Responsiveness may signal to a potential partner that one is concerned with her or his welfare, and may therefore increase sexual interest in this person. Research shows, however, that this proposition holds true for men, but not for women. In three studies, one observational and two experimental, we explored a potential mechanism that explains why men and women diverge in their sexual reactions to a responsive opposite-sex stranger. Studies 1 and 2 showed that men, but not women, perceived a responsive stranger as more gender typical (masculine/feminine) and, in turn, as more attractive. Study 3 revealed that responsiveness increased men’s perception of partner’s femininity. This, in turn, was associated with higher sexual arousal, which was, in turn, linked to greater partner attractiveness and greater desire for a long-term relationship. These findings suggest that whether responsiveness affects perceptions of partner attractiveness varies in individuals, depending on the contextually based meaning of responsiveness.
AfifiW. A.LucasA. A. (2008). Information seeking in initial stages of relational development. In SprecherS.WenzelA.HarveyJ. (Eds.), Handbook of relationship initiation (pp. 197-215). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
2.
BaumeisterR. F.BratslavskyE. (1999). Passion, intimacy, and time: Passionate love as a function of change in intimacy. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 49-67.
3.
BaumeisterR. F.CataneseK. R.VohsK. D. (2001). Is there a gender difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views, conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 242-273.
4.
BerscheidE.ReisH. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In GilbertD. T.FiskeS. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 193-281). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
5.
BiesanzJ. C. (2014). Constructing confidence intervals for standardized effect sizes. Manuscript submitted for publication.
6.
BirnbaumG. E. (2014). Sexy building blocks: The contribution of the sexual system to attachment formation and maintenance. In MikulincerM.ShaverP. R. (Eds.), Mechanisms of social connection: From brain to group (pp. 315-332). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
7.
BirnbaumG. E.CohenO.WertheimerV. (2007). Is it all about intimacy? Age, menopausal status, and women’s sexuality. Personal Relationships, 14, 167-185.
8.
BirnbaumG. E.GillathO. (2006). Measuring subgoals of the sexual behavioral system: What is sex good for?Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 675-701.
9.
BirnbaumG. E.Laser-BrandtD. (2002). Gender differences in the experience of heterosexual intercourse. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 11, 143-158.
10.
BirnbaumG. E.ReisH. T. (2006). Women’s sexual working models: An evolutionary–attachment perspective. The Journal of Sex Research, 43, 328-342.
11.
BirnbaumG. E.ReisH. T. (2012). When does responsiveness pique sexual interest? Attachment and sexual desire in initial acquaintanceships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 946-958.
12.
BirnbaumG. E.WeisbergY. J.SimpsonJ. A. (2011). Desire under attack: Attachment orientations and the effects of relationship threat on sexual motivations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 448-468.
13.
BussD. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.
14.
BussD. M.SchmittD. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.
15.
ClarkM. S.LemayE. P.Jr. (2010). Close relationships. In FiskeS. T.GilbertD. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 898-940). New York, NY: Wiley.
16.
CooperM. L.ShapiroC. M.PowersA. M. (1998). Motivations for sex and risky sexual behavior among adolescents and young adults: A functional perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1528-1558.
17.
DiekmanA. B.EaglyA. H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1171-1188.
18.
EaglyA. H.EastwickP. W.Johannesen-SchmidtM. C. (2009). Possible selves in marital roles: The impact of the anticipated division of labor on the mate preferences of women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 403-414.
19.
EaglyA. H.MladinicA. (1989). Gender stereotypes and attitudes toward women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 543-558.
20.
EastwickP. W.FinkelE. J. (2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 245-264.
21.
EastwickP. W.FinkelE. J.MochonD.ArielyD. (2007). Selective versus unselective romantic desire: Not all reciprocity is created equal. Psychological Science, 18, 317-319.
22.
EatonA. A.RoseS. (2011). Has dating become more egalitarian? A 35 year review using Sex Roles. Sex Roles, 64, 843-862.
23.
FeinbergD. R. (2008). Are human faces and voices ornaments signaling common underlying cues to mate value?Evolutionary Anthropology, 17, 112-118.
24.
FinkelE. J.BaumeisterR. F. (2010). Attraction and rejection. In BaumeisterR. F.FinkelE. J. (Eds.), Advanced social psychology: The state of the science (pp. 419-459). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
25.
FletcherG. J. O.SimpsonJ. A.ThomasG.GilesL. (1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 72-89.
26.
FosterC. A.WitcherB. S.CampbellW. K.GreenJ. D. (1998). Arousal and attraction: Evidence for automatic and controlled processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 86-101.
27.
FraccaroP. J.FeinbergD. R.DeBruineL. M.LittleA. C.WatkinsC. D.JonesB. C. (2010). Correlated male preferences for femininity in female faces and voices. Evolutionary Psychology, 8, 447-461.
28.
GoetzC. D.EastonJ. A.LewisD. M. G.BussD. M. (2012). Sexual exploitability: Observable cues and their link to sexual attraction. Evolution & Human Behavior, 33, 417-426.
29.
HaseltonM. G.BussD. M. (2000). Error management theory: A new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 81-91.
30.
HaseltonM. G.BussD. M.OubaidV.AngleitnerA. (2005). Sex, lies, and strategic interference: The psychology of deception between the sexes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 3-23.
31.
HaseltonM. G.NettleD. (2006). The paranoid optimist: An integrative evolutionary model of cognitive biases. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 47-66.
32.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
33.
JohnsonK. L.TassinaryL. G. (2007). Compatibility of basic social perceptions determines perceived attractiveness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 104, 5246-5251.
34.
JonesJ. A.WallerN. G. (2013). Computing confidence intervals for standardized regression coefficients. Psychological Methods, 18, 435-453.
35.
KelleyK. (2007). Methods for the behavioral, educational, and social sciences: An R package. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 979-984.
36.
La FranceB. H.HenningsenD. D.OatesA.ShawC. M. (2009). Social sexual interactions: Meta-analyses of sex differences in perceptions of flirtatiousness, seductiveness, and promiscuousness. Communication Monographs, 76, 263-285.
37.
LaurenceauJ. P.BarrettL. F.RovineM. J. (2005). The interpersonal process model of intimacy in marriage: A daily-diary and multilevel modeling approach. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 314-323.
38.
Law SmithM. J.PerrettD. I.JonesB. C.CornwellR. E.MooreF. R.FeinbergD. R.. . . HillierS. G. (2006). Facial appearance is a cue to reproductive hormone levels in women. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences, 273, 145-150.
39.
LemayE. P.Jr.ClarkM. S.GreenbergA. (2010). What is beautiful is good because what is beautiful is desired: Physical attractiveness stereotyping as projection of interpersonal goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 339-353.
40.
PattonD.WaringE. M. (1985). Sex and marital intimacy. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 11, 176-184.
41.
PreacherK. J.RuckerD. D.HayesA. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185-227.
42.
ReisH. T. (2007). Steps toward the ripening of relationship science. Personal Relationships, 14, 1-23.
43.
ReisH. T.ClarkM. S. (2013). Responsiveness. In SimpsonJ. A.CampbellL. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 400-423). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
44.
ReisH. T.ClarkM. S.HolmesJ. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In MashekD. J.AronA. P. (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201-225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
45.
ReisH. T.ManiaciM. R.CaprarielloP. A.EastwickP. W.FinkelE. J. (2011). Familiarity does indeed promote attraction in live interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 557-570.
46.
RubinH.CampbellL. (2012). Day-to-day changes in intimacy predict heightened relationship passion, sexual occurrence, and sexual satisfaction: A dyadic diary analysis. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 3, 224-231.
47.
RudmanL. A.GlickP. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743-762.
48.
SadallaE. K.KenrickD. T.VershureB. (1987). Dominance and heterosexual attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 730-738.
49.
SchmittD. P.ShackelfordT. K.BussD. M. (2001). Are men really more oriented toward short-term mating than women?: A critical review of theory and research. Psychology, Evolution & Gender, 3, 211-239.
50.
ThornhillR.GangestadS. W. (2006). Facial sexual dimorphism, developmental stability, and susceptibility to disease in men and women. Evolution & Human Behavior, 27, 131-144.
51.
TriversR. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In CampbellB. (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 136-179). Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
