Sex, Evolution, and Google Patrick M. Markey Interpersonal Research Lab InterpersonalResearch.com

SEX Why do it? Typically think of sex as a conscious choice motivated by romantic love, simple pleasure or to reproduce. Typically think of sex as a CS choice. One that is motivated by romantic love. May be more latent interpersonal values to these behaviors. May be driven by evolutionary history in ways we never think to consider.

SEX The causes and consequences of sex can be complex. How are our daily behavioral patterns related to sexual promiscuity? What can Bonobos menstrual cycles teach us about sex? Do our past sexual behaviors relate to the love and harmony we experience in our current relationships? How did President Obama affect our sex lives? Buss and colluges have discovered over 200 reasons why people have sex ranging from simple pleaurs, to spirtual (get closer to god), altrusitic (make someome feel good), to vengfunl (get back at my partner for cheating).

The Interpersonal Circumplex

The Interpersonal Circumplex

The Interpersonal Meaning of Sexual Promiscuity Markey & Markey, 2007

Sex "Sex is a conversation carried out by other means.”

Sex and Interpersonal Style Is an individual’s interpersonal style related to his or her sexual promiscuity? 

Method Participates Measures 210 participants IAS 105 men and 105 women Mean age = 24.88 years Measures IAS Sexual promiscuity (different levels of intimacy) 1) One minute continuous lip kissing 2) Manual manipulation of nude partner’s genitals 3) Oral manipulation of nude partner’s genitals 4) Sexual intercourse

Results For both males and females dominance was positively related to: 1) One minute continuous lip kissing 2) Manual manipulation of nude partner’s genitals 3) Oral manipulation of nude partner’s genitals 4) Sexual intercourse

Results Warmth had a quadratic relationship with: 1) One minute continuous lip kissing 2) Manual manipulation of nude partner’s genitals 3) Oral manipulation of nude partner’s genitals 4) Sexual intercourse

One minute continuous lip kissing

Manual manipulation of nude partners genitals

Oral manipulation of nude partner’s genitals

Sexual intercourse

Sex and Interpersonal Style Possible explanations why: Dominant individuals Not shy about seeking out partners Submissive individuals May wait to be sought out (and may remain waiting in some cases) Cold individuals May use sex as a way to avoid a monogamous relationship Might view sex as a selfish act wherein they seek as much pleasure as possible Warm individuals May view sex as a generous act and use it as an opportunity to exchange love, intimacy or friendship with as many people as possible

The interpersonal nature of sexual behavior in romantic relationships Garcia & Markey, 2007 Markey & Markey, 2009

Current Research Examine two types of sexual behaviors in the context of romantic relationships Prior sexual promiscuity Sexual Adventure

Current Research Examine two types of sexual behaviors in the context of romantic relationships Prior sexual promiscuity Sexual Adventure

Current Research Examine two types of sexual behaviors in the context of romantic relationships Prior sexual promiscuity Sexual Adventure

Current Study What do we get? What works? Do individuals tend to form long-term romantic relationships with other people who have similar levels of sexual promiscuity and adventure? What works? Do similar levels of sexual experience and adventure relate to harmonious and loving relationships?

Current Study What do we get? What works? Do individuals tend to form long-term romantic relationships with other people who have similar levels of sexual promiscuity and adventure? What works? Do similar levels of sexual promiscuity and adventure relate to harmonious and loving relationships?

Participants 86 romantic couples (182 participants) All involved in a monogamous relationship for at least 1 year M age = 25.86 years

Relationship Quality Martial Interaction Scale Love and commitment “To what extent do you love your partner at this stage?” “How committed do you feel toward your partner?” Harmony When you and your partner argue, how serious are the problems or arguments? How often do you and your partner argue with each other?"

Sexual Promiscuity Sexual promiscuity prior to the present relationship How many different people, other than with your current partner, have you engaged in sexual intercourse (i.e., the penetration of the vagina by the penis) ?

Sexual Adventure 1. One minute continuous lip kissing with female. Attached is a list of sexual activities in which you may or may not have engaged. Please indicate whether or not you engaged in each activity prior to your present relationship (Bentler’s Heterosexual Behavioral Inventory) 1. One minute continuous lip kissing with female. 2. Manual manipulation of clothed female breasts. 3. Manual manipulation of nude female breasts. 4. Manual manipulation of clothed female genitals. 5. Oral contact with nude female breasts. 6. Manual manipulation of nude female genitals. 7. Manual manipulation of your clothed genitals by female. 8. Mutual manual manipulation of clothed genitals with female. 9. Manual manipulation of your nude genitals by female. 10. Manual manipulation of nude female genitals to massive female genital secretions 11. Manual manipulation of your nude genitals to ejaculation. 12. Oral contact with your nude genitals by female. 13. Oral contact with nude female genitals. 14. Sexual intercourse (i.e., the penetration of the vagina by the penis) 15. Oral manipulation of nude female genitals. 16. Oral manipulation of your nude genitals by female. 17. Mutual oral-genital manipulation with female. 18. Mutual manual manipulation of nude genitals with female to mutual orgasm. 19. Sexual intercourse, rear entry (i.e.,. The penetration of the anus by the penis). 20. Oral manipulation of your nude genitals to ejaculation. 21. Mutual oral manipulation of genitals with female to mutual orgasm.

Results Correlation between sexual promiscuity and sexual adventure Male = .33** Female = .37**

What do we get? Do individuals tend to form long-term romantic relationships with other people who have similar levels of sexual promiscuity and adventure?

What we get .29** .28** .21* .20*

What works? Do similar levels of sexual promiscuity and adventure relate to harmonious and loving relationships?

Actor-Partner Interdependence Model Women’s sexual adventure Women’s relationship quality In all the anlayses you are presenting every model fit the data fairly well with nonsignficant Chi Squares and CFI indexes near 1.0. Going to focus on path coefficents. Men’s sexual adventure Men’s relationship quality

Actor-Partner Interdependence Model Actor Effect Women’s sexual adventure Women’s relationship quality Men’s sexual adventure Men’s relationship quality Actor Effect

Actor-Partner Interdependence Model Women’s sexual adventure Women’s relationship quality Partner Effect Partner Effect Men’s sexual adventure Men’s relationship quality

Actor-Partner Interdependence Model Women’s sexual adventure Women’s relationship quality Similar sexual adventure Men’s sexual adventure Men’s relationship quality

Actor-Partner Interdependence Model Women’s sexual adventure Women’s relationship quality Actor-Partner Similarity Effect Similar sexual adventure Different Drug Use Actor-Partner Similarity Effect Men’s sexual adventure Men’s relationship quality

Results: Promiscuity Actor and Partner Effects Women’s sexual promiscuity Women’s relationship quality Men’s sexual promiscuity Men’s relationship quality

Results: Promiscuity Actor and Partner Effects .03 -.26* Women’s sexual promiscuity Women’s sexual adventure Women’s relationship quality -.12 Both men and women had a significant actor effect (not statistically different from each other). Neither had a significant partner effect. In other words, individuals who tended to use illicit drugs thought they had a lot of conflict in their relationships – however, their partners did not perceive this conflict. Men’s sexual promiscuity Men’s sexual adventure Men’s relationship quality

Results: Promiscuity Actor-Partner Similarity Effect Women’s sexual adventure Women’s relationship quality .04 Similar sexual promiscuity Different Drug Use For women these was a signficant actor-partner difference effect – suggesting that when couples had different levels of substance use women tended to percive conflict but not men Men’s sexual adventure Men’s relationship quality

Results: Adventure Actor and Partner Effects Women’s sexual adventure Women’s relationship quality Men’s sexual adventure Men’s relationship quality

Results: Adventure Actor and Partner Effects -.01 .-.01 Women’s sexual adventure Women’s relationship quality .01 .20* Both men and women had a significant actor effect (not statistically different from each other). Neither had a significant partner effect. In other words, individuals who tended to use illicit drugs thought they had a lot of conflict in their relationships – however, their partners did not perceive this conflict. Men’s sexual adventure Men’s relationship quality

Results: Adventure Actor-Partner Similarity Effect Women’s sexual adventure Women’s relationship quality .22* Similar sexual adventure Different Drug Use For women these was a signficant actor-partner difference effect – suggesting that when couples had different levels of substance use women tended to percive conflict but not men Men’s sexual adventure Men’s relationship quality

The interpersonal nature of sexual behavior in romantic relationships Possible explanations why: Sexually promiscuous men tend to report low levels of relationship quality Commitment issues: Promiscuous men might not like being in monogamous relationships Sexually adventurous men tend to have partners who report high levels of relationship quality Sexual benefits: Women might obtain a sexual “benefit” by being in a relationship with an adventurous mate

Why is similarity important? Sexually Adventurous Not Sexually adventurous Not Sexually Adventurous

Why is similarity important? Sexually Adventurous Not Sexually adventurous Not Sexually Adventurous

Primates Bonobo “Pygmy Chimpanzee” Ovulation is related to increases in sexual receptivity, selectivity, and attractiveness. Is functionally designed to obtain attract and obtain mates with superior genetic quality. Receptivity, Selectiveity, Attracvness Bonobo “Pygmy Chimpanzee”

Primates During high fertility increases in: Sexual receptivity Mate selectivity Mate attraction behaviors Ovulation is related to increases in sexual receptivity, selectivity, and attractiveness. Is functionally designed to obtain attract and obtain mates with superior genetic quality. Receptivity, Selectiveity, Attracvness

Primates Some animals release powerful scents when ready to mate, while others display skin color change. In humans ovulation is notoriously difficult to detect – but not impossible! During the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle women will likely display behaviors related to successful reproduction.

Sexual receptivity during high fertility Sexual behaviors Think and fantasize about sex more More likely to fantasize about having sex with a person who is not her primary mate More likely to accept a date

Sexual receptivity during high fertility Sexual behaviors Pupil dilation (related to sexual arousal) while watching sexual stimuli more pronounced Greater sexual activity (2.5 times more likely to have intercourse)

Mate selectivity during high fertility Attraction to high genetic value males increases Facial characteristics Tall Dominant behaviors Deep voice

Mate attraction behaviors during high fertility Strippers collect more money About $150 more Dress provocatively

Mate attraction behaviors during high fertility Why? Women may be altering their physical attractiveness to enhance their ability to compete with other women, ultimately for access to higher quality mates.

Do women alter their interpersonal attractiveness?

Changes in Interpersonal Styles During High Fertility What interpersonal styles do men tend to find most attractive in a potential mate? How do women alter their interpersonal styles during high fertility? Are the answers to these two questions the same? Markey & Markey, 2010

Interpersonal Style Preferences of Men Study 1 101 men (Mean age = 19.01 years). All participants were single and currently interested in finding a romantic partner.

Study 1 Participants completed the IAS describing their “romantic ideal”. The person who they thought it would be ideal to have a romantic relationship with (this could be a real or fictional person).

Men’s Ideal Mate Angular location = 150; Amplitude = 1.24; R2 = .98

Men’s Ideal Mate

Next Step Men’s preferred interpersonal style for potential mates. Hypothesis: During periods of high fertility women will alter their interpersonal styles to be interpersonally warmer.

Changes in Interpersonal Styles During High Fertility Participants 86 women (mean age = 18.62) 55% were not currently using hormonal contraceptives (i.e., “normally cycling”) 45% were currently using hormonal contraceptives

Method For 31 nights participants completed: The IAS indicting how they tended to behave that day. Dominance (PA & HI) Warmth (LM & DE) Information about their menstrual cycle Mean cycle length = 28.45 days

Fertility Status

Method An average of 30.26 daily reports of interpersonal behaviors were provided by each participant. Only 2% of the time did participants fail to report their daily behaviors. Total of 2,603 daily reports provided by 86 participants

Results Outcomes = daily warmth or dominance Level 1 predictor = probability of conception Level 2 predictor = contraception use (0 = contraception used; 1 =normally cycling) Cross level interaction x

Dominance

Dominance Hormonal Contraceptives: t = -.07, p = .94

Dominance Cross-level interaction (difference for hormonal contraceptives): t = -1.12, p = .26

Warmth

Warmth Hormonal Contraceptives: t = 1.67, p = .10

Warmth Cross-level interaction (difference for hormonal contraceptives): t = 3.80, p = .001

Results Side effects (e.g., bloating, irritability, etc.) during various phases might alter interpersonal behaviors. Two sets of scores were created excluding premenstrual and menstrual days High fertile days (ovulatory phase) Low fertile days (luteal phase)

High Fertile vs. Low Fertile days

High Fertile vs. Low Fertile days

High Fertile vs. Low Fertile days

Results Outcome = High fertility dominance or warmth Predictor = Low fertility dominance or warmth Predictor = contraception use

Results Outcome = High fertility dominance or warmth Predictor = Low fertility dominance or warmth Predictor = contraception use High Fertility Dominance B SE B Beta Low Fertility Dominance .91 .08 .77** High Fertility Warmth B SE B Beta Low Fertility Warmth .87 .06 .83**

Results Outcome = High fertility dominance or warmth Predictor = Low fertility dominance or warmth Predictor = contraception use High Fertility Dominance B SE B Beta Low Fertility Dominance .91 .08 .77** High Fertility Warmth B SE B Beta Low Fertility Warmth .87 .06 .83** High Fertility Dominance B SE B Beta Low Fertility Dominance .91 .08 .77** Cont. Use -.04 .11 -.03 High Fertility Warmth B SE B Beta Low Fertility Warmth .87 .06 .83** Con. Use .31 .10 .22**

Change in Warmth and Dominance During High Fertility

Changes in Interpersonal Styles During High Fertility Possible explanations why: Women may be altering their “interpersonal attractiveness” during high fertility to enhance their ability to compete with other women, ultimately for access to higher quality mates. Just like men have evolved the tendency to find physical characteristics related to high fertility (e.g., WHR, youth, etc.) men may have also evolved the tendency to find interpersonal styles which are most related to high fertility (warm-agreeable) as attractive. These tendencies co-evolved together.

Changes in Sex Seeking Behaviors Following Competitions Markey & Markey, 2010

What occurs when a primate wins or loses a competition? Male chimpanzees that are the victim of aggression often avoid further conflict by submissive behaviors. Female chimpanzees attacked by more dominant females and dominant males often seek the same type of end to conflict and reassurance from their aggressor. A submissive chimpanzee lets the aggressor know that he or she is not a threat through non-threatening postures such as presenting their back, crouching and bowing in front of the threatening chimpanzee, or bobbing. The submissive chimpanzee will approach the dominant chimpanzee with a fear grin on its face. It is attempting to present itself to the hostile chimpanzee as small and non-threatening. The aggressor will in turn allow the victim to move closer to him. Often he will gently touch the other chimpanzee's back, arm, or hand. The initial contact is a very important part of the reassuring process that lessens the fearful chimpanzee's tension and excitement. Submissive postures and gestures are often accompanied by vocalizations such as grunts, squeaks, whimpers, or screams depending on the amount of distress the chimpanzee is experiencing. Captive Chimpanzees

Loser Decrease in testosterone Likely to retreat from situation Move lower in the dominance hierarchy. Is often a less desirable mate after the contest than before the contest Less access to mates

Winner Increase in testosterone Move up the dominance hierarchy. Is often a more desirable mate after the contest than before the contest More access to potential mates Likely display sex seeking behaviors.

What about vicarious experiences of wining and losing? WHEN a sports team wins or loses an athletic contest, its fans respond much as the team athletes do: they bask in its glory and suffer in its defeat. If their team wins, they wear team colors the next day (4), talk about how “we” won (4,6,18), feel stronger (19) and more optimistic (17), and are prouder of themselves (10). If their team loses, the opposite happens, and fans feel defeated, depressed, and angry.

Current Study Do sex seeking behaviors increase when a person vicariously wins a competition of dominance rank order? Individuals who vote for the winner of an election will likely express more sex seeking behaviors than individuals who vote for the loser of the election. Linked changes in T to vicarious winning and losing – but did not focus on the psychological changes that might have been adaptive. Specifically, do we see changes in sex-seeking behaviors when a person vicriously wins a compettint

Sex Seeking Behaviors Appearance Location

Sex Seeking Behaviors “GTL” Gym Tan Laundry

Sexual Selection Theory Traits and strategies have evolved as a consequence of mating advantage Past: Men most reproductively successful if they had multiple mates Current: Men desire a greater number of sex partners than women (10 vs. 3) Past: Men most reproductively successful if they mated with healthy women capable of bearing children. Current: Men tend to be attracted to young and attractive (full lips, clear and smooth skin, clear eyes, lustrous hair, and good muscle tone). And while we're at it, what other female attributes turn men on? All together now--"big breasts, silky skin, red lips, long legs – all on a young, nubile babe." Evolutionary theory posits that these features have served as cues to a female’s reproductive and sexual viability over the course of time. In short, men have evolved to seek Porn Heaven--where "sex is sheer lust and physical gratification, devoid of more tender feelings and encumbering relationships, in which women are always aroused, or at least easily arousable, and ultimately are always willing" (Symons, p. 171). Evolution has insured the continuing success of the cosmetics, fashion, and pornography industries.

Sex Seeking Behaviors Men have evolved to seek a place where: “sex is sheer lust and physical gratification, devoid of more tender feelings and encumbering relationships, in which women are always aroused, or at least easily arousable, and ultimately are always willing" (Donald Symons, p. 171).

Sex Seeking Behaviors Pornography

Up to 25% of all internet search engine requests are for pornography (Ropelato, 2006).

Hypotheses Individuals located in states that voted for the winner of an election will search out pornography more than individuals located in states that voted for the loser of an election. 2008 Presidential Election (Democrat Victory) 2004 Presidential Election (Republican Victory) 2006 Mid-term Election (Democrat Victory)

Participants Any individual residing in the United States who entered select pornographic keywords into the Google search engine in 2004, 2006, and 2008.

State Voting Style 2004 Presidential Election

State Voting Style 2006 Midterm Election The mean margin of victory in the 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008 presidential election was computed. Mean margin of victory greater than 5% was used to classify states.

WordTracker was used to determine which keywords individuals tend to use to search for pornography. Identified the top ten keywords (e.g., “porn,” “boobs,” etc.) individuals tend to use to find pornography.

Relative Search Value Index (RSVI): The % increase or decrease from the mean pornographic keywords in a given week. This number is centered to remove mean state differences. For each state RSVI were computed the week before and the week after an election

2008 Presidential Election sr = .31* r = .08 Week before election Week after election

2004 Presidential Election sr = .29* r = .01 Week before election Week after election

2006 Midterm Election sr = .33* r = .02 Week before election Week after election

SEX The causes and consequences of sex can be complex. Our interpersonal styles predict our sexual behaviors Our past sexual behaviors not only predict who we tend to select for long term mates but who would also produce a loving and harmonious relationship. Ovulation might alter women’s interpersonal behaviors in a manner consistent with evolutionary theory. Our sex seeking behaviors are related to vicariously winning or losing a competitions of dominance rank order. Buss and colluges have discovered over 200 reasons why people have sex ranging from simple pleaurs, to spirtual (get closer to god), altrusitic (make someome feel good), to vengfunl (get back at my partner for cheating).

Sex, Evolution, and Google Patrick M. Markey Interpersonal Research Lab InterpersonalResearch.com