; Sofia Rivera-Aragon, National
Gangestad, 1992), mate value discrepancies (Buss,
Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico; Wade C.
Rowatt, Baylor University, USA; Willibald Ruch, Queens University Bel- 1994), the presence of stepfathers (Ellis, McFadyen-
fast, Belfast, Northern Ireland; Velko S. Rus, University of Ljubljana, Ketchum, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1999), and other eco-
Ljubljana, Slovenia; Marilyn P. Safir, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel; logical factors (e.g., Belsky, Steinberg, & Draper, 1991;
Sonia Salas, Universidad de La Serena, La Serena, Chile; Fabio Gangestad & Simpson, 1990). According to these evolu-
Sambataro, University of Catania, Catania, Italy; Kenneth N.
tionary perspectives, those who seek out brief sexual
Sandnabba, Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland; Marion K.
Schulmeyer, Universidad Privada de Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Santa relationships may be adaptively pursuing environmen-
Cruz, Bolivia; Astrid Schütz, Technische Universität Chemnitz, tally contingent reproductive strategies (Gangestad &
Chemnitz, Germany; Tullio Scrimali, University of Catania, Catania, It- Simpson, 2000; Low, 2000).
aly; Todd K. Shackelford, Florida Atlantic University, USA; Mithila B. Other evolutionary theorists disagree with the sugges-
Sharan, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India; Phillip R.
tion that short-term mating is a conditional design fea-
Shaver, University of California at Davis, USA; Francis Sichona, Univer-
sity of Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; Franco Simonetti, ture of human nature and argue instead that humans
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile; Tilahun have solely evolved to be lifelong monogamists (e.g.,
Sineshaw, Ramapo College of New Jersey, USA; R. Sookdew, University Lovejoy, 1981). Recent accounts of this perspective have
of Natal, Scottsville, South Africa; Tom Speelman, Ghent University, asserted that the human attachment system is specifically
Ghent, Belgium; Spyros Spyrou, Cyprus College, Nicosia, Cyprus; H.
designed to foster the desire and pursuit of long-term
Canan Sümer, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey; Nebi
Sümer, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey; Marianna monogamous relationships (Hazan & Zeifman, 1999).
Supekova, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Slovak Republic; Deviations from a monogamous mating psychology,
Tomasz Szlendak, Nicholas Copernicus University, Torun, Poland; including short-term sexual desires and promiscuous
Robin Taylor, University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji; Bert mating behaviors, represent developmental dysfunction
Timmermans, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium; William
Tooke, SUNY-Plattsburgh, USA; Ioannis Tsaousis, University of the
or maladaptation of the attachment system:
Aegean, Mytilene, Lesvos, Greece; F.S.K. Tungaraza, University of Dar
es Salaam, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; Griet Vandermassen, Ghent Uni- It seems that a propensity to spend more of one’s time
versity, Ghent, Belgium; Tim Vanhoomissen, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, seeking short-term relationships rather than long-term
Brussels, Belgium; Frank Van Overwalle, Vrije Universiteit ones may have been a “fallout” of a failure to interfaceSchmitt / SHORT-TERM MATING AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT 3
with human’s adapted for social environment (e.g., maladaptive personality traits in adulthood. Those who
responsive paternal and maternal caregivers). (Miller & possess insecure attachment styles as adults are at higher
Fishkin, 1997, p. 228) risk for a broad range of relationship-related
psychopathology, including affective, antisocial, and
According to these evolutionary perspectives on borderline personality disorders (for a review, see
short-term mating, those who seek brief sexual relation- Dozier, Stovall, & Albus, 1999).
ships failed to develop a “secure” form of attachment Theoretically, a primary causal origin of these
with their primary caregiver, a form of attachment that maladaptive personality traits is that early in life, due to
normally translates into long-term monogamy in adult- unresponsive, abusive, or inconsistent caregiving, inse-
hood (Hazan & Zeifman, 1999). Men and women alike cure children develop a negative sense of themselves
are seen as exclusively designed for long-term pair bond- and a negative sense of others (Bartholomew, 1990). In
ing: “Our current biological design—rooted in our Pleis- line with the ethological model of attachment originally
tocene gatherer-hunter roots—strongly favors relatively proposed by Bowlby (1969/1982), these negative inter-
enduring relationships and few sex differences in mat- nal working models persist as influential cognitive struc-
ing strategies” (Miller & Fishkin, 1997, p. 197). Promis- tures that cause a relatively permanent lack of self-worth
cuity or infidelity by either gender, in this view, would (and anxiety about abandonment), avoidance of prox-
have deleterious effects on survival and reproduction imity seeking (and social isolation), and other emotional
and is seen as maladaptively resulting from a develop- insecurities associated with maladaptive personality:
mental history of unstable parent-child relations “Attachment theory explains the differential develop-
(Zeifman & Hazan, 1997). ment of resilient and mentally healthy personalities, and
also of personalities prone to anxiety and depression, or
Short-Term Mating as Maladaptive to developing a false self or some other form of
It is not uncommon for different evolutionary per- vulnerability to mental ill-health” (Bowlby, 1988, p. 132).
spectives to clash when trying to explain a complex Eventually, these maladaptive personality traits may
human behavior (Alcock, 2001; Holcomb, 1998). In the spill over into mating behavior by affecting interper-
case of short-term mating, it has been especially difficult sonal trust, intimacy, bonding, and closeness within
to determine which among these competing evolution- romantic relationships (Ainsworth, 1991; Collins &
ary-theoretical perspectives is more likely to be correct Read, 1990; Simpson, Rholes, & Nelligan, 1992). Varia-
(Kirkpatrick, 1998). A good deal of evidence suggests tion in parent-child attachment, therefore, is thought to
that humans are, at least in part, a monogamous species. contribute to adult personality in ways that deeply affect
For example, the immaturity of human infants and the mating relationships (Simpson, 1999). Indeed, among
corresponding need for paternal investment suggest modern social psychologists, the attachment system is
that monogamous two-parent families were a common seen as pivotal in the formation, maintenance, and
feature of our ancestral past (see Hazan & Zeifman, healthy functioning of romantic relationships (Feeney,
1999). Certain aspects of human physiology (e.g., con- 1999).
cealed ovulation) may also hint that long-term bonds Considerable evidence suggests that short-term mat-
played a role in human evolution (cf. Møller, 1988; ing is somehow involved in this web of insecure attach-
Parker, 1987). If humans are naturally monogamous, it ment and maladaptive personality traits (Gentzler &
seems reasonable to expect that the highly evolved Kerns, 2004). For instance, children who possess secure
human attachment system would play a pivotal role in attachment styles seem to mature into monogamous
the normative development of long-term mating ten- adults (Hazan & Zeifman, 1999), whereas insecure par-
dencies. As Bowlby (1980) noted, “the way in which an ent-child attachment relationships are “a common pre-
individual’s attachment behaviour becomes organized cursor of adult sexual deviance” (Zeifman & Hazan,
within his personality turns the affectional bonds he 1997, p. 255). Insecure attachment styles—rooted in the
makes during his life” (p. 41). maladaptive traits of low self-worth, interpersonal dis-
Childhood disruptions to the attachment process trust, social avoidance, and emotional instability—have
(i.e., not developing a secure attachment style) seem to been linked to some of the defining features of short-
have negative implications for adult personality traits. term mating such as engaging in one-night stands, hav-
For example, children who fail to develop secure attach- ing larger numbers of sex partners, and possessing more
ment styles suffer from many types of personality prob- accepting attitudes toward casual sex (Brennan &
lems including lower sociability, poorer peer relations, Shaver, 1995; Cooper, Shaver, & Collins, 1998; Feeney,
more symptoms of anger, and poorer behavioral self- Noller, & Patty, 1993; Gentzler & Kerns, 2004).
control (Greenberg, 1999). These early attachment The many pieces of attachment evidence can be sum-
troubles presumably have residual effects, leading to marized as the following: (1) insecure parent-child attach-4 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
ment leads to maladaptive personality traits (i.e., low that produces different adult mating strategies depend-
self-worth, interpersonal distrust, social avoidance, and ing upon environmental contexts. Some parent-child
emotional instability); (2) maladaptive personality traits environments may yield secure attachments that
emerge within adult mating relationships as insecure develop into long-term pair-bonding in adulthood.
romantic attachment; (3) insecure romantic attachment Other early environments may lead to insecure attach-
is associated with features of short-term mating (such as ments that adaptively produce short-term mating
acceptance of casual sex); therefore, (4) short-term mat- tendencies in adulthood.
ing is a result of maladaptive personality traits. The most Theoretically, individuals can take either the secure
basic assumption of this maladaptive short-term mating and long-term or the insecure and short-term path. The
perspective, then, is that dysfunctional parental rela- developmental trajectory that is followed heavily
tions early in life produce a maladaptive personality depends on the functional clues that early environments
framework based on negative models of self (i.e., anxiety) provide about future reproductive environments. For
and other (i.e., avoidance), a framework that profoundly example, the path that leads from insecure attachment
affects later functioning in adult romantic contexts. to short-term mating may be tailored so that early parent-
The negative internal models of self and other can be child instability portends a high mortality adult environ-
combined to create three types of insecure romantic ment: “Attachment organization might have become a
attachment, each with its own distinctive pattern of crude index of local mortality rates and thereby also
maladaptive personality (Bartholomew & Horowitz, have assumed the ‘switch’ function for entraining the
1991). For example, those with a negative sense of them- development of alternative reproductive strategies”
selves and a negative view of others can be described as (Chisholm, 1999, p. 126). Other environmental factors
having a “fearful” romantic attachment style. Fearful that may trigger an adaptive shift to insecure attachment
individuals tend to have low self-esteem, low interper- and short-term mating include high stress, inadequate
sonal trust, low sociability, and low emotional stability resources, and low paternal reliability (Belsky et al.,
(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Those with a negative 1991; Ellis & Garber, 2000). These childhood experi-
sense of themselves and a positive view of others can be ences may adaptively channel people to develop uncer-
described as having a “preoccupied” romantic attach- tain and distrustful attitudes toward the reliability of
ment style. Preoccupied individuals tend to have low self- future mateships—attitudes that in some ancestral con-
esteem and low emotional stability but are not necessar- ditions led to higher rates of reproductive success. Belsky
ily untrusting or asocial (Bartholomew & Horowitz, (1999) has speculated that many insecure attachment
1991). Those with a positive sense of themselves and a styles “can be expected to be short-term in nature,
negative view of others can be described as having a “dis- and . . . may foster early and frequent conceptions (or at
missing” romantic attachment style. Dismissing individu- least would have done so in some EEAs [environments of
als tend to have low interpersonal trust and low sociabil- evolutionary adaptedness])” (p. 155).
ity (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) but are not Thus, insecure attachment styles may contribute to
especially low on self-esteem or emotional stability. short-term mating in adulthood, but this form of human
These three insecure romantic attachment styles are mating may have been adaptive on occasion in our
viewed from the maladaptive short-term mating perspec- ancestral past. In this adaptive short-term mating view,
tive as important sources of the desire for short-term sex short-term mating may be rooted in feelings of distrust
and the dysfunctional pursuit of unrestricted and uncertainty concerning the reliability of future
sociosexual behaviors (for a more complete review of romantic relationships, but this emotional base has
the theoretical links between attachment and human adaptive advantages in some reproductive cultures
mating strategies, see Kirkpatrick, 1998). (Keller, 1990; Lancaster, 1989). Unfortunately, it has
proven difficult to empirically contrast this perspective
Short-Term Mating as Adaptive with the maladaptive short-term mating view, in part
During the past decade, some evolutionary theorists because fully differentiating insecure romantic attach-
have taken a different perspective on the same landscape ment from short-term mating is problematic. Both con-
of attachment evidence and have postulated, in contrast, structs contain similar defining features (i.e., both
that insecure attachment and short-term mating seem involve romantic relationships that are brief, numerous,
intertwined because they constitute a viable alternative and have low emotional investment; see Kirkpatrick,
to long-term mating as a reproductive strategy (Belsky, 1998).
1997; Chisholm, 1996). In this view, the desire for brief, Short-Term Mating as Adaptive With Multiple Origins
short-term mateships is not a maladaptive failure of our
normally monogamous attachment system. Rather, Other evolutionary theorists have concurred that
humans evolved with a conditional attachment system short-term mating can have adaptive value and is notSchmitt / SHORT-TERM MATING AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT 5 always a form of maladaptation, but argue further that Short-term mating desires could alternately be inher- short-term mating is probably determined by more than ited, either indirectly via pheromonal sensitivity or early unstable childhood experiences (e.g., Buss & Schmitt, puberty mechanisms, or more directly through genes 1993; Gangestad & Simpson, 2000; Schmitt, related to unrestricted sociosexuality (Dunne et al., Shackelford, Duntely, Tooke, & Buss, 2001). These mul- 1997; Gangestad & Simpson, 1990), pathogen resistance tiple-origins theorists postulate that some of the environ- (Gangestad & Buss, 1993), and/or risk-taking traits asso- mental features associated with insecure parent-child ciated with the human dopamine-reward system attachment possibly contribute to the development of (Zuckerman, 1994). From the multiple-origins perspec- adaptive short-term mating tendencies through inter- tive, early parent-child emotional troubles and the resid- personal distrust but do so alongside other ecological ual internalizations of low self-worth, social avoidance, factors such as the local pathogen prevalence, opera- and emotional instability may have relatively little bear- tional sex ratio, and relative mate value (Gangestad & ing on short-term mating in adulthood. Some multiple- Simpson, 2000; Schmitt, in press). For example, Buss origins perspectives have even suggested that short-term and Schmitt (1993, p. 229) have noted that historically, mating may be associated with more adaptive personality men of high mate value (i.e., high status and esteem) traits and physical attributes, especially in men: “Some often engage in promiscuous or unfaithful mating strate- men (especially those advertising such benefits [physical gies, “whether in the form of multiple wives, concubines, attractiveness and good health]) dedicated more effort mistresses, or brief sexual encounters” that would have to short-term, extra-pair mating tactics” (Gangestad & had clear reproductive advantages (see also Betzig, Simpson, 2000, p. 586). 1986). It is generally not assumed by multiple-origins As displayed in Figure 1, multiple-origins theorists theorists that all of the enduring maladaptive personality expect that short-term mating results from a complex traits that undergird insecure attachment must play the combination of the developmental environments of pivotal role in motivating short-term sexual desires and early childhood, heritable factors, and situational envi- behaviors. Instead, a host of causes—including other ronments of adulthood, including the relative mate val- developmental, heritable, and situational factors—are ues of individual partners, local pathogen loads, local likely at work in determining the mating strategies of sex ratios, immediate pheromone exposure, and other individuals (Low, 2000). Indeed, some findings indicate as yet unknown strategic considerations (Gangestad & that although insecure romantic attachment and short- Simpson, 2000; Low, 2000; Schmitt, in press). Of course, term mating covary, this covariance may result from some of the heritable causes of short-term mating may third-variable causes. also contribute to developmental and situational causes, For example, pheromonal features of early child- and vice versa. Of critical importance here is the fact that hood environments, such as the presence of a stepfather the multiple-origins view does not postulate that short- (Ellis et al., 1999), may stimulate early puberty and other term mating results from the broad-based maladaptive physiological changes in children. Early puberty, in turn, personality traits that are consistently linked with inse- could evoke increased interest by the opposite sex (Udry cure parent-child attachment. Short-term mating may & Campbell, 1994), leading to more desirable opportu- be linked to the specific trait of interpersonal distrust, nities for short-term mating (Buss, 1994) while having but this distrust is seen as functional in certain reproduc- secondary negative effects on parent-child relationships tive environments (Belsky et al., 1991; Chisholm, 1996). (Ellis et al., 1999). Insecure parent-child relationships Short-term mating, both general promiscuity and may turn out to have little causal connection to short- extrapair infidelity, may at times be a functional, term mating. Instead, early puberty may be a third-vari- ecologically contingent response within the broad able origin of both short-term mating and insecure repertoire of human mating strategies. attachment. One limitation of this particular explana- Differential Hypotheses tion is that early puberty may itself result from cultural stress and low paternal investment. Thus, early puberty One way to directly pit these competing evolutionary could be a mechanism by which early childhood envi- perspectives against one another would be to examine ronments control later adult mating strategies (Belsky, whether short-term mating tendencies are strongly 1999). related to maladaptive personality traits, particularly Still, situational exposure in adulthood to certain those aspects linked to insecure attachment including opposite-sex pheromones, such as ovulating women’s low self-worth, interpersonal distrust, social avoidance, exposure to symmetrical men’s scent (Gangestad & and emotional instability. If the maladaptive short-term Thornhill, 1997), could also foster a short-term mating mating view is correct and deviations from long-term psychology, as could a person’s age (Schmitt et al., 2003) mating are caused by psychological dysfunction via inse- or gender (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Schmitt et al., 2001). cure parent-child attachment, short-term mating should
6 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
insecure parent-child attachment might also adaptively
Developmental Factors
contribute to short-term mating. However, short-term
Insecure mating need not be closely related to all the hypothe-
High mortality rate
Inadequate resources sized sequelae of insecure parent-child attachment.
Parent-Child
Paternal unreliability Short-term mating may be related to certain maladaptive
Step-father presence
Attachment High social stressors traits (e.g., interpersonal distrust), but only insofar as
Early puberty
these traits would be functional in high-stress reproduc-
tive situations (Belsky et al., 1991; Chisholm, 1996).
Short-term mating should be unrelated to most of the
maladaptive traits of insecure attachment and may actu-
Interpersonal ally be associated with adaptive personality traits in some
Distrust
contexts (e.g., men with high self-esteem) (Buss &
Schmitt, 1993). The romantic relationships of short-
term sexual strategists may be temporally brief, but most
aspects of their personality should be relatively free from
psychological disruption.
Insecure Short-Term
Levels of Analysis
Romantic Mating
When addressing issues of psychological function and
Attachment Tendencies adaptation, it is especially important to keep clear the
distinction between proximate functioning and ultimate
functioning (e.g., Tinbergen, 1963). In explaining the
functions of short-term mating, the maladaptive short-
term mating perspective views short-term mating as both
proximately and ultimately dysfunctional. That is, short-
Situational Factors Heritable Factors
term mating is both a dysfunction of the attachment sys-
High mate value (MV) Risk-taking traits
MV relative to partner Sensation-seeking
tem (i.e., it is proximately associated with low self-worth,
Willing partners Physical symmetry interpersonal distrust, social avoidance, and emotional
Local sex ratio Physical prowess
Local pathogen load Social dominance instability) and it is assumed that it ultimately leads to
Pheromone exposure Reward sensitivity low reproductive success, or at least reliably did so in our
ancestral past (Miller & Fishkin, 1997). The multiple-ori-
gins perspective views short-term as ultimately func-
Figure 1 Schematic representation of relations among possible tional in some contexts (e.g., acquiring sexy son genes
causes of short-term mating. for women; Greiling & Buss, 2000; increasing the num-
ber of reproductive partners for men; Buss & Schmitt,
be strongly associated with both insecure romantic 1993) and as proximately functional in many contexts
attachment and all of the maladaptive personality traits (i.e., it is generally unrelated to maladaptive personality
that undergird insecure romantic attachment. Because traits). The present studies were not designed to address
insecure parent-child attachment is assumed to cause the ultimate functionality of short-term mating. In the
negative models of self and other—a consequence of a current studies, the proximate functioning of short-term
species-typical attachment system that has failed to oper- mating was addressed by relating short-term mating and
ate normatively—the maladaptive short-term mating adult romantic attachment to measures of maladaptive
perspective clearly predicts that short-term mating personality traits and psychopathology.
should be closely tied to maladaptive personality traits
and psychological dysfunction: “Psychopathology is STUDY 1: SHORT-TERM MATING, ROMANTIC ATTACHMENT,
regarded as d u e to a p er son’s p sycho lo gical AND MALADAPTIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS
development having followed a deviant [attachment] Method
pathway” (Bowlby, 1980, p. 41).
In contrast, if short-term mating is a viable alternate SAMPLES
strategy influenced by a variety of factors—developmen- The findings reported in this study are from the Inter-
tal, heritable, and situational (Gangestad & Simpson, national Sexuality Description Project (ISDP) (Schmitt
2000)—then short-term mating may be somewhat corre- et al., 2003, 2004). The ISDP included samples from a
lated with insecure attachment, because the same factors total of 56 nations. However, some participants did not
(e.g., early puberty, few resources, high stress) that cause receive, or did not fully respond to, all measures relevantSchmitt / SHORT-TERM MATING AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT 7
to this study. Specifically, participants from Chile, sures into English. Differences between the original
Cyprus, Jordan, South Africa, Tanzania, India, Indone- English and the back-translation were discussed, and
sia, Bangladesh, and Malaysia were not included in this mutual agreements were made as to the most appropri-
study. As shown in Table 1, the present data set included ate translation. This procedure tries to balance the com-
47 nations from the world regions of North America (n = peting needs of making the translation meaningful and
3,525), South America (n = 622), western Europe (n = naturally readable to the native participants while pre-
2,323), eastern Europe (n = 2,121), southern Europe (n serving the integrity of the original measure and its con-
= 1,074), Middle East (n = 885), Africa (n = 800), Oceania structs (Brislin, 1980). Samples from Morocco, Ethiopia,
(n = 804), South/Southeast Asia (n = 211), and east Asia Fiji, the Philippines, and Hong Kong were administered
(n = 1,075). the survey in English, but certain terms and phrases were
Most samples consisted of college students; some annotated to clarify what were thought to be confusing
included college students plus general members of the words for the participants. The translation of the ISDP
community, and two (Finland and Mexico) consisted survey into the Flemish dialect of Dutch used only a
solely of community members (see Table 1). All samples translation procedure, as this involved mainly word vari-
were convenience samples. Most samples were recruited ant changes from the original Dutch. Finally, pilot stud-
as volunteers, some received course credit for participa- ies were conducted in several testing sites, in part to
tion, and others received a small monetary reward for clarify translation and comprehension concerns.
their participation. All samples were administered an
anonymous self-report survey; most surveys were Demographic measure. Each sample was first presented
returned via sealed envelope and/or the usage of a drop with a demographic measure that included questions
box. Return rates for college student samples tended to about gender, age, ethnicity, date of birth, sexual orien-
be relatively high (about 95%), though this number was tation, socioeconomic status, and current relationship
lower in some cultures. Return rates for community sam- status. Not all of these questions were included in all sam-
ples were about 50%. Further details on the sampling ples (e.g., date of birth was considered too invasive in
and assessment procedures within each nation are pro- some cultures), and all collaborators were asked to adapt
vided elsewhere (Schmitt et al., 2003, 2004) and are the demographic questions to obtain the most appropri-
available from the author. ate demographic variables for their culture (e.g., ethnic
categories varied across cultures).
PROCEDURE
Participants were provided with a brief description of Short-term mating measures. The desire and pursuit of
the study, including the following written instructions: short-term mating is not a monolithic construct. Some
individuals seek short-term relationships in addition to
This questionnaire is entirely voluntary. All your their long-term, primary relationships (i.e., infidelity)
responses will be kept confidential and your personal (Wiederman, 1997). Others may seek short-term part-
identity will remain anonymous. No identifying informa- ners as a primary mode of mating (i.e., promiscuity)
tion is requested on this survey, nor will any such infor- (Paul, McManus, & Hayes, 2000). Still others may pos-
mation be added later to this survey. If any of the ques- sess high levels of short-term sexual desire but have not
tions make you uncomfortable, feel free not to answer behaviorally engaged in short-term mating. Feeney et al.
them. You are free to withdraw from this study at any (1993) found that women with certain forms of insecure
time for any reason. This series of questionnaires should attachment report more acceptance of casual sex but
take about 20 minutes to complete. Thank you for your engage in less sex than other women, suggesting it can
participation.
be critical to distinguish between sexual desires and
sexual behaviors.
The full instructional set provided by each collaborator
varied, however, and was adapted to fit the specific cul- Because of the potential differences between sexual
ture and type of sample. Details on incentives and cover desires and behaviors, short-term tendencies were
stories used across samples are available from the author. assessed in this study using multiple measurement
modalities. Included first was a seven-item index
MEASURES designed to tap current interest in short-term mating,
Researchers from cultural regions where English was the Short-Term Mating Interests (STMI) Scale. The first
not the primary language were asked to use a transla- three STMI items are from the Number of Partners mea-
tion/back-translation process and administer the ISDP sure (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Schmitt et al., 2003), which
in their native language. This procedure typically asks, using open-ended scales, for the number of sex
involved the primary collaborator translating the mea- partners desired across various future time periods.
sures into the native language of the participants and Three of the most commonly analyzed items include the
then having a second person back-translate the mea- time periods of 1 month, 1 year, and 5 years (Schmitt8 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
TABLE 1: Sample Sizes, Sampling Type, and Language of Survey Across 47 Nations and 10 World Regions of the International Sexuality Descrip-
tion Project (ISDP)
Sample Size
World Region Men Women Sample Type Language
North America 1,269 2,256
Canada 329 618 College students English/French
Mexico 90 100 Community-based Spanish
United States of America 850 1,538 College students English
South America 293 329
Argentina 107 136 College students Spanish
Bolivia 66 54 College students Spanish
Brazil 37 48 College students Portuguese
Peru 83 91 College students Spanish
Western Europe 852 1,471
Austria 167 223 College/community German
Belgium (Flanders) 129 284 College students Dutch (Flemish)
Finland 26 67 Community-based Finnish
France 46 53 College students French
Germany 218 372 College/community German
Netherlands 92 111 College students Dutch
Switzerland 57 94 College students German
United Kingdom 117 268 College/community English
Eastern Europe 939 1,182
Croatia 98 100 College students Croatian
Czech Republic 72 98 College students Czech
Estonia 60 84 College students Estonian
Latvia 75 78 College students Latvian
Lithuania 39 38 College students Lithuanian
Poland 210 379 College students Polish
Romania 97 103 College students Romanian
Serbia 91 94 College students Serbian
Slovakia 55 68 College students Slovak
Slovenia 44 40 College students Slovenian
Ukraine 98 100 College/community Ukrainian
Southern Europe 406 668
Greece 37 153 College students Greek
Italy 91 108 College/community Italian
Malta 103 119 College students English
Portugal 98 131 College students Portuguese
Spain 77 157 College students Spanish
Middle East 411 474
Israel 130 170 College students Hebrew
Lebanon 102 117 College students English
Turkey 179 187 College/community Turkish
Africa 421 379
Botswana 94 114 College students English
Congo, Democratic Republic of 86 48 College/community French
Ethiopia 90 60 College/community English
Morocco 55 67 College students English
Zimbabwe 96 90 College students English
Oceania 341 463
Australia 176 261 College students English
Fiji & Pacific Islands 65 50 College/community English
New Zealand 100 152 College students English
(continued)
et al., 2001, 2003). For the STMI, all values on these three
items that were above three were truncated to three to 1993; Schmitt et al., 2003), which asks the likelihood of
control for extreme values. The next three STMI items consenting to sex with someone viewed as desirable
are from the Time Known measure (Buss & Schmitt, (using a scale of +3 = definitely yes to –3 = definitely not)Schmitt / SHORT-TERM MATING AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT 9
TABLE 1 (continued)
Sample Size
World Region Men Women Sample Type Language
South/Southeast Asia 93 118
Philippines 93 118 College students English
East Asia 518 557
Hong Kong (China) 90 94 College students English
Japan 125 86 College students Japanese
Korea, Republic of 189 289 College students Korean
Taiwan 114 88 College students Mandarin
Worldwide ISDP sample 5,543 7,898 College/community 25 languages
NOTE: All samples were convenience samples. Further details on sampling methods within each nation are available from the author. Additional
samples from Chile, Cyprus, Jordan, South Africa, Tanzania, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, and Malaysia were included in the ISDP, but participants
in those samples were not administered the complete set of measures used in this study.
TABLE 2: Descriptive Statistics and Sex Differences in Short-Term Mating, Romantic Attachment, and Personality Traits
Men Women Sex Difference
M SD M SD t d
Short-Term Mating Interests (α = .79) 11.58 7.10 6.79 6.33 36.33*** 0.68
Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (α = .79) 46.92 29.73 27.46 19.59 45.72*** 0.75
Relationship Exclusivity (α = .77) 6.65 1.42 7.39 1.25 –31.26*** –0.54
RQ: Secure attachment 4.37 1.68 4.29 1.68 2.92** 0.05
RQ: Dismissing attachment 3.85 1.78 3.50 1.78 10.98*** 0.19
RQ: Preoccupied attachment 3.49 1.82 3.26 1.84 7.16*** 0.13
RQ: Fearful attachment 3.29 1.87 3.54 2.01 –7.14*** –0.12
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (α = .85) 3.12 0.48 3.07 0.48 6.55*** 0.11
BFI: Agreeableness (α = .71) 3.58 0.59 3.68 0.60 –9.83*** –0.17
BFI: Extraversion (α = .78) 3.32 0.68 3.43 0.73 –8.52*** –0.14
BFI: Neuroticism (α = .79) 2.78 0.72 3.13 0.75 –26.89*** –0.47
NOTE: RQ = Relationship Questionnaire; BFI = Big Five Inventory. d values of 0.20 are considered small, 0.5 are considered moderate, and 0.8 are
considered large (Cohen, 1988).
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
after knowing that person for various time intervals. For five years? (Please give a specific, realistic estimate).”
the STMI, the time periods of 1 month, 1 year, and 5 Item 3 is, “With how many different partners have you
years were used. Also included in the STMI was the had sex on one and only one occasion?” Open-ended
Short-Term Seeking scale (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; blanks are provided after each of the first three questions
Schmitt et al., 2003). This is a single-item 7-point rating of the SOI. The fourth item was designed to measure
scale ranging from 1 (“currently not at all seeking a covert sociosexual behavior: “How often do (did) you
short-term mate”) to 7 (“currently strongly seeking a fantasize about having sex with someone other than your
short-term mate”). All seven items (three from the Num- current (most recent) dating partner?” This item was fol-
ber of Partners measure, three from the Time Known lowed by an 8-point scale ranging from 1 (“never”) to 8
measure, and the Short-Term Seeking scale) were added (“at least once a day”). Items 5, 6, and 7 were designed to
together to form the STMI. Overall, Cronbach’s alpha measure sociosexual attitudes. Item 5 is, “Sex without
for this STMI was .79 (see Table 2). love is OK.” Item 6 is, “I can imagine myself being com-
A seven-item measure of willingness to have sex with- fortable and enjoying ‘casual’ sex with different part-
out commitment, the Sociosexuality Orientation Inven- ners.” Item 7 is, “I would have to be closely attached to
tory (SOI) (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991), was also someone (both emotionally and psychologically) before
administered. The first three items of the SOI are I could feel comfortable and fully enjoy having sex with
intended to capture overt behavioral expressions of him or her.” All three attitudinal items were followed by
short-term mating. Item 1 is, “With how many different 9-point scales ranging from 1 (I strongly disagree) to 9 (I
partners have you had sex (sexual intercourse) within strongly agree). Responses to Item 7 are reverse coded so
the past year?” Item 2 is, “How many different partners that higher scores indicate more unrestricted
do you foresee yourself having sex with during the next sociosexuality. According to Simpson and Gangestad10 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
(1991), Items 5, 6, and 7 are highly correlated and Personality trait measures. All participants were asked to
should be merged to form a single attitudinal score. This complete measures related to maladaptive emotional
attitudinal score is then combined with the first four SOI and interpersonal styles. The first was the Rosenberg
items to form the total SOI composite measure. How- Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) (Rosenberg, 1965). This scale
ever, each item of the SOI composite measure is first contains 10 counterbalanced 4-point items ranging from
weighted using the following formula: (5 × Item 1) + (1 × strongly agree to strongly disagree. The RSES is coded so that
Item 2 [with a cap on Item 2 of 30])) + (5 × Item 3) + (4 × higher scores indicate higher levels of global self-esteem.
Item 4) + (2 × mean of Items 5, 6, and 7) = total SOI. This measure has been validated across several cultures
Again, using this formula produces an SOI composite (e.g., Pullmann & Allik, 2000). In this study, Cronbach’s
such that higher scores are associated with unrestricted alpha for the RSES was .85 (see Table 2).
sociosexuality (i.e., more short-term mating). In this Participants then completed the Big Five Inventory
study, Cronbach’s alpha for the SOI was .79. (BFI) (Benet-Martinez & John, 1998). The BFI has been
Samples were then administered a measure of the used effectively across cultures and languages (Benet-
“Sexy Seven” sexuality attributes (Schmitt & Buss, 2000). Martinez & John, 1998). The measure also contains sev-
The Sexy Seven measure asks participants to rate them- eral scales potentially related to maladaptive personality
selves compared to others they know (using a 9-point traits and the internal working models of attachment as
scale from 1 = extremely inaccurate to 9 = extremely accurate) outlined by Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991). The first
on a list of 67 sexually connotative adjectives. The Sexy scale is the BFI Agreeableness scale, which is highly
Seven includes one scale designed to capture short-term related to interpersonal trust (see Graziano &
mating in the form of infidelity, the Relationship Exclu- Eisenberg, 1997). In this study, Cronbach’s alpha for the
sivity scale (RE). The RE scale contains the following BFI Agreeableness scale was .71. The second scale is an
adjectival items: “adulterous” (reverse scored), Extraversion scale, which is highly related to social avoid-
“devoted,” “faithful,” “loose” (reverse scored), “monoga- ance versus sociability (see Watson and Clark, 1997, for a
mous,” “polygamous” (reverse scored), “promiscuous” description of extraversion’s sociability facets). In this
(reverse scored), and “unfaithful” (reverse scored). In study, Cronbach’s alpha for the BFI Extraversion scale
this study, the RE scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .77 was .78. The final scale that provided an index of
(see Table 2). Further psychometrics on the RE scale can maladaptive personality traits was emotional stability (vs.
be found in Schmitt and Buss (2000). Neuroticism). Neuroticism is related to several personal-
Romantic attachment measure. All samples were admin- ity disorders and susceptibilities to disease (Costa &
istered the two-dimension/four-category measure of Widiger, 1994; Strack & Lorr, 1994) and is conceptually
adult romantic attachment called the Relationship anchored in high anxiety, depression, and vulnerability
Questionnaire (RQ) (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). to stress—the list of traits nominated by Bowlby (1988, p.
This measure of attachment has one single-item secure 132) as likely consequences of insecure parent-child
romantic attachment scale and three single-item inse- attachment. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha for the BFI
cure romantic attachment scales. Each single-item scale Neuroticism scale was .79.
uses a 7-point Likert-type rating format ranging from 1 = Results and Discussion
doesn’t describe me to 7 = very accurately describes me, with 4 as
the midpoint of each scale. This measure of romantic Descriptive statistics for all variables can be found in
attachment is relatively brief, has been validated in sev- Table 2. Men tended to score higher on all aspects of
eral studies, and has been described as useful for exam- short-term mating, including moderate to large magni-
ining the relationship of attachment to external cultural tudes of effect on the STMI (d = 0.68), SOI (d = 0.75), and
criteria (Bartholomew, 1994; Griffin & Bartholomew, RE (d = –0.54) scales. These findings replicate those of
1994). In addition, although some may consider it a limi- other investigations (Schmitt & Buss, 2000; Schmitt
tation of this study, single-item scales are increasingly et al., 2003; Simpson & Gangestad, 1991). Overall, there
being viewed as psychometrically sound alternatives to were small sex differences in romantic attachment,
longer, more redundant multi-item scales (Barrett & including men’s higher scores on secure, dismissing,
Paltiel, 1996). As the key analyses in this study are done and preoccupied attachment and women’s slightly
on data aggregated at the cultural level rather than on higher scores on fearful attachment. Men had slightly
the answers of individual respondents, the loss of reli- higher self-esteem, whereas women scored higher on
ability resulting from a single-item measure is less prob- Extraversion and Agreeableness. There was a moderate
lematic. In addition, the RQ is the only measure, among sex difference on Neuroticism, with women scoring
popular measures of attachment, to demonstrate higher (d = –0.47). Because of the prevalence of sex dif-
independence from self-deceptive biases (Leak & ferences, all subsequent analyses were conducted within
Parsons, 2001). each sex.Schmitt / SHORT-TERM MATING AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT 11
TABLE 3: Is Short-Term Mating Linked to Romantic Attachment Styles in Men and Women Across Cultures?
Attachment Style
Secure Dismissing Preoccupied Fearful
World Region M W M W M W M W
North America
Short-Term Mating Interests –.02 –.04* .08** .05* –.01 .09*** .05* .07***
Unrestricted Sociosexual Orientation .01 –.03 .12*** .08*** –.04 .03 .04 .08***
Lack of Relationship Exclusivity .01 –.03 .12*** .10*** –.04 .06** .01 .10***
South America
Short-Term Mating Interests .11 .21*** .01 .02 .11 –.02 .04 .08
Unrestricted Sociosexual Orientation .00 .07 .06 –.07 –.09 .01 .05 .00
Lack of Relationship Exclusivity .06 –.08 .15** .13** .01 .11* .02 .15**
Western Europe
Short-Term Mating Interests –.05 –.02 .18*** .11*** –.05 .02 .13*** .06*
Unrestricted Sociosexual Orientation .01 .02 .16*** .14*** –.07* .01 .08* –.03
Lack of Relationship Exclusivity –.11*** .01 .20*** .16*** .01 .03 .15*** .08***
Eastern Europe
Short-Term Mating Interests –.04 –.04 .09** .09** .02 .07* –.03 .05
Unrestricted Sociosexual Orientation .07* .04 .12*** .01 –.06* –.03 –.02 .01
Lack of Relationship Exclusivity –.02 .02 .17*** .15*** –.03 .00 .03 .04
Southern Europe
Short-Term Mating Interests .09* –.03 .07 .04 .09 .08* .06 –.02
Unrestricted Sociosexual Orientation .08 .04 .10* .09** –.07 .04 .02 –.01
Lack of Relationship Exclusivity .12** .02 .07 .07* .03 .06 .11* .05
Middle East
Short-Term Mating Interests –.08 .02 .12** –.05 .13** –.01 .11* –.10*
Unrestricted Sociosexual Orientation .17*** .02 .17*** .10** –.06 –.03 –.04 –.08
Lack of Relationship Exclusivity .07 .03 .16*** .07 –.06 .00 –.05 .02
Africa
Short-Term Mating Interests .05 –.02 –.04 –.12* .03 .04 –.08 –.03
Unrestricted Sociosexual Orientation .04 .09* .03 –.06 –.06 .01 –.04 –.04
Lack of Relationship Exclusivity –.06 .07 .05 –.09* .07 –.02 –.03 –.13**
Oceania
Short-Term Mating Interests –.02 .02 .08 .05 –.08 .04 –.13* .07
Unrestricted Sociosexual Orientation –.02 –.05 –.04 .04 –.10* –.01 –.12** .10**
Lack of Relationship Exclusivity –.01 –.01 .04 .12** .05 .02 .08 .17***
South/Southeast Asia
Short-Term Mating Interests –.02 –.06 .21 .11 –.26* .01 –.20 –.08
Unrestricted Sociosexual Orientation –.05 –.03 .26** –.01 –.22* .17* –.15 –.03
Lack of Relationship Exclusivity –.06 .15 .13 .09 –.16 .17* .06 .30***
East Asia
Short-Term Mating Interests –.05 –.03 .00 –.04 .16*** .02 .07 .19***
Unrestricted Sociosexual Orientation –.02 –.04 .05 –.01 .06 .08* –.02 .08*
Lack of Relationship Exclusivity –.06 –.10** .08* –.05 .02 –.02 .05 .01
NOTE: Reported are partial correlations controlling for the effects of nation within each world region.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
ROMANTIC ATTACHMENT AND SHORT-TERM MATING mating were generally unrelated to the secure form of
To efficiently examine the relationship between adult romantic attachment. Note that the RE scale will be
romantic attachment and short-term mating, national referred to as Lack of RE so that its reported correlations
samples within each of the 10 world regions of the ISDP will be displayed in the same direction as the STMI and
were combined. All correlational analyses within regions SOI.
represent partial correlations controlling for the effects Dismissing romantic attachment was positively corre-
of individual nation. This was necessary because if a lated with short-term mating in most regions, a finding
given nation was exceptionally high on two scales, the that replicates previous North American studies (e.g.,
scales would artificially appear to correlate with one Brennan & Shaver, 1995; Simpson, 1990). In the North
another across combined samples. As seen in Table 3, for America region of the ISDP, men and women who were
both men and women all three indexes of short-term dismissing tended to report higher short-term mating
interests, expressed more unrestricted sociosexuality,You can also read
