Widespread Promiscuity and Cheap Weddings: Can "Low-Value" Sexual Relationships Make Certain Individuals More Sexually Conservative?
Francesca R LubertiKhandis R BlakeRobert C BrooksPublished in: Archives of sexual behavior (2022)
Attitudes toward sexual relationships can have evolutionary underpinnings because these attitudes often serve, or at least reflect, the attitude holder's mating self-interest. Sexually restricted individuals, for example, hold conservative attitudes toward same-sex and opposite-sex sexual relationships because conservative attitudes benefit their mating strategies (e.g., monogamy). Certain mating market cues, however, can shift attitudes. In two experiments recruiting Americans and Australians (total N = 1298), we took a data-driven approach to test whether experimental manipulations of (1) promiscuity among either homosexuals (gays and lesbians) or heterosexuals and (2) the financial amount that either homosexuals (gays and lesbians) or heterosexuals invest in weddings would shift attitudes toward same-sex marriage, dating, and romantic spending. In Experiment 1, we did not replicate previous findings that homosexual promiscuity affects attitudes to same-sex marriage, nor did we find any effects of priming heterosexual promiscuity. However, priming participants with the notion that either homosexuals or heterosexuals were highly promiscuous increased support for traditional relationship norms among sexually restricted Australian (but not American) men. This effect was smaller when we controlled for participant sexual orientation, because primes of high homosexual or heterosexual promiscuity increased support for these traditional norms in exclusively heterosexual Australians, but decreased support in non-heterosexual Australians. Experiment 2 found that American and Australian men's opposition to same-sex marriage increased when they were led to believe that either homosexual or heterosexual weddings were cheap, even when controlling for participant sexual orientation. Overall, results provide some support for the argument that mating market cues affect attitudes toward sexual relationships.