Cited by 33Evolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorAnimal Behavior and ReproductionMarriage and Sexual Relationships

Experimental evidence for sex differences in sexual variety preferences: Support for the Coolidge effect in humans

Hughes, Susan M., Aung, Toe, Harrison, Marissa A., LaFayette, Jack N., Gallup, Gordon G.·2021·Archives of Sexual Behavior

Abstract

We examined sex differences in preferences for sexual variety and novelty to determine whether the Coolidge effect plays a role in human sexuality. In two experimental studies that employed different manipulations, we found converging evidence that men showed a greater preference for variety in potential short-term mates than did women. In the first study, men (n = 281) were more likely than women (n = 353) to select a variety of mates when given the opportunity to distribute chances to have sex with different individuals in hypothetical situations. This sex difference was evident regardless of the targets' attractiveness and age. Further, men found it more appealing if their committed romantic/sexual partners frequently changed their physical appearance, while women reported that they modified their physical appearance more frequently than did men, potentially appealing to male desires for novelty. In the second study, when participants were given a hypothetical dating task using photographs of potential short-term mates, men (n = 40) were more likely than women (n = 56) to select a novel person to date. Collectively, these findings lend support to the idea that sex differences in preferences for sexual variety and novelty are a salient sex-specific evolved component of the repertoire of human mating strategies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10508-020-01730-x

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 85 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hughes, S. M., Aung, T., Harrison, M. A., LaFayette, J. N., & Gallup, G. G.
Affiliations
  • Albright College (US)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • State University of New York (US)
Corresponding author
Hughes, Susan M.
Venue
Archives of Sexual Behavior
Published
2020-05-21
Volume
50
Issue
2
Pages
495-509
ISSN
  • 0004-0002 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2800
OpenAlex
W3027020233
Cited by
33
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3
FWCI
5.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Sexual Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Marriage and Sexual Relationships
Keywords
sex differences, human mating strategies, short-term mating, mate choice, physical appearance
MeSH terms
Adult, Choice Behavior, Coitus, Courtship, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Sexual Behavior, Sex Characteristics, Sex Factors, Sexual Partners, Single Person, Sexuality, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review