Who Benefits From Casual Sex? The Moderating Role of Sociosexuality

Individual differences in willingness to engage in uncommitted sexual relations were investigated in 6 studies. In Study 1, a 5-item Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI) was developed. Studies 2, 3, and 4 provided convergent validity evidence for the SOI, revealing that persons who have an unrestricted sociosexual orientation tend to (a) engage in sex at an earlier point in their relationships, (b) engage in sex with more than 1 partner at a time, and (c) be involved in relationships characterized by less investment, commitment, love, and dependency. Study 5 provided discriminant validity for the SOI, revealing that it does not covary appreciably with a good marker of sex drive. Study 6 demonstrated that the SOI correlates negligibly with measures of sexual satisfaction, anxiety, and guilt. The possible stability of, origins of, and motivational bases underlying individual differences in sociosexuality are discussed.

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.