Sociosexuality and Perceptions of Partner Over Time It’s Not Me, It’s You: Sociosexuality and Perceptions of Partner Over Time Jana Hackathorn Murray State University jhackathorn@murraystate.edu Background Individuals with unrestricted sociosexuality (SO; higher comfort with casual sex) tend to be less committed to romantic relationships (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991). and are more likely to cheat (Mattingly et al., 2011). Recently it was found that unrestricted individuals are less committed because they perceive partners as having fewer positive qualities (e.g., social skills) than restricted individuals do (Hackathorn & Brantley, 2014). This begs the question: why? Unrestricted individuals tend to emphasize physical attractiveness in a partner, as they are often seeking short-term relationships (Regan et al., 2000). However, do these individuals under-emphasize social characteristics or simply perceive fewer? That is, do unrestricted individuals seek out physically attractive but socially undesirable partners? Or, do unrestricted individuals attain attractive and desirable partners but devalue them over time? The current study attempted to answer how SO relates to a person's judgments and perceptions of their relationship and/or partner over time. Materials and Procedure Undergraduate participants were recruited via a study listed on SONA under the title of “Relationships in Time”. Online measures were presented in random order, once a month for four months (Note: Not all measures are presented): The Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI; Simpson & Gangestad, 1991) assesses willingness to engage in sexual relations outside committed relationships (e.g., How many one-night stands have you had?; α = .77). The Ideal Standards Scale (ISS; Regan, 1998) assesses how well characteristics describe the current partner, including ntellect (e.g., educated; α = .84), Social Skills (e.g., good sense of humor; α = .75), and Attractiveness (e.g., sexy; α = .71). The Investment Model (Rusbult, 1983) assesses relationship commitment (e.g., I want our relationship to last; α = .84) and satisfaction (e.g., I am satisfied in my current relationship; α = .91), among other constructs. Results Continued H2. Perceptions of Partner SO predicted lower perceptions of the partner’s social skills, t(151) = -3.06, p = .003, as it decreased .04 +/- .01 (SE) units per time point SO predicted lower perceptions of the partner’s physical attractiveness, t(151) = -2.61, p = .010, as it decreased .03 +/- .01 (SE) points. SO did not predict perceptions of the partner’s intellect. Again graphs were created using a LOESS regression smoother (Jacoby, 2000) to illustrate the significant relationship between SO and perceptions of the partner’s social skills and physical attractiveness over time. See Figures 3 and 4 below. Results Using R and lme4 linear mixed effects analyses of the relationship between time and SO were conducted. As fixed effects, SO, age, and biological sex (without interaction terms) were entered into the model. Subjects repeated measures were used as random effects. H1. Judgments of Relationship SO predicted lower commitment, t(151) = -4.24, p < .001, as it decreased .04 +/- .01 (SE) units per time point. SO predicted lower satisfaction, t(151) = -4.16, p < . 001, as it decreased .05 +/- .01 (SE) points. However, biological sex also predicted satisfaction, t(151) = -2.04, p = .044, in that females’ were less satisfied by about .60 +/- .29 (SE) points. To illustrate these relationships over time, graphs were created using a LOESS regression smoother (Jacoby, 2000). See Figures 1 and 2 below. Hypotheses Although predominantly exploratory in regards to the research questions, the following hypotheses were made based on recent research: Individuals with less restricted SO will indicate a greater decline in relationship commitment and satisfaction over time than individuals with more restricted SO. Individuals with less restricted SO will indicate a greater decline in positive judgments of the partner (i.e., social skills, intellect, and physical attraction) over time than individuals with more restricted SO. Figure 3. Perceptions of partner’s social skills over time. Figure 4. Perceptions of partner’s attractiveness over time. Discussion These findings indicate that unrestricted individuals are less committed and more likely to commit infidelity because over time they degrade their partner more than restricted individuals do. This may suggest that the individual difference of SO may not just be a trait that affects one’s behaviors. Instead, this trait may influence how one perceives others, and importantly one’s interactions with others. It is important to determine what mechanisms in this trait influence the behavior, and in what situations. Future research in this area is warranted. Due to high attrition in the current study, more data collection is needed. This particular statistical analysis is robust to some missing data, however, increased power and sample size is necessary for future conclusions. Participants Participants (N = 156; 119 female; 132 White), in a relationship (M = 17.92 mths, SD = 15.57 mths, range 1 to 70 mths; 138 ‘in love’) participated in a longitudinal study. Participants’ age ranged from 18-32 (M = 19.39, SD = 2.12). Figure 1. Relationship satisfaction over time. Figure 2. Relationship commitment over time. References Hackathorn, J. & Brantley, A. (2014). To know you is (not) to want you: Mediators between sociosexual orientation and romantic commitment. Current Psychology, 33, 89-97. DOI. 10.1007/s12144-013-9199-9 Mattingly, B. A., Clark, E. M., Weidler, D. J., Bullock, M., Hackathorn, J., & Blankmeyer, K. (2011). Sociosexual orientation, commitment, and infidelity: A mediation analysis. The Journal of Social Psychology, 151(3), 222-226. doi: 10.1080/00224540903536162 Regan, P. C. (1998). Minimum mate selection standards as a function of perceived mate value, relationship context, and gender. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 10, 53-73. Regan, P. C., Levin, L., Sprecher, S., Christopher, F. S. & Cate, R. (2000). Partner preferences: What characteristics do men and women desire in their short term sexual and long-term romantic partners. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 12, 1-21. Rusbult, C. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 172-186. Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(6), 870-883. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.870