Sex Differences in Misperceptions of Sexual Interest Can Be Explained by Sociosexual Orientation and Men Projecting Their Own Interest Onto Women

Abstract

Sex differences in misperceptions of sexual interest have been well documented; however, it is unclear whether this cognitive bias could be explained by other factors. In the current study, 1,226 participants (586 men, 640 women) participated in a speed-dating task in which they rated their sexual interest in each other as well as the sexual interest they perceived from their partners. Consistent with previous findings, results showed that men tended to overperceive sexual interest from their partners, whereas women tended to underperceive sexual interest. However, this sex difference became negligible when we considered potential mediators, such as the raters’ sociosexual orientation and raters’ tendency to project their own levels of sexual interest onto their partners. These findings challenge the popular notion that sex differences in misperceptions of sexual interest have evolved as a specialized adaptation to different selection pressures in men and women.

Keywords

attraction sociosexual orientation speed dating mean-level bias tracking accuracy error-management theory open data

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abbey

(1982). Sex differences in attributions for friendly behavior: Do males misperceive females’ friendliness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 830–838.

Barr

D. J.

(2013). Random effects structure for testing interactions in linear mixed-effects models. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 328. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00328

Barr

D. J.

Levy

Scheepers

Tily

H. J.

(2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.

Bates

Mächler

Bolker

B. M.

Walker

S. C.

(2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1). doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01

Engeler

Raghubir

(2018). Decomposing the cross-sex misprediction bias of dating behaviors: Do men overestimate or women underreport their sexual intentions? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114, 95–109.

Farris

Treat

T. A.

Viken

R. J.

McFall

R. M.

(2008). Sexual coercion and the misperception of sexual intent. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(1), 48–66.

Feingold

Mazzella

(1998). Gender differences in body image are increasing. Psychological Science, 9, 190–195.

Fletcher

G. J. O.

Kerr

P. S. G.

N. P.

Valentine

K. A.

(2014). Predicting romantic interest and decisions in the very early stages of mate selection: Standards, accuracy, and sex differences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 540–550.

Gangestad

S. W.

Simpson

J. A.

(2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573–644.

10.

Haselton

M. G.

Buss

D. M.

(2000). Error management theory: A new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 81–91.

11.

Haselton

M. G.

Nettle

(2006). The paranoid optimist: An integrative evolutionary model of cognitive biases. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 47–66.

12.

Hayes

S. D.

Crocker

P. R. E.

Kowalski

K. C.

(1999). Gender differences in physical self-perceptions, global self-esteem and physical activity: Evaluation of the physical self-perception profile model. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22(1), 1–14.

13.

Henningsen

D. D.

Henningsen

M. L. M.

Valde

K. S.

(2006). Gender differences in perceptions of women’s sexual interest during cross-sex interactions: An application and extension of cognitive valence theory. Sex Roles, 54, 821–829.

14.

Howell

E. C.

Etschells

P. J.

Penton-Voak

I. S.

(2012). The sexual overperception bias is associated with sociosexuality. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 1012–1016.

15.

Kohl

Robertson

(2014). The sexual overperception bias: An exploration of the relationship between mate value and perception of sexual interest. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 8, 31–43.

16.

Kuznetsova

Brockhoff

P. B.

Christensen

R. H. B.

(2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13). doi:10.18637/jss.v082.i13

17.

Lemay

E. P.

Wolf

N. R.

(2016). Projection of romantic and sexual desire in opposite-sex friendships: How wishful thinking creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 864–878.

18.

Maner

J. K.

Kenrick

D. T.

Becker

D. V.

Robertson

T. E.

Hofer

Neuberg

S. L.

. . . Schaller

. (2005). Functional projection: How fundamental social motives can bias interpersonal perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 63–78.

19.

Marks

Miller

(1987). Ten years of research on the false-consensus effect: An empirical and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 72–90.

20.

Murray

D. R.

Murphy

S. C.

von Hippel

Trivers

Haselton

M. G.

(2017). A preregistered study of competing predictions suggests that men do overestimate women’s sexual intent. Psychological Science, 28, 253–255.

21.

Murray

S. L.

Holmes

J. G.

Griffin

D. W.

(2000). Self-esteem and the quest for felt security: How perceived regard regulates attachment processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 478–498.

22.

Penke

Asendorpf

J. B.

(2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1113–1135.

23.

Perilloux

Easton

J. A.

Buss

D. M.

(2012). The misperception of sexual interest. Psychological Science, 23, 146–151. doi:10.1177/0956797611424162

24.

Perilloux

Kurzban

(2015). Do men overperceive women’s sexual interest? Psychological Science, 26, 70–77.

25.

R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

26.

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.

27.

Tingley

Yamamoto

Hirose

Keele

Imai

(2014). mediation: R package for causal mediation analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 59(5). doi:10.18637/jss.v059.i05

28.

Trivers

R. L.

(1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell

(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.

0.00 MB

0.78 MB

0.25 MB