2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      If you leave, don't leave now: The role of gender, sociosexuality, and fear of being single on desire to engage in breakup sex

      , , ,
      Personality and Individual Differences
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Beyond global sociosexual orientations: a more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships.

          Sociosexuality is usually assessed as the overall orientation toward uncommitted sex, although this global approach may mask unique contributions of different components. In a large online study (N = 2,708) and a detailed behavioral assessment of 283 young adults (both singles and couples) with a 1-year follow-up, the authors established 3 theoretically meaningful components of sociosexuality: past behavioral experiences, the attitude toward uncommitted sex, and sociosexual desire (all measured by a revised version of the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory). Discriminant validity was shown with regard to (a) their factorial structure, (b) sex differences, (c) many established correlates of sociosexuality, and (d) the prediction of observed flirting behavior when meeting an attractive opposite-sex stranger, even down to the level of objectively coded behaviors, as well as (e) the self-reported number of sexual partners and (f) changes in romantic relationship status over the following year. Within couples, the 3 components also showed distinct degrees of assortative mating and distinct effects on the romantic partner. Implications for the evolutionary psychology of mating tactics are discussed. (c) 2008 APA, all rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Renovating the Pyramid of Needs: Contemporary Extensions Built Upon Ancient Foundations.

            Maslow's pyramid of human needs, proposed in 1943, has been one of the most cognitively contagious ideas in the behavioral sciences. Anticipating later evolutionary views of human motivation and cognition, Maslow viewed human motives as based in innate and universal predispositions. We revisit the idea of a motivational hierarchy in light of theoretical developments at the interface of evolutionary biology, anthropology, and psychology. After considering motives at three different levels of analysis, we argue that the basic foundational structure of the pyramid is worth preserving, but that it should be buttressed with a few architectural extensions. By adding a contemporary design feature, connections between fundamental motives and immediate situational threats and opportunities should be highlighted. By incorporating a classical element, these connections can be strengthened by anchoring the hierarchy of human motives more firmly in the bedrock of modern evolutionary theory. We propose a renovated hierarchy of fundamental motives that serves as both an integrative framework and a generative foundation for future empirical research.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Why humans have sex.

              Historically, the reasons people have sex have been assumed to be few in number and simple in nature-to reproduce, to experience pleasure, or to relieve sexual tension. Several theoretical perspectives suggest that motives for engaging in sexual intercourse may be larger in number and psychologically complex in nature. Study 1 used a nomination procedure that identified 237 expressed reasons for having sex, ranging from the mundane (e.g., "I wanted to experience physical pleasure") to the spiritual (e.g., "I wanted to get closer to God"), from altruistic (e.g., "I wanted the person to feel good about himself/herself") to vengeful (e.g., "I wanted to get back at my partner for having cheated on me"). Study 2 asked participants (N = 1,549) to evaluate the degree to which each of the 237 reasons had led them to have sexual intercourse. Factor analyses yielded four large factors and 13 subfactors, producing a hierarchical taxonomy. The Physical reasons subfactors included Stress Reduction, Pleasure, Physical Desirability, and Experience Seeking. The Goal Attainment subfactors included Resources, Social Status, Revenge, and Utilitarian. The Emotional subfactors included Love and Commitment and Expression. The three Insecurity subfactors included Self-Esteem Boost, Duty/Pressure, and Mate Guarding. Significant gender differences supported several previously advanced theories. Individual differences in expressed reasons for having sex were coherently linked with personality traits and with individual differences in sexual strategies. Discussion focused on the complexity of sexual motivation and directions for future research.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Personality and Individual Differences
                Personality and Individual Differences
                Elsevier BV
                01918869
                January 2024
                January 2024
                : 216
                : 112420
                Article
                10.1016/j.paid.2023.112420
                482037d5-7456-4655-b40f-4252173fe0de
                © 2024

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-017

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-037

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-012

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-029

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-004

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article